TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

altmehere Archive

View 17 posts and 1,331 comments by altmehere 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)
121

False Accusationaltmehere/r/MensRights14/02/20 06:35 PM
110

altmehere/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:52 PM
87

altmehere/r/MensRights31/10/14 11:06 PM
50

Progressaltmehere/r/MensRights29/12/14 03:32 AM
49

altmehere/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:33 PM
48

altmehere/r/MensRights04/04/12 12:16 AM
29

altmehere/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:27 PM
24

altmehere/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:47 AM
19

altmehere/r/MensRights01/10/14 09:27 PM
15

altmehere/r/MensRights31/03/14 05:39 PM
8

altmehere/r/MensRights06/04/12 08:43 PM
6

Anti-MRMaltmehere/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:30 AM
5

altmehere/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:18 PM
4

altmehere/r/MensRights15/09/14 09:25 PM
4

Raising Awarenessaltmehere/r/MensRights06/11/14 09:16 PM
2

altmehere/r/MensRights09/08/11 07:31 PM
0

altmehere/r/MensRights28/08/20 06:20 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,331 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

Despite all of the talk of women being disproportionately affected by the virus, men are the ones actually dying at a much higher rate.
/r/MensRights28/08/20 06:21 PM
1

I suspect this is very common: the general public is very much less supportive of anti-male standards than the media would make it appear. Seems more likely to me that it’s because of the political leanings of Derbyshire locals who visit the site, but maybe I’m just less optimistic.
/r/MensRights24/07/20 07:49 PM
13

The number 1 is used in binary representations, which reminds me of the gender binary. I’m afraid your list is oppressive.
/r/MensRights11/07/20 07:31 PM
2

Yer first statement I fully disagree with. Provide evidence for this statement. Do it, loser. What first statement?
/r/MensRights04/04/20 05:36 AM
3

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists". That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception. Listen, if y…
/r/MensRights02/04/20 07:56 PM
1

You can’t use a philosophical idea or a dictionary definition to explain what a real-world movement is.
/r/MensRights02/04/20 07:51 PM
7

Oh I'm not going to pretend I was unfairly censored. Organising fights with Anti-Fa. Perhaps it wasn’t unfair that they censored you. But I’m betting it was unfair that they censored you while allowing antifa free rein.
/r/MensRights02/04/20 07:48 PM
17

Here's another way to look at that: "Women are the primary victims of war because they love and need men, and the men are dying in war" So by your “positive” way of looking at it: What men bring to women is more important than their lives. The idea of women as victims is lifted to a ridiculous degree. If feminists were really what they claim to be, they should have been furious about this.
/r/MensRights29/03/20 08:35 PM
27

IMO Twitter is good for art only because it's popular and therefore popular with artists. It lacks features that a proper site meant for art would have, like a robust tagging system and easily accessing older media. The fact that some Japanese artists moved there from Pixiv to make their art harder to find says a lot I think.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 05:36 PM
18

AND women in Chile have a lower pension age than men. Women can retire at 60, men at 65. So men can work longer and die earlier. It’s their privilege.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 06:13 AM
7

The fact that they were dumb enough to write this down is invaluable and shows the useful idiots who defend this movement that they do not give two shits about men even if they don't actively 'hate' them. It also shows that they are worried about the movement gaining traction. In a way I count this as a win.
/r/MensRights15/12/19 05:00 AM
4

It's worth noting that this varies between style guides. The AP Stylebook calls for ages to always be given in figures even if under 10, and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage calls for ages of people and animals to be given in figures even if under 10. But there are equally styles that always spell out ages under 10.
/r/MensRights29/11/19 04:51 AM
12

I think a large part of it is some women being led to believe that they can "have it all" as far as working and having a family. When reality clashes with what they've been led to believe for years, they think there must be something wrong with the reality rather than with what they've been told.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 11:20 PM
3

It depends on the style guide, though. Associated Press (AP) Style says that ages should be written as numerals regardless of whether they are greater or less than 10.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/09/19 05:30 AM
1

Even if they can't call it rape, I'm pretty sure the charge against her wasn't "having sex."
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/19 04:42 PM
7

But if your son wants to bake and tap dance then let him. If your daughter wants to fish and camp then let her. I could be wrong, but I think most here would agree with that. I don't see why society can't just see people as people. People tend to socialize differently based on who they're around. Something is lost when organizations like the boy scouts start having mixed-gender groups.
/r/MensRights18/08/19 12:36 AM
18

What the actual fuck is wrong with women As a group, nothing. But if you give any group of people a system that is easily exploited to the detriment of others, some of those people will take advantage of that. I would bet that this lady would have been a lot less likely to stab him if she was held to the same standard that a man would be. If she didn't think she could say 'He hit me. He tried to kill me... tell them the truth' and have a good chance at getting away with it.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 11:18 PM
2

That comparison is simply absurd. Goodbye.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 08:09 PM
1

I think that it's ultimately, whether the draft should be equal and whether the draft should be abolished are two separate issues. Well...I'm dubious about a suggestion that seems to be lets get more people drafted so we have more support to abolish the draft for a start... I think the draft should be equal up until the point at which it might be abolished. That it would add more support to abolish the draft is an added benefit. But I think my main thought would be, are there not enough men that…
/r/MensRights20/01/19 07:53 PM
3

I wouldn't be surprised if the author didn't even think about the gender of the animals but was just using "he" as a generic pronoun.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 07:41 PM
3

but it allows them to still say, "See feminism is for men too!" Those feminists who do not want women added to the draft because they want the draft abolished do not really want equality. They want equality if and only if there are no consequences. If they want equality and oppose the draft, they should support both women being added to the draft so long as it exists and the draft being abolished.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 07:33 PM
2

We should be moving forwards by getting rid of the draft, not backwards getting more people involved But what if the only way to get people to care about the draft as an issue in that way is if women are involved as well? Perhaps part of the problem is that people don't care about the draft because they simply don't care about men.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 07:28 PM
1

but instead it seems like they try to blame the woman through the logic of the stats I don't think the point is to blame women. The point is that if men and their attitudes are necessarily this strong driving force for these negative behaviours like rape that often end in men being in prison, we would expect boys who have men more involved in their lives would be more likely to engage in such crimes in their lives. I would also imagine that there may not be enough data on men raised by men to do…
/r/MensRights16/01/19 11:33 PM
67

From what I read, it was banned because it was immoral to test the child while they were sleeping, which the websites suggest. That's not what the French government said about their reasons for the ban, at least: The French Council of State upheld the law on May 6th, saying it did not want “to upset the French regime of filiation” and that the intent of lawmakers was to preserve “the peace of families”. On May 15th, the German Bundesrat adopted a similar measure. As to whether or not the backlas…
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:49 PM
34

Straight from the horse's mouth: The French Council of State upheld the law on May 6th, saying it did not want “to upset the French regime of filiation” and that the intent of lawmakers was to preserve “the peace of families”. On May 15th, the German Bundesrat adopted a similar measure. Nadine Morano, France’s junior minister for the family, says foreign tests are not reliable and warns against “the psychological impact of results”. She has spoken of the danger that “If all fathers start asking …
/r/MensRights13/01/19 04:25 PM
3

Males of other species will literally fight to the death for basking spots. Which could very well still be intrasexual competition to show which animal can acquire and hold the best bit of territory.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/19 08:13 PM
7

Their fathers decide as well. I don't think "women's preference" referred to mothers. And porn has likely exacerbated men and women's preference for circumcised dicks. Likely based on what, exactly? As porn has become more and more accessible, the circumcision rate has gone down slightly (about 6% since 1960). If men who can't watch porn become rapists Not what /u/darksoldierk said. The claim isn't that men who can't watch porn turn to rape, it's that some men who can't watch porn may turn to ra…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/18 08:21 PM
3

I just don't think that women being superficial about men's appearance requires that they be interested in ogling men all the time. In fact, I think the idea that men ogling women more than women ogle men means that men are more demanding when it comes to appearance is silly. Connoisseurs of fine wine don't feel the need to taste every wine possible.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 04:19 PM
3

Women shouldn’t move in with men and should keep them at a distance because who knows when Bessie down the street will holler? If that's the risk they perceive, then sure. In fact, I would say that the fact that that doesn't seem to be happening is evidence that women see that potential loss of time as less risky than men see marriage being.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 11:20 PM
1

Thats a male strategy It's not like it exists in a vacuum. That strategy exists because of the expectations women have of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 10:54 PM
8

Why even be with a woman you think would do that to you? Maybe because we can see so many relationships that start with men thinking that the woman he's with would never do that, and end with her doing exactly that. People change and relationships change. It seems reasonable to me that men wouldn't want to take on that risk based on momentary trust.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 10:47 PM
25

Also @/u/KexyKnave: For a little history lesson, the anarchism subreddit was basically the AgainstMensRights subreddit at one point. Naturally, them linking to this subreddit caused people here to respond in kind, and eventually some of the moderators there decided they didn't want that sub to be directly involved. So they established the AgainstMensRights subreddit to take the heat off of the anarchism one. At least one of their moderators also was (and maybe still is) a moderator at SRS. It wo…
/r/MensRights26/12/18 04:12 PM
8

As stated in another comment, this is in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, to be more precise.
/r/MensRights25/12/18 04:10 PM
12

It's also worth pointing out the language of "can have their vehicle registration renewals denied" (and on their website, "may ask the Department of Motor Vehicle"). This sounds like a law that is just inviting selective enforcement.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 05:13 PM
16

1) This makes no reference to being targetted against men. It even says "parents", gender neutral. Why is this on /r/mensrights? Something does not have to apply to only one gender to be discriminatory towards one. The laws surrounding literacy tests did not mention specific races, either. Selective enforcement as well as the laws being designed to target one specific group in the first place can make them unfairly discriminatory. 2) Its not saying one or two payments. 6 full months worth of mis…
/r/MensRights20/12/18 04:59 PM
19

Everyone has in-group bias. Of course; however, that does not mean that men cannot have an even stronger out-group bias.
/r/MensRights03/12/18 05:01 PM
24

it would be nice were a study to dare to examine this From this 1994 paper: Recent research thus suggests that both women and men evaluate women more positively than men-a finding that we dub the women-are-wonderful effect. It would be nice to have something more recent, but somehow I doubt that such research would be tolerated in the current climate. As usual, this 2014 study even claims the "women-are-wonderful" effect to be "ambivalent sexism" against women.
/r/MensRights03/12/18 04:59 PM
28

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2c44/14cde6b6a011e9f4910e6389d658278e3a7a.pdf Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s
/r/MensRights03/12/18 04:44 PM
9

To be fair that is a rather exceptional case in that such accusations are clearly less damaging to him than if they were leveled at the average man, or even most exceptionally privileged men.
/r/MensRights28/11/18 01:13 PM
27

People read a line in the newspaper and dont bother to investigate it themselves and they take everything at face value It's sad. I think one good thing on the media front in this case, though, is that a lot of foreign media didn't buy it. The BBC, Le Monde, and NZ Herald all ran articles that didn't seem to buy (or were openly against) the idea that there was sexism involved.
/r/MensRights15/09/18 07:24 AM
2

The coaching thing was just a warning. She was docked one point for smashing her racket, and a whole game for slandering the umpire.
/r/MensRights12/09/18 07:03 PM
8

Then there's the fact that men have thrown worse tantrums and gotten off more unscathed... The umpire in question is apparently known for being especially strict, and not just on women. It sounds to me like the rules maybe need to be more consistently applied by all umpires. But that does not mean that this particular umpire was inconsistent in his application of the rules. BUT BUT BUT anyways it still seems like a ongoing case. I think we would all be a lot more comfortable with that if she had…
/r/MensRights12/09/18 04:45 PM
3

I don't know; if I were a teacher and some kid said Oooh! SOOORY! Yes SIIIIIIIIIR!!! my problem would be their tone, not the use of the word "sir." I suppose the kid could have made it specifically about the use of the word "ma'am" in order to deflect, or there otherwise may be more to the story.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 12:27 AM
2

What's the difference? I'm not sure how it works in France, but I would imagine you could do something like refuse to sign the birth certificate or take it to court on the basis of being infertile. That wouldn't be an option for the average man who only has doubts over being the father, but for someone who is almost certain I would imagine it could be a different story.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 02:00 AM
22

You can refuse to "recognise" the child and you don't have to help at all, if the mom sues you it goes to court and eventually a judge will order a paternity test. If the only option is the "nuclear" one, then men are probably not going to be likely to take it even if they have reasonable suspicions. Coming from /r/all it makes this sub looks like a bunch of idiots fighting air. Thanks for the concern trolling...
/r/MensRights18/07/18 01:53 AM
49

That's a good question, though I would suspect there are probably things like nicer diaper changing facilities and maybe even family restrooms there that should probably not be gender segregated like that.
/r/MensRights17/07/18 03:00 AM
3

Is it misandrist for a gay man to prefer a younger man as a partner? That's a rhetorical question.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/18 09:08 PM
3

It'd depressing I even have to think like this, but that's where we are now, this guy is potentially more likely to turn around and attack us in order to stay accepted within his self-segregated bubble than realise how bad things have gotten. I kind of feel like some men have probably just been put between a rock and a hard place (which may or may not apply to this guy). If they do anything other than toe the line they are treated as the enemy; I mean heck, even in this article the guy apparentl…
/r/MensRights07/05/18 07:19 PM
7

I'm guessing she probably doesn't interact with many men who aren't white in the first place.
/r/MensRights07/05/18 06:53 PM
3

I was curious what the general feminist consensus on the issue is. A quick Google search ("canada common law marriage feminism") doesn't really seem to give much actually related to the issue, but what it does yield on the first couple pages is all in support. I would have thought there would be at least some debate over whether something like this is feminist due to the fact that the woman doesn't consent to it, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that it gets a pass.
/r/MensRights29/04/18 08:50 AM
5

Remember when they had a doodle of Yuri Kochiyama, who praised Osama bin Laden in 2003 getting even Vox to point it out?
/r/MensRights04/04/18 01:08 PM
1

The way I see it, I might not advocate for a law at all, but given that it is law it should be applied equally. Letting people like this off the hook only serves to create exceptions that will perpetuate the law because people are okay with it so long as it's not directed at the "wrong" targets.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 07:36 PM
1

He doesn't understand the concept of whiteness He probably doesn't have hang-ups about race at all. But (if this isn't a troll) here somebody is going to give him some.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 07:27 PM
1

Agreed. None of it would surprise me from the perspective that those who are less likely to get in trouble for a crime may be more likely to commit that crime, but it's not like it's a race or that things being the other way around would invalidate the concerns about this issue.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 05:01 PM
1

I doubt that would work if only because I'd imagine there would be such a target on their backs that work/school might be made a living hell for them anyways at best, and at worst they'll find another reason to fire/expel.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 09:20 PM
2

Liposuction is generally for people who are already a normal weight but want less fat somewhere. Weight loss surgery still means eating less, just reinforced in one of several physical ways.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/03/18 07:23 PM
4

so keep dishing it out to men, they don't mind They don't act like they do. Which to a large extent is why I think the nasty part of modern feminism has been so successful: it takes advantage of male gender roles, counting on men to remain silent about their own problems and always support women, to extract what they want. It's become a social engineering scheme in which those who are in it for the wrong reasons have seen the weakness in the system and have proceeded to exploit it for personal g…
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:07 AM
3

I agree. I think what the owner probably meant is that it's sexism by virtue of the fact that it probably wouldn't happen, at least as much, if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 01:53 AM
14

Reminds me of this example of what "equality and diversity" seems to mean to some people.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 06:43 AM
5

I didn't say anything you mentioned above is extreme affirmative consent. The comment you replied to was talking about extreme affirmative consent, and you seem to be insinuating that because they're against that they are a "retarded piece of shit" that needs to "stop sexually assaulting women." But if you have an actual point to make, by all means, go ahead and make it.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 11:23 PM
10

Why would someone being a liberal necessarily preclude them from realizing that Samantha Bee's show is shit?
/r/MensRights20/01/18 09:54 PM
8

I kind of doubt it; seems like one of those people who thinks that if you're against extreme affirmative consent you must be pro-sexual assault.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 09:46 PM
2

you wouldn't want to acknowledge an idea that might make it more inconvenient to get what you wanted now, would you? You could use that line of reasoning to justify many, many things. You think restricting birth control is bad? Well, you wouldn't want to acknowledge an idea that might make it more inconvenient to get what you wanted now, would you? If you cannot defend your argument without resorting to speculation about ulterior motives, either your argument is piss poor or you are utterly unpr…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 12:04 AM
3

The way I see it, I don't think Ansari deserves what he's getting. But I don't think we'll get anywhere if we manage to let him or people like Cenk Uygur off the hook because it risks creating special exceptions. I believe the best chance an unfair system has of being overturned is if it is enforced equally, not only on people a particular group does not like.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 05:59 AM
2

Gay men would only be with women I would bet that gay men are still more likely to be falsely accused by a woman than by a man at work considering plenty probably aren't out at work. At least, I think I would be a lot more careful regardless of sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 12:09 AM
38

x-posting my comment from another sub: Morgan’s account reeks of naked political opportunism, of weaponizing victimhood in a way that is so morally bankrupt that it threatens to derail the entire #MeToo conversation for selfish political ends. People will exploit systems that are exploitable for personal gain; that's just how it works. That the #MeToo conversation is that easy to derail isn't a problem with the account, it's a problem with the conversation. Writing with almost creepy prescience …
/r/MensRights17/11/17 01:29 AM
11

why not make women register as well? One reason I commonly see cited for opposing women being added to registration is that the people in question (often feminists) will claim that they are against the draft altogether. IMO that's a cop out. Given that they know that the system is unlikely to go away, a stance to abolish instead of adding women rather than pushing to abolish it but making it equal in the meanwhile is tantamount to saying they want to keep the system the way it is. tl;dr: being a…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 03:24 AM
29

Also I don't think most of the anger about circumcision in this sub is directed towards people who are circumcised, but the parents of those who are. I don't think I've ever seen someone criticized here for merely being circumcised as either an infant or an adult. It's usually the people who say things like "well I like being circumcised so I think infant circumcision is okay" and the like.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:03 PM
7

If I like being circumcised, it follows I'd want the same for my son. To me that's like saying "if I like having a tattoo, it follows I'd want the same for my son." Maybe I would want the same for my son, but that doesn't mean I'll try to get him tattooed as an infant; he can wait until he can make his own decision, and I can hope he'll make that decision, but forcing him to have a tattoo because I enjoy having one is a violation. You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt. When you call…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 06:58 PM
10

Is there any room here for someone who really likes being circumcised? Liking being circumcised is fine. Thinking that infant circumcision is okay because as it turned out you like it is kind of a separate issue, because forcing such body alterations on people on the chance that they might like it at some future date is rather reprehensible. you people truly are not one inch better than the feminists I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that sounds a lot like concern trolling.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:24 PM
3

Do men care about beauty pageants? On the whole I would guess not. I don't think any part of them is designed to appeal specifically to men as a group, and those men who might be interested in them for seeing beautiful women have access to what is probably much more appealing material online. I would imagine even the Victoria's Secret show (as /u/sycophantasy brings up) is dominated by female viewers (something that has been written about) for that reason as well.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 06:27 PM
47

This fails the bullshit sniff test for me in at least two ways: If it's true for gay men too, I don't see how they can hold it up to be misogyny or have anything to do with women specifically rather than just being the way men are. I'm pretty sure that, as you suggest, women also get off to getting their partners off.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 01:55 AM
3

That's stupid, because even straight women and gay men are likely to look at at least briefly at someone calling attention to herself in such a manner. Edit: if it's unclear, I'm agreeing with /u/supacrusha.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:07 PM
79

For me it depends on context. If "man up" is being used by someone who will benefit from you "manning up" while you will not, they're probably just trying to shame you into compliance, not saying it in the actual spirit of "man up."
/r/MensRights31/10/17 05:37 PM
2

not because it's supposed to be an ideological mirror Exactly. Just look at how some modern feminism tries to be an ideological mirror to "patriarchy" and how they end up with things like women should be fat to rebel against the patriarchy wanting them to be thin. Sometimes (maybe often) men's rights might incidentally be in opposition to feminism, but it should not be about opposition to modern feminism.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 12:36 AM
10

it's not discrimination against men, which these MRAs seem to think it is, it's discrimination against women Here's the thing: I think she's wrong, but I also don't really think it matters who the target of the discrimination is. What matters is who is hurt by that discrimination. Given that women are not really hurt by benevolent sexism, these issues take a backseat to feminists. And that is why someone else must address them.
/r/MensRights27/10/17 08:25 PM
3

I think what /u/Electroverted means is that they wouldn't use soft language like "convicted of raping" but instead "convicted rapist of."
/r/MensRights26/10/17 02:07 AM
2

He states in this article that 'she violently pushed her fingers inside me' and a jury agreed so it certainly wasn't just a poke at his jeans for sure. That's what I'm saying; /u/eastern_shoreman is questioning how she did it, and I'm suggesting even if he had pants on rather than a kilt, she could still have stuck her hand down it.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 12:47 AM
3

Above /u/number4ty7 speculates that since it's Scotland he may have been wearing a kilt. But really, I don't think it would have been impossible if he we wearing something else, such as jeans without a belt.
/r/MensRights11/10/17 04:11 PM
2

That's what I don't get, along with the fact that she didn't bother posting the prices. At the store I shop at I don't believe I've ever seen the regular stuff priced differently than the MEN ones with the exception of sales, but those aren't always for one of the products or the other.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/07/17 03:34 AM
17

I believe these bots are against Reddit's rules IIRC it's against their "community guidelines," which aren't technically rules. And if they are enforced I'd imagine it's quite selectively.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/17 01:56 AM
–

The way I see it, the way it currently is violates "my body, my choice" with regards to men in that men are made to do something with their bodies (work) without choice or potentially be imprisoned. Of course, they take advantage of the "best interests of the child" argument, which doesn't apply when there is no child and only a fetus. To me it seems like that's used mostly as a matter of convenience to excuse the double standard.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 08:35 PM
4

Slate has an entire article up now about this that portrays it not only as targeting a female demographic but going after the concert of someone "whose global brand is one of blissful, unsubdued feminine sexuality."
/r/MensRights23/05/17 11:29 PM
6

Of course that was while we awaited a final court date, but I soon learned that the tactic of her attorney was to delaydelaydelay. I know it's cynical, but that just seems like a ploy not only to keep that favorable arrangement as long as possible, but to make it so that the precedent is her rather than you being the primary caregiver.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 04:53 PM
20

So I also feel like an ass for not trying...which is nice. I certainly don't blame you and others like you for not wasting a great deal of their resources fighting a battle you're almost certain to lose. It is sad that the statistics are used to say that men give up on custody battles in the majority of cases causing a feedback loop where men don't contest because they don't win and the courts favor women because of the lower rates at which men fight for custody. No amount of action at an indivi…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 03:15 PM
3

These people don't learn. Trump won because of this bs. Guess they want him to win a second term. Sargon of Akkad talks about this in his new This Week In Stupid video (here for some specific discussion), and I think he hits it right on the money. It's not that they won't realize they've fucked up, it's that they seem likely to blame it on populist vs establishment rather than realizing the role identity politics and other illiberal bullshit has played. I would not be surprised if we see the hyp…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:12 AM
6

Of course. Even when it isn't used as a justification for their own violence or threat of violence, it's a different kind of threat of violence. The threat that if you use those "violent" words, some power (whether it's governmental or institutional) is justified in and should be silencing you. It's the same reason this person wants to claim that not using someone's preferred pronouns isn't only abusive, but tantamount to violence.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 01:50 AM
7

The fucking mental gymnastics these people put themselves through. Anymore I've come to believe the mental gymnastics may not always be the problem in cases like this; blind belief can have the same result. People seem so uncritical of how feminists defined sexism that benefits men as being sexism against women while sexism that benefits women is "benevolent sexism" against women. Though I do think the people who argue this are usually just being dishonest with their rhetoric anyways. They don't…
/r/MensRights13/11/16 01:22 PM
3

I remember when I was about that age that a girl kept trying to kiss me (and succeeded once) even though I didn't want it. Somehow I doubt that's a very rare occurrence, either. Which is to say that I suspect they're making a gendered issue out of what isn't one. Also, I suspect that they simply treat it as a non-issue when it's a girl doing it to a boy, such that it's always the boy that's the perpetrator because when girls do it it's not taken seriously.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 09:19 AM
1

Haven't unemployed fathers been thrown in jail for nonpayment of child support? Not that I'm saying he definitely shouldn't do that, but it's probably worth noting the potential consequences.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:28 PM
2

Makes me think of classrooms I've seen where there's accordion doors that can be opened or closed so as to have one large room or two small rooms depending on configuration. I suppose that could be a better solution, given that such ridiculous segregation is required.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 05:22 PM
5

Men pay less for monthly membership, pro-rated to subtract the hours they are not welcome to use facilities. The problem with this is that not all hours are equal. If it's a high-demand time, IMO it should be valued more than if it's a time where the place would otherwise be empty.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 03:45 PM
1

Does it really take more competence to reject claims than it does to look into a disputed claim and reinstate a page though?
/r/MensRights12/04/16 05:18 PM
3

what sort of issues do lesbians face, specific to their sexual orientation, that are not faced by gay men? In the third world you'll hear of things like corrective rape. But in the areas where this group and those like it exist? I've heard the argument that people take lesbianism less seriously than they do men being gay, but they seem to like to ignore that that's a double-edged sword. They can call it misogyny when people treat lesbianism as frivolous and male homosexuality as serious enough t…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 02:50 PM
1

I would think the first invaders would be male feminists wanting to infiltrate the group so they can change it to their liking. After all, taking over existing spaces seems to be the name of the game.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 02:21 PM
2

Is that the going rate for a man's life if you're the right person? This pisses me off more than most cases here because it isn't just a woman being allowed to get away with something because she's a woman, it's a life being totally devalued so she can get away with it.
/r/PussyPass17/03/16 05:38 AM
70

Comments have been disabled as a case is still before the courts. How is that a valid reason?
/r/PussyPass05/03/16 08:33 PM
2

While the app is a joke, the responses I've seen seem to be taking it seriously as something that could be used. I think it's fair game in that aspect even if that wasn't the original intent of the app.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:46 AM
8

Indeed, there's a reason that despite supposedly "earning" so much less, women are still the primary targets of most ads and the primary spenders.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:37 AM
1

Why are you police, judge & jury? That's powerball-level rich coming from someone who redefines violence beyond all reasonable standards. With that said, I have to agree with aeqvitas33 to some extent about this. It doesn't look like people really came down in her favour in this case, so not that much bias against men going on here compared to the very real examples we usually see.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 09:13 PM
40

Something about the phrasing still bothers me. It's not that men have "accepted" it so much as they've been given no choice. Men might like to have choice, too, they just don't have the option.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:36 PM
2

They're admitting a male can be statutory raped, which is nothing new. Not to be a downer, just not even that much of a victory for justice.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 03:24 PM
1

I'm not sure this would even qualify as that. It seems to me like the intent is to be insulting or cause trouble, but really all they've done is waste some money on a Reddit ad for a very pathetic attempt at trolling or something.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 01:59 PM
20

Another more subtle thing I noticed that doesn't sit right is the fact the doctor has her hand on the "MRA's" shoulder. To me it reinforces several problems: double standards (if a man put his hand on a woman's shoulder, I would bet they would be up in arms), condescension, and power fantasy (which is, of course, projected onto men).
/r/MensRights30/03/15 03:56 PM
6

While I have no knowledge of what they mention, for me Google says there are no results and displays those for feminicididos instead, which has plenty of results from sites such as Wikipedia. That seems awfully accusatory over what Google even points out is a minor spelling mistake.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:06 PM
10

Interestingly, the number that identified as "white" was 84%. Makes me wonder if they were just that lazy (not that it matters; being that lazy about it is no better than malice in my book).
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:16 PM
1

I linked to Slashdot rather than the source mostly because it has background information. It's really gone downhill IMO, and I'm not referring to the beta controversy either.
/r/MensRights30/12/14 03:38 AM
4

I doubt you will find many studies or legal documentation, because I doubt there's that much interest in research and the law is often written fairly but applied with bias. You might be able to use this article as a jumping off point; it links to a WSJ article that's unfortunately pay walled for me.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 06:40 PM
1

Would you be ok with this happening to a man? This exact situation, would you be ok with it? No you wouldn't. You're right I wouldn't. I'm not okay with it happening here either. But that's not the point; the point is that nobody should be getting different treatment because of who they are. I wouldn't support an exemption just for some rich famous man either, but then it wouldn't even be an issue because people don't seem to care when it happens to men. It's not an "exception" for any miscarria…
/r/MensRights30/11/14 06:34 PM
1

You'll have to excuse me (and I'm sure many others here) if we don't consider Get a job To be Encouragement to become enterprising and self-sufficient That's nothing less than a gross mischaracterization of what you said. And then you add on the fact that the kid is 15, has been homeless and likely has no real job prospects, etc. All you're doing is blaming the kid for other people's discrimination, and that's not going to fly here.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 06:27 PM
9

Men on the other hand, you're fully capable of making decisions when you're drunk, no one can take advantage of you, cause no matter how drunk you are, you most likely wanted it anyway. Not just fully capable, but fully responsible. After all, if history is anything to go on, if both are drunk the man will still be liable.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 06:14 PM
16

I wouldn't want that happening to a man or a woman. Don't make it about petty revenge against the female sex. I don't think it's about revenge. It's about not tolerating the idea of an exception in this case when men don't get the same treatment in other cases. It would be better if the system were fair for everyone, but if it's not going to be, it should be fair for nobody, because then things are more likely to change. There's nothing "petty" about pointing out the hypocrisy and saying "you ca…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 06:12 AM
1

The problem isn't that only one gender commits it. It isn't even that such legislation is gender biased, because often enough it isn't. It's that actual enforcement seems to target men. And there's the issue of the law being too vague, but I suppose that's another can of worms.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 02:11 AM
1

I'm neither for or against it. The parents can make the decision. I wouldn't argue against "neither for or against," even if I think it's a cop-out. But the second part here is approval of this going on. To say you're neither for or against is just intellectually dishonest.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 08:43 PM
5

That's a nice sentiment if you don't think about it very deeply, but the problem isn't that people aren't involved, it's that these editors can use tactics to ensure there will be no "consensus" and so that our sources will never be relevant. If you look at previous posts here, there has even been admin involvement to preserve their bias. Wikipedia itself needs to change. Until it does, getting involved is a waste of time. Saying one must get involved to have an opinion is also ridiculous.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 02:01 AM
3

Some quotes from the talk page: We also discussed that and basically dismissed it as complete nonsense and you don't get to insert sources there's no consensus for, because there are standards. and then one of them has the audacity to say No one is saying it doesn't exist or that those sources shouldn't be used. You're grasping at straws. So let me get it straight: the source can be dismissed as "complete nonsense" because they say it is (there's "no consensus"), and when someone points out that…
/r/MensRights04/11/14 01:54 AM
1

"I dont think" "it probably isn't", are these terms that require citations? Yes. You asserted that something is probably true, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to ask for evidence to back up that claim that it is probably true. Otherwise, you're just using weasel words to make an argument without having anything to defend it.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 08:24 PM
1

Again men would benefit from having better child-care policies if they work and their wife doesn't then it would be good if they company was required to provide a day-care for days when she couldn't look after the child and the same is true of the gender roles were reversed. Yes, but that's not what the president said but what the woman asked him about. Nowhere does it say that the president talked about extending those benefits to men (even if they would be).
/r/MensRights01/11/14 05:57 AM
1

I would agree that it can be interpreted as making a move, but it is probably the most passive way it can possibly be done. That's much different than what usually might be thought of as making the first move. And it might work (for either a man or a woman) but IMO her conceptualizing making the first move to be these things rather than at least potentially being more direct does demonstrate a lack of understanding.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 09:23 PM
5

it spawns articles such as this ... “You’ve got to be assertive,” my Japanese girlfriends advised. “Japanese guys are shy so you have to make the first move.” So I smiled invitingly at men in bars and on busses. I asked for help reading restaurant menus and subway signs. It's really telling when she thinks that making the first move means smiling invitingly. That suggests not only an unwillingness to act, but not even understanding what it means to act.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 01:55 PM
17

Isn't this kind of a win? I think part of it is that the fact that such a decision has to be made in the first place is not exactly a win. Being treated fairly in court is supposed to be a right, not something that has to be won (or can be won or lost).
/r/MensRights31/10/14 03:45 AM
2

Exactly, freedom to expel does not mean freedom from scrutiny or legal action resulting from that expulsion.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 03:29 PM
3

Of course if people have the ability to choose some will make poor choices. Public money is for public schools because we should be able to control public schools. I think their point is that if the government is going to collect school taxes regardless of the individual's choice of public or private schooling, then that money should be redirected to the school they actually go to. Edit: to be clear, my thoughts on this idea are mixed.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 03:17 PM
4

I agree. I think it's important to note where the difference does lie, namely in that there seems to be a greater variety of styles available for girls (and women) and that there simply isn't a male equivalent for the banned things (at least that society deems acceptable). The only reason these policies don't seem to effect boys to the same extent is that the option isn't there. But they've never let reality get in the way of victim narratives, have they?
/r/MensRights21/10/14 03:16 AM
9

Now that's playing the long game! (/s)
/r/MensRights20/10/14 04:35 PM
3

People use it as a term to mock MRAs and make light of our issues in a sarcastic way.
/r/MensRights20/10/14 04:34 PM
3

why not plan a lawsuit to abolish the draft on the grounds that women aren't forced to register so it's sexist. We've been down that road before, though the situation was obviously different then and it has been a while. All the same, I can't see the courts ruling against discrimination against men. Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reason, because it's the only thing that works.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 02:03 AM
4

You missed the point entirely in your effort to sound politically correct and soundbyte-friendly. Yup. Deflect and redirect. I'm almost surprised how often people like this seem to try it here, but maybe I shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 01:31 AM
1

You are just the worst troll.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:08 PM
3

Can you see who posts the messages? If so, I'd imagine this is some guy pandering for attention.
/r/MensRights12/10/14 06:07 PM
1

Good point. But I do think that applies in general to feminism's view of men (that is, it relies on traditional gender roles).
/r/MensRights10/10/14 04:22 AM
1

If the government started doing this kind of gendered discrimination to me, the last thing I would do would be to "embrace this social experiment." I hope there are protests. Hell, they deserve a riot.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 05:13 PM
1

in the end it just became "well these guys need a support group" Thus implying there are no men's rights issues, just men who need a support group. Never mind why men don't have a support group. This is most certainly a hit piece.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 03:39 PM
1

Choice that may include deception and extortion. Not a criticism at all, but not choice that may include, choice that does include. If the child is definitely his, there is no choice to be made, and no "powerful instrument of choice" to discuss in the first place. But on the whole it's just another "best interest of the child" argument aiming to distract from the actual issues.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 08:28 PM
6

Some unfortunate comments here: he spent all that money on laywers when he could just learn to wear a hat when on the ground. and I'm just tcankful that he was wealthy enough to wage a long court battle to ensure gender equality is finally achieved. No longer can the women of LH oppress men by strutting around hat-free. Good work. People seem to really enjoy trivializing equality.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 02:00 AM
4

the question on whether the recording would be admissible or not is addressed on the twoxchromosomes reddit in the top comment: Wouldn't they just declare a mistrial (if they could), get another jury, and not let them see the video?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 09:38 PM
24

I agree. Not to be negative and certainly not to sound snobby, but there's a lot more wrong with this image than even that. It fails to specify what FGM means, which would be okay if this weren't targeted at a general audience, but that seems to be the intent. All caps comes across as yelling. The text is difficult to read on the background (which doesn't contribute much anyways). The statistics could use some citations so people can see for themselves*, otherwise they just seem meaningless. Rea…
/r/MensRights27/09/14 05:14 PM
2

Their worldview is a house of cards and is very easy to knock down. In such debates, you won't change the feminist's mind, but you might change the minds of 10 others who are watching/reading. I think the major problem with this is that feminists can be quite successful in changing the terms of the debate. Suddenly it's not about their house of cards anymore, but about how you're being a bully for knocking that house of cards down. And unfortunately, it often works because of a Men's Rights issu…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 12:32 AM
1

University policy prohibits activities which contravene the guiding ethics of our institution. It makes sense for universities to have policies in place to ensure that everyone more or less gets along. But this is very poor phrasing that just makes the administration sound either incompetent or overbearing.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:15 PM
3

You can still link to it.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:35 PM
1

My statistics was provided by a guy critical of feminism (ugly_duck). If you don't even believe the statistics provided by men's rights advocates, then how can you claim to be supported by men's rights. I said nothing of the statistics being wrong. I said you lied with statistics. There is a very big difference between these two things. If you don't spend time with a pet, then we can't say you are or are not abusive to pets. And what exactly is this analogy supposed to apply to? What does "don't…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 08:21 PM
2

If you take ugly_duck's statistic that 54%of perpetrators are women (by sheer number), then consider children spend at least five or six amount of time with mother than their father during the first year of life, then mothers are far less abusive than fathers. Firstly, I believe the figures reflect the number of (unique) abused children, not incidents, abuse-hours, or some other figure representative of time. Secondly, we have no basis for speaking to time spent with parent as a causal factor in…
/r/MensRights07/09/14 05:12 PM
9

Do we want to build more gender problems and make things worse by calling this sexual assault when it clearly isn't IMO, yes. People care about what happens to women. When they see what happens when the laws are applied equally they're more likely to come to oppose the law being used in situations like this, and we're more likely to see reform.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:43 AM
1

Of course greed can be a form of malice. I simply mean that it's not necessarily malice in the sense of malice directly towards an individual or a group.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 04:37 PM
5

excluding my ex hitting or killing my children
/r/MensRights31/08/14 02:55 PM
3

I'm not usually a big fan of conspiracy theories, but this seems just a little coincidental. Common theme, substantially similar conclusions, all published within a few hours of each other. I find this pretty suspicious indeed, but I can't help but wonder if a corollary to Hanlon's razor could be applied: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed. I could see them all jumping on this anti-male bandwagon simply because they know it's controversial and will get them pag…
/r/MensRights31/08/14 02:48 AM
9

I would contact the mods and see if you can repost it and have it approved.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 06:13 PM
1

I would say "mangina" is one.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:14 PM
4

Bodycount just reflects skill with weapons. The rest of the argument here aside, this is just wrong. Bodycount reflects skill with weapons, yes, but it also reflects the intended target(s). After all, a murderer who is skilled with weapons isn't going to try to kill as many people as they can just because they can. She was apparently trying to kill one person because he rebuffed her. There's no reason to believe that she would have attacked more people if her skill with weapons was greater.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:35 PM
1

I would suspect that they didn't store the data for before 2011, perhaps because the search term isn't popular enough. You can observe the same effect with some other searches.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:03 PM
2

You seem to be purposefully missing the point.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 04:45 PM
2

A guy can't really make that statement, its like a woman saying how men experience something You could make that argument if we actually were talking about lived experiences. We're talking about things that can be directly observed, not the individual experience of said things. This isn't saying "this harassment isn't that bad" (quantitative), it's "harassment doesn't happen that often" (qualitative).
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:34 AM
17

All the hallmarks of a typical anti-MRM post on such a site. Let's see... The picture. It's always a stock image of a man looking ridiculous. It's just surprising that the man isn't being aggressive. Speaking of which... Calling the MRM "aggressive." While they missed the picture opportunity, they sure didn't miss the chance to paint us as aggressive he-men. Painting the MRM as anti-feminist and therefore not about Men's Rights. This would be great if many feminists didn't stand against men's ri…
/r/MensRights19/04/14 12:54 AM
3

ConstantThrowawyDude D: So close, but no cigar.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:05 AM
3

He sounded more upset it wasn't real than that he misrepresented a group of people. That was my first thought. "So ... now you know." comes off as disappointment IMO.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 11:24 PM
3

Amanda Marcotte treats anything that denigrates MRAs as fact. I like how the title of the article has "Confirmed:" in it. I'm sure they meant "yay, this confirms our preconceptions!" but it still seems very ironic considering how the results are anything but confirmed.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 11:19 PM
1

I'd shoot them a message, considering an admin said This isn't anything new, this is just like our rule with facebook accounts. If it's a public official, celebrity, or politician it's very different than some random college kid. and a mod said to ask the admin regarding the rule. This needs some clarification.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:22 PM
44

What part of this has anything to do with a gender war?! The part where it does good for men even if it has nothing to do with women, of course. It's not a zero-sum game, it's a you-get-zero-and-better-like-it game.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 06:09 PM
3

Lindsay is still the CEO. I'm aware, but I can't help but suspect that they learned from the incident that if they go against this, there will be feminist backlash.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 06:05 PM
1

IMO this is an excellent opportunity for action. I'm not sure about the legality of what they're doing, but that aspect aside, I'd imagine that news outlets might be interested in hearing that men, as a small percentage of teachers, are being excluded from more than half of these conferences. While I don't expect the media to care about men in most cases, I think the blatant nature of this combined with the entire small portion of teachers being men thing could attract media interest.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:52 PM
2

Wow, 11 women-only events compared to 10 for all members. I don't think there's any way they could legitimately justify having more than half of the events for women only.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:47 PM
11

Science and reason, eh? Is that why you've got the Director of your Washington branch of the organisation publicly stating they got PTSD off Twitter, and then having the chutzpah to double-down when she quite correctly gets called on her bullshit? Search Google for "ronald lindsay center for inquiry" (no quotes) and I think you may find the reason. The previous CEO had the audacity to say that men should not be silenced in the discussion about patriarchy, which prompted the likes of Skepchick to…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:35 PM
1

So … now you know. To me that kind of reads as disappointment.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:22 AM
5

So yes DNA testing is banned unless you are in a very specific cases, but it's banned for everyone. It may be "banned for everyone," but the reasons behind it are clearly sexist nonetheless. The system appears to be specifically designed to prohibit paternity testing because they don't seem to think men should know. And you also have the reality of what the legal system does. If the parents think the child was switched at birth, somehow I doubt there are going to be objections to a DNA test. Giv…
/r/MensRights15/04/14 07:00 PM
3

Seriously, I do like Obama (which I wouldn't be saying if I thought he was actually serious with his 77c stuff) Not criticizing, but to me the thought that he isn't serious with the 77c stuff only makes it worse. It goes from well-intentioned disillusionment to intentional deception to pander to voters.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:43 PM
1

I don't know if you figured it out or someone told you, but it should be one of the options below the post along with things like marking it NSFW.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:34 PM
1

total karma within this subreddit Perhaps this goes without saying, but if you do this please include comment karma and not just submission karma.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:23 PM
6

Is it typical for him? If you search this subreddit, you'll find that this certainly isn't the first time he's gotten the attention of this subreddit. I don't believe this is even the first time he's made an anti-MRM statement.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:19 PM
2

Aerik is the moderator of an SRS subreddit called againstmensrights, which actively tries to damage the MRM, and cherry picks comments (and sometimes even parts of comments out of context) and posts in order to try to do so. The best thing to do is to not engage them IMO.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:02 PM
9

Surprised the person who did the survey didn't delete those ones like the 2,486 submissions deleted from row 562. As the author explained in another thread (I'm on mobile so I'm not going to get the link ATM), deleting the responses doesn't remove them from the graphs, so it would be pretty useless and only be deleting evidence of wrongdoing. To fix this, one would have to go through the data manually and create their own graphs, which I would imagine isn't worth the effort at this point. Surely…
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:57 PM
9

"My body, her choice," I guess. So much for ethics.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 04:58 PM
2

I honestly can see this as being viewed legally as a breach of contract. If you marry someone with the understanding that kids are coming but you get vasectomy you're negating the possibility of kids without surgical intervention. It would be the same for her if she refused to stop using birth control for non medical reasons or sought a more permanent control. I highly doubt that having children is a legal obligation of the marriage because of bodily autonomy. After all, it's not like the man or…
/r/MensRights15/04/14 04:56 PM
2

I've never heard the term "benevolent sexism" before, but it's pretty accurate. Just to touch on this point, the context this is usually used in is "that isn't sexism against men, it's benevolent sexism against women." That is, it is typically used to dismiss an issue as pertaining to men even when men are the ones who suffer because of it because the origin is supposedly sexism solely against women. And if you search Google for "benevolent sexism," you'll come across articles like this that do …
/r/MensRights13/04/14 02:40 AM
5

I'm not sure many will agree with me on this, but I feel like a lot of "female privileges" are really just discrimination of both genders. For example, women only scholarships. Maybe I read too much into things but to me it is just insulting to both genders. I agree; however, as I've pointed out before, most of these things seem to discriminate against women as far as societal attitudes and men in practice. Taking your example of women-only scholarships, sure women are treated as less capable, b…
/r/MensRights13/04/14 02:12 AM
2

Why bother with somewhere like this that has some trash but a great collection of discussion? My guess would be that either they don't see TRP as a threat to their hateful ideology because it's so out there, or they're simply unaware of it.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:58 PM
3

Also, this might be unpopular, but I really don't get the whole 'trigger warning' thing. The world isn't going to be censored for you so why do you need the internet, something you can shut off and look away from, to be? I don't see anything wrong with the concept itself, as long as we extend an analogy of what rapiertwit has stated below. They should have a right not to be offended in their own home (in this case, their own sites), but once they step outside that or invite others in, all bets a…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 05:50 PM
14

If programming is valuable as a skill in and of itself, why is it less important for a man to learn that skill over a woman? Not only that, but you have companies saying they can't get enough American workers and so they have to hire foreign workers. Apparently moving towards equalizing the number of men and women in the industry is more important than having more Americans in general.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 03:19 PM
0

How about someone who tweets, for example, "I permit my tweets to be posted on Reddit?"
/r/MensRights10/04/14 12:59 AM
2

I'm on my mobile so I don't have any links, but I would look for evidence pointing towards all of these being due to most women's choices as far as raising children and other issues. After all, I doubt a stay at home dad would have as much opportunity as a man who chooses to work full time either.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 01:02 AM
3

The problem is that this myth has been so ingrained that I doubt it would make a difference if they used the second figure you quote, because people would just assume that it's because of misogyny and not think it through. The only responsible thing to do is not only to tell the truth, but to give context as to what it means (that is, that most or all of the gap can be explained by women's choice).
/r/MensRights09/04/14 12:59 AM
3

However, posting an intentionally offensive image that you created for the sake of getting offended is not productive on any level. I agree. Here are some things that feminists and others have actually said about this issue. No strawman needed.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 10:04 PM
1

I agree. Though plenty of feminists seem more than willing to defend cuckolding, I doubt very many actually advocate it.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 10:01 PM
5

There are some comments along those lines here, for example. In France, paternity testing is illegal because "the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society rather than biology" and violating the law can bring a 1 year prison sentence and €15,000 fine. More: DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. and Imagine, in the case of the wronged millionaire,…
/r/MensRights06/04/14 07:50 PM
20

If these women think marriage is a bad deal, then I suggest they simply shouldn't get married. Problem solved, right? (And yes, I know this would be unacceptable to them as well.)
/r/MensRights06/04/14 07:34 PM
3

I agree completely. Especially since the rise of digital media means that people are agreeing to contracts all the time. Having at least a basic understanding would undoubtedly help a lot.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 05:54 PM
7

They maybe just don't want to pay extra to get something above and beyond what they were already getting if it's more expensive. So instead of taking the voluntary choice of using this gym because they would have to pay for that privilege, they'll make men involuntarily not use the gym and take away the men's right to what they paid for. So there you have it, women's privilege > men's rights. Edit: clarification
/r/MensRights06/04/14 04:35 PM
13

From what I understand based on EULA issues, this would give one side much more from the contract and would likely not be enforceable if taken to court, though I'd imagine this varies from state to state. Of course, I think the reason many such companies get away with that kind of thing is because challenging it just isn't worth it.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 04:25 PM
3

The fact you're downvoted i feel is pretty telling. I wouldn't downvote what is nothing more than a relevant piece of information, but I can understand why some people would be less than willing to endorse it. As a subreddit srssucks seems just a bit too close to being an anti-SRS carbon copy of SRS, complete with all the circlejerking, petty insults, and general awfulness that entails.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 07:27 PM
9

IMO all they care about are their own ends. When MRAs wish to be able to say their bit, and ask others to respect their freedom of speech, they talk of "freeze peaches" and try to take away our ability to speak on men's issues. Of course, they defend to the bitter end their right to limit discussion on their own subreddits. It's sheer hypocrisy, and yet it doesn't even phase them. And every subreddit they perceive as being "invaded by MRAs" they seem to try to take over as they have this subredd…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:03 AM
10

Yes, we have seen the thread. Wait, do they mean this thread? How the hell can they twist this into brigading? Control your membership Simply incredible.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 05:47 AM
1

pumpkin Is that really necessary? Yes, that's an ignorant comparison and all, but no need to be demeaning. Especially when that person has said I stand corrected.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:47 AM
2

Women having specific preferences in a partner isn't a rights issue. Perhaps not, but societal attitudes that might lead to particular preferences within the realm of Men's Rights, I would say (depending of course on how relevant those attitudes are). And then the other issue is exactly this. It's not directly a rights issue, but it's also something that redpillers seem to focus on. IMO this pretty much ensures that their particular movement will not gain mainstream legitimacy. But then maybe th…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:41 AM
4

You're intentionally focusing on the woman. Yes, I am. That's because she's committing fraud. Here's a very 3 step program to follow and you'll never be "deceived" again [...] Not protecting yourself is intentionally fucking up and taking a chance and gambling your paychecks for the next 18 years. Personally, I don't find this to be a concern (it's not an issue I have). And I don't think your steps are unreasonable. You're implying men are too stupid to protect themselves No. I'm implying that p…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 01:42 AM
6

free bailouts from their own fuckups. We're not talking about "fuckups." We're talking about intentional deception on the part of the woman. We're not talking about "bailouts" here, we're talking about not upholding or encouraging fraud.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:01 PM
14

Why put yourself in harms way when it is so stupidly avoidable? Why would anybody put their trust in somebody else for something this huge when the precautionary measure takes literally 30 seconds to set up ? I thought I had made it quite clear, but again, I'm not saying you should put yourself in harm's way. Once again, what I'm saying is that the man's stupidity does not negate the woman's fraud.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:29 PM
20

I don't think this is a case of "you should take that risk", but of "if you take that risk you shouldn't be liable for someone else's fraud." The fact that the man made a bad decision shouldn't excuse the woman's fraud.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 03:56 PM
23

ITT: troll from SRS
/r/MensRights29/03/14 07:43 PM
2

^ SRS poster who said that we are "morons" on AMR.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:28 PM
1

Or of this staged, to make it easier to fake. I remember the original having names.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:24 PM
4

Let's not invest too much in saving face and trying to push this under the rug, because that doesn't help anyone. As newtothelyte stated, this is fake. This has been discussed countless times, for example here, and IIRC on this subreddit in the past. Take a look at this image I've prepared or simply zoom in yourself, and you'll see artifacts from some kind of editing or image creation around the text that would not appear if this image were genuine. Let's treat this as what it is: a simple mista…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 07:13 AM
2

This has, and will, make the rounds (most likely without the URL because the URL debunks it) Exactly. And even though someone pointed out the URL, the user that originally posted it has tweeted It doesn't change the fact that there are respondents that felt it was acceptable. and And using faulty data to negate the point is still problematic. And it doesn't change that other studies were conducted by other schools in other states. These people literally don't care that the data is faulty because…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:37 PM
5

From what I can tell with Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, no one had utilized the domain in a while. At one point it hosted a group called "Feminists Earning A Reputation, United States" That group republished data from the survey on this page So in all likelihood, these numbers were lifted by a book from this website (which they cite), which in turn gets its data from a study which it does not cite other than "Jacqueline Goodchilds asked high school students:". Digging a bit further, the Wi…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:29 PM
1

It's great that you want to go with that, but does not at all change that what was said does not make sense as an opinion, as was addressed in my edit.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:09 AM
1

And what opinion would that be? It isn't until halfway through the post that it becomes "My theory" rather than an apparent statement of fact: I'm sure that actual sexual assault rates stayed the same, but false allegations went down. Edit: and for that matter, it doesn't make sense as an opinion. For example, if I say "in my opinion, men make up 50% of DV victims," that doesn't really make sense.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 08:28 PM
6

Asking for a source does not make one a "feminist brigader." Especially when that user has a history that suggests that they aren't a feminist at all.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:22 AM
4

It seems quite amusing that you resort to attacking her and her character rather than her argument right off the bat. Surely it can't be that difficult to knock down the arguments of a "wannabe prostitute" spewing "drunken nonsense," can it? There may be some very valid points against her arguments you could shed light on, but when you stoop so low in your initial argument, I don't really care to hear the rest of it.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 06:03 PM
14

It is the only argument that gets across. Which probably explains the rise of "biotruths" and feminists running an active campaign against such information being taken into account. Not that they will be successful, but still. Of course, these people will generally acknowledge so-called "biotruths" when it fits them, such as men being stronger than woman (and by some twisted logic, apparently invalidating domestic violence against men).
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:23 PM
5

I don't think the site itself is run by feminists. IIRC there was a concerted campaign by feminists to flood the definitions of MRA with negative ones and to upvote those.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:52 AM
25

which is ironic because Toronto and much of canada is a social liberal paradise and women enjoy a higher standard of life here than men It's interesting you bring this up, because this paradox seems to be true in general. That is, the better things are for women in an area, the more dominated by feminism that area seems to be. Perhaps it's just a feedback loop effect where when privilege for women starts becoming more and more common, people simply become more and more accepting of said privileg…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:49 AM
1

If you have the right to tell the government what to do, should you not also have the responsibility to defend those decisions? That would be great if you were actually telling the government what to do and could say "no war." Wars have been fought under Democrats and Republicans; voting one way or the other only chooses who gets to tell the government what to do.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 05:27 PM
3

Hell, a feminist even tried this tactic here on this subreddit. The problem is that they have a dictionary definition and they aren't afraid to strictly hold people to it when it suits their agenda and pay it no heed when it doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 05:08 PM
2

The issue with this disagreement stems from a simple misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding. This person is clearly trying to use the dictionary definition of feminism to "prove" that we are against equality by being against feminism, as evidenced here. Just another troll being deliberately misleading in order to get MRAs to say something "bad."
/r/MensRights22/03/14 09:14 PM
1

Thought you ought to know
/r/MensRights22/03/14 09:12 PM
3

With other comments like why are we listening to women in this sub. I wonder if they're here to agitate and perhaps try to bring down this subreddit.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 07:50 PM
9

If you believe in this you are a feminist. If not, you are misogynist. That's quite the thought-terminating cliche you have there.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:57 PM
9

I agree. I'm sure they know that people are unlikely to opt-out of programs in general (as they are unlikely to opt-in). The least they could do is inform men listed on Lulu of this option somehow, but I'm sure they won't even consider that. So they get to save face and keep the status quo, all whilst calling themselves the "better woman." What a bunch of worthless human beings.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:46 PM
45

Feminist Perspectives Well, there goes any chance for the women in question to rightly be considered competent adults in regards to the discussion. It's also interesting how feminism seems to automatically make people experts in any tangentially related fields, which I would imagine will be the case here.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:29 PM
27

Sure, debunking the graphic is one thing. But showing that there was a clear intent to mislead is an entirely different thing.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:59 AM
1

By engaging her I'm not suggesting we directly engage her or participate in open debate, which would most certainly be fruitless. Rather, I think it's worthwhile to make sure people know exactly what a feminist like this represents. people give her credibility. I disagree; it gives her notability, not credibility. In the case of Fred Phelps, perhaps any publicity is good publicity. But I would suspect that when it comes to Watkins things are different - such negative publicity will only serve to…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:56 AM
1

It's also interesting to note that without knowing how many hours this group works, the male babysitters could still be making less despite making more per hour. Perhaps these men know their market, and instead of trying to undercut or equal women in pay, they charge more knowing that male babysitters are hired for a particular reason - perhaps to serve as a male role model. Idk about anyone else, but I'd rather get paid $.50 less per hour if it meant working enough hours to more than make up fo…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:57 PM
1

no one's trying to revoke your freedom of speech Untrue. There have been movements to ban anti-feminist speech, which I'm sure you can find by searching this subreddit and/or Google. And even if we don't talk strictly about governmental freedom of speech, there are the easily (and conveniently) pushed aside social aspects. Who needs government enforcement when you have proxy violence? MRAs are judging feminists based on the extremists and thinking that feminists hate men. Perhaps we do in some c…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:45 PM
5

after a while do we care what Fred Phelps thinks? I think there's an important distinction here. Almost everybody denounces the WBC because their actions manage to cover the political spectrum rather well. For example, even anti-gay groups and individuals are liable to be put off by their protests at military funerals and attitudes towards the country. Rebecca Watson, on the other hand, has not (to my knowledge) been denounced by feminists. If anything, they've continued to prop her up despite t…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:30 PM
12

Maybe they violated the rule about proof or something, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they "violated" a rule because iAMA does seem to possibly have a bit of a feminist bias.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 12:53 AM
2

To be clear, I don't find your point to be totally invalid. IIRC there were some who did idolize her a bit, which seems odd if they've stopped to think about the bigger picture. I only mean that I'm not surprised that this subreddit can compartmentalize people's ideas (perhaps because of critics who dismiss the entire movement based on a minority of its members and not the beliefs and actions of the movement as a whole of its parts).
/r/MensRights15/03/14 12:46 AM
20

IMO some more specific points can be made about some of the reviews in addition to the attack point: For example, this "review" isn't about the book at all (except for the cover), so seems entirely invalid. On the other hand, this and this are both ad hominem attacks on the author, using such language as "creep" and "written by a sad, bitter man."
/r/MensRights14/03/14 05:12 PM
21

Make up your minds. IMO, this subreddit has a tendency to evaluate a person's words in an individual situation rather than use ad hominem attacks, which is a good thing. She can be right that SJWs are taking her songs too far without saying that what her songs say is okay.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 05:01 PM
1

Exactly what Lucifirius said and no where along the way did I say what a real man is. No, but you did specify what a real man is not in a particular situation ("if you need a shotgun to intimadate your not a real 'man'.") Don't get me wrong, such a person is a horrible human being. But as soon as you start qualifying what a man is you contribute to a narrative that is used to control men.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 04:51 PM
6

I agree with a lot of what you've said. really the main reason AMR even existed This is simply untrue, however. Yes, I'm sure the subreddit has gotten quite the boost because of the rule against linking, but AMR started before the rule existed. IMO these are people that are just so against this subreddit that not even SRS would put up with the extent of their hatred and twisting words. I guess that makes AMR the radicals among radicals.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 06:49 AM
3

If he took the risk of having sex with no condom, not a chance. His bad choice does not change the fact that she purposefully deceived him (fraud). Of course, this has to be proven, but that's another issue. And there is no benefit to the mother, child support is between parent and child. That would be great if money weren't fungible. Every dollar to the child is potentially a dollar the mother doesn't have to spend on the child, and therefore can spend on herself. It's like if you went out to e…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:29 PM
8

Not being rewarded with child support might be a good start. I think some kind of fraud charges would also be appropriate.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:17 PM
6

But what so often happens is that the symmetry in proclivity to violence is subsumed into a narrative of bad men and innocent women, of how evil the dominant notions of masculinity are and how sweet and wonderful all women are. Perhaps the men don't need help because they're rotting in a jail cell somewhere. Kind of difficult to seek help when you're locked up.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:04 PM
11

But that's a reasonable method for determining things! It's like if a soup kitchen were to turn away men, and then say "look, men don't need to eat!" Except the fantasy world in which men don't need help is much easier to believe than the fantasy world in which men don't need to eat to survive.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:02 PM
6

And? As has been pointed out numerous times in comments here, women are more likely to use weapons. A punch by a man may carry more force generally speaking, but then that's a useless comparison when women are augmenting their capability to cause damage. But then you probably already knew this...
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:56 PM
1

Calling victims of rape liars will stop women from coming forward because of the abuse they will get if their rapist isn't convicted. That's why you don't do so unless there's evidence that the person was lying. And if the person is lying, they are not a victim in that case, so that argument is pretty much null.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:52 AM
0

Well, of course. It would be the perfect opportunity to remind men that they're horrible fathers, need to learn not to rape, etc. /s
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:48 AM
1

Indeed. Let's assume that scantily clad women are viewed by men as objects. Let's assume that this causes them to lack a human connection to that person. Let's assume that the man in question sees that woman as only someone/thing to have sex with. When there's no personal connection, why should this be surprising? What is a person going to attribute to an image that's blatantly sexual besides sexuality, provided you're attracted to the individual(s) in question. It's not too different from a lea…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:34 AM
6

Perhaps no legal obligation, but then the law isn't the only way to enforce discrimination. It would be interesting to know, for example, if the vehicle could still be towed if it's on private property.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:19 AM
1

As much as I hate to agree with you The source of the graphic is also Good Men Project, which is well known to be a shill for feminism while acting like something to benefit men. If you think I'm exaggerating, just search the subreddit.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:22 AM
6

Why do you think men don't work in childcare or nursing? "Why do you think women don't work in engineering or construction?"
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:57 PM
5

nless there was a huge waste of Police time. Sad, but perhaps it's this that will start getting us somewhere. That is, it's not that men's rights are being violated, but that police time is being wasted, which is worse, of course. /s
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:52 AM
1

I attended a school in Ashtabula. Given how middle-of-nowhere it is, I'd almost be inclined to partly blame the overzealousness on that (little place police/courts wanting to have their big day), but then with the climate anymore it's probably not that so much as general lack of putting more than 2 seconds worth of thought into it. Truly absurd, but certainly not surprising.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:24 AM
2

I read the title as "another father who was murdered after the wife slapped their daughter" and wonder wtf was going on until I saw this is the same father shot by police discussed several times already. Not criticizing your point, because I agree this needs to be discussed elsewhere, but the title itself is quite clear: Another story about the father who was murdered by police.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:23 PM
6

Oh, but it's still to keep women oppressed. This argument seems to pop up so often really, with "benevolent sexism" and the like. My response is simple: should we care more about those who are discriminated against in theory, or those who are acted against in reality? The former position is untenable IMO.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 04:17 PM
16

There's no excuse when "105 men and an old woman" is actually simpler (and shorter) to say.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 04:10 PM
3

When a policeman decides to arrest or detain you, they will. It's as simple as that. No amount of arguing will change that, and resistance actually creates a crime and also leads to "accidents", purposeful or otherwise. Was this man under arrest or detained? It wouldn't appear so. So there's no reason that logic applies.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:01 AM
10

In addition, women are more likely to consult with a physician regarding such issues in the first place (source). I think this is likely due to societal pressure for men to just "man up" and deal with problems on their own. It's men who need to be told they should be concerned about their health. Women already are, to a greater extent.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 02:00 AM
0

Yes it's true she started it, but you can't blame hitlers parents decision to have a baby for hitlers actions. As stupid as her tweet was I don't think she could have expected it to result in them being fired, or even making such a scene. It was the result of others reacting just as stupidly that got them, and then her fired. All I was trying to say, is that she was not the sole cause of the event, she just planted the seed of it. Did she ever say it wasn't her intention for him to be fired? Jus…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:06 PM
6

A handful of blatant trolls and spammers is banned from /r/MR = speaks "VOLUMES" about the entire movement. Feminist subs regularly delete non-feminist comments, preach how you must learn feminism 101 to enter, demand that the top comment must be by a feminist = doesn't characterize feminism at all or is otherwise a positive thing. Either you misunderstand the reality here, or you just don't care. I'm betting on the latter.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 01:38 AM
2

I'd guess it's because the acronym NAWALT is typically used here in cases where someone is making the no true scottsman fallacy. It's not, as a rule, used to say that some (or most) women aren't like that.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 05:23 PM
5

I agree. Especially when you have things like talking urinal cakes installed by a state that pretty much threaten prison rape for a DUI: Here’s a real friendly reminder. Don’t drive drunk. If you do and you get arrested, the next urinal you pee in will be in jail, with a hairy guy named Bubba standing behind asking you to pick up the soap… (this was posted on this subreddit back in 2012)
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:41 AM
3

That's the way it's supposed to be, but it's not the way it is. Given enough control - over information, even over emotion - people just become puppets. This applies to all successful oppressive groups in our time; take feminism for example: feelings are more important than reality, spreading false statistics, etc.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:29 AM
19

Did you miss the sentence that followed that made it pretty clear what they meant?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 06:03 AM
6

I took it as commenting on how common it is for boys to be prescribed this type of drug. Which I would say aligns with MRA issues with boys' natural attitudes towards play and schooling being rejected in favor of medicating in order to make boys conform to the same styles of being taught and playing as girls (perhaps because the educational system is dominated by women).
/r/MensRights08/02/14 07:48 AM
1

mod me [...] betas If there's one thing that might just be more ridiculous than feminist jargon, it's this stuff. Two sides of the same coin, really.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:28 PM
0

A subreddit dedicated just to bashing this subreddit (Against Men's Rights). It's an SRS-affiliated sub, so can't be linked here. I'd recommend against giving them the attention anyways, because that's what they want.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:23 PM
17

I went to register a men's issues club at my college, and the clubs guy bitched me out for ten minutes with just textbook feminist shit and basically told me no. I think in addition to people like this, I think there are plenty who attack the MRM in order to appear more "manly" (by rejecting that men are in any way underprivileged or denied rights) or to pander to women. IMO modern feminism thrives largely by keeping men divided against each other.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:12 AM
20

That assumes no women would want to attend (and I don't mean to cause disruption) and that no men would rip down the posters, which unfortunately I would suspect is far from the truth. I doubt it would make much of a difference, at any rate.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:30 AM
3

But there is still an underlying feminist issue they need to bring attention too. Then they should do that instead of stating it in a deliberately misleading way.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:03 PM
5

We should get our own space in order before policing others. This is the Men's Rights subreddit, we can't control what redpillers do or don't do. Nor do we have reason to try to stop them from participating as long as they don't bring redpill ideology into it. As soon as someone uses terms like "alpha" or "beta," I ignore them, and you should too. Just like certain feminist terminology, this just raises a red flag.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:02 PM
2

Intentions matter, and fuck you for suggesting otherwise. I don't think anyone was suggesting that intentions don't matter, or that this kind of thing is just or right, but rather that the outcome is a certain way regardless of intention.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 05:30 PM
3

If you see a NICE one comment, you can link him to THIS post until I get back to delete his comment. IF YOU WANT. Otherwise, just wait. I’ll deal with him asap. This is the way they treat men who toe the line. I can only hope that such policies alienate male feminists and allies enough to wake up to reality, but I'm not that optimistic.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 03:58 PM
11

It's a ban intended so that you don't realize you are banned. To you, your userpage would remain up, your posts would appear, and you would seem to have regular access to the site. To everyone else, your userpage is gone and your posts don't appear unless a moderator notices and approves.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 08:46 PM
9

but "suicide via self-immolation" literally means "suicide by suicide" Not true. Self-immolation refers to setting oneself on fire, often as a form of protest or for the purposes of martyrdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation
/r/MensRights28/01/14 12:13 AM
1

Well, there are plenty of incidences of major college football programs going after middle school school boys Yes, but then the article is not about anecdotal cases but the overall picture. Particularly that Early scouting has also become more prevalent in women’s sports than men’s
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:16 PM
2

Well why should they unacceptable? Feminists and others say women with unattainable bodies in media is unacceptable for various reasons, such as putting pressure on women to achieve these unrealistic looks. They tend to put the blame for this on men. Meanwhile, these same people ignore that men in the media also have unrealistic looks. The point isn't that they should be unacceptable, it's the double standard.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 06:07 PM
10

As implied by the title, that representations of female characters with unrealistic bodies is unacceptable while the same with male characters is just fine.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:37 PM
11

I'm not sure I catch your gripe.. I don't think OP is trying to say that these characters should change, merely that there's a double standard.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:34 PM
3

Putting the correction at the bottom is shameful on their part and makes me suspect they don't want anyone to see it anyways. Anyone who knows online journalism knows that the lower it is on the page, the less people will read it; the correction should be at the top.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:31 PM
1

So what exactly is going on that is so bad? Likely further removal of due process by way of campus courts, demonization of men, and spreading of false statistics. Assuming that the sexual assault statistics are correct some form of corrective action should be taken. They aren't and have been thoroughly debunked. Even the White House's own numbers contradict these statistics. Besides, nothing in this article lays out any particular policies that would negatively affect men, in fact it doesn't lay…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 05:08 PM
2

Not saying that this is an example, but the person who wrote that may have had lesbian women in mind rather than men.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:10 AM
13

How about this? http://i.imgur.com/TfLaYsq.png I cleared my cache so I don't think it was taken down.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 11:36 PM
3

is like using the rape statistics in India Going to have to disagree with you there. While Finland's statistics may or may not be applicable to the US, I think it's safe to say there's a much larger culture gap from US to India than from US to Finland.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 11:27 PM
8

It's still there.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 11:21 PM
12

Not criticizing your post at all, but was he doing that because he wanted technology to be inaccessible to poorer people or because he believed the standard would have some other benefit? The implication I get from your post is that it's likely the latter, and that it was simply a crappy recommendation.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:21 PM
2

Since a lot of people have addressed how you could handle the issue as a whole, there's one part I think you could take in an interesting direction: She talked about how men make bad single fathers because they're not "naturally as nurturing as mothers". You could ask her, "then what about gay fathers?" By framing the issue with sexual orientation, she won't be able to hide behind sexism. She could conceivably say that men in a committed relationship regardless of sexual orientation are differen…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:08 PM
2

Maternity plus more sick time then men. And yet men are still criticized for "man flu," as silly as the idea is. Not to say that there aren't reasons women would need more sick time contrary to what you suggest, just to say that some people are really incapable of relating to the experiences of others.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 06:23 AM
3

Because this is the same kind of asshole who demands a study for every claim and MRA makes, but then has no problem simply declaring whatever he personally wants to be true 'fact'? I've seen plenty of this kind of troll before, most recently with O-Fortuna (see here and here). This poster isn't disputing about the kangaroo courts all types of universities have put in place, but rather the specific picture of colleges as having curfews, not allowing pornography in dorms, etc. and pointing out tha…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:22 PM
1

The university I refer to above is in fact a private university. Perhaps some of those restrictions (curfew, pornography) have more to do with religious affiliation, of which the university I refer to has none.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:14 PM
3

I didn't downvote you or anything. Reference to Dick Cheney's daughter?
/r/MensRights15/01/14 06:26 PM
6

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The only of the two above that apply where I went (a fairly well respected university) are the smoking one (based on state law; which isn't to say you can't smoke off campus in some areas) and speech codes.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 06:23 PM
4

and radical feminists have SRS As well as the often overlooked feminisms subreddit.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 10:46 PM
1

I think the problem was that for it to be discussion and not simply dissent, you need to provide at least some more thoughts on the matter and ideally provide some kind of citation. At any rate, I wouldn't say that you weren't allowed to discuss or show dissent (it's not like the comment was removed and/or you were banned).
/r/MensRights14/01/14 10:43 PM
0

Red Pill I don't see how this is really tied to the MRM. Take a look at a search for MensRights there and you'll see that they go pretty far to distance themselves from this subreddit and movement for reasons such as "it has become clear that MR is now just a place for beta's who want to be women." Some opponents may try to paint these people as being the same as the MRM, but IMO we shouldn't waste much of our time on that, which is probably what they would like. AVfM Have to at least somewhat a…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 02:44 AM
2

If she was using another Wiki username to edit the articles, then I don't see what the issue is. IMO it's still a conflict of interest. There's still the possibility of an employee using their power as an employee to defend paid edits even if not made from a work username. Even not taking that into account, it seems entirely reasonable that they should have the right to fire her for accepting paid edits. Compare the case of a judge accused of anonymously commenting on articles about a case she w…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 08:43 PM
8

while being an employee paid to edit Wiki articles The point is that she was being paid by outside groups to edit the articles while she was an employee, which isn't allowed. It's not like she was fired for doing her job.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 07:03 PM
2

Nope. Nothing in there that says that. http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA not really as most of the ads say preferred and not "no men allowed'. Yes really; posts stating preference are banned as well: postings stating a preference for one sex over another (eg. "no young men," "female preferred," etc) Moving on, And my guess is that you're the kind of person who wouldn't report an ad if it says men preferred. I'd report an ad that preferred any kind of group over another. I'd also add some that …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 03:34 AM
12

If reporting listings that go against the site's rules and are discriminatory makes you a bitter asshole, then I think we need more bitter assholes in this world.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 01:43 AM
3

There must me some loophole somewhere that gives them this freedom [...] Or maybe they just know you probably will not do anything about it or that it is not worth your time to fight or go to court? I would suspect it's because such discrimination would be tolerated by the relevant authorities regardless of the legality. Just as laws about domestic violence may not be gender biased, but the execution of those laws nevertheless appear to be.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 01:41 AM
2

Not only that, but I think they've tried not to make a point. See here for example: Making implications as to what I imply, when I've not implied anything, is simply attacking a straw man. Why is it that I don't believe that maintaining that there's overlap between the MRM and PUAs and other questionable groups in multiple separate threads isn't meant to imply anything? Why discuss it at all if not to make a point? It's simply a trolling tactic. They act like they don't have an opinion and hide …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 01:22 AM
2

unrelated to my response Truly laughable, especially considering that you hold yourself to a much lower as far as going off on tangents, but fair enough. I certainly don't have time for people blatantly trolling.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 01:11 AM
8

as you didn't respond to anything in my post. I directly quoted points in your post (primarily that "I can't see that any open discussions on rape have carried the implicit assumption that rape is something committed by men against women") . If that isn't responding to anything in your post, I fear nothing is. I chose to ignore and reiterate You derailed, which is quite ironic, your comment above considered.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 05:58 PM
7

Sorry, but bringing up a different facet of rape when a specific one is being discussed is derailment. That's great and all, but also has absolutely nothing to do with anything in my post.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 05:51 PM
8

but that these were discussions about the issue of men raping women. When nearly all of the discussions fall under this, it doesn't matter whether the individual discussion has "carried the implicit assumption that rape is something committed by men against women." I know you'll deny association with anything to maintain a false impartiality, but look to your own movement. Do they pass off supposed inequality in the workplace as being on an individual basis or do they base it on a general, more …
/r/MensRights08/01/14 05:34 PM
7

Is the feminist movement so weak that they need confirmation that they are not being sought after as some weak victim? I don't think it's this. I think it's that they know they can play this card to destroy valid criticism, and aren't afraid to do so even if it's inconsistent with at least some of their supposed core principles.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:56 AM
8

but they were handled by 2 different individuals. How much can be explained by their individual approaches, we won't know. Wouldn't you think, however, that there would be specific procedures in place when it comes to a situation where the PM of a country is involved?
/r/MensRights07/01/14 04:57 PM
2

Why don't you respond to ProfVanDusen's points above rather than trying to play these games? Sorry, rhetorical question...
/r/MensRights05/01/14 08:48 PM
4

Guess his minions (you included, it's my guess, right?) Who would have thought?
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:10 AM
4

Seriously? It seems like about all you do on here is try to paint the MRM in a bad light by pointing out "overlap." Like here (PUAs). And here (traditionalists) many times, in a post about NOW saying Hitler was an MRA, no less. The word "overlap" appears 11 times in the first page of your comments. Overlap does not define a movement, as much as you would like to define this movement using any overlap you can. You are a troll, and a poor one at that.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 08:33 PM
4

I've simply pointed at your standards of backing up assertions and that I fulfill them. You cited an example of exactly one person and for the rest basically said "it's on the manboobz site." Congratulations on your epic victory of fulfilling your twisted version of what they were looking for.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:31 PM
7

[..] his views on men and woman were consistant with views that alot of MRAs have. [...] The boys were taught racial history, reading/writing, math, and about warfare. Their bodies and minds were trained to make them the ideal soldiers. The females were taught basic studies and how to be suitible wives. As far as hitler was concerned, the woman were the vessels that would give birth to more German soldiers. Thus woman were taught only what was necessary for child rearing and home life, and they …
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:21 PM
6

This is fucking inanity. Sad, take away one letter and it still makes sense.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:10 PM
9

Even if it is true, it doesn't mean much. I've seen feminist arguments along the lines of "if men want their children they should go to court! Look, they'll even win!" This conveniently ignores the context of those cases where the father does go to court. That is, perhaps the reason fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it is because they only bother seeking it (and thus paying court costs) when there's a darn good reason why the woman is going to lose custody.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:07 PM
9

Apparently asking what this has to do with the sub detracts from the conversation from all the downvotes. I wouldn't say it detracts, but it definitely falls under not advancing the discussion. The FAQ conveniently located in the sidebar even lists two elements at play here as focal topics of the MRM: Legal Discrimination - There is a large sentencing disparity between men (especially males of a visible minority) and women for similar crimes[...] and [...] widespread media coverage that names-an…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:31 AM
1

I think asking him not to get a vasectomy is not unreasonable. She sacrificed a lot for him. If she didn't think they would be having children, what difference would a vasectomy make to her anyways?
/r/MensRights01/01/14 04:37 PM
1

The wife obviously has serious mental issues, but that is an explanation and not an exoneration. I'd add that another part of gynocentrism seems to be that mental health issues are often treated as an exoneration when it comes to women.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 04:26 PM
4

I believe that's supposed to be a female wolf about to eat said pig.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:48 PM
2

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a guy tricked into a pregnancy, you'd be up in collective arms. And rightfully. But this isn't about a hypothetical worst case scenario that has nothing to do with what happened, it's about what actually happened. Her lying to him is also disgusting.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:27 PM
-1

I just feel entering the conversation with anger or disappointment would validate those feelings and not open her up. I've experienced this cycle first hand. Person hides important information in order to not anger other person -> other person is angry because of the information being hidden, not necessarily the information itself -> person who hid information feels vindicated. Rinse and repeat. IMO if she's incapable of distinguishing the difference between him being mad at her for hiding infor…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:20 PM
2

Many, many people who don't want to have children wouldn't necessarily be in favor of abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy. And of course even if he's 100% okay with abortion she should still tell him. IMO people calling this a breakdown in communication are simply downplaying what she's done here.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:07 PM
11

See my post here.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 05:01 PM
42

NOMAS has been around for quite some time and is sadly not satire. There's even a Wikipedia article with citation. Just Poe's law at work.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 05:01 PM
2

admit to perpetrating sexual violence They just love this kind of stuff because they can ask generalized questios about whether the men go out of their way to prevent sexual violence by others (why should they if they aren't directly involved?) and twist it into them admitting to something they didn't.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 04:13 PM
2

This kind of thing seems all to common with online polls, and not just on sites like this but larger news sites as well. It's like they're trying to lead people into a certain opinion with their false dichotomies and leading answers.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:16 AM
1

I feel like a lot of people in this thread don't so much care about men's rights but instead care more about female benefits. As well they should. Rights without responsibilities for women result in inequality too. "Equality" may not be a zero-sum game (as some feminists are so quick to point out) but that doesn't mean that feminist "equality" results in equity.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 08:01 PM
4

I'm not sure if you're joking, but I would agree with the premise that there is danger here because of the use of real identities. Their best option may indeed be to direct people to a separate website and shut down the group so that there's no abuse and this group cannot become tyrants over the whole.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:21 PM
3

because of a kiss Perhaps not, but then this wasn't just intended as a kiss.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 04:14 PM
7

saying that women can't cope without men I don't see where they said any such thing. I took it to mean that women are generally unwilling to do those things (and perhaps, by extension, have better options), not that they are incapable.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 05:57 PM
5

And several additional links in the comments to other articles that protest Movember for similar reasons (misogynistic, transphobic, etc).
/r/MensRights02/12/13 05:53 PM
4

I'm not sure about this website, but I believe Lulu's excuse is that they are pulling friends' and friends of friends' photos when women use their app, which many people allow in their privacy settings, the Lulu app says will be collected, and I'm sure Facebook includes terms in their TOS such that they aren't doing anything illegal.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 03:48 AM
5

You should probably wait until he attacks The user has a history of doing exactly that and has participated extensively in a certain subreddit dedicated exclusively to slamming this one. This is not someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 04:00 PM
4

It is pretty sick IMO to say that rape is worse than murder. effectively supports euthanizing rape victims Howso? Just because they say that rape is worse than murder doesn't mean they support euthanizing rape victims; all it means is that they see rape as causing more harm. That doesn't mean they would be better off dead.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:33 PM
2

It says nothing about who is right IMO. As much as I believe the MRM to be on the right side of justice, I don't think an isolated incident can be taken to represent the feminist movement anymore than I think the same thing on the part of a few extremists could be taken to represent the MRM. With that said, there are plenty of other things by which gender feminists show their true colors.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:26 AM
2

It means not trans (as in transgendered). So yes, it does mean born the "right" gender. It's not at all related to whether a person is gay or straight (it's not like gay men think they're women).
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:44 AM
3

Actually, a lot of the driving force for SRS becoming feminist was a certain subset of people in power over at the Anarchism subreddit. Long-time readers here may remember how that subreddit continuously bashed men's rights and acted a lot like SRS now. The other moderators didn't particularly appreciate the unwanted attention this brought, so some of the mods moved to SRS in order to be able to continue their attacks without drawing attention to their subreddit.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:20 PM
3

and am attracted to the opposite sex This doesn't even matter as part of the equation anymore. There was a ton of drama over at a certain LGBT subreddit in which many users were also told "DIE CIS SCUM" by a certain notorious moderator.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:15 PM
2

if a woman is sexually attracted to big pecs, big biceps or big dicks, does that make her sexist too? The seemingly most common example, and the one that people seem to find completely socially acceptable, is men's height. It's such a blatant double standard that men seem to be the only ones (at least openly) criticized in this. Even gay men seem to be more openly criticized about it, sexism element excluded.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:47 PM
2

or, at least, a gay one You would be surprised. For example, a certain site which shall not be named had an article titled "Gay Men’s Sexism and Women’s Bodies." IMO more gay men need to realize that just because feminism has been an ally historically doesn't mean gender feminism won't throw us under the bus when it's convenient and furthers the victim mentality, and that we do not magically owe loyalty to feminism for past support.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:15 PM
3

why can't Anita make a video about sexism against women? Where did anybody say she can't? Questioning or opposing the tactics she used to raise the money for the videos, and questioned or opposing the content of the videos themselves with justification, is nowhere close to saying she shouldn't be allowed to make videos at all. Wait, the larger cultural influence of Patriarchy? If you had said "sexism against women" it would have been a plausible argument.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 04:58 PM
2

men are making these games Oh, okay then. There's no problem it's sexist against men because men made it. Also, there was clearly no larger cultural influence at play. /s
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:55 AM
2

know what they all say the BIGGEST problem in the black community is? the lack of fathers. Well don't you know, this is because of the men and only the men. So it's not feminism's responsibility at all, even if feminist groups claim to take responsibility. /s
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:34 PM
2

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but if people should own what they say, people should own what they say when what they say is mocking people from their school as well. I would imagine they might defend themselves by saying "that opens us up to harassment," but what they're doing opens the people they post about up to harassment as well.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:23 PM
1

I don't know if I would say they don't understand so much as they don't care when it comes to rape cases. If they really believe there are no false rape accusations, then by extension they probably believe the men are always guilty. IMO, this is more dangerous than simple ignorance of accused vs convicted because it supposes the woman is always right.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:13 PM
3

Relevance is as much a factor as factual accuracy.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:53 PM
2

My problem with this is that it seems to be an argument for anarchy. If we can't judge people (only their views) and people don't choose what to believe, how can we hold them responsible for their actions?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:18 PM
3

It's unfair to judge someone for their beliefs, only judge the beliefs themselves. It is when they start imposing those beliefs on others, especially if it may be in a threatening manner. It may be unfair to judge people for their beliefs, but it is entirely fair to judge them based on the actions try take based on those beliefs. We're all trying to be good and morally right, so the fact that some people have found less defensible arguments then ours shouldn't matter. It can and does matter when…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 09:01 PM
6

I wonder what would happen if the scenario was reversed (with the woman being depressed). It would be interesting to hear any examples, even if only anecdotal.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 08:22 PM
1

"THAT'S HETERONORMATIVE BULLSHIT!!!! I WANT A CITATION NOW!" I think this is merely a misinterpretation of the context (that is, that "given that there is a mother and father involved in the child's life...") of what was being said by someone who was probably all too eager to interpret what was being said in a negative light. That is, the statement in context has nothing to do with gay couples being either fit or unfit to raise children. I think the best reply is therefore not to discuss whether…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:56 AM
2

Also, how does one "sound like a man" in writing? Do I need to dot my is with little fedoras? Based on the language they use: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/014466601164812/abstract
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:51 PM
16

because no man ever is the architect of their own destiny When someone else makes a decision and you are forced to comply with it by the state, no, this is indeed not possible. they are all completely innocent This is irrelevant. Some are, some aren't, and many are somewhere in between; but just because some are bad people doesn't mean every man should have to live by rules made with the worst in mind. everything is the fault of those silly feeeeemales When you give people (women and men) incent…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:56 PM
1

It's not about who offered more that you would like to hear. It's about the fact that she interrupted him then called him rude for trying to continue. She coils have simply waited until he finished his thought.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:43 PM
1

Obviously fake, people. Perhaps that's the point, though. After all, why would the real Anita Sarkeesian say that about her own video, or post on /r/MR? Impersonating others should be a bannable offense. Maybe so.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:30 PM
1

Sorry, but IMO Wikipedia is not worth our time at this point. Even if a hypothetical perfectly-suited-for-Wikipedia article on the MRM were created, I'm sure there would be enough edit warring to at least restore some of the false information such as the stance in marital rape discussed in the article. You have to pick your battles, and I'm afraid that this is one battle that isn't worth the time given the entrenched nature of anti-MRM involvement in these articles.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 08:56 AM
1

I'll take the conservatives on this one. And I'll take standing for my own values, even if they don't fit neatly into either end of the spectrum. Sorry, but equality under the law means little when you have those "societal/social judgements" being foisted upon you.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:58 PM
4

And imagine what kind of reaction a man would get if he talked about how a woman couldn't "deal with the humanity" in having denied him. She seems to have the exact same qualities feminists all too often seem to attribute to men: lack of empathy for the opposite sex and interest only in the opposite sex only to the extent that it fulfills her own wants.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:25 PM
2

One way this can potentially be defused is by turning the argument over from theory to reality. You could point out that regardless I whether the problem itself is due to sexism against women, it seems to be men who are the most adversely effected. What does it matter whether or not it's misogyny if the reality is that men face these problems because of it? While I believe that it isn't misogyny, and I can understand that not debating this point could seem wrong, I think you might get further by…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:53 PM
2

And your point is? It would seem that what you posted actually supports MRAs not being that way (that is, only interested in "agreeing with them completely") because the absolute statement that If you're pro circ, you're not an MRA is being downvoted. And it's not that these people are saying "no you're wrong circumcision is okay!" They're calling out the "aren't interested in anything except people agreeing with them completely" attitude.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 02:55 AM
2

as implied by point 2 That's quite the spurious assumption. Pointing out that men do not have a particular option available to them does not inherently imply that they should have an identical option. In fact, I don't take this poster as implying in and of itself that men should have any of these options; rather, it's pointing out that there is a double standard in the last fact being true given that the previous facts are true.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 02:42 AM
2

While I think the best course of action is to "leave it alone," the implication that egalitarians must support /r/feminism is baffling considering the extent to which the subreddit is not egalitarian in nature. I'm inclined to agree with those here who have called this out as concern trolling in making such an absolute statement.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:01 PM
1

What? Feminism fight against this theskepticalidealist's statement appears to be general and not about this specific instance.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:12 PM
1

I agree completely that being against something doesn't mean one supports another thing in this manner. Thankfully, we have the actions (and inaction) of these people to go by to verify OP's hypothesis.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:28 AM
1

What about inclusivity? Inclusivity is a very important part of rights and things like democracy, it's about making sure voices are heard. Inclusivity is important to the extent that it is relevant to the subject at hand. It's not relevant as an attack against a rights group for not paying enough attention to a particular group provided the rights group doesn't claim to represent the rights of that group. For example, (it should be plainly obvious that) there's no reason an animal rights group i…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:15 AM
2

There are plenty of Gov agencies, non-profits,Blogs,YT channels, and Woman's lobby groups for that. Groups which, it should be mentioned, outright ignore the hot button issues regarding men in American politics. Or perhaps they don't consider them hot button because they don't get enough attention, though I think that only makes the situation worse.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:26 PM
3

In addition to what's already been said, another problem is that there's a tendency to uphold those values in a biased way. For example, gender feminists will say that it's okay to slander men as a group freely (for various reasons, such as "discrimination = prejudice + power so you can't discriminate against men because it's not possible") while demanding inoffensiveness towards women. Such values may be useful in some very limited arguments that should be very clearly labeled as not being inte…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:21 PM
0

giving men Legal Paternity Surrender probably equates to marital rape to them or giving men support to go into female dominated fields like teaching and nursing also probably equates to "preventing women from going into higher education". Or even just supporting more men going into higher education due to the imbalance. Forget the fact that women received the same when there were less female students and they didn't complain then. Also forget the "equality is not zero sum" mantra when it applies…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:39 PM
1

Maybe you could decrease the chances of running into problems by presenting only facts when it comes to feminism and let people start to draw their own conclusions.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:18 PM
9

If voting was explicitly tied to being eligible to go to war, then these monks should not have been allowed to vote. You do realize that conscientious objectors can still be required to perform services for the government in a support capacity, right? It's not as if objectors don't face the draft.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:16 PM
6

I agree with Crimson_D82, and would add that I think you have some protection in that you had a sound majority agree to discuss it. It also means that if you're told not to discuss it people will be left wondering why.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:09 PM
1

and hijack it by pushing for amendments to it or a bill that piggybacks off it to include protections for male DV vitcims The problem is that I doubt that will happen. Male victims would have a chance of being protected if they were included in the first place and benefited from the hysteria involved here over protecting women in particular; I doubt that anything specifically protecting men will gain traction without also being about women. Besides, if there were any real desire to protect both …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:53 PM
1

You will have more impact posting this in /r/politics or just about anywhere that isn't here. Have you stopped to consider that maybe posting here isn't about the impact, but instead about having a place to discuss the issue at hand with other MRAs rather than absolutely anyone (including SRS)? Is it somehow wrong for a game developer to ask for people to review their gameplay in /r/gamedev rather than heading straight for /r/IndieGaming where it will "have more impact"?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:46 PM
2

Yes, but that could be accomplished by eliminating the financial incentive for divorce as much as possible without forcing people to be together if they don't want to be. Besides, if you eliminate no-fault divorce you would increase the incentive for lying to end the divorce, which in most cases it seems likely would end badly for the man (false rape accusations, etc.).
/r/MensRights10/02/13 05:44 PM
1

Just a guess here, but Twitter may (like a lot of other sites) have a system that automatically deletes tweets and/or suspends accounts as they are reported, so it may have just been that a mass of gender feminists decided they wanted you censored. It's not as if that tactic hasn't been used on MRM opinions before. I would definitely send an email explaining the situation.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 05:38 PM
5

It's like claiming the wealthy have it better than the poor because the wealthy face a higher risk of choking on filet mignon. I think you meant worse, but that's a very apt analogy.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 08:03 PM
2

No, you aren't obligated to fuck but I think you obligated to give him what he has given you: his time. Or just make it clear she's not interested from early on, thus avoiding the situation altogether because then it's on him. But then I imagine some convoluted arguments about how women are worried they might upset the men by saying something so it's okay that they don't.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:12 AM
3

Why do you need justification from a website? That's kind of irrelevant to the point, but the same could be applied (also irrelevantly) to feminist efforts. What does it matter that a single website focuses on women? Because it does not purport to be a website focusing on women. And because it amounts to what feminists call microaggressions when the vast majority of these websites "focus on women" and offer nothing for men. Basically you're saying it's alright that women are subjugated as long a…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:49 AM
2

I commented to someone else stating how it's only a website, if it bothers you that much make one specifically for men. Why don't you be the change instead of wanting someone else to fix it for you? That's what angers me the most. Because it's a government website and should be held accountable? Because you can't just "make one for men" without the resources of the government? Why are you against simply making it gender neutral? Would you still be against making it gender neutral if it were the …
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:37 AM
1

letting a homeless addict exchange sex for shelter You could maybe argue that that was the case had he known she was homeless and agreed to let her stay there beforehand. But that's clearly not the case based on the story above.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:21 PM
1

That's fine. Don't purchase the services of lawyers who refuse to do this. No one's coercing you into dealing with lawyers. "That's fine. Don't become a lawyer if you refuse to do this. No one's coercing you to become a lawyer." This is a Hobson's choice that has to be shifted onto one of the parties: either the one person chooses to practice law or not, or the other person chooses to hire a lawyer or not. The difference is that the hypothetical lawyer has myriad options besides becoming a lawye…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:36 PM
4

I can understand that, but at the same time... 290,000/1100000=~0.264 Which means that since women apparently already account for about 26% of cases and account for just 23% of new infections, its becoming slightly more prevalent in men than women than it already is.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 03:58 PM
1

I.e. abortion being illegal doesn't violate a woman's "right to choose" since she could've chosen not to have sex. I've already given reasons why I believe the situation of a doctor treating a patient is far different than that situation in that discussion. Note how I scare quoted "rationale". We have nothing further to discuss.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:59 PM
1

I made my rationale quite clear the last time we debated this.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:22 AM
27

Just as a side comment (that is, I'm not criticizing your explanation): the doctors aren't obliged to perform the procedure, either. Elective surgeries are elective, and if you don't agree to the doctor's terms, he doesn't do your surgery. IMO it should be that the doctor elects to perform the type of surgery or not, as is the case much of the time with abortion. That is to say, in many cases the doctor can elect to perform or not perform abortions, but cannot elect to require consent from the f…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 05:40 PM
0

top down approaches to equality I.e the most advantaged downward It's not a top down approach. It's a broad approach that covers men's issues, just not those specific to any one group.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:13 PM
-1

we have our problems but others that our group aims to protect probably have it a lot worse, maybe we should discuss their issues and how to deal with them The point is that we can do that on subreddits designated for those discussions. This is a movement and subreddit dedicated to issues men as a gender face. When that intersects with other topics such as gay rights its all the better - but ultimately, it should not be about these other topics. Think of it as a menu where you can order a la car…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:11 PM
2

Men are naturally stronger than women. Therefore they actually do more damage. No they don't. They do how ever much damage they do in that situation. Which might be more overall, but that's a pretty big generalization. If they want to make it about the amount of damage (rather than intent), they can base it on the amount of damage, not the gender of the perpetrator. Because even if a man doesn't do much damage because he's trying not to, the law would still apply.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:32 PM
1

I agree with that, and wasn't trying to say the parents should remain together. I would simply suspect that the children learn from seeing (which is another reason why the parents at each other's throats is a bad thing) so seeing two adults in a stable relationship probably helps quite a bit.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:18 PM
1

It would just be nice to get a response, you know. Whoever is doing it must be pretty dedicated to read and see each post.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 04:35 PM
-1

I like how every comment calling this out seems to be getting downvoted with no response (not saying that it's the commenter, but still).
/r/MensRights19/12/12 04:29 PM
7

I would say it's due to the lack of a stable relationship in the home.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:44 PM
9

definitely not "Mommy #2" Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:37 PM
-2

There isn't a cure-all solution that will apply to all men differently because society treats men differently based on what kind of men they are. If you want to help all men you have to focus on specific types of men, because they will have specific issues, for example black men have much more of an issue with regards to the justice system than white men do. See my comment below.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:31 PM
1

Your top down approach towards equality is odd. There are (or should be) rights movements for each of these elements working towards achieving equal rights with regards to issues that specifically effect those groups. The MRM is a great place for trying to address more specific issues such as those gay men face, but that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the bigger picture. Look at feminism: regardless of what you think of the movement, I think one thing they get right is covering the issues …
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:31 PM
1

The MRM thinks that ordinary heterosexual males are subhuman, given that they support feminist punishments for men who are caught looking at pictures of 17 year old girls in bikinis (the average girl having completed puberty by 16), or support feminists raising of the age of consent across the world to 18. Source? Would be very interested to see that. At any rate, I would imagine that if the MRM did support this, it would be for men and women and regardless of sexual orientation, so it wouldn't …
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:15 PM
1

Many feminists defend the SCUM Manifesto as being satire (though that certainly isn't conclusive and there is plenty to suggest that the author was serious), and that seems far worse than satire about rape. The only reason this may be picked up in a way that affirms the beliefs of our detractors is that they hear what they want to hear. When a gender feminist writes something so anti-man that is supposedly satire, feminists defend it as satire and people seem to accept that. When an MRA says som…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 11:03 PM
1

To say that "MRAs have made it impossible for decent men to be trusted in a court of law when it comes to spousal abuse/child custody/getting help they need/etc" would imply that men were winning such cases in the first place for MRAs to be the cause of no longer winning said cases. Basically, it's to say that their putting the causation on MRAs doesn't make sense given the order of events: problem exists -> MRAs organize to fix problem -> MRAs cause problem (how?)
/r/MensRights16/12/12 08:11 PM
29

Or are men the only ones applying to these dangerous jobs? I don't have any statistics on this offhand, but I'm fairly certain this is the case. Are feminists upset that society isnt pushing women towards, and allowing women to, take dangerous jobs? This seems to not be the case; on the contrary, feminists seem to consider these to be male jobs: Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" …
/r/MensRights16/12/12 04:05 PM
1

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you against is that somehow, men weren't opposed to women's rights if they finally let suffrage pass. Not what I said. In case it was misinterpretation: I was referring to men as a group, not individual men who may or may not be opposed to women's rights (hence my reference to "men as a group.")
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:00 AM
1

Actually, I was responding to the part of your post where you actually mentioned the 19th Amendment Yes, and ignoring the context of the rest. I didn't say that congress was solely responsible. I simply said that if men were purely self-interested as a group it wouldn't have happened.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:17 AM
1

I'm inclined to believe you skimmed my post or at least put little effort into reading it. Congress didn't suddenly up and decide, hey, let's do the girls a favor. Where I said: To say that men have elevated women to a status that is in some ways superior is not to say that feminism is a product of male advocacy. I would take it to say that the small subset of men who held a certain kind of power did so in reaction to feminist advocacy. Your reply seems to be a non-reply focusing in on one point…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:54 PM
0

stop altogether Or turn it into something more manageable about her experiences being berated for it.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:42 PM
1

$142,000 With that kind of money I would think she could both pay off her investment so far and hire someone to make the videos for her (perhaps not of the same quality, but still) if she didn't want to/is unable for some reason.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:27 PM
2

I won't lie though. If I could make money and play video games by pretending to be a victim, I'd to it too. I think this applies to a lot of MR issues really. Not to excuse what some people do, but when the economics support something (that is to say the benefits outweigh the potential loss), be it false rape allegations or walking away with a disproportionate amount in a divorce, the only reason not to do so is moral. And with the way society seems to be pushing for male disposability, the cons…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:21 PM
0

You are saying that men cared about women so much that they willingly granted them superiority? That feminism itself is a product of male advocacy on behalf of women? [...] It seems strange to think that feminism was a battle by and large fought by men. To say that men have elevated women to a status that is in some ways superior is not to say that feminism is a product of male advocacy. I would take it to say that the small subset of men who held a certain kind of power did so in reaction to fe…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:09 PM
0

do you have any evidence of these wild claims? Quite convenient that you've deleted most of those posts, isn't it? At any rate, see my post above. Edit: why do I get the feeling you don't like that?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:17 AM
1

Because they seem to have acquired a habit of deleting the troll posts recently, leaving only the reasonable ones. For example, this now deleted and clearly trolling post archived by our helpful bot: I'm at the beach a lot these days. The other day I was relaxing and getting a tan. Then suddenly some teen girl came to annoy me innapropriately. I immediately looked around and proceeded to march straight to the mother. I told her to keep her little slut the fuck away and teach her some damn manner…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:16 AM
3

walk off a bridge, play in traffic, et al The only example I've seen of this was the walk of a short pier example. With that said, both of these are idioms that are clearly (as in dictionary definition clearly) equivalent to "GTFO" or something similar rather than wishes of violence and pain. Anyone that was offended is either incapable of reading or of comprehending what they are reading. Either they're morons or they're infiltrators trying to induce a paradigm shift. This right here. The fact …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:41 PM
11

Wow. No one steps in. Reverse the sexes and there would be a bum rush of dudes, with females possibly joining in (certainly yelling for his head in the background at the least). It is pretty amazing, but I think it's worth noting that the problem goes beyond "unwilling to help him because he's a man." Even if another man were to want to help him, he would of course be taking the risk of retribution legally and/or from the other passengers for stepping in. From some stories I've heard I wouldn't …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:19 PM
8

and only those who insult him and wish violence or pain on him are upvoted, while people who have a legitimate history in /mr as advocates are downvoted. Do you have any proof of this? Are this many subscribers really so thin-skinned and dense to not comprehend JTO's message whatsoever? Of course not, and those of you who took obvious offense are not contributors, nor sympathizers, nor allies. You are tools, you are trolls and your presence is not welcome. This kind of attitude is exactly why th…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:52 PM
3

Yeah, the goal of a shadowban is to prevent their links and content from being seen, but for THEM to think that they still ARE seen. This way the "problem" doesn't know they have been dealt with and can't complain. I understand shadowbanning someone who just spams a link and not sending them notice. But it seems like there have been some cases where the poster does contribute significantly besides just the same links. That's where it doesn't make sense to me that they don't receive notice and se…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:48 PM
11

I think even them sending a message to the user when they're shadowbanned would be a step forward. You get that when you're banned from a subreddit. Why does it make sense to allow people to go on posting if they don't realize they've been banned?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 02:13 PM
1

The article quotes her as saying "subgroup of gay men" specifically. The problem with this is that such behavior is typically taken to be outside the realm of sexual orientation, particularly because these men might prefer adult women, not adult men.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 06:55 AM
2

While this question seems, shall I say, out of place in this context, I can't help but think that this is like asking "did you hop on one foot while standing on Mars this morning?" given the court system.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 06:50 AM
1

or that I want us to be more radical I don't think anyone got that impression, as far as I can tell. how are people construing the graph to say that either of the Egalitarian -ism's are bad See Sigil1's post above: No, the statements on the right only apply to a tiny minority. Most mra's do not subscribe to an ism, and many would disagree with egalitarianism in its modern, feminist interpretation which involves eradication of differences and differences in outcome. It's not so much that your gra…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 04:05 AM
1

Sorry someone downvoted you. I hate the voting system. It allows people to attack posts without words... without reason. I agree. Moreover, I think it's worth pointing out that in what way it undermines the consensual nature of that relationship I didn't say that I think it does undermine the consensual nature of that relationship, just that it "may be held" to do so, which can result in the two scenarios being distinguished and held to different standards. I bring this up to point out that peop…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:04 PM
0

And that should change. But so many so-called Men's Rights activists are too spineless to be consistent with this issue because they know it would come with a lot of pedo-hysterical crap. So instead of championing Men's Rights they instead attempt to undermine Women's Rights by arguing that the woman should be punished for having a consensual relationship with another human being. I think we need to distinguish between two things here: 1) "punished for having a consensual relationship with anoth…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:49 PM
3

Also, feminists pretty much unanimously support misandric policies, rape culture theory and ideology that mra's pretty much unanimously oppose. Yes, but it does not follow that we should have to not be egalitarian in the rational, non-feminist sense of the word or that falling into the "egalitarian masculism" camp is a bad thing. Just because feminists tend to fall more into the radical camp and less into what OP would describe as "egalitarian feminism" in the vast majority of cases does not mea…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:31 PM
2

I'm not suggesting that a masters in gender studies is necessary to form an opinion about gender studies programs, however I will say that one should take at least one class before one thinks they know the first thing about said programs. That was my point. Then that's fair enough. And yet you replied none the less. Because it gives the other person the opportunity to show that isn't what they meant, alter their statement to something more reasonable, or demonstrate that they do not wish to enga…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:25 PM
2

The "maybe even get your masters" thing was more about the value of education than anything else. Then I would hope you would be more clear that you're not suggesting that a masters in gender studies is necessary to form an opinion on it, because that seemed to be what you were suggesting. That is precisely what I was calling absurd. It is a bit funny that you responded to so little. I'm not inclined to reply to other points when my argument appears to be misrepresented. When the rules are arbit…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:03 PM
3

You think most MRAs associate with the statements at the right? Or are not egalitarian?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:57 PM
5

Second; Check the relationship between every one of these girls and their daddies. Find the three most common denominators. You'll have feminism in a nutshell. Sounds like the old "MRAs have mummy issues" ad hominem. Personally, I'm not a fan of either.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:53 PM
5

I agree. They have every right to restrict discussion on their subreddit (hopefully being clear about their intentions). But even the name of AskFeminists reeks of the attitude they have about it. It suggests not a place where you can have real discussion that challenges feminist discourse, but a place where you can ask feminists and they can tell you how it is. That's not discussion, that's being fed the party line.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:43 PM
9

Sad but 100% true. They said the same thing about the incident with JTO and the posters being torn down. I guess since they didn't yell "we're feminists!" they are just "random people who recognized bigotry" or something like that. These tactics are getting old.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:28 PM
2

Having an opinion on gender studies programs does, in fact, require some experience with them. That's not absurd at all. Yes, but that's not what I was saying is absurd and is a misrepresentation of my argument. From the quote, I was referring to this: I'll tell you what, go ahead and take some gender studies classes for a few years, maybe even get your masters in it
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:11 PM
1

I'll tell you what, go ahead and take some gender studies classes for a few years, maybe even get your masters in it, then we can sit down and talk about what does and doesn't constitute a legitimate critique of those programs. Other criticisms aside, this is absolutely absurd. Very few people have the money to go out and do what you suggest simply to be able to meet what are apparently your criteria for having an opinion on the issue, and those who do are unlikely to be willing to spend that mu…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:59 AM
2

Guys, a huge percentage (42%) of women are mentally ill. It is their biology. I would be interested in seeing a source for this. This page from the NIMH suggests that "Women are no more or less likely than men to experience any disorder over their lifetime." But if there's any information looking at a shorter time period that might differ.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 03:18 PM
1

Manzboobz may be a troll, but they may have a point here (even if they're trying to be sarcastic): this comment thread has been directly linked by AMR. And there have been past SRS brigades where bigoted comments have been upvoted. All in all, I really wouldn't be surprised.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:01 PM
3

At least I have opinions You did not qualify your statement as opinion. You did not say that "it is my opinion that women are incapable of integrity." You said that "Women are incapable of integrity. It is outside of their cognizance." Women are. It is. You said this as if it is a fact, not an opinion. based on experience. Anecdotal experience is not commonly accepted as proof. actually causes someone to start malfunctioning Start malfunctioning in what way? Me? Misogynist, Sexist, Offensive as …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:56 PM
6

A total inability to understand other people's viewpoints Seemed quite clear to me. The statement that "Women are incapable of integrity. It is outside of their cognizance." is an absolute generalization (Women are) of all women with nothing to back it up. followed by name calling What name calling? You mean like this? I would suggest you take some medication & change your dispers.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:46 PM
4

Here's the link. Edit: I would also point to the fact that OneY is not listed in the sidebar despite how relevant such a subreddit would seem.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:49 AM
3

Is there any advantage to using /r/onexchromosome instead? OneY's moderation has a history of supporting feminism and censoring comments too closely related to the MRM. A moderator admitted in response to a comment I posted here that OneY is a feminist subreddit (if you want to see the comment, I can probably find it).
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:22 AM
1

IANAL, but it seems to me that, taken as a whole, her post could amount as libel. At any rate, I would avoid trying to hold a rational discussion with anyone who says The checklist centers women and our priorities over rapist men and their desires for violence against us. WE are the priority. YOU are the problem.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:33 PM
1

I agree with baskandpurr's take on it. I think what DavidByron is trying to say is that women are more qualified to speak on men's issues not because of men being the less appropriate group to work towards solving men's problems, but instead due to outside factors. IMO, this is an entirely realistic consideration when looking at who is most qualified to work toward men's rights. The implications might be unfortunate, but I don't think that's any reason to deny the reality of the current situatio…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:32 PM
29

Just to rebut a couple: Men’s Rights Groups are all organized by white, educated males. And feminist groups at their inception are all likely to have been organized by white, educated females: first wave of feminism was generally propelled by middle class white women Also, Men’s Rights groups refuse to acknowledge women’s struggles and refuse to listen to their voices. And feminist groups refuse to acknowledge men's struggles and refuse to listen to their voices in many cases unless they fit cer…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:02 PM
1

The claim that we ignore raped women is obvious slander. When such women approach or are seen we are compassionate and kind. I think the implication is that, in saying that we think that measures should be taken to ensure that accused rapists are protected from social stigma even after they've been acquitted/not charged, the standard of proof should not be lower for rape cases, etc. that we are somehow ignoring these women. It's typical framing the issue in a way that's convenient for them.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 03:58 AM
3

Fortunate or unfortunate as it may be, you can't really sue for such misrepresentations of a group. As others here have pointed out, the key is to try to stand between the liars (event organizers and some attendees) and the ignorant (most of the rest of the attendees), lest those who are ignorant become even more strongly ignorant.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:24 AM
2

Why "men's rights" groups are wrong Am I the only one who sees this title and the first thing that comes to mind is how feminists and their supporters went so far to stop the "Has feminism gone too far?" debate, while they have the luxury of being able to hold events like this so easily?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:11 AM
1

My problem is all the deluded assholes in this thread yelling "SEX WHILE DRUNK IS RAPE!!" when all they are doing is perpetuating that feminist mythos and propaganda. As others have pointed out already, this was not my intent. I refer only to problems with the way it is legally defined, and do not support defining the actual term in such a broad way.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:21 PM
8

I will not comment on your sources because I think you are aware on how worthless they are I never said they were true to the legality of rape while drunk. I thought that was pretty clear: "At any rate, I think it's unreasonable to maintain that society isn't sending conflicting messages about sex while drunk." doesn't that back me up? I have seen defenses use the old "I didn't murder that guy line" because they are not guilty in that case, so it shouldn't be construed that not murdering a perso…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 04:53 PM
23

asserted and actually prosecuted on Of course it's going to be difficult to find a case where it's asserted and actually prosecuted on. There have been cases where at least the defense has claimed that that was the case, such as in R vs. Evans and McDonald. And if you try looking up any resources about consent while drunk, chances are they're going to indicate that there is no one standard: The bad news is, there isn’t one test to tell when someone is too intoxicated to consent to sex. ... Botto…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 04:38 PM
37

That would be true if "appraise the situation" were strictly defined in the way you seem to be taking it to be. Unfortunately in some cases, not being able to "appraise the situation" seems to include not being of entirely sound judgement due to the alcohol even if the person is entirely aware of what is happening.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 04:13 PM
3

I posted about that here a while ago and the feminist response seemed to be "but she's a woman, so it's a feminist issue/not prejudice against men." That doesn't change true fact, however, that she was beaten because she was perceived to be a man violating a female space, whereas I doubt there would be such a backlash against te opposite. In fact, I believe there was a counter example posted here recently about women using the men's restroom at an amusement park.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:52 PM
1

Very true. I made this chart a while back for easy posting/an easy to understand format.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:13 PM
5

Quick question: what subreddits are targeted for the bot?
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:58 PM
6

Knowing some of the things I've seen from feminists on Reddit, they might think it's a good learning experience for the men (though I would hope they would stop short of that).
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:32 PM
7

That's like saying we don't need psychology because we have the journals of schizophrenics. My first thought was "we don't need women's studies to study femininity, we have Cosmo," because looking at men's rights through the lens of feminism is about as valid.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 04:25 PM
1

Also we should disallow grouping altogether, really, so things can be voted through in parts. Agreed, and not just in such proposals. It's nothing short of ludicrous that completely unrelated things can be attached as riders to bills; it's a system that begs to be abused.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 02:32 PM
5

There are other problems we may encounter some egalitarian feminists as well: They may demand that women's issues be addressed first, so that while their ideas may be egalitarian their actions are not. If the egalitarian feminist is misinformed and persists in believing false or misinterpreted information, they may again act in a way they believe to be egalitarian even though it is not. Edit to add: they may also value subjective experiences above reason and favor unequal treatment because of th…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:12 PM
2

Even if she had only spit on him, that would probably be assault.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:20 AM
5

He didn't do anything wrong. I agree. But you can't fight at work and expect to keep your job (Not that I'm saying I agree 100% that it was self-defense, but) if you agree that it was self defense, which it sounds like you do in saying that he didn't do anything wrong, it seems unreasonable to say "you can't fight at work and expect to keep your job" when it would then not be fighting but be acting in self defense.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:28 PM
2

Well the accuser was a 7 year old girl, so it's not quite the same thing as the false rape allegations that we talk about. I think there are elements close to MR issues here, though. Although we primarily talk about false accusations by women, there is always issues such as parents and others potentially pressuring their children into making such accusations (not necessarily deliberately). In this case, for example, I highly doubt that the girl thought she was raped without someone putting the s…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:19 PM
1

There is absolutely no reason why custody should not be 50/50. Provided the parties can negotiate a different arrangement should they both wish, I don't think that's such a bad idea. A lot of feminists point out that men don't fight for custody, but I tend to think that's more due to the costs associated with fighting it combined with the unfavorable chances.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:12 PM
3

You would think people like this would realize that, given that they and other people like them do this, eventually they may discourage people (mostly men) to the extent where it's no longer worth the risk, and the kid could end up in an even worse situation.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:07 PM
19

Another good point that has been made in the comments is that they may have waited until today so the election would overshadow them firing him, which pisses me off even more.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:58 PM
43

Also note that it says that he is now charged with assault, while she is charged only with disorderly conduct despite witness reports that she spit on him.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:54 PM
1

then the policies that are enacted are not gendered, so we are perpetuating a unequal, un-feminist society Well at least she's honest enough to come right out and say that her idea of an equal, feminist society is to have (unequal) gendered policies.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:59 PM
1

First: The Violence Against Women Act was drafted by Joe Biden. I don't pretend to know what's going on under his suit, but I'm pretty sure he's a dude. I didn't say anything about who drafted it. I'm referring to the widespread support and input it had from feminist groups such as NOW.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:22 AM
1

Are you seriously parsing every phrase I've written? I wasn't aware that parsing "So you're a crybaby?" is parsing every phrase you've written.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:04 PM
1

It's a huge conspiracy to persecute you! I never said anything about a conspiracy. Perhaps crying some more will help. Nobody seems to be crying here.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:56 PM
1

Nice try, but that's not what I said. Hm... I care! ... So you're a crybaby? are you seriously arguing that you didn't mean to imply that they are a crybaby after you responded to their post saying they care with that question?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:48 PM
1

Then they'll look the fool when it goes to HR. I'm sure HR, which is typically dominated by women and feminists attitudes, will see it that way. Get a thicker skin, baby boy. Thanks for the laugh.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:42 PM
1

She'd this persecution complex or you might start getting confused as being women. Oh good, someone here to tell us what we have to do to be men by the one and correct definition.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:32 PM
1

Regardless, things change a lot when you enter a workplace where you are expected to behave in a professional manner and not say things that can inflame tensions.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:26 PM
0

On the other hand, propagandizing rape and domestic abuse is having the same effect as the DARE program. And feminists have never done this very publicly, as has been the case with VAWA. Wait, let me guess, either a) they aren't feminists by your definition; or b) gendered laws protecting women and not men are necessary.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:51 PM
2

Is it wrong that I think one needs a camera on them just to tell the police officer to fuck off? But then you'll be arrested for filming a police officer, as we've seen recently.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:45 PM
3

It's amusing to go over applying such a standard to other areas (note that I'm not comparing prostitution itself to these things): It's not illegal to share copyrighted content on the internet, just to download it. It's not illegal to perform medical procedures without a license, it's only illegal to purchase the procedures. It's not illegal to sell organs on the black market, it's just illegal to buy them. It would be interesting to visit the planet on which this makes sense.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:35 PM
5

Not only are many many gay men absolutely uninterested in touching a woman's body at any time (I'm one of them), but the authors assertion of -every gay man in the presentation- is laughable. In traditional feminist fashion, you're still guilty. At least according to the first comment: But I don’t do this and my friends neither! ... … just goes to show that, regardless of orientation, male privilege is still very well engrained. How about instead of focusing on YOU and only YOU because WHAT ABOU…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 07:04 PM
13

seems to me, that any man (regardless of sexual orientation) is a target to feminists. From one of the comments: oh no, won’t someone think of the feelings of the cis gay men. Sounds familiar, dunnit?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:58 PM
1

I think it's pretty obvious that the erstwhile father here gets to "at the very fucking least voice his opinion," considering the women is actually so open-minded as to seek advice from /r/Mensrights of all fucking places. It seems pretty clear that the discussion being held here is about the topic in general and not one particular case.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:05 PM
0

Such an incentive could be had by charging women for the abortion should they have the means to pay for it rather than taking such drastic action.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 02:49 PM
3

I'm sorry, but ejaculating once does not make you anywhere NEAR a 50/50 partner in the pregnancy compared to the person that is actually experiencing the pregnancy. But OThomson seems to be considering not only the experience of pregnancy but the result as well, where the man's input can be a lot more than "ejaculating once," and could in fact be a 100/0 split with him taking care of the child. Don't get me wrong, I can agree that a man should look for someone more interested in having a child. …
/r/MensRights05/11/12 02:43 PM
1

The problem IMO isn't that this article doesn't mention men's rights; the problem is that, as a whole, very few (possibly no) articles cover men's rights issues. It's like the example of a man as a domestic abuser used in a textbook which in and of itself is okay, but the problem is when all the textbooks use men in their examples all the time. I suppose the question is, how do we reconcile the fact that the individual case is not really sexist with the fact that the general trend is?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 02:29 PM
1

There seem to be plenty of studies that suggest that OP's perception is correct, though I haven't had time to look through any of them. No offense, but this feels like yet another excuse to create an arbitrary dividing line between genders. A perception or statement of fact in and of itself is not an excuse; it only becomes an excuse when we allow it to be.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:54 PM
3

and he "always gets the girl". Exactly. I maintain that the homosexuality is a completely separate issue from the masculinity issue here, but I still think it is at conflict with the character and doesn't really add anything.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:43 PM
15

I've seen this a lot from feminists. Women-only services have received most of the funding, but they're okay with services for men but only so long as none of the money is taken away from services for women. It's a convenient excuse to oppose equality now based on past inequality IMO.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:39 PM
0

I can't seem to be able to find the episode, but I seem to remember one recent episode (I'm pretty sure of SVU) with a woman as the perpetrator as a ringleader in organized crime and prostitution or something like that. The episode actually played with the "women aren't perpetrators" idea as they thought she was one of the victims leaving the building at first.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 02:04 PM
1

OP kind of suggests that he does not want this kind of "test" to be given to the kids. Which is in the zone of artificially making the genders appear more similar than they actually are. Assuming the gender differences are already there and innate, how could not giving the test make the genders appear more similar (as the differences should already be clear; they are innate)?
/r/MensRights04/11/12 01:50 PM
0

What I'm saying is that getting support is the right of the child and no women nor man should be able to take that right away from the child if its goes against the interest of the child. The "best interest of the child" argument has been brought up before and discussed at length. I'm sure you could easily find the counterarguments here if you search for them.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:51 PM
0

What proposed was that men who can, but dont want to pay, can opt out because women have the same decision available(abortion). I think that the argument would be that in that case, the woman has taken the unilateral decision to continue the pregnancy, and in doing so has accepted future responsibility.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:05 PM
1

his were Perks of Being a Wallflower... ... "That sounds like white person stuff." Because The Perks of Being a Wallflower has so many non-white characters... /s
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:56 PM
1

As Aaod has already (kind of) touched on, just because more women appear to be crazy (and crazier) doesn't mean that women are crazy. It seems likely that this is a natural result of people tolerating and even encouraging such behavior.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 02:54 PM
1

Unfortunately this decision will most likely not involve actually looking at the subreddit and will instead consist the school leaving it blocked and saying "we looked into this matter" and nothing else. Or Googling "MensRights hate speech" specifically and of course finding the sites making the claims rather than any contrary evidence.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 03:44 AM
5

I almost feel bad for how much I laughed at this. I doubt this would convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:55 AM
6

I wouldn't imagine this would be the problem, but did you try going to any other pages on the subreddit? I notice that there is a "3d" in the visible part of the URL in the image, so I'm wondering if it could have been part of the random string that violates the policy (maybe it says "3ds" and that's blocked, or there is another blocked term in there).
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:30 AM
3

He probably saved this womans life. Next time she thinks about slapping another person Especially when that person is driving the bus she's on and she could cause an accident that could be bad for not only her but a lot of other people as well.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 01:24 AM
1

And I would bet that now people will be thinking about how he's a failure to society, etc. for doing this and that it was entirely his fault and outside causes are entirely not to blame.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 10:06 PM
2

As I pointed out in another comment recently, WikiProject feminism rates the Men's Rights page high importance, the same importance level as such topics as Women's Studies, while the Gender Studies WikiProject doesn't even rate the page. If that isn't a clear sign that they are taking underhanded actions to control the page, I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:42 PM
33

While I don't think reprimanding her would have been of much use, I would agree that there was no reason to offer her the spot. So what if a lot of people are looking? If they're reasonable people, they'll realize she was being rude; if not, they probably aren't worth the time anyways.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:58 PM
15

alternatively, "That's ok, I'm not a gentleman". Or "Why should I act like a gentleman if I'm not treated as such?" Edit: "I'm not a gentleman, and you're no lady" might be what I would think in my head, though.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:53 PM
9

IIRC they used this tactic to say the MRM is okay with spousal rape, citing a third-party source. Somehow I would imagine that such a thing wouldn't fly on a feminism page because "feminism is a diverse movement" while the MRM somehow isn't.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 12:32 PM
1

For some reason this sub seems to think it is "above it all" and will not stoop to "their" level. From what I have seen though, their level has been far more effective than mens attempt to stay above the fray. There are other reasons to oppose this, as I'll explain in the last part of my post. Billions of dollars spent on programs, welfare, education and housing to exorcise the demon of being thought of as a racist. It has been my belief that no matter how much whites have given blacks that the …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 12:32 AM
6

We don't have anything to do with that sub as far as I know. It doesn't seem to be about cross-posting, or anything like that. But from the fact that they say "we love pissing off MRA scum," it would seem that they have some beef with MRAs. It's just them saying "if you participate in men's rights with an account, you can't participate here." Is this really a concern for anyone? For anyone who wants to participate in both subreddits it is.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:32 PM
5

Many comments that are anti-feminist are down voted and ridiculed by many here and then they are scolded for being misogynistic on a Mensrights sub for god sake. I haven't found this to be the case; the downvoted comments typically cross a certain line from being anti-feminist to being anti-woman or contain no content other than "feminists are bad"-type stuff. Yes, we know feminists do shitty things, but that doesn't contribute to the discussion unless you add something. While this sub preaches …
/r/MensRights30/10/12 02:56 PM
2

It's pretty blatant, actually. The page is rated high-importance by WikiProject Feminism, while it's not even rated by WikiProject Gender Studies, which I think speaks volumes about their intent. After all, why should feminists be as interested in the MRM as they are in Women's Studies (the pages have the same rating) unless they have ill intent? The talk page is also filled with such gems as users justifying posting that "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape,…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:17 PM
0

While this specific instance is definitely not worth being posted here (I mean, this just reeks of pop "feminism"), that doesn't mean that there aren't quite a few legitimate issues with feminism running contrary to men's rights that are discussed here.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:18 PM
2

I'm not the biggest fan of the Facebook posts either, but you can also scroll past them or browse the new posts, which can be more interesting anyways.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:09 PM
11

Especially since a version of this Most of them have got kids they never see and don’t pay child support for seems to be what she is advocating.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 05:22 PM
11

lets cry all together like the true whiners we are Oh good, shaming tactics. We've never seen those before. /s P.S. all women are bad, like, really bad. There, I said it, now you don't need to downvote me. You clearly have a very skewed concept of what it means to be an MRA.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 12:32 PM
5

As hopeful as I've been that gay marriage will solve MR issues by forcing them to reconsider the way different legal systems work (such as with no [single] woman to give custody to, etc.), I couldn't help but suspect that they would just apply the same practices in whatever convoluted way they can.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:24 PM
3

If it merely serves as a primer for a good discussion to happen, then I don't see the problem. I posted a out this in response to another comment here, but anyways: there are reasons that it can be a problem. Even though the problem itself (false rape accusations) is legitimate, discussing a particular example that turns out to be false can still be used by our opponents in a "they have to come up with examples just so they can discuss them" sense. I think just bringing up a particular topic wou…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:51 PM
3

Especially when our opponents can twist it into a convenient talking point. Things like "They talk about false false rape accusations..." Even though we're talking about a legitimate issue, the fact that a particular instance is false can still matter (even if it shouldn't).
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:46 PM
1

[...] because it's not under constant attack from every angle every minute of the day. You're just not allowed to question gay guys' sexual identity the way you can ridicule, abuse, attack and demean straight guys'. I don't think that follows. The fact that gay men don't have their sexual identity questioned and attacked in the same way as straight men doesn't necessarily mean that you're not allowed to attack their sexual identity; it seems more likely that it means that there is no reason to a…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 01:54 PM
4

Note: I would consider these links NSFW due to the level of hatred expressed in these pages. Here are a couple links that were posted in recent comments relevant to this issue. Keep in mind that there is some intense bigotry going on here; the second link is a radfem anti-transgender hate site. http://kallmannssyndrome.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/1868/ http://privilegedenyingtranny.wordpress.com/ Edit: with regards to being against gay men, I don't think they care as much, though in the past being …
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:42 AM
3

Not going to comment on the comment itself, but this has nothing to do with men's rights ... this is related to men's rights I lol'd
/r/MensRights27/10/12 06:07 PM
1

I don't think you have to be associated with any particular political ideology to understand that things like this are meant for shock value more than anything else.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:56 PM
1

That's a very good point. It could have even been "would you want to have sex when you're both legally intoxicated?" or something similar for the second statistic for all we know; I don't think it would be all that unreasonable for the guy to say he would want to have sex in that situation. The only thing that seems unclear to me is how they would do the third statistic in such a way, but I'm sure try could find a way. Maybe something like "do you find appealing the thought of..." which would re…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:27 PM
0

Maybe, but this isn't exactly a clear issue even if he did say it the latter way. Unlike cases where there are specific lines of thought (such as burglary), such speech can arise out of desire to be threatening or through any number of other reasons that do not reflect malicious intent. It seems unreasonable to judge a person based on actions that they are not consciously aware of and/or able to control, if that should be the case. Body language and tone are a bit more complicated an issue than …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 05:29 AM
1

Although he may not have been arrested because of the "do I know you" incident, he most certainly was arrested for it in addition to the bear huggin incident, considering the fact that he was arrested on two counts of assault, not one. There seemed to be plenty of comments in the previous post that acknowledged this and only took issue to the classification of the second issue as assault.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 05:17 AM
1

What happens if I help Mark with his homework, and my help is of low quality, and he fails? Should I not be held to some onerous standard because I represent mathematicians? You helped him for free, not in a professional context, with no professional liability. If I tell someone that they should take X drug, and they decide that's good advice and decide to go and willingly buy and take drug X, why shouldn't I be able to do that? Depending on context, you should be able to. But there are obviousl…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:52 PM
1

The point being that there is no analogy between a penis and a breast. Once again, I have made no analogy between a penis and a breast. I've only said that the only way for a man to make a similar statement with his body is to jump straight to his penis, because there is nothing lesser he could do to make a similar statement with his body. Yes, pulling out his penis is far more provocative than displaying breasts, but I am not talking about degree. There is shock value, but even that is a stretc…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:27 PM
2

So when people do things for a business or medical practice they cease to be individuals? In the sense that they represent the business or medical practice, yes. You don't go to Bob, you go to Dr. Bob, M.D., in the same way you don't go to Jimmy, you go to Sears where Sales Associate Jimmy helps you. Both are acting in a professional capacity, and therefore may be subject to different standards than Bob and Jimmy. In Bob's case it's even stricter; for example, there is plenty he cannot do as Bob…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:20 PM
2

This is a statement of fact, it isn't an argument for the fact. It is a statement of fact and an argument for the fact. You talked specifically about two cases of people doing things as individuals. I said it was not analogous because you were talking about people doing things as individuals, not as part of a business or medical practice. If I help Mark with his math homework for nothing, why am I not required to help Bob under the same terms, as you propose for the urologist? As I said in my pr…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:57 PM
1

And I disagree. That's fine, but you could have made that clear instead of just posting that breasts aren't genitals like it isn't some obvious fact. Saying that a sexual organ and a breast are in any way similar is wrong. And I didn't say they are similar, I said that the only way to make a statement similar to displaying breasts for a man is to display his penis. I never said that breasts are a sexual organ or that breasts are similar to a sexual organ.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:53 PM
2

Individuals are not subjected to the same standards as businesses or medical practices. Of course you aren't liable to help Bob with his math homework because you helped Mark. But if you are a professional tutor, there are reasons for which you cannot choose not to take on Bob as a client provided you are taking on clients. Just because the next tutor will take Bob on as a client does not mean that you can refuse to take on Bob in violation of his rights. When it comes to medicine, things get ev…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:48 PM
2

A) Point out where I said you said they were please? You responded to my post. It seems reasonable that when you respond to a person's post with "breasts are not genitals" that you think I am in some way implying that they are. You did say "While you might say that that's completely different than showing one's genitals..." I was simply addressing that there is no room for "while you might's, etc" Breasts are not genitals. I've already addressed this: men don't really have an analogous option Me…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:37 PM
1

Point out where I said breasts are genitals. EDIT: seriously, I said pretty much the exact same thing as "Breasts are not genitals": While you might say that that's completely different than showing one's genitals which implies "breasts are not genitals."
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:16 PM
2

If I say that I won't cut your lawn unless you pay me $15, I'm not forcing you to pay me $15. You have many other options: Cut the lawn yourself, pay someone else who's willing to take less or different payment, let the lawn just continue growing, et cetera. That's all fine and good, but the problem isn't exchange of money for the service, it's the additional requirement and the privacy considerations which are completely different between a medical procedure and mowing a lawn. No he has not cho…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:15 PM
2

But it's going to come off as aggressive to a large number of people, and you can be sure some of them will be present in a crowd that large. In that case, it's more than a bit ironic that they're attacking him. After all, if they're trying to epitomize the cultural bias that they're trying to fight (which seems to be the entire purpose of the slut walks) that certain clothes or lack thereof = sexually inviting, they are giving a blatant "fuck you" to the larger culture and coming off as aggress…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:01 PM
1

doesn't say that you can't choose to rape other people, it says that you can't choose not to be raped by other people. Even if that was not your intent, the same principle applies: you can either choose not to have sex (to not do the procedure) or choose to have sex respecting the rights of others (by respecting the patient's right to bodily autonomy if they choose to perform vasectomies). What "rights of the patient"? The right to bodily autonomy. The patient clearly has no right to have a vase…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:43 PM
4

And coercing them into performing a procedure they do not wish to under the given conditions They're not coerced into performing the procedure, because they can choose not to perform the procedure at all. Having access to the skills and effort of others is a "right"? There are reasons for which businesses do not have the right to refuse service given that they provide the service in the first place (such as on the basis of race). This is an analogous situation. Just because you have one choice d…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:47 PM
1

if you are against feminism (equality of women) then yes, you are misogynist I don't think that's unreasonable, but again, that wasn't the discussion at hand.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:24 PM
5

Or they could just choose to perform the surgery for those men who prove they've consulted with their spouses. They cannot, because this violates the individual's right to autonomy in the case of a perfectly legal and routine procedure where the patient has every right to make their own choice when it comes to their body. You can get vasectomies elsewhere. The fact that doctors exist who would not violate the patient's rights in this way changes nothing about the violation of the patient's right…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:19 PM
2

The person above said they can point to the dictionary to say if you're against feminism, you're a misogynist. I am saying that if you are pointing to the dictionary, then that same dictionary says feminism is equality for women. When I used feminism in my post above, I was referring to feminism the movement. It is meant to be read as thus (with edits bolded): Not that some don't already do it (SRSers already have on a number of occasions), but this will open the door to calling disagreement wit…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:01 PM
1

I am just pointing out that if you go by the new definition of misogyny in the dictionary, you must also go by the dictionary definition of feminism. I don't think anyone here is advocating for that, and You can't twist it to meet your own personal argument. I don't think anyone here is doing that. I guess my point is, what does your line of questioning have to do with the arguments being made here?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:57 PM
6

A person exercising power or control in a(n)... unreasonable, or arbitrary way. Such as by using a position of power to encourage a more liberal definition of a word that favors their position and applies an emotionally-laden label to people to which the originally intended definition (to which those emotions are associated) doesn't really apply.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:51 PM
2

Only if you don't agree in equality for women. Remember, we are discussing the dictionary definition. I wasn't discussing the dictionary definition there, and made that quite clear. If you're looking for discussion related to the dictionary definition, see the part of my post that deals with the dictionary definition.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:32 PM
2

If you're going to use the dictionary definition of one word, you must use it for the other, no? This is a product of the feminist movement calling itself "feminism." It's not things we want to associate with feminism, it's the fact that the movement tends to equate itself with the dictionary definition that causes problems. If we called our movement simply "men's rights" you would run into the same problem. EDIT: If you're going to use the dictionary definition of one word, you must use it for …
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:30 PM
5

Sure they do. They have nipples. I thought it was clear, but evidently not: equivalent not in an "analogous structures" sense but in the sense of societal perception such that the act of exposing them makes a certain statement. They are not equivalent in this sense. The fact that he's able to display his, without anyone calling for karmic rape, suggests that maybe men have an advantage in this area. No doubt men do, but that isn't really the topic at hand.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:25 PM
0

If men had an equivalent to breasts perhaps he would have displayed that instead. Not that it makes what he did right, but it's not like there's something he could have done that would be directly comparable.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:13 PM
6

A group of women and men FTFY
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:09 PM
4

It would seem that he may have hugged someone (it sounds like accidentally) from information posted in the previous thread, but the second case sounds really crazy. I mean, it says they were in a stairwell when it happened, so even if he did get pretty close to her after she stopped, what choice did he have but to get close to her in order to go by her in a stairwell?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:02 PM
0

If you're against the dictionary definition, then I would say yes. If you're against feminism as the word is popularly used (including by feminists), then no, in the same way that being against the republican party doesn't mean one is necessarily against conservativism or being against the men's rights movement doesn't mean one is against men's rights. Movements are real-world expressions of the ideas they are created from, not the ideas themselves. One of my major problems with feminism the mov…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 03:39 PM
0

Let the market determine the number of doctors, doctor wages and doctor workloads. I agree with you, but there are reasons why this may not just work out based on the market. There is likely less appeal for students to become doctors when they know that many of those part time doctors will become full time around the same time in the future, saturating the market. But in the meanwhile, you may have a shortage that won't be filled. Over time it's more likely to even out as the number of part time…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 02:34 PM
11

Changing it from hatred to "entrenched prejudice" opens up a massive can of worms, as the latter can be far more liberally interpreted than the former. Not that some don't already do it (SRSers already have on a number of occasions), but this will open the door to calling disagreement with feminism misogyny (because feminism is held to mean equality for women by the dictionary definition despite the fact that feminism the idea and feminism the movement can vary widely). So now they can point to …
/r/MensRights26/10/12 02:16 PM
1

That doesn't seem to address what would seem to be the most like scenario, though: What if instead the doctor required that the man give consent to inform his wife and get consent from her as well? That seems to still infringe on the individual's autonomy, but it wouldn't be a breach of confidentiality because he would have to consent to it beforehand. Posters below seem to suggest that that's illegal in the US, but it would be interesting to know if it's the same across the pond.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 01:54 PM
8

They're the ones who actually have to perform the surgery. Their body, their choice. Nobody is saying they have to perform the surgery; they could choose not to perform the particular procedure at all. They're saying that if they choose to perform the surgery, they have no right to require the consent of another individual.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 01:42 PM
0

It did not appear to me that any of the women completely barred their genitals, but if that occurred and did not also end in arrest, I agree that is unjust. I didn't see anyone in the footage of this particular incident, but I know there have been women with unclothed breasts at past events, which you can find using a simple Google search. While you might say that that's completely different than showing one's genitals, men don't really have an analogous option. It could also be argued that the …
/r/MensRights26/10/12 01:23 PM
4

The fact that there was more than one "victim" hints to me that there is more to the story regarding his mannerisms or there is a high density illogical women who will go out of their way to file a police report for something so inane. It would be helpful to know more about the earlier incident. My first thought was that the police may have been quick to associate two different incidents even if there isn't much to support that it was the same individual. Not that there's no chance that it is, b…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 12:52 PM
5

I was called an ass for that, and that of course people knew it was just an anecdote and that I was being dumb because this wasn't academia. I think you did the right thing. There seems to be a tendency, even when people know its an anecdote, to treat that anecdote as more important than the greater picture just because it's easier to relate to an anecdote than it is a statistic or overall trend. And I think that we MRAs face this problem fairly often; feminists seem to overemphasize "lived expe…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:31 PM
1

To speak more generally about the purported facts of this video, it seems to go far beyond what could be considered "issues that women have" into the clear realm of overgeneralizing about men. I think that even if you believe that porn is discriminatory against women, if you're truly an MRA you'll have a problem with the gross overgeneralizations mentioned here. To address part of your comment specifically, These are exactly the types of issues that Men's Rights should be trying to get people to…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:37 AM
2

was able to quickly verify his story And if he hadn't had any outward signs of why he was scratching? Sorry, but she did not conclusively see him masturbating. It's crazy that he even had to show them the rash.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:35 PM
1

You might need to clear the cache in your browser or something. It's displaying the higher price for me.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:59 AM
2

Shoot the whole plan in the head unless it involves both women and men, because clearly these people can't be trusted to apply it to men later should the experiment be successful. That isn't to say that applying it to women isn't a beneficial thing. It's saying that sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand in order to combat such discrimination, because if you don't, these people will continue such practices.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:04 PM
6

I'm sure that, as with all feminist measures, they'll stop what they're doing an apply it to men after it's successful with the women. They most certainly won't apply it to women and then just wait for people to forget about applying it to men too. Oh wait...
/r/MensRights23/10/12 06:14 PM
33

I'm sure the police would be eager to catch the man that's forcing these poor women to commit those illegal acts, though (I'm assuming you're a man from the context of your comment).
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:55 PM
4

It seems like usually when this is pointed out they take refuge in the "but now the reality is that she's pregnant," completely abandoning that argument anyways. IMO that's still a poor excuse (along with "now that there is a child the man should take responsibility"), but it seems to be fairly effective due to the emotional nature of the topic.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:20 AM
1

the implication is that moms are incapable of watching their children. I highly doubt that this is the implication, rather than the implication being that children would be with their mothers and not their fathers. This has negative implications for both mothers and fathers.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:13 AM
1

In this case, the right way would have been for the father to drag his ass over to Australia (why the fuck is he not living or at least making extended trips to Australia So because the mother illegally kidnapped the children and brought them to Australia, he should have to spend the money, time, etc. that he may not have to spend visiting them in Australia? Instead, he had the cops drag them out literally kicking and screaming and if we believe that video, he is now isolating them from each oth…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 02:26 PM
1

I disagree. With the way things are currently, I wouldn't doubt that that would turn out better; however, there are plenty of problems that could come up with allowing the kid to choose where they want to live, such as emotional blackmail or incentives by one or both of the parents. If the courts were actually impartial and set up to discourage and prevent any dirty tactics in trying to obtain custody, I think they could be a lot fairer to both the parents and the kid than a system under which t…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 02:20 PM
2

It could simply be that the way the reports are classified causes this result. For example, in order for it to be called a false report, the accuser may have to actually be charged with making a false report; it seems likely that this would be less common in cases of rape due to the fact that this would be seen as discouraging legitimate rape claims. tl;dr: it could be due to the stigma of classifying rape claims as false in the first place.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 01:53 AM
2

The correct address is http://imgur.com/removalrequest (I would imagine something automatically converted the address thinking it was an imgur image)
/r/MensRights20/10/12 02:34 PM
1

Funny, also, how feminist definitions of words such as "sexism" are foisted upon us and you're treated like an idiot if you don't know or use their terminology in debate. So much for evolution of language.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:39 PM
1

Now that it's back, I wonder if that's still true.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:29 PM
3

A thousand times this. There are many obatacles to such a service for men, including: a) gender roles that feminism is supposedly fixing for men by fixing for women, which is a load of crap; b) the fact that it would likely be seen as sexist, and therefore the business and any potential customers would be derided and shamed
/r/MensRights14/10/12 12:12 AM
5

Feminists claim women are equal to men, and any special or preferential treatment [like chivalrous behaviour,] is misogynistic by its very nature, as it treats women as a lesser being. And yet these are never the issues they actually seem to do anything about. Imagine that...
/r/MensRights13/10/12 11:58 PM
4

It's entirely real (information on it can easily be found online as well). I'm not aware of any airline other than United that had an exclusively male service like that, and it's worth emphasizing that these were a small handful of flights to certain cities. At any rate, I think that many would see that service as sexist (while seeing such a taxi service as discussed here as completely justified).
/r/MensRights13/10/12 11:49 PM
5

Hm, what does this remind me of?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 10:37 PM
6

There's always plain old sexism, but then there's the problem of the "we've redefined that word and you must conform to our definition" people.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 01:15 PM
11

Society does. That's why exposing them is acceptable behavior. And if society deems being an MRA an unacceptable behavior?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 12:06 PM
8

Not necessarily. I'm fine with contacting neighbors, family members, and employers. Letting them know of the disturbingly perverse behavior they are taking part in under the guise of anonymity. One can only hope that you'll never be faced with someone contacting your neighbors, family members, and employers and letting them know about your extremely perverse behavior of being an MRA. I don't think many (if any) are arguing that it's a bad thing that that subreddit is no longer around. But it wou…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 12:03 PM
2

Except once the child is born it's not really about the woman anymore is it? It's about the child now. This would be valid if women were held to upholding the interests of the child as well, but as you've pointed out with the adoption issue, they aren't.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 01:04 PM
0

if in the very rare chance it breaks put another on And if it fails during sex and the man isn't even aware it's failing?
/r/MensRights10/10/12 01:01 PM
3

I thought the "men are expendable but that's okay"-type stuff was even worse. In response to your comment, though: A lot of men dying childless, without a family of their own, is a horrible thing, an atrocity against men as a whole, yet this article says nothing to condemn it. Indeed, it praises it and suggests men should compete against each other. I think this could be a real point of contention and debate, even among MRAs. The feminist slant I've seen around here is something like "HOW DARE W…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 12:54 PM
1

That's not certain to be the case, but I think it's likely. If enough women dropped coverage (in areas where that's allowed) they could lose money, but I doubt that. But even if that isn't the case, men may pay a bit less because there may still be incentive for the insurance companies to lower the price to not lose as many female drivers.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 12:10 PM
3

Not true that I've ever seen, see here for a news article and here for the original report. It is also of interest to note the language used (emphasis added): Through our research we have found that women are continuously charged more for health coverage simply because they are women, and individual market health plans often exclude coverage for services that only women need, like maternity coverage. The report provides an in-depth analysis of these inequalities and explains how the Affordable C…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 11:59 AM
3

Thank you for setting the record straight, clearly unbiased and not at all concern trollish citizen!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:06 PM
3

Actually I think it might be good if that was seen by more people. It shows how trans* people face bigotry without making it into much of an "us vs them"-type issue.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:02 PM
2

the carziest thing though, was one person who said it was a part of a male polt to dominate women by taking their rights away, through becoming trans. Meaning that the logical conclusion is that trans women (they seem to be calling men) are trans because women have more rights? If men and women are equal, what rights are taken away in such a scenario? (Note that I'm not saying that trans* people are actually trans for this reason, just pointing out the flaw in their argument.)
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:57 PM
10

SRS etc turned into an insult/dismissal. It really started with the now-horrible /r/LGBT and the new mods they brought in to give the middle finger to their users (such as Laurelai) saying such things as "DIE CIS SCUM" all the time and justifying it because cis people aren't oppressed.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:49 PM
3

It should serve as a wake up call to Bio Intersex people (wtf is that?!?) That's basically what's addressed here: It's also why Trans people will never be protected under the American's with Disability Act and the ADA laws in America cover Intersex people like myself It's referring to people who have both male and female physical characteristics.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:32 PM
1

When I first saw this post I was concerned that it would soon be edited to add "wouldn't you also agree that if you don't have a womb you should shut up about birth control?" (or something similar) due to how new OP's account is and how close these arguments are. I think you hit the nail on the head though. Just because a person doesn't watch porn doesn't mean that (theoretically) porn doesn't effect them, just as the fact that a person doesn't have female reproductive organs doesn't mean that t…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:30 PM
4

The only thing that really has to do with men's rights here is the "reader's take" on the left side: 21% said it was "hilarious." It really does seem to be a trope that men's bodies being mutilated is seen as funny, in this case even though the man was killed.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:43 PM
1

I would think that they would at least say he was killed even if they wanted to refrain from stating with certainty that she killed him.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:37 AM
3

This is probably more a response to what has happened with Obamacare than anything else. To the best of my knowledge, Obamacare will require that premiums be the same for men and women even though women consume more. I think this is more just people standing up an saying that if that's the way the government mandates things they should at least be fair and mandate it all the time.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:50 PM
7

I can see where they're coming from with the objectification angle (though I disagree with it) but this is just preposterous fear mongering. What evidence do they have that this is the case? It could do the exact opposite of what they claim. But then they don't really need evidence. All they need is to drop the suggestion in the media so that it becomes a "commonly known fact" and then they won't even need a petition, because people will be outraged.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:33 PM
1

Thank you, I got a good laugh out of that one.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:57 PM
2

There are also training clinics for graduate students at some universities where you can get counseling for free, if that might be an option.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:02 PM
2

In what context? I did not see anything in the article about affirmative action for women. I'm not referring to the article. I'm saying that what you said with the genders swapped has been said here many times and seems to be exactly what society seems to believe. When men were ahead in college enrollment, it was said to be discrimination in the education system (which I would agree with). Now that women are ahead, people seem to think it's because women are smarter or better suited to the colle…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:27 PM
2

what does cismale mean Not trans*. It's a common way of feminists dismissing arguments because of facts assumed about a person because of what they've said when those facts are irrelevant, just as is the case with "you must be jealous." also I understand that you're trying to discredit my argument by comparing mine to others Your "argument" consists solely of dismissing another person's argument based solely on an assumption you have made about that person of which you have zero proof and which …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:08 PM
3

If men outnumber women in higher education, it is because they are smarter and deserve to be there, but if women outnumber men, it is because there is discrimination in the education system. The narrative seems to have been: if women outnumber men in higher education, it is because they are smarter and deserve to be there, but if men outnumber women, it is because there is discrimination in the education system. Hence affirmative action for women. I hope nobody consciously says, "I want to make …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:31 AM
2

I can't speak for DavidByron, but there's a big difference between women or men being slightly ahead of the other gender and a stat like 49% vs 38%.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:11 PM
3

Ah, the good old "you must be jealous" argument. Right up there with using "you must be a straight white cismale" to "discredit" MRA arguments.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:00 PM
5

The problem with a movement that's too cohesive (even if it's members don't believe the same thing) is that nobody has any reason to call anyone out. Feminists certainly don't agree on every issue, but I think they have every incentive not to speak out against their own: they might not be accepted anymore; they wouldn't receive any of the benefits of the stances of those who are more extreme (even if they don't agree with the 77 cents on the dollar figure, the benefit of corrective action might …
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:22 PM
2

Why aren't people saying "look, prison rape, there are steps you can take to prevent it, don't get sent to prison, committing a crime can increase the chances of being prison raped" and so on. Some are.. Although that's more threatening with than warning against. This could also be said to stem from people simply not caring enough about the issue compared to rape of women. Perhaps that's why nobody's talking about it: people just don't care because they're criminals.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 03:40 AM
1

Click on the picture.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:03 PM
24

Except that they can remove consent during sex.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 02:45 PM
1

Yes, but she could lose quite a few likes in the process.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 11:09 AM
4

Well who do you suppose some of those Archangelles on SRS are?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 12:52 AM
28

To be fair aVfM isn't exactly a reliable source Yes, but then most pages that might not be considered reliable sources aren't outright blocked, and this would also stop any link to AVFM being posted to an article in which it would be relevant not as a source but as a link from a related article. I would highly doubt that any feminist sites have been blacklisted under the same circumstances, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. Edit: sp
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:32 PM
1

I agree that that would be a better outcome, but I would suspect that "my body my choice" holds out for a while (in that women have the choice until the fetus is no longer in her body).
/r/MensRights24/09/12 01:15 PM
3

This statement was in the context of who got to make decisions in relation to abortion And it's just fear mongering there too. They could just not allow abortions for these babies (except in certain special cases perhaps). It's not like a fetus could accidentally end up in an artificial uterus. And it wouldn't be taking away women's choice because they would still have the option of abortion unless and until they choose to use the artificial womb.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 10:48 AM
-10

Feminists have been telling us that sex has a major societal component for a long time. It's possible to posit that the way things are may be unfair due to the way society conditions people without saying anything about "sex socialism." Not that I'm advocating for that, but to say that it requires talk of "sex socialism" is incorrect.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:03 PM
8

censorship brigade Kind of hard to argue otherwise when your subreddit just invaded a post here and downvoted (censored) all the existing comments while upvoting your own. EDIT: Not that I'm saying this subreddit has never had a similar effect, but here at least it's linked to for discussion. The post on SRS seems to only be about disparaging this subreddit. There's quite a big difference between "let's voice our opinion" going wrong and "look at this! Mensrights tears!"-style posts: the latter …
/r/MensRights23/09/12 03:04 PM
1

I'm still a bit confused as to what you're saying. Who is being controlled? And what does it have to do with cultural Marxism (that is, beyond the extent to which anything could be considered culturally Marxist)?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 01:36 PM
2

Right, but again I'm looking for the why rather than the what. Sources, or at least explanations, lend a lot more to an idea or argument than just the idea alone.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:18 AM
2

Indoctrination through education should certainly breed more homosexuals. It seems more likely that it would be due to factors such as gays moving out of areas where education is less valued (see here) to seek more tolerant ares, or due to a higher proportion living in cities and more education being required for jobs there. I'm interested in knowing what leads you to believe that it's due to indoctrination through education.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 04:33 AM
1

simply for critiquing us Yeah, that's what denying debate, tearing down posters, and opposing the very existence of this movement amounts to: simply critiquing us.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 01:48 AM
0

Actually it doesn't; our society worked fine before these Utopian changes. I was responding to your criticism that society doesn't allow people to live in a traditional manner, so I'm not sure what you're responding to. That's not the issue here. Then what's the issue? That people aren't held to your standards that you claim "worked fine?"
/r/MensRights23/09/12 12:58 AM
0

In a society that despises all they value. That may be true, but it's also a bit of a non sequitur. If society is biased against those that choose to live their lives in such a manner, then that needs to be fixed. That's no reason to oppose other people being able to live the way they would prefer. It's entirely possible to have a set of personal standards or beliefs and still be okay with what other people do. For example, I strongly believe that a monogamous relationship is the way to go perso…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 10:46 PM
3

While I have some serious doubts that smart people are over represented among gay men, there does seem to be some evidence if we swap out "smart" for "well educated" (which is perhaps what they really meant by smart) based on a study reported on here.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 10:25 PM
2

As a bisexual man, I'm not convinced that men are substantially more likely to be homophobic than women are. It might (and probably is) less overt than the homophobia men exhibit (for example, a woman is probably less likely to try and kick a gay man's ass for the hell of it) but the fact is, many straight women are "grossed out" by the thought of two people of the same gender having sex, same as many men. I actually think that part of the reason for some straight men being homophobic is because…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 09:33 PM
2

can now cover things like not letting your spouse leave the house, or not letting them talk to friends. If you're trying to say that that's the concern here, you either haven't read very many of the comments here or are simply being disingenuous. Unreasonable laws can have entirely reasonable parts.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 11:15 AM
2

Most feminists do admit that men can be raped. By men, at least. There's still the entire debate over "forced to penetrate" not being considered rape. It would be interesting to see some stats on what feminists believe.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:33 PM
6

Oh come on, look at the bright side: this will drastically reduce false accusations, because you're guilty by definition. /s
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:26 PM
2

I think there's plenty of proof as well, including some specifically anti-MRA stuff that's been posted there. But most SRSers don't seem to care about proof either way.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:58 PM
3

Rose Lombard from Lincoln, NE wants reddit taken down completely but is willing to settle for just the ones she doesn't agree with be removed. Just a typical reference point tactic: start high to try to make what you want seem like not so much in comparison. "You want Reddit to be taken down!? Oh wait, you're willing to settle for just removing some subreddits instead? That's much more reasonable, so we'll do that." Not that that's what's going to happen, but I would bet that was the intent.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:37 PM
9

Actually, women in /r/feminism aren't feminazis like SRS. So much so that SRS likes to say that the subreddit has been taken over by MRAs to try to discredit it.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:42 PM
1

Yes, that's what oxymoron means. I was referring to the part of the comment about "small minority," because it seemed to me they were advocating against using adjectives with "minority" in general. If they were suggesting that instead of "massive," that's a different story.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:39 PM
3

Not really. Anything less than 50% can be said to be a minority, but that doesn't make it an insignificant proportion. Emphasizing that it's a very small minority makes it much clearer.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:48 PM
9

Because men and women back women. FTFY
/r/MensRights20/09/12 03:58 PM
1

We didn't really defeat communism head to head or in a battle of ideology. Yes, but then we didn't fight communism on our home turf. It's one thing to ignore that which appears threatening and unsustainable but is not actively attacking you, and another to sit back while it actually is working against you in a very real sense.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 03:34 PM
5

but part of me just knows I should just ignore it more because it's doomed to fail without anyone having to do anything The problem with that is that in the meanwhile, people take it seriously if for no reason other than for its backing, including that of legislators. While gender feminism itself may be doomed to fail, just letting it fail on its own could take a very long time and have some rather disastrous results.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 01:56 PM
3

I've had a discussion with a feminist here on reddit where even a link to individual definitions and explanations of a thought-terminating cliche did not suffice, they simply persisted (it basically came down to them saying "you defined this term a different way than I did and therefore are stupid and don't deserve debate." I think a lot of times people just don't care whether the argument is sound, only whether or not they like it. Unfortunately, the ideology of gender feminism seems designed t…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 01:49 PM
4

And what's this about a professor who breastfed her kid in the middle of class? Did that really happen? If so, I don't blame her supervisors (or whoever) for coming down on her. if nothing else, she should be focusing on her job and not trying to take care of her kid while teaching class. Get a daycare. Every time things like breastfeeding come up, I do a bit of a sexism test in my head: if men did it too, would the action be unreasonable or sexist? I certainly don't think so; but these people s…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 12:32 AM
3

I think there's a pretty good argument against baby steps being better on some issues, possibly including this one. While it can get us somewhere faster, it can also present other problems down the road. People will probably resist expanding the definition of rape to include women raping men more than they would resist both expanding the definition to include both men and women raping men.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:23 PM
2

Cases like this always make me wonder how different the statistics of men vs women in prisons would be if women were a) held to the same standards by the police, and b) held to the same standards by the courts.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:14 AM
1

You mean by current FEMINIST defined legal standards????? Yes, I mean current feminist defined legal standards. Whether the standard itself is fair is a completely different question to whether or not the standard should be applied fairly unless it is changed. I would maintain that it's fairly unlikely that the judge in this case didn't allow this to be heard because of a belief that the law is unjust. We also don't have to accept that he was raped by a certain definition to believe that the cir…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 05:11 PM
2

No need to throw legitimate science under the bus My point was that to say that "science thinks X" like science is a celebrity endorsing a product is simply laughable, as is saying that "Science doesn't think so" based on such a survey where feminists may have incentive to show they don't hate men.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 11:52 AM
16

Science doesn't think so Oh well, if science says so, it must be true. And that's the end of the discussion; there can be no debate on this issue, because science has spoken. But remember, when you cite a study, the lived experience of women is more important than any mere numbers, no matter what the context. /s The rest of the posters aren't even worth mentioning, because it's the same tired old tripe (patriarchy hurts men too, lies about the SPLC, etc.).
/r/MensRights17/09/12 03:41 AM
14

Is killing someone not worse than rape? I've seen feminists here on Reddit argue that rape is worse because the person has to live with the trauma. If you ask me, living with trauma is better than being killed, but apparently some disagree (or at the very least act like they disagree so that they can use that point to win an argument).
/r/MensRights17/09/12 01:15 AM
0

That they didn't bother to mention his age indicates he probably was at least 14 and sexually mature enough to be interested in sex. Maybe yes, maybe no: Williams was allegedly sexually abused for years by these men, but he was also abused by other older individuals throughout his life. [...] His first experience with sexual assault was when he was just six years old, and the abuse continued steadily for the next 12 years of his life. Moving on, He wasn't raped, he may have been "taken advantage…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 12:09 AM
1

Are all people who call themselves feminists responsible for each others statements? No, but I think this is encouraged by the feminists who try to tie us with the likes of Anders Breivik even though there was nothing to suggest he identified as an MRA. It's kind of hard to "discuss our issues with regular people and sensible feminists" when we're being blasted using the exact same tactics by those supposedly sensible feminists.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 09:12 PM
2

Freethought Blogs IIRC. Though it's important to note that even though nobody from SA was involved in starting the movement, since they were asked to moderate, it could potentially be said to be co-opted by them.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 08:49 PM
6

Not to mention the entire lack of job history and education under that name. What would be nice is if there were programs for those who are not convicted or exonerated of rape to be able to change their identity so as to not be persecuted (though I can understand why some may have a problem with that in that it doesn't really solve the problem, and may just be giving an excuse not to solve the problem).
/r/MensRights16/09/12 08:37 PM
2

it was just shouting "No you're wrong!" I can't seem to find much of that type of attitude. The one statement that is really that way is: I reread what you said, and it's still wrong. but then, that was in response to what was a flippant comment by ImWaySmarterThanYou: Try to think about what I said for like 10 seconds. While I would hope that MRAs would be respectful even in reply to such a comment, I don't think you could argue that the above comment was at all constructive or somehow better t…
/r/MensRights16/09/12 07:49 PM
1

a later (Physical) War on men It doesn't have to be a physical war, does it? I think that, in the context of MR, you could say that the "war on women," "patriarchy," and "historical oppression" are pretence for a current war on men (using such nonsense excuses as "making up for historical oppression").
/r/MensRights16/09/12 05:22 PM
2

Well, men do, on average, make more money so it would make sense for the women to get more aid as they probably need it more. In addition to what's already been said, less income does not by definition mean less access to funds.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 02:53 PM
2

I would agree with spektralmia on this: things like "forcing men to pay for kids against their will" are privileges, not rights. It's something that would never exist in a world with gender equality. Also, women are not put in a position where they have any less rights than men by taking it away, and men are not given any additional privileges. This distinction is important IMO, because it means that actual rights are not a zero-sum game. Acknowledging these privileges to be "rights" in any way …
/r/MensRights16/09/12 02:48 PM
2

No, Hitler was a nazi, so all nazis want to kill jews, would be more apt. In order for that to hold, Breivik would have to be to the MRM as Hitler was to the Nazis, which is patently false. Consider the flipside: [insert name of random feminist that advocates for killing male babies] is a feminist, so all feminists want to kill male babies. But hey, at least we largely denounce Breivik; I've not seen a single feminist address such statements as these.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 02:34 PM
1

Most just attacked this poor bastard. Do you mean most just downvoted them? I understand where you're coming from in principle, but is it really reasonable to expect that every single downvoter provide a response when others have already done so several times over? At some point, there's nothing new to add.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 05:21 AM
2

"Underage" = less than 18. Not a big deal. Technically they used the word "child." That could mean simply less than 18, but it could also mean any range of far younger ages. It's pretty damn clear And how is that? he's been a fag ... Stop demonizing men for daring to have sex with younger men, homophobe. Surely this is Poe's law in action.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 05:18 AM
11

and yet persistently goad MRAs in deliberately unfair and irritating ways I feel like a large part of this is trying to manufacture anger so that they can point the finger after they push someone to say or do something. It happens here on Reddit too.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 04:03 AM
7

Long story short, John the Other of A Voice for Men posted posters at a construction site in Vancouver where he had permission to post them, and a large group of feminists came and tore them down (going so far as to say that tearing them down and thus censoring him is part of their freedom of speech). This is probably them striking back (if it can even be called that).
/r/MensRights16/09/12 04:00 AM
1

No, because there is no cultural trope of violence against African Americans exclusively by other races. There is an overwhelming cultural trope of violence against women by men. Do you sincerely believe that it's likely that the fact that this training was for the girls/women only was not born out of the trope of men as the primary aggressors?
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:46 AM
1

I've already covered this in my other post, but: supporting the idea that the completely normal male sexual attraction to younger individuals is "rape" The claim seems to be that he was underage when the rapes occurred.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:35 AM
3

But here Derek is a redhead and may not be the guy in the photo. True, but since his facial hair isn't red, it was likely dyed that color. EDIT: and a picture from his Twitter that appears to be him wearing the same shirt without the red hair.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 07:31 PM
3

The other problem with this is that one can still downvote by disabling custom CSS or using the mobile version. It can dissuade people from downvoting, but it also runs the risk of changing who downvotes.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 06:19 PM
4

I think it's born out of the fact that these are usually people who come here and their very first posts are antagonistic and don't add anything to the discussion. This case is different, but still there is the fact that they persisted in a rather absurd (even if "logical") argument that the reason could be fear of women attacking other women, not men attacking women. The real problem with the entire "teaching/informing" thing is that many of those who come here to antagonize are set in their be…
/r/MensRights15/09/12 05:54 PM
1

Yes, that's what I said. What would be sexist still would be preventing the other gender from attending and/or villainizing the entire gender due to the actions of a few (feminists, cuckolders, false accusers, etc.).
/r/MensRights15/09/12 05:27 PM
7

I'd disagree that most of those things are misogynistic, however. Most of them are really responses to sexism against men rather than outright sexism in and of themselves. For example, "Responding to a woman's physical aggression without being arrested" wouldn't be necessary if men weren't generally assumed to be the perpetrator in such situations, regardless of context. What would be sexist still would be preventing the other gender from attending and/or villainizing the entire gender due to th…
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:35 PM
1

If it was a father Unfortunately, I wouldn't be so sure there either. I think there would be at least a significant proportion of fathers that would also defend the girls just because they're girls.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 02:55 PM
6

I see this along the same lines as excusing women for murdering their husbands "after years of abuse". That's patently misrepresenting what's going on here. It's one thing to excuse entirely someone killing another person; it's an entirely different thing to oppose a death sentence for that person based on what allegedly happened. That's not "excusing" anything, it's calling for punishment appropriate to the situation. That doesn't mean "a slap on the wrist" either (as some women appear to get i…
/r/MensRights15/09/12 01:41 PM
5

Knowing how absolutely great our justice system is, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't allowed to bring it up at trial because the judge wouldn't allow it for some (probably legally legitimate) reason. That would explain why the jury didn't find out after he was sentenced and the trial was over.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 01:15 PM
1

If you have qualifiers please write them down, until you do I am just equally applying the rule you used. It seemed quite clearly implied that it wasn't being applied to dating, just going out of one's way to do things for women that one wouldn't do for a man in other contexts. You could say "if you only did it because he was a man" to a gay man as well to the same effect.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:17 AM
6

The latter especially seems to be pointless to me. These seem to me to be simply directed at the wrong audience. People seem to need reminding sometimes that men aren't always the aggressors and women always the victims. Breaking the societal perception of man = aggressor and woman = victim is a good idea and, while it might be nice to portray neither sex in these roles, it's not really possible, so counterexamples can be useful. This just isn't a good place for it.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 01:27 AM
1

The MRM did not choose to abandon your family or force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. I can understand why you would be upset (given what you're saying is true), but that's no reason to come after the MRM simply for revenge.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:46 PM
2

Single men often perceive (sadly, also correctly) that they will be safer sleeping outside than in a shelter filled with a bunch of other desperate and often mentally ill men. Or that it's not worth bothering because the resources are reserved for women or women get preference. I can't seem to find it now, but I posted a while back the statistics for a particular area, and the statistics showed that men were vastly overrepresented in the unsheltered homeless, while women were vastly overrepresen…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:38 PM
1

That is the basis for their legislation This is exactly why it isn't so wrong. The gun (law) is always going to be there. While those problems might be the most important ones, they stem from those who encourage the gun to be pointed in a certain direction (feminists, white knights, etc.) or stand by and do nothing (cultural inequality). To continue that metaphor, if you go after the guy with the gun, you're probably not going to get anywhere; instead, you can attempt to diffuse the situation so…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 10:46 PM
2

I'm a straight guy, but I'm bi-curious I didn't say that men who experiment don't exist, simply that "experimentation might be expected [in women] as where in men it is not." I'm not saying that men don't experiment, but rather using the fact that there is this perception (that may be rooted in fact) as another possible explanation for why experimentation by women is more accepted. Either way, it should still be seen as perfectly acceptable for a straight man to admit to having had or desiring a…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 05:55 PM
2

when was the last time a straight male character on any TV show casually revealed that he’d had a homosexual experience with such unashamed confidence? I think part of it is that, from what I understand, male sexual orientation is somewhat more clear-cut than in women, so experimentation might be expected as where in men it is not; but still, I think that it goes beyond that into the realm of treating male sexuality as inherently inferior.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 03:35 PM
2

I would suspect that this could mistakenly be confused as pro-feminist satire as well, seen as mocking statements on how not to get raped rather than the men shouldn't rape posters based off of them.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 11:14 AM
0

this reminds me of racist discrimination in america. you know what was good at preventing hate crimes? DISCRIMINATION! Exactly. They completely ignore that the ends don't always justify the means, when those means cause more problems than they solve. Of course, when those problems apply to men and not women, it's just fine, for whatever reason sounds best at the time.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 12:19 AM
1

Because the reason women game the court is because of bias that would be solved through equal custody?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 11:02 PM
3

dont fuck around and try and support someone legitimizing the further oppressing of the weaker sex, its not cool ... hey faggot friend The irony, it burns.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:52 PM
1

just quote mining They appear to have quoted most of your post to make line by line replies, and the context is clearly visible above. How is this "quote mining"?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:46 PM
1

MRAs are just so intentionally mischaracterized it seems. FTFY I can't recall anyone of this type changing their tune even when it's clearly shown that their perception of the movement is quite mistaken.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 03:39 AM
10

You should send it to them and request a correction. They're supposed to fact check. At any rate, I have to wonder how many of the lies and misrepresentations in this article are intentional and how many are just due to ignorance.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:58 PM
2

You're probably thinking of the GMP post by none other than Manboobz. More recently, he laughably cited a PUA that he doesn't like to disparage the MRM who went on about how we're a bunch of losers who accomplish something while he's out having sex or some such vapid nonsense.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:43 PM
4

Consequently she was raped?!? Perhaps it was simply easier to get a conviction, considering how emotional people seem to get over it. Heck, I've seen comments where SRSers maintain that rape is worse than death.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:15 PM
1

So where are the people saying things like "Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit"? It seems like everyone who responded to you was at least trying to make an argument.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 12:59 AM
2

Not a bad thing in this case IMO. The more people see SRS members arguing like this out in the wild, the more they're likely to ask why our detractors behave in such a way.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:07 PM
1

Have a link?
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:52 PM
1

Remember, it's not victim blaming if it's against men, because of the patriarchy and things that happened in the past.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:50 PM
3

the wife had already established a network of friends and contacts in the community And the man hadn't? It makes absolutely no sense.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 02:17 AM
1

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice. The problem with that argument is that it ignores that some find it to be a moral imperative to stop abortion. If you believe that the fetus should have all the rights of a human being, what kind of person would you be to sit back and "mind your own business"? The woman across the street isn't your business in that case, but protecting what you believe to be human being's with a right to live would be. Edit: and to delineate this from other issues such as gay marriage…
/r/MensRights04/09/12 11:19 AM
1

no feminist thinks that men should be victims of violence No matter what you think of AVFM, this quote is enlightening: There is a principal in western philosophical thought, and in western law which states: the expressed mention of one thing, implicitly excludes all others. Even though violence against men is more common, all we seem to hear about most of the time is stopping violence against women. The fact that they could easily make these campaigns gender neutral shows that they are bigoted.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 10:27 PM
5

It's like kicking your dad in the shin and calling him an asshole right before asking him for twenty bucks. To be fair, even then there are those who still turn around and give them their "twenty bucks." This just isn't the right place to find them.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:26 AM
1

While I could see how evangelical Christians might be treated that way in very few situations, I don't think think it would be because of their "belief in one and only true God," but instead due to other beliefs. Plus you have the entire fact that those evangelical Christians tend to congregate, so it's not as if they don't have communities of like-minded people. And then you have the fact that those Christians will turn around and persecute others in the way, especially where they are in the ma…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:52 AM
3

she doesn't ask, she decides. What's even more incredible is that it makes sure to mention that she has consented to that act based on her actions like that's the important thing to think about with regards to that act that she is committing.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:42 PM
4

I think what they are trying to say is that without further statistics on the motivations behind such suicide attempts, it would be unreasonable to say that any other explanation should be the "default" one (e.g. those attempts are not intentional failures).
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:24 AM
1

That's child sexual abuse, not all forms of abuse. You're comparing two different things.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 11:23 PM
2

Women's rights campaigners questioned whether the group's members had the courage to make the same statements to women in person. So if a person or group is threatened with retribution simply for their beliefs, the fact that they don't speak out to avoid that retribution somehow destroys the credibility of that person or group? That doesn't make sense. The website claims women hate porn because they cannot compete with a porn actress who has a beautiful face, a perfect body. Ah yes, MRAs are alw…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:40 AM
1

We wouldn't have to ask "what about teh menz?" if men were given consideration in the first place. Nobody has to say "what about teh wimminz" because they've already been considered, and would be misogynist if things were any other way.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:09 AM
2

She presumes to speak for all "radical feminists" while saying things that they would disagree with. Have you seen Subversive's post above? I think that clearly shows that this is a "no true Scotsman" argument.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:26 PM
2

From the extract: A [sic] Ordinary Real Woman’s view of ‘Male-to-Female Transsexuality’ When the first word of your title has a grammatical error, it does not bode well for your academic paper. I describe the social context which makes bodily ‘mtf trans’ practices unjust, while leaving ‘ftm’ attempts unproblematic. You would think that if men are the group in a superior position, they would be more concerned with ftm because of obtaining privilege, not with mtf for giving it up. This finally dep…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:21 PM
1

I have to work to fulfill my support obligation leaving me only a few hours of free time per day You see? Men don't have time for equal custody, so the system is working fine. /s
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:05 PM
1

It also ignores the fact that women still have the option of walking away from their responsibility even when there is a child through adoption.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:02 PM
1

If you choose to be a public with your belief in one and only true God, you must prepare to be hated, persecuted, humiliated, perhaps even stalked and harassed. Exactly what country do you live in with what religion? I could see this being true in some cases, but not with the case that I have a feeling you're trying to use.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 02:57 PM
6

Second-wave and radical feminists have been spouting "womyn-born womyn" hate since at least the 60s. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the reasons given have to do with oppression (transwomen don't grow up as girls), male privilege, and absurd fear that trans-inclusive policies will be abused by men. The irony, of course, is that this attitude itself oppresses transwomen.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 02:31 AM
1

My first thought was "that might be due to differing rates of the two occurring," but with those figures, I have no doubt that the figures aren't anywhere near to being proportional.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:22 AM
2

The identities of the men, at the very least, are quite true.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:07 AM
7

but men have had certain advantages And certain disadvantages. Women may have had it worse, but to believe that it's a one-sided narrative of oppression as these people do is not even wrong.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:29 PM
36

Obviously, women would never participate in sex tourism. Oh wait, they do? Actually, that's romance tourism, which is completely different and, by subtle manipulation of language, okay. /s
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:42 PM
1

That's correct. It's helpful to use RES as well, as there may be sarcasm that you wouldn't normally be able to distinguish, but seeing their past vote weight could serve as a cue.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:59 AM
2

People on here complain about how they're expected to be tough and women say they have a tiny dick They do complain about gender roles and sexual shaming, but those are clearly not anywhere near the biggest issues here. Based on the fact that you say "people here," I would guess that you've looked around the subreddit. Given this fact, you should have seen that there are much more important issues here. Therefore, I'm going to guess you're a troll. And just in case you're from GoT, here's your p…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:22 PM
2

Wow, you guys seriously think men are currently oppressed more than women are or ever have been? Even if you accept that women are more oppressed than men, that does not magically cancel out men's issues. Real men's issues, not your little strawman "how they're expected to be tough and women say they have a tiny dick" tripe.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:19 PM
1

Women graduate all levels of school at higher rates than men, are accepted to college more often But that's just because women are actually better, so that's equality. /s
/r/MensRights19/08/12 04:42 PM
2

Given the "ex-MRA's" description of their upbringing, it would be reasonable to assume that if traditional masculinity had been so ingrained into him as he says, that is the way he would act.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 04:14 PM
8

On the first article: making an anti-feminist argument that Schroedinger’s Rapist is profoundly sexist and unfair An anti-feminist argument? So let me get this straight; regardless of anything else here, you believe that the mere argument that men should not be treated as rapists by default is somehow anti-feminist. I guess it's not about the rights of men, apparently, even though men are the central issue here - everything must be framed in terms of feminism. As much as I hate it when white peo…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:58 PM
3

Oh how I wish just for once these people would be met with an environment as hostile to their speech as they create for other people's speech. Not that it would force them to recognize their own hypocrisy, as that's plain as day, but still. intentionally offending people is not okay I'm sure she's never said anything intentionally offensive before...
/r/MensRights19/08/12 02:50 AM
6

Since I know nothing of this organization, I'd be interested in seeing links from a credible source, if you should have any.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 11:15 PM
1

or anything effeminate in this sub [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights18/08/12 10:27 PM
28

From the comments: You are a woman.....why so negative about women and so hard on them with so many generalizations...if you truly believe these stats, why not present them in a non female negative I just find it interesting that truth itself is often considered misogynistic (or "negative about women," same thing really) by some of these people. If it doesn't fit their narrative, it's made to be taboo so it's ignored anyways.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 08:21 PM
1

In many cases, reproductive rights (which women have and men should have; and no, I'm not talking about entitlement to free services, just freedom of choice) including abortion, use of birth control, in vitro fertilization, etc.; the right to remain unnamed when they accuse another of rape (which should apply to both sexes, not neither); the right to choose between career and family without penalty. And yes, I know that not all conservatives are going to agree on these individual, but on a macro…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 08:01 PM
1

Being/not being MRA is a viewpoint, a thought-out paradigm. Yes, but identifying as an MRA is identifying yourself as part of the group, just as being/not being a feminist is a viewpoint, but identifying yourself is a feminist is identifying yourself as part of that group. When you mentioned feminists who stab fellow feminists in the back, nonviolent Taliban followers you seemed to be identifying membership in these groups as demographic characteristics and pointing out that members of these dem…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 07:39 PM
1

If that was their intention, that's fair enough, and a decent enough point. But they did mention group demographics that aren't based on a state of being, which led me to believe that this is not the case: feminists who stab fellow feminists in the back, nonviolent Taliban followers
/r/MensRights18/08/12 06:51 PM
1

Now, I'd like to pull some things back because I don't believe they are an advancement such as title 9 and equal pay acts. This is exactly what pulling women back means: taking away these advantages. The way I see it and the point I think they were trying to get across is this (speaking in strictly American terms): Conservativism + (most) traditionalism: status quo for men, women lose both privileges and actual rights both men and women should have but so far have only been given to women Libera…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 06:43 PM
1

It certainly can be considered one: These characteristics include [...] Group membership Edit: and another one. At any rate, I can find no definition of "demographic characteristic" that would exclude group membership.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 06:20 PM
3

So, it doesn't make sense to categorize the world into good and bad people, simply based on some arbitrary demographic characteristic[...] For these reasons, being MRA is a morally - if not intellectually - superior ethical stance. Aren't you basically saying that it doesn't make sense to categorize people into good and bad based on a demographic characteristic and then turning around and categorizing the demographic characteristic of being an MRA as "good" (in being a "morally [...] superior et…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:56 PM
1

he's looking for religion and finding it Which also explains why he's so quick to "convert" to feminism. IMO at least, feminism makes for a much better religion than the MRM with its tautologies and dogma (patriarchy).
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:38 PM
3

It comes as no surprise IMO that when you seek power and control and at the same time seek victim status so that you can continue to get power, eventually you will be responsible for the injustices you claim to oppose as you need those injustices to maintain power.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:33 PM
1

Well it really isn't a governmental thing, it's just a rule that a lot of doctors adopt. My guess would be that it has at least something to do with the fact that the procedure is reversible doesn't mean it's always successful. They're concerned that people would regret the decision. Usually women have the same rules when they want to get their tubes tied, so it's not like it's discrimination against men in the strictest sense, but men do have far fewer options in the first place.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 02:06 AM
22

That was my first thought, considering how much some feminists seem to like to tell us that not having to think about something is a privilege: It's something your female colleagues don't have to think about.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:15 AM
1

Thing is, I have to wonder if those pages don't exist because they don't have (enough) content for them, which would be a problem (or at least indicative of the problem). Hopefully, it is indeed a simple error.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:09 AM
3

When you manually put in the addresses in the format they give for the other pages: http://www.nhs.uk/LiveWell/Men1839/Pages/Men1839home.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/LiveWell/Men4060/Pages/Men4060home.aspx It says "Sorry, the page you are looking for has moved" but it probably never existed as all, as typing a random string (asdfasdf) yields the same page.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:06 AM
1

Why isn't it possible to return education to the way it was before while also stopping this particular problem with teasing? Why must it be a package deal?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:52 PM
1

That's a very good point. I've never really accepted the "well I don't think anyone should have to register for it" excuse at any rate though, because the question then becomes "are you going to do anything to express that view, or just pay lip service?" Even if it were practical to abolish selective service, I don't think they would care anyways because it doesn't further their goals to do so. Which would be okay if they didn't claim to be a movement for equality, but that clearly isn't the cas…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 10:02 PM
1

That videogames are making men less able to support women? If you think this is what I'm talking about, I'm pretty sure you haven't read my comment. EDIT: here, I'll make it easy In addition to what ignatiusloyola has already pointed out, there have been plenty of feminists going after gaming communities for not being welcoming. They ignore the fact that that's how the men typically treat each other in the first place, and that that environment of competitive comraderie is important to the men p…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:44 PM
1

I specified that in my first post in this line of comments, and it has nothing to do with the objectification arguments. is the same as saying all videogames should be banned I never argued this, so I don't see what your point is.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:40 PM
2

Nice straw man with absolutely no evidence. This subreddit is just a place where men can make rape jokes about women while circlejerking about how superior men are. That really explains the total lack of such material.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:38 PM
1

I would be interested in specifics on the differences in the male:female ratio comparing homeless (on the street) and homeless (no permanent residence) I don't know if you saw my comment above, but it deals with exactly this in a specific area.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:29 PM
1

Sometimes those "aspects" are a major part of the culture. That would be like me saying "I'm pro-feminism but against patriarchy theory." If I oppose a fundamental part of the movement, I oppose the movement.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:24 PM
2

The Violence Against Women Act. They could have simply made it gender neutral, but chose not to. Since you're British, you should be familiar with the fact that up until recently, being forced to penetrate was not considered rape.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:01 PM
1

When people talk about video games, a lot of the time they are talking not only about the games themselves but the culture around them. Just look at /r/gaming and note how many posts are not about the games themselves but gaming culture. Feminists may not be against each and every video game, but for all intents and purposes I see no reason why it would be unreasonable to say they are against video games in general, with some individual video games and communities being deemed acceptable, rather…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:58 PM
6

So you're saying feminists fighting against patriarchy will help eliminate biased items like VAWA that are supported by major feminist organizations? Makes sense.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:46 PM
1

That still doesn't address the second question at all: What are feminists doing about the issues listed above?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:50 PM
4

Which probably has more to do with bias towards girls than anything else. EDIT: just to be clear, by bias towards girls I mean education being tailored to girls rather than boys, not a bias against girls.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:11 PM
2

a masculine-dominated What's wrong with masculinity in and of itself? I see no need for movements that dissociate themselves from feminism or not look at the wider picture What are feminists doing about the issues listed above?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:44 PM
3

that's impossible, men have to have an erection in order to be raped, unless the women sodomizes them. And if they were raped while they had an erection, then they obviously were enjoying it, so it wasn't rape. Then I guess if a woman orgasms it automatically isn't rape either, right? Because an uncontrollable bodily response means automatic consent I guess. Actually, people tried to say this and feminists were rightfully pissed.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:34 PM
5

so I find it highly relevant to include women's inequalities in the post When feminists list inequalities against women, do they list inequalities against men because sexism wouldn't exist if there were no men? Why does it have to be a "who has more things going against them" game?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:31 PM
3

Yes, that's correct, patriarchy magically invalidates all of these problems. Or perhaps you meant it causes all these problems. In that case, yes, of course! Men, being the privileged and ruling class, have taken it upon themselves to experience all of these problems for no apparent reason. And clearly all of those things listed that benefit women and hold men down are perpetuated by the patriarchy and never defended by feminist organizations (such as VAWA). What an incredibly thoughtful comment…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:26 PM
5

I get what you're getting at, but that just sounds entirely unrealistic. Where is the newspaper article about this. What newspaper is going to print such a story? There's a strong feminist bias among the media, and even if it were printed I doubt people would take it seriously enough to make up for the fact that he would probably be expelled and blacklisted from who knows how many educational institutions and companies. And that's not even to mention all the other things that could go wrong (she…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:15 PM
1

It's entirely possible, depending on how you partition data, to get the statistics you want to show. True, but they also don't always need to; we see arguments given all the time that it's men's fault that X which effects men in a negative way, but patriarchy caused condition Y that effects women. Or they'll use a combination of proper statistics and raw numbers in such a way that it fits with their narrative. I can't remember the exact example, but remember seeing something recently on this sub…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:47 PM
7

Unfortunately, I haven't found any really good data. Many of the reports I find correlate sheltered and unsheltered with age and race but not with sex. I did find one that does for a specific area (Portland/Multnomah) and the result is pretty much what I expected: males are vastly overrepresented among the unsheltered homeless. While about 25% of the homeless females were unsheltered, about 44% of the males were unsheltered. In raw numbers, that's 1,261 males (out of 2,890 total) and 422 females…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:03 PM
1

I was lucky enough to be taught how to treat a lady This seems to imply that he believes he was taught the correct way to treat a woman. It's not about (or not just about) the fact that he has chosen to follow these traditional roles, but that he seems to believe that that is the correct way and, because he posted it in this thread, thinks it's part of being a man. There's a big difference.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 02:27 PM
1

and then having a reversible vasectomy-type procedure done While there is no law saying so, many doctors have ethical guidelines prohibiting them from performing such procedures until you have X number of kids (in many cases 2-3), just so you know. Some even require counseling first.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 02:23 PM
7

In addition to what ignatiusloyola has already pointed out, there have been plenty of feminists going after gaming communities for not being welcoming. They ignore the fact that that's how the men typically treat each other in the first place, and that that environment of competitive comraderie is important to the men participating. Certainly at some point it does go too far, but feminist activists don't seem to care about the degree. Plus it seems kind of rediculous that when men come into fema…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 02:10 PM
0

No one has a problem when it happens to either gender I think not.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:41 PM
5

So you think women should be encouraged to go into those fields where they're more likely to die?
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:29 PM
3

Well that's their fault for choosing the more risky jobs. Wait, you think that women are at fault for not choosing these better paying jobs? No, that's completely different, because patriarchy. /s But seriously, I think one of the best responses to the entire "patriarchy discourages women from taking these jobs" thing is to word your response in a way where they would have a hard time justifying it: "so you believe women should be encouraged to go into fields where they're more likely to die?"
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:26 PM
2

I don't think OP was referring to what feminists believe about patriarchy. There's no way they would let their own movement fit that definition because all they have to do is define the individual terms in whichever way reinforces their own preconceptions.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:18 PM
1

Based on another conversation I had with mayonesa, I'm guessing from traditionalism. chivalry involves complementary roles that enslave neither gender.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:09 PM
1

I think it's more what this comment is saying. Feminists say that patriarchy hurts women. Some will say that it hurts men, too. The claim here seems to be that in hurting women by taking away their agency and representing women as weaker and needing extra protection (such as through VAWA and gendered laws) and hurting men by giving women advantages, feminism does exactly what patriarchy is said to do.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:57 PM
3

It's too bad that it's really no better than "patriarchy." The entire "structural positions" part with "stratifications of gender, race, class, religion, heterosexualism, and age" sounds like that Windows experience index, where the lowest score is the overall score. Take this, for example: For example, in a context where gender is the primary privileged position (e.g., patriarchy), gender becomes the nodal point through which sexuality, race, and class are experienced. I'm sure all the male, he…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:51 PM
5

earning a lot more than your average more impulsive man What?
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:18 PM
1

If men are not 'herd like' in their mentality how would you explain the success of 'football'? Swapping the genders works both ways.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:55 AM
23

I agree. Some say it should be a matter of personal choice, but the way I see it as that it's a necessary measure to ensure equality. I'm sure if women didn't know that their child was theirs by the very act of birth they would like to know as well. The other part of the reason why it should be mandatory is that even if it's opt-out, there will still be the entire "don't you trust me?" element that discourages men from getting the test.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:14 AM
12

I am saying it is important of course not to inflict violence on animals, but it is also important not to inflict violence on women. But men, that's another story...
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:57 AM
1

Your entire argument is irrelevant to the situation. The airlines do this because they worry that men are child molesters, which quite clearly deserve to be demonized.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 01:59 AM
1

That seems to be a minority view here. What percentage of the population do you think holds this view? Just because many people believe it does not make it true. To them, chivalry is "benign sexism" that treats women as lesser (hence it is "male privilege"). They simply ignore the flipside that men get screwed over too because men can X while women can't while men also have to deal with the negative effect Y that women don't have to (replace X with vote and Y with die in war, or whatever combina…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 01:51 AM
1

Most sources think the right-wing is perpetuating white male privilege. How do you reconcile these two things? This issue has been discussed at length on this subreddit, just not in this context. See any posts on historical oppression of women here and you'll see MRAs pointing out that gender roles were just as harmful to men, just in different ways (instead of being treated as weak and needing protection and therefore having limited rights as in the women side of the coin, men were and at least…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 12:49 AM
1

Having the biological parent is not inherently [emphasis mine] the best interest of the child. I didn't say it was, I said it may be the best interest of the child. Your argument is hinged on the fact that being with the biological parent is always [emphasis mine] the best option. Not at all. And if being with the biological parent is always the best option then why aren't Men's Rights fighting more for gaining dual custody of the child instead of "financial abortion". Because that's entirely un…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:39 PM
1

To add to what's already been said, the fact that they did two complaints and not three (which would have automatically shut down the channel) means it's quite likely they're trying to make her nervous they'll submit a third and capitulate quickly.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:25 PM
2

genuine Based on when the account was created and the animosity towards GWW, I believe one is a rather "genuine mra."
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:13 PM
1

thus defeating their purpose But they've still won in a way by forcing that, and then who's to say they won't do it again? I'm not saying your option is the bad one (it may actually be the "best" option based on the circumstances), but I doubt they would find silencing GWW to be much worse an option than obtaining her information.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:02 PM
1

Some people are not fit to have children. I would rather see a child in an adoptive family that takes care of them than with their biological parents who neglect and abuse them. What does that have to do with it? I made it clear I'm not talking about every case, and certainly was not referring to cases like that. My point is that if even in a small amount of cases my argument holds true, it's still a double standard against men. Note that I'm not advocating for change in adoption, just using it …
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:59 AM
1

I'm not even going to bother with the other moral and logical failings in your argument. This shit just isn't worth it anymore. Of course not. Wouldn't want to waste time on someone who hasn't been hostile, either, right? Have a good day.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:21 PM
3

It is fallacious to claim that keeping the child with the mother is always [emphasis mine] in the best interests of the child. Except that's not at all what I said: as the best interests of the child may be best served by having the child with its mother What I was basically arguing is exactly what you said, with the addition of the double standard as to the best interests of the child: women would not have the right to give the child up for adoption for any reason at all, as the best interests …
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:22 PM
2

who has a high percentage of straight-up misogynists in it And what misogyny is that? Men who come here with your arguments get the exact same treatment all the time. Hostility != misogyny just because of the gender of the target. That's why I keep coming back and that's why I try to encourage MRAs to do the same with feminism. Activism isn't easy... It's nice that you have that opportunity, no? I've seen where MRAs have been banned from /r/feminisms simply for disagreeing, where there is no unp…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:16 PM
1

I did consider that, but my point is more the "any reason at all" part. Sure, there would be cases where allowing for the child to be given up for adoption (you say "allowing parents," but note that usually the mother ha the unilateral right to do so) in any case would be a good idea, but surely there are other cases where the child would have a more secure future with a reluctant parent or parents than being put up for adoption.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:49 PM
8

See my reply to Hypersapien.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:43 PM
114

Table and study from the US DHHS (see page 39). EDIT: and another from Australia by the Department of Child Protection.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:41 PM
2

Congratulations. You're the inevitable angry guy that makes these conversations not worth having. It's just so very high school to quote the other person and respond to each point with angry, caps-lock ridden attacks. First a tone argument, You, personally, are responsible for the loss of an ally and the increase of hostility between feminism and men's rights activism. and then this. If you were genuinely interested in being an ally, you wouldn't turn away due to one person's tone, you would loo…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:08 PM
7

(Yes, I'm pretty sure he's a troll, but its safer just to give the benefit of doubt) Nope, they've been trolling this subreddit for quite some time now. Also, -163 comment karma.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:39 AM
2

I'm sorry to put words in your mouth. I just don't take well to mockery or hostility, and that's the tone I gathered from your first response. Hm, that sounds awfully familiar.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:32 AM
2

because equality is equality And some equality is more equal than other equality, to paraphrase a certain author.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:24 AM
1

I think it's also understandable that feminism focuses mostly on women's issues But then feminism doesn't merely focus on women's issues (which is bad in and of itself IMO, because a movement that ignores such context is more likely to not stop to assess the point at which it has accomplished its goals relative to the other party, whose status may have changed considerably since you started), it seems to ignore men even when there is no reason to. That is, even when it would make sense to advoca…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:56 AM
6

Here's my (simple) take: "There are complications with everything though" So you think female circumcision should be legal, then? This, of course, after debunking the hygiene myth using sources easily found here.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:49 AM
1

Banned for harassing women It's not that I'm slamming your point, but still, the entire group harassed women? If they banned it because one or a few members harassed women, that seems like a rather poor excuse for banning the whole thing.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:45 AM
2

Men have the choice of using birth control, but not really choice of birth control.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:14 AM
7

I don't think that's a fair characterization based on the breadth of the movement. The entire reason /r/ainbow was started is because of the crazy arguments on /r/lgbt that it's okay to have things like "DIE CIS SCUM!" (not just by users, but by the mods as well). While /r/ainbow might have its bigoted elements, I think that if you start at the beginning of that line of comments you'll see that that isn't entirely the case.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 04:25 PM
21

The entire line of comments is pretty sad actually, with the poster being accused of privilege simply for "Sympathizing with people who are 'accused of being privileged'." It's just a way of ensuring the "privileged" group can't defend itself: You're privileged if you're X. If you sympathize with group X, you're privileged. If you're privileged, you're not entitled to an opinion/can't be discriminated against/whatever.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:52 PM
2

I don't see how anyone who upvotes this post can deny or ignore the radical right and their attempts to invade this sub at every turn. This article was posted here because it's against men's rights and for criticism. The upvotes reflect a desire to make the issue seen, not approval of the article. Troll harder.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:13 PM
1

Or, anyone who agrees with anti-feminism holds a common ally with the religious right. I also think that anyone who attacks the SPLC has a common ally with the KKK. On some issues, feminism holds a common ally with traditionalists. Does this mean that traditionalism and feminism are common allies? Some radical feminists want to kill boys so that they can't grow into men. Does this mean that feminism and child killers are common allies? Just because two movements have some overlap does not mean t…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:09 PM
14

Women have the choice to do what ever the fuck they want, but men Come to think of it, it seems like this is what many MR issues come down to, actually. Women have choice when it comes to reproductive issues (birth control, responsibility for the child, adoption), while men do not (child support, etc.). Women can choose to not have sex and be backed up for it (rightfully), while men are said to be trying to exercise control by not having sex or said to actually be abusive ("Since frequently our …
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:02 PM
2

because every situation is as unique as a snowflake Which is really obtuse considering that studies are aggregates of those individual situations. Yes, every situation is unique, but the studies show the trends in those unique individual situations.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 02:32 PM
2

Well it does seem that she's supporting circumcision more due to tradition than anything else, so I find it no surprise that she both opposes feminism and, at least to some extent, men's rights. Some traditionalists, while appealing in that they don't accept feminist lies, hold little more hope for us than those who actively support feminism.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 02:31 AM
2

I don't support bigots. But do you actively oppose those who call themselves feminists who are bigots?
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:39 AM
1

So those advocating for VAWA are extremists by feminist standards?
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:07 AM
10

Have you ever been denied a job for being a man? No, but I have heard of plenty of examples of men being denied jobs for being men, mostly when it comes to jobs that are traditionally considered more suited to women (such as receptionist), where sometimes the ads even say "women only." Imagine an ad that actually says "men only," and how much outrage there would be. I've also heard of men being hired and then placed in more dangerous and menial jobs when they would prefer to work a desk job, whi…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 01:04 AM
3

Or sexism against men by women by proxy of other men.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 12:54 AM
0

Is this a criticize feminism subreddit? Sometimes it is, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, at least in cases like this where it's defensive rather than offensive. When the actions of feminists put them in direct conflict with men's rights, it makes sense that this subreddit criticizes the actions of the feminists. In this case, we have the entire element of villainizing straight male sexuality as dirty (not that I'm saying the video is actually explicitly sexual in the way these fe…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:16 PM
2

The moment i say im a man, downvote and ignore. And that's exactly why we can't "just team up." Many feminists appear to not acknowledge our problems. Of those who do, most seem to feel that men don't need a movement to solve them (how they are to be solved without activism remains a mystery). Some will say that the issues will be solved due to feminism even though they don't focus on those issues at all, and sometimes perpetuate or even create them. Additionally, many MRAs would not want to sup…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:53 PM
9

No no, it's not objectifying, it's instrumentalizing, because context. Pay no attention to the fact that an "instrument" is merely a type of object synonymous with such respectful words as "utensil" and "tool." It's only objectifying if it's a man looking at a woman. /s
/r/MensRights12/08/12 01:46 PM
7

And probably yet another double standard in that if it were a man in the first panel saying that, he'd probably get the same reaction as in the second panel.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 01:11 PM
14

Not just ladies and children only, but ladies, girls, and boys only if they're under 10. It's not just discrimation against men, but boys as well.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 10:08 PM
1

got booted out of when he was outed as an attempted murderer I hadn't heard this yet and had to look it up. After he admitted to paternity fraud and his supporters seemed to still stand behind him, it seemed like nothing would get through to them; I see it took quite a bit to finally convince them.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:51 PM
6

So people are outraged and they're going to "review their policy." My bet is they try to wait it out for people to just forget.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:21 PM
25

This wasn't in the original article. Of course not. Wouldn't want a silly thing like the truth to get in the way of "justice."
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:15 PM
1

you could have googled it first and then provided the answer to start some discourse. And someone here may have had better background in the context of MR issues than a simple Google search.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:13 AM
1

This means that 91% of you think And of those, a majority (51%) said that both men and women are equally disadvantaged. Doesn't sound like claiming to be the "great victims of society" to me. that you are some great victims of society because you are (mostly white) men. You're putting the words into their mouths. All it says is that they think men are victims of society, not necessarily their "mostly white" selves. It's quite a different thing to say "members of my group are at an equal or great…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 01:47 AM
2

My point was more that they aren't waking up to te fact that men are disempowered at all, as you had claimed. As I said, this could have the exact opposite effect from empowering men. You keenness to find an argument has allowed you to misconstrue my statement. Why so defensive? I come here for discussion, which ocassionally means I don't agree with someone. That doesn't mean I'm keen to find an argument, it means I'm keen to advance the discussion in a manner I see as constructive. You seem to …
/r/MensRights09/08/12 06:07 PM
1

Whether you like it or not there are biological differences between men and women and gendering specific items isn't always a bad idea. I never said there weren't or anything to that effect. I'm not sure about this item specifically, it seems kind of silly, but there is no reason to prohibit this entirely. To quote from my post: While this particular instance is not all that important My point isn't that gender roles in general are always bad or something like that, but instead that some of thos…
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:47 PM
3

Except Reddit isn't an encyclopedia, and is meant to serve niche needs with subreddits. If Wikipedia is like Reddit, then that goes to show how poor Wikipedia is on issues like these.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:14 PM
6

All in all, I find this to be highly disturbing, and I have no idea why someone would be that invested in my posting history. I like the entire "I got caught with my pants down, so now I'm going to try to cast suspicion on the people who caught me" thing going on here. The fact is, when they edited pages to reflect an anti-MRM stance, they opened their user history up to scrutiny.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 04:01 PM
2

If hacking and vandalizing the content of a public webpage is called cyber terrorism The basic premise is pretty redicilous and seems nothing more than a way to justify inordinate backlash against an opponent, so anything that's an extension of that seems equally redicilous. While this is a fairly craven act, calling it "cyber terrorism" is misleading at best.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 03:52 PM
1

perpetuating stereotypes/gender roles I guess While this particular instance is not all that important, I have to disagree with you when it comes to the larger scale. While other problems the MRM face are in themselves more important than stereotypes and gender roles, those problems are in many cases built upon those gender roles. For example, biased alimony and male disposability for women based on the concept that men should defend and help women. IMO trying to tackle those problems without fi…
/r/MensRights09/08/12 03:13 PM
2

waking up to the fact that men are dis-empowered (emasculated) Disempowered != emasculated. Don't get me wrong, men are emasculated to a large extent (and masculinity is denigrated), but that isn't the point. The problem with things like these stereotypes is that it works to take away men's choice (not by force, but by suggestion and peer pressure) to be who they want to be, not some masculine stereotype. That's disempowerment in the same way as emasculation is.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 03:06 PM
10

She was like "if the man is the only one who's drunk and he gets an erection its not rape cause you have to want to have sex to get an erection. It's hard to rape a man cause if they are erect thats not really rape cause he wants it". That's like saying "she wasn't raped because she had an orgasm, and therefore enjoyed it, so it couldn't be rape." In fact, people have tried claiming this before, and (understandably) feminists were particularly enraged. You could try pointing out how what she's s…
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:01 AM
1

Political struggle is a kind of conflict, and just like in physical conflict, "non-combatants" may inadvertently be hurt (or at least their feelings). Once in a while we say "NAWALT" just to be fair, but is there any MRA here who would suspend a successful campaign that was advancing our cause to spare third party "feelings"? As part of what might be called the "first party," I have to disagree with you here. This is not hurting feelings in advancing their cause; this is hurting feelings for no …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 10:25 PM
2

It's that /r/lgbt-type attitude of "you should already know everything there is to know and not say anything even if you don't know it's offensive" that ends up turning away people who could otherwise be allies and help their non-heterosexual (or gender normative, etc) friends through hard times. Keep in mind that this is not representative of /r/ainbow in general. When some people are confronted with hate they grow from it and try to help others grow away from it; others, like this individual, …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 10:03 PM
16

It's easily one of the most vilified crimes in existence, if not the most vilified. Quite true, especially considering that they used to kill men for it in the United States.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 08:46 PM
13

My male gay friend jerking off to a gay objectified body has context. This right here is where it completely and totally falls apart (not that it wasn't a farce in the first place). Somehow men objectifying men in the same kind of situation as she described men objectifying women is okay in her book because it "has context" whereas the latter situation is not acceptable. What context? The context that there isn't a woman involved so it's okay to them? (Note that I think both are okay). gasping a…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:35 PM
2

Edit: and I'm banned. And your posts are gone, while the ones critical of MR remain. I guess silencing women's voices is unacceptable only when it's feminist voices.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:48 PM
6

LOL r/mensrights is up to their usual trick: invading women's spaces to silence women's voices. How myopic can a person possibly be? How does opposing someone being silenced amount to silencing people? It's simply amazing the level of projection some of these people manage.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:06 AM
3

Thanks. I was just wondering why a post with a seemingly positive response would be deleted.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:24 AM
15

It's no problem. I find it interesting in that it stands in defiance of the societal view that men are the primary perpetrators of violence across the board. It also makes me wonder whether abuse by women of other adults is simply under reported compared to cases involving children, where sympathy for the child overrides sympathy for the woman that might result in a different outcome. This is pure speculation, of course, and I'm not trying to say that I think women commit more abuse in these cas…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:22 AM
41

Here, with link to study from the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:52 PM
4

What did the comment say?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:45 PM
5

It still presents a problem, however, should one identify as both transsexual and gay or bisexual.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:50 AM
3

It apparently is.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:18 AM
3

So men are just the loaded guns that women may "accidentally" hurt themselves with (never mind the cases where the woman didn't even have consent, even)? What?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:55 AM
6

1) After you've killed the person, that person has no options to change the conditions of the scenario (they're dead). You should be held liable. After a woman becomes pregnant, she has a plethora of choices available to her. 2) A better comparison might be an accident where the other person dies even though you were not negligent. For example, engaging in a sexual act and the other person has a heart attack. Hey, you went in knowing that sex is a strenuous activity and that a heart attack was a…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:53 AM
2

I can agree with that to a large extent, but I think to some extent you misunderstand the MRM. I think a lot of people here understand that not all feminists operate under the same brush. When many people say feminism here they may mean gender feminism (rather than feminism in general) and are at least referring more to feminism as a movement rather than feminism as an idea and identification. It simply gets tiring to keep saying "certain feminists" and the like.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 09:16 PM
5

Is this subreddit a circlejerk? I'm not complaining about downvotes here, but if you all prefer to downvote instead of discuss, I'm going to just leave. Go ahead. You've clearly come here to do nothing but be confrontational, and therefore are adding nothing to this discussion. I now invite you to demonstrate that the "mainstream feminist movement" stifles discussion in the way you are describing and that it is not actually the more vocal minority you're referring to. This is a very intentionall…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 09:00 PM
3

I never said it was...
/r/MensRights05/08/12 02:34 PM
2

Not really. Scientific theories have their own "evolution," so to speak, where the theories that are demonstrated to be false sink and the others swim. Of course, even then, some theories may be seen as more likely than others. If all anybody did was try to demonstrate that theories are true, there would be strong confirmation bias and other problems.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 01:53 PM
2

I was banned from there without posting there or on antisrs, likely because one of the mods had seen a post of mine here. That's no dissent or bigotry and still being banned.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:05 AM
1

I did too. It's nothing to be ashamed of. All I'm saying is with great power comes great responsibility. With littler power come littler responsibilities. But the question would be, how is that power? Even if I feel like less of a target in public places, the reality is that I am far more of a target, at least if you believe the United States Department of Justice. In fact, I'm more likely to be the target of violent crime committed by both men and women - significantly so, in fact. One common r…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 02:39 AM
1

Considering their typically reasonable stance and recent rather bad comments, I have to wonder if their account has been hacked.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 11:17 PM
1

My point is that how can we trivialise everything? "We" have trivialised nothing. Once again, I'm still not talking about individual cases. But to address this (irrelevant) argument, what you're presenting is a thought-terminating cliche that could be said of many situations. Ignoring things because they make us feel bad to think about them is not good reasoning. I am not inferior to my gf. Not at all. I would gladly help her prevent death via my own. I care that much. As I've said, the reasonin…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 11:14 PM
1

That's the whole problem with the "gay rights" movement: instead of just admitting most of you aren't men (or women), you try to force the rest of us who are normal to refuse to be men (or women), too. Are you saying that gay males are not men because of being gay? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just curious.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 10:24 PM
2

I think they're trying to suggest that the author is gay and has a thing against men because of being rejected by other men. But where they get the idea that this guy is gay I have no idea.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 09:58 PM
6

Sure talk like right wing nuts. That's some rather brilliant pigeon-holing right there, but sorry, specific word choice does not make them either right wing or not right wing.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:42 PM
1

If it is about trends, why are we focusing on this one issue? Because specific instances serve as a call to contemplate the larger issue. For example, the feminist "SlutWalk" marches were brought on by the remarks of Constable Michael Sanguinetti; however, the protests are not specifically about his remarks, but about wider beliefs. Also I think you misunderstood what I put. The men =/= all men. But still, then, it would seem that there are far more cases of men sacrificing themselves for their …
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:26 PM
2

Is it impossible to believe that the men simply were more capable of love for their partners than the women were? Is it fair to jump to harsh conclusions on either side of the extreme on dead men's views on life? You still seem to be missing the point (or intentionally trying to mischaracterize). It's about trends, not these individual men. Their views on life or individual capability of love for their partners have nothing to do with it. Or are you saying that, in general, men are more capable …
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:13 PM
7

I always like the labels people like you try to place on us. "Straight white men's rights movement" "Radical religious right" I would chalk it up to out-group homogeneity, but somehow I get the feeling it's intentional.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:09 PM
2

I have to say, there is a point, no matter how shrouded in hate it may seem. ... Why must this be about male degredation? These men, you may or may not know, could have chose to sacrifice themselves for one single reason totally seperate to the reason you all portray You seem to be missing the point entirely. The question isn't "why did these individual men sacrifice themselves?" It is "why are the only people who seem to sacrifice themselves in events like these men?" Their individual acts of c…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:06 PM
4

That sentence right there would be her response. "It's because of the patriarchal brainwashing that says women can't do those jobs." I think that these excuses can be avoided by framing it differently, such as by asking "do you think women should be encouraged to take these more dangerous jobs, where they're more likely to die?" It's harder for them to use such excuses when you word it that way.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:53 PM
20

The title ("Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting") was enough to make me stop reading. A fair title like "Men's Rights Activists Disdain Gender Difference in Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting" would have been more honest, but wouldn't have advanced their agenda. When they can't actually discredit our arguments, they twist our words until they can.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:46 PM
1

The sign of a true MRA is one who will use public tragedies for their own cause, without regret, without remorse, and without second guessing themselves. Hm, what does that remind me of? At any rate, this is a gross mischaracterization of our arguments; the problem isn't so much that the men were willing to sacrifice themselves for the women they love, but that the women weren't willing to do the same. But from these bigots, I would expect nothing less than twisting our words.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:32 PM
4

If you're cooking food and they're at the cash registers, for instance, there may be differences in what gear the law requires. I think this is a good point, but also brings out another point of discrimination that I've heard of in fast food: women are generally placed in jobs interacting with customers, which they are perceived to be better at, while the men are left to the cooking, cleaning, and less desirable jobs.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:20 PM
0

oh don't be so emotional Just a simple question: would you say this to a woman with similar circumstances? Why is it that he should be less emotional?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:07 PM
1

Acknowledging that this privilege is indeed a privilege would be a good start Regardless of whether or not this is "privilege," I think this is a much more complex issue than you give credit for. While it's possible that women simply don't treat men the same way, it's also possible that in the same manner, culture has conditioned men to be more accepting of sexual advances (lest they be called "gay" or otherwise degraded for not being forward). Along the same lines, culture has dictated that in …
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:51 PM
1

Another article by this guy is titled "Driving The Patriarchy: Demonic Males, Feminism, and Genetic Determinism." You'd have to be anti-male yourself to think this guy doesn't have an anti-male agenda. It's just disgusting that he's being allowed to hide behind "science" to justify his bigotry.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:26 PM
1

It looks to me to be scientifically accurate. How about the fact that he doesn't really cite sources, but instead states that it's "all pretty well established" and just gives a reading list?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:24 PM
-1

But you live in a society which tries to teach men not to follow that policy It would seem that the power to teach men otherwise lies with the parents of young boys. That is a privilege which it is still your responsibility to help dismantle. What, exactly, do you suggest?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:49 AM
1

you owe it to others who lack that ability, to not treat them as if their outfit does send such a message I don't, but then you seem to be treating men as a whole rather than a collection of individuals. You seemed to be implying that because of some (perceived) injustices in the past, men should suffer from injustices now and women should have more privileges than men. Is this or is this not what you are saying?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:55 AM
7

So you're saying all men are indebted to women simply because of the past?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 10:35 PM
0

MR has 10k more subscribers than SRD, I have no idea why or how MR became intimidated or concerned about SRD in the slightest. This subreddit may have 10,000 more subscribers, but obviously not every reader participates in every individual thread. Even with 10,000 less subscibers, SRD can have a significant impact on individual comment threads. If SRS is invading SRD, I feel like I would know. An ironic situation to compare, IMO. One claiming to be "just a circlejerk" to avoid criticism, and the…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:50 AM
2

There's a difference between "politically incorrect" and just being plain intolerant. If you think the mods banning someone (you?) over that makes them radical leftists, then I have to wonder what you don't consider to be leftist.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 12:00 AM
2

Turns out that as long as you have a penis, society consideres you a rapist-in-waiting. Which is totally unsurprising really; I've seen where a feminist has maintained that gay men support rape because all penetration is symbolic of the oppression of women. Sexists don't care what your background is.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:41 AM
-1

Don't women already use weapons more often in domestic violence situations? I'm sure that would help that statistic.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:30 PM
2

I agree (to some extent at least), but I think it has to be a two-way street. Many more would be outraged if the genders were reversed, even if most of us here would consider either joke acceptable. That's the double standard that I see here; not that such jokes are seen as acceptable in the first place, but that they're seen as more acceptable when they're about men than about women.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:21 PM
1

Is grabbing a mans chest the same as grabbing a women's chest? That is a separate issue unrelated to the above, though. I think it is fair to say that socially there are different norms and taboos regarding the various levels of openness we have towards the male/female "private areas" That doesn't mean that the social norm is morally right by a particular definition. I think on this subreddit we're more likely to ignore such biases.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:11 PM
-1

I'm certainly not mad; I find it more contemptible than angering. At any rate, your "friendly warning" seems to be misplaced at best and not in earnest at worst. This subreddit is an easy target due to the nature of the subject matter itself, just as many of the other subreddits perceived as more easily trolled tend to have subject matter that can elicit strong responses (lgbt, r/ainbow, the feminist subreddits, etc.). The fact of the matter is that none of this would be an issue if there weren'…
/r/MensRights30/07/12 04:46 PM
0

I like to read that subreddit and occasionally I'll play a game. I don't like to "play" on this subreddit, because it's impossible for me not to feel bad for you guys if I do I'm sorry, but this is a pretty bad excuse. I have little more empathy for anyone who participates in GoT but doesn't "play" this subreddit than anyone taking any other side or none at all. It's ultimately an unwelcome disruption, no matter what subreddit it is. Even if you only target only feminist subreddits, it doesn't m…
/r/MensRights30/07/12 04:17 PM
7

Where are the people saying that she's completely capable of making her own decision on the matter? I mean, on one hand I can understand why she might be angry with him for what he did and decide not to marry him. On the other hand, it seems entirely out of line that others condemn him for this, and basically seem to be trying to pressure her into taking their favored action. They are trying to make the decision for her, which is just wrong. but in the absence of evidence that such a decision wa…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 07:53 PM
4

I'm not so sure - the study shows that women objectify other women as well. This meshes well with the typical gender feminist "patriarchy makes women X (in this case, objectify) themselves" explanation, actually.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 10:28 PM
1

"this is so ridiculous I won't bother arguing this with you" This is just about as low as it goes. Sadly I've encountered this, along with the good old "you just want to be seen as the victim" (projection much?) and "you're incapable of debate so I won't debate with you." These are more often found in places where they know they have some support to drown you out, but it's still quite pathetic.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 09:53 PM
3

I agree that this is not an important issue; however, there are certainly issues that many here find important that are social, not just legal or political. In fact, social issues may be even more important in some cases, because those social issues fuel the inequality on the legal and political fronts by driving perceptions of men. It's even right there in the title of the main page of /r/MR: "social and legal equality."
/r/MensRights21/07/12 12:08 AM
1

It's a genuinemra sock.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 09:39 PM
7

we had to protect the kids and make sure nothing else had happened This is what bothers me most. Research has shown that pedophilia towards either sex isn't linked to sexual orientation. The fact that he was in a relationship with an adult student says absolutely nothing about such a propensity. I hope he sues them and wins. I can understand them firing him for having a relationship with a student if that's against their code of ethics (because they have that right), but not based on that line o…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:50 PM
1

Ah, virgin shaming. The hallmark of someone who truly believes in equality.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:27 AM
1

More relevant to your example would be a name with an associated listed land line phone number. Sure, you could redact the name, but you can still do a reverse lookup to find that name. Facebook posts, on the other hand, are generally hidden. It's like an unlisted number without an associated name, where you wouldn't be able to find the name based on the number.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:26 AM
0

If you support women's rights, you are a feminist. "Either you're with me, or you're against me!" But in all seriousness, not everyone uses feminist terminology, and I don't think it is reasonable to try to foist your terminology on others. I think you'll find that most here recognize women's rights and feminism to be two distinct entities.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:21 AM
2

Thankfully there are a lot of religious and conservative movements I also have to be thankful for this, but the thing I don't like about this is that once again it will be framed as a "conservative" issue rather than an issue of basic rights and equality.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 12:23 AM
1

When men objectify women it's sexist. When women objectify men it's empowerment. And even more generally, when men objectify it's usually seen as negative as where when women objectify it's more often seen as neutral or positive, regardless of the target in the sense of both gender and age (what's wrong for men should also be wrong for women).
/r/MensRights20/07/12 12:06 AM
5

more about what triggers have a decent chance of triggering someone Everything you say triggers me.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:27 PM
8

So the laws (as usual) ignore context and intent. I guess the problem is with the law ignoring context and intent, then.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:25 PM
2

Their language shows the one of the biggest flaws in their argument actually: it's not "know how," it's "can be": Even in cultures where women are generally deeply oppressed, they can be affectionate with other females and children. It's that only women "can be" nurturing. She may have meant that only women are capable, but the interpretation that only women are allowed to be is much closer to reality and much more enlightening. It isn't that men can't be - it's that they're treated as suspiciou…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 10:45 PM
1

political and corporate leadership The power of the few men at the top has little bearing on the power of men as a group (apex fallacy). It is possible for group A to have more power than group B even if there are a few from group B that have more power than anyone in group A. Further, there's nothing to say that those powerful members of group B can't be beholden or serve as a proxy to group A.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 10:17 PM
2

The females are not dominant over the leading male, however it could be argued that females as a group have more power than males as a group. IMO, this is exactly what it comes down to, even if the example you gave might not apply that well to humans. It's the apex fallacy: quite a few feminists seem to point to the men at the top having more power than women and hurl claims of patriarchy. The power of men at the top has little bearing on the power of men as a group.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 10:01 PM
1

My point isn't that people think it's a good thing, simply that the fact that they're prisoners somehow makes it okay (not funny, which I never brought up, or good in some way) or less of a concern than for "normal, law-abiding citizens." It's apathy in the "tough break" kind of way, not "I approve of prison rape" in any way.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:43 AM
1

It doesn't count, of course, because they're in prison and therefore it's okay. Also, it's committed by men on other men so nobody is being oppressed, so it's the fault of men. /s
/r/MensRights18/07/12 04:20 AM
13

With the way some women seem to think about men being anywhere near them, asking them out for coffee, or otherwise existing, I'm not sure suggesting this (rather than pepper spray) is a good idea. Add that with male disposability and more lenient sentences for women, and I'd rather not see the use of lethal force encouraged.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:56 PM
4

Sorry, but no. Defining that any humor whatsoever is "wrong" is very dangerous indeed. Think about how many comedians are making clever political observations and whatnot. If you start to make topics taboo, you are doing it wrong. Context, context, context. It should be obvious that he was wrong for joking about rape in that context, as where comedians are not in a different context. But since the law is prone to ignoring context regardless of how important it is, I do think you have a point.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 06:01 PM
2

unironically states that scientific study is an inherently privileged activity and therefore carries inherent bias Funny how all those men participated in biased studies that discount rape on men by defining it differently and then say men aren't raped. Certainly these men were merely trying to preserve their privilege. /s
/r/MensRights09/07/12 06:38 PM
1

Cute how you use big words to seem smarter Cute what you perceive to be big words. how somebody can instantly decide whether or not somebody's part of the men's rights movement You normally can't, but you can determine if someone is part of a movement or organization that is entirely contrary to the goals of your movement and therefore determine that they are not part of your movement. Being an active member of an organization (GoT) that has promoted the trolling of this subreddit is contrary to…
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:59 AM
2

Just a gentle reminder that "Bumseksftw2" is both involved in GoT and is listed as a moderator of the sub they link to.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:19 PM
2

On a related note, here's a new quote mining site, and the (apparently) associated Reddit account.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 06:26 PM
1

Well, do start off the list of one-fits-all teaching methods when you have to be dealing with socially awkward kids, poor kids, bullies, thugs that think they can get away with anything, rich spoiled brats that know they can get away with anything and then the kids that actually want to learn. I never said "one-fits-all," I said better suited to a mixed group. That means, adapting for the differences in learning between boys and girls, and then applying punishment where necessary.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 07:39 PM
3

I support allowing teachers to punish students. Why not instead support adapting teaching methods to better suit a mixed group of boys and girls and leave punishment as the last resort rather than a way of trying to pigeonhole boys into the environment?
/r/MensRights07/07/12 07:28 PM
1

When students seem to be more inclined to be less interested in studying, schools opt to ignore the problem or kick them out if they keep causing trouble instead of getting to the root of the problem. And statistics show that boys are more likely than girls to be troublemakers. So you want to start punishing boys for their innate or learned qualities? Okay, let's carry that principle over to girls and women as well: no Title IX, no affirmative action, no encouraging women to go into fields they …
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:05 PM
1

So they've built a culture that figuratively beats men down, and then when they start to see the results in men internalizing it, they beat men down further for having internalized it. Makes sense. And as if women never do the exact same thing, and this is a gendered issue.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 05:55 PM
3

Lest anyone consider commenting seriously, this is a 0 day account that has only posted this. It (obviously) also hits some typical /r/MR sore points. The likelihood of GoT involvement seems rather high.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 05:44 PM
2

For me, an /r/MR post is the top result, but it's not exactly a positive one (and it has more downvotes to upvotes to boot). I do find things like this concerning, though. Instead of actively trying to censor us, our detractors can potentially use their superior numbers to drown our online presence out.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 05:29 PM
10

And this, IMO, is why gender feminism is so dangerous. They don't just want to use their terms within their own circles, they want to force their definitions everywhere until it's impossible for you to form an argument because the language is not capable of faulting them.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 05:26 AM
2

The only reason conservatives are starting to support the MRM is they see it as a step to restoring the biblically mandated nuclear family with the man as head of household. While I agree with what you've said, I think saying that conservative MRAs are only in it for that reason is going a bit far. I'm sure some of them are, and that would indeed be regressive and harmful, but I don't think there's need to alienate anyone with genuine intentions.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:46 PM
3

You can't have both. Simply untrue, as is evidenced by the restrictions placed on free speech in any country; it's not a black and white issue. The problem with the text itself is that it intentionally misrepresents the movement. The issue of taking the subreddit itself down is a different issue altogether, no matter what you think about it.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 05:19 AM
0

Perhaps the recent debacle about PMS where they simultaneously went after people for chalking women's behavior up to PMS and for not accepting PMS as a justification?
/r/MensRights05/07/12 09:49 PM
1

Well if you don't have anything valid to say, I'm off to more important things.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 08:10 PM
2

Yes, it's a GIF. Am I supposed to be angered or something? EDIT: and you might find this relevant.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 07:55 PM
5

Because many feminists from my experience seem to think that men don't need a movement. You can't have it both ways. Also, because if you're going to say you're a/the movement for equality, you can't just seek equality only where it's beneficial. That's supporting inequality through inaction.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 07:53 PM
0

I'm glad we have an authority from SRS here to tell us so. I'm not even going to argue why sexism towards men does exist with you, because I know it will be wasted breath.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 07:21 PM
5

That's fair enough.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 05:48 PM
8

Seriously? You don't think the MRM is interested in male rights on all levels? What about circumcision? Education? And the myriad other issues that effect boys?
/r/MensRights05/07/12 05:29 PM
6

I wonder this as well. It has to be some kind of violation of basic human rights to allow this to go on without trying to intervene somehow if they know it's going on I would think, and it would be hard for them to say they don't know it's going on since they use it as a threat.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:04 AM
13

I think part of the problem most on this subreddit would have with this petition would be: Why not just ask for a blanket ban on all sexism and violence rather than "aggressive misogyny" and "violence against women" in particular? I know some will reply "what about the men?" but the question wouldn't have to be asked if these things were just done in a gender neutral way in the first place. They could even say "all violence, particularly violence against women" and that would be fine, because vi…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 02:39 AM
4

You could bring up the fact that they seem to be okay with homophobia so long as its directed at men. That might bring out the cognitive dissonance and force them to reconsider their position.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 02:04 AM
2

Good. If they start applying their morality to women as well, perhaps those women will start to realize the problems with it.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:05 PM
47

that threatens rape Not just rape, but state sanctioned rape. Because if they're willing to threaten you with it, it seems reasonable to assume they don't have a problem with it going on.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 08:56 PM
9

With how offensive these things sound, I wouldn't be surprised if they last far less than their 3 month estimate. Of course, the idiots who created these things will probably chalk it up to men being pro-drunk driving rather than against threats of rape in jail.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 08:45 PM
5

These wrong impressions that many first come here with are no accident. Some of our detractors are quick to associate anti-feminist with anti-women even though these things are not equivalent, as no movement is equivalent with a demographic group. I think you're right, though, that a presentation might help people who come here to understand what this movement is really about.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 06:10 PM
2

To be fair, as one commenter there notes, it's a slight mischaracterization of the truth. No rape actually occurred, so there is no "rapist." But the man still intended to commit rape when he started, so hopefully they get him for attempted rape (apparently they're stilling contemplating charging him). IMO it's still unjust though, because if it were a non-trans woman and he decided he didn't like the appearance of her vagina or something and didn't actually rape her I doubt he would have been f…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 04:42 AM
3

I have to admit that I share some of levelate's sentiment. I can understand trying to attack the misogyny in the MRM, but I get the feeling you're not doing it for the benefit of the movement based on the way you do it. For example, I doubt someone interested in rooting out misogyny to improve the movement would post sincerely on /r/againstmensrights. Therefore, I have to agree that you're a troll.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 12:50 AM
4

The (gender) feminist idea of equality ftfy
/r/MensRights04/07/12 12:29 AM
3

IMO there is no way to reduce their trolling outright. Efforts to curb trolling initially on other subreddits have already resulted in people from GoT claiming that the OP is a troll when they aren't, derailing the thread (and, in effect, trolling it). Reducing the effect? I believe that's another story. I think the way to handle this is to take every personal story here with a grain of salt and handle it in a courteous but not too emotionally reactive way. That is, for example if a man comes he…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 11:54 PM
3

It doesn't, but the reasons behind it show their anti-male bias. The entire womyn-born-womyn thing is based on hatred towards anyone born with a penis, whether or not they come to identify as men. This just goes to show how far the hatred of some feminists for maleness reaches.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 05:53 PM
2

I see they finally managed to remove that implications section that said that it actually made things worse for women and discounted any effect on men from that Wikipedia article.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 05:47 PM
1

I wouldn't say that, but I would say that their hatred of transpeople stems from hatred of men, which is why it's relevant. They might be transwomen, but the hatred for them still stems from hatred of men.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 05:18 PM
9

OP didn't exactly claim it was anything original. "Look how these women attack me" sounds rather like a claim of originality.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 04:13 AM
2

Ta da.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 04:10 AM
2

I get what you're saying, but that's not really what I'm talking about still. What I mean is that weaponization vs not weaponization is about intent, not about rights at all. The paradox isn't really relevant to whether the woman intends to use the lack of intimacy as a weapon to punish or manipulate or if she genuinely doesn't wish to have sex.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 03:13 AM
8

I don't know if that's exactly weaponization, as anyone ought to be able to say no at any time But then you're talking about the right to bodily integrity, which is an entirely different topic than intent. Withholding sex solely in order to influence behavior in such a way or as punishment is, IMO, weaponization (even though it is her right).
/r/MensRights02/07/12 10:38 PM
4

wrapped up with how much power a person has Seems like they usually don't even bother with how much power the individual has and compare straight to the men at top (apex fallacy).
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:45 PM
5

which sex is being murdered more in America in domestic disputes IIRC, men (now at least, not sure about then). I also like how she masks her sexism behind "I love men dearly."
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:34 PM
5

I identified one bot in this comment Bot 1: 99% confidence that this is a bot Gender is neuter with 68% confidence Approximate age is 1 month and 1 day with 95% confidence Bot is an annoyance with 100% confidence
/r/MensRights02/07/12 01:32 AM
8

LGBT groups I just don't see this, and it seems that such groups have better things to do than complain about video games. It seems to me that most of the attempts to control language here are coming from those feminists who will use any excuse to target any group dominated by men. Anybody who has actually touched ME3 knows that the reason it's seen by some as a bad game has nothing to do with the gay option. It's sad if this has been used as an excuse by EA to defend criticism of the game.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:55 PM
2

In addition to yourthevoys' point, you could argue that given the sex ratio of autism spectrum disorders (Wikipedia: "Boys are at higher risk for ASD than girls. The sex ratio averages 4.3:1 and is greatly modified by cognitive impairment: it may be close to 2:1 with mental retardation and more than 5.5:1 without") that the asperger's insult is targeted at the male sex. I've certainly never seen it directed at women as an insult, but have seen it directed at men. Edit: sp
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:48 PM
5

Eh, I think it's a mistake to get offended by this. She said the EVE scene is dominated by those types, and I don't know if that's an accurate assessment, but "dominated" doesn't imply that everyone, or even the majority is like that. IMO, it's not about being offended by the word, it's about being offended by the blatant double standard. Calling any group sluts would likely draw the ire of such types. Even if it were only saying that a particular group is dominated by sluts in the same way as s…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:31 PM
7

This would get things done. Ah, but it probably wouldn't help them get done what they want to get done. We hear it all the time: women's issues must be fixed first. It's a convenient way of being against equality through inaction while being seen as the only path to equality. After all, they manage to convince plenty of men that feminism is equality without once addressing men's issues. Without the motivation for actual equality, they have no reason to talk about our issues.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:12 PM
4

From the PM: The people I describe - who are MRAs only insomuch that they border on hating women and just want to bash feminists rather than do anything positive - are trash. That's nice that you think they're trash. I guess it's okay if other people see you as trash, then? I wouldn't agree with that, but hey, you said it. And at any rate, what's so wrong about addressing gender feminism? Are we simply to ignore it when they actively fight against the rights of men and try to shame us for the me…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 09:08 PM
9

The mods are laughable, the most upvoted posters are contemptable, and I intend to stay here until the trash is taken out. This is exactly why I maintain you're a troll. You don't just want to have /r/MR be your way, you want those opinions you disagree with to be "taken out" like "trash." People here tolerated your opinions, even when they weren't pro-MRA, until the point where you started attacking other MRAs and the movement itself. You don't seem to want to offer them the same. This is the l…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:36 PM
12

Downvoting someone simply because of who you think they are You were the one who said "This is my banned username." Are you really so surprised that people are downvoting your 0 day account that's come here with nothing positive to say and admits to ban evasion? If that doesn't qualify as trolling, I don't know what does.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:55 PM
7

I don't think you're looking very hard. Most of them probably aren't as obvious as this (somewhat NSFW) that turned up with a simple Google search (and yes, it's a real ad), but it's there. You can see it in commercials for shaving products, body wash (think AXE), and plenty of other products. Sometimes it's more subtle as well.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:43 PM
18

I was going to post this there, but it's not worth the hassle... sourpuss Michele Bachmann types Including all those gay MRAs. Wait... The What About the Men refrain Yes, the what about the men "refrain." You see, Jezebel, nobody ever has to ask "what about the women?" because they'll be covered or the law will be considered sexist and thrown out. We can stop asking "what about the men?" when someone stops to give a damn about men in the first place. This doesn't mean that vasectomies won't be c…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:31 PM
21

Even if we do challenge "women have it worse", what do they have to worry? It shouldn't matter who has it worse. It matters absolutely who is perceived as having it worse. It's simple behavioral economics that we will typically invest more in those perceived to be disadvantaged in some way than in those who are perceived to be equal or ahead of in some way. Without women having it "worse" across the board, the house of cards that holds up gender feminism begins to fall. Suddenly that new law pro…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:22 PM
12

Men in the United States are required to register when they turn 18, and can be prosecuted if they don't (although, as popoi1147 has said, they haven't actually prosecuted anyone in a while). The other problem is that not registering leaves you unable to receive federal aid, as MaunaLoona has said. While it's not directly related to this case, the typical feminist stance on this (as far as I can tell) is that selective service should be abolished to achieve equality (rather than making women par…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:05 PM
5

The thing is, as I see it, "economically motivated" women and horny men would make it work and, TBH, we're talking about a good 90 to 95 percent of mankind right there, lol. Just because they would "make it work" doesn't mean that other people don't make it work. Plenty of gay men and women are successful. Now, some of them may still fit into those traditional roles (I don't know), but still, it doesn't take woman + horny man for economic motivation or success.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:10 AM
2

I fail to see the logic of, "Obamacare is sexist because it also covers female-specific health concerns." The concern isn't that it also covers female-specific health concerns. It's that it caters to female health concerns rather extensively beyond male concerns even where it doesn't seem necessary, setting up offices to cater to women's health in many government departments (FDA? Really?), among other problems. I'm not paying for other people's healthcare, I'm paying for my own. Under Obamacare…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:14 PM
8

IMO it's a men's rights issue precisely because it's possible to be both for universal health care and be against Obamacare due to its sexism. I think far too often men's rights issues are made out to be conservative anyways. You don't have to be conservative to be against sexism against men, you just can't be "liberal" in the sense that you support sexist measures.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:29 PM
1

What I still don't get is how this is even remotely true. Both can be illegal without saying anything about which one is worse, just as both assault and murder are both illegal. This is so incredibly depraved on their part it's disgusting.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:29 PM
5

I'm 100% for social health care, but I'm 100% against the steaming pile of excrement that is Obamacare due to its execution, and particularly the anti-male bias in dedicating more resources specifically to women's health. Especially when women's health already receives much more funding across the board. People might try to paint this as purely a "conservative" vs "liberal" issue, as they often like to paint the MRM vs feminism, but that's really misleading.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:15 PM
6

Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Seriously? These aren't two conflicting things here. There's no reason that FGM can't be seen as worse than MGM and still have both be banned because both are bad regardless of which one is "worse." Kin…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:07 PM
2

I see nothing wrong with this. I wouldn't to date an unemployed woman, unless maybe she was in school or something still. I think that's a good way of looking at it, but at the same time I seem to remember seeing a report that said that men care far less whether or not a woman is employed, so that may be why there is a perceived double standard here.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:26 PM
1

Rape is worse than murder because the dead aren't traumatized by the crime? Personally, I think it would be better to be alive and traumatized than dead. It would be interesting to see how many rape victims would agree with that as well.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:56 PM
2

I agree with many of your points here, but I think that's a dangerous attitude. IMO one of the reasons gender feminism has become harmful is because of the entire "feminism is about women, not about men. Therefore we'll ignore men entirely." Thus when feminism has moved from securing rights (such as voting) to gaining privileges, feminists remain willfully ignorant of the effects their movement has on men, because feminism isn't about men.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:51 PM
0

Real rape is reprehensible, regardless of who is the perpetrator, or who is the victim, but as Sterling pointed out, so is real murder, and that is tolerated in video games. I don't think participating in a fantasy is tantamount to perpetrating an action in real life, and I don't think people have the right to police other people's thoughts. This is often the argument used as to why rape fantasy erotica for women is okay, which only makes their entire argument all the more absurd. If they really…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:38 PM
1

While this is a good idea in theory, I sadly would suspect that feminism wouldn't be seen as a political viewpoint but rather as the expected norm to be followed. I'd be concerned that bringing it up with his supervisor would only make things worse and he would be seen as complaining about women having rights rather than what it actually is.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:26 AM
5

haha so you define it for me and then call me a troll based on your definition? nice counter troll. Not my definition. It's a rather commonly used definition by feminists, as is cited by Demonspawn.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:18 AM
3

I think a cogent argument can be made for the opposition in this case The point IMO isn't that breaking these more rigid roles for women is a bad thing, but instead that feminists using the fact that women once had to conform those roles while ignoring the fact that men had to conform to harmful roles is. Some feminists posit that feminism doesn't need to address men at all because that would be catering men and men are ultimately not what feminism is about. That seems a valid statement on it's …
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:15 AM
7

a nice, concise, simple and child-like definition of power that fits your needs. good job, now no one can question you. You mean like sexism = prejudice + power? Well, at least you're an obvious troll.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 03:53 AM
1

As a man who detests traditional, committed, monogamous relationships I don't want people running around calling my ideal relationship model "objectification", it's just how I choose to carry on inter-personal relationships. I don't get the impression that non-monogamous relationships in general are being called "objectification," only the kind as is presented in the article. More the "this man I use for this, that man I use for that" kind of thing.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:57 AM
1

I think you have a point, but at the same time I can see how the complete lack of any statement about violence against men could be seen as tacit approval of it.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:51 AM
4

Tasteless in the sense that sexual material really doesn't belong in a professional setting. I know well there's nothing overtly sexual on the cover or in the title, but that doesn't change the nature of the book, and the fact that others may recognize the title (as obviously happened in this case).
/r/MensRights23/06/12 04:22 AM
3

Of course they do. The white knights and men who tow the gender feminist line are still men, and so it comes as no surprise IMO that they be "stabbed in the back," so to speak, by feminists or other white knights/male gender feminists when it's convenient.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:56 PM
-2

I think it's pretty tasteless to leave sitting like that, but hardly something that should be punishable.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:49 PM
1

I want to be clear that I'm not devaluing the importance of emotion. There have been those that have said that this subreddit shows a lack of compassion at times by being too logical and literal, and perhaps to some extent that is true. but I'm my own person and it's my decision to make regardless if it's a right or wrong one Nobody has challenged your right to leave or personal sovereignty, so I'm not sure why you're making this point. At the same time, I have to be critical of your exit here. …
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:25 PM
2

rainbow - gaaaaaaaay, thats what it is, gay stuff. As another poster has mentioned, /r/ainbow was formed after some of those "I hate white cismale heterosexuals!" types came into power at /r/lgbt, so I wouldn't really call it a feminist subreddit. But to your list I would add OneY. I called one of the mods out on it being a feminist subreddit, and to my surprise, they agreed with me.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 05:25 PM
2

Where he tries to pass off a guy killing his children as acceptable [emphasis mine] because of the court system, really? He doesn't appear to be saying that it's acceptable, merely that it's an expected outcome of the way the system is set up. There is a major difference. Just because an outcome is logical does not mean it is morally condonable; it is possible that rape has emerged due to evolutionary influences and is therefore an expected outcome, but that does not make it morally right either…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 05:07 PM
1

I wasn't speaking to you, was I? Nope, but as eggilicious has pointed out this isn't a PM this is an open comment thread. Seems like you're the one concern trolling to me. From Wikipedia: "A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but wi…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:55 PM
1

That's a nice ad hominem you've got there. Care to explain why that in particular is flawed, or would you rather just continue concern trolling?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:40 PM
1

The title is rather bad considering the fact that they present the second as a given even though the first is probably more widely accepted, but I think that if they're bandying the patriarchy they're probably a lost cause and better ignored.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 03:01 PM
1

To paraphrase what I've said before, people interested in serious discussion are fooled on the internet all the time. It comes with the territory. The only way to win is to accept that what you're reading may or may not be false and not become worked up should it turn out to be false, as you are here. It does not make us "stupid" to not thoroughly fact check this on an individual basis. The kind of people who post these things are in many cases trying to stifle legitimate discussion by throwing …
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:16 PM
2

provides private information You brought up the issue of private information. Perhaps there is an argument in their posting the information being wrong, but that is entirely unrelated to the validity of labeling individuals or collectives as bigoted. I don't even know why you brought the SPLC into this, they have nothing to do with it. If I must remind you of my original reply to you, I was stating that the site does not just label convicted offenders, since some inclusions are based on the subj…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 01:45 AM
2

Yes, but then the SPLC isn't publishing all your personal details with the presumable intention of getting you harassed now, is it? Information that could be obtained independently. Edit: And props for the always classic, "Well, they're allowed to be bad because someone else is bad too!" argument, does that have a fancy fallacy name? Putting words in my mouth. The SPLC has every right to say what it said, just as we had right to call them on it. They were not "bad," which is a very subjective qu…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 12:21 AM
3

a nebulous term that the author admits is based totally on their subjective opinion. And? The SPLC brushes this subreddit with a broad stroke and then pretty much admits that they didn't mean everyone even though they made it sound that way, and very few outside the MRM seems to have a problem with said nebulous definition. For that matter, there is very little about these matters that isn't largely subjective opinion.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 12:14 AM
11

unsafe driving Interesting you bring that up considering that the last time it came up here it was shown that it's not that men have more accidents for the amount of driving they do, it's simply that men drive more.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 03:14 AM
8

faggot mangina COWERING before women Yeah, because gay guys have especially good reason to cower before women. Seriously, though, the way you define what it means to be a man and try to shame men into conforming is exactly the same as some gender feminists do. If you constantly have to resort to shaming tactics instead of reasoned debate, chances are you don't have a leg to stand on.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 02:44 AM
5

Yes, it is very telling that they would include questions about feminism in that survey. They are equating opposition to feminism with hostile sexism toward women. Hm, seems to be a common theme. "If you don't support feminism, you're anti-woman." "If you don't condemn an accused rapist immediately without any doubt or you defend the falsely accused, you're a rape supporter." "If you aren't pro-choice, you want to control women's bodies." Note that in the last case I'm not saying I'm not pro-cho…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 09:54 PM
1

We don't follow any ideology other than success. A "victory at any cost" many times turns out to be more of a failure than a success. even the "cheating on your spouse" approach won't get completely downvoted into oblivion on our subreddit Based on this flowchart, apparently it gets upvoted, when it comes to women at least. And since most of the advice is for guys The part of the flowchart in question isn't.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:21 PM
1

Didn't agree with you above but agree with you here. Five-day-old account that keeps saying over and over again that we're turning into SRS by discussing certain issues? Probably a concern troll.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 08:27 PM
4

From the concern troll that's brought us such classics as Is it lonely out there, being such a singular, special snowflake? Maybe one day an MRA will fuck you, too, and THEN you'll be the girl with the most cake! and What I love is how snowflakes intentionally miss the point, winning the male approval so is so very desperate for.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:36 PM
1

I'm not interested in conforming to the idea that my personal protection comes before the rest of society's, espevially when a kid is involved... Better to be free and able to continue to benefit society than to take a fairly high risk that you will be put in a position where you're no longer trusted to fulfill that role, whether due to actual imprisonment or the media ruining your name. It's not about "feeling victimized," it's about seeing the forest for the trees and picking your battles rath…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:52 PM
5

Every woman in the vicinity who did not jump to offer the kid a ride is equally culpable if something happens to him. You could even argue that they are even more culpable in such cases due to the fact that men are far more likely to be suspected and therefore have good reason not to act.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:42 PM
5

When a man taking a lost child to airport employees alone results in him being detained, that doesn't really leave any leeway should someone decide they don't like him. You have to pick your battles; based on the fact that the media is likely to destroy anyone in a situation like this rather than reporting the facts, there wouldn't be any outrage if somebody accused him anyways. And the chances that driving the kid will have a really positive effect is likely to be fairly low as well.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:32 PM
1

The rest of us non-violent men can't really do much more than the average person. Haven't you heard, men have a responsibility to commit violence against other men to prevent any violence against women, even if that violence was started by the woman and the man was defending himself. /s
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:24 AM
2

Five-day-old account concern trolling? Colour me so surprised. Many of the arguments here have acknowledged that women and children are in perhaps a majority of cases less physically capable. That doesn't mean that physically weaker people can't do plenty of harm, especially when the physically stronger are told they can't defend themselves or they are abusers. It seems like you're taking a complex and grey issue and making it out to be black and white. EDIT: Also, IIRC children are abused more …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:15 AM
1

The problem is not merely this pamphlet. The problem is that this pamphlet combined with thousands of others that say the same kinds of things perpetuate the view of men as perpetrators and women (and children) as victims, with very little contradicting that. You seem to not be seeing the forest for the trees.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:06 AM
3

How about the lesbians who get gang-raped? Corrective rape is a much bigger for lesbians than it is for gay men. Not that this is the oppression olympics--lesbians do tend to be dismissed rather than feared the way gay men are. It's just disingenuous to claim they're not in physical danger. I wouldn't argue that lesbians don't also face such discrimination. What I would argue is that in western countries this particular brand of attacks against lesbians does not seem to be as prevalent as agains…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 08:10 PM
8

The real disingenuous thing is not mentioning who has more access to the shelters and resources that are funded by such programs (rarely the men, despite their higher percentage).
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:16 AM
16

When guys are naturally revolted by the sight of 2 men kissing, we KNOW it's a bad thing. Nobody has to teach you to feel disgusted. It's a visceral reaction to seeing something that goes against nature's design. Really? How do you know considering the fact that you probably have been taught to feel disgusted? And what of two women kissing, which plenty of straight men enjoy watching?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:04 AM
2

Based on the general response here and the rate at which they're being upvoted after they post, I'm inclined to believe that they're trolls upvoting themselves and trying to make /r/MR look bad by spamming their argument. Just look at this: 1 2
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:00 AM
3

As has been explained to you again and again, you're ignoring that it's in the context of how society treats women as large children, not actually saying women really are large children.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 05:27 PM
2

I think you'll find that every culture, race, and gender has made a habit of saying "fuck you" to everyone's rights but their own. I'd agree with most of those, but not gender. Certainly there are plenty of cases of men throwing men under the bus or simply ignoring men's issues to the advantage of women for myriad reasons.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 05:15 PM
5

an implication that certainly would be sexist I disagree with only putting fathers in the title, but why would implying that mostly men are getting burned by this be sexist? And for that matter, sexist against who? If it's men, then skirting the truth will only hurt men more than the sexism, which people usually don't recognize anyways. If it's women, then it's a double standard as men are often ignored when it comes to issues that impact both men and women without it being considered sexist (ex…
/r/MensRights11/06/12 04:43 PM
1

The problem is that power is.and pretty much always has been contextual. Who has power and who can actually exercise it differ on a fundamental practical level. Exactly. A lot of people seem to like to ignore power obtained through proxy and pass the blame off on the proxy rather than the person exercising that power.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 04:20 PM
1

Let all women know that slaving away in a cubicle all your life isn't some journey of self-actualization, and how being pressured into doing it is a pretty raw deal. Well they would look hypocritical forcing women to work. Looks like they figured out a way to make women do what they want by using men as a proxy. I guess our corollary to "patriarchy hurts men too" is some feminism hurts women too.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 04:52 PM
6

I have to disagree with you and Prudie I'm not siding with Prudie nor said anything to that effect. In this case, I believe that a good degree of caution is advisable. The only statement I addressed was this one: Many child molesters are caught via 'hunches' and 'gut feelings' on the parts of caregivers or teachers. I would still say that in far too many cases men are treated with excessive suspicion and are treated as less than human as a result.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:31 AM
7

You're arguing that parents should become less vigilant about their children's safety so that men feel more comfortable being around children? Maybe yes and maybe no. "Vigilance" can mean a lot of different things, and I'm not arguing that some level of vigilance isn't appropriate. And this isn't just about the way men "feel," as you put it, it's about the way men are treated in general. To argue otherwise is tantamount to advocating for child ause, in my opinion. This comes off the same way as …
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:26 AM
3

uptight and undignificant That's an interesting way of avoiding actually saying "man up" while saying the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:14 AM
20

Many child molesters are caught via 'hunches' and 'gut feelings' on the parts of caregivers or teachers. But that suffers from base rate neglect. The reason many child molesters may be caught through said "hunches" may in fact be that all men are treated as suspicious. Of course, they're bound to be right some of the time, but how many men are treated as less than human in the process? You'd be more likely to find any crime in a police state, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. What we …
/r/MensRights09/06/12 01:18 AM
3

So men are the victims now? What I don't understand is this black and white mentality many seem to have, including many feminists. It's like saying that murder is the worst of all crimes, so we shouldn't stop any other crimes.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:43 AM
1

In addition to the other arguments here, you could argue that women gaining freedom doesn't imply dominance either way. Men and women both had roles, both with negative and positive parts. The freedom is from those roles, not from male dominance.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:31 AM
1

Because obviously there can't be issues that the female gender face too. So you mean if I went to any feminist subreddit and started discussing a male issue as discussed here, they aren't going to tell me something like "women's problems need to be solved first" and ignore me? You make it very clear, I am the oppressor, you are the oppressed. Got it. :/ Why is it that feminists can't seem to see things in any other way than black and white?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:08 AM
2

It seems to me that you're addressing some straw arguments with some more straw arguments. The problems that many contributors to this subreddit seem to have with feminists, from my observations, are not related to the arguments you present. We know most feminists don't care for that kind of chivalry, we know not all women are "out to get us" (although, IMO a large part of the problem is not about desire but legal enablement; of course if the system allows you to do something to your benefit, yo…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 01:57 AM
2

We have tangible cases of men and boys being falsely accused and a hypothetical "chilling effect" is all these people can think about. If these people had their way, justice would be an entitlement only for women, at least when men are involved.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 10:19 PM
0

Right, but I would venture a guess that most MRAs know far better than most that feminists can be violent and express violent desires. I don't think that perception exists among most.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:03 PM
1

they suggest it have an opt-out I have to be a bit suspicious of this. Research has shown time and time again that people usually take the default and don't opt-out or opt-in. That the default is to participate in the program suggests that that is what they want to happen. And while there are potential upsides to such a program, my concern would be that once they've gotten people used to the idea they may take advantage of people's comfort with the idea to make it mandatory or even take away the…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:04 PM
-2

A fist is a stupid image for them to use, too. Yes, but I doubt that very many people perceive that usage as being "aggressive/abusive" as much as empowering, as where I would bet good money that people would see it that way in the context of a men's movement.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 06:14 PM
-2

A fist is definitely NOT a good image to use when we are trying to avoid being seen as aggressive/abusive. I agree and all that these aren't great (and I have to wonder if that might be intentional), but that sadly brings up another double standard. Edit: Come to think of it, all of these posters use techniques feminists have been using for quite some time. I would like to see the MRM avoid these cliches. I think that images that cause empathy for men rather than trying to scare women would be b…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 12:33 AM
4

Men aren't allowed in the children's area by themselves? Seems fair to gay couples as well, where there is no wife to supervise.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 09:03 PM
1

broken down to 47% both Which makes me wonder what percentage of the total amount are cases where both are drunk and the women does not object to sex and the man is charged with rape anyways even though he was drunk and presumably had as much control over his actions as she had over hers.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:12 PM
2

It's a colloquial term, meaning someone who tows the feminist line. This is opposed to "red pill," which would refer to a member of the MRM. Personally, it's not my favorite analogy for a number of reasons. I believe the origin for the term as it's used by the MRM is the movie The Matrix.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:39 PM
1

The problem is that most men act this way because they think that pandering to women is what "earns" them sex. While true, I believe you could say that while pandering does not earn them sex, not pandering could potentially eliminate the chance of it (or at least appear to). Compare negative political ads, where each candidate knows that if they doesn't run one and the other candidate does, they're screwed. Thus, it is easy for women to reinforce such behavior in large numbers of men not because…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:32 PM
1

That quoted part contradicts itself. It basically says the law is constitutional because it violates the 14th amendment. It is indeed very convoluted. I thought maybe they were trying to say it's constitutional despite the fact that it violates the 14th amendment (because men aren't a minority/oppressed group, while women are, etc.), but who knows.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:09 PM
2

The extra protection for weaker persons could be achieved in a non-discriminatory way by punishing based on harm done: that meets the stated objectives, and achieves them more broadly than the current law. It might be among the best possible solutions for cases where there are not witnesses, but any such law that protects people simply for being weaker will have the potential for discrimination. Say a woman starts all-out physically attacking a particularly strong man first (in a non-domestic vi…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:45 PM
1

but I think your premise is that feminism is behind this, which is wrong To me the question is not whether feminists would openly support this, which I'm sure they would not. The question is whether feminists would not oppose it and fail address it at all, which I think will be interesting to see. It seems to me that, generally speaking, feminists are far more concerned with opposing gender roles when it hurts women in some perceived way than when it benefits women in a certain way, and so will …
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:24 PM
1

Also the fact that they very likely support the system as it is even as they blame it. It's easy for them to sit back and lobby for or silently condone legislation that is anti-male and simply claim that feminism is not responsible for any of the problems, the system is and the system is made up of men. That's like saying "the hitman I hired killed him, not me. Therefore I'm not at fault."
/r/MensRights04/06/12 05:38 AM
1

Females in the nhl or nfl anyone? You're seriously comparing a race to two sports where there is high risk of injury from other players?
/r/MensRights02/06/12 03:41 PM
1

Just downloaded the PDF. If there's enough demand, I can report back here or in a new post, but I won't have time to go over it for a while.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:22 PM
3

IMO, the only way to win is not to try too hard to identify them and not become upset when it turns out to be a troll. You waste as little time as possible and they don't succeed at rousing emotions. It seems to me like they're out to prove something that most already know: it's easy to lie on the internet and be supported for it. The thing is, we're not talking about statistics being faked but subjective experiences. At the end of the day, they've changed nothing and proven nothing except their…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:19 PM
5

The differences is that the games you describe do not depict situations that young people will face regularly. There is a difference about fantasizing about something someone will (likely) never do and about situations that are highly likely and then introducing such ideas. If there is a game for boys that describes typical life situations and says the same kind of thing, then yes, I think it's worth opposing.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:56 PM
5

Fundamentalist feminists do not necessarily overlap with other extreme feminists, so that might be why. Some second-wave feminists were particularly transphobic, with "womyn-born-womyn" rhetoric; basically, they spewed hate for trans-women because they were born with a penis and grew up treated as male. Here is the relevant quote about homosexuality from the Redstockings anthology Feminist Revolution: Men's liberationists always bring up ‘confronting their own feelings about men’ by which they m…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 03:42 PM
2

That's the tough question. An AMA here would probably be educational, but not to anyone who doesn't already recognize the more harmful aspects of feminism. Ideally, it would have to be a reasonably large subreddit that accepts AMAs and won't censor anything critical of feminism. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that it might be difficult to find such a subreddit without at least one feminist ready to squelch disagreement.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:17 AM
6

While I think it's a great idea to try to fight such corrupt mod actions, perhaps you could do an AMA on a subreddit where it won't be censored. It is so incredibly and sadly ironic that an AMA that talks about how you were persecuted for not towing the feminist line is censored for not towing the feminist line.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:45 AM
2

I never said it wasn't, simply that it is related to that aspect of men's rights. I would also contend that it's worth posting because it's worth celebrating that such issues are getting attention, regardless of whether the MRM was involved. I don't think there needs to be an additional men's rights aspect.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:40 AM
1

I'm not criticizing your question itself, I just mean that the title, namely: How many men mensright have been "taken" by a girl. is what people see first and is very ambiguous. I think if you had something more like the question you just posed as a title you'd have much more luck.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:35 AM
1

You might want to rephrase your question and repost. As it is it sounds almost like trying to virgin-shame the subreddit.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:40 AM
0

What's the men's rights aspect that I'm missing? Objectification of men as walking wallets.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:01 AM
2

Looks like progress to me. It would be, if the men on the right weren't looked down on by society and considered lesser men for choosing their own self-expression.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 09:43 PM
6

"oh, boo hoo, men have it so hard, that's nothing compared to being raped, etc., etc." On a related tangent, this strikes me as an extension of the entire "women have more issues so we should take care of them first" line and a general pattern of justifying an issue based on false equivalencies. For example, we have the entire "MGM isn't as bad as FGM, therefore MGM is okay" line of reasoning. Somehow one thing being "worse" than the other means the other is okay or even morally justifiable.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 05:00 PM
3

because nearly every post by a female or feminine-sounding-username was met with hostility and acid Are you sure, though, that this isn't simply base rate neglect? That is, if those posts from female/feminine-sounding usernames are contrary to the majority beliefs of the subreddit, of course they will be met with hostility, not because of the username but because of the content. But then a post with a male-sounding username would also be met with hostility (and I would imagine it wouldn't be too…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 11:46 PM
11

What we do in the privacy of our bedrooms have nothing to do with how society regards rape. In a similar way, it's not because I like to be bruised that the prevalence of domestic violence is not an issue. Those individual bedrooms on aggregate add up to a lot of people who do indeed influence society's perception. Nobody is saying that rape isn't an issue (to some extent), because rape is a serious crime. With that said, the attitude/belief that there is a rape culture that is used to demonize …
/r/MensRights28/05/12 07:48 PM
6

While there are many, many legitimate arguments that shoot patriarchy theory to pieces, I have to say that that is a very weak one. All feminists need to do is counter with more men being involved in politics or men being in higher positions.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 07:39 PM
1

mere allogations [sic] of improprienty [sic] should be enough This argument is the "propsterous [sic]" one. Is it really so hard for people to understand that those "mere allegations" can be made with little repercussions, and therefore people have little discouragement from using them as a very effective weapon? I fear that they do understand, but don't care as it's a male being shoved under the bus.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 04:50 PM
1

First, the draft is unfair because women don't get drafted because they can't be used on the front lines and now the bitching is about how if women are allowed in the front lines voluntarily, it'd be too expensive so they shouldn't be allowed and they shouldn't be accommodated. That's called economies of scale. If there have to be particular resources available for women on the front lines, that makes sense if there are going to be a lot of women (their "5 qualified women") versus very few (thei…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 04:42 PM
2

I suspect such an experiment on /MR would be quite poorly received by us too though, unfortunately, so that it hasn't been upvoted on 2XC isn't very damning. I think this would be quite interesting to see, actually. I would suspect that the gender of the poster wouldn't have as much of an effect, controlling for factors such as how well known the user is (may be automatically upvoted), etc. I would imagine there is a hivemind element here, but that it would have more to do with the stance of the…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 04:24 PM
1

that actually isnt true. the rate[...] The rate may indeed be higher (source?), but that's not what they said and doesn't make their statement untrue. As another poster points out below, there are far more men than women in prisons, so the rape of men is far more common by the numbers.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:43 AM
43

And when both are intoxicated, he still should've known better and he will be held liable for his actions, of course.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 05:41 PM
3

Maybe this is a joke? I dunno, but it has the unfortunate implication that the real reason AVFM isn't racist or homophobic is that being that isn't useful to the MRM. I like how you fail to provide the context of the sentence after that. The sentence you quote seems to be more directed at getting those who would do that to get their priorities straight. For reference, here's the sentence after the one you've quoted: On the other hand, maybe I’ll still think it’s a stupid argument. The rest of th…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:11 AM
3

I have Grapeban RES-tagged as a concern troll, and a quick look at their comment history seems to confirm this, just so you know.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 02:53 AM
3

Challenge feminists on this and they say women have already done this with 2nd wave feminism in the 1960′s. This is the perfect time to bring up the dark parts of 2nd wave feminism "defining" what it means to be a woman, with "womyn-born-womyn" transphobia and general hate towards anyone born with male genitalia. I'm sure there's plenty of other things there they'd rather gloss over as well.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 07:23 PM
11

This is nice to see, but I'm sure this still won't give most SRSers pause when they get back to mocking MGM and pointing out how the fact that it isn't as bad as FGM (at least in their minds) makes it okay (just like the fact that assault isn't as bad as murder makes it okay...).
/r/MensRights26/05/12 07:19 PM
1

I also have an OPINION for the proper mandate of a campus Islamic organization, but that does not mean that I have a VETO. Now imagine that your "OPINION" for the proper mandate of a campus Islamic organization was inherently anti-muslim, and you posted it on the website for the Christian organization you belong to. That's a lot like what's happening here. This goes beyond opinion and into the realm of hate speech.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:01 PM
2

But I don't think we should try to co-op the movement. I agree, but I also think there is a difference between co-opting a movement and having a symbiotic relationship and overlap (at least in the case of gay men) with it. With that said, my problem with the idea that gay marriage might help the MRM is that there is always the danger that it goes from "man" and "woman" to "primary caregiver" and "non-primary caregiver." Instead of breaking with harmful gender roles, they could simply apply them …
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:40 PM
1

Under the assumption that women would be too weak/a distraction to the troops. Or maybe, just maybe, under the condition that men have less appealing opportunities outside the military than women do.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 04:30 PM
0

I think you should contact the artist before you read too much into his photos. The nice thing about art is that you have freedom to interpret it in different ways. Not that it matters, as the discussion here goes far beyond the scope of the photos and in many cases is no longer discussing them directly (which seems to be the case with the post you replied to).
/r/MensRights24/05/12 04:17 PM
2

The image is "calling" the foreskin ugly (in the context of why some women have their male children circumcised, not in that it's actually ugly, which is the point), if anything that would actually apply to uncut men.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 04:00 PM
-2

Nor do you, so at least we can agree on something. Oh please. If you want to reply to my argument I am entirely open to that. I try to keep an open mind, but your attacks on matters not directly related to my argument have not allowed for that.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:31 AM
-1

I don't like it when people go back and delete their comments because boohoo downvotes, so I am ending this discussion. I've already explained that it's not "boohoo downvotes," but instead the unusual nature of those downvotes. You will most likely just delete this post as well, so I honestly don't see the point. You just keep on thinking that. Honestly, it's arguments like this that made me delete the comment. You don't really want a discussion, so why should I bother?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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