TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

downvoted_by_lefties Archive

View 8 posts and 271 comments by downvoted_by_lefties 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

Guess I'm having trouble understanding you. Maybe some punctuation would help together with a little explanation how feminist ideology "gives" privilege to young, white, middle class people. My understanding of feminist ideology is that it is focused on gender, but maybe I'm mistaken...
/r/MensRights22/10/13 03:37 PM
0

being young white and middle class gives them a huge amount of privilege I don't agree with that. Being young means people will treat you like someone who is inexperienced. Being white (in the U.S. at least) means you will face open discrimination from a lot of minorities (because of your "privilege") and will have to do measurably better in school because of your race. Being middle class - I'm having trouble even understanding how that gives you privilege. It means you have too much money to re…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:35 PM
-2

What do you know about oppression, you're a white middle class male. Right? Isn't that how you think?
/r/MensRights22/10/13 12:55 AM
-1

go fuck yourself. Classy. You're no better than someone dismissing your opinion cause you're male.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 12:15 AM
-1

Chances are Relying on statistical chances (i.e. generalizations) will make you wrong a lot. Anyone can be oppressed, regardless of their race or class. Do you really need someone to tell you that?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:52 PM
-13

Yeah, fuck first world white women! They don't know anything about adversity cause they're white and middle class! /s Your statements are no less bigoted than if you discounted a black slaves opinions because they don't know anything about how white people are treated.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:15 PM
1

Hmm, I hate these studies because there are so many factors that go into sentencing and you can't control for all them. For instance, I would bet women are (or act like they are) more remorseful for their crimes than men. I would bet men are more likely to try to represent themselves than women. I bet the nature of male crimes are more violent, even if you control for the arrest offense. Factors like those can make a big difference in your prison sentence.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:10 PM
-1

The feminist blogosphere is dominated by young, white, middle class women I hate it when people use race, age, or class as a means of discrediting someone's opinion.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:03 PM
21

In the video, the man is backing away and the girl appears to be running toward him and putting her hands on him. But, the guy punches her, and now he's the bad guy...
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:47 PM
-1

Pre-nups aren't always iron-clad, but they're certainly helpful.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 03:12 PM
5

Googling a law that doesn't exist is pretty difficult. This isn't a foster care situation.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 03:08 PM
4

Gonna have to provide a citation if you want me to believe that.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 02:42 PM
3

Agreed. I was disappointed to learn he's a professor of some sort. A professor who relies on "fuck you" as a rebuttal and doesn't use a single citation? I also agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with breastfeeding in public. IMO, that was actually the girl's best point. But he dismisses it, claiming she's "stupid" for decrying the sexualization of an unsexual activity because . . . boobs. I was a little embarrassed on behalf of MRA's to listen to that part. In short, his rudeness under…
/r/MensRights14/10/13 05:39 PM
2

Yup. The theory is that you've treated the kid like yours for X (a year in Louisiana's case) time so your parent-child relationship exists regardless of the genetics. It's pretty fucked up. I agree.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 09:32 PM
3

In Louisiana, you have one year from the time you learn of the birth to rebut the presumption of paternity.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 08:08 PM
2

I don't feel a need to say "a vast majority of states" when speaking of the US You really should. A lot of people don't know this issue is a state-by-state question. Texas is the second most populous state. That's a pretty big section of the country you're wrong about. And I doubt Texas is by itself on this question. Feel free to provide a citation yourself. It is your claim after all.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:18 PM
3

That's not true, at least in some jurisdictions. Texas Attorney General's Office Please don't misinform people about their legal rights.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:08 PM
2

The law, at least in the US - and from this probably Canada too, is pretty clear. A child born in wedlock is the responsibility of the husband. Period It's not quite that simple. It's presumed to be the husband's child. Then the husband typically (the law varies from state to state) has a set time to prove parentage of someone else.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 04:16 PM
18

Cheating (which he denies btw) does not justify $22K per month child support payments.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 05:55 PM
3

Yup.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 05:31 PM
6

Well, I'll try to answer your question without romantic fluff. When I married, I believed my wife was the highest* quality partner (a great mix of personality, looks, and consideration) I could find, I wanted to have a family and my wife would not have a family without a marital commitment (IMO, that's understandable), and my wife was (and is) good "mother material." That said, I can't guarantee that I made the right decision.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 03:59 PM
4

Recognizance bond. It's a bond that requires no payment, just a promise (with legal consequences) to appear at future court appearances. It's a common type of bond in petty crimes. Almost unheard of in murder cases.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 07:06 AM
1

Yep, the reporter can't hide her feminist colors. There's her "male-dominated" workforce BS, with no empirical data behind it. And then she also calls it a "bad decision" for women to prioritize something other than money in their career choices.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 07:26 PM
6

Listen to the audio - the journalist describes the issue as "women are making a lot of bad decisions." I hate that statement because it's not a "bad" decision to take a cut in pay so that you can spend more time with your children or lead a happier life. And of course, they have to make the obligatory complaint about the "male-dominated" workplaces. With no data to back up that complaint, mind you - a tell-tale sign that this journalist is a feminist at her core. At least this story recognizes t…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:57 PM
8

The problem is the expanding definition of "rape." This reminds me of the media lambasting Todd Akin for referencing "legitimate rape" as an exception for abortion, and then Obama comes along gives his disingenuous, but crowd-pleasing, "rape is rape" commentary. In other words, there is a gaping difference between a guy having "drunk sex" with his wife, and someone kidnapping a small child and having his/her way with him/her. But our society is popularizing the notion of referencing these two in…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:52 PM
1

This is casual, co-rec sports we're talking about, right? As a man, if someone wants to learn a sport, I encourage them and try to help them improve, not shout them down because they aren't helping us win.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 03:31 PM
1

Well, yeah - otherwise the key to victory would be to run plays that excluded women, because, ya know, men are athletically superior. If that's what you want, play men's sports, not co-rec. Do I really have to explain this and get downvoted for it?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 02:37 PM
-1

If you made the rules just more points for women, then the road to success would entail every play being male except SOME of the scoring plays. Don't you see how that would be un-fun for women? Play all-men's sports if you want to play that way. IMO, it's clear the rules are designed to reward teams that include women in plays. If you want balanced co-ed play, that's the way it's got to be.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 10:23 PM
-9

Eh. Sounds fun. Men kill women at football - that is a fact. To keep women viable and accordingly keep the game fun for everyone in corec sports, rules like these have to be made. Welcome to corec sports. It's actually fun once you get over it.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 09:38 PM
1

assuming your argument that immigration will destroy the Japanese culture, which is fucking hilarious Not "will," but given enough immigration and a long enough time, it "could." If anything's laughable, it's your apparent belief that a culture can't be displaced by an immigrating population. There were probably some Iroquois who thought the same way as you.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 02:46 PM
6

How dare a country be interested in preserving its culture!?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:25 PM
9

Western culture is on the brink of solving aging and disease, gaining the ability to grow humans in labs and build useful robots. As well as that, there is no shortage of replacement migrants. What about "replacement migrants" makes you think they're interested in preserving Western culture?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:23 PM
3

More accurately- it's bad for young people and men. Men have fewer health expenses than women, and young people have fewer health expenses than old people. The ultimate goal of Obamacare is to shift medical costs from less healthy people (women and old people) to more healthy people (men and young people).
/r/MensRights01/08/13 06:28 PM
-3

Interesting. Thank you.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:01 PM
-38

Lose the "might" and give me a "cite." Your post is meaningless speculation otherwise. You may as well be telling me "God might exist." Profound, man. Profound.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:32 PM
2

She's probably already in the poor house. Most single moms are. That's my point.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:06 PM
17

There's an old saying among lawyers regarding this strategy: "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip."
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:53 PM
-59

That money (at least, the vast majority of it) goes to mom, not the state.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:52 PM
9

Right. Several years ago is far too long ago.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:03 PM
29

That's illegal. You should have contacted the EEOC.*
/r/MensRights17/07/13 03:59 PM
-3

Not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:27 PM
6

It may surprise you, but men often have a substantial emotional and monetary stake in their unborn children.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 07:40 PM
4

I don't know about PA, but, in Texas, the percentage varies with the number of children. Last I checked (~five years ago) it was 20 percent for one child, 25 for two, and so on up to a MAXIMUM of 50 percent.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 03:35 PM
6

The other party hates men. I wouldn't go that far. They just hate productive people, personal responsibility, and treating their favored class of people de jour (e.g. gays, women, Hispanics, and blacks) as mere equals. So their hatred of men is only incidental.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:52 PM
11

Considering feminism owns the left, that makes sense, does it not?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:02 PM
24

Read the OP: The statistics are grim. According to the book Reaching Boys, Teaching Boys: Strategies That Work and Why, boys are kept back in schools at twice the rate of girls. Boys get expelled from preschool nearly five times more often than girls. Boys are diagnosed with learning disorders and attention problems at nearly four times the rate of girls. They do less homework and get a greater proportion of the low grades. Boys are more likely to drop out of school, and make up only 43 percent …
/r/MensRights01/07/13 08:27 PM
60

IMO - the state of education is the biggest men's issue there is.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 04:22 PM
7

1 was female. See? You just proved women die in dangerous jobs too!
/r/MensRights01/07/13 04:19 PM
5

As far as I understand US law, common law marriage can only apply if you "present yourself as man and wife to others." In the states that recognize common law marriage (many do not), this is correct. AND there has to be an agreement to be married.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:34 PM
1

Amber's not a mineral as it has an organic origin:)
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:25 PM
5

This. IMO, this is one of the biggest men's rights issues there is - drugging up boys for acting too much like boys is mentally twisted in itself.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:55 PM
6

I live in Texas and have a nephew who has been deemed "ADHD." Before medication, he was hyper, yes, but my wife and I both thought he was a good, loving kid with a lot of potential. But his mom/my sister, based on teacher recommendations, decided something needed to be done so he wouldn't disrupt class. He was subsequently medicated (despite his dad's objections) and about a year later, he seems a lesser version of himself - he looks down all of the time, doesn't talk or play much, and barely sa…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 04:30 PM
7

The Urban Dictionary has started being cited in legal footnotes to explain the meaning of slang-based testimony (the Urban Dictionary is often more when witnesses come from the hood). You'd be wrong to dismiss it.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 04:12 PM
1

This is troubling, and calls for Congressional inquiry. I'm glad he's calling attention to the statistic, but this line is melodramatic and stupid.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 04:24 PM
2

I agree with OP, but I also think it would be fair for men to have to pay the prospective mother for the cost of an abortion if they surrender parental rights.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 04:21 PM
2

If you work in criminal law, you have to get used to it. Disturbing situations happen and, when they do, people start calling those evil lawyers for help.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 01:53 PM
2

It's actually a typical type of law school question, because it forces the student to apply legal concepts to difficult facts. It therefore tests the student's knowledge as well as critical thinking. Source: I went to law school.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:10 PM
5

SM's usually just want another man purely to pay for the kids she already has...As I often say; single moms are for f***ing, not dating. What a piss-poor generalization. As if there's no variety among single moms.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:04 PM
5

Using the NAWALT (Not all women are like that) argument is fallible reasoning. It's not reasoning at all. It's a statement of fact.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 03:04 PM
10

No offense, but women who like nice guys are not unicorns. My wife is one of those women (not to mention an ex-gf and a couple of girls I wasn't interested in). If you convince yourself that women only like assholes, then those are the kind of women you'll end up with. Learn how to handle rejection and you'll find the girl you want.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 02:21 PM
28

Too much generalization for me. There are all kinds of women with all kinds of tastes.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 02:14 PM
3

It's worth filing a complaint. The district manager and the store manager would have to coordinate a lie, which is certainly possible, but all it takes is for one of them to grow a conscience (or not be coordinated enough to come up with a matching lie).
/r/MensRights23/04/13 02:55 PM
1

I think you should go take a critical thinking class or something. Snotty remarks aren't making you more likable or persuasive. So, if you discriminate against violent criminals, arent you, by your logic, discriminating against all races? This question shows you're not getting it. Of course it affects all races to some degree. Just like discriminating against short people discriminates against all races to a degree. But these sorts of discrimination disproportionately affect one race (violent cr…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 02:16 PM
1

No, not "hate," but if you discriminate against violent criminals, you are indirectly discriminating against blacks. That's part of why young black males have trouble getting employment.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:25 AM
0

You're missing my point - I know (obviously?) that rap music isn't exclusive to blacks. My point is that you can discriminate against a group of people by discriminating against something characteristic (albeit not exclusively) of a group of people...in other words, it's incidental discrimination. For example, If you discriminate against rap music, you incidentally discriminate against black people. If you discriminate against short people, you incidentally discriminate against Asians. If you di…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:43 PM
-4

"I don't discriminate against black people. I just hate rap music!"
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:24 PM
0

Punishing kids for images of guns disproportionately affects boys.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 03:31 PM
1

Been there. I had two female math teachers I clashed with for similar reasons. One would deduct points for not putting commas in my numbers. You had to write 1,000; not 1000. It never made sense to me (it still doesn't, unless you're dealing very large numbers - like six digits or more) and I would always forget the commas, so I would get B's even though I answered every question right. The other used to deduct ungodly points for not showing my work. I could do the math in my head and going step…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:07 PM
2

Just to add, I've seen statistics that men drive substantially more than women too. This would explain any discrepancy based on quantities (men get in more accidents, get more tickets, etc.).
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:54 PM
3

Even assuming you're right, you should at least compare organs to organs; not semen to organs.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:38 PM
1

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your assertion that a judge or jury will disregard the fact that he's made great efforts (regularly travelling a long distance) to see his son.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:19 PM
-7

I like GWW, but there was one bad point that stuck with me. As a demonstration of the lesser value of male gender, she compared the value of the uterus ("a mil[lion]") to an ejaculation ("about 10 cents"). A) An ejaculation sells for much more than 10 cents. B) The analogous comparison to a uterus would be testicles. I'm pretty sure testicles would be worth a similar amount to a uterus. Maybe I'm being picky, but that poor comparison cost her some credibility IMO.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:10 PM
2

What you described would be a legal marriage in Texas and other states that recognize common law marriage.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:06 PM
1

They do it along various vectors. Type of crime, severity of violence, etc. Cite? There's no reason to believe that women were less likely to commit crimes while their case was pending. In fact they were probably more likely because they were more likely to be able to make bail. Actually, there is very good reason. Men commit more crimes overall and at a higher rate, so it would be reasonable to assume they commit more crimes and at a higher rate while out on bail. And it's pretty rare for anyon…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 10:42 PM
-1

I decided to check, and it looks like you're right, as far as criminal history is concerned. From the abstract: This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Still, I'm extremely skeptical about how any researcher can control for criminal history. Criminal history is a highly variable and…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:34 PM
-2

The problem with these "studies" I've found is that they ignore criminal history and other important factors when it comes to sentencing. They like to do the same study with blacks versus whites, but the studies assume both groups have the same aggravating factors in their crimes. For instance, you might have two people convicted of drug possession with incredibly disparate sentences, but the person with the harsher sentence had two prior convictions for felonious assault and had an illegal gun …
/r/MensRights15/04/13 01:28 PM
0

Their quote specifically says "marriage links men to women". Which is undoubtedly true. It doesn't say "other families don't matter." Reading that quote as some sort of exclusion requires some hypersensitivity or additional undisclosed context on the reader's part.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:43 PM
-1

I don't see what about the OP quote suggests that it "always takes a woman to tame a man"? Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like you just have an ax to grind against Focus on the Family because they are against homosexual marriage. That's your prerogative, but it's not an MR issue.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:32 PM
-1

There is some truth to that, you know. In Johnny Cash's words, "I Walk the Line" (Okay, not exactly the same, but it's similar). For me personally, I'd probably be much more reckless with my life if I didn't have a family to look out for. I'd probably quit my job, get a motorcycle, and have a risky sex life . . . man, being single sounds nice when I summarize it like that!
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:16 PM
3

A) Note my username B) It's total bullshit that Obama is getting crap about this.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:59 PM
-4

No, you are missing my point. It's not a question of right and wrong. Everyone agrees its wrong, including myself and the state. The issue is the severity of the wrong. I didn't say that they should be made sex offenders for their whole lives, but I do believe that this should be considered sexual assault. Sorry, but I don't think you understand the meaning of "sexual assault" in a legal or a non-legal context. No one's getting their rocks off here.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:30 PM
-4

Forcibly removing someone's clothes and stripping them naked doesn't fall under any of those paragraphs, but Texas law doesn't determine right and wrong. Feel free to show me a law in any of the 50 states that classifies this as "sexual assault." I'll be waiting. In the meantime, nobody said this is "right." It's still an assault, which I would hope we all agree is wrong. It's just not the same degree (not even close) of "wrong" as a sexual assault. Besides, most laws are too restrictive in thei…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:14 PM
-12

No shit, but this isn't sexual assault. And don't think those upvotes make you right. Here's the Texas definition of "sexual assault," for example - it requires sexual conduct (i.e. penetration or contact with genitals or anus), which isn't the case here.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:31 PM
1

I guess your research isn't concerned with sample bias, eh?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:58 PM
-29

Um, this isn't sexual assault. There obviously is no sexual intent here; rather, it's an exercise in humiliation. That makes it "just" an assault. Please don't* use the term sexual assault frivolously or you're no better than any other person who throws out false allegations.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:52 PM
1

Lots of misuse of the term "convicted" there. "Convicted" typically refers to a finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding, not an administrative proceeding. That said, the "preponderance of evidence" standard applies to civil trials, as well as these administrative hearings (according to this editorial). And the same risks apply. Why complain now?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 06:18 PM
3

The "separate but equal" policy was a close call in a legal context. Not to mention, it's a little foolish to judge past generations as if you're somehow morally superior to them.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 08:40 PM
2

Landslide? A few percentage points is not a "landslide."
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:55 PM
2

Right. Or why should people who have genetic disabilities be allowed to marry, but not siblings?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:53 PM
0

If I can marry Sally because I'm a man, but Jane can't because she's a woman, then that's the very definition of sexual discrimination. Actually, no. Genders are treated equally because they have equal rights to marry the opposite sex. The issue is whether homosexuals are being discriminated against, not whether men and women are being discriminated against.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:52 PM
-1

Right. No gay men have ever fathered children. Ever. A) That doesn't answer the question. B) That's not what I said.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:04 PM
5

It's a matter for debate in the Supreme Court, so yeah, there are very good legal arguments on both sides of the issue. For the "against gay marriage" side, in the words of one court: Because only relationships between opposite-sex couples can naturally produce children, it is reasonable for the state to afford unique legal recognition to that particular social unit in the form of opposite-sex marriage. See Standhardt, 77 P.3d at 462-63 (“The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opp…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:58 PM
-6

This is probably the stupidest thing I have seen posted anywhere on the internet in the last 10 years. Really? Did you get on the internet yesterday? Do you know how many gay relationships involve fathers? Last I checked, it's a biological impossibility for two men to have a child together.... Please, enlighten me as to why I'm the "stupidest" person on the internet. EDIT: This is you talking to another poster nineteen minutes ago: Yeah, forgive me if I think you're so incredibly stupid that it'…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:32 PM
-7

Just an observation here, but it seems to me that gay marriage is just another way to remove fathers from the family unit. I mean, let's face it - it's not gay men that are going to start families; it's going to be gay women starting families that are allegedly just as viable as a family with a father.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:16 PM
1

Sad story, but I have trouble sympathizing with people who plead guilty when they are innocent. More tragic is that that bitch got 1.5 million dollars from taxpayers for making a false allegation.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 07:26 PM
38

When a teacher asks "Is this going to be like a funny thing?" it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't taking you seriously. It could simply mean that he's checking to make sure you're taking your assignment seriously.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:17 PM
1

Dunno. Sometimes authority figures act improperly regardless of who's triggering the improper conduct. For example, the Rodney King case. The officers got canned, but that doesn't make Rodney King some sort of hero (well, it shouldn't). That said, I only watched one 30-minute video that I learned little from other than the fact that OP is probably an annoying person (which is often related to authority figures acting improperly). Forgive me if I'm not eager to watch another video.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:03 PM
-14

Only kind of?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:25 PM
-19

FTR, I'm all for family court reform and agree that guys often get the shaft in family courts. That said, I watched the link you posted. It was 30 minutes of my life I would like back. There was nothing educational about it. No one was treating you unfairly in the video. I certainly didn't see any evidence of "ALL OUT fraud, corruption, deception, greed, lawlessness, and feminist entitlement-mindedness, of the family court." Rather, it looked like everyone was giving your plenty of time to state…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 07:45 PM
-24

Watched your testimony, and it's clear you don't know much about the law. For example, you try to cite an anti-trust violation because an attorney can't give you a concrete number on how much it will cost to copy your file. You sound like a nit-picky know-it-all at that moment. Notice that no one is asking for your legal guidance - they just want the facts of your case. Friendly advice: stick to the facts and stop pretending you have legal expertise. Pro se litigants can be effective, but humili…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:55 PM
2

Lawyer here. Listened to the podcast. Based on what fokm said, there is no evidence of bias. He's speculating that his atheism is the cause of an unjust ruling. He may be right. I understand that, when faced with an irrational judgment, it's natural to look to the most plausible reason the judge is acting irrationally. But, that said, you can't base a motion to recuse a judge on speculation. The most you'll accomplish is you'll annoy the judge. In other words, such an action would accomplish not…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:01 PM
1

In the version you wrote, blacks clearly lose out - the whites are the winners. In the scenario I wrote, both men and women (on average) win out through having a different price. Ultimately, I think our disagreement comes down to this distinction you're trying to make. In short, you are making a non-distinction. Men aren't benefiting by paying more. If "ladies prices" were eliminated, women wouldn't go to clubs less any more than men now go to clubs less because they are being charged more (FTR,…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:49 PM
1

The parents offered her an additional $10K to abort and follow the contract. She refused based on moral grounds, but then offered to do it for $15K, which the prospective parents declined. In short, just another scumbag mom abusing her reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:40 PM
1

You could make a very similar argument for charging higher prices for blacks. Your statement with minor changes: A little different. Management generally actually prefers men whites since they spend more money. However, men whites do not want women blacks to be there. Women Whites have a lower willingness to go to such concerts with blacks there, hence this solution
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:06 PM
1

Lawyer here. You're incorrect. Civil Rights Act
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:58 PM
3

Welfare doesn't come from taxes! It's free. Didn't you know that?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:43 PM
0

With all due respect, I don't believe in lying to kids. Like it or not, sometimes violence is the answer. When someone uses violence against you, you should, and are legally entitled to, use proportionate violence to protect yourself. Furthermore, as an American, we're being intellectually dishonest when we say "violence is never the answer." We have, by far, the largest military in the world and some of our greatest accomplishments have been through our application of military force. That said,…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 05:59 PM
2

Excellent video. My two cents: I would hypothesize this guy is only touching on a larger problem - that is, the academia in psychology and sociology have become politically polarized with left-wing ideology, like contemporary feminism.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:48 PM
5

The female principal was fair and applied justice equally. This part bothers me. Why do you think the principal was fair? If the girl put her hands on you and tore your backpack, you have every right to shove her away. It's a basic self-defense principle. You should have never been suspended.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:17 PM
1

Serious question? I want anonymity for the accused and a requirement of physical evidence. That is something I would at least consider. I'm not sure how you would accomplish that though. Treat him like a juvenile? Sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. I would think the public ought to know if there's a dangerous person in their community. And do you want to somehow try to gag the victim? I don't think I could be talked into that, even assuming you could do it without violating basic constitut…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:23 PM
1

If there's no evidence, you have a right to a jury trial with free representation where TWELVE people have to unanimously agree that you're almost certainly guilty. Hell, even with tons of evidence, you might get away with it (Casey Anthony and OJ). How many more safeguards do you want?! Yes, it's so hard to be a criminal these days!
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:55 AM
1

Or I just want to live in a state where an accusation is judged on its merits, rather than painting every accusation with the same brush. It's crazy, I know.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:59 PM
1

Twin studies show there is a genetic component but also prove that sexuality is not purely genetic (i.e. identical twins often do not have the same sexual orientation).
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:00 PM
1

If all the available women disappeared would you start being attracted to men? Happens in prison environments regularly.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:57 PM
-3

You've just described every DA. So witnesses are worthless, eh? I'd hate to live in a world where you were in charge of law enforcement.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:21 PM
-4

Eh. Prosecutors spend a large part of their career arguing cases without a script in court rooms. Odds are somebody is going to say something "impolitic" at some point. You need to look at the context. People misspeak. Get over it.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:19 PM
5

Careful with your advice. What you're describing sounds like "common law" marriage, which, in many states, is treated the same as a formal marriage.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:08 PM
2

Spousal support (i.e. allimony) is not a big thing in every state. For instance, spousal support is very limited by statute in Texas so it rarely comes into play.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:04 PM
2

The fact that the men/women "wage gap" has been thoroughly debunked but it still made an appearance at the 2012 presidential debate (using even more exaggerated figures) and Romney and Obama addressed it as if it was a legitimate issue. Watch at about the 35:20 mark - not only does someone bring up the "wage gap" on national television during a presidential debate, but she uses the wrong numbers (she says women only earn "72 percent" of men's salaries; the actual number is 77 percent).
/r/MensRights25/02/13 04:17 PM
39

I would have considered fleeing to Thailand too.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:08 PM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights21/02/13 01:16 AM
5

Just reading that article grosses me out...the lowlights: I’m always looking to get a more diverse takes on feminism and progressive issues, especially voices that are not like my own. I seek out feminist male writers. I seek out non-white writers and LGBT writers. How "progressive!" I can't imagine clicking on an author's profile to check their race and sexual orientation before deciding whether to read their work. Oddly, I'm looking for powerful insights, skilled writing, and an interesting su…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:44 PM
-4

If bet giving all prisoners PS3's and vacations to Hawaii would cut sexual violence in prison, too...
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:15 PM
1

Can't bring myself to sign that. Men are better warriors/soldiers than women. We are genetically designed that way. That is true no matter how much anti-male sentiment is out there.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 08:06 PM
2

You could try bribing her. Draft a written agreement stating that, if she gets an abortion, you will pay her X amount of money (a persuasive amount, like, say, $30K). Then don't pay (in excess of the cost of her abortion) and argue that the contract is unenforceable because you signed it under duress and it's against public policy (valid arguments to render a contract unenforceable). You might lose such an argument, but it's worth trying. Worst case scenario: you're out $30K dollars. Way better …
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:49 PM
2

Yeah, it used to be un-criminal for teachers to sleep with students. A fireable offense, yes, but not criminal. I'll probably take a couple of downvotes for saying it, but I think I prefer the old way. Throwing horny teachers in prison isn't worth it IMO. Thanks for looking that up, though.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:10 PM
0

I understand that has been a recent trend in legislation (no idea about Georgia though). Regardless, the article mentions nothing about such laws.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:19 PM
3

Right. The article points out that the age of consent in this state (Georgia) is 16. From the article: Six of the victims are over the age of 16, the legal age of consent in Georgia, while the seventh was 15 years old.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 04:45 PM
4

Strange. The 16+ y.o. kids are within the range of consent, so they shouldn't even be called "alleged victims" right? Maybe she had sex with them before 16? (but the article does not say that) Another note: we really need to distinguish between statutory rape (a little bad) and forcible rape (very, very bad). Using the term "sexual assault" to refer to both of those situations is incredibly misleading.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 04:26 PM
-3

Wouldn't you want to encourage training so they don't screw it up? The rationale applied here is the same rationale that wants to deny sex education to teenagers.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:35 PM
2

My wife and I went "dutch" because she had told me (we were friends at first) that she believed in spitting the costs. I offered to pay for both of us but she declined. A few dates later she said I should have insisted on paying. It's a joke to us now, but sometimes you can't win.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:30 PM
1

Maybe. But I'm pretty sure the reasoning in this case wouldn't have flown in Texas. Some states have better laws (at least in this regard) than others.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 03:03 PM
1

Fair enough. I would agree with murphy that the right isn't as bad as the left, but you still point out some namecalling that happens from the right (I've been guilty of throwing around the socialism label myself - but many leftists openly endorse socialism, dammit! And calling someone a socialist isn't nearly as insulting as calling them a bigot of some variety...). Here's an upvote for a good counter though.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 09:47 PM
5

TL;DR If you want justice, don't live in California.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 04:03 PM
2

Unfortunately, ultra liberals and ultra conservatives have the same problem: they are determined to absolutely eliminate, destroy, and erase the opposition. Call me biased, but I don't know any conservatives like this. OTOH, I've dealt with plenty of liberals who try to silence the opposition with embarrassing and dehumanizing labels: if you think women aren't* treated unfairly, you're a misogynist, if you're against affirmative action or think Obama is a bad president, you're racist, if you're …
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:19 PM
1

In short, you're focusing on a technical definition of conservative and we're (at least I am) focusing on the political definition of conservative. Similarly, when people say they're "progressive," they usually don't mean their main focus is on progress either. Same thing with "liberal."
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:52 PM
1

Indeed. -A conservative atheist
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:45 PM
1

Conservatives can't believe in freedom, fairness, and equality of opportunity? As a conservative, that's news to me. Maybe you should stop listening to anti-conservative propaganda.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 04:42 PM
8

This line from the article is almost as bad.... “You need to be talking about consent in a space where you feel completely comfortable, when there is no persuasion involved,” Burton said. “If you are getting someone drunk to have sex with them, that is sexual assault.” Persuading people to drink and then having sex with that person is not sexual assault, in either a legal or lay setting. This is abuse of the term "sexual assault" and waters down the meaning for everyone that hears this woman* sp…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 04:13 PM
3

A little background: the Dallas DA is the first black DA elected in Texas (IIRC) and he is notoriously pro-defense (and is also a former defense attorney). He recently proposed a legislative idea called the "Racial Justice Act" wherein defendant's get additional appellate rights if they believe their conviction was racially-motivated. In short, the reason this lady got a pass probably has more to do with her race and racial allegations than her gender.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 04:16 PM
-1

Lol, you downvoted and responded within five seconds of my post. I'm glad you gave it some thought /s P.S. I don't understand your response.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 07:20 PM
-4

The real problem, on the prosecution end, is its very hard to prove that someone is lying beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, how do you prove the guy never touched his daughter inappropriately?
/r/MensRights30/01/13 07:18 PM
0

Right. To believe that, you have to believe that there is no inherent difference between men and women personality-wise. I don't subscribe to such a belief. Beyond that, in my experience, only a portion of lesbian relationships consist of one "man" and one "woman." I've no reason to believe my experience is out of the ordinary.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:50 PM
0

I've seen several studies that strike me as flawed, but feel free to show me what you're relying on.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:46 PM
4

Since feminism is primarily a product of white culture, almost certainly.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:36 PM
-4

Funny part of the article IMO: Dads' hands-off style tends to instill problem-solving ability, while the more engaged style typical of mothers often instills a sense of security and optimism, he says. (He cites cultural conditioning; the same behavioral differences show up in same-sex couples, he says.) Of course there has to be a parenthetical explaining how fathers aren't necessary in same-sex relationships. Apparently, fathers' tendencies are only a good influence in heterosexual relationship…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:29 PM
90

Not as much of an asshole as she was being. He was trying to do a common sense thing - complete a quick cash transaction while she made up her mind and she started being a bitch about it because she was there first.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:23 PM
-1

Birthing future soldiers is as important as being a soldier.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:19 PM
3

It's not an equal sacrifice, but wives of military men also pay some costs. Raising children without a spouse that you've depended on isn't easy.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:18 PM
3

I don't think this is quite irrefutable evidence, but I watched a documentary about ultra-marathoners (run like 100 miles at a time) and the best ultra-marathoners were still men.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:15 PM
2

I wonder how much of the sentence disparity depends on victim outrage. In other words, I'd be willing to wager that male "victims" are far more forgiving than female "victims." After all, prosecutions are often driven by the victim's desire to prosecute.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:23 PM
5

Heh, I would agree, but I've had a different experience when defending circumcision.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:20 PM
1

That doc will tear your heart out. The ultimate lesson in "don't stick your dick in crazy."
/r/MensRights22/01/13 03:44 PM
50

Omg, he had a Romney poster in his front yard! Sexist confirmed!
/r/MensRights16/01/13 03:31 PM
3

You should tell her attorneys that.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 09:26 PM
2

Heh, blaming lawyers when this thread is full of people telling him to "lawyer up."
/r/MensRights15/01/13 09:26 PM
1

They're children for fucks sake, and they're being irreversibly mutilated en mass. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't give MRAs any credibility. Circumcision is not a simple issue. I decided to circumcise my son nine months ago. There is plenty of medical evidence supporting circumcision, and yes, I've looked the evidence anti-circumcision MRAs produce in support of their cause. You calling me an "abuser" and "mutilator" for making that decision on behalf of my son doesn't make your opinio…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 09:18 PM
1

The quote from the article states, “Forensic DNA typing laboratories — as numerous commentators have noted — encounter rates of exclusion of suspected attackers in close to 25 percent of cases.” Nothing about that quotation makes me believe they are just talking about DNA from "rape kits." In fact, it sounds like it is referring to any assaultive offense, such as murder. Besides, the hair could just as easily come from the victim's pubes as it could from the scene of the crime. And one more thin…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:42 PM
0

You said it wasn't "relevant," not that it was the "most important." And victims defending perpetrators is different from a victim honestly saying they weren't abused (victims who defend perps usually defend them because they don't want to see them go to jail, not because they don't believe they were abused) .
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:36 PM
-7

Or maybe the DNA gathered just happened to belong to someone or something else (i.e. not all DNA is semen, it could, for instance, be a hair found at the scene of the crime - if that hair doesn't belong to the perp, it doesn't prove the perp innocent).
/r/MensRights10/01/13 06:51 PM
0

its not relevant whether you personally feel you were abused, So the "victim's" perception is not relevant to whether he/she is abused?
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:21 PM
-5

I'm not belittling anyone (except you, now). The assholes are you people calling me and my parents "abusive" because we did what's best for our children. And I've never known a circumcised guy who considers himself "abused." And I'd love to see you try to knock my teeth out. You're real tough guy on the internet. You don't even know the meaning of abuse you fucking baby.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:48 AM
-4

I don't give a fuck if he's real. It's not even relevant. If you want to be retarded, here's what you're advocating.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:43 AM
-3

Apples and oranges. I'm glad my parents circumcised me. Thank you mom and dad for "abusing" me!
/r/MensRights09/01/13 05:58 PM
2

I was more kidding than anything, and the only items I actually take issue with are universal healthcare (IMO, you should be personally responsible for your healthcare, people should not have the right to seize your money under threat of government force to pay for their healthcare needs, which are often within their realm of control), higher taxes on the rich (depending on how much higher - I'm okay with the recent increases in the so-called fiscal cliff deal) and moderate gun control (dependin…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 09:25 PM
2

True. There shouldn't be alimony for someone who hasn't raised children.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:45 PM
2

Trying to ignore the parenthetical so I can upvote you!
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:24 PM
1

There are still scenarios where alimony is reasonable. Check out this link discussing Texas's extremely limited alimony (called "spousal maintenance" here) - the spouse must have been married 10 years or been the victim of domestic abuse, AND must prove the need for alimony. Let me ask you this. Do you agree that it's healthy (mentally as well as physically) for children when a father or mother stays home to raise them?
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:28 PM
5

Because the government wants to protect stay-at-home spouses who sacrifice their careers to raise their children. It's a notion I happen to agree with, but when the amount of "support" comes out to $10K a month, something is broken in the calculations.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:45 PM
-5

Lookie there. I'm an abuse victim and didn't even know it!
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:37 PM
0

Medical organisations that recommend circumcision: American. Medical organisations that do not recommend circumcision: Everybody else. From the WHO: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcisio…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:20 PM
-2

I read enough to find them unconvincing (I didn't bother with the blogger though. Seriously, get some credentials.). I don't believe for a second pediatricians are doing circumcisions because they want more money and almost all studies are flawed in some way or another. What I have the sense to acknowledge is that I'm not an expert and I have no reason to believe the AAP or CDC are trying to lie to me to promote circumcision. What I gather are the upsides and downsides to circumcisions (which th…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:42 PM
2

In a similar vein, what do you suppose the female interest in politics and history is compared to men? I don't know about you, but, in my experience, every time politics and history becomes the topic of discussion, men gather and women scatter.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:02 AM
-2

You're not seriously comparing "preemptive masectomies" to circumcision, are you? Who do you think you're persuading?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:44 AM
-5

I'm American, and, in my experience, the CDC and AAP are reliable organizations. I'm not going to rely on some Dutch organization I know nothing about. EDIT: Also, from the AAP's policy report, "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." So tack on another credible organization siding with the AAP.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:20 AM
-5

So, you're rebutting a large, credible medical organization, as well as a well-renowned government agency, with links from two small, anti-circumcision advocacy groups and one blogger with zero medical qualifications? Which do you think is more credible, the CDC and AAP or a blogger/advocacy group?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:17 AM
-9

The AAP is probably the most qualified organization to take a stand on the issue. But if there is serious opposition, you're gonna have to point them out, because I just went to the CDC and they basically abstain on the issue, giving a careful explanation of the benefits and risks. Here's their summary: Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection. In fema…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:48 PM
-13

So the American Academy of Pediatrics (see the link provided above) is full of shit and it's numerous citations are bogus based on what?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:22 PM
-19

Because there are some upsides to male circumcision. It's not a black-and-white (so to speak) issue like female circumcision.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:49 PM
1

There's an unprovable case if I ever heard one.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 03:46 PM
6

Not wanting a convicted felon also qualifies as judgmental. That doesn't make you an un-nice person.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 08:29 PM
46

Lawyer here too. I agree. There is no viable reason to call her a tenant. He said she could crash on the couch for a few days and that's it. She's a guest, not a tenant. As such, he can throw her out. Physically if necessary. An ignorant cop could arrest you I suppose(they always can), but not for anything that would stick in court - I'd risk such an arrest without hesitation. If police don't do their job, usually the press can get them moving, so that might be my next step. Then again, maybe th…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:41 PM
0

Fucking religious Yankee propaganda. Neither Planned Parenthood or MSNBC are religious organizations. On the contrary, they often conflict with religious organizations. But hey, how can anyone rebut such an articulate, prejudiced counterargument? find it really amusing that you'd think there could be psychological consequences to promiscuity but never stop to think about the psychological consequences of constantly repressing your sexuality. This is the only decent point you've made. In reality,…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:48 PM
0

You know, I don't know where you're from, but where I live people teach their children how to use prophylactics and birth control and don't freak out at the idea of women having casual sex for fun. Who's freaking out? I just think it's amusing that you think there's nothing wrong with sluttiness. Besides, did your educators not teach you that prophylactics and birth control are not foolproof ways to prevent pregnancy? Cite: Planned Parenthood. And, between high school health courses and college …
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:49 PM
2

You shouldn't rely on generalizations when dealing with an individual. Different judges care about different things. And men DO sometimes win custody.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:45 PM
3

I gotta disagree with your lawyer. Age matters when you're talking about a very young person. 20 years old WILL make some people, and some judges, raise their eyebrows when it comes to the welfare of the children. We all know most 20 year olds aren't going to know squat about raising children. If you have the resources, you need to hire an investigator to look into the kid's background.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:43 PM
1

For whatever it's worth, I apologize on behalf of Americans who aren't joking about it. We have a sector of the population that is far-too-easily manipulated by sensationalist journalists.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:18 PM
2

I have a friend who thinks the world is going to end tomorrow.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 02:57 PM
2

Your source lists Texas as a state that "still criminalizes sodomy." I practice in Texas and your source is incorrect. Not a single person has been convicted of "sodomy" since Lawrence. In fact, IIRC, the arrest and conviction in Lawrence was intentional, for the purposes of testing the law. The sodomy law might still be on the books, but it doesn't matter - the law is unconstitutional and is not in the realm of the legislature anymore. As for your quote from Kennedy's opinion, what's your point…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 10:26 PM
17

I'm a criminal attorney. I don't need Google. Sodomy is not a crime. Read Lawrence v. Texas Some laws may still exist on the books, but they are not and cannot be enforced (they were very rarely enforced even prior to Lawrence).
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:59 PM
6

He sees overweight women wearing unflattering clothes that display muffin tops and rolls of fat, who drool over his biceps while telling him that “looks aren’t important.” I think that line is genius. Yes, seriously. That said, she is generalizing like crazy (which she knows), but there are a lot of women just like this. The type I've encountered over and over is the "Men are so shallow . . . I will only date guys who are at least 5'10."
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:39 PM
0

Being a 'slut' is not a bad thing. Stop saying it is. There is nothing inherently wrong with being promiscuous. Holy shit! I laughed when I read that and realized you are serious! I guess you think there is nothing wrong with STD's, unwanted pregnancies, and noncommittal relationships? Lol, I can't help but laugh about having to ask someone that. I'd like to meet the parent who says, "It's fine with me if my daughter is a slut."
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:30 PM
-3

Gay sex even a CRIME in a lot of places (sodomy laws) Not in the U.S.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 08:48 PM
0

Siblings are VERY rarely guardians; it's not probable enough to justify the assumption. 12-year old relatives have no right to privacy? I hope you aren't serious because that's a transitional age where privacy becomes huge. If you are serious, you must be a real asshole.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:46 PM
0

"I have a 12-year old brother" I don't know where you got "guardian."
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:34 PM
1

By that logic, all discrimination against men is justified until we have a lot of famous women in science and several female presidents as role models. I mean, who gives a fuck about boys cause they got it all, right?
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:20 PM
1

Looked like roughly 8-10 years old from the episode I watched.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:18 PM
2

What about shows like Bill Nye the Science GUY, or Dirty Jobs with MICHEAL Roe? Are those discriminating against girls then? I don't think having a host of one gender makes a show discriminating against another gender. I mean, I wouldn't call Judge Judy discriminatory just because Judy's a girl. I don't know about Dirty Jobs, but I know Bill Nye has lots of girls on his show. Scigirls, OTOH, had zero men or boys on the show and that appears to be intentional. TL;DR Scigirls specifically and inte…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:18 PM
2

I looked at your link and it just lists a bunch of PBS programs. I don't see how it supports your point. Either way, I don't appreciate the logic that "If someone discriminates there, then it's okay here."
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:11 PM
2

MRA will probably hang me for this. BUT, in my opinion, it's appropriate that men be drafted and not women. Part of war is out-reproducing the other side (i.e. replenishing your soldiers). When women are killed, that reduces a society reproducing capacity. That isn't so when men are killed. Beyond that, men are more athletic and are lower maintenance (no periods or pregnancies), both important qualities in an army. (I'm male FTR, for whatever that's worth) TL;DR Draft should be gender biased aga…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:51 PM
5

Relevant
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:38 PM
1

Wow - thanks for the link. It's amazing this woman was able to implicate three clean-cut kids for rape charges for a year, based on her credibility alone.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 04:39 PM
1

The law is intended to apply to him. The law prioritizes providing for children over parental rights, so the theory goes. The result is unfairness toward the support providers. You can't blame the executive for carrying out the wishes of the legislative branch. That's its function.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 04:21 AM
4

My problem with this video is that the blame is misplaced. He's griping about the AG's office and the DA's office for jailing a guy for nonpayment of child support. In short, he's blaming the Executive Branch for enforcing the law. He needs to be blaming the legislators who are actually passing these laws. Most, if not all, states have laws forcing men to pay child support, even when they are just the acting father (i.e. it's not their kid, but they take on the father role). They are stupid laws…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 03:09 PM
1

There are two states I absolutely refuse to ever move to - New Jersey and California.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:53 PM
-6

You think the American Academy of Pediatrics is addressing other circumstances? Regardless, resistance to AIDS is beneficial no matter where you live. And you might have access to soap and clean water and not live in a AIDS hotspot now, but do you think you can guarantee that for your children 20 years from now?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:45 PM
-5

So you physically benefited from a circumcision, but circumcisions are "archaic and outdated"?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:16 PM
-4

Not according to the American Academy of Pediatrics
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:09 PM
1

It was 54.5% in 2009.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:07 PM
-4

The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks. From a New York Times article complete with evidence
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:03 PM
-4

Contrary to many of the posts here, this is hardly a reason to brand all eyewitness evidence as unreliable. All this shows is that eyewitnesses aren't perfect.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 07:04 PM
0

From a woman's perspective an “opt out” provision does not provide her with the same kind of choices afforded to a man. I agree. For that reason, I think an "opt out" law would require more from men than the decision itself. First off, "opt out" would require surrendering parental rights, which you don't mention. As a parent, I know that's no small sacrifice and don't underestimate the emotional weight for a man in that situation. Second, I think men should be ready to bear the cost of an aborti…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:08 PM
0

You're probably right about the constitutionality part, although Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a plurality opinion, and as such, is not entitled to deference like a typical Supreme Court opinion. Plus, you could always write a new law that tests the bounds of Planned Parenthood. Regardless, constitutionality is besides the point. I'm talking about fairness on a philosophical level, which is a very different discussion. As for legal obstacles, bring them on. The first step is getting public acce…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 04:54 PM
1

I personally think it's unreasonable to draw a line down the center of Pregnancy/Parenthood in order to consider men and women having equal rights on that issue (if that is indeed what you are arguing, if not I apologize). I'm not sure what you mean about "drawing a line down the center of parenthood." But I understand there is a distinction because women carry the child in their body. Even so, there are reasonable ways to give men some rights in choosing to be a parent. You could give them some…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:51 PM
2

His right to choose parenthood. Same as women. But unlike women, men have no say-so in the abortion and they have no choice in whether to pay child support.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:22 AM
1

Certainly you don't mean all of his rights? What do you think I'm talking about here. The right to free speech and due process? No, I'm not talking about all of his rights, which I would think is obvious from the context.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 01:18 AM
3

Even assuming that is true (fathers might be saying it behind close doors, but people don't say it in public like they do to guys), women have rights after sex, when you can make clear-headed decisions, and men have no rights after sex. It's unfair treatment no matter how you cut it.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:18 PM
7

As far as unwanted pregnancy, if you aren't man enough to deal with the risk and consequences, then keep your dick in your pants, its really much simpler than you make it seem, birth control is the responsibility of both parties. I'm tired of the "keep your dick in your pants" response. The suggestion is that once a man pulls his dick out, then all of his rights end there. But no one says "keep your pussy in your pants" to women. Her rights continue on right through the pregnancy. There's no fai…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:02 PM
1

The reason "roles" exist in the first place is because marriage is (or should be) a team effort. Someone needs to spend time with the kids while someone spends time acquiring and bringing home the bread. It's a sensible system that has evolved into place. It doesn't help anyone to gripe about a necessary and efficient system. Our condemnation of this arrangement has led to numerous societal inefficiencies. That's my two cents at least.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:45 PM
2

Don't ever abandon what's right for a damn letter grade. When you're an adult, you'll be proud of that zero. Btw, the fact that she's giving you a zero and not just a 70 or some other crappy grade indicates that she is reacting emotionally to your paper (perhaps she was raped by a man at some point). Anyways, keep that in mind.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 05:26 PM
1

Sounds like an iffy story. I mean, how would you sleep through that?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:35 PM
7

Someone's lecturing on that issue and having that thought for the first time? Sad.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 03:04 PM
2

Even if it's "just" designed for women, it's still gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 02:45 PM
2

DUI (Driving under the influence) is prohibited by statute. FUI is not. If you're so drunk that you cannot physically consent, okay, then you might have a rape case (but proving the case without some 3rd person or video evidence is near impossible). That said, it's not as if you have to give someone a breathalyzer before you agree to screw. Even a clearly drunk person may legally consent to something - contracts for example. (i.e. drunk people still may be bound by the purchases they made while …
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:41 PM
2

Despite your downvotes, you're absolutely correct. Contrary to many assertions here, drunk people can legally consent to have sex (among other things) and it happens all of the time. Like you, I would think that's common sense, but it apparently is not. Keep up the fight for the truth.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:39 PM
3

Right. The common law marriage law in Texas not only requires cohabitation, but it also requires an agreement to be married, and holding oneself out as married. (i.e. those three criteria must be met for a common law marriage to exist) It's a common legal myth that common law marriage affects people just because they lived together for X years. Source: I'm an attorney in TX
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:27 PM
1

Google is your friend.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:08 PM
1

What I was "trying to say" was that Daysleepin83's advice is idiotic. I could have articulated it like yourself or simply said "prenups are actually quite useful," but I deliberately chose harsher language because IMO people who spread ignorance are reprehensible.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 06:12 PM
5

If your SO is agreeable, then I don't see a problem with that. I probably wouldn't accept that compromise, but that's just me.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:23 PM
9

Then I guess it's just my fanciful wishes that it could be. That's all I want mine to be. Then what's the point of getting married? You can love each other without a marriage.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:41 PM
6

Judges can disregard some terms of any contracts under certain conditions. That doesn't make contracts "worthless."
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:40 PM
4

Maybe you're talking to the wrong attorneys. Regardless, the fact that making prenuptial agreements may not be cost-effective for attorneys (which I doubt if you're willing to pay enough money) doesn't make them "worthless." You do not need an attorney to make a prenuptial agreement. If you want to learn more about prenups, here's a nice little starter guide. Btw, a quick Google search reveals several attorneys in Nevada that do prenups. Example
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:38 PM
12

Attorney here. The prenup is worthless. Do not listen to this idiot.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:10 PM
16

Whether you like it or not, marriage IS a business deal (as well as a deal for many other reasons). Your finances will become mingled. And wait until kids come along, there is no separating finances and assets. Marriage is not just an expression of "I love you."
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:08 PM
2

You have to prove discriminatory intent. And good luck with that.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:08 PM
17

There are problems with just looking at hourly pay too. For example, assuming men work more overtime than women, then men's hourly pay would be higher.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:04 PM
2

I'm not quite that cynical. I think a Chris Christie (sp?) could pull something off like that.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 04:18 PM
21

How the president plans to make SS fiscally sound is a pertinent issue for a presidential debate. The non-existent "wage gap" is not.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 02:36 AM
35

I would love if some candidate called that statistic out for the BS it is.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 02:17 AM
1

I'm not criticizing all forms of denigration (as you've correctly observed, I believe denigrating language has a time and place - although in this context, I was trying to be more cheeky than meanspirited). Rather, I'm criticizing people who denigrate someone who is representing an opinion they agree with. IMO, how you went wrong with your observations is that you failed to appreciate this distinction. FTR, I didn't downvote you either.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:12 PM
4

The irony. I guess it's lost on me. Care to explain?
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:13 PM
6

It's funny how most redditors can't agree with O'Reilly without first denigrating him in some way. Ex no. 1: It's sad when even Bill O'Reilly starts to make sense when . . . 2: I agree with Bill, quite shockingly, on this. . . 3: He sorta made half sense but he's still a pompous and annoying ass. . . C'mon, sheeple!
/r/MensRights10/10/12 03:40 PM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SmcfJzw_Zk
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:52 PM
2

Then the article goes on to cite studies that indicate bias against both genders....for example: The social science research made all kinds of sense to me. Our experiences of life are turned into unconscious expectations that affect how we see others. When scholars reviewed a psychology research paper, for example, they scored it higher if the author's name were male than if female. A male applicant for a job as police chief was rated higher than a woman, even though she had important qualificat…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:53 PM
1

To be fair, I don't think a guy could get convicted of rape in that scenario either (assuming genders were reversed). You consented to the first intercourse. Unless you were obviously unconscious, it would be reasonable for a person to believe your consent also applied to the subsequent intercourse (assuming your weren't objecting or otherwise resisting), regardless of the fact that you don't remember it.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:59 PM
6

You made a good point (VAWA is misandrist legislation supported by feminists), but you lost my support when you started treating notwist with hostility. She admits her ignorance (never heard of VAWA); educate her, don't berate her. If she can't see how prioritizing the prosecution of crimes committed against females is sexist, then that's her problem.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:51 PM
0

Lol, had a similar thought. It's like he's trying to protect the "leftist" brand.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:44 PM
1

Was going to make a similar comment. Sounds like they're biased against women, not men.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 02:49 PM
1

Holy shit - my brain is messed up and I didn't even know it!
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:59 PM
2

I've heard this before and I don't know where it comes from. In Texas, public urination is just a "disorderly conduct" charge (a fine-only offense). And we're supposed to be the strict ones.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:13 PM
1

That's correct. In addition, you have to have an agreement to be married.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:54 PM
1

That's called anecdotal evidence, and it's not right to generalize an entire group based on such a small sampling. No shit. That's why I prefaced the statement with "for example." People will drink and smoke regardless Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, they shouldn't be doing it on the taxpayers' dime. (it's funny how you're critical of anecdotal evidence but you make these statements with ZERO evidence at all). More like we have a few who abuse it and they are the ones held up to the light. Keep te…
/r/MensRights13/09/12 07:44 PM
2

You and I must know different people on welfare. For example, my sister gets food stamps and has so much extra food stamp money, she trades them for favors. Nevermind the fact she smokes pot and cigarettes (and who knows what else) and picked up her 2nd DWI while on welfare. Oh yeah, she treats her kids like shit too, and then the schools don't understand why they have emotional problems, and put them on taxpayer funded meds. But yeah, I'm sure there's a few people who don't abuse the system and…
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:23 PM
-5

"The problem with vasectomies is that the wrong men keep getting them." Too friggin' true. I wish we'd start insisting on some vasectomies before people go on welfare or as part of plea bargaining - all voluntary vasectomies of course.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 03:45 PM
0

It sounds like she believes in traditional roles. I don't have a problem with that. I get annoyed when women want all of the perks of both traditional relationships AND "modern" relationships while saddling men with the problems of both.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:08 PM
2

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted - what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Even if you're wrong, you're presenting cogent arguments for circumcision, which I personally find enlightening.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:01 PM
2

Welcome to marriage and children. You have to make sacrifices in your personal life for your family (and FTR, staying at home and raising children is no field day either - you are extremely vulnerable to a spouse who decides to walk out on you for whatever reason and you can kiss most of your social life goodbye). And yes, your spouse and the courts should respect the sacrifices you make. People volunteer for this arrangement because having a healthy family (hopefully) makes you a happier person…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 08:17 PM
2

Marriage (not the certificate itself) provides security for a spouse who foregoes their career to invest more time with their children. In other words, the children benefit because their parents spend more time with them, EVEN when the parents later get divorced.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 04:55 PM
1

Nice - she pretty much summed up every reason I subscribe to this reddit. The one issue that doesn't get enough attention (which she addresses) is that men are more risk-takers and women are more conservative in their approach to life. And that's for better or worse. She delivers a great quote at the end of that lecture: "The reason the are no female Mozarts is the same reason there are no female Jack the Rippers." (that may not be verbatim)
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:56 PM
6

she clear out asked me to escort her back to her apartment after she finished working out because "my daughter and I are home all alone." I said "no" and left the gym Sounds like she's just hitting on you in a feminine (i.e. indirect) way. Your reaction was kindof a dick move if you ask me. I bet you wouldn't be griping if the girl was hot.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:17 PM
5

Just ask yourself "how do I or my present/future children benefit from this arrangement?" FTFY. IMO, a big problem with marriage is people asking "how do I benefit?" Marriage is primarily about children (i.e. starting a family), not about the married couple themselves.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:58 PM
2

Good rant, but the "obviously" parenthetical was simply an acknowledgement of my username.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:16 AM
6

Honestly, as a new father myself, I hope no one celebrates Father's day for me. I have a birthday; celebrate that. And I'm proud of men for not collectively buying into another pseudo-holiday.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 02:57 PM
1

Sometimes people ask for one good reason to vote for a Republican and I find myself a little dumbfounded by the question because there are so many reasons that I can't comprehend how someone would fail to see any one reason to vote Republican. Well, for those people, here's one more reason.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 03:09 PM
1

So, in your mind, "not promiscuous" = not "having sex ever"? I'm guessing you have a lot of trouble getting your ideas across. IIRC, condoms have a ~90% prevention rate (for pregnancies; the rate is lower for STD's). That means having condom-ed one-night stands with 10 people is as risky as having an unprotected one-night stand with one person. In other words, using condoms and birth control doesn't make a promiscuous person responsible.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:23 PM
1

A promiscuous woman can be responsible. Unless you think risking unwanted pregnancies and catching STD's is within the realm of responsibility, you said it right there.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:36 PM
1

It took awhile, but I finally found someone on this thread with the right answer - shaming is a way to prevent behavior that is harmful to a society (in this case, promiscuity). Of course, people are downvoting the truth.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:50 PM
1

Hate to break it to you, but, even with birth control, you can still get pregnant and catch STDs.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 04:48 PM
9

Young men -- who play video games and use porn the most -- are being digitally rewired in a totally new way that demands constant stimulation. OMG, young men wanting stimulation - the tragedy!
/r/MensRights24/05/12 06:32 PM
1

Since men are bigger risk-takers than women, it would make sense that they populate the extreme ends of the spectrum.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 07:48 PM
2

I agree with the point of this article, but it also contains some misinformation. For instance, divorce law is not even close to being among the most profitable industries for lawyers, and does not sway the outcome of judicial elections. Also, child support varies state by state, but 50% of your salary is about the maximum you would pay. For instance, in Texas IIRC, you pay 25% for one child plus somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% more for each additional child, upto a maximum of 50%.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 04:29 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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