TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dangerousopinions Archive

View 13 posts and 1,911 comments by dangerousopinions 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)
182

Outragedangerousopinions/r/MensRights10/01/15 12:36 PM
52

Questionsdangerousopinions/r/MensRights09/08/15 03:42 AM
27

Social Issuesdangerousopinions/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:10 PM
15

Outragedangerousopinions/r/MensRights26/11/14 10:24 PM
14

Reverse Gendersdangerousopinions/r/MensRights21/01/15 02:21 PM
12

Intactivismdangerousopinions/r/MensRights27/11/15 09:44 AM
10

Questiondangerousopinions/r/MensRights09/11/14 06:52 PM
8

Discriminationdangerousopinions/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:11 PM
8

Discussiondangerousopinions/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:05 PM
8

Edu./Occu.dangerousopinions/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:10 AM
5

dangerousopinions/r/MensRights20/04/15 07:47 AM
5

Discussiondangerousopinions/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:55 PM
1

Feminismdangerousopinions/r/MensRights21/08/15 09:28 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,911 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Ahh.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:22 PM
1

Any backstory on this?
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:09 PM
1

He committed to this plan during the election before he even knew what the pool of candidates would be. I don't think in practical terms it's a big deal, but in principle, it's totally unethical. There is a reason that gender is not to be considered as a factor under the law.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 05:10 AM
1

Within the political and academic spheres yes, it's pretty bad.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 12:48 PM
4

I don't think Kaley should have to pay for all the women that have unjustly benefited from similar situations in the past. She's not responsible for that. On the other hand, alimony and spousal support is never going to change until women have to start paying their layabout husbands for no good reason. And if the law is applied fairly and the same way it would be if the genders were reversed, a judge would probably make her pay, even though that's stupid.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 11:14 AM
2

Listen, the reality is that for every person that shits on you, there is probably at least one other that agrees but isn't going to say so for fear of being attacked. I personally don't say much and when I do I choose how I say it very carefully. Even then some people get upset. But I've had friends come to me in private and discuss it and I am always surprised by people's private opinions. Most people are reasonable. It's a small few that are actually radical. The problem is that these people a…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 03:30 AM
5

Title IX guru doesn't understand due process then. Standards are the only thing due process consists of. Eroding or lowering them in anyway is objectively taking away due process rights. It's not a matter of debate.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 08:59 PM
5

Don't forget Montreal.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 08:57 PM
7

I don't. Anti-discrimination laws are necessary. Look at the U.S before civil rights? How many businesses do you think were refusing to serve black people? I really don't think it's much to ask that a business serves anyone who wants their services regardless of race, religion gender or sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 08:57 PM
17

"Don't misgender me!!!"
/r/MensRights21/10/15 08:55 PM
1

I think as a general rule there is always the "people should be able to do this" caveat in these posts. If we keep that up it will be fine.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 05:04 PM
2

Now in all honesty I don't really care and I think it's all in good fun. He is a good looking guy for a politician, people want to talk about that, especially people not inside Canada. But I can imagine the needless outrage if similar remarks were made about an attractive female politician.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:14 PM
1

http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/twitter-cant-get-enough-of-canadas-good-looking-new-prime-minister-1234331 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/justin-trudeau-sexiest-politician-world-6666495
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:13 PM
4

Under Title IX women are not a protected class and that would be the law under which such a policy would be challenged. Furthermore, there have been successful civil suits brought against institutions under anti-discrimination state laws. There are a number of ways to go about this that would solve it rather quickly.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:55 AM
3

There are a few reasons I think. 1: PR. Not just good PR, but also bad PR. When a high profile figure wears an inappropriate shirt, their opponents in politics or business will fund and encourage attacks. If making it all about misogyny is what's popular, they go for it. It's not just a feminist concern at that point, it's an easy way to take an opponent down a peg. 2: Money. Feminist/SJW nonsense attracts two audiences. The outraged, and those in agreement. The latter is a larger audience than …
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:51 AM
1

Horror stories In other words, weak men pandering to their needs, deferring to their judgement and eschewing any agency of their own for the sake of their partner. Absolutely that's got to be annoying, but it's miles away from a "horror story" and these are the only kinds of men that feminism really sanctions. Regular men with opinions, agency and self respect typically don't self flagellate and hate themselves nearly enough for them to fully buy into feminism beyond it's dictionary definition (…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:28 AM
14

I don't see that happening and most of the issues discussed here are not nearly as simple as this one. The law on this is well established and very clear cut. Providing free tuition to students based on gender is not allowed if you accept federal funding, which most schools do. Things like circumcision have legal elements to them, but aren't straight forward court challenges. The same is true of domestic violence support and services, male rape victims, the social attitudes toward both of the pr…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:11 AM
17

It's the law, it can be challenged in court.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 08:54 AM
1

hahah nevermind then. That explains the English. I'm an idiot.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 06:33 AM
1

If that happened to me in a less scary country I'd probably just use the bathroom anyway. I regularly use whichever bathroom is available, particularly when they're designed for 1 person at a time. Nobody has ever said anything to me about it.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:12 AM
1

Considering the use of "bro" as a pejorative, especially by Vice, this is is like going around the office and saying "do you think there is a cunt culture at Vice" and then passive aggressively asking female employees to describe how they're cunty. It's ridiculous. I couldn't be polite if put in this situation. The whole idea is incredibly patronizing and condescending.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:05 AM
3

The sex offender registry is not a useless tool. It's very useful in Canada where it's not public, only used by law enforcement and doesn't include people that urinated in public. There are ways to ruin just about anything, and the way the U.S has employed the sex offender's registry has made it mostly useless. Not to mention the restrictions placed on sex offenders is ham fisted and often needlessly restrictive. Requiring a public urinator to live x number of feet from a school for example. Edi…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:58 AM
2

This is so inane. I'm glad one of the female panelists brought up the fact that it's a posed image of Madonna which she is responsible for putting out in public and also received money from. Madonna consented to this image, was a participant, has agency and the guy wearing the t-shirt is not a misogynist by virtue of having bad taste in clothing. The scary part is that anyone at all takes any of this total nonsense seriously. I don't think the general public does, but when you dishonestly balanc…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:54 AM
1

busy bodies The ruiners of all things good. Even outside of gender issues, look at the shit being lobbied for by upper middle class housewives in your local government and pretty much all HOA's. Not to mention prohibition. Bored people with money and time are the worst people ever.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:41 AM
1

Read the article.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:06 AM
1

No, not this. Ideally, nobody would have to register for a draft in order to vote.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 08:08 AM
2

I think the point is that it's all petty. Really it's kind of shameful to complain about only making $10,000,000 for a few months of work when 99.999% of the planet makes nowhere near that. To put that in perspective, the highest per capita income in the U.S is about $120,000. A mere pittance compared to what Jennifer Lawrence earns for a single movie. In the grand scheme of things, whether or not sexism and active discrimination in Hollywood is causing women to earn less, is just about the leas…
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:56 AM
8

I'm not even sure what she's talking about.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:46 AM
5

He has a higher lifetime gross than she does and an equally impressive resume. Least famous? By name possibly, but in terms of exposure, not at all. However none of that really matters. All that matters is that his agent was a better negotiator evidently, or they really wanted him for that character. There are so many entirely subjective factors it's pretty ridiculous to make a claim of sexism at all.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:45 AM
2

Especially in an industry made up of free agents. If everyone is negotiating separately based primarily on how they're perceived by the person on the other side of the table, nobody is ever going to be paid the same as their costar, unless they negotiate as a group, which does happen on occasion.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:39 AM
1

And presumably if negotiating is a big part of your job, you will figure it out or choose another career path.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:35 AM
0

It's much less complicated than that IMO although I think you're right about there being more accomplished men with stories to write about. At least in the vein you mentioned. But in reality, most scripts are not written for someone. They written and pitched. But the majority of screen writers pitching are male, because it's a hard, competitive, risky career path and there aren't really any salaried, stable positions. So unsurprisingly, if they're writing what they know, and overwhelmingly male,…
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:35 AM
2

In addition, the article cites a representative from one company, who says there's simply fewer roles overall for women, and fewer leading roles as a whole, too. And similar complaints are made about this all the while far fewer women are willing to enter into a high risk career like screen writing, and men are writing what they know. Really it all starts at the bottom and the whole industry is unstable and high risk, high failure rate. Not as many women, as we've seen over and over, are willing…
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:30 AM
2

I never made the claim that men and women are exactly the same. However, you're overstating the differences as well which in most respects aren't all that significant at an individual level. They really just tip the scales one way or the other on average (unless we're talking about things like strength). There is also a big difference between stating a fact, like that men tend to dominate the top and bottom of the IQ scale, and applying those results to regular individuals or day to day situatio…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 09:19 AM
1

This is a bunch of bullshit. It's not about tone. It's about the actual meaning of what is often being said. This sub often fails to police tone, and IMO that's totally fine, but hateful, sexist nonsense gets downvoted. Furthermore, being angry about feminist bullshit is not the same as degrading women in general or having a general hatred of women. Newly minted or not, that kind of rhetoric isn't excusable, and a frustration with an ideology or the political climate, is not the same as a dislik…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 08:24 AM
1

Sure, but pretty much every time TRP gets discussed in this sub I can go to the front page at TRP and find something that's bigoted and hateful, and nothing else. Merely allowing free speech is really not all that wonderful. It should be a minimum standard, and in many forums it already is. TRP may allow people to say what they want, and I am not suggesting they should do otherwise, but the fact that hateful things make it to the top is indicative of the feelings of the community, and those feel…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 08:04 AM
1

Just clarifying. That comment will get dug up and misrepresented otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 04:26 AM
1

Even if she did, she's 10, adults know better, it's not an excuse.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 11:16 PM
2

It is a kind of penis envy in a lot of ways. A lot of feminists and many women in general have a lot of misconceptions about the lives men lead and the experiences they have. Many women change their tune after having male children and seeing their experience from a more empathetic standpoint (not that being a man is horrible or constantly oppressive, it's just not perfect either). But many just generally feel that the grass is greener, and it really isn't.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 11:12 PM
1

If saying hateful false, truly misgynistic things is a strategy, I guess, sure. TRP isn't just a strategy to take advantage of the gender problems of modern society, it's also a lot of hateful nonsense for it's own sake.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 11:06 PM
1

To ensure the rights of a well regulated militia.
/r/MensRights11/10/15 04:27 PM
1

Oh god. No, guns don't have legs and get up and kill people, but easy access to them is certainly a contributing factor to mass killings like this. I would go as far as to say that guns aren't even a major motivating factor, I will happily concede that. But they are the necessary tool of a problem with other causes and shy of outright solving those causes, helping to eliminate guns from the mass killing equation goes an awfully long way to fixing the outcome of the problem itself. Furthermore, t…
/r/MensRights11/10/15 07:13 AM
2

Even if we accept that that's true, it necessarily must be followed by "what I said was just hateful and prejudiced". I'm not sure how their redefining the word "racist" or "sexist" absolves them of wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:49 AM
1

It's not confirmed by law enforcement which is what matters. But I don't care and youve totally glossed over he points I have twice tried to make.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:37 PM
5

Why is here face blurred out? Suspended sentence and her identity is withheld? That's the sweetheart deal of the century.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:05 AM
1

Servant and labourer evidently. I don't buy into the idea that men should have set roles, but currently our roles is probably more narrow then it has ever been in the past which is the opposite of ideal.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:01 AM
1

False rape accusations are "endemic"? To what region I wonder.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:58 AM
1

It's about how sexist Harper's religious views are and OP is suggesting that this is a good thing. This is the kind of stuff we don't want here.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:56 AM
2

Is there any other source for this? Alex Jones is a raving lunatic, I am not even remotely willing to take his word for it.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:41 AM
3

That is not at all the kind of thinking that's being promoted here.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:36 AM
3

No it's not. It gets a lot of hits and they publish more in depth content that gets a lot of play on social media. This shapes opinions. I think you're being naive.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:35 AM
2

No the sponsors want good views for their product. Buzzfeed is concerned only about volume. There is some overlap, but advertisers are not solely concerned with the number of hits.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:34 AM
2

I don't think complaining to advertisers is that. This is a bunch of hateful bullshit and there is no harm in pointing it out to the hand that feeds. If Buzzfeed wants to keep promoting hateful bullshit they have every right to do so and if they really believe what they say, I would have more respect for them if they continued doing so despite the thoughts of advertisers or critics. I would normally agree with your statement but I think this is a misapplication of that thinking. A better example…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 05:33 AM
2

I am not particularly familiar with NZ's general situation, but it does seem that men are generally getting the short end of the stick and regularly demonized by politicians as well as various pieces of legislation.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:42 AM
1

I did read what you wrote and what you wrote is thus far unconfirmed. Assuming however that it's true, the point I am making is that it's a largely immaterial fact. The primary motivating factor in this shooting was almost certainly not a hatred of Christians. Again, just like the Isla Vista shooting was not primarily motivated by a hatred for women. There are other, deeper issues at play and these specific hatreds are merely at the surface. You can't take a psychotic murderer at their word. If …
/r/MensRights06/10/15 04:34 AM
1

Switzerland has a very high suicide rate. They also have a high rate of rifle ownership, not automatic weapon ownership. I don't know where that idea came from.
/r/MensRights04/10/15 03:32 AM
12

They always say "why would ____ lie about something like that" as if anyone has ever needed a good reason to lie. It's weird to me how when it comes to rape all of a sudden one must need a compelling reason to make it up, but where all other issues are concerned it's assumed that humans can and do lie without clear motivation.
/r/MensRights03/10/15 07:46 AM
-1

This fact is being used by the right to argue that there is a war on Christianity. Just like there isn't a war on black people, at least not one that's substantiated by the Charleston shootings, or a war on women (Isla Vista) there isn't a war on Christianity in the U.S. I don't think anyone who is unstable enough to walk into a room and try and kill everyone in it can be taken at their word in regards to motive. He didn't just hate Christians, it's almost certainly not the primary motivating fa…
/r/MensRights03/10/15 07:27 AM
0

This has always been true. Frequent mass shootings are unique to the U.S and a rather modern phenomena. I'm sure bullying and isolation are a contributing factor, but I don't think they're the primary factors. Personally I think the popularity of mass shootings has created more mass shootings. It's a cultural phenomena mixed with the easiest access to firearms in the world.
/r/MensRights03/10/15 07:23 AM
1

I think mass shootings are a distraction from the real issues of gun violence in the U.S. If anything mass shootings are the leading cause of mass shootings. I think the damage can be mitigated by controlling access to weapons to an extent, but mass shooters tend to be unusually motivated and otherwise law abiding citizens so it's a difficult problem. The issue with stories like this is that they suggest that everything used to be great and we didn't have to worry about silly rules. But that's j…
/r/MensRights03/10/15 07:21 AM
1

Let's not forget she condemned Justin Biebers latest song as "rapey" for no reason.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 04:08 AM
2

It's a freelance area of the industry. Like almost all high risk fields, there are more men than women. That's not at all surprising. If you look however at salaried positions within the media industry, those positions are dominated by women. Things like editing, casting, art direction etc. Office work that's consistent, ends at a specific time of day, and provides stability.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 03:51 AM
2

Considering the demographics of homeless people in general and the rates of substance abuse and mental health problems, its likely that most of these women were telling the truth. Its likely that most homeless men have also been victims if various types of abuse and violence.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 08:17 PM
12

Its worse than that. Far more homeless men are on the street while women, while technically homeless, are usually sheltered.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 08:02 PM
1

I think children in general are a concern for the public. Even if that were true, you dont change that by perpetuating such double standards.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 07:18 PM
1

Ugh, that's even worse. So this campaign is gendered why?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 04:22 PM
2

Those numbers have been reported on a few times in national papers and you can bet that the federal leaders know, there is no fucking way they don't know, yet it's a campaign tool currently.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 04:21 PM
3

The families of victims shouldn't be the ones deciding what is and isn't justice anyway.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 04:19 PM
1

This is obviously awful but how ugly are Texans exactly?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 09:56 AM
2

Isn't the number of boys not in school something like 50+ million?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 09:16 AM
8

Not to mention the fact that there are almost three times as many of them. Every time I head about this issue it drives me nuts. Everyone reporting on it and using it as a political tool knows damn well what the male numbers are and yet they omit men entirely from the discussion.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 09:12 AM
39

I am totally against the death penalty, for anyone, so I am with those that don't think that she should be executed. However, the rhetoric surrounding this case was all about how she shouldn't be executed because she was a woman, not because the death penalty is wrong, or wasteful or ineffective.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 09:09 AM
7

It was lip service followed by the same old hat "men should serve women". There was almost nothing she said that was in any way helpful to men.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:05 PM
5

Feminism has always been hateful toward men, this idea that third wave is exceptional is false. Its always been this way, it's just more institutionalized than ever and the worst of the rhetoric has entered the mainstream. But none of the opinions have actually gotten more radical.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:04 PM
6

If there is anyone on T.v that is allowed to say what they want, it's Oliver. He's not forced to enter into identity politics and support the status quo. What you're saying is definitely true of news outlets because that kind of content is keeping them afloat, but Oliver is not a writer for The guardian.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:58 PM
10

"White feminist" is now a term being used to describe anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves for "women of colour". There is a dumb video about it. It's amazing to me though that nobody within the movement ever questions the validity of such things. They accept opinion as fact before the "authority" is even finished speaking. Its incredibly dogmatic.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:51 PM
3

Are SJWs attackung Oliver now?
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:48 PM
6

Race in the U.S isn't marginal. However racial discrimination can be largely overcome with money, that's how powerful economics are. But I would not want to be a poor black man or latino in most of the U.S.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:43 PM
3

"white feminism" was coined like a month ago and its already blindly accepted by these sheep.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:35 PM
3

I find he habitually chooses weak arguments to defend his points when strong ones are available. I appreciate his effort but he can be needlessly unconvincing and provocative.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 03:23 AM
2

When it comes to speech, nothing should be censored. What I think you're talking about is discrimination which in a number of contexts absolutely should be illegal. But actions are not speech.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 03:19 AM
3

Is this not satire? I mean, who calls their news site Slant. It's honest I guess, but sounds like it's satirical.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:56 AM
7

4 years is not a long sentence, or even a typical one for human sex trafficking of children.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:53 AM
3

It's inaccurate to use Canada as an example of criminalizing criticizing feminism at this jucture. The one and only case that has ever been attempted is based on a broad interpretation of a law that has absolutely nothing to do with online criticism and it has yet to be ruled on. If the judge rules in favour of the defendant, it will actually prevent the law from ever being used in this way again, strengthening free speech, not degrading it. The same is true if it were to go to appeal and be rev…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:13 AM
7

including a rather harrowing description of UN "troops" standing around doing nothing as 150,000 civilians are murdered in Rwanda. General Romeo Dallaire has also written about this and he was the UN commander on the ground. It's likely a much more in depth source for that particular conflict and the UN's inaction. "Never again....define anything as a genocide until after it's over because then we'll have to do something" -UN
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:08 AM
11

Not likely. The UN says and does a lot of stuff that nobody pays attention to let alone legislates. That said, it's ridiculous that the UN collectively came up with such an absurd and censorious plan. Just like any other kind of censorship, who get's to define "misogynist"?
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:05 AM
2

Its wierd to me that so few people realize how divisive intersectionality, and identity politics are in general. Race and gender "experts" just drive wedges, they never help the problem they claim to passionately care about.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 04:46 AM
4

The view amongst feminists is that it doesnt matter if a woman manages to use patriarchy to her advantage, it doesn't hurt patriarchy theory. The thing that a lot of people here don't understand is that partriarchy is feminisms capitalism. All that is wrong with the world is patriarchy. The entire structure of society is viewed as patriarchal. The destruction of patriarchy alone will bring about a utopia. It's all very much like communist views if capitalism or anarchist views of the state. None…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 04:38 AM
3

I'll hear you out. In your opinion, why is their argument sound?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:55 AM
5

the University’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, Law ’91, argues that this claim insinuates that the University should curb free speech. Even if that were true, which it's not, Universities, Columbia included, curb free speech with an absurd amount of regularity.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:52 AM
1

Hence the /s
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:31 AM
9

But seriously, if they put any money towards helping African men it would be to get them all circumcised. They did exactly that already. Not a joke.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 06:09 AM
2

That's not true, he's also pledged a lot of funds to needlessly circumcise African men to prevent HIV. /s
/r/MensRights27/09/15 06:08 AM
1

It's not about getting away with it, it's about the praise she receives for being a victim.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:17 PM
2

This exact thing happened in Ottawa at an Ikea. The woman claimed she was berated by security for breast feeding in the store. The store said they have never had an issue with it and then provided video proof that no such thing happened. This is what happens when you pretend it's still 1950 and privilege victimhood.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:15 PM
3

It does when thousands of boys have been killed in awful ways by Boko Haram.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:56 PM
2

She's right, but fuck that psycho.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:54 PM
1

Clearly they've already done away with standards
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:30 AM
1

It's not an ad hominem to say that your clearly stated opinions on adult/child relationships have an impact on your opinions about adult/child relationships. You're confused there.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:45 AM
-2

It doesn't matter at the end of the day. The most a teacher is allowed to do is subdue a student if absolutely necessary. I am not arguing with the facts here, but the reality is that he'll be the one that pays for this, not her, regardless of who started it.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/15 07:48 AM
-2

All they have to do is enforce their own rules. This kid should have been kicked out of class, sent to the office and suspended immediately. If her parents didn't seem to care, in-school suspension where she just sits in a room all day doing homework alone. Either way, this teacher never should have touched her. I can see his frustration, and it's justified, but you can't physically attack students like that just because they're pieces of shit.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/15 07:38 AM
1

This is a pretty typical sentence.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:25 AM
5

A false accusation obviously isn't determined by the "rape-y"-ness of the accused.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:16 AM
1

The legal definition of coercion is not "manipulation" which is perfectly legal by the way. I specifically referenced the legal definition because in that context coercion is intimidation, threats or physical force. Mere manipulation however is a major concern with children and adult because adults are seen as authority figures in most cases and by and large they are much smarter and more easily able to take advantage of a child than a teen is able to take advantage of another teen. I am not at …
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:48 AM
1

The fact that these are children absolutely colours the situation. I also don't really care for your opinion considering your lobbying efforts in favour of adult child relationships.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:45 AM
1

What?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:57 PM
1

Like 90% of your comment history is specifically about sex between adults and children.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:56 PM
3

Are you just going to go from thread to thread defending adults that fuck children? Yes it's abuse. It doesn't matter if a 9 year old boy knows he's being abused when a 50 year old man is fucking him regularly. It's still absolutely abuse. Edit: Looking through your comment history, yes, that is exactly what you do. Mensrights is not pro-pedophelia, take your shit somewhere else.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 07:48 AM
1

In terms of pregnancy it's probably not greatly reduced except in instances where one or both are not sexually mature enough to create a child. But the main thing is that the risk of coercion (see the legal definition) is greatly reduced.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 07:36 AM
1

Not all jurisdictions make statutory rape a strict liability offence. If you want to argue that strict liability statutory rape laws are ridiculous, you won't find any disagreement from me. That's obviously not what I'm referring to however.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 06:34 AM
2

Not at all. They suggest that sex between an adult and a child has serious risks. Beyond that the car comparison is completely ridiculous. They are two completely unrelated practices and you may as well argue that intentional murder should be culturally acceptable because it doesn't produce as many deaths as car accidents. Obviously there are some major differences.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 06:32 AM
1

If coercion continues to be part of the definition of rape, statutory rape regularly meets that standard. I don't think coerced sex is rape arbitrarily.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 08:42 PM
3

Are you mocking age of consent laws?
/r/MensRights20/09/15 08:36 PM
3

TIL STIs are the same as high risk pregnancies in adolescent girls resulting from cultural practices. /s
/r/MensRights20/09/15 10:21 AM
1

Driving is an inherently dangerous practice, at least currently, sex and relationships are not. The impacts of sex and relationships can be mitigated rather simply. It's false equivalence.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 09:52 AM
1

I was trying to show that each culture has what it thinks is right and wrong, and each culture's views, as well as the feelings of those in that culture, are based on belief systems, not on some objective metaphysical "good". But that's only true if you consider death and disfigurement to be morally neutral outcomes. I don't think that's the case. I think that the objective reality is that the cost of many of these cultural practices are high infant mortality rates, disfigurement, isolation, and…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 07:34 AM
2

My argument is that you've only mentioned the positive or neutral side of these practices and made no mention of the drawbacks or even put these practices in context.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 06:32 AM
2

That doesn't really address the meat of what I said at all.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 04:52 AM
2

Yes yes cultural relativism and whatnot. What you've not mentioned are the harsh realities of a lot of these practices and the realities of life in some of these tribal communities. In a sense you're appealing to the "natural". For one thing, young girls that engage in sex can and do become pregnant. These pregnancies frequently result in death, high rates of infant mortality and other complications like perforated bladders which cause girls to urinate uncontrollably and in some communities this…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 04:44 AM
2

bragplaining Humble brag is a much more elegant term.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:45 PM
1

Unemployment insurance is generally your own money that you put in while you were working, not government money collected from tax payers.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:35 PM
3

If your expenses are inflated as a result of your spending power, this makes some sense. If you're living within her means, I don't personally think it does. I also make more than my gf, but we live within her means and she pays for half of the expenses. Our incomes weren't always this different, I used to make less, but we weren't splitting bills according to income then either.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:33 PM
1

I think all the extreme rhetoric has caused you to forget that racism does exist, it's just not as trivial as "micro-aggressions". Depending on where you are, there are some considerable advantages to being white. In the southern U.S for example, overt racism and discrimination are still common. In the rest of the country it helps to not be arab or latino. This didn't just stop happening because SJW's became hyperbolic about racism.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:48 PM
0

The population of the U.S is almost 77% caucasian. Even in L.A or NYC white people are part of the majority. There are exceptions, but we're talking in generalities.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:44 PM
2

Unquestionably there are advantages to being white in a predominantly white society. Economic privileges however have a much greater impact than simply being white. The advantages of being white are often overstated. Beyond that, racial issues that exist in the United States are regularly superimposed onto other cultures with a different history and culture. This happens in Canada all the time. I see people who recently immigrated from Africa acting like the problems of black Americans in Missis…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:57 AM
1

Lauren Southern is out west, this is Toronto, so not likely.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 01:00 PM
2

I couldn't disagree more. The reality in most places is that where there are unequal rights, there are also unequal responsibilities and burdens. There are countless places where women face serious issues. In many of those same places men and boys are used as soldiers, sex slaves, cannon fodder, disposable labour and targets of aggression. Feminism is not going to address any of that, because it's fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the realities of men in society. There is little to be gai…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 10:04 AM
3

No, gender equality is necessary. Feminism is not just another word for equality, it is an ideology, one largely based on dogmatically held opinions instead of fact. Their approach to issues of gender is fundamentally biased and flawed. We don't need to spread that kind of nonsense to the rest of the world.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:13 AM
2

There is a gay rights group (the name escapes me) that does this on specific issues. They used to create a list of television shows that were in their opinion harmful to gay rights. This year they ditched the list saying that they had accomplished what they wanted to and that while television wasn't perfect, there were lots of reasonable representations of homosexuality on television. This is the way to do it.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:11 AM
1

But under the same circumstances that would also be ridiculous. I get your point, and I agree, but I don't think mirroring bad behaviour is the way to go.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:34 AM
3

Using Archive for something like this is the opposite of it's intended use which is to not give clicks or encourage sexist journalism and propaganda-esque articles. In this case we want to give clicks (I think), even to Vice. Hopefully it will encourage more balanced writing.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:32 AM
2

To me some clouds look like elephants, but it doesn't mean they in fact are elephants. I really don't see how her completely subjective opinion matters here at all.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:16 AM
3

There are very very few UTI's in men as it is. Circumcision will also slightly reduce the likelihood of yeast infections in males, but I don't think cutting off parts of the penis is the best solution for an issue that can also be treated in a matter of days or hours with over the counter ointment.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:13 AM
2

Urinary tract infections in boys are incredibly uncommon. They are however very common in women. I doubt we're going to experiment and see whether or not slicing off parts of the labia help reduce rates of infection.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:11 AM
0

IIRC I can criticize a comment however I'd like. I have no policing authority so just relax. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not it's common on chans. I don't think that calling male feminists "cucks" is an apt or valid criticism. It's not like they're making it hard for you to find something solid to criticize them for.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:09 AM
2

I don't think you can sue the complainant of a criminal trial in civil court, for there having been a criminal trial in the first place.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:39 PM
2

Generally speaking you can't sue a complainant for a criminal prosecution, in fact I believe there are laws against it in Canada. His options will be very limited in terms of getting back what this prosecution has taken from him.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:37 PM
-1

Yes, and it's stupid. Not everybody that holds opinions you don't like has a wife or girlfriend that is fucking other men. That's stupid and it's pretty much exclusive to TRP.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:28 PM
-1

The word is not an invention of TRP no. But to use it to describe men who disagree with you is very much a TRP thing.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:27 PM
1

It's not rare, but I expect better.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:25 AM
1

Ignoring warfare for a second, there is strong evidence that murder was pretty commonplace. Even in primitive tribes today the murder rate is astronomically high.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:56 AM
1

if you genuinely believe throughout human history woman have been as violent or "abusive" as men then you are completely bat shit hysterical. I think we're a long way away from having a reasonable, unbiased discussion about this. I think men do likely commit more violence, certainly more severe violence, and that's only more apparent the further back in time you go. However I also think the way we define violence in this context is inaccurate in that it ignores women's use of proxy violence, and…
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:53 AM
2

The article isn't exactly a thoughtful examination of John Lennon, wrinkles and all, it's a hit piece. I think that's an important distinction to make here, especially considering the fact that he's dead and evidently lamented his actions as a youth. But no, I don't think it's a men's rights issue. I think it's a bad journalism/click bait issue.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:47 AM
2

Vice does that all the time. I once read an article that trashed The Beatles wholesale for 8 paragraphs and referred to them as "the one direction of the 60's". I have to imagine it's an attempt at being edgy, because nobody that is given the privilege of writing for a mainstream outlet is that stupid.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:38 AM
5

Presumably it's the fact that she understands the fundamental underpinnings of the justice system. This is why the legal world has largely come out against affirmative consent standards and kangaroo courts on college campuses. Those that understand the function of the law and the principles of fairness on which it's based, are reticent to throw them out the window because rape is upsetting.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:36 AM
1

There are some AVFM employees here, is this your handywork or not? If it's not I suggest making that known in the press.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:20 AM
5

Because you literally can't work on men's issues without fighting against feminism at the same. In fact just about everything CAFE has done has been opposed by feminists, including existing. Want to open a men's DV shelter? You'll be opposed by feminists and have the issue belittled in the media. Want to fight against MGM? You'll be told by feminists that it's not mutilation and that FGM is worse etc etc. Want to create a men's center on campus? You're definitely going to be opposed by women's g…
/r/MensRights13/09/15 07:19 AM
0

This was like cuckold bingo. This isn't TRP, lets stick to reality.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 06:56 AM
10

I sincerely hope the judge's end game here is to set precedence by finding Elliot not guilty. If it's not, he's allowed an absurd prosecution to go ahead and destroy someones life.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 06:51 AM
19

The worst part is that we're talking about old, frail men that can't care for themselves. That's who this woman was killing. The most vulnerable in the population. To entertain the idea that these men deserved it because older Japanese generations held more traditional views of the roles of men and women is sick, it's uncaring and it's not the kind of thing one would expect to see in a mainstream publication.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 06:37 AM
38

like she actually believes that she is in the right here. Of this I have no doubt. I am certain she thinks she's justified entirely and that she's just being victimized here. This despite being the instigator, spitting on him, throwing the first punch, using a weapon and vandalizing his car. It's insane.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/09/15 02:18 AM
15

The media did not do their job on this one either. There was no compelling evidence of abuse in this case, none was presented and most of their friends claimed that they never saw anything that would indicate any form of abuse (lets remember this was apparently so bad she had to kill him) and the media barely reported on that aspect.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:06 AM
11

but notice how Karla Homolka has Stephen Harper eyes and it tells you all you need. I hate the guy as a Prime Minister as much as anyone, but that's just fucking stupid and slanderous. Harper is bad, but he's not a serial murder for christ sakes.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:04 AM
6

but it is demonstrative of the way the legal system in Canada values men vs. women. So is the case covered in Dear Zachary. Granted the extradition would have always been slow where the death penalty was a possibility.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:03 AM
3

This is infantalizing when it happens to women and it's infantalizing when it happens to men. We're all responsible for how we feel about ourselves to a large extent and if media makes you feel bad, stop looking at it. Advertisers and retailers have a certain amount of responsibility to the public but it only extends to being honest about what it is that they're selling, they're not responsible for how people feel about themselves. If people have these problems they should make changes or seek p…
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:00 AM
1

There was a female politician elected in the U.S before the 1900's. She was elected in her first attempt and this was before female suffrage. Let's not forget women also managed to outlaw alcohol in the U.S just a few years after deciding it should be outlawed. Alcohol, a substance so ingrained in human culture that it's existed for all of human history and before that, we ate it in spoiled fruit.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 03:53 AM
2

Of course it gets support, anyone who doesn't support it would be accused of "being on the side of rapists". This is why this shit never improves, it's political suicide to be reasonable.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 03:03 AM
1

How about they have 100% of the role considering the fact that it's a fucking criminal issue and not a disciplinary one?
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:46 PM
3

One of the partners testifying against her was a woman and her superior. I don't even know how they arrived at the conclusion that this loss still represented sexism.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/09/15 07:45 PM
1

I have no idea how they figured a swap to the mouth is a bodily autonomy issue that outweighs the legal rights of a father/not father.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:43 PM
1

Even if that were true, which it's not, you don't just hand over private information without being compelled to do so. http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:42 PM
5

The worst part is that the media is basically reporting that sentiment as fact.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/09/15 06:42 PM
1

That's a great comic.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:31 PM
3

But leaving that alone, there are at least some things MRM and feminism do have in common, which might be more than some people realize. But only in the shallowest sense is this true. Because even when feminism and the MRM agree that a specific issue exists, they both have fundamentally different views on why it exists and how to solve it, which are both much more important than merely identifying the problem in the first place. It's kind of like saying that Anarchism and Fascism are the same or…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:18 AM
2

Really?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/15 07:04 AM
2

I post in twox and anywhere else I feel like personally. I am also on r/mensrights and think I contribute the conversation and am not here under false premises. I would be much more concerned with the content of what someone says and believes than where they posted it. It's basically just an ad hominem.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:34 AM
1

No, freedom of speech practiced by white men is simply the same as rigorously enforced censorship. /s
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:26 AM
7

Many (but not all) feminist professors have endorsed their departments renaming themselves to gender studies precisely because of a recognition that the issues they study go beyond just feminism. That's lip service. The content has not changed at all. If you think feminism as a field of study is united in thinking men are not oppressed you do not accurately understand feminism. It's united by thinking that all women are oppressed by all men. And all men's problems are a result of the patriarchy …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:25 AM
2

Nope but the insane response to this was posted. Trigger warning: Hysterics.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:07 AM
6

Most people in this "culture war" are actually in the middle and reasonably open to arguments from both feminists and men's rights advocates. No they're not. Some of the most radical individuals hold the greatest amount of power and influence. NOW is not moderate. Naomi Wolf is not moderate. University of Ottawa law professor Elizabeth Sheehy is not moderate. Judy Haiven is not moderate. By and large the most influential feminist tend to be quite radical. Actual moderates are a silent and ineffe…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:03 AM
7

Rather, it shows how compatible both viewpoints can be with one another. They aren't compatible. They are regularly at odds on major issues like DV, sexual assault and the nature of gender and masculinity itself. It's healthy perspective we need far more of given the hostility that has been bred by SRS'ers and Gamergaters who are trying to create enemies of one another. SRS'ers are enemies of everyone. Beyond that, the hostility is often justified in that Gamergaters have been accused of just ab…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:10 AM
19

I don't think they do at all. The MRM doesn't have a set ideological framework or a view the world through the lens of men are always oppressed by women. The MRM doesn't generally subscribe to an absolutist version of cultural construction of gender (which creates considerable differences in how solutions are approached). Nor does the MRM subscribe to a world view that implies that we live in a matriarchy that creates all gendered problems. The differences are quite substantial if you want to co…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 11:09 PM
3

Accurate how exactly? Feminism is not the same as the MRM and there is actually not a lot of overlap in opinion. The MRM also doesn't subscribe to an ideology or lens, particularly not a sexist one. This is a strawman if I've ever seen one.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 11:04 PM
1

Hmm I guess, but it's difficulty territory to navigate. It's best to post obvious examples where men's rights have been trampled on.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 06:44 AM
1

I'm not sure why this is here. There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that he didn't do it, unless I'm missing something.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:52 AM
1

Men's sheds seems to be pretty productive if less focused specifically on rights. Certainly worth looking into.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:48 AM
5

It's just when they do, they don't hurt the guy enough they need medical care or anything. I am skeptical of this. The way in which data on DV injuries is collected is biased. It's usually reporting from hospitals and when men go in with injuries they are not asked about domestic violence like women are. I would not be surprised if there are a significant number of male dv injuries going unrecorded because of the current practices in hospitals.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:35 AM
1

Fair enough, and I do see your point. The problem is that many in this sub will mirror the reaction of feminists to trivial issues when men are found to also be subject to them. If it's trivial, which I firmly believe objectification is, then it's trivial for men as well as women.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 03:03 AM
8

Objectification in the way feminists describe it is an unavoidable reality of depicting humans in art and literature and whether or not they're "objectified" is open to interpretation. You could turn a human into a part of the landscape in a photo, that would be objectification, but its not necessarily negative. You're not denying their personhood, you could be elevating the human form. It's all opinion and there are positive ahd neutral examples of objectification as feminists define it. There …
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:36 PM
16

I would say the feminist "nice guy" exists, but is of their own creation. Basically its another way of describing men who throw themselves on their sword for women and unsurprisingly expect some credit be given for doing so in the form of attention, admiration, sex, interest etc. It's where some of this entitlement talk comes from, except there is nothing wrong with expecting some kind of success for following the rules that have been laid out. The problem is that its all meaningless hypothetica…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:22 PM
-8

Thats not the definition beong used here.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:15 PM
1

Presumably any investor, male or female, wants to make money, not get laid, don't be an ass.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 10:08 AM
2

It comes off as a "but don't worry, women are coming"
/r/MensRights07/09/15 10:01 AM
1

They specifically targeted men and boys the overwhelming majority of the time. About 90% of the victims were male and on at least one occasion they burned a boys school down after locking the kids inside.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 10:00 AM
365

They are, but who cares? Objectification is blown out of proportion, unavoidable and not inherently bad.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 09:53 AM
2

...and also don't attend school in nearly equal numbers for the most part.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 03:00 PM
9

Ugh. The number of school aged boys not in school is roughly equal to the number of girls not in school globally. The idea that there are a bunch of girls being kept out of school in poor countries is a myth.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 03:00 PM
3

It's definitely true in my experience. You have more value if you have a girlfriend. It proves you're desirable to women.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 06:07 AM
6

If a girl says she isn't interested, then that should put an end to trying to pick her up. Nobody ever actually says "I'm not interested". It's very rare that someone is that forward. Beyond that, I'm far from convinced that there are a lot of men out there that don't give up within 30 seconds after hearing "I'm not interested". They're obviously not going to turn around and walk away though, most will try and maintain a little dignity by making a joke or trying to be smooth as they exit.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 06:05 AM
3

I'm pretty sure "I'm not interested" is at least as effective, but nobody ever says that. They either try and hint at their disinterest subtly, which isn't always effective, or they say "I have a boyfriend" because that make it's clear without being personal or overly forward. To suggest that this has anything to do with respecting other men more than women is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 06:03 AM
-5

This really only applies if a crime has occurred. You can't be railroaded for a crime that never happened, as was the case in this example.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 06:01 AM
4

And massive over-reporting of child sexual abuse. People quite regularly lament that they can't let their children run and play like they were able to when they were young. In reality the whole of the western world in significantly safer than it was 40 years ago. It will likely be safer tomorrow than today as well.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:59 AM
5

So someone was walking down the street near a girl, the girl stopped walking on said street and the man kept walking on the street. We had all better keep an eye out for people not walking perpendicularly to children. If you have to go the same direction, too bad.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:40 AM
1

Let's not make this about all women, it's not.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:35 AM
2

Misleading. They're going to start accepting male victims at an already existing centre that until now, refused male rape victims.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:29 AM
2

I fail to see how this is remotely relevant to men's rights.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 08:37 AM
1

I'm actually surprised there is much difference of opinion here. There have been some more prestigious legal experts that have weighed in and almost across the board see this as a problem.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 08:29 AM
5

Also didn't Miss Piggy recently bang Nathan Fillion behind his back?
/r/MensRights05/09/15 08:25 AM
3

War zones are not good locations for safe places. Very true. It's just about the most offensive environment possible even if everyone you meet is mute. What is to be gained by censoring speech and adding another stress to the situation.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 04:28 AM
3

Also, gallows humour is pretty common in any profession that is emotionally draining or traumatic. Doctors and nurses say some awful shit amongst themselves. We're going to start cracking down on coping mechanisms now? This is awful.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 04:26 AM
5

Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back. What a fucking cunt.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 04:04 AM
1

Yeah, none of that's true. Things that could be defined as patriarchy do exist, the problem is that most of them could also be described as gynocentric. For example, feminists would claim that the lack of concern for male DV victims is a result of patriarchy. That men are not viewed as vulnerable. However one could also claim that it was an example of gynocentrism in that we are not concerned with male DV victims because we are too busy protecting women and concerning ourselves with their needs,…
/r/MensRights05/09/15 02:29 AM
1

Basically humankind has evolved to protect certain things for various reasons. Some of those things privilege or disadvantage men or women, but it's basically an unnecessary label that inevitably leads to blaming either men or women for problems that are naturally occurring. Neither term contributes anything to a solution or has any real value.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 02:24 AM
1

The latter is exactly what I am referring to. It's interesting to flip it around, but it's basically the same as patriarchy and can be justified for many of the same reasons.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 02:21 AM
2

I think the concept of gynocentrism is dangerous. It's not unlike patriarchy in that it can be used to describe just about any area where men are disadvantaged and women are privileged but it has no value in terms of solving any of these problems. For the same reasons many would label something "patriarchy" they could also label it "gynocentrism". To me that should be unsettling.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:38 PM
1

I think that's probably accurate. Feminism and radical social justice is also a minority position, it's just not a position one can attack without serious consequences so people largely remain silent despite their opposition.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:24 PM
1

Janice Fiamenco, Justin Trottier and Karen Straughan have all been on TVO, they have been given time to actually speak, and the general nature of the discussion has been polite and respectful. That is way better than most outlets. Aside from that, when has it been a feminist echo chamber? The majority of the discussions on The Agenda do not concern gender at all, and when they do, it's probably the only show where the entire panel isn't made up of feminists with a single opinion.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:22 PM
2

I've seen it in other pop culture, so it's gotta be going on somewhere. Get me another American!
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:58 AM
2

This is a pretty reasonable debate on the nature of gender and biology. One of the guests is a kooky Israeli who doesn't care about research she doesn't agree with, but aside from that it's a very insightful discussion.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:12 AM
1

So was Justin Trottier. TVO has been pretty good generally.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:08 AM
0

a tv station that routinely runs misandrist hit pieces TVO has covered MRA issues and hosted balanced discussions on gender issues more than any other outlet in the entire country. That's a totally unfair statement. They aren't an "MRA" outlet, but they don't have a discussion on gender with 4 feminists either. They have actual debates.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:08 AM
1

One of my favourite speeches. As one of the youtube commenters put it, it's telling that the people who have the most faith in women's ability, are those opposed to feminism.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:30 AM
1

This is not in my limited experience, typical for Oxford Union debates. They're not always spectacular, but they're rarely rude and hysterical. Here is a politician arguing a very unpopular position, doing so respectfully, and getting more than the limp wristed courtesy applause this yahoo received. Edit: The linked video is a great speech by the way.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:08 AM
4

When you start trying to get people fired by calling their workplace, or demanding it of their employers, you're not longer only engaged is speech. This is what the people to which you refer always like to say, but what they're doing is harassing. If they want to disagree in any public forum they wish, however they wish, that's speech. Doing anything more than that is another story.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:05 AM
4

You should know the date and title of the article. If you're going to make such direct accusations you can't be grey on the details.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:56 AM
3

What in the fuck was that? Also, can an American explain to me how speaking really quickly to the point where nobody can actually understand the point you're making because the American school style of debate?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:55 AM
2

This is the standards of Oxford debating? This? This is pathetic mewling. No, not typically from what I have seen and I've watched a fair number of them. Typically, regardless of the disagreement or subject matter, the debate is polite and respectful to all involved. This woman is angry, rude, accusatory, insulting and not very well spoken all at the same time. I wouldn't say this is typical at all.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:54 AM
1

I just think it's unlikely to happen in Canada.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:42 AM
1

San Fran bikers are notorious for breaking the law and ignoring lights and stop signs. This kind of hyperbole is expected from that city. Beyond that, judges hand oyt sentences, not juries. Sentences still tend to be light. I think your theory is off base.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 04:27 PM
3

Why would she be kicked out of school for exercising free speech outside of school? In Canada this would be tough to pull off as almost all schools are subsidized with public money.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 04:25 PM
1

There is not enough detail there. A slap on the face? The hand? A pat on the back? What? If she's slapping him in the face, whether or not it's intended to hurt, it's cause for concern, but if this is like a tap on the hand because he's being inappropriate, this is not unusual behaviour for men or women. I can't make a judgement based on the information provided though, I just think that people are getting way ahead of themselves given what the OP has actually said in calling her abusive.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:52 PM
1

What a rape culture we live in where not only does every city worth mentioning have a dedicated sex crimes unit, but New York now has a dedicated sex crimes unit for college campuses specifically.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:46 PM
5

I'm sure since she's both paying for it and not incapable of controlling herself that she'll make it through the whole thing. It won't be easy though. That said, these classes to vary a fair bit. It really depends on how out to lunch the prof is.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:44 PM
1

I read all his other comments, the worst of the worst seems to consist of being pinched before, mostly for attention, not to inflict pain or punishment. This seems like a slightly disfunctional relationship, a youthful one with problems, but to call what the OP has described an "abusive" relationship at this point trivializes actual abusive relationships.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:24 PM
1

Because "abuse" is a pretty heavy handed way to describe a single incident involving pinching. If you want to so broadly define "abuse" so be it, but I don't think that's accurate.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:11 PM
-1

I think they're going a bit far. It doesn't sound like your girlfriend is anything but human, and imperfect. I do think you need to make your boundaries clear and be consistent, but I also think it's quite an exaggeration to say that you're in an abusive relationship. People as a general rule can be manipulative and selfish, it doesn't make them psychopathic or horrible so long as it's not a primary characteristic.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:24 AM
1

That's an awful lot of conjecture.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:18 PM
13

Everything is rape culture just like everything is patriarchy. There is no sense in any of it.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:49 PM
-4

Last time I checked nobody is entitled to become violent though. Obviously this guy is in the wrong for cheating, but his wife doesn't have the right to just start slapping people because of it either.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/15 05:25 PM
2

Somebody provided a definition of patriarchy that basically consisted of defining anything negative in society as "patriarchy". Therefore it's arbitrary, there is no fixed definition that means anything. It's just another word for anything bad that's happening. I was banned for making basically that comment in similar terms. Edit: This is actually not unlike the way many marxists or anarchists will define capitalism. Anything negative is "capitalism" regardless of whether or not it's provable or…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 04:50 PM
1

and equity feminists (the ones who support third-wave feminism, which does not try to infringe on men's rights in order to help women). Ha what? There are many, many feminists who want exactly what you want. Where are they? I'd imagine you fancy yourself as one of these people yet you've done little else but promote the same stale ideas MRA's have been fighting against. Your comments on FGM clearly illustrate that. The problem is that when people make this claim, they usually have a skewed idea …
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:14 PM
2

I guess I'll wait for your next account for you to conclude your senseless tirade.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 02:04 PM
1

This seems like a misguided attempt to navigate a hysteria and series of bad policies that need not exist in the first place. I get what you're saying, but it only serves to reenforce an already absurd state of affairs. and they should also teach girls to verbalise their no's (a tactic that reduced sexual assaults by 50%, meaning sexual assaults were girls who didn't know how to say no) Something that already happens in high school. In reality I am sure it helps a great deal, but as far as campu…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 02:03 PM
1

That's a dishonest way to word it and I don't know why it's done that way except to inflate numbers. I personally have had unwanted sexual experiences that I've consented to, and no I didn't go to the police because by virtue of consenting, my partner, no matter how undesired, did nothing wrong. That said, I am sure a great many of these "unwanted sexual experiences" were in fact sexual assaults, but without proper data collection it makes it hard to know how many.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:54 PM
1

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:51 PM
2

How exactly were you sabotaged by feminist trolls in r/mensrights?
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:42 PM
1

But give me a good reason why men and women shouldn't use the same bathroom facilities aside from the fact that you might have to wait longer to use a toilet if that were the case. I don't personally want the inconvenience of sharing facilities, but I can see no good reason why we shouldn't. It's silly that we gender bathrooms where we all shit and piss in private anyway. Assuming we throw some urinals in there, there is no good reason to keep them separate.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:40 PM
2

Well she didn't "rape" her so to speak. She fondled her on several occasions, convinced her to "sit on her" when she was older for sexual gratification (edit: and bribed her with candy for "kisses") and often masturbated after convincing her sister to get into bed with her. It all seems pretty predatory really and if this were anyone else, her actions would be accurately called predatory. Basically if she weren't a feminist media darling she would probably have to keep her mouth shut on these is…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:36 PM
1

She repeatedly performed sexual acts on and near her for about a decade according to her bio. People like to pretend it was a single event when she was 7, which would be understandable, but according to the excerpts in question, this was an ongoing thing, not a single event.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:22 PM
4

They're also more affected by war, space aliens, nuclear holocaust and asteroids.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:19 PM
8

Even if the judgement is unfair, it's not atypical for such a case. When it comes to unintentional deaths involving cars, there are some really astounding sentences handed out regardless of sex.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:16 PM
2

Many of the "truths" are just lies that we've widely accepted as truth though. Most of the oft repeated stats on rape or dv are good examples of this.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:14 PM
1

That depends I think on the forum in which the discussion is happening. It might be worth it on facebook which is a pretty good mix of people, but it's a waste of effort in an echo chamber like r/feminism or something similar.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:13 PM
1

Rule 1: SJWs always lie. They say "I'll listen if you have facts" but if you present facts they'll deny them, claim they're offensive, accuse you of misogyny/racism/whatever-ism in an ad-hominem-because they have no response. Or if they're academics, call study they don't like "uninteresting".
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:12 PM
1

I fortunately have never been in a situation like that, but I do have 'ex acquaintances'. People I've butted heads with immediately despite not discussing men's rights or anti-feminism unless someone is being really extreme. To me it's generally not worth it so I don't say anything until someone is being blatantly sexist or anti-male. Even then, I am censor myself quite a bit. But you don't have to do much more than disagree to piss off someone used to having their opinion reenforced or at least…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:10 PM
5

Red Pill is not an MRA sub, to be clear. It's men's interest I guess though.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:05 PM
3

I was banned from r/Menslib for saying that patriarchy theory is arbitrary.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:04 PM
5

A whole lot of feminists are really just women who hate men, who use the husk of a previously critical rights movement, long ago successful, as a fig leaf behind which they can vent their hatred. I don't think that's a conscious choice however. It does happen, there is no denying, but I think it results from being socialized to hate men without ever having to consciously acknowledge that you hate men. This is worse in my opinion since it's increasingly common as anti-male rhetoric becomes more a…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:02 PM
1

Put your foot down on these issues and don't give up any ground. You teach people how to treat you to a large extent and it sounds like she is just used to getting her way or not being contradicted by anyone. I've had somewhat comparable issues in relationships (not so much physical but just disrespect) and I just don't back down or concede the point for as long as it takes and things have worked out for the better. She will either come around and see that she's wrong, or she won't and there is …
/r/MensRights02/09/15 01:00 PM
2

I'm glad you're so clear on the nature of gender and the brain, because medical science isn't. You should let them know it's that simple.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 10:56 AM
1

Jesus what a waste of time that was. Is there supposed to be something exceptionally interesting about middle class college aged men? Because there really isn't.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 10:24 AM
2

Everything I've written is asking MRAs to not step on feminists to lift themselves higher. If that's what you think is happening then you're misinformed. MRA's are opposed to feminism not out of convenience, but necessity. When someone tries to start a male DV shelter, it's feminists and women's groups that oppose it, hence the complete lack of funding or existence of such services throughout the west. When MRA's try to lobby for assumed shared parenting, NOW, the largest feminist organization i…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:32 AM
3

All I wanted to do is point out this is a ridiculous comparison, because FGM is so much worse. In places where FGM is still happening, it is not by and large much worse than male circumcision in the same places. In various parts of Africa and Asia it is ritualistic, performed outdoors or at best, outside of sterile conditions and regularly leads to gangrene, amputation, serious infection and death. The procedure itself is generally less invasive than most FGM, assuming there is no accidental amp…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:07 AM
2

Hmm, that's debatable. It's not solely a male issue, but it's largely one that affects men. It's actually highly unusual that they charged his girlfriend and it's early days, that may change. But it's certainly not a clear cut example of why it's a men's rights issue, no.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:02 AM
3

It's a weird silver lining, but they need to stop charging children with crimes like this. I fail to see how it benefits either of them who are both perpetrators and victims.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:49 AM
3

I don't entirely disagree with the doctor but his opinions go well beyond his expertise, he contradicts himself, and he uses what he must know are intentionally misleading statistics to prove his point. He mentions that 80% of people with GID will spontaneously change their mind. This is true...if you're talking about only children that are pre-pubescent. Otherwise people with GID will generally always have GID. He seems to be mixing two arguments here. Throwing good reasons to not medically tre…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:25 AM
4

It's not that simple and one could easily argue that the body is in error just as easily. The fact is that it's not as well understood as we'd like it to be. Beyond that, even if what you say is 100% true, we have no treatment other than to accommodate what the brain wants. So what is your proposed solution to dealing with GID?
/r/MensRights02/09/15 12:12 AM
5

to know when the parts are correct and the mind is in error. No we don't. The mind could be absolutely right depending on other factors during development. Don't try and simplify such a complicated system. There are lots of things we don't know about the human body, particularly the brain.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 10:47 PM
7

Prove that medical science doesn't yet know very much about gender identity disorder? I can't prove an absence of something. You need to relax, sir.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 10:43 PM
9

That's assuming gender identity disorder is simply a delusion or something we even understand well enough to label as such. That's just not the case.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 10:25 PM
1

In Canada we had a bill labelled the anti-child pornography bill or something similar and what it really was was an internet monitoring bill and serious privacy concern with a sympathetic title.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:53 PM
4

Like the guy who is fighting in B.C to have his license picture taken with a pasta strainer on his head. He's doing us a great service in that the government is forced to be consistent and either allow him to exercise his religious freedom (as a flying spaghetti monster follower) or admit that religious freedom doesn't extend to government I.D.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:48 PM
1

It does, but not in Germany where the legal system is not common law. This would presumably have to be changed by legislators not precedent or appeal.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:44 PM
8

If gender identity disorder is a delusion, which is what it sounds like you're saying, there is no harm in indulging that delusion if it's not going to be cured or altered by other methods. What is the harm in people of the opposite gender using a bathroom that you also use? What is the harm in not being concerned with their personal choices? I just don't see the issue here.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:41 PM
5

There might be some, but there probably shouldn't be. I am not going to mirror the stupidity of assholes simply because if the shoe were on the other foot they would throw a tantrum. That's pretty misguided.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:36 PM
2

The female interviewee uses exactly the same tactics as intelligent design proponents. "Teach the controversy". Except she said "teach critical thinking skills" followed by "we should be exposing children to all different viewpoints" which is a total misrepresentation of what amounts to indoctrination. That said, there is nothing wrong with getting kids to be open minded or teach them that violence and bigotry is wrong. But there are lots of wrong, politically motivated ways to do that. Demonizi…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:35 PM
5

It's an administrative position, why would it matter what gender the director is? That's a stupid point. It's not like she has to produce sperm as part of her job for christ sakes, she has to run the daily operations of a business that happens to collect and sell sperm.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:18 PM
24

Women however are the biggest opponents of gender neutral bathrooms as men are seen as potential threats. I agree though, it's silly. If we're going to be progressive on these issues, the real solution is not allowing trans people into gender specific bathrooms matching their chosen gender, but getting rid of gender specific bathrooms altogether.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:05 PM
3

Asking for good cut scenes doesn't mess up the gameplay. But calling the choice not to do so "sexist" is not asking for more cut scenes. Additionally, not adding more cut scenes may be a failing of some kind, but it's not sexism. You're being willfully blind to what's happening here.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:00 PM
2

Oh I see, because she doesn't say "this is sexism" then she mustn't be making that claim, despite the entire body of text in the link. Get real.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 08:57 PM
6

Because she's demanding it by claiming that not doing so is sexist. That's why. That's totally unfair and politically motivated. It's not like saying "I wish GTA would make a bigger map" it's like saying "GTA V only includes San Andreas because the creators are racist/sexist" I really don't get how you don't see the difference between a complaint and a claim of sexism.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 08:12 PM
5

For some people, the overuse of tropes (undeveloped characters) is an issue for some. They reinforce stereotypes. There are no tropes here, these characters aren't developed. This entire opinion of sexism is based on the lack of back story and three dimensionality, which can be said of the whole cast of characters. If we're going to adjudicate sexism based solely on appearance or lack of development, then 90% of all video game characters, male or female are sexist depictions of men and women. Ex…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 08:08 PM
3

But we're not talking about those things, we're talking about the game, which is also what the writer is commenting on. In which case all the characters are under-developed by most standards because it doesn't matter to the actual game playing.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:56 PM
2

But it should keep them from labeling the decision not to as sexism. It's not unlike saying a musician is sexist for not writing about women enough. It's a creative choice and it's completely subjective. This is the issue. These people don't just wish for certain things because it interests them, they demand these things and label the choice not to do them as sexist and pointed. It's absurd and it's an impossible situation for video game designers.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:51 PM
7

They all are, since the game has little to do with a storyline or specific characters and more to do with two of them punching and kicking each other in the face.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:48 PM
5

You're missing the point here I think. Whether or not a character is developed fully is not an issue of sexism, or an issue at all. It is a limitation of a story or videogame. Not every single aspect and character can be created equal and bitching about it selectively is hypocritical and stupid.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:47 PM
2

why complain if somebody wants to develop a character? Because the game designers didn't develop the character. They don't want to, because it's a fighting game where the backstory and character details are of little importance. So nobody is complaining that the characters were developed, that's a strawman. They're complaining that the author is demanding that the character be developed in order to be acceptable to his/her palette. There is a big difference.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:43 PM
1

Did you really read none of that? It's about under-qualification. These are high paying, skilled, resource sector jobs. Things like operating specialized equipment in refineries, repairing said equipment or specialized engineering of various sorts. Canadian schools and private businesses don't offer the training necessary in order to fill the positions. The result is that skilled professionals from outside the country are brought in to work in an industry that's already largely made up of foreig…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:36 PM
3

None of these things are privilege. To be fair, there aren't a lot of poor people going into film making. It's a high risk career choice with a really high failure rate. It helps to have some kind of financial nest egg to fall back on. That said, the kinds of people that are successful in most media are the ones that stick to it and take a few risks. It's not an industry you get brought into for being white or male.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 10:00 AM
2

Yes, I agree. What I meant by no impact was, no impact on rapists.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:43 AM
2

You want a citation to prove that I'm not talking about something that I'm telling you I'm not talking about? No, you can't have a fucking reference. there is still a massive shortage in a number of areas and foreign temporary workers have to be brought in to fill the gaps in skilled labour. There's your reference. Asshole.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 07:14 AM
3

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. you mean to say that most Canadians don't want to do work that they think is beneath them. This isn't a Texas tomato farm we're discussing, the work I am talking about pays $100k or more per year. most whites won't do hard labor work even when that's all they have left. Canadians literally don't have access to the training required for many of the jobs that are available in the resource industry, hence the skilled temp workers being brought in.…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 04:28 AM
18

Link?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/15 03:31 AM
3

You clearly haven't been around here very long. These posters were originally released in Alberta a few years ago now, and that's where the comment comes from. There was a rebuttal campaign satirizing the original posters. One of the posters was about how regret is not rape. You can make assumptions from ignorance if you want, but you're wrong.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 02:02 AM
3

My point was that when 90 percent of the time they're true, we shouldn't be complaining about campus posters that tell men not to rape. False accusations are not the reason these posters are a problem. The reason they're a problem is because women are also perpetrators of sexual assault, education is not the reason people rape, and these posters address all men as if they're potential sex criminals. What's more, the majority of the false claims aren't the "regret" excuse that this thread is perp…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 12:06 AM
1

Thanks, I'll check those out.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:37 PM
3

The most conservative, thorough study puts it at about 10%, not 2% and that's only reported false accusations. To imply that 10% or even 8% is trivial is insane. That's 1 in 10, and that's a considerable number of false accusations made to police. When the OP says it's impossible to put a number on it, he/she is right, but you're missing the meaning of that statement. 10% is likely to be the absolute minimum. It could be much higher, or not much higher, but it's almost certainly not lower.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:37 PM
6

That would be bad enough, but it also suggests that all men are capable or likely to be sexual perpetrators, which is worse in my opinion. Even if only men were sex criminals it would still be a small minority of men, not all of them and this campaign would still have no impact.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:32 PM
1

Interesting. That's new. They usually are looking for typical behaviours associated with males and they usually find nothing. Can you link the study to which you refer.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:30 PM
2

In Canada some med schools will cover your tuition if you agree to practice in a certain region for a minimum number of years. It's a pretty simple fix to this drop out problem. The subsidies just need to be contingent on how many years you stay in the field. If you don't keep practicing, you have to pay back the cost of tuition.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 07:45 PM
8

There is an argument to be made against post secondary education for most people in the first place, male or female. In Canada it's gotten really out of hand. 50% of the adult population has a post secondary education and the result is that you need a degree to be a secretary. It hasn't helped the economy at all, because there is no direction to most of the education being subsidized. Despite this highly educated population, there is still a massive shortage in a number of areas and foreign temp…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 07:43 PM
0

The majority show no change. Simply type "testosterone, behaviour, study" into google and start reading. where women were given a 100ug/ml injection and they found measurable differences in how rationally they approached problems. Did they have a control group being told they were getting testosterone but weren't? The placebo affect is a common thread in a lot of testosterone studies. Subjects in control groups will often show the same behaviours because they think they are getting testosterone.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 07:24 PM
3

This should be taken with a grain of salt. There is lots of research showing the effects of hormones on behaviour in biological males and females, and very, very little compelling evidence for the impacts of testosterone alone. There are quite a few very carefully executed studies on testosterone and behaviour where adult subjects of both sexes are given T injections. There is almost no measurable effects on behaviour, attitudes etc. Hormones play a huge role in behaviour, but it seems their imp…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 09:09 AM
3

This is true but a lot of these affect are during brain development in utero and during puberty. Just injecting hormones isn't likely to have a great impact. There are actually a lot of pretty controlled studies on testosterone and its impacts and there is rarely a measurable difference in the test subjects. In reality the differences between men and women seem to be much more ingrained and not just a result of testosterone and estrogen levels alone.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 09:05 AM
3

It's not though. The patriarchy is just a descriptor for all that is wrong with society in the same way that capitalism or the state is responsible for all that is bad in society in the view of a communist or anarchist. It's completely meaningless. If you identify all the underlying, gendered problems in our society as aspects of the "patriarchy", then of course this is an issue of patriarchy. In reality, we have a series of gendered issues with much more direct, identifiable causes, and reasona…
/r/PussyPass31/08/15 08:58 AM
0

Don't post this shit here. Let it die.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:53 AM
1

But governments sometimes do, which in a majority government is basically the same thing. Here is a wiki article that gives a few Canadian examples of gerrymandering.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:31 AM
2

I don't care what others say, you're missing my point. I don't see them as a viable party because I don't think they have the right people or the right policies, not because they are unpopular or small. I think that May is a mostly incompetent leader with a shallow understanding of the Canadian economy and political sphere.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 05:07 AM
1

Not a single piece of data in the entire report. I'll have to check their citations later when I have a second but this is not a study, it's a report based on older study. I would be surprised if the gap they're claiming can be substantiated by old research which has pretty systematically been debunked. What there is in the report is a bunch of nonsense. For example, lack of access to affordable shipping is apparently a barrier to female entrepreneurs. Last time I checked, shipping costs are not…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:57 PM
2

Please use archive for this kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:48 PM
1

They tend not to damage roads to the point where they need repairing. Most road repair is weather related. Cyclists do tend to also be tax payers. Yes, but if things like gas tax and registration costs are funding several billion dollars worth of infrastructure, they aren't contributing very much. Certainly not the tens of millions the average cycle lane or dedicated path costs. I am not opposed to cycling, but cycle lanes don't contribute anything to the economy and cyclists aren't contributing…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:46 PM
1

I don't know if we'll ever get it though. There is always a benefit to gerrymandering districts when you're in power. However, the west has way too many seats compared to QC and ON so it's likely to the benefit of everyone except the Conservatives to fix things since neither of those provinces are overwhelmingly in support of the Conservatives.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:45 PM
3

Any area of media is super competitive and people are dicks. This does change as you get older but generally speaking, it's just the reality of these industries. People are also very egotistical and fragile, they like to shit on others preemptively. I really doubt that most of this is related to sexism at all. People are just assholes, and these industries attract a lot of them. You have to have a thick skin and just keep proving yourself to yourself or you'll be eaten away by critics. It doesn'…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:42 PM
1

The Green Party wishes to reform the Divorce Act. Most laws regulating divorce are provincial so I am not sure what impact this would actually have. It's likely something that is better to take up with your MPP.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:36 PM
3

And in fact its leader, Elizabeth May, was prevented from participating in the leader debate during the previous election (surprisingly, she was allowed to participate this time). Because they hold almost no seats and the debate participants are decided by whoever the media organization airing it is. It's not a public event. Beyond that, May has made an ass of herself on several occasions including her most recent drunken rant at the media dinner. She also holds some pretty strange positions on …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:33 PM
3

I have no intention of voting for someone like May or her cohorts. They have a few good ideas in their platform but generally speaking I don't see them as a viable party nor do I agree with many of their initiatives. I don't particularly love the NDP either, but I will probably be giving them my vote since the Liberals are a bunch of asses and the Conservatives are just about the worst party in Canadian history up to this point.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:29 PM
2

I don't claim to understand what it's like being a woman This can only go so far. Many ideologues talk about experiences that happen out in the open and wildly exaggerate them. If you also live in said society, chances are such flagrant and allegedly constant acts wouldn't go entirely unnoticed. Cat calling for instance, does happen, but doesn't happen with the regularity or vigour many feminists claim it does. How do I know? Because I also go outside from time to time and it's not wall to wall …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:27 PM
2

I have to imagine that this will be the generation to push back at this. It's much easier when you've already given into the demands and accepted them to realize how stupid and hateful they really are. Nobody can reasonably accuse you of being something that society has entirely eradicated already. They will, but I have to imagine these younger men would be aware of how unfair and ridiculous such an accusation would be.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:22 PM
5

I'm male and work in media and I have experienced many of these things from people that don't know my work simply because I am young and there is an abundance of people claiming to be "artists" "photographers" "painters" "musicians" etc. while not doing any of those things professionally. The general public has become suspicious of these claims until proven. It's not at all gendered. If anything it's a bit agist, but still, get over it and make a bunch of money and produce good work, who the fuc…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:20 PM
1

If you pay taxes, you probably contribute in some way to infrastructure, but in Canada a very large percentage, like $2-6 billion per year, comes from fuel tax. That is a lot of money and it's all paid for by drivers. stop being scared of cyklist I'm not, but I think they should have to contribute more to their multi-million dollar cycle lanes and infrastructure projects the same way drivers contribute to energy alternatives and vehicle infrastructure.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:13 PM
2

True. It could be worse. I'm just saying that this particular story is not enough to conclude that Sweden has in any way changed course.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:11 PM
0

Feel free to read about Canadian fuel taxes. It's not an "energy tax", not that the name of the tax matters if it's not used for its namesake. No it's not 1:1, but it doesn't have to be for the point to be valid. Drivers are still funding a large percentage of road repair and infrastructure through fuel purchases. You don't know what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:03 PM
13

That's not a citation or an example of its use on women. This also wasn't an issue of photographing genitalia, which is sometimes necessary in child pornography cases, it was that they were going to inject this teen's penis so they could compare it erect in order to charge him for doing something that shouldn't have been a crime in the first place. In addition to that the procedure is said to be painful.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:01 PM
16

This is a spurious and unsubstantiated claim from a forum commenter on the internet. This is not fact. Feel free to provide something more reliable.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:52 PM
0

Did I somewhere specify a jurisdiction? Nope. In Canada fuel tax is largely spent on infrastructure and road maintenance. I am sure it's not the only place to do so.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:51 PM
5

Aaaand since this is California and he's loaded, she got 50% for her contribution.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:49 PM
22

Stop doing what? They always charge the male in these cases. What they need to do is stop criminalizing sexting between minors since it's not worth dragging kids and teens through court and juvenile prison over.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:40 PM
2

Thank you for pointing this out. Sweden is just about as anti-male as a country can get. I would not take this as a strong indication that that's changed.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:36 PM
10

That's the Star for you. They do this constantly. Read their take on the Greg Elliot case for example.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:34 PM
0

I don't want to shit on mining because it's necessary and in the case of nickel, in anything stainless that you own, which is a lot of stuff. It's also used in armour plating and a million other things. However, you're entirely right in that we never discuss the impact of building a new car. This is especially true of electric cars. The reality is that the environmental cost of a new car is probably a lot higher than keeping an older, albeit slightly less efficient vehicle on the road.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:29 PM
0

There's no such thing as road tax. In many jurisdictions road taxes are folded into gas prices or things like registration, fines etc. It's not something you necessarily pay when you purchase the vehicle. In Canada if you buy gas, you pay quite a lot of road tax. Yet it's general tax payers and drivers that are expected to pay for entirely untaxed cyclists and their infrastructure. An infrastructure that provides very little benefit to the average tax payer. At least with vehicle infrastructure …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:26 PM
0

Road tax in various jurisdictions is folded into the cost of gas and drivers pay hefty sums each time they fill up.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:19 PM
4

If you watch any cycling headcam videos, all cyclists are subject to the odd barrage from idiots. It goes both ways. Cyclists regularly ignore road laws and do asinine things, and drivers on occasion ignore road laws effecting cyclists but regularly do asinine things to them. I would say though, that breaking the law on the road is a minority of drivers and a majority of cyclists. Ignoring cyclists altogether or crowding them is common amongst drivers. Basically we need separate infrastructure a…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:50 PM
4

This may be true, but you're talking about inheritance discrimination which is not based in the law but decisions by the person giving the wealth. The law to which you refer is just a silly law all around. It gives the parent the right to disinherit the daughter but not the son entirely. It requires active discrimination on the part of the parent however, and while it should be changed, is pretty minor considering a fair law would allow the parent to do whatever they want including disinherit th…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:34 PM
16

They should have done this the day this bullshit started. It was always unjust.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:27 PM
1

It's about covering your bases, not necessarily getting results. In fact, it's easier if HR ignores the issue.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:33 PM
3

I don't agree with the death penalty so this doesn't bring me any joy. I see the point, and good I guess? But I don't think anyone should be put to death, especially in a flawed justice system.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 02:48 AM
1

It's not really about pageantry, although that is probably an added benefit. It's just the bare minimum of appropriateness. No inappropriate phrases or slogans, hats or overly revealing clothing. The line has to be somewhere. If girls were showing up to school in underwear would that be okay? Obviously not, so the line is a few steps before that. It's certainly not about the boys though, that is just a scapegoat and it's ridiculous. School boys are not responsible for these rule or enforcing the…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 08:43 AM
2

It's not even a distraction, that's just boys being used a scapegoat. It's somewhat arbitrary, but it's the rule. The rules are really quite lax and just prevent hats, inappropriate words and phrases, and clothing that is too revealing. When they're enforced, teachers don't have a great answer and often defer to the "it's distracting" which puts boys in the crosshairs despite not being responsible for these rules or their enforcement.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 08:37 AM
2

Established Men is a sugardaddy site, not a cheating site.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 10:23 AM
1

Sort of, but there is usually a catch with the Swedes. I would not be at all surprised if they pushed ideology while providing services.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 01:13 AM
1

I hope you die in a fire.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 01:11 AM
1

I can only sacrifice so much. United easily has the smallest, least comfortable seats of the major airlines.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 01:10 AM
1

I don't even now what to say about this. You're being dishonest here and trying to stick a semantic, completely unrelated to the discussion, argument in here. Whether or not a partial birth abortion is legal has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus' medical information is separate from that of the mothers. It isn't, this is an objective fact. In almost every way possible, the fetus is the mother as far as the law is concerned. Congratulations for finding exceptions that are completely unr…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 10:24 AM
1

In some jurisdictions that's actually the case in some scenarios. Fatherhood is often conferred automatically in a marriage (which is why polygamy would be a mess if legal). But, yes, of course it doesn't mean that the husband all of a sudden has access to his wife's medical history.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 10:10 AM
1

Yes, but that doesn't have any impact on what we're talking about in practice. There is clearly a lot of inconsistency in the law, but not as it concerns patient/doctor relationships. That inconsistency could certainly lead to a court challenge though I guess.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 10:00 AM
0

haha you're a fucking ass. You're claiming that because in some jurisdictions partial birth abortions are not legal, that a fetus is not the sole property of the mother in practice until birth? That is a weak, ridiculous argument. That's quite literally the same as saying that a parent doesn't have sole legal guardianship of their child because they aren't legally allowed to murder it. You realize we're talking about whether or not a father has the legal right (under the law as it is currently w…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 09:52 AM
0

Look, you're making a lot of incorrect, unsubstantiated utterly ignorant statements about the law. Again, feel free to provide an example of a fetus with rights.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 09:43 AM
1

That's a really ignorant comment. Sweden probably has more anti-male policies than any other country on the planet.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 09:25 AM
1

are completely ignorant regarding family law. Tell me again what family law has to do with the rights of a mother before a child is born, particularly as it relates to the doctor patient relationship? This is what you're failing to understand. Yes the law is messy after the child is born, and it varies quite a lot from one jurisdiction to the next (which you seem to ignore), but doctor patient confidentiality and the rights of a mother and her unborn child is almost unchanging everywhere and the…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 09:15 AM
1

Yeah, you're still straw manning me and you're completely avoiding any responsibility for your claims. I never said that the law isn't messy after a child is born. You are just choosing to hear what you want.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 08:36 AM
2

Tell them the seats are too fucking small while you're at it.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:58 AM
9

ahahahah the female only ground crew is priceless. I fly regularly and while I'm sure there are women out there doing these jobs, it's overwhelmingly men standing out in the heat and cold. Unsurprisingly, you won't see any "we need more female ground crew" campaigns because it's a tough, often unpleasant job.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:57 AM
3

CAFE is consistently one of the most reasonable and articulate organizations out there. I am always impressed with how well they handle themselves.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:34 AM
4

Totally fine to plaster a fitness advert with shit though.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:31 AM
1

Feel free to describe how. It is the sole property of the mother and effectively no different from an organ until birth. The child IS the sole property of the mother until birth. All decisions concerning the child and thus the mother are ultimately in the hands of the mother and nobody else can interfere. So how is that an untrue statement? This is true in every jurisdiction in the developed world. Of course things change after the child has been born. They do. The child is now a separate entity…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:22 AM
1

That has nothing to do with doctor patient confidentiality. The law does not consider the unborn child separate from the mother. You're straw manning me.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:09 AM
1

Np.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 03:16 AM
1

For christ sakes, reread the thread. I acknowledged that that is lying. I am saying that deferring to confidentiality, is not lying. That is an objective truth, stop arguing.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 03:12 AM
3

In that case it's fucking bullshit and the father has every right to know. There is no obligation to the mother.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:39 AM
0

Yes but that's a different issue to be addressed differently. The law should be changed for paternity fraud, without a doubt. But that does't mean that doctor patient confidentiality goes out the window just because the woman is pregnant. This is not an issue to be addressed by doctors, or laws concerning doctors.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:36 AM
-1

Don't be hyperbolic.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:34 AM
1

Saying "I can't discuss the personal medical history of a patient" is not lying. You're not a journalist, you're a doctor. It's not your job to work out people's marital problems.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:33 AM
2

Well awareness is a good thing, but there is a pretty wide line between awareness and fear mongering. The coverage is usually the latter.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:32 AM
1

The baby until birth is considered to be the same person as the mother yes. After birth is a different story.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 04:21 PM
3

I get that, but it's not the responsibility of the doctor to lie for a patient.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:05 AM
10

Oh for sure. Celebrating my actions no less.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:55 AM
4

I agree, but protecting confidentiality is not lying. I don't think they should actually lie, that's awful, but saying "I can't discuss a patient" is not a lie.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:53 AM
4

the feminist angle is law here, the rights of the mother trump the father. But they don't, it's complicated but the rule here is technically the same for any other piece of medical information. I can see the argument for why this should be different, but the fact that it isn't doesn't mean all that much except that it's complicated to do anything but protect confidentiality. Men's Rights would obviously argue that the people involved in this chaos should all be informed. I would even argue that …
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:43 AM
3

Was the child already born? Because in most jurisdictions after birth you have all the same rights as the mother (not necessarily if challenged by the mother in practice but as far as the hospital staff are concerned).
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:25 AM
3

It's probably legal but it's totally unethical and not the responsibility of the doctor to do so. They can't tell the truth either, but they can say nothing and refuse to discuss it.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:23 AM
2

Is it not just easier to fall back on confidentiality though? Technically the mother is the patient and the father has no rights until the child is born. You can always just say you can't discuss the patient without her consent. If she consents you can explain that you won't lie and let them decide if they want to give consent, if they don't they'll have to deal with the obvious questions but you will be uninvolved. This actually seems like a rather easy issue to navigate if you just use common …
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:21 AM
3

I think the ethicist is right and wrong. You should be strongly encouraged not to disclose such information. It is not the job of a doctor to disclose confidential medical information and an unborn fetus is not the same as a birthed human and the father doesn't have the same rights. On the other hand, you also shouldn't be encouraged to lie on behalf of a patient. That's a bad situation to be in ethically, it is not your responsibility and it's certainly not the job of the doctor to make somebod…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:16 AM
3

Sure you can, you can do what you're supposed to when someone without medical power of attorney asks for confidential information. You say you can't discuss another patient without consent. If they give consent I think you have a responsibility to tell the truth or refuse to get involved. You certainly don't lie on behalf of a patient that's absurd.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:11 AM
0

We're talking about an unborn fetus. It is the sole property of the mother and effectively no different from an organ until birth. Of course things change after the child has been born.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:09 AM
7

It's not about the child until after the birth at which point it's a different issue entirely. If the woman is pregnant which is what we're talking about then the woman is the patient and has an expectation of confidentiality. The right thing to do is refuse to answer questions about the patient and that is absolutely a legal obligation. Lying however is not and it's totally unethical. If the idea is not to insert oneself into these issues and maintain confidentiality, this is not the way to go …
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:08 AM
109

This is the media's fault entirely. As child sexual abuse has decreased dramatically in the last 40 years, coverage of incidents has gone up dramatically. People, ironically, get nostalgic for the good old days when in reality child abuse was way more common in the 1950s, it just wasn't talked about. People's children have literally never been safer.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:45 AM
3

In Canada women can in fact walk around topless, and big surprise, it basically never happens.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:39 AM
27

Because of course women never cheat. The maternal line in judaism exists because of paternity fraud for christ sakes.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:37 AM
35

If my girlfriend ever cheats I'll just light her on fire, that seems appropriate and balanced. /s
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:33 AM
21

Feminists will one day be held to account for the damage they have done to society. As much as feminism has negatively impacted society over the years, this is not a new kind of behaviour that has been cause by feminism. Male rape and abuse victims have often been subject to cruel treatment and reacting this way to cheating is not specifically modern. This has been going on in one form or another for a very long time. It's certainly more common now because it's seen as a joke but it's not just p…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:32 AM
3

I think they're also weak in that he's often referring to single studies to illustrate a point when he can point to results that have been repeated or have meta-studies available and prove the same point generally. Picking controversial stats is also a bad choice if there are less controversial ways of delivering the information. This is of course just a choice in tactics but when you're always playing defence it helps.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:06 PM
1

A considerable portion of their writing staff and contributors are Canadian however. Actually that's why I forgot that they weren't out of Alberta.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:03 PM
2

But it's sort of a lie through omission in the sense that he's failing to explain why it is that women cause a a decline in performance. I am critical when others do this because it often misrepresents the problem and I don't see a good reason to defend his use of this same tactic.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:01 PM
1

It won't let up. Its pretty organized and dedicated and there is a lot of silent support. They'll eventually become vocal when it's safer.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 05:57 PM
7

My hope is that it can be turned around and returned to its original definition. I think, and this is probably one of the few things generally agreed upon within this sub, that feminism has been poisoned beyond redemption. I think the disenchantment is legitimate, but I also think it's a little naive in some respects. Dworkin, Morgan, Brownmiller et al are not recent additions to the movement, and feminism has always been quite radical at its core. I think in the past there were just bigger, mor…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 09:28 AM
5

Buchanan tends to come across as an asshole, and he may be one, I don't know. He also picks some controversial and somewhat weak stats to make his arguments when there are dozens of strong points with solid data that he could use instead to illustrate the same point. I really don't understand him fully, he seems to be working against himself a lot. Edit: They had a Skype caller on who was the most rational of them all. Really?? She rambled on and was basically regurgitating all the same bs we're…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 07:58 AM
6

Canada has disappointed me in a few ways with regards to feminism, it might be a cultural thing. Well feminism is certainly accepted as an unquestioned movement here in Canada. It's pretty engrained in the culture and feminists hold quite a lot of power within government and education. I'm actually not sure how this happened because I know a lot of older, 70's feminists that are totally disenchanted with what's happening today. They were fighting for real rights and many view what is happening n…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 05:29 AM
5

Great ideas and hard facts are often unpopular or considered unacceptable before they're accepted and there is no objective way in which to measure the difference between a great, controversial idea or opinion and a bigoted, hateful one. This is a subjective judgement generally speaking. Roosh may be saying stupid, ignorant, sexist, bigoted stuff, but if his right to speak isn't protected, then neither is anyone else's. There are way too many examples of brilliance throughout history that have b…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 05:22 AM
14

Yeah if you stick around for a bit you'll see that very little here is agreed upon by consensus in this sub. There is a fair bit of debate on the big and little points, but all are welcome. There is quite a diversity of opinion and even though I disagree with a number of things I see in threads, as do many others, it's part of the discussion. These are complicated issues and forcing a sanitized, single view of everything on everyone isn't healthy, rational or effective. Additionally, gender issu…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 05:01 AM
2

That's not even a real problem even it happened. I have a friend who's mother is a low income immigrant and her father is super wealthy and in their country of origin. She visits and lives the rich life a few weeks a year, she's not broken as a result. The idea that that's how children value their parents is nonsense.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 04:51 AM
1

Fortunately this is a bench trial. No jury to fuck it up. Also, in Canada the crown always brings charges, but generally law enforcement plays a big role in practical terms. Its unusual for the police to kind of dismiss the complaint and for charges to be brought by the crown anyway.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:50 AM
1

I really don't think there is a big crowd of firm determinists. It's very often an accusation made against anyone that acknowledges the role of biology at all.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:46 AM
2

There are however a lot of intersex babies that do just fine as far as I am aware so long as you let behaviour dictate sex assignment. It's not an inevitability for intersex children to experience great emotional trauma nor is it a certainty for children with CAH. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the medical science community is reasonably good at dealing with these issues at this point. It's my understanding that most of the great difficulties are in understanding dysphoria which is quite a lot dif…
/r/MensRights15/08/15 08:00 AM
1

Yes, there are socially constructed aspects to gendered behaviour and practice but much of it is trivial. Things like clothing choice, hair length and style, make up and other sort of costume-like details. Many other behaviours can be found consistently across cultures and some things can be shown in young children and even newborns. Of course it's a mixture of biology and socialization, as are many things, and there will always be exceptions. I don't think anyone that understands these issues r…
/r/MensRights15/08/15 07:56 AM
2

Beyond that, this is not considered best practice. Surgery is usually delayed by several years for babies with ambiguous sex or genitals. They used to decide based on which genitals were more complete and it had lots of horrible results. This kind of practice changed in the 70's and 80's. This is pretty clearly malpractice on the doctor's part.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 07:51 AM
2

I'm glad they're suing. Generally speaking, doctors stopped deciding gender in ambiguous cases a long time ago. It proved to result in a lot of trauma and often suicide. Hermaphroditic babies genitals are not the deciding factor in sex or gender and the typical practice now is to wait and see and perform surgery at some point before puberty when the child's gender identity is clear.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 07:49 AM
35

So it's an abuse of the law to sue because you're being denied entry to various events and spaces on the basis of sex? Oh I get it, because they're male. How do these people not see the hypocrisy of their position?
/r/MensRights15/08/15 07:45 AM
1

DISCLAIMER im using uk law as im unfamilar with canadian law, it isnt useable, but it makes a solid point about why it may be taken to court. Okay so, I'll give you a bit of info on this case because I know you just skimmed it. Firstly Canadian law as far as harassment goes is a little broad. If the complainant has a reasonable fear for their safety, then it can be harassment. There aren't many other qualifiers which is probably why the judge wants to rule on this case. Of course it's up to the …
/r/MensRights15/08/15 06:48 AM
1

p.s. sorry for necroing your post... No problem. As for the rest of your comment, while I didn't mention it in this particular comment and I am not a lawyer, I guessed at the same thing in a few other comments. However I was not aware that the crown would also use this reasoning. I figured it was the reason the judge had been absurdly patient with a weak case up to this point; he wants a verdict to set precedent or get to appeals in order to help define the law. Is it pretty typical for the crow…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:14 AM
4

Even if the response rate were in the double digits, voluntary participation leads to samples from rarified groups. The sample would never be representative.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 07:49 AM
22

But it doesn't exist for a reason. Even if that's true, and I'll assume it is, men are less likely than women to seek medical treatment and less likely than women to call in sick to work. I'm pretty well certain media portrayals and not reality are responsible for "manflu".
/r/MensRights12/08/15 07:47 AM
10

Man flu is the most absurd, ass backward thing I have ever heard. Men rarely seek medical treatment even when they should and men take far fewer sick days than women. How anyone could use such a disparaging and patently inaccurate term is beyond me.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 07:45 AM
1

Yes, in many states its a strict liability offence which means context and circumstance are not considered when deciding guilt. The state only has to prove sexual intercourse occured.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 06:01 AM
1

If theyre taking advantage of patients and practicing quackery, should they not be held accountable?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:57 AM
2

Its not as if rape, murder, death, cancer etc are light topics for people who havent fallen victim to them. The same logic applies regardless. Its a way to address a difficult and upsetting subject. Also, why is rape off the table but not death and murder? Both of which are common themes in comedy. Edit: Also, some victims are critical yes, but they don't speak for everyone. Just like a handful of black people don't make decisions for an entire race.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:54 AM
2

hahah, there have actually been cases where fake id's have been presented and the prosecution has still proceeded with charges.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 07:53 AM
2

The problem that feminists have with any kind of research like this is not so much the results, but the way they're interpreted. Feminists and a considerable percentage of the social science community believe that gender is entirely a social construct and that biology plays no role. So this gender difference could only be the result of treating boys and girls differently in an important way. Then they create ways to solve an unsolvable problem and those solutions are generally oppressive to boys…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:25 AM
2

Because they aren't really concerned with the problems of men. Michael Kimmel is a male apologist essentially. He thinks the problems of men are entirely the result of masculinity and that getting in touch with their emotions will solve everything. Aside from the fact that that is ineffective, it wholesale demonizes male behaviour, some of which is influenced by biology, and incredibly positive. Competitiveness, aggression, hyperactivity, these are all positive traits as often as they are negati…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:20 AM
10

It's strange to listen to Fox news talk about a story I have read from multiple other sources and think to myself "they're really not exaggerating". It's a rare opportunity.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:09 AM
2

Unless it's a really small business, leases usually allow for renovation. They also typically require the tenant to cover most if not all maintenance costs. You pretty much can do whatever you want so long as it's not prohibited in the lease.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:31 AM
3

This shit pisses me off because a lot of jokes are basically gallows humour. Like the ambulance drivers saying sick shit about patients. It's a way to break the tension and get through things. Death, murder, rape etc. There are a million ways to tell jokes about these things, they don't all "punch up", but that's often why they're funny, because they're so inappropriate, that they're funny. It doesn't mean that the people laughing think dying people are to be mocked, but the fact that we can lau…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:28 AM
3

She wasn't his girlfriend, they met online for sex and he enquired about her age more than once to be safe.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:22 AM
1

I don't think any of those generalizations are true all of the time. It's not true of rapists and I don't think it's true of false accusers. People can be terrible for a variety of reasons.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:13 AM
15

While this woman is an adult and what she has done is absolutely wrong, she saw two therapists, both of which aided and possibly partly convinced her that what occurred was rape. Surely they have some responsibility in all of this.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:10 AM
6

You don't seem all that familiar with these cases. Paternity is immaterial in many states by law if the man was acting as the parent for long enough thats good enough for the courts. Paying for the house is not uncommon either. Its of course all absurd, but its legal.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 04:29 PM
4

Has it not? I thought that was totally debunked in the 80's and 90's?
/r/MensRights10/08/15 08:04 AM
14

They're people that study social science and psychology in university and some of which pioneered the most absurd aspects of feminist theories. It shouldn't surprise you that this is possible. You should read some psychology papers on gender and see the nonsense that can be found in the methodology or just listen to some of the horror stories men have from couples counselling.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 08:04 AM
1

I'm pretty sure there is an arson charge even if it's your own property and you don't commit insurance fraud. We can't have people burning houses near other people and their property.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 04:04 AM
3

You would just have to continue paying once you were released or you be back in jail again. You can't win, you pretty much have to leave the jurisdiction of the court and cut your losses.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 04:01 AM
8

He should sell the home. If not then stop payments on the house so it forecloses. He can't do either of those things. He is compelled by the courts to continue paying for the mortgage while his ex lives there and he can only sell if she decides she wants to or she moves. Possible he can sell the 1st lean mortgage to another party and remove himself from legal responsibility of paying for the debt. This may be possible depending on his actual legal responsibilities.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 04:00 AM
41

I see no reasonable alternative, as ridiculous as that might sound. The child is not his but he is the father by virtue of being without a drug problem (that makes no sense) and he has to pay for a house he can't enter or have any legal control over (this also doesn't make sense) and on top of that the penalty for not doing these things is basically jail, and then he'll still have to do this when he gets out. It would be easier to start a new life in another country than deal with all this shit …
/r/MensRights10/08/15 03:57 AM
1

I guess if you want to look at it that way. I'd imagine that the majority of the population both then and now would prefer equality to male or female superiority. The problem is and was one of approach in that right from the start the movement pretended like the only problems that were gendered were those of women. Never considering that being responsible for supporting a family and being forced to work constantly as a result, was no less oppressive than being relegated to the home and domestic …
/r/MensRights10/08/15 03:41 AM
1

I also do not agree violence on TV has anything to do with rape or violent crimes against women, obviously. This is the weakest of all her arguments. Violence has become increasingly uncommon despite increased violence in media. Clearly the two are not related. Well, she isn't talking about date rape or not getting affirmative consent rape, but rape, as we know it. I realize, which is exactly why I am questioning the post itself. She asks a valid question and takes no firm position one way or th…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 02:28 AM
2

Nope, they of course portrayed her as reasonable and not the hate monger that she is.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 02:23 AM
6

For those who haven't seen it, it includes interviews with Robin Morgan and Susan Brownmiller, both of which make disparaging remarks about men in the interview. It's completely one sided, and none of the negative impacts of some of what happened in the 70's is discussed. There is nothing wrong with celebrating women's liberation, but it seems to me that a retrospective is typically an opportunity to discuss things that didn't work out as anticipated as well. But according to the program, femini…
/r/MensRights09/08/15 07:36 AM
2

I don't think so. As it continues to be thrown around in more and more absurd ways, it will lose all meaning and become something people ignore before it falls into disuse. I don't think that's ideal however as real cases of sexism will be taken as lightly as ridiculous cases, and that is not how things should work. Rape is quickly becoming this way as well. If you trivialize something the way activists are doing right now, you will always trivialize serious cases as well.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 07:31 AM
2

It's not that much feminist propaganda actually, it's mostly unwatchable reality shows set in Alaska, channel after channel of them.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 07:14 AM
4

Except that chances are good that this didn't happen at all, or it didn't happen like this. It's the internet and there is no shortage of people wanting to go on a self-righteous, braggy rant, especially about identity politics. If it happened and happened exactly as described, he was inappropriate, absolutely.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 06:53 AM
1

I think it's a pretty safe case of "that happened" so I don't know if there is much sense dissecting the actual interaction.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 06:51 AM
0

That wouldn't surprise me, he regularly fabricates nonsense about Canada in his rants against socialism. Then he claims he knows because he lived there for a while. He's an ignorant asshole that appeals to the far right.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 05:28 AM
2

Craft the questions you have however you'd like, but just send her an email. She'll almost certainly send you some kind of response. If it's not a form letter it may be informative. Ask about specific issues rather than mens rights. Ask her about federal issues in Canada that are related to men's and women's rights and see what you get back.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 04:19 AM
4

Steven Crowder is just as comfortable fabricating bullshit as your average feminist. I am not giving him views.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 02:55 AM
4

it would seem to me that women probab ly do get more seriously hurt in DV cases than men on average simply because of the physical advantage This may be the case, but it's very unclear. Male's that have been injured are not asked about DV when they show up to the emergency room and because of stereotypes, doctors aren't suspicious. It's almost certainly the case that male victims are going undocumented in hospitals, but to what extent is anyones guess. I don't think it's safe to assume that wome…
/r/MensRights09/08/15 02:12 AM
6

I have been slapped around by women at concerts for no reason and I know this happens with regularity. However nobody seems to give a shit and defending yourself would for sure get you kicked out or beaten.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 02:01 AM
1

Why give Broadly views? Also, very little of interest is said here. She takes no position on whether or not killing rapists is a good idea. She only says that it depends on how much importance we give the act of rape and she doesn't say that sarcastically.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 01:43 AM
4

Make a complaint with the municipality. It's the only way things change. Or contact the media and also make a complaint.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:34 AM
6

I was, after all, C.E.O of The Lichtenstein Family LLC, a rather large household consisting of a wife (me), a husband, three children, two dogs, a ginormous house, two cars and an above average sized yard. The third floor of our house was originally built for "the help," back in the day when someone living in this size house would typically have a cook, a nanny, a gardener, a couple of servants, and a driver. Sounds really tough. How does she even manage having all this wealth? Poor people have …
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:29 AM
14

I invite you to slam on both an tell me from your own experience which one is worse. I skateboarded for over a decade and concrete has absolutely no give, which asphalt and dirt do. There is an appreciable difference between concrete and most other materials. There is a study on his topic related to running on different surfaces A study which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It rated wood surfaces almost the same as concrete, which may be true for a runner, but it doesn't take a …
/r/PussyPassDenied08/08/15 06:15 AM
13

that is hard packed dirt (might as well be concrete). Spoken like someone that has never fallen on either apparently. Even asphalt is noticeably softer than concrete, hardpacked dirt even more so. She may have been knocked out, but that's a ridiculous comparison.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/08/15 05:37 AM
0

The downside is that this is money you cannot spend somewhere else. You aren't very good at basic math and logic then. If you don't pay for birth control and access becomes limited, you pay for unwanted children instead which are much more expensive. Because they REQUEST more. This is true in a universal system where men have equal access. Do we instead say that women must only make as many appointments as men? It's a matter of personal choice and I don't see the issue.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 09:41 AM
1

A teen daughter uses rape as an excuses for breaking curfew, the Dad then reports this rape to police. This was nearly half of the false accusations in the study. Much like boyfriend uncovers cheating, girlfriend says it was rape, boyfriend justifiably insists she make a report, shit ensues. I've seen that first hand, but there are a fair number of news reports of similar scenarios.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 09:37 AM
1

I think there are some unique elements to false allegations though. They are all mixed up with sex and societies views on sex to some extent. I do think that feminists have a point when they talk about false allegations being related to sex negativity. Of course they take it a step further and apply the same thinking to false allegations used to hide infidelity as if infidelity is only a problem because society tells women they need to be virginal. I think that's nonsense intended to avoid takin…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 09:35 AM
1

This is not my experience at all. Of the allegations I have heard passed around in my life time, they were all made with the knowledge that they were false. One of them was from a girl who made up an absurd, straight from a horror film accusation against another student in high school because they had a sort of falling out. She later admitted it was malicious. The other was a girl that engaged in a threesome with two men while in a serious relationship and then made up the story when it came to …
/r/MensRights07/08/15 09:33 AM
1

Access to birth control saves the state money, reduces unwanted pregnancies and reduces the number of abortions. There is no big downside. Ultimately women cost more. In places where health care is single payer this is still the case. Women's reproductive health makes up for most of that and the remainder is a result of women seeing doctors more frequently than men do. I don't think we or anyone else should be focusing on access for women specifically for health issues that are not gendered (tha…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 09:04 AM
1

I think it's misguided to call this an issue related to feminism or feminists. I've experienced some form of physical violence from most serious partners at some point or another and none of them were ardent feminists. A lot of women genuinely think that it's okay to hit or throw things at men. Aside from addressing this more broadly in society, this is one of those things where you have to draw a line in the sand the first time it happens. You have to make it clear that you will not put up with…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 08:17 AM
9

It doesn't change the point. He was decried as a "misogynist" for being a dick to Megan Kelly as if his dickishness were at all related to her gender. He's just a dick, but an equal opportunity dick and not all examples of being rude to women are examples of misogyny. It's a little scary that even the extreme right wing is employing the stupidity of the far left.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 08:10 AM
1

Identity politics in general and "progressivism" are definitely a big part of the problem, but our argument seems to ignore the breadth of feminist academia which is responsible for a lot of the absurdity found in identity politics outside gender issues. So there is merit to what you're saying, but you're understating where these ideas originate.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 08:07 AM
1

I am a far left NDP voter that until about 12 months ago considered the CBC to be one of the top media outlets in the country if not the world. I still think in some areas that's true. But the CBC is absolutely not balanced on gender and it's now bled beyond gender issue content and into nearly every other aspect of their programming, particularly online and radio content. If you pay attention you'll notice that even completely unrelated content like The Next Chapter has a tendency to feature fe…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 08:02 AM
9

I really doubt that. This is just what happens when you have a really weak case. It's not at all surprising that the crown is unsure about their reasoning when they basically had to reverse engineer justification in order to pursue charges. Edit: That is, aiming for a dismissal on a technicality because they know they won't win and don't want the court to set an adverse precedent. This assumes the crown involved has a horse in the race. I don't know if it's clear that she does. Guthrie is very w…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 07:46 AM
8

I've commented back and forth with you on this before and I feel more strongly now, after this hearing, than ever that the judge is trying to get this to a verdict in order to set a precedent. I have to imagine, given the various twists and turns in an otherwise low stakes crime trial, that he would have thrown this out if there wasn't something to be gained by making a ruling. I certainly hope this results in a verdict otherwise all the trouble Elliot has gone through will have been for not. At…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 07:43 AM
1

I think that's often true. It's true of any diverse group of people with a political movement. Ive been around for 20 ish years, believe me when i tell you the mrm is in no way immune from this. Of course not. I think though, that being relatively free and open to dissent and disagreement helps ward of dogmatism and stupidity. Feminism has cloistered itself from disagreement to such a degree that it's nearly impossible for it to self correct. I don't think the MRM has this issue in the same way.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 01:29 AM
3

It's going to be tough to do that, it's right in the sidebar.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:40 PM
2

I never pretended that there weren't studies with different results. 8% comes from a rather conservative, but thorough and large scale study. The higher results come from much smaller samples, one of which is limited to the military. The point however is that even if we accept a more conservative figure, 8% is still a considerable percentage of complaints and amounts to a huge number of people being victimized by false allegations that are taboo to even acknowledge let alone tackle.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:39 PM
8

It was always aimed at mangina's and feminists. That's not really true, it's been aimed at the young, popular "counter culture" crowd. That happens to be feminists and manginas right at the moment. Even 5 years ago it was a much different magazine.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:36 PM
21

If you pay attention to the issues in this sub, you should really check him out, he's got a lot of compelling and worthwhile things to say.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:27 PM
11

I think you're onto something. Apparently a constant stream of feminist informed male shaming and bashing doesn't actually qualify as women's interest.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:25 PM
1

This is only partly true. The reality is that social media and a fair bit of mainstream online media is completely dominated by a female readership and user base and it's not as if media companies and power structures have failed to take notice. There is a reason that there is such an over-saturation of feminist issues in media right now, and it's not because catering to young women is unprofitable. I don't know what the future is going to look like given this reality, but I have to assume that …
/r/MensRights05/08/15 12:58 PM
2

Also, it's basically a settled issue in most other developed countries. As usual though, attempts to limit abortion or access to birth control in Mississippi justify carbon copy, nonsensical feminist rhetoric in Canada and the U.K.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 12:51 PM
6

Fucking unbelievable. They care more about protecting the image of feminism than child abuse. Quite literally. If you follow that thread down, the mod goes on to say: Feminism and Men's Lib are directly aligned in goal, methods and conceptual underpinnings. This isnt a sub for hating on feminism. This is apparently a protected ideal even if it means ignoring and attempting to deny the experience of a man raised to internalize the most hateful aspects of feminism. The tone throughout that sub is …
/r/MensRights05/08/15 10:34 AM
4

Link?
/r/MensRights05/08/15 10:06 AM
1

You're intentionally misleading yourself if you think sexual discrimination and work related deaths were the prevailing issues for black men during the civil rights movement.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 09:48 AM
3

I'd be curious to see how many of the people subscribed to this sub are women also subscribed to feminist subs. I would guess that men are the minority of users.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:36 AM
0

If the standard were "the false accusation was pursued by police and the perpetrator was found guilty of filing a false report" then there would only be about 1 false report per year, per continent. That's obviously not the case and the reality is that we'll never know how many reports are false. Based on anecdotal evidence from law enforcement specializing in sex crimes and the research that's been done, I am comfortable with the assumption that it's at least 8% which isn't exceptionally high c…
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:35 AM
3

Scoff all you like, but this list reads identical to the ideology espoused, well, here, for example. As MRAs refuse to delineate between 'equality' and 'equal rights', and other such lazy thinking, this corruption will become easier and easier for them to accomplish. I am not sure what you're getting at here. Mind explaining further?
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:32 AM
12

Here's a good one. I don't think false rape accusations should be a focus of this sub. I see false accusations as being pretty far down on the list of men's issues. It's not that they're not awful; it's that they're rare. There's no evidence that false accusations make up more than 8% of all rape accusations. Oh that's cool, let's not worry about it because it's only 1 in 10 reports filed with the police. Out of 173,610 reported rapes that's only 13889 people, no big deal. /s I should mention th…
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:30 AM
18

Much like beating your boyfriend is a women's issue because they might defend themselves. This is ridiculous, but not at all surprising.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:18 AM
11

If you look at it as if you had never heard of circumcision, it's incredibly barbaric and pointless. This kind of device makes that even more obvious.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 04:05 AM
2

No matter, I wasn't suggesting you were agreeing with that claim, I was criticizing the fact that the media is making such a stupid claim at all.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 01:38 AM
2

Her first example of someone who was shamed on campus is mattress girl. Who wasn't shamed at all. She was given awards, commended for her actions by politicians and the subject of dozens of puff pieces in the national press.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 07:06 PM
1

I genuinely think most of these people not only fail to understand due process, but also the basic foundational principals of the justice system which the world has spent the last 3000 years hammering out. These philosophies are not arbitrary and they aren't just a set of rules the justice system employs in order to avoid appeals and law suits.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 07:04 PM
1

"We are not at a point to analyze 'due process,' when many survivors are publicly shamed on their campuses, when charges against assaulters can be dismissed out of hand by administrators, when an assaulter is allowed to sit across from a survivor and shout down their story," Merriman said. So when everything for crime victims is sunshine and rainbows we can institute due process and respect the rights of the accused again.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:58 PM
1

Because the situation for men, black men included is not the same or even close in 2015 to what it was when this image was taken. It comes across as exploitative and certainly seems like the intention is to draw a comparison.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 09:12 PM
0

Sure it did, as did the pistols act of 1903, but women weren't given the right to vote until 1928 in the U.K.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 08:36 PM
1

Don't bother, it will likely just anger you. It's gotten really absurd. Like Gawker level shit.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 08:04 PM
1

It's not so much on occasion they write this shit, they write a steady stream of it while making the odd decent and completely unrelated piece of video. It seems to depend on which journalist is active at certain times. No you just haven't been paying attention in the last few years then. Follow them on facebook for a week or two and you'll see what they've turned into.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 07:58 PM
0

Uhhh you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Australia gave women the vote in 1902 and didn't regulate guns in any meaningful way until about 70 years laters. The same is true in Canada, Britain and a slew of other places. The two are not related and it's absurd to say that Switzerland is an outlier for having taken so long to institute gun regulation.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 07:54 PM
1

I meant that this specific example is pretty trivial. If they only focused on trivial things I would be happier.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 07:22 AM
1

This isn't really the case. But there do seem to be different breeds specifically as it applies to sex work. I have noticed personally that feminists working closely with sex workers tend to be in favour of whatever is best for sex workers and not overly concerned with most other feminist issues. They are sex workers advocates that identify as feminists. On the other hand, feminists that do not work with sex workers and concern themselves with a broader array of issues tend to be all over the ma…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 06:11 AM
5

Don't link directly to Vice if you can help it. Use archive.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:56 AM
2

In other obvious news: If an asteroid ever hits earth, it turns out it's likely to effect men and women equally.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:02 AM
1

If only most feminists would spend the same amount of time on equally unimportant and ineffectual tasks, we wouldn't have to oppose them all the time.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:01 AM
6

I think it's justified. It's an affront to freedom in general and it's a policy to please the religious right in Australia. Those two things alone are cause for outrage. The specifics are more absurd than anything else, but fuck these god damn religious conservatives and their desire to control other's personal behaviour.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:50 AM
9

I agree completely. What I will say though, is that this story is being portrayed as a gender issue instead of a religion in politics issue. This is one of many ridiculous policies in Australia that has been lobbied for by religious regressives that want other people to follow their rules. They have lobbied against anything they view as not wholesome including video games, nude beaches and access to a variety of online content.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:49 AM
3

The issue isn't even about appearance either, it's about a false perception of what is and isn't modest. These are policies lobbied for by religious conservatives in Australia that are anti-porn. This is them getting their way a bit, but what they really want is to outlaw pornography and anything else they don't approve of. It's really an issue of religion and politics as opposed to gender.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:46 AM
5

I agree, the policy is absurd. But I think it's unfair (not unexpected) for the media to paint it as a gender issue, it's not. It's an issue of regressive, religious conservatives, both male and female lobbying for absurd laws in Australia. This has been a trend for decades. They have regulated online content, pornography, video games, violence in the media, nude beaches, and a variety of other things.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:44 AM
0

Rights come from violence. Nonsense. If that were true then a violent revolution would have happened in every country in the western world. Most rights are won through non-violent, gradual change. It happens that the U.S was borne out of revolution and that's generally why Americans feel this way, but it's not the case for most places with robust constitutions and guaranteed rights. Without violence to punish those who violate the rights of others, rights have no enforcement. How's that working …
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:37 AM
1

As a Canadian, you don't get a say, and it's kind of insulting that you think you do. Oh I can't have an opinion on the policy of other countries? I wasn't aware. I guess I better start being more insular and only care about things that happen in Canada then. /s You people still bow and scrape before the queen, FFS. She can dissolve your government with the stroke of a pen. She can refuse to seat duly elected officials. The Queen is a symbolic figure. She has not dissolved government or refused …
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:28 AM
0

That's a meaningless correlation though without other supporting evidence. One could use the same evidence to show that food adulteration regulation is also linked to women's suffrage since it generally came after women got the right to vote.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:11 AM
0

No, I think that for gun regulation to work, it must be implemented at a federal level since state borders are just a line on a map. It needs to be a national strategy, not a local one.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 04:09 AM
3

This is a ridiculous comparison to make and it doesn't help the MRM at all. It just makes us look like we're comparing men's problems in society with those of black men pre-civil rights in the U.S. This is not a reasonable comparison, even if there are parallels.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 10:24 PM
0

Listen, this is not the discussion being had in this thread. You questioned a specific sentence in my comment and I explained why I said it and why it made sense. You don't have to agree. I very much disagree with your take on things for a variety of reasons, but again, gun control itself is not the point of this post, or my comment or this thread and I am not going to get into a debate with you about it. Edit:I'm going to address your points since this discussion has gone that direction. There'…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 09:34 PM
-1

You do realize that in the US, gun regulation operates mostly at the state level, right? And for that matter, in many states, there are also city/municipality level regulations. I do, and it's precisely why I made that statement. You can't regulate guns in NY if you can just drive over to NJ and avoid said regulations easily. Chicago and NYC are good examples of this kind of regulation. It doesn't work and even if an entire state creates strict regulations, there is nothing stopping people from …
/r/MensRights02/08/15 09:25 PM
2

Because the OP isn't highlighting on the double standard, he's passing judgement and condemning the commercial the same way a feminist likely would. It's a commercial about old women still liking young, handsome men. It's really quite innocent and it should be the same for older men.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 08:32 PM
-1

I am Canadian and very much in favour of reasonable gun regulation, which I do not believe the U.S has ever attempted, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with feminism. I also don't see why a feminist couldn't be a feminist and hate the idea of gun control. They are unrelated issues.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 08:26 PM
1

I did hear the good news yes.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 08:10 PM
5

Justin Trottier has excellent media skills, is very well spoken, reasonable, and accomplishing things that are tangible. I would love to see Cafe continue to grow and maybe one day produce a conference. They already hold events somewhat regularly so it's a good first step.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:47 AM
2

Are they that mean spirited? I don't pay too close attention but usually when I think it's mean-spirited bs it turns out to be horribly written satire. Are there any off hand examples you have on the top of your head that were just plain old mean?
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:43 AM
3

He uses inflammatory rhetoric to draw attention to the MRM. He mostly writes satire so bad that people don't get any of the humour or irony and it seems to hurt more than help. He may be a great guy, I don't doubt it, but he's an awful, ham-fisted satirist and I think he would better serve the MRM by taking a more administrative role at AVFM.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:41 AM
1

The Catholic Church has hardly been the biggest opponent of evolution in recent years. Most of the nonsense on that particular issue comes from muslims and American fundamentalists.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:33 AM
3

It's just lip service they'll backslide on the second it's convenient. It's like feminist opposition to MGM. They're against it when they're listing all the things feminists care about, and then the rest of the time they're saying "stop bitching, FGM is ways worse and MGM doesn't matter".
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:32 AM
7

I agree with Amnesty international in that Lena an her cohorts can fuck off, but I don't agree with the 'if you're not a sex worker, shut your mouth' argument they're making. I'm not an expert so I'm not going to tell amnesty what they should be doing, but last time I checked, there is more than one way to learn about the realities of sex work and the needs of sex workers than to become one. This attitude in general drives me nuts and it's applied all over the place.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:20 AM
2

Thanks! an even bigger single piece of the pie would just be making sure every person has a reasonable amount of food, shelter and education level That's pretty much the heart of it. It's not that everyone needs to have all the same things. That's never going to happen. But I think the minimum needs to be better. If we could make sure kids had food, shelter and many of the little (big) things I mentioned (which don't cost anything) then economic divisions wouldn't matter quite so much long term.…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 11:09 PM
25

This may be the best thing that happened in a shitty situation though. I am not a lawyer but it may help him get an appeal. The judge openly condemns perfectly legal, common behaviour in his ruling. Hopefully this will help him in the future. It's very possible though that he's just fucked.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:58 PM
14

He's fucked. He was studying computer science as well.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:55 PM
9

He's coping. I don't think his friends are necessarily being malicious either (they may be but this video doesn't tell us that for sure) they could just be reacting the only way they know how in the moment. Clearly though, he's pretty upset about it.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:54 PM
2

Is this even legal? It seems like in most places this would be against the law.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:51 PM
-2

My sister and her friend were relaxing by the pool the whole time, sunbathing, and then it got me thinking; lucky them. It made me consider that in the future if I were to ever have children, a daughter in particular who somehow gets wrapped up in all this third wave stuff, and if she were to ever complain about wanting equal treatment and claim that the men are oppressing her and this or that - I'd tell her to go and cut the grass. See what she says. I feel like very few of these militant femin…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:22 PM
6

And isn't saying "you go eat bag of dicks" promoting "toxic masculinity" by shaming and also normalizing "rape culture"? Or the culture of cutting off dicks.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:19 PM
1

I think you've pretty much covered it.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:38 PM
1

It's still one example. My sisters had to mow our lawn until I was of lawn mowing age and I started to do it. One of them is pretty feminist (more marxist than feminist really) and she has had more shitty, real jobs than I have, and I have had my share. I think having an easy life and not being exposed to reality will certainly not be helpful and probably does contribute to skewed world views, but I don't think that the opposite is a guarantee of anything. I think skepticism provides greater pro…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:34 PM
20

Or just exposure to the bottom rungs of society. I grew up upper middle class (with few of the typical luxuries mind you) but went to school in a bad neighbourhood. This has had more of an impact on my world view than anything I've been told or read. Just seeing that not everyone has caring parents or someone to make them lunch, or is happy with little money changes ones outlook quite a bit. I think it very clearly illustrates from an early age how unimportant gender is compared to all the big a…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:30 PM
1

Or...now here's an idea. Video games are immersive, exciting, often suspenseful and highly stimulating to the human brain. Much like a variety of other activities. This is almost like saying sky diving, hiking or skateboarding are just a distraction to keep men from raping since they're exciting in a lot of the same ways.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:16 PM
12

War used to be glorified precisely because it has always been so heinous and terrible. These days the horrors of war are not so much glorified as they are understated and brushed under the rug. War is probably the worst of humanity turned into a months or years long event. To say that street harassment, even the worst kind of street harassment, even if it happened constantly, is even remotely like war or comparable in its effects on the human psyche or health of a person subject to it is so insa…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:13 PM
7

What a crazy, fascist-esque thing to say. The protection of the innocent is the basis of the criminal justice system and in many ways our whole society. To so callously dismiss the rights of the innocent is pretty astounding. Not surprising, but no less terrible than if it were.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:03 PM
2

I don't think it raises any questions at all. It's almost not worth mentioning because it has little bearing on anything. Abuse victims often stay with their spouses, as do people mutually abusing each other and people who have healthy relationships. It's immaterial. I'd like to know what evidence there was that he was being abusive. Were there witness statements to that effect? Hospital records? Police Records or other more meaningful indications that abuse was happening? The article only menti…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:56 PM
2

No, this article sucks. There is barely any information on the facts of the case other than a few tid bits from one side of it.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:52 PM
1

Yes that may be true, but I don't think we win anything by demanding equality at the detriment of reason. We would be much better off demanding reasonable equality. By that I mean: If this woman was justified and really was defending herself, we should demand not that she be jailed for the sake of equality, but that men receive the same treatment. I agree that a man probably wouldn't get the same treatment, but a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this issue is more or less a demand that women be b…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:50 PM
0

I agree and disagree, it depends on what we're talking about. If a woman needs you to hold her purse so she can go to the bathroom, change, grab something what have you, sure, I'll gladly hold it. If that's what you're talking about, I think you're being unreasonable. If on the other hand you're talking about men just carrying a purse for the afternoon because their other half would just prefer not to carry it, then I see your point. I am not a pack mule and I am not going to carry other peoples…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:46 PM
3

In my limited experience studies that uncover these things were never designed to figure it out because they didn't know that they would discover this divide in the first place. It's probably a trend they found in the data. It will take another study to find out why there is a difference in rates between black men and non-blacks. Edit: This form of cancer mostly affects men so I guess it's not considered significant This is one of the things I generally don't agree with in this sub. I agree that…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:19 PM
1

Yes but like in Canada where this is also true, it doesn't mean that access is taken advantage of at the same rate. Poor people still see the doctor less and suffer from many of the same issues found in the poor in places like the United States. The outcomes and access for the poor are vastly better than the United States, but there is still that typical divide between the middle class and the poor in terms of health, for a variety of reasons.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:15 PM
2

It's also is likely to create more racism. This kind of rhetoric only serves to divide people further unnecessarily. Beyond that, look at all the great things the United States specifically has created as a result of cultural exchange within the country. Things like Jazz wouldn't exist if people didn't borrow from other cultures. You can't have jazz without European, Gypsy and Jewish music styles, nor can you have it without African rhythm, expression, or black musicians which were instrumental …
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:05 PM
1

Yes, but let them assume that, it makes them the asshole. This is of course absurd, I agree, but it's only going to piss off sane, normal people.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:50 PM
1

I've seen it first hand in a high school brawl against a rival school. Haha I love how that's the example you had on the top of your head. "Hold this, I need to kick this guy's ass." It was not the everyday example I would have anticipated.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:21 AM
2

allow a woman's purse to be forced upon them. Do you know how dumb that sounds? You're making it sound like it's a kind of violent assault. It is a bag, generally carried by women, nothing more. It doesn't represent anything unless you measure your status as a man by the type of bag you are willing to temporarily hold on to. Which if you ask me, is a very silly way of measuring something. I can see how you might have arrived at this opinion, in that you seem to view a woman asking a man to hold …
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:16 AM
1

Wouldn't you want your wife to hold your wallet/coffee/grocery bag/hammer what have you, if it were needed or helpful to you? Why is a purse some weird exception?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:05 AM
2

Is there a better article available about this? If it truly was self defence then she doesn't deserve jail time. However only one side of the story is being told here with most of the statements coming from the defence and Castaneda herself, so it's hard to form much of an opinion.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:23 AM
2

Awesome, I hope they keep pumping this kind of bullshit out and telling women what they can and can't do. It only pisses people off, it certainly doesn't garner a lot of support. It also has the added benefit of exposing the absurdity of feminism to those who still think it's "the radical idea that women are people" and nothing more.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:15 AM
3

I live in Ontario where this happened to him and in addition to all the other nonsense he mentioned, they can also take away your drivers license punitively for non-payment. This also can have a major impact on earning potential. I'd love to say Foley's case is extreme, but really it just seems that way because he has more money so the numbers are more absurd. There are countless men in the province in this same situation and they basically just get raked across the coals for years and have even…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 04:45 AM
1

That's true, but I think the majority of people when informed find these extreme identity politics to be absurd and divisive. Unfortunately the majority of people aren't active and special interest groups are pretty well situated within power structures.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 04:21 AM
6

This happened with another program on the BBC where a female presenter delved into extremist muslim communities in the U.K and the counterpoint was extremist anti-immigration/white power groups that opposed them, as if those were really the two sides of the issue.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:53 AM
1

Is this the shortlist for an award? Because I'm honoured just to be nominated.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:50 AM
37

I don't think there is any relationship to men at all really in many of these stories. These particular women want to do what they want to do and are more than happy to use sexism as an excuse to get what they want. I think when it's younger girls in school, they legitimately believe the nonsense they read on tumblr.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:38 PM
4

Feel free to propose an alternative system or structure, I'd be interested to here your ideas on how things could be better.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/15 07:22 AM
5

Yeah but California is like a vacation destination for crazies and where marauding teens and the homeless go to retire.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/15 06:56 AM
5

Not really. Unless you're growing your own food and producing all your own clothing and necessities on your own land, you're enjoying the benefits of publicly funded infrastructure. Basically if you're not foraging and hunting for survival you're probably using the roadways directly or indirectly. Beyond that, many jurisdictions fund road building through gas taxes which directly tax users. It's kin of like someone mugs you, offers to buy you lunch with your own money but forces you to get a bur…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/15 06:52 AM
7

You read it right. It's right in the title. Both are wrong. You don't right a wrong with another wrong, that's kindergarten level stuff.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:05 PM
2

Yeah I drove past that the other day and was like "that's fucking absurd, I wish I had my camera out in time". I live nowhere near it so I wasn't able to go back to take a picture.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 01:36 AM
1

Depending on where you live there may be a tenant assistance organization in the area that can point you in the right direction.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 10:23 PM
2

She's an active commenter in r/mensrights and comments almost daily.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 10:21 PM
2

Was this outside of NYC?
/r/MensRights25/07/15 10:14 PM
4

because men treat women like property and the hopelessly in love man should have realized that. And women never chase after men who aren't interested, she implies. Says a person that has never been a man. I have had women pursue me in ways that would be considered criminal for a man. This is hardly all women, but the idea that only men do this is stupid.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:58 AM
1

Yes I understand, I was referring to the contents of the letter. Clearly it didn't uncover anything compelling or lead to a witness for the defense or the case wouldn't have continued. Of course an anonymous letter has no value in and of itself.
/r/MensRights23/07/15 07:28 PM
1

Anyone with common sense would have thrown this case out a long time ago. Unless they were planning on setting a precedent that would prevent future abuse by prosecutors. I don't pretend to know that for certain, but if that's the case it's not the worst idea.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:50 AM
2

There is. I agree, but evidently the court disagrees or they would have thrown out the case already. The only thing standing, is that she FEELS harassed and threatened, and since none of us are her, we can't deny that is not how she feel That's not entirely true. The law requires a "reasonable" fear in order to protect against abuses like this one. The person who decides what is "reasonable" is law enforcement first, the crown second and ultimately the judge. I find it very surprising that it's …
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:37 AM
2

I think that's almost a certainty. I absolutely believe that Guthrie doesn't see it quite that way, but I don't for a second believe that she felt any genuine fear or felt anything but entitlement to not be annoyed or disagreed with. I think Mr. Murphy has thus far done a pretty good job of making that clear to the court. As an aside, I am curious about what Ms Guthrie's relationship to the crown was or is. She's pretty involved in Toronto politics and media and I have a hard time believing a pr…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:54 AM
2

That's basically what the author is saying and it's youtube comment level stupid. But if you're condemning a man and defending a woman, it's apparently fine to include such stupidity in an article in a national newspaper.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:50 AM
1

I don't know if there is in fact good evidence that it was a premeditated campaign to harass Elliot. I agree that this prosecution is a form of harassment and I believe that was very much the intention of Guthrie (although she probably thinks she's justified), but the letter that was forwarded to the judge didn't alter the proceedings in any meaningful way. I have to assume that it wasn't very compelling evidence or that there was some procedural issue with throwing out the case based on the let…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:43 AM
2

They were made toward teammates though and that was my point. Talking shit isn't only something people do to enemies, it's also something done amongst friends, or in this case, teammates.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:20 PM
4

And that isn’t so. If nothing else, the fact that the police and Crown pursued charges in the first place suggest the behaviour was beyond simple, even rude, disagreement, doesn’t it? Last time I checked, proceeding with charges was not evidence of guilt. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a trial at all. Beyond that, the police have admitted under oath that no threats or intimidation were present in any of the back and forth. How such an opinion can even be published in a national paper is…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:18 PM
3

The doxxing campaign was against the creator of the game, not Elliot, but it was hardly a defensive action, it was pre-emptive.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:16 PM
3

It's commonly observed that a statement applied to a male can be perceived as an insult when applied to a female. Or just when taken without context or intent. If I give my friend a hard time it's because we're friends and it's a common way to communicate and show acceptance. It's the male version of a compliment in many cases. If you were to just look at the words used and ignore everything else, most men are constantly horrible to each other by that metric.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:09 PM
3

The study only evaluated comments made toward teammates. It has been my experience that humorously being a dick to each other amongst men, is something that only happens when there is a certain level of comfort and trust. In other words, being an asshole (in a harmless way at least) to your friend is more an indication of like than dislike. This seems to be very much a part of male bonding. To interpret it subjectively and in the worst way possible completely misses what's actually happening and…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:06 PM
10

Early women and men were equal In terms of status and power within a group, this seems to be true. There is quite a lot of research that indicates early tribes were generally egalitarian and not hierarchical. However, and this is important, as societies became more complex, they became hierarchical almost as a rule. In complex hunter gatherer societies, there were almost always hierarchies. One could argue that complex society requires hierarchy to functions since there really aren't any truly e…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:00 PM
6

I see what you're describing a lot in social science and psychology papers where unproven assumptions are used as the basis for all sorts of other conclusions. Even when the research is otherwise decent, if the conclusion requires a false assumption to make sense, the conclusion is probably wrong, or at least very possibly wrong. There's a lot of "we observed _______ and since we know #insert unproven assumption from previous bad research# we've concluded our observations necessarily must mean #…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 08:56 PM
1

It also serves to define law. In this case it would more narrowly define the law while allowing it to be interpreted broadly enough to be useful, assuming the defendant is found not guilty. In the case that he is found guilty, its likely to be appealed and since appeals courts in Canada generally rule in favour of free speech, they would also likely define the law more narrowly. I think the law itself is reasonable, it's the interpretation in this case thats not. If criminal harassment required …
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:28 PM
3

It's a humble-brag. It's a much less clunky, already coined term.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:50 AM
1

You're stripping away all context and just saying white people saying nigga is always racist. Nope, that's not at all what I am saying. I am saying that context is irrelevant to society in general. I personally think that's stupid, but it's reality. It doesn't matter what the context, criticism and accusations of racism will result. There have been cases of professors using the word in order to discuss the word itself that have been accused of racism. And what I meant by 'let my' is I won't lose…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:35 AM
0

In western society, using the word "nigger" is off the table for white people. Regardless of context, you will immediately be branded a racist for using it. Do you really think that's not true? I am not saying I am the arbiter, I am stating a fact. Uh no and never claimed to be let my friends use it
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:39 AM
-1

I never claimed to speak for all black people. I am saying that the word "nigger" is so controversial, it immediately degrades this guy's position for having used it in any context. I'm not even sure how you could conclude I am speaking for any black people let alone all of them. And are black people the gate keepers of the word "nigger"? You're black so now you're the arbiter of when it's acceptable to use the word "nigger"?
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:58 AM
-3

Hilarious. I think his casual use of the term "nigger" hurt the video and his credibility though. He made a bunch of good points and was very funny and then tried to use "nigger" in a pretty cliche hip hop kind of way, which is probably the least horrible way to use that term, but it's pretty much off the table altogether for non-black people so it was not worth the trouble for the sake of a so-so joke.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 07:36 AM
1

Me too, 3 hours after you.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 03:58 AM
3

Why would they do that? She's following the script and pumping out outrage inducing clickbait wonderfully. She's nailing it by current media standards.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 03:56 AM
1

That's part of the function of the courts. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And you're creating a straw man. I don't like this either, and I don't think it's ideal. I think it's unfortunate that this is happening to him, but if he's found not guilty it will be almost impossible for any prosecutor to do it again.
/r/MensRights19/07/15 03:32 AM
1

Yes, but bear attacks in general are pretty rare. There are about 5 per year across the continent from Black bears and most victims are small children that are unaccompanied. It makes sense that black bears would have the most recorded attacks as well since they can be found almost anywhere in North America and they have a large population. Its true that they are highly unlikely to attack and rarely aggressive, it's also true that they account for most of the attacks, its just the basic math of …
/r/MensRights18/07/15 05:00 PM
4

That's what it sounds like. She's the worst version of a 50's husband.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:48 PM
1

No, I grew up not far from where this all happened and I know how things are. If you know the area you probably aren't carrying a map, especially if you're on a specific lake that you're familiar with or that isn't very large with lots of offshoots which was the case here. If you're going down river you'll always have a water map, but not necessarily if you're going to be on a single lake the entire time. The husband paddled to a campsite 1 km away, that's not "deep into the woods" by Canadian s…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:35 AM
1

but also... feeding them just makes them more likely to come back looking for food "You shouldn't feed wildlife" Also, males are aggressive and will attack during mating season, you might not have heard of it, but it happens. Females will attack when they have young with them of course, like most animals, but they are not particularly aggressive otherwise.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:03 AM
0

we do however take guns... I pack a 45 cal hand gun with appropriate ammo. Yeah you can't do that in Canada though. Guns are for hunting, which means no handguns off the range and no rifles out of season or without deer/moose/bear tags. Tens of thousands of people hike in Ontario without incident. This is probably one of a handful of of bear attacks in the last 50 years in Ontario and even most of those aren't fatal, or even all that serious.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:25 AM
1

You shouldn't feed wildlife, but other than that they didn't do anything stupid. Moose rarely attack humans, and when they do it's usually mating season, a male moose and only when it feels cornered or harassed. You can get pretty close to a female though and they're pretty chill. The reason they're more dangerous than bears is because despite almost never attacking humans, they still do it more often than bears. Black bears are timid and not aggressive almost all of the time. Even the trope of …
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:22 AM
1

You can't bring your rifle like that. If it's not hunting season and you don't have a tag, there is a good chance you're committing a crime. It's not a gun issue but a poaching issue. Also, nobody carries a gun for protection from animals in northern Ontario, it's not necessary. It's like going for a hike in New York state and carrying a gun, it's pointless. It was hardly an act of arrogance. The only places in Canada where you'll see gun carrying for protection is in the far north (which this w…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:16 AM
2

If it's black bears you don't even need bear spray. This was an incredibly rare attack and there are thousands of black bear/human interactions in Ontario each year. They're timid and non-confrontational. Bear spray isn't a terrible idea, but bears are everywhere in the Boreal forest and almost nobody carries bear spray.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:11 AM
0

Yes fair enough. But the scenario in the film is that the couple are going "deep woods," he doesn't bring a compass or map and intentionally prevents his partner from bringing her cell, and he does not own a gun. Lets get some things straightened out. They were in northern Ontario near Chapleau. There is no service in the woods, that's satellite phone country. The cell phone would have been almost entirely useless. Beyond that, it's typical within the culture, at least in northern Ontario, to di…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:08 AM
1

A 8-12 oz can of bear spray that you don't expect to need I can see leaving behind, but not a .5 oz map! Black bears almost never attack. I have had dozens of encounters and in Ontario there are probably a few thousand encounters per year. The chances that bear spray would ever be needed for a black bear are near 0% and typically, the most aggressive bears are those living near urban areas. According to the Star article, this was a predatory bear looking for food. I am not an expert so I'll assu…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 02:59 AM
2

Im sure if his wife asked nicely he'd happily do so.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 01:18 AM
8

She's the breadwinner and he cares for the kids full time. I doubt either realized it, but shes in a more vulnerable position.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 01:00 AM
4

No, they do often enough end up with rather sad, low status males with worthless degrees.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:59 AM
11

Hilariously, in this case, she would also be paying for it.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:51 AM
13

They've also lobbied against paternity testing and any response to paternity fraud. They dont see any injustice in it at all because there is only concern for women.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:46 AM
3

Definitely. The whole thing kicked off with a breach of trust in fact. He either agreed or got a divorce.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:37 AM
3

This is based on what exactly?
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:32 AM
3

In your opinion, based on personal feelings and anecdote.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 12:32 AM
5

He's allowed to have partners.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:24 PM
8

I agree, but I also didn't get the impression that he was happy with the arrangment. It was more or less him rationalizing it to himself and the world in 1500 words.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:24 PM
6

You're treating human society as something entirely separate from human biology, its not, it may be more flexible and have more variation, but social organization is absolutely crucial to human biology and not an entirely separate creation.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:20 PM
8

That's hardly an objective truth. You're entitled to your opinion but monogamy obviously has advantages or we wouldn't see it popping up across many cultures independently. I think different people want different things and different people are equipped for different things. Non-monogamy works for some, and for others its disastrous.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:18 PM
2

Well it seems to me like he's trying to justify it to himself which is not the way these kinds of things are supposed to work. He's a hostage in some respects and he's rationalizing what's happening by calling it an act of feminism.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:14 PM
24

Its worse than that, he takes care of the kids all day at home, and while shes out fucking, and he's entirely dependant on her income.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:10 PM
1

Where would he meet women when hes at home taking care of the kids all day and night. This is a gender flipped version of the worst kind of 1950s marriage.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 07:01 PM
1

Thats both true and not true. Traditional feminists not involved with sex work created the Swedish model, and it has support amongst western feminists. However, people who specialize in sex work are very much opposed to that approach for all the right reasons and they generally also consider themselves feminists. Its one of the rare examples of moderate, active feminists.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 06:59 PM
1

I have to agree although I would say its a separate offshoot under the umbrella as most feminists focusing on sex work are not in favour of criminalizing johns which is what the Swedish model does and it was created by feminists.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 06:56 PM
1

I am absolutely certain that a feminist would blame patriarchy for women's desire for monogamy as well.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 06:52 PM
1

Me too, if its not communal I ignore the sign.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 06:48 PM
6

This is true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of gender. To state what this video does concisely, there is no benefit, innocent or guilty, to talking to the police without the advice of a lawyer.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 12:54 PM
39

Im glad they are charging her with extortion. Its the appropriate charge, which is unusual for such a loaded, gendered issue.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 12:51 PM
2

Nobody requires a urinal. Do you have a urinal at home? Or do you manage just fine with a toilet?
/r/MensRights17/07/15 12:47 PM
3

Just use the womens bathroom, there's no law against that. Just like a silent protest.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 12:45 PM
0

The whole thing seems more violent because the playback speed is faster than real life.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/07/15 03:57 AM
8

Not really. The footage is sped up because it records fewer fps to save space. As a result, when the footage is played, it appears to be almost twice the actual speed making his actions looks much more brutal then they are. Watch the footage again and imagine what's happening is happening at half the speed, it's a typical response for assaulting a police officer.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/07/15 03:55 AM
2

If he seemed into it it would be totally fine. There are men out there that get off on it, who am I to judge? But he does not come across that way at all. It was multiple paragraphs of him trying to convince even himself that this is what he wants.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 02:29 AM
2

There is nothing wrong with sexual fetish, but I don't think the interest is mutual. I think this guy is convincing himself he's into it. I have read lots of stories from people in open relationships and they never come across as trying to convince themselves. This guy very much sounds like he is trying to convince himself that he's doing what he wants to be doing.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 02:26 AM
3

Things I tell myself so I can sleep at night by Michael Sonmore I have no prejudicial feelings or opinions about open relationships, but this doesn't sound like a happy or healthy relationship at all. Firstly, it began with a rather shameless betrayal, and it's been made okay not out of mutual interest, but a cultish belief in ideology and from the sounds of it, a serious fear of losing a partner. This relationship sounds a lot more like a gender flipped version of the worst kind of 1950's marri…
/r/MensRights17/07/15 02:24 AM
2

Thats never going to happen. This is one guy and people in general are very attached to monogamy.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 01:55 AM
1

still trusting your justice system so fervently after the zachary bagby case? That was more a failure of bureaucracy and diplomacy than it was the justice system.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:24 AM
1

It may be the case that the judge is allowing the case to go forward specifically so that he can limit it's use by creating precedent.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:23 AM
1

Because the alternative is to do nothing and only step in once they've abused a child. Pretty much any proactive approach that isn't extreme would be better than that. In this case the worst possibility is that they offend at exactly the same rate they are currently. It's highly unlikely that offering therapy would in any way increase the incidence of abuse.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 11:00 PM
3

porn and art are not mutually exclusive. Art can be pornographic and pornography can be art.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 10:57 PM
2

but the title is deliberately phrased to connote "a box a playboy magazines in a garage". They aren't going to put her porn collection into evidence, they are going to argue that the public display of pornographic "art" was damaging to Nungesser's reputation. I conceded that right from the start.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 06:37 PM
8

While you're right in that the title implies the wrong thing, porn and art are not mutually exclusive. Art can be pornographic and pornography can be art.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 05:46 PM
3

One-Party Consent Statutes Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.) - See more at: http://www.detecti…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 05:42 PM
2

Yeah that was pretty fucked up.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 05:20 PM
6

but I am pretty sure that filming and recording falls foul of wire tapping laws in the USA. There legal system is very different to the UK. In some cases there are states that require the person being recorded to be aware of that, but that's a minority of states and those laws are being challenged regularly and becoming even more rare. So in theory you could get in trouble for having made the recording in the first place but if you were being prosecuted it's unlikely that it would be excluded as…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:40 PM
12

This, as far as I know, is generally the case anywhere. Issues only arise when the content is used or published, but not produced (except in the case of child porn). Unless there were laws in the U.S barring a defendant from using footage obtained without the knowledge of those depicted, which I don't believe there is, there is no reason why the footage couldn't be presented in court. Certainly privacy concerns are greatly outweighed when the content is exculpatory.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:14 PM
9

It's a privacy right, and it only matters once the content has been used and certainly privacy rights are outweighed when the content becomes exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial. It's a weak argument.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:10 PM
0

To what? In one sentence define what (in that case) harassment will be "under the law". If the crown is unsuccessful it will this kind of case has a near 0% chance of making it to trial. Absurd interpretations like this will be quite clearly not criminal harassment. You can't be serious. The system created a law that is completely SUBJECTIVE which is inherently unjust. And now one man's subjective opinion will AS YOU SAY redefine the very meaning of allowed speech in Canada. Most laws are pretty…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 01:49 PM
3

That the case even exists at all is a travesty. One of the few things the US still does right (for the moment) is protecting speech. I agree on all points. The U.S has thus far erred on the side of free speech pretty consistently. The U.S inarguably has the freest speech in the world. However, Canada is not really very far behind. There are laws on the books that criminalize hate speech but they've been severely limited by supreme court rulings each time they've been used and while they still ex…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 01:33 PM
2

Therein lies the problem with a society that seeks to empower the government to limit "offensive" material/speech, or protect people from "feeling" a certain way. Well no, not that society could anyway, that's not how it works. In this case we have a prosecutor interpreting the law as loosely as possible. I don't know why they're doing this, but it's happening. What will happen now is a judge will effectively decide whether or not the crown's interpretation of the law is accurate. If they agree …
/r/MensRights15/07/15 01:15 PM
1

It was a joke about burkas I believe.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 09:17 AM
3

There is no such thing as a private criminal prosecution in Canada. Even when publication bans are in place to protect minors or victims the proceedings can be attended by the public and reported on by media. This case has been reported on many times, it's just not the most exciting case in the country and has received only limited coverage. I didn't really know of the case before today but unless Ontario is different a prosecutor has to allow the charges to proceed I thought. I'm not certain wh…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 09:00 AM
1

You don't understand. "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position." In the case of a criminal prosecution, the default position is innocence. If it is incumbent on the accused to prove his or her innocence rather than for the state to prove guilt, the burden of proof has been reversed. This is the case with affirmative consent wh…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 08:52 AM
3

Neither can I, but so far it seems like the crown is doing poorly.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 08:34 AM
2

Aside from the sexism of this, this is extremely progressive. Paedophiles do exist, and they're much better off receiving treatment than they are being isolated.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 07:57 AM
15

Our appeals courts have a tendency to be very reasonable. If he loses this case, presumably there is a chance of appeal which could undo the precedent set in this case (if the prosecution is successful). Nearly every time I've totally lost faith in Canadian courts, a supreme court or appeals court decision gives me hope. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. Murphy has done a great job so far and the crown has not presented a very compelling case as far as I can see, and I've read e…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 07:21 AM
7

But the scary thing is that the wording of the law in Ontario allows for feelings to dictate. That is what this case is all about and why it's so important. It will either set the precedent that ones feelings are more important than the nature of the actions that caused them, or it will set a reasonable standard for what constitutes harassment.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 07:15 AM
1

it merely means an actual rapist has to describe why the victim was consenting rather than why the victim wasn't objecting. It's not a significant difference. That is a very good example of reversed burden of proof. If applied to a prosecution the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove they received consent and not on the state to prove they didn't. In this same way it assumes guilt if no evidence to the contrary is presented. This is definitely a due process concern in that sense. The bur…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 09:58 AM
2

Ahh it must be my perception then. I was born in the 80's so it's probable that there were far more circumcisions in my generation as well as previous generations than now. It's entirely possible that it is still higher among Canadian Catholics for cultural reasons but it absolutely isn't part of the actual religion. That's why I specified "at least in Canada". I am aware it's not a religious practice. Edit: It seems to have dropped off dramatically since I was a child. http://www.cirp.org/libra…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 05:42 AM
1

Why are so many in this thread discussing the finer points of affirmative consent? The idea is nonsense entirely. It's not an issue of "how will they define ______". It reverses the burden of proof, and does away with some aspects of due process as a rule. It also criminalizes most sexual encounters. It's a terrible standard. Beyond all that, affirmative consent is no more robust than the current standard. The current standard already doesn't allow for "silence is consent". It already voids cons…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 04:03 AM
1

"coercion" Coercion is defined as violence or threats under the law. It's quite clearly defined currently. At least in the penal code in most places, but this is a "no means no" standard. I have to assume the definition is the same with affirmative consent. "impairment" No, it doesn't need to be clearly defined. It would be impossible to do so anyway. As it stands, this is defined by the judge which have thus far been quite reasonable. Impairment, at least based on past cases, refers to severe i…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:57 AM
1

It's a fairly large percentage in Canada as well. It's in large part because of Catholicism which, at least in Canada, has had a tendency to be pro circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:50 AM
2

Presumably she's going to have a tough time finding a doctor willing to circumcise a 14 year old against his will.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:49 AM
1

I agree with you. I was really just addressing the issue of the extreme "sex positive"* message that has become popular. *I put that in quotes because I think the sex positive message has been highjacked to some extent. I don't think many of the people who promote sex positivity, particularly early on, were encouraging hook up culture for everyone or a one size fits all approach to sex and relationships.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:25 PM
7

Absolutely, and that is the primary issue. But women's groups have also fought to reenforce this view as well as lobby for leniency for women only and special treatment for female inmates. I won't pretend that feminists and women's groups are primarily responsible for this issue, but they haven't been completely ineffectual either.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:23 PM
6

Not sure why you're being downvoted, except for language. It is their fault. They lobbied for these standards and they were the ones that wanted to define and treat rape as an accidental crime that occurred as a result of not understanding consent. Now in many places that's how it's viewed and treated and they're trying to argue, even under the standard, that rape is not a crime of misunderstanding but a form of intentional violence. I happen to agree with the latter and would assume the MRM doe…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:19 PM
9

One of the things that is rarely discussed in all of this hysteria, is that consensual sex has inherent risks, considerable ones. It can cause emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancy, disease, depression, anxiety, conflict etc. It can also be none of those things and be a wonderful experience. Which one of those experiences it will be is largely dependent on the individual, and this is often lost in the sex positivity message, which seems to have morphed into "you should be fucking different people…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:14 PM
10

A law that criminalizes the normal behaviour of the majority of the population is not a good law. This is true of affirmative consent. Affirmative consent is a good suggestion for people with new partners who want to be cautious and courteous, but as a law, it makes what most married people and people in relationships do a crime. If the bar is that low, it's clearly a bad law that can be easily abused. Various legal associations have said exactly that and warned of the potential abuses. It's als…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 07:59 PM
2

There are absolutely rapists waiting in parking lots for women, but there's also rapes that happen because both parties were too drunk or high. But there aren't rapes like this. This is a bad sexual experience, probably for both parties. There is certainly nonconsensual sex I.e rape that results from one party being incapacitated or nearly so and the other party taking advantage, but the situation you describe would require that both parties raped each other which is absurd. but are outraged at …
/r/MensRights13/07/15 07:54 PM
12

I think I agree with feminists here, but for wildly different reasons and on wildly different terms. Rapists do make a decision to rape. They do what they do knowing that it's wrong and do it anyway. They don't fail to understand when they've received consent or not, they don't care. I don't think all rapists necessarily see it that way, but I doubt all criminals view their acts as criminal either. However, this in my opinion is a very strong argument against affirmative consent which is really …
/r/MensRights13/07/15 07:44 PM
8

It's not been entirely unsuccessful over the years. Just look at the difference in male and female prison populations as well as prison conditions for men vs women.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 07:27 PM
0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN5OjzEfQmI
/r/MensRights13/07/15 05:02 AM
3

I think chances are pretty good that he has committed rape. I do think the chances that all of these women are telling the truth is pretty low however. There are always kooks coming out of the woodwork, and this is surely no different. One of those kooks IMO is Janice Dickenson who has history of being a lying psychopath junkie and who's story is completely incredible.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 07:58 AM
0

I'm calling BS on that afro.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 07:53 AM
2

I agree but for different reasons (yours make sense as well). I like it for it's honesty to, but only because at least the people who made it have said how they really feel. They haven't just implied that men are perpetrators and women are victims even when all other things are equal, they've come right out and said it. Very often we see these exact messages but with plausible deniability because they only strongly imply that men are more responsible for their actions than women. The proponents …
/r/MensRights12/07/15 07:46 AM
0

You're consistently the biggest asshole on mensrights.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 07:40 AM
0

Between a third and a half of serial killers had abusive childhoods Thank you for proving my point. It's a weak correlation considering a fairly large percentage of children experience abuse and a trivial minority become serial killers. Ignore stupidopinions, his opinions are stupid. What a thorough refutation of my statement.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 07:26 AM
2

Precisely. I'll be very surprised if the crown pursues this as it would infringe on basic constitutional rights, namely freedom of the press in order to protect non-existent privacy rights. Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, the law is pretty clear on that. The police are speculating based on a misguided understanding of the law, I don't think the crown will be as confused .
/r/MensRights11/07/15 06:57 AM
3

This is always tricky because there isn't really anything wrong with objectification in the first place, and it's entirely unavoidable. But there is a crazy double standard and even when it only concerns women, feminists are schizophrenic about he issue.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:09 AM
-1

This is a pretty meaningless correlation though since childhood abuse and neglect is very common and serial murder is not. It has no predictive value at all really. Its like saying most serial killers had cheese the day before they killed someone.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:03 AM
7

Paternity fraud isn't exceedingly rare either. It's common enough for this to be a reasonavle concern. The comments also refer to anecdotes where the paternity was not certain as if they're proof that genes work in mysterious ways and not possibly just examples of questionable paternity. Things like "Its normal to have a baby thats black when both parents are white, it happened to my friend, genes are weird".
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:57 PM
2

This will be a very interesting test of the new law that prohibits posting intimate images without consent. This happened in public space where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and publishing events that happened in public is protected by the Constitution. If the crown gets a conviction, it will hopefully result in an appeal which will help define the law more clearly. Its absurd that anyone would need someones consent to publish images of things happening in public. It seems to con…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:50 PM
1

Speak to a divorce lawyer if you can. Try and get a free consultation. They may understand the ins and outs of divorce as it relates to bail conditions than a criminal attorney and may be able to guide you through the situation a bit. It's worth a shot. As it stands now, you've been charged with a heinous crime as a result of bogus allegations made by the wife you live with and for whatever reason seem to think things will improve with. It's not going to get better. What does she have to do befo…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:10 AM
1

Surely if you present this behavior to a judge or initiate a divorce bail conditions will have to be reconsidered.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 09:22 PM
1

Clearly it has had little impact as she went on a long, punctuation free tirade in response to your video threatening legal action. She nuts, she's already proven that the law and basic common decency and honesty are meaningless to her, get rid of her. Keep recording this shit, call a lawyer, and get the fuck out of there.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 08:37 AM
10

I think often times when someone hits you in the face your reaction gets out of hand. I don't think it's fair to expect people who are forced into a violent situation to react exactly the way we think they should as observers. It's not as if he beat her to death or even spent a great deal of time considering his actions, he reacted to violence the way many of us would.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 08:23 AM
0

I'm referring to Stefan Molyneux
/r/MensRights08/07/15 07:28 PM
1

But if he had sex with her it would be a terrible crime.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/15 08:34 AM
5

He's got a drug charge. Not that drug crimes aren't enforced in racist and sexist ways, but if the woman had the same charge on her record she would get at least as long. This guy was facing a 25 year maximum sentence, he was lucky the judge wasn't trying to make a point. There is no evidence at all that this woman has committed similar crimes, been charged, let off, convicted or otherwise. Yes laws are enforced in a sexist and often racist manner, but that doesn't mean this woman is equally gui…
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:32 AM
1

That's why the rest of the train let it happen. Canadians rarely say anything about anything on public transit.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/15 08:24 AM
-2

He's pretty absurdly conservative so I'm not sure what you mean by "shaken off socialist propaganda". In any case, his politics are the least of his problems. His outstanding arrogance and misguided beliefs about human psychology and therapy techniques are a much bigger issue in my opinion. I think he genuinely believes he knows everything, which is a dangerous way to think.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:19 AM
3

I think more harm than good comes from minimum sentencing. There is a reason most of the world is uninterested in adopting the American model. Beyond that, the way in which judges and prosecutors get into office contributes greatly to this problem. Electing these officials results in "tough on crime" initiatives that don't actually have any benefit. There are a great number of political prosecutions and sentences in the U.S as a result of judges and prosecutors having to appeal to voters rather …
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:15 AM
1

Are you for real? Do you think that if a guy got on the skytrain with his cock and balls hanging out shooting an adult video that the police wouldn't have been involved? This guy was the only one who said anything and even then the train was completely silent. If he didn't do it, nobody was going to say anything let alone stop her or call the police.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/15 04:10 AM
-1

This guy is a nutcase with some very misguided ideas about nearly everything.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 03:42 AM
7

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The point I was making was that if he is being charged, she absolutely should also be charged. I'm not saying violence is okay.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 01:04 AM
1

This is the only actual difference between the existing law and the universities new definition of consent. Under the law the parameters are clearer and a judge is deciding what is a reasonable withdrawal or lack of consent. At the university, despite using the same definition the law does, none of the typical standards will be in place and the rules can be defined loosely when convenient or opportune.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 12:01 AM
1

Quite literally, this is already the law in Minnesota. It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent. A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent. The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship does not imply consent to future sexual activity. Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity and may be initially given, but withdrawn at any time. When consent is withdrawn all sex…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:59 PM
1

Excuse me? This longwinded article that effectively suggests men should make a habit of shutting up, not have opinions, sit a particular way and be forever in shame for being male and apologizing to women has nothing to do with men's rights? I don't see how it could have more to do with men's rights. If the genders were reversed this would definitely be a concerning set of ideas for women.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:52 PM
1

Store a sample and don't worry about it. The procedure is generally reversible as well. This isn't that big a decision to make so I wouldn't stress too much about the reasoning if in fact you do want a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:42 PM
6

Whether or not she had a good reason to be angry misses the point entirely. I have lots of good reasons to be angry, I don't go around kneeing and punching people because of it. She was the aggressor, she threatened him with her raised fist, he put her arms down so she couldn't punch him and she punched him anyway. I don't necessarily think that punching her in the face was the right call, but certainly he is no more guilty than she is, and yet the D.A is prosecuting only him.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:39 PM
3

First, the contract doesn't state that consent is irrevocable. This isn't even possible under the law. The contract would be null and void in the event that anyone claimed rape occurred. There have been cases of consensual sex where one participant was unconscious, which was intentional and part of the sex act. As wierd as that is, why is the law stepping in and saying what a person can and cannot consent to so long as the act itself is not inherently illegal?
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:32 PM
3

It can be. These contracts are useless.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:30 PM
50

It's required under the law because he had previous felonies. It's not sexist, just stupid. This is what happens when you remove a judge's ability to judge and apply minimum sentencing and minimum standards to all convictions regardless of circumstance.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:27 PM
1

The complaint that too few sports teams bothered mentioning a supreme court decision entirely unrelated to their sport is stupid. The Slate writer seems to be upset that sports teams specifically didn't bother to pander. Why not require the same of all other businesses then? Why single out sports? Because it's dumb and it's not necessary for everyone to publicly acknowledge a decision on gay marriage. That said, this article was not great.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 06:01 AM
1

Lots of comedians are terrible when trying out new material. Typically though, you just let them bomb for the time they've been given, you don't kick them off the stage. Far worse has been done to audiences without managers kicking them out.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:57 AM
3

This is stupid. Pretty much all religion promotes this kind of intolerance, I don't know why it's a faux pas to say so when it concerns Islam.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:46 AM
5

All of them it seems.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 01:57 AM
2

Then your previous comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense in response to my original remark. My criticism was that this commercial represents exactly the kind of view feminism holds of men. In that they should be more sensitive in the service of women's emotions. Feminism generally holds the opinion that typical masculinity is negative. That rambunctiousness or hyperactivity is destructive. The ideal boy is this boy, one that is in touch with women's feelings and in their service. As far as f…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 10:33 PM
2

...all of which seem to be rather traditionalist views rather than "Feminist" views. Oh what a bunch of crap that is. Traditional views of masculinity are not generally negative. Traditionalism certainly implies men should be in service to women and cater to their needs but that is also a feminist view. Traditionalism and feminism are not that far apart on some points, this is one of them. Are you suggesting that feminism doesn't view masculinity as negative or boys behaviour as deviant?
/r/MensRights02/07/15 09:55 PM
1

Just wondering.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 09:29 PM
1

"7 things that all have different standards of consent, applied willy nilly to rape" Consent is not all equal. One consents to being photographed or filmed by leaving their own property. We don't apply the same standard to rape, or nearly anything else. We have all sorts of different standards for all sorts of different things.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:42 PM
1

In future, would you like to be contacted when brigading is going on?
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:29 PM
-1

There is lots of research on puberty suppression drugs, because they have been used for decades to stop precocious puberty. And this is the treatment recommended by the APA, AMA, and American Academy of Pediatrics. Yes, but that's not the same application as providing it to a child at the typical age of puberty who may as a result never go through puberty at all (if they continue to transition they will get hormone replacement). And physical treatment doesn't start until onset of adolescence. Th…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:26 PM
-1

You're making a lot of assumptions. There is practically no research on puberty suppression drugs. They're still considered experimental for puberty suppression which is an off label use. The impact of puberty on development other than sexual development is significant. There are considerable changes is muscle, bones and brain development. The impact of delaying that unnaturally is unknown. Furthermore, while it buys some time, puberty itself and the hormonal changes that cause it may have a sig…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:13 PM
2

The argument could be made, and should be just for balance, that middle aged men are still a big draw and are given more roles. This is definitely true. Look at Connery, Clooney, Tome Cruise and Robert Downey Junior. They're still (not Connery but there was a time) cast frequently as the sex symbol. The difference being that younger women still find them quite attractive in middle age. There are explanations for this but obviously the main point is that middle aged women don't have the same effe…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 06:57 PM
2

I disagree. I think it's more of the same. That boy is only good because he's catering to the feelings of that little girl. The suggestion is also that the goodness of males is measures by how much concern they give women and how in touch with feminine emotions they are. Is the stoic male bad by extension? Is the rambunctious male bad? That seems to be the implication here and that's really just more of the same crap we're used to seeing.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 06:51 PM
2

But the entire premise of the commercial and the reason what he says even makes sense, is the idea that it's deviant to be male or not cater to women and girls feelings. That is the measure by which the value or goodness of boys is decided in this commercial. It's not really a step forward as much as it is paying its respects to feminist views of men.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 06:48 PM
4

I think that's a fair point and in this case it's not an issue. However, there is on occasion brigading of less popular threads in this sub where it's a few mrm commenters and a dozen brigaders downvoting everyone that doesn't agree with their own narrative in a sub they don't participate in. This is a problem.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 06:12 PM
1

I see your point, but it obviously misses the larger issue; the fact that either sex feels sex segregated lines and public transit is necessary for any reason. It really solves nothing in and of itself. If anything it just creates additional paranoia and my guess is that the majority of people on women's only train cars and busses use them for for convenience, not for safety.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 07:11 AM
11

That's not what obstruction is. What she did was not a crime. It would have been a crime had she filed a false complaint with the police, but then she would have been guilty of filing a false complaint, which is a crime, not obstructing. Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. . Evidence is the video, I think she grabbed at the phone at one point, this is tampering wi…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/06/15 11:32 PM
2

Not my own original thought. Not that it hadn't occurred to me, but George Will fleshed it out and lost some of his syndication over it.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 08:27 PM
1

If that were true all three of those people would have been arrested right from the get go. They were enjoying not being black while they yelled profanities at the officer and tried to get a reaction out of him. There is no way in hell a black dude would have gotten away with that.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/06/15 07:59 PM
28

What? Obstruction of justice No police are involved at the point the video was made so there was nothing to obstruct. Tampering with evidence How was evidence tampered with? Defamation of character This is a civil issue, not a criminal issue and possibly the only thing you mentioned that might apply. However it almost always requires that the defamation was heard by a large audience which this wasn't. The video was, but the video does not defame. lying under oath Where is the witness box in this…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/06/15 07:01 PM
2

The girl she is Fisking seems insane with paranoia and delusions of persecution. I don't know if that's the reason. I think it's more likely that victimhood confers certain privileges and when you have a really good life, it's hard to find reasons to call yourself a victim. You therefore have to take completely normal situations and turn them into something threatening or discriminatory. I can't imagine this girl telling her trials and tribulations to anyone from 70 years ago or anyone from a de…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:49 PM
2

This is just about the least important bullshit possible. Assuming it's actually true that women in Hollywood are actively discriminated against, it still doesn't matter. We're talking about incredible wealth either way, and I refuse to give a shit about Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else receiving only 7% instead of 9% of tens of millions of dollars, which will be added to their other tens of millions of dollars. I just don't have any concern for the financial well-being of multimillionaires, nor…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:42 PM
14

Not a single one of the tweets they linked actually addressed the meat of any of those posters. They focused on specific words instead. One claimed that women were being referred to as a "pair of boobs" which simply isn't true. These are barely a sentence long, and yet misrepresenting their message is something these people still get away with. The other issue both the twitter folks and the Daily Mail failed to address is that in India, where this campaign originated, there really are female onl…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:26 PM
1

Opera audiences don't fuck around. If they didn't like the scene, any scene, booing was a possibility. I doubt it had anything to do with being offended by the scene itself.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:11 PM
3

It seems that this scene is not part of the original opera which explains the boos. Opera fans will, and do boo. They're notoriously hard to please and are usually knowledgable about what they're watching. It wouldn't surprise me if they booed simply because an unnecessary scene had been added.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:09 PM
3

Yes, clearly. A good example of that is the missing and murdered indigenous women issue that's been constantly in the press and discussed by federal politicians. There are 3 times as many missing and murdered aboriginal men. It takes about 5 minutes of research to find that out, and yet nobody dares mention it or question the narrative.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:18 AM
2

That's just not true at all. Labour law in Canada is not gendered. The reason these postings often go unpunished is because they go unreported, not because labour agencies are incapable of punishing offenders.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 12:07 PM
0

You actually were as you stated earlier: "you don't make permanent chemical alterations while they're 10, or 12, or 15, you let them choose when they're adults." I was under the incorrect impression that the treatment being prescribed to this child was hormone therapy and not hormone suppression. That was not the comment you replied to however, nor was it made at any point in our discussion. So incorrect though it may be, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about now. I have provided ev…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 07:33 AM
-4

I think you're misrepresenting that article entirely. It didn't support the practice broadly. It supported the practice as possibly useful, sometimes. Then the author went on to criticize the practice when applied too early, hence the focus on the high rate of attrition between childhood and adolescence. The article also stressed the that the longterm effects of hormone suppression therapy are unknown and that the importance of puberty in development is clear. It said nothing about the prevalenc…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:07 AM
1

This wouldn't be surprising in the least. I recently watched a video where they strapped electrodes to men and inflicted extreme pain to explain the pain of childbirth. It was done willingly by the men involved however.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 05:37 AM
1

This will create some interesting discussions for sure. For one, we'll find out how far people are willing to go to avoid personal responsibility. As it stands now, nearly anything a man does during a sexual encounter can be claimed to have caused enough fear to his partner that she was unable to say "stop" "no", or indicate that message in any meaningful way. *** I am referring to the most absurd examples of this which are treated with the same seriousness as instances involving real threats or…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 05:36 AM
2

I've seen it in writing in Canada where labour law is pretty robust, people are brazen. They also think that there is nothing wrong with what they're doing so long as they're favouring women and not men.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 05:02 AM
53

They're so outraged that someone would even dare to have a different opinion. Nobody argues her claims, nobody explains why they think she's wrong or the argument is flawed. They are simply shocked that anyone would have the gal to make any dissenting argument in the first place. As if the explanation for "manspreading" is as fixed as the law of gravity.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 04:59 AM
33

If whether you received support from the gay rights movement was based on whether you were a gay man or a lesbian, you might be making a similar comparison. I, as a white person, don't expect black rights activists to improve my situation either. Also, gay rights activists aren't in the habit of demonizing heterosexuality or painting all hetero people as oppressors. They also don't put up opposition when other activists lobby government for funds that would largely improve the lives of straight …
/r/MensRights29/06/15 04:51 AM
6

What a bunch of nonsense. Are there people who call themselves feminists that aren't unreasonable? Of course, but it's not a few bad apples, it's the vast majority of the mainstream and most of the organizations and institutions that take the label. You're incredibly naive if you think that there is any value in building bridges with feminism. Additionally, denouncing the ideology does not make one "as bad as them". That doesn't even make any sense, that's just a statement. In what way would den…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 01:47 AM
-2

It didn't call for an end to treatment, nor am I saying that. I am saying that it's irresponsible to use a chemical treatment on a child with those rates of attrition between childhood and adolescence. I agree with the article in that the use of the treatment at all needs to be questioned, but if it's going to be used at all, it certainly shouldn't be done before the onset of puberty, the risks of being wrong are too great and the benefit of being right will only improve the lives of a small min…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 01:30 AM
-5

I already provided you a source in reply to your other comments. Convenient that your source requires a paid subscription to pubmed. Apparently there is no other support for you claim on the internet.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 01:26 AM
-2

That's not really a citation in this context is it. Please provide a readable source for you claim.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 10:47 PM
-2

What medical professionals do is they delay puberty in the child so that the child will have more time to decide. That seems to be ill advised according to the sources I've read. It seems that the best approach is to wait until Tanner stage III and then administer therapy if in fact it is needed because puberty itself, not the extended time frame, has a big impact on whether or not GID is persistent. I think it's misguided to underestimate the impact and importance of puberty on the brains devel…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 10:45 PM
-2

Feel free to cite your sources and then maybe I'll bother responding to your as yet unsupported claim.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 10:44 PM
-3

Feel free to cite any of that.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 10:27 PM
-2

Bullshit. 50% of GID girls (natal girls) and 75%-80% of GID boys stop experiencing GID after the onset of puberty. It's irresponsible to treat these children with chemicals or surgery until they have reached adolescence knowing that. Also, I see you just hop from one trans post to another, you're not a men's rights participant.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 10:21 PM
-4

You seemed to have missed the point. Lots of small children identify as boys or girls when physically they are the opposite. This doesn't generally persist as they age and only a tiny minority of these children continue to experience GID into adolescence and adulthood. Rearranging a child's life in a hands on kind of way because they wanted to wear a dress as age 3 is irresponsible, not based on good information and creates pressure where there needn't be.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:47 PM
16

She's a millionaire, she can afford her own child care or negotiate it into her compensation. It's also not a fact that male stars as a rule are receiving anything female stars aren't. That's just a claim without any evidence aside from her claimed anecdotal experience.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:32 PM
-1

The child in question is ten and is going to receive therapy before adolescence or the onset of puberty (tanner stage III is what is the earliest advisable use of this treatment). We've also been discussing this for a while and I have been quite clear about the time line suggested by professionals, you have argued against that. You're also arguing that brain development during puberty is simply a matter of time, and has nothing to do with puberty itself. That's nonsense.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:29 PM
-4

It's totally experimental. It's been used for other reasons, but not to unnecessarily suppress puberty, that's an off label treatment.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:16 PM
-1

Puberty is what makes them have a body that won't fit with their new identity. For 20%-25% of those experiencing GID before puberty. For the other 75%-80%, it's what seems to help them understand their gender identity and relieves them of the symptoms of behaviours of GID. It's also a crucially important phase in human development. You're paying with fire here and you're arguing that it's wrong to do it any other way. It's an arrogant position to take. Experts don't play with them like guinea pi…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:13 PM
-3

That's simply not acceptable. You don't treat these kids with an unknown, experimental therapy in hopes that you will help 25% of them, and knowing you are taking risks with the other 75% that could be avoided by doing nothing. That is one of the most unethical arguments I have yet come across. P.S why are you here? This is not a sub you participate in. You seem to just look for trans posts and then go to town in the comments thread.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:08 PM
-4

ITT: Trans thread trolls. I've looked at some of the comment histories, these are not mensrights participants but people who only comment on posts about trans issues.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:56 PM
-4

So puberty only impacts sexual development I guess then?/s Get real. If 75%-80% of boys with GID pre-puberty no longer had GID post puberty, why in the fuck would you want to suppress puberty? Clearly the smart option is to do what the research suggests and wait until at least the first few stages of puberty have passed and then reassess. What you're suggesting is just willful stupidity that would only turn out to be the right choice 20%-25% of the time. I don't care for those odds.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:54 PM
-1

They are guinea pigs, we don't really know that much about gender dysphoria, and we have almost no knowledge of the impacts of delaying puberty, which effects brain, bone and muscle development in addition to sexual development. Transgendered people also have the right to be happy. And having them locked in a very male or female body they don't identify with is awful. Nobody is saying it isn't, but nobody is saying they have to be, just that they have to be until adolescence. Do you seriously th…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:51 PM
-3

So you think it's ethical to suppress puberty in a ten year old experiencing GID even though 75-80% of boys with GID symptoms pre-puberty will identify as their biological sex in adolescence?
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:45 PM
-5

They should be, but you don't start chemically or physically altering them or applying pressure to the situation either. They're still partially developed humans after all. Things can and do change. 50% of girls with GID pre-puberty identify as their biological sex after puberty and 75-80% of boys. That's a massive number. So clearly the only solution is to let the children do what they want until after puberty and then consider permanent solutions if they're desired in adolescence, but not befo…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:41 PM
-2

You're pretending a significant amount of brain development which results in part from hormonal changes during puberty is somehow not a result of puberty, but 2 years. Clearly puberty is an important developmental phase in the life of a human. That's undeniable. Not many kids have been on hormones supressing therapy. So the results are still unclear. All the more reason not to use children as guinea pigs. The effects of puberty however are well documented and quite clear. It's an incredibly impo…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:37 PM
3

Under the existing laws in most U.S states, Canada, the U.K and elsewhere in the western world, consent can be void as a result of intimidation, coercion (which is defined as threats and violence), and can be withdrawn without uttering the word "no" verbally. One can physically indicate that they no longer consent. How these finer points are interpreted is up to the judge typically, but a prosecution can be brought against a perpetrator for all forms of non-consensual sex under the existing laws…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:30 PM
-4

Fair enough but we're way past that minor point now. What do you have to say to the plethora of other ethical issues regarding hormone suppression pre-puberty that I've raised, namely the fact, which is touched on in your own reference, that most children experiencing GID pre-puberty stop experiencing it in adolescence? Those that have the opportunity to make it to adolescence normally and continue to experience GID are likely to continue to do so in adulthood. There is absolutely no good reason…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:19 PM
-3

There is also a lot of gender confused children that do not identify as trans by adolescence. According to this article, the majority of them. I think the only ethical approach to children presenting as trans, is a hands off approach. Once they reach adolescence it's a different story. But before puberty, even six months of these behaviours seems to mean very little as far as adult gender identity is concerned.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:06 PM
-7

Delaying puberty is not risk free. It has more limited side effects than hormone therapy but has major impacts on mental and physical development. We're talking about blocking a process that all humans are supposed to experience in order to develop into adult humans, you can't delay that 5 years without risk, that's nonsense. There is also the effect of puberty on trans identity. Puberty usually either confirms dysphoria or proves the behaviour to be a result of homosexuality or just a phase. Ac…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:01 PM
-6

Jesus, the parents noticed some apparent change in behaviour then bought girls clothes and girls toys. A small child does not have the power to make these changes on their own and whether or not there was some influence on the part of the parents is definitely unclear. The point is however, it is more ethical to provide support and allow the child to make choices with as little outside influence as possible until they are adults. Delaying puberty is hardly risk free and can have a significant im…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:55 PM
12

No, it isn't about balls, it's about the bone and muscle structure of the hips. Men cannot sit with their legs together without flexing their muscles to hold them in that position. The resting position is knees apart.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:30 PM
-4

The effects of hormone therapy before puberty are not reversible, lead to sterility and can have significant impacts on behavior, mood and physiology. This is absolutely not risk free and I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:27 PM
-4

You don't chemically alter a child before puberty based on the assumption that they have it all figured out. You can't go back from that. Lots of children are confused, more so if their parents contribute to that confusion which seems to be the case here. Some children aren't confused and are dysphoric, but even in those cases you don't make permanent chemical alterations while they're 10, or 12, or 15, you let them choose when they're adults. There is a very good reason most doctors will not of…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:23 PM
2

Sure I agree with getting clear consent somehow before having actual sexual intercourse with someone But even this can't be written into the law. It makes perfect sense with new partners and is a practice that should be encouraged, but i don't get clear consent from my girlfriend everytime we have sex, nor does she. Are we rapists? This is the problem with reversing the burden of proof. No means no is the only sensible standard for the whole population that doesn't unnecessarily criminalize cons…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:04 PM
12

At least she's being honest. I think anyone who claims this kind of law is intended to protect men is lying.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:01 PM
11

I think the biggest problem is not what you've mentioned (although those are big issues as well) but that literally every person that is sexually active is technically, by the letter of the law, a rapist. They may not have been accused, but they have certainly had sex with a person without getting affirmative consent. Any law that effectively criminalizes the majority of the population is not a good law.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:00 PM
2

Mrs. Doubtfire was a similar premise.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 01:27 AM
0

What is this in reference to?
/r/MensRights25/06/15 08:56 PM
2

I've seen accusations of derailing when commenters have brought up inconvenient information that directly contradicted the claim of the original article and was directly related. It's just another way of saying "you're not saying what I want to hear right now". It's incredibly close minded in an aggressive kind of way.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 06:09 PM
1

Not yet, no. It's a dangerous move to oppose feminism publicly. That is slowly changing in the media and it's going to take some time, but it will happen.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:52 PM
1

I think you have to understand how many people there are out there that silently oppose feminism. It's the vast majority of the population. Feminism is not popular. Similarly there are a lot of young men out there, and women of all ages, that support men's rights in one way or another. The main issue is that actually coming out and saying it is extremely taboo. I keep this account entirely separate from my other account for that reason. It would negatively impact my career, I would alienate some…
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:51 PM
1

It's worse than that. If in fact feminists did act on any of their claims to care about men, it would be to the detriment of men. Feminists by and large feel that men's problems are a result of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity and that the solution is to improve the status of women and tear down masculinity. It's absurd on its face, but that's the direction we'd be heading if feminists did anything more than pay lip service to men's issues. And then they wonder why we need men's groups and m…
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:45 PM
3

"rape is swept under the rug" The fact that it's easily one of the most popular topics in news media right now and the same baseless claims are made word for word by a wide variety of people illustrates how effectively such propaganda has been spread.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:34 PM
16

"meninism" is a parody, so I don't know what you mean.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:25 PM
6

Archive link OP, c'mon.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:22 PM
1

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. How does the existence of a transsexual or homosexual or anything of that sort have any effect on you or any others? Never said it did. The biggest thing to keep in mind, however, is that the presence of people outside of one's group does not in any way threaten that group, and there is zero reason why "outliers" should be treated any differently than one would treat members of their own group. I never said they should be treated differently. I'm not ev…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 08:25 PM
1

Interesting, but not even in the slightest a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:47 PM
2

Oh yeah, I'm not saying it wasn't beautiful, just that I can't place it above 8 ball jacket slap.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/06/15 07:41 PM
2

Not a chance. That one is good, and badass, but it doesn't have that satisfying "crack" or the wind up.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/06/15 07:34 PM
2

Yes, definitely. When it comes to law enforcement though, black men are in a special kind of hell that white men don't typically experience. Nonetheless, it makes a huge difference if you're female.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:33 PM
1

This point is rarely mentioned. Should there be a stigma around periods? No, and by and large in 2015 in the developed world, there isn't. But depicting it on a t-shirt or creating art out of it, is no different than doing the same thing with piss or shit. It's not extra special because it's uniquely female. The other thing that always happens when you say "periods are not stigmatized in the west in 2015" is that it gets the "well in Africa" or "well in Afghanistan". And as usual, the person say…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:30 PM
2

No it's not, it's two bell curves that overlap to some extent. The only people wanting to treat gender as a straight line on a graph are feminists and people like the guy in this video. We should be accepting and tolerant of any outliers, but to pretend that there aren't groupings in certain areas is pretty absurd.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:12 PM
2

Here's a What would you do? for first date bill paying. Not a single woman pays, most female guests tell the date to get out of there, and only the men offer any help, or even sympathy.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:08 PM
1

I'd imagine defining rape accurately immediately slices off a big chunk of what the most poorly conducted studies deem rape and I'd also imagine, teaching people to avoid situations where they might regret the outcome or be taken advantage of also has a positive impact. We've all felt violated at some point because of a regrettable sexual encounter, if we give permission to call a consensual regret, a rape, many people will do exactly that. Not to suggest acquaintance rapes don't happen either, …
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:59 PM
2

This is very bizarre.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:51 PM
4

Repressed memories are not reliable and often are fabricated. We already dealt with this issue for nearly two decades.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:49 PM
0

There's a lot of unfounded liberal bashing and borderline racism in this article.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:42 PM
0

Like i said, i create copyrightable works You and everyone with a cell phone or computer. You're talking out your ass. There is no claim here. Akkad isn't going to be in court anytime soon and his video is back up. End of story. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 06:28 PM
0

First, what are your sources? https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright Second, i see nothing saying that you can reproduce the entirety of the work. Because copyright law is not black and white. You do see however, a bunch of stipulations that would make winning a case like this extremely difficult if not impossible. The work was publicly available, there was unlikely a loss of revenue, it could be easily argued that using the entire work was necessary, especially given the fact that there are…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 09:32 AM
0

Jesus christ. Are you familiar with a single actual copyright case? It's not that simple. The Guardian would have to argue that Akkad isn't covered by fair use, which is not as simple as quoting the word "part", and precedence is also a big factor. Then the judge would decide whether in fact Akkad was or wasn't covered under fair use based on the arguments of each side. Then if the judge sided with The Guardian they could proceed with a copyright claim, and then they'd have to prove they lost re…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 09:10 AM
0

For fuck's sake, man, do you really think i would be running a blog without having some idea as to how copyright works?!?! First of all, am I supposed to know who you are, or that you operate a blog? Secondly, there is no minimum qualification or knowledge of copyright required to publish a blog. Millions of people do it, very few are familiar with copyright. More to the point though, you're interpreting the law the way you want it to be in order to support your claim. This is a very short info …
/r/MensRights24/06/15 08:53 AM
0

Feel free to look at copyright law in the U.K yourself then. You're speculating that Sargon is in the wrong knowing nothing about copyright and you want me to source my disagreement with your uninformed claim.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 03:16 AM
0

Source: I work in the media, I deal with licensing and copyright daily. What Akkad is doing is very much protected under fair use.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 11:31 PM
1

It still wouldn't matter, he's protected. Fair use doesn't have a limit on percentage of the original source used. It's the actual use that matters. He was using it to critique a noteworthy story, that's protected under fair use. The Guardian probably thought they could take advantage of youtube's quick, unthinking reactions and then bully Akkad. I don't think they thought they could actually protect their copyright from fair use.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:34 PM
0

That's not how copyright works. Fair use covers what Akkad does. He's commenting on a news story using copyrighted material directly related to that story. That's completely protected by fair use.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:31 PM
2

But they're not, they're just paying lip service to it. I think the right wing is less likely to cow tow to feminist demands, but that's about all I'll say. This is whole video is just 10 minutes of ass kissing. None of them took a firm stance or made claims or promises. They did what politicians do, gave no clear indication of their position while sounding like they might support yours.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:28 PM
5

Well partly because many people here refuse to disassociate from TRP. I've personally said it a million times, the fact that there is overlap on one or two points does not mean that we should somehow cooperate with a bunch of assholes and genuine misogynists. This however will surely be responded to by some TRP guy saying TRP is just about self improvement.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:18 PM
3

What I don't understand is how "feminism cares about men's issues" is something anyone can say and then write and article like this. If feminism did in fact concern itself with mens issues, men within the movement would be no less important than women, they wouldn't have to shut up and listen, and they wouldn't have to give credit to women for holding a position of power. It's so contradictory it's absurd.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:11 PM
23

That's always the argument against male financial abortion. Men should "keep it in their pants". When that argument is used by pro-life proponents it's considered small-minded and regressive, when women say it about men, it's empowered.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 06:38 PM
1

You're acting as if what you said was satire, it's not. You can't go around mensrights making sexist jokes. Outside of this context people would understand that it's a joke and not necessarily a reflection of your actual opinion, but in mensrights, we're under a microscope and we can't afford to have comments like that cherry picked and used against us. This is why I have a problem with your comment.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 07:17 PM
38

There is lots of evidence that girls do better in science and math at certain ages without the presence of boys, but the evidence cuts both ways in that boys also do better when not in the presence of girls. This school seems to have ignored what is actually some pretty well established research and decided they'd only like to hear half the story. I think it's fine to gender segregate young kids, they do it on their own up to a certain age anyway, but to deny boys equal access is just nonsense a…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 07:10 PM
5

I'm with you on this. Men consume less in terms of fashion. This is just how it is, I can't blame retailers for not catering to a demand that isn't there. But I also don't appreciate feminists demanding special accommodation in what amount to male spaces, that they don't use btw, just because they would prefer it that way.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 05:54 AM
2

Well why are you posting it then? We don't have the luxury of making these kinds of comments here just because they're jokes.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 09:26 PM
1

Men aren't doing poorly enough in University as it is I guess.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:30 PM
1

I hope you parked in that spot, I would have.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:28 PM
2

That's blatantly sexist.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:27 PM
1

I don't think they should have done one for mothers day or fathers day. We already have days dedicated to each; put out the ad on the appropriate day. There is no reason you can't celebrate single mothers or fathers on the corresponding day.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 05:38 PM
2

Fair enough, and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but you're not producing a national ad that speaks in generalities and ignores the other side of things on mothers day.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 05:02 AM
3

In my experience TwoX is actually much less oppressive and censorious than many of the default subs that don't deal with gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/15 04:51 AM
17

If there were awards given out for bitch slaps, this man would surely win and get like a lifetime achievement award.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/06/15 07:09 AM
7

I'm not saying it's not an inner city problem, I'm just saying it seems to be a problem that has developed in the last 20-30 years. Poverty and violence in major cities has existed a lot longer than that, so what else is different?
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:53 AM
1

Yeah I don't buy that. The budgets may be cut, but repeated complaints about a male abuser would not be solved by a council noise measuring device and a prosecution that punished both people.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:26 AM
1

I don't know how long you've been alive but the media has always published these stories. For decades. And it's always the same lines. "he was the victim, can you believe it?" Things may have changed, but this coverage is not an indication of that progress. How can you even say that? They're in court for a noise complaint and she's being called a "nag". It's incredibly naive to call this a step in the right direction.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:24 AM
1

The 90's is recent in my view. I'd imagine cell phone video certainly shines a light on it more than it once did, but I highly doubt this level of violence was tolerated in the 70's in bad neighbourhoods before security and metal detectors. I hate to be the "things were better" guy, but I think in terms of how teachers and students related to each other, it's entirely true.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:15 AM
1

I don't think being incredulous about male victims of domestic violence is a step forward at all. It's not as if these stories never crop up, they have many times over the years, and each time it's like "you'll never believe it was the husband who was being abused". This is the same old shit really.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:12 AM
1

That is precisely my point though. The primary concern was the noise of this woman verbally abusing her husband, not the verbal abuse. Do you really think if the genders were reversed that this would be the way it was handled?
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:10 AM
2

It's simply not study-able. There are a million variables. You'd need Truman show scale of experiment to get any meaningful results. It sounds like absolute bullshit.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:00 AM
3

There have always been incredibly violent places in the U.S, this kind of behaviour within the school is recent.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:57 AM
1

But they say it so incredulously. I don't think they're really acknowledging that men are often victims of domestic violence or in this case extreme emotional abuse, they're remarking at how exceptional it is and how taken aback the neighbours were that this was even a possibility.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:52 AM
2

The screaming became so bad that it led law enforcers to install noise monitoring equipment to measure the volume of her shouting. That this was the solution to this problem astounds me a little bit. In a legal sense, law enforcement shouldn't step in except to offer services. But who's kidding who, if this were a woman, the solution would not be to install noise monitoring gear.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:50 AM
2

It seems that if you have any interest in the men or dislike or skepticism for feminism, you're all the same people apparently. I may as well be out learning bar pickup techniques since I'm here. /s
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:47 AM
2

Oh man, babelfish is almost vintage at this point. I'm certain half the people in this sub had no idea what that is.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:45 AM
1

Contact the local news agencies, they love this kind of stuff, especially if they can use it as an attack on the D.A.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:43 AM
2

Even word documents with specific events that aren't date stamped in any meaningful way are super useful. Just having that record of "this happened, this was said, at this time" is helpful.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:41 AM
1

I enjoy the fact that the author felt no need to explain why the Vagina Monologues are a thing feminists got wrong.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:34 AM
3

I wish she would be even more analytical about this. She's accurately identified that she "hustled" as a "ladyblogger" in order to stay employed, and that that's true for many female writers. But I think she could have gone ones step further and explored why it is that there is so much work out there for writers specializing in gender (i.e women). It's not as if women are underrepresented in that industry, they're not, women now dominate many sectors of the media. So why is it that feminist writ…
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:29 AM
4

I hate this overly common "why are men so upset just because a woman is going to be the lead in an action film" shit. It entirely ignores the context which is usually that the female is in a role that for all of history was a man. It's like making a catwoman film and casting Ryan Gosling as Catwoman. Of course that's going to piss off fans of the character.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:16 AM
1

Thats a misleading statement right from the jump. I've been violated before, nobody has broken the law in the process. I am actually surprised it's only 1 in 5. It's like the 1 in 2 women will be the victim of physical violence stat. That's actually not too bad considering the stat for men is probably 1 in 1 and even so, most are not subject to repeated violence in a way that negatively impacts their life.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:12 AM
1

Good article, but arguing that Britain's ruling class is not a boys club is a futile endeavour. They may not be a "sexist boys club" but it's still a conveyor belt of public school kids going to a small number of colleges and having connections within politics. It's not like Britain did away with the aristocracy entirely.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:09 AM
11

That's fucked. In Canada we have pretty tough teachers unions which are separate from administrators unions which is both a good and bad thing, but they are also protected under the law in many ways and would never be subject to a law suit for preventing such behaviour. In any case, they have to figure this shit out because it's fucked up and nobody should think it's acceptable. I mean, I get it, it's probably a bad neighbourhood, but the worst neighbourhoods in Canada do not have this kind of s…
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:04 AM
1

It's certainly vague, but their answers would be based on their own experience with a small percentage just guessing because they were asked. I'm actually surprised that it's not a higher figure; who doesn't know someone who has made a false claim? Isn't that a pretty typical high school experience?
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:59 AM
2

I don't agree. I think it's more likely that that 20% would never do it. I don't want to assume the number that would is 80%, I don't think it is, but my guess is that the 20% have either seen it happen or heard about it happening to people they know.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:57 AM
22

Not to distract from the issue here, but I've seen a lot of these videos and the teacher is usually in the classroom while all of this is happening and it seems to be an exclusively American phenomena. What that hell is happening in these schools? I went to school in Canada in some rough neighbourhoods with some violent students and none of this shit would ever happen in a classroom nor would it be allowed to escalate to this in a classroom. Why are American teachers so impotent?
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:54 AM
31

This is always how it works.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:52 AM
9

I did some looking around on the internet and the only people who seem to like this are the media. The comments sections on all of the articles and the original video blasted this company for being assholes. The media over represents women and feminism in general. The latest poll found that feminism has 18% support and gender equality is up near 90%. This is no different than the over saturation of coverage of black crime and female victims. It's a misrepresentation of reality.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:48 AM
2

We kinda do. We ca be appalled by it, but it's not going to change anything in Pakistan.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:35 AM
2

Well I guess they're at least being consistent. In the opinion of the courts, women have no agency, and that seems to apply to all situations.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:32 AM
1

I think his reaction was reasonable. She was incredibly violent and aggressive and clearly unpredictable. I think in that situation one might easily think that she needs to be taken down because who knows what she might do in a minute. I also think that even if his motivation was simply anger and not self preservation that he was justified since really, the circumstance is pretty extreme and unusual. I don't think I personally would respond like a cold rational being and do only what was deemed …
/r/MensRights15/06/15 10:32 PM
2

The thing that pisses me off about this one is the reaction to it. The police showed up at the 11th hour and he was the one who appeared to be attacking so I can understand their reaction at the time, but viewers know what's going on. Generally the sentiment was "clearly she had something wrong with her, he should have left her alone" as if her being drunk or crazy is cart blanche to attack people without them defending themselves.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 09:01 AM
1

It's not worth entering those discussion though. He was very patient and made good points, but it's an exercise in futility. You ultimately just make yourself look like the asshole and frustrate yourself.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 07:38 AM
5

It's a lot like saying a painter is violating your personhood because he or she won't paint what you want them to.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 07:14 AM
1

I don't imagine a self defence course is going to teach much in the way of identifying which of the people you already know is likely to be a predator.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 08:51 AM
2

I'm just going to move over to voat I think. I don't see any reason to stay here. It's not just the banned subreddits, that's not really the biggest issue. The mods in various subs regularly censor all sorts of appropriate, sub-related content and most of the main subs have mods that participate in SRD or SRS. It's not free or even populist speech a lot of the times. It's just speech censored by a radical minority.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 06:56 AM
3

More effective yes, generally effective? Not likely. Ultimately most rape is not a jump out of the bushes kind of act. It's unlikely that being more physically able would make a significant difference.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:46 AM
2

That's obviously not true since all women for the most part can cheat if they choose to. I did however read an article in a psychology review that suggested opportunity has the greatest influence over whether or not someone cheats. Those presented with the most opportunity to cheat are the most likely to do so. And I don't mean like someone who is at home all day and therefore has the time, but someone who will be in situations where cheating is an opportunity that it presents itself. This passe…
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:44 AM
1

While I disagree with this move, it could be a calculated move on the part of organizers to avoid the inevitable protests and distraction from events and not a result of their issue with CAFE specifically.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:07 AM
2

Yeah I would agree that that is an unfair portrayal. RAINN is guilty of spreading stupid and unsupported ideas motivated by their politics and not data, but it's not a hate group.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 05:35 AM
3

Yup. Although even in the U.S this is generally true. I think the 2 party consent laws, which are rare, only apply to audio (could be wrong though).
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:16 AM
16

Do Americans not have freedom of association? It seems like this is a pretty obvious infringement.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:34 AM
1

Yeah okay, they have taken one decent position. They're also responsible for publishing some of the most absurd and questionable stats on rape. All of that can't be ignored simply because they have one reasonable opinion.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:32 AM
7

You're overcomplicating this. The RAINN numbers include unreported cases. It's absurd to calculate conviction rates based on cases that were never taken to authorities capable of getting a conviction in the first place. It's a completely ridiculous and meaningless stat and it's inconsistent with how all other conviction rates are calculated.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:31 AM
7

You don't even have to give or get consent for this kind of use anyway. She could have signed and ripped up a document and it wouldn't make a difference. Asking for consent for these interviews was a courtesy not a requirement. Edit: Southern should really learn about privacy rights as they apply to photography and filming though. It was an interesting conversation to watch, but I can't imagine a scenario where if she knew her rights she wouldn't have said "I didn't need consent in the first pla…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:27 AM
2

Jesus fucking christ, it wasnt a statement to individuals but to The Mrm, which as a movement has contributed very little to the gay rights movement. Therefore we should avoid speaking about the mrm as if its been important to gay rights.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:05 PM
2

Yeah yeah for sure. My comment was in regards to taking credit for what's already been accomplished. Of course the mrm has the right to support gay rights.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:02 PM
0

Please read my response to the other comment.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:42 AM
13

It seems sick to me that cutting baby penises is only an issue if it has a trivial impact on women. Thanks for the link btw.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:44 AM
1

Stick to what's actually been said and done. We often speak in generalities but in real life, most of us are a lot more cautious. Not everyone has paid much attention to feminism. They get the media version of it which is almost always positive. There are countless concrete examples of feminists behaving badly (prominent, well respected feminists) and feminist theory is thoroughly documented. There are also lots of organizations like NOW that sponsor things like opposition to assumed shared pare…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:29 AM
15

The issue with this is that very frequently that agreement is nothing more than lip service. Only recently has anyone with a voice within feminism identified MGM as an issue and yet they do absolutely nothing more than mention it in passing. There is no action or any attempt at discussing the issue. I think what we're seeing is a critical mass that's being responded to. Feminists are recognizing that circumcision is increasingly unpopular and for their own sake they must at least say "male circu…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:11 AM
10

(the Danish study) Link or description? I've never heard of that but I am curious about the idea that MGM harms women.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:02 AM
0

I'm not accusing the MRM of hijacking it. I'm just saying we should be careful not to overstate our contribution to the gay rights movement.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:01 AM
21

Let's not highjack anything here though. Gays and lesbians have fought their own fight with very little help from anyone else. The MRM supports their movement, but it's their own, it's not part of the MRM nor can the MRM take much credit for it.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 04:54 AM
2

So she just actually did, voluntarily, the actual thing she claims she was violated by. This is fucking absurd. And of course the typical "nobody reacts to trauma the way you expect them to" explanation. Like as if. Yes, that's true, but I think we can say safely that almost nobody who was actually victimized would voluntarily reenact the traumatic event, especially a rape reenactment with actual penetration. Also, I really hate when art is just gross porn. I have no problem with porn, but you c…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 06:26 AM
2

You have missed the entire point here. I, like many, have no interest in propping up philosophies I disagree with either actively or passively. Of course people can decide for themselves, thats not the issue. What you're arguing for is that we all ignore our massive disagreements and move forward. My question is, move forward with what? I don't want to live in TRP utopia, im certainly not going to contrubute to that for the sake of "solidarity".
/r/MensRights06/06/15 05:21 PM
2

He's reasonably well respected. He's an experimental psychologist though, so his results and theories should be a basis for more research, not bold assertions or the assumed premise of other theories. I think Karen may be guilty of accepting some of his work as proof when really it's an interesting starting point. That said, I haven't paid enough attention to her specific language to accuse her of presenting his work or her own theories based on it, as fact. Often enough I know she is forming he…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:19 AM
-2

And according to a radical feminists, all they believe in is equality. I have been to TRP, I have read the content, I have read the comment threads, I have a pretty good idea of what is being said over there and how it's received and it's not simply "self improvement". Besides, define "self improvement". It's a subjective term, it means different things to different people, much like "equality". That's "radical"? You disagree with them about whether gender is socially constructed, so they're "ra…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:15 AM
0

That's a distinction without a difference because what you really mean is label. You label, without evidence, certain behaviours found in modern western society, as "naturally" male or female. I'm not going to argue that gender is an entirely cultural construction, I don't believe that and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion. But I am also not going to act like I know what is and isn't biology outside from the proven or the obvious. TRP is perfectly willing to do that and the res…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:04 AM
2

You definitely can change human nature, just not all aspects of it. But that's not really the point The point is that you think you know what is and isn't human nature, and you don't, nobody does in any comprehensive ways. We have some vague clues at this point. To base an entire philosophy on the premise that you know for certain what a man or a woman should be, is stupid and potentially harmful. Understand, women are attracted to certain male characteristics whether you like it or not. There i…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:00 AM
3

Fight after what? After TRP philosophy is mainstream thought? After PUAs spread their nonsense far and wide? What's "after" when we don't agree or have the same goals?
/r/MensRights06/06/15 06:25 AM
2

In a perfect world, but over for the MRM and over for MGTOW, TRP etc presumably won't line up because they don't have the same goals or expectations of ideas.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 06:23 AM
2

Bullshit. I am really disappointed in Karen for propagating this crap. The MRM, including Karen specifically, has repeatedly criticized feminists for failing to call out radicals and be self critical. Now the "manosphere" is supposed to sit in a circle and sing kumbaya instead of doing exactly what we've demanded feminists do. We can't "kill each other when it's over". It will be over for each group at a different time based on different goals and different philosophies. This is the primary reas…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 06:23 AM
4

There is absolutely nothing about "egalitarianism" that says one must believe in pure cultural construction of gender, that's a fucking strawman argument if I've ever seen one. However, the tendency within TRP to make unsupported claims as to what is and isn't biologically influenced is dumb, potentially harmful and uninformed. but don't run around attacking the men who seek to better themselves and their chances for either intimate relationships or independent living in the current environment.…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 06:11 AM
4

And redpillers want to continue enforcing male gender roles and basically want to game the status quo, not change it. I don't see how that's a whole lot different aside from that it's less beneficial than preserving privilege.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 06:00 AM
2

Thats mostly true, but things really amped up when Jerry Fallwell ran for the Republican Nomination and did reasonably well. G.W Bush actually realized this and went after the religious vote on his fathers campaign aggressively. Things have progressively gotten worse since.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 05:28 PM
1

I have to laugh at this. We're talking about 'the one true god' here, not facial hair or football. "Can't we at least have a guy who is master of the universe and father of all creation? Jeeze". I think this is silly to be clear.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 07:17 AM
1

I don't think this is a matter of logic or reasonableness or compromise. It's much simpler than that. The bible is either the word of god or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then you have no business editing it, and if it is, you have no interest in editing it. I can definitely see how a believer would be upset by this. Personally I don't give a shit since it's all nonsense anyway. If they wanted to replace Jesus with a Horseshoe crab it would make no difference to my life. But I can also see …
/r/MensRights02/06/15 07:12 AM
1

I think that sort of misses the point a little bit. I think most of us are guilty of this. Universities didn't create this issue, the government and feminists created this issue. Universities have been sued and forced by policy into acting as a criminal justice system, a role they desperately tried to avoid and were criticized for avoiding by feminists and later government. I agree that suing them to swing the pendulum back the other way will certainly have an impact, but once again, the feminis…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 07:03 AM
3

My bad, it's only women under 40 that are doing better than men by every measure. Previously it was 35 and 30...see a trend? For christ sakes it's going to get to the point where all women under 70 will be out-earning men and working less and they'll be sounding the alarms for female retirees not getting enough couch space at the home. "Women may be outpacing men for 95% of their lifetime, but the retirement home is still a man's world". Followed by some bullshit about how old ladies are forced …
/r/MensRights02/06/15 06:56 AM
2

The difficulty with the "gender is/isn't a social construct" discussion is that unless you're saying "it's definitely 100% constructed" you're accused of being a determinist. I've had this debate many times with various people and even though the point I'm usually trying to make is that medical science and biological sciences have their own data on this that needs to be accounted for in the discussion, I'm almost always strawmanned and treated as if I'm saying all gendered behaviour is biologica…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 12:15 AM
7

In other news, who gives a flying fuck? Debunking this bullshit just gives her press. She's been wrong consistently from the beginning, it seems futile to keep pointing that out if it puts money in her pocket.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 11:51 PM
-1

I'd hope everyone can agree with the premise that sexualized or gendered insults are rarely used against male characters, and often used against female characters. It's not contentious. And the same is true in real life unless the insults are coming from women. So what is your point? Should art stop imitating life lest someone get offended?
/r/MensRights01/06/15 11:51 PM
1

Im a left wing Canadian that supports regulated free markets and socialized services where sensible. Im very much left in terms of labour as well. This is hardly atypical here. I think actually the majority of the mrm is probably left of center.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:08 PM
16

That is too fucking rich. The arrogance it must take to not recognize these same features in their own rhetoric and behavior.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 07:14 AM
3

I'm usually specific in my criticisms of early feminism, but I agree with you.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 08:02 AM
1

I am left wing, but I would sooner vote for Harper than Trudeau. I don't even know what his platform is other than dredging up dead issues and pandering. I am glad the Liberals voted for the stupid terror bill because they pissed off their base which will hopefully not split the vote on the left as much.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 07:21 AM
1

That's a good thing. There is no sense fighting an idiot with reason, especially an idiot that people think is a victim. The best thing to do is get the biggest, loudest microphone you can find and just let them rant away their own support. That's what we're seeing now. The more saturated the media is with feminist bullshit, the more people oppose it.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:39 AM
6

It does matter in that the more outrageous feminism gets, the less people want to associate with it. At a certain point the majority is going to feel empowered to tell them to fuck off. It's already happening slowly. Look at any mainstream article lionizing some stupid feminist for a dumb reason and check out the comments. Men and women alike tearing apart the premise of the article or campaign point by point. The volume of dissent has noticeably increased in the last few years. All we need is a…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:36 AM
7

The temperance movement was a women's movement and had some elements that were about controlling men's spaces that they were barred from. I don't think we can blame the outcome of the vote on women, but we can certainly blame it on the influence of the temperance movement and the specific women within that movement. It's easy to forget that women have always been a protected class. When women got together around a specific issue, men listened and women had a lot of influence.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:31 AM
18

I think it's naive to think that feminism was ever really about equality, at least amongst it's more influential proponents. I think you're right in that feminism has become more extreme and angry, but it was always extreme and angry, just less so.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:27 AM
1

I think it makes sense. I think with Harper, or any conservative government, there is a view that women are or may be under attack by that government and therefore people are more willing to listen to their complaints. I think if Mulcair was in that view would change somewhat. Of course there is still a long-standing cultural bias against men's issues, but it could make a difference. Additionally, the NDP have never been all that extreme when it comes to identity politics or social issues where …
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:25 AM
1

It seems that the majority of the commenters think this is bullshit which is a trend I'm seeing. When these people are comfortable enough to say this in real life and the media, things are going to change. The way it appears to me, is that there is a large portion of the population biting its tongue most of the time, but that can't last forever. I think people are quickly getting fed up with all this nonsense and the saturation of this content only pisses off more and more people.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:14 AM
2

If Mulcair gets in there may be less feminist ass kissing though as well. When there is a leader who is viewed as regressive, groups that are opposed just get louder. Feminism and conservative politics are at odds and so it may be the case that when conservatives hold power, people are more willing to listen to feminist groups and those groups get louder. This is just a theory on my part, but I would bet the public is less inclined to go along with feminist propaganda if the government in power …
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:08 AM
1

I really liked CBC radio until maybe last year. They've always had the odd person who had serious bias, but now it's pretty much every broadcast, including local rush hour content (what?) that's about women from a feminist perspective. Even 'The Next Chapter'. Every time I've heard it in the last several months, the books have been about women's issues and generally speaking about women who have suffered some kind of abuse. Over and over and over. It's very tiring. This is nothing compared to th…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:03 AM
0

I'm not suggesting that the behavior you describe doesn't exist, but we're talking about entirely different world views here. Nobody would argue that the only reason TERF's and armchair feminists disagree is because of a natural tendency to disagree. I also think it's an issue because the MRM and Straughen have repeatedly criticized feminists for failing to clean house and call out radicals or sexist rhetoric. But apparently when the MRM is critical of TRP for what it considers radical rhetoric,…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 03:54 AM
-1

I disagree completely with that view. Firstly, a lot of people don't agree with Karen's take on this, secondly the two groups are not the same, and many within the MRM have issues with the rhetoric of TRP, for good and valid reasons. I think to call this a competitive issue is inaccurate and fails to acknowledge that there are fundamental differences in approach and perspective between the MRM and TRP. In other words their differences are not a matter of competition but actual difference.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:22 PM
3

Ballsy for such a little paper to ignore a court order like that.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 05:14 PM
1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQM77va9Y3U
/r/MensRights29/05/15 02:06 PM
2

My guess is that ten years ago she wasn't earning any real money. In any case, she certainly doesn't deserve more than 5k per month.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 01:55 PM
2

She's been in there a lot lately and chalked up MRA's opposition to many TRP positions as male competition in a recent video.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 12:54 PM
2

I agree with you on this, I'm just saying that MGTOW is a necessarily narrower approach to these issues. It couldn't be applied to all of society without serious consequences. So while I think there is some value in MGTOW and that perspective, it's more limited than the MRM.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 12:02 PM
1

And MGTOW have the right to do whatever they want. But let's not act like the world would be just fine if procreation and families ceased to exist. MGTOW is not a permanent solution to the problem we're faced with, it's a temporary coping mechanism.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 09:38 AM
3

Oh yes of course, they would never let their sexism negatively impact women in the process.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:53 AM
1

I don't care what 16 year olds have to say about anything generally.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:35 AM
1

Also since married couples get tax breaks this sort of thing already exists anyway. This is the bachelor tax. If they doubled down on that it would be unbelievably unfair.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:21 AM
1

That will never happen because it's extremely likely to be unconstitutional and if people aren't getting married, they're not getting all the associated tax breaks.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:20 AM
2

There already is a bachelor tax in nearly every country on the planet. You receive all sorts of tax breaks for being married, what exactly do these people think not having a higher tax burden than married people amounts to exactly? So we should not only not give tax breaks to single people but actively tax them at a higher rate as well? Fucking assholes.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:18 AM
9

So this woman is an actress on a successful T.V show and she can't live off of her income plus and extra 5k per month? I'd take that deal.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:14 AM
11

There is so much precedence for throwing out prenups in divorce courts that this is apparently what you have to do now. One would assume the validity of any contract is assumed until it's challenged, but apparently not.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:13 AM
7

New York Magazine apparently employs 15 year old reddit commenters to write it's articles now. Hey, Tom Hanks, you better watch out! Ha-ha, nah, you're white.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:10 AM
3

They'll just add women only train cars which already exist in a surprising number of places.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:05 AM
3

It's not going to work, people will just apply at businesses where they can negotiate their compensation. This isn't the bottom rung of society where choice is just a nice idea people talk about, it's the educated middle class and they have choices.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 09:39 PM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:33 PM
2

Nobody is arguing be go back to primitive forms. The point I was making is that is unsupported nonsense to claim "humans are naturally hierarchical". I'm not saying the evidence that shows we are not be used as the basis for current societal structures, nobody is saying that. It does indicate though, that we're capable of being both hierarchical and non-hierarchical. Whether or not we still have a choice in a complex society or whether or not that must apply to gender relations is another questi…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:18 PM
2

You didn't understand what I said apparently. In order to be charged with incitement you have to have incited something. If you go on T.V in the U.S and you say, "white people should go out right now and murder black people" and nobody does, at least not as a result of your statement, you haven't incited anything.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:11 PM
1

You've missed my point a little bit then. Many countries would alter their constitution if the felt it wasn't meeting their needs or if they felt it was creating problems. The second amendment is arguably a good example of this in that it often protects criminals as much as it protects law abiding citizens. I think in the U.S, if a part of the constitution was creating a problem that was collapsing the country, people would still protect that portion zealously at their own peril. This is not som…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:04 PM
0

Name a western nation that hasnt limited free speechbeyond inciting violence and panic. Its not limited to the U.K. Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Austria have all criminalized various forms of speech.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 06:51 PM
-3

Americans care too much about their constitution for that to happen. We're basically obsessed with our rights Americans are far more concerned with the constitution than actual rights though. Many countries happily make constitutional amendments when they're needed and don't assume that the old dudes that contributed to the original necessarily hit the nail on the head 100% of the time. This obsession can be a blessing and a curse. In the case of the the right to bear arms, whether or not you ag…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 09:07 AM
1

It seems hierarchies are a symptom of complex society. The available evidence on early humans and modern day analogues supports that. There were very few simple hunter gatherer societies that employed hierarchical structures and what are called "complex" hunter gatherer societies were significantly more hierarchical. There is lots of research on this subject, it's not hard to find. I don't know whether or not hierarchy is necessary to complex society, but it does seem to be and there is evidence…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 08:57 AM
14

That's where the "children's rights outweigh those of the parents" argument falls apart. The reality is that a child's rights only outweigh those of the father, not the mother.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 08:36 AM
2

No. How does the use the word "recommend" change anything? It's not as if it's directed at an individual who might make a good leader, it's a generalization that implies men are superior to women. It's the same as the BS that feminists promote. I don't think there is a good reason to "recommend women lead either". Those qualified to lead should lead, regardless of their gender. I think you misunderstand MRM rhetoric on these kinds of topics. The criticism of things like affirmative action for wo…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 08:32 AM
7

I think with incitement you have to prove there was actually violence as a result of your incitement. I do find #killallmen to be a disgusting, sexist and bigoted hashtag/statement though.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 08:10 AM
3

I don't know what you mean by "in depth" I have read a considerable amount of content. I have read the comment threads for that content. I'm not sure exactly what you think I would stumble across that would make me change my opinion. You're performing the same actions as armchair social justice warriors when they dismiss mens rights Not really. If there ever was a group that might possibly agree with TRP it's the MRM and yet TRP rhetoric gets considerable push back from the MRM. Furthermore, SJW…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 08:07 AM
13

At this point there's no need; political correctness has become so invasive that our society polices itself. That's true enough, but where do you think many of these anti-hate speech laws came from? Often times these limits on free speech are demanded by the same people that demand firings for an offensive tweet or yell at club owners for playing a song they find distasteful. I think the U.S deserves some credit for not eroding free speech when the rest of us have.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:32 AM
85

I know Britain has harsher laws against hate speech than the U.S. The U.S has no hate speech laws. The only limitation on speech is inciting violence or panic. I don't normally praise the U.S for anything, but they are the only western nation that doesn't criminalize hate speech in some manner.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:28 AM
3

how about making a serious study of the matter Of TRP? Why would I do that? I think reading the content is enough, I don't need to turn it into a scholarly exercise, nor do I think that would alter the content of TRP.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:09 AM
4

Saying "men should" or "women should" is counter to the goals of any equality movement unless the sentence ends with "whatever they want".
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:07 AM
-2

Yet you see the fight-for-hierarchy behavior in any discotheque/bar in pretty brutal, chimpanzee-like forms. TRP confirms that the chimpanzee model works to attract women. I fail to see what this has to do with men's rights though, which is what it boils down to. Further, I'd argue that even in egalitarian packs of humans, hierarchies appear. This is contrary to everything we know about early humans pre-civilization. Hierarchies are not the default for human societies.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:05 AM
3

I think that's a rather pessimistic and defeatist view of things. I also think that it's pretty premature considering how new most of the idea's we're discussing and tackling are.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 07:48 PM
0

No, they promote gender roles. Which I don't agree with. Nor does the MRM for the most part. they are saying men are better at some things while women are better at other things Except it's usually discussed in absolutes and it's not limited to the obvious or the proven. There is a lot of speculation which quickly turns into sexist stereotyping and chauvinism. Saying that men should lead doesn't mean that they view women as lesser beings. This is chauvinism. As an MRA you should know that highli…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 07:08 PM
1

If people were conflating an NBA initiative to fight prostate cancer as an MRM initiative, you wouldn't have the same problem--even though there's nothing else the two groups share in common. If people were conflating the NFL's penchant for DV with the MRM I would have an objection. The issue presents itself when the MRM is effectively accused of espousing views it does not. This is why it's such an issue when the MRM is lumped in with these other groups. It's not like when this happens the peop…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 06:59 PM
3

Women socialize differently to men. They think differently to men. Their biology imposes certain inescapable facts upon them. All these facts are denounced by feminism as heresy and their discussion was heretofore verboten. And the MRM wouldn't generally disagree with that assessment. However there is a fundamental breakdown when TRP asserts it knows the specific effects of these differences, what causes them etc. All of which is unscientific, speculation based on mostly stereotypes. You cannot …
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:43 PM
3

The difference is not simply the scale. TRP often promotes chauvinism, at times misogyny and all sorts of unsubstantiated theories about both men and women and their relationship to one another. It's not that there is no overlap, but there are vast swaths of TRP content that is fundamentally at odds with the MRM or egalitarianism. You both see little value in the non-MRM manosphere, because you're only looking at it from a large scale. But if you don't adapt on an individual level as well, you a…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:31 PM
4

True, but nobody is painting those two groups with the same brush so there is no need to constantly assert a separate identity. I have no problem with TRP/MGTOW/PUA groups existing, but there are some considerable philosophical differences between them and I am not a PUA because I support the MRM, nor am I a MGTOW, TRPer etc. I think if you're always being accused of holding the opinions or philosophies of these other groups for supporting the MRM, it makes sense to try and put a big wall betwee…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:26 PM
8

I see little value in much of the non-MRA manosphere. I'm with you on this, and I don't personally want to be held responsible for the things that go on within the TRP/PUA/MGTOW communities simply because I think men should be treated fairly. There is no overarching dogma to that. I don't think men should eschew women for the rest of their lives, I don't think men should try and game women into sex and I don't think men should be carved up into alpha's and beta's or that women are naturally pron…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:13 AM
2

I personally don't want to be in any way associated with PUA's or TRP simply for supporting men's human rights. I don't see why that's necessary anyway. They don't concern themselves with the same issues as the MRA, there is very little overlap, none at all in the case of PUA. What Karen is arguing to some extent is no unlike saying the MRM must have a better relationship with the NBA. It's immaterial.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:01 AM
1

I was unaware. It's possible that they had rented one then. I did some reading though and this mall was sued by the state for not having accessible bathrooms in the building itself so I have my doubts.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:57 PM
6

It just occurred to me that one could make a pretty convincing case against this since porta potties are not wheelchair accessible.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:45 PM
11

Almost certainly. They could argue that they've provided equal access by having porta potties outside but I don't know if that would fly.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:30 PM
3

Fair point. Maybe you could add "archive link for mobile" in your comment so people don't avoid clicking on the original article from their desktops? Not trying to be an ass, but clicks do make a difference in the kind of content that gets published.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:52 PM
5

Why are we discouraging clicks on reasonable articles? The whole point is not to drive revenue to people like Amanda Marcotte and people like her, not to avoid driving revenue to people like Wilhelm who have the balls to call out bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:41 PM
24

Also the building has men's and women's bathrooms. They've taken over the men's bathrooms and given them to women. If I lived in this jurisdiction I'd lodge a complaint with the city.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:31 PM
17

The feminist argument with these things is unwinnable for anyone who disagrees. When given privileges by discriminating against men that they do nothing to prevent or oppose they claim it's the patriarchy infantilizing women. Any time women don't have such a privilege it's still the patriarchy but this time it's discriminating against them. It literally doesn't matter what the issue is or who it effects, it's patriarchy.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:29 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/377nl9/feminist_amanda_hess_has_her_panties_in_a_bunch/crkoj05
/r/MensRights25/05/15 11:23 PM
9

If they did screencap the chainsaw comment it would have ruined their whole argument. The actual comment was using an extreme counter example to explain how wrong #killallwhitemen is even in jest. He basically stated that nobody would consider #rapeherinthecuntwithachainsaw acceptable just because it was intended to be ironic. So the author and mod have willfully ignored the context of that remark and reversed the meaning in order to claim victim status. Typical.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 10:01 PM
13

“rape her in the cunt with a chainsaw” I actually saw that comment and that is almost a complete fabrication. The commenter was trying to explain how unacceptable #killallwhitemen was by using an intentionally extreme counter example. He was proved right apparently because he's being credited with saying something awful that he quite clearly never said simply because it was directed at women.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 09:58 PM
8

on account of some lousy tweets. That's the part that gets me. The same people defending her will defame people online with zeal for simply saying something that might be interpreted the wrong way, let alone a direct call (even ironically) for the death or injury of an entire demographic. Look at Robin Thicke for example. He never said anything like this and he was stripped of his authorial intent and crucified.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 09:54 PM
2

I agree, but from what I remember of the original reports on this crime, she was the one who orchestrated the entire thing and was motivated to have her parents killed. I do think that if you can't rehabilitate a 12 year old you may as well just lock up anyone convicted of a crime as an adult forever, but at the same time, she should probably have more supervision than she's currently subject to.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 03:18 PM
9

It's fucked because she was the one who lured women, including her own sister, and then participated in the murders. She is no less responsible than Bernardo is.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 02:34 PM
1

I agree with you completely and what happened to your father is terrible and unjust. But what happened to your father is exactly the kind of slippery slope that should be criticized and avoided. I don't think this particular case is one of those. I think it would actually be irresponsible on the part of the school to ignore the evidence in this case and allow her back to work where she would be a risk to children. I also have family in teaching and I am aware how easily accusations get thrown ar…
/r/MensRights25/05/15 05:08 AM
2

Here is the meat of it and a summary of the evidence against here. In her decision, DOE officer Haydee Rosario notes that a DNA test revealed both the student’s and the teacher’s saliva were on the teacher’s comforter cover. Rosario also says the student recorded a video that shows his teacher putting her pants on in a motel room. Tillery and her young charge exchanged 8,000 text messages over two years using pseudonyms. In one message the teacher texted, “What’s up babe?” Finally Tillery’s own …
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:50 AM
1

Basically. Although it should be mentioned that typically what is being criticized on college campuses is 'he said she said' cases where no evidence either way exists. I think an employer or institution has the right to ignore a ruling handed down by a court if the evidence in their possession is compelling. I think the slippery slope would be firing a teacher who was acquitted in a case that was the word of a student against the word of a teacher. In that case I think we'd all be compelled to o…
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:49 AM
0

Because you only mentioned it in order to suggest that watching someone die as a result of being unable to stop a train has no impact on drivers. The increased suicide rate amongst conductors, the training courses which prepare drivers for such events and the therapy provided by their employers when it does happen suggests otherwise.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:51 PM
1

Pay close attention to what you said, would my reaction be the same? Of course not dealing with children is different than dealing with adults No what you said in multiple comments is that people who kill themselves are not to be criticized for their choice of method and that they are unable to have any control over how they kill themselves. Of course your opinion changes when they commit a crime before they kill themselves or force children to be witness, then they can be criticized and held re…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:49 PM
0

You're disgusting.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:46 PM
2

You can have exculpatory evidence. Proving you didn't do something is not the same as proving something doesn't exist and you're conflating the two.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:53 PM
-8

Anonymous gets it wrong often enough. They've harassed people that turned out to not be who they thought they were. This is why vigilanteism doesn't work.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/15 08:49 PM
1

It's not about inconvenience. It's the fact that their choice of method leads directly to higher suicide rates among subway and train operators. This is a serious problem within that field. You're talking about this as if my concern for innocent, uninvolved train drivers somehow means I don't care about the suicide rate. I very much do, which is precisely why I think it's a dick move to literally increase it and intentionally cause trauma to others by laying yourself on the tracks. When someone …
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:27 PM
0

You don't seem to get it. Either people who kill themselves have some responsibility for their method or they don't. You can't have it both ways. In your opinion it's wrong to kill yourself in front of young children but not wrong to do it in front of train drivers and only in the latter are they unable to make a different choice. Your logic here is inconsistent. People suffering from depression still have agency, they can choose not to kill themselves in such a way that it may lead others direc…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:19 PM
0

Not to cause trauma to others intentionally in the process?
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:34 PM
5

Can we support the firing of a teacher who admits to inappropriate behaviour with a student? Like buying them expensive gifts and giving them cash as well as meeting them at a motel and having them over to their house? Because that is what she admitted to doing and there isn't a school in the country that wouldn't be justified in dismissing a teacher for that alone. Regardless of the verdict there is enough here to fire this woman without there being a slippery slope or issue of due process.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:25 PM
4

This is the exact same situation as a man being kicked from a university for a false accusation. "We know you were acquitted but your still banned because rape culture." No it's not. The things this woman did that she admits to are enough to be fired over. There is no question about that. There is no slippery slope here. Regardless of the verdict, the teacher provably and admittedly did things with a student that warrant dismissal.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:23 PM
6

The court case is immaterial here. If sex never occurred, even the things she admits to warrant dismissal. She admits to giving him money, having him in her apartment and being at a hotel with him. That's enough to be fired at any school in the western world.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:21 PM
6

Fuck that. You don't have to suspend your ability to reason for the sake of consistency. If a man had this much evidence against him, I don't think we'd be jumping to his defense. Rosario also says the student recorded a video that shows his teacher putting her pants on in a motel room. Tillery and her young charge exchanged 8,000 text messages over two years using pseudonyms. In one message the teacher texted, “What’s up babe?” Finally Tillery’s own credit-card records put her at the Motor Inn …
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:19 PM
0

Yeah, it's just a minor inconvenience to witness and feel responsible for the death of someone. As if. These train drivers see this shit regularly and have all sorts of mental health issues as a result. It's inexcusable.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:04 PM
0

Where do you draw the line on that exactly? And why does someone who is suicidal no longer have to take any responsibility for their actions? Is it okay if someone goes into an elementary school and blows their head off in a classroom? Would your reaction be the same? What if they kill their family before themselves? Do we forgive them because they were depressed? The point is, these people make a choice to kill themselves in such a way that they are greatly affecting the mental health and stabi…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:02 PM
2

Just take a look through the google scholar articles. They've been studying this for decades. I find myself hard-pressed to believe that it would benefit boys to be separated from girls for the first 18 years of their lives. I never made that claim, I specifically mentioned "certain age groups". For the most part there is a benefit for younger children under the age of 14. Children also tend to self segregate before puberty anyway. If you go to a school yard and take a look you'll generally find…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 05:56 PM
45

Derailing what? A comment about men's rights groups in a conversation about men's right's groups? Derailing is double-speak for disagreement.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 07:02 AM
11

There is pretty overwhelming evidence and literally heaps of study that suggest sex segregated classes for certain age groups is good for both sexes. I don't know about race though, there is no racial dimorphism and it seems questionable to put too much stock in the idea that different races have different brain structures.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 06:52 AM
-2

You realize I've been studying and debating this issue for years, right? I've got a whole file of studies on the subject, and they say the same thing. Well I'll take your word for it then. /s
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:22 AM
-2

Uh...yes, you will. It's the dominant explanation. No it's not. Spend some time comparing psychology and social science studies on gender identity to those from medical science. There is a pretty major difference in conclusions. No, they aren't. Your example supports the idea that gender identity and gendered behaviour are related. Her gender identity is not masculine and neither is her behaviour. This is typical.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:10 AM
0

They are distinct but you won't find a lot of prominent voices within the feminist or social science community that would consider gender identity to be a biologically influenced outcome. Furthermore, gender identity and gendered behaviour are inextricably linked. If you look at the science on the subject (there are hundreds of studies on gender identity) almost all of them conclude that biology is the deciding factor in gender identity in almost all cases. Some here will argue that a trans twin…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 10:03 PM
1

Why is men's right associated with Return Of Kings?
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:56 PM
1

Lots of train drivers do in fact end up killing themselves, going into therapy or having to quite their jobs as a result of suicides. Despite being completely unable to prevent them, they often feel responsible for being unable to stop the train.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:48 PM
7

It's a fair point though. These people cause real harm to drivers. Their choice of death impacts the mental well-being of conductors and crew and it's a real problem. I can feel that way while also being concerned about the person that killed themselves. They are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:47 PM
-4

I can't fault the announcer, if you want to kill yourself don't be an asshole and throw yourself on a passenger train line where you will not only delay hundreds of people but force the drivers to watch and be party to your death. It's selfish and wrong and I think the announcers dismissal of such behaviour is kind of appropriate. Train drivers often end up in therapy or with mental health issues and anxiety because of witnessing these deaths. I think being dismissive in the announcement is tota…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:44 PM
1

Apparently we've entered an alternate universe where prison is good for drug addicts and debtors prison wasn't considered inhumane more than 100 years ago.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 10:04 PM
0

Ok, just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. Interior checkpoints can be ruled functional equivalents to the border. This is not debatable. They aren't always viewed as such, but they unquestionably can be. No, they cannot. I don't know what you don't understand about the difference between being inside and outside the border. There is a clear distinction. The supreme court said as much when they gave rights to people subject to interior border checkpoints that people sub…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/05/15 01:03 PM
1

That's not true where minors are concerned, at least not in the U.K and Canada. The names of all the minors involved are banned from being published. This is true in the U.S as well I believe but not if the minor is charged as an adult. The same is true in the U.K and Canada but charging minors as adults is a lot less common.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:49 PM
1

In both the U.K and Canada, identities of both the accused and the victims if they're minors is protected during and after the proceedings. This is how it should be. I do think they should extend publication bans to the accused in taboo crimes until conviction though.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:47 PM
3

I have been in similar situations and while I didn't punch anyone, the second the girl tried to hit me I put her on the ground where she couldn't do anything and the fact that she couldn't was now clear to her. This "I'll put you on the ground" shit from this girl is infuriating. Like as if. If some little twerp tried that shit this guy would level him and go about his day.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:44 PM
5

That's what happened in the Subway altercation with the 8 ball guy isn't it? He pimp slapped her and she was charged.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:41 PM
1

So there is your "There is absolutely no evidence that prison has this effect" in flames to start with. Oh I'm sorry, the prison population in the United States is only 42 women. My mistake. I must have been way off when I said people with drug problems typically end up worse after entering the prison system. But since there is a program that can serve 42 women, I must be wrong. /s I am simply stating that men do not get a break when it comes to these scenarios because everyone has to help raise…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:36 PM
1

The checkpoint can be ruled a functional equivalent to the border But it can't, that's obvious. It's within the borders of the United States where people have their charter rights. They do not have said rights at an actual border which is why it's never been an issue to strip a car to it's frame and leave it like that but it is at an interior checkpoint. Similarly, a challenge of the kind I referenced wouldn't have been possible if the incident had occurred at an actual border and the ruling wou…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/05/15 12:26 PM
1

I hope that's true. I do think though that they might have used slightly harsher language than many are comfortable with.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:08 PM
1

Border Patrol can search any vehicle with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion at the border or a functional equivalent like the checkpoint in the video. The actual border and a checkpoint are not the same thing though and the reason there is even precedence is because their ability to confirm even identity needed affirmation in the courts. This obviously isn't necessary when people are still technically outside of the country in which case border guards have almost absolute power. Since th…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/05/15 12:35 AM
1

Have you ever once seen an article posted that was in favour of debtors prison? Have you even seen overt or popular support for such a thing in the comments section? No, I don't think you have. Debtors prison was done away with nearly a century ago because it was inhumane. It's current incarnation is just as inhumane regardless of the sex of the victim. Ultimately we have a woman who has been described as having drug addition and is within an industry which is detrimental to her health and to th…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 10:17 PM
1

I guess that's what Louis C.K gets for overtly supporting feminism, even some of the crazier feminist positions. They eat their own no matter what, I don't know why any of these "allies" bother.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 10:05 PM
2

Well it's certainly satisfying, it just has consequences.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 10:02 PM
3

Yes of course, but ultimately it will just lead to more support for her, not less.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:52 PM
1

You're saying that because r/feminism broadly defines "harassment", then anything that falls under that definition actually is harassment. It's a basic logical fallacy. You're making all sorts of silly and somewhat contradictory claims and then when someone points that out you just state that they're wrong or stupid and you don't actually explain your actual position. l Feel free to explain how this is different than that hypothetical Ippikiryu is making. Attacking someone's ideology on their ow…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:51 PM
1

Goodness you still seem to think that defining opposition as harassment in the side bar of r/feminism means that opposition is harassment.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:45 PM
1

So r/mensrights is now in favour of jailing people who don't have the money to pay their child support? Okay. /s I would comfortably say that the majority of the mens rights movement thinks debtors prison is a bad thing. Maybe you think it's fine, but your opinion is certainly not popular here or within the movement which is why debtors prison is so often criticized.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:43 PM
1

Dissenting opinions are not intended to be offensive, or upsetting or disturbing. Being critical of an idea or opinion is not in anyway harassment, especially on a website like reddit. You can cow tow to such a ridiculous definition if you want, but I am certainly not going to defend such an absurdly low standard. I have to assume that even my disagreement with you right now could be construed as harassment in your opinion.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 07:18 PM
2

Then I don't know why being critical of someone's political ideology on their own turf could be considered harassment.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 07:07 PM
2

So dissent is harassment. Good to know you've accepted such horse shit.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:20 PM
8

I'm not saying don't archive it for posterity, but for the same reason we try not to give clicks to Jezebel or slanderous articles, we should be giving clicks to more balanced articles.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:19 PM
11

Why is this archived? There is nothing wrong with Cathy Young or the Washington Post. We're not giving Jezebel clicks here.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:05 PM
1

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense, it's just words and your second sentence refers to a practice you didn't mention. Attacking someone's ideology on their own turf isn't harassment.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:48 PM
33

While I don't think this actually helps anyone, it's kind of nice to see in a way. She's basically been a complete fucking asshole for over a year and shamelessly ruined this guys reputation. This is really not extreme at all if we're comparing it to her actions. Most people won't see it that way though so it isn't actually helpful.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:47 PM
4

If we went to /r/feminism and attacked them there, then yes, a case could be made. "attacked" being a reference to attacking the validity of feminist ideology. That still wouldn't be in the realm of harassment nor could any fair case be made that it was. It might be irritating, or the wrong venue for it, but it's not harassment.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:19 PM
3

What you're describing amounts to nothing close to harassment. Having an unpopular viewpoint isn't harassment, despite what people like Stephanie Guthrie might think. It's called dissent.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:12 PM
23

This is why I give the CBC radio some credit. Even if they're shilling for some cause and interviewing only those they agree with, they still ask hard questions and keep asking those questions until they're answered or have made clear that they're not being answered sufficiently.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:10 PM
5

Nope, he didn't even do it, his friend did and he was asked to comment and he did. He was then fired. His dismissal is currently being investigated.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:03 AM
2

Yeah I understand that, but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:23 PM
5

This isn't PPD. This is some bullshit. You shouldn't lose your job for having done another perfectly legal form of work in the past. Having fucked on camera in no way makes you unfit to teach children.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/15 08:12 AM
1

The problem here is that these are U.S border and customs agents at an interior border checkpoint. The constitutionality of which has been affirmed by the supreme court in The United States v. Martinez-Fuerte but only for the purposes of establishing the legality of an individual's presence in the U.S. I could be wrong here as I'm not a legal scholar, but the supreme court did not affirm the constitutionality of unwarranted search and seizures at said checkpoints. The fact that these are customs…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/15 08:01 AM
3

While in principle I completely agree with you, the supreme court has affirmed the legality of law enforcement to set up interior border checkpoints and hold people until they're satisfied that they are in the country legally. This IMO is outrageous. In any event though, the supreme court only affirmed legality of this practice for the purpose of establishing legal immigration and citizenship. They did not specifically affirm the legality of search and seizure without cause at interior border ch…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/15 07:51 AM
1

I cannot believe the U.S supreme court has affirmed the constitutionality of interior border checkpoints. This is quite plainly an illegal search and seizure and has the obvious potential for abuse of the 4th amendment. I think morally, if not legally, this woman was right to refuse such a search.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/15 07:47 AM
1

I agree with you, I was clarifying the actual argument being made by the author.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 07:09 AM
1

It's entirely possible, it just has limits and the limits are relatively narrow in terms of proportion and symmetry. Similarly, physical attributes that women find attractive have changed over the years, but the change has been relatively insubstantial.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 04:59 AM
7

I hope this vote results in a practical example of feminism's minority position.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 04:55 AM
1

Was it different when it was posted?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:33 AM
0

I never said I agreed, I just clarified part of her argument which I think you were greatly exaggerating.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:33 AM
1

I guess, but there isn't anything but science in the article and facts are nothing to be mad about.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:08 AM
0

Apparently not. Not to mention that they stand to earn a whole lifetime worth of money in the event of divorce.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:58 AM
5

She also brought up Afghanistan and as usual, skimmed right over the widespread practice of keeping young boys as sex toys.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:57 AM
1

It's at worst bad clickbait though. The question and answer stick to hard science and aside from the picture used at the top I don't see how any of this is sexist.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:53 AM
1

Why is anyone upset about this? This is an article about general biology. It's a fair, if not sort of ignorant, question; why hasn't evolution landed on asexual reproduction?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:52 AM
0

She isn't saying that. Its dumb still, just slightly less dumb than that. She's saying that relative to their husbands they are less powerful and they are in some ways at the mercy of them. This is arguably true, but they also contribute practically nothing, spend huge volumes of money they didn't produce and stand to at worst, walk away with millions in the event they choose to walk away from the marriage entirely. It's hardly an oppressive or risky situation to be in, even is your yard stick i…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:48 AM
1

No she's not saying that. She's saying relative to their husbands, they have little power or control and in a sense are under their husbands thumb. She acknowledges that these women have lots of power relative to the average person. She doesn't like the hierarchy. The thing that I find silly is that she thinks the person contributing nothing and living lavishly is the one at the bottom in the hierarchy because they don't have complete control over the purse strings.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:44 AM
3

We got rid of debtors prison for a reason. I think what you're doing now is the right thing. I wouldn't turn down money or stop demanding it necessarily, but I think the point at which it becomes unjust, is issuing an arrest warrant for an unpaid debt. Since you seem to have a lot of influence over whether this happens I think it would be at least partly your fault for enforcing an unjust practice if you went ahead with it. I think you and your mother have the right idea and have made solid choi…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:39 AM
1

This is a hypocritical stance on your part. Most of us here are opposed to forced parenting, and opposed to debtors prison. In fairness I would say she missed her window to choose not to be a parent but nonetheless, the OP would be nothing but a hypocrite if he allowed the court to issue an arrest warrant for unpaid support this woman almost certainly cannot pay. Would it be different if the genders were reversed? Yes, absolutely; but how can we sit and complain about how wrong that is if it at …
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:35 AM
2

Thats not something anyone should have the right to do under normal circumstances well after the birth of the child. Giving up parental rights can't just be something you decide to do at any point, there needs to be a window.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:28 AM
1

I have better things to do than pick apart stupid arguments like "we don't need taxation, look at how great corporations operate with voluntary investment" and "if you force people to contribute they may paint your garage without your consent and how irritating would that be?". As if, as if I am going to fucking address such childish stupidity. Go annoy someone else.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:58 AM
1

I have no response to this nonsense. I'm sure there is a neo-con think tank that would be very interested in your bullshit but the real world doesn't operate like that. Corporations have been so great at fairly regulating themselves and not being oppressive. We should form our states in their image. /s
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:43 AM
1

Name one thing a group of individuals with a common goal voluntarily pooling their resources can't do Really, they can't do anything at a certain point. We're talking 7 billion people and you really think that we can just rely on voluntary payment of taxes in order to fund state services? That's absurdly naive. There is nothing about human behaviour that would make that a remotely likely possibility. without oppressing them. Requiring people to contribute in exchange for necessary services is no…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:13 AM
1

Why do you need government for complex society? It's pretty arrogant to think you don't as you sit there on the internet supported by a whole host of bureaucracies. Roads, power transmission, emergency services, sewage, garbage disposal, snow removal, water purification and delivery, civil and criminal law and courts, law enforcement and a long list of other necessary services are all administered by the state in a modern society. A modern society can't function without most of these things, par…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 01:44 AM
1

K whatever man. I'm done splitting hairs with you. Without taxation a complex society cannot exist because a complex society cannot exist without government and a government cannot exist without taxation. It's not terribly complicated. If you want to narrowly define "society" so that you can be right here, do what you want.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:46 PM
1

Not a modern one, I think that's pretty clear. If you want to argue that a small tribe or commune is a society sure, but even then you're expected to contribute to the whole and not doing so would have consequences.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:18 PM
1

A society where people do not have to pay taxes is one without government and one that would ultimately be primitive and anarchistic. I don't know why you feel the need to be pedantic about this. No matter which way you cut it, what you're endorsing is anarchy.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 06:04 PM
0

In the absence of taxation a government cannot exist. So what you're talking about is still anarchy.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:54 PM
5

Fair enough, but the NHS has it's problems, and funding silly things it shouldn't is one of them. This isn't happening in other universal and single payers systems with the same frequency. It does seem to be the NHS, and not universal or single payer systems that are the problem here.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:44 PM
0

I think the U.K should switch to a single payer system. The universal system they currently have has all the wrong incentives and relies too much on government administration. Single payer has the same coverage but allows private administration and gives incentives to be economical.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:42 PM
2

Hahah really? Every tax you pay is forced. It's not voluntary. So what you're talking about is anarchy.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:38 PM
7

This could only happen in the U.K though. There is no other universal system paying for elective breast implants.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:36 PM
9

Even if the cosmetic issue is found to be a direct cause of depression, we don't really pay for cosmetic operations. Most cosmetic surgeons in the US actually have you pay up front, out of pocket, and avoid insurances all together. This is true nearly everywhere except the U.K. Cosmetic surgery is generally only covered if it's reconstructive or to correct an abnormality or health problem (breast reduction is typically covered in universal systems). IMO this is how it should be. Depression is re…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:35 PM
1

This is completely unique to the NHS. This isn't happening anywhere in the world in universal or single payer systems. The fear is completely irrational.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:31 PM
1

It seems some people don't care because they view it as two equals punching each other rather than someone physically more powerful punching someone less powerful. I get that, but violence is hardly the only harmful aspect of domestic violence and if the media is being, as expected, biased in the attention they give depending on the sex of the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:40 AM
2

I think this was just an excuse to keep him off the team. From what I understand this is the last in a string of accusations of violence. He seems to have been innocent here, but has had a number of violent altercations in the past. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I don't think the decision to keep him off the team is limited to this one accusation.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:24 AM
1

I have to agree with you. I think though that circumstance should be a major factor. If you're healthy and childless I don't think you should receive anything. I think it's a different story if you were at home caring for children and thus weren't working. Granted life time support is pretty much always unjust. I think these issues are complicated but in serious need of major reform. It's absurd to award alimony in most situations and that needs to be dealt with, but I do think there are situati…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:18 AM
0

Talk to HR and contact the labour board in your jurisdiction. If HR ignores you, the labour board won't, most are required to investigate all claims.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:11 AM
4

And correct me if I'm wrong, but most human trafficking is for the purpose of forced labour and not sex.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:08 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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