TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dfedhli Archive

View 1 post and 163 comments by dfedhli 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

That does not include thinking that bigoted people should reevaluate their world view. This is neither obstinate nor intolerant, and it is not an opinion or a prejudice. Remember, you're the one who keeps saying "bigot" as if that is a fundamental characteristic of a person, not me. You were not right because you still think that is a reason. That is is an opinion I hold, yes. I didn't deny it. Congrats, you figured something out about me that I would have told you had you asked me which is unfo…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 04:31 PM
1

Your argument is that I want bigots to reevaluate their views "because that's something [I] approve of". I corrected you on the reason, but you still stick by your shitty arguments, and you even call mine shitty. I read neither. I read what you said, You may well have read what I said but you didn't respond to anything I said. You read reasons into my post that I never said. And whether you interpret that to mean something objectively better or something you think is better, it's both. Yes, it i…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 12:02 PM
1

Whether or not I approve of not being prejudiced has little to do with the fact that being prejudiced doesn't do any good in the world. I said "change into something objectively better" and you read "change into something I happen to think is better". Or do you think prejudice is ok? In which case I have to wonder why you even post on this sub, which is basically about prejudice against men and what to do to change that. Or is it that you think prejudice against some groups is ok and not others?
/r/MensRights28/07/13 06:46 AM
-2

I would say that people who don't like [insert demographic here] seriously reevaluate their prejudiced world views, and try to figure out through some introspection why precisely it is that they don't like this demographic. Yes, this applies to gays too.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 02:35 PM
1

And they did, and then they decided that the DNA test didn't matter. Because the state wanted to collect a percentage of the income. Absolutely. The system needs a huge overhaul. That's the problem with liberals, they don't want to admit that the state can ever act corruptly. This liberal right here thinks that governments are very often corrupt and need plenty of scrutiny. Don't cast such generalisations, they're not true.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:11 PM
5

I wish. I've tried this, and the response is often just "it's different when the genders are reversed and if you can't see why you hate women".
/r/MensRights21/07/13 11:20 PM
32

Tip the waitress just right - sexist, you want to be a "nice guy"! Hope for a male waiter so this whole problem goes away - sexist for not wanting a woman, and also homophobic somehow!
/r/MensRights19/07/13 03:15 PM
2

The hell? Did you even look at the usernames? I'm not the one who just confronted you, I agree with you except for one detail. Which country lost more or is more "important" doesn't matter, dude. This isn't a pissing contest. What's important is that what you posted is a good example of men dying. Maybe both you and the Canadian should try to stop comparing notes on countries, and accept that this is bad no matter where it happens.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 04:58 PM
1

I think that's exactly what he was saying. That he agrees with the approved opinions, i.e. they're not so bad, but it's still censorship.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 09:56 AM
1

The grand total for deaths over all wars is 1.3 million. Many countries have surpassed that in a single war. Now, this has nothing to do with Canadianelite's point, you never implied that the US is the only country that matters by posting a list of US war dead.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 09:00 AM
2

Because the Huffington Post is a feminist-leaning news outlet.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 10:10 AM
17

Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence because it relies on what you see. Anyone else could say it's "common sense" that girls are more violent, and without any actual evidence to back it up, they're exactly as correct as you are. Confirmation bias is a bias in which a held belief leads you to ignore things that speak against your belief and to emphasize things that confirm it. Hence, the name. In your case, you would ignore violent girls and remember violent boys. Hopefully this helps you to…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:03 PM
26

So, just anecdotal evidence that is subject to your own confirmation bias. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:49 PM
0

You know, I find that users with the word "feminist" in their OKCupid profile disproprtionately answer questions like "Would you be in a relationship with someone who has had homosexual sex?" with "No". In other words, they are more against dating bisexual men than the rest of the population. That they then claim to be allies of LGBT is disgusting.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:42 PM
6

I'd guess neither. That kind of thing wouldn't be taught verbatim, but it's no coincidence that someone with that level of entitlement would also be interested in academic feminism.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:22 AM
1

I don't think so at all. If a woman went in for a pelvic exam and heard male doctors talking about how tasty her vagina looks, do you really think they could talk their way out of it?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:15 AM
17

Absolutely, I'm a fan, and I love seeing how no one can really refute them, going to personal attacks instead.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:18 PM
43

Just search the Fempire for "girlwriteswhat", the username of a more high-profile LadyMRA. They've got a lot to say about her, none of which actually refutes any of her points.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:46 PM
0

Busy buying Boyfriend Trainer credits with the money from her Kickstarter campaign, probably. /s
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:09 PM
1

If I were a woman in Australia, I'd take a bunch of guy friends out to one of those restaurants, and pick up the tab for them. This is bullshit.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:59 PM
2

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children Then why do feminists paint men as violent and bad at caring for anyone? What's up with the feminist obsession that men are deadbeat dads? Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments Then why do feminists fight to keep the flawed system in place and call anyone who suggests reform a misogynist? Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison Then why do feminists say it's men's problem that this happens, and their own …
/r/MensRights16/06/13 02:05 AM
8

Now, I've got to say, the way the comment in question is phrased, "Vaginas…are finicky and, objectively, well– gross. There’s just no other way to put it. They are covered in hair. They ooze and slime– and that’s when you’re doing a good job!" is actually pretty disrespectful. To say vaginas are objectively gross is wrong. That's subjective. Where the problems come in is that throughout the article, it's repeatedly implied that you're not a real feminist if you don't like munching carpet, after …
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:41 AM
1

As Mel Feit of the National Center for Men told Salon at the time, “When a man and woman have discussed what they want and have an agreement, I do not think she has a right to impose her change of mind.” Or as Shrage puts it, “We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy.” Which sounds like a great idea and sure seems “fair,” until you factor in stuff like biology, economics and reality. I was very disappointed that the rest of the article was basically about her personal life. This point was …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:20 PM
0

No one said that was entitlement; that isn't even being discussed. Also why are you replying to me down here again? We have already started a comment thread.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 01:59 PM
1

There are many things worth complaining about that have no realistic chance of being changed, in my opinion. Just because it's not realistic doesn't mean you can't want something. Just that you shouldn't act according to whatever unrealistic thing you want. Note: I mean unrealistic in the sense that it's not probably going to happen, not that it's not fair to want it. Such as (on a totally different note) an end to world hunger. That's unrealistic, but it's not bad to acknowledge things would be…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 09:06 PM
2

No one said they are entitled simply for having different standards. Hell, I have very high standards myself, so I know what it's like (concerning personality that is, looks are something a lot of people have going for them). The entitlement comes from thinking they have a right to have them met, and complaining about what they do get when it's still better than what many others have. A child isn't entitled, for example, just for wanting an Xbox. The child does become entitled, however, if he/sh…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:35 PM
2

I suppose I'll be the first to answer with a yes. I've thought a lot about this, and the heterosexual dating world contains a lot more drama than the (male) homosexual one. Games are played, people are selfish and rude, manipulation goes on, and so on. It would be nice to just get away from it all. I do have a disclaimer , which is that I'm bi. But, this allows me to have first-hand experiences of both types of dating, and I'd rather be rid of all that drama if I could. Sure, I could choose to s…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:04 PM
8

I'm still not sure what you think this has to do with oppression. No one said men are being oppressed because women act entitled in the dating game. All that's being said is it would be nice if it were more equal. It gets frustrating in a system where you have to repeatedly throw yourself out there to just get acknowledged. And what makes it more frustrating is that those who don't have to lift a finger say they're the ones who have it hard. "Oh no, I registered on a dating site and I'm getting …
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:25 PM
9

The word "rights" wasn't used once in the original post. And it's not about rights, it's about entitlement, which I happen to agree with.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:14 PM
0

Yeah, see, the thing is: if someone made a campaign for testicular cancer that said "SAVE THE NUTS!" I don't think anyone would like it. Ewww, testicles are gross, everyone would say. Most of all this woman. Personally, I'd rather have a body part of mine be oversexualised than though of as disgusting, but hey. Maybe this woman would rather have no one care about breast cancer and think of breasts as awful, smelly organs. I have a hard time believing she really wants that, but maybe she really d…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:18 PM
1

Do you consider yourself an egalitarian? Yes. Do you consider yourself a feminist? No. I used to but I have become quite disenchanted and stopped identifying as one. How do you define egalitarianism? A belief in equality. Everyone given the same rights, responsibilities, and everyone held to the same standards. Essentially: no hypocrisy. Can a person be both an egalitarian and a feminist? Yes. Feminism is a broad spectrum. It depends what parts of feminism exactly one ascribes to. Some parts do …
/r/MensRights09/06/13 11:35 PM
1

A vacation is often part of the necessary research to move somewhere. I don't think he was saying he will take a vacation very soon but moving is out of the question. I think he was saying that eventually he will be able to afford a vacation to see if he likes it, and then not long after that pack up and go. That's why I was saying it doesn't make much sense to tell him just to move in lieu of taking a trip to see what it's like. But maybe I'm reading his intentions wrong.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:49 PM
1

Not exactly. If you end up not liking it, which is a real possibility for any place you've never been, you would have to swallow the cost of two moves, not to mention finding a new job and everything. If you moved to Seattle for a year and then back to wherever you're from, you'd be much worse off inancially than if you just took a little plane ride. Of course, this doesn't apply if you know for a fact you will be staying wherever it is you're going, but this isn't the case here.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 02:59 PM
1

I suppose so. Maybe "Which of these situations could not possibly be rape, no matter what?" "None." would have been a little more exact, but the wording is more awkward.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:18 AM
5

Yes, there is nothing about consent at all in the graphics. But it also does not say they "are rape", but rather "can be classified" as such. The message is that it is possible that sex between any gender can be classified as rape, as opposed to only one combination of genders. I don't think "any sex can be rape" was an intended message at all, I think that's reading into it a bit much.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:21 PM
3

You don't have to be into cars to make a decision on which one to buy. It seems quite plausible to me that women make more car buying decisions in the end, even if the couple is there at the dealership together.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:51 AM
8

You'd also want your priest/pastor to suck the blood off with his mouth, right? Right?!
/r/MensRights28/05/13 06:13 PM
2

Infuriatingly enough, the only exemption to the fair housing laws is specifically for shared housing preferences based on gender. And guess what gender our patriarchal society wants to overwhelmingly live with? Oh, wait. http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#exceptions
/r/MensRights10/05/13 12:04 PM
5

It's not proof, but it makes it less likely. The picture on the website is or is made to look like it's a still frame from a news report. I find it doubtful (but not impossible, mind you) that a news agency would risk bad press over faking such a photo.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 07:18 AM
1

Does it happen to be Los Angeles? I've never been, but its reputation definitely does match.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:38 PM
1

How is this a bad thing? Or do you like when women withhold sex to later be used as a bargaining chip? I don't have time for those games.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:55 AM
2

Holy shit, she just hates everything, but especially her family. Check these ones out about her kids: 6. The terrible twos are bullshit. The terribleness lasts through at least age four. Or, forever. 12. Never stock batteries in your house, or you will be forced to make obnoxiously loud toys work once again. 38. Walk away from temper tantrums. Or, record them for future enjoyment.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:15 PM
11

They really have no fucking clue. Someone can't be a part of an orgy without being a "low-life" and "troubled"? Yeah, right. This goes for all participants, including her.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:26 PM
0

You're absolutely right. As I said before, gay men are disadvantaged a lot compared to Lesbians, which automatically makes their issues part of the MRM. (And as part of the LGBT crowd I can even sympathise with them - and I'll say this: feminism is downright offensive to our community, whereas the MRM is a lot more accepting).
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:26 PM
-2

It is indeed the more feminine gay men that tend to side with feminists. And what trans rights concerns: I agree with you to a point here. I feel that the MRA community is very unified in this aspect, providing some support but it could be better. The feminist community, however, has a gaping chasm in it. A number of feminists are totally against trans rights, and a number of them give way better support than we do. However, you can't really ignore that both these camps exist, and so there are a…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:54 PM
1

It may well be. Like I said in another post down below, it's all anecdotal.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:19 AM
2

Good, he should go to jail. I don't hold any different standards for men and women here. I think lying to your partner about using adequate protection is a pretty big deal, because it has the potential to really fuck things up.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:13 AM
-2

I have completely the opposite experience. Just this page of Google results brings up a ton of feminist blog posts about how terrible gay men are. I'd have serious trouble finding anything equivalent from the MRM. Especially the idea of "going against masculinity" - in my experience, a lot of MRAs are tired of being told what is and what isn't a "real man" thing to do. Homosexuality would obviously fall under this too. It doesn't make sense to be tired of being told how to be masculine, and then…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:11 AM
3

Yeah, I was exaggerating a little bit anyway. I'm sure it's happened more than five times, but it seems to me like it would be extremely rare. I guess the most common variant would be where a man has had a vasectomy but leads his partner to believe he's fertile. Reason being, there are a fair amount of stories about that floating around but not really the other versions. But as you said, a survey is needed. This is all anecdotal. Sexual assault seems like a fitting description for a case where s…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 03:25 AM
4

If you go by the standards that being off of birth control and saying otherwise is rape, then the other way is most certainly rape too. The argument made is that consent was obtained under a false pretense, which is no different either way, although I'm not sure your scenario has happened more than five or so times in history. According to my own standards though, none of that is rape. It is very bad, as any consent obtained under false pretenses is not real consent. But it's not in the same cla…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:04 AM
0

For clarification: you find which part to be the opposite? That feminists are homophobic? That feminists are transphobic? Or are you saying that masculists are more homophobic than feminists? My philosophy on the MRM is simple and seems to be widely held: that wherever men in particular are disadvantaged, we should be watching out for them. This includes gay men, and because often it's so cool and acceptable to be a Lesbian but awful and disgusting to be a gay man it's by default a part of our m…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 08:30 PM
3

Not a big surprise. Many radical feminists are markedly homophobic (but only against gay men). Transphobia is an even more widespread plague to their movement.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 07:48 PM
16

Yes, but the menz owe her strong empowered vagina sex. And now, dammit.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:47 PM
3

"Men are the only gender capable of using physical force"
/r/MensRights02/03/13 03:43 PM
18

Also, you then get the highest homour of being forced to die for your country. Women can only dream of such valor and glory.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 03:16 PM
7

They also say that the low-libido partner gets to dictate, and they are wrong about that. This is simply their alternative to that the high-libido partner gets to dictate; so, they'd be right that the HL partner doesn't get to dictate and wrong that the LL partner does. They also assume (it seems) that HL is inherently male and LL is inherently female, but that's also a load of crap.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 02:09 PM
35

And I like how she starts off by talking about her libido. As if that entitles anyone to anything. Especially the fact that she's a feminist should have helped her figure out that the high-libido partner doesn't get to dictate the sex in the relationship. This is something they've been saying for ages (and are very correct about).
/r/MensRights02/03/13 12:49 PM
2

Don't know why you are being downvoted, these feminists do exist. All anyone has to do to verify is just Google "misogyny gay men" to find multitudes of blog posts written by feminists such as the ones you are talking about.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:11 PM
2

You can cut that down to "all hetero-penetration is rape" and you wouldn't be very far off from some prominent feminists' quotes.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:09 PM
7

No. No, they don't. Not even a little bit.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 12:58 AM
2

It certainly can in some cases, I'm just calling into question whether that being the (seeming) vast majority of content is compatible with my own personal idea of the most effective use of this sub. In te end, it's all just an opinion. (And please don't mistake it for complaining; if it bothered me enough I know right where the unsubscribe button is - but I chose not to use it.)
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:34 PM
2

I, too, grew up with the same definition you did. I used to identify as a feminist, and I used to think it was basically the same as all other social justice movements. That has slowly changed as I see that not all feminists are the type I was presented with when younger. Personally, I don't know how many people that identify as feminists are really for equality. But when I use the word "feminism", I mean to indicate the bulk of the movement, not necessarily in number but in power. The powerful …
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:29 PM
5

I've considered unsubscribing myself, but for a different reason - I feel too many of the posts are "look what this woman did wrong". Yes, the fact that most of them get away with it whereas if it were a man he would be in jail for a long time is an issue. But it seems to get repetitive. I stand beside my point that it's incorrect to imply that anti-feminism and equality are two different things though. As for the downvote brigade, I feel like it's a Reddit-wide problem. Ay time a post is linked…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 05:58 PM
6

I think it's a valid complaint because it implies anti-feminism and equality are necessarily two different things. Whether it's a strong enough complaint to warrant a post here? I tend to disagree. But that's beside my point.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 03:27 PM
9

I think it depends entirely on the attitude. Does she not work because of a sense of entitlement? If so, I think it's perfectly fine to feel disgusted, because you'd be disgusted by the entitlement and not the not-working. Does she not work because both came to this decision together? If so, I don't think it's fair to feel disgusted, because this is what works for them. And in any case, it's more than ok to have your own opinion on it. Having a partner be at home while I work, or being at home w…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:43 PM
29

That is correct in every way, but he is offering an even better business decision. Not just child support, but full support of her, with multiple kids. She wouldn't be getting a paycheck, but rather everything. For the rest of her life. Not for 18 years. That is much more attractive. Additionally, she sounds greedy, and greedy people are... well, greedy. They are often willing to risk a sure thing in exchange for a much better and slightly less sure thing. Remember, if he goes about it correctly…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:46 PM
-5

Actually, I do believe that would be best. If they really won't do it again, then the guilt is punishment enough and the self-betterment is rehabilitation enough. No need for external punishments in my eyes, if that person really is not going to repeat-offend. However! This is literally impossible to implement effectively, so it has to remain theorteical. For this reason, I agree with you on a practical level. It's no one's place but the offender's to judge whether they will do it again. And all…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 03:15 PM
3

And what if you are willing to endure the consequences? I agree that it's foolish to engage in sex before you're ready, and that amount of time varies for each person and each relationship. But you seem to be acting like if both partners come to the conclusion that they want to have sex with each other, both want it, both have fun, and both engage in it in a responsible and safe manner, it's still disregarding one person's feelings. Whose feelings are being disregarded when there is consensual, …
/r/MensRights10/02/13 07:43 PM
2

Because to care only for one's own enjoyment with disregard for the feelings of others is selfish and stupid. You're right about this statement, but I still don't think it applies to sharing in a mutually fun act like sex. If you want to have sex soon, you should. If you want to wait, you should that that instead. Just because you and another person click pretty well within a short amount of time and you both choose to have fun together isn't disrespecting anyone's feelings. It's honouring both …
/r/MensRights10/02/13 07:35 PM
3

Laws that are specifically unequal, which have been pushed and successfully enacted by very real feminists, exist. Throughout the world. I'd accept this explanation on what feminism is "really" about if the vast majority of real-life feminists I met, and those who are in government lobbying for legislation, weren't like that. Additionally, that isn't relevant to my point at all, which was you falsely equating feminists with women. SRS is over 50% male, according to a surves they did on their own…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:46 PM
4

Women and feminists are not the same group. You might be right about women supporting male issues, but that is irrelevant to feminist logic, or the term "feminist logic" used to describe that poor logic.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:30 PM
1

Exactly. "Actions speak louder than words" is a great thing to live by, and I do. Anyone can say anything they want, but doing something takes more effort. Incidentally, radicals (again, of any movement) who deny being hateful think that their loud words will drown out their actions. Not so.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:31 PM
30

The next time you meet a "radical feminist", ask her if women should deserve more rights than men do. If you get a "no" answer, try rethinking your entire approach to the debate. It'll help. As if any radical from any movement would give a straight answer on that question.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 08:51 PM
3

Yep, it would prove nothing, except for in the eyes of the law. Sad situation.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:51 PM
4

Well, that's precisely the problem. If the rape kit finds she had sex with some undetermined person, guess what it's going to be used as conclusive proof of? That OP raped her.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:46 PM
2

I actually don't think that these two ideas are incompatible, at least how I read them from this author. She is only arguing to expand the definition of rape to more than stranger-in-the-bushes. As far as I know, most rape occurs from people that the victim knows. Mother and son, boss and worker, et cetera. I think it's fair to call them rape if it actually was. What I don't agree with is expanding it anywhere past nonconsensual sex, such as to cases where consent is withdrawn after the fact, or…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 01:20 AM
1

1) Yeah, I agree with you on this point. I don't see anything that says all "rapey" behaviour should be called rape - at least not from here. I have seen this constantly from other feminist sources, which is why it was refreshing that it was not in this post. If you include "looked at me in a way I could not interpret correctly due to my self-diagnosed social development disorders" in "literally rape", you have a problem, and you have stretched the definition of rape to include something like 50…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 12:35 AM
2

That is precisely why we make such a huge deal out of rape against women by men, and seem to sweep the rest under the carpet. This is also exactly what I liked about the article. It's not afraid to call the fact that this is bullshit. Instead of saying "strengthen the sexual script" like most feminists are saying (admittedly, paraphrased; none would actually word it like this), this author is arguing to reverse it. This is one of those sentiments I've seen echoed here that I originally meant. Mo…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 11:23 PM
1

Point 1 actually doesn't contain any point about alcohol at all. I completely agree that laws need to be absolutely clear, and fair. Rape is forced sex, not consensual sex with a vagina owner whose blood contains alcohol above some uncertain threashold (and it's also not exclusively being penetrated by the rapist like te FBI thinks). I also agree fully with your next point. I don't know if the author thinks it's mostly men that do it, but if they do I disagree with them. It's not, as you note, s…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 11:12 PM
2

I'm curious to see if the rest of /r/MensRights feels the same way about this blog post.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 03:11 AM
1

A direct comparison does mean the damages and anatomy need to be analogous. In the example you gave, which expanded on mine, one is comparing the same factor. Since women do you have penises, and men do not have vaginas, the factors are different. Unlike vitanim C in both apple types, there is no direct female equivalent to removing the foreskin, as there is no sliding motion for them to lose, and also no internal part that becomes external. What would be more like the vitamin C comparison is to…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:16 PM
2

Quite relevant. Though, I think in many of these cases the people have not renounced the use of reason, but have just heard something false so often that it becomes really hard to change. Imagine a society of holocause deniers. I might bring conclusive evidence that it happened to them but it was so beaten into them that they would suspect my data of being wrong, simply for not being mainstream. In many of the cases, it might be more like administering medicine to the almost dead. Still, upvoted…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:13 AM
5

Before you say "because women suffer more violence" - that is demonstrably false. I just want to interject here. While you're absolutely right, many people simply are not willing to believe it. They are so caught up in the lie that women are eternal victims that even if you provide them with a source, they will just not believe you. So, a better response depending on the situation might be to point out that working to stop domestic violence, instead of working to stop domestic violence against w…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:05 AM
1

All forms of mutilation can be compared. By comparing circumcision with hoodectomy you made a good argument for why hoodectomy is less damaging. You're absolutely right, I meant that they cannot be directly compared. Even if the damages and the anatomy are different, mutilation is mutilation; this wouldn't be apples and oranges but rather red delicious and granny smith.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 11:08 PM
1

Anatomically, removal of the clitoral hood is directly comparable to removal of the forskin. However, the foresking provides necessary functions that the clitoral hood does not. Firstly, it is used to protect that glans, which on most women the labis would still do after removing the clitoral hood. And additionally, the sliding action of the foreskin is totally lost whereas there is no sliding action in women woth the clitoral hood. So male circumcision is more damaging than the female equivalen…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 01:35 PM
1

thought I don't know about that.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 07:13 PM
1

Wow, sounds really similar to my story, except that in my state the DA files charges and so there was nothing that "I don't want him to be charged" would do anymore. So yes, I did have to go to court, and the case was dropped pretty soon because the DA admitted that they had literally zero evidence, and I was amassing everything I could - photos, witnesses, lawyers, etc.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:55 PM
2

I think it's a good idea, at least on paper, because it finally reverses the "men must approach women" and "women must reject men" ideas that pervade our society. The "women are in control" is going a bit far, since that is the case with virtually all dating sites, but I don't know if it's worth getting up in arms over.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:59 AM
1

My first reaction based solely on that image you posted was that it was targeted at men, so they can give the box of chocolates to a woman and try out their shiny new blank-shooting penis. A little odd, I suppose, but in good humour. But who knows. What did the rest of the ad look like?
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:52 PM
3

I know of plenty of feminists online that think men should be eradicated, a quick search will fix that for you. There was no such assertion made; it was, like your assertion, solely about association. I don't have the patience to go through your post history to evaluate if you're actually a radical feminist, so I'll gladly take your word for it that you are not. However, since you are a third-wave feminist, and you claimed that people like you do not associate with/actively avoid radical feminis…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:46 AM
4

No, it's actually not ad hominem. Ad hominem means discounting your argument based on some quality of you unrelated to the argument. For example: you are wrong because you post in x subreddit. However, if you reread what I have written, I never did any such thing. In fact, I never refuted an argument of yours at all, I simply asked a question. Let me break it down so misunderstanding is more difficult. You never explicitly said you are a third-wave feminist. In this post I'm a feminist. Consent …
/r/MensRights21/01/13 08:58 PM
3

No, you misunderstand; I checked your submission history. I'm not referring to this post of yours.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 08:10 PM
1

Are you not a third-wave feminist? Because "posting in their subs" is exactly the opposite of "actively distancing yourself" from radfems, and the only other option is that you are not, in fact, talking about yourself.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:49 PM
16

I think the part before is even ditzier. How would I know he's black? Uh... presumably the same way she knew the guy following her was a man?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 02:34 PM
1

You're right that penis elargement and breast enlargement can't really be compared directly. The reason I expanded on your mention of breast size was because I thought one aspect, namely that owners of these organs think bigger = better no matter what is an exact similarity. That you get more social benefits from nice (that is, not necessarily big) boobs is quite clear. I share your feelings on Japan's herbivores as well. I personally am not straight, and basically since I figured that out about…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 01:09 PM
1

You're right again! For some reason porn is really disgusting. Personally, I love porn. But I can't stand the mainstream stuff. Gagging, fish-eye camera angles of snotting all over a dick, raccoon makeup running donw their cheeks... no thanks! I've begun to mostly watch amateur porn, especially onces I've made myself. It's exactly like wrestling. And penis size standards are indeed far detached from reality, no doubt due to a non-sex-positive sexual education program, and of course porn. About b…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:04 PM
1

Oh, absolutely. I wonder what the average person thinks Lesbian couples do for satisfaction. Use strap-ons? Ha. I know some do, but surely people should know that's not a staple in most couples' sex lives? Who knows, probably they don't even think about it much - as we know, that's "abnormal". But "hawt". I also think you're right on the dot with porn. In commercially-produced porn, I'd be surprised if more than just a percent or two of orgasms were real. And those few that are real, were probab…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:01 PM
1

Agreed on all counts. Thanks for the video by the way, I had a chuckle. You're absolutely right that the only "good" kind of sexuality our society sees is a man pleasing a beautiful woman in a monogamous relationship through PIV sex. If any of those factors are changed, people react with disgust. Either they think it's slutty, or dangerous, or faggy, or whatever. You're also absolutely right about penis size, the obsession with it stems from a gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a whole. Size…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 11:37 AM
1

I knew she was a feminist at heart ever since her songs started to contain lyrics such as "don't you ever for a second get to thinking you're irreplaceable; the truth of the matter is replacing you is so easy", "if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it", and the absolute killer, "if I were a boy [...] I swear I'd be a better man". All of this is absolutely typical, the first song of hers listed here came out seven years ago in 2006. I was not surprised in the least when this image w…
/r/MensRights16/01/13 05:53 PM
1

Well, I do agree with all of what you said, which leads me to believe there was a misunderstanding. Heteronormativity and heterosexuality aren't the same thing, as I actually pointed out in my post, although using different words. The majority of people will always be heterosexual, it's just a fact of life. Heterosexuality (in males) can be represented by "women are nice for me, men are nice for others", whereas "chicks hot, dudes gross" represents something more than that. I say heteronormativi…
/r/MensRights16/01/13 11:56 AM
13

You know, the thing about these 17th century attitudes is this - they don't really bother me much in and of themselves. While I will always disagree with them, if a woman wants to be relegated to the kitchen and get free seats on the bus, not get to make household decisions but get her way paid for her in life, and so on... it's not that bad. It's just another opinion. What I actually think is objectively bad in and of itself is hypocrisy. If you want equality please fight for it along with us. …
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:45 PM
4

I think you're totally right, and it can be boiled down to heteronormativity. The prevailing attitude is "chicks hot, dudes gross" which in my experience is just a way for some to prove to themselves they are heterosexual. Whereas a "women are nice for me, men are nice for others" is perfectly sufficient. Funnily this issue also ties in with accepting gay men like we accept gay women.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:13 PM
1

I'm not offended and ashamed we're eating this shit at all. I'm proud. The only thing that can be used to criticise the poster is one subreddit, to which it was crossposted. Where else it is posted has no effect on the message, in fact assuming so is akin to an ad hominem attack.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:46 AM
1

A good portion of feminists do just that. Why should we want to be like them?
/r/MensRights13/01/13 12:31 PM
1

I think all those are good points too.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 04:16 PM
48

I believe it might have something to do with the fact that men simply have lower-maintenance reproductive systems, and so there need to be fewer doctors that cater to male needs. You're right that the hours are unfortunate but I think there's probably nothing more to it than being unfortunate.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 03:57 PM
1

Male here. I have a hyphenated last name but decided to stick with only the half I got from my mother, as my father wasn't very present in my life and I feel a much bigger connection to those with what is now my last name. It's traditionally male to pass your name down to your kids, but if you want it as a female why the fuck shouldn't wour wishes be considered as well? That's my take - tradition doesn't matter if you want to change it.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:09 PM
2

Where are all the feminists that should be upset about this? They're definitely upset when someone else even wonders if they have PMS. "It's fair that PMS should be admissible in a court of law, because really, for many women, there's nothing they can do to control it," said Gloria Allred, a California attorney active on women's legal issues. Oh.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:05 PM
3

That's an interesting thing to think about. Speaking totally strictly, neither gender needs the other for anything but reproduction. Men can learn to take on traditional female roles, and women can learn to take on traditional male roles. In fact, society already does this. There is not a single gendered role that our society has that contains exactly zero members of the non-traditional gender. With the exception I mentioned earlier, reproduction. It would be the sudden loss of roughly half the …
/r/MensRights11/01/13 11:44 AM
5

Neither gender would last a month in a world without the other. And then you have people like this promoting mass jailing, and others even mass killings. Crazy.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 12:42 AM
103

They call us a hate group, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us wouldn't think of a woman-less society as somehow "free". Almost all of us have female friends, family members, coworkers, and some even spouses, that we care about deeply and wouldn't want gone.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:00 PM
3

In fish.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 04:47 PM
4

If he's into public humiliation then she did exactly what he wanted. It goes along with the territory, but it's not necessarily something he has to be into. The title of the post is right though, since not a lot of people would get the kink aspect and think it's really just about the leash, they wouldn't bat an eye at this but would go crazy at the reverse scenario.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 02:21 PM
17

growing up with feminism is what breeds antifeminism Absolutely, I can confirm. I was a feminist for a long time growing up, until I had a very rude awakening concerning the police and domestic violence laws. I was hit by a woman enough to cause severe bleeding, she was untouched but "afraid", and I called the police to make a report. Guess who went to jail, guess who had to take off work to sit through a court case, guess who had to live out of his car with friends for months due to a restraini…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:55 AM
2

Non-interchangable does work better. And you're right, there's nothing inherently better or worse about traditional gender roles, as long as there is equal respect involved, I never claimed they were any worse. Where I start to see a problem is when people don't want to pursue these gender roles and they are ostracised, or of course when people think it's ok to disrespect someone else because they consider it a part of their gender role to do so.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 01:34 PM
2

I guess a better world would be non-fluid. What I am trying to get across is that in this gender role system, earning is for men and men only, it's not compatible with women, and childrearing is for women and women only, it's not compatible with men, all the way down to who is supposed to want what gifts for Christmas. So, incompatible with each other in the sense that you aren't allowed to fill more than one gender role at the same time, not that a person filling one is a bad match for a person…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 10:02 AM
2

Ok, and I guess we can only leave it at this, our differing experiences. I don't really think traditional relationships are unequal (although, of course, they do have clearly defined and incompatible gender roles; that is not the same and you seem to agree here). But since you do mention a "boss" I see we are indeed talking about the same thing. In my life, those around me who have had bossy relationships have always failed, and those who have had team-like and equal relationships have aways las…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 10:29 PM
2

Very few adult relationships are ever even remotely equal (successful ones that is). I very much disagree with you. Perhaps it is from a differing way we each define equal. To be clear, I am talking about things like power, whose opinion holds more weight, who makes decisions, who matters. If your experience with adult relationships is that these things are often not remotely equivalent, I think you might have been exposed to some seriously fucked-up relationships, because I can not say the same…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:20 PM
1

I am not assuming that, I am assuming they are mostly equal, and that for adult relationships that are not equal at all (this is why I brought up doctor-patient!) making the relationship sexual is questionable. We can use the word "minor" if you choose, but a minor 6 years of age still fits into my argument.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 02:44 AM
1

But surely you understand the difference between two adults who trust each other, one of whom is stronger than the other, and an adult and a child, or a doctor and a patient, where their interactions are based on taking orders? See, the difference here, to me, is that although if a very strong adult wanted to command a very weak adult around, they could, but since they do not, their relationship remains fairly equal. In addition, she could learn to shoot so the physical power argument becomes in…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:51 AM
2

I'm not talking about physical power, but rather emotional power. It's also why doctor-patient relationships are forbidden, even if the patient is older.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:37 AM
2

Well, so would some girls. I don't know if you really want to use that as an argument for statuory rape, because that is a slippery slope. Personally, I think although some people at that age did want sexual contact, as an adult you need to keep your hands off because of the big power differential. And that's why we have the laws.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 04:05 PM
13

And people of all genders have listened to this type of mantra for a long time. Hence, we have a problem.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:13 AM
3

Just being hit by a woman is a worse crime than being the assailant herself. I'm dead serious, if she hits you, and you call the cops, guess who is going to jail? It's you.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 02:22 PM
6

Yeah, I wasn't defending vote brigading, I was just repeating a certain sub's constant excuse when they are called out.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 02:11 PM
42

"Maybe the comments were just genuinely shitty and that's why they're buried, huh?"
/r/MensRights20/12/12 01:42 PM
2

Except, the child may suffer, and the father was equally responsible in making it so he should share equal responsibility in supporting it. The way I see it, the baby is the only 'innocent' party here, and so should be the last one to suffer. But if you applied this argument to abortion, you would say that since the child being healthy is paramount, you cannot place the mother's interests before the child. But then, like me, you say it is ok. Basically the argument boils down to mother > child >…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:37 PM
2

Both partners had sex, both partners chose to engage in this behaviour which unfortunately led to pregnancy. Now, only the woman is "at risk" during pregnancy, not the man. This is why it makes sense for abortion to be solely a woman's choice. I believe that in a good relationship they should try to make the decision together, but in the end she has more to lose so it's still her decision. And if she decides to keep it, both parents are "at risk" for being on the hook for supporting the child. I…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:25 PM
2

I read the whole thing, including that part, yes. I agree with it, and I think if anything it goes against what you say next.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:14 PM
4

I don't believe men should be allowed to autonomously paternally surrender, as it was equally their decision to insert their penis into the woman's vagina and I don't feel that a child should be expected to live a diminished life because the father doesn't want to be held responsible for his actions. I don't think this is a good argument, since it applies just as much to abortion but you aren't willing to apply it there.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:10 PM
1

If one doesn't like the other exerting control over their earned wealth, they should divorce. You can say it a hundred times, that will not make it how abuse works. The simple fact here is if both parties were earning the same salary, they would have the same control. This 'abuse' and 'inequality' stems from the fact that one party is slacking off and not earning. And once again, no it is not. If an abusive partner makes the other person give them their salary, which is not as rare as you seem t…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:29 PM
1

What is and what should be are entirely different things. This is my point exactly. Let's look at welfare. Perhaps it 'creates a problem' if someone appealing for welfare doesn't get it, when they really really wanted some. Does this mean they should definitely get it? Not a valid analogy, as you are casting one partner as the government and the other as in social need. More realistic would be, if you had to use welfare, that a family applies for a welfare check from the government, gets it, and…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:10 PM
1

If an employer tells an employee 'your job is X, you don't get paid unless you fulfill your responsibilities' that's not abuse, it's work. Call it 'control' if you like, but the person doing things to try and earn money retains the option to leave and not do anything for that person. As do spouses. This is a truly bad analogy, as an employer is intended to have power over an employee, unlike a spousal relationship. Although some relationships work this way, I do not think it is good. Silly analo…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 07:35 PM
1

This is proposing the situation that both people are putting the same effort into the household. There are no suggestions of this requirement in the 'withholding money is abuse' rhetoric. Ok, so I see a fundamental disagreement within your stance and mine. I assume giving similar or the same effort to be the default in a relationship, or at least what should be the default, and you seem not to. If one person is being very lazy, then the situation changes, and simply withholding control of money …
/r/MensRights17/12/12 07:18 PM
1

I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make with the "lost love". I do agree that the acts are different since the pain has different targets, and is in other ways fundamentally different, but the comparison I was making, in which way they are exactly the same, is that they are both a non-physically-forceful threat to the person being threatened that can be used to control someone against their wishes.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:59 PM
1

Yes, you are right. Since it wasn't addressed I hoped you wouldn't assume my stance on it.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:58 PM
1

No, it isn't. Not if you're the one earning that money. Ok, and another thing that indicates a poor understanding of abuse. If you use it as a tool to control them, it is abuse. You are basically saying the same thing as "using a baseball bat to intimidate your partner into doing something is not abuse so long as you are the one who bought it". It does not matter where the money came from, the point is that it is being used as a tool of control. No, because you presumably have access to the hous…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 01:15 PM
1

No, it isn't. People who don't earn money shouldn't inherently have access to it. Ok, this is just going to be an ideological disagreement. I don't think that given both people putting the same effort into the household, but one being the breadwinner, means one person should inherently have more rights. You are suggesting that the only way to take care of the situation is for both partners to work and do housework the same number of hours each week, so both get the "right" to have money. That is…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 01:00 PM
1

See my last reply. If she is abusive, he may be tricked into giving her the money anyway, even though technically it is his.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:55 PM
1

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with abusive relationships based on this comment. Control is not always about physically (or legally) controlling a partner. Threats are often enough. Take an example where two partners have a joint bank account which both can withdraw from at any time, and they also own a cat that they love. The abusive partner tells the abused partner they will violently kick their beloved cat each time an unapproved withdrawal is made. Legally the abused partner…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:54 PM
1

Right, nothing I said goes against that. I agree with it.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:49 PM
1

I like it. I agree that a lot of content posted here is not much more than a reaction to the negative aspects of feminism, and I think that refraining from doing this one day out of the seven might help give what we do post a little more meaning. As OThompson said, we can't do without ever mentioning feminism, since a lot of what we stand for is in direct opposal to some of the things they stand for, such as absolute equality. One day out of seven, however, where we only focus on men and their r…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 07:18 PM
1

Both are correct, but often on on the same issues.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:57 PM
3

You might be shocked at how much feminists align with conservative issues. Especially gender roles.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:59 PM
1

I was only indirectly discussing the article, extrapolating its positions into a reasonable space. So don't reference housework specifically. Just reference the total amount of work needed to keep a family healthy and happy. Yep, great point. Housework is but a component of total work needed for a family. That is what the article was hinting at yes. Yes, I know, that is why I only discussed one of the points in it without dragging along all of the shitty implications. I think that generally, hou…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:58 PM
1

"Remain" a white knight? Sorry, I don't think you know what that term even means, it makes no sense in this context. Your assertion that the smartest and dumbest are men does not contradict what I said. And yes, I do want equality. Why do you think I'm a reader or r/MR?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:53 PM
8

No, I think it's not true. I think men's intellectual strength tends to lie in more technical fields (such as the famed STEM fields) but that there's more intelligence overall? No, I have never thought so.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:54 PM
2

What part, that women have small brains or are stupid? I can't really speak either way on my own knowledge about brain size, but Wikipedia says their brains are indeed slightly smaller (but the study was flawed). Not sure what to take from that. That they are stupid? Personal experience tells me absolutely not, I know very many intelligent women, and I will definitely contradict any assertion that they are not as capable as men are.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:32 PM
13

The field of craniology had so much influence that the misconception still exists that the minute differences detected in the brain size of men and women is a viable indicator of intelligence. This is why. People still think that when you say one gender has a smaller brain you are trying to call them stupid.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:16 PM
2

Expecting the man to give here money is a privileged way of thinking. Yes it is, and I never said that. A lot of people have been reading a ton of strawmen in this post, and I can't see any of them. One guy thought I wanted political government intervention for abuse. Another thought I was for the current alimony and child support system. Another thought I expected men who work 80 hours to do half of all child care but not women. And another (you) thought I expect men to give women money. I neve…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:55 PM
1

Well, and this is a big problem too. Controlling all financial access is only a way to make her more frustrated, and as you found out it wasn't even consistently enforceable. So I'm not sure if you are still arguing using money as a power trip as a solution to someone using money as a power trip, but nothing you say will convince me that two wrongs make a right.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:53 PM
2

The point is the gov't should never be involved in defining or enforcing these types of behaviors as abuse, there is too much scope for, dare i say it, ABUSE. And I agree with you. I'm not the one who even brought up goverment and laws, you did, and it's a mistake to assume that I'm not on your side on this issue. If I control 100% of the money that's abuse? How about 99%? How about 67%? Abuse? Good question. I think 50% control of the money, in most cases, is fair. If one spouse willingly gives…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:50 PM
1

But even including the assumption that it's up to the guy to share the housework without any corollary that it's up to the woman to share the financial burden of the home is discriminatory and silly. But I'm not. I'm saying it's up to both people to share the housework and childcare burden. What I didn't specify, but should have been obvious, is that if only one person is doing the breadwinning the other obligations shift massively to the other person. But they specifically referenced housework …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:45 PM
2

Yes, but so many women have this attitude where if they can't get it exactly the way they want, their only option is to throw their hands up in the air, give up, and start playing the victim of oppression role. The one they've been raised to play more than likely. I think this is all true, but I don't see what part of my post it's supposed to refute. That it's important to have discussed it? I'd actually say it's an extra reason why a couple should discuss things like who has what responsibiliti…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:02 PM
3

I disagree with her actions. Such unilateral decisions are very bad for a relationship (this is what I was getting at this whole time, just to spell it out) and her making a such decision about finances after going back on her word is dishonest as fuck. I still don't think that becoming controlling is a proper response though, but rather ending the relationship if no other solution can be found (which was eventually the case). And let's not even get into the clusterfuck that is alimony and child…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:52 PM
1

This is a breakdown in communication. These things need to be worked out by the members of the relationship. Yeah, this is exactly what I'm saying: you have discussed it already I can't do that. I wouldn't stand for it. I'd get my own job, or we would talk it out. Or the relationship would be over. That's good, and I hope more people aren't willing to stand for that too. The relationship ending is a good solution to this type of situation.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:38 PM
1

If the guy is putting in 80 hour weeks why does he then need to clean the house when he gets home? He doesn't. Reread the post please if you think I said so. That is more than double a normal work week, and it most certainly qualifies under the list of "unless".
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:28 PM
4

No one decides. It is where it is, namely between the two extremes I wrote, and comparing the two is disingenuous. They are opposites.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:18 PM
8

No one said it's a law. But the site that was linked claimed giving no access to finances at all is abusive, and that's true. Clearly spending so much on shoes that you can't pay the bills and needing to limit that is a bad counterexample to having no access at all. This is an adult-adult relationship, not a child-adult relationship. Also, whoever keeps downvoting - that's childish. I'm not doing the same, because it's not a "disagree button". And what do you suppose it's actually doing? Making …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:06 PM
3

So you see? A partner who is abusive at heart won't suddenly stop when the victim changes a circumstance around the event. Remember, it's not about Partner A's money vs. Partner B's money. There's exactly zero reason for Partner A to suddenly allow financial access to the combined fund if Partner B brings some of their own. And we all know this is about a combined fund, if finances are done separately there's inherently no way for one to control the other's access.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:39 PM
5

Imagine the wife spends so much on shoes that you cannot pay the rent or pay food and she keeps demanding more money. This is why I wrote this part: Remember it says prevents you from having access at all. Not prevents you from having tons of control. There's definitely a middle ground between "bleeds household finances dry with uninhibited and irresponsible spending" and "is allowed no say in any spending whatsoever, and must ask each time he or she wants anything".
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:16 PM
1

Those are independent of each other. What makes you think that a controlling wife, for example, would suddenly stop being controlling if the husband gets a job?
/r/MensRights08/12/12 02:14 PM
-13

The first one isn't exactly abuse but it's bad in many situations. You do need to help with at least some housework, unless you are the breadwinner and you work ridiculous overtime and you have discussed it already. Basically working and then coming home and sitting on the sofa, ignoring your children, and watching NASCAR (ok, I'm stereotyping) won't build a healthy family. Controlling someone's access to finances to make them dependent on you is actually abuse though. Imagine you had a wife who…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 01:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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