TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

circuitology Archive

View 22 posts and 1,436 comments by circuitology 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)
725

Clickbait Trashcircuitology/r/MensRights20/11/14 09:30 PM
70

circuitology/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:45 PM
41

circuitology/r/MensRights05/05/14 12:15 PM
34

circuitology/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:32 PM
24

circuitology/r/MensRights03/01/14 06:19 PM
22

circuitology/r/MensRights26/12/13 03:06 PM
19

circuitology/r/MensRights05/11/13 11:05 AM
16

Discussioncircuitology/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:38 PM
15

circuitology/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:32 PM
9

circuitology/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:49 PM
8

Storycircuitology/r/MensRights18/08/14 05:29 PM
8

circuitology/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:33 AM
7

circuitology/r/MensRights31/03/13 11:14 PM
5

circuitology/r/MensRights14/06/14 11:19 PM
4

circuitology/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:56 PM
3

circuitology/r/MensRights29/11/13 11:26 PM
3

circuitology/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:40 AM
2

circuitology/r/MensRights15/06/14 03:05 PM
2

circuitology/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:34 PM
1

circuitology/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:03 PM
1

circuitology/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:52 PM
1

circuitology/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:35 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,436 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Welcome to 2016
/r/PussyPassDenied06/03/20 09:38 AM
11

The real irony is that women used their hard-won right to vote to ...well, vote for someone else. Lol.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/06/17 07:40 PM
5

For one thing it looks like the more popular subs were taken over by admins and moderators locked out, in order to keep the site running.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 10:14 PM
7

I've read the studies from the CDC and WHO. Quoting myself: The only vaguely scientific possible benefits are reduced risk of STDs and cleanliness. Their findings are valid, but the benefits not particularly compelling and some not even applicable to infant circumcision. I never said circumcision has no benefits, I said infant circumcision has no benefits. Certainly not any that justify performing the mutilation on a non-consenting child. And even as an adult, the benefits are...not exactly grea…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 08:10 PM
11

If your boyfriend puts his imaginary friends above the welfare of your child, he doesn't deserve to be a father. That's my opinion. It's 2015, don't cut your child's dick in the name of any religion or tradition. Don't make excuses for him; if he can't or won't change, chuck him for the sake of your future children. I don't say this lightly, and it's a major reason that very high on my own list for partners is that they are not even slightly religious.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:28 PM
5

Your child's genital integrity matters more than your boyfriend's fragile ego. Or at least, it should.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:12 PM
15

Firstly, I'm not interested in how you label yourself; I'm interested in what you think. My boyfriend does not share this opinion with me, he is cut and says he is grateful for it He has an opinion, but he is unfortunately biased. He can't get his foreskin back now, and he's accepted his penis the way it is. It's not weird to him to not have a foreskin. As for it being cleaner, there is no issue with cleaning an uncut penis, none at all. I've discussed this with some female friends and my mother…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:58 PM
-1

And expert in what? Bullshit? Stopped reading, did you? Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Phillip Joseph told the court[...] I daresay he's more qualified than you are to make a judgement on this matter... EDIT: Lol this sub has gone to shit.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:11 PM
3

I didn't feel like there was any particular bias to the article's writing, it seems purely factual. Where do you get the 'tone' of this story from?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:25 PM
49

It doesn't say she was "emotional and stuff"... it says she was having a paranoid psychotic episode. If anyone here really thinks these are the same thing, I really feel sorry for you. An expert said she was suffering from delusions and defective reasoning. ... Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Phillip Joseph told the court defective reasoning meant that while Ms Jenkins knew what she was doing, she did not know it was wrong. This post is frankly pathetic.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 01:57 PM
3

No idea where you live, but this article is EU-specific.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 07:21 PM
4

What you said is mostly correct but also misleading. but does include gender It doesn't include gender. That's the whole point. Insurers (in the relevant locale) don't use your gender in calculating your premium. It includes various things that may or may not be more applicable to one gender than the other, but it does not include gender.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 06:37 PM
1

I don't think you can take this as gender discrimination given the info you've written in your post... Does the place have any male bar staff? If you are a big guy, it seems like she saw somewhere you would "fit" (pardon the pun) better in the company. This is good sense, because the next 5 guys to turn up might not have the stature you have, so while she could hire you for either job, she can only hire them for one job.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 02:08 PM
1

Confirmed stupid. You either didn't read or didn't understand my comment. If, as you state, socialism is not an MRA issue, then you agree with me when I say that mothers receiving welfare is not an MRA issue.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:21 PM
6

So-called 'Red Pill' men's rights campaigners Uhhh. Someone seems to have their wires crossed. Another ignorant media story? So surprised right now. /s
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:05 PM
4

I'm not stupid but apparently you are. BTW please don't reply to every fucking comment I've made. Children are born. True. Courts give women custody Discrimination in the court system. True. because boobs and because they show up in ourt smelling nice and with make-up caked all over their face Uh... right, ok. Welfare is paid by the state to the woman. True. But not discrimination. Fathers can claim the exact same welfare from the state. Man gets stuck with bills to the state Which bills are the…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:52 PM
1

It's not in any dictionary containing words in common usage. I'm not a socioanthropoligist socio-anthropologist, so I think I have a valid excuse as to why I've not encountered the word before. I've encountered it's meaning, of course, but not the term itself. But, my gripe is not with the word - it has valid roots and is formed correctly. My complaint is that, once again, the usage of esoteric terms is used as an attack when the reader hasn't encountered them before. The fact I didn't encounter…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:47 PM
2

Whos new here? I'm certainly not. I've probably been subscribed here longer than you've been a redditor lol. Just makes it all the more ironic that you newbies think you know everything. EDIT: Yep just checked. Posted something here in 2012. Your account was created in 2013.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:59 PM
0

I don't doubt it's a real concept, but I disagree that it's a MHRM issue. It's also a made up word that isn't in any dictionary, but yes the concept is valid.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:19 PM
8

You gotta be shitting me, you're hilarious. Only 2/10 though, too transparent.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 09:07 PM
9

Fucking hell, this is what it's come to? Making up words and berating someone for not knowing them... I guess I'm just not part of the special made-up words MRA club. Where was my invite, guys? /s I guess I'm more about dealing with facts, actual issues, and reality than trying to make myself look smarter than everyone else, unlike you, apparently. Does someone need to know "bureaugamy" before they can be an MRA? I don't think so, do you? Let's make a deal - show it's entry in the dictionary and…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 08:04 PM
13

No it's not. It's about benefits that don't discriminate between mothers and fathers. There isn't even any mens rights issue there. There is in the court system but that is a different issue.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 07:36 PM
4

Do single fathers exist? Yes, they do. Are there problems with the court system? Yes, there are. Are these benefits available to only single mothers? No, they aren't. Point 1: Not discrimination. Point 2: Discrimination. Point 3: Not discrimination. You can't say that there is any discrimination in these benefits, but you can say there is discrimination in the courts. Consider that by taking these benefits away from single mothers, you also take them from single fathers. told to get a job when t…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:20 PM
9

To add re. JimJohnson12: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ycldl/single_moms_make_more_on_welfare_than_by_working/ Some kind of shitty troll I guess.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:11 PM
2

...seriously? Who cares how many? They're available to mothers and to fathers, there's no discrimination here. If you want to post about the family court system then I suggest you do that instead of this bullshit. EDIT: hmm. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2yc907/lots_of_trp_related_content_being_posted_all_of_a/cp891r7?context=3 Lololololol almost got me!
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:08 PM
3

All the mentioned benefits are available to single fathers too. Your complaint is with the benefits, or with the fact that women get them?
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:06 PM
-1

while(missing_the_point == true) { if (subreddit == MensRights) { comment.post("This isn't a men's rights issue"); } }
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:01 PM
1

people don't have the self-respect Exactly! People may be assholes, but the fact is that pretty much every guy has at least once been an enabler. I decided some time ago not to be one. My life is better, seriously. Unfortunately though, most other guys are ruining it.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:54 PM
11

That show is always a crock.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 12:19 PM
6

EMILY TURNER is a third year law student at Penn Law. The worst part is that she might actually graduate...imagine the harm she could do! I thought you had to be smart to take law, apparently I was wrong.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 12:04 PM
0

TIL at least 9 31 people in /r/mensrights[1] think men and women should be treated equally under the law FTFY.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:39 PM
3

There may be some merit to what you say, but since there is no comparable male hygiene product, the reality is we can't assert it as truth.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:40 PM
2

In a vacuum, yes. In the context of the rest of the lyrics, not really, no.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 10:47 AM
2

She probably doesn't know the meaning of any politically charged words, but will continue to use them as most likely she has a group of similar friends who don't understand them either but give each other praise for using them, albeit incorrectly.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 05:30 PM
10

Well, except for the fact that it's deliberately obtuse - playing on a fanciful scenario that will never occur in reality. They're not saying the guy is attractive, they're saying he's not. They're saying the product makes him attractive, because he isn't. So that's pretty different, really. The one with the chubby lady is entirely serious.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 11:11 AM
1

These killings have coincided with a rise in online campaigning on behalf of ‘men’s rights' These killings have coincided with a rise in online campaigning These killings have coincided with coincided COINCIDENCE? I THINK SO. Meanwhile, these acts have also coincided with every other event in the time frame. For example, the rise in proportion of university places going to female applicants. Educating women is dangerous, people! /s
/r/MensRights01/02/15 02:05 AM
1

She could say... i.e. if you get in writing beforehand it doesn't matter anyway. Unless you suggest getting it in writing after the fact? Not sure why she would agree to that.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:29 PM
1

Or she simply "changed her mind afterwards".
/r/MensRights30/01/15 07:36 AM
11

‘offenders may take steps which, on the face might seem normal or reasonable, to distance themselves from an offence or to reframe the offence … in order to undermine or pre-empt any allegation’ That's called forming a defence, at least the last time I checked. Is a defence not allowed anymore? Just admit to it whether you did it or not?
/r/MensRights29/01/15 07:06 PM
3

If you deal with hundreds of businesses it stands to reason that you see very little of each. Or at least, 1/100th, 1/200th, etc of what a regular worker sees. I guess it may also depend on the industry. Where I work the women definitely don't take as much time off as you suggest. Maybe be reasonable and admit that you are heavily generalising and being very unfair to a very high number of working women?
/r/MensRights16/01/15 10:08 PM
2

Thanks a lot. I'm only on the first page and already: However, data now indicate that male circumcision reduces the risk of male HIV acquisition through penile-vaginal sex. It would help if you could point out where this document claims that circumcision prevents HIV/STIs. It mentions it as a goal but never claims it as a reality. Maybe the issue is that people can't read or understand what they are reading (not a personal attack!) and assume that if the words are there, then so is the meaning? …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:18 PM
3

Can you link to the one you read? I just found this from the CDC and it's talking about reducing risk. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:06 PM
2

Isn't their claim that it reduces the risk of infection? I don't think I ever saw them claiming it prevented anything whatsoever. That said, there are much better ways to reduce the risk of getting STIs - being selective about the people you fuck is one of them. By that I mean not fucking people with diseases, or even people you don't know. Should be fairly straightforward most of the time, surely.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 01:56 PM
1

Rhetorical question. Rhetorical answer.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 07:15 PM
3

Okay, but is it only men that commit violence against women? Obviously not. I was pointing out that the reason these surveys ask questions from a female perspective is because they are surveys about violence against women. If they were surveys about domestic violence in general, etc. then that would make it more difficult to justify the questions. EDIT: Actually, disregard all that I said. I just read through the [first] survey again. I thought the first time that the questions were not always a…
/r/MensRights10/01/15 01:46 PM
1

Time for some perspective. Based on the number of troops on active duty in the US military, and the numbers presented on the infographic, 0.47% of them have been killed in those situations mentioned. Based on the adult female population of the united states, and the figure presented in the infographic, 0.006% of the female population has been killed by their husband or boyfriend. According to the infographic numbers, you are 78 times more likely to die if you are in the military. That makes perf…
/r/MensRights10/01/15 01:29 PM
8

It's because their survey is about violence against women, not about violence in general. EDIT: Actually no it's because they're sexist assholes. I take back what I said.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 01:15 PM
1

They had 16 complaints from 'social media' and they took the time to even respond? If that was my company and tumblr overflowed by 16 people into real life, I would just ignore them.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 07:52 PM
3

I do agree to an extent, but I also think that if you assume both parents are sharing expenses, that's nearly £1200 a month paying for his upkeep. That seems a lot to me, so he may have a point. It may be, of course, that the dad is being gouged more than his share of the expenses, which is wholly unfair but really a separate issue.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 07:10 PM
6

Do us and yourself a favour, OP. Think very hard about every little expense that you create, and make a list/spreadsheet with the amounts you think is spent on each. Then show us and we can see if it sounds reasonable. How much is left over after you add them together?
/r/MensRights07/01/15 07:05 PM
6

Then we're having a discussion about custody, not benefits. Let's at least pick the correct topic. Single fathers exist, they can claim any/all of these benefits. Fact. There is nothing sexist or unequal about these benefits. They are available to single parents, not just single mothers.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 06:03 PM
3

Single unemployed parents in Australia can earn up to $55,000 a year in government benefits, not including Child Support, according to figures released by the Government. So why would anyone in their right-mind go back to work when they can literally earn more by simply staying at home. FTFY. Can we stop circlejerking yet? EDIT: Apparently not.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 04:16 PM
11

Assumes unemployed sole parent who is undertaking study and has two children aged under six. Calculation of JETCCFA subsidy assumes parent uses this subsidy for 27 hours a week and puts children in care for 40 weeks of the year while studying. I suggest everyone looks at the criteria for each item in that list before they start circlejerking on "scrounging single mothers". For example, the pension that they mention in the article, this is it: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/cen…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:59 PM
43

Have you seen the media in this day and age? She was forced to apologise. The other option is career suicide. Worth it? Probably not.
/r/MensRights03/01/15 10:18 PM
2

I enjoyed this comment particularly: http://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2qy2qk/what_is_something_about_you_that_you_know_reddit/cnaqck4 I'm not saying that all white, straight, cismen have it easy or anything, but if you're in that category and you live in America or another western power and you feel persecuted, then you have an incredibly narrow definition of what its like to be oppressed. You can definitely apply the exact same thing to women. I guess they just don't see that. Privileg…
/r/MensRights01/01/15 02:55 PM
7

Presumably based on the title it was because the woman attempted to make herself the victim by acting as if she had feinted. Thereby making the situation about herself being in trouble and therefore in need of help and not the guy she attacked with scissors. This means she is treated less like a violent perpetrator and more like a medical patient - i.e. better.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:47 PM
14

Not to mention, in the real world, with normal people, adult people, "no" doesn't always mean no. I don't say that to justify rape, because sometimes no does mean no. I'm just saying that sometimes it means yes. And sometimes it means "convince me".
/r/MensRights30/12/14 09:31 PM
2

Sometimes you have to use metaphors that people are already familiar with...they don't have to be accurate. The way of the world unfortunately.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 04:08 PM
1

for part-time it was -5.5% Gotta love the negative there. Not a gap, the opposite! Right? Haha. It even says the numbers are "difference between male and female earnings"...that's a difference therefore of 5.5%, not -5.5%, that's a nonsense. EDIT: Also, everyone should look at section 4. That is where the truth of the matter lies.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 07:54 PM
3

If lying about your income or occupation then having consensual sex with a woman is rape, this sure as fuck ought to be called rape too.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 08:49 PM
1

Lol. "I may be wrong but I don't care anyway"
/r/MensRights24/12/14 01:11 PM
2

The whole point of this kind of advertising is that it's aspirational. Probably applies to fitness more than any other type of product, too. There is a goal, the goal is to be that sexy man/woman in the advertising, instead of the lardcake that you see in the mirror every morning. That's why the advertising is like it is, not to be pornographic. You have to see the form of their bodies, because that is the product for sale.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 04:07 PM
17

Translation: "Life is too hard. Give me stuff."
/r/MensRights20/12/14 04:05 PM
2

Reasonable, intelligent people can always work together. Labels only make things harder. Failure to see the individual is the biggest problem in most gender debates.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:54 PM
5

Should I feign surprise? Women's Aid UK doesn't believe that men are abused, or that men matter at all.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:51 PM
1

That comment got you banned from both /r/feminism and /r/askfeminists? I mean, some of them are lunatics but this is so retarded I find this quite hard to believe. It must surely be something else? Or maybe a case of mistaken identity? idk
/r/MensRights14/12/14 01:45 PM
5

This is the side of these organisations that we never see. Did they give any reasons?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 07:58 PM
1

Gotta love the ban bossy campaign. Take a load of powerful, influential women who were called bossy when they were girls, and have them tell us how being called bossy prevents girls from becoming powerful or influential.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:44 PM
62

He would probably have had to become a woman.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:28 PM
6

Is it possible to find the contact information of someone who would be in charge of this "quiz" and who could change it, and send him exactly what you just wrote? Somehow I doubt it's a man in charge of this.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:07 PM
1

Who would have thought that breasts and testicles were different things with different purposes... OP, seriously? This is just dumb. I know you're saying it's about the mother projecting a sexual context onto it, but seriously, that's called having a different sense of humour to you.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 02:19 PM
12

How does one exploit a fictional character in any real sense? I can't believe people like this exist in the same world as me sometimes.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 07:10 PM
1

Any more?
/r/MensRights07/12/14 10:05 PM
2

I'm afraid I can't remember the names since I don't go very often but I know one of them is on the same road as the post office (on the road that runs parallel to where Jessops used to be). Seems to be called Beluga according to Google maps.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 09:51 PM
3

That is why you are not allowed to offer free drinks or free entry to women. etc. Lol. Happens an awful lot for something that's supposed to be illegal. In Maidstone, there are several bars/clubs that let women in for free, and charge men. This is true in many other places too. Either they're all breaking the law, or you're wrong about what the law says. I could believe either case, but it seems strange that I've not heard of any cases against these places at all. You would think someone would h…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 08:29 PM
1

http://www.pof.com/
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:00 PM
1

Well...I suppose. But then, this places no restrictions on her. It only adds new possibilities. She will still have men messaging her, she will still only message the 5% of men. Then the issue of calling stops being an issue of rejection, I mean hell, they would probably exchange actual phone numbers like they always used to have to before they even bother using this new feature.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:54 PM
1

I know you meant emotional risks, I'm not totally stupid. She faces no risks because she never has to use the call feature to contact anyone. If she does it will be as a result of a conversation she's already having via the message system.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:41 PM
3

I fail to see how this places any risk on the women, they will just use the normal messaging channels to begin contact with the same 5%, risk free as usual, and then they'll agree via message to have a chat in a call together. She will have to initiate the call, but she could probably just say hello and then be silent, and the man will pick up the slack. Why would a man reject a woman in a call when they've already not rejected them in a message? The only way this would work as you think is if i…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:28 PM
18

The women will just call the 5% most attractive/wealthy men, just like they only message/return the messages of that group now, minus a few exceptions.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 06:01 PM
5

We're still making sure that everything is working perfectly, so keep in mind that only some users are eligible right now. Perhaps eligible users = women?
/r/MensRights07/12/14 05:36 PM
1

If they change the requirements then that is a valid cause for concern. But that is something that may or may not happen in future. I don't see it as being relevant to the discussion today when at the moment the requirements haven't changed. You're (and others too) getting worked up about something you think might happen, but won't necessarily. If it does, by all means be outraged, I will be with you.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 08:21 PM
6

Hyper masculinity is a toxic culture Lol. Please, if you could explain this in plain english, I would certainly appreciate it. You know, so I know what the fuck you actually mean by these silly buzzwords.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 06:11 PM
3

The end result will be a group of men and women who have met the requirements to be there. What problem, exactly, do you have with that?
/r/MensRights06/12/14 05:03 PM
3

If the physical standards are the same, there will be no women. Well if that's the result, that's fine, the important thing is they had a chance to try. But there will no doubt be at least some women who can meet the physical standards.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 04:53 PM
4

It's kind of a shame reading these comments. I genuinely thought the MHRM was for actual equality. But here some of you are, complaining about this, when it's in the article that the physical standards will be the same and you have no reason to think women that succeed in passing the requirements will be any less capable than the men. If the issue is forming relationships (as hinted in the article), and that affecting their ability to perform their duties, then the men are to blame as well as th…
/r/MensRights06/12/14 11:41 AM
5

[Philip Hammond] said at the time there would be no compromise on women meeting physical fitness requirements. -From the article
/r/MensRights06/12/14 11:39 AM
1

One of those things that could be innocuous enough to one person but deeply offensive to someone else. Probably not wise to say that at work, lol.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:28 PM
2

It is the last available data, there is literally nothing more relevant. If you take issue with it feel free to do a FoI request and find out the current statistics. Or you could just keep complaining about the article.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:59 PM
2

The article may have been relevant once, but not anymore. Based on what new information? If there's nothing since, why do you assume (and conclude) there has been any change? The minister in charge hadn't changed between 2011 and 2014, so I don't see why anything would be different between then and now. EDIT: I just found this: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130110/debtext/130110-0001.htm#13011036000885 Edward Leigh: What progress has been made in ensuring equality …
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:37 PM
3

We're going to need to hear the reference if you don't mind
/r/MensRights02/12/14 06:36 PM
3

This woman is an idiot, or at least a total narcissistic airhead masquerading as a journalist. Let's look at the other shit she's written for the Metro: http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/18/benedict-cum-berbatch-this-is-a-vibrator-in-the-shape-of-sherlocks-head-4953231/ (3D print a vibrating copy of your crush's head! Not creepy at all!) http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/17/erectile-dysfunction-this-is-why-you-cant-get-it-up-and-how-to-fix-it-4951336/ (She's an expert in male sexual health! Wow, so talented) …
/r/MensRights01/12/14 02:13 PM
1

That's a pretty weird sentence. Celebrate how we can change boys to be what we want them to be. So...don't celebrate them at all, just celebrating finding ways to make them useful. So just self-celebration really, not celebrating men at all. Nice /s
/r/MensRights01/12/14 01:43 PM
5

"almost" 50 complaints? Surely that's par for the course for a discussion about rape on the BBC these days? That even sounds like a good result. 50 complains is basically...nobody. And they've opened an investigation?! That's the bizarre part. Why do we have to live in fear that our (not exactly hateful or insane) opinions might result in losing our jobs if as few as 50 out of 64,100,000 people complain?
/r/MensRights01/12/14 11:40 AM
3

Lmao. Because groups of women never, ever, look at guys and judge how hot they are. Literally never happens. /s
/r/MensRights30/11/14 09:43 PM
1

So your issue with it is that they didn't make the fact that only women can apply clear in the title, not that they are only accepting female applicants?
/r/MensRights29/11/14 10:33 PM
1

Oh there we go. To tell you the truth I couldn't bring myself to read the wall of text. Seems justified in that case.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 10:26 PM
2

I can only assume they are in need of more women in order to be able to body search more people...since the rules are, I think, that you must only be touched by an agent of your same sex. Like it or not, there is potentially a good reason for this job ad only accepting women. Can anyone with inside knowledge shed some light on this possibility?
/r/MensRights29/11/14 08:20 PM
6

Here is a video of the top image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVDYPAuRh0 (Not my upload) What surprised me is how when she first said it, the audience didn't seem to react. Maybe they were afraid to criticise the feminist, who knows.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 05:51 PM
1

Once again - people choose to be parents - while no one chooses to be elderly. There is no hypocrisy as there is no double standard. The word all in my sentence was key. Giving all the elderly something regardless of their choices does not follow an argument based entirely on choice. It then becomes a question of practicality, which is a different discussion, really. Actually - no im not. Its about discrimination and choice. I cant choose my gender, so why am I discriminated against? I fail to s…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 04:28 PM
1

So while you started talking about choices, what you really mean is that you find it easier to group parents together than separate the fit, healthy elderly from the frail elderly and the elderly that have made bad choices and caused their own health problems. Hmm. I agree that it's not possible to be totally fair in practice, but if you are here giving parking spots to all of the elderly, and not to pregnant women, you should probably be considering the hypocrisy of that statement, that's all. …
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:22 PM
1

Despite the claims of Feminist Frequency being a non-profit that were made in the introductory video on her Kickstarter project page, which officially closed the funding for the project in June of 2012, a search of the IRS website reveals that it only received 501(c)3 status in May of 2014. In addition to this, it is my understanding that salaries paid to members of a non-profit counts towards it's expenditure/investment and isn't called profit, so she can be paying herself $100,000/yr and still…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:25 AM
1

I was responding to this: I havent seen any elderly spots, and yes, these people do deserve that spot as it is an affliction that is not brought on by choice and affects everyone. by asking why you are happy to say that mothers made a choice and don't deserve anything but elderly people with avoidable health problems that only exist because of their lifestyle choices do deserve something, because of their age, despite the fact many elderly people are perfectly able and fit. There seems to be a c…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:05 AM
1

So when a perfectly healthy and fit elderly person uses a spot, you don't mind? What about an elderly person with health problems brought about by a lifetime of smoking 60 cigarettes a day and alcoholism, etc? I always find it weird when people talk about having kids like it's a choice so pregnant mothers and families deserve no help in life, but then completely ignore every other choice people make. It's kind of sad the attitude reddit has towards families/children in general. It's like the who…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 08:49 AM
2

The BBC is an absolute shambles when it comes to this. I can't listen to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 anymore because of it.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 08:39 AM
1

I don't see why, unless you believe we are stupid around here and don't realise the statement is false. Those that want to say that sort of thing should be allowed to, and will be downvoted en masse, which demonstrates a community effort rather than just censorship.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 09:40 PM
3

"Who cares?" - Society
/r/MensRights25/11/14 07:58 PM
2

Menstruation seems to be dependent on the woman, some can be easy and some very painful. I can't immediately think of anything equivalent for men. Though to be honest, this is a pretty silly discussion. I wouldn't call it an advantage to not have periods - it's only nature doing as nature does. Is it our fault? Nope. Should we be sorry? Nope. Does it give us any actual advantage in life? Not really.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 06:11 PM
1

There's an election coming up, no party can afford to lose half the electorate. Of course this shit is going on.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 06:08 PM
1

"/r/MensRights[1] strongly supports principles of free speech." Yeah but we don't anymore, mod orders. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2kveud/false_flag_efforts_going_on/ Not sure why the mods bother putting it in the sidebar really. If "generalising" is enough to get banned, something is wrong.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 06:04 PM
1

Well to be fair, toilets are pretty important in the third world. Many people die as a result of the filth they are forced to live alongside. Men, women, boys, and girls alike. That said, you would think they could have also said something about IMD.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 08:09 PM
3

My mother threw a yellow pages at me during an argument. I have a permanent scar from it. Nobody should be throwing anything at anyone else. Just a book, just a magazine, just an argument over the remote control...all pathetic excuses for something that shouldn't happen.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:35 PM
5

To entitled middle aged women, being punished for your own violent action against another human being is "surreal". The only reason she finds it surreal is probably because she got away with it every other time she did it. There are many women like her around the country, and each and every one should be living alone and unhappy. But that will never happen because even the abused don't realise that it's not a woman's right to hit them. Just look at the statements from the husband in this case. L…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:35 PM
1

Two pictures and a video. Ample opportunity to be fair and represent both sexes in this very important issue. But nope, just paint men as abusers, and women as victims. Exactly as expected. It is the mail, after all. But about the subject: It's very interesting that the 16 days of action website actually seems quite fair and does get men involved as potential victims. (Though still not equal, but baby steps...) http://16daysofaction.co.uk/portfolio/who-is-affected-by-domestic-violence/ But at th…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 02:07 AM
2

Okay, well in answer to the question, I found it interesting because I regularly see the argument that women "aren't about looks" or "like a guy with humour, looks don't matter" or other such nonsense, as if they're immune from the laws of physical attraction and operating on a higher level of consciousness even. Goes to show the truth, that's all. I mean, we all knew it, but here's some proof.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 12:59 AM
2

I said it was interesting, not surprising.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 12:38 AM
3

Interesting. A whole gallery of tall muscular ex-army-looking bearded men wearing sunglasses. I mean, why bother with so many? They all look the same. Nothing against the guys, but the gallery creator could have saved so much time.
/r/MensRights22/11/14 09:35 PM
3

slightly, yes
/r/MensRights21/11/14 01:04 PM
2

uh, that was me. i didnt think any other tag was appropriate
/r/MensRights21/11/14 01:01 PM
2

They have never done one for international mens day. Not once in fourteen years.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:06 AM
11

Just seemed the most appropriate tag at the time.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:02 AM
1

That's a great metaphor - I'm definitely going to use it.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 10:20 AM
1

The real story here is that men are the only group of people that this would be tolerated as being about. For examples that rightly cause offence, see the other comments.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 10:17 AM
2

Of course I have. Which one of the rules covers generalising women? Overview of Mod Policy: No advice animals, rage comics, or other low-effort image posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion. No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites. Spam/Off-Topic posts will be removed. Use self-posts for related topics, justifying their relation. Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names. Absolutely no doxxing will be tolerated. Advocating for violence/illegal acts…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 02:45 PM
2

Various would mean you have been banning some users just for generalizing. Can you justify this considering its not a rule?
/r/MensRights02/11/14 09:52 AM
0

Sure, but have every one of the banned users been talking about violence, or illegal acts? Or have they just been "generalising women" as it says in the post?
/r/MensRights01/11/14 04:01 PM
6

She's a 23 year old student. She doesn't know a fucking thing about professional working life, as a woman or otherwise. When she starts her career, I would be willing to bet that she will be earning more than many of per male peers, simply because she's female. She is not qualified to comment, frankly.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 12:17 PM
2

I've been here a long time, so I say this in all seriousness. What if some of these people that are being banned are legit, by banning them aren't we making the community look better than it really is? I thought one of our big points was that we don't censor, but we do discuss, and argue. This seems to be at odds with that idea, to me.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 12:14 PM
1

Then let's have women competing against men and the winner gets the money, the loser gets nothing. What about that for equality? No? What a surprise.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 07:36 PM
9

Gender equality today just means as long as women are equal or better, equality has been achieved. And it amazes me how few people see an issue with it.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 07:35 PM
4

Fuck. I have to respect Cameron on this. But jesus, he's fucking everything up in almost every other way in how he's running the country. The others are agreeing to wear the shirts because there is an election next year, or at least that is a factor. I have to admire Cameron for not being pressed to wear it, despite the election. Why Cameron, why? How is it that you run the country so badly but now suddenly I have some respect for you? Who do I vote for next year? You, the bastard who is fucking…
/r/MensRights28/10/14 07:33 PM
4

We can't. It's up to the internet now.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 09:27 PM
20

So it was posted before and was removed for breaking rule 5. Despite the fact it did not break rule 5. Now it's been posted again and removed for breaking rule 2. Despite the fact it did not break rule 2. It's almost as if the rules allow so much leeway there's no point in having them as it just means the mods can do whatever they fuck they like.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 09:26 PM
1

Hi Karen :) I'm sure it's probably true, I just don't like the idea of people ending their process of looking for answers once they have one that they like the sound of. Gets us into a lot of trouble as a society...was more of a general comment really.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 05:18 PM
9

To be fair, you still don't know that's the reason. You only have a reddit user's word for it. I'm making no judgement about whether it's true or not, but don't just accept it because it sounds good to you.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 04:46 PM
2

They might have a case, but they certainly don't have one on grounds of sex discrimination. Let me tell you why, simply. Both men and women that work in stores are paid less than those working in the warehouses. Both men and women. Both. Sex discrimination doesn't work when both sexes are affected. Why the fuck this is being made out to be a gender thing is beyond me. The media, I guess. However given the current political climate it is entirely possible that they win the case despite it being t…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 09:03 PM
10

For a moment I was actually fooled into thinking she gave a shit about men and whether men are allowed to be who they want to be, not being put down because it actually hurts their feelings, etc. Then I finished the article: We only have ourselves to blame. If we want our men to be in any way exciting, gallant, high-earning, swashbuckling, or, indeed, protective, we have to allow them to keep their dignity and self-respect. Running a man down never turned him into Clint Eastwood. There you have …
/r/MensRights23/10/14 07:42 PM
3

The lawsuit is clearly not anti-women. It's whole point is to suggest that women are just as capable and should be just as responsible as citizens as men are expected to be.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 12:10 PM
3

That thinking will get people killed. Do you fucking know what war is?
/r/MensRights19/10/14 12:07 PM
1

1983. lol.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 05:18 PM
6

Also, this is actually a pretty cool solution. Literally.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 06:57 PM
1

I guess it's one way to keep women in the company, rather than having them going off having babies and becoming parents.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 06:42 PM
2

Yeah, but I think the difference between being married and together, and married and separated, is the same difference between two friends buying a ticket together and someone giving you money with no expectations and you deciding to buy yourself a ticket. In the former case you would have cause for complaint but in the latter you wouldn't.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 07:13 PM
2

I get what you're saying, but that's like saying if I buy a lottery ticket I should share my winnings with the company I work for, because they gave me the money I bought it with. If a friend gives me £1 and I decide to use it to buy a ticket and win, he has no claim to the winnings. I don't see how this is different. It's a game of chance - the source of the money is irrelevant. If she had won £5 would he be trying to get £2.50? I doubt it. He's just trying his luck on the off chance that he ca…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 05:30 PM
2

What is the intended purpose of this survey? Where will you publish your results?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 05:14 PM
6

Hmm. So they were married, but separated. I don't see a problem with this to be honest. I would have a problem if someone could show that a similar situation had happened and a man had been made to give his winnings to his wife, though. Anyone?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 05:12 PM
1

Because they ask women how they feel, and tell men what to feel. It's kind of their 'thing'.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 05:10 PM
15

In the interest of diversity, give women nice things and tell the men to fuck off. Right... I don't even know what this is for but I guess it's for some shitty tech conference or something? If women want to be in tech, all they have to do is DO IT. No sexist accommodations required.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 05:28 PM
3

I agree they should ask when presented with some reason to, but I don't see why they would unless they suspect something - if their basis is "just in case" there's a load of other things they could ask as well, but I assume they don't. Just seems weird to ask without any indication that there's a problem. I mean, the normal thing when a couple comes in is probably that there is no abuse from either side.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:33 PM
2

I think it's good that she was looking out for you, but I can't help wondering why she asked? Were you sick as a result of injuries? Was your GF being aggressive or looked controlling at the time? Maybe it's just protocol to ask? I'm confused.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:03 PM
1

The answer is simple - don't have separate events, and then wait for the complaints to come rolling in because the men keep winning.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 11:51 AM
3

BBC makes programme about sexism/inequality. Asks only women what they think, excludes men. Doesn't see the irony, as usual for the BBC.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 02:29 PM
1

The comments, oh the comments. The more they try to justify that sexism is alright as long as it's against men, the more it becomes apparent that there is a real problem.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:17 PM
2

I think even "fitting in with social norms" could be called an ideology. I didn't necessarily mean religion etc. when I said it.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 08:40 PM
24

"It's all about me" "It's all about my parents' fucked up ideologies"
/r/MensRights15/09/14 12:32 PM
1

Yeah so you find a dentist, the easy part. Call them - "are you taking new NHS patients?" "no, not at this time". I had to call about 10 dentists last year to find one that was a. NHS and b. accepting new people.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:49 PM
1

You want a realistic answer? Become a woman (assuming you aren't one already), and then spread the word. Women just seem to be listened to much more, even about men's issues. Oh the ironing!
/r/MensRights01/09/14 04:36 PM
1

It was a comedy of errors that resulted in her wrongly thinking that he was doing anything inappropriate when in fact he wasn't. FTFY And yes, agreed.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 11:02 PM
2

I'm not really sure. It seems like two people should be able to go the same way without one of them verbally attacking the other. He was worried at the outset because he realised that he was going to go the same way as she was going - and why should he worry? Because people like you enable paranoid women like her and don't call her out when she's being stupid. She lives in a building with other people, not alone, so it's not a huge stretch of the imagination that someone else might be going ther…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:53 PM
3

But no matter where he was going, if they happened to be going the same way it wouldn't have made a difference. It still wouldn't have been creepy, and she still might have misread the non-creepy situation. You're making excuses for her and it's not necessary. He went home, that's all. If he was walking somewhere else, not home, then that's what he would have been doing. Still not creepy.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:44 PM
0

Yes, but what I'm trying to get across is that his behaviour wasn't creepy. Her perception of the situation was faulty.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:35 PM
0

He looked at her, then he walked home. It wasn't creepy. She was paranoid.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:25 PM
4

his behavior would have been creepy as hell. He looked at someone and then walked down the street. Creepy, right. /s
/r/MensRights30/08/14 10:16 PM
5

nailed it hehehehhhe
/r/MensRights26/08/14 07:15 PM
2

Proposes ban on links to certain website. Posts link to website as part of post. facepalm.jpg
/r/MensRights26/08/14 12:37 PM
8

Which is better? Option 1: No drug detecting nail polish. Option 2: Drug detecting nail polish. These are literally the choices. Rapists don't give a shit who is to blame, they're still going to try and rape you. Your safety is your responsibility.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 12:32 PM
2

How ironic that she's trying to shut him down herself by undermining his opinions.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:31 AM
2

You know what? Let's just have no campaigns. Seriously, campaigns that tell people not to rape don't work, because it's just a fucking poster and a rapist is gonna rape anyway. Campaigns that tell people that it's a good idea to protect yourself by being responsible for your own safety, because the world is not perfect, and there are bad people in it, which might actually help to reduce rapes, are met with complaints about victim blaming. There is no way to win. Rapists gon' rape, if people want…
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:00 PM
10

Shire might have a point were it not for the deep systemic privileges that men enjoy, argues Kat Stoeffel, on New York Magazine’s The Cut blog. Stoeffel takes this line of thinking a step further, and asserts that not only is male objectification harmless to men; but it helps women free themselves from the constant oppression of men’s opinions: My sides.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 08:04 PM
1

It can mean a multitude of things depending on the speaker. But it's interesting to note that it is "treat women right" rather than "treat people right".
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:38 PM
2

Well what reason was given for forcing them to play on turf? There must be a reason, and if there isn't one, I guess it's reasonable to question why there isn't.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:36 PM
51

I'm nervous about reporting this to my female CEO Uh, why would you be reporting a crime to your CEO? That's what the police are for. The person that was driving you, they are a witness.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:36 PM
3

I don't really have time to visit them in person - I don't often have letters go missing, so it seems the less likely explanation. Sure, there's a chance they didn't see the letter, but balance of probability says that they did and decided not to respond.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 05:58 PM
4

Women tended to cheat because they were unhappy in a relationship or felt their partner didn't hold similar sexual beliefs. For men, the biggest factor was sexual excitement. So basically both men and women cheat because they become bored with their unexciting sex lives.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 10:37 AM
3

And he should be. He had sex with someone who was unable to give consent, a fact he was aware of before the fact. So he should be accountable for his actions.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 09:19 PM
5

The irony is palpable.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 05:03 PM
2

A lot of bad things 'frequently' happen. But that doesn't really excuse not even trying. Especially when OP had a backup in case it didn't work out.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 04:45 PM
7

The guy has been commenting in this sub regularly of late. He's always a cunt about it, no matter the topic. Honestly, I wish there was a way to just get rid of him, but as it stands, he's a member of the community and it's up to us to simply shun him.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 10:00 AM
25

What you've done there is claimed sexism for something that hasn't yet occurred. That's not really that smart. I'm sure most if not all if the parents would have no problem with you. You said you could even have kept your other job, why wouldn't you just try it and see how it went?
/r/MensRights10/08/14 08:39 AM
3

If you look at his comment history (in this sub) it seems like every day is a bad day...
/r/MensRights05/08/14 10:45 PM
22

Is that actually a screencap from the video that was pointing out how little people give a shit about female on male violence? Yes, it is. Oh the irony. I would laugh but it just isn't funny.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 07:29 PM
0

How is it any more obvious with respect to the mother than the father? I hope that's not a serious question...?
/r/MensRights03/08/14 03:18 PM
1

I guess you didn't. But your rather 'enthusiastic' responses to some other people that have pointed it out have given that impression. The 'problem' with assault is that it's ultimately based on the reaction of the victim rather than the action of the perpetrator, which gives a huge grey area in a lot of cases.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 02:04 PM
3

I upvoted you for most of your post, but you need to understand that grabbing any part of someone's body can be an assault. Just because you didn't care when someone grabbed your ass doesn't mean nobody should.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 09:07 AM
1

How would that work? Seriously, btw. It's already the case that if you're on the birth certificate you have parental rights. It's pretty obvious the mother is the mother, because well, you know... But how would it work for the father?
/r/MensRights03/08/14 08:53 AM
22

That's not a passport issue, but a parental right issue. If the father isn't on the birth certificate he must apply for parental responsibility. It's not automatic. See more: http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/24rp4n/attention_uk_redditors_you_are_not_a_father/
/r/MensRights02/08/14 07:10 PM
2

It could be a good joke in different circumstances - this isn't really the time for a joke.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 03:34 PM
74

The word is paternal, and obviously.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 03:30 PM
14

This is indicative of the problem we see all over the place now. Even a question of inequality that negatively affects men is answered as if the question was about an inequality that affects women. This person also appears to not have a brain, comparing the numbers from a group that have to be there vs. a group that does not.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 07:30 PM
1

Well addressing it wouldn't help women, and I'll give them the benefit of assuming they wouldn't be deliberately twisting the story to make men look like monsters, so I guess they would ignore it.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 05:29 PM
1

They don't want to be warned about it? Don't warn them about it. Then they can complain that they weren't warned about it.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 05:27 PM
2

If it's not a real courtroom you can do whatever the fuck you want. Just bring the lawyer, it's a good idea.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 05:22 PM
1

You have the right to self defense. But, the question remains, as always - whether there is a necessity to use self defense in a particular situation, and what constitutes reasonable force? That is what determines whether or not it was right to hit her.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 06:38 PM
2

Women? That was clearly a giraffe.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:14 PM
25

Good video. "Ask a group of people: "is it ever okay to hit your wife?", and hear the resounding NO! in response. Ask them "is it ever okay to hit your husband?", and hear the umm's and aah's, and sometimes's." So true, yet nobody seems to be able to acknowledge it.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:02 PM
11

TIL adult women are as weak as, and have the same level of self control as a 4 year old child.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:41 PM
2

Case in point, this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/09/in-sexting-case-manassas-city-police-want-to-photograph-teen-in-sexually-explicit-manner-lawyers-say/ /r/mensrights: 3557 upvotes, and 93,976 subscribers /r/news: 2594 upvotes, and 3,210,847 subscribers /r/feminism? Just 74 upvotes, and 37,256 subscribers But no, you guys have it covered. /s Ironically, a comic making fun of people pointing out that feminism doesn't really help men, is currently at 305 upvotes, an…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:19 PM
11

Use the newly renovated men's bathroom. It is the men's bathroom, after all.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:07 PM
2

facts = misogyny. /s
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:04 PM
66

Sounds like a pretty serious human rights violation. You still have human rights in the USA, right? I would know what to do if it was in the UK, or the EU, but as far as the US goes I just don't know what can be done, despite wanting to do something. And they say the MRM is unnecessary... I hope those people actually read this.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 04:36 PM
2

What the fuck. Violence okay, because feels hurt?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 07:22 PM
18

culture of abuse towards girls Citation needed. The shadow home secretary warned a culture is spreading in schools where girls are subject to verbal abuse and have their shirts undone and skirts lifted by boys who do not respect them. Citation needed. Labour warns too many boys believe abuse is ‘normal’ and it is fuelling a culture of violence against women and girls. Citation needed. The National Union of Students is also worried about a trend of jokes about rape and ‘innocent’ groping on campu…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:27 PM
4

If only there were some sort of approach that didn't involve her getting off entirely, or being murdered... Can anyone think of one, to help /u/slideforlife out? /s
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:15 PM
22

She continued to have sex with you after you withdrew consent. Report her for sexual assault. (I would say rape but the law where you are likely doesn't allow for this). If she is harassing you, report her for harassment too. There is reasonable and there is beyond reasonable, you will know whether she has crossed any lines better than we do. As far as the pregnancy goes, for one thing you should be getting proof that she is in fact pregnant, and if she is, you should be getting a DNA test to sh…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 04:42 PM
3

Your username is fitting. I disagree, and you will continue to miss the point no matter how many times I respond, so I won't waste my time.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 12:34 PM
1

My take on the subject, over on /r/unitedkingdom.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 12:19 PM
2

Polygraphs are designed to use the stress of the situation to force a confession during what seems to be a 'safe' period - after the test for example. The test itself is absolute bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 12:51 PM
4

It was funny seeing that post on a more popular sub a few days ago asking whether women should be forced to sign up for selective service. Nobody would answer the question. Everyone was scared of saying women should be seen as equal, because they might be harmed in the process. Most people said that the whole thing should be abolished. Interesting to see the status quo isn't that important to people but the thought of women being involved makes people stop and think it's maybe not the best idea …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 09:37 PM
5

Yup. And battery isn't as bad as murder. Set the batterers free! /s
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:46 AM
1

Permanent record? Surely that doesn't exist within a school. Once they leave who cares, right?
/r/MensRights28/06/14 01:32 PM
1

Are there previous incidences of clause 12 being used successfully to protect the interests of women as a group?
/r/MensRights28/06/14 11:12 AM
0

At least try to be objective. That was not clear at all.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 05:46 AM
7

Gotta love the extremely nonspecific reasoning for cancelling it. At least give a reason, jeez.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 05:21 PM
1

They seem like a nice couple. It seems to be missing the part where she gets kicked in the vagina, though?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 04:01 PM
40

Oh man, you have no idea. I think sometimes it affects my health. The feeling of being [ironically, I guess] totally powerless. Knowing plenty of people think I'm misogynist. Knowing I will likely never actually be taken seriously. Knowing that I have been treated as a criminal because the word of a woman is holy, and that I probably will again, despite doing nothing wrong. Knowing that feminism is so unbelievably toxic and despite this is given absolute validity, while our little movement is ri…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 02:45 PM
1

You know, it's weird. When I read the title, before I clicked through, I was thinking "you know, this sounds exactly like the lead in to one of those "romantic novels" aka. literary porn or some such that women love so much.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:13 AM
1

Well hey, sheep are useful as long as they're on your side.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 09:54 AM
1

You probably should. Lots of movements work because sheer numbers. They don't all know exactly what they're supporting, really. They just know that people praise them for it. It feels good so they keep doing it.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 12:23 PM
9

Well, I apologise for being flippant, I'm surprised though. Too used to being shut down I guess.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:49 PM
4

Lol, okay how about you try and create a men's rights project, tell us how it goes.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:29 PM
12

Oh they still try... http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/19m4qg/feminist_luce_irigaray_emc2_is_a_sexed_equation/ Not Wikipedia, but pretty hilarious.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 08:23 PM
33

Well, it's not exactly surprising. Wikipedia is a shithole for anything but STEM topics. http://i.imgur.com/oKYKfxT.jpg EDIT: Jesus Christ, some people have a problem even mentioning that men were killed as well as women: http://i.imgur.com/xJEGDPq.jpg
/r/MensRights17/06/14 05:38 PM
5

Single moms are a pox on the nation. Dafuq? Just replying to make sure people realise this guy doesn't speak for all of us.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 07:51 PM
3

Exactly. As far as I know, those statistics were determined using the exact same metrics, so they should (whatever their absolute accuracy) be accurate relative to each other.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 03:51 PM
0

If anyone feels this is too meta/not relevant for this sub, downvote it - I'll delete it if it gets massively negative.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 03:12 PM
2

This is the most confusing part to me, too. Whether or not the stats are totally perfect, it seems like the wrong place to have a debate on it, frankly.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 02:14 PM
1

No, I wish it did though. I actually mentioned the fact it was missing to my girlfriend when I was doing the screenshots. I wonder if I asked them for their full data, if they would be able to provide the sex breakdown to me...
/r/MensRights15/06/14 02:13 PM
9

It's just slightly more than 1 in 6: http://i.imgur.com/VvsiLvf.jpg Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf , page 99 It's reasonable to assume that the actual numbers are higher than those reported, for both sexes.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 01:12 AM
1

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-328149
/r/MensRights14/06/14 11:20 PM
16

One misleading statistic, which is often repeated, is that - while one in four women experience domestic violence - so do one in six men. These figures are, however, based on single incidents, of a criminal nature, and without regard to: severity of violence whether or not it was repeated - and if so, how often the complex pattern of overlapping abuse of various kinds the context in which it took place. They also exclude sexual assaults - which are overwhelmingly perpetrated against women, by me…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:46 PM
1

In terms of self identifying: How cowardly you are. Whether you feel confident to tell people that you are an MRA, or whether you pussy-foot around the issue and call it more acceptable names. I'm pretty sure the majority of MRAs are egalitarian. Hell, the reason we exist is really because feminism lies about being egalitarian. We're the answer to actually being egalitarian in a world where it is so rare to see. Sounds like the person you replied to needs to get a backbone.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:05 PM
1

MPs are useless, I don't know what you expected. It doesn't matter what you write to them about, you can expect an equally bullshit response.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:31 PM
0

Men have off days too, we're not robots. Women can function perfectly well when on their period. So why would that be unfair to anyone?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:25 PM
17

If you joined a MR group on campus and wanted to discuss women's rights topics, it likely would not go over well. Feminist group, not womens rights group. Feminists claim to assist men with their issues, too. In practice (as OP has discovered), they don't. This is, essentially, why the MHRM exists.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:59 PM
2

I suppose it makes sense. The dynamic seems different though, somehow. Back then, the belief was that men were the privileged class and were the decision makers, so it made sense to get them on side, and more likely that having men in the group would make other men take notice. The supposed oppressed class (women) needed the help of the supposed privileged class (men) to effect change for the oppressed class. That part makes sense. Resources accessible by the privileged are accessed by the oppre…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:47 PM
1

They were?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:03 PM
9

I find it so ironic that given the supposed patriarchy and privilege we have, we need women to legitimize our issues, or to at least make them palatable.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 06:30 PM
3

Anyone following the hashtag, or reading any of the dozens of pieces responding to it, should know that men on the Internet (#NotAllMen etc., whatever) tried to co-opt a Twitter conversation about violence against women by threatening women with violence. Did I miss this? Or is it just simply lies?
/r/MensRights09/06/14 09:24 PM
1

I would give almost anything to be party to the mod discussions over there. It would certainly be enlightening.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:31 PM
4

Right, but that's not why it has that flair, it's there for the reasons I mentioned, among a few others. EDIT: Uhhh... Had he not had the video evidence, then yes this would definitely merit the flair. The guy should be applauded for being smart enough to record the encounter on his phone. Had he not had the video, he would have been fucked. The outrage is about how it was handled, he is very lucky that he got the video of the incident in order to prove his innocence. To prove his innocence. Onc…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:57 PM
5

everything went as it should have... The cops arrive, see a guy with a torn shirt, and a woman with no injuries or signs of physical distress, and they behave aggressively towards the guy? If it weren't for the video evidence, she wouldn't even have been arrested, and he would most likely have spent hours in a cell, even if no charges were ultimately brought. You call that going as it should have?
/r/MensRights08/06/14 06:28 PM
2

Lol, you're actually serious, aren't you. How about you tell me how they do support your assertion, instead.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 11:13 AM
2

None of your linked studies seem to back up your assertion that they are not comparable.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 10:47 AM
2

Rape is primarily an emotional crime. Men feel emotion. Rape can include physical violence, but many things include physical violence that do not carry the same emotional burden as rape. And rape is not always physically violent. It's also why rape generally requires a longer recovery time, not for physical wounds, but for emotional distress. It is possible for a woman to be physically violent towards a man during a forced sexual encounter. Sex is a physical act. But sex is not a crime. Rape is …
/r/MensRights08/06/14 10:01 AM
1

To be fair, it was pretty bad before, too. It just got retarded after becoming a default.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:53 AM
5

Feminist ideology, in theory and in practice, directly contradicts Men's Rights ideology. Well, I agree that in practice it contradicts entirely. And that in theory (patriarchy etc) it also contradicts entirely. But the theory in the beginning was perfectly compatible. It's just shame it's been ruined and present day feminism is such a crock.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 03:30 AM
8

Lol, okay. It definitely wasn't a response to a post that was a woman saying she wasn't oppressed. It certainly wasn't a list of statistics designed to counter the post made by that woman. Certainly not. Lol.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 03:12 AM
19

"Ya know, 22 million woman being raped isn't that bad. It's better then last year!" I don't remember saying that... But if you feel better making stuff up then feel free. I won't waste my time. I didn't say it was to trick people, either. I just said it was incomplete and some of it you can't draw conclusions from without extra data. Are you, dare I say, offended by my logical approach?
/r/MensRights08/06/14 02:33 AM
1

12.3% of 18.3% = 2.2% of total 29.9% of 18.3% = 5.4% of total There is some overlap with the age ranges it seems, but that doesn't make the numbers particularly questionable.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:09 PM
109

Yep. There was a post on /r/twoxchromosome entitled "woe is me, im a woman" or something similar. It went on to list many statistics of how many women this, how many girls that. It was clearly designed to make out that women are the oppressed sex. All the stats were standing on their own. Nothing to compare them with. And of course, anyone pointing it out had their comments silently deleted by the mods.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:02 PM
4

Cosmo doesn't get it. It's only in the magazine because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:33 PM
1

I have to give her a little leeway here. I've certainly told half-truths in the past in order to begin to share things that I'm not 'proud' of, as a sort of basic story without all the details, but then come out with the truth later on. She could be doing the same, it's literally impossible to tell.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 05:24 PM
1

As a man I am forced to be constantly assessing my own safety and keeping myself safe. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, since it's in my interest to do it, so I don't have bad things happen to me. But a funny thing happens when it comes to women and their safety. Suddenly they "shouldn't have to" be aware of their surroundings, and everything "should be" roses and kittens all the time. It seems to me that since criminals generally don't actually take note of fancy ad campaigns or po…
/r/MensRights01/06/14 05:20 PM
55

And if we were to try and, you know, find out who this was, for the sake of, you know, justice, we would be the bad guys... I'm not saying we should, of course. But if we did, the shitstorm would be heading our way, not hers. And that is fucked up.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 05:09 PM
1

Considering that in reality not all girls are actually at risk of molestation, and not all boys are actually at risk of molestation, it would be just as valid (read: invalid) to say that all boys are at risk of molestation as it is to say that all girls are at risk of molestation. But you try doing that, and then when someone brings up girls, tell them they're just saying "what about teh wimminz", and see how many friends you lose...
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:10 PM
1

The correct course of action depends on your situation. If you live with your family and have no ability or desire to move out, keep your mouth shut. You can't rely on your family to be reasonable. If you don't live with your family, by all means tell them. If they decide you're an asshole, tell them to shove it up their ass, and get on with your life.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:08 PM
1

Okay mr. argumentative. I'm on your side, no need to be snappy. I'm telling you what they mean, since you didn't seem to understand, so if you have a problem with it take it up with them instead. It's not about asking someone their IQ, it's about caring about their intelligence, so it's not about the question but about the priority balance of physical vs. intellectual assets.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:05 PM
1

They say IQ but really they mean intelligence. Nobody cares about their intelligence, just the size of their tits. It's one facet of the unwanted objectification issue.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 08:53 PM
1

They're just boobs, nothing special, or am I missing something here? There's not actually any real reason I can fathom that would mean fathers couldn't be in the same room as mothers breastfeeding. For someone to be a father they would have most likely seen a few pairs of tits already, so it's not like they would go in the room for a sexual thrill, is it?
/r/MensRights31/05/14 03:33 PM
4

My girlfriend doesn't fear men, so the point is already invalidated.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 08:58 AM
1

Just chiming in here to add to the numbers. I'm living with my girlfriend, and I definitely don't hate women. I don't have the issue of not getting laid, nor do I feel bitter about women in general. Women aren't the issue. They don't come into the equation. The issue I have with "women" is actually with feminism, so not women at all, but an ideology that has no place in a drive for equality, since it's designed (no matter what the dictionary says) to advance women and ignore men. I think that is…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:49 PM
3

It will happen, you just have to accept it. Don't let it stop you. Now I just hide things from select people when I post them. It's always the same ones, so now I don't bother with them, but everyone else can see.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 08:28 PM
1

...yeah, I was reading and wondering what the hell the one in purple had actually come across. It sure as hell wasn't a MRA. I realise this comes across as a NAFALT sort of statement, but this is slightly different because I genuinely don't think that person was a MRA at all in the first place. It seems more likely that the purple person is simply confused about who exactly they were talking to.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:55 PM
8

Why do so many people think it's about bitterness, and 'not getting laid'? I seriously don't understand it. Why is it that consistently people think we are literally the same as /r/theredpill or PUAs, et al? I mean, what? But then, this is why we exist, I suppose. Nobody can fathom that men have serious issues that need resolving, and that feminism fails in every way to help, and more often than not makes matters worse. It must be that they're not getting laid! By the way, does anyone remember t…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:30 PM
5

Thanks.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:31 PM
7

It's been done many times, one I remember is "what would you do?", can't remember the network. Very similar results. And many others too.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:28 PM
2

Lol, how naive. Any edits made to correct entries related to mens rights will be reverted almost immediately by one of the many holier-than-thou editors on wikipedia. Often the problem is that because there are several idiotic blogs that are critical of the MRM while being dishonest, these blogs are seen as valid sources by most wikipedia editors and so those parts are allowed to stay because they're "true and sourced". But it is more difficult to find someone that writes a blog saying how great…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 08:46 PM
1

I think we knew before I replied to you that we have a difference of opinion on the matter. So this probably won't end well. I do not find making men more like women to be progress. Don't be silly. What is your point exactly? It wouldn't be making men more like women, it would be reporting that a man has died, like it's reported that a woman has died. It's reported that a woman has died deliberately because we care about women. We don't care about men, and I say we should. I think it's right to …
/r/MensRights17/05/14 03:17 PM
1

Calling men by what they can do or their job, in death, is dehumanizing. "workers" "miners" If a man dies, he is still a man. He is not a dead miner, now useless, he is a dead human man, who worked as a miner. What you call lack of agency is what I call inherent value. A woman is valuable as a human being, and it's usually reported as such. A man is valuable as whatever he does for a living, not as a human being, and it's usually reported as such. Unless you are suggesting we should fight for wo…
/r/MensRights17/05/14 10:24 AM
2

I wonder if she has tried treating the women the way she treats the men (from the sounds of it, without compassion and with the expectation that they should just deal with whatever she criticizes them about) and then just fire the women who refuse to be productive because they're behaving like children.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 10:09 AM
1

She is saying that she would consider herself a feminist, but [list of reasons not to]. At least, that was my interpretation - it doesn't seem to be perfectly written.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 07:28 PM
1

What a winner.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 03:29 PM
2

So you are one of those people. If you don't understand what I said that is no fault of mine. If you feel so strongly about doing something you consider important I suggest you go and do it instead of wasting your clearly precious time here when you could be saving the world.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 03:22 PM
4

I don't see how it stops anyone helping. It means we can focus on the real reason that these assholes are doing this, and not on some made-up false reason. This may help to fix the actual problem, since otherwise people would be trying to fight a womens issue that doesn't exist and getting nowhere. Are you one of those sad acts that comes along every now and then telling people how there are "more important things" to worry about? I think we can probably do without your input if that's all you'r…
/r/MensRights11/05/14 03:17 PM
10

Of course, but this is seen by a lot of people as a women's issue - when in fact it is not.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 03:11 PM
0

Ah I see. Well, all the same, it's those people we should be most concerned about. In the absence of information, it's those that fill the gaps themselves that are most dangerous. I would get annoyed that boys aren't being mentioned in the media, but as it's a little late to be reporting on those murders I can't really blame the media for sticking to reporting about the girls, since that's a current story and the boys aren't. But still, people forming opinions without all the facts? If only it w…
/r/MensRights11/05/14 02:23 PM
10

I think it's because rape>murder in terms of severity This in itself seems like a very odd way to view things. I mean, rape is bad, but murder is surely worse? Yeah, I know, if you're raped you have to potentially remember the ordeal, but if you're murdered, you're dead. I'd rather be alive than dead no matter what happened to me. Also, what is this with "survivor" being attached to sexual crimes now? "rape survivor" etc. I didn't realise the act of sexual intercourse was so potentially deadly..…
/r/MensRights11/05/14 01:54 PM
0

Yes, I know...that would be the whole point. Was my comment not clear or something? I'd be happy to correct it to make it clearer if you tell me what it needs.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 01:20 PM
4

Thanks for posting this. Hopefully it will be a wake-up call to those people that without fail put anything involving girls and women into the category of "war on girls".
/r/MensRights11/05/14 09:47 AM
3

Feminists do something wrong: That's not representative of feminism. A small group of MRAs do something wrong: That's exactly what every MRA is like. Amazing.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 08:49 PM
3

No, no. I was just trying to say that people don't give things like this as much thought as we do here. Plus, if you're someone on a campus management board, you're going to not want to dissuade anyone from coming forward. This is the entire problem with this approach, it's illogical. But few people actually consider it in enough depth to see that it is.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:53 PM
3

Like I said, we know this in this subreddit. People out there don't think like we do. It makes sense to them.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:39 PM
1

The licensing board will remove the alcohol license if a bar offers reduced prices for females. I want to believe, I really do. Can you tell me what specific legislation (and which parts of it) leads you to this conclusion?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:37 PM
0

It's because they want people to come forward with legitimate reports, and they fear that punishing a false report will end up dissuading those with genuine reports from coming forward. Yes, we all know here, on this subreddit, that is not logical. But out in the real world, it makes sense. Don't send mixed messages. Trying to pursuade people to come forward and then punishing people that do is a mixed message. EDIT: Just for clarity, I personally support the punishment of those that make false …
/r/MensRights06/05/14 04:51 PM
2

wait, so this is a site-wide ban? You don't exist anywhere?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 12:09 PM
2

UKer here. Can you link to the relevant act re. legality and withdrawing alcohol license on http://www.legislation.gov.uk?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 12:03 PM
8

Even when physical violence is taken out of the scenario, this stupid wanker is unable to see anything but women as victims: Ms Howe says there is also a growing understanding that domestic violence is not just physical. [...] "One partner takes a position of privilege or control over another and diminishes self-esteem and worth until she's almost immobilised from it."
/r/MensRights05/05/14 11:55 AM
18

I would like to know where I can go, as a man, to receive my privilege and power, please.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:13 PM
1

So don't use it. Very simple solution, and it doesn't need your feedback!
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:54 PM
4

You're doing more harm than good. If you don't like the term too bad. It's here already and your opinion isn't going to make a difference.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:25 PM
4

It's actually cleverer than most self-assigned titles you'll see around. It's a fairly well known term for anti-circumcision activists, whether you've heard of it or not. If you have a problem with it I suggest the issue may lie more with you than with /u/double-happiness.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:07 PM
2

Yeah, they came down a bit, but not as much as womens' went up. If you have a look at my post from last year when they made the change, and click through to the confused.com article, you'll see the tables with the changes.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 05:04 PM
2

I disagree with your point entirely. Ridicule is an important tool and it doesn't seem to be misused here. What does it really mean to be a bigger person? I don't think it necessarily means biting your tongue, especially when what you're about to say isn't actually offensive, but just satirical. It's far more dangerous to police ourselves because we might offend someone, in my opinion. It's dishonest if nothing else; if OP wants to say this, let them say it. They are part of this sub just like y…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 04:39 PM
3

Well, mens' prices did actually come down, so men won (sort of). But equality was the ultimate winner. Women should pay the same as men, if it happens to be more than they paid when the system unfairly gave them an advantage for no reason except their sex, then so be it. Think of the previously low prices for women as an 'introductory discount' that has now run out.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 04:35 PM
2

I heard a feminist call MRAs 'traditionalists' once. I lol'd.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 06:03 PM
1

It also starts the description of the offence with the word "he". Just so there's no confusion, 'he' in legislature doesn't mean a man, it means anyone. That said, the part with the penis makes it about men, or at least, about people with penises. Example, sexual assault (something that women can do to men): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3 It says 'he' but it means 'anyone'.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 03:22 PM
3

The players are revolting! I know, have you fixed the showers yet? rimshot
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:14 PM
1

Why do I get the feeling that doing this will change nothing and simply provide a list of usernames to 'watch out for' when they're moderating?
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:27 PM
14

In the Great Depression, a lot of men who couldn't find work to support their families any more just up and left. TO FIND WORK ELSEWHERE BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE
/r/MensRights19/04/14 09:06 AM
4

There are a lot of sources. http://bit.ly/1hbNzWR <- see here
/r/MensRights19/04/14 09:04 AM
3

Ah, so you're stupid. The system puts nobody first, that's the point. Only in your head does it occur that one is first and one is last. And you realise that the reason capital punishment is a bad idea is because when you kill innocent people, you can't bring them back, right?
/r/MensRights18/04/14 07:03 PM
3

It amazes me that people like you exist. People who genuinely hold such ridiculous views. I mean, are you mad? Or stupid? Seriously, what is your problem?
/r/MensRights18/04/14 04:57 PM
31

Except when he thought it was genuine, he was all too happy to say it was "what you would expect". He's still a scumbag.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 05:03 PM
1

How could anyone see this (link) and believe these results are legitimate? I don't even. Just some more shit we will have to deal with whenever a smug looking moron bring it up as 'evidence' against the MRHM.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 07:08 PM
1

The doctor is female. "male developed professions" - give me a break. This 'patriarchy' nonsense is always reasoned starting from the end and making way to the beginning, and everything is made to fit, whether or not it's true or makes any sense. It's not that we 'hate to hear it', it's that when we do hear it, we're embarrassed for the person saying it. In fact, I can remember a post about a man whos doctor refused to perform a vasectomy. Must be that patriarchy again! /s
/r/MensRights13/04/14 04:51 PM
10

It is also a fact that basically all male adolescents consume porn. And females, probably. Well, most of them anyway. Which is honestly the part I find most bizarre about the anti-porn brigade. Women watch porn!
/r/MensRights11/04/14 07:35 PM
1

However, being homosexual myself, I'm disappointed of what I perceive to be a lack of non-heterosexual MRAs. There is no need for token blacks, homosexuals, mexicans, asians or any other group in the MHRM. The movement grows naturally, if you don't like the make-up of the group, maybe the problem lies with you.. *I find it very interesting that not trying to 'recruit' homosexuals because it 'would be good to have some homosexuals' is a controversial opinion. Maybe this subreddit is going down th…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 12:46 PM
0

HR is staffed entirely by women. Citation needed. All the HR departments I've seen have had men in them.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:23 PM
6

This is bad advice, unless OP's HR department is something special. It will probably end badly for him, not for her.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:26 PM
1

Might actually make some money like that.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 05:45 PM
2

Uh. It states that the 'problem' is that men work harder and earn more. Not only is it a myth that men earn more in most cases, it still frames the solution as one that men should be solving on womens' behalf. Not sold on the whole 'getting better' thing, sorry. Sounds more subversive but the same rhetoric as always.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 05:42 PM
1

I don't think any respectable hospital would do an adult circumcision without anaesthetic. I certainly couldn't point out any examples. The norm is to have it done under general anaesthesia. It doesn't really matter much what my thoughts are on those statistics though and I'm not sure why you're asking. Because you said this: It doesn't pass the "would an adult put up with it?" test. Forcing an adult to have their nails removed (without any anesthetic) would likely trigger the use of deadly forc…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 12:45 PM
1

You think adults are circumcised without anaesthesia?
/r/MensRights06/04/14 11:37 PM
2

Obviously there are areas where people have little to no social graces, where there are idiots who don't know how to speak to other people, and of course there is an extreme minority of people who may be evil and rape and/or murder you. However, society as a whole is 'safe'. You compare the USA (I guess that's where you reside, but if not, just insert your location here) to the middle east/some of asia, and you'll get an idea of how ignorant you look right now.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 12:55 PM
1

If you care about issues that affect men, all else is moot, and you are welcome.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 12:49 PM
2

the desire to want all the rights and none of the responsibilities is a genderless trait That makes it all the more ironic that despite The PatriarchyTM , men still have responsibilities and are having to have movements like this one to gain basic rights.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 09:58 AM
-1

The MHRM is largely a common-sense movement when it comes down to the core of it. It makes sense that every person should have full bodily autonomy. This may or may not apply in theory to a developing fetus, but the fact it resides within the mother means her choices are the most important. Yes, it's technically 'alive', no we don't really know when it develops a 'consciousness' - but the mother certainly has one, and it's her womb at the end of the day. *I literally cannot believe that this is …
/r/MensRights06/04/14 09:41 AM
1

Yea, you can totally become an engineer or a biologist or a chemist purely online! Same for doctors. Some of those are protected titles and some require access to things you wouldn't normally be able to find in order to learn properly. But at the same time, there's no reason you couldn't be as good an engineer as someone with a degree. Same probably goes for being a biologist or perhaps even a chemist (I don't know for sure about those).
/r/MensRights06/04/14 09:34 AM
3

Oh yes, but it would be sexist to tell a woman to go to one of those instead. /s
/r/MensRights06/04/14 09:30 AM
3

[WHOOSHING INTENSIFIES]
/r/MensRights06/04/14 09:29 AM
4

Well, when I was young (maybe 4 or 5) I had phimosis. This is when the foreskin opening is "too tight". Despite some doctors recommending circumcision, it worked itself out some time later. I now have no problems, and I have a foreskin which I am very happy to still have. No problems like UTIs, or AIDS, or even any STIs. I just don't fuck any girl that moves. All it takes is some discretion and having a foreskin is no problem whatsoever.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:45 PM
18

What pisses me off is how these journals always do a benefit/risk assessment and base their recommendation on it. It sounds reasonable, but when the risks of the actual procedure are minimal, that factor doesn't hold much weight. "Risks" means purely a technical, medical, interpretation. It means the risk of complications is minimal. It says nothing of the right of a human to have a choice, and the right for that human to not have the choice made by someone else when they are unable to make it t…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 11:28 AM
1

Ah but did they? or did they just try to call guys creepy and that they were being objectified? I'm sure even those people wouldn't mind if someone attractive looked...
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:21 AM
3

It's more of an expectation than an obligation, get the right girl and you don't need to spend so much on a ring. But it's not really fair to call it a marketing ploy, either. It's societal expectation, engrained through years of gender roles and it's not going to be easy to change. It is a symptom of the problem that is men are always seen as providers and women are always seen as deserving of high value gifts even when the act is supposedly mutually beneficial. I mean heck, even the expectatio…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:22 PM
1

I don't really think so. The big furore over expenses has mostly passed, I expect Cameron doesn't want to stir it up again.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:04 PM
1

You ask for them to advertise a males-only session somewhere that girls usually are. Swimming pool or something? I don't know what facilities you have available so I can't be specific. You just have to make a point of the double standard, and if they refuse to accommodate men equally, you probably have grounds for legal action. But you must test it first.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:03 PM
10

"I want to wear the most tight, short, body-clinging, cameltoe-creating, sexy shorts I can find, and I don't want anyone to look at me" Said no-one, ever. EDIT: Very, very interesting to see the vote activity on this comment. All the downvotes in the first 10 minutes of posting. Hmm, what's that smell?
/r/MensRights03/04/14 04:53 PM
1

Well you see the issue is not that women are the only victims, but that on the whole feminism is believed to be an equality movement for the benefit of men too. So it makes sense that it is categorised in this way. But despite the fact that it's dishonest, there is still a lot to do in order to change general attitudes. When they change, things like this can change and won't be dogmatically reverted.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:13 PM
13

It's a good start, but it needs more information, a URL for example. As it is, it just, you know, says things. The reader needs to know where to find more info. It doesn't even mention that it's from the club, is that intentional?
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:08 PM
8

Perhaps c is female, who knows? How the actual fuck can a numerical constant be sexed? Christ on a bike.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:07 PM
5

Lol, what a farce. [citation needed]
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:02 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/21r0dj/mens_rights_activists_claim_that_selfdefense/cgg2cgl
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:01 PM
2

Can you tell us if you have multiple versions of this survey and which groups you have asked for feedback? *I've filled it out anyway. I actually found I had quite a bit of stuff to write on there, hope you find it useful.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:04 PM
2

Pretty much every law in every country does, so I guess they would, too.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 06:14 PM
12

I don't think there's a man out there who hasn't been assaulted at some point in their life. I honestly don't. I know I have. But if they included that, they wouldn't be able to make it fit their narrative. It's such a shame that people like the author of this piece exist in the world, really.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 06:04 PM
3

I misspoke, that's what I meant.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:44 PM
7

I bolded it because the point stands regardless. I don't believe the statistic either.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:30 PM
2

Not slammed, quite, but I recall one where she speaks at the Oxford union. It's on youtube I believe somewhere.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:08 PM
2

Oh I have seen that many times. It is glorious. Love David Starkey.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:53 PM
31

Crouch does not mention in his letter that, according to data from the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), women are the victims in 90 percent of sexual assault cases. Even if this is true, do the 10% of male victims not matter? Do they not deserve to have classes in self defense? It is totally ludicrous how these things are framed as men vs. women, when really they should be framed as men and women together vs. rapists and attackers.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:50 PM
1

Oh the hatred I have for Laurie Penny. I hope she gets sued to kingdom come.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:09 PM
3

Alternatively, HuffPo is garbage. Meh...
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:04 PM
1

A few signs indicating that there may be water sprays as part of the event should deal with that. If they choose to get too close, so be it.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:11 AM
1

People like that should either a) not be allowed to leave the dorms, or b) remove the restrictions on men entering After all, if you can handle being around men when you go outside, you can handle being around men when you're inside. You can get raped outside just like you could inside. Etc. I guess that's just too much like logic though...
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:56 AM
5

Take a male friend as an escort, problem solved!
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:54 AM
0

That's a ridiculous point to make. This is important to some people. If you don't find it relevant to your life, by all means stop commenting and do something to combat the problems you consider to be more important. EDIT: The downvotes are too closely following the upvotes. I call shenanigans. Loser.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 12:51 PM
2

I think the point just whooshed past your ear at great speed.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:01 AM
3

Oh it absolutely isn't hard to believe, I just felt like there was some disbelief on the other commenters side.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:57 AM
2

By the way, I have not edited my comments except where I have stated that I have. I don't know what this guy Frank is talking about, there is not even an asterisk next to most of my comments to indicate an edit. Either their internet or pc is experiencing a technical issue, or they are just lying for some reason. I can't figure out why.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:47 AM
3

Yes, all anecdotal so you will dismiss it without cosideration. Sigh, reddit - where even first hand account is worthless because its not peer reviewed.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:45 AM
1

They are making a valid point and everyone is entitled to their preference when it comes to attraction. But, they are describing how things should be whereas I am describing how things actually are. That is why they are downvoted, because it is of no use to just state how things would be in a perfect world - we all know already. And I don't know why this guy is bitching about it edits, I even took the time to clarify the edit here and they've complained on other comments that haven't even been e…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:41 AM
2

I didn't edit. Note there is no asterisk.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 06:38 AM
4

So I take it you are a short man or an overweight woman? In any case, your excuse for not responding properly is a poor response in itself. Have a nice day. EDIT: My edit mentioned above was only to add "FYI, I was using "bastard" as an easy indicator of 'fault' in the situations described. Doesn't mean the guy is an actual bastard or even not nice in any way.". The rest of my comment was originally there the whole time.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 11:03 PM
7

That wasn't the conversation we were having, but I agree, you can't. But regularly, men are blamed no matter which category they fall into.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 11:02 PM
9

I get the feeling you are not a short man or an overweight woman. I guess if you never experience something, and you feel no need to investigate otherwise, you end up disagreeing with facts on reddit because you've never experienced it yourself. FYI, I was using "bastard" as an easy indicator of 'fault' in the situations described. Doesn't mean the guy is an actual bastard or even not nice in any way.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 11:00 PM
8

I disagree Well that's nice and all, but I'm a short-ish guy and I've noticed it myself. Military or not, doesn't matter. It exists. Have you considered why short guys might have lower self esteem? I bet you hadn't. You decided to see it as a cause and not as a symptom, and it most certainly is a symptom.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:58 PM
9

I can answer this. Taller men are promoted more. They're offered jobs more and they're offered more high powered jobs more. Generally they're seen as more authoritative and powerful, which are desirable. Taller women are actually seen as attractive, believe it or not. Most models are tall. And so on. Generally positive. I don't have stats, sorry. But I've seen them and I've heard it enough times to believe it. Maybe not in all countries, but certainly in some (looking at you, USA).
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:30 PM
13

Right. You make the point very well actually. When a man dislikes an overweight woman, despite the connotations you mention, he's still seen as a bastard who is objectifying her and is only interested in stick thin models etc. If a woman dislikes an overweight man, generally the reaction is "well yeah I can see why you wouldn't want that, there's plenty of men and you can get any of them". So the man is still the bastard. If a woman dislikes a short man, despite the fact that there's no real hea…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:29 PM
13

No, problem avoided. That's a difference you need to learn. Avoidance doesn't solve anything.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 08:51 PM
12

You're wrong, it does happen, quite often. I mean, good on you, you clearly have intelligent and fair friends. (no sarcasm) But there are plenty of people just like in this picture out in the world.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 08:49 PM
21

Link to thread: http://np.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/21i8ya/found_out_there_is_a_ladiesonly_lottery_syndicate/ I hope they let us know what happens...
/r/MensRights27/03/14 08:38 PM
6

Words are meaningless. WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS. Remember that. It's such a simple thing, but the bottom line is this: Do not believe someone's word in a situation like this. She may be out of the picture, she may say that she's not going to bother you, but the reality is maybe she will, maybe she won't. Always take legal precautions. As /u/BlindPelican said, PAPER TRAIL.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 08:09 PM
1

This section: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement#Equal_rights_vs._sexism My sides.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:40 PM
4

When you call a woman a "fat ugly whore," The point is, if you do that, you hate a woman, not women. Nothing wrong with gendered insults. Just use them on the right person.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:37 PM
4

And men's rights are women's responsibility, too. But of course, when did you last hear that said by any politician or voice that people listen to?
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:31 PM
0

It's so they know who to force into war when a draft happens. It's basically the same thing. How they get away with these lies I have no idea. Glad I don't live in the USA, that's for sure. *If you're downvoting because I mentioned that the USA sucks then you can gtfo.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:29 PM
2

It's a hilariously ironic statement about the way the world works vs. the way feminists see the world. Men are so powerful and privileged but we need women in order to be effective. Bahaha.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:52 PM
1

The critics of the song don't actually know the lyrics. It's clearly a song about a woman that is playing hard to get or playing a game.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 01:54 PM
2

I thought Feminism was about equality? http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/5073-obama-laughing.jpg
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:29 PM
1

Any chance you could post the message you received, with the personal info edited out? Just out of curiosity, really.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:08 PM
-1

Sounds better than the USA to be honest. *Oh right, yeah. Downvotes. I forgot that we all loved the USA and it's circumcision of baby boys. /s Circumcising adults is better, if you're a person that rejects an opinion because I said your country wasn't the best in the world, fuck you with a prickly stick.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:04 PM
5

At least she was honest - "respecting feminist ideals". I think we all know what feminist ideals really are.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:35 PM
2

The college's risk management antennae started to twitch when they read that list, I have no doubt. When someone begins with a list like that, you know they're going to be a royal pain in the bum from day one.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 01:57 PM
5

Free speech isn't black and white, it's a sliding scale. The irony is, by saying this, you're implicitly stating that it is black and white. Having free speech doesn't ever involve any sliding scale. It's free. But I do understand what you're saying. Living in the UK I live with 'hate speech' laws and so on. I find it strange how in the modern world, we are so preoccupied with such petty things as offending each other. Killing other nations' soldiers? Yep, sounds good. Violence on TV and in the …
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:07 PM
6

You remember the stuff about the SPLC and us being a 'hate group'? That was a direct result of SPLC's bastardised (though mainstream) [mis]use of the word "misogyny".
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:45 PM
0

Your biggest concern for how sanitary a park bench is would be a human butt touching it? Dude, animals shit and piss on park benches. If that's your issue, you can stay clothed and let other people be naked. And by the way, it's not your park bench.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:49 PM
1

I know exactly what's going on. Putting obstacles in someone's way either slows them down, sometimes until they lose interest, or makes them give up. "Taking it to the talk page" is an unnecessary obstacle and a tactic used to deter me from editing with facts.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:00 PM
1

I take it to the talk page, and who do I have to justify myself to? You? That went so well already, didn't it? Plus, who are you anyway? Wikipedia is for everyone, remember. If you were going to claim that it was the wording at fault here, you should have at least provided a counter that had the same meaning, instead you have suggested something that says something else entirely. SPLC never intended to label us a hate group; your suggestion makes it seem as though they did intend to and then bac…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 11:18 AM
7

I tried. http://i.imgur.com/ATcjMBx.jpg It's ridiculous. They are happy with this: Reddit's men's rights sub-forum was included in a list of twelve websites in the spring 2012 issue ("The Year in Hate and Extremism") of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report in a section called "Misogyny: The Sites". The dozen sites were described as "women-hating" and "thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express".[37] More specific claims were made …
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:07 AM
5

Gay men just think women are inferior and not worthy of their time My sides. Oh the pain.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 11:09 PM
7

It's pretty pathetic when people stalk accounts like that. Personally I respond to what someone's written at the time, whether I agree or disagree it is always to do with what they've written and not who they are. Several times, for example, I've tried to enter conversations in other subreddits and someone's come along and been like "it's an MRA, ignore" or something similar, totally ignoring everything I said.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 02:01 PM
4

Here is the heirarchy of "life" in terms of attractiveness. (Top level) Attractive women, Very attractive men Medium to ugly women, fairly attractive men Medium attractiveness men Ugly men, very ugly women Oh would you look at that, something's not right here. It's unequal. But no, you're right, random 'journalist', we should just "get used to it". /s
/r/MensRights15/03/14 09:25 AM
16

Well I don't know, what is this supposed to represent? I don't think it's female entitlement. Just, you know, plain old bad negotiating tactics. I have to say I am surprised at the withdrawal of the previous offer, rather than reverting back to it and offering again. That's a little odd.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:04 PM
0

That's quite a leap you're making. If a woman wants to be a single mother, it sort of makes sense. But I think maybe you're just reading the wrong newspapers. Merely co-habiting is pretty much the same as being married as far as benefits go. If you're living together, your benefit entitlement is pretty much the same as if you were married. It seems much more likely that it's simple apathy and economical reasons rather than a sudden increase in single parent benefits scroungers. I know that for m…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 06:55 PM
7

What macho culture? Hell what is macho culture? What is causing young men to be depressed is the fact that traditional gender roles dictate that they are unimportant, work machines that don't deserve respect unless they are useful to someone else. And these roles are still unchallenged because everyone is spending time making sure little girls don't get called bossy when they're being bossy and so young women can have fanciful ideas about being a CEO of a major company.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 05:40 PM
5

I would say the biggest contribution to young people not getting married is the distorted benefits system. ...why?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 06:53 PM
3

Gonna go out on a limb here and guess she's in the 14-17 age bracket?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 06:39 PM
1

I lol'd hard at the comments. It's almost satirical.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 08:30 PM
2

Top gear? Lmao. Can you imagine it being anything else besides Clarkson, Hammond, and May? I sure can't. I mean, even the foreign versions of the same format don't work like the UK show does. I can't even comprehend what might happen if they were forced to bring a woman in. She could be the biggest petrolhead but it would change the dynamic significantly. They have female guests on all the time who they interview and then have a chance to set a lap time around their track. Meanwhile, The Great B…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:51 AM
3

The bizarre thing is that MHRAs in general are for more reproductive rights for everyone. As in, the right for women to choose, and the right for men to also choose (for clarity, this does not mean the right to force a woman to either bring to term or to abort. It is financial only.). Based on the belief that sex is something that two people do together, and not an action performed by a man onto a woman.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 04:24 PM
2

Great! A step forward :)
/r/MensRights10/03/14 11:44 AM
2

I'm not sure what your actual reasoning is for 3,5,6,7,9,10,14,15,or 16. I don't see the point of downvoting you, so I won't, but I do think you have only given this idea very limited thought so far. I would encourage you to mull over some of your ideas for a few months and give your theories another try.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:32 PM
10

What gets me is I have literally no idea where the stereotype comes from. Anyone?
/r/MensRights09/03/14 12:46 PM
9

Not really. No adverts, yay. *And, they're not beholdent to advertisers' interests. Example: Mythbusters couldn't do an episode about RFID because Mastercard, a network sponsor, who was starting to incorporate RFID into it's cards, said "no". No such problems on the BBC.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 06:34 PM
1

You can buy a freeview TV for less than £30 second hand. What is this nonsense you are talking? I don't even.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 06:34 PM
-1

Maybe celebrating simply existing (and being female) is petty. If we have to do it, we should at least celebrate both women's day and men's day. EDIT: What the hell, guys?
/r/MensRights08/03/14 02:58 PM
3

I suppose on the face of it that is a fair assumption. But, it is still at odds with the reality of what is necessary to remove someone from an abusive situation, insofar as removing one party takes the same resources whether they are a man or a woman. By saying that the level of abuse matters, you are saying that lower level abuse should be given more tolerance. Ergo, since you assume that men are the subject of lower level abuse in general, you imply that men's abuse is not as important, becau…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:53 PM
8

Well, just so I don't judge you unfairly, what exactly are your assumptions?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:41 PM
6

I understand that setting someone up in a new home could cost more than a few therapy sessions, but the underlying point is whether women should have more resources on the basis that they experience "worse" abuse. First you suggested different levels of severity warranted different levels of resources (implying women are more likely to be victims of more serious physical abuse and thus deserve more resources, even when removed from the abusive situation). Now you're saying you suggested no such …
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:35 PM
3

Once someone is out of the abusive situation, it doesn't matter. Unless you're suggesting men don't deserve resources to be set up in a new home?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:27 PM
5

It isn't in terms of what quantifies abuse. Right. But it's not a small factor in terms what you can and can't walk away from. Literally doesn't matter. Abuse is something anyone should be able to get help with. Severity is not an issue.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:19 PM
7

I guess I can slap my girlfriend if I do it with the strength of a woman, then... Since when is it the level of violence that is the issue? Violence is violence, I can only imagine if a woman was attacked by a man in the same way a woman might attack someone, it would still be treated as if the man was a total monster.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:50 PM
1

I don't think he identifies as anything in particular. He doesn't seem like a 'labels' sort of guy. He used to do a lot for feminist causes. He began to notice that it wasn't about equality, and he grew away from it.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:55 PM
39

Well I guess now the rapists know where the women will be. Good thinking! /s
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:00 PM
5

Well, that answers that question. I wonder how this is legal?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:48 PM
5

There's no lie in the title.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:43 PM
6

Of course they don't. But simply being the status quo doesn't mean it's right, as I'm sure you know. You can be as concerned as you like about whatever you like, but that doesn't mean this isn't important in some way.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 01:49 PM
57

Let's see if they offer men free travel on November 19th...
/r/MensRights06/03/14 01:32 PM
1

The moderate feminists do nothing except talk about how moderate and fair they are. The real political power of feminism that affects us all is quite seriously detached from the moderate feminist way of thinking. It doesn't matter if you met a fair feminist today, and it doesn't matter how many you meet, because they're not the ones dictating policy.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:59 AM
2

Not that I agree with trying to force the parents to pay for college, but high school? If the parents put her in that high school, surely they are responsible till she leaves it? I mean, being suspended doesn't mean you left. Lots of kids are suspended. Parents chose a private education, not the girl.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:54 AM
2

He seems pretty heavily indoctrinated into the "you should be x because we told you" club to be honest. I hope he finds a way out.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:49 AM
5

Bahaha. It has a tag "misleading - see comments". Ahahahaha. Fuck me, this is next level stupid.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:44 AM
1

See. pseudo intellectual all the way through. Believe it or not, mocking someone, name calling, or sarcasm do not mean that someone loses the argument. All it means is your ego gets a boost because you think "Aha! They abused me! Now I get to claim my victory by default!". Nope.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:24 PM
1

N'awww. Who's a little pseudo intellectual expert on the internet, coochie coo. Cute.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:12 PM
1

It is a gender neutral term. It seems to be used more often against men, but it can be just as easily used against a woman.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:35 AM
1

Sorry but all of his sources are peer-reviewed in prestigious journals, so you don't get to call them biased based on what country the research was performed in. Actually, yes I can. In the same way that the other commenter can (and has) called peer reviewed sources from places where circumcision is not prevalent biased. To suggest they in no way take cultural norms into account is naive at best.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:21 AM
3

Since when is it okay to cut off parts of people's bodies on the premise that its 'not harmful'? I think the harm is clearly in the act itself. The supposed benefits are just not sufficient. Like I say, it's now a case of justifying a practice that has been going on for years instead of being about whether the practice should be taking place at all. I mean, if we take the bullshit reasons that circumcision is good, and apply them to female genital mutilation, for most of the common types it make…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 11:59 PM
3

Your precious journals still mean nothing in the moral argument. They say the benefits outweigh the risks. Medically. As in, look at what I did to this piece of meat, it's improved now! I am not surprised that both sides accuse the other of bias. In fact I would be surprised to see anything else. Perhaps they are both biased, rather than neither, or just one. Why do we not remove one testicle from a newborn baby boy? I'll tell you. While it would have medical merit, it is not engrained as a cult…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 11:21 PM
6

1) Urinary tract infections. Wash your kids penis regularly. 2) Risk of sexually transmitted infections. If your newborn baby is at risk of sexually transmitted infections I would suggest there should be some sort of intervention involving child protection services. There are better ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections. These include condoms, which coincidentally act as contraceptives for double protection, and choosing sexual partners with some care and thought, and not just haphazar…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:57 PM
4

No. Go on, 'educate' me about the benefits of circumcision. They're all bunk. Everything you mentioned have real benefits, and they're all non-destructive. EDIT: Consider this. You have a duty of care to your children, to make the right choices for them. This doesn't mean making the choice to do nothing every time, just to make the correct choice. If the right choice happens to be to do nothing, then you do nothing. That would be the case re. circumcision. Braces are the correct choice if a chil…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:35 PM
6

I think we've already cleared up the issue.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:56 PM
6

I said you engaged, not that you wanted to engage. You posted your comment, that was you engaging. Moot point anyway since it's totally unrelated to the discussion.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:30 PM
4

Well, I didn't. But that's beside the point. It's very common for circumcised people to want, very much, for them to be 'unmutilated' 'normal' etc. I'm sorry your parents decided to have a procedure done on you without your agreement, but just because you happen to like the result doesn't mean that it was right to do it. Anyway, as with most other people in your position, the wish for your ego to not be troubled will far outweigh any reason I could bring to you, so go forth and be ignorant! Just…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:29 PM
3

It's pretty ironic you talk about reasoned debate. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zg48v/fgm_and_male_circumcision_time_to_confront_the/cfteips Take a hike already.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:17 PM
5

So what's the point of you bothering to engage in the first place? You didn't even mention consent, so there's no reason your ego would take a hit if you agreed with me.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:15 PM
7

Literally, yes. It is maiming. edit: ehhh, no need for that
/r/MensRights03/03/14 06:52 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zg48v/fgm_and_male_circumcision_time_to_confront_the/cftde8e
/r/MensRights03/03/14 06:35 PM
10

People would call that vanity, but so what? Generally people make aesthetic surgery decisions above the age of one week. It's not really a procedure issue, it's a consent issue. Circumcision for consenting adults? Hell yeah, go for it. And no, I don't care whether it's "better" to do it to a baby than to do it to an adult. I don't care if it takes longer to heal as an adult, either. Consent, not practice, is the issue, remember. Any kind of genital mutilation for consenting adults? Again, go for…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 06:26 PM
1

Are you stupid? I specifically said I don't think everyone in uniform is out to get me. I know I can get help if I'm robbed, assaulted, or whatever, and there won't be an issue. But the system they operate within is most definitely sexist when it comes to complaints of women vs. Complaints of men. Again, I'm not going into detail, and you can take it or leave it. Looks like you're doing the latter, and good for you. You may now feel superior despite the fact that what I say is true, because you …
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:58 PM
1

Who said it was one? I don't draw conclusions on a sample size of one. Anyway like I said, the specific situations can only be explained by sexism. It was never a case of one officer being sexist. It was the framework. I won't go into it, and frankly I don't give two shits what you think, another internet nobody, so take it or leave it. The police are sexist. I don't know what you expect me to bring to the table in terms of evidence. Just fucking Google domestic violence related keywords and you…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:41 PM
17

I was so hopeful when I saw gendered sections. Then I read it. Sigh.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:10 PM
-1

My experiences are factual. I'm not going into detail because it's personal, but the outcome and circumstances involved leave no room for any other explanation except sexism. You don't believe me? Makes no difference. The whole criminal justice system is sexist. There's plenty of info on google if you really want to play pedant. Unfortunately right now you're only succeeding in playing ignorant. I'm not spoon feeding you.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 08:16 PM
2

Go fuck yourself. I just told you I was basing it on firsthand experience. If it's good enough for a murder trial, it's good enough for you, random internet nobody.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 07:47 PM
-2

The fact that the police are sexist. I'm going by firsthand experience. If you want empirical data, www.google.com.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 07:42 PM
3

I'm close to leaving and joining them. So fuck off. Seriously. You have to acknowledge problems in order to fix them. The police are sexist. As in, the system they operate within, is sexist. As individuals, clearly some are and some aren't. I'm not just talking about one time, either. Multiple times I've found myself a victim of their sexism. And no, I'm not a bad guy nor was it deserved. You shouldn't talk about something you know nothing about, smart guy.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 07:41 PM
3

No. It's very obvious that you have had zero experience of dealing with police. Unfortunately, I have had some. And I can tell you, as someone who actually knows, that the police are sexist. And I don't give two shits what you think of me, or this sub. Your ego doesn't alter the facts, nor do your downvotes.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 07:32 PM
3

Person who has never dealt with police detected.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 07:15 PM
0

So you're saying feminists are nice but stupid? In other news, what you just said could just as easily be applied to Hitler.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 04:57 PM
9

If I was Jonathan Ross I'd host the event and then ask all the feminists to stand up, I would then host an informative video highlighting what feminism has actually been doing for the last decade and more. Oh my. I would pay money to see that. Can you imagine the shitstorm? I'm moist just thinking about it.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 04:52 PM
1

He, in this context, doesn't mean "a man" - it means "a person". If you read the statutes of law in the UK, they will use "he" consistently but they really mean "a person".
/r/MensRights02/03/14 01:36 PM
1

there isn't enough opposition here to 'them vs. us' mentality. The two principles cannot coexist peacefully. One is for equality (MHRM) and one is for women's benefit at the expense of men (feminism). I know, I know. It doesn't help to be 'controversial' when trying to make a movement more 'mainstream' - but this is the crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. The fact is, feminism ignores men, a least when it's not busy vilifying them. There is no solution to issues of equality while feminism…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 01:33 PM
5

You know what the result of real privilege is? Choice. Women are privileged. Feminists work to provide as much choice as possible for women, do nothing at all for men (unless it also benefits women and just by chance also benefits men) then are surprised and offended when their "we work on men's issues too" rhetoric is called as the bullshit it really is. Shrug.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 09:11 PM
1

And unmarried women of any age (read: women who have not had time off for family stuff, i.e. who have a work history more akin to that of a man) generally outearn men.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 05:49 PM
2

Just working harder doesn't work with things like massages. You end up with an inferior result if you rush it. Paying for more time is perfectly acceptable, saying it's 'harder' and charging more per hour is not. Anyway, you deleted your account so that's that I guess.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 09:43 AM
2

If your argument is size then it would take longer to provide an equivalent service, which would mean men paid more purely because it's a per hour rate. But saying a man is bigger in no way justifies charging more per hour. Do I need to put it in plainer words?
/r/MensRights28/02/14 08:13 AM
2

That's right.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:19 PM
1

As more women become breadwinners and have careers that they built up themselves, laws are changing to allow them to protect their interests. And yet, for all these years... Sigh.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 07:06 PM
1

Generally people who have had "something bad happen" to them don't start inviting strangers to their home to undress in the first place.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 07:05 PM
1

The pricing model is on a per hour basis. If men take more time, they get charged more hours, NOT more per hour. If they are rushing more massage 'effort' into the same time frame, for more money, that's doubly unfair since the massage won't even be as 'good' as the one given to a woman in the same time.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 07:04 PM
2

edit: Higher cost: have you ever massaged an average-sized man?? It is hard work! Because there are no large women in the world, anywhere... And no, an 'average' size man is not massive. Regardless of these points, it is priced per hour. If men take longer, they get charged for more time, not more per hour. If she's trying to fit in more massage in less time then the service is arguably inferior to that offered to women, yet you end up paying more anyway.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 06:59 PM
6

Self entitled princesses don't try to change the system. Feminsts do.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 06:56 PM
1

It's about the women who are oppressed beneath you Looks down Well, fuck me! I had no idea!
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:58 PM
4

Speaking in Washington, where he received an award from Hillary Clinton for promoting women's rights ... where he received an award from Hillary Clinton ... an award from Hillary Clinton ... Hillary Clinton Oh, snap. What was the quote again? The one where men dying in wars don't count? Oh yeah. "Women have always been the primary victims of war". And this woman is giving out awards to good boys who only think about women like she does too? Bahahahaha. Fuck me, this sort of shit makes me want to…
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:53 PM
11

And people still tell me I'm crazy when I tell them the police is a sexist force.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:48 PM
10

Consider this. Forget police for a moment. Random passer by attacks man. Man has heart attack. Man dies. Who is responsible. The police are not there to protect you. EDIT: Enjoy sharing your soothing lies with each other instead of facing the truths. He died as a direct result of the police's actions. You appear to have kept all the lies for yourself, so we have none to share anyway.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:47 PM
4

Actually, I just deleted my comment berating this person. I think those downvoting them may have had the same issue I did when I read this comment the first time. I agree, the actual message does not need to be gender specific, and that it may be a good idea to have an ad campaign that targets the victims of controlling/abusive relationships (any sex) telling them that is is not normal.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 06:37 PM
28

Lol. This is just ridiculous. If men are the aggressor, then feminists will wax lyrical about how men are violent and maybe we need an ad campaign to 'educate' them not to be violent, etc. If women are the aggressor: "well, it's not important to talk about the gender of the perpetrator, let's just try and stop violence" Jeez.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 06:01 PM
3

Has the women's liberation movement really scared the bejesus out of men this much? We're not scared. We're giving you what you asked for. How about we ask the writer when was the last time she helped a random stranger (male, of course) to lift something? Or, in fact, helped in any way at all. I suspect she would find herself strangely lost for words. And, to me, the most ironic part of this is that the first half of the 'article' pretty much says "fuck all you men, I don't need you, I'm doing m…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:37 PM
0

Well I was referencing the second part.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 01:11 PM
0

Okay, nice theory. Now tell me what that has to do with him looking smug.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:07 AM
-4

Coward.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:40 PM
2

No, no it isn't. If you're too afraid to acknowledge someone's message because you don't like the way they look, or their attitude, you are a coward.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:28 PM
-9

Nobody's shouting here. The fact is, people here have a problem with this person's appearance. You made no valid points so they deserved to be ignored. I don't have time for bullshit smarty-pants internet pseudo-intellectuals. It's unfortunate there are so many of you, really. I said it how it is and you didn't like it. Suck it up.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:52 PM
-11

Oh look at you, mr. intellect. What I said is no less valid and you just wasted however many minutes of your time trying to look smarter than a random person you will never meet. Well done.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:48 PM
0

It's ironic how a community that is so pro-reason is so bothered that someone looks smug while being accurate. Are you trying to be humourous by implying I am the gentleman in the image? ha. ha. ha.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:45 PM
-11

I didn't deny that he looks smug. Helps if you read first.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:08 PM
5

The really ironic thing is that the reality is literally the reverse. Except the male wouldn't have any ice cream at all, sometimes.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:54 AM
1

To be fair, they were making sexual jokes about dongles and forking repos. Don't you get it? IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. It was a conversation that didn't even involve her, between two other people at the conference, and this type of innuendo is most definitely not going to be offensive to a normal adult human. It was an innocent conversation, it was not intended to hurt or offend anyone, and it didn't offend anyone except this one jumped up moron with a chip on her shoulder about "women in tech" being…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:50 AM
12

When you say that, you mean he's fat, unattractive, and has a beard and some weird piercings. You don't care that he's "smug". We all know this, and we all feel it too, because we're programmed to think of this person as being of little worth because of the aforementioned reasons. But the facts he presents are valid, so let's not just fall into the old "rule 1: be attractive" trap, maybe?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:37 AM
5

Isn't feminism more about advancing women's right to be on even footing That's what they will tell you. But then, if you had been in 1940s Germany, you would likely have found what Adolf Hitler was publicly speaking about to be equally palatable. Pay lip service to the moderates, actually act with the radicals. That's feminism today.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:31 AM
0

So what you meant to say is "I hope they don't force things onto him" I can agree with that.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:36 PM
1

On one more point, "Hope they don't fuck his brain over in the process." is not a statement that they will fuck his head up.. I said I "hope". Love how shit gets rewrote. You saying it at all implies you think the chance of it happening is greater than 0. Don't backtrack. It won't work in terms of reducing the possibility of his aggression as an adult. Their reasoning may be off but there certainly won't be any harm done.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:11 PM
3

All justice is punitive. Wrong. But to the topic at hand, this was purely abusive and likely against health and safety laws, never mind child care laws.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:46 AM
7

It's an example of a real problem. That's all that is necessary to make it relevant. You would probably complain if a genuine real male sex trafficked slave was posting about it on tumblr. INVALID, ITS JUST TUMBLR MY OPINION IS IMPORTANT ITS NOT RELEVANT TO MENS RIGHTS WAAAAAAHHHHH
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:42 AM
1

I love how that was said as if it was literally the fault of the person she's dating that she perceives inequalities in the workplace. I mean, really. The fuck.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:34 AM
2

So what you're saying is there is no harm to it. They're letting the boy wear clothes and play with toys that adults have decided he shouldn't be. That's not harmful, and it's not fucking his brain over. As you say, he will grow into the adult he was meant to be, maybe even a better version than if he had been forced into gender stereotypes as a child.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:26 AM
3

Hold on. They're not bringing him up as a boy and a girl. They're bringing him up as a boy who is truly free from harmful stereotypes. At least at home. How that translates in any way to bringing him up as a girl is beyond me. As long as he's deciding what to wear, of course. Not the parents dressing him deliberately as a girl.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:23 AM
31

Interesting how the background image is of a man in a suit, with groomed facial hair and an attractive face. That's the real message, no need to even read the words.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:21 AM
2

I support the MHRM (though I dont consider myself an MRA) I am the same way, but I should point out that I am a man. But do you not call yourself an MRA because of the stigma attached to the acronym, or for another reason?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:46 PM
1

Why would you want a rapist to help you, anyway? /s
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:33 PM
3

The only people complaining about chivalry dying are sexists.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 06:24 PM
7

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xwfbi/so_amazon_has_a_section_called_amazon_mom_that/
/r/MensRights16/02/14 11:23 PM
1

You are pompous, yes. But more than that, you just don't seem to find it possible to understand what primary education actually is, or how anyone could possibly live without a degree. This seems to be a by-product of your pomposity. I reference the hierarchy of needs as an easy visual representation of the point I was making, which is that primary education does not exist to enable anyone to own a house, a nice car, or pay their insurance. It exists to give a basic standard of education so that …
/r/MensRights15/02/14 10:26 PM
1

I've already learned for myself that merely surviving off minimum wage is not living. It's not about the ferrari. Get that into your damn head, will you. Surviving is the goal of primary education, not 'living'. It's not about paying for everything, it's about giving you enough skills that you survive and can be sufficiently productive that you can support yourself in the basics of having basic housing and feeding yourself, etc. In many ways, even those people working minimum wage jobs in the US…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:36 PM
2

People with minimum wage are surviving. They're not very happy, and they can't afford all the things they want, but they're surviving. But I didn't actually say anything at all about minimum wage; you assume that all unskilled work pays minimum wage - which is an incorrect assumption on your part. This is also nothing to do with money, so it is a moot point anyway. You're going above and beyond the aim of primary education. A degree is absolutely, categorically, not primary education. That's it,…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 06:40 PM
2

Tell me what you define as "contributing to society". Working at fast food restaurants for the rest of your life? Working retail? You're still making the same mistake of looking at it from a personal development/achievement POV. Some people work low level jobs all their life, believe it or not. These types of jobs are not meant to fund your rent, insurance, and automobile. Yes they are. You just don't get to live in a $3000/month apartment or have a ferrari. Again the narcissist inside you is sh…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 06:19 PM
3

No, they're not. Primary education is what you need to ensure you have a basic level of education so that you are capable of contributing to society. I am not in denial, you are. Do you need a degree to work in a shop, on a farm, or on a building site? No, you do not. Do you need to be able to read, write, and communicate? Yes, mostly, you do. That is the purpose of primary education. Your world is clearly one in which low level jobs don't exist, so you are ignorant to the realities of life.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 05:39 PM
0

College and university is very much primary education in North America. No, it's not.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 05:03 PM
0

They're talking about primary education. Not about higher education. But I do agree that any education has to be a right, in that it must be accessible to anyone.
/r/MensRights15/02/14 01:28 PM
5

Exactly. This is a symptom of a problem, not the cause.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 07:55 PM
2

The year I attempted to justify my existence by doing a shitty gender based activity so I could write a shitty online article about it.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:11 PM
2

I would also omit anything about radical feminists; they are a fringe group. I wouldn't be so sure. I have encountered a lot of feminists that meet the description in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:09 PM
1

No matter what settlement this one guy might get from a lawsuit, it makes literally no difference to his work environment unless the woman is fired, which could be done for free.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:59 PM
4

HR sides with women most of the time. Correction: HR sides with the company, all of the time.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:58 PM
6

It's a marketing ploy, simple as that. They know it will work for most people because most people don't give a shit, not in the same way that we do here. It's available to all parents, male or female. But it's a part of a bigger picture of traditional gender roles that still needs work to dismantle.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:55 PM
1

It's not legal, if it's done by another man it is rape, if it is done by a woman it is sexual assault. It's a difference, sure, but it's sure as hell not legal.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:46 PM
2

So whoever wants to contribute and participate should be welcome I agree wholeheartedly.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 08:33 PM
1

This is...a strange approach to be honest. I guess this is a reaction to Race for Life, a women-only race for cancer research funding. But the problem is that only women could run, which is bad. Now we have a race that only men can run, which is...bad. So now we have two bad things, instead of one. Great. EDIT: On the subject of Race for Life - boys can run with a female participant, if the boy is under 10. So it's not technically a women only event; it's a "we're afraid of adult men" event. It'…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 07:54 PM
2

Should we not aspire to rise above petty bullshit Race for life doesn't seem to think so.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 07:52 PM
1

You're just demonstrating your lack of understanding by drawing flawed comparisons like that. I'm tired of this. Read my earlier posts.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 11:44 PM
1

In this scenario, it's a totally reasonable assumption to make. So no, it's not prejudicial. Refer to my previous posts for reasons why this is the case.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 11:26 PM
1

Yeah, that's still not bigotry. Nice try though.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 11:03 PM
2

I am always rational. There was nothing bigoted about suggesting that things might be different under different circumstances.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:30 PM
1

Well yeah I already know you're not a bigot, that's kind of the point. And neither is the person you accuse of being bigoted. Give it up, you're wrong.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:20 PM
1

So you're a bigot. By your very own logic.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 07:03 PM
1

I said nothing of the sort. But, "personal vested interest" just means the same thing as "relevant to my personal circumstances". It doesn't make anyone a bigot. Unless you're a bigot for not protesting killing retired racehorses? Hmm?
/r/MensRights09/02/14 06:40 PM
1

Indeed. And 'to get a reaction' goes nowhere in terms of assuming what type of reaction. It's very sad that it got the reaction it did.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:34 PM
2

It's a strange thing, really. Male comics don't generally base even 2% of their material on gender differences or making fun of the opposite sex, but female comics generally (well, aside from a few good ones, see below) seem to have something to say on the matter every other time they have a turn to speak. I don't know whos downvoting us but it makes no difference to the fact that what we say is literally true. That said, there are some very funny and smart women out there. But then, they are th…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 02:07 PM
-1

Great, now I get to see David Mitchell's un-funny wife on panel shows even more often. God, I really don't like her. She takes every opportunity to spout some anti-male or feminist bullshit, even on a comedy show. As an aside, I have no idea why he married her. He is so talented and she is moronic.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 12:14 PM
1

^<sup>NOTICE:</sup> ^<sup>The</sup> ^<sup>following</sup> ^<sup>comment</sup> ^<sup>is</sup> ^<sup>not</sup> ^<sup>serious.</sup> College is a time for taking everything too far, from drinking beer to sports fandom to sexual drama to using your fancy new vocabulary words picked up in women's studies courses. Then they can hardly blame the men in college if they get a little over excited about having sex...even rape perhaps...just call it 'sexual drama'. It's okay to take things too far, if you'r…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 11:53 AM
2

The reality is that it is impossible to say what this woman would have done. Right. And to make the suggestion that she wouldn't have noticed the problem if she didn't have a son is not bigoted in the slightest. Nobody said she didn't care. Just that she might not have noticed which is ultimately the step before you start caring about something. And, whether you accept the idea or not, your personal circumstances play a huge part in what you decide to care about. Making assumptions about what wo…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:13 AM
2

I made no mention of whether or not she cared - but whether or not she noticed. It's no secret that your own personal life circumstances dictates what you care most about - when was the last time you protested against shooting retired racehorses, for example? I would imagine that you didn't, ever. If you were a jockey or owned a stable, maybe you would have done. Does it mean you don't care that horses are being killed for just not earning a human money anymore? No, it just means you didn't noti…
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:11 AM
10

If she did not have a son, he would not have brought the subject up, she would not have necessarily known that the information was not given to boys, and if she had no son she would not necessarily have made the connection between it being for girls and it not being for boys. It's not bigoted, at all.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:35 PM
2

I have a suspicion that the reporting could simply be inaccurate, as there is literally no way that a woman can be convicted of rape under UK law, even if it still involves female victim. EDIT: Actually, there is statutory rape, if the victim is underage, but it seems the victim in this case was above the age of consent. EDIT2: On reading the legislation again, it seems that only men can be convicted of raping a child, too. So ignore my last edit. EDIT3: Further reading suggests that women can b…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:58 PM
2

Textbooks for medical/anatomy students, come with the circumcised penis as the default. ...seriously? What, the, fuck.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:38 PM
1

Aw. For a minute I thought it was Chatham, UK. Oh well.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:37 PM
1

Uh, the child is being sent abroad as it is. I don't see the difference this would make.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:36 PM
3

I suppose in terms of supply and demand it makes sense from a purely economic standpoint, sure. But that wasn't the issue; it was about needing 'more skilled scientists and engineers'. Or maybe it's just a ruse, made to sound palatable by using the standard 'help women' tack, to make a more competitive market...
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:29 PM
6

It's baffling how we need more skilled scientists and engineers translates to we need more women I mean, what? Yes, women can be skilled scientists and engineers, I'm definitely not disputing that, but so can men. So why not leave it at "we need more skilled scientists and engineers"?
/r/MensRights07/02/14 12:26 PM
1

You are voicing your opinion as fact. You don't believe this to be relevant, so what? Nobody has to justify it to you.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:53 AM
1

By trying to tell people what not to post here. It really is very simple.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:44 AM
5

My parents didn't have a computer until I was about 10.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 09:32 PM
3

My father is a manager in social services and my mother was a nursery teacher.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 08:51 PM
1

Yeah. I know. But they did also say that it was legitimate etc. which left me wondering exactly what they were saying. However it is all clear now!
/r/MensRights06/02/14 05:05 PM
1

Okay, okay. I'm less worried now. We totally agree. Sorry brah.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 02:22 PM
1

The military labels things with trigger warnings? Do you have any examples of this in practice?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 02:16 PM
1

Okay, I won't insult you by telling you about why it's nonsense, since you appear to claim be some sort of professional, but I think we agree that it is at least misused the vast majority of the time.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 02:05 PM
2

Triggering and don't blame the victim aren't bullshit. Those are separate ideas, don't conflate them. Trigger warnings are bullshit, and used as a method to hype the importance of what is usually a piece of garbage internet article or such like. Show me one example of someone who has killed or even hurt themselves after being 'triggered' by a piece of text. Not blaming the victim is a different point entirely, and one that is not always as simple as it appears, though it sounds very nice to say,…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:33 PM
26

That would be a sign of bad parents, not a sign of sexism in the tech industry.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:50 PM
2

triggering How can we stop this 'triggering' bullshit? Everything is a fucking trigger to these feminazis. Is it supposed to be some sort of respectful thing for the suicidal? To me it seems only disrespectful and it seems to be used as a way to give meaning to meaningless things.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:03 PM
45

Looking around at the hackers I know, the great ones started before puberty. This is something that a lot of adults forget. Hackers, technical people, they are born, not made. I was taking things apart from the age of maybe 4 or 5, much to my parents annoyance. I'm now an engineer and I can't really see myself being anything else. My father is a manager in social services and my mother was a nursery teacher. I didn't decide to do what my parents did. I don't even think I had much outside influen…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 11:54 AM
1

And you do? I'm not the one acting as if I do. Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 08:40 AM
11

Thanks. To add to the shelter link I posted, here is the page on men suffering domestic violence: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/domestic_abuse/domestic_abuse_against_men This page is literally not in the menu at all, and can only be accessed via a text link buried in another page. It admits there is very little in place to help men. It's pretty ironic that it says it can be hard to speak out as a man, on a page that is quite well hidden in the first place, and on a website that seems …
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:17 PM
6

What makes you think boys won't think their work is worth $100? Because their supposed equals received $100 and they didn't.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:43 PM
4

If you don't want to have to justify your submission, don't post. Says the person with literally no status or power here. As /u/muttmonster said, we don't have to justify shit to you.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:18 PM
5

I suggest that everyone that attends takes video footage from the minute they have sight of protestors to the minute they are out of sight again. It makes it more likely that any bad behaviour is at least documented, so if they pull the fire alarm or something like that, they can be held accountable.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:19 PM
1

A wallet with feelings but doesn't talk about them that goes to work to pay taxes and not live a fulfilling life but will take a bullet for any woman because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:11 PM
9

Women are "under represented" in computer science related fields. The industry has reached a natural balance of genders. A motion to get them to try learning coding when they're young and impressionable seems a pretty good way to try to make an effort to create more female coders. If a girl wants to code, she will code. It doesn't take a $100 donation to do it. Regardless of the state of the industry, tell me why it makes sense to separate CHILDREN deliberately, and praise/reward ONLY ONE OF THE…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:03 PM
25

UK-based sources. 1. Circumcision. Google it. 2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1 (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Unless the woman in question has a penis, this is only an act that a man can do to a woman in legal terms. 3. I can't specifically back up those numbers, but if you do …
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:58 AM
1

Yup, UK sucks. Who do you ask when deciding policies that affect women? Feminista? Who do you ask when deciding policies that affect children? Mumsnet? So, who do you ask when deciding policies that affect men? ... ... ... ... Hurr durr. Of course because the prime minister is a man, and all men have the same thoughts, because we are really very simple animals, his opinion is valid for everyone, no need to consult the rest of us! Also why would men need consulting when women have already told us…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:43 AM
9

There is no such version in existence. If it can be computer generated, it can be computer generated.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 09:33 AM
4

Semantics, but yes, regrettably semantics can make or break a real world argument.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:19 PM
4

I think we mostly agree. For us to agree, this needs to change: I disagree. They don't need to be 'punished'. They need to be enlightened.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:59 PM
11

I don't suggest that we punish them. The university should be taking action, assuming someone is aware that this is going on. In reality, the issue is nothing to do with the MRA response. The actions they write about should be punished no matter who the group affected is. Do you think that it is harsh for the university to give them fair warning that limiting other groups free speech and vandalising their material is unacceptable and won't be tolerated?
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:45 PM
37

No, they need to be punished. Vandalism is unacceptable. It is not essential to pander to idiots in order to appear moderate. These kind of people are not capable of being 'enlightened' - you could tell them for hours why they're wrong, you could back up your arguments with ten million different studies, but it would make not one iota of difference to them. We are talking about a university group. A university group that advocates silencing others' free speech and vandalising publicly displayed …
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:36 PM
1

I was banned for mentioning that abortion isn't just about women. They don't like to, you know, 'think' over there.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 02:42 PM
53

By allowing them a place in our intellectual institutions we are detracting from the fights that need to be had and allowing ourselves to be dragged back to square one of the movement- defending its existence. The person who saw these at our uni tore them down. I will be doing the same and encouraging others to do so also. Absolutely disgusting. This is a hate group. And vandals. They need to be punished.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 02:37 PM
1

http://drivelikeagirl.com/standing-up-for-young-women-drivers Oh, wow. Drive like a girl was created in response to the EU Gender Ruling, which came into force in December 2012. This ruled that gender could not be used as a factor for setting prices. Drive like a girl complies with this regulation: policies are open to drivers of either gender and a male and female with identical circumstances would receive the same quote. So...guys can get insurance from 'drive like a girl'? I guess they figure…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:57 PM
4

Welcome to the MHRM test. This will tell you whether you are a supporter of the MHR movement. Do you believe all human beings are equal? Do you believe men are human beings? Congratulations, you are a supporter of the mens human rights movement. tl;dr: according to this stupid logic all feminists are MRAs anyway so everyone needs to be MRAs and not feminists.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:51 PM
5

Currently, women control reproduction. If you had control of something so important, would you give it up easily?* ^<sup>*Rhetorical</sup> ^<sup>question.</sup>
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:42 PM
6

It sounds more like she is advocating for women to achieve great things on their own merit and stop playing the victim to bring the playing field down to them rather than leveling it. That's something I think we can all get behind.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 10:19 PM
3

The world? They can't even run a company peacefully. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html EDIT: Guys, come on. Why the hell are you downvoting a relevant comment with source? You're morons.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 02:37 PM
3

Oh look, it's that benevolent sexism thing again. Is someone else oppressed or ill treated? No they're not! You're just treated well! I suppose the women in middle eastern countries aren't really oppressed when they can't drive, be uncovered, or be in public without a man accompanying them, it's just that western women are treated better, which means that western women are subjected to the sexism of the assumption that they can't handle being treated like the middle eastern women, or something s…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 12:38 PM
3

Exactly. Things are designated 'no crime' when evidence in the accused's favour comes to light that makes it apparent that they are innocent.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 04:07 PM
10

This was being discussed on the Jeremy Vine BBC Radio 2 show today. I would post a link but the show is still on so it is not available online yet. I will post it when it becomes available. Here is the episode, the discussion is the first item on the show. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03s6lvt/Jeremy_Vine_Rape_and_letters./ They had someone on who was talking about a case where a girl has accused a security guard of rape, but she was too drunk at the time of the alleged incident to remem…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 01:27 PM
2

Yeah he has some serious possessive tendencies it seems.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:24 AM
10

It is pretty unreasonable for him to be taking that stance so aggressively when it's not even his parts...
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:49 PM
2

Tantrum? top lel
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:39 PM
1

I already had this conversation with someone else, why did you think you had anything to add when you don't know either? The complexity of editing an important and well known dictionary isn't decided by number of reddit comments, you know.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 09:13 PM
0

Someone else with no actual idea but lots of talking! Well done, you have an opinion!
/r/MensRights25/01/14 08:54 PM
1

Like I already said, we are both ignorant. And 'hashtag' is only really in the dictionary to publicize the fact it's in the dictionary. It's new. It's exciting. The 'young people' love it. Marketing. Even dictionary writers do it.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 06:44 PM
2

That's because you are ignorant of the facts. So am I, to a large extent, but I suspect making changes to such a prestigious dictionary is not too easy.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:49 PM
1

It's only an online copy of the oxford print dictionary. Don't forget, they all have to match. I expect there is a whole lot to it that you don't realise.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:47 PM
4

No, but given that the people responsible for the dictionary have a finite amount of time and resources, I think it should be prioritised. And it's not like they don't know it's an issue.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:42 PM
-2

We also use the term to describe women who rape. The word 'hashtag' is in the fucking dictionary. I think we should properly define rape before adding nonsense like that, tbh.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:08 PM
1

Believe it or not, you have privilege when you DON'T SEE IT. So ask her, is she privileged? If the answer is 'yes', tell her to check her privilege. If the answer is 'no', inform her that she is therefore privileged, and tell her to check her privilege. correlation does not imply causation Except when she wants it to. Classic. Thanks for the hilarious read.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 10:57 AM
3

Yet at the same time, someone without writing skills is probably skilled in other areas... Like, I don't know, murdering people.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 10:55 AM
1

Why did it surprise you?
/r/MensRights22/01/14 10:05 PM
1

I'm a guy. It just baffles me how some things in this sub defy reason. Especially given how the whole MHRM is essentially based on reason and logic. Oh well!
/r/MensRights22/01/14 09:39 PM
-1

Indeed we are. If anyone's nitpicking, it's people who find extremely short articles and then project malice onto the author without knowing the first thing about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor I agree there is an issue in general with how the media reports male vs. female sexual crimes. But this is just an excuse to rage with no basis behind it.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 07:27 PM
-2

... Yes, it is rape. I have not disputed this. It could be called an affair when talking about the woman involved. I take it you never did set theory in school? Also, I have found a few reports of male teachers having 'affairs' with female underage students. So stop circlejerking, and use logic.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 06:48 PM
-6

Actually it would since a relationship outside of a marriage is called an affair. It would literally explain it. But no, don't logic, just keep circlejerking.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 06:26 PM
-6

Yes, but it would at least explain the use of the word "affair". Jesus christ.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 04:07 PM
-5

Possibly she is married?
/r/MensRights22/01/14 11:12 AM
2

Same applies.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 08:17 PM
2

school newspaper Critical thinking part of the brain not fully formed. Next.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 07:28 PM
3

Online dating for women: Woe is me, I have so much choice! Some of these strangers that I have purposely put myself in front of are not exactly what I am looking for! Creeps! And some of them find me sexually attractive! How DARE they! Online dating for men: Inbox - 0 Messages.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:40 PM
2

You know who is responsible for rape? Any ideas? Rapists.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:38 PM
2

Yes, it could feasibly be any number of things, but that's not really a typical scenario when it comes to 'date rape' drugs. It's usually either rape or robbery.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:19 AM
1

Here's what I think is going on. Women have value in their sex, and men want to have sex with them. So when a man tries to drug a woman, he clearly is going to rape her. But a man's worth is not in his sex, but rather in his money. So if a woman drugs a man, clearly she is going to steal his money. Now, both of these are despicable, and the assumptions can be wrong, but it can be argued that it is inherently worse to be raped than robbed. Not that I'm excusing anyone involved, but when it comes …
/r/MensRights19/01/14 10:48 AM
2

The problem is that the police are broadcasting the videos, and others (only showing male -> female violence) on TV. You don't get to read the website on your TV, just see the videos.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 06:11 PM
3

Whoopi is great. She's wasted on crap like 'the view'.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 11:00 AM
1

Is there an appropriate and safe way to bring up the topic of consent? We're not 'feminism for guys'. There's no need to have a written contract if you want to have sex. Just keep doing what you're doing, and if he doesn't want sex I expect he will tell you so.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 10:01 AM
3

What country are you in, OP? You probably need to make a police report of this incident (a slap, hit, or kick, is battery or possibly ABH if you have injuries). Send her a real message, go to the police. She has probably never been challenged.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 09:07 AM
1

If only we had some real statistics on the subject of emotional, psychological, and verbal abuse. Sigh.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 09:58 PM
1

No you do not. Supposedly. totalitarian Uh huh. it would be extremely difficult for our government to institute an Internet filter. It's not a matter of 'if', anymore. It's a matter of 'when'.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 10:12 PM
2

God had nothing to do with it. Remember those students with the 'free speech wall' that ironically got censored? In America, they were. We supposedly have free speech here in the UK, too. You are not as free as you believe you are. EDIT: Truth hurts, I know. I'll just point out here that downvoting this comment doesn't make you more free.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:30 PM
4

It's unfortunate that most if not all of the other speakers on her side seemed somewhat confused about which side they were on. Edwina was really the only one in the room talking sense.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 05:48 PM
12

Women can't be criminals; they're just victims of circumstance. This is really the view of a Police and Crime Commissioner. Fuck my country.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 08:48 PM
10

Interestingly, a higher proportion of women than men prefer to have a male boss, and a higher proportion of men don't care what sex their boss is. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx Maybe this is because having a male boss removes the question of replacing the top woman as queen bee, because the person at the top isn't a woman in the first place.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 05:30 PM
2

Well, I thought I would stalk a little since some time has passed. Seems like your post was deleted and you were sent elsewhere? You see, the reason for this, is that /r/feminism is not for anything except going round in circles about how great feminism is and if you don't agree or start asking critical questions you will be shunned, as you have been. http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1v12fo/what_have_feminism_done_to_solve_male_issues_in/
/r/MensRights12/01/14 03:51 PM
2

You can but try. But I suspect that if you do ask a feminist subreddit, you will not only receive no reply, but your post will be deleted and your account banned.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 01:38 PM
2

No, they're not.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 01:06 PM
1

Well at least it's honest. As much as women tend to enjoy complaining about being objectified and not having choice, internet dating (and to some extent all dating) really is a woman's world. The point about only women being able to send the first message is...well I'm conflicted. On the one hand, less than average guys won't get messages. But then, even if they sent the messages first the chances are they wouldn't get a reply. On the other hand, it makes women actually work at internet dating. …
/r/MensRights12/01/14 12:49 PM
3

(south america, africa, the middle east) ...USA, UK, France, Germany, etc. basically all countries I feel pretty powerless, as a white guy living in the UK.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 12:44 PM
2

Not generally a fan of mumsnet, but the linked conversation doesn't seem bad at all.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 09:00 PM
1

Yes. (To title question. How you can come in here and ask two contradictory questions at once is beyond me) It is a necessary immovable object to feminism's unstoppable force.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 07:02 PM
2

I suggest you learn to read before you correct the literate among us.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 11:33 PM
14

Typical. The question for me is: why do these men describe themselves as feminists, if they feel unable to talk about women's issues without shouting 'but men!' or insisting that the movement for equal women's rights compromises its focus in order to make men comfortable? So, any feminists want to continue to lie about feminism being a movement for gender equality? Someone tell me how any movement can be egalitarian when it flat out refuses to listen to or even acknowledge half of the people it …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:09 PM
3

Well, I wouldn't say that necessarily. I'm in the UK too. Regardless of any right to free speech, it is a school so I would expect policy to dictate that offensive language is out of line for things posted up. Have you brought the issue to anyone's attention?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 07:18 PM
4

So when do men get their tax refund/lower fare based on them having to stand more often? Oh, wait.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:08 PM
31

Well that's pretty offensive. Doesn't your school have some kind of policy against offensive speech, etc? It's calling you, and others, sexist and misogynist!
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:07 PM
13

Beautiful formatting.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:06 PM
1

if the pregnancy were to be kept, is the anyway I can forgo (of course with her blessing) any parental rights- such as maintenance, say in education, etc. Nope. Well, only if she (the mother) goes to court to assume all parental rights. But it has to be a positive request. I.e. someone asking for full parental rights, not somebody refusing parental rights, if you get what I mean. However even if this happens, she can still pursue you for child support, even if she has full parental rights.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 07:41 PM
3

Maybe British toilets are made to accommodate our generally large penises then.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 01:40 PM
2

I really don't understand why it's just fine to say someone must just have s small penis when it's just as likely that you just can't use a toilet correctly. Honestly, I'm not small, so what else could it be?
/r/MensRights08/01/14 01:09 PM
3

Definitely not. Maybe you just have trouble using a toilet seat.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 11:11 PM
0

Oh, I didn't realise it came across as a question. I've had this discussion and it's always come back to it being something a man does, because girls sit down to pee, etc. It's not difficult to not touch the toilet bowl when sitting down. Kind of makes you wonder how older people shit, doesn't it.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:59 PM
0

The general usage when it comes to mothers and babies is a point of contention in the scientific community, however the literal meaning of the word fits exactly with the situation. Answer me this. Is the fetus inside the womb? Is the womb the fetus' or the mother's? Does the fetus steal the mother's resources (nutrients etc)? I suggest you do some reading and stop being so offended.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:56 PM
0

I usually pee sitting down, because I don't give a shit what people think. I swear, most guys are against the idea of sitting down to pee, because it seems less masculine. No idea why they think that, really. I can tell you now that I've never missed, once. I didn't realise it was manly to waste energy standing only to end up dripping the last few drops on your feet or the floor.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:20 PM
0

You may find it offensive, but your offense doesn't make it any less factual.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 01:18 PM
-1

I could argue with you, we could 'debate' this point for upwards of 10 comment exchanges, but ultimately, you are incorrect and your comparison flawed. Feel free to reply but know that you will only be talking to the wall.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 12:03 AM
8

Calling it parasitic is factual.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 11:33 PM
14

It's not always that easy, whether you're male or female.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 10:42 PM
4

I generally agree with the stated goals, but not with the implementation.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:40 PM
3

Is it just not giving the child his own choice? Lolwut?
/r/MensRights05/01/14 04:20 PM
3

The logical rebuttal to that is "so if the goal is to give women the same rights as men, given that they now do in fact have the same rights, and opportunities, why does feminism exist today? The only logical answer is that equal rights is not the goal. Otherwise the battle would have been declared over by now.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:28 PM
8

When there's a mother and a child, the mother is expected to protect the child. When there is a mother, father, and child, the father is expected to protect both mother and child. But women have it so hard, go figure.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:25 PM
3

There are examples here already. Dating preference vs. running a grant scheme is one.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 09:55 PM
2

A person can be as biased and bigoted as they please. It is their right. But we are not talking about a person. We're talking about an entity operating in the public sphere. Right to discriminate ends where public facing services begin.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 09:08 PM
2

No No NO NO NO Is discrimination okay? No it isn't. NO IT ISN'T.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:30 PM
5

as an aside, ever wonder why it's perfectly acceptable for individuals to discriminate in one sphere of their life (friends, lovers) but not in others (customers, partners, employees)? One is private/personal and the other isn't.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:29 PM
1

Forward thinking, intelligent men have one, important enemy. Traditionalist men. Believe it or not. This one can't solely be blamed on female feminists.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 03:29 PM
3

My boss (after coming in late w/o calling and leaving me to lead a meeting on her behalf): Getting the kids out the door some mornings is a disaster. You'll understand when you have your own. I'm a guy and I've experienced something similar. Crazy owner at the Thai restaurant we frequent (yelling at me from across the street): HEY! WHY YOU NO HAVE BABY? YOU HAVE GOOD MAN. HAVE BABY!* But what the fuck.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 03:11 PM
3

Even after that, it wasn't until the late 1950s and 1960s that society valued educating women at the university level Uh huh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie In theory, all of this exists today. I say in theory, because if they actually existed, why would we be still left wondering why women aren't more innovative wealth-creators a la Mark, Steve, Jeff, and Elon? It's not just in theory, all the rights are there. Women are free to do what they want to do. Starting a business is a huge r…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 01:59 PM
2

http://youtu.be/TuHpUFSOi-g?t=38m23s The actual clip where she says it. I'm pissed off that she wasn't really challenged on her nonsense. Even though it's a comedy show, it could have been done humorously.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:39 PM
2

This is some tripe from email forwarding/facebook nonsense. Not written by any police officer and just something that gets passed around. Saw it on facebook posted by some of my less intelligent friends around a month ago.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 06:11 PM
2

How someone in a supposedly professional setting can behave like that is beyond me. Plus, the guy is right to be concerned: http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx http://i.imgur.com/AQ7Hmx0.jpg
/r/MensRights03/01/14 06:04 PM
1

Yes, it should be mandatory. And it should be encouraged to bring your own recording equipment. Then both you and the agency will have a recording of the events, and any disparity can be noted.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 06:00 PM
2

Well sure, but I don't think saying there's "choking clouds of institutionalized sexism" is any more valid.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:33 PM
2

I'm not even sure what you've done here. Are you presenting a tl;dr of the article or are you giving your own thoughts?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 03:50 PM
16

Count the rhetorical questions implying that MRAs think rape is okay. And, for example: Apparently, the idea that you should not stick your penis into an unconscious woman is extremely offensive to these fellas.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 03:42 PM
16

Right, in the same way that some feminists are murderers. Do we call them the same thing? No, we don't.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 02:39 PM
11

I went to copy and paste the relevant parts but I found I would be copying virtually the whole thing. So I suggest just reading it.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 02:27 PM
14

That's just one long strawman. I don't even.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 01:47 PM
1

Because it doesn't actually alter the previous statement in any way whatsoever? So why would I include it in the quote, since I don't have an issue with the part you accuse me of not reading?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:33 AM
3

/u/Doctor_Loggins pretty accurately sums up my feelings on the matter. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1u9f57/valerie_keefe_tells_a_fellow_feminist_some_home/ceg7l15 I'm not het up at the notion that sexism against women exists. I'm sure it does, in some irritating but ultimately surmountable ways. The amount of supposed "institutionalized sexism" against women there actually is doesn't even come close to the hyperbole used by the author. "choking clouds of institutionalized misogyny…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 11:28 AM
12

I'm in two minds about this one. It was going relatively well until: You’re going to have to drop the idea that straight cis men unidirectionally oppress straight cis women. That doesn’t mean there’s not choking clouds of institutionalized misogyny right now I'm still not sure if this person is friend or foe.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 11:33 PM
2

No she said she "has" a member of Mensa. In her basement, perhaps.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 09:59 PM
1

It wouldn't be the first female-on-male rape in a BBC comedy on UK TV. Peep Show - Mark Gets Raped But I don't actually have a problem with how Peep Show did it. If you see the whole episode, it is actually dealt with quite well, while still being funny. The one OP is complaining about does have a different feel about it, for sure.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 10:14 PM
2

Exactly.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 01:26 PM
5

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Be. Sexually. Attracted. To. Prepubescent. Children. If you had said molest, rape, or grope without consent, I would agree. But attraction isn't something you can turn on and off at your whim. Also, the statement you responded to was perfectly right and valid.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:02 PM
4

It doesn't make you a paedophile, but it does make you a hebephile or possibly ephebophile. Personally, I don't see an issue with being attracted to anyone of any age. I mean, it's not like you can help it. It's just if you act when it's inappropriate that it becomes a problem.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 11:59 AM
9

So was she misdiagnosed as being infertile or was she just making it up? I'm still not sure after reading it through a couple of times. But regardless of that point, it's literally all her own fault, what was the guy to do?
/r/MensRights31/12/13 11:53 AM
1

I'm not sure why you're showing me a picture entirely unrelated to women in lads mags. I guess if that's the only way you can try and prove your point... That picture is a realistic representation of several aspects of the person, yes. It has obviously been altered but you can still see their face, build, etc. Do I think that person looks like that in real life? Yes, I do. Obviously minus the wings and in full colour. Oh, and not semi-transparent.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:27 PM
1

I know, I'm a photographer. Then I guess I know my place. I'm stupid, and my point invalid, because you're a photographer.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:54 PM
1

...I didn't? You said it was disingenuous. I told you I was being sincere and I explained why. Do you not know what disingenuous means? Did it just sound impressive?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:46 PM
6

it's been carefully crafted to be as flattering as possible, so holding it up as a realistic photo of a beautiful woman is disingenuous. You may say that, but I sincerely believe that there is no legitimate complaint to be made when a beautiful woman in real life looks beautiful on a monitor or on a page in a magazine. It's pure jealousy when people complain. Hence the reason the same people don't complain about magazines slagging the beautiful women off, calling them ugly. They only care about …
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:38 PM
9

Do you think she's unattractive in real life? Do you think her figure is significantly different to that shown in the image? Do you think her face is ugly without makeup? Do you think makeup should be banned? Do you think pictures should always be taken in bad, unflattering lighting to make you not feel jealous? Why are any of those things a problem?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:08 PM
16

I'll clarify. To a feminist, [a man displaying] love of women = hatred of women. And if a woman is doing it, hatred of women = not a problem.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:43 PM
11

Well you can't blame me if you choose to comment on a picture you haven't seen. If you want to comment on the industry in general may I suggest you start a top-level comment thread. BTW. The picture has bare breasts but that's about it. Nothing that will mentally scar your daughter.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:37 PM
14

We're discussing your comment about unrealistic depictions of women, in the context that you said this in response to the posted image. What's unrealistic about the image? And why is it a bad thing that men would be the main target audience for such a picture?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:30 PM
14

Well in that case I find it very interesting that you chose not to respond to that part, and only that part, of my comment. If it's the main issue you have, why did you ignore it and instead write at least 3 lines for the least important issues? Do you think photoshopping made her attractive? Nope. She already was. Why is it unrealistic?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:23 PM
13

Well, Demonic Bitch, you seemed to be saying it was a bad thing. I guess you weren't saying that then? Unrealistic depiction of women for the benefit of men.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:19 PM
5

I think we can all agree that rape is bad, non-consensual groping is bad, but looking? Jesus Christ, we can't even look now? Fuck.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:08 PM
29

Unrealistic depiction of women for the benefit of men. She exists, how is that unrealistic? She's not stick thin, she's not 6'6", she doesn't look ill, what's the problem again? For the benefit of men? Well yeah, and for the benefit of women who like women. And this woman got paid to pose, which she chose to do of her own free will. So it's for her own benefit as well. No man forced her to. And if you want to argue that point, you better come up with some evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:05 PM
55

To a feminist, love of women = hatred of women. And if a woman is doing it, hatred of women = not a problem.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:03 PM
2

And to add to this - if anyone asks you your opinion of any person or their actions, or asks you to extrapolate any meaning behind any of the facts you present, refuse to answer.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:08 PM
9

she was trying to claim that I was trying to say that I thought she "chose" that lifestyle Not sure why that excuses assault & battery. Go to the police mate, you owe it to us all. Without the help of people like you, we can't even get the statistics to be accurate.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 09:41 PM
2

No. We should be letting men know that it's okay to leave a relationship if they're being pressured into marriage, for example. We should be letting men know that it's a good idea to 'test the waters' by living with someone for a few years before marriage, etc. And perhaps most importantly, we should be letting men know that marriage is not a measure of your worth. If you don't want to marry someone, don't feel that you're a failure. Marriage can be a wonderful thing when you're properly matched…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 08:08 PM
1

You can't answer my question, and you continue to sound like a first year debate class/psychology textbook. You are a hypocrite, end of story. I've wasted more than enough time on you.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 05:09 PM
2

Whether this is true or not, I don't suppose it occurred to them that it means that there's an 80% chance he's not a rapist.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 04:53 PM
1

You're looking for an argument by strawmanning my position You thought you would try and look clever by saying that you're not for censoring anything based on offense. But now you seem to just call it "the exercise of wisdom in advertising". You thought it would sound clever to say this to me, to call me out on something before I had a chance to trap you, because you saw where I was going and knew I was going to call out your hypocrisy: Ah, I see. So you only want to censor speech you disapprove…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 11:33 AM
1

Okay, so you answered even if it was badly worded. I'll take your answer to mean that you are for any advertising whatsoever, no matter the subject matter. This unfortunately means that you are either a liar, or insane. In broadcasting, some things are off-limits, and they should be. I am 100% for free speech between people on a personal level. Advertising, not so much. Once again, I am not talking about preventing you from exercising your right to free speech, or anyone else for that matter. Br…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:20 PM
1

I said nothing about censoring or not censoring those subjects. I'm getting your opinion. I'm not talking about the specific ad. Stop avoiding the question. You think we shouldn't stop broadcasting publicly anything merely because it may cause offense, so what do you say to advertising using those subjects as the butt of a joke?
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:02 PM
1

So what you're saying is that you would welcome advertising where any of those listed subjects are the butt of the joke?
/r/MensRights26/12/13 07:50 PM
1

It's the logical conclusion of the argument you made Only if you choose to see it that way. We're not talking about having a chat with your friends, or your workmates. It's TV advertising pumped into people's homes every day. Adverts like this are damaging, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with taking free choice away from people when it comes to who they find attractive. The implication of the advert isn't that she just wasn't attracted to him, but rather 'lol look how short he is lolrofl #s…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 07:07 PM
1

We aren't automatically entitled to others' interest, regard, or any other measure of attention simply by virtue of letting that affect our sense of self-worth. I never said that we were. I think you're missing the point slightly. It's unproductive and damaging to argue that it must change to suit the sensibilities of the most easily offended. Cue abortion, holocaust, racism, miscarriage, child abuse, rape humour in advertising. Or perhaps not. Good thing, too.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:51 PM
0

Well all you've said there is: "It's a joke, stop being offended". Regardless of any feminist attitudes, I still think it's wrong to give people relative worth based on something they're not able to change. I'm not against it because 'you wouldn't see it the other way around', or feel that I'm evening the score in a way, but because it's wrong. Just plain wrong. For men and women alike. I'm not saying there's malice intended; that's quite a loaded word. But this advert clearly isn't just poking …
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:24 PM
1

Oh I totally agree. I was just a little confused by your beginning your first comment with clearly identifying the problem and then going on to say it was just a joke. I guess my opinion differs to yours in the sense that I don't think it's morally right in any circumstance to market products based on stereotypes of someone's relative worth based on physical factors that they can't change. So where you would be laughing at the short man and the tiny-titted woman, I would be laughing at neither.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:10 PM
5

Since you made the first claim, I think you should back it up. EDIT: Don't worry guys, it's just a troll. Nothing to worry about, don't waste your time.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:44 PM
3

No, I can't be bothered. Can you get me any to support your claim?
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:41 PM
5

Women have been opressed by male patriarchy for thousands of years, and worst of all, it is still happening! I'd love to read your scientific paper on this. Can you link it? Look at all of the media nowadays - has there even been a female protagonist who wasn't either stupid or mind blowingly attractive? You've described the state of men in the media, not women.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:31 PM
6

Ads like this are stupid, but funny, regardless of which gender is in which position. I guess that's a matter of opinion. I would say that my view of such ads has been altered since I realised how much men are treated like shit in society. I would have probably been laughing along with everyone else a few years ago. Imagine a different advert. Woman walks into a bar and approaches a man. Her date. He says "Oh hey, are you Jen?" to which she replies "Yep, you're John I assume?". "Absolutely" He s…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 04:41 PM
1

Sorry about the volume, you'll need to turn up your speakers.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 03:06 PM
16

Laurie Penny Too stupid; didn't read.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:35 PM
1

Firstly I am in the UK. You can go to the police, but I wouldn't recommend it. Make a statement, but do not press charges. Do not do anything that would mean that the woman gets wind that you have gone to the police. Just make sure you have your evidence and a police statement if you need it for your divorce proceedings for any reason. I wouldn't give this advice in any other situation, but where it is a man vs. a woman in a domestic setting, the UK police cannot be relied upon if you are male. …
/r/MensRights23/12/13 06:08 PM
3

A double edged sword if ever I saw one. Welcoming fathers? Excellent Making the assumption that fathers are unwelcome without the sign? Ehh....
/r/MensRights23/12/13 06:04 PM
1

The BBC is sexist against men. Like every arm of the UK government. I should know, I live under the bastards.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 01:06 PM
1

I live in the UK. We are a little more progressive when it comes to mutilating babies than the USA. It's not normal practice to circumcise boys here unless it's for religious reasons. It really doesn't matter one jot whether you or I am the majority or minority though, since the usage of the word is the same in either case. Just what point are you trying to make? That lots of boys are circumcised in the US? Well no shit, Sherlock. That's the issue. If you would literally rather not offend anyone…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:08 PM
1

Two people so far. Count the votes on my comments. You're the minority, so your logic agrees with me.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 06:52 PM
1

No, listen. You are wrong. Or are you one of those people that constantly hide behind "well that's just my opinion"? It's not radical in any way, shape, or form. It's factual and correct.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:34 PM
1

I didn't decide, I just understand the point. We're not against circumcision because it's ugly, clearly it isn't. But because it makes a penis imperfect by needlessly removing part of it. So that is the relevant definition. Why do you think you get to decide? Especially when you're wrong?
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:07 PM
1

Read my other comments. It's not subjective as that is not the relevant meaning of the word.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 11:05 AM
2

I'll tell you why it doesn't matter. The definition of 'mutilation' is not subjective. The connotations are subjective, but they are irrelevant. Facts are facts, take your feelings to your therapist.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:16 AM
7

To mutilate is to make imperfect. Your penis is imperfect. It has a large part of it missing. EDIT: Uh, guys. Downvoting this doesn't magically make words mean what you want them to mean. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:33 PM
10

I understood your argument from the beginning, but it's not a compelling one. You're incorrect in your assumption that mutilation is something that makes something ugly. Mutilation is perfectly valid as a synonym for circumcision.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:24 PM
17

Not meaning to be rude, but what you think of your own penis is secondary to the fact that circumcision is genital mutilation, and we need to treat it as such if anything is ever going to change. You like your penis, I'm sure it's fabulous. But I don't care about your penis, I care about not cutting baby boys' foreskins off.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 05:55 PM
1

I don't know if anyone remembers that talk that had Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss... http://www.examiner.com/article/lawrence-krauss-nearly-walks-out-of-islam-debate-over-segregation The issue isn't even Islam. It's that it seems like nobody here is willing to stand against people who are sexist because they hide it behind religious 'values'. Muslims can practice whatever weird shit they like, but when it comes to public institutions, nobody seems to have the backbone to say "no". U…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:42 PM
22

Thanks. I almost clicked.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:38 PM
10

...by far the majority of CEO's are men. But the real question is as follows. Is this a problem? Why so? If you fail to address that point, you have no reason to complain.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 11:29 PM
1

You know why that sign is there? Because men care that women don't accidentally get hurt by not noticing the work going on and falling down a hole etc. (And men too) Do women really say shit like this IRL?
/r/MensRights13/12/13 06:12 PM
1

Why? People have the right to live their lives however they wish. Yes. But with the mindset this type of woman tends to have, they will act as though they are in love with someone they are not in order to achieve a lifestyle they haven't earned. So yes, it is a problem. The man believes she loves him; she doesn't. He is being taken for a fool. That's an issue, no matter how happy jolly "let everyone live their lives" you want to be.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 06:10 PM
-1

You must be illiterate since that's exactly what I said in my edit.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:07 PM
-2

Is it? http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI Where? *EDIT: Why the bloody fuck has this been downvoted? It's literally not a subcategory as described above. Fuck me. Morons abound!
/r/MensRights12/12/13 12:19 AM
0

Oh lawd, are you about to say "freedom"? Classic. I guess Hitler was more free than any of us could ever hope to be.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:56 PM
2

And why would they be justified in being discriminatory to the public? Just...because they want to be? Why is that okay?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:43 PM
0

A massage room is like a toilet or changing room in the sense that it is somewhere that someone would expect privacy, because they're going to take their clothes off. It's pretty simple to see the issue there. It's not part of the issue of discrimination that we have gendered toilets. I would say that the issue of personal privacy is more important in those cases. But I do take issue with, for example, gendered changing rooms that don't also have totally individual private areas. So that's anoth…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:42 PM
-1

the majority knows better than the minority Certainly true in this case. Bye.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:36 PM
-1

Children are different to adults, if you want to argue then you have to argue about adults. You can't come up with any justifiable gender discrimination example involving adults. So it seems you are the joke.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:27 PM
1

Why would it be justified? If she asks for a haircut that the barber performs every day, why shouldn't she be allowed to have it?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:26 PM
-1

Most people would say that race segregation is a bad thing. You disagree, and you are in the minority. So your position is of little value to me, since you seem to be certifiably mad. Or perhaps just a moron.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:25 PM
-1

You're telling me a private business where I strip down in a room and get massaged by another person, or a business where I wear athletic clothes, exercise till I'm all sweaty, or a private school where children learn, aren't private settings? A massage room could be argued to be a private setting. All your other examples are not. Single sex school? Definitely ok. See, this would be a case where there perhaps actually is a benefit to segregation. If students perform better in single sex classes …
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:23 PM
-2

So in answer to the pertinent question: Can you give an example of where gender discrimination would be justified? Your answer is, apparently, no?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:20 PM
-4

Spas/gyms/schools are not private settings. They're public businesses and institutions.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:08 PM
-4

A spa or gym which hires only female/male staff in customer service roles and is exclusive to women/men would have a practical reason for doing so: they want to create an environment where their customers are not distracted by or made uncomfortable by members of the other sex Some people are uncomfortable around their own gender, some are uncomfortable around other races, some are uncomfortable around larger people, etc. Is that not reason enough to allow this kind of practical discrimination to…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:48 PM
-7

No. Well, all I can say is I hope people read this far into the comments. They can make their own minds up.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:41 PM
-2

Would you be annoyed by whites-only spaces? I'm afraid this is a necessary question, no matter how cliche.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:34 PM
-2

The only reason you could think of is based on religious mumbo-jumbo, little of which makes sense in and of itself? I don't know why an atheist would be taking holy communion but I do happen to think they should be allowed to participate in the ceremony. Plus, I mean come on. That was too easy. Religious discrimination? Can you give an example of where gender discrimination would be justified? Beyond toilets/changing rooms etc. We're talking places where people are usually clothed.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:33 PM
-5

And your thoughts on my edit? Why do you think the answer to women discriminating against men is to discriminate against women? Are you annoyed at female-only spaces? You think the proper response to discrimination is to discriminate right back?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:19 PM
-10

See my edit above. I never said that women would turn a barbershop into a salon, jesus. But yes, generally I would have a problem with people opening gender-exclusionary businesses. Just like I would have a problem with race exclusion, height exclusion, or eye colour exclusion. If there's a 'genuine' reason for it? Perhaps you can give an example?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:12 PM
-18

I would absolutely not care whatsoever. Okay, good for you, one person. I would care, and so would many others. What do you have to say to us? *EDIT: Let me put it another way. Did you like the barbershop because there were no women? No, you didn't. You liked it for other reasons. Reasons that wouldn't necessarily have changed had a woman had her hair cut there. You are clinging on to a massively obvious non sequitur. And what really blows my mind is that others here agree with you. I hate this …
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:41 PM
-15

So, you've explained that men can and should be able to go to a no-frills barbershop if they don't want hassle. Men can also go to a salon if they want a different type of haircut with the frills you mention. Do you not see a problem with a woman not being allowed a no-frills option just because she's a woman? If you tried to get your hair done at a salon and they told you that you couldn't because you're a man, how would you feel?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:10 PM
10

No more page 3? Yet again claiming women have no personal agency. Maybe they like showing off their tits? Jesus.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:02 PM
7

Rape is a legal term. If the definition under law precludes a woman being a perpetrator (legally speaking) then the article cannot use the term. Their hands are tied, it's not disgusting.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:48 PM
2

You seem to be taking this really personally. No, I'm just amused. First you say you couldn't possibly date a woman without X,Y, and Z. Then you go on to state what you want in a relationship, which doesn't necessarily involve X, Y, or Z. Then you link to some stats relating to a point you claim to not have made. I don't even.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:38 PM
1

Right. Which has nothing to do with a degree. So what was your point again?
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:27 PM
2

Well you're the one that cares about money; after all, it was your link that suggested that was your focus.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:20 PM
-1

We both know it's true. I don't need to be your best friend to be pretty sure of it. But I don't expect you to understand, it's not something a college degree will teach you. ;) All I'm saying is, give the girls a chance, eh? A woman doesn't have to earn your salary to be your equal.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:11 PM
4

Here we go. Let's take a look at what I said. It has to do with personality, not education. True. intelligence does not come from having a college degree. Also true. Sounds like you're just pretty pathetic and judgemental mate. You claim to want a smart woman who can support herself. Good traits to have. But really, you're scared of your appearance if you were with a 'common' girl. You think you're better than the women without degrees. You think you'll earn loads more than they ever will. What …
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:01 PM
-2

To point out the obvious yet again, intelligence does not come from having a college degree. Yours is proof enough of that.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 07:36 PM
4

I don't want a dependent, I want an equal. You think a college degree has anything to do with it? It has to do with personality, not education. You can have a woman without a degree who works hard and does well, and you can have a woman with a degree that chooses to stay home.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:41 PM
0

Frankincense.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:20 PM
1

He quoted the findings of a child psychiatrist, who said: ‘The mother appears to want an unhealthy exclusive relationship with M. The mother hides her opposition to contact behind her daughter’s stated “wishes and feelings”.’ This is all too often the case. It happened to me as a child. When my mother went to court for full custody of me, I saw a few psychologists, and I told them what she had told me to say. Well, by that I mean she fogged my child mind sufficiently that I parroted the salient …
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:23 PM
3

I keep trying to tell people that the police are literally sexist. They keep telling me I'm crazy. Some day I hope they will have an epiphany.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 08:43 PM
1

I am almost always told that the MRM is unnecessary because feminism is about equality for everyone In which case, since the MHRM is about equality for everyone, feminism is obsolete.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 02:52 PM
1

Interesting, as I watched it, I was thinking how little things had changed. Maybe it's just my personal experience.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 10:27 PM
1

The skirt worked exactly as expected. It demonstrated the hypocrisy at work and how ready the audience were to call him on it despite having it explained why it was hypocritical. I'm very, very glad he wore it.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 10:17 PM
2

Well, varying levels of the same thing, I suppose. Also someone can be paranoid without having conspiracy theories.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 09:37 PM
2

In collaboration with the UK Home Office. Three examples, each and every one an example of male -> female abuse. This is very disconcerting for the men of the UK. Our government is sexist, and whether I sound like a conspiracy theorist, or just a paranoid loony, I will keep pointing it out. Every. Single. Time. *Yes, it says: "It can also happen to anyone, including boys and people in same-sex relationships." Men should not be a footnote. If there are three video examples, at least one should sh…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 08:05 PM
1

But, often, you can win them by having one. At least that's what I've been told.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 06:43 PM
1

I did, above. You only seem to have read the first part of the example. The set-up, if you will. After that, runner c is given same "affirmative action" as runners a and b: If you then give the aforementioned runner the same head start, 20 metres ahead of where they were, what do you have? So runners a,b, and c, are all at the same start line. I'll try again but using your terminology. Runners a and b are moved 20 metres ahead of runner c. Runner c is now at 0m, runners a and b are at +20m Apply…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 07:06 PM
1

Your example contradicts itself No, it doesn't. You haven't understood it if you think it does. I described a sequence of events. Two of three runners given head start Remaining runner given same head start as other two Result is they are all standing side by side and nobody has ultimately been given an advantage in the race.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 06:35 PM
5

In that case, should we support some feminists' assertion that women should be afraid of men just in case they rape them? The level of 'trust' (by your meaning) is different, since it is (arguably) inherently better to penetrate than be penetrated. And the man doesn't risk getting pregnant, but the woman does. Or are you simply saying that nobody should trust anyone? You can't support this guy on the basis of "trust" and then call those feminists crazy when they essentially share his mindset tha…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 01:01 AM
6

Pretty sure they would have taken a different path if the suspected their partner was trying to secretly impregnate themselves. Well, duh. But bad things can happen to you any time, any day, any place. Might as well not go outside. But then, what if someone breaks into your home and murders you? Jeez, better just kill yourself so nothing bad can ever happen. (/s, obviously) The crucial point is that the level of trust between the two partners isn't remotely equal. You are confusing trust with ri…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 12:22 AM
1

I understand, but what does it have to do with the point I made? If you give everyone a head start, it's the same as giving nobody a head start. Right?
/r/MensRights04/12/13 12:11 AM
3

I think my thought process is more abstract than yours. I'm thinking of a race. There are three runners, one of whom is perceived to have an unfair advantage. So the race organisers give him a start line that is 20 metres behind the other two runners. Or, if you like, the 'slower' runners get a head start. If you then give the aforementioned runner the same head start, 20 metres ahead of where they were, what do you have? A new start line. Nobody is ahead. Nobody is behind. So it's the same as i…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 12:09 AM
2

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 12:02 AM
22

Surely, if AA is to benefit minority groups (and bizarrely, also women) - i.e. everyone but white cisgender men, and now you give AA to them as well, doesn't that mean everyone 'benefits' from AA, ergo nobody benefits from AA?
/r/MensRights03/12/13 11:44 PM
10

It is quite simple. He has every right to do exactly what he does if it makes him comfortable. But he should expect for his partner to feel that he doesn't trust them. Because he doesn't. So if he wants to have a better relationship, he needs to find someone he can trust.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 09:39 PM
0

Education has clearly failed to elevate your reading comprehension to an adult level. Oh for heaven's sake. Don't be such a stereotype. There are certainly victims of attempted rape, but they are not victims of rape. Take your semantics elsewhere. It's a psychological crime. But regardless of that, saying someone was raped can be read in two ways, one that they were literally raped as per legal definition and the perpetrator was convicted, etc. and also it can be read to mean that somebody raped…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:28 AM
-1

I see you are desperate. Believe it or not, I am on your side. I just don't believe it is worth doing such needless mental gymnastics in order to try and discredit a newspaper that hasn't misreported the statistics. If you have a complaint take it up with the government body responsible for the stats, not the paper, or indeed me. Rape is a crime that is different to something like burglary, since it is mostly psychological in nature. The penetrative aspect is really a minor factor in the executi…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:20 AM
-1

Yes. It's my own comment linking the source above. I think I'm aware of what I wrote. The estimates are that there are up to 85,000 victims of rape. Attempted rape is included and rightly so in my opinion. A victim of an uncompleted crime is still nonetheless a victim of said crime. But as I also said above, the statistics are self-reported, the estimates extrapolated from said statistics, so they are not necessarily accurate. My point is that the issue isn't necessarily the headline, it's to be…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:14 AM
1

Well to be fair if you're tallying victims of crime you should really include attempted rape as well. Just because someone didn't succeed doesn't mean that there was no attempt, and if there was an attempt there was a victim. I see no issue including attempts at rape in the stats. But they are still just estimates, after all. This is a separate issue to that of false rape reporting, etc.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:01 AM
2

It begs to question what definition of rape are they using http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:26 PM
0

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf Page 13. Estimated number of female victims of rape (including attempted rape): between 54,000 and 85,000. What the Mail has done is simply report the upper limit of the estimate. I'm not usually one to defend the Mail but they are using the official police estimates. Though given that they are indeed only estimates, and they are extrapolated based on self-reported data, i…
/r/MensRights01/12/13 10:09 PM
0

How so?
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:33 PM
1

If you're reading a direct and clear reference to helping men as really just motivated solely by a concern for women, then you're reading it wrong. Keep drinking the kool-aid. I would suggest that you're not thinking critically enough if you prefer to just accept what you're told. Did you see the link I provided regarding the department that these things originate from? Maybe this will help. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society Have a look at the case s…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:28 PM
1

You said that this policy had nothing to do with fathers or children, and now you've quoted statements that demonstrate the opposite. Well not really. You've deliberately highlighted statements about women as being about men there. For example. "It is already illegal to sack a woman because she is pregnant, or on maternity leave, but we want to go further than that. We want to create a fairer society that gives parents the flexibility to choose how they share care for their child in the first ye…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:03 PM
2

Three out of the five quoted paragraphs included fathers You'll have to point that out to me because I don't see it. Here are the quotes again: "Women deserve the right to pursue their goals and not feel they have to choose between having a successful career or having a baby," he said. "They [women] should be supported by their employers, rather than being made to feel less employable or under pressure to take unchallenging jobs. "It is already illegal to sack a woman because she is pregnant, or…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 09:30 PM
4

I fully agree with what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think it's about taking time off for children etc. I think this issue comes about in tech fields because men are more likely to go into one area of tech in more detail and become an expert than women are. If we're taking a male sysadmin for a large corporation and a female web developer working for a small local firm then the results are definitely going to be skewed.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 08:38 PM
1

What I don't understand is this: The only reason a man would need to get written confirmation that a woman consents to sex, in a normal situation (i.e. where he is not raping her), would be in case she makes a false rape claim afterwards. Yet it is the man's responsibility to protect himself and manage his own risk in this regard. If the shoe were on the other foot, this would be textbook victim blaming. "Why did you not get proof of consent?" = "Why were you dressed so provocatively?" One is ap…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 08:26 PM
10

Women also continue to lag men in compensation. In computer and information systems roles, for example, women working full time make only about 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. Citation needed.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 08:23 PM
1

So based on this single six-paragraph article, No. Numerous print, radio, and television reports. http://news.sky.com/story/1175201/maternity-leave-new-shared-rights-unveiled http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10461885/Maternity-leave-Why-is-the-womens-minister-sabotaging-mothers-shot-at-sharing-the-load.html http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/nov/29/jo-swinson-conflict-jobs-family-life http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25148457 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 11:47 AM
0

Not sure if sarcasm.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 11:22 AM
0

Yes, that is what the author closes her piece with. It's nothing to do with the government's reasoning, or why I'm disappointed. She may be an MP, but the fact remains that this decision is women-centric as these things tend to be here.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 02:48 AM
0

The sad fact is, our government has a 'head feminist' who is called Theresa May. The woman is insane. But she is Home Secretary and was "Minister for Women and Equalities" until recently. Quite an ironic title, I would say. The problem is almost never the moderate feminist who perhaps just takes on the stance because they were told it's good to be a feminist. It's people like May that ultimately can't be trusted by being of of those feminists.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 01:23 AM
-3

Are men just safe pairs of hands, or fathers? They are fathers. I'm describing the government's view of fathers in the context of this change, not my view of fathers. They see giving fathers this opportunity as a path to give women more freedom when it comes to work/child balance. And the original intent, no matter how bad, may not mean anything when the eventual result is examined. May? You're going to rely on may? But anyway, it's good, like I said. The next thing might not be. Why not just ce…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:42 AM
-1

I'm talking intention here. If something is intended to benefit group A, but indirectly benefits group B additionally, the fact remains that it was still intended to benefit group A, and next time someone decides to do something for group A's benefit, it may not benefit group B. It may even work against group B, because group B was never the group in the minds of the people thinking up the ideas to benefit group A. Does that make sense? You said, "If men look after the child sometimes, the women…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:29 AM
-3

Indirectly, feminists have helped men here. That's what I said. The government always has its own profit-making reasons - screw it. I never mentioned money. Are you reading something other than what I've been writing? Or the article, where it even states the reason for the change?
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:14 AM
-3

The reason it happened was so that women didn't have the same stigma that they supposedly would have when it comes to employment and them having children. Feminism has done nothing directly for men here. It is simply a by-product of the usual feminist male-ignoring agenda. If anything men are being used as "childcare" so that women benefit, at least that is how it is seen by the government. If men look after the child sometimes, the women can be at work. It's really as simple as that. I already …
/r/MensRights29/11/13 11:50 PM
-5

Is it because it is beneficial for the child to have the father around more? No. Is it because it is beneficial for the father to spend time with their child and have less of the burden of having to work while their child is being cared for by the mother? No. Is it something to do with women's rights? Oh yes, of course it is. It is the UK government we're talking about, after all. This has come about because "women shouldn't have to choose between a career and a baby". Nothing to do with men, no…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 11:28 PM
2

We don't know what happened, so how are we supposed to judge her, the police, or the CPS? Or are we just supposed to go, OH WHAT AN OUTRAGE because it's a woman?
/r/MensRights28/11/13 06:26 PM
3

They are making the point that women are not above men, not that men are below women.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:05 AM
1

I don't know specifically about the US, but in the UK there are certain exceptions to gender equality in hiring for example if the job is in your own home. The same applies for renting a room in your home etc. I imagine the US has something similar.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 06:13 PM
6

There is a high probability that they were being sarcastic. Just FYI :)
/r/MensRights25/11/13 06:46 PM
12

segue
/r/MensRights24/11/13 08:35 PM
-18

Then I feel very sorry for those people. I don't know what else I can say. Either stick to the facts or gtfo, that's my motto. There's no time for crying when you're trying to get shit done. I actually think they believe I'm wrong though. It seems pretty common for people to think that stand your ground laws literally give you licence to shoot anyone who so much as disses your momma. Also inappropriate use of the vote system etc but who follows the rules anyway?
/r/MensRights24/11/13 02:38 AM
-10

Thanks. At least you made the effort. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1raxrq/women_hits_man_plays_the_gender_card_and_says_hes/cdlj810
/r/MensRights24/11/13 01:28 AM
-39

Just commenting again since my other comment is getting buried by morons who think they can shoot people with their back to them. Stand your ground laws don't work in this circumstance. Hell I didn't even have to go further than wikipedia to find that out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#US_States For example, Michigan's stand-your-ground law, MCL 780.972, provides that "[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadl…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 01:28 AM
-10

Tbh this comment needs all the upvotes it can get. This wasn't self defense, it was a guy getting pissed off that he got hit and retaliating some time later.
/r/MensRights24/11/13 12:49 AM
-39

You're allowed to shoot people that aren't even in your house? When there's a perfectly good door you could use to put a barrier between yourself and the woman? Amazing. *11 downvotes and counting. I guess nobody actually wants to answer my question? Or perhaps nobody truly knows, and you're all just hoping that you do actually get to shoot people if they do bad things even if they're not a threat, because it, you know, feels right? *As I expected, you're wrong. Keep the downvotes coming, they w…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 12:48 AM
7

I am quite disappointed that this is here. It was not self defense. We should not revel in this kind of "eye for an eye" stupidity, even if a girl gets hit which is apparently something we should supposedly be pleased about because she's a girl and that's not meant to happen. I would point out here that it's not meant to happen to men, either. This is shameful for both the man and the woman involved. And for everyone who jumps on the bandwagon of "equal rights = equal fights" etc. on the basis o…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 12:44 AM
2

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. -Hillary Clinton
/r/MensRights23/11/13 10:38 PM
5

But it's not in your body.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:23 PM
1

No problem.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:36 PM
1

Assumptions are dangerous. That's really all there is to say. About life in general, really.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:33 PM
1

Everyone wants more money. This is not news. Well, we got there in the end. If everyone wants more for themselves, this goes for MPs too. And they are the ones in control of spending ultimately either directly or by proxy. MPs second jobs annoy me as well. You can factor that in to the 6 figures if you like. Other people actually have to be at work for x hours a day, not MPs, they's special people.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:24 PM
1

Stop bitching about it, council tax is to support your local area in these aspects. The drone believes master's lies. Once you're dead it's not yours anymore. So whos is it? Surely you get to decide, while you're alive, by writing your will. It's sure as hell not the government's. Is what is yours not really yours? Yeah, because every MP is the same. They all get paid more than £66k, and they all get expenses. Most of them have second homes that are likely (speculation) worth in excess of half a…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:31 PM
1

To pay for services in your area. That's what they said. For over a hundred quid a month, I'm looking for something more specific, really. I'm sure when you move out of your parents' house you will enjoy the council tax system just as much as I do. It generates money from taxing the rich, why stop when its morally right? It steals money from the dead. Rich or not, how is that moral? Thinking the government doesn't serve its people but is only out for personal gain is a stupid thought. It is you …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:09 PM
1

You don't know how much an MP is paid (by the state). £66,396. That's basic salary. It can be higher to begin with, expenses are additional, a second home is additional, etc. It's easily six figures if you include all the things normal people would have to pay for out of their salaries. Looks like you didn't realise what MPs were paid. If they can buy the other's share out then they're not going to lose the home... If they rent out, they've basically lost the home, if they jointly own then you h…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 09:23 PM
1

Obviously this can happen, but somehow I don't think two families will live under the same roof. It's not anything to do with the point at hand. They can jointly own/rent out/buy the other's share/whatever. It's not important. I guess you could just ignore all the maths I showed you. I can, because it's not relevant and doesn't invalidate my point. Not really, my parents will break the threshold. A house ranges for 80k to millions. You're so very very vague in what you mean. Do you think anyone …
/r/MensRights11/11/13 08:44 PM
1

I do also wonder how you divide the family home when there are more than one kid involved. Does one child just concede all his inheritance and live with their spouse while the other one gets to keep the 300k+ house with their spouse? Perhaps they do a timeshare? They jointly own the property. It's fairly common and not hugely difficult to understand. Sigh, so vague. Because it doesn't need to be specific. I'm telling you that the children earn enough to live but not enough to pay out a large sum…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 08:06 PM
1

Middle income in this case means they get by comfortably but don't have the cash to pay the tax on the house. It doesn't need to have a specific value. Is there any difference between trying to give you child £1 million home or £1 million cash? Yes, but you see the world differently, so why bother telling you why again? However, the difference should not mean that cash is taxed either.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:33 PM
1

But i think gifts should be taxed. So it's not ignoring the will of the deceased, it's just that they need to pay tax on it when handing it over. A family home. They've lived there for a few generations. Elderly family member dies. Middle income children can't afford to pay the tax. No more family home. Buying another house isn't the answer to the problem. It's not just bricks and mortar, you know. Or maybe you just see the world ...differently. You didn't actually say how it was different Yeah,…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:27 PM
1

I will concede low level households, but mid level I still think are included significantly. Either tax everything you do with money, or tax none of it basically except for income. Here's the thing. It's the fact that someone's paid the tax throughout their lives, and they're left with an amount afterwards. Simply moving that amount around, within family, shouldn't give the government an opportunity to get their hands on any of it. Paying for goods and services is different. And you will now pro…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:11 PM
1

Obviously it's not that the beneficiaries will not have enough to survive on after tax, or they will enter poverty if the inheritance is taxed, etc. But why should the government get their hands on it twice?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:59 PM
1

Well, we're halfway there. If your own statistic says that 40% of households will be affected, is that not significant? But whatever the answer, is it really morally acceptable to tax the same wealth twice? Why?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:48 PM
1

You give me a link to a page that says: Gifts that are exempt from Inheritance Tax And tell me that I'm wrong? Hilarious. There is no tax on gifts in the UK. There is inheritance tax in the UK Does that make it clearer? Nope. I didn't expect you to agree. And these people won't get taxed much. Really only the top 20% will see a significant proportion of their inheritance be taxed. I'm going to need the context of that image please. But even taking it at face value, it means that nearly half will…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:38 PM
0

...well it doesn't take a genius to work out, does it?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:00 PM
0

I will, and clearly I have. Will I get the pleasure of reading yet another reply from you? That remains to be seen. Can you leave it alone? Doubt it.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:54 PM
0

In theory I could just give all my wealth before I die to someone. You could, and if you died within seven years of the gift, it would be subject to inheritance tax, the amount depends as it is on a sliding scale. So it is inheritance tax, not gift tax. There is no tax on gifts in the UK. Inheritance tax stops people becoming wealthy through heritage. No it doesn't. It stops families that work hard and pay taxes from passing their own legitimately earned wealth on, and it affects the low/mid lev…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:49 PM
0

Simply ignorant then? Gifts are not subject to income tax, but any interest accrued on a monetary gift is. There is no such thing as gift tax. Inheritance tax is different as it depends on death. It's appalling and morally reprehensible. If you inherit money, the tax has been paid on it already by the person who has died, and if you choose to spend it you will be liable for VAT. I fail to see your point in that regard.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 01:15 PM
1

You really are dense, aren't you.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:14 AM
1

Then refer to my previous comment for my view on that matter. Classic ad hominem fallacy.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 11:10 AM
1

making them pointless and illogical. Non sequitur. As I said, if you think someone's argument is worthless because you didn't like the tone they used, that's a major failure on your part, not theirs. Later hurr durr =)
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:44 PM
1

name-call So? That wasn't the entirety of the comment. dismiss arguments It's called debating. If I agreed with you, I wouldn't be dismissing them, would I?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:25 PM
3

and skinny dudes It seems we get forgotten about even more than the fatties :( I'm sure there's a ton of underweight guys out there. (pun intended)
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:21 PM
-2

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you speak the truth. But then, this sub seems to have had an intelligence scarcity of late.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 10:19 PM
0

Hahaha. Retard. You even posted the same thing twice. Huuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Tact policing is a shitty way to debate. If you come up with an argument then go ahead and give it.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:58 PM
0

Fuck off, moron. Your other comment was reasonable, but this is just utter shit. You want logic? I'm afraid you'll have to change your position. You want people who are young and naive to be able to go to their doctor, ask for something life changing, and just for it to happen, without the doctor ensuring that the person definitely has thought it through? Then you are the one who is failing to use logic. Consider a different question. Imagine you are a doctor, and a young woman (let's say 22 yea…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 06:47 PM
1

you claim that allowing these same folks to have the responsibility of being careful is somehow out of the question because it is a life changing decision No? But whether you think you're clever or not, the younger you are the less likely you are to fully appreciate that it may be permanent, and you may change your mind. The short term often trumps the long term when you're young, and it can come back to bite you later. I'm not saying that nobody under 25 should be allowed a vasectomy, you retar…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 06:44 PM
1

Isn't that the same thing as inheritance tax? Who do they expect to pay it?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:18 PM
7

In the UK, lottery winnings and other prizes aren't subject to income tax. Including inheritance. You make me sick. That money/capital has been taxed already.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 03:13 PM
2

Truth. I mean, I don't think I was unreasonable?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 01:47 PM
-3

But scamming 18 year olds is just fine. /s
/r/MensRights10/11/13 04:23 AM
0

So people under 18 don't deserve the same rights as those over 18?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 04:08 AM
-3

While we're at it, let's give under 18s/21s the same rights as adults! You don't see a problem with doing unnecessary procedures on young people? Just a hunch, are you under or around 25?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 03:13 AM
-4

Personally, I have no problem with that. Pretty much everyone under 25 thinks they know their shit. But they don't, things can change. It would be irresponsible to potentially make someone infertile for the sake of some no strings unprotected sex. *Just a quick disclaimer: I'm 24. And I don't know my shit yet. I don't understand why you guys have a problem with scrutinizing young and naive men more when they make life changing decisions. You puzzle me, you really do. The same thing happens to yo…
/r/MensRights10/11/13 01:49 AM
1

Yes I do understand.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:22 PM
1

Oh I fully believe that on this occasion lines were well and truly crossed. But in the occasion that there is real suspicion that someone is holding drugs internally, it becomes an issue not of consent but of saving a life. Plus the person may be under the influence of drugs themselves, whether it's intentional, or from the drugs inside, and they can't fully consent when under the influence anyway. TL;DR: Some medical things can be done without consent in some circumstances
/r/MensRights06/11/13 11:21 AM
9

I believe that the idea is to get the drugs out of the person's body ASAP, in case the carrier they're inside breaks. The person could die.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 10:11 PM
1

Well I get that, but I wondered if you would give a specific example, since you must have a reason for feeling that way.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 04:30 PM
2

So the other guy was a little snappy with you, sure. But it doesn't excuse you. Are you going to bring this up with the feminist subreddits? Would be interesting to see how your 'sisters' in the 'cause' react, because after all, if you're all fighting for the same thing, there shouldn't be any adverse reaction, right?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 11:45 PM
1

It feels crappy when you talk against my rights. Give one example. Go on, I dare you.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 11:44 PM
22

Female freeloader = success Male freeloader = bitch Sounds femiliar intentional
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:18 PM
3

all feminists http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generally
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:38 PM
11

Cant tell if serious. Please confirm before I berate you for saying that seeing genitals is sexual harassment. You know what causes that kind of attitude? Clothes. And stupidity, I suppose. Also on a practical level, it's unlikely that she would see anything on her way to the stalls. I know I've never seen any penises in the mens room before.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 12:53 AM
3

The issue was apparently that the mens' toilets were busy and his daughter really needed to go. But, I think the right course of action from the outset would have been for him to take his child to the mens' toilets. And if it had been a mother with a male child, it would have been appropriate for them to go to the ladies' toilet. Does this child deserve to skip the queue because she's disabled? I don't know, maybe. But what if a little boy really needed to go? They couldn't just skip the queue, …
/r/MensRights19/10/13 11:38 PM
0

"Feminism helps men too" Whatever you decide to call yourself, feminists are generally bare-faced liars.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 11:34 PM
1

They might as well just admit they don't think a women can ever be responsible and should be considered weak and in need of constant oversight whenever they have the slightest bit of alcohol. Seems to be the case generally whether alcohol is involved or not, unfortunately...
/r/MensRights17/10/13 01:12 PM
-3

There's nothing wrong with asking, but there is something wrong with putting the onus on the 'asker' to get, what do they call it, "enthusiastic consent" or whatever. It's not fair to call people rapists for not specifically asking the question. Which is a subtly different point to the one you're describing. EDIT: Uh, did I make my point badly or something?
/r/MensRights17/10/13 12:33 PM
4

This is backwards. It's trying to be equal but it's being equal in the wrong way. It's saying that you should ask every time, even if you're a girl. I disagree. You shouldn't have to ask. Body language, signals, it doesn't require vocalising at all. If someone, male or female, has a problem with a situation, it should be up to them to communicate that they wish to stop. I expect downvotes. If you're that guy, please reply and explain your POV at the very least.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 09:41 AM
37

This has to be satire, right? What blog is it referencing?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 10:12 PM
2

I notice that HR seems to funnel a disproportionate amount of women and minorities to us. That's not 'fair', no matter how good they are. Well, assuming they're all a somewhat similar standard
/r/MensRights30/09/13 06:10 PM
0

You did indeed infer the meaning from only a fraction of the language used. Don't do that.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:29 PM
1

Don't take quotes out of context and infer your own meaning.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:24 PM
5

Wow. Leaving aside any argument that the women might just be the most qualified candidates, it doesn't make statistical sense at all. If you can get some proof of these hiring rates, and some data on the applicants, you might be able to do something about it. If not though, you would probably be wasting your time.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:08 PM
1

I can't believe I just read the same "diverse" opinion five times. I thought it was beautiful, in an ironic sense. Also, "mankind" is still used quite frequently to refer to all of humankind. So I'm not sure where the issue is there.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 08:09 AM
1

Taking the phone and running is evidence enough to charge him with theft. No, it isn't. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 1 Basic definition of theft. (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. He can try to run some defense about how he stole the phone, but it is ok because he just wanted to ransom it to her. Yo…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 10:21 PM
1

I thought that was probably it. This case just goes to show what the CPS's priorities really are.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:32 PM
1

Lower risk of infection is only really relevant when he's having sex with someone with HIV/AIDS. Might be better for him to pick his sexual partners well than to cut him up. But that would make far too much sense, right?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:00 PM
2

Do the police arrest her for theft? More importantly, do the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS), weigh up the case and decide it's both lawful and in the public interest to proceed with the case? To me, this is what it boils down to. Whatever happened about the money, he wasn't stealing the phone, whatever it may have looked like. Sure, he took the phone, and you can call it theft, but if you live in the real world, you can see he never intended to keep it, and she was always going to get it bac…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:59 PM
3

Unless, of course, you are Michael Jackson.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:28 PM
8

Men are more affluent Tell that to my bank account, motherfucker. I think businesses should be allowed to set their prices as they wish. So do I. Set the price, charge it to everyone. Still get to set their own price, don't they. Now, I decided a long time ago that I didn't want any part in this sort of bullshit, so you won't find me at any event like this, but it's still extremely unfair and also (arguably) degrading to everyone involved. We all know the reason the prices are as they are is bec…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:39 PM
1

It's a strawman because I never made the point you refute. It's a textbook strawman case. You can state that you're 'done with' me till you're blue in the face (or fingers as the case may be) but it doesn't change the fact that it is literally a strawman fallacy at work and you are a moron for not realising it even when it is pointed out to you.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 09:52 PM
1

Vaginas are literally for two things. Accepting penises Passing babies out It's literally the most natural purpose for it. So fuck off. You guys are shit. I don't know why I even open this sub anymore, it's turned into a place where nobody is capable of using their brain. Let me make this clearer. Vaginas literally exist to take penises. To actually get back to the point, if it's at all fucking possible, would you rather be burned alive or raped? My guess is that you would rather be raped. So in…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 07:56 PM
1

you think they're designed for rape specifically, though? No what the fuck is with you stupid fuckers They're designed for PENETRATION. That's usually what is involved when someone's raped. Jesus H. Christ.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 07:30 PM
1

It's a fucking strawman. Use your brain. Obviously I'm not saying that rape is good, justified, or acceptable, I am literally saying that the body parts involved are designed for it. That is all. I swear this sub is going downhill fucking fast.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 07:16 PM
0

Well it was interesting that you decided that point was more important than the main issue to talk about. Goodnight.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 06:38 PM
-2

Is it really important what we decide to call it?
/r/MensRights07/09/13 06:10 PM
0

It certainly isn't natural for someone to be penetrated or forced to penetrate without their consent. Aaaaand here's the strawman in all it's glory. Well done guys.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:22 PM
0

You don't think penis in vagina is natural? Interesting. How do you suppose these body parts are intended to be used?
/r/MensRights07/09/13 03:00 PM
-6

Believe it or not the majority of rapes are penetration just as nature intended. But be obtuse if you want, it is reddit after all.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 02:15 PM
3

There's nothing logical about killing people. Even 'bad' people. Not in civilised society.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:35 PM
-6

Pretty sure being burned alive is worse than the use of body parts as nature intended. The real tragedy is that there might be a rapist still out there if this guy didn't actually do it.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:34 PM
0

You logic (and I use the term loosely) carried to its conclusion, would mean that weaponized smallpox, nuclear ICBM's and and white phosphorous should be readily available at any corner store, because hey, it's not on the seller to be concerned with what use it might be put to right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum My argument is not that these particular objects might be used for ill, but that they inevitably will be used for ill Should guns be made illegal then? Maybe a singl…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:46 AM
1

Let's try one more time. Guns and pregnancy tests are indeed different objects The fact that they are different is not the basis of the argument The basis of your argument is that it is immoral to sell these pregnancy tests because they might be used for immoral purposes, and thus each and every person in the world should be denied the ability to purchase the items, regardless of their intent. The basis of my argument is that it is neither moral or immoral to provide an object; the moral issue a…
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:20 PM
1

Tell me why it's relevant then if you're so clever. Claiming superiority is very different to demonstrating it, mate.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:10 PM
1

The actual item for sale is irrelevant, I see you can't even fathom the basis of the argument yet you seem to keen to debate it.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:07 PM
1

I am university educated. You don't seem to be able to tell me the difference. Point proven I guess.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 12:09 PM
1

Firstly perhaps you can tell me exactly how this is different to somebody selling guns? Then we might be able to get somewhere. Rather than just choosing to ignore the parts of my comments that you know make perfect plain sense.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:06 AM
1

Are the people who were burned alive in the Ford Pinto to blame because they chose to drive an unsafe vehicle? Clearly not. They thought they were buying a safe vehicle. There is no question of what is for sale in this case. The example fails as a comparison to the issue at hand. If you feel so much pain when reading perhaps you need to visit your friendly local optician for an eye test. I can see why people would buy these for playing pranks. Heck, I can think of many funny ways to use them to …
/r/MensRights01/09/13 10:00 PM
1

white-knighting Haha, go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 01:37 PM
0

So what? These have uses that don't involve any harm to anyone. Pulling pranks is different to trying to ruin someone's life. I guess you have a problem with those children's toy prank things. Like nail through thumb, etc. too? Grow up. Like, actually grow up. That involves accepting that people play pranks and some people like them. They find them funny. If you want to bitch about someone then bitch about the buyer [if they choose to use these in extremely malicious and life changing ways], not…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 09:16 AM
1

What else do you call being forced to work for another person without compensation?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 09:45 PM
-2

I see no problem here. They can be used for many funny pranks. Jeez. *Come on people, if you downvote at least comment too. I think it's pretty obvious that this falls into the same category as knives stabbing people or cars running people over. It's not the person supplying the knives or car at fault, is it? ** The top comment agrees, so fuck you all. Either you guys can't read or you're just thick.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 09:37 PM
26

Question 5 demonstrates that this quiz was made by a moron. "...mentally or physically resist." Mentally resist? What? Oh yeah, we're meant to be able to read minds, and if we can't, it's always our fault.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 09:35 PM
1

Yeah, she's an awful writer. Bad writers regularly get jobs as journalists. Have you never read the daily mail?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 09:58 PM
3

So in other words, impressing the men. Or at least, impressing the men more than the other women. There's no shame in it.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 05:33 PM
2

I feel it may just be the mark of a writer who has been taught not to use the same verb in quick succession, rather than using an intentionally loaded term.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 04:33 PM
14

Feminists
/r/MensRights11/08/13 09:50 PM
3

You will note that I said "can be" and not "always is". Your advice is good, in some circumstances. But there are times (very common in fact) where consent is implied and not explicitly stated. I would say these occur far more often than the situation you describe.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 01:10 PM
30

I don't get it. Silence absolutely can be consenting to sex. Someone can want and consent to sex without stating "I, <name> hereby request and consent to sexual intercourse with <name>.", or without even saying "yes". Nothing at all is not "no". tl;dr: Saying nothing is not the same as saying no. What is this shit? *Don't just downvote, reply if you have a rebuttal.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 02:27 AM
24

When speaking about girls being more valuable than boys they say "the way I see it". Possibly commenting on their own observations of others? When speaking about girls and boys being equals, they say "I believe". Clearly their own opinion. Maybe they're not bigoted, confused or stupid, but just have a somewhat weak grasp of English?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 08:36 AM
11

systemic societal problems caused by toxic masculinity Errrrr... Right. K.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 11:14 AM
1

Only report it if you felt threatened or if you have strong enough feelings about the incident. To me, it doesn't seem like it was anything worth reporting. Don't start looking for issues to report if you already have a chip on your shoulder. It's not a game. (Not saying you do, but a lot of people here tend to)
/r/MensRights14/07/13 07:05 PM
1

I concur Excellent.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:26 PM
1

That's a pretty inaccurate paraphrasing then.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:17 PM
1

Of which comment?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:10 PM
0

There are no prizes. But losers still are losers. What's the point of quoting something if I didn't say it?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:43 PM
1

Your dignity. Also, the game.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:30 PM
1

I find you amusing more than anything. Classic sore loser.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:28 PM
1

Why are you still replying? Feeling small, little guy? Go outside, get some fresh air. Realise the internet isn't the meaning of life, nor the discussions that take place there.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:23 PM
1

I have contributed more than you have, purely by virtue of being correct.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:14 PM
0

Apples and oranges are both fruits. There's your relation/similarity. Step down, smart guy. You're wrong. Maybe next time you'll be right, but this time, you are not. The first step to recovery is acknowledgement and acceptance.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 01:22 PM
2

I'm well out of school, but thank you for letting me see your classroom material. I hope you are able to complete it in time for class! http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/compare_1 Is the concept of words having multiple meanings alien to you? And no, I don't mean space aliens.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 01:03 PM
1

I don't think you understand the words you are using. To form a comparison you need at least one similar property and at least one dissimilar property. Similar property = both are top posts Dissimilar property = content of posts Trying to be clever and saying that A=A and it's a platitude is just you trying way too hard. If someone was comparing a Nissan Micra to a Bugatti Veyron you would be the guy who came up and said "hurr durr but they're both cars so A=A it's a platitude and I suck my own …
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:30 PM
-5

Well looky here, someone's read a few wikipedia pages. Read my comments to the other troll who replied to me. I'm not having the same conversation twice.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:17 PM
-3

Oh my word. The comparison is top post vs. top post. I never claimed to be a social scientist, and I never would, because it is not a science and I find the term offensive. But this is definitely a comparison. Of top posts. Ergo, a comparison of what each sub finds most important or interesting, according to reddit's sorting algorithm.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:15 PM
0

what we actually have here are 2 unrelated posts which really just highlight important issues to 2 different subs. There you are. A comparison of what these different subs find most important or interesting. Based on the statistics from each sub. Well done for getting there, even if it was in a roundabout way.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:56 AM
-1

I can, but I don't think I can say anything that you would identify as being intelligent. How about this. HURR DURR LOL READ TEH FUCKING COMMENT AND USE UR BRAIN LOLOLZZZ
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:51 AM
-1

The relative importance to each subreddit. I really don't know how to dumb it down any more.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:42 AM
-1

I see, you're one of those redditors. Okay, you're right about everything! I am a moron who doesn't understand. You, however, are the epitome of intelligence. /s Seriously though, you're the one who doesn't understand. You can compare one thing (importance) by using statistics (upvotes, comments, position in top posts list), using different things (post content), and get a result (what is more important to each subreddit).
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:39 AM
-5

The comparison is of relative importance to each subreddit.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:32 AM
2

It seems more than fair to me. People spend more on cars or loft conversions.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 05:19 PM
11

Its unfortunate, but I have found that most men I try and talk to about things that matter have had the same attitude as idiot #1 (man up). I just don't understand. We just don't care about each other? Or even about ourselves? What.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:03 PM
-1

I think it's safe to say that we don't actually know what went on. If she's left then it's good evidence that this is DV. But without that fact it is entirely possible that this is just something playful between adults. I know several women who are into this sort of thing. What I'm trying to say is that any speculation is meaningless and useless. But it's more likely that it is DV given the evidence of what happened afterwards.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:38 PM
3

just wanna throw it out there that a lot of women aren't taught anything about cars Have you tried asking a few random 20-something males what they know about fixing cars? They know very little. I count myself in their number, although I'm an engineer, I don't have the inclination to learn to fix cars. People train to do that and have jobs doing it. I believe they're called mechanics. Most of the women that don't know about cars aren't getting their dad/boyfriend/husband to fix it, they're getti…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:03 PM
5

The right to control others without taking responsibility for yourself. Classic.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 01:55 PM
0

Just like an atheist saying "goodbye" (God be with ye) to someone means that they believe in God! THE MEANING OF WORDS IS DICTATED BY THE PERSON USING THEM, NOT THE RECIPIENT
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:16 PM
4

Oh please, let's not have this shit again. People, keep posting here, ignore this person.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 02:50 PM
5

Applaud them all you like, the article I read was about stupid bullies, not young men acting for a noble cause.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 11:17 PM
5

It sounds like she has, in fact, received some real abuse for her actions. I don't think we can really tell her motives for wanting to start the society, so I don't think we can judge her on that. It sounds like she is surrounded by immature peers and this is disappointing for everyone. I'm not for girls clubs, nor boys clubs, and certainly not for abuse from either side towards the other. But let's consider whether the idea of a mens rights society would have even been entertained by the school…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 01:03 PM
2

...echo chamber...
/r/MensRights17/06/13 04:13 PM
1

Women and children suffer violence far more often than adult men do, and this just has to stop. Solution: More violence against adult males! /s
/r/MensRights17/06/13 01:24 PM
8

Well now, that is a little generalising, dontcha think? For instance, my (single) mother had no state assistance except what she could have had without a child, for student finance and such. That men could also have claimed if needed. The fact that some single parents are bitter doesn't mean that they're scroungers and don't pay their own way.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 01:22 PM
4

This is not entirely directed towards you personally, but I really take issue with people who say that name calling/swearing and the like detracts from an argument, or that if you call someone a name, you lose by default. In my mind, any and all language is up for use at all times. And name calling is a rhetorical device, not an auto-loss.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 03:49 PM
1

Well, to be fair, you're not likely to get a dick pic from a girl.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:33 PM
1

Hilarious. She seems to not realise that kink also has websites called: "Men on Edge" - "Hot men tied up and begging to cum." "Bound in Public" - "Innocent boys next door being bound, abused and humiliated for all to see." "Bound Gods" - "Gay bondage with intense SM & hardcore sex with hot studs." "Naked Kombat" - "Muscle studs fight balls to the wall for sexual domination." "Butt Machine Boys" - "Guys fucked with machines" "Men in Pain" - "Brutal Dommes use, abuse, & fuck pussyboys at their whi…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:27 AM
16

Feminism is putting your own house fire out and letting the rest of the street burn. Or better yet, claiming that putting your fire out will also put out the others. Mens rights is acknowledging that there is a street and it is also burning, despite the one house that is not.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:41 PM
1

I generally keep quiet about it. Or at least, I never say "MRA". Some guys I know laugh at me and tell me to stop being a male feminist. Some girls I know are just plain abusive about it. But there you are, it's not exactly unexpected. But things are changing and I hope that more men will realise that it's not un-manly to speak when something is wrong.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:14 PM
2

Diane Ravitch, the noted historian of education and a former assistant secretary of education asks: When will it be fair? When women are 60 percent or 75 percent of college enrollments? Perhaps it will be fair when there are no men at all." Quite.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:08 PM
-1

We're discussing sex here, not age. It would be perfectly easy for it to be legal for senior discount and illegal for sex discrimination.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:18 PM
1

So that they can be prepared for when they decide they would like to have sex with a penis.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:53 PM
3

Wikipedia should be a source of accurate information, not fan clubs.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 12:49 AM
10

traditionalists What? Mens rights supporters are traditionalists? Now I've heard everything.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 12:48 AM
3

0-:D FTFY
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:28 PM
0

Man detected.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:00 PM
0

I debated it quite well actually. Proclaimed the king In no other scenario do we consider third party consent a defense for murder. In no other scenario is one inside the other. So if it's inside a woman it's not a real person so killing it isn't murder? So being inside somebody doesn't change the situation at all in your mind?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:58 PM
0

It does. But it's not what I said, and bringing such a ridiculous comparison into the discussion just serves to show yourself as someone who cannot debate the point in question. If the 5 year-old was inside the woman, perhaps that would be a comparable situation.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:22 PM
1

You didn't have regular quotation marks there either when I responded. BTW, you use > to get the blue line.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:19 AM
0

If it's too difficult a concept, try reading some books about law or something Hahaha, you said what I said! slow clap
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:07 AM
-2

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of a) the meaning of words and b) the process of law. because it isn't This is an opinion, or isn't it? Not that it actually matters, since the interpretation of a thing's status is changeable depending on circumstance. If it's too difficult a concept, try reading some books about law or something, idk.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 10:29 AM
-1

Thanks brah. And it's not even my birthday!
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:43 PM
0

Like I said, whether you call a fetus a non-life, life, human, person, or anything else, it doesn't matter to the actual point in discussion.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:41 PM
-3

What are you even talking about? Well, never mind. I guess you'll need to read the thread in it's entirety. I have no intention of butting heads with you any more; you don't understand what I am saying, so there is little point in continuing. And just so there's no confusion, I'm not leaving because you're right (you're not), so don't go away with that impression. I'm leaving because I need to go to bed. Bye.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:38 PM
-2

Imagine for me that a fetus is a person. Does it even matter? If you have a person inside your own body, your rights still outweigh the rights of the person, as you are the carrier. If you are a third party and are not a carrier, you do not have the same authority over the person. It's not a particularly difficult concept.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:32 PM
-3

I was referring to the hypothetical involving firearms. Not that I'm too bothered since you seem to have some sort of complex, given you have replied to a fair number of my posts with varying degrees of nonsensical babble. But let's at least try, eh?
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:24 PM
-5

Yeah, that's not murder. But a person was killed, weren't they? If you defend yourself, you end up killing someone, they died. Same with a fetus, whether you call it a person or not, the mother's right to bodily autonomy as the carrier outweigh the rights of the fetus.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:12 PM
-6

If it is a person, then it should be protected from being murdered regardless of who is doing the murdering. So if a criminal points a gun at your head, and you have time to draw your own gun and shoot them first, and kill them, they are to be protected? Human rights are always a balance of you vs. them. In a mother vs fetus situation, mother wins. But in a father vs. fetus situation, fetus wins.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:42 PM
-2

I think you need to be in a conversation about men's reproductive rights for what you are saying to make contextual sense.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:18 PM
-8

The point is that the fetus is seen as a separate entity - but up to a point it is lawful for the mother to abort it, because in weighing up the rights of the fetus and the mother, the mother wins. Therefore the mother has authority to kill it (by law), but still nobody else does. The actual thing itself doesn't change; the law's interpretation of that thing's rights does.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:41 PM
0

Well sure. What's your point? The difference would be if someone was forcing her to do it, that would be illegal.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:15 PM
27

It has nothing to do with the fetus at all. It's a question of authority. The woman has authority over her own body and it's processes; the man does not. *My apologies if some of you don't feel the truth is fitting for /r/mensrights. I thought we were grown up enough to recognise that truths are true no matter what you feel about it. **Alllright people, stop trying to get all up on me here. I'm not going to reply to you all, there's simply too many of you, and half of you are talking absolute ru…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:10 PM
22

She was within the second trimester, when abortion would be legal. By her own choice, yes. But not by someone else's.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 06:55 PM
2

Totally pointless post. Here's the woman curve if anyone's curious.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:57 PM
14

There was this whole thing about how women can do it voluntarily now...
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:16 PM
29

You need to tell your mother that women are allowed to register, but it's voluntary. Ask her if she would prefer it if she were at risk of being called to action and had no choice in the matter.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:41 PM
2

If you don't like feminism, you're either stupid or misoginyst. Well, thanks. /s
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:55 PM
7

It takes five women. How many men would it take? Five? No. Fifty? Probably not. Five thousand? Maybe they would 'consider' it and say no after a couple of months of 'deliberation'. It's becoming more and more depressing to see that no matter what support any male-oriented idea has, it will not happen. And it takes just a handful of women, doesn't it.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:08 AM
9

Women generally want attention. Men generally want to die.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 10:19 PM
1

An abysmally bad, lowest-common-denominator piece that is hardly worth even commenting on, but here goes. Every man will know it in his heart but will offer reasonable and good explanations as to why they are the way they are. I suppose in much the same way that despite my being atheist, I clearly actually accept the lord as my saviour in my heart. Oh wait, nope. Nice try, Tammy. "I'm right because I say so" doesn't fly with me.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:47 AM
1

That has the same issue, it's not unbiased since it defines itself. But your example is another issue, really. The point is that if you take one gender's opinion (and not even a majority) and act upon it, at the expense of others, you're a bloody idiot.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 10:40 PM
1

Never heard of the idiot. Not particularly bothered.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 10:23 PM
1

I would question what the opponents to the idea are afraid of. What harm can come from giving men the same resource that is available to women? Unless they think that the men in the university will, with the help of the men's officer, collectively transform into a single giant erect phallus that will drown everyone in ejaculate.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 10:07 PM
1

Women Sport and Fitness Foundation I find it truly bizarre when I hear things like this being backed up with "sources" of "research" like the above. If you're only going to ask women, or organisations concerned only with women, the data is invalid. End of story.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 09:44 PM
1

I get that you're annoyed, as the person that's posted it, but I stand by what I said. I thank you for bringing it to my attention, at least, but that's not quite the point... A rebuttal is not necessary. Any sane person can see it is nonsensical, and is designed to get the MRA group riled up and they clearly hope to achieve some negative reaction from MRAs. The best defence is to leave it well alone.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:26 PM
2

Honestly, the best thing we can do is simply ignore this tripe. It's designed to get a reaction. Don't give them what they so desperately need.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:13 PM
15

fuck you concern trolls. Right with you there. Really gets to me how legit issues are so often ridiculed in here.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:39 PM
2

First couple of comments on the article: Oh the poor little thing. Doesn't your heart just bleed for the men encountering sexism? ... Methinks the Peter Lloyd just needed a soapbox on which to make a name for himself.... Amazing, really. Because it's not wrong when it's men that are affected. /s Fuck everything about being male, seriously. Where is this privilege I'm meant to have? If it's intangible, it's nonexistent.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:32 PM
1

Lol... a private business is owned privately. A public company is traded.... Are you really that hard of understanding? Obviously there are private businesses by title, but they're not private in practice. They still deal with the general public, employ the general public, etc. Tell me why they should be special just because they run a business? Who is going to make the company the most money? That is what matters. Yes, so keep your mouth shut about it. The problem is not in employers choosing w…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:53 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1cga5r/just_found_this_slice_of_wrongness_mens_rights/c9gd7bs
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:17 PM
2

As I said, its a buzz word, and we should avoid it. Agreed. It's a loaded term and has become meaningless.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:46 PM
2

Well of course, but I was referring to the loaded term and not it's literal meaning. There's oppressed and then there's oppressed.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:45 PM
6

Maybe we're not 'oppressed'. But, on the other hand, are women really oppressed? In modern western society?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:44 PM
2

Your attitude fucking irks me. "We don't hire blacks or hispanics." Try using your brain.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:29 PM
1

However I also think a company should be able to hire whoever they want. Nobody's forcing them to run a business. If their business flops when everyone's actually treated fairly then so be it. There is no such thing as a private business. If you run a bar, or a store, or whatever, you're dealing with the public, employing the public, so saying private business should do as they please at all times is just insane. Here we go again, but how about this? "We don't hire blacks." But it's a private bu…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:26 PM
1

The bottom line is that, once again, women have the bargaining power. "WE WANT WOMEN ONLY OR ELSE WE WONT MAKE YOU AS MUCH MONEY TO FIGHT CANCER" See how bad it sounds when you really get down to it? If people cared about cancer more than about their delicate little feels then both genders could run and more money could be made. The ones who refuse to allow men to this event are a disgrace.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:26 PM
11

You are not the voice of reason you believe you are. Would you see this behaviour towards a female student from a male professor? Go ahead, find even one comparable example. Think about it. There's a reason this is relevant.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:13 PM
1

a collection of people, mostly men (duh) Stopped reading there. I fear for my intelligence should I continue.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:22 PM
4

It means demanding the good parts and ignoring the bad parts. Notice how there is no push for refuse collectors to be 50% women, but there is to have board members/directors 50% female.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:35 PM
4

It’s the feeling you are no longer vital or important or noticeable to others, a constant nagging pain you can neither avoid nor forget. Welcome to how it feels to be male. *Before you start, obviously not all men feel this way. I don't need to have that explained, thanks.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:32 PM
1

I'd hope that you weren't posting this video out of the same ignorance that the caller demonstrates. The opposite in fact. I know this is not the MRM's view, but I have never heard a man say these things. I wonder how many men actually share his view, and whether these kind of people are calling themselves MRAs or masculists or something similar and hurting us. I thought it was interesting to hear this nonsense from a man since it's usually women saying that men can't be raped and all rape is le…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:14 PM
0

Haha.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:54 PM
1

I see nothing wrong with my writing. Perhaps you need some help with basic comprehension skills.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:30 AM
1

Obviously not. Perhaps you need a man to teach you some critical thinking skills...
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:19 AM
0

Aww, boo boo. Go crawl back under your bridge.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:09 PM
1

Interesting what you call facts, piggy. Get over yourself, you're talking pure horseshit.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:09 PM
1

You're a little bit stupid really, aren't you piggy?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:49 AM
1

That's pretty offensive to women. A baseless piece of rhetoric, once again.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:48 AM
1

Okay. I'm a bit on the defensive so I seem to have misinterpreted you.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:14 AM
2

A very reasonable response, thanks.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:48 PM
-1

So who did you learn from? Am I therefore not a man because I apparently didn't learn it?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:45 PM
1

You're trying to convince everyone else that it's okay, and that's a sure sign of insecurity. Or a sign that it's actually, well y'know, okay. Anyway, I grow tired of this. Have fun and good luck to you sir. Oh sod off. I'm tired of the pure snideness around here followed by a friendly comment, and people think that's a decent way to behave. Don't insult me then call me sir. This, by the way, is hilarious: Step 1: Mate, you're derailing now and starting to talk bullshit. Step 2: The way you're c…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:07 AM
1

Lol, I'm not a "radical". It's just that I, you know, care. I don't know if you know this in your clearly sheltered world Says Mr. Life Experience. Step down from there sometime, spend a day with the rest of us, if you can.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 07:57 AM
1

A woman can teach you those.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 07:52 AM
2

How to test yourself and perhaps some critical thinking skills. Maybe you could tell me why these are things that only a man can bring to the table.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 07:52 AM
0

The irony is most certainly not lost on me.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:15 AM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:06 AM
2

When dealing with such a complex subject, having sources that purely focus on absent fathers is just not good enough. It could be the case that it's single fathers that have just as much trouble. It could be the case that there are other factors at play. To which I responded. You should probably go research that yourself seeing as its what you want to believe. What I want to believe is irrelevant. I'm going by what I know from experience, and it doesn't fit with the statistics, so I'm naturally …
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:25 AM
4

It's not an attack, it's a simple observation. You've essentially told me that I have no clue what I'm talking about, that my view is invalid because you think I'm biased. Maybe you're biased. You're the one with two parents. Also, realise that you are the outlier in society, not those that have a two parent family. Over a quarter of all families with children in the UK are single parent families. It may not seem like much, but "outlier"? No. A society that has run for thousands of years, largel…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:07 AM
4

I'm going to have to do some reading apparently. But it seems to me that there are likely other factors at play. Any data on single fathers and behavioural problems?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:58 AM
1

You're not even the person I was replying to. Why on earth would you feel it necessary to take the time to write that?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:54 AM
4

Funny that, someone being defensive when under attack. Is your intention from this point simply to piss me off and bait me into rudeness so you feel justified in discounting everything I've been saying?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:47 AM
4

Have any studies been done on this specifically regarding mothers involvement?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:32 AM
2

Like it or not, you can't discount my comments. They're from someone with experience of a single parent upbringing. So I suppose if you had two parents growing up, it is you that is the fish.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:29 AM
0

Well statistically children are vastly (margins ~40-60%) less likely to have behavior problems when they have a father in their lives. What does this tell us? Statistics are all well and good, but what can we learn from this? Do you have a source?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:22 AM
4

Look at the movies and TV. Do you want your child acting like people on television? Which programmes in particular? There's good and bad on TV. Now think of how many negative relationships your family and friends have had. Do you want your child to emulate those? I can think of plenty of bad relationships including friends' parents. Yes, both parents. I personally don't, so I want to show my child what I think a healthy relationship looks like. As do I, but sometimes these things don't quite wor…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:18 AM
0

Where did I say that? Those are specific things she brings as a woman to the process of rearing a child. You phrased it as a comparison. You don't think your son would one day ask himself "why am I different than mommy? If mommy is the source of everything good in my world, than what worth do I have if I'm different than her? What worth do my differences have?" Come again?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:10 AM
1

And how would that differ to the answer a woman might give?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:08 AM
-10

I've managed to have stable relationships despite my having a single parent, I'm sure the majority of others have too. What value is there, really, to this being demonstrated to a child? It's not very difficult to get the hang of.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:44 PM
0

Oh, okay well thanks for sharing, lol. I thought we were talking about a particular subject, that's all.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:41 PM
0

But, what I was really asking, was how would you describe yourself through attributes, attitudes, habits, etc., as a man. Which types of male behaviors do you describe yourself with, or admire, which are a reflection of those values? I'm not sure I understand the question. How would you answer? The rest of what you're saying is just building a picture of a stereotype.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:40 PM
-1

Well sure, but it doesn't automatically follow that making decisions and leading is something you only learn from a father, which is kind of the point here.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:27 PM
6

Breasts and a womb? Implying she doesn't actually bring anything of value? I don't think either parent really offers anything unique to a child. If I had a son, I think from me he might get exposure to traditionally manly things like tools and repairing stuff, DIY etc. But then, that's not because I'm a man, that's because I am me. Plenty of men can't do DIY, or repair things, and don't even have tools. On an emotional level, I don't think I can offer anything that my girlfriend can't. Saying I …
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:25 PM
-2

I'm not offended, just astounded. Maybe you could answer my points? What of the female leaders? Should they be in the kitchen instead? What if you're a man but have trouble making big decisions or taking the lead? This whole subject is just one big "no true scotsman" fallacy. I would love to hear why it isn't.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:09 PM
-4

Be careful with holding a universal trait like "fairness" close to yourself as part of your identity. Fairness is important, sure, but you some times have to make the tough calls that will not make every body happy. I guess what I meant was having a sense of fairness, while realising you can't please everyone all the time. Making the tough calls and being a strong leader is part of what makes a man. What a load of shite. Tell that to Margaret Thatcher, Dalia Grybauskaitė, Cristina Fernández de K…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:06 PM
-1

If I were to ask you casually, "what kind of man do you want to be?," or, "what kind of man do you see yourself as?," using comparative examples, could you give me an answer? I probably could, but my answers wouldn't be anything to do with my being male. They would include universal traits like being fair, successful, and trustworthy. Asking what kind of man you are is a nonsensical question. I'm not a kind of man, I'm a me, and I have a penis too. What kinds of men are there? What traits do the…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:24 PM
-1

I hope I don't cause you downvotes by association, but I'm glad at least a few people are actually thinking here. Good comment.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:13 PM
0

I have previous with this particular member, and I know they are being purely inflammatory. It is not an answer, it is a retort, but it is also deliberately offensive and this member needed calling for it. In any case, there are male habitual behaviours that a woman can not teach you. Whether they are socially constructed, or rooted in biology, women have the inability to teach boys how to deal with their emotions, especially sexual ones, as well as other men can. Any particular examples? My mum…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:56 PM
8

That's missing the point, it is not that she couldn't do it, the point is she shouldn't have to do it. I don't think she really minded. That's really not the point. Please don't wash over the differences between a man and a woman, they go far deeper than stereotypes or traditional roles. Please, tell me what I would gain from a father that I didn't (or more to the point, couldn't) get from my mother! All I hear is a load of "it's true because I say so".
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:38 PM
2

I reiterate: We are not forced to limit ourselves, so the relative importance of the issues is, well, unimportant.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:22 PM
5

Don't be so offensive. If you don't like me personally that's one thing, but don't insult my mother.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:21 PM
58

A woman can't teach a boy how to be a man. I do not need to be taught gender stereotypes and traditional gender roles. I was brought up by a single mother and I did not have many male role models during childhood. I would say she actually did a very good job of it. I am still a man, whether I fit your definition or not. More to the point, if you met me you would have literally no idea that I didn't have male role models. What does it mean to "be a man" to you? What does a father teach a son that…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 08:50 PM
0

There's absolutely no need whatsoever to limit ourselves to three issues. All issues are important.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 08:38 PM
1

All I'm interested in doing is letting you know who you are based on what you do with your free time and anonymity. You have a penchant for trying to define people, don't ya. And who you are is as I have described "self-appointed victims" If you refuse to accept that men are the victims of feminism you are harder of understanding than I realised. The fact that such things are posted on urban dictionary is more of a demonstration of the problem than a reflection on the MRM. When women fight for t…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 05:39 PM
1

I had a whole load of stuff here, but you know what, forget it. After our previous conversation I have no desire to enter into what you call a debate. Just say why you felt it necessary to post the "definition" from urban dictionary, that's all I ask.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 05:01 PM
1

Getting a little uppity, are we? Uppity? Getting a little patronising, are we? You misread, refused to accept it, not just once, but twice. If you would care to look, I was perfectly civil the first time. The bottom line is you didn't refer at all to any specific time frame. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise present tense was so difficult. but you're doing a good job of making MRAs look like assholes. Lol, you're kidding right? I might personally look like an asshole to some people, but I was spea…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:51 PM
1

If I say Without feminism we could all be more equal. This is present tense, and is perfectly true. Don't start getting all clever because you can't understand what you read. If you want to be a pedant, do it to someone else.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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