TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

cld8 Archive

View 5 posts and 2,365 comments by cld8 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,365 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Where did I say that?
/r/MensRights11/06/21 06:13 AM
1

If having a driver's license guaranteed you obey the law, why would you need traffic cops? Clearly it doesn't and nor is intended to. On the contrary it acts as a quality control by making people take the test for example. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it's a mechanism to improve compliance. Oh so you're saying you don't understand anything I've said? Please re-read my comments. I understand everything you've said. I'm just saying it's not a legally valid argument, and no court has accepted…
/r/MensRights11/06/21 01:43 AM
1

Well the purpose of licensing is to determine that. Or why have a license system? It's precisely a way to determine a business is checking all the stuff they need to do to satisfy the state's quality demands. Now if the state was not licensing the business you might be right. How do we know what they are doing? The point of a license system is to ensure compliance with a specific set of laws. For example, the point of a liquor license is to ensure compliance with the liquor laws. The point of a …
/r/MensRights10/06/21 11:57 PM
1

I don't think this argument would work with any group. First of all, the state has no way of knowing what the busienss is doing. When you apply for a liquor license, you don't need to specify your business practices. Secondly, the fourteenth amendment has been held to specifically pertain to state actors, I'm not aware of any case where it was held to apply to private businesses just because they have a state license. I don't think this argument has ever been successfully used in the case of dis…
/r/MensRights10/06/21 11:30 PM
1

That's an interesting argument, but I think it's too tenuous to be successful.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 09:11 PM
1

I have no idea what you're saying here. Federal law, in the area of public accommodations, says absolutely nothing about sex. This is entirely based on state law. While I can't speak for every state, I'm not aware of any where things like an alcohol license would affect this at all.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:52 AM
1

lol sure you are.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:47 AM
1

I've been practicing law in the US for a decade. Tell me about the US justice system....
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:28 AM
1

No, they don't, at least not in common law countries. No law should be written that vaguely.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:24 AM
1

Judges interpret the law as it is written. They don't decide vague things like whether someone's reasoning is "valid".
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:19 AM
1

Of course, but law can't rely on anyone's individual judgment. There needs to be a consistent standard.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:15 AM
1

So you consider yourself the judge of whether a group's reason is valid. They can discriminate if you approve of their reasoning, and can't discriminate if you don't. Got it.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:09 AM
1

What do you mean by "hearing that"? Do you think they should be allowed to have their own space only if you approve of their reasoning?
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:06 AM
1

You can't think of any reason, but another white person might.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:04 AM
1

Which account?
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:01 AM
1

I’m fine with black people having their own space if it makes them comfortable 👍🏼 i would not say the same for white people. So yes it does depend on the scenario for me I'm curious to hear your justification for this. Why does one race get to have their own space if it makes them comfortable, but not the other?
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:01 AM
2

It provides an inferior level of service. Male gym goers (who are likely the majority) have access to fewer machines and workout areas, and are therefore more likely to have to wait. Female gym goers are paying the same membership fee but being given more facilities.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 02:00 AM
2

It’s the kind of issue i wonder, is it worth fighting? Discrimination is about the principle. It's often not worth fighting in a practical sense. When a black person was asked to move to the back of the bus, was it really "worth fighting"? You could argue that it was a trivial matter, the seats were all the same and the service was the same. But that isn't the point. The point is that the principle of discrimination is wrong.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:58 AM
2

No no so it’s the same service same price it’s just the women are in a different room... That is not the case here. Read the article carefully. Women are given access to ALL the areas that men can access, PLUS more.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:55 AM
1

There is high demand for only women spaces so they made them.... There was also a high-demand for white-only spaces not too long ago...
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:54 AM
1

It would be discriminatory if there aren’t ANY gyms for men but there are plenty.. Not in my area. I've yet to see a men-only gym in the US. (There may be a few but they are very rare.)
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:53 AM
1

The issue is not the gym, but the double standard. Women fought for laws to ban male-only spaces. It should go both ways.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:52 AM
1

Not really true. The Civil Rights Act bans racial discrimination in public accommodations, but not sexual discrimination. If sexual discrimination is banned, it would be on the basis of state law.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:51 AM
2

I think it should be legal as long as women are charged a proportionally higher membership fee to use it. It wouldn't even have to be a mandatory charge. Women could be given the option of paying a bit more for access to the segregated area.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:50 AM
2

I haven't been in this situation, but as a lawyer, I can tell you that the most likely reasons are (1) cost, (2) damage to reputation, and (3) it's emotionally draining. After going through the whole process, most victims just want to be done with it and move on with their lives.
/r/MensRights10/06/21 01:49 AM
0

I think Reddit as a whole is more left-leaning (younger, educated, etc.). Right-wing politics are usually limited to specified subs that moderate heavily to remove dissent, such as r/conservative. This sub, since it allows freedom of speech, tends to be more left-leaning like the rest of Reddit.
/r/MensRights05/06/21 08:56 PM
18

I am quite left-wing in almsot all respects. I favor environmental protection, social and racial justice, gun control, public health care, and so on. I don't think men's rights fall on either side of the political spectrum. We have seen politicians of both parties screw us over.
/r/MensRights05/06/21 08:54 PM
1

$50,000 is a lot for a divorce lawyer. He needs to call around and find some cheaper ones.
/r/MensRights05/06/21 08:53 PM
2

It's a tough issue. Like you mentioned, if the penalties are too high, they may be hesitant to admit they lied, and innocent victims will not be released. One solution could be to have a higher penalty for cases when someone is proven to have lied through other means, but a lower penalty if they come forward on their own.
/r/MensRights24/05/21 11:53 PM
4

That is called libel, which is a type of defamation. In the US, it's very difficult to win a defamation case. You can talk to a lawyer about it, but it could easily backfire.
/r/MensRights24/05/21 11:50 PM
6

Graduating shouldn't be viewed as an all-or-nothing matter. One graduate can be more qualified than another graduate. If one group was less qualified upon entry, they will probably be less qualified upon graduation.
/r/MensRights05/05/21 12:18 AM
1

Probably because the birth control is not actually part of the act of sexual intercourse, while the condom is.
/r/MensRights02/05/21 07:41 AM
2

Get a good lawyer immediately. It will cost a lot of money but it will be worth every penny.
/r/MensRights24/04/21 01:22 AM
7

My suggestion is to remember that a lot of what you read on the internet is exaggerated. You only read about the worst cases, which you are unlikely to come across. So don't take things too seriously. Just live your life like normal as much as possible.
/r/MensRights19/04/21 09:56 PM
5

I was automatically banned from another subreddit for supporting r/mensrights. Many of us have had the same thing happen. Certain women's subs regularly run a script that automatically bans anyone who posts on subreddits they disagree with. Don't let it bother you.
/r/MensRights19/04/21 09:53 PM
26

(This is copied from another Reddit comment) So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists". You're not the director of the Femini…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 07:51 AM
1

The question to ask is whether the price differential is based on the gender of the buyer, or the product being sold. If women's shampoo costs more than men's shampoo, then that is not a pink tax, because women can choose to buy the men's shampoo and pay the same price as men. If women prefer the women's shampoo, then that indicates that it is superior in some way that justifies the extra cost. If the charge for the same good or service is based on gender, then that is a different situation. Thi…
/r/MensRights13/04/21 07:44 AM
5

Depends on who you are. If you are a counselor, a friend of the victim, or someone along those lines, then yes, listen and believe. If you are part of the legal system, then you have to remain neutral.
/r/MensRights11/04/21 05:42 AM
3

Great, hopefully it gets through.
/r/MensRights11/04/21 05:41 AM
1

I didn't say anything about what I like or don't like.
/r/MensRights10/04/21 10:35 PM
1

I already explained that. Scroll up.
/r/MensRights10/04/21 09:59 PM
1

Because that position is incompatible with their profession. Would it be okay for someone who doesn't believe in the constitution (which is a political position) to be a lawyer?
/r/MensRights10/04/21 08:28 AM
3

I think you're being far too paranoid. The internet has a way of amplifying things and making problems sound bigger than they actually are. If you follow the news, you might think that America has a mass shooting in every school every year, but obviously that is not the case. Just relax and take everything you read online with a grain of salt. Go out into the world, be careful but not paranoid, and live your life.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 03:47 AM
1

There's no law against asking. If they discriminate against you in any way based on the answers, then it could be illegal. Because of that, many employers will avoid asking in order to avoid any issues. But just asking is not per se illegal.
/r/MensRights09/04/21 03:44 AM
11

Haha I saw that post too. Some of it is legitimate but a lot is ridiculous. Like the clothes with pockets. Market demand is the real explanation for why they aren't produced. I get that women like to vent, but they shouldn't be upset when someone gives them an answer to their question.
/r/MensRights04/04/21 10:03 AM
1

Because people in the medical profession should base their opinions on science, and on data. They should not subscribe to "hurr durr muh freedoms" like gun rights people do. The American Medical Association and other medical groups have all made statements in support of strict gun control laws. This is because they are scientific groups, not political groups.
/r/MensRights04/04/21 04:20 AM
1

We were talking about doctors and their position on gun control. I would think that the AMA would be a good source of that information. I don't see any inconsistency. AMA has, to my knowledge, never put out a statement taking a position on abortion.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 09:52 PM
1

Point taken.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 04:40 AM
6

Exactly, which is why this ruling is going to be a problem. The company will no longer be able to adjust the wages based on the market conditions.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 03:38 AM
6

If it is harder to perform, then less people will be willing to do it, so the price will naturally go up. Otherwise, why would anyone do harder work when they can do easier work for the same pay?
/r/MensRights01/04/21 11:21 PM
-1

Why not? The American Medical Association and other medical groups have repeatedly called for strict gun control laws. As doctors, they believe in science, not "hurr durr muh freedoms".
/r/MensRights01/04/21 11:20 PM
-16

I see your point about abortion, but anyone who believes in the "right" to own firearms really shouldn't be going into the medical profession. Would you want someone who is an anti-vaxxer becoming a doctor, or someone who believes black people are inferior becoming a social worker?
/r/MensRights01/04/21 12:04 PM
10

Are you telling me that you can't have her removed from your home? You are not in a relationship.. nor does she live there. Can the police not just show her out? If she says she lives there, the police will say it's a civil matter and you need to go to court and sort it out. They aren't going to take the risk of removing a legitimate tenant.
/r/MensRights01/04/21 12:01 PM
15

I would MUCH prefer to work in a warehouse than deal with customers all day. Have you ever worked in customer service? Lol. If that's your preference, then great. But clearly that is not the preference of the majority of the workers. If it were, then the pay would already be equal. And even if you'd prefer to work in customer service, why wouldn't you want these cashiers to get a raise? The job sucks. We should support our fellow citizens making more money. Not actively fight against them. That …
/r/MensRights01/04/21 11:56 AM
5

MensLib has some good discussions, particularly with respect to emotions and feelings, but it will also shut down any discussion that goes against the interests of women. In other words, it's feminists trying to gatekeep the issues that men discuss.
/r/MensRights01/04/21 11:38 AM
32

You don't see any reason who someone who is lifting heavy boxes all day should deserve more money than someone who is sitting in a chair ringing people up? The point is that equal work deserves equal pay. People doing different work don't necessarily get equal pay. Why would anyone work in a warehouse if being a cashier pays the same?
/r/MensRights01/04/21 11:37 AM
2

Sorry, I somehow thought I was on the legaladvice sub. You can ignore my post.
/r/MensRights30/03/21 09:11 PM
4

Tell your dad (or his lawyer, if he has one) that you want to give your input to the judge. At your age, you don't have any legal standing, but you're old enough that most judges will take your opinion into consideration.
/r/MensRights30/03/21 04:07 AM
1

Uber didn't fire him, they simply ended his contract. This is what happens when drivers are "independent contractors" without the rights of employees.
/r/MensRights29/03/21 11:23 PM
10

Yes, it's definitely not all women. You can never say "all" for any group of people.
/r/MensRights29/03/21 11:22 PM
5

The bathroom issue is a real problem. It might be against local building codes as well. I would suggest having your parents write a letter to whoever is in charge of the school about it. The other stuff is silly but not really a legal issue.
/r/MensRights29/03/21 11:20 PM
1

If you had posted something about women getting unfair treatment in family court or something, I might have understood her reaction. But your post literally had nothing to do with women at all. I think some feminists see any acknowledgement of male issues as a threat to their narrative, so they react with hostility to shut it down. My suggestion is to just ignore those comments and not engage.
/r/MensRights19/03/21 09:43 PM
4

Welcome to the club. Most of us are banned from that sub, many on the very first post. They have zero tolerance for disagreement.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 06:46 AM
53

Obviously very few people (of either gender) are criminals. That goes for rape too. But women, quite understandably, want to be careful no matter how rare it is. The reality is that women are most likely to be raped by someone they know and trust, not a random stranger while they are going out at night.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 06:44 AM
1

It does suck, but believe me, the real world is not as bad as the internet makes you think.
/r/MensRights17/03/21 05:43 AM
1

Try not to take all this too seriously. The internet does have a way of exaggerating things. These are definitely important issues, but they shouldn't be causing you to get depressed. Remember that things can also change fast. In 1950 blacks couldn't attend the same schools or live in the same neighborhoods as white, and by 1980 there were black lawyers and doctors and engineers. At your age, you shouldn't be taking the world's problems on your shoulders. Focus on yourself and on being the best …
/r/MensRights16/03/21 05:27 AM
1

Have your parents talk to the school. Schools always take parents more seriously than students.
/r/MensRights11/03/21 06:56 AM
1

Cool, we aren't on Youtube.
/r/MensRights09/03/21 09:51 PM
22

U aint know this man is the king of the soy boys. Let's try to keep this sub professional and not degrade into this type of name calling please.
/r/MensRights09/03/21 09:49 AM
1

What's it going to come to do we have to sign contracts before we engage in intimacy so that we don't get called out when they regret it days later that's just not sexy at all is it things are becoming ridiculous 😐 That's a joke, but even a contract wouldn't work because consent can be revoked at any time. She can simply say "I said stop but he didn't".
/r/MensRights04/03/21 07:33 AM
1

I just made my point. The government should not engage in sexual discrimination. Sure they donate to prostate cancer, but how is that relevant to domestic abuse?
/r/MensRights02/03/21 10:21 PM
1

I am just wondering... Why are the people commenting happy about this? And how does it help with men's rights that charity aimed at helping women abuse victims are losing funding? Is any help organisation of any kind really a threat to anyone's well being or human rights? This move might motivate charities to not discriminate against men. Even if this particular charity doesn't change their policy, other charities will be more likely to support both men and women if they realize that their fundi…
/r/MensRights02/03/21 10:03 PM
1

Well then donate to a charity for male domestic abuse. Defunding a women’s charity for not supporting male issues isn’t good. So the women's charity gets government funding, but for the men's charity we have to donate ourselves?
/r/MensRights02/03/21 10:02 PM
1

The "wage gap" is the difference between an average man's pay and an average woman's pay. You will see numbers like "a woman makes 83 cents for every dollar a man makes", for example. The reason this is a myth is because it doesn't take into account things like what types of jobs each person is doing, how many hours they work, etc. So it suggests that women are paid less because of their gender, which is not true. They are paid less because they take easier jobs, work fewer hours, take more time…
/r/MensRights26/02/21 11:51 PM
1

It depends on the teacher. Some teachers are fair and unbiased, and some aren't. Some might be willing to hear opposing views, others might not. It's hard to say because we don't know how the class is run at your school. But in general, if your high school has other options that you would actually enjoy or find useful, I don't see the point in taking a class just to "see what it's all about" as you put it.
/r/MensRights19/02/21 09:51 AM
1

Menslib is a feminist sub that pretends to care about men. This sub actually focuses on men's issues, which feminists obviously don't like.
/r/MensRights19/02/21 09:47 AM
1

From reading subs like TwoX, I think a lot of feminists have this mindset. Part of the problem is that anyone can call themselves a "feminist" or an "MRA". Therefore, there will be radicals in both communities. We see a lot of radicals on their side, and they see a lot of radicals on our side.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 09:54 PM
3

My school has a coding club, but it is exclusive to girls. Not even one both girls and boys can apply to, just girl exclusive. If you are in the US, file a title IX complaint.
/r/MensRights05/02/21 03:10 AM
2

No longer? Did they ever?
/r/MensRights05/02/21 03:08 AM
1

Do not try to defend yourself. Do not talk to these friends and try to explain your side. Just keep quiet. It's possible that this will just fizzle out, or it's possible that it will grow. If it grows, get a lawyer immediately.
/r/MensRights01/02/21 04:49 AM
2

Are there any schools in the district named for misandrists? If so, which ones?
/r/MensRights29/01/21 12:16 AM
1

First of all, calm down. This isn't as bad as you think. A restraining order is fairly easy to get, but actually getting arrested for violating one is much harder. My suggestion is to get him a good lawyer immediately. It will cost some money, but it's money well spent.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 06:11 AM
22

Demand and supply. Most men have 3-4 pairs of shoes. Most women have 10+. Women buy shoes more often, so retailers stock more for them. My suggestion is to go to a dedicated shoe store, or a department store with an actual shoe section. Walmart isn't the place to go for a good selection of anything.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 06:11 AM
2

Ah okay. But don't you have to be working for a while before you become a shift leader? Did she start working at 15 or something?
/r/MensRights14/01/21 12:06 PM
2

I personally am very liberal on almost all issues. I support social welfare, universal health care, gun control, environmental protection, and so on. I know several MRAs who are similar. I also know MRAs who are conservative, but who don't want to be associated with the "proud boys" or whatever alt-right mens' groups there are. American politics is very opportunistic. Parties will support an interest group as long as it suits their agenda. For example, the Trump administration modified Title IX …
/r/MensRights14/01/21 11:41 AM
3

16 year olds can be managers? I thought they weren't allowed to work more than a very limited number of hours in most places.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 11:36 AM
1

Yes, I am liberal in almost every sense. I support social programs like education and universal health care, I think the rich need to be paying way more in taxes, I favor strict gun control, and I am a huge advocate of protecting the environment. I don't think that being an MRA should become a political matter.
/r/MensRights13/01/21 09:28 AM
2

Should this sub be more active in pushing for issues that effect women so that we aren't guilty of the same thing? I don't think this sub needs to be active in that, because there are already feminists who do that very well. We don't need to interfere with them.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 09:09 AM
1

I think the term "toxic masculinity" started out as a way to refer to "macho" behavior, like guys getting into fights in order to prove how strong they are, for example. But unfortunately, it is now often used as an insult whenever a man does something that women don't like.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 09:08 AM
1

Ugh, that's unfortunate. Maybe you could hire a lawyer to see if that intervention can be expunged from your record?
/r/MensRights04/01/21 09:05 AM
2

I said it isn't unethical to me.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 09:02 AM
2

I just told you why lol.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 01:06 AM
1

Are you at all familiar with the Indian legal system?
/r/MensRights04/01/21 01:06 AM
2

Just stay strong and keep trying, it will be tough but worth it in the end!
/r/MensRights04/01/21 01:03 AM
2

I personally am pro-choice, as I don't see anything unethical about terminating a pregnancy before the baby is born.
/r/MensRights03/01/21 10:16 AM
4

Did you have a good lawyer in India? If not, try to hire one and see if your situation can be improved. If you think you are depressed or suicidal, see a counselor. This is a health issue that can be treated.
/r/MensRights03/01/21 10:15 AM
2

My suggestion is to get a lawyer and follow their advice. Laws vary in different places, but not having a lawyer is a good way of getting screwed when it comes to these things.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 04:25 AM
3

You can't afford to not have a lawyer here.
/r/MensRights30/12/20 02:38 AM
1

I think part of it may be that these issues have been in the media a lot more recently. Some women tend to assume that men are sexist pigs, so they bring these things up to see how you respond.
/r/MensRights18/12/20 09:23 AM
3

Everyone is welcome. In fact, women are some of the strongest advocates of men's rights. The unfortunate reality is that women have more credibility than men when it comes to gender-related issues. If a man complains about how the child support system is unfair, he will be written off as whining and not taking responsibility, but if a woman says the same thing, more people will listen.
/r/MensRights12/12/20 11:42 PM
1

She brought up sex in a context when it was completely irrelevant. I would consider that sexist.
/r/MensRights12/12/20 11:41 PM
1

Thanks for posting this. Please continue to speak out. As a woman, you have far more credibility on gender-related issues than we do.
/r/MensRights11/12/20 09:33 AM
-1

Pregnant women are not entitled to a seat. If you are in the US, federal law requires certain seats to be reserved for the disabled on all public transportation. Since pregnancy is considered a disability, pregnant women are entitled to these seats. The bus agency can be fined if they do not make a seat available for a pregnant woman.
/r/MensRights11/12/20 09:31 AM
1

At this point, you don't need to do anything. If she makes any formal accusation (to either school authorities or the police), then get a lawyer immediately. Do not discuss this with anyone, do not post about it on social media, etc.
/r/MensRights11/12/20 09:26 AM
1

I am an academic. I don't know the laws in Canada, but in the US that would be illegal. Sometimes I feel like it's better to make it legal, because if it's illegal then it just happens more covertly, and men who apply are just wasting their time. My advice is to get out of grad school and get a job first. Once you have a secure job, you can start to speak out about these things. Right now, if you say anything it may backfire and hurt your career.
/r/MensRights09/12/20 04:40 AM
3

Actually, it makes sense. If she didn't know his age, then she's not guilty. It's called not having criminal intent assuming the law is similar to U.S. law. In the US, statutory rape is a strict liability crime. "I didn't know how old he/she was" is not a defense.
/r/MensRights04/12/20 11:11 PM
1

No problem, good luck!
/r/MensRights04/12/20 07:37 AM
1

If the league requires a certain number of female players, then it's clear that on average, the female players aren't as good as the males. But I can see why a comment like that would come across as offensive.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 03:06 AM
1

I would define it as fighting for equality for men. It's a diverse group, so other than the general notion of gender equality, the values and beliefs can vary a lot.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 03:04 AM
3

Which may be a sizable sum for an Indian.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 02:23 AM
2

That's good that you're getting some assistance. These things can take time to work. Hang in there and hopefully you'll start to improve soon.
/r/MensRights20/11/20 04:02 AM
4

Wow, I'm sure that woman will get what is coming to her. On a related note, please get some treatment for your depression. Even a few sessions with a good therapist can significantly improve your quality of life.
/r/MensRights20/11/20 12:22 AM
2

It's why it's going to court. Lol no, just because a case is going to court doesn't mean there is a valid basis. It's all political theater. Trump is using the court cases to fundraise and also to energize his base for the senate runoff.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:36 AM
1

Yes, I think you're right that there will always be some level of fraud. But at this point, even if one of the swing states has enough fraud to change the outcome, Biden will still have enough electoral votes to win.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:11 AM
2

There are quite a few instances of confirmed fraud on behalf of the democrats. No, there aren't. There are just a few isolated instances. If there were confirmed issues, Trump's lawyers would have found them by now.
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:05 AM
5

So whatever way you want to frame it , both of them dont have principles. Yeah, that seems to be true with all politicians. My point was that a political campaign is not a job, so laws concerning discrimination in employment don't apply.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 06:37 AM
5

It seems reasonable to have a recount. What bothers me is the baseless allegations of fraud. If the Trump campaign had said "this is really close, let's request a recount and make sure", that would be fine. But claiming that there were fake absentee ballots and whatnot is inappropriate.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:59 AM
-1

Being someone's running mate isn't a job. There is no EEOC claim. Biden didn't "hire" Harris. Any man who wanted to run for vice president could have done so.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:57 AM
5

It's a political contest, not a job application. Non-discrimination laws don't really apply to elections. As a state attorney general and U.S. senator, Harris has more than enough experience to be vice president. If Biden felt that having a female running mate would increase his odds of winning, there is nothing wrong with that.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:56 AM
5

I'm fairly certain this is a troll post.
/r/MensRights10/11/20 05:01 AM
1

Ironically the same website says men can do sweet fuck all if women are hired instead of them as positive discrimination is allowed. Where does it say that?
/r/MensRights09/11/20 08:26 PM
2

No problem, let us know how it goes! Good job getting legal counsel so quickly.
/r/MensRights09/11/20 04:44 AM
3

I was planning on reaching out to this mentor to attest to my character. Do you think that this is a poor idea? If you are planning to talk to legal counsel, I would do that first. They can tell you whether talking to your mentor is a good idea. My guess is probably not. At this point, no one needs to attest to your character. If there is a case/hearing, you can get character references at that time.
/r/MensRights09/11/20 04:09 AM
3

Cut off all contact with her, keep records of all the messages, and do not discuss this with anyone else. After that, you have two options. You can hope that she gets frustrated with trying to contact you, and gives up and decides to move on with her life. If she makes a complaint to the university, the police, or anyone else, get a lawyer. You can get a lawyer to pre-emptively send her a cease and desist letter. I don't know if this is a good idea, it's something to discuss with the lawyer.
/r/MensRights09/11/20 03:51 AM
6

Was she someone with hiring authority, or just a random employee? If the latter, then it will probably be viewed as a joke. But if not, then look into filing a report at https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/make-complaint
/r/MensRights09/11/20 03:47 AM
1

Who was paid to do that research? The article is a compliation of the results of 36 publications on the topic. You can look up the funding sources for each of them if you are so inclined. Doctors have an incentive to cut as many babies as possible - earlier and more comfortable retirement. That may be the case, but scientific researchers have safeguards in place to guard against bias. This type of research is usually not done by practicing physicians who would have financial incentives.
/r/MensRights06/11/20 02:49 AM
11

Do not talk to the investigator. Just say "I decline to answer any questions without an attorney present". He will probably tempt you to talk by saying "we just need to clear this up" or "if you don't talk you might be arrested". Don't fall for it. Do not talk, period. Do not talk to anyone else either. If the accuser tries to badmouth you to others, do not respond. Do not defend yourself, even to your family. Just keep quiet. Then, wait and see what happens. It's possible they will drop the cas…
/r/MensRights04/11/20 02:12 AM
7

The flirting was a men's issue, because of the double standard. The homophobia is a gay rights issue.
/r/MensRights01/11/20 09:06 PM
4

Back when he was growing up, it may have been common for boys to get fully naked in the locker room at school or the gym or whatever. But that doesn't happen anymore. Your son's friends are never going to casually see his penis. Also remember that if you don't circumcise him, he can get circumcised at a later age whenever he wants. But if you do, it's irreversible. So by not circumcising him, you leave the options open.
/r/MensRights30/10/20 02:13 AM
2

How would having a spouse who makes less money make it more financially feasible for them to stay home and raise kids? Because many people view it as a matter of opportunity cost. The more you are being paid, the more you lose by not working. If you are making minimum wage, quitting your job is an easy choice. If you have a college degree and are 5 years into a professional career, it hurts a lot more because you are giving up a lot more. If you are making enough money to support a family yourse…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 04:03 AM
2

One would think that women would want to marry up regardless of whether they want to be a homemakers or something else. It is always better to have a spouse that makes more money than a spouse that makes less money. That is a bit simplistic. You could say that it is better to have a spouse that makes more money than a spouse that makes less money, all other things equal. But all other things are not equal. If you want to have a career, then having a spouse who makes less money might be desirable…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 01:03 AM
1

Even if there is, I will take some discrimination in universities over 4 more years of Trump.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:49 AM
1

And even if you don't count student loans, all schools accept federal funds for research and other activities.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:48 AM
1

Colleges have no reason to stop it. It doesn't affect anything from their perspective.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:44 AM
2

It doesn't work for government or business services, but I see nothing wrong with it for private organizations.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:41 AM
1

They were private organizations with no university affiliation, so the university couldn't directly shut them down. Rather, the university threatened to penalize any student who was found to be a member. I don't know what the basis of the lawsuit was, but probably some sort of equal protection for students.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:41 AM
6

There are definitely guys who won't consider her, so her pool is smaller. It is up to her if she wants to lower her standards, or remain single until she finds the right person. I wouldn't interfere in her dating life. It's really none of your business. Unless she asks for your opinion, keep out of it.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 12:39 AM
7

I think your point would have been valid back when women didn't have the same employment options that they do today. But today, when a woman can easily provide for herself if she chooses to do so, the fact that women marry up does seem to suggest that there is a preference for being a homemaker.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 08:56 AM
2

That is a very complicated question, but in this case, unless the parents were negligent, probably not.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 04:46 AM
1

The dad had nothing to do with the case, so he can't be legally responsible. I know there was no reasonable way he could have known, so it isn't really fair, but it is what the law says.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 04:25 AM
1

In many cultures, it's not common for parents to verbalize their love for their children, especially male children. That doesn't mean they don't love you, it just means they won't express it verbally.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 02:28 AM
1

In most US states, statutory rape is a strict liability crime. That basically means "no excuses". The guy would be legally responsible. Morally, I would say that the girl should also have some responsibility, but the law generally does not put such responsibility on minors.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 02:27 AM
3

And filing complaints against her gets me absolutely no where. Who have you been filing complaints with? Library management may not care. You have to escalate it higher. If the library is a city facility, contact your city council member. Make sure you refer to it as sexual harassment, which should get people's attention.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 12:18 AM
1

They have probably done the calculation and determined that doubling the size of the market is worth pissing off a few of their core customers.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 05:57 PM
1

This is entirely financial. By getting women into gaming, they can double their potential market.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 07:48 AM
1

From this article, it's not really clear what the bill says. Does it only give women the right to receive this information, or everyone? And would it include each individual's salary, or in aggregate?
/r/MensRights21/10/20 02:18 AM
2

There needs to be a separate trial for defamation. A judge or jury would have to rule that the statement was false. Just not getting a rape conviction would not be sufficient.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:56 AM
3

In the US, that would be unconstitutional. You cannot revoke citizenship.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:54 AM
2

Defamation generally does not require malicious intent. All that needs to be proven is that the defamatory statement was made.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:54 AM
1

I would say that it should be treated like any other defamation case. If you claim that someone murdered a shopkeeper and that results in damage to their reputation, what is the punishment? Same thing applies. Defamation can be pursued as a criminal or civil case, but is a civil case in the majority of instances. The penalty depends on the damage done to the person's reputation. It can be calculated based on loss of wages, lifestyle, etc. I don't agree with the argument that the punishment shoul…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:51 AM
1

Remember that the Trump administration and the Republican congress changed the tax code so that those paying alimony and child support have to pay tax on it, and the recipient doesn't. There is no way the Trump administration is beneficial to men's rights. This is all election year political theater.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 12:12 AM
1

Does anybody think the Trump administration would be investigating stuff like this if it weren't for the upcoming election? This is all a show. It's a nice way of rallying their base by (1) attacking "liberal" academia, and (2) appealing to white males. Don't think for a second that this is anything more than election-year optics.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 12:10 AM
5

They are around 5% of total allegations according to some studies. And that's just the ones that are reported.
/r/MensRights14/10/20 02:52 AM
4

Getting falsely accused is not worse than getting raped. It all depends on the situation. Are we talking a violent, forceful rape, or "I didn't really want to have sex but my boyfriend did it anyway" type of rape? Are we talking about a false accusation made to a few friends, or made publicly and destroying someone's career?
/r/MensRights14/10/20 02:51 AM
10

Very well said. It's crazy how when men say stuff like this, they are accused of defending rapists and whatnot, but when women say the same thing, it is taken seriously. People will say "but this will deter real rape victims from coming forward". No it won't. This would only affect women who are proven liars. Unsubstantiated is not the same as false. There would have to be a trial (separate from the rape trial) at which a judge would have to determine that the woman lied beyond a reasonable doub…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 02:50 AM
1

I think we are making slow but steady progress. It will take time though.
/r/MensRights12/10/20 11:18 AM
3

Not at all. If she is behaving like that right now, she isn't worth your time.
/r/MensRights12/10/20 11:17 AM
2

Haha I think most of us who post here are banned from those subs...
/r/MensRights09/10/20 09:32 PM
2

True, but it's not worth the aggravation or hassle to argue with fools.
/r/MensRights08/10/20 04:08 AM
4

Community moderators can ban whoever they want. They aren't breaking any Reddit rules. They don't want you there, so don't waste your time dealing with them.
/r/MensRights07/10/20 08:32 PM
2

Now that's an interesting idea. I wonder if any salon has tried that.
/r/MensRights06/10/20 03:08 AM
0

Definitely! That is why we need laws like this.
/r/MensRights06/10/20 02:52 AM
1

Society doesn't need to do anything. Once the law is passed, men can file lawsuits and fight back when they are overcharged. Look at what is happening in California, where they have had a similar law for several decades. The law was ostensibly passed to benefit women, but men have been using it with great success.
/r/MensRights06/10/20 01:09 AM
2

The law bans gender discrimination in pricing. It will be greatly beneficial to men who are currently overcharged in many areas. New York bars and clubs often have "ladies' nights" and a few years ago there was some pharmacy in NYC that imposed a "men's surcharge" as a political statement. All of that will now be illegal. Cuomo's political motivation might have been to help women, but the law is written to go in both directions and will benefit men more than women, because men are overcharged mo…
/r/MensRights05/10/20 10:29 PM
1

What are you talking about? The law bans discrimination in both directions. Neither gender will pay more for haircuts, or anything else.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 09:46 PM
1

They will probably change the pricing to short or long hair rather than men or women.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 09:45 PM
0

The article is about a law that bans gender discrimination. You are criticizing the law, and the governor who signed it, which means you either support gender discrimination, or didn't actually read/understand the law. I think you have some re-evaluating to do.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 09:45 PM
3

Thanks for posting. This is excellent advice. I'm glad things worked out for you.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 08:30 PM
2

My suggestion is to do it when you are at a point in your career that you don't care about the repercussions. When you have enough money to retire, when your job or business is secure, when you are past the point of having to worry about what others think.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 08:29 PM
2

It will still be legal to charge more for long hair vs. short hair, which is perfectly fair. They just won't be able to do it by gender. This is a good law. California has a similar law and it is well enforced.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 08:28 PM
-1

If you support gender discrimination, why are you on this sub?
/r/MensRights05/10/20 08:27 PM
1

What do you mean by "legalize pink privilege"? It sounds like the staet just did the opposite. Different prices for men and women will now be banned. Of course it remains to be seen whether the enforcement will go in one direction or both.
/r/MensRights05/10/20 08:26 PM
1

It depends on the jurisdiction. In many US states, it applies to anything concerning the victim's past sexual behavior.
/r/MensRights04/10/20 06:36 AM
4

That's a valid concern, but there are already "rape shield" laws that prevent a victim's past from being brought up in court.
/r/MensRights02/10/20 03:48 AM
2

Don't request male-only partners. Rather, request not to be paired with the women that are engaging in this behavior.
/r/MensRights28/09/20 11:14 PM
2

It isn't about assumptions, its a matter of verification. It's a matter of minding your own business.
/r/MensRights27/09/20 04:11 AM
3

and for that I was banned from TwoX permanently Welcome to the club. Most of us are banned from there, usually within the first few posts. They have zero tolerance for anything that goes against their agenda.
/r/MensRights27/09/20 04:10 AM
1

If you are in the US, you can file a complaint with the EEOC. It will help if you have some sort of evidence of what she said.
/r/MensRights24/09/20 07:19 AM
1

It's equally unlikely that "every single" man does something.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 09:28 PM
2

That is unusual for a fast food outlet. And OP says that it was "many" people, so it's unlikely that all the women asked for more and all the men asked for less.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:56 PM
2

That is possible, but doesn't justify it legally.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:50 PM
3

Fast food jobs usually don't work like that. The rate is the rate. For skilled jobs like engineers or doctors, the pay may depend on work ethics, experience, negotiations, etc.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:50 PM
1

Gather data for evidence and then one of the males can file an EEOC complaint.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:49 PM
3

Since most male patients don't have any preference, they don't ask. But if they do ask, their preference should be accommodated, just like it is for women. That doctor was incredibly inappropriate. I can tell she was just trying to comfort you because she thought you were insecure, but her behavior was not acceptable.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:48 PM
1

I can't speak for all states, but in all the two-party states in the US that I'm familiar with, making the recording is illegal. In California, for example, it can be prosecuted as eavesdropping and carries a sentence of up to $2,500 and/or 1 year in jail.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:44 PM
1

Please do not give legal advice if you aren't familiar with the law. You are misleading people and could get someone into very serious trouble.
/r/MensRights23/09/20 08:41 PM
1

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as dismissive. I was just trying to adjust your perspective. Research has shown that circumcision has little to no impact on sexual sensitivity or performance. Here is one article on this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12293 You are certainly allowed to feel hopeless, but if you start feeling suicidal, please get some help. This is a medical concern that can and should be treated. I hope you start feeling better soon.
/r/MensRights22/09/20 10:05 PM
1

I didn't mean to be insensitive. I understand your concerns, but fixating on it now is not going to help you. Being upset about this is normal, but losing your will to live is not. Rather than letting it upset you, try to channel your energy into something more productive. Maybe you can become an advocate for laws restricting circumcision, or for other men's issues.
/r/MensRights22/09/20 04:14 AM
3

He should have gotten a lawyer immediately, to represent him during the hearing and the appeal. I don't know if it's too late now, but it wouldn't hurt to contact a lawyer who has experience with these matters and see what they say.
/r/MensRights21/09/20 10:55 PM
-6

Don't worry too much about being circumcised. In reality, it's a minor difference to your sensation. The main problem is the risk of complications during the procedure. If the procedure went off without a hitch, then it's not that big of a deal. I know that men sometimes use circumcision as a rallying point (like women use abortion) but don't overthink it.
/r/MensRights21/09/20 10:53 PM
2

My mum found out at 53 that she wouldn't be getting her pension when she thought. I see your point, but 53 is quite young. She still had many years to adjust if needed. What could she have done differently if she had known at 43 instead of 53? She probably wouldn't have picked a different job. People start financial planning very young these days, so it's very hard to draw a cutoff.
/r/MensRights16/09/20 12:16 AM
4

Lol, you must be American?
/r/MensRights16/09/20 12:14 AM
9

Remove it and give you a permanent ban.
/r/MensRights16/09/20 12:11 AM
1

Wasn't there a company in the UK that only sold car insurance to women? I seem to remember seeing ads on the tube years ago.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 11:49 PM
1

How about letting me keep 90% of what I earn instead stealing half of it to buy votes? If you want to live in a country without functional government services, there are plenty of places you can go.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 11:46 PM
-5

Many people die in their 70s though, especially minorities.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 11:46 PM
1

To be optimistic, it’s 2020 and dna evidence is rampant. A case like this likely won’t happen again. DNA evidence isn't always available, or reliable.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 11:45 PM
1

Of course it is. Old people have 18-25 year old male children. And they vote more. We don't send children to jury duty either. Are you going to claim therefore it's not a "cross section" of society? Anyone who can vote can serve on a jury (with a few minor exceptions). Therefore, juries are a cross section of the people who are involved in the political process. Not everyone has 18-25 year old male children, or cares about them. So the draft is not a cross section, it's a selected group. This is…
/r/MensRights15/09/20 09:02 AM
1

Even if you have conscription, it's not going to be a cross section of society. It will be a cross section of able-bodied 18-25 year old men (or men and women if the law is changed). That doesn't represent a political consensus, and never will. At the end of the day, being in the military is a job. It's no different from being a police officer or school teacher. The government pays you to do something. No political consensus is needed. The Vietnam war ended because congress decided not to provid…
/r/MensRights15/09/20 08:33 AM
1

You want jurors to be randomly selected so you can have a cross section of society and therefore a more fair trial. There is no such need for the military.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 08:15 AM
1

The whole point of conscription is to save the government money because they don't have to pay market wages to get enough people to sign up.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 06:27 AM
8

Yeah, it does. I remind people of this change whenever they claim that conservatives support men's rights.
/r/MensRights09/09/20 03:26 AM
3

This is definitely an issue, but try not to be paranoid about it. Sometimes on the internet thing are exaggerated.
/r/MensRights09/09/20 12:40 AM
9

This change was made as part of Trump's tax reform bill. The logic is that men generally have higher incomes than women, so if the alimony is taxed at the man's tax bracket, the government will get more than if it's taxed at the woman's bracket. It is not retroactive, so it only applies to divorces going forward. When negotiating a divorce settlement, it should be taken into account.
/r/MensRights09/09/20 12:40 AM
2

It varies a lot by location, but overall I would say that there need to be more men in education.
/r/MensRights05/09/20 07:00 AM
1

"Nice guys finish last".
/r/MensRights05/09/20 06:59 AM
6

I have seen statistics saying about 5-10% of rape accusations are false. However, remember that these are only accusations formally made to police. If someone tells their family and friends that someone raped them, that won't be counted in the statistics, even though it can cause a loss of reputation for that person.
/r/MensRights04/09/20 08:29 PM
3

Document everything and see a lawyer. The lawyer may be able to write a cease-and-desist letter before she tells too many people.
/r/MensRights03/09/20 09:59 AM
3

If this happened in a small town where people know each other, it wouldn't be hard for the cops (or maybe even a store employee) to identify him from the security footage.
/r/MensRights31/08/20 03:28 AM
1

You're taking "religious conviction" way too literally. In a broader sense religion is a world view based on superstitions and arbitrary moral teachings that may or may not have an objective foundation. Veganism matches this description. Veganism definitely has an objective foundation. It conserves natural resources, reduces pollution, and is better for the environment. None of this is superstition or arbitrary moral teachings, it is all proven by science. False. People don't eat meat because th…
/r/MensRights31/08/20 03:12 AM
-1

First of all, I don't know a single religion that requires anyone to be vegan. There is no "religious conviction". As for ideology, eating meat is just as much of an ideology as not eating meat. Meat companies advertise their products, and no one complains about that, so why is someone telling you to eat a veggie burger suddenly "misguided, and potentially dangerous"? Someone not eating meat doesn't hurt anyone else.
/r/MensRights30/08/20 08:31 AM
0

Why is it a bad intention?
/r/MensRights30/08/20 07:42 AM
2

I think you got downvoted because people think you came here just to push the vegan agenda.
/r/MensRights30/08/20 04:25 AM
3

I think the main thing you can do is talk to people. Women have more credibility than men when it comes to gender issues. If a man talks about alimony reform, people will say he's just bitter that he has to give money to his ex every month, but when a woman says the same thing, people take it more seriously.
/r/MensRights30/08/20 04:06 AM
2

The 'meat makes you macho' message isn't a positive one for the vegan movement. Of course it isn't. He/she said that vegans are trying to fight this message.
/r/MensRights30/08/20 04:05 AM
-1

This person is right. The "meat is manly" message is something that the vegan food industry has been struggling to overcome for decades.
/r/MensRights30/08/20 04:05 AM
1

Most women won’t “call rape” after sex they didn’t like, there is a small subset that will That's true, but it's still a risk. All it takes is one woman to cry rape and ruin your life.
/r/MensRights29/08/20 12:17 AM
3

From what it says, it may be due to length of subscription or region. I have no idea what "bundle size" means.
/r/MensRights29/08/20 12:16 AM
-12

Threatening a school with legal action of any sort is a good way of damaging your kid's education. I would say simply keep escalating until you get the right person. Talk to the principal, superintendent, etc.
/r/MensRights28/08/20 08:10 AM
2

Demand and supply. Men want women more than the other way around. So women can be more picky.
/r/MensRights26/08/20 12:21 AM
1

You didn't even reply to my post, you just ranted about how smart you are and then threw out some irrelevant fancy-sounding terms. I'm done with you. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights25/08/20 11:05 PM
1

You try to sound smart, but you know nothing about logic or law. Let me give you an example. Someone vandalizes your car, so you file an insurance claim. The insurance company asks for proof. Unfortunately, there was no security camera there, so they deny your claim. No proof, so it's "false for now". According to your logic, you should now be prosecuted for filing a false claim, which is criminal fraud.
/r/MensRights25/08/20 06:40 AM
4

I'm afraid of looking anyone. I know this is natural, but if you act afraid, people are going to be even more suspicious. If you behave like the moms, people will treat you better. But if you sit by yourself and avoid eye contact and interaction, it makes it seem like you're up to no good.
/r/MensRights24/08/20 08:24 AM
1

That's not how logic works. You are so off-base I don't even know what to say to you.
/r/MensRights23/08/20 08:06 AM
2

A quarter of a million men are willing to risk persecution, social harassment and job loss by being members of this subreddit. But Reddit is anonymous. Most people don't reveal their identity.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 11:37 PM
1

I think so. But maybe I'm too cynical.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 03:20 AM
1

Do you really think that Redditors read anything properly? Look at any of the news subs, it's clear that 90% of the commenters haven't read any more than the headline.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 02:47 AM
2

Discussing a question like "should women be allowed to vote" makes MRAs look bad. I am sure that down the line, feminists are going to link to this thread to show people how sexist and radical we are. They aren't going to read all the nuances about MGTOW vs. MRA, they are going to see the last line of your post and draw conclusions.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 02:09 AM
5

I'm starting to wonder if you're a feminist troll who is posting this in order to make MRAs look bad.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 12:52 AM
2

It's hard to know, because anyone who did research and found a difference would probably be vilified and forced to retract their work.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 12:51 AM
2

Because they don't like what we discuss, and labeling it like that helps discourage other people from coming here.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 12:51 AM
2

No, it is completely different. Unproven means there wasn't enough evidence to prove it. That doesn't mean that it is false. In order to be false, there has to be evidence to prove it false. Just like you can't prove something true without evidence, you can't prove something false without evidence. That's how logic and law both work.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 11:18 PM
7

The poll is a bit misleading, since "liberal" and "Democrat" are not necessarily syonymous, and "conservative" and "Republican" are not either. But with that said, I am very liberal. I think that DeVos' new Title IX guidelines are literally the one and only good thing that has come out of the Trump administration.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 10:27 AM
1

I think both genders can be oppressed in different ways. The severity depends on the country (the richer the country, the more relative privilege women will have) and the specific situation (men tend to face discrimination in family/child matters).
/r/MensRights20/08/20 10:24 AM
4

If they can't prove their accusations, they should be punished for their harassment & defamation in anything. Not quite. Unproven is different from false.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 10:21 AM
3

She needs to be reported to someone.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 10:18 AM
2

This probably isn't significant enough to catch her boss' attention.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 10:17 AM
1

That's great, I wish there were more parents like you.
/r/MensRights14/08/20 01:10 AM
1

It really depends on the laws of that jurisdiction. In most cases, child support can be calculated based on what is called imputed income, if the judge feels like someone is avoiding working in order to avoid paying.
/r/MensRights14/08/20 12:15 AM
1

Please give me citations to these cases where JJ was overruled.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 10:06 AM
1

An arbitrator's ruling cannot be overturned because it is legally incorrect. It can only be overturned if it is outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. I believe this has happened on rare occasions, but JJ not taking the case seriously would not violate the arbitration contract.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 09:44 AM
2

Judge Judy does that all the time.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 03:09 AM
2

Honestly, I think male judges are often more biased in these cases.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 03:09 AM
9

What did your lawyer have to say about this?
/r/MensRights13/08/20 03:08 AM
1

Women tend to marry earlier and live longer, so most people's grandmas will outlive their grandpas.
/r/MensRights08/08/20 10:56 PM
1

This is a common political tactic. In order to discredit your opponents, label them with some scary sounding name. This is why environmentalists get labeled socialist, for example.
/r/MensRights08/08/20 10:55 PM
3

It's a smear campaign. Just like how someone who wants to protect the environment is labeled a "communist" or someone who wants to restrict immigration is labeled a "fascist".
/r/MensRights03/08/20 08:19 AM
4

This is very much dependent on your jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions allow for an adjustment if there is a material change in circumstances, but the details vary widely. My advice is to get a good lawyer.
/r/MensRights29/07/20 08:09 AM
3

See a lawyer. That is the only way.
/r/MensRights26/07/20 05:29 AM
0

I think the best way is through examples. Give examples of what feminists have done, such as fought for primary custody for mothers, quotas for female employees/board members, and so on. As a woman, you have more credibility on gender-related issues. Men who discuss these things are often dismissed as whining or "incels". But when you say it, it can have a bigger impact on people.
/r/MensRights18/07/20 03:40 AM
1

Which schools and which scholarships? As I said, please provide a source.
/r/MensRights15/07/20 11:49 PM
1

Can you provide a source for this claim?
/r/MensRights15/07/20 11:37 PM
1

No, that isn't true. A school promoting an event does not necessarily violate title IX.
/r/MensRights15/07/20 10:54 PM
0

Only if the law is actually being broken. And that depends entirely on who is running the event. If it's a university or a government entity, then this is probably illegal. But if it's a private entity such as a business or nonprofit, then it is probably not.
/r/MensRights15/07/20 10:46 PM
2

Depends on who is running it.
/r/MensRights15/07/20 10:41 PM
1

Depression can appear at any age. It's definitely possible.
/r/MensRights11/07/20 11:09 PM
1

An arrest requires probable cause, which is a fairly low standard. There has to be evidence, but that can include testimony.
/r/MensRights10/07/20 09:54 AM
3

If STEM graduates are 90% male and entry level employees are much less than that, there is most likely discrimination at work.
/r/MensRights09/07/20 04:26 AM
3

Did he have a lawyer? Did his ex have a lawyer? A lot of these cases come down to procedural technicalities. It's possible that the judge was biased, but it's also possible that he blew his case by not doing a filing properly. I'm not saying this is right, but we need more details.
/r/MensRights09/07/20 02:30 AM
4

I think it was a scholarship for male students, if I'm thinking about the same thing.
/r/MensRights07/07/20 12:30 AM
1

He needs to get one. He can borrow money if needed. Otherwise, he and you might get screwed.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 07:52 PM
1

So it's advertising multiple positions instead of one. How does that make any difference? Edit: I found the posting. https://careers.bhp.com/careers/JobDetail/Female-Development-Supervisor-Opportunities-BMA/173845 They have literally set up a special training program for females only. I'm guessing that there simply aren't enough females who would be suitable candidates, so they are refraining from hiring qualified men, and instead hiring unqualified women and putting them through 18 months of tr…
/r/MensRights03/07/20 03:08 AM
1

It isn't even specifying a position It's definitely specifying a position. The position is "Production and Maintenance Development Supervisor".
/r/MensRights03/07/20 03:02 AM
1

Hahahahaha that's not how it works bro. They don't take all job postings offline and only keep up the women's one 😂. You are making massive assumptions on how this add is setup and it's intent. All you have is this picture for information and nothing more. Then how does it work? Of course this isn't the only job posting they have. I'm sure there are other positions for which they will hire men. But for this particular position, they are clearly discriminating. Women are currently desirable in th…
/r/MensRights03/07/20 02:12 AM
1

It's not a huge leap at all. No man is going to apply for a job when the posting starts with "Female opportunities". Even if the company claims that they accept applications from everyone, it's clear that they are going to hire a woman, or at least be strongly biased in favor of women.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:51 AM
1

Does your dad have a lawyer? He needs one immediately.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:12 AM
1

I think it would be better to say "all people regardless of gender may apply". That way it's clear that there is no discrimination in either direction.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:10 AM
1

Women are well aware that gender discrimination is banned. Any woman who is interested in the job is not going to wait to be invited in order to apply.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:09 AM
1

I feel like this has almost become a catch-22. You guys often complain that men always do the most dangerous jobs, and then you complain when companies try to get more women into these kinds of fields. How could you win in this scenario? This isn't a dangerous mining job. It's a supervisory job.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:07 AM
2

We know the difference. Equal opportunity is the goal, not equal outcomes.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:06 AM
1

My company put adds up like this all the time and don't have quotas. They would just like to hear from more female applicants to be considered. If it says "female opportunities" then it's clearly limited to females. They aren't just saying they would like to hear from more female applicants, they are saying they will only consider a female.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:06 AM
2

This is a supervisory job.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:02 AM
1

They will halt it when men speak up and fight back.
/r/MensRights03/07/20 01:01 AM
3

It has to do with historical societal values. Nowadays, it's just a double standard.
/r/MensRights02/07/20 12:52 AM
4

That is illegal in the EU. Try to get a recording of them saying that, and then report them.
/r/MensRights30/06/20 04:46 PM
3

Thanks for posting. You are more than welcome here. In fact, I believe that having women involved is good for the movement, because women have more credibility on gender-related issues.
/r/MensRights29/06/20 10:01 PM
2

This proposition only applies to state programs. Private companies are not affected.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 07:16 PM
3

Yes, that is the concern. While the larger issue has to do with race, it is possible that men may also face discrimination, especially in engineering and computer science.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 04:36 PM
3

California has a law (approved by voterse) banning discrimination on the basis of sex and race in state hiring and other state programs such as university admissions. The legislature has approved a referendum asking voters to repeal it.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 04:23 PM
1

That isn't true either. The constitution does not prohibit discrimination in all cases. It simply requires equal protection of the laws.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 04:21 PM
2

That is not true at all. Federal law allows discrimination in certain cases. California is one of the few states with a broad anti-discrimination law like this.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 04:20 PM
2

Yes, that is correct. And yes, federal law allows it.
/r/MensRights26/06/20 04:20 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Procter_%26_Gamble_brands
/r/MensRights26/06/20 01:22 AM
9

If you agreed to do it, then it is not legally assault. It's still very poor behavior on her part, but probably not against the law. I'm saying probably because laws vary in different places. I recommend you talk to a therapist about this if it's bothering you. They can help you sort out your thoughts.
/r/MensRights25/06/20 03:07 AM
1

Most of us who post here are banned from several of the women's subs. They don't tolerate anything that goes against their viewpoints.
/r/MensRights23/06/20 11:31 AM
2

That's a valid point, but I don't know how much of a factor it is.
/r/MensRights22/06/20 09:53 PM
3

You started by making a legitimate point, but then your post turned into an irrelevant rant.
/r/MensRights22/06/20 09:52 PM
2

What exactly are they up to over there that there may not be a single person in the EU qualified to do it? The qualified people have to want to take the job. If there is a shortage, then they may not find any takers.
/r/MensRights22/06/20 09:51 PM
2

I think the biggest thing you can do to help is just talk to people. As a woman, you have more credibility on gender issues than we do. So speak out when you hear sexism, no matter which sex it is against.
/r/MensRights22/06/20 09:49 PM
1

Obviously because there shouldn't be any single fathers. Kids should always go to the mother. /s
/r/MensRights22/06/20 02:43 PM
1

So did it answer your question of naming a conservative professor?
/r/MensRights20/06/20 07:29 PM
1

Type "conservative professors" into Google, you will find lots of information.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 06:56 PM
1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/02/conservative-faculty-appear-influence-their-students-more-than-liberal-professors-do/
/r/MensRights20/06/20 06:31 PM
0

It's kind of like how an awful lot of students are open socialists and communists and it's a result of a lot of professors being marxist themselves and the students not being exposed to alternative viewpoints. You started off making some good points, but this sentence completely killed your credibility. If you think that professors are "marxist" and students are "socialist" because that is all they are being taught, then you have no business commenting on anything related to education.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 02:49 PM
5

Cut off contact with her. If the police approach you, refuse to talk to them. If charges are filed, hire a lawyer.
/r/MensRights20/06/20 07:24 AM
1

Hmm interesting.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 03:51 AM
3

What does your rant about rights, guns, and communist countries have to do with this post?
/r/MensRights18/06/20 10:41 AM
2

At first I wasn't sure what to make of it and thought it might be a violation of their rights Forcing them to hand over their phones would be a violation of their rights. But it is voluntary, which is fine. If they refuse, and the other evidence isn't strong enough, then the case is dropped.
/r/MensRights18/06/20 10:40 AM
1

Father figures? Did they also includ "mother figures" last month?
/r/MensRights18/06/20 10:39 AM
3

I suppose this is the underlying problem. People don't want to speak up, in order to protect their own careers, which is completely understandable in a way, but results in the problem getting worse because the people advocating for "diversity" are more outspoken.
/r/MensRights18/06/20 01:29 AM
1

Yeah, it depends on how much of the hiring that person was responsible for.
/r/MensRights18/06/20 01:28 AM
10

I documented everything and filed a complaint with HR on my way out the door that I'm sure they buried. Why didn't you file a complaint with the EEOC?
/r/MensRights17/06/20 08:51 AM
5

Someone needs to apply, be rejected, and file a complaint. Until they do that, the government can't do anything.
/r/MensRights17/06/20 08:50 AM
3

Straight white male isn't a protected class In the US, protected classes refer to characteristics, not groups. For example, gender is a protected class. Race is a protected class. You cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race or gender, regardless of what your race or gender is.
/r/MensRights17/06/20 08:48 AM
1

If over those years she only hired women and minorities, then it supports his case. It depends how many people were hired. If the sample size isn't big enough, then it's hard to prove.
/r/MensRights17/06/20 08:44 AM
1

The purpose of this thread isn't to propose solutions to women's issues. It's meant to point out double standards and bad arguments that feminists are using.
/r/MensRights17/06/20 01:20 AM
1

This is mensrights, so I don't want to get too deep into the firearm debate, but no one except for the right wing Americans thinks that guns are a solution to violence. The rest of the civilized world knows that without strict gun control, their countries will become just like America, with regular school shootings, police brutality, and high rates of violence. So if you want to propose a solution, propose an actual solution that might contribute something, rather than taking it as a chance to p…
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:03 PM
1

Men's rights and feminism are very closely connected. In order to advocate for men's rights, you have to point out when feminists are misleading people. Otherwise, they control the narrative and men get blamed for not supporting "equality".
/r/MensRights16/06/20 11:54 AM
1

Yeah, because more guns will clearly solve all our problems, right?
/r/MensRights16/06/20 11:53 AM
1

I’ve often wondered about what’s behind the social norm of fidelity. Fidelity helps create a stable society, especially for kids.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 12:58 AM
2

Definitely check with a urologist to see if the procedure was botched in any way. If so, look into whether it can be fixed. However, also remember that sex often doesn't feel good for many people. Don't listen to what the media and porn videos tell you about sex. It's completely normal to not enjoy it. I am not circumcised and I often have many of the same feelings you have. I am not a mental health professional, so don't consider this the final word, but my feeling is that you are blaming your …
/r/MensRights15/06/20 03:52 AM
2

Family support will be critical here. Hopefully your mom is understanding. I don't know the laws in Washington, but I hope things work out for you.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 09:22 AM
3

First, you need to see a therapist. Please find one immediately. Your school may have one, or your doctor can refer you to one. Once you get some therapy and are back to a normal mental state, then the next step is to see if you can press charges for slander. This depends on the laws in your state/country. You will need to talk to a laywer about it.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 08:51 AM
2

I lived in LA, and I don't consider this the standard at all. First few dates, sure, the man can pay. But once a relationship is established, both should take turns paying, and if a woman has a problem with that, she should be avoided.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 12:16 AM
2

Plus in nightclubs, you want a relatively even mix of men and women, because if the male to female ratio gets to high, morons will get into fights. In California, where discriminatory pricing is banned, there is often an unequal ratio. I have never seen it lead to fights. At the most, it results in men leaving and going somewhere else.
/r/MensRights09/06/20 05:19 AM
1

Depends on the local laws. In California this is illegal, but in many other states it is permitted.
/r/MensRights09/06/20 05:15 AM
1

I don't know if this is major enough for the Supreme Court to deal with, but it might get there eventually.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 09:16 AM
2

It only applies in the third circuit.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 02:56 AM
1

Help him hire a good lawyer.
/r/MensRights02/06/20 06:31 AM
3

I can't tell what you're asking. Do you have a specific question?
/r/MensRights01/06/20 12:33 AM
1

I don't think those are common knowledge. They are common assumptions made by people who either don't bother doing research, or have an agenda to push.
/r/MensRights31/05/20 10:23 AM
1

Asking friends, watching youtube, and looking at ads are not valid ways of determining these things. Pulling statistics like "80% of women are armed" out of your ass isn't valid either. Do you have an actual source for your claim?
/r/MensRights31/05/20 06:31 AM
1

Your sources talk about motivations for carrying, not rates.
/r/MensRights31/05/20 06:30 AM
1

Gun control isn't the problem. Gangs in many cases are the problem. Compare the US to Canada, there's roughly the same proportional rate of guns per capita here as in the US(2:1). Canada has 34 guns per 100 people, the US has 120. So your statement is completely false. Even the mass shooting that happened out in eastern Canada a couple of months back, they were done with: Guns already banned. They had no license for ownership. They likely came through the US or China. Guess where the vast majori…
/r/MensRights31/05/20 06:30 AM
0

If you won't even address data and statistics you've already lost the argument. You're being arrogant and basically telling people to shut up who have a different opinion to you but you're being clever with your wording to make it seem like you're being polite but you're not. These fake statistics have been addressed on Reddit many times. To summarize, the "good" uses include all defensive gun uses, no matter how minor, while the "bad" uses include only the most serious (deaths). This is compoun…
/r/MensRights31/05/20 06:26 AM
2

Among women 80 % of them are armed in some way. That is complete nonsense.
/r/MensRights30/05/20 06:23 AM
1

I don't have a source but I think it's common knowledge. Ask any cop or anyone involved in the justice system in any way. I agree that this is not the only cause, but I think it's a major one.
/r/MensRights30/05/20 05:54 AM
-3

I'm not interested in replying to your gun lobby talking points. There are plenty of other places on Reddit to have that debate. But I said it like it is. Until we fix our gun problem, MEN's lives, and particularly minority men, will be in danger.
/r/MensRights30/05/20 05:53 AM
1

I believe that police brutality stems from the lack of effective gun control in the US. That is why other countries don't have problems with police brutality, because they don't have random people walking around with guns. Police are, of course, going to place their own safety among all else. They assume everyone is armed, because in America anyone can be armed. And they act accordingly. This is why the majority of people shot by police are men. Women rarely carry firearms in public, so police d…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 05:14 AM
6

It's a combination of factors, but mostly implicit bias. For example, a judge might have a preconceived notion that women are better caregivers and therefore give custody to the mother, even if the father would be a better parent.
/r/MensRights22/05/20 02:57 AM
3

I think the best way to convince someone of something is to tell your stories. Come out of the shadows, don't be afraid or embarassed. For example, when we say that men are unable to get custody of children after a divorce, it's like whatever. But when fathers come and show pictures of their kids who they can no longer have contact with, because the abusive mothers got custody, it's much more powerful. The LGBT movement did the same thing. Come out of the shadows, make it more personal, tell you…
/r/MensRights22/05/20 02:53 AM
5

There are many areas where men don't have equal rights. Here are some examples. Women are often given custody of children by default. Women often get preferential treatment for jobs, or for college admissions or scholarships. Men are often not given due process when they are accused of certain crimes. Men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime. Those are just some examples.
/r/MensRights22/05/20 02:50 AM
2

MRAs are not a particularly organized movement, and different people might support different things. Some of the big issues right now are: fairness for men in custody battles (mothers shouldn't get preferential custody over fathers) equality in sentencing (men shouldn't get longer sentences for the same crime) due process in rape/sexual assault cases (men accused of these things should get a fair trial, even on college campuses) discrimination in hiring (women shouldn't get special preference ju…
/r/MensRights19/05/20 10:56 AM
1

Legally, consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn. However, the problem is that it is hard to prove it was ever given in the first place. If one partner says "I never consented" it's hard to prove otherwise. The fact that consent can be nonverbal and may be misunderstood complicates this further. Consent can definitely be stopped at any time, and sexual activities then stop until consent is restored.
/r/MensRights19/05/20 10:50 AM
5

We discuss various things related to men on this sub. Some of the big issues are unequal child custody, due process in college sexual assault claims, and gender quotas for hiring.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 04:21 AM
2

There's all kinds of junk online. Don't pay any attention to it.
/r/MensRights15/05/20 01:38 AM
1

they're more likely to work harder and stay overtime to earn more money. http://mypage.iu.edu/~cha5/Youngjoo_Cha_files/Cha_weeden.pdf
/r/MensRights10/05/20 04:29 AM
3

I doubt she said "sell it or Ill divorce you". I'm pretty sure the prince is capable of standing up for himself when he deems it necessary. So who exactly are you to judge their marriage?
/r/MensRights08/05/20 11:07 PM
3

Good question, I don't know how taxes work in the UK so I'm not sure. But if it were funded by taxpayers, I don't think he would be allowed to sell it and keep the money for himself, he would have to return it to the government.
/r/MensRights08/05/20 10:50 PM
14

It's an issue of their relationship, and is none of anyone else's business. It's not like she went to court and forced him to sell it. He chose to sell it after taking her opinion into account. Marriage is a partnership that involves compromise from both parties.
/r/MensRights08/05/20 08:55 PM
1

For a legitimate source of content, it should not make any difference. For example, educational videos made by men or women are usually treated equally. If a girl in a bikini is explaining how to knit a sweater, then people are watching her because of her appearance. In other words, she is a model. The activity is just an excuse.
/r/MensRights06/05/20 08:37 AM
1

Send a complaint to the corporate office.
/r/MensRights05/05/20 03:45 AM
3

They may be successful but that doesn't mean they are lucrative.
/r/MensRights03/05/20 03:50 AM
1

you can admit it; you have shitlib anti-gun political positions you can admit it; you have shitcon pro-gun political positions bold move to attack innocent individual men to "protect men," but surely it will attract more men to MRA It will attract some and put off others. But in the end, the MRA won't be a men's movement anymore, it will just be a vehicle for gun rights groups to promote their views by using men as pawns.
/r/MensRights25/04/20 06:58 AM
1

this is about you and a shitlib political position you have And it's also about you and a shitcon political position you have. See, I can make insults too. you want to know what will turn men away from MRA? if they only talk about shitlib nonsense instead of being willing to talk about any issue which effects men If we're talking about any issue which effects men, let's talk about how American men are significantly more likely to be murdered than American women, and the government's failure to a…
/r/MensRights25/04/20 06:42 AM
1

Depends on the jurisdiction, but in many places, anyone harmed by a crime can request restitution as part of the criminal case if they don't want to file a separate civil case.
/r/MensRights24/04/20 11:49 PM
1

Nothing will turn people into feminists faster than MRAs being taken over by the gun lobby. MRAs already have an (undeserved) reputation of being right-wing extremists, and this is only going to add to that narrative.
/r/MensRights24/04/20 11:38 PM
1

He may be able to obtain restitution as part of the criminal trial.
/r/MensRights24/04/20 11:11 AM
-3

I sincerely hope this sub isn't going to be run over by some second-amendment nutcases.
/r/MensRights24/04/20 11:10 AM
3

No, their logic is that women are still facing the lingering effects of discrimination of the past and therefore need special treatment to make up for it. Which may have been true a few decades ago, but is no longer true in most areas today.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 01:39 AM
7

While that's a valid point, it shouldn't affect anything today. "My great great grandmother was not allowed to go to college" is not a reason that women today should be given special treatment in colleges.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 01:37 AM
7

Ugh this bothers me so much. I remember a history teacher of mine (male) talking about some war where civilians were bombed and he said "thousands of women and children died!" as if the men didn't matter.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 01:32 AM
2

Yes, men and women can both experience sexism in different areas of life. Women might experience sexism in industry or business. Men might experience sexism in family court or in female-dominated professions.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 03:02 AM
2

Get a good attorney. Now.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 03:01 AM
10

It could be gender bias, or there could be more to the story than what the brief article says. It's hard to know.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 03:00 AM
1

Slavery was on its way out. It slowly faded away in the North on its own economic merits. They then abolished it after it had mostly gone away on its own, then used that as an excuse to get all righteously indignant about the south. No, it didn't. Slavery went away in the north because state legislatures passed laws against it. The real reason for the war was to keep the union together. When slavery made a lot of sense, Lincoln stated in public speeches that he had no inclination nor intent to e…
/r/MensRights16/04/20 02:40 PM
1

Regardless of the war, if what you are claiming is true, why wouldn't the south have just freed their slaves on their own?
/r/MensRights16/04/20 02:10 PM
1

So if it was more profitable then why was there a war over it? Why did the south not just go ahead and free the slaves if it was to their financial benefit?
/r/MensRights16/04/20 11:50 AM
1

In the US, no it would not be legal. I suppose you could request it as a religious belief, but they would only have to accommodate you if it does not disrupt their operations. This would be a stretch and I would not recommend trying this route.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 10:43 AM
1

The law is gender neutral. The problem is that it is often applied differently based on gender. Remember that police, prosecutors and judges are humans, so their own inherent biases will be present. For the second question, it all depends on the circumstances. There have certainly been cases when someone has been convicted of rape based on only testimony. It all depends on how credible the judge/jury finds that testimony to be.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 10:41 AM
1

They are nonprofits, not businesses.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 10:35 AM
1

No, it was not economics. No one "found" that they could exploit them. Slavery ended because half the country saw it as unacceptable and fought a war over it and won. Don't try to rewrite history.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 10:34 AM
1

What country are you in?
/r/MensRights16/04/20 10:29 AM
2

The payer usually is in a higher tax bracket than the recipient, so this change makes the government more money.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 01:14 AM
3

I think the term is hated because it is overused. Many normal male actions get labeled as "toxic masculinity", for example, little boys playing wrestling. "Toxic feminity" is a sarcastic term used to point out the hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:24 AM
4

I don't know the answer to your question, but I would like to point out that it would be impossible for anyone to do an accurate study on this. If any researcher came out and said that they found that men are more intelligent than women, it would cause a huge outcry, they would be accused of misogyny, their grant funding would be cut, they might get fired, etc. So if it were true, no one would report it.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:22 AM
2

Each state has a different formula, but there are cases where the income discrepancy is big enough that the party with primary custody has to pay child support to support the child when they are at the other parent's house.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:18 AM
1

You really need to hire a lawyer who knows the system. She knows the system better than you do and will be able to keep stalling until you give up.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:15 AM
1

Suing means starting a lawsuit. What OP did is file a claim. It's kind of like a landlord giving you an eviction notice, vs. taking you to court to ask a judge to order an eviction.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:15 AM
1

I agree. I think that alimony should be transitional. If you have no job and your spouse kicks you out of the house, you need some money to get back on your feet. But it shouldn't be seen as an entitlement to a certain standard of living.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:12 AM
3

It's not "free" but it's exempt from income tax. It used to be that the recipient had to pay income tax on the amount received. Now, the payer has to pay it.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:11 AM
4

As much as a I support men's rights, It's a common argument but one that really is redundant/obsulete and should stop being used. Just because there hasn't been a draft in 40 years doesn't mean there couldn't be another one. There have only been a few drafts in the last century, and they were spaced out several decades apart. It's unlikely but not impossible.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:09 AM
2

In theory, failure to register for the draft is a felony, and being convicted of a felony can result in denial of the right to vote. It's rare for anyone to actually be prosecuted for this, but it's possible. Failure to register for the draft also removes other benefits like federal financial aid for college.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:07 AM
2

Some feminists are pushing for women to be included in the draft because they know that this is one inequality that the general public can understand and it gives MRAs a credible argument. So by including women in the draft, they would be able to say "see, women don't get any legal privileges anymore". And of course they know that the likelihood of a draft is minuscule and if it happened, the military would probably put women in non-combat roles anyway.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:06 AM
2

You don't have to be drafted to vote, you just have to register for it.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:04 AM
3

I would say no. The childbirth is the woman's choice because it is her body. Supporting the child financially is the choice of each parent.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 12:02 AM
1

Great, thanks for sharing!
/r/MensRights19/03/20 10:25 AM
2

What is the education situation in Zambia? If the overwhelming majority of students are boys, then I'm fine with this. But if it's about equal, then this is completely unfair.
/r/MensRights19/03/20 10:23 AM
1

Rehabilitation works very well outside the US, where it is implemented correctly. You can compare recidivism rates in the US vs. other countries and see this for yourself. You seem to have the attitude that if America can't do something, it must be impossible.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 07:23 PM
2

Not all labor is physically demanding. One of the jobs for prisoners in the US is making vehicle license plates. That is not physically demanding and can easily be done by women.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:15 AM
1

Sorry, your logic makes no sense. Just because the legal system is a "failing joke", whatever that means, doesn't justify discriminatory treatment.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:13 AM
1

Rehabilitation works very poorly in the US because of the prison-industrial complex that depends on people being kept in jail. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (even higher than the communist dictatorships) and recidivism is also high.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:12 AM
1

From an actual constitutional law perspective, "Justice" is blind to gender. If this bill passes, it won't be.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:08 AM
10

I've noticed that feminists seem to encourage men to express emotions. That's one thing they get right, perhaps because it doesn't hurt women in any way.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:06 AM
1

Most of us are banned from there. Join the club.
/r/MensRights01/03/20 08:44 AM
5

When I saw the headline, I thought that this was actual progress, because they were denied funding for discriminating against men. Turns out, they were denied funding for discriminating against transgender women.
/r/MensRights01/03/20 08:44 AM
1

Nobody becomes vegan to "follow fashion". It's clear that you have no contact with actual vegans, other than perhaps in movies or TV shows. But seeing as you seem to prefer making insults rather than having an actual discussion, I won't be replying further.
/r/MensRights28/02/20 04:28 AM
1

What an insightful comment...
/r/MensRights25/02/20 06:52 AM
1

Hmm interesting. I hadn't heard of this.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 06:48 AM
1

Who is "everyone"? Because what happened to Weinsten (or what happens to multi-millionaires in general) is not the norm for normal people.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 09:30 PM
2

Pre-trial detention is still standard for serious crimes, just as it was in the 50s.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 10:38 AM
0

That's why I said "generally". Weinstein is a public figure who is less likely to be a flight risk. Even then, he has to wear an ankle monitor and agree to restrictions in travel.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 10:37 AM
0

No, they don't. No country would generally allow an accused rapist to post bail. That is only done for minor crimes.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 10:24 AM
5

I think it's a problem of apathy and lack of organization. Most men don't care until it affects them personally. If their dad commits suicide, or they get screwed by an ex-wife during a divorce, then they care about men's rights, but until then, it's difficult to get them to do much even if they support it on principle. But it's still early. Many social movements take decades to materialize and pick up.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:46 AM
1

There are always pros and cons to any particular era of living. But overall, I think that today is a better time to be alive than any time in the past. It's not something you can control, so don't stress over it.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:45 AM
1

You literally couldn't be more wrong about everything. No one is telling you to become a vegan, but at least educate yourself before you pass judgment on other people's choices.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:42 AM
1

Veganism is currently fashionable and women to follow fashion more than men. Also women seem more susceptible to "fad" diets than men. They should do another survey in about a years time because I guarantee most of these "fashion vegans" will have moved on by then. Veganism and vegetarianism have been around in the US and Europe for over a century, and in other parts of the world for much longer. But keep insisting that it's a "fad diet" if it makes you feel any better.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:41 AM
0

Where is the discussion of the evidence, that eating meat is good for you There is no discussion because there is no such evidence. The consensus among scientists is that eating meat is unnecessary for us and harmful for the planet. I know this article "triggered" a lot of people on this sub, and I hate to see what is normally a place for rational discussion decay into arguments based on emotion rather than facts.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:38 AM
2

You make some valid points. I think we should acknowledge that race amplifies the effects of discrimination against men, but not make that the focus of the movement. If we fight against all discrimination against men, then black men will naturally benefit the most.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:31 AM
3

Sorry I'm out of the loop. What is "cancel culture"?
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:20 AM
3

Is there a reason why Sweden holds people in prison before conviction? Almost every country does that for serious crimes like rape. If they didn't, the accused would just leave town and not show up for the trial.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:20 AM
1

That is progress, but on the flip side, it might prevent women who have lied from coming clean, which will be even more unfair to the accused.
/r/MensRights24/02/20 07:19 AM
1

The leaders of mens rights are some white supremacists apparently. Oh really? Can you name any such leaders?
/r/MensRights19/02/20 08:58 AM
2

It's nothing new but it has reached the tipping point.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 05:52 AM
2

The thing is I don't know if this really holds them accountable. Most of the cases are decades old, and will probably end with quick settlements because it's too late to prove anything.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 05:51 AM
2

I don't know that this is necessary a men's rights issue so I doubt you're going to find any consensus on it over here. In general, I recognize that banning abortions only drives them underground, which is dangerous. Therefore, I am in favor of making them legal and safe. I don't think that the father should have a say in whether the mother should be allowed to abort, because it isn't his body. But I do believe that he should not be forced to pay for the child if he doesn't want it and the mothe…
/r/MensRights16/02/20 08:35 AM
2

The leaders of feminist organizations are very radical and are definitely not fighting for equality. That is the reality regardless of how you identify.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 08:27 AM
1

Your double standards are ridiculous. If men want their own space, why should women get to decide whether their reasons are valid?
/r/MensRights16/02/20 08:25 AM
3

It's obviously a joke proposal.
/r/MensRights16/02/20 08:23 AM
1

I've had similar experiences with the police. As a lawyer, maybe you can answer this. Is there any way to pressure police to investigate a case? If they think it's not serious, can a judge order them to at least look into it?
/r/MensRights14/02/20 03:12 AM
1

Thanks for posting. I think the #1 thing you can do to help is talk to people. As a female, you have more credibility when it comes to gender issues, and people are more likely to listen. For example, if a man complains about having to pay 60% of his income to his ex-wife in alimony and child support for kids he is never allowed to see, he is told to man up and stop being a deadbeat. But if a woman points out the same thing, people are more likely to listen.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 03:10 AM
1

Ignore her. There's no point trying to get people to agree with you. Don't discuss these subjects around such people.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 03:05 AM
3

If this is California, it's probably because of the state's transgender law.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 03:04 AM
1

Your rights depend on where you live. Each country and each state has its own rules. If you two break up, I highly recommend seeing an attorney who can guide you on how to handle this.
/r/MensRights03/02/20 10:24 PM
1

You are making far too many assumptions here. First of all, not all qualified applicants are equal. Secondly, being qualified isn't the only criteria that is considered.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 06:31 AM
1

Yup, so how can you conclude that there is discrimination? If the majority of qualified applicants are men, then the majority of the board should be men, and if the board is small, it's entirely possible that it will be all men. Companies should not be forced to hire women just to meet some arbitrary quota. I'm not sure why you're bringing up HR, because they aren't part of the candidate pool for board seats.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 09:49 AM
1

No, it is not low at all when you consider the applicant pool. The majority of people who are qualified to be board members of a large multinational company are men. This is doubly true in the tech industry.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 07:01 PM
1

Lol, join the club. Almost all of us who post here are banned from that sub, many on the very first post. They have zero tolerance for dissent.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 12:26 AM
1

So your logic is that because it isn't sufficiently diverse, there must be discrimination?
/r/MensRights26/01/20 12:25 AM
1

Join the club... most of us here are banned from that sub, many on the very first post. They have zero tolerance for anything that goes against their agenda. Don't waste time arguing with them.
/r/MensRights15/01/20 03:17 AM
2

Do you have a bathroom access law there? Somehow I doubt the restaurant would do this on their own initiative.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 10:27 AM
1

Yeah, but that's how the law is phrased.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:38 AM
1

I think it depends on what you mean by "feminist". Feminism started out as a movement for equality, but these days it has been taken over by radicals. I support feminism to the extent that it advocates for equality between the genders, but I cannot support the extremist feminism that is prevalent today in many places.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:36 AM
2

That's rather unfortunate. In the US, boys tend to also be more competitive than girls, but not to the extent that you describe. I think it's important for all kids to find activities that they enjoy, rather than participating due to social pressure.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:25 AM
1

That is some ridiculous logic. You can't expect the owner of a small business to flout the law to make a stand.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:19 AM
1

To be frank, though, it's not too big a sacrifice for me to make. I don't mind. It really depends on the situation. I've seen cases where a woman goes into the unisex bathroom and takes half an hour to come out. Meanwhile, the women's bathroom is empty. If you need to use the restroom and there is no other business nearby, it can be a significant sacrifice.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:18 AM
2

The logic is that a transgender person who cannot fully pass off as male or female would be more comfortable in a unisex restroom.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:16 AM
2

Go ahead and downvote and move on, don’t bother responding because I don’t care what you have to say. If you don't care then why are you reading?
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:16 AM
2

Why is this disgusting? Seems like it makes sense. Gives transgender people a more accessible option without inconveniencing everyone else too much. It was well intentioned but not carefully thought through.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:15 AM
1

Transgender people who cannot "pass" as either male or female do care about having a unisex bathroom that they can use without judgment.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:14 AM
1

Was this in California? If so, it's probably due to the state's new transgender bathroom law.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 02:11 AM
1

Talk to a good lawyer. I know you're very emotional about this, so get professional advice.
/r/MensRights27/12/19 05:04 AM
1

To be fair, there is also a girl scouts. Both boys and girls have the same opportunity, through different but similar organizations. There is no "boys who code".
/r/MensRights18/12/19 12:41 PM
2

Title IX complaint.
/r/MensRights18/12/19 12:40 PM
1

To be fair, he can be faking his blindness. No one knows the full story... I suppose it's possible, but why would someone fake blindness in order to get into a subway car? What purpose would that serve?
/r/MensRights18/12/19 12:37 PM
2

While it's definitely an issue that is discussed a lot, the risk is still quite small. Just take normal precautions and you'll most likely be fine.
/r/MensRights16/12/19 02:41 AM
1

Non-Christian here. What does a church have to do with a car wash? Churches often hold car washes as fundraisers. The kids from the church wash your car, and you pay them a fixed amount which goes towards the church's activities.
/r/MensRights14/12/19 08:40 PM
1

Most states have some sort of a commission on judicial performance that can investigate. However the most they can do is simply let the judge know that they are out of line and too many of their rulings are being overturned by the appellate court. In many states, judges are elected, and/or can be recalled, so perceptions are important.
/r/MensRights14/12/19 08:38 PM
1

That's a good point. I wonder if we need more sentencing guidelines, and less judge's discretion.
/r/MensRights14/12/19 08:33 PM
2

Have your parents complain to the principal. That's usually the only way of accomplishing anything at a school.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 05:41 AM
1

That is not at all true. Laws vary by location, but there is no inherent right to use a washroom.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 05:40 AM
2

The word feminist is interesting. Feminism started out as a movement for equality in the 1800s/early 1900s. Then over time it changed significantly. It became more linked to the LGBT movement and other social movements. At this point it seems to be quite broad and hard to define. Part of the problem is that anyone can use any label they want. No one can be a gatekeeper and decide who is allowed to use the term. This happens to other political movements too, such as environmentalism. I consider m…
/r/MensRights13/12/19 05:39 AM
5

Take video evidence and have your parents see a lawyer. The school board will step in very quickly.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 05:31 AM
1

Okay then, write whatever you want in your letter.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 02:56 AM
1

Elected officials only care about votes. If you can't vote for them, they don't care what you think. "Optics on a national scale" are meaningless. That is why politicians in certain states pass policies that are hugely unpopular at the national level (like Arizona's immigration law which led to boycotts of the state by several organizations).
/r/MensRights12/12/19 10:51 PM
10

I am not a resident of your state I would leave that part out. As soon as an elected official sees that, they will immediately stop reading.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 02:14 AM
2

Is this for the same work, or are women being paid more on average because they have higher positions?
/r/MensRights11/12/19 07:55 AM
1

Some conversations are better laid to rest. Avoid discussing this stuff with your wife. It will cause grief for both of you and serve no purpose whatsoever.
/r/MensRights11/12/19 07:53 AM
2

Yes, of course you are welcome here. Thanks for your post. It's great that girls are speaking out, please continue to do so! I think it's much more effective. When males talk about these issues, they are often dismissed as whining or complaining, but when females say the same thing, people tend to listen.
/r/MensRights09/12/19 01:46 AM
1

Tell your parents to complain to the principal. Say that this constitutes a "hostile environment for boys". That's probably the only way to get anything done.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:19 AM
1

There's no difference between shareholders vs the company itself. Shareholders also want good PR, because bad PR means less profits.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:18 AM
2

What does this have to do with gender?
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:16 AM
5

Hi, thanks for your post. The double standards that feminists seem to profess are a major reason that many people join the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:14 AM
1

This is rather long and incoherent. I don't understand the message it's trying to convey.
/r/MensRights02/12/19 02:54 AM
2

I think that one reason is that men face more pressure. Men are expected to be the breadwinners of the family. They might be working too hard, stressed out about their failing business, and so on. As more and more women enter the workforce and start taking on more difficult and stressful jobs, this gap will probably narrow. I think it also has to do with firearm ownership. Men are much more likely to own (or have access to) a gun.
/r/MensRights02/12/19 02:51 AM
1

Start calling the girls lesbian when they do it.
/r/MensRights02/12/19 02:49 AM
10

You might feel strongly about it, but so does she. You will need to talk and compromise.
/r/MensRights02/12/19 02:48 AM
2

I don't believe it is illegal in Massachusetts. That is how clubs have "ladies' nights", for example. California is one state where I know it is illegal.
/r/MensRights29/11/19 12:05 PM
3

One thing I do that seems to help is to keep things in perspective. For example, I was once charged $25 to enter a club when women were being admitted free. This was quite aggravating, but then I remembered that not so long ago, black people were limited to getting mortgages from certain banks that had much higher interest rates. Compared to that, the extra $25 is trivial. There are injustices everywhere. The world has always been unjust and always will be. We do our best to fight injustice when…
/r/MensRights29/11/19 11:54 AM
6

You handled that very well. Next time don't hesitate to get security if necessary.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 02:34 AM
2

I think that there are some extremists that try to piggyback on to the movement, but that happens with any movement. The environmental movement, the black lives movement, just about any social movement will experience this. It is important for us to distinguish ourselves from these toxic elements.
/r/MensRights25/11/19 01:19 AM
1

I've posted here quite regularly. And I always post about the topic of the sub, rather than other nonsense.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 08:02 PM
1

This is the men's rights sub. If you want to rant about communism or how much you hate the California government or what is happening to the Democratic party, go to r/politics.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 09:23 AM
2

I'm not going to bother discussing anything with someone who throws around words like "communist" without having a clue what they mean. Public ownership of factories is communist. Equal wages for all professions is communist. Bans on private enterprise are communist. Changing the signs on bathrooms is not communist, or socialist, or fascist, or whatever other scary-sounding word you want to throw around.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 09:09 AM
1

anti-western Communists eyeroll
/r/MensRights18/11/19 08:58 AM
1

The intention was to provide more bathrooms for transgender and non-binary people. On the surface, requiring single-stall bathrooms to be unisex appears to be a good way of doing that. What legislators failed to realize, however, is that this would disproportionately affect men's bathrooms. I think this was unintended. Remember Hanlon's razor.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 02:57 AM
5

This is because of a quirk in California law. The law requires that all single-occupancy bathrooms are labeled gender-neutral. Multi-stall bathrooms are not covered under this law. The law was intended to provide more gender-neutral bathrooms for transgender people, parents with opposite-sex children, etc., but since many places had a multi-stall women's bathroom and a single-stall men's bathroom, it has had the unintended consequence of resulting in one women's and one unisex bathroom. Now why …
/r/MensRights18/11/19 01:40 AM
1

And I don't think that a lesser punishment would result in increased recantings anyways. I doubt the majority of false rape accusations are made impulsively -- these women know what they're doing, they know the consequences for the man and they know the consequences for themselves if they're exposed. If you have the guts to accuse someone of rape while fully knowing their life will be ruined as a result, you're probably not the type of sensitive soul to later retract on your statements in the fi…
/r/MensRights15/11/19 05:12 AM
1

Ok then, good luck getting a job.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 02:34 AM
1

That's a standard disclaimer that many academic jobs have. It doesn't mean they are going to discriminate. Apply away.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 02:24 AM
2

I'm sure it's based on sales to some degree, but it's also based on what products are available and the costs. The demand-supply equilibrium isn't perfect.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 02:23 AM
4

The article mentions that the quota may have encouraged prosecutors to drop weaker cases. Funny how it manages to find a way that even this hurts women.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 02:20 AM
1

The problem is that if we give her a harsh punishment, other women in a similar situation won't want to come forward and admit that they were wrong. This will result in more damage to men's lives. If you were falsely accused of rape, would you want the accuser to recant her story, or stick to it because the consequence of recanting is too harsh?
/r/MensRights11/11/19 12:56 AM
1

Is there any specific men's issue you're looking at?
/r/MensRights10/11/19 04:33 AM
2

If lawyers go where the money is, then there would be a lot more lawyers representing fathers, because men tend to have more money. I don't think that's the reason.
/r/MensRights09/11/19 09:56 PM
1

What does that mean? Funding from whom?
/r/MensRights09/11/19 08:19 AM
1

Why do family law firms specialize in one gender over another? I thought the law was supposed to be gender-neutral. So shouldn't a law firm be able to represent either spouse?
/r/MensRights09/11/19 05:45 AM
2

I don't understand. What does this picture have to do with gender?
/r/MensRights09/11/19 05:43 AM
-1

Let's try to be supportive. At least she did the right thing eventually. She is better than 99% of the false accusers out there.
/r/MensRights09/11/19 05:42 AM
0

Is this comment really helpful?
/r/MensRights29/10/19 07:23 AM
3

Which country are you in? I've never heard of sex-restricted hotels or restaurants. Public transport, yes, if it's very crowded.
/r/MensRights27/10/19 09:00 AM
6

I actually doubt they are aware. I'm sure this teacher puts on his best behavior when there is an administrator in the room.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 05:01 AM
1

Have your parents talk to the administration about it. But first, if possible, try to get a recording of him saying something like this a few times.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 05:01 AM
3

That's big enough that it would be hard to blame it on coincidence. I think you should look into filing a complaint.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 12:41 AM
1

How many males and how many females are there in total? Of the males, how many have been assigned there?
/r/MensRights20/10/19 12:24 AM
5

Yes, if you are in the US then you could file an EEOC complaint. However, you need solid proof. Speculation isn't sufficient.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 12:17 AM
1

Good luck! I hope it works out for you.
/r/MensRights12/10/19 12:49 AM
1

I don't think you can learn social interaction by reading a book. You just have to practice. Keep going out and interacting with men and women. Join a club. Go to meetup events. Play intramural sports. Just practice interaction and you will get better. Try not to feel embarassed if you mess up. Like any other skill, practice makes perfect.
/r/MensRights12/10/19 12:31 AM
1

Get an attorney immediately. You don't have to divorce, but if she does decide to do it, you will be prepared. If you want to try saving the marriage, you can try counseling or couples therapy, but ONLY if both parties are on board with it.
/r/MensRights12/10/19 12:26 AM
7

Invest in an attorney. Trust me, you can't afford not to.
/r/MensRights12/10/19 12:23 AM
1

I read those too, but I'm not sure to what extent they influenced the decision.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 11:54 PM
0

That's a lawsuit filed AFTER the BSA decided to accept girls. Which is exactly the opposite of the original claim.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 05:27 AM
1

I don't think this decision had anything to do with criticism. Enrollment numbers were declining and this was meant to reverse that.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 04:57 AM
-2

Where and when were they sued three times? Do you have citations to these cases?
/r/MensRights30/09/19 04:56 AM
1

This is very likely a title IX violation. It depends on whether you're comfortable pursuing it.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 10:19 PM
1

Good point. But while "wrongful dismissal" is a legal concept, there is no such thing as "wrongful divorce".
/r/MensRights29/09/19 10:13 PM
2

I think alimony is fine, but only as a transition. It should be viewed as helping the woman transition from being dependent to being independent. If she hasn't worked in the last 10 years, she may need some support getting back on her feet, going to job training, etc. Alimony should not be an entitlement to maintain the same lifestyle as before the divorce, it should not be to create "economic equality" between the two, and it should be for a limited amount of time.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 10:11 PM
2

I think traditional values and gender roles are fine as long as they are not mandated. If a man chooses to be the breadwinner of the family and let his wife stay at home to raise the kids, that is completely fine. But a law mandating that would not be fine. If a man chooses to work in a dangerous occupation, like a coal mine, that is male-dominated, then that is fine. But again, a law mandating that would not be fine.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 10:08 PM
-12

Boy Scouts (at least in the US) chose to let girls in. They weren't forced to by anyone. It was a financial decision to increase membership.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 10:05 PM
1

No, you definitely aren't doomed. My suggestion is to keep things in perspective. Don't get too emotionally invested in them, especially at your age.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 11:51 PM
1

Yes, of course! Everyone is welcome to join and post here. In fact, I think it's great when females join because they have much more credibility. When men point out that they are facing discrimination, they are often brushed aside, but when a woman says the same thing, she is taken more seriously. Many of the top men's rights activists have been women.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 11:50 PM
1

If you make the penalty high, all but the most malevolent people would not dare to make a false accusation anymore. We are not talking about misidentifying someone or misunderstanding what constitutes rape. We are talking about knowingly lying to the police to make the state act in harmful ways against your victim. Most false accusations are made out of anger or emotion. I doubt anyone researches the penalties before doing it. Making the penalty high would simply discourage them from confessing …
/r/MensRights24/09/19 05:25 AM
1

Yes, of course. I assumed that we were talking about accusations that are proven false, not unsubstantiated. There would have to be a separate trial and the false accuser would have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:53 AM
1

I have had female roommates in the past. Just make sure you don't get romantically involved with her, and if you see any red flags then get rid of her.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:46 AM
2

Get a clear document for her to sign to ensure she’s treated as a lodger with no right or expectation of a notice period for if/when you want to kick her out. That's not how the law works. If it's her normal place of residence, then she is a tenant and entitled to a period of notice.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:46 AM
1

Those are all valid points, but not what we are discussing. We are talking about false accusations, i.e., cases where no rape actually occurred.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:44 AM
2

I think a false rape accusation is by nature malicious. Barring some sort of external issue like mental illness, malicious intent is a given.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:43 AM
1

This is a tough one. If you make the penalty too high, then women who have made a false accusation are incentivized to stick to their story rather than dropping the case, which is obviously not a good thing. I think it should be treated like any other slander case, where she has to compensate the man for damage to his reputation. That is, of course, that she recants and admits to it. If she is found to have falsified the accuation by someone else, then it should be much stronger.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:42 AM
1

Get a lawyer before doing anything.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 01:36 AM
3

You need to speak to your landlord about this. Ask him/her to ensure that you have safe access to a bathroom. If that is not possible, I would just move and stop paying the rent. If the landlord tries to sue you, you can explain to the judge that there was no safe bathroom access.
/r/MensRights16/09/19 03:01 AM
1

I would decide this on a case-by-case basis. In general, women who are likely to make false accusations will show indications of this. If you observe carefully, you can tell who you need to avoid and who is safe to be around.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 07:02 AM
1

How much would you have paid without the discount?
/r/MensRights10/09/19 07:01 AM
1

That's a valid point. However, there is a difference between discriminating by a company and by an individual. A company cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of gender (for example in hiring), but an individual has every right to choose whom they want to associate with.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 06:58 AM
1

No offense, but you should write in complete sentences with periods. Your post is difficult to read. This is mostly high school drama that isn't too consequential, but I would not recommend having sex with someone who is in a relationship with someone else. It's a matter of basic decency, not ego.
/r/MensRights30/08/19 12:14 AM
1

The study was to determine how widespread it is.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 01:01 AM
2

It's difficult to find lawyers to take such cases because it would generate bad publicity and be harmful to their careers.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 01:01 AM
1

No, the supreme court clearly said that as long as the test is reasonably related to the job, it's fine.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 12:59 AM
2

End of this month? Surely kicking someone out with only 10 days notice is not legal anywhere. In most countries, you are entitled to 30 days notice minimum. Look up the relevant law in your area and don't leave before then.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 04:06 AM
1

At the end of the day, it was a financial decision. BSA has been losing members for years, and this is an attempt to reverse the loss. I'm fine with it if that's what they want to do, because they made their own choice, it was not forced by the government or any external group. I think they did it in the best way possible, by allowing male troops to continue as such, or become coed if they choose.
/r/MensRights16/08/19 05:28 AM
4

There's a group called COTWA, or Community of the Wrongly Accused. I don't know how active they are.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:07 AM
1

Which SCOTUS ruling are you referring to?
/r/MensRights23/07/19 05:26 AM
1

I see. So when you use arbitrary numbers to prove your point, it's ok. Yet when I do it, it isn't... How convenient. The only point I was trying to prove is that arbitrary numbers don't prove anything. Plus the interest of men won't go down, because I won't charge them 20$. I will charge them 10$. The interest of men will go up, because men will know there are more women in my club and more of them will come. Thus my income will remain constant AND I won't charge anyone double. Even if interest …
/r/MensRights23/07/19 05:23 AM
1

As with most civil rights issues, people don't care until it affects them. For example, most black people aren't concerned about police brutality, until someone they know is beat up by a cop. Same logic applies.
/r/MensRights22/07/19 05:16 AM
1

Thanks for posting. Please continue to speak out. I believe that women have more credibility than men when it comes to gender issues, so if you talk to people you know, it can have a big impact.
/r/MensRights22/07/19 05:15 AM
5

Speak to a lawyer immediately. Do not talk to your wife, do not let her convince you to "work things out", and do not move out.
/r/MensRights22/07/19 05:12 AM
2

Keep things in perspective. Yes, men are disadvantaged in certain ways, but throughout history there have been groups that have had it much worse. For example, I recently got upset when I was charged a fee to enter a club that was letting women in for free. Then I reminded myself that not very long ago, there were businesses that didn't allow black people to enter at all. So compared to that, it's not as bad. Focus on yourself. Remember that we can all fight oppression, but it will never complet…
/r/MensRights22/07/19 05:09 AM
1

I did. In my original example. You can see that with actual numbers the men pay the same amount as they did before. Your numbers are not actual numbers from a business. They are arbitrarily selected. You can pick numbers to prove anything you want. Besides, it's your claim that the men pay twice as much. You need to prove it with 'actual numbers'. Let's say that everyone used to pay $10. Now the business decides to let women in for free. If they want to keep revenue constant, they will need to c…
/r/MensRights20/07/19 07:50 AM
1

Yes, that is the point. Different athletes are not doing equal work.
/r/MensRights18/07/19 02:55 AM
2

The government does have the right to mandate equal pay for equal work, which has been the law since the 1960s in the US. The issue is that "equal work" is very difficult to define.
/r/MensRights18/07/19 02:27 AM
1

How do you justify that statement? It's demonstrably isn't true. And I demonstrated to you why. If you claim that something is "demonstrably" not true, then try to demonstrate it using actual facts, not numbers that you pulled out of thin air. So the equation is X+Y=Z. Let's say x=10 and y=10. so my profit is 20. Now if I want to let the women in for free and keep my profit the same the equation is 0+Y=20 so Y=20 and the men need to pay twice as much. But the thing is this isn't a zero-sum game,…
/r/MensRights17/07/19 08:42 PM
3

While Roe initially claimed she had been raped, she dropped this claim before filing the case.
/r/MensRights17/07/19 05:56 AM
1

This is a simple definition of a word. What is there to disagree on?
/r/MensRights16/07/19 08:24 PM
1

The definition I cited earlier is "capitalism is a system that has private, profit-driven ownership of the means of production." So no, I wouldn't agree. The means of production are still privately owned and driven by profit. Regulations regarding discrimination of customers doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 11:10 PM
1

Definitely. Don't forget that this will make it easier for a competitor to come along and score all the black clients. If all other restaurants discriminates against blacks and you don't, you are going to make a major profit. If that were the case, the discrimination problem would have automatically fixed itself. But it was exactly the opposite. Restaurants that excluded blacks made more profit, and restaurants that permitted blacks lost money because the presence of the blacks drove off the (we…
/r/MensRights15/07/19 10:12 PM
1

Having anti-discrimination rules is a far cry from taking control of the means of production. Socialism is when the state takes control of the business. Having regulations for businesses to follow is not socialism, and is in fact practiced in every single functioning economy.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 09:07 PM
1

If you look at a large enough time/space scale, it is a closed system. The market for going out clubbing and drinking is relatively inelastic. I live in California, where "ladies night" and discounts for women are banned by law. The market is still the same size, if not bigger, and the businesses are doing just fine.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 07:20 PM
1

I see how it makes economic sense for the club. But that doesn't make it proper or legal. A restaurant in the south that banned blacks in the 1950s would probably have improved their profits, because whites would attract more customers and blacks would put off other customers. Is that a valid argument for discriminating? If not, then why would it be a valid argument for gender?
/r/MensRights15/07/19 07:18 PM
1

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. There is nothing socialist about the government having anti-discrimination laws. Capitalism is a system that has private, profit-driven ownership of the means of production. So there is nothing anti-capitalist about it either.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 07:15 PM
2

https://hrwatchdog.calchamber.com/2017/02/ca-restroom-sign-law-effective-march-1/
/r/MensRights15/07/19 07:12 PM
2

That had to do with the definition of rape, which the legislature quickly changed after the Brock Turner incident.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 07:04 AM
1

This is perfectly reasonable, but the question is how will it be proven? If the accuser says she never consented, will that be sufficient to establish a "mistake of fact"?
/r/MensRights15/07/19 04:04 AM
1

Except this isn't true, I let the women in for free. It's free publicity. How do you figure the men are essentially paying for the women? This is simple math. In order to keep your revenue constant, if you want to give one group a discount, you have to raise prices on the others. As happens in politics, a tax cut on one group is effectively a tax increase on everyone else.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 04:00 AM
1

So the 'right thing to do' is for the state to come raining on a perfectly good arrangement that benefits everyone involved for the sake of what exactly? How does it benefit everyone involved? The men now have to pay twice as much as they otherwise would have. Sure, some of them might not mind, as they are there to pick up women, but what if I just want to have a drink and relax with my friends? Why should I have to pay a higher charge than a woman who wants the same thing?
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:59 AM
1

Put yourself in the American south, where blacks were unable to eat at a restaurant, or stay at a hotel, or open a bank account, or had to pay much higher prices in order to do so. Then would you see the issue?
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:57 AM
1

Most countries have laws regarding discrimination by private businesses. For example, in the US, it is illegal for a business to charge more to blacks, or to Jews, etc. There is nothing "communist" about that.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:56 AM
3

Doesn't seem like a gender issue. It's just an example of how law enforcement covers up for itself.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:54 AM
11

Where is this? If it's in California, then it's due to the state's LGBT bathroom law.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:54 AM
0

That's a valid point. I don't go to "massage therapy" places, but if their customers are 80% women, this makes sense.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 03:53 AM
6

I would file a complaint with the police department. No idea if it will go anywhere, but it might trigger some "retraining".
/r/MensRights07/07/19 04:42 AM
4

If that is the case, she should have locked it. Man #2 probably waited outside because he realized it was single-person rather than because of gender.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 04:41 AM
1

That's not what your article said. It said that judges are given a supplement to cover the higher cost of living. It doesn't say that this payment has anything to do with their rulings on child support payments.
/r/MensRights16/06/19 07:57 PM
1

I read your article, and I don't think it has anything to do with family court or custody issues. It has to do with payments made by the county to the judges, which might be seen as unethical if the county is a party in a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights16/06/19 04:02 AM
12

Where is this? If it's in California, it's due to the state's LGBT access law.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 10:01 PM
1

This sounds like a pretty major thing. If it were true, I'm sure there would be something on the internet about it somewhere.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 07:15 AM
-1

Let's not start throwing around false statistics on here like they do on feminist subs. Very few accusations are proven false. Most are deemed unfounded or not investigated due to lack of evidence. They may be false, but they are not proven false.
/r/MensRights07/06/19 01:16 AM
1

By what mechanism are these bribes paid? Do you have a reputable source? Because I am fairly familiar with the CA judiciary and I've never heard of this. I think the issue is that CA judges are elected, and therefore do what the voters want, which is usualyl whatever will look good to the media. If a judge gives a man custody and he ends up being abusive, the media will have a field day and he will get recalled or voted out.
/r/MensRights07/06/19 01:13 AM
2

I think that women's clothing comes in a much larger variety, so the lines are more blurry. For men, formal is a suit, business casual is a button-up shirt, and casual is a polo. It's very clearly delineated. For women, it gets more ambiguous. Is this dress casual or business casual? When the lines are less clear, it's easier for standards to drift.
/r/MensRights06/06/19 03:58 AM
2

Yeah, it definitely depends on the region. In Asia, it might be stigmatized, especially in rural areas.
/r/MensRights03/06/19 12:00 AM
2

While this community can be supportive, we are not health care professionals. If you need help, you sould see a doctor or psychiatrist who is trained to help you. In most parts of the world, mental health care is taken quite seriously and it is unlikely that anyone will look down upon you.
/r/MensRights02/06/19 10:08 PM
1

Talk to a lawyer. A cease and desist letter might help.
/r/MensRights02/06/19 10:07 PM
1

Did you see if any women were wearing baggy clothes like the men? If the women were in tight dresses (as they often are when they go clubbing) then there's no point searching them as they can't really hide anything. But I think this deserves a complaint to the organizers and the venue.
/r/MensRights26/05/19 03:13 AM
1

It was "rape or sexual assault". "Rape" is a clearly defined term, but "sexual assault" can mean almost anything. For example, "unwanted touching". Who hasn't experienced an unwanted tap on the back?
/r/MensRights26/05/19 03:09 AM
1

There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. It's easy to make the numbers say whatever you want. You can prove that 2% of rape accusations are false, you can prove that 50% of rape accusations are false. It all depends on how you define "rape", "accusation" and "false".
/r/MensRights26/05/19 03:07 AM
4

I agree. I am a hardcore liberal in most ways. I am strongly anti-firearm rights, in favor of universal health care, environmental protection, and so on. But men's rights should not be political.
/r/MensRights12/05/19 10:48 PM
2

I see what you mean. I suppose it's tempting to just post here when someone sees an example of feminists discriminating against men, while substantive posts about men's rights require more effort.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 04:26 AM
1

I'm sure they learned their lesson, which is to not state a reason next time.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 04:01 AM
1

It's the same in principle, because it is mutilation of the genitals for no medical purpose. The motivation and the risk for harm are different.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 03:59 AM
1

Are you in California? If so, any single-stall restroom must be gender neutral by state law.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 03:56 AM
2

I feel as though when I go through this sub its not focused on how to improve mens rights and more about how to tear down women Can you give an example of what you mean by "tear down women"?
/r/MensRights29/04/19 03:51 AM
6

That's a fair comment, but just because it is "common place" doesn't mean she is entitled to have the rules changed after the fact. This particular race was giving the prizes to the top 3 regardless of genders, which is a perfectly valid policy.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 03:49 AM
1

I don't know what your situation is, but your last point is spot on. You absolutely have to get a lawyer. It will pay for itself in reduced payments over the years.
/r/MensRights16/04/19 02:47 AM
1

I don't know about that. I think child support is a legitimate thing, it just needs to be calculated fairly and reflect the actual cost of raising a child.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 03:55 AM
3

Please do speak out whenever you see things like this on social media. As a woman, you have far more credibility on gender issues than men do.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 03:54 AM
1

Judges are elected in several US states. It's rare for an election to be contested, but it can happen.
/r/MensRights12/04/19 03:53 AM
1

I wonder if Kansas is unique in this respect? If that is true in a number of states, then why is it proving so difficult to get these laws passed? Why is Kansas the first state to do it, and only now? It is very common for legislators to be completely out of touch with constituent wishes, due to lobbying. For example, something like 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases, but any bill to implement this is almost guaranteed dead on arrival. This is no different.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 01:16 AM
5

I think the underlying issue of feminism used to be equality between the genders, as you noted. However, now that most of those issues are no longer relevant, feminism has become a more radical movement. It's hard to say what it does exactly, since there are so many different factions, but I'll give you an example. In the early 1900s, it was common for men to divorce their wives and leave them with nothing. Women did not work, lived with their parents until marriage, and generally could not supp…
/r/MensRights08/04/19 01:14 AM
1

If your circumstances have changed since the support order was made (for example, you have experienced a loss of income, have had another child, etc.) then you can petition to have the amount reduced. See a lawyer to determine the feasibility of this. Other than that, you'll just have to power through. 34 is still young, you aren't even at the median age yet in most developed countries. So your life could really go in almost any direction. Never regret anything you do. No one lives life perfectl…
/r/MensRights05/04/19 02:34 AM
5

The issue is not the rich men, but all men. This guy has plenty of money and will be fine (assuming his income doesn't decrease). But what about poorer men who have to pay the same percentage of their income to their ex wives, and are therefore unable to support themselves with a decent standard of living? This is an extreme example that gets attention, because it makes it very clear that "child support" is not for the children.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 01:49 AM
7

Do you really think this amount of money is going to be spent on the children? Remember that in most cases, there is nothing preventing the mother from using it any way she deems appropriate.
/r/MensRights01/04/19 01:35 AM
1

Yes, which is why I used those words in order to cast the net as widely as possible.
/r/MensRights28/03/19 03:39 AM
5

That's a good point. When we say "feminist" we mean the typical modern day feminist. Obviously not every self-idetified feminist thinks the same way. It might be good to use more specific language.
/r/MensRights27/03/19 08:07 AM
1

The point is not to reason with her, but to make her look bad in front of others.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 07:59 AM
1

lol
/r/MensRights12/03/19 01:36 AM
4

You didn't need to get physical, but a firm "is there a reason you are grabbing my hand without consent right now?" would have helped.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 04:03 AM
2

That sub has zero tolerance for dissent. Almost all of us on mensrights are banned from there, usually on the first or second post. Don't worry about it.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 04:02 AM
18

If you are in the US, this is a violation of federal law. Get proof of that comment in writing or recording and see an employment attorney.
/r/MensRights07/03/19 08:42 AM
-2

To be fair, this amount is for 3 kids over a period of 10 years. Assuming he hasn't paid anything so far, it works out to about $447 per kid per month, which is not that unreasonable. It may also include interest/penalties. I'm not necessarily saying it's fair, but it's important to put things in context.
/r/MensRights07/03/19 08:41 AM
1

This may have its roots in evolution. Women are more important to maintenance of the population of a species than men. However, it's not necessarily a losing battle. People's mindset can be changed.
/r/MensRights23/02/19 03:34 AM
1

This does seem to be the case at work, because flirting with coworkers is too risky. In other public places, it's less of an issue.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 10:36 AM
1

The overwhelming majority of people who would grope a child are MALE. Do you have any evidence for this? We have seen an increasing number of females abusing children, and the reason for that is because it's becoming more acceptable to report it. Even then, women abusing children is often written off as innocent banter or a misunderstanding, while a man doing the same thing would be treated as a crime. I suspect that if reporting were thorough, you would see both genders doing this about evenly.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 10:31 AM
1

Yes, they are most likely doing it due to liability concerns. But as you said, that doesn't make it right, and I think it's harmful because it reinforces stereotypes.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 10:26 AM
5

Couple of suggestions: Don't use the word "rights" since it causes people to get defensive. Call it "men's issues" or "men's health" or something. Make sure that you don't say or do anything that is perceived as attacking women. A lot of times, it's all in the phrasing. For example "it's unfair that men have to pay so much child support" and "it's unfair that women receive so much child support" are basically saying the same thing, but the latter will be perceived as an attack on women, and caus…
/r/MensRights10/02/19 03:57 AM
1

If I'm not mistaken this tradition is part of a bigger custom where women have to remain virgins until marriage and the father gives her away to her husband. No, that is a completely separate tradition. Purity balls and father-daughter dances are two separate things.
/r/MensRights28/01/19 03:53 AM
3

Statistically, the gender of the person handing down the sentence is irrelevant. I suppose her point is that women are not responsible for the disparity in sentencing. That is a valid point, but it doesn't change the fact that the disparity exists.
/r/MensRights28/01/19 03:50 AM
7

This is what happens when you try to do things without an attorney. Get an attorney and follow the proper procedure.
/r/MensRights28/01/19 03:49 AM
2

Join the club, most of us are banned from that sub. They have zero tolerance for dissenting opinions.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 07:56 AM
3

No problem :)
/r/MensRights14/01/19 09:38 AM
7

The law says that any single-stall bathroom has to be unisex. Therefore, if the women's bathroom had multiple stalls, and the men's bathroom had only one stall, this situation results. If both of them were single-stall, then both become unisex.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 09:35 AM
12

In California it's women's and unisex, in order to comply with the state's transgender law.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 09:30 AM
-2

Well said.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 03:03 AM
1

The proposition wasn't about gender specifically. It regulated the factors that can be used to set rates overall. The state recently interpreted it to not permit the use of gender.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 10:45 PM
1

I guess fairness for males wasn't a priority.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:48 AM
1

If the market wss really competitive why did every insurance company have different prices for male and female? Wouldn't the ones that didn't do this have a much larger market share? No, if the market is competitive, that would result in further rate differentiation according to the cost of providing insurance. Problem with capitalistic markets is that it can only be competitive if it is transparent, has low barriers to entry and no monopolies or cartels. I highly doubt insurance is perfectly tr…
/r/MensRights07/01/19 11:27 PM
1

If you have 10 companies to choose from, then the market is competitive. Of course the prices will be pretty close to each other. That indicates a competitive market where companies have to keep up with each other in order to get customers.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 08:17 PM
1

The California market seems incredibly competitive. I'm constantly getting ads and offers from insurance companies.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 08:14 PM
2

Banning discrimination does not affect the competitiveness of the market.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 08:12 PM
6

The California car insurance market is fairly competitive. I constantly get ads saying "call us! We can save you X% on your insurance!"
/r/MensRights07/01/19 08:40 AM
2

If the market is competitive, then that won't happen. At least one company will try to undercut the others by lowering prices.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 08:39 AM
3

Which would be fine, because that is not gender-specific in any way.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 06:02 AM
2

This issue seems to be mostly for teenagers, where males tend to drive more recklessly and therefore get charged higher rates. Teenagers usually don't have jobs.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 05:42 AM
11

The point is that they will equalize them. If the market is competitive, they won't be able to get away with overcharging for too long.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 04:40 AM
5

Already true in California.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 04:40 AM
6

Most of us here are banned from that sub, usually on our first or second post. They have zero tolerance for dissenting opinions.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 05:44 AM
8

Differences in outcome can be evidence of discrimination. They are not proof of discrimination, but they are evidence. The question to ask is why is the outcome different? In the case of homelessness rates, it's definitely at least partly due to discrimination, since there are more shelters available for women. Workplace death rates may be more due to choices.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 05:43 AM
1

I'd be happy to do an interview through chat.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 09:50 PM
1

I really think youre exaggerating how readily women will make false rape accusations for personal gain. OK, a few will take advantage, but does that mean that we shouldn't be offering leniency to those who might actually be genuinely affected? I don't think I'm exaggerating. I'm not saying we shouldn't be serving those who are genuinely affected, but what is the problem with doing a little fact-checking first? It shouldn't hurt actual victims at all. And its not like there won't be repercussions…
/r/MensRights30/12/18 09:33 AM
1

I think that's a balanced way of doing it.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 09:23 AM
7

To a degree. They can say "X is seeing us for Y and has been for Z amount of time - this is our understanding of the impact". They can't say anything more. That's all they need to say. It should work exactly like any other request for accommodation. For example, if a student is ill, they get a note from the health center saying they cannot attend the final exam and need a makeup. The fact that they went to the health center doesn't automatically entitle them to a makeup. Rather, the doctor needs…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 08:43 AM
8

Of course counselors are not detectives. However, they can give their input as to whether the student requires the provision of special services. If not, that doesn't mean the counselor shouldn't support the individual, or try to dissuade them of that occurrence or refuse to help. It simply means that the school will not provide any special treatment in terms of exams, assignments, etc. The counselor can still do their job. I agree that you can't force people to access psychological support, and…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:51 AM
31

I don't think "contact" with counseling services is sufficient. I would say that counseling services should at least have to make a determination that the allegation is credible. Not necessarily proven, but at least it has some basis. This can be done quite quickly.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:20 AM
1

I definitely think women's rights can be and should be taught objectively. I'm not a history expert, so you probably know more about this than I do, but my suggestion would be when you get to the modern portion (Title IX and "me too") to have students read works on both sides of the issue. For example, there is some literature on the epidemic of false accusations of sexual assault in colleges, and male students being suspended without a fair hearing. If you incorporate some of these things, you …
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:16 AM
1

I have no problem with MGTOW. I am not one of them, and I don't encourage them, but if they want to go their own way, they are more than welcome to do so and there's nothing wrong with it.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:13 AM
79

I agree with that, but that leeway should only be granted if a certain minimum threshold is met. Otherwise, it would be too easy for a student who is behind on assignments to make an accusation in order to get ahead.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:11 AM
1

Go back and read it carefully. There is no mention of sex or gender anywhere in the sentence. It outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not outlaw discrimination based on gender. Here is the full law if you want to read it. https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations
/r/MensRights26/12/18 10:33 AM
0

The source is your own Wikipedia article. Read it carefully. I'll give you a hint. Discrimination against customers by private businesses is covered under Title II of the act. Read what the Wikipedia article says about that title, and you will see no mention of sex or gender. Other parts of the act, such as Title VII, which deal with employment discrimination, include gender.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 05:06 AM
0

No offense, but you are wrong. I studied this act in depth in college. You may want to read it in more depth rather than relying on a Wikipedia article.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 02:42 AM
-3

I don't think you understand what "protected category" means.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 02:09 AM
1

Sex is a protected class in the US. If they tow it, you can sue them. No, sex is not a protected class for customers of private businesses. If this were employee parking, you would be correct. But discriminating against customers on the basis of sex is perfectly legal in most states.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 02:08 AM
7

The IT industry seems to have an issue with this. There are so few women, that they are put on a pedestal and are above criticism.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 06:57 AM
1

At literally every job I've ever held, there has been a dress code for both genders. No one has ever complained about it being sexist. What industries are seeing this problem? There have been some cases where companies have said women must wear high heels, which I agree is sexist. My observation is that formal dress codes can sometimes be easier for men (women must wear high heels, makeup, etc.) but casual dress codes are usually easier for women (no shorts allowed but women can wear skirts or d…
/r/MensRights10/12/18 06:56 AM
3

I think it's imporant to distinguish between hating on feminism as a movement, and hating on specific things that feminists do which hurt men. For example, we can hate it when feminists block alimony reform. Do we hate feminism? No. But we hate what they are advocating for.
/r/MensRights10/12/18 06:48 AM
2

It's perfectly legal, since Harvard is a private entity and no one is entitled to go there.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 09:35 AM
9

Seriously people? It says right in there, "there weren't enough girl players." This isn't discrimination against males, it's an exception to allow girl teams to have enough players. You gotta pick your battles. That may be the case, and it sounds like a valid rationale, but it's not a legal justification. If there aren't enough girl players, then that means it will be easier for girls to get on the team. There is no reason to have different policies.
/r/MensRights15/11/18 05:43 AM
10

The easiest thing to do is just abolish the practice. That would mean that some grades won't have a girls team but it complies with the ruling. That is probably what will happen. They will cancel the girl's teams in certain grades, and then blame the lawsuit for forcing them to do so.
/r/MensRights15/11/18 05:42 AM
0

I think the risk is greater than you realize. It may not have happened yet, but the MeToo movement is relatively recent and society's attitudes towards these things are changing rapidly. When something hits the media, it's not as black-and-white as it may seem. What if the woman didn't really need CPR, and the media says the man used this as an excuse to assault her? What if the man, not being a professional, touches her in a way that is not typically done when performing CPR? The public is gene…
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:45 AM
1

Title is misleading. Girl Scouts did not force Boy Scouts to accept girls. In fact, they were against it.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:35 AM
1

I think BSA was aware of this risk, that is why they are allowing single-sex troops and coed troops. Boys will still have the option of single-sex troops (or whatever they are called) in most places.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:33 AM
1

They can still cause damage. The firefighter's career and reputation can be destroyed by the time the lawsuit is dismissed. I haven't seen this particular scenario, but I've seen several cases where a completely baseless lawsuit costs someone significant amounts of time and money, and occasionally does permanent damage like getting them fired.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 03:21 AM
20

It really depends on what exactly the policy says. There's nothing wrong with tracking data and making sure that women are getting equal treatment, especially if you are in an industry that has a history of discrimination. But giving women preferential treatment is not appropriate.
/r/MensRights05/11/18 07:46 AM
1

The websites were referring to the same Title IX law you were referring to. However, the grants weren't enabled by the language in Title IX, they were in reference to it. Please check the website again. It refers to Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, which has to do with Rehabilitative Services. This is different from Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, and has nothing to do with gender or education.
/r/MensRights25/10/18 08:39 AM
3

You sent me a website that refers to title 9 of a completely different law, and you claim to be a lawyer who has done title 9 compliance? Ha.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 08:58 PM
6

http://www.dor.ca.gov/Public/Title-9-Grant-Regulations.html This is just California When we say Title IX on this sub, we are referring to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws gender discrimination in education. Your link is about something else. I'm not sure what exactly, but it appears to be some sort of state rehabilitation program for the handicapped. https://atixa.org/resources/researchgrants/ Here are grants on just researching title 9 given through title 9 The grants men…
/r/MensRights24/10/18 07:56 AM
1

My suggestion would be to send an anonymous letter to the principal or whoever is in charge, stating that this is a Title IX violation and asking for it to be corrected.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 07:04 AM
4

It’s likely funded under a title 9 grant There's no such thing as a "title 9 grant". Title 9 bans gender discrimination and this is a very clear title 9 violation.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 06:58 AM
11

I'm not aware of one, but I would support it if you start it. But just remember that there's no way of verifying anyone's gender on the internet, nor is there a way of preventing trolls from giving mean or harmful advice.
/r/MensRights20/10/18 11:22 PM
1

That's true, but it's really hard to measure where the center point is or how many people are on each part of the spectrum. Anyone can self-identify with a group.
/r/MensRights19/10/18 05:05 AM
7

Be very careful what you say. As you said, they will try to misrepresent what you said, so make sure you don't give them anything that they can twist around. If it has to do with the recent professor controversy, then start by saying that rape is a crime that should be punished. Focus on due process and not jumping to conclusions. Don't say anything that makes it seem like you're supporting rapists. Good luck!
/r/MensRights18/10/18 03:39 AM
3

I would pick a few things to focus on. Make sure that nothing you say is attacking women. Some ideas: Higher suicide rates and workplace deaths for men. Men not being allowed to see their children. Men subject to the draft. Men having higher retirement age in many countries.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 03:37 AM
9

This is true of every social or political movement. Most people are moderate and reasonable, but a small number of radicals will be the loudest and will try to speak for everyone. The environmental movement is a good example of this.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 03:34 AM
8

On Friday’s woman are allowed to wear jeans but men’s still have to wear slacks. Boss thinks men look weird in jeans and polos. If this is in the US, it needs to be reported to the EEOC.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 01:54 AM
3

That's a fair point, but it's not a valid reason to discriminate.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 04:26 AM
3

Depends on the laws where you live. If you live in California or another place that has banned this, speak up. Talk to the manager, threaten legal action, and then follow through.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 04:24 AM
3

I think that some of the more moderate feminists are often open to discussion. The key is to not mention anything controversial. Focus on things that are indisputably discriminatory against men. For example, the draft. No one will question that, and it gets people thinking.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 04:22 AM
2

It gets men who voted for the democrats thinking that just maybe Trump has a point. I don't think so. I consistently vote Democrat, and I'm not going to change my vote based on this issue. It doesn't outweigh my views on the economy, immigration, and other major issues.
/r/MensRights04/10/18 12:20 AM
4

Meh, I disagree with him on most things. His stance on men's issues is one exception, but I think he's doing it more to stick it to the Democrats, than out of any real concern for men.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 06:38 AM
3

Thank God we have a president who cares about men!! Who signed the law making men pay taxes on the alimony payments they give to women? Trump doesn't care about men. He cares about himself.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 02:25 AM
11

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
/r/MensRights03/10/18 02:24 AM
-3

I wish Trump would shut up. Associating him with the MRM is just going to put off potential supporters. He's not on our side, he is just using us as a pawn in a larger political struggle. Remember that Trump signed a bill that will make the payer, rather than the recipient, pay taxes on alimony payments.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 02:23 AM
1

I think it's reasonable to let the woman decide on the pregnancy. However, the man should be able to decide if he wants to be a father or not. I think in some places this is called "financial abortion". The man can say he wants nothing to do with the child, and the woman can use this information to decide if she wants to go through with the pregnancy.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 03:45 AM
1

Don't you have a counseling center on campus that you can go to? They should be able to talk to you about it without being required to report it. Generally, only ongoing criminal activity or a threat of harm needs to be reported.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 05:42 AM
1

Men's rights might help children whose parents are in a custody battle.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 05:38 AM
2

Yes, but they are not doing well with women's rights. I know it varies widely between countries, but many of them are still behind in that area. I guess the trick is to adjust the pendulum without swinging it too far.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 05:37 AM
1

By definition, if there was a rape, then there was a rapist. The issue is that just because someone "felt" raped doesn't mean they were raped. However, in today's climate, where feelings count for more than facts, if someone feels raped, many people will assume they were raped.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 05:36 AM
2

I don't think we should abandon being rational. I think we just need to be more forceful. We need to speak out without being embarassed. We need to talk to our friends, post on our social media, send letters to the editors of newspapers, write to politicians, and so on. We have been too timid. We commiserate in our safe spaces on the internet, often using throwaway accounts. We don't talk to people about our issues unless we are sure they agree with us. That is what we need to change.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 05:30 AM
1

I see no evidence that the mens is used even the majority of the time That may depend on where you live. I have probably seen a few dozen cases where the men's bathroom is used, and zero where the women's bathroom is used in this way. Of course, the most common is to create a third gender-neutral bathroom. How does that prove sexism? I have posted a good explanation as to why I think it is several times on this thread. Sexism is, by definition, treating people differently based on sex. Having a …
/r/MensRights28/09/18 01:31 AM
1

So lets say for arguments sake it is always it's always the mens that is used and that it does work out that using the mens works out to be more of an inconvenience to men thab it does for women it still does not mean that that is not the line of reasoning being used. As I mentioned in another comment, the only line of reasoning being used is that California law requires it. Don't dig any deeper. The business did this because the state made them, not for any other reason. Any company switching t…
/r/MensRights28/09/18 01:29 AM
13

I don't know about the laws in the UK, but in the US that would likely be illegal. It may be worth talking to a lawyer about it.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:14 AM
4

Women do take longer in the bathroom and as a result queues form outside the ladies much more often than the mens, this is a fact. It makes sense logistically to change the mens. This bathroom is in California. The reason it was changed is because California has a law mandating that single-stall bathrooms be gender neutral. So the men's bathroom has one stall and is now for everyone, and the women's bathroom has two (or more) stalls, and is for women only. The logical thing to do in order to max…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:12 AM
3

I see no reason to assume it is the status quo to choose the mens I have seen many, many places where they turn the men's bathroom into a unisex one. I have never seen it the other way around. So it's a very clear trend. And this is more significant than you think, because the unisex bathroom often only has one stall. The women's bathroom has two stalls. So women can use whichever bathroom is available any time they choose. Men are restricted to one of the three stalls, and can use it only when …
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:10 AM
3

It seems like a non-issue, but it's a matter of principle. Women's needs are being prioritized over men's needs. Even small injustices should be fought.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:06 AM
2

I think that this is a valid public policy concern. The government wants to make sure that 1) transgender people, and 2) people who need to go to a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex, such as a small child or disabled person, have a place to go. Unfortunately, they didn't think it through properly, and it has led to a discriminatory situation.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:04 AM
5

If all of the students who finished the major prep got in, then that means that there was no bias, because admissions were fully objective, i.e., if you met the qualifications you got in, and if not, you didn't. Maybe I'm not reading this correctly. What is the "major prep"?
/r/MensRights21/09/18 06:29 AM
1

It's hard to know exactly what this bill contains. While equal parenting time may be ideal, it may not always be possible. What if the parents live far from each other or one parent is abusive? Also, I dislike some of the other things the bill's sponsor stands for. I wonder if those things were put in as a smear attempt.
/r/MensRights21/09/18 06:26 AM
1

Very well said. The problem with rape accusations, especially 30 years after the fact, is that there is no evidence. We can't wait for evidence to come out, because it is long gone. Unless Kavanaugh himself confesses, I can't think of any evidence that could possibly exist that would prove that the rape occurred. Therefore, I am comfortable saying that this should not prevent his confirmation. PS I am opposed to most of his political views, and strongly believe that he shouldn't be confirmed for…
/r/MensRights20/09/18 07:10 AM
-17

What does this have to do with this sub? Just because he happens to be male doesn't make this a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 07:40 AM
1

Which nation are you in?
/r/MensRights07/09/18 04:28 AM
1

Hmm okay. I think it's likely he was actually trying to do it, but I haven't watched the video.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 04:27 AM
3

I think you're confusing two separate issues, male-only schools and male teachers. Male-only schools often have mostly female teachers. I think it's important to have more male teachers, but I'm a bit more conflicted on male-only schools.
/r/MensRights05/09/18 03:08 AM
1

I don't know how the system works in Australia, but I would advise you to be very cautious. There's a saying that no good deed goes unpunished. Of course you want to do the right thing for your child, but it could cause problems for you. You could get hit with thousands of dollars worth of unpaid child support bills, which make it difficult to return to Australia in the future. My advice would be to see an Australian lawyer and find out the best way to pay a fair amount without causing issues fo…
/r/MensRights05/09/18 12:58 AM
1

This is just so blatantly illegal, I don't even know how it's debatable anymore.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:23 AM
2

Good article. After California voters passed a ballot measure to ban affirmative action in the 1990s, the university has been trying to find a way around it. I'm glad there is some attention being given to this.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:21 AM
2

•How can we better convince the public to "sit down at the table" with us and hear us out? •Do you have any ideas for how we can better communicate our issues with the general population? Here are some thoughts. It's all about the framing. Make sure you don't attack feminists or women in general. Don't make it us-vs.-them. For example, don't attack women who get alimony, because the "poor woman whose husband left her penniless to be with his new mistress" stereotype is powerful. Instead, talk ab…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:12 AM
1

What pastor are you referring to?
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:06 AM
6

In my experience, even male-only schools usually have female teachers. This is a tough question. I think there is certain academic value in single-sex education, but boys may miss out on socialization. If I sent my son to a single-sex school, I'd make sure he was involved in other activities where he could interact with girls.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:04 AM
2

I can't link it to you as I'm on phone but men have been consistently outperforming women in SAT scores as well as highschool STEM subjects. I am aware of that, but it doesn't prove anything. Cornell applicants may not be representative of high school students at large. The question is whether women in Cornell's applicant pool were more qualified than men. You raised an important point but women are not doing better than men. It's a clear unjust against men. Like I said, that's likely to be true…
/r/MensRights01/09/18 08:18 AM
1

I have colleagues at this college so I'd rather not get involved with it.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 06:13 AM
1

IANAL, but my understanding is that the denial is what enables the state to investigate the issue. Once they open an investigation, they can look at the whole situation, not just that particular applicant. This is done because otherwise, it would be very easy for an employer to find some valid reason to deny every applicant who is in the group they don't want.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 05:02 AM
4

It's mathematically possible, so I mentioned it. Differing rates of acceptance provide evidence for discrimination, but do not actually prove it.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 04:29 AM
6

This job posting is limited to female candidates in clear violation of California law. I have called the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and they seemed to agree that it is illegal but cannot do anything until a man applies, gets denied, and submits a formal intake form. Would anyone be interested in doing so?
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:55 AM
7

No, the entire incoming class wouldn't be Asian. There might be a high percentage of Asians, but there would be others too. If people don't want that, they can go elsewhere. There will still be plenty of universities that aren't Asian-dominated. Your logic sounds remarkably like the "our customers want a white-only restaurant" argument that businesses used in the 50s to remove black diners.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:47 AM
3

It could indicate discrimination against men, but not necessarily. It's possible that the women who applied really were more qualified. However, given how large the gap is, I think that is unlikely.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:40 AM
1

I can believe it. Many women can get a better job, but it would require more work, more responsibility and more stress. If they aren't hurting for money, they may not want to bother.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:38 AM
2

I can believe it. Many women can get a better job, but it would require more work, more responsibility and more stress. If they aren't hurting for money, they may not want to bother.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:38 AM
2

Most images are oversimplifications. It's impossible to accurately describe a scientific study in one sentence.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:37 AM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 02:17 AM
2

I think the best thing to do is to get females to speak up. As you have discovered, men who speak about men's issues are routinely ridiculed and ignored. Women have more credibility when it comes to gender issues. So please do speak up and share these things with other people on your campus. Every little step helps.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 04:51 AM
1

I guess it's a strict liability crime because otherwise it would be too easy to make excuses, and no way to prove whether he was aware or not.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 04:48 AM
1

You just did what this thread tells you not to do.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 04:45 AM
11

Can't read the full article, but this sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm glad that at least one good thing is coming out of the Trump administration.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 04:44 AM
-1

To be fair, most people aren't worth anything. Unless you are a celebrity, a politician, or a high-ranking corporate employee, you can kill yourself and nothing will happen. Even if you are one of those, the world will move on.
/r/MensRights30/08/18 04:42 AM
1

This issue has to do with corruption. Not liking the rulings that a court makes is not the same as corruption.
/r/MensRights16/08/18 05:21 AM
1

I disagree, the ____ Administration refers exclusively to the Executive office while under the tenure of a specific president, with the sole exception of Bush, where there were 2 separate Bush administrations (father and son). They do not refer in any way to the judiciary, congress, the military or the rest of the vast federal government. Yes, and the "federal government" in this particular context refers to the executive branch, because it's the only branch that can act as a market participant.…
/r/MensRights16/08/18 12:39 AM
2

The federal government? Previously you claimed it was the Obama administration. Do you recognize the difference? No, because there is no difference. "The ___ administration" is commonly used as a metonym for the federal government. If you think there is a difference, please explain it. As far as the feds buying and managing private companies, I'm not really sure which part of the Constitution gives them this power, can you help here? And I'm not even sure about their authority to do bailouts, an…
/r/MensRights16/08/18 12:20 AM
2

If you weren't aware, maybe you should do some research before posting. GM filed for bankruptcy and was sold to NGMCO, in which the federal government had a 60% stake. As the owner of 60% of the company's stock, the federal government obviously had the ability to appoint the CEO.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 07:50 PM
3

Great, hopefully this shirt starts some conversations.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 09:27 AM
3

What does this have to do with this sub?
/r/MensRights15/08/18 09:26 AM
1

Please report this to whoever is in charge. Use the term "sexual harassment".
/r/MensRights15/08/18 09:25 AM
3

What does that have to do with anything? When the Obama administration invested billions of dollars in GM, they essentially became its major stockholder. As the owners of the company, they have the right to fire the CEO.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 09:25 AM
2

Good luck!
/r/MensRights12/08/18 06:28 AM
3

What country did this happen in?
/r/MensRights11/08/18 10:26 AM
1

Why not set up a similar program for men and see how people react? No one will be able to claim that it is sexist if a women's program also exists.
/r/MensRights11/08/18 10:25 AM
7

Alimony: I believe it should exist only in cases where one party made a specific sacrifice to help advance the career of another. In these cases, it should be viewed as a temporary way of helping the recipient get back on his/her feet, not an entitlement to a particular lifestyle. Child support: Again, it's fine in principle, but it needs to be reformed. The amounts should be such that are reasonably spent on the child's needs, and how they are spent should be documented. In addition, the proces…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 01:26 AM
3

I can't provide a counter-argument to a ramble of irrelevant nonsense. The law is meant to protect the ability of a baby to feed on breast milk in public, because it is deemed more healthy than formula. Men using prosthetic breasts and taking their clothes off have nothing to do with that. Maybe if you state your argument more coherently I can respond to it.
/r/MensRights09/08/18 01:19 AM
2

There is no need for men to use prosthetic fake breasts loaded with formula to breast feed. They can feed the formula from a bottle, and it will be the exact same thing for the baby. And there is no need to take off all your clothes to breast feed, so that is also irrelevant.
/r/MensRights09/08/18 01:14 AM
1

No male analog exists for tampons from which to have a tax exemption withheld. Depends how you define the market. There is no perfect analog, but there are plenty of similar products. Not charging tax on tampons is not discrimination against men. Yes, it is. Because the goal is to provide a tax break for women only, by providing a tax break on a product that is only used by women. Find a more important issue to focus your efforts on. Feminists should take the same advice, but I guess they don't …
/r/MensRights09/08/18 01:13 AM
1

The police are considered "government" in every country. (This is referring to actual police, not private security.) In the US, the parent agency (city, county, etc.) is liable for their actions. The police may have a separate liability insurance policy from the rest of the parent agency, but that's just a bookkeeping matter.
/r/MensRights09/08/18 01:10 AM
1

How much do we want to bet that they will be granted an "exemption" or "postponement"?
/r/MensRights07/08/18 08:48 AM
2

Anyone can sue for anything they want. But suing a government department is generally difficult and unlikely to be successful.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 08:45 AM
1

A is part of C, and B is part of C, so therefore A must equal B. You have a great understanding of logic. /s
/r/MensRights06/08/18 09:55 AM
1

Given the biological differences, it is impossible for men and women to have exactly the same rights under the law. If you make abortion legal, the woman now has the right to destroy an embryo that the man helped to create. If you make abortion illegal, you are forcing a woman to do something that a man is not. So no matter what abortion law you pass, it will never be gender-neutral.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 09:55 AM
1

They are carving out an exemption in the tax system for a certain product that is used by only one gender. That basically amounts to giving out a tax cut on the basis of gender. There are many products that only/mostly men use and many products that only/mostly women use. Just because they aren't perfectly analogous doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt men. Men will now be paying more tax to cover the loss of revenue to the government.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 04:37 AM
1

Yes, but I don't see how there is any civil rights issue here.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 04:34 AM
2

I'm pretty sure that UK discrimination laws cover both employees and customers, but I'm not a lawyer.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 04:34 AM
3

Now you're bringing up specific abortion laws, which are off topic. Laws on abortion are only going to effect women, whether those laws allow abortions or ban them.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:54 AM
1

I already read them as posted. You seem to be saying that we should allow discrimination against men if we can equalize it later on. That logic makes no sense, and isn't likely to be effective. If anything, this small step is going to build momentum for further tax exemptions for women.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:53 AM
1

No, because there isn't one. So what's your point?
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:50 AM
1

the tampon tax There is no "tampon tax". This is a regular GST that applies to all purchases. I would be against a special tampon tax (I don't know anyone who wouldn't) but that's not what we have here.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:49 AM
1

Did it occur to you that this step could be used to propel more broad-sweeping reform proposals forward? Use the principles upon which this move was pushed to push your own. How could that happen? If you think that this step is going to propel any reform that benefits men in any way, you are rather delusional.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:47 AM
1

I can't say I understand us bothering with this issue; can this not be seen as a reasonable request? Rather than moaning about this issue, how about we work for more "essentials" tax cuts across the board? Food, water, etc? A tax cut on essentials across the board would be a reasonable request. A specific tax cut on one item that is used by only one gender is discriminatory.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:46 AM
2

Yes, there are many products that both genders need to stay hygenic. Soap, toilet paper, etc.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:44 AM
2

That's a whole separate discussion about the overall structure of the taxation system.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:43 AM
5

That may be the case, but using toothbrushes and toilet paper isn't really a choice either. I mean I guess it technically is, but by that standard, women can do without tampons if they really want to as well.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:42 AM
7

I read the title as "executive chef" and wondered why they couldn't find a woman chef lol. I'm not sure I understand this "club". It sounds like a private business, with investors, so why is it not subject to the UK's discrimination laws?
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:41 AM
4

Could you explain to me how that would apply to something like, say abortion? The law would be written in a gender-neutral way. The fact that only women can get abortions arises due to other reasons that are unrelated to the law.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 03:26 AM
6

What he is describing is exactly "equality under the law". The inequality arises from biology, not the law.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 01:40 AM
1

I think the only case where laws should be gender-specific is when required by biology. For example, there can be laws that protect a woman's right to breast-feed in public.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 01:39 AM
2

Yes, but only if there is evidence that they are lying or exaggerating the incident. MRAs believe in due process for the accused, so this can often be interpreted as trying to discredit rape victims, but that is not the case. True victims should be believed, once it is established that they are victims.
/r/MensRights02/08/18 03:43 AM
5

I think the best thing to do is to not use labels. Words like "feminist" and "men's rights" often carry baggage. Look for a girlfriend that supports equality for all people and opposes abuses of either gender. You will get much farther that way.
/r/MensRights02/08/18 03:42 AM
3

Your dad needs to spend the money and get a good lawyer. That is the only thing to do in these cases. A few thousand dollars spent on a lawyer today might save him tens of thousands in alimony payments over the next several years.
/r/MensRights02/08/18 03:40 AM
1

So you're fine with a lunch counter refusing to serve blacks, or a bus line telling a black woman to move to the back? By your logic, Rosa Parks' "hyper entitlement" was off the charts.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 07:01 PM
1

It depends on the context. In your personal life (relationships, friendships, etc.) you can discriminate all you want. Discrimination is generally seen as a negative when it is done by the government, or by businesses that serve the public.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 07:37 AM
4

There are two reasons. The potential for medical complications. It's rare, but it does happen, and it's completely unnecessary for a cosmetic operation. On principle, mutilating a child's body without consent is wrong. What if the child grows up and decides he didn't want that?
/r/MensRights28/07/18 10:40 PM
1

Where is this located? Many places, such as California, have laws requiring single-stall bathrooms to be gender-neutral in order to accommodate parents with opposite-sex children, transgender individuals, etc. This is a well-intentioned law that causes some unintended consequences.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 10:35 PM
3

I know that the label "MRA" is toxic these days, kind of like the label "feminist". I still consider myself an MRA, although I am not heavy on the activism. MGTOW, to me, is a completely different way of responding to these issues. MRAs are like environmentalists who fight to get companies to reduce pollution. MGTOW are like environmentalists who say "f*** it" and go and live off the grid and disconnect themselves from society.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 12:08 AM
1

There may be a second bus company, but they may not hav the same routes or frequency of service, they may be more expensive, etc. If you think the "free market" is going to resove this, you need to study history. The free market utterly failed to solve this, that is why the Civil Rights Act became necessary.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 12:04 AM
1

And in the case of a private school, since there are alternatives available to everyone What if those alternatives aren't as good quality? What if they are more expensive or inconvenient? In the south during the 50s, many businesses discriminated against blacks, which hurt their ability to function in the national economy, even if there were theoretically alternatives available.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:22 AM
1

Oh please. Telling a bus company they can't force a black person to sit at the back is a far cry from a "totalitarian regime".
/r/MensRights13/07/18 05:20 AM
1

Feel free to believe that.
/r/MensRights12/07/18 06:15 AM
1

No offense, but you seem to have no clue about law.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 09:34 PM
5

The legal system needs to be fixed, rather than blaming women for taking advantage of it. If a woman can get what she wants, why shouldn't she take it? Fix the laws so that women cannot arbitrarily deny men the right to see their kids. Judge Judy is not a family court judge, and this clip was just an off-handed comment, not a legal ruling.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 08:25 AM
2

Because that's not how law works. The judge can't just say "I'll take care of this" and usurp the role of the university administration.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 05:27 AM
0

Because the law allows the university to handle it.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 05:20 AM
2

Yup, you did a good job pointing out many of these issues that men face.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 05:19 AM
7

they can sue the courts for “gender discrimination”. Lol no, you can't sue the courts for anything. That's not how the legal system works.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:45 AM
1

What was the bathroom situation before? Was there just a women's bathroom and a gender-neutral bathroom?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 12:55 AM
3

I think this basically comes down to the dating "market". Men want women more than vice versa, so when women act inappropriately, it is generally tolerated.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 02:37 AM
5

I suggest you bring this up in a tactful way. Point out the fact that dress code should not discriminate against any gender, and that your comfort is impacting your ability to do your work.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 12:16 AM
5

I don't really see the issue here. The woman is the hospital's patient. You're just a visitor as far as they are concerned.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 12:13 AM
2

As a man I don't know much about periods, but my observation is that most women can function just fine during their periods. They may be a bit emotional and not as physically strong, but they can do almost everything normally. However, some women may have extra painful periods, either on certain occasions or more regularly due to an ongoing issue. In these cases, I think accommodations should be made. So my opinion would be that just having your period is not enough to delay an exam or a work as…
/r/MensRights26/06/18 12:01 AM
2

Until the divorce is final, each parent can do whatever they want with the kids. She can take them wherever she wants, and isn't obligated to tell you anything. You can do the same. The best advice is to talk to your lawyer about this.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 02:03 AM
1

We're just going around in circles now so I won't bother restating my points. Nice talking to you.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 08:25 PM
0

At least it's something. We are making progress.
/r/MensRights23/06/18 10:36 PM
1

Equal treatment is silly when people don't act the same, and you're betting on people acting the same and not holding them responsible for their ACTUAL risk. (Equal treatment in general is fairly silly. You don't treat your loved ones the same as strangers, for example, nor do you treat men and women the same when it comes to romance; that's why I'm for equality of rights and agency. Equality of outcome/opportunity/treatment are generally unworkable or inconsistent). We aren't talking about fami…
/r/MensRights23/06/18 09:29 AM
1

I don't know for sure. I'm not really involved with religion. But it might make a difference if the scholarship is restricted to members of a particular religious organization vs. open to the public.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 04:04 AM
2

Yes, please speak out. It may be difficult, but it is necessary in the long run. Try to get some support from a professional, maybe your son's pediatrician or someone.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 02:24 AM
8

No, because that is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
/r/MensRights22/06/18 02:23 AM
11

This is a violation of federal law. Someone needs to report it to the EEOC.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 02:22 AM
1

Depends on what that specific group is. It's legal to target a specific group such as residents of a certain city, students at a certain high school, students studying a certain major or taking a certain activity, etc. It cannot be on race, gender, religion, etc.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 02:21 AM
1

Life expectancy in India is in line with other developing countries where meat is consumed. Life expectancy among wealthier social classes in India is in line with western countries. I don't know much about the American or Canadian Hindu population but I believe their life expectancy is also in line with meat eaters in their respective countries, although I believe many of them do eat meat as well.
/r/MensRights20/06/18 08:04 AM
3

Most people who go vegan/vegetarian do so as adults, so it would be nice to see more research about children. I don't know about official research, but a good chunk of India's Hindu population has never eaten meat in their lives. They seem to do just fine.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:41 AM
1

The CONSUMPTION* of meat is not the issue What is the issue is food waste The reason it's wasted is because it's produced for consumption. If we consumed less, then there would be less wastage.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:40 AM
1

It’s already is, there’s a movement to promote childhood vegetarianism which will inarguably promote lower test acceleration during the puberty cycle. Do you have a scientific reference for this claim?
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:39 AM
1

That's still discriminating. You know some are more risky or less risky than others, but charge them the same. Discrimination is, by definition, treating people differently. Charging people the same cannot be discrimination. You may find it unjust in some way, but it's not discriminatory. The insurance company won't know whether they actually adhere to it though. Of course they will, because it will be reflected in their claims history. Men can also speed less and drive fewer miles and reduce th…
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:35 AM
1

Still discriminating because not all drivers are driving the same way yet, and thus are already more or less risky than other drivers. That isn't discriminating. It's treating everyone the same. Some drivers may be more risky, but the company doesn't have a way of measuring that. Hell, drivers with poor vision or night blindness are more risky even without considering neglectful or hazardouse driving decisions, the fact not all cars perform the same way in the same conditions notwithstanding. Th…
/r/MensRights18/06/18 01:41 AM
1

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it in detail later.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 08:47 PM
1

No, discrimination can be prohibited. Companies can start all customers off at the same rate, and adjust their rate over time based on their own driving record, not the driving records of those who happen to be of the same gender, ethnicity, or other characteristic.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:00 AM
1

Many people will not be charged accurately. Even if you are allowed to discriminate, it's still impossible to predict someone's risk entirely. There will always be cases where the model fails, no matter how many variables it has.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:54 PM
3

Good for you. It's great to see that people are open to new ideas and rational thinking. Try to encourage your friends to see the movie.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:37 PM
1

Is there data to back that up?
/r/MensRights16/06/18 10:53 PM
1

You can always start everyone off at the same rate, and then adjust the rates as necessary based on the number of accidents, tickets, etc. It would only take a year or so to figure out how safe a driver is. You can't retroactively apply higher premiums, but you can raise premiums going forward.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 10:42 PM
1

You can always start everyone off at the same rate, and then adjust the rates as necessary based on the number of accidents, tickets, etc. It would only take a year or so to figure out how safe a driver is. You can't retroactively apply higher premiums, but you can raise premiums going forward.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 10:42 PM
1

True, but that's only the first accident. Perhaps you could start everyone off at the same rate and then lower or raise it after a year based on the number of accidents.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 10:37 PM
2

You need a counselor or therapist. I know it will cost money, but it's essential.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:42 AM
8

There are other ways of accounting for that. For example, you could charge more to people who have accidents. And with regards to people under 25, that is less politically offensive because everyone will go through the same ages. But a better way would be to charge based on driving experience.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:40 AM
2

In the US, the Civil Rights Act is written to give all races and genders equal protection under the law. However, the Civil Rights Act does not ban gender discrimination of customers by private businesses. That is governed by state law, and therefore women-only gyms and ladies' nights at bars are legal in those states that allow it. The Civil Rights Act does cover race.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:39 AM
22

It is important to note that even if men are more dangerous drivers, there are other ways to account for this, like charging higher rates to those with a history of accidents, or those who drive more miles. It's not illegal to charge male drivers more, it's only illegal to charge male drivers more just because they are male.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:37 AM
1

Yeah, I'm not continuing this dialog with someone who thinks that economic regulation is "communism". Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 03:20 AM
2

It may be in some ways, but I don't think it really falls onto the liberal-conservative spectrum. It is a movement that should attract people from both sides of the aisle.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:33 AM
1

Unfortunately, many people associate the MRM with extreme right-wing groups. Yesterday, on this very sub, someone called me a "communist" because I supported laws banning gender discrimination by businesses. We need to do a much better job of educating the public on what our movement is about.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:30 AM
1

Who is talking about anarchy? citizens having rights is mutually exclusive with anarchy. Not at all. In an anarchy, there is no government, so there is nothing to restrict the rights of citizens. Anarchy is taking the concept of individual rights to the extreme. They are insomuch as business owners are not subjugated by the government on a day-to-day basis. Government taking control of the means of production is the definition of communism and I am against it, period. Oh, now you're throwing aro…
/r/MensRights15/06/18 11:28 PM
1

In that case, it must be a store decision. I would suggest writing a letter to the manager.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 11:13 PM
8

Yes, this situation arises because the women's bathroom has multiple toilets and the men's only has one. Where I live, the law says that single-stall bathrooms must be unisex (for the benefit of transgender people). If there's only one toilet in the women's bathroom, then it should be unisex as well.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 04:43 AM
3

Even if the law requires it, the store can rectify the situation. For example, they could add a second stall to the men's restroom, which would make it legal for it to be single sex. Or they could just make both bathrooms unisex and single stall.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 04:14 AM
2

"Liberty" does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. Anarchists will argue that anything government does is an infringement of someone's liberty, and to some extent they are correct. But living in a civilized world requires following the rule of law, even if it infringes on your "liberty". You have certain fundamental rights, which are delineated in the constitution or whatever documents your country uses, but beyond that, you are subject to the rule of law that is democratically pas…
/r/MensRights15/06/18 04:11 AM
1

Yes, and it states that while sex has been added as a protected class, there is no case testing this, so it's difficult to tell what it means. I haven't been to Washington recently so I don't know if "ladies' night" is common there, but there's no ruling explicitly banning it.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:45 AM
1

MacLean v. First Northwest Industries of America, Inc. The case is mentioned in section IV of this article. http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=nlj
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:29 AM
2

Yes, and since a ladies' discount and a men's surcharge are effectively the same thing, the law is basically meaningless. Just because NCSL says a law exists, doesn't mean it is relevant.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:22 AM
1

I see at least 2 states that your article claims have banned this practice (Washington and Illinois), where courts have explicitly ruled that differential pricing based on gender is allowed. I am not very familiar with all of these states' laws, but I think that many of them may have very narrow laws that apply only to certain kinds of businesses, and may not even cover pricing.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:07 AM
1

Your nation may not have a history of widespread discrimination by businesses against certain minority groups. In the 40s and 50s in the southern United States, blacks could generally not eat at most restaurants or stay at most hotels. A few black-owned businesses would serve them, with inferior services at a higher cost. This situation necessitated governmental intervention.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:56 AM
1

There is no exemption to the civil rights act (1964) or the subsequent legislation that makes private clubs exempt. If you are aware of one, please share Are you kidding me? Title II of the Civil Rights Act literally says this directly. "The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public..."
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:54 AM
2

No, they didn't. They ruled that a state could prevent de-facto public clubs from discriminating based on gender.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:51 AM
0

All states have public accommodations laws so that restaurants that are open to people walking in off the streets have to allow people of all sexes, races, etc to come in and eat. No, they don't. Actually very few states ban discrimination on the basis of gender by private businesses. California is the main one, and might be the only one. Discrimination on account of race, religion, and ethnicity is banned by federal law.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:50 AM
50

Probably because your state or town passed a law requiring single-stall restrooms to be unisex. I would write to the manager. Speak up or nothing is going to change.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:34 AM
8

Thanks for your support. I think the best thing you can do is keep talking to people. As a female, you have more credibility than we do when it comes to gender-related issues. So keep sharing stories and data with people, and get the word out. Another thing you can do is call people out on sexism. For example, you live in a place where there are a lot of tech companies that are trying to "diversify" by giving preferential hiring to women. This is not only improper but also illegal, but of course…
/r/MensRights09/06/18 05:58 AM
1

Capitalism has to do with ownership of production methods and regulation of the economy, it has nothing to do with giving anyone money.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 05:54 AM
1

That's called trickle down theory. Give money to the rich, and it will stimulate the economy. We all know it doesn't work that way.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 04:21 AM
1

Yes, but dividends may not stay in your community. They may go to investors, who may be somewhere else. Also, investors tend to be wealthier than employees, and therefore less likely to spend the money on goods and services.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 09:53 PM
1

Any transfer of money will increase the velocity. That's exactly what velocity is. When money is paid as a salary, it is then used to buy goods and services, boosting the economy.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 08:58 AM
1

Sorry, but you're wrong. You don't seem to understand how the economy works.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 07:43 AM
1

It increases the velocity of money, which boosts the economy.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:55 AM
4

Some are legitimate, some are not.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:55 AM
1

I assume that if women were paid more (and this came from company's profits, and not from men's salaries or any other source) then women would spend that money, which would boost the economy.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:55 AM
3

This has to do with market forces. I doubt anyone really cares anymore.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 05:57 AM
7

If you are in the US, then taking gender into consideration in any way whatsoever is illegal under federal law. "Females have it harder than men" is not a valid reason. Get some proof that your friend said this, and then tell HR to remove him from the hiring committee to protect the company against discrimination lawsuits.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 05:57 AM
2

First of all, get solid evidence. "Seems to" is meaningless. Get data to show the salaries, show proof that the discrepancy is not due to any other factors, and so on.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 05:54 AM
8

There is a difference between flirting and harassment. I'm not sure what side of the line this conduct was on, but it's important to define it clearly.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 05:50 AM
3

I think it slowly builds support over time. It's not going to be immediate.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:27 PM
1

Feminists come in all shapes and sizes. Like with any other movement, some are moderate, some are stronger, and some are radical. I believe that the majority of women who identify as feminist are moderate and support equality, but it is the radicals that are the most vocal and push their agenda to the government. R/feminism is fairly moderate in appearance, but they have no tolerance for dissent. Most of us who post here are banned from there, often for the very first post they made.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 02:08 AM
1

And as an additional benefit, this would make it harder to plea bargain and force people to plead guilty to things they haven't done in order to avoid a trial.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 02:02 AM
7

The low-hanging fruit is often the only thing that can be addressed. Sure, it's not a big deal that some feminist said that ski slopes are sexist, but pointing that out to the public can help get people thinking and build support for other more serious issues.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 02:01 AM
1

That's not true at all. The prenup is still valid with respect to alimony, property division, and so on. If the prenup has anything about child custody or support, that may be thrown out.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 01:56 AM
1

It's called "unconscionable". An unconscionable contract is unenforceable. This can work to the advantage of the party with lesser bargaining power, for example an employee.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 01:51 AM
1

The two most common ways that women get prenups (and I assume postnups) thrown out: "I didn't understand what I was signing. I didn't have a lawyer to explain it." "It was too rushed and I was under too much pressure." So make sure both of you have separate lawyers and that enough time elapses before signing it.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 01:49 AM
1

Glad to read that. Please keep speaking out. Women have far more credibility when it comes to gender issues, so having female allies really helps the movement.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 01:47 AM
1

"Common" is relative. It may be common in the sense that it happens several times a year at any given restaurant, but not so common that it isn't shocking anymore.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 12:05 AM
4

There are plenty of reasonable women (and men) that self-identify as "feminists". The radical feminists are a minority, however they are the most vocal and dominate the dialogue.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 12:03 AM
0

No, I don't think that's true. I've seen a lot of statistics quoted on here that apply to all men.
/r/MensRights28/05/18 12:02 AM
2

What about abortion?
/r/MensRights27/05/18 11:55 PM
2

What do you mean by bad "legal language"?
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:11 PM
4

Sometimes the rights can be in conflict. For example, if men gain the ability to legal parental surrender, women may be stuck with the expense of raising a child. So the two are related.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:10 PM
11

If this continues, I suggest you ask your parents to talk to the principal about it and point out the double standard.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:07 PM
5

I think you make some good points. It's nice to see that even females are starting to see the double standards.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:04 PM
7

He needs to contest the paternity using whatever the procedure is in his state. I highly recommend a lawyer for this.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:02 PM
4

I think that online dating is the safest bet. IRL flirting can get you into trouble.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 11:01 PM
1

I think the best thing that anyone can do is to keep spreading the word. Awareness is always step one. Once people are aware of the issues, they can advocate for change. Right now, men's rights actvists are often viewed as bitter, jealous, or whatever. We need to legitimize the movement, and that means explaining our issues to the public in a way that people can relate to.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 10:58 PM
1

In my view, if women respond well to a man's sexual aggression, then that is seen as a positive thing and helps his reputation. But if women don't appreciate it, then it is a negative. A man being a creeper is not just "bad game", but it can cause him to be ostracized from a social circle.
/r/MensRights24/05/18 07:29 AM
3

"No contest" is essentially the same as a guilty plea, except that it sometimes may not be used in future cases. But the sentencing is usually the same, there is no "sentencing discount".
/r/MensRights23/05/18 04:46 AM
9

Yes, I think that morally, you have a responsibility to speak up. Don't talk to the police, talk to this guy or his attorney. Try to find out the details from your friend.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 04:42 AM
1

What makes you disagree? Do you think that society branding a man as a creep or a rapist is not harmful?
/r/MensRights23/05/18 04:36 AM
4

Yes, it is a major assumption. It may be true on average in a statistical sense, but that doesn't mean you can make that assumption without more information. You are correct that teasing, harassment and intimidation are different things, but how is that relevant? Does the size of the individuals determine it?
/r/MensRights22/05/18 05:27 AM
7

He can find a way to come at her later. Or spread rumors that she's a bitch or a slut. Women tend to have to worry more about that than men. I think that's a generalization that isn't really valid anymore. She can spread rumors that he is a sexual harasser or a creep, which would be far more harmful to his reputation than her being called a bitch or a slut.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 05:02 AM
11

You're making assumptions that may or may not be valid. We know nothing about Jamie and Gina's size. But even if it's true, so what? Is sexual harassment okay as long as the victim is bigger than the harasser?
/r/MensRights22/05/18 05:01 AM
1

Thanks for posting and being open minded. Please keep speaking out. I firmly believe that women are the best advocates for men's rights. When men speak out about gender issues, they are often dismissed as being bitter or jealous, but when women say the same thing, they get more attention. Cassie Jaye is a great example.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:58 AM
1

That's rather unfortunate. I don't think it's that bad in the US, but I don't really know.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:50 AM
2

Being sexualized feels objectifying, because the rest of my humanity feels stripped away. I understand that it can feel that way, but I don't think it's always the case. When I see an attractive woman and stare at her, I don't necessarily think any less of her in other ways. She can still be smart, funny, caring, etc. Her good lucks are a bonus, not a replacement, for other positive qualities. Maybe men need to do a better job of communicating this to women.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 07:57 AM
1

A lot of the dress code debate lately has focused on girls being distraction to boys, but I think this is misguided. A dress code is about creating a professional, respectful atmosphere. And contrary to the last line on that flyer, what you wear does dictate the respect you get from others. That is the way the world works. When a high school girl is told she can't have her bra strap showing, it has nothing to do with distracting high school boys (who I'm sure have seen plenty of bra straps), it …
/r/MensRights21/05/18 07:48 AM
1

That's unfortunate. Does the Australian government acknowledge they exist but not furnish them, or deny their existence?
/r/MensRights21/05/18 04:23 AM
1

I don't know much about the Canadian system, but in the US, just about any official document is available to the public through FOIA or equivalent state laws. If US judges were being sent to take these courses somewhere, we would know about it (as they do in Canada), even if we didn't have the actual materials. Sentencing guidelines are public information in every US state and the federal system.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 03:57 AM
1

I don't think there are any "official but unpublished judicial guidelines" in the US. I don't know about other countries.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 03:19 AM
1

Depends on the location, but most places don't ban sexual discrimination by private businesses.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 10:43 PM
3

In the US, there are not specific laws, but many crimes have a sentencing range that judges can choose from. For example, the sentence for a certain crime might be 2-4 years. If the judge has an unconscions bias, men might be more likely to get the higher end of the range.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 10:39 PM
1

It varies, but often quite well. Left-leaning people tend to be fairly open-minded to social justice issues, so if you frame the men's rights movement as a social justice movement, you should get support. I've definitely made some people think. I don't know if I've fully convinced them, but at least I have got the ball rolling. From this sub.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 10:37 PM
2

Done, good luck!
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:47 AM
1

Write a letter to the manager. Be polite, don't attack feminists, but explain that this is discriminatory and puts off male customers.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:40 AM
2

There are elements of the movement that have nothing to do with marriage or relationships. For example, just a few hours ago there was a post about a professor giving higher grades to female students. Every man in the class would be hurt by that, and potentially miss out on a job offer, regardless of his sexual orientation. Also note that just because you are gay doesn't stop a woman from accusing you of rape or harassment.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:39 AM
11

Grading bias is common, but it's never this explicit. I've had many professors who I suspect were giving extra points to women on the basis of "class participation" or "effort" or something vague like that, but never like this. As others have said, this is counterproductive to both genders. Men will get resentful, and women will use it as a crutch.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:36 AM
2

The wage gap only includes wages, i.e., payment for employment. It doesn't include any other source of income, such as investments or support payments. I'm not sure about the poverty statistics.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:32 AM
2

There have been several attempts to start female rideshare services in the US and other countries. They have all failed, because most women aren't as paranoid and have no problem taking Uber or whatever local service is available. The exception is some Muslim countries where gender separation is mandated by law.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:28 AM
3

In the US this would be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act. I don't know about the laws where you live, but it wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer and see if anything can be done.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:26 AM
1

Canada does need more troops, undermanning is chronic within units, but we're not in the habit of drafting people in peacetime. All i'm saying is that the economic incentive is not that effective for people who are comfortable. I'm not familiar with Canada's military, but if they need more troops, they can get them by paying market wages. If they pay the same salary as McDonald's, there is no reason for anyone to risk their lives by joining. If they pay a higher wage to compensate for the increa…
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:21 AM
1

Maybe a more fair system for calculating alimony/child support payments would be a good place to start.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 03:56 AM
1

Nah, Canada has the best paid military in the world and we're still understrength. Maybe if they paid each soldier a ridiculous amount. That's because Canada doesn't need or want more troops. If they did, they would have no problem getting them without a draft, because of the pay. But I personally see military service as jury duty. Something necessary for the good health of a democracy. I don't see what this has to do with democracy. There are plenty of deomcracies without mandatory military ser…
/r/MensRights17/05/18 12:20 AM
2

That's exactly my point. If you say that the weather seems a little warmer or that storms are getting a little worse, people will listen. If you start using the term "global warming", you turn it into a charged political issue and lose support. Same thing with men's issues. Talk about the struggles of single fathers and you get a lot of support. Use the term "alimony reform" and you generate opposition.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 08:22 PM
1

What a devastating burn, we can't have that. When it's causing marriages to fail, we need to do something about it. Broken families are not good for society.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 08:21 AM
2

Education is quite closely correlated to income.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:13 AM
2

Removing the baseline qualifications for certain groups to enter doctorate programs, of which there are only so many spots, means that if you are required to prove your qualifications while someone else isn't, it will brew resentment and mistrust, meaning that person will probably face more discrimination as a result. And those who proceed themselves anyway will be lumped into the same group as those who got a free pass. Sounds like the brewing ground for resentment to me. It will only brew rese…
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:05 AM
1

I disagree with that. In certain fields, diversity can be valuable. Scientific research is not one of them.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:00 AM
1

If the military paid enough, they could get all the volunteers they needed. The draft is basically a way for them to save on costs.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 06:44 AM
4

If the military paid enough, they could get all the volunteers they needed. The draft is basically a way for them to save on costs.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 06:43 AM
2

I think it all has to do with how you phrase the issue. I have openly discussed men's issues with many people I know in real life, and received positive responses. The key is to focus on areas where men are known to be disadvantaged, such as child custody and the draft. No one can argue that the draft isn't sexist. Don't attack women or feminists. Instead focus on men's issues, and you may get more support than you think.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 06:42 AM
10

I think it all has to do with how you phrase the issue. I have openly discussed men's issues with many people I know in real life, and received positive responses. The key is to focus on areas where men are known to be disadvantaged, such as child custody and the draft. No one can argue that the draft isn't sexist. Don't attack women or feminists. Instead focus on men's issues, and you may get more support than you think.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 06:42 AM
1

Not really. Skirts can be formal, while shorts are almost universally seen as casual.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 08:43 AM
1

Feminists are not all the same. The run the gamut from fairly moderate to extremely radical. This is true of any social movement. If you want to understand feminism properly, you need to separate the ones that follow the dictionary definition from the ones that are actively anti-male. This will help you advocate more effectively.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 03:38 AM
7

The Washington Human Rights commission would handle such things. See https://www.hum.wa.gov/Employment/ You may be able to contact them and get an informal answer, before filing an actual complaint.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 10:09 PM
9

That could potentially be illegal depending on your jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 09:33 PM
1

I think you have a valid point. It all comes down to the definition of "feminist". When this sub attacks feminists, we are attacking the radical ones who actively hurt the interests of men. This may alienate other women who identify as "feminist" but don't share those values.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 09:30 PM
8

Are women allowed to wear shorts or sandals? If so, this is clearly sexist. If women are wearing dresses and skirts, then I don't think it is sexist. Men can wear kilts or yoga pants as well.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 09:29 PM
1

You need a lawyer. It's hard enough to deal with the court system over things like this when you're local, let alone in a foreign country.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:55 AM
3

I get sexually harassed at work by female supervisors with their provocative attire That isn't sexual harassment. my requests for workplace knowledge are met with sarcasm and irritability Do you have any evidence that this is because of your gender? and female co-workers are being promoted much much faster than me. There could be many possible reasons for this. Again, do you have any evidence that it is because of your gender?
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:54 AM
2

No one seems to care that these women might have done nothing wrong. Their site is obviously vague, but it does say that "I made the decision to host our events as women and non-binary only". If these events are for-profit and open to the public, that is a clear violation of civil rights laws.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:51 AM
3

They were sued for holding a for-profit women-only business networking event in violation of civil rights law.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:50 AM
3

As far as your question on similar groups for men - in the career space specifically, I don’t feel it’s an equivalent in most cases. If one is allowed, then the other has to be allowed. For obvious reasons, we can't allow women to do something and then ban men from doing it. Outside of the professional realm I can come up with many examples where male-only spaces would be appropriate and beneficial, and am actively opposed to arbitrary discrimination lawsuits brought for no reason other than to …
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:45 AM
4

A man found this idea of ambitious women helping each other work hard to get ahead in their careers based on merit was entirely unacceptable, because it’s not fair that men can’t go to events they have zero interest in attending and are not effected by in any way. I don't know whether it's "fair" or not, but the law is the law. California has some strict gender discrimination laws, which were put into place to protect women, but are written in a gender neutral way. Maybe it's true that (most) me…
/r/MensRights13/05/18 07:42 AM
2

Sure you can, but you shouldn't be attacking someone for sharing an experience that is different to yours.
/r/MensRights12/05/18 11:30 PM
1

Boy Scouts is losing members because the Mormon Church decided to pull out. This has nothing to do with the name change or the policy of admitting females.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 04:14 AM
6

Just because you haven't experienced a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 04:12 AM
3

It clearly says family, and that means anyone. If I had a child, I would just go in and use it.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 04:11 AM
1

Thanks for that link.
/r/MensRights07/05/18 02:04 AM
3

My understanding is that male troops are allowed to become co-ed, and many of them are.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 09:44 PM
3

Non-profits also have to conisder money issues. They need enough members to sustain their activities. It's no secret that BSA enrollment has been dropping lately.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 09:44 PM
3

If she is a true, old-school feminist who believes in equality of the genders, she should find the movie to be interesting and thought-provoking. If she is a third-wave feminist, she will be offended by it, and you two are probably not going to see eye-to-eye on gender issues.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 09:40 PM
1

At the time it happens, just ignore them and move on. Don't engage them. They aren't interesteded in an educated debate. They are trying to provoke you, don't fall for it. In the US, you could probably sue the school for creating a hostile educational environment, but I don't know the legal system in the UK.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 02:13 AM
80

While I personally believe that having gender-segregated events and businesses is not necessarily a bad thing, the rules have to apply both ways. If there are laws banning gender discrimination, they need to be enforced against both genders.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 02:12 AM
1

What is your view on feminism, and how you do interpret the idea of feminism? I think that feminism has changed over the years. It started out as a movement for equality, back when women faced many injustices. But more recently, it has become more of an "empowerment" movement, that often seeks to get special treatment for women even when they are no longer disadvantaged. For example, feminists will often support special scholarships for women in science and engineering, even if women are now clo…
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:18 AM
6

Speak up. Send them a letter. The more people that draw attention to these discrepancies, the better.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:08 AM
7

I see nothing wrong with segregated workspaces for either gender. With that said, if they are allowed for one gender, they should be allowed for both.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:06 AM
9

Yeah, I was just telling you the logic behind it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but then I'm not transgender so I don't know what they are experiencing. There is also the argument that it makes it easier for a parent and opposite sex child, or elderly/disabled person and opposite sex caretaker, for example. Family bathrooms can be quite useful, but IMO they should be provided only in addition to male and female bathrooms.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 02:05 AM
12

"Unisex" is not a third sex. It simply means that the bathroom can be used by any sex.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:44 AM
2

No, they aren't. In fact, the leader of NOW has called for it to be legalized. The leader of NOW has supported legalization in the past. https://newsone.com/1788515/now-jocelyn-morris-prostitution/ At least in the US, it's mainly churches lobbying against it.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:22 AM
1

I think the main opposition is from churches and other religious/evangelical groups, which as you may know are very powerful in US politics. Feminists seem split on this issue, some consider it oppressive, others consider it empowering. But I don't think they are too active on it.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:20 AM
19

Several of these have been posted recently. It's usually due to a law requiring single-stall restrooms to be unisex for the benefit of the transgender community. California has this law, and in some other places it isn't a law but is done anyway. I would write a letter to the management pointing out the double standard and that men (especially boys) need privacy as well.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:18 AM
8

Except you can prove your teacher wrong on average. Bring in some graphs, and show the class. Arguing with a teacher never goes well. OP needs to bypass the teacher entirely.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:14 AM
2

Get this on video and post it online, it just might go viral.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 01:13 AM
2

These cases are very fact-specific. Make sure Bob has a good lawyer.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:28 AM
1

Right now it may be geared toward racists and nazis, but if such a policy is implemented, there is a high likelihood that it will be applied against men's rights activists as well.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:27 AM
2

I don't see any difference in terms of how legitimate those two comments are. One is more a extreme position and one is more moderate, but neither one is improper. If the comment said "I am going to go out and kill all the immigrants" then that would be improper.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:26 AM
1

Not only is he the chairman, but he has majority support on the FCC now, so he can do what he wants.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:21 AM
1

Firstly-HOW is my post misleading-I already addressed that issue which you conveniently ignore. So please dont smear unless you have proof. Your post is misleading because men have the same access to stalls as women. The urinals in men's bathrooms are an addition to the stalls, not a replacement. Men can go into stalls and have the same privacy as women. Secondly-Men CANT use stalls. They are NOT cleaned or maintained as well or often as female stalls are and so are sometimes smeared with shit, …
/r/MensRights12/04/18 02:28 AM
1

Barbering isn’t about the length of hair, it’s a skill set. So you're saying that there is no difference in skill set to cut hair of different lengths?
/r/MensRights10/04/18 10:31 PM
3

No one has their "genitalia exposed" in any bathroom, regardless of gender. Males who are uncomfortable using urinals can always use the stalls. Your title is very misleading. The initiative was gender-neutral.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 07:15 AM
1

You may be able to do all of it, but that doesn't mean everyone can.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 07:09 AM
2

I believe the women only hours in gyms and swimming baths that have been successfully contested are generally at public (i.e., taxpayer-supported) facilities. That is a very different situation from a private business.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 07:07 AM
1

What do you propose to do about it, other than, that is, complaining that them thar libruls don’t unnersand menfolk none? Here is what I propose to do about it: Make education, especially in early years, more responsive to the needs of boys. Boys have more energy and are more active. This doesn't mean they are abnormal and need to be drugged. Provide the same resources to boys that you do to girls. If there are women-only scholarships, there should be men-only scholarships. Make disciplinary pol…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:55 AM
3

I think that's accurate. With any movement, it is possible for the entire movement (and the term used to describe it) to be hijacked by a small but extreme minority. The problem is when people confuse the meaning of the term. For example, people want to support feminism because they believe in equality of the genders. Therefore, they support what modern feminists are doing, even if it does not advocate for equality.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 01:28 AM
7

I’ve heard that a lot of MRAs either are, or used to be, feminist. Is this true? I think it depends on your definition. If you define feminism as equality between the genders, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. But these days, unfortunately, feminism seems to have become a movement that advocates for special privileges for women, on the theory that they have been oppressed in the past. Maybe it is only some of them, I don't know. But defining thsee terms is critical before discu…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 07:00 AM
3

I don't know much about the British legal system, but that makes no sense to me. The police should already have the authority to make searches and investigate whatever they need to in relation to the attempted robbery. Making up extra charges to "signal the severity of the situation" makes no sense.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 02:48 AM
3

Also, that study doesn't take into account the fact that many fathers don't even try to get custody because they know they have no chance. It's like saying that citizens are successful in fighting traffic tickets in court 50% of the time. It may be true, but it doesn't account for all the cases that don't get to court. The only ones that do are the ones where the citizen has a very strong argument.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 09:44 AM
1

The dress code for girls has nothing to do with boys. Even all-girls schools have similar dress codes, and are actually often more strict. Certain clothes are not appropriate for school. That goes for both genders.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:40 AM
7

To be honest, it would probably attract mostly gay men.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:35 AM
7

What state/country is this in? In some places, it is actually illegal.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:35 AM
3

Exactly. Men and women sing in different ranges. If a woman can sing in the tenor or bass range, she can join a men's choir. If a man can sing sporano or alto, he can join the women's choir.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 03:30 AM
1

That is a broad generalization. Maybe you were stronger than the women you have been in relationships with. But that's not going to be true of all couples. And even if someone is weaker, it's still possible for them to inflict significant injury on a stronger person.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 04:32 AM
3

Men get abused. Women get abused a lot more. Period. You saying "period" doesn't make it true. There are several studies suggesting that men and women perpetrate domestic violence at equal rates, but women are less likely to be held accountable for it.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 04:31 AM
1

I swear it was 5 minutes. Did they change it recently?
/r/MensRights24/03/18 06:23 AM
6

Only after a certain amount of time. I think it's 5 minutes. Before that, you can cancel without penalty.
/r/MensRights23/03/18 03:30 AM
1

Consider filing a title IX complaint with your school.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 04:00 AM
0

What does this have to do with Men's Rights? Let's not turn this into a place for random political discussion.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 01:27 AM
1

I'd love to have a copy. Thanks.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:28 AM
7

They are putting sanctions on members of "unrecognized single-gender organizations". Ten bucks says that the only "recognized" single-gender organizations will be femals.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 05:42 AM
1

Yes, it could be a violation of title IX. Every college/university has a title IX coordinator. Find out who it is by searching online or asking someone in the administration. Contact that person and find out the procedure to file a complaint.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 05:40 AM
12

Menslib seems to be a feminist sub in disguise.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 05:39 AM
3

I feel like the best thing you can do is to talk to people. Talk to friends, family, and coworkers about these issues. As a woman, your opinions on gender-related matters will automatically carry more weight. For example, when a man complains about bias in the family court system, it's easy for people to say "you're just trying to avoid paying alimony", but when a woman says it, people tend to listen more. The men's rights movement is in its infancy. The first step is to build awareness. Only th…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 05:37 AM
1

There's no way of getting reliable numbers. But I believe that the adage "innocent until proven guilty" is there for a reason. No one should be found guilty of a crime without solid proof, no matter what the odds are that they are guilty.
/r/MensRights13/03/18 08:16 AM
2

I would say accept it and see how it goes. If the agenda is blatant, look for ways to push back. Point out the double standards.
/r/MensRights13/03/18 08:15 AM
0

What law school did you go to? You may want to request a refund of your tuition.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 10:51 PM
1

This thread has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with the MRA position.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 10:51 PM
3

I can't speak for MRAs in general, but I personally believe that sex work that is consensual and non-exploitative should be legal. I also believe that banning it will simply drive it underground, which makes it more dangerous for all parties involved.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 09:41 AM
-3

Oh please, this is the type of nonsense that causes people to think that the men's rights movement is full of a bunch of psychos. We are not the NRA. Let's not do their bidding for them. It is well settled law that schools can assign students to do political assignments. Also, since the overwhelming majority of victims of murder are men, stricter gun control and a reduction in crime would benefit men far more than women.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 09:37 AM
1

I don't have any official information. But I have family in a developing country and I've worked with some of the charities there. Most of them will help anyone. However, we have seen examples (maybe on this sub?) of some that don't.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 07:52 AM
2

I don't think it's "many", although there are some that do.
/r/MensRights06/03/18 07:50 AM
2

What I would suggest is that you be clear with them. "Why are you bringing this up when I came to talk to you about research?" Redirect the conversation to the correct topic and call them out if they bring up irrelevant stuff.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 01:46 AM
1

Not really controversial, these are small waiting areas where all the women are topless with small gowns on. Are you sure about this?
/r/MensRights05/03/18 01:43 AM
6

When did the left stop meaning workers' rights and social funding and start meaning identity politics... Workers' rights and social funding are simply not relevant to US politics. Labor unions are almost non-existent and social funding is minimal. US political races are fought over identity politics.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 01:25 AM
2

Lol no, the price was the same ($5).
/r/MensRights04/03/18 10:06 PM
5

Just one so far.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 05:26 AM
6

I will if they come around again. Just wondering if anyone here knew.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 04:16 AM
5

I wouldn't bother. If someone isn't receptive, don't talk to them.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 04:08 AM
3

Make sure you don't just ask "what about the men?" because that will get you shut down quickly.
/r/MensRights03/03/18 04:08 AM
3

The men's rights movement hasn't really gone mainstream yet. It exists mainly on the internet. Remember that Reddit users skew male. The r/feminism sub is very strictly moderated and people are banned at the slightest hint that they may have an unacceptable viewpoint. If they allowed more people to post, they would be much larger than this sub.
/r/MensRights01/03/18 05:03 AM
2

Don't feel bad, you posted it as received and it's good to start a discussion.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:26 PM
2

Not everyone can make money being a waiter. You need to be able to carry heavy trays, be on your feet for hours, learn the entire menu and be able to answer questions about food preparation and allergens, interact properly with customers, and so on. Many people think it is an unskilled job, and to some extent it is, but that doesn't mean anyone can do it. However I see your point that stripping is reserved for attractive people, mostly female. But I don't see a problem with that. Many jobs are g…
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:28 AM
3

This may be due to the majority of the richest taxpayers being men. If there is a small handful of multi-billionares who are all men and pay a lot of tax, they will skew the data. Looking at the median male and median female would make more sense.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:05 AM
3

Prostitution is legal in some places, including parts of Australia. I don't think it has too much of an effect. There are strip clubs there, often attended by bachelor's parties, which of course would not hire prostitutes.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:04 AM
5

Like, how pathetic does it feel to give somebody money to do something together? It's no different from paying for any other service. I have been to strip clubs and enjoyed them. I am under no illusions that the girls there care for me or are interested in anything other than my money. Similarly, when I go to a restaurant, the server is bringing me food because he/she wants my money, not because he/she cares about me and wants me to eat.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 10:02 AM
2

Did you not even read the article you linked to? It says the following. Then in 2012, a majority of governments decided to sign an agreement that gave the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) greater say over the internet's evolution. However this is not what ended up happening, obviosly because the US didn't go along with it. Instead, the US government asked ICANN to take over the IANA oversight contract (or rather, asked ICANN to decide what to do with it, and ICANN decided to tak…
/r/MensRights25/02/18 08:30 AM
2

Well why don't you explain why handing off ICANN to the UN was a great idea What does the UN have to do with this? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I have no idea where you're getting all this nonsense.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 12:19 AM
1

Likewise.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 11:26 PM
1

The reason Obama gave away control of ICANN was so that unelected, unaccountable international bodies could eventually begin to censor the internet. Oh please. Do you even know what ICANN is or what it does? Take your conspiracy theory nonsense somewhere else.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 09:33 AM
30

I don't think any of us know what the laws are in Brazil. It is definitely discriminatory, but not all discrimination is illegal. Have you discussed this with someone higher up at the school, like a dean or whatever you call them? I would try that first. If it fails, then you can talk to a lawyer, who might be able to pressure them into changing their decision.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:12 AM
2

This is a difficult situation and I admire how strong you appear to be, despite what you have gone through. I would say the best thing to do is to just stick with it until your kids are all adults. It's going to be tough, but you are moving in the right direction. If you feel suicidal, then get medical help. You owe it to yourself and your kids.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:09 AM
1

(1) These are some good points but they don't sway my position, because there is no way of addressing them. Biologically, men cannot give birth, and the entire burden of the actual childbirth is placed upon women. This is determined by God and not something that we can control or equalize. Saying that we should put a higher financial burden on men in order to compensate for the biological burden on women does not make sense. (2) I think that is a possibility. Perhaps if a man "opts out" he shoul…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:06 AM
2

Very disappointing, Canada.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 01:56 AM
3

It certainly is discriminatory, but perfectly legal as far as I know, although I'm not an expert on Canadian laws. I would suggest complaining to the organizers and mentioning that it sends the wrong message to both genders by reinforcing gender stereotypes.
/r/MensRights22/02/18 09:35 PM
2

Is there any way you can convince her you'll be nice and take care of her if she drops the charges or admits you didnt do anything wrong (not sure if that's possible)? No, it is not possible. First of all, the victim cannot "drop charges". Only the DA can do that. Secondly, even if she does agree to such a thing, there is no way of holding her accountable to it.
/r/MensRights20/02/18 06:21 AM
2

It is illegal in the US. But it happens all the time, and it's very difficult to prove.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 04:21 AM
1

Yup, and presumably the former men's restroom was single-stall, and the women's restroom is multi-stall.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 04:20 AM
1

I’m not sure what that has to do with it. CA has a law requiring single-stall restrooms to be gender-neutral in order to make transsexuals more comfortable.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 04:20 AM
5

This is due to a new California law that requires single-stall restrooms to be unisex in order to accommodate transgender customers. While the intent of the law is noble, it results in discriminatory outcomes like this. I would suggest writing a letter to the manager. They need to know that men are noticing these things.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 04:19 AM
4

Where did this happen? In some jurisdictions, you may be able to file a claim against the company.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 08:02 AM
36

Thanks. Ironically, this sub is often listed on lists of "hate subs" that sometimes circulate on the internet. We do try to keep a balanced view, but we are firmly against censorship, which means it's often easy for trolls to come in and make people think that we are misogynistic pigs.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 05:12 AM
6

I think that's a very risky approach. While it may get people to stop and think, ultimately it's reinforcing the notion that men's issues only matter if they are affecting a woman.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 05:11 AM
3

I saw this one over on legaladvice. Frankly, I don't think it had anything to do with gender. It seems like a simple clerical error by a cop that wasn't paying attention.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 01:22 AM
1

That may be true for landlines, but I don't believe it's true for cell phones. Things may have changed though.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 08:59 PM
2

No, the police have no way of knowing who the phone belongs to, unless they get that information from the network the phone is connected to.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 09:32 AM
2

Oh okay, I was thinking it was some breakaway government somewhere lol.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 05:35 AM
5

What is the Republic of Tea?
/r/MensRights11/02/18 04:21 AM
1

I didn't say I agree with the notion, I was just explaining where it comes from.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 10:18 PM
18

This notion comes from the feminist belief that women should not be objectified. Feminists, especially the first wave, fought hard to get men to evaluate women on their intellectual abilities instead of their bodies. However, this caused tension with women who were in jobs like cheerleading, modeling, being a "ring girl" (the girls that wear skimpy outfits and work at boxing rings) and so on. Traditional feminism saw these jobs as improper because they objectified women. Of course, these jobs wo…
/r/MensRights09/02/18 08:53 AM
1

If she finds it, then yes, it could.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:46 AM
4

In that case, you should probably ignore most of the advice on this thread, which was assuming you are in the US. We don't know Italian law here.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:45 AM
1

Where was this?
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:45 AM
2

Saying it to whom? Has she reported it to anyone, or is she just saying it to you? If she is saying it to you, DO NOT RESPOND. Anything you say can and will be used against you. If you respond in a way that can be construed as a confession, you are screwed. Just ignore her. If she has made a formal report to school officials or the police, do not talk to them either. Same thing applies. They are not on your side, they do not want to just get this cleared up. They are fishing for a confession. If…
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:43 AM
1

Yes, on a full train/bus. From what I have seen, it seems to go more by age than gender. If an elderly person is standing, male or female, someone will usually offer a seat.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 05:19 AM
1

I've ridden public transport in Vancouver and Montreal in the last few years, and don't recall seeing this. There were both men and women sitting, and men and women standing. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not the norm based on my (limited) observations.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 05:07 AM
1

though
/r/MensRights06/02/18 04:43 AM
3

men are literally expected to give up their seat for women on public transit and stand as if they’re second class citizens I don't think that is true anymore. I've rode on public transit all over the world and never seen this happen. I think this practice died in the 90s.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 04:42 AM
2

Do not delete any evidence. This relationship is not salvageable. See a good divorce attorney immediately.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 04:40 AM
1

It is certainly illegal in the US, and can be reported to EEOC. I don't know about Canada.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 04:38 AM
3

I would suggest involving your parents or another outside organization before questioning your teacher about this. It could easily backfire on you if the teacher is the vindictive type.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 04:33 AM
1

I don't think he would go for that. His goal is to change the company's culture, not get money.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 09:57 PM
1

I read the links you provided, as well as an article that was cited. The other justices had an informal agreement to manipulate their votes to make sure that Douglas' vote did not affect any cases. That is different from just deciding to not count his vote. To give you an example, if Douglas was about to cast the fourth vote in favor of certiorari, one of the other 3 justices might change their vote to no, in order to prevent Douglas' vote from affecting the outcome. TL;DR: The other justices di…
/r/MensRights05/02/18 11:05 AM
2

Um, no. That is totally incorrect. Justices cannot just decide not to count someone's vote. Please source your claim.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 07:19 AM
5

That's a rather pessimistic view. I don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as you suggest.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 07:18 AM
3

The Democrats totally screwed the pooch when Scalia died. Obama had the chance to change the court from a 5-4 Conservative majority to Liberal majority...but they were so confident of Hillary winning that they let the opportunity pass. No, Obama appointed a replacement. Republicans in the senate used some questionable delaying tactics to delay voting on it.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:46 AM
2

Fun fact: In the 70s, William Douglas got so old that the rest of the court basically ignored him when it came to closely-contested cases. How could they ignore him? He still had a vote.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:44 AM
10

I disagree. People need to speak out. That is the only way to change things. If he does it carefully it should not affect his career.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:40 AM
6

It's great that you're doing this. Just a few suggestions. Make sure you keep the focus on men, and do not attack women or feminists. Sometimes, it's all in the wording. For example, "it is unfair that women get alimony payments after divorce" and "it is unfair that men have to pay alimony after divorce" mean basically the same thing, but they will be perceived differently because one is focusing on the plight of men, and one is attacking women. Have sources, numbers, and data for everything. Pe…
/r/MensRights05/02/18 06:38 AM
1

Because that's why Google fired James Damore?? That certainly wasn't some law firm. It was likely due to concern about lawsuits from women and minorities working at Google. Their lawyers may have advised them that getting rid of him was the safest option.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 04:33 AM
2

I wasn't referring to public transportation. I was referring to private bus companies. But good job putting words into my mouth. You can say that I'm whining, but discrimination is discrimination no matter how trivial it is. When blacks first complained about not being allowed to sit in certain sections in restaurants, people accused them of whining about it as well. The fact that you have the choice to go somewhere else doesn't mean that discrimination is acceptable.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 11:19 PM
2

So answer my question, what law makes it illegal? Last I checked, gender discrimination by private businesses is perfectly legal in most states.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 09:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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