TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

cryptogirl Archive

View 7 posts and 1,444 comments by cryptogirl on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,444 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

the line about men being abusers. Huh? There's nothing about men being abusers. That section is about how advertising creates unrealistic beauty standards. And the final line. Help women, and mens problems will go away! Again, it's not saying that. It's saying that girls fighting for gender liberation help boys -- not vice versa. And nowhere does it promise all "mens problems will go away" -- just that "the way to freedom will be a little easier."
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:46 PM
7

It's a crimethinc poster, so yeah it's from an anarchist anticapitalist group. But it's clearly a feminist analysis that's being presented (and upvoted by /r/mensrights).
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:01 PM
3

Yeah, I personally identify as anarcha-feminist. My biggest issue with non-anarchist feminists is probably their tendency to oppose prision abolition -- something I'm surprised the MRM has yet to get on board with.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:29 PM
14

But this poster is a nuanced feminist reaction to men's issues.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:49 PM
16

A well-received feminist poster at the top of men's rights? Cool :)
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:44 PM
4

I just don't think anything "white rights" related belongs here. If the MRM wants to be a force for good, it needs to move past this sort of reactionary analysis.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:32 PM
36

I don't think the poster is hating on men, but I do think it's making an argument that feminism helps men escape stifling gender roles (a position I personally agree with).
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:26 PM
4

I know I've been out of loop for a while, but why are you posting white rights stuff in /r/mensrights? Am I the only one here who thinks that's weird? o_O
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:14 PM
1

Who's forcing the majority of boys to dress up as girls?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 05:04 PM
3

I do remember being a kid. I remember feeling terrified and ashamed that the gender I felt inside was different from what I knew was expected from me. I'm trans, so obvously I'm looking at this issue from that perspective. I think one of the most important things any parent can do for a child is to let them know in every possible way that they are loved regardless of how they express their gender.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:17 PM
1

Valid question. As I said in another comment: To be honest, I'm not even convinced it's appropriate to address these issues outside of a criminal setting (where a defendant has strong legal protections.)
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:29 PM
1

I get that. I'm just curious if you think media portrayals of boys wearing nail polish are a good thing or a bad thing.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:09 PM
5

That's never stopped me, but I suppose thick skin is a pre-req for feminists posting on r/mensrights :P Also, for the record, I haven't downvoted any comments in this thread; I'm genuinely interested in the conversation.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:02 PM
9

What about young boys who want to wear nail polish, or break gender norms in other ways?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 11:17 AM
3

What are your thoughts on the ad in relation to men's rights?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 11:02 AM
3

boys are being feminized by the media, women are just doing what their told. Actually, my sense is that the media is only now just starting to catch up. Up until a few years ago, gender non-conforming kids were almost never depicted in the media. Do you know how many boys in the USA are going to have their mothers paint their toe nails sometime this month after watching that commercial? No, but are you saying it's a bad thing? Why?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 10:55 AM
3

Fair enough, but I'm curious about your (and any other MRA's) take on this. In particular, I've noticed two somewhat contradictory lines of argument from the men's rights movement: one says strict male gender roles are enforced by women, the other argues that males (especially boys) are being feminized by women.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 10:33 AM
1

I'm disappointed Mr. Harlan chose to delete his prior post rather than respond to my criticism. I'm sure he understands that as an attorney, he is bound to a code of professional ethics that requires honesty both inside and outside the courtroom.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 07:09 AM
-4

How can we know what's truly impossible unless we fight for it? -- cryptogirl
/r/MensRights13/04/11 09:42 PM
1

I deny that the President or those who back the President have any right to tell the people that they shall take their sons and husbands and brothers and lovers and shall conscript them in order to ship them across the seas for the conquest of militarism and the support of wealth and power in the United States. You say that is a law. I deny your law. I don't believe in it. The only law that I recognize is the law which ministers to the needs of humanity, which makes men and women finer and bette…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:50 PM
6

You said they complain that the outcome of men being the majority of those able to achieve high status (e.g. politician) is benevolent sexism. OK, I'll grant that I've never seen an MRA use the exact term 'benevolent sexism" in this context (that's an artifact of the copychange), but certainly I've heard arguments that explain the phenomenon in terms of female privilege. And yes, men in the military is not discrimination against women, it is male expandability. For you to claim otherwise is disg…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:19 PM
2

Guilty as charged.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:56 PM
3

How many MRAs claim that the fact that that most politicians etc. are men is benevolent sexism and actually hurting men? The argument (as I've heard it) is that males are forced to compete for social status to win the affections of status-seeking hypergamous females. There's a lot of other examples I could have used here. For example, the idea that discrimination against women in the military is due to "male expendability."
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:51 PM
0

you seemed to say that with the lowering to the standard to 51% only 1 in 4 are expelled With the current standard, only 10-25% are permanently expelled -- with a lowered the standard, I suspect universities would be even less willing to impose that penalty. I don't mean to sound dismissive. Obviously sexual assault and false accusations of sexual assault are both terrible, potentially psychological damaging things (though even the OP, I think, wouldn't argue that false accusations of sexual ass…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:36 PM
1

Which dishonest tactic would that be?? You're telling me what I believe, before I've even taken a position. To be honest, I'm not even convinced it's appropriate to address these issues outside of a criminal setting (where a defendant has strong legal protections.)
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:07 PM
3

I think your problem, aetheralloy, is that you are unable or unwilling to look at these things from both perspectives. Let me show you what I mean: The NAMRAALT disclaimer NAMRAALT or "not all men's rights activists are like that" is a technique where anything bad about men's rights activism is handwaved away as "NAMRAALT" and the problem ignored, generally by claiming it is a minority of extremists. NAMRAALT allows MRAs to disown negatives and claim only positives. The "men's rights is egalitar…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:00 PM
0

Actually, I think it's more of an Admin issue.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 01:23 PM
-1

Let me try this again: OP claims that in the "real world," a student found responsible for sexual assault "is banned from the school forever." I'm countering that claim with the statistic that only 10-25% of such students are permanently expelled. I argue further that OP's failure on this point is indicative of either 1) his lack of knowledge of the subject matter (which, given the extent of his advocacy work, I find unlikely), or 2) his arguing in bad faith. So basically, I've accused OP of lyi…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 12:06 PM
0

I'm getting pretty sick of these dishonest debating tactics. Please respond to what I wrote, not to what you think I believe.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:21 AM
0

What does this mean in the real world? If the grievance hearing board finds that the complainant's story of the alleged incident is more credible than the accused's, even by a 50.0001 to 49.9999 percent margin, he packs his bags and is banned from the school forever. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the student gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist. According to the Center for Public Integrity, only 10-25% percent of students found responsible for sexual assault are permanently expell…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:08 AM
8

Twisting this kid's death into a racist anti-feminist talking point is the most loathsome thing I've seen in a long time. You've truly lived up to your username, sir or madam.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:11 PM
1

I don't agree with your anthropology (some sources would be nice), but it is refreshing to see an MRA criticize feminism for ethnocentrism. Feminism needs that kind of criticism. In the context of this discussion, I'm defining oppression as more than just a gendered division of labor. I'm talking about the fact that women were treated as little more than cattle for most of human history. Vestiges of this are still quite visible, especially in more conservative cultural institutions like religion…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 09:44 AM
1

Memes are just too slippery, I think, to ever be considered "hard science," or engineered in the same way as molecules or genes (although, the advertising industry may prove me wrong). But memes are do provide a valid model for looking at culture and how it changes over time. Meme theory can answer the question of why patriarchy exists without resorting to misandrist nonsense. That's incredibly useful. Regarding Chomsky, I'm more familiar with his political work, but in the vague way I'm knowled…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:23 PM
2

What's more interesting to me is memetics -- the idea that units of culture (memes) are subject to "cultural selection" in the same way that genes are subject to natural selection. Applied to oppression analysis, it offers an explanation for the origin and ubiquity of oppression not based in biology, but on an understanding that the idea itself is well-adapted for it's own reproduction.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:58 PM
10

evolution ≠ evolutionary psychology
/r/MensRights09/04/11 09:37 AM
3

First, it's ridiculous to assume that a man looking to sexually assault women in a public restroom will be deterred by a law barring him from that restroom. If rape laws don't deter him, why would restroom laws? Second, it's clear that trans people are really the folks most at risk of assault. There's plenty of stats that will back this up.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 04:24 PM
14

What evidence do you have? Modchat. PM me if you want more information.
/r/MensRights15/01/11 09:35 AM
39

1) this a troll and a shop job -- it never happened. 2) the fluffyestrohammer account has been de-modded, to prevent future trolling along these lines.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 09:58 AM
0

I might be drawing too much from my own personal experience. Sorry ;)
/r/MensRights19/12/10 06:57 PM
4

This is so asswards -- women are conditioned to apologize for everything. If we seem to expect irrational apologies, it's only because we're so used to making them ourselves.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 02:34 PM
3

You forgot spiking the water supply with our birth-control-infused-estro-urine :)
/r/MensRights19/12/10 02:28 PM
1

That makes a lot of sense. Do you have any thoughts on boosting the signal:noise ratio, or are we basically doomed by our own success?
/r/MensRights16/12/10 06:24 PM
15

The ERA is opposed by MANY feminist groups in this country, including NOW. NOW supports the ERA. Are you just making stuff up?
/r/MensRights16/12/10 03:17 PM
11

I posted a similar thread 9 months ago. Re-reading it, and comparing it to most of the comments here makes me very sad. r/mensrights has always been rough-and-tumble, but the level of discourse, civility, and even critical thinking on this sub has declined precipitously. What happened people? I miss the old r/mensrights :(
/r/MensRights16/12/10 11:37 AM
1

The burden of proof for all criminal cases is the same: "beyond a reasonable doubt."
/r/MensRights15/12/10 08:52 AM
1

Studies have consistently shown that men receive more convictions and harsher sentencing to the same crimes. I suspect this is correct, but I'd like to see the studies. Even if true, it doesn't mean that, under the law, "men are more guilty just for being men." It means that those who are applying the law are biased against men. This is an important distinction. Also rape accusers get anonymity, while the accused do not, giving them an unfair advantage which is unconstitutional. How is this unco…
/r/MensRights15/12/10 08:49 AM
1

MRAs would reform rape laws to address the problem of false rape claims. Feminists are wary of such reforms because they believe they would lead to an increase in incidents of rape. That's the policy issue here: how do we balance the need to deter rape with the need to deter false rape claims? The ratio of false rape claims to actual rapes is relevant to that discussion.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 09:57 AM
1

Of course survey data will come with a measure of uncertainty, but that doesn't mean it's non-empirical. There's uncertainty in carbon dating too, but reasonable people don't trash the data and become young-earthers. If you wanna throw out survey data, you're gonna have to chuck a big chunk of the social sciences along with it.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 09:30 AM
1

Male victims of rape report rape far less often than female victims of rape. Rape underreporting is a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 09:02 AM
0

You're assuming that stories of rape to friends and family are all true. Not at all. 50% is a low-ball, conservative estimate. Some studies suggest as many as 95% if rapes go unreported.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 08:59 AM
-1

miss me? :)
/r/MensRights13/12/10 07:11 PM
-6

Every reliable study I'm aware of puts the reporting rate for rape below 50%. If we're thinking about the prevalence of false rape accusations relative to actual (rather than reported) rapes, we should be cutting these numbers at least in half.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 06:32 PM
1

And even in law, the burden of the proof in cases of rape is quite different from any other crime. The burden of proof is the same, but there are some differences in evidentiary rules regarding sexual assault (at least in the US). Doesn't this case clearly show that the presumption, written or implied, of guilt in cases of rape is more than "simply rhetoric"? By itself, no. As reported in the Guardian, for example, in the UK: Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted …
/r/MensRights13/12/10 06:08 PM
2

I'll grant that racism, sexism, and corruption are complex and interrelated. However, the oft-repeated statement that men are "considered guilty of rape until proven innocent" is simply rhetoric -- it has no basis in criminal law.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 05:25 PM
5

You're operating from a set of misassumptions. First, working class women have been a part of the workforce for as long as civilization has existed (literally, we're talking the textile mills ancient Sumeria). Second, feminism itself is far older than you seem to give it credit for. Check out this wiki on militant feminism during the French Revolution if you don't believe me.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 05:22 PM
2

If you're interested in an actual feminist take on the myth of the black rapist, check out the enormously influential work of Angela Davis. In particular, this. In the United States and other capitalist countries, rape laws as a rule were framed originally for the protection of men of the upper classes, whose daughters and wives might be assaulted. What happens to working-class women has usually been of little concern to the courts; as a result, remarkably few white men have been prosecuted for …
/r/MensRights13/12/10 04:33 PM
0

It's not patriarchy or feminism. It's called racism.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 11:22 AM
1

I'm not so active as I used to be, but I'm still around.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 11:53 AM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights12/11/10 02:21 PM
1

The latter -- what we call in the sidebar "disrespectful commentary." If you feel this is an unfair standard, so be it. If you're willing to self-moderate a bit more, maybe we could talk about making the ban temporary.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 03:06 PM
3

Thanks for the context, but were the complaints about comments that didn't meet 2X's guidelines? Yes. I for one (as an XX if it matters) think Eddie is a valuable contributor to 2X. You're not alone. He was a big (if cranky) part of the community. A lot of us will miss him.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 09:15 AM
6

He was warned.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 09:09 AM
9

I didn't ban you, but I can tell you that we received numerous complaints about your posts over a period of months. So really, this was a last straw kind of situation. I don't know if that makes you feel any better, but there it is.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 05:25 PM
3

I was banned and then later unbanned. Here's the link if you're interested.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 07:12 PM
3

Thanks for the mention :) I'll admit that I'm kinda torn on this question. On the one hand, I don't want to get banned again just for voicing a minority opinion. On the other hand, I haven't been posting here as often lately because (and maybe some of this is my imagination) the atmosphere seems to have gotten more poisonous over the last few months. I don't what the solution is. Modding on 2X has taught me that dealing with trolls is anything but simple.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 07:28 AM
1

In OE "wyf" meant woman and wife. The Indo-European root means shame, and female sex organ. Which "original" meanings are you implying are non-offensive?
/r/MensRights24/10/10 11:03 PM
2

wikipedia: The term originated from the Middle English wif, from Old English wīf, woman, wife, from Germanic * wībam, woman, related to Modern German Weib (woman, wife), from the Indo-European root ghwībh- 'shame; pudenda' (cf. Tocharian B kwīpe and Tocharian A kip, each meaning 'female pudenda'.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 10:32 PM
3

I try to see issues from as many perspectives as possible. As I explained, I don't use the term "womyn" myself, but I can understand why some choose to. I thought my above explanation was pretty succinct -- what "insanity" are you talking about exactly?
/r/MensRights24/10/10 06:53 AM
1

I'm pretty sure it's just "womyn." I don't use the spelling myself, but it's easy to see how man = person, woman = wife-person, is kind of offensive.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 12:08 AM
0

Surely you must realize that by trolling, you are only hurting men's rights.
/r/MensRights23/10/10 06:42 AM
1

Isn't it? If the genders were reversed, I still wouldn't see the problem.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 11:59 PM
1

You think that's bad, check out his views on trans people.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:49 PM
0

You compare me to a Nazi and then accuse me of using "bullshit and theater?" I'm laughing out loud.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:39 PM
4

To an actual men's rights supporter, it's obvious the impact of you have: you discredit the men's rights movement from the inside. So really, there are 3 possibilities: 1) You are sincere -- but you are too stupid to realize the damage you're doing to men's rights. 2) You are a covert misandrist -- the damage you do to men's rights is intentional. 3) You are an incompetent troll -- you don't give a shit about men's rights and your comments are failed attempts at "lulz." Looking at these three po…
/r/MensRights22/10/10 01:17 PM
3

I love men; I pity incompetent trolls.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 12:11 PM
5

I pity you.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 12:05 PM
5

Oh ABsynth808, I'll never understand how someone named for the most awesome liqueur ever and the most awesome drum machine ever can be such nob, but whatever. Just one of those mysteries I guess.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 11:49 AM
1

The link doesn't wanna work for me.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 07:45 AM
1

Just be careful, or you might end up wearing these. But seriously, while it is creepy that your mom is telling you what underwear you can and can't wear, most girls dig a guy in briefs (I'll assume you're old enough to figure out why). My guy wears briefs all the time, and he looks smoking hot in them.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 07:09 AM
1

Do misogynist MRAs speak for you? Do you distance yourself from men's rights because of their douchery?
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:42 AM
3

Valid point. It's a bit off topic, but I wish U.S. politicians would actually prioritize poverty and homelessness, instead of just blathering on about the middle class. I guess they know where the votes are . . .
/r/MensRights21/10/10 09:14 PM
3

Admittedly, men have taken a harder hit in the recession, but the female poverty rate is remains significantly higher than the male poverty rate.
/r/MensRights21/10/10 08:08 PM
1

I saw that. At least the decision itself hasn't been overturned (yet). crosses fingers
/r/MensRights21/10/10 08:00 PM
2

Wouldn't that just make it more terrifying?
/r/MensRights21/10/10 10:49 AM
1

Yeah, these guys obviously need manly lessons. /s
/r/MensRights21/10/10 10:45 AM
3

It's probably not too surprising that the feminists who are most virulently anti-trans (Mary Daly, Germain Greer, Janice Raymond, et al) are also among the most misandrist. While these "womyn-born womyn" make me rage harder than just about anything, I'm frustrated at how often I'm told (usually by MRAs) to abandon my own self-identification as feminist on their account, as if surrendering the movement to its most hateful members will accomplish something other than allowing that hatred to flouri…
/r/MensRights21/10/10 09:31 AM
0

Dude, no way!
/r/MensRights20/10/10 07:48 PM
0

Dude, Éowyn (whom Tolkien described as "a stern Amazon warrior" -- e.g. feminist) slew the Witchking.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 07:32 PM
6

Sweetie, I'm trans. I grew up male, am legally male, and have suffered at least as much for that maleness as many men here. If that doesn't entitle me to an opinion on men's rights, pray tell, what would?
/r/MensRights20/10/10 06:31 PM
4

My original point was that trolls here tend to espouse feminist or extremist views because those are the views most likely to sow rage. It'd be pretty to tough to troll a men's rights forum by adopting a moderate MRA persona.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 06:12 PM
3

Of course that's your right, and any word is subject to various interpretations. Nonetheless, I think most folks here use the voting system to encourage "reasonable discourse." That's why trolls get so heavily downvoted.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 05:57 PM
2

Quite right. Moreover, if the state stepped in and forbade you from moderating your blog, that would be a violation of your speech rights.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 03:37 PM
7

I feel like I'm letting myself get sidetracked here. The problem I'm trying to highlight is not "extremist" viewpoints, but users who are provocative for the sake of being provocative (e.g. trolls). Sorry about the confusion.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 01:18 PM
1

Let's hope it holds up on appeal.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 11:26 AM
5

Who are you to decide what male issues are extreme? An active and longtime subscriber to r/mensrights. What are you comparing them to evaluate their extremeness? Moderate positions.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 10:54 AM
9

I'm upvoting you because I support bringing more readers to r/mensrights and I'm interested in the discussion this will generate. However, I believe that you profoundly misunderstand the nature of trolling. For a trolltastic explanation of what trolling is, see: this. If that article pisses you off, congratulations, you've been trolled. Trolling is everywhere on the internet, but it is especially prevalent on r/mensrights. Some trolls here espouse feminist views, and some voice extremist MRA pos…
/r/MensRights20/10/10 08:02 AM
6

If she was underage, it would have been statutory rape.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 05:20 PM
3

I read this about five times until I reread your title and saw that it didn't say "the 14th amendment doesn't apply to family law." Me = dumbass sometimes. Please accept my apologies and upvotes.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 05:14 PM
2

I think you're misreading the case here. From the opinion: the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the Rogers children from their home without obtaining judicial authorization, Royal violated the Rogerses' clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lack of exigency would have been apparent to any reasonable social worker. Accordingly, we conclude that the district…
/r/MensRights19/10/10 03:04 PM
1

. . . in bed. Well, at least some of us do sometimes ;)
/r/MensRights19/10/10 09:49 AM
1

Ironically, I think this a good sign. More male victims of abuse are coming forward, and their claims are being taken more seriously.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 09:45 AM
2

This happened to my uncle -- it's a real problem.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 09:34 AM
1

Yes, she is a feminist, and yes, so am I. But she does not speak for me. The woman is a transphobic monster. Her and her hateful brand of feminsim can die a flamey, rapey death for all I care.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 09:26 AM
4

This is not new precedent. Title VII protects women and men against (among other things) employment discrimination "because of . . . sex." I understand that a lot of men here feel that everything is stacked against them, but it is vital that MRAs resist the temptation of reflexive victimhood and know and exercise their rights.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 05:45 AM
0

At least it's easier after a few drinks.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 05:59 PM
3

I like your style :)
/r/MensRights16/10/10 07:49 PM
4

foockin' innnernetz . . . you mind if I friend you?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:30 PM
2

Oh thank god; my confidence in your sensibility has been wholly restored :)
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:19 PM
9

I'm confused. It was my understanding that "chivalry" was mostly concerned with the rights of women (and --possibly-- horses). What am I missing?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:53 PM
6

Actually, the anal sex clears it right out of me.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:50 PM
2

In all honesty, "mainstream" anything is a"crock of shit." Call me a hipster feminist, but I believe what we really need is not ideology, but identification. If men can't identify as women -- and if women can't identify as men -- then the cause is lost. We need empathy, understanding, and a transsexual perspective.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:42 PM
1

Thank you for appreciating my ironic sarcasm :)
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:13 PM
8

Maybe, but most men couldn't care less about the rights of men. It's a nascent movement.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:08 PM
9

Thanks for sharing that exchange with Iggy. Super interesting -- and I can't really find much to disagree with (even as a married woman). Regarding your thesis, well, I'm not so sure. I believe women and men together will lead us out of misandry (and misogyny). Without men's voices clearly and forcefully articulating the injustices men face, I'm doubtful women can fully appreciate men's situation (which is why I'm an active and interested participant on r/mensrights). We need to listen to each o…
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:04 PM
6

Well, in a strictly evolutionary sense, domestication does benefit domesticates -- their genomes get spread all over the place. But that's a separate conversation I suppose ;)
/r/MensRights16/10/10 03:08 PM
18

In the spirit of comity, I'll upvote you as well Hamakua. The way I see it, neither feminism nor men's rights activism is wholly good or egalitarian. It should hardly be surprising that special interest groups act in the interest of the groups they represent. What does surprise me is 1) most MRAs seem unaware that their tactics, modes of analysis, etc. are directly borrowed from feminist theory, and 2) rather than seeking compromise and common ground with feminists, most MRA's have sided with cu…
/r/MensRights16/10/10 02:34 PM
29

A lot of feminists support men's rights and are active on this subreddit. We endure the hate as best we can, and try to set a good example.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 12:44 PM
3

especially when I see a post over some slightly-misogynic but funny post that made reddit frontpage That's why we discourage crossposting -- both in the sidebar, and on the submission page.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 06:29 AM
3

You have not been banned from 2XC, nor do we ban users for posting to r/mensrights. Nice troll though.
/r/MensRights14/10/10 09:31 AM
7

And my cunt is "the sun." Let's make moon-babies!
/r/MensRights13/10/10 06:55 AM
7

Really, I'm not throwing a fit. I just think it's worth noting that 1) MRAs are finally being depicted in mainstream media, and 2) they are being portrayed negatively.
/r/MensRights25/09/10 10:18 PM
5

Enough with the faggotry already I disagree. BRING ON THE FAGGOTRY.
/r/MensRights25/09/10 10:02 PM
5

I don't want to reveal any spoilers -- suffice it to say that one of the main suspects (a university professor) expounds an extremist men's rights worldview: "feminazis" are working towards male genocide, most accusations of domestic violence are false, non-MRA men are "manginas," etc. The episode strikes me as post-worthy, because it's the first time I've seen MRAs portrayed in mainstream media.
/r/MensRights25/09/10 09:55 PM
3

In fact, it would be the height of irony for the works of a writer so passionate about individual liberty to be required reading in a high school whose students are there not of their own free will Ha! Good point.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 05:43 PM
2

You shouldn't have to read Rand period.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 05:28 PM
7

I don't get this whole r/mensrights v. 2XC feud.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 10:05 AM
1

Only the parts about unicorns.
/r/MensRights13/09/10 02:14 PM
2

Troll gets lost in spamfilter. SCANDAL!
/r/MensRights12/09/10 11:16 AM
0

I just noticed a similar message in the 2XC modmail. Thanks for the heads up on this "little experiment."
/r/MensRights10/09/10 08:45 PM
1

Absolutely. This means we can be friends now, right? :)
/r/MensRights09/09/10 01:17 AM
6

Science(!): Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism by Luders et al. in Neuroimage. 2009 Mar 30. Quote: …Results revealed that regional gray matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 11:25 PM
3

The idea that Steinem was a government asset is at least plausible, but if true, it's more likely she was working to "de-radicalize" feminism -- not "destabilize society."
/r/MensRights08/09/10 11:01 PM
12

It's actually r/twoxchromosomes.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:17 PM
4

Being a guy is hard too, but women are judged much more on their physical appearances than men. As a trans woman, one of my superpowers is knowing this first hand.
/r/MensRights06/09/10 10:34 AM
0

Really? Maybe you should inform some the people over at feminisms. I did. What do you think you just quoted?
/r/MensRights05/09/10 12:02 AM
2

Cute, but anti-semetic conspiracy theories are all about "scapegoating some conspiracy of ruling class Jews." Patriarchy isn't a secret cabal of evil men, it's a culture of male superiority.
/r/MensRights04/09/10 04:44 PM
2

This is a typically problematic anti-patriarchy argument: patriarchy is defined simultaneously as all individual men and the ruling class, and the absurd conclusion that follows -- that all men are members of the ruling class -- disproves the existence of patriarchy. The problem is, "patriarchy" does not refer to a specific group of people. It is neither "all men," nor a ruling class ("those who would most likely control societal organization;") it is the "societal organization" itself (or to be…
/r/MensRights04/09/10 08:16 AM
1

The terrifying one at the end of the known universe! Oh shit, are we not supposed to talk about Him?
/r/MensRights03/09/10 10:56 AM
1

I love r/woahdude! (but the giraffe kinda freaks me out).
/r/MensRights03/09/10 10:33 AM
1

There's a page for reported links, but you have to sift through the threads to find reported comments.
/r/MensRights03/09/10 10:07 AM
7

I can't follow your logic here at all. Even if I accepted your oddly demographic definition of "the patriarchy" (which I do not), how does showing that it makes up less than 10% of the population prove that it is "bullshit?"
/r/MensRights03/09/10 09:18 AM
0

I don't think any reasonable person could deny that these boys are victims, or that Pashtun society is highly patriarchal.
/r/MensRights03/09/10 08:40 AM
2

Why are you offended by talking about "patriarchy?" Do you deny that there is an ancient and widespread belief that men are superior to women?
/r/MensRights01/09/10 07:40 AM
2

But where does circumcision come from? Ancient Judaism? the 19th century medical establishment? Again, these were hugely male-dominated institutions. Even today, if a single mother decides to have her son circumcised, why does she do it? Largely, because she doesn't want his dick to look "weird." We live in a culture so phallocentric that non-consensual cosmetic genital surgery is considered a necessary means to achieving a normative penis. Look at the treatment of intersex infants for further e…
/r/MensRights01/09/10 07:21 AM
5

Mormon fundamentalists, the Catholic Church, imperial China . . . excellent examples of how patriarchy hurts men. Well done Kanuk.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 12:07 PM
-1

You made a straw man argument to accuse a comic of making a straw man argument? What's next, a recursive Scotsman?
/r/MensRights31/08/10 09:41 AM
9

Downvoted for whining about "feminazi downvote squad."
/r/MensRights30/08/10 11:57 PM
6

I spend a lot of time on r/mensrights arguing that feminism ≠ misandry. This blog, however, is feminist and misandrist. It's indefensible.
/r/MensRights30/08/10 10:11 AM
2

The latter.
/r/MensRights26/08/10 12:54 PM
26

If mom puts her kid up for adoption, dad should have first dibs.
/r/MensRights25/08/10 05:33 PM
3

Flushing condoms? Won't that screw the plumbing?
/r/MensRights25/08/10 10:28 AM
5

"personal attacks?"
/r/MensRights24/08/10 11:42 AM
2

I understand your passion, but legally, you'd run into a hell of a lot of proximate cause problems if these theories were tried in court. Civilly, you'd be better off going for defamation and/or malicious prosecution, and rolling the rest into damages.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 11:14 AM
0

I'm quite familiar with Portland's writing scene. In the circles I read in, women were usually in the minority.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:19 AM
4

Some women do choose to work in the nuclear industry -- a choice that wouldn't exist without feminist advances in workplace equality.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:09 AM
2

Sounds like Chesterton never met a marxist- or anarcho-feminist.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 04:27 AM
2

As I understood, she hasn't admitted to hitting anyone intentionally.
/r/MensRights23/08/10 09:22 AM
1

Thanks. I know I have an unpopular opinion on this issue (so a few downvotes are to be expected) but really I feel like it's been a good discussion.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 05:08 PM
1

I agree with you that affirmative action is (even in a very technical legal sense) "discrimination," but I nonetheless feel that (in limited circumstances) it can yield worthwhile benefits. A related point is that the absence of state-sponsored affirmative action does not guarantee equality of opportunity: individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, and the effects of past discrimination can still exist even if government takes a hands-off role. In fact, many would argue that affirm…
/r/MensRights22/08/10 03:49 PM
3

The issue is exactly deterrence. What makes the issue of false rape accusations especially complicated is finding a balance between deterring false accusations (good) and deterring actual rape victims from coming forward (bad). I don't know where best to strike that balance, but I think at least that's the basic policy calculus we should have in mind when considering this issue.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 03:10 PM
6

Sounds about right.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:52 PM
-4

I don't accept that feminism requires one to hold "a political conviction that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, and therefore need to be liberated." This might melt some brains, but one of the reasons feminists use the term "patriarchy" is to distinguish social systems where men hold substantially more power from simply being "oppressed by men." For example, most feminists acknowledge that women can be active participants in patriarchy. What's more, as feminism comes to terms wi…
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:48 PM
1

No, my argument is that government contracting isn't a free market, so the argument that affirmative action would distort a free market falls flat.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:30 PM
1

False rape accusations are certainly terrible things, but it doesn't follow that a person making a false accusation should be punished as though they committed the crime which they have falsely accused another of committing. It might seem logical, but it's a false equivalence.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:27 PM
0

There is no argument against equality of opportunity. Of course there is. There are plenty of good arguments for affirmative action. Deliberate, systematic discrimination is either wrong in principle and in practice or it isn't. I respect your position, but it bespeaks a black and white worldview that I do not share. Personally, I prefer a hybrid approach that seeks to maximize equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:20 PM
3

Obviously, we don't know what really happened, but this kind of thinking just blows my mind. It makes about as much sense as "an eye for an eye."
/r/MensRights22/08/10 11:24 AM
0

The world of government contracting is anything but a free market (ohai Halliburton). The system is rife with graft, corruption, and inside dealing. Setting aside 5% of contracts for women-owned businesses won't "screw over" what's already a broken system.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 10:23 AM
2

First off, the title is entirely misleading. The accused claims it was an accident. Second, I'm a bit shocked at how eager folks here are to put her behind bars (or execute her) for murder. Is there any evidence that this wasn't an accident? Should "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to men accused of rape? How about a little intellectual consistency, r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 09:07 AM
-1

That's an interesting choice of words. What makes it "irresponsible" exactly?
/r/MensRights22/08/10 09:01 AM
-6

When men's rights activists oppose a program that would guarantee a mere 5% of federal contracts go to women-owned businesses, they looks a lot less like an equality movement, and a lot more like movement for preserving men's social and economic dominance.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 07:37 AM
3

Not sure about the connection you're trying to make with the title, but I do love me a good beer.
/r/MensRights21/08/10 10:52 AM
4

A right is something to which someone is entitled.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 03:00 AM
2

It's actually a real issue, specially for LGBT folk. In fact, I suspect "young slim boys" is code for "effeminacy."
/r/MensRights18/08/10 01:26 AM
1

sample letter: here
/r/MensRights17/08/10 02:42 PM
4

There are a lot of pro men's rights feminists -- in fact, many of us are even on this subreddit (which requires a thick skin sometimes, trust me). In your other comments you suggest that we are "true scotsmen," but I honestly don't see how that applies. I think what's really going on is an ultimate attribution error: which refers to a bias people commonly have towards members of an outgroup. Specifically, they view negative acts committed by outgroup members as a stable trait of the outgroup, an…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 11:42 AM
1

heaven loves ya . . .
/r/MensRights16/08/10 11:08 AM
1

The article cites a book, a paper published in New Scientist, and a professor of psychiatry. I'll bet if you dug deeper into these sources, you'd find peer-reviewed work -- but this a newspaper article, what do you expect?
/r/MensRights15/08/10 04:36 PM
4

Wow, I was agreeing with a lot of what you were saying -- but again, the anti-feminist preoccupation so common on this subreddit reared its head. Feminists have not "reprogrammed" anyone. To the contrary, feminism has encouraged people to pursue their "emotional predisposition" regardless of gender stereotypes. And your final line: You would throw your own children under a bus just so you could try to prove a point. Disgusting. WTF?!
/r/MensRights15/08/10 04:30 PM
6

since i am a man though, i want to take risks and i'm not afraid of pissing people off to get what I want. Haha -- trust me, that's not an exclusively masculine trait. Therefore, if I can cause greater equalism for men at the expense of causing the great mythical 'left' to be miffed, so be it and lol. Yah, I just think this a tactical misstep. what chance have we got, anyway, when the feminists have had such a head start in the institution of the left? But what chance do you want if you end up l…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:47 PM
0

The science cited in the article.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:31 PM
4

The article's title definitely betrays some journalistic cluelessness, but the basic point -- that the mind is malleable and socialization accounts for much more gender variance in cognitive function than generally believed -- is valid.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:26 PM
4

"Feminist witch?" Haven't we learned that folks accusing others of witchcraft are often less than credible in their scientific assertions? :P But seriously, this article is about growing scientific momentum challenging the neuro-gender-essentialism you seem to regard as fact. But science is about debate, not dogma. In dismissing emerging science that is in conflict with your own political views, it is you who are engaging in "anti-intellectualism," "propoganda," and the like. Keep an open mind.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:01 PM
8

The Left embraces a number of largely allied movements working to achieve what some call "Equalism" -- movements for the rights of people of color, women, LGBTI folk, the disabled, workers, low income folk, etc. While admittedly there are some drawbacks to identity politics, not everyone can fight for everything. It makes sense that people focus on issues that effect them directly; they are simply best equipped to advocate on behalf of issues they are familiar with and passionate about. I fear t…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 01:39 PM
1

I can't really blame Maschalismos for making the mistake -- we certainly seem to share a similar perspective. Hopefully, if enough pro-men's rights feminists come forward, we can begin to reverse some of the anti-feminism in the men's rights community. Oh, and nice to meet you. I hope you stick around for a bit :)
/r/MensRights15/08/10 12:23 PM
4

Hehe :) Look at it this way: there's this idea that because women give birth, we're naturally more nurturing than men. This line of thinking leads to all kinds of sexist disparities (for example, in child custody arrangements).
/r/MensRights15/08/10 11:48 AM
5

Sounds fair.
/r/MensRights14/08/10 08:45 AM
3

The scar always confused me when I was little. I didn't know why it was there, so I figured there must have been something wrong with it, something so wrong that they couldn't even tell me. As a confused trans kid trying to figure out my gender identity, it only made things more confusing. Fast forward to now, and I'm happily married to an uncircumcised man. He is definitely more "sensitive" then I ever was.
/r/MensRights14/08/10 08:37 AM
0

And I thought only my gas was noble.
/r/MensRights13/08/10 04:17 PM
2

Another sexist t-shirt. It goes both ways, you know?
/r/MensRights30/07/10 03:12 PM
2

Can you give some examples of this "privilege" of which you speak? I read it thrown around so often that it doesn't seem to be anything more than a throw word. For example, as a guy my opinions were taken more seriously and I was less frequently interrupted in conversation. On the other hand, as a girl, I feel safer from bullying and other kinds of "macho" violence and intimidation. These are just two examples, but I suppose you get the idea. But it is difficult to talk about the situation witho…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 01:47 PM
3

Unfortunately, it's often difficult to see privilege associated with the groups to which one belongs. As a trans woman, I've experienced both male and female privilege, so I can say, without hesitation, that there are situations in society where men are at an advantage and situations where women are at an advantage, and that neither gender holds "a much more strategic position in society." It's simply too complex. But more importantly, the very discourse of competitive self-victimization is coun…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 11:45 AM
1

First, it's a good "academic definition:" a quote from a highly cited and influential author in a relevant field. Second, it goes to your back-and-forth with Yellowmix about the nature of power as it relates to sexism. If power is a "complex strategical situation within a particular society," then we can look at different circumstances where men and women hold variously advantageous strategic positions. This gets us beyond the Patriarchy v. No Patriarchy debate, and allows us to look at how gend…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 09:53 AM
2

Good point, but I wouldn't bee too dismissive of U.S. interests in the opium trade: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html. The CIA has to fund black budget operations somehow, right?
/r/MensRights30/07/10 09:25 AM
0

I miss him :(
/r/MensRights30/07/10 09:17 AM
1

The blacks in apartheid South Africa were not a numerical minority, but they certainly suffered racism.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 12:36 AM
1

How about this definition: Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society. Michel Foucault
/r/MensRights29/07/10 12:35 AM
1

If we had a society that took care of its own, child support laws would not be an issue. We should be supporting single parent families collectively, not throwing the bulk of the financial burden on non-custodial parents who are often unable to meet that responsibility.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 12:22 AM
2

This is a good piece to start with. I'd love to hear your take on it.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 03:46 PM
3

What are your thoughts on queer theory?
/r/MensRights25/07/10 02:26 AM
2

I don't think "dishonest tactics" confer a "huge advantage." When I see someone resorting to "distraction, false comparisons, name-calling, and personalizing the debate," it's pretty clear to me that they've already lost the debate.
/r/MensRights24/07/10 09:09 AM
1

Even my psychic powers have their limits ;) But seriously, what's wrong with using someone's arguments against them? Isn't that fair play?
/r/MensRights23/07/10 08:59 AM
4

But I thought I was doing that to you . . . BY JOVE, IT WORKS!
/r/MensRights22/07/10 10:37 PM
-1

How does sleeping with a trans woman threaten a straight guy's sexual identity? I'm openly trans, and I've dated lots of straight guys who were totally into me.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 02:40 AM
4

Personally, I find it much more satisfying to hate ideas and institutions than to hate people. Most people are actually pretty decent.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 11:47 AM
3

Don't worry, I'm on it.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 11:43 AM
8

Men must be the enemy for feminism to work. Sexism makes a perfect enemy -- there's no need to hate on an entire gender.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:32 AM
3

Later in life, she claimed it was satire -- but yeah, she was nuts.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 06:38 AM
2

A lady doesn't tase until the third date.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 09:45 AM
1

Here's my comment from that thread: The only positive thing I can say about this article is that it exposes very usefully a hateful similacrum of men's rights that should be opposed at every step. The level of transphobia in this piece is breathtaking: One thing is certain. Raewyn Connell’s view of masculinity is not a product of scholarly pursuit, but of mental illness; a pathological hatred of a particular sex, in this case male. The only pathological hatred here is Paul Elam's pathological ha…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 08:12 AM
7

or better yet, r/relationship_advice
/r/MensRights17/07/10 11:16 PM
4

I'm also a mod for r/gonewildstories :)
/r/MensRights11/07/10 06:36 AM
3

from wikipediea's LGBT parenting entry (where you'll find some helpful cites): Several studies have concluded that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents.[8][9][10] The cited research does not find evidence of a relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment.[8][9][10][11] American Psychological Association also states that "the results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' a…
/r/MensRights11/07/10 01:07 AM
2

Always looking out for my friends at /mr :)
/r/MensRights10/07/10 06:02 PM
6

I don't see these goals as mutually exclusive. Children of gay parents benefit when their parents are allowed to marry and suffer when their parents' are prohibited from marrying. To put it another way, protecting "the best interests the child" is a strong argument in favor of marriage equality and gay parenting rights.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 05:30 AM
4

Our research showed that participants had a negative bias against feminism that would help explain why women would not want to be associated with this identity. [Previous researchers] showed that many women believed that a “typical feminist” was different and more radical than many actually are. Sounds about right.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 05:02 AM
0

hm?
/r/MensRights10/07/10 04:55 AM
3

I'm agnostic but skeptical.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 05:24 AM
2

Thankfully, they're quite flammable.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 10:54 PM
2

But in 10-15 years the marriage institution as we know it will be dead Yup. That's why I got married at Gay Pride. Take that Heterocracy!
/r/MensRights08/07/10 10:53 PM
1

upboat or downboat?
/r/MensRights06/07/10 03:03 PM
9

Update: ethine's 2XC post has been banned, nitesmoke has been unbanned, and 2XC has officially condemned downvote brigading, and clarified our moderation policy. So let's be cool.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 10:37 PM
1

It is my experience that you can advocate mens' rights and male perspectives there as long as you're not an ass about it Yup. That's our policy.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 03:39 PM
2

I suppose -- I just can't figure out how.
/r/MensRights04/07/10 09:04 PM
4

You're probably right; he just seemed a bit touchy . . .
/r/MensRights04/07/10 03:10 AM
3

On must be wary of naturalistic fallacies however. Science can describe the world, but it tells us very little (if anything) about how the world ought to be. This is a major flaw in a lot of amateur evo-psych I see bandied about these days.
/r/MensRights03/07/10 11:03 PM
3

huh?
/r/MensRights03/07/10 10:48 PM
1

note: She is something of a lone voice in academia. Aside from what she says are "a handful" of colleagues across the US, most contemporary scholars are positive about pornography.
/r/MensRights03/07/10 10:36 PM
4

Oh, get a hold of yourself. Can't you handle a little pun?
/r/MensRights03/07/10 09:32 PM
8

Wow that must've been hard. I dunno, I'll bet it came pretty naturally.
/r/MensRights03/07/10 08:34 PM
0

The legalese plural of "person" is not "people," but "persons," and it applies to men and women, as well as certain non-human entities (such as corporations), who have rights and responsibilities under the law. "People," as a legal term (especially in international law) refers to a group of persons with a shared right to political self-determination (i.e. "the Palestinian people.") I take issue with this statement as well: Now that there are rights for women that men don't have, it is clear that…
/r/MensRights02/07/10 05:28 PM
3

Well, I would have said "tautology," but I was afraid that might come off as too snarky. At any rate, enjoy this video :)
/r/MensRights02/07/10 04:48 PM
1

humanism?
/r/MensRights02/07/10 04:03 PM
1

New French Law Forbids ’Psychological Violence’ against Women and Men FTFY
/r/MensRights02/07/10 04:01 PM
0

no offense taken :)
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:22 PM
5

I see feminists all the time bashing the military for its inequal treatment of women, yet I've never heard one demand women be held to the same physical standards of me. Well, now you have :) I believe the physical requirements should reflect what's necessary to perform the job, regardless of one's gender.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 07:54 PM
12

There are physical requirements that ensure that all soldiers are combat ready. These should apply equally to men and women.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 06:45 PM
-7

I see no need for gender segregated battalions, but by all means, let women fight!
/r/MensRights01/07/10 05:40 PM
5

A lot of the feminists I know are very into cooking, knitting, and other traditionally "womanly" activities. This article may be relevant to second-wave liberal feminism, but doesn't really apply to the feminism of my generation. Hell, I've even been known to clean house in a french maid outfit ;)
/r/MensRights01/07/10 05:05 PM
-1

Are you for real?
/r/MensRights01/07/10 03:59 AM
-4

OMG!
/r/MensRights01/07/10 03:45 AM
2

We're talking about accusations made with zero evidence concerning actions that are not even possible. It's either paranoid or disingenuous.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 12:38 AM
2

I'm just speculating at where that whole "so-and-so's other account" business came about. Paranoia?
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:33 PM
0

I'm my own alt account, but I can't figure out how to double vote. Please help!
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:18 PM
-1

you have been banned from r/twoxchromosomes . . . . . . . . . (just kidding)
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:16 PM
-3

OMG!
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:09 PM
-1

This feels kinda invasive.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 08:16 PM
1

It sounds to me like she was 3 pints past drunk. It wouldn't justify her actions, but it might at least help explain them.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 03:53 AM
6

Attacking someone by calling them a woman is pretty blatant misogyny. What gives?
/r/MensRights30/06/10 03:50 AM
1

I'm not sure what was more off-putting about this article: the hyperbole or the misogyny.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 04:02 PM
3

Please don't show up to the party after it's been going on for hours, and demand we change the music. Like yourself, I've been active on r/mensrights for over a year -- so don't accuse me of showing up late to the party. No matter what we do, the fact that we're mostly white males here, people are going to assume we're racist and sexist. Most of reddit is white males. What makes r/mensrights different is that it's advocating for the interests of a group (men) that (like whites) is widely perceiv…
/r/MensRights29/06/10 03:33 AM
2

And white supremacists did OKC. Oh wait, that's true :/
/r/MensRights28/06/10 11:33 PM
3

I've been active in r/mr for over a year and have NEVER seen a racist post, or any posts about race for that matter. I have seen racism on r/mensrights on multiple occasions -- with upvotes even. Check out the submission histories of Theoden and robeandwizardhood. r/mensrights is nothing more than a forum to discuss issues about mens rights. We don't have to validate ourselves to anyone for any reason. We don't have to prove we aren't racist. We don't have to prove we aren't sexist. Just post sh…
/r/MensRights28/06/10 11:30 PM
2

A penis duel? Poor fellow wouldn't stand a chance.
/r/MensRights28/06/10 10:53 PM
2

I have suspected at times jay might be some kind of anti-MR troll (trying to discredit the rest of us) but I dunno -- most trolls don't show his level of dedication.
/r/MensRights27/06/10 11:08 PM
2

Agreed and upvoted.
/r/MensRights27/06/10 10:46 PM
0

I agree that it's human nature to have multiple sexual partners. I guess we can call that "cheating," but isn't it strict monogamy that's "cheating" us of our own sexuality?
/r/MensRights27/06/10 10:44 PM
2

I know, I actually upvoted him. WTF?
/r/MensRights27/06/10 10:41 PM
4

You're doing it again. This is a thread about men's body image. EDIT -- :)
/r/MensRights27/06/10 09:30 PM
2

You have offended my honor, sir.
/r/MensRights27/06/10 08:01 PM
4

Not a single mention of the "walking wallet" phenomenon, Right, because it's completely off-topic.
/r/MensRights27/06/10 07:55 PM
2

I totally agree. From my experience as a trans woman, I think hormone differences have a lot to do with how men and women express their emotions. The rest is probably mostly socialization.
/r/MensRights25/06/10 07:22 PM
4

To me, it might explain why he reacts so emotionally, but I don't think it justifies the taunting. I see your point though.
/r/MensRights24/06/10 08:01 PM
1

It shouldn't matter if he has a small penis -- isn't that kinda the point?
/r/MensRights24/06/10 07:30 PM
1

Any interesting conclusions?
/r/MensRights24/06/10 08:44 AM
2

Thanks! _^
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:54 PM
2

It's true! BTW . . . can I be unbanned from r/malestudies, please? :)
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:51 PM
1

I'm probably just biased because I like cooking so much :)
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:45 PM
0

Since you appear to think the problem in college is the guys, not the system. Would you agree that women have only themselves to blame for not getting promoted? (Because they don't ask). It follows the same logic. I believe, as I said above, that "gender disparities in wages and college enrollment are both largely attributable to individuals' decisions (which of course are shaped by social and economic forces), rather than overt discrimination." Not really, because affirmative action exists – it…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:38 PM
-2

Guys are dwindling in numbers in certain programmes at uni because of affirmative action. In "certain [male-dominated] programmes," sure, but what I've read on the subject (including the two articles cited by the OP) indicates that the primary reasons for the growing gender disparity in college enrollment are 1) there are fewer male than female applicants, and 2) women applicants tend to have higher grades, and 3) men are more likely to drop out -- e.g. not affirmative action. With all respect, …
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:07 PM
-3

It's called blaming the victim. People who engage in this kind of thinking tend to have an agenda that cannot be shifted by facts. But isn't this also analogous to the standard MRA critique of the wage gap "myth?" After all, gender disparities in wages and college enrollment are both largely attributable to individuals' decisions (which of course are shaped by social and economic forces), rather than overt discrimination.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 11:32 AM
0

Really. we legislated that colleges couldn't discriminate against women. Here's the language from Title IX: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." So, 1) the law is gender neutral, and 2) it only applies to schools receiving federal money (private single sex colleges still exist.) and had to maintai…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 11:09 AM
0

My resoponse on 2X: I believe there are social and educational benefits to having diverse learning environments, and that those benefits can be achieved with limited affirmative action that gives a little boost to qualified prospective students from underrepresented groups.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 09:17 AM
-1

Who's "we?" This isn't the case in the U.S. at least.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 09:16 AM
4

Well, he responded after I made the comment you responded to -- but I still don't really get it. When I cook for someone I love, or someone who loves me cooks for me, it is an expression of affection, not merely the provision of "material goods" (technically, cooking would be a service not a good, but whatever). Is it really feminist sexism to appreciate a guy who cooks? waits for sammich joke . . .
/r/MensRights23/06/10 07:19 AM
1

Well, if you ever find yourself in Amsterdam . . .
/r/MensRights23/06/10 06:44 AM
2

k :)
/r/MensRights23/06/10 04:44 AM
7

Q: how may feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: That's not funny! But seriously, I don't get it.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 10:46 PM
4

Wow -- a perfect example of how gender roles for boys have long been stricter.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 10:43 PM
7

Can someone connect the dots here please? I'm failing to see the "Feminist Sexism."
/r/MensRights22/06/10 10:01 PM
1

I tried. I think r/gonemild is set to private :(
/r/MensRights22/06/10 08:00 PM
2

Actually, the time before that it was r/menrightslinks, and several of us were banned preemptively that time as well. Sadly, it's happened often enough that dagbrown's question is valid.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:00 PM
3

I agree. Funny that you mention religion -- where the echoes of patriarchy often ring loudest.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 04:48 PM
2

I don't know if if it's a 1:1 ratio, but there are definitely some crazy stalker girls out there too.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 09:14 AM
1

Sorry, I haven't spent much time at r/gonewild. I do wobble between humor and awesomeness (occassionally failing bothwise). Here, I was basically just trying to diffuse some anger.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 09:06 AM
2

I can see I'm not getting through to you :( EDIT: but thanks for adding the link.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 08:13 PM
2

But my ass is shapely :(
/r/MensRights21/06/10 08:09 PM
-1

Nice touch capitalizing "Feminism," btw :P
/r/MensRights21/06/10 08:06 PM
2

You're quoting the wiki entry, not the statute. I'm looking for discriminatory text in the law itself -- you know, the stuff that tends to get struck down if unconstitutional? Here's one for you: explain how modern family law isn't sexist and is actually very equal for all. I never said it was. Feminism, however, has helped make family law more fair. Would you prefer a return to a system of coverture? Add in how Feminism helps encourage Father's non-monetary roles. By encouraging gender egalitar…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:52 PM
4

There is nothing good from Feminist hate, there has been zero equality gained through the Feminist Movement. That response demonstrates the kinds of ignorance here at best, and a mental block of hypocrisy at worst. Pot calls kettle black. Hater accuses object of hatred of hating . . . I think it's time you examined your cognitive biases, XFDRaven :(
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:09 PM
3

Equal pay act I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the Equal Pay Act is sexist. You wanted to talk about laws, right? CRA had a grand total of zilch to do with Feminists. Don't try to assosiate yourself with a movement or organization that was Egalitarian. Feminists had been pushing for anti-discrimination legislation for years, including working closely with the congressman who introduced the amendment that added sex discrimination protections to the bill. And for the record, I am egalit…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 06:59 PM
2

You cannot cite any laws to back your claim because Feminism is all about sexist law which entitles women to more than what is deserved. In the U.S: The Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence against Women Act. How are these "sexist laws" that entitle women to more than what they deserve? How are these laws denying men rights? And what about the Equal Rights Amendment? Would you support it?
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:52 PM
4

Which is precisely why we need feminism and men's rights activism.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:25 PM
1

Per my reasoning, all people have a fundamental right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. However, this right is often violated.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:11 PM
2

We're not talking about laws; we're talking about fundamental human rights.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 09:10 AM
2

From the context, I assume borntodye is arguing that neither men nor women are entitled to special rights. It might have been phrased a bit more clearly, but I think his/her intended meaning is pretty obvious.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 09:05 AM
1

Politicians?
/r/MensRights20/06/10 09:17 PM
3

I'm talking about a particular subset of men who hold the characteristics I describe. They do exist, and it's not misandrist to acknowledge that fact. EDIT: How was this guy a stalker exactly, anyway? I have seen the term used very loosely many times before. Did you even speak with this guy about how you felt? We talked about it lots -- we were close friends for years. But he couldn't handle it when I fell in love with another guy, and he freaked out. Ultimately, I had to threaten legal action t…
/r/MensRights20/06/10 06:02 PM
4

You have -89 comment karma.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 05:14 PM
1

I think both sides are both a) simplifying and b)generalizing. I know the stalker 'nice guys(and girls)' and I know actual nice people. Yes, we probably are. I've also known both stalker "nice guys" and actual nice guys. The guys I'm talking about are the ones who aren't nice at all: they fixate on a particular girl and deploy a formidable arsenal of emotional manipulation against her (which they think of as "love," and tell her is "friendship.") In many cases, these guys become stalkers. I don'…
/r/MensRights20/06/10 04:13 PM
3

There is a wide gap between "Cannot prove the accused rapist guilty" and "Can prove the accuser is committing perjury". People often seem to forget that when determining how to punish false accusations. I totally agree. That's why I switched "false" to "bad faith." I also disagree with 7, but good list otherwise. Thanks :)
/r/MensRights20/06/10 03:52 PM
4

Men are not special. You aren't entitled to anything (and neither are the rest of us) Maybe you missed that part?
/r/MensRights20/06/10 03:35 PM
2

Marriage shouldn't be a federal issue, either. It should be left up to the state, if anything. I dunno -- I'm denied a lot of federal rights because my marriage isn't recognized by the U.S. Really, though, marriage shouldn't be a gov't function at all. I could live with that.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 08:35 AM
7

How dare you contradict my anecdotal evidence!
/r/MensRights20/06/10 07:57 AM
-5

The "nice guy" critique is not misandrist. Take it from someone who's been stalked by one :(
/r/MensRights20/06/10 06:07 AM
1

I think you're forgetting about the Supreme Court.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 06:03 AM
5

I like your list. However, there is a real and substantive difference between the 2 sets of rules. I like your list too, even though I disagree with much of it. I do agree that there is "there is a real and substantive difference between the 2 sets of rules." As an example, take #6, you say "enforced EQUALLY, regardless of gender". But thats what we do now, right? Many folks would agree that we have bunches of laws and enforce them equally, regardless of race or gender. And others would not agre…
/r/MensRights20/06/10 04:14 AM
5

Is anyone else at least a little suspicious of a site that interrupts your reading with a pop up of Ann Coulter's boobs? And more importantly, can someone point me to some text in the law itself that is discriminatory?
/r/MensRights20/06/10 03:04 AM
3

You fail at civics :(
/r/MensRights20/06/10 02:53 AM
6

The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- hell, the best parts are amendments.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 02:36 AM
9

It's a pretty right-wing take on equality. Here's an initial stab at a more moderate/lefty version: Every parent has an EQUAL right to parental leave; every child has an EQUAL right to the necessities of life. In a divorce, every child has an EQUAL right to a custody decision that protects its best interests, regardless of the gender of its parents. In most cases, children will benefit from maintaining contact with both parents. Every worker is paid EQUALLY based on their economic contribution t…
/r/MensRights20/06/10 02:33 AM
1

You should ask ig and kloo to add it to the sidebar.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 08:16 PM
-2

That's why I smile. Of course, then I get the same guys saying, "keep smiling, girl," etc. But I don't mind too much :)
/r/MensRights18/06/10 08:05 PM
1

It is! :)
/r/MensRights18/06/10 07:01 PM
3

I'm wondering about that too. Very strange.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 06:59 PM
0

Thanks, that does help put it in perspective.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 07:06 PM
2

Ironic, considering Joyce's Ulysses was also banned for obscenity. Happy Bloomsday, btw :)
/r/MensRights17/06/10 12:52 AM
2

I think you're confusing American politics with natural right/left distinctions. That comment reeks of sanctimony and general snottyness. As an American, I often fall into the trap of oversimplifying the left/right divide, though to my credit, I did distinguish between cultural conservatives and libertarians ("the laissez-faire view") on the right. However, I admit that my last comment (about the "right-wing playbook") referenced a uniquely American, "Beckian" worldview, and I can see how that c…
/r/MensRights16/06/10 07:58 PM
5

That's how he attack trans people :(
/r/MensRights16/06/10 07:20 PM
3

Ok, chill out. Pretend were at the bar, having some drinks, and just talking about shit. I am not the Enemy; I'm just some chick that you're talking to, so be cool. Hell, be my friend -- I'm not looking to antagonize anyone, and there's really no reason we need to go down that path. Part of talking about shit as friends, or at least as decent human beings, is listening to each other. You clearly could be listening better, because you have attributed to me a host of ideas which I simply do not ho…
/r/MensRights16/06/10 05:50 AM
1

I'm happy to say I broke my finger breaking one of the football players noses I don't condone violence, but I can't stop smiling thinking about that image :)
/r/MensRights15/06/10 09:18 PM
5

True enough, good point.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 07:36 PM
3

It's a good idea for a plug-in, but hard-coding a ban list is childish. You're sacrificing functionality to serve your own petty grievances, and people will see right through that.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:31 PM
2

This is a complicated topic, and I've actually been tossing around the idea of doing a self-post on it to get more people's perspectives. A good example of a left-wing perspective on men's rights is described in the recent article on men in Sweden, which discusses some of the social benefits of government-supported paternity leave. The right wing perspective can be broken down (broadly) into a culturally conservative approach (a good example is this response to that article), and a libertarian a…
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:14 PM
9

In many places, yes. I believe this is a men's rights issue, because all too often the victims of bullying are boys who fail to conform to adolescent misconceptions of masculinity.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 04:51 PM
7

Why the hate?
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:35 AM
6

I do support men's rights, but from a left-wing not a right-wing perspective. A lot of people don't seem to get that.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:29 AM
7

Umm, I support men's rights. Why do you keep attacking me?
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:19 AM
0

Actually, that's a good idea.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:10 AM
2

Sorry about the fire, and welcome to the frying pan :)
/r/MensRights15/06/10 12:11 AM
2

2XC's moderation policy prohibits misogyny and misandry alike. Man-hating does not get a free pass.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 11:54 PM
6

You are a perfect example of the vocal and extremist infestation on this subreddit. Your personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and perverse desire to derail anything resembling civil discourse are not wanted here. Open your eyes, the evidence is in the downvotes.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 10:56 PM
7

The fact that you are consistently downvoted in r/mensrights suggests that it is your opinions that "are not really wanted."
/r/MensRights14/06/10 08:15 PM
1

By its terms, excessive femininity (or masculinity) is a negative trait -- but who decides what's "excessively" masculine and feminine? It's subjective, and I'd agree, not inherent at all.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 07:24 AM
1

I've long suspected this was the case, but it's nice to see some quantitative research to back it up. I find it especially interesting that judges tended to treat members of the own gender more harshly. It suggests that one way to address sentencing disparities is to get more women on the bench.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 10:22 PM
7

That's certainly sometimes true. Also, the idea that men's rooms are always less hygienic than women's is a myth; I've seen some nasty women's rooms in my time. Girls, it turns out, are every bit as filthy as guys.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 09:59 PM
8

Sometimes there's fresh cut flowers too -- it's kinda nice. I'm with the OP though, it is segregation. Probably just my tranny-radicalism showing through ;)
/r/MensRights13/06/10 08:33 PM
11

I'm sad to see you leave, but I do share a lot of your frustrations. First, there is a subset of this community that consistently regards dissent as trolling. To those folks, I offer this advice: "do not feed the trolls." If you think someone is a troll, ignore them. Second, I do agree a few members of this community are "out of control" (Absynth, jayhammers, etc.), and I want you to know that I truly appreciate you sticking up for me in the face of jay's transphobic "it"ings. However, I do not …
/r/MensRights13/06/10 07:35 PM
2

d'aaaaaaaaaw :)
/r/MensRights13/06/10 06:31 PM
4

To repeat my reply from r/equality: Apology accepted. In my posts to r/mensrights, it has always been my intention to add substantively and reasonably to the discussion at hand. If, in the future, you feel I am falling short of this standard, please give me a nudge. Oh, and have a cryptohug -- it's been a rough weekend :)
/r/MensRights13/06/10 06:20 PM
5

I agree, but that's no reason for MRAs to avoid r/equality or (as Kanunk seems to suggest) cease interacting with women altogether until some mythical MRA grand unification theory emerges. Movements become more fractured and diverse over time, not more homogeneous. If a monolithic men's (or women's) rights viewpoint were ever achieved, it would be by means antithetical to a true rights movement.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 08:25 AM
1

You go, bro! ;) My point, of course, is that all too often on this sub, someone who takes a dissenting position is labeled a woman, feminist (or misandrist, troll, etc.). It's indicative of biased and sloppy thinking, and I wish it would stop.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 07:29 AM
1

Now you're assuming he's a feminist? Anyone else seeing a pattern here?
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:35 AM
3

Seriously. I see this all the time, even after the commenter has made his gender clear. As a transwoman, I just get "it"ed, like in this recent post from our friend jayhammers: Kanuk did nothing and we know cryptogirl is a fan of mods who will continue to do nothing so it can post its hate speech against men freely. Sexism and transphobia have no place in any legitimate movement for men's rights.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:31 AM
1

Glucophobe! GTFO! :P
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:14 AM
1

Human rights are good. Inasmuch as feminism, men's rights activism, or any movement expands human rights, that movement is working towards good. I hate to even use the term, but you're erecting a straw man here :(
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:12 AM
4

I like cookies with nuts. Therefore, I am a feminist :)
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:06 AM
4

Men need to find our viewpoint, our perspective, our priorities. And then we can come together with women and hash out a compromise. Until we know what our position is... There can never be -- and indeed should never be -- a single male (or female) viewpoint, perspective, priority, or position on any issue. What you describe amounts to the establishment of dogma. It's quixotic, and even a little fascist. I understand the value men of men-only spaces for discussing men's issues -- but I don't see…
/r/MensRights12/06/10 06:02 AM
2

Its Ok to be macho - athletic and competitive. In fact, these are positive traits. Being macho is a positive trait. It depends how one defines "macho." I agree that athleticism and competitiveness (to a point) are good qualities, but the author is talking about a different set of qualities -- namely: "sexism, homophobia, lack discipline," and an aversion to showing "weakness or emotion." Generally, "machismo" is understood as excessive masculinity. In that sense, it is a negative trait.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 05:38 AM
1

The author makes no such claim. But to be clear, the sexism, homophobia, and lack of discipline that many believe define my peers are not necessarily the norm and it’s most definitely not accurate or fair to generalize all college-aged men as that character Bluto. But it is important to point out that this behavior does represent a definitive segment of the population – one that needs help.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 05:20 AM
3

It's not the most important issue in the world, but it seems like a fair result.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 03:17 AM
2

Right, I acknowledge that the US government, in seeming disregard for the Constitution, has entered into such treaties. This bit confuses me -- could you elaborate a little? I was merely objecting to the suggestion that this is a condition that automatically exists, and which we are therefore bound by. Well, I disagree, but it's a defensible position. Do you really believe that nations are bound treaty obligations alone? Even, for example, in cases of genocide?
/r/MensRights12/06/10 03:16 AM
2

That is, a nation is only liable to follow those laws or terms to which it has agreed through treaty or resolution participation/signing. That's true for treaty law, but not customary international law. Also, the U.S. is party to treaties that require it to eliminate racial discrimination.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 02:49 AM
2

Well, majoritarianism is always a problematic vehicle for achieving minority rights (see Prop 8). I was simply stating that humanity has reached a consensus that racial discrimination is a violation of inherent human rights. I'd add as well that a nation that allows racial discrimination is in violation international human right law.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 02:38 AM
1

Actually, the 14th Amendment, restricts the states from discriminating, not the federal government. You're right that laws restricting private businesses from discriminating are not constitutionally required, but most people would agree that freedom from racial discrimination is nonetheless a basic human right.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 02:19 AM
1

You're trolling me. Stop.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 05:08 PM
0

Earlier, he accused me off using alt accounts, now he's calling me a hypocrite. These are personal attacks. I'm no troll, but If you truly think otherwise, then stop feeding me.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 04:33 PM
3

Sorry, I'll work on the bitterness :) But you have to admit Beck, Limbaugh, and their cohort spend expel a lot more vitriol attacking feminism than defending it. Respectable MRAs should distance themselves from these assholes. (sorry, that was still a bit bitter) :P
/r/MensRights11/06/10 01:59 AM
2

Wait, you're comparing feminists to Glenn Beck fans?! Ouch! Too much irony!
/r/MensRights11/06/10 01:12 AM
4

You're a good mod, keep up the good work :) My only suggestion is that now that we have (at least) two ban-happy subreddits dedicated to the discussion of men's issues without dissent, we reaffirm r/mensright's position as a place where "diverging viewpoints are welcome." I'm a feminist, I support men's rights, and I'm sick of weathering baseless ad hominem attacks.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:22 PM
0

Again: personal attacks, no supporting evidence, nothing upon which to base your accusations except your own self-righteousness. This is precisely the mindless mindset that banned scores of moderate men's rights supporters (like myself) from r/malestudies preemptively, without a single comment. Grow up and stop damaging the movement.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 06:15 PM
3

I think a spirited man would drown in Sweden. Or, to put it better, the Swedish system requires men to give up a spirited existence. But they hunt moose! MOOSE!
/r/MensRights10/06/10 03:49 PM
1

maybe you've been banned?
/r/MensRights10/06/10 03:20 PM
5

Nee, maar ik zal spoedig naar Nederland emigreren :)
/r/MensRights10/06/10 02:17 PM
9

This is what equality looks like :)
/r/MensRights10/06/10 12:18 PM
1

Down-arrow. Banning just blocks commenting.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 12:01 PM
0

Why am I not surprised that you find nuance incoherent? :P
/r/MensRights10/06/10 11:54 AM
6

Wow, more false accusations backed by zero evidence. You're really undermining your own credibility with this nonsense.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 11:48 AM
-1

A lot of moderate mens rights supporters were preemptively banned from r/malestudies -- I suspect that's where the downvotes came from.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 11:43 AM
3

Actually, my beliefs on these issues are far more nuanced -- but thanks for further illustrating your own assumption-based worldview. It makes my work that much easier :)
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:17 AM
3

An interesting thing about /r/malestudies is that within hours of it's creation and advertisement on this subreddit, all it's submissions were given at least a half dozen downvotes. This proves the existance of a feminist downvote brigade Your standard of proof leaves a lot to be desired.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 09:25 AM
3

First, again, your logic doesn't hold up. That would mean that the only people who play Hitman, for instance, are people who are interested in assassinating people, or that the only people who play GTA are interested in becoming crime bosses, or that the only people who play Call of Duty are interested in being soldiers. I totally agree. I suspect most people playing RapeLay are doing it for the WTF value, not because they are rapists.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 12:18 AM
6

First, both games are offensive, but hell, they're just games. But second, as games, they do to some extent reveal something of the dark underbelly of human fantasies. It should tell us something about gender roles that the game targeted towards men celebrates raping women, and the game targeted towards women celebrates the murder of sexually aggressive men.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 12:09 AM
3

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and covertly bear automatic weapons with bad-ass flesh shredding rounds, shall not be infringed.
/r/MensRights09/06/10 11:44 PM
2

I was hoping for silver lamé jumpsuits :(
/r/MensRights09/06/10 06:57 AM
2

The liberal moderation policy is the only reason you're still on this sub. Be careful what you wish for.
/r/MensRights09/06/10 06:53 AM
-1

Thanks so much -- I completely missed that :)
/r/MensRights07/06/10 10:23 PM
0

Hmmm, it only gets a C- on beeradvocate. If you can get your hands on some, check out Brideport IPA . . . we brew some good IPAs in the Pac NW :)
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:12 PM
1

Thanks. I always thought Kanuk did a good job with his modly powers, and I'm glad to see you too have things well in hand. P.S. Sorey aboot the Canadian joke -- lets grab a Labatt's sometime :)
/r/MensRights07/06/10 08:47 PM
10

Because he banned us :P
/r/MensRights07/06/10 08:39 PM
1

I thought I was the only trap around here ;)
/r/MensRights07/06/10 07:19 PM
4

I'm still waiting to hear a logical argument from you. Instead, you employ every tactic you claim to abhor.
/r/MensRights07/06/10 06:51 PM
2

To anyone thinks that schools are "feminizing" boys, trying attending school as an MtF trans kid. It'll blow your mind. The discriminatory rules about hair length and dress codes this article mentions are only the tip of the iceberg.
/r/MensRights04/06/10 02:02 AM
2

I've had paint catch on fire from the heat of the steel I was painting and had my work clothes burn by drips of hot steel, etc etc. That's really hot! Are you single / in a non-monogamous relationship? ;)
/r/MensRights31/05/10 12:22 AM
6

In short, I'm done talking to you. I talk to the men in the room. In /r/MensRights we talk to each other about issues which affect us as men . . . I'm here to talk with men about men's issues, not debate feminists about the legitimacy of men's issues. Kanuk, you make me sad :( Obviously, r/mensrights is a place to talk about men's issues, but I always thought women's (even feminists') perspectives were welcome here. You know, "for men and supporters of men . . . Diverging viewpoints are welcome"…
/r/MensRights30/05/10 10:50 PM
1

Nice, but I'm moving to Holland: where they have space-cake and socialism for all!
/r/MensRights30/05/10 09:47 PM
1

I do support the men's studies perspective. I wish more folks on this sub would take it seriously, rather than simply dismissing it for its association with feminism.
/r/MensRights30/05/10 09:41 PM
2

Oh, I don't think the whole of /mensrights is hostile to women, although there are some rather vocal misogynists around here (who most of the reasonable folks have learned to ignore). What bothers me more is the wrong conclusion that because I'm a feminist, I'm a closet misandrist.
/r/MensRights30/05/10 06:24 PM
7

I agree. Although they're often conflated, men's rights ≠ anti-feminism. I'm a feminist and I support men's rights.
/r/MensRights30/05/10 05:40 PM
0

Right, that knee jerk reaction definitely exists -- I just feel it's important that we keep a clear conceptual distinction between social prejudices and unfair laws. If rapists were truly guilty until proven innocent we'd see a lot higher percentage of accused rapists being convicted (currently it's only about 10%).
/r/MensRights16/05/10 01:43 AM
0

I was referring to the myth that rapists are guilty until proven innocent.
/r/MensRights16/05/10 12:20 AM
0

The Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights is a trans man. I know this is satire, but what's the problem?
/r/MensRights15/05/10 11:02 PM
0

the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I agree that false rape accusations are a problem, but I'm sick of people spreading this myth. It has no legal basis.
/r/MensRights15/05/10 10:51 PM
1

The logic that suspects every butch lesbian of being a misandrist is no better than the logic that suspects every masculine man of being a rapist.
/r/MensRights11/05/10 04:11 PM
3

I'm aware of the history of lesbian separatism, but it's a red herring: Kagan's biography shows very clearly that rather than eschewing the company of men, she has repeatedly excelled in their presence. The logic that suspects every lesbian of being a misandrist is no better than the logic that suspects every man of being a rapist.
/r/MensRights11/05/10 02:57 PM
4

Her sexuality isn't a political statement, because she doesn't talk about her sexuality. Personally, I wish she would. It's about time we had an openly queer justice on the bench.
/r/MensRights10/05/10 10:15 PM
6

I don't personally care what her lifestyle choices are, but the butch lesbian type has been frequently associated with radical feminist man-haters. Excuse me? Would you also agree with the statement: "the masculine straight male type has been frequently associated with radical anti-feminist woman-haters?" Sorry, but you're invoking anti-gay stereotypes for political ends. Not cool.
/r/MensRights10/05/10 09:34 PM
1

Rape charges carry more burdens than those of the courtroom. Society brands people charged with rape as monsters, regardless of their court asserted "not guilty" or "guilty." I agree with this, which is why I support reforms that pr.otect the anonymity of the accused. Proving a fabrication is harder than proving no rape occurred. With a falsification, you have to prove a motive. Motive unfortunately isn't just probable cause. You don't need to prove motive, but motive can help prove that the all…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 03:59 PM
1

Creative idea, but also crazy. There are plenty of cases where rape cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the accuser is not lying. How about this: Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape, and the accused gets the full rape penalty. Otherwise, no penalty. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser fabricated a false accusation, and the accuser gets the full false accusation penalty. Otherwise, no penalty.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 04:40 AM
3

There is no reason other than the infliction of violence on the accused to accuse him to the police. What about wanting to make sure that the rapist isn't free to rape again? I see that as a legitimate coping strategy and arguably something of a civic duty. While I do find your equating of incarceration with state violence to be rather compelling, I don't think that's actually what's going through the minds of most victims. And even if it is, we still want real victims of sexual assault coming f…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 12:19 AM
6

the consequences of the justice system disbelieving a rape victim only denies her vengeful hatred opportunity. First, that's a pretty fucked up way to describe the motivations of someone who's been raped and is seeking justice. Second, allowing actual rapists to go free to -- guess what -- commit more rapes, is bad. Not only for the direct victims of those rapes, but for men generally, who are increasingly regarded with suspicion due to the actions of a relatively small number of (often serial) …
/r/MensRights08/05/10 11:40 PM
2

Like those women in government who lied with impunity to fabricate evidence justifying an illegal war in Iraq? Or those women executives who got fat bonuses after their lies and manipulations tanked the world economy? Oh, and what about those women in the Catholic Church whose unpunished lies have promoted an ongoing culture of child sex abuse? I could go on and on . . . It's time we held these females accountable!
/r/MensRights08/05/10 02:02 PM
9

Aren't "actual instances of rape and DV" also real problems in themselves?
/r/MensRights08/05/10 01:38 PM
1

You're opposed to hospitals and colleges? :(
/r/MensRights08/05/10 02:14 AM
1

D'aaaw, you're just jealous cuz my weener's bigger. ::pets::
/r/MensRights06/05/10 04:04 PM
-1

It's a simple sort of free-market exchange. WTF? If you can link this to any kind of market-based economics, I will be highly amused.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 05:01 PM
1

I can't imagine what would go through someone's head to make them feel entitled to do that. alcohol
/r/MensRights05/05/10 04:50 PM
1

Sure, especially if the girl is a 6'1" 205 pound former wrestler. But even if she's not, getting off on sucker punching someone still fits my definition of "fucking psycho."
/r/MensRights05/05/10 04:48 PM
2

If you really feel the need to engage in this kind of illegal vigilante justice, at least ask yourself: WWBD -- what would Batman do?
/r/MensRights05/05/10 04:42 PM
6

Actually, his legal analysis is quite accurate.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 04:37 PM
0

even if it was possible to just get up and walk away before she could follow through (which it's not often in a crowded bar), why should he have to? I did sidestep that a bit. My point, which I think I explained elsewhere, is that just because someone assaults you (e.g. touches you without your consent) doesn't mean you have carte blanche to assault them back. You have a right to defend yourself, but not to "teach them a lesson."
/r/MensRights05/05/10 04:31 PM
2

Wait, you've done this more than once?!
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:41 PM
4

I share your belief in "the right to defend your person against unwanted assault" but from the story as he tells it, it really seems like he crossed the line of self defense and entered "eye for an eye," territory.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:37 PM
6

If a guy did this to a girl, he'd get slapped, or a drink thrown in his face, and everyone would cheer. There's definitely a gendered double standard when it comes to physical violence, but that doesn't make AnnArchist's actions acceptable.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:11 PM
3

Violence is not an acceptable form of "comeuppance."
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:08 PM
0

Violence is acceptable only to the extent that is reasonably necessary for self defense. Your reaction to this girl (who admittedly, did assault you) went well beyond that. I'm sorry, but punching someone to "teach them a lesson" is not acceptable, especially when you are very clearly getting off on it.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:07 PM
10

You could have grabbed her hands, or just gotten up and walked away, but I guess punching a drunk girl in the gut was more fun? I fucking grinned. Sorry, but that's just fucking psycho, dude.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 07:36 PM
3

It's not about political correctness, it's about a holistic and nuanced view of gender.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 09:38 PM
5

Trust me, I get it. It's just that don't always find his generalizations particularly helpful, especially as a transgender woman myself. Nice quote though :)
/r/MensRights03/05/10 09:10 PM
5

Look, I love Joseph Campbell. In fact, when I was in high school and dropping acid every weekend, he was like my own personal bodhisattva. I'm not calling him "Misogynist," I'm saying he's "a bit sexist," in that he falls too easily into archetypal/stereotypical thinking about masculinity and femininity. For example, he says: The power of women is psychological and magical, do you see, and their aggression is a magical one. They are perfectly innocent, and oh boy, something's going on, and they …
/r/MensRights03/05/10 08:19 PM
5

In his ability to synthesize diverse mythologies, Joseph Campbell was quite brilliant -- but on gender he was definitely a bit sexist.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 05:46 PM
3

Nuh-uh, you're the misandrist!
/r/MensRights03/05/10 01:53 AM
5

Does anyone really doubt that the people who design IQ tests score in the top percentiles of their own "objective" assessments? I'm sorry, but idea that intelligence is an empirically quantifiable characteristic is laughable.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 01:44 AM
3

:P
/r/MensRights03/05/10 12:57 AM
6

:)
/r/MensRights02/05/10 10:44 PM
6

If I refuse to call you sir, but call you ma'am instead, that is an attack on your dignity, but still protected speech. Let me be clear: I'm not arguing that you should not have the freedom to call trans women "men," I'm arguing that by calling trans women "men" you are opposing rather than supporting our very real and very necessary struggle for human rights. Although you have the freedom to oppose transgender rights, it is hypocrisy to do so while claiming to support human rights. Trans people…
/r/MensRights02/05/10 09:12 PM
5

I would never insist that you not have the freedom speak as you wish, I merely ask that you exercise that freedom in a way that supports the freedom of trans people to fully live our genders. Societal (including legal) non-recognition of our lived genders causes tremendous hardships for trans people, some of which are outlined in the ECtHR case Goodwin v. UK. If you are truly concerned with human rights, I ask you to consider a more nuanced approach to transgender issues than "[I] call it like I…
/r/MensRights02/05/10 06:21 PM
4

With all respect, referring to transgender women with masculine pronouns is itself an attack. Achieving social recognition of our lived genders is maybe the most basic aim of the transgender rights movement. Please show us at least that modicum of solidarity. As for your comparison of N.O.W. to Manhood 101, I suspect I won't be able to budge you there. I would say, however, that if you truly wish "good feminists" to "join the MRM," describing mainstream feminism as "hateful ideologies" is hardly…
/r/MensRights02/05/10 05:25 PM
1

Thanks Paul. As you know, we often disagree (your recent attack on trans gender theorist Raewyn Connell being one notable example), but you should be commended for taking on the most extremist, woman-hating factions of the MR movement. You are quite right in saying "this stuff can hurt us if we are not careful." That said, comparing feminism to the Ku Klux Klan with statements like: "gender feminism is not the light of reason, but much more like a burning cross, issuing a grotesque, dystopian gl…
/r/MensRights02/05/10 02:10 PM
-1

I like your approach, but since I tend to go for open relationships, I'm not sure it's really applicable to my situation. My husband and I do have a "no exes" rule regarding sex, but so far it hasn't included getting free samiches. Maybe it should?
/r/MensRights01/05/10 07:29 PM
2

but it still remains a false dichotomy and misguided projections on your part. What false dichotomy?
/r/MensRights01/05/10 07:20 PM
6

Hmmm . . . I do have an ex boyfriend who's always bringing me samiches. You've given me a lot to think about, runamok :(
/r/MensRights30/04/10 10:32 PM
0

Leave it to me to miss the first sentence of an article -- sorry about that. I agree that sometimes people can't handle friendship after a breakup, and that the only fair thing to do at that point is to "cut them out."
/r/MensRights30/04/10 10:28 PM
-1

I really don't understand this logic. We don't "invest time" with a friend in search of some future pay off, the time we spend with friends is its own reward. But let me address your metaphor (while consciously ignoring how offensive it is to compare women to fast food): if you were only ever interested in the fries, then I agree that you wouldn't have any reason to return to the restaurant, but if you actually liked the burger and coke, then why cut those out of your diet? To be honest, it soun…
/r/MensRights30/04/10 09:23 PM
4

You continue to misunderstand transgender people, but it's hardly your fault alone, considering the biases promulgated by the psychiatric establishment. As you may know, the diagnostic criteria for GID are currently being revised for the DSM-V. If you're interested, here is my proposed revision: Gender Conformity A. A strong and persistent cisgender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the assigned sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by …
/r/MensRights28/04/10 06:11 PM
0

While prison rape effects every incarcerated population, I have no doubt that gay men (and trans women housed with men) are among the most at risk. I see nothing wrong with spotlighting the concerns of the most vulnerable populations.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:23 PM
-1

You make some good points here. I hope most MRAs would agree with me that we need a radical reform of the criminal justice system. Not only eliminating anti-male bias, but doing away with draconian drug laws, as well as addressing the institutionalized racisms that plague communities of color. I know the word "Nazi" gets thrown around a lot in online fora, but we are at super-Nazi levels of incarceration (in the U.S. at least). We should be organizing against the prison-industrial complex. I don…
/r/MensRights27/04/10 05:17 AM
3

I'm only reactionary to the extent that I'm reacting to your well-written post :) Your basic argument about the lowest paying jobs being the most dangerous jobs seems in conflict with the argument that men are paid more because they're willing to work higher-paying but dangerous jobs. Are you distancing yourself from the wage-gap argument? I agree with you that "nobody" (or at least almost nobody, including feminists) "cares about" the people at the bottom; the very word "poverty" is anathema to…
/r/MensRights27/04/10 04:51 AM
0

If it makes you feel any better, a lot of the "literature" marketed to women is pure drivel. Unfortunately, it doesn't make me feel better at all :(
/r/MensRights27/04/10 03:39 AM
2

People (mostly men) are dying on the job. Let me repeat that: people are dying. But rather than actually working to prevent future tragedies -- by empowering workers to demand safer working conditions, or calling on government to hold corporations truly accountable for the blood on their hands -- we're using these men's deaths as talking point against pay equality? Is r/mensrights so right-wing that we cannot confront the underlying class element here, and demand, in no uncertain terms that corp…
/r/MensRights27/04/10 03:26 AM
1

Except that the field is run, measured and DEFINED by women. really?
/r/MensRights26/04/10 09:19 PM
2

I don't mean to make you sad :( Let me try to explain myself better. I think we should be moving towards a holistic study of gender, one that considers men's, women's, and LGBT issues in relation to each other, one that has room for a diversity of theoretical and political perspectives. Male studies seeks the opposite, fracturing an existing field (men's studies) along a political fault line of anti-feminism. This is bad for the scholarship on masculinity, because it institutionalizes political …
/r/MensRights26/04/10 08:24 AM
4

From what I've seen, yes.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 01:39 AM
2

You apparently think that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 12:55 AM
-1

"The potential program" is a wholly political attack on feminism. If you want real research, look to the field that accepts both feminist and non-feminist takes on gender. "Male studies" is pure backlash.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 12:53 AM
0

The abortion debate is full of moral ambiguity. I just prefer that pregnant women are given the choice to make such moral assessments, rather than über-conservative-religious whack-jobs.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 12:43 AM
1

Are you referring to me or the OP?
/r/MensRights26/04/10 12:21 AM
-4

Then do your own research and expand the field. If every theory were given it's own department, we'd have as many departments as we have researchers. AMSA, the leading American men's studies organization has: rejected the tenet that men's studies must be guided exclusively by feminist principles. The leadership argued that given the pluralistic nature of men's studies, AMSA would be committed to provide a forum of open and inclusive dialogue which involves a spirit of mutual respect for our comm…
/r/MensRights25/04/10 11:04 PM
-10

Men's studies has been around for years. "Male studies" is redundant.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 10:39 PM
4

Given enough technology, even a fertilized egg could survive and develop outside the womb. For that reason, I'm uncomfortable linking abortion rights inversely to advances in reproductive technology.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 10:19 PM
1

Well, I might be able to compromise on late term abortion restrictions that don't jeopardize the health of the mother.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 08:38 PM
3

I'm aware of it, but I personally don't support any of the "middle ground" positions (parental notification, waiting periods, etc.).
/r/MensRights25/04/10 07:11 PM
4

Slavery as a legal institution may no longer exist, but racism certainly does. If r/mensrights doesn't want to be associated with racism, then we need to be downvoting racists to bloody Gehenna, where they belong. Like it or not, most people see men and whites as historically privileged groups. Therefore, there is unfortunately an association in people's minds between the men's rights and white rights movements, an association which is then used to discredit the men's rights movement as a whole.…
/r/MensRights25/04/10 06:28 PM
4

Pro-choice, anti-right-wing-fundamentalist-body-fascists.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 05:44 PM
-2

When a post linking to a white supremacist website gets double digit upvotes on r/mensrights, it's time drop this sanctimonious "but I never owned slaves" bullshit, and clean fucking house.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 09:16 AM
12

Well, let's proceed then, and see where some of this pseudo-mysticism gets us: mind/body: You said in an earlier comment: Our consciousness is nothing but a temporary effect of our brain's physical functions, a brain which is a part of our bodies. This gets us close, but let's go farther and say that our consciousness is our brain's physical functions, which is part of our body (which is also "temporary"). Observe also that we experience our bodies (like everything else) though the medium of con…
/r/MensRights24/04/10 08:31 PM
6

Please trust me, Roninvince, that I'm not personally attacking you when I observe that you are having trouble getting your head around my non-dualistic worldview, as evidenced by your confusion regarding my discussion of the appeal to nature fallacy, and the idea of "everything" as natural. I don't believe you are incapable of understanding my ideas, but neither do I believe my ideas are easily communicated or understood. They are the lovechild of my improbable life thus far: years at university…
/r/MensRights24/04/10 05:14 AM
5

You do misunderstand me: permanently altering your body is not natural nor is it respecting your body. It is your personal doing, not natures doing (not even sure why you would go there, making the point that you are part of nature, right after trying to make the argument that being natural is a logical fallacy). Because everything is natural by definition, nothing is any better or worse than anything else by virtue of being natural. That was my point. The fact that you missed it shows me that y…
/r/MensRights23/04/10 11:17 PM
6

How can you really say you appreciate your body, or your very biology(literally down to every single cell in your body), when you see it as an obstacle for your own fulfillment I don't see my body as an obstacle to fulfillment -- it is very literally me, the physical medium through which my fulfillment is realized. How can you honestly say that you respect your body when you objectify the male form and associate it to this fabricated and superficial male identity which you then, whether subconsc…
/r/MensRights23/04/10 07:51 PM
1

I may not always agree with you, but you taught me a word! +1 :)
/r/MensRights23/04/10 07:02 AM
7

I do accept, appreciate and respect my body. Why can't you?
/r/MensRights22/04/10 07:23 PM
6

I have no hatred at all for trans people. In twenty years of writing about men's rights, this is the first time I have ever addressed the subject. If you address the subject again, please do so with the awareness that there are trans people (myself included) who support men's rights. The fact that I have "discomfort with the role" I was born into does not make me misandrist. In fact, the opposite is true -- having lived both roles I am sympathetic to the concerns of both men and women. If you ta…
/r/MensRights22/04/10 04:05 PM
7

The only positive thing I can say about this article is that it exposes very usefully a hateful similacrum of men's rights that should be opposed at every step. The level of transphobia in this piece is breathtaking: One thing is certain. Raewyn Connell’s view of masculinity is not a product of scholarly pursuit, but of mental illness; a pathological hatred of a particular sex, in this case male. The only pathological hatred here is Paul Elam's pathological hatred of trans people. Notice that he…
/r/MensRights22/04/10 03:02 PM
-1

I don't understand how so many MRAs talk about the wage gap as if it's an obvious myth, especially when I see so many studies and reputable organizations saying otherwise. Can someone explain to me how the wage gap is really a myth?
/r/MensRights22/04/10 08:02 AM
1

Tell me, why do you think it is acceptable to disregard outright any problem men face? Would you consider it sexist if someone said the same about all women's rights issues? I don't think that it's acceptable to "disregard outright any problem men face." Just minutes before I got your orangered, I made this reply to another redditor: I begrudge you nothing for fighting for men's rights, nor do I begrudge women who fight for women's rights. You're correct in saying "feminism is still about women,…
/r/MensRights21/04/10 07:35 PM
2

I begrudge you nothing for fighting for men's rights, nor do I begrudge women who fight for women's rights. You're correct in saying "feminism is still about women," but that's ok, just as it's ok that men's rights is about men. We organize around the issues that touch us most, and it is for those issues that we are best equipped to fight. However, we are always at risk of pursuing our narrow group interest at the expense of everyone else. This is one reason why I favor cooperative rather than a…
/r/MensRights21/04/10 07:19 PM
1

First, I'm not lying -- I earnestly believe that your characterization of feminism is inaccurate. Second: The reason people don't realize that is that it's not true. Sex discrimination is a one way street. A good example is in my own workplace a man was being sexually harassed by a female coworker. When he complained to HR that he was being sexually harassed and discriminated against, he was fired on the spot. Your ex co-worker should get a lawyer. The situation you describe sounds a lot like il…
/r/MensRights21/04/10 05:03 PM
1

I think some strong arguments can be made in favor of the concept of "just war," but I do not believe that people who oppose even "just wars" should be tarred as collaborators (which is tantamount to an accusation of treason). Also, it should go without saying, but just because someone opposes war for moral and/or policy reasons doesn't mean they do not honor the sacrifice of soldiers who fight and die in war.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 01:26 AM
1

Your caricature of feminism as an "openly sexist movement working towards creating gender inequality" is as inaccurate as it is unoriginal. In fact, were it not for feminist activism, men would have no legal protections at all against sex discrimination. I can't understand why people don't realize this.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 12:25 AM
1

you said: Based on their current conduct during the so-called "war on terror" the feminists totally ignored it and You have to realize that feminism is not linked to this sort of political and military issue and I stated earlier that I didn't think that feminists would be directly involved because the issue they concentrate upon is not linked to war and/or collaboration. Those were your points, not the OP's. Also, if you check the comments, you'll see that I did respond to the OP directly.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 11:05 PM
2

Because you brought it up :)
/r/MensRights20/04/10 10:52 PM
3

Thats fine, but if one is in London during the Blitz then protesting for peace has no meaning except to help the enemy. I don't think that's a fair criticism. Even if the ultimate effect of the protest were to aid the enemy, that would not be the meaning of the protest, which is to promote peace. Hippies also protested for peace while there was a draft, when it ended in 1973 they largely quit protesting, although the war continued. Hypocritical. And yet, women have been protesting war for genera…
/r/MensRights20/04/10 10:19 PM
6

A woman with a male partner has more rights than a man with a male a partner; I see that as gender discrimination. Moreover, the discrimination faced by gay men is very much related to their defiance of normative gender stereotypes. Gay rights are a men's rights issue, IMO
/r/MensRights20/04/10 09:36 PM
2

I said that I am all for peace, right there in the previous comment. I just cautioned that the links you provided could be used to argue for the OP's second point, NOT that I agreed with the OP's second point. I never said you weren't for peace, I was just making clear that I do not see protest and collaboration as synonymous. No need to get defensive :) I stated earlier that I didn't think that feminists would be directly involved because the issue they concentrate upon is not linked to war and…
/r/MensRights20/04/10 09:05 PM
2

anti-war activism ≠ collaborating with the enemy
/r/MensRights20/04/10 07:37 PM
1

Make most of the doctors and lawyers women, and you can do to them what’s already been done to teachers, nurses, and secretaries – lower the pay rates and strong arm them into doing things your way. Accidentally poignant while anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 05:59 PM
4

precisely :)
/r/MensRights20/04/10 05:51 PM
10

It's also a pet peeve of mine the way women are portrayed in beer commercials as incompetent jiggly masses of boobs.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 05:49 PM
15

But given the actual laws coming on the books, apartheid is less of an exaggeration by far than the use of "oppression" to describe women's history. You have every reason to be passionate about men's rights, but dismissing the importance of women's issues (both current and historical) is not an effective means of getting us "into action on behalf of men." Both men and women suffer as a result of sexism -- let's accept that and work together.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 05:18 PM
11

I think "apartheid" is a bit of an exaggeration.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 03:27 PM
4

You have to realize that feminism is not linked to this sort of political and military issue . . . where's the link? http://www.codepink4peace.org/ http://www.now.org/issues/peace/index.html http://www.wilpfinternational.org/ http://raginggrannies.org/ http://www.womenagainstwar.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Peace_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Peace_Union
/r/MensRights20/04/10 03:21 PM
3

You forgot d) organize opposition to the war.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 02:55 PM
2

Only if both parties agree that paying for the date is a form of paying for sex, IMO.
/r/MensRights20/04/10 02:51 AM
7

First, the part that jumped out at me is that she feels better than all of the whores that do this I was also a bit bothered by what seemed to be her anti sex-worker bias. I understand your distinction between "regular" and "elaborate" dates. If, for example, if a girl knows a guy is reserving a one-bed hotel room for them both, and she goes along with it, she's sort of tacitly agreeing to share that bed with him. Sure, she should still be able to change her mind, but a guy in that situation wou…
/r/MensRights20/04/10 12:16 AM
4

I made a point to address the issue from a gender neutral perspective. I think neither party should feel obligated to pay more than their fair share for the date. Nor should sex be obligatory, even if one party pays for the other.
/r/MensRights19/04/10 11:08 PM
1

What would you say is the central question?
/r/MensRights19/04/10 11:07 PM
3

I'm basically fine with whatever romantic/financial arrangements people choose to make, as long as they are consensual. However, no one should feel obligated to have sex simply because their date picks up the check (unless that's an explicit condition agreed to by both parties).
/r/MensRights19/04/10 08:51 PM
0

I support men's and women's rights, and I think Emma Goldman -- the prototypical anarcha-feminist -- is a good role model for this pursuit. She recognized that both men and women were oppressed under the state, religion, and economy of her day, and she ardently spoke out against suffragettes who adopted the puritanical attitudes of those institutions rather than confronting their abuses. The world has not changed enough to render her insights irrelevant, IMO.
/r/MensRights19/04/10 09:35 AM
4

Actually, Goldman very much addressed the relationship between economic forces and love and marriage. For example: The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, "How much?" The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears;…
/r/MensRights18/04/10 05:36 AM
3

Love, the strongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy; love, the defier of all laws, of all conventions; love, the freest, the most powerful moulder of human destiny; how can such an all-compelling force be synonymous with that poor little State and Church-begotten weed, marriage? . . . If the world is ever to give birth to true companionship and oneness, not marriage, but love will be the parent. --Emma Goldman
/r/MensRights18/04/10 02:31 AM
1

As I read her, she's not arguing for eliminating emancipation, but for emancipation from emancipation, "complete and true emancipation." As she explains it: Yellow journalists and milk-and-water litterateurs have painted pictures of the emancipated woman that make the hair of the good citizen and his dull companion stand up on end . . . In short, emancipation stood only for a reckless life of lust and sin; regardless of society, religion, and morality. The exponents of woman's rights were highly…
/r/MensRights17/04/10 05:16 PM
7

Indeed, if partial emancipation is to become a complete and true emancipation of woman, it will have to do away with the ridiculous notion that to be loved, to be sweetheart and mother, is synonymous with being slave or subordinate. It will have to do away with the absurd notion of the dualism of the sexes, or that man and woman represent two antagonistic worlds. Pettiness separates; breadth unites. Let us be broad and big. Let us not overlook vital things because of the bulk of trifles confront…
/r/MensRights17/04/10 03:36 PM
1

Despite repeated corrections, you seem intent on mischaracterizing my concerns as misandrist. Sorry, I'm not biting. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 06:36 PM
1

Well, my question is what does it take to rebut the presumption? I keep thinking about that story that was posted here a week or two ago (out of Australia I think) about a father who was a convicted sex offender and had shown "inappropriate" affection towards his kids. He was awarded joint custody (if I'm remembering right), so long as the kids could lock their bedroom at night, and there was another adult in the house. To my mind, that's just putting the kids at unnecessary risk.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 02:58 PM
1

You make some really excellent points here, but I'm afraid you are misreading a something fundamental: the system in place now (I'm not advocating any specific system, btw) is not -- in any de jure sense -- one that presumptively awards primary custody to mothers. The standard is "the best interests of the child." In other words, the courts consider, on a case-by-case basis, the best interests of the particular child or children at issue in that particular case. While in principle this standard …
/r/MensRights16/04/10 04:02 AM
2

Qeraeth is perhaps a bit more forthright than myself, but I don't recall any misandry or similar atrocities in her comments. Her admitted snarkiness is really not so out of place on r/mensrights, with the obvious caveat that she marshals her snark in defense of feminism, rather than an MRA perspective. You shouldn't be too surprised that folks whom you suggest belong to hate movements respond with less than perfect tact. How could such a person possibly be an ally to anyone of /MR? Well, I'm wor…
/r/MensRights16/04/10 03:13 AM
1

As I understand (and oversimplify) it: Father's rights folks are arguing that there should be a presumption of shared parenting that can only be overcome clear evidence of abuse. Women's groups are arguing that creating too high of an evidentiary burden will result in children being sent into situations where there is evidence of abuse, but the evidence is insufficient to prove abuse to the same degree of certainty as, say, a criminal case. I don't hear feminists arguing that women in general ar…
/r/MensRights15/04/10 11:16 PM
1

That concern is tantamount to saying that men are far more likely to abuse their children than women, is it not? No. Neither the current or the proposed system is facially discriminatory -- they simply weigh the interests of the child and the parents differently.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 10:43 PM
1

Without any evidence of abuse? I would say that is sexist.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 10:36 PM
1

doesn't this view paint all fathers as abusive and can be seen as misandric and gender essentialist? (Men predators / women better parent) Not on it's face. The "best interests of the child" standard widely in use today is facially gender neutral. However, statistics do suggest that the standard is largely applied in a way that favors granting mothers custody in the majority of disputes. However, this does make someone who opposes presumptive shared parenting misandrist.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 10:21 PM
0

I definitely believe that this is an area where feminists and MRAs can forge some common ground. Regarding the opposition of some feminist groups to presumptive shared parenting/custody, it is my sense that it springs mainly from a concern that children will be at higher risk of being placed with abusive parents.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 09:04 PM
2

I personally do believe empowering fathers, so to speak, would do more to decrease the wage gap than affirmitve action, that is why I am very suprised feminist do not do more in that direction. I like this sentiment. In what ways would you empower fathers to decrease the wage gap?
/r/MensRights15/04/10 08:26 PM
5

Well thanks for the apology, but I wasn't confused because your example didn't impact me directly (the Nazis killed LGBT folk too, remember). I was confused as to why you seemed to be raising the specter of political correctness in the context of my comment on anti-feminist bias in men's rights and the possibility of men's rights working together with feminism to achieve common goals. Please don't believe that you need to touch an emotional nerve with me in order for me to "get it." I'm actually…
/r/MensRights15/04/10 08:17 PM
2

No, the clothing was most likely produced in a foreign country (China, India, Indonesia) I agree. My apologies if it appeared I was arguing otherwise. So wtf do men in the USA have to do with this? I see a bunch of women oppressing another bunch of women simply for cheap clothing. Let me be clear that I'm not blaming men for the wage gap, I'm arguing that (even internationally) women's wages are suppressed by economic interests benefitting from the artificial undervaluing of women's work.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 06:24 PM
4

I appreciate that you bring your game in good faith, crypto, even though I almost always disagree with you. Likewise :) Here's the thing. If we're literally talking about the same work, just at a lower price, that's not sex discrimination. What I'm actually talking about is a hypothetical company that refuses to hire men (in order to suppress wages, or for whatever reason). That's sex discrimination, and it helps explain why Ferrell's scenario doesn't happen as often as we might expect if such p…
/r/MensRights15/04/10 05:59 PM
5

"If a company could really get the exact same value out of hiring women for 78 cents on the dollar... why wouldn't some company somewhere hire all women, cut their labor costs by TWENTY-TWO PERCENT, and drive their competition out of business?" In the U.S., this would be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. Anti-male discrimination, I hasten to add. But it does happen -- probably every piece of clothing you're wearing, for example, was produced under conditions quite similar to those you …
/r/MensRights15/04/10 04:15 PM
6

My point isn't that one should never use negative terms to describe hate groups (I understand the futility of such an exercise), rather, my point is that describing feminism as a hate group is inaccurate, and ultimately antithetical to the legitimate goals of men's rights. That the more extreme discourses in men's rights vilify feminism in precisely the ways you list in your earlier comment is indicative of an anti-feminist "group serving bias" at work. While the existence of such a bias cannot …
/r/MensRights15/04/10 02:56 PM
12

You've been arguing with the same boring point for as long as I've been on reddit. Yes, but merely in response to the "same boring point" that feminism is a hate movement. Explain how Nazi's were evil. Your restrictions include anything referring to the jews, invasions of foreign lands, or war. I'm afraid I'm not seeing the relevance. Help me out a bit, please.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 06:37 AM
5

She's not always courteous, but she's always logical :)
/r/MensRights15/04/10 04:21 AM
16

With all respect, don't you see that you are making a "boogeyman" of feminism? Many feminists, like myself, support men's rights and want to work to with MRAs towards a common goal of gender equality. How can we achieve that if you just "end the conversation and move on?" Instead of casting each other as "people from hate movements," we should be talking, finding common goals, and working -- together -- to achieve them. This is not a zero sum game. ::steps down from soapbox::
/r/MensRights15/04/10 04:09 AM
2

Edit: you're correct. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't involve me. I stand corrected. Good. Now that we've diagnosed how seriously trans people threaten your personal well-being, let me suggest that you follow your own advice and keep yourself "out of general population for [your] own safety."
/r/MensRights11/04/10 08:21 PM
6

First, it's not "sexual assault." Realize that you're talking to someone with 3 years of law school under her belt. Second, I'm not "tricking" anyone. You're "tricking" yourself if you presume that every person you meet is cisgender. You should know better. If you are really so insecure with your sexuality (trust me, most straight guys I've been with aren't) it is your responsibility 1) to ask, and 2) to disclose your potential for violence. I will not sacrifice my rights on the altar of transph…
/r/MensRights11/04/10 06:44 PM
3

My trans status cannot infect you. The "infection" exists already: transphobia. To be clear, I do make a habit of disclosing my trans status to sexual partners, but not out of any legal or moral duty. I just have too much self respect to consent to being fucked by transphobes.
/r/MensRights11/04/10 05:48 PM
3

I, as a trans person, am no more obligated to offer sensitive personal information about myself than you, or any other cisgender person. If you wrongly assume I'm cis: that's your issue. If you freak out because you're transphobic: that's your issue. I didn't create this world that hates me, I'm just living in it. If you really think you might get violent with a trans person, be forewarned: many of us are trained in self-defense, carry weapons, or are otherwise prepared to deal with exactly the …
/r/MensRights11/04/10 04:07 PM
1

Awesome :)
/r/MensRights10/04/10 05:26 PM
3

Agreed.
/r/MensRights10/04/10 12:31 AM
3

Or that kids can't go to the park by themselves, due to the omnipresent threat of male "predators." Yup, it's definitely all connected, and -- just to be clear -- I don't take issue with tomek77 for wanting to work directly on changing laws; that's an essential part of activism.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 10:39 PM
1

Women's groups routinely lobby against presumptive shared parenting laws not to reinforce stereotypes about the relative abilities of men and women as parents (feminism has actually done a lot of good work on that front), but rather, out of real concerns as to the effects of such laws in instances where there is domestic violence and abuse.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 09:51 PM
11

But there are connections to be made. Gender disparities in child custody decisions, for example, aren't the result of facially discriminatory laws -- they reflect an outdated sexist assumption that women are more nurturing than men.
/r/MensRights09/04/10 05:52 PM
3

Rock on! :)
/r/MensRights09/04/10 05:48 PM
7

That's just basic legal ethics. Where's the sexism?
/r/MensRights09/04/10 08:12 AM
0

thanks :)
/r/MensRights07/04/10 10:26 PM
4

As a law student, the best I can tell you about "where it falls on the legal spectrum" is a function of where you live, as rape laws vary somewhat widely across different jurisdictions. As a human being, I offer my hugs and support (warning guys --2XC moment). Something very similar happened to me also, with the added caveat that I was almost blackout drunk (but still more than willing to engage in what I believed was protected sex). Regardless of the legal issues, I can't say I feel I've been r…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 07:53 PM
0

Women's internalized sexism has long been a topic of feminist discourse. Where's the hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights07/04/10 06:21 PM
1

What about his pension from the Ministry of Silly Walks?
/r/MensRights05/04/10 01:20 PM
1

And then, there's the other implication: That having a penis is a sign of power, that not having one is a sign of powerlessness, that penises are nature's way of signifying a totally-not-abused person. An ad that means to tell us that men can be abused, and that this is serious and deserving of attention, is equating penises with invulnerability and the lack of them with victimization. It ends up reinforcing the same gender dynamics it protests. Yup, that's the nub of it.
/r/MensRights03/04/10 04:05 PM
0

Aww . . . some of you can be sweet sometimes :)
/r/MensRights03/04/10 04:54 AM
3

The control of male (hetero)sexuality as it to relates porn, and the objectification of women in porn, are two sides of the same coin. As a society, we make decisions about how best to strike a balance that protects the rights and interests of the parties involved. At one extreme, we could have a world where all sexually suggestive depictions of women are banned, and the biblical principle "if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away" is enforced by the state. At the other extr…
/r/MensRights02/04/10 05:51 PM
4

However, anecdotal evidence trumps blanket statements like "it takes two parents to raise a successful, functioning child." This article's title is pretty much a slap in the face to anyone raised by a single parent.
/r/MensRights01/04/10 10:14 PM
0

Thanks :)
/r/MensRights01/04/10 10:05 PM
2

What about white feminist transgender women? Are we welcome in your movement? :)
/r/MensRights01/04/10 07:08 PM
3

If this is an April Fools joke, you are so banned! If not, thanks for the insights, and by all means, please subscribe :)
/r/MensRights01/04/10 05:40 PM
5

If you want, I can look back and post up a summary of what happened over the history of the /mensrights subreddit. Actually, I'd quite like to see that :)
/r/MensRights01/04/10 05:36 PM
3

Exactly. White people have a fundamental human right to be less white!
/r/MensRights31/03/10 05:56 AM
2

Self promotion?
/r/MensRights30/03/10 03:55 PM
10

And I think if this movement allied itself with the GOP (as the feminists have allied themselves with the Dems), we'd have a lot more clout. Respectfully, I disagree. Probably the biggest misconception about men's rights is that it is a reactionary, anti-women's rights movement -- a backlash. If we align ourselves with conservatism, we will reinforce that misconception, and the political clout of men's rights will be diminished.
/r/MensRights30/03/10 03:47 PM
1

I suppose it depends on how you conceptualize "living freely."
/r/MensRights29/03/10 08:12 PM
4

I oppose the draft, but as long it exists, it should include both men and women. The article's suggestion, however, that women should be denied the right to vote until they are subject to the draft is fucking ridiculous.
/r/MensRights29/03/10 06:09 PM
1

That's a helluva compliment, but I'm an atheist.
/r/MensRights29/03/10 03:17 AM
1

It's still pretty short, but let me know what you think :)
/r/MensRights28/03/10 09:53 PM
2

Here's an interview she did with the magazine Mother Jones that might give you a bit more of a taste. In it she says crazy things like: I don't see how you can be a feminist and not think about men. One of the gross misconceptions about feminism is that it's only about women. But in order for women to live freely, men have to live freely, too. Feminism has shown us that what we think of as feminine is actually defined by cultural messages and political agendas. The same holds true for men and fo…
/r/MensRights28/03/10 09:45 PM
0

Just tell her I said it's OK. Then invite me over for cocktails ;)
/r/MensRights28/03/10 09:34 PM
-2

Sure, but that's why I support open relationships -- they leave more room to be "excited by the new." ;)
/r/MensRights28/03/10 08:46 PM
4

I'd also add that most relationships involve two people. If a relationship goes to shit, chances are both partners bear some responsibility for it.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 08:04 PM
8

Actually I'm not. If you want to discuss men's issues free from feminists (or any dissent whatsoever) go to r/menslinks. In r/mensrights "diverging viewpoints are welcome." You have your subreddit, let us have ours.
/r/MensRights28/03/10 05:52 PM
7

This book is an excellent rebuttal to the oft-levelled charge that no prominent feminist has ever spoken out for men's rights. You might also want to check out Backlash, which is a defense of (oh gosh!) feminism. And she won a Pulitzer!
/r/MensRights28/03/10 04:48 PM
0

I wish I could say it's because she's a strong female role model bucking gender stereotypes and kicking ass for justice, but really I think it has more to do with her bitchin' costume ;)
/r/MensRights28/03/10 01:54 AM
0

Shit! This sounds like a job for WONDERWOMAN!
/r/MensRights27/03/10 11:10 PM
0

But . . . noooooooo :(
/r/MensRights27/03/10 11:07 PM
0

But Batman doesn't kill people :(
/r/MensRights27/03/10 07:18 PM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 06:21 PM
1

He also has a blog where he insults us both by (screen)name, complete with misspelling, mis-attribution, and the usual vitriol.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 05:06 PM
10

Roll for initiative!
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:50 PM
0

Excellent decision! I'm going to try this with my husband :)
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:24 PM
1

They don't have money to do anything but this. Hardly a convincing excuse though . . .
/r/MensRights27/03/10 08:18 AM
4

I love when comments and usernames mesh perfectly -- upvote, even though I disagree with your assertion (which I'm taking with salt).
/r/MensRights27/03/10 08:13 AM
3

Good wisdoms there.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 08:09 AM
8

some of us are nice :)
/r/MensRights27/03/10 08:07 AM
2

I don't think a "marriage strike" is necessarily a bad idea, but as I mentioned to Carchamp1, I think abolishing marriage is a politically unrealistic goal. "Investigating alternatives" (short of abolishing marriage) makes more sense to me strategically. I support marriage reform.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:18 AM
3

But isn't the idea of marriage that you'll grow old together?
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:12 AM
4

Life is a burden. Upvote.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:07 AM
2

A life without exceptions is not a life worth living, in my not so humble opinion ;)
/r/MensRights27/03/10 03:59 AM
6

I can't think of a more ridiculous movement than gay marriage I disagree. Any institution that casts an entire group of people as second class citizens should be opposed, even if the value of that institution is questionable at best. For the same reason, I support including women in selective service, even though I oppose the draft. Maybe it's too subtle a distinction, but I don't think it's ridiculous to fight for a right, even if you don't intend to exercise that right.
/r/MensRights27/03/10 01:32 AM
6

My second advice to you is to get a vasectomy Alternatively, marry a tranny. We give great head, are always up for anal, and don't plop out children you have to worry about later. Did I mention giving great head?
/r/MensRights27/03/10 01:18 AM
5

I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept of abolishing marriage (what bothers me more are laws that allow opposite sex couples to marry but deny same sex couples the same right). Also, I readily admit that the benefits I listed would cease to exist if marriage were indeed abolished as you suggest. However, I am incredibly skeptical of marriage abolition as a realistic political goal. Marriage reform seems a more viable option. Regarding the risk of financial devastation and the loss of one's…
/r/MensRights26/03/10 10:20 PM
7

That's a fair response. I think every couple (and each partner individually) should consider the potential risks and benefits of marriage relevant to their own situations before deciding to tie the knot. In fairness to carchamp1, I also realize that if we actually followed his advice and abolished "marriage slavery" the benefits I mention would no longer exist. Really, there are (at least) 2 overlapping debates going on here: should people (especially men) get married? should marriage as a legal…
/r/MensRights26/03/10 09:40 PM
5

I was going to write something brilliant and devastating in your defense, but then I got the picture in my head of an atomic parrot and a chicken-fried monkey locked in a kung-fu death match. Now I'm having a really hard time taking any of this too seriously :) Upvotes regardless!
/r/MensRights26/03/10 09:25 PM
19

Of course, there are no benefits to getting married - especially in the U.S. Unless, you count: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from othe…
/r/MensRights26/03/10 08:58 PM
2

Burn it!!!
/r/MensRights26/03/10 02:53 PM
1

God bless :)
/r/MensRights26/03/10 02:51 PM
1

Of course! Folks around here rag on me for being a feminist, but little do they know that my ideological indiscretions go far far deeper ;)
/r/MensRights26/03/10 03:20 AM
1

my favorite version _^
/r/MensRights26/03/10 02:36 AM
2

socialism!!!!
/r/MensRights26/03/10 02:19 AM
2

So masculinity is simply a symptom of disease-stricken culture. That's interesting :/
/r/MensRights26/03/10 02:11 AM
1

Yeah, the U.S. does a terrible job of separating social reactionaries from economic conservatives. Admittedly, I'm a raging leftist, but out here in Oregon we've had some real "conservatives" I might actually have voted for if I'd had the chance: Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, etc.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 10:23 PM
2

Yes! I call on all redditors to enable ad-blocking until we are fairly compensated for our work!
/r/MensRights25/03/10 08:35 PM
3

Nah, Saydrah's smarter - she figured out how to get paid for it ;)
/r/MensRights25/03/10 07:59 PM
5

Thank you for bringing up this important and controversial issue. Infant foot amputation (IFA) is not only a simple medical procedure with proven health benefits, it is also an ancient and sacred tradition central to my faith. Make no mistake: while the opponents of IFA claim to care about children, they seek only to deny us our God-given right to practice our religion free from government interference. One need simply consider COMMUNISM to see the inevitable effects of STATE-MANDATED ATHEISM. T…
/r/MensRights25/03/10 07:43 PM
5

Depends on your definition of "shit together" I guess. Palin, Merkel, et. al, seem about as competent as their conservative male counterparts.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 05:29 PM
1

The Weekly Standard isn't a women's mag, it's like Newsweek for "asshat" conservatives.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 05:17 PM
4

She's not a radical feminist; she belongs to the (center-right) Moderate Party. This is typical conservative "anti-crime" bullshit. I'm with you on legalized sex work, btw.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 02:50 AM
3

You're right, I think, to criticize over-broad child pornography laws - especially when they criminalize looking at cartoons - but by simply blaming "feminist whores" you fail to address: 1) the schism in feminism regarding pornography, and 2) the influence of cultural conservatism in shaping social policy.
/r/MensRights24/03/10 12:23 AM
1

I'm not saying that a prospective student's academic qualifications should weigh less heavily as a factor in admissions decisions than a student's background. I think diversity should be one factor (among many) to be considered. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of admitting academically unqualified students, and in fact I think diversity should be weighed less heavily than prior academic performance. I support the use of narrowly tailored and minimally restrictive means to achieve the compe…
/r/MensRights23/03/10 04:54 AM
3

Thanks :)
/r/MensRights23/03/10 04:16 AM
2

Thanks :)
/r/MensRights23/03/10 01:53 AM
3

YES!
/r/MensRights22/03/10 11:14 PM
7

IMO: delete spam and ban spammers
/r/MensRights22/03/10 09:27 PM
2

Looks like they're intentionally drumming up some controversy. I guess that helps sell newspapers.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:43 PM
8

Right, but the real problem here isn't offensive speech - it's spamming.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:19 PM
18

/r/mensrights rightly prides itself as a no-holds-barred arena for the free expression of sometimes unpopular ideas. I like it this way, and I fully appreciate that our liberal moderation policy is what has allowed me to continue to share my own contrary views for as long as I have. I feel weirdly at home here. Nonetheless I believe a line must be drawn between users who express unpopular or even offensive views, and users who abuse our forum for their own ends, and engage in deceptive trolling …
/r/MensRights22/03/10 06:03 PM
12

Add another name to the ban list.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 05:46 PM
1

The reason universities have admissions standards is not that high-testing students are intrinsically more deserving of university education - it's because universities benefit from having talented students. Universities also benefit from having a diverse student body, and to extent they use a non-quota based system of admissions to ensure a critical mass of diverse students (which is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence) I believe those universities are within their rights. And I be…
/r/MensRights22/03/10 05:39 PM
3

Oh sure, those are important too. But education is fundamentally about educating people, not rewarding people who test well.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 08:51 AM
4

It's a caucus of Democratic congresswomen - that excludes like 99.999% of the population. To be clear, I support full transparency regarding these kinds of meetings, and I admit that I don't actually know how much of the proceedings will be made public record. From the outcome, I surmise it probably consisted of Pelosi explaining why they had to vote for the bill even though it will prohibit federal support for abortions. Frankly, of all the questionable politicking that has gone into passing th…
/r/MensRights22/03/10 07:46 AM
1

Thanks :)
/r/MensRights22/03/10 07:21 AM
1

a rational coherent argument
/r/MensRights22/03/10 02:27 AM
-2

This health care bill has had more discussion than probably any piece of legislation in history ever. I'm watching CSPAN right now, and trust me, the discussion is interminable.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 01:20 AM
1

I'm not saying that, but it's definitely a woman's issue. Specifically, it's a about a pregnant woman's fundamental right to make private and personal decisions about her body - if you follow the reasoning in Roe that is.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 12:56 AM
1

Is this the convention you're talking about? I don't see any mention of women in combat, but it does seem the U.S. ratified it in 1991. I'm quite interested in international law, so please help me figure out what I'm missing here.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 12:52 AM
-2

Because abortion funding is a major part of the negotiations over this bill, I think calling a caucus of women democrats is totally understandable.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 12:00 AM
2

Hear! Hear! Let's start with affirmative action for exotic dancers :)
/r/MensRights21/03/10 11:18 PM
1

Graduate education admissions should be based on merit, and merit alone. College admissions should be based on merit, and merit alone. What about the educational benefits of diversity?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 11:14 PM
-2

so?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 11:10 PM
4

KellyHarp7 / smithea isn't really looking for debate. It's trolling to drive traffic to its site.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 10:57 PM
2

Modern 14th amendment equal protection analysis applies a lower standard of constitutional scrutiny to sex discrimination than racial discrimination. It's my understanding that if the ERA were ratified, government actions that discriminate on the basis of sex would be reviewed under a "strict scrutiny" standard, instead of the more permissive "intermediate scrutiny" standard that is used now.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 06:16 PM
5

"so logically, if . . . " " . . . she weighs the same as a duck . . . she's made of wood." "and therefore . . . " "A WITCH!"
/r/MensRights21/03/10 05:25 PM
2

Scary stuff, I know :( And it's important to note that this issue doesn't just affect straight men.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 05:07 PM
0

You make a good point. Even though most anti-discrimination legislation is passed without men in mind, in most cases, men's rights activists can still use those laws to vindicate their rights. They can and they should.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:20 PM
2

That doesn't sound right. What treaty in particular are you referring to?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:11 PM
0

It's a knock-off - but don't tell anyone ;)
/r/MensRights21/03/10 02:44 PM
1

I don't think it would either - but not because father's rights isn't an equality issue.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 08:03 AM
2

You might be right about some parts of VAWA falling to the ERA (I don't have the statute in front of me). I'd rather see it amended to better address violence against men.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 06:10 AM
1

That's a good policy; it's just been a bit drecky around here today :(
/r/MensRights21/03/10 05:45 AM
3

http://www.now.org/history/timeline.html
/r/MensRights21/03/10 05:05 AM
4

Or maybe they're pro-equality?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 04:52 AM
3

The problem: the application of this law is only to harm the current benefits reaped by women and minorities. So it can't pass. Feminism is mainstream, they couldn't allow it or the entire agenda of their movement would be over. But then why does NOW support it?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 04:24 AM
1

TRUE! I hope Obama's healthcare bill passes tomorrow. I want my fingerbangs and tobacco enemas! :P
/r/MensRights21/03/10 04:21 AM
2

asshole! :)
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:38 AM
2

kloo2yoo, please tell me you are not associated with the smithea=JackSpin=KellyHarp7 sockpuppet that has been spam-trolling r/mensrights all day. I know we don't always agree, but you are totally central to our community, and I'd hate to think you are in on this bullshit. Say it ain't so, kloo2yoo, say it ain't so . . .
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:34 AM
2

Please stop spamming our subreddit.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:25 AM
9

Interesting to note that none of "them" have been a redditor for more than 8 hours. Just circumstantial evidence, but still . . .
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:21 AM
2

I've been debating drawing up a pre-hump-tial agreement LOL - it couldn't hurt (except your chances of getting laid maybe). I had a similar close call with a girl who lied about her age once, but even a "pre-hump" wouldn't have saved me from that one probably :/
/r/MensRights21/03/10 02:48 AM
2

Honestly, if you broke it down, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that the ERA, if enacted today, would benefit men more than women.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 02:40 AM
5

As a woman, it's expected that you would be allergic to common sense and reason I'm allergic to cat's and assholes. AH-CHOOO This link exposes your lack of education in the matter of submission-authority relationships Honey, I've been playing with submission-authority relationships before you knew what BDSM stands for. Talk to me when you find a decent dominatrix, and maybe then we can have an educated conversation. You prove the point perfectly that women are ruled by their emotions (as evidenc…
/r/MensRights21/03/10 02:35 AM
1

What do "shaming tactics" have to do with the Equal Rights Amendment?
/r/MensRights21/03/10 02:10 AM
5

I see liberty and equality as two sides of the same coin. For example, calling for gender equality in custodial arrangements is not so different from saying fathers have a fundamental right (liberty interest) in having a meaningful relationship with their children. It's a matter framing the issue - and strategically, it usually makes sense to argue for both liberty and equality.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 01:06 AM
4

I'm sympathetic to your position, and I'm more than willing to admit my ignorance of kiwi law (beyond some structural similarities stemming from the fact that we were colonized by the same wankers), but in the U.S. at least, I'm fairly certain the case would be tossed before it ever got to trial. I can't think of any existing U.S. anti-discrimination laws that would be applicable to custody situations - but I'm open to novel theories.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 12:57 AM
6

Statistics are often used in the employment discrimination context, but it wouldn't work with custody. To challenge a law's constitutionality, you need to show more than a disparate impact, you have to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature. Nor could you go after the judge, because they would be protected by judicial immunity. I think changing the law to require a rebuttable presumption in favor of shared parenting is a more likely avenue for meaningful custody reform.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 11:34 PM
2

I'm not sure how many such laws are still on the books, but prior to the New Deal, protections for women workers were for a time considered an exception to what was then understood as a constitutional prohibition against labor regulations, which were seen as an infringement of the right to contract. The leading case was Muller v. Oregon, which reasoned: "That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obviou…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:57 PM
2

Right on. I sometimes get dismayed with some of the "more vocal individuals" that seek to turn the MR and WR movements against each other. Pointing out obvious examples of reforms we can both support is one way to answer those voices, but I agree that "we don't have to look back 30 something years to find some common ground."
/r/MensRights20/03/10 09:20 PM
2

Sounds obvious to me too. I'm just curious about MRAs' thoughts on an egalitarian reform historically associated with women's rights. It seems like an issue where we might find some common ground.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:39 PM
3

Yeah, sorry about the U.S. bias -- I'm running away to Holland soon, so hopefully I'll gain a more international perspective :) The amendment really is that short. The basic effect would be to make it easier to strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Affirmative action quotas are already unconstitutional in the U.S., but some form of limited affirmative action would probably survive the amendment.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:26 PM
14

First, the discrimination aspect of section one of the ERA is already incorporated into the 14th amendment. That's partially true, but 14th amendment equal protection analysis applies a lower standard of constitutional scrutiny to sex discrimination than racial discrimination. See my reply to iammaru. Second, if I understand it correctly, the ERA means women get the draft and custody battles can't favor the mother, which is 100% in line with men's right philosophy. I think you're right about the…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:16 PM
4

It would put sex discrimination on the same level as racial discrimination. In other words, government actions that discriminate on the basis of sex would be reviewed by the courts using a "strict scrutiny" standard, rather than the more permissive "intermediate scrutiny" standard that is used today.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:05 PM
6

Too many women have been cheated by Feminism. They have been erroneously taught to compete with men and usurp male authority. This completely neglects the importance of fulfilling different gender functions, which are meant to complement rather than than compete with each other; men should be in charge of women as a means of caring for female needs while women should be submissive to men as a means of caring for male needs. Feminism betrays women by teaching them that adopting male functions and…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 07:46 PM
8

It's not totally dead. But really, I'm asking (for lack of a better term) an ideological question: is the ERA consistent with MRA goals for gender equality?
/r/MensRights20/03/10 07:24 PM
4

Well, thanks for standing up for LGBT rights - that's the real focus of my activism IRL - feminism just provides the intellectual foundation for it (See: transfeminism, postmodern feminism, queer theory). What I can't understand is how you can criticize the Religious Right's demonization of LGBT folk as "convenient monsters" (nice term, btw), but you fail to recognize how some MRAs (like yourself) use feminists in precisely the same manner. If you really think feminism is a politically omnipoten…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 06:43 PM
4

You're using intentionally sloppy logic - that's sophistry. And you're using it to tar an entire group as hateful extremists. That shit is straight out the Glenn Beck playbook. But I'll humor you and counter your points: You have no articles of law that could be cited which have been enumerated by the Feminist Movement which places men and women on equal grounds Um, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the cornerstone of U.S. civil rights law? The one that outlaws discrimination "be…
/r/MensRights20/03/10 08:55 AM
2

Glenn Beck called. He wants his sophistry back.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 07:58 AM
1

r/feminisms and r/women are probably better comparisons to r/mensrights because they're more political. But even those reddits are pretty tame compared to some of what I see over here.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 04:01 AM
7

At least you're famous. I'm still toiling in obscurity :(
/r/MensRights20/03/10 01:26 AM
3

Yes. Here's an example: if your partner is male and you are a woman, you can legally marry your partner. If your partner is male and you are a man, in most places you can't marry your partner. Your fundamental right to marry the person you are in love with has been taken away because you are a man.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 07:09 PM
3

I happily got married without an engagement ring. We used what we saved for something we both enjoyed: a honeymoon in Paris :)
/r/MensRights19/03/10 05:33 PM
1

See, we can agree on stuff. Let's be friends :)
/r/MensRights19/03/10 07:04 AM
2

I'm with you. I like how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it: recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world
/r/MensRights18/03/10 03:27 AM
4

Ranters? :) EDIT: downvote me, but at least understand that I am fresh off a rant myself (in my "Jurisprudence of Property" class no less), where I compared the demonization of convicted sex offenders to similar treatment of queer folk, like myself - so I'm not castin' 'spersions here. Here's an example of what I feel is ranting done right.
/r/MensRights17/03/10 08:23 PM
9

I don't disagree, nor do I pretend to know the best system - it's a difficult question. I don't think a hard age limit is the best answer: I wouldn't criminalize sex between ten-year-olds, but sex between a ten-year-old and a twenty-year-old is a different matter entirely. However, I do think that most girls at age 16 are capable of healthy and enjoyable sex. They should have that right.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 05:56 PM
9

I see this as a feminist issue too: 16 and 17 year old girls should have the right to control their own bodies.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 04:48 PM
9

See Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized the right of "intimate, adult consensual conduct." Funny how it sometimes takes fighting for queer rights to win everybody rights :)
/r/MensRights16/03/10 04:40 PM
9

I'm pretty sure that's just one of those old crazy laws that's never enforced because it's unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 03:17 PM
6

It's a weird dissonance I've noticed with men's rights: on the one hand, there's a reaction against stereotypes of "man as provider" and "woman as nurturer" when it comes to issues of alimony, child support, custody, etc., but on the other hand, there's a celebration of traditional gender roles and appeals to evolutionary psychology and other essentialist apologetics. I think that one place where MRAs and feminists can find common ground is fighting outdated gender stereotypes.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 05:03 AM
1

/r/mensrights is more anti-lesbian than anti-gay or trans -- but I have hope for it.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 03:58 AM
2

This is clearly part of a secret plot to: queer humanity and free love, mitigate overpopulation, accelerate mutagenesis, and usher in a utopian age of peace and plenty.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 03:50 AM
1

I support these positions!
/r/MensRights15/03/10 09:21 AM
4

This joke is about to become the top-rated r/mensrights post of all time. palm --> face
/r/MensRights14/03/10 01:18 AM
8

Must be a lot of men out there googling to see if their partners are faking pregnancies. So untrusting. :P
/r/MensRights13/03/10 10:21 PM
2

My guess is the staff at this school had a personal beef with this man, made up some off the wall bull to have him fired. That's possible, but it's just a guess. Going by the information given, I still say it sounds like sexual harassment. Of course, neither us are in a position to know what actually happened. If we changed the law to require "physical interaction" for a finding of sexual harassment, all kinds abusive behavior would be allowed in the workplace. That's a bad idea, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 06:24 PM
2

aroo? o_O I'm dying to hear your reasoning.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 05:45 PM
2

There's a lot more going on here than just leering. Reedy had previously been disciplined three times: a verbal reprimand for inappropriate comments made to a teacher; written reprimand for unwelcome behavior toward an intern; and a five-day unpaid suspension for comments made to a bus driver. Sexual harassment doesn't require any kind of touching. If a person creates a hostile work environment for a person or people because of their gender, that's sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 05:34 PM
2

Sounds like sexual harassment to me.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 04:59 PM
3

The Lord Chief Justice's name is "Judge?" That's name-ism!!!
/r/MensRights13/03/10 09:12 AM
6

I think there's a difference between being friendly and delivering a "lame pick-up line or inappropriate comment." Of course, I can't know what actually happened with your friend.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 01:52 AM
4

Dude, there was this one time in Phrygia when this harpy totally . . . uh . . . she totally . . . aw fuck, I forget :(
/r/MensRights13/03/10 01:43 AM
3

sanity approved. upvote :)
/r/MensRights13/03/10 01:36 AM
2

lipstick type lesbians [pretending] that they enjoy the "company" of women over that of men.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 11:51 PM
1

Right, but that's porn, not real life.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 11:28 PM
1

Actually, the terms "gender feminist" and "equity feminist" aren't often used within feminism itself. We have way too many subgroups to agree to split ourselves into binary categories :P
/r/MensRights12/03/10 11:22 PM
7

LOL - I've also been preemptively banned. I guess the things I might have posted were just too darned offensive! I hope schopenbecq enjoys arguing with himself :P
/r/MensRights12/03/10 11:09 PM
5

From the comments: These liberal men and third wavers are even worse then the MRA’s and right wing males. Reason being, they are quicker to gain a woman’s trust, feminist or otherwise. MRA’s and right wingers are instantly recognizable as the enemy to women’s liberation and will sometimes even admit it outright. Liberal men and trans have successfully hijacked the movement. Haha! Yes we have. Watch out men's rights, you're next! ;)
/r/MensRights12/03/10 05:34 PM
0

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you that simplistic interpretations of equality are something to be wary of, and that concepts of equality are difficult to apply when the groups in question have "conflicting needs and values." That's an important insight, and it illustrates, I believe, the necessity of real communication between groups. Without understanding the "conflicting needs and values" of different groups, it's impossible to arrive at a solution that seems fair to all in…
/r/MensRights12/03/10 11:25 AM
1

So, you have an issue with state custody law. Figure out who your reps are for the state House and Senate. Call their offices and ask to set up an appointment. Be courteous, and if possible come ready to tell a personal story about how the issue has effected you negatively. You might want to bring a few friends who could tell their stories as well. If you're really together, you might be able find some sort of model legislation to give your lawmakers. Unfortunately, without the power of organiza…
/r/MensRights12/03/10 04:06 AM
1

Nice try, Mr. Icke :P
/r/MensRights11/03/10 11:22 PM
3

Ummm . . . nice to see you jumping on the equality bandwagon? :-)
/r/MensRights11/03/10 11:02 PM
3

Sound logic, but I just don't see the misandry in the MRA definitions. There's some hate towards MRAs, but not towards men generally.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 10:58 PM
0

interesting feminist argument :)
/r/MensRights11/03/10 04:48 PM
3

By that logic, is ridiculing feminism misogynist?
/r/MensRights11/03/10 04:42 PM
8

To people of all genders: don't wait for a knife in your chest to leave an abusive relationship.
/r/MensRights11/03/10 07:55 AM
2

where's the link?
/r/MensRights11/03/10 04:14 AM
2

Or at least the occasional fuck :P
/r/MensRights11/03/10 12:28 AM
2

Sadly, whether or not feminism should exist is an issue I see debated here all the time. This post is part of that discourse.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 05:32 PM
2

I sincerely hope we adopt affirminitive action for women the next time a draft is called. Fair point. I oppose the draft, but also oppose gender discrimination in selective service registration. One problem with leglislative bodies becoming 'diverse institutions' thanks to positive discrimination is that the women will see themselves AS WOMEN with the role of speaking up for other women and men will simply continue to be politicians, speaking up for what they believe to be the interests of their…
/r/MensRights10/03/10 09:40 AM
4

Right, but most civil rights law is gender neutral. A lot of important cases have vindicated the rights of victims of "reverse" discrimination. Even if equality is reached (an exceedingly difficult determination) fair civil rights laws could still help maintain that equilibrium.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 09:25 AM
2

There are two basic arguments in favor of affirmative action: 1) it helps remedy the effects of past discrimination. 2) there are benefits to having diverse institutions I think reasonable people can disgaree about the merits of affirmative action, but it isn't necessarily a feminist v. MRA issue. There are number of occupations from which men have been historically excluded, and for which an increased male presence could lead to positive effects in terms of greater gender diversity.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 09:07 AM
4

Diverging viewpoints are welcome
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:51 AM
2

Yup, see Griswold v. Connecticut.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:16 AM
4

You'll be "deforesting the Southern Hemisphere" in no time ;)
/r/MensRights10/03/10 03:58 AM
1

Maybe, but we have similar disparities in political representation. India at least has had a female head of state.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 03:40 AM
2

An 186-1 vote from a democratically-elected legislature is at least suggestive of popular support for the measure. I'm a little torn on this, but I'm almost certain that it would be swiftly overturned as unconstitutional if ever implemented in the U.S.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 02:45 AM
6

To be a true feminist; to genuinely entrench the values the feminist movement encompasses; we must begin earnestly fighting for the rights of all those around us - men, women of other nationalities, children, everyone - as well. She's trying to help feminism become more egalitarian. Isn't that more productive than calling it a "hate movement?"
/r/MensRights10/03/10 02:25 AM
10

Right. In fact, I'm a feminist, MRA, and egalitarian.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 12:49 AM
2

So, it's difficult. But I do try Me too. Ain't none of us perfect :)
/r/MensRights10/03/10 12:11 AM
2

So how do you explain that you get upvoted, despite being a feminist? Like everyone, I sometimes get upvoted, I sometimes get downvoted. However, the fact that I'm sometimes upvoted doesn't invalidate Appanouki's point that "sometimes Feminists who come here are being downvoted." I'm not a black swan. Many, or most, of the men's rights supporters here are sadly easily confused by your fake claims that 'what we should seek is equality', knowing full well that all you want is to define what sort o…
/r/MensRights10/03/10 12:03 AM
5

Let me give you some examples of how you totally fail at logical argument. First, to attack the assertion that "feminists are treated negatively on /r/mensrights," you argue: Your comments get more upvotes than mine This is called "cherry picking" - "the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." When I point out your logic fail, you offer a new assertion…
/r/MensRights09/03/10 10:24 PM
2

There is no negative treatment of feminists here. Your comments get more upvotes than mine. Logic fail.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 07:07 PM
1

I didn't downvote your post. My votes are private, so stop making shit up.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 06:36 PM
3

lol I'm sure a lot of transguys use strap ons for penetrative sex, but I don't think sex is necessarily penetrative.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 05:25 PM
3

being sexually attracted to transexuals (even pre-op) does not mean you are gay True. and that transexuals and gays rarely have relationships. Also true, if you're talking about transsexual women having relationships with gay men. FtMs, on the other hand, seem more likely to have lesbian partners.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 05:11 PM
3

I'm still thinking about this one . . .
/r/MensRights09/03/10 04:45 PM
3

Well, Rawl's is a bit of a liberal, so I guess I'm not surprised that you aren't rushing aboard :) A bigger point I'm trying to make is that people can disagree, and still be bright, reasonable, and basically good people. We should resist making negative assumptions about others, just because they're an outgroup member.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 04:33 PM
1

I think one way you might begin to get through to (some) feminists would be to acknowledge the problem of underreporting, and emphasize that the reforms that "False Rape Society" supports would deter only false, but not legitimate accusations of sexual assault. I suspect some readers wrongly assume that you would imprison any woman who makes an accusation of sexual assault that doesn't result in a conviction.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 04:02 PM
3

So, to continue from last night, is it fair for me to assume that you'd call yourself a libertarian?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 03:57 PM
2

friending a feminist?! OH NOES!! ;)
/r/MensRights09/03/10 03:41 PM
3

public education?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 06:37 AM
3

Are you against progressive taxation?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 06:25 AM
2

It's hard to condense it without misstating the theory, but in a nutshell, the idea is that if the members of a society were given the task of writing the rules of their society, but were stripped of all knowledge of what position they would have in that society, they would come up with a set of rules that 1) hold equality in certain liberties inviolable and 2) condone inequality only to the extent that it benefits the least advantaged members of society.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 06:19 AM
3

The problem is that these two versions of equality directly contradict each other. Exactly. But but the choice between pure laissez-faire capitalism and pure communism is a false dilemma. Rawls suggests principles with which to strike a fair balance between the two.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 05:49 AM
2

I favor finding a fair balance between formal equality and substantive equality (e.g. "equality in results"). What's "fair" is a question that reasonable people can disagree on. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on Rawl's A Theory of Justice?
/r/MensRights09/03/10 05:07 AM
3

Not much to tell. Through the action of mysterious forces I was assigned a gender at birth at odds with what I felt my gender to be. I suffered secretly for 20 years until I transitioned and started living full time as a girl. That was 11 years ago. My family and friends have been amazing, and last August my husband and I got married in Amsterdam (where I'm moving shortly, because our marriage isn't recognized in the States). I'm about half a semester from finishing my law degree, and thereafter…
/r/MensRights09/03/10 04:43 AM
3

Yup. I think it helps me better see both sides of a lot of gender-related issues - stereoscopic vision of a sort :) Feel free to AMA.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 04:09 AM
5

Definitely, but from my perspective as a transwoman, 99% of the population is the "outgroup," so group biases are just obviously absurd to me.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 03:59 AM
7

The negative treatment of feminists on /r/mensrights is a classic example of "group serving bias,", which includes ingroup bias, group attribution error, and outgroup homogeneity bias. Of course, /r/mensrights isn't alone in this sort of wrong thinking, but as a member of this community, I think we can do better.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 03:44 AM
3

Find some common ground, and work from there. They can both agree, for example, that a fair solution will safeguard the welfare the child. Also, it might be helpful to think about the situation if the genders were reversed, or if the exes in the article had been a same-sex couple.
/r/MensRights08/03/10 03:04 AM
0

huh? :)
/r/MensRights08/03/10 02:41 AM
1

women's suffrage was about advances of capitalism and income tax. That's interesting. Can you expand on that a bit?
/r/MensRights07/03/10 10:47 PM
1

How do you distinguish "feminism" from the struggle for women's rights?
/r/MensRights07/03/10 10:38 PM
0

So you're opposed, for example, to women voting?
/r/MensRights07/03/10 10:31 PM
4

sexism :(
/r/MensRights07/03/10 09:36 PM
6

True, but you might use the citations as a jumping off point for research.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 09:28 PM
8

Ultimately, I think the name is less important than the movement itself. While I admit that some degree of male-bashing goes on within feminism, the way to get through to these people is not to convince them that feminism is bad because it's about male-bashing. To the contrary, you help them understand that male-bashing is anti-feminist, because feminism is about gender equality. You "win" arguments with anti-male feminists by "out-feministing" them :) (same goes for MRAs, btw)
/r/MensRights07/03/10 08:31 PM
1

D&D is totally racist. I mean, what's with elves, dwarves, etc. getting all the special powers, and humans getting nothing?! :P
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:54 PM
3

If I promise to downvote you, will you make me breakfast? :)
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:48 PM
2

Well, at least your honest about your misogyny.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:45 PM
2

One can support women's rights, men's rights, queer rights, racial equality, social, economic, environmental justice, etc., simultaneously. What bothers me about the historical critique of feminism I often see on /r/mensrights (basically, the argument that feminism used to be necessary, but has since degenerated into a supremacist movement) is that the kinds of feminism that /r/mensrights most often critiques are themselves historical artifacts. Separatist feminism hasn't had currency since the …
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:32 PM
4

then you're no better then a misandrist. FTFY feminism ≠ misandy. Some feminists (i.e. me) actually love men :)
/r/MensRights07/03/10 07:14 PM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
/r/MensRights07/03/10 06:50 PM
2

I don't know a lot about white rights. Am I correct in assuming from your screenname that you have some sort of Klan connection/sympathy - and if so, am I wrong in assuming an ideological kinship between the Klan and Nazism? I'll be honest - this stuff scares the shit out of me :(
/r/MensRights07/03/10 06:38 AM
1

White rights advocates.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 06:19 AM
3

I thought we were fighting sexism.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 06:16 AM
1

Question: do you find the term "feminazi" offensive?
/r/MensRights07/03/10 06:14 AM
3

I wouldn't worry about it. I was just pointing out the sarcasm for the benefit of other sarcasm-challenged individuals like myself :)
/r/MensRights07/03/10 05:39 AM
4

They can certainly often perform well, but in positions where male traits are required, they must either surrender their female attributes or become more like men, trying to be what they naturally are not What "male traits" are you talking about? Leadership? Violence? I'm having trouble reading this in a way that's not sexist :(
/r/MensRights07/03/10 05:32 AM
1

logic! :)
/r/MensRights07/03/10 05:17 AM
2

Given the context (and the fact you'd been downvoted), I figured better safe than sorry.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 05:13 AM
2

/sarcasm
/r/MensRights07/03/10 04:31 AM
2

As someone who has actually taken women's studies courses, I can assure you all that there is a rich body of feminist academic scholarship. I know this is an unpopular statement round these parts, but it's true nonetheless.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 04:26 AM
10

"Women" are not false accusers; SOME women are. Just as "men" are not rapists; SOME men are. Absolutely.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 04:17 AM
0

I have no idea how or if posts are automatically rejected. And for the record, I'm not here simply to "downvote any criticism of feminism." I believe that feminism and men's rights are not intrinsically opposed, and that both would be wise to find ways to work together. I express that position through words as well as downvotes.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 04:08 AM
2

Ah thanks, I was wondering if that might be it. A weird bit of wordplay considering Sharia law is decidedly anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 03:54 AM
2

Um, seriously: what's sistaria law?
/r/MensRights07/03/10 12:12 AM
-1

Re-post.
/r/MensRights06/03/10 10:58 PM
5

What's sistaria law?
/r/MensRights06/03/10 10:55 PM
1

I think you've left the reality zone :(
/r/MensRights06/03/10 08:09 PM
1

We'll do our our best :)
/r/MensRights06/03/10 06:01 PM
1

American women would like to establish a monopoly over the affections of American men Meh - I married a Dutchman :)
/r/MensRights06/03/10 09:17 AM
1

Granted, East Coast Repubs tend to lean more moderate, but the woman is a Sunday school teacher for gosh sakes, hardly a radical feminist.
/r/MensRights06/03/10 09:15 AM
0

A radical feminist Republican? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. The bill is drek, but it's not feminist drek.
/r/MensRights06/03/10 06:10 AM
6

This is a school disciplinary hearing - not a criminal trial. As I understand it, if it's a state school, then the accused has a due process right to notice and a hearing, but not much else. The standard of proof required by most schools is a "preponderance of evidence," not the higher "reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal cases. The gravest penalty is expulsion, not prison time. The issue is that only 10-25% of students who are found responsible (not accused) of sexual assault by college…
/r/MensRights05/03/10 05:34 AM
2

Yes! I also support beating the shit out of domestic violence.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 03:32 PM
2

nice slogan, actually :)
/r/MensRights04/03/10 08:07 AM
1

Your proposed hybrid approach seems reasonable, but I'm having a hard time understanding why, if you believe there is "anti-father bias" in the courts, you support a system that would give spouses increased incentive to fabricate stories of abuse, cheating, etc.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 03:51 AM
2

I learned a new word: "kyriarchy" defined elsewhere: As contrasted to ‘patriarchy’: Kyriarchy – a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination a…
/r/MensRights04/03/10 12:23 AM
3

When possible, I think shared parenting is the best solution.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 05:11 PM
1

You make some pretty reasonable suggestions, but what's wrong with no fault divorce? The old system was a mess and encouraged all kinds of dishonesty from couples simply looking to sever legal ties and go their separate ways.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 04:20 PM
3

Shhhhh! Don't ruin this for us! ;)
/r/MensRights03/03/10 04:10 PM
1

I guess, but "sex offender" doesn't really have a cheery ring to it either :(
/r/MensRights03/03/10 05:49 AM
4

Definitely. That brand of feminism hasn't been in vogue since the 70s, and even then it was pretty loony-fringe. Personally, I'm more of a third-wave/sex-positive/pomo/trans-feminist :)
/r/MensRights03/03/10 05:45 AM
6

Is anyone here going to this thing? I'd love to hear a first hand account.
/r/MensRights02/03/10 06:25 PM
1

I like "philistine" :)
/r/MensRights02/03/10 06:22 PM
4

Feminism and men's rights have more in common than you might think. Both are concerned with deconstructing negative gender stereotypes and addressing their effects. For example, the stereotype of women as passive victims and men as active aggressors is a subject of both feminist and MRA critique. I truly believe that the women's and men's rights movements have a lot to learn from each other - but that learning is more difficult if we compare each other to Nazis :(
/r/MensRights02/03/10 06:14 PM
1

Actually, it might interest you to know that "fighting words" are an exception to free speech protections, not a license to kill. You should also be advised that in a number of jurisdictions, death threats can carry serious legal consequences. Now go hug someone or play with a puppy or something :)
/r/MensRights02/03/10 08:39 AM
2

and the penalty for rape is also a mandatory life sentence?
/r/MensRights01/03/10 05:35 PM
6

A lot of the accusations against her are probably exaggerated, but I think she would be well advised to step down as mod in order to remove any appearance of ethical impropriety.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 05:11 PM
3

Interesting :( How do the penalties for sexual assault compare to the penalties for rape?
/r/MensRights01/03/10 04:56 PM
5

Good article on a tough issue. It occurs to me that probably one of the few potentially effective strategies for men to "cope with being cast as predators" would be to rely on heteronormative stereotypes and never go out in public without an adult woman. After all, a nice guy out with his girlfriend/wife/mother/etc. couldn't possibly be one of those evil loner predators, right? I'm no fan of the term, but it's essentially a pussy-pass by proxy :( Frustratingly, challenging stereotypes is in a lo…
/r/MensRights01/03/10 04:48 PM
4

Some schools now let homosexual activists “help” boys find their true sexual orientation. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what this probably entails.) I'm sorry, but the guy's a douche. His general argument - that because (in his view) boys are better than girls at sports, girls' sports deserve lesser funding - is similarly douchey. I have that not so fresh feeling :(
/r/MensRights01/03/10 04:17 PM
5

I'm all for gender equality in door holding :)
/r/MensRights01/03/10 08:40 AM
2

At least - in most jurisdictions - legal reforms have made rape a gender neutral offense.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 08:36 AM
2

We're pretty much on the same page. Regarding statutory construction in the U.S. versus Canada, I concede I'm not an expert. Hell, I'm still trying to get my head around today's hockey game :\
/r/MensRights01/03/10 08:20 AM
3

No problem, I was just curious :)
/r/MensRights01/03/10 02:01 AM
4

I'd love it if you could link to some of the stuff you're talking about. I don't spend too much time over on those subs, but I can't recall seeing much of what you're talking about (besides a general dismissal of /r/mensrights, which I sort of addressed in an earlier post). Anyway, I'm sure it happens, but I'd love to see some links to see how it happens.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 01:15 AM
5

thanks :)
/r/MensRights01/03/10 01:04 AM
4

I wish I could say it makes me feel better, but no, it just sucks :(
/r/MensRights01/03/10 01:03 AM
6

I downvoted you because I'm a woman, I support men's rights, and you have "come across" me. When we talked, you made statements like this: If you can't realize your sex is nothing but a dangerous plague on humanity, get the hell off this board.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 08:19 PM
3

:)
/r/MensRights28/02/10 08:18 PM
2

You brute! Get your ass to the kitchen and make me a dykewich! :)
/r/MensRights28/02/10 07:40 PM
7

I am not sure how the trans-girl aspect affects things and would appreciate if you expanded on this. I don't mean to imply that it doesn't have an effect, I just don't know what effect it would have. See here for a recent example. Overall, I agree with you. I think the majority of /r/mensrights folks are thoughtful, reasonable people. But there's a vocal minority that have given this sub sort of a pariah status on the rest of reddit. I think this is damaging to the real struggle for men's rights…
/r/MensRights28/02/10 07:28 PM
5

I totally agree. We're going to be covering domestic violence later in the class, so I'm expecting a lot of anti-male stereotypes to rise to the surface :(
/r/MensRights28/02/10 06:15 PM
15

Thanks for this post. Women supportive of men's rights need a little love too. It's hard to be a girl (especially a trans-girl) on /r/mensrights sometimes - I try to express a balanced and respectful perspective, but I get attacked a lot. I have a friend from law school who is also a redditor. I was talking to her about /r/mensrights the other day and she was like "yeah, I subscribed because I believe in equality and men's rights and everything, but I gave up on it because there was so much miso…
/r/MensRights28/02/10 06:06 PM
6

Helpful! I'm teaching a weekly high school class on street law, and I will definitely take this to heart :)
/r/MensRights28/02/10 05:39 PM
2

probably screenname discrimination :P
/r/MensRights28/02/10 05:23 PM
1

Maybe, but your basic critique remains valid: concern that the French law will be enforced in a way that discriminates against men. I truely hope your wrong on this account - domestic abuse against men is a real problem, and male victims need the same protections as female victims.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 04:55 PM
10

Sorry, but feeding time's over.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 07:02 AM
10

You claim to know an awful lot about me for a redditor for 13 hours. How curious! Also curious that you've posted links from the same "textforest.com" site as the OP, a redditor for 1 day. GODDAMMIT! IT'S TROLLS LIKE YOU WHO ARE WASTING ALL THE SCREENNAMES!
/r/MensRights28/02/10 06:47 AM
11

For the sake of argument, let's assume your "fact" that: 40% of children born to married couples are NOT related to the husband If that's true, then logically, 40% of children born to married couples are fathered by men outside of the marriage. To parallel your argument: because men cuckold other men, and make them raise (and even pay for) the resulting bastards, clearly, men are nothing but a dangerous plague on humanity! If you can't understand why this kind of childish sexism is poison to the…
/r/MensRights28/02/10 06:00 AM
2

it is. just another way of debasing women so that policy makers feel weak willed and implement anti-female laws and judges implement anti-female sentences, despite laws against discrimination based on gender. really the next MRA i see is history Still sounds like a threat :(
/r/MensRights28/02/10 05:24 AM
2

The gender non-neutral language is not intended to extend protection to female genitalia; it's to explicitly note that female genitalia is included within the provisions of the section, to remove any uncertainty. But doing so does not remove protection for male anatomy. I understand the technical point you're making, but the fact that the legislature chose to include female genital mutilation but explicitly omitted any mention of male circumcision makes it clear that it was not the legislature's…
/r/MensRights28/02/10 05:08 AM
2

The Canadian aggravated assault statute you refer to is not gender-neutral. It refers to female anatomy, but glaringly omits any mention of male anatomy: “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person. The problem isn't enforcement, it's the law on its face.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 04:39 AM
2

What were you trying to say?
/r/MensRights28/02/10 04:12 AM
2

really the next feminist i see is history
/r/MensRights28/02/10 03:13 AM
12

How is calling women "manipulative and dangerous" an exercise in "logic and reason?" You confuse sexism with logic.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 09:56 PM
5

Attitudes like yours are poison to the men's rights movement. Grow up.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 08:03 PM
3

Sex for the sake of sex is a good thing.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 06:02 PM
1

Threatening violence is not cool :(
/r/MensRights27/02/10 05:48 PM
10

Most men's rights supporters aren't far-right zealots.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 05:36 PM
1

I don't think restroom cleanliness is a significant feminist issue.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 06:39 AM
12

If the feminists have their way men won't even be needed, they'll genetically modify humans to have no sex and grow babies in farms. Baby farms? Seriously?
/r/MensRights27/02/10 04:53 AM
7

A few points. First, it's not actually law yet - it still has to pass the Senate (although that does seem likely). Second, the law is gender neutral; male victims of psychological abuse will be protected as well as female victims. Third, despite the quote from a critic of the law, I don't see how this shifts the presumption of innocence - the same burden of proof will apply. The problem is that psychological abuse is likely to be difficult to prove. These issues are related, but different.
/r/MensRights26/02/10 11:15 PM
4

This is my experience too.
/r/MensRights26/02/10 07:21 AM
5

If human rights were having a party, the right to defecate would be the guy in the corner with toilet paper stuck to his shoe. We might not always like to talk about it, but I agree, it is not above discussion. I'm trans, so I get revolutionary about shit.
/r/MensRights26/02/10 04:27 AM
2

I hate that. My other pet peeve is people who cover the entire fucking seat with toilet paper, and just leave it there. If they're such hypochondriacs, why can't they clean up after themselves?
/r/MensRights26/02/10 04:16 AM
1

Arguably, mustache-phobia is just a subtler form of misandry.
/r/MensRights26/02/10 01:13 AM
5

No problem. Right now, "cisgender" is about as unrecognized "misandry."
/r/MensRights25/02/10 09:08 PM
2

According to wikipedia, the term originated on transgender-related discussion boards.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 08:52 PM
5

non-transgender people :)
/r/MensRights25/02/10 08:40 PM
1

I know, totally boring, right?
/r/MensRights25/02/10 08:22 PM
7

Damn cisgender folks and their lack of gender perspective :P
/r/MensRights25/02/10 08:13 PM
32

Anyone who thinks that women's restrooms are intrinsically more hygienic than men's has not spent significant time in restrooms of both genders.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 07:38 PM
1

A woman who can't afford an abortion has no real choice as to whether or not to have the abortion. It may be cheaper than raising a child, but if a woman simply cannot afford it, she must "choose" the more expensive "option." This is bad social policy, and it unfairly singles out women. Typically, health care covers a number of gender-specific conditions and procedures. I don't see why abortion should be an exception. I assure you that most women who've had abortions considered them "necessary,"…
/r/MensRights25/02/10 03:26 PM
1

The amendment to the bill unfairly targets low-income women for purely moralistic reasons. Denying access is equivalent to denying choice in my view. Of course, I also think health care is a basic human right.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 10:18 AM
2

I'm definitely opposed to hatred. Reparations on the other hand, well . . . I think good people can hold different opinions on that issue ;)
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:39 AM
2

I think we need to get beyond blaming and demonizing entire genders and realize that gender discrimination can effect people of any gender negatively, in different but not opposite ways. As I've said before, this is not a zero-sum game: we can work for men's rights without working against women's rights, and vice versa. We can work for both. From a strategic perspective, I think it's exceedingly counterproductive for men's rights to set itself up in opposition to feminism. The major civil rights…
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:20 AM
1

Good to know :)
/r/MensRights25/02/10 03:52 AM
3

I disagree that the Democrats are beholden to either NOW, or feminism generally. Exhibit 1: the Stupak amendment to the House health care bill - written by a democrat, and essentially a huge FU to pro-choicers like myself. Rather than align itself with cultural conservatives, I'd like to see men's rights join the coalition of civil rights movements on the left. Historically, this is the path toward equality that has worked best.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 01:01 AM
3

I respect your position, but I still think you're exaggerating the problem. The proof that women and men can function effectively together in combat exists today - both in militaries that have officially integrated women into their combat forces, and in the stories of soldiers like the woman interviewed for the article.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 06:36 PM
2

Right, it's the suggestion that it's ok to hurt your partner that bothered me too. I agree that couples should be able to resolve situations without resorting to hurtful tactics, but even healthy relationships occasionally descend into discord - and I don't think every hurtful word or glance is necessarily indicative of emotional abuse. If that we're true, most people in relationships would be abusers.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 04:27 PM
1

“The fighting was so intense around our objective that sometimes I had no choice but to use the weapon,” she said. “It could have been dangerous for all of us if I’d refused to use it.” I honestly don't see how the headline/story is sensationalized or misleading.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 04:12 PM
2

How is the article misleading? She has fought: “The fighting was so intense around our objective that sometimes I had no choice but to use the weapon,” she said. “It could have been dangerous for all of us if I’d refused to use it.”
/r/MensRights22/02/10 04:07 PM
2

Definitely a poor choice of words - I don't think that issue was on the author's radar screen at all. However, in a healthy relationship, there are times I believe a "withering glance and some choice words," can be appropriate (or at very least, non-abusive.) The same can't be said for physical violence.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 03:57 PM
3

War - I've read - is hell. I don't blame anyone for wanting no part of it, regardless of their gender. However, there are surely women who would choose to take on combat roles if given the option.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 09:13 AM
3

I think you're selling men short. If a male soldier is disciplined enough to run headlong into enemy fire, surely he is disciplined enough to fight effectively beside women. Male and female police officers often serve together in the line of fire - but the tactical liablity you predict has not been a significant issue. If the evolutionary instinct you describe exists, I do not believe it is so strong that it justifies continuing military discrimination.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 08:58 AM
2

Yup. We have to stop blaming each other.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 04:32 AM
4

Yup. No need to cut anyone any extra slack here - just match the standards to the real world physical requirements of soldiering, and you will find plenty of women able and willing to join the fray.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 03:42 AM
7

Pure drivel.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 11:56 PM
4

The hard realities of assymetric warfare have proven that women warriors are just as capable of participating fully in imperialist wars of aggression as their male counterparts. The rest of the world should follow the lead of Canada and Israel and rescind the facially discriminatory policies that keep women from fighting on the front lines in combat roles.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 10:53 PM
6

It's nice to see a women's magazine taking up the too-often ignored issue of male victims of domestic violence. See, we're making progress :)
/r/MensRights21/02/10 07:05 PM
0

You're right, everyone should look at my downvotes on this page as clear evidence that you are not a puppet account I use to garner support from reasonable men's rights activists. Moreover, the strange coincidence that most of your comments are replies to my own (or mention me by name) does not prove that you are my puppet account, but merely shows the depth of your personal obsession with me.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 05:29 PM
2

EQUALITY! EVERYBODY RUN!
/r/MensRights21/02/10 05:11 PM
0

Why don't you just f off outta here? Because I'd miss you :( EDIT: Don't you get it yet, schopenbecq? We need each other. You need my feminist perspective because it gives you a convenient outlet for your anger, and I need your anger because it makes my feminist perspective look more reasonable by comparison. You often accuse me of downvoting you with multiple accounts, but to an outside observer, the more likely possibility is that you are my multiple account. Your impotent rage gives me more c…
/r/MensRights21/02/10 06:07 AM
2

It's not feminists so much as "tough-on-crime" politicians. Sex-positive feminists like myself generally oppose the crackdown.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 05:44 AM
-4

Wow, that's clearly racist :(
/r/MensRights21/02/10 05:32 AM
8

The thing is, nobody "takes a stand" when it comes to "child abuse hysteria." Everybody hates child molesters, so it's a political goldmine for any politician willing to take it up. The masses just nod their heads knowingly, and the wrongly accused are swept under the rug like nothing ever happened.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 02:48 AM
1

There's an exception to every rule ;)
/r/MensRights21/02/10 02:41 AM
2

Rejecting evolutionary fundamentalism ≠ creationism. I believe both biological and cultural evolution have played a role in the development of human gender roles.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 02:38 AM
3

I'm a feminist and a men's rights advocate - I support gender equality.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 02:29 AM
2

I don't know, but I'm moving to the Netherlands this summer :)
/r/MensRights21/02/10 02:00 AM
2

I definitely agree that making sexual advances (and accepting when then they're rejected) is also a learned skill - a skill that men, by and large, have learned more than women.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 01:45 AM
2

If you really think we're the same person, check out this exchange: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ayjlw/twoxc_on_rmensrights/c0k26kl
/r/MensRights21/02/10 01:28 AM
-1

right on, it just kinda came off that way.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 09:39 PM
12

I support safe, legal, and regulated sex work, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 09:15 PM
-4

Do you even realize how racist that statement makes you sound?
/r/MensRights20/02/10 09:13 PM
4

Not true, it took me over 12 hours to downvote you. But seriously, what's with your persistent and baseless allegations? They just make you look paranoid.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 08:42 PM
10

Resisting unwanted sexual advances is a learned skill. Most women pick up the basics through everyday experience, while men have far fewer opportunities to practice the art. In other words, your actions were completely understandable.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 07:26 PM
2

Womandate! :P
/r/MensRights20/02/10 07:28 AM
1

It does seem some people are taking that position.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 01:33 AM
3

Perhaps you are just easily surprised by small things? (double entendre intended) LOL :) Your own statement contradicts your current plea. When you say that you "support the struggle for men's rights, but not by these means", you are clearly stating that you would not support men's rights by supporting the Daily Mail articles. What are you saying here exactly? I support men's rights, but I think there are enough valid news sources out there that we don't need to resort to using sources that we o…
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:44 PM
2

When it comes to gender issues the really important part of the discussion seems to often get lost in a barrage of, "Women blah blah blah. Oh yeah? Well MEN blah blah blah". We're all hurt by the way things are, albeit in different ways. THIS! :)
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:33 PM
1

Please don't think that I believe that the comments I'm referring to represent the majority opinion of men's rights supporters. To the contrary, I'm offering what I hope is the reasonable majority's perspective.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 06:14 PM
2

Sure, you can use statistics to prove just about anything, but . . . 56%: Women voted for Obama/Biden 43%: Women voted for McCain/Palin 49%: Men voted for Obama/Biden 48%: Men voted for McCain/Palin
/r/MensRights19/02/10 04:46 PM
2

I believe it's the ruling class through history that created this idea that women and children are more valuable than men, because they represent future wealth. That's a really interesting take on it. I don't really see our views as in conflict: you're describing the underlying motive behind the phenomenon, and I'm describing the story that's told to justify it.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 04:35 PM
4

I'm absolutely floored by the number of people here who are arguing, basically, that: "yes we know it's lies, but people believe them, so we are justified in spreading them." I support the struggle for men's rights, but not by these means.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 03:47 PM
1

You need to check out the YouTube channel of Thugtician if you think there aren't any black supremacists in our movement. I wasn't aware that there are black supremacist MRAs, but I'll check it out. And the fact that those innocent fairy like heavenly beings with vaginas were the biggest cheerleaders of the holocaust IS revelant to men's rights, although perhaps not when focusing on an individual such as Eva Braun I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you please elaborate?
/r/MensRights19/02/10 04:48 AM
3

Also known for: "that's not a knife . . . that's a knife" (he says, pulling out bigger knife). Come to think about it, that movie was laden with sexual overtones. No wonder I turned out so weird :/
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:57 PM
7

Forgive me as I depart for a moment from my usual decorum to say: QUIT THE "FEMINAZI" SHIT ALREADY, AND LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! This article, from a "white advocate" website was posted to r/mensrights a couple days ago, and it received next to no criticism. Let me be clear: I understand the the vast majority of people on this subreddit are not racist - but rather than demonizing women with Nazi aspersions, please address the white supremacist underbelly of your own movement. Thank you, that …
/r/MensRights18/02/10 04:27 PM
0

Hmmm . . . you stumped me :) Maybe it's some rule of medical ethics I'm not aware of?
/r/MensRights18/02/10 03:59 PM
3

Sexual assault?
/r/MensRights18/02/10 03:54 PM
1

The life boat mentality you mention has very little to do with the villainization of men. Quite the opposite: it is a relic of a paternalistic worldview that sees women as helpless and weak like children and thus in need of protection from heroic self-sacrificing men. It boggles my mind that more MRAs don't realize how offensive this idea is to many women. Regarding a general trend of using gender-neutral terms for men and gender-specific terms for women, there is a well-established feminist exp…
/r/MensRights18/02/10 03:47 PM
1

non-sequitur riddle: A boy and his father were playing rugby when they were crushed at the bottom of a nasty scrum. Both were hurt badly and rushed to the ER. After a short wait, they were taken to different operating rooms and two doctors prepared for surgery, one doctor for each patient. The doctor operating on the father got started right away, but the doctor attending to the boy stared at him in disbelief. "I can´t operate on him!" the doctor exclaimed to the nurses. "That boy is my son!" Ho…
/r/MensRights18/02/10 07:56 AM
4

In my experience, gender detectors are woefully inaccurate :P
/r/MensRights18/02/10 07:28 AM
3

Women have never worked on roads? Really? If we're arguing that both sexes should have equality in career options, what's wrong with gender-neutral job titles? Don't MRAs care about the right to be "stewardesses," "meter-maids," etc.? Maybe the pay is too low :(
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:07 AM
1

Upvoted for class consciousness!
/r/MensRights18/02/10 05:54 AM
1

Yeah, it definitely cuts both ways.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 04:54 AM
3

Oh no, I don't think you're evil :) It's a bit of a fine line, but even while my general preference is to oppose banning and censorship, I also recognize that part of the beauty of this medium is that it allows for a diversity of communities to coexist, each with their own set of values and priorities. If someone has a problem - well - they can start their own subreddit. It's an elegant system filled with inelegant people, and it's working as well as (if not better than) could be expected. For t…
/r/MensRights18/02/10 04:44 AM
4

This should be interesting. EDIT: Upon reading, I'm curious why you think your banning was so unreasonable, especially considering the post: we trolls aren't invited...ffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu I checked the thread, and it seems that comment has been deleted, so I'm also trying understand why you think emmster's comment was untrue and defamatory. PS - I'm not hating. Even though I mostly disagree with your politics, you're a monkey-wrench in the gender orthodoxy, and I appreciate th…
/r/MensRights18/02/10 01:46 AM
4

In the Netherlands, where I'm moving shortly, the names of the accused are not publicly released. To give you a sense of it, here's a random article. Pretty fucking reasonable if you ask me.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 12:52 AM
4

Speaking for myself, I think trannies are the best of both worlds :)
/r/MensRights18/02/10 12:20 AM
6

Well, you're in a better position to know what to do with your sub than I. Thanks for the explanation :)
/r/MensRights18/02/10 12:14 AM
3

Are the masculine pronouns really necessary? Why can't my tranny sisters just get along :(
/r/MensRights18/02/10 12:02 AM
3

That makes sense, but I have to say that I see a lot more men who consider themselves superior to women.
/r/MensRights17/02/10 11:57 PM
1

Ideally, I see men's rights as a progressive movement. What's the alternative? A reactionary movement? And what's wrong with a little political correctness? Aren't we trying to get to a point where misandry is as politically incorrect as misogyny or racism?
/r/MensRights17/02/10 11:36 PM
2

Am I the only one who thinks it's cute? :( For the record, when I got married I kept my name - both because I'd already gone through the hassle of changing it once, and because it's awesomely ungoogleable!
/r/MensRights17/02/10 11:18 PM
2

Of course sir, very good. And did you want your feminizing-hormone-cocktail with your meal, or should I bring it out now?
/r/MensRights17/02/10 04:10 PM
3

Sorry sir. Would you like a side of foreskins with that? :P
/r/MensRights17/02/10 03:47 PM
5

Canadianism EDIT: probably radical Canadianism.
/r/MensRights17/02/10 08:12 AM
-4

Oh honey, don't get hysterical - it's just a newspaper article. Now move your tush and make me a sandwich; you don't want me castrating on an empty stomach, do you?
/r/MensRights17/02/10 06:28 AM
3

I think kanuk876 is Canadian. He's always making these weird comments about "North American society," which is a dead giveaway as far as I'm concerned. I don't hold it against him though - at least he's polite about it.
/r/MensRights17/02/10 06:06 AM
0

I don't know about your (apparently) blanket condemnation of psychology, pyschiatry, physical therapy, etc. - but as a transwoman, I share your disdain for the system of therapist gatekeepers that stand in the way of us making intimate personal choices about what to do with our own bodies. I can't think of any other medical treatment that expects patients to internalize and perform a narrative of self-hatred before it can be accessed. To quote the applicable feminist mantra: my body, my choice. …
/r/MensRights17/02/10 05:26 AM
0

But you're the 8345801843rd person to point out that I sometimes speak in generalizations. Specificity. I like that :)
/r/MensRights16/02/10 07:38 PM
1

Not too often - thankfully. To quote a great American, let's just say that when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible :P
/r/MensRights16/02/10 07:35 PM
3

Oh, don't worry about it. We've both said stuff to each other that was a little out of line at times. Water under bridge as far as I'm concerned. Even though we don't always agree, I really do appreciate having someone else around here with some legal knowledge - and I will upvote accordingly :)
/r/MensRights16/02/10 07:30 PM
0

I think you're being a little oversensitive; I basically agree with you. And for the record, I use generalizations all the time. Everyone does (see what I did there?)
/r/MensRights16/02/10 07:21 PM
0

WHOOSH
/r/MensRights16/02/10 06:47 PM
3

upvoted for accuracy.
/r/MensRights16/02/10 05:44 PM
1

Oh, you mean Nieuw Amsterdam, right?
/r/MensRights16/02/10 05:11 PM
1

Ah, Pennsylvania Dutch. No wonder you clicked on the Amish Porn link :P
/r/MensRights16/02/10 05:03 PM
1

My husband's Dutch, but his granddad was a collaborator :( Purely out of curiosity, do you live in the Netherlands?
/r/MensRights16/02/10 04:56 PM
1

Nice try . . . Herr Van Helsing oh wait - that's Dutch isn't it?
/r/MensRights16/02/10 04:37 PM
4

I think we're smart enough here to hold these two ideas in our heads at the same time: 1) Credible studies show circumcised men are about 40% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men. 2) Non-consensual genital surgery is a gross violation of human rights. There's a simple solution to this seeming conundrum: it's called "condoms"
/r/MensRights16/02/10 06:10 AM
1

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
/r/MensRights16/02/10 06:02 AM
1

I'm scared :(
/r/MensRights16/02/10 05:06 AM
2

My first clue was the word "socialism" appearing twice in the first paragraph.
/r/MensRights16/02/10 04:56 AM
2

logic fail.
/r/MensRights16/02/10 04:02 AM
3

:P
/r/MensRights16/02/10 12:51 AM
3

If they run my info, my old name comes up :(
/r/MensRights16/02/10 12:12 AM
9

Actually, I'm transgender - so I suspect I do have a Y chromosome. Regarding my capacity to understand, I can say this: when cops assume I was born female, I get better treatment than men. When they know I'm trans, I'm treated worse than men.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 10:30 PM
4

women of mass destruction?
/r/MensRights15/02/10 09:29 PM
16

Right - but the tension here between justice and privacy is at least worth mentioning.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 07:48 PM
32

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that were it not for ubiquitous CCTV surveillance, this bloke would probably be in prison right now?
/r/MensRights15/02/10 06:33 PM
7

Happily, my husband and I are bucking most of these trends :)
/r/MensRights15/02/10 06:27 PM
1

It's probably worth mentioning that the defendant here is entitled to the same standard of "reasonable doubt" as, say, a man accused of rape. If I were a juror, and the only information I had was the information from this article, I would acquit.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 10:31 AM
1

It's just my opinion, but the "clever" part was that I found an irony: you were generalizing by accusing a group of generalizing. I might not have not have pointed it out, but your generalization was inaccurate; feminists in general are not black and white thinkers. I offered myself as evidence in support of that assertion, but witness also, for example, recent feminist discourse on "gray rape." Admittedly, I was cherry-picking, but I get a bit irked when someone who is constructing a basically …
/r/MensRights15/02/10 09:34 AM
1

exactly.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 04:56 AM
1

and neither are super-intelligent robots.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 04:34 AM
1

link :P
/r/MensRights15/02/10 02:24 AM
1

An ad with a woman getting pushed out of a car actually aired during this year's Superbowl. The car wasn't moving, but she was dressed in fetish gear and traded to a band of Mad Max style highwaymen for a set of tires. Link.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 12:17 AM
5

And our gender isn't responsible for the advertising industry.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 11:49 PM
2

Maybe, but all the cool feminists are "sex positive" these days.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 11:29 PM
1

I believe the technical term was "wenches."
/r/MensRights14/02/10 07:21 PM
5

No deal, but monogamy is overrated anyways ;)
/r/MensRights14/02/10 01:21 PM
9

I'm no expert, but here's the wiki for "clinical significance." Jargon aside, I'm bothered by the equating of any level of personal distress with "natural male sexuality." Do you really think that "standard operating procedure" for males includes 4 or more of the criteria from A. Sure, 1 and 2 seem pretty common, but 3-5? I have no problem with men (or women) who enjoy porn, multiple partners, etc., but the criteria for hypersexuality describe addiction, not enjoyment.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 01:13 PM
18

The proposed DSM-V language for hypersexuality is here. It's a bit weird finding myself on this side of the debate, but I feel compelled to point out the misandry in this post: the very idea that "natural male sexuality" involves "clinically significant personal distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning," is sexist. I think you may be misreading the diagnostic criteria of the proposed disorder.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 11:34 AM
2

You're right, it is a question of semantics. Whatever word you use, however, it's clear that throughout most of history, women have been treated as men's inferiors. While I agree that men also suffer under systems of male-dominance, it is a different kind of suffering. However, I do not label men oppressors, because the vast majority of men throughout history have themselves been oppressed - not for their gender, but for their social class: as slaves, serfs, peasants, wage laborers, etc. Oppress…
/r/MensRights14/02/10 09:26 AM
3

Feminists argue things in terms of black and white. That's an ironically black and white statement. I'm more than willing to explore the gray areas of rape, oppression, and sexism.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 08:20 AM
2

umm - thanks?
/r/MensRights13/02/10 11:04 PM
8

While both men and women have been subject to rigid gender stereotypes, the filmmaker ignores real historical examples of women's oppression. Most of us are aware that women were long denied the right to vote, but far fewer know about the doctrine of of coverture, which held: A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of cover…
/r/MensRights13/02/10 08:34 PM
2

Exactly!
/r/MensRights13/02/10 07:56 PM
6

No, no, no - they use trafficked third-world babies. You need to find a good womyn's bookstore or similar establishment - they'll tell you where to find the good stuff: locally-grown third-trimester aborted babies.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 07:27 PM
5

OK - for the last time: feminists do not eat babies. If you read the handbook, you'd know that we only boil them so we can skim their fat for use in our various salves and unguents.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 07:11 PM
1

:D
/r/MensRights13/02/10 06:53 PM
2

DM: Ok, so the troll approaches you from the tunnel mouth. He's brandishing a warhammer. CG: Shit, I don't wanna fight that thing. I cast charm. DM: Charm?! No effect - he attacks you. Take . . . 6 damage. CG: Fuck! OK, I magic missile him for 4d4+4 . . . 13 damage! DM: He staggers back howling, but you notice something: his wound seems to be healing itself. He's regenerating. CG: *GAAAAH - fucking trolls!* DM: He swings his hammer and . . . misses. CG: Trolls hate fire right? I gotta kill it wi…
/r/MensRights13/02/10 11:30 AM
1

0.o
/r/MensRights13/02/10 01:09 AM
5

I'm a feminist and a geek (with a D&D group that will vouch for me), so I guess I'm not really buying your theory. It seems to me that you're wrongly conflating materialistic girls with feminists.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 12:50 AM
2

Oh, I wasn't talking about a superbowl ad - I just think the issue of shelter discrimination is a good one.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 09:33 PM
2

Although I don't agree with all of your points, you really do a nice job of laying out a lot of the basics of rape law. Here's a link to the Federal Rules of Evidence, if anyone wants to check out some of what you're talking about in a little more detail. I respectfully disagree with this point: Yet, advocates of rape reform point out that in pre-reform days, rape law was alone in requiring a prosecutor to provide corroboration for a victim's testimony. For example, a robber could be convicted o…
/r/MensRights12/02/10 08:01 PM
1

I still love you, even if you are a klingon. [hugz]
/r/MensRights12/02/10 07:16 PM
2

Finally, a little action around here :) a few initial thoughts: Legislators are most responsive to their own constituents - so we should pick a district where one (or ideally, many) of us live(s). Personal stories can be very persuasive. We need to collect personal stories, and people who are willing to tell them. Anything that involves loosening restrictions on issues to do with sex and children is politically radioactive. As reasonable as the reform might be, its attack ad potential will scare…
/r/MensRights12/02/10 07:09 PM
1

Go right ahead. I'm not a misandrist.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 01:03 PM
1

No. I'm not misandrist.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 12:57 PM
1

Sure - but it can reach a point where it becomes counter-productive and just makes us look bad.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 12:54 PM
2

The issue is whether or not he was making death threats.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 12:51 PM
5

I'm not a misandrist.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 12:45 PM
11

One of the main critiques of r/mensrights I see on other subs is that it is only concerned with the rights of straight, white, Western, middle class, cisgender males. Posts like this are a great counter to that criticism.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 04:16 AM
6

I'm curious if there's any actual evidence of "download brigading." I'm pretty tech-unsavvy, so I haven't a clue how to look for it myself.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 04:12 AM
5

Step 1 - If you're in the U.S., you'll need to pick a state. Step 2 - Find a sympathetic legislator willing to champion the bill. Step 3 - organize, organize, organize Step 4 - ??? Step 5 - non-profit :P
/r/MensRights11/02/10 07:33 PM
4

I agree that statutory rape laws need to be reformed, but I don't think throwing them out completely is the answer. Maybe a better approach than setting arbitrary age limits would be to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the putative victim was mature enough to be mentally capable of consenting to sex.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 07:29 PM
8

I oppose the ban-hammer, and applaud kanuk876 for keeping this lively forum open to diverse perspectives. However . . . if we were to expand the list of ban-able offenses, I'd give serious consideration to banning users who persist in making personal and unsubstantiated attacks against fellow redditors.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 04:32 PM
7

Nearly every problem mentioned so far could be solved if we all just kept this in mind.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 06:54 AM
4

On a serious tip, CG...your suggestion in of itself may create a problem with some feminists. You as a transwoman are competing with CISgendered women for access to fertile men. Every male who decides to pair with a transwoman, is one less male in the genetic pool; one less man who may not impregnate a fertile female. Most feminists don't see "access to fertile men" as a vital womens' rights issue, but there is a sect of anti-trans feminism that probably wouldn't hesitate to make that argument. …
/r/MensRights10/02/10 10:49 PM
1

You make some good points. Following from what you said, my biggest problem with what she's doing is that it does reinforce a kind of gender essentialism - even if she says boys can have girl qualities (and vice versa) - the suggestion that certain qualities can be essentially girlish (or boyish) is itself problematic.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 10:27 PM
2

Would you think it insulting if I said, "Boy" means strength, courage, ingenuity, honour, integrity and chivalry? And then every time a female acted that way, I could say, "Wow, she is very boy!" I think I would find it insulting, at least a little. If there's a difference, it's that the qualities you mention have been traditionally celebrated, whereas the qualities she mentions have often been as signs of weakness. While I understand that her use of the word "girl" in this context is provocativ…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 08:10 PM
1

I think she's playing at word reclamation - redefining "girl" as a set of positive attributes common to both genders.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 07:51 PM
2

or a fleshlight ;)
/r/MensRights10/02/10 07:10 PM
1

But a working clock that is one minute off is never accurate. (I have no idea what I'm trying to say here. Carry on.)
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:57 PM
2

As conservatives are wont to do, they blamed men exclusively for the problem, possibly because of their cherished fantasy that all women who have children out of wedlock or who get divorced are innocent victims of rapacious men. Right, sticking it to "welfare queens" was part of the liberal agenda :P Methinks the author needs a history lesson (as well as statistics 101).
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:40 PM
3

She is saying men as well as women have those qualities. She refers to them as "girl" qualities because they have been traditionally derided as feminine.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:28 PM
9

Maybe not discussion, but a perhaps a bit of ridicule.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:25 PM
2

At least it's a legitimate issue, and not just some post trashing women, feminists, etc. Personally, I see prisoner's rights as a valid men's rights issue, even if the original the intent of the law in question wasn't to "stick it to teh menz."
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:14 PM
5

And the smart ones will just start dating women who give blowjobs and love anal. Or they will have the talk about BC before engaging in sex... and have the abortion talk and not fuck women who don't believe in abortion. And then STILL Pull and pray, even when she is on the pill/shot/whatever Not to pick an old scab, but these are excellent reasons guys should think about dating transwomen ;) In all seriousness though, I'm in complete agreement with most of your basic points. Well done, you've sa…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:04 PM
1

The comment to the section on risk factors puts it this way: The more of these factors that are present, the more likely the chance of an abduction. However, the mere presence of one or more of these factors does not mean that an abduction will occur just as the absence of these factors does not guarantee that no abduction will occur.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:46 PM
3

For a pro-porn feminist, my mainline for the porn hook up is serously inadequate :(
/r/MensRights10/02/10 02:34 AM
16

Leaving your strange desires aside, it's pretty disingenuous of her to ignore the fact that the women involved in this kind of porn (in most cases) do so consensually. Sure these things are happening to "real women," but they are real women who are making choices about what to do with their bodies.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 02:26 AM
1

The provision in question merely lists requesting one's child's medical records as one of many factors for a court to consider when petitioned to issue an abduction prevention order. In other words, just requesting your child's medical records is hardly likely to convince a judge that you are a "potential abductor." I call hype.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 09:41 PM
1

So this kind of mockery is actually policing gender boundaries - humiliating boys because they have long hair. That makes sense.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 04:50 PM
5

But even some of the sarcastic stuff comes off as a little misogynist. I don't think it paints r/mensrights in a good light.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 04:03 PM
2

Upvote for self-reflection. We've all been guilty of this at some point.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:53 PM
3

I'll never look at cream cheese the same way again :/
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:51 PM
0

Why's it ridiculous?
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:44 PM
2

Personally, I thought the best part was the Saints' onside kick to start the second half. I love it when ballsy, unorthodox play-calling pays off. Am I allowed to say "ballsy?"
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:39 PM
1

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this story - or rather stories. From the teachers' side, it looks like just bit of gender-bending fun that the boy himself enjoyed (which I basically see as a good thing, as rigid gender stereotypes negatively impact people of both genders). On the other hand, if the boy's mother's story is accurate, this sounds like an inexcusably traumatic experience for the boy - especially if the teachers' intention was actually to humiliate him. So I'm at bit of a loss h…
/r/MensRights09/02/10 04:06 AM
0

no worries ;)
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:03 AM
2

Yup - it's all about who has the deep pockets
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:59 AM
0

:P
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:35 AM
2

I was simply making a legal distinction between thought crime and speech crime. If you read my comments, I actually come out in favor free speech for Lepine apologists: But let me be clear: in distinguishing between thought crime and speech crime, I'm not passing judgment on whether Rochefort should be a criminal. In fact, while I find the blog I linked to disgusting, I think its contents should be protected as free speech. There are some instances where I think speech can go so far as to be to …
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:21 PM
2

sorry, I'll be good :P
/r/MensRights08/02/10 03:16 PM
4

I don't have any accounts - I'm clearly just a product of your paranoid imagination ;)
/r/MensRights08/02/10 09:36 AM
2

Now you're insulting me because I CHOOSE masturbation over being raped by femiwhores?? No, I'm all for masturbation - I'm just against masturbatory diatribes. I apologize for my language however. In retrospect, it did cum off a bit crude.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 09:32 AM
4

I'm sick of having to wade through the comments of viruses such as CryptoGirl trying to convince us that the men's rights movement should really be about supporting female evolutionary reproductive strategies. I have no memory of making that argument, but it doesn't matter schopenbecq. Intelligent people don't let petty ideological differences stand in the way of friendship. Think about it, we have so much in common: we both post on the same subreddit, we both have screennames . . . If I am a vi…
/r/MensRights08/02/10 09:09 AM
2

I'm pretty sure she's a double agent, like me ;)
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:55 AM
10

Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but I'm beginning to think you don't like me :(
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:52 AM
1

Glad that's settled, now on to equal rights! :D
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:42 AM
2

WHY ARE YOU DOWNVOTING MY JOY, ASSHOLES??!!!
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:08 AM
4

You're LOLing your own posts now? You need multiple accounts, like the vast feminazi conspiracy arrayed against you.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:03 AM
11

OK, I'm a feminist, but that made me laugh :)
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:01 AM
1

The only floor you're wiping is the one that catches the cum of your masturbatory diatribes.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:59 AM
0

That's a valid critique, but I think targeted aid distribution is distinguishable from "running roughshod over a country."
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:52 AM
2

She's also a downright fantasist and lier. For example on one occasion claiming that she was a former teenage model and had seen all of her model friends become suicidal due to the 'objectification' they had suffered. I never said that. What a bizarre accusation. No doubt she's going to tell us how all her sex worker friends have tried to kill themselves due to the abuse and exploitation inherent in prostitution. No, they used the money to pay for their surgeries, and they're doing quite well ac…
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:44 AM
4

one
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:42 AM
0

HIV and pregnancy are heavy heavy consequences - how is hot tranny sex similar at all?
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:26 AM
1

MY LIFE IS NOT NOT EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS, IT IS FILLED WITH WONDER, LOVE, AND JOY!!!!!
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:18 AM
1

That's pretty much what I'm saying: we can't achieve both, and the hard part is finding an appropriate balance. Who knew Selma Hayek was such a genius?!
/r/MensRights08/02/10 03:07 AM
0

PROBABLY NO ONE, ASSHOLE!
/r/MensRights08/02/10 02:35 AM
5

I'm a misandrist troll because I support gender equality? Maybe you should resign from the men's rights movement. You seem much more interested in name-calling than positive social change.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 02:32 AM
1

I only have one account. But let me be clear: in distinguishing between thought crime and speech crime, I'm not passing judgment on whether Rochefort should be a criminal. In fact, while I find the blog I linked to disgusting, I think its contents should be protected as free speech. There are some instances where I think speech can go so far as to be to illegal (assault, defamation, etc.) but what I read on the blog does not rise to that level. To me, it's political speech - and it deserves just…
/r/MensRights08/02/10 01:28 AM
1

Oh ok, I think I see what you're saying. I'm not arguing (pretending) that women and men are equal (identical) in a physical sense. I'm arguing that we should be working towards social, economic, etc. equality between genders. The sticky bit is finding a balance between formal equality (equality under the law) and substantive equality (equality in fact). I was called a "troll" today for bringing up this issue, but so it goes.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 01:15 AM
3

How are rationality and equality mutually exclusive?
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:55 AM
4

Hopefully, but we'll see.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:50 AM
5

I think he's referring to the ubiquitous fundie protesters in the parking lot.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:47 AM
7

That's so much cooler than beating the shit out of your TV :D
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:46 AM
2

What's the alternative to working towards equality?
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:32 AM
7

The real whores are the women who define reality in terms of what's between their legs. This is kinda hilarious, considering I'm a pre-op trans girl. Your comment and its suspiciously quick number of upvotes sickens me. What's so suspicious about upvotes for egalitarianism? We've already seen several posts here detailing how feminists have supported given women priority or exclusivity when it comes to aid and disaster relief. I repeat my original comment comment: as long as gender relations are …
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:30 AM
5

It might come as some shock to you, but a lot of redditors support egalitarianism in gender relations. And what's with the sexist name-calling? Some of my best friends have been sex workers. Lose the hate already.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 12:07 AM
0

When everyone becomes convinced of an either-or fallacy, nobody wins. I couldn't agree more.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:44 PM
10

I'm waiting for the anti-choice commercial - and then I'm gonna beat the TV.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:31 PM
5

As long as gender relations are transformed to be more egalitarian, what's the problem?
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:29 PM
1

Why is that almost anytime someone disagrees with you, you resort to personal attacks? You should be nicer; you're making the reasonable MRAs look bad.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:26 PM
-2

I'm not aware of any gender discrimination in federal financial aid, but I suspect you are correct regarding private scholarships being tilted more towards women. I'm not sure if that's really sexism - at least in the way that we usually talk about sexism.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:21 PM
-1

You seem to be projecting here. What do you really know about the authors of the study in question?
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:18 PM
0

I didn't read it like that, but I guess the standard MRA position is that even at 50-50 parity, women have the upper hand. How would you envision equality in sexual relations?
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:15 PM
0

Thanks for working to keep things civil. I doff my hat to you, sir.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 09:09 PM
0

Recheck your post. You asked a question, and I responded to it. Using words like "feminits" and calling me a troll makes it pretty obvious who really belongs under a bridge.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 08:36 PM
0

A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message. translation: humor Let me step back and say that what is really bothering me about the MRA critique of this article is that it's basically saying: here is a negative consequence of gender disparity in college enrollment. In other words, it's supporting your fucking side. Sheesh people, quit bitchin'.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 08:09 PM
1

Aren't feminists fond of looking at outcomes alone to discern if there's discrimination? Ha ha - it's the whole formal equality v. substantive equality question that both feminists and MRAs seem to answer in the way that most advantages their side, depending on the issue under consideration. I see that happen all the time around here, and I really haven't found a way out of the trap. Any ideas?
/r/MensRights07/02/10 07:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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