TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

drunkenJedi4 Archive

View 0 posts and 230 comments by drunkenJedi4 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Ah, that sweet economic illiteracy combined with highly questionable statistics and no source.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 01:44 AM
2

Refusing to do good is not the same as doing harm. If doctors weren't allowed to refuse treating patients, they would essentially become slaves to whoever happened to be ill in their vicinity.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 11:05 PM
1

They're not exactly hard to catch. How do you know? Those who are actually good at gaming the system by their very nature wouldn't be discovered, so how can you know how many of them are out there?
/r/MensRights17/11/13 08:35 PM
2

The problem with that is that it would mean leaving his children behind. (As far as I understand, the children live with him, not the mother, which makes this sort of payment even more monstrous.)
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:47 AM
1

I wasn't talking specifically about the US. Many countries around the world currently have censorship laws. But even so, there have been several laws in US history that are clearly censorship, for example the Sedition Act of 1918. Even today, the US government censors "obscene" pornography. The US, as most countries, also has laws against libel, which are also a form of censorship, albeit one for which legitimate arguments may be made.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 10:42 AM
1

The government can pass a law forbidding newspapers to print dissenting views (and all laws are a form of coercion). That's legal censorship.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 01:39 AM
1

Coercion is to threaten someone with violence unless he behaves in a certain manner. Facebook isn't stopping people from expressing their views. Facebook is merely stopping people from expressing these views through the vehicle of Facebook.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:56 PM
1

You're erecting a straw man. I said that Facebook isn't censoring because it doesn't coercively stop people from expressing their opinions. It merely stops them from using the Facebook service. This has nothing to do with legality. My argument would be the same if there were a law forcing Facebook to provide service to everyone.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 08:05 PM
1

It's pretty obvious that no one here is talking about the American Congress passing any laws. What's your point?
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:56 PM
0

You mean I contradict myself? If so, point out a contradiction.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:51 PM
1

What is dodgy about what I said? I'm fully and openly committed to the principle that property rights are supreme and that in fact, the right to free speech is just a subsidiary property right, namely the right to use your own property in whatever manner you please, without violating agreements you made or violating someone else's property. The idea that you should have the right to seize someone else's property in order to express your opinion is absurd. Facebook is not a public-access area. It…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:49 PM
0

You're not censoring anyone's opinion. You're merely controlling their access to your property. You can say whatever you want on the phone, but that doesn't mean I have to borrow you my phone.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:39 PM
2

Censorship has nothing to do with legality. In fact, censorship is usually fully legal, because it's usually done by governments, i.e. those who control what's legal and what isn't. By banning a user of removing certain content, Facebook doesn't censor anyone. These people are still free to spread their ideas in whatever form they like. Facebooks doesn't shoot people, it doesn't imprison people, it doesn't send people to your house to smash your computer. All they do is to stop providing a servi…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 02:54 AM
2

Your right to free speech doesn't mean that you get to seize my phone to speak with people. Neither does it mean that you get to use the services of a private company like Facebook.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 02:47 AM
6

This is not a matter of free speech. Facebook is private property. The owners of facebook have every right to ban people from using their site. MRAs (and everyone else for that matter) have every right to petition Facebook to remove certain content. You may have the right to shout obscenities in your own home, but if you do it in mine, I have the right to throw you out. This does not mean that I'm censoring you. Hate speech laws are unjust and indefensible, but no one has the general right to us…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 11:10 PM
3

You're probably talking about Hjernevask.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 02:23 AM
15

4 in 1 women are raped within their lifetimes. You heard it here first.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 12:09 AM
1

There's no such thing as sexist questions. Statements can be sexist, but not questions.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:27 AM
2

If that were the case, then why are many drugs illegal? Why is prostitution illegal in many countries? There's lots of money in these things too, yet in these cases ideology has triumphed over economic interests. Ideology is everything. All of the state's power ultimately rests upon ideology.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:02 AM
2

I think there is a very real possibility that once sexbots will be banned once they are advanced enough to offer a real alternative to sex with humans.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 03:42 PM
0

Equal rights? When and where did men and women ever have equal rights? I don't know what you mean by equal pay. There is no such thing as pay for men as a whole or women as a whole. Only individuals are paid, and they certainly aren't paid equally and shouldn't be. I also fail to see how this could possibly be construed as an achievement of feminism.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:49 PM
17

Now if only men and women were barred from politics, the world truly would be a better place.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:03 AM
3

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/bj4equality/
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:46 AM
1

It is that way. What it is intended for is irrelevant. The money is still paid to the mother. Whether she spends any of it on the child is her decision.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 04:09 PM
0

Of course it's Mommy support. The money is paid to the mother, not the child.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:22 AM
1

It's impossibly for any outsider to measure whether people are paid the same for the same work. The value of work is subjective (as is the value of all other goods) and since the employer is the one buying the work, it is he who decides which of two particular labour services is more valuable than the other.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 09:31 AM
2

How about this? http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:38 PM
4

Farrell used to be a feminist. He was on the board of directors of NOW from 1971 to 74.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:36 PM
16

While I fully support the right of private property owners to discriminate in the use of their property, the double-standard is astounding. This is clearly sex-based discrimination. Women get less retirement benefits for doing less work. Seems fair to me. But of course it doesn't to all those gynocentric egalitarians.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 11:43 PM
-2

Well, considering that about 3% of the population is gay, that would still make the salvation army about 97% good and 3% bad.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 10:09 AM
3

It stands for "not all feminists are like that."
/r/MensRights27/07/13 10:07 AM
2

They should have added another two or three feminists in there to make it more fair. As it was, Warren Farrell destroyed them so badly, it wasn't even funny.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 09:53 AM
2

What is it with all the negativity about white men? All you hear about the historic impact of white men is slavery this, exploitation that. Sure, there are some bad sides, but the good massively outweighs the bad. Before white men revolutionized the world through science, technology, and modern capitalism, most people lived barely above subsistence level, always just one bad harvest away from starvation. Yet whenever those good things are mentioned, they get attributed to something impersonal li…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:06 AM
2

People matter to other people. Everyone is free to value others as much or as little as he likes. Capitalism has nothing to do with that. It's also a simple empirical fact that people do value other people beyond what they produce and consume, and that is true regardless of the degree of economic freedom. You seem to be under the impression that capitalism is somehow responsible for poverty. That couldn't be further from the truth. Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Poverty only seems hor…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:38 PM
6

Name one example of significant suffering caused by genuine capitalism (i.e. by actual free market interaction, not by government meddling with the market).
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:09 PM
8

Oh, has Marxism been redeemed since 1952? Are there now any countries where "scientific socialism" has led to new heights in prosperity, equality, and freedom? Nope, didn't happen. Marxism is still a repugnant and false ideology that has quite possibly caused more harm and suffering than any other ideology in the history of our species.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:23 PM
25

I don't see what problem you have with that article. It seemed quite objective and even-handed to me. They mentioned more than once that it's especially white males who are less likely to apply. There's enough genuine misandry out there. Save your outrage for that.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 01:29 PM
12

You also don't have to be old to be a paedophile.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 12:37 PM
1

I agree fully. There's no such thing as needs, only wants. This shouldn't be downvoted.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:10 PM
0

How in the world is that more fair? What does it matter how much it takes to live a one person household versus a two person household? People freely choose in what sort of household they live in. Why should other people have to pay for that choice? Also, living in a two person household is generally less expensive per person. So if we use your strange logic, governments should subsidize people living alone.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:10 PM
2

Please be satire, please be satire, please be satire...
/r/MensRights18/07/13 12:09 AM
1

The government giving you benefits for being married makes it even more evil. It means the government discriminates against unmarried people. The government cannot give anyone anything without first taking an even larger amount away from other people.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 08:31 AM
1

Personally, I would be completely happy with an edict that enforces all legislation must be written in gender-neutral language. No law shall be passed (and all should be rewritten) that makes reference to 'man', 'woman', 'he', or 'she'. I think 95% of all MRA issues would take care of themselves if such a simple thing were done. I find that highly unlikely. Much (maybe most) of legal discrimination is not in the letter of the law, but in how laws are enforced. The main reason women get lesser se…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 07:46 PM
1

Sometimes you're better off not knowing.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:32 PM
2

What a bizarre, rambling piece of writing. But at least she doesn't hate men, which I guess already qualifies as praiseworthy among today's feminists.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:57 PM
2

Sure, women were disadvantaged in some ways. Men were disadvantaged in other ways. Neither group oppressed the other. Of course most people throughout history, no matter their gender, were (and still are) oppressed to some degree.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:56 PM
1

Why should the state force insurance companies to not use information they have to calculate insurance premiums?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:50 PM
1

All right, that might be a legitimate reason. However, the article says that the policy is in place "to protect the families and children that visit."
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:51 PM
0

Of course it's discrimination. Discrimination is just treating objects differently. Contrary to popular usage, discrimination is not necessarily bad. It is even good and useful in most cases. In this case, discriminating against people without children isn't sensible. Although most people who like Lego are children, there is also a substantial amount of adults who like Lego. There's no good reason for excluding them from the park.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:16 PM
5

Clearly, old men must be kept separated from society in senior camps where they won't get their dirty old hands on our innocent children. In fact, let's just lock everyone up, then there won't be any crime.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 11:59 AM
1

How is that non-discriminatory? If anything, the rule discriminates against an even bigger number of people.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 11:56 AM
1

I fail to see how that has anything to do with what we were talking about. I was talking about people who are forced to fight, not volunteers. It's also misleading to say that this was a fight for freedom. Rather, it was a fight for secession. Saying that the colonists were oppressed by the British before their secession is technically accurate, but they were much less oppressed than most people throughout history were oppressed by their government. The colonists complained about taxation withou…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 11:53 PM
1

Where did you get fighting for freedom from? People who are forced to fight by their government are obviously not fighting for freedom, but for their government. Being forced to fight is the very antithesis of freedom. It is a gender issue because people who are forced to fight in wars are almost exclusively men.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 11:23 PM
1

If violence counts as oppression (the original argument was about stoning), then people who are forced to fight in wars are oppressed. I notice you used quite euphemistic language, saying that "men go to war." Often there isn't a choice and often they don't go to war, the war comes to them. Women who are forced to fight are of course also oppressed, but their numbers are much lower.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 10:33 PM
1

Gender-based oppression is oppression based on the fact that one is of a certain gender. Men are often the targets of violence because they are men. The prime example of this is war. I don't know what's difficult to understand about this. Violence doesn't suddenly become less of a problem because the victim and the perpetrator are the same sex.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 12:10 AM
1

If you're going to ignore all plausible speculation, you might as well ignore all of history.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 12:03 AM
1

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course I'm not talking about all men. I'll quote myself: Men aren't oppressing themselves, some men are oppressing other men.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:46 PM
1

Given the physical superiority of male soldiers, my explanation is much more plausible.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:43 PM
1

What does men being oppressed have to do with gender inequality? Are you serious? Just because the perpetrators are also mostly men doesn't lessen the inequality in any way. Using that warped logic, we would also have to conclude that there isn't a problem with female genital mutilation because after all that's done almost exclusively by women.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:40 PM
1

The first is irrelevant and I have no idea why you bring that up. The second is evidenced by the fact that there are a lot fewer female casualties than their proportion among soldiers would suggest.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:38 PM
1

I did some googling on Sean Connery and failed to find anything remotely close to what you stated. You have a source for that claim? His ex-wife claimed he had hit her, but I haven't found anything about him admitting to this. Here's some info on historical condemnation of domestic violence against women: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.de/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic.html
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:36 PM
2

The thing is that historically, most of the big changes were made by men. So it is indeed mostly men who were responsible for most of the good and bad things that happened throughout history. There were some times and places in history where wife-beating was accepted, but at least in the Western world domestic violence against wives was never tolerated. Men were allowed to beat their children or their servants, but not their wives.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 06:24 PM
1

No one does anything as a group. Only individuals act.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 06:17 PM
3

Female soldiers are a small minority and are usually kept out of the worst of the fighting.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:59 PM
1

For example, women were given the right to vote by men. Not that voting does much good in my opinion, but a lot of people seem to find it important. Looks like you still have some myths to shake off. Women were never considered to be non-persons and the extent of legal beatings has been greatly exaggerated (e.g. the rule of thumb myth).
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:57 PM
2

Collectivist nonsense... Men aren't oppressing themselves, some men are oppressing other men.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:52 PM
3

It is clearly your friends who are sexist. If they want to bring up stoning, you can bring up war. Let's see who comes up worse. The entire idea of violence against women being a special problem is rooted in deep-seated sexism that simply doesn't regard male suffering as being on the same level as female suffering. Violence against men is clearly more prevalent, yet most people just ignore it.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 02:06 PM
8

Yeah, except most journalists aren't much better these days.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 10:14 PM
10

That she was passed out is what the alleged victim says. The accused says that she wasn't.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:49 PM
17

I'm all for bodily autonomy, but it has to also apply to men. However, an obligation to pay child support is a clear violation of bodily autonomy as the man is compelled through the threat of state violence to work to support the mother of his child (who will then supposedly use that money for the child, but there is no guarantee for that). Even setting aside the issue of bodily autonomy, what about adoption? Women can unilaterally decide to give up the child for abortion. LPS should be compared…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 01:54 PM
5

Silly women sitting the wrong way on toilets! Why else would there be a little table???
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:21 AM
33

I do that, too. But if you're going to keep the lid open, then it really doesn't matter whether the seat goes up or down.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:55 AM
301

How about everyone just leave the seat however the fuck they want because it's a trivial issue?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 10:51 PM
-5

You're assuming that the idea behind feminism is equality and justice, but there is strong evidence that feminism has never been about that and always about getting more rights and privileges for women.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:10 AM
1

Lying, cheating and spreading STDs may be immoral and the last part may be illegal, but it certainly is not rape. Defending those you disagree with from injustice is the greatest sign of virtue and integrity, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand that.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 08:27 AM
2

1) A lot of rapes are men raping men The CDC study the author quoted doesn't actually have any data about men being forcibly penetrated during the last 12 months. (Presumably, it doesn't account for prison rape.) While there certainly are some cases where one man forces another to penetrate him, we can safely assume that this only accounts for a very small portion of the men who were forced to penetrate.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:28 PM
1

This person is clearly not interested in any sort of rational discussion. She has just declared her own opinions to be correct and unassailable through reason and evidence. All you can do at that point is shake your head and walk away. Further conversation with such a person is a waste of time.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:19 PM
9

Stop the concern trolling. If you have any actual objections to things said here, address them. Claiming that someone is hateful is not an argument.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 09:01 PM
1

Yeah, but women have other ways of opting out of motherhood. They can give up their child for adoption and in many countries there are even places where they can just drop of children anonymously and without any legal repercussions. That said, in the current legal climate it is of course wise to keep your dick in your pants or to use a condom.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:27 PM
1

Is that considered a light sentence in America? Six years in prison for (presumably) consensual sex with a twelve-year-old doesn't seem very lenient to me. If men who have sex with 12 year old girls get higher sentences, then perhaps we should be opposed to their harsh sentences.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:45 PM
1

So if I understand you correctly, we are agreed on general principles and our disagreement is purely empirical. I don't believe this well expedite the abolishment of conscription in Norway. Let's hope that I turn out to be wrong on that.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:57 AM
1

Yes, the definition is fuzzy and there are some cases that are difficult to classify, but that is true of all biological taxonomy. The beliefs of the person who introduced this classification are entirely irrelevant to its usefulness. If we were to disregard any theories that were invented by racists, we'd have to throw out most science that wasn't done in the last few decades.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:55 AM
2

Yes, both 11 and 14 is a majority, but the question was whether it's a vast majority. 55% is clearly not. 70% isn't either in my opinion, though that point may be argued. Who are the three that you didn't count? I guess Carlos Slim could be counted as White, but who are the other two?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:45 AM
2

People I counted as not being White male: Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, Xi Jinping, Carlos Slim Helu, Sonia Gandhi, Li Keqiang, Dilma Rousseff, Manmohan Singh. Which of these do you contest?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:06 AM
1

I beg to differ. Let's take a look at this list of most powerful people compiled by Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/ In the top 10, we find six white men. In the top 20, it's 11. Hardly a vast majority.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:49 PM
2

I find it unlikely that a country that would enact female conscription would be outraged enough by it to effect an abolishment of conscription in any timely manner. Hopefully Norway will prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:27 PM
1

I mean the practice of having laws that are equal for all people and are applied equally to everyone and enforced equally.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:24 PM
5

The pure fact that it is called Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth) and already excludes men from the start is a crime. I just call them the Bundesministerium gegen Männer (Federal Ministry against Men). It's shorter and more accurate.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 12:25 PM
1

Complete egalitarianism has never existed in any country in recorded history, so the fact that despotic regimes didn't adhere to that standard is hardly surprising. Neither do monarchical or democratic regimes. The elite of a democratic country also has much greater freedom than common citizens. I'll grant you that historically a greater degree of egalitarianism has been positively correlated with freedom and justice. I never disputed that. My point was that here is an example where this is not …
/r/MensRights15/06/13 12:18 PM
1

What this means is that the Rule Of Law is regularly violated in America. If the government cannot be held to its own laws, then you don't have the Rule Of Law in the first place. Fair enough. But that still doesn't mean that the Rule of Law is an effective protection against the government that makes and executes the law. If you define equality as equal treatment under the law, then plenty of philosophers would disagree (John Locke and Frederich Hayek to name two). If you make any meaningful st…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:59 AM
2

Except that approach has zero historical support going for it. Many countries have eliminated male conscription. Are there any countries that have eliminated conscription after extending it to females?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:39 AM
0

If BOTH classes have to live under the same laws, then it is likely that the law will default towards preserving the precious women and thus not conscripting ANYONE (since the Rule Of Law requires the government to treat men and women equally). That'd be great, but what's happening here is the very opposite. The Rule of Law cannot reasonably be used to constrain the government since it is the lawmaker and cannot for the most part be held accountable even if it breaks its own laws. For an example…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 07:38 AM
3

Because theocratic dictators in exile are the ultimate authority on compassion.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 10:39 PM
4

This is a step in the wrong direction. Conscription is a form of slavery and it is a great shame that this institution still exists in the world today. Instead of extending this practice to women, we should do away with it entirely. Governments should not have the right to force their citizens to kill or be killed. I would rather live in a world where half the population is subject to this vile practice than a world where everyone is, and I say this as someone who was forced to waste nine months…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:39 PM
5

The article itself was all right, only the title was ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:25 PM
1

Yep, and biblically speaking, we should also murder everyone who has ever worked on a Sabbath (i.e. basically everyone). It sure is a good book. Lots of sound advice in there.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:32 PM
7

He had a Y-chromosome.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 06:41 PM
10

I fear you vastly overestimate the rationality of our species. Human beings are unfortunately very vulnerable to indoctrination and emotional appeals. Just look at how long religion has survived in spite of all of its lies being exposed for so long. Religion appeals to our emotions, to the most primitive parts of our minds by flattering ("God has made you in His image) and scaring us ("You don't want to go to Hell, do you?" and snaring us with our need for community. Feminism appeals to women be…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:57 AM
10

Stephen Fry lives in the UK.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:30 AM
6

Domestic violence against women ("wife beating") has never been accepted in Western society. Here's some good information on that: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/search/label/Domestic%20Violence
/r/MensRights04/06/13 11:19 PM
0

"Actually, I think i might start using that instead anyway," can in no way be construed as an admission that "shitlord" is inappropriate. Just to clarify, I don't consider gendered slurs to be off-limits, just pointing out feminist hypocrisy. So no, I don't give a shit what insults you use, I just don't like hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:56 PM
1

I've read all your responses, but it's not my fault if you're not making much sense. As I said, "shitlord" is clearly an insult (unlike "blarg"). Now unless you actually respond to my original claim, I'm done with this conversation.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:26 PM
2

This article sums it up pretty well: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/house-passes-senate-version-of-vawa-reauthorization/
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:51 PM
0

You are the one ignoring my original claim. "Shitlord" is clearly an insult and clearly gendered, hence a gendered slur. Either stop using it or acknowledge that gendered slurs are not inherently inappropriate.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:47 PM
1

How about you stop dodging?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:57 PM
1

Good job missing the point. The point is that "shitlord" is a gendered slur. If you're against using gendered slurs, but still use "shitlord," you're a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:15 AM
6

We have to think of feminists as our enemies because most of them are. Quite aside from any verbal hostility, feminism has led (and is still leading) to ruining the lives of countless men. Before feminism stops demonizing male sexuality, advocating for discrimination against men and seeks to revert things like VAWA, there can be no cooperation. You don't cooperate with someone who's attacking you. You're like a moderate Jim Crow supporter telling Black people not to be so angry. "If both 'sides'…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 08:44 AM
1

As opposed to all the other words that were found in nature, engraved on stone tablets handed down by God?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 08:29 AM
1

Aren't you feminist/SJW types supposed to be against gendered slurs? "Shitlord" is clearly gendered.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:25 AM
2

These polls are anything but silly as they are the most reliable data we have. Self-reporting is of course never entirely accurate, but I don't see any more reliable methodology given today's technology. It's also entirely possible that fewer men report being bisexual because men genuinely are more often at the extreme ends of the Kinsey Scale.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:32 PM
2

No, it's still a lot lower than that. It's quite difficult to get exact numbers on this, but pretty much all serious studies on this agree that less than 5% of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual. As an example, here's one source which puts the number at 3.5% for the U.S.: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
/r/MensRights25/05/13 06:27 PM
9

No, no, if gay men have sex, they're actually both raping each other. (Also, homosexuals are much less than 10% of the population)
/r/MensRights25/05/13 01:02 PM
6

Get out of here with your patriarchal logic. This sort of vile male-centric thinking ignores and represses female ways of knowing.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:32 PM
1

Thanks for fixing it. Didn't find any mistakes in the second version. I still think using the 12 month data is better.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:30 PM
1

This is not a matter of being clear and clean. The graphic is clean and clear enough. The problem is that the central claim of this info graphic is false.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:57 PM
2

Horribly sensational and misleading title. Of all sexually exploited males, 79% reported exchanging sex for money or goods with a female. This doesn't say how many boys were sexually exploited, only that most people who sexually exploit boys are female, which is hardly surprising given that the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Admittedly, it may be surprising to the average blue-piller who believes women are angels, but it should surprise no one here. Also, this article is from 2008
/r/MensRights23/05/13 03:46 PM
7

The graphic falsely claims that the CDC data is about people who "will be raped in his/her lifetime." What the CDC data actually says is how many people were raped in their lives up to that point. This is a crucial difference. Also, you should use the data from the last 12 months instead since that is known to be more accurate and it also better reflects the current situation rather than the historical situation. It would also make your point better because then the numbers for men and women are…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 03:38 PM
20

Why is it worse? Also, erections have nothing to do with whether something can be considered rape or not. Arousal is not consent to sex. It's not uncommon for women who are raped to experience arousal and sometimes even orgasm, but that doesn't make it any less of a rape. And the source was given in the graphic.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 03:30 PM
-2

On average, I like books written by men better than I like books written by women. This is an assessment I've made from reading hundreds of books by both men and women. There are books by women that I like and books by men that I dislike, but on average I prefer books by men. This does not mean that I never read books by women, but if you wanted to market a book toward me, you'd have a better chance with a unisex or male name. Does that make me a bigot?
/r/MensRights23/05/13 07:01 AM
-3

Talking to you is infuriating. Can you just please say clearly what you mean and not hide behind rhetorical bullshit? You have not yet explained to me what is "very wrong." If you can't do that, you're not worth talking to. Your last post suggests that it has something to do with bigotry. You have not shown how any bigotry is taking place.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 10:04 PM
-6

There's something very wrong when people claim that something is wrong but refuse to explain why, even when specifically asked about it.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:26 PM
-4

There's something very wrong when people won't read something because of the gender of the author. What's wrong with that and why?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:12 PM
-8

There's nothing despicable about it. If publishers feel that boys will be less inclined to buy a book by a woman, then that's a hypothesis that should be tested. If true, then we have to accept it as a fact and it is indeed smart for females writing this kind of fiction to use their initials or a unisex or male pseudonym. This does not mean that anyone is getting unfairly discriminated against or that we need to send boys to re-education camp.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 12:31 PM
20

The ERA will do nothing for men. You know how I know that? Because Germany has had such a law ever since the funding of the Federal Republic in 1949. What has that changed? Nothing. Article 3 of the Grundgesetz (German Constitution) originally said: (1) All people are equal before the law. (2) Men and women have equal rights. (3) No one may be advantaged or disadvantaged based on his sex, parentage, race, language, home and heritage, faith, religious or political views. That seems pretty straigh…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 08:23 AM
1

And say they are in a society they need to be castrated or some measure to make sure they don't reproduce and they need to be self sufficient because taxpayers should not have to pay for that shit Yeah, except executing people isn't actually cheap at all. Because of the permanent nature of killing someone, you need to make extra sure that they are in fact guilty. What this means in the bloated legal systems of Western countries is lots of retrials and waiting around. As a result, in the US (whic…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 07:40 AM
2

There is also a wage gap for hourly wages. Different wage gap numbers are calculated in different ways, some take yearly income, some take hourly income, some even use median income instead of mean income. Then the feminists and politicians wanting to appeal to women voters just take whatever number sounds big and scary while still sounding somewhat realistic and run with that.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 08:49 AM
67

No one is denying that forcible abortion is and should be a crime. The question is whether it's considered murder. Either an embryo is legally considered a person or it is not. In the first case, voluntary and forcible abortion would both be murder. In the second case, neither voluntary nor forcible abortion would be murder. (Though the second would of course still be criminal.)
/r/MensRights17/05/13 12:32 AM
2

True statements are true. Adding "usually said of" is not implicit judgement, it's just additional information. Don't overanalyse harmless stuff like this, there's enough actual sexism out there for you to concern yourself with.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 08:31 AM
2

I was wondering the exact same thing :=)
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:32 PM
11

Wow, the amount of blatant gynocentrism in this article is sickening. Apparently the author really thinks that abortion is all about women and that only women can be affected by it. I guess in her twisted mind, Connors is just a sperm donor and thus does not have the right to have any feelings about his unborn child.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:53 AM
6

Never going to work. There are too many men out there desperate for female attention. You'll never get more than a few per cent of men to go along with such a boycott.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 11:07 PM
5

Yes, that's one prime example of this.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 10:10 PM
38

There is likely no student on any campus anywhere who is not guilty of at least one of these “offenses.” Any attempt to enforce this rule evenhandedly and comprehensively will be impossible. That's precisely the point. If everyone is guilty, anyone can be prosecuted the moment he or she (but more likely he) becomes an undesirable person. People who are in power do not want rules to be applied evenhandedly and comprehensively, they want the rules applied when and where it suits them.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:54 PM
18

Because when you believe that you've been oppressed and mistreated for all of history and that Men through the vehicle of The Patriarchy are responsible, you can justify basically any bad behaviour in response to that.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 08:28 AM
3

The Kimmel study can be found here: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf The study does contain these assertions, but is not their original source. After reading the 32 page study and finally finding this claim, I had no more patience for this lazy clown who has no idea who citations should be done. I'm certainly not going to read even more sources which might or might not contain the original research.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:04 AM
7

I'm comfortable with it. There's nothing wrong with being more attracted to one race over another. I don't see it as a bigger issue than for instance preferring a particular hair colour.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:46 PM
5

This is a very good summary of the issue.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:30 AM
4

No, no, no. You see, the actual problem is the absence of fathers, so actually men are still to blame for the poor performance of children through their absence. As you can see, it's always the fault of The Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:55 PM
2

Yes, atheism is a belief, but only in the mundane sense as in "I believe it'll rain today." We all have a myriad of beliefs about all sorts of things and there's nothing wrong with that. However, atheism is not a belief system since it's just single belief, namely that there are no gods. I think the whole non-belief stick instead of belief that gods don't exist is a dishonest semantic trick that insecure atheists use to fend off bad theistic arguments. As a rational person, one should strive to …
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:57 AM
10

I just read through that whole glossary. That's some seriously fucked up shit. These people really act just like a religious cult sans the supernatural beliefs.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 09:06 PM
1

It's quite simple. Insurance companies should be allowed to calculate their premiums however the fuck they want. If you as the customer are unhappy with the price, you can go to another insurance company that offers a better deal for you.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:44 PM
1

And I think they'd be right to say so.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:43 AM
2

Paying people to breed has very little effect on people who actually work for a living. People aren't motivated to have children by financial incentives because those incentives only cover a very small portion of the expenses incurred by having children It only has noticeable effects on people living on welfare because they essentially don't have to pay for their children, the state does. Or to be more precise, the state uses the threat of violence to force everyone else to pay for these childre…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 11:47 PM
1

I believe insurances should be allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they want to. Sex is one of those criteria, as is age, occupation, nationality, etc. Forcing insurance companies through the the threat of violence not to do this any longer is inefficient and immoral.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:03 PM
11

"Forced genital cutting" is a great term. It's much more neutral and less sensational than "genital mutilation" and through the inclusion of the word "forced" it cuts (no pun intended) to core issue. Genital cutting is not wrong because genitals get cut, but because the procedure is inflicted by force and against their will on young children. Thanks, I'll be using this term from now on.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 01:27 PM
0

Is that supposed to be a refutation of my post? I'm asking because I'm confused by your incoherent reply. Who said anything about heartbreak or romantic relationships? Sex is quite different from those. They often occur together, but sex and romance are no more similar than going to the cinema and eating popcorn are. You know there is a link between long life and romantic relationships, right? Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It could just be that those people who are already mo…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 11:02 PM
18

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Just because it's in the same category in Maslow's pyramid, doesn't mean it has the same level of importance. Without oxygen, you'll die in a few minutes. Without water, you'll die in a few days. Without food, you'll die in a few weeks. People can live their entire lives without having sex and still be happy. Aside from that, there's always still masturbation. As long as the French man didn't prevent his wife from that, she could still fulfil her sexual needs to some …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:38 AM
6

Upvoted for sharing an unpopular opinion and supporting it with good arguments.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:55 PM
1

while at the same time, you have admitted that contemporary issues of sexism are not something you are particularly knowledgeable about. I've admitted no such thing. I've admitted to not being knowledgeable about music. Many items on your list were just buzzwords without much explanation, such as "body autonomy." I'm sorry, but you're going to have to give me more than that if you expect me to recognize this as an area where women face "severe sexism." You can't just throw a list of unsubstantia…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:18 PM
1

And where is the step where this affects women's rights? All you showed is that this perpetuates traditional gender roles, which is not all the same as affecting anyone's rights.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:14 PM
1

Unequal pay is due to unequal work and unequal skills, not sexism. I've no idea what precisely you mean by "body autonomy." Objectification is not sexism. Being objectified by others is a normal part of the human experience and has nothing to do with being a woman or sexism. I've never heard anything about art made by women that's not specifically about women being regarded as less valuable and this does not match my experience and perception. I'm going to need some evidence on that. "gender rol…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:05 PM
1

And if such a law were in place in the place she lived in, she could go somewhere else to have an abortion. I agree with you that laws like that are unjust and harmful, but equating that with rape is completely inappropriate.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 11:13 AM
2

I honestly don't understand how people who are just so fucking stupid can get jobs writing for such big gigs. It's not about intelligence, it's about having the "right" opinions. Sadly, most people are not interested in thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments, but in reading what they already believe in.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:16 AM
1

The central and crucial element of any reasonable definition of rape is that it involves force or coercion. Neither is present here. Women are not forced to get an abortion. If they don't want to be mothers, they can choose between a wide variety of birth control options for women or make sure that their partner is wearing a condom. If they get pregnant anyway, the also have the option to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption. If they do want an abortion, they can still go to …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 09:40 AM
1

Let me clarify: When I said "Feminists" I meant "most feminists" as that was what the statement I replied to talked about. Obviously no group is entirely homogeneous, so you'll always have some exceptions. Reddit is a rather informal means of communication, so I don't always take great pains to qualify all of my statements. The very fact that you have to resort to a very uncharitable reading of statements here on /MR to demonstrate your point, shows that your attempts at putting the MRM and femi…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:28 AM
0

Don't be ridiculous. No one is forcibly administering transvaginal ultrasounds to women, so comparing that to rape is completely inappropriate and is an insult to real victims of rape. I also don't see what this has got to do with anything. Did the MRM lobby for these strange laws? Because feminists sure as hell lobbied for laws to protect women at the expense of curtailing the rights of men. I'm perfectly fine with feminism only dealing with women's issues, but then they shouldn't go around cla…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:47 PM
0

Then why do feminists consistently downplay the prevalence of female violence (e.g. when it comes to domestic violence and rape)? Of course NAFALT, but most feminists in positions of influence are definitely like that.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:32 PM
1

I don't care much what feminists have to say, I care about what they do. And what they've done is to push for ever more laws and public funding to protect women from violence committed by men, but not the other way around.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:00 PM
1

Woah, woah. I really, really don't think most feminists want to be seen as damsels in distress. At all. If you keep thinking that, you're gonna have a bad time. I otherwise agreed with 99% of what you said, but man, that one was bad. Feminists want to be seen as weak and oppressed when it suits them (like when it comes to issues like domestic violence or rape or female criminals in general) and strong and capable when that is in their best interests.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:51 PM
1

My intention is to point out that both movements are interested in this scenario, they both don't like it, and both have different ways of interpreting it, but the goals are similar. Please justify that assertion. I don't think most feminists have any problem with female threats of violence against men being taken less seriously by the police.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 09:53 PM
2

No shit, Sherlock.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 08:09 PM
2

Not necessarily. Israel has always had female conscription and that has never stopped the practice. I think the best way to get rid of conscription is through a principled opposition. The rights to bodily integrity, freedom of occupation, freedom of expression and the freedom to live where you choose are much more important than equality between men and women and I believe the general public is much more receptive to those. Another factor is that in today's world, conscription (like all forms of…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 03:56 PM
-7

Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the people who want to extend the draft to women. Conscription is a disgusting and pernicious practice that tramples on the rights of those affected by it. It is a feudalistic practice rooted in the idea that people are not free individuals, but the property of their rulers. We need to abolish the draft, not extend it. Frankly, I'd rather have a male only draft than a general draft. Justice is more important than equality and I'd rather have only half th…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 12:48 PM
6

I like how the leaflet doesn't even consider that men may be falsely accused. And as usual when it comes to male criminality, there is no consideration of what caused this behaviour, no sympathy or empathy with the perpetrator. Contrast that to any portrayal of female criminality in the mainstream media where you'll find constant reference to potential root causes such as childhood trauma, personality disorders, difficult personal circumstances and so on.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 10:08 PM
8

A textbook example of female hypoagency vs male hyperagency.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 10:02 PM
5

Some of them are indeed doubleplusgood goodthinkful duckspeakers.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:45 PM
33

Both are true. Which one is acted upon and regarded as true at any given time depends on the circumstances. Feminists have mastered the art of doublethink.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:25 PM
13

Laws like that are just vile. A seventeen-year-old boy and a fifteen-year-old girl having sex is perfectly normal human behaviour and should not be criminalized.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:24 PM
8

Insert something about power differential
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:52 AM
7

It's disgraceful how popular quotas are here in Germany. Germans seem to be obsessed with laws and regulations and are totally oblivious to the oppressive and coercive nature of laws enforced through the threat of state violence. These quotas are basically equivalent to holding a gun to the head of business owners and telling them, "Hire more women, or else..."
/r/MensRights19/04/13 04:04 PM
1

That must be some setting on your end, because automatic sign-in works for me.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:26 PM
36

How about this? "I'm a decent fucking human being and I don't think we should cut the dicks of children for no good reason."
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:21 PM
82

I don't know if that's a new low, it's about what I would expect from Jezebel.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 12:54 PM
162

Another reminder that traditional gender roles were never a good deal for men and that traditionalists are not our allies. This is a perfect example of male disposability at work.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:12 PM
6

What in the fucking fuck? When I was half-way through that article I had to make sure that I was actually on a real news-site. This read like an article from The Onion. Are these people bloody insane? They are giving a woman an award for murder. If she suffered from domestic violence she should have left her husband and reported him to the police, not kill him. Do these people really think a murderer is a good role model for women? Absolutely disgraceful award and shame on whoever wrote this dis…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:13 AM
13

Well, it's female on female crime, so they're not sure what to make of this, so it's better to err on the side of hypoagency.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:05 AM
142

I can confirm this. I was actually born as a Black lesbian girl, but I played chess extensively during my childhood and now I'm a straight White male.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:51 AM
0

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:48 AM
21

I'm not sure if Register Her is a good idea, but OP's letter fails as a critique. It's filled with sentimental fluff and contains no coherent rational argument. It's the same bullshit emotionalism that suffuses feminism. We will never win on the basis of emotions and emotional appeal against feminists. The only area where we can win is where it comes to facts and logic. If the MRM is to be successful, it must be through intellectualism and rationality, not cheap emotional appeals.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:31 AM
-6

Stop getting worked up over nothing. There are many serious instances of misandry out there, we do not have to go after empirically correct claims that make men look bad. Yes, feminists would take issue with a similar true claim that makes women look bad, such as "Men are more intelligent than women according to IQ tests." However, they would be wrong to be outraged over things like that just as we would be wrong to protest the statement in the OP. Two wrongs do not make a right.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:20 AM
2

Of course. Women are the primary caregivers which is part of patriarchy and women are oppressed because of patriarchy and because of patriarchy they don't have power over anyone except their children, so they can only take out their frustrations on their children. You see, everything bad that happens is the fault of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:08 AM
1

What study? All there was to that article is one woman saying that it would be nice to have more male teachers.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 09:38 AM
-1

I'm somewhat disappointed with this subreddit right now. Why has this almost 2000 upvotes, despite containing obvious and blatant falsehood? It's especially ironic considering that title of this post. Women and men are most definitely not the same. There are a multitude of biological and cultural differences between the two and pretending there aren't for the sake of political correctness will not change reality.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:55 PM
1

There you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkmanLIAdXI
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:40 AM
1

If the adherents of two of the world's most pernicious and dangerous ideologies want to fight each other, I count that as a victory for rational people everywhere.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:32 PM
8

And he's seeing it from a male perspective as landing in a sea of women, but women already feel that they're in a sea full of male attention where-ever they go. Attractive women feel that way, but in a STEM class, even a woman of average attractiveness will get lots of attention.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:30 PM
7

Never mind then. Carry on, Your Omniscience.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:24 PM
4

That's a rather bold claim. Do you know every person's analysis of the Adria Richards situation?
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:31 PM
8

Hi Mustachiod_T-Rex, Tautologies are tautological because they are tautological and are therefore tautologies. Signed, the person who signed this
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:28 PM
4

This sort of unbalanced nature-feminism can no longer be tolerated. Join me in the funding of /r/maleprayingmantisrights.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:04 PM
3

I never objected to an all female Supreme Court. I'm fine with that as long as that state is reached through the principles of meritocracy. I objected to the idea that because there was an all male SC for a long time we should therefore strive towards an all female SC.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:25 AM
2

I'm not making the argument that women are useless or that men are on the whole superior, just pointing out one important aspect where men are superior to women (whether that superiority is based on biology or culture or a combination of both is a different question). I don't think it's just traditional gender roles that were holding women back from innovating. If that were the case, then women would now be inventing about as much as men do, but that's not the case. If you look at all the new te…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:18 AM
4

Interesting to consider that she's writing this message on a computer made by male brains, transmitting this message through the internet made by male brains to a social network site made by male brains. Even the very fact that brains are responsible for intelligence was discovered by male brains.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:47 PM
2

Well, aren't you cute? Come back when you have an actual argument rather than just insults and indignation.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:29 PM
2

Good job grasping the concepts of analogy and exaggeration and good job at sticking to facts rather than resorting to petty insults. (In case this went over your head, the previous sentence was sarcastic.) What the original message proposed (perhaps only jokingly, perhaps in earnest) was to have a Supreme Court only made up of women and that this would be fair given that the Supreme Court has been made up exclusively by men for a long time. This is retributive group-based justice. I then demonst…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:08 AM
4

I'm still not entirely sure what you're talking about. In what way does the "structure of Manhood" excuse rape or abuse or help perpetuate injustice? From my experience, our culture is hyper-sensitive to rape and abuse in that it for instance sometimes labels consensual sex between drunk people as rape.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 11:12 PM
0

Innocent until proven guilty. If you have evidence that male judges systematically undervalue the rights and needs of females we can talk about gender balance being a good idea, but until then you don't have a case. To be frank, I suspect that male judges already slightly over-value female concerns compared to male concerns and that this bias is even stronger with female judges. However, at this point this is just my personal suspicion so it's not worth much. Also, even if we had good evidence o…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 11:01 PM
3

Hi. I believe that at least as far as the Western world is concerned, women are not disadvantaged in any major way except for biological differences (such as being physically weaker than men). There are some minor issues (such as being barred from certain posts in some religious organizations) and some issues which are advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the situation (such as the perceived lack of agency), but I can't think of any big issue that only women face which is clearly negativ…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:48 PM
4

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you be more concrete?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:23 PM
-1

Why does the sex of the judges matter? It seems you're assuming that "run by men" somehow means "run for the benefit of men", which just isn't supported at all by the empirical evidence. Men and women are biological groups, not political ones. Having a Supreme Court with say just conservatives or just liberals would be problematic in a way that a Supreme Court made up of men would not.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 12:06 PM
11

Retributive justice is such a great idea. In the same spirit, here's some other ideas for making the world more fair: Slavery was widespread in the USA for well over two hundred years with mostly White people owning Black slaves. Therefore for the next two hundred years, every Black person should be able to take White people as slaves. During the Nazi reign, Germans killed something like 6 million Jews. In the spirit of fairness, Jews should now legally be allowed to kill Germans until the quota…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:33 AM
1

No, an appropriate analogy would be getting banned from /r/islam for criticizing Muslims in /r/atheism.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:35 PM
7

OP wasn't banned for violating any rules, he was banned for crimethink. He posted comments critical of feminism in another subreddit, which led an r/feminism mod to conclude that he was a thought criminal and must therefore be vaporized.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:37 PM
2

It may well stand to reason, but that's unlikely to sway legislators in the current societal climate.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:16 AM
11

Here in Germany, women's only parking spots are quite widespread and can be found in most larger parking decks. I'm actually surprised that this nonsense hasn't spread to other countries yet.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:56 PM
2

Good post, have my upvote. However, I do have to take issue with one thing you said. Your post implies a parity between men being portrayed as idiots and women being portrayed as sex objects. The reason these two issues are not comparable is that in one, men are portrayed in a very negative light while in the other, women are actually portrayed in a positive light. I don't know what commercials you're talking about, so I can't comment on any particulars, but bikini-clad women are generally not a…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:02 PM
18

I don't think it is pejorative. I've frequently read feminists and LGBT advocates refer to themselves as cis. Of course self-castigation is not uncommon among theses groups, but I still think that "cis" is a neutral term. That said, I think it sounds stupid and I wouldn't use it.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 10:54 PM
-1

Let me play devil's advocate. The reason we enshrine marriage into law is to provide a stable environment for children to grow up in. Despite high divorce rates, marriage is still more stable than any other living arrangement. Homosexual couples may adopt children, but many of them do not. While there are of course also childless heterosexual marriages, those are much rarer than childless homosexual couples. Moreover, it is important for children to have both a male and a female role-model, so c…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 02:16 PM
3

Fair enough. The poster is indeed gender neutral, but of course we all know that the vast majority of false rape accusers are women and the vast majority of the falsely accused are men. I can see the poster having a positive effect in those cases.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 08:33 PM
42

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think this will do any good. Telling women not to make false accusations is about as effective as telling men not to rape. Women already know that making false accusations is wrong. What many of them may not realize is how damaging those accusations can be. So I think the better strategy is to emphasize how false rape accusations can ruin the lives of good men and their families.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:03 PM
1

Oh, yes, they should be able to use force in self defence against anyone, regardless of gender. But we don't live in an ideal world. If you use force in self defence, chances are that you will be seen as the aggressor in the eyes of the public and the eyes of the law and that people will think the woman was just defending herself from your nasty brutish self.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:38 AM
3

But that's not defusing the situation. If you grab her wrists or otherwise restrain her, you've stopped her from hurting you for the moment, but what then? What is your next move? You can't very well hold her forever and as soon as you let go of her, she's able to attack you again. Granted, if this is a one time outburst of temper, then your method is effective. But if there's actual sustained abuse going on, your solution doesn't help. The only thing you can do is to get the fuck away from her …
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:34 AM
10

And how would you defuse(I assume that's the word you meant) the situation? I can't think of a single option where a man being abused by a woman has a better chance of defusing the situation than if the gender roles were reversed.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:41 PM
2

This does nothing to justify the original statement. I'm not saying women shouldn't have campaigned for women's rights, but that doesn't make feminism "a reasonable result of being rational." Being in favour of women's rights does not make one a feminist.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:36 PM
1

Please justify that statement. I don't think feminism has ever been "a reasonable result of being rational."
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:41 PM
2

Of course I can't speak for your female friends because I obviously don't know them, so you may well be right in your assessment as far as it pertains to your friends. However, I think it would be naive to assume that this is true for all or even most women who read 50 Shades. Bad books don't become bestsellers if they aren't written by celebrities. These books certainly appeal to a large number of women or they would never have been successful.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:20 AM
3

Why is it a disgusting term and why should it offend anyone?
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:15 AM
3

And it's misogynistic to misogynize that they're misogynistic misogynists promoting misogyny.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:59 AM
3

How do you know your female friends didn't like it? People lie, you know? There is a strong element of snobbery going on when it comes to books like that. People will not admit liking it because that would confer low status, so everyone says they just read it 'ironically' or 'to see what all the fuss is about'. For there to be any fuss, the book first has to become a best-seller, so it obviously appealed to lots of readers before there was any hype. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of other books…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:37 PM
4

Standard feminist MO. Any sexism can be regarded as misogyny if you just try enough to bend your mind into the right shape. Giving advantage to men -> women are disadvantaged, therefore misogyny Giving advantage to women -> shows a belief that women are weaker than men and need extra help, therefore also misogyny. Even complete gender neutrality can be regarded as misogyny. Men and women have different preferences, so with equal rights they will get different results. Then you just have to look …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:05 PM
1

It's irrelevant whether lynching has racist connotations in America. It obviously was not used in that context in that conversation. I utterly despise it when people try to pull a move like that. "I'm Black. Has anyone in your family ever encountered lynching?" What kind of low life has to resort to ridiculous victim-by-proxy logic like that?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 09:58 PM
13

Whores actually hold up their end of the bargain. Having sex with a whore is an honest business transaction. This woman is essentially a con artist, pretending that she's interested in a relationship to get some poor sucker to pay for her meal.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:09 PM
1

It's not hypocritical, it's bigoted. In the world view of most feminists, males are privileged, so sexism against men is impossible, justified or just not a very big deal, whereas sexism against women perpetuates The Patriarchy and is therefore much worse.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:00 PM
1

She is wrong, but I don't think she's hypocritical in this instance. I would guess in her world view, a low representation in the tech industry is an indication of discrimination or sexism, so using a mild derogatory term is justified. If I'm correct in my assumption about her beliefs, she's factually wrong, but not hypocritical.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:53 AM
1

Sure. I don't mind at all being at a party with mostly men.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:49 AM
4

Honestly, 'sausage party' ranks so low on my misandry radar that it doesn't even register as sexism. I guess you can interpret it as sexism if you want to, but for the most part it's just a cute way of saying 'lot's of men'. The feminists have developed this hypersensitivity to anything that could be construed as misogynist. We shouldn't become their male counterparts.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 11:04 AM
2

Yes, I don't see any hypocrisy in this statement either.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:31 AM
9

Unfortunately this is all to common in today's world. If we live in a rape culture, then it is a culture which takes rape too seriously. Rape is a grave crime, but there are many crimes which are far more harmful. For some perverse reason, rape seems to invoke even more outrage than murder these days. And unlike most crimes, it has become far too common in the public to reverse "innocent until proven guilty" in cases of rape.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:18 PM
0

It was a perfectly valid objection. People in the military are far more likely to have guns, therefore if guns are the best defence against rape, we'd expect very low rates of rape in the military. In case you were wondering, A->B is not the same as B->A. People in the military have firearms does not mean that people who have firearms are in the military.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 09:32 PM
0

No it didn't. Feminism has never striven for equality, it's always been about women's rights. Feminists may claim to support equality, they may even believe they support equality, but actions speak louder than words and feminists have never advanced the rights of men in areas where men are discriminated against.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 09:35 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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