TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ctlawguy Archive

View 32 posts and 309 comments by ctlawguy on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
198

Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights27/05/15 02:10 AM
193

Social Issuesctlawguy/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:12 AM
96

Ragebaitctlawguy/r/MensRights28/03/15 09:14 PM
76

Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights06/07/15 05:09 PM
71

Discussionctlawguy/r/MensRights25/08/14 02:47 AM
44

Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights02/10/15 03:09 AM
39

ctlawguy/r/MensRights18/02/16 03:20 AM
36

Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights09/02/16 03:19 AM
35

Anti-MRMctlawguy/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:12 AM
33

Generalctlawguy/r/MensRights08/11/15 03:23 PM
30

Social Issuesctlawguy/r/MensRights06/12/15 12:04 AM
25

ctlawguy/r/MensRights14/10/14 03:16 PM
22

ctlawguy/r/MensRights06/07/14 02:19 AM
17

ctlawguy/r/MensRights29/07/14 05:18 PM
17

ctlawguy/r/MensRights09/08/14 03:02 AM
16

Discussionctlawguy/r/MensRights04/10/14 03:11 PM
15

Ragebaitctlawguy/r/MensRights27/03/15 11:14 PM
14

re: Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:07 PM
11

Discussionctlawguy/r/MensRights17/01/15 06:32 PM
11

re: Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights29/07/14 04:28 PM
11

Analysisctlawguy/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:49 PM
10

Analysisctlawguy/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:30 AM
9

Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights13/01/15 02:43 AM
7

ctlawguy/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:12 PM
6

re: Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:14 AM
3

ctlawguy/r/MensRights31/07/14 11:36 PM
3

ctlawguy/r/MensRights02/12/14 03:37 AM
3

ctlawguy/r/MensRights02/07/14 11:28 PM
2

re: Feminismctlawguy/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:39 AM
2

Analysisctlawguy/r/MensRights12/03/15 03:22 AM
0

ctlawguy/r/MensRights08/12/14 03:29 AM
0

ctlawguy/r/MensRights09/09/14 12:29 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

This wins the gold medal in Sophistry. Also feminists should not use the "R" word (reasonable).
/r/MensRights20/08/16 09:52 PM
16

"Hey, no one cares about your problems, so shut up, evil straight white man!" "Now care about my problems!!!!" "Where are you going?!?!"
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:14 AM
4

Looks like a shitty shittier verson of Buzzfeed. FTFY
/r/MensRights12/06/16 05:22 PM
3

...but don't you dare say Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam! #notallmuslims
/r/MensRights10/06/16 02:11 AM
1

young women are voting for Bernie Sanders because that's where all the cute boys are - Gloria Steinem 2016
/r/MensRights17/04/16 04:18 PM
1

lol, yeah I can tell...
/r/MensRights14/04/16 12:03 AM
1

nope, feminism totally not a religion... "God created the universe" "well, we have all this evidence for evolution... and science refutes a lot of what's in the Bible..." falls asleep
/r/MensRights14/04/16 12:01 AM
1

seriously, it's like going to culinary school and then working for McDonald's.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 03:11 AM
14

When Bernie Sanders talked about "the shouting" over gun control, she replied "when women talk it often sounds like we are shouting!" That and the constant reminders that she's a woman and that she would be the first woman president.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 07:00 PM
3

This is further evidence that feminism is a fraud concocted to harness political power. Use fear, lies, and guilt to coerce women into holding certain political beliefs and voting a certain way. Protect those (Bill Clinton) who further your beliefs, and shame those (young women voting for Bernie Sanders) who do not, even at the expense of your "feminist principles."
/r/MensRights14/02/16 03:17 PM
1

I think the idea that women are intelligent, adult human beings, who are capable of reason and who should have rights equal to men is a good thing. It is a good idea that 90% of people who aren't religious nutjobs agree with, but this idea is not enough to be a feminist. I'll tell you why. I define feminism as the belief in and opposition to an oppressive social system known as the patriarchy that oppresses all women for the privilege of all men. This comes from listening and reading various aca…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 02:19 AM
1

Thanks for your reply! If Gloria Steinem doesn't represent feminism, then feminism has been rigged to be utterly immune from criticism. It is unfalsifiability as applied to an ideology. As Karen Straughan says, criticizing feminism is really like swordfighting a fart. You mentioned Richard Dawkins. The difference with atheism, is that atheism is the ABSENCE of a particular belief, whereas feminism is a set of beliefs manifested as a social movement. You expect that atheists will disagree on many…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 01:34 AM
7

How do you determine the price of something? What someone is willing to pay for it. If I own a gas station, it is perfectly legal and legitimate for me to charge $20 a gallon for gas (as long as I'm not defrauding or coercing anyone) if someone is dumb enough to buy it for $20 a gallon. Chances are however that no one would be willing to do that, however, because gas is gas is gas. Nothing is special about my gas that someone should want to pay more for it. So why are "women's" products more exp…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:54 AM
1

This was debunked nicely in this video from TL;DR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HEr8zmVEZQ
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:23 AM
2

wow, the Guardian is reporting that rape claims are false, we are through the looking glass now aren't we?
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:53 AM
5

If you're a girl, you have an arbitrage opportunity. Buy a bunch of snacks at 84c on the dollar and resell nearby to the guys for like 92c on the dollar. But of course others will pick up on this, and drive the price down even further, almost back to 84c on the dollar. So this would not work, except as a cheesy stunt.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:50 AM
2

If even Ted Cruz won't correct the wage gap myth, then I see no allies in the GOP.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 02:55 AM
0

Thanks buddy, I try...
/r/MensRights09/12/15 11:48 PM
1

A woman can be masculine and still be a woman, or a man can be of female sex and be relatively feminine but desire to change his sex. That's the key to who is transgender, do they want to change their sex?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 05:20 PM
1

there's a distinction between sex and gender. I agree that someone of the male SEX cannot get pregnant. But gender is an internal sense of being, and there are people of one sex or the other who legitimately are the opposite gender.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 01:45 AM
2

Bernie Sanders said this on Twitter, and then someone reminded him that some (trans) men can get pregnant. Hopefully this idea will kill this asinine talking point. Christians/RWers being against abortion has nothing to do with men vs. women, it's about their belief that a fetus is a life rather than a potential life.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 05:07 AM
3

A little on the tradcon side but still a good video.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 05:03 AM
6

I see this and, like I think most people who watch it, I don't see a true believer. Imagine Winston Smith from 1984 saying "Big Brother... DUN DUN DUNNNNN!" Imagine MLK Jr. saying "Jim Crow... DUN DUN DUNNNNNN!" This is a major force in online feminism, and I agree with Sargon, this guy knows he's full of shit.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 12:07 AM
20

"gender-specific brutality in prisons, including rape by prison authorities" wow, prison rape is a "gender-specific brutality" for women? Stupid Level 9000.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 02:37 PM
22

Notice the typical victim playing: "I felt threatened by the cameraman!!!11!!!1!" "I've gotten 2000 threatening emails!!1!!11!1!"
/r/MensRights13/11/15 01:06 AM
9

Is this person still employed? Is she aware of the anti-blasphemy laws we have in academia?
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:23 AM
2

Hey did you know Hillary Clinton is a WOMAN? That she'd be the first woman president????? And did I mention she's female and that's what makes her different than Barack Obama? Vote for Hillary! She's a woman, and she WON'T let you forget it! /s (just in case)
/r/MensRights01/11/15 01:06 PM
2

I stopped reading after the phrase "heterosexual gaze."
/r/MensRights01/11/15 12:47 PM
4

Who is anti-woman?
/r/MensRights25/10/15 12:14 AM
11

I can, it's called "Law & Order SVU"
/r/MensRights20/10/15 02:38 AM
7

He helped black people by being a scientist who happens to be black. FTFY
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:24 PM
20

This makes it sound like she was banned for the camp comments. As I understood it, she was banned for her views on trans people.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:10 PM
12

If it is in support of Social Justice (TM), everything is permitted.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 04:38 PM
12

notice how they are not saying "only 7% of the prison population is female, we must close the 86% prison gender gap!" Also, can anyone name any oppressive social system whereby the oppressed class was jailed at a rate more than 10 times LOWER than the oppressor class?
/r/MensRights26/09/15 10:21 AM
1

It would be interesting to know their opinion on filing counterclaims of assault where appropriate, e.g., mutual drunk sex. Are there any such cases involving competing claims that anyone knows of?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 01:30 AM
3

"During that exchange I went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college campuses, which is something neither I nor other advocates of justice for survivors of sexual assault support. That is not what I meant to say and I apologize for my poor choice of words." No, you didn't imply it, you outright said it!!! "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 peopl…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:34 PM
1

Yeah, he never actually said what his position actually was.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:56 PM
2

The gendering of "mansplaining" is the result of confirmation bias, the tendency of people to be more attentive to evidence that supports their preexisting beliefs or to interpret happenings in a way that supports their preexisting beliefs. So if you believe that men condescend to women, more than vice versa, you will take notice when men condescend to women, but you will be less receptive when it happens in reverse. This, in turn, reinforces your belief that men condescend to women more often t…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:41 PM
2

Mansplaining is another concept concocted by feminists making use of the ad hominem fallacy to dismiss dissenting opinions. Maybe it had an ORIGINAL meaning related to condescension but no longer. Now it's just thrown around at any man who dare speak blasphemy.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:20 PM
31

wow another wealthy, famous actress whining about how oppressed she is. I spoke to the women in Saudi Arabia, who CANNOT LEAVE THE HOUSE without a male relative, and they send their deepest sympathies. Oh, is that a "fallacy of relative privation?" Like when feminists say that "women have it worse" to dismiss men's issues? But then again feminists have different rules that apply to them vs. everyone else.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 04:26 PM
1

A "libertarian" Democrat
/r/MensRights11/09/15 04:39 PM
2

It may make sense in terms of their cynical self-interest, but it is not right.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 04:39 PM
1

20% basically means it's plausible that the person is guilty, even if the evidence more strongly supports a finding that he is not. It's essentially probable cause--a reasonable person would be justified in believing that he was guilty.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 04:37 PM
2

were they non-feminist?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:27 AM
6

I'm not in the dating pool now (thank Dawkins!), but if I were, I'd want the woman to pay for her half and I'd make it clear beforehand. Women and men should be equal, in all ways, period. There's a good reason to do this, especially if you date online. You have to determine whether the woman is anything resembling her profile (and whether you actually get along), and to be expected to pay for a date with someone essentially sight unseen is completely unfair. But this lays bare the sheer hypocri…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:45 PM
1

Even if having an erection means you really "want" sex (which it doesn't) that still doesn't prove her point. "Consent" has to do with being "willing" to do something. This has nothing to do with "wanting" to do something, except that people who "want" to do something are more likely to be "willing" to do it. People consent all the time to doing things they explicitly do not want to do, such as doing chores, going to work when they'd rather stay in bed, and visiting in-laws they don't particular…
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:47 AM
2

oh well, now they're left with no choice but to go on the internet and look at NAKED women.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 04:14 AM
2

Do you know if Jane Roe would be able to file a Title IX suit if she is not a student? It seems like that's what these colleges care about, not getting sued and not looking bad on statistics.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 01:33 AM
2

What if Jane Roe had been a girl at another school, or not in school at all? It's fairly safe to say that a school can't punish a non-student, so the OTHER school couldn't expel John Doe, but could Jane Roe have filed a complaint with John Doe's school? Anyone have any insight? Maybe that's the solution: only date/hook up with girls who go to other schools or who aren't in school at all
/r/MensRights14/07/15 05:00 PM
5

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. To any sane person (colleges may differ), someone is "too drunk" to have sex if they are so drunk that they cannot understand what is happening to them or they cannot communicate agreement or disagreement. It is not about whether they would have agreed to have sex if sober. It's also not about who was "more drunk." People can't rape each other at the same time; that doesn't make any sense. So, the standard of "too drunk" has to mean so impaired as to result in…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 05:57 PM
4

Well, I think it is important because you have decided to align yourself with an ideology that by definition believes that only women are oppressed and only men are privileged (hence FEMINism). This is patriarchy theory, which is the cornerstone of feminism. You need to show some kind of discrimination that isn't "invisible," which I take to mean "based on sophistry" or "based on confirmation bias" or both. Also you cite the Bechdel test as evidence of "subtle discrimination" which deserves disc…
/r/MensRights12/07/15 03:29 AM
7

My living room is full of pink elephants. They're so subtle that no one can see them or test for them or observe them in anyway except for me. But trust me, they're there!
/r/MensRights11/07/15 11:34 PM
2

Always!
/r/MensRights08/07/15 12:13 AM
1

They don't refer to what, in this guy's personal opinion, is "mutually respectful sex.". FTFY
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:10 AM
2

There are 3500 craft breweries according to his own article, with no data on number of beer labels but he cites about 10 "sexist" labels, and concludes that there is a problem with sexism. That means if each brewery put out ONE beer, then about 0.33% of beer labels are sexist. This is not what I would call anything more than an aberration. And this is assuming that everything he claims is sexist or "anti-woman" in fact is.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 09:31 PM
1

At least these feminists aren't attacking men. But it still would be better to organize people to vote and fund candidates rather than run around and get arrested.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 12:39 AM
5

"We live in a world that is so sexist, the woman's bathroom sign can't even wear pants." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlbJ0h35A
/r/MensRights29/06/15 02:23 AM
32

Man, the word "misogynist" just means anything these days, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 04:42 PM
1

John Oliver is in the vein of John Stewart, a preachy sjw who is more angry than funny. I miss Colbert, even when I didn't agree with him, he kept it humorous and not preachy.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:35 AM
14

That's gotta be someone's password. I mean it has at least 8 characters, including one number. Though I might vary between capitals and lower case letters a bit.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:02 AM
1

It's not April 1 is it?
/r/MensRights10/06/15 10:24 PM
26

Also, if you notice, the more "oppressed" the people are, the more time they spend dictating to their "oppressors" what they can and can't do. It's almost like they are not really oppressed at all...
/r/MensRights06/06/15 02:20 PM
12

LOLOLOLOL! I love people who think they are "revolutionaries". Stupid kids. Yeah, you're changing the world by blowing air horns. Losers.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 02:20 AM
-3

Just ignore it, and if questioned, say you're gay (or bi?). That's what I'd do.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 02:10 AM
3

This is absolutely right. As soon at it hurts women, it will stop.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 01:54 AM
3

This is a classic side effect of castration.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 03:40 AM
5

What I have to prove...? How about the lack of objection from so called "real feminists" to these hashtags and other sentiments when expressed by the "retards" as you say?
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:38 PM
12

What pejorative did I use? All I did was point out that feminists are targeting men as a class rather than bigots/misogynists as a class by using these terms.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 11:15 AM
1

I found the comment in the article that, in every area of law outside of rape, consent by deception is no consent. This is not entirely true. Consider: You go to Burger King because a Burger King TV advertisement says their burgers are delicious. You buy a burger, eat it, and think the burger was disgusting. Your consent to purchase the burger was not invalidated because you found it disgusting. On the other hand, you go to Burger King, purchase a burger, but instead of receiving a burger, you r…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 01:16 AM
1

Actually, that is a good point. However, I will say that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and it is reasonable to believe that an accusation is false (even if we can't say the false accusation was intentional) if a jury acquits.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 01:14 AM
3

Actually the verdict was "not guilty" not "not enough evidence to convict.".
/r/MensRights24/05/15 01:12 PM
2

Was that directed at me or the people in the thread?
/r/MensRights22/05/15 11:59 AM
2

I'm hearing this horrible noise. It sounds like a sword being banged hard against a rock repeatedly so that it becomes bent and dulled, useless as a weapon. If you use your weapons inappropriately, they will be useless when you actually need them.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 11:21 PM
3

The Model Penal Code is important, as (parts) of it are adopted by states for use in their own criminal law. Thanks for bringing this up.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:33 PM
19

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:31 PM
4

Everyone's fault but mine.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:30 AM
5

This author interviewed in this article reminds me of "scientist" Greg Laden-- "men are a 'birth defect.'". And then he tries to justify it by saying that "isn't it ok to call men bad for doing bad things?". This is not the same thing, moron.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 05:32 PM
1

I think you replied to the wrong comment, friend! I can usually tell that when it's not responsive to anything I said.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 09:17 PM
1

Nobody thinks feminists (or women) "oppress" men. Feminists lie about, attack, and hate men, but they don't "oppress" us. Not everyone shares your hysterical Marxist view of the world dude!
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:36 AM
5

Reason number 6: Because feminism is run by well-off white women, for well-off white women, and it cares about the problems of, you guessed it, well-off white women. Even some SJWs see this...
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:20 AM
6

I love the "women have it worse" argument. Next time you hear that, ask them who has it worse, white women or black men? Then you'll see them backtrack so fast you'd fly out the front windshield if you weren't belted in the car.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:15 AM
7

If you find male on male anal sex "icky," I have no issue with that. It's the "and that means I get to legislate other people's behavior" that I object to.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 04:30 PM
5

The people who make laws aren't the majority of any population! Anyway, my point is, what is the relevance of who is doing it? If you get shot in the head, does the harm caused by the bullet depend on the demographics of the person firing it?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 12:22 PM
5

So are you saying that homosexual men are NOT considered subhuman? Because those countries sure care about what gay men do!
/r/MensRights29/03/15 12:17 PM
6

Actually, it turns out that you can! If President Obama were to reinstate Jim Crow in the US, would black people not be able to complain about it?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 12:13 PM
4

Anti-homosexuality is simply this: "I don't like the thought of men having butt-sex, I think it's icky!" Now they might use religion as an excuse (since religion can be twisted to mean anything), but it's all about their visceral feelings. Lesbianism does not have the same "icky" factor; thus, it is not going to be as condemned.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 12:06 PM
9

Now you might be able to argue that maybe it wasn't the most professional of tweets, but the tweet was hardly lewd or disrespectful. They're cheerleaders for gods sake.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 09:17 PM
1

Feminism appears to be predicated on the idea that the existence of these assholes is evidence of systemic discrimination. As a result, perpetual victim status.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 08:47 PM
2

That's because the MRM is not a Marxist movement that sees the world as nothing more than a competition between classes of people with no concern for the individual.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:20 PM
6

"Vice has produced a fascinating profile on the women of the MRAs, with a focus on Straughan, as well as Janet Bloomfield, co-founder of the blog JudgyBitch.com, where women can lament the fallen state of the role of women as domestic goddesses and an energetic — if highly controversial — voice on Twitter." Not sure where she gets that from. If you're not a feminist, you must be a traditionalist? "It's a fascinating window into this community, a subset of a larger community whose very name denot…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 11:47 AM
6

It's funny how when someone criticizes feminism for the extreme statements made by feminists, so many "real feminists" come by to say how these are extremists who don't represent feminism. Yet when the extremists who "don't represent feminism" are making these statements of which we complain, the "real feminists" are nowhere to be found. Funny how that is?! Until you "real feminists" shout down the extremists with the same fervor you reserve for anything that could questionably be considered "mi…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:20 PM
4

I have reservations about this article's reasoning, and I think that this kid was banned for blaspheming the Holy Faith of feminism. The professor's statement to Robby Soave, the article's author, was not consistent with his email to the student. The email states that it was what the student SAID that caused him to be banned, but the statement to the author indicates that it was a "pattern of behavior" rather than his views. Now the professor gives no specifics, and the author should have presse…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:38 AM
11

You can tell she's a feminist by the disabled comment section.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 12:49 AM
3

I seem to remember that these were not exactly uncontroversial tweets on her part either, though I could be wrong. In any event, insults from idiots is SOP for anyone expressing an opinion.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:11 AM
7

Abortion is protected as a constitutional right by something we call Roe V. Wade. This is something a "patriarchy" would certainly not tolerate.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 12:16 PM
1

If there is a patriarchy, it is the most incompetent oppressive social system in history. Those women who wear "kill all men" paraphernalia are all still alive, unharmed, free, and still have their places at school and/or jobs. Why would a patriarchy tolerate this? Sharon Osborne still has her life, freedom, and job even after mocking a man who had his penis cut off by his wife. Again, Patriarchy falling down on the job. Expressions of misogyny can and do cost people their jobs and their reputat…
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:21 AM
75

The multitude of states that permit you to be fired from a job for being gay and stop you from getting married if you are gay would disagree with you Madonna.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 01:54 AM
3

Feminists' best friend the dictionary would disagree: From m-w.com: SEXISM: "1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:07 PM
7

I think he says a lot of good things: One thing that jumped out at me was when he said that when men are assholes to each other, it is seen as that, but when men are assholes to women, it's seen as sexism. This is a result of "confirmation bias": the tendency to see evidence and interpret things in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs. If I already believe men are sexist against women, I'm more likely to interpret any negative action towards women as sexism, and I won't seek to exclude ot…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:32 AM
5

Men never have their appearance discussed, if you ignore all the times that they do... See how easy that was!
/r/MensRights15/03/15 06:36 PM
2

Correct. Fear is entirely subjective, it can exist in both rational and irrational situations. I can fear that aliens will come down and abduct me, but that does not mean that this is actually more likely to happen to me than to the guy next door who does not fear it. More poor argumentation from the feminist camp.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 02:16 PM
2

So what she is implying is that unless men kill women, they do not hate women....
/r/MensRights13/03/15 08:52 PM
1

So the Nazis tolerated Jews in their country making disparaging remarks about them?
/r/MensRights12/03/15 04:18 AM
1

This is why I have nothing but contempt for Academia (except for the sciences and any other field that values evidence and reason). Get real jobs.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 01:21 AM
2

What kind of privilege is it when a bigot is allowed to spew nonsense in a major newspaper and yet allowed to keep his job?
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:29 AM
3

Her utter contempt for men gave it away.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 01:53 AM
1

Count me on the side of: this is probably bullshit, but I think it's ok to treat it as real as long as we keep it to Reddit. That being said, if it is bullshit, what's the motivation in posting it? If it's trolling people, it's not very effective. Maybe it's to get attention, or to promote an anti-feminist/anti-SJW message. It could be. Who knows? He isn't asking for donations or anything like that, only advice. As long as you are not doing things like sending him money for bus fare or anything …
/r/MensRights10/03/15 02:17 AM
0

What if you are a transwoman? Could you get out of doing it on that ground?
/r/MensRights02/03/15 01:43 AM
12

"The 2013 'stupid tweet' in question was a 'joke' about how Sacco, who was boarding a plane to Africa at the time of the tweet, could not get AIDS because she is white. In the most generous interpretation of the joke, Sacco is making a commentary on white privilege—but it's still structured in a way that only other people with white privilege can laugh at it. It's a racist joke. A joke that highlights her privilege while reminding people with less privilege of what they don't have." Isn't this w…
/r/MensRights21/02/15 04:25 AM
2

Are you essentially saying that gay marriage is "cultural appropriation?"
/r/MensRights06/02/15 12:55 PM
12

"mansplaining," "manspreading," "manslamming," now "manterrupting." I don't know WHERE people get the idea that feminism has any problem with men!!?!?!1/11
/r/MensRights26/01/15 01:48 AM
1

Is this the "Big Red" list from the infamous video from the U of Toronto protest years ago?
/r/MensRights21/01/15 02:19 AM
10

While I appreciate the support, you're going to need knife sharpeners and lots of them. Just look at how they treat "nice guys". To a rational person, a "nice guy" is a man who naïvely things he can get women to like him by being a doormat. He is well intentioned but ignorant; he does not understand how attraction works. What he is not is what feminists say he is, a misogynistic manipulator who feels "entitled" to women's bodies, and who is not really "nice" but who is as big of jerk as the guys…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:54 PM
56

Hopefully the feminists never got wind of these seminars. In feminist ideology, women can do no wrong. So you know they'd lose their shit.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 12:43 PM
1

I think this eclipses the "let's not put women in prison for ANYTHING" article from last year in terms of stupidity. Well. Done.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 12:29 PM
1

Actually I think they should have this rule in law school. This is because in law school everyone is trying their best to AVOID having to talk in class! NB: nah, I'm just kidding.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:59 PM
70

This is a discredit to all of (nonscience) academia. The very foundation of fact-finding is that ideas and evidence have to be questioned to see if they stand up to scrutiny. The fact that this academic thinks that being questioned is a personal offense is a major problem.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:16 PM
24

I had to do that recently. Fucking Facebook is crawling with SJWs, mostly from my past life before I turned against feminism and other SJW crap for good. They are psychopaths. They are proud of their hypocrisy. I'm surprised the poster didn't just tell you to get over it because women have to deal with strangers telling them "good morning" on the street, you know REAL problems.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:00 AM
2

There is no sympathy although they expect sympathy for their problems. Golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Feminist golden rule: do unto others and fuck you!
/r/MensRights15/01/15 12:25 AM
5

I want to know where they got the participants from. It says that they were 80-odd male students who were given "extra credit" for doing the survey. Does this imply that they were all in the same class? A gender studies class perhaps? If they weren't a random sample, that's a problem.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 03:21 AM
3

See as the Incredible Floundering Feminist explains why the poisoned cookie analogy is "A ok" for men, but "misused" if you try to apply it to "minorities" or Muslims. See some of the absolute worst in rationalization, hideously irrelevant distinctions, and laughable comparisons! You'll laugh, you'll cry! You might even grieve for humanity! But you'll definitely want to each a cookie afterwards, because they are "Nummie!"
/r/MensRights13/01/15 02:46 AM
1

Because feelings, herp derp derp
/r/MensRights13/01/15 01:40 AM
5

Yup. If anyone should be familiar with stories that turn out to be utter crap, it's feminists...
/r/MensRights07/01/15 02:43 AM
2

The thing that got me was "get its motherfucking leg!" I don't care who you are, outside of feminist fantasy-land, no one, even a gang rapist, refers to another person as "it."
/r/MensRights02/01/15 03:11 AM
0

Well, isn't porn illegal in India? ... can't be too surprised.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 02:59 AM
4

umm Anthony Weiner ring a bell? Also one of your boys ran for reelection despite being under federal indictment for fraud! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grimm_(politician) But NOW he's resigning, so he gets credit for that I guess. What say we keep partisan politics out of this subreddit ok?
/r/MensRights30/12/14 01:07 PM
40

run... fast...
/r/MensRights26/12/14 03:46 AM
3

I think that "privilege" as a concept does exist, but not as defined by SJWs. Privilege is a POSITIVE benefit that goes above and beyond the norm (i.e., what is just and proper) and accrues because of a particular status. For example: "A woman has the privilege of being exempt from being hit by a man no matter what." The norm is "sometimes being hit by a man is justified." SJWs often talk about "privilege" in negative terms. For example "not being shot by the cops unnecessarily" is passed off as…
/r/MensRights16/12/14 03:45 PM
3

It doesn't bother me. It proves everything I believe about feminism in fact!
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:13 PM
40

This is great! Social justice used to be a noble concept. It used to be about lifting up people who were truly oppressed and discriminated against. It used to be about uniting people and emphasizing our common humanity. There wasn't this pernicious concept of "privilege," mainly because it wasn't necessary. It's not about that anymore. Now it is about attacking the so-called "privileged" classes. The problem is no longer that minorities don't have it good enough, now it's that white cis-het male…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:02 PM
1

wow, personal insults! Now I'm convinced. I agree with you now....
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:25 PM
1

The Bechdel Test is a feminist test to illustrate how rarely movies have significant female characters who have social relationships and aren't adjuncts to men and in that it succeeds rather well. No it doesn't. It is both horribly overinclusive and horribly underinclusive. You can have a movie like "Gravity" which is literally about a woman who uses her skills and brains to escape from danger during a disaster. However, it fails the test because there are no other women to talk to. As Thunderf0…
/r/MensRights08/12/14 06:15 PM
3

Nothing says "I'm a reasonable person with valid ideas" like exploiting children for shock value....
/r/MensRights05/12/14 04:01 AM
6

If you are a woman, buy a ton of cookies at $0.79, then set up a stand to resell them at something like $0.90. Get all the male business and get $0.11 profit per cookie. Arbitrage!
/r/MensRights05/12/14 03:11 AM
1

because they "listened" and "believed."
/r/MensRights03/12/14 01:13 AM
3

I went to school today, and I went to a class with a female teacher. Therefore, I believe that all women are good for is teaching children. -feministlogic
/r/MensRights28/11/14 05:56 PM
1

Agreed. It was clearly invented by people thinking only along the dimension of gender. They didn't consider their ideas enough to figure out that, in the real world, they make no sense. This is the major problem with SJWs.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:52 PM
2

What you describe is a clear hierarchy. Who's above whom between a black man and a white woman? That's what I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:43 PM
2

I love the "you can't expect integrity from gaming journalism, how silly!" argument. I expect integrity and ethics from EVERYONE who wants me to take them seriously. I have based my decision to buy games before based on game reviews, and I would appreciate that they be unbiased.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:15 AM
5

Under this reasoning, a black man could not be sexist. Black people, of which black men are a subset, do not have institutional power (and feminists would not argue otherwise). The only counterargument is that a black man only has institutional power with respect to gender, which makes no sense. You are both oppressor and oppressed at the same time. How does that work?
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:06 AM
3

As I've said before, feminists' best friend, the dictionary, would beg to differ. Sexism: "unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women" -Merriam Webster no requirement of "power" here.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:00 AM
2

"Forbes writer posts crappy poorly researched story" IOW, she behaves like a typical "journalist."
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:54 AM
1

paging Emma Watson!
/r/MensRights21/11/14 03:24 AM
3

Bravo, This is the essence of feminism: "I want equality when that benefits me, and I want traditionalism when THAT benefits me."
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:25 AM
25

Let's check feminists' best friend the dictionary: Sexism: "unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women" Nope, nothing about power in there. Anita is wrong again.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 02:54 AM
1

one last post. This speaks for itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltpqPd3t5V0 http://www.businessinsider.com/craziest-nba-outfits-2012-12?op=1 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/988138-power-ranking-don-cherrys-25-most-obnoxious-suits-of-all-time
/r/MensRights17/11/14 01:00 AM
0

This also reminds me of when I was a recent college grad. I went to an interview with a firm that placed prospective employees with employers. I was wearing a bold solid blue shirt with my black suit. The woman I was interviewing with told me that I should try to dress a little more "corporate" for interviews with the firms (i.e., muted).
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:53 AM
4

Do people realize that there are like 3 things men can wear in a professional setting; boring, boring, and more boring? If he decided to wear a neon orange zoot suit one day, you can be damn sure people would be talking about it.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 12:46 AM
1

Do you disagree that wealthier people would tend to be more persuaded by a message of low taxes and low regulation than poorer people?
/r/MensRights10/11/14 04:17 AM
1

This article might be valid in some ways, but consider: The president's party almost never does well in the final midterm, The Dems had a slew of Senate retirements in states they had little or outright no chance of winning in an open race: Rockefeller in WV, Johnson in SD, Baucus in MT, Harkin in IA, Feminism's influence in the mainstream Dem party is pretty much limited to abortion, contraception, and lip service about equal pay. This is nothing particularly anti-male or radical. You probably …
/r/MensRights10/11/14 01:59 AM
3

Is this person saying women are inherently bigoted against men, just as the cops are being portrayed as inherently bigoted again blacks?
/r/MensRights10/11/14 01:32 AM
1

I know. And I'm not trying to say all Rs or all white southerners are racists; clearly they are not. I'm just saying that it's hypocritical for them to call Ds a "coalition of hate," given their history.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 01:40 PM
1

The New Deal was in the 1930s and yet the Solid South persisted for at least 30 years afterwards. White southerners continued to support Democrats because they looked the other way on Civil Rights. That and their hatred of the party of Abraham Lincoln. It was only with the Democrats embrace of Civil Rights along with the Roe vs. Wade decision that shifted white southerners to the Republican party between the 1960s and the 1990s. So you can't blame "big government" for the Democrats' loss of whit…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 03:57 PM
-1

The party of the White South has no right to accuse the other party of being a coalition of hate...
/r/MensRights03/11/14 03:23 AM
2

"You're my BOY Blue! You're my BOY!" ... Sorry.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 12:21 PM
2

This is simple: In feminist religion women are solely and totally oppressed and men are solely and totally privileged. Feminism teaches that "objectification" is a tool that the "Patriarchy," the conspiracy of men designed to maintain the dominance of men as a class, uses to enforce such dominance. "Objectification" is a form of mind control employed by the Patriarchy used to convince the masses that women aren't people, but are in fact objects to used by men. In this way, the Patriarchy maintai…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 04:45 AM
1

About the problem of "drunken sex" and how to determine what is "too drunk." I have a suggestion for a fair and intuitive rule. Let's go back to the definition of "rape," which is simply "engaging in sexual intercourse with another without that person's consent." This definition implies that one person is engaging in a voluntary consensual act, while the other is not. If neither consents (whether legally or just physically) to an act of sexual intercourse, then no sexual intercourse can occur, a…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 04:25 AM
0

I'm confused. We can't ask women to be clear and assertive about what they want (obviously....) because of some speculative risk of violence if a "no" is given, so we make men obtain a "clear yes." (note: an evidence-based risk of violence is another story...) But, in that situation, wouldn't the failure to say "yes" be interpreted as a "no" and result in "violence" nonetheless? So wouldn't the exact same problem exist, except that instead of failing to say "no" to avoid a speculative risk of "v…
/r/MensRights17/10/14 03:06 AM
1

Unfortunately, the Patriarchy would uphold that men are unable to be raped as they are the figures of dominance, and admission of such would be damning proof of their inability to maintain dominance. Men would feel shame to admit that they were victimized by a mere woman. Under this reasoning, in Jim Crow-era southern society, where whites are "figures of dominance," society would have excused and ignored black-on-white crime. This would be because, otherwise, there would have been "damning proo…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 02:22 AM
8

I take issue with part of this article. She should not have said that much of sex was neither consensual or non-consensual. What I think she really meant was that people often have mixed feelings as to whether they really want to have sex. There is a difference. What gets me about the "affirmative consent law" is that consent is already inherently "affirmative" in nature. Consent is, simply, the expression of a willingness to do something or permission for someone else to do something. Consent d…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 02:12 AM
2

Two things: One: Your argument against "financial abortion" is the same argument Christian fundies use to oppose abortion itself. "Should a child lose a chance at life because his/her parents didn't take proper precautions when having sex?" You might want to try another line of argumentation. In any event I agree with limiting financial abortion to circumstances where there is no prejudice to the woman. In other words, financial abortion shouldn't be allowed if the woman could not then turn arou…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 12:27 AM
1

It was utterly worthless. An accuser would just say, "well I was too drunk to understand what I was selecting." If her argument is she was too drunk to consent, it's not a stretch to argue that she was too drunk to answer accurately on the app. In other words, the app is not going to protect an accused. Also, it's a buzzkill. You might as well just verbally ask these questions. It would actually be less awkward.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:16 AM
2

I guess if you are a bisexual black man, or a lesbian, you are safe!
/r/MensRights07/10/14 10:57 PM
1

that describes the alleged social system known as Patriarchy. Also, I don't see it as ambiguous, because I define feminism as a belief, which lacks capacity to perpetuate itself, whereas a social system, such as "Patriarchy," does have such capacity.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:23 PM
10

There's a difference between WANTING to do something and being WILLING to do it. Consent has NOTHING to do with WANTING to do something and everything to do with being WILLING to do it. I don't WANT to pay $20 to take a taxi, but I'm WILLING to because it's more convenient than taking the subway. In fact, I could be downright pissed that it cost so much, but I still consented to pay.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 12:27 PM
13

So If I go along with my wife to my mother in law's house, because my wife says we never visit her, but I'm uncomfortable and don't really want to because I know she doesn't like me, and my wife says I never do what she wants and I'm selfish, and I say "let's take the back roads" and she says "no the highway is faster," and I acquiesce to her because I know I can't win, ...I've been kidnapped. Good to know!
/r/MensRights03/10/14 11:33 AM
7

This piece was so slanted, I feel like I'm gonna slide right off! It's "silencing calls for video game equality?" LOL.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 12:01 AM
3

Any idea that is remotely negative or critical toward women in any way is blasphemy in feminist religion, no matter how mild, innocuous, or supported in evidence. This would be fine if the same standard also applied for men. But of course, it does not.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 02:30 AM
2

America, the land of 15 year old adults and 20 year old children.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 01:56 PM
5

I call zero tolerance policies "zero-intelligence" policies. They think in black and white in a world full of grey.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 10:55 PM
2

This guy is what feminists wish MRAs were... If you want to get what you want, you want the most passionate, most loyal, most intelligent, and most articulate on your side, and that's not found by looking between people's legs. He wants the MRM to be more like radical feminism, which is more focused on "feelings" than making coherent, persuasive arguments.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 11:08 PM
1

another unhinged post from EverydayBullshit.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:52 AM
7

As for abortion, women have the power there because the baby is using her body. If you want to make abortion illegal, go for it! Ah the "motte" position. We only advocate for legal abortion because biology. Sorry, but allowing women to choose parenthood, the "bailey" position, is also a consideration for why abortion (and laws allowing no-questions-asked infant abandonment) is legal. At least it is until the idea of male choice comes up, then feminists retreat to the "motte." If you're not famil…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 03:28 AM
22

And feminism is... nowhere to be found. This is basically equivalent to forcing rape victims to bear their rapists' children.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 02:54 PM
2

and circumcision has NO propensity to lead to sex.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 01:08 PM
2

Sorry, but this is a typical act. This is, in fact, what started the relationship I'm currently in. My girlfriend and I flirted a bunch, hung out a lot, made each-other laugh, and she decided one day that we were going to get lunch (just the two of us), then come back to our dorm and watch movies in the dark (just the two of us). I kissed her, and that's how our relationship started. It was without any existing understanding, relationship, or permission. It's called being able to pick up on the …
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:36 PM
2

I get the suspicion that we aren't necessarily getting the whole story on this, which I think you also believe. But, just a few points. It's not just one statement. If these were two strangers who had just met and had been superficially chatting, I would 100% agree with you that "let's take the elevator" couldn't be construed as a ruse to be alone with someone, IOW as an indicator of interest. However, these were not strangers; they had a close relationship. He doesn't say why he thinks she like…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:31 PM
2

What is permission depends on the context, including nonverbal cues. Humans communicate non-verbally, especially in romantic/sexual situations. I mean, have you always asked express verbal permission of every person you've ever kissed, every time you did it? To many, being asked "can I kiss you" is awkward and mood-killing. What is required to communicate permission depends on context. If you read the story, they had a long and close relationship, she was aware that he liked her, and he had prev…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:38 AM
9

Should I bother reading the article to see if there is any evidence that the leaker was white and middle class?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:37 PM
3

Wow, completely incomparable situations. One is a surgical procedure resulting in permanent mutilation, and the other is someone misreading a signal and going in for a kiss, which at the time was reciprocated. And where do you get this idea that he "forced himself on her?"
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:30 PM
3

Never have I been happier not to be in high school/college or on the dating scene.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:24 PM
1

ust because there's one concept of masculinity that is harmful and negative for people to have, that doesn't mean that all masculinity is harmful. Stop trying so hard to be offended. I'm not offended, I just have a different point of view. In any event, that's not what I was complaining about. There are bad views out there about what men are supposed to be like, for example, the idea that men are supposed to be white knights and go around apologizing for anti-male feminist rhetoric. It is distas…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 04:21 AM
1

The term is still an attack on masculinity, albeit thinly veiled. It's like employing negative stereotypes of African Americans to explain the actions of an individual who happens to be black, calling those stereotypes "toxic black culture," and then saying "we're not saying that these stereotypes are indicative of ACTUAL black culture in any way!" Furthermore, how do you know Elliot Rodger's actions were due to any kind of "masculinity" rather than a personality disorder or other diagnosable il…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 01:52 AM
1

You are saying that this behavior is an inherent characteristic of masculinity--that you have to get violent toward people who offend you to be a "real man."
/r/MensRights31/08/14 06:35 PM
1

So on a regular basis, men (and only men, you know--"masculinity") go around beating people up every time someone offends them?
/r/MensRights31/08/14 05:21 PM
1

How does "masculinity," toxic or otherwise, tell men to go on mass shooting sprees when they are rejected by women, considering 99.99% of men in that situation do NOT respond that way?
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:54 AM
20

My story is similar. After the Elliot Rodger shooting, all I read about was how it was due to "misogyny" (even though he killed men as well as women) and "toxic masculinity" rather than his obvious mental illness. They treated it as if this is SOP for any guy who can't get laid, i.e., that it was a cultural response. It's as if masculinity was inherently violent, selfish, arrogant and evil, and that, at any moment, we could all become Elliot Rodgers. They told women to be afraid of men. They als…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 05:20 PM
9

Let's talk about "punching up," which was mentioned at the end of the article. The first thing that jumps out is how convenient and self-serving the rule permitting "punching up" is to the people creating the rule. Nothing says "equality" like "You can't do this to me, but I can do this to you." Also, it leads to some fun conversations (heated debates) about what constitutes "up." See what you think of this situation (true story): I was in a store browsing near the checkout line, and a black mal…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 12:58 PM
4

How am I being inconsistent? I'm not saying MRAs actually say this to their female members, nor do I advocate it. In fact, I have never heard of them doing so. This is meant to highlight feminist hypocrisy considering how they treat their male "allies."
/r/MensRights25/08/14 05:20 PM
2

Also, TIL Roosh V is an idiot.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 02:50 AM
9

This woman is walking down the middle of the street and is wondering why people are looking at her.... Not like it's weird or anything to walk down the middle of something designed for cars to drive on. Also, is this woman a feminist by any chance?
/r/MensRights18/08/14 01:39 PM
3

You don't know buzzfeed very well then. Let's just say there WON'T be a female equivalent.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 02:34 AM
6

I have no problem with it being in the dictionary... It's a word that is somewhat widely used. It's not an endorsement of the word. My quibble is that the definition should include the fact that it is essentially the ad hominem fallacy in action; it is used to attempt to invalidate a dissenting argument of a man without actually having to address the argument. (Play the ball, not the player.) In that sense, it's not really a legitimate rhetorical tactic, even if the word to describe it is legiti…
/r/MensRights17/08/14 04:01 AM
1

thanks!
/r/MensRights17/08/14 03:45 AM
2

I'm liberal and anti-feminist. Liberals are for equality; feminism is not for equality. Liberals are against stereotyping people based on their gender; feminists stereotype men as rapists and violent.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 02:43 AM
0

oui, c'est vrai!
/r/MensRights14/08/14 10:23 PM
8

I read this with horror. But don't worry friends, I knew that, because feminism is about "equality" and helping men as well as women, I knew that the comments would be a barrage of True Feminists(TM) calling this out. But I was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that there were 0 such comments from True Feminists(TM) calling this blatant hatred out.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 11:12 AM
1

This is the most beautiful takedown of anyone I have ever read in my life! Truly amazing. Almost makes me want to get a Tumblr page...
/r/MensRights12/08/14 12:27 PM
28

My goodness, the rationalizations continue. I love how masculinity is seen as inherently evil by this author. She's saying, I don't hate men, I just hate what makes them men. It reminds me of when Family Guy's Stewie Griffin said "And it's not so much that I want to kill [my mother], it's just, I want her not to be alive anymore." I don't want to ramble on too long, so Ill just end with this: Keep being a misandrist (ironic or whatever), but don't be surprised when people continue to think femin…
/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:45 PM
3

I'm sure it happens in the MRA world. However, "Bash a violent bitch" (BTW not "bash a bitch/woman") month was in response to a Jezebel article featuring women being proud of beating up their boyfriends. It was about a limited subset of women, not all women. By contrast, this is about bathing in "male" tears, not "misogynist" tears, or even "misogynist male" tears. It's about all men. So it's not even comparable. Personally, if you want to walk around being proud of "bathing in male tears," I wo…
/r/MensRights10/08/14 11:41 PM
1

My thoughts on this article are.... "WHOOP WHOOP! "Uncontrolled woman in Sector G, all available men report for immediate action, including telling her how sexy she looks and asking for her number, until she is brought back under control! This is a code red! Repeat, uncontrolled woman in sector G!" Ugh... I'll be right back.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 05:45 PM
1

No, you're right. We are not all atheists. I couldn't ignore the similarities between the concepts of social privilege and original sin as forms of class-blame, concepts that render individual circumstances moot. I could have made this point without insinuating that Christianity was fabricated. I apologize.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 02:02 PM
13

HAHAHAHA! That should be the MRAs' new defense to any charge of misogyny... "It's ironic." We're all hipsters now. The apology machine is going full bore with this one!
/r/MensRights08/08/14 09:31 PM
1

What "objectification" is is nonsense. It's the absurd assumption that, because a person sees another in some limited way, that person must not see the other person as having any other characteristics. It's like watching a man go up to a buffet that has chicken, fish, and beef, watching him take some chicken, and then concluding that, therefore, he must think that the buffet only offers chicken. It's absurd and yet it is treated like legitimate philosophy. It's a way for feminists to attack male…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 12:05 PM
1

Yes, by their logic prejudice is ok as long as there isn't a history of it. So therefore, the prejudice that caused the history of prejudice to occur in the first place was acceptable? But remember, the purpose of feminism (and indeed all SJW movements) is not to inconvenience or modify the behavior of the "oppressed classes" even if it serves the ultimate purpose they say that they are for. IOW, the purpose of feminism isn't to force women to give up their shirtless David Beckham posters.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:48 AM
1

We have been talking for about a week, and I think this has run its course. Let me leave you with one last reply. If you respond, I will read it, but I won't reply again. I appreciate that you believe your movement has been misunderstood. However, it is not enough to say, "well you're reading biased sources! Stop doing that! You don't really understand." It is your job as a feminist movement to have and disseminate a single coherent set of messages that is supported by facts and that is credible…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 06:46 PM
1

I have no doubt that you do or that your friends do. But you are arguing that you are a majority. If this were true, it would be happening frequently and loudly. It is not. If you have evidence otherwise, please let me know.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:19 PM
1

So the system is basically the wealthy pitting the lower classes against each other to protect their wealth? That's an interesting take and not altogether untrue. I believe the rich often use certain social issues (such as abortion and LGBT rights) to get poorer people to vote against their own economic interests. My feeling on capitalism is that it's the worst system we have, except for all the others. I neither love nor hate capitalism. But to get back to your point, why not just say capitalis…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:10 PM
1

Guess what? Feminists have problems with othering and underestimating the opposition, too (because we are human). Then the appropriate response is to call them on it, which "real feminists" never seem to do at least in my experience.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:51 PM
1

Do you believe that this article represents mainstream feminist thought? http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:08 PM
28

Let me off the ride, I'm dizzy! But seriously this article made me laugh at all the desperate spin coming from camp feminism as to why they don't have to follow their own rule. How convenient for them!
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:05 PM
1

We are talking about 80,000 things. Let's narrow it a bit. A couple of questions. Is belief in a "patriarchy" necessary to accomplish feminist goals? What about "male privilege?" Why not just advocate against disadvantages to women without assigning blame to anyone? And why do you tell men they have "privilege?" Isn't it easier to take something away from someone if they don't know they have it? What about the risk that they might decide they LIKE the privilege you've told them they have and thu…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 03:54 AM
1

We "need" feminism because our culture does. Men need feminism, too. It's not about infantalization. It's about assistance and equalization. Men do do not need feminism because feminism does not care in the least about men's interests. Also there's a difference between fighting for, say, the same right to vote that men have and fighting for the idea that women's consent to sex should be invalid unless it is "enthusiastic," which is a UNIQUE and elevated definition of valid consent. One has to do…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 06:16 PM
1

What does he have against women from America and Denmark?
/r/MensRights03/08/14 11:02 PM
1

not at all. Criticize away.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 11:00 PM
1

anal·o·gy noun \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\ : a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way : the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way
/r/MensRights03/08/14 10:40 PM
1

Tell me please, if I had responded initially and said "the MRM is not a misogynist movement" because the dictionary says that the movement simply fights for men's rights, so the link to ROK is TOTALLY irrelevant, you would have accepted that argument? I thought it amusing because when I bring up things like "scientist" Greg Laden telling a feminist conference that men are "broken women" and that their brains are female brains "damaged" by testosterone, feminists tell me that this is not evidence…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 10:17 PM
1

Sorry for the long delay... I was considering posting something long in response, but it's probably better just to be short (well relatively speaking). You asked why feminists would want to infantilize women and hate men? The short answer, from my understanding, is survival. Groups, like people, try to survive. While people do this by eating, drinking, sleeping, etc., groups do this by trying to stay relevant. Infantilization helps feminism stay relevant by convincing women that they are helples…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 10:04 PM
2

I'm pretty sure it's right. You were trying to insinuate that the MRM is a misogynist movement, and using the above poster's link to ROK as evidence, correct? Though I will check again just to make sure.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 09:21 PM
1

When people accuse the feminist movement of things such as "hating men," so called "real feminists" come by to make the argument that "feminism is advocacy for equality between the sexes, not man-hating" and point to the dictionary definition of feminism. The implication is that, since the dictionary says nothing about man-hating, feminists cannot hate men regardless of what any feminist actually does. I was just suggesting that perhaps the same standard could be applied to this situation. MRAs …
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:48 PM
1

movements are defined by what's in the dictionary, don't you know?
/r/MensRights02/08/14 07:59 PM
2

Hang on, I'll be right back with a dictionary to respond to your point, right after I find a "real feminist" to borrow one from.
/r/MensRights02/08/14 07:25 PM
1

You talk about extremists quite frequently, and how they are not "real feminists." First, I appreciate that you do not think like them and I have no reason to believe that you do not call out extremists when you can. You took the time to come here and have a civil discussion with me. However, you are in sparse company. You say the majority of feminists are like you. However, feminists have a powerful voice, with many bloggers, media personalities (social and otherwise), dedicated activists, and …
/r/MensRights01/08/14 12:20 AM
1

Apparently, the patriarchy can talk now!
/r/MensRights31/07/14 11:32 PM
3

Piss off a feminist: make a man a sandwich. Or, for that matter, piss off a feminist, do pretty much anything that makes a man a little bit happy.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 01:48 AM
2

Thanks for your reply! It is possible to believe that someone possesses a characteristic "by nature" but then try to change that nature. One could believe "men are evil because of masculinity, but through feminism, we can make them not evil." You are still associating masculinity with these negative character traits, which is wrong and offensive. It's also like saying "these Africans are barbaric by nature, but if we white folks colonize them and teach them 'civilization' we can change that." Th…
/r/MensRights30/07/14 11:55 AM
1

Then you agree the "ally" in my example is making a silly argument?
/r/MensRights30/07/14 02:53 AM
2

Seriously good for you on the calling out your "friend." While I get what you're saying on that front, that's not what I was talking about here. Going to strip clubs has nothing to do with rape; so it's a silly argument that will be dismissed. This was my point.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 02:47 AM
2

right. As far as I remember he never blamed all white people for oppression because they were white, he blamed people who were actually oppressing him.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 02:44 AM
1

no, but he didn't preach hatred of white people, certainly not all white people.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 02:37 AM
3

Hi thanks for your response! Feminism does not argue that the male gender overall actively and consciously perpetuates the injustices that women have faced throughout history. True, but not what I said. What feminism does say is that because of "male privilege," all men are at least implicit participants in the patriarchy conspiracy. That is why "but I didn't do any of these things!" is not a valid male defense in feminist thought, correct? This isn't about "men" at all. It's about the culture, …
/r/MensRights30/07/14 01:55 AM
2

Thanks for the upvote! I think people might be reading it too quickly. Or our friends on the other side might be watching....
/r/MensRights29/07/14 07:01 PM
1

Also, I'm pretty confident that there are North Korean political prison camp residents who are happier than this woman!
/r/MensRights29/07/14 01:48 AM
15

You can tell that feminists REALLY appreciate their allies! This makes me want to be a male feminist! Ok, let's begin the stupidity: “I’m really attracted to strong women.” Wow, thanks for making female empowerment all about what helps you get your rocks off! Ugh. I realize that you are an ideologue, and that means you can make whatever conclusions you want without niceties such as "evidence" or "reasoning," but in the real world, you need a bit more in order to conclude that this person is sayi…
/r/MensRights29/07/14 01:35 AM
18

how about the hypothesis that we tend to say shorter words first when we describe duos: Mister and Missus (Mister's) Ladies and Gentlemen men and women boys and girls nieces and nephews sons and daughters Simon and Garfunkel Hall and Oates Opie and Anthony Mike and Molly Abbott and Costello (but: Laurel and Hardy) Why is this hypothesis not equally as valid?
/r/MensRights28/07/14 03:17 AM
10

What was missing from this article? The evidence that word order has anything to do with sexism against women. Why not conclude that by putting "Mrs." later, you are "saving the best for last?" This is how ideologues work: immediately jump to the conclusion that fits your preconceived notions without addressing other reasonable explanations, or apparently providing any rationale at all for the conclusion.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 03:03 AM
18

Why would a patriarchy put any restrictions on men, the class of people it is intended to benefit?
/r/MensRights25/07/14 10:12 PM
28

That made me laugh. It doesn't even make any sense. A system that's supposed to benefit men at the expense of women hates men, while the movement that thinks all men are conspiring to oppress women actually thinks highly of men? LOL.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 08:37 PM
3

I love it! She has no real defense so she resorts to: Well she wouldn't have been asked the question except for sexism (irrelevant), The media is dominated by men (also irrelevant), and it's ok because women have it worse ("first world problem" fallacy-the idea that a problem is not real because somebody somewhere else has worse problems)
/r/MensRights25/07/14 12:18 PM
2

Hey kids, if you're frustrated that your partner never wants to have sex with you... you clearly have an entitlement complex and you hate women. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence! "If it's something I want to believe, no evidence is required..."
/r/MensRights25/07/14 01:43 AM
14

I love how she dismisses anti-male sentiment as "frustration" and that frustration "at the system" "manifests itself against" certain individuals. And of course, the "you don't agree with me because you're privileged" argument rears its head again.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 11:51 AM
16

Now the girl in this movie is the definition of "bossy" (is that word still legal?)
/r/MensRights23/07/14 11:15 AM
2

This idea of "enthusiastic consent" is terrifying. What does "enthusiastic" mean? If you can't articulate this, how can you expect a lay person to do so? Remember your status as a possible FELON is riding on the meaning of this vague word. Also, they want this standard of consent, but only in the sexual context. In no other area of law are they pushing for this, not larceny, nonsexual battery, etc. What if this standard applied in all areas? I could file a claim for larceny if I were asked if I …
/r/MensRights21/07/14 04:10 PM
1

What's strange is I never hear any objection from "moderate" feminists at the time these objectionable ideas are expressed by those who claim to be feminists. Moreover, such objections are never made to the people making the statements either. Rather they only seem to be made to people who use such statements to criticize feminism as a whole. If they are not feminists and they do not represent what feminists believe, where is the umbrage toward them? Surely "real" feminists are not afraid to obj…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 03:12 PM
7

This article is such a load of crap. I'll just talk about two of them: 1. The author provides no evidence that feminists have been fighting for men's issues. One of the links, about suicide, links to a Wall Street Journal article which doesn't discuss feminism and is written by a neuroscience reporter. The other one is the same; links to an article talking about the issue, no mention of feminism or feminists. 2. Way to miss the point of what the person in the picture is saying. In order for some…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 12:37 PM
1

I read articles on there that were so blatantly biased it was appalling. I looked up Atheism+ on that site to find information about its origins, and it includes this gem: "But the phrase [atheism+] remains in use by those implacably opposed to the idea of being an atheist but not being an asshole, particularly Reddit anti-feminists and fans of Thunderf00t. Unironic use of the term is a reliable indicator of an asshole." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism%2B This biased language is not worthy …
/r/MensRights19/07/14 01:53 AM
1

I don't know where you get the idea that the subject/object dichotomy had anything to do with linguistics. Maybe because it is the exact definition of subject versus object in linguistics... Well first the definition of objectification in social philosophy is not exactly the same as the terms in linguistics, making that an equivocation. Secondly, terms have meaning in their context, not in all contexts. "Time is relative" in an aphorism doesn't evoke the theory of relativity, and the theory of r…
/r/MensRights15/07/14 12:31 PM
1

She thinks that there is "good" sexual objectification. I think her example was that using your partner as a pillow with their consent and in the context of an equal relationship isn't problematic, whereas doing the same without their consent (or a reasonable assumption of consent, f.e. when they sleep) or in the context of an abusive relationship is not. Ok, so if I use my partner as a pillow in the context of an equal relationship, I don't think she's a person but rather an object, but it's "g…
/r/MensRights15/07/14 12:10 PM
1

I don't know where you get the idea that the subject/object dichotomy had anything to do with linguistics. Maybe because it is the exact definition of subject versus object in linguistics... Do you disagree? Also, what I really want to know is where is the necessary link between making a use of someone's particular characteristic(s) and that someone suddenly not being a person or not being thought of as a person? If I see my doctor and I'm only interested in his medical expertise, do I necessari…
/r/MensRights15/07/14 11:31 AM
2

While you may be right that such explanations "seem" to make more sense, they actually don't when analyzed objectively. Think of the definition of "entitlement": per Merriam-Webster: "the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)." As Karen Straughan said in her video on this subject, (and I'm paraphrasing) "someone who feels entitled to something doesn't go around begging for it, that person goes out and takes it without regard for anyone else's inter…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 11:55 AM
24

My story is pretty recent. I was never truly a feminist per se, although I've always been liberal and believed in equality. I was just kinda neutral toward it, although I would sympathize with it against conservative interests. Then, the Elliot Rodger massacre happened. My Facebook was flooded with articles from feminists blaming masculinity for the massacre and insinuating that men were ticking time bombs, inclined to rape or kill at any moment, and that "all women" lived in paralyzing fear. Ho…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 10:58 PM
1

You're right my friend. Whether the slur in my hypothetical is immoral does depend on context. I apologize, I misinterpreted your comment to have been made in bad faith to mock my hypothetical, when it really wasn't. I don't know what I was thinking. I assumed that people would know that the white man and the Asian man both understood American culture, spoke English, and understood the offensiveness of the slur in the context of American culture. I should have clarified. Also, assume that the As…
/r/MensRights09/07/14 10:06 PM
1

I think that any reasonable person could understand my hypothetical without needing your extensive "breaking down." Just as one example, I think that one can assume that the two people in the hypotheticals speak the same language and understand the same slurs. This does not need to be spelled out to anyone interested in legitimate discussion. Bottom line, if you don't want to answer my hypothetical, then don't. Sorry to have wasted your time.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 03:47 AM
1

Thanks for being intentionally obtuse. I hope you didn't get carpal tunnel from writing that response!
/r/MensRights08/07/14 01:07 AM
1

Are you suggesting that America was built on the notion that ideas are not to be questioned?
/r/MensRights07/07/14 12:39 PM
1

Any movement built upon the notion that ideas are not to be questioned is not serious and will not succeed. Ideas that can't be questioned will never get better, they will never persuade those they are meant to persuade.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 01:37 AM
2

What I also found interesting was the notion that ideas that people would normally be hostile to or at least unreceptive to, would not be so if they came from someone in their own social group. Considering MRAs reactions to male feminists I have reason to doubt this.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 01:36 AM
1

Interesting points. In light of your statements, would you please answer this hypothetical for me? Assume that I am a white male and I have a friend who is an Asian male: In scenario #1, I am sitting in a café with him in New York City, in a society dominated by white men. He confesses that he has hurt me in some way, and in response, I call him an anti-Asian racial slur. In scenario #2, I use the same language in the same situation, except I am sitting in a café with him in Tokyo, in a society …
/r/MensRights07/07/14 01:32 AM
2

I had a friend who got into a fight with a woman on a train because she wouldn't move her purse from the seat next to her. Funny how that gets left out of the "taking up too much space" blog
/r/MensRights06/07/14 02:30 AM
16

Based on reading this, it looks like an "ally" is someone who SJWs barely tolerate, who should shut up, not question the SJWs ideas, and parrot talking points to people in their social groups. Oh, and by the way, don't expect any acknowledgment. Being an "ally" doesn't sound very worthwhile at all... I don't refrain from sexist and racist jokes because I'm an "ally," I do so because making sexist and racist jokes is WRONG, no matter WHICH social group is targeted, "privileged" or not. I don't op…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 02:25 AM
2

It's "cissexist" to assume only women need abortions? I'll remember that when the feminists start up again!
/r/MensRights06/07/14 01:45 AM
1

That may be true, but I don't see how it's relevant to my point. Also, interesting that oppression = prejudice + power. Notice how feminists focus on the power part so much and not the prejudice part, i.e., not having power excuses prejudice. In reality, power is irrelevant to the immorality of prejudice.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:39 PM
8

Well Reek, I'm sorry you're a man too. But just to be clear, you speak for yourself and yourself alone.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 11:08 AM
4

NAFALT is not a fallacy. It is in fact probably correct. It is simply an argument against generalization. It is nothing to worry about. We know that NAFALT, but enough of them are to make the issue worth talking about, whatever the issue is. The proper response is: "I'm glad you are not like that, but there are too many feminists who are like that." Maybe you can ask them to help in combating the bad behavior. As with #notallmen, the only reason to be pissed off about NAFALT would be if you were…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 10:46 PM
6

Translation: a fallacious rhetorical device to silence any criticism of or dissent against our ideas. Also, I'm guessing that the element of "thinking he's smarter because of his maleness" is presumed.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 11:28 PM
4

"If a woman said it, I believe it!" sounds to me like "God said it, that settles it!" These are both stupid statements showing contempt for evidence and reasoning... sad.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:43 PM
5

"mansplaining" is another fallacious rhetorical device based upon the Ad Hominem fallacy. It basically says "you're a man, so you don't know what you're talking about." It's used to discredit any challenge to feminist arguments. Completely illegitimate.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:09 AM
3

My solution to this would be for feminists and other pro-choice people to protest outside of their churches and scream out Richard Dawkins quotes at church-goers as they go in and out. They could also hand out copies of "The Origin of Species."
/r/MensRights30/06/14 03:54 AM
1

Use of force (I assume you mean physical) is generally not a required element for rape. If a person is unconscious and unable to give consent, use of force is not required for rape. If "consent" is coerced by a mere threat of serious harm to the person, a family member, or other third party, use of force is also not required. In the same way no force is required to commit a statutory rape. Or if you want to think about "force" in a broader sense, in the first situation, the use of force is the p…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 03:40 AM
0

It is in fact rape, it has "rape" right in the name. It is ONE FORM of rape, but it is still rape.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 03:18 PM
1

Since I don't even know for sure what issue it's referring to, I can't give you an answer.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 11:32 PM
1

at the very least, statutory rape.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 11:26 PM
1

It woulda been better if the women were less "sexy." I predict the reactions would be less favorable. I think it would demonstrate the "if they're hot, it's ok" phenomenon.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 02:10 AM
5

I watched the trailer and they made a point that the average age of fashion models is 15, but fashion models aren't marketing to men, they're marketing to women. This would mean that women are idealizing 15 year old girls. That's a good point. Personally, I don't find fashion models particularly attractive. Not that they're ugly. However, they don't have the body types that I like. Somehow, I suspect a lot of other guys feel the same way. It makes sense that they aren't geared to market to us.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 01:51 AM
1

Oh. I wasn't referring to your change, but to the original theory. Sorry! I think observing evidence and making rational conclusions from the evidence can justify finding that a person might be a rapist. So, in a sense I agree with you.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 01:12 AM
1

The 50% figure is from the original Schroedinger's cat experiment, where the chance of death and life was equal. Thus, it was rational to assume both may be true and not favor one over the other. To assume otherwise and to apply the analogy at any level of probability would create problems. For instance, going back to the rapist analogy: Do you have to treat the man as both an alien in disguise and not an alien in disguise? Do you have to treat him as both having MERS and not having MERS? Altern…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:21 AM
2

Any man has a 50% chance of being a rapist? That doesn't sound horribly false at all... If a particular man has a 0.01% chance of being a rapist (or whatever the number is, I'm sure it's closer to 0.01% than 50%), then how is it reasonable to assume he even MIGHT be a rapist??? Whether a protective measure should be taken depends in part on the probability of the event to be protected against. So this in actuality has zip to do with Schroedinger's Cat,where both possibilities were equally likely…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:23 PM
3

Wow, Hitler and Nazi comparisons? That sure does wonders for your credibility.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:58 PM
2

Why is it objectification rather than "limited purpose" interaction? You have to be careful because the purpose of the subreddit is to discuss how to pick up women. So necessarily they always talk about women in a sexual context. It's like being annoyed that atheist forums always talk about religion and god... that's kinda the point. The conclusion that because red pillers talk about hooking up with women all the time, therefore they must see no other value in women, is not supported. You need m…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 10:22 PM
3

TL;dr: You can't conclude that, just because a man looks at a woman for the limited purpose of sex, he must think women are only good for sex and have no free will, dignity, or preferences of her own.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:13 PM
3

I realize that this is slighty OT, but: What is a "rape culture" and what is your evidence for the existence of such? Thank you!
/r/MensRights24/06/14 05:08 PM
3

Their response would be their standard response to justify their own hypocrisy - "privilege." Men are "privileged" therefore we women can do it but you can't. What they fail to realize is that "privilege" has NOTHING to do with why sexism is wrong. "Privilege" in feminist minds, arose BECAUSE of sexism. Are they saying that, before privilege, sexism was NOT wrong, but only became wrong when the genders were sufficiently unequal? I somehow doubt it. Another way to look at it is this: could there …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:56 PM
1

The only solution is to hand her an anonymous questionnaire with a self-addressed stamped envelope saying "please evaluate this pick up attempt" before you scurry away. :)
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:09 PM
4

It looks like Reek has been released from the Dreadfort to help Ramsey sack another castle (sorry for the GoT references). Here I analyze this mostly-nonsense which, despite coming from a man, will fail to sway almost any men who don't already agree with them. I give it credit, it's trying to be somewhat reasonable, at times, but like those cartoons, etc. that try to make fundamentalist Christianity "cool", it utterly fails. Number one, treating women like objects. Did you know that girls are hu…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:24 AM
1

Good. You should think "nothing" of it because it is entirely worthless. I wouldn't tell you that the fact that you're a socialist introduces bias into your views on economics, because that would be irrelevant and would do nothing to further discussion. Who cares if your view is "biased?" It's either right or it's wrong, or it's one of many reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Saying you're "biased" is a lazy way of saying "I don't want to argue with you, so I'll assail your credibility b…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:08 AM
0

"Here's TheLostSocialist again, trying to Socialist-splain fallacies to me again... sigh." What do you think of this line of argument?
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:17 AM
3

Yup. The fact that people from different backgrounds have different standpoints is all well and good, but it does not have anything to do with the validity of an argument.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:06 AM
3

You are technically correct, it is based on an "irrelevant" characteristic. I apologize for not being more clear. But I highly doubt that anyone is arguing that a particular person's period is not painful, since pain is something that is purely subjective. That being said, you can evaluate the reasonableness of someone's reported pain based on evidence; disability and worker's compensation examiners do it all the time. In this case, "subjective experience" and "privilege" are not recognized defe…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 01:53 AM
18

These are good points, but the strongest point of all (only alluded to by the author) is that "check your privilege" is faulty reasoning. It's a form of the Ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is statement that says or implies that an argument is wrong because of some characteristic of the person making it. Basically "check your privilege" says "you are wrong because you are ______." It's not an argument. You could substitute someone who was not _______ and that person could make the same argument.…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 04:34 PM
6

I wonder if George Will has ever actually dealt with feminists before. Notice how his arguments have been completely lost in the ether, overshadowed by other, questionable at best, statements that he has made. Essentially, his argument has been lost in the discourse because his credibility (the measure of likelihood that you will be taken seriously by other people) has been demolished. Credibility has nothing to do with whether an argument is true. Only evidence and sound logical reasoning suppo…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 03:45 PM
1

Also, what if you need to get off the bus, but there are women trying to get off at either door. Do you have to wait until they exit the bus so that you are not "following" them? What if you miss your stop? Also, it's a bus, not the Taj Mahal. Where are you following them to anyway?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:42 AM
2

Now to be fair, it's only wrong if you make the air quotes around "from". That's actually very important. It confuses them long enough, wondering why the hell you used air quotes around a pedestrian word like "from," to make them vulnerable to other attackers. We don't want that.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:28 AM
1

That's the worst. I hate this "shut up" and "you aren't allowed to have an opinion" nonsense. This is a form of the Ad hominem fallacy - the idea that an argument is wrong because of some characteristic of the person making it. In reality arguments are valid based on facts and principles of logical reasoning. I also love how "oppressed" people are telling us "privileged" folk what rights and powers we do and don't have. Something seems a little counter-intuitive there. Also, rape is a legal conc…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 11:24 AM
1

BTW sorry about the wacky ordering. Best to view this thread as sorted by "old."
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:00 AM
3

21. Praise the virtues and accomplishments of women in your life to others. Yes, but on the same terms you would do so for males. 22. Have integrity with your male friends. (i.e., Don’t be a “bro.”) When a male friend is doing something sexist (being a deadbeat dad, down-talking women, ogling women, secretly spending shared money, lying to their partner, etc.) have integrity and say something to your friend. It’s not enough to think it’s wrong; let them know you think it’s wrong. Not sure all of…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:57 AM
3

11. If you have children, be an equal parent. That's totally reasonable, if tolerated by the practicality of the situation (e.g., work schedules). Again, come to an agreement with your spouse. *12. Pay attention to and challenge informal instances of gender role enforcement. * This is fine as long as you're not a pompous ass about it. 13. Be mindful of implicit and explicit gendered power differentials in your intimate/domestic relationships with women…whether a partner or family members or room…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:32 AM
7

6. When a woman tells you something is sexist, believe her. This canard is back again. "It's sexist because I say so!" Well, my response to this is simply: if any woman wants to say that hating the New England Patriots is sexist, I would very much appreciate it! But seriously, the better rule would be to explain why something is sexist, using objective definitions, facts, and sound logical reasoning. 7. Educate yourself about sexual consent and make sure there is clear, unambiguous communication…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:18 AM
8

I saw this link on Facebook. By posting this, I'm acting as an observer and a commentator not an advocate of feminism. Some of these are plain nuts. Here's my response to them (a few at a time): 1.Do 50% (or more) of housework. . . . Does this assume my wife is bringing home 50% or more of the income? The better idea is come to a mutually agreeable distribution of chores and outside work, rather than having the guy (who for all we know might be earning 100% of the income) do 50% of the household…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:01 AM
9

These women are probably just brainwashed by the Patriarchy(TM). Or another thing I heard, is that the evil men invented a machine called "The Branstark," which allows them to insert their consciousness temporarily into women's bodies and control them with their minds. So maybe it's the men actually doing the groping through the controlled women. Those dastardly beings!
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:15 AM
3

lol. Male feminists make me think of Reek; psychologically tortured by guilt until they become simpering servants sent out to do the dirty work.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 01:26 AM
7

wow, excellent PR move if I ever saw one! LOL.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:53 AM
6

Someone tell this fool that Ramsey Snow called and that he needs his bath.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:50 AM
3

"Or, recently, someone insisting that I consider the idea that Elliot Rodger could have been a madman and an anomaly, not at all a product of a white supremacist and misogynistic society." If he's the product of a white supremacist and misogynistic society, then such society is completely incompetent considering how few people who have trouble with love and sex go out and murder people.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 05:45 PM
4

NotAllFeminists? Kidding aside, thank you!
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:54 PM
2

The problem is that, any good points Geroge Will might have made are drowned out because he, at the very least, wrote other things that could be construed as offensive. Did he need to say victimhood was a "privileged status"? No, not to make his point. Should he have known that this unnecessary and false point would have drowned out the rest of his article? Yes.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:35 PM
1

What we are hurtling toward, people, is the inevitable standard of guilt by accusation. It comes from the idea that way too many people believe that women are never lying or otherwise never wrong about being raped. The problem, other than it being empirically wrong, is that if this idea is accepted, what is the point of an adjudication at all? Guilt by accusation.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 05:46 PM
2

This hits the nail on the head exactly. The conclusion is not supported by evidence, it's just an assumption that the men are lying. Don't worry though, feminists are for gender equality and against sexist stereotypes, so they'll be by to denounce this soon. Feel free to hold your breath if you want!
/r/MensRights10/06/14 05:27 PM
20

I call them "Reeks" after Theon Greyjoy's character in Game of Thrones who is brutally psychologically and physically tortured into becoming a servant of Ramsay Snow. Ramsay forces Theon to call himself "Reek" and do his bidding. It reminds me of these people, who are so tortured by guilt that they do radical feminists' bidding and do it more enthusiastically than the radical feminists themselves.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 12:43 PM
1

Why are colleges "prosecuting" sexual assault? They don't "prosecute" murders or other crimes. Why not let the civil authorities determine where there was an assault? Also, as someone said, if you didn't "initiate sex" you are apparently off the hook. Way to write a law poorly. I also chuckled at the pretense of gender neutrality.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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