TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

derpylord143 Archive

View 6 posts and 882 comments by derpylord143 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Aren't you talking about the brainwash documentary (in Danish its Hjernevask) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3153646/ I believe in my past comments I have a link to all 7 episodes, when I get home later I shall link them.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:26 PM
1

A: I made several points, which explain why we need more information (danger of moral panics, inefficiency of solutions when not understanding the problem, not actually solving the issue among others) B: the study looks at children (aka anyone upto the age at which the state considers you a parent... for the US this is mainly 18 or 21), not infants. My arguments are founded on such. C: I never threw children under the bus, I was merely pointing out that there may be objective reasons as to why m…
/r/MensRights29/03/18 07:23 AM
2

Not addressing the points I made says a lot. Attacking my character says a lot (ad hominem anyone?). Alas this doesn't address the point you made. So without further ado. Yes you can enter an area with high rates of crime. On the other hand, whilst this might make it harder to achieve the crime, it doesn't mean that they won't still attempt it, nor that they will actually not perpetrate the crimes elsewhere. This is the entire flaw with the "new right" realist approach to crimes (I think its "ne…
/r/MensRights28/03/18 06:58 PM
1

Thank you, also if you are interested in some light reading I would suggest this (it was the article I was just talking about): https://www.academia.edu/746242/Favoured_or_oppressed_Married_women_property_and_coverturein_England_1660_1800 its a pretty non-bias account of historical english society
/r/MensRights28/03/18 06:36 PM
2

That would be great. I sometimes just start reading weird articles I have thrown around. I was reading an article a while back (chistmas holidays) about whether historical English society was as sexist as is often made out. These will be added to my list of to reads
/r/MensRights28/03/18 06:05 PM
2

A: If we don't know whats causing the issue then we cannot fix it. You can put a band-aid on it, sure, but that wont solve the underlying problem. Its the difference between having a response and having an effective response. your proposed approach (making it a focus straight away) might cause social policy changes which are responsive (aka make it illegal), but not actually solve the reason as to why it occurs (removing the cause). Not to mention, responsive actions on the part of society can b…
/r/MensRights28/03/18 06:01 PM
2

If you have the spare time and were so inclined, I would certainly not mind. Like I said, I won't get round to reading it for another couple of weeks (its end of year and I have exams plus coursework to do) so there is by no means any rush.
/r/MensRights28/03/18 03:15 PM
5

That's an incredibly interesting read (so far) I am, strapped for time and will not be capable of getting through it in its entirety (I got through about 20 pages or so), right now (university readings have to come first). I cannot say what % of abusive mothers it applies to (remember its qualitative and focused on abused mothers, not abusive mothers). That said, it provides some insight as to why there might be a discrepancy between male and female abuse rates. This is turning into a a rabbit h…
/r/MensRights28/03/18 10:11 AM
10

You will find in the same studies that roughly 55% of parental abusers are mothers... (normally within 15 pages of the sex differences of victims). The question I have however, is why? Its possible male children are more stressful, eliciting more stress, and thus more maltreatment, on the other hand, it could be because mothers and fathers care less for male children, among other explanations. I believe (though am by no means certain) that the study doesn't go into depth on the topic and present…
/r/MensRights27/03/18 08:53 PM
1

Oh quite possibly they don't and that is wrong, just trying to maintain perspective (that chances are those restrictions were necessary). On the flipside being female shouldn't grant a free pass for what would have this result as a guy. I whole heartedly dislike the unfairness here.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:06 AM
2

I know right, its stupid. On the other hand, if its required to keep the child safe, then it might be warranted. I simply don't know how they were applied (I haven't read it in depth due to lack of time).
/r/MensRights21/01/18 09:56 PM
5

Not him, but the reality isn't as straight forwards as he is saying. that 14% is 14% of fathers who go to court. That could be 14% of 80% of the male population, or 14% of 4% of the male population, it matters notm because only 14% are actually successful. Atleast thats my understanding of the situation in the uk, can't be certain in the US. (the 14% number may not be accurate to the uk, I couldn't find a specific number). Please not all numbers after this point are only rough guesses (don't hav…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 09:53 AM
1

TLDR: a few advantages and disadvantages to each approach (and why I personally favour the uk system). also a small intro into a possible medium ground known as (i think) the professional jury or expert juries. One of the biggest problems with the idea of having a judge preside over serious cases is that often times, judges (and magistrates at that), under go, whats known as "case hardening" and is where the judge (or magistrates) become unsympathetic to how someone ended up doing what they did …
/r/MensRights15/01/18 03:15 PM
1

Not in the united kingdom. Maybe in the united states, but in england and wales, all criminal cases are determined by jury or magisrates (except in the aforementioned case of magistrates court being heard by a judge). Very rarely on the most important criminal cases of murder, rape etc, is (as far as I know) the crown court judge, substituted for a high court judge, but as far as I know, the jury remains (If I am wrong provide source, as due to it being so rare, I cannot find much detail). I mea…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 02:48 PM
3

Yes, but fraternities are constantly under fire socially, and regarded as breeding grounds of rape and sexism, as are any male only clubs, groups etc. and as far as I am aware faced with the threat of being shut down (or forced into being coed) these days. The only things that really prevent them being shut down or forced into coed, is that doing so would generally force the same on female only groups etc. (the law is gender blind, and judges (or more appeal court+ judges) are hilariously good a…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 09:23 AM
1

All crimes in the uk are determined by a jury (in the crown court) or by magistrates ( or very rarely by a lone judge in the magistrates court). This crime was in the crown court as such a jury was used. Crown court - any indictable offence Magistrate court - any summary offence Triable either way crimes exist (you can ask to be tried in the crown or prosecution has to get permission) Rape is indictable
/r/MensRights15/01/18 12:25 AM
1

This isn't the case, in fact we have cases that prevent judges tampering or affecting juries decisions (hence jury equity and other things of it's nature exist allowing people who murder to go free because they murdered the person who killed their kid, then proceeded to taunt them after they got free because the jury simply couldn't bring themselves to a guilty verdict). A judge can only throw a case out before a jury decides, and usually rather early in the trial (uncertain of exact point in ti…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 12:24 AM
5

Its not judges who determine guilt though... its juries... the judge only determines what evidence can be presented (normally issues of whether its relevant or not), they can dismiss a case due to lack of evidence - however this rarely occurs, for any crime, let alone rape which very rarely has tons of evidence. The ones who found them guilty were the jury... He sentenced them after the guilty verdict sure, but he has to follow guidelines. He did his job, and I can see no failing in how he perfo…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 11:53 AM
2

I noticed that disparity myself when reading those particular parts. I wasn't sure what the cause was either. I find it highly unlikely to be A or B. With there being little to no effort being put in to solve male victim sex attacks (in particular made to penetrate cases), B is probably a close to fixed number as there's little being done to improve it nor anything done to make it worse. A is improbable, but possible. Whilst females are raped less now, and it decreases each year, the change per …
/r/MensRights14/01/18 10:46 AM
1

If I see it, I might respond (depending on if it covers new ground). It was nice discussing with you, I hope I gave some interesting counter views. P.s. I think a better argument could be made to recreate the law in its entirety, in the same way the US has first and second degree murder (I think) it might be worth considering having first degree rape and second degree rape (separated based on whether particular elements are present). This would require some serious fleshing out however. Rape may…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 04:27 PM
1

I would point out you are being a tad bias in examples. You draw on the most extreme forms of assault, whilst using the "least harmful" forms of rape. Which I might add are somewhat unwarranted examples, if someone dies from an intentionally harmful act, it would cease to be mere assault or battery, but unlawful act manslaughter and potentially murder (depending on if they intended grievous bodily harm). Leaving that aside, if we are using specific offences, then to use assault was a bad choice.…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 12:32 PM
1

That is honestly flexible enough in my view. Justice would be apparent in the case to warrant a lowering of the sentence. As seen here, the courts aren't afraid to say "this is unfair, we wont put him in prison". A case based on "technical circumstances" not pulling out straight away for instance (to use your example), is a matter of complete context but still determinable in the case. If he didn't pull out due to muscle convulsion during orgasm, or him simply not being able to (doing so may exp…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 12:16 AM
1

I completely agree, thankfully our judges have a lot of flexibility with punishments (only really having maximum not minimum sentences) and a fair amount of interpretative powers (to get rid of any particularly bad interpretations). As I said above I agree with the outcome, I was only surprised by the whole "not guilty" thing. Turns out it was a little bad phrasing, but that's understandable, as far as I can tell, it had the exact same effect for all intensive purposes.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:36 PM
1

Oh I get that (assuming you saw my edits), I was clarifying for others why he didn't go to prison. You said he wasn't guilty which wasn't an accurate representation of the situation. He was guilty. The court simply decided a punishment wasn't warranted. About her parents... definitely... That law is so strict because its to protect the child from themselves as much as from predators...
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:20 PM
1

Oh, intriguing... That shouldn't be possible. Legally he is still guilty. Edit: Technically, he was guilty, he even pleaded as such. What this case concerned was not legality (whether he was guilty or not), but punishment. The court was of the view that even though he was guilty of the crime, he shouldn't be punished, as so they didn't give him one. In the uk, there are only a few select crimes that have minimum sentences (murder has a minimum of life for instance - maybe a couple of exceptions)…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:10 PM
5

To be fair, our law is pretty clear about this. If they are 13+ and you have a reasonable belief they are over 16, then there's a defence. if the victim had been 12, he would have been guilty regardless. ( I think theres a case with a similar situation but a far larger age gap, which I think got caught with this issue - cant remember) See here (sexual activity with a child - where it has a group for under 13 (anyone) and for 13, 14 and 15 (when they lack reasonable belief they are over 16)): htt…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 03:20 PM
3

Not a problem. Its one of the things I challenge with feminists is the idea that rape is a female problem, but most laws to some extent discriminate (at least at first appearance) against men, so when I found out about this, I noted it.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 04:58 PM
7

I also know that women are disproportionately sexually assaulted You certain, I could have sworn a CDC study in 2015 found that when made to envelope was covered, male victim count was very similar to female victim count? Allow me to look for the study. Edit: wrong year it was 2010 only recently have some other forms of sexual violence against men been considered. In the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) measured a category of sexual…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 12:25 PM
3

Admittedly it occurs, but generally its a comparison of severity (people forget nuance when arguing or are angry). I often see "office temperature is sexist" stuff as example. its the argument that mens issues are more pressing and in many cases I see that argument. That said there are some genuine issues that need addressing both sides.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 12:24 PM
7

Its not the contradiction thats the problem, its the extent of said contradiction. When as a group mens actions are socially regulated by feminist ideals in the above way, those contradictions lead to a catch 22 situation where we cannot win. We could say "fuck feminist regulation" but then get called misogynists. Much the same way, it would be like republicans making laws to the effect that "its illegal to have sex with someone you aren't married to" and at the same time "marriage is heavily re…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 12:10 PM
15

We have posts like this at times admittedly. I would however suggest, check the posts that aren't trending... you will see a stark difference. Memes trend and all that, the serious discussions don't. Its a shame, but then such is life. I mean look at the next 5 posts on the mensirghts front page: This guy spent two years in prison because police refused to hear his side of the story in false rape accusation. Thankfully he was freed, but the system failed him. Oh look. the 25 most deadly jobs are…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:52 AM
1

Yes, but you missed my point. his linked case, was about a man who had been lied to about the "victims" age and saying that there was a discrepancy in the law (women being treated differently) because if a guy lies he gets in trouble a women lies the guy gets in trouble is the point he was making. I merely pointed out that was the case he linked, to occur in the uk, like the case this thread is about was, then it would not have turned out the way he said it had.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 09:09 PM
1

And I hold the same views there. The individuals past sexual activity should not be relevant unless its directly applicable to the facts. If its "he said she said" it shouldn't get to court. if its establishing base credibility, there are other methods of doing so.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 07:04 PM
1

Hence I distinguished between police defence/ prosecution and newspapers. (see a later comment where I explain what I meant a little better). Basically they can explore it all they like, so long as they only raise the parts that actually aid the proving of guilt or innocence. I can't see why any other sexual history ought be raised. I do believe sexual history is more tightly regulated in this respect (maybe it ought not be - I can see the arguments there) but I also see why we don't allow peopl…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 06:50 PM
2

I actually see where that argument is coming from and agree if I thought such cases ought go to court, but on the other hand, in the case where there's no evidence, the case ought be dropped because there is no evidence to prove the case.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 06:48 PM
2

The police and defence have unrestricted access, they simply cannot use there parts that aren't relevant in court, as it stands anyway, thats what I was trying to get across. I wasn't clear however. I suppose, what I meant when i said: if a particular facet of her sexual actions is brought into question for the case, the police and defence can look into it, and it can be used was that if they have a circumstance that it actually has to be relevant to be relied upon. it has to be of actual releva…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 05:20 PM
2

All I'm earing from you, is that you don't give a shit about whether or not people are guilty or innocent--what should be the only actual question here. You just don't want anyone to be able to say mean things about accusers. Firstly, no, I am explaining why the press was banned from naming the accusers... That has little to no impact on whether someone is guilty or not, except by influencing juries before they reach court... Something we as a group ought be against... That impedes a fair trial …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 05:19 PM
2

I have my doubts about how relevant her entire history is to the public. if a particular facet of her sexual actions is brought into question for the case, the police and defence can look into it, and it can be used. for example she says "I would never fuck a black man" and then they can get 5 black guys to say they had slept with her = relevant to case (police and defence can use). Saying "she slept with 80 guys and is a whore" in a newspaper... not really. Like I said, the accused ought also b…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:12 PM
3

Ehh, not entirely accurate for the uk. Had your linked case occurred here (with the same ages), its very likely that he would have a defence. If they are under 13, certainly its impossible to raise a defence, but if they are 14/15 and you have a REASONABLE belief they are legally aged, then you can raise a defence AFAIK See here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 and here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/5
/r/MensRights03/01/18 12:30 PM
2

TLDR: It's as far as I know a matter of the British news papers attacking people who came forwards, calling them sluts etc. This arose from different societal views before the law was published, and so to judge the law, one has to also consider the climate before it was released, not just its actual result. Here I might add, they were both toxic in my view. I say first, sorry about length. Secondly, I have no intention of starting any arguments with people, I am merely relaying what I remember a…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 12:25 PM
1

I would argue it depends. Certainly, if its the last of my examples, then yes the same should apply. on the other hand, my first two examples shouldn't automatically have that assumption. If my partner loses earning capacity due to a mutual decision (a decision where my consent and support is necessary) and the alimony is based on such, then its technically recouping lost earnings, they ought be free to use it on whatever. The same could apply to where I am the sole or main cause of inability to…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 12:05 AM
2

Youre thinking child support. Alimony is end of marriage, one partner has to support the other (aka husband support wife, even though divorced), as opposed to child support which is father supporting child. The rational for it, is that one partner may sacrifice their career to support the other at home (dealing with children, finances, house maintenance, so forth). This however has many flaws as a rational, the most prominent in my mind being, I may have no say what so ever about what my partner…
/r/MensRights01/01/18 05:40 PM
1

Thats pretty much it yeah. Mandatory life is reserved solely for murder (it replaced the death sentence as the worst punishment we have). Technically she got it "worse than average" the starting point is 15 years then eligibility for parole (in these circumstances) as far as I could tell anyway. That said, you can get life for a few things but they are not mandatory. Manslaughter for instance can get you life, but its not automatic (manslaughter being "defences" to murder technically - besides g…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 11:26 PM
1

They don't actually have a choice about making it a "life sentence", if convicted of murder (as opposed to manslaughter), a life sentence is mandatory. Life means that she will be on licence (get parole) but that will be for the remainder of their lives. the minimum sentence is when they become eligible to apply for parole (just checked). When she is on parole, if she breaks her conditions, or becomes a danger to the public, they can be returned to prison for an indefinite period under the licen…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 09:36 AM
4

Possibly, (I cant remember how "minimum" sentences for murder work in the uk off the top of my head edit: they cant go beneath 20 years when granting her parole. a minimum sentence, is the point at which they become eligible for parole at which point she can apply, but wont necessarily get it.) Since she was sentenced to "life", this means that even if she is on the streets, she will be on parole, of which the wiki states (I didn't study parole - only the actual law related to murder): Prisoners…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 09:33 AM
1

Firstly mothers cannot simply "drop off her child" in the united kingdom (where this case occured) - we don't have that over here. So I presume you mean adoption. Social services has to do what they can to locate the father even where the mother doesn't want them to for adoption (they don't have to achieve the impossible - that said they do have a relatively high standard for not doing so as set by the courts). Since 95% of children have a named father (though roughly 10% are incorrectly named),…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 06:21 PM
3

Its probably a little more complicated but as far as I know its more certain for you. Like I said speak to a lawyer, and have her speak to a separate one, but I would suggest a tenancy in common. Personally I dislike the trust idea, as trusts are based on equity which means the courts can play fuckery. I would say I dont think there are ways of altering the allotment of property interests by the courts but I am uncertain. One thing, never promise her any more than what she gets under the tenancy…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 11:26 AM
2

First things first, I am not a fully trained lawyer, just a student. speak to your lawyer, and have her speak to a seperate lawyer at a seperate firm, she needs independant advice (if not it could be said you were abusing a position of power or something). That said: you can go two ways, own the house solely in yourself, then get it put in trust for you and her, with the split 2/3rds in your favour, 1/3rd to her, this does grant her some rights, and you need a second trustee to exercise all righ…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 10:54 AM
2

I kinda agree with mrwhibbley, though thats because I think massive age gaps between partners is creepy in general (disregarding all other circumstances). That said, its solely my personal views on the subject, which shouldn't govern law or others views... <-- that is said so as to say I dont think others have to share my view, not to try and strawman or anything of that nature, its merely for clarification of my own position (I have caused issues before when I make points like this, hence the d…
/r/MensRights24/11/17 06:36 PM
3

We would... unless and I say this as it is important, the age of consent was higher (as someone aged 17 in some states of the US cannot consent legally for instance). You see we are judging this based on the principle that there was nothing legally wrong (even if there was fault morally, which many of our above members have noted). A situation that frankly, we would more than likely accept or at the bare minimum acknowledge as applying equally to both sides... As such your assertion we are hypoc…
/r/MensRights24/11/17 06:31 PM
8

By that rule, we would be "under powered and under represented, thus lacking any serious political clout and thus any change" - at least until very very recently (where things may have started to change slightly).
/r/MensRights21/11/17 03:46 PM
1

Honestly, I'm not sure, I am assuming its because people think that racial minorities, primarily black people (note: I say black as I do not know the current politically correct phrase, it changes to fucking frequently) are subjected to police brutality substantially more than white people. That is afaik true. That said, the all lives matters group was said to be about distracting from the actual issue (derailing??), when they pointed out that the distinction between men and women was even large…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 08:37 AM
1

I wasn't sure, and figured his view point suggested other places do.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 08:21 PM
1

I was studying uk family law a week or 2 back, I could have sworn surrogacy agreements were not binding in the uk, unlike in many other places, and thus are not contracts... that aside I see your point... I'm just being pedantic
/r/MensRights06/10/17 07:35 PM
9

He can go probably go (edited about an hour later - I shouldn't speak in absolutes, only matters of likelihood) after her, just not for money (this might be wrong - edited 56 minutes later, possible suing as well, not sure), but fraud (criminal), which only needs a dishonest misrepresentation with the intention to make a gain for yourself (this kid) and a loss for someone else (the fathers choice or supporting the kid), that said it being criminal would need either (private or public) prosecutio…
/r/MensRights06/10/17 02:09 PM
2

First of, they probably had a duty of care yes, but that duty of care has to have 2 other things. it needs to have been breached, and that breach MUST cause the harm (you need to establish causation) Here first off, that duty of care exists, but! did they fall below the standard is arguable (i assume the normal standard for these things is not to impose the requirement you sign in person), if the court holds that to be a breach anyway (because that should be the standard in their view - with due…
/r/MensRights06/10/17 01:43 PM
4

Technically no, will they though, is another matter, they are hesitant to mess in these areas. edit: may have misread. If you mean do the police need his consent to take a case forwards see above (pressing charges just makes it more likely to go ahead), if you mean, does he need the police to take a case against her in the civil courts then no, he can do so without that.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 01:32 PM
1

Honestly, not too much work, like I said its just some quick searching. I just like to help out so a few minutes of my life isn't much. Mhmm, its one of those things, that last link is the requirements needed, that said, I don't get why it allows female only gyms (as there is rarely actual vetting done AFAIK).
/r/MensRights05/10/17 07:39 PM
1

Uk law is as follows for those who are interested. Private clubs are rather unique in this way within the uk, its what allows women only gyms (they have to be private members things - I assume the discrimination only applies to members but I cant say for certain honestly) That said, I am only a student lawyer who hasn't focused on these areas. See here though: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-sex-or-sexual-orientation/discrimination-becaus…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 07:00 PM
4

I have to disagree. The saying "actions speak louder than words" is important because its true. If someone says "I love you" but then consistent acts the opposite, chances are thats not true. Similarly, a movement that consistently has shit on men, no matter how much they claim "we want equality" probably isn't about equality. Thats in general how feminism is, they scream "we want equality", then oppose equal family law, apply pressure for rape laws to exclude men, perpetuate myths that have bee…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 04:19 PM
3

I actually noticed that before posting (i wrote it quickly then proof read) but you need to consider the scenario he created, "women not allowed to work". I figure if that's the case women will be pedantic as hell and include cooking, cleaning and child care as work, I mean I would. That said your point is correct in general it would be a non-issue.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 09:41 PM
2

And yet strangely I never denied that. I believe that's called a strawman. I never said men didn't perform more crucial work, in fact I'm pretty certain I noted a few of the ones they did above. My point was that he was saying women don't contribute, and they do. I was demonstrating the fact that many industries would be damaged pretty heavily if women vanished, showing that they do contribute. Not to mention disproving his assertion that the only one affected would be the medical one. If you ar…
/r/MensRights25/09/17 09:32 PM
6

it would cripple a lot of industries: teaching, medical fields, accounting, the BAR (lawyers in general actually - would atleast be hindered), most interior cleaning jobs, child care, the retail fields and so forth. The fall in female workers simply would put too much pressure on male workers because there simply wouldn't be enough trained individuals to take up the spots, not anymore. Hell look at this list. Anything below 65% men, is gonna get crippled by women dropping out of the work force. …
/r/MensRights25/09/17 07:27 PM
7

Because they can and some do contribute. I know a lot of women who are as good as me at computing, law, and a lot of other skills which are useful in modern society. Maybe not a traditional society but modern society they do. The fact that following the introduction of women into the work place (and aims for equality), society started failing, is confusing correlation with causation. The first rule there is to ask "could there be another cause, that creates both"? There are a plethora of differe…
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:13 PM
1

I personally think it should be: Anonymity for accused and accuser from the press, until one party is found guilty (be it of rape or false accusation). In which case the guilty party can be named. This anonymity can be revoked but only from both parties or neither (and the press must use both equally - picture and name counts must be equal) All individuals who are in police custody are put into an online database (probably filtered by region). This prevents government abuse as if someone goes mi…
/r/MensRights23/09/17 06:43 AM
1

Mhmm, exactly. It's a pain to prove, don't get me wrong, proving anything to do sexual assaults is hard but that's why the balance here is so key. I try to understand both sides before deciding on issues like this (anonymity for accusers and the accused), normally it results in a middle ground, which I hope helps me as an individual to come to a fair compromise. How my country progresses, I hope is to find a similar compromise.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 09:43 PM
1

Firstly i doubt that idea would work, i assume that the incident needs to be related to the sexual offence. So maybe if you smashed up your supposed rapists car, but even then requires admitting to the crime, and maybe claiming insanity (not a good idea). You probably cant say i smashed up this random peeos car cause i was sexually assaulted. (the above is just a summary remember) Secondly whilst thats its true that such a metric gives that result (though i should have said potential victim, not…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:41 PM
3

I addressed this earlier in brief to someone else. The uk press i believe had a history of portraying women who slept about as slutty, unreliable liars, who cant be trusted. Thus undermining cases and the victims. This went further though because it had implications for the women in real life. At least this is what i remember from my independant study. it could be wrong. Anyway this was felt to make the process of coming forwards so unpleasant that it was likened to being raped itself in the tra…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:20 PM
1

This is both true and false based on two different metrics. Certainly we cannot prove whats she saying true and thus we dont have a succesful rape accusation (im unsure of all the facts, it may be highly unlike or whatever) and to that extent you may judge her 'not a victim' on the flipside we cannot prove her to be a liar and thus she is a victim. whilst we ought provide all help we can to him in rectifying the harm this has done (including civil measures against her), so to should we not then …
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:04 PM
1

It certainly interferes if not outright messes up.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 06:38 PM
1

I just updated my last post, with what I found, it wasn't specific to "sexual offences" but "serious offences" sorry, none the less, impretty certain rape is a serious offence, as are most sexual offences.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 05:39 PM
3

It also starts witch hunts, which can prejudice juries. I read a piece that said, something like 70% of juries know of a sexual assault case before they even get to court. (gimmie five, I will see if i can find the source). Wait nope, it applied to all serious crimes: Thomas (2010) conducted the first study of this issue with juries in England and Wales, and found that jurors serving on high-profile cases (serious offences with longer trials) were almost seven times more likely to recall media c…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 05:24 PM
1

Like I said, I completely agree with that, its just not what was conveyed in the first reply, which is why I responded how I did.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 05:15 PM
1

Oh I agree, but they say "other victims wont come forwards". Doesn't hold up, release his name after conviction, then other victims can come forward.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:28 PM
3

Its only in specific cases (such as sexual offences), in general its public. We had allowed it in the past, but I believe the press were being a tad "zealous" in their attitudes, and basically calling women sluts, doubting their claims, and thus causing the women problems, especially from people they know. Atleast thats what I think, its been a couple of years since I studied the sexual offences and false allegations in specific.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:26 PM
-1

Technically, it was the point (you seemed angry over why there were a tonne of him and none of her. or atleast that was implied due to the comparison, i explained why none of her were there). I apologise if I misread the point. Whilst he remains innocent, due to being innocent until proven guilty, we can't prove it never happened, or more importantly, that she is lying (which we need to prove a false accusation - as she is innocent until proven guilty) and thus they cannot call it a false accusa…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:17 PM
2

No problem, I just believe in being fair to the press, they have laws they need to adhere to here as well. Generally its their fault but here, I can't really blame them.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:06 PM
2

Mhmm. Honestly I mis-read what you said (I thought it said "whats even happening with the courts in the uk?"). Things like this are interesting because the uk government has had a lot of discussions on the topic of anonymity for the alleger and the accused. We have had pretty public ones recently though. I can't remember the name, but it was this dude in the underground accused of sexually assaulting someone when it was physically impossible for him to have done so.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:03 PM
9

They can't, uk law blocks such things (see my reply to AndrasOpinio)
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:00 PM
10

They can't post any of the girl... uk law and all (see my response to AndrasOpinio)
/r/MensRights22/09/17 03:59 PM
7

In the uk, all sexual assault based cases afford the victim anonymity, unless they choose to void it. I'm not sure of the exact law, but thats the case AFAIK (I could be wrong about the "unless they choose to void it part" - not sure). Let me see if i can find it. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/witness_protection_and_anonymity/ the above link details most anonymity issues in the uk. the specific relevant area is: The court also has relevant powers under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 19…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 03:53 PM
9

To be fair, its not really the courts fault, they have to take cases, brought before them by the CPS (or other groups in rarer cases).
/r/MensRights22/09/17 03:52 PM
1

This is correct, the legislation states: Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. as seen here Thus a female cannot legally rape in the uk, it needs a penis. assault by penetration is similar (its the next section), in that it only protects against penetration with any type of device, as opposed to includ…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 03:42 PM
5

This is possibly because they can't, by which i mean, there is the possibility that because it isn't rape in the uk, it can't be called rape (i'm not sure but libel and defamation issues spring to mind - cant be sure). We have rape of a child under the age of 13, but that requires penetration (just like normal rape) - see here. We then have "sexual assualt of a child under 13" which this is probably covered by, but its not rape. This covers any offence where someone: (a)intentionally touches ano…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:33 AM
1

Wait nope, opinions need atleast some fact (or a fact you believed but is actually wrong)- what i said (and edited out) was incorrect (that opinions are fine regradless). Honest opinion defences extend a little further than you would think though (it was fair comment). if it meets these standards, you have a defence. Honest opinion—a conditional defence Section 3 of the Act provides for the defence to apply where a defendant can show that three conditions are met: (a) The statement complained of…
/r/MensRights21/09/17 12:55 PM
1

Exactly, I feel addicted, because I can't stop myself from masterbating, its become compulsive. I want to do it, because I don't like that, because I think its wrong (to have it be compulsive and out of my control), thus I choose to stop. Not for any pathetic reason of "female worship" or "muh patriachy" thats fricken stupid. You visit the nofap community and most of the talk about getting control back, to making friends, becoming interested in life again, helping with their depression, picking …
/r/MensRights08/09/17 08:11 PM
2

I'm with you, it certainly isn't. Honestly, I want and will be trying no fap in the future. But solely because I feel I am addicted to masturbation and I don't like that, not because I worship women. That is absurd.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 07:17 PM
2

No this is quite possibly true. I believe in a previous article, it was mentioned by her that she wanted to consult us. I'm going to check now, and will update in 10 mins. Edit and update: Not her, but it seems that it is possibly true, as she wanted to consult both sides of the argument, and ultimately we are probably "the other side" of the argument, but who in particular, I don't know. http://archive.is/mSdT4 or https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/us/politics/campus-rape-betsy-devos-title-iv-e…
/r/MensRights08/09/17 06:56 PM
1

I can't speak for the whole group, but I'm not denying "some men explain condescendingly to women because they are women" but that "only men do that to the opposite gender", which is implied by it. We have terms that make it redundant for 99% of the time anyway but are gender neutral, patronising and condescending for instance but this wasn't good enough for feminists. They had to make it out to be a male only thing. I have women be condescending to me from time to time based solely on my gender…
/r/MensRights08/09/17 11:56 AM
3

That parts also incorrect (more so than the parts I note above) because universal suffrage for men had been growing in size since the 17 hundreds due to large pushes from groups held by men, the changes in 1918 were simply the last step and something that couldn't be prevented due to WW1 (and lots of other european countries being pretty democratic). I just didn't want to get into an argument over that part... http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vot…
/r/MensRights26/08/17 06:09 PM
6

Not entirely accurate, but pretty close to it. Womens sufferage required being 10 years older as of 1918 when mens universal sufferage was granted. Certainly all women could vote, assuming they were over 30 or 31 as of 1918 (if memory serves me correctly), wheres as of 1918, all men aged 21 and over could vote... come 1928 and the ages were equalised (both 21 then later lowered to 18). So they weren't "equal" but I have a theory as to why it was necessary. The arguments being that it was because…
/r/MensRights26/08/17 04:33 PM
2

Okay this will also prove pretty damn invaluble as well (since you will be writting up your own stipulation and consent order) give this a read http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/VA/custody/custody.htm#BM5 and then flick through the parts you consider important on here: http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/VA/custody/custody.htm# I am only a student lawyer (in the uk), if in need of serious legal advice, consult actual lawyers (in your country)
/r/MensRights20/08/17 01:04 PM
2

Consultations are "normally" free (or so I am told - each place will have different rules and such, so just look around), the advice will probably be invaluable anyway. That aside, I'm not sure. Hmm, then recording everything, is probably your best bet. She wont be able to turn back on what she agreed easily like you said. try to get evidence (if they genuinely are) a threat to the kid (like the guy you dont want to be around him). I assume you were not married (as you haven't mentioned a divorc…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 12:43 PM
2

Smart. I know I asked for a lot of rather "private stuff" but the above are really all going to impact likelihood of winning, we as a group don't really need to know the answers, but if you do have a record for aggression, know they might get brought up (I only mentioned them because of that, others might like to consider them, as they are basically "yeah you wont win" signs). Honestly, I suggest getting a lawyer without telling her, it may be expensive but it will benefiit in the long run, if s…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 12:30 PM
2

A few pieces of relevant info people might need, what state or country you live in (state if its the US - laws differ between states). Do you have a lawyer you can call? if so do they have history in family law? if so is it defending fathers (how successful?) if not, consult a relatively good lawyer (doing so will prevent her getting one supposedly - conflict of interest issues supposedly) Similarly have you got a criminal record for aggression (attacks in anyway), have you been accused of domes…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 12:23 PM
1

I think its substantially closer than most people think. Recent studies have shown that when "made to penetrate" is included the rates are a lot closer. A wiki summary of the following study (see pages 18 for the table if you doubt the summary - study linked below). only recently have some other forms of sexual violence against men been considered. In the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) measured a category of sexual violence called…
/r/MensRights17/08/17 06:33 PM
2

It was an edit (as opposed to actual separate comment), so you did "receive it" but only saw the newest version. That aside, I'm glad its all cleared up.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 08:40 AM
2

Eh, it was misunderstanding on my part (I read what you said, replied above, then read the article, then replied to you). I thought (without checking before responding) that you were misrepresenting what happened (by only covering the fact that she had lied), but then realised, you were only covering what was relevant to the defamation case (its entirely irrelevant that his assertion of events was also disproven, because she was still lying, which ruined his reputation). Hence my deleted comment…
/r/MensRights14/08/17 11:11 PM
1

-deleted- I mis-read, your comments focused only on the reporters defamation (whos claims are all proven false).
/r/MensRights14/08/17 10:20 PM
10

Its standard procedure here to archive external sites (assuming they aren't academic - namely due to academic sources often not working well (if at all) with archiving tools), especially ones known to be bias, have pay walls, or just consistency, among other reasons. As such, I am curious as to why you started insulting them? His archive wasn't intended to be insulting as far as I can tell. Its normally different for comments, but we pretty much always get atleast one comment with an archive of …
/r/MensRights14/08/17 10:08 PM
1

I can't say for certain, but don't the rules differ based on clubs and businesses? Discrimination based on gender being allowed in things requiring membership. I mean the uk is like this anyway: When the last Labour government drafted the 2010 Equality Act, there was some discussion of how the legislation could be used to make these clubs illegal, but this proved impossible. The legislation settled on banning clubs from excluding people on the basis of colour, but allowed them to continue reject…
/r/MensRights12/08/17 11:16 AM
5

Many places do/did until recently (or still do). The uk for instance, does have unequal pension ages. ages per country and gender Uk is men: 65, women: 64 (equalised next year) The united states seems to be (atleast as of 2015) 65 for both genders (at a country wide level), but that may not be state by state. Edited for more info
/r/MensRights11/08/17 09:25 PM
2

Quite possibly, but none the less, they aren't ignoring it and they are "speaking" to us, which is well a first, maybe change is upon us. That said, its really unlikely, and you are probably correct.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:13 PM
2

They stated like 1 minute after you posted this, that they care covering "baby trapping" (what you wanted a documentary on) as well. I don't know how much of each will be covered, but they seem open to both sides honestly, which is shocking considering its the BBC (as they normally have an agenda).
/r/MensRights10/08/17 03:50 PM
0

No, its based on what we can prove, thats far more reliable, just like they can only prove about the same is true. Notice those are not the same link. Now read the methodology of the first link which was your original source. Now realize my claims about the study you cited were correct. You do realise I quoted directly from both right? The first studies direct quote The review identified that where the ‘broadly drawn’ definition was used 36 cases out of the 299 (12%) could be classified as false…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 04:52 PM
1

Right, you clearly didn't. Otherwise you would know youre wrong... Because I wasn't relying on the study done in the review but one it directly quoted, and you would know that. I was busy at the time, and couldn't be bothered logging into my institution to find it to quote (They have a better search engine, which I use) but okay, I have a little more time right now, so I did. To quote the methodology Methodology A random sample of 1,149 casefiles from eight police force areas was collated for th…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 04:31 PM
0

You obviously didn't read the methodology of your own source. I could say you didn't read the entire thing... If i was relying on the work they performed I would have cited their results and thus their methodology, BUT I am not. You see I was quoting that review, but this review involved looking at other studies, and detailing how things progressed over time. The part I was quoting was a direct quote from another study, which was a good summary of their results, I linked this study as i have it …
/r/MensRights25/07/17 04:04 PM
0

Yes, the were identified as false if the complainant admitted they were false. Apparently, there is some need for further review after the complainant admitted they made it up? Yes, yes there should, because and I ought make this clear, studies show that police don't stick to the correct categorisation. Not to mention people are likely to change their minds over doing something when faced with disbelief and decide not to go through with it. After they were explained that there could be repercuss…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 09:30 AM
0

We can't use it because it was just one town in one state. We can't use any of it because it was a bunch of towns in a bunch of states and they can't agree on definitions. Exactly, there is no solid definition provided of what false "meant" to the officers on the cases, and nothing was done to ensure they stuck to their precincts definition. This is a pretty important consideration, when viewed in light of the fact that studies have found police when addressing rape, were likely to no crime even…
/r/MensRights25/07/17 08:39 AM
1

One ought be careful of relying on that study, it has quite a few flaws, as identified by the wiki page covering most false accusation studies. According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false. The department classified reports as false which the complainant later said were false, but Lisak points out that Kanin's study did not scrutini…
/r/MensRights24/07/17 09:48 PM
3

if you strictly keep finances separate, then ultimately she should obtain a job, if she chooses to rely on him, increasing his burden, because she wants to be a stay at home partner, then she chooses to accept the limitations he puts in place, because he is the one sacrificing his home and social life to perform that work. It is still a choice. Historically there was no need to for this (her working once married - or atleast "paid work"), because legal fiction dictated otherwise (atleast in the …
/r/MensRights19/07/17 04:32 PM
3

However, I want to explain why I wouldn't really consider myself a part of the movement. It's a pretty simple explanation: these issues are not used as something to help men get equal rights, but are more used as a tactic to try and hush feminists and women's rights activists. To be fair, we do try to hush feminists on a few topics, but those are justified things, which are or will eventually lead to discrimination against men, if left unchecked. The most noted example would be the wage gap, yes…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 09:59 PM
2

I think ultimately when you have sex, you agree to the risks involved, that's actually one of the cornerstones of consenting to sex, you agree to running the risks of STD's and to the chance of pregnancy. The mere fact its not what was intended or your main goal, is irrelevant to the fact that you agreed to run those risks (because you knew and accepted them when taking part). In fact one of the cornerstones to assessing whether someone was incapable of consenting to sex, is to determine whether…
/r/MensRights16/07/17 08:13 PM
5

TLDR: basically the entire thing i messy and that the number even with evidence cited in the case at best only supports half of the accusations aren't rape (though they could be sexual assault), and that half of the actual rapes possibly involve alcohol. The position of the woman seems entirely unsupported, that said if you read The New York Times you will see that MRA's are actually getting chance to talk on the topic by the looks of things (though I don't know which of us) and it has feminists…
/r/MensRights13/07/17 09:09 AM
13

In the uk its different (its a matter of nuance but its an relatively important one). Switzerland limits the victims to women, whereas the uk limits the perpetrator to being male. This is a large difference with to regard men forcing other men into anal sex is still classified as rape, which is impossible in switzerland. To make it easy to note the difference when you look at the English law. A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another …
/r/MensRights11/07/17 12:01 PM
1

I didn't make that list, and not necessarily, you would need to provide a source for that assertion. I mean study two on that list: Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences…
/r/MensRights10/07/17 04:57 PM
3

on that last point, the vast majority of domestic violence studies demonstrate that even where it only covers "domestic violence" as a whole, the numbers are about 45% male victims, 55% female (the range is from 40-60% but the higher the numbers the less frequent they become and the less accurate). A good summary of this would be here which has the summary of This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that wome…
/r/MensRights10/07/17 12:52 PM
1

Erm that anology works pretty well actually. two parties (either on in the game and one not, or both in the game, nothing really changes which is the same as the mother and father). We have a risk (having sex or a risky pass), which goes wrong (pregnancy or hurt kid), where one party has opportunity to avert and fix that risk, but decides not to interfere (abortion or notifying kid before hit). in both cases, the same elements exist. thus we can apply the same standards. I apply the test to thos…
/r/MensRights09/07/17 11:04 PM
1

I doubt either of us will persuade the other, and with regard to your other points, they are aren't accurate for everywhere, and in many places don't hold up. especially the last, thats what you want, not what is and its unrealistic and unfairly burdening the child. I disagree with this. It has no bearing in reality. Responsibility directly comes from a person's choices. Like I said, there is a distinction between a choice to create responsibility or not interfere with anothers responsibility, q…
/r/MensRights09/07/17 09:17 AM
1

the argument is more "people are responsible for their own choices". Allow me to address this point then. Certainly fathers accept the potential that they will get someone pregnant when they have sex. in doing so, surely when consenting to sex, protected or otherwise, they accept the possibility of becoming a father, just like a woman does, a mother. This ultimately means they accept the responsibilities resulting from that. This is regardless of whether they intend to get the mother pregnant or…
/r/MensRights09/07/17 02:57 AM
1

Mhmm. That said, I personally don't really support this move, if you read my post below you will note that I have issues with the argument that abortion and LPS are the same (they aren't), and as a result (due to their differences) I personally prefer changes to a British system (for access to abortion - its liberal but some are refused, its actually based on harm to mother, not "i dont want so get rid", but its quite easy to argue you have risk thus get rid) and changes to how child support is …
/r/MensRights08/07/17 10:46 PM
1

I would also add loop holes personally for children who end up destitute due to incapable mother, permanently injured mother (aka braindead), basic rights being infringed (not enough money for food etc), but these would be conditional and the amount of engagement with the child optional. thus if the child was going to come to any serious harm due the mother not being capable the father could be asked to pay the childs minimum needs for food (maybe clothing) or could take the child in (his choice…
/r/MensRights08/07/17 09:18 PM
1

I think the biggest objection is that they aren't "equivalent". There is a seriously large distinguishing feature between abortion and legal parental surrender (LPS). This is namely that the child doesn't die with LPS, thus since the child is alive, it will suffer and have its "right to its parents support" infringed. On the flip side of this, abortion literally removes the childs potential to be human, thus it has no rights to infringe (so long as its done legally - aka within the specified tim…
/r/MensRights08/07/17 09:11 PM
1

Of course, we shuold avoid being deliberately hostile to anyone, unless its absolutely necersary. Each group even PUA's have somethings we ought learn or atleast respect, such as as i mentioned, PUA's build confidence and a goal of self-improvement in its members.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 08:29 AM
1

Thats pretty much what I am saying, as MGTOW is a lot like feminism in that it has a starting point of one side being considered bad.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 07:54 AM
5

Might I suggest looking into the "herbivore men" phenominom in japan. I agree with some of what the MGTOW say (that we don't need to depend on women etc.) and the same goes for PUA (that we should strive to better ourselves, be confident and the like) but not their attitudes towards women. Herbivore men are the embodiment of MGTOW without the ideology. i suggest reading: http://www.goingyourownway.com/content.php?r=118-Grass-Fed-Herbivore-Men it comes from a rather "YAY MEN" position and at time…
/r/MensRights30/06/17 09:59 PM
1

In the UK that is actually law now. We have that under hatespeech and it can result in a jail sentence. That guy would be off to jail. What act and what section of the act? as far as i remember, hate speech only applies to a couple of things, namely race, sexual orientation and religion, but it doesn't cover gender/sex as far as know. the public order act 1986: Meaning of “racial hatred”. In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons... defined by reference to colour, race…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 07:40 PM
3

I expect to check back in a few hours and see "The admins are all amazing, just like the mods on r/TwoXChromosomes are. Especially /U/Spez with his desire to make people seem more enlightened" as your comment.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 08:23 AM
1

Oh its probably used by others, and I use contend etc. just never "contending"... I'm personally more partial to contesting or disputing for that particular phrase (in the above context at least) i just couldn't think of the right words at the time. Contending just sounds I don't know, too much for my mouth if that makes any sense.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 08:17 AM
1

Exactly, I was supporting your position, not contending it. Note: I have no idea if contending is an actual word... but it sounds right.
/r/MensRights21/06/17 09:50 PM
3

perhaps it isn't murder. In some ways its worse. This person needed help, and was actively trying not to succumb to his disease. Many murder victims aren't as vulnerable or as considered safe by parents with 'a girlfriend'. It would be terrible if his suicide was entirely of his own accord. But to realise his instincts and actions would have saved his life several times over if it weren't for her, sounds the very measure of murder. This is the thing though, in some countries this would have been…
/r/MensRights21/06/17 08:10 PM
6

I believe feminists (or atleast SOME women) have actually fought against equalising them or at least not having a transition period (but don't quote me on it) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8520834/Protesting-women-force-Government-to-rethink-rise-in-state-pension-age.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/biggest-austerity-cut-women-50s-bearing-brunt note not exactly unbias articles -edited for accuracy
/r/MensRights21/06/17 05:47 PM
2

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2016/01/manspreading-the-myth-the-math-dude-2/ Its actually more than what i stated, i was just trying to make it bite size.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 06:57 AM
2

Thanks, I actually just choose this as it was easy to remember (for me), and it was discrete, disclosing none of my irl details or other account details that I use. That said, it is pretty cool and thus I thank you for the compliment.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 09:55 PM
2

My conclusion (that if any election may cause it to flip, it would be this one) was premature and unrefined, but the premise of my argument remains true, namely that no "stronghold" was certain to be safe under this general election, due to many new factors such as record numbers of young people voting. I ought have framed it as "there was a higher chance than normal for locations to flip solely due to the many new factors, such as issues over how to leave the EU, and record numbers of young peo…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 07:23 PM
1

I ought point out I had absolutely no idea what area he was in, I was merely noting how a few of the so called "strongholds" that the conservatives were holding suddenly became labour this time, which suggests that none of them were "truly" safe, and in fact had a fair chance of flipping. Also I said students, which wasnt entirely fair, it was "young people" which had a huge turn out this year. That said i dont know the area, it may be filled with older people (like a few local areas i know) or …
/r/MensRights19/06/17 06:10 PM
4

To be fair, if any election was going to do it, it was this one, and it didn't. I say that because for the first time in more than 100 years canterbury (a conservative stronghold) fell to another party (it was substantially longer for labour who have never held it), as did a couple of other conservative strongholds, especially considering it was namely students who caused such a shift. students who are predominantly left leaning and feminist...
/r/MensRights19/06/17 04:43 PM
6

Not to mention, that not "manspreading" doesn't even save space for more people to sit down. I remember reading this piece that showed men sit with their knees to about shoulder width, as such even if we didn't spread our legs as far, unless they think we can compress shoulder width, no space could be saved in the slightest. It is in fact beneficial as it prevents people attempting to sit in places where there is simply not enough space.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:03 PM
7

First and foremost sorry about length, i wanted to give a reasoned answer. also sorry about the strange ordering of responces (From the comment i responded to and other comments you later make) it was solely i started writing here and I slowly grabbed different bits and pieces. The idea that male emotions are seen as a weakness isn't a feminist issue. Men suppressing their emotions is the leading cause of the youth male suicide rate. On the one hand, its not a feminist issue, but on the other ha…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:30 PM
4

Actually we see posts that show men winning court cases for their children at times, its just not all that often, because its less frequent (and not really reported on). Same applies where men get help from domestic violence, or stand upto title IX (or whatever its called)...
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:57 PM
1

Certainly choices can be influenced but I disagree it has that much influence. In societies where women have to work and earn well or they would die, women take almost exactly the same choices as men with regard to job, on the other hand the more "1st world" a society becomes the more of a gender gap we obtain. The biggest predictor of women's equality (in terms of average pay) is how likely they are to die if they don't get a good pay... to quote a recent study: The most plausible interpretatio…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 06:55 AM
1

Tell me if I interpreted you wrong but, why is it an issue that there is a gap between average earnings if that gap is caused by choices freely made?
/r/MensRights15/06/17 01:23 PM
2

This would explain the conclusion in this: Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London - page 38 Which concludes (on the topic of false accusations) that: 'A variety of definitions of false allegations of rape were found to be in operation amongst police and prosecutors. These ranged from a broadly drawn definition of false allegations relating to intoxicated complainants (and poor recollection of details), delays in reporting, witness retractions, l…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 05:24 PM
2

Actually that wasn't intended to say you were saying that, it was to cover my own back against anyone saying I was saying that... I apologise if that was not clear.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 10:22 AM
6

you mean their magic lie detection skills might be wrong sometimes? No human is perfect, no group of humans either. This includes when it comes to doing jury duty, still the best system we have, and the fairest. No one ever asserted it was perfect. Can you imagine if you had specialised rape jurists? how can we ever have confidence in a rape conviction based on the cunts word alone? We shouldn't and thus it should be found not guilty, often times however its more than "he said she said", there i…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 10:18 AM
1

No prob.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 07:20 PM
1

Exactly (well accuser and accused, not vic and rapist, but i agree with the sentiment), well anyway, twas a pleasure talking. Derpy.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 06:39 PM
1

no prob, to save your searching the doc it states on page 38: 'A variety of definitions of false allegations of rape were found to be in operation amongst police and prosecutors. These ranged from a broadly drawn definition of false allegations relating to intoxicated complainants (and poor recollection of details), delays in reporting, witness retractions, lack of physical injury and lack of medical evidence, and a narrower definition based on situations where the complaint was considered malic…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 06:15 PM
1

edited.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 05:57 PM
1

I'm currently formatting, sorry you had to read it like that, I also intend to attach sources, check back in 10 for the completed version. Also those %s are just like the fact that only about 6-8% of rape accusations to the police get proven true (i think - i lack a source for this) the bulk are actually undecided... (for reference).
/r/MensRights13/06/17 05:34 PM
1

It can be broken down into "social implications" and "legal implications". By social implications, I refer to the fact that rape has severe social implications, people lose friends, family, jobs. This is because they were accused of rape (jobs includes uni place). With other crimes, the likelihood of this occurring is far lower without a personal link between crime and group. This is because unless they are charged and found guilty, people are willing to accept that the accusation wasn't true. T…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 05:10 PM
1

This is even more palpable because women live longer than men, so not only do men get their pension later, but they get it for less time than women (as we die quicker).
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:28 AM
1

I think you are talking about "intended harm" and "actual harm" as well as "risk of" harm, they cover all of them. Harm is initially assessed by the actual, intended or risked loss as may arise from the offence. The values in the table below are to be used for actual or intended loss only. Intended loss relates to offences where circumstances prevent the actual loss that is intended to be caused by the fraudulent activity. Risk of loss (for instance in mortgage frauds) involves consideration of …
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:00 AM
2

I have to agree it was lenient but hardly a slap on the wrist. I say lenient because this is most likely fraud by false representation (we dont have paternity fraud as a seperate crime), which has sentencing guidelines. following those guidelines i would have given a starting point of 5 years, knock a 3rd off for the guilty plea (as a rule of thumb a 3rd gets knocked of if a guilty plea is given before the court case starts), so just over 3 years (3 years and 3 months or so), then the fact they …
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:12 AM
2

Technically I don't think this is accurate (though I never specialized on this area), you see, for public indecency to apply to quote the CPS website In the absence of any sexual context and in relation to nudity where the person has no intention to cause alarm or distress it will normally be appropriate to take no action unless members of the public were actually caused harassment, alarm or distress (as opposed to considering the likelihood of this). In this case such conduct should be regarded…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 08:28 AM
1

Thanks. I haven't finished translating from its original context, which is why quite a lot is omitted right now.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 02:06 PM
1

okie, i should note i talk masculinity (at the time i originally wrote it, i was discussing just traditional masculinity so no need to distinguish) and i have yet to link in why historical and modern societies are different (why historical societies valued those traits more than modern society) - I intend to write those parts now as I have some spare time, gimmie half hour and you can have a full piece. that said itll be badly written till I proof read it etc. but will send what i have so far
/r/MensRights05/06/17 02:01 PM
1

That's true but it is not really a reason to change anything, my point was to note that there is no established "link" between masculinity and suicide. The downfall of value in traditional masculinity may be important, but that's separate to what is being discussed (and something I can PM you relatively large piece I wrote on if you wish), suffice to say though, that ultimately we still value traditional masculinity, if you fall under certain categories.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 01:51 PM
4

Hmm, I disagree with it but only insofar as i disagree that power and invicibility is sought, and that "masculinity" is a cause of suicide. Expectations men have of themselves are rarely "power and invincibility" but "I want a nice life for me and my family". This as said below can be "competent useful and dependable". Not to mention they never actually address whether it is having these traits that cause suicide, or if the situations themselves or other factors do. The example they use of a job…
/r/MensRights05/06/17 11:10 AM
1

I kinda thought most places were like this solely because it is the state's resources which get used, so they ought to have the discretion, especially due to many crimes such as assaults more serious counterparts (in the UK ABH and GBH) were allowing the victim to say no would impede the law... because say both individuals say no, so that neither of them is arrested... that's not just or right for society, its highly dangerous to let violent individuals walk the streets just because "both partie…
/r/MensRights05/06/17 08:31 AM
1

wait nope, i read the thingy wrong.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 10:44 AM
1

Individually it is certainly effective, but I for one wish to change more than merely my own position, but fix things for all.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 09:41 PM
1

talking to a woman is the first step to all sorts of problems. Yes but avoiding them at all costs wont help either, to that extent it is extreme, especially as it draws negative views to our group, and damages our ability to actually solve any issues in a productive method.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 09:04 PM
2

They weren't saying "don't talk about divorce rape" they were saying "don't become an extremist ass hole who says we ought not talk to any woman" if you can't separate the two, you have serious problems.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 08:19 PM
7

because this sub has always been about a balanced position, of doing what needs to be done but nothing more... also in some terms you might understand "why dont you fuck of to r MGTOW", thats where such a view is both wanted and viewed as acceptable, sure some of MRA's share your view, but so do so so many others to contrary, get your panties out of a twist and grow the hell up, they are correct its an extreme view and it will bring negative views here, it aint wrong, deal with it.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 01:48 PM
2

I'm glad I could be of use, sorry the link itself didn't work though.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 10:16 AM
2

Hmm this might be an academic link (I know i logged in, but I am not certain it was necersarry), if it is, you might not be able to access it. Sorry if that is the case. The only serious potential flaw is that it was an "internet study" which could have implications for "accuracy" but that aside, it ought to be pretty good as far as i can tell, but i didn't do too much digging, it just seems to be the newest and "strongest" study out. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9380-7
/r/MensRights29/05/17 06:56 PM
2

have you looked at: Lippa, R. A. (in press). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior. I believe thats a study involving more than 200000 people... lemmie see if i can find the outcome? edit: the abstract states Using data from over 200,000 participants from 53 nations, I examined the cross-cultural consistency of sex differences for four traits: extrave…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 05:15 PM
1

That presumption that, because they're 'peers' manipulation is far less likely, is also counterintuitive It is not so much that they are peers (though I do use that word, it was to classify that group). it is more about their individual experience and the gap between each individuals experience. Put another way, two 17-year-olds are far more likely to have closer levels of experience than a 17-year-old and a 25-year-old. its this discrepancy in the experience that gives rise to heightened abilit…
/r/MensRights27/05/17 01:00 PM
4

Murder does happen and always will. Something that is endemic does not make it something which should be legal. Yes but this is a fallacious argument. I assert that the law recognizes that teenagers will experiment and that experimenting between teenagers is not in general likely to be a result of manipulation or abuse of vulnerability in comparison to how the manipulation from adults would be because the "power balance" upon which that presumption is based, is far less prominent. When viewed fr…
/r/MensRights27/05/17 08:13 AM
4

"boys will be boys" is exactly what people say when a teenage male is arrested and charged with statutory rape, They committed a crime and were subject of the exact same crime... Arguably the punishment for that crime ought be that they suffered the same crime, nothing more suggesting that its a travesty of justice, despite the fact that they did actually commit a crime against another person. Yes and they were subject of the exact same crime, the mere fact that society deems men more culpable i…
/r/MensRights26/05/17 04:18 PM
2

erm I believe so, though im not sure if the links are to a "legal" video, so one will have to consider that .^ http://radd.it/r/MensRights/comments/4gd9td/vids that link will be to a playlist containing all 7, i got that from someone else (I cannot remember who though).
/r/MensRights24/05/17 06:17 PM
3

You could look into Hjernevask (brainwash) ep 1, though its in dutch... that said most have subtitles, so if you dont mind that, then ep1 is a good thing to watch... It is titled "the gender equality paradox" (though to be fair all 3 eps I watched were really well made). The episode i suggest attempts to answer (to quote the wikipedia) "Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more econ…
/r/MensRights24/05/17 04:00 PM
1

Probably because they want to wait till the price goes down and the hate storm drops. That's just a guess though. I mean they do that with most "new" things they don't make themselves, wait till a while after the hype goes down then buy it. It makes sense too, people don't own Netflix necessarily for the newest stuff (though it will often help these services) but to watch entire series back to back...
/r/MensRights22/05/17 10:00 PM
1

I'm not concerned about equal opportunity, people stopping them, but rather making sure all options are known and developed as we grow. Do all women want to be bodybuilders? No. Most women don't even want muscles (something I will never understand.) Does that mean no women want to bodybuild competitively? Also no. There are female competitions for bodybuilding. I'm saying even if it is a minority, you will never know if you're interested in something if you're never exposed to it. But currently,…
/r/MensRights22/05/17 09:30 AM
1

Its nice debating for once, even if i don't think we will agree, its rare that i get a discussion that is engaging. there is a world of difference between good natured ribbing between co-workers and shouting at strangers on the street. That's how they treat you when they don't even know you. Maybe, my point was more aimed at answering that question on abuse, you asserted that only a few people would enter lines of work that suffer such kinds of abuse... my point was noting that that kind of abus…
/r/MensRights22/05/17 09:15 AM
1

I will say this now, I am sorry for the length, that said I try to give as full an answer as possible to anyone I talk to (in the hopes of not causing any misunderstanding, even though it normally happens anyway). the head of the math department at my high school tried to prevent me from taking calculus because it was "only for people who want to pursue math in college". Certainly, that’s an issue, and I am not saying that it’s right. My point was more aimed at the assumption that there is somet…
/r/MensRights21/05/17 07:59 PM
14

Mind if I probe a tad deeper into your views (I'm not sure why the response was down voted when I got here). But yes my question is this, can you name anything that is preventing women entering stem and such fields aside from their own choices? Similarly, why should we interfere if it is a matter of their own choices which they ought to be free to make? and finally, why should we fix just unequal representation in stem and business yet have no mention of construction based jobs, and other such t…
/r/MensRights21/05/17 03:08 PM
1

What women are asking for is the presumption that when they come forward with rape accusations, that it not be immediately dismissed as their fault, or making up a story, or punishing them first. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. Is not the same as Believing a woman who reports she is a victim of rape I was responding to the second, not the first... The first is completely fine. The second completely undermines a fair investigation and if it's expected of the court, a fair trial... …
/r/MensRights18/05/17 07:48 PM
28

No that's not how it works... If the police believe the victim is telling the truth and are the victim of rape by X person, the police then due to logic, must believe X person is a rapist... otherwise they are being wholely inconsistent, this isn't so much the case where they don't make an allegation by name, but where they do it certainly holds up. No, what they should do is treat all individuals as having a 50% chance of telling the truth, that warrants a degree of protection, but also warrant…
/r/MensRights17/05/17 05:20 PM
4

No they are tried for criminal proceedings to quote the bill For purposes of this section, "integrated domestic violence court" means a specialized judicial process for domestic matters both civil and criminal in nature that arises out of the same family or domestic circumstance. and Criminal domestic violence charges, protective orders and any actions for divorce, separate maintenance, guardianship, adoption or any other proceeding involving custody or visitation between the same intimate partn…
/r/MensRights15/05/17 06:07 PM
1

I know, the intentions behind them = good... Execution? Kinda below average... That said I couldn't do better so ought not insult his work
/r/MensRights14/05/17 07:43 AM
4

You should note that thats actually satirical in nature, the individual who made it was parodying the feminist stance of "no pussy no opinion" so as to draw attention to an actually unequal situation within society (that if men in america dont join the draft, they get a large swarth of rights being removed)... that said its horribly done, i agree... like literally the highest scoring comment is saying "This is really badly written and formatted" and the next highest scorers pretty much follow su…
/r/MensRights13/05/17 10:49 PM
1

Hmm, I see, that doesn't have much to do with me, that said, him notifying me that I and you had the basis of location wrong was useful (as I too thought it was on Monmouth - my US geography is not good). That said, it is entirely possible he posted it twice because he messaged me a response one time, and I seemingly missed it (as I posted another response like I had before sometime later), the result being he replied again so that I was aware. I follow/stalk a few people on the subreddit (theot…
/r/MensRights07/05/17 08:23 AM
1

It isn't a problem, I try to do as thorough research as I can in the time I have, if I couldn't find anything solid I probably would have just said such, so the fact I responded with a place (and names) suggests I was relatively certain, I hope I caused you no offense (the way I speak can seem abrupt and impolite), I was just trying to give you as much information as possible.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 08:11 AM
1

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the info, I was just trying to get to the bottom of this, as it was confusing me.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 08:04 AM
2

Well dang, to be fair i thought it was saying it was in "Monmouth" as well, I just figured the news article got the location wrong... ah well, so my detective work was good then XD.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 08:02 AM
3

That seems unlikely as all the other information matches, first and formost the schools principal is a one "anthony ryan" and the article states "Union Elementary Principal Tony Ryan and Union Superintendent Dean Irlbeck were unavailable for comment", its worth noting that tony is short for anthony. Not only this, but if you check here "http://illinois.schools-us.org/94981-union_school_district_supt.htm" and the other link i gave, all the data matches between super intendent (including the fact …
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:59 AM
2

Check my other reply from before, like I said, give me a little while and i will get the school for you, the article states it was in henderson, in an elementary school, the below seems to be the correct place, I found it by searching for the superintendent (dean irlbeck) and then following from there i found the rest. Also don't worry about not finding the original, I'm just notifying you so that you know for the future, it can be a pain in the ass to search for old news articles, you think 13 …
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:50 AM
1

Okay heres what i got in about 25 minutes, I couldn't find the school directly, which was odd admittedly, so I had to do some roundabout kinda stuff to figure out what the school was, assuming the article is correct and it was an elementary school, and we assume that the locations are relatively accurate, in that they are in henderson, I think I have the school. http://illinois.schools-us.org/94975-union_elementary_school.htm
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:49 AM
2

I didn't do too much digging, I just figured you missed a rather crucial step from your search, namely using 3rd party archiving, often times websites can lose data for a plethora of different reasons, some out of their control. I don't intend to say that it actually occurred, merely that the "original" article actually existed (if that's what it is). The school may not have a website for all we know, if you give me 20 minutes, I will see what I can dig up.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:29 AM
2

To be fair, I just checked the way back machine for the original news articles link (I think this is it anyway, otherwise I'm confused by the debate between the two of you), I came up with this wayback to 2004 which is an archived version of the review atlas website from 2004 (there are earlier ones, but I couldn't be bothered going back to the date of release after already choosing a date), im not sure if this supports or defeats its existence, but that article definitely existed on reviewatlas…
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:21 AM
1

We need more people expressing the MRA position--and they shouldn't be shy about arguing based on anecdote, or whatever else they have. Yes, we do, but if we are only capable of relying on "this one case" and only that, we have a problem, as we have failed to convey the whole picture and we leave ourselves open to a very easy rebuttal of "that's just a singular case". The reason feminists are winning is not that they have better arguments, but the public audience is more receptive (due to gynoce…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:50 AM
1

So far as the general public is concerned, highly emotional anecdotal accounts are going to be far more effective than they ought to be. My point is to cover our bases. If they start discussing in public with a feminist friend etc. and the best they can rely on is "this one case this one time" do you honestly think that is good for their position... I don't, they won't get anywhere. That's not to say you cannot or should not emotionally charge a position, which has a solid logical standing. If y…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:46 AM
1

Ohh, I have this on Word, I didn't think they had a browser version as well. I also use pro writing aid on Word, but I'm pretty sure they don't have a chrome extension. Thanks for the tip.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:42 PM
1

Sure, I plan to keep up the good work. My current goal is to make a small series of posts like this, on different aspects of argument that can help us, I might do studies and stats next time (not sure), I need to find a dedicated proof reader though (I am terrible with grammar and spelling honestly).
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:02 PM
2

It's no problem, I enjoy discussing this sort of stuff with people, and it's actually useful for me, as if I can teach it, it means I understand it. Keep an eye out as well, I might be making more posts on when to use and how to use different types of argument assuming I have time, as I have exams in 2 weeks.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:51 PM
2

Hmm, delicately. Generally, the idea is to ask for more information, the idea being "he who asks the questions controls the argument", this applies to statistics, or any argument really, either it turns out they are right (with regard to stats) or that they are wrong. with anecdotes dont say "ahh but these stats say you are wrong" say "ahh but that contrasts with study X, do you think you have any way to explain why?" So lets say im having a debate with someone who claims that women have disadva…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:44 PM
2

Of course they can be good arguments, in fact I note that they can be well founded (which to me means a strong argument). My point was that to make a reasonably strong analogical or anecdotal argument (they are not the same but follow pretty much the same rules), then when making that argument you need to treat them with respect, and ensure that the evidence applies appropriately. You did this well, you applied your study it to the entire group when observing, ensuring that you studied the entir…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:02 PM
1

Fair enough, this is my 3rd post on here I think, so im not hugely skilled at it.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 01:41 PM
2

That actually made me laugh, thanks.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 01:28 PM
1

Can you see the revised version (i edited it quite heavily). By the original point i meant, women are more likely to see promiscuity in men as being a bad thing, and refer to them as "players" in a degrading sense, whereas men would generally either do so as a good thing, or not really care. thats just what i have seen. I certainly don't care about how sexually active someone is, atleast if i have no intention of dating them and as far as i know most guys are the same. Dating is another issue an…
/r/MensRights23/04/17 07:26 PM
3

Similarly, you have to factor in that the vast majority of men who are praised for promiscuity have it done by other men, not women. Men who sleep with a lot of women, are deemed as "players" (in a degrading way "oh but they are such a player, they'll just use you" sorta thin) by women, its only other men who laud men who sleep with lots of women as as players in a good way, similarly i could swear i have seen people link studies that state women slut shame women more than men do, though i canno…
/r/MensRights23/04/17 07:12 PM
2

To be fair, there has been an increase in "fundamentalism" over here recently, i just thought you had joined in (that said, you're normally pretty reasonable), sorry if i got that wrong. if I didn't get it wrong, see above comments (but im guessing it was a parody).
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:18 PM
5

You know, i can no longer tell if you are being sarcastic or trolling or serious...
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:44 PM
1

We have similar ones on in the Uk honestly. I think i recently saw (though don't take my word for this) an ad over here that involved a male victim, but the majority are pretty much solely male -> female...
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:35 PM
5

Its not psychobabble, its logic... If group X = cannot be organised, then Stating group X = cannot be organised, is not misanderist, sexist or anything of that nature, atleast if it is used for and based on evidence. Sure we lack any solid evidence to support her position besides her experience, but even then such a thing holds some weight if she has enough experience (which is analogical evidence) with us as a group, that said she should have used solid evidence that could be tested as such fal…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:29 PM
1

I'm not australian nor know too much about their media, so your insight is rather interesting, i hadn't considered the domestic violence campaign. I was just thinking of potential differences in political climate, not any particular events or such that could seriously impact it. theres another good possibly cause noted by /u/Imnotanmrabut and similarly by /u/EricAllonde that could also be factors, but like i said, we realistically don't have anyway to rationally discriminate between these potent…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:17 PM
9

I would say that its possibly because they happen less often (like bannings etc), or because there are lower MRA counts (per 100k peeps), as such less showings by virtue of that thus less needing of controversy. Thats just a guess, maybe the aussies are just more feminist and sensitive than everyone else. theres a plethora of reasons and no reasonable way to rationally discriminate between them.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 03:16 PM
1

Ahh, fair enough, i was just providing what i could .^
/r/MensRights18/04/17 05:17 PM
5

Well i cannot get a "CSVS" study that states such, but i can get collective of 200+ studies if thats okay? they generally support that position or there abouts http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm plus: https://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightslinks/comments/y0mnx/dvipc_summary/ which is where i got it from.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 11:50 PM
1

I could argue the converse with that exact example though. Women are taught they don't need to do anything to be valuable (hell not even good looks are essential if you look at dating site based studies, where men rate far higher quantities of women as good looking as opposed to the reverse). these main male protagonists potentially sacrifice their lives to save a women who has done nothing... what does that message send guys "you are disposable, the moment you see a woman in need you must sacri…
/r/MensRights15/04/17 09:10 PM
1

Its this idea that women have it "way way worse" that isn't true. Okay lets switch this round a little okay, since the MRA is predominantly focused on the first world, a discussion of all societies, irregardless of the MRA focus seems illogical, the same realistically applies to feminism honestly. My question then is this, can you name 5 things that are "way way worse" for women in the first world? before you get started, i should point out that the wage gap, domestic violence, and quite possibl…
/r/MensRights15/04/17 06:49 PM
1

Don't you think that the fact that you all feel such a need to circlejerk over specific instances of women being shitty towards men could be more indicative of your personal issues rather than an issue that has any actual impact on our society? Honestly, that negativity to women in general is a recent development on the sub (and one i am against), I honestly don't know where it arose from and its disheartening, but I should point out that "women being shitty could be indicative of your personal …
/r/MensRights15/04/17 04:26 PM
2

Here I disagree, It has been plenty effective in the past year, certainly it isn't as effective as the feminist approach, but the feminist approach is corrupt, vile and evil... we don't want to become them... I joined this movement because it was about tolerance of all sides, about discussion, but predominantly about fixing the problems men face, and yet all i have seen recently is a surge in rule breaking (low quality image and text posts), increasing extremism (even though we started making ev…
/r/MensRights14/04/17 04:40 PM
3

This thread is going to generate such a response (not to say its a good thing), but it does so namely because it will bring out those individuals in our movement who have been harmed personally by such actions or actions similar to it that demonstrate similar traits (an example being a thread on physical domestic violence bringing out individuals who have been royally screwed by partners in the family courts, as to them it felt abusive)... people who are hurt become jaded and its a hard thing to…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 04:45 PM
6

I should point out that the MRM never said it intended to solve women's gender ineqaulity then made things worse for them, I should point out that th MRM doesn't claim a monopoly on "equality". The MRM can be said to be a branch of egalitarian ideals aimed at solving issues men face, we would have no problem with a female equivalent that didn't actively demonise men and remove our rights or fight to prevent us gaining them where we lack them... I was a feminist, until I saw such actions on their…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:40 AM
7

I would love to see that "local wiki" if i could (im not sure what a local wiki is, unforunately)... It seems like it would be very informative.
/r/MensRights07/04/17 04:13 PM
16

It's an entirely valid point, but the point of us arguing against the wage gap is namely because such things are ignored when feminists make an issue out of it. Similarly we bring up the work place death stat, namely when we are pointing out that men not only hold the best but also the worst positions and yet no one cares about the worst positions... its somewhat of an "yes, but you don't about this... you don't factor it in..." or at-least that's how I generally use it and how i have normally s…
/r/MensRights07/04/17 04:12 PM
1

The courts are generally quite strict with these kinds of things honestly. so if it just said "vulnerable" in the act, the courts normally stick to the idea that "an exception is just that, an exception, and we don't make it any wider than it absolutely must be". if they defined vulnerable in the act however then we would most likely have issues due to PC culture. Some of the best parts of English criminal law, are judge made... look at the dishonesty tests, tests for assault and battery, that s…
/r/MensRights07/04/17 11:45 AM
6

I think what needs conveying about Ripley though (if we want "strong" characters like her) is that, her being female is part of her character, but its in fact only a small part of her character. you know she is weaker than her male peers, but she doesn't try to be stronger, she tries to be smarter... that's what made her a great character. She was ingenious, tenacious, stubborn, and so much more, than merely "a woman". Similarly, she had flaws... she couldn't do everything her male peers could d…
/r/MensRights05/04/17 07:26 PM
3

First and foremost lets address your "plumbers" and "electricians" part, shall we: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/#433dd055424b Oh right electricians are on there... Now to be fair, my example of plumbing may have been off, only 6.2 in every 100000 people die in plumbing each year, as opposed to the 10.4 for electricians, but roofers beat all else at 47.4 and lets see where they were on my evidence list shall we? oh right 99.00% male... per: h…
/r/MensRights03/04/17 05:01 PM
7

I focused solely on "the draft" as i figured that was your intention (as my example intended to demonstrate one example where feminists would rather things stay as they are rather than include women), secondly, i only got 1 website, because to be fair, pretty much all of them were simple rehashings of the same thing, if what i posted bored you, then i can bet posting the same article reworded 4 times would have bored you further, i don't really check my work if it is not intended for submission …
/r/MensRights03/04/17 10:06 AM
10

It was an over simplification, sure and i agree that my own was too, i concede that point. I should also point out "feminists predominantly fight to keep it that way" should instead be "fought", it seems in the past 10 years or so the position is changing, ironically with rad fems... well lets drop some quite big sites shall we: https://bust.com/feminism/16574-why-drafting-women-isn-t-gender-equality.html also read: It is clear that with or without the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment Congr…
/r/MensRights03/04/17 09:28 AM
10

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chalabi-datalab-flightattendants-2.png please look at the bottem 20 of those and tell me that the post addresses that "occupation" would not encompass predominantly men.. you know, the death jobs, the ones that men make up 95%+ of men... cause you know... bit of a problem for you there. if you go down to 80% male you will note that they near enough all pose a substantial risk to limb, even if not necessarily life. to quote the numbers (and …
/r/MensRights03/04/17 09:05 AM
2

I note that i don't agree with the current situation, in your own words i would state it "is fucked up", I'm merely stating that such an approach is usable if needed (plus it may actually be true for many homeless individuals) and that doing so would not be difficult. i would rather struggle to find great work, and have a roof over my head than not, because being homeless makes it extremely difficult to get most jobs...
/r/MensRights02/04/17 03:14 PM
5

To be fair, this is bypassable somewhat easily, if you go to your doctor and get "diagnosed" as depressed, having a mental health issue means that you become one of the higher tiers (rather close to the top), since depression is fakeable it is probably the best to choose... its ironically simple, but most peeps don't consider it, since we aren't meant to complain. new policy matters from about 2 years ago-ish, stated that depression being a mental health issue was to grant prioritisation over ot…
/r/MensRights02/04/17 01:13 PM
1

Its true that preventing further crimes is considered when punishing, it is by no means the biggest factor, the biggest factor is the crime committed and getting a punishment that fits the crime. the core goal of criminal law, is to punish offenders, anything else is secondary, its why there are "maximum sentences" and sentencing guidelines that judges follow, because the punishment must fit the crime and its why judges cannot make "deterrence punishments" with huge sentences to deter. Also i sh…
/r/MensRights31/03/17 06:16 PM
1

edited: deleted it all. Or to stop the violation of the rights of others. erm what criminal law does this??? only civil law potentially does this... but here it is either: a fiduciary duty, or B a continuing act where an injunction is ordered (to make them fulfils an obligation they agreed to or stop them doing something that violates anothers rights (be it land rights, contractual rights or such)), thing is, the best this could do is make them "take reasonable steps" nothing more... which like …
/r/MensRights31/03/17 05:03 PM
14

Whilst i agree in the area of rights, i dont think it applies to the marketplace imho. why should the gym lose money when they can make it instead by simply raising the price of women? its a difference between "rights" and "the market" the markets purpose is money whereas rights are about protecting individuals from the exploitation and abuse at the hands of others, often motivated by the the market (aka capitalism).
/r/MensRights31/03/17 10:46 AM
1

Yes but only as far as necessary to achieve the goal of punishment... Why do you think we got rid of the death penalty? Why do you think we no longer torture prisoners? Why do you think our prisons aren't run down shut holes where you sleep on a plank of wood stuck to the wall? Because those who break the law have rights to, and we cannot break those rights wantonly, it must be necessary... It is not necessary here... Doing so is not right, alternatives exist.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 06:43 AM
2

It's a shame honestly, I joined MRM because it wasn't like that, it relied on trust-able and reliable stats, information and such. Now don't get me wrong, those are only a couple of examples, and the majority of us still aren't like that, but neither are they speaking against it. I say to feminists "all it takes for evil to win is good men to do nothing" when they say "most of us arent like that, its just a vocal minority" and I will hold us to that standard as well. If we let people use and tar…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 08:28 PM
1

No, but nor does it allow the legal system to wantonly violate peoples rights at all. there are other remedies for violations, such as injunctions, that perform the role better without violations of peoples rights. The current system works well, so long as the potential father finds out, this is where the issue lies. notifying the father, is how we should proceed, but there is no need to make it so that the mother is penalised by loss of basic income and her right to the child. An effective appr…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 08:18 PM
1

I'm not referring solely to trump if im honest, im just talking the sub as a whole seems to be getting less and less objective. an example being, i recent explained why i couldn't use a study someone linked to and why i didnt think others should (all we could access were news articles detailing their views on it, no methodology at all, not the actual study or anything). after this, he got another study, which i quickly found the data for and i said "this is a good study" (effectively, i detailed…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 07:11 PM
1

rolls eyes no, thats how our legal system is, because its the best way to ensure peoples rights aren't violated by an area of law, that is subject to judicial discretion... womens comfort isn't important, ensuring that her access to the money she needs to survive whilst seeking work or looking after a child... that is something else, thats not "comfort" thats "fundamental necessities" cause its spent on food water and shelter... you know, things men are entitled to as well... by way of job seeke…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 06:28 PM
1

Quite. I fear this movement is heading in the same direction as feminism.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 05:30 PM
1

No they don't they only go to prison for violation of civil law, only if that civil law, is a matter of "court orders", aside from that you cannot, because not adhering to a court order means you are in "contempt of court" a criminal matter... that said, I'm no going to respond further, Derpy.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 03:55 PM
15

To be fair with the trump one, it was mainly because he was implying that it was because he became president that it had decreased, which is not true, the general standing is to work from 1 financial year after they have been in power, when determining their effect on the deficit because for about a year after, the effects of the last president are more potent than the new president, to that extent what he implied is not true, but the actual fact he stated (that it had decreased) is. its certain…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 10:14 PM
1

people forfeit rights when they break criminal law, this is not criminal law its civil law. I was wrong to bring up prison (at the time i hadnt thought about this issue). assuming line 2 means what i think, we take prisoners rights very seriously, there have been tons of cases where our government has been held to have breached the prisoners rights, its not something we just "throw away", we can take those rights that are necessary and no more. She's not being imprisoned physically, no, but her …
/r/MensRights29/03/17 09:37 PM
1

Thats an idealistic view at best, EVEN assuming society had enough work to house all mothers in this situation as well as enough money to fund housing these children, and enough money to search for the fathers (as you suggested), theres still the issue of her rights... why should she not be entitled to job seekers allowances, because she violated someone else rights in a completely different spectrum of life (also does it not strike you as odd, that you would rather the child have no parent, rat…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 08:20 PM
1

Yes exactly, but you proposed simply removing those things from her, you never proposed prison, i proposed prison... that's my point! Not to mention it needs restricting to solely individuals who are deliberately doing it, individuals who are doing so simply because they have exhausted all reasonable ways to find the father, should not be punished.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 08:04 PM
1

Its not punishment, even murderers in the uk have the right to food, water and many other things whilst in prison, depriving her of that money could remove those fundamental things from her, in some cases that might result in death... that's not right, as i stated, punishing her through prison might work, punishment works, removal of basic human rights doesn't work unless its absolutely necessary, here that is not the case and not to mention your proposal further harms that child... prison may w…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 07:26 PM
1

I simply cannot agree with this. Even if she did deny the father his right to know he has a child deliberately (and frankly as often as not, this probably is not the case), and that could be proven, her right to access basic support for food and water whilst seeking employment (or is employed as a full time carer of her child) doesn't change, the only way to change that would be to take the child from her, but as i demonstrated that logically cannot be the case because its less efficient and a w…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 05:00 PM
1

Firstly, recheck my comment, its heavily edited (i generally make changes to comments afterwards, sorry). Secondly, I would argue that support for a child from the government is a human right (falling under any of the following: the right to human dignity, human right to health, and the human right to be free from degrading treatment) as much as it is a human right that a father is allowed to know he has genetic offspring, in fact i would go further and support this with the fact that many gover…
/r/MensRights29/03/17 04:02 PM
1

You cannot receive government assistance without the father being notified. I suppose i should ask, what assistance are you referring to? it cannot include benefits intended for the child, not the mother, nor should it include any "assistance" she would recieve but for having a child (thats simply absurd and violates her rights as a citizen of this country)
/r/MensRights29/03/17 03:48 PM
1

It would not be the first basic human right violated in such a manner. True. Let me address that issue again. It is a human right to be informed of your offspring. You have a right to know you have a child. Having that information kept from you is a violation of your human rights. Even if it is a human right (a debate in and of its own right, i only note that no government has ever stated it is such a right, but as you stated that isn't a hugely persuasive argument), violation of it, with our cu…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 09:48 PM
1

It is a human right to be informed of your offspring Is it? I have to disagree here, if it were a human right, pretty much every single government across the globe is violating it, simply because its too impractical to do, the only way to achieve this would be to DNA all prospective fathers at birth... That would simply cost too much, if nothing else. The fact that women can just keep it a secret, and deny you your right to your child is inexcusable. If she knew you as an individual were the fat…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 09:14 PM
1

Does a mother have to have "parental responsibility"? No, because she has rights. sighs the mother DOES have responsibility for the child the moment she gives birth because there is no issue of parentage (I mean I wouldn't need to be a student lawyer to know that, its pretty damn obvious), and as such no issue of whether her "rights" exist either (because both exist straight away by virtue of her giving birth). This is obviously not the case with fathers, as there is no certainty around who the …
/r/MensRights28/03/17 08:59 PM
1

Yes a father does, but only if he has parental responsibility. I could argue (quite easily in fact) that the mothers position is exactly the same legally, the difference lies not in "unequal law" but in the issue of "fact". Put another way, the law imposes on a biological parent, responsibilities and along with these come rights (at least in the UK) in so far as is reasonably possible, but only to those parents (or ones who adopt them) which is where the issue arises. no matter what we can be pr…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 08:15 PM
1

Hmm at the time i wasn't focused on that particular issue, though yes that is correct. Put another way, the uk government phrases it like this "As the child’s father you’ll be asked to agree to the adoption - but only if you have parental responsibility. If you were never married to the child’s mother or named on the birth certificate, you can apply to the court for a Parental Responsibility Order to get parental responsibility." So i should rephrase what i said, to "if a father has parental res…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 07:08 PM
3

Unlikely, i made a post about this general topic (abortion and why there are differing rights between men and women, at least in the uk) a while back so i hope you dont mind if i just quote it but this is how i think it works currently (though i cannot say for certain) - it is rather long so read the TLDR at the bottom (i will make one) if you dont want to read the whole thing: Thats the simple version. a more indepth explanation (atleast for the uk) is this. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SOLELY A LEGAL V…
/r/MensRights28/03/17 04:49 PM
4

You should never miss the /s when being sarcastic peeps on here are generally switched to "serious" mode, its a problem, but then not being serious about stuff can have its implications too.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 02:19 PM
1

"this movie" is the first chance we have had with any decent unbias press relating to our movement, I have yet to see it, and shall reserve judgement until after, but as far as i know, the movie does a great job of portraying our position and seperating our what we want from the myths, why would be "trash" that movie... it makes no logical sense.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 08:13 PM
3

How did you take that from what he was saying? "society needs to figure out a better metric before low achievers can be helped" is a fair point to make, if we only judge "equality" based on who is at the top (the current way of judging "metrics"), women will universally seem worse off, even though men also hold the bottom most positions, which is why he said we needed a new metric (another way of determining inequality) atleast as far as the working world goes. that doesn't seem to fit a feminis…
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:25 PM
3

Certainly so (I mean all these things will have a ton of different causes), I just didn't think OP's brother deserved the disdain of the members on here, as he didn't seem to state anything as a group we already didn't think exist.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 02:50 PM
5

I think you missed the point of whats OP's brother was making, as a group, men are spread considerably more in terms of differences be it financial, intellect, and it wouldn't surprise me if it applied to politics as well. in the vast majority of societies up until now, the position of women regardless of earnings generally fell into the same area (historically it can be generalised as "the home and friends" - that said i fully understand that this is a HUGE generalisation, as women did frequent…
/r/MensRights25/03/17 02:08 PM
1

Okay having glanced through the British one, Lisak, and having read Rumney before, I suppose that'll be enough to cover a response (for now). Firstly, Lisak put the figure at about 5.9% after a 10 year study. Rumney is reliant on a huge amount of evidence (as far as i know) summarising and categorising them based on strength. whats interesting is that its conclusion is pretty much "we simply lack evidence", that said, he relies heavily on the HMCPSI/HMIC study (as i said it is highly persuasive)…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:48 PM
1

I will look into these as soon as I can, but if what you state is true then i concede the point. I brought up brown-miller and the new york rape squad one because there are many sites that rely on her stat, but i also brought up a couple of other studies that discuss it (and why their lowest numbers were at issue). If you can give me a couple of days (I am rather booked up right now), I can get back to you after having read your links? Derpy. P.s. Thanks for taking it all in your stride its nice…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:05 PM
1

"Mods warned us about this latest feminist lurking tactic for clogging up threads and preventing cohesive argument and agreement among NRA members from organically forming" Oh my considering I have been part of these forums for about 2 years, that is an interesting assertion you have there. " Long rambling derailing clogging posts that demand proof on top of that already provided, that ten go on to ramble vaguley for ages as to why they're not quite sure about this or that or that they didn't re…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 08:02 AM
1

These are perfectly relevant, I was summarising the strengths and weakness of the study provided so that anyone intending to rely on the study knew what they were getting into.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 08:00 AM
1

No I requested that he give me a link me to the source of those stats, he did no do that, he gave me a link to a discussion on that study but not to the study itself, if i had tried to rely on said link at university for instance, I would be laughed out of the gates.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:59 AM
2

Dude, that is simply not true. There are 3 studies that put the figure around 10% firstly you have: Harris and Grace (1999) which determined about 10% were false (though how the police came to the conclusion they were false is unknown - as such I'm dubious about this study), as did Lea et al (2003) at 11% and HMCPSI/HMIC (2002) at about 12% (the last two being highly persuasive), you also have the FBI statsitics which puts the number at 8%. This idea that its only 2% falls short however when you…
/r/MensRights20/03/17 05:21 PM
1

It's logical. I can get evidence of 10% provable rapist, 10% provably liar....the rest we lack evidence on... That said wait till I'm outta bed and I will get evidence of the provable true stats, I will edit the post in about an hour or two. okay edit1: In the uk there were "15,670" reported rapes in 2013, we can assume 10% are false based on the evidence provided and i can get more studies if you want? (its hard to find how many cases of rape are determined as false allegations as the police co…
/r/MensRights20/03/17 06:07 AM
5

You are innocent until proven guilty yes, but that works both ways... To that extent "you are not guilty of rape until its proven you raped someone" is as true as "she isn't guilty of maliciously lying about being raped to have him put in prison until its proven she is doing so" and this is the case until it can be proven with evidence that he raped her, or she is lying about him raping her. Both of those statements exist at the same time if that makes sense? This can result in niether party bei…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 09:32 PM
18

I should point out, that these are "provably false" not all "false accusations" that said we can also only prove rape cases to about the same rate (as far as I know), that isn't to say "half are true half false" simply that its incredibly hard to prove either way (at least based on the studies I have read). This is just a slight correction to your point, I completely agree with the basis behind the point you are making (that his position has absolutely no basis), but we should at least attempt t…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 09:14 PM
3

quick update 2:edit 2: Warren Farrell's book states this (and to quote) "The first time I asked a group of men whether they would choose to parent full time for six months to a year if they could (as mentioned above) and more than 80 percent said that being full time with their newborn child would be their preference if they were not hurting the family economically and their wife approved, I assumed I was either dealing with a group of liars or a self-selected sample. When I received only a slig…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 08:39 PM
5

Okay quick update for you. After reading the page, I visited the link on the article, this took me to another page that simply re-asserted what the article said BUT at the bottom the page was this lovely link: http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/186053/Stay_At_Home_or_Work_150908%20.pdf <- that is a download Anyway, that link doesn't provide much more information, but it gives us access to the exact question asked (as far as i can tell its unbias), two it tells us how they conducted the study (it wa…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 08:13 PM
1

Give me 20 minutes to research this, and I will see what i can make of it (if you might, can you reread what i posted, i made some alterations, and added a little to the end). Also, im going to look into something written by "Warren Farrell" who said that about 80% of men wanted to stop working when they had their child and 17% wanted to work part time. i have yet to see the study on that as well (so i need to look into it), but its quite possible that its similar numbers for both genders. I wil…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 08:00 PM
4

sigh The problem I have with this is that I cannot actually see the results, only their interpretation of the results. I have serious issue with this namely because of a few things. 1: I have no idea how bias the questions were (its highly possible they were bias); 2: The sample size being only 1000 people, is very small for a survey, which should be looking for at least 5x higher, preferably higher than that, if they are making generalisations about the entirety of the US or UK female populatio…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 07:50 PM
2

Can i see a source on these stats? I don't know how accurate they are (nor are am i saying they are bad), but i do need to review the study before i even think about relying on it.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 06:36 PM
1

Possibly, i don't know (havent read it), but its dependant, in all likelihood you are right, but we shouldn't be asserting anything as fact without having read the case
/r/MensRights19/03/17 05:21 PM
2

It depends on why they came to their conclusion, if it was based on existing law and the appeal was over the "facts" then it won't (if they weren't contesting the lower courts finding of law, but of it's finding on fact then it cannot set precedent because no case has the exact same facts). If it was a question of law "can a woman legally take some or all of a husbands wrongful imprisonment compensation under X provision? And the answer was no, then it does... But it's all about that distinction…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 07:34 AM
16

This makes sense until, you factor in that the father quite possibly (in fact very likely) would not have stayed in the relationship had she told the truth at the start. put another way, these obligations the courts attempt to enforce, are enforcing ones that but for the mothers lies, he would not have obtained? this goes against pretty much one of the most fundamental laws on agreements, namely that if someone lies/misrepresents about a core aspect of the agreement, then you can get out of said…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 09:38 AM
6

I should address this like this: The dynamics of "step parents" is complex and varies widely, but generally, from a legal position, they have no rights over the children. in the event that they have no contact with their actual parent, the step-parent if they wanted the same degree of rights as the actual father, should have adopted the child. You bring up adoption, but adoption is a 2 part thing, firstly, the parents give up their rights and responsibilities over the child to the state (the bio…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 09:21 AM
1

where did i assert that owning things didnt make you more "attractive" to women. my point was, that unless you had money to spare, which most of society back then didnt, you wouldnt own them, the middle classes possibly did have enough for a little make up and cheap high heels, sure, i could accept that, but it wasnt the "norm" as such to own them, it was a privilege that only small parts of society got to benefit from, you dont judge a society based on what a small group of people dress in, oth…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 04:08 PM
1

its possible, but its also possible you are conflating our societies values and theirs... back then they didnt have a garuntee of having "everything they need" most people wouldn't waste money on wants, unless their lives were going well, good harvests etc. its entirely possible that they did own or partake in such activites, im merely saying that it would seem strange in a world where everything was generally based around what was "needed" not what was "wanted" that they would be willing to spe…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 03:38 PM
2

its probably more naunced with regard to make up and heals than what Illhitabitch is making out (women also wore a ton of make up as well, im only aware of higher class males wearing it though and predominantly in very hot countries, the assumption most people i know of make is that it was aimed at protecting the skin, but these were just generally school/college teachers, nothing "academic", as opposed to female prostitutes, serving girls etc. heels i dont know about) heels i dont know about bu…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 03:08 PM
1

Thats a moral question (not the focus of my view). none the less, i will give answer anyway. You say, that having sex with someone automatically accepts all outcomes, but what exactly? there are many risks involved in sex (the types of sex change how likely anyone type will be). the big 3 i assume would be STD's, pregnancy and some physical harm (during the sex and to a limited to minor harm - cant consent to ABH/GBH). If we accept that women can become pregnant and born and child then a women m…
/r/MensRights05/03/17 07:47 AM
1

Yes, but fear isn't always genuine, fear is the best bait for an ambush, no one expects the terrified "coward" of setting traps and ambushes, they expect him to run. Not to mention they might smell fear but they have no way to know it's his, since it could be one of many students, what will they do? Use the entire class as lunch?
/r/MensRights05/03/17 12:01 AM
1

Firstly, i said this was a legal view point, since i dont think there has been any cases on it, i cannot say with certainty. i will however endeavour to give my best guess (though obviously not for the use of any court). I suppose i should break my view point down. 1: DNA in the form of sperm can be stolen, but only through rape, theft (used condoms) or fraud (needle through condom, pretending to be their partner at a sperm bank and have their permission, that sort of stuff). out side of this, i…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 08:18 PM
1

Are you speaking about USA? As i know, in some countries women can leave the child at special house, and even doesn't have to pay child support money. No im talking about the uk (as i asserted in the original part). in the uk if the father i known (and on the birth certificate) you cant have adoption without his consent. if they arent aware of who the father is, then it creates issues, but as i said, its based on an out dated system where parents were expected to be married. if the child is put …
/r/MensRights04/03/17 01:56 PM
1

If both parents have equal responsibility then both should have equal rights to stay with child and to make choices about the child. If this were true, i would completely agree, it is, however, not true. the mother has far more responsibilities under the current system, even if that comes with a lot more rights. fathers primary obligation to the child, atleast as far as i can tell, under our current system is financial in nature, whereas the mothers is primarily everything else. the father may h…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 10:05 AM
2

People always seem to mistake the removal of risks with cowardice... what exactly about my suggest actions is cowardly? he still makes the school aware of her actions, all he did was eliminate or seriously lower the risk he incurs... thats not cowardice... thats logical.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 09:38 AM
2

Thats the simple version. a more indepth explanation (atleast for the uk) is this. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SOLELY A LEGAL VIEW POINT NOT A MORAL ONE. Fetus's under uk law aren't humans. they are a distinct entity, that are neither "part of the mother" under english law (in fact had they been part of the mother... its unlikely abortions would be legal, you cannot consent to GBH - provisions are made for life saving situations i would assume, but pregnancy is rarely life/limb threatening) or human, bu…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 10:55 PM
5

send in an anon letter, say that youre one of the peers, but fearing repercussions from the teacher dont wish to name yourself? you will then be called to the heads office (because s/he needs "to get to the bottom of it" [even if only for appearences] ) and be "questioned" on it, and thus its not your fault.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 10:15 PM
6

sigh On your first point, whilst its true, the point you are making is undermined by the fact that men make up 40% of domestic violence victims (according to roughly 238 studies) and women initiate 70% unreciprocated domestic violence (according to one study, i have yet to find others confirming it though i dont think there are many, if any others on the topic). now while this isnt 50/50, its close enough to warrant working towards lowering all violence like this as opposed to just womens. youll…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 06:02 PM
7

it has already happened, its just the police are reluctant to take such cases forwards. some have even been done through private prosecution (PP), the director of public prosecution (and thus the police) have the right to take this over at a later date, but (AFAIK) havent done so. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281202/Mother-conned-Royal-Marine-serving-Afghanistan-father-baby-FIVE-YEARS.html <-- quite possible public prosecution (as opposed to private - it doesnt say). http://www.maril…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 05:51 PM
1

I wouldve thought this was civil law (I honestly dont know). assuming its criminal, you would be right (you would need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). If its civil law (as i suspect), it would only need to be on the balance of probabilities, which in light of the circumstances (that you can prove they slept together), and that they were promoted, then you only need to demonstrate that its more likely than not that they were promoted because they slept with them. that said you also need t…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:25 AM
1

Its not that its not related to mens rights, its that recently (past 6-12 months) there has been a seriously sharp rise supposedly, in low quality picture based posts (something that's supposed to be against the rules), and ultimately it is seriously damaging the communities respectability because everyone just thinks of us as a joke... or atleast thats what i think he is getting at, and i kinda have to agree... in the past few weeks i have seen a huge surge in these types of posts and its a sha…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 12:01 PM
1

Yes I've never thought or heard of case hardening before but it makes perfect sense, it seems like one of those things that people just don't generally know about or discuss. A lot more typically-male defences are going to be heard by a judge or other legal worker than typically-female defences like that one. It's one of them things that are so obvious but most people don't realise until they are told about it. i mean anyone would realise logically speaking "if a lot of people use similar excuse…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 10:34 AM
2

I apologise for this being long, the topic at hand is an enjoyable one to discuss, especially with one who words his position like you do. i figured i would put some effort into my response, hence the fact it came out so long, much like many other discussions i have with people i enjoyed debating with. I dont know too much about womens debtor prisons, only that married women couldn't own property and thus couldn't amas debt (expections exist, i would assume where the women had an "allowance" as …
/r/MensRights19/02/17 12:41 AM
2

to be fair this isn't entirely true. "Finally, married women enjoyed the evasion or mitigation of punishment in certain types of offences. For example, a wife could not be punished for committing theft in the company of her husband, because the law supposed that she acted under his coercion. Wives’ inability to make financial transactions in their own name also prevented them from being sued and therefore imprisoned for debt." https://www.academia.edu/746242/Favoured_or_oppressed_Married_women_p…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 12:25 PM
1

Or we don't hear about because it simply isn't allowed to happen, whilst it's true that you position is possible, its also improbable... The other comments besides mine have stated that you need an "okay" to enter female athletes locker rooms, something female ones don't need to enter men's...
/r/MensRights18/02/17 12:07 PM
1

your link doesn't seem to be working (so I cannot say whether your position is accurate) but i have never seen any articles myself on male reporters entering female locker rooms whilst they are naked...
/r/MensRights16/02/17 01:01 PM
4

i always thought lots of sperm had to reach the egg to break down the outer layer, then one lucky sperm gets through... but im probably wrong here, havent done biology since school a good 4 years back or so. that said, i agree its not quite as simple as he makes out, since no birth control is perfect, besides not having sex...
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:47 PM
7

I'm guessing that doesn't apply whilst they are buck naked though...
/r/MensRights14/02/17 10:16 AM
25

problem is they can make the argument that "since im pregnant, no need to use protection" (if they were before) and then get pregnant in the meantime... theyll have to explain why they were pregnant for 12 months... but, y'know, medical miracles...
/r/MensRights12/02/17 10:54 PM
1

I think you miss my point. lets assume that a fathers opt out period is limited to 11 weeks (because mothers have it to 21? 23 weeks??). this would only apply where, the mother hides the fact she is pregnant from the father for 12 weeks, so that the father couldnt opt out (this doesnt affect the fathers relationship with the child after birth in the slightest). in this circumstance, the fact she hid it from the father, because she thought he would opt out, changes the presumption that the father…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 09:59 PM
1

I would say that if they hide the fact they are pregnant from the father (or fail to notify anyway), then it is because they knew (or thought that) the father would want a fiscal "abortion" as it were, and thus thats the assumed state (he wants a "fiscal" abortion), with a fair period to opt back in (if he so wishes). there would be some exceptions granted (abusive partners - provable beyond a tilted balance of probabilities ( its civil law not criminal so its on the balances, but the balance is…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 06:30 PM
9

firstly: "family's child-rearing decisions" do you have any stats to substantiate that they are made by the "family" as a whole? i would be genuinely interested in reading that (reason being, its my impression that mothers who stop working don't really "discuss it" and simply take maternity leave then never return - that said, i have no stats to back this up, its merely based on what i have seen (in my albeit limited) life time, and is therefore not likely to be "representative"). secondly: assu…
/r/MensRights07/02/17 10:48 PM
3

you forgot to mention the cups... we all get free cups when we turn 18, for instance like this one: http://i.imgur.com/YZ4i32M.jpg
/r/MensRights02/02/17 10:29 PM
0

no im not, if you are completely aware that someone is racist, youll know to look out for their racism, if you are unaware that they are racist, but they are racist, then its highly likely you wont notice the racism they put in... thats an entirely valid argument... if its fallacious explain how...
/r/MensRights01/02/17 03:55 PM
0

why? if they dont do it overtly, they will merely hide their bias behind fancy words, manipulating the jury to convict this black man or jew, without demonstrating in big letters or use of the swastica... i mean most judges are well lawyers when they first start out... which means they are skilled in this area... you would have a hell of a job dismissing a judge for "covert bias" when they are close to godly at the manipulation of words.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 03:45 PM
3

hmm i think the topic is quite large, and there are a lot of things that need to be weighed up, i think there are some arguments atleast for letting them demonstrate their views, but i can atleast understand why you might not want them to.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 03:41 PM
-2

no i dont think they will be comfortable, but then, if the judge is racist, him not wearing a swastika will not change the fact that he is racist, merely we wouldnt know it, surely its better to be aware that they are racist, before the trial takes place? atleast that way they have a chance to get a fair trial... (im assuming if you have a racist judge, you have grounds for saying your trial isnt fair and getting a new one, the same applying to a feminist who is anti-male if it adversely affects…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 03:36 PM
-1

i suppose my question then is "why does it matter that they tell us their political affiliations, surely its better we know them, that way we can account for them?" the only damage this could cause would be to the view that judges are impartial, but then ive never really considered them such, they all have their own bias's, and weigh things differently.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 02:18 PM
0

unless there is evidence that she hasnt been performing her job properly because shes a feminist then whats the problem? i know this isnt a popular view but we are all entitled to our own views, the mere fact we KNOW hers, due to said badge doesnt change whether she would be bias or not anyway. granted it is highly unprofessional, but the issue with neutrality falls short... because if the judge was/is a crazy feminist, then not wearing the badge wont remove the crazy from her views.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 12:22 PM
1

secondly, i believe there were atleast 1 person (the details are fuzzy) who didnt regain fertility at all (as far as i know, it may have subsequently returned). none the less my point was that, women complain about their pills, and sure enough i sypathise with that (i was by no means trying to trivialise that - hence the part about them similarly not being allowed today if they were created now). my point was simple, i dislike the idea of "we deal with this so, so should you", i would rather tak…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:22 PM
1

those 2 links were supposed to lead to news articles. i shall quote them now in order: israel: committee on Tuesday decided to postpone a vote on second and third reading of a bill to add the crime of rape by a woman to the statute book after women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape. According to the proposal, an amendment to the Penal Law, a woman who causes or makes it possible for a person to insert his (or her) bodily …
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:21 PM
9

You have this view that we despise all feminists, thats a flawed idea, we like feminists who stick true to the idea that "they stand for equality" (look at erin prizzey, we love her here, Christina Hoff Sommers). The problem, is that most if not all feminists say that they stand for that, then support organisations, actions and such, that demonstrate otherwise. A good example of this, would be the national organisation for women, they can get 500k marches (in terms of people) in a single state, …
/r/MensRights22/01/17 11:09 AM
3

I can't say for certain, but the life style factors that promote and increase the wage gap (earnings gap anyway), most likely promote a decrease in female promotions chances. If men work between 3 -17%* more in the uk depending on job, if men take less holidays, take more over time, are more willing to travel (or out right move), then logically speaking is it any surprise they're more likely to get a promotion? *it might be 1.7% and 19% as the correct figures, cannot remember perfectly - I will …
/r/MensRights21/01/17 10:35 AM
2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214854/Pay-gap-Women-earn-men-till-40s-20-woman-paid-men-age-group-decade.html im looking for the original numbers now, i will edit this post if i can get them edit: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults#earnings-by-age-group -figure 9 and its preceeding text, details how women between the ages of 22 and 30 out earn men...
/r/MensRights18/01/17 10:58 AM
4

its quite possible he is saying, that the best thing about the sub, is the fact that we dont feed the trolls here... but technically that is incorrect, atleast from my own experiences. (i only raise this argument, because i too fail to see how this is a troll sooo its rather odd).
/r/MensRights15/01/17 12:16 AM
1

A representative study of all mens happiness doesnt demonstrate the effects that feminism has on men, and to say it does infact assumes that feminism effects all men equally, that simply isnt true. as i state above (after the first paragraph - which i notice you have no arguments against...) is that men are avoiding more and more things that feminism has corrupted, less men go to uni, less men marry, less men are doing anything that feminism corrupts. my argument to you is "is it not true that m…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:28 PM
1

my argument is that you are reliant on the fallacy of division, you are applying the argument that because the maority of men arent negatively impacted by feminism, then feminisms effect on men isnt negative, yet you disregard that many demographics of men are avoiding the areas that feminism has corrupted (look at marraige), you ignore that many demographics of men are severly impacted by feminism (look at US college campuses) you disregard all of these things. it may be true that as a whole, m…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:05 PM
1

Our position is that feminism is damage mens rights, not that they lower mens happiness... at that point who is the one misrepresenting whom? if you truely wanted to study the affect of feminism on men, then you need not look at the entirety of society, but at the demographics damaged. you need to look at the falsely accused, you need to look at the men who have had their children taken from them, lost their homes in divorces, men who suffer joblessness because no one wants hire them because the…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 12:52 PM
1

It's quite possible its the same here. Its generally not an idiot (we have a standard for that... cant remember what it was but we do have a standard for idiots), the rest in the uk is (according to the CPS) 2 part: did the defendant believe that the accuser consented? if so, was his belief reasonable? (which is left to the jury to decide). personally i doubt it is hard to satisfy this in these circumstances (if its genuine), when it gets tricky is when people have been drinking and neither part…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 08:28 AM
1

We do (I don't know the case itself, im basing this on the comments), since i don't know the case I should probably read it), I cant cast judgement here, but mens rea is normally a matter for the jury... as in the uk its based on a reasonableness test aka "if person A should reasonably have known person B wasn't consenting then it isn't defence that A didn't realise they weren't however if it was reasonable that person A didnt realise (and in fact didnt realise) then its a defence" (we had some …
/r/MensRights12/01/17 03:19 PM
1

The uk law is weird but basically it is if someone lies about the nature or purpose of the act, then it can amount to rape. so you could say you have 3billion in the bank, and agree to have sex to get her pregnant, then turn out to have £3 in the bank, and she could do fuck all (as far as i know anyway... atleast under rape), because the nature of the act (its sexual) and its purpose (its reproductive) are the same regardless of how much money you have. If however you said "i want to do some exp…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 01:27 PM
2

It would have to be sexual assault, the standard for consent in the uk applies the same (as far i know) to all sexual offences that need consent... but yes the rule would apply... (women cant rape at all in the uk, except through maybe an incohate offence, so sexual assault it would have to be). the same applies to dishonesty in english law. look at the so called "ghosh test" which is the standard for dishonesty in the UK, it applies not only to theft (which i think is where it was developed) bu…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 01:19 PM
4

I am relaxed looks around suspiciously why though? who has been saying otherwise???
/r/MensRights10/01/17 09:59 PM
1

really? i didnt know, strange, i always assumed wrinkles were caused by scowling and frowning, cause your face is more bunched up... shrugs
/r/MensRights10/01/17 07:17 PM
1

I have see a rise in it (though i dont know about the up votes thing) and as i have expressed in other comments on this thread, i do think its an issue, that said, my point was simple, some threads like this are okay, being too serious can be an issue, if the amount of them is the problem, then there are more effective ways of addressing it, for instance, mods enforcing the "low quality" post rule and only leaving ones with decent discussion. honestly speaking, when i posted the above comment th…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 07:10 PM
1

hmm?
/r/MensRights10/01/17 06:30 PM
0

sure, but then laughing at it, and calling it what it is, dispells that does it not? i mean laughing and saying the post is itself a joke (like insultingly) quite literally dispells that, it suggests the rest of us think its stupid and idiotic... y'know just like you do.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 06:16 PM
-2

Yup, and to that extent both are as stupid as the other, i mean the posts funny, and honestly, it doesnt really have much to do with here (we have too much clickbait these days), but hey its funny, may as well enjoy it right?
/r/MensRights10/01/17 04:44 PM
5

I just want to ask one question, do you actually think i think this is a serious issue when i made a joke about wrinkles? because honestly, you must be as stupid as a (rad)feminist if thats the case. I have a laugh because its on here and so why not, but i dont post it (infact i think there is too much of this stuff these days), i just have a laugh when it turns up because why wouldn't i? because laughing at a clickbait posts is not in anyway suggesting its an actual issue... laughing at it demo…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 04:39 PM
346

Hey, even we need a laugh at times... being serious all the time would give us wrinkles... shudders the horror...
/r/MensRights10/01/17 01:53 PM
1

The problem I had never lied with the "women suffer this much" but with the "verses 9% of men", it was A: like you didnt care about them (which is you know... not what this sub is about...) because women have it worse, B: incorrect statistically (most studies conclude we have about 1/5), and C: ironically it seems my entire point was "we should stop disregarding that men suffer as only some trivial small amount" (as per my last para). I would now like to point out we are assuming women don't lie…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 09:15 AM
3

The way i see it (though i wont say this is fact, just my view), is that the system itself is at fault. the education system as it is, treats men as if they are dirt, as if they are "faulty" by virtue of being male. couple this with the fact that the majority of school shooters (atleast that i know of) are socially inept (lack friends etc.) more than likely view school as something they simply hate, not just the teachers that act as if he is broken by his nature, but the students who similarly t…
/r/MensRights06/01/17 02:45 PM
1

Nah, 1800's i think.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 10:49 AM
1

Mhmm, i think thats the point, if you know you can refuse, then even the smallest most unsubstantiated "oh this happened" could get you off, but the fact that they make you swear before hand to "uphold the law" sorta thing (unaware that you can go against the law if needed) and then you have to think "this is going to be on my conscious for the rest of my life, like for ever, if i find him guilty, when i know this guy SHOULD NOT be in there" is the perfect ballancing factor with regards to wheth…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 06:51 PM
2

I understand where you are coming from, i agree. however i also get and agree with why the law is this way. there was another case, where a guy released official secrets as it was in "the public interest", the jury refused to find him guilty... there are cases where punishment would be so wrong as to warrant no punishment, even if they have broken the law, it is upto a jury to decide for the rest of our society if that law was both in fact and in "spirit" broken. i would argue that due to the fa…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 01:35 PM
2

It's there so that where someone has actually broken the law, but punishment would be so manifestly wrong, that they refuse to find them guilty. theres a case (cant remember the name) in the uk (which is pretty similar in this area) where a guys daughter was hit by a drunk driver, his daughter died, the drunk driver was punished (a few months in prison or something stupid), the father then caught him drink driving, the father shot him... there was an absolute shit ton of evidence to prove it, th…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 01:10 PM
1

I agree running would be stupid... but this isn't running, its strategic withdrawal. I always loved the concept of a pyrrhic victory, its the victory that cames at far too high a cost. I read a fair bit of humanity fuck yeah (its a right laugh), one of the concepts is the pyrrhic victory being an human trait, as well as the trait of humans being persistence hunters (some argue they come hand in hand). Basically the concept in HFY is that even when we are losing a war with a technologically more …
/r/MensRights04/01/17 09:03 AM
14

"I just think the argument of "I don't want to financially support the child I voluntarily chose to run the risk of creating" isn't the right way to go about it." does that not run both ways? im all for pro-choice, but you cant say "if a man has sex he has to accept the possibility of children" and then say "oh but if a woman has sex, she can have an abortion if she isnt ready". sure its her body and its a risky thing, but since medically (AFAIK), we can predict generally who is likely to have a…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:29 PM
2

Personally I don't think the sub is too bothered about mistakes (besides wanting anonymity for the accused), because they are exactly that... mistakes. if the end result were prevented, then the entire thing could be cleared up with mere anonymity. unlike false allegations which are deliberate attacks. that aside most studies looking into whats classed as "no crime" often state the police are well liberal in its application, if you get my drift, they often use it when they arent actually meant t…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 04:31 PM
2

I can agree with that yeah. I would have to say that even I am atleast slightly bias (probably more so). I can only give the evidence as i see it, but I simply wanted to at least show how the 2-3% studies are flawed, even if the rest of my comment were ignored.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 12:22 PM
6

No, there are 2 (or maybe 3) stats that support the "2% are provably false" but when you look into the numbers the sources for the 2% stat are well incredibly flawed. One of the sources originates from the so called "new york rape squad" study. The issue relating to this particular study is that, indeed, the methodology in coming to this number were never actually released. We have no idea if they sat there and saw a number as high as 30% of allegations being false and thought "we cant release t…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 08:37 AM
2

Sorry I was commenting on your original point, and why i went "above and beyond it" not the well said part. I thought I had said thank you for the compliment about it being well said, I didn't and that was rude of me, sorry.
/r/MensRights29/12/16 10:20 AM
1

It wasn't particularly aimed at you, your point specifically or anything (I would have replied the same if someone had said never to use them). It just seemed like a good time to impart this knowledge onto the sub, so that as a group our collective ability to make strong arguments was raised, even if only by a small amount. Also I would hate to fall into the same traps that feminists do, such as relying on single case, single person situations to "demonstrate" something for an entire group/demog…
/r/MensRights29/12/16 09:02 AM
2

Its no problem, I highly suggest reading the book itself (its only about £5 on amazon for the eBook, so it's honestly not that expensive), it's better at explaining than I am, and it covers a lot more useful things on top of this, such as how to approach written and verbal arguments. i mean these were only 4 or so rules, the book has about 30, and then the areas on verbal and written argument, as well as fallacies. I have realistically only repeated what was in the book either in my own words, o…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 07:49 PM
1

Thank you, i will put in a couple of alterations i made to my post (and a couple of small spelling fixes) but besides that i shall replace my original with this (with credit for your contribution to formatting). Honestly it must have taken a while to do this, but it turned out great. For what its worth, i only really posted this huge piece because i have seen a few MRA's fall into the trap of using single experiences to cast entire groups of people one way or the other (its human nature I suppos…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 10:15 AM
1

Honestly it isn't a problem, this is one of the flaws I'm working on. I might go through the post tomorrow to make it read better as its rather convoluted in terms of sentence structure and the like. I'm also thinking about moving my main examples to the end so it makes more sense, but I'm not too sure, what do you think?
/r/MensRights27/12/16 11:40 PM
1

I know how to, in fact normally I do use proper grammar but earlier I was giving a quick response as I was busy and its not my second nature to use grammar (though its slowly becoming that way). Much of this didn't have correct grammar though as it was intended as notes solely for myself at the time (as I was making them for seminars and therefore only I would see them) and I merely copied and pasted them in.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 11:20 PM
4

One other point I wanted to make regarding the use of anecdotal evidence: I know that anecdotal evidence isn't indicative of a trend, but I believe its use is valid on this sub since it at least proves the existence (and to a minor extent the prevalence) of these problems. First off, I'm a law student. Our class has studied the skills of an argument, we were told it would boost our ability to deal with assignments and such. During this study, the class was tasked with reading a book called A Rul…
/r/MensRights27/12/16 08:59 PM
6

its perfectly coherent, in so far as the the entire thing makes sense and is logical... im curious, what logical error did i fall fail to? i suppose youre referring to the fact that its not exactly organised or orderly, but then that doesnt remove anything from the point im making, if thats stopping you then chances are your opinion is ill informed anyway. i list things feminism has done that harms men... which contradicts your original point, i then suggest that if you acually believe what you …
/r/MensRights24/12/16 03:04 AM
7

Feminists actually believe in the promoting the rights of men. When I took a feminism class we learned about many of the harmful effects of the male image. okay, why then did the national organisation of women (the biggest feminist organisation in america) oppose changes to family law (which would remove alimony - with some exceptions i think) and child custody (making it mandatory 50/50 unless circumstances prevent it)? why did feminists in isreal and iraq (i cant remember if these are the righ…
/r/MensRights24/12/16 01:40 AM
2

[1] it makes little sense in context of the preceding comments in my view anyway (i could be missing something, or misinterpretting badly though). its confusing because they are discussing if feminism has influence, one says "the feminist sub has little influence at all" whilst the other says "who then is in charge? its been taken over by feminists, and supporting the movement is bad as its turned negative. you need to ditch the movement or its supporting that. insert nazi thing here" up until t…
/r/MensRights22/12/16 10:38 AM
2

[1] im not offended, i just have absolutely no idea why you brought up the issue of us being MRA's when realistically it had nothing to do with the topic that was at hand... "[2] Are you a douche who calls himself an MRA? No? Than this isn't about you. Literally the only people who apply to that are douches." It came across at least to me, that you were implying being an MRA meant you were a douche not that your point was intended solely to individuals who are both, MRA's (or claim to be) and do…
/r/MensRights22/12/16 12:52 AM
2

"The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't generalize or diminish the issues faced by men or women based on the actions of the deluded or misguided few." I dont think most feminists agree with the radicals, but no means do i think that. I do think however, that the majority of positions of power held by feminists is held by your radicals... and that is something that all feminists are at fault for... because you as a movement don't push them out of those positions, because you allowed th…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 09:23 PM
1

What point is there in making it uncivil? I live by the code of "minimise my energy expenditure" (or the long version "if i dont have to do something i wont, and if i do, i do it quickly**") its not like you said anything to insult me, nor was your position so utterly repugnant that it reflected badly on your character, honestly i had no reason to do so... i expect others to be reasonable, and so i must myself be reasonable. you have met that standard, and so shall i. with regards to your origin…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 08:33 PM
2

Oh dont worry bout it, mistakes happen, i mistake what people mean all the time, or think they are replying to the wrong thing etc. it doesnt matter so long as the entire thing is cleared up.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 07:55 PM
2

it's a very repugnant crime that deserves the harshest of punishments, i wasnt arguing the fact it was a serious issue, i was arguing the point that "women still get raped at a rate way higher than that of men" which is something we cannot know for certain due to how male victims of the crime are addressed and socialised differently in society... as well as our biological imperatives... to put it another way for all we know, men are forced into sex at 10x the rate of women (incredibly unlikely a…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:47 PM
2

lets get started shall i? lets break this down "I like how you tried to make an argument against something that another MRA activist said because I wanted to prove that not all MRA are the same." [1] why the hell does being an MRA matter, we arent a circle jerk, we debate, discuss and argue, to determine the best course of action you need dispute, silencing views is how movements go to shit. it's one of the reasons i stopped being a feminist, amongst many others. [2] how was you attempting to pr…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:38 PM
2

sighs its not recorded the same, if i report that im forced into sex, its not classed as "rape" at best its sexual assault... thats BECAUSE rape is defined as requiring person A (the perp) to penetrate person B the victim (especially in the uk as it specifically states they need a penis), as such I cannot be the victim of rape, to a woman (unless they finger me)... considering this, its no suprise that men dont come forwards because we arent considered victims... how can we have been raped... if…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 01:07 PM
1

sigh first of, this feels awfully similar to domestic violence. whereby, because men are unwilling to admit they did it, coupled with a society that says it cannot happen, we never actually accept it happens. see my above answer about what i mean by "a society that says it cannot happen" rape is defined as something done by men to women. oh and "Prevalence of male rape and sexual assault in the USA This study explores the prevalence of sexual violence in the U.S.A. The survey found that 2.7 mill…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 11:57 AM
2

unretracted, looking at the US defintion of rape as provided by the people who collect the statistics i came across: "Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and same sex rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape." - https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317 as i was saying, no one st…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 11:13 AM
2

sigh no, we believe in due process, we believe that you are innocent until proven guilty, and thus we believe in a fair trial. we oppose lowering the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt, we oppose the campus sex issues arising in the US. we oppose the argument that "only 2-3% are false allegations" when all existing evidence (which we can examine) says it is above 7% and the best studies put it around 8-12% PROVABLY false accusations. these are the issues we have, we have an issue wit…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 11:04 AM
1

But of course! One must always be open to new or contradictory ideas my good sir. when ones views cannot be challenged for fear they are wrong, then normally they are wrong. i welcome the attempts to that extent. however i live by the rule of "minimise my energy expenditure" and people trying to indoctrinate you is tedious. Maybe i picked the wrong course in that regard, i mean i knew it was like that (i did sociology at a-level and supposedly the two aren't that different with regards to femini…
/r/MensRights19/12/16 08:47 AM
2

theres also the legal issues involved, often times unless you go through the proper channels (if said proper channels exist), holding a child who has run away from home (and you are aware they have done this) can be a criminal offence (i wont say for certain this isn't my area of expertees) but as far as i do know, you arent allowed to harbour a missing child, and if they have run away from home, i would expect them to be classed as such.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 04:56 PM
1

"What would a woman do in a barber's shop anyway?" is a pretty weak argument. it is a weak argument, though i think a more fitting argument is that barbers (who are generally trained solely for servicing men) may not feel confident to work on women, even if said service was similar to mens. i base this on the whole "all the barbers in their area refused to cut women's hair." if it were a matter of being unreasonable, then it would more than likely have been restrained to one barbers shop, or at …
/r/MensRights14/12/16 10:52 PM
2

Mine is a half year module so I shouldn't have to see too many of them again luckily... But I chose a psychology course as my second optional... It's going to get worse... They will try to indoctrinate me
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:29 AM
8

pats on the shoulder it was not even last monday when i tried to do something similar (have a debate about mens issues as opposed to a presentation) in my seminar, turns out, the seminar leader was a "strong supporter of the feminist movement" and the entire class wasnt even open to considering my points (not that i expected such, most people, when their deepest views are challenged, dig in, then over the next few months/years start to notice inconsistencies until they HAVE to drop it... though …
/r/MensRights14/12/16 12:44 AM
2

not a lot unfortunately. while the public at large considers anti-male discrimination as power then things wont change. consider this, the public sees men holding all the top positions in society, what it doesnt notice is the sheer amounts of sacrifices it takes to reach that position, and the millions/billions of men who failed. the majority of highest paying jobs require you to give up family life, social life, they expect you to move for the job, they expect you to travel a lot, they expect y…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 08:57 AM
12

firstly can i suggest removing the email from the post? its not right to reveal private info on here. even if it is a fake... (it may even violate the rules) secondly speak to a lawyer, if it amounts to a crime, press charges (im pretty sure using someone elses name to cause that person harm, amounts to fraud in most places) or if it meets the requirements of defamation etc. push for it, hell you might even be able to sue the uni for violations of title IX if this is in the US (i dont know enoug…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 08:41 AM
1

i would make the argument that you are affording too much ill will towards the CPS, you have to take into account the CPS has a reputation that it has to maintain to an extent and other important factors, whilst i dont agree with their actions, they also need to ensure the public has faith in them. i wouldnt be suprised if other factors such as not wanting people to think that naming the wrong father would get you arrested for fraud played a part... that could lead to other forms of injustice su…
/r/MensRights11/12/16 11:09 PM
1

its work noting, that after the trial, he can ask for it back from the accused (i think) or for the costs to come out of the state central fund, considering the nature of the case, its likely that if he wins, he would be able to ask for such. please note im only a student lawyer, what i say shouldnt be relied up on a court, please seek fully trained and professional guidance if you seek legal advice.
/r/MensRights11/12/16 11:04 PM
1

theres 2 reasons i can see him taking this road honestly. 1) hes a closet MRA who is out to make a point (i like this idea...) because under private prosecution AFAIK you have your own lawyers working the case, thus if you can afford it (and this guy can afford a to have a private prosecution SOOOO) you can have a far more skilled/expensive (they don't necessarily correlate) lawyers, and they wont hesitate to make arguments the DPP and the CPS are scared to make (such as mothers cant make up who…
/r/MensRights11/12/16 10:52 PM
1

oh i have those thought processes anyway (im the most pessimistic "everything is wrong" worst case scenerio kinda guy youll ever meet), its just it doesnt work well for me to express such views most of the time so, i tend to try and be "optimistic". your argument would be a matter for the parties to address outside of the courts, if what you say were the case (i doubt it but i see the point of the argument so im addressing it none the less), then they would simply not go forwards with a case, ho…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 09:50 AM
1

surely there is a way for the state to recoup its losses from her? like would it work like this "he sues state, state owes him 5million, state sues mother for the costs of 5million due to her lies or misstatements"? i dont know, and as such im just curious as to whether thats how it would pan out (leaving aside the social repercussions and pressures on the state). aka itd be an indirect form of repayment.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 10:00 PM
1

it also falls (theoretically) under "causing sexual activity without consent" - which (theoretically) allows as long of a punishment as rape, but i dont think its ever actually been used that way, as it wasnt the intention behind the section. that said im only a student and could (quite possibly) have misinterpreted said section, or the cases its been used on. edit: see subsection 4 of section 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4 ironically, this would make a better rape law (…
/r/MensRights04/12/16 07:14 PM
1

"r v eqanchuk" - same case "The accused, Major explained, must raise a reasonable doubt that there was consent. Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the "complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place" or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where "the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused." L'Heureux-Dube held that the defence could not be used unless the…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 09:05 AM
1

quite possibly it is a joke (hell to that extent i agree whole heartedly). that point would have been arguable quite easily especially in regards to if the defendant was capable of knowing she was "afraid" which would be grounds for saying "he had reasonable grounds for thinking she consented" or the Canadian equivalent, the issue was the judge was excluding one persons evidence for no reason whatsoever whilst there was no other evidence on the issue besides outdated stereotypes not being fulfil…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 09:03 AM
1

i understand this argument as well, im not going to say it doesnt hold ground, but to the same extent it applies to the mother... well it should anyway. the mere fact that the law is made so badly as to undermine its core purpose (of having the father pay his half of the child's maintenance - by making him pay most if not all, and some of the mothers maintenance) is not necessarily grounds for having legal parental surrender. if the law was remade in such a way as to have both parents be forced …
/r/MensRights02/12/16 11:29 PM
1

"no im going of what the victim said, she is the only one who has grounds to say how she felt, unless there is solid grounds to suggest otherwise, there was no contrary evidence, thus you have to believe her." true, but its a matter for the jury as i stated later, matters of fact are not for judges to decide, unless they can justify their position as to why something isnt admissable. "The act is illegal or illegal based on whether consent is presented to the alleged perpetrator as being present,…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 11:19 PM
1

not really, just because you dont agree doesnt make the position any less true... youre using an ad hominem and attacking their character not their point... your argument is thus invalid.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 12:43 PM
4

"participation is not consent" - the mere fact that someone submits doesnt mean they want to do something, fear vitiates consent, even if that fear is unreasonable, if they knew she was scared, or ought to have realised then its rape. the question of the case shouldnt have related to "whether she was genuinely scared" as there was no evidence either way (and both individuals character weren't good), it was a matter for the jury. the questions that the judge should have been asking was if it was …
/r/MensRights02/12/16 09:21 AM
2

"You're speculating that it's possible that the woman was afraid, because it some people have irrational fears and she might have had irrational fears as well." no im going of what the victim said, she is the only one who has grounds to say how she felt, unless there is solid grounds to suggest otherwise, there was no contrary evidence, thus you have to believe her. it may be true she didn't fight back but as i said "submission is not consent". like you say the judge cant say eitherway, therefor…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 09:18 AM
3

but that argument applies to women after birth equally, they have to support the child as well, the mere fact that child support is broken in a way that means mothers dont have to support children is an issue, its not necessarily grounds for granting legal parent surrender. if mothers only got just enough money to support the child equally with the father (so 50% of all incurred child care costs) and the rest was say put into a trust fund that only the father could access then i wouldnt have a p…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 08:59 AM
1

theres another part in it that went exactly like this "THE COURT: Well, she doesn’t have to do any of these things. She doesn’t have to say don’t lock the door. She can take her chances. Foolishly she could do that. If she sees the door being locked, she’s not a complete idiot, she knows what’s coming next. In our law she doesn’t have to say unlock the door I’m getting out. She can take her chances, perhaps in the hope of getting him into trouble. Who knows what (INDISCERNIBLE) would be in those…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 11:12 PM
4

its because there can be the argument of "abortion isn't to prevent parenthood, its to prevent the growth of the child INSIDE the mother (which she is entitled to, due to her right to bodily autonomy), the mere fact it kills the child is a side effect..." which is an argument that to an extent holds ground... do i agree or not is another matter... but i come here knowing their arguments and i determine which i consider to be most accurate... i dont know here, i advocate for legal paternal surren…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 09:54 PM
1

sorry, im not too good with grammar, i generally think most people get my meaning by tone, but thank you anyway.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 10:01 PM
1

that'd be a hard argument to make, firstly because ignorance is not a defence. secondly "the state" doesnt hold, while the state is a legal entity, it lacks freewill, the individual used will be the one human at the switch who's responsible for the action. that individual would be the one the women "used as a weapon" (normally [or i would assume] he is acting legally under some exception in the law i would assume anyway) but he himself has freedom and choice. I'm sure the courts would come up wi…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:55 PM
1

i get your, point im not saying i dont think they should, im saying that there are probably technicalities in the law that prevent it (unless there are other cases that address this issue). my reasoning for this is english law logic (though our murder laws arent so different to most us states due to case law... we really need statutes on murder, its getting kinda archaic). basically english law requires an unlawful killing with intent. here if the individual who died is to be considered murdered…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 03:14 PM
2

oh i get that, i make the argument below that the judge who allowed the case to go before a jury isnt at fault either, he is as much a victim of fraud as the actual victims are of a false accusation. my point is, is that the state cant go around and start saying "you murdered x and by convincing us to kill them" because that needs them to kill, they didnt however, they caused the state to... they "incited" murder (an incohate offence in the uk), which makes them AS guilty, but the state needs to…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:37 PM
7

not really many of them are completely innocent, simply doing their jobs, such as the guy above you mentioning the judge, if the judge is presented with evidence which supports the case, how is he to know that evidence is tampered with (if he does this argument doesnt hold), he EXPECTS that the evidence is dealt with according to proper procedure and without corruption, and unless evidence suggests otherwise why shouldnt he? if you refer to all individuals actively taking part and aiding the cri…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:28 PM
10

the judge isnt at fault etc... they only see what evidence is before them... if thats tampered with then they dont know that (if they do i retract this argument), they are as much a "victim" as the dead guys and the falsely imprisoned, be it of a different crime (that of fraud or some similar crime to that)... or atleast i think thats the case, im only a law student and dont know too much of this case so its only a guess.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:27 PM
8

because that would require the state to be guilty as well, even if only of manslaughter... that would throw huge issues into the countries view on execution as a form of punishment, something they probably dont want, because it is a "justified punishment" and because they dont want to get sued by the already dead people families... or atleast thats my view. but hey thats speculation, i dont have much to support it with... i mean can you imagine how much the families would get if they won against…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:23 PM
1

thanks, im not too good with reading science journals, im more used to law ones (being a law student), it makes my head hurt. that being the case i can see why it was cancelled (tbh i never challenged that it shouldnt - but it was never intended to produce a market item in the first place) i just noted that i hadnt seen it, with only 1 or 2 people talking about it, i just thought it was strange. since the study is with you i retract what i said about it being a myth. thank you for a link to the …
/r/MensRights06/11/16 12:14 PM
1

i havent had chance to read the paper, i probably wouldnt understand it either, but that page seemed reliable - i only noted all ive seen hasnt mentioned it which suggested that itt was just myth
/r/MensRights06/11/16 11:22 AM
1

im not saying that they aren't all flawed (in fact i stated that they probably are), just that i had an issue with the argument that men should have to put up with it because women do yet there is tons of work being put into alternative methods for women, that are aimed at alleviating issues inherent in their use. the research into women's hormonal contraceptives has not stopped, and most are aimed at making them nicer for women to use, to lower the rates of side effects and so on... thats my po…
/r/MensRights06/11/16 11:21 AM
-1

http://www.snopes.com/male-birth-control-study/ - ive yet to see reference to the permanent infertility... looks like a myth - edit1: the study does not that some had trouble regaining the correct amount of sperm, i thank notwhelmed for correcting me. its also worth noting that there are tons of different hormonal methods for women, as well as far more long term methods i mean a list of female contraceptives is: the mini-Pill, the combined Pill, the contraceptive patch, the contraceptive coils, …
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:27 PM
1

Hmm as far as im concerned right now legally its solely down to the woman. how it should be is that i think that if the woman wants the child and the father does then he should within the first half of the woman's abortion period (to prevent abuse... say the last day she can have an abortion he says "yo yeah im not being the parent lol" - but she would HAVE to tell him when she found out... otherwise its assumed he never agreed which is why she hid it but he can opt back in till the time of birt…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 10:59 AM
2

firstly, i will say this, history has been tainted by bias, feminists have omitted much of womens power, rights and abilities throughout history, whilst similarly omitting the downsides of being male... this means that we view it as "oppressing women" when in reality, it can be argued that niether was oppressed, society was just shitty back then, i wont talk about middle eastern countries now, they are simply barbaric, which does need addressing but historically it was for most grounds either no…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 10:27 PM
2

I don't think they need sympathy, some of the behaviour on here has been down right wrong (they've been abusive and to be quite frank its repulsive, I'm an MRA because i thought we listened to logic, fairness and the like, not to shout abuse at people with disagreeing views). That said its worth noting many MRAs have suffered due to our current society so hostility is understandable just we should be above it... That said your first paragraph (first post) is flawed, it's not so much as outright …
/r/MensRights03/11/16 09:49 PM
3

oh interesting, i will happily take a look (im quite the ehh "confrontational" arguer or so i am told xD), tbh it was a very nice read and i liked it, just some of it didnt match that which the evidence i have seen. might i suggest reading this: http://www.johndclare.net/Women2_DidSuffragettesHelp.htm which contains this one quote which i love its worth noting however that i dont agree witht he first part about womens mental equilibrium (thats rubbish) but about how if the vote is given to women…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 12:44 PM
4

lets go point by point: "First-wave feminism was amazing. It focused on legal issues, primarily on gaining women's suffrage (the right to vote). " whilst its true that it may have been there goal, ironically there is just as much, if not more evidence suggesting it hindered said goal instead of aiding it (theres this one quote i love - will provide a link to a source or two if i can find them). "Second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 09:18 AM
6

you see that's the problem "centuries", its out of date... unfortunately getting rid of it would upset too many women. not to mention, the uk has just as much evidence of it being out of date as do many other countries, i mean many countries legislatures have limited it (using relatively rarely at that, so much so even us law students arent aware of it) due to statutes emphasising clean breaks... like i said im english, i have no bone in the fight as it were so i dont really care, but your argum…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:26 PM
3

1) the division of labour argument only holds up whist 1 thing is present, which is staying at home is considered to be giving something up. you stop working (okay you give up your job) but you gain something, a family life that the other partner is not privy to in any where near the same level which most people would consider to be a good thing (and you benefit from their staying at work because you get the food, bills and rent/mortgages paid during the relationship so that extent you already b…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:18 PM
-9

firstly " has a reasonable expectation to share in the wife's financial success which was enabled by the husband staying at home to take care of the kids." who says it was necessary, child care exists and is often cheaper than the lose of one persons income, in that event it can be considered a privilege i mean you get to drop work and be with your children all day - something a lot of parents would kill for but are financially incapable of doing (child care is available from day one (though nor…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:56 PM
2

i think we share the same view that society is disadvantaging men in many areas (we look predominantly at laws and public policy in the MRA, though i agree with some of the PUA ideas about increasing mens self-confidences but not with their views on women and i agree with some aspects of MGTOW as well) but what separates MRA's MGTOW and red pillers in my view is what we think we should do. MRA's want to create change by changing laws and such. we have hope that society is still fixable and that …
/r/MensRights29/10/16 10:01 AM
3

i believe in the uk anyway you need to lie about the nature or purpose of the act, so if they were just 2 new couples having sex everyday and she didnt get pregnant, chances are it wouldnt amount to anything (he was niether lying about the nature of the act (its sexual) or about the purpose (he wanted to fuck nothing more)) however if after a 5 year relationship they sit down and discuss and determine they want a child, and they would have lots of sex to achieve that, then him being on the pill …
/r/MensRights24/10/16 08:42 AM
4

It comes down to this, what is child support for? Supporting the child, it didn't ask to be brought into this world, it didn't have a choice, so it has the right to both its parents support. Which is why abortion is allowed and legal child surrender (giving up all rights and responsibilities to the child, during the early weeks of child birth) isn't as the child doesn't survive in one and it does in the other P.s . I'm all for finding a way to implement legal child surrender, I'm just not short …
/r/MensRights22/10/16 08:05 AM
0

I know, we have our jerks too, but they're few and further between, but in situations like that most peeps support the reasonable individual
/r/MensRights19/10/16 09:15 AM
0

People round here love a good debate, myself included. We simply expect individuals to support their positions with evidence.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 07:45 AM
0

I'm curious why are you apologising, you didn't say anything offensive. it's an entirely legitimate question and i was simply offering my opinion.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 11:54 AM
1

i said generally (i would still maintain we have far fewer - might be a result of us not being anywhere near as large - but i accept that we do have them yes), though granted i should clarify, what i mean is that we tend as a group to not grant platform to our extremists preventing such views from being that which represents our group as a whole, its clear that as a whole our supporters are vastly middle ground fair individuals who are largely in opposition to our extremists (we don't censor the…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 11:48 AM
4

Hmm we are open to discuss anything mens rights related, at times that means being at logger heads with both, sometimes agreeing with bits and pieces and others neutral... I wouldn't say we were a middle ground more of a 3rd group, that generally doesn't have "extremists" but then again I bet most feminists and redpillers would say the same about their respective groups. We simply want to fix legal or public (government supported) issues
/r/MensRights17/10/16 01:53 PM
1

okay, and i cant say past few years, but relatively recently (after 2000) that said im just working with what i know, i will take a look into the conviction rates. my studies are probably out of date though (as the situation is vastly different as far as i can tell). that said i think its rising, just its recently its been higher due to external issues (such as the high profile cases etc). my example was extreme (police are however known for being doubtful of such cases based on "instinct"), but…
/r/MensRights10/10/16 09:16 PM
1

i would pay some credence to A (this one time - though not too much) solely due to new measures put in place (relating to how cases were handled, because before now police were known (even recent studies support) that police were dismissive of claims such as treating someone who wasnt in tears as not being believable - calling them no case issues, even though that wasnt what the purpose of the "no case" box was for), that said i agree that it is more that there are simply more people coming forw…
/r/MensRights10/10/16 04:15 PM
2

i disagree that it is being bias, there are no stats the can prove it, you have anecdotes sure, but 100 years ago there are just as many anecdotes, it doesn't prove that they are increasing, potentially more publicised, but not necessarily more frequent, if you can provide me with a source demonstrating such i will concede my point, but without it you are simply trying to argue a position with no evidence behind it. if you said campus etc. i wouldve been with you, but they arent matters of court…
/r/MensRights10/10/16 11:29 AM
1

that i dont know, i havent done enough research i know that only in recent years there has been a huge increase in reports etc. of the crime, i could do the math but i dont have the conviction numbers (unfortunately, i really should find them), if you can provide me with a source of them, i can try to do the math and give you a solid answer "The most recent estimates from the self-completion questionnaire module in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) on intimate violence showed that th…
/r/MensRights10/10/16 11:27 AM
2

it wasnt categorised as a hate crime sighs thats how it was pandered to by the press, there is a differences however between hate crime, and hate incidents, a hate incident is whats recorded by the police when they take down what happened, they started recording "misogyny" as a hate incident but that has no effect over what a hate crime is as thats set out in Criminal Justice Act 2003 speciffically http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/145 and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20…
/r/MensRights10/10/16 10:19 AM
2

as i stated exceptions occur, only in the vast majority of the cases it wouldnt work
/r/MensRights10/10/16 10:08 AM
2

Not enough for a court, not only would they get torn apart by any half competent defence, but without any hard evidence the crown (in the uk) or the us equiv would know/strongly suspect it, unfortunately they are being subjected to undue pressures to take them forwards anyway. Yes its not perfect from time to time it fucks up, someone guilty goes free or the innocent incarcerated, but the majority (vast majority I would think) it does its job well.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 10:16 PM
2

I was referring more so to the support on the topic, this year has had several high profile cases from victims of such things, maybe to claim its failing was too strong, but it was at least in my opinion set back considerably, and it seems that such incidents are becoming more frequent, 2 years ago the possibility of having someone falsely accused of rape being on the current form of GMTV (I cannot remember the name) would've been unthinkable and yet now they are, I remember the case involving 4…
/r/MensRights09/10/16 10:09 PM
3

wheres your evidence?
/r/MensRights09/10/16 11:42 AM
2

ironically in the past year or so (within the uk) i would argue that we have seen less and less of it, which is why the feminists are getting all bitchy, specifically look at the cases of mark pearson (found not guilty), the durham rape case (found not guilty), or the case involving Thady Duff, James Martin, Leo Mahon, and Patrick Foster (found not guilty), each one gained plenty of press, mark was even on breakfast tv having an interview along side erin prizzey, feminists are screaming not beca…
/r/MensRights09/10/16 09:55 AM
3

No, our justice system (UK and US) are based around the principles of the accused being innocent until proven guilty. If you are found to be not guilty you therefore haven't been found guilty and this remain innocent. It's wholly possible the courts got it wrong, but it is not for u, I, or anyone else to say as we we're not the jury members, we have to accept that result until new evidence can prove he did it
/r/MensRights09/10/16 07:58 AM
2

While that's true, you're ommitting what the required level of probability is, its not a "balance of probabilities" like civil courts, it's beyond all reasonable doubt (commonly stated to be above 99% sure), a narrative sets the scene and makes it more believable that someone did something but it requires evidence to support it (a narrative without evidence or with counter evidence in 95+% of cases will fail)
/r/MensRights09/10/16 07:53 AM
1

Let me ask you a question based on his analogy, let's say you have this disabled person, he can't walk (this in a wheelchair) and he applies to work in a toy warehouse where everything is carrying and lifting (most of which by hand pushed trolley thingies - due to the relative lightness of the objects - the company only owns 1 fork lift for the heaviest of toys that come in), would you give or purchase a forklift to/for the disabled person not capable of performing at the normal rate of other ca…
/r/MensRights07/10/16 05:57 PM
1

It's died down recently (should've mentioned that I suppose), but upto about a few years ago there was discussions about closing many of the prisons and it was one of the arguments being used "women need help not prison" sorta stuff, as far as I can tell its never picked up tooo much traction but it was being argued I think judges being told to be less strict on females was a calming factor which occurred recently in the uk (past few years - I forget when). That said I dont know how many feminis…
/r/MensRights04/10/16 06:14 AM
1

well im not sure if the studies also looked at men (hence i gave no figures relating to it) its entirely possible mens rates are say 5% or 100% i honestly dont know, what i do know, is that a predisposition to crime for any reason isnt an excuse to commit crime and then get away with it... (that said thats based on morality and thus a matter of opinion... feminists might (and probably do) disagree.) if and this is a big if, 95% of them do have mental health reasons for it, they should be put int…
/r/MensRights02/10/16 10:35 PM
3

It's happening across the UK to some extent, basically the feminists are arguing that since most female prisoners are either mentally unstable due to abuse etc, or because they HAD to do it to survive etc, that they shouldn't be incarcerated but instead be given support and understanding so as to help them through their problems. I believe their going figure is something like 95% of female criminals had suffered some kind of abuse, or mental illness (depression etc. Included), though don't quote…
/r/MensRights02/10/16 06:40 AM
1

No, there are different sections for it, one is rape of someone under 13, but for between 14/15 its a different section requiring the prep to be 18. maybe i wrote my comment out badly, but we have 2 areas of uk law under the sexual offences act 2003 designed for dealing with children (if another act is also dealing with it, then tell me what one... cause i missed it). firstly sections 1 - 4 doesn't cover "statutory rape" (we don't actually have an offence called that mind you) as the individual …
/r/MensRights29/09/16 05:38 AM
3

sighs ask any man you trust if they have ever had an erection whilst walking down the street when they didnt want one... invariably they will say yes unless they are lying... to put it simply erections can be caused 1 of 2 ways... firstly through mental stimulus (think porn, hot woman you WANT to fuck etc. as well as other emotions besides the norm such as fear...) and secondly through physical stimulus, its quite possible that if someone jerks you of whilst you are held down that you will get a…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 11:08 PM
1

it would seem that for some reason individuals aged 16/17 arent covered by the 2003 sexual offences act unless the child is under 13, if they are 14/15 and the would be perp is 16/17 it would seem they arent covered by sections 9-15 (you need to be 18 and over), and thus it would be legal however i could be wrong (in fact i find it highly likely that i am wrong... surely our government wouldnt have no legislation on the topic... cause im pretty sure its not legal...) please note: im only a stude…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 10:48 PM
1

"basically agrees that systematic oppression of women (remember, we're talking about wages in a capitalist society) IS a thing but it's a justified" i don't agree with oppression, i don't see it as oppressive if women are choosing it of their own free will, no one forces women to make the choices they do, is it not you who is looking down on women thinking that they aren't intelligent enough to make a choice (when they know all the consequences of that choice) and then accept the consequences of…
/r/MensRights27/09/16 06:15 PM
6

I would like to add my 2 cents, whilst you talk of changing societal understandings of gender and work, you disregard all science and social research into this topic. Firstly a study conducted over huge amounts of countries demonstrates that in countries where you work to survive woman work almost identical jobs to me at the same pay as men... This isn't true in the UK, US and so on as a result woman work in things they enjoy as opposed to what makes them most money, that's a choice. You will sa…
/r/MensRights27/09/16 06:59 AM
1

oh no no, i completely understand, this topic is one of such delicacy, because the balance is so damn tight. i agree fathers should have more inclusion on the talks of abortion, but i disagreed with some of the arguments being put forwards, or found them to be slightly unfairly put (excluding the arguments why they were put the way they currently are - atleast in the uk) such as fetus's not being part of the mother is true but they missed other important information. im not trying to start an ar…
/r/MensRights17/09/16 07:00 AM
2

firstly, i have no wish to quarrel with you either, i just wanted to put my few cents in, and i thought that some of the positions could do with a little fleshing out to do the argument justice. also sorry about the long post, i have a tendency to try and explain as well as possible on topics i find engaging and that can lead to them being quite long. secondly whilst i asserted (at first) that they weren't considered human, what i meant by it was that "a fetus lacks a complete set of characteris…
/r/MensRights17/09/16 06:31 AM
8

It makes perfect sense, it affects the woman's bodily autonomy, and choices she can make with HER body, such as it can affect the bladder, increase the risk of many illnesses, be the cause of many other illnesses, and ultimately it makes perfect sense that CARRYING the child is a womens body issue. Not to mention the glaringly obvious choice of carrying the baby itself is a choice of bodily autonomy, it affects mobility and so much more... im all for equal rights for men, but saying it isnt a wo…
/r/MensRights16/09/16 08:15 PM
3

in the uk that i believe falls under GBH (not sure which section, 18 or or 20 though i would assume 18), if you DONT disclose you have the STD before sex and you know you have it. this ironically makes it rather immune to sexism in the system in so far as them not prosecuting, but they will probably get shorter sentences. please note im only a student, please dont rely on my information, get a lawyer if you need expert advice.
/r/MensRights07/09/16 08:04 PM
4

I doubt itd work out tbh, chances are its in tumblrs terms of use not to do that sorta thing, and their argument would be "we removed it as soon as we became aware" (aka when they became aware lawyers were involved) and nothing much would happen as it isnt the site itself's fault, but the individual users... or atleast thats my guess. that said im not very versed on US defamation/libel laws (or defamation/libel laws in general) and could be entirely wrong, in which case i would strongly suggest …
/r/MensRights03/09/16 07:16 PM
3

and a month or 2 after for digital copies to be purchased of say amazon (or its alternatives) which is where i see it making most of the money put in back as she did put a lot of her own money in as well which means im cool with her wanting to get that back at least (i donated a little too .).
/r/MensRights25/08/16 10:39 PM
1

It's effectively a rite of passage to get banned from /r/feminism really, since they ban MRAs and other individuals who don't subscribe to their views on sight
/r/MensRights24/08/16 09:11 PM
1

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, I stand by what I say though, if said images are true, and so is said story, chances are one was taken for spam due to its unpleasant tone xD but if it is spam (which in hindesight is likely) then op is an childish individual
/r/MensRights22/08/16 11:03 PM
1

me or the peep before me O.O i mean im definitely not feminist xD
/r/MensRights22/08/16 10:50 PM
2

i would argue its because one is a "shit on women" post, which isnt something this sub stands for (we are anti-feminist not anti-women), by which i mean its effectively diminishing the things women do for high earning men, which ultimately while most people can perform them are just as necessary as otherwise, behind most powerful men is a women who cooks, cleans and so forth, because without that the man is likely to struggle to do everything he needs to survive and be healthy (you try to do a h…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 10:42 PM
1

edit: i suppose my views are rather weird, its just i think that as a society we should be looking to reward individuals who put in more, and as a result if a group is putting more in then that group can expect to get more out. for the most part it applies to the financial world (aka the earnings gap), but outside of that such as with jail sentences, custody, the law in general, i expect complete equality, niether group having an advantage unless there is CLEAR justification for it and that adva…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:48 PM
1

lets say you have 2 groups. A and B, group A has 50 things they have to do for society, in exchange they get 50 things from society, lets say group B does 30 things for society and as such gets 30 things from society, group A to me is equal to group B because both groups overall have no loss or gain. Lets say group A got 60 out of society and group B got 36, the same applies (they both get +2 for every 10 they put in), the issue arises when group A gets 30(36) or group B gets 50(60), even though…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:24 PM
1

most people here are like that, i think it comes from many of us having been feminists, we understand that titles don't necessarily represent views. i was, it took me a while to realise that the society feminists argued to exist didn't, now there are a lot of problems for men and women, im egalitarian in that i want both sides to be equal, but im an MRA because women have far fewer weaksides at the moment than men. there are rotten eggs in both but look on this post for instance "[–]bufedad -1 p…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 12:02 PM
4

i dont personally care what title you go by or what group you follow, what i care about is what you argue for. if you argue for changes to rape laws that discriminate against men, i wont like you, if you argue against changes to the family courts that would make it more equal, i wont like you, if you argue to make it legal for men to rape women (extreme i know) or to remove women's right to vote, then i wont like you, but if you seek and advocate for actual equality, then call yourself feminist,…
/r/MensRights18/08/16 06:33 PM
7

We dont have a constitution per se, we have the human rights act, and the attached European convention of human rights (both of which i believe protect our right to a fair trial), however both of these can be violated at will by our government as they are "sovereign" (thus can do as they wish) and we are already supposed to be leaving the EU so its unlikely sanctions from them will hold much ground. that said it will never make it through, 1 reason: people, people in general hate this idea of on…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 08:37 PM
2

pretty much, its nothing new in the slightest, just one more column of data if you are looking at incident counts that's it as far as i can tell.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 07:44 PM
3

they arent changing the law... its confusing, what they are doing is altering what they add to the "others" section of their hate incidents - NOT HATE CRIME! (see here: http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/FOI%20009062%2015.pdf for an explanation of what they record) basically before now "Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred" was allowed…
/r/MensRights12/08/16 05:02 PM
2

you are making the assumption that we are in control of the problems we have but i can prove that isn't the case in at least some circumstances: the national organisation for women has stopped changes to alimony and custody laws to prevent them ultimately being equal (such as mandatory equal custody presumptions), the 2 times feminist organisations have caused laws to change or stay the same that prevented men from being victims of rape if it was a woman forcing a man into sex, there's also femi…
/r/MensRights09/08/16 07:48 PM
1

Like i said, thats were our countries approach and the one you mention splits, but "you don't pay any fees at all and pay it out of wages rather than through any kind of loan system" is how it works, i edited my post (a couple minutes back) rewriting it quite a lot due to habit of not thinking ive written what ive said very well. anyway i explained that we dont pay the government back like you would a loan or anything like that, its taken out like a tax, you never see it come out of your money i…
/r/MensRights08/08/16 06:17 PM
1

1: i got mixed up i didnt realise it was the uni who didnt want paying until they had a job (fault there on my part), i was simply making the point that it was for all intensive purposes like that. 2: all individuals can get their tuition fees paid regardless of what money they have (its based solely on what the uni charges upto the £9k cap) income doesnt matter, income only matters when looking at maintenance loans which change based on parental income (as they are supposed to support their chi…
/r/MensRights08/08/16 05:54 PM
1

isnt that exactly how the uk university system works? basically how it works is, in the uk we dont pay any tuition fees etc. unless we are earning more than a certain amount of money each year (£23000 i think) above that its 7% or something stupid of the amount that is over the £23000 so say i earned £33000 i only pay back that year £700 (i think) which when split 52 ways (weekly) or 12 ways (monthly) isnt too much money at any given time and if we go back beneath that amount we still dont have …
/r/MensRights08/08/16 03:56 PM
1

see the issue i have with this is that its not particularly accurate. what i mean is, that much of the problems facing men in todays society are directly held there by feminist groups, such as: NOW maintaining the current family laws in the US (that its not automatically equal custody), or when countries such as iran or india try to make equal rape laws, the countries feminist movements move in and say "ah but rapes experience is worse for women" or "rape is gendered" etc. ultimately making the …
/r/MensRights06/08/16 11:30 PM
1

in the interests of opening up a fair dialect, might i ask where you consider there to be more injustice and bigotry? I personally don't see it in most places, i dont see many areas where they are discriminated against, or suffer more bigotry (atleast due to or by men) in the first world, but there could be many reasons for this, i ask then what you consider them to be, so either i can provide you with counter evidence (things you may not have seen due to the feminist rings you walk in) or for m…
/r/MensRights05/08/16 08:05 PM
1

I have and I then turn round and say "ever asked a guy if he consented? Oh right you haven't but he was consenting right... Wanna know how you know... Implied consent, its the same thing" you just need a fair amount to support the claim
/r/MensRights27/07/16 08:22 PM
1

but thats an unreasonable belief, if you are going by uk law, its not what you consider reasonable but the reasonable person. so if i and everyone else considers your actions not reasonable then no defence is afforded. i cannot conclude that merely entering your room is grounds for thinking someone consents to sex, and i doubt anyone else would, numerous people enter my room, many of which are female, i dont think any of them want to have sex with me. if she entered your room starts kissing you,…
/r/MensRights27/07/16 10:02 AM
2

1: you are right, we dont really discuss the social aspects in the course, (thats not what we are being "trained for" we are there to learn what is and isnt rape, it just kinda happened that this got brought up (i think we was discussing when you could and couldnt get raped and one of the guys in the group commented men couldnt be at all - quickly corrected by another saying they could if it was by another man). we are there to learn how to apply the law, not develop it or question if its right …
/r/MensRights22/07/16 06:45 PM
2

hmm http://www.johndclare.net/Women2_DidSuffragettesHelp.htm the one quote i really llike from the above page is "The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex… It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the…
/r/MensRights22/07/16 06:39 PM
2

That's true, I forgot to give my location (I actually forgot it was important) sorry. I don't think there would be too much difference in the US however, as the course choice is about as important a choice as which university to attend, so far as your ability to argue with feminists goes (or avoiding feminists altogether - just go stem if that's your goal) as many courses simply undermine feminism, such as law (basically any course reliant on evidence) or scare away feminists (STEM fields...). B…
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:15 AM
11

In my uni, the experience is definitely strange, such as in my criminal law class, we were discussing the sexual offences, specifically rape. we were trying to see who thought men should be allowed to be victims of rape, every guy in class said we should be, and about half the girls said we shouldn't (the other half didn't speak), one girl said and i quote "if they get a hard on they must be enjoying it" (i felt like saying "well then if a women gets wet shes enjoying it right?"). Rape culture c…
/r/MensRights21/07/16 11:44 AM
1

Issue I have with this os that each time the owner addresses the police crimes particularly the ones that are frequent (at the time of the owner talking to th police and updating them on his plans) seem to drop considerably and stay pretty low, take before and after the first time the owner sends his plans for changes to the police. notice that half if not more are violent crime whereas less after, before hand 7/10 were violent crime based (aka assault+) whereas the following 10 had 5/10 and the…
/r/MensRights16/07/16 11:30 PM
1

whilst its true that men on average earn more per year than the average female, that isnt to say we are paid the same for the same job. To give an example, if i work as a garbage cleaner and earn £12 an hour, and the females on the company only got say £10, the council or whatever company provided the garbage cleaners would get sued. whats actually occuring is men are taking less pleasant, more dangerous, longer hours, less pleasant times (such as night time or weekends), take less sick days (i …
/r/MensRights13/07/16 01:46 PM
3

Like i said, i never claimed it was accurate, merely that many could come to that conclusion. The first time i saw similar stats (when i joined the forum about 3 years ago) the first thing that popped into my head was "well then chances are where both parties are fighting it was probably started by the women" at which point i quickly thought "that's not necessarily accurate though, much more could be at play". All i was doing was making others aware of that line of thought (as it is there), and …
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:56 PM
7

It can be argued that this supports the argument that even where both parties are abusive, women are the initiators (more often than not - say 70% of the time) and therefore male responses of defence aren't actually abuse if it falls within a reasonable response to the attack and thus meaning that the title is true. that isn't to say you are wrong (because you are correct), but it's worth noting the logical extension of what the article says. It is however an assumption (although based on circum…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 02:29 PM
1

I did some work for uni on it recently so I got quite a bit of research, before that I didn't know either, I just thought peeps here might like the info. I believe somewhere in there it discusses its influence but I can't remember for certain or what part (though its very likely around that area)
/r/MensRights11/07/16 04:56 AM
2

If you want stats a study showed that 70% of jurors could recall information released by the press on "high profile cases", and 11% in standard cases. (though i am assuming most rape cases are pretty high profile atleast in comparison to other local crimes) https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/anonymity-rape-research-report.pdf section 5.1
/r/MensRights10/07/16 01:36 PM
1

not to mention she explains in the film the difference between the two movements and mgtow as well... (or i believe she mentioned that she did anyway)
/r/MensRights07/07/16 03:19 PM
5

I think the issue with your "circumstantial" evidence is a matter of crossed wires, in that we dont deny rapes occur and that many men (in fact probably all men) in the MRM hate them. the issue i think we have (i dont speak for us all) with the current idea of rape is how its being manipulated. 20-30+ years ago the public perception of rape was far more narrow than now (more narrow than the legal definition), which in many ways was bad. it was the idea that you had to have been physically forced…
/r/MensRights06/07/16 10:08 AM
3

not only that, men dont generally talk about their problems "when they come up" because we are designed for action, especially in times of stress. we demonstrate emotion as opposed to talk about it, an article i recently read (and i dont intend to state its credibility, i will leave that up to you or other members to correct me if it isnt), it explained how because we resort to action through instinct not talking about emotions is to prevent regretable results (ever here stories about a guy who …
/r/MensRights01/07/16 07:27 PM
1

to talk through their feelings in social groups will only go so far towards helping men's mental health This approach is usually flawed anyway, predominately to an observed thing men do when women are present, we become more competitive. if men and women are together (one woman+ and more than one male) men subconsciously are more competitive as we have "potential mates" around that we are competing for, therefore the likelihood (and extent to) which we talk about our emotions are considerably lo…
/r/MensRights21/06/16 07:30 PM
1

i disagree with your view on the murder issue, we have specific laws for such (child destruction and so on) and women wouldn't be able to have abortions (which i am for) if it was murder as currently the only allowed exceptions are for doctors who are turning of life machines or stopping treatment as they arent the cause of death (or something like that i think),self defence, or during war, as a result i think there needs to be separate legislation aimed at addressing the issue of killing a fetu…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 10:14 PM
1

I believe the easiest way to look at it (for me) is the way the law looks at it in the UK for not letting murder extend to fetus's, to paraphrase: a fetus lacks a complete set of characteristics necessary for a human personality until it has an existence separate from its mother (for the purposes of violent crime) by which i believe it means it isn't a unique living being due to its physical "linkage" to the mother (i believe based on the fetus being reliant on being inside the womb, and due to …
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:20 PM
-3

Gotta disagree, I did a piece of work for my uni course recently, and i had to look at many different sources related to false rape accusations, at the start of it, i reviewed some studies on their prevalence, it seems that about 8-12% are false, with studies concluding between 2-3% being completely unsubstantiated and based on a study that "someone recalled" in a press conference. most studies saying above 25% are incredibly unreliable, so when i wieghed up all the reliable data, the studies do…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 01:05 PM
1

I showed you a recent example of a woman being charged with aiding and abetting rape. But CPS rape statistics only include men, because by definition rape is an offence only a man can commit. Women can only aid and abet a man to rape, which is why women aren't on the statistics for rape.a "by definition", on the sexual offences act yes, but all crimes are subject to more law specifically the inchoate offences which carry the same punishments as the crimes they are applied to, as a result of whic…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:29 PM
1

A: no, my point is, that the uk definition DOES allow for women to be convicted, the mere fact that they arent is irrelevant. B: my second argument is: if the law punishes rape with the punishment for rape, then if you are punished for aiding and abetting rape with the same punishment as you would for rape, then it must be = to rape, you can argue that they arent the same, though i disagree, they are treated exactly the same, in fact theres very little wiggle room here for judges - especially wh…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 09:23 PM
1

thats true, but lets get really technical shall we, ima quote my law text book here "it had been suggested a women can be guilty of rape as the principal if she uses an innocent agent to have sexual intercourse with a woman." that said it is something thats contested as the case its reliant on is criticized (though nothing suggests this idea was). as far as aiding and abetting goes whilst it is true it isnt "straight rape" the sentences as far as i know are exactly the same, not to mention it ca…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:57 PM
1

hmm its still rape though (and would be counted as such statistically) thus legally even by the definition they use, they would be offenders. they would have perpetrated the crime of rape... even if only by accessory. im basing it solely on the technicality that you can be charged through accessory to a crime and be classed as an offender (even if physically impossible), the crime ceases to be committed by one person but more than 1
/r/MensRights23/05/16 06:11 PM
1

Nope, whilst its written to apply predominantly to one individual (where it would be accurate to say a woman cant be a rapist if working by themselves) in the context of two or more, one CAN be female (and charged with the offence of rape) thus rapists can be female by definition thus the dictionary one IS correct. Sure in 99.5% of cases yeah they're male because the definition means a male must be a perp, but that doesn't prevent a female also being charged with rape (if needs be I can quote my…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:34 PM
1

thats actually incorrect, a women can be guilty of "rape" but only through helping a male rape someone, so forinstance if I and a women (not that this would ever happen) grabbed another women on her way home from work, me and the female helping me, undress tied her down etc and then raped her. then the women helping me is just as culpable (and therefore guilty of) rape as the me, and is tried as such though its an extremely rare thing to see... edit: opps sorry just realised this was a necro... …
/r/MensRights22/05/16 07:27 AM
1

then that simply strengthens my argument even further <sup>.</sup>^ i dont know too much about the suffragettes per se (hence i said that i knew off) i was under the assumption they came before it, that said even then it doesn't matter really, if all else is the same. i only know about their push for "equal voting rights for women" that actually seems to have pushed it back. that said, thank you for the information it is very useful.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 01:47 PM
2

I would like to point out had suffragette bombings and protests not occurred chances are the fuel for not giving women voting rights would have been considerably lower. This is important as suffragists (peaceful campaigners for all peoples right to vote) had been campaigning to get them not just suffragettes' (as demonstrated by suffragists getting women the right to vote in local elections i believe between the 16-18 hundreds). The disputes over women's rights (in the uk anyway) continued for a…
/r/MensRights20/05/16 05:55 AM
1

I would personally say that they are more sects than cults (being a splinter from the ideology of marxism) but tbh the distinction is cloudy as cults are supposedly highly individualistic, loose-knit and shared grouping around some beliefs, are tolerant of others beliefs, and doesnt require strong committment - niebehr. a sect on the other hand can be defined as small exclusive groups that are hostile to society, requiring high levels of committment drawing their members from the poor and oppres…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 08:28 PM
5

i believe so, ive seen a rise in these posts and it is getting irritating, whilst their opinions are allowed, they all seem centred around actual misogyny which to be quite frank, isnt something that the MRA subreddit supports... shouldnt support and is to be honest a vile idea, we couldnt honestly be on it now could we? we must be getting redirected for some reason...
/r/MensRights18/05/16 07:56 PM
1

I agree they are irritating, however i understand why to much of the populace here they seem like glimmers of light in the darkness sorta thing. they are kinda like hope for a system which isn't like that. also the comments themselves demonstrate that even in the mra there is conflict about what these posts mean, some argue like i do that they show change, whilst others hate on women (and are often called out on this), that's not to say this wont have a negative impact on new viewers, however i …
/r/MensRights18/05/16 07:18 AM
1

Oh i get that, im not saying it is strong evidence, merely that is how it "relates to mens rights" if that makes sense? i should have made it clearer that i dont think it demonstrates it across the board (as it doesnt) but that is the link between this post and mens rights and thats what i was attempting to demonstrate
/r/MensRights17/05/16 06:42 PM
11

Mens rights isnt solely abouts wrong with society for men, but also how society is developing in ways that are potentially pro-mensrights, therefore where the court system actually performs well and gives an appropriate sentence to women (who often have considerably shorter sentences) is good as womens unfair advantage is courts is being eroded. not only this however but it in effect demonstrates that the catch all defence of "i was battered" needs evidence. which are both relevant to mens right…
/r/MensRights17/05/16 10:03 AM
2

Whilst it is true that both sides have issues, i dont think we try to say we are always worse off, only that right now overall we are in the uk and USA (as well as many other countries) thats not to say we want to make womens positions worse, in fact we acknowledge womens issues, only say that they arent for our group to address (unlike feminists who say "we are for equality and will fix all issues" and then never even attempt to help mens issues saying "its their own fault due to patriachy"). t…
/r/MensRights15/05/16 08:23 AM
1

let me fix my previous comment, whilst both points made are correct, i made my first post quickly (on my mobile, as i was walking home) so i wish to thank you for pointing out the in accuracy of my point as i pride myself in being as accurate as possible. i want to rephrase my previous comment, whilst it is true that there are studies on why the success rates are higher for men, none (well i found one from 16 years ago) discuss why men are actually using more destructive and successful methods o…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:32 PM
1

i believe i read an article a while back that noted the remaining difference correlated to the amount of work required at "home" aka if you were a shopkeeper (clock on clock off) then the wage gap was about 0.3% whereas if you were a lawyer it was closer to 5% but i currently cant find the source.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 08:58 PM
2

Suicide? Last I checked that was self inflicted. you miss the point about the suicide stat, they put tons of resources into things such as after attempt support, which doesn't aide men much, but helps women considerably in comparison yet put no money into researching why mens suicide is so much higher and research into why women commit more "attempts".
/r/MensRights14/05/16 08:52 PM
1

true but the point being is that it violates the fundamental human rights of that person being killed, regardless of the reason for being there, and its one of the reasons that the emirates is considered a bad place (i was simply bringing attention to it). i should also note im not discussing the position of communism or the merits of the death sentence just noting that many of the issues people have with the emirates are flawed in that many places have the death sentence and some of the other i…
/r/MensRights12/05/16 12:47 PM
1

lol. i gotta include that, if someone relied on it and got jailed... id probably be liable other wise (see previous disclaimer) edit i found this: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s4_causing_sexual_activity/ they are the guidelines they have to follow http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/ that ones for rape, a quick comparison reveals Type/nature of activity: Single offence of penetration of/by single offender with no aggravating or mitigating factors …
/r/MensRights12/05/16 08:51 AM
1

The UK doesn't particularly have "minimums" (exceptions exist), we work mainly of sentencing guidelines, these are set by the law commission I think (I cannot say for certain). These may well vary between crimes and I believe the best version for male victims to use would be section 4 of the sexual offences act (I cant remember the full name right now - its causing sexual activity without consent) which grants a maximum of life and no minimum sentence. Im not sure what there sentencing guideline…
/r/MensRights12/05/16 06:53 AM
2

oh interesting, i knew of cases like that, never had an actual example. my primary research looked into false accusations so i wasnt focused on male victims of the crime. anyway i was aware it was like that (its the only time a women can be charged with rape). ironically i REALLY should have been aware of that case for reasons that are my own... also i forgot to say earlier but i am only a student please check anything like this with a lawyer who is actually trained if you need any form of legal…
/r/MensRights11/05/16 09:05 PM
1

it probably isnt used much, probably because they dont want people knowing about it for fear of "counter allegations" when a women claims to have been raped... since they have to take BOTH seriously it would hamper many cases or atleast thats what they think, this then leads to many people including barristers not realising its there, and so on. also as far as i know assualt by penetration doesnt cover forced to penetrate only forced penetration (like rape but with another object such as finger …
/r/MensRights11/05/16 09:00 PM
2

oh i know its hard to understand, in fact i have no critism of him as an individual (hell some acts still confuse me) just that as a sub we need to spread accurate information so that we think about things logically, in fact had i not been a law student i probably wouldn't have known myself (then again i may have). the issue with our sexual offences act is that they so complex due to issues we had previously under the 1976 act i believe (though i could be wrong) such as having a belief that they…
/r/MensRights11/05/16 06:49 PM
1

its messed up, the only reason im aware is due to being a law student it is kinda going to be part of my bread and butter in the future to know. whereas for the lay person the law in the uk isnt for the faint of heart. i commend the fact you accepted that you were wrong, and i commend the fact that you looked into it anyway i just believe we need to ensure that we give accurate information.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 06:39 PM
7

you shouldn't be giving incorrect information, sexual assault or more accurately causing sexual activity without consent (a separate section of the sexual offences act to sexual assualt) by penetration or forced to penetrate (as both have a special category under that section) have upto life imprisonment. the way that is implemented may be entirely different (and probably is) but the law itself allows upto life for forcing someone to penetrate another without their consent. A person guilty of an…
/r/MensRights11/05/16 09:02 AM
1

uhuh...
/r/MensRights09/05/16 09:25 PM
1

you are doing it again, you are insulting my argument without explaining how, without explaining how your "you are incorrect" screams fall short as they dont explain why. you havent explained what makes the UAE unsuccessful out of the 2 things i highlighted (sharia law and lack of bodily autonomy rights) by which i mean how do they fail to provide for their citizens, you have yet to rebut my arguments related to societies in the past, nor have you explained why dictators are inheriently bad.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 09:19 PM
1

No my point is that its up to each individual to determine who to vote for based on good governance for that society (aka usually what benefits them) this could be a single issue or several issues, unfortunately, the vast majority of people are unaware of 90% of the intentions of any party present as a result their votes don’t actually represent the intentions of the people and why they are intending to vote on a particular group. thats what i mean by "choosing who gets into power" and a lack of…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 08:53 PM
1

I will ive got another week of stress (my first exam is on the 17th and last on the 20th <sup>.</sup><sup>)</sup> but after that itll simply be relaxing. thanks, and pfft this sub is based around facts, eventually someone will slap you with them.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 06:54 PM
1

i ask you to explain to me, how the average person has the required level of knowledge on politics to make informed decisions about who should run state? It’s not necessary to explain this to you because the question is entirely irrelevant. It is a very narrow and parochial understanding of knowledge which becomes apparent if you reverse the question: How can any one individual, or small group of select individuals, have the required knowledge of the populace to make informed decisions about how…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 06:03 PM
3

sorry if i was being a tad rude, ive had a tough week or so with my law work and was tired and i have had it upto the neck with people claiming women suffer more for no reason besides 3 studies etc. its really irritating. i shouldnt have been rude however. anyway this was in the interesting discussions part down the side, i suggest you read it, it contains several interesting discussions.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 02:07 PM
1

i disagree about the idea of a dictatorship, my reasoning is simple, yes a dictatorship is a less pleasant idea, but solely on the grounds that the average person has no control on who is in power. i ask you to explain to me, how the average person has the required level of knowledge on politics to make informed decisions about who should run state? the fact is that the vast majority of people dont have that knowledge. dictatorships are less pleasant but democracies are just as corrupt as any di…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 01:35 PM
2

law is pretty safe as well, whilst the critical intro classes can be, if you are supported by evidence for the most part they end up admitting the evidence is on your side.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 01:19 PM
3

my understanding is that in law (and im studying it myself in the uk now) including critical intro is that most people hold views, but they cannot simply say "no no you are wrong" as law is entirely based on evidence, and therefore if you bring evidence and they have none, even seminar leaders back down... ive had several debates with my seminar leader over things such as the preconcieved idea that we need democracies as opposed dictatorships (i hold the view that democracies are no more inheren…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 01:15 PM
3

i raise you 283 studies... please try again This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
/r/MensRights09/05/16 07:25 AM
8

i can raise you just under 300 different sources that conclude in favor of ricwulf... here you go: http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600 thats the summary for you, if you…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 07:18 AM
1

you think thats bad, in uk law you need a the perp to have a penis that penetrates the victim, therefore a women can never be the perpetrator of rape (though they can be an accomplice to it)
/r/MensRights06/05/16 08:48 AM
3

actually the vast majority of violent crime victims are male - this includes muggings, murder, assualts, you name it (and sex based crimes are predominantly committed in the home not on the street or workplace like this is discussing), the fear females have present can therefore be called unreasonable and irrational and therefore why should we care? an unreasonable fear is an unreasonable fear and an irrational fear is an irrational fear. i am not judging my actions and words on feelings but on …
/r/MensRights06/05/16 08:34 AM
2

actually the evidence suggests the opposite, if you look at societies where you have to work to earn money to pay for food, women work in tech etc. in considerably higher numbers than our own, on the other hand in our own society and other societies dubbed as bastions of equality women do it insanely less... this therefore promotes the idea that women when they have a choice DONT want to but if they have to they will. in fact socialisation has nothing to do with it really, considering how much "…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 09:16 PM
3

i dont like him, but here he has hit the nail on the head
/r/MensRights01/05/16 01:49 PM
2

assuming this is in the uk, its probably only a temporary thing following the recent high profile cases, newspapers etc. seem to be being more cautious as the amount of people calling for complete anonymity for defendants until found guilty or atleast charged is growing, considerably. in the long run its more benefisial to say "look we dont name them if its actually false accusations" than for them to get blanket bans as they then wouldnt be able to report on them till charged or the end of the …
/r/MensRights28/04/16 08:01 PM
1

most do that ive used in the uk, the only ones that i have seen that dont are ones in train stations or "troughs" (like one huge long urinal) which are usually public ones (like anyone can use, not employee ones etc.) and i would assume this is due to cheaper maintenance
/r/MensRights25/04/16 09:47 PM
1

im thinking more like start looking if not touching, one of the biggest insults i had people use against me through school was "i bet he has a small dick" primarily used by the girls, now imagine if they actually started looking... and i have no doubt some would...
/r/MensRights25/04/16 08:47 PM
1

Its weird I think to most guys we see it as simple courtesy, we understand the guy next to us could have concerns about size (and even if he doesnt it might cause us to) and therefore we dont do it. the problem arises with women when they dont understand this, as they dont have the same issue and probably wouldnt respect the boudaries we guys have for one another. I dont know about the couch thing, but i suppose its related to the fact that girls use the toilet as a social ground where they chat…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:54 PM
2

because for the most part i don't look at the guy next to me (actually i never have), and the guy next to me doesnt normally look at me, its kinda ingrained into us not to look, its just too awkward...
/r/MensRights25/04/16 12:01 PM
1

the issue with this crime is the problem of encouragement (i dont know its definition in context of this offence), basically it may need direct reference to a crime such as saying "beat that guy up", but it could also be encouraging the commission of an offence (aka bringing about the result). if its the second, hmm say i knew someone who was a body builder, a member of their family had been sexually assualted, and i told them that someone had done the same thing (in an "innocent way" such as "d…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 04:06 PM
2

it would if she reaslised that it would cause them to go round and attack them, incitement and causing is very broad. it has a limiting factor to it however that means if something is reasonable in the circumstances then its not covered (which would have caught my previous example - i only remembered that now) had she attached "i wish someone would kick him in" etc. it would, or "he deserves a good slap" or something to indicate violence and it would. if you read my revised previous message (i h…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 03:42 PM
3

no for incitement all you need is something to show they caused, hinted or suggested at them doing it. their testimony would be enough (like the peeps who did it). caused can be her saying something to them such as "hes an absolute cunt, he wont even look after the kid so i can go out tonight, i wish someone would just give him a good punch" or the like, the law itself is incredibly loose, hell even being present at a crime and not stopping it is enough for joint enterprise (though i believe tha…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 03:24 PM
20

Technically we have incitement crimes as well (aka if you cause, ask, or incite a crime to occur you are breaking the aw)
/r/MensRights19/04/16 09:13 AM
1

I can tell you have experience (it has been incredibly helpful). I don't wish to be anti-feminist however, merely i want to argue my point (that the accused should be afforded anonymity due to the fact false accusations do occur, and even if you are found not guilty the stigma stays with you, unlike the vast majority of other crimes - you might ask why am i looking back there then, well simply put they got it, then got rid, there must have been reasons and i want to know them, it makes a great b…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 01:19 PM
1

you sir are a godsend, my own research is coming along well too, it will be interesting to see how much evidence i can cram in so they cant give me a bad mark... (so long as im analytical enough) and i had used that cambridge law journel one already, i already had it open (i have been using its sources to further my research xD)
/r/MensRights18/04/16 12:47 PM
2

hansard was my first point of call to be quite honest, especially in regards to why the changes occured and then were reversed. (they were really useful - as i had said i had already done considerable research, just struggling to find actual cases.) Hmm the British news paper archive looks like it could be a good choice, im hesitant to put money down (maybe they have institution login for uni's many do these days)
/r/MensRights18/04/16 12:18 PM
1

okay all im saying is read this, I don't think i can use it (it seems to portray it as false but cannot say forcertain) but its absolutely hillarious (if it is false like i think)... http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/21st-july-1979/27/low-life
/r/MensRights18/04/16 12:08 PM
1

mhmm which is ironically why its going to be so hard to give some examples of why they added anonymity in 1976 and then removed it 1988... heh itll be fun doing the research though, i usually have to rely on case law (which can be found upto about 100-200 years ago (based on case importance)...)
/r/MensRights18/04/16 11:44 AM
1

That sounds promising, i hadn't heard of this, it should be more than useful. Thank you.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 11:33 AM
2

Oh I'm going there already, I just figured that since a large amount of people here may actually be knowledgable on this topic, y'know having potentially lived through such years, they could help, its the logical place to ask. also i did note that i had already done some research by pointing out i couldnt find anything... that isnt to say i had stopped looking merely that i was asking for help... no need to be a jack ass. forinstance the idea to use microfilm (something i had never actually hear…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 11:27 AM
1

well the second source provided primary sources (2 in fact) that should be enough, i even provided the page that had said sources on them... it shouldnt be too much to expect you to get that extra step if you need them now is it? not to mention my secondary evidence is usable, you still PROVIDE no evidence. nor do you provide any evidence to the contrary. my secondary evidence is therefore usable. its actually pretty strongly argued in the second that the men were more worried about the women th…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 06:37 PM
1

oh they wont use that reasoning, itll just be "too dangerous with too little gain so we arent doing this", soldiers on the ground make decisions too, and itll be them who dont do things, or do things, that put the mission at risk... you get real, i just gave several sources one which indicated armies that are already doing it suffer from that issue, not to mention the air force in drills experienced soldiers being too willing to try and protect the female ones... you get real, refute my argument…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 05:03 PM
1

Yes you do, its fundamentally illogical to say we don't its built into human nature, hard wired infact to protect women as without them the human race dies of, yet the loss of one or 2 men doesn't matter. you might not even realize you are doing it, like i said the majority of this stuff is subconscious, but people don't risk the lives of women, its why women werent uptil this point allowed onto the front line, because we didnt want them dying. right then, okay you say "meh orders" okay: http://…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 11:16 AM
1

There is, humans are, were and will be animals. We have a built in instinct to protect the onea who carry thr next generation in them, men in that respect are replaceable. ( onw guy can get 30 women pregnant at the same time, one woman can carry onw child however (or there about excluding twins etc). This WILL impact on decisions made on the field and it is illogical to pretend it wouldn't. It might not always change the out come but it might and these outcomes may place male soldiers at heighte…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 08:32 AM
1

it wont happen like that, firstly look at the police and fire services, both got lowered yet both involved risk to life, the reason being not enough women could get it, feminists will cry sexism etc. and itll get glowered. not to mention its a biological imperative to keep women safe, it would impact on the decisions by the soldiers themselves as they would try to keep the women from being captured/hurt (more so than men) and that may endanger their lives.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 07:14 PM
8

thats the issue we have with them... Thats not to say i disagree with all of which they discuss, i just find that you cant have a proper conversation and debate about a lot of topics as "feminism" is within a safe zone that isn't to be attacked and its the cause of many of the issues we face.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 07:12 PM
18

Mens lib hates the criticizing of feminism, as a result if you criticize them you get banned, therefore it cannot and more than likely wont be brought up.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:57 PM
1

The issue we have is that it will result in more deaths of men as the standards are lower or will be lowered for women and that compromises the entire situation. not to mention the fact that they will value female lives more (the male soldies) and that may potentially endanger missions and their lives (trying to keep her safe, not being kidnapped and/or raped if captured).
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:56 PM
1

the problem that i can see is, that it would endanger mens lives to put women in combat roles as they more often than not cannot meet mens standards (which causes them to either have lower standards or to have standards all round dropped), and that men will prioritize women lives over the mission (due to biological hunter gatherer instincts of making sure the human species survives which means keeping women alive.)
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:54 PM
2

not to mention "the average male" isn't serving on the front line, the damn army front lines are filled with the fittest, most capable soldiers they can lay their hands on (within their country). so when a train woman is only comparable to the average male, and the average male is outstripped by miles by a soldier... that has to be taken into account.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:52 PM
1

that doesnt make it their fault, it may have been stupid and a mistake, but they shouldnt be held accountable for the actions of others. to put it bluntly you are saying "its her fault they raped her" but you see, the issue there is thta "they raped her" therefore it was THEIR actions and therefore their fault.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 11:22 PM
1

unrealistic? which one there are 3, the lion, the swimming or the out at night? the lion and swimming yes. going out no, firstly lets establish a few things though humans arent "more dangerous" unless we choose to and prepare to be such, the average human would struggle to kill or rape someone without making prep, not to mention, what someone is wearing doesnt matter, drunk consent is still consent so doesnt really matter UNLESS its in relation to putting up a fight or where they cannot understa…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 11:13 PM
1

i dont know about the accused, i would need to look into it, but regardless, those men should have retained self-control, it is insulting to act like we have none just because there is a good looking women in front of you. consent can be implied, and if there is grounds to believe it was being given (which all circumstances can be considered) then they arent guilty. but if the only reason was "she was dancing like a slut" then it is rape, because that gives all people getting a striptease the ri…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 11:08 PM
1

"A woman who goes to bed naked with someone she does not know well 'just for a cuddle cuz I felt lonley'" that is rape and they have no responsibility for that, but for the rapist raping them, then it wouldnt have happened. you are insulting men by acting like we have no self control, we are above that. only sick twisted individuals rape someone, if someone is asleep consent cannot be gotten regardless of how they are dressed. it may be foolish, stupid idiotic, but they shouldnt be told "its you…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 11:04 PM
2

Firstly, i don't say we should protect them, i merely disagree with victim blaming with regards to sexual attacks. Firstly because the majority of attackers are known to the victims and are done in their own homes... therefore they aren't people most victims feel or rationally think they need to cover up from (most humans trust their friends). secondly because regardless of covering up, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped it, there is literally no way of knowing why the perp picked them besides…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 10:36 PM
1

Firstly, humans are distinctly different than animals in that we act rationally. we dont attack people for the sake of attacking people. only the twisted individuals of our society do it. We as people weigh up "what we need to do" and "what we shoud have to do", one is logical and the other is emotional in that sense, men lean far more to the first and women are about even (putting equal weight in both) as a result women consider it "repugnant to have to protect our own bodies, we shouldnt have …
/r/MensRights12/04/16 09:43 PM
1

that 7% is from the consad report (only report ive seen which said 7%), if you read the report you would notice that they dont take a lot of factors into account such as the days when people or working or what hours they are working, both of which are CONSIDERABLE factors when deciding who to give raises to or promotions to, not to mention night work will frequently have time and a half... there are even more factors that arent taken into account besides that... the reasoning for them being impo…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 09:38 PM
2

its just a voice for men (an mra group) realistically speaking its no worse than any feminist site, infact dare i say it far better as they source most if not all their claims (on any of the articles ive read anyway)
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:09 PM
3

i gotta agree with chsp (im 19) and every individual ive come across on my law course in uni, has natural hair color or said when they leave uni its going back natural as its unprofessional... ive not come across anyone who has anything more than a single eyebrow piecing (or nose piercing) etc. even in lectures the above applies to (besides about saying they would change it... i haven't spoken to everyone). the vast majority of students are seem to take the view that professionalism includes the…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 11:22 PM
1

I never said it did, i merely pointed out that there are grounds for why it hasnt progressed, why we havent done activism in real life. that being said i should have noted that as a movement we are growing, faster than about a year back as well (more and more people i talk to have to admit that my points hold merit, even "feminists"average women who claims to, not actual activist feminist) are being forced into agreement else they seem sexist only the extremes maintain that men dont suffer. i wo…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:56 PM
2

i never said we shouldnt push through anyway, merely that i understand why it hasnt occured yet.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:53 PM
1

replace "reasons" with patriachy and youve got it down.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:38 PM
2

they are now innocent and should be called such, in fact the only way that can now change is if new evidence arises which would have been enough to completely change the outcome or in their words "fresh and compelling evidence" which realistically speaking has to be a substantial amount as the original outcome has to be quashed by the court of appeal. so unless they get a tape of them drugging her or something as potent this aint going back to court.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:32 PM
1

we dont have the funding to start irl things (feminists save tons of donations, several celeb support, and much much more), not to mention, every time we try to, we get attacked by feminists... even when WE DONT we get attacked by feminists as they label other groups as us. we arent allowed to establish groups on campuses as its a "hate movement", we are severly restricted in what we can do, and when we do do it, we are attacked...
/r/MensRights11/04/16 01:21 PM
1

i cant find the pen... maybe it got lost, but it was like gold and when your ran your finger across the word "patriarchy" the ink changed colours from black to blue... it was bad ass...
/r/MensRights09/04/16 07:13 PM
1

not meaning to start an argument, i just wanted to notify you that the idea "when women were oppressed and when women were kept down 'by the man'" is actually contested at times, (whilst i personally think it was). its worth noting that there are several theories that argue that it was what can be referred to as "relative equality" in that for men and women had different rights but they were based on the fact that their responsibilities were different. if you look at the issues we discuss here, …
/r/MensRights09/04/16 06:58 PM
1

Wait you didnt get one of these? http://i.imgur.com/YZ4i32M.jpg I swear last year we had an over abundance of them...
/r/MensRights09/04/16 06:50 PM
1

i didnt mean to come across as confrontational, i just view feminism as having 3 stages, 1st stage was radical, the 2nd stage (the time frame i noted) was overall good in its actions, if not its ideology (in my view), then its 3rd stage reverted to its radical side... so for that small time (about 20 years) i can say that it was good, but the group overall as been an incredibly bad influence on society and that i cant identify any other time frame where that they were good. i dont say that the 2…
/r/MensRights09/04/16 04:32 PM
1

and my point is that feminism within some periods has been good, thats not to say i like or think overall feminism is good, but i think its stupid to ignore to ignore periods of "good feminism" because if we can promote it, it would stop us looking like we hate womens rights (which most people mix with feminism) and only that we dislike "radical feminism" (which is in actual fact all feminism right now). like i said i dont think feminism overall is good, or that it will be in the future, but we …
/r/MensRights09/04/16 04:22 PM
1

i dont deny that, but like i said that was outside of the argument time i am discussing... after the introduction of a federation thingy... so y'know and thats what ERIN said...
/r/MensRights09/04/16 04:07 PM
1

Actually no its not, she established her shelter in 71, it was hijacked about 74 in that space little to no change had occurred and almost no growth had happened therefore my conclusion that "its highly unlikely to have grown, you've yet to provide evidence that any other group would have been willing to and I don't listen to unsubstantiated "could have should have would have". In these 3 years no group had taken it on, no group had tried to push it larger... Its mere speculation on ln YOUR part…
/r/MensRights09/04/16 09:00 AM
0

lets get started shall we. firstly no i dont. i make the argument that if a group makes positive changes for a period of time without making negative changes, then that group can be considered good. secondly you make the argument that i think only feminism could have done it, which is factually not correct, i merely make the argument that they DID do it, i know of no other group that could have and would have achieved the things i listed therefore your point is worthless unless you can provide s…
/r/MensRights09/04/16 12:22 AM
1

I disagree here, many of the things feminism has attempted to do in the past has been with the best interests of woman at heart, this doesn't make their means correct (their terrorist acts are still terrorist acts and as the saying goes, some of the worst things in history have been with the best of intentions) that being said much of the stuff they have achieved without terrorism and the difference then between now and then was that back then it was needed. in effect the ideology hasn't changed…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 10:29 PM
1

hmm i misinterpreted then, that being said i like your view on it.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 01:27 PM
1

Ahh that's an interesting perspective. I hope you didn't mistake me asking as coming across as religious (in fact i am apatheist - in effect i don't know if god exists, in fact i don't really care. even if there were it really doesn't matter, god doesn't seem to provide any purpose or benefit in this life [he realistically does nothign], so why should he be granted my worship?) that being said, my primary interest was in knowing your view on if religion counters feminism, with that answered, i w…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 09:59 AM
2

I have to ask then, but could it be said that religion (monotheistic ones anyway) was and in some societies are a counter to feminism. The reason I ask is because feminism and religion are a lot alike and in most cultures that are highly religious gender roles are still held which results in what many would say are female rights being behind our own. if religion is a counter, would the reason for it be, that it creates a 4th tribe of "in" men and women who all share the same values of how things…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 08:03 PM
1

i disagree each and every peep i know either knows my views (infact i argue it in my seminars - heh safe to say some of the girls dont like it mind you) or that im an MRA but ive not once been threatened... maybe cause im on a law course though... usually a bad idea to death threat a law student who would get you arrested...
/r/MensRights07/04/16 07:46 PM
8

thats pretty much it, haha. Oh and if we do get married we would have legal contracts or prenups i suppose, (they are becoming more frequently used in the uk but they dont have to be, but as long as they dont go contrary to equity and other principles or Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 then they are usually used. this is why i think we need actual contracts not "prenuptial agreements" so that they are always bloody binding. we dont make them so that they are thrown away for heavens…
/r/MensRights06/04/16 03:19 PM
1

True, i stand corrected, i wasnt paying too much attention, for that you have my thanks, i should have read it properly... the page states "The minimum age of criminal liability is set at the federal and state level in the United States. At the state level, 33 states set no minimum age of criminal responsibility, theoretically allowing a child to be sentenced to criminal penalties at any age [Cipriani,D. Children's Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Global Perspective, Ashg…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 10:52 PM
3

In England we are taught there 4 purposes of prison, the first is punishment, the second is rehabilitation, the third is safety (stop it occurring again as they are in prison) and the fourth is a deterrent (scare other people from doing it - which is why you sometimes see disproportionate sentences so that other people think twice). anyway basically the victim is covered by the first one, aka the need for punishment, but the law has to take into account other factors such as if it was a crime du…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 10:23 PM
2

actually most EU countries dont hold individuals under 13 accountable for crimes (most are 14-16 for criminal responcibility), england is one of the few EU countries that have it at 10, and that was due to public outcry after 2 individuals killed a baby and were going to not be punished. https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages/europe public outcry was also why we banned owning hand guns as well, and most other dangerous objects really... Edit: just noticed a couple had it at the ages of 12 and 1 other…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 08:58 PM
1

A good piece of evidence was the consad report it showed that when occupation, working hours, and several others (though notable missing ones) were taken into account the supposed gap dropped to about5% (well 7%), but they noted that other factors still needed considering Since the actual report is playing up (for some people), when I get on a PC I will edit this with a link to an archived version just incase it doesn't work (though try anyway - just google "consad wage gap report") - edit: here…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 08:28 AM
6

Feminism in the Uk (well the suffragettes) actually pushed voting equality back. By attacking the police, shops etc. They made themselves (and women by extension) seem too crazy for the right to vote... I mean all it did was give people against woman's sufferage (other women as well as men ironically) stronger arguments such as "do you really think we should be giving these crazy women the right to vote"... WW1 turns up and their excuse for the draft was "well they can vote because they can be d…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 08:13 AM
1

I never said any of it was a certainty, just an average demonstrated by studies and anecdotes ive come across, its merely the way ive seen it. focus i didn't define, but i mean in the sense that women multitask a lot in comparison to men (which is in fact great for a lot of things) but mens ability to sit and perform a single task for longer periods seems to be higher (well until its completed) which is supported by the science - i base this judgement on science nothing else though anecdotal evi…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 07:11 PM
3

might i suggest a quick read of this consad report, it looks into the us wage gap, when it took factors such as jobs worked, hours worked etc. into account, women earned about 5% less, and it was still lacking relavant considerations (i havent read it in a while but i believe days (such as which days not how many) worked, time worked (what time of day not how long) etc. were important as men are more willing to work nights and weekends which are unpleasant unfamily based times forinstance weeken…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 10:41 PM
1

About "financial abortion". Do you think that should be a man's right, as long as the woman is also able to abort? if a man "aborts financially", do you think the state should assume responsibility? if so, why not just do away with child support altogether instead of making parents pay both support AND higher taxes? conversely, if a man wants to keep the child but the woman doesn't (and doesn't want to abort), should she be able to "abort financially" and be exempt from child support afterwards?…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 10:13 PM
2

by legal abortiong they refer to the notion that men should be allowed an opt out from the financial responcibilities of fatherhood if the mother carries a child to term when the father doesnt want to have the child.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:58 PM
1

Sorry for pushing in, just wanted to give my own 2 cents as it were. I feel that spacial awareness, logic, and focus are male strengths, but thats not to say women dont or cant have them, (or even to the same levels) its just that men come to them easier. my reasoning for spacial awareness is predominantly anecdotal (i can remember time and time again thinking and saying "that will never fit" whilst my mother, sisters, female friends etc. try things and fail and have seen many men doing the same…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:53 PM
1

Firstly its not scary im doing law, im just sticking to the rules, unless its beyond a reasonable doubt they are innocent (correct me where go wrong here). Firstly, their lies rarely operated on the actual occasion they claim to have occurred. what occurred usually stayed relatively the same, only what changed were issues of how much they were hit (once then twice then once again etc.) or when something occurred (reasonable considering the time difference) with the noted previous exception. it i…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 12:05 AM
1

i read the entire thing, being a law student its kinda what i do... that being said, you are saying he was falsely accused, but without a trial it isn't a proven false accusation, nor is their enough evidence to support it, the mere fact that they lied about (and hid) surrounding evidence only affects their credibility. the only lie that i couldn't attribute to time was the date related to the car issue, all other variable details are minor and after 10 years details will be fuzzy. it is true th…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 11:25 PM
1

lets put it this way, you are innocent until proven guilty correct? okay then, prove to me that they are guilty of falsely accusing him of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, or you cannot claim its a false allegation (it becomes an allegation that isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt). that proof therefore relates to the claims that he smacked one of them when they were against a wall, and harmed someone in a car etc. the surrounding lies are irrelevant, besides casting doubt on their c…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 10:55 PM
1

the he's guilty of sexual assualt as the public have drawn that conclusion... okay then...
/r/MensRights28/03/16 07:13 PM
1

That doesn't make the entire allegation incorrect, I don't know either way, and the evidence does SUGGEST it is a lie, however it only suggests it, which is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 07:12 PM
1

Actually the mere fact that 3 people knew they could skip a question doesn't mean that other people didn't know. no inate gender bias is necessarily present in the other individuals who took the test. if you feel you need to answer a question (which you cannot say they didn't - as YOUR TEST (thus the onus is on you) didn't say we could skip) then they will feel you need to give an answer even if that answer isn't their "instinctual" response or what they actually think. your entire argument is b…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 11:46 AM
1

Actually you are basing that on the notion WE KNOW that we can skip, I didn't and i bet you can assume other guys didnt either, as a result you cannot assert "they did it because of their bias" when it could have been because "out of the two vile options here we will choose that one". thats not their bias, thats your bias in the questions and responses to said questions. therefore your results are worthless... you could refute that if you told us we could skip... erm did you? oh wait you didnt..…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 10:31 AM
1

"U need to look at the choices for questions 7-8 closely. U don't understand the subtly and your not supposed to. Both first choices assume the man is guilty. Both second choices say the woman is guilty. The questions are exactly the same only reversed. There is no bias in the question. The question is searching to see if YOU have a bias. If you answer 1 to question 7 it means u have a bias towards women." that's actually a lie (again mind you) and its insulting that you would do so. "Why doesnt…
/r/MensRights28/03/16 10:07 AM
1

the mere fact my interpretation of your question doesn't follow what you intended doesn't make it any less valid, in fact the fact mine deviated from yours actually supports my position, as you aren't sufficiently clear in the questions. my points hold true to what the question says. the question says "should woman who claim to be assaulted by a man have her poloce history and social reputation fully investigated before approaching an accused abuser and inconveniencing him" that sets out a few t…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 05:24 AM
1

youre changing goal posts, firstly "we should skip the question" but we arent told we can, then its about finding which bias we are more likely to choose... no the reason its like this, is because it was poorly made, the sooner you own upto that, accept it, and fix future ones, the better.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 05:11 AM
1

it does need analysing, firstly watch this (to understand the influence of how presenting things can change a responce - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA). People almost certainly believe "the claim should be investigated before someone is arrested" i could even believe people thinking "the accusers background should be checked before they arrest someone" (note not my view i can see some people having it though) but i highly doubt people actually think the police shouldn't be able to …
/r/MensRights27/03/16 01:53 AM
1

I never said they all do, just most and to be quite blunt most do provide either a neutral responses or state that questions can be skipped (else its natural to assume you must answer them all). atleast on the ones ive come across, true its only anecdotal but considering theres probably not many studies on conducting studies (particularly this area) its the best evidence i can produce. Also the onus is on you to notify us of your test practices not to mention the fact that it doesn't change what…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 01:19 AM
1

I know and the way he keeps trying to justify the bias. Edit: Actually its closer to trying to deny it even exists
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:50 PM
1

Actually most surveys require all answers to be filled before it will submit (and as a result put a "I don't wish to respond" option) as a result out of the respondents that replied how many actually thought they had to fill them all could be a very high number... I wasn't aware you could skip and I doubt many others were aware either
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:50 PM
1

That is catagorically a lie, your question asks "should woman who claim to be assaulted by a man have her poloce history and social reputation fully investigated before approaching an accused abuser and inconveniencing him" therefore the question is asking should the police investigate her background (which is to be quite frank absolutely irrelevant besides seeing if previous accusations against others have been made, and approaching with more caution if there is) before approaching AND inconven…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 11:45 PM
1

firstly these results are questionable, do they really think they are brutes or do they merely not want to victim blame (aka calling him a brute is more acceptable than victim blaming)? are you sure they think it should be investigated before approaching them, or inconvencing them? the 2 are seperate (i would want to discuss the issue with the police so that they dont jump to arbitrary conclusions i wouldnt want arresting however).
/r/MensRights26/03/16 05:26 PM
1

firstly i get what you are saying, i just feel that you are missing several responses that are needed, and you still didn't address my issue of having the choice between brute men, or victim blaming... (which it is) and a following question where you say its his fault (well he gets what he deserves) or "why doesn't he fight back" which is actually rather accusatory when you take "brute men or blame victim" from the past question into account. your website should be irrelevant to what people take…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 03:30 PM
2

yeah, look it up, there's this huge debate around giving bachelors higher tax because they wont marry
/r/MensRights26/03/16 02:37 PM
1

Firstly, i don't intend to come across as saying its deliberate, but there is definite bias. i gave evidence, specifically that you call men brutes for doing it, or you victim blame the woman... then for women attacking men its the mens fault either way... as a result both of those questions are bias one way or the other (no one will selected the second response for men attacking woman question - aka the womans fault and on the second one of the 2 questions, there is no way to say its the womans…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 09:56 AM
2

So it wasn't just me? i thought maybe i was being a tad harsh on the guy with my points :\
/r/MensRights26/03/16 09:43 AM
2

some of your questions are clearly bias and lack adequate responses for instance "If you saw a man hitting a woman he is arguing with in the street, what would be your immediate thought?" has 2 answers which demonstrates clear bias "What does that brute think he is doing to that woman?" or "What has that woman done to make that man so angry?" neither of these is a neutral response that i (and i assume many others would take). Firstly the use of the word brute makes the reader assume the person d…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 10:47 PM
8

its been contemplated in japan, the so called "hansom tax" so dont go spreading the idea.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 10:31 PM
2

any studies? if so can you provide the citation?
/r/MensRights20/03/16 09:42 PM
2

I actually disagree that men were more stoic in general, and I have what i would consider pretty simple logic behind it. we have trouble showing emotion to/infront of women sure, but not in general. anecdotally I can say i was always open about how i feel with one of my friends, lets call him bobby. Bobby was the individual who helped me crack out of my emotionally disconnected stage, and showed me that its better to face my emotions (im still recovering from that stage.) Anyway the logic behind…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 07:28 PM
1

Women are also more cohesive as a group and care about the wellbeing of other women, whereas men have no such in group bias and even favor women. LOL why then do businesses consisting solely of females constantly break down due to in-house competition about how they look and what group you are "in".
/r/MensRights11/03/16 01:23 AM
10

Well no, we have considered what you are saying. you are missing the point... reason 1 for not allowing it: best interests of the child, okay then, from now on it becomes illegal to desert a child using safe haven without giving the father the choice to keep it, no adoptions without the biological fathers consent (and in both cases, if you can prove you have taken active steps to try and find the father but couldnt, or evidence provided demonstrates that the father is unsafe for the child - lyin…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 06:41 PM
1

we have completely different cultures, to places like india, they are still holding views similar to that of medieval times. secondly, "introduction to mexican culture" - i have no idea what that is, but its a different culture by the looks of things... im talking 1st word countries that hold our moral standards. thirdly i can call it pure conjuncture because no conclusive stats are in existence they are primarily based on feminist definitions of rape, sexual assualt etc. which are all bias agai…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 02:05 PM
5

the evidence is overwhelming that men are much more often the perpetrators, especially historically Nope, theres no evidence that actually supports historically men committed more sexual crimes, out side of war. secondly, we have no evidence that if all victims are studied males perpetrate it more. thats put conjuncture on it from a bias view point...
/r/MensRights09/03/16 01:03 PM
3

Lets address this point by point shall we? female teachers going out with students, most of which were at least 15-16, to which I would say that has a lot to do with socio-economic factors, and that is one thing. That we know of, its at these ages that they start bragging and the teachers are found out, but what about younger males who don't understand whats going on? like the younger females who are in the same situation who don't usually come forward until a couple of years later? It would be …
/r/MensRights09/03/16 12:19 PM
4

Not really, browse the sub a little and you will come across story after story about how female teachers have abused young men time and time again... And only get minimal sentences .. As a result of this it can be argued that the notion of it being more viable for older men/young women is categorically incorrect when the evidence suggests otherwise (in fact I would argue its easier for women due to individuals like you arguing that men can and are more likely to do it than women where as men are…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 07:58 AM
2

Compliments where its due and all that, also I will give them a read as it seems that you're quite the learned fellow on these issues
/r/MensRights08/03/16 08:18 PM
2

Its both estrogen makes a stronger immune system whilst testosterone weakens it... And I cant find my source so i will admit I was probably wrong here, I knew it was a genetic trait that varies on gender and that it didn't always occur (many men don't have weakened immune systems) but usually did
/r/MensRights08/03/16 08:13 PM
2

that's one aspect, the other aspect is that many men lack a genome that most women have that provides them with higher tolerances to the cold and flu, as a result of that we are frequently hit harder by the flu or atleast thats what ive read (i will attempt to find the source).
/r/MensRights08/03/16 12:57 PM
4

This... was beautifully written, my friend you truly have a gift for writing... if you ever make a book send me the title. Secondly I whole heatedly agree and think this should be sticked so that it gets more attention and views, as it highlights everything we should be doing.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 12:53 PM
2

At which point he responds by saying "its too dangerous to talk to women considering I can be labelled a harasser for merely making small talk" if they have a problem with that they wont simply be able to fire him as that will cause the rest of the male staff to take his approach (out of both fear and protest)
/r/MensRights08/03/16 07:15 AM
2

statistically women objectify men physically as much as men do with women (when i get home from uni i will get the study) but basically women look at men who are showing their body more frequently than men look at women in their respective outfits. E.G. men at the beach would look at women less frequently than women at the beach look at men. furthermore, theres little evidence that as a society women dont objectify men, just like with cheating, women may simply be better at it.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 04:20 PM
1

Ironically the current state regarding adoption in the US doesn't seem too bad, so long as you can establish you had a relationship with the child (or the mother had prevented you from doing so, through not telling you about the child or keep moving about and not telling you the location etc. anything to impair your relationship with the child) then you are entitled to be notified about the adoptions (including safe haven ones) under your 14th amendment (of due process) - the issue with them is …
/r/MensRights07/03/16 08:04 AM
0

its why i advocate a sign out option before pregnancy that you and the mother both sign, that way if she goes ahead and has sex knowing there wouldn't be a father then she bears the responsibility (though its worth noting, it puts the responsibility on the father to try and avoid pregnancy...) the contract can last one night or an entire relationship but the entire point is, they went in knowing that the father wasn't going to bear the responsibilities put on them.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:48 AM
1

yes, but you are ignoring several other factors that play a part in the issue, thus its a narrow view on par with assuming the only thing relevant in the "wage gap" is the amount of men, women, and how much men as a total earn (per year), and how much as total women earn (per year). Its nonsense, there are several issues that impact on it, including if men want to be in relationships... I'm not saying youre wrong about women not marrying down, but by narrow im saying that you are saying thats th…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:52 PM
2

actually thats a narrow view of things, it works both ways, men dont want to enter into relationships if there is no benefit (or the only benefit is sex, which due to feminism they can get easier and easier out and about on weekends [due to feminism as they broke down lifetime partners etc. and as a result there's a lot more free flowing sex]). But what you also say is true, many women who are earning money simply dont want to work downwards, the results of this is that only a small amount of th…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 03:43 PM
2

If that's the case I apologise for the accusation. None the less unlike feminism mgtow, the red pill and the MRM are highly distinct in what we think and are completely incomparable (rarely sharing views)
/r/MensRights02/03/16 05:52 PM
1

Firstly, I can't understand why a MGTOW would threaten rape (isn't the point of being a MGTOW that they have no interest in intimacy with women?) and even if it were, it was more than likely an empty threat (internet big talk). That isn't to say however, that his actions weren't rude or unfair, but i find it unlikely, and if it did, they were more than likely idle threats. as a result of this, i believe that you are deliberately leaving out context to cause them to look more evil than the actual…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 09:29 AM
2

Sorry for interrupting this convo, but i would like to commenting on MRA-automatron-2kb's post (specifically about the history and how women didn't necessarily have it worse). I can't say for certain this is a perfectly accurate copy of what hes talking about, but one such theory I know of is, the equal responsibilities and rights idea. Effectively what the idea establishes is that women and men did have different amounts of rights, but this wasn't because society just wanted to gift men with mo…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 10:18 PM
1

Its illogical I know, personally if they just copied and pasted this as the law for rape it'd actually cover pretty much everything (if not just copy the current rape into it as well) it seems far more fair and logical though tbh I doubt this particular section is used very much at all Also c says: (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else This states "persons anus or vagina" which in my mind is deliberate to cover 2 circumstances, where A (th…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 06:28 PM
1

thats covered by causing sexual activity without consent. i believe its written as "(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved— (a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina, (b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis, (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or (d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life." (note there is more to t…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 03:35 PM
3

not necessarily, the claim has to be "proven on the balance of probabilities" (51% or higher) even on claims such as that since its in a civil court, look at the O J simpson case (i think thats it anyway), he wasn't found guilty in the criminal courts, yet in the civil ones the supposed victims were awarded millions in damages. This is mainly due to the fact that there are such stark differences between the civil and criminal courts that they are considered completely separate and winning in a c…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 10:56 AM
1

It's footing the bill for the child. Okay then, surely it should be in the childs interest to find fathers for children whos mothers attempt to adopt them out? (unless the father is there [and DNA tested] and in agreement with it) i mean it cant be hard, simply make it illegal to lie to about such relations (in the course of these investigations) about who the potential fathers are. that way the fathers are found and the father gets the right and choice to keep the child? and sure this approach …
/r/MensRights24/02/16 09:48 PM
2

To solve this, they can opt out of parenthood before pregnancy even occurs (sign an agreement stating in the event of pregnancy sorta thing), and can then opt back in when they find out (before x) and if both parents agree after x (except in cases of deceit by the mother in which case only the father.)
/r/MensRights22/02/16 03:03 PM
8

No! Leave one or two across the country, that way all the crazies congregate at them... therefore freeing up space and lowering the crazy at others.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 09:03 PM
1

make sure you are recording everything you do (even if its only audio - and if its legal where you are as some places need both parties aware that things are being recorded etc.) as the saying "calm before the storm" comes to mind right now... also if anything else happens (another rumor pops up, or it starts back up but worse), contact the police again, but due to harassment (many places require 2 or more incidents before its harassment).
/r/MensRights18/02/16 12:48 PM
1

so do some states in america though...
/r/MensRights13/02/16 04:28 PM
1

The point I'm making is, is that since the growth of feminism, it has actively prevented and created more issues for men. there is a distinct difference between what she was saying (feminism simply didnt fix them) and actively blocking + creating issues. I do however acknowledge that many issues were in existence prior to feminism (and similar groups) and it was wrong to blanket say that they didn't (that was badly phrased on my part - i was attempting to say that not all issues, especially the …
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:57 PM
2

The issues men face, from what I have researched, stem from the same systems that were in place before feminism even entered the picture. No, that's what you said, which basically means that the issues men face was caused by something before feminism "existed". That is utterly incorrect, feminists, and groups of women, have actively damaged mens rights. Okay with the parenting issue, it was a 180 turn (it was before that mainly male preference such as it is female now) but advocating ACTIVELY is…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 09:38 PM
2

incorrect, for instance, women pushed for legal changes that ensured women were considered the primary carers over children in the 1800s (i currently cant find the source but i have seen it). theres also how feminists in isreal and india pushed against gender equal rape laws, NOW pushing to keep life time alimony and so on.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 09:23 PM
1

thats a tad crude but yes thats also true :P
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:12 PM
1

oh i know, but the point is for him to just play her bluff, without cheating...
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:11 PM
1

but he isnt tolerating it by playing her bluff... (or thats my view anywho) on the other hand, two wrongs do not make a right, and as a result, if he were of that view (your view) he should simply leave her, the children would make that harder yes, but for him (as an individual) that would be the best choice)... cheating is not a justified move, regardless of arguments in the relationship... if you want to have sex with other women, go for it, just leave your partner first (or square it with the…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:10 PM
0

while true, he could just buy a fleshlight (though i have no idea what they are actually like in practice)... or any other sex toy aimed at men (the giant doll things, etc.)
/r/MensRights11/02/16 04:58 PM
-4

Orrr instead of sleeping with others you just revert back to the good old 5 finger shuffle till she cracks and changes her stance... May take a while though
/r/MensRights11/02/16 04:07 PM
1

constructive...
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:36 PM
1

I was primarily referring to his music mind you, because music is about what you feel, and if he is angry and bitter about her, then his music is going to show that... His social media is there to let people know what you are doing, whilst its not the best place to vent (that i can agree on - its irritating when anyone does it), its going to happen, and it probably shouldn't. that being said, wasn't that kinda the point of social media (to let people know what you are doing and thinking?) If it …
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:35 PM
1

Hmm, I disagree, its hard to be civil, but as so long as they are civil around the child then thats all that matters (i.e. not arguing when the child is about). out side of that, they can hate each other as much as they like and show it in as many ways as they like... (within the constraints of the law) Edit: adding "(within the constraints of the law)"
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:08 PM
2

Well wouldnt you if you were in his position?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 12:34 PM
1

In the uk that falls under the "reasonable belief they consented" clause though i have no idea about the us...
/r/MensRights03/02/16 11:06 AM
1

If its in the uk I believe i know of a case were premenstrual stress (coupled with post-natal depression) was used for diminished responsibility instead of murder look for the case of R v Reynolds [1988] EWCA Crim J0422-2 i have no idea what the law is in other areas, but it seems it would be usable as a defense
/r/MensRights01/02/16 03:01 PM
1

Actually it could be illegal depending on location... For instance the law in the UK for fraud says A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A representation is false if— (a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3)“R…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:20 AM
7

I think this can be best described as debunking the idea that "if women ruled the world there would be no war" but not asserting that women or men are necessarily anymore warmongering than the other? or am i misreading something here?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:57 PM
1

Actually the approach I'm saying is the opposite of feminism... By saying we are only for mens rights is the opposite of the road feminism has taken, where its states its for everyone's equal rights and has now turned into its current form by selecting the groups it wants and leaving out others...
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:05 AM
2

Exactly, I fully support equal rights, but this movement isn't for that, its simply for men's rights...
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:02 AM
1

No, I'm not advocating we be like feminism... Feminism claims its egalitarian... I'm Saying we be truthful... The MRM is about men's rights, we don't have to share views on anything but the fact that we support men's equal rights... Sure most of us are egalitarian, but the MRM as a movement isn't and never will be egalitarian because its focus should be and should always be men's rights... And the only requirement to be an MRA is that you support men's equal rights... This idea that being homoph…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:54 AM
-4

Not true, and its a common misconception unfortunately, while we in the MRA support mens rights, we don't by any means HAVE to support womens rights, trans rights, gay rights etc. In fact as a group, we only have 1 thing common for certain with the next guy and that is we support men's rights... yes the majority of us do support the things above, but that has nothing to do with our support of the MRA. Many individuals here might think "women shouldn't be out of the kitchen" (to use the cliche) b…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 06:16 PM
1

Thanks, its going to be hard to get set up i think, but being a law student they'll be faced with hell if its based solely on it being a Mens rights group, when they have a feminist society... that being said, resources that i can distribute, activities etc. are going to be hard to think up, at some point im going to have to make them as well xD
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:28 PM
2

okay... thats actually messed up, like what the actual hell...
/r/MensRights26/01/16 06:57 PM
2

Are you actually kidding me? thats somewhat insane...
/r/MensRights26/01/16 06:00 PM
1

mhmm, but most forms of reports on it are negative...
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:59 PM
2

Sorry about any confusion I caused, and its definitely strange how feminists fear gender neutral laws
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:57 PM
2

tbh we attempt to not be hyperbolic, we base ourselves around facts, which is what distinguishes from feminism, as a result being hyperbolic would be counter productive or atleast thats the impression i get, though i can understand from the outside it may seem like whining.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 10:52 AM
1

Oh ive argued the merits of feminism with many a feminist, when i bring up the bias rape laws they support, manipulation of stats, bomb threats, fire alarm pulling, online censorship etc. the generally are left unable to say "but feminism is good" or "its just the extremes" (well to the last one i just reply "if youre a feminist, its your job to control how much power your extremists have" - which they have no response to), that being said, every guy i know, knows im an MRA and they all know i i…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:36 AM
1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/snl-did-a-sketch-about-rape-again-and-it-still-wasnt-funny_us_56a64641e4b076aadcc736e5 ??? hmm seems pretty negative... infact the majority of results seem pretty negative, i might have the wrong sketch however... (i dont normally link to huffingtonpost but this one seems reasonable)
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:31 AM
2

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/ <-- on there, i may have misrepresented how it turned out (im not too sure, i only read them at a glance, they definitely fought against changes to the opposite) http://www.firstpost.com/india/rape-law-amendment-where-are-the-cases-of-sexual-violence-against-men-384227.html http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape Clinical psychologist Mary P. Koss of the Universi…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:20 AM
1

erm sure, its in the MRA links area, gimmie a sec
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:17 AM
1

That makes sense, though I would say its more that the paper we use is already vandalised and we work with that to make the posters seem unique. Because feminism isn't destroying the word we put out instead they attack us as a group before we even get the chance to announce ourselves or views independently of them (if that makes any sense)
/r/MensRights26/01/16 08:41 AM
2

I disagree that I was fortunate, they were apathetic and some in denial when I first brought it up, but they listened and changed, it wouldn't surprise me if it were taboo to bring it up, but when they have to listen (in a somewhat controlled environment) it seems they suddenly become more open to the issues because they cant simply deny they exist... At which point they cant start denying they exist after acknowledging them... But that's just how it worked for me, maybe I was just lucky or i'm …
/r/MensRights26/01/16 08:35 AM
2

I've been about for 4-5 months (maybe longer, I cant remember), and I doubt I got lucky... I could argue that I'm just hard to argue with because I'm so reliant on stats etc. That the issues I talk about have to be acknowledged... I mean at the start of the year that hostility existed to an extent, but it seems people were acknowledging the issues too quickly... I could argue that the MRM is gaining more traction due to the breakdown of the feminist narrative, but that wouldn't change the fact t…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 08:28 AM
9

Of course not! we all OWN multi-million dollar companies... Tsk, uncultured degenerate /s
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:59 AM
6

the fact you can question it is worthy of merit though, considering well most feminists, that and he is just so sassy...
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:58 AM
0

Now now, not all DV support groups are anti-male, many are apathetic, but due to sexism laws, to completely reject them would have legal consequences they wouldn't be too happy about, as a result they are usually compliant to the minimum levels... aka advice (they wouldnt risk ever sheltering them etc)... or atleast thats what many men in the uk have told me.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 10:13 PM
1

Its sick i know, it needs fixing, its a pain to read and the only thing that linked to it didn't give enough information as to the exact part, it needs to be dealt with...
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:24 PM
1

Its not judges, its magistrates.... who are predominately older midde-class women, no other group has enough spare time.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 01:42 PM
1

the Human rights act couldn't be removed very easily, even if the government could remove them, doing so would be incredibly bad for them, as they would have a very high likelihood of revolt on their hands... the privileged dont like losing their privilege. Plus the human rights act has to be there to be in the EU, in the current economic times, the UK couldn't leave the EU without killing ourselves financially, the conservatives (and labour) both know that, why do you think they havent removed …
/r/MensRights23/01/16 01:39 PM
1

Hmm, strange, upon reading that section it talks about "reasonable cause to believe", no need for conviction, this I actually quite scary... That being said its just begging for an appeal to the UKSC, or the ECHR... I apologise for calling you incorrect it does seem I was reading the wrong section (i said i could've missed it, which is why i added the link - god I'm studying law and cant understand it... How can anyone else?), this is horrid how can they do that to the poor man...
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:46 AM
2

Actually the act itself (which is probably the best bet here) states you DO NEED previous... lets deal with this in a logical order: what do you need to get one? (1)A court may make an order under this section (a “sexual harm prevention order”) in respect of a person (“the defendant”) where subsection (2) or (3) applies to the defendant. This subsection applies to the defendant where— (a)the court deals with the defendant in respect of— (i)an offence listed in Schedule 3 or 5, or (ii)a finding t…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 11:29 PM
1

edit: (whole thing changed) its interesting, he must have prior, you need a conviction, an acquittal should stop it, the only grounds i could think of that prevent it would be the fact that it was before a trial and they needed an interim on him to prevent it before his trial... but there are no provisions for that under the act that i can see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/schedule/5 <- do correct me if i am wrong, its my first encounter with this "lovely" cough vile cough piece of…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:56 PM
7

he could name several different each days.... like every hour "at 10 tomorrow im having sex with emma" "at 11 tomorrow im having sex with sarah" "at 12 tomorrow im having sex with jenny" "at 1pm tomorrow im ahving sex with chloe" "at 2pm im having sex with steph" etc. it has to be 24 hours before hand for each person... contact a few female friends you trust and keep notifying the police everyday for the same women... just to fuck them over... it can last indefinately too, if they get it turned …
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:35 PM
11

its probably so if someone says "he raped me" in the future, they can say "well he didnt even tell us he was planning to have sex so we can get him on that if nothing else"
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:27 PM
8

We don't actually have a "constitution" that's unbreakable in fact we dont even have a written one at all (so called - and bullshit - parliamentary sovereignty) however that being said, we do have human rights, and this violates at least one, his right to privacy, considering there is a conservative push to stay in the EU, get this to the supreme court of the uk, or into the European court of appeal and he should win. edit: this however, is subject to a qualification which is "uch as is in accor…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:18 PM
1

Its a shame we lack in areas we try to make up for the. However, it should be noted if you didn't know she had been drinking at the time of her "incapacity to consent" then you should have a defence, I'm nor sure how far that foes (Oregon seems pretty strict on these - or at least the wording is) it may be a reasonable belief or not (the law didn't say - but it puts the onus on you to prove it... Beyond that it sounds like it was consensual... It's be best to get expert advice however, I'm not m…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:21 AM
1

Doesn't look like there's much support, hmm... Well there's no huge difference in skill between public defenders and private lawyers (you just don't get as much choice) its a common misconception... Just try to get one that has a good reputation... Note: Only put about 30 mins of research in, there will be more useful info from more informed individuals... Unfortunately we as a grip have just begun to start gaining momentum, so groups for such things are hard to come by... Play your cards right,…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 07:08 AM
2

im still confused as to the location (i dont keep upto date with the news much, unless its something im interested in, sorry)
/r/MensRights22/01/16 12:00 AM
1

What circlhat said, also location (even if only country/state) will be needed (im going to assume the US for now) but even then the law will vary by state and so will the options available (as there are a few small groups laying around in some of the bigger cities).
/r/MensRights21/01/16 09:40 PM
4

To be honest the Grass-eaters probably don't even know MGTOW even exists, its funny really, MGTOW and Grass-eaters aren't even similar in nature, MGTOW and Grass-eaters are distinctly different in that one is intellectually based around increasing awareness etc. and boycotting female relationships (or marriage depending on severity), whereas one has generated tons of male spaces (which feminism is trying... unsuccessfully mind you to invade - anime, manga, etc.) based solely on instinct, the onl…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 08:43 PM
2

Shes dictionary definition feminist, not reality feminist, there's a difference, shes for men's rights but also for female ones... we in the MRA focus on mens rights, (i also support equal rights for women etc. but my current focus is men as we are more discriminated against and my beliefs in equal society exist outside my support for the MRA) but shes a feminist when framed in the dictionary sense (unlike most other feminists who claim to be dictionary definition feminists but are actually slig…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 09:39 PM
1

that and if they were to try a "totalitarian matriarchy, men sorted into castes depending on politics and attractiveness" i dont think A: minority men would be too happy (they just left slavery -.-), B: guys are weak enough to allow it, after a few years resentment builds, we would arm ourselves and bring it all back to reality... (because to be honest they wont give us political means to get it back to reality)
/r/MensRights19/01/16 04:55 PM
3

Welcome to the sub, couple of things... if you assert anything as fact, prove it, sources for studies, video evidence etc. (lest we repeat it and cant source it when its important) treat people with respect (unless they have given you good reason not to) discuss and critique - ive learned a lot from being disagreed with... if you make a post, please make it useful, too many low quality posts makes reading the board tedious. beyond that welcome, we have a lot to discuss, im sure youll learn stuff…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:03 PM
3

https://web.archive.org/web/20151216092334/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf Here you go (i wanted it recently and it wasnt working either so i grabbed a archived link.)
/r/MensRights18/01/16 03:48 PM
1

The amount of women dropping could be due to the nature of the job changing, where being an admin 30+ years ago required completely different skills to now, (back then OS where far more primitive and more text based - we now rely more heavily on built in GUIs and such, having specific employees for things such as programming [who are specifically specialised in it] with the skills changing the demographics attracted to it would naturally change...) or at least that's my guess as to why there was…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 07:46 AM
1

Exactly, that's why its never reason enough
/r/MensRights16/01/16 09:54 PM
3

no by physical, iim refering to the idea that if they are attacking them and fight back and they kill them then sure, fuck it, there own fault for attacking them, but the moment they claim "he was being mean to me so i stabbed him" fuck them -.- (im not talking about attacks that are premeditated and planned, im talking about at the moment of supposed abuse, and they fight back, killing them, if its a physical attack it's justified (so long as it was a reasonable in the situation), but if they a…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 05:35 PM
10

A threat would have to be enough to cause a reasonable person (based on circumstances) to think they would actually be killed and even then its dubious... For instance if I said "shut up or I will kill you" but id never touched them before or anything, they'd have a hard time saying "everyone would have feared for their lives" sorta thing
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:32 AM
90

Emotional abuse shouldnt ever be a defence to murder, physical abuse i can come to terms with, emotional though, if there is no fear for your own safety (in fact life or serious harm - which should be judged objectively) then there shouldn't be a defense
/r/MensRights15/01/16 10:21 PM
5

there are many areas we agree on and want to change, they are just few and far between in comparison to the grand scheme of things. For instance, I've seen good debates raised here based on the trp, ive seen discussions raised on how to lower suicide, raise self-esteem of the average male etc. and on topics like these, i think theredpill actually is going to be more knowledgeable and in areas like these, it would be best to work with them, while they focus on how to pick up women, they are also …
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:48 PM
1

Only if there was 1 counselor which means that this institution I woefully under prepared
/r/MensRights15/01/16 09:27 AM
2

Its possible, regardless they need downvoting and dealing with, but we don't censor here (all views are allowed so long as you don't mind them being challenged)... Its a shame feminists resort to such pathetic levels really
/r/MensRights15/01/16 08:49 AM
2

Feminisms credibility in the UK was hit quite badly today following a case were a young man was found not guilty of rape incredibly quickly in court recently (and was kicked of campus while the investigation was going on - not sure about now), it was then covered and supported (relatively) by the TV show loose women, saying that they think rape accusation defendants should be anonymous until they are charged, this has created a situation where we may gain a huge amount of viewers (directly or ot…
/r/MensRights15/01/16 01:07 AM
1

We don't approve of misogyny here, we don't mind criticizing feminism (where its due), we dont mind moaning about women who have genuinely done something wrong, but carpet attacks against half the human race is uncalled for and unnecessary, please refrain from doing so... I am however under the current view that you are a feminist poser with no other posts on this site... Edit: on review of my second point (that you have no other posts) I was close 3 posts from 9 months ago in that had idiotic i…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 11:29 PM
6

We don't approve of misogyny here, we don't mind criticizing feminism (where its due), we dont mind moaning about women who have genuinely done something wrong, but blanket attacks against half the human race is uncalled for and unnecessary, please refrain from doing so... I am however under the current view that you are a feminist poser with no other posts on this site... Edit: on review of my second point (that you have no other posts) I was correct...
/r/MensRights14/01/16 11:25 PM
1

There isn't an effective approach to test this (that I know of), what I'm saying is, data at the far end of a scale like this would adversely affect any results gained, just because a small portion of men get enough sex to drag the average up doesn't mean the average is actually that high, if we are looking at the true average male and female then we need to discard the insanely high results but then we have little to no data... Same applies for tallying and I don't think its todo with the mathe…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:54 PM
1

Heh possibly, I am kinda tired right now, I will address this then,though the rest was nonsense, the current theory is that 80% of males have far less sex in a given time frame than the other 20% (or at least that's what the rest are saying - I make no claim that this is in any form accurate), this would mean that the 20% is anomalous data as it doesn't fit the pattern, when dealing with mean statistics you don't factor in extreme numbers as it damages the results, here it pushes up the average …
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:31 PM
1

You just said it did sway it... By anywhere upto 4-6% and id need you to cite that both are at 4-6% and whilest they may be virtually identical they aren't necessarily the same infact if men make up a slightly higher percent of the population added to the fact that all stats remain the same, there would be more male gsy people meaning men have sex more... Okay okay that's assuming all stats (amount of males having sex heterosexual sexual relationships and amount of women having hetroswxual sex i…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:42 PM
5

are they trying to kill of the human race? i swear there is some underground movement manipulating these guys, because no one can be this stupid thinking a system where one group (women) can categorically abuse another group (men) and the other group (men) is assumed to be the abuser, and any evidence contrary to that is proof of the others abuse (men)... its stupid, how can they think men will enter into relationships in a situation like that... i suppose we are over populating the planet....
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:41 PM
2

actually it does, as you completely ignored this part of what he said "sex partners than men do." this part is an issue, as there are (by my hypothesis) more high looks women than men, that creates a demand for them men, these men may catch an illness and pass it on to numerous women... they may actually have less sexual partners than men (which is what i'm suggesting). i'm going to assume that you thought i was supporting him (not the case, i was giving the 20/80 rule, but even that's not neces…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:24 PM
0

Not necessarily, whilst logically if 1 person had sex with another one person for life that holds true, in a society where promiscuity is rampant and the higher your looks are the more likely you are to have sex, this creates what I call a group of "hyper-promiscuous" men and women, woman with make up and cosmetics can artificially achieve these higher numbers men cant (socially use of make up etc. Is condemned for men - slowly going I think - men who wanna should be allowed), its either a matte…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:44 PM
2

I'm maybe a tad strong there,it may not necessarily be femininity itself, but women are definitely less inclined to perform dirty unpleasant work than men, it could just be a matter of opportunity "heh they'll do it for us, so why both", who knows but
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:52 AM
1

its our current society, if men took on all the traits of women (including their view that they can be anything they want, how many men do you think would choose such positions if they actually believed they were above it?), how many service jobs do you honestly think would be performed, i mean how many women would be WILLING to lower themselves to servicing sewers? filling pot holes? (whilst receiving the hate of all drivers everywhere for making their journeys longer?) how many do you think wi…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:53 PM
3

hes referring to a labor force, women are "often/usually" weaker and dare i say it "apt" when it comes to physical work, less pleasant work, and so on (lower levels of spacial awareness... - or at least that's what I've read), as a result of this, if young men start taking on feminine traits, things that are needed by society such as builders, sewer cleaners etc. would diminish in numbers... since we push men into these areas and not women we make men feel like they are only capable of being bui…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 01:05 PM
2

What do they plan to do about this thing called the homeless.. like i get that the majority of the homeless are men so women are generally sheltered from the issue (god forbid they be on the streets - oh the horror) but like what'll they do, throw them in prison? you know this idea in the uk MAY actually make the situation BETTER for a lot of men... (it would give ways out for the domestically abused as well... just stay out after dark a few times... - and since we dont normally mix the seriousl…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:20 PM
2

that part is probably worded badly, its usually a matter of whether the reasonable man would have realized they weren't consenting (if a woman "stops consenting" in her head but does nothing to notify the man, then that isnt rape, if you do everything upto sex, and she stops consenting but doesnt notify you in anyway, it isnt rape, even if you don't say "do i have permission to have sex with you" because its implied, and the reasonable man would think it was consented and as we are mind readers …
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:58 AM
2

dependent on the location, the uk relies on the "reasonable man" principle, if a reasonable man would have thought they were consenting, it isn't rape, but if the reasonable man would have thought they weren't then its rape.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:54 AM
1

Thats true, but there also wasn't the facilities to publicly fat shame, but it certainly happened on individual basis's, being fat for anyone non-middle class simply made it incredibly hard to survive because you couldn't perform laborious work, which made you a laughing stock if you were overweight. fat people in today's society are at more risk due to it, being hostile being over weight (not the people but being overweight) is necessary to keep rates low, especially considering our current rec…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 10:19 PM
1

being fat isn't healthy, it causes serious health risks, as a result it shouldn't be accepted, you wouldn't say "its their body let them take drugs" because it isn't healthy and can kill them, the same applies to weight.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 08:51 PM
1

ahh but he is also socially ridiculed... the difference is, if you swapped the genders, they couldn't possibly be mean about her, its in the context, if its a dude, then dude is a lump who needs to sort his life out and is absolutely terrible for the kids, utterly irresponsible and so on. if its a she, then shes someone who needs help or if shes happy as she is then allowed to be like that and be desired, being fat shouldn't be seen as ugly "real women have curves"...
/r/MensRights08/01/16 08:48 PM
1

this... and when questioned why simple say what he said, and then carry on... it.. simply too dangerous
/r/MensRights07/01/16 12:28 PM
1

it seems to be down, i linked an archived webpage to it that is loading in my response...
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:58 AM
1

Firstly i would like to say welcome to the sub, we are happy to recieve any new members, secondly, i suggest looking at articals based on the consad pay gap study https://web.archive.org/web/20151216092334/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf (sorry bout using an archived link, i cant load it normally). also look at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ to show figures that …
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:57 AM
1

who knows, im just pointing out ways that sort of thing could be mitigated if it was mass produced
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:09 AM
1

really? i thought it cut off the pipes? thus no fresh sperm could be supplied... sperm dies after a couple of weeks from being out of the testicles... and i thought that the pipe that piss and cum comes out of, was shared in terms of penis... so wouldnt the pipe be cleared so long as you went toilet? and even if it weren't, isnt piss somewhat acidic (ranging from 4.5-8?) due to its nature of getting rid of unwanted stuff from the body which would theoretically kill sperm right?? I'm asking out o…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:57 PM
1

simple, a car key type device but make it FINGER PRINT the individual so if it isnt the right peep it quite literally BEEPS! (and make it work only in close proximity...) that way we can dump anyone who tries to change it... and have some form of internal notice, it lights up, or vibrates, or it itself, makes a sound...
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:33 PM
1

this is simple to solve, add a sound function, vibration function, or light function... can you imagine them turning it on in a dark room and her face suddenly lights up with your dick down her throat?
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:28 PM
1

nah i wasn't implying that, though that would also constitute rape, though if i were a dude, just before inserting i would check it or make a version with a phone app... but you get the points i were making, it would definately have interesting affects on the dynamic of a family...
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:15 PM
2

This would be awesome... I have 2 main reasons for being interested in this... firstly the social implications and situations that might arise such as: Dude and dudett in a bar, (one drink a piece and both capable of establishing consent), head back to his place, both get their freak on when just before sex the dude says "hold up, gimmie a sec, gotta turn my balls off" dudett: "erm what?" dude: "didn't i tell you i had testical implants to turn my sperm off..." welcome the introduction of the mo…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 06:43 PM
2

I would answer no, and that an interesting research point would be on "is there a link between male Bonding and suicide rates?" specifically do males who bond with other males frequently have lower suicide rates?
/r/MensRights06/01/16 02:45 PM
1

news papers have to post the truth, and people are catching onto the lies (or deliberate hiding of information) thankfully, our numbers seem to have increased considerably which is good, and its only increasing i hope... (we were on 13k the other day, we are back up to 14k and rising.) its why their is this huge push to make harassment include being called out online etc.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 02:38 PM
1

pretty much every kids show on tv right now aimed at 5-10 year olds portrays fathers as bad... look at "the amazing world of gumball", "adventure time", "Clarence", "Steven universe", and the list goes on, in fact i struggle to shows that show fathers in a good light in childrens TV shows.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 02:23 PM
2

Nope, confessions are admitting guilt, saying something incriminating isn't necessarily admittance of guilt... Anything and everything can be used against you... I recently watched a video on it in which it demonstrated that even someone who answers everything perfectly could incriminate themselves... (gimmie a sec and I will find it). The fact is that even the most innocent of people can incriminate themselves... Its why we are advised to never say anything to the police without a solicitor but…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 01:31 PM
1

They can and have... You just need to incriminate yourself in an interview which is incredibly hard to avoid even if you're innocent... Not to mention all they need is circumstantial evidence which if you did have sex etc... There will be an abundance off, added to interviews etc. Its entirely possible to be convicted without concrete evidence... These aren't "rapes in alleyways" they're false accusations with someone consenting or seeming to consent... There will be plenty of circumstantial evi…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 10:07 AM
1

no, if you didn't ask and they file a charge, but they did everything suggesting a yes, i will argue it out in court till i convince a jury that what i thought was the case was reasonable to be thought, that's legitimate defense... if i lose i lose and i clearly dont think like a "reasonable" person and therefore should be locked up... - fortunately i have no intention of getting a partner or having sex anytime soon as its simply too much hassle and too much risk, as a result i should be fine (a…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 08:18 PM
1

Its easy to make a counter claim they just normally don't believe you and therefore put little effort into it (or if you make the claim first then they simply believe her more) our laws on DV are pretty neutral as far as I know (though I haven't really looked). Its a shame society is so indoctrinated in the belief that men cant suffer
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:27 PM
2

Affirmative consent can be dubious where they don't expressly give it, that's the problem, which is the point this forum is making, its also why the law acknowledges implied consent, calling us sick is a short sighted impression based on a lack of understanding of our view point...
/r/MensRights05/01/16 05:23 PM
0

Actually we aren't sick individuals much of the stuff on that list doesn't establish consent but the absence of yes doesn't mean no when all circumstances suggest otherwise, and the law acknowledges that, because their is a thing called implied consent where the circumstances strongly suggest consent exists and it would be unreasonable to assume that it wasn't there without one party expressly saying so...
/r/MensRights05/01/16 11:35 AM
-2

sighs nope, the absence of no but tons of body language saying yes does mean yes as so long as a reasonable man would think she was consenting its consent under rape under uk law. Reasonable belief comes from all circumstances surrounding the situation, if you had done everything upto but before sex with verbal "yes yes" etc. Then continue and she doesn't say no but just moans with no "yes" etc. Its perfectly reasonable to assume they were consenting, and unlikely you will be charged, if you get…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 11:26 AM
2

Is it victim blaming if someone who is drunk gets in a car drives crashes and kills themselves and we say "they shouldn't have been drink driving" I don't think so... The law in the UK has a section that allows the defendant to say "I reasonably believed she consented" basically if they are acting as if they are a reasonable person and the reasonable man would think they were capable of consent then that's a defence, the mere intake of alcohol doesn't prevent consent, the inability to consent fr…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 11:07 AM
1

I believe its been that way for a while but they were reaffirmed by the sexual offences act 2003, and I believe forced sex with a man is covered by a select area under "causing sexual activities with out consent" which allows for a life sentence (only 3 other areas have life anything else off the top of my head has a maximum of 5 years) Edit: For anything else - summary offence 6 months indictable offences 10 years Edit2: Whilst I dislike this system, men are at least covered by something... I j…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 10:36 AM
1

fair nuff, that woulda been my approach though (far more money in that)... itd be like "why the hell did this young man get pressured into pleading guilty when you had no evidence besides he said she said", though realistically it falls to his lawyer im guessing?
/r/MensRights03/01/16 07:15 PM
1

why didnt he sue the state? its quite easy to do if there was so little evidence? (or at least it should be, most states pay outside of court to avoid the news hassle but you get the idea)
/r/MensRights03/01/16 05:15 PM
1

mhmm, well the cps cant, but if people create outrage the attorney general can change it (i think), though i could be wrong, its been a while since i covered the appeal procedures (i should probably brush up).
/r/MensRights31/12/15 07:46 PM
0

I disagree, no law, no matter how important can be brought through that can change 2 principles in the law, and that is "you are innocent until proven guilty" and that guilt has "to be beyond a reasonable doubt", no judge would stand for it, and no lawyer would up hold it, it would never happen, the point of the law is to achieve justice and the supreme court judges in all countries knows what would happen if we got rid of them 2 founding principles of the law. it would simply be ignored... we h…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 11:57 AM
1

The uk and US legal systems are weird, they influence one another and as a result, to see any real legal changes we need larger pushes in the US too, that being said as we (in England) change our (views) on these issues it should pressure the US to do the same. Don't get me wrong, I know each state is different etc. But in terms of courts they heavily influence one another (then again our courts also take into account Australian courts - we take a lot of courts into account). It'll be interestin…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 07:57 AM
1

I would say that many are egalitarian and MRA, I mean I can be both right?
/r/MensRights29/12/15 11:26 PM
1

That isn't the point that I'm making I'm making a point about human nature in so far as all humans when faced with hugh stress unexpected situations we make quick decisions and therefore we need to ensure its thought about properly
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:45 AM
2

Interestingly men statistically speaking are less religious and are less concerned with religious dealings, this actually leads me to the opposite position, namely that, while men who are religious are more bound by tradition (which fits your point) i doubt the majority of males support it, on the flip side, while more women are religious in general, they are also less bound to traditional beliefs, i would argue its about equal. if oyu want sources on the studies of females being more religious …
/r/MensRights26/12/15 09:28 PM
10

This is actually pretty simple: 1: forced abortions, if you can do it without any procedure, then its entirely possible that an individual is pressured into it 2: almost everything costs money, and this is a way of measuring how much is spent on it, and allows for adequate preparation and planning (imagine if they only had enough to perform half the countries abortions...) 3: it ensures thorough thought on the issue, many people jump to conclusions and decisions etc. this causes people to think …
/r/MensRights26/12/15 09:18 PM
1

that last one... im remembering that if i ever get into a situation where my ex-partner/mother of my children (god forbid) starts playing silly beggars with the access arrangements
/r/MensRights26/12/15 02:12 AM
2

sighs you have a very cartoonish view of who feminists are and what they actually believe. You, like the rest of the MRA movement, show zero interest in actually talking with feminists and trying to understand their perspectives. We actually make a distinction between "average people identifying as feminist" and "feminists" for one reason.... power. if i were to say this: "are men privileged in society" you have to say yes, or feminism doesn't need to exist. The problem with that though is a hug…
/r/MensRights25/12/15 08:05 PM
1

cough wage gap cough rape culture cough only women can be victims of DV cough
/r/MensRights25/12/15 12:48 AM
2

What really grates me (and one i refuse to watch) is the ghost busters series that is supposedly coming out... thats where would agree with corpse, i havent seen the film he mentions, but i get how he feels, these were "male spaces" and they are being appropriated (geekdom) its "fashionable" to be seen as into these things as a girl now, look at the whole "gamer girl" shit, and why the MRA's may be slightly angry at this film (from what ive heard) is the fact that the main (spoiler) has no train…
/r/MensRights25/12/15 12:47 AM
2

In the UK i believe they take ALL domestic abuse cases to the courts, solely because if it turns out they were wrong, then "they failed the victim" and are sueable (i believe), i cant say for certain, its just something my law lecturer (at college) said and its something thats irritated me since.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 11:56 PM
1

I have a few suggestions, firstly simply ignore her for a while, after messaging her why (then simply ignore any attempt by her at contacting you, if necessary change your locks). give it a good week, f during that time she does attempt to excessively invade your privacy, leave her, she clearly doesn't understand you, and your need to process emotions, and this will keep happening. on the other hand, if she respects it, attempt to talk to her, and explain that "i fail to see how i do any of the …
/r/MensRights24/12/15 11:46 PM
1

That's counter-able with "no its not, I'm not a woman hater, and what I'm saying isn't hating on women... its the facts (if you are relying on facts, and are willing to show them them, and you need to know what facts they use and why they are incorrect), in-fact claiming its misogynistic just shows the indoctrination against men you've been brought up with, and demonstrates the misandristic beliefs that you actually hold." when they try to counter, all they will have to hold onto is the misogyni…
/r/MensRights24/12/15 02:54 PM
6

Personally I would tell your mother "well if you had an agreement with my dad that you would wait until you were older, and you went ahead and got pregnant when you both agreed to do otherwise, and he left you... i would have left you when i first got the chance." but im a tad extreme
/r/MensRights24/12/15 02:46 PM
1

They share many common traits, but there is a distinction to be made I suppose, I dont know enough about the red pill to provide it though. By common traits I refer to the fact they both aim to increase the amount sex an individual receives, the distinction I suppose can be made at what they are manipulating? Roosh and PUA manipulate women whereas trp manipulate and play a messed up system (as well as advocating other things as well)?? Correct me if I'm wrong however, like I said I'm not an expe…
/r/TheRedPill18/12/15 02:11 PM
1

im going to quote something i put in another thread on this, which i intend to use to explain (in my opinion anyway) why men commit it successfully more often, here goes: The thing is we need more help for guys because we do help women a lot more than men, hell since far more women survive they get the help after anyway because they are still alive where as the guys are actually dead not to say we should just help guys, but women already have a lot of support in comparison to men, and another is…
/r/MensRights18/12/15 01:47 AM
3

Not quite true, thats case for individuals under 13 Sexual activity with a child (1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, and (c)either— (i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii)B is under 13. This therefore demonstrates that under the current law, if you are of the belief that they are over 16, and it is reasonable to believe such, then you have a defense available. No…
/r/MensRights18/12/15 12:39 AM
11

We in the MRA communities by no means consider you woman haters, we (or at-least many) consider the idea of manipulating a system that is considerably against us to obtain sex, as something that leaves a bad taste in our mouth, however we have nothing against the idea of "improving yourself" in fact many of us (i have at times) advocated this, i have seen others advocate the fact that some of the things brought up here are incredibly important, at one point i saw people on the MRA forums discuss…
/r/TheRedPill17/12/15 10:41 PM
10

Interestingly Up until about 200 years ago, the go to parent was the father in custody cases, i believe mothers pressured for a change and this resulted in our current system, it is by no means caused by the "patriachy" https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=63&articleid=414&sectionid=2825 - upon reading this, it seems is a mix of "its right the mothers have rights" and "its more convenient"
/r/MensRights17/12/15 12:07 PM
1

no they really didnt...
/r/MensRights16/12/15 01:34 PM
1

thats why you get blur... it blocks all google scripts, so they may see you linked to the site, but any tracking scripts on the site etc. are blocked, and the ads are blocked by adblocker.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 01:34 PM
1

They wouldn't win, the site is meant for archiving, its very hard for them to say "no it was used to deny us ad revenue" when all we have to say is "no, you cannot prove that, i did it (as the individual) to prevent editing of the article at a later date, as a result of this i have done nothing wrong" at which point they say "use this service then" and you respond "no, the service i use is tried and tested, it is simple, and agreed upon within my community, it isnt dishonest or wrong to apply th…
/r/MensRights16/12/15 01:32 PM
1

the way i phrased what i said wasnt the way i intended, i have a strange process of thought, and at the time it made sense, i was trying to convey that only the opinions of people who arent soo bias as to hate that group, should influence your beliefs and views, and ones that do shouldnt be considered, due to their huge bias, its why i dont listen to feminism, and its why i dont listen to racist groups such as the kkk... i look for reason, where reason is going to be found.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 08:23 PM
1

Whilst thats true, how much i consider the opinion (therefore its existence to me) will be almost non-existant if they are misogynists, that being said that which i consider misogyny to be a very small group
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:43 AM
2

I also think that so long as they aren't misogynists then they have a say, it is by no means our place to say "all men but MGTOW and Redpillers are allowed to be mens rights advocates"
/r/MensRights14/12/15 02:39 PM
2

in the uk its an established principle that you DONT have to help unless in specific circumstances (parent to child, assumed duties, contractual duties and to anyone who is being harmed by a dangerous situation you cause) this is logical because outside these areas there is no "duty to act" and you are only responsible for people and things you cause/accept responsibility for/ create - note this related directly to omission for murder... one of the biggest example given, is if you saw a child dr…
/r/MensRights14/12/15 12:04 PM
3

I have to say though that MGTOW however aren't all bad, in fact I've come across many MGTOW who I've had great debates with, its just that most of them have had something seriously bad done to them and consider the risks too high, that's not hating on women its (imho) them not wanting to tempt fate
/r/MensRights14/12/15 11:03 AM
1

I feel respect for a person (at its lowest level) is unconditional, except in the most horrific cases, for their ideas not so much, but my reasoning for this is simple, one idea doesn't dictate an individuals entire being (it may be an indicator of course), they might hold a seriously stupid/offensive idea on one topic, but then to have no respect for their ideas or them on another seems illogical if their ideas are good just because their previous one was crap. of course some ideas are truly vi…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 11:08 AM
50

You are more than welcome, just remember, be respectful (and you will receive the same), please cite things you state as fact (we love to fact check, and if its useful we might use it ourselves), don't needlessly hate on women... (it really isn't what we are here for), follow the general sub rules. a couple of tips, firstly: the community here is highly divided on topics, just because one thread gets dominated with one sides position (this itself from my experience is rare) don't assume or think…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 01:10 AM
1

I wasn't aware it didn't cause harm, he is paying the same for less based solely on gender, regardless of the standard floor having 10 treadmills, if the woman's section has another 2 that means woman have 12 and he therefore gets less. Edit: Ops commented to wrong peep..
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:17 AM
1

I would also after getting the discount (which I wouldn't settle for any less than 15%) tell other men at the gym until the gym changes either: A) its standard contract for men to include its discount or B) removes the woman's section.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:14 AM
1

I would do this at the start (and would only change if an appeal occurred)
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:09 AM
7

I would consider speaking to a lawyer, as you are paying the same, you can expect the same, and since the difference is caused by gender its "sexism", I can't say for certain it will win, but i expect if a lawyer is involved they will simply lower your fees... - then you start telling all the guys and it gets lowered for every male, or they simply remove the gendered floor space.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 11:48 PM
3

My approach would be to tell the boss: "I am here to work, I'm not obligated to speak to them, if they address me first i shall respond, however i have no intention of starting conversations as i am here to work. on the topic of coming across as angry, I can't help that i look angry, and that it should be of no concern to them unless they are assigned work that means they have to talk to me." Something like that, and heh welcome to the club of people who avoid contact with people (well women for…
/r/MensRights08/12/15 11:43 PM
6

At that point i simply say "okay then, but from now on you aren't allowed an abortion unless your health is put at risk of a "recognized medical condition" - which is held to the same standards the courts hold - and if you don't like that, then don't hold men to them standards".
/r/MensRights30/11/15 02:42 PM
5

It's funny but our "lords" etc. have far less power than most think (the commons have to agree to any legislation) and they cant veto laws anymore only postpone them, the queen+executive are the ones to watch, damn they been doing crazy stuff, heh look up the population of the chagos islands (also known as the chagossians), that shit is wrong... that being said, it was all at the request of the usa... so they hold half the blame for that (hell us soldiers went in and killed ALL THEIR PETS -.-) h…
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:32 PM
1

If you could, it quite literally could save your ass, but since not you are probably screwed unfortunately.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:09 AM
1

If I may ask, can you provide me with the topic prior to the masturbation one (if you were both talking about sexual partners - and clearly you went last - or she brought the topic up niether or both are culpable, very few people go round saying "year i was really shy and only masterbated", it might be your saving grace if you can remember it).
/r/MensRights24/11/15 11:30 PM
3

Well obviously, genders don't exist, but you can have the wrong gendered brain... like seriously, didn't you know? i mean are you denying the existence of trans-people or just justifying gender inequality. cries youre triggering me /s
/r/MensRights23/11/15 11:00 PM
2

hmm, then i retract what i said, and apologize for my unpleasantness, it was uncalled for. you have my sincerest apology. (that being said could it not be argued that fathers have little time to themselves let alone children and so when they do get some they just want to spend it doing nothing? [i honestly don't know])
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:56 PM
15

No, men and womens brains work differently, therefore we think differently, therefore we do different things... the idea we are exactly the same is stupid, should be equal yes, but we aren't the same. http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ therefore the role of each parent in advancing a childs thoughts is highly important, especially for young boys who need the support of someone who has the same thought processes etc. who UNDERSTANDS them.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 09:26 PM
2

"ignore"... REALLY? Don't you mean "mothers refuse access so they can't see the child and cannot afford to appeal to higher courts"? because that's the case in many situations... children get used as weapons by mothers, and i don't know which is higher statistically (yours or my view), but you can't just assume one way or the other and no I wouldn't pay CSA if i wasn't allowed to see the child, they can jail me if they like... If I'm not a fit enough adult to see my child, then I'm not fit enoug…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 09:19 PM
1

Funnily enough many many lawyers already work pro bono and only take cases that they want to take, its just a matter of converting them to our cause... And a celeb being screwed over would benefit it massively. I think many of them on here are lone wolves due to fear, so I don't think something like this would conjure up such a thought as uts to support men
/r/MensRights23/11/15 03:58 PM
1

You wouldn't get donations from most people at the start (only people you had helped), over time and the more people you help the more reputation you get, the more people donate, furthermore like i said the lawyers choose what cases they want to take, they have every right to look for more details and information and if they determine that accusations etc. are true then they don't have to take the case. The biggest issue i see is that by month 2-3 all of the quota will be used, this is the harde…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 11:09 AM
4

You would need 3 main things: money, professionals, and coverage (each can be split into smaller areas, such as money being split into income [money you earn], donations, and savings -note not for profit but making money is none the less important if you want it to be long term- , professionals can be split into: advocates [the people fighting the cases - which can be split further, specialist MRA lawyers and general ones, specialists work MRA cases cheap (even free) and general ones generate fu…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 01:48 AM
1

because at-least a third of them cannot pay anything (being young individuals who have little money or MRA issues causing them to pay money out...) you didn't address this issue (stop being selective about what you cover) and I'm not saying you did, but paying £2-3 for me would mean i cant eat tomorrow lunchtime as i don't have the money (as I'm budgeted to £10 on lunches each week atm). it is unreasonable to expect a group who are often in similar situations as mine to spend money when they don…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 10:20 AM
1

thats still not "apathy", its both fear (which is reasonable) and the name (and like i said they often conceded after it was explained). It's good for a group our size who have very few finances, im not going to bankrupt myself for a film which may or may not move this movement forward.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 12:29 AM
1

1/4 of the goal is good for 100k people considering many of us are young individuals or are paying dearly for being male isn't that why we are in the MRA, the reason feminism started was because it was funded by middle class white women, the MRA is often younger poorer men... therefore it doesn't have that backing and when they aren't they are often being extorted for money by their ex's or the government... we as a group don't have the population to provide 100k, when many of us are struggling.…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 11:15 PM
2

25k out of 90k is not dead, thats just over a quarter... yeah its not all of it, tbh we dont have that number of people who have that kind of money, i would personally guess many mra's are quite young (like milo says we are the ones who are not seeing the world feminists describe) and therefore probably dont have the money... thats a matter that we as individuals cant fix, we need companies, and we need more numbers... fear and mistrust is natural, i was skeptical, being skeptical is okay, many …
/r/MensRights18/11/15 09:21 PM
1

actually that makes no sense, to put it simply whats to say 40% of Milos followers aren't MRAs? i followed Milo and he told me about mens issues and the MRA about 6 months back, i found the fundraiser through Milo and donated because of that, but I'm a MRA and therefore a MRA donated, many MRA's are stressed and working full weeks who want to wind down, and this forum gets me and many othrs riled up, where as Milo is funny and interesting, therefore you have no idea how many MRA's contributed, i…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 08:26 PM
3

sighs on the first point, that I'm supposedly saying all feminists, I'm not, I'm saying that the vast majority of feminists that hold any form of power are (which is a solid and justified position to hold) and the idea of a feminist saying "not all women" when they hate on men for doing the same is somewhat hypocritical. No men fight in wars not because of patriarchy but because men and women want more... they want more land, they want more power they more positions, and to achieve that you need…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 10:57 AM
5

Okay you want to understand why MRAs (this specifically EXCLUDES ALL PUA's including rooch as you seem to think hes one of us), then lets get started shall I? First safe spaces are a form of censorship, something i am completely against, to put it simply if what I'm saying is true, regardless of how hurtful, I shouldn't be silenced because the truth matters more than the feels. Secondly when feminism is supporting gendered rape laws (http://www.firstpost.com/india/rape-law-amendment-where-are-th…
/r/MensRights17/11/15 02:25 AM
1

Techniqually we already can, if you look at the sexual offences act 2003, you will see it has a section called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" which in it states that "(1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity, (b)the activity is sexual, (c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined hav…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 11:32 AM
1

No, its not a matter of fact (they dont HAVE to be certain) due to the law in the uk, there merely has to be the risk of, and them knowing the risk exists... (if you take it at its most literal) and them accepting that if paternaty fraud can be committed through intent then so can it be if you are reckless... its literally implying: well if she knew she had cheated then she knew there were risks. I'm probably stretching this, but i do think there is a distinct possibility of it being illegal... …
/r/MensRights16/11/15 01:01 AM
1

Actually we were both wrong, there have been criminal prosecutions now... that means it would be impossible if the evidence exists for the police not to take it forward. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281202/Mother-conned-Royal-Marine-serving-Afghanistan-father-baby-FIVE-YEARS.html if the evidence existed it couldnt just be hidden as precedent shows its covered under fraud and therefore regardless of societies views is illegal- note i took the link from the user TR6Cool
/r/MensRights15/11/15 10:44 PM
1

She awarded the lecturer £10,000 in damages, £4,000 for loss of earnings and in excess of £25,000 for the child maintenance he had wrongfully paid. <-- quoted from the marilystowe one, whilst it wasn't all of the CSA/Child maintenance he had paid, it was a significant amount of it (and £60,000 in legal costs which takes it over the £80k he did claim), plus you are mixing criminal and civil law, which in the uk are 2 separate areas, I'm talking criminal prosecution here (have them sent to prison)…
/r/MensRights15/11/15 10:28 PM
1

Wait so by the looks of these articles in the uk IT IS fraud? well thats good to know
/r/MensRights15/11/15 06:55 PM
1

Hmm maybe my analogy could use some work, but the point it makes works for now i suppose, that being said, i have to disagree, the fraud isn't committed just because she doesnt know for certain... the act specifically caters to that... the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. if she cheats she cant be certain and knows that it might be untrue or misleading... I'm pretty hard headed, i see where you are coming from, in fact the way you guys have put your responses…
/r/MensRights15/11/15 02:28 PM
1

Fair enough, your brought light to an area of law i didn't know and for that i thank you, and thank you for your input.
/r/MensRights15/11/15 02:27 PM
1

Mhmm, I did check, like I said, anything of public importance will likely be taken by the DPP if an appeal to the higher courts occurs, therefore costs for a fraud case would normally be limited to the lower court (magistrates) unless you pay for the whole case even when you lose control of it (which seems a tad weird to me, though I couldn't find info on how costs worked)
/r/MensRights15/11/15 10:03 AM
1

This is the issue, not the courts in my opinion, i think IF it reached the courts, you would have a good chance of winning - at least in the higher courts (and i didn't think in the UK individuals could take criminal cases to court... I should look into that - I see, so you can do private prosecutions, though fraud for a first count is a summary offence, after which the DPP would probably take it on, therefore you are only likely going to take the first court), that being said, if you provide ev…
/r/MensRights15/11/15 01:47 AM
1

you are as hopeful as myself, that being said i can also see the other side, that feminist indoctrination has reached so far that it doesn't win, but im hopeful that the oldies who sit in the supreme court don't allow it (being from a time before extreme feminist ideals)
/r/MensRights15/11/15 01:10 AM
1

the mere fact that you can do something to check or lower the chance of something, doesnt mitigate fault on the others side (its like saying, if you leave your keys in your car by mistake, someone can take your car and not be arrested) in fact this act actually doesnt even need them to have made a gain or a loss, merely they intend to do so, that being said, I don't know if it would win in court or not, i mean it fills all the needed requirements for fraud (can you give me a section it doesn't f…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 11:53 PM
1

laughs like a maniac If this "Futrelle" doesn't mention me by name, i shall speak to my devilish master whom shall devour him and his family, for I am his voice, I speak the evil that is MENS RIGHTS, it is his goal to enslave and control this world, and to do so... there are 5 things we must achieve to bring hell on earth!!! DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOWN TO BE PERPETRATED EQUALLY feminist denies this saying its a lie THE PAY GAP SHOWN TO BE FALSE TO THE MASSES feminist starts crying LOWER THE MALE WOR…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:51 PM
1

grins if they actually believe me then really who does it make look like an idiot?
/r/MensRights10/11/15 09:03 PM
1

grins sadistically we don't just kill kittens, we offer them up to our dark overlord, master of all evil Lucifer (aka satan) in a cruel sacrifice where we cut each foot off and let them bleed to death whilst they try to run on their stumps, the dark overlord is pleased by the show... But seriously we are supposedly evil xD I don't see it, most people here are really welcoming :p
/r/MensRights10/11/15 06:11 PM
6

If I were the individuals trying to set this up I would seek a probono lawyer for men's rights (or fathers... They might take it on) and take it to court under equality if possible anyway
/r/MensRights10/11/15 05:32 PM
1

It achieves the same thing though, I.e. unless she gives me paternity test she cant put me on the birth certificate and if she does i can sue for all loss that breach causes (if it can be done under contract law anyway), I.e. All loss i lose from CSA i get back in contract law for breach, i still leave her, and i will still demands a paternit test from the courts (upon review of custody...) as a result nothing changes, this is just a temp solution to a problem the government refuses to fix.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:13 PM
2

personally im more concerned with the children... no child will like to find out their parent isnt theres when they are 9-10 years old... that is wrong not to mention geneticly tranfered illness... a few families breaking up over unfaithful partners... that happens anyway... and yes it can be made mandatory... and i think it should, legislation wise, it should only relate to where the father is being put on the birth cirtificate and the mother can choose to comply or refuse (and not put his name…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 12:35 PM
1

Exactly, but the issue there is, to gain access to the sex offenders register (as far as I'm aware and that's by no means perfect and i havent checked recently) you need to be a concerned individual to learn who's on that list anyway. it seems i was wrong about the domestic abuse sitch anyway (you need to ask for it) but i think my system should none the less be employed hell, use both, that way as many peeps as possible know (if its needed).
/r/MensRights04/11/15 07:17 PM
1

A: Didn't say it did, it was more to provide context (as yours sounded like you could quite literally beat them) B: Hitting someone be it adult or child cant be simply said to be right or wrong, context and reasoning is highly important, for instance, slapping a Childs arse if they steal sweets/chocolate is not wrong in my opinion, yes other punishments exist but the discretion lies with the parents and what they think is best, as long as the hitting them causes no "injury" (by which I mean brui…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 09:44 AM
1

Its still legal to hit children so long as it doesn't mark (namely because the parents can give consent to themselves for anything under an ABH) or at least that's what i understand and would figure, because ABH and above don't have a defense of consent and are thus still a crime (which is why its illegal to belt and stab children). This being said, im not fully trained, if you seek more sound knowledge consult your solicitor, or ask another fully trained individual.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:29 AM
1

I think that the police should take the same approach they do in the UK with domestic abusers etc. where they notify the individual concerned (thus future partners) about their previous transgressions (it has nothing to do with the general public, and would help no one, because you could say "your system doesn't help clubbers" but nor would a list that people who are out clubbing wont look at, but is far more private) but it also ensures more concerned individuals are aware as the police actuall…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:25 AM
1

sighs they arent taxed as luxeries in the UK (in fact they are given a special tax rate of 5%, cant speak for most places though (and i can source this fact if necersary))
/r/MensRights28/10/15 03:11 PM
1

Mhmm, they made their beds, now they gotta lie in them, more than likely alone (tbh i wont cohabit either, if i get in a relationship we will have seperate housing so if we do split she can fuck off and i keep my house without sleeping on the sofa.. tbh im too nice to leave someone on the street) Edit: actually taht shoulds a tad bitter, probably not alone but you get what i mean, it aint going to be nice for the
/r/MensRights23/10/15 10:50 PM
1

I know, its stupid, marriage is effectively saying "here i will put my head in the nose, and whenever you feel like topping me, just y'know, kick the chair and say it was suicide" in terms of property and such, tbh im opting out of relationships for now (atleast till i finish uni) but thats namely due to uni specific issues, but after that im not sure, only time will tell, marriage however isnt ever going to happen.
/r/MensRights23/10/15 10:34 PM
1

oh thats true, i shouldnt have merged the two groups to be honest, i think most peeps are just avoiding marriage (though the group avoiding relationships are growing haha).
/r/MensRights23/10/15 10:14 PM
1

Personally I dunno 'bout taken, many guys (good guys at that) just dont want relationships anymore. Now most "good guys" are generally intelligent, or atleast work hard to become intelligent (be it through education etc. or whatever) this has 1 simple effect, they can see that feminism isnt representative of society today... not to mention can see many of the problems associated with relationships and sex. It's just easier and (often times) smarter to hold off. Now i dont have studies but google…
/r/MensRights23/10/15 06:33 PM
1

thats where issues come from but i think there is, i believe they get the power from something called "title IX" http://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chaselaw/docs/academics/lawreview/v40/nklr_v40n1_pp049-092.pdf is where i got my info though cant say for certain its accurate
/r/MensRights21/10/15 12:09 AM
1

depends if its a kangeroo court or not, most juries are actually pretty fair, as they have to go of the evidence and not the feels. i think anyway, though i could be wrong... and tbh probably am i dunno
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:54 PM
1

this doesnt even matter imo... you take your victim as you find them, if his reasoning was as simple as "i dont hit anyone regardless of reason" then it would hold.... or atleast thats my view (and i think thats how it works legally as well, though i cant say for certain)
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:46 PM
1

no she was punching him, and quite possibly the case, he said he "I laid there while she fucked me" which implies she were on top imo.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:45 PM
1

no, we dont say men should express masculinity, we promote it if you want to show it in its traditional forms and we also support men who are "effeminate" i suppose (need a better term i think), anyway the idea that we only support typical masculinity is idiotic, we dont, we support all forms personality and expression of traits, and an individuals ability to choose for themselves what works best and allows them to live happiest, many men dont get that choice as they are scrutinized by society f…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:43 PM
1

sighs first of all you take your victim as you find them, if i stab a joehovas witness and they refuse a blood transplant and die (which would have saved them) i am still guilty of murder even though it was their beliefes that prevented them being saved, his beliefes prevented him hitting her, be it that he believed she would call the "he attacked me" card, or because he was brought up that way, tbh it really doesnt matter, the fact is, he couldnt and you take your victim as you find them, and i…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:37 PM
6

I believe this is a bit like tribunerals in the uk, they have the power delagated to them, thus are expected to perform to the same standards (even if not through the same process) or atleast thats my guess.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:08 PM
3

Can we use this, can we make this a symbol of the mens rights movement, it is perfect... we could litterally make this into an official mens rights movement symbol and they couldnt say its sexist in anyway because that would prove the point even further... it literally conveys the biggest point we here at the MRA have, that mens issues are ignored, put in the back burner, and hidden from society. by all arguments this shows exactly what we need it to show...
/r/MensRights20/10/15 10:44 AM
7

It makes me laugh how the fact that there is this huge gap between men and women in higher/further education where there are far more women, and yet there are still 3-4 times more males in maths and physics... like doesnt that mean percentage wise a vastly higher percentage of males take maths and physics. I ask why?... one answer stands with nature, the fact that men process things in logical ways (as our emotional center isnt active when logic is, and when dealing with problems logic is active…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:07 PM
1

oh i know, it allows for different legal precedent and everything, its stupid, but what can we do, til we are more organised and rallying, not much can be done.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 08:04 PM
1

Erm what law? I don't mean to sound rude, but i thought it was covered by just sexual assualt, i mean theres sexual assualt by penetration but that covers dildoing, fingering etc. and not much else that relates (that i could find) but i could quite easily be missing something edit, actually found it, but it applies to both genders so theoretically not only could you be charged with rape but also this if you are a guy -.- and they would probably try it as well tbh my biggest issue with a seperate…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 10:15 PM
1

Actually most police forces/CPS (or equivalent) have guidelines they need to follow, which is usually based on the idea that "if we have a 50% chance of winning this we will take it to court" the issue with rape is that if drugs are involved or alcohol etc. then much of the evidence is lost as they don't remember (either the drugs block them or you black out) which results in the degrading of DNA and often showering in-between, drinks bottles being thrown out, drugs being out of the system (or u…
/r/MensRights09/10/15 11:33 PM
1

actually i havent argued for financial abortion in a while, ive been arguing for equal access and rights... you are using it as a scapegoat to my arguement, secondly, these numbers are representative, not literal, the government can (and does in countries like the uk) give all parents money, why should only one father be charged for that, especally if both parents are given equal access? you are ignoring the point.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:09 PM
1

Nor are we, we work well, you just dislike the fact it works and you points were disproven
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:43 PM
1

they do... in the uk... all parents get child tax credits and child benefit (if you are on a low income) I think.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:42 PM
1

you cant, but its a matter of context -.- the point i made isnt wrong, even if the figures are stupid. plus our governmen gives all parents money to support children... why cant yours?
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:37 PM
1

thats for the child, split between both aprents instead of one? and if the fathers on the dole, then they are merely redistributing what the father had in the first place, no money amount would be lost by giving both parents equal access... lets use numbers Father (F) gets £130 in the dole mother (M) gets £130 in the dole they have a kid current system: father pays mother £30 for child each week (or somethign) gets access every other weekend new system father gets equal access, either pays mothe…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:29 PM
1

i agree with the right to choose, and i value the opinion you take, its fair enough, i also consider fetus's humans, however i also value the right to choose (if there are risks involved). that being said, if the government incurs no costs (if women cant get a job when they only have the child 50% of the time, but the father can, then thats on them... considering they are supposed to be better multitaskers), secondly, you agree that if niether parent has money but there is equal access then the …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:23 PM
1

by that logic abortions shouldnt exist, is what i would say, or more abortions shouldnt exist where the mother or the child isnt at risk... because if they didnt want a kid they shouldnt have sex... (if they are at risk then okay)... the idea that you should have sex if you dont want a kid, completely contrasts the pro-choice argument, on that, if they didnt want a kid do have sex, so the only time abortions should be allowed, is if they are at risk of serious health issues. secondly if niether …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:11 PM
1

But it wouldnt... how would making a system that means women have to pay for themselves, cost the government more? i have put forwards ideas that would mean that fathers have equal access (50 -50) no cost for gov there... banks where fathers control wahts going out, and mothers have to prove extra costs (so set amounts each week and any thing extra needs proving)... no cost to gov there.... to mandatory paternity testing (isnt medical costs in the us like paid by you individual not tax...) so no…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:06 PM
1

i havent said let them evade (i havent suggested that since the first post), i have said make the system fairer, they cant jail all fathers, and infact if they tried to, rebellion (since you lot have guns) wouldnt be too hard, specially since many national guard (i think thats what they are called), are fathers, are probably in the same situation. the issue you face, is a denial we will hold that much power, we do, but we don't wield it, because we don't want to, because to do so means accepting…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:58 PM
1

ahh but that's another fight, we could demand inquires be performed when these allegations are given, and the inquires have to find proof, without it, and no injuries that are only attributable to the father (hand print matching exists so the mother couldn't put them there) then nothing happens to the situation, (and both mother and father aren't allowed near the children if one accuses the other to prevent indoctrination). these aren't radical ideas, and they create jobs, yes they aren't easy t…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:53 PM
1

but there are, apply the system the uk has (you can have an abortion if it will have a negative impact on your health or life) but beyond that, you cant. then apply a system where the fathers are given fair access and certainty that the child is theres... baam equal and do able, without hurting the government one bit.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:47 PM
1

i never said we make them do anything (in fact im confused where that came from) i asked for logical and applicable solutions, and critique on my own. furthermore, you can and we frequently do force governments to do things, atleast in the uk we do, our government hates the fact we can, but doesnt change the fact we do, we take out government to court when they break the rules, when they ignore human rights, when they don't follow process, they do what we want because they lose power if they don…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:43 PM
2

it also ignores the glass basement, full time jobs that mainly only men take... i.e. garbageman (its compared to cleaners but they are paid less, i think)
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:37 PM
1

then they need to. you accept the system is broken, but propose no solutions. im always open to ideas, as a result i didn't argue the idea of the option to drop out (it does have many problems) but solutions are always a good idea too (plus you never criticized the changes i suggested after that, id value your input on them)
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:32 PM
1

or just fairer rights over our children, i dont think most mens rights activists are so much annoyed by the current system (atleast not english ones, as our system requires a reason, be it physical or mental health, to you, your children (already alive) or the fetus) which is judged by 2 doctors) as a result, if men were simply given better access many fathers would be happy with it, along with mandatory paternity testing and a better system of how benefits are determined (see my post below)
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:31 PM
1

not really, they took on the risk of parenthood by themselves and are ultimately responsible, not the "fathers" or the government, if the mothers cant handle it, they forfeit their rights to the child until they can, thus the child is put into care. its extreme but no more so than the current system, in my view, its basically financial slavery right now... the only other option i can think of is give all fathers mandatory 50% access, and remove all bias towards either gender, who ever breaks sai…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:22 PM
0

I disagree, not because a child doesn't deserve support, but because the father doesn't willingly take on the responsibility, and you shouldn't be penalized for a responsibility which you didn't take on, especially when you earn large amounts of money and a percent is taken out... I agree with a form of financial abortion, however i would be willing to accept (due to the child's rights) a mandatory paternity test for all "named fathers" i.e. anyone named as father, furthermore reforms to how chi…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:57 PM
1

Erm if you wish to learn a little about the group, on the right hand side of the forum there is a section called "interesting discussions" that lists out different issues we have, ranging from bias laws, to ways we are discriminated against, to why feminism isnt a solution for mens issues (and subsequently why many MRA's dislike feminism). i would suggest readinging this one in particular: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/ it explain…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 01:35 PM
2

Sorry, english isn't my strong suit, plus I was rushing (I shall attempt to format it now).
/r/MensRights02/10/15 11:04 PM
7

I disagree, let’s look at the traits commonly associated with masculinity "strength, determination, decisiveness, logical, stable, discipline and confidence" okay, not all encompassing but enough id say. Anyway, these things you can easily attribute to any form of sports star, any form of successful person (because its nigh on always attributed to hard work, not that I’m saying it isn’t but other factors are usually involved), and soldiers. These are the areas they are commonly associated with. …
/r/MensRights02/10/15 09:55 PM
3

in the uk they probably could... there are 3 elements to the area of manslaughter i would aim for (which would be unlawful act manslaughter): There must be an unlawful act The unlawful act must be dangerous (this is the area that id be worried about winning on... does danger mean physical harm or all forms of harm?) The unlawful dangerous act must cause death i would argue this has all three though i dunno, im not a fully trained lawyer, just have an A-level in law.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:54 AM
1

sighs It shouldn't be a matter of her having more strain having to keep the child... thats her choice... and thats the issue, its completely her choice and we have no say, so why should we be responcible for the fact that she wanted a child KNOWING we didn't. Before you say "if you didn't want kids don't have sex" by that logic, if I enter into an agreement to have a child the moment I have sex, so does a women by agreeing to have sex with me... and thus she shouldnt be allowed an abortion... if…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 01:26 PM
2

the difference between us and feminism in this area is that it isnt the same thing, he wasnt saying all feminists are evil (take note of this part) but that the movement is, even if phrased badly (or atleast tahts what i took from it). you might say "but if they are part of an extremist movement then they are extremist" i disagree, i would argue that the majority of members are for equality but the figure heads whom they look to (i dunno for guidence?) are more radical and lead them toward a mor…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:08 AM
1

Actually i havent once said this was a mensrights issue or one with feminism i simply think they advocate a victimhood society for women and dont advocate prevention, i was merely stating that it needs addressing, and it does, its not victim blaming saying that individuals should lower their own risk when they go out, its logical to increase the risks of a crime whilst lowering the rewards, i.e. you are almost certain to get caught grabbing a girl who has 3 friends with her and thus the reward i…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 01:29 PM
1

no its the fact that whenever anyone brings this fact up, its is called victim blaming, no, saying that people take responcibility for their safety and ensuring they have ways of getting home after etc. that are safe is important but so many people arguing its victim blaming, when it isnt, its victim prevention, thats the whole point. Yes if you go out at night when cars cant see you, then you are more likely to be hit, thats an obvious risk, but that risk is slim enough to avoid, in this so cal…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 12:01 PM
1

No that's taken out of context, my point is to not say its there fault, its to say they are responsible for the increased risk they put themselves at for not taking reasonable steps to prevent it, its more apt to say, if I go skydiving and shoot fails, then I'm not responsible for the failed shoot, they are because they are the experts (the company - it was their responsibility to ensure all the gear was working, however was I responsible for putting myself in the situation where my reliance on …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:20 AM
1

sighs you are saying I'm saying I victims fault for not preventing... No, I'm saying had the victim taken all reasonable precautions then it wouldn't have occurred or wouldn't have been as likely to occur and to lower the amount of victims they should have people take these precautions... That's not victim blaming that's victim prevention, if they don't take precautions then their risk of attack rises and that risk increase can be attributed to them, however the victim is at no fault for the act…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 08:11 AM
1

i dont advocate victim blaming i adovcate victim provention. if you provide oportunity, then would be rapists will take them, its not to say the victim isnt a victim or is at fault, but they could potentially have prevented it. take a situation where a woman goes out with a couple of friends, all female, all get pissed out of their faces, have no way to get home (as uk law means any establishment has to prevent drunk people driving in the uk by taking their car keys), so have to walk, each live …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:24 PM
3

Well 15 dollars multiplied by a few thousand (because thats probably how many dudes go there and make sure to spread the word) is quite a bit, they might just drop the women only hour to not have to pay out to that many people each year at that... so youre looking at a loss of 15 x 2000 (i dunno, just a rough guess) thats 30000 a year in loss/lower profits, not to mention unless its justified a law suit may follow (im not sure on the laws where you are so its a guess) its probably far more benef…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:38 AM
1

I think that a group meeting would serve best myself, it would allow for the safety in numbers approach i mean if one of us is a feminist they cant y'know try and convert the others or attack them as they are ournumbered in both actual numbers and belief, not to mention any form of action needs to be group orientated as a group is always stronger and we need to show that the mens rights group is both united and agreeable (if people cant swallow our ideals they wont change society based around th…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:19 AM
1

Its a fundamental part of who i am to be cautious, its served me very well in avoiding trouble that would only cause harm and have no benefit, that being said the fact that I'm willing to work to forwarding the mens rights movement shows that caution and confidence arent necersarily foes, i think that someone who is purely confident and has little caution or atleast doesnt think about their actions before hand will often self-destruct whereas being cautious and confident work together well, i ha…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:16 AM
6

Rather than show interest in equality for all, you're only discussing the interests of "men." Issues for a man's rights are the same for everyone. Boxing yourselves into a niche group like this is not healthy. It is only going to breed resentment of other groups (in this case women). Actually I think its the way to go and I have some sound logic behind that, solely because the feminist movement wont die out... basically the feminist movement is currently (probably always was and will be too) hea…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 09:20 PM
1

sighs i fail to see how "attempted suicides" are as important as successful ones, its a cruel and purely pragmatic thought, but put simply, if they fail, theyre alive and will often get support, on the flip side if they are successful, their is no changing it... to put it bluntly one has some chance of being helped and prevented again, the other removes all chance and is final... that being the case, lowering the most final group should be the higher priority not because they are more important,…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:57 AM
1

mhmm, but attempting to set a precedent isnt against the rules (unless other precedent from other cases at or above the appeal court exist) and if it were taken to the appeal court and overturned atleast there would be set precedent to follow in the future. The human rights argument would be going to get it established as ultra vires (as it would be an illegal law) they would be forced to change the wording... not set precedent (if my understanding of precedent is correct anyway), that being sai…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:50 PM
1

Thats not quite true. A: the supreme court can rule parliment to be ultra vires (i think thats how its spelt) meaning they have gone beyond their alloted powers when making a law (as they do have a lot of rules and regulations to adhere to, or if it breaks human rights laws as set out by the EU - i think) thus removing the law, and making it be forced to change, i believe Greyling had that happen to him a lot during the last 5 years. B: judges have the ability to "interpret the law" meaning if h…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 09:02 AM
2

Nope, if you are the biological father you can be asked to pay CSA, however i think its taken out like a tax and is done based on how much you earn, not based on a judges decision (it increases as your pay increases upto 2000-3000 a week (not sure which) then anything over that has a (as far as i am aware, however i could be wrong) has a decreased amount taken out. i believe it also decreases i you have children with other families, and if you have other children with her. https://www.gov.uk/how…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:57 AM
2

mhmm, im definiately looking into them, i wanna help out and im going to, just need to get uni time table etc. i dont see why a llarger pressence doesnt exist, or a functioning alternative doesnt exist
/r/MensRights07/09/15 06:50 PM
2

I just replied (its kinda short, hit save too early)
/r/MensRights07/09/15 06:49 PM
2

I have nothing against feminists and would welcome them, so long as they abide by politeness, such as not interupting when others are speaking etc. and not trying to shout over them, so that their points arent heard (or changing the topic so that the point is lost...) besides that their input is welcome so long as it is sourced and provable... though i think a few feminists might find an issue with that. To be honest i think it would be very hard to shut down when its started if everything they …
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:21 PM
2

Read my comment to tuesday_weld about being ashamed of my beliefs, I was bullied for a good 5-7 years, and over that time, peoples opinions ceased to bother me, and i actively stand for my beliefs and ideals.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 03:18 PM
2

First, I am rather timid, that being said, I don't care for others opinions of me (I gave that up a long time ago). You mention my apologizing for the previous sentence, I don't believe that to be the case, I think as I write, and as a result, I build on what I'm writing so as I go further (much of what i put in brackets is what i add when i go back through it) I add to what i've already said and a decent explanation of what i think and believe are somewhat important, I think that good explanati…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 03:13 PM
2

Mhmm, I'm going to join the SU in the second year, so i might start it up halfway through, so my word has a little backing (and they are, I believe they have the best one in the uk supposedly), and mhmm, I have no doubts this is going to be difficult (Im curious to know how you sue the SU/NUS for being sexist and blocking it... thats a route I'm willing to take) however nothing good was achived without struggle because bad things are usually easier. I actually would like to work with the Femsoc,…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 02:52 PM
2

Well im studying in kent uni, but I live around the london area (and will still be spending a considerable amount of time up there), their feminist movement seems to be very female centric (their description of their group shows that - I will get a archive of the page in a min), though I havent been to any of their events yet, though I will do to get a full understanding of them, as I dont like to criticize unduely.) however they dont show much hostility on it thats anti-male just use the common…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 02:33 PM
2

I hadnt heard of Mankind (or I have one or two times in passing, but this was before what some might call my red pill moment and forgot about them) so I shall look into them, fathers4justice and justice 4 men and boys are both right up my alley, I'm going to uni soon (I start in a week) studying law and they look like great areas to follow and hopefully contribute to, and I personally want to start a mens rights group (anonymous if necersary... not sure what their feminists are like at the uni I…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 02:16 PM
6

The friend-zone was originally used as a joke, its been twisted now, guys and girls generally use it in different situations and for different reasons, there are 2 scenarios were guys use it imo 1: When guys are brought up to believe "being nice to someone you like will mean they might start dating you" then it fails, women don't normally go for the nice guy thing, or at least that's what I've witnessed, so then the guys who are brought up to believe that say "yeah i was friend-zoned, I don't ge…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:00 PM
3

The issue isn't necessarily that, many guys are brought up to believe "being nice to someone you like will mean they might start dating you" now the "friend-zone" changed after a little while, I will give it that, but originally it was guys saying "yeah i was friend-zoned, I don't get it, I did everything women told me to do (as women are societies main socializer's of children...), so that I could get the girl sorta thing but it isn't working look at brad and josh they have different girls ever…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:48 AM
1

Another approach would be to allow fathers to remove all responcibility from themselves whilst allowing the mother to still have the child, what this does is makes mothers who knows the father doesnt want the child (and to verify it a free document signed and dated with witnesses must be used) would then have to weigh up her choices based on WHAT SHE CAN DO and provice not what the father can give her... then to further that to make it fair, if the father wishes to keep the child but the mother …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:02 PM
3

The thing is we need more help for guys because we do help women a lot more than men, hell since far more women survive they get the help after anyway because they are still alive where as the guys are actually dead not to say we should just help guys, but women already have a lot of support in comparison to men, and another issue is that guys keep it all bottled up as they have more and more things thrown on them, be it divorce, alimony, child support and so on and try to cope, all while their …
/r/MensRights23/08/15 08:40 PM
3

This may sound harsh, but shouldnt lives lost be more important to be lowered than more attempts that fail so much that their death count is lower? if a shop had £50,000 and someone attempted to set it on fire and failed, but another shop has £5,000 but the money was destroyed in the fire, then the one that's money was lost is the more important issue as the money can't be materialised much like a life can't be returned, preventing the deaths is more important that preventing non-successful atte…
/r/MensRights23/08/15 02:49 PM
1

'Another couple of Gems... "Im signing because only a mom has that bond with there babies that no man could have" Yeah, that's not sexist at all...' I may be wrong, but neurologically speaking dont men undergo brain changes to become more caring etc... im pretty certain thats a damn good bond right their... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-fathers-experience-brain-change-to-bond-with-their-child-9940117.html http://www.iflscience.com/brain/becoming-fath…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 10:47 PM
1

The law (I just read it) has "recklessness" in it, which if anything like ours means that the average person would think it would cause fear... no one in their right mind would consider a debate online "fearful" unless threats are involved and its been stated that none were. This whole thing points to one logical argument, the crown wants to secure free speech... I cant see how he can be found guilty... unless the jury is filled with radical feminists (unless the coverage is bias and im not gett…
/r/MensRights15/08/15 03:01 PM
2

if he refused to do that, i doubt he did anything worthy of condemning him... he believed feminism was the right thing... hell uptill 3-4 weeks back so did i
/r/MensRights15/08/15 02:30 PM
11

Actually... no, the very reason this occured was because he refused to let them attack a man who made a game about hitting a feminst xD okay not exactly mens rights... just hating feminists... but the fact he disagreed with them attacking him and resulted in this should atleast garner some support.... http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech <--- read that...
/r/MensRights14/08/15 07:34 PM
7

I don't doubt that, however if this is the case that I think it is less "it bit him on the ass" or "found himself on the firing line" solely because he put himself in front of it, he stood upto a group of feminists planning to harass another male claiming it would lower them to his level. "He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch a…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 07:31 PM
1

I can't say its typical, but it does happen albeit rarely, namely based around high-profile issues (notice how celebs get taken to court even if it's insanely unlikely for them to be found guilty?), where they are inundated with cases based on a certain point of law (even if they aren't taking them forward as it still takes time from other issues, so they can in the future say "this isn't illegal as they havent done so and so"), or if there is political pressure on them. You are right it is unfa…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:03 AM
1

"No. This seems to be a case of a crown attorney pursuing absurd charges based on a very broad interpretation of the law. For what reason they're doing this, I don't know." Many times when cases revolving around issues that have no pre-existing precedent are taken to court and its highly unlikely that there is ground for it to be stood on, its done so that the law can establish THAT PARTICULAR LAW isn't meant to be used for that purpose, forinstance, cases within english law have prevented cases…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 03:19 PM
1

Now if that were printed on a Tee I would buy it... just because its awesome, and secondly because it makes a very blatent and hard to counter point... which i can use against a few local "feminists"...
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:57 PM
3

That's an interesting view, based around 3 main areas: gender binary feminism is about breaking the gender binary Men are more aggressive and violent resulting in them being more likely to be part of violent crimes. I shalt address each individually: the gender binary that men can't talk about their problems: *not necessarily true, it's not necessarily that men don't talk about their problems or issues (unless its something that would be deemed to be funny by others - look at "domestic violence …
/r/MensRights12/08/15 10:53 PM
1

A: your use of the leaving a relationship can't compare to this, for several reasons ranging from the fact that relationships do die often, however they don't alter an individual permanently (because the loss of a child will affect them for the rest of their lives - even if it heals it will still have a scar... relationships dont usually have that kind of effect) through to the fact that friends and family can harm you deliberately causing them to break down. B: I don't believe I stated that sho…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 10:37 PM
2

Men don't have a right to decide what women do with their bodies and I'm not here to argue that either way, I do however believe that to make such a decision in the way she did, was wrong, she should have told him before she did it, and that's what I think should be mandatory, that the mother MUST tell their partner (or have the clinic do it) so that the father is at least aware that it iss occurring - with specific exclussions such as not knowing who the father is, or they are abusive (and free…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 01:45 PM
1

The biggest issue I believe that needs addressing by mens rights (and I understand its unlikely to be fixed) is organising a way to counter the exreme feminist ideology and its effects on society (if you counter the extreme feminist ideology, then issues such as fathers being second class parents, male circumcision etc. would occur as a byproduct) and to do that we need to advocate to the masses, but as we currently are, we are like the "90%" of feminists, the ones who actually believe its about…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 07:38 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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