TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

catOrmOuse Archive

View 4 posts and 162 comments by catOrmOuse on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Let's not rush to conclusions and see if they get convicted first, shall we.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 08:46 PM
3

Idiots are idiots, be they male or female. I fail to see any relevance to MR here. If they get a pass in court then we can bring it up for discussion.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 08:44 PM
4

Old news which has been discussed previously.
/r/MensRights24/04/10 06:46 AM
1

|Die Krise ist männlich. Klimakrise, Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise, Hunger- und Gerechtigkeitskrise, all dies sind direkte Folgen einer vor allem „männlichen“ Lebens-, Arbeits- und Wirtschaftsweise, die unseren Planeten an den Rand des Ruins getrieben hat. |Again my translation |The crisis is male. Climate-, finance-, economy-, hunger- and justice-crisis, all of those crisises are direct consequences of a mainly "male" kind of living, working and doing economy (good god this translation sucks) th…
/r/MensRights19/04/10 07:17 PM
2

Depraved indifference laws need to apply to this sort of thing and people should be punished accordingly.
/r/MensRights17/04/10 07:29 AM
1

I didn't mean that you need to give equal timeslots for all genders in all facilities. I meant that we should refrain from the insanity that is the "equality at all cost and in all places" bollocks. If women want women only gyms, fine, but then don't deny men the right to have men exclusive clubs. In all aspects of law etc ofc equality is a must have.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 01:36 PM
1

It's gotta start somewhere though. Ofc this applies to families at home as well.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 09:32 AM
3

Most people wouldn't care and the kid would learn that nudity is ok in the process.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 09:11 AM
2

Culture at large is shaped by adults. It's the adult's fault for teaching this approach to nudity , not the child's.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 08:50 AM
2

The probme here isn't the child. It is you not feeling comfortable. Kids copy behavior and if you feel uncomfortable to be naked around an 8 yr old then you are the one teaching the kid indirectly "that the "naked body is a naughty indulgence". Healthy approaches to nudity need to be tought by adults, you can't expect kids to learn them from thin air.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 08:47 AM
1

| Women's groups are arguing that creating too high of an evidentiary burden will result in children being sent into situations where there is evidence of abuse, but the evidence is insufficient to prove abuse to the same degree of certainty as, say, a criminal case. I don't think that is the issue here. The issue that was pointed out is that some women's organizations are arguing that 50/50 custody presumption "enables abusers". Evidentiary burdon doesn't have anything to do with presumtive cus…
/r/MensRights16/04/10 08:35 AM
3

"nice guys" can be all that , but I bet you that you wouldn't even notice it unless he ditches that behavior in favor of the "bad guy" behavior to get a date with you
/r/MensRights16/04/10 08:08 AM
3

FTA: That the male crew went stoically to their deaths for strangers, simply because of their sex, is an extraordinary idea when you think of it. Isn't it just ...!
/r/MensRights16/04/10 08:02 AM
1

What we need is our sanity back. Some activities are best enjoyed amongst people of ones own gender, others aren't. As long as there is equal time & facilities (not neccessarilky at the same time/facility) there isn't a problem. If however one gender gets to have their own space and the other doesn't because of "equality" laws then that is sexism and must be stopped.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 07:53 AM
1

| Unfortunately these kids are already in tune to the idea that a naked person is something naughty. I wonder where that comes from ... kids learn from parents ..
/r/MensRights16/04/10 07:47 AM
3

Same in most european countries. Sanity prevails in most of the world, well .. except the US it seems where grown women get self conscious when an 8 yr old looks at them .. <g>
/r/MensRights16/04/10 07:46 AM
2

Honestly, get a grip on yourselves, it's a bloody 8 yr old kid for crying out loud. What's the kid gonna do ? stare you into the ground ??... jesus ...
/r/MensRights16/04/10 07:44 AM
4

FTA Even though Lewis´ prosecutors knew from Heaslet´s diary that her rape allegation was false, they did not pursue criminal charges against her for filing a false rape report. Instead, they proceeded with Lewis´ trial. Without being told about the critical passages in Heaslet´s diary, Lewis´ jury was faced with a choice between ´he says it was consensual, and she says it was rape´. The jury chose the woman´s story, and Lewis was sentenced to eight years in prison. Prosecutorial misconduct of t…
/r/MensRights14/04/10 05:19 AM
3

Part of the problem is that male DV victims are often seen as weaklings, losers etc by society. We need to change that perception so people are going to come forward. But I also agree on the no-fault divorce, unfortunately NY doesn't have it.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 05:12 AM
2

| Interesting that in this subreddit any accusations that are made by men are believed but any by women are almost automatically suspect. Well, let's see, there were witnesses and unless you are accusing them of not telling the truth you are just trolling.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 05:07 AM
3

You say no evidence, but there were witnesses to the abuse ! Evidence enough for any jury ! I'd say it was the lawyer for the plaintiff that screwed up by not filing DV charges against the wife prior to attempting the fault divorce.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 05:04 AM
1

Great idea ! Too bad that the premiums would be sky high.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 04:52 AM
2

Seems like a due process violation , agreed.
/r/MensRights10/04/10 10:36 PM
1

Indeed , thank you.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 07:31 AM
2

Actualy a DA stands to be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. Losing their job yes, but also losing their license to practice law.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 01:56 AM
10

Prosecutorial misconduct as the DA will find out soon I hope.
/r/MensRights08/04/10 11:39 PM
6

Then by the same token misrepresenting the use of the pill or IUD etc should also be grounds to invalidate any consent given.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 12:41 AM
2

Nothing but resentment.
/r/MensRights05/04/10 02:54 AM
3

I think it's a good assumption the author didn't take her lithium the day she wrote the article.
/r/MensRights05/04/10 02:50 AM
2

| Secondly, I am appalled that this has so many up votes and few downvotes. Claim: Being appaled by so many up votes and so little downvotes Argument for validity involving objectionable personal attribute of poster, NONE. Hence no ad-hominem argument. |This post is far more destructive to our cause than anything I have read by a "feminist" coming to r/mensrights. Again there is no argument that uses an objectionable personal attribute of the poster to validate the claim. Hence no ad-hominem arg…
/r/MensRights04/04/10 04:02 PM
4

| particularly when it comes to bashing feminists the downvote brigade becomes quite evident, and regardless of your stance on this issue the MR position has always been quite clear. <g> maybe that's because bashing anyone for their views is objectionable ? (MRA bashing feminists AS WELL AS feminists bashing MRA) You can disagree with someone without bashing them. I disagree vehemently with gender feminists , yet I can do it without resorting to bashing.
/r/MensRights04/04/10 03:44 PM
2

| Anyone who calls themselves an activist for the rights of only one particular group (their own) doesn't deserve them. So you are saying that if "Ice Cream Lovers" only fight for their right to eat ice cream don't deserve to have that right because they don't advocate the rights of "Ice Cream Haters" ?
/r/MensRights04/04/10 03:17 PM
1

I'll point to the comment by ignatiusloyola http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bm8p2/women_of_mensrights_take_two_if_you_were_really/c0ngqq2 You may want to read Christina Hoff Sommers's "Who Stole Feminism". EDIT: | The OP, whether or not you agree with him (I only somewhat agree with him) brings up a legit issue, and you claim an actual problem is just "different opinions". The OP asserts that there is a problem. I disagree with him and I am also pointing out that the notion of "them"…
/r/MensRights04/04/10 02:50 PM
1

If you see the opinion of brutay as a shaming tactic this means that his post is causing you to feel shame or in some way you perceive it as disgracing you. Shame is a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety which means if you are feeling this way you already know that you are doing/saying something you know to be not proper. Hence , if the shoe fits ...
/r/MensRights04/04/10 02:09 PM
5

If the shoe fits ...
/r/MensRights04/04/10 01:52 PM
1

Right, so because someone doesn't agree with your opinion they are subversive under-cover feminists now ? And where was the ad-hominem or shaming in these examples ?
/r/MensRights04/04/10 01:44 PM
1

No, it's a legitimate observation. The conclusion is up to the reader. rabbitspade did not attack the OP he just voiced a concern. EDIT: It isn't an ad-hominem attack because a) rabbitspade does NOT make any claim and b) he doesn't use an objectionable personal attribute about Maschalismos to validate a claim. He is merely expressing concern about an objective attribute without actually making any judgement about Maschalismos. The readers that interpret "Hmmm." as a derogatory are the ones makin…
/r/MensRights04/04/10 01:39 PM
0

| You simply want to control the dialog that goes on here. Your goal is simply to make all honest discussion CEASE So you are saying that by voicing opinions different from your own "they" are trying to take control. First off , who are "they" ? More men will not agree with the extremist side of MRAs than with the moderate middle ground . Just because someone does have moderate views does not a feminist or women make. Secondly, most discussions among civilized people only cease when the tone bec…
/r/MensRights04/04/10 01:35 PM
3

You are holding the father to a higher standard than the doctors. Also couldn't the doctors anticipate that eventually the mother would be alone with the child ? Afterall noone can watch the child 24/7. Did the doctors expect him to hire someone to keep watch while he slept ? or worked ? or went to the loo ? A reasonable person cannot be expected to watch both the wife and kid 24/7. The doctors knew this and they still released her. The doctors were in a position to prevent this, they didn't and…
/r/MensRights02/04/10 09:09 PM
1

The point is if the doctors had done what they were duty bound to do this would not have happened. This was entirely preventable. And why should we hold the father to higher standards than the mental health professionals ?
/r/MensRights02/04/10 08:37 PM
2

The process being complicated is not an excuse. The doctors had an obligation to act once they determined she was a danger to the child. If the doctors would have done what they were duty bound to do this would not have happened. If the doctors were fine with her release than how can we hold him criminally negligent ? He sought professional advice , they had no problem with releasing her. The fact is the doctors should have informed children services and either the mother or the child should hav…
/r/MensRights02/04/10 08:35 PM
8

Actually they did : From another article: Profound derangement made Valeria Maxon as dangerous to her child as a loaded gun. Doctors had told her husband so in plain English. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jfloyd/stories/DN-floyd_02met.ART.State.Edition1.4c859fe.html The doctors had a DUTY to act, they didn't and as a consequence the son is dead.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 08:10 PM
3

| As far as points B & C, I already addressed them in my previous comments. You're just repeating things now with out adding to the conversation. No you haven't. |Most importantly though, I'm not going to claim that it's not my fault when I leave my child in the care of someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to take care of it. If even mental health professionals did not see a reason to remove the mother from the home than why is the husband held to a higher standard ? This is absurd.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 07:58 PM
8

A) She was not a 4 year old B) If she wasn't seen as a danger to others there could not have been a reasonable expectation that she would harm her child and there can not be culpability. C) If she was mentally so unstable as to be a danger to her child then the court should have filed an order of protection. Short of this culpability does not exist. Just FYI mental health professionals have a DUTY to act when they see that someone can be a danger to others. They DIDN'T. This means that even a tr…
/r/MensRights02/04/10 07:37 PM
5

Then whoever warned him (mental health professionals !) should have made sure she was hospitalized as she must have been a danger to others even then. If she wasn't seen as a danger to others at the time then the warning has no merit and so does your assertion that the warning makes him culpable. If any culpability exists then it lies squarly with whoever warned him. (mental health professionals !)
/r/MensRights02/04/10 07:27 PM
7

Then whoever warned him (mental health professionals !) should have made sure she was hospitalized as she must have been a danger to others even then. If she wasn't seen as a danger to others at the time then the warning has no merit and so does your assertion that the warning makes him culpable. If any culpability exists then it lies squarly with whoever warned him. (mental health professionals !)
/r/MensRights02/04/10 07:23 PM
12

This is not justice, it is vengence. Someone needed to pay for the death and the husbsand was the only available target. I very much doubt the same thing would happen if the genders were reversed. Which prosecutor would dare put a grieving mother on trial ... but hey, it's ok to do this to him, he's just a man, not a grieving father. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 05:49 PM
1

If you are not in the UK you will need a VPN connection in order to watch this.
/r/MensRights01/04/10 01:57 PM
1

Double post.
/r/MensRights01/04/10 11:52 AM
5

Not worth loosing your job over. Write a letter to the NY Times/author instead, afterall they/he published the article. And if you're convincing enough who knows , maybe you get a follow up article published.
/r/MensRights31/03/10 10:18 PM
0

And the lesson is : don't marry without a pre-nup, and if you think you're gonna divorce anyway, do it before the 10 year mark.
/r/MensRights31/03/10 10:05 PM
20

Even a bloody cop just walks by. WTF is wrong with people ?!!!!
/r/MensRights31/03/10 09:57 PM
6

The politically correct crowd's views are getting more grotesque by the year. Why are they given so much influence ?!
/r/MensRights31/03/10 03:59 PM
-3

Original column: http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/ People don't like to be confronted with truths that don't conform to their world views and hence the vile reaction by so many. I don't think what he wrote can be considered to be the writing of a "rape apologist".
/r/MensRights30/03/10 09:02 AM
4

The US is still far better than other countries where in most cases ONLY men had to give up 1 - 3 years of their life to military service. And even today in Germany for example only men are drafted for either military or civil service while women have no obligation whatsoever. Equality?, I think not.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 10:49 PM
2

I second kindacurious, will order the book. I wonder what she would answer to the same questions today though. I'd say things have definitly gotten worse in the last 11 years. Based on the interview though it seems that her biggest problem is with consumerism and the effect that branding had on society as well as how culture is more and more owned and made by corporations in their own , not society's interest. Hadn't really though about it, but the advent of intensive branding in the 1980s and t…
/r/MensRights28/03/10 10:18 PM
3

thank you , will have a read.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 09:51 PM
0

How do you know that the social attitudes towards men in South Korea are the same as in the US or Europe ? I think there is also a difference between jobs that shape the mind and behaviour of future generations and jobs that are focused on productivity of some kind. The lack of male (or female for that matter) role models in shaping the minds of our kids is of concern that imo outwheighs the principle of a pure meritocracy.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 03:24 PM
5

Not rocketsurgery , juxtapose a degraded men with an empowered women and ofc the difference will be more apparent and have a higher impact. The same holds true the other way , just watch 50s commercials.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 03:08 PM
1

Can we please mark links to books. It's impossible to comment in a meaningful way on what amounts to jacket covers.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 03:04 PM
3

Hard to comment on something that requires purchase.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 03:01 PM
1

In Germany and the UK the issue is at least being discussed at the highest political level even though no action has been taken yet. I can't see that happening in the US anytime soon unfortunately.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 10:13 AM
3

It will be considered discrimination if the new Equality Bill gets passed. Until then just take a few birds with you. http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx
/r/MensRights28/03/10 10:09 AM
4

I am sure that excuse will fly with a jury ... not. The more outragous excuses are used in these cases the better because it will ultimately lead to people not believing a word accused in such cases say.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 02:32 PM
3

The more worrying part of the story is not that she would use violence in this situation, but the fact that noone called her on it and told her to do so would be wrong and considered domestic violence. Acceptance of this behaviour by the media and society at large as long as the perpetrator is female is the issue here.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 02:21 PM
36

The article is just plain bad. It elevates girls to the status of wallflowers that could fall apart at any moment while simultanously telling boys that even self defense is not an acceptable behaviour. To say nothing of the fact that girls can be just as abusive as boys can, albeit in different ways possibly. The author is an idiot and should stop writing feminist propaganda. EDIT: Clinical psychologist Anthony E. Wolf is the author of six parenting books, including Get out of my life, but first…
/r/MensRights27/03/10 02:14 PM
3

Did scientists honestly think that a virus that is known to cause cancer in women would not have any effect on men ?
/r/MensRights26/03/10 06:46 PM
3

The quality of the article is rather poor and the author didn't even bother to do any real research. This leads me to believe this was just material to fill column space. I would have expected better from the Post.
/r/MensRights26/03/10 04:37 PM
10

FTA: Section 5 only applies to sexual intercourse - thus the immunity only applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. It is the one consequence of sexual activity that carries no risk for boys or men, she said. Justice Dunne said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity. She said the act goes no further than was necessary to achieve this object. That jud…
/r/MensRights26/03/10 04:15 PM
5

Put her in a cell and throw away the key. This was Murder in the 1st any which way one looks at it.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 09:28 PM
10

FTA: - Domestic purposes beneficiaries will be required to accept part-time work when their youngest child turns 6, or risk having their benefit halved. - Widows on the widow's benefit caring for the same aged children will not face a work test. - Neither will older women alone receiving the domestic purposes benefit. - Men who have been widowed and are caring for children will have a work-test. - Paula Bennett admits that parts of the welfare reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act. So she admits…
/r/MensRights24/03/10 09:28 PM
3

It is one thing to sue him, but it is quite another to kidnapp him and threaten bodily harm. They were rightly convicted. Taking the law into your own hands is not an option unless you prefer general lawlessness.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 05:05 PM
2

I don't disagree that the laws are inadequate. What is under her control is to assert what happend was rape, that however does not automatically make it so. He could make the same assertion as well, albeit with the disadvantage of being male in such a case. In absence of real evidence , when it's just a matter of assertions it is virtually impossible to determin what happened. The biggest issues I see are that society allows alledged perpetrators to be named and shamed before any investigation o…
/r/MensRights23/03/10 12:48 PM
2

The big difference is that driving drunk requires direct action by the person in question and the punishment is meted out because of dangers to others , not to the driver. Being raped on the other hand is not under the control of the victim and even while engaging in higher risk behaviour may be ill advised, it does not equate to any share of the guilt, in much the same way we don't punish home owners that get burgled that didn't lock their house.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 12:13 PM
2

The assertion of "Trolling for Rape" is just sexist in both directions and really has no value. Is she engaging in higher risk behaviour ? Sure, but that does not make it any way an act of actively seeking out rape as "trolling for rape" would be.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 11:45 AM
3

While there is an undeniable asymmetry in some jurisdictions the example given has nothing to do with those as she clearly does not make any assertion of rape. She rightfully complains about him having not worn the condom but I fail to see the relevance of this particular story to the MR issue you mention.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 11:39 AM
3

I fail to see the relevance for MR here. It's drunken sex , enough said.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 11:13 AM
2

More about the book here : http://www.whygendermatters.com
/r/MensRights23/03/10 10:26 AM
6

It's not , but some ADAs are just out for the quick wins with the least amount of work.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:52 AM
3

The sentence is well within the published guidelines in the UK. When an adult is convicted of murder, a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory; but it is well known that, in this context, ‘life’ does not usually mean life. Murderers are released from prison only when they have served a period considered necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence, and have then been assessed by the Parole Board as no longer posing a risk to society. The period of imprisonment required fo…
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:44 AM
8

She was charged , that means that an ADA was responsible for this. It is a disgrace and she should at the very least be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The proper charge would be attempted murder, but the ADA probably thinks that because of his activity at the time he would have a hard time convincng a jury. Would be interesting to know if the ADA is man or women as well.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:32 AM
2

FTA: Men have learned over the years that only two extremes exist: 1) the animalistic, agressive male, or 2) the passive, indecisive, disempowered male That assumption is bogus , it's always been a full spectrum, it's not an either or. And since this is the writers premise the rest of the article must surely in the end fail.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:25 AM
5

I always thought the notion that biology and millenia of evolution have no impact on behaviour is bogus and simply based on politically correct make belief. It serves but one purpose and that is to enable discrimination based on sex, not overt, not in your face, but subtle and underhanded.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:19 AM
1

The term gender can mean both , the roles as well as the sex. If you choose to use the definition that most suits you it just means that you commit the same error that you say the author does by cherry picking studies. Main Entry: 1gen·der Pronunciation: \ˈjen-dər\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin Date: 14th century 1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjec…
/r/MensRights23/03/10 09:12 AM
4

Maybe time to have a word with the admins.
/r/MensRights23/03/10 12:53 AM
9

Consolidated List: JackSpin smithea KellyHarp7 xoe23 brk233 solace_sins MattDo34 cme333lock EDIT: Tricia_T EDIT: bringtheheat owensl EDIT: vindeisel asdfnbk Imposter Accounts OffensiveBrute cat0rmOuse catOrm0use crypt0girl
/r/MensRights22/03/10 07:29 PM
3

Add MattDo34 as well ...
/r/MensRights22/03/10 07:17 PM
3

And cme333lock ...
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:29 PM
8

Amen to that.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:26 PM
3

Was just about to say the same re brk233 & solace_sins
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:26 PM
3

Looks like he just added another account xoe23
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:08 PM
6

You are right , I don't get to pick how other people communicate, but that does not mean I have to condone their disrespectful speech. As far as social etiquette is concerned that is something that is ultimately defined by the group in question. If this reddit favours allowing this type of speech fine, but it will be to the detriment of its credibility.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 05:18 PM
6

It seems a modicum of respect for other people really is just too much to ask for from some people. If they expressed their opinions in a respectful and courteous manner I have no problem with it, but there should be a minimum required conduct. Why should I respect someone who doesn't respect the people here enough to express his opinions without swearing, cursing, shouting etc ? My issue is not freedom of speech it is conduct. Respecting other people enough not to resort to vitriole and cursing…
/r/MensRights22/03/10 05:00 PM
12

I honestly don't care where that vitriole comes from. The viewpoint is so warped it doesn't even allow any meaningful conversations. I am all for free speech, but that doesn't mean all speech should be tolerated everywhere.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 09:59 AM
3

If that were the case there wouldn't be any female fighter pilots, which there are quite a few in the US military. Also I couldn't find any convention or treaty that would be concerned with women in combat on the ILO site. If you have that information please post a link.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 09:33 AM
8

Not in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8549608.stm
/r/MensRights21/03/10 06:10 AM
5

Taken your ritalin today ?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 05:39 AM
4

I agree with all of this except: | The bad reputation of feminism around here comes from a few people who really don't understand the basic ideal of feminism: equality. Feminism has a primarily female perspective on equality, however what equality means cannot be understood until one understands the perspectives of all involved parties. There also clearly exists a differentiation between the grassroots of feminism which is more equity and equality oriented and what you find in academia and polit…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 10:50 PM
1

The headline and article are misleading and disingenuous. "Cummings was released last Thursday after Justice Jeffrey Hjelm suspended her 8-year sentence for murdering her husband James Cummings in their Belfast home." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6072091-504083.html The judge suspended the sentence, which means she was convicted. No legal precedent was established. While the judge's decision is abhorent it however does not do what the article claims it does.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 10:31 PM
6

Yeah, looks like a plug for the site. Spam ...
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:39 PM
2

Agreed.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:37 PM
4

Certainly seems that way with all the tinyurl type spam tonight.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:34 PM
4

What's with the bloody shortened URL spam tonight ?? As for that assertion "men should be in charge of women as a means of caring for female needs while women should be submissive to men as a means of caring for male needs" that is just so beyond rubbish it's not even funny. I think a cave just lost it's inhabitant.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:32 PM
5

Specific laws to protect pregnant women would not really violate the ERA as the discriminating factor would not be sex but the state of pregnancy.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:25 PM
9

That's horse manure. Equally trained men and women are quite capable of shouldering the same responsibility. They may have a difference in leadership and management style but that's about it.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:20 PM
6

The constitutional amendment enshrines a principle of law and not the implementation of laws and thus it is inevitablly this short as pure equality does not allow for exceptions.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:39 PM
7

It's actually anything but vague. It clearly spells out that discrimination in law in whatever form on account of sex is unconstitutional. The ERA was primarily defeated because of the reasons below: Another criticism of the ERA was that its passage would have had far-reaching implications, obliterating traditional distinctions between the sexes. According to this criticism, women would be required to register for the draft and would have to serve in combat, just as men must. Also according to t…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:35 PM
3

You may want to mark that as a PDF since the URL is shorrtened.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 07:11 PM
9

FTA:Mr Joseph said he would like to see the girl charged but his barrister Jonathan Temm didn't think it was worth it. And therein lies the entire problem. Until such time when such clearly unfounded malicious allegations are punished severly, the number of them will increase and so will the number of destroyed lifes.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 02:06 PM
7

I think the point here should be that an upbringing without a strong male role model is highly detrimental to boys, However that being said the father figure is also highly important for girls. The indictment surly goes to fathers who VOLUNTARILY are absentee fathers. Those screwed over by the courts are quite another matter and in these cases both the children and the father are the victims. I also think that the author is right to assert that there is a broader feminisation , it's not just boy…
/r/MensRights16/03/10 07:46 AM
2

Seems like the recommendations are already being ignored. 'Misleading' rape conviction statistic will not be dropped, says solicitor general http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7062386.ece
/r/MensRights15/03/10 06:43 PM
4

Honestly I don't care about the state's motivaton. This practice is wrong , injust and barbaric.
/r/MensRights15/03/10 03:15 AM
8

This is truely horrible. How can a country that has a justice system allowing this be called civilized. It's barbaric.
/r/MensRights15/03/10 02:47 AM
2

Reading even further in that bill it's going even so far as to make exceptions for domestic violence shelters by allowing them to discriminate based on sex. That's some "equality" bill ... better term would be "Selective Equality Bill". The condition is that— . (a) there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and . (b) B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B. That is just one of the conditions which would…
/r/MensRights13/03/10 11:15 PM
1

After reading the equality bill pamphlet (PDF http://www.equalities.gov.uk/PDF/GEO_A%20Fairer%20Future-%20The%20Equality%20Bill%20and%20other%20action%20to%20make%20equality%20a%20reality.pdf) it is becoming clear just how discriminatory that piece of legislation is. Not once , anywhere are any inequalities that affect men taken into account. Then again one cannot expect any different from a Minister for Women and Equality ....
/r/MensRights13/03/10 10:18 PM
9

FTA "Being drunk is voluntary and people who become drunk are responsible for their actions. It is not the alcohol that commits the rape," she said. "It is not an excuse. It used to be regarded as such, but it is not an excuse. It is an aggravating factor." So which one is it "Lady" being drunk means people are not responsible for their actions or being drunk means people are responsible for their actions ? Or maybe she just means what we already know : Men are responsible for their actions whil…
/r/MensRights13/03/10 02:07 AM
2

That's nonsense. He was a danger to his kids obviously, but not a homicidal maniac that posed a danger to the public at large.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 09:58 PM
2

FTA "A regime introduced by you, Abuhamza, as it had its origins in your own upbringing, but a regime to which you, Gordon, became a party." I suppose this was the reason why he was sentenced harsher, ofc if he had been femal the fact that he was subjected to the same regime would have counted as mitigation.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 04:49 PM
4

He got indefinite jail time with a minimum of 7 1/2 years to be served. She got 15 years with 7 1/2 years in prison and 7 1/2 years out on license.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 04:47 PM
8

When it seems to suit them to get benefits of some kind they are always ok to be the weaker sex. Utter bollocks ofc.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 04:45 PM
2

And to come to that obvious and easy conclusion we need a "University expert" ?
/r/MensRights12/03/10 09:50 AM
1

There is an article in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169522 FTA “The bill will cause women to stop complaining to police when they are raped by providing men with a formal alibi in court,” she warned. “The law treats men and women as being equal when it is obvious that in these matters, the men are the stronger ones.” . . . “What will happen now is that every time a woman files a criminal complaint against a man for rape, he will countercharge that the woman caus…
/r/MensRights12/03/10 09:47 AM
1

I have no problem with where he chose to invest the money , I do however have a problem with him winning the prize in the first place. He did exactly NOTHING to deserve it.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 09:30 AM
3

That is just an incredibly bad headline, the author of which is more diletant than biased.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 09:20 AM
3

FTA: Mr Rennie said the police officers should be taken on depending on their 'ability to do the job', rather than filling quotas from Home Office chiefs, and that any kind of discrimination - positive or negative - has 'no place' in the police service. This.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 09:28 PM
3

I don't believe that filing for bankruptcy will clear this debt in the UK.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 09:20 PM
11

He's handing over 4k in child support & alimony on a 6.7k salary. Why does he even bother to work I ask ? If i am not mistaken the foster care rate is around 500-600 bucks a child based on a needs assessment, why on earth has he been orderd to pay 4k with that his ex basically doesn't have to work at all if she's halfway smart. What a joke.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 08:15 AM
3

I don't think that factors such as gender, ethicity etc really play any role here. This is about a perceived "creepy" BEHAVIOR and an inappropriate response by law enforcement when in fact no laws were broken.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 03:53 AM
0

Yeah and if he's defending himself he'll end up in jail for assault etc. The problem here is that these laws like VAWA in the US create an environment where even self defense is no longer an option for men in some cases.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 01:25 AM
12

Yes, but he was never told to leave private property as he only photographed on public property. Hence there was no wrong doing on his part to warrent any police intervention.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 12:39 AM
11

The more important question here is why can private businesses use the police as enforcers of a store policy that bans a person from said private business without there having been a criminal offense to precede such and thus warrent police intervention. In short it was non of the police's business to get involved in what remains a private matter.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 11:33 PM
6

It still took 14 years of deliberate alienation by the mother for this to happen. Better late than never, but I am still not too hopeful.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:52 AM
5

This is just so beyond lunacy. Just at a loss for words really.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:28 AM
5

Since you are in the UK (I presume from the 150 quid you were talking about) you should get a lawyer straight away as unmarried fathers unless on the birth certificate may end up having NO paternal rights. http://www.family-lawfirm.co.uk/Articles/Unmarried-Couples/Unmarried-fathers-paternity-rights.aspx You might think that father's parental rights are reasonably straight-forward. Certainly the media would have us believe that fathers are being increasingly encouraged to take on responsibilities…
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:14 AM
1

Still, how can one claim to reduce discrimination and prejudice through passing by design prejudiced and discriminatory laws ?
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:03 AM
1

Existence of prejudice does not equate to unequal opportunities. Prejudice can be overcome by determination and merit. Affirmative action on the other hand results in all cases by design in discrimination and thus increases the discrimination in a given society and does not decrease it. Any affirmative action type law which does not have a built in sunset clause which requires frequent review of the "playing field" in my opinion just perpetuates the differences. Nothing worthwhile having has eve…
/r/MensRights10/03/10 03:38 AM
1

Incoming probation.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 02:01 AM
3

Reverse the gender in this ad and there would be an outcry and the advertising standards authority would probably prevent the ad to air. The portrayed sexism is not an instrument of humor it is designed to exploit gender stereotypes with the goal to drive sales.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 01:15 AM
0

Why is it that quotas are enacted as law in areas where competition is open for all. Does that not say that the lawmakers think women are not capable to compete? Why would any self respecting person who says they want equality want this kind of privilige ? Only if equality is not the goal can discrimination of this kind be in the interest of the non-discriminated against party.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 01:07 AM
2

While her actions are vile to say the least and she should be punished severly and the boys released, I fear that only the actions of the courts will exceed her level of vileness by not letting the new evidence stand. Time will tell, but if the past is any indication of the future one has to be sceptical.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 01:01 AM
5

With every passing year this is getting worse and worse. And all this nonsense is primarily driven by the fundraising needs of organization associated with feminism and womens issues, consequences for society be damned. When and where will it end and common sense be re-established ?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 09:17 AM
8

Harriet Harman is an utter nutcase for thinking that changing the gender ratio on boards will change the business environment. She has no clue what she is talking about and consequently pulls it out of her behind.
/r/MensRights08/03/10 12:28 PM
11

| But Belinda Warren, Heidkamp’s former wife, said the program is the only means she has to obtain support from her ex. It's not you that is supposed to receive the support , it's your kid (s).
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:06 PM
0

Wanna bet your freedom on it ? I gurantee you that even in those states you will get convicted , not because of the law , but simply because of politics.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 03:15 PM
5

She was living with the guy , and why do you think he bought 2 BMWs ... I hardly think she didn't benefit from HER crime. He is being used as a patsy by a clever lawyer that's all there is to this.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 03:00 PM
0

This has nothing to do with Men's rights. This is plain old law , nothing else. EDIT: The reason why it is here on men's rights is the fact that she got a pass on a crime solely because of allegations of domestic abuse. Aka the pussy pass as some people call it here.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:58 PM
9

I don't buy the coercion aspect. Clearly her boyfriend was not with her in the bank threatening physical harm. Therefore she could very easily have gotten help. The fact of the matter is she is guilty, end of story.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:57 PM
3

The reasonable expectation would be that the matter stays private between the parties involved in the actions taking place in said bedroom, which would have been the case if said girlfiriend had not invaded his privacy and distributed the dvds.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:33 PM
3

Then you probably get jailed for illegal wire tapping ...
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:30 PM
2

So now the justice system convicts based on potential for harm , even though no direct harm was done ? Hell, throw all lori drivers in jail then , their potential for killing loads of people is huge, or how about airline pilots .....
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:29 PM
12

What an utter joke. She could just as well have used him as a patsy. The only thing clear in this case is that she took the money from the bank. The fact that she took it is undisputed so it is theft irrespective of who or what happened otherwise. And if her boyfriend was involved then this is conspiracy to boot ... what an utter miscarriage of justice. PS: Did anyone else notice that the article said nothing about her having to visit hospital repeatedly for being beaten etc ? I wonder why that …
/r/MensRights05/03/10 02:19 PM
2

This is one of the underlying reasons why schools can't just act randomly and expell people because they open themselves up for being sued. Only in cases where guilt is clear and obvious can they do so. And imo that is a good thing because otherwise with the heavy feminism influence I dare say they would act simply on allegations.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 08:54 AM
1

That's not good enough. Either filming without consent is illegal or it is not! It can't be that it's one or the other as long as it serves to convict someone. The latter just makes a mockery of our justice system.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 08:16 AM
2

So how come hidden nanny cams are routinely used to convict thiefs, abusers, etc ?? In none of these cases is consent to be taped a requirement for admission into evidence.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 10:22 PM
2

Incidentally how can this be illegal yet on the other hand hidden nanny cams are routinely used to convict thiefs, abusers, etc ?? In none of these cases is consent to be taped a requirement for admission into evidence.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 10:17 PM
2

So how were the women victimized by him ? He never showed or distributed video which was taken in his own bedroom. If anyone victimized anyone it his girlfriend invading his privacy and then distributing that private footage which she had no moral right to do. The distribution was the cause of victimization, NOT the taping in and of itself. Also, why is it perfectly legal to have CCTV footage of your say yard (not necessarily a public space), but taping a defacto private place is illegal ... tha…
/r/MensRights04/03/10 09:59 PM
1

Indeed.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 05:00 PM
2

Confucius_says take a biology class. The hormonal systems between humans and animals are not so different that no hypothesis can be formed regarding observations in animals and their applicability to humans. The continued use of these pollutants including endocrine disrupters is a threat which we do not have enough data about to make any predictions with certainty, however it is of grave concern and needs to be investigated and resaerch needs to be funded instead of the issue being ignored or sw…
/r/MensRights03/03/10 03:01 PM
3

Even the original article does not actually publish the raw numbers. I don't know how credible the source is and since it doesn't seem any kind of known organization or institution I would treat all of these numbers as suspect and prone to "marketing". The fact that the original author only published the real questions on the survey AFTER his abbreviated ones were quoted tells us that he/she is not beyond at least omitting the truth. Hence, don't trust it.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 02:53 PM
1

HIV/AIDS Statistics - WorldwideUpdated September 2008 There are 33.2 million people are living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. Approximately 2.5 million people were newly infected with HIV (the AIDS virus) in 2007. UNAIDS estimates that HIV/AIDS took the lives of more than 2.1 million people in 2007. Women account for approximately 50% of people infected with HIV. In most regions of the world, HIV is affecting women and girls in increasing numbers. In 2007, UNAIDS reported that roughly 22.5 million of …
/r/MensRights03/03/10 03:19 AM
2

Just wait until after the next election and Cameron coming to power ....
/r/MensRights28/02/10 12:06 PM
4

I dare say that if humans weren't sex "addicts" to begin with we wouldn't be here today ... but hey even therapists need to make money so let's classify even natural things as deviant behavior .. gotta make a buck afterall
/r/MensRights28/02/10 12:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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