TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

colourful_opinion Archive

View 1 posts and 466 comments by colourful_opinion on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

It's one of those six of one, half a dozen of the other arguments. Men make up the majority of the outright homeless, but women make up more of the working poor. My contention has long been that women can trade one thing to get off the street (and do) and men can't market that one thing as effectively, so they are stuck on the bottom rung while women can generally climb to the next rung up.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 07:01 PM
0

We have taxes because we have public spending, to be used on public goods and services, ie. things that there is no way for people to purchase for themselves. How did you come up with that notion of public services? Public services include all sorts of civic services that people could do for themselves, like garbage collection or running a library, snow removal, street sweeping, etc. Even state or federal services often include things people can handle for themselves, like child support calculat…
/r/MensRights30/04/16 07:00 PM
1

The luxury of a big pool of MPs to pick from. It's still a lousy method of choosing cabinet and it doesn't ultimately fix the issue, which is that there's 8 male candidates at the riding level for every 1 female candidate. His stunt is great as a stunt, but after four or five elections where the 75% of his caucus that are men are forced to make do with 50% of the cabinet posts, we'll see how much those men like losing out on chances for an extra 120K a year in salary in order to fit affirmative …
/r/MensRights30/04/16 05:59 PM
4

No offense meant, but you need an editor. The thrust of your argument is lost because you confound several essentially unrelated topics, and because there are clear grammatical and formatting errors that are difficult to transcend.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 05:55 PM
1

The title is inflammatory, yes, but even with the mitigating factors she's still ultimately only getting 1.5 yrs in jail for intentionally killing someone. Even Criminal negligence causing death in Canada is a 4 yr minimum sentence, with a max of 25, and that's wholly unintentional death. Flip the genders. If some male drug addict was getting beaten daily by his 20 year junior partner, who was also a drug addict, and he finally popped and stabbed her and killed her from behind ... would the stat…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 07:27 PM
4

Even in pretty lenient Canada, murder is a 25 year sentence. We reduce it to manslaughter if it is found that there was provocation worthy enough to justify the drop in charge, but that would reduce her prison sentence to a minimum of 5 years. She's out with less than 1/3 of our minimum sentence, even if he did beat her, and I live in one of the most liberal of liberal democracies. Compare this case to a case in the US where a woman drove over to her ex-husband's home with a loaded pistol in her…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 04:06 PM
1

She's been a politician forever, though, and it's been a reliable pull for votes, through and through. Look at how many US politicians have to pretend to be religious because of how poorly atheism and agnosticism are viewed in the US. This, at least to me, is similar. The stuff she tosses out, like the wage gap, and the "real victims of war" stuff are so boilerplate feminist that it's tough to think that a grizzled veteran of multiple campaigns believes that crap.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:38 PM
3

Man, she's just playing for votes. She's got a wedge issue she knows she can exploit to get female votes reliably, and with which she can siphon moderate votes off of Trump. He's literally the perfect candidate for this kind of ploy, because he so firmly fits the stereotype of the patriarchal male. All she cares about is power, and she'll say whatever she thinks she must in order to get it.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:22 PM
6

What does this have to do with men's rights? I suspect this is just another false flag to "remind" men that we're all predators, but I'll let the hoi polloi decide.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 07:15 PM
4

What's the study that said in cases of unrequited domestic violence that it was a female instigator over 70% of the time? You don't say ...
/r/MensRights27/04/16 03:05 PM
6

I like how he called out the media for their unbalanced reporting around the issue. The reality is that social media drives most of the mob behaviour, though, so while traditional media are dropping the ball in reporting domestic violence accusations fairly, they are only a minority issue on the board.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 02:52 PM
2

There needs to be a Silverman Centre in every major Canadian city. Hell, every city over 100K could probably use a male shelter.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 02:22 AM
3

They define "unfounded" in their document, though, as: "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime." Emphasis mine. That certainly implies that it's not just a general bin for complaints that lack enough evidence, doesn't it? What's also telling is that they state that it is four times higher for this crime than the average for all other crimes in the index.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 02:16 AM
4

Actually ... the FBI document uses the Uniform Crime Survey definition of rape, which only allows female victims. This is actually cited right in the document: "By Uniform Crime Reporting definition, the victims of forcible rape are always female." While that doesn't necessarily preclude a male false accusation, it generally makes it astoundingly difficult because to accuse someone of false rape, you have to be a supposed rape victim as per the definition, first.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 02:14 AM
1

I agree with this one. Maybe you have a chat about why believing in a theory so heavily that you'd buy a t-shirt for it is a little offputting for anyone, because it's a bit aggressive, but then transition into how wearing the shirt makes you feel personally, given that you disagree with a lot of what feminism offers. Maybe she'll figure out that line in the sand political statements on t-shirts aren't the world's best way to lead into social interactions.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 01:31 AM
2

It's the judge's "discretion", not "digression". And, to update you, we actually have one men's oriented DV office in Canada, now, though it is very limited. The Men's Resource Center of Manitoba has four beds for men escaping DV in their Winnipeg office. Everything else, including centers like the Men's Centre in Vancouver are informational only and have no resources to shelter or protect men from violence.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 02:47 PM
1

You can't study history and sit there and argue that women as a group have not been kept down in most civilizations through history. You can't study history and not figure out that history is overwhelmingly written about the utter top echelon of society and not the bulk of humanity? We read about Mark Antony and Cleopatra and Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa and Napoleon, not the rank and file. If they didn't write a book or get written about, we barely know anything about them. For most of …
/r/MensRights25/04/16 05:04 PM
1

You're willing to believe she's a lying narcissist but you can't accept the idea that just maybe she's telling the truth. I find that fascinating. I'm willing to believe that she's like most people, virtually all people, and she hyperbolizes her role in life, hyperbolizes her influence, and hyperbolizes the events that happen to her AND that she happens to be in the prime demographic for attention seeking behaviour. It's no mistake that 99% of all the nude selfies taken on the Internet are taken…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:18 PM
3

She's smaller and weaker than they are and she knows she can't defend herself - she's scared and angry because she can't make it stop and she's sick to death of having to deal with it. Or, because you really don't know this woman from a hole in the wall, you're making up a narrative that you feel fits and the reality is that she's quite likely doing what a lot of people are doing these days and mining for validation and sympathy. I'm in the industry, and NPD is way up, and attention seeking beha…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:40 AM
7

Exactly. There were hundreds of women outside the courtroom after the verdict and #webelievesurvivors trended because of that trial. Honestly, this smells like a fishing expedition looking for shitty commentary to screen cap.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:41 PM
4

What it boils down for me is that these complainants came forward 10+ years after their supposed assaults. The expectation level for these low-grade events, which were only ever going to be Summary Assaults, at best, and thus likely not even to result in a jail sentence, was sky high. If you take these exact events, put them in a non-sexual context, and we're talking about 3 people coming forward a decade after getting their hair pulled, slapped and punched in single incidents that produced no i…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 01:14 PM
5

"Kazoo magazine brings feminism to girls ages 5 to 10, because you’re never too young to be empowered." Or indoctrinated, apparently. It is ironic and funny to me that most of the women that write for this magazine would lose their shit if they felt that some religious authority was looking to target their 5-10 year old girls, but they'll use some of the same tactics, at the same age, to achieve a similar goal themselves.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:49 PM
1

The social stigma of entering the opposite gender's "field" So, nothing systemic at all, just the contents of his head. Unless the system, ie. the school, is somehow keeping him from being a nurse, by turning down male applications unfairly, the state has done its job and made sure there's an open door for everyone. It's up to him to get past his own mental hang ups and to defy peer pressure to apply. The state can't legislate or force opinion in someone's head. All they can do is incent. The te…
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:31 PM
2

There's a lot of repetition in here. But, that being said, there's a couple of gems that really hit home. The point about always being seen as an offender, as violent or as a pedophile? There's not a man out there in the public that hasn't faced that withering stare where you know you're being judged a criminal in some woman's eyes. And the second was that you can only show certain emotions. After 15 years of battling my ex to get access to my son, I was more than frustrated, more than angry, an…
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:22 PM
11

Wow. We've hit critical mass of self loathing when he won't even defend himself from an unjust charge. It's hard to find any kind of sympathy for that level of willful servitude. It's like watching someone latch on their own chains. This can't be real. It's not real ... is it?
/r/MensRights21/04/16 06:24 PM
2

Holy hell, woman. It's not like we don't have terms like "little dog complex" or "Napoleon Complex" that have been around for decades because of the supposed compensation shorter men engage in to help offset the social penalty for being short.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 02:10 PM
5

LOL. Of course, the article fails to mention that despite the fact women make up over half the population, they don't make up over half the population of Reddit, not by any measure, so a flood of primarily male posters when it went default is NORMAL.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 01:48 PM
1

What a great post. Selective history has always been a huge pet peeve of mine.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 01:38 PM
13

That shows why manslaughter would have been the appropriate charge, but it doesn't show why jail isn't even being considered for her sentence. If she followed him to the other room to continue or start attacking him with the knife, she contributed to the confrontation and it wasn't completely one sided. It's hard to argue self defence in this case.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 01:23 PM
1

No, and I don't take the doom and gloom predictions of the apocalypse because of climate change seriously, either.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 01:20 PM
3

This is total hyperbole. I'm a regular here, but it's amazing to me that a piece that ends with the death of the republic is even taken seriously.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 02:54 AM
2

Honest opinion? Change the bottom panel. All you've done is replace gender with generation, and we've got the same issue that we started with, just from a different angle. What matters is not that you're x gender or y generation, it's that you're getting hit. The message we should be selling is that the ONLY salient characteristic is that you're getting beaten. All the rest is just a distraction or worse.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 02:47 PM
2

Don't feed the troll. There's a raft of brand new accounts throwing in intentionally inflammatory shit like this specifically so they can screen cap it and take it to other subreddits and claim this is a hate group. Just downvote it and move on.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 02:44 PM
1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought both the House and the Senate in Florida had Republican majorities, and because the voting fell largely down party lines, this was a case of Scott going against the legislators from his own party, for the most part?
/r/MensRights19/04/16 08:01 PM
3

Women are not more PRONE to rape because they are smaller. They are perhaps more vulnerable to injury IF they get raped, but they are not more prone. The primary correlates with sexual assault are being alone, being drunk or stoned or around someone that is, being in a place where you tend to let your guard down, being with someone you know, and being 15-30 in age. If size mattered significantly, shorter women would get victimized more, and that generally doesn't happen. If you want an act where…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 05:39 PM
1

It is a bit of a trope in the series, sure, but both Luke and Anakin had three movie progressions before they hit their full potential, they both had clear flaws and issues to overcome, and both of them needed guidance and training to even begin the process of growth. Both of them LOST their first major encounter with a force user. She won. In literally every way, Abrams designed her to trump the old movies. Luke and Yoda get vague premonitions ... she gets detailed movies in her head. Other for…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 04:09 PM
1

But in a crowded car, there's about a hundred or more people NOT getting harassed for every one that is, and the vast majority of those trips will go off without an incident for the vast majority of those riders. That's why I would love to see the stats, because I'll bet it's a LOT lower than is being let on, and this is a bit of cherry picking.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 03:06 PM
1

You see her getting dropped off on the planet, and she's maybe 6-7 years old. I don't buy for a second that she was taught to be a pilot, taught several languages, taught to be a master mechanic, etc. all before that date, let alone that ten years in the desert scavenging wouldn't turn all that education into mush. She's not just good. She's as good as Han, who has owned and worked on the Falcon for twice as long as she's been alive. She just walks in, flies it off the planet, and she's an exper…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 02:58 PM
5

It's not just exceptional use of the force, but also totally over the top levels of skill that don't jive with her context. She has no money, no education past early childhood, she scavenges for food, and she somehow is a master mechanic and pilot? Speaks fluent binary droid without owning one? Speaks fluent Wookie when the Wookies are paranoid about their language and she lives on an almost completely deserted planet? Can step onto a 50 year old freighter and knew enough about it to finish Han'…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 01:52 AM
2

This smells like a troll post looking for juicy posts to mine and send back to the home base, but I'll bite. There's absolutely nothing wrong with female leads. I love them. I can't speak for everyone else, here, but I really hate artifice in movies. I don't care if that artifice is a less than subtle product placement, or some ham-fisted preaching by the director. If it jars me out of the story and away from the characters, I pretty much loathe the movie. It takes a pretty deft hand to do thing…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 01:36 AM
3

The problem with really low statistics is that even a mild increase of a few cases can set a new record. I'd love to see what the rate is for incidents/km traveled because I'd bet it's virtually non-existent.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 01:17 AM
2

Are you an adult or near to one? Why not make up your own mind? Many of the complaints in here are being lodged against category thinking, ie. smearing all men for x supposed crime. If you think that this particular feminist is worth the investment, they go ahead and make it. You don't need the yes/no of some anonymous person on Reddit to decide whether the friendship is viable if your personal judgement on her character is favourable. You'll know if she stops being reasonable, or if you hit on …
/r/MensRights18/04/16 05:55 PM
5

I don't get their point. Women invest more time and effort into virtually every small little life task than men do. Occasionally this will result in a tiny little cost savings when those tasks have some financial benefit to booking early, but in a lot of cases this means big extra costs in both money and time. They aren't better at "adulting" because they obsess and devote WAY too much mental and physical energy to tasks that simply aren't worth it. The measly 17 bucks they save by booking fligh…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 04:26 PM
1

A witless, useless, goofball that has spent years being trained as a hardcore trooper no less. Yeah, don't get me started on Finn. He is by far and away the most disappointing character in the new movie. Kid taken from his parents at birth and subjected to harsh New Order conditioning to ensure loyalty and combat discipline in their troops, but for some reason it doesn't take with him and he rebels? That sounds like a freaking AWESOME basis for a character. There's so many ways he could have bee…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 01:29 PM
2

And yet there's legions of male geeks that grew up on Ridley, Lara Croft, Buffy, the women on the Serenity, etc. Hell, a huge swath of us use predominantly female avatars in video games. We generally LOVE powerful female heroes in our movies, games and books. What do we hate? Blatant pandering. Visible and obtrusive lecturing and hectoring. Clear changes to the plot to satisfy some agenda. When Furiosa literally uses Max as a rest for her rifle because he's already fired two shots and missed, on…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 03:44 AM
0

By this logic, any truly overweight person should be getting paid as much or even more than a professional athlete, because their energy expenditure to even remotely approximate that level of performance would be tremendous. Of course, the reality is that no one earns based on subjective "worth". We all earn based on profitability related to our work and market forces around supply and demand for our skills. When the average crowd for a NWSL game is 4800, the average for the WNBA is 7100, and th…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 03:33 AM
2

It varies from state to state because each state sets it's own rules and regulations around child support. The federal government governs inter-state issues which help with enforcement, but not the actual rates and schemas. Some states are worse than others, but virtually all states are frankly terrible compared to Europe or Canada when it comes to child support. At least up here in Canada we have a general federal guideline for child support that everyone refers to and it's kept within reason. …
/r/MensRights17/04/16 11:03 PM
3

Hey, at least you retards self identify so the mods can do their thing.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:22 AM
5

You would use logic as part of the argument in court to show that it's hate speech, though. Showing that the stats are intentionally skewed would be part of the argument.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 12:30 AM
40

How is that crazy? What if all of those were stats about black violence and this was a black man living in a predominantly white residence? Can you imagine having to walk past that every day? This is what lawsuits are for. You think someone that wanted that shit up is going to voluntarily take it down because your erudite and witty rhetoric has convinced them of the error of their ways?
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:04 PM
3

Where's Dude41? This is totally his bailiwick. In his absence, I'll fill in: Chivalry is shit. If you wouldn't pull over to pick up a drunk-ass man on the side of the road, don't pull over and pick up a drunk-ass woman on the side of the road. If you want equality, you have to shut off that preferential treatment. Only when women have 100% of the responsibility for their own safety and security, both bodily and financially, will they actually figure out how much chivalry was padding up their lif…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:09 PM
2

In 2013, someone took the bright idea of looking at prison rape (it's excluded from virtually all rape stats because it's collected separately) and combining it with the normal statistics. This was the result
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:30 PM
2

Entering the body doesn't have to be done with a sexual organ, it can be done with a hotdog and still be classified as rape. Sure, but that means for a man to be raped he has to be anally penetrated, which pretty much completely removes women from being perps. The standard rules out the normal method that men and women use when having sex ... for men. She can tie him down, force him into sex over and over and over, and as long as she doesn't haul out a dildo or a cucumber or use her fingers on h…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:27 PM
3

98% of the rapes on women where done by a man And you don't see how they reached that statistic when their definition of rape includes: concisting of seksualy entering the body Oddly enough, if you define rape as penetration, the sex with the penetrative sex organ becomes the overwhelming majority of your perps. What a surprise!
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:19 PM
3

Exactly. Without prison factored in, you have male on female and female on male being your primary descriptions. Hetero sex is the big majority of the sex in our culture, so it stands to reason that each sex will predominantly be predated on by the opposite sex. Add in prison, where it's 90-95% men, and you drive up male victimization AND perpetration, heavily. This also stands to reason. So, we're in a situation where feminists either ignore prison sex because they don't want to admit that with…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:14 PM
1

Yet another parent cum social engineer who does a real time, life experiment with her child to cater to her frigging ideologies. I guess I shouldn't complain. Parents like this keep me in patients.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 06:33 AM
19

Of course, the response to his comments doesn't deal with the fact that the people ostensibly being triggered want to remove this content for OTHER PEOPLE, and not just themselves, by removing it from curricula in its totality, or requiring trigger warnings because as grown adults they can't be expected to vet their own content. Whine all you want when you're whining to yourself. The minute you impact a class dozens or even hundreds of other students are taking, you're going WAY over a line.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 10:09 PM
3

"As McAndrew's study shows, however, there is some truth to the idea that all creeps are dudes." Or that all the idea that men are creepy is pretty pervasive and easily sold, or that we tend to apply a different set of standards and labels when faced with the same behaviour by women, ie. crazy cat lady?
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:25 PM
6

The article is getting nailed in the comments, though. At the very least, vocal members of the public can see through the film flammery.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:16 PM
1

Decent people tend to buck terrible systems. That doesn't mean you shouldn't examine or fix the terrible system.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:05 PM
24

What does he get to cut off if he catches her cheating?
/r/MensRights11/04/16 10:19 PM
1

What about constitutional challenges on legislation?
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:52 PM
3

It depends upon the client base. I'm not sure the hair, the piercings or the tattoos would be a big hit in elder care, where seniors tend to get angry and upset over really minor stuff.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 04:57 PM
5

I think you need to consider the possibility that your premise might be flawed from the outset. It seems you're simply accepting it as fact without testing it first. I suggest you do some digging into hidden camera group interview studies, because in those studies the introduction on a novel attractive female to the group starts a bevy of slurs and negative comments about her appearance and behaviours from ... her fellow women.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 04:43 PM
1

The multiple knobs on a cat's penis isn't to scrape out semen from other suitors, then? The knotting behaviour of a dog isn't to maximize the chances of its semen impregnating the bitch? Not sure I agree with the premise.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 04:42 PM
8

Other than the fact they took the time to link lines from 8000 scripts to actors, but only used 2000 films in their dataset in the end? Without some rationale for why they pared it down, the suspicion is some cherry picking. No one does all that work linking up in the lines only to not use the scripts for the dataset.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 03:12 PM
1

Finn is a lot of things. He's illogical because no one who understands the kind of cost involved in programming a child from birth would do it with someone they intended to be a sanitation worker. He's a foil, because JJ Abrams clearly intended him to be somewhat of a doofus as a contrast to the Mary Sue of Rey. The jabs made at men with him as the exemplar, such as "Why do you keep trying to hold my hand?" are part of the narrative JJ constructed. But an MRA?
/r/MensRights10/04/16 02:07 AM
3

But it's the gap between the risk and the response that makes it a panic. The worst panics are the one where there's literally zero risk, but that doesn't mean that a severe overreaction to a real-world risk isn't also a panic. There's a tiny risk of someone's child being abducted, so the risk is actually real. It's not invented. Emptying out public streets, totally changing how we handle "play dates", and the pedophilia and abduction hysteria in the media is the severe over reaction to that rea…
/r/MensRights09/04/16 05:00 PM
157

"Not only will alimony be affected by the proposed legislation, but also timesharing,” Quick said. “The bill is calling for a 50/50 timeshare split. This affects child support payments. More timesharing equals less payments. Regardless if the child is more bonded with one parent over another, or if one parent works longer hours, or if the parent has emotional or substance abuse issues — there will be an equal split." Bullshit. The bill allows a judge to overrule the 50/50 presumption in cases wh…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 02:46 PM
5

If the main motivation were to dominate and show power, why would they use their penis? Because we've inflated rape to the upper echelon of crime, making it a super crime, and so the worst possible thing you can do to a woman, at least in their heads, is not to kill them, maim them or torture them ... no, no, no, it's to have sex with them against their will.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 03:07 PM
1

Right. Well, my sister is a nutritionist that works with infants exclusively at my local children's hospital and she thinks you are frigging hilarious. All those hospitals using formula and not a one of those doctors and nutritionists know a thing, right? Whey and corn surup ... you need to get off the natural health blogs for a bit, man. You are at critical mass o' bullshit.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 03:38 AM
1

Good lord. Entire generations of kids in North America were raised on formula, and modern formulas are better than ever in replicating the nutrition of breast milk. There is no need at all to call people who opt for formula pr pumping idiots. Sure, breast is best, but the alternative is still pretty damn good. So, this isn't a "need" is it, unless your definition of a need varies drastically from the common usage of the word. And beetus juice? Hardly. No diabetes link with formula.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 02:48 AM
18

There's Florida's Chapter lobbing against the Florida Alimony bill, which included shared parenting as part of the bill. Here's New York, too. You don't have to look very far. The proposition to universally oppose this is regularly proposed at their conventions, and examples are online for those, as well. Note that their opposition extends to even rebuttable assumptions, so even if a judge can overrule equal parenting because there's some family issue that warrants sole custody, they still aren'…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 05:14 PM
2

Man, you're stretching beyond all belief if you think that's any kind of connoted belief of mine. I'm arguing to replace both men's and women's washrooms, entirely, with neutral stalls. MANY restaurants and public establishments have already done so across Europe for little more than space issues. When they don't have space for two, they have one, and it's shared. Sure, you can't do this in high volume situations, like at a football stadium where 70 000 people have to take a piss at half time an…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 04:16 PM
2

It's a great idea if the organization in question can afford the space and cost issues.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 01:52 PM
10

This is really surprising. Melbourne, AUSTRALIA, allowed some common sense to creep into what's been a pretty steady stream of anti-male politics and rulings? Say it isn't so! The man is very lucky. Any lottery win that occurs within the bounds of a marriage in North America is fair game in a divorce in both Canada and the United States. Hell, we've even had closed and finalized divorces get re-opened, years later (the record here in Canada is 13 years later, so far) so that the woman can go bac…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 01:20 PM
25

This kind of thinking is all over this space. Why would NOW want to lobby against virtually every form of equal parenting legislation? The loss of control matters more than the equalization of parenting.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 01:13 PM
2

I hear you. It's not like I haven't written some pretty pointed poetry about my ex. I'm just not stupid enough to a) smoke meth, and b) put that kind of poetry on Soundcloud. Sure, I have artistic license, but if I dice with the line around threats and my ex is still out there and my kid is still out there, I'm leaving it up to the interpretation of a judge on whether that's really a threat or not. I'm not that dim.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 05:16 AM
1

What I detest is the framing of this argument in binaries. It's not "shut up, emotionally stunted men" vs. "open, emotionally verbose men". Contextually, there's times and places where both approaches are appropriate or even healthy, and framing it such that we can only go one route or the other is ridiculous. Secondly, we can't ignore that men have significantly higher concentrations of our primary hormone governing aggression, and it plays a big role in how we handle stressful situations. Men …
/r/MensRights05/04/16 06:19 PM
9

Waiting for the reverse educational program where we generalize about women's inability to handle tough situations and teach them to have some intestinal fortitude and stoicism.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 03:33 PM
1

Sure, but with the caveat that most parental interference or alienation is engaged in by women, because they are typically the ones with the primary care necessary to control physical access. The risk would be lower with a man, but not non-existent, and some people might find the lower risk acceptable.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 07:51 PM
1

I think you're missing the point. The fact the ex is out of the picture may be the result of him running out, or that might be just what she told you, and the real reality is that he's been trying to stay involved in the kid's lives and dear old Mom has been running interference. I've lived it. The point is that whether either situation is the reality, or some mix in the middle, you will become the replacement Dad at some point, and that means all sorts of issues for you. Even if it's totally th…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 06:49 PM
6

I agree, but it was the players that chose to frame this as gender discrimination to try and drive negotiation forward, and now that they have set the table, they are going to have to eat the meal. If they play hardball and strike, and continue to pitch this as gender discrimination, the federation should chop the NWSL money out altogether and let the league flounder. If the players go nuclear, the federation should as well, and the federation would be well within their rights to ask the female …
/r/MensRights03/04/16 05:38 PM
1

The problem with your funny numbers is you can't even define your sample. Yeah, the "funny numbers" of the actual Statscan case figures I linked to last time. The only one inventing figures here is you, and it's because you want to paint a certain picture that isn't supported by the actual stats.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 02:27 PM
1

That applies to the conviction rate for all crimes. Sure it does, but those are still crimes that hit court and do NOT result in a guilty verdict. Removing them from your stat artificially inflates your conviction rate, heavily. It is very hard to defend yourself in a trial where there is no evidence to test. To the contrary, it is easier to defend when you have only the credibility of one witness to challenge and no other corroborating evidence or witnesses. This is precisely why the 42% convic…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 06:18 AM
3

That's after all the stays, reroutes, withdrawn charges, etc. were taken out, though. I looked at the 2011 numbers today as a lark and the overall percentage of charges that hit court that got a guilty verdict was 42%, which was the lowest of all the violent crimes, but not by much. Summary assault was next at 50%. Given how many sexual assaults have no witnesses other than the supposed victim, I was honestly surprised that the conviction rate was as high as it was, to be honest.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:53 AM
1

Here is a site that has a petition to get a motherhood.gov so that women can have similar support in becoming better mothers. With all due respect, you understand why the male version was made first and the female version needs women to petition to get it, right? The base assumptions around who needs the help most are pretty clear.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 08:28 AM
4

'The federation reiterated its belief that it's been a global leader in its investment in women's soccer, pointing out that the federation spends $3.5 million annually to keep the National Women's Soccer League in business. On the eve of the league's fourth season, U.S. Soccer says it has invested approximately $10 million.' I warned you USWNT ... you bite the hand that's feeding you, ie. keeping your league alive, and you'll find that money dries up, tout suite.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 03:03 AM
2

My Mom saw it in my face. She didn't need a phone. Benefits of having a sensitive kid, I guess.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 02:56 AM
7

It's probably got several drivers: a) Massive social difference in how we view male and female victimhood. Look at the comments section of any article on one of these female teacher stories, if she's attractive. The commentary is full of comments about how he probably loved it, wanted it, how this was some "prize" that other men would kill to get, etc. b) Males under report victimization more heavily than women do, routinely, and that's clear across all types of crime, not just sexual assault. c…
/r/MensRights02/04/16 02:55 AM
9

And yet women file the vast majority of divorces ... is this discrepancy between men and women because women are still actively seeking a fantasy, and cling to it despite growing evidence it never existed in the first place?
/r/MensRights02/04/16 02:47 AM
2

Perhaps, but we've already seen the benefit of sharing risk across the population via car insurance, and the public seems to be pretty accepting of that practice. I think a lot of men would accept that a small portion of our taxation would be going to support women via services that are helping them have kids alone, and find that preferable to specific awards like child support that hit them personally and directly. My child support has cost me over 300K to date. Having "society" cover that via …
/r/MensRights02/04/16 02:31 AM
2

A society without marriage would be highly dysfunctional. With all due respect, how can you possibly know this? We've never had a society bigger than a small tribe where marriage hasn't been a major part of the social structure. Fluid romantic and sexual relationships might be very tenable for a society, with the right mindset. Without the long-term stable relationship marriage provides, children will be raised with insufficient resources as the parents Could we not raise children collectively, …
/r/MensRights01/04/16 04:45 PM
2

Society would have to fall a loooooooong way, and millions and millions of women would have to categorically give up on marriage and relationships for that to happen. I think that's a dystopia that will only ever live in someone's imagination, not a possible reality.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:55 PM
1

Not too much sympathy for a guy who moves to Sweden and leaves his ex as sole caregiver for their two minor children He's 55. She's 52. It doesn't take much more than basic math to realize that these are virtually guaranteed to be adult children living at home rather than minor children. His spousal support is described as being for her and the kids in the article, but this isn't child support and that's a misrepresentation of what a spousal support order is actually for. To give you an example,…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:52 PM
1

Not really, no. The children reside with her, so core child support would be based on HIS income, not hers. The only factors are number of children, province of origin (not sure how they handle him moving to Sweden) and gross income. Schedule 7 expenses get split by the ratio of the two incomes, though, so her income does factor into things like braces or other "beyond ordinary" expenses. Spousal support, though, is a different boat. Spousal support typically gets awarded when there's a pretty r…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:43 PM
1

Just let the market take care of itself. Women already do the bulk of the child care themselves, anyway, and all that's done for them is give them a nice, juicy 28 cent penalty that's mostly due to the cost of time and flexibility needed in one's work schedule to do that parenting. If they want to double down, go for broke, and do it 100% without men, without even getting child support? Hell, sister, go to town. Then, when the gap is 40 cents, not 28 cents, because an even greater percentage of …
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:33 PM
3

There is a CBA, but the last CBA for the USWNT expired years ago without a replacement, and negotiations have gone nowhere, so this is likely an attempt to spur negotiation by using public perception to drive the narrative. The players are likely getting desperate for a deal and decided to play hardball. It is a risky ploy because the USSF is subsidizing wages in the NWSL, and helping prop up that league. Making them out to be sexists to force their hand is going to sour the pot. If I was the US…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:20 AM
5

Those figures cannot be accurate. The entire program brought in over 100M last year, with 37M in royalty and sponsor revenue alone. Are you talking net, after expenses, or honestly talking revenue? And, where are you getting splits out by gender? All their documents on their site do not drill to the specific teams.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:09 AM
1

Where did you get those numbers? Their annual fiscal reports don't split out on gender, so if you have a source for these, it would really help to open up the discussion. Also, the USSF pays for their wages in the NWSL, so we have to ensure that their full remuneration is being considered, not just what they are paid for the national team work.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:40 PM
0

You DO understand that the benefits for being a woman in our CJS extend far past getting substantially shorter sentences, and involved statistical benefits to a) being arrested less often for the same activity, b) charged less often for the same behaviour, c) routed to alternative justice more often, and d) offered more plea bargains with bigger discounts, etc. So ... the fact that charges are still in consideration is a mite bothersome. The rhetoric from the police officer, where he seems to be…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 06:35 PM
1

Sure, she MAY face jail, because charges are being considered. So, we don't really know if the ultimate penalty will be "appropriate" do we?
/r/MensRights31/03/16 04:08 PM
9

Giant hint to the USWNT: You have about 12 players whose salaries in the NWSL are being paid directly by the USSF, so the USSF is paying them twice, once for their national team play, and again for their club team play. The Federation is doing this out of the goodness of their heart, because these are two totally independent organizations, for no other reason than they want to help directly subsidize a women's pro league in North America. You sue the people who are doing you this favour, and the…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:40 PM
9

That was for 2015 only. They don't "bring" in more money than the USMNT, which implies that they routinely out earn them. They "brought" in more money in the specific year of the Women's World Cup where the USWNT won the entire championship and literally hit their maximum earning potential. It's a cherry picked stat. Edit: Did you know the USSF also pays the daily salaries of about a dozen USWNT members on their respective club teams so that those club teams don't have to be absorb the big salar…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:17 PM
10

Appropriate response Was it? The Marissa Alexander case showed that even in a state with a "stand your ground" law and the fact the bullet didn't actually hit her ex-husband, the fact she went to his home with a firearm in her car, left his home to retrieve the firearm from her vehicle and returned, then fired into a room with her ex-husband and children in it was enough to that she faced jail. Think about it. This woman kept a firearm in her car, and when she saw her ex's vehicle, she used her …
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:09 PM
2

I love the apologists responding to the top comment. The top comment should have just linked in a half a dozen studies showing parity or near parity right from the outset. He left himself open for rebuttal because he didn't anticipate the "Nuh huh, it is too!" argument.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:19 PM
1

It does not serve the best interest of the children, any presumption How so, when the presumption can be over ridden by a judge any time the judge feels that a specific situation needs there to be only one parent with custodial decision making? They will literally invent anything, fabricate anything, or insinuate anything to kill this bill, clearly.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 11:25 AM
5

Her weapons are magical, and Superman's been portrayed as vulnerable to magic, several times. This vulnerability is why Captain Marvel can battle Supe to a standstill on occasion. She's not typically stronger than Supe in the comics (rather much better trained and faster) so if this has been added to the movie, Snyder's likely doing his normal grrrrrlpower BS.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 05:57 AM
3

I'm guessing he means it's a good start, but he'd like to get the numbers up for women by doing various things, such as encouraging applicants to STEM. There's two basic issues he has: a) He's fixated on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, so he'll force the outcome with quotas rather than accept that an equally open door doesn't always produce an equal number of every demographic slice that walk through it. Equality of opportunity still allows for differences in choices, bu…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:10 PM
1

The applications data tells the tale. Women utterly dominate the applications for Humanities, Arts and Languages, and virtually all of those students exit High School with the marks to get into STEM if they so choose. If they don't even apply, there's not much you can do to help them past that point.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:04 PM
4

Huh? It's almost like you mentally edited out the "who decided to go for paternity tests" out of the title or something.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 11:46 AM
3

To put it another way, a MRA is a SJW. That's like arguing that a closet racist, who pretends in public that they are not racist but slags black people in private, is the same as someone who is actually not a racist. If MRAs have to come along and lobby for inclusion of male issues in the public discourse, then SJWs have provably failed to produce ... on purpose. They didn't just forget, or misplace men's issues, they consciously left them off. We're egalitarians, and they just pretend they are …
/r/MensRights28/03/16 11:31 AM
6

If you measure feminism by actions, wouldn't you argue that Trudeau made a good move by "calling himself" a feminist? It could only help the cause. You're missing the point. Identifying with a cause that's provably single-gender in its focus isn't a plus for me. It's a negative. When he says, when asked about the 60-40 split between women and men at university, that it's a "good start", I shake my head with incredulity. What would be a better start? 70-30 women? 80-20 women? That kind of asinine…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:15 AM
6

I measure feminism by actions, legislation and invested effort, not rhetoric and PR. Once you get past the rhetoric about equality, you find that virtually all the money, all the hours, and all the invested political capital advance only women's issues, legislation that only benefits women, and openly opposes and blocks attempts to advance men's issues in society. I want an egalitarian and someone devoted to true equality at the helm of my country's government, not some sell out that's bought in…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 04:30 AM
20

The more he speaks the less I respect him. I'm with you there. Anyone that says they will continue to use the term feminist until it doesn't generate a reaction is so utterly oblivious to the last 60 years of gender politics that it's hard to take him at all seriously. How can people NOT react when the modern variety of feminists are tossing around killallmen hashtags? Does he think that kind of thing is so benign and innocuous that all men should turn a blind eye or turn the other cheek? That m…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 07:03 PM
1

Sure, it's jarring for the second or two until you realize what they named it after rapeseed, and then there should be no more need to lose one's shit. Why should we cater to this woman's ignorance of the term?
/r/MensRights27/03/16 12:42 AM
3

"What is uncontested by all parties is that the sex was rough sex." There was no sex, so it's pretty contested, actually.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:37 PM
2

Well, at least part of the problem with the paper is the definition of sexual assault used in the survey, which was: "Forced sexual activity, an attempt at forced sexual activity, or unwanted sexual touching, grabbing, kissing, or fondling." This deviates from the criminal code statute, which requires force, a threat of force that's reasonable to believe will occur, or the use of a weapon in a coercive manner. There's virtually no one on the planet that's had any kind of relationship of any leng…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 08:49 AM
1

The 460 000 stat itself is sourced from another paper, which is found here. The rate cited for sexual assault for women was 35/1000, which when multiplied by the percentage of the population that's adult women, gets you the 460 000. Seeing as the police saw 23 534 sexual assaults actually reported in 2004, for men and women combined, this 460 000 represents an under reporting factor of at least 20:1.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 07:59 AM
1

If he had not had the foresight to keep his correspondence with these women for a decade, he could very well be facing a life sentence. I believe he was charged with the Summary version of the charges, so he would have been only in the clink 18 months at maximum. We're only talking isolated incidents, with single punches, short chokes of a few seconds, hair pulling, slaps ... we're not talking about him raping someone or busting bones.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 06:32 AM
1

It's a nice word that removes all the other isms. Once you presume equality for all of mankind, then racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc. all fall by the wayside. It's a lofty goal, but it's a damn site better than feminism, which has turned into a pack of people saying they are for equality, but all their labour, time and money goes towards only advancing women.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 07:13 PM
13

Yes, but that's always been the case, though. I can show you 30 year old comics where Superman's mocked as a boy scout, Batman's the inveterate pragmatist, Flash is the jokester, Green Arrow is the libertarian lone wolf, etc. This SJW talking about how this is all new is totally baloney. The OP's point is still sound. In addition to their long running differences, most people in comics share that stoicism. That's what makes them heroes and not just dicks in tights. Whether we're talking Wonder W…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 04:55 PM
1

What he is experiencing is the direct cause for the laws and social ills that cause men trouble. Except the rates are so vastly different that we're into the field where I say: "His thought pattern is only unreasonable if it's formed from too few examples to be justifiable." Think about infidelity vs. kidnapping a child. Here in Canada, about 350 kids go missing every year, and about 300 of those are abducted by their parents or relatives as part of a custody dispute, so only about 50 of those k…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:59 PM
5

So you can see nothing positive in the tone of that piece at all? Nothing to be optimistic about? Oh I see positives, but in my opinion, pretending that our biggest issue is old social roles is just an attempt to brush away or ignore the fact that they themselves are the direct opposition in most cases.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 07:46 AM
1

Yes. It is your problem. We're all informed by our experiences, and it's perfectly normal to get gun shy or risk averse if our history has been profoundly negative. His thought pattern is only unreasonable if it's formed from too few examples to be justifiable or is coming out of thin air. If he's got past, he's got past, and every bad relationship or failed marriage takes its toll. At some point, you say "no mas" and refuse the risk, even if there's still theoretically good people out there on …
/r/MensRights22/03/16 06:48 AM
2

What province, Rick? I'm in Alberta these days and our family law legislation out here doesn't even really use the term custody anymore. It's all guardianship, and both parents are guardians by default, simply by parentage. Even Grandparents can make a pitch to be guardians in front of the court out here. It's been a refreshing breath of air after dealing with my ex in Ontario.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 05:28 AM
8

That's a bit of work, yes, but if the worst thing she can envision for men is that they have to struggle with antiquated social roles that no longer apply, she's missing the forest for the trees. My son's got to navigate old social roles at the same time he's battling feminist groups actively working to keep his concerns at the bottom rung of society. As much as women like to carp about the "old days" when they were chained to stoves and were little more than baby making machines, we're slowly b…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 04:35 AM
1

So, there's been a drop in nurse's pay since men started going for it? I doubt it. Again, supply and demand. Health care has been a big growth field for years, now, and we don't graduate enough health professionals of ANY GENDER to meet demand. Besides, you're comparing fields where we add a pittance of men to the pile to fields where women jumped to parity and right past to take it over, like education. Men were already in the work force. Women were the millions large pile of labour that got ad…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 10:18 PM
1

Really. How do you explain the pay drop in teaching and secretarial work when women moved in, then? Supply and demand. You can't jack up the supply of labour in any field by hundreds of thousands of new workers, if not millions, and not see the pay plummet. If any Tom, Dick, Harry, Sue, Sally and Margaret can do the job, don't expect it to pay well. If you read the study, you'll see they controlled for every factor but the size of the available labour pool and how much it increased with the infl…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:57 PM
2

No longer can the gap be dismissed with pat observations that women outnumber men in lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work. vs the immediately following sentence: A new study from researchers at Cornell University found that the difference between the occupations and industries in which men and women work has recently become the single largest cause of the gender pay gap, accounting for more than half of it. Riiiight, then. That's some kind of crazy mental gymnastics when you literally…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:53 PM
3

I love how the DRA is more concerned about the misuse of their logo than they are about the men being targeted.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 01:20 PM
1

Of course, he can afford to walk away from 13M in wages because he's made over a hundred million in salary over his career, so he wants for literally nothing. Why are we rewarding one of the richest people in the US for doing something virtually no normal man in the US can afford to do, again? It's not a principled stand when he walks away from baseball to a life of wealth and ease.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:48 PM
1

That's projected over the next five years, so the debt hasn't been accrued yet.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:45 PM
4

Well, the reality is that Elliott killed people, but this anonymous poster hasn't, so you're really kind of stretching here to link the two. Not everyone that dislikes how women date is a wannabe killer. Killing is actually really rare, so let's not beg the question, here.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:12 PM
9

Best post here. Two idiots generalize like champions about the opposite sex and it goes viral because it just caters to and reinforces the stereotypes both groups seemingly want to hear about their opposites. News at 11.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:16 PM
6

The subtext is the threat if that if they don't date him they will get hurt and have to fear rapists more. Or that he's seen enough women date douchebags after saying they like nice men that he's frustrated with the disjunct between their words and their actions? Frustrated enough to post a passive-aggressive little rant? Also, men that do well with women are scum. Or that he's seen enough douchebags dating these women (who say they like nice men) that he's figured out that's is a big enough iss…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:13 PM
8

Men’s rights activists, those most wont to fearmonger over male suicide, have set about playing feminism at its own game. Just as feminist campaigners use shocking stats about domestic violence to prove that all women, regardless of circumstance, are oppressed, men’s rights types present male suicide as proof of the psychic imperilment of all men. Or ... we're doing it to show by comparison that the feminist claims are a bit overblown?
/r/MensRights17/03/16 03:46 PM
3

I would have easily agreed with calls to make domestic violence policies gender-neutral. As time has gone by I have moved away from there. What we need are not gender-neutral policies, but gender-inclusive policies. You need gender neutral MESSAGING, but you need gender inclusive policies on intake and treatment. The two are not mutually exclusive, and you can paint the picture that you want to paint (that all victims get treated, period) at the same time as tailoring the treatment to their spec…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 03:42 PM
0

Gotcha. If you kill Ted Bundy, it's murder. If the state kills Ted Bundy, it isn't. Exactly when did we "all" agree to that? Did i miss the referendum? Oh, so this is a "I want to have the power to opt out of society whenever I want to" argument, where if you didn't consciously opt in at birth, you think you should be able to take the law into your own hands whenever you want. And you say arguing for the state to handle our justice is simple. Man, you're a walking talking toddler.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 03:23 PM
1

If guilt is beyond doubt, why is there a need for a "neutral" arbiter? I've already stated this. When emotion is involved, the punishment rarely fits the crime. When people will suggest castration for cheating or even death as an appropriate punishment, you NEED a neutral body and a neutral standard, or you drive over that line consistently. How convenient that it is only when the state says so that killing is not murder. Yes, once the state has provided a fair trial, adjudicated by someone trai…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:03 AM
1

I disagree. If guilt is beyond doubt, there is no real point in going to court. Sure there is. The court is the neutral arbiter and part of its role is to ensure the punishment fits the crime. If you're popping off and killing someone, you're just another murderer. The state, even in states with the death penalty, is there so ordinary citizens don't get their hands dirty. Justice and law are not the same thing. Yeah, and people have been wrong so often in administering the former, that we've com…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:11 AM
2

Even if the killer is caught dead to rights, everyone is due their day in court and the penalty for murder is already set. You undermine the very rule of law when you set it aside and decide to take it into your own hands.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:12 AM
2

How is that any different from now, other than some certainty because there's a signed document? Her "guarantee" now means taking someone to court to establish paternity and force payment.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 03:15 AM
21

Do you get how childish that sounds? That's like telling women that they should get all their financial ducks in a row, ensure they will continue to have marketable skills and knowledge and have a contingency plan to phase out of a marriage before he's even asked ... because they need to be prepared for the worst, ie. divorce, before they even get married. Yeah, in theory that would be awesome, and alimony would be a thing of the past, but in any real world society where most people are one or t…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 12:26 AM
-3

And what, pray tell, were they doing? I'd love to hear what you think was going on inside their heads, seeing as we're going from second hand information already.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:04 PM
6

That site is hilarious. I love the link below ... "My boyfriend is a squirter!"
/r/MensRights13/03/16 03:51 PM
7

Yeah, but I didn't get that from the OP's statement. It's pretty clear he's implying that most of the attention is directed towards how Islam treats women and men are the afterthought, not that the REAL violence of Islam is against men only.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 03:42 PM
99

"Obviously this girl felt scared and that's all that really mattered" I frigging hate this kind of statement. I'm a therapist and I deal with people who have irrational fears all the time. It's honestly the bulk of my business, aside from depression issues. Fear of failure. Fear of rejection. Fear of victimization. Fear, fear, fear, and the vast majority of it is totally baseless. Let's not cater to this woman's irrational fear by pretending that we know what those boys standing around with thei…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 03:08 PM
1

That logic only makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that a fetus is a child, which I don't Huh? Then why are you arguing for fiscal support for a child when that "child" is an 18 week old fetus, maximum, as per this law? 18 week old fetuses are not alive, as per the law, have no rights, are not "due" support and care, and so the parents have no obligation whatsoever to it. If Mom doesn't owe it life, then she can't owe it financial support, can she? And if she doesn't owe it financial suppo…
/r/MensRights12/03/16 12:06 AM
5

Let's see ... a) at the park in Canada with my kid, watching him climb around amid about 20 other kids. I'm the only man there. After about 15 minutes, two Moms sit down with me on the bench and start grilling me. By question two, I was already peeved, so I asked them if this was actually a public park. It was. Well, then, any member of the public has a right to be here, don't they? They get miffed and walk away. A bit later, I'm up playing with the kid, which expands to me playing with several …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:37 PM
3

Yes, people often volunteer to show up and support groups that are essentially castigating them, en masse, for the temerity of existing and having a particular set of chromosomes. When I read the Mexican Drug Cartel topic, my first thought was, "Do they seriously not 'get' that when the cartels hit these little towns and cart off the women, the are shooting all the men?" Sex slavery is a pretty nasty thing, but it beats death, hands down, every time.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:14 PM
1

Honestly, think about what you're arguing for, here. If you're female, the law allows you to terminate that pregnancy in Sweden up to the end of the second trimester, or roughly 24-26 weeks. You're not just removing some share of potential funding and making it possibly tougher for it to thrive, you're removing the entire potential for life altogether. The fetus doesn't just have future reduced chances to thrive, it has no future at all. But if you're male, even though you're NOT terminating tha…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:31 PM
2

I don't think it's fair to frame a pregnancy as something a woman is "doing" to a man. The pregnancy isn't her choice, but how to handle it most definitely is, and it's her decision that determines whether he's facing child support or doesn't see child support. I don't see what your point is, really. If she controls the outcome, it's most definitely her decision that impacts his life. If we are talking about fairness, something that is more unfair than asking the father to pay 18 years of child …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:56 AM
4

Raising a child should be done with the want and consent of both parents, anything less than 100% commitment is dangerous for the child. One could argue that this type of law would actually flesh this out and let us know, for the first time, whether that man is actually on board or not, though. Up to this point, it's irrelevant whether he's on board or not, and she has all the power of the state to compel his financial contribution, so we couldn't really determine how many of those men were trul…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:19 PM
11

Bud, you're clearly seeing the issue from only one lens, that of the woman. If you stepped back and tried to see it from the other perspective, of the man, you might get some insight. BOTH parties have huge dollars and huge commitments in play with that decision, but at present, only one party can control whether those costs get assumed - women. If you can't see that only one party makes that decision for BOTH parents, you're blinded by ideology, son. If he walks away at 18 weeks, she still has …
/r/MensRights10/03/16 07:15 PM
12

Women cannot avoid any unwanted repercussions from the event. Sure, it's not 100% repercussion free, but you have the option to exchange a lifelong commitment to a child and the HUGE financial burden and time burden raising a child incurs for a cost of a few hundred dollars, an afternoon of your time, and the normal recovery time for a minor surgery done under a local. But don't even being to talk to me about the emotional impact of an abortion. I had to sit beside my girlfriend while she had on…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 07:07 PM
18

No, it isn't a good point. Women already choose to become mothers solo, via sperm donors, so it's not like we don't have examples where this can be successful, for one. For two, with the 18 week limitation on the man's decision, there's still a window of time for her to bring in other options, including abortion, adoption, safe haven dropping of children to the state, etc. She's not FORCED to have that child, so she's not FORCED into assuming all the child's costs. The point the OP made isn't fa…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 06:33 PM
9

If a woman aborts a fetus the man is free from all responsibility, if a man "aborts his responsibility" 100% of the burden falls on the woman. 100% of the burden of raising a child SHE wants, sure. Her decision is actually this: a) Abortion, so no financial commitment from either party. b) Have the child, so financial contribution from both parties, BUT with current child support levels in place in most western nations that have men paying more than 100% of the child's real world expenses, she's…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 06:30 PM
28

A law like this would be abused badly, young men need to be taught that they actually have to take responsibility for their actions. But not young women. They, despite being equal partners in the act, can avoid any unwanted repercussions from the event. Yes, women can abort without telling the men, but if the man aborts responsibility then no matter what an unfair physical burden is on the woman. Holy hell, it's almost like you don't realize that child support is a financial obligation that's hu…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 06:26 PM
1

Yes, but the image being passed around showing lots of men looking up IMD in March is being sold as "look at how many men look to derail IWD", clearly. I was just putting a real world face on the previous comment's point about curiosity also being a very reasonable explanation.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:55 AM
3

You can't just win on content alone. Style matters, I agree.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:55 AM
3

It's not denouncing the entire institution, it's looking at the odds. What percentage of marriages would have to fail before you'd start thinking that maybe marriage isn't really that great of a horse race to be plunking down your money on? 1/3 of marriages ending in divorce is really shitty odds, and with the rise of the SJWs, the odds of finding that great woman is getting lower and lower all the time. I don't know about you, but I'm finding that entire swaths of female friends are pretty much…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:52 AM
2

The airports were YYC, LAX and SLC, on full flights. You do the math. The capper was the coffee cup sitting alone on the seat. They were clearly "reserving space" for themselves.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:33 AM
7

I just spent several hours in multiple airports for a business trip, and I counted the number of women that put bags on either side of themselves in the gate seating to ensure no one sat next to them. I stopped counting past 30. Anecdotally, most were young women, typically in a group, and 3-4 of them would monopolize an entire section of seating, with a coffee on one seat, their purse on another, and their carry on on a third.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 11:46 PM
3

I had no idea IMD even existed until I was curious on IWD about all the hoopla, and wondered whether there was a male equivalent. I'll fully admit that my first search was probably in March. Doesn't mean I was attempting to derail IWD, though.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 11:33 PM
3

And if we must be anti-feminist, let it only be because they don't give us a choice not to oppose them. Um, that's now. Seriously, man, they are openly opposing shared parenting initiatives, they are openly opposing alimony reform. They are imposing quotas in major university programs. They are actively erecting a fully blown dual stream criminal justice system. They are rigging rules and abusing power to keep men's initiatives from getting in place. They are using their numbers at Gawker and Bu…
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:49 PM
10

I love how the author mentions the GitHub study that showed code was rejected more often if someone could tell you were a woman, but conveniently left out that your code was also more likely to be rejected if they could identify you as a man.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 09:05 PM
1

An all male writers room, production meeting, shoot, or edit bay behaves differently than a room with just a single female present. Sure, but there's negatives AND positives to that situation, not just universal positives. Add a single person of the opposite gender to a room and you spike the self-editing, for example, and introduce a totally new social dynamic you didn't have before. Inter office dating is a minor issue in an all-male plant, but it becomes an issue in a mixed plant, doesn't it?…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 04:32 AM
2

When half of your consumers are women, the additional input from women helps your biz tremendously. Diversity advocates always talk as if this benefit of diversity is a) innate and thus always there, and b) significant enough in effect to be catered to in the hiring process. But reality is grey, and diversity hiring has real world limitations: a) It only benefits an organization if different perspectives are salient to the work at hand. An employer running a factory with workers filling parts bi…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 04:27 AM
1

Says you: Section 15 of the Charter
/r/MensRights04/03/16 04:06 AM
1

We also have gender equality enshrined in our constitution, so it can be challenged here, officially, where some other western nations don't have that specifically spelled out, or don't even have a constitution to refer to. There are plenty of laws in the UK, for example, that wouldn't survive constitutional scrutiny here.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 07:58 PM
1

Well, I thought Canada was largely immune to this bullshit, but I guess it's time to sharpen up the pen and contact my local Men's Rights group.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:01 PM
4

From the comments, this truly isn't leave. The employees are expected to make up the time over the rest of the month, so it's a form of flex time. With that in mind, it's a great idea ... as long as they make it available to anyone that has a recurring event they would prefer to offset by working longer on other days. Periods are hardly the only scheduled or predictable events people could potentially want to use this for. Do a twice monthly physio appointment that has you sore? Kid's seeing a p…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 02:53 PM
1

Women statistically take more time off than men, even if they are single and have no kids. More sabbaticals, longer LTD and STD, more sick days, more family days, etc.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 02:15 PM
20

Countdown to single people suing for discrimination.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 02:07 PM
5

It's the token male message. They get enough grief for not mentioning men that it's no longer political tenable to only mention women when they are fanning the flames of rape hysteria. While it's a big deal, superficially, it's actually still totally drowned out by the fact that the rape hysteria is still going on, which is clearly the larger issue.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 06:30 AM
8

"But fuck me for not imagining the kind of hellish heinous shit people are capable of, right?" It's not imagined, but how do you leap from what's clearly a small group of perpetrators in a local bar to "rampant" in a nation of 330M people, with hundreds of thousands of bars, millions of students and thousands of post secondary schools? Your scenario is horrific, but it's clearly not the norm, not by a long shot.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 06:27 AM
24

WTF? OK, Until It Happens to You is a ridiculously repetitive song with very, very basic lyrics. The ONLY reason it makes it to the Oscars this year as a nominated song is politics. The ONLY reason Lady Gaga is there to stump her manufactured statistics is because of politics. The ONLY reason the VP of the USA shows up to lead into the song is because of politics. The ONLY reason they allowed 50 sexual assault victims onto the stage is politics. Don't praise him because he slipped in a mention o…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 06:21 AM
2

I love the cognitive dissonance in the comments. Why can't she be named? Duh, she's the victim! Uh, but we name victims in literally every other crime but this one, so don't act like this is the norm, because it's actually the exception.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:42 PM
2

But where did I give you the impression that I thought DAS sued because they actually cared about Kesha? You didn't, but ultimately that's where we fall down logically. There's really only three options: a) The allegations are untrue and DAS knows this. DAS brings them up in the suit, anyway, because they want to produce leverage on Kemosabe and Prescription to settle high. b) The allegations might be true or untrue, and DAS really don't know the truth of the matter. They still bring it up in th…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 04:32 PM
5

You're applying Occam's Razor to a biased selection of the known facts. And so are you. DAS's suit with Prescription and Kemosabe was settled, and the fact they took a cheque behind closed doors and walked away tells you everything about their motive for bringing the supposed assault into the case. What's more likely, that they brought it up because they were altruistic and wanted to get a rape victim away from her abuser, they believed it to be true and had evidence it was true ... or because i…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:11 PM
4

1) Do you think feminism has valid points as well? I don't agree with its militant subgroups, but I personally have absolutely experienced pretty harrowing levels of sexism and (probably going to get flack for this) rape culture. In theory, sure, but I'm a pragmatist and I don't judge people by the words they use or the theories they espouse. I judge them by their actions, so most of their points fall flat when compared with real world behaviour. When NOW routinely opposes shared parenting legis…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 06:45 AM
-1

Let's say that you and I promise to be together forever and then you give up your career or education to be with me. Yeah, here's the thing ... people make those kinds of decisions, where they give up years of their life, give up on careers, put the other person's career first, etc. precisely because they have alimony and child support to fall back on as income sources. If we chop alimony out of the equation, so that you are 100% financially responsible for yourself, who the hell would just give…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:49 AM
1

So, you can be discriminatory against men, but not sexist, despite the fact sexism is just discrimination based on sex? What a pile of mental gymnastics.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 04:12 PM
1

The fact that some minorities are specifically singled out for mention in our HR legislation, both provincially and federally, doesn't change the fact that we are all presumed equal by the law, at both levels. There's a difference between being protected from discrimination and being singled out for specific benefit. The Employment Equity Act doesn't allow an employer to ONLY hire people from that short list.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 04:29 AM
5

Someone should have a chat with them on the difference between perception of risk and actual risk, because it's clear they simply don't understand how much more often men get attacked than women do.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 11:42 PM
3

It is definitely intrusive, which is why very few nations have opted to go that route (Sweden just did so, but it's the only nation, to my knowledge). In the end, it's the same problem you have with any system that uses equal opportunity rather than equal outcome - you can open the door, but you can't make people walk through. How, for example, do you make more men sign up for nursing or midwifery? They CAN, any time they want. They just don't. So ... we do the long, hard work as a society to ch…
/r/MensRights15/02/16 10:11 PM
6

It has to be mandated. Canada has parental leave, but they don't go to the lengths of mandating that men take half. They leave it up to the parents to decide how to allocate it, and, sure as shit, most families have the mother using all or most of it. The only real solution is 50/50. Six months each, 9 months each, 12 months each ... the exact length can be debated over, but the fact both parents have to take it, and it's the same length for both are features that should be set in stone.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 07:39 PM
15

“People wanted an alternative [to other apps on the market] where women can feel in control and feel equal to men as they’re swiping through." Tinder IS equal. Both parties have to swipe to indicate interest before they can meet. That's the very definition of equal. Giving women a final stamp of approval before an actual meetup happens, like a second layer of vetting, isn't "equal". It's re-enshrining the unequal nature of dating that's been around for centuries, where men have to pursue women, …
/r/MensRights13/02/16 04:59 PM
1

The country is the physical place. The state is the political entity that runs it. You've never heard of the term "Crown", ie. Crown land, Crown corporation, Crown Prosecutor, etc.? That's our reference term for the state in Canada because we're nominally a parliamentary monarchy, and our official head of state is the Queen of Canada.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:09 PM
0

Awwww, someone's upset that their little strawman doesn't fly. People get pregnant, on purpose, to avoid military deployments all the time, even here in Canada. They get pregnant to keep boyfriends from leaving. They get pregnant to hide affairs. If you think they wouldn't get pregnant to avoid jail, you're fucking nuts, bucko. But, convince yourself that there's some magical barrier where if the length of the prison term drops below gestation, that they would suddenly take that option off the t…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:30 AM
3

Yes, how horrible that she gets to live as a millionaire executive's wife and hasn't worked a day in 30 years as a result of bankrolling his education all those decades ago. She's been paid back for that investment ten times over. Unless he forced her to choose her life of ease over one where she continued her career, she chose to be the trophy wife all on her own, as many people would. Oddly enough, a life of ease and affluence isn't that hard of a sell.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 07:46 PM
0

That only matters if they care equally the same about pregnancy or prison. Quit trying to sell your straw man, son, because no one's buying.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 07:30 PM
1

Pay attention to meeeeeeeeeeeeee!
/r/MensRights10/02/16 03:40 PM
9

It's bad enough you have "journalist" Jesse Brown, who has personal connections to some of the witnesses, arguing on their behalf, in public, and suggesting there's hidden evidence he has available to him that indicate guilt ... and then this? The CBC has multiple articles up right now that all claim that the Gomeshi trial will make it harder for victims to come forward. What a blatant attempt to affect the outcome of a case! Of course, they have a commenting ban because they don't allow comment…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 03:21 PM
1

It's not that hard, it's just basic math. What YOU are missing is that pregnancy and prison are not equally bad, so people don't do simple math around them. They don't offset each month of prison with a month of pregnancy, like you're doing. That's why it's a straw man, one you keep harping on.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 03:16 PM
1

Yeah, I'm aware that it's happening. I just feel that the article did a pretty poor job of making it's case. It seems to take for granted that the reader will agree and so doesn't have to present evidence or build a case.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 03:13 PM
2

LOL. I totally missed that one.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 01:06 AM
2

Where does it state that this applies to every non-violent crimes? You said less serious crimes. In my region, that's what constitutes less serious crimes. I don't think you understand what straw man is. It's an invented position that you've chosen because it's easy to take down. Choosing a six month sentence vs. a 9 month pregnancy was precisely that. So here's a time line of events to make it easier for you: Nah, the time line is this: While she's waiting in a detention center for her trail, o…
/r/MensRights08/02/16 01:06 AM
1

Absolutely, but true at the same time. Where's the support in that essay for any of the contentions? Arguing that the one day the NFL wears pink means that sports are using colours and shapes for women is a non-starter. There's the entire rest of the season where pink is nowhere to be found to contend with. It's really difficult to take an essay seriously when it uses terms like "boy movies" and "girl movies" and contends that there's this cabal of people intentionally using subliminal marketing…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 05:07 PM
2

Oh, don't get me wrong ... I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that being correct hasn't stopped English from morphing in some pretty ugly ways in the last while. I'm sure no one in the rank and file cares whether there's a rational reason for the inclusion of the second comma, even if you and both do.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:55 PM
6

When Marvel is making comics that have Thor calling a baddie a "cis sex scumbag" and another Marvel comic replaces Odin's father's text with random insertions of anti MRA screed that has nothing to do with the character ... I can live without my Spiderman fix, thank you very much. I'm 46 years old and I've been watching sitcoms mine the "bumbling idiot father" trope for over thirty years, now. What man would pay to consume products that malign and belittle them at every turn?
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:05 PM
3

I'm going to pretend that I understood a single word of that essay and hope that if I crawl back into bed with my wife I can salvage some sense of normalcy from my morning. What a convoluted and unsupported mess of bullshit.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:03 PM
2

Summary convictions for non-violent crimes in my jurisdiction (Canada) regularly have upper sentences in the 18-36 month range. Would a woman get pregnant to get out of a year long jail sentence? Absolutely. And even with your invented straw man scenario of six months, there would still be some women that would rather suffer 9 months of pregnancy than 6 months of prison. Oddly enough, some women actually enjoy pregnancy and don't equate it with prison. Funny how that works.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 03:59 PM
3

Yeah, someone is really going to get pregnant to avoid a few months jail time. Yes, they will. Man, you seriously need to look at what lengths people are willing to go to just for plain old attention and validation or what lengths people are willing to go to in order to avoid being held responsible for their negative actions. When a girl is willing to lie and put her lover behind bars for rape rather than admit to their parents they are having sex, or an adult woman would rather put her lover be…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:42 PM
3

Oh, the comments. If you don't recognize the genius of their irony and the value of their ironic humour, you're a "poop baby"? Jesus holy fuck. Yes, it's fucking hilarious that you're joking about an epidemic being visited solely on men and listing a huge pile of world issues and dropping them in men's laps. I'm sure that's 100% humour and there's no poison pill of bitterness in there ... at all. Fucking harpies.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:32 PM
5

To be fair, the Oxford comma has been falling out of fashion for decades, now, so it's really not all that rare for it to be missed by people, is it?
/r/MensRights07/02/16 02:28 PM
14

There is literally nothing he can use as his justification for helping women in this manner that doesn't also apply to men. Mental health? One of the biggest drivers of male imprisonment. Health issues? FAS and addictions also drive a significant percentage. Majority are non-violent offenders? Check. Poverty? Check. Also victims? Seriously ... has this Justice Minister never seen any reports about how many men in prison have been abused? Jesus, it's like he is actively looking for ways to exclud…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 07:23 AM
1

It's not just FAS. In my jurisdiction, a couple of studies on the juvenile detention system concluded that between 18% and 26% of our juvenile criminals show signs of FAS. In addition, three separate studies on the men in prison for sexual assault found between 60-75% of of offenders were sexually or physically abused, usually as children, by female caregivers. Finally, 40+% of men show signs of several problematic personality disorders (ASPD, NPD, HPD, Bipolar, etc.) and there's lots of literat…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 05:55 AM
56

"You'll never take my daughter" But you'll let them take your sons, you fucking harpies? Jesus, this is making me sooooo mad right now.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:30 AM
1

they always release images of adult suspects that have been arrested, for any crime, to the media. vs. Also, of course the victim should be anonymous. Why wouldn't they be? Do you see how you've mentally categorized them differently? How all that had to happen for you to do that was for the charge to be laid? That immediate stigma that has you perfectly OK with publicizing the accused, but not publicizing the victim, is precisely why the accused needs anonymity, too. When even laying the charge …
/r/MensRights06/02/16 06:45 PM
4

It's not quite that simple. Heightism in North America is pretty prevalent. When our CEOs are over 2" taller than the national average, and there's an average wage gap between men 5'5" and those average height (5'10" in Canada) that's approaching 30 cents, there's an issue. I do agree with you to an extent. I've always had confidence, even as a shorter man, and I've never really lacked for dates, but even so I've had a couple of women tell me to my face that I'm too short to date. Both of them w…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 05:46 PM
1

The topic of conversation was about clothing choices. You decided to turn it into 'polynna utopia' in general. This is pretty much a goalpost movement. Not at all. The utopia, in this case, is that you can wear what you want, when you want, and defy social norms and business norms for dress codes without penalty. We both know that's not happening without serious stigma. Show up for that interview in a dress, as a man, and see how often you get the job. Childhood becomes a bubble where parents ar…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 04:55 PM
1

The fact that he chose not to use his power to fight against infiltration is, well, his choice. Huh? Honestly, this is total and utter bullshit. If you aren't on the board, or in the communications loop, you can't possibly know you're being worked against. You clearly have a totally fucking crazy view of what Dawkins should be able to do. He's smart, not omniscient. Hey, if you hate the guy, it's your business, but what you're selling is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:36 AM
5

When female Thor calls a dude cis-gendered scum in her first issue, it's pandering. Jane Foster is an MD, not a gender studies grad.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:31 AM
28

Most feminists do care, I agree. In fact, when it comes to female-on-male rape, it's typically the feminists / women who are the ones caring They care so much that when it's pointed out that "made to penetrate" is left off most stats or that far too many legal definitions of rape specifically mention a penis, or specifically require some form of penetration, and so leave women off the table for even facing these charges, they do ... what? Shit fuck all. Fill me in, sport, if I'm wrong, because t…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:04 AM
1

So, your assumption is that no 74-year-old has the ability to resist feminist shaming tactics over an electronic communication forum? No, my assumptions are that: a) Dawkins isn't on the board for every organization, charity, convention, symposium, etc. that he deals with, and as such, has no direct access to the decision making that goes on. He can't possibly know all the possible ways he's getting undermined behind the scenes and it's absolutely and utterly unrealistic to expect him to. b) At …
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:50 AM
3

Unbelievable. I was seriously considering putting the Marvel Unlimited App on my phone tonight and subscribing, but not any more. Thanks, OP, for saving me from that BS. I know I wouldn't have likely run into this specific issue, but knowing that this passed editing is enough for me.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:33 AM
4

If you can recognize it as pandering, then it's already broken your suspension of disbelief.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:33 AM
3

We do, however, have human rights tribunals in every province ... precisely for this kind of behaviour. It's pretty hard to argue that this isn't discrimination based on gender when gender is the specific reason for the creation of the application and the focus of the group attempting to form.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:20 AM
2

Ah, the inevitable gender neutral name traps me again! I should have known, though.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 03:46 AM
1

Hmmm. I'm not reading this the way most of you seem to be. To me, she's being sarcastic in her comment, because she knows that in the movie the black man gets fraudulently accused. I think she's mocking the very people who actually hold the opinion in the comment, and doing so by juxtaposition.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 06:18 PM
2

Someone sounds bitter. Pointing out the illogical basis for a 2000 year old religion is a bit easier than dealing with modern feminists working behind the scenes at conferences so that you can't counter their work until you've already been turfed. The guy is 74. Did you truly expect him to have so much of a handle on Twitter that he can fend off every way feminists can bend, break or manipulate his Tweets to their advantage? He's the same age as my Dad, for Christ's sake.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:54 PM
12

I agree. I was being sarcastic, because NOW has opposed the latter two options for years. My point was that when it's theoretical, they are about equality on paper, but when it's real world equality and that equality would ramp down female privilege in the areas where they have it ... nope.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:32 PM
15

They clearly can't attend school and rebuild their lives into a new career, apparently. My wife is in the middle of shifting to the legal profession from health care, and it doing it in the middle of her 40s ... on her own dime ... without borrowing a penny from me. But apparently that's too much for some women to do, because getting student loans or saving up for the change is too hard, so they need their ex-hubby to feed and clothe them for the rest of their lives.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:31 PM
9

I'm more inclined to believe this. I read a longitudinal study that watched male and female lawyers for 15 years, and by the end of the period, women were 40% down on men for pay. Sounds pretty ominous, right? Once you took out the women that left to have kids, took time off to have kids, took way more time off around the kids, etc. then the gap was considerably smaller (8%, I think). What they found with the remaining pool, however, was that men produced 44% more billable hours for their compan…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:25 PM
30

Good for him. A quick google search shows that many women's organizations and committees come out against conscription, both in the US and elsewhere, but NOW has had on their books opposition to any single sex draft since 1980. Now, if we can only get NOW on board for stuff that's day to day, rather than somewhat theoretical like a draft, stuff like lifetime alimony and shared parenting, we might get somewhere.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:19 PM
3

We were just playing around. I knew he was being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 12:55 AM
6

They can only get roped back to reality if you force the issue. One of the directions I hope that this group is considering going is an HRT filing with the province at the OHRT. With the province partially funding RSU, they have an obligation to honour the provincial statutes and federal requirements to equality, and I think this would be a case that could easily be won at the OHRT.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 10:22 PM
1

That's the story mainstream feminism is selling, sure, but that's just the sales pitch. The entire point is selling A and giving you B. You can't talk out of one side of your mouth about how you're trying to end machismo and allow men to define masculinity for themselves but then oppose equal parenting legislation, men's centres on university campuses, or fair alimony legislation out of the other side of your mouth. We're free to choose what path we want to take, as long as it's not as an equal …
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:59 PM
11

What man would rush to get their divorce filed under older, unfavourable laws about to vanish? I'm with you. I think she's telling a pork pie.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:54 PM
2

You should consider another line of work other than trolling. You're too blatant.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:43 PM
4

Hope you're being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:39 PM
3

I thought the structure made it clear that it was the list of beliefs that were worthy of mockery.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:28 PM
6

Nope. I'm pretty confident it's SJW. I use no other label in the post other than that.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 05:21 PM
1

The point is that you prepare your children for the world that is, not the Pollyanna utopia you wish existed. There's all sorts of stigma, bias and rules in adulthood, and pretending to your children that they can do anything, be anything, etc. when you KNOW that the stigma exists is actually kind of cruel. Look at modern universities as an example of his trend in action, just not around clothing. Modern schools are seeing students stressing the mental health facilities on campus to a breaking p…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 06:25 PM
5

No one is really defending him, simply pointing out that her chosen punishment was permanent, and thus vastly out of line with the offense.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:54 AM
2

How do you get from preparing them for the real world of adult life, where virtually no one cares about your opinion or how you want to dress in your private time, to an authoritarian household? I want to live and work where you do, because if you've never worked where there's a dress code, then that's where I want to live. In the US and Canada, any job worth having has some sort of dress code, and most certainly has standards for interpersonal behaviour. It's not just clothes that make Millenni…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:52 PM
1

I'm actually not, though.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:50 PM
8

Membership in society isn't optional. You're either working to pay your own way, or someone else is feeding you, clothing you, and putting a roof over your head. And people wonder why the Millennials are so entitled? When Mom and Dad bend over backwards to ensure the kid's world view, wants and whims are paramount, that's what happens. Sure, let them dress how they want to dress, but also prepare them for being turned down repeatedly for job interviews and find them some means of establishing in…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 05:52 PM
19

It looks like she'll offer him dresses and ballet. I didn't ready any forcing. "I'm not going to turn you into a pariah, but I'm going to make sure you have all the tools so that you can find your way to being a pariah, yourself." Social experiments with your children, so that they can buck "the system" rarely turn out well for the kids. At some point, they have to work, date and make friends in that world they are trying to buck so badly.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 05:34 PM
1

Keep telling yourself that, bigot. The truth is that it's not worth truly engaging with you, because your bigotry is so well entrenched, and you've so convinced yourself of your own brilliance, that you're cognitively reorganizing facts to fit your world view, now. There's no hope in hell of a reasonable discussion with you. You've skipped from "men in prison don't have personality disorders" to "men have personality disorders at lower rates than women do" to "look at how bad female prisoners ha…
/r/MensRights23/01/16 01:22 PM
1

You are dishonest as hell, mostly with yourself.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 01:22 PM
1

Keep going. This is fucking hilarious.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 01:21 PM
1

You'll pick whatever cherries you need to, clearly. That's what ideologues and bigots do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, women in prison are such tender flowers. Men in prison are violent thugs. Your narrative you're trying to sell is pretty clear, you bigot.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 05:33 AM
1

You keep chugging son. I'm sure you're impressing someone.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:20 AM
1

There is no bullshit anti-male discrimination conspiracy. Riiight, and that's why male prisoners in California had to fucking SUE to get equal treatment under a special program that was started solely for women. And why similar treatment programs for women only are starting up all over Europe, and will face the same lawsuits in turn. You're a bigot, asswipe, and you're using the rate stat to justify your own bigotry to yourself.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:50 PM
1

Majority of those that they feel are indeed are all WOMEN. Someone can't do math. RATE is not the raw N value, Sherlock.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:43 PM
3

He called them fat, by name, in one tweet, and then when he figured out from they were at x restaurant/bar having drinks, he alluded to the ugly quotient spiking at the bar because they were there, but didn't refer to them by name.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:43 PM
4

Ginned up accusation, then? 23 Tweets in two months isn't harassment. I've had a stalker, and at the height of her activity, we were seeing over a thousand points of contact in a month. We'd get 23 Tweets/emails/texts in a couple of hours, let alone two months. And there was no evidence he threatened anyone, just insulted. The prosecutor was hanging on the perceptive part of the legislation, hoping that she could sell the notion that these women FELT harassed, and that would be enough. Thankfull…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:09 PM
1

Keep trolling, son. You've done an honest day's work, here, bullshitting your way around. I commend you on your commitment to your personal insanity. It's rare to find that kind of dedication, these days, but if you have to be dedicated, it should be to your idiotic ideologies, I guess. Good luck trying to keep people who need treatment from getting it. Maybe someone close to you will get hit with the bigot stick and you'll change your tune.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:03 PM
2

That's the abstract. Where is the fucking stats? And it's not even open access which means you didn't even read it you dishonest little fuck. Awww, you couldn't hit the "next page" at the bottom, which walks you through the whole thing? I thought so, you lazy a-hole. Only the first page is the abstract. ASPD IS NOT PSYCHOPATHY. I'm a psychologist. ASPD and dissocial personality disorder replaced the concept of psychopathy and sociopathy in the DSM manuals. But, of course, because you're so hyper…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 01:27 AM
2

You really should read that study, you moron. The fact women experienced them at a slightly higher RATE, but ultimately make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the male prison population overall, means that there's vastly more men suffering from those conditions in prison than there is women. It certainly in no way contradicts my claim that male prisoners ultimately suffer from every disorder female prisoners do. Only dishonest bigots would see a small difference in rate and use that as a justification…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:56 AM
1

You've covered ASPD, now how about NPD, or ASD, or HPD or BPD? Good lord you're an idiot if you can't see 16% with ONE DISORDER and not figure out that all the personality disorders as a whole could easily top 40%. Here's a summary study that views multiple studies, all with significant incidence rates, across multiple offenses. If you think men don't suffer from these in prison, in droves, then you're being totally fucking dishonest.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:51 AM
3

Bullshit. I work in the industry and you are totally and utterly out of your mind. FAS is between 22-26% in my jurisdiction, personality disorders are another 40-45%, alcohol and drugs are another 15-20% or so. The men in my jurisdiction in jail for sexual assault? 67% of them were themselves assaulted, typically in their youth, by female caregivers. You are literally making shit up, now, trolling.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 02:31 AM
96

Life long alimony is outrageous bullshit. If the marriage opens up access to money, then that access closes when the marriage is over. Lifelong alimony is just an attempt to get all the financial benefits of a marriage without the actual marriage.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 03:06 PM
5

So, we should sentence the 22-26% of male criminals in jail that suffer from some aspect of FAS because Dear Old Mom couldn't put the bottle down while she was pregnant, too? Or is it too bad, so sad, for those baby boys who had the temerity to be born to drinkers?
/r/MensRights20/01/16 03:00 PM
5

So, you posted this just to argue that female prisoners are special and deserve special treatment? Good lord, what an ass. Poverty, mental illness, FAS, drugs and alcohol are all major drivers of the male prison population, too. Male prisoners are often parents, as well. That you argue for special treatment for women, but NOT for the male prisoners also in the same boat is why you're a dishonest dick.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 02:55 PM
5

I disagree. High pressure sales is everywhere, from time share sales to car sales to life insurance sales on in. You can't ban someone because they use the techniques used 100% legally elsewhere to separate women from their underwear. If adult women can negotiate a vehicle purchase without the state playing Nanny, they can negotiate a sexual liaison without the state looking over their shoulders, too. Unless PUAs have broken the law, what's the rationale? They are unseemly? Come on, there's full…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 04:00 PM
4

"discourage other girls from reporting sexual asssaults" What a load of codswollop. Enforce the law, Ms. Police Commissioner. Would you out and out forgive someone who walked into your office and told you they had chained their child in a basement for 11 years? Chained their wife in the basement for 11 years? Chained their dog in the basement for 11 years? It's only when someone tricks the state into putting the chains on, and it's a man behind those bars, that we forgive this kind of forcible c…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 03:50 PM
2

In fact, no woman has been convicted of sexual assault on an adult male in Canada. I find that really hard to believe. Where you did you learn that tid bit?
/r/MensRights18/01/16 06:12 AM
1

He is all set to apply to the starshp academy at the start of the film, and several of his friends are planning on going. It is clearly something they have been working towards. She isn't applying for anything but her next meal.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 09:58 PM
2

Luke has piloted small craft on Tatooine. He talks about being a "pretty fair" pilot himself, and bullseye womp rats from his T-16. He's a farmer, but he clearly goes into town with his friends and encounters society. She should have trouble explaining how she got the swoop bike, let alone piloting experience.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 03:54 PM
2

You saw the scene of her getting left on the planet as a child. She's maybe 5-6 years old. From that point on, she's been scavenging for a living. She should be lucky to be literate and littered with tics and mental issues from her many years essentially living/working alone and living a subsistence living. It's possible she could have learned to fight on the nearly empty mean streets of the market she frequents, but when you only go there to trade your scrap at the end of the day, how many figh…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 02:51 PM
5

A bit over the top? Come on, man. She's lives on subsistence rations in the shell of an abandoned starship, rides a junk-heap swoop bike and trades scrap for food on a largely deserted planet. She spends virtually all of her day alone, scavenging. But, despite that, she's managed to: get fluent in wookie (tons of wookies on Jakku, apparently) get fluent in droid binary, despite not owning a droid. learn to fly a starship, despite not having a starship, and do it well enough to engage in successf…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 02:48 PM
0

It is if you're pregnant, which drives up the average usage for that age bracket heavily, but if you aren't pregnant, you tend to be lower than the average. A 20 or 30 something is generally healthier than a 40-80 something, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 12:19 PM
1

Yes good causes are defined by me and others. And can be mocked by me and others. Your "good" is someone else's insane or misguided, or uneducated, sometimes. You need to protect the weak and vulnerable before they are attacked not after. We're talking about software development that's overwhelmingly done online, so no one meets face to face except in exceptional circumstances. Exactly how many people do you feel get "attacked" during this process? Do you have some victimization numbers, some ex…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:53 AM
1

Attention whore does what will garner attention. News at 11.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 06:40 PM
2

If she had breasts, maybe this would have some weight, but she's 8. SJWs aren't going to be happy until men can't show affection to anyone and we're all social pariahs.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 06:36 PM
4

Men and women meet, hook up, flirt, date and even marry their co-workers all the time, so the fact this is a workplace for the both of them means virtually nothing. The only thing that matters is that it happened on the air. So, what's his crime? Going out on a limb on national TV because he's a bit cocky, getting shot down, and trying to save some face with his comments? Big deal.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:28 AM
8

You're missing the point. It's plain and simple public framing. As long as the misandrists, attention whores and professional victims are the overwhelming majority of the SALIENT EXPERIENCES for the general public, then they will be the ones that drive the narrative, drive the definition of terms like "feminism" and "feminist", and drive public perception of the acts and terms. And, like it or not, the term "feminist" is taking a royal shit-kicking right now, and is trending down in public accep…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 11:28 PM
33

I don't know why you feel you need one. a) Exposure levels are quite high for the misandrists, and there's not really many moderates that pull the kind of exposure that the Jessica Valenti's or Anita Sarkeesian's pull in this sphere. Anti-male hashtags abound, and the users of them don't face anywhere near the kind of scrutiny or social pressure that so-called "misogynists" face, such as being banned at the border with no criminal record. b) Passed legislation. We've seen female only criminal ju…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 10:47 PM
2

TRAP, TRAP, TRAP. You owe child support to the child, not her, and she can't waive it. She could come back at any time asking for it and that agreement won't be worth the paper it's printed on. She also knows that even if you get 50/50 time, the minute you end up with a sick kid or an injury, you won't even be able to check your child into the hospital or take them to the doctor. She's incenting you to give up your custody for some reason, and she wants sole custody so badly she's willing to bri…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 05:06 PM
1

Why does no one emphasize the economy of scale? Most pink items, like razors or bikes, are versions made in considerably lower volumes than the regular version. Variations cost money, and specialist colours are risky from a sales perspective. Razor companies went pink specifically to attract female buyers who were not biting on normal black razors, but there is one pink razor for every dozen black ones, and the pink would just get phased back put again if women deigned to buy black. They don't.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 04:35 AM
2

A 12 year old Jehovah's Witness successfully argued that at 12 she was old enough to determine her own religion, and thus it wasn't her parents "forcing her" to avoid blood transfusions in her treatment for leukemia, but rather her own personal choice. She ultimately died after winning that case (of course). The case was Canadian, so I can't speak about an American context, but most of our provinces have Children's Legal Advocacy offices, now, and they are provided free attorneys to argue childr…
/r/MensRights24/12/15 06:45 PM
6

So, if we ignore that you've posted this largely just to provoke a fight ... Your core premise is that both of these items are equally rare, and thus comparable. They aren't. Male objectification is utterly common, even ubiquitous, but it's objectification around a completely different set of metrics (wealth and labour value) rather than the stock metrics feminists refer to all the time (sexual value). You've clearly accepted that the only "real" objectification is sexual, so you see sexual male…
/r/MensRights23/12/15 03:06 PM
2

Children can be so forgiving if just given the chance. They can be, sure, but they can also be so brainwashed that you have no real chance in hell of forging a relationship with them, too. Breaking through that parental indoctrination when one parent has had essentially free reign to fill their heads with whatever they want is really difficult. My son actually chose to come live with me at one point, to give you an example, but when I sat him down with the legislation from Ontario, the legislati…
/r/MensRights20/12/15 04:26 PM
12

And, of course, they run the stock two myths: a) If we put men and women side by side, the women will be terrified! Uh, only if you consciously cater to and promote the notion that they should generalize their fear of their intimate partner to all men in general. Keeping people segregated contributes to that perception, rather than defeating it. b) Men are only 5% of the victims, so paying attention to them detracts from the overwhelming female victimhood! Yeah, only if you decide arbitrarily th…
/r/MensRights20/12/15 04:07 PM
3

There is a lot a person can do to deny you access that does't involve a court, though. I lived through parental alienation with my own son, so any time you want a run down of all the crap my ex pulled, let me know. Court for me took a 5K retainer, each time, and the total cost over the years was just over 22K. Most people can't even get the 5K for the first crack, let alone a couple of cracks like I saw. A lot of men, when faced with alienation, really don't have that legal avenue to turn to, as…
/r/MensRights20/12/15 06:34 AM
12

You clearly missed the part where the kid thanks his father for sending the child support checks. It's implied that he has no more access to his son than the son later has with his daughter.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 05:30 PM
3

Anyone know the breakdown of the listener base? If the base is largely women, they might be catering to their primary audience. I'd like to rule that out before making a judgement on the ratio.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 04:46 AM
1

The article cites that the entry point for the process is two parts, the first being that the victim wants that route, but the second is that the accused agrees to it and part of that agreement is an acceptance of guilt. This is nothing more than a standardized plea bargain system, where if you publicly admit that you're guilty up front (whether you are or not), you can possibly evade the worst penalties. Given the low rates of successful prosecution of these crimes, what man would volunteer gui…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 06:01 PM
3

Some basic presumptions of the court are suspect, though. What do you think it means when they say the new court won't be as hard on victims? It means the normal right to challenge and cross examine your accuser is going to take a hit, because it's precisely that aggressive defense that "re-victimizes" them in the docket. They don't want to have to actually argue to prove their case. Victims of other crimes have to, but apparently rape victims are a special, more fragile breed of victim than the…
/r/MensRights14/12/15 06:28 PM
20

That man was ultimately resentenced to 10 years in prison, so once all the appeals, etc. are handled, let's see if this pedophile gets the same treatment.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:57 PM
3

If you get angry, you've lost the argument. There's not a lawyer working family law anywhere in the western world that doesn't advise their male clients not to lose their shit, no matter how frustrated they feel, how unfair the situation is, how provoked, etc. they get, because the MINUTE they lose their temper, they've lose custody of those kids, pretty much. I asked the judge at my last ever court date that I kept waiting for the day that all the crap I had to put up with, all the fabricated s…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 04:45 AM
1

Yes, it is legal to be this much of a vindictive cunt, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 02:52 AM
4

Yes, but you typically expect the repercussions to be in line with the offense. When you get called a name, you typically ignore it or call them one back. You don't go on a campaign to track down his or her employer, mine their Facebook for additional data, and then harass the employer until they fire the person. If she responded with a name back, or by pointing out how childish he was for using the name? No one would have blinked. It's precisely because she went to the lengths she did to get re…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 11:52 PM
2

When this popped up in my news feed, my reply was a string of phrases men face, ie. man up, grow a pair, get your balls out of your wife/mom's purse, be a man, pussy, faggot, etc. I was downvoted into oblivion by my sister and her friends because they would prefer to maintain the illusion that women are the only ones that experience sexism.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:05 PM
15

Before I went back into business for myself, I worked in an office environment and ran a bi-weekly karaoke event. To keep things exciting and fresh I used to joke around a lot with the "ad" I'd put out every couple of weeks to entice people to come out. One time, I said that it can be fun to get up to the mic and just insert your own lyrics, and to provide an example, I used, "My name is Luka, I live on the second floor. I have a restraining order, against the nutter that lives below." And the c…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 05:00 AM
1

LOL. Do you even hear yourself? I went to one of the best schools in Canada, but the reality is that no campus "police" force has the enforcement power to even remotely rival a real police force, and students know it. Anything serious and they have to call in the cops, anyway, so people just go directly to the cops. But, rather than deal with that reality, you'll invent some "substandard school" in your head to rationalize away the giant gap in enforcement power and jurisdiction between the two.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 04:54 PM
5

I was 15, and sleeping over at a friend's house. I went to go pee at two a.m. and his Mom had camped out on a divan in the hallway waiting for me. She offered to help, took me into the bathroom and gave me a blowjob. When, more out of fear than anything, I didn't orgasm right away, she stuck a finger in my ass. I never told anyone at the time, but my Mom sussed out that something had happened and banned me from going over there again, which was fine by me. The friend was an asshole and the fact …
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:13 AM
1

As long as school is mandatory, and these are being distributed on school grounds and during school hours, as I strongly suspect they are, students are forced to deal with it. True choice would mean the organization would be forced to solicit, not have a captive audience.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 05:57 PM
1

Sure, but neutral is still an option with people, too. It's not black or white, liar or saint.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 07:23 AM
11

I don't see a problem with that, either. Then you and I have VERY different notions of what public money, time and resources should be used for. School's not a distribution channel for private organizations. Are you saying that it should be illegal to give ideologically charged books of any kind to teenagers? Come on, don't be inflammatory. I'm saying that private entities shouldn't be using public resources to sell their ideology. If they do it 100% on their own time, on their own dime, and it'…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 11:35 PM
7

And the Canadian government didn't fund or distribute bibles on behalf of the Gideons, either, but the Gideons were still given access to school grounds, school records, and time from the school day to distribute their bibles, even if the school system had nothing directly to do with the program. I would be VERY surprised if this feminist group was actually mailing out all those books because of the enormous cost. I'd being willing to bet that they are using the schools for distribution, even if…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 11:32 PM
21

Who cares if it's free? This is the public school system, and while it's not being forced on kids, the school system is definitely being used as the network for dissemination. This is no different than the Gideon's using the western school system to disseminate bibles to kids at a set age. An attempt to proselytize is an attempt to proselytize, regardless of the religion being schlepped. If you wouldn't tolerate your most hated ideology getting handed out in a "free book" to school kids, you sho…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 11:05 PM
1

On average, yes, but that average is made up of that bell curve, right? Look at how people respond negatively to East Coasters that use EI to pad themselves in between fishing seasons. People lose their freaking minds over people using EI cyclically like that. But replace "fishing season" with "having a baby" and all over a sudden, people are completely OK with women going out for three successive maternity leaves with the bare minimum time in between so that they requalify for EI again. I see t…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 05:52 PM
1

It's not free money. It's paid for by the people withdrawing it - me. Not necessarily true. All insurance schemes are predicated on there being a greater number of net contributors than there are net recipients, so there are people paying into the system that are not getting anything for it, and there's similarly people who are taking out way more than they have contributed. You personally aren't in that boat, perhaps, but some people are. The OP is wrong to simply assume that every parent is in…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:45 PM
2

Adoption and homosexual relationships Yeah, he poorly worded it. What he should have said was that parents of any type can leverage EI to help defray the costs of staying home to care for their children for a time after birth, and that non-parents don't get to leverage it in a similar fashion. There are not very many insurance plans other than EI that let you leverage a planned event to tap the insurance like this, let alone which play favourites around which scheduled events can leverage EI. He…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:24 PM
1

If you are a support worker, sure. The crimnal justice system's job is to determine the truth of the matter, which means it has an official stance of neutrality it must maintain until evidence is available either way. Its only obligation is to investigate every claim thoroughly. No justice system should assume guilt OR innocence.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:41 PM
1

If it is deemed rape, sure. It isn't like we havent seen women lashed for being rape victims in Saudi is it?
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:29 PM
0

You seriously think that major crimes on campus see students preferentially reporting to campus 5-0 rather than the actual police? Campus security are a running joke at most schools.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:25 PM
2

Oh, the comments ... The whole way through I kept saying the same thing in my head: did you idiots totally miss that half your respondents are so scared of being falsley accused that they have moderated their behaviour as a result? At some point you have to look at the stat you think is accurate, and the fear level, and recognize that the two don't jive. If false accusations were really only 2% of sexual assault cases, the fear typically wouldn't be this pervasive. Hint: the fear is directly rel…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 01:40 PM
3

Then perhaps you should start a subreddit about work safety, aiming specifically at the most hazardous jobs, then, instead of trying to derail a subreddit devoted to discussion of men's rights into your own personal safety forum? If you feel this strongly about (and I agree it's a topic that needs attention), then commit to it instead of griping that an unrelated subreddit isn't paying it the due you feel is necessary. Read the top of the masthead, son. If it isn't rights related, this isn't the…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 03:45 AM
9

high number of zeros suggests students may not feel comfortable vs. No reports doesn't mean no rapes. It just means nobody at that college feels comfortable reporting them. That's a huge fucking problem. I like how you took a pretty reasonable quote that opens up one possible interpretation of the zeros, and then leaped to the conclusion that this intepretation was fact.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 10:34 PM
4

WED is just the latest and greatest attempt to solicit women and get them to start their own businesses. It's been happening for decades, and despite all sorts of gynocentric policies, lending, and hiring, male entrepreneurs still outnumber female entrepreneurs 6 to 1 in most western nations. The title is just inflammatory bullshit to get you to read the article, and there's a couple of whoppers in there about equal pay for equal work being a deferred dream, for example.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 10:28 PM
1

Made you "feel unsafe"? Who cares? What matters is whether you ARE unsafe. Did he threaten anyone, physically or verbally? Did he attack anyone while he was there? How does his fucking membership in an organization threaten you? Do they have a history of bludgeoning people to death with their Men's Issues Group membership cards or something? Sorry you can't handle dissent or a contrary opinion at your rally, but you weren't "unsafe" in any reasonable sense of the word. As an aside, Arriola handl…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 04:08 AM
1

You need to read more into this, clearly. What do you think Clementine Ford has been calling people online? We've only just seen another blogger post that Clementine called her a fucking cunt and still has a job. It's a plain and simple double standard. You can't insult them, but they can insult you ... and also harass your employers into firing you, but what they are doing is "just", so everyone's supposed to pat them on the back.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 10:47 PM
3

In virtualy every industry, you make more money if you own the business vs. by working for someone that does, so what you're saying is pretty much a banality. And yet, most people still opt to work for someone else, right? Along with the money comes the responsibility and risk, and a lot of people don't want either one.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 06:04 PM
2

That people opted not to use the law back then doesn't mean that they didn't have the legal recourse if they wanted it. There's no successful argument that you're going to come up with that defends the fact she went on a campaign to cost him his job, because she couldn't tolerate being called a name. She badgered the employer into a corner and forced a dismissal out of them as petty revenge for being called a name. A name. A single calorie of energy to ignore, maybe 2-3 calories to respond, and …
/r/MensRights01/12/15 05:20 PM
6

And you could charge them with assault if they did. Sticks and stones, man ... except for feminists and their mangina protectors. Men can be called everything under the sun and we mostly let it roll off our backs, but our tender, sensitive, delicate little flower women simply can't handle that someone out there thinks they are an idiot or a moron, and just walk away, can they?
/r/MensRights01/12/15 05:08 PM
7

Maybe you should be an adult and if someone calls you a name you ignore it, or if you feel you must reply, call them a name back. Picking up the phone and calling up the person's employer, so that an event done on his own time and his own dime intentionally gets conflated with the employer, forcing the employer to do something about it, goes so far past rebuttal and into reprisal and revenge that it beggars belief. Even if the only thing he loses is this one job, the punishment for his supposed …
/r/MensRights01/12/15 04:56 PM
1

Silence is your best ally, now. You have sole custody, so you make all legal decisions around that child until a court says otherwise. Put it in writing should be your default response, from here on out, and just hang up when she calls.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:09 PM
0

Hard to feel sorry for a guy that keeps going back to the trough that poisoned him the first time. Sure, it's unfair that a PhD in Psychology with her own practice and really decent income potential should be getting millions of pounds she didn't earn in any capacity because she got upped into the level of the really rich for a few years and now considers it her due. Sure, that kind of upping should end at the end of the marriage, because it came from the bloody marriage to begin with, but ... C…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:45 PM
15

Why is this a positive? It reeks of the base assumption that most men don't give a fuck about their kids and this father is the wonderful exception, worthy of being singled out, rather than the rule. Ugh.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 05:19 PM
9

From the persecution of homosexual men to the fact many militant groups openly cull males to reduce the region's ability to fight back against their atrocities, there's plenty of reasons why this decision is backward. It's a lazy, broad brush option that's going to pillory a lot of undeserving men. And what's the age limit? Are we going to be tossing out teenage boys, too?
/r/MensRights23/11/15 08:11 PM
6

but it seems you've described women in specific, untouchabe positions of privilege and power as "anyone with breasts." No, I've described a process, by which over time the original concept that only really came into play on the battlefield, was changed and modified by social practice to include non-military beliefs, specifically around deifying and worshiping a specific woman in court, and then how that has now become generalized to women as a class, not just the upper class. You need go no furt…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:50 PM
2

Why do women, specifically low education, low status, low income, single women, perform acts like glossolalia far more often than men do? Attention. It's a currency for women in a way that it's not for men at the moment (or to a much greater degree, perhaps).
/r/MensRights23/11/15 04:54 PM
7

If you want to get historical, Chivalry started as a code of honour within combat for knights chevalier. It got modified by the notion of courtly love, however, where you selflessly and endlessly sacrificed and pined for the wife of your liege lord or some lady to which you attached your service, so it literally became worshipful military service to some court beeyotch you couldn't really touch. It's not just being nice. It's being extra special nice to anyone with breasts, which is why it's a s…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 04:38 PM
3

Sure, but so are most people who categorically refuse to ride motorcycles and who think those who ride them are insane. They have 30 times the risk factor of a car, but that still means 99.999% of all riders aren't going to die in any given year. 30 times a minuscule number is still a minuscule number, after all. So, is he being any more irrational than anyone else in society? I think the odds of him being shafted in a divorce are WAY higher than something like a death from motorcycling. And giv…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 05:33 AM
2

Well, we all know what this would be like with the genders reversed. It wouldn't matter what the student did, the onus would be on the adult in the room not to hand over a thumb drive with nude shots of himself to his students. People would be openly questioning whether he did it on purpose.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 02:50 PM
2

There was a report done by a junior lawyer (edit: Clinical Psychologist) in Ontario that became a much larger report once he started digging, and that's the first major publication where I read about what percentage of the prison population in for sexual assault were themselves victims, overwhelmingly by female perps (70+% or so was the stat). It might still be available online somewhere. It was the Invisible Boy, or something like that. Edit: found it! Here you go
/r/MensRights21/11/15 05:44 AM
5

Not quite the same as throwing yourself on a bomb to save hundreds of strangers, though, is it? There's not very many parents that wouldn't sacrifice to save their children, but other people's children? Other adults? It's overwhelmingly men once you get outside someone's family.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 12:55 AM
2

Yeah, I guess it fits. If you're too lazy to actually get an education and you feel the need to fake having one instead, you're probably lazy enough to reuse your own posts.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 03:04 PM
2

Now you're just getting desperate. I'm immune to your trolly nature, little man.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:57 PM
8

There's several spelling or grammatical mistakes in the article. Either that site has no editor, or she's her own editor and isn't up to the job.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:45 PM
2

Nice try. I didn't stay any beliefs around confidence levels or intervals at all. I just stated that if you wanted 95/5, which is the basic standard for most surveys, and you had a population of x size, you need y amount of randomly sampled people for it to be considered valid. But, you keep making shit up, sunshine. You're entertaining in your desperation to sell your fictional alter ego.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:37 PM
4

I'm getting jaded, because my first thought was, "When will I read a story about a woman doing this?", knowing fully well the question was rhetorical.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:18 PM
6

The hard question: are these the exception or the rule? A bunch of small blog posts arguing to help men by proxy, ineffectually, and a couple of small campaigns that went nowhere, and miscontrued links that really don't support men at all can't really trump a massive organization like NOW directly opposing equality in parenting, or major feminist organizations opposing men's centers on university campuses, religiously. Any movement big enough will have the odd contrary or exceptional example, bu…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:16 PM
2

Yep, you're no statistician, just some blowhard pretending to be one. Bluff away, kiddo, bluff away, but you're not fooling anyone with any real education in statistics.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 02:02 PM
6

95% confidence level, with a 5% confidence interval, assuming a population of 34M people (the population of my country) requires 287 people in your sample, assuming fully random sampling. A larger population like the US's 315M raises that to 384. Admittedly, this was self-reported, so it's going to skew high because of self-selection bias, but they did get 600 respondents, so I'm not sure I would characterise it as "insufficient to make any form of extrapolation" and it most definitely wasn't pu…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 06:20 PM
1

So your solution to an unfair situation at the outset is to compensate for it on the back end and work on ways to get the guy out as quickly as possible, rather than work to keep him from being put in there in the first place? Every hag in jail reduces the odds that another one makes this fucked up decision. Every one that doesn't, enforces the common belief that this is a crime that essentially goes unpunished, which clearly contributes to the elevated incidence rate we see in women. Women get …
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:40 AM
2

Well, rationally, women accuse men of false rape FAR more than men accuse women of it. Rationally, that must mean there's some ingrained social driver for the behaviour, ie. some combination of likellihood of success, relative impact of the claim, low chance of repercussions, social role expectations that make it an easier sell, etc. that drives that behaviour in women. Reducing the likelihood of success should, by all rights, reduce the power of the driver for the behaviour, no? Disincentives l…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:32 AM
7

Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Watch film of people in elevators, or watch the pattern of behaviour when there's mixed genders the next time you're in an elevator. Overwhelmingly, the men make way for the women to exit first. That doesn't happen without some serious ingrained deference that spans far further than just elevator behaviour.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:27 AM
3

And what's the moral of the story? Record, record, record.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:19 AM
2

My new wife and I are a curious pair. I'm divorced, essentially cut off from my child, and paying child support to this stranger on the other side of the country and his insane mother for at least another two years. My income has done nothing but climb as I near financial independence again. Her's has done nothing but decline as the tap looks to be shutting off. I've essentially subsidized her sloth so that she didn't have to actually earn her keep for most of her adult life. My wife, on the oth…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:09 AM
2

Trolly Trollerson says, "Watch me! Watch me!"
/r/MensRights17/11/15 09:40 AM
1

The edge of what? Using a literary device called exaggeration for effect where you use a more extreme example to more effectively illustrate the breakdown of logic in the less extreme example? Call the cops, man, I'm busted!
/r/MensRights11/11/15 02:25 PM
2

And now we know why Karla Homolka had significant male attention while she was in prison. Torture and help kill your own sister? Who cares if you're hot! That's fucking pathetic, man. Seriously.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 01:34 PM
6

“The thing is that the RSU thinks that student voices need the approval of their committee, but we don’t.” Go, Arriola. If they make you jump through a hoop that no other group has to jump through in order to even exist, based on supposition around what could happen or might happen in some conjectural future existence, just cut the bigots right out of the process and do the work, anyway.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 06:53 PM
-1

It's "court martial", aka military court. It's the same root word as you find in "martial law" or "martial arts".
/r/MensRights06/11/15 03:42 PM
6

There are arguments though, that the cabinet SHOULD represent the population's identity (50/50 gender ratio). To me, this kind of argument betrays a bit of ignorance around how the Canadian system actually works. In our parliament, we have two houses, one of which is representative (House of Commons) and one of which is appointed but with regional restrictions and quotas (The Senate). In elections, the only vote Canadians cast is for their local MP in the HoC. We do NOT vote for the Government o…
/r/MensRights06/11/15 04:10 AM
3

No one needs a mother or a father. Plenty of children grow up perfectly fine with one or the other. Could they benefit from both? Usually, yes. But need? Nope.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 03:16 AM
3

Yes, there is that. Trudeau could randomly choose his cabinet and he'd pretty much be guaranteed to come up with a better selection than what was there before. Thanks for the reminder on priorities.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:54 AM
6

What if it's both? With the pool of MPs he had available to him, he was all but guaranteed to find enough qualified women to fill cabinet, let alone fill half of it. But that doesn't change the fact that he consciously chose to award 26% of the MPs with 50% of the seats in cabinet, and penalized 74% of the MPs by limiting them to 50% ... and that decision was 100% driven by gender. I'll bet there's a pool of otherwise qualified men in that 74% that aren't so happy about the fact having a penis m…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:00 AM
3

It's not retarded at all. Wheeeee, I'm done my degree! And now I'm going to sit on my ass with kids for the next 5-7 years while my education atrophies and becomes stale dated, and while I'm paying interest on those loans for an education I'm not using. Doing the education before the kids wastes at least some money and time. Why not do it after?
/r/MensRights03/11/15 11:33 PM
0

Damn you, near anonymous men who meet me through an impersonal app where you've cultivated a rapid-fire, tuned to get a response profile, so that you can get to the sex as quickly as possible, for then taking me to bed and not spending sufficient time with me to allow me to feel fulfilled, emotionally and sexually. This is like walking into Green Bay and getting mad at them for not being sufficiently supportive of the Minnesota Vikings or walking into prison and lamenting the fact there's not ve…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 05:31 AM
1

Are they having trouble recruiting? Do they want to widen their appeal to a broader base? The Zapatista's have been doing their revolutionary thing now for the better part of 20 odd years. I suspect they want broad base appeal because they aren't getting anywhere, fast. And, it worked.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 02:51 AM
2

It's a manifesto. It's not rights people always have, it's what they should have. I would be very surprised to find out if the list for men is very different.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 02:40 AM
2

The only one that's problematic is 5. The have the right to equal access to health care and nutrition, not primary access. Everything else is just reiterating rights that the men already have, so it's basic equality, just getting explicitly spelled out for women in the group.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:39 PM
0

"In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question." Right, you were just sitting with bated breath by the phone, waiting for that funding to come in, weren't you? But now that it's fund…
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:35 PM
1

Wow, man, my wife has had her thyroid removed, so she's even more attuned to shifts in metabolism than the average Joe, and she's never once gotten violent as a result of low blood sugar or PMS. It is astounding to me that you stuck around to work with that.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 02:36 PM
3

I think with some digging you could find stats on how the gender disparity in single income homes without too much difficulty, but you'd have to exclude people getting child support, because that's another income coming in, by default.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 02:26 PM
0

It has changed in some aspects. "North Dakota" says that joint custody is a farce and unworkable, but some form of joint custody is the norm for most divorces, and most divorces these days see only minor issues at best. All it took was society to become more inured to kids shifting houses and the change in attitudes led the change in behaviour. But in some other aspects, ie. deadbeat Moms, income redistribution, etc. it's still current, yes. I do take umbrage with his statement that his ex shoul…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 12:28 PM
7

It's not Men's Rights, per se, but it definitely shows that a component of suitability for a male as a mate is how docile and willing to hand over funds you are. TRP has some generalized pop psychology behind it, but one of the things they actually are accurate on is how big a priority financial security is for many women.
/r/MensRights26/10/15 06:07 PM
28

The one study that gets cited around here a lot had a section on unrequited violence, where one partner just sit and took it withtout retaliating, and in those situations, about 75% of the cases were female perps and male victims. That gap in that percentage is a testament to how firmly we're "trained" as men not to exercise that physical size advantage with women, and how badly that cultural edict gets exploited by women in return, for gain. You certainly aren't alone in your belief that it's s…
/r/MensRights26/10/15 06:00 PM
46

Yeah, when you lead off with what is essentially a warning that contains an implied threat of legal action, you really shouldn't expect great results on Tinder. It's super easy to pass on the hassle and just find someone else.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 05:56 PM
1

Absolutely agree. There should be a priority pole on who we're looking to change the minds of and, frankly, feminists should be at the bottom. Do you plant first in the briar patch or in the meadow? Ordinary women are a more fertile ground for support, are more rational and reasonable, and with the right combination of social pressure (MRA and MGTOW) and good messaging, we could make significant headway.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 05:34 PM
0

You couldn't pay me to live in the UK at the moment. Honestly. I've been casting about for a new place to live, with NZ, France, Australia, the UK on the list, but there' simple too much gender-based nuttiness in the UK for me to actively consider it.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 05:22 PM
1

Google the Women are Wonderful effect and go from there.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 04:31 AM
6

Oh, the comments. Why are there so many women either oblivious to, or otherwise antagonistic to, the notion that they are the gatekeepers for sex? So many of the comments devolved to variations on, "I don't get to pick who I sleep with, either!", which is a fundamental misrepresentation of the issue. Sure, you don't get who you want all the time, but you most definitely get to chop out who you DON'T want, and that power is what's creating that pool of Incels. There's no arguing the fact that wom…
/r/MensRights14/10/15 04:15 PM
20

Until then, I’m withholding And people wonder why the MGTOW phenomenon started. You don't get a better statement of how sex is a product in a market than this. The minute someone opts out of buying that product, there goes that leverage. Maybe in days past the price to be paid to get that sex was worth it, but to many men these days, the risk:reward ratio is too high.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 03:13 PM
2

The NHS from the CDC.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 12:09 AM
3

the current climate doesn't stop men from having wives who don't work... are you saying it's their own fault? No, I'm saying that we have a major gap in workforce participation between men and women, one you can easily discover with a couple of Google searches, so there's a much higher percentage of women that a) opt totally out of work, b) work part time, c) work casual or seasonal and d) work significantly lower stress/demand jobs or for fields with lower qualifications for lower pay vs. men. …
/r/MensRights13/10/15 10:36 PM
18

And you don't think that if alimony were to end, and there was no golden net, that people would conduct themselves differently while they were actually in the relationship? I'd argue that if you had to safeguard your career as a backstop, there might be more egalitarian split of child care to even out risk, and you wouldn't have the extreme binary situations that cause those massive gaps that need to be offset.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 07:25 PM
39

There's holes all over her narrative. Once I read the Forbes piece someone posted over in twox about the top earning actresses, it made perfect sense. A huge raft of actresses that were on the list in 2013 dropped off in 2014, and the reason was their work rate. It's all gross earnings, and if you take the year off to have a kid, or do art/indie films that make zip, you can drastically drop in your overall income. In addition, the article cites a representative from one company, who says there's…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 05:54 PM
14

It's only a big deal in the context of "alimony continues", so it's a temporary step in the war to make sure the benefits of marriage end when the marriage does, ie. no alimony at all.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 04:25 PM
3

You had me, OP. I got excited, called in my spouse to show her that a major media presence no less than Time magazine had chosen to cover the hidden violence of women against men and ... 2014 publication date. I'm still going to use it, but can we perhaps label in the title that it's a repeat or older content?
/r/MensRights13/10/15 04:06 PM
4

When Dunham was 7 and her sister was a toddler, at best, she apparently "found" pebbles up inside her little sister's vagina, and being the good older sister she was, promptly stuck her fingers up there to get the pebbles out of her sister's vagina. The implication in the book is that the toddler sister put them up there, and Dunham was the hero for taking them out, but it's possible Dunham put them up there, as well.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 01:40 PM
2

The story is out on how the pebbles got into her little sister's vagina, but apparently Dunham put her fingers into her sister's vagina and fished some small pebbles out that he been placed there.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 01:34 PM
32

I find it very hard to believe that any adult would accept a 15 (edit: 17) year old boy masturbating while his younger sister was asleep in the same bed, waxing poetic about the smell of her skin, bribing her for kisses and all of this after fingering stones out of his sister's vagina when he was a little kid. Flip that gender, and this is really questionable.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 05:01 AM
2

Total aside ... the blogger should darken that font. There's not enough contrast between the text and the background for easy reading.
/r/MensRights10/10/15 08:34 PM
2

I agree that maybe my terminology drove your response. But, look at the trend ... manufacturing and those male-intensive jobs keep declining as a percentage of overall employment. 20% may seem significant, but it's been declining for 30 years. As we proved during the war years, even a lot of those supposedly male jobs could ultimately be done by women, too. I really don't think that there's a big list of jobs that would HAVE to be done by males only.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 07:14 PM
3

That's not all that surprising. What's surprising is that women are twice as likely (60+%) to be carrying a credit card balance than men are (30%), and that whenever I read an article about this, the rationale for why this occurs is typically "pay gap", as if women have to offset that horrible, horrible discrimination with discretionary spending to keep up and it's all men's fault they carry a balance.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 03:27 PM
8

As a better illustration, the words "I will rape you," "someone should rape you," "you should rape those group of people over there," and "those group of people deserve to be raped" have different degrees of protection under the US speech laws. The first is not protected (threat), the second is protected, the third isn't (incitement of crime), while the last is protected. I've been looking for a great example to trot out on this topic and here you've stated it about as easily as can be stated. I…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 03:22 PM
1

I eyeballed the math for the non-goods producing sectors. 3.9M out of 17.8M is 22%, or 78% of the jobs can be performed by both genders. And that's only if every last job in goods producing sector can't be performed by women at all, which we both know isn't true. A percentage of the employment in those sectors does actually employ women right now, so clearly the nearly 4M jobs in that sector are not exclusively male, but a percentage of the jobs in the non-goods producing sectors are also labour…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 01:57 PM
2

Yes, you're right. Typing fast.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 01:54 PM
8

That was my thought. Taking care of children is such a freaking chore that you're willing to ignore the social pressure on men to be the earner, to cover off that missing income, and that men's relationships with their children suffer from all this? What this author might consider a yoke, some people would consider a blessing.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 01:01 AM
2

So, you've made an eloquent and reasoned argument as to why men and women are not EQUAL, but that's not really what I stated, is it? I stated that the vast majority of positions in our modern societies are such that they can be filled by either gender. That one gender might be slightly better suited, and another is slightly less suited, or that given the choice, they choose to differentiate, is really immaterial. There's enough overlap in our skill sets, and enough of these jobs barely begin to …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:47 PM
1

I can tell you that jobs where gender doesn't matter aren't vanishingly small. I absolutely disagree. Maybe where you live is different from my locale, but up here in Canada, here is our distribution of labour. The service sector dwarfs all the other sectors combined, and manufacturing only employs 4M out of the total pool of jobs. Service, accommodation, government, health care, education, etc. all total about 20M positions, and the vast majority of those positions can be held by either gender.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:38 PM
1

There's so much overlap that in most cases, we're talking degrees of success rather than a true binary, though. I've done child care, and I'm a Psychologist, so I'm doing a traditionally female job involving communication, empathy and personal care. In a truly binary set up, this job would be off limits to me, but here I am, nonetheless. There's male nurses, female pilots, etc. Sure, there's some jobs that are always going to trend to one or the other, even heavily, but no one job is truly binar…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:32 PM
16

I diverge from her commentary the minute she starts into the "we have to give men back the decision making power" rhetoric. History is largely male history, definitely, and most modern societies owe a significant debt to male ingenuity and productivity for their current state, but I don't believe for a second that this is because men are x and women are y, natively. For the bulk of our history, women were shut out from many of these roles. Could they have done the job, had they be given the chan…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:29 PM
4

I mean, we like to go on about equality but come on, a man slapping a girl in the face with a lot of force is not the same as a girl slapping a man in the face. They are both assault. Once we've determined they are both crimes, then we can start to look at the various degrees of assault and determine which of the levels applies most appropriately, but they are still both assault. As long as female violence keeps getting re-imagined as something less than assault because they do less damage, we'l…
/r/MensRights02/10/15 02:48 PM
2

I live nearby, but I'll be honest, the only one in the crew that I truly think is a good spokesperson for the movement is Straughan. The lean is WAY too much into anti-feminism for me, so far, and there's better places to be putting the effort, especially in this province.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 05:41 AM
7

We are, and if you freaking feminists would stop getting in the way and opposing attempts to do so, maybe this would iron itself out. We want shared parenting initiatives, and who stands in the way? NOW and other feminist organizations. We want equality in our criminal justice systems, and who stands in the way by arguing for discriminatory legislation in favour of women, or even legislation helping women opt completely out of the system? Feminist organizations. We want equality in combat troops…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:44 PM
4

Google recidivism rate for murder. Learn. You clearly think you know a lot more than you actually do.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:21 PM
7

Most murders are crimes of passion, so yeah ... no.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:40 PM
2

So all men are doing it, or might well do and its biological it according to you . Wow, you leapt right off the chart on that one. Homosexuality is naturally occurring in many animal species, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is the norm. See what I did there? In a population of millions of men, we're all going to fall somewhere on the good old Bell Curve, and most of us will fall above the "lookin' for rape in all the wrong places" line and be perfectly decent human beings. A small perce…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:39 PM
3

It's not that bad. I broke the cardinal rule and went in outside the archive link just to check the general tenor of the commentary, and there's plenty of people in their hacking on him for being sensational, for cherry picking his stats, replying to the most egregious and reaching posters with statistical rebuttals ... the screenie was taken with a nasty pool on that one page for archive, but it's evolved a bit since that was done.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:31 PM
3

Or ... we could take those numbers, amalgamate them, go to the public with the 510 murders, point out that Australia is a nation of 23M people, and that this represents a murder rate of 2.21/100K, which is freaking NOTHING. It's about 1/4 of the world rate. How the hell would these people survive in Washington, DC, where the murder rate is 19-21/100K every year, or Bogota, Columbia, where it sometimes hit 50/100K in the heavy drug years?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:17 PM
3

I think this is a pretty thin case to hang a men's issue on. You think so? What I'm reading is that the entire case hung on her testimony, so two kids years younger than she was were essentially convicted on her say so. Flip those genders. If an 18 year old boy was driven out into a secluded area by two 15 year old girls, implied he was coerced and intimidated into sex and just "shut off", but the two 15 year olds said it was all consensual and there was no physical pressure and he could leave a…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:59 PM
19

That was her story, sure. The boys said she was free to go at any time, that she agreed to let him have sex on her conditions, and gave him her number afterward. So, in essence, a 15 year old kid was convicted on a he said/she said case with an adult woman.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:55 PM
3

I can't speak for all men, but part of the reason I took so long to marry again after my first marriage was that I couldn't find anyone that wasn't carrying significant debt. Everyone I'd date would eventually let slip that they had thousands of dollars of credit card debt, and most of it was for ridiculously frivolous purchases. In the US, literally twice as many women carry credit card debt as do men. I'm up in Canada, but my personal experience suggests that Canada's not far off that split. S…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 11:27 PM
3

You may, but the statistics on this one are clear. Most single earner studies show men and women at near parity, but that's because they include single parents. If you compare only dual parent households, you chop out 2/3 of the female breadwinners from the mix, and only 1/29 of the male breadwinners. If there's two parents in the home, but only one income, it's overwhelmingly a Dad earning that cash. And, to be frank, most of those single parents are getting child support, so they aren't truly …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 11:14 PM
9

I love how you got downvoted for this. The article cites all kinds of stats about how most incarcerated women are poor, in for non-violent offenses, etc. but doesn't cite the same statistics for men. If it had, you'd see that most men are ALSO in jail for non-violent offenses, come from poorer backgrounds, typically have drug and alcohol issues in their past. We've known that drugs/alcohol, mental illness and poverty are the primary drivers of most crime for decades, now. This isn't "news" becau…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 10:30 PM
2

I completely agree with you, though I don't think that women are often dating men purely for attention. Your argument assumes women only say no because of this. Not only, no. I used a more extreme example, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring other contexts. In general, there's degrees of offenses and degrees of response, and as long as the two stay roughly in alignment, we're all happy. A person is allowed to get themselves in over their heads, to change their mind because something twigs, to get…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:06 PM
3

Why, oh why, are conservatives so convinced that sexy clothing inspires men to commit assault My girlfriend said this once, and I pointed out that while it doesn't necessarily push one into criminality, it definitely sends a message and is part of the plethora of non-verbal communication avenues humanity uses. If I walk in and my girlfriend is in lingerie, I'm getting a different set of signals than if I walk in and my girlfriend is in sweatpants and a hoody. From colour to cut to coverage, clot…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:10 PM
4

This is disturbing to me It's basic respect for people's time and effort, so I don't know why you'd be upset with this. Men have to adhere to this standard, in reverse. We all know the guy that picks up women with insinuations and implications and allusions to a possible relationship, with phrases like, "I just haven't met the right one ..." or "You're different than most women ..." and in so many ways implies that it's not just a shag. And when the women find out that he's just in it for the se…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 06:30 PM
7

Someone downvoted you, but I gave you an up vote to compensate. I totally agree. In another context, this would be untenable. If I walk into a shop and start browsing cell phones, and the clerk comes over and asks if I need help, and I say yes, I've set the first step of an expectation, that I'm here to buy. If I spend an hour chatting about phones, getting relative figures, and all along I'm implying I'm in the buying mood, I've furthered that expectation. If I get to the point where I make a d…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:44 PM
19

My alma mater has 39000 students, 22000 of which are female. 1 in 5 over a four year degree means 4400 in four years, or 1100 a year. What did my alma mater see reported to it last year? 12. We accept that under reporting exists, but most estimates are in the 8x to 20x bracket, not two full orders of magnitude.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:32 PM
1

I was speaking purely about the nature of the definition of the word, but I actually agree with you here. If you can hold someone quasi captive at a resort and compel them to watch all sorts of sales videos in pursuit of selling them a time share, you can put the lean on to separate someone from their pants.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:11 AM
2

Well, there has to be a difference between coercion and intimidation, and I think that difference lies in a shift towards manipulation and social shaming rather than raw physical pressure or threat of violence.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:26 PM
8

Well, to be fair, she brought up the topic. Please tell me that you understand that it's not normal to meet someone at a bar, and within a few minutes of meeting them, you're regaling them with the story of your rape outside while having a smoke ...
/r/MensRights22/09/15 01:10 PM
5

I have a simpler system: kids and cats. If neither like your potential partner, it's an issue.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 01:02 PM
3

I dislike how dishonestly the text is structured. When you read the methodology, it's clear that there's four criteria: force, coercion, by abuse of incapacitation, and without prior consent. The way these stats are presented in this article, however, paints it as non-consensual being the broad category, and the other three are within it: "The survey found that 23 percent of undergraduate women and 5 percent of undergraduate men said they were victims of non-consensual sexual contact – ranging f…
/r/MensRights21/09/15 08:56 PM
1

I'm sorry, but we're talking grown adults, here, who have paid for an education, have the syllabus, bought the books from the book store and are presumably capable of Googling the books and getting a synopsis before reading them. The onus should always be on the adult student, not the professor. Spoon feeding them rather than reiterating to them, over and over, that they are adults and should be protecting themselves, isn't helping anything.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 07:20 AM
1

To be honest, I think the judge did the right thing. She put his hand on her breast and suggested a sex act that never actually happened. The error here isn't that a brush over the line that didn't go anywhere didn't result in a prison sentence, it's that when those happen with men they are treated much more harshly than they warrant. Coming onto a young woman inappropriately, but stopping short of an actual sex act, should result in a warning and a suspended sentence, too.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:19 AM
5

Most people are generally decent. Oh, I didn't argue they were a-holes or scumbags, just self-interested rather than altruistic when the choice comes up. There's a lot of grey area before you get into being a scumbag where mixed motivations live. If your primary motivation is to make yourself wealthy, a great way to do so is to make products that benefit humanity broadly, so that a lot of people buy them, for example. Your primary need gets met, but so do the needs of other people, as well. A lo…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:00 PM
2

I don't know where you got from my post that I'm somehow holding her responsible for his cheating. The only decision she's responsible for is putting mad cash or financial security higher on her priority pole than fidelity in her marriage. That's her choice to make, obviously. But what's also obvious, though, is that some of the points made in the article, like "they don't need rescuing" or "they're looking for a partner and not a father for their child" or perhaps "lonely doesn't equal desperat…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:36 PM
2

I gave you an up vote on principle. People, people, people ... we all would like to think about people in positive terms, but empathy and altruism are a minority group of traits. Most of humanity is effectively selfish.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:11 PM
7

What a ridiculous article. Virtually every point is often reversed in real life, so this is little more than propaganda. My real life ex has gone 16 years without a date, is a seething mass of insecurities and ideologies, can barely hold a job, fell into religion hard, and is a ludicrous helicopter parent that micro-manages her kid. The next person that gets involved with her romantically is walking into a ticking time bomb. And that's just the most salient single Mom I know. I've got about half…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 01:33 PM
6

And, in about a decade, "Surge in Danish women using state services to help raise their children."
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:12 AM
2

"everyday experience of being a woman" Not the tiny percentage of women that actually experience unwanted physical touching or violence every day, but "a woman". The artist specifically went out of her way to state that every woman can empathize with these images, and not just the people who actually experience them. So, now, all you need is basic empathy to claim victim status. If you can empathize with the images, you're in the pile.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:15 PM
1

I got accused of physical abuse ... and online stalking ... and of threatening to kidnap my kid. The reality? Good job, new wife, no police history at all, and nothing worse than a speeding ticket. It's not fair, it will never be fair, and in a lot of cases, there's literally nothing you do about it. I can tell you, though, that you can carve out a pretty decent life without the kids in it, and while that's a terrible silver lining, it's still a silver lining. Kids can be amazing. Sometimes, the…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:42 AM
3

Not sure if that matters all that much. If the average of all sex crimes is 80%, it would be virtually zero chance that rape would be significantly lower, or that average would drop.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 05:33 AM
3

Topics are organic. There's no rule, anywhere, that discussion can't extrapolate or expand on the theme of the posted link, but I think you know that.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 10:24 PM
1

And my point is that isolation of social standards to just those that affect one group negatively is more than a little bit artificial.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:18 PM
4

Sure, but with a caveat. The fact women faced this particular set of standards more than men have should in no way diminish the fact men have faced other standards, and those standards are no less unfair than being judged on your looks. Primarily, this manifested in the fact men were supposed to do pretty much everything else that didn't involve being pretty, cooking, cleaning and popping out babies.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:54 PM
3

Yes, now that would happen, but in my proposal, you can't separate legal responsibility from the legal rights. The two go hand in hand. If you take away the legal rights, then the responsibility goes with it.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:29 PM
6

That would still kill the money. No play, no pay. The entire point is that the connection cannot be broken.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:41 PM
16

I've said for years, the money and the access have to be packaged as a unit. If you pay, you play, and until criminality comes into play, and you show you can't be trusted near children, the default assumption should be that you can be. Tie them tight like that, and most of these issues would go away overnight. The minute women realize that playing petty politics with their kids would cost them income, it would stop, dead.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 04:27 PM
2

I explained that in the first reply. It's a dichotomy. Every bit of responsibility you eke OFF of women goes ONTO men. Any concerted push to absolve women of personal responsibility for their actions, or to absolve them of personal responsibility for their safety, means that onus falls on someone else. While, in a rape, this might be OK because the rapist gets the bulk of the blame, anyway, in any scenario short of rape, this fucks over the guy. We're now at a point where a lot of scenarios that…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:11 PM
1

It's not as crazy as you think. The prison population is chock bloody full of people with FAS, psychological disorders like NPD, ASD, or ASPD, ongoing drug and alcohol addictions, prior histories of abuse, etc. It's not really that "out there" to suggest that the people who commit these crimes have some pretty big drivers to do so. Issues with impulse control fill our jails, reliably. But, is the comparison between an addict who slips vs. a predator that attacks because the situation is so ripe …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:01 PM
0

We're not discussing hazy situations/grey areas of consent. To the contrary, most sexual assaults live in this grey area. Very few indeed are as black and white as you seem to want. Let's flip this corollary around and see if you can't examine it from another perspective. If I know my brother is a drug addict, how culpable am I if he has a relapse, if I: a) Let him live in my home during recovery, ensure there's no booze, smokes, drugs, or avenues to obtain such in my home, and ensure he's visit…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:43 PM
5

The general push to reduce or even eliminate female agency in these types of situations has had repercussions that have negatively affected men as a class. You need go no further than the differential treatment of drunken sex, by gender, that we're seeing on campuses in the US, these days. If there's two parties having sex, and one cannot legally have agency for her actions due to her gentle XX chromosomes, then by default the legal onus falls on the other party, right? Well, that other party is…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:21 PM
1

Well, I think my initial advice still stands ... if there's no true guarantee that you'll see accurate data, and you don't trust her motives, then you have to change the game you're playing and try and win from another angle. Find out what percentage of visitation you need to have with your kids before child support shuts off. Aim for that visitation level, and then kill child support via another angle, an angle where her income doesn't mean squat. Up here in Canada, it's 60-40, so if you lived …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:48 AM
1

Well I agree in general with what youre saying but there are some historical injustices that can be righted and if not righted especially by those who benefit from them then those persons become responsable for the original crime. Only in certain rare circumstances where the benefit is still tangible and you can directly point to it's ongoing existence. This really isn't that situation. A better example would be something like the residential schools up here in Canada, where the law of the land …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:35 AM
1

What I wrote them: To whom it may concern, I have a teenage son suffering from a significant bout of mental illness, mental illness brought on because his mother systematically emotionally abused him and socially isolated him for the better part of 15 years. He fled her world to live with me, the minute he worked up the courage. He's also got a girlfriend that I'm pretty confident is cheating on him, but he's so besotted with her that he's oblivious to the signs and signals, and seems intent on …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:05 AM
1

I think you could have honestly stopped at the first sentence. There's some seriously unimportant people out here, and I reserve the right to ignore those fucks.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 10:56 PM
1

So, you went to a child support office to get help in calculating child support, and ostensibly both reported incomes, but ... in what form? I've been dealing with this a loooooong time, and I can't see any kind of business built around CS or any government sponsored CS office not wanting full tax records for income. What did you both provide? As for specific advice, what I'd be arguing is for more equal distribution of time with the kids. If you come at it from that angle, so you're clearly wor…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:42 PM
2

Ultimately, that woman's notion is founded on the fact we have collective guilt. Men can't be oppressed against because we're part of a general class, spanning not only clear across 3.5Bn modern men, but clear back into history, as well. Every time I hear this, I have the same response: fuck that noise. I'm not responsible for my father, my brother or my son (now that he's an adult), even though all three are blood relationships, let alone some other dude on the street that I might see or not se…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:06 PM
1

Ultimately, she apologized to me, a couple of days later. She said that it really bothered her, but that she could see that I didn't want that scenario to come to pass and that with millennia of human history to go on, "might makes right" was the most prevalent pattern, and thus the most likely to re-emerge with the death of the rule of law.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 03:59 PM
1

Absolutely. I told her that not ALL men would do the raping and pillaging thing, but that a percentage would, and that percentage would be a lot higher than she likely would expect. There's a lot of people that would change their behaviour if the rule of law vanished.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 03:57 PM
43

I've always wondered how radfems are going to implement these "put all men in a camp" or "exterminate 90% of men" strategies. One of the biggest fights I've had with my wife was on this topic. I told her that if the rule of law broke down there would be roving gangs of men that would just ride over the horizon, find some village, and nab all the women to bring back as slaves. She got viscerally angry, as if this was a ludicrous statement, babbled a bit about the law (I said the rule of law was g…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:01 PM
3

Google the recent speaking engagement by Joe Oliver (Canadian MP and Finance Minister) who was going to speak at a men's only health club in downtown Toronto. The event got cancelled when it came to light, and about 2/3 of the commentary was about how a men's only health club shouldn't exist in 2015. And yet there's women's only health clubs all over Toronto, including one maybe two blocks from this men's club. The double standard on male-only vs. female-only spaces is pretty bad.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:49 PM
6

Why are there so many advocates in the MRM that open their mouth and say stupid things? When faced with visible bigotry, some people react emotionally, and logic takes a back seat. It's pretty much normal. Watch the video of the feminists disrupting the speaking engagement in Toronto at the U of T. They are so wound up that they are barely forming sentences.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:46 PM
5

So? They are doing a public service. Laws get written all the time without any kind of forethought into how they could potentially be abused. Everyone looks at the primary use case and ignores the other possibles. People like this force the issue and show how laws can be bent to a purpose, sometimes heavily. The solution to someone showing you your law is shit, or that your personal interpretation of a sound law is shit, isn't to try and stop them from exposing those weaknesses or from profiting…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:44 PM
2

There's two: "Testosterone Rapidly Increases Neural Reactivity to Threat in Healthy Men: A Novel Two-Step Pharmacological Challenge Paradigm" by Stefan M.M. Goetz, Lingfei Tang, Moriah E. Thomason, Michael P.Diamond, Ahmad R. Hariri, and Justin M. Carré (DOI:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.01.016). The article appears in Biological Psychiatry, Volume 76, Issue 4 (August 15, 2014) - Linky - article and then: "Overdoing Gender: A Test of the Masculine Overcompensation" Robb Willer, Christabel L. Rogalin, …
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:36 PM
2

They did have a control group, yes. What I'm also finding is that if the study measures aggression, it finds zip, but if it measures threat response, it finds something, so a good summary of the results would be that it increases the response to a negative stimulus rather than making the person aggressive on his own.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:28 PM
2

Do you have some examples, because I just finished reading a study where women were given a 100ug/ml injection and they found measurable differences in how rationally they approached problems. That kind of injection temporarily doubles a woman's T levels, but I've yet to see anything where we're getting them up to male levels, ie. 1200-1400 ng/dL.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:31 PM
2

Not saying recidivism rates should be a basis for sentencing. But you basically are implying that's what's happening. You're implying that we know that women are less likely to REoffend, so we take it a little easier on them the first time through. No crystal ball, but we can see the tits and as long as we can see the tits, we play the numbers and give them a break.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:25 PM
3

I found this odd, too. When polled in prison, Canadian men in for sexual assault admit to multiple victims often, with an average of just over six victims per man, so there's clearly some serial offenders in our prison population. I don't think that it's that odd that a pool of 8887 men sees some repeat offenders in the pile. What's tough to draw from the studies is whether the issue is large enough for the degree of response, given that only 120 men in 8887 respondents were identified as potent…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:14 PM
1

Have a nice day!
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:35 PM
0

You have literally the thinnest skin I've ever encountered on the Internet. You'd think if your principles were so strong and dearly held, you could stomach one lonely person disagreeing with you online. Clearly, you can't.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:23 PM
0

Avoiding women, wholesale, isn't a gender wide smear? Whatever you want to convince yourself of, dude, you go right ahead. And this "shaming" crap? Hilarious. Day after day we hear about how thin skinned the feminists are and how they are professional victims, and now you're on that bus, too. I'm sorry some random guy you don't even know thinks you demean yourself by making gender-wide estimations of value, but I think you'll just have to buck it up, sunshine.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:03 PM
0

MGTOW is founded on a general collectivized worthlessness of an entire gender or of our society as a whole. There are some women worth avoiding, but not all women are worth avoiding, and if you check out totally, you're smearing with a really broad brush. That's your right, I guess, but I don't have to respect it.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:00 PM
5

Hmmm, I think I'd call myself a humanitarian pragmatist. I'm a humanitarian because I think most men and women have more in common, by far, than we'll ever have in difference, and far too much focus falls on gender as a dividing line. PUA, TRP and to a lesser extent, MGTOW, all revolve around a basic conception of manipulation that I think demeans people, on both sides. I'm a pragmatist, though, so I know that there's people those solutions work for, situations where those solutions are a big be…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 10:21 PM
1

Sorry you had to go through that, but I've personally seen women fired for affairs with lower order staff, and my own work relationship, even though there was no direct reporting capacity at all and we were in completely different buildings and business units, ended up with my current wife getting fired. If this guy was getting treatment women didn't get, I'd be on board, but I've seen women with my own eyes run into this very scenario. To me, better hay is made when pointing out jail sentence t…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 10:06 PM
1

He's a bit of a religious nutter, but he's tabled legislation like this twice, and it's gone down to defeat both times. It's very hard for me to forward his legislation to my family and friends via social media, because the minute I do, they discover the religious angle and they immediately throw up the walls. If anything, this kind of legislation needs a better spokesperson.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:35 PM
2

I think that a great many of them are living in a perpetual state of denial and wishful thinking. This almost deserves a full blog post because of its profundity. The reality for women in the 21st century is that they are earning 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, but they are ALSO twice as likely to be carrying credit card debt. That combination where they aren't maximizing their income potential, but are also living beyond their means indicates that there's an entire generation of women lo…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:08 PM
2

Maybe not bad at it, or less focused on it, but perhaps they've keyed on single metric too heavily, like height? If their definition includes a very narrow view of one specific characteristic like this, it can inordinately skew the overall rating of attractiveness. Edit: that could explain why the range considered attractive is so narrow, but also explain why they deviate out of that pool when messaging. They might make exceptions for other characteristics if he's got the key one they focus on, …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:26 PM
8

Anecdotal, I know, but dating for me from my mid 30s to my mid 40s was amazing, astronomically different than dating in my 20s. The combination of more money, a better job, greater overall confidence level, vastly better wisdom (and thus less time wasted chasing validation whores) and a pool of women from 20-50 that were generally unhappy with their lot in life, meant some significant success. I won't say, yet, that it's made up for the shitty marriage, divorce, and 15 years of custody wars over…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:08 PM
3

My only quibble with your analysis is the equation of messaging with dating. The fact women will message people they perceive as less attractive more often than men will doesn't necessarily translate to them ultimately dating men they consider less attractive. When a significant percentage of discourse on dating sites is for stroking one's ego, that's an important distinction. It could easily be argued that women will seek out attention from men they consider unattractive more than men will see …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:02 PM
1

LOL. I lived that dynamic, so I know precisely how common it is, but having them both there from day one only counters so much of that thinking. You can't raise women thinking they are innately better at raising kids without that getting ingrained in a few noggins. As for Sweden, it's an experiment with some limited success. All the articles I've read about it say it's working really well, with the women and the men both enjoying the slight shift in focus, but then again, those articles only eve…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:45 PM
1

Maternity and paternity have to be separate, though, have to be mandatory, and have to not see a drop in pay. Many nations have tried shared maternity/paternity, and it still found that Mom opted to take most of that shared leave. Sweden had to mandate paternity, for example. The issue is that leave doesn't pay your full wage, and most houses can't run on reduced wages for both family members, but can limp along with only one on reduced wages. Men typically make more, so when that decision on wh…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:24 PM
3

Long term, I think so. We're herd creatures and we do a lot of category thinking. When someone comes along and draws a line in the sand and says, before this line = good and after that line = bad, we naturally start aligning around the division. By drawing that line around gender, feminists have inevitably driven both women and men into their respective camps and hardened positions. Given the current discrepancy in how the two camps are treated, this can only but hurt women. It's not men that th…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:48 PM
4

I was thinking of writing a rebuttal to that viral piece, myself, and while my stories are different than your stories, they all add up to the same general tenor. I will say this ... I've been a national level athlete up here in Canada, and in a sport (Olympic Weightlifting) absolutely rife with steroids and PEDs. Guys that were doing this in their 20s are now totally physical messes at 40, and I've watched them fall apart. I never competed with it, because my weight class was too light to even …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:01 PM
2

Don't most nations disallow women from their military altogether, and a huge proportion of those that allow women disallow them from combat roles? In the US, women have been allowed in the military for some time, now, but are just now getting equal access to combat roles, as an example.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:51 PM
1

This is beyond just calling you "boyfriend" at work. He was arranging out of school meetings (or trying to), texting her socially, etc.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:16 PM
7

And women could keep their legs closed and make the decision up front, too, and then abortion wouldn't even be an issue, would it?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 12:31 AM
6

Women behaving badly and getting away with it is a direct example of the basic double standard that exists around justice. This situation has none of that. The guy abused his position, and found out the hard way that a relationship that would have been perfectly legal if he wasn't in a position of authority, wasn't so acceptable when he was. He wasn't punished more harshly for being a man, punished at all because he's a man, or made an exception of because he's a man ... nada.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 12:28 AM
5

However, can someone explain sincerely why it's so bad to hold both parties accountable in that scenario? I'll take a stab at this one. Men are already ultimately compelled legally to assume financial responsibilities for their children. Child support obligations follow you across state lines, to other nations, into jail, through bankruptcy ... there's no escaping them shy of outright flight. So, what's really happening here is that legislation is leveling the femal and male experience. Legislat…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 10:39 PM
2

With all due respect, they base their proposal on the BC family law provisions, which are better than some provinces, but still have enough pretty serious loopholes that I find it hard to support them. For example: a) If you did not reside with that child around its birth, you are not automatically considered a guardian, despite being its biological parent. Domicile should in no way determine your legal status or concerned fathers who find out they have a child because of a one night stand are o…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 10:04 PM
14

Not sure how this applies to men's rights. When you're in a position of authority, you'd have to be daft to get overtly friendly with a student, and that applies to both male and female coaches, teachers, administrators, etc. Anyone that's taught knows that you have your favourites, and people that you're possibly helping get through some tough times, or to acclimate, or to even just basically pass the course, but you don't refer to those students as "bae", or "baby" and you don't take them for …
/r/MensRights27/08/15 04:05 PM
2

As per the author.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 02:50 PM
5

Give it a rest. There's plenty of decent women out there. Oddly enough, out of a pool of 3.8Bn of them, there's a few gems. Rail on feminism all you want, but feminists are a minority of women out there, not a majority.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 12:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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