TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

binarypillbug Archive

View 0 posts and 533 comments by binarypillbug on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

it seems kinda sexist to say women are manipulative, which is pretty much what you were saying women do. If they wanted to kill themselves as often as men they could and would. Since men commit suicide 4x as often and we all agree women are perfectly capable of killing themselves if they so choose, then how else would you explain the large amount of unsuccessful female suicide attempts? because for whatever reason, women are generally more likely to attempt suicide in a different way than men? w…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:41 PM
2

right, that's sexist. not the thing you said immediately afterwards.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:58 PM
6

are you literally 5 years old
/r/MensRights31/01/14 01:17 PM
-4

i disagree, to me that doesn't read as him equating the two
/r/MensRights27/01/14 11:17 PM
2

So since the extremist view isn't allowed I would like you to defend the S.C.U.M. Manifesto without copping out. did you not read their post? they're arguing it isn't an extremist view point here
/r/MensRights27/01/14 05:47 PM
9

all you're doing is proving their point with that "correction" There are plenty of women opposed to feminism, so why do feminists assume that anyone who criticises feminism automatically hates women? is this supposed to be directly related to soltherons post? if it is, you're engaging in another strawman
/r/MensRights27/01/14 05:14 PM
2

to be fair, it seems like the article was written 5 months ago
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:33 PM
1

After-all, you're changing the subject right here. This isn't a thread on victim blaming. It's a thread on how society views prison rape. uh, yeah, it is? look at the comment that's the parent to mine. and the two above that. at least in this offshoot thread, the subject has been about victim blaming. and if you're saying that it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place, then maybe you should be posting this to rogerwatersbitch because neither me nor TRPACC introduced the subject. you c…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 05:39 PM
-4

menrights, answering the important questions: "why was justin beiber not smiling with this lady?"
/r/MensRights24/01/14 02:32 AM
0

i'm saying the person you were responding to only said it's a bad idea. i'm not involving myself in the whys or anything at the moment.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 01:53 AM
-4

I find the suggestion, that telling my mother to put on her seatbelt is somehow "victim blaming", to be deeply, deeply offensive. come on. you're the one who introduced this scenario. nobody is saying you're a victim blaming jerk. it seems a bit maniplative to try and change subjects and make it about yourself, instead of about the issue generally. edit: to be clear, "change subjects" is supposed to be it's own point; i'm talking about the change from rape to car crashes
/r/MensRights24/01/14 01:48 AM
0

you can do whatever you want. that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. they still have not said you cannot say something.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 01:07 AM
0

...uh, yeah? i'm talking about those guys
/r/MensRights24/01/14 12:36 AM
1

they aren't saying that though?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 12:22 AM
3

but surely, this is just boys choosing differently
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:08 PM
2

but this sub regularly uses satire in regards to feminism
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:01 PM
0

Not according to the way it's been articulated. where? by whom? i'm not going to say nobody articulates it this way but my general impression doesn't match up with yours and you're giving me nothing that supports what you're saying "No, stop, don't" are also related to the general concept of refusal. then what's the problem? because again, in my experience this is what people seem to practice when they talk about enthusiatic consent
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:20 PM
-1

The enthusiastic consent standard constitutes an argument that it does require specific words or phrases. i disagree, it seems like a general concept and there's room for non-verbal communication No, I'm not advocating the enthusiastic consent standard, which disregards nonverbal communication in favor of the argument that verbal communication must be present for consent to be consent. your last comment focused on specific words "no, stop, don't" not to mention your initial comment which said: T…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 09:48 PM
1

sometimes people don't communicate perfectly; it shouldn't require specific words or phrases to be uttered to convey or understand a message unless you're suggesting men are too stupid to read body language or read between the lines
/r/MensRights18/12/13 08:33 PM
5

are you seriously suggesting that bill burr quote is humorous
/r/MensRights18/12/13 12:55 AM
-2

or you can back up what you said with something, since you made the initial claim
/r/MensRights17/12/13 10:39 PM
1

why are so many people talking about ADD when most of what was talked about in the links is ASD
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:34 PM
-1

no, you're just presenting your own bias as fact
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:10 AM
2

neither article seems that good the frontpagemag one is obviously just echoing the salon one without adding anything of substance and the salon one itself, while long, still seems empty; most of it seems to be one persons perspective on one boy or just plain putting forward an opinion without really backing it up with anything of substance also, as someone who's been diagnosed with aspergers syndrome i don't really appreciate nor agree with how the author of the salon article characterises peopl…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:57 PM
2

they...are? i'm...not really seeing it. at least the manner your title seems to imply.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 07:19 PM
0

you're purposely misrepresenting "enthusiastic consent" in the worse possible way
/r/MensRights15/12/13 07:09 PM
2

do you have anything that backs this up
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:53 PM
1

it's weird that you say that when you're suggesting that i do your research for you
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:23 PM
1

or you could actually provide your own evidence that backs up your own claim
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:13 PM
1

well, i had a look and couldn't find anything
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:20 PM
-1

i love how you're saying TRPACC is acting in bad faith but then you're repeating saying they've been calling people racist and misogynist when they haven't
/r/MensRights11/12/13 03:10 PM
-3

Hmmmm, considering your profile contains nothing but anti-male hate comments what on earth are you talking about
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:37 PM
-5

Ireland isn't Wales or England
/r/MensRights08/12/13 12:57 PM
3

If this is how someone reacts to another caring enough about their well being to take time out of their day to bother giving any advice at all, they can just get raped/beaten/murdered. wow, what? seriously?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:58 PM
4

on the other hand, couldn't it said that people in this sub doing the opposite? that is, jumping on board with a study because it fits their own preconceived notions?
/r/MensRights06/12/13 09:01 PM
3

ah, of course. the old "if you disagree with me, you're a feminist". but the mrm totally isn't ideological, nuh uh
/r/MensRights06/12/13 01:23 PM
0

this article seems a bit lacking. it gives little information on the reasoning behind either decision. i think this is a better article that gives a bit more information. ultimately, though, it still seems to me like the judge is basing their claim to be false based on very little.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 01:27 AM
1

that isn't relevant. my point is that either they're getting their information from actual people, or they're a non-deaf person assuming how an actual deaf person would think and react. and I think the second is kind of a shitty thing to do.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 01:31 PM
1

maybe i'm missing something, but when you say that someone's a troll because they have opinions contrary to others, it makes this sub sound like its against discussion and the mrm like it's more about an ideaology
/r/MensRights05/12/13 01:23 PM
0

have other deaf children reacted like that?
/r/MensRights04/12/13 09:40 AM
2

where are you getting that information from?
/r/MensRights04/12/13 09:39 AM
1

how is this "third world feminism"?
/r/MensRights03/12/13 02:07 PM
3

there's only one father.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:38 PM
1

there was only one father.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:01 PM
2

i want to argue against what i think they beleive about slutwalk, but i want them to put it in their own words first so i'm not saying things based off assumptions. it seems like they either don't know or are purposely ignoring the main focus of slutwalk, which is about victim blaming. because if they did understand that then their comment wouldn't be that reasonable of a conclusion.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:02 PM
1

i'm kinda confused here. i had a quick look at some of my more recent comments, and i'm pretty sure i wasn't demanding to be taught, which i agree would be unreasonable. and i'm hoping you aren't saying that i shouldn't ask where people are getting their information from, because that's just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:36 PM
1

I'm quite sure they knew what slut walk was about. The fact that their bore the term 'mens rights' - which, lets face it, is not a mainstream term yet, suggests to me that they are aware of what's going on. yes, i know. i'm just keeping my bases covered. Isn't hat exactly the same thing you've just done in the paragraph above? There's no way to have concrete info on what's going on in the heads of every person in that video so literally any statement made about it could be called an 'assumption'…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:43 AM
6

well, something that doesn't state something that didn't actually happen would be a good start
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:32 AM
0

well, you responded to it as "how do you know" instead of "do you know". so you'll have to explain to me how it could be misread.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:40 AM
-9

Well, what do you think they're disagreeing about here? They're certainly disagreeing about something, so what is it? i was under the impression they weren't happy that two guys in question either didn't do any basic research on what slutwalk is, or that they were purposely ignoring what slutwalk is about. Do you have anything to offer, or are you just going be a feminist without actually saying you are one? You can say you are one, you know, because this isn't a feminist board and unlike femini…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:26 AM
-1

i think you misread my comment.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:23 AM
2

true, but it's still badly phrased
/r/MensRights24/08/13 11:48 PM
-5

do you know what slutwalk is about?
/r/MensRights24/08/13 11:39 PM
-10

so you're making assumptions?
/r/MensRights24/08/13 11:39 PM
-12

...pretty much the entirety of your post?
/r/MensRights24/08/13 10:36 PM
-16

am i missing something? where are you getting this from?
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:42 PM
1

Why was the violence in the article only specific to Muslim women? here is a quote from the article, the first paragraph after the headline: Swedish women have been posting photos of themselves in traditional Muslim headscarves in solidarity with a woman attacked apparently for wearing a veil. as far as i'm aware, muslim men do not wear veils.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:37 PM
-1

your title kind of seems like an oversimplication really
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:19 PM
1

what kinds of discrimination are specific to muslim men?
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:15 PM
-2

do you actually have any actual arguments against what they're saying
/r/MensRights22/08/13 06:45 PM
3

interesting how you talk about stuff being used in place of an actual argument, and only post a made up scenerio instead of anything useful
/r/MensRights22/08/13 06:42 PM
1

i've seen people mention wealth fairly often though
/r/MensRights22/08/13 06:37 PM
1

...i'm pretty sure anything after feminism is an example sentence though. or is that you point? i mean, what they chose as example sentences.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:00 PM
-1

no. this is my only account, i don't see the point in being deceitful.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:52 PM
1

how is it worse?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:51 PM
3

Plenty of sources here, although no doubt you will not accept any of them. i'm quickly looking at the citations now and the first two links don't exist, at least at that location. the two after that link to articles that still don't actually link to any statistics. the rest seem to be irrelevant. you can keep doing that passive agressive "i'm sure you won't like this" thing but it's not actually that ridiculous to want facts before making a judgement. (and regardless hasn't this reddit often com…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:45 PM
1

i can't see any sources of the actual statistics, and the two webpages it linked to didn't have any links at all so yeah, i don't like that site. (edit: and it seems like anyone can post a story to it. not exactly something something that makes me want to trust it.) Because it shows the hypocrisy of swedish feminists; they will rush to the defense of muslim women but would never defend swedish women if it meant saying an impolite word about muslim men. For some reason feminists have this absolut…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:15 PM
2

not quite.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:22 PM
2

um, they're talking about a specifc type of muslim discrimination that affects women. they aren't talking about men in this article because this one is not about men. and they haven't said anything against muslim men in the article either. you're reading things into this article based on little to nothing.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:06 PM
2

is there something in this article i'm missing? what are you talking about?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:10 PM
2

I read that some vast majority of the rapes in Sweden are by recent muslim immigrants and against white women. where did you read this? also, how is this relevent regardless?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:09 PM
1

thank god the this sub has people like you, who can read peoples mind through the internet
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:05 PM
9

how do you know they're a feminist?
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:04 AM
1

well you know what they say about assuming
/r/MensRights19/08/13 07:14 PM
1

i misread your post, i apologise
/r/MensRights19/08/13 06:48 PM
1

where did you get this from?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:23 AM
0

Did we stand up with teary eyes, band together and form a "Chug Walk" to stand up to our oppressors? Did I take one person's response to mean that all Natives ought to suppress their culture to submit to the whims of their oppressors? Nah. We sorta just got over it. It happened quite a few years ago at this point, thus it's dead and in the past. ...so? different people can have different responses to this kind of problem. I mean, maybe if we were coddled into believing that we should never, ever…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:10 AM
-1

what's wrong with slutwalk?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:05 AM
2

...how are those remotely similar things
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:45 AM
-2

When men have a problem they fix the problem instead of bitching about it and waiting for someone else to. mrm is totally not sexist everyone
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:40 AM
1

yes, there's no reasonable definition of "hate speech that applies
/r/MensRights27/07/13 10:45 PM
2

why would i need to? i mean here's a quote that proves how totally great feminists are i love puppies -Feminists
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:38 PM
1

what are you talking about
/r/MensRights27/07/13 03:48 PM
1

do you ever post anything of actual use
/r/MensRights27/07/13 03:19 PM
1

speaking of things that are off topic
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:46 PM
-9

i call straight people [homophobic slur] all the time, how is that a homophobic slur? etc. maybe "bitching" isn't sexist, but that certainly isn't the reason why.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:17 AM
0

...but then why not simply call them a gender traitor? it can already be applied to men and is pretty explicit in what it means. how does the word itself tie into this? why "mangina"? any reason i can think is at best weird and at worst insulting.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 02:22 PM
10

it's a picture of a paragraph from one article, where exactly are you expecting those groups to be
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:21 AM
-5

i'm aware, just wanted to be sure about peoples reasoning behind using the term
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:59 PM
-4

why do people keep using "mangina", what's insulting about it it's a combo of "man" and "vagina", i not really sure what's supposed to be insulting about those words, either seperately or together
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:11 PM
-17

so you're getting this from where
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:59 PM
14

I'm sure there are some, but they are a small minority and probably not too sure about their own sexuality. or you know, they could just be assholes i'm really not a big fan of "homophobic? must be gay"
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:19 AM
2

yeah, because "the information is totally there...but it's hidden!!!!!" isn't very convincing. what do you expect me to do, beleive what you're saying without question? maybe you're the one who should stop going in circles and repeating the same claim that simply doesn't have much to back it up
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:14 AM
1

except i'm not hiding or denying anything, i've been asking for more information
/r/MensRights24/07/13 02:06 AM
0

look, if you want to point out other stuff you're free to do so.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:40 AM
0

...so just the one thing?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:26 AM
1

are you going to back this up with anything else, or do you only have this one thing
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:20 AM
1

can't you people just focus on why this specific message is bad instead of imagining a bunch of things that this person could beleive i mean what's the point, it's not a discussion, you're just going "man those feminists, amirite"
/r/MensRights17/07/13 10:19 PM
1

...uh...so?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:03 PM
3

ugh, FEMEN.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:51 PM
1

i think that's a ridiculous stretch.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:38 PM
1

doesn't the neighborhood watch tell it's members not to pursue suspicious people, only to inform the police? didn't GZ also ignore police advice to do the same? also, there's no crime in being "strange". "may be high" is a descriptor that can apply to literally any stranger. and i can't beleive i have to spell this out, but "well he is also black" is not a valid reason to be suspicious.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:37 PM
1

can i ask where you're getting that from?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:32 PM
2

i'm not making any claims along those lines.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:28 PM
1

i pointed out that all your post contains is what you are saying; there is nothing backing it up. it's weird that you are demanding that i provide evidence to back up a statement i never made, when you haven't provided anything for your own statements.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:27 PM
3

...am I missing something? where does she say or suggest anything about beating him up?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:10 AM
3

Witness and expert testimony show that TM was on top of GZ and beating him, when GZ pulled his weapon and killed TM. didn't witnesses say both TM on top of GZ and the other way round? What exactly did GZ do wrong here? He was watching an unknown teenager from a distance, awaiting the police. ...but you just said he followed TM.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:07 AM
3

wait, what? since when isn't it commonly agreed that GZ followed TM?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:01 AM
1

...so are you going to actually back this up with anything?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 10:53 AM
1

i beleive that's called "moving the goalposts".
/r/MensRights17/07/13 10:33 AM
-10

Another instance of where traditional values and progressive feminist values overlap: women's sexuality is something to be protected from male predators. Women can't be predators and men must always want sex. well, that's certainly something that you are saying.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:29 PM
1

So, you are saying that in order to be allowed to attempt to outlaw the act of killing 17-year-olds (were it legal), you should be forced to take into account any reason why anyone might want to kill a 17-year-old? i don't see where i said anything like the bolded parts in the comment i wrote. beyond that, you seem to be repeating the same kind of stuff that i have already responded to.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:24 PM
1

you're putting words in my mouth. i said what i said.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 09:49 PM
1

Say that in the state of Missouri it is legal to kill 17-year-olds, and someone wanted to make it illegal, should he have to take into consideration why some people might want to kill 17-year-olds? yes? "take into consideration" does not mean "agree with". if someone cares about something so much they are actively trying to change the law to suit their own opinion, i expect them to give it a lot of thought to make sure they are doing the right thing, not matter how right it seems. or if not that…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:59 PM
-1

evolution isn't about whether a single organism reproduces, though. it's about how a group does.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:00 PM
-4

The problem isn't the accuracy of the claim, so you can back them up with hard evidence, right?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 01:48 PM
-1

the topic was study, not talking. and if its necessary to generalise, rather than simply possible.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 01:37 PM
0

where did you get that number from?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 01:34 PM
1

...no.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:26 PM
-2

i'm a bit confused. why can't you study people without making generalisations?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:10 PM
0

how many feminists are "genderists"?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:04 PM
-2

which feminists?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:45 PM
7

what is being talked about, though? if someone is saying some people have penises and some people have vaginas, then fine, and i don't think most feminists would disagree with that. but if someone is going to generalise the behaviours of a group that contains over 3 billion people, then it's fair not to immediately accept what they say as fact.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:26 PM
-10

just saying something is accurate doesn't make it so.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:18 PM
1

yes thank you for this very constructive post
/r/MensRights23/04/13 06:29 PM
1

again, i would like to know what you are referencing.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 06:28 PM
9

...which is why it's in percent?
/r/MensRights22/04/13 07:04 PM
5

why are you assuming the trans person is biased? why are you assuming non-trans people wouldn't be biased, or that they wouldn't be able to counteract the bias ? and why don't you criticise the studies themselves, instead of the people that made them? if there's a flaw in them, then you should be able to find it. instead of assuming there is one.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 02:20 PM
2

maybe you should responded specificly to what people are saying instead of a perception of what they are saying.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:44 PM
1

What do you mean by "these" assault? here is the quote with a bit more context: The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey documents 207,754 victims (age 12 and older) of rape and sexual assault each year. Every two minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted. More than 90 percent of these assaults are perpetrated against women by men. the op linked to the article they got those quotes from.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:41 PM
1

...when did they say anything about being offended, or about the quotes being offensive?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:36 PM
7

...i can't see anything referencing race and income.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:42 PM
3

where did you read that?
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:29 AM
0

how could you possibly know that?
/r/MensRights19/04/13 10:01 PM
1

when it's feminists saying its misogyny, it's people following an ideology when it's mras saying its misandy, well it's just obvious
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:20 AM
0

Being anti-MRA means you're against men's rights nope.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:32 AM
6

...yes?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 07:50 PM
2

...learning is not the same as believing. i can learn about creationism and not for one second consider believing it.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:23 PM
-4

but the mrm doesn't equate woman with feminism except when it totally does
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:29 AM
2

are you serious
/r/MensRights13/04/13 08:50 AM
-1

how has feminism affected black men?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:26 PM
1

see, that's just you saying something. it doesn't mean anything.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:13 PM
0

While women are indeed objectified in some advertising, so are men though in different ways. Consider the bumbling husband who needs rescuing by the all-wise wife, or the incompetent boyfriend, or the muscled men that some advertisements portray women as openly appraising in a fashion that, if the roles were reversed, would be howled down by some feminists. what do the "bumbling husband" or "incompetent boyfriend" have to do with objectification?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:50 PM
1

i think your title is pretty misleading, even the article you linked to admits the phrasing of DVPO is pretty gender neutral
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:56 PM
1

you haven't actually linked to anything that shows feminists demanding that.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:27 PM
0

again, i'd like to know what this is referencing.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:19 PM
2

...no, not really.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:15 PM
2

wait what? since when does the asperger community use "neurotypical" as a slur?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 10:11 PM
1

then calling cis men and women just "men" and "women" is confusing.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:43 PM
1

too bad you seem to have neither or those things etc etc
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:29 PM
1

Not your teacher, don't expect other ppl to do things for you, but, i guess i should have known better. ...says the person who just did that in regards to a claim he made. the burden of proof is on you, not me.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:16 PM
1

and here i expected you have to something on hand to back up what you were saying. guess i should've known better.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:07 PM
-2

the condition of a switch can be off or on. yet neither of them are likely to be abnormalities.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:46 PM
1

trans men and women are still men and women too.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:15 PM
2

no, i...get that. you're just repeating yourself at this point and not understanding what i'm saying, for whatever reason. again you cut off parts of what i have said. your "answer" is ridiculous, you are interpreting what they said in a specific way that fits your own bias and are not open to the idea that another interpretation may be more accurate.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:13 PM
1

...And how many of those violent offenders come from homes lead by a single mom? i don't know, how many?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:53 PM
0

how...?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:30 PM
1

in the wikipedia one? i'm not seeing it.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:31 AM
1

You are appropriating the MRM to white straight men. i'm not sure what you're trying to say with this?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:08 AM
1

sure w/e
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:05 AM
2

i'm not worrying about anything, the mrm has already made their position quite clear. i'm just pointing the hypocrisy out.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:04 AM
2

no, my point was and had always been that there are people in a position to appropriate in the movement (for lack of a better way to phrase it), and that your original comment doesn't actually provide anything to counter what was said in the blog post. the original blog post is arguing against the concept of "reverse" bigotry as a real concept! how the hell can you ignore that in some ridiculous attempt to make a jab at feminism? it's not even necessary to your point, because your main point is …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:01 AM
1

that sure saves you having to explain yourself, huh?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 06:38 AM
1

i did, just in case, surprisingly i found nothing that remotely sounds like what crosshook said
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:10 PM
-3

I think you forgot a word there. The MRM is about men and it is about equality of opportunity. The only reason you see straight white men discussed so often is because recently they have been the subject of a whole fuckton of discrimination. Just because you think a group of people is "privileged" does not make discriminating against that group of people justified in any way, shape, or form. So we are fighting for the rights of gay men and men of color, we are not fighting for ANYONE to have pri…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 07:23 PM
-1

By accusing the Men's Rights Movement of "appropriating" the struggles of gay men and men of color the obvious implication is that feminism is the correct venue for such struggles to be addressed. ...why would that be an obvious implication?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 07:03 PM
1

what do you have that backs up what you're saying?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:26 PM
2

if you have something to say, just say it.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:44 PM
0

i agree that the articles original statement is vague and pretty useless.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:43 PM
-8

that's one person, and i'm certainly by no means saying there's absolutely no problem what-so-ever. i'm against the generalisation. and if we're going to point out problems with feminism in regards to appropriation, it would be good of MRAs to do the same with their own movement.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:32 PM
1

...yes?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:29 PM
-11

If you don't see how that contradicts what the fembot said then I cannot help you, sir. just because they're all men doesn't mean straight men and white men aren't straight and white, and therfore capable of appropriating things from gay men and men of colour. They are feminist terms because they are used by feminists. ...when? the only times i've ever heard feminists use them is when they're talking about other people using the term and how ridiculous it is.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:29 PM
-1

maybe i've misread something, but i've read the article.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:06 PM
-6

but that still doesn't say anything about MRAs just discussing it. the sentence after it is the closest thing to an example, and that isn't just talking about any discussion. at the moment, you argument is just a strawman.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:06 PM
0

You don't see the problem with saying that Men's Rights discussing the issues gay men and men of color face is appropriation? the original quote didn't say that, though. it just left it at "they are appropriating". and the counter arguement was "gay men and men of colour are men", which...doesn't really respond to what was said. at best it implies something which is relevant, but implications aren't the best way to clearly communicate something. i'm not trying to say CrossHook is wrong to be cle…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:41 PM
-6

Stating that the proper place to discuss issues that affect gay men and black men is an advocacy group for women exclusively kind of says that they consider their problems to be more akin to women's issues than men's issues. who's stating that?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:29 PM
-5

Seriously? Google it. google what? i've been on feminist websites, i haven't seen it. Feminists love to throw in LGBT issues in to the same sentence with their issues. how does this necessarily equate with considering gay men and men of colour women?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:14 PM
-5

that...doesn't make them feminist terms.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:10 PM
-4

as a gay dude, i'm really not seeing it.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:57 PM
0

people who use the term 'rape survivor' to describe themselves / people who don't want to just be considered a victim of something (therfore going against the idea of women who want to be considered "eternal victims")
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:51 PM
2

oh my god, everybody just stop saying theorectical framework
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:46 PM
-18

no. i have never seen anyone say anything like that at all.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:42 PM
-7

In case you didn't notice, gay men and men of color are men. Let that sink in. And many of them are not happy with the way feminism has failed to address their problems. i don't see how this necessarily contridicts what you quoted. No. We don't. Those are feminist terms. We call sexism "sexism" and racism "racism." since when are they feminist terms?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:41 PM
1

they weren't the people i was focusing on when talking about the term "rape survivor", no.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:32 PM
0

which law? the op only says "The healthcare act", which is pretty vague. and i still don't know which feminists did that, regardless.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:05 PM
1

If you let the one moment of your rape define your life, you have empowered your rapist to rape you ad infinitum. no. that's just ridiculous. who's saying anything about it defining their whole life? Thank you for using the word "silly" in regards to my rape. Now, Fuck Off. i wasn't using silly in regards to your rape. i was talking about the second sentence.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:58 PM
1

I was raped by a woman, as a child. I did not "survive" it, as it was not meant to kill me. this is a silly thing to say, since people aren't always super literal about everything. I call myself neither a victim nor a survivor, as I have agency, and do not give my rapist the power to define me. I define myself. I have moved on and will not be weak and held in the moment for the rest of my life. how on earth aren't the people in question defining themselves? this isn't what the rapists are saying…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:46 PM
-5

which feminists are you talking about?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:58 PM
1

...but they are?
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:58 AM
0

you seem to be generalising feminism here based on one person.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:21 PM
1

i'm not really seeing how what you said leads on from what mechplasma said.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:10 PM
0

i didn't say most people aren't bullied in school, i was more trying to comment on the specific example given. i don't recall that specific kind of thing happening and it seems bizarre to me that it's claimed to be so common.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:39 PM
-10

This thinking starts on the play ground. How many times have you heard of a little boy saying,"So and so chased me on the playground today and hit me." And the reaction that comes back,"Oh, that just means she likes you." ...never?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:08 PM
1

look, i'm not saying they're wrong. my point was that they were arguing really badly. using one single example, one that is modern when Anita hasn't even covered modern games yet, is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:02 PM
-1

Her hypocrisy is the whole being an internet damsel in need of help(read: money), then decrying such things. aaaaaaaaAAAAAA this is such a dumb point that somehow keeps getting repeated there's a big difference between someone choosing to write a certain scenario in game and someone be effected by something in real life that is beyond their control.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:32 PM
1

is it even possible to stop a kickstarter once it's started?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:25 PM
-2

you're using one single example in response to someone talking about trends. that is silly. also, this is like the sixth topic trying to put down the tropes vs women damsel in distress thing. there's nothing wrong with being critical and discussing the videos, but i'm finding it kinda obnoxious when this is forum is making so many topics and often nitpicking, especially since we haven't even seen part 2 of the first video - the one that would be covering more recent examples of this trope.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:20 PM
-3

congrats on putting words in people's mouths i guess
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:48 PM
-3

wow, that's a lot of assumptions. and some of it doesn't even make any sense.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:33 PM
-2

thanks for engaging in rational discussion.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:27 PM
-3

so there's a difference between something happening in media and it happening in real life?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:22 PM
-5

yes, clearly Anita made the trolls do it. and the people who donated.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:16 PM
-6

please, tell me more about how you downvote me. it's very relevant. i'm saying that someone choosing to write something a certain way is not the same as a similar event happening in real life.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:12 PM
1

some mras have that narrative. others do not.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:56 PM
-6

yeah because real life and fiction are the same thing
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:37 PM
1

how do they know the gender of the LoL playerbase? edit: this is really terribly articulated, my real question is more about how they conducted the survey
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:23 PM
1

you're being ridiculous. it's a kickstarter, if people didn't want to give her that money they wouldn't have.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:16 PM
1

i'm not saying it was misogynist or w/e but its ridiculous to act as if that comment was talking about how good men are when it only talks about how bad women are.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:50 AM
-1

except it wasn't acknowledging positive things men do, at least not directly. it was focused on women being bad at something. anything about men is only implied and not the focus.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:22 PM
-1

Your point (the one I replied to)was that women play games so the industry should cater to them, or at least that's how it parses. uh. no, no i did not say they should cater to them. please reread my comment. My point was that most people who play are actually cool with what is basically an avatar of either gender, and that your point doesn't stand up to the evidence. there's a difference between being okay with individual male avatars and not liking a trend of much fewer female avatars and/or t…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:54 PM
1

so you know how quite a few mras are against the eternal victim thing or w/e? turns out people who've been raped have similar thoughts regarding their rape.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:29 PM
-2

i'm really confused as to how those questions are relevant.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:21 PM
-2

ok, feel free to keep saying a bunch of stuff and claiming it's true.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:24 PM
-3

no, that's not what i'm getting at. he's ignoring things feminists do and say that contridict what he's saying.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:20 PM
-2

i did expand on it though? i said that he's willfully ignoring things that contridict what he's saying. anything else would be listing basically everything in his post and saying "no, that's not true".
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:05 PM
-1

you realise you're asking me to prove a negative, right? edit: to be clear, do you seriously want me to repost the entire transcript instead of expecting the person making the initial claim to post a couple sentences proving their point?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:01 PM
-1

Well firstly, there's a lot Anita completely missed about the damsel in distress trope. For one, it's never said that they are helpless because they are woman... it's just that they happen to be female. IF someone was captured and was capable of rescuing themselves, well, the game wouldn't exist because the protagonist would have nothing to do. I also don't think being helpless against what is generally the biggest baddest mofo in that entire games universe (bowser, ganondorf, whoever) is necess…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:51 PM
1

i don't really think you acknowledged what i said. you're ignoring what i said and repeating yourself. i still think you're wrong about her putting forward those two ideas i quoted. In Earthbound, Ness is looking for his brother or something. as an aside, you're thinking of mother 3 and lucas, who is trying to find his brother claus. ness is just trying to save the world.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:27 PM
-1

sorry, i wasn't trying to say that there aren't. that was badly phrased and i think that anyone interested in something is allowed to voiced their opinion about it.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:15 PM
0

The Zelda games are supposedly about rescuing Zelda, but they're also about defeating Ganondorf, and more than once, Zelda demonstrates conclusively that she does not need rescuing from some untrained green-clad elf boy. can you give me the examples you're thinking of?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:53 PM
-3

come on. people knew what they were doing when they donated. and it's ridiculous to somehow fault her for other people making rape and death threats.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:50 PM
-3

It's dishonest to act as if the Princess story is anything but a convenient excuse to have a bad guy and a bunch of levels. Oh right, a man getting burned alive or falling to his death to save a princess isn't for real, but the princess being kidnapped by a diant spiky turtle is? but that's not really what she's saying?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:47 PM
-2

Jobs where the person is deliberately putting their lives on the line to rescue others (soldier, police, EMTs, security of any kind really, firefighters, people who dive in to the ocean to rescue others, etc) are overwhelmingly male. are they? what are the figures?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:43 PM
0

yes, sorry. my question was supposed to replicate what they said.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:32 PM
-3

Do you see men campaigning to make Romantic Comedies and soap operas appeal to men more? No, because men are happy to keep to their own interests without having to take over and control everything. except the problem here is that there are women interested in video games. thus it is their interest too. and phrasing it as "taking over and control" is ridiculous. people are allowed to have opinions on things.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:19 PM
-12

this comment is just ridiculous. you are just willfully ignoring things that don't fit into how you've decided to view the issue.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:16 PM
0

and you got this information from...?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:39 PM
5

i don't know. how often does a woman save a male in real life?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:59 PM
1

is he? i don't know, because all he's put forward is ridiculous assumptions. even if it was correct, however, it's still pointless and irrelevant to what they're saying.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 08:08 PM
3

google it
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:49 PM
1

thank goodness the mrm has such brilliantly nuanced contributions such as this.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:34 PM
5

seriously, got anything that actually proves what you're saying
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:53 PM
3

but didn't they still fake giving the money to charity
/r/MensRights08/03/13 10:24 AM
8

there's no ads.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 12:20 AM
9

it's youtube.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 12:04 AM
1

same could be said for you i guess good job ignoring most of my comment btw
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:07 PM
1

haha oh my god I used the word normal according to the dictionary definition of the word. again, so you're ignoring other dictionaries (there are multiple, you know) that contradict what you're saying You flew off the handle and went in to full outrage mode and starting ranting about "abnormal" and your preferred definition. yes, i can see how my lack of swear words and exclaimation marks could indicate that i am super outraged, but i am in fact fairly calm seriously though, "flew off the handle…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:07 PM
1

that sure is a brilliant contribution to this debate
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:49 PM
1

so you're just going to ignore other dictionaries then and i'm just pointing how silly what you said is
/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:42 PM
1

My point is that we don't say trans-white for black, or trans-straight for gay, because white, black, gay, straight are categories in their own right. people don't use "trans-men" to refer to women, either. people use trans to describe a group , similar to how gay and similar words are used. it can also be used to talk about subgroups, such as trans men, again similar to how gay and similar terms are used. It's really unneccesary and against the conventions of langauge to add a prefix to 'gender…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:31 PM
1

do you have stats on how people use abnormal? and which dictionary or dictionaries are you going by? because there seems to be a few that define it a bit differently. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=abnormal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abnormal http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/abnormal
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:09 PM
1

I reject that the way some people interpret a word that is different or in addition to how it is defined. people are the ones defining it in the first place. all you seem to be saying is that you're ignoring peoples definitions if they don't match up with yours.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:42 PM
1

Furthermore, we already have the simpler "non-trans", employing the standard and already very familiar Latin negating prefix. Evidently this was not considered enough. Why not? What else needs to be said besides "this person is not a transsexual?" the same could be said of many words in the english langauge. this is a pretty silly thing to take issue with. I think I should also add that the context in which "cis-gendered" almost invariably appears lends it, to my ear at least, just the sort of p…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:35 PM
1

plenty of labels aren't "non-[whatever]", even though they easily could be. this is a pretty silly thing to have issue with, really.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:24 PM
1

Adjectives and prefixes are not the same thing. you're right. i didn't articulate what i was saying well at all. what i was trying to say is that they're all words used to label groups, and that straight and white don't need prefixes to do that. But that point aside, what are your prefixes people with chromosonal abnormalities which dont fit into the normal binary, for example Turner Syndrome, Triple-X Syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and XXY syndrome? how is this relevant?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:22 PM
3

wasn't that date made before they got way more than the $6000 they were asking for, and removed pretty early on?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:40 PM
1

well, there's plenty of other contexts cis can be used in
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:42 PM
3

all words are made up.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:15 AM
1

i guess if you want to be an asshole
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:13 AM
0

But I'm not like SRS. I don't use words for political purposes. I use them based on their meanings to convey ideas. except you aren't? you keep rejecting that abnormal has a negative connotation, which is part of its meaning.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:11 AM
1

how?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:07 AM
1

add new prefixes to straight and white? no, straight and white themselves are adjectives. and like them, there's nothing wrong with cis.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:04 AM
1

seriously, where are you getting that from?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:00 AM
1

really? because i've only rarely seen it used to insult people, and have never been insulted by it.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:37 AM
0

i'm not sure how this is relevant to what i posted
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:36 AM
-5

because there's only one way a word can used
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:23 PM
-9

They've adopted it as a way to scorn people for being . . . well normal. yeah okay sure
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:05 PM
2

yeah i mean the same happened with straight and white, right
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:03 PM
-2

this is a bad comment.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:02 PM
1

how often does that happen?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:13 PM
8

last november; so four months, not a year.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 03:26 PM
1

i can't see a link to the study in the article, nor can i see a link in the comments here, so here it is.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:02 PM
8

am i missing something? where did they get their information?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:07 PM
-1

How "progressive!" I can't imagine clicking on an author's profile to check their race and sexual orientation before deciding whether to read their work. Oddly, I'm looking for powerful insights, skilled writing, and an interesting subject. But that's just me! i don't think that's an accurate representation of what you quoted.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 10:47 PM
5

what studies are you talking about?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:16 PM
2

prove a negative? the title says "punishing boys for acting like boys", where's the negative in that? and i have made no claims here. i have only questioned others.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:46 AM
1

...seriously? I applied this label to anyone who acts immorally? I must have missed that. I thought I used it quite specifically. okay, i misspoke. that's what you're doing in this case. Perhaps they do need treatment. If nothing else they shouldn't be setting policy. I consider Dworkin to have been mentally ill based on her paranoid delusions. She needed help. Instead she was pushed further and further by her fan base. That is sad. It's even more sad here because it's affecting innocent childre…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 02:30 AM
-3

The title isn't inaccurate. okay. prove it.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:55 AM
1

do you really see no harm in calling any person who does immoral things "mentally ill" (which is what your comments seem to do)? if nothing else, you are bringing up an illness and ignoring what that means: that they can't help it and that they need treatment. if you are not talking about it in the context of helping people - like you would with cancer - why bring it up at all? it doesn't actually seem about the person or people in question being mentally ill. you don't seem to be psychologist, …
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:55 AM
-2

...that title? really? it's really hard to take this sub seriously when some bits are talking about how the mrm is better than feminism because it uses facts and logic, and then elsewhere there's stuff like this.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:32 AM
1

Sadism work for you? it's certainly a lot better than "a mental illness". I don't care about people who harm children for their ideology. Well I do, but not in a sympathetic way. The fact that you weep for their plight is noted. what? we're talking about mental illness here. you are aware of the many, many other forms of mental illness, right? that don't include harming children?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:18 AM
1

No it isn't. Deliberately harming others (who are totally innocent) for your own enjoyment is a mental illness. which mental illness is it then? Your concern is noted. You may feel free to award yourself as many empathy points as you wish. oh, sorry for taking the mrm on its word that it cares about people. clearly that was a foolish assumption to make.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:51 PM
17

so uh, you're going to post something that backs up what you're saying, right?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:44 PM
0

that is stretching the meaning of mental illness beyond reason. like i said, you're just making a petty jab at others expense.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:31 PM
2

except a lot of feminists disagree with that.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:23 PM
2

yes, obviously.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:22 PM
2

no, it seems the study showed that people did it more when the speaker was female, not male or unknown
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:54 PM
2

stop creep shaming.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:42 PM
-1

keep proving what the mrm is really about
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:22 PM
0

don't know why you're posting this here
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:21 PM
1

what are you talking about?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:46 AM
-9

i wish i could say its a surprise that most of the comments here are just insulting her, but such is the mrm i suppose
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:06 AM
6

twice her size, not her height
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:36 AM
0

stop talking about your feelings, the mrm is about facts!
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:00 PM
5

which organisations are you speaking of?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 09:57 PM
1

how is feminism creating the pressure?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:35 PM
1

so they're making a jab at someone at mentally ill people's expense.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:25 PM
2

This subreddit wouldn't need to exist if it weren't *for feminism. this is one idea i see here that i just plain don't get. feminism contributing? sure. but being the sole cause of mens woes? i just don't see it.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:07 AM
1

does anyone have any more information on the study they're talking about?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:22 AM
3

this is a really bad comment.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:16 AM
0

So not only are we deliberately sacrificing half our kids to make mentally ill adults feel better about themselves but we aren't even getting a boost in the other half to justify it (not well, but better than nothing). why are you making a jab at mentally ill people here? i don't understand who you're talking about.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:13 AM
0

since when?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:08 AM
0

universally? that's quite a large claim.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:06 AM
5

saying its a fact does not make it so
/r/MensRights10/02/13 05:51 PM
3

yeah, that's not why i'm interested in feminism
/r/MensRights10/02/13 05:48 PM
1

saying they're facts doesn't make them so
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:09 PM
1

welp, i clearly didn't read your post properly, sorry
/r/MensRights09/02/13 10:52 PM
-1

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -Catherine MacKinnon According to feminism, every married man is a rapist. No exceptions. wow, one quote from one person. that certainly proves the whole movement beleives that. and apparently it isn't even true, so it's even more ridiculous. all your post proves is that you're able to cherry-pick quotes.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 10:32 PM
3

why is it that people so often bring up hypotheticals like this instead of evidence that backs up what they're saying?
/r/MensRights09/02/13 01:39 PM
2

"He" isn't sexist because females are men. Homo sapiens. you're not making any sense
/r/MensRights09/02/13 12:54 PM
-1

just to be clear, it is in the DSM IV as far as i'm aware.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:41 PM
0

none of that makes me a troll. i'm not purposely trying to get reactions from people. i disagree with the sub overall and no, don't consider myself a member of it, but i'm still coming here to challenge myself on the subject.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:40 PM
-1

uh. that's not really what i mean.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 10:25 PM
0

why would he be facing a 100 year sentence?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 10:20 PM
-5

are you serious? by her account at least, she said "no not tonight" multiple times.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 10:11 PM
-4

the link to the avfm article is in the forum post linked to. i'm assuming people can read the article and see the parts which make it not so clear.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:48 PM
-7

i dunno, it kinda does a bit. it's kind of contridictory,
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:21 PM
5

Out of curiosity, what is the context of the ban? Is it non-child-friendly sites or a ban applicable to everyone? as far as i know, you have to opt in to a web filter and choose the option to block non-child friendly content
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:20 PM
2

and what does the article say after that?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 06:21 PM
0

i did read it all. the only thing i didn't do is watch the video they linked to at the end, which i probably should.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:56 PM
3

someone who disagrees with you? that doesn't make me a troll, you know.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 05:09 AM
2

i was not talking about that part of the article.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:53 AM
2

i'm not a troll. saying something like that is ridiculous and doesn't benefit anyone, even if it were true.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:48 AM
2

yes, it is about eating disorders.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:34 AM
-1

maybe? i haven't watched many of those. still, it doesn't really sound right to me.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:32 AM
-2

i don't really think that t-shirt and a dog are that similar.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:11 AM
4

i agree that banning people from the gym is not an option but she also talked about other people being considerate. considering the subject matter, is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:44 AM
8

are you seriously talking about eating disorders like this? eating disorders aren't just someones "pwecious feewings".
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:31 AM
3

care to say why?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:21 AM
11

i don't think movies that embrace male friendships are as rare as you're saying they are.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:17 AM
-4

do you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:07 AM
5

any thoughts on the rest of the article, anyone?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 02:02 AM
-1

my god. a youtube video.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:55 AM
1

this just seems like another time someones being weird and semantic for some reason
/r/MensRights07/02/13 11:50 PM
1

i wasn't the one saying there was a problem with the name.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:36 PM
1

how so?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:27 PM
1

Even if they are... it's obviously not working. this is called "moving the goalposts".
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:24 PM
2

yeah there's absolutely no men who condemn women for only caring how they look (and not, say, how nice they are)
/r/MensRights06/02/13 02:06 PM
-1

so here's a bunch of generalisations that are provably untrue
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:57 PM
-1

Beside that, there is no justification for calling an egalitarian movement feminism. and yet again someone is posting this in a place called mensrights
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:55 PM
1

what makes you think they aren't doing that already?
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:52 PM
-1

the point of protesting is that you keep doing it until they don't disagree anymore
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:21 AM
0

it's ridiculous that you think women and black people didn't protest against a large amount of people who didn't think they had issues
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:20 AM
-3

i can't articulate how ridiculous what you're saying is
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:57 AM
-1

yes, clearly the only benefit that matters is having a yacht. there are no other advantages.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:43 AM
2

but those don't happen? i mean you can say it's more likely but saying it applies all the time is obviously not true.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:40 AM
13

that is not my experience of feminism
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:22 AM
3

that's kind of an oversimplification
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:42 PM
1

There is no such thing as a feminist who 'cares about men' in anything but the most cynical sense. oh no i don't exist help
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:27 AM
3

there are literally people in this post that are actually saying that women go after bad boys
/r/MensRights25/01/13 11:17 PM
1

the 'put kindness in, get sex out' nice guy. I'd call that some sort of mild autism, thinking that people work like equations (sadly, we do, but not that simple of an equations). people don't have to be autistic to have that kind of mindset.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 11:08 PM
2

except its not just the name of a sub and you're just arguing over pointless semantics when you're talking about those two terms
/r/MensRights25/01/13 10:49 PM
2

this sub is called "MensRights", come on
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:51 PM
7

mangina is a terrible word and anyone who uses it is terrible.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:02 PM
6

yeah because one context is all contexts
/r/MensRights13/01/13 12:10 PM
-3

completely different from MensRights then /s
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:43 AM
17

what did you say?
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:30 AM
1

what's the truth? you haven't said anything. you've just made an incredibly vague diagnosis of..."a very serious mental disorder". based off a blog post.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 06:16 PM
1

can people not do this, please? the mental illness thing you're doing?
/r/MensRights11/01/13 04:53 PM
2

numeracy is still maths and that's what you said - maths
/r/MensRights11/01/13 01:03 PM
5

i dunno where you are, but all the big courses i can remember had literacy and numeracy as part of it unless you already had a qualification at that level or higher
/r/MensRights10/01/13 03:14 PM
2

i'm not saying you have to prove what they're saying. i'm just saying if you know what the truth is or not.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:37 AM
-1

those sure are things being said in this conversation
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:34 AM
3

that's a theory that could be true, yes.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:02 AM
5

that's hardly the only criticism of the study.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 10:48 AM
3

...what? i...what?
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:26 AM
1

It is the message conveyed in the poster, the assumption that all men will rape unless told not to, which has made me angry. that's an awful lot to read into this poster.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:22 AM
4

do you know how many people believe it?
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:20 AM
2

what makes that study more valid than others?
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:54 PM
-2

okay, but that's not what you said originally.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:09 PM
16

some people honestly do believe that though?
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:02 PM
-5

...yes, that's very solid logic
/r/MensRights08/01/13 03:48 PM
0

look at Gina Rinehart. Hideous fat slob but nobody dares says she's ugly. uhhhhhhhhh seriously, do you not realise how inherently contradictory that is
/r/MensRights08/01/13 02:12 PM
-1

yeah let's purposely misread their post instead of responding to what they're actually saying, that's great
/r/MensRights08/01/13 01:47 PM
4

lets consider two other categories: facts, and theories. which does your post belong to?
/r/MensRights08/01/13 01:45 PM
1

sure in that sense, but it's still not a thing people can just click their fingers and do
/r/MensRights08/01/13 01:19 AM
0

that's not true, though.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 01:18 AM
5

you're pretty wrong here on multiple levels
/r/MensRights07/01/13 09:31 PM
1

feminine is bad.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 09:11 PM
0

yeah, you're kinda shit at arguing
/r/MensRights07/01/13 09:05 PM
0

do you have evidence the original article didn't provide? also, you understand why systems like this are put in place right?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 08:10 PM
0

just putting "feminist response:" in front of something doesn't mean anything.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 08:09 PM
0

what relevance does this have to anything?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:58 PM
1

considering this is a mra forum, i'd think that you'd be one of the first to say that women can rape men, even ignoring other problems from what you've said.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:55 PM
2

i did and couldn't find anything.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 04:59 PM
0

i didn't say he was, he's still making generalisations
/r/MensRights07/01/13 04:50 PM
2

do you have links to anything? i tried looking and i didn't see anything.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:42 PM
2

there's no proof at all in this article, they just suggest it then talk about other things.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:41 PM
6

seriously? you're using will and grace as an example?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:39 PM
5

privileged by law? you mean like being able to marry? straights rape gay boys.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:37 PM
1

that's certainly what the article says, but i don't see them backing it up.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:34 PM
1

if that's true, why are you bothering to talk to me? it would be giving me attention if nothing else. and for someone who's against people not adding something to the discussion, your post isn't adding anything either.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:30 PM
3

for a lot of people there are actually quite a few things that get in the way
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:25 PM
6

it could never be because they want to be referred to by the correct pronouns or something and y'know the "show me your tits" thing is often experienced by males
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:22 PM
3

the op doesn't have an argument either, he's just making generalisations and conflating groups because he's had bad experiences
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:16 PM
2

...no?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:09 PM
-10

you seem to have the facts and figures on this issue, care to share them?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:06 PM
13

i assume you aren't being serious with that link
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:03 PM
4

Also video gaming is a perfect example of an environment without gender, in which women assert their gender privileges. what are you referring to with this?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:48 PM
-7

no, he's also conflating one group of people with another
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:45 PM
1

uhhhh
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:41 PM
1

uh. yes? that's why i chose that word. you know there's more than xx and xy right?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:40 PM
-11

one women is all female gamers, gotcha
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:24 PM
-1

force? i find it pretty easy to ignore people like that myself
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:17 PM
-14

so you gonna prove what you're saying
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:16 PM
-6

yeah you're clearly projecting here so much
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:09 PM
2

this is pretty silly
/r/MensRights06/01/13 08:37 PM
8

what feminists are you talking about?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 08:19 PM
6

got links for that
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:05 PM
6

why will he be confused?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:35 PM
3

so you can prove what you're saying, right?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:34 PM
-2

if you have a really simple view on sex
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:17 PM
1

yeah a person who didn't commit a sexual crime should totally be called a sex offender? what?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:10 PM
2

except it also says something along the lines of "and i'm gay so i wouldn't rape her anyway"
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:06 PM
-1

lol ok
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:56 PM
-1

it commonly is though and your original comment doesn't mention that kind of thing at all
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:18 PM
2

you're still assuming it's true of everyone who doesn't shave their legs though
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:00 PM
2

you literally just said ladies. i wasn't deliberately misinterpreting you.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:56 PM
-1

violent video games? are you serious? it's highly unlikely they're having any effect on him and trying to get rid of something he likes isn't going to make you look good at all.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:03 AM
-1

come on now, i think it's pretty fair to say that men were involved in the creation of the system too.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:30 PM
1

so what's actually wrong with using figurative language in this context, beyond personal preference?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:21 PM
-5

again, the consequences aren't the same.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:16 PM
1

how are these misandric?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:15 PM
-1

sounds like victim blaming to me.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:59 PM
-6

the same exact thing? come on, even you can't be so dense as to not acknowledge the difference in consequences. (e: corrected misspelling)
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:53 PM
2

as someone with aspergers, i'm not supportive of that kind of action. what she did was wrong, yes, but justice isn't served by continuing violence.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:40 PM
2

what on earth are you talking about?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:01 PM
2

if you're blaming someone for being taught bad messages then its kinda victim blaming yeah
/r/MensRights03/01/13 09:22 PM
4

yeah all women on the planet, why don't you have a hivemind
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:29 PM
2

you're right, they asked it in a rhetorical way. doesn't mean the answer isn't useful, though.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:15 PM
1

still responding to imaginary words I see
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:13 PM
4

so basically it's a load of dumb assumptions?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:10 PM
1

i did read it, i'm just pointing out something silly
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:08 PM
2

i haven't really seen anything from her that makes me feel like i should continue looking through her stuff.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:28 PM
1

that sure is a lot of words they didn't say.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:19 PM
-1

American women (mostly) suck! well i'm certain this will be a great article
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:16 PM
5

i don't see what's unhyigenic about not shaving your legs.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:58 PM
5

i dunno. how many?
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:25 PM
0

clearly feminism works, otherwise people wouldn't be here to bitch about it.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:38 AM
3

it doesn't really make sense though?
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:22 PM
1

do you seriously not think things are better now then a century ago? yes, things aren't perfect and we have a long way to go but things are objectively better.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:07 PM
0

seriously though, mangina? you're going to use that?
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:01 PM
1

seriously? that's pretty bad groundwork.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:00 PM
4

sorry for being a bit snippy before. it was unnecessary.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 02:46 PM
2

it's in the speech marks in your last comment. does this seriously need pointing out?
/r/MensRights31/12/12 02:40 PM
2

where does it say they think its okay?
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:52 PM
0

saying how something works is not saying it is a good system.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:50 PM
-9

yeah i mean boxing is just about the heavyweights right and my main point was that you're wrong. people already acknowledge that men are generally stronger and have split teams precisely for that reason.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 01:20 AM
22

And the politically correct gyno-centric nature of our society absolutely refuses to do anything that would force us to admit that men (as a group) are better at something than women (as a group). but that's the entire point of split teams
/r/MensRights18/12/12 12:45 AM
1

finding any excuse to make jabs at feminism doesn't make him look particularly good to me
/r/MensRights18/12/12 12:27 AM
1

i'm no super-expert on how facebook works but i'm pretty sure their are privacy options that can limit what people can see.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 11:07 PM
1

Getting pregnant, if it is not by means of rape is not forced. Let's move on already, this much should be totally obvious. you don't understand what i'm saying. i never said "the pregnancy is forced" i said "the life is forced on them". my point being that if abortion is not an option then people are faced with a situation in which after a certain point they cannot do anything about the fetus. It is what it is, birth control is not 100% effective. If you think that's ridiculous you have a proble…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:43 PM
-38

who're you speaking for? and you realise this article is 3 and half years old right?
/r/MensRights15/12/12 04:00 PM
0

all feminists?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 07:33 PM
3

oh my god why are so many people assuming that person is a feminist
/r/MensRights14/12/12 07:12 PM
1

"trigger warning"? why is that term bad?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:06 PM
2

opposition to feminism is a pretty big part of this movement, though.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:11 PM
-4

yes, "feminist supporter". that is certainly, definiately a fact.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:01 PM
6

they sound like someone who doesn't care much for feminism
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:00 PM
1

uh, just because someone says they are nice doesn't mean it's true.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:54 PM
1

seriously? the idea behind this isn't that they're pissed off at the system as far as i know, and anything else is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:53 PM
6

come on now, are you really saying that people here, generally speaking, aren't preeeeetty antagonistic about feminism?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:43 PM
3

either you're being vague on something specific they aren't doing or you're just wrong about what you're saying. because there are feminists, who are still considered feminists by the movement overall by any measure i can think of, who are doing what OuiCrudites wants them to.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:35 PM
4

okay. what's the problem with what i said? i mean, correct me if i'm wrong. i might be thinking of them saying something about not being a safe space.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:14 PM
1

You dont make sense, you were speaking about pregnancy and you said "forced" and you did not mention rape, and i simply corrected you. All pregnancy is not forced, approximately 0.5% is forced. Like it or not, this needed correcting. you didn't correct me though, you just didn't understand what i was saying. i never said rape to start with, and i corrected you after you misinterpreted what i was trying to say. And birth control isn't 100% effective, those are the facts, don't shoot the mesenger.…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:40 PM
-1

RadFem is not the entirety of the movement, though.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:48 PM
3

...is there something specific you have a problem with?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:43 PM
-6

Well, considering people like to use ridiculously encompassing definitions of words, would you consider trans and queer to encompass cis straight men? 'cause from my understanding, trans and queer as two collective groups are not cis straight men, or men in general. Feel free to correct me though. no, but...why does that matter? i mean, men are men. regardless, these people are talking about male gender roles. even if they're talking about them in context of their own lives, they're still talkin…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:24 PM
-10

In reponse to "Feminists don't address men's gender roles" you literally just said "That's not true, they address other things as well that aren't male gender roles" ...do you...not know what trans* and queer mean? Pretty much the only discussion of male gender roles I've really seen is "toxic masculinity." so they do discuss male gender roles? what's wrong with talking about "toxic masculinity"?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:01 PM
9

a lot of feminists disagree with how jezebel handles things and i'm fairly certain jezebel doesn't consider itself a feminist website.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 07:45 PM
2

i disagree. many feminists deconstruct both gender roles and are against the other things you mentioned.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 07:42 PM
3

i'm not really seeing it, whenever I hear a women or feminist talk about it they're always against the concept
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:48 PM
1

are you shitting me that just plain untrue
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:42 PM
1

yes, the a human fetus is a human in some regard. no, i'm not saying it's right because it's legal. then I'd love to hear your script on how removing personhood from a group of people to justify killing them is somehow moral. i like how you put "script" there. very subtle. anyways, whether or not a fetus is considered to have personhood is debated, and framing it as "removing personhood" is obviously biased. i'm not really willing to work through the rest of what you're saying considering that, …
/r/MensRights13/12/12 01:40 PM
1

like i said killing is not necessarily murder if that's not your point i don't get what it is
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:24 AM
1

well that's super relevant except not
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:21 AM
2

okay, that just sounds conspiracy theory-ish
/r/MensRights12/12/12 11:14 PM
1

are you serious? do you not understand the definition of words such as "neccessarily"? And even people who use contraception should be prepared for the consequences of risky behavior. It's called being responsible, and this generation seems full of irresponsible children who want the state to save them from everything. wow. people using condoms and birth control aren't being responsible? what? and you say i'm nonsensical. why is this difference relevant in deciding who has the right to live? i'v…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 11:04 PM
1

i didn't say it doesn't happen, i said it doesn't necessarily happen. which it doesn't.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:24 PM
1

i'm...not talking about rape. well, not necessarily. the point i'm trying to make is that people don't just flip a switch and their bodies start making babies, and then flip it again and they don't. sometimes people forget contraception, sometimes they aren't enough. you're just being purposely dense regarding the other subject. there's an obvious difference between not letting something begin to feel and be conscious that has never felt and been conscious, and stopping someone who has felt and …
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:11 PM
1

so you have evidence of campaigns such as the ones mentioned in the title not working?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:38 PM
1

FORCED? am I in a mens rights reddit? Wtf uh, what's wrong with the term? certainly it doesn't apply to all pregnancies, but it definiately applies to many of them. And if you make the argument that not having consciousness yet and losng consciousness are somehow different and that this difference justifies the different treatment...you need to explain why. im well aware that the two are different but you need to explain what it is about this difference which justifies the different treatment, o…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:05 PM
1

and that's a valid point to make, but assuming that's true of every or the majority of rapes seems just as harmful as the opposite.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:34 PM
0

thanks for the response.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:31 PM
0

thanks for the response.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:31 PM
2

is there any real point to this kind of speculation?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:14 PM
1

okay. like i said, even disregarding that as hyperbole, he could've raped her.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:13 PM
0

whys it always gotta be feminism, like no non-feminists don't say the same sometimes edit: maybe i should add something a bit more useful. you've mentioned studies a few times - do you where people could find them?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:57 PM
0

a lot of people who commit crimes don't think they're doing anything wrong, but even disregarding that part as hyperbole or w/e, it could be that he, y'know, raped someone who hadn't consented.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:53 PM
2

uh, i don't beleive she's ever said she's a feminist and a belief like this is hardly unique to feminists.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:49 PM
1

How could anyone work this statistic out, outside of plain old bullshitting? Asking men, "Would you rape someone if you could get away with it?" well, i don't have the study on hand, but i remember there being at least one which basically phrased the questions without calling it "rape" or "sexual assault". ...what? So, in order to get more sex, we'd obligate ourselves to a single person and socially-and-monetarily castrate ourselves, rather than just... sleeping with other people? Go ahead and r…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:46 PM
-3

Well, that is simply not true. I have never, ever, EVER seen anyone claim, that the rapist is not at fault for raping someone else. really? you've never heard something along the lines of "well men just can't help themselves", or stuff like "she was asking for it" to take away blame from the rapist? What I have seen people talk about, is the fact that women have part of the responsibility. I know for a fact that most people agree, that the rapist carries a major part of that responsibility, but …
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:38 PM
1

uh, that's certainly an interpretation of the poster. it's not the only interpretation.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:37 PM
0

..."ruling majority"? how would you even figure that out
/r/MensRights12/12/12 04:48 PM
0

yeah that doesn't necessarily happen either?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 04:02 PM
1

does it not work?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 03:59 PM
1

rrrrreally. because that actually sounds like something they would do.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 03:51 PM
1

again, there is a difference between temporarily losing consciousness and not having it yet.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 02:37 AM
1

that hasn't been my experience of feminism
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:39 PM
0

Back in the past it was working hard to deny black people the vote what? i'm pretty sure that's not true. i wouldn't want to claim anything as an absolute, but there were at least some feminists who were campaigning for giving black people the right to vote. and i don't know of any feminists well-known or otherwise who actively worked to deny black people the right to vote. (edit: quickly looking it up seems to show that the American Woman Suffrage Association and the National American Woman Suf…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:04 PM
1

i'm...still confused as to where you're getting the figure from, to be honest. the bit you quoted from a study doesn't seem to have any mention of the number of women who died during pregnancy.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:22 PM
3

Killing another human being in cold blood is murder. again, not necessarily. and i don't see how that applies to abortion. edit: we don't twist logic when it comes to womens needs. it's about acknowledging the unique circumstances of having another life forced onto you. temporarily losing sensation and consciousness is not the same as not having them yet.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:57 PM
4

killing is not necessarily murder.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:48 PM
1

But pregnancy kills only .01% of women who become pregnant where are you getting this figure?
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:43 PM
1

...what are you talking about?
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:29 PM
2

how are gay people causing straight people a lot of problems, what special rights and privileges are you talking about
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:28 PM
4

nobody "looks like a lesbian". being lesbian means you're a woman who's interested in other women. there is no set "look", and beleiving that there is one is homophobic. i'm not debating other aspects of what you said.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:36 AM
7

i think you're both homophobic.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:19 AM
1

i don't know enough about the subject to provide anything meaningful.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 11:32 PM
0

ah, ok.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 10:15 PM
2

comments like this are what put me off MRA to some extent (not that i've seen that much here overall)
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:08 PM
0

they?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:54 PM
1

maybe both the terms aren't quite suitable applied to this issue. gay men and women are both effected by homophobia in their own ways, which are both related to gender stereotypes. trying to tie it to just one, as blueoak9 was doing, seems to me like they're just tying it to their own team instead of approaching this properly. and the basic idea i was going with in regards to gay men being "womanly" is the idea that women are supposed to go with men and men are supposed to go with women, thus pe…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:24 PM
-1

it seems to me that they're basically saying men shouldn't be doing womanly things, which sounds misogynist to me.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 06:23 PM
1

Homophobia is misandry when it is directed ata gay man. it is a demonization of our male sexuality. Calling it anything else, especially misogyny, is appropriation i dunno, as a gay dude it seems more like misogyny to me. i don't really see where you're coming from.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:15 PM
2

asking for the source of information is troll behaviour?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:38 PM
3

nope. i am certainly someone who (so far) agrees more with feminism, but i am commenting here to engage in discussion and learn things i might not elsewhere. and i'm a dude btw. i certainly care about some aspects of mens rights.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:27 PM
2

sorry about the vague response before. i think i'm getting what you're saying now, thanks.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:22 PM
3

not really?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:12 PM
5

it's a question because i don't know the answer to something. that isn't troll behaviour. i can understand not wanting to explain a naunced topic to some newbie, but let's not just throw around the term troll. and anyways i misunderstood what you were saying (i think) as it being something that was currently happening and was asking about it in the present specificly.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:08 PM
3

i'd really like to see the source of that information
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:00 PM
-1

wait, what? i don't think that makes sense.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:59 PM
3

wait, what women/feminists are trying to affect change in the family law system?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:47 PM
2

yes. "pointed out".
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:45 PM
-4

i'm pretty sure plenty of feminists give examples tho? and how do feminists discriminate, out of curiousity? (edit: i dunno what i was thinking here tbh) and yeah, there's a significant amount of feminists that are racist and/or homophobic and other stuff too. the movement is not perfect, but in my experience there are a lot of people trying to improve it.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:38 PM
-6

source?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:33 PM
2

yeah i got what he was saying, i just don't know where he's getting that from
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:33 PM
2

do you have more details on any of this?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:23 PM
4

yeah you just sound ridiculous
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:22 PM
10

so uh, what about women who don't expect to take a year or two off
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:23 AM
-1

nope, sorry
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:32 AM
1

it does a pretty bad job of it
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:17 AM
-2

what are you talking about
/r/MensRights09/12/12 11:33 PM
-1

that...isn't true? i mean, the feminist frequency website itself says the first video will be released "late fall or early winter", and i cannot see anything that says they will be finished by winter
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:24 PM
-1

1) i'm haven't seen anything in the advertisement of this project that has mentioned how long this will take, let alone saying that it will be done it small amount of time 2) i agree that the lack of updates it suspicious, but that lack of updates and my own lack of further details about this project mean i can't really see where you're coming from 3) again like i said, lack of concrete details means i don't have much to base my opinion on. if you have more, i'd welcome them, but the little i ha…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:10 PM
-2

i've done some reading on the situation, i don't recall anything that gave that impression
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:45 PM
1

ok that's good, but i was (in a really vague way, sorry) also trying to ask what you mean by "basic" and "traditional" societies; what specific societies you have in mind.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:20 PM
-1

All to basically take a steaming dump on the games industry, the gaming community using her bad idea that that female characters are "objectified" -- read through the lines of this buzzword: idealized like in all fantasy, just like the super buff and handsome male characters, and like in the film industry where it's usually the best looking actors and actresses tend to end up making the most money. yea i don't think you fully understand what is meant by "objectified"
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:14 PM
3

Love abusing men and making them miserable? where is this happening...? (regarding this particular feminist)
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:10 PM
-1

where are you getting this from
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:09 PM
3

i...what? that's just ridiculous, why on earth would one failed kickstarter ruin anything?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:07 PM
1

Even in basic and more traditional societies women don't do much, or get to do much outside their homes. that's...fairly vague. what are you talking about here?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:24 PM
4

source?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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