TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dm287 Archive

View 2 posts and 166 comments by dm287 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

dm287/r/MensRights23/04/13 08:51 PM
4

dm287/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:54 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

He's asking what the solution would be for pro-life advocates - obviously keeping them legal would "work" but would result in lots of abortions (which to pro-lifers is essentially murder).
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:38 PM
6

Ehh the abortion in that circumstance is actually allowed by Irish law. It's the fault of the doctors in that they didn't act appropriately. The law is very clear in that abortion is permitted and recommended when the death of the mother may occur.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:33 PM
3

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/ct001-eng.htm Men are a majority, but the gap is smaller than you would expect.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 10:21 PM
1

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/ct001-eng.htm It is a majority, but not a large one.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 10:21 PM
1

I just named one: gymnastics. Have you watched male/female gymnastics? They are completely different because female gymnastics is very built on flexibility and flips instead of displays of strength. If either gender tried to compete in the style of the other it would be a slaughter.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 01:18 AM
2

Not quite. There are still sports such as gymnastics in which women could potentially compete as a result of flexibility and higher strength: bodyweight ratio.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 05:16 PM
1

Wow...well there goes my nostalgia. I remember when Ebaumsworld used to be a shitty version of reddit.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:41 AM
1

I can maybe see that as a definition for social conservatism, but tradition has basically nothing to do with conservative fiscal policy.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:52 AM
2

I know you were making a joke, but you don't even need to go into any more abstract a setting than the real line. In the basic one-dimensional real line the unique square is equal to the unit circle (with the usual metric topology of course)
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:47 AM
3

I've met quite a few people who call themselves feminist and are also not pro-choice, so I don't think that's a requirement really.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:45 AM
1

This one is kinda accurate actually. A lot of the major studies from the top scholars claim an unexplained gap of around 7% IIRC. After that, it sorta becomes subjective when deciding what factors need to be controlled vs. which shouldn't. Some of this gap can be explained by people being too reluctant to give women proper feedback, so they can never really improve (they're too nice, whereas they think men can "take it" so they dish out more constructive criticism).
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:03 AM
1

I think the way it is worded, it is asking for statistics on the sexes given that they are heavy drinkers in both. So, I think 2 and 3 would be true for sure. No idea on 1 and 4.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:31 AM
1

No one is going to think that you were making a point - they're going to think you got it wrong and were complaining after. It's a foolish way to protest - you should either get a lot of students to email about the question in particular and have it thrown out. Knowing that it is going to lower your marks and doing it anyway is silly.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:30 AM
1

Defamation doesn't work unless it's your real name/person that he is defaming. He (from an anonymous account) is attacking your anonymous account. Very tenuous case of defamation there, since the only thing being defamed is an online username. Not to mention you'd also have to prove just cause to track his IP and whatnot to get his actual credentials to even go through with the suit. It'd be a ridiculous series of loops you'd have to jump through to even get this thing to court - it's nothing li…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 04:51 PM
0

and keep in mind that i could easily sue you for the above comment. I was with you until you said this. You must be new to the internet.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 04:59 AM
1

I haven't done the calculation myself, but I imagine its because the higher risk doesn't actually result in a lower amount of total blood. It's not as simple as: "These people are risky, we should ban them". It's a fairly involved statistical question of whether or not that extra risk is compensated for by the fact that banning them actually eliminates a large pool of potential blood donations. Personally, I would like to believe that the government stats agencies know what they are doing and ar…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 11:39 PM
23

There is a very good reason for this. If you actually calculate the odds, the chances of a gay person having HIV is something like 1 million times more likely than a non-gay person. It is expensive to test blood so they actually mix together a lot of batches and then test all of them at once. It's not a "remnant" from any time - it is actually objectively better for everyone this way. If this law did not exist, then due to the much higher incidence of corrupted blood, it would actually reduce th…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:06 AM
4

I think there's a term called "rape by deception" or something like that. I remember it was used in the case of identical twins - one guy left the room and another twin entered and had sex with the first guy's girlfriend. She thought it was the same person and "willingly" went with it. Later, she successfully charged the twin with rape since it was "conditional consent". I imagine a similar thing would apply here.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 03:48 AM
1

I agree with you, and there are in fact cases where men have sued clubs for this sort of thing and won. In fact, in Canada afaik (didn't do a Google search or anything because I'm lazy ;)) no man has ever lost that kind of suit. It's just that for the most part no one really cares, probably because of a combination of Men benefitting too The "intent" not being malicious in nature
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:01 PM
1

If you notice, you'll find more guys and girls in clubs on Ladies Night. People like to bring dates and/or go when there is a better male:female ratio. Not every club does it - only the ones that determine it is good for business.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:39 PM
2

Generally if both sexes don't mind, it's not really an issue. In Canada anyway this is clearly illegal, but no one bothers to do anything about it for the most part. A lot of guys don't mind because this means there are more women in the club so they can score.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:15 AM
2

Is it wrong that I don't see this as that big a deal? Often women breastfeed in areas such as these and wouldn't want to be seen by men while doing so. This way it lets women know that men, in fact, are going to be welcomed and that they should know that in advance.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 05:16 AM
1

Is there a market for this though? It's fairly easy to fake one on your own...and no one should really believe a blank pregnancy test w.o seeing it done in front of him IMO
/r/MensRights08/07/13 03:45 AM
5

Granted, I'm going by strict dictionary definition when I talk about the terms feminism and MRA. I am both for men's rights and also for women not being discriminated against. Hence, by that and that alone I am both an MRA and a feminist. I don't call myself either though. Like I said if anyone asks in real life I either ask them to clarify, or simply state that I'm an egalitarian.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 02:54 AM
19

Both MRAs and feminists can be assholes. Don't generalize and hate the entire movement for that reason. That's why I prefer the term egalitarian - both the terms "MRA" and "feminist" contain unnecessary baggage and a lot of people make immediate assumptions about it.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 11:57 PM
1

I agree with you but this board seems to be stuck with the mentality that feminism and anti-male sexists are equivalent terms. There are plenty of people who call themselves feminist who would be disgusted at other feminists.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:34 PM
1

How do you figure? I wonder if this is just an American thing? I'm from Toronto and a significant portion of women here who identify with feminism would disagree with a good number of those questions.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 01:16 AM
1

The problem is that so many people have against completely against the ideas of egalitarianism while working under the brand of feminism that the term lacks meaning anymore. Arguing what is a "true feminist" is basically meaningless, since a lot of laypeople use the dictionary definition which simply states equality between genders (the same as egalitarianism). Instead of fighting the nuances of the definition of a term I think we should just all stick with trying to be equitable to each other.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:00 AM
1

Well Wikipedia is going by dictionary definition of feminism which actually includes men's rights as part of it. Not to mention that it is also a part in a series about discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 12:36 AM
2

This doesn't really address the comment though. Nowadays, all men choose to join the military. It does properly explain the inaccuracy of how men had it better in the old days though.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 12:35 AM
3

Erm something on the order of 95% of women are heterosexual. To even bring up homophobia when it's such an irrelevant point makes me feel like you're one of those "overly politically correct" people.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 02:55 AM
2

If it makes you feel better, it's probably a made-up story. Even if not, what is said on an Internet forum is hardly grounds for a legal suit.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:05 AM
4

They really need to take a lesson from India and segregate compartments in trains, with male-only and female-only. Sure, it sounds bad, but to be honest in practice it'll be better for both genders and significantly closer to gender-equality than the crap they have right now. Basically as is women are getting molested far too often, and that has led to a "guilty until proven innocent" issue for men in the trains.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 09:40 PM
-1

Yes and dictionaries should not contain comments on how lay-people use the word - it should have a definition of the word.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 10:55 PM
-1

If the definition for racist said "usually said of white people against other races", would that be OK? If the definition of rapist said "usually said of men against women" would that be OK? While these statements are true, I feel like there is an implicit judgement in them that makes an implication on what is "right" to say. Looking at it literally, there is nothing wrong with it, but we all know people don't always read things literally, and the connotations matter just as much as the denotati…
/r/MensRights15/05/13 04:12 AM
1

Might be a regional thing too. In my area slut is reversed for women, while the "gender-neutral" term for it would be whore. However, I have heard the terms "man-slut" and "man-whore" thrown around very frequently, so it might really just be who you talk to.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 04:10 AM
5

Not really. Slut is actually a term specific to women - hence the terms manslut. Sexism, on the other hand, is actually an academically designed term.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:54 AM
7

A lot of third/second world countries simply have an extremely disparate level of education for men and women. From the sound of it, that's what it is targetting - not a developed nation such as the US
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:47 AM
0

Not really. This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with insurance companies pricing based on probabilities.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:30 AM
3

It should be and this is what we should be fighting for. As it is, they have just "balanced out" unfairness with more unfairness. It doesn't work like that.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:26 AM
1

Why? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying to charge people that are likely to cost you more less money. If insurance companies did that, they'd be out of business - the entire point is pricing based on statistics.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:25 AM
1

Not really sure what you mean by misandry exactly. I'm of the opinion that there are human rights issues all over the world, and in the Western world there are both men's and women's rights issues that need to be worked on. I don't really get into arguments over which gender has it worse because as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter; it's not a competition. The objective should be to improve rights for everyone, and not take away rights on the basis of gendered discrimination. Whether it's a…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 09:52 PM
1

Do you think there could be a segregation issue though if someone disallows black people from entering their store, for example?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 09:50 PM
1

Give me an example of where the ignorance aspect of this was successfully used in a case.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 08:41 PM
5

How about instead of a set hourly pattern each week then, mens/womens hours switch places weekly? Like for example: One week has Men: 6-7, Women: 7-8. The next week, Women: 6-7, Men: 7-8
/r/MensRights20/04/13 01:19 AM
0

Yeah I figured that, but as far as I know there was very clear differential treatment between the two schools. Applied to gyms I see no difference than having different bathrooms for the genders to be completely honest.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 09:20 PM
13

May I ask why not? Not trying to instigate, but I'm just generally curious. If both genders have equal facilities and are simply not allowed to go to the other genders', why is that not equal?
/r/MensRights19/04/13 08:48 PM
1

Well I'd argue that the basis for the defense is a combination of a mental disorder (whether I agree with that or not is irrelevant) as well as a "he deserved it" mentality. This is commonly reflected in law though; there have been cases completely irrelevant to gendered discrimination where penalties have been lessened due to a sense of "vigilante justice being served", like for example when someone kills a murderer of someone else in the family.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 08:11 PM
2

Well I was just curious as to why you mentioned Sweden in particular : / My point was that if you look around the world, chances are that you're going to find instances of sexism of any form, against any gender.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:24 AM
1

"Gender is also irrelevant. In AG's Reference (No.24 of 2003) (2003) EWCA Crime 2451, the defendant, who had a low IQ, suffered prolonged taunting from his wife as to his illiteracy and impotency. During an argument, he stabbed her (and his son) and then wounded himself with a knife purchased during a break in the argument to harm himself rather than others. Sentences of three and a half years for each offence to be served concurrently were imposed, the sentencing judge referring to the defendan…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:20 AM
2

Umm you clearly didn't read the same link you posted. Look at the paragraph titled "Gender of the victim" directly underneath. It's applied to both genders, and just happens to be named after "woman". While the naming convention is stupid, in application it's actually gender-neutral. "Gender is also irrelevant. In AG's Reference (No.24 of 2003) (2003) EWCA Crime 2451, the defendant, who had a low IQ, suffered prolonged taunting from his wife as to his illiteracy and impotency. During an argument…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:20 AM
-6

There are also a lot of places in the world with male-only facilities, if you're going to cherrypick from countries...
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:14 AM
1

This is potentially because there is little demand for male-only gyms. If there was, you can bet there would be a business offering that. Capitalism.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:14 AM
1

Tagging to watch later
/r/MensRights19/04/13 12:33 AM
0

That's a really bad citation. The sample sizes are under 150...and from a hardly reputable site.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:48 AM
2

Even Dexter does a ridiculous amount of background research into the person to make sure that he is guilty. IIRC in the show he has only been wrong once.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:37 PM
1

That's kinda the exact opposite of what it said, if you read it.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:49 PM
1

That's why I think it should be assault and not sexual assault. The intent in a groin kick is the same as in a punch to the nose in most cases - to cause physical harm. It's not meant to violate the sexual integrity of the victim, unless the situation is particularly crafted in that way.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:24 PM
6

Well the wife could easily fake bruises (by getting a friend to beat her, for example).
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:28 AM
3

Breaking Bad reference.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:28 PM
3

Yes because the point of the harm relies on it being breasts specifically. If you grabbed and squeezed a girl's hands, it wouldn't be anything at all. I'm saying that intent matters in sexual assault just as the body part itself matters. I don't think all contact with sexual body parts should be defined as sexual assault.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:01 AM
11

It has nothing to do with sexuality at all; how does it have anything in common with touching of breasts? No one is saying it isn't violent but acts can be violent without being sexual assault. Kicking in the crotch is basically just assault of a particularly sensitive body part. If you punched a girl in the chest and happened to hit her breast, I highly doubt that could be considered sexual assault.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:41 AM
4

That's why I said in another post that it's much more likely that when there are different genders that an attack on a sexual body part will be viewed as sexual assault. I know personally of a girl who was suspended for kicking a guy in the balls for sexual assault, just as I know a guy who was suspended for 5 days for poking a girl's boob angrily.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:15 AM
1

I'm unaware of the US definition of the term since I'm from Canada. Is it not gender-neutral? Everything in Canada is gender-neutral, including rape as far as I'm aware.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:48 AM
25

I don't think it should be sexual assault if the intent is to harm and not sexual in nature. That said, I know in my elementary school here in Canada a girl was suspended 5 days for punching a guy in the balls specifically because it was sexual assault. I think if there are different sexes involved, the likelihood of it being deemed sexual in nature is much higher.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:52 AM
37

To be fair I don't think they'd count a hit to the breasts/crotch with a soccer ball as sexual assault either. It has to be sexual in nature; not just having to do with a sexual part. Kicking in the crotch is basically just assault.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:30 AM
1

What high schools have you been going to? The exact opposite of what you said is true: teachers could do whatever the hell they want and get away with it specifically because it isn't college.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:17 PM
6

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that though. I've heard countless "get back in the kitchen" jokes about women from people who are in no way actually sexist. To them, and to me hearing these jokes, it's just a form of humour and nothing more. Some of the best jokes are derogatory after all.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:19 AM
1

They can, but would you particularly blame a store for mainly hiring men? I sure as hell wouldn't have a problem with hiring women for selling dresses. If a store has mainly one gender for an obviously gendered product then the reason is probably that that gender is better suited for the job.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:25 AM
9

He's talking about a joke, not for in-built legal discrimination. There's a huge difference. I stand by that people should be able to joke about whatever - as long as it's not personal, it's fair game. The only issue is when it can't be done in a "reverse the roles" kind of way.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:08 AM
0

Why would they? It's a bona fide job requirement based on their business proposition. It would be like protesting against hiring males for a suit store.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:06 AM
6

You probably shouldn't have spoken up and instead kept your anonymity. Best idea here while protecting yourself is to send an anonymous email to the teacher, guidance counsellor and principal explaining why the picture is discriminatory and how it makes you feel. That shit will be taken down ASAP.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:38 PM
4

Don't actually. Save it for when you are on even ground. At this point, the teacher has power over you so I'd just suck it up, unfortunately. Even if you win and get it taken down, the grudge she has on you may reflect poorly on your marks, especially if it's a subjective class such as English/History.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:37 PM
2

Comments like this are bad simply because they contribute to the whole "if they were hot it wouldn't be a big deal" mentality. Rape is rape.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:00 AM
4

I've seen license plates making "women belong in the kitchen" jokes before, but then again I'm also not living in the US
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:02 PM
1

I'm in the University of Waterloo's Advanced/Pure Math undergraduate program (one of the best in Canada) and there is a definite lack of females in these classes. I mean it's not as huge a difference as 95 - 5, but it's closer to 75% male - 25% female, with close to 98% of the females being Chinese exchange students. So, I think what you stated is anecdotal at best, since it doesn't make sense for such a huge bias to simply disappear once you get to the university level if it is so apparent at t…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 05:31 AM
3

I don't think you understood his point? I don't understand what's hellish about trying to find out what skills the genders have over each other. It's just knowledge.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 05:28 AM
1

Yeah that's what I was saying: being 10 years old would, in all likelihood, be within an order of magnitude of his age. I don't think that he meant this, however, since being between 1-100 years old doesn't give very much information.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:37 PM
9

I think you meant within 10 years. Order of magnitude means within a factor of 10, so basically 10 would work.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:43 PM
10

Not necessarily; a bitch is basically a generic insult for a woman being annoying. I suppose an equivalent insult would be calling a man an asshole, for example. Telling him to grow a pair on the other hand is an actual comment on what he should be doing and how he should be acting. It's more equivalent to telling women to get back in the kitchen.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:42 PM
2

This most definitely does not fall into the same category as something like the "theory of gravity". A supposition (without a huge amount of supporting evidence) is just a hypothesis. All hypotheses have an "explanation" component. You're mixing up the colloquial definition with the scientific one.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:22 AM
0

I'm not really sure what you mean by evidence. Look at the CNN broadcast and compare to every other one. Do you see what the focus is for each? I'm not sure what evidence would suffice other than just watching the different coverages of the event and comparing the focus and theme of each. If you still disagree after seeing that well I guess you just disagree then.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 07:01 PM
0

Yes but take a look at any of the other broadcasts about this issue. They still managed to convey the impression that we are supposed to sympathize with the victim first. I have no issue if the news broadcast wants to also shed light on how the rapists have screwed themselves over, but when the focus of a fairly aggressive rape is the suffering that the rapists are going through, you know something is wrong.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:59 PM
3

You don't see an issue with focusing entirely on the negative implications for the proven criminal in a case instead of the victim? The way it was covered clearly showed an attempt to create sympathy for the rapists. Instead of fair, objective coverage of all the facts of the case and actually analyzing the implications for everyone involved, there was a clear bias and focus towards the rapists.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:24 PM
3

CNN went to absurd lengths to try to portray the good in these people. The focus was entirely on the rapists and the ways they will suffer in the time to come. Why would you cover a rape case in such a way? Why would any case be covered in a way so as to focus on the potential issues for the provably guilty? I can understand providing equal argument, but this was very obviously biased towards the rapists in question and the victim's suffering and future health were almost trivialized as a result…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:22 PM
1

I read that she was but cannot immediately find proof of it. I may have misread and/or it was just alleged. Rest still stands though.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:19 PM
1

I know only one guy, and he was basically brainwashed by his father (okay so I guess I know two people). His parents went through a rough divorce when he was around 2 years old. What had happened was his dad was not dominant in the house, and basically began an affair with a more submissive woman while his wife was pregnant with his second child (yeah, he's kind of an asshat). Anyway, after she found out, he divorced her and married the new submissive wive. Since then, any time he had with the l…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:11 PM
5

I actually have to disagree here. CNN was clearly in the wrong; these men were convicted rapists, who drugged, raped and then urinated on a girl. Then they took pictures, sent them to all their friends along with many tweets about what happened. It's just absurd that CNN is defending them and to be honest it makes the whole MRA movement look bad for us to defend this kind of behaviour. This was more or less as clear-cut a rape case as could possibly occur, and was well-documented.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:06 PM
6

Not actually true. Studies show that fat people actually have faster metabolisms than thin people (as they eat more food, the body's metabolism speeds up to match their intake)
/r/MensRights17/03/13 01:50 AM
1

IIRC Facebook just has an auto-filter for hate speech. If a set number of people report it as hate speech, it gets taken down immediately. I remember a similar thing happening when a friend of mine posted a survey showing something anti-religious.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 11:03 PM
2

This isn't the best example. There is actually a mountain of evidence that the boys in question actually did commit the rape, along with 100s of text messages and video of the event (provided by Anonymous).
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:54 PM
1

Is this actually true? How would they ever prove it beyond a "he said, she said" thing?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:26 PM
80

It's kinda silly to include "make men wear a condom" on the woman's side. If you're including that, you'd need to add on the men's side to "make woman do X" for any number of visible forms of birth control.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:41 AM
1

I actually don't have a problem with this. I'm all for insurance companies being allowed to charge based on probabilities. For car insurance, it makes sense to charge men more. Does anyone know if they do the same thing for health insurance (but in favour of men)?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 03:14 AM
2

I never said anything against that. I said segregation, both gender and racial, were based off the same reason which you stated. Both were segregation simply because people didn't "feel comfortable." Again, we're talking about feelings here, nothing else. The thing is that with segregation, it was only the comfort of the white people that was taken into account. That's why it's not an accurate metaphor. If services were moreorless equal for both races during segregation then likely blacks wouldn…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:19 AM
8

...are you kidding me? The difference was that segregation actually had lower standards for black people AND that the black people actually seriously minded the segregation. If it were done in a more equal way, and both races were OK with it (to the same exceedingly high percentages that the genders are with segregated bathrooms), THEN you would have an accurate analogy.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:01 AM
1

It's not too difficult to discriminate and not get caught. I mean in the OP's situation it was blatant and he knew about it, but most often what happens is they just throw out the male resumes.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:46 AM
1

Didn't say it did. I was just countering your point because I wasn't sure how you thought that it was a financial incentive for them to not have discriminatory policies. What possible advantage could they have for not doing it?
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:22 AM
1

How do you figure? I'm sure they could argue that having attractive females as staff increases their business.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:55 PM
1

Why shouldn't you have that right? If it's actually detrimental to you to do this, then you'll lose out based on competition against other firms. If it increased profitability of a business for some reason to have all white serving staff then it would be irresponsible not to do it. In fact, a lot of areas do in fact do this. I'm in Toronto, which is one of the multicultural centers of Canada. Guess how often I see non-white waiters?
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:52 PM
1

Yes but do you really expect any different results? I'd be very surprised to find differing results asking any group to remove an advantage that they already had. It would be like asking visible minorities to get rid of affirmative action and then being surprised when a majority do not want to. There's a difference in thinking something is unfair and actively trying to go against it. I don't understand why /r/mensrights is faulting women in this respect. It's basically human nature to support th…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 09:45 PM
1

Well duh? Why would any group want to put themselves at a disadvantage? I expect similar results for removing selective service for men.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:41 PM
2

Really odd. Maybe I just grew up in a special case, but in my elementary school everyone was under the impression that boys were smarter. I believe the consensus was that boys were smarter whereas girls would get marks based on hard work. No idea where that really came from, but it might have had to do with the fact that there were no girls in our "Challenge/Gifted" class, which we went to once a week. This was in Canada by the way.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:38 AM
1

That makes sense though. There is a huge molestation problem if women even dare to go into non gender segregated seats in a train. It's similar to the situation in Japan. Yes, it's sexist, but in this case it's basically necessary. The men there are actually disgusting in the ingrained "acceptable" treatment of women. Measures like this are necessary, as they effectively negate the sexual assault that would otherwise happen. In effect, the males get their own cars too considering all the women s…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 07:36 AM
1

This is just silly. They should just charge based on time and let that be that. Then people can be as picky as they want, have as long hair as they want, come as often as they want, and be charged an equitable fee.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:42 AM
2

Just so you know, that doesn't really mean anything more than the university wanting the very best students to apply. They are saying not to be discouraged from applying just because you think you will not get in - NOT that they will weight their applications differently. For the university I attend now, a similar message was given to us for the Mathematics program. The current (approximate) breakdown is around 60% Chinese, 35% White, 5% Other.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:38 AM
1

How long have you two been married for, if you don't mind me asking?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:35 AM
1

The health insurance thing is ridiculous. People should pay the statistically fair price for premiums. It's ridiculous that political correctness and avoiding discrimination is valued over actually mathematically correct ways of doing things.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 01:21 AM
1

I would go talk to the Dean. This is blatant discrimination. However, most likely they would just say something like "Well, see if there's enough support for a men's night, and if so then we'll see what we can do". Chances are that men wouldn't really care (unfortunately) and so the current ruling will stand.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 06:04 PM
1

I'm sorry, but what is the issue here? I'm sure if a man posted a similar thing onto a male forum he would get the same advice. I mean, it's the abuser posting and the abuser clearly knows what she is doing wrong. Did you really expect them to say "You're a bad person and should break up for your SO's own good"?
/r/MensRights07/01/13 06:16 PM
8

The best way to go about this IMO without sounding like a "killjoy" is to make a similar joke about women and see the reaction. If there is an adverse reaction, pretend you have no idea why they are reacting in that way and get them to explain their offendedness to you. That usually gets people to think about what was said earlier.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:06 PM
2

The thing is that a lot of men would think that the other man wouldn't want to be helped. It's weird, but if I saw a man getting beaten I would actually expect the man to take the "macho" stance and refuse help and/or be insulted that I decided to help. Probably the wrong way of thinking, but I still feel as though the majority of men would feel that way.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:02 PM
1

Agreed. It's a logically consistent stance!
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:57 PM
4

I think it fits. The man isn't really "squashing it out" either, as the child can live without him. In the prior case, the baby literally is completely dependent on the mother.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:57 PM
0

They do do that. They take into account anything that results in a measureable difference in accident rate. That's the point of insurance companies, life and car likewise.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:01 PM
1

Why? This will only make the system less accurate. It's basically political correctness for the sake of accuracy. Insurance companies have a right to charge what they want to, and they charge based on probabilities, and that's all.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:00 PM
2

Is it bad that I thought this was going to be about abortion?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 04:52 PM
1

Yes and here in Canada birthcontrol for those reasons is covered. It's only when its a purely contraception thing that it is not.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 12:07 PM
2

Don't they understand that no one would donate sperm if this was the case?
/r/MensRights29/12/12 06:00 PM
6

Yes but think of it this way: The man is more educated/has a much better job. The wife is less educated/has a worse job etc. Now, imagine a situation where the wife was making something like 36 000 a year and the husband makes 150 000. Extreme example I know, but not that uncommon*. Instead of trying to get ahead in life, the wife simply chooses to focus on supporting the family in other ways, such as taking care of the house, maybe managing investments (with the husband's money of course) and s…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:19 AM
7

It sort of makes sense if both worked under the (reasonable in my opinion) assumption that they would be married for life, and so the wife chose not to further her career and instead take on the house-wife role. In such a situation, should she not be compensated for her choice, or would you rather everyone prepares for divorce at the moment they get married?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:36 AM
4

No idea why you're being downvoted
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:46 AM
1

That analogy doesn't work specifically because it's not good in the long run. Can you explain to me why exactly it is harmful for insurance companies to charge more for people who are more likely to have a car accident? I mean, why stop at just the "sexist" policy, and tackle all the other discrimination that insurance companies do. Do you really think it's fair for older, safer drivers to pay more for a teenager's high risk? How is any discrimination in insurance payments allowed when you claim…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:36 AM
-4

Insurance is a service, and by paying into it, you get something out. It's fair to pay more if you are more likely to benefit from it. It's just like you would pay more for a lottery with a higher expected value. If you don't want it, don't pay. Fact is, it's not sexist discrimination - they are taking as much into account as possible to assess your probability of a claim, and your expected claim. That's how basically any risk-based pricing system works.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:04 AM
-2

Exactly. This has nothing to do with sexism; it's simply taking information into account when pricing in order to price based on probability. Making a law like this is effectively making it harder for actuaries to do their jobs, and creating a less accurate system overall.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:44 PM
4

Source please? I'm Canadian and have heard nothing of this. It sounds completely absurd.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:40 PM
2

The only rational reason for marriage is the tax benefits.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:40 PM
2

The problem is that with rape culture, it actually infects into laws. Rapists get lower sentences sometimes based on what the girl is wearing. Also, there is a serious problem with people desensitizing rape in general, what with the recent controversy over the "legitimate rape" comment. Do you see this sort of thing happening with theft? No one is blamed for leaving their car/house unlocked when they get robbed. They are given preventative advice, but it's not like a burglar would get lower sent…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:48 AM
1

Pretty sure that's just the definition of the term. Or do you mean they shouldn't be shamed for it?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 08:51 AM
0

Oh are you one of those people that believes that your own subjective opinion is objectively correct, and that those who disagree with you are dumb? That sounds awfully similar to fundie-thinking to me...
/r/MensRights17/12/12 08:49 AM
1

You realize that the abortion debate is split even amongst women about 50/50 right? It's not really a female/male issue moreso than it's just a liberal/conservative issue. There are also plenty of atheists that are pro-life as well (myself included). https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/ There's a pretty good list of secular arguments if you are interested.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 08:48 AM
4

Explain?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:30 AM
94

I find that ridiculously hard to believe. The site is obviously biased and is probably using rigged statistics. Anyone have a decent source for this claim?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:42 PM
69

I wouldn't really consider it bigotry, but ignorance. A lot of people legitimately believe that white males have zero handicap whatsoever. Granted, they are favoured in a lot of situations, it still doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate problems.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:40 PM
10

I...don't get it
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:11 AM
3

It's a really weird ad, and I do agree that the wives (?) have reason to be upset at the purchase of the car, but I really don't see how it is hate speech...
/r/MensRights09/12/12 12:14 AM
7

How is this a men's rights issue? He just seems like a complete idiot who has extremely poor foresight.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 12:08 AM
2

Wow, that sounds ridiculous. Granted, I don't know anyone who actually has a degree in Women's Studies. The people I talked to simply took it as an elective.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 12:01 AM
2

I'm mainly speaking from personal experience, but I have quite a few friends from the Arts faculty at UofT and at University of Waterloo, and based on what I asked them about it, the views expressed at that protest are completely misrepresenting what is actually taught in class. Women's Studies is a commonly chosen elective for people who just want a class done, and a lot of the people in it are extremists. However, that is not to say that the class itself fosters extremism. Basically what I am …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:04 PM
1

Can you give any examples of feminism being taught in schools to be about female superiority? Pretty sure textbook definition is exactly what it should be: to eliminate gender biases and advocate equality.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 12:52 AM
1

I think a lot of people find it pretty creepy regardless...
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:06 PM
2

I consider myself a gender-equalist. That means I side with any "true" feminists and MRAs alike, since ideally both would want overall equality in treatment, just with a focus on both sides of the equation. That said, I'll call out anything that I consider inequitable treatment (or even an advocate of this treatment), whether they are a feminist or an MRA. I've seen "feminazis" in my day to day life, and I've also seen misogynists speak under the guise of being an MRA. I just like things to be l…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 08:53 PM
1

Depends on what you mean by oppressed. People can be conditioned into being OK with things even when brought to their attention, they might disagree. Hell, I'd argue there are plenty of men today who don't even realize the legal injustices they face in relation to women. Are they being oppressed? As an MRA I'd say yes, there are definite cases of legal oppression of men. Are they feeling oppressed though? That's harder to tell. I think it's fairly agreeable that not being able to vote is inbuilt…
/r/MensRights01/12/12 07:28 AM
0

"Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property" This is the Wikipedia definition, and it seems fairly standard in university (well at least my university) textbooks.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 04:13 AM
3

Thats a pretty bold conspiracy theory you've cooked up there. Any justification for your claims at all?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:55 AM
7

I find it interesting that you can claim that women were never oppressed and that the women's rights movement was just a way of "rewriting history". What makes this men's rights movement any different in your opinion? I'm sure you could find many people who would assert that men have never had feelings of oppression in the past either.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:50 AM
1

Well I'd argue that the same should apply to women and that they should not be able to have an abortion either, since this is actually a worse result for the baby than having no paternal child support - it actually dies
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:23 AM
1

I think you're going to have to argue why the two aren't equivalent. Effectively both are weighing the child's rights with the parents'.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:18 AM
1

It's fairly common on this subreddit yes. I'm one of the few (it seems) MRAs on the subreddit that disagrees with the concept of financial abortion, but I also disagree with the standard example of abortion, so it's logically consistent in that form. I just think that both (financial and traditional) forms of abortion are ways society seems to take rights away from a child and give them to adults. IMO if adults don't want children at any cost, then they should either remain abstinent or use cont…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:10 AM
-3

Factor in abortion and this number probably increases 100 fold.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 08:45 PM
1

I know two people who have worked at Google, and let me tell you they are not a sexist company. Realistically they probably just haven't heard of it, since that site is edited by programmers working in the United States where International Men's Day just isn't that popular. They would probably do something if enough people drew attention to it, but a lot of their ideas just come from random staff saying "you know what would be cool?".
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:26 PM
2

I feel like this is the only legitimate advice in the thread, and it's nowhere near the top. To OP: You two need to sincerely talk about this issue, and explain in a calm and collected manner why what she did was wrong and hurtful to you. And no, this isn't gender specific advice, I would advice a girl to do the same thing (since it seems to be a light but forceful/aggravated hit, instead of a full onslaught).
/r/MensRights17/11/12 08:03 AM
-1

So does pretty much every schoolgirl porn scenario.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 07:53 AM
2

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/Non-Christians-Postgrads-Highly-Pro-Choice.aspx According to this anyway about 1/5 of atheists are pro-life (compared to a sizeable number that are pro-choice), so I can see why you might think that.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:16 PM
4

I don't think you understand what words mean. No one here has even suggested the idea of obligation other than you. Also, all your points aren't actually points and just assertions - not generally how you would debate a point.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:42 PM
3

https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/ I find this link a pretty good source for a lot of secular arguments for the pro-life side. In my experience I haven't found one better. Even if you're pro-choice, you would probably find this fairly interesting, just so you know what the other side is thinking.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:40 PM
0

Since I assume you already know quite a few arguments from the pro-choice side (from Reddit/real life) allow me to play a form of Devil's Advocate and just recommend a quick reading on a few secular pro-life arguments. This isn't to be disrespectful or anything; I'm simply posting it because I (possibly incorrectly) assume the main pro-life arguments you would be hearing would be highly religiously-backed, when IMO anyway there are several interesting lines of thought which are completely secula…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:39 PM
4

To be fair, the chance of dying is actually very small.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:36 PM
44

In most places of work, that much cleavage is also not appropriate business attire for women. Where I work anyway a little more than a bit of cleavage is grounds for some kind of reprimand.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 06:10 PM
5

I don't so much agree with an entire financial abortion, but the way the system is currently definitely needs to be changed. My main problems with the current system are: The obvious raped male cases forced to pay child support Child support being dependent on amount of income of the male (and in some cases the male's family) Then again, I am also (one of the few on Reddit it seems) pro-life, so I don't entirely think its fair to give women the right to abortion either (for those who are interes…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 11:06 PM
1

I'd say both are situational. I think women should right the right to abortion during cases of rape, just as men should have the option to financially abort only in cases of non-consensual sex. Either way, as it is now there is a definite asymmetry of power.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 12:41 AM
1

I'm not. I don't really consider myself "liberal" or "conservative". I just come to conclusions based on a semi-axiomatic approach to morality that I developed for myself (probably thanks to my pure math background...lol). I guess in the end result, I'm basically "centrist" but I have varying opinions from all across the political spectrum, so the term centrist would be misleading. https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/ For specifically abortion, that above link is great for explaining my ration…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 02:54 PM
1

Legally? Woman's choice. Morally? Kinda dicey, given that some (myself included) would argue that abortion in a situation of consensual sex itself is immoral. Given that you're accepting abortion to be morally acceptable though, I'd have to give the edge in favour of the woman here. The man doesn't want the child to die, and neither does the woman (I assume). The case however is that the woman has to suffer all the bodily issues associated with pregnancy, including risk of death, and the entire …
/r/MensRights15/07/12 10:38 PM
1

Agreed. People who are claiming this is blatant sexism simply don't understand the situation in countries such as those.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:56 PM
1

It's not actually the total opposite...I mean there are definitely other issues afoot, but things like the gender gap and the glass ceiling are most definitely existent. It seems that females have the benefit when it comes to social issues such as sexual assault and divorce, but lose out when it comes to monetary compensation and job discrimination.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:42 PM
1

If you cannot express your point or the "truth" without resorting to character assassination, then I see no point in arguing with you either
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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