TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

deadlast Archive

View 0 posts and 265 comments by deadlast 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

TLDR: Loser requests affirmation from other losers. Loser. The fact is, failing is part of your personality. That's why you're begging for affirmation from a bunch of other losers, listing no accomplishments. Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.
/r/TheRedPill28/06/16 04:43 AM
1

She's helping innocent men Why do you think all the people she helps are innocent?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:26 AM
0

Sure, the radical men out there call for her head on a pike or whatever but why is it that any discussion involving women or rights always has to end with "we don't hate women, we don't want nothing bad to happen to them"? Have you not been on the internet before? Because otherwise their legion of fans will go to the woman's page and make graphic rapethreats.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 11:43 AM
1

History classes don't just teach "history." History teaches verbal skills as well, which is pretty critical life-learning. Doing taxes and finances is pretty easy, for people with basic literacy and math skills. Cooking, home repairs, that kind of stuff is separate, admittedly.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 02:00 AM
1

Sports might benefit you even if you don't enjoy it.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:59 AM
1

That's not realistic. You have to hire people to teach these programs. Part timers are only part of the solution. There are minimum fixed costs to support certain programs. (Football teams need access to fields and/or buses; art programs need to be able to buy materials, etc.) Some programs are naturally much more expensive on a per-student basis. For example, say maintaining a shop class costs $1000 per student taught per semester, and maintaining a gym class costs $100 per student taught per s…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:54 AM
-2

You don't know that woman's history or personal circumstances. An audience member at an "Online Harassment Q&A" is probably more likely than the average individual to have been the victim of serious online harassment. She might have PTSD. She might just be emotionally immature and weepy. I don't know. The point is, you don't either.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:47 AM
2

Holy fuck. Jeffery Dalmer had anti-social personality disorder, but you didn't see anyone claiming his disorder was an excuse. His defense attorney did, and the jury seemed swayed at some points.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:35 AM
0

Your friend isn't a reliable witness, kid, that's kinda apparent.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:33 PM
-1

Tldr: child manipulates parent who actually attempts to discipline child by withholding love from parent. Kids are assholes.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:31 PM
1

Of course they're going to be similar, they both started as movements based on freeing people to be who they want to be, just like the anti-racism movement and the atheist movement and a whole bunch of others. I think the intellectual relationships and flow of ideas is a lot closer than that. They share a concern over gender. To further my family analogy, I would say the academic branches of the anti-racism movement are cousins. But I think it's more than parallel similarity -- I think LGBTQ stu…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:44 PM
2

I don't. I'd think the guy was one of those types who keep the sequels of "the fast and the furious" still viable. The latest one was pretty good! The profile that I had created, and it was not all blank or anything, got something like 3 views from people in a whole year. That seems really odd. I mean, women still look at guys' profile, even if they message much less often. I wonder if there was a weird setting that led to you being filtered?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:28 PM
2

I think that's likely more a sibling issue than a gender issue. I certainly have heard of brotherly rivalries that are similar. I have a big sister. (Female here, for the record.) I used to make snarky comments that hurt her feelings all the time. I commented critically on her appearance or on her bossiness. I never meant it seriously. Frankly, I look up to her tremendously. She's not perfect, but she's more responsible than I am, more socially successful than I, and she's incredibly intelligent…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:26 PM
1

"Feminism" and LGBTQ, as academic disciplines, are siblings. Which isn't to say that there aren't some segments of feminism (or at least were in the past) that were very hostile to, for example, transgender individuals (specifically MtF transgenders). All the same, there's a lot of intellectual cross-fertilization.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:06 PM
0

I said women in general, I am talking about people I meet at the mall, social gatherings, at work, friends of friends of friends I strongly suspect what you're seeing is confirmation bias at work. It's at that point that any potential sexual or romantic interests can develop. Do you let them know about your sexist expectations early on, or do you let them be disappointed in you later on?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:01 PM
2

If you think the best stance is to assume the worst, go ahead, but assuming the worst of one gender only as zyk0s is just stupid. People are people. If you'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed, well, that works for men as well as women.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:59 PM
23

They can't be "privileged white men."
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:55 PM
1

"Real men"? As opposed to what kind of other men? The fact that you buy into "heteronormative definitions of masculinity" doesn't stop feminists from thinking they hurt men and boys. (Hell, I know they do: my 7-year old brother is artistic. He likes building robots with robot kits, but he likes painting drums and making bead bracelets too. He still likes making bead bracelets, but he asks me to go to the bead store to pick out beads for him because he's now embarrassed to go in himself, because …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 12:57 AM
0

Oh yes, genital mutilation/biased divorce court proceedings/biased domestic abuse legislature/cancerous hate-mongering feminist rhetoric in society MOVE ASIDE because people are insulted in online video games! Oh noez! And you care about trivialities like that in a world where children work in brothels, people slave in labor camps in North Korea, and poor farmers are killed from helicopters for belonging to the wrong ethnicity.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:41 PM
2

Why not? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html To me, this shows how little you seem to know about feminism. "Sexism hurts men too" is a cliche. There are jokes about how much of a cliche it is. It pops up All. The Damn. Time. It's absurd to me that you really think otherwise.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:37 PM
1

There are REAL issues to discuss and people calling others names over the internet are not amongst them "I don't care about it so no one else should" is not a defensible position. Teaching people mental toughness is the way to develop and progress an individual. Uh huh. No, sweetheart, the world doesn't work that way. Treating people abusively doesn't "help" them in any sense. It's just abuse. I hope you don't follow that philosophy in raising children, if you have any. Beating the crap out of a…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:27 PM
1

Do you really think the way people behave in online games is at all similar to a workplace? Everyone's pretty damn courteous at "the daily grind." It's not always easy -- the occasional 80 hour work week is soul-killing -- but people don't profanely denigrate you at length either. Outside online gaming, no one's ever threatened to rape me or gone on long tirades with the word bitch/whore/cunt prominently featured.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:10 PM
2

It's pretty much a trope. You're just viewing the world through a swamp of confirmation bias.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 09:44 PM
2

And since it doesn't bug you, and you're an equal-opportunity harasser, of course people are wrong to feel differently about it?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:58 PM
0

A feminist would say that men's rights makes you seem like a whiny douche who doesn't understand the ways in which you're privileged, who takes for granted that people assume they earned their job, rather than "getting it to fill a quota." You know, since you think name-calling is appropriate.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:53 PM
3

He was holding on to his infant son and decided to leave him behind. Deciding you would be hampered by carrying an infant is just disgusting.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 08:00 AM
-9

How did black people? Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. What are you trying to argue here?
/r/MensRights06/07/12 07:41 PM
2

The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 07:39 PM
2

It's because 2X doesn't exist to be a place where women's opinions can be conveniently gathered so men can explain why they are wrong and do not adequately reflect the male viewpoint. Is this REALLY that hard?
/r/MensRights27/06/12 11:31 PM
0

I said that :)
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:55 AM
2

"Men have the right to be treated equally under the law [source], (1) normative statement but they are treated worse simply because of gender [source]. (2) huge, contentless general statement This is an example of men's rights being violated" (3) summary argumentative sentence
/r/MensRights14/06/12 04:04 AM
1

Something that I just find puzzling: Black men receive longer sentences than white mean. Black women receive shorter sentences than white women.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 03:57 AM
0

The teacher's proposition is kinda fatally flawed from the outset in that, well, murder drives very few prison sentences. That said, a more refined version of her proposition may be correct. It's plausible that homicide committed by women is less likely to be viewed as a crime of passion, and that women are therefore more likely to receive longer sentences than men for committing homicide. (Note that studios contradicting this presumably probably wouldn't pick up this nuance-- they would compare…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 03:55 AM
0

Exactly. So we are all agreed no more whining?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 08:53 AM
1

Frankly, I doubt those two groups, both of which are very small, are skewing companies' actuarial tables-- particularly because insurance for such business activities is provided thru different commercial stream. Insurance assesses risk by slicing people up into various boxes, ie, stereotyping. Women pay around 30 percent more for health insurance on the individual market on average.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 12:22 AM
1

For insurance purposes? Why would they give a flying fart? They don't, because it doesn't matter to their bottom line WHY men are in more accidents; just that they are. "Drives more" is a risk group just like any other.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 11:03 PM
5

(1) normative statement (2) huge, contentless general statement (3) summary argumentative sentence. Actual information provided? Zip!
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:39 PM
2

You realize there are still prominent clubs that are male only, don't you? Maybe you DONT realize. Anyway, it's perfectly legal.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:36 PM
4

But women HAVE FEWER ACCIDENTS. Insurance is not paid for "by mile." it is paid for by driver. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:34 PM
4

Those don't sound like "facts" at all. They read like (poorly-written) advocacy pieces .
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:27 PM
1

Unnecessary and targeted almost exclusively towards female posters, sure. (also, accusations of attention whoring for not hiding female status)
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:20 PM
1

If a woman reveals her gender in a popular post, one of the comment threads will discuss the search for /gonewild posts, and success or typical failure thereof. This is not a battle you can win.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:19 PM
-6

Haha. You actually think female virgins are "beloved"? Sorry. Past 20, virgins of any kind are seen as weirdos and extremely undesirable.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:16 PM
1

Sure they can be ignored. The plural of anecdote is not data, particularly in a country of 300 million people or world of 6 billion. I mean, there's not REALLY an epidemic of cannibalism. Just seems that way. :)
/r/MensRights08/06/12 11:04 PM
1

The thing is, increasing PT requirements to equivalent of male will vastly decrease number of women serving. You can day as many women should serve as men, or you can say men and women should do same number of pull ups. But you can't do both. (I guess you can lower standards for men, but then you'll be requiring women, but not men, to be basically physically fit.)
/r/MensRights08/06/12 11:01 PM
1

You're reasoning beyond what the data shows. And I think you're probably dead wrong. Nor does paternity testing necessarily involve deception; it's not like women with multiple partners in the relevant period magically know whose sperm penetrated their egg.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 02:00 AM
2

So what you're saying is that the military should make more of a push to recruit women. Ok.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:05 AM
0

I'm glad you agree the comment was bigoted, unacceptable, and reflected poorly on the writer.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:47 PM
4

Ah, the time honored 'lying' technique.
/r/seduction25/05/12 04:37 PM
3

I think fundamentally misunderstand the dynamics of the conflict in Afghanistan. (What would the army even do with a hill once it took it? Besides immediately give it up after heading back to base.)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:00 PM
0

I doubt you are capable of making a reasonable assessment of how "women" think or feel. What's more likely: you have made an accurate generalization of three billion people, possibly through some hitherto unknown telepathic power, or you're projecting your bitterness and resentment on an entire gender? TLDR: The latter. Batshit.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:56 PM
1

Regal's policy probably reflects the law (only women get special protections) rather than active sexism on their part. If the law didn't exist, they might search purses as well. Please cite this law. (Hint. It doesn't exist.)
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:43 PM
-3

You're batshit.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:32 PM
3

There are big differences between being told take a hill with a machine gun nest in it and being ambushed while driving a HumVee. Yeah. The first is how soldiers died in WWII, and the second is how soldiers die in Afghanistan. "Take a hill with a machine gun nest"? Seriously?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:26 PM
0

Yes, it is separated. The numbers above do not include drug/alcohol facilitated rape. This is what he said: Note that the female victims include both completed assaults (620,000) Number of drug/alcohol facilitated rapes = 781,000. For my calculations, I added in the attempted rapes, but not the drug/alcohol facilitated rapes.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:13 AM
2

The only reason women earn less money is for "good reason"? The only reason males do less well in the educational system is "unjustified reasons"? Unsupportable claims. (And just not reconcilable with data besides. We know from the resume experiment that female workers are less in demand than male workers, all other things being literally equal. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the laws of supply and demand are suspended and that the less-desired female worker will nevertheless command eq…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 09:38 AM
5

The same resume getting more interviews with a male name rather than a female name = unfair How about the fact that female orchestra players are rated higher when the listeners don't know their gender. You think the only sexism that shows up in studies is against boys? Get real.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:15 AM
1

Because they work less hard in school, don't do their homework, don't pay attention to the teacher. This is fair. See how this works?
/r/MensRights22/05/12 01:36 AM
1

None of which has anything to do with the certification requirement for u visas.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 08:32 PM
-1

The you should be satisfied with the dems.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 08:31 PM
-2

but I doubt the feminist-big-governments are going to help out any economic situation I'll take "not actively trying to drive it off a cliff." I was taking that for granted all these years, but the Republicans of the past few years have really shown that I shouldn't have.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 06:44 AM
0

Section 6, subtitle C of what? If the law says that you can't get a visa unless the abuse allegation is 'in the system', whatever you mean by that, you should cite to where it says that in the statute. Gesturing vaguely at all the sections dealing with immigration and saying "it's somewhere in there" is not helpful in the least. but it's worth nothing that the text of intent for section 6 includes the goal of prosecuting all claims of domestic violence from immigrant women No, actually, it's not…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 06:32 AM
0

I think that you don't seem to even understand what's in the bill. The certification must "confirm under oath" that: ‘(i) the criminal activity is actively under investigation or a prosecution has been commenced; and (ii) the petitioner has provided to law enforcement information that will assist in identifying the perpetrator of the criminal activity or the perpetrator’s identity is known. Grasshopper, a protection order does not satisfy either of those requirements. Hell, a protection order is…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 06:18 AM
0

but the crux of the matter is that you can't get that visa unless the abuse allegation is in the system Can you cite the provision you're referring to?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:48 AM
-2

The Republicans are an apocalyptic cult, man. Sorry. Me, I'm going to vote for the party that doesn't take the US economy hostage. I've tagged you AA. Like the debt rating Republicans bequeathed us.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:09 PM
1

Not just abused women. Abused men, abused children, abused parents.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:05 PM
1

If he's a lawyer, by definition he is serving someone else. I'm guessing he knows a lot more about the ins and outs of immigration law than you do too, so the ease with which you dismiss with professional expertise is strange. Dunning-Kruger in action I guess.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:04 PM
6

I'm female. My ovaries are protected inside my body and I have to say, that metaphor does nothing to communicate how painful impact to testes seems to be.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:00 PM
3

Reading comprehension fail.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:58 PM
-1

Due process for what? I'm confused. What cognizable injury has someone suffered when their spouse, child, or parent receives a residency permit?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:55 PM
2

Note that the number for women excludes incidents involving alcohol or drugs.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:34 PM
-2

...yeah, it kinda is. Kids aren't a possession or a prize. They need continuity. The primary caregiver is...the primary caregiver and generally should continue to be the primary caregiver unless there' something wrong with them. The priamry caregiver can only "provide this care with the money from the other spouse" because they have the childcare responsibilties rather than the wage-earning responsibiltiies. This is logical. The one going out to earn a living gets to keep their job, career, skil…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:16 AM
1

Yeah, you're busy singing while conveniently overlooking the parts about the women taking the money for the infanticide. Not at all. Unlike you, I'm not invested in some kind absurd gender war. You read that article and your takeaway is OMG FEMINISTS KILL BABIES. But MEN ARE GOOD GUYS!!! Really? Just....really? The Suffragists argued that ...women should be allowed to kill children. Cite please. In a propagandistic pamphlet the Society argued that the bill was hostile to women and ignored the re…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:11 AM
0

Right now VAWA forbids government officials from taking a statement from the accused. It even forbids that he/she be notified of the accusations. Yes, of course? The premise of the provision is that the family members of US citizens and perm. residents, who are not citizens or permanent residents themselves, are trapped in an abusive relationship, because if they end the relationship they will be subject to deportion. *The process is available to people of any gender. * Those provisions of VAWA …
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:54 AM
-1

It's telling how you call it "seducers" when men do it, but "premarital sex" when women do it. How ideological. I was adopting the language. Deadlast seems to have a problem admitting this because it's not ideologically convenient. Not at all. I am not, for example, conveniently overlooking the paragraph on the "poor" men financing the infanticide. political men tried to protect children, and political women protested it. Similarly, political men -- who actually had, you know, political power an…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:13 AM
1

I didn't write the piece and I wouldn't have chosen to write it that way. I strongly suspect the author was adopting or strongly influenced by the language of the source material; "seducer" is a very Victorian thing to call someone. Still, I would guess that men more often seduced than vice-versa, just performing a cost-benefit analysis. Sex in Victorian times was much more costly to women, though men and women were presumably equally impulsive and stupid. Presumably that would deter women. I ho…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:43 AM
1

Men are more likely to remember abuse in the past twelve months then over their lifetime because, like most humans, their 'memories' change to conform to the social narrative. Repressed memories have been pretty thoroughly debunked.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:34 AM
2

which may be inflated for men due to greater rates of incarceration Inflated? If they happen, they happen.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:33 AM
8

I'm not a fan of this guy's posting methodology, but this info is actually in the report, at page 24. Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only m…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:33 AM
2

!! You have no idea what young American women are like !!! They are violent and entitled to a degree that you simpy cannot comprehend. They have been socialized from birth to think that they have an absolute right to anything they want, from anyone they want, at any time they want. You can look at the data and understand what it means on an intellectual level, but do not even try to understand on a human level. I'm 29 and this resembles no woman I know, but okay. Note that the female victims inc…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:28 AM
1

That's not funny, though? That's at best an aspiration to the existence of funny.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:13 AM
-3

So, men abandoned (more like, couldn't afford) kids, but they also tried to protect them... Did you read the same article I did? Bastard laws were changed such that men were basically off the hook for financially supporitng their bastards, and men abandon them in droves accordingly. Twelve pounds was a great deal of money for a young girl on her own, but baby farmers were interested in only one thing, "How much money have you got; or, how much can you get from the father of the child." <29> Ofte…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:05 AM
-10

TLDR: Go ahead and steal.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:23 AM
2

She didn't touch his business though which was a miracle since it's worth millions. ....then, she didn't clean him out, did she.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:20 AM
-2

she should learn how to stand on her own 2 feet Alimony is typically limited in time and designed to give the spouse time to do that.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:19 AM
3

If she refuses, divorce right away and sue for full custody on the grounds that she doesn't want to work. You can't beat the system by trying to get full custody providing non-grounds for fully custody. You're also often making a financial bet that divorce is more likely: childcare is expensive enough that often the second income is not worth it.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:18 AM
-5

Why wouldn't she? The stay-at-home-parent is the designated caregiver. Why would the kids' primary caregiver suddenly switch to the other spouse due to divorce? That makes no sense.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:15 AM
1

What do you think "no fault" means?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:08 AM
1

There has NEVER been a time in history when men abandoned their children in droves Uh, history would like a word with you. See this link for a fascinating and horrific story of the Bastard Laws. http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1989-0/haller.htm
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:07 AM
1

That doesn't make sense. Why should a child with one very rich parent and one very poor parent be supported as if he or she has two very poor parents?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:04 AM
2

What a terribly designed website. Whoever came up with their color scheme needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot, as a mercy. I don't think the link actually contains any real substance on which to critique/praise the current bill; "X must be great because Y doesn't like it" is a terrible heuristic.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:02 AM
1

wit is one of the greatest aspects of the MRM ..Can you provide examples? I don't think of this sub as having a sense of humor, but maybe I'm missing it.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 11:58 PM
2

Why is "crime avoidance" relevant only to women posted on /r/mensrights? Let's explore this!
/r/MensRights16/05/12 12:35 PM
2

Examples: objectification of women. Men who reward women for objectifying themselves. Any women who acts helpless and focuses on her good looks is an immediate turn off for me. I don't want to be an ass, but speaking of objectifying women: it seems strange - and yes, objectifying - that with regards to women who "act helpless and focuses on her good looks", you focus on whether that's a turn on or a turn off for you. Maybe this is about more than whether a woman is sexually appealing to you.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:52 PM
1

But see, the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/sports/boys-swimming-on-girls-teams-find-success-then-draw-ire.html?pagewanted=all
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:43 PM
7

No. Why do you think men and women's teams are seperate? Do you think it's for aesthetic reasons? Men are stronger, faster, build muscles more easily, and have better gross hand-eye coordination. With few exceptions, mostly related to extreme endurance, men are better at sports. If there were no gender-differentiated teams, women would not be able to play competitive sports, because the best girls generally can't compete effectively against the best guys.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:43 PM
1

Murder is a specific crime with certain defined elements. Under the Model Penal Code (most states have adopted this, with tweaks), criminal homicide is murder when it's "committed purposefully or knowingly" or "commited recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." A person acts "purposefully or knowingly," when it is their "conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result" or they are "aware that it is practically cert…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:52 PM
1

True. I paraphrased. You said "economic regulation is perfectly fine." I think that's substantially similar.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:21 PM
0

The man does not wish to procreate with that woman anymore and this is the only thing which matters. Why is that the case?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:14 PM
-2

A "victim mindset" is when you warp every situation so it can be interpreted in a way that makes you a victim. If somebody regularly asserts they are discriminated against when they're just unlucky, then they have a victim mindset. If they regularly assert they're discriminated against because they are discriminated against, then they do not. Ah. One of those "you have a victim mindset; I'm discriminated against" things. It does not seem like a useful term, then.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:12 PM
1

Does he not have the option to revoke consent? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I don't think this is something with a lot of brightline rules. Obviously they both have rights and interests at stake in the embryos or pre-embryos or whatever they are.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:04 PM
2

I hope so too. Reading between the lines, however, I think it's more likely she won't. 45 is old enough to have stable finances, and the court alludes to significant resources. Bigger issue is whether the biodad will, in fact, want to have relationship with kid. He said that he would if it ended up being created.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:00 PM
0

Like I said, I read the blogs of a number of prominent libertarians. I know what it is. The wiki is consistent with what I wrote and inconsistent with total okayness with government economic regulation, much less on the basis of an arbitrary focus on corporate form. Let's take the overview section: Consequentialist libertarians argue that a free market and strong private property rights bring about beneficial consequences, such as wealth creation or efficiency Deontological libertarians argue th…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:58 PM
1

A dead baby does imply the occurrence of a murder.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:54 PM
7

Every day, there is at least one article whining about the pay gap using the misleading statistic that women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. I agree the statistic is misleading (though I think counterarguments have weaknesses too), but it's odd to me that you decided to make this post. Why are you announcing here that you a woman sick of "all the ignorant, whiny women" in a couple women-oriented subreddits? I mean, I tried for five seconds to give you the benefit of the doubt, but …
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:49 PM
1

Privilege and oppression are not antonyms Sure. That's the implication of his statement, however: My family were refuges and our particular town doesn't exist any more, it was annexed, so when internet feminists tell me how privileged I am when I doubt their assertions He's implying he's not "privileged" and he's leaving them to "their delusions." Do you disagree that this is where people come to talk about how they are discriminated against? How do you distinguish that from a "victim mindset" (…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:41 PM
1

I'm a lawyer who can parse a sentence. You stated the following: "halving the litigated divorce rate, thereby keeping families together" I don't see how "halving the litigated divorce rate" (in contrast to consent divorce) has any causitative relationship to "keeping families together." Certainly, you haven't said anything to support it. I supppose you could argue that it would deter divorce, because parents would be reluctant to shuttle their kids between two residences. You could also argue th…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:39 PM
-4

You're going to be shocked by Swift's A Modest Proposal. Did you know about the cannibalism movement in the 19th century?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:28 PM
2

I'm pro-life, but I feel that if you're gonna be pro-choice, you should be pro-male-choice and pro-female-choice. Don't half-ass it. It's not a matter of "half-assing" it, it's recognizing that different rights and interests are implicated.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:24 PM
1

Libertarianism doesn't always mean "anti-government involvement". In political analysis, I am considered a libertarian because I believe strongly in individual freedoms and transparency in government. But I am not opposed to government regulation, so long as that regulation doesn't interfere with individual rights. I do not view companies as individuals, and therefore economic regulation is perfectly fine to me, for example. You would not be recognized as libertarian by libertarian thinkers or l…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:17 PM
-8

You realize you're in mensrights, right? This isn't the place to go if you feel a distate for a "victim mindset." I mean, you yourself are talking about how not privileged you are and (it seems) arguing that your family history means that you cannot be privileged. You may not be doing competitive oppression Olympics (in the sense that no one is here saying "wah, I'm more oppressed because X!"), but you certainly are doing a solo act.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:06 PM
1

I respectfully suggest that the savings from halving the litigated divorce rate, thereby keeping families together, is itself sufficient to justify implementing a presumption of equal shared care. I don't think it is. Halving the "litigated divorce rate" means that divorces will be less contentious, for sure, but why do you think that means it would "keep families together"? Custody disputes don't cause divorces, by-and-large; rather, divorces cause custody disputes. Rather, the result would be …
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:47 PM
1

BTW, the explanation I just gave is pretty damn scary because it means the courts just empathize with women more, while seeing men (and their fundamental rights) disposable to the needs of women. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think you'll find the following exceprt from the opinion interesting: When confronted with a similar issue, New Jersey also applied a balancing approach. In J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001), the wife utilized IVF and had given birth during the course of…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:38 PM
2

Yes, perfect analysis! The woman's desire to have biological motherhood is more important than the man's right to consent to biological fatherhood! Really, more important than the man's right to withdraw consent to biological fatherhood. (The court also describes the difficulty the woman would have adopting, as a single woman at the age of 45, given the fact that would-be adopters outnumber potential adoptees.)
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:34 PM
0

In similar types of unions, such as sex or marriage, each partner must give consent for it to happen. If one person wants it and the other doesn't, it should not happen. I consider the act of conceiving a child a much more sacred union, and the forcing another person into that union is much graver. But he already gave consent, voluntarily creating embryos, and declined to fill out a portion of the form stating that the embryos should be destroyed in the event of divorce. Lets switch the hypo aro…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:29 PM
2

I'm pretty sure he lost the fight here. There's nowhere to appeal. I think literally the only thing that could work would be ramming a law through the Pennslyvania legislature unrealistically fast.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:19 PM
3

The Supreme Court wouldn't take this on cert, fun as it would be as a substantive due process case. We don't really need (or want) some kind of Supreme Court ruling that people have a Constitutional substantive due process right to control of their genetic material. Speaking of inventing rights! (Plus, he probably waived a substantive due process argument by failing to raise before lower courts).
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:17 PM
2

It seems like no one but the court agrees with the decision. And a bunch of other State Cupreme Courts.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:15 PM
3

He consented to a frozen embryo, to give himself the choice of implantation. Fact not in evidence. As far as I know, once the embryo was fertilized, no further consent would have ordinarily been required from him, but for the circumstances of the divorce and dispute of the eggs as marital property. She'd be the one showing up for medical procedures. Are we aware of what his expectation was? Is there any evidence he viewed it as creating an "option" to procreate? IVF is quite expensive. Normally …
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:10 PM
2

If we can force him into biological fatherhood just to give her biological motherhood, which completely ignores bodily autonomy, then we should force healthy women to let unhealthy women use their womb. ??? His bodily autonomy is not at stake at all. No one's going to even touch him. It would be a completely different case if the Court were going to order him to hand over his sperm so that her eggs could be fertilized, but the courts aren't doing that: that would implicate his bodily autonomy. B…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:03 PM
-1

it's worse to force the man to have a child than it is to force the woman to adopt if she wishes to pursue single motherhood. But he already agreed to it (and indeed participated) in creating the eggs with the intent that they be implanted, and he let her rely on his agreement, ruining a chance she otherwise would have had to procreate with a sperm donor.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:03 PM
1

It's about consent to fatherhood. His genetic material is an extension of him. People are thinking its just plain material since its out of his body, but thats just the way the technology works but the procreation issues are the same. Are they? We generally consider a one night stand where the condom breaks a "consent to fatherhood." The procreation issues are quite different, actually: because of the technology, the man has an opportunity to withdraw consent he would not otherwise have.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:01 PM
2

He had full control over his genetic material. He consented to using it to fertilize an egg. (Quite a number of eggs.) The eggs became marital property. I'm sympathetic to the balance of equities argument. This is her last chance for biological children and she has a right to control over her genetic material too. The "no other chances" thing is a tiebreaker. (Plus, he did agree to make the eggs and thus to children. Arguably, by consenting for her to use his genetic material to create kid, indu…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 11:59 AM
0

If she's wealthy enough to afford in vitro fertilization, why not?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 11:56 AM
1

It is a fallacy that shared parenting will cost more. In fact shared parenting would reduce litigated divorce by half and save taxpayers an estimated $56BN/yr in all the costs associated with single parent families. Your links don't really support the proposition you state. "Shared parenting" involves two single parent homes, rather than one. In contrast, these sources are comparing single parent households to two-parent households. You would need sources comparing expense of primary single pare…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 11:39 AM
1

Too late to change the title, but it'd be helpful to specify state involved when reporting on news of state law changes.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 11:30 AM
0

Who gives a fuck if he's black, he is just another MAN accused of rape with little or no proof; which 'should' be the focus of the article. Shame on OP for putting emphasis on his skin color and starting a fucking pissing match when we should be united against a common enemy. For fuck sack. Nonsense. Let's not pretend everything this subreddit complains about impacts men of all races equally. Black maleness is considered way more dangerous/threatening than white maleness. Look at college attainm…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 11:20 AM
1

Prosecutorial immunity prevents it. That said, censure at the very least may be warranted. The article says "newly discovered" statement, so prosecutors very plausibly may not have been aware of it in good faith: police reports are hard to read, officers have shitty handwriting, case files are legnthy and get messed up, and cases are transferred to new prosecutors who don't become thoroughly familiar with it. But the prosecutors were negligent at the least and this stuff matters. This whole "lol…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:47 AM
0

The article did not say Police are still seeking the murderer. Do you seriously think the only reason people die is "murder"?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:42 AM
0

If the father did the same, he would certainly be jailed. Can you describe an instance in which a teenage father was solely responsible for an infant, fucked up caring for it from stupidity/ignorance, and was treated more severely?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:38 AM
0

I think you're right that it wouldn't turn up in domestic violence stats, since no violence seems to have been involved.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:37 AM
1

Yet if mom did not kill her child, she was an accessory to murder. What? I think the position of the prosecutors is that there was no murder.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:36 AM
1

I really think we would need to know that harassment actually occurred at these "healthcare facilities", and that Wood was not just using her power to force those who disagree with her to keep quiet I don't see how an appellate judge could possibly do such a thing. A district court judge would be the "finder of fact," ie, determine that harassment actually occurred. (In this case, the district court judge was James Holderman, so it wasn't an eeeevil woman). The Seventh Circuit could only determi…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 06:08 AM
2

You're making broad, bigoted "questions" about women ("how much does any woman love their man outside of his utility to her?") and attributing responsibility for breakups of relationships solely to women. I was providing context. If this is the "bash women" subreddit, well, my bad.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:54 AM
2

Most marriages in which the woman earns more than the man break up (with the woman initiating the divorce) within 5 years. Men are more likely to be unfaithful in those relationships too.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:23 AM
13

how did these women make it to the ripe old age of 38 and are still single? How did OP? Maybe they focused on their careers rather than relationships. Maybe they got divorced. Maybe they never found the right person.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:19 AM
-3

When i voiced my opinion to my male (but not MR) friends, they were aghast at what they called 'bitterness'. Am I being too cynical? You jumped right past cynicism into delusion. It's not psychologically healthy, and I mean that sincerely. It seems to be isolating you from forming relationships. That said, they could very well be actively looking for a relationship / possible marriage and under pressure to be more aggressive due to their advancing age. Horrors! Edit: Probably you shouldn't give …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:18 AM
3

Because Feminism is a belief system based on emotion and faith, not a fact-based ideology. Do you have any evidence? This seems to be an emotional argument -- demonizing of one's opponenets usually is -- rather than a factual one.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:13 AM
2

What do you mean "even"? I mean, you're resorting to ad hom right here, so why the outrage?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 01:41 PM
-1

Effective? How? Where? Do you think the shrillness or the misogny helps your movement? Really? Anyway, this is the only account I have. Perhaps you're projecting- do you hide behind alts often? I see you were unable to answer my questions; nice evasion.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 10:01 PM
1

Believe it or not, analyses have accounted for and corrected for that obvious correlation. See my other comments in this topic for an example link. I haven't made any comments re: income, because I haven't looked at the correlation/causation argument argument there specifically. Though it is interesting that men who have the most to lose financially from marriage and are most likely to earn much more than their partners, and thus are most "threatened" by marriage under r/MR's view of the legal r…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 06:01 AM
1

If you think you're going to hell for pre-marital sex, by all means I would think a man might want to get married. Save religious desperation, there isn't anything in marriage for men. If you don't count things like seeking treatment sooner following a heart attack. These benefits empirically exist, regardless of whether you acknowledge of them. Do you think there are nearly 30,000 men's rights readers here over obvious bullshit? Do you think this disagreement about whether there are benefits fo…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 02:11 AM
0

I have to tell you I've discussed "marriage" with several ministers in the past, one who had previously been divorced and one who was in marriage counseling, and I suspect they would get a good chuckle out of this marital "happiness" you're pushing. Meh, what can you expect from people in failed and failing marriages? Ministers, too, ie, particularly likely to have married early and for foolish reasons (believed only route to sex, for example0. Marriage has NEVER been about "happiness". That see…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:53 AM
8

Women are to blame + snakes + garden is a cultural allusion, man, even if not intended. Death of the author.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:48 AM
2

How do they hurt people? Can you link me to an egregious example? (I'm not trying to citenag, I'm just curious about whether I'd agree that the SRS people are "extremists" rather than being basically mainstream, but prickly & looking for a fight- though I suppose you could reasonably call someone with mainstream interpretations an 'extremist' if they think it's fun to hang out on a SR specifically devoted to being aggravated).
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:43 AM
0

I don't have any particular stake; I don't even plan to ever marry. I'm just annoyed by obviously bullshit implications like the answer to the question "Marriage: What's in It for Men" is "nothing" being thoughtlessly agreed to when it's just empirically untrue. Groupthink irks.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:39 AM
18

Oh, sorry- I see how you accidentally made a cultural allusion to women being deceptive and underhanded. Still, there's a nice irony in your accidental cultural allusion to women being to blame for everything as you solely blamed women for ...the existence of bad relationships? The non-existence of certain relationships?
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:37 AM
19

Of course, that requires being willing to give it... and men don't trust women to anymore. Men are too used to being manipulated that way, too used to snakes in the garden. "Original sin," that old mythology which literally blames women for everything wrong in the world? That's what you're going to reference? Appropriate- not quite in the way you mean, I'm sure. But appropriate!
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:01 AM
50

Robots, porn, and my guy friends... why do I need a woman again? Eh, if all a woman is to you is a friend who has sex with you and cleans up after you....Why should a woman treat you as an "adored treasure"? I'm unclear.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:54 PM
3

which is about as hateful and extremist as you can find on reddit besides anarchofeminism Someone's not familiar with /r/beatingwomen, among other charming examples.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:43 PM
1

Without substantiation.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:40 PM
0

any of you actually did what you say you are, there would be plenty of evidence of such. Uh, what have I "said I did"? I said I read the literature and encountered MRA and found both extremely offputting. Are you saying I haven't? I"m a bit perplexed here. IF I were you, I would critically examine what exactly it is about the tone of my movement that outsiders find so off-putting. Or you could embrace groupthink, I guess.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:18 PM
0

Well, it differs in the sense that it's an entirely different statement, and I think it's absolutely fascinating, from a cognitive standpoint, that you percieve them to be the same, because it's just factually untrue. The statement says NOTHING about the value of marriage or the risks of marriage. It merely identifies men's role in marriage as "respected providers and protectors" and identifies no other roles. Moreover, it refers to the women no longer being percieved by society as needing "prov…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:13 PM
-2

It is unmistakable that marriage is dying. Again, this is supported by the data. Not at all; it's unmistakable that marriage rates are (currently) declining. There's no paticular reason to think that marriage rates won't stabilize. It's easy to mistake a recent trend as an irreversible or inevitable trend, but that's hardly the case. Countries that were on progressive paths thirty years ago are violent theocracies now. I'm skeptical that marriage rates have anything to do with divorce being unfa…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 11:07 PM
1

We MRAs are not against Marriage as an institution, or concept. We are simply saying the legal regime demanded by feminists and women has poisoned the institution to the point where it is simply a really bad risk to men. There's nothing saying Marriage is 'bad', it's just not worth the risk... Well, this article actually says "wah wah we don't want equal marriages! wah wah. Traditional men-in-charge or nothing!": For the article- Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates …
/r/MensRights21/12/11 09:27 PM
-4

You're mistaking your airy proclamations for "simple truth." BTW if marriage makes people happy why are there so many divorces, separations, domestic disturbances, murders, suicides, cheaters, open marriages, and marriage counselors? That seems a silly question to ask. Because not all marriages are good marriages, of course. Aggregate data sets are - shockingly - aggregates and what is generally on average is not true in every instance. And of course, in examining "marriages", these studies look…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 09:13 PM
1

Lets see some data. If it's "absurd" it ought to be empirically supportable. I agree that there's no reason per se that legal formalization of a committed long-term relationship would result in different outcomes (except for the government benefits such as survivor's benefits which do, of course, have some impact), but unfortunately your data is going to be contaminated. The social norm is legal formalization. The kind of people who do not legally formalize, therefore, have made a choice to stro…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 08:16 PM
3

So all we have is a statement that you don't like twox. Got it. I will take it in the same light you would take comments about r/mr being a den of bitter misognists.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 08:15 PM
0

Unfortunately, with the way things have gone over the last 40-45 years, these once-real advantages have been seriously diluted. I was looking at studies from the last ten years. At best, you're hypothethizing about outcomes forty years in the future, so I don't see how you can make any definite statement about "once-real advantages" being "seriously diluted," and I challenge you to come up with concerete changes that would lead to different expected outcomes. Personally I expect stronger correla…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 08:13 PM
4

Then please explain to me why ALL the married men I know are miserable, and tell me not to get married. I'm sure you understand how this works, and if you don't, you've been misspending your time. You could living in a statistical bubble; you (probably are) exaggerating; you could be a member of a demographics particularly likely to have bad marriages; you could make friends with people particularly likely to have bad marriages; you could actively prompt your associates to make such comments, wh…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 08:10 PM
-5

Plenty. Marriage is correlated with higher happiness (for argument that it's causitive see http://www.bsfrey.ch/articles/434_06.pdf), higher income, and leads to longer lifespans, paticularly to men. But I guess facts don't suit your implicit rhetorical argument.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:08 PM
2

Cite? Thanks. Facts don't matter, it's apparently what you feel. Well, given that the facts are undeterminable through computer screen, I think that's a pretty stupid way to look at it. Nor do I think it's unusual to congratulate people looking for congratulations, or to console someone looking for consolation.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:54 PM
4

Now that's a gal who's just in love with being a victim. I don't think this is the right sub to criticize people for being love with being victims. Not without hypocrisy, anyway.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:52 PM
0

No amount of rational argument is going to persuade you of the ridiculousness of criminalizing adolescents having sex or how this will always criminalize male behavior heavily and largely excuse female behavior. Scumbag MRA: -Widely resentful of changes feminism has made since the 1970s in gender relations -Thinks gender relations are unchanging.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:49 PM
-7

It's only sexual assault if they're ugly. Got it.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:46 PM
-2

slut It's weird that you're on this subreddit when you're so wedded to traditional notions of sexual mores and how Women Ought To Behave. Being a gentleman Snort. The funny thing is, I bet you actually think you are one. TLDR: You send mixed messages, lead her on, and get judgy when she solicits sex. And then whine about women on r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:44 PM
2

Society thinks women are weak, can't protect themselves, and are non-aggressive; hence, violence against female protestors is instantly percieved as unprovoked, whereas violence against male protestors is considered more likely to have been provoked. There's also the sex element; men are not being stripped to their underwear in public to sexually humiliate them in a culturally conservative country where they have very little power. Media finds womens' bodies tilitating; men's bodies are not obje…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:38 PM
2

5'9 is dead average.
/r/seduction10/12/11 02:26 PM
3

Naw. Tolling the statute of limitations is pretty normal legal doctrine, and this isn't even an outrageous example. It'd be interesting if it were 50 years or something.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 07:57 PM
1

No. Precedent is established by rulings of appellate courts when the losing side appeals and a written opinion discussing the legal issues is published. This is the kind of thing that doesn't see a lot of 'precedent' because the trial courts have lots of discretion over sentencing and appellate judges don't like to second-guess, and because sentencing is very fact-specific. If the state has sentencing guidelines, that'd be the place to look.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 06:08 AM
3

Any time your political analysis become a sociobiologist screeding on how X movement is all about controlling mating and sexual opportunities (and specifically, your personal access to the same), it's time to rethink your political analysis.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 11:34 PM
3

Han Chinese are genetically diverse and (surprise!) Chinese people from provinces near Siberia tend to be very tall, just as Chinese people in Guangdong are short. In Shandong province, the average height of males 20-25 years old is 175.44 cm (around 5 ft 9), vs. 169.78 in Guangdong (around 5 ft 6); for women, 169.45 (5 ft 7) to 159.78 (5 ft 3).
/r/MensRights14/11/11 11:14 PM
5

Sure mate. Eve, original sin, poor poor heterosexual male puppets, etc. When feminists claim there is misogny in /mr (and there is), they can point to this post.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 11:07 PM
1

There are roughly 3 billion adult women in the world, far more than men Actually, there are more men than women in the world. China and India both abort vast numbers of female fetuses for being - horror! - female, and India also neglects-to-death large numbers of female children. Source: http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_gender.aspx
/r/MensRights14/11/11 04:19 PM
2

I'm free to write any personal opinion I want on here.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 04:23 AM
3

Nope. I'm free to write any personal opinion I want on here. Sure, just keep your lawyer friend's opinions and her opinions of her client to yourself, rather than dashing to your computer to plaster them all over mensrights and promising updates. Or get her permission to discuss them. Or be a dick. (Admittedly, I don't have the highest opinion your lawyer-friend disparaging her client to you, either, which gave you the ability to plaster them all over reddit) Why don't you sign your post with yo…
/r/MensRights12/11/11 03:20 AM
1

If that's true, show the thread to your roommate. If she's fine with it, then perhaps you're right. I'm guessing she won't be fine with it.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 03:10 AM
6

in contrast, a gay man has no gender movement. while he may hold no attraction to women, he also has very little in society pushing him to hate them. What, are you admitting that male privilege exists? On mensrights? Out, out!
/r/MensRights12/11/11 03:08 AM
5

Wow. You're a dick for betraying your roommate's confidences.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 03:05 AM
1

I think it's just completely implausibe that it's anything like the scale of the m-to-f rapefest going on in South Africa, where more than 25% of men surveyed admitted to raping someone. A woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read in South Africa.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:27 AM
2

Is it really “unnatural,” or is it simply nature that has made boys better at math in general than girls? I doubt this guy is wondering if schools really "unfair" to boys, or if it's simply that nature has made girls better at academics in general than boys. I doubt it! TLDR: he's an ass.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:12 AM
2

He also thinks that innocent people don't have a constitutional right not to be executed.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:01 PM
0

I am a quarter Jewish on my father side, my other relatives when they are angry at me use my last name as you Americans use the word "Jew!" Where do you get your ideas about how Americans use the word "Jew"? It's not common here, mate, however bizarrely antisemitic your relatives may be. Stop blaming yourself, stop being the victim, stop apologizing for being a male otherwise history will repeat itself. Don't even know what this means.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 01:02 PM
3

No. Sarcastically pointing out that MRA hates everything about feminists...until feminists do something MRA approves of, upon which point feminist origin of policy hidden under bush.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 12:54 PM
4

No, I disagree as a matter of language usage. If you say "feminisim is a movement espousing hate," then point at radical feminists as the proof, then you arguing that that the typical feminist espouses hate and/or is a radical feminist. If the typical or representative feminist does not "espouse hate," then the statement is wrong, period. If you say "Dogs are vicious child-killers," that's wrong even if you follow up when called upon it to say "but that's not a COMPLETE statement about dogs, I a…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:09 AM
3

You'd have to substantiate it if you want me to believe "MSM" (never does the use of a term more quickly discredit the user) pays more attention to one sort of killing than the other.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:04 AM
3

What if it's not a personal attack? What if it's a comment on the argument? Characterizing a prejudiced line of argument is not ad hom.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:57 AM
11

Yes, patronizing women is really the best way to counter an accusation of misogyny. Sure. In experience, the best way to rebut something is not to prove them right.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:56 AM
1

Bypass it by bypassing it. Ignore the accusation and address substantive responses or portions of responses. You can't win that kind of discussion, just like you could never persuade anyone here that "misandry" is not the source of men's issues in society.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:53 AM
0

That wouldn't work- whiny "wahaha you're being unfair! I quit!" isn't persuasive, it's a way to save face once you've lost the argument. If people aren't following "basic rules of logic," it's pretty easy to demonstrate. Generally, though, people are - they just start from premises you personally disagree with. It's a losing tactic.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:52 AM
7

Haha. But we can't all debate in Fantasy World, where we get to pretend our opponents have inferior vocabularies.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:50 AM
1

Antisemitism. What a surprising find.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:48 AM
6

Meanwhile on r/feminisms and r/feminism, people soldier on without posting every instance of men murdering their children. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 07:47 AM
4

This is what happens to countries overrun by feminists.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 04:46 AM
9

By balanced, you mean you're affected by myside bias.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:32 AM
1

And also in Science. Why don't you try reasoning with the facts at hand, hmm?
/r/MensRights04/11/11 08:51 AM
2

"The facts" are nowhere near as incontrovertible as you believe. Want to expand selective service to women? Have at it, with my blessing! Have fun fighting conservative male politicians. Feminists will welcome the company. Increase the proportion of women in dangerous (but well paid!) jobs like construction and policing? Why would feminists object? It'd help make up the gender gap in poverty. Folks, it wasn't feminists who defeated the ERA. Citing "apex fallacy" doesn't respond to to the ridicul…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 07:53 AM
0

You believe in "male priviledge", your opinions are meaningless. You don't believe in 'male priviledge,' your opinions are meaningless. What a persuasive means of argumentation that is! Refusing to engage except with supporters of your worldview is not the mark of a robust worldview.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:57 PM
-1

The funny thing is that I don't think you're trying to be funny - you accuse me of a "black and white worldview" when I just parroted your line back to you.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:40 PM
-2

I have a daughter and I observed how women and girls behave as she grew up. Haha. I like that you cite this as if it's a point of authority on How Women Are. I have a daughter, guys! I have therefore been in close contact with the alien species of women and can now make some remarks on their curious behavior.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:59 PM
-2

Misogyny is a disease, and the disease is spread by feminists. And the disease is spread by those who resent giving up male privilege.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:53 PM
-2

Could you blame a jew for hating a german in WWII? Haha. This is why people laugh at this sub: people somehow seem to earnestly believe that the position of men - in a society where they control virtually all wealth and political authority - is at all comparable to the situation of a Jewish person in WWII. For fucks sake. You're delusional.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:52 PM
2

It's still hearsay, but it's admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. Yes, that's an incredibly anal thing to point out and I should feel bad for doing so.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:51 PM
1

But you are cherry picking the 'best' of both arguments to support your twisted ideology. To top it off, you 'defend' the legal stance thus: No, I'm just not bifurcating my arguments in the strange way you are. You realize, I hope, the legislatures don't conjure legal standards out of air and dew? Quite the opposite- the law looks at circumstance A, B, and C, and tries to come up with something reasonable based on the existence of those circumstances. The law treats men and women differently wit…
/r/MensRights23/10/11 02:13 AM
1

So really, we should just allow men to screw whoever they want (that will have them) and if that woman gets pregnant, she can do what Biology dictates and have the kid....but I don't see a Biological obligation from men to support that child...do you? What are you even talking about? The legal obligation to support your kid flows from the government not wanting to be burdened by it, not "biology." That's all. Research the bastard laws FFS. However, the different legal rights and obligations stem…
/r/MensRights23/10/11 01:10 AM
1

How so? Treating things that are similar alike, and things that are different differently, is kinda...foundational reasoning. It's also a basic legal building block. Men and women are not in the stituation re: pregnancy.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 02:46 PM
1

Nope. The definition of discrimination is treating simliarly situated people differently. But pregnant women and men who have had sex with women who are now pregnant are not similarly situated. You can't look at the shape of a man's bones and know whether or not he's ever had a kid. Edit: Holy crap! My writing is fucking awful when I'm tired. Edited to have, you know, correctly spelled words and all that fancy shit.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 08:11 AM
1

Uhh...most of the jobs lost have been poorly paid, man. The rich lose numbers on a piece of paper and maybe a few luxuries. The lifestyles of the poor are actually impacted in big ways.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:36 AM
1

"There is no excuse for men and women having different reproductive rights." That's not a great framing, actually. Because as soon as you say "different" and "reproduction" people are immediately prodded to think about differences and biology, and realize that only one gender carries a fetus to term, and that's a great reason for different rights regarding that fetus. The framing you rejected emphasizes equality, without drawing attention to the fact that women and men are situated differently o…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:34 AM
3

Yes. Why are we even debating this? Because real abortions are revenue-positive for the government, and financial abortions would cost the government a bunch of money.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:30 AM
0

it will take a brave lawyer to claim it includes putting a gun to a man's head and making him fuck you Uh, no. That's a very plausible argument, and quite cowardly lawyers make completely unreasonable arguments all the time.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:22 AM
1

Now now. Let's not co-opt the good deeds of others. The Innocence Project isn't a men's rights cause (or if it is, I should tip you off- some of the state branches have been pretty well infiltrated by some feminists of my acquaintence). Sure, the Innocence Project mostly helps men but it wasn't established to help "men." Its advocacy issues are pushing back against eyewitness identifications as reliable evidence and pushing for more DNA testing- criminal defendants' rights.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 06:30 PM
1

I fail to see how genders are even of importance when rape is involved. The word rape, by definition, means that one didn't want it. You don't think analyzing the problem is important? Ugggrhg. This is the rhetoric of someone who cares about scoring points and enjoying feeling aggrieved than, you know, stopping rape. It's important to figure out when rape is most likely and who is most at risk to figure out how to get them help and how to reduce rape. Men in prison, men who are prostitutes, and …
/r/MensRights20/10/11 03:53 PM
1

I was referring to surveys define an independent as a voter who is not a reliable vote for either party because, well, campaign managers don't kid themselves about who they can safely count in their camp and don't care about how people self-identify as long as they vote the right way. I'm willing to bet you're a leans-Democrat, not a true independent.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 02:18 AM
3

It's an issue I've never seen brought up by a neutral party. There's no such thing as a neutral party. There's people who have made up their mind, and there are people who are indifferent. (See, e.g., the vaunted "independents" in US politics-- aka, the least informed and least involved of all voters) And in particular, the money statistic is misleading - how much are women earning compared to men in equivalent positions, not just the aggregate? How often are women able to make the same salary a…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:49 AM
3

(Which makes me wonder if you and basstronomy and perhaps others are informed about mens rights by the same sources... or are even accounts belonging to the same person. But I digress) Maybe because it's an issue with your movement- basically, it's an internet thing where people complain. Your rebuttal does not even include, so far as I can tell, "examples of efforts to either create domestic violence shelters." A click on your links and some cursory clicking around found only a hotline (which i…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 07:22 AM
6

People do tend to characterize the subreddit according to their opinion of the entire mensright movement- /r/mensrights is one of the least misogynistic men's rights places one the internet (if not the least). Which isn't saying much, sadly.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 06:22 AM
-1

Why wouldn't men be dissatisfied with women's privileged position in society at the expense of males? Women are only "privileged" in certain narrow aspects of society. Certainly family courts should not be gender-biased in granting custody or similar decisions (though it ain't a bias if women tend to spend more time with the kids and are proportionately more often awarded custody - or if you want to say it is, you need to abandon the 'it doesn't matter that women are less successful in their car…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 06:19 AM
1

"general welfare" is not charity. Charity is specific welfare. But we've already learned you have no idea what words really mean. The general welfare isn't so narrow; it is, in fact, whatever the government says it is, because who else would interpret "the general welfare"? If elected political leaders thinks it's in the best interests of the public to spend money to avoid destitute people starving in the streets, that's all the constitution requires. Your argument is flawed for other reasons to…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 11:14 PM
0

No, I'm just insisting that you reason better than "X is X and only a moron wouldn't see otherwise!" (And by reason better, I mean at all) Here is your 30 second stomp: "...where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?" Oh dear. When all you can do is resort to a parable... and then you call it a "30 second stomp" -- I mean, come on. At least cite the Constitution. At least cite a parable that cites the Constitution instead of making a purely moral…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 04:33 AM
0

See? You're begging the question. Embedded in your argument (but not actually argued for, just submitted as a premise), is: (1) That redistribution of wealth is not a "rational moral choice" (2) That taxation is theft when government expenditures include unconstitutional programs (ALL taxes or the percentage of revenues? Does this mean that taxation was theft during WWII because of the internment of Japanese-Americans? But nevermind.) (3) That you understand the Constitution is "just fine" (4) T…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 03:05 AM
0

Necessary assumed premises to your reasoning that most people would see as questionable, to say the least (note that this is by no means a complete list): (1) Taxation is theft Taxation is theft by whatever demographic predominates on a particular issue Voters intend to directly benefit themselves or their demographic when voting on taxation issues Voter preferences are effectively translated into government policy by our governmental systems That social spending differs from other forms of spen…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 01:41 AM
0

Begging the question ain't rational argument, dude. So why should anyone credit your premises regarding "rational moral agency"?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 09:12 PM
2

Except that the studies don't support his conclusion that: I tend to believe that the women who can handle rational moral agency are the exceptions, not the rules. All his studies show is that women support social spending.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 01:01 AM
5

Why is it a "fantastic story"? This isn't fucking bigfoot.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:58 PM
-1

I'm confused. Why do you need elaboration to state whether your standards are consistent for men and women?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:34 PM
1

I think he got downvoted because he hates women, actually. Seriously, check his comment history. He's a crazed bigot.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 02:58 PM
2

I'm curious. Is it not rape if a man is too intimidated to "resist" a woman, or does that only apply to raping women?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:59 PM
1

Really? Where? You're the one who says he can "make sense" of brief quotes in the article.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 09:29 PM
2

I'm not persuaded. First, "I don't buy that women were oppressed by men historically" doesn't seem that susceptible to interpretation. (And no offense, but I think in some ways "we HAD to oppress you for the good of everyone" sounds worse) The "men are the victims of prostitution" thing sounds more to me like "women are exploiting men's sexual needs!" You're just wrong on men being disproportionately the target of a sting -- it's much more dangerous (and thus manpower intensive) for a vice cop t…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 03:35 PM
1

I think he's just kinda appalled by the crazy. On the other hand, you sound pretty wacked out yourself from other comments.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:45 AM
1

Well, at least your hiding the bigotry, which is politically important.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:42 AM
1

It's not deceptive and doesn't hide its agenda. Not a bad thing. People can appropriately discount (or credit, I suppose) the site accordingly.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:42 AM
1

But you don't understand the word "criminal" as it is defined in a dictionary, which I think is a bigger problem. Do you honestly think your rhetoric is convincing?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:39 AM
4

You are more than just a little arrogant to think that all people will react like you have. Or more than a little stupid. Or both. I am betting on both. You sound like you missed the part of kindergarten where they socialize the kids.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:37 AM
1

Haha. Man, you don't know shit about China, do you? I don't think it's progressive to abort your daughters and buy your sons houses.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 01:47 AM
1

Meh. Why waste one's time with ideological bigots?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 01:44 AM
0

This isn't "man friendly." The guy's a transparent clown. “I don’t buy that women were oppressed by men historically,” he said. ... He also believes that men are the “victims” of prostitution, that women “volunteer” into sex trafficking and that women’s “hysterical” fear of rape damages equality.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 01:38 AM
3

Maybe you should expose yourself to differing views more -- get out of r/mensrights -- see the sun. You don't seem to be able to handle disagreement in a pro-social way.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:46 PM
2

"Stalker" is used all the time regarding women, what are you talking about? IME the word is used mostly by guys complaining about girls they're not into texting them. Hell, in my social circle, I think it's only been used about women that I can recall. (But then, none of my girl friends have ever been stalked that I know of) I agree that "creep" is gendered male; "creep" has threatening connotations that generally aren't attributed to women.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:42 PM
1

.... You're not using the word "fact" in the way the dictionary indicates that it should be used.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:35 PM
2

I don't see how it's flawed. Women experience higher rates of sexual assault in the military than men (IIRC ~40% to ~10%), but there are many more men so more men are sexually assaulted in total. I don't think it's reasonable to argue that we can conclusively say that either gender is assaulted "more." Obviously, the military comprehensively sucks on rape/assault issues.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 05:15 PM
1

Uh, women get "preferential treatment" in college admissions? (I'm too lazy to dig up rebuttal evidence for jobs) Check your facts, man. See for example this article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/are-admissions-preferences-for-men-okay/28909?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en The U.S. Civil Rights Commission has abandoned an investigation into whether colleges are discriminating against women in admissions. The move to scrap the investigation, because of incomplete data, was sponsored …
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:58 PM
11

Not really. When something transparently ridiculous, it just makes someone dismiss the argument entirely.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:40 PM
1

No: I'm just logically extrapolating from your belief that questioning a 50-50 proportion "minimizes" violence against men and pointing out that it would go both ways.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 03:45 PM
1

I think that is the obvious implication of your post, which jumps straight from "because it's a man it's funny" to your characterization of feminist beliefs, with nary a transition or distinction made between them. Second, I don't think disagreeing with you that DV is 50-50 "minimizes" violence against men, unless you think that arguing that men constitute a higher proportion of domestic violence than is commonly believed "minimizes" DV against women.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 03:38 PM
1

Where's the feminists making light of domestic violence against either gender? Particularly in crass depictions like the subject of the post?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 03:28 PM
3

Do you seriously think that feminists would approve of an ad making light of domestic violence against either gender? Perspective: you ain't got it.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 01:26 PM
4

What do you mean "legally, no"? Is there a law that sworn testimony is not evidence? (And speaking of legal evidence, check you state wiretapping laws)
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:20 AM
7

Why can't people try just a little bit harder to avoid begging the question? And upvoting this shit? Reddit, why such a fondness for emotive over rational reasoning?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:20 AM
-1

Yeah, because reddit is the first place people go when they want "unfettered solutions to problems."
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:12 AM
2

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're evaluating the Daily Mail based on its reporting of female criminals. Like that's the primary criteria in a newspaper. Total nonsense.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 04:47 AM
16

I'm saying that if you think Daily Mail "comes closer to the truth on female issues" I think you're selecting a publication for its support for certain preexisting beliefs, rather than less, er, motivated criteria, such as accuracy, journalistic integrity, thoughtfulness or thoroughness of analysis. Because objectively speaking, the Daily Mail is sensationalistic trash. I don't even know what "women arnt misbehaving in society" means, so I can't either confirm or deny that statement.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 05:54 PM
14

Confirmation bias in action.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:05 AM
1

"[W]omen don't belong in 12-hour-a-day executive office positions."
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:03 AM
-1

Wow. Feminists are to you as the Devil is to Christians and liberals are to Republicans.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:00 AM
-4

No, she meant that women belong in the kitchen.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 01:58 AM
2

While I agree the judge's ruling is homophobic and disgusting, I think your comment is not applicable. A family friend or a parent's boyfriend or girlfriend isn't a "stranger." Stepparents and parents' significant others are (along with blood relatives) the individuals most likely to abuse a young person. The key to pedophiles is access.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:51 PM
7

That seems consistent with similar reports I've seen in the news regarding gay men.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:48 PM
2

So?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:45 PM
0

I think the poster was giving helpful supplemental info, actually. Chill out.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:11 PM
1

He's overseas. She's overseas. You think he's military and she's not? Interesting-- (and no judgment)-- sexist assumption.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 03:13 AM
5

"They get what they deserve"? Charming.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 12:21 AM
1

They're BOTH overseas, so I don't see how it's relevant. It's certainly not "a huge leap of faith" to live overseas for someone. And if you think he's a military guy because he lives overseas with his wife, well, maybe you should follow that assumption through and thank her too.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 12:18 AM
-2

Dude, if you hate women that much, just start sleeping with men. Everyone wins.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 09:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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