TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

boxsterguy Archive

View 0 posts and 809 comments by boxsterguy 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

You're still doing it. Look up "concern trolling". It's exactly what you're doing, "I just have questions! Why can't I just ask *questions?" when those questions are designed to be naively offensive. Maybe you're legit (unlikely), but that changes nothing.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:01 AM
3

You're concern trolling. "I'm just asking questions" is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:44 PM
14

Lots of old school peds diagnosed phimosis when the foreskin didn't retract by 4 or 5, which is ridiculously early. But since genital mutilation was 80-90% back then, they didn't know what to do with a natural penis anyway. Even in 2013, I had to fire a pediatrician who told me I needed to mutilate my then 8 week old. He's now 9.5, intact, and without any penis problems. I'm breaking the circle of violence in my family.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 12:58 AM
8

Early. Stupid Gboard. Leaving it in.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 12:55 AM
4

That's z-plasty, not circumcision.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 11:54 PM
28

Because the foreskin often doesn't detach from the head until puberty. Trying to force it is like trying to pry off a thumbnail.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 11:53 PM
23

1 in 10 women will suffer breast cancer over the course of their lives. Should we mutilate baby girls "just in case"? No. The answer to that, and to your bullshit is no, that's not a good enough reason.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 10:59 PM
39

Phimosis should not be diagnosed until puberty, and even then there are multiple less invasive options.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 10:58 PM
21

Jesus was supposed to supercede the old covenants, including genital mutilation. So Christians shouldn't do it at all, and in fact it was a point of pride for eating Christians not to be circumcised like jews. Then the late 19th century puritanism revival bullshit brought about silly ideas like genital mutilation could stop masturbation, so those Christians started doing it. It wasn't religious at that point. Islam doesn't require it either, but apparently Mohammed was born without a foreskin so…
/r/MensRights04/07/22 10:57 PM
-12

But that means "10 out of 11" is misleading at best and really just outright arguing. Especially since the solution isn't more male-specific scholarships but instead fewer sex-specific scholarships at all.
/r/MensRights18/05/22 08:03 AM
-26

Incorrect conclusion. A better description would be "10 out of 11 sex-specific scholarships are for women", as the study only compared female-specific vs. male-specific scholarships. It completely ignores non-sex-specific scholarships, which dwarf single-sex scholarships entirely. (also, while I saw no mention of it, I suspect they're intentionally excluding sports-based scholarships, else the male-only numbers would be significantly higher due to the higher participation and popularity of male …
/r/MensRights18/05/22 07:16 AM
5

Yes, but you missed "it's both".
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:18 PM
2

She might need to visit r/JUSTNOMIL
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:05 PM
10

It's both. Parents parenting their kids are not babysitters. But babysitters babysitting kids are babysitters. And men can do both jobs just as well as anybody. Better than many, in fact. As a parent, my favorite response to, "Aww, good for you, babysitting the kids, giving mom the day off," is, "Mom's dead." Which is literally true in my case, but I give permission to anybody else to use, as it shuts the biddies up so damn quick you'd think they'd get whiplash.
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:04 PM
10

This is why we need to redefine terms. "Circumcision" has long been considered benign. We need to call it Male Genital Mutilation every time it's mentioned. But, if legal adults of either gender want to get it done, then that's fine. Not sure where you're going with this, but yes? Absolutely, if a legal, consenting adult wants to mutilate their genitals, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed. The issue is not with grown ass humans deciding to have labiaplasty or circumcision. The issue…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 06:31 PM
8

Parents aren't asking for this. They're being sold the procedure as "routine, covered by insurance". If insurance would stop covering it, rates would plummet by an order of magnitude overnight.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 05:50 PM
37

What country was this? In the US, on the west coast, where male genital mutilation is trending downward, I still had to deal with the question on my first kid ("You're not getting him circumcised? But it's routine!" "I said no, thanks,") but it wasn't persistent and I didn't feel like I had to watch him like a hawk. For my second kid (different hospital), the question wasn't even asked. They would only do it if we asked for it, and we didn't ask for it. I did dump a ped who, when we had the kid …
/r/MensRights03/05/22 05:48 PM
20

The problem is that no politician wants to be branded anti-semitic. Not that being anti-circumcision automatically means you're anti-semitic, but that's the talking points that will be levied against you. Judaism makes up approximately 2.5% of the US population. Half of those are men, so 1.25%. It would be trivially simple to carve out an exception for that in any sort of legislation (note: Judaism is the only religion that requires circumcision; Christianity does not require it at all, despite …
/r/MensRights03/05/22 05:43 PM
46

The only reason the AAP supports circumcision is because it's an easy payday. As long as insurance companies pay for it, people will default to doing it ("Would you like to mutilate your new baby boy?" the answer will generally be "yes" if followed by, "It's free," vs, "That'll be $400"). The AAP is not a public health organization. It's a professional organization for pediatricians, and their policies are first and foremost designed around what's best for pediatricians, not kids. Sometimes thos…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 05:38 PM
6

While you are not wrong, and I 100% agree with you, you've completely and entirely missed my point. Consider FGM vs. labiaplasty. On the surface, they're the same thing, but one involves coercion (of a minor who can't consent, or of an adult who is unaware or otherwise ignorant of what they're consenting to) and the other does not. And that's the difference between "Circumcision should never be an option for anything ever!" and "Consenting, well-informed adults should be allowed to cut off their…
/r/MensRights09/04/22 07:29 PM
14

Sex is more than just one penis-in-vagina session. So what if he comes fast? There's plenty of other stuff to do before and after, and he'll likely last longer the second round after his refractory period.
/r/MensRights09/04/22 05:50 PM
3

Babies feel it, too. There is plenty of evidence that neonatal male genital mutilation is not painless.
/r/MensRights09/04/22 05:49 PM
6

Grown adults making an informed decision that harms nobody but themselves should be allowed to make the decision (we call that "plastic surgery"). Genital mutilation of minors is wrong and should be illegal, but if OP as a legal adult wants to mangle himself through his own free will without correction coercion (stupid phone), that's his choice.
/r/MensRights09/04/22 05:45 PM
6

Other than that, cut or don't. It's nobody's business except the parents'. One could argue it's the kid's business ...
/r/MensRights27/02/22 05:26 PM
53

Can't expel someone from school for that, either.
/r/MensRights08/01/22 03:48 AM
16

If it hasn't retracted, then don't worry about it. It may not retract until puberty or later. Definitely don't force it, though he should be stretching it himself now and then (bath time is a good time for this). Once it retracts, then just pull it back and clean it with water or mild soap during bath time. It's really not as difficult as the pro-cutters make it seem. Also, as another cut dad who didn't mutilate my sons, thank you for not perpetuating that violence on another generation.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 08:51 PM
-8

I didn't read either message as defensive, though we know OP was being defensive else he wouldn't have posted about it. I suspect there's an entire conversation preceding these two lines, and that's where we'd find the reason she unmatched him. Also, ZOMG = over-exaggerated/sarcastic "Oh my god!"
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:35 AM
-11

A potential date asking his schedule with his kid so that they can plan dates = ZOMG, she thinks I don't have custody!
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:17 AM
-2

Unless there's more background to indicate this was antagonistic, nothing seems wrong to me with either of these statements. Assume a 50/50 split custody, "see your kid" is a fine way to ask (also "have your kid", though that implies ownership and probably not a term I'd use with an older kid). I wouldn't have read that as an attack unless there were other prior comments. But then, "How about you?" seems like a totally fair reciprocal question, unless she didn't have kids. Feels like you're just…
/r/MensRights31/12/21 05:15 AM
4

The money is a barrier to entry. Today, it's unfortunately a routine question that elicits a, "Why not? They wouldn't ask to do it if it was bad, right?" response more often than not. If the question came with, "... for $400?" hopefully a lot more people would stop and think, "You want me to pay you to mutilate my baby? What's wrong with you?" Hell, the only reason the AAP supports circumcision is because they want insurance companies to pay. It's a quick and easy payday with frontend and backen…
/r/MensRights26/12/21 03:52 AM
3

It doesn't need to be illegal (though that would be nice). It just needs to be an out of pocket elective. When insurance/national health care doesn't pay, most parents aren't going to be willing to pay $400 out of pocket to mutilate their sons.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 11:45 PM
20

There are less invasive options to try for phimosis before going nuclear. But also, there are a bunch of quack pediatricians that will diagnose phimosis before puberty, which is an incorrect diagnosis.
/r/MensRights24/12/21 10:01 PM
8

Happened in Minnesota.
/r/MensRights14/12/21 04:57 PM
12

And most of the rest can be resolved with z-plasty rather than circumcision. But there's probably on in a million that actually medically needs a circumcision. Also, the important part is that phimosis can't be diagnosed until puberty anyway.
/r/MensRights09/12/21 05:02 AM
14

Legally, no. Culturally, yes
/r/MensRights09/12/21 03:06 AM
52

100% useless for prepubescent males. After that, 99% useless.
/r/MensRights09/12/21 03:06 AM
12

Addendum: there is no medical reason to circumcise an infant.
/r/MensRights09/12/21 03:05 AM
-3

On the other hand, there is a certain contingent of people here just looking for sleights, and will engineer them if they have to. We have enough problems that we don't need to make up new ones. I don't work at a hospital, but I've got two children. I've been through all the form signing and everything else, and there is nowhere that limits anything to only the birthing parent. If it's restricted at all, it's "birth parent", aka "biological parent", and bio dad counts. OP made a bad assumption.
/r/MensRights01/12/21 08:24 PM
-7

I'm guessing what actually happened was OP, being overly sensitive to possible sleights against his gender, saw "birth parent" and immediately assumed that meant the parent who pushed the child out. When he asked for clarification the hospital staff had literally never had anybody ask that question before because everybody knows what "birth parent" means. So they just said, "Okay, sure, if that's how you want to interpret it, have the mom sign. I don't get paid enough to answer stupid questions.…
/r/MensRights01/12/21 05:25 PM
39

Just sign it. They literally can't stop you, as at least the SSN form isn't the hospital's responsibility (I don't know what the "safe sleep agreement" is, but it can also fuck right off because they can't keep you from taking your child home if you don't sign it; not saying safe sleeping arrangements aren't important, but you don't need to sign anything related to that). Also, "birth parent" doesn't mean "birthing parent". It's just another way to say "biological parent" as opposed to "adoptive…
/r/MensRights01/12/21 04:30 PM
13

There's also, "His stepmom gets full custody and the kid lives the best life he can after losing his dad."
/r/MensRights28/11/21 03:06 AM
42

Technically not even his ex-wife, as apparently the two were just having an affair. Chad and his ex were divorced. Kyle is not. He is not married to Chad's ex.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 07:50 AM
3

It seems there's confusion between "assault rifle" ("a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine") and "assault weapon" ("The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud"). This guy very clearly brandished an assault weapon. It may not have been an assault rifle, despi…
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:16 AM
6

The rational part ("He should've walked away") isn't getting downvoted. It's the judging of the nature of the father based on his behavior after being screwed around. I suppose OP here has never gotten angry and done something regretful. Thankfully OP has never been killed for that.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:10 AM
-3

What is it, then? A pistol playing dress-up?
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:08 AM
32

Sure, there is something to be said about a person “protecting” their private property. Maybe in general, but not in this case. What was he protecting his property from? An unarmed man trying to pick up his kid at his legally prescribed time and place?
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:06 AM
7

It's too bad SSA significantly weakened their oversight of survivor's benefits. It used to be every year you had to report what you did with the kid's money (in my case, "Saved for college" because all their money goes into UTMAs). Obviously you could straight lie and they'd never check, but now they don't even make you pretend to care.
/r/MensRights26/11/21 07:05 AM
4

No, you were concern trolling.
/r/MensRights25/11/21 09:17 PM
10

Are you, though? Your post has all the hallmarks of, "But MGM isn't a problem because FGM is worse!"
/r/MensRights25/11/21 08:52 PM
9

I agree with the sentiment, but medical needs can be treated without removing the body part, but actually curing the issue behind it. I'd add one more data point -- there is no medical need for circumcision in an infant or even a prepubescent child. Maybe circumcision is acceptable as a last-resort option for phimosis presented at puberty, but phimosis can't even be properly diagnosed before puberty because the foreskin may have legitimately not even detached from the glans yet. I suppose there'…
/r/MensRights25/11/21 08:46 PM
16

Does it have to be zero sum? Is this the victims Olympics? Mutilating a child's genitals in any way, regardless of what type of genitals they are, is BAD. End of story.
/r/MensRights25/11/21 08:43 PM
58

Stick to your guns and be vigilant. There are unfortunate stories of grandparents having kids circumcised against the parents' wishes. If you suspect your family has any capacity to do that, do not allow them to be alone with the child for any significant period of time. Also, it's refreshing to hear a woman be anti-circumcision. With my own kids, my wife was ambivalent leaning towards doing it for social concerns (we're non-religious and not culturally jewish). I was entirely against, so my vie…
/r/MensRights25/11/21 05:21 PM
17

In many (most) US states, it is literally illegal before 18, even with parental consent. Maybe you're in a place where that's different. IMHO, getting tattoos at 13 is the definition of trashy, but maybe that's my cultural norm (I have no tattoos, but my late wife did, so it's not like I'm anti-tattoo).
/r/MensRights22/11/21 08:44 PM
12

What's a "reasonable age" for a child to decide to permanently stamp something on their body?
/r/MensRights22/11/21 08:24 PM
29

I find it creepier that parents are allowing children to get tattoos. WTF? In many US states it's flat out illegal even with parental consent.
/r/MensRights22/11/21 07:47 PM
60

Most men in lower education have been chased away by calling them pedophiles, so ...
/r/MensRights17/11/21 04:54 PM
3

You miss my point. I don't care about the gender swap, but I do wonder if these are strong characters because they were originally written as male without societal constraints on what women can do.
/r/MensRights16/11/21 04:49 PM
2

I wonder how much it matters that both of those roles were originally written as men in the comics?
/r/MensRights16/11/21 09:18 AM
22

Nah, nothing that convoluted. This is just wage gap myth = women can afford less.
/r/MensRights07/11/21 03:40 PM
4

I was going to say there's no medical necessity before puberty since most people focus on phimosis, and phimosis shouldn't really be diagnosed until late puberty. But yes, if removal is necessary due to injury, that would be acceptable. At that point it wouldn't be "mutilation", though.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 08:04 PM
22

Not just infant (this kid's not an infant). Any genital mutilation where there is no consent from the person being mutilated (since minors can't give consent, that means all child genital mutilation, including infant) should be a crime.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 06:30 PM
-1

that's the same argument people make to justify infant genital cutting of boys and girls. No it's not. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Infants can't consent. If anything, telling a consenting adult that they can't cut off of their arm is more like infant mutilation, because you're saying that you know what's better for them than they do. Anyway, you've taken the concept here to an extremely ridiculous and stupid place to justify a weird strawman where we're otherwise in agreement -- don't mu…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 07:40 AM
-2

If someone has such body dysmorphia that they feel like they must have a limb amputated, they're going to find a way to get it done. I'd rather it be possible to do it legally under medical care. But that's an extreme. I'm more thinking along the lines of, "FGM is illegal, but labiaplasty is legal." The defining difference is that one is done to a person without their informed and legal consent, while the other is done by a person who is of sound legal mind and consents to the procedure. If a ma…
/r/MensRights27/08/21 06:54 AM
1

What kind of monster parent can do that to their kid, with him screaming and crying in such pain even before the cut? That's what I don't get. There's no way I could knowingly cause that kind of pain to my children.
/r/MensRights27/08/21 06:44 AM
13

Or when it's done with the full adult consent and understanding of the person being cut. If an adult wants to pay someone to do that to them, then that's on them.
/r/MensRights27/08/21 06:43 AM
11

Right, that's my point. MGM discussion always get shut down with, "FGM is worse!" My rebuttal is, "It's not zero sum." We're not having mutilation olympics here. The worst mutilation doesn't win. We can stop all mutilation if we want to. The fact that people stop FGM without also stopping MGM tells us everything we need to know about the value of baby boys.
/r/MensRights23/08/21 07:26 PM
20

The new one is now "penile cancer!" Never mind that penile cancer has something like a 1 in a million lifetime risk. Never mind that countries like Denmark with a circumcision rate of only ~5% do not have a corresponding increase in penile cancer. Never mind that we don't preemptively cut off girls' breasts to prevent their 1 in 10 lifetime chance of breast cancer.
/r/MensRights23/08/21 06:36 PM
16

That doesn't mean it's a zero sum game. We can make all genital mutilation illegal.
/r/MensRights23/08/21 06:34 PM
28

Unless you have a shitty-ass pediatrician that tries to rip the foreskin back because, "The only thing we were taught about foreskins in medical school is that you've got to clean under them because they're dirty!" Thankfully no ped actually tried that with my kids, but one got close and we stopped going to that practice and found a new doctor. Think "tearing off your thumbnail" in terms of how painful it is to retract an attached foreskin.
/r/MensRights23/08/21 06:33 PM
3

"Who is Ken Jennings" is the only valid question to the answer of "The New Jeopardy Host"
/r/MensRights22/08/21 09:54 PM
11

The old testament/Torah is a holy book for them. Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, God, etc are all the same Abrahamic god. Like christians, Muslim texts supercede the old testament, so the Judaism covenant of circumcision is not required in Islam. At the same time, they believe Mohammad was born without a foreskin and by Hadith (religious custom defined by the priesthood, vs religious requirement directly from holy texts) it is highly recommended that men be mutilated. It's not technically required, thou…
/r/MensRights11/08/21 05:29 PM
12

That's one possible answer. Another is that being anti-male genital mutilation is generally spun as anti-Semitic (it's not). When you add in the payday from mutilation (why the AAP continues to recommend the procedure be covered by insurance -- because when insurance doesn't pay, new moms are less likely to mutilate their boys), you have more than enough explanation. FGM is illegal because it's not practiced by Judaism, it's not performed by doctors getting paid, and there's no cosmetic industry…
/r/MensRights11/08/21 05:21 PM
3

I wish more insurance would do that. The AAP explicitly recommends insurance companies should cover infant male general mutilation specifically because when they don't rates go down. Pediatricians need their payday.
/r/MensRights11/08/21 01:46 AM
30

That was a required class? Or you opted into it? Seems like a huge waste of time to take something like that. There are so many more interesting classes worth taking if you need to burn some credits.
/r/MensRights10/08/21 08:55 PM
12

A "concerned citizen" making a 911 call may be enough to be considered "reasonable suspicion", if that's what the cops want.
/r/MensRights03/08/21 01:41 AM
12

No, cuffs = detained. You can be detained without being arrested. It's a little overboard to cuff (although in this case we only have one side of the story -- cops don't usually cuff people unless they're being beligerant), but it can be done without arresting.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 10:01 PM
3

SCOTUS, via Terry v. Ohio, set the "reasonable suspicion" limitation for "stop and identify". It does not define what "reasonable suspicion" is (though other cases, like Brown v. Texas, have overturned because lack of reasonable suspicion was obvious, specifically because the arresting officer said "I didn't have reasonable suspicion"). In this case, a "concerned citizen" calling police about a possible child abduction likely does rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion". The only way to know…
/r/MensRights02/08/21 09:51 PM
-3

In half the states they can, yes.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 09:34 PM
41

They absolutely can't... As another poster stated, it's a state-by-state basis but half the states have some form of "stop and ID" law (not all of those states require to comply, but they all allow cops to ask). Cuffs in this case sound like overkill, but all a cop has to say is, "I was scared for my life," and that justifies it. I would definitely take this further, and demand to know who complained so you can make them responsible for their actions, even if they were well intentioned! I agree …
/r/MensRights02/08/21 09:33 PM
11

They can legally ID you anywhere. They can detain you for just about anything they like. You can always fight it after the fact, but they're going to say that's just part of doing their job.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 08:34 PM
59

They don't get to ID you and detain you because Karen thought you were suspicious (at least in the US). They absolutely can and do do that in the US, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 08:29 PM
57

Did you get the cops' badge numbers? Every single one of them needs to be reported. There's no "official ID" that proves the child is yours. There's only Karen nosing into your business.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 08:28 PM
-1

Implying people taught their children proper sex education even when both parents didn't need to work? No, that's never been a thing. Worse, when schools do try to teach solid sex ed, lots of parents (and I'm guessing you, based on your comment) get up in arms, "You can't teach my kids that! That's not your place! It's my place!" But you don't do it, either. And then we end up with teen pregnancies, STIs, assaults, etc.
/r/MensRights29/07/21 05:58 PM
32

Not just in private areas. Anywhere. And yes, women do this. Men do it to, but when men do it to women they generally get (correctly) scolded. Taken to an extreme, check out the rules for touching male strippers vs. female strippers at pretty much any strip club or stripper rental or whatever. In general, the rules are "You may touch the man as much as you like, but he can tell you 'no' if you grab his dick" vs "You may not touch the woman unless she explicitly and verbally consents." (and just …
/r/MensRights29/07/21 05:55 PM
57

An erection is not a direct demonstration of interest. In the same way that a vagina can get wet with stimulation even if you're not interested, a penis can get erect with stimulation (or even without any direct or obvious stimulation at all!) even if the penis-owner is not actually interested. Without knowing more about the original poster, it could've been anything from a nighttime erection poking his partner and taken for consent, to a fear boner, or anything in between.
/r/MensRights29/07/21 05:52 PM
1

Okay
/r/MensRights27/07/21 05:39 AM
0

Because veganism causes strokes? Wat?
/r/MensRights26/07/21 08:40 PM
1

That, and a massive heart attack that nearly killed him, so he decided to make a change.
/r/MensRights26/07/21 03:50 PM
1

Apparently there are other people who don't, but I don't mind. I got to enjoy a pretty good story set in a universe from my childhood. They got to enjoy being angry. I suppose everybody wins?
/r/MensRights26/07/21 06:17 AM
-6

No worries. I just find it weird that people complain about both sides of the coin. "Oh no, you spoiled the movie with the trailer! Ugh, I'm not going to see it now." "Oh no, the trailer misrepresented the movie and now I'm not happy! I wish I hadn't seen it in the first place!" People pick and choose what they want to offend them, so that they have an excuse for why they're offended. I'd totally respect someone saying, "You know, I didn't really want to watch The Teela Show, so after watching t…
/r/MensRights26/07/21 05:03 AM
-22

Do you complain when trailers give away movie spoilers? So why complain that the trailers for the show didn't give away the first episode spoiler?
/r/MensRights26/07/21 04:29 AM
-10

That's the fucking problem here.. they claimed OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that "This show is a love letter to the OG fans" and "This show picks up literally from where the 80's cartoon left off" Where does that say, "This show is totally going to be from the POV of Adam/He-Man," though? He-Man isn't in the title. This is a "season 2 or 3 story" because it's a direct sequel from the old show. There's no need to reset the stage with He-Man again, because it's not a reboot. Once again.. if you "e…
/r/MensRights26/07/21 03:36 AM
-13

You were talking about, "They're only killing men!" so I pointed out that the MOTU cast of characters is like 98% men. Of course they're going to kill men. That's all that are available to be expendable. It's not like there were 30 other women MOTU characters. Yeah, Kevin bait and switched, from a certain point of view. But he also never said He-Man was going to be the main character. Edit: I'd add one more thing here, too. Movie fans bitch and bitch about trailers giving away all the important …
/r/MensRights26/07/21 03:14 AM
-15

MOTU has like 4 female characters (Teela, Evil-Lyn, Sorceress, and queen whatever her name is; not counting the new girl, who technically comes from a 1980s MOTU comic). If you're going to kill people in MOTU, it's pretty much going to be men. I don't like that the trailers were deceptive, but once I got over that and watched the new show for what it is rather than what it's not, I find it enjoyable. Yeah, it's Teela in the apocalypse, but the show isn't called "He-Man and the Masters of the Uni…
/r/MensRights26/07/21 01:56 AM
29

And the cancer argument everybody likes right now is even stupider. If it's okay to cut off a foreskin to prevent a one in a million chance of penile cancer, then surely we should preemptively give every woman a double mastectomy to prevent their one in ten chance of breast cancer, right?
/r/MensRights26/06/21 04:39 PM
4

You're thinking of boot camps, which are distinctly different (and much more rigorous) than anything you're going to find at a high school level. Also, though, those boot camps don't really teach you anything. You learn the stack du jour, and then when (not if) that changes in a couple of years you're basically fucked because you weren't taught the fundamentals needed to be able to understand languages and stacks so that you can easily switch. There's a reason computer science programs are not j…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 05:01 PM
4

There are protected classes that you can't use for discrimination. Things like sex, sexual orientation, race, skin color, and a handful of others. But it goes both ways. You can't refuse to hire someone because she's a woman, but you also can't refuse to hire someone because he's a man.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 03:41 PM
5

If it's any consolation, "coding camps" are mostly bullshit anyway and all you'll learn is basic Python skills that you could learn in 5 minutes online. It's the equivalent of going to a "car mechanic camp" where they only teach you how to change the oil. Or a cooking camp where you only learn to make toast. You're not going to learn any computer science theory or math or algorithms or anything actually useful towards a degree. "Back in my day, we only had the manual of gw-basic that came with D…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 03:38 PM
14

Doesn't mean those are their current pronouns, though. If she didn't start the conversation by asking their preferred pronouns, she failed.
/r/MensRights30/05/21 04:09 PM
20

OP painting the picture that men are actual invalids and have no idea what rape is. Holy shit. When rape is defined as regret, how could we? I also hate the way this is framed that "men think false accusations are everywhere" yet women think rape is everywhere. At least it's internally consistent. If everything is rape, then false allegations probably aren't false anymore.
/r/MensRights25/05/21 02:12 AM
21

Or the same woman but with different men. As long as you satisfy the first two rules of dating (be attractive, don't be unattractive), you're probably not going to get called creepy.
/r/MensRights16/05/21 05:13 PM
3

No it's not. It earns doctors money on the frontend for cutting it off and on the backend for selling it to cosmetics and research! That's far from useless, and exactly why the AAP wants insurance to continue covering routine infant male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights16/05/21 05:23 AM
5

Increase in SIDS related to MGM (I like how they came up with their own initialism, MNC = Male Neonatal Circumcision, because I guess Male Genital Mutilation was't good enough for them) -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412606/ It's not a 10x increase. That's a misreading of the data. It's a 0.06/1000 increase per 10% increase in mutilation (so 100% circumcision = 0.6/1000 more than no circumcision). That sounds like small numbers, but SIDS isn't exactly common. The rest of OP's c…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 09:09 AM
7

One should discuss routine infant circumcision separate from the operation as applied to a consenting adult. The key is bodily autonomy. A child can't consent. An adult can. Female genital mutilation is illegal because children can't consent (also because it's barbaric, but from a legal perspective it's that consent that matters). Many of the same procedures are available to consenting adults, like labiaplasty, but the difference is that an adult can consent to having their genitals modified. Ma…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 09:04 AM
2

You can restore the skin and some nerve endings. You can't regrow missing structures like the ridged band or the frenulum.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:59 AM
3

You could solve it even easier without having to outlaw it. Make it so that insurance companies don't pay for the procedure. Most people don't think twice about doing it because it's 100% covered by insurance. If they had to decide to spend $400 cutting their baby's penis, they probably wouldn't do it. And that's exactly why the AAP continually lobbies to keep it covered by insurance -- it's a quick payday for them on the frontend ($400 for a two minute procedure with no expensive anesthetic and…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:58 AM
6

Im a follower of Christ and Jesus said circumcision is not necessary to obtain salvation. I'm an atheist, but even I know that Jesus's whole deal was that he broke all the old covenants. It's why Christians can eat shrimp and cheeseburgers and wear clothing of mixed fibers and cut the corners of their hair and beard. And that includes the covenant of circumcision. Ancient Christians were proud not to cut, because it differentiated them from Jews. Of the other Abrahamic religions, only Judaism ha…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:54 AM
11

Because they're not told that it's going to hurt like a motherfucker and there's no anesthetic or pain relievers. In fact, they're literally told the opposite, "The kid won't feel anything at all!" And then when it's obvious the kid's in pain, it's too late to stop. And if they have boy #2, well, you can't have them looking different so you do it to the second one, too. When my late wife and I were discussing circumcision for our first boy (side note: how fucked up is that, that it's even a disc…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:49 AM
0

Funny how OP's not following through with the sources. Because it's bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:45 AM
20

10 years ago no one asked these questions... That's not true at all.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 07:13 PM
1

Ha! Also, no, Washington State != Washington, D.C.
/r/MensRights04/05/21 05:41 AM
2

Mary's Place is specific to Washington, and even more specific to the Seattle area. I was responding to someone talking about support in WA.
/r/MensRights04/05/21 04:11 AM
4

They literally say otherwise on their website, that men are allowed in the context of a family: Women and families with their children (men and women) from the greater King County area who are experiencing homelessness. So, man + child != family, but woman + man + child = family.
/r/MensRights04/05/21 02:45 AM
19

Technically family places like Mary's Place allow men with children, but it's unclear if they allow a "family" of dad + kids or if it must always be mom + dad + kids. If you're a man without kids, though, you're fucked. Find a tent city, try not to get shanked.
/r/MensRights03/05/21 03:25 PM
2

Spinster? Old maid? Cat lady?
/r/MensRights01/05/21 12:53 AM
1

but both are deceiving themselves if they think single parent is enough. Well fuck me for my wife dying and me not going out to find a replacement mom. Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights28/04/21 09:37 PM
2

I'm not a doctor, and most doctors don't seem to weigh in on circumcision other than "Keep it paid for by insurance because it's a nice pay day," so good luck with that. I'm going from empirical evidence, that other stretched skin still has sensation, and of course the hundreds (thousands?) of men who have restored. There are probably papers about nerve growth in new skin stimulated from stretching (consider a post-mastectomy boob job, for example, where balloon expansion is used to grow skin). …
/r/MensRights27/04/21 09:54 PM
9

Presumably new nerves grow with the new skin cells. You're not stretching existing cells, but stimulating new cells to grow by stretching (same thing that happens to pregnant bellies, or when you get fat).
/r/MensRights27/04/21 03:48 PM
20

No such thing anymore. Parents have to come and walk home with walkers. No bike riders. Parents have to meet the school bus at the bus stop. We've so ingrained stranger danger that kids can't do shit anymore. And though I hate it, as a parent I can't not do it because they'd throw my ass in jail if I allowed my 8 year old to ride his bike home on his own.
/r/MensRights24/04/21 02:41 AM
21

That's not a bad idea. I got railroaded into "celebrate another woman in their life" in prior years, but figured if single moms can have father's day then I can have mother's day. Those other women (grandma, aunt) aren't their mom any more than I am, and I have a greater claim to the title than they do.
/r/MensRights24/04/21 12:24 AM
26

You know, I'm just going to assume that's what they mean even if it's not.
/r/MensRights23/04/21 11:26 PM
143

She lays no child support down and tries to and has successfully snuck and claimed her on taxes before me because she got her w2 first. FYI, if that happens again, go ahead and file your taxes claiming her as well. You might need to file on paper, as the conflicting dependents won't allow for e-file. When you do so, it will trigger the IRS's very slow computer system. You will both eventually be asked to amend, but you can refuse stating that you have full custody and pay 100% of her support. If…
/r/MensRights23/04/21 09:47 PM
95

Also widower single dad here (cancer). My kids were 2 and 0 when she passed. I'm not as far into it as you, as it's only been 6 years so far, but I'm doing everything thanklessly. One positive: my kids' teachers have been amazing, asking what my kids want to do about mother's day (they can make me a mother's day card, thanks), and providing support and being inclusive where they can. I do occasionally get patronizing comments like, "You're so involved!" (no shit? Well, if I don't get involved th…
/r/MensRights23/04/21 09:42 PM
4

Christianity doesn't advocate for circumcision. In fact, ancient Christians were proud not to circumcise, because it differentiated them from Jews. Specifically, Christians believe that the coming of Christ removed the bindings of the old testament. Which is why they can eat pork and shellfish and cut the corners of their hair and wear clothing of mixed fibers. And why they are no longer required to circumcise their children. Circumcision entered "Christianity" with puritan movements in the late…
/r/MensRights16/04/21 05:01 AM
8

adults can do whatever they wish with their body as long as it doesn't leave them uncapable to function in the society I'd take this even further -- if a consenting adult decides with full understanding to modify their body in a way that is incompatible with society, that's perfectly fine. Kinda silly, but who am I to tell someone else what to do with their body when it doesn't impact me? The difference is that an adult of sound mind is able to consent. A child is not.
/r/MensRights16/04/21 04:47 AM
49

What's being British have to do with being Scottish? The trope is that "true scotsmen don't wear underwear under their kilt," and all the pervs feel like they're allowed to check.
/r/MensRights06/04/21 07:34 AM
12

That's not just football/soccer. That's literally every sport, hobby, or pastime ever. It's called gatekeeping, and it's not the same as "no true scotsman". Gatekeeping says, "You're not a proper fan/a real gamer/a comic book reader/a real knitter because you don't X". Whereas "no true scotsman" says, "<Some group> would never do X." "Here's an example of <people from that group> doing X." "Well, those aren't real <people from that group>!" The difference is subtle. Edit: Subtle like the way I w…
/r/MensRights03/04/21 08:42 AM
4

So does your child think the janitor is a miserable piece of shit and all men should be bottom tier service workers? I'm not defending OP's statement. I was just curious about yours, so I wanted to see where my district stood. It's overwhelmingly female, even in spaces where we're often told males dominate (MS and HS education, for example -- the general trope is that there are more male teachers once you get past K-5). Are there more female teachers as well? That would denote hiring up the ladd…
/r/MensRights02/04/21 05:48 PM
5

Just out of curiosity, I checked my kids' school district. They have a female superintendent. They have 37 principals and assistant principals. 13 of those principals are male. Technically it's really 12, because one of those is the "principal" of the district's home schooling partnership, so he's not actually running a school. But that includes all grade levels, and we know that women tend to dominate early education, so I filtered for elementary schools. There are 23 principals and assistant p…
/r/MensRights02/04/21 05:27 PM
7

You realize this was the father making the decision, right? You can't blame women here. Blame religion.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 05:21 AM
12

Read the room, dude. You're saying exactly what everybody else is saying, just we're using sarcasm. Obviously sex with a minor is rape, no matter what. But the media likes to portray the rape of pubescent or near-pubescent boys as "consensual". It's clearly not, but those rapists rarely get more than a slap on the wrist. This rapist got 30 years, not because she raped a boy, but because that boy was a toddler.
/r/MensRights28/03/21 08:23 AM
57

The real rule she broke is, "The kid's got to be at least in middle school." Because then you can call it "making love" instead of "rape" and boy that kid's so lucky! But she raped a 2-4 year old, and everybody thinks that's bad"
/r/MensRights28/03/21 05:30 AM
18

This this this! Take a page from gay kids with homophobic parents, or atheist kids with religious parents. It's okay to stay "in the closet" as long as someone else controls your future. Get your education and then you can "come out". Once they have no control over you, the tables turn. Your leverage is your presence, and they can dial it down if they ever want to see you again.
/r/MensRights21/03/21 11:02 PM
10

Wait, she DMed you (started the conversation) and then threatened to report you for messaging her back? WTF?
/r/MensRights21/03/21 08:41 AM
2

Don't make it hostile. Just make it irrelevant. Make her head of something completely unimportant. Give her an office at the dark end of a rarely used hallway. Cut her headcount, give her all new projects (and of course reassign anything she already has that's good), and just make her job as useless and menial as it can possibly be. Just make sure everything is couched in super positive language.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 01:46 AM
33

That's child support. Alimony or spousal support is absolutely a thing, too.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 09:45 PM
3

That's "So when did you stop hitting your wife?" levels of bullshit on the part of that judge.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 04:59 PM
1

Apparently it is, and at least according to the people at the preschool I asked about it, it's pretty standard procedure. Now, it is worth pointing out that's at a preschool/day care for kids in the 3-5 age range, so kids are expected to need a fair amount of help (they're supposed to be potty trained, but accidents happen, and otherwise may still need help with shoes, coats, etc). Nobody would expect a K-6 teacher to help out with anything like that, male or female. But it's a pretty big part o…
/r/MensRights15/03/21 04:55 PM
125

Not only are been not incentivized to go into early education (k-6), they're actively disincentives for fear of being labeled a pedophile. Those that do make it through are often strictly limited in what they're allowed to do (a male teacher at one of my kids' preschool several years ago was not allowed to help kids put on coats, for example). Even if we fixed the pay structure such that men would choose education over more lucrative careers, they'd still not be welcome.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 08:31 AM
5

Poe's Law.
/r/MensRights10/03/21 07:34 AM
6

Women's history month, so it'll be there at least until April. Any guesses on if it actually diversifies in April? My guess is "no".
/r/MensRights09/03/21 07:13 PM
0

Sometimes, for example if it's the middle of the night and I don't want to turn on a light and I don't feel like cleaning pee splatters. Not sure how that's relevant to anything, though, unless you just decided it's time for an ad hominem. Good job!
/r/MensRights09/03/21 07:43 AM
-5

That's okay you've chosen the "perpetually angry" path. Have fun pissing into the wind.
/r/MensRights09/03/21 02:59 AM
-2

Free advertising is free advertising, and this kind is likely to draw more people than it pushes away. Honestly, you'd be a bad business person if you didn't take advantage...
/r/MensRights09/03/21 01:34 AM
-5

This is just socially required virtue signaling. It's not going to go away, so you can ignore it or be irrationally angry all the time. You will never see the equivalent for International Men's Day.
/r/MensRights09/03/21 01:33 AM
0

with your sister That.
/r/MensRights06/03/21 10:22 PM
5

To be fair, there's nothing incongruent with being pro-porn but anti-incest. Your suggestion was pretty creepy.
/r/MensRights06/03/21 09:56 PM
8

Don't retaliate directly. Just go to HR. "I'm being harassed about my facial hair." HR probably won't care, but they'll at least have to take the report. Once that's on file, if you're let go under "suspicious" circumstances you likely have a solid wrongful termination lawsuit.
/r/MensRights01/03/21 09:06 AM
41

Pretty sure he meant photo evidence of the slander.
/r/MensRights01/02/21 02:20 AM
0

Exactly.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 06:19 AM
-3

For sufficiently large values of 1, 1+1 can equal 3.
/r/MensRights26/12/20 03:14 AM
3

"Google it yourself" is not an answer to "provide your source."
/r/MensRights26/12/20 02:23 AM
30

And there shouldn't be a group "Doctors for Male Genital Mutilation", either, except that seems to be the default position unfortunately.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 08:40 PM
22

Consent is the difference. Let's look at FGM, since more people seem to accept that as mutilation. Without consent, cutting off a girl's labia is mutilation. With consent, it's labiaplasty. Consent can only be given by an adult with full knowledge of the procedure and potential outcomes. No infant can provide that consent, and no parent should be allowed to provide that consent for a child (hurr durr, "But parents consent to vaccinations!" and that's true, but a vaccination doesn't literally rem…
/r/MensRights13/12/20 07:21 PM
51

Would a report that "cancer is bad" coming from a group called "Doctors Opposing Cancer" cause the same feelings? If the science is sound and accounts for bias, then the source is irrelevant. But also, Doctors Opposing Circumcision isn't the originator or financial backer of the study. It's just reporting the study.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 07:17 PM
2

This sub is fickle, and it highly depends on the thread. Some threads are ridiculously alt-right to the point where I almost can believe why SPLC labels men's rights groups as hate groups. You'll get blasted to hell and back if you say anything positive about women, let alone feminists, in those kinds of threads. Other threads are more egalitarian and more like I want Men's Rights movements to be. But then I guess that's yet another "No True Scotsman" argument, because I don't want neo-nazi ince…
/r/MensRights09/12/20 08:39 PM
24

Missing the point. It's not to try to get men to start adding the male adjective. It's to illustrate to women how stupid it is to unnecessarily add the female adjective and maybe they should stop.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 04:42 PM
4

"Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. The struts around like it won."
/r/MensRights20/11/20 09:01 PM
3

If this is the first you've heard of Limbaugh, that's impressive. He's been a grade A douchebag for 30+ years, and together with his fellow assclown Newt Gingrich has been one of the largest drivers of partisan politics bullshit in the US. Fuck him.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:52 PM
26

And this is why the AAP still recommends that insurance pay for male genital mutilation. It's a cheap and easy surgery that nets ~$400 up front for the doctor (most complications don't show up until years later, when it's found that the mutilation took too much skin, caused skin bridges and other adhesions, erectile dysfunction, etc), and a huge backend selling the "waste" to cosmetics and stem cell research.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 05:33 PM
27

I liked it better when it was "no shave November".
/r/MensRights01/11/20 06:56 PM
31

Title IX applies to any school that receives federal funds. And since most student loans are federal, if a private school accepts federal student loans it is now bound by Title IX.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 04:04 PM
1

Presumably Poland was better off afterward. Hopefully the US will be too.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 03:50 PM
3

The right has objectively worse problems with religion, science denial, fascism, cult of personality, etc. I'll take some easily counterable feminist propaganda over all of that any day.
/r/MensRights12/10/20 03:30 PM
6

How often is FGM happening there, then? I couldn't find a number, so presumably it's small. MGM in Finland is in the 2-4% rate, so that's still around 55k male children (Finland population is 5.5m, so half that 2.75m are male, and being generous with the lower 2% number). 55k boys is not enough to do anything, but maybe a handful of girls means three laws are needed? (note: for the brigaders and white knights that will eventually find their way here, I'm not advocating for not having the FGM law…
/r/MensRights30/09/20 08:25 PM
1

That's silly. He works there. Employees should be able to answer questions about bathrooms. Regardless, his opinion is much more valid than the Karen in the bathroom telling the man to get out.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 03:52 AM
124

So much other WTF in there, too. The men's room apparently had no changing tables (I'm betting the women's room does, as well as the parent's room). Why is the paper interviewing his wife about the incident instead of him? Even in an article about him being treated like a second class citizen, he's treated like a second class citizen. Why is the iconography for the parent's room a woman and a girl? Are only women parents? Are only girls children? Erasing men from the roles of both parent and chi…
/r/MensRights28/09/20 03:43 AM
13

Parents are people, too, and are allowed to have lives. I'm sorry you had a shitty step parent, but they're not all bad. In fact, most aren't bad, but you don't hear about the good ones in the news. I get it, this is a thinly veiled conservative screed against divorce, but consider that there may be other scenarios fully compatible with your ridiculous beliefs where a parent may still be single and want to find another partner (consider death of a spouse, for example).
/r/MensRights05/09/20 05:32 PM
34

Not a whole lot you can do from jail, though, and she ends up with the molesters anyway. At least staying out of jail means you can try to work a legal angle to get things sorted out.
/r/MensRights05/09/20 05:29 PM
15

I'm sorry. If nothing else, I've found other moms are at least willing to host a playdate even if they're not willing to let me host. I suppose right now with Covid isn't the best time, unless you're in a country where it's under control, but once things clear up try reaching out to the parents of his friends (assuming he's old enough to have made friends in a school or day care). You might be pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately for people in our situation, we have to be the ones willing to reac…
/r/MensRights22/08/20 11:02 PM
43

It is so sexist... because I am the one who buys those things now. Even if you weren't it's sexist for them to make that assumption. They should be asking for, "Whoever does the grocery shopping in your household," or, "Whoever makes the purchasing decisions."
/r/MensRights22/08/20 10:40 PM
32

Also as a widower single dad, I haven't run into this. My pediatrician knows the situation, because it's the same pediatrician we used before my wife died. The schools know my situation because I tell them. Teachers know my situation because I tell them (though this year is going to be interesting, learning a new teacher remotely; thankfully my youngest who's just entering K got the same teacher his brother had two years ago, so we already know her and she knows us). I've never had bad looks at …
/r/MensRights22/08/20 10:38 PM
10

Yes, but it was implied that married men/fathers somehow can't do that, which is wrong.
/r/MensRights17/08/20 04:27 AM
29

As a dad who has paid cash for a new car (yeah, I know, leverage of money, low interest rates, blah blah blah I didn't want a loan), it has nothing to do with your family situation whether or not you can afford to do that. It's all about budgeting, saving, and living at or ideally below your means.
/r/MensRights16/08/20 10:37 PM
46

Just because she's not trying to get into your pants doesn't mean the compliment isn't serious. She sounds like a good person.
/r/MensRights10/08/20 07:42 AM
1

From the terms of use: (no link so I don't get deleted again) Without limiting the foregoing, you agree: A. not to use the Services to raise funds or establish or contribute to any Campaign with the implicit or explicit purpose of or involving: 9. or the legal defense of alleged crimes associated with hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism, or intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gen…
/r/MensRights06/07/20 02:12 AM
1

Fair enough. My point was you're not just going to call up Twitter and ask for the data and get it. You need a legal request, a warrant or subpoena.
/r/MensRights06/07/20 02:00 AM
0

Not going to work without a police report and a warrant.
/r/MensRights05/07/20 10:11 PM
7

Pretty sure you can't use GoFundMe to raise legal fees.
/r/MensRights05/07/20 10:10 PM
3

This is why the AAP doesn't condemn male genital mutilation. Remember, the AAP is not a public health institution like the CDC. It's a professional organization of pediatricians, and their recommendations are as much about protecting themselves as helping children. By endorsing MGM, they keep insurance companies paying for it (lots of people wouldn't do it if they had to pay $500 out of pocket) and then they also get this backend. Where else can you make near $1000 for ~5 minutes of work?
/r/MensRights20/06/20 05:01 PM
3

Also Onward.
/r/MensRights18/06/20 12:04 AM
2

You solve appendicitis by removing the appendix, even if a healthy appendix has value. Note I said circumcision was one option. And it is. It shouldn't be the first option (though unfortunately it usually is), but it is an option for if other options fail. You can live without an arm or leg, without an appendix or gall bladder, without a kidney or even a lung, and you can live without a foreskin, too. Equating it to decapitation is silly and doesn't help the movement. It's enough to say, "There …
/r/MensRights16/06/20 01:17 AM
3

Medical circumcision is one surgical solution to phimosis. The problem is you can't diagnose phimosis until puberty, yet there are pediatricians who routinely "diagnose" phimosis in prepubescent children. Religious circumcision is only required by ~0.5% of the world population (only Judaism includes it as a covenant; Christian and Muslim circumcision is all social, not religious), so that doesn't explain the 55% of us males being circumcised.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:43 AM
16

Good job! I did the same. When the discussion came up with my wife (side note: we never would've even discussed cutting a girl, so how fucked up is it that we have to talk about cutting baby boys?), her position was neutral leaning towards doing it "just because". My position was an absolute "no", and so because I had the stronger feelings we didn't cut our boys. The cycle of mutilation in my family ends with me.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:20 AM
7

It can be. Just not for infants, since the medical reasons for circumcision can't be diagnosed until puberty at the earliest, and more like late puberty.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:17 AM
4

The fuck is an OBGYN doing work anything related to a penis? If circumcision has to happen (which it shouldn't), then a urologist should be doing it, or at the very least a pediatrician. A lady bits doctor shouldn't be anywhere near man bits.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:15 AM
46

When my wife came out of neurosurgery after a stroke and seemed fully conscious and able to speak and everything, I broke down crying at her bedside. It had been a very stressful night, what with her suffering a stroke at 3am, EMTs that wanted to do a diabetes test before taking her in because I guess they thought she was having an insulin seizure instead of a stroke, going to one ER for initial evaluation (I drove separately and beat the ambulance there), then transferring to another hospital t…
/r/MensRights07/06/20 03:33 AM
3

I feel like it’s also silly for companies to NOT build something into the contract like “if you don’t fit our image of you at the time of hire, we will be able to let you go with no further financial compensation.” Something like that. What you're looking for is a morality clause, and they exist. They're often very specific, though. So for example an actress might have a morality clause that terminates her contract if she gets a DUI or if a sex tape leaks, but probably not if she beats the shit …
/r/MensRights28/05/20 05:16 PM
7

Yes, but also it means they're maybe not as terrible, signing a known domestic abuser. Presumably they signed her before all that came to light. Now they should do the right thing and dump her, but we don't know what kind of contracts are in place. They might have to pay her a billion dollars if they cut her contract short. Unlikely, and obviously an exaggeration, but the point being we don't know all the details here. We only know the public side, and that L'Oreal primarily targets women and pr…
/r/MensRights28/05/20 04:04 PM
9

They didn't "just" make her their spokesperson. They did that 2 years ago.
/r/MensRights28/05/20 03:41 PM
31

This is why the "shit sandwich" approach works so much better. Start out with something nice, give your bad feedback, and finish with something nice again.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 11:34 PM
22

To quote Louis CK, no good marriage ever ended in divorce.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 11:04 PM
5

Right?
/r/MensRights16/05/20 10:58 PM
9

Stop raping? I guess I forgot my /s
/r/MensRights16/05/20 10:35 PM
1

Just so you're aware, the CNN Business Perspectives section is op-ed, not news. From the article itself: Editor's Note: Michelle P. King is the director of Inclusion at Netflix and the author of The Fix: Overcome the Invisible Barriers That Are Holding Women Back at Work. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own.
/r/MensRights08/05/20 03:51 AM
8

Bad anatomy, no feet ... Rob Liefeld, is that you?
/r/MensRights29/04/20 12:05 AM
12

Translation: "It's hard to get to my side piece when my husband's around all the time."
/r/MensRights27/04/20 05:36 PM
6

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say all STEM requires spatial reasoning. In fact, I'd argue most doesn't, outside of some physical engineering disciplines, computer graphics, and maybe surgery. The rest is mostly non-geometric math.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 02:02 AM
9

I wouldn't. In fact, I would only mention the wage gap myth in passing, pointing out that it has nothing to do with the paper OP is writing and leave it at that. It's an attempt by the teacher to change the discussion from the relevant points OP mentions (family court, sentencing) to points she can control. Even though OP could debunk, it's better to simply deescalate, "That's not in my paper."
/r/MensRights20/04/20 11:19 PM
55

I'd point out that she's grading an argument not present in the paper, fix some odd wordings/grammatical errors/missed words ("Men are more likely to a more extreme ...", guessing there's a missed word there, "Men are more likely to suffer a more extreme ...") and call it done. If the teacher persists in assigning a low grade based on their own strawman, then I'd take it up the administrative chain.
/r/MensRights20/04/20 11:16 PM
4

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 12:46 AM
83

Everybody wants to be CEO. Nobody ever wants to be janitor.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 05:11 PM
1

There's a belief that young foreskin cells may have stem cell-like properties. It's unclear in my googling how true that is.
/r/MensRights14/04/20 02:38 AM
1

Sounds like that doctor sucks at z-plasty?
/r/MensRights13/04/20 07:41 PM
6

I don't think there's much demand for 30 year old foreskins. The sad thing is that even if surgery was warranted, z-plasty to loosen the foreskin without removing it would have been a much better option, and would still be an elective surgery to make them money. I'm sorry for your loss.
/r/MensRights13/04/20 04:14 PM
5

As a father in the West, I assure you we still have fathers here.
/r/MensRights10/04/20 12:47 AM
23

Unless she was getting backend and firing her got rid of that.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 06:28 AM
1

In general you don't have the right to hit back unless you reasonably fear for your life. We don't have an "eye for an eye" legal code. If you're in a situation like this, your very best option is to leave. Unfortunately if you're a man there's not really anywhere for you to go if you can't afford to pay for your own hotel room.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 03:46 PM
4

So, clean only the outside, then once he is older ask him to begin gently pulling it back, but specify if he can't that's alright? Yep And then, will there be any other maintenance needed until the inside can be cleaned? Nope. And, is there any sort of itchiness or anything that will let him know he should be able to pull it back? I wish I knew. My parents cut me. I refused to cut my boys. So I'm learning from them. Luckily, having a penis is like having a toy in your pocket. Little boys are goi…
/r/MensRights26/03/20 08:18 PM
11

In that case, you need one more crucial piece of information: do not try to pull back the foreskin until it does it on its own! The foreskin is fused to the glans, and forcibly pulling it back is the functional equivalent of ripping off your thumbnail. Fir the first few years of life, just clean it like a finger. Once the kid can retract it himself (and this could take years, well into puberty; don't let a doctor misdiagnose the normal inability to retract as "phimosis"), then clean the inside. …
/r/MensRights26/03/20 05:37 PM
14

That, and it's not required at all in Christianity. In fact, one could argue it should be prohibited, because Jesus broke the old covenants. It's why Christians can eat shellfish and cheeseburgers and cut their hair and beards and wear synthetic clothing, because those old requirements, including circumcision, became moot.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 05:33 PM
3

Sadness is allowed for a minute if your dog dies. That's about it, though.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 03:38 PM
14

I have full custody of my sons because their mom is dead. There wouldn't even be a mom for them to try to give food to in my case. But they'd probably see it as a win -- two more boys "taken care of".
/r/MensRights17/03/20 02:27 AM
23

Once you realize "No" is a complete sentence with no need for justification, life gets a lot easier.
/r/MensRights15/03/20 02:19 AM
5

Life is so much less annoying since deciding not to give a shit about Twitter.
/r/MensRights08/03/20 09:57 PM
5

And now you know what games not to buy, right?
/r/MensRights08/03/20 09:55 PM
11

Probably because of the stereotypes ...
/r/MensRights08/03/20 02:02 AM
2

Leaving without washing in this age of coronavirus? What kind of savage are you?
/r/MensRights01/03/20 11:35 PM
233

Double down and shit in the urinal. It is the way.
/r/MensRights01/03/20 06:09 PM
11

Right, but most people don't do that with the ladies but say they require that level of information if a man's going to do it. I'm right there with you, though. I don't think there should be any sort of sex-based discrimination when it comes to caring for children, and the bar for trust should be the same for both.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 04:23 AM
30

as long as he has a decent reputation and I’ve met the guy first. Do you have the same requirement for lady daycare teachers?
/r/MensRights25/02/20 04:12 AM
11

Occam's razor would suggest that most of those were coincidental (they weren't being followed, just going in the same direction as someone else) and they turned the situations into stalking in their minds because they'd been told over and over that's what men do.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 03:14 AM
53

35 years ago, I had one male teacher in elementary school. 2 if you count the PE coach. Now the only male role models in my kids' school is the janitor. A couple of years ago when my oldest was still in preschool, his preschool hired a man. He was super limited in what he could do - he couldn't change diapers or help kids on the potty. He couldn't help them put on shoes or coats. He would never be allowed alone with any kids. It was complete bullshit and I talked to the owner about it. She told …
/r/MensRights25/02/20 03:10 AM
2

OP is saying all liberals are feminists, which is bullshit. But this sub definitely has a red vibe at times.
/r/MensRights22/02/20 11:43 PM
0

Get off your justice boner.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:57 AM
1

they need to serve out their sentences. Why, though? Would you say the same for someone who was wrongfully convicted? "Well, they were convicted, so this new DNA evidence really doesn't mean much. They should serve their sentences." Yes, it's an imprecise comparison, but it's pretty close. Besides that, the justice system is supposed to be lenient by design ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," innocent until proven guilty and all that). It's by design tha…
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:42 AM
7

Illinois pardoned 11k weed convictions when pot went legal in the state. It can be done. Politicians just have to have the will to do it.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:18 AM
3

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/
/r/MensRights13/02/20 04:47 PM
21

one particular ethnic group should control all mass media Wait, what? How did this become a race thing? Sex isn't ethnicity.
/r/MensRights03/02/20 07:51 AM
7

I don't think it's a false assumption if you justify routine infant mutilation by saying, "Well, at least they'll be less likely to get STDs," because that implies you're unwilling to talk to children about safe sex.
/r/MensRights01/02/20 11:00 PM
4

The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD Just to point out how ridiculous this is -- the AAP is the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's not a public health organization, but a professional organization to address pediatric affairs. Since when is sex and birth control a pediatric problem? Why is the AAP involved in this at all? One reason: money. Infant circumcision …
/r/MensRights01/02/20 10:59 PM
13

Not nearly so much as condoms and Prep do. That's the height of stupidity - because you don't want to teach your kid proper sex education, you cut off some of his penis. (Also, the Africa studies that generated this dubious claim are shady as hell, and there have been no future studies duplicating the results.)
/r/MensRights01/02/20 05:08 PM
36

It should be a pretty common sense thing -- if there's nothing medically wrong, leave it alone. The less you cut on anybody, the better. But any time it comes up, people will brigade with all manner of strawmen, like there's anything that could trump the basic stance of "maybe don't cut children".
/r/MensRights28/01/20 12:22 AM
7

Sure, and when they do, they already know what's up. "Hey, Bob. Good to see ya. Somebody called in something about a 'creepy' man here. That's not you, is it? Of course it's not. Have a good one."
/r/MensRights17/01/20 05:03 AM
19

Why not call the cops on yourself, "Just FYI, I'm a man and I'm taking my son to X Park. You'll probably get some calls about it later," and then not let the twats ruin your father/soon time.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 02:03 AM
13

Prying off fingernails is a form of torture, which is illegal just about everywhere. Seems this should be illegal on the same grounds.
/r/MensRights13/01/20 01:11 AM
25

That works if you're a woman. Try that as a man, you'll end up on the sex offender list.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 11:46 PM
14

Let's say that company has 10 openings. They're now gung ho about hiring a 50/50 gender split. There are 100 men applying for the 5 jobs open for them. There are 10 women applying for the 5 jobs open for them. Seem fair? Instead of 110 people vying for 10 jobs and the best 10 get them, you have a scenario where the men have a 5% chance of getting a job and the women have a 50% chance. And that's all HR quotas. Obviously the jobs are still out there, and in fact the industry has more jobs than ca…
/r/MensRights05/01/20 05:45 AM
11

Don't give up. There are still ways to do what you want to do, even if you're discriminated against in the process. For example, I have two young sons. At this point they're basically SOL in terms getting any sort of financial help with college because they're white and they're male. So I'm saving a significant amount of money so they can get educations even without financial aid.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 09:35 PM
11

I work in tech (software development). This is one of the many reasons why companies want more H1Bs. If they can't hire enough D&I locally, then they'll import it.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 08:56 PM
247

This might be the tail wagging the dog, though. The current climate is so focused on "D&I" that it's completely flipped and now nobody wants to hire anyone who's not representing at least one minority, if not more. Without such outside influence, the industry ought to trend towards meritocracy, since the only thing that should matter for STEM is whether or not you can do the work. I know as someone who's been a software developer interviewer for 15+ years, I've never once decided on a candidate …
/r/MensRights04/01/20 06:44 PM
8

It's Canada. That would be coins.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 04:58 PM
1

Our club wasn't focused on any single thing. We had some kids who showed pigs or cows, some kids that did farming, some that did computer programming, etc. Unfortunately I'm not able to find a similar club like that for my own kids now. There area few clubs around, but they're a single focus (one's on dogs, one's on rabbits, another is robotics, etc). I want something all around where they can learn a bunch of different skills, but I don't have the time to organize a club myself.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 07:37 AM
3

I don't recall ever wearing a tie in 4-H, but we never had uniforms (assuming you don't count club t-shirts). My club was also pretty evenly split between boys and girls, and boys did traditionally "girl" units like cooking, and girls did traditionally "boy" units like farming. By far the favorite, though, was model rocketry.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 06:39 AM
6

Except it's now so inclusive it's allowing troops to be exclusively girls. That's not an Onion article, sadly.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 06:19 AM
2

Google's got all the info you need.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 03:34 AM
5

Correct, they didn't merge and GSA is it's own separate and completely unrelated organization.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 03:28 AM
7

Just to clarify -- Boy Scouts (or just Scouts) and Girl Scouts are two completely separate organizations that are unrelated to each other. Boy Scouts decided to allow girls. Girl Scouts decided not to allow boys.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 03:18 AM
23

More than that -- there are now girl-only boy scout troops! I say fuck scouting altogether. It's been infiltrated by religion anyway. 4-H is far superior.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 03:16 AM
4

2 weeks is a very long drive.
/r/MensRights31/12/19 05:02 PM
9

Why would you assume men would vote for bodily autonomy for themselves? I'm 100% pro-choice, but I have no illusions that the type of politicians who gave us the draft and increased drinking ages and other limitations on bodily autonomy would suddenly value that autonomy for abortion.
/r/MensRights28/12/19 03:58 AM
89

Yes, but also framing it this way preempts the, "Oh, it's just circumcision," response. Instead, the reader will get upset and want to do something and then they realize it's boys and they have to address the double standard they hold that this is wrong for girls but okay for boys. Or something like that. Either way, all infant genital mutilation should be illegal, boy or girl.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 11:38 PM
24

Or at the very least a "no amp" rule.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 03:53 AM
10

This has Poe's Law written all over it.
/r/MensRights20/12/19 05:22 PM
1

Right, and if PREP was not typical standard of care for a "forced to penetrate" exposure, it would not be malpractice if PREP wasn't given.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 05:34 PM
1

If /u/buffalodumb's comment is correct, then I could totally see that being a number's play -- if you're ~2 orders of magnitude less likely to be infected via vaginal intercourse when the owner of the vagina is infected, then expensive prophylactic medicine like PREP would not necessarily be warranted.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 04:40 AM
2

Not necessarily. Malpractice is not following the standard of care. If standard of care for HIV exposure where the infected party was female is that PREP isn't needed, then it wouldn't be malpractice, just poor bedside manner. OP (or OP's lawyers) would have to know what the standard of care is in this scenario.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 03:16 AM
2

Assume it was an expert (on STIs, on rape or assault, on treating potential AIDS exposure, whatever) who happened to be a woman. They do exist.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 03:13 AM
3

History link
/r/MensRights12/12/19 06:46 PM
11

That argument doesn't work when we're literally talking about cutting little children against their will. I'm sorry, but I refuse to "understand other points of view" if those points of view are predicated on mutilating babies. If an adult wants to modify their genitals, that's on them. That's why labioplasty is legal while FGM is not. An informed consent adult circumcision is fine to be legal. MGM should not be.
/r/MensRights11/12/19 03:41 AM
13

Yeah, why would cutting off ~10,000 nerve endings reduce sensitivity at all? It makes no sense! ...
/r/MensRights11/12/19 02:38 AM
11

Christina Applegate did the same, though she did get cancer in one breast. The double mastectomy was preventative, not curative.
/r/MensRights05/12/19 05:52 PM
-7

What does any of that have to do with prostate cancer, though? You're not necessarily wrong, but it's also an orthogonal argument irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
/r/MensRights30/11/19 08:25 PM
49

To be fair, more men die with prostate cancer, not from it, because if you live long enough you're pretty much guaranteed to have prostate troubles. That's not too excuse the removal of this funding, just that you're comparing septuagenarian men dying of natural causes while also having prostate cancer to women in their 30s and 40s dying directly from breast cancer.
/r/MensRights30/11/19 04:39 PM
75

The UK intentionally avoids jailing women whenever possible by design. To be jailed as a woman you literally have to kill someone, and even then it's not a guaranteed thing.
/r/MensRights15/11/19 10:40 PM
24

I think the sentiment is right, but the wording is weird. You didn't push them into STEM because you didn't push them into anything. I assume you also didn't push them away from STEM. We should encourage everybody to do what they enjoy, and we should give them the tools they need to learn as needed ("women don't choose stem because they're excluded from math and science at an early age", so don't exclude girls, but still let them choose and don't shame them for choosing something else). If that'…
/r/MensRights13/11/19 11:20 PM
9

How about soft daddy?
/r/MensRights09/11/19 06:28 PM
25

There has been at least one case of a woman suing a barber because he declined to cut her hair. She said it was sexist. He said he wasn't trained to cut women's hair and could not do what she asked, but if she wanted a razor cut he'd happily do it.
/r/MensRights09/11/19 06:26 PM
21

Everybody knows women can't be pedophiles, right? /s
/r/MensRights03/11/19 02:17 AM
9

As a widower, I give you permission next time to tell the nosy bitch that mom's dead. Put her in her place.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 01:41 AM
34

Obviously men don't go to parks. Duh. That's why we get harassed and treated like pedophiles. More seriously, maybe they have a cruising problem. In which case there are better ways to address that than discriminating against a whole sex.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 02:12 AM
109

I suspect this isn't even a gender neutral bathroom. Given the size, I bet this is one of those, "one entrance, men to the left, women to the right" public restrooms. Some ladies likely either got upset that they had to share a door with men, or were tired of standing in line, and took things into their own hands. If all of the original signage is in place, I'd ignore the paper signs as they don't look official at all.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 02:10 AM
2

Arming people in school is the opposite of being safe.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 10:56 PM
2

Give who guns? The boys acting as meat shields? Your want to arm children? WTF?
/r/MensRights20/10/19 04:45 PM
7

Maybe the shooter will run out of bullets before getting to the girls?
/r/MensRights20/10/19 04:44 PM
19

If you had grown up with a natural penis, do you think you would still find cut penises more aesthetic? Or is that only because what you've seen in your own pants every day since you were old enough to notice was already cut?
/r/MensRights05/10/19 01:39 AM
15

Probably more along the lines of, "If we prosecute these girls who lied, then others will be less likely to come forward."
/r/MensRights03/10/19 08:56 PM
6

Since she was convicted of murder, maybe that's a little low but it's not necessarily out of line with a case that was clearly borderline between manslaughter and murder. But then I'm not a judge, nor was I on the jury, and I didn't follow the trial, so I don't know all of the very specific details. And I suspect you maybe don't, either.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 04:39 PM
10

Honestly, the amount of religious bullshit from the judge is more offensive than the hug. Still, 10 years is a pretty decent clip for what she did. Hopefully she serves all of it.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 03:39 PM
16

And yet they expect us to comply with whatever bullshit they come up with. If you're going to have people who enforce the law, they either need to know the law or at least know when they don't know the law rather than bullshitting their way through.
/r/MensRights27/09/19 01:32 AM
35

If he was arrested, it wouldn't be for sitting alone in a public park. It would be for failure to obey a police order, and you'll get slapped with a misdemeanor for it. It doesn't matter that the cop had no backing for that order. If they ask you to leave and you don't leave, you misdemeanor disobeyed a police order. Only OP can decide if it's worth going to court over that, especially since the reason for the order will be considered irrelevant by the court.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 08:15 PM
132

He warns me that taking pictures of other people children with permission was illegal I love how cops never actually know the law. Taking pictures of anybody in a public space is perfectly fine, because there is no expected right to privacy in public. Now if you had been peeping through your neighbor's windows taking pictures of their kids, that would be different.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 08:12 PM
1

Jealous?
/r/MensRights23/09/19 09:37 PM
-5

And repetition doesn't make your opinion right.
/r/MensRights23/09/19 09:31 PM
-7

You keep saying that like repeating it will make it true. There are other, more effective punishments besides prison. Your inability to see that shows a distinct lack of imagination.
/r/MensRights23/09/19 08:56 PM
-4

We do not live by "eye for an eye" anymore, so no, the punishments do not need to be the same. Honestly, removing her license and preventing her from ever getting it back (not just a 1-year suspension or something like that) would be far more harmful than putting her in jail for a month or two. Besides, if you put her in prison, you have to pay for her (three hots and a cot, and the roof over her head). If you take away her current livelihood, then she has to figure out how to survive on her own…
/r/MensRights23/09/19 08:49 PM
-10

Removing your ability to practice law after you've spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing that is a pretty significant punishment. It's not federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, but it is effectively taking away her livelihood. And that's often sufficient.
/r/MensRights23/09/19 08:38 PM
1

The grandparent's suggestion sounds very much like going to the parents after the fact to beat them. Since things are already done (if they happened at all), any suggestion of violence now could only be after the fact, which is eye for an eye and completely illegal. As for being justified in the moment, only if restraint was shown. Meaning you can take enough action to get the other dad off your kid and to prevent him from coming at your kid again, but if you attack him without further provocati…
/r/MensRights21/09/19 06:11 AM
14

Grabbing a child's head in that way is really dangerous. His neck could have been damaged. OP should absolutely get the kid checked out, and in a neck brace as a precaution.
/r/MensRights21/09/19 04:33 AM
8

An eye for an eye has not been acceptable law for a very, very long time. Besides, legal action against the parents will be more damaging for much longer. They'll have at least misdemeanors on their record, probably thousands of dollars in fines, and possibly even a weekend or two of jail time (almost certainly for the dad who laid hands on the boy, probably not for the mom who will pussy pass her way out of it). Yes, it can be satisfying to use your fists, but if you use your head you can do fa…
/r/MensRights21/09/19 04:28 AM
72

Go after their jobs. That's fair game.
/r/MensRights18/09/19 01:50 AM
175

Paid for by the property taxes of your peers' parents. Sue to get back into school. Sue to get the teacher fired. If it's a private school, sue for money. But don't financially screw public schools, please. There are other ways to hurt them, like taking their jobs.
/r/MensRights18/09/19 01:18 AM
7

Don't give them ideas.
/r/MensRights16/09/19 01:55 AM
34

It didn't say she got the house. It said he couldn't afford the house on a single income.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 03:32 PM
60

On the one hand, it's total bullshit not to apply the same criteria to everybody vs. one sex. If it's okay not to jail women for non-violent crimes because it's costly, then it should be okay not to jail men for non-violent crimes for the same reason. On the other hand, at least the UK prison system isn't run by for-profit companies that do everything in their power to get more inmates, because more inmates == more money. So in theory this is a good thing, not locking up people arbitrarily. It j…
/r/MensRights04/09/19 06:56 PM
130

Literally.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 06:46 PM
-1

You're applying your interpretation, though. I've never heard of retraining programs where the government decides what you're going to do.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 01:35 AM
16

If Cars taught me anything, it's that autonomous cars still need diners.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 01:32 AM
2

Every cop I've ever met has been pretty open about not talking to cops. It's a weird juxtaposition of free-stater libertarian types becoming cops, expecting people to talk to them while knowing that they would never talk to cops themselves. The cognitive dissonance is real.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 11:38 PM
14

Rebuttal: "Some injuries aren't visible." And I'm not talking about internal bleeding.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 06:36 PM
20

If she started it and he hits back he is good. If she started it and he knocks her unconscious then continues to hit her he is in the wrong. The problem here is, how do you decide that he hit back rather than he hit first? You're coming on the scene at the end of it, and despite their being recorded evidence like this video you probably aren't going to see that when you're on scene. Obviously the, "He keeps hitting her after she's unconscious," part is easy, because you'll see that. But how can …
/r/MensRights02/09/19 06:33 PM
6

That's not language limited to feminists.
/r/MensRights30/08/19 11:11 PM
1

Hey, there are plenty of Kirkland products that I love. I'm just not a big fan of their paper products (TP and PT).
/r/MensRights25/08/19 01:41 AM
4

That's why I'm saying good 2-ply stuff, not the sandpaper commercial stuff. A good Charmin or similar 2-ply with decently plump quilted layers. Yeah, you'll use 2x that vs. 4-ply, but since 4-ply ought to be twice as thick as 2-ply then you're still using the exact same amount of paper.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 08:12 PM
5

Wouldn't just a doubled up hunk of decent 2-ply (think Charmin, not Kirkland brand) be effectively the same? You're not even using any more paper, because it's still 4 layers either way.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 07:37 PM
2

There is a definite quality difference (feel, absorption ability) between the Costco brand and Bounty (I buy in bulk and Costco in my area doesn't carry Brawny so I don't have a comparison), so I've been buying Bounty. P&G is so large that it's really difficult to stay away from them, but I'm doing a solid job of not buying from their Gillette brand.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 05:31 PM
9

Hey, now. Bounty and Brawny are two different paper towel brands. I won't buy Brawny because of this. Then again, Bounty is owned by P&G, who also owns Gillette, which we also need to boycott for their stupid ad earlier in the year. I guess it's time to switch to Kirkland brand paper towels.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 04:57 PM
23

This feminist literally just argued in favor of harems.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 03:38 AM
2

When my late wife and I first found out we were going to have a boy, we had the circumcision discussion. Her position was mostly ambivalent, leaning towards doing it just out of inertia. My position was absolutely not. Because I cared and she didn't care, I "won". Neither of our sons are circumcised.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 03:31 AM
10

Comparatively, nobody wants to be in STEM. It's hard. As an anecdote, I went to school for a BS in CS back in the late-90s when the dotcom bubble was in full swing. Lots and lots of people joined the major as freshmen because the money was so tempting. By senior year, the graduating class about 1/10th the size as it was Freshman year. Because the program was hard, and it's only gotten harder since. Women and men don't want to do it, but for whatever reason men tend to stick it out just a little …
/r/MensRights21/08/19 02:00 AM
2

It reads like someone steeped in Randian Objectivism.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 05:37 PM
2

Link posts get a title and exactly one link. By "trying to fix the thumbnail", you ended up doing as I said
/r/MensRights30/07/19 02:02 PM
10

Quick reddit 101 -- you can either post a link or you can post a text body, but you can't post a link and text. Historically, only link posts earned post karma, and so karma farmers would do exactly as you did -- post a link and cram some stuff into a title and then maybe post a clarifying comment. These days, both text and link posts earn karma so there's no value in posting only a link if you want to editorialize. Also, when you make a text post, remember that you can use markdown just like yo…
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:00 AM
1

My point wasn't that that scenario was false. It was that comparing drunk sex to sleep sex in the context of a long term relationship where implied consent had long since been established is apples and oranges. Think it through.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 11:06 PM
8

Reverse roles, same with drunk females who are cool As soon as you add "drunk" in there, you're not reversing roles. You're adding a scenario and changing the assumption (drunk sex that leads to rape charges is generally not assumed-consensual sex in the due course of a long-term committed relationship where expectations around consent have long been hashed out).
/r/MensRights26/07/19 07:33 PM
5

Sorry I didn’t mean tight foreskin as an infant . I have two mates both teens who both had to be done as foreskins were painfully tight . It must have been a genetic thing as they are brothers too . Maybe genetic, maybe not. Even so, a lot of doctors jump right to circumcision when there are more gradual steps that can be taken, like steroid creams and stretching exercises, or if surgery must happen a Z-plasty to loosen the skin (a plastic surgery technique that more non-cosmetic surgeons really…
/r/MensRights25/07/19 07:05 AM
5

unless it’s for a medical reason like too tight a foreskin I've done all the research, and doctors who diagnose phimosis before mid-puberty are quacks. The foreskin itself may not even retract fully until puberty. The only medical reason to circumcise a child wouldn't exist until they're a teenager, at which point we can fully discuss the options like z-plasty before doing something drastic. Can i ask how you feel about your penis now ? Do you prefer the way it looks compared to intact one and a…
/r/MensRights25/07/19 06:39 AM
10

Fair enough, but I think having to pay for an otherwise unnecessary cosmetic surgery is a small price to pay (no pun intended) for maintaining your own bodily integrity. Only you will get to decide if you cut your penis or not. Many of us had that choice taken away. I refused to circumcise my sons because it's not a choice I should be allowed to make. If they decide when they're adults that they want it done, then they can do it. But I won't be the one to mutilate them without their consent.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 05:42 AM
13

This is the point I wish more people would make. We're not talking about banning circumcision, in exactly the way that we're not talking about banning labiaplasty. We're talking about banning forced genital mutilation on children incapable of consenting to said surgery. If you as an adult wish to have genital surgery of your own decision without coercion, good for you. You do what you want.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 05:19 AM
27

Try reminding them that Allah doesn't require circumcision? The only reason Muslims circumcise is because they believe Muhammad was born without one so they cut to try to be like him. It's not a true religious requirement like in Judaism.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 05:16 AM
0

It is explicitly and intentionally neither illegal nor treasonous to criticize the president. Making the president untouchable is to make him a king, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers didn't want. So if you're implying she was acting treasonously by telling the president to fuck off, you're super wrong. She was freely exercising her First Amendment rights.
/r/MensRights14/07/19 04:48 PM
1

Nobody thinks condoms cause autism, though.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 03:47 PM
40

Not even.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 05:52 PM
7

Damn sexist tropes; how dare this man care about his own life or career. Doesn't he know he's disposable? Right? Now who's she going to accuse of sexual harassment for career advancement?
/r/MensRights08/07/19 06:56 AM
3

Not even sexual, I just personally hate sharing rooms. I'd pass if I couldn't have my own room. Presumably this would be a sales trip to make the company money, they can spend a couple hundred on hotel rooms.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 06:55 AM
2

No, deeming an act of discrimination based on religious belief to be actual discrimination is not being anti-religion. The problem was that the lower court decided to proselytize: One commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line in saying that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” Justice Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a com…
/r/MensRights05/07/19 06:10 PM
1

And their religion is what motivated their actions... you cant skimp over that glaring notion in the case. You're still misunderstanding the ruling. The ruling said that lower courts discriminated against the bakery on the basis of their religion, essentially damning them for being Christians rather than hearing the case based on its merits. The SC said you can't do that. You can't just say, "You lose because I don't like your religion." The lower court screwed up, and thus the lower court's rul…
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:48 PM
1

It stated that the lower courts discriminated against the bakery based on religion. It said nothing about how the bakery acted. It's a very important distinction because that distinction sets the precedent. The precedent now is, "Lower courts can't be anti-religion," and not, "Service companies can turn away gay customers."
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:42 PM
1

It's worth noting the "narrow" part. It doesn't mean a close decision, as in a 5-4 split. This was a 7-2 majority decision. But the point is it very narrowly defined what was allowed in this space. The court decided not that it was okay for the bakery owner to discriminate, but that the bakery owner themselves were unfairly treated by a lower court, and thus that decision needed to be vacated. The court in fact said nothing about whether or not the bakery's 1st amendment rights were harmed, nor …
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:37 PM
3

"Men have everything" if that were true do you think men would be 70+% of suicides? We have everything including all the suicides. Sorry, ladies, we're taking all the suicides so you get none.
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:31 PM
1

But go and try that in one of the "Muslim majority" countries and see how this flys. In general, tattoos are considered a sin in Islam (it's not strictly forbidden by the Quran, but it's frowned upon culturally), so good luck trying to open a tattoo parlor in a Muslim majority country at all, let alone a women-only tattoo parlor owned and run by a woman.
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:26 PM
8

Read it again. It was exactly the other way around, with the mom having only one visitation day per week. On that one day, she failed to return the child because she had killed him. This situation sucks, but it's not a travesty of the courts this time.
/r/MensRights04/07/19 03:31 PM
7

All bears are popes.
/r/MensRights04/07/19 01:47 AM
3

This is a frequent repost that is a whole lot of /r/thathappened. The chances of this being real are pretty small.
/r/MensRights30/06/19 05:59 AM
12

You think this is OP's picture?
/r/MensRights28/06/19 06:18 AM
4

No, medical decisions are generally protected from that kind of litigation. Otherwise we'd still be bleeding people (leech therapy is in fact a modern thing, but you know what I mean). It's perfectly acceptable for medical organizations to change their recommendations over time.
/r/MensRights25/06/19 01:51 AM
12

You know what works better than circumcision? Condoms. And vaccines.
/r/MensRights24/06/19 11:15 PM
22

Men are disposable. The only way to successfully make the argument is to tie it back to women.
/r/MensRights24/06/19 11:14 PM
12

It's funny how the AAP, which is not a public health group but instead a professional group for pediatricians, has all the same information as CPS, and in fact even presents some of the main benefits (I've never understood the STI one, personally -- are we really teaching kids not to use condoms now?), but comes to a shockingly difference conclusion, which is that insurance should still pay for the procedure if people want it. I can't imagine why a professional organization of doctors who stand …
/r/MensRights24/06/19 11:14 PM
4

When you pay the mortgage, you can tell me what to wear.
/r/MensRights21/06/19 11:18 PM
13

I don’t understand why someone would care what my family chooses to do on any holiday. What you do on your own is up to you. But trumpeting it all over social media is clearly not about you doing whatever you want. It's about sending a message.
/r/MensRights16/06/19 04:59 PM
10

It's not what you care about. It's what society at large deems appropriate. Those of us who are single fathers by death are told on Mother's Day, "Have the kids celebrate the women in their lives. Their aunts or grandmas." Then the exact same people turn around and say, "Single moms, you go ahead and be strong women who don't need no man and celebrate Father's Day for yourself. Because you're being mother and father to your kids." Long story short, after the last facebook argument I had on this,…
/r/MensRights16/06/19 04:57 PM
11

It's highly unlikely, given the comics never did it. We'd get other X-titles (X-Force, X-Factor, etc) from the comics before we would get X-Women.
/r/MensRights13/06/19 05:54 PM
80

Neither Tommy Lee Jones nor Will Smith will be present for this installment in the "Men in Black" franchise, which has not produced a single critical hit since the series launched in 1997. Unfortunately, it does not look like "Men in Black: International" will break that trend, given that it currently holds a 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with critics roundly trashing the film as unfunny, unexciting, and ultimately pointless. Brutal.
/r/MensRights13/06/19 05:50 PM
4

Right, but holding on and balancing requires less strength than actively pulling. The point being, I don't think it's right to excuse anyone except for preteen or younger children or people with medical issues or disabilities from participating in a rescue such as this. For example, if three or four of the bystander women participated, the chain would have been easier to hold at a lower tension, thus making upper body strength even more irrelevant. Then again, I suppose we'll never know whether …
/r/MensRights12/06/19 06:26 PM
6

I doubt she could pull a fully grown man up along with a dog. Your value as a link in the chain is not how much you can pull, but how long you can hold on to the link above you. The person with the dog can pull himself up as long as he can reach your arms, whether you assist or not.
/r/MensRights12/06/19 06:13 PM
7

the only people who could have saved those dolphins in time were right there. Huh? You realize dolphins breathe air, right? They're not fish. They don't suffocate out of water. A beached dolphin, while in trouble, is not going to expire in minutes. They have hours. I don't know what authorities you'd want to notify in this case (maybe the coast guard?) nor what they're going to do that you couldn't do yourself. But even that is better than just standing around doing nothing.
/r/MensRights12/06/19 06:11 PM
25

The person who was filming from the other side of the water and thus who couldn't help.
/r/MensRights12/06/19 06:05 PM
15

Fuck your family member. Their making that joke says loads more about them than it ever does about you. You continue to be a great father, and forget what anybody else says.
/r/MensRights12/06/19 07:17 AM
2

The real question is, what are men doing in gender studies classes? Waste of a credit.
/r/MensRights31/05/19 01:32 AM
20

Plus backend on selling the foreskin to cosmetic companies.
/r/MensRights30/05/19 04:23 AM
2

It's a mixed bag, it depends on the country and church. I get that, but that entirely means it's a cultural practice, just as circumcision in Islam is cultural, not a covenant with their god. No church based on the teachings of Jesus Christ would interpret a continuing covenant of circumcision in the Christian church, because Jesus' teachings were that he clearly undid the Jewish covenants and laws. Which is why Christians aren't required to circumcise, they're not required to avoid clothes of m…
/r/MensRights27/05/19 05:10 AM
2

You realize circumcision is not a Christian mandate, right? I mean, I get stupid people not even understanding their own religion, but it's right there in their holy book, where Jesus said all the old covenants are moot.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 12:59 AM
4

But Jesus was Jewish, so of course he was circumcised. That was the whole point, that he superseded the Jewish faith, covenants like circumcision and all.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 12:19 AM
2

Do people really think circumcizing is a Christian thing? I've heard plenty of justifications for it, but never, "My Christian God told me to do it."
/r/MensRights26/05/19 11:35 PM
1

Wow. Maybe you should have "purchased a degree" from an accredited college rather than smoking pot and dreaming up conspiracy theories. Step 0: learn how physics works.
/r/MensRights24/05/19 12:45 AM
1

You are a idiot.
/r/MensRights24/05/19 12:10 AM
1

Doubling down, eh? What part of "Science doesn't work that way" didn't you understand?
/r/MensRights23/05/19 07:48 PM
1

I think you missed the part where I said I still wholeheartedly 100% support abortion access. Don't confuse me with the T_D trolls brigading the sub. I just pointed out that it's probably not wise to tell people they're supporting you wrong when they're supporting you, and got my ass chewed for it.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 03:17 AM
1

Real science invites criticism. Wat? No. That's not how science is defined at all. Or at best you're completely misinterpreting part of the scientific process. "Criticize the results" is not a step. "Independently verify the results by following the procedure as described" is, and that can lead to criticism when procedures are described poorly or are not robust and the outcome of the independent verification is different than the original outcome. But by no means is it required for science to ha…
/r/MensRights21/05/19 09:21 PM
1

You're an anti-vaxxer, so your point is now moot. Good day.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 04:25 PM
1

I can still support abortion without participating in discussions about how I'm "supporting it wrong" (I'm not even arguing "beginning of life", but they're assuming I am). If you need support for something, telling an entire group of people they're doing it wrong isn't a great way of gathering that support.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:31 PM
7

I'm pretty sure people have been cutting penises before some old nomads came up with Judaism. The covenant was just God saying, "This is one way you can identify other Jews, just look at their penises." Plenty of other cultures in other parts of the world than the Middle East and Europe have been cutting penises in different ways for millennia.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:51 AM
19

In my experience, it generally comes down to, "We're going to take care of our issue first," when all we're asking is for a little inclusive language. "Rather than writing a bill to ban female genital mutilation, why not say all genital mutilation?"
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:38 AM
6

Are you Jewish? They're the only religion with a true "from God" requirement to mutilate their boy children. Jesus undid those covenants for Christians (why you can cut the corners of your beard, eat shellfish, wear mixed fiber clothing, etc). Similarly, Mohammad released Muslims from those covenants, and though Mohammad said it was probably a good thing to do, it wasn't required. So if you're not Jewish, "God said so" means nothing.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:32 AM
10

I suppose that's better than nothing, but why ask the question in the first place? There's literally no value in doing it as an infant. If there are medical complications later during puberty that don't respond to resumes like steroids, then have it done with their consent. But there's no reason to do it as a kid. In before, "but parents get to decide on vaccinations for their kids"
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:28 AM
34

They believe it's a zero sum game, and if they spend any time focusing on male genital mutilation, somehow female genital mutilation will take off. So they have to completely radicate FGM first before they can do anything else. But it's not a zero sum game, and they can address all genital mutilation at the same time simply by making the language gender-neutral.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 01:24 AM
1

also, define "white knight" and "friend zone" Time for the ad hominems, because you know I'm right so you decide to call me a white knight (I'm not) or an incel (which I'm also not). Show me a woman who's had 26 abortions and isn't mentally ill. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but the vast majority of women don't have any abortions and those that do rarely have more than 2<sup>1</sup>. But don't let facts get in your way. <sup>1</sup> Source from the CDC Data from the 39 areas that reporte…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 10:14 PM
0

You think one woman had 332k abortions? WTF, dude?
/r/MensRights20/05/19 10:00 PM
1

lol, treating abortion the same as guns. When a woman can shoot up a school with her abortion, let me know.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 09:55 PM
2

I'm not making any moral judgment call on those at all, because it's not my place to judge "necessary". Nor is it yours. But the one thing that I do know is that every single one of them was legal.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 09:48 PM
2

if abortions were legitimate OBGYM care, you could get an abortion from any OBGYN Not if you've put so many restrictions and regulations on abortion that it's nearly impossible to offer in a traditional hospital setting. You don't get to have it both ways, and PP is one of the last places where you can get an abortion because they're the only ones willing to jump through all the hoops you idiots have put in place.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 09:47 PM
1

That funding pays for abortions, it pays the people who perform the abortions, pays for the tools,keeps the lights on, etc. It's all the same pot of money. Learn accounting, please. Yes, money is fungible. But money can also be tracked to its source, and Planned Parenthood can prove (must legally be able to prove, thanks to the Hyde Amendment) that their federal government dollars are going to non-abortion services. You're conflating "Keeping the lights one" with "paid for abortion", which is en…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:35 PM
2

Yeah buddy, sti screening and tests are required for abortions lmao. It doesn't follow that all sti screening and tests done by PP are done for abortion patients. You're also making poor assumptions about how these percentages are calculated. They're not "percentages of visitors". They're "percentages of services". You can clearly see that on PDF page 27 (printed 25), where the exact number of each services performed are listed. There were 3,926,575 STI screenings done (minus HIV). There were 33…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:32 PM
1

Since you're already assuming I'm a moron, go ahead and continue and enlighten me. I see nothing in this source that says, "Abortion provided by government funding." If that's there, then you're making an inference I'm not making. I'm asking you to cite the pieces of data in that report that you are using for that inference, in the same way that I cited the various pages containing the services, revenue, and expenses breakdown. If you can't do that, then you clearly have no source and you can be…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:23 PM
-4

So? Nobody said anything about mammograms. Look at the breakdown. 3/4 of their services are STIs (screening and treating) and contraception (get out of here with your "contraception is abortion" bullshit).
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:05 PM
-1

Do you have some sort of problem where you're unable to copy? Show me where. "Ha ha, it's in there, dummy!" is not productive.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:03 PM
2

Not buying this bullshit that women can’t get legitimate health care at traditional doctors That assumes they have the money even have a regular doctor. But aside from that, GPs aren't OBGYNs. If abortions were legitimate health care, you could get one at your regular doctor Can you get surgery at your general practitioner? Can you get cancer treatment at your GP? Your GP is a GP because they generalize. Specialized services require specialized doctors.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 07:02 PM
-1

You realize that when a woman gets an abortion, there are 17 other things that they classify as 'services', including checking in and checking out lmao. Let's not try and skew shit and actually be intellectually honest now. If you want to be intellectually honest, you can provide sources, please. On top of which you literally just posted proof that government funding goes towards abortions. Wat? How in the world do you conclude that? The financial report states what percentage is abortion, and i…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 06:58 PM
2

And not a single dollar of that was used to provide abortions. You realize that 97% of what PP does is not abortions, right (don't confuse "pregnancy services" with "abortion")? You should also look at a financial statement. See PDF page 25 (printed page 23) for the breakdown of services provided (3.4% abortions in 2017-2018, latest numbers available). See PDF page 29 (printed 27) for the percentage breakdown of revenue and expenses (34% of revenue was government spending), page 30 (printed 28) …
/r/MensRights20/05/19 05:27 PM
-14

Tax payer money has never paid for an abortion, so your argument is moot.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 03:38 PM
36

There's a meme going around, basically women saying, "abortion shouldn't be about arguments when life begins. Instead, it's an issue if women's bodily autonomy. Men, if you can't argue for that, don't try to help us." I commented on such a Facebook post essentially saying that men don't have bodily autonomy, either, and if they wanted to take up the cause of ending MGM or selective service or any of the other ways men don't have bodily autonomy, I will happily do the same for abortion. I was shu…
/r/MensRights20/05/19 03:36 PM
0

Different opinions and discussion are healthy. Shitposting T_D trolls are not.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:47 PM
3

Or even longer. Yes, modern pregnancy tests can be effective as early as 4 weeks, but there's still a significant chance of false negatives until more like 8-10 weeks.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 04:44 PM
-1

You're going to hate the source, but that's not entirely right.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 04:41 PM
-5

It's not a zero sum game, but also the ultra-right idiots here aren't supporting abortion. At best, they're being retaliatory ("You don't get abortions until we get reformed child support"), which is dumb and is exactly the same thing that this sub hates about feminist arguments ("We're not going to do a thing about male circumcision until FGM has been completely wiped off of the face of the earth."). You absolutely can support abortion rights and father's rights at the same time.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 04:40 PM
4

No, the argument is whether or not women are allowed autonomy over their own bodies. We fight and fight here about getting bodily autonomy for men, to stop MGM (nobody should decide for a baby whether or not to mutilate their penis), selective service (no man should be forced to fight and possibly die for a cause he doesn't believe in), etc. The same thing applies here, just for women. If you can't see how the fight is fundamentally the same ("Who is the government to tell us what we can do with…
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:13 AM
-62

Apologies. Neo-nazi fascist fucks. I don't know how I mistyped that.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:10 AM
1

I can hear your jimmies rustling all the way over here.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:10 AM
8

U mad bro?
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:08 AM
20

Huh? So if we don't subscribe to your "abortion = murdering babies" view, you can't have a rational and intelligent discussion? Okay, but that doesn't reflect well upon you.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:52 AM
12

You didn't answer the question.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:47 AM
90

The overrunning of this sub with ultra-right folks is seriously getting annoying.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:47 AM
3

Either or. If there are going to be women-specific bathrooms, then there needs to be an equal amount of men-specific bathrooms. If the bathrooms are going to be neutral (generally single-occupancy), then they all need to be gender neutral, not women-only and everybody. Both solutions are acceptable. The only unacceptable solution is women+neutral.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 04:21 AM
0

There's no proof that it was even an official school proposal. It's not on school letterhead. The school made no comment (as best I can tell, nobody even bothered to ask the school about it). This has "fake news" written all over it.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 03:30 AM
1

That's insufficient, though. The minister presents a piece of paper making certain claims. Nobody verified the source of that paper. Nobody contacted the school for a comment. Journalism isn't just parroting someone's tweet verbatim and calling it a day. It's investigating those statements to determine whether or not they are true. Maybe the story is true. More likely it's not. But I have yet to see any journalist actually investigate the claims. In the absence of that, it's a safe assumption to…
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:06 PM
0

As I said, when I searched for it there were only two dubious sources. The remainder of hits were message boards discussing these two sources. If you've found a third reputable source, please share. Not sure what you're on about with bulls. Edit: Here you go. At least for me, the top hits are: LifeSiteNews, a right-biased source of mixed factual reporting. Article from two months ago Pluralist, the link here, a right-biased source of mixed factual reporting. Article from yesterday. Not sure why …
/r/MensRights17/05/19 11:17 PM
0

If you want to believe fake news, have at it. Me, I want to understand who's telling me to be angry and why.
/r/MensRights17/05/19 10:26 PM
1

Isn't it nice and convenient when a "journalist" prefaces with their own opinion The source here is itself a right-biased outlet with a mixed history of truthful reporting. The only other corroborating article about this story I could find also comes from a right-biased, poor factual reporting site. The link in the tweet on this story goes nowhere. The picture of the instructions has no official markings or indications that it actually came from a school official and wasn't for example just some…
/r/MensRights17/05/19 04:45 PM
0

I feel like maybe you've got a reading comprehension problem? Literally right above what I quoted is this: A factual search reveals that in this article the National Review sourced the Daily Mail who falsely reported that NOAA manipulated climate data. This was later debunked by the person they were quoting (Dr. Bates). Further, the National Review did not include the actual statements that Dr. Bates made, which refute the Daily Mail and National Review’s claims of unverified and corrected data.…
/r/MensRights16/05/19 07:00 PM
0

now has a mixed ranking even though nothing about the news outlet has changed. Except that they explain that: Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/20/2018) You can claim "media bias" and "mainstream media liberal bias" and whatever all you want, but the true fact of the matter is that right-leaning sites…
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:55 PM
0

Refuting cited sources with 'Lol' Lol
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:41 PM
17

I'm a widower with two kids. In the past 4 years since, I've never been wished a happy mother's day (the kids make school shit for grandma in order to participate), and I would be crucified if I even suggested that I deserve it. But plenty of people wish single mothers a happy father's day without blinking an eye. Oh well. Mother's and father's day are made up bullshit holidays anyway, and I'd rather raise my kids not to bother with either.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:24 PM
6

Are you confusing Politifact, a high factual reporting, least-biased (barely left-leaning center), reliable source of fact checking with Politifact News, an extreme right-wing bullshit fake news site that's now nothing but a landing page for ads but was clearly created as a way to tarnish Politifact's reputation? Or are you just mad that Politifact calls out the bullshit your side spouts?
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:19 PM
1

People are getting tired of paying for the irresponsible behavior Your entire argument revolves around this kind of strawman argument, that people are lazy and will get abortions like drinking water. Yes, there may be a handful of mentally ill people out there who would do that, but laws don't stop mentally ill people. The vast majority don't take abortion lightly. It's not something you just do "because I had a bad day". You're advocating for extreme limitations by targeting a nearly non-existe…
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:11 PM
2

If you think we'd ever fight China at all, let alone with infantry, you're definitely smoking something.
/r/MensRights13/05/19 01:52 AM
7

Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line..
/r/MensRights12/05/19 07:56 AM
25

Never get involved in a land war in Asia. That's the most famous of classic blunders. And we made it through Iraq and Afghanistan without a draft. Our volunteer army seems to be doing well enough without drafting us poor schlubs.
/r/MensRights12/05/19 07:51 AM
46

Not really, though. The draft is not currently active. Resuming it would take an act of Congress (typical bill -- has to pass both houses and get signed by the President). Only then can conscription begin. The current requirement to register with the selective service is there to allow for the orderly reinstating of a draft if necessary, but is not the same thing as having an active draft.
/r/MensRights12/05/19 07:37 AM
6

Men can be nannies, so a "man dressed up as a nanny" wouldn't have to dress in drag. This is a man dressing up as a woman pretending to be a nanny.
/r/MensRights11/05/19 06:42 PM
18

"Mom, this is why you're not allowed to see your grandkids."
/r/MensRights08/05/19 03:24 AM
-1

Nice troll.
/r/MensRights03/05/19 03:35 PM
5

It's less that it's anti-woman and more that it's being taken over by Trump-style ultra-right "conservatives" (read: fascists). Men's Rights != Conservatism. There are plenty of us liberals here.
/r/MensRights03/05/19 03:33 PM
0

How about we have a society where people stay out of other people's business. What does it matter to you what I do with my body?
/r/MensRights03/05/19 02:51 PM
0

Feel free to cut off whatever body part of your own you would like. Bringing infant circumcision into this discussion is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights03/05/19 06:34 AM
7

That's still penetration-focused, in that the penetrator is the rapist. It misses the made-to-penetrate definition.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 07:05 AM
22

Not with that attitude, it doesn't.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 08:10 AM
23

The world doesn't get better if we don't have future generations to un-fuck what previous generations fucked up.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 07:49 AM
32

By not linking to the article, OP hides the fact that this is from January and is not in fact anything new about that ad campaign. There are no new numbers indicating that their market share is tanking. There's no indication that the ad had any measurable sustained negative effect at all. This is just an opinion piece written when the campaign was still fresh. Nothing new to see here at all.
/r/MensRights25/04/19 02:21 AM
12

Juris-my-dicktion
/r/MensRights23/04/19 02:22 AM
3

Sex is no accident.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 06:54 PM
1

You should read about Joe Biden, then.
/r/MensRights16/04/19 04:32 AM
9

AC controlled office work Whoa whoa whoa. Slow it down there. AC is sexist.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 07:21 AM
1

What's wrong with that, though? Do you not love your child? You wouldn't comfort them when they're crying, even if it's the middle of the night?
/r/MensRights07/04/19 05:01 PM
3

Exactly. OP's "traditional mores" here means hijabs and women not being allowed to drive and a bunch of other misogynistic crap. If we're going to call out feminism for claiming to be for equality but really aiming for superiority, it's extremely hypocritical if we do the same with men's rights.
/r/MensRights07/04/19 04:59 PM
12

I don't understand why people even make that point. Because some people think this is a zero sum game. They don't understand that we can stop all genital mutilation, both F and M. It's not an either or thing, "Well, we stopped circumcising boys so get those girls over here for the cutting!" but they sure want it to be.
/r/MensRights27/03/19 06:48 AM
13

Why should I have to find the right words to argue against such a disgusting and sickening practice? Those seem like the right words to me. "The default should be not cutting babies of any sex, and if you want to do that then you need to prove to me why you should. I shouldn't have to prove to you why you shouldn't." And then follow it up with, "What kind of sicko pervert gets off on cutting little boys?" for good measure.
/r/MensRights27/03/19 06:47 AM
41

As a man, why in the world would you ever take a car to a mechanic that advertises as "female friendly"? You take your car to the place with the oldest guy with the least amount of fingers.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 05:48 PM
25

I think it goes the other way. Why do you think so many fields like health care (and especially mental health care, as OP is in), education, etc are female-dominated? It's not because men don't want to work in those fields. It's because men have been systematically pushed out due to stuff like this, being treated like pedophiles in education/child care, etc. When women do this, men don't answer with, "Screw you. I'll start my own mental health care practice with hookers and blackjack and I'll hi…
/r/MensRights12/03/19 05:46 PM
3

At the very core, it's a question of bodily integrity -- the foreskin is not some "non-functional" part of the body and there's no compelling reason to cut it off beyond "An imaginary sky fairy told me to," or, "A boy should look like his father." We don't recognize either of those as legitimate reasons for female circumcision, so why would we do so for boys? You can ignore the question of whether or not circumcision is good or bad, because the bigger question is why don't infant boys get to hav…
/r/MensRights11/03/19 07:23 PM
5

So then your brother wasn't circumcised due to phimosis. Got it. That said, it's still weird they'd circumcise for an infection that can be cleared up with antibiotics, and it's weirder that they'd circumcise you "just in case". If your brother got cancer, would they have given you chemo "just in case"? If your brother broke his arm, would they have put you in a cast "just in case"?
/r/MensRights11/03/19 07:10 PM
7

Yes. This is why historically Christians don't circumcise, because according to them Jesus did away with the covenants of the old testament. It's also why Christians can eat shellfish and wear mixed fiber clothing and shave their beards and cut their hair. Circumcision in "christianity" didn't become a thing until the Puritanism movements of the 1800s, and then it was done not because of a religious covenant but because they feared masturbation. Even then, other Christian sects like Catholicism …
/r/MensRights11/03/19 07:00 PM
3

Phimosis cannot be diagnosed prior to mid-puberty. Any earlier than that and there's no guarantee that the foreskin will be able to retract at all for perfectly valid physical reasons (because it's fused to the glans and can release anywhere from 2 years old to 12 years old or later). If your brother had "phimosis" at 8, your pediatrician was bad. Even if he did have phimosis (unlikely), if the doctor went straight to circumcision rather than steroid cream, stretching exercises, and worst case z…
/r/MensRights11/03/19 06:54 PM
12

Not necessarily. The sample size is too small to expect or extrapolate any curve here. Maybe there's discrimination here, maybe there's not, but what little information we have to go on suggests it's unlikely, or if it is, it's happening way earlier (girls in elementary are taught to shy away from math, which means they're less likely to focus on hard sciences in high school and less likely to get STEM or business degrees from undergrad, which means they're less likely to get MBAs, which means t…
/r/MensRights04/03/19 03:38 AM
22

You assume that gender discrimination is the only reason why there would be a different distribution of people capable of being an executive vs the actual population. I suppose you could say gender discrimination is the root cause for more men vs women getting MBAs, for example, but that's not as clear cut as people make it seem (and you can of course take it all the way down, "women don't to into such fields because they are told not to"). Or said differently, why expect the C-suite sex distrib…
/r/MensRights04/03/19 02:47 AM
15

So wash your dick? There are no valid medical reasons to circumcise an infant. I don't think anyone's saying "make circumcision illegal". We're saying it should only be allowed to be done to consenting adults. Infant circumcision absolutely should be illegal, and circumcision before the age of majority should only be done in reaction to a real medical problem that can't be resolved in any other way. UTIs == antibiotics and clean your junk. Balanitis == clean your junk Penile cancer == I guarante…
/r/MensRights27/02/19 04:30 AM
18

There's the complications from surgery, the unnecessary removal of tens of thousands of nerve endings (infant circumcision is purely cosmetic, as there's no valid medical reason to do it), future erectile dysfunction, and more. The "pros" column includes a trivial reduction in penile cancer risk (from 1 in 10k lifetime risk to 1 in 100k lifetime risk; compare that to a woman's 1 in 10 lifetime risk of breast cancer) and a negligible reduction in balanitis (basically, redness of the foreskin, a m…
/r/MensRights27/02/19 04:14 AM
14

Which claim? That it's better to mutilate than not to mutilate? There's plenty of such information against mutilation, but IMHO the burden of proof should be on people who want to mutilate, not those who believe it's wrong.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 03:27 AM
22

Eating spicy food is a cultural thing. Traditional dances or clothing or food are cultural things. Mutilating your child is not a cultural thing.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:54 AM
23

You're wrong that the pros outweigh the cons, but even if they did you shouldn't have the right to mutilate your children.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:52 AM
2

Hopefully if they have sons they won't continue the cycle. My parents cut me because it was the thing to do, but they've never expressed remorse. I left my sons intact.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:50 AM
16

More like 70%, but yeah.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:47 AM
5

And if it's a gif, people like me won't watch it. So the question is, are there more of you or me?
/r/MensRights24/02/19 07:44 PM
1

A gif for something like this is stupid, because long-form gifs suck and the resolution here is terrible. Should've been a proper video.
/r/MensRights24/02/19 05:52 PM
25

Or maybe she is. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt until you know otherwise?
/r/MensRights11/02/19 07:24 AM
36

I'm a desk jockey. I try to be out of the office by 5pm. Once upon a time, that would've had me home by 5:20-5:30pm, in time to have dinner with my kids. Now, that commute time is an hour, 40 minutes if I'm lucky and pay $10 in tolls. And I still live and work in the same places. Short of selling and moving (taking kids out of the schools they like, away from their friends, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to "upgrade" by moving a little closer to work), there's nothing I can really do …
/r/MensRights08/02/19 12:45 AM
1

Yes, OP is hopefully a troll, because if they actually believe the things they wrote that makes me more worried.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 07:21 PM
1

Okay, but when a "Christian point of view" is at odds with science, science obviously wins. And science says Plan B is not an abortifacient. So it doesn't matter what Christians think.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 07:12 PM
3

I am surprised. Do they do it even without the parents knowledge? No forms signed or something? To me that sounds like criminal activity tbh. Probably just internet horror stories, but you hear anecdotes like, "They hid the consent form in a stack of other papers and then had me sign it while I was still groggy from medicine/lack of sleep/whatever." It's easy enough to give those stories credit when you're in the post-partum recovery room and the nurse is asking about circumcision like, "So when…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 07:05 PM
5

The same way as we do not refute tobacco=bad since it is asserted by the scientific community whether or not we did not verify and consult the sources/studies, I also am reluctant to refute with absolute certainity a person who has more experience in a certain thing. Context is always important. I'm 100% in agreement with listening to experts on things like tobacco, sugar, vaccines, etc. The difference is that smoking or not smoking doesn't amputate a piece of your body with a justification of, …
/r/MensRights06/02/19 06:34 PM
1

Preventing implantation != aborting. Edit: Also, linking to Yahoo Answers is stupid, but if you're going to cherrypick an answer, I like the one right below the one you chose: The morning after pill does not cause an abortion. It merely prevents conception. Idiots who think it is an abortion pill need to look up some facts. And linking to abortionfacts.com as an unbiased source of information is laughable. Of course they will characterize "preventing implantation" as "abortion", because that's t…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 06:00 PM
5

I am just citing what my textbooks say, which is balanitis rates are much lower in circumsized patients than in non-circumcised. For others, Balanitis (warning: picture of a penis). Basically, it's an inflammation of the glans and/or foreskin. It doesn't sound like there's any long-term problems associated with it, and treatment is hysterically simple: Initial treatment in adults often involves simply pulling back the foreskin and cleaning the penis. That absolutely does not sound like a problem…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 05:59 PM
1

Except that's not how it works at all. It prevents the release of an egg, prevents fertilization, and prevents implantation. It does not abort an already fertilized and implanted egg (fertilization without implantation means nothing and can happen even without plan b). Stop lying.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 03:53 PM
8

If you think it's better to cut our children than to teach them about sex, you've got some real fucked up ideas.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:52 AM
5

No, it's usually just done out of ignorance. Is that any better?
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:50 AM
5

My late wife was ambivalent. I was vehemently against it. She basically said that whoever cares more either way wins, and she didn't care at all so there was no contest. Thus our two sons are completely intact. Thank you for not cutting your boy.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:50 AM
0

It's not, though. At least not in the US. Circumcising religions (as in, those that have covenants with god that require circumcision) make up approximately 1.5% of the US population. That can't possibly account for the US's 70+% circumcision rate.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:47 AM
12

It is proven that men with circumcision have less chance of certain infections and are healthier overall Not really, though. If you're thinking that circumcision prevents STIs, the studies that found that were flawed, and later studies actually found the opposite (not because being circumcised makes it more likely to contract STIs, but that they took a population that was superstitious about HIV, told them that circumcision could prevent its spread, and then let them loose to have so much more u…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:45 AM
20

Circumcision ingrains male disposability from the very start of life. You weren't even important enough to keep all your parts, or to let you have your own body autonomy. No, your parents got to make a cosmetic decision presented as a religious requirement or a societal norm, and you as a man didn't even rate enough to have any sort of say in it at all. So yeah, there are other issues that need to be addressed, but male worth is one of them and circumcision is entirely about male worth.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:39 AM
11

It's not a zero sum game. There's room to stop cutting all babies. It doesn't have to be, "Let's keep cutting boys until we've 100% stopped cutting of girls, and only then will we consider the boys. And oops, we'll never get to 0% FGM, so we'll never consider the boys." We can even address both at exactly the same time, by passing laws that use wording like, "No child's genitals shall be surgically modified." That covers it. We don't have to say, "FGM is outlawed," or, "MGM is outlawed," but sim…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:36 AM
8

I read somewhere that the percentage of skin you cut off during circumcision is equal to skinning a grown man’s back That's obviously not true just by spending two seconds to think about it. The foreskin is larger than you think since what's being cut off is a folded piece of skin, so if you were to unfold it to a rectangle it would be pretty big. But "pretty big" here in comparison to a baby isn't all that big. Even if you were comparing it to an adult foreskin, it's still not going to be that …
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:31 AM
2

You have sex with alots, you say?
/r/MensRights06/02/19 08:24 AM
17

The irony is that Christian MGM isn't supported by the Bible. Jesus broke the old covenants, so the Jewish covenant of circumcision no longer applies to Christians. And in fact most Christians stopped circumcising for almost 2 millenia, and only started again in the US because of puritanism and masturbation panic in the late 1800s. Just as that was about to die out, we had WWI with its trench warfare and anecdotal stories of soldiers having their dicks rot off because they weren't circumcised, a…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 02:14 AM
6

American MGM originated with protestants in the late 1800s as a way of preventing masturbation (and perhaps also as a form of differentiating themselves from the dirty Catholics who were generally not fans of MGM). The south and midwest are very protestant-heavy, and thus correspondingly have much higher MGM rates (70+%). The left coast and New England are comparatively lower because they're less religious, though west coast rates have been on the rise due to immigration of Muslims who practice …
/r/MensRights06/02/19 02:01 AM
8

I'm on the left coast, where apparently MGM rates are lower than most of the rest of the country, and I'm doing my part to make it less common or accepted. Running away from the problem doesn't solve it.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 01:30 AM
10

But why? And don't give me a "cleanliness" argument. It's easy to clean your dick, and especially when young an intact penis is much easier to clean than a mutilated one (the equivalent of wiping a finger vs. cleaning a wound). You may as well say you wish you had your earlobes removed at birth so it'd be easier to clean behind your ears. I never had the chance to decide whether I'd prefer to be mutilated or not, so I'm doing my part by not cutting my boys. They'll hopefully grow up in a world w…
/r/MensRights06/02/19 12:06 AM
13

If it was done to you as an infant, how do you know you wouldn't be happier intact?
/r/MensRights06/02/19 12:02 AM
3

Sure, but they're still technically a single dad at that point. They may not know it, and if they do know they may not have custody or any visitation, but it still (usually) takes two to tango.
/r/MensRights29/01/19 09:51 PM
20

How do you think that's happening, unless men are dying? Most single mothers didn't go out and get artificially impregnated. For most of them, there's a corresponding single dad.
/r/MensRights29/01/19 09:41 PM
2

But I've encountered far too many Gynocentric, Feminist infected pains in the ass who lack the ability to listen to men unless they act like women. Which is exactly what we see playing out in woman-dominated early education (preschool through elementary) -- boys are treated like defective girls.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 08:39 AM
26

One was gender shaming, and the other was gender shaming. Totally different premises?
/r/MensRights20/01/19 05:04 PM
9

You're not expressing your emotions in an acceptable manner. Try again.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 06:25 AM
9

blue hair blonde eyes
/r/MensRights11/01/19 06:47 PM
6

I'm guessing at least one. Maybe two?
/r/MensRights11/01/19 06:46 PM
4

You really think someone would do that?
/r/MensRights11/01/19 06:37 PM
-4

That's making a lot of assumptions about a pretty ingrained fight-or-flight response that has nothing to do with where you live. Applying Occam's Razor would make it most likely that the story is false, or at the very least highly embellished.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 06:36 PM
1

But telling the guy who just broke your ribs that it's fine is very farfetched.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 04:15 PM
7

Right, there's a whole lot of /r/thatHappened going on here. Guy gets kicked so hard two ribs are cracked, thus resulting in needed medical care, and he chooses not to press charges or sue the guy at the very least for the medical costs? No way is that ever happening. Anybody hopped on so much adrenaline in a situation like that (I'm getting hyped up just reading it, and I know there's very little chance it's even true) isn't going to be all, "You thought you were doing the right thing, so no ha…
/r/MensRights11/01/19 04:57 AM
-3

Right? "Oh no, I can't help it that I'm going to make racist jokes! You should just deal with it rather than calling me a racist." Sorry, no, there's a minimum bar required for being a decent human being, and if you can't even manage to do that then you are indeed trash and you will be called trash and be treated like trash.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 04:46 PM
5

Can't tell if serious, angsty teenager, or /r/childfree. Either way, it's a stupid argument.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 04:47 AM
7

that was generated in the first place willingly by the blackmailer (parents decided to have a son) I was with you right up until this. That's some real bullshit. Besides, the OP's story was about a kid killing himself over Iraq PTSD. I'm pretty sure his parents weren't the ones who sent him over there to do and see unspeakable things. I agree that telling a suicidal person not to an hero because of how others might feel is wrong and will rarely work ("They're better off without me, and they'll g…
/r/MensRights10/01/19 04:24 AM
13

There is nothing wrong with using gendered language when the attack it is combatting is gendered in nature.
/r/MensRights09/01/19 04:26 PM
11

If it prevents future discrimination, it's still a win.
/r/MensRights02/01/19 12:36 AM
3

someone from here who was a moderate There are plenty of liberals here, too. Politicizing men's rights will doom us to failure.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 02:09 AM
5

Yes, and? If you're just sharing random etymology facts, did you know the word salary derives from the Roman word for salt, because soldiers were paid an amount to buy salt?
/r/MensRights27/12/18 08:29 PM
12

At the same time, people (men and women) are expected to be able exercise self-control in social situations.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 08:07 PM
48

Nobody gets gold in the Victim Olympics.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 04:10 PM
6

"The patriarchy forces women to take lower paying jobs and to take time off to care for children," is almost 100% likely what she's getting at.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 04:14 PM
12

I'm sure their justification is, "It's mostly moms here." Which by itself is discriminatory, because god forbid a dad take his sick child to their chemo appointments.
/r/MensRights25/11/18 09:06 AM
10

The first issue was the initial interrupting woman's assumption that her need to use the bathroom was greater (or more important) than someone else's. In that moment-- before the OP spoke in response-- she was simply being a self-entitled twitch. Given that the bathroom was marked gender neutral (which is total bullshit, but it is what it is), and given that there was only one stall in the bathroom, and given that ladies aren't generally equipped to use urinals, it's not unexpected that she may …
/r/MensRights25/11/18 09:05 AM
19

Hover piss.
/r/MensRights23/11/18 05:30 PM
41

Defense by insanity is still a guilty plea. Insanity is a mitigating circumstance, and will land you in a psych ward instead of a cell block, but it's not the "get out of jail free" card that tv/movies make it seem like.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 04:21 PM
23

The lifetime risk of penile cancer in unmutilated men is something like 1 in 100,000, and accounts for only 0.5% of cancer in men. The lifetime risk of breast cancer in women is around 1 in 10, and is the number 1 female cancer. If it makes medical sense to circumcise boys for penile cancer, then it makes sense to remove the prepubescent breast buds in little girls. Also, you know what prevents the spread of STIs way better than circumcision? Proper condom use. Rather than mutilating children, m…
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:47 PM
3

Pedo teachers having inappropriate relationships are absolutely treated differently than male sex offenders on a registry and shunned via automatic alerts. My point was that a pedo registry and alert system for school visitors is unnecessary, because those pedophiles are not walking into schools and offending.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 06:09 PM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights07/11/18 03:29 PM
232

While any parent can appreciate this safety precaution, I'm a parent. I don't appreciate this precaution. This kind of thing is total bullshit, and takes away any sort of human discretion. The fact of the matter is, no pedophile is going to openly molest children at a school. In terms of "scary child fucking men off the street", a school's one of the safest places to be (now, predatory teachers having "relationships" aka raping children is a completely different thing). There's no reason why suc…
/r/MensRights07/11/18 06:16 AM
0

Really? I'm a 40 year old widower just getting back into dating and I've had no such trouble.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 01:32 AM
1

That sounds more like poor communication than intentional duplicity. Most likely she intended "be more spontaneous" to mean "you need to be more decisive and/or do more of the planning for dates." I'd bet there was a lot of, "I dunno, what do you want to do?" from both of you, and she was trying to get you to make those decisions. Of course then you'd be here saying, "She said she didn't care where we ate, but when I suggested Chinese she said no."
/r/MensRights04/11/18 01:26 AM
7

The US drives men out of teaching just by calling them all pedos.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 02:15 AM
3

They are slightly pro-circ somehow, but I don't see how they managed to come to that conclusion The AAP is not a public health body. It's a professional organization of pediatricians. As such, their recommendations are at least in part driven by what's good for pediatricians. What's good for pediatricians with circumcision? $400 up front for a 5-minute surgery, plus backend selling the foreskins for research and cosmetics. If the AAP endorses it, then insurance companies will pay for it. That's …
/r/MensRights26/10/18 07:07 AM
6

Well, then she clearly knows first hand that women will make false accusations!
/r/MensRights24/10/18 02:24 AM
-2

From Media Bias/Fact Check We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting. (5/16/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 6/15/2018) Where's your source of CNN "fake news" that's not from pundits/guests?
/r/MensRights23/10/18 01:45 AM
1

Sure, but we've got another decade or two before we'll know how that shakes out.
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:21 AM
3

As a father to two boys, I fear we may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, and there won't be a force to bring it back to center. Looking at things like girls-only coding camps, girls-only scholarships, preferential hiring of women, etc. I'm old enough that I suppose I benefited from power being swung in the direction of white males, but unless we can balance things out my kids are going to suffer because of the behaviors of my parents' generation. And so, while I have nothin…
/r/MensRights13/10/18 04:49 AM
6

Things are being addressed earlier. Women in their 20s far outpace the earnings of men in their 20s. More women go to university and get higher degrees (whether or not those degrees are worthwhile is a different question). Basically, up until their late 20s or early 30s, the "pay gap" favors women. Then women decide to start families and stay home, and that stagnates their careers. It would do the same thing for guys, too, except there are significantly fewer stay at home dads so they become sta…
/r/MensRights13/10/18 01:08 AM
3

Sure, but experience is important to a position, especially senior positions as the study was going for. How would you control for experience? Only list the last job? But that would still likely benefit men, as the last job in a longer history is likely to be "better" (higher paying, higher position, more responsibilities), and thus still look better to hiring managers.
/r/MensRights13/10/18 12:03 AM
23

Not necessarily. If your hypothesis was that there was a bias towards hiring white men (whether because "like hires like" or "old boys network" or whatever), then you would expect to see a decrease in white men being hired when you remove all trace of gender and ethnicity. That the opposite was seen means the hypothesis was false -- there is no wide bias towards hiring white men, and in fact it turns out there's a small bias against them. Diversity quotas are one way of combating that presumed b…
/r/MensRights12/10/18 09:31 PM
3

And yet if you were to ask members of the spanking fetish community, you're going to get about an equal split between, "I was spanked as a kid, so now I'm into spanking," and, "I was never spanked as a kid, so now I'm into spanking." The brain is a complex thing, and scientists still have no way of pinning down that X behavior leads to Y fetish.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 05:18 PM
8

Do you have proof of that? Literally from the article, the current definition is this: “Any person who forces a person of the female sex by threats or violence, psychological pressure or by being made incapable of resistance to submit to sexual intercourse is liable to a custodial sentence of from one to ten years.” Nothing about the perpetrator's sex ("Any person"), nothing about the type of sexual intercourse ("submit to sexual intercourse" does not have to mean "penetrated"), etc. Assuming th…
/r/MensRights01/10/18 05:32 PM
18

Sure, but a lot of gun control focuses on accidents and safety. Kids shooting each other because guns weren't locked up. You can kill someone with my gun if I leave it sitting around. You can't rape someone with my penis if I leave it sitting around.
/r/MensRights21/09/18 05:44 PM
5

I'm not saying this is fake news, but ... it needs a huge grain of salt. Dangerous does not exactly have a history of factual reporting, and I can't find any other articles about this that don't stem from this dangerous.com article (note: that's a google search, so it's likely to change in the future, but as of right now there's nothing but the dangerous.com result related to this). Maybe the MSM is preventing this from getting out, but that seems unlikely, especially if a kid was arrested in fr…
/r/MensRights21/09/18 06:52 AM
9

There was so much in this article you could've attacked (Oh noes, men going on paternity leave mean I have to do more work! Welcome to what men have had to deal with around maternity leave since forever), and you pick this? Just because a job isn't physically demanding doesn't mean it's not mentally demanding or stressful. "I'm only responsible for billions of dollars in investments every day, but at least I'm not hauling big fucking trees so my life must be golden." There can still be high stak…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 09:49 PM
21

I suppose you haven't seen /r/foreskin_restoration, then?
/r/MensRights03/09/18 09:32 PM
9

You still have to make it through the degree if you want to get hired, and CS and other STEM degrees are not exactly known for being easy. It's less a matter of being smart enough or being capable of doing the work, but more that you've got to love doing it if you want to make it through. The pay is good, but not good enough to suffer through something you hate, only to then have to do that something you hate for the next 3-4 decades. I don't know what the current dropout rates are, but back whe…
/r/MensRights14/08/18 06:45 AM
11

Hillary isn't the end-all representative of the left. There are plenty of us progressives who are also sympathetic to men's issues. Maybe there are no national-level players that would advance an egalitarian agenda, but that doesn't mean we don't exist, just like there exist rational conservatives who think Trump is terrible.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 05:32 AM
4

but still women pay millions to show off. Just how much do you think a boob job costs?
/r/MensRights11/08/18 10:12 PM
39

Right up until you get accused of being a pedophile.
/r/MensRights03/08/18 08:27 PM
-5

This is happening in high school sports now where trans males are identifying as females and winning all the sports competitions. Two things: Male-to-Female is a trans-woman, not a "trans male". Female-to-Male is a trans-man. Think of it this way -- the prefix identifies how you got to that gender (cis = born that way, trans = transitioned), and the suffix is the gender you're presenting as. A cis-woman is a woman born that way. A trans-woman is a biological male who transitioned to identify as …
/r/MensRights29/07/18 12:35 AM
8

Have you tested that theory? Also, men are on average stronger than women. You can of course cherry pick a very weak man to compare against a very strong woman, but you'd be missing the point.
/r/MensRights29/07/18 12:30 AM
9

"You can't fix any of your problems until I've fixed all of mine." When you believe it's a zero sum game, you will do everything in your power to ensure your cause is what gets the support at the expense of all other causes. Of course stopping genital mutilation is not zero sum, and we can stop both male and female mutilation at the same time, but people don't get that. They think the only way they can win is for someone else to lose.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 06:05 PM
4

Well, there are kids who are just naturally mean and bullies. But you'll usually find them pulling the legs off frogs rather than trying to "mansplain" a video game to their sister. Also, such kids are extraordinarily rare. Much more rare than the media would have us believe.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 04:25 AM
4

Remove the "mansplain" bullshit and the genders, and this is decent parenting. I routinely tell my older son that he should only do stuff for my younger son if he (the younger son) asks for help, because otherwise he won't learn how to do it himself. But I don't say, "Boxsterguy Jr1, don't mansplain your brother." I say, "Did your brother ask for help? No? Then let him do it on his own." The problem here is that words have meanings, and two identical actions have completely different value based…
/r/MensRights26/07/18 04:20 AM
36

Really? It wasn't that hard to put a couple of obvious terms into Google (tmz, stormy daniels, divorce, restraining order) and find the article. As for the reason for the restraining order: The judge, among other things, agreed to prohibit Stormy from coming in contact with Crain or their 7-year-old daughter, which Crain says was necessary because Stormy wanted to bring her on tour where she would be on a bus with other adult performers and at risk for both physical and emotional harm. When you'…
/r/MensRights24/07/18 08:13 AM
3

Well, then, that's just stupid.
/r/MensRights22/07/18 03:54 AM
5

The lifetime risk of breast cancer in women is 1 in 10. That absolutely dwarfs the lifetime risk of penile cancer in men with natural penises. If reducing an already tiny risk of cancer is an acceptable reason to cut a child, then I propose that we preemptively remove all breast tissue from girls at birth. Sounds ridiculous, right?
/r/MensRights21/07/18 02:53 PM
4

"Sorry, Bobby, it looks like your parents don't love you. If they did, they wouldn't have mutilated your penis."
/r/MensRights21/07/18 02:48 PM
-3

Actually, it's not. When it's done by a plastic surgeon to a consenting adults, it's perfectly legal.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 02:33 PM
6

And none of those irreversibly maim them. Try harder, please.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 02:32 PM
5

"You're not allowed to try to solve your problem until I get to completely solve my problem."
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:13 AM
9

It turns out most women don't actually want to be jack hammered dry for 40 minutes.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:12 AM
11

Ex gf trimmed the labia. Like not a big deal. 1 hour procedure. Walked fine etc. What a consenting adult decides to do with their own junk is their business. Children can't consent.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:11 AM
7

We're talking about humans, stay on point. Wait, humans aren't mammals? Shit. Everything I know is a lie!
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:08 AM
29

Or, maybe we'll finally get MGM banned because it'll be the only way to keep FGM illegal? Nah, who am I kidding.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:05 AM
86

You mean defective girl babies?
/r/MensRights16/07/18 01:13 AM
9

Someday. Probably not any day soon. But /r/foreskin_restoration is real, and while you can't grow back unique parts you can at least grow enough skin to get coverage.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:49 AM
17

If a child never knew the difference, would it be okay to cut off their earlobes at birth?
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:08 PM
49

Not started, by any means, but popularized outside of Jewish populations for sure.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:04 PM
11

As are daytime talk shows hosted by a guy who's not even been legally able to practice psychology since 2006. The polygraph is the least objectionable thing here. Still, even just by demeanor and attitudes, it's pretty clear who the liar was in this case.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 05:10 PM
13

It's a reaction in kind. If female circumcision is "female genital mutilation" even in its mildest form, then surely male circumcision is also "male genital mutilation". If it's not, and one's illegal mutilation and the other is socially accepted (and often expected!), that's not right. There's a really simple solution to both of these problems, which unfortunately will never happen for various reasons -- leave kids' junks alone. Girl or boy, there's no need to remove body parts unnecessarily. I…
/r/MensRights03/06/18 03:43 AM
17

Not all schools are this shitty. The school my son will attend in the fall (starting Kindergarten) has wiggle seats in every classroom to encourage kids to get the fidgets out, has full, multiple recesses, still does PE and music, doesn't punish kids with no lunch if parents can't pay, etc. And this isn't some expensive private school or a public school in an ultra rich neighborhood. It's a public school in a typical suburban middle class neighborhood, but in a school district that actually give…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 06:15 AM
1

This was an interesting podcast on the topic from a few years ago.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 06:57 PM
14

I was thinking the other way around. Lots of people assume they're underpaid/their coworkers are making more. If you knew what your coworkers were making, then you'd see that you're probably all within the same ballpark for similar work and experience. And when you're not, there's usually an obvious reason (someone's been their 10 years longer than you, or someone does a lot more than what you do, etc).
/r/MensRights08/05/18 05:35 PM
24

It's too bad we have a cultural taboo against sharing your salary information with friends and colleagues. If people were more open about what they were getting paid, then the whole wage gap thing could be put to bed once and for all. Too bad that won't happen.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 04:34 PM
9

Is that really relevant, though? I mean, I suppose if the job was literally to do video rentals a la Blockbuster then maybe it's important. Otherwise, you're calling a person "unqualified" because they don't have the same cultural references that you do. That's a failing on your part, not theirs.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 05:56 PM
4

Think of Cinderella. She had a father and a mother. Her mother dies (plague, in the Brothers Grimm story). Her father remarries and the woman he marries becomes her step-mother. The step-mother doesn't replace her deceased mother, who is still her biological mother. With the step-mother comes step-sisters. Those are not related to her by blood (if they were sisters from her father and his new wife, they would be half-sisters rather than step-sisters, because they would share half her own ancestr…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:08 PM
3

"Step" means "related only by marriage". It's like "in-law", but for your direct ancestry. Consider: A family has a mother and a father and a child. Note there's nothing here about marriage. The mother and father could be together or separate, married or not. The child has a mother, a father, and corresponding relationships -- grandmother and grandfather on both sides (living or dead), aunts and uncles, etc. In that same family, the mother now marries a different man (because she divorced the fa…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 04:32 PM
4

Oh yeah, because she didn't marry him. Right ? Even if she had married him, the grandma still wouldn't be step. Relationships like grandparent, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, etc have nothing to do with marriage. "Step-" relationships do, because those don't have a biological basis.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 04:17 PM
7

her step grand mother Not step, and not hers. Just grandmother (the child's father's mother) of the child.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 11:23 PM
30

Does the father have the right to do this without custody, by virtue of being the father? (This being making medical decisions for the child without the mother present) I don't know about UK laws, but generally the custodial parent gets to make those decisions. So he would be in the wrong just from that. Secondarily, and perhaps more importantly, parents shouldn't be allowed to consent at all non-necessary surgeries like this, custoidal or not. So from that point of view (which is obviously not …
/r/MensRights08/04/18 11:12 PM
-15

"Snowflake" is a derogatory term used by right-wing conservatives to insult left-wing liberals. Somewhere along the line a number of people in this sub have associated men's rights with conservative politics, which is total bullshit. The image could've stood on its own. It didn't need the title gore added to it.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 11:41 PM
1

Where'd you get the first part? Because she's trans?
/r/MensRights25/03/18 07:47 AM
7

28 to life. 28 is the bare minimum.
/r/MensRights01/03/18 03:11 AM
15

It's an overzealous SJW reading what they want into an otherwise mostly benign code of conduct (although the source of that code of conduct is suspect in its neutrality). If nothing else, projects adopting this code of conduct give you an easy way to know which projects aren't worth contributing to.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 07:16 PM
1

Ignoring all the gender stuff, this is my favorite take on the push for everybody to "learn to code". In my experience, if someone is really interested in computer science, they'll make it one way or the other (may need financial help with schooling). Pushing people into it is just going to end up with a lot of people hating what they're doing.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 05:20 AM
2

Is it possible to simply let nerdy types be nerdy types without also demanding them to be identity social warriors? The actual nerdy types are getting pushed out because there's too much money at stake. 15-20 years ago (dotcom bubble time, when everybody and their dog were going into CS for the money), the non-nerdy types would've been weeded out by difficult courses where they would realize that CS is a ton of work and no amount of money can make them love it if they don't already love it. Now,…
/r/MensRights19/02/18 03:09 AM
7

Identifying "suspicious activity" by definition requires profiling. As long as the narrative is "All men are pedos, and all women are saints," this kind of profiling will never be applied to women. So as it stands now, "They did the right thing" == "Any man with a child must be a pedophile, certainly not a father." And that's bullshit and not the right thing.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 02:32 AM
1

If you're going to give military shit to police, then yes, absolutely, train them to use it properly and not to see every problem thereafter as a nail to be hammered by the military surplus tanks and stuff. But it would be much, much better to stop militarizing the police in the first place.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 12:00 AM
1

Demilitarize != disarm. Police should absolutely have sidearms, shotguns, even snipers in some areas (makes some sense in a large city, probably not in a rural area). I'm not even anti-SWAT. All I'm saying is that "Let's send a SWAT raid" probably shouldn't be the first response to anything. Somebody called in a threat? Send a couple uniformed officers with tasers and sidearms, and have backup ready to go if they confirm a credible threat that requires tactical force that only SWAT can provide. …
/r/MensRights04/02/18 11:34 PM
1

That seems like a terrible idea. The police are not supposed to be a militarized force, and transitioning from a peace keeping service to a military service is a significant change with wider spread impact than simply, "If we're going to give them military weapons, we should teach them how to use them." We shouldn't be giving police military weapons in the first place.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 11:28 PM
2

It won't go away until we demilitarize the police. There's no reason that a first response should ever be a SWAT team, but we've got police departments high on military surplus and drooling to use their new tanks, so ...
/r/MensRights04/02/18 05:48 PM
13

They will be on him like hounds I don't want to assume a gender, but it's highly likely "Elizabeth Bartholet" is a "her".
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:54 PM
1

I keep the business parts clean, but good luck getting grease or brake dust out of the rubber handles. When they get bad enough, just cut them off and replace with plastidip.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 08:14 AM
3

The rubber handles? Meh.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 07:30 AM
3

Who's going to insult you for them? I don't know about you, but I don't generally keep my tools out where visitors can see them. Also, if you're doing it right, those pink handles are going to get all black and grimy quick enough anyway. The underlying color is irrelevant when it's all dirty black/brown.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 12:57 AM
1

sanders is pretty far to the right of Hillary with gun control. are you implicitly approving of this position since you wrote him in? Yes, because I align closer to Sanders than Clinton on gun control, and I also understand the background and constituency that informed his views. are you willing to die on that hill? should you be required to condemn the things you don't agree with while voting? I think you have to look at more than just one issue. I liked where Sanders was at on health care and …
/r/MensRights20/01/18 11:40 PM
1

I wrote in Bernie for the 2016 election (my state's a strong blue state, but I couldn't vote for Hillary and I couldn't vote for Jill Stein, so I went with a write-in).
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:46 PM
0

The difference is that liberals don't really have a hot-button issue like abortion that they can focus everything on. I wish they did, because then stupid could be harnessed for good. Like what if liberals voted only on whether or not candidates supported full universal health care, like conservatives vote on whether or not candidates support abortion? We might actually see universal health care in our lifetimes. Also, you missed the point. By focusing on a very narrow range (often where N = 1) …
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:35 PM
-3

It's not so much that they support rape, but that they're one-issue voters and they willfully ignore important things like being a kiddie diddler simply because he's anti-abortion or has the "(R)" after his name. Low-information voters are the biggest problem in the political system right now.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 07:30 PM
23

Little children do not need to be, should not be, corrupted by some adults inability to control themselves. That's likely the source of your downvotes, because there's a strong implication there of, "OP's daughter doesn't need to be exposed to lesbians." A more charitable reading of that would be, "Your daughter doesn't need to be exposed to a person who can't think of anybody other than themselves, and if she refuses to see your daughter because you won't fuck her occasionally then your daughte…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 07:26 PM
164

WTF is with that penultimate paragraph, though? Yes, we are probably performing a totally unnecessary procedure – but we aren’t doing it because we think they are whores by nature who cannot be trusted with their libidos. Uh ... why does she think circumcision caught on in the first place? It was to curb masturbation and make sex less pleasurable. So yes, I think I will continue to compare male genital mutilation to female genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 03:06 AM
2

The article is an op-ed, and it's 3+ years old.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 06:00 PM
2

I'm doing my part for the cultural shift. I'm circumcised. So are my brothers, and my father. My two boys are not circumcised, and since my brothers are not going to have children of their own for various reasons that ends the circumcision inertia in my immediate family.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:09 PM
5

What OP described is certainly an exceptional case, and we should take it with a grain of salt because we're getting one side of the story second hand. That doesn't mean it's right or justified, but we also don't have all of the information.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 09:31 AM
15

But that just means fewer engineers in general, and then you have to have the immigration discussion. I get it, nobody said they were rational. But it still just blows my mind that anybody could intentionally limit the educational options of any child, no matter the sex.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 07:16 AM
56

Quit, and suggest to every other male working there to quit as well. Let's see how well they can teach when they have no teachers. This shit scares me for my own kids (two boys). I'm in the tech industry, and all of the propaganda is "girls in coding." Well, what about the boys? Boys don't just inherently know how to write code or do other STEM stuff. They learn it, and if you take that away then there will be no more boys in tech. I get it, women are underrepresented in tech. Boxing out boys is…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 11:21 PM
19

The parents of a young boy believed their son, who had begun to touch himself when his nappy was being changed, had been taught the behaviour by someone else. Stupid, stupid parents. That's what kids do. They touch. They pull. They tug. They flip it up and down. It's not sexual. They're just exploring bits of their bodies, and that one's just another bit like a finger or toe or ear or whatever else. What kind of idiot cop wouldn't laugh that one right out the door? "My kid's touching himself." "…
/r/MensRights24/11/17 06:32 AM
7

Sure, just pointing out this isn't "Robin Williams killed himself because his kids were taken away."
/r/MensRights03/11/17 03:26 AM
25

You do realize the quote is from a movie and not real life, right?
/r/MensRights03/11/17 12:35 AM
28

But do they deviate you?
/r/MensRights22/10/17 08:06 PM
1

I don't think queer eye could have happened without the stereotype existing first.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 07:48 PM
3

Feldman won't name names, though. Not that it likely would've made a difference, but he should've named names.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 03:18 AM
6

How about if everyone who HASN'T sexually assaulted or harassed someone posts "Not me"? Looks like the new thing is guys posting "I'm sorry" and then listing a bunch of things that aren't harassment as if they were harassment.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 06:49 PM
1

But honestly I’ve not necessarily seen an example of someone gay being made fun of for dressing better in my school, not that it hasn’t happened, so I don’t have any examples to base off of. My point was circular logic. Gay people aren't afraid of dressing well because they don't care if they're called gay -> Which means straight people are afraid of dressing well because they don't want to be called gay -> Which means someone somewhere associated "dressing well" == "gay", but per the first one …
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:17 AM
17

But that begs the question1 why homophobic people think dressing well means you're gay. 1 "Begs the question" is used correctly here as a form of circular argument. Gay men dress well because they're not afraid of being called gay. But why are people called gay if they dress well?
/r/MensRights15/10/17 08:29 PM
1

It's after six. What am I, a farmer?
/r/MensRights15/10/17 08:25 PM
22

It's not "PC language" to avoid "triggering snowflakes". It's intentional language to set standards. If you want to change the world's perception that circumcision is not the default, then you have to use language that makes it not the default.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 10:22 PM
29

My response to that is usually along the lines of if you're having penis comparison contests with your kids then you've got other problems. But it's certainly a thing that people believe.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 10:13 PM
1

The Mayo Clinic seems like a good resource. "Some" remove as early as possible, but the ADA guidelines are only if there's a problem. That doesn't mean the doctors and dentists follow the guidelines, but in general one should assume that they do.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 10:13 PM
1

Neither of those are the case here, but they are the case in terms of wisdom teeth - we remove them as soon as it's convenient. Except that's definitely not true. Maybe it used to be true (removing tonsils was also a "do it as soon as possible" thing, and we no longer do that), but these days most dentists will take a wait-and-see approach. I'm not disputing that you're right and the OP was wrong for saying that "obviously" removing a piece of the human body is always bad. I'm just saying that y…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:32 PM
6

Wisdom teeth commonly cause impacted teeth. The easiest solution is to remove the wisdom tooth before it does this. Orthodontists can estimate to a very high probability whether or not your wisdom teeth will cause problems. Many people will certainly have problems, and for those people it makes sense to remove them before they cause problems. Many other people will have no problems with their wisdom teeth, and as such there's no value in removing them. Note that we don't go digging into an infan…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:18 PM
26

I'd recommend you refer to your kid as "natural" or "intact" instead of "not circumcised" or "uncut". The latter implies the default and normal state is to be circumcised or cut, which shouldn't be the case at all. Words have power, and the words we choose can change the world one small piece at a time. If other potential parents hear you talking about your son as "natural" or "normal" if they ask your opinion on circumcision, that biases them towards not doing it, which is good.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:04 PM
81

If only more women took that view. My wife said, "I don't have strong feelings one way or another, but I'd probably do it just because it's 'expected'." I of course said there's no way in hell we're cutting our children. In our case, the party that cared more "won", so our boys remain intact. Not all women will acquiesce that easily, especially if they've internalized the social mores around circumcision ("It's cleaner", "It looks better", "A boy should look like his father", etc).
/r/MensRights13/10/17 06:24 PM
5

Why the fuck are the rest of us still doing this to babies? Inertia. The religious crap came back around the turn of the 20th century, when Puritans like Kellogg (yes, of the cereal fame) pushed circumcision as a masturbation prevention (they also pushed various anti-masturbation practices for women, but thankfully those fell out of favor quickly). That lead directly into WW1, where sanitation during trench warfare was horrendous and circumcised men were less likely to have health issues with th…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 10:05 PM
7

Re-read what I said. Pro-circ people like to equate mutilating a penis with vaccinations because parents decide both. Assuming you're not an anti-vax moron and recognize that vaccinations do not cause permanent harm, those two are not equivalent. I was just saying, "Here's where people would argue that they should have the right to circumcise because they have the right to vaccinate, but it's a bad argument."
/r/MensRights08/10/17 05:40 PM
11

It doesn't help that circumcision is a huge payday for a doctor. A couple minute procedure nets them $3-400, plus another $3-400 on the backend selling the foreskins for research or cosmetics. IMHO, that's the sole reason the AAP still recommends infant circumcision be covered by insurance, because if it wasn't more people would opt out just on cost alone, significantly reducing their takehome. Note that the AAP is not a public health organization like the WHO or CDC. It's a professional associa…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 07:40 AM
14

In my case, yes, that's exactly how it worked. A doctor asks, and I assume if you say yes then you have to fill out some paperwork and consent forms. I suppose you can also discuss it with your OB beforehand, too. People tell horror stories of doctors who just assume they're going to do it (aka, "So when are we scheduling the circumcision?" rather than, "Are you planning on circumcision?"), and apparently there are some really worst case scenarios where doctors just do it, I assume by burying co…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 06:54 AM
15

If that's what you want to take away from it, sure, but you're cherry picking. I'd argue that I prize bodily integrity over any sort of religion. Parents should not have the right to make non life or death decisions about a child's body (insert vaccine or ear piercing arguments here -- neither of those cause permanent and irreversible damage), and especially not to satisfy some cosmetic or religious belief.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 06:33 AM
17

And many more pros then you are willing to admit. Such as? I just think this subreddit shouldn't pretend this is an open and shut case Bodily integrity is important. We should be having actual discussions about this instead of just downvoting everyone we disagree with. I haven't downvoted you. If others have, that's on them. However, you're not going to change my mind that infant circumcision of any sex is good in any way. It's a barbaric practice from an ancient and irrelevant religion and prop…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 06:22 AM
16

Doctors don't know everything, either, but there's a really simple test you can do here -- will the child be harmed by leaving them intact until they're old enough to make their own decision? The fact that humans exist at all means that the answer to that is a resounding "No", because penises still work and people don't die when you leave the foreskin intact. So, following "do no harm", why circumcise infants? Or, consider it from a different angle. Women have a 1 in 10 lifetime risk of developi…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 06:13 AM
29

There is about an equal amount of pros and cons either way at this point. Pros for circumcision: There's a negligible decrease in the risk of penile cancer (you go from something like a 1 in 1,000 lifetime risk to a 1 in 10,000 risk -- aka, you're not going to get it either way). There may or may not be some decrease in AIDS transmission (the studies for this were flawed), but we already have great ways of reducing or preventing AIDS transmission -- safe sex education and AIDS treatments. Undete…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:35 AM
25

Same. When my wife and I found out we were having a son, we had the conversation (side note: it's sickening that it's considered normal to even discuss mutilating a child you're supposed to love). Her view was that it didn't matter to her but would've done it just by default. My view was there was no way in hell we were cutting the kid (I loved my wife, but I was prepared to seriously escalate if needed; luckily that didn't happen). Because her opinion was not strongly held and mine was, I "won"…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 03:44 AM
3

It seems that information could be easily gleaned from medical records. I think what you're trying to get at is "diagnosed". Just because women are diagnosed more doesn't mean men don't suffer more. It just means men are not diagnosed as much as women. So both may be technically true (women are diagnosed more, men are more likely to actually be depressed), and there's no way to prove the second without men actually being diagnosed.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 10:25 PM
35

You can get some of it back. See /r/foreskin_restoration. You won't regrow the tens of thousands of missing nerves and such, but you can at least get back a protective covering that will over time allow the glans to slough off old keratinization and return sensitivity.
/r/MensRights09/09/17 11:33 PM
23

Absurd. She's either a complete idiot (doubtful) or lying through her teeth. Why not both? It's pretty clear she is a complete and utter moron, but she might also be intentionally lying.
/r/MensRights09/09/17 11:31 PM
3

My kids lost their mother, but you know a "special person" cake would never fly on mothers day, or an "all the single fathers" cake. They just get to suck it up and be sad.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 12:24 AM
2

I wish that would've explained why that works (the presenter almost explains it at the end, says, "The reason it works ..." and then goes to show how it can also be used for algebra). What relationship between the lines is being exploited here? Not knowing the "why" means this, while interesting, is just one more memorization of "how".
/r/MensRights29/08/17 09:39 PM
2

Assembly language is just another computer language. But a course in computer architecture (which will teach you assembly as a side effect) will teach you how computers actually work.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 07:50 PM
2

CLR(S) (the "S" wasn't part of the book when I learned it ...)
/r/MensRights27/08/17 07:42 PM
1

I'm guessing you're in software development, or a field closely related? I understand where you're coming from, but from my experience this is where people don't see their own biases. Writing code is important to you, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean it translates that writing code should be important to everyone. Don't confuse basic computer literacy with writing code. Everybody should be able to power on a PC, install apps and updates, do the things they need to do (browse the web, w…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 07:40 PM
3

His child is incredibly intelligent because he was exposed to complex music starting from inside the womb. Correlation != causation.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 07:12 PM
1

To be fair, we're getting better at least in some respects. Look at Common Core for mathematics, for example. That's entirely focused on understanding "why" vs. the old way that anybody over 30 learned (rote memorization of equations and techniques). You don't need to know your times tables if you know how multiplication works. We've still got a long way to go in other areas, and we need to stop teaching to standardized tests, and we need parents to stop bitching that the new ways are "wrong" wh…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 06:24 PM
6

I both program every day and am a parent, and I see much more value in piano (or other music lessons) because music is important (also, music == math). I don't think either should be forced to the point of "Get gud, then you can quit", but both are experiences that should be offered and if the child decides not to pursue them and can articulate why they don't want to do so (which at 9 years old should be expected), then accept that they're different people than you with different interests and p…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 06:11 PM
6

It teaches a person how computers "think". Not the way it's generally taught at the basic levels, and I almost guarantee it's being taught incorrectly by the author, too. "Learning to code" in this context is almost always a euphemism for rote syntax memorization of a single specific language. That's not teaching concepts any more than rote equation memorization in mathematics is teaching concepts (this is where Common Core math actually excels, and the people who complain about Common Core are …
/r/MensRights27/08/17 05:53 PM
3

But what if she believes that being able to write code is as essential as the math taught in schools? Then her belief is wrong. You could draw a rough analogy like math is to symbolic algebraic notation as computer science is to python, but that's overly specific on the right-hand side and also incorrect (because you don't need to know python to learn computer science, and computer science concepts are language-agnostic and have their own mathematics-based notation). The underlying subtext of th…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 05:38 PM
41

Everything else aside, this throwaway line in the article bugged me the most: Confession: I have told my daughter it isn’t optional to learn coding and that she must stick with it until she’s good at it and then she can choose not to do it (parenting advisors, stop rolling your eyes now!). Writing code is a means to an end, not an end state. "Learning to code" is a silly concept. That's just syntax, and doing it wrong can carve a groove that's nearly impossible to fix later. Instead, kids need t…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 04:43 PM
10

Like doing a silk bag filled with puppies.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 09:01 PM
104

It's a dog.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 08:27 PM
13

Do you crossfit?
/r/MensRights06/07/17 08:50 PM
-4

This is the same person as last time. Read the article, not the dateline: Police were called to the home on South Madison Street on Nov. 17, 2016 The only news here is in the last couple sentences, that she's now going for an insanity plea (formally now; though I've heard she was laying the groundwork by pissing and shitting herself in prison these past few months).
/r/MensRights06/07/17 08:49 PM
1

As an adult, there's a very effective answer to any request like this -- "No." "No" is a complete sentence. It requires no justification or explanation. It doesn't require an apology or suggesting an alternative. Let's see it in action: "Hey boxsterguy, can you help me move this weekend?" "No." "Hey boxsterguy, I need someone to mow my lawn." "No." "Hey boxsterguy, I'll give you beer if you paint my house." "No." See how easy that was?
/r/MensRights02/07/17 02:30 AM
15

Most parents don't assault the people who help them find their lost child, though. Makes you wonder who/what else he hits inside the home.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 05:30 PM
67

And if they get out of sight, don't sit on your ass, go find them. And don't punch kind strangers trying to help make up for your lack of parenting skills.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 05:25 PM
1

They're only hurdles if you make them hurdles. You can just as easily make them learning experiences. Nobody is telling you to do something silly like take womens studies or underwater basketweaving. But that doesn't mean elective "soft" classes are a waste of time by definition. They're only a waste if you make them a waste.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:18 AM
1

My CS degree was quite tough, yet I was still able to take other classes that weren't throwaways (geology, earth and environmental sciences, speech and hearing sciences, and the previously mentioned economics classes), and still completed in 4 years. This was nearly two decades ago, and I'm quite glad I was "forced" to take those classes and others. Sure, there's stuff I could've learned on my own if I really wanted to, but learning in a structured environment works better for me. Otherwise, I j…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:16 AM
2

Well, then, I guess you're just going to have to become well-rounded.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:09 AM
1

And that's why degrees make these requirements -- if you want that degree, then you're going to have to spend X hours on the various different non-STEM requirements. If you just want to churn out codemonkeys, go to a bootcamp. You're wasting your time at university if you're not actually trying to learn something beyond the mechanics of the currently popular stack. University is not a job factory. Treating it like such is a waste of time and money. Get a cert, do a bootcamp, go to trade school, …
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:00 AM
3

I wanted to be an engineer, but I still learned about the history of Islam, how different cultures around the world treat death (large emphasis on Hindu and Tibetan cultures), the economics of industry and monopolies, and the science behind speech and hearing (I actually applied concepts of this in the real world when my wife had a stroke and was aphasic, helping me to better understand what the doctors were telling me). Just because you want to sling code or whatever doesn't mean you shouldn't …
/r/MensRights17/06/17 10:11 PM
6

You wasted an opportunity. Instead of min/maxing for ease, you should have actually learned something. My STEM degree (CS) required an "emphasis" in a non-engineering discipline (4 classes across two years -- not enough to be considered a minor, but enough to learn something useful). Sure, you could optimize that for whatever would get you the highest grade with the least amount of work, but the better approach would be to learn something. I did my emphasis in economics, macro, micro, advanced m…
/r/MensRights17/06/17 10:02 PM
1

You missed the joke. The article ends with: “We can fit him in today if you’d like!” replied the doc. “Your insurance doesn't cover it any longer because it's considered a cosmetic procedure, so you’ll have to pay the full $500 up front. Is that okay?” While in reality, the AAP makes sure that circumcision is covered by insurance so that they can keep getting paid. Most people aren't stupid enough to pay $500 to cut their kid's penis, but they'll do it if it's "free".
/r/MensRights04/06/17 04:30 AM
7

I didn't vote for Hillary, but I also didn't vote for Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for a 3rd party isn't a vote for Hillary, but it's also not a vote for Trump. (I wrote in Bernie)
/r/MensRights04/06/17 03:27 AM
3

Obviously trolling. Insurance fully covers infant circumcision. The damn AAP made sure about that so they'd keep getting their paychecks when parents balk at the uninsured price.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 11:30 PM
14

Don't read too much into the wording. He's "desperate" to get her the fuck out of his house because she wouldn't leave, not "desperate" to get laid.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 06:45 PM
19

Now you're suggesting something different, trying to gather DNA/fingerprint evidence that the lady grabbed his phone. That's not what you initially suggested, only suggesting that OP get a specialist to try to recover the recording. My point was that "recovering" the recording is almost certainly as simple as plugging the phone into a PC and copying off the recording, since even slamming a phone to the ground usually isn't enough to stop it from running (no screen != not running).
/r/MensRights30/05/17 05:23 PM
54

That's overkill. He should just try plugging his phone into his PC. Even if the screen doesn't work, the phone likely still turns on and will connect to a PC to transfer data.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 05:13 PM
3

To avoid a "no true Scotsman" argument, this is very important: they actively oppose MRM for their own reasons Without that, you get the, "radical feminists are not feminists, either, and shouldn't be equated with feminism," counterargument. Except that radical feminists claim feminism. Red pillers do not claim MRM.
/r/MensRights21/05/17 09:16 PM
10

There are more options besides Girl Scouts and Mormon Boy Scouts. Look at 4-H. It's truly equal, there are no things that boys get to do that girls don't and vice versa. If a girl wants to show cattle, she can. If a boy wants to learn to cook, he can. It's also completely non-religious, and supported by university extension branches. A lot of people ignore 4-H because think it's just for farmers. It's not. It's like scouts but way, way better.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 07:55 PM
3

Selling it was really easy, too. "Do you want to do wound care in a septic environment like a diaper? Or do you want to clean it no differently than you'd clean his pinky finger?" And of course since number one wasn't cut, you can't cut number two. That'd just be weird.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 11:04 PM
7

Her position was, "I never really thought about it, and so I have no strong feelings either way." So I got to choose by default, and chose the only obvious, rational, non-abusive path.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 10:58 PM
11

To be clear, that part of the discussion was solely about who would hold the kid very first thing out of the womb, not who would do skin to skin. Either way, that kid was going to get pressed up into my naked, hairy man boobs. The question was whether that was before or after mom got snuggles. We landed on the decision that she would get first snuggles (I won the "circumcise or not" discussion and my kids are both intact), but circumstances change and I took the opportunity when it arose.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 05:17 PM
8

Yep. There can be only one "first hold", and she understandably wanted first. That was fine with me, but it turned out in my favor anyway.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:56 PM
23

I was lucky enough to get first skin to skin contact with both of my sons when they were born, if only for a minute. It's something my wife and I discussed as something I wanted to do for bonding purposes (I can't breastfeed, obviously ...). She wasn't 100% on board, but when both kids ended up breech and had to be delivered c-section that gave me the opportunity to carry the kid to her after cutting the cord and the nurses did all their measurements. I just opened up the surgical gown I was wea…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 08:27 AM
5

It's besides the point, though, as neither should be necessary.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 07:52 AM
11

My kids' mother died. How am I supposed to get a notarized letter from her allowing me to travel with my own kids? And this just adds one more reason to my ever growing list why travelling by air makes absolutely no sense. If family wants to see my kids, they can come to me, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 11:33 PM
5

I grew with no mother. She passed away very early. However my dad knew how to take care of me and he did a fucking awesome job and I owe him a lot. I'm sorry you lost your mother at a young age. I'm also glad you turned out all right. My own children lost their mother when they were very young (2 years old, and 1 month old) and I'm raising them on my own (with the help of maternal grandma and grandpa). I hope they can say the same about me when they're your age.
/r/MensRights03/04/17 09:54 PM
2

It's highly unlikely a changed position would open them up to lawsuits. Otherwise you disincentivize any sort of growth, and they'll hold onto incorrect or outdated recommendations forever to avoid getting sued. However the insurance angle is very real. By not dis-recommending the procedure, insurance companies will cover it. If insurance companies cover it, then a) people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford the $3-400 procedure will now opt for it, and b) they can sell it the same way they…
/r/MensRights31/03/17 06:46 AM
23

Meanwhile, here's the AAP's take on infant circumcision: After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. tl;dr: We …
/r/MensRights30/03/17 10:14 PM
15

The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and doesn't separate until puberty (sometimes later). Not entirely true. It often separates earlier, as early as 2-4 years. But it doesn't have to, and it's not abnormal for it not to. It doesn't change that you're right about not being able to diagnose phimosis prior to puberty, though.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 09:15 AM
5

There is no medical necessity for infant circumcision. The main non-infant medical reason would be phimosis, but there are better ways to handle that (non-surgical means like steroid creams, or z-plasty if creams don't help). Phimosis can't be ethically diagnosed until at least puberty, but that doesn't stop bad pediatricians from diagnosing a natural non-retractable prepuce as "phimosis".
/r/MensRights26/02/17 11:13 PM
4

IMHO, the AAP is the largest reason why infant circumcision continues to happen in the modern world. Unlike every other public health organization worldwide, the AAP endorses circumcision based on bullshit evidence (the Africa AIDS studies, which have been debunked as bad science). The difference between the AAP and the CDC or WHO is that the AAP is not a public health organization. It's a professional association, whose goals are to further the pediatric profession, not to further the good of p…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:32 PM
1

I got it from the BBC. The ritual dates back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. According to tradition Muhammad was born without a foreskin (aposthetic). Some Muslims who practise circumcision see it as a way of being like him. Also, this Circumcision is not compulsory in Islam but it is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. It is strongly encouraged but not enforced.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 06:54 AM
21

Technically, there's no circumcision covenant in Islam as their is in Judaism. Muslims circumcise because supposedly Muhammad was born without a foreskin, not because God told them to. Americans circumcise because of John Harvey Kellogg (yes, of the cereal family), as a Puritanical approach to preventing masturbation. It caught on because circumcision did have some minor cleanliness benefit in WWI's filthy trench warfare. And from there it spread because, "A boy should look like his father," and…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:32 AM
2

Guys know they're going to die from heart disease. They just don't care. Apparently women don't know that heart disease can affect them, too, so "messaging". Except that they've been saying this for at least two decades, so if women don't know by now that they need to worry about heart disease I don't know what yet another campaign is going to do.
/r/MensRights05/02/17 03:23 AM
15

Just wait, she'll turn him into the saddest of all football fans before she's done -- a Browns fan.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:26 AM
-3

You're still presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody's saying, "Pay for my tampons or I'll cut a dick."
/r/MensRights26/01/17 11:54 PM
64

Both of my sons are uncircumcised, also the first male in my family not to be circumcised in who knows how long. When my oldest was just a baby, only a few weeks old, we took him to the pediatrician because he was looking a little jaundiced. Our regular ped wasn't in, but her father who she practiced with was there. The first thing out of his mouth when he had the kid naked for an exam was, "So when are you going to have him circumcised." I told him we're not, and then we went and found a differ…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:27 AM
31

I just about bawled right in front of him because he was so utterly oblivious of the meaning attached to that stupid stuffed camel. He was 15. Of course he didn't get it. Someday he will.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 11:25 PM
3

I can't imagine it will stand for long. There's still the federal Supreme Court they could appeal to, and even the majority opinion basically said, "It's up to prosecutors to decide when to apply." Of course that's a shitty thing to do (prosecutor's are not known for applying good judgment in this kind of scenario, and giving that 90% of cases will end in plea deals this is basically just leverage for prosecutors, "Take the misdemeanor disorderly conduct and pay us a big fine and ruin your life …
/r/MensRights18/09/16 10:23 PM
14

Not in Arizona. Any doctor performing circumcisions would run afoul of this child molestation law. Win?
/r/MensRights18/09/16 07:14 AM
1

Nope. All I'm saying is that we don't know anything concrete until the weekend is over. But what we do know, in terms of hard numbers, isn't exactly promising. The estimate has already been revised down once, by a fairly significant amount. There's no reason to assume it's not still overly optimistic. Anecdotally, I don't know a single person who was interested in seeing the movie, regardless of reason.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 08:03 AM
10

Those are estimates. The only way to know what the movie actually earns on opening weekend is to wait until opening weekend is over and count the ticket sales. The only truly solid number right now is the Friday opening of $16.9m.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 03:30 AM
10

So basically the guy's no worse off than he would've been otherwise. And if it's any consolation, the girl will likely transfer out of engineering and lose her full ride. Not because she's a girl, but because engineering is fucking hard and if you don't have a high passion for it you're not going to do well. That's the biggest problem I see with so much focus on "women in STEM". You can't force passion. There's value in showing girls (and everybody) what STEM involves and trying to get them inte…
/r/MensRights26/06/16 08:39 PM
10

"You can't take care of $20 you can't take care of a mortgage" You know how I pay my mortgage? By not spending $20 on two glasses of wine.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 09:27 PM
3

because forbes sucks and never wants to load right in any of my browsers Are you using an ad blocker? Because Forbes recently took a hard line on ad blockers. They literally won't show you anything.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 05:59 AM
8

Well, maybe the 50s, with the classic meme of the father in a bar waiting for a phone call about his wife's child birth so he can break out the cigars. Go back older than that, though, and you had a much higher rate of death of the mother in childbirth. So there would've been lots of men raising children on their own, doing the things that you have to do when you raise children, like changing diapers and giving baths and taking them out in public.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 05:04 PM
16

Nice try, NSA. I'm not adding that to my Amazon history.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 10:59 PM
1

Do what? Change the bathroom? Or blame the law? In either case, you'd have to ask them. Maybe they got caught up in the FUD and thought this was what the law requires without ever actually asking anybody. Maybe they had customer complaints from a large number of women about lack of facilities and decided to address that by allowing women to use either bathroom. Maybe this is a policy from their corporate overlords (assuming they have corporate overlords, which they may or may not) with no more j…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 07:26 PM
3

If the business actually said this was because of the law, they're lying. This is the text of the rules that went into effect last December. Mostly, this is simply a standard non-discrimination law, granting transgender folks the same protections that everybody else already has. The key provision regarding bathrooms seems to be this: (4) Provision of options encouraged. Whenever feasible, covered entities are encouraged to provide options for privacy, such as single-use gender-neutral bathrooms …
/r/MensRights13/04/16 04:01 AM
15

What WA law is it that requires this? I'm not aware of any. If they're thinking of the transgender bathroom law, that only allows transgender men and women to use the bathroom of their preferred gender rather than of their birth gender. There's nothing in that law that says, "Turn men's rooms into anyone's rooms!" If a business chooses to do that, that's on the business, not the law. They could have just as easily decided to make the women's room an anyone's room, or made all single-occupancy ba…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 12:17 AM
9

That picture of the kids in their little bumbo chairs on top of a kitchen counter should be grounds for not only giving the guy his daughter back, but also taking away that family's other kids. That's a dangerous, stupid thing to do, and thinking that's a good image to share with the media shows a lack of intelligence on the parents' parts.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 06:38 PM
1

I thought we only voted that way in America?
/r/MensRights22/03/16 04:54 AM
1

I was willing to forgive it from the girl, because she's very obviously dumb. I could've even forgiven it for the guy, because he was dumb enough to stick his dick in crazy. But when they both did it, it becomes indicative of a larger problem.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:37 AM
2

Do kids these days not know that it's "would've" rather than "would of"?
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:08 AM
1

Maybe, but I don't think selecting for gender would constitute fraud unless they didn't disclose that up front. That'd be like saying you bought into a fund that invests in the S&P 500, and then you try to sue them for fraud when they ... invest in the S&P 500. The fund told you up front what it was going to do, and then it did it. If the strategy was flawed, and it sounds like in this case it was, that doesn't make it fraud. It just makes it a bad idea. And bad ideas are definitely not illegal.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 09:17 AM
5

Fraud would have legal implications and the potential for investors to sue to get some money back. A bad idea is just a bad idea, and buyer beware.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 02:53 AM
2

College is basically daycare for overgrown children "<Anything> Studies" classes in college are daycare for overgrown children. Don't malign the rest of the useful educational system by lumping them all together.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 10:46 PM
1

Women, call this number if you're being abused. Men, call this number if you're abusing someone. Yep, better than nothing!
/r/MensRights19/02/16 06:19 PM
1

Why the hell is your wife hitting you in the first place?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 12:51 AM
-1

FYI, "pwn" is pronounced "own". See Pure Pwnage for proof (pronounced "Pure Ownage").
/r/MensRights25/11/15 08:55 PM
17

Fuck this lady right in her ass. Definitely call the cops. You did better than me. If such a bitch was standing between me and my boys, she'd have been laid out flat in a second. (probably not, but I'd like to think I would) I lost my wife this year, shortly after my youngest was born. I'm behind you by ~3 years in that, then (oldest will turn 3 in a couple weeks, youngest will be 1 in Feb). And they're boys, so I suppose there's less "ZOMG, pedo!" bullshit. Luckily for me, I haven't run into an…
/r/MensRights20/11/15 07:55 AM
9

Ben Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, though.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:52 PM
0

I say "No" to Movember because No Shave November existed first (as a tradition, not a charity), and because I'm not shaving my beard down to just a mustache for a month.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 04:51 AM
3

Are you thinking about the balls? Because that's different.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 10:27 PM
2

Who or what is "they"?
/r/MensRights16/10/15 09:57 PM
41

Oh, no, it's normal to know that raping is wrong. Your problem is that you don't actually know what rape is. That's why they have to teach you. /s
/r/MensRights16/10/15 07:25 PM
9

Who cleans the gutter and mows the lawn? The lawn boy. Duh.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:23 PM
3

Don't forget Amazon Mom.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 10:47 PM
14

eventually finding out that no similar day exists for them But every day is for them! This one day is special for the girls! /s
/r/MensRights09/10/15 10:33 PM
14

There's one huge, gigantic difference that you missed: I don't have to cut off a part of my child's body to vaccinate him. If I did ("We can make your kid immune to measles, but he'll need to lose the first knuckle of his pinky finger"), I'd probably think twice about vaccinations, too.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:07 AM
12

Wow, I wonder if they get something out of it and that's why they push it so hard. $2-400 for a trivial snip, with backend on selling the foreskins afterward. Not a huge payday, but nothing to sneeze at when you can make $400+ in a minute. But really, though, I think it's just the byproduct of a different age. The first ped I mentioned as an old guy. Our actual ped was his daughter, and she was fine. But we did a walk-in, and he was the ped on call, so he got the kid. He also cautioned us to get…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:05 AM
24

Older doctors will tell you that your kid will have urinary tract infections, or that a little redness at the tip (which is totally normal) is a sign of an infection, or they'll try to retract it and when it doesn't retract (because the foreskin doesn't detach for a couple of years, or even up until puberty for some kids) they'll try to tell you the kid has phimosis and needs to be cut. Aside from medical scare tactics, they'll tell you it's hard to keep clean (but keeping an open wound clean in…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:40 AM
-17

Either there's a failure in reading comprehension here or I'm not making myself clear. I didn't say tell your supervisor off. I simply said that I don't take ambiguous commands that change my currently scheduled plans. I get that you were still working. I assumed you were going to do another task. I said that if it were me on the way to that other task and got a text saying, "Come back, need to do something," my response would not be to immediately turn around (because I'm on that other task now…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 11:23 PM
-16

Fair enough. I'm not saying you were wrong to go back or should have known it was a setup, if it even was a setup. I'm just saying that for me, personally, in my own job, I would require more information than just "Come back, we've got to test something" for me to change my work plans or my non-work plans. Tell me what it is that needs to be tested, because it could be something that could be done remotely, or could be explained over the phone in 2 minutes, or could be something I already did an…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 10:36 PM
-19

On the other hand, if I've left work for the day, I'm going to need a better message than "we need to test something" to come back. You tell me what it is we need to test, and why it's so important that it can't wait until tomorrow and then maybe I'll come back. But probably not, because this is IT work and most IT work can be done completely remotely. I'll respond back, "email me the info, I'll check it out once I get home, have dinner, and put my kids to bed."
/r/MensRights05/09/15 09:47 PM
6

Ding ding ding! This is a niche class in a useless major that nobody is required to take nor would anybody take it on accident (like I accidentally once took a class about death in literature; turns out it wasn't that bad). If this were for example a required course for all majors, that would be a problem. Instead, this is a "You just wasted your/your parents' money" class, and not something to get riled up about.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 11:57 PM
17

I wish there were more people like you. Kids need a balance of both female and male authority figures, and the males shouldn't only be police officers, school principles, and gym teachers. The lack of males in early education (and increasingly into elementary, middle, and even high school) is a huge disservice to all of our children.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 09:24 PM
14

I really hope this is typical, because my kids have lost their mother. They're still young, so not in a school where they would do crafts for mothers day. But when they are in a few years, I hope they don't get left out when all of the other kids are doing stuff.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 04:50 AM
3

why did the cops even show up? Because the cops are obligated to show up. They're not obligated to arrest anybody, or even do anything more than observe the situation, decide the caller was an idiot, and drive away. But they must go. If they don't, and the call was actually legit, then they've opened themselves up to legal troubles. It's the same reason why if you call 911 on accident and hang up rather than explaining that it was an accident, you'll find several cops and probably an EMT or two …
/r/MensRights25/05/15 03:13 AM
15

You gave them the satisfaction of driving you off. If there's a next time, don't do that. They can either say something or keep giving you death glares, but the ball's in their court. You're doing nothing wrong.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 12:26 AM
9

Floor? Fuck that. I'll do it on the sales counter. I'm not hurting my back because they won't give me a proper changing table.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:27 PM
6

Try re-reading. There are people who aren't really bar goers, but who go to bars because that's where they can meet people. So let's say you do the same, and you meet someone like that and you hit it off. Do you think you or she will continue going to bars? No, because going to bars was a dating strategy, not a "lifestyle". Think of bars as real-life dating websites. Also, going to a bar != getting drunk. There's no requirement that you have to get smashed, or even drink anything alcoholic at al…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 05:30 PM
28

Here's a truth that's not necessarily obvious: There are other people who go to bars and clubs to meet people even though they're not necessarily into that "lifestyle" or other people who are, but they go because that's a place where it's deemed socially acceptable to meet people. So it's very possible that you could go out to a bar, find another person with compatible beliefs, and then never have to go back to a bar again. But if you pre-judge everybody in a particular place without getting to …
/r/MensRights10/05/15 04:49 PM
13

Do you go places sometimes and leave places other times?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:07 AM
-3

There is nothing in marriage for a man, unless he's marrying up and into old money. That's not entirely true. If your spouse makes significantly less money than you do, the tax advantages are worth it (all the limits basically double, so if your income doesn't also double then you're in a lower bracket with higher limits for things like Roth IRA contributions). There have also been studies that show married men tend to earn more and get promoted faster, though there's a causation/correlation iss…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 03:49 AM
175

I think you missed the point. The girls in the last panel all look identical to the girl in the Gender Studies booth. Implying they lose their individuality and conform to the gender studies radical feminist ideal. It's not specifically about having red hair and glasses, but that they all look the same.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 07:14 AM
10

The article said women who take the benefits are also marginalized. Which is probably an HR nightmare waiting to happen. The difference is twofold: Programs exist for women that don't exist for men, though both get penalized for using them, and Men were much more likely to fake it rather than ask for official support
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:21 PM
9

The "better product" here is that women get two gyms (the main gym and the women's gym) while men only get one (the main gym). The implication is that women can choose to work out in either gym, and men can't. So if all of the machines are taken in the main gym, a man has to wait but a woman can go into the women's gym and keep working out. Seems like either the women should pay double or the men should pay half.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 05:26 AM
2

But I was really nervous with our firs Everybody is. The second one is generally much easier, at least for worrying about. I know it as months before I could let my first sleep without checking that he was breathing every half hour or so. The second, eh, whatever.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 01:09 AM
3

Just don't drop them, you'll be fine.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:50 AM
8

Also - anyone who has spent much time around newborns can see that they feel pain. Absolutely this. Any parent can tell you their children can feel pain from day one. It's patently obvious.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:57 PM
8

So you'll spend half of your life in crippling debt, and once you dig yourself out of that hole in your 40s you'll spend all of your money keeping up appearances because a 40-something doctor should have an expensive house and fancy cars? Maybe by the time you're 60 you'll have a comfortable amount of savings, just in time to retire or move into private GP practice because your physical skills (hand dexterity) are waning and you don't have the ability to stay on top of new information. GPs don't…
/r/MensRights11/04/15 09:53 PM
3

Assuming you own it legally and have the proper permits to carry it in your vehicle (this often requires concealed carry), leave it alone. If the cops get a warrant to search your car, inform them of it and your legal status to have it, but otherwise there's no reason to do anything about it.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 04:25 PM
4

Is she in prison for naming her son Jayden? Because she should be.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 07:09 AM
2

Men aren't a protected class like race or religion or women. So there can be no hate speech against them.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:59 PM
1

As a parent, yes, you should leave the damn thing alone, so good job. If you're the owner of the penis in question, it will be played with. When the kid pulls it back on his own, then it's ready to be pulled back. Not before.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 01:54 AM
6

Depends entirely on the person. Some foreskins retract as early as two years old. Others don't retract until well into puberty. Neither is a problem nor abnormal unless as /u/Black_caped_man said it causes pain or prevents urination.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:25 PM
22

It's only diagnosed by quacks, or in this case likely paid off by the father to lie. Phimosis generally can't be diagnosed until late puberty.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 05:35 PM
2

Obviously. But that didn't stop the procedure from becoming popular enough to be self-sustaining.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 06:45 PM
20

It was popularized at the turn of the 20th century by idiots like Kellogg (yes, the cereal family), who saw it as a way to prevent masturbation. The things they did to women (cutting off the clitoris, pine sol douches, etc) were arguably worse, but circumcision is what stuck because it became cultural ("a boy should look like his father").
/r/MensRights28/02/15 06:25 PM
11

IIRC, the CDC's recommendation was "not enough information to say one way or the other." Vs. the AAP's recommendation of "insurance companies should continue to pay for routine infant circumcision". Even the (paraphrased) wording gives away their bias -- they're not concerned about the health of the child, but the money. Because if insurance didn't cover it, far fewer parents would pay to have it done. Edit: And apparently my info is out of date. Stupid CDC.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:19 AM
4

And that recess does have value. But there's too much investment now for them to change quickly, reducing homework and bringing back recess.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 10:56 PM
9

Unfortunately, schools are moving more and more to overloading kids with homework, because "it helps prepare them for college". And they're doing this at younger and younger ages, with even kindergartners having hours of homework each week. Like you, when I was in K-12 (nearly 20+ years ago, now), I very rarely did any homework outside of school. Which is not to say that I didn't do homework, but that I was able to complete all of the work during school hours. And I handled college just fine.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 09:58 PM
22

Money can be paid back. Ruined lives are much harder to rebuild. A good attorney is your only way out of this now.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 11:24 PM
12

Three hots and a cot. Sounds better than living in poverty to pay for a child that is neither yours nor that you "established a bond with" (another favorite of the WA state system to find any poor bastard to put on the hook for child support).
/r/MensRights26/10/14 03:14 PM
3

Doctors and insurance companies. Parents ultimately lose money even on "routine" circumcisions with no complications because wound care is not free. The procedure is worth $3-400 by itself, and the removed foreskin is worth another $3-400 for cosmetic and research purposes. With a payout of $6-800 for a procedure that costs a couple minutes of time and pennies in materials, is there any question about why the AAP still supports circumcision while every real public health body is negative or at l…
/r/MensRights18/09/14 05:11 AM
5

Sure it is. 1 million thousand == 1 thousand million == 1 billion.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:09 PM
17

Thousands can be correct, just inefficient. There are surely a couple million thousand normal men out there.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 02:53 PM
3

Sexphobia + moral panic + inertia + money == male circumcision at birth is still the majority in US. US circumcision really stems from Dr. Kellog (yes, of that Kellog family) pushing it as a prevention of masturbation around the turn of the 20th century. Then came inertia (a son should look like his father), and finally big pharmaceutical. An infant foreskin is worth approximately $400, and the procedure itself worth another $2-300. For that kind of money, it's no wonder that scam organizations …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:10 PM
1

I wasn't being a dick. Barring disabilities, I've never heard of anyone not being potty trained by elementary school (Kindergarten doesn't count, though that's still very late). I'm talking about learning not to pee/poop in a diaper, not the occasional accident or bed wetting.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 07:46 AM
1

If you remember your potty training, you've got one hell of a memory. Or you weren't potty trained until elementary school.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 07:32 AM
1

She mentioned that he might be confused that his penis is different from his daddy's This is the most ridiculous argument ever. If you're hanging around naked with your son enough for it to even be a topic of discussion, then a) you probably need to change some behaviors, and b) it's a very easy discussion to have. I don't understand people who are so afraid of talking to their children that they would instead mutilate their child's penis to avoid that talk.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 06:09 PM
8

I have a son. I made sure he was not cut. One recommendation, if at all possible you should have the discussion before the kid is conceived. I know not all conceptions are planned, but if you are in that position it needs to be an area of conversation along with all of the other stuff (do we want kids? can we afford kids? day care or stay at home mom/dad? etc). You might find your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/SO has strong opinions on it, in which case you might even consider not having a c…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 06:06 PM
15

Youths == minors. If you're over 18+, you're on your own.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 04:49 AM
15

It would probably hinge on how many "all the guys" actually are. If there were only two or three male employees then it's unlikely a case could be made. But if there were 5+ of them all fired at the same time that's a little too coincidental. Even so, it can't hurt to consult with a workers rights lawyer. The worse thing they can say is you have no case.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 09:05 PM
5

Pedantic reply: It's "arriba". The "rr" is not two 'r's, but a single letter 'rr' in Spanish where the 'r' sound is rolled more than on a single 'r', thus the long rolling indicated by your multiple rs. The 'i' is pronounced "ee" (English long-e sound) in Spanish while 'e' is always pronounced as "ay" (English long-a sound). The 'a' is pronounced "ah" (English short-a sound). Not that it helps your situation at all, of course. Unless you really are going to book it to Mexico, in which case you'l…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 05:17 AM
6

While the first is usually an in-patient procedure Out-patient. In-patient implies a hospital stay, which is only needed if there's a complication. So yeah; if we wanted to encourage people to seek surgical birth control solutions we really should be encouraging the vasectomy. And there it is. I suspect that The Powers That BeTM don't want to encourage surgical birth control solutions at all (because they don't want to encourage any birth control). So you can either have a painful, complicated s…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:33 AM
1

US in the 80s, midwest public school in a town of ~3500 people. Things may have been different in different places (east coast vs. west coast, urban vs. suburban vs. rural).
/r/MensRights29/10/13 12:17 AM
1

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure we had three. Maybe we only had two and I'm mentally splitting lunch recess into two. But then we started school at 8:15 and didn't leave until 3:30. Schools these days seem to start much later and leave earlier.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 11:24 PM
17

Exactly my reaction. WTF? When I was in elementary school in the 80s, we had three recesses -- morning recess, lunch, and afternoon recess. That was in addition to gym class. That schoolyard free-play time is just as important to a child's development as structured class time. Is it just about money? Shortening school days by removing recess in order to send teachers home earlier with less pay? Maybe some money ought to be spent on education, rather than wars and incarceration (yeah, I know, eas…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:37 PM
1

Which of those medical conditions apply to hours old infants? The most common medical justification for circumcision is phimosis, but that can't be diagnosed until puberty, can't be reliably diagnosed until late puberty, and has several less-drastic options to try first (steroids, z-plasty, dorsal incision, etc). The rest of the commonly-cited medical justifications are either bogus (UTIs, "cleanliness"), based on bad data from flawed methodology (AIDS and STI transmission), or something not wor…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:21 AM
2

You're right, I gave the AAP too much credit by saying that they coincidentally get things right sometimes. I should've said they get things right (from the patients' benefit) in spite of themselves.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:35 AM
23

Fuck the AAP. They're not a public health organization. They're a professional organization for the promotion of pediatric physicians, and as such their "advice" is geared towards what's best for the doctor rather than the patient. Usually such advice correlates (get a flu shot -- good for the doctor because $$$, but also good for the patient), but not when it comes to circumcision. The AAP promotes it (or rather, promotes the idea of insurance paying for it, which amounts to the same thing as p…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:43 PM
12

Circumcision == genital mutilation. Surely you've heard of female genital mutilation? You know, that act that's illegal in almost every country across the world?
/r/MensRights09/10/13 11:29 PM
8

I just wish they'd done that for me before I was old enough to have to get it done myself Why would you have to get it done? I'm 27 now and it doesn't bother me now, but puberty and racing hormones and being scared that a girl will freak out on me Depending on where you are, being circumcised may actually be in the minority. That's certainly true for the coastal US these days, for example (circumcision rates are around 40% and dropping). The midwest and south are still ridiculous, though.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:13 AM
-9

Should've just taken his check and bought the kid some clothes or toys or diapers or whatever. Surely your dad wasn't going to inspect his diaper to insure you actually followed through on circumcising, right?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:06 AM
2

Which two religions would that be? Judaism insists on it. Neither Christianity nor Islam do. Some (many?) adherents do practice circumcision, but when they do it's not as a covenant with their god like it is for Jews.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 01:44 PM
1

I got it was a joke, and I didn't downvote you. I just figured I'd clarify funny/sad.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:48 PM
7

Funny that Christians argue for allowing circumcision as a religious rite when it's not a rite of their religion. Sad that people still cut their little boys. Funny-sad because it's 2013 and the world is still full of barbarians.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:27 PM
13

But the risk of breast cancer from mammary tissue is approximately 1 in 10 for women. Maybe something ought to be done about that? The main medical reason for circumcising is phimosis (warning: picture and drawings of penises), which affects maybe 1% of men. It should not be diagnosed until puberty, and a reliable diagnosis can't be made until late puberty. Cutting a boy as an infant because there's a 1 in 100 chance that he might need a course of topical steroid cream or minor plastic surgery l…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:19 PM
14

my parents only did it because they are presbyterian and it was accepted This is something I find funny/sad. A lot of pushback against making circumcision illegal comes from the religious crowd, yet the only religion that requires it is Judaism (which makes up approximately 1% of the US population). In the other Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam), circumcision is not one of the covenants with God like it is in Judaism, and in fact at least with Christianity they historically did not ci…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:09 PM
38

So what the hell, America? When did people start getting circumcised in the first place if it wasn't a religious practice? Male circumcision in the US basically came from idiots like John Harvey Kellogg (yes, that Kellogg, of the cereal empire), who advocated circumcision to prevent masturbation. A hundred and thirty or so years later, little baby boys are still mutilated thanks to inertia and America's sex-negative Puritan origins.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:49 PM
2

From the guy who gave no sources in the first place?
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:27 AM
6

I see legitimate reasons (shitty science backed) to snip, but when I presented them it was like SRS up in here. FTFY. The science behind the supposed benefits of circumcision is bad. The studies were incomplete and unrepeatable, and meta-studies of the bad data have even shown that the conclusions taken from the bad data were wrong.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:05 PM
1

Are you a bad enough dude to rescue Ronnie?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 10:00 PM
1

As a relatively new dad, I tried out /r/daddit. I quickly got tired of the front page being nothing but "here's my application!" baby pics, so I moved over to /r/breakingdad. It's less busy, but the discussions tend to be more genuine, at least IMHO.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 10:00 PM
1

I'm open to the idea that a lot of our problems are caused by old, rich, white men holding on to a system that older, richer white men held onto from other older richer white men, and that they stem from gender roles put onto men and women. Except that doesn't really exist outside of romance novels and soap operas. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to the day that I start getting invites to old rich white man meetings (I'm not quite old enough or rich enough, yet, I guess).
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:38 PM
5

From the other direction, of the buying/absorbing party, it is still a form of fighting. From a business perspective, "We can't beat you on the market, so we'll just buy you." There's a reason why hostile takeovers happen.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:31 PM
3

That's why I said "unlikely", not "impossible".
/r/MensRights15/07/13 07:36 AM
25

There's a small number of men who would elect to have this done later. And nearly all of those are for real medical issues (there is no medically relevant reason to circumcise an infant) or for religious conversion. It's highly unlikely you'll find a grown man with a foreskin who just decides one day, "Screw it, I'm cutting off a part of my dick," for no significant reason.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 06:47 AM
9

Most places I've seen that do 4-day work weeks (Intel, for example, in their chip fabrication plants) do 4x10 rather than the normal 5x8. You still work 40 hours, you still get paid for 40 hours. You just do it in 4 days instead of 5. Which is fine, if your business can allow for that. But if you're wanting to do 4x8 and still get paid for 5x8, forget about it.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:03 PM
11

And "patriarchy", and misusing words like "privilege".
/r/MensRights21/06/13 07:00 PM
4

You can call it mutilation, but it didn't become standard to hurt men, it was out of concern for hygiene. It was used to stop infections that would occur. No it wasn't. Religious circumcision (aka, Judaism) was about ritually separating a group from others in an inconspicuous way. Like the jesus fish sign and Christians. Nothing to do with hygiene. Modern western circumcision was rooted in attempts to suppress sexual expression (specifically masturbation), lead by such visionaries as the guys wh…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:29 AM
4

And sometimes they're penises. But sometimes they're not. I'm just saying, there may not be an ulterior motive here. Or there may be, but it's to my benefit so I'm fine with that if feminists want to lobby to get me time off to spend with my new baby. That doesn't mean it's an either/or situation though, where I can either have paternity leave or outlaw circumcision. We can have both.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 10:27 PM
4

I am saying that the face of this campaign is to give men a way to bond with children but it is in fact designed as a benefit for women. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 10:12 PM
5

My employer provides paternity leave (4 weeks paid, with an optional 4 more unpaid). It's about a third what women get for maternity leave, but I'm okay with that. I took the 4 weeks paid + 3 more weeks of paid vacation time for the birth of my son, and I was never dinged for it professionally. As an MRA issue, I see it as giving me time to bond with my child (that's technically how it was coded when I filled out the paperwork -- "Family bonding leave") while helping out my wife through what is …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 08:59 PM
0

basically the whole world segregates bathrooms, so if you are gonna make that argument, the bathroom is one arena its probably not worth the argument against. True, but then there are plenty of "family" bathrooms and locker rooms and many dorms have gender shared bathrooms. Hell, the bathroom most people use every day, the one at home, is gender shared. Not that I'm advocating for shared bathrooms (though the family bathroom/locker room makes a lot of sense when you're a man with young daughters…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:58 PM
3

When the cops show up that'll be a good lesson to the person accusing you, it'll teach them to never say such a harmful things to strangers with such prejudice. Except that the cop has to act as if the suspicion is reasonable. Separate you from the child. Question you. Question the child. You're basically put in a position of humiliation, and there's literally nothing you can do except hope your kid doesn't decide now's the best time to be a smart ass. What the accuser sees is a cop doing his jo…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:29 AM
3

Tell him to do it anyway. It's not like his brother's wife is ever going to know which of you changed her daughter. Or alternatively, don't change her at all. A little stinky, wet, gross butt isn't going to hurt her long-term, but the wife might get the idea when she picks up her stinky, smelly kid and has to deal with the load on her own. "Sorry, sis-in-law, but I was busy with my own kid and you told your husband's brother that he's not allowed anywhere near your daughter. So enjoy the mess, a…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:22 AM
5

And when cops are called? When you're questioned? When your kid is questioned? What then?
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:15 AM
27

Fathers, what do you think the solution is? I imagine a lot of you would NOT be comfortable with a bunch of strange men hanging around your kids at a park. How do you balance freedom with your own protective instincts? As opposed to a bunch of strange women hanging around? The solution, as it were, is to stop being afraid. Go up and talk to people. If there's a strange person hanging around, make conversation. 99.99% of the time I bet you'll find that there's nothing bad going on.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 01:13 AM
46

It generally happens not when the guy is physically with the kid, but when he's sitting on the park bench watching while the kid runs around and plays. Rather than thinking, "Oh, he must be here with his kid," or even going up and asking him, "So which one is yours?", the pedo paranoiacs immediately jump to, "He must be a pedophile, sitting there, getting his jollies watching the kids." And that's why men are no longer allowed alone in many public parks.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 11:02 PM
4

From the Nature article you linked: Each circumcision that is not performed costs the US health-care system US$313, the researchers estimate. Coincidentally, that's right around the going wholesale rate for foreskins (there was a link here a couple of days ago to a place where you could buy foreskins online for research and industrial use -- the price was more like $400, so figure in some loss for the cost of surgery and you get pretty close to $313). Obviously not doing something that would mak…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 11:50 PM
1

Just make sure you properly do no-shave november/novembeard. The "movember" hipster crap is for idiots. No real man would grow only a mustache when he could have a full, glorious beard.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 05:31 PM
2

Beardists! Maybe when you're 18 you'll be allowed to keep it. Don't think of it as not being allowed to have a beard. Think of it as biding your time until the beard can flourish as it was meant to.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:31 AM
7

Your problem is that you're not growing your beard. You're shaving it. Let the beard free. Let it be the best beard it can be. Then you will see that growing a beard is awesome. Source: I'm a beard owner.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 11:04 PM
1

Or the famous, "Evolution is just a theory!" argument of Creationists. Gender studies is not a hard science (it ain't no science at all, but we already know that, right?). Trying to apply hard science terminology to it is going to fail, hard.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:35 AM
17

Huh. Turns out this sheet of paper just says "Shut the fuck up" over and over. I guess I'm done reading?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 11:11 PM
1

Nobody gets free health care anything in the States. Or rather, it's up to your insurance (where federal Medicare counts as an insurance provider). Per the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare), health insurance providers must cover recommended vaccinations free of charge starting the year after the recommendation is made. Since the CDC's recommendation as of 2010 is that both boys and girls get the vaccine, every insurance provider should cover it for both for free as of 2011. Of course if you c…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:17 AM
1

I'm going by the CDC recommendation of doing it at 11-12 years old. If that recommendation changes before he's 11 or 12, then we'll do it earlier.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:45 PM
3

Most prostate cancers are so slow-growing that by the time you'd die from it, you'll already be dead from other natural causes.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:59 PM
2

It's worth noting that the US CDC recommends the vaccine for both girls and boys. I know our health care systems are different here vs. Canada, but as far as I'm aware my insurance covers the vaccine for my son. He's only 4.5 months old so we've got ~10 years before he'll get the vaccine, but he's going to get it.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:48 PM
1

Most prison sex is an act of domination, not of sexual preference.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 12:37 AM
1

And those are women you wouldn't want to have unprotected sex with. To be clear, I'm not saying that when you pick up a girl in a bar you need to immediately ask to see her STI panel results. This is a conversation that you have months into a relationship, after you've had the exclusivity discussion and have started talking about maybe not using condoms anymore. And it's not a one-way street, either. You need to show her your results as well.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:51 PM
3

Using condoms and getting tested is Sex 101. If you're sexually active and not doing that, you're having sex irresponsibly. Obviously once you're in a monogamous relationship (and you're sure she's not cheating on you, and you're not cheating on her), you don't have to keep getting re-tested. But you probably still want the condoms or other barrier protection if you don't trust her to take a pill properly. The part about seeing a paper copy is just covering your ass. Think of it like a prenup fo…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 12:30 AM
6

Never assume she's on birth control. Never assume she's telling the truth about BC. If you don't have a vasectomy, wrap your willy. That was your first mistake. A vasectomy is only $600 without insurance. Vasectomy or not, you should always wrap your dipstick until you've both agreed to be exclusive, both gotten tested, and have both come back with a clean bill of STD health (and you've seen the physical report, not just a verbal communication). There are plenty of STDs besides unwanted pregnanc…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 07:21 PM
9

I saw that as more, she didn't notice that he kept her from whacking her head on the drawer, but that's fine. That's what men do. We'll take you thinking we're slobs, or idiots for forgetting a wallet, or whatever, and keep you safe anyway. Men: if we pooped on the floor, we'd catch you when you slip cleaning it up.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:39 PM
3

I went to see She-Ra in the theater! At least the movie wasn't ever "girls vs. boys", but "He-Man kicks ass and She-Ra kicks ass, and they're kicking ass together". I never watched the TV series, but considering the movie was just the first five episodes edited together and it only ran for two years, I would assume it had the same vibe throughout.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 08:50 AM
2

There's definitely a nurture component, at least in terms of setting forth what's "acceptable behavior", mostly seen in older generations (and in certain communities even today) where being out as a gay man or lesbian was not considered acceptable. Thus you ended up with gay people marrying straight people, having kids, and then having a mid-life crisis and "suddenly" turning gay. I suppose it could probably go the other way, in a domineering, anti-male household, making a straight kid think tha…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:23 AM
4

The first link was just a broad overview of the subject, presenting both sides. But if you read between the lines, you'll see that the biological side of the argument has a lot of studies and data based on hard science, while the social argument is full of soft science and BS like "homosexuality is derived from a failure to resolve Oedipal issues".
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:44 PM
7

First hit on google. Or try Google Scholar. It's pretty well accepted outside of religious circles that homosexuality is biological in nature, nor a factor of upbringing. There's no "gay gene" (yet?), but even if there were there would still be people who think you can "pray away the gay", even against all evidence that "ex-gay" therapy does not work.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:11 PM
45

And the "girl power" ones like She-Ra did not have the broad overtones of "boys suck".
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:06 PM
23

she is going to create one confused male Kids are pretty resilient. If it turns out the kid is gay or bi, it's not going to be because his mom "let him" act all "girly" growing up. And if the kid turns out straight, the same applies. Unless you believe that homosexuality is a "learned behavior", in which case please learn to science.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:51 PM
61

But I don't think I ever got a notion of 'boys are mean' from the shows I grew up with. How old are you? This is a relatively new phenomenon. If you grew up in the 80s or earlier, the whole browbeating of "Boys suck! Boys are awful!" in children's media didn't really exist, or at least not as prevalent as it is today.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:49 PM
24

Because sometimes that's what people need to grieve.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 06:42 PM
0

Is it wrong that my first thought was, "So many people in this thread can't tell the difference between 'ball' and 'bawl'"?
/r/MensRights29/01/13 06:28 PM
4

In its new report, the AAP advises doctors to inform families that the procedure is medically unnecessary and even dangerous That's old data. As of 2012, due to the bullshit Africa studies, the AAP now advocates circumcision, claiming "the benefits outweigh the risks". Fuck the AAP, and fuck anybody who listens to them. Edit: Err, I misread what you wrote. But my point still stands. Prior to 2012, the AAP was neutral on circumcision, neither advocating for it nor pointing out that it's an unnece…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:44 AM
7

It's an intentional reductio ad absurdum. If it's okay, and in fact desirable, to circumcise males because of (negligible, questionable) STD risk reduction and (negligible) penile cancer reduction, would it not also be okay and desirable to preemptively remove the breast tissue that causes so many women to develop cancer?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:49 AM
2

Notching the foreskin: Superincision? Exactly (NSFW warning: there's a picture of a penis on that page) I'm not terribly familiar with phimosis but I have definitely heard of physicians, unfamiliar with uncut penises, who have jumped to conclusions. It's sad, but many pediatricians are unfamiliar with natural penises, and don't realize that the foreskin does not retract until the child is older. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it does so naturally is effectively the equivalent of attempti…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:19 AM
4

Circumcision as a cure for phimosis is a last resort. Phimosis should be treated with steroidal creams first, then notching the foreskin (not complete removal), and then finally circumcision if nothing else works. Phimosis is rare (and is a misdiagnosis prior to late puberty). Phimosis that does not respond to steroids is rarer still. Phimosis that does not respond to steroids and is not solved with a dorsal or ventral notch would be unheard of if there weren't barbarians with scalpels who like …
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:56 AM
6

If you live in Africa and believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, maybe. If you live in the modern world, with access to things like the HPV vaccine (yes, boys should get it, too!) and condoms and sex education, circumcision for STD prevention is as silly as preemptive mastectomies to prevent breast cancer in women (which actually would be effective, as 1 in 10 women will develop breast cancer, while circumcision as STD prevention is negligible).
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:38 AM
12

And as the father of a male child, they have every right to make that choice As the father of a male child, this is bullshit. I have the right to choose what he wears, what type of diapers to use, what (K-12) school he goes to, etc. I don't have the right to mutilate his genitals, any more than I have the right to tattoo or brand him. Honestly, having my son "look like me" is the least of my concerns. When he's old enough, if he sees me nekkid and wonders why my penis is different than his, I wi…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:36 AM
0

I'm currently on paternity leave right now. My employer gives men 4 weeks paid + 8 weeks unpaid (women get 1.5x that, I believe). The leave type in the reporting system is "bonding". I'm taking those 4 paid weeks plus 3 more weeks of paid vacation time that I historically use around this time of year regardless of having a newborn or not. I'm in the US. I don't know if companies or governments should force paid leave (as in, you must not work for that period of time), but I do believe that it sh…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 03:24 AM
2

There are different recognized types of FGM. Type Ia: Removal of the clitoral hood. Literally exactly the same as male circumcision Type Ib: Partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type IIa: Removal of the inner labia only. A mild form of this is accepted in the west as cosmetic surgery (labiaplasty). Type IIb: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and removal of the inner labia Type IIc: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and removal of the inner and outer labia Type III: Infibulatio…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:10 AM
2

Yeah they actually found out that most breast cancer cases that ended with mastectomies, could have been resolved with less invasive means. So yes, modern medicine, despite the wonders it can provide for us compared to the last century or so, still has a long way to go. But that's just it. Very few breast cancer cases end in mastectomy these days. Even fifteen years ago when my mom had the breast cancer, they treated it with lumpectomy, lymph node removal, chemo, and radiation an she's been canc…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:59 AM
2

Chill? I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that FGM type I is exactly equivalent to circumcision. Call it more ammo for your FGM == MGM arguments.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 02:35 AM
3

Most cases of phimosis can be resolved with simple manual stretching. Worse cases can be solved by notching a "V" into the foreskin to give it some slack. There are very few cases of phimosis that actually require a full circumcision to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, most doctors don't know this and will just go straight to circumicision. It would be like if every doctor went straight to double mastectomy every time a woman found a lump in her breast, despite the fact that most lumps are beni…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 02:24 AM
1

Circumcision is exactly equivalent to type I female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoral hood). The clitoral hood is exactly the same as a foreskin, and in fact would have been a foreskin if the child had a Y chromosome and developed male characteristics instead of female. But type I FGM is illegal and type I MGM (aka, Circumcision) is legal. How is that right?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 02:19 AM
11

I never understood the argument to increase driving age. You're not fixing the problem, only moving it. A 21 year old with no driving experience is just as dangerous as a 16 year old with no driving experience. Instead of increasing the age required for a driver's license, it should be decreased. Driver training should start as early as 13 or 14, maybe even 12. That way by the time they're 16 and can get an actual license they will have 2-4 years of experience driving and will be safer at it. Th…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 06:40 PM
5

No, it's Murphy's Law for grammar/spelling corrections. By pointing out that segway != segue, I was doomed to misspell segue. I'll leave it in the original to warn others who may be tempted to follow my example.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 06:36 AM
3

This can segway into other, more serious issues A segway is a motorized scooter, or the company that makes them. A seque is a smooth transition from one topic to the next.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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