TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

eletheros Archive

View 23 posts and 2,122 comments by eletheros 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)
1809

False Accusationeletheros/r/MensRights25/05/15 10:54 PM
314

eletheros/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:33 AM
223

Discriminationeletheros/r/MensRights14/09/15 10:29 AM
140

Legal Rightseletheros/r/MensRights09/07/15 03:33 AM
111

Activism/Supporteletheros/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:43 AM
79

Legal Rightseletheros/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:03 PM
69

eletheros/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:12 AM
54

Social Issueseletheros/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:27 AM
47

False Accusationeletheros/r/MensRights15/12/15 02:26 PM
47

Legal Rightseletheros/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:11 AM
27

Legal Rightseletheros/r/MensRights01/11/15 08:33 AM
27

Eastern Cultureeletheros/r/MensRights18/02/15 04:47 AM
23

eletheros/r/MensRights29/10/14 08:43 PM
22

Legal Rightseletheros/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:37 PM
20

Analysiseletheros/r/MensRights21/10/14 11:32 AM
13

eletheros/r/MensRights01/12/14 04:09 PM
12

eletheros/r/MensRights04/12/14 02:43 AM
12

Newseletheros/r/MensRights09/01/15 04:21 AM
9

Edu./Occu.eletheros/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:42 AM
8

Generaleletheros/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:45 AM
4

eletheros/r/MensRights13/11/14 08:16 PM
1

eletheros/r/MensRights09/11/14 03:09 AM
0

Newseletheros/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:56 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,122 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What I would have done would have been to walk up with exact change, take a cake and leave the 82p Then I'd walk away. If they tried to say anything, I'd welcome them to get the police involved. I'd love to hear them argue in a court about their right to charge differently based on the customers sex.
/r/MensRights05/08/17 07:59 PM
2

I always make sure each sexual experience is, by law a rape with being drunk or medicated. Being drunk is not sufficient to by law be considered rape.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 11:11 AM
12

If women want "safe spaces" let them have them No, it's fucking insanity. Anybody who wants a "safe space" shouldn't leave their house.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 11:50 AM
4

Guns Of course, you have to be willing to use it or it's actually worse than having nothing at all.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 11:47 AM
5

Your "joke faggots" are not very amusing.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 10:17 PM
2

Why don't you get back to me and tell me what the consequences were.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 10:14 PM
5

Nonsense. The fear of the consequences to come are often worse than the consequences themselves. Particularly for a false rape accuser.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 10:13 PM
1

Suicide isn't exactly just some easy thing to do. It's one of the easiest things to do. Guaranteed no consequences.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 10:08 PM
5

Because nobody has "ever" killed themselves because their idiot attempt at getting attention backfires and they start getting the wrong attention. Nonsense.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 10:07 PM
19

The consequence according to the law is to receive alimony Welcome to equality
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:54 PM
112

One thing I'd note is that a 40ish IT worker who hasn't worked for 5 years is probably not "clearly capable of a highly paid job". They're going to need to train back to a useful level of knowledge at a minimum, and then they have to deal with the rapant age discrimination in the field.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 02:54 PM
23

I'll believe that when I see it. First, she'll take a golden plea deal granted her by some biased prosecutor. Second, the school will waive any ethics violations - pointing out "it's just a misdemeanor" - and continue to allow her to attend.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 03:04 AM
0

Their dedication to "pro-life" (which isn't pro-life at all) That's a silly complaint. "Pro choice" are anything but pro choice. They just don't want to admit they are pro abortion. I, on the other hand, am pro abortion.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 09:55 AM
2

This is the result of prosecutorial ability to create golden plea deals. It doesn't matter if any other part of the system is biased against men/for women (although many other parts are) the prosecutor as a single individual can let somebody off easy, or come down hard, on anybody simply by offering easy plea deals or piling on with extra charges.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 07:11 PM
0

Yes it is
/r/MensRights16/02/17 03:08 PM
-1

Nope
/r/MensRights16/02/17 02:42 PM
-3

Eradigate isn't a word
/r/MensRights16/02/17 12:19 PM
3

Some man should have taught her to spell, maybe the guy in front of her
/r/MensRights16/02/17 07:24 AM
11

Daredevil, the comic book guy, is a blind lawyer in Hell's Kitchen in Manhattan.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 05:47 PM
6

Head of Household requires that the "qualifying person", i.e. the child, lives with the HoH for half the year. It is not available simply by paying child support. In fact, if you pay 100% of all child costs and the child is with the mother 51% of the year, she gets to claim HoH and not you.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 07:09 AM
1

The simple truth is that in all quantifiable traits, males have larger standard deviations than females Were that true, then we should expect to find a percentage of men who are physically weaker than the weakest woman. A rare amount, but not infinitesimally so. Rather, in physical strength, men and women have the same range of capabilities but testosterone makes reaching the high end easier for men.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 09:26 PM
4

How can Google users/the public submit ideas for doodles? The doodle team is always excited to hear ideas from users - they can email [email protected] with ideas for the next Google doodle. The team receives hundreds of requests every day so we unfortunately can't respond to everyone. But rest assured that we're reading them :)
/r/MensRights20/11/16 05:13 AM
2

The immigration policy of Mexico is far too restrictive to allow that.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:24 PM
3

She should be required to revoke her citizenship as part of the deal. Otherwise she can just fly back, and that's not acceptable.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:23 PM
1

Don't give femtards ammo against rhe MRM, the MRM should run the fuck away from Trump. Trump is better than Hillary in all aspects, and the femtards deserve all the shit they get for putting somebody like Hillary in office. The next four years will be the worst in modern history.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 07:01 PM
-2

Trump has lost. I didn't want him to lose. I mean, I didn't want him to win, but I want Hillary to win even less, but Trump has lost. It wasn't the "locker room" tape that did it. It wasn't the zero veracity claims he molested women on airplanes either. It was his timidness. His only way to beat the Democratic operatives known as "major media" were to go all out negative. He held back.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:59 AM
4

Just remember, far more than the majority of women are voting for Clinton, and far more than the majority of men are voting for Trump. The next four years will be women's fault. (The next four years will be very, very, bad)
/r/MensRights14/10/16 04:25 AM
5

I follow exactly zero accounts on twitter. Yet, I still receive posts from people I'm interested in. I use a third party program that doesn't require me to register and give Twitter all that free data about me just to read the posts. The article itself makes me think Musk does the same thing.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 03:52 AM
33

The same Elon Musk who was sexually harassed by a woman in the Q&A session of his presentation? Probably an attempt to get him alone and claim he assaulted her. (Which is known to occur to certain tech names, Linus Torvalds refuses to ever be alone with a woman he's not related to)
/r/MensRights05/10/16 03:48 AM
1

So the motivation of the assault is not consequential to you? Not in the slightest. There is no possible way to make assault less of a crime, or more of one.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 07:24 AM
2

If the punishment for assault is a maximum of 7 years, but the time does not fit the crime, there has to be another way to keep the person incarcerated longer. No. In fact there should be no variance whatsoever. If you want somebody to go to jail for seven years for assault, everybody guilty of assault goes to jail for seven year. None of this "My mama beat me!" or "I have boobs!" reduction in sentences.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 08:05 PM
3

Given the specifics of a country where the travesty of Thought Crime is already real, then absolutely yes it should be applied when the male minority of the population is targeted.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 08:03 PM
7

People like to pretend the race matters here, but it doesn't. There are plenty of examples of white boys getting charged. There are no examples of girls being charged, regardless of race.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:37 PM
6

A proper fucking parent keeps the guns out of the hands of children and teaches the children to never touch them. No. A proper parent teaches the kids how to use the gun safely. A proper parent teaches to respect firearms, not to fear them. At twelve years old in some states, children are allowed to hunt unsupervised.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:13 PM
13

Dreads are an ancient "doesn't wash hair" thing. It predates history.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:38 PM
1

I'd vote Cruz in a heartbeat with no regrets. Given his opponents, I'd campaign for him.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 07:30 AM
9

It's pathetic that media continues to refer to her as (just) Jackie. She's not a victim, she's a perpetrator.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 12:24 AM
3

And if you think this is restricted to Canada, you're in dreamland. The US is two Supreme Court justices away from limiting rights from the accused. The Scalia chair is the first of those two. Kennedy's will be the second. If you like the idea of such courts, vote Democrat.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 06:44 PM
1

There is no such thing as "hate speech" in the US, and using what you call hate speech to felony assault somebody will rightfully get you jailed.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:17 AM
3

You can appeal that ruling. You cannot appeal a pleading, even when new evidence comes to light.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:09 AM
1

Neither of the Democrats is anything but a disaster for Men's Rights. As such, and for 2nd amendment reasons as well, I am voting against the Democratic candidate. Whomever that ends up being.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 09:08 AM
4

But I thought Canada made all health care cheap! BTW: The HPV vaccine can be produced without infringing on any patent currently in force (It expired October 13th 2015). Generic manufacturers could be producing it today, if regulators let them. US Patent 5820870
/r/MensRights28/02/16 01:14 PM
1

More than that, if you plead guilty and later irrefutable proof comes to light that you were always innocent, you still can't get your case reopened. This has happened quite a bit in DNA cases, where men were pressured to plead guilty and then 20 years later a DNA test proves it wasn't them.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 08:06 PM
23

Ashley Graham has a BMI of 29 (5.9", 201lb). She's overweight, both by BMI and obvious visual characteristics. But she's not a beached whale and is not comparable to the boxes on legs the "fat acceptance movement" are constantly trying to pretend are beautiful. She's also only 28 and has not had the true ravages of metabolism slowdown hit her. She will either turn toward actually caring (and probably drop to a 20ish BMI) or will grow into that whale on legs. BTW: Stats from here
/r/MensRights14/02/16 10:54 PM
7

So nursing, which is female dominated (and well paid), should have a cap on the number of applications from women...right?
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:38 PM
2

It varies by state, but in general "kids" who are attending college are not considered emancipated. Child support orders don't actually say "until the age of 18", they say until emancipated. What's worse is that the non-custodial parent may not have a say on which school is attended, and is expected to pay the tuition for the school that is attended even if a cheaper one is available. For example, a child wanting to attend private school could saddle dear'ole'dad with being forced to take out lo…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 09:42 PM
11

But you're still expected to pay for that college education, as enforced by law. Even though the kid would be over 18 at that time, and the payment still goes to the ex-spouse.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 08:41 PM
6

The second-chance choice of abortion. Barring a crime, everybody is choosing to have sex. Only half get the second choice, yet bears the minority of the burden.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 07:14 PM
6

There's a simple reason for this, and it's all based in the reality that girls and boys learn differently. The schools are pre-designed to work toward the methodologies that girls excel at. Sitting in class, remembering and regurgitating instruction, and test taking. Boys as a group don't sit inactive very well, learn by doing, and are horrible test takers. In order to get good scoring girls, a school only needs to offer up the most minimal of efforts. All the curriculum is already designed arou…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 07:11 PM
2

Patriarchy is the thing that forces women to become nurses in stead of miners By hourly rate, nurses make more than miners. Coal miners have a $24.54 average hourly rate in the US. RNs have $28.58 Miners are forced to work more hours, because of a multi-week onshift schedule followed by a week off. RNs are increasingly given to choice to work longer hours, but it's always a choice.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 07:01 PM
1

"You're masculine? Everything you do is good and right! Take my money!" is the supposed reaction Supposedly being offered by somebody who is also masculine, since only the men make decisions in this patriarchy.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 06:59 PM
3

The mental gymnastics they force themselves into in order to not admit the wage gap is a bunch of bullshit is truly astounding, and probably indicative of an actual disorder.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:54 AM
2

Don't vote leftist. In 2016, that means don't vote for Sanders or Hillary. It's possible for the Democrats to field candidates that are not anti-male, but in the 2016 presidential race they have failed to do so.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 05:31 AM
6

More number of boys are being forced to drop out of school to take care of their families because the rules of patriarchy expect them to provide. Free clue: That's not a patriarchy when the male is a slave for the desires of another.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 02:17 AM
7

The answer to the question in the title is obvious: The media, and by extension politics and gov't institutions, ignore men. In all ways. But they don't ignore women, trans or otherwise. MRA groups have never been hostile to women, gays, or trans. No matter what the crybullies like to pretend.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:45 PM
1

Longer streaks or more simultaneously. Women tend to use poisons, which can be slow acting, and to kill their family. So they could be poisoning their husband, three kids, and grandpa all at the same time.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:17 AM
10

who often indulge in elder abuse One quarter of female serial killers target the elderly, with 50% of all female serial killers doing so for financial gain. They also tend to kill more people overall than men. Lady Killers
/r/MensRights17/01/16 03:14 PM
22

Motte and Bailey is not withholding information, it's retracting your argument from the absurd to the obvious. For example: A feminist declares that "All Real Feminists" agree with affirmative action, that rape culture exists, and that the accused don't deserve due process. Then when somebody calls them out on those arguments, they pull back and say "But feminism is just the belief that women are people!" Until the person that called them out moves on and then they return to the expansive argume…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 10:29 AM
1

If she stole frozen samples from the clinic you were storing them at....unclear, but probably. You would have to prove that you have never had sexual contact with her, condom or otherwise. The onus would be on you. Even with such a proof, "child support is for the child" and you would likely owe it anyways. The law is not at all reasonable. The best you can really hope for is to gain custody yourself. At which point she would not owe child support, or at least not be penalized for not paying it.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 11:21 AM
8

She basically decided that "Gamer==Reason to fear" at some point, because "GamerGateIsBad". No logics. No reason. Just because. It's no surprise her blog is on tumblr. As an actress, she's always been hit or miss. On Buffy she was why I watched the show. On Eureka, she was the reason to turn it off. Supernatural was too much "Hi, I have tits, I'm the main character now!" She did everything. Jack of all trades, master of them all too! It's no wonder she spends most of her time doing meaningless c…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:18 AM
1

That doesn't include divorce. Men that divorce or are widowed are poorer and die younger than never married men. It does. Wealthy couples with relatively equal earning potential have a much lower divorce rate. For example, my rent is $900 a month including everything. My friend has 2 kids and his daycare bill is $1,700 a month. Neither of you are wealthy and so don't even qualify for what I said.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 08:33 PM
1

Just simple economics, those who marry do better in life. Part of that is because those who are doing better in life have a higher chance of marrying. The wealthy have four times the likelihood of getting married, and they derive benefit from it so long as they marry other wealthy people. In this case, wealth is strongly correlated with education and earning power. In other words, two people with nothing to hold over the other. The problem comes when somebody is "marrying up", or just in general…
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:48 PM
10

It can be applied only when the behavior has had a "serious effect" on the victim's life or causes them to fear violence if they don't comply. And that's the "judgement call" cooked into the law as a method of disallowing men to use the same law toward their own benefit as victims, without actually coding in a gender specific requirement. "You're a man, you shouldn't fear violence just because she threatened it."
/r/MensRights02/01/16 09:10 AM
2

It seems he was upset that he was treated like a poor black man. Actually, his main complaint appears to be that rich people shouldn't be held to standards such as "don't try to enter neighbors houses" and "don't assault police"
/r/MensRights01/01/16 06:40 PM
3

shortly after which he was found dead In which "shortly" is "two days later", after he had been released from jail for an entire day.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 06:35 PM
3

They raped him. They beat him to death, nearly... I kept looking for the /s, I didn't find it. Ian Murdock was drunk to the point where he was trying to gain entry into a neighbors house. Police responded, duh. He had been issuing ranting tweets since long before police arrived, including threats to suicide. During that response, Murdock assaulted one of the officers and was issued a notice to appear in regards to that charge. Then the police left. Murdock continued issuing ranting tweets. Murdo…
/r/MensRights01/01/16 06:30 PM
1

Feminism in Punjab. Hahahahahahaha that's a good one. The muslims will just force em to wear burqas.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 09:30 AM
2

That dopey looking balding short fat guy? He's not getting access to the top tier of female genetics in attractive women. Certainly he is. Some are anyways. Money and power can override any other negative.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 05:56 AM
1

The problem is that this sperm bank is practicing bad eugenics How? They're not sterilizing people, they're not stopping people from reproducing. They're just limiting who they take samples from. If some group didn't want samples from redheads, on the grounds that they don't have souls, that wouldn't be a problem either.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 05:52 AM
1

She'll be released immediately and serve no jail time. Lakeisha Holloway, 24, Suspect in Deadly Las Vegas Crash, Held Without Bond No need for hyperbole.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 05:45 AM
1

Canada is bigoted against men. Tell me something new.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 07:56 AM
1

All labiaplasty is cosmetic. There's no medical reason to perform it ever. Labiaplasty is not clitorectomy, if you're confusing it. Just like circumcision isn't chopping the head off the penis.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 06:26 AM
0

Female genital mutilation is against the law in Canada. We just went over this. Labiaplasty is not genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 04:54 AM
1

I mean I can't perform labioplasty on my newborn daughter now can I? Cite a law that would stop you.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 04:39 AM
1

patpat that's nice. Run along now and play. It's fundamentally absurd to pretend it is mutilation.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 12:47 AM
1

Probably a lot like a botched vaginoplasty.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:55 AM
0

yawn Milo is right. Circumcision is the equivalent of vaginoplasty. I would object to engaging in vaginoplasty with infants, just like I object to circumcision being done on infants. But it's not mutilation.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 10:52 PM
1

Which was my point.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:59 AM
1

If the reports being made are genuine and are with the intention of using such policies on an equal playing field then that is good. There is nothing more equal than exposing Title IX violations against men.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 12:13 AM
1

The actual intent is to create standing for an equal protection and Title IX violation court case. Besides which, it wouldn't be difficult at all to find any number of women who violate the sexual policy, so it wouldn't be a false charge. Such things as grabbing a guys ass would do it.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:43 PM
3

It's likely it is, as part of the California "Regret months later means it's rape" law.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:06 PM
1

How about asking would it have happened to a man of any race? Would a man of any race have gotten bail assigned for drug crimes? Yes, almost all do.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:03 PM
0

AND used his influence to get his daughter set free. No, she got bail. Just like almost all those waiting for trial. She is not free, she is out on bail. It has nothing to do with her race or sex, and very little to do with her father. It has everything to do with she got bail.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:00 PM
6

If your insurance doesn't cover cosmetic mastectomy restoration, it is in violation of Obamacare. The Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 required all insurance that covered mastectomy to also cover cosmetic restoration. Obamacare requires all insurance to cover mastectomy. Of course, testicular cancer does not require insurance to cover cosmetic restoration even though it's much cheaper.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:35 AM
5

The equivalent would be to not have restorative surgery after a mastectomy. The hue and cry from such a policy would be deafening.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:28 AM
8

The primary instigator in San Bernardino was a woman. A woman was also participatory in the recent Paris attacks, as part of the violence not just a planner.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 11:09 AM
3

Its your opinion that it wont happen, even though we have already seen combat positions open to women, and now they will likley be subject to the draft. Both combat positions being open to women and registering for the draft are wholly disconnected from actually being conscripted. Its not conspiracy theory, 1 gov. official has already announced a plan for an israeli style system for the US. It's a conspiracy theory because a single gov't official with no power to implement such a plan is no diff…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 05:16 PM
5

Correct, I think this will follow at some point during the next 30 years of war. That's your opinion. It is not only extremely unlikely, it becomes more unlikely every year. Like first making women subject to the draft and making women available for combat roles. Women are being made available for combat roles because they raised a hue and cry about being made available for combat roles. A pattern of terrorist attacks on home soil and a promise that a militarized state would fixt it would change…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 05:02 PM
7

We see both men and women potentially being subject to the draft, which is what they were talking about. There is no potential for anybody being conscripted into military service in the US without the passage of legislation, and such legislation could be passed with or without the current existing registration process. The reason being, so that the US could eventually have an Israeli style system. Which isn't a meaningful statement. The US could do all sorts of things, if appropriate legislation…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:50 PM
6

When they announce a very serious future policy like that, years ago, and we now see it happening. What are we seeing happening? Because what we're not seeing happening is the conscription of anybody. There is no law to allow conscription by order of the President, it has to be approved by Congress. Its not really a right verses left thing imo. No Republican has called for conscription my entire life. Democrats did several times under Bush, but even they weren't serious. It was an attempt at a p…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:41 PM
3

This is clearly a case of regret-means-rape. The only unique aspect about it is that the victim (the falsely accused, Gayle Newland) is a woman.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:36 PM
13

What Obama or his advisers want isn't terribly relevant. He's a lame duck with a particularly contrary Congress. EOs just don't have the power to do what he wants. (For example, he could not stop people on the no-fly list from buying guns by using an EO) The US military does not want, actively lobbies against, any form of conscription. A bipartisan agreement would never be made to make it law, and if a single party held enough seats to make it happen then they would be a defunct party within 4 y…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:27 PM
8

it's going to be the 40 year olds approaching her As a 40 year old let me say that we don't have any willingness to put up with her shit.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:04 AM
8

She looks ok for her upper 30s. This isn't about her looks Yes, it is. "Ok for her upper 30s" is not ok on the dating scene, and that's why she's pissed. Could a woman that looks like her find a happy relationship? Absolutely. Can a woman who looks like her, who is a whiny feminist shrew like she is do so? Absolutely not. Yet a hot 20 year old could have her same attitude and have no problem finding men to track her around. And that's when feminists queue up to whine about how "shallow" men are.…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 01:04 AM
-2

"suspended with pay" is directly attributable to union power and ability to control both sides of the negotiation table when the employer is the gov't. Same reason that bad cops get easy desk jobs with pay, or suspended with pay. The union writes it into the contract, and the union controlled gov't negotiator accepts it.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:34 PM
2

What choices, exactly, do adolescents get to make? College age are protected from all sorts of responsibilities without any reduction in choice.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 08:19 AM
2

What exactly is wrong with adolescence? The freedom to make bad choices without the responsibility for the consequences. Adults have the responsibility. Children don't get to make the choices.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 04:02 AM
1

The draft age should be raised to 21 anyway (or at least 20). Forcing teenagers to war is pretty horrible, honestly. No, the increased infantilism of young adults is pretty horrible. Adolescence is a broken creation of the modern era.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:43 AM
2

Could, should, and ultimately will.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:42 AM
7

Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them ... Congress could not constitutionally require registration under the MSSA of only black citizens or only white citiz…
/r/MensRights04/12/15 04:46 AM
1

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.ro/2013/06/1674-womens-petition-against-coffee.html
/r/MensRights03/12/15 02:07 AM
3

Crazies who find nametags objectionable can always put them on their forehead.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 02:00 AM
12

The "War on women" got Obama re-elected in 2012 No it didn't. He was guaranteed the nomination because, duh, sitting president. That right there is 30% of the popular vote and 40% of the electoral. Romney was a poor candidate, in no small part because of his Mormonism and the nation as a whole "just isn't ready for a Mormon president"
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:35 AM
7

Woman who attacked man with high heel during F train brawl takes plea deal Danay Howard, 21, copped to two counts of assault, including a felony, but will see her charges reduced if she completes a year of therapy and does three days of community service for the November assault. Three days of community service to discharge a felony.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 01:25 AM
9

it alters the tenet of 'innocent until proven guilty' for crimes It's possible, even in the US where we hold to that even stronger than the UK. Sex can simply become the crime, with an affirmative defense of "in private, with no witnesses, she agreed" that the man must in turn prove. The State then only needs to prove that sex occurred, which is actually fairly trivial. The affirmative defense only needs to be proven sufficient to create reasonable doubt, but it's still a requirement to actively…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 09:10 PM
1

It's not a question of being able to get a test done, but rather of what legal value does that test have. If you test and find out that you're not the father and yet can do nothing with that knowledge, then you're still on the losing side.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 06:47 AM
2

Was it "western imperialism" when the Moors invaded Spain? Because both Al-Qauda and ISIL has demanded the "return" of such "traditional muslim lands"
/r/MensRights27/11/15 06:30 AM
1

Feminists have always hated Adams.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 06:24 AM
4

What you describe is applicable to non-married "fathers", not married ones. If you're married, you are liable for child support even with absolute certainty that the child is not yours prior to birth.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 05:40 AM
5

The last ruling did, however, specify that Shepherd would not be responsible for any future children Sally created via a surrogate. She's still a huge step ahead of any man in similar circumstances.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 04:11 AM
2

Depends on your jurisdiction and the circumstances. Please provide any jurisdiction in the western world where a husband is not liable for all children birthed by a wife, regardless of genetics. There certainly are no examples in the US.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 04:08 AM
1

hold on, they can actually ban people based on sexuality? that sounds very much like discrimination to me. And? Businesses may discriminate in any manner not proscribed by law and orientation is not banned in most states.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 04:51 PM
7

The difference between you and SRS/AMR is negligible.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:44 AM
6

The same reason I would not trust a grown straight men and put him in a position of power among a group of young girls. Yes, it is the same reason. You're a bigot.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:20 AM
3

In some circumstance, you will have the legal privilege of forcing yourself on those businesses. In most, the lesbian bar can exclude you for being heterosexual (so long as they also exclude straight women and accept gay men), and the gym would be a private members club and can define that membership criteria the same as the scouts can.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:16 AM
9

It definitely matters that a private organization makes an internal decision to change its membership criteria versus being forced to by the State. which I think will prove to be a HUGE mistake and lead to sex abuses - you do not put a gay man in a position of power among a group of young boys. Ahh that's right, "Men can't be trusted around children, they're pedophiles!" It's a line direct from the radfem handbook.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:13 AM
7

They went to court and won, they were not forced into accepting members. "Pressure" is simple first amendment interaction.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 09:49 AM
21

This is settled law. Scouts are a private organization and can define who they allow as a member, and can do so on any criteria.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:03 AM
1

To be fair, there's a lot of difference between 27 and 37 That being said, both should be curb kicked. The proper response to an unemployed person complaining about being woken up when bedmate goes to work is "STFU"
/r/MensRights22/11/15 12:45 AM
1

In order to get a criminal conviction yes, but not in order to get kicked out of school.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 07:18 AM
6

It needs to be possible to sue journalists for malpractice.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:25 PM
3

Why do we treat boys as though they are naturally bad? Because "Girl is Good" and boys don't act like girls.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:21 PM
4

OP is also a literal, actual, rape apologist.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:18 PM
25

An almost unheard of win for men not wanting to be forced into becoming a parent, along with all the child support that would entail. A prior post about the same couple Divorced couple fighting in court over frozen embryos: Waiving Future Child support has no legal meaning. For historic examples of when it's gone the wrong way: Court gives frozen embryos to Chicago woman over ex-boyfriend's objection Vancouver man denied a say in the fate of fertilized embryos. Despite having a contract with his…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:04 PM
1

The identifier at the bottom is the same group that lost Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court, 6-2, when they argued that it was racist to not value race during school admission.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 10:03 PM
1

California Jury Instructions, Defamation per se The article makes a factual claim that "[blanked out name] raped [accusers's name]". It's the very first sentence. What makes this claim even more farcical is that the accuser was 17 at the time, which in California is a misdemeanor crime even when consent isn't under question. Yet the State did nothing.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 09:58 PM
2

The school will always bully them. That's not bullying, that's discrimination, and a violation of Title IX
/r/MensRights16/11/15 09:42 PM
2

Be bullied to death by classmates and the school more likely. Only if done poorly. Outliers are bullied, but if 10-20 boys in a school all did it, it's like Halloween. Honestly though, if I ran a school there would be a uniform, and it would be exactly the same uniform for both sexes. Halter tops and skirts.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 08:48 PM
2

In its place, with 1700 upvotes, the new top comment is "But women attempt more often..." Which doesn't even mean what they pretend it does. If you take 100 (or 1000, or 10 million) men and 100 women, then X men and X women will attempt suicide at least once in their life (Under 1%) More men succeed at earlier attempts. Women live to attempt again and again. Thus on any given year, more women attempt, even though it's the same woman over and over who is only attempting repeatably because she did…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 02:27 AM
2

What is the ELI5 policy in regards to locking a post? Why is it locked after only 6 hours?
/r/MensRights16/11/15 12:50 AM
2

It hasn't "evolved" so much as dropped the curtains and exposed the reality that was always there.
/r/MensRights15/11/15 11:19 PM
6

"Stolen Suffering" is a very useful phrase. Means exactly what is intended, combined with a hefty dose of "you suck"
/r/MensRights15/11/15 04:03 PM
2

You didn't see 200 or more pound women very often at all Of course not, such weights require a dedication to idleness that was unheard of even in the very rich of the Victorian age - which is when it was socially acceptable to be fat.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 07:57 PM
29

Fat does not equal undesirable Yes it does.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 02:28 PM
3

In my family traditionally everyone cooks something... I'm sure that's common, it's still also normal that only "Mom" gets kudos for it.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 11:50 PM
12

Because it's 15 minutes where women are not the center of attention. In California it was regular to see the whole "Women are great!" noise go up in March for Women's History Month, never actually get taken down and get doubled up on for Mother's day, until November 10thish when there's a brief period (a single day or weekend at most) for prostate cancer awareness minute, followed by thanksgiving with we-should-be-thankful-for-Moms-who-cook and finally a return to pink for a breast cancer month …
/r/MensRights13/11/15 08:14 PM
3

Good, I'm glad he's suing. Never ever just decide a lie or attack is too small to worry about, feminists don't.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 06:49 AM
1

She should not be fired, but should be charged with assault, and battery. Being convicted of such a charge is significantly different from "everything will get you fired". There's a huge difference between "She's violet criminal, get rid of her" and "He made her feefeez go booboo, fire him"
/r/MensRights13/11/15 06:11 AM
8

The men's cup gave out $348 million in prizes, the woman's gave out $15 million. Germany got $35 million for first in men's. US got $2 million for first in woman's. Clearly, woman's first place got overpaid as a percentage of total prize pool. Men's cup generated more than $4 billion in ticket sales. Woman's cup generated $50 million. The prize pool for the women's team is 22% of the total income, and the men's team receives 9.7% of the income. By any comparison, first place for the woman's team…
/r/MensRights12/11/15 01:36 PM
11

The pay gap is when you go to see a movie despite Gwyneth Paltrow being in it.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 09:20 AM
29

Except when they're partnered "for safety", making their (his) life less safe than it would be when partnered with somebody who passed the test.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 06:39 AM
23

Upvotes here. The media, shockingly got this one wrong. Ok, not shockingly. What word means "that thing that was guaranteed to happen, exactly as expected and on schedule"? She also gave a really shitty non-apology Leftists want to pretend she's a victim. To do that, they have to act like she voluntarily stepped down from some important position. a) She was forced out, b) It was a position that didn't do anything.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 01:22 AM
15

Defendants who were younger or male were less likely to receive a reduced charge (Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8:317–333.)
/r/MensRights11/11/15 07:22 AM
10

More like since women are given sweetheart plead deals by prosecutors they're not as impacted by the legal system.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 07:00 AM
3

self represent jeez, no.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 06:58 AM
1

I think it should be a pre requisite of child support at the very least. For unmarried people, that's status quo. You have X (variable, by state) amount of time after birth or after the time you became aware of the child to demand a paternity test. However as it stands, if you're married then paternity tests don't even matter. If your wife has a kid, you owe child support. You could know for a fact that it's not your kid and you still owe child support. In fact, the mother could argue that you'r…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 06:45 AM
2

Is this related to all the bullshit and the wimpy president in Missouri who resigned? Yes. It's pretty clear that he resigned/was forced to resign because the (low ranking) football team went on strike as well. Even a shit team is big bucks for the school. Since they don't have to pay the players it is all profit. Before the football team went on strike, there would have been no resignation. This protest has been going on for months.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:56 AM
10

In its decision, the union said it was unclear whether the society would acknowledge systemic privilege Either you agree with us, or you don't get to speak! No questioning the narrative!
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:52 AM
16

Wow, that's pathetic. Exercising ones own right is now "being a dick" Fuck that noise, and buddy..fuck you.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:03 AM
20

They were apparently asking him to move back with the rest of the media but he insisted on staying up in their grills and taking close up pictures So? Just because somebody asks you to leave - and these fools weren't asking politely, but rather demanding - doesn't mean that they have the rights or authority to enforce such a demand. Which in this case, none of those people had any such authority. Right at the end, the woman calling for people to "help me get the reporter out of here" is an immin…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:49 AM
87

How do people get into university and still not understand that when they're standing in a public space, people absolutely do have a right to video record or photograph them. Plus audio record as well, given two party notification in some states, which wasn't much of a concern here. "There is nothing to see here" - Said only by people trying to hide something.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:44 AM
2

Reddit moderators cannot shadowban somebody from the whole site. Nor did this person make that claim. They did claim that they would report them to the admins for "moderator spamming". Since it was only two messages, it's a farce to claim it is spamming, but they never claimed to have the ability to shadowban people themselves. Because they do not have such ability.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:35 AM
1

I'm going to disagree. This is no big deal and isn't worthy of a criminal investigation. Regardless of if you think its "worthy", it's a crime and had the sexes been reverse it would have been on the evening news.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:30 AM
1

No marriage != no child
/r/MensRights09/11/15 11:01 PM
1

It's 1 in 53 according to the study. 6.1 in 1000 actually, or 1 in 163. It's right there in the highlights.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 12:26 PM
2

The sign has "Prostate Can....Canada" on it, so probably not.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 12:18 PM
1

They're culpable because they are in power and sit silently by while they're used as a political tool in the furtherance of false statistics and propaganda.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:48 AM
6

Which ones in power are standing up to the false statistics and propaganda? None? Right, that's why they don't deserve any mention. They're culpable.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 05:01 AM
2

They get the harshest sentences behind killers and are clearly hated by society. Until Coker v. Georgia, where the Supreme Court limited the death penalty to murderers, rapists were sentenced to death
/r/MensRights08/11/15 05:00 AM
3

My ex was in county as I filed divorce, got out on bail which she violated and was serving a 3 year stint before the divorce was finalized, and I still had to pay alimony.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 10:34 AM
2

She's apparently done real work in how diseases spread through a community, notably HIV. Such work shouldn't be besmirched by the obvious problems with her current line of foolishness.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 02:34 AM
17

The rate is NOT known. The minimum of the rate is known, at least for campus accusations. 5.9% of campus accusations are provably false, Additionally 44% are unfounded ("lacking a sound base, groundless, unwarranted", but does not include "insufficient evidence") which may or may not in fact be false and pushes the false rate up, and 13% are not criminally actionable (which does include "insufficient evidence" to even begin investigation and so may still be false). Only 35% of campus accusations…
/r/MensRights06/11/15 02:28 AM
13

It's also a straw man. The only people I've ever seen claim that drunk sex is always rape are MRAs who are arguing against it. Note that the AMA poster herself called drunk sex rape. Here, here, here - where she also directly refers to both people being drunk, only the man is guilty, and here Rape is a term of law, people who "council" others that drunk sex is rape should be charged with practicing law without a license, and any actual lawyers doing it should be disbarred for blatant malpractice…
/r/MensRights06/11/15 02:19 AM
7

Prosecutor Press Release here Given the prosecutor's own press release, had this been any other crime, then the accuser would be up for a false charges crime themselves. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen in this case.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:38 PM
1

Yet, such a viewpoint is not enforced by the gov't creating legal and financial penalties. So like the mythological "equality feminist", what Everett believes is of no relevance. Such can't be said of the man hating feminists who receive gov't money and turn around and use it to lobby for more and more statutes with both the intent and application of being gender specific and penalizing toward men.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 09:09 PM
2

If you said in the first post that you are a crazy person If I had said in the first post that I am a crazy person I would have been lying. If you feel that the government is oppressing you and want to move Ahh the old bullshit "love it or leave it" argument. Except you're the one arguing for a change in law. So you should leave. Have fun in China.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 12:11 AM
1

By your logic selling anything is wrong because selling heroin is illegal. That doesn't even follow. You're the one confusing "wrong" with "illegal", not me. Selling heroin isn't wrong. Point is still the same. Your point is "muh feelz > your freedom", to which the only reasonable response is "Fuck you" If someone doesn't recognize your right they can be sued. Then they'll be forced to. Being legally forced to provide you a privilege does not mean you have a right to it. It just means that you u…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:53 PM
2

Then you probably know that putting up a business isn't easy, takes time, money and knowledge. Your laziness is not a compelling rebuttal to you not being given the ability to force others to service you. What I'm arguing is that we should change this law because I and many other people think this is wrong. That's because you think freedom is wrong. Because going to a shop to buy toilet paper isn't "forcing yourself onto the others". It absolutely is, if they don't want to sell to you. You alway…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:20 PM
0

Have you actually ever put up a business? Yes. Laws come from morals of the society No, it comes from the ethics of society. A "morality" based society is properly termed a theocracy. One of the prime ethics of US society is that of freedom. There is also the restrictions on the gov't as part of the constitution. This is what made putting Black people in back of the bus illegal and allowed homosexuals to marry The laws of society also forced blacks into the back of buses, and refused to legally …
/r/MensRights01/11/15 10:33 PM
0

Are you really so out of touch? No, I'm in touch. So a black person that may already have a job has to quit his job he might like. That would be the financial calculus the individual needs to do. It has no relevance to engaging in force against others. Skip the illegal. I'm talking about moral. Your morals are your own and not relevant to the legal requirements. See the first point. Making a business is not a solution. It is always the solution. That you're not willing to actually do it is of no…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:53 PM
0

And what if there's 10 different companies and none employ black people. None of those 10 companies are able to corner the market and eliminate a competitor that does employ black people. So start one. What I'm saying is that if it's WRONG for a company of 17 employees to be racist It's not wrong, it's just illegal. Yes. Find or form a competitors business if that bothers you. So it's okay to force people to drive 30 miles to next shop? If you want to form a competitor 30 miles away, then that's…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:33 PM
1

Why is the limit 15 It's largely an arbitrary point in which businesses smaller than that have no real appreciable effect on the ability of employees to find work at competitors. I think it's too small of an arbitrary point. What if the only super market in Nowheretown had a sign that said "No black people allowed. Welcome to 1920s bitch." would that somehow be Okay? Yes. Find or form a competitors business if that bothers you. I'm not quite sure you know what a freedom is. I'm quite sure I do, …
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:08 PM
0

Yet erotic cakes do not include the level of participation that is part of a wedding cake, so it's still not a relevant comparison.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:05 PM
0

It's in the bloody name "Gay bar" isn't in very many bar names. Because people aren't complete idiots and assume people have the common decency to serve gay people at bakeries Mastershop Cakeshop was, and is, more than willing to serve gay people by selling them a cake. They were not, and are not, willing to participate in a gay wedding. Similarly, gay bars that ban bachelorette parties are more than willing to serve straights, just not participate in the festivities. and straight people assume …
/r/MensRights01/11/15 07:53 PM
0

I think it is That's ok, I'm sure it's not the only thing you've been wrong about today.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 07:51 PM
0

Then proof that the guy started the bar SPECIFICALLY for only straight people The same that your gay bar was started SPECIFICALLY for only gay people. I will concede you are right if you can proof he started the bakery with straight people in mind - prior to the controversy Until somebody asked, it wasn't relevant. Just like gay bars don't hang up signs "For gays only", straight bakeries don't hang up signs "for straights only".
/r/MensRights01/11/15 07:26 PM
0

Gay bars are made for gays Bakeries are mae for baking, regardless of orientation Straight bakeries are made for baking for straights. You're just mad that you don't get to tell somebody else what they started their business for.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 07:15 PM
0

Freedom isn't taking away someone elses freedom. Refusing to service somebody isn't taking anything from anybody.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 07:06 PM
0

Well what else does that make you then if you think discrimination is okay? Supporting choice. Freedom. Permitting somebody to make their own choices does not mean I would make the same choices they make. I'm also very doubtful US law allows obvious discrimination even in small companies. You can doubt it all you want, the relevant question isn't what it "allows" but rather what it "bans". Employment discrimination law based on race and gender do not apply until the company has 15 employees. See…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:40 PM
-1

Sorry, poe's law applies here Only if you're admitting that your position is indistinguishable from trolling. Either way, your argument still doesn't holds up - gay bars are founded with gay people in mind, bakeries are not I see no reason why a bakery wouldn't be founded with gay people in mind. Certainly examples exist of bakeries founded with straight people in mind. Such as Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:09 PM
0

Oh look, you're self aware It's your argument thats the strawman, since you jumped to "restricting the freedom of a priest" when I pointed out that they had a priest officiating after you claimed a wedding isn't religious "unless they have a priest" Funny /s No, completely serious.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 05:49 PM
1

Given an accurate definition of neoliberalism (pro free market liberal), then Democrats are anything but.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:54 PM
0

Yawn.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:51 PM
3

cuz Milo happens to be gay? No, "cuz" both Milo and your friend "happen to be gay". People are more likely to accept the arguments of others that they identify as "like me". It's basic human psychology.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:35 PM
1

Not coming in here to troll but anyone jumping on this bandwagon has to realize that men sign of for lesbian dating sites constantly. I suspect that if you asked the vast majority of men, > 99%, they couldn't identify a "lesbian only" dating site much less sign up for one. I certainly can't.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:33 PM
1

If gay men want to act catty and without self control, they too can leave. But they don't Asinine. "They" do, more than enough to be recognizable by anybody not arguing from a completely fabricated position.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:30 PM
0

So you think someone has a right to refuse service for black people too? Yes. Given a reasonable limit based on the size of the company. Verizon and Safeway shouldn't be able too, but the owner operated bakery/restaurant/grocery/etc absolutely should be able too. Employment regulations already take size of company into account, for instance it's perfectly legal for a company of only 14 people to say "We're not hiring you because you're black. Go away", but public accommodation laws require that …
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:26 PM
0

I don't think they were asking for a gay cake. Just gays asking for a cake. Asking for a wedding cake, which is a participatory service far more than "just a cake". The owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop made it very clear both at the time they refused to participate and in the court room that they were more than willing to sell "just a cake" to the couple. Just not participate in their wedding.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:21 PM
2

It isn't very nice. So?
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:19 PM
1

If they are selling custom cakes for weddings where you can put names on it a Wedding cakes are not a six year old's birthday cake. Writing in general, and certainly the names, are not generally written on the cake.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:17 PM
0

What's the difference? Wedding cakes are participatory in the service. They are far more than just handing over a cake and the cake is far more than something that can be carried in a box. It includes delivery on site and setup of the cake. Without those services, you're not getting a wedding cake, just a cake.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:16 PM
4

Is it like California, where it means that colleges will expel/punish students, or will there be actual legal consequences? It would be pretty weird to say it's a crime for one group of people, but not for another. It's limited to just the school. Until Democrats control the Supreme Court (which could happen next presidential term, vote accordingly) then they can't change the presumption of innocence (i.e., "innocent until proven guilty") for criminal penalties.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:09 PM
1

So you want the priest restricted in his religious freedom? Strawman Show me a bakery that was specially founded for straight people and maybe your argument has some merit, meanwhile gay bars were made specifically for gay people Masterpiece Cakeshop, in the Denver suburb of Lakewood.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 04:06 PM
-2

Both factually false, and irrelevant as Charlie Craig and David Mullins had a priest officiating.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:45 AM
-2

Right, because that piece of paper needs a whole ceremony with a special cake.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:07 AM
-2

Weddings are not religious This is such a disconnected from real life comment that it simply proves there is no need to continue. Arguing with the delusional is never worth it.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:02 AM
3

If existing for baking means that the business must participate in a wedding they find religious objection too, then existing to serve drinks means that the business must serve drinks to anybody who asks. Which includes not ejecting people for "protected class" reasons or not applying rules of behavior to all equally. It's that simple. Besides which, if you want to accept/promote a legal argument of "existing only for gay people to drink" then you must accept "baking only for straight people"
/r/MensRights01/11/15 08:48 AM
13

The question that stumped students the most was how they would prove they had consent if accused of sexual assault. That question is notable because when the authors of the California "yes means yes" law were asked similarly they were unable to come up with any examples of a defense against an accusation. In short: Even the people responsible for the law know, accept, and approve that an accusation is the same as a finding of guilt. Ultimately, five years maybe ten, I feel that these laws will b…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 08:36 AM
1

They already have: "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility." i.e., because women are "forced" to care for others, they can't do prison time. it's just like slavery!
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:56 AM
1

This black angle is a nice one. One with a shelf life of under two years.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:52 AM
1

because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system. This is what I've argued for a long time. Women escape penalty by the golden plea bargains they are given. What's worse is that these plea bargains are entirely outside the control of the victims, so a woman can cut your arm off because you didn't hold the door open for them, and a prosecutor can offer a plea bargain where they plead guilty to misdemeanor battery, and …
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:49 AM
-2

If it was just complaints about how they act, then actions can be legal reasons to kick somebody out. So long, as it's not a gender or orientation specific ban. Which it is, and so is what you're really upset about. The women that you want removed are acting exactly like (gay) men you don't.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 06:16 AM
39

Hold on, I thought people have established here how stupid safe spaces are? You're confusing "safe spaces", which is a takeover of public space, with private spaces.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 05:53 AM
10

can literally find dozens of other bakeries in their area who would love to sell them a wedding cake. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, there was a baker (Elegant Bakery) a block and a half away who would have loved the business. The court case was nothing more than feeling self important and reveling in using gov't force against others.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 05:52 AM
0

So, the same people willing to use the force of the gov't to shutdown bakeries who refuse to participate in a gay wedding are upset that people walk into a bar and buy drinks. That's not even surprising, it's pathetic but expected.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 05:49 AM
1

The only problem with the Venture Scouts is that there's a minimum age of 14. Which is almost certainly influenced by pedophilia paranoia and a male majority in leadership positions of the Boy Scouts.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 07:49 AM
3

How is that at all relevant to the private organization referred to as Boy Scouts of America?
/r/MensRights30/10/15 07:46 AM
3

I would be strenuously against any boys being forcibly inserted into Girl Scouts through legislative or court action. In fact, I'd consider it a mark against any boy trying to force their way in, even if unsuccessful. The same goes for the reverse. It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with private organizations defining their own members. Yes, blahblahblah, I don't care if somebody wants black only spaces, white only spaces, straight only spaces, or gay only spaces either. In a…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 07:42 AM
1

I will literally call literally nonexistent people literally nonexistent. Literally.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:55 PM
1

So what are those who support equality with a focus on women's rights called? Powerless or nonexistent. Most often, both.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:52 PM
1

So what is your definition of feminism? Those who claim the title of feminism while exercising the power of lobbying for laws to enforce their hate. Notably, groups like NOW and similar.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:21 PM
1

Did you read the official definition I posted? I You posted a dictionary definition that has no connection to reality. If no feminist wants equality, then feminists don't exist. No, it means no feminist wants equality.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 09:10 PM
5

So tell me Toronto Sun, is Dave Foley still unable to return to his own country because his alimony requirement still exceeds his income and total net worth?
/r/MensRights28/10/15 08:06 PM
3

looks like r/againstmensrights has picked up the story before I did. In which people who have done no serious research are arguing that somebody who has done serious research would agree with them if they just did serious research.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 07:52 PM
2

If there's any political group in current significant power that exists for whites, is run by whites, and empowers almost only whites, it is the institutionalized feminist movement.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 07:36 PM
1

Author is just upset that somebody has the ability to do an run around of the shaming tactics used to kill funding for ideas they don't like. They're arguing against having that promotion of free expression that disagrees with the people in power.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 07:33 PM
12

Defining factor of feminism is wanting equality No, the defining factor of feminism is empowering women. The only difference between some feminists and others is that some will actively seek out dis-empowering men in the process, and the others take no note and don't care when it occurs. No feminist is for equality.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 12:27 AM
1

No, I don't remember any "male is default". It's been "female is default and men are (bad) mutations". The first part actually has some biological fact, female is the baseline, and male came about as an evolutionary advantage. Long before primates, of course.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 11:45 PM
1

Though none of us like the "man up" demand I use "adult up" or more insultingly, "grow up", which confers 99% of what "man up" does anyways, and I have absolutely no qualms about requiring more from adults than from non-adults. Adults shouldn't be crying in the work place.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 11:41 PM
3

His whole popularity comes from relating to common people rather than being a SJW figurehead. He was a figurehead for the crying, whining, "life is unfair boohoo" types that turned into SJWs. In effect, he was a SJW figurehead before SJWs existed.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 06:26 AM
31

“One time, I agreed to meet with this guy at 8 or 9 at night. Before we met, I said to him, ‘This is the work I do, I know the chief of police ... so, don't try and get creepy; I know all my rights.’ How is it even possible to not recognize that for the threat it is? She's complaining that guys she threatened don't want to hang out with her. Guys she met through Tinder, not exactly known for really in-depth nuanced interpersonal interactions.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 06:20 AM
0

Maybe when the first woman came out, you could justify having suspicions One woman came out and made an unproven claim, and 49 more said "holy shit, I was once in the same room as him 40 years ago! I could get some cash too!"
/r/MensRights22/10/15 05:16 AM
2

If men had a chance in hell of receiving money from a civil court for a false accusation AND the woman in question was rich AND the woman in question was political and recognizable AND 1 man claimed a false accusation followed by 49 men saying "oh yeah, me too!".... ...then I wouldn't believe the men.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 05:09 AM
3

which made pink synonymous with breast cancer and a made a movement for a disease popular. Pink is more appropriate for prostate cancer. Not all breasts are pink, but all prostates are.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 02:35 AM
2

Shareholders of large software companies care No they don't. The large stock holding funds actively don't care, and the small investor likely doesn't pay attention close enough. It's a benefit for companies to appear to care, because of media abuse if they don't. That's not supply and demand, it's propaganda.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 01:22 PM
0

By casting the MRM as a politically conservative movement you're immediately excluding support from half of the political spectrum. You cannot be a social marxist and care about men's rights. The MRM is not a conservative movement, however the "progressives" are anti MRM and anti men. It is leftists and social marxists that care about what percentage of professional programmers are women. Those groups have made themselves against men, it is natural and rational for men to be against those groups…
/r/MensRights20/10/15 01:21 PM
1

I think it's just an automated system that looks for key words and phrases or just randomly decides who to block and ban, and who to remove. It is automated, but it's not working off key words. It works entirely off number of reports. Any post that exceeds a threshold (which varies slightly based on where it is posted) gets removed.+
/r/MensRights18/10/15 10:13 PM
1

It make me nervous as a business owner who has to hire people for the next 20 years. I solved that by having the business in a state that gives no protection to anything not required by federal law.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 10:10 PM
1

Except "this chick" isn't the originator of the phrase "die cis scum", who I believe is this person. Note that that's an actual tattoo. The wordpress article he/whatever posted to "explain" the phrase dates to October 2012, although the blog itself seems to be abandoned since December 2012. Know your meme has a further indepth article stating it originated in the person who's photo I linked dating to November 2011. Since I think reddit auto hides anything linking to know your meme, as well as ce…
/r/MensRights18/10/15 05:42 PM
3

The main post is unfortunately - but unexpectedly - deleted, but did his wife actually try to demand the doctor operate even over the husbands objection? That's quite possibly a crime, as in "here's this nice Orange jumpsuit" crime, depending on how it went down.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 10:24 PM
1

So his second post to /r/mensuck is deleted, but you can still read his comments in that thread from his user page /u/vasectom Of the four, the only one not in the -30s is -60
/r/MensRights16/10/15 10:22 PM
1

Michael Richards comes to mind
/r/MensRights10/10/15 09:09 AM
27

62 million girls and 61 million boys world wide are out of school during the years through high school. Note that that million number difference isn't due to boys having slightly more access to school, rather its due to boys being killed. Primarily as child soldiers. "In the past decade, an estimated two million children have been killed in armed conflict. Three times as many have been permanently disabled or seriously injured." — The Invisible Soldiers: Child Combatants, Defense Monitor Brief, …
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:26 PM
2

as if women have to offset that horrible, horrible discrimination with... ...high interest rates.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 07:13 PM
1

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. And that's how Canada eliminated equality under the law
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:13 PM
5

Can't target what isn't there. Yes and no. The real problem with this policy isn't the "salaries must be equal" but rather that the employer must prove their defense. The accuser only has to make the accusation. This is civil not criminal, but it's still very much guilty until proven innocent. This will inevitably lead to malicious accusations and payoffs because it's cheaper to payoff than to go to court. In the long run, it will affect employment in California, but there are so many long term …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 12:57 PM
0

You're an idiot. Tsk tsk, being wrong doesn't give you a pass to project on others.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:45 AM
3

California takes another step to run off employers.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 05:42 AM
0

It however does warrant an investigation. No, it doesn't. I mean, have a look at her. she describes herself as "colored", how can I be sure she identifies me as colored and not as caucasian white? How is that even relevant? I am just saying, run her and her organisation through the same legislative framework that you would run a man who tweeted the same about inciting violence against women, and you archieve the same ammount of justice. Which in the US, is none. Just keep that in mind when you s…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 01:11 AM
-2

Except that you've "proven" nothing. "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I've proven you have no clue what imminent lawless action means. The relevant part (IE a "threat" toward a government official): The action against a government official.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 01:07 AM
0

Hate speech is all that is illegal. Right, speech is illegal.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 01:05 AM
1

The US has its own hate speech laws No, it doesn't. "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That's Brandenburg v. Ohio, look it up if you're still confused. The long and short of it is, there is not a whole lot that is illegal in the UK that wouldn't also get …
/r/MensRights06/10/15 09:31 PM
1

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579139601418956802 You're going to have to search for the title in google and click from there to get the full article.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 09:13 PM
-2

Actually we have a system of Common Law, whereby anything not explicitly deemed illegal is considered legal. And speech is deemed illegal. It's also the basis of the US legal system. Combined with constitutional guarantees of freedom and rights, yes. that guarantee is what you are missing. As I understand it, advocating this sort of action would likely end in a similar situation in the USA. You understand wrong. Only calls for imminent lawless action are criminal in the US.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 09:09 PM
1

I wonder if she'll try to use this bullshit argument in court? Not in the UK, but that exact argument was made in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action to mocking response from the justices.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:23 PM
-1

We can say largely what we want... ...so long as nobody in power disagrees with you. UK subjects have no free speech. You have approved speech.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:21 PM
1

There is no discussion, just you and your idiocy, stewing. The very basis of your premise is wrong, so there's no real reason to talk about it.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 08:18 PM
-1

The real question is how low do you need to be downvoted The clarion call of the Redditicus Idioticus
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:47 PM
1

or yell obscenities in a crowded town square..just like you can't say kill all white men without facing legal ramifications. Grow up. You grow up, for while you're correct that you can't scream bomb on a plane your other two examples are very much free speech issues, and furthermore would not be actionable in the US. You can yell obscenities in a crowded town square all you want, so long as you follow noise level laws, and you can say kill all white men (or kill all feminists, etc) so long as it…
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:43 PM
1

At least in the United States. Except that it's the UK, and they have no freedom there. Just what the crown allows them. The criminal charges are listed in the article: Ms Mustafa will face two charges, one of sending a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May this year, and one of sending a menacing or offensive message via a public network, between the same dates.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:40 PM
43

I believe her "job" is student voted, and the administration has claimed that they can't fire her. Which of course, to use the local colloquialism, is bollocks.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:37 PM
1

Women’s groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women’s choices, those choices are not truly free. Regardless, those choices are not the employers fault, so the repeated demands that employers correct for those choices is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights03/10/15 01:21 AM
2

Talk to lawyer. Posting on reddit can never help and might hurt.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:00 AM
3

None. Many years back I worked for an insurance company and there was already different coding for birth control prescribed for disease treatment and birth control prescribed as birth control. The former got paid by insurance no questions asked.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 01:05 PM
5

Apparently I transposed the numbers. Still, 16% employment to 18% graduation isn't earth shattering. The "16% in silicon valley" is literally everywhere, although twitter at 10% is single handedly pushing that number down or it would be 18% overall. Apple in particular hires anybody applying for a tech position with a vagina, ability, experience and education or not. 18% women as tech graduates is ultimately sourced from the National Science Foundation, but NPR did an article on it.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 10:08 AM
2

He concluded a prison sentence would accomplish nothing but "pure punishment" I for one can get behind and support prison sentences as "pure punishment". This "prison is rehab" is false on every level. The goal is so that people avoid doing crime because of how they will be treated for doing the crime.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 06:06 AM
6

Tech companies in silicon valley have 18% representation of women performing tech work, compared to a 16% graduation rate of women getting degrees in applicable tech fields. And they still get shit loads of negative press, so it seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 05:53 AM
5

The ultimate goal is for companies to hire women exclusively for "featherbedding", except with the gov't taking place of the union forcing the hiring. Such positions were once shown being used on Sopranos, where some men showed up at a construction site and just sat in lawn chairs drinking beer all day.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 05:50 AM
12

It's notable that on the first Urban Dictionary page there are seven definitions, including the now top one. Of the six negative ones, four are from a single user. Unwilling to let their bias drip from a single post, they came back time and time again to retch vitriol and falsehoods. There's another on the second page, only pushed there because of the rising of the current top from who-knows-where up and pushing this users fifth vitriolic post into the second page. Also note, this user hasn't be…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 05:40 AM
1

A) parental tests are not a "DNA fingerprint" B) A "DNA fingerprint" is not sufficient to do bad things to you, it can't be produced to spread around and implicate you at a crime scene for example C) Biometrics are shit-level security anyways.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 03:33 AM
3

The feminism that matters, the only feminism that matters, are those group of people lobbying the gov't for laws and funding. That group able to enforce their will on others. That feminism has no values. That feminism rejects Christina Hoff Sommers, almost to the point of violence.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 12:20 AM
3

By the way that article even goes against feminist values by stripping women from accountability and making them more equal: Bullshit. Feminism has no values. It exists as a weapon to get free shit from the gov't.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 12:01 AM
3

And doesn't appear to have been summarily thrown in jail.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 11:58 PM
2

by the means of stripping the man from the presumption of innocence. How can that not violate their constitution? Their constitution protects a right to pensions but not presumption of innocence?
/r/MensRights19/09/15 11:54 PM
8

That’s an eye-popping $5,000,000,000 worth of excessive interest charges against an already financially strained group of poor men of color. Were third wave feminists actually the "intersectionalists" they claim to be, then they would be tearing apart the child support industry with their teeth. But it's always been about pretending women are more "oppressed" than any other minority.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:19 AM
2

How does "providing an economic incentive to tear family units apart" benefit the government Because families are a support structure outside the gov't itself. Without families, people must rely on the gov't, which means they don't dismantle, weaken, or piss off those bureaucrats and continue electing bread&circuses politicians. Note that the original should be "Democrats, which is a super majority of the California legislature, want to tear family units apart." Say what you will about Republica…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:13 AM
2

Looks like only three states have raised their age of consent from something lower than 18 to 18 since 1920, the year the 19th amendment was ratified. Fourteen states did the reverse, from 18 to lower since 1920.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:54 AM
2

But at the same time you don't want some 40 year old running around having sex with 14 year olds. A 40 year old shouldn't be diddling 14 year olds, no, but neither should an 18 year old. Yes, those four years matter that much. Of course, most states don't have Romeo and Juliet laws to permit 14 year olds to have sex with each other. Full age of consent is between 16 and 18 for every state. I'm not going to get outraged when it's a 17 year old "victim" so long as consent is there. In 39 states of…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 10:25 PM
0

So much very not outraged here. This wasn't rape. He's 17, within the age range I consider the consent relevant, and consent was there. She's not a person in power over the teen (or at least, the article makes no mention of it). In many states in the US, it wouldn't have been any criminal violation, and those states where it still is should fix their laws.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 10:19 PM
1

He attended a number of meet-ups, several of which pictures were taken of him so even though he didn't use his real name at these meet-ups, somebody was eventually able to find it. It was mentioned in the gawker article that doxxed him. No, I won't be linking to gawker, I suggest google.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:51 AM
1

Be aware that SRSter types have already have used public "meet ups" to later dox and harass violentacrez, so be aware. I for one won't even tell you what state I live in.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:44 AM
12

Feminists are split on stuff like this. The ones lobbying for laws are not split, and they're the only ones that matter. Like those lobbying to kill Washington Bill SB5006
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:19 PM
7

Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt. Morals are personal. Some men will still feel a moral obligation to children they falsely thought were their biological children, others will not. Largely depending on the age at time of discovery. This is an example where people try to use "best for the child" to violate the man's rights. In either case, it's th…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:14 PM
4

Forcing billionaires to pay their fare share Mathematically, "fair share" would give billionaires a huge reduction in taxation and the masses that pay no effective federal income tax an increase. Since you're clearly not referring to the mathematic definition of "fair share" you're reduced to an opinion. And your opinion is of no special concern and is a policy of increasing redistribution and promoting unfairness.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:29 AM
2

By the definition of the word, redistribution is unequal
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:14 AM
5

Sanders most definitely does not want equal rights for every single American. Rather, he wants to take from some to give to others. It's clear you hold the same idiotic philosophy, but don't even pretend it's equality. It's fundamentally unequal at its very core.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:20 AM
6

More like the way exterminators don't hate insects. Feminists don't personalize men enough to truly hate them, that just means they accept and promote actions against men they wouldn't even accept being done to their worst enemy.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 12:01 AM
2

You're welcome to your opinion, but legally that has zero standing. Constitutionally, nobody has a right to emancipation. Only that age >17, race and gender cannot be used as a decision making factor. So yes, military service or even "being subject to the draft" could become a requirement, no rewriting of the constitution required. It's not notably different from requiring land ownership. Regardless, the position doesn't match the one you claimed is present in the reddit
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:24 PM
2

But it was close, as men being drafted should not mean women are denied the right to vote. One has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps they have nothing to do with each other, but they should. Those unwilling to sacrifice for a society shouldn't get a say in the policies of that society.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:48 PM
1

garbledcluster isn't the post you linked too. lrn2link Furthermore, garbledclusters post does not match your claim of posts saying "Women getting the right to vote was pointless" I see no reason why "A handful of men got to shape history indeed, but the average man was in a significantly worse position..." should be down voted, as it's clearly true.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:30 PM
2

? That was a gilded thread, and the comment I pointed to within it was upvoted. Gilded takes one person, not a community, nor does the fact that a message prior to the one you linked being gilded even show that that one person approved of the message you linked, which is quite obviously negative.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:17 PM
6

You don't get to point at downvoted topics and claim it defines the reddit. Nor do you get to handwave about "upvoted comments somewhere somewhen" and claim they exist. I wish this sub could pick a new word for man-hating feminists. "Feminists" works. The error occurs when you pretend anybody but the people lobbying gov't for laws to men's detriment, and getting both the laws and gov't funding, don't define feminism. They are the feminism that matters.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:10 PM
1

“So someone used to relying on one authority (such as that of parent or teacher) might also be inclined to rely on other authorities (such as workplace supervisors or the state).” An excellent reason why we don't even try to hire 20somethings fresh out of school. They're going to have to learn that such behavior is negative to their career, but let them learn elsewhere, we've got work to do.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 03:12 PM
4

Femradebate is really "We coddle feminists because they don't like to debate", it's full of useless fluff where facts don't matter so long as the feminists don't decide to leave. In short, it's no different from /r/feminism or a gender studies department.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:46 AM
11

While it's very disappointing that this was even a law in the first place, the fact that the judge ruled this way is great. While a law, it's not a law as in passed by the legislature, rather the commission was empowered to draw up all the requirements of the program, and then implement them. Like the federal system, most laws are regulations and don't get directly approved by the legislature. Many cough EPA cough have only the faintest passing connection to what the agency was actually empowere…
/r/MensRights13/09/15 08:28 AM
1

And that's where they run into a violation of the 14th amendment, one in which I think even stacking the courts like Hillary intends to do wouldn't be allowed. Although Hillary will certainly do what she can to cut back on free speech rights so that looking at somebody is harassment and harassment is jailtime.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 04:14 AM
3

We saw this with the Washington State Supreme Court case Cite? I hadn't heard of this case. It would be good to collect cases from persuasive authorities like these, because converting the criminal system to consent being the affirmative defense to the "crime" of sex is the next obvious step from the crazies. Schools and States will remove "without consent" from their definition of rape, and all sex will presumptively be illegal So exactly like schools in the 50s and 60s, which led to the sexual…
/r/MensRights13/09/15 03:29 AM
1

And eliminating alimony is equally pie in the sky. Sure, and when you can quote me on where I said alimony should be eliminated, I'll continue this conversation. Until then, I'm done.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 03:02 AM
1

The best way to implement this freedom you're talking about is simply to abolish government licenced marriage I don't disagree, but it's also an irrelevant point as gov't licensed marriage is not going to be abolished anytime soon.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 02:53 AM
1

You still haven't answered my question. What is the benefit of no fault divorce? It's an irrelevant question. No benefit is necessary. Anything other than no fault is an infringement on freedom.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 02:28 AM
1

You don't think a person should be penalized for initiating divorce without good cause? No, they should not. 50 states plus DC agree with me. Most notably, the last state to adopt no fault divorce was New York, where NOW lobbied heavily against it.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 02:17 AM
1

Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who instituted no fault divorce in California That's because no fault divorce is a good idea. The problem was he didn't reform alimony at the same time.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 01:49 AM
1

Even state schools can be denied funding. Depends on who is elected. Democrats want this policy, they won't be terminating schools funding for implementing it. It was after all the Obama administration that wrote the "Dear Colleague" letter that started the wave of idiocy.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 01:22 AM
1

I think Polis's comment was specifically meant for private colleges, which do not receive taxpayer funding The very first line of the article is: The view endorsed by Rep. Jared Polis (this passage apparently both as to public universities and private universities, start at 1:57:28): Remember that Title IX applies to any institution that accepts pell grants or gov't backed loans for tuition. You can literally count the schools not covered on one hand.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 12:58 AM
1

Well, I'm no longer a CA resident, but my marriage both started and ended there. Due to a shorter marriage, I wasn't stuck with lifetime alimony so it's literally all behind me, but still I wish all the luck.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 11:53 PM
4

the url is avoiceformen.com Which actually just increases the likelihood that Cameron himself put up the sign.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 11:42 PM
3

Great. Then enrollment will go down to compensate. No, because the leftist platform is "Free college," and while they mean free college for women, the 14th actually stops them from writing the law like that. So as the universities increase tuition, the gov't will keep writing bigger checks. So what happens is that the white guys accused and expelled in violation of due process procure a lawyer, win, and take home big payouts, the minority students who can't pay a lawyer just go home in disgrace.…
/r/MensRights12/09/15 11:25 PM
6

What we need are some high profile false rape claims against females at colleges to get people like this to change their opinion. They wouldn't change their opinion, they'd winge and wring their hands and cry about how the laws were "intended to protect women" and men were misusing them.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 11:21 PM
3

Better that five innocent students get expelled than one guilty student stay enrolled I would only strongly disagree, were that the actual sentiment, but the real sentiment is "Better that five MALE innocent students get expelled." And then that period ends the sentence. So instead, strongly disagree doesn't even describe it properly
/r/MensRights12/09/15 11:20 PM
1

If they get criminal charges to "stick", then the person would be in jail and no support would be available. However, the chance that spurious claims would stick approaches zero. The real affront would be the legal costs for defense.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 01:00 AM
5

Get a lawyer and follow their direction. At some point, their instruction will be to go to HR. The HR department is not there to assist you, it's there to protect the company, and in 2015 punishing a sexist woman for being sexist does not protect the company. Too many female employees would need to be punished for that, including most of HR.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 11:56 PM
1

Why are people attacked for supporting Men's Rights? Women hate their authority being challenged.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 11:54 PM
1

I dunno, if they developed a social justice bully neonatal test, I'd have strong feelings about dropping them off at a firehouse.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:17 PM
2

If you know of any cases, please do link them. My point was that there haven't been any, even though they are more prevalent. These rules of university are blatant biased with the goal of getting men out of school.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:02 AM
6

Sadly, under their (campus/college) current interpretation of the law it's basically impossible for a woman to get accused of rape, unless she penetrates a drunk guy with an object. Young lesbian and bisexual females were four times more likely to have experienced their own peers “attempting to hurt them in a sexual way (i.e. attempted rape or rape),” than heterosexual girls. Data collected by a California Coalition Against Sexual Assault report and San Francisco Women Against Rape found that 1 …
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:01 AM
1

By mandatory you mean the employer is obligated to provide employees up to 12 weeks unpaid leave, if requested? Yes, not mandatory on either parent taking 12 weeks. I don't have kids but I'd assume the last thing any parent wants to do after having a kid is to not have any money coming in. Depends on if they've actually planned well, are fiscally responsible, and are just generally adult enough to have children.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:11 AM
3

Is that site parody? It's awful Poe either way. Indistinguishable from any number of crazy far leftist socialist rant sites.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:35 AM
1

Why do I never run into these opportunities? I'd sue so fast... In California, where such things were blatantly illegal, my gym had already settled with somebody else and terminated private woman's portions of the gym. Where I am now, such things wouldn't be illegal.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:30 AM
6

Note that Kleiner Perkins would have paid Pao a million dollars just to drop the suit and go away. That egg on her face isn't egg...
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:25 AM
3

I blame you Colorado.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:21 AM
1

If you want parental leave, engage with your employer (or become your own employer) and negotiate for it. This applies to both maternal and paternal varieties. Outside of that, if your employer meets the number-of-employee requirements for the Family and Medical Leave Act, 12 weeks unpaid are mandatory for both maternal and paternal.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:15 AM
11

Never understood the radfem position that there are no heterosexual women. I've known far too many aggressively sexual women of a heterosexual nature to even consider the idea as anything but insane ravings.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 12:20 PM
4

If the marriage proposal is withdrawn, the woman is supposed to give the ring back. But there's no law requiring her to do so because it's basically a gift. Depends on the state. 21 states do require that the ring be given back under all circumstances one state, Montana, the ring is never given back. The rest of the states come down in a variety of places, some that depend on who is to blame for the breakup.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 11:45 AM
7

Basically, according to feminists, the ring is condemned as a dowry which symbolizes the woman's ownership or something (Valenti has stated this point in various places). Uh, no. A dowry is the wealth a wife's family brings to her husband's family. The feminists mean dower, but that's not a sign of ownership of the woman either. (Although, to be pedantic, in Middle English dowry was used for both uses.) The concept of a bride price (an actual example of ownership) mutated into the dower, where a…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 10:47 AM
1

However, that's irrelevant to the claim you made which was that teachers are mostly women because that's the only "respectable" job women could do I made no such claim. "teaching was one of the few respectable sort of middle class jobs open to woman"
/r/MensRights07/09/15 01:53 PM
1

You're partially right. The shift in gender came as a result of the introduction of universal education. As it was legal to pay women less Asinine. It's legal to pay anybody less for any reason. So long as they accept the employment.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 12:31 AM
5

Sperm donation using a doctor is the only way to not be held responsible. Otherwise, the claim is, that the State can't prove you just didn't have sex. Of course, the better solution would be to require acquiescence to being part of the childs life before requiring more than half the cost of an abortion.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 09:12 PM
2

To be fair, priest-teachers in the same Catholic schools were just as damaging with a ruler. It's more an aspect of the type of school it is than the teachers. Even today, while moderated from historic examples, it's still enough to make most public school teachers cringe. Source: Went to Catholic school. No, I'm not Catholic. No, I wasn't forced to pray. Yes, they taught evolution. Yes, they used a ruler on me more than once. No, no molestation was involved, except between consenting students.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 08:01 PM
3

Incorrect. Everything I stated is 100% historically accurate. Teaching in America has ALWAYS paid shit wages Yes, male or female. However, that's irrelevant to the claim you made which was that teachers are mostly women because that's the only "respectable" job women could do, when in fact the reality is that there were any number of jobs respectable jobs for women, just that the women forced men out of the teaching profession. The American Federation of Teachers was originally formed as a woman…
/r/MensRights06/09/15 07:03 PM
5

In fairness this is because for a long time teaching was one of the few respectable sort of middle class jobs open to woman and the tradition has kinda stuck. In truth, teachers were exclusively male until women created the impression that women were "by nature nurturing and maternal, as well as of high moral character." Until the early 19th century there were literally no woman teachers except in very exclusive girls only schools for the very rich, and they weren't teaching math. In the 1840s t…
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:53 PM
0

They could revive feudalism under matriarchal rule. No, they couldn't. The number of male suckers willing to enforce that rule wouldn't be enough. The women themselves would have to go outside, get their hands dirty, and that's just not going to happen. No way they could maintain rule.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:42 PM
6

He said if a cop has just showed up to the sceen and is trying to get his bearings about what is going on then it is in your best interest to cooperate; however, once the questions turn accusatory toward you then you should lawyer up. Probably the best advice in this entire sub-thread. Not all situations are the same.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 03:53 AM
13

But if you had kids, wouldn't you feel safer to know others were looking out for them? Pretending everybody around a child is going to kidnap them is just as bad as pretending everybody who walks behind you at night is going to rape you. Ultimately it's about making the nosy person feel better, as they get to 'do something'. That fulfills an inner need, and they can go home and smack their own kids around feeling they did good for the day.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 02:34 AM
2

Racial minorities are affected by due process issues more than others And it remains mostly hidden in regards to the abuses being enacted on our universities. When a white man who has a family paying his way through school gets falsely accused, he gets a lawyer and wins. When a minority at school only because of a scholarship has that scholarship dry up the instant an accusation is made he....goes back to whatever neighborhood he grew up in.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 01:34 AM
1

Susan B. Anthony once declared that all the "outrages that [a black man] to-day suffers he would not exchange his sex and take the place of [a white woman]. " The "white woman" above was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a well known historic abolitionist and suffragist who said: "What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?” Another abolitionist and suffragist, Laura Clay, gives us this gem: "The w…
/r/MensRights06/09/15 01:28 AM
2

However, one is not actually a victim if it turns out their claim is spurious. The feminist in such a case is a "lying bitch activist" and those in support of the male victim is an "activist against maliciously targeted false claims" AAMTFC!
/r/MensRights06/09/15 01:23 AM
2

There's two questions here: Does welfare (inc all 127 federal means-tested programs and non household specific programs targeted at poverty) create the middle class dream life? Absolutely not. Do some people use the programs to avoid work they could be doing because the life it provides is good enough for their desires? Absolutely it does.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 10:27 AM
2

Just scanning it, I note that snopes claims the $600 food stamp number to be false, yet the at $511 is awful close and they didn't even mention state supplements such as CalFresh, which would actually push it above $1k/month. Claiming a family of four instead of three would push the base federal above $600, and there's no SNAP requirement for it to be a single mother. So Guy+Gf+Two kids = Four Dismissing the Obamacare portion is faulty, at best, as the original properly claimed "free health insu…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:23 PM
13

It strikes me that to think taking aerial pictures of a park is pedophilia implies more than a little bit of tendency toward kiddie diddling themselves.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 09:15 PM
1

"Why do women represent seven out of ten managers in our company-owned restaurants?" Because only women want to work such limited hours. Because even though women are a majority of college degrees, most of those degrees are economically worthless. Because a man who wants to attract a woman needs a better job to do it, and a man that doesn't care can still find better work.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:35 PM
1

"Why do women represent seven out of ten managers in our company-owned restaurants?" Because only women want to work such limited hours. Because even though women are a majority of college degrees, most of those degrees are economically worthless. Because a man who wants to attract a woman needs a better job to do it, and a man that doesn't care can still find better work.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:35 PM
3

and that it's the first sign of an abuser It is. She's engaged in some of the first signs of being a harpy. Dump her yesterday. Block her number. Find somebody else.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:29 PM
2

Like ebonics, feminists have ceased speaking English. It's close enough to English that you think the words should be making sense, but they absolutely don't.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 05:46 AM
2

Your own statement is contradictory. In some, a man has until the child is two In general you have a few weeks, maybe a few months. That doesn't contradict my previous statement. The OP is "fast forward a few years", at which point no options are available and the status is as I originally stated.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 06:22 PM
9

This is explicit in the law in all 50 US states. The legally responsible "father" is the man married to the mother, not necessarily the biological father. At various points, in various states, efforts have been made to change the law. I know of, and even participated in the effort in California and Washington. Such efforts are universally lobbied against by big-money female-superiority organizations like NOW, often with money they received from the gov't.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 07:52 AM
3

Point being, GF had an obvious obligation to bring the suicide revelations to the attention of his parents, a counselor, the police, a suicide hotline, health professional etc etc. What you're describing is legally termed a "duty of care". It's been found that even doctors do not have a duty of care to interfere with a suicide. They can, certainly, but are not at fault for not doing so. The difference is, the GF promoted and probably suggested the suicide. That goes beyond a duty of care.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 06:13 PM
3

You don't have to physically kill someone or even be present to be charged with murder. You do have to participate in a felony in assistance of those who do. This wasn't murder, no matter how you want to spin it. Nor does Massachusetts have an explicit assisted suicide law. Frankly, I'm surprised she was charged anything at all, given the general laxness of the law for women. Likely only the egregious and blatant nature of her assistance found her in court at all. Anything less and it would have…
/r/MensRights30/08/15 06:11 PM
1

No, they're really meaningless. Because of a lack of variable elimination, they identify no issue and offer no solution. It's the same in both claims.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 06:01 PM
1

Quite simply, every choice between higher income and X, men will tend to choose income. Single men choose to work more in order to attract women. Coupled men choose to work more because the woman chooses to work less. Single women work more than coupled women, but still generally less than men.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:58 PM
1

Yes, it is statistically comparable. One is a statistically meaningless measurement, the other is a statistically meaningless measurement.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:47 PM
1

I'm more of the mind that you should have clear routes to financial success in a company as opposed to luck of the draw There are clear lines, and it's not luck. 1) Provide value to what you want your raise to be. 2) Ask for it. 3) Be willing to quit if you don't get it. It would be like saying its fair to keep the prices of items hidden until purchase Yes, and bartering for it at purchase. That's a market design that works the world-wide, even in the US.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 09:46 AM
1

Yeah, but fucking up an entire generation is the only way to get these morons to admit they're wrong Fine. Take your age, add 20. You're going to be in a shit hole of a country until that age if you blithely give the "morons the run of the place".
/r/MensRights30/08/15 09:01 AM
1

Most adult women (as i recall the statistic) don't do any paid work at all in the USA. that includes women in college, unemployed, retired, in hospital or prison etc, Nobody even counts that, because nobody counts the retired. In 2010, 58.6% of adult not-retired women were in the labor force, which is working or looking for work. For a total of 47% of the total work force. While that doesn't differentiate between full and part time workers, throwing in retirees certainly would skews the data.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:23 AM
2

And whatever work they can do, men can do better. It's always been true that whatever work women do, men can do at least as well. The reverse has never been true, which is why we see crying about entrance tests to the military, firemen positions, etc. To a point where even family courts agree, and we have the norm of motherless homes. However, in the "best interest of kids", mothers are still expected to provide That's not a reasonable scenario. As I said, we're already in the men-can-do-everyth…
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:19 AM
4

The difference is: Everything you list women as doing could, and has, been done by men. All it means is that things get built slower, civilization expands slower, because men are taken away from doing that to run paperwork. The last 50 years have proven that women either cannot or will not participate in those dirty, dangerous uncomfortable, or just generally outside jobs full of men. They want to be in the office, or the cave, or the home. Running paperwork, or cooking soup. Not doing the thing…
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:15 AM
0

You realise that demonising the men of developing countries as being sociopaths when it comes to women is the sort of racism that both conservatives and progressives can get behind? No. "Progressives", by which you mean the political grouping with the goal to tear down western society, has already decided that nothing "browns" do is bad, and everything whites do is. Even feminists can't change that. It's deeply ingrained.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:11 AM
3

The employer benefits because it costs less if you only give raises to those who ask for it. Less people ask for it if they don't know others do. The employee benefits, or at least the mid-tier employee, because they don't have to hear they're not worthy of a raise. So instead of the mediocre employee simply not getting a raise but still being employed, an arbitrary authoritarian "you must give all the same raise" law will lead to that mediocre employee being let go.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 02:15 AM
1

The permanent damage they could do with that plan is unlimited. Easily the most dangerous power a President has is nomination to the courts, and that damage lasts for a generation or more.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 02:10 AM
1

He's done exactly what he needs to do to win the primary Yes, the 1996 Democratic Platform was very popular.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 12:04 PM
6

No, he doesn't have a chance, but you wanted the most politically incompetent. Other than economics, Trump is basically running on the 1996 Democratic Platform Democrats hate that platform so much, it resulted in confirming Clinton for his second term. Of course, voters vote by party tag, not by platform now. May as well run an actual elephant.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 11:59 AM
1

IQ 60 if they're good at either football or basketball.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:29 AM
3

But according to separate research [...] educational intermarriage is less common today than at any point over the past half century. In other words, the feminst active goal of keeping men out of college creates the dating demographics where "acceptable" men to college women are the minority, and that lets those men control the rules of how dating is done. The "six months later he stopped returning my calls so it was rape" is the vile attempt to engage in force against those men, and stop them f…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:25 AM
1

Many states have common-law marriage laws 16 states do. I don't really consider that many. Texas and Oklahoma are two of that 16.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:19 AM
5

I'd rather have the most politically incompetent person there So, Trump?
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:14 AM
1

Changing scales, the method used by 10 out of 10 people who use statistics to lie.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:10 AM
1

"If he wanted to leave, he would have!" Makes all the sense of "if he had a hard on, he wanted it", which btw I heard listening to some Twitch stream earlier this week.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 10:38 PM
13

Yes More commonly in Canada though.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:08 AM
6

a woman who takes up 2 or 3 seats because of her bag(s) Bitchbagger.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 09:33 PM
1

The branch of feminism in power, receiving gov't funds, lobbying for laws to victimize men are distinguishable from terrorists only in that they use somebody else (the State) to engage in violence, instead of doing it themselves.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:57 AM
2

This is one case where you should really be thinking of the children, not the adults Never. Let me repeat: NEVER In practice, that phrase really means "the adults have no rights", and that is never acceptable, no matter the circumstances of the child, its birth, or inception. Also, you presume that lacking the financial gain and permanent ties that exist when a woman uses oral sex to get pregnant, that it would still occur and "flood the system" Finally: Infant baby adoptions are in such high de…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:52 AM
2

We'll just have to inform men that they need to use birth control even for oral sex. Where "condom" is not sufficient for birth control, and only provides protection from STDs. (Nevermind that condoms are the single best birth control method, but that's only when the contents are not taken out)
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:47 AM
3

There are even cases of men who are still forced to pay child support[2] even when a paternity test shows they aren't the biological father. Note that this is explicit in the law, at least in every one of the 50 states, and is not subject to any wiggling from the judge.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:44 AM
1

It shouldn't matter. Equal responsibility comes from equal choice. Choosing to have sex creates the responsibility to pay half an abortion for each party. Barring further agreement, that should be the sum total of the payment.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:43 AM
2

Except that when a woman discovers a man she slept with is crazy, she can simply exclude them. With vigorous and significant forceful assistance from the State. When a man discovers a woman he slept with is crazy, he's ordered to pay child support, and might get a paper stay away order that has no penalty after she stabs him the third time.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:40 AM
7

That's why Libel laws exist. Never choose to not sue a social justice bully.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 12:33 AM
-2

I'm glad to see all the "white knights" for Al Sharpton are getting downvoted into oblivion. When it comes to the rights of men we should never, and I mean NEVER start playing the feminist game of "bu...bu...but oppreshun!" It will never work in our favor. There is not a single such message in this entire post, at any score level. The writer of this article is 100% correct. You will never see feminism say a damn word when it comes to black on white violence against females. You will not see them…
/r/MensRights24/08/15 05:48 AM
-1

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper. Black men receive longer sentences than white women (Of course, so do black …
/r/MensRights24/08/15 01:24 AM
1

Bit of an empty threat, unless he's been ruled mentally incapable. Besides, the state pays for foster care of every kid. That payment get cuts off abruptly at 18.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:08 AM
0

Inform Maryland of what? If she lives in Maryland, she won't be restricted from living near schools or any of those restrictions, will she? Almost certainly she will, but depends on the exact Maryland statute. The no-contact order applies regardless of where she lives. One year in prison and I would have been happy Again, she got 13% of two years in prison, or one-fourth of your one year. Plus probation under threat of 15 years. It seems like you would be satisfied if you truly would be happy wi…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 04:33 AM
0

She also didn't get 15 years on probation, she got 2 years on probation. Ok, my error there, but that full 15 year suspended sentence would be in force at any probation violation. So she spends 13% of the two years in jail anyways, and if she does anything wrong (like, public intox or similar minor issues) could be sent up for 15 year. Still strikes me as a toss up. And she'll be required to register as a sex offender in a state she doesn't live in. ...and they'll inform Maryland. Also, the "no …
/r/MensRights22/08/15 03:26 AM
-1

The article you linked says so. The only discussion of the sentencing in that article is a different and former prosecutor saying the guidelines are two years, but could be up to 15. Personally, I'd argue that 15 years on probation is worse than two years in prison and done. Both of course are much lighter than the 20-25. Either way, it's the degree of the crime that controls sentencing, and the prosecutor is the one that offered Shattuck the 4th degree charge in the plea bargain. I see no evide…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 03:04 AM
-1

But the plea called for anywhere from 0-15 years in prison and didn't specify a sentence. Link? You're getting down to the nitty gritty here that isn't likely to be reported anywhere and practically requires access to the court documents themselves. He was certainly present during sentencing to argue his case. Unless you have some proof the reporting I linked is wrong, no he wasn't.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 02:55 AM
0

Maybe by the leagal definition but there is a big diffrence between her agreeing to sex and what rape realy is, forced Sex through the use of violence or the threat of violence IMHO. Even legally with adults, rape doesn't mean "through the use of violence of threat of violence". It means "without consent, or consent isn't legally recognized." The latter part covering drugs, sleeping, mental illness, etc. and age. Should statutory rape that doesn't qualify as molestation but with legally unrecogn…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 02:41 AM
7

The plea deal, which is the work of the prosecutor, also dropped several other charges related to giving the kids alcohol and Donahue wasn't even there when the judge accepted the agreement and gave sentencing, so he couldn't have argued very strenuously for prison time. No statement of facts was read in support of the plea, and prosecutor John Donahue did not take part in the proceeding. As for the man's case, the prosecutor "pressed the judge for a sentence exceeding five years, the upper boun…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 02:33 AM
5

The injustic is that he got so much time. No. She was 14. There is no consensual. That shit worked in the middle ages, because people died at 35. But it doesn't work now. Now, I'm a big fan of romeo and juliet laws - two teenagers doing teenagerish things is not a crime - but 30 year olds should be waiting until they hit 18. Yeah, it's a silly number, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 01:27 AM
23

Two sophomores have drunken sex, she regrets it six months later, when her new roommate who has a crush on her convinces her it was: rape Two sophomores have drunken sex, she regrets it six months later, when he didn't call at all over summer vacation: rape Two sophomores have drunken sex, she regrets it six months later, when her mother finds the pregnancy test(omg thank god its negative): rape
/r/MensRights22/08/15 01:22 AM
4

Massey plead guilty in January to one count of third-degree rape...Frederick H. Massey Jr. of Lewes must spend the first 20 years of his sentence in prison before becoming eligible for work release Former Baltimore Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck was sentenced Friday to two years of probation, with every other weekend in custody, after pleading guilty to raping a 15-year-old boy Judge E. Scott Bradley sentenced the mother of three to the maximum 15-year prison term for fourth-degree rape but s…
/r/MensRights22/08/15 01:20 AM
1

So, you did exactly what he was demanding.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 11:24 PM
1

Maybe you have an open mind about porn, but what if her conservative boss, family, friends, etc find out? She sues her boss for sexual discrimination, her friends are the ones going "you go girl", and everybody disappoints their mother. Imagine how damaging that could be if say, a woman was a high school teacher and her students found a nude picture of her? It's happened. Cristy Nicole Deweese once appeared in Playboy and is now teaching Spanish in Texas. After the parents found them and got ups…
/r/MensRights21/08/15 10:13 PM
47

There is no way to socially damage a woman by publishing photos that don't exhibit criminal acts. Worst case is you've got a photo of her committing adultery, and then she will still walk away with 60% of martial assets and alimony. More mundane things like porn or homosexual acts on camera are applauded for women, yet is probably the biggest non-crime related reason men are threatened with exposure.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:08 AM
6

Logan County prosecutor William Goslee... “In her mind,” Goslee said, “she was protecting her daughter from being not as loved as the boys were by their father.” That's the sort of comment I expect coming from the defense. Already the prosecutor is setting up her up for a plea deal that will be little more than her saying she's sorry. It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutor had abdicated his duty and has no intention of of pursuing this case fairly and by the law. This is clearly that "patri…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:26 PM
1

Keep hoping. With your support of alimony, you're the one out of place, not me.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 10:01 AM
1

Proud to hate the rest of the world.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:51 AM
1

The world is a bit larger than the US, you know I don't care. In some countries courts order you to donate to charity. In some countries, you can be executed for writing bad things about women. Not the US, yet.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:42 AM
1

How about: alimony on the condition that each alimony receiver should sent 0.1% of the money to a feminist organization? That's absolutely preferable to them spending it wholly as they wish. Throw in the democrats, anti-gun rights groups, and communist political parties while you're at it. This is clearly an accomplishable condition and people are ordered by courts to give money to charity all the time. No, they don't. In the US, courts cannot order a payment to a charity, they do accept it occa…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:18 AM
1

According to you: yes, because "setting off a nuclear bomb" falls under the category "any condition." The fault is in your premise. The conclusion just derives from that. The fault isn't my premise, it's your presumption that I care when they can't fulfill the requirement. A restriction that is effect a ban is perfectly acceptable to me. So requiring them to slap me every day is a ban on them receiving alimony, and I'm good with that.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:02 AM
1

This game is called logic and if you do not want to accept the logical implications of what you are saying that is on you. No, logic does not rely on fantasies that will not happen. "Alimony on the condition to set off a nuclear bomb is preferable over alimony without any condition. True or untrue?"
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:48 PM
2

Alimony on the condition to punch you is preferable over alimony without any condition. True or untrue? I don't play fantasy games. No such condition will be engaged in.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 11:45 AM
2

Jeez, they may as well have carried her across the finish. I bet her later complaints is that they weren't supportive enough of her.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 06:41 AM
7

Two people, a man and a woman, dressed in a reflective highly noticeable vest. It's safe to assume the two are working security or some similar job at the location. The two guards are confronting a woman, who later follows the two security around the building, and after the female security removes her vest attacks her. Of course the other security interferes. That's literally his job.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 06:36 AM
1

So someone has to go "I'll stay at home and take care of thins while You work". And without alimony, 20 years later, 20 years later, they have half the marital assets. They're welcome to sell some to live day to day.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 01:22 AM
2

That is besides the point. No, it's not. Our absolutes work in the real world, not your fantasy land. Do you think that the restriction "punching you" does not fall into the category "any"? :) They can try it and find out how much alimony they receive in jail. My ex found out it was zero.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 12:08 AM
1

My point is that because this is India, other factors aren't there to support women if this is exploited. Alimony is exploitation. Not having it is never exploitation.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 12:07 AM
6

In the case of no marital assets, I can understand a short term (1y) moderate alimony If there are no marital assets then they're a poor couple, and rightfully will be two poor single people. It is not acceptable to make one of them less poor at the cost of making the other more poor.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 04:34 PM
6

But this law would still be a step in the right direction according to your absolute statement in the beginning, right? You're down a path of idiocy. Courts cannot order somebody to break the law, and that's what assault is. I use absolute statements because it's an absolute situation. It seems to me that if we want to be persuasive and intellectually honest, we should use logic and ethics correctly. I have been intellectually honest, with proper logic and ethics. Alimony should not exist in any…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 04:33 PM
5

I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly. Praise this law because it is a step in the right direction? That's not accordingly. That's some pathetic leftist fantasy where I'd have to take the abuse without response. I absolutely would respond, and nobody would slap me a second day.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 03:08 PM
8

but I think it's likely that a law like this can be exploited to make it really unfair for the women. The only time alimony is unfair to women is when they pay it. The simple act of alimony existing is unfair. Steps taken to terminate alimony early are more fair than not taking those steps.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 03:06 PM
11

Any condition is better than none? Any condition is better than no conditions. No alimony is the best. How about every alimony receiver must slap /u/eletheros once per day? I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly. I would suggest that you rephrase your statement No.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:38 AM
6

Im certain the users in this post lauding the positives of this court ruling aren't all indians. Irrelevant. The case, and thus the ruling, is Indian. I know that i, as a man, cannot simply walk out of the door, right now, and get a job Not your spouses problem. You're divorcing, remember. Are we against prostitutes, now, or is this the 21st century? We're against forced payments like alimony. The better option is always complete elimination. Source plz You're discovered a stupid question. You'r…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:37 AM
1

Yes, we know Europe has sunk deep into the socialist morass. Germany following Greece isn't a question of if, but rather when.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:43 AM
5

If something as trivial as Tinder is "tearing our society apart", then our society isn't worth keeping.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:33 AM
36

This is hardly fair for the women. Alimony is hardly fair for the payer, of which it's always men in India. If a court wanted to require that women receiving alimony sung the national anthem on a street corner 16 hours a day, every day, or they stop receiving their alimony it's still the better option than unfettered alimony. There is no legitimate reason in 2015 that after a marital asset split, a woman cannot support herself. I think its in the rights for a woman to have sex and to expect her …
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:23 AM
1

I disagree with their point that it's all equal, but I can see the thought process behind it. If NZ is anything like the US, work coming from trade schools is very well paid, largely because it's looked down upon as a career so nobody wants to do it thus decreasing supply for what is a static or increasing demand. On the other hand, women by and large pick less financially beneficial degrees, so the low paid college degree is competing against high paid trade career. Since feminism has never bee…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 06:33 AM
0

Binomial distribution the probability of an event E is equal to the number of equally likely ways E can occur divided by the total number of equally likely things which can occur Imagine you flip an unbiased coin 10 times. What is the chance that 6 of that ends up heads versus what it chance of 7 ending up heads? 20.5% versus 11.7%. It is almost half as likely to get 7 as 6, or back in context: It is almost twice as concerning when the population is 70/30 as opposed to 60/40 The chance of gettin…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 02:32 AM
3

This case is neither. The current definition is a political policy of racism and sexism.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 01:46 AM
4

Because the 1787 definition is dead. The word no longer means what it meant in 1787. Words change, often drastically, and this is such a case.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 01:10 AM
2

There is a staggeringly pervasive fantasy among the left that CNN is centrist, so they read CNN "to get the other side" The reality is that abs(CNN distance from center) == abs(FOX distance from center) (I recognize that STEM-free graduates probably won't understand that. I don't care.)
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:39 PM
7

I'm perfectly okay with "progressivism." It seems to have worked quite well in the West by establishing democracy, the Bill of Rights, worker's rights etc. Progressive definition by usage, circa 1787:"using or interested in new or modern ideas especially in politics and education" Progressive definition by usage, 2015: "Whites are bad. Men are bad. White men are the worst, except for blacks that don't hate whites and women that don't hate men" Progressivism as it is used in 2015 did none of thos…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:34 PM
7

they outnumber men by as much as 60%. why is nothing being done towards gender equality now? Honestly, 60/40 isn't a compelling clarion call for action, but 70/30 would be and if men are actually being helped by affirmative action then that's the likely actual level. Affirmative action should be abolished in toto, but it also created this situation and it should be used to fix it.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 11:28 PM
3

Most likely because the men are not guilty of a crime.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 06:39 AM
2

the tl;dr of the story is "don't let men into college they could potentially be a threat to women" "...and all men are potentially a threat to women"
/r/MensRights13/08/15 06:19 AM
3

Brandon Austin, the student in question, was charged with sexual assault at Providence College in 2013, where he was also a member of the school’s basketball team. [...] Criminal charges were not brought against him, and he was allowed to withdraw from the school First of all, I'd like to know how the articles author handles the dissonance created by writing "was charged" and two sentences later writes "charges were not brought". The facts: Brandon Austin had no charges filed against against him…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:53 AM
78

123 comments, +56 points (85% positive) I'm shocked, just SHOCKED that /r/relationships deleted the post. The original, posted Dec 2012, was also removed. Except google cached it, meaning it was deleted sometime after the last google run. At most a few weeks ago, most likely deleted because of the new post. Google cache and Wayback machine
/r/MensRights09/08/15 10:24 PM
0

If they're in Canada1, they're a crazy feminist. Also, Australia, UK, Europe, west coast US, or east coast US 1: Alternatively known as the "United States above the 49th parallel"
/r/MensRights09/08/15 10:09 PM
1

As someone who just finished school I've seen and been around far too many guys who are not unintelligent, but have such a warped attitude towards school and education that they never really commit themselves, and are all too focused on other less important thing Your definition of "warped" is nothing more than a presumption that they should be "good earners". You have no idea what is important to them. Let's be blunt: You're dead. They're dead. It hasn't quite happened yet, but it's not so far …
/r/MensRights09/08/15 04:46 PM
12

It should be patently obvious that all the complaints "feminists" have about men are projection. This is just example #354930
/r/MensRights09/08/15 04:36 PM
3

Twenty years ago I had a mixed alpha/beta set. Also a full limited set, Arabian Nights, and full sets of the next few expansions. My play deck included all 5 moxes and lotus. In fact, I'd say at least half the cards are banned from play now. My favorite at the time was to pull out a Shivan Dragon out first turn. There were four in the deck. I don't play anymore, my cards are ashes in a house fire, but MRAs have been playing MtG longer than this social justice bully can imagine.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 04:04 PM
27

Prostitution should be legalized. Period. There is no reason needed.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 11:36 AM
1

Given the opportunity to plead conspiracy to commit murder down to incitement of injury, and opportunity that would never be presented to a man. Even though incitement of injury is still a felony, keeps custody of children. Continues to violate court ordered visitation and refuses to allow father to contact daughter. How any person (i.e., nutzo feminist) can continue to claim that the legal system isn't biased against men is absolutely bat shit insane.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 05:13 PM
1

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_29_sec002.htm Individual states will vary slightly, but the ICOD is the basis for all public building codes in the US. The difference is by fixture, and in every case requires a larger quantity for women than men.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 05:56 AM
2

Peter Moskos (assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York) ground the data available at Killed by Police http://www.copinthehood.com/2015/04/killed-by-police-1.html Although part two is where it talks about race. He theorizes why that is, such as possibly because officers are more wary of the public reaction when blacks are shot, or perhaps just officers in black neighborhoods are more used to violence and less likely to over react. Other no…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 05:44 AM
3

That might come back and bite Hillary in the ass. This is a woman who has clearly and obviously violated the State Secrecy act as the Secretary of State, yet those who are likely to vote for her are still likely to vote for her. This situation will not even make a dent.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:28 AM
2

if this had been a male minority that assaulted a police officer, the ending would have been a body bag... Statistically, whites who interact with police are more likely to be killed than minorities.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:26 AM
2

She'd had brushes with authorities in her homeland as well. But back then, in Moammar Gadhafi's Libya, she was the victim, not the aggressor. No, we just have her word for that. A word that isn't reliable. She howled in front of foreign journalists staying at the hotel, bared the bruises and scars on her body and pleaded for help. "Look at what Gadhafi's men did to me," she cried. Self defense often leaves bruises and wounds on the body of the aggressor. Even the Libyan Embassy in Washington, wh…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:21 AM
1

Even in non-tip jobs like McDonald's or Walmart, again, it's always women up front and visible to the customer And it's those jobs that will disappear with rising minimum wage as they're replaced by automated systems. To which women will cry sexism, as those easier (and more easily automated jobs) are filled primarily by women.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:15 AM
9

"Gippsland Men's Behavior Change Programs & Support" These are not services for victims of domestic violence, nor would the back of a woman's toilet be the place to post such things if they existed (They don't, particularly in Australia)
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:49 AM
1

Simple fix for me would be, with your ratio of men to women, having 2 bathrooms for men and 1 for women. That would violate building codes in every state in the US. Some states require 2 women's bathrooms for every 1, others require 3 for every 2. If course, they get rounded down to whole numbers so 1 and 1 is acceptable, but 2 mens and 1 womans would not be. The codes are generally independent of the population that actually uses the bathrooms as well. An all boys school has the same ratio as a…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:33 AM
10

Start posting on /r/mensrights[1] once or twice a week, that's how I got on it. I'm a long term mensrights poster and an occasional KIA/SRSSucks/etc poster and yet still am not on the list. I demand recognition! The reality is that their criteria for adding is basically arbitrary.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 08:15 PM
1

Mass taggers have been in use for a long time. I think the original one was from r/antisrs before it got taken over by SRS types. Don't get your panties twisted. It's just a client side tagging.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:51 PM
1

If laughing gas (which when used in higher degrees causes sleep as well) was easily portable, I would put that in the same category. AKA: Whip-Its. Not technically illegal in most states. One of the few drugs I've actually done.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:29 PM
1

Likewise the number of people who would have to be in on some grand conspiracy in the work for over half a century is reaching pretty grand proportions. You mean, zero? A woman made the accusations decades ago and has never been able to back them, except current media attention creates an atmosphere where she quite possibly hit a payout either in "go away" money or in simple PR leading to a life long position as professional victim. Other women who have never made such a claim have decided to cr…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:39 AM
1

But it does allow for an envelopment rape. Given a legal structure that generally doesn't recognize that as rape, and jurors that almost universally view "getting hard" as consent, then slipping a "dude a viagra" is exactly the same as any date rape drug.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:36 AM
5

Note that this stems from state laws. Every building code in every state requires more women's bathroom fixtures (toilets) than mens (toilets or urinals). Some require 2 for 1, others require 3 for 2, rounding down. A unisex bathroom counts for both categories, and in some states poorly written regulations make it illegal to have only two bathrooms, both unisex. Not saying that's the cause here, but it might be.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 01:27 AM
3

No, I'm not. FBI "guidelines" do not control state law. Period.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 07:33 PM
9

Except that i just read yesterday that the federal definition of rape still only includes penetration...so there are some discrepancies in the US. Except due to federalism, the federal gov't does not charge civilians with rape, and the UCMJ that covers military does consider non-penetration to be a crime. It's the states that will charge individuals. The "definition" is used only as part of FBI statistics, and it's bad that it's wrong because it creates shitty statistics that feminists like to q…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 06:16 PM
1

You sure care an awful lot about heroin. It's awful common to refer to it as heroin. Why? Because people don't really care. And there's no particular reason to care. Yet here, I've gotten more downvotes for it than when I post that I don't really care about circumcision. There's probably a not very good reason for all that caring about a hard street drug that you inject.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 04:46 PM
4

You're missing the distinct legal definition of rape which requires penetration in most cases At least functionally, that's no longer true. Some states have done away with rape as a formal charge altogether, it's now "felony sexual assault" or some such, and does include non-penetration. Other states have two different laws with similar penalties (modulus gender disparages in sentencing) so while not "technically rape", while not actually in court discussing the case, it's suitable to just say "…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:36 PM
-1

So many hard drug aficionados in MensRights... "Heroin" is good enough for any street drug morphine derivative to anybody who doesn't really care, but you're like the wine snob screaming "OH MY GAWD DID YOU JUST CALL THAT WINE RED?"
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:21 PM
-7

Soylent Green
/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:12 AM
0

I'm also a cheap date. Which of course, makes me the rapist. Because penis.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:56 AM
-10

Krokodil= desomorphine And heroin is diacetylmorphine. Close enough for gov't work.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:16 AM
21

Grab their car keys when they're drunk Theft. A crime. The world is more complicated than you want it to be.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:15 AM
-41

Since that's heroin, I challenge anybody to remain lucid. I had morphine in the hospital, and while it was undeniably the best four hours of my life, I was far from lucid.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 06:57 AM
31

Bars can actually be sued if they let you get too drunk, or if they let you go knowing you're going to drive home, in Canada anyway. In various states in the US not only bars have been successfully sued but also private homeowners who "allowed" drinkers to leave. Meanwhile, it would be a criminal act to use force to stop them from leaving.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 06:55 AM
60

Sober Sober = not rape Sober drunk = rape Drunk drunk = not rape In any legal description, if either both/all participants are rapists, then the law is faulty. Furthermore, if the determination of who is the rapist is based on gender, the law is also faulty, but for a different reason. I've asked the crazy feminist types in California who were in support of the "Yes means I still get to claim rape" law to design a law that didn't violate those two precepts and still met their goals, and none wer…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 06:53 AM
1

The people who dislike the mens' rights movement for objecting to a poster like this are already permanent enemies. I mean really, if the whole "why doesn't she get charged with rape too" immediately jump out at you you are a bigot.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 08:37 PM
13

It's delivering the hard truth of the legal reality, even if not the legal technicality. No, it's not. It's delivering the fantasy and desired goal of feminists. It's delivering college star chamber truth, not legal truth. Being drunk is not equivalent to being incapacitated. Plenty of sex occurs while drunk which would never lead to an arrest.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 07:55 PM
2

I don't think its right that I can go 10 years not having a car accident and still have to pay more then a woman doing the same. If you've been with the same insurance for 10 years, you wouldn't. If you're signing up with a new insurer, then they can't get valid records past 3 years and just have your word on it. So they use actuarial data instead. But remember all the other things they price differentiate on. You can almost never just compare one customers price to another. If you drive more, y…
/r/MensRights11/07/15 09:58 AM
3

I am not sure if the producers of the show specifically got an idiot to defend that point of view, or if she was the only one available... She's standard fare, unremarkable in that field. Remember that the Gender Inequality Index gives negative points to countries where the lifespan gap between men and women has fallen. The countries that scored the best are invariably war torn where most of the male adult population is dead. That being said there are plenty of long term posters here who have sh…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:30 PM
0

you're a libertarian which is literally political and intellectual suicide Idiot.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:50 PM
0

Posting a pic identifying imgur staff as their sidebar image is doxxing. To accept that is to make "doxxing" encompass far too much. Search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent: An employee group shot is hardly private information. The group may have made themselves a target, and the Reddit ad-hoc "rules" (really, whims) certainly ban things that groups they don't like targeting groups they do that are…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:24 PM
1

A brigade is when someone posts a link to a sub on another sub with a subscriber base that leans the other way and everyone from there goes and skews the vote ratios. It doesn't take "everyone", a single person can brigade, and when that person isn't SRS can get shadowbanned for it. Also, there is exactly such a group on reddit that is vehemently against men having any rights. The CEO of reddit is a member.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 01:51 PM
2

I would settle for an island paradise with a minimum IQ to join. If we ever serious get into space as a race, that's exactly how life will be. At the point where we start living up there, where people don't come home to Earth then we're going to have to recognize that only a small fraction of 1% of the human population will ever get shot out of the gravity well. Those that are too stupid (as well as too old, or handicapped) will never get off the planet. Those up there in whatever permanent stru…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:03 AM
2

the push here is to try and get the high court to rule that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to do what this millionaire did, hire a private lawyer and try to clear his name. It's clear that is the goal, but to accept that premise requires believing that those emotionally unable to handle being prosecuted shouldn't be prosecuted. I may poke fun at the lack of rights UK citizens have, but the country hasn't gone so far off the deep end that such a idea would gain ground. Nor do I see the cou…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 07:20 PM
2

Ehhh, it's part of it. Careful, you're edging up against that verboten idea that being gay may be a choice.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 07:06 PM
11

There doesn't appear any way this could penalize the victim of her false accusation who used the UKs procedure for private prosecution. It's an inquest to her death. Of course, it begs the question of what it could possibly find. That an accused is mentally and emotionally unstable is not a reason to not continue with a prosecution.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 12:08 PM
12

Remember, to the feminist mind the only reason men are gay is because they really hate women.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 12:01 PM
1

I am going to link a bunch of videos, That's the point, there are no "bunch" to link to. The mythos of police widespread murdering innocents requires a lack of documentation.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 07:12 PM
3

It's guaranteed that a Western journalist will get everything wrong about Japan. Although I'm always left confused why they care about "gender inequality" in Japan but not Saudi Arabia. There's something to be said about being isolationist and not caring about either, but once you care about "them", why would you target Japan first?
/r/MensRights06/07/15 04:22 AM
7

Feminism is one of the strongest authoritarian political groups in existence today. It's no surprise a libertarian can be anti-feminist. It's pretty much a pre-requisite.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 04:19 AM
0

We both know the comment refers to the many videos of innocent people getting killed for no reason other than the cop wanted to be a dick. Which ones? One or two, but "many" is a high bar that you absolutely cannot meet. Note that what you want to pretend is innocent people getting killed for no reason doesn't count. Michael Brown for example deserved to die for assaulting the officer. Dillon Taylor also got himself killed by doing stupid, wrong, things. Not for being innocent.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 06:04 AM
1

Where do you come up with these rules for national media? They're not rules for national media, they're rules for the media arm of the Democratic Party. Which just happens to be the only national media most people ever see, particularly Redditors. But I see your panties are wadded up so tight and stuffed so deep, that there will never be rationality for you. Have a day.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 12:48 PM
2

I can confirm NY office of Reddit is closed / has been closing and any employee refusing to move to SF has / will be fired.. It was supposed to be finalized before the start of this year and is quite past schedule. Does the slim possibility exist that Victoria was fired / "laid off" for a different reason? Perhaps, but Occam's Razor.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 12:41 PM
1

Thank you. You've made my point. Avoid our real problems by projecting onto the world outside America. Wrong. Local incidents without specific importance have no business being on national news. A major city making a policy decision to stonewall ICE and release violent prisoners just so they don't get deported does have national importance. The story would have been national even if the suspect had mugged a man. It's not the murder, and it's not the victim, that makes it news. Not only does our …
/r/MensRights04/07/15 05:40 AM
10

Karasek said the process is often biased in favor of the alleged assailants. A more blatant bald face lie I haven't heard for a decade. Actually, the last time I heard something that outrageous was when somebody said "Well, Mondale could still win"
/r/MensRights04/07/15 04:56 AM
4

The homicide rate in Oakland is 26.3 per 100k The homicide rate for SF is 5.8 per 100k Any SF killing is 4.5 times as newsworthy as any Oakland killing. Unwedge your panties. The woman's killing is (more) newsworthy because the killer was from out of state, and on probation, making it by itself more than local news. The added news pressure stemming from the NY escaped convicts makes these sorts of crimes more media reported. Add in that the suspect is an illegal who has been deported five times …
/r/MensRights04/07/15 04:11 AM
2

comparing this situation to the "Hands up don't shoot" culture It's a good comparison. The "hands up don't shoot" idiots are basing their politics on things that do not happen. Feminists are also basing their politics on things that do not happen. because we have VIDEO EVIDENCE of cops killing people Of course we do. Like this one. Cops are paid to kill people when necessary.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 04:04 AM
2

The schools are violating Title IX in their actions toward male students, and it will only stop when cases like this are a guaranteed response to their mistreatment.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 04:02 AM
0

FWIW: The admins don't care about any non-default reddit. All going dark did was make it inaccessible to people who come regularly and foment gossip. At a bare minimum you should have edited the "this reddit is private" page. BTW: Victoria was fired because she's the last employee in New York and refused to move to SF. That's all.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 03:57 AM
1

You're the stopped clock.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 06:26 AM
2

I've seen like 99% homeless men IRL. I wonder if they count "homeless women" differently, eg to inflate the stats. The statistics of homeless counts all sorts of people that reasonably shouldn't be. In an attempt to make sure they count everybody living on couches, they use a definition that could reasonably be applied to every child in the nation, as they don't live in a home where they are on the lease agreement. The people you see on the street are called "rough living" homeless, and yes 99% …
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:35 AM
5

Where did this idea come from that it was illegal to discriminate based on transgender status? That's only true in a couple states, and Nevada certainly isn't one of them.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 02:53 AM
3

Because there may be talent that may just happen to have ovaries This is irrelevant on the question of if extra resources should be expended just to recruit those ovaries with talent, instead of simply recruiting talent.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 08:09 AM
1

I'm not so sure this is true. Whenever there is a mention of feminist opposition they refer back to some feminists from the 1970's talking about not trusting men to take the pill It's clear you didn't really even read the article, as the 1970s opposition was only mentioned to show nothing has changed.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 01:11 AM
2

especially when covered 100% by ACA and other health insurance plans. It wouldn't be, anymore than vasectomies are. Under an Obama or H. Clinton administration, I would expect a 100,000% tax on male contraception, parceled out to women.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 01:10 AM
8

judges pretend to have their hands tied to reverse child-support decisions when paternity fraud is found. They're not pretending. In all sorts of cases, genetic paternity is legally irrelevant to who owes child support. The most notable one would be child born in wedlock is automatically supported by the husband. Only having proof the child isn't that man's child and identifying the actual father and getting that father to agree to taking on support costs and having a court agree the genetic fat…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 12:20 AM
1

In the 1970s, Brazilian endocrinologist Dr Elsimar Coutinho developed one of the first ever male pill prototypes. Made from all-natural cottonseed, Called Gossypol. It didn't go down well because of the 5-25% permanent sterility rate.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 12:16 AM
6

CAFE would have to be the most benign group possible, even in the eyes of feminists. Yet they're still totally unacceptable because it's more than men meekly accepting abuse. Much of their problem stems from the existence of the group in a country which criminalizes badthink about groups like feminists, but doesn't even recognize it against men. It's gender based inequality under the law taken to the extremes of what speech is allowed.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 01:29 PM
14

“I must give the complaints of members of the LGBTTIQQ2SA community precedence I'm sure I identify as one of those things, probably because everything other than "GLB" is so loosely defined as to be meaningless and self-referential. As one of those things, I register my complaint at the exclusion of CAFE. You "must" give my complaint precedence.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:37 AM
1

You guys have shotgun marriage What? Presuming you mean something stupid like "unwilling marriage", then you're either one hundred years out of date or simply insane some states consider you married if you just live with someone long enough 9 of 50, or 18% of the states. That doesn't impact me, or anybody else in the 41 other states, in the slightest. Child support? Through the state, not through a divorced spouse. Child support is paid through the State. That's where checks are sent. Any money …
/r/MensRights19/06/15 08:51 PM
4

the biological imperative to procreate. There is no such need, rather it's an imperative to engage in the acts (i.e., sex) that lead to procreation. Sentience and science has broken the connection between the two. Given plummeting birthrates in all western countries, there are record setting numbers (28.9% of all women over 30) who are child free. Historically there has been a social imperative to have children, primarily as a value to the parents in the form of workers and late life caregivers.…
/r/MensRights18/06/15 12:51 PM
1

Maybe, but why don't you come clear and agree that you wouldn't be interested much in it anyway, even if the laws were fair. Patently untrue. Laws are limited to countries, and there are still some pretty reasonable western countries left. There are no western countries with reasonable marriage laws, child support laws, or equal protection under the law by gender. the US is unarguably the best at all three categories, and is yet still purposefully negligent in all three.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 12:39 PM
1

What I was addressing was your notion that direct care of infants (diapers, etc.) was an "old female responsibility" that women are trying to "dump" onto men. I presented no such "notion" Parents, of both sexes, are wired to nuture their infants. That is a social construct, and is not either geographically or historically widespread. Thus no, it is not "wired".
/r/MensRights18/06/15 12:20 PM
2

"Don't have children you don't want to care for" is not a judgemental statement. It is a logical suggestion. That's not what you said in the context of the conversation. You said "If you don't want to take time off work for your child, don't have them" Really it was, "If you're against the State forcing your employer to give you time off, don't have children"
/r/MensRights18/06/15 12:57 AM
3

If you, personally, do not, then please use contraception. This is the most idiotic, life intruding, judgement I've heard in weeks. You have topped most social justice bullies and feminists even.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 10:23 PM
1

Almost every country in the world is doing it wrong with State mandated maternity leave, and 92 are being extra wrong.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 10:22 PM
2

Except the media were perfectly happy to report on the atrocities of the priests, but the media is hollywood and have no interest in reporting their own failings.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 10:13 PM
2

You're the one saying the Soviets beat America because America had better technology. Wow. I said no such thing. It takes some severe dementia to read what I wrote and pretend it said that.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 05:29 PM
3

I'm pointing out you are full of shit. I'm sure everyone but you got it. Your fantasy notions of reality do not make me full of shit. It makes you insane.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 05:12 PM
4

TIL: Cosmonauts are electronics. The first unmanned spacecraft was 1946, from the Germans.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 05:06 PM
2

Oh right you are one of those useful idiots that think the Soviets were behind on technology. Well, yes. Because they were. How did they beat you in the Space race then? Through lack of safety considerations.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 03:52 PM
0

Supporting communism on a computer, running electricity, while having sufficient food creates simply massive levels of cognitive dissonance. It's no surprise the afflicted are irrational. Including you DavidByron
/r/MensRights05/06/15 11:36 AM
0

Wow. Desperately trying to make that 15 minutes into 20 Except her original claim was that he held her, choked her, and hit her several times. This would leave all sorts of bruising
/r/MensRights05/06/15 11:29 AM
1

What's wrong with "never hit anyone?" Pacifism is an evolutionary dead end
/r/MensRights04/06/15 10:06 AM
1

No, it's a gov't thing. When gov't approves and recognizes marriages, some forms will always be outside the type they approve. Gov't shouldn't have that power. Just think how easy gays would have had with marriage if marriage recognition was abolished back when interracial was a problem. Want to be married? Congrats, you are.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:45 AM
5

Political definitions of words do not mean the actual definitions of the words change. for example: racism, sexism, rape, etc.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 01:29 AM
3

Who is the rape apologist? The man that wants universities to be required to use the criminal justice system so that any convicted rapists are punished with years in prison or Mary Koss, who wants punishment to be effectively "Rapists Anonymous" 12 step programs.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 01:27 AM
2

I'm actively against gov't recognition of any marriage.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 01:16 AM
45

Laura Kipnis helped create the situation we have today. She wasn't surprised or upset that a kangaroo court exists, she's upset they levied charges against her Kipnis wasn't defending Hirsi or Rice when they the social justice bullies threw a temper tantrum over them. No, instead she called Rice a Stepford Wife. Kipnis did nothing when the bullies demanding "safe spaces" kept CHS from speaking. I hope Kipnis can "gain from the experience" for being accused under Title IX, and if not I hope it oc…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:39 PM
2

What I meant was, what does it matter whether they live under the prince of Lithuania or of Muscovy, figuratively speaking? If it was all the same to them, they would cross the border instead of fake crying in a studio. Obviously, it's not the same to them Exile, on the other hand, does come at a cost, and can be a terrible personal wrenching, leaving an enduring scar on one's life. So, to avoid their society from exercising its freedom of association by kicking them out, they join up.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 11:20 AM
-1

Its just not feasible that some men aren't happy about being enslaved by their country. Perhaps, but these pictures show no such thing. They show staged men. It's probably the "tears" are just water applied to the face. Hell, a few are smirking.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 10:30 AM
6

As a matter of interest, what does it really matter to a minimum wage worker what nation state he is in? Exile is the one legitimate act a social group can always engage in. "Do it, or get out" is what conscription is. These men could leave Lithuania.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 10:28 AM
5

Sorry, but these pics are blatantly staged. They're done in studio for crissakes. By piercings, and hair, I put more than equal odds that these men are SJW-types anyways. They're not upset about the draft, they're upset Lithuania is resisting Russia instead of immediately surrendering to the pretend-communist authoritarians. While the draft shouldn't be just men, if there's anytime to have one it's when your border an expansionist State who has shown willingness to invade on a whim. Like Lithuan…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 07:51 AM
2

Another case of "she gets high (from her own product), gets him high too, and he's responsible for her acting high"
/r/MensRights02/06/15 07:23 PM
10

This isn't a site about 'white men's rights'. It's a site about 'all men's rights'. White men are a subset of men. You're complaining that white men being attacked isn't a men's rights issue because it's only white men. That is the definition of racism, and makes you a racist. Plus, the column is full of mistakes - Bahar Mustafa is not ethnically Pakistani, for example. Several sources state otherwise. For somebody as white as she is, while vociferously claiming not to be white, and with family …
/r/MensRights02/06/15 07:10 PM
61

TL DR Easier to empathise with someone falsely accused of a crime than the victim of a crime Someone falsely accused of a crime is the victim of the crime.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 11:42 AM
1

Do you think you have any rights in an American DV kangaroo court? Yes, you have a right to cross examine anybody who gives witness against you.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 09:21 PM
1

Does Australia really have no right to cross examine your accuser? No wonder your court system is such shit.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 02:50 PM
1

I would have thought most people here are right-wing liberals Barring extreme outliers of insufficient population to even warrant mentioning, everybody in the first world is a liberal. Of course, liberal has nothing to do with free stuff from the gov't, quite the opposite actually. That's why the better term is leftist.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:15 AM
-2

they have a high reliance on generics, which are basically subsidized by the people who live in countries with market-based systems. And if the market for new pharmacuticals dries up if the US becomes a gov't commanded health care market I suggest everybody look at the current state of medicine. Regardless of your age at the time it starts, the state of medicine will be exactly the same when you die. There will be a 100+yr plus pause in medical development that future historians will term the se…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:13 AM
2

They consider the soviet union to be a failed attempt at socialism which was eventually intended to lead to communism. The progression of socialism to communism was defined as when all those who disagree are killed. Those examples failed because the people in power enjoyed the power to genocide.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:05 AM
0

No you're not. By it's nature, Men's Rights has a higher than normal representation of entrepreneurs and generally self supporting people. Reddit on the other hand is a far left echo chamber supporting and empowering the leftist gov'ts that are disenfranchising men.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:02 AM
0

Choosing to not do something is not imposing on others.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:44 AM
1

Feminist clothed female superiority, anti-male sexism and anti-white racism is the goalpost of the modern left, so don't be surprised when you find it.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 04:25 AM
6

It is is non-partisan Well, no. It's not. But it definitely leans left, which means when it's going against the leftist echo chamber it means even more.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 08:16 AM
6

The funny thing is that this is the exact same thing as when people did "Affirmative Action Bake Sales" "A hypothetical pricing structure would be to charge $1.00 for White and Asian males, $.75 for White and Asian females, $.50 for Latino, Black, and Native American males and $.25 for Latino, Black, and Native American females for identical items." And the bake sale is better at showing affirmative action than "income inequality" anyways.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 08:13 AM
1

No State should interfere in the negotiation between employer and employee by demanding parental (i.e., maternity or paternity) leave be provided. If it's important to the employee, then they should negotiate for it.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 02:37 AM
1

but to name a few who can be quoted on the matter, palin, santorum, huckabee, perry, and Bachman have all made statements that the united states is a "Christian nation" and/or that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution You need to quote them, because your reliance on media summaries is at fault. Besides, which, the history of the nation is irrelevant. Who is trying to change the law, as you claimed? As a godless heathen myself, if forced to choose, I'd take…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 03:14 AM
1

You believe in the freedom to discriminate. Yes. Discrimination is a perfectly valid social interaction. I refuse to be around people who set kittens on fire. That's discrimination! However, you cannot honestly tell me that between the anti science, rgetoric, the demands for allowing institutionalized prayer in scools and government meetings, creationism in taxpayer funded classrooms, and the open declaration by many in the GOP that they do not believe in a constitutional separation of church an…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 02:46 AM
-1

Gay men have the right to not be discriminated against just like straight men and black men and white men and everyone else. Yes they do, and people should be free to not associate with any of them. If you can't handle that, maybe you don't belong on the men's rights sub. I believe in freedom, so I belong here more than you do.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 02:16 AM
0

Yeah, they seem intent on destroying the separation between church and state. Really? Pray tell where. What I see is people trying to protect their freedom of religion (and generally, choice) from the State. Like by choosing who to do business with, and choosing to not buy people birth control.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 02:04 AM
-1

Except the Republicans are not trying to strip due process from me and mine. Democrats are.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:49 AM
6

At thirteen, it's not even rape. It's child molestation.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 10:49 PM
12

Amy's recount of the sexual encounter includes that he fell asleep and she had to wake him to continue. That's rape by current definitions used in California and New York, by law. That's the rape definition pushed by feminists. There's no getting around it you misandrists. Schumer raped him. The cognitive dissonance created by this scenario has turned feminist stupidity up to eleven.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 04:43 PM
7

Reminds me of a recent outrage in San Jose, CA. Apparently in that one city / Santa Clara county, persistent homelessness is (slightly) higher for women than men. It's unique in the country in that regard, with men orders of magnitude more represented in the population of persistently homeless. So of course it's a huge emergency in San Jose to "helpthesewomennow!" The same report that found women are slightly higher as persistent homeless also found that 69% of the overall homeless population ar…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 05:11 AM
2

You're projecting again, feminist wierdos.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 04:57 AM
3

On the flip side of this, a conviction is also extremely unlikely if all the evidence is gone For now. There is a concerted effort to turn rape from a specific criminal charge where the accused is presumed innocent to one where consent is an affirmative defense to the crime of sex. In effect making sex itself a crime, to which non-criminal participants would have to prove consent. As an example, here's how affirmative defense works: Somebody attacks you and you kill them. The fact that you kille…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 10:25 PM
3

The courts still require that a person be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For now. A slight shift in the Supreme Court makeup can easily change that.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 10:15 PM
3

"A lot of false accusations" You don't say.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 11:41 PM
3

Your bias is showing, SJW. I am male before y'all murder me. Identity politics doesn't matter. Except to SJWs. Your opinion is no more or less valuable because of your gender, your race, your "oppression points", or anything else.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 08:02 PM
1

You can't logically refute a religion. Faith strengthens in the face of contrary factual evidence.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 01:36 PM
3

Math is STEM, and isn't needed for either a gender studies degree or the eventual barista job after that degree is done.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 05:48 AM
39

"always believe the `victim' " "we don't want to discourage reporting" "women don't lie about rape!" "it's a learning experience for him" Pick any number of them. They're all used as reasons.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 04:10 AM
27

It's not the prosecutors job to determine guilt, this is why golden plea-deals and not charging for false reports for women are so bad. If a prosecutor feels misconduct has a reasonable chance of success in court then they should go forward. It's the defendant's job to defend themselves.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:20 AM
117

The case was originally closed because her story had holes and the rape kit wasn't positive. Basically, evidence insufficient to prosecute. Not a "he's innocent", but rather a "there's no way to get a conviction". The case was then re-opened when she claimed the pregnancy was proof. Had it been true, it would have been new evidence and potentially been the tipping point to go to a trial. The fact that the pregnancy wasn't the accused's was yet another further hole in the story, and another black…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 01:33 AM
3

In the past, on occasion I had the cops called on me for the crime of "Man in Park Alone" Reason #948189 I don't miss California.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 09:32 AM
1

Can I be a super liberal, Republican Party-hating, Bernie Sanders supporter, while still being a Men's Rights Activist? No. It is Democrats backing the termination of due process rights for men in schools as well as the entire "always believe the accuser" mindset that's widespread. It's only being kept out of the criminal system because of the constitution, and a few Supreme Court nominees will change that in a single term. Voting for a Democratic president is anti-male. --That's right Reddit, a…
/r/MensRights25/05/15 07:04 AM
1

Long ago I've given up on Canadian (and European and Australian) courts ever having a reasonable criminal system. While they all have gender problems, they just generally don't actually create any true negative for engaging in crimes. Everything is too easy to get off with meaningless sentences. In the US, the "he beat me" defense used here may affect sentencing, but it is barred from consideration for guilt determination.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 01:08 AM
3

Dongle Gate was 2 years ago and Andria Richards still can't find work because of it. She can't find work because she sucks at her job, not because of a false accusation. To paraphrase her one time boss, she sucks at her job (of "Evangelist") because she's an over-reactive Social Justice Bully. (And a hypocrite, but that's redundant) All that would still be true even if she hadn't made a very public false accusation.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 07:45 PM
6

It's apparently doxxing when outing a SJW who makes bomb threats, and that's just as news worthy.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 06:59 PM
1

So, as per written law, an educator (teacher) and student CAN have sexual intercourse as long as the student is 21 or older and the age difference is not greater than 4 years. As I said, a teacher and a 17 year old, so totally not relevant.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 04:03 AM
1

if one were to delve into it further, how close was the boy to turning 17 at the time they had sexual relations? That's actually irrelevant. In Louisiana, if a random person has sex with a sixteen year old, that's statutory rape. If a teacher has sex with a seventeen year old, that's rape. By law, consent cannot be given in such a situation. Rape is considered a more severe crime than statutory rape, and a person can be charged with both simultaneously. This woman has been given a pass at every …
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:11 AM
2

Society doesn't take statutory rape against boys seriously when the perpetrator is female. Fixed.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 01:38 AM
1

And how much money has he funneled down companies that only have women as founders? If he was being consistent, he would require any company to have both men and women as founders. Of course, consistency is not his goal, neither is economic return, politics is.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:03 PM
1

That judge would be ordering him to break the law. Granted. Failure to do so would still be contempt. Likely what happened is in the break-up the woman presented his payroll from before he left to work for UPS, and he was getting higher wages. The more likely event is that the judge set the payments based on his believed ability to pay. Which has nothing to do with his actual income. Such policies are the law in many states.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 06:14 PM
4

EDIT: Just called the payroll company and told them to take only 65%. I wouldn't have been able to sleep if I didn't. Note that because it was a good faith effort to follow the law you probably won't face any sort of sanction for such a choice, you may end up in front of a judge to explain why you did it. If at such a time, after hearing the argument, the judge orders you to garnish in excess of that 65%, you better do it or you will face contempt charges.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:13 PM
6

So, other than the (original) title, what does it have to do with MRAs? I mean, why did the author/editor target us? She would like to believe we will be caught up in being reported. In fact, if we (as men, generally) actually reported others for the things applicable under this new policy we would be the ones being "protected" far more often. So, everytime anybody is "harassed" on Reddit, report it. Don't let it slide just because you're an adult and it didn't really hurt you. They intend this …
/r/MensRights18/05/15 11:35 PM
1

You can't, but please try.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 09:09 PM
1

I got my vasectomy covered by obamacare No, you didn't. Your insurance may have covered the vasectomy, but it's a clear fact that Obamacare doesn't require it of the insurers like it does so much else. (And Obamacare doesn't actual cover or do anything for anybody, it's all just a set of requirements) Most insurance both pre and post ACA cover(ed) vasectomies as well as tubals. ACA only requires coverage for tubals.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 09:07 PM
2

I can't access imgur from my current location, but are there any treatments that are mandatory coverage that apply to men only? Prostate exams, etc.? No, they are not. The "US Preventive Services Task Force" stated that it costs too much and shouldn't be bothered with. Effectively, they decided that early detection wasn't necessary.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 09:05 PM
1

Yet it's still up there, every year, for us to think about and choose if we think we want to do it and calculate it will save us money. And calling it insurance is a lazy, low information, way the public, the media, and politicians have taken to describing all health costs, even dental. Nobody is offering "Oil Change Insurance!", but plenty of businesses offer a prepaid plan for all oil changes over a year. That's exactly how all the day to day known costs of health should be handled. Then you g…
/r/MensRights18/05/15 09:02 PM
1

Say what you will about ACA, but before it was perfectly legal for certain insurance providers to enforce lifetime caps And it was also perfectly legal to have gotten a different plan that had no such cap. These things are not sudden gotchas, it's all in the contract.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 08:52 PM
2

Contraceptives were included in the ACA as a capacity provision and cost saving measure. Then there was no need to force it. Insurance companies don't need to be forced to save money. Except, it really doesn't. Because those who want to use birth control would get it anyways, and those who are going to plop out a premature meth addicted infant are going to do it anyways.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 08:51 PM
3

Was she fresh out of college with that brand spanking new humanities degree?
/r/MensRights16/05/15 07:51 AM
1

You don't have evidence Yes, there is evidence. You won't accept anything, because you're racist and project that on everybody else.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 03:43 AM
1

You pick the version of the story that justifies extra judicial killings of blacks by default. You're such a fucking racist. There was physical proof. Brown was first shot inside the car, a position he could only possibly be in by reaching inside the car. You are exactly why I don't give a shit about all your racist riots. You'll never admit under any circumstances that any shooting is reasonable. Brown died because he was extremely stupid and tried to take a gun away from an officer. The only v…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:36 PM
1

Innocent until proven guilty. Rights to due process. Being accused of a crime is not a death sentence. Self defense. You reach for somebodies firearm, you are a danger to that person as well as others. Shooting you is absolutely appropriate.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 02:59 PM
1

Then you don't rally to the defense of Civil Liberties or Constitutional rights which is pretty important for Men's Rights. Rallying to the support of thieves turned assailants has nothing to do with civil rights, regardless of their race. No rights were violated, except perhaps the rights of Darren Wilson. How about the entire GamerGate episode? To attack a black women so aggressively for saying what white feminists activist have been loudly saying for a very long time is real suspect. Such bul…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:52 AM
1

I'm called the racist while you dog pile on the one black women you see complaining about white men You're called a racist because you are a racist. despite white feminists doing this for decades with it becoming mainstream online over the last 10 years. This entire reddit and the movement behind it is to dogpile on those white feminists. And the black ones. I'm not surprised that you again choose to raise your white rights flag You mean the "no racism" flag. I'm not white, as I've told you befo…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 12:03 AM
1

Look at the down votes I get at Men's Rights for raising black issues You get downvotes because you're a racist. You've been a racist here for a long time, and you get downvotes everytime because of it.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:10 PM
5

I wasn't a Maths whizz, but I had the grades to study it at uni.. You'd still have to graduate, of course. Or at least, for most of "STEM". Computer [Programming, Analysis, etc] are what everybody first thinks of, because of silicon valley, the internet, and all the startups. But you don't need a degree for any of that or math. I initially skipped school, and only went back after 2001 but got a MBA - which is not a STEM degree, although I've since returned back again just for amusement and did g…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:05 PM
1

You don't have to wrap it up in trying to find the reasons many people are fat to excuse not finding them attractive. Fat is ugly, nuff said. It's ugly when it's the mythological "glandular condition" and it's ugly when they simply refuse to stop stuffing their face. Attraction is not a controllable reaction. Not finding fatty fat fat whales attractive is sufficient reason for not finding them attractive. Besides which, every complaint about men not finding fat women attractive is invariably fol…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 12:41 PM
-2

It's SRS idiots like you that make us not care how you take the men's right movement. You're an anti-male bigot. Go away. Edit: Let me rephrase that. An anti-male brigading bigot.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 11:38 AM
12

He has to appear like he's playing nice with mainstream people. No, he's legitimately a feminist brainwashed flak. Right until he loses 80% of it to a divorce, although that could be some time as AFAIK he's not yet married.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 06:02 AM
1

Curious why this is on the Tom Leykis channel. It seems an odd platform. Is there some cause for this?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 08:58 PM
3

Because feminism isn't about equality, much less world wide, it's about benefits toward women in the first world. It's primarily privileged - and I use the word correctly, not in the Social Justice Bully manner - women collecting power and benefits for themselves.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 08:16 PM
12

Wikipedia is only good for clear concise facts. Like the mating habit of the tree frog. It's worthless for anything connected to humans. The bias there taints the history entries, anything political, and even the amount of encyclopedia of fiction the site is made up of.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:24 PM
6

It sounds less like a breach of contract Morso because "commercial surrogacy" (i.e., for money) is illegal in the UK. The intended recipient parents may pay for medical and life costs during the pregnancy, but no sum of cash may change hands, and it's not a binding agreement to hand over the child. This is not a contract dispute, there is no legal contract to enforce. The mother was simply found to be a shitty parent, and the genetic father was given custody. That they used a turkey baster ("art…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:18 AM
9

To be fair: The step parent does not have to pay. Their income has to be listed as part of the application for financial aid, which is the FAFSA your quote is referring too. That could mean the student does not receive financial aid that they otherwise would and also doesn't receive money from the step parent.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 01:51 PM
2

4chan has postings of cartoon child porn To clarify: That's legal in the US. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
/r/MensRights04/05/15 10:17 PM
-1

Theft is force, it deserves all the punishment.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 09:19 PM
3

Especially all those looting protesters.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 08:41 PM
8

The only lasting value for getting married for men is to those men who have such strong religious beliefs that those beliefs demand it from them. Nobody else should get married, ever. There are simply no benefits, and lots of negatives. I was married, and every possible negative occurred. I am not married to the mother of my son, and there are no negatives. Even to women, unless he's a "man of means" that can be bilked and stolen from, there really isn't much benefit to getting married. The enti…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:37 AM
2

There's no need to be insulting. A style is independent of it's content. You have a "wall of text" style which, if not for Doonesbury paving the way, wouldn't even be considered really a cartoon. As for the comparison to the original, at least mine says why she's full of shit rather than just making some vague statement. "Vague statements" is what editorial cartoons are.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:32 AM
2

Women objectifying men is never a "problem" to feminists/leftists/Democrats/"progressives"/"socially conscious"/etc. That's not an accident, it's intentional.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:28 AM
2

That's more of a Doonesbury style comic, where as the original link is a traditional Editorial Cartoon.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:27 AM
4

while still holding the hammer herself. ...thrusting it at him
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:21 AM
10

As Salgat pointed out, there are thresholds before Federal labor law applies, they are listed here Prior to 15 employees, you can overtly refuse to hire on gender, racial, religious reasons, or disability reasons. Note that these are only Federal thresholds, some states may have the same law that impacts earlier.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 05:01 AM
3

You are confusing two different senses of the word discrimination, using the one (meaning judgment, discernment) to suggest that the other (meaning prejudice) can be justified. I am not confusing the uses. I am prejudiced against smelly people and kitten cookers. There is nothing ethically, morally, or legally wrong with holding and acting on that prejudice. There are certain golden categories of prejudice which our society has declared off limits, but that doesn't mean the general idea is also …
/r/MensRights02/05/15 06:51 AM
3

Discrimination is in fact, ok in many cases. Perhaps they smell. Maybe they just ended a jail term for setting kittens on fire and you're hiring for your pet store. We discriminate against people every day for entirely rational, reasonable and good reasons. The reason why sexism and racism stand out is because those criteria are not relevant. So the original author is completely correct, discrimination is ok sometimes. That doesn't mean sexism ever is, and hand waving from the social justice bul…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 06:11 AM
3

Why would it? If she was first female hire that qualify or wanted the job, and the rest of the place was males would it matter. It wouldn't, but mentioning it at the interview would. Particularly if she ended up not being offered the job.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 05:03 AM
4

Essentially, high achieving women are paid more because women have the chance to opt out of employment This ignores the political value in having a female CEO or similar high ranking corporate officer, such that there is a value to the business strictly because of her gender. For example, do you think Ellen Pao would have even attempted a discrimination suit if the CEO of KPC&B was a woman? The corporations are acting rationally to the general sexism of the populace that values women more than m…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 03:03 AM
3

Do you honestly think that if silicon valley employers told prospective female employees that the shop was "all men" that that wouldn't start a lawsuit?
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:58 AM
1

Even with out any sexism at all, select 10 nurses at random odds are you will get 10 females. "Very high"? Men make up 9.4% of nurses Chance of one nurse being female: 90% Chance of ten nurses all being female: 36% Not impossible for a nondiscriminatory selection of ten nurses to be all female, but definitely far from "very high". Far enough that such an event should be investigated.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:56 AM
16

"But, last year, we estimated that at least 18,900 servicemembers -- 10,400 men and 8,500 women -- experienced unwanted sexual contact." Carter added that "too few" men reported the incidents as sexual assault. ... And then of course, the majority of the article is about how horrible it will be for women when they start being required to perform more dangerous jobs.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:45 AM
16

HERstory, because patriarchy! amirite?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:06 PM
18

You're looking for consistency in laws specifically written to discriminate against men. You won't find it.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:05 PM
1

Clearly a sign that women are suffering. No joke, actually. The Global Gender Gap Report penalizes a country if life expectancy for men isn't low enough compared to women.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 11:36 AM
4

No, they will be required to pay support and alimony based on the imputed income, which would not lower even in the face of legislative mandatory salary reduction, were such a thing possible.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 11:18 AM
3

a) immoral, unethical, and were they speaking of the US, illegal and unconstitutional as well. b) Even if it was legal for the gov't to force employers to do such a thing, all it would accomplish would be to make male employees cheaper to hire and thus sought out more to be hired.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 11:13 AM
-8

While I recognize in any gender reversed situation the SJWs (redundant: feminists, democrats, leftists, and crazies) would be up in arms about making a big deal out of this, at the same time this fails to meet common legal definitions of sexual harassment which require sexual touching. It might just be generic harassment, but that would require she follow him to different locations.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:12 AM
3

I don't necessarily believe the label 'rape' should be applied in this situation. In general, I'm resistant to the mass labeling of any 20ish year old with a 16 or 17 year old as rape, particularly here. In this case however, and generally with such events in other states, there is a law on the books defining consent such that it cannot be given by a student to a teacher. It is thus, legally rape. It's also statutory rape, because the age of consent in Utah is 18 with a seven year romeo & juliet…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 03:15 AM
1

So, let's guess this specific occurrence will end in a criminal charge, unlike all the others.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:51 AM
6

The prenup in question sounds highly illegal. The groom dropped it on his fiance just days before the wedding and threatened to call it off if she didn't sign. That is coercive under the law. The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing …
/r/MensRights26/04/15 08:39 AM
1

IMO republicans are just as bad or worse on civil rights. No, not even close. The entire "always believe the victim", "even if your innocent it's a learning experience" nonsense comes from the left. From Democrats. Hillary herself has done it.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:18 AM
5

Remember this time when one of her Supreme Court nominees votes to strip you, and men in general, of due process rights.
/r/MensRights25/04/15 07:18 AM
4

Police are ABSOLUTELY NOT corrections personnel The police failed to get the evidence to the prosecutor, and it somehow never came up for 13 months of continual investigation? This has nothing to do with the prison corrections officers.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 04:07 PM
9

This is overt discrimination based on gender. It is blatantly illegal by US federal law. Not suing for discrimination is exactly how the law develops into only benefiting one group.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 10:27 PM
9

The prenup should not be grossly unfair That's a whole lot of opinion words you've got there. If I come into a marriage with my startup, and I include "No proceeds from the startup shall be joint owned or split" in the pre-nup that's extremely fair from my point of view no matter what happens. It'll only be acceptable to my potential future ex if the startup doesn't succeed. The prenup should be freely signed several months in advance of the wedding Which just bows down to the loophole. If I get…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 05:14 AM
2

And we should be voting for the blue. Presuming you mean by "blue" the Democrats, then you've got that exactly backwards. It is the Democrats trying very hard to make due process a historic memory, and by being able to nominate to the Supreme Court, they can make that happen. Vote for anybody, or nobody, but don't vote for somebody willing to suspend your due process rights when you're accused of rape.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 10:17 PM
2

You say "number of degrees" is a meaningless metric, when in fact higher education directly leads to higher income. The group of "all people with degrees" may earn more than the group of "all people without degrees" while it still being true that many degrees provide no benefit whatsoever. Which in fact, is reality.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:17 PM
43

Remember: When women outperform men it's because women are better and men should be more like women. When men outperform women it's sign of a deep travesty of discrimination.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 07:28 AM
3

So lets apply this to healthcare I totally agree. The problem doesn't come up with gender differences in pricing in different styles of insurance, it comes up because female-helpful differences are allowed while male-helpful ones are not.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 01:15 AM
-1

but I don't agree that because the chances are different between genders that the service somehow changes. Then you don't agree with the fundamental concept of insurance. When risk increases, costs do.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 01:12 AM
-2

Just because the risk is slightly higher doesn't mean the service isn't the same. The risk is significantly higher, and you're not paying insurance premiums for service in the form of a happy voice at the end of your phone call. You pay for somebody else to pay your bills. The risk of those bills needing to be paid will affect the cost.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:12 PM
-4

Car insurance is more expensive for men. Yes, only because companies can get away with charging men more for things. Can you name something that men and women get the same service from but the woman has to pay more? As a group men do not get the same service from an insurance company as women do as a group. The actuarial risk is higher for men.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:08 PM
6

And normalized racial makeup, unlike the over represented white we have now.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 06:30 AM
15

Arguably, she actually accomplished her real goal, which was not necessarily to win a settlement - although that would have been nice. Pao wanted to create buzz in her name. She has seriously improved her job prospects among any number of gov't funded organizations such as NOW. By doing so, she killed her chances of being in a financial company, and all but a handful of tech companies where appearance matters most, but mostly those jobs would have been unavailable after having been let go anyway…
/r/MensRights05/04/15 06:25 AM
1

People who have never once been told that "If you let the Tank die again, i will fucking rape you. You worthless piece of trash, why did we even recruit you into the guild you lowlife fuck face ass? I hope you choke to death on your candy while i skull fuck you with your eye-juices as lube (actual quote)". Aww, EQ. I will never gain those years back. cry
/r/MensRights04/04/15 06:16 PM
14

It's based around the false narrative that not only are there some people out there who don't know raping is bad, but that it's actually a majority who feel that way. You can't "teach away rape" anymore than you could "teach away murder"
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:52 PM
20

ADHD is code for "doesn't act like a girl" I'd consider anybody medicating a young child like that, be they teacher, doctor, parent, or elected official, to be engaging in child abuse causing lifelong problems. They should be punished accordingly.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:49 PM
12

Judge Orders Man To Marry Woman Who Tried To Set Him On Fire Uh. No. The judge offered a lesser sentence to the woman if the man agreed to marry her. Argue that he's an idiot, but he's choosing to marry her. He was not ordered to, and such an order would be clearly unenforceably unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 08:46 AM
1

I mean, you don't have to listen or watch for very long before you run into something that clearly says they've tossed their impartiality out the window. CNN? MSNBC? ABC? CBS? NYT? Taken out of context, your sentence here applies to all media, major or otherwise.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 08:26 AM
9

So all statistics in the article are unsourced, yet you choose to accept them. None of them are new insights. I don't ask for a citation when somebody claims gravity exists either. The book is a year old and draws data from studies and Pew polling from the last decade. That doesn't really change anything. The gender wage gap isn't about single people No, it's about all people, and you can't point at data about a sub category of people and call it a disproof. Look again, I had to make a quick edi…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 05:16 AM
10

Nonsense. Torabi asked 1000 people, but that "confirmed" the data from an unspecified source, which no evidence was given to suggest that the data is actually comparable That's because it's an article about a book, not the book. The book has citations. So you either accept that this survey doesn't represent the population, or this author just disproved the whole wage gap concept without bring in type of job or education levels or hours worked or any of the other reasons commonly mentioned to dis…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 04:56 AM
14

It's no surprise that the person with the bigger vested interest in finances would want to be the decision maker regarding those matters, is it? There is a direct comparison there that you're refusing to see, which takes quite an effort on your part, since it's all in the same paragraph "in households where the husband earns more money, both spouses share in the financial decision making. But in marriages where the wife brings home a bigger paycheck, the woman is twice as likely as her husband t…
/r/MensRights04/04/15 02:53 AM
2

I vote for two things: Gun rights, and equality under the law. The latter is an absolute stand in for my view of Mens' Rights. To that end: I vote against every Democrat on every ticket.
/r/MensRights03/04/15 11:51 PM
1

First of all, what does that have to do with this? Everything. It's how insurance risk is determined. Risk determines the cost. Since you don't understand how risk is determined, you pretend that it's all discrimination and substitute outrage for actual knowledge. Incidentally, I have a master's degree in chemistry as well as an MBA, so I'm definitely no stranger to math. Words. You've shown you don't understand risk determination, and that matters more than your claims.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 09:25 AM
0

In any case, you obviously don't value equality I absolutely do. Which is why differing risks in insurance should carry commensurate differences in costs. I have no respect for people like you. And I have no respect for people who hide mathematical illiteracy behind outrage.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 08:56 AM
-2

It isn't about the math. It's what they are allowed to do with the math. i.e., charge the person a rate commensurate to the risk they represent. If they can discriminate based on gender, then what's to stop them from basing it on race too? When races represent differences in risk they should, and the public should be questioning anytime risk isn't properly charged as that is the real discrimination. You're demanding women subsidize your auto insurance. I gather from your responses you're probabl…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:55 AM
-2

What is relevant is that they make an assumption about you based on your gender and discriminate against you solely based on that assumption That's the math. Actuarial tables are very accurate, and it's extremely relevant. Without actuarial tables, insurance companies wouldn't exist. Nobody would know what the risk is. If you want to prove that you're not the average, then stay with that company and prove it. That's exactly what the good-driver discounts are. Don't expect them to take you at you…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:03 AM
2

Math, that's how. I understand math is hard, but car insurance for men should cost more. Just like health insurance for women should cost more, given the requirements of what is covered. The problem comes about when health insurance is forcibly "equalized" by the gov't while auto insurance is allowed to represent actual costs.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 06:31 AM
9

Notable that both of Cleese's daughters hate the third ex wife. One was from his first wife, the other from the second. The youngest daughter did a stand up tour, and calling out the vitriol and hate of Eichelberger was a main part of it.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 11:30 PM
2

Guess more minority presence only means certain kinds of minorities. They're not even subtle about it either. In California public university admissions, whites are almost exactly admitted at the same ratio they are in the population at large. The only group over represented is asians. Efforts to mandate that admissions match population percentages by race only has the effect of trading meritorious asians for unqualified blacks and latinos. Whites would be admitted at the same unchanged rate.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 10:24 PM
3

It won't change the fact that he doesn't find YOU arousing. At best you will only get some 'pity sex'. Remember, when a man refuses to have sex with a woman, he's raping her.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:24 AM
10

You can increase the woman population in schools by allowing those who are unqualified to attend anyways, but you'll never be able to get the unqualified into a high profile position such as University Challenge. A meritocracy is gender blind, and feminists hate that.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 04:30 AM
7

Funny because today on the news radio station every break for commercials includes one that's calling Alzheimer's a woman's disease, and expressly using that to call for more funding.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:20 PM
30

...so was the original argument. I mean, that's why there are no white guys in the original, right? Right? All those car horns happening right when white guys said something. As if the universe was conspiring to hide how awful white guys are!
/r/MensRights29/03/15 06:02 PM
1

Homosexuality was de-listed as a disease (by itself...) after a politically-generated vote in 1972. Immediately replaced by "ego-dystonic homosexuality", where basically wanting to not be gay and yet being gay is a disease. Given the time period and society of the time, it was the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 08:47 PM
-18

You have a lot of pictures of Hitler......just sayin
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:17 AM
11

First, define "patriarchy theory" Second, show how the US, 2015, meets the definition you use. Such a finding must withstand critical debate. Failure to do so just shows how "patriarchy theory" is nothing more than a phrase used to terminate conversations feminists are losing.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:07 AM
1

Actuarial tables show a significant difference in risk between a young male drive and a young female. Insurance is a business, not a hand out to risky men, so price differentials are reasonable. What is not reasonable is that price differences are legally barred for the similar difference in risk for health insurance between men and women.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 04:02 AM
0

Kinsey's error was placing it on a single scale, with homosexuality and heterosexuality opposing. It's really two separate scales.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:15 AM
1

In the 80s, they were concerned that homosexuality would be seen as a disease to cure. In fact, the DSM third edition listed "ego-dystonic homosexuality" as a disease, so the political goal of making homosexuality a choice, as opposed to a disease was prevalent so that it wouldn't be seen as something to cure. The science of the time backed up that position and goal. In 1986, the disease classification was struck from the DSM and by 1990 the political goals had changed to one where it was desire…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:13 AM
6

"The heckler's veto involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke a violent response. In such situations, the mere possibility of a violent reaction to protected speech is simply not a constitutional basis on which to restrict the right to speak." -- Roe v Crawford, Justice Riley (Yes, the above article is about Canada not the US, but US schools are operating in the exact same manner)
/r/MensRights25/03/15 02:07 AM
4

This isn't even a rare occurrence. 18 states make party hosts liable for damage caused by adults who are legally of age to drink that they serve. Nine more states, for 27 total, make the party host liable when the drinker is underage, as most undergraduate drinking is. http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/social-host-liability.html
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:56 AM
2

But now you lose than title X money, and eventually even your accreditation. On what grounds? The Dear Colleague letter has no force of law, it just describes how this specific administration interprets the law, which is ultimately up to the courts.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:52 AM
2

Oh well. Men should be damning universities in court at every opportunity. Federal rules may make "either choice" a potential danger for universities, but that claim ignores the fact that university administrators want to act as if the (non regulatory empowered) Dear Colleague letter was law. Their goal is as little muss and fuss as possible and they do that by expelling the accused as quickly as possible, in the hopes that no criminal case will come of it. Every sex assault related expelling by…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:51 AM
0

but I am going to take it as an article of of faith that you're referring to ACTUAL white-hate, male-hate Actual white hate male hate etc that's expressed by a HUGE percentage of leftists, who pretend it's not bigotry by rolling some pathetic story about power.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 01:19 PM
1

I'm not white, although not black, and experienced no such caring.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 11:41 PM
-3

And the further you move right, the more you find racist, paranoid, civil war re-enacting, flat-earthers living in cabins in the middle of the woods with their 25 children all named "Ezekiel" who think that outer space is just a theory Perhaps in the US, although I'd still argue it. Cruz is damn far right, with a law degree from Harvard. The thing about the left wing crazies is they're international. They exhibit the same symptoms of white hate, male hate, rich hate, and just generally loving an…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 11:32 PM
1

She has to register as a sex offender, this is an almost unheard of punishment for a woman violating a boy. I mean, as weak as the punishment is, it's notably harsher than other examples.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 09:28 PM
-1

"'People who spout insane SJW bullshit are mostly far-left' does not equal 'far-leftists, as a unified ideology, spout insane SJW bullshit.'" The prevalence of SJW bullshit approaches unity as you move further left.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 09:21 PM
5

That's absolutely true, but if you go into a conservative space and say something along the lines of, oh I don't know, "America isn't a Christian nation" or "companies shouldn't be allowed to hide taxable income in the Bahamas", As someone who has lived in the SFBay Area, California and now lives in a red state stronghold I can state with total confidence that the average red staters care a lot less about me being an atheist than the average bay area person cares about my long list of anti-left …
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:53 PM
-1

As a far-left progressive, I would like to submit my objection to the idea that Azealia Banks is somehow a representative of 'progressives' or even 'liberal women'. Far left progressives - and the further left, the more common - regularly excuse both racism and sexism with tired nonsense about how such things against whites and men don't really count. So your objection really isn't at all meaningful.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:49 PM
1

Committed by somebody who once looked at the victim, that's domestic violence related!
/r/MensRights23/03/15 05:44 PM
7

Of the existing subs /r/FeMRADebates[1] is where I'd go It's a reddit which sports an interaction policy that itself stifles open minded debate, backed up by a moderation team that actively discriminates that policy to the benefit of feminists because otherwise they don't like to come play if they're not getting special benefits. It's quite possibly the best possible example, but that's because feminists don't want actual debate.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 04:38 PM
4

I seriously wonder what ever happened with therapy. If a person needs trigger warnings, perhaps some professional help is in order. Otherwise, how will this person ever be able to go through life? The people who scream and whine about triggers compare them to PTSD. Except PTSD is treated like you suggest, with therapy and then leading into actual exposure. These people are not treating a mental problem they have, they're using it for Oppression Points(tm) so they can be better liked by their pee…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:10 AM
2

the college isn't allowed to kick you out if it's still in the hands of the law. While that's a reasonable position, it is absolutely not the legal reality in the US.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 12:47 AM
2

Federal law restricts handgun sales to age 21 and up. What does the authors seventeen year old daughter have to do with anything? Congrats women, this is the leftist liberal infrastructure you've helped foster. One that considers you forever 17.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 12:02 AM
3

You totally misunderstood. Not providing anything is neglect. . The custodial parent receiving welfare is not providing anything. Rather, the State is. Were you consistent, you would be calling them neglectful as well. Except, you're not consistent. Your second point is straight incorrect. Many people on welfare do not have children. Welfare comes in many shapes and forms. And the context was one of the US program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SSI isn't relevant. Earned Income Tax …
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:22 PM
5

A father should have to produce something for the child lest it be neglect. So you consider the mother being on welfare as neglect as well? Because to fail to do so is inequality, yet again. If both parents are on welfare Welfare in the US is not available without child custody. It's not strictly illegal, but funds are insufficient to provide for others. So the criteria of "both parents are on welfare" is impossible if they are separated. Even if the custodial parent is on welfare they should no…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 09:36 AM
8

Should they not have to pay anything at all? Under the right circumstance, they should not. As a possibility, if a father has an income low enough that they would be collecting welfare if they had custody of the child, then they should owe no child support. It is inequality under the law to give dole to mother+child while demanding money from an equally poor father.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 07:47 AM
28

“Deadbeat Dads” are largely a myth [75% of dads pay their child support] 1a. At least 75% of dads who don't pay child support have support orders so high compared to their income that they could not mathematically pay their full debt in ten years. 1b. 70% of men in arrears on child support have income of $10k/yr or less.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 01:24 AM
0

It's so sad that this judge has just ended her potential for appointment to a federal court. Don't even know her politics, meaning which President would appoint her, but having a judge that can actually sentence in the neutral manner required by the law and constitution is more than most judges. However: Title is clickbait. She is not a pedophile. Statutory rape is not child molestation.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 08:49 PM
11

Let's be honest here. That reporter is a bit of a wimp. In an interview with BuzzFeed, the journalist revealed his thoughts on the exchange, saying he never considered using the full word but did think about walking out of the room. I'd have said it in the context of the interview. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 08:47 PM
3

Some Twitch streamers are glorified camgirls, there's no doubt about that And yet the only reason to not be an actual camgirl in that situation is either a) they're under 18, or victimizing boys under 18, and the whole thing is legally questionable, or b) they're trying to pretend even to themselves that they've not actually fallen that far into the pit of despair.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:28 PM
4

Gay's who don't fall in line with the female superiority movement are "deeply misogynist", just ask Rose McGowan! Or the Redstockings I personally 'watch' Twitch primarily by not watching it, only listening to the audio. I know before hand with 100% accuracy that any stream with an oversized facecam showing a woman is going to be miserable.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:21 PM
5

What? We have a constitution in Australia. You have implied protection of rights, not actual protection. In both Europe and Australia, such a flimsy legal "protection" has led to such things as "hate speech" laws. "offend, insult, humiliate" would be perfectly legal, if you had free speech.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 11:26 AM
4

US laws coming to Australia? From the impression I get of posts here, Australia is already much worse than the US. We have the constitution here, you don't. The only incident of "flash incarcerations" in the US is for parole violators, when a parole officer "points" and they go to jail.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 06:02 AM
6

Banned from class for critical thought! That should be a tenure-ending action of the professor. This beyond protecting "unpopular" lines of study - the reason tenure exists - and is a direct bowel movement on the entire purpose of education.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 05:47 AM
1

That's why the court would decide.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 06:53 PM
-13

If it's a legitimate debt, then more power to her. $50k in repairs over 15 years is quite possibly normal wear and tear, or it's possibly some abnormal damage. A court can decide. But she can't just demand it as if she was his wife.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 12:09 PM
1

Good. It was justified lawsuits against the schools actively blocking filing rape charges that started this spiral into oblivion. Now the schols are required to "Do Something Anything Just Do Something!" and are still actively blocking formal police involvement because they believe it makes the schools appear bad. Sue them until they do nothing other than call the police when somebody makes a claim.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 01:43 AM
2

Unfortunately, it'll never be subject to a "takedown" as it survives in the low information voter. If it can be explained away in 10 words - and it can't - then the vast majority stop paying attention. In the US, there absolutely will be a law in the near future that's going to have the effect of cutting men's pay by statute. The only resolution to this will occur in the courts. Keep in mind who makes and approves appointments to the courts in mind when you vote.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 12:42 AM
10

Horseshoe effect. Is it authoritarian leftist overreach, or conservative puritan offensiveness.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 11:50 PM
12

Note the original poster, invertedgender. It's a gender reversed post made in reaction to this original Now imagine it was posted standalone, and not "inverted gender" and the shitstorm it would generate.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 09:41 PM
7

That means slightly under half of under 35s, and 83% of over 55s, getting married are idiots.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:23 PM
0

"The business" intentionally deceived you by serving you food that wasn't what you ordered. This is potentially a crime in which the woman herself could be charged, but is certainly a civil penalty against the business. She committed a crime by purposefully contaminating food Get a lawyer. Have them write a letter that you'll be suing them for fraudulent product substitution. She will be fired. Note that it's probably not worth actually suing, but getting a letter written won't be costly.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:04 AM
1

I began hating them because they outright HURT me. Really badly. They have betrayed my trust and damaged my sense of dignity in the worst ways possible. So, just like every man who has an ex-wife. Most of us still manage to not hate women, although those that do after being legally robbed like that I don't really condemn. Also, every man who is a victim of a false rape accusation. Most of them still manage to not hate women. I certainly would, had it ever happened to me.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 09:57 AM
5

We do in the US, surprisingly it's not female only by ACA requirement like so many other things are. Canada apparently still doesn't vaccinate boys.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 06:42 AM
3

Can't have those children being a burden on their parents.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 06:42 AM
1

Law is societies attempt to generalize morals. When your morals do not match law, no one but yourself cares.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:46 AM
1

I wonder how long it'll take for them to get together and burn a bunch of books written by white men. Well, we've already had a tumblrista burn C.H. Sommers book to wide appraise.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 06:26 PM
2

and I'd apply it towards maternity leave as well. I felt it was clear by the use of "Parental", not "paternal" that I include maternity.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 02:12 AM
4

Venn Diagram of Adblock use
/r/MensRights15/03/15 12:51 AM
2

Requiring parental leave, paid or otherwise, is an improper interference by the gov't between the employer and employee.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 07:24 PM
10

The sad thing is, this was all funded by a little fender bender she got in while we were sorting all this out (friendly). She did the stupid 1-800-WINWIN or whatever and sued them for like $25k for her "neck" being sore or something. Ethically challenged woman behaves unethically. Check. So when that money came, she used it for this. ...and the State rewarded her again. Yay big gov't!
/r/MensRights14/03/15 05:29 AM
37

Now watch this bill for feminist lobbying. Not just pro women, but anti-male. The bill doesn't even require the test for children born in wedlock. So when you catch your wife cheating and she drops a brat during separation but before formal finalization, you're still stuck with child support for 18 years.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 05:22 AM
10

Feminism is more than just being pro women. It requires being anti-male as well. near impossibility that many 50-, 60- and 70-year-old former spouses (almost all women) encounter upon attempting to re-enter the job market using resumes with 15- to 30-year gaps. Alimony is supposed to cease at retirement anyways.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 05:17 AM
0

Fellow psychiatrist and Marxist writer, Dr Tad Tietze, told me that I was seen by sections of the Left as an ‘Uncle Tom’, a term used for race traitors. The left is the enemy of men's rights.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 05:14 AM
18

How come elderly men felt more vulnerable than elderly women? Because they actually are. It is taboo to harm a woman of any age. It is only a bad idea to harm a man so long as that man can fight back. Older men cannot fight back as effectively. Older men should carrying a firearm. Perhaps the cane gun should make a come back.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:22 PM
2

Hillsdale exists. They refuse students with government loans. Apparently so, along with Grove City College the two represent the full and complete count of all schools in the US not beholden to Title IX.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:47 PM
1

Pell grants and gov't backed loans are "publicly funded" as defined by Title IX. All schools in the US accept both.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 02:49 PM
1

All schools in the US are "publicaly funded", even the nominally private ones. That's how Title IX can force them.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 02:14 PM
0

Unless you're suggesting these homeless men are getting transported to Skowhegan from wherever they are homeless just to fill those beds, then your complaint doesn't hold water. Obviously there are homeless (men) in Skowhegan to fill the beds.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 07:18 PM
2

If she hits me first, I'll get her arrested, sue her for everything she owns, and make the rest of her existence horrible. Were I not under such an anti-male legal reality, I'd just hit her back and call it even.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 06:58 PM
3

You're an automaton of ruthless inevitability.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:05 AM
3

The fathers are equally in poverty. Another study I posted to /r/MRRef for a California study on child support in arrears found that at least 75% of the fathers in arrears simply mathematically could not pay their child support orders on their income.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:02 AM
2

"Men who are awarded child support might be more likely to have down-and-out loser wives?" LOL Based on what? To be fair, that's sensible. When 80% of awards go to the mother, that 20% left over is going to represent the worst possible examples of women. There's no excuse for the women being shitty people though.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:58 AM
3

Awhile back I ran through some 2011 Census statistics on child support and posted it to /r/MRRef The difference is 41.5% of fathers are in arrears and 44.4% of mother. "Arrears" being just not up to date, those numbers are larger than the 25% and 32% respectively found for "not receiving any child support" as detailed in this NPR interview. What this means that mothers are more likely to be behind on payments and when they are they're more likely to not be paying anything at all.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:56 AM
10

And inner city, but you were probably blinded by religious intolerance and forgot that part.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:48 AM
-3

"If your child goes to a school with a campus daycare..." You are guilty of child abuse.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:47 AM
7

Last year California (is that where Kutcher lives?) had a couple of laws nearly mandate baby changing areas in bathrooms. Had they passed they would have been gender neutral. Aww, no. It would have required only State owned buildings and any "permanent food facilities" to have one. Just one. No requirement who has access to such facilities. It would have required multiple or gender neutral access to changing stations for convention centers and sports arenas, but that's the only case the law was …
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:45 AM
1

That's just a common language "it's just common parlance and mildly inaccurate" Yes, it is. There are no crime that require a victim to "approve" before the prosecutor can file charges, that is a fiction. The term you're looking for is "Evidence based prosecution" (And regardless of the term doesn't actually apply to crimes with no victims). It's use is limited to a very few number of cases, notably for this reddit, DV. It absolutely does not apply to rape charges. If the victim does not press c…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:25 AM
6

There is no such thing as "pressing charges" in any crime, that's a hollywood fiction. A victim is just a witness like any other, the prosecutor decides who will have charges brought against them and who doesn't. That's not accurate at all. First of all, regardless of if you want to call it "pressing charges" or "filling charges", when a prosecutor does it it amounts to the same thing. Second, some charges are not filed unless the victim approves. In fact, the list that doesn't require victim ap…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:14 AM
8

But the police would have responded the same if it was the other way around There is no "other way around". According to the law, there are two child pornographers described in this article. This is a shitty situation, but it's not a men's rights issue. It is absolutely a mens rights issue when a crime that does not require a victim complaint for charges to be filed, that the decision to press charges by the prosecutor is decided based on the sex of the victim and perpetrator. It's a literal cas…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:35 PM
8

But the system didn't charge just one Read the post you're replying too. The boy was charged with two separate crimes. One of which does not require a victim complaint for charges to be filed. The girl should have been charged with the same crime regardless of how the boy's parents felt.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:28 PM
10

Child pornography does not require the victim or their parents to press charges. She should have been charged on those grounds regardless of what the boys parents wanted.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:14 PM
12

They exchanged photos, and in fact the boy was charged on child pornography charges, as well as for sex. There is absolutely no requirement that the "victims parents" file charges against the "perpetrator" in cases of child pornography. The claim is laughable. Now, a reasonable legal system wouldn't charge either of them, but only an unjust system would only charge one.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:12 PM
5

I bet if somebody tried to open a new men's only college they would find accreditation being blocked at every avenue. Cries of discrimination and misogyny. There are only three such non religious schools in the US today. 46 womens (maybe 45 now), enough that Forbes could make a top ten list.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 10:29 AM
2

Urine tests can be valid in as few as four days since sex if it's immediately before her period, or seven days otherwise.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 10:19 AM
3

That means that the issues which straight men face and the issues which gay men face are different and do not really intersect most of the time. Meh. In regards to DV, you'll probably have less chance to be accused, but not a zero chance. You could be charged with DV by a non-sexual housemate. In regards to the entire rest of out of balance enforcement and punishment men receive from the "justice" system, it applies just as much to gay men as straight. Plus, as it goes, there's a good chance a g…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:35 AM
0

That is patently untrue. Family courts routinely force one parent to have less than 50% physical custody just so they can order child support payments. My very first post was "should". Nothing has changed about that. The parent agreed to no such terms. If you disagree, feel free to show me a copy of the contract that a parent signs indicating agreement to this debt. Contracts can be both verbal and implied. You show a massive ignorance to the law and reality to consider anything without a "signe…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:40 AM
2

You've been telling us that for the mere minutes your account had existed prior to your post?
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:32 AM
1

No, they were influenced by being journalists educated in feminist feelz universities and rubbing elbows with the multi million dollar industry of manufacturing outrage. Nothing about shirtgate was armchair.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:20 AM
-1

What do you think influenced the people's minds that decided to make it a big deal in the media Journalists are always reactive to feminist feelz.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 12:55 AM
1

Armchair activism made an amazing scientist who landed a spacecraft on a fricken moving comet cry No, the media did, and the media would have made it a big deal with or without a change.org petition. In fact, they started making it a big deal and that's what led to the petition. Had it just been 5000 people signing something which the media ignored, as they would do for a MRA petition, then he wouldn't have even heard that there was a complaint.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 12:33 AM
1

That then raises the question of if you think that someone who does have physical custody, but less than 50% (e.g. the every other weekend type deal) should still be required to pay CS. Yes. The only reason to have anything less than 50%, but not 0%, is personal choice. There is no discount. A parent who is dangerous to the child should not ever see the child. A parent who is not, should have joint custody. A woman can simply take the kids and move, and there isn't much a man can do about it. An…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 11:04 PM
1

And he pays by providing his child a home etc, as has already been established. No, he has no custody either because he is too dangerous to be around the child or has chosen to not have any. Moving the goal posts. We're not talking about parents with zero physical custody. Yes, we are. Have been from the start. No goal posts moved.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:07 PM
1

Her bills aren't his bills. They're her bills. He has his own bills. So no, he doesn't owe her for that. He owes for his responsibility for the child. That is not revoked just because he doesn't want to be involved with the child or is found to be unfit and dangerous to be around the child. You accepted the debt by agreeing too and participating in the child's life. The debt doesn't disappear just because you changed your mind.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:52 PM
0

Not if they don't have custody. Not their responsibility No. Responsibility is accepted earlier in the child's life. It does not disappear under any circumstance. If the parent is either proven unfit to be around the child or simply chooses to not participate, the responsibility still exists. You said yourself the welfare of the child isn't the issue, so you can't use that as an excuse now. And it's not. Responsibility for the child is a recurring debt.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:49 PM
8

South Africa? HIV. 18.5% of the adult population is infected. (Around 0.3% in the US)
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:19 PM
-15

So that people can get the warm fuzzy feeling from writing petitions instead of doing something? Thxbutnothx.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:16 PM
1

..as long as you completely ignore the fact that parents with custody are already supporting their children by providing them homes, food, clothing, transportation, medical care and everything else the custodial parent is providing. And the non custodial parent owes for that. Half the minimum cost.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:49 PM
-1

What debt? There is no debt, except that manufactured by fiat by the government. Your personal call for elimination of parental responsibility for fathers who are actually the father and agreed to being part of the child's life at the time of birth is one I reject wholeheartedly and one in my experience so does the entirety of the MRM. In fact, your position is one proposed only by false flag operators trying to generate quotable attack material.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:47 PM
3

There are 28 words on the graphic, only 20 used to express the "statistics" There are 1177 words in the article, almost all of them are required to give a proper historical and factual background to finding that the statistics are false. That is why the "statistics" will never die. Even if every sane person in the world did nothing but link to those 1177 words everytime somebody tried to post this meme or make this claim, those people who want to believe it will never follow the link, and those …
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:35 PM
-2

I knew what you meant, of course. I'm just clearly illustrating the insanity inherent in such a position. Except, you didn't, because it's not. We've had this conversation before, and that's why I recognize you're purposefully obtuse. Child support is to pay a recurring debt, and the wealth of the recipient is irrelevant just like any debt repayment.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:23 PM
4

She is rationalizing the punishment of men for activities they had no part of, because they had not been born, and for which she did not suffer from, again because she had not been born. That is instantly rejected out of hand in every part of modern society except "Social Justice". Should the Kennedys and other Irish have been refused participation in politics in punishment for the Irish once having ran the Democratic Machines that controlled New York? Should we bill a child for the welfare paym…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:17 PM
-1

So a mom remarries a guy who makes 200k a year, and the father works at 7-11 making minimum wage. He still has to pay her child support? In what world or language was I unclear? Yes. In what fantasy world does that serve the "best interests" of the child? Irrelevant.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:56 PM
1

Do you not see it as a legal way of trying to bypass the legalization of abortion? Is it bypassing the legalization of fire arms to ban the ammunition? Obama thinks not. They're both constitutional rights.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:54 AM
1

As for your complaints about my examples, I'll use the Texas one mentioned in another comment by a different user. Laws which, as the constitution requires, still allow abortion. Was there an issue?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:42 AM
2

All within the last 20 years. The first two are the same case, and apply to a specific style of late term abortion. A period where US laws are far more liberal than the EUs. A time when the fetus is an actual viable independant entity. So again, I repeat: That society is trying to come to a balance between your rights and the fetuses for late term abortions while simultaneously making early term under no restriction is absolutely ridiculous? http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/new-bi…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:28 AM
5

I very much disagree with pointing to his post, though. It's not like he's going to realize this posts exists, the meta bots are appropriately banned there. Now anybody who went to the r/suicidewatch thread to post irrelevancies, calling people to arms for the MRA, should be taken out and castrated / turned into a white knight, but the rules of that sub already stops anything so nonconstructive toward his issues and request for help.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 09:04 AM
-1

No, it's more the fact that there are legitimate discussions being held to ban abortion, or limit the avalibility of birth control, is ridiculous. No, there really isn't. Not unless you're thinking "legitimate discussion" includes people who have no power to affect political change. In which case, there are "legitimate discussion" about the gendercide of men, of nuking Mecca, and the immediate destruction of all automobiles.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:53 AM
0

The fact that there is any debate at all about some of these things is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. That society paying for your birth control is under debate is ridiculous? That society is trying to come to a balance between your rights and the fetuses for late term abortions while simultaneously making early term under no restriction is absolutely ridiculous? I'd agree that voiding women's consent when the consent to sex is without duress or compromise is "absolutely ridiculous". Tha…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:25 AM
1

with the exception of birth control, Birth control is not illegal anywhere in the US. You're trying to conflate other people not being forced to pay for your birth control with a ban. The only way to make birth control less controlled by the gov't would be to make it over the counter, a position Republicans have tried to pass but Democrats block because...drumroll...insurance would no longer be required to cover it under ACA. abortion The majority of the US has more liberal access to abortion th…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 08:10 AM
4

Most states cap recompense for "legally authorized false imprisonment" far lower than his $9.2 mil. 24 states have no statutory awards at all (Although its possible, but unlikely to win with a court case) California, for example, would award this guy $730k, with no possibility of winning more in court. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/ This guy is only winning as much because DC has no cap.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 07:42 AM
-1

The r/news post, which is actually on the front page of /all The prior r/mensrights post
/r/MensRights09/03/15 07:37 AM
46

Being killed because of someone saying I did something that I didn't? That's what I fear most walking down the street, but I'm not a woman. The whole "rape is worse than murder" is such a horrible feminist position.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 07:36 AM
6

As I've argued in other areas in the past, somebody who is actually on death row has far better legal options and a chance at manufacturing reasonable doubt to later get released. Those serving life do not have the automatic appeals, much less the free legal support, and is more likely to serve the term. This while the death sentence is so delayed that it may never come into play anyways. So yeah, I'd vote for "only" life in prison for somebody I felt was truly guilty. Because it would punish th…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 04:30 AM
0

The left is anti-men.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 04:27 AM
7

Despite that this article is satirical, a parent who has full custody of a child should be receiving child support from the other parent regardless of their relative incomes. The value paid should be a base minimum defined by the cost of living and raising a child in the area. It should also not vary based on the financial values of the parents. I.e., Lunch Lady Amy should pay the same child support as Bill Gates would. What Really Happened: Tamika had original full custody and was receiving $7,…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:41 AM
16

He's writing a book[1] on this garbage. That somebody of low moral and ethical character would be willing to engage in such a base ploy for financial gain on the grounds of sexist garbage is bad enough, that it's an obvious path that is guaranteed to be successful is far far worse. Being anti-male is profitable in 2015.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:24 AM
15

This is how the due process violations harm poor men far worse than the rich or even moderately wealthy. Somebody who can afford university from their own family funds - particularly a high priced ivy league education - isn't going to just meekly accept being expelled. They're going to do what we've seen is being done: They file lawsuits, and the lawsuits win. When somebody totally reliant on scholarship to even be in school in the first place suffer being expelled even if a court ordered the ex…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:16 AM
2

Were women and girls treated only as equals then he's probably right. But they're treated with more concern than men and boys. They're treated more respectably than men and boys. They're given more rights and privileges than men and boys. And that will not be safe, stable, or prosperous.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 02:55 AM
8

Well the next logical step is to "stop the sexism that makes women drop out"
/r/MensRights09/03/15 02:51 AM
12

That's a slightly different circumstance. MIT has such a large pool of applicants to pick from and such a small number of positions available that they can certainly fill the roles without using unqualified women. Does it mean men more qualified than the least qualified woman who was admitted are not being admitted? Yes. Is it discriminatory? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean that any of those admitted are unqualified to be there, and while such a policy is wrong because it is discriminatory, it w…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 02:03 AM
2

While I'll agree that feminism is a conservative movement Feminism is about as far from a "little c" conservative moment as possible. They do not object to change, rather they are actively seeking out and promoting change. conservative movement, as it is authoritarian Furthermore, "little c" conservative is neither authoritarian or libertarian by explicit definition. Liberal/Conservative, Libertarian/Authoritarian are both entirely separate scales, in which the Democratic and Republican parties …
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:53 AM
1

We've had a lot of republican/conservative control Republicans are not "little c" conservative. They are "Conservative", in that a label is being applied to them by general consensus even though the explicit definition of that label is unquestionably not applicable. Republicans are not against "change or innovation". There is no existent modern political group in any western nation that is against change. All politicians are liberals, all parties are liberals, and the vast majority of citizenry …
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:47 AM
0

I agree to an extent, but Feminism is almost entirely left And the politician left is almost entirely Feminist. In the US, voting for a Democrat is voting against that group of men who are not the top 1%, without exception. When it's an important position like the Senate or even more so President, you could be setting up a situation which will actually change constitutional protections that will literally moot equality under the law. In case I'm being too subtle: Allowing Democrats to appoint Su…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:36 AM
7

While being gender specific for a roommate ad is perfectly legal, if a landlord is advertising an empty unit as women only they are blatantly breaking the law. Contact HUD for Fair Housing Act violation.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:29 AM
8

Courts have found that when sufficient job positions exist and none get filled by women, then the hiring is discriminatory in practice even without specific proof of "solely because they were women". The same would be true for the reverse. Of course, it only applies when women actually apply for the positions in question. Meaning it doesn't apply to such jobs as coal miner or commercial fisherman.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:27 AM
2

More of these please. More squeaky wheel. It's how the feminists have taken over society, and it's the only way to gain equilibrium. It does nothing when discrimination law has to be written in a gender neutral manner when no man actually files suit. The end results of not filing suit in the same circumstance a woman would flows through all the statistic gathering and paints a picture of it only be a woman's problem.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:21 AM
2

Just to generally collect data although the original of this archive is still available. I had made the archive because in a moment of cosmic kismet and irony, I was researching a post along the same lines as the AVfM article that was published. I made a couple other archives as well, as I was doing so for every link I was using, but they're not showing up in my history.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:05 AM
21

Bet you're proud of not having explicit constitutional due process rights now, arn't ya?
/r/MensRights08/03/15 12:39 PM
9

The world works on the reality of squeaky wheel. "Not reporting" things is why Facebook posts calling for men to be killed never get removed, but ones calling a fat woman fat do.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:01 AM
22

'Hey Internet, that subway car was half empty.' That's true in every case. When the car fills up, men are only taking up one space. Until then, nobody should care. I'm pretty sure though that as the car fills up, men will fall back to a single space before the chick with 5 shopping bags does.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 08:09 AM
1

supporting men's rights are an integral part of support feminism Alright, start listing those positions for which politically powerful Feminist groups have lobbied for which help or promote men to equality in the face of female superiority even though they have negative effects on that female superiority. So long as your list is empty, feminism is a political movement dedicated to female superiority
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:08 AM
0

It's a protected right. It is not a right. It's a privilege, and the gov't should not be requiring employers provide it. Should employers be allowed to work you 7 days a week? If I hire somebody for a position to work 30 days straight dragging live electrical wire in 6 inches of water while I sit on a platform getting blowjobs and insulting their sex/race/whatever and a midget follows them around blowing cigar smoke in their face and kicking their knees then that's the job I'm hiring for and emp…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 02:34 AM
2

It's my username. It's also greek, meaning a free man.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:44 PM
12

For every 228 minutes men spend working, women work for 151 minutes http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2013.pdf BTW: There are only 3.5 million women of that 56 million who currently want a job. In comparison to 3 million men who want a job of only 37 million not in the workforce. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm Only 6.25% of women not in the work force want a job. 8% of men do.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:37 PM
4

All the ones I've met would consider themselves feminists. Because they've been duped into believing feminism is about equality. "I'm a feminist" isn't sufficient to actually pin down actual political positions, it's a statement said just as quickly by those who think gendercide would be a good start. And who are you to decide what isn't satire or humor? I'm the reader, which gives me all the power necessary. And equatable to you, as well. That you find humor in screeching and whining says more …
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:20 PM
8

A fantastic response to this comes from the unlikely place of 2x and given the upvotes and gold it's likely representative of the group. Simultaneously, the Feminism post gushing over the article and spouting social justice nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:16 PM
7

Very few feminists are comedians, yet the vast majority are whiners, and all the whiners claim to be comedians. This isn't a Poe issue. You're just simply wrong. This isn't satire or any form of humor.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:07 PM
10

Author may or may not be physically ugly, but her sense of entitlement and refusal to deal with her issues as an adult certainly make her socially ugly.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:05 PM
2

No, it's not fair. Of course, affirmative action is never fair. That's the point. Affirmative action is to give unearned advantages to people on arbitrary characteristics like melanin and genitalia. That the recipients of those unearned advantages are the majority of the participants has never been a concern, the purpose was to give them an advantage not to equalize the playing field.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 07:41 PM
16

Yes.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 02:30 PM
20

She was also ordered to carry out 200 hours community service and attend a women's group So, twice the sentence of a woman committing murder.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 01:16 PM
1

Suicide isn't an issue until women do it. Just today on the radio while driving I heard a spot about how women are "increasingly using more effective forms of suicide than drug overdose, like hanging or guns" and so thereby increasing their rate of successful suicides, and how all that is a horrible problem that societies money should be spent on. So when women start using traditionally male methods of suicide, rising in actual deaths but still nowhere near the rate of male suicides it's a probl…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 07:01 AM
1

Ahh, that explains why the CSS was still being processed, and not hiding the voting arrows besides. "np." is basically useless without RES.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 06:48 AM
9

do you really think they wouldn't put her in the back of a cop car for 45 minutes while they try to sort out what's happening? They absolutely would not. They would call paramedics, and possibly a social worker who would spend their time explaining to her how she's the victim and she'll be safe if she just tells them where the guy is. Unless she attacks an officer, no force would be used against her, such as handcuffing her. Then if she's insistent and refuses to leave or say where the guy is so…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 01:14 AM
11

When a male victim calls the cops the most likely result is he gets arrested. This is frequently policy and not discretion of the officer. Not too long ago, SF cops relaxed their policy in DV situations to change from "Always arrest the male, if there is only one male" to "The male must leave, if he is not able then detain him overnight." (The difference between them is an arrest ends up in front of a judge). The policy does not take into account who the victim is, and in fact is designed to giv…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 01:09 AM
2

I was just researching a post to put on /r/mensrightslinks in regards to NOW's opposition to default custody when I ran across this AVfM article. Interesting coincidence.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:07 PM
-2

Unpaid time off to take care of a family member without fear of losing your job isn't them forcing them to provide them a benefit! It's a benefit to the employee to be able to take time off work upon demand. It's certainly not a benefit to the employer, who gains nothing.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:32 PM
-4

I don't think you understand how FMLA works in the United States. I'm absolutely sure you don't understand the argument I'm making because that's not relevant. The State should not be requiring benefits be provided. Full stop. No modifers.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:14 PM
2

Yes, because the USA is the centre of the world. Nobody said that. You're the only one trying to force your view on others. Why do you act like Canada is the center of the world? Why do you spell center incorrectly?
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:30 PM
-4

Childless people simply have nothing to do with a discussion on parental rights That's irrelevant. There are no parental rights in getting State mandated leave. The state isn't forcing employers to provide leave. The whole point of this post is that the State forced a man's employer to provide leave. The only thing that's being prevented here is gender discrimination based on the sex of the parent. And yet you still approve of discrimination based on having a child. Then it's apparent we're not …
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:15 PM
2

You have a right of centre party and a far right party. No, we don't. Your center has no meaning or value here.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:13 PM
-3

The only person who's apparently fine with discrimination based on making babies is you, since that's the logic used to give men less paternal leave than women. Not all people not having children are men. Certainly not all the people not having children are men who would receive parental leave because their partner did. How did this ever escape your attention? I for one, am perfectly fine with an employer voluntarily and through their own recognizance discriminating on gender or having children.…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 02:21 PM
-3

Sounds like you only respect an employers right to operate how you decide [Citation Needed] Quote where I said any such thing. No handwaving accepted.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 02:18 PM
1

He misrepresented what he was offering, she asked to be reimbursed for money spent under a false pretext, and the readership infers that she might otherwise tell his wife about his cheating That "infer" is clear blackmail and she would have a hard time maintaining a reasonable doubt unless the feminists get to rewrite the laws. And somehow that is extremely illegal, and therefore this is an outrage because his rights have been violated and she's being opportunistic because she has a vagina and d…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 02:14 PM
-7

The EEOC is not forcing them to provide it. They are forcing the company to provide it equally These two sentences are contradictory. Would you be okay with a company providing paid parental leave to whites but not blacks? Or a company that only provides health insurance to Christians? Yes and yes. Or the reverse.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 01:46 PM
-4

I'm not childfree, I just respect a private individuals rights to operate how they decide too. Even when that individual is an employer.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 01:45 PM
-4

Why is that any worse than discriminating based on making babies? Which apparently you have no problem with. What the fuck are you rambling about, son? I can't imagine how he question could be any clearer. They have the right to not be discriminated against based on gender No, they have the privilege of the gov't interfering the private lives of individuals.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 01:44 PM
1

And you have yet to put forth any decision that declared any rule invalid I.F. v. Tulane, again regardless of the fact that you spent 100 messages claiming otherwise that you deleted out of embarrassment.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 01:02 PM
1

Due process is not restricted to criminal cases, and is the exact reason schools are losing in court - regardless of the fact that you spent 100 messages saying they weren't that you deleted out of embarrassment.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 12:54 PM
1

You are in error.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 11:19 AM
1

"You pretended to be single and in so doing deceived me (and your wife). Give me back the money I spent on a date that occurred under false pretext, and I won't pursue the matter any further" is not even in the same realm as murder, rape, vote fraud, human trafficking, terrorism, or killing endangered species. Come the fuck on Other than the endangered species one, they absolutely are. They are all exercises of force upon another. They're all crimes of "high seriousness", most definitely includi…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:28 AM
-5

True, but if they're going to provide something, then I don't see why they should be allowed to discriminate based on gender Why not? Why is that any worse than discriminating based on making babies? Which apparently you have no problem with. Remember, the only legitimate function of government is to ensure that individual rights are protected equally under the law. Nobody has a right to equal time off to their co-worker.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:26 AM
-9

Certainly, but is marginally less intrusive than the gov't making private companies pay parental leave, as the linked article describes. There's the ideal, and then there's what we have, and in between there are points which are still worth working toward.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:18 AM
2

Romeo & Juliet laws should be considered constitutionally mandatory.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:10 AM
1

Are you drunk? That courts review the decisions made by administrative tribunals does not make a student conduct committee a criminal court. Are you stupid? Wait no, you definitely are. Nobody said that the kangaroo court was a criminal court. That's something you pulled out of your own ass.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:49 AM
0

VAT / Sales tax does not penalize income, it penalizes spending. The tax for penalizing income is naturally called an income tax.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:45 AM
1

No true "right wing" party exists in Finland either. Europe is so far left, that their right wing parties are to the left of US Democrats. Which would be utterly fine if people realized there is no static center position. Europeans come here to start falsely arguing that Democrats are right wing.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:41 AM
1

It's also an administrative matter, and that's the only subject of this thread. An administrative manner courts are interceding in and blocking the universities from violating the students rights. Of course, you've already posted 100ish times claiming the opposite, to which several people including myself have proven that you're completely and utterly full of shit so you deleted all your posts. Don't start writing messages making the same argument all over. It's boring. Go back to the kiddie poo…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:13 AM
-28

It's never progress when a gov't is allowed to force somebody to provide something against their will. Parental leave should be made illegal on the grounds of discrimination, not made more wide spread. Non parents should sue. Everybody wants their 6 months off every 9.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:00 AM
1

I'm not the one who said that. Are you capable of telling the truth? Goddamn, you're a fucktard. You're replying to a root level post in the thread. Why don't you go back to deleting all your posts in shame instead of just screwing up and showing how you're an idiot again,. Why do you still not understand that this is not a criminal matter. Because rape is a criminal matter.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:49 AM
2

Five hours ago, it wasn't.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:43 AM
7

Yeah that's blackmail. But I totally understand, and I admire your calmness and approach. Let's replace the felony crime of blackmail with some others: Yeah that's murder. But I totally understand, and I admire your calmness and approach. ... Yeah that's vote fraud. But I totally understand, and I admire your calmness and approach. ... Yeah that's rape. But I totally understand, and I admire your calmness and approach. ... Yeah that's terrorist bombing. But I totally understand, and I admire you…
/r/MensRights05/03/15 10:36 PM
2

If it were valuable to provide those benefits then companies will provide them. It's generally not valuable, and that's not the fault of the company.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 09:50 PM
-7

It is in the US, and Canada sucks.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 07:39 PM
9

Go buy something, give them the coupon. They will take it. It would be against the law not to.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 07:34 PM
3

"She said while Alberta has high-paying jobs in the oil industry, they are often not well-suited for women trying to raise families." That's why they get the pay bonus, lady. Life is full of choices, pick money or family.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 04:24 AM
3

I noticed you could not cite a case where a court ordered a university to alter or abandon a rule. Not one. You're all hat and no cattle. I did, go find my post again. "Judge orders expulsion reversed" spark your memory? Even though I did post one, you're trying to hide behind confidential settlements as if it was a win for a school.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 09:15 PM
1

Title IX is silent on this matter, both before the revisions and now. Congress has presented no opinion because they have nothing to do with it. These are state laws and rules. Bullshit, squared. Gender discrimination in the application of the rules violates Title IX. The law in California was only signed by the governor five months ago Irrelevant. The policies are discriminatory, they're as discriminatory when it's Colorado with the school administration (a representative part of the gov't) eng…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:46 PM
34

Lol. If mansplaining a thing then by that very nature, femsplaining is a thing. Deny ones possible existence denies both. Same with misogamy and misandry.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:20 PM
2

The problem is that the government disagrees. They think it's correct. The executive does, through their non-regulation rewrite of Title IX, but Congress has presented no opinion and the judiciary is finding against the schools. (Even though you pretend otherwise in other posts).
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:14 PM
1

The very first poster is just chock full of stupidity If I point to a rapist and say they are incapable of not raping, I am not making any valid statement about people of their same sex or the human population as a whole. If I point to a rapist and say that they are capable of not raping but they have chosen to do it anyways, I am not making any valid statement about people of their same sex or the human population as a whole. Take all the people who qualify for the above and you have a small fr…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 05:09 PM
6

Who has win a Title IX lawsuit? Not Chapel Hill, Occidental, Swarthmore, Oregon, USC... You conveniently list only cases still in progress with the implication they have lost. Most cases that have completed have confidentially settled when the schools have realized they have lost. As the plaintiff is generally also a Doe not much about the settlement can be learned, but one case I.F. v. Tulane University the judge ordered the expulsion reversed. Another case, John Doe v. Swarthmore that you list…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:29 PM
8

You understand that criminal law and tort law are distinctly separate, right I do, and I understand that the act is criminal not civil. Furthermore, I understand it is the gov't setting down the rules of court, either directly a gov't body for a public school or at the demands of the legislature through Title IX for others. Since anything said in civil case is usable as evidence in criminal cases, civil cases are on hold until after the completion of the criminal one. That the gov't is improperl…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:14 PM
12

What you describe pertains to criminal law. What's under consideration is a revision of administrative law. It's a gov't body investigating a felony. It is criminal. The schools have been just at fault for mistreating the accused - and have lost cases - even when the question is "Did you get a yes"
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:59 PM
43

Simply changing the question from 'Did you get a no?' to 'Did you get a yes?' The question has never been "Did you get a no?" A defendant is well within their rights to put up no defense whatsoever, calling no witnesses and cross examining none of the prosecution. And if the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent, the defendant in that case would go free. It's unlikely for a defense to be so lackluster only because cases that poor would be dropped by the pros…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:46 PM
1

Explode as in fail. As in, VCs who continue their discriminatory policies will have no where to place their money, and nothing does a VC hate more than idle money. And the big companies can continue hiring uninterested women for busywork at high prices, or they can start correcting the false impressions made by poor depth of insight. Those who do continue will be at a financial disadvantage to those that don't. Such is capitalism.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:37 PM
8

Do you think the judge is going to believe a nutjob The judge appointed by President H. Clinton? Nutjobs are the only people such a judge would believe. Remember judges when voting for presidents.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:42 AM
-8

I'm not nagging, I'm just not giving credit that is undue. Try to read what's actually there, and not the straw argument you want to scream about.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:33 AM
3

very few feminists that actually believes in equal rights ... Most people don't consider her a feminist A ⇒ B
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:19 AM
3

To be fair, cocaine is some good stuff. In moderation of course!
/r/MensRights04/03/15 06:57 AM
7

"Let Girls Learn" will be introduced in 11 countries to start, including Cambodia, Ghana and Uganda, before expanding into other nations. Cambodia does have serious out of balance issues with girls not in school (according to http://data.worldbank.org/) but Ghana it is equal between the genders and in Uganda there are about 1/3rd more boys out of school than girls.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 06:10 AM
2

Already happened in Bangladesh According to the World Bank there were 496,029 males out-of-school children of primary school age and 125,134 females in 2010 Bangladesh.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 06:06 AM
0

There is absolute comfort in knowing you disagree with me. It means I'm right. Oh, and if it hadn't been for NASA, there would be no SpaceX now. Public investment is what provided the foundation for space exploration. Presumptive and unproven. Unlikely as well.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:43 AM
2

Really?! When did Faux News go off the air? How many people only have ever seen Fox news versus how many people have never seen it? Because everything else from Fox is an echo chamber in opposition. Nobody watches Fox and thinks it's the only viewpoint. Try harder.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:41 AM
3

Most of those people suffer under a lack of legal experience and income.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:40 AM
1

Yeah, because RINO isn't actually a thing that Republicans say. RINO doesn't mean "is a Democrat". DINO does mean "is a Republican". Shit, do you even pay attention to what (presumably) your side does? I am not a Republican, but it's no surprise you think I am. coughcough
/r/MensRights04/03/15 04:35 AM
175

"supervising judge in the family court's Manhattan division" for 14 years, 1986-2000 and a count of over 20k cases. So yes, she's definitely had experience in the area, but it's been another 14 years since she retired - and with the obvious income from television - and yet, she's spearheaded no reform whatsoever. She's got the chops, and the bully pulpit, and yet...crickets. It shouldn't require somebody a) realizing the law is against them and b) making a stink about it before it gets solved. E…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:00 AM
5

"Not to go all gender politics on a Friday night hanging out with my friends..." Yeah, nothing of any value starts off with such a comment. She's playing an elf, even the straight male elves are metrosexuals.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:51 AM
1

We spend more money on potato chips than we spend to fund NASA. Good, NASA should die. Shut it the fuck down. Private innovation is what will actually get people into space permanently. (Fair notice: My cousin is an ex-NASA scientist currently working at SpaceX, he's also an actual card carrying Republican.)
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:48 AM
-3

Yeah, because wealth inequality is so good for promoting innovation... Of course not, that's why the USSR wasn't very innovative. Oh wait... Hong Kong is innovative though, and they have huge wealth inequality. Right, I remember now: It's not "wealth inequality" stifling innovation, it's authoritarian gov't pressure.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:45 AM
1

She labels him a Republican The more a Democrat is involved in politics, the quicker they presume anybody not in full agreement and lockstep with their agenda is a Republican. I've seen Democrats call Greens en masse, as in the entire party and platform Republicans, and mean it. Republicans don't engage in the same failure of thought because their entire lives they're exposed to a media, news, hollywood, television, etc, that is not an echo chamber of their thoughts. The Democrats at the same ti…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:41 AM
1

Jeez, the article starts off with a link to gawker regarding a "lesbian jewish conpsiracy", and declares us all "sexist, racist, and transphobic" on that title alone. Yet, not even in the gawker article is lesbian or jewish mentioned except in the title. Not in the quoted messages, not in the graphics, not even in the words of the article author. Such a hit piece demeans the potential and expectation of media, and does nothing but expose the author (of both the mtv and gawker articles) as a bias…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:30 AM
4

So murder is power+bloodlust and what the blacks do is ..what? Biopsies that went too far?
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:18 AM
12

Except we've also had forty years of making college degrees mandatory, even for jobs it shouldn't be. So it's more than what they deserve, it's what they force on everybody.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:55 PM
32

This will end when a white woman falsely accuses a black man of rape. Anything that reminds anyone of jim crow will get shot down. As long as it is preppy white dudes who look like they might have money it is going to be an uphill battle advocating for them. That's not the case, as it's happening now. The difference is that the white "dudes" who have money begin legal proceedings and make a media stir, while the blacks instantly lose their scholarships (which are not returned, even if the kangar…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:48 PM
17

A way must be found to activate the sensible people on campus We're at the end of two generations purposeful push to not have sensible people on campus. Good luck finding any.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:46 PM
1

No, it is not right because it's a law. It's right because it's right. But your claim was that it makes them "not criminal". Which is factually incorrect and separate from any personal morals you hold declaring it "not right".
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:38 PM
2

This law just allows guardians to step away The boxes are more than "step away", they are anonymous drop off points. In fact, they wouldn't catch the abusers. When the mother can drop off the child anonymously, there is no knowledge of the babies father, and no way for the state to contact him - not that historically they do anyways. As the father may not even know the baby has been abandoned for some time, it creates the obvious likelihood that some bureaucrat has given parental rights to anoth…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:37 PM
1

Except that long standing statutes say otherwise.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:27 PM
3

Once again, "privilege" means "private law" and refers to how nobles could harm and even murder their peasants without penalty. When somebody is punished for an act, they have no private law advantage. When something is available to all without punishment, there is still no private law.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 02:05 PM
11

Title IX that bitch up!
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:06 AM
0

Just like a woman can agree to not have dinner with me. But once she does, now she's "responsible" for being forced to have sex with me! Confirmed, you're an idiot. Except for the fact that they're being forced to pay money to an ex Forced to pay support for their child to the person legally responsible for the child. If you take away rights it does. There is no right to access to a child. Really? Are you so completely lost that you have never heard of a case of two parents fighting over custody…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 05:04 AM
-1

Meh. Canada. In the US, HPV vaccines are suggested for all boys 11 or older. ACA qualifying insurance policies require coverage for all suggested vaccinations.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 04:47 AM
0

Oh, this is one of those package agreements, like when a woman automatically "agrees" to have sex with me because I bought her dinner. Sigh, now you're just being obtuse. Either purposefully or just because you're plain stupid. As I've stated several times, a father should have the legal right to terminate contact and support pre birth or within a limited reasonable time. That five years later they regret not doing so is not relevant. In that case we're talking about someone who has zero rights …
/r/MensRights03/03/15 04:34 AM
0

And why do you think this responsibility exists? Because it was agreed too as I've gone over several times in prior messages. What, does the kid sleep in a box under a bridge? Don't be foolish. You paying your mortgage has no effect on the child if you have 0% custody. Don't be foolish.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 04:17 AM
1

I identified myself as female because I have found that on reddit you are assumed to be male until proven otherwise. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog The question is why is it important?
/r/MensRights03/03/15 04:11 AM
0

You ipse dixit'd "responsibility" over and over, presumably to the child. To provide half the "minimum amount determined for a locale to raise a child", yes. That's a responsibility both parents have that neither increases nor decreases by the time spent with the child. This is a fact, not an analogy. NCPs with custody are ALREADY supporting their kids by paying mortgage, utilities Paying for a mortgage that the child doesn't use is not supporting the child. That the parent has voluntarily gone …
/r/MensRights03/03/15 04:06 AM
0

Wrong. It absolutely is relevant when the raison d'être for child support is "best interests of the child". A reason I did not mention, and eliminated by my prior suggestions. Of course. You tried to draw an analogy between a mortgage and paying child support. I pointed out how ridiculous it was. It is a ridiculous analogy, but it's one you made first. I just tried to show how even within your bad analogy, your position is wrong.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 03:46 AM
0

If the father makes $3500 a month and the mother (or the mother's new husband) makes $3000 a month, do you think the child will be materially harmed in some notable way if the father does not pay the mother $400 a month? Not relevant. My visa company is not materially harmed in some notable way if I don't pay my credit card bill. Ah yes, "chooses". Right. Do you have no knowledge of how family courts work? Have you been reading what I've been posting at all? Mortgages are a voluntary agreement t…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 02:50 AM
0

Why should less than 50% custody mandate payments? This really is a stupid question. Responsibility is not lessened just because one parent chooses to reduce interaction. Nor is responsibility eliminated just because a court finds you too dangerous to be around them. Given a situation where the father was given a legal opportunity to terminate contact and responsibility prior to birth, or shortly after being notified of any connection to the child, and they fail to do so then that responsibility…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 02:19 AM
0

Either the father has 50% custody, and pays 50% of child support (proven with receipts) without giving a dime to the ex-wife, or one parent either voluntarily has less or has been barred from custody and pays 50% of child support by payment to the other who must prove with receipts in the manner it is spent, along with the 50% they must provide.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 01:59 AM
0

While I do believe a father should have 50% physical custody barring a specific reason to not grant it, presuming that father was given sufficient notice and option to terminate rights, contact, and responsibility earlier in the child's life (or pre-birth) and yet fails to do so should be held to some responsibility even if they are later found to be dangerous to the child and barred from contact. Also, if the father chooses to not have 50% physical custody (again, in cases where they had legal …
/r/MensRights03/03/15 01:46 AM
4

2018 headline: Qualifying women granted political seats first come first served until reaching 50%. Qualification requires approval by feminist organization.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 01:23 AM
10

Mother "giving up anonymously" means that the mother can kidnap and abandon the child directly over the wishes of the father and the father will have no ability to ever locate the child. It's not like she'll be depositing the hospital birth certificate with the child even if it named the father. However, it means the father can do the same thing. If it's an anonymous dropping off in a box (how is that safe?), there is certainly no gender check. Just wait for the outrage. The United Nations Commi…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 12:48 AM
3

They'll just increase the amount ordered to compensate. Nothing really changes. Rather instead, a minimum amount should be determined for a locale to raise a child, varying by age. That number would then be cut in half and that value is the amount each parent would be expected to pay toward the child. Receipts required. Even if the custodial parents only income is alimony or dole, they would be expected to pay half. Extremely well to do parents would not be forcibly required to spend extravagant…
/r/MensRights02/03/15 03:51 PM
1

What if I promote heroin, and they overdose? Drug dealers have been found to hold a duty of care for the people they supply such that if they overdose with the dealers knowledge and the dealer does not summon medical help the dealer has been held to be criminally negligent. In some states, house party operators that allow people to leave DUI and a death occurs are criminally negligent. In other states, it is just simple negligence. The difference is criminal versus civil penalties. There is noth…
/r/MensRights02/03/15 03:25 PM
2

Different circumstances. Intent is the heart of law. Involuntary Manslaughter is, by definition, without intent.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 03:07 PM
2

I have often promoted LSD, should I be charged with a crime if I tell someone they should try LSD then get caught with it? Is that "causing the death of another without malice"? Stop asking stupid questions.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 01:45 PM
2

Promoting and doing are vastly separate concepts, what are you failing to see here? Promoting is the crime here. What are you failing to see here?
/r/MensRights02/03/15 10:53 AM
3

Good to know you support thought policing and removal of personal agency wholesale. He promoted suicide to a suicidal person. Stuff your false moral objections up your ass.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 10:46 AM
2

Should he go to jail now? Yes.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 10:29 AM
11

Her being charged with manslaughter in this case is absurd and opens up a VERY slippery slope. Promoting suicide to a suicidal person falls squarely under the definition of negligent homicide, "causing the death of another without malice". Which in most states is covered by the manslaughter charge. This is not a case where she knew he was suicidal and didn't report it. That's not a crime (except for a doctor, social worker, or therapist). She actively promoted the idea of killing himself by orde…
/r/MensRights02/03/15 09:11 AM
1

What you're describing is the Bradley effect, where what people claim they support in public/social settings isn't shown by what they actually vote for in the privacy of the ballot box. It's one of the reasons I disapprove of mail in voting. My experience has always been that people view such a thing as a more social event than one would give voting in a booth.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 10:55 PM
2

First four years, aka bachelors degree, of university is supposed to be geared for the median intellect, so IQ of 100. The reality is that due to getting seat warmers for diversity and merit-free scholorships for sports, it has to support IQs as far down as 85, which is the bottom of the first standard deviation. 115 is the top of the first standard deviation, which represents 68% of the populace and so is considered "normal". A score of 125 represents the top 5% of the population. Male and fema…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:51 PM
4

and a lack of a direct link to a feminist male hatred site.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:45 PM
13

Also, I'm not gonna apologize for reporting what was in the budget. Because that was in the budget. Ask your gov. to apologize for bad optix. Totally missing the point of being a reporter. Just because the "optix" hurt her Feelz doesn't mean her Feelz should be reported. What actually happened: State University asks State legislature to remove requirement to report rapes to the state, since they already report it to the feds. Request gets passed as part of the budget. Crazy leftists, including D…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 08:06 PM
-2

"Equal pay" belies the fundamental Marxist pressure within Feminism. Marxism doesn't function in real life as it's a perverse incentive for everybody to do as little as possible. It also means that the situation will never be satisfactory, giving a position to bitch about that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, so they get to keep bitching endlessly.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 07:56 PM
6

Feminist logic: It's more discordant than that. "See! Women don't get charged for false rape reports, it never happens! See! Men aren't getting charged when rape is reported, there's institutional bias against women! Rape culture!" Except it's actually said all in a single breath with no sentence breaks. I added those for clarity in reading.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 01:42 PM
2

Sole custody is sole legal and physical custody. When a layman speaks of custody, as in the original post, they are speaking of physical custody. When the census speaks of custodial parents, they are speaking of physical custody. Child support is wholly calculated based on physical custody. Physical custody is the meaningful statistic. Legal custody is basically irrelevant.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 10:42 AM
2

Did you miss how none of that contradicts me? A child spending less than 110 overnights with one parent is in the sole custody of the parent with majority time. That is exclusive physical custody. The editorializing about how rare it is isn't interesting, they can argue with the census. A child spending 109 overnights is still in custody of the other parent.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 10:19 AM
2

Sole Physical Custody: The child resides with and under the supervision of one parent, subject to reasonable visitation by the other parent, unless the court determines that such visitation would not be in the best interest of the child. You are incorrect. That's exactly what I said. Sole custody is not no contact.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 10:04 AM
2

That's nice, but as it's a legal terminology and not some feminist bullshit cooked up in an elementary classroom, it's not really up for debate.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:29 AM
1

Right, which is why I have to wonder what's on his record " In practice, it is only applied to the fathers detriment and not to the mothers. "
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:09 AM
2

You're right, I was looking at old data 81.7 percent of women have sole custody. Your ability to root out errors and back them up with proof and logical persuasive argument is astounding!
/r/MensRights01/03/15 09:07 AM
6

All complaints of "lackluster" women hires in tech obstinately ignore the fact that all qualified women who try to get hired get hired. Women graduates with computer tech degrees is at 16%, and major companies are so quick to snap all of them up that smaller companies can't find any women to hire. Which hurts pre-IPO companies because VCs have begun to tie funding to diversity levels. It's one of the reasons my company isn't in California (that, and taxes) This will explode, but it will take a c…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 07:43 AM
1

The fact that mom was mean to dad doesn't necessarily mean he should have custody, or that she's an unfit mother. Again, in general states have laws on the book to disallow even joint custody when one parent has a DV charge against them. In practice, it is only applied to the fathers detriment and not to the mothers.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 06:26 AM
1

Ma99gie is female, and an ex-mod, dating from before the time you all switched to anonymous accounts.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:46 AM
1

That is very rare for a divorced father and a huge red flag. Mothers receive sole custody 72% of the time. In general, in the United States, joint custody is only awarded with the voluntary agreement of both parents. A mother can block joint custody by the simple statement of "No", and is awarded sole custody the majority of the time.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:42 AM
2

Custody and parenting time is decided on the best interests of the child, not the parents. You mistake the ideal, or the claim of how things ought to work, with how they really work. It fails utterly when "best interest of the child" is perceived to mean "lives with mother".
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:34 AM
2

How did that happen? It is extremely rare for a parent to have no custody or parenting time at all. "Sole custody" / "Full custody" was and is the majority of custody orders. It does not mean no contact. It means that the child lives with one of the parents exclusively, excluding "vacation like" times where the child vacations with the alternate parent. Shared custody is when the child can properly be described as living in two different homes spending roughly half the time in each. It's a growi…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:32 AM
1

Of course, it's always the man's fault. "Men don't like change." What the fuck? "They like women to support them, really, so they are emotionally or spiritually or physically lazy. " "Masculine code", "sense of entitlement", snort This is a hit piece. I dumped my wife years ago, and have never once regretted it. Change is good. Work in a field with a different problem constantly. Change is good. Started a company. Change is good. "Men don't like change."
/r/MensRights01/03/15 03:05 AM
-15

Why you shouldn't file false rape charges: It's against the law. If you're a woman, you'll never be charged a crime, but we're totally cereal, it's against the law.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 02:48 AM
2

"Piece work", as it's called, is the slackers worst nightmare
/r/MensRights01/03/15 02:00 AM
4

Kellogg's may have supported it, but they were not the driving force for the cultural change. It was driven by obstetricians and gynecologists for the widespread cultural changes, although hindsight may cause any rational person to ask why experts in female anatomy had any opinion worth listening too. The inventor of the Gomco Clamp, Hiram S. Yellen was an obstetrician. Created literally to simplify the procedure so that obstetricians could perform "without anesthetics" and claim the cash for pe…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 01:41 AM
1

in my experience online with Japanese people, they seem to quite like foreigners They love westerners, and more racially, whites. The discrimination against Chinese is barely above Koreans which is barely above blacks.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 09:39 PM
11

The rift between the legally required gender neutrality of laws and procedures and how they actually work in real life is huge.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 09:35 PM
11

Needs to become standard gear for all MRA in public to wear a GoPro on constant recording. It can only help the MRA, and only hurt feminists.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 06:03 AM
1

The specific clause found morally outrageous by the WA court (retroactive disinheriting on the basis of a religious test) would also be grounds for tossing out a will in the American court system. It absolutely would not. Religious tests are perfectly valid for private citizens not acting as employers or proprety managers to make.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 12:58 AM
1

I know for a fact that a will that purposefully excludes a child, or gives them a token amount, will not be overturned in probate court, even if that child is destitute. I know for a fact that absurd violations on trusts are held up every day. I know for a fact that greater than 99% of wills are not successfully challenged. I know for a fact that most wills, and all wills of this monetary value have No Contest clauses that strip all value from anybody contesting the will, and I know for a fact t…
/r/MensRights28/02/15 12:18 AM
1

I'm confused, what was the event that caused the UK legal system to suddenly become sane? This has to be alien intervention. Supernatural manifestation. Something HAPPENED! <feminist> "A father has beaten his ex-wife" SEE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!!! </feminist>
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:31 PM
2

QQ more.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:27 PM
2

This is why I hate MRAs We hate you too. Stop coming here.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:22 PM
3

[Citation Needed]
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:22 PM
1

The term "assault rifle" is strictly based on cosmetics and does not accurately describe any rifles capabilities. If feminists as a group had to go through the training to fire an AR-15 in a useful manner without shooting themselves, they would be stronger people for it and likely wouldn't go through life scared of their shadows, which is the primary cause of all the "protect me from the world" rules. And if they were to misuse them as you imply, they wouldn't be the only ones with AR-15s.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:19 PM
0

Significant numbers of Western men, usually ex-military, are also volunteering to fight ISIS. From what I read they only accept veterans and those with useful skills like construction, the latter not actually taking part of the fighting. They're also primarily joining Christian militias in Syria and Iraq, although there's no requirement that the people joining are Christian. (most still are) They are all, 100%, men. This is how a foreign war should be fought. People of strong enough conviction g…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:15 PM
2

Anything anti-western feminist fits here. This is the most anti-western feminist thing possible.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:05 PM
7

Axiomatic Moronic Retards. oooh, ableism! Yeah baby, I fat shame too!
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:03 PM
3

This is my last bullet. We always carry one with us. I will not fall alive in the hands of ISIS. Dzzaaam. Take note feminists, that's an actual strong woman. She isn't busy filing false rape charges and then carrying a mattress around. She isn't standing on a podium claiming that women are the true victims of war. The women who do that are weak.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 11:01 PM
2

I do think that what the father tried to do would be immoral anywhere, but that's just my opinion. That is a nonsensical statement. Your morals are your own, and not shared by anybody else. Such an opinion would hold no sway in a US court.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 03:26 PM
3

Well, the WA legal system disagrees with you on that one You said immoral, not illegal. Your legal system is morally wrong.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 12:52 PM
1

The paranoid and delusional left frequently make that completely inane claim.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 08:45 AM
7

The elder siblings should have rectified their father's immoral decision of their own accord. There is nothing immoral of a father leaving their child destitute, if the father so chooses. There is no moral error to correct here.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 07:03 AM
5

None of that is sufficient reason to throw out the will. "Father hates daughter" is not illegal.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 07:01 AM
2

OP, you will not be viewed as successful in this position and wasting too long without moving on will harm you both in the short and long term. If it's a large enough company that you can look "sideways" for a different manager, do so. Otherwise, look to other companies. Do not wait until tomorrow to start looking.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:55 AM
5

The only valid cause for overturning a will in the US is that force / duress was used or the person who made the will didn't have the mental capacity. The presumption is that a will is valid, so it's a big deal to overturn one. In the vast majority of cases, even for huge estates, wills are not overturned. Approximately 99% of wills pass through probate without issue. Wills are seen by the courts as the voice of the testator, the person who wrote the will. Since that person is no longer here to …
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:31 AM
4

I see no finding that force was used to get the will provisioned as it was, nor mental infirmity to find that it wasn't valid. So this is just a Judge going "meh", and tossing out of a perfectly valid will. The Australian legal system is in the shits, this is just a symptom.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:26 AM
1

How Andrew Breitbart Helped Launch Huffington Post
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:12 AM
5

Nothing posted to wikipedia that is on a topic with even a hint of politics in it has any value whatsoever. It's not just "feminist" controlled, it's a far left anti-corporation, pro-gov't, propaganda site. Complete with coverups and false histories. For example: It's a fine site to find the natural habitat of the tree frog, but it's a horrible site to find information about GMO foods.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:05 AM
1

I was on guard against the oligarchy and fascist tendencies of the right. That's funny. Fascist was a centrist State. The political philosophy that backed it was created as a midpoint between the zero-State of classical liberalism and the lefts total all encompassing State. Oligarchy, being just a description of how authority is distributed, can exist anywhere on the scale. The only difference between "Single Party China" and "Oligarchy China" is 3 characters, not in how the power is managed.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 01:45 AM
6

It's not lack of acknowledgement, it's an active dismissal by those actually receiving the "privilege of private law".
/r/MensRights26/02/15 08:36 PM
15

John will receive $15,000 from the university Weak. The only way to correct these policies is to take significant money from them, as cases that actually go before a jury does. Settling for such a weak amount harms not only the victim ("John Doe") but also every future victim. That the school paid off the offender 55x as much is offensive. “In fall 2013, [John Doe] was subject to a student conduct investigation and was found to have violated two code provisions." They're not even clearing his re…
/r/MensRights26/02/15 01:58 PM
1

She doesn't have to pay one dime in child support... Until and unless the father starts collecting welfare, and then the State will approve a default order of child support and immediately start demanding payment. The father waiving support demands is all well and good but "child support is owed to the child, not the parent" combined with the fact that if the custodial parent is collecting welfare, allovasudden the money "belongs" to the State, and they will waste no time collecting it.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 01:55 PM
4

Plenty more to ask, like "Stop actively working to harm men."
/r/MensRights25/02/15 11:52 PM
4

Ask your lawyer what happens if she goes on welfare. You may have some protection if she just decides to press for support on her own, but if she moves to a different state or goes on welfare you're screwed. Hundreds and hundreds of cases where these agreements are tossed out by courts.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:46 PM
4

Sec. 161.103, yes you can terminate your rights, but that's intended to be a part of adoption proceedings. You cannot dissolve the chance that child support will be assigned. All you've done is set yourself up to possibly be assigned support payments and still not having any parental rights.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:28 PM
6

Throughout the next six to nine months, there is some back and forth and she finally agrees to a small sum settlement for signing a petition absolving me of all parental rights. You have won nothing. Existing case law states that child support is "for the child, and may not be voided by either parent". While she may voluntarily not pursue collection against you, if she ever falls into State support, then the State will come after you for the money. Or she could want new shoes and decide to get a…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:21 PM
12

If our sons were treated like our daughters ...the elementary schools wouldn't be drugging them into pacification and learning disability. Damage done that becomes a lifetime issue. ...being the bully or being the bullied wouldn't be the only two choices on the playground. And later, the middle school and high school hallways.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:06 PM
17

The angry Penn students continue: ". . . the 'Open Letter' must be seen for what it is: a disagreement with Title IX’s mandate that sexual assault survivors not be made to struggle through grievance procedures that specially insulate those accused of sexual assault." No, there is absolutely no such mandate in Title IX. The Obama administration has written a letter saying there is, but it is not a regulation - having failed to have an open comment period and other criteria to even be a regulation…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:00 PM
1

That depends on if you view the punishment for crime men receive as a baseline, or the punishment for crime that women receive as the baseline. In general, I feel we don't punish violent crime enough in the US, and the UK is laughable about it. So I would want the punishment women receive to be increased to the level men receive, not for the punishment men receive to be lessened to the level of the women. On the other hand, non violent crime...shouldn't be crimes.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:43 PM
6

LOL It says rapists don't discriminate. More rapes happen to people between the ages of 17 and 21 than all other age demographics combined. This is because this is the peak for sexual attractiveness and because people in this age group are still trying to figure out sexual relationships. They're presenting the data horribly, but for some percentage of rapes it is true. The vast majority of rapes are somebody you know. These situations are absolutely discriminating, and based in sexual desire. Th…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:37 PM
6

Actually, 1 in 4 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetime is probably accurate for a wide definition of sexual assault. Absolutely no legal definition of sexual assault would qualify, as they all require intentional sexual touching. In other words, if you trip and grab some woman's breast, that's still not sexual assault, and neither is the construction worker calling out to her. The study that everybody is quoting defined both verbal commentary and accidental touching as sexual assault.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:34 PM
2

As I detailed here, yesterday, one study found that at least 76% and perhaps as much as 85% of child support payments in arrears are so high compared to the debtors income that they have no mathematical chance of paying off the debt and becoming current on their child support within 10 years.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:53 PM
1

You can't express it clearly without it sounded crazy?. Your opinion that it sounds crazy doesn't actually mean it sounds crazy, it just means you're having difficulty reading it. Now, if you care to actually have a reasonable discussion and stop inserting non sequiturs and strawmen pretending as if I made such arguments, then go back two messages and start over. Otherwise, don't.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:36 PM
2

Should a man be the sole decision maker to use a theoretical legal right to terminate responsibility for a child prior to birth or within a reasonable period after first becoming aware of their connection to a child? Yes You're going to have to write this in more plain english so it's clearer what you are saying. Just being honest, I feel this isn't clear. I wrote it as I did to make it crystal clear what specifically I was talking about. There isn't a way to write it clearer that won't get disi…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:29 PM
2

So men are babies who can't take responsibility for their own actions? You're being inane. If it's because you've exceeding your intellect then you're not worth continuing with. If it's because you're being disingenuous, then you're not worth continuing with.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:14 AM
2

What is racist is to not look beyond the statistic, and actually look at the underlying factors like poverty and persistent racism in the judicial system. Like persistent sexism in the judicial system too! I mean, are you denying men commit more violent crimes? After including appropriate responsibility for a woman who uses violence by proxy in convincing men to engage in violence, I absolutely deny that men use violence more.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:03 AM
17

Do you think a guy should be part of the decision, legally, whether to abort a child or not? (run through each M/F want / not want grid in your head) Should a man be part of the decision to use one of the medical procedures involved in a biological abortion? No. Should a man be the sole decision maker to use a theoretical legal right to terminate responsibility for a child prior to birth or within a reasonable period after first becoming aware of their connection to a child? Yes I do not think a…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:17 AM
2

"Women make different choices" in the same way blacks make the different choice to commit more violent crimes? Tsk tsk, such racism.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:01 AM
2

If your immediate response to there being more male CEOs than female ones (edit: forgot words, if your general response is women are lazier), Utter bullshit. There is one reason there are less women CEOs: As a group, women make different choices. To equate that to mean we're claiming "women are lazier" is disingenuous to the extreme, and not accidentally either.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:56 AM
8

A) "Blacks are in prison six times as much as whites! Racism!" B) "Men are in prison 11 times as much as women! Men are violent criminals!" Pick one. You may not choose both.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:40 AM
1

Yep, it isn't why I moved out of state but it is a good benefit. The complaint here is that VCs are tying funding to "diversity", and then google / apple / etc (none of which care about VCs) are in combination sucking up all the supply. The whole thing is grossly illegal, discrimination on sex, but good luck litigating on it. The only way for a startup to hit diversity numbers is to hire unqualified women, for positions where they are not expected to work. This will make frictions a lot worse, a…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 08:39 PM
3

You should be scared, and keep yourself undoxable. Specifically, what I look for isn't representative of employers as a whole, particularly in the tech sector.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 08:06 PM
1

Redmond, according to the article, is 40. That's the point where the real tech discrimination - age - is starting to be felt. By 50, she'd be out of a job anyways and so would all her male contemporaries. Everyone of those contemporaries will either a) achieve middle management, b) leave and start a company, c) leave and change to a non tech career, or d) be unemployed, largely living off 401ks and other savings, for the 18 years to be legally 'retired'. Everybody wants a), at least those who ha…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 11:14 AM
2

Google, whose engineering workforce is only 17% female, Pinterest's technical team is 21% female. Facebook, with a technical workforce that is 15% female Apple's global engineering workforce is 20% female Horrible right? Except tech graduates is 16% female. Every example except Facebook women are over represented. It's already fact that a woman who walks through the door of any of those companies with credentials that are even close are hired. A space may not exist, it will be created. It's a si…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 11:07 AM
10

Now, Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, and Twitter have disclosed their dismal diversity data, 17% of tech workers at Google are female. 16% of graduates with a computer related technical degree are female. Women are over-represented at Google in technical fields. I didn't bother looking up the stats for other companies, it's all the same.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:49 AM
6

and excuser of workplace sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:26 AM
1

Then isn't it fair to say that you are also presuming a lot here? Hell, he could have said 'meh im rich and actually love Pablo, so our pool boy is the new you.. p.s. hes keeping all your dresses' And what if he did? There is no proof there was a mutual agreement that was followed. There isn't even proof there was a mutual agreement that wasn't followed. Thus, it is not a point to vary the divorce settlement on. Such an agreement can never be presumed, which is what you're trying to do here. All…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 09:25 PM
1

My judge has never mentioned once that my ex get a job and her spousal support ends next year Then revel in the fact that next year her income drops to zero. Consider it late but eventual revenge
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:53 PM
3

Perhaps it was discussed and both Mom AND DAD agreed it was the best way. Perhaps it wasn't. She is contributing in whatever way they have both agreed on. Perhaps she wasn't, and that's why they divorced. You're presuming a lot here. Until the law punishes / rewards for when it is not a mutual decision or when agreements are not lived up too, then it cannot presume they exist and were lived up too and must strike a balance. He gets to retire and she has to work until shes 90 Retirement resources…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:47 PM
7

Such is also occurring in the the White House Get your own house (cough) in order.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:31 PM
7

My state (NY) added no fault divorces in 2010. Chastised. All but one since 1985. Note that the lack of no fault in NY was to "protect women" and guarantee more alimony. New York legislators worried that instead of making divorce more civil and humane for women, no-fault divorce would have the opposite effect: it would weaken a woman's ability to gain leverage in divorce proceedings, ultimately exposing them to unfair settlements.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:18 PM
1

A judge doesn't have to jail for failure to pay ("Contempt of Court for Failure to Pay") but there are all sorts of automatic results of not paying; wage garnishment, suspension of driver’s license, liens, freezing of bank accounts, and intercepting tax refunds. All of which are handled by a bureaucracy not a court, and don't need an order other than the original alimony order. That original order must be made for the alimony computed by law, with no leeway for the judge. Alimony is hardly ridic…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 06:24 PM
30

Marriages over 10 years are candidates for permanent alimony, not guaranteed permanent alimony It's sufficient enough. The spouse must prove that the receiver no longer needs alimony. As a wife is not required to work, that's unlikely unless she wins the lotto. and because most states have at fault divorce First, since 1985 all states have been no-fault. California was the first in 1970 you can often get out of alimony altogether Second, you could never get out of alimony just because of infidel…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 06:13 PM
378

This is notable because in most of the US it absolutely could not happen. In the US, most states have legislatively defined periods. For example, in California alimony is at one year for every two years of the marriage, except when the marriage lasts 10 years or more and then it is paid indefinitely. In the states where such formulaic awards exist (which are most), Judges have no ability to vary. Combine that with imputed income, which is where the man is presumed to be purposefully slacking any…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 02:01 PM
4

It's actually pretty pathetic how minority groups - trans most obviously - pretend every negative thing that happens to them is because of their minority status. A couple years ago there was a trans lady who was shot in her car in Oakland of SF Bay. Huge uproar here on reddit. It was a high crime area, in fact there were 3 other murders in Oakland that same weekend. None of the "trans activists" gave a crap about the other three murders. Somehow, that one death was more important than the others…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 01:25 PM
0

Black men face discrimination both because they are men and because they are black. Poor black men face discrimination both because they are men and because they are poor. Middle class and better black men...just because they're men.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 07:43 AM
24

The comment that got me was some moron talking about how we aren't talking enough about the "problem" of deadbeat dads. There are 5,588,000 total custodial mothers1 2,319,000 of them request assistance from the gov't to collect child support (41%)1 There are 675,000 total custodial fathers1 300,000 of them request assistance from the gov't to collect child support (44%)1 76% of child support payers could not pay within ten years because the order exceeds their income (data is not split by gender…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 07:01 AM
27

like campaigning to update the FBIs definition of rape. The new definition now includes male victims. Let's be clear: Feminism campaigned to get the definition changed because the prior definition required use of force. They did not seek out a definition that included men. When feminists found out that the definition would include men, they set out to hamper and restrict that inclusion.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:48 PM
6

Why do feminist's, time after time, try to tell men that feminism is for men too, When it clearly isn't? Because they want to control 100% of the gov't sourced funding as use that to continue writing laws to exclude men (ACA, VAWA) or to continue legally oppressing them (blocking non-fathers from being released from support)
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:46 PM
4

or even female perpetrators against other women.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:44 PM
3

All we need to do is educate "That Guy" and it will stop happening.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:43 PM
3

All of them. At first it's just a simple google + facebook + twitter, etc. We're currently small enough that we use an investigator for every position, once its getting down to 1 or 2. It's something like a reverse dox, in that we know their name and the investigator goes out and finds all their activity. Yes, we've found reddit accounts for some, but not for everybody.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:41 PM
1

Social media and interviews.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 08:36 PM
6

Did you read the article? That's the police account, the video shows otherwise. You are not able to claim what the video shows. All you can claim is what the lawyer says. The lawyer is under no compulsion to tell the truth, and in fact would find value in lying. So no, he wasn't going for a gun he was simply running from the police. Running after felony assault may very well warrant being shot. The fantasy notion that police are not allowed to fire on fleeing suspects is just that.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:51 PM
1

it is the males of disadvantaged groups who get the most shit and the least acceptance from society in general Where in the US, in 2015, "disadvantaged groups" has exactly one group in it: Poor.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:05 PM
2

Except, I don't know. An anonymous posting on the internet or magazine is not reasonably accepted as fact. That "reasonable" gets you crazy people every time.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:01 PM
2

Proportionately black people are several times more likely to be killed than white people. And it couldn't possibly be because they proportionally commit more crimes and thus interact with the police more, could it? Besides which, for whatever reasons blacks have congregated in urban settings and you're just more likely to have more encounters in cities than in a rural setting where the only deputy is your cousin.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 06:41 AM
7

Hey, have you noticed that you haven't been banned? Although, they should be. It's a troll, and from sidebar "Young accounts are given no tolerance."
/r/MensRights22/02/15 06:16 AM
22

I wouldn't hire her either. One wrong word on her bad hair day, BOOM, sexual harassment accusations, discrimination charges, etc, etc. She's shown herself to be a liability. That's exactly it. In the positions I hire for, we vet every candidate for their potential to be disruptive to the company, which absolutely does include their actions unrelated to work. There have absolutely been perfectly acceptable CVs tossed because of the personality behind it.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 05:39 AM
7

Adria is the full SJW archetype, and deserves the punishment such a position always brings.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 05:35 AM
3

Should she be the one to drop that bomb? I would say, No. I would say anybody who knows and doesn't inform the victim is engaging in contributory negligence toward fraud and civilly liable.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:47 AM
1

The main beneficiaries of the HPV vaccine are women hugely, something like 99%. And gay men. Moreso than women even. But it needs to be given before infection. Even in the US, it's given to boys at age 11.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 07:11 PM
6

Because Twitter (and facebook and youtube and everybody else) operate with a policy that gives power to the heckler's veto. Complaints do not need to be accurate or to describe violations of policy, they just need to be repeated enough.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:40 AM
2

She makes a very healthy salary while her husband makes a somewhat modest one by comparison. Not just child support. She should be paying him a sizable alimony
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:00 AM
4

She consciously chose to quit her job and go back to school to ramp back her income Child support payments made by the father are scheduled based on his possible income, which is often not very possible anymore just a past income level.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 01:56 AM
2

"Best interest of the child" is the legal position that Parents have no rights to not get along with each other.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 01:53 AM
11

"Getting raped was probably the only way you're ever going to get any because no self respecting man would bother with your fat, whalelike self. Cherish those moments, sweetie :) " "misogamy isn't real, and no amount of your crying will ever make it real. women can't be raped, you asshole, kill yourself" "For bitches like you, it IS good to have an experience like that."
/r/MensRights20/02/15 02:25 PM
2

/r/thathappened
/r/MensRights20/02/15 04:23 AM
2

If you approach the situation angrily or with too much frustration, people will become defensive and stop listening to your reasoning, logical as it may be. The school never listened to reason in the first place. The letter goes on to describe the new education program as “poorly designed” and as demonstrating “a willful neglect of empirical evidence and student feedback.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/11/students-criticize-columbias-new-sexual-assault-prevention-efforts This is an…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 03:43 AM
10

File a Title IX lawsuit.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 03:05 AM
9

The current mythos is that fraternities do nothing but rape. How could a school care so little for their female students that they set them up like that?
/r/MensRights20/02/15 02:00 AM
1

Toodles SRS sockpuppet
/r/MensRights20/02/15 01:54 AM
3

Assault by beating, hate crime, false report, destruction of property, and extortion all in the same article. Sentence: Anger management classes and court fees. All those things feminists say women never do!
/r/MensRights20/02/15 01:49 AM
1

You're arguing dishonestly plain and simple. Just because I see through your bias and spin doesn't make me dishonest. It makes you biased.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 01:27 AM
1

You misunderstood what I wrote, You backpedaling doesn't mean I misunderstood.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 01:16 AM
1

I made the distinction, between the issue that he brings up in the article, and his proposed solution. His proposed solution is to make rape on private property legal. I have NEVER said that this was an MRA viewpoint. I repeat: Then I will say that his article, stems from a very common MRA viewpoint. The article is about non consensual sex being legalized. You have falsely linked that position to the MRA. Not only linked, but claimed as "very common" To which, I would suggest you go play in spee…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 12:50 AM
7

And you would go to jail, while your 14yo ends up paying child support.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 10:51 PM
16

Note she was charged with misdemeanor assault, not domestic violence. Her crime will not be counted as part of DV statistics, nor will all the secondary penalties for being guilty of DV, like barring from owning firearms, come into effect. Furthermore, as she caused damage, the proper charge would have been felony assault, with a second DV charge. Misdemeanor assault is limited to nondamaging acts, like pushing somebody or spitting on them.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 10:36 PM
4

From outsiders looking on this forum everyone who posts here represent the MRM. Only the most bigoted readers going out of their way to find something negative to blame on the MRM has that viewpoint. i.e., SRS/AMR Everybody with any sense recognizes it as a public forum where anybody can post.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 09:50 PM
4

I was just trying to show that there are some fucked up people in the MRM Still incorrect. Posters here are not all MRM. This reddit is subject to constant false flag attacks from AMR/SRS, as well as those unassociated with any side who just get off on trolling.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 09:41 PM
3

Between things like this and Rochdale, it's clear that the UK is too busy making sure nobody can buy Mace for protection that they have completely lost understanding of one of the few legitimate purposes of gov't: Protection from force.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 09:39 PM
3

Neither of those posts are provided in context, but the first is absolutely not declaring that non consensual sex should be legalized. It's describing a scenario in which two different criminals engage in crimes and asking who gets more jailtime. In fact, I find it unlikely that the assaulter gets more jailtime than the rapist. The second smells like a troll. Not everything posted here is an MRA viewpoint. Since you carefully made sure no context was available, I'm sure the post was downvoted ha…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 09:30 PM
1

I have NEVER, made the claim in any of my previous posts that his proposed idea, as you say, that non-consensual sex should be legalized, is an MRA viewpoint. You just did: Then I will say that his article, stems from a very common MRA viewpoint. The article is about legalized non consensual sex.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 09:08 PM
4

Then I will say that his article, stems from a very common MRA viewpoint. There is no MRA viewpoint where non consensual sex should be legalized. Your claim is absolutely false.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:56 PM
4

I do not see in the article that he wrote, his about page on his website, or the linked rawstory.com article that he is claiming he is not an MRA. It is not necessary that he repeatably mention in every article he writes that he is not an MRA, and since rawstory is a hitpiece it's not very likely that they're going to be providing comprehensive facts. It is necessary that you not make proclamations about somebody you know nothing about. He is an MRA in idealogy. He absolutely is not.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:45 PM
1

The only apparent connection between Roosh and libertarianism is that he once interviewed this guy who wrote these books Which would mean every notable media interviewer is a libertarian, an obviously farcical claim.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:39 PM
5

Your claim he is an MRA is flat out irreconcilable with the fact that he says he is not. This in comparison to SRS/AMR/etc style denials where clear and obvious feminists who embrace the term and the movement are declared not to be feminists.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:28 PM
1

He is an MRA in that his view points and ideas are identical to many of the popular views expressed on this subreddit An absurd unbacked claim, making it clear why you're using a sockpuppet account.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 07:59 PM
4

According to feminists: All men (and some women) with objectionable opinions are MRAs even when vociferously rejecting such a label. All women with objectionable opinions are "not really feminists" even when they claim the association for themselves. In particular, Roosh rejects the MRA and has declared it "dead".
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:39 PM
11

"I want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of `chivalrous behavior'" Request denied.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 05:33 PM
14

The tragedy isn't that the defense is attacking the victims, that's literally their job. The tragedy is that the court will almost certainly accept that viewpoint as prevailing.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 05:28 PM
1

Because they are skilled, there may be specific need for those skills unable to be filled elsewhere, or they may have a prior connection to the company that would be unpopular to discontinue, such as with a law partnership.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 04:23 AM
4

Pt jobs tend to be unskilled work such as cleaning, caring, and clerical. Need to differentiate between "working at McDonalds" or "answering phones" part time work and "returning to their career to work part time", as in after child birth or similar. McDonalds workers are part time largely because the gov't demands that benefits be provided for full time workers. Such workers almost certainly would prefer to have a single job full time rather than the stereotypical two part time jobs. I find it …
/r/MensRights19/02/15 03:20 AM
4

Can only sticky self posts.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 11:07 PM
2

Yes, but trust is built over time This is not a new couple, giggling about "going steady" under the bleachers. This was two adults where marriage was proposed and accepted. The lack of trust exposed by believing such a claim is irreparable.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 11:06 PM
21

Of course they're responsible too. Responsibility is not zero sum, recognizing that a person is responsible does not lessen the responsibility of somebody else.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 10:56 PM
2

If she doesn't trust her fiance, then she doesn't deserve him. It's just that simple.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 10:32 PM
3

Any activity without a male involved wasn't considered sex until 2003 in England. It wasn't an oversight, it was a failure to recognize lesbian sex as a sexual activity. Scotland and Northern Ireland had slightly different laws. Realize that the standing law prior to that was passed in 1967.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 10:12 PM
2

Besides, is what this woman did so inexcusable? Yes.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 10:00 PM
2

Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice
/r/MensRights18/02/15 08:12 PM
2

"Feminism made me do it!" The woman is to blame for proxying her need for violence through the men. The men are to blame for engaging in the violence.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:57 PM
145

It's one of the reasons women don't get statistically counted as as violent as men. They use men as their proxies, but the violence never gets attributed to the woman.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:54 PM
8

Why is all the slang numerical?? Oxford claims Nonce comes from a corruption of "nancy boy", as it's used to refer to pedophiles. It has no connection to nonce meaning "now" and used technically.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:53 PM
31

The technical name is "lynching". Feminists are pro-lynching Feminists would argue that lynching is against blacks and they only want to damage whites so it can't possibly be lynching. In gender studies class that's what they were taught.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:51 PM
2

It's ultimately irrelevant if the scenario happened. I'm not going to suddenly think the bride-to-be didn't get what she deserved in the scenario if somebody can prove that the scenario is just a mental exercise.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:32 PM
10

I don't understand what it is with these speaking engagements and such where protesters show up and disrupt - and are not removed from the property (or at least the room). Because the university administration backs the protesters. Feelz over laws.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:02 PM
19

He also said one student claimed due process only benefitted white males, despite evidence to the contrary. To Kill a Mockingbird Minorities benefit most from proper due process.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:01 PM
22

To be fair, polygraphs are horribly fallible. That's why they have no value in US courts.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 03:57 PM
16

Note that in 1967, male homosexual sex was decriminalized when it occurred in private and only between two adults (in this case, adult meaning 21+, a higher age than heterosexual sex). Three or more sex still led to prosecutions until 2003. However, until that same 2003 law, lesbian sex wasn't recognized as sex, had no statutory age and forced performance was only simple assault.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 03:47 PM
31

Nothing in that story is sad. The bride-to-be got what she deserved, and the groom-to-be got an easy out of what would eventually be a horrible experience in his life.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 03:32 PM
2

Mistress
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:48 AM
5

but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped And that position is exactly how the word rape goes from describing a horrible crime every non psychopath finds abhorrent, into "hey, you just got raped! hahaha." They're not joking about non consensual sex, because that's no longer what the word rape means.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:06 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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