TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

elwahrio Archive

View 8 posts and 596 comments by elwahrio on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Right. You're an actual fucking twat. SomeTHING beneath, pity and sympathy. And also a moron who can't fucking read. If you COULD read, you'd realise I'd written FULLY understand. This means as much as I try to wrap my head around it, will I be able to COMPLETELY understand what I means to be a guy. No. I won't. You wanna know why? Because the information will always be second hand and never truly experienced for myself. Eg. I can imagine what it's like to have a limb amputated. I can talk to am…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:40 PM
2

it was fair to call it FEMinism, cos women did have it rougher, and men were the cause of this. citation needed. For both clauses. This is hate speech. they achieved equality for themselves for themselves? So when the system does something to women you don't like, it's the fault of all men. But when the very same system does something to women you do like, it's 'women helping themselves'.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:29 PM
2

hahah, so you do know who Emmeline Pankhurst is! And yet you conveniently forgot to mention that she was campaigning for women (and only women) to get voting rights in the uk at a time when men couldn't vote! And you still can't see how that's anti-male! Emmeline Pankhurst is one of the worst examples you could have chosen to show how feminism isn't anti-male. You are so disingenuous. Read a book.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:17 PM
2

When the suffragettes in the UK were campaigning for women's voting rights at a time when men did not yet have the right to vote and were literally dying in the trench warfare of WW1? Yep. I'd say that's pretty anti-male. Emmiline Pankhurst literally went around giving young men who weren't at war white feathers to shame them for being cowards. And these young men didn't have the right to vote either, but still had to volunteer their lives for the good of the nation, a responsibility that women …
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:13 PM
-1

Which, strawman? Chamclouder's response misrepresents my opinion in order to argue against something I didn't say. I never said nor do i believe that fathers do not affect the outcomes of their children's lives. Textbook strawman.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 04:14 AM
1

I did question their bias, though. No one responded. I asked whether the outcomes mentioned could be only indirectly related, since they also correlate with socio-economic status, and the comparison used was between single mother families and mother/father families, who obviously are going to find it easier to achieve financial stability. The NCfF's definition of fatherlessness has a bit a wiggle room: separated with, separated without contact, live together but emotionally absent. This vaguenes…
/r/MensRights12/06/16 02:54 AM
0

Hey, now we are both getting downvoted together! And without even an attempt at a rebuttal. The hypocrisy around here is very frustrating. We justifiably criticise the biases in the MSM, but we are just as happy to pat ourselves on the back for basking in our own confirmation bias. We say "those feminist idiots censor anyone that proves them wrong" as if we are any better by downvoting any semblance of critical thinking without healthy discussion. We wonder why we face daily ridicule, but anyone…
/r/MensRights12/06/16 01:40 AM
4

Oew, I'm not from the US and didn't hear about that. Thanks for sharing. One of the first links in google gives a month-by-month summary of how the wash of his jeans has changed. But only female politicians' clothing is criticised? Such bs. http://nymag.com/thecut/2008/10/barack_obama_upgrades_his_mom.html
/r/MensRights12/06/16 12:44 AM
3

Wow, you're right. I remember looking up this for Australia only two years ago, and it was 1 in 10,000 for mtf and 1 in 30,000 for ftm. The frequency has increased a lot in such a short period of time. Probably because people are more accepting now? It's much less taboo?
/r/MensRights11/06/16 11:46 PM
1

I'm used to it. The circle jerkiness and desperation to be offended in this sub has noticeably increase over the past 6 months. Very few people want to discuss how to present the information and how it'll be viewed by outsiders. Agree that the shirt is a horrible idea and there would be a twitter shitstorm if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 11:37 PM
-25

Nice strawman. I commented on the validity of the source and nothing about the validity of the statement. Would a link to a white ribbon report convince you DV is always man on women? Or would you be very skeptical given the organisation's agenda? What's a positive father, by the way?
/r/MensRights11/06/16 11:33 PM
-18

I'm implying that I would never take anything a source like that says seriously. They clearly have vested interests. Would you believe a report on atmospheric carbon by the National Center for Coal or would you look at it skeptically? There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of overt agendas. My personal believe is that it depends on the father. My life would have been much happier and I would probably have fewer mental health issues if my father wasn't in it, for example. Two parents is usual…
/r/MensRights11/06/16 11:25 PM
3

Much less than 1%. 1 in 15,000-ish
/r/MensRights11/06/16 10:58 PM
8

Exactly. Remember when Obama wore a tan suit and the internet broke? http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a31265/obama-tan-suit/ Men have far more limited options in terms of what clothing is acceptable to wear in business settings, compared to women. Black/navy suit. White shirt. Solid coloured tie, bow tie or two-tone stripe or check tie. That's it. Any man who stays within these parameters will be invisible, which is all Karl Stefanovic's stunt proved. Are you telling me if he wore an or…
/r/MensRights11/06/16 10:39 PM
-36

"Families with fathers are just better off. But don't take my word for it, the totally-not-biased National Center for Fathering says so!". Loled so hard at the impartiality of that source.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 10:28 PM
0

You said: I hope you don't mean to say the dicks swinging between world leaders legs are the reason the great wars happened... I responded I didn't say that. So of course I didn't mean to say it either. You say: why bother even including that you thought it was the world leader's dongs which started the great wars? I've stated a fuck tonne of times that I don't think this, that it's just the most common counter argument. And when I say this, I get: You're just retarded man, get the fuck out. Nob…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 08:34 PM
0

What's your problem? How am I a coward? It's not my assumption. I never said that I thought world leaders dongs started the wars, remember? I only said that as soon as you say "more men died in wars" the immediate response not just from feminists but the most of the general public would be "but men started the wars anyway". I've addressed this. I've clarified it a half dozen times, and yet morons keep responding "hurdur, he said dat donga start wars. Cletus, get ya pitchfork." It's not my fault …
/r/MensRights30/05/16 04:28 AM
1

You're not too bright, are you? Please, learn the difference between an adjective and an adverb. The quote you just highlighted is me saying the act of cherry-picking was hilarious and has nothing to do with the content of the cherry-picking. But keep attacking that strawman with your victim complex. "women only got the vote 100 years ago and only x% of CEOs are women". You do realise that I wrote this as examples of similar cherry-picking likely to come from our opponents, right? It's stupid if…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 03:37 AM
0

Why would OP have to refute an assumption that is utter fucking malarkey, just to have his own argument that many more men than women died in the great wars? The argument was never more men died than women in the wars. It was that more men died in the war because men are not "on top". Men can still be "on top" and have more deaths in a war. They aren't mutually exclusive positions. The argument needs to show how having more deaths in a war is a consequence of not being on top, as opposed to bein…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 03:22 AM
1

I like how omniscient you are. I would never dream of assuming what everyone else was thinking. Especially when their actions don't match the thoughts you are assuming they are having. People didn't get why I was "battering down on a given" so they decided to strawman me or tell me to fuck off? The argument as originally stated was poor. If you are going to use an easily verifiable statistic, use the correct data, include comparative data and show how it is linked to your premise. "men aren't on…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 09:11 PM
1

What the fuck? I know all these things you're telling me. And your not OP. what you think is happening here? Op made a bullshit argument. I was trying to help them strengthen it.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 08:02 PM
1

I didn't say it did. But it's a tired cliché that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. So without addressing this, the original argument was just pointlessly cherry-picking the fact that men have died in wars as a refutation of men being on top. That's a bad argument.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 06:59 PM
0

Whose? If you say "men can't be on top because men die in wars", the immediate response will be "but men start the wars in the first place". The original argument was very poor because it didn't address this point. They need to show that wars are equally prevalent under both male and female rulers, for example, otherwise no one is going to take it seriously.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 06:44 PM
1

I didn't say "hilarious", an adjective, I said "hilariously", an adverb. So it was the act of cherry-picking that was hilarious, not the content being cherry-picked. But too many people around here are so desperate for outrage. You're right, I should have waited longer . Here I go mansplaining again.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 05:05 PM
-9

Holy shit! I fucking know! That's not in anyway the point I'm making.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 04:19 PM
-1

Please show me where I said men dying was hilarious. I'll wait. It's cherry-picked because the opposition will just say "women only got the vote 100 years ago and only x% of CEOs are women". People don't take these bad cherry-picked arguments seriously, and we need to be more critical of each others arguments to improve them.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 03:28 PM
-2

What's wrong? I point out that much more than 25 million men died during the two world wars and I get told to fuck off and that apparently I think men dying is hilarious? Da fuq?
/r/MensRights29/05/16 03:23 PM
-3

I didn't say that. So of course I didn't mean to say it either. But in r/mensrights I get down voted for pointing out that way more men than 25 million died in the two world wars. Go figure.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 03:23 PM
-11

Men dying in wars is not mutually exclusive with men being on top. The argument needs more work.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 01:47 PM
16

It's not even that - the revenue from women's soccer in Australia is fuck-all. They aren't economically viable at their current wages, nevermind with a pay rise. Unless their crowd attendances increase dramatically, they are going to have a hard time justifying a higher wage in a negotiation.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 12:11 PM
-15

Three hilariously cherry-picked examples. Your figures for male deaths in those two wars are not only inaccurate, but irrelevant without comparative data on female deaths and a refutation of the assumption that the gender of world leaders at the time influenced the course of the war.
/r/MensRights29/05/16 11:58 AM
17

The pay should be based on the relative revenue each event brings in for the organiser. Just like it is for musicians and comedians.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:11 AM
3

You're missing u/rimper's point. The central premise of the "pink tax" argument is that pink razors cost more than blue/grey/green/black razors, and yet women all over the world are happy to pay the premium for the gender identifier. The entire"masculinity so fragile" argument is projection and nothing more. Also, it happened almost a year ago, why is this story being published now?
/r/MensRights24/05/16 11:54 PM
3

Exactly right. The PSS by the ABS and homicide statistics by the AIC support your assertion that the risk of violence is greater for men than women. The government's argument here is that violence is caused by disrespect. We're also told that the stronger men hate the weaker women. So why then are men more likely to hurt each other than women? Either the premise about disrespect is wrong, or men respect women much more than they respect themselves (hence, gynocentrism).
/r/MensRights21/05/16 02:49 AM
3

Well, for one, Kevin Spacey is googled twice as often as Robin Wright is: https://www.google.com.au/trends/explore#q=kevin%20spacey%2C%20Robin%20Wright&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-10 And here is a comparison of their most popular movies, although she's only in a half-dozen scenes in Forrest Gump. The significant difference being that Kevin Spacey is personally largely responsible for the success of those movies, where Robin Wright just happens to be in them. https://www.google.com.au/trends/explore#q=%2…
/r/MensRights20/05/16 07:11 AM
2

"Your masculinity is your strength"? What if you aren't a very masculine man? Would you not have strength, then?
/r/MensRights17/05/16 01:11 PM
1

If she knows the importance of language so well, why is literally the first word she uses SINISTER, a pejorative word against left-handed people? Bigot or idiot? Both?
/r/MensRights17/05/16 01:08 PM
3

The average age of death being lower for men and men not living as long as women are two different things, so no, it's not "just the way it is". The sex ratio in Australia, for example, goes from 1.07 at birth to 0.97 by age 18. The ratio changes because far fewer boys survive to 18 compared to women. So obviously this will pull down the average age dramatically. It's not as though men reach 70 and drop dead while women reach 72 and drop dead, the difference in life expectancy is a result of hig…
/r/MensRights17/05/16 12:48 PM
7

"not all Muslims, but enough that every white westerner feels scared for their life everytime they get on a plane" say every right-wing bigot. Isn't it interesting: some logic but different target.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 02:50 PM
0

Do we know they we're related? It doesn't say what the relationship between them was.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:27 AM
2

Thanks for this, sounds like an interesting read. I'll see what I can do to get around the paywall.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 08:21 AM
1

Don't apologise, no problem. It was interesting in that it's the first thing I've read that said gay men made less, I honestly thought it was the other way around.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 07:15 AM
1

gonna give me a page number or something, or just make me read the whole thing? I'm up to page 6, and it hasn't even mentioned what country it's in yet. This is on page three: A growing number of studies using data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (“NHSLS”), the General Social Survey (“GSS”), the United States Census, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (“NHANES III”) show that gay men earn 10% to 32% less than otherwise similar heterosexual men. The findings …
/r/MensRights02/04/16 06:28 AM
1

Got a source for that? I thought it went straight women < lesbian women < straight men < gay men. The latest NATSEM shows female-female couples earn more than female-male couples, but that doesn't necessarily mean lesbians out earn men, as a significant number of female-male couples will have females working part-time if at all. Here, page 21: http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/storage/Modern%20family%20AMP%20NATSEM%20report%2034.pdf
/r/MensRights02/04/16 04:38 AM
4

Fucking hell, a little warning before you send me to the fuckin guardian! You've triggered me. Such a shit newspaper - "well in February, a suit was filed against yahoo for discrimination against <b><italics> MALE employees". As if males being discriminated against in the workplace is some mythical unicorn.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 02:43 AM
6

Hang on, why does the value of baked goods decrease for women of colour but not men of colour? "all men pay $1"? Those racist motherfuckers! Why aren't jews and asians paying more than $1? Don't they make more than white men on average? Homosexuals make more than heterosexuals, why aren't they paying more than $1?
/r/MensRights01/04/16 12:26 PM
2

Not sure what the point of redacting the location was when you just copy-pasted anyway? Pretty easy to google: http://www.uqu.com.au/view-event/feminist-week-257 You missed the biggest problem, though. There are events in this calendar which cis-men are explicitly forbidden to attend. Eg: Documentary Night 6pm – 8pm in the Women’s Room, UQU Student Space L2 UQ Union Building (next to the Red Room) A documentary screening in the Women’s Room – this is open to all students that do not identify as …
/r/MensRights01/04/16 12:06 PM
1

From the article Governments across the planet are spending countless billions to combat climate change — when the models that supposedly justify those outlays can’t explain why global temperatures have been flat for nearly two decades now. What the what? I haven't seen any credible data to show global temperatures have been flat for two decades. Hasn't the global temperature anomoly over the past 6 months in particular been the largest in recorded history? This journalist isn't any better than …
/r/MensRights29/03/16 12:39 PM
1

Turnbull started kissing feminist arse when he got in because 146 of the 150 seats in Australia are female dominated. Kissing feminist arse is the easiest way to maintain power in a country with mandatory voting and female majorities in 97% of the seats.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 07:57 AM
1

This kind of policy is 100% legal in Australia, and ANZ are not the only company that does this.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 05:27 AM
1

I literally posted a link to the letter in my response to you, you dishonest, strawmanning hypocrite.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 06:48 AM
2

And just left those inaccuracies hanging. After complaining about inaccuracies.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 05:46 AM
1

u/Ciceros_Assassin, where'd you go? As soon as I started asking questions, you abruptly disappeared. Very disappointing. Even if your interpretation of events were true: the event was already on shaky ground, and the letter was a convenient excuse to abort, what were feminists doing writing the letter in the first place? You're tilting at windmills Except in this version of the story, we just saw a dragon attack Sancho, who is now badly burnt and covered in dragon-claw shaped wounds. And now you…
/r/MensRights10/03/16 04:54 AM
1

The frequent misspelling of "its" as "it's" in this article is very annoying.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 02:37 PM
2

Not from the US, so bear with me, but I didn't think men had the right to vote in the US? Don't you get the vote after signing up for selective services? And if you refuse, you become a felon and felons aren't allowed to vote or something?
/r/MensRights09/03/16 02:12 PM
0

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/11/16/open-letter-blasts-universitys-decision-to-mark-international-mens-day-read-it-here/ Here's the letter your feminist comrades wrote, including such non-bigoted statements as "the phrase Equality for Everyone echoes misogynistic rhetoric". Then this one "We believe that men’s issues cannot be approached in the same way as unfairness and discrimination towards women, because women are structurally unequal to men." Don't you just love circular logic? Discrimination…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 11:17 AM
-1

Nice list of things I've never done nor support. I didn't"make shut up", what I wrote was true up to the point I stopped hearing about the story, and the top google results when I checked were written before the discussion took place. I promptly changed it. Show me where I called women bitches. Show me where I said women shouldn't have a day. Show me where I supported the assertion that this girl looked like she was in a porno. And I'm the intellectually dishonest one? Such a hypocrite. Yes, 200…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 09:06 AM
-1

Done. Goes both ways, though. Are you going to clarify "an amazing string of PR fuck ups" as and feminist open letter with 200 signatures that said (paraphrase) "discussing men's issues reinforces the status quo and reinforces inequality"? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-34857143 Do you agree it was because of the superior social capital of feminist groups that such an idiot and openly hateful letter was taken seriously by a university? How else could a minority manipulat…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 08:07 AM
-1

Ops, I was actually talking about University of York. Not sure why I wrote Kent. My mistake, sorry. I agree it has nothing to do with Fathers' day, nor do I believe feminists want to ban father's day. IMD was a complete non-event in Australia. Don't remember seeing a single article about it in any newspaper and, as you can see from the thread on here yesterday from the (government run) SBS, it is openly mocked. I was not aware that discussion ended up taking place (as I don't live in UK, I only …
/r/MensRights09/03/16 07:39 AM
2

Opps, meant MP. I'll fix that now.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 12:14 AM
4

The false accusation rate is higher than 5%: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights08/03/16 11:55 PM
11

Kent university of york cancelled an IMD event last year, saying it was regressive or some shit. Also, PM MP Jess Phillips managed tries to single handedly prevent a discussion on mental health in the UK parliament on IMD, saying "the idea that men can't talk about this any other day is absurd". Well, apparently they're not even allowed to talk about it on this day.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 11:46 PM
2

What is patriarchy in your own words and how can it be debunked? This is a recipe for a straw man. It's not your OWN definition of patriarchy that matters, but the ones used in academia. And it's a bit on the nose to assume a definition you haven't even heard yet must be wrong.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 11:29 PM
1

Centrelink is the equivalent of social security, yes. I'm not sure that mathematically can happen, given that the total number of available jobs is much more than the number of available women. And deliberately going on the dole as a protest will backfire immediately with mass outrage and loss of reputation. It's not that it stops one from getting employed, just that it creates institutional hurdles that make it much less likely to get the job you deserve.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 06:32 AM
7

Open discrimination, you say? The Australian Government calls it "Special Measures".
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:49 PM
-1

Fyi: No point in achieving this. SBS is not a commercial entity, it is a division of the Australian Government.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:47 PM
16

Literally the majority.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:29 PM
43

Happens every day in Australia. It's legal here to say that.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:19 PM
1

Thanks for that. Well, it's a bit closer than I remember. Doesn't it also include a table about the percentage of people who were injured as a result of violence?
/r/MensRights07/03/16 06:14 PM
8

Those numbers come from the Personal Safety Survey conducted every few years by the Australian bureau of statistics. The data is in two forms: Experience of violence in previous 12 months and experience of violence since the age of 15. From memory, 30 something percent of women and 50 something percent of men reported violence since the age of 15. I find this number (at least for men) to be horribly underrepresentative since I don't know a single Australian male who hasn't been in a fight or mug…
/r/MensRights07/03/16 06:36 AM
2

10% is conservative to say the least: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights24/02/16 10:10 PM
2

Nope, this is still typical horrible gruaniad. Everyone who writes for this paper is incapable of critical thinking. You can't disprove the narrative by using the data created by the people desperate to maintain the narrative. You need to expose the flaws in the methodologies of those studies to show they are designed to show only what the authors intent it to show. Take the "youth attitudes of violence" study that they mention, which forms the only supportive evidence of Our Watch's policy. The…
/r/MensRights19/02/16 01:06 PM
3

My girlfriend has slapped me three times within the first 6 months of getting together. Each time of ridiculously trivial things. We had a stern talk and it hasn't happened again since. Been together three years now.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 11:00 AM
5

... on average. Because men die at greater rates in every age bracket. Given the same conditions, an individual woman isn't expected to naturally live longer than any individual man. The expiry dates are the same, men are just less likely to reach theirs and so there's a gap in the life spans when taken as an average.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 01:50 AM
9

Female entitlement.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 10:48 AM
1

Because equal rights is very unlikely to occur with Hilary as president.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 10:24 AM
3

In 2010, if you lived in Syndey city, your head of state, governor general, prime minister, premier and lord mayor were all women. And Sydney is one of only four electorates out of 150 in Australia that has more men than women.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:26 AM
8

What's a reverse gender gap? Is that like if I stick a knife in a black man it's a reverse stabbing? But yeah, yet another variable not included in the earnings gap
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:32 AM
4

Did anyone follow the link that said "women face barriers to advancement at every level?" Well, it linked to a study on Sheryl Sandberg's website and didn't list a single barrier to advancement. It said things like "at all levels, women are less interested in pursuing and executive career". Is there any evidence in this whole piece of the systemic bias we are apparently to blind or stupid to see? I'm looking, and I still can't see it. I must be very stupid indeed.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:26 AM
2

Isnt Lena Dunham the child molester? Or is there a story I don't know?
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:18 AM
11

Her charity literally objectifies women so much, the name of the charity has a grammatical error to cover it up! "I call it HeforHer!" "isn't "her" an object?" "Fuck"
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:28 AM
52

Examples? Her charity, HeforShe, is literally "I know men have issues too but they will never be as important as women's issues so all men need to help women". That's about as gynocentric as you can get.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 10:36 AM
6

Miss Piggy won a 'feminist icon' award last year despite being a narcissistic ipv-abuser.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 06:38 AM
1

Anyone have sources for the four male dv homicide victims so far this year? I know the source for the "zero dv deaths of women so far this year", it's ironically from RadFem group destroy the joint. They started counting ipv deaths of women to prove 1) that two women each week are killed by their male partners, and 2) to show how it's sexism when women experience violence. For 2015, they had to doctor the data to include ALL female homicide victims, including those killed by other women. Their t…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:38 PM
1

Da fuq? I'm Australian, definitely not on kool-aid. What makes you say she's Australian? Her accent is nothing like an Australian accent, and wikipedia says she was born a Mormon in Utah.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:47 AM
2

Aussies aren't any stupider than any other nationality. Nothing about her accent is Australian, so I highly doubt it.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:43 AM
3

Thanks for this, I'll have to check it out. Just read the thread about how feminists criticise the mrm for not doing enough for gay men, and then this was literally the next link I saw.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:35 AM
2

But what feminist texts are peer reviewed? Patriarchy, male privilege, benevolent sexism - these concepts don't even make logical sense, and therefore can't have been subjected to any meaningful peer review process.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 09:38 AM
40

This petition's focus on double standards is an massive mistake. It shifts the focus of the argument to whether or not the procedures cause equal amounts of damage vs benefit, and raises the question "should women's and men's bodies be given the same rights when clearly they aren't the same. Instead, we should be leading with the strongest argument only - circumcision kills boys. People will find that impossible to argue with, and we don't come across as being jealous of women's rights.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 08:54 AM
1

Sex ratio at conception is 150 boys for every 100 girls, and that drops down to 107 boys for every 100 girls by birth. It's not a 50/50 thing. Also, the statistics I've seen have mtf being about 2.5 times as common as ftm.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 02:30 AM
5

That's not what "a theory" means formally. A theory is a set of hypotheses for which there is a large body of supporting evidence, like theory of gravity or theory of evolution.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 12:03 AM
2

Michael Flood works at my uni and tried to facebook friend my gf. Such a creep. I call him "Michael Fraud". The same uni just awarded a phd to a thesis supportive of anti-vaxxing, so the validity of their "experts" is coming under close scrutiny.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 01:21 PM
3

Should the MRM have a theory in the first place? Ideology creates bias, tunnel vision and exposes the validity of our civil rights to irrelevant semantics. Leave to dogma to the ideologues, we'll just focus on equal rights for all humans.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:51 PM
2

Daily life is Fairfax, and most of its articles are therefore published in SMH/the Age
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:11 PM
2

AMP bank and Rice Warner both pay women additional super (similar to 401k in the us) just because vagina. Adam Bandt and Larissa Waters introduced a private members bill called "Sex Discrimination Amendment (Boosting Superannuation for women) bill 2014. Currently, it's totally fine to pay women more money for the exact same job so long as the employer notifies the government that they have (legally) violated the sex discrimination act. The bill would have removed the reporting requirement for le…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 02:44 AM
2

paying men and women differently is illegal. Not here in Australia. Paying women less than men for the same job is illegal here, but paying men less than women for the same job is not only legal, but encouraged by several figures in government and big business.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:58 PM
2

So an intact guy with a condom is more likely to contract and transmit an sti than a cut guy without one?
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:38 PM
9

Because no cut guy has contracted aids ever... Even if it's a true that there's a reduction in transmission, you'd still need a condom. So why not just leave other peoples' genitals alone and teach them to use condoms? There's no practical advantage, only disadvantages. It's so gynocentric that you are willing to mutilate your body and the bodies of others just because some women prefer it mutilated. If African men said they preferred mutilated female genitals, the world would say "who gives a f…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:32 PM
6

There's no apostrophe in "quotas".
/r/MensRights14/01/16 09:06 AM
2

*cricket player
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:55 PM
5

In Australia, boys scouts were opened to girls 30 years ago, girls scouts still refuse to allow boys to join.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 03:59 AM
1

Pharaoh is the only term in this list analogous to king. Nobility is definitely a class, as is lord. I mean, it's still called the house of lords in UK parliament.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:27 PM
3

When you put it that way, I agree completely.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 03:16 AM
1

Is that true, though? I agree they are definitely the most privileged currently. What about pharaohs or Caesars or the European nobility in the middle ages? Or the lords in the feudal system. Would they have more relative privilege than contemporary white women?
/r/MensRights06/01/16 01:49 AM
1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM Just play her this video. It's a light-hearted/funny explanation of the wage gap myth in 6 mins.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 10:40 AM
11

Using two different scales here is slightly confusing. Rapes are reported as number of incidents but false rapes are shown as percentage of rape rate. Therefore, since the number of rapes has decreased, a constant or even decreasing number of false rapes would still result in an increase in the percentage of rapes that were baseless or false. Can you please create a graph for false rape that uses the same scale of the first rape graph? Otherwise comparing the change in magnitude of the two is ma…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 05:10 PM
1

I think they extract the sperm from the epididymis with a massive syringe. Good thing he was dead.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 10:21 PM
5

That's exactly why it's a straw man. No one ever said those things don't happen. But you are claiming that those are the only instances in which the male tears meme is used.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:26 AM
4

Except now someone has a claim to your estate that they may not have had before. Plus, not many people agree with me here, but I think it's more of an achievement for society and the environment for someone to get through life without procreating than having kids. It's immoral for someone to deny you that agency post -mortem.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 04:55 AM
5

It's not that you are "commenting against the grain" but that you are denying the lived experiences of others and telling them what they "actually" experienced. Ironically, exactly like the examples you used in your straw man. As you say, that strategy is "fucking stupid".
/r/MensRights27/12/15 04:29 AM
11

The "male tears" meme deliberately reinforces toxic stereotypes that men aren't allowed to be anything other than stoic and their role in society is to shut up and provide for others. It's used against me by feminists often when I discuss any men's issue or show what they perceive as being "too much emotion". Not sure why you think you are the authority on this, nor why you think you have to right to ignore everyone else's experiences just because they don't match your unfounded opinion. You sai…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 04:26 AM
2

You don't have to ejaculate. Here in Australia, most states have laws that if you die, someone can take your sperm from your cold dead testes and do the old turkey-baste. Was in the news a few months ago because a women conceived, with the help of her doctor, 48 hours after her boyfriend died in a cycling accident.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 03:45 AM
5

female vagina Thanks for clarifying! I kid, I kid.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 03:31 AM
1

You don't need literature to know that. The worst case for both is death. And we know fgm isn't 100% lethal. So it's already proven.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 03:09 AM
1

You're being extremely sexist and naïve in assuming that male congressmen don't pass laws to benefit women over men. Women are the majority of voters, after all, and appealing to the majority is the most logical way of maintaining political power in a democracy. Women have strong in-group biases, men have weak out-group biases towards women. This is known as the "women are wonderful" effect. Please don't project your unconscious bias onto others.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 12:28 AM
1

He works at my local uni. I call him "Michael Fraud". He tried to fb friend my girlfriend, which ironically made we want to demand she reject his request - an act that could be considered domestic violence. Therefore, Michael Fraud causes domestic violence.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 11:46 AM
2

and that is why the argument that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted is exactly wrong. But you just told us that non-poisonous plants still use bright colours, that handicap systems can be gamed by impostors. Placing stricter punishments on false reporting does nothing to address the fundamental issues with low conviction rates in rape cases - it is a mens rea crime. There is literally no physical evidence for a rape that can't also be produced by a consensual act. Ironically, having stricte…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 11:41 AM
2

Her evidence for rape culture is the number of people who attend an anti-rape culture event? There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, therefore Islam is 100% scientifically accurate.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 05:33 AM
3

Then where do Muslim and Jewish children come from? Have you not had "the talk" yet?
/r/MensRights17/12/15 05:08 AM
1

So women don't do tech because of oppression that ended in 1920, and yet the number of women in tech has fallen from 37% to 18% over the last thirty years? These two concepts are mutually exclusive. If oppression is preventing women from entering Stem and women were more oppressed 30 years ago than today, why was their participation rate lower relative to 30 years ago?
/r/MensRights17/12/15 05:02 AM
0

You forgot to include the 200-odd words of explanation in the quote. Apart from misquoting, "Nice try" is also a pretty shallow counter argument.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 03:14 AM
3

Lets assume 5 tampons per day, 5 days of bleeding per period, 13 periods per year and 40 years of ovulation in a lifetime. A quick google search said target charge $6.99 for 40 tampons, so the gst is $0.0175 per tampon. This means the total gst due to tampons over an entire lifetime is $227.5. Assume the average salary of $75,000 and an engagement ring of 8 weeks salary. The gst on that sucker is $1154. Almost 5 times as much. Why aren't you complaining about that, Larissa? Since some food items…
/r/MensRights16/12/15 12:40 AM
1

You still haven't provided me with a rational argument why toiletries should not be taxed, and instead downvote for explaining the counter argument? DVDs as example do not support your point very well. DVDs have significant price elasticity. Because of streaming services and torrenting, small increases in price lead to large declines in sales in most cases. Compared to the toiletries market, the DVD market as a whole is a lot shorter. So, in order to replace a 10% tax on toiletries with tax on o…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:54 PM
1

And what percentage of the population bought Tom Baker Dr Who? If you need to generate significant revenues in order to fund schools, hospitals, defence, infrastructure etc, would you tax the 5 people who bought Tom Baker Dr Who or the 23 million people who use toiletries and eat food?
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:22 PM
1

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Of the total amount of tax revenue that is generated from individuals, a higher percentage of that total revenue comes from the activities of men. I didn't mean to imply that income tax brackets were different for men and women, thanks for allowing me to clarify. Since there is an earnings gap, a direct consequence of that would be that men are contributing more to tax revenue by paying more income tax. Obviously the waters becoming much more muddied when you take ta…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:16 PM
1

I don't know how many different ways I can say this to you. Taxes on things you can do without are inefficient for the very reason that you can do without! And if everybody is using them, then it's a fair tax. Alcohol and cigarettes already have very high levies on them - much higher than just gst.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:13 PM
1

No, that means NO toiletries should be exempt, not all. What is your reason for making them exempt? The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. Everybody uses toiletries, so they are perfect to be taxed. A lot of people confuse a tax with a levy, and falsely assume a tax is supposed to reduce consumption or utilisation. Does the government have income tax because they don't want anyone to work? Do stamp duty, rates and land tax exist because the government want to disincentivise owning houses? Or …
/r/MensRights15/12/15 08:55 PM
8

More important than toothpaste, soap, tissues and toilet paper? I don't think so.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:58 PM
3

Unless you're talking about Australia, where all toiletries are taxed at 10%.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:12 PM
7

More evidence, if you needed any, of how completely gynocentric our society is. Either that, or I'm smarter than literally everyone in our parliament and media. Must be the first one.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:09 PM
7

Are you talking about France? Because I'm talking about Australia. It's only a valid point if you don't understand why the tax is the way it is, which is why idiots like Sen Waters should not be in parliament. Condoms and sunscreen are, I'm pretty sure, the only medical aides that don't attract gst. Tampons are not medical aides, but are classified as toiletries, and as I said, there are literally no toiletry items that are gst free. Why remove the tax on tampons and not on toothpaste or toilet …
/r/MensRights15/12/15 06:45 PM
25

But it's ridiculous to get rid of gst on tampons and only tampons when literally every other toiletry item has gst. It's deliberate cherry picking in order to create some thing complain about. Taxes need broad bases in order to be efficient. Ideally, there shouldn't be any gst exemptions what so ever. Can you imagine if certain jobs got income tax exemptions? That would be so weird. Men need to consume between 25% and 50% additional calories every day compared to the average women. Should we get…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 10:59 AM
2

I'm not saying I agree with the current set up of consent classes, just that it is true that significant proportion of people don't fully understand consent by the time they become sexually active. Look right here for evidence; i'm getting downvoted for essentially reminding people that permission to kiss someone is not permission to fuck them in the arse. Or that if someone changes their mind mid-coitus and asks you to stop and you don't, then that's rape.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 09:21 PM
1

Cool. I agree and just wanted it clarified. I've been mocked and ridiculed - even in this subreddit - for pointing out that consent can be withdrawn mid-act. It scares me that some people think someone saying yes to one act at one time gives them indefinite access to any sex act with that person and that they should have no right to change their mind or must automatically consent to the changing nature of the acts. I found the idea of consent classes repulsive until I found out how poorly some p…
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:28 AM
2

Women don't crime, stooopit.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:10 AM
2

I love how their entire premise is that trolling is a gendered issue because and only counts as abuse when it happens to women, yet they felt the need to hide the men's identities to prevent them receiving online harassment. Cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:52 AM
0

What exactly do you mean by "can be withdrawn"? Do you disagree that consent can be withdrawn? Or only when it is withdrawn retroactively?
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:36 AM
1

True, but people should search for previous posts before posting articles older than 1 week. Or at least mention in the heading that it's old so as to not waste people's time.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 08:38 PM
4

We've all read it. Several times. It gets posted here monthly.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 11:24 AM
2

So rights of the accused plus emotional reasoning equals rights of the accuser? What's that supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:51 PM
3

The study you are responding to has the same methodology but 40 times the sample size and found women twice as favored than men.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 12:35 PM
1

You didn't miss much. "privilege blah blah male politicians blah blah men never experience violence blah blah women are oppressed by walking down the street blah blah all men are vile misogynistic rapists blah blah".
/r/MensRights19/11/15 01:59 PM
1

Clem Ford wrote an article... You don't want to read it.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 01:00 PM
2

Not in and of itself. Enforcing them onto anyone is though.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 12:43 PM
6

It takes two seconds to check this fact, and yet I see it about five times per day. Even Bill shorten and Malcolm Turnbull have said it recently. Nobody cares about truth anymore, only narrative.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:05 PM
8

Where was 'turning gay' ever mentioned?
/r/MensRights10/11/15 08:31 AM
2

Hilarious, too, because Stott-dispoja is on the board of "Our Watch" - WATCH being an acronym for "women and their children". Nowhere do they mention that 52% of filicide in Australia is perpetrated by the mother. Woops.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:06 AM
2

That, and women are the majority in 146 of the 150 seats in Australia. Democracies always privilege the majority first and foremost, because that's how you stay in power. To infringe on the privileges of the majority is to lose the next election. Here's the electoral roll for the last election: http://1drv.ms/1HDTiDB
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:04 AM
3

Milo yiannopolous says that regularly.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 11:51 AM
1

I can't fault your logic. Even though words like feminine and masculine reference gender more-so than sex, it does come out weird when you word it the way you have. The only exception would be trans people, where "that women's gender is male" is a possible scenario.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 06:11 AM
2

Personally, I think gender and sex should just be synonyms instead of two different things entirely. If a woman acts very much as a guy then I would just call her a masculine woman, not identify her as a man because she behaves like a man does. How can she be a women, then, if you define sex and gender as synonyms? Being a women would be "sex", acting masculine would be "gender". The existence for these kinds of scenarios is exactly the reason why they SHOULDN'T be synonymous. I've had this argu…
/r/MensRights07/11/15 03:27 AM
1

Again, what are you talking about? I never said that there were only 4 male members of parliament. There are roughly about 100 men and 50 women members of parliament. I said 146 of the seats are elected by groups that have women as the majority. You can't be an oppressed class in a democracy with mandatory voting when your class is the majority in 97% of the seats. It's mathematically impossible. The article's justification is that because there are more men than women in parliament, therefore w…
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:42 AM
1

Are you talking to me? Because I have no idea what you are saying nor why it's relevant to me.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:22 AM
0

Got 30 seconds in and had to stop watching. They are kind of attacking a straw man. Gender and sex are definitely not the same thing, and while I agree that a lot gender is biologically determined also, there are definitely socially constructed aspects of gender as well. Take pink for example. Is it biological that pink be near universally associated with femininity? Gender as a spectrum just means that you can still be a man without possessing exclusively masculine traits, and vice versa for wo…
/r/MensRights06/11/15 02:10 AM
1

What are you talking about? Of course there are male candidates and of course men are allowed to vote. But women outnumber men in 146 of the seats. So even if all men wanted to band together and oppress women, they don't have the numbers for it to be possible. Democracy privileges the majority.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 01:47 AM
3

146 out of 150. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX OUT OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY seats in Australian are female dominated in a democracy with mandatroy voting. If women wanted to vote in women, we would currently have 149 women and 1 man in parliament. Women have the power here, stop pretending you are oppressed. "“In an ideal world you would have fifty-fifty but we don’t have fifty-fifty men and women in the parliament,” he told reporters. “The fundamental problem at the root of the issue is this: there …
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:18 PM
1

Nope, this is all the information I have. But if something actually happened, wouldn't they have said that instead of merely 'followed'? The part with the two guys is weird, because it says the black man followed her to her car, but then it says these other two randoms helped her to her car. So if the two guys were there the whole time as the black guy was walking down the street, then makes it seem even more like a guy who just happened to be walking in the same direction. I mean, I don't prete…
/r/MensRights02/11/15 10:01 AM
1

Didn't you say you waited on the street for her? That's what makes it stalking.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 01:15 AM
1

Yeah, that's what stalking is.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 12:58 AM
8

"Black Lives MATTER! I can't believe those racist cops just assume all bla.....OH MY GOD THERE'S A BLACK MAN WALKING DOWN THE SAME STREET AS ME! RAPE! RAPE! FIRE! FIRE!
/r/MensRights01/11/15 10:40 PM
4

It sounds so much like confirmation bias, especially considering the Reclaim the Night rally was held on Crown St the next night. https://archive.is/GNyQB These things reinforce the idea that streets aren't safe for women and women only (statistically, the exact opposite is true - the vast majority of street violence has male victims). I also can't shake the feeling the group wanted a recent example to say 'you see! just last night a poor white women was stalked by an evil black male!'. The iron…
/r/MensRights01/11/15 10:35 PM
2

Stella has no problem talking down to her teachers and yet somehow DOESN'T deserve to be called bossy? The worst bit was when Stella was attacking the men's rights collective: "I can't believe they yelled at me just for wanting rights". Notice she didn't say equal rights, because guess what? That's what the people she was fighting against were after! You already have all the rights, you bossy bitch! Move over and give some other people some room.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 12:01 PM
2

Fun fact: Our W.A.T.C.H stands for (stop violence against) Women And Their CHildren. And yet nowhere on there website do they mention that mothers murder their children more often than fathers. Oops. Patriarchy causes violence because reasons.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 11:58 AM
12

My uni emailed all students this security alert after a black man was walking down the same street as a women. Not a lot a details here, and it's entirely possible some creepy shit went down. But the only details the alert mentions are that he too was walking down the same streets as her - the streets that happen to lead from the campus to the train station and the city centre.
/r/MensRights01/11/15 09:47 AM
-2

That's the rapiest thing I've ever heard. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. If someone is communicating to you that they are no longer willing to have sex and you continue, that is literally rape. Also, consent for one sex act is not consent to all sex acts. She may think you just want PiV, but then you hold her down and fuck her in the arse, then guess what? That's rape. I can't decide if this thread is full of 13 year olds or rapists. Maybe the feminists are right. If this thread is anythi…
/r/MensRights17/10/15 07:49 PM
0

In the meme, no evidence or context is provided. Hence why I was asking for more information before deciding what the situation was. He could have held her down and fucked her in the arse for all we know from the meme. For that he would not have had consent, and he would be a rapist. But you're right. I'm the idiot. Anyone who thinks for themselves and asks for the full story is clearly an idiot.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 07:42 PM
-12

Yes, but that's not my point. The original post showed the text messages with the comment "this kid was EXPELLED", as though all other evidence is invalidated if you have a text message implying consent to sex. You can have consent to a sex act and then still rape someone immediately afterwards.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 11:23 AM
-19

You're joking if you think the text messages are enough to prove whatever happened next could not have been rape. Have you got anymore details of that case?
/r/MensRights17/10/15 06:52 AM
1

I was talking about policy, not influence. Policy is a much more immediate problem. I live in a country where the government gives more funding to dogs who are pets of female victims of DV then to male DV victims because the Duluth model is government policy across the board. I live in a country where workplace discrimination is legal so long as it benefits women. I live in a country where criticizing a journalist for factual errors is automatically misogyny if the journalist is female. All the …
/r/MensRights15/10/15 12:33 PM
1

Those pesky extremists! Whenever a feminist has any power, as an academic, charity CEO, journalist or politician, they are always the extremists, right? So why should we care about what the silent moderate feminists think when they aren't the ones influencing policy? So yes, I'm cherry-picking by focusing on the feminists who actually change the world. You are projecting your own ambiguous definition and assuming everyone thinks the same way you do despite all the evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 06:58 PM
0

FYI here's another video I just happened to watch where the feminists say violent behavior is a social construct caused by not picking up baby boys fast enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax2iroxWQBA
/r/MensRights14/10/15 11:53 AM
0

Stronger versions argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions Therefore, feminists exist who think behaving along gendered lines is 100% a social construct. That attitude is offensive to transgender people; my original point. Just because you believe another definition, doesn't mean other feminists do. Are all feminists TERFs? Are you a TERF automatically because you identify as feminist? Are you a political lesbian, because sexual orientation is …
/r/MensRights13/10/15 11:24 PM
1

A learned behavior by definition is not natural, or is this another feminist change in definitions? Thanks for muddling the term whose definition you were supposed to be explaining as part of your definition. Your argument is now clear as mud. You say because I didn't "research gender" I'm wrong, whilst linking to a Wikipedia page that reaffirms my position? "Much evidence from evolutionary biology exists that contradicts the idea that gender is a social construct". I never once said gender and …
/r/MensRights13/10/15 03:04 PM
1

So since feminist don't mean gender when they say gender, what is their word for gender? I love how I'm the one "misinterpreting" when you've literally changed the meaning of the word. I would have to have misinterpreted you to arrive at your conclusion and not mine. What does a feminist mean when they say misinterpret? Does that mean the same at least? Edit: What did you think of the documentary Hjernevesk? I mention it because the sociologists and feminists in it don't use your definition of g…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:11 AM
1

Exactly, so when you say "gender is a social construct", you aren't really talking about gender at all, but instead a mandatory binary reinforcement of gender. Because we both agree this differentiation of traits and behaviours will still exist on average without socialisation. So your argument only works if you redefine gender to be something much less meaningful, as you agreed. The first half of that is actually exactly what the feminist definition of gender is trying to say, at least to an ex…
/r/MensRights12/10/15 12:04 AM
1

The layman understanding of "gender" is the behavioral and cultural attributes of each biological sex. To redefine gender as "that which you are told to do because tradition" or "the aspects of gender which we just made up" would move the majority of what would otherwise be considered gender into the category of sex, such as behaviors and tastes. I'm very keen for people being free to decide how much - if even any at all - of their gender role they want to conform to. But using your definition, …
/r/MensRights09/10/15 04:54 AM
2

I was under the impression gay and bi men were OVERREPRESENTED in the MRM? Didn't they do surveys of various men's groups, including r/mensrights and find 20% identified as gay and something like 40% were a "Kinsey non-zero"? That's way more than in the general population. Does anyone have the link to any of those surveys?
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:09 PM
1

A lot of feminists support lbgt communities, but feminism itself does not. How is saying "gender is a social construct" supporting you if are born in the wrong gender? Or you don't adhere to the sexual expectations of your gender? Telling someone in the lbgt that their gender and sexuality are social constructs leads to the idea that they should be able to "change back" through socialization. Feminist theory is hostile to the lgbt community. At least TERFs are logically consistent.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 10:05 PM
2

So around the same number of children killed by their mothers Not exactly, we have been averaging around 20 filicides per year, and women comit 52% of filicides, so that's around 10 kids per year killed by women. Last year was off trend, in that there were two babies abandoned in public places in Sydney, and the whole cairns thing. Edit: Miranda Divine has also said her fair share of bigoted things, so take it with a grain of salt. She has claimed in the past that fatherlessness causes riots and…
/r/MensRights30/09/15 06:04 PM
4

Because it's Rupert Murdoch. He doesn't need more money.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:01 AM
6

"About 62 percent of women experienced their most recent incident of physical assault in their home, compared to eight percent of men." Yeah, but men are like 3 times more likely to be assaulted, the percentages create a false comparison. 62 percent of X vs 8% of y. But what are x and y?
/r/MensRights30/09/15 07:02 AM
1

Why shouldn't we be accurate? Would you let such a discrepancy through if the topic was the wage gap? A half means a 1:1 ratio. A third means a 2:1 ratio. That's a big difference. And once you understand the flawed methodology of how the abs get their data - using the CTS - you realize that a third is a bit generous since it includes perpetrators as victims when violence is reciprocal etc, and it doesn't account for severity of the violence. We lose credibility whenever we lie or exaggerate. Let…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:21 AM
1

I know. I'm well aware. I read reports on this all the time. Notice how a third is not a half?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:02 PM
-1

I've never seen an Australian study that claimed men make up half of all domestic violence victims. And I've read dozens. Do you have any?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:32 PM
5

Why can't breastfeeding occur anywhere? I don't get the issue?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:00 PM
3

Sorry, not a graphic designer, but could you pls pm me the link when the website is really? I've had some many rants to people about that stupid report. I can't believe the number of people who believe it without reading the methodology. Having a website I could point to would be so much better than asking people to read the 90-whatever page report. Thanks for the good work!
/r/MensRights15/09/15 01:00 PM
1

Yes, that YT video is a thorough debunking, thank you.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 03:20 AM
2

http://brooklynboulders.com/brooklyn/climbing/women-only-climbing-classes/
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:39 AM
2

God these women feminists are really insane. Plenty of men subscribe to the idea that female journalists shouldn't be fact-checked as well.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:51 AM
2

Here in Australia, men got the right to vote between 1855 and 1896 (different dates for different states). Women got voting rights between 1856 and 1902. Although, the percentages of men vs women who could vote were far from equal during the transition times, as the women who could vote from 1856 were from a very small colony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Australia.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:48 AM
4

Plus, after the agricultural revolution, women were usually responsible for most secondary industry, such as producing pottery and textiles etc using resources that the men gathered from the primary industries: mining, farming, hunting etc.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:43 AM
23

Warmongering? Didn't you see the bit where Ellen says: "we should stop pissing off other countries" and Clinton slaps her a high-five? It doesn't matter what she did as secretary of state to piss off other countries, because women are wonderful effect. /s
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:04 AM
1

Did you read the article? It isn't trying to pull the "FOR THE SAME WORK!!!" BS most articles run with. It actual mentions the real reason: Women are leaving the workforce to be care-givers at 2.5 times the rate that men do it.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:46 AM
-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception This absolutely is a crime.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:41 AM
5

You should archive.is that guardian link. This is rape-by-deception, and it's a crime. The funny(?) thing is, when this appeared in my FB feed, the 'suggested article' afterwards from the same newspaper said "man charged with rape after lying about being a model.' So lying about your profession for sex is rape, but lying about your gender, about being a cancer survivor and about being disfigured for sex is not?
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:39 AM
67

Well, it's true. When the system is incentivising women to be primary care givers and discouraging men from doing it, we don't have equality of opportunity. And that has massive flow on effects for someone's career. It's hilarious how absent this item is from feminist to-do lists, because it involves admitting that women have more rights and more lifestyle options than men.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:36 AM
5

I agree that moderates on both sides are much more similar than they will admit, and yes, this does a good job of showing that. I felt the man was more exaggerated than the women, but not absurdly so. The impression I got was still that she was "educating" him. Especially as she makes several references to her being his teacher, and the "right answer, wrong working" comment. It could have been a lot more bias, but it's still not quite... right yet.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:38 AM
-1

You shouldn't be targeting the people in the team: it's not their fault. Target the administration that allowed discrimination to occur.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 10:08 PM
35

Somewhat accurate. I don't think an MRA would tell a date she "couldn't handle running the world", or she shouldn't "take his name that he worked hard for". The subtext of this piece is "MRAs don't understand the issues well enough to realise they are actually feminists". She says "you got the right answer from the wrong working" and then calls him a misogynist. The script then allowed all of his points to be justified as "female privilege is actually misogyny", but her points were never examine…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 10:06 PM
1

WTF is my SMV? Or so I not want to know...?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 09:55 PM
13

So Annabel Crabb, we’re not even pretending anymore: For a person whose job it is to promote the interests of women, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick has spent an awful lot of time thinking about and talking to men. So there we have it, anti-discrimination laws have never and were never intended to achieve equality, only promote the interests of women. The very definition of supremacy. Questions about the representation of women in leadership have tended to be – in other w…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 11:03 PM
19

First, these suggestions ignore the uncapping of university places. There is no “squeezing” going on. More female students does not mean fewer males. Just as increases in students from less privileged backgrounds does not mean decreases in the more privileged. Second, while universities continue to report on the original equity target groups (women in non-traditional areas among them), equity funding and strategies prioritise Indigenous, low socioeconomic status, regional and remote students – n…
/r/MensRights07/09/15 07:53 AM
1

I can't imagine Newtown being very accepting of you.
/r/MensRights05/09/15 10:28 AM
7

But this isn't even benevolent sexism. This is just asking for what everyone else already has.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 10:44 AM
1

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/1996-guidelines-special-measures-under-sex-discrimination-act-1984
/r/MensRights31/08/15 01:39 AM
1

Why are the words radical and terrorist in scare-quotes?
/r/MensRights30/08/15 11:49 AM
2

Not in Australia. It's legal so long as women are seen to benefit from the discrimination. It's called "Special Measures".
/r/MensRights30/08/15 11:27 AM
5

Well, it is domestic violence.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 10:01 AM
3

"Did you know: Women need to work an extra blah blah days to earn the same money as a man doing the sake work?" And then it links to the WGEA website that doesn't show its wage gap methodology nor provide any sources that would be needed to correct for "same work". This "did you know" is an overt lie, so no, I didn't know but neither did you!
/r/MensRights25/08/15 03:07 PM
2

It's a government website. No need to archive.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 03:04 PM
2

True, but "second class citizen" is a bit of a strong term. More like "institutionally disadvantaged".
/r/MensRights25/08/15 03:00 PM
2

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150821/NEWS/150829843/101061/NEWS Like this women who successfully persuaded a guy her boyfriend to commit suicide?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:29 AM
2

Because Kevin Alfred Storm is a white supremacist, but people want to use the quote outside of the bigoted context. So they pretend it's Voltaire.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:07 AM
2

If she can admit that and not acknowledge female privilege, she's delusional.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 12:54 PM
0

If you are a woman and disagree with them, well too bad! Just ask Alison Tieman or Lauren Southern. Or ask Mark Latham
/r/MensRights24/08/15 12:39 PM
4

Annabell Crabb is usually (not always) intelligent and balanced. This is a new low in her career.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 12:28 PM
1

The parity point is in the teenage years. In Australia where I live, the sex ratio goes from 1.07 at birth to 0.96 by 18 years old.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 04:40 AM
2

Well, Coles and Target are both owned by wesfarmers, and it was only a few months ago when Target caved in to that feminist petition about GTA V. So them being "pussies" isn't really new.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 04:52 PM
8

That title gave me cancer.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 10:51 AM
1

Yeah, it's already legal here in Australia. It affects me almost daily.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:48 AM
1

Didn't Emma Watson complain about that on Twitter a year before here UN Speech? Anyone got a link to that?
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:17 AM
4

www.datagoneodd.com/blog There are several articles on here examining what data we have about false rape. Spoiler: It's not what I'd call a small percentage, in fact it's one of the most lied-about crimes.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 04:27 AM
-4

But, the organized group that actively and visibly lobbies for this sort of thing is feminism. Visibly lobbies for weaponised fake-rape accusations? I must have bad eye-sight, because that's not what I see. Can you please provide some examples of remain feminism actively and visibly promoting this?
/r/MensRights13/08/15 08:41 AM
3

Caliente or picante?
/r/MensRights13/08/15 01:44 AM
-19

How is this literally feminism exactly?
/r/MensRights13/08/15 01:41 AM
2

What do you mean? Fairfax media is one of Australia's largest media company, if not the largest. Can't get any more mainstream than SMH.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:57 PM
6

Good job ABC for presenting the aspects of this topic that don't fit "the narrative". And just when I was about to give up on ABC. A big part of this problem is from the Women are Wonderful effect.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:54 PM
3

Meeting the criterion of "having experienced one or more violent act from a family member or partner in the previous year" occurs roughly equally between men and women, but repeated physical abuse and abuse that escalates to the point of homicide occurs more against women than men. It's an important distinction because one requires a lot more resources than the other for the victim to address. Having said that, the resources for men who experience "intimate partner terrorism", as some people cal…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 05:50 AM
5

The proposed mechanism wasn't so much increased residence time of vaginal fluids, but the keratinisation of the glans, which leads to a thickening of the membrane - which is also one of the ways circumcision desensitises the penis. The thicker membrane inhibits the transmission of the virus, apparently. The study was pretty dodgy IIRC, they had to cancel it halfway through because, surprise surprise, the researchers were deliberately forcing their control group to not only contract but also spre…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 05:07 PM
2

Bigotry and willful ignorance.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 04:57 PM
3

I've been shamed several times per year for not being cut. Almost equal parts female and cut guys who don't know what they are missing. And I don't live in the US.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 11:48 AM
1

Well, where are you, brother? It's probably easier to immigrate to your country and sue your government than it is to get the Australian government to pay men and women equally - and can you believe most peoples' biggest complaint about our current government is that it's apparently "misogynistic"? A conservative government that wants to pay women more than men for the same work. That's the reality I live in.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:05 PM
1

Except, other reports on menline is that it's run by feminists who are trained to grill the caller until they admit that they themselves are the abuser. Because Duluth Model.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 01:00 PM
1

Yes, check out the constant battles one-in-three campaign are having just to get men included in the conversations in any capacity aside from 'abusers'.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:58 PM
1

There was a report two weeks ago about relationships in Australia. I can't remember the name of it, but one of the findings was that men form stronger bonds in relationships relative to women and have are much easier-to-fulfill needs, where women generally find relationships unsatisfactory.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:56 PM
3

Exactly, how about we address the inequality in rights to parental leave as a start, then maybe more men will take up careers roles? No? Because then women can't "have it all"? http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/parental-leave-pay/eligibility-for-parental-leave-pay http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/dad-and-partner-pay/eligibility-for-dad-and-partner-pay
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:50 PM
1

exactly, why did he chase her and grab her when she tried to walk away? Not sure why OP posted this here?
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:17 PM
2

You guys realise that EVERY Australian of the Year this year was female, right? http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/2015-award-recipients/ The ad is referencing 2015's winners. Edit: "deaf women gives voice to human rights issues" = Drisana Levitzke-Gray "women with dyslexia writes award-winning children's book" = Jackie French "women gives all to those who lost everything" = Juliette Wright "women turns violent act into positive action"= Rosie Batty
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:04 PM
2

Sexual Offences Act 2003 Of which country / jurisdiction?
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:58 AM
4

"that false allegations are exceptionally rare" is an oft-repeated myth of wage-gap proportions. Using the feminist's own data, the false allegation rate is at least 12%. Here's the source. It's a bit long, but a fascinating read: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:56 AM
4

Can you post a scan of the essay with the comments?
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:50 AM
3

Why the fuck does a bank have an entire 'women's' section on its website? That is so fucking weird.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:46 AM
3

Can't, it's legal in Australia to pay women more than men but not to pay men more than women. https://archive.is/OAGM6
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:25 AM
4

We have an EEO act, but the act has a appendix called 'special measures' which pretty much allows workplace discrimination against anyone who belongs to a groups seen to be 'traditionally advantaged'. The attorny-general of Australia had already commented on this phenomenon a few months ago because this isn't the first company in Australia to implement this policy. He said paying women more money for the same work is completely within the scope of the 'special measures' appendix to the act. http…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 11:12 AM
-1

The freakin' government stating they would need to change the laws to make it legal. Except the quote doesn't even say that! You had to cut out a handful of words from an entire paragraph to even make your interpretation seem possible. You'd have to have cognitive issues to interpret the quote the way you have chosen to. I just continue to defend it Never once defended it. You are a troll, I'm going to bed.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 01:08 PM
-1

Nice cherry pick, you fucking dishonest fuckwit. This may come as a surprise to you, but words have meanings, and those meanings depend on the entire context they are presented in. "Without a definitive law change, many companies may be reluctant to act because it relies on them being confident that the 'special measures' argument applies in their case." The change in the definition only serves to give companies more confidence to pay women more then men, not to make paying women more than men l…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:59 PM
1

First quote from Brandis: He says current laws don't actually prohibit employers from paying higher super contributions to women because they already allow for "special measures" to achieve gender equality. directly refuting your claims. Learn to read.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:50 PM
0

How the fuck am I defending sexism against men? Where did I say "I support women getting paid more than men for the same work"? Re-read your post and tell me you haven't used any strawmen or ad hominems: Desperately trying to defend sexism against men strawmen raging out when refuted with the facts? BS you pulled out of your arse Yeah, sounds like you're a feminist ad hominem hen probably stop acting like a feminist and defending sexism, hmm? ad homimen and strawmen Attorney General is not the g…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:48 PM
1

Which is the opposite of your "legal" claim since they didn't implement it. "Without a definitive law change, many companies may be reluctant to act because it relies on them being confident that the 'special measures' argument applies in their case." Financial consultancy firm Rice Warner is believed to be the only company in Australia that pays its female staff more super – an extra 2 per cent – than it pays its male staff, in an effort to address the savings gap. The company came up with the …
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:36 PM
1

Boy you feminists get angry at being refuted don't you. How the fuck am I a feminist? How many times do I have to say this?? I hate Feminism and I think unequal pay is bullshit. George Brandis is the attorney general of Australia. Apparently, you think this is irrelevant. I didn't mention those peoples names to say I agree with this policy, just to show that high levels of the government support it so it is unlikely the law will be changes soon. So even though the EOA actually directly refutes y…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:33 PM
1

Rice Warner was allowed to continue to pay women more than men: "He (George Brandis) says current laws don't actually prohibit employers from paying higher super contributions to women because they already allow for "special measures" to achieve gender equality." Can you read? What he rejected was amendments designed to make it easier for companies to pay women more than men.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:20 PM
3

HAHAHAH It's pretty messed up here that we've got more than one person desperately trying to defend sexism against men like you are. How exactly the fuck am I defending sexism against men? I think this is absolute bullshit. But I don't make the laws. Why are you being such a tool? Why are you so desperate to strawman?
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:18 PM
1

Show us where already and stop lying. Wow, how much of a cunt can you be? Like seriously, what the fuck is your problem? Here's George Brandis and sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick citing precedence of Rice Warner as a company who already pays women more than men - 2% - and they cite the special measures act as justification. https://archive.is/OAGM6 I'm not a lawyer, and the special measures policy sounds subjective as fuck: http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.ph…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 12:15 PM
1

https://archive.is/OAGM6 For those playing along at home, a link supporting the claims in my previous comment... Fuck downvotes, if that what it takes to get equality...
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:58 AM
0

You need to read the "Special Measures" amendment to the EEO act to find the part where they legalise pay inequality in favour of women.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:47 AM
3

Don't know what planet these people live in where they think pay discrimination against men would be illegal in Australia. Google Australian EEO act Special Measures, the get back to us. The Australian government including George brandis and the WGEA are aware of this issue because this isn't the first company in Australia to issue such a policy. Australia considers men as less than human.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:45 AM
2

The pay gap was never reported to be 22%. Check out the WGEA to find out the latest lies about the "pay gap" in Australia.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:42 AM
-1

don't like your abusive spouse ? call the police, leave them, get them prosecuted/jailed. A little off topic, but this sentiment bothers me. It is almost never as simple as just leaving an abusive spouse. The most likely time for IPV homicide to occur is immediately after the spouse tries to leave the (more) abusive spouse. The police can't just lock up the abusive spouse for life straight away. That is a violation of due process. The best they can do is arrange an AVO. But guess what? More than…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 11:53 AM
6

Wait, what? Since when is imposing rigid gender roles onto men and giving them less rights not a men's rights issue? What are the criteria for a men's rights issue if this doesn't fit?
/r/MensRights17/07/15 02:58 AM
2

My thoughts exactly. I personally would prefer a bit more distance between the two groups.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 04:02 AM
1

Four options: You forgot getting murdered by his spouse and proactively murdering the spouse before they murder him. Also, men's dv shelter would also provide shelter for men escaping men's violence, either from a partner or from other family members. It's not just male victims of female violence who are locked out of dv shelters.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:15 AM
1

Is TRP a men's rights sub? Their philosophy isn't the same at all.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:12 AM
3

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted: You are right on the money. This argument uses the exact same logic of the wage gap myth. We rightly mocked those who claim the women's world cup teams were being discriminated against, but then some of us decide to go off and use the same argument? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Women's tennis players getting paid the same for less court time is not discrimination, unless you also want to argue female hairdressers should have the same hourly r…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 02:06 AM
-4

But the part about not being paid for the length of the contest is correct. The biggest factor in an athlete's pay is their ability to draw a crowd and be profitable for the governing bodies/venues/media.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 06:04 AM
1

Never been to TRP. I just posted the link because it elaborates on u/MonkeyCB's comment. Why do you think it applies to everyone equally? If you include sex/child rearing then I would agree. I think the economics of sexual relationships are usually heterogeneous. 'Sex for resources' is a heavy simplification, but there's some truth to it.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:54 AM
7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Briffault#Briffault.27s_Law
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:31 AM
2

Holy shit, I totally know Kim Gentle. Haven't seen her since 2001, though.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 02:22 PM
3

The irrelevance of the report's methodology to equality can be demonstrated by using a hypothetical of radical feminism. Imagine a SCUM manifesto-esque world where all but ~10% of men have been murdered by feminists. The remaining men are kept locked up where they are raped to produce children while performing slave labour tasks. They have no rights, no education, no healthcare, no political, social or economic power what so ever. Plugging that situation into the report's methodology gives that …
/r/MensRights25/06/15 03:20 AM
1

Well, having a male go first would be oppression, right? Because they are all evil?
/r/MensRights24/06/15 04:16 PM
7

But did it? All of the mad max attention I saw cane from ROK, a decisively anti-mrm site. I don't care what he calls himself. To attach weight to his arguments because he sometimes supports mrm concepts is like a reverse ad hominem. But he absolutely wipes the floor with Grossman here. You should read his follow up article where she claimed the only reason no one believed her arguments was because of ingrained misogyny. The only reason I bring up him not being mra is so people don't expect him t…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 11:51 AM
4

Sorry, did you want me to post every article from his discography with an annotation of whether it is pro or anti mrm??? He's famously anti-marriage equality, which I assume doesn't align with mrm policy. You posted an article where he seemingly supports MGTOW. What's that got to do with mrm? He also posted his refusal to vote in the UK election until the government started to take men's issues seriously. Does that make him an mra even if he rejects the term? He discusses things that align with …
/r/MensRights24/06/15 11:44 AM
9

Yes, Milo is in top form in this video. But I wouldn't call him an MRA. He's written plenty of articles that openly mock the MRM and some that argue against its goals. Edit: Here he is jumping on the mad max 'MRM is stoopid' bandwagon. Here he is discussing how he's a gay men and all boys should be circumcised at birth.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 02:53 AM
0

True, but as you say, it's mostly biological. Good luck changing it. All we can do is raise awareness. Introducing a bias to correct a bias never works: Just look at gender quotas in the workplace for an example.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 10:05 AM
5

I wish I kept the link, but a few months ago I saw a stat that the wage fap of female G.P.s who ran there own practice was 26% or something, while the gap for those working in someone else's practice was 18% or something. Anyone else see that data?
/r/MensRights16/06/15 04:22 AM
1

So one person (a women who denounces feminism, no less) claims all women support feminism at least indirectly, and therefore each and every women is waiting for the technology that will enable them to commit mass gendercide. Gotcha. I made no presumptions about you. You've posted on TRP before and AWALT is pretty much their slogan. The very concept of AWALT is incongruent with egalitarianism and therefore has no place in the MRM, hence why I brought up TRP. The rest was your making assumptions. …
/r/MensRights13/06/15 11:12 AM
1

Firstly, weren't we talking about biases in education? Now all of a sudden, the goalposts have been moved to the draft. Secondly, not being allowed to run a company, or vote, or get paid the same wage for same job due to your gender absolutely counts as oppression. It's not a zero sum game: different groups can simultaneously be systemically disadvantaged.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:45 AM
0

Thanks. Keep moving those goalposts.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:41 AM
1

I never said it wouldn't. Of course it would be traumatic. But it's not going to cause Gender Dysphoria. Because despite being treated as a female, the boy's brain still considers itself male, and the boy's body is still male. That's not gender dysphoria. If you are arguing that the boy will start identifying as female, and thus develop gender dysphoria with his male body, then you've already provided the perfect counter-argument to that idea: David Reimer's brain wasn't plastic enough to consid…
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:11 PM
1

David Reimer was a male with a "male brain" who was forced into sex reassignment surgery as an infant. That's completely different to a 10 year old temporarily cross-dressing. How is that going to make the kid think he is female? The whole idea of gender dysphoria is that the brain and body have assigned genders independent of each other. So the boy can do as many girly things as he wants, but his brain will always "know" he's a male.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 08:41 PM
0

but they all go along with it. That's demonstrably false. There are plenty of women who denounce feminism. Pigeon-holing and generalising doesn't help anyone. Let me guess, you came here from TRP?
/r/MensRights12/06/15 08:36 PM
0

Weren't we talking about teachers' gender biases in the education system?
/r/MensRights12/06/15 08:31 PM
3

I was starting to warm to milo after seeing him demolish that feminist in the debate about women in STEM the other day. This pro-circ article is disgusting.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 05:15 PM
1

And the guardian.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:12 PM
0

Yeah, that's not how it works.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:01 PM
2

Awalt? Come on, really? You believe each and every women is just waiting for the opportunity to exterminate the majority of men?
/r/MensRights12/06/15 03:52 PM
5

Ever? Yes, the current situation is a problem, but you might be exaggerating a bit there.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 03:39 PM
1

It's more than one half they are ignoring. Aren't 90% of genital mutilations performed on boys?
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:37 AM
1

largely young, white, single, and heterosexual men Not only is this not true, but isn't it massively racist and sexist to claim this as a means to undermine the MRM? "Feminists are female, therefore they are wrong" sounds kinda stupid.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 03:14 PM
1

No, shitlord! Men take on dangerous jobs because of patriarchy. Aren't you paying attention? /s. I work in heavy industry. It is true women are discouraged from working in dangerous jobs. Affirmative action is so strong here due to ~15% of the workforce being female, that most women are made managers within a few years. Very discouraging.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 03:04 PM
1

Not very environmentally friendly to print all these off. Feminism is anti-environment?
/r/MensRights08/06/15 03:01 PM
1

They constantly mention 'gender-oppressed peoples' as a way of excluding men. But they are also acknowledging a dozen ways society dictates to men what they can and can't be. Wouldn't that mean that 'gender-oppressed' could be used to describe literally everyone on the planet?
/r/MensRights08/06/15 02:58 PM
3

Don't want to be self-victimising, but it's hard to put solutions into action when feminists use their hegemony to silence us at every opportunity. Just look at the Earl Silverman's shelter. The paragraph about MRAs abusing and harassing feminists is too ironic to be true. How can they claim this while going out of their way to harass and abuse MRAs?
/r/MensRights08/06/15 02:54 PM
2

At the moment, there's a huge crusade against domestic violence perpetrated by a man against a women in Australia. FTFY
/r/MensRights08/06/15 01:27 PM
6

This point is especially amusing when we consider that the modern 3-rd wave maxist feminist's favourite word is "cis". That word literally covers 99.99% of humans. 1 in 10,000 is a significant percentage, but suddenly 1 in 3 or even 1 in 10 isn't? Overt hypocrisy, but they are too crazy to admit it.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 01:20 PM
4

Some of the most educated people I know are absolute idiots. Case in point: Sarkeesian has a master's degree.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 10:34 PM
7

Because rape is way worse than murder, shitlord! Because men get murdered more than women and women get raped more than men. QED: rape must be worse. /s
/r/MensRights05/06/15 10:11 PM
4

Surely this is a honey pot - designed to entice people to leave horrible comments about her so she can say "see?! Rape culture!"
/r/MensRights05/06/15 09:52 AM
4

It's only ironic for those naïve enough to think feminists are egalitarians.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 09:08 PM
0

Totally not true. From the age of 10 until only a few years ago, I was chronically depressed and constantly thinking about suicide. Now I have the exact opposite problem: I'm horrified at the thought of dying. I can't say when or how, but things well get better for you eventually. And you will look back and be grateful for holding on through all that pain.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 08:51 PM
7

I'd say 'he for she' is owner by feminists, not by women's rights.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 08:29 PM
2

FYI: Factoid doesn't mean what you probably think it does. "-oid" in Greek means "resembling", so a humanoid resembles a human without being one, a deltoid looks like a triangle but isn't one. Therefore a factoid looks like a fact but isn't one. A factoid is a plausible piece of information that isn't actually true.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 03:19 AM
1

Why's that?
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:05 AM
1

A lot of people with brains don't like the guardian. I love how you think employing greenwald somehow undoes all the bullshit. You think it's bad to judge a newspaper because they have multiple horrible journalists, but having a single (in your opinion) less than horrible journalist all of a sudden makes them the beez kneez. Very objective of you.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:21 PM
1

Do not link to the Guardian, please use archive.today or donotlink or similar. Not only is the guardian an incredibly biased source of information, it is also overtly anti-male, it heavily moderates comments that post documents that challenge their narrative AND they pay money to such charmers as Jessica Valenti and Barbara "get your filthy male hand off my equal rights" Ellen. Increasing their traffic indirectly enables these problems to continue (regardless of how biased you think this particu…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:25 AM
3

Once past the first few paragraphs, this article is actually pretty supportive of the MRM, or at least is aligned with many of the same goals.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:21 AM
2

Australians (and anyone else interested) should look up Adam Bandt's private members bill about the gender gap in super savings. It's horrifying. He's complaining that it should be legal for companies to pay all women X% more super than men doing the same job. George Brandis rejected the bill, not because it's ridiculously discriminating, but because the special measures section of the current EEO act already allow for such systems to legally operate and therefore a law change is unnecessary. 2n…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 12:19 AM
1

It's getting really annoying having to say this after every second article, but PLEASE use an archived link when posting material from commercial publishers. Fairfax pays Clementine Ford's salary, and every click we give to any Fairfax paper indirectly contributes to her misandry.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 10:53 AM
1

Yes, this is why I refuse to read articles on the Guardian. I know someone who is PROUD of the fact that they will not believe something until they see it written in the Guardian. And they think they are balanced and intelligent...
/r/MensRights29/05/15 10:38 AM
3

It's called "begging the question". Look it up for more examples.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 10:36 AM
3

The majority of ipv homicides occur immediately after the abused partner leaves the relationship. It's not as simple as walking out the door: Problem solved.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 12:08 AM
2

Seriously, if you don't know who Max Martin is, look him up on wikipedia. A very significant number of pop songs over the last 20 years have been written by him (he's Swedish, but I don't think he's Jewish). In a lot of cases, it's not even the first album that the pop starlets write themselves - he wrote a bunch of songs for Britney's first album. And it's not just starlets, he rights for the men as well, such as Backstreet Boys and Maroon 5. Ever noticed how two pop songs will come out 6 month…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 03:34 AM
2

You mean that one song of Max Martin's?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:29 PM
1

The best part is that the "women and homosexuals" quote comes from the RoK's about page. The exact same paragraph states how RoK is explicitly anti-MRM. The "journalist" who wrote this is seriously unethical.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:25 PM
1

You realise they posted literally today an article critical of what it described as feminism's mid-life crisis and very much agreed with a book called Hot Feminist, which insinuated feminists are shallow biggots who are just projecting their sexism onto men? There's a thread for it here on r/mensrights. It's weird: yeah they have a lot of "all men are evil" stuff, but at the same time they are regularly critical of third wave feminism. I only subscribe because they are the only newspaper I know …
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:05 PM
0

Calls article "click-bait-y" In a thread OP titled "found this link on FB"...
/r/MensRights20/05/15 12:43 PM
5

4 is weird: Women don't make less because they have children, but look at this study where women who had children make 14£ less than women who didn't. Way to disprove yourself. And point 5 argues that we need to change working hours and conditions in order to stop men from choosing work conditions that pay more, but point 1 claimed the pay gap is for the same work including hours?? If economists say only 25% is due to discrimination, why are they deliberately inflating the wage gap by a factor o…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 12:22 PM
4

Exactly. I thought it was very odd where it said they had corrected the figures for race. Why the fuck would you ever do that?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 12:13 PM
3

I don't agree with the use of the word "men" in a lot of these. We are advocating for equal rights for everyone, right? So let's just write that: Reproductive rights for everyone, end affirmative action that unfairly discriminates against anyone, due process for everyone etc. It's harder for then to call us misogynists when we are clearly the more egalitarian ones.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:56 AM
2

Sorry to nitpick, but it's much less than 50% of humans who menstruate once per month. You've got to exclude pre-pubescents, post-menopausal, pregnant etc.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:32 AM
2

Why do you think that? Nothing in the article presented the mrm as rational, fair or welcoming.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 07:35 AM
2

"patriarchy hurts men too" is like a creationist saying "god created the universe except that when he didn't".
/r/MensRights18/05/15 11:38 AM
2

Not sure which country you are in, but in Australia women absolutely are the largest sector of the constituency. In Australia, we have 150 members in the lower house and 76 senators at federal level. Of those 226 positions, ONLY 6 ARE ELECTED BY MALE MAJORITY CONSTITUENCIES! 6 out of 226! 97% of seats are elected by female dominated electorates. You don't think that has an effect on the bias of the policymakers? The really interesting part? Those six seats are currently held by two males and fou…
/r/MensRights18/05/15 07:40 AM
14

The assumption being that no men are ever scared on the street, never subjected to sexual violence and never shamed into going on a diet?
/r/MensRights18/05/15 03:51 AM
1

Here's a link to a much better / fairer analysis of false rape accusations: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights18/05/15 03:46 AM
6

The US declaration of independence never mattered in the UK.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 01:52 AM
10

Yep, hence Batemans Principle and biologically engrained male competitiveness.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 01:50 AM
1

Yeah, given how overrepresented feminists are in western parliaments, I shudder to think what would happen if this policy made it to the vote!
/r/MensRights18/05/15 01:40 AM
2

That bill was never put to the EU Parliament, and the EU parliament itself has never, to the best of my knowledge, considered making anti feminism illegal. Happy to be proved wrong, but afaik the whole thing is pretty much a straw man. We need to get into the habit of checking the validity of information before we run with it. I wish Paul Elam didn't act like a feminist all the time. He gives the rest of us a bad name.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:14 PM
1

Yep, it's frustrating. It's because the Australian media and government are both ridiculously pro-feminist - to the point where our conservative PM was called a misogynist by pretty much everyone for wanting to INCREASE the amount of money the government paid women when they have a baby. The media constantly talk about man-on-women dv, as well as publishing articles allegedly 'debunking' the studies that show significant proportions of female perpetrated violence by citing variations of the Dulu…
/r/MensRights17/05/15 10:27 PM
1

No, we have our own studies. Did you even read my second paragraph? The first two sources I listed are government funded, and the third is an organisation that advocates for male dv victims. There's plenty of information there for any Australians reading this thread.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 12:29 PM
1

Thanks for the info, but this article is about Australia, why would we use the data from the Cdc or the UK? Abs and the Australian institute of criminology both collect data on domestic violence. Also check out the references page at oneinthree.com.au.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:45 AM
0

If you are talking about gender neutral pronouns, then I can't see how that's stupid. I find it really annoying that English doesn't have gender neutral pronouns, so I try to use "they/them/their" instead, but it still gets confusing sometimes.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 12:33 AM
1

This has been law in Australia for a few years now: All companies with more than 200 employees must submit their payrolls for analysis to the wgea (workplace gender equality agency). The wgea is a government organization dedicated to the "wage gap" and encouraging companies to adopt quotas. So far, despite this being their focus, they have not pressed charges against a single company for paying a women less than a man for equal work.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 08:20 PM
5

It's only domestic violence when the man deserves it, according to the Australian media.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 08:14 PM
5

feminism isn't just about man-hating. No, they also whine about non-issues and think of new ways to spend all their funding.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 12:53 PM
12

I don't think thunderf00t was being 100% serious when he called him a hypocrite. My take on it was more that it is literally impossible to design female characters that will be acceptable to SJWs like Sarkeesian.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:18 AM
12

I totally agree with your clarification. But what do you think about the difference between reducing someone to an object and reducing someone to their utility, be it either obtaining resources or getting something done for you? E - clarify: I think they are two sides of the same coin, and can have similar effects on one's psyche.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 08:16 AM
1

Assuming something is false based on the fact you don't like what it says is intellectually dishonest. If they had said "this article is incorrect because x y and z don't match facts a b and c in the article", then fair enough. But to say "this article is wrong, now someone tell me why", that's overt bias. That's deciding a conclusion without impartial consideration of evidence.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 07:42 AM
2

Being female should not grant anyone protection from having their ideas challenged. Nobody wins in that situation. It's not just women who throw up walls when challenged. Would a male admit defeat in a heated, emotional argument? Most probably not. But the act of debating will often cause the person to question their beliefs later on, and even change their opinion if they are honest enough. I have a friend with whom I've had a few arguments/debates about marriage equality. After a few months, he…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 09:00 PM
2

0.6% divided by 2.1% is 28.6%, not 39%. 4% divided by 19.5% is 20.5, as Daily Life reported, not 30% as you said. That's not how maths works. If 1.6% of men and 1.5% of women responded to the survey as having experienced dv, would you conclude that 1.6/1.5 106.7% of victims were male? Edit: Verb number agreement...
/r/MensRights01/05/15 08:46 PM
13

It's pretty dishonest to ask how to debunk the debunking without having your own thoughts or criticisms to get the process started. You are assuming the Daily Life article is false from the get go without any evidence of your own. Having said that, Daily Life is indeed a steaming pile of shit, almost as bad as the Guardian. OneInThree, the organization being criticized, published this rebuttal a few hours ago: http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2015/5/1/open-letter-from-1in3-to-jane-gilmore-daily…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 10:14 AM
-1

That's not what I said, but in this case, the motivation seems very political.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 09:13 AM
-2

Exactly. Why does a story need all-male characters in order to explore fraternal relationships? I don't care what gender characters are, but making all characters the same gender is gimmicky at best and sexist at worst. Am I the only one who thinks this concept is something Saarkesian would promote, just with the genders flipped?
/r/MensRights01/05/15 07:20 AM
1

Not exactly, that's a bit of a straw man. As discussed in the article I linked to, accurately quantifying the amount of false rape reports is intrinsically impossible. Feminists can cherry pick studies to reaffirm their 2 - 8% figure, but we know that is disingenuous because they can't possible KNOW that for a fact. It is just as disingenuous to point only to studies claiming false reporting is greater than 50%, because you can't KNOW that for sure. It's a mens rea crime: The only way you can po…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 11:41 PM
2

It is, but that doesn't mean it's not ubiquitous.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 09:56 PM
2

Correct, Gina Rinehart is the perfect example of that.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 09:54 PM
2

I wouldn't go so far as the 'majority' are false, but depending on the definition of 'false', 8% is the minimum acceptable number. According to this, false rape rate is somewhere between 8% and 92%.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 11:40 AM
3

No it doesn't, it implies only women lie or change their minds about it.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 09:01 PM
4

Except the majority of rapes don't occur because someone decided to take a midnight stroll through downtown Rapeville, the majority of the time it happens in standard, domestic environments that have up until that point been otherwise normal.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 08:58 PM
5

That calculation doesn't work: It assumes every month had the same number of days. It would be more accurate to do .139 X 365.24 and then count forward from January 1st.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:52 AM
3

This article might help: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights26/04/15 06:18 PM
2

"If a women was ever harmed in war time, particularly in World War One, it was as a result of an unexpected accident or illness. No woman ever fought side by side with the men nor were they expected to fight." This is a very disingenuous statement. Only an idiot would believe that there wasn't a single female casualty of the war due to malicious intent or acts of war. Yes, the majority of casualties were men, but that doesn't render female casualties irrelevant. Reals before feels. That statemen…
/r/MensRights25/04/15 03:34 AM
0

Because it's the same cherry-picking logic.
/r/MensRights25/04/15 03:26 AM
7

Trans people are somewhere between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 20,000. So to say cis is 99% or the population is conservative.
/r/MensRights25/04/15 03:08 AM
2

An Australian comedy came out recently about couples trying to satisfy each others sexual fantasies. The main plot line is about a guy trying to figure out and organise how to legally 'rape' his S.O after she asks him to. The movie is funny in its absurdity. It's called 'the little death'. Another character starts a months long campaign of emotional abuse against her husband because she can only orgasm when he's crying. Edit: Missed a word.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 01:52 AM
2

FYI: Factoid doesn't mean what you probably think it means. A factoid is a piece of misinformation; something that looks plausible but isn't true. The suffix -oid in greek means "resembling or looks like". A deltoid looks like a triangle but isn't. A humanoid is something that looks similar to a human but isn't necessarily human. Et cetera. So a factoid is something that resembles a fact, but isn't one. Apologies if you knew that already and just made a mistake.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 04:08 AM
5

Feministing is Jessica Valenti's blog, isn't it? She's made her unconditional support for Jackie known on several occasions.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 04:40 AM
-6

Victim blame much?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 08:31 PM
10

It's a satire of the male privilege rhetoric that we are all shamed by regularly. The dialogue it is mocking is disingenuous, hence why this is as well.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 07:47 PM
3

Typical of what exactly? Of Silverman?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:42 AM
1

I imagine this is how the depositions went.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 12:08 AM
22

I've been saying this for ten years now. I work in STEM, and it's totally designed to make women's experiences easier than men'. The only reason women aren't dominating the field is because women are less likely to be interested. Oh, and the constant 'women in STEM get raped 24/7' rhetoric from the media isn't exactly encouraging. I tell every women/girl I know who isn't sure what to do with their life to get into STEM and ride the affirmative action wave.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 11:59 PM
1

Can you please change the link to an archive today version so we can read it without giving Fairfax clicks and money?
/r/MensRights12/04/15 02:12 AM
2

Good point, but they at arguing that women are much less than 1/3 as capable. Their statistic is women attempt suicide three times as often as men do, yet men make up 3 quarters of completed suicides. So assume for arguments sake that men are close to 100% successful with suicide attempts, that would mean for every 100 male suicides, there would be 300 female suicide attempts but only 33 successful female suicides, thus making women 1/9th as capable. No matter what success rate you assume for me…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:48 AM
3

I'll just leave this here:... http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:40 PM
2

He was anti-male, he said he wanted to use his position to promote HeforShe.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:33 PM
6

according to the guardian 'Cos that's a reliable source.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 01:35 AM
1

It's the Guardian, though, and its readers get triggered by the use of facts and rationalism.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 10:01 PM
1

Ideally, no one should be forced to register for a draft.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 08:43 PM
1

It depends on which age groups you use/include. There are more male children than female children, for example. But boys die comparatively more frequently for various reasons.
/r/MensRights05/04/15 08:41 PM
1

http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributed It's a quote from white supremacist and holocaust denier Kevin Storm.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 11:12 PM
-8

Literally, the words of a white -supremacist.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:54 PM
18

The article you are commenting on disagrees with you. The court case was held within two years of the child being born.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:53 PM
2

Wow, you are a misogynist and your input is not welcome here.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:45 PM
4

true female nature What is that supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights04/04/15 07:19 AM
15

You didn't read the whole thing. Near the end it clearly states the purpose of the programme is the prevention of violence against women. So it IS about women, because the underlying concept is how women and only women deserve to live lives free from violence. Edit: Twice, actually.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:46 PM
1

Right, sorry, I forgot women are banned from buying or even touching contraception, hence why sex does not equal consent to parenthood for women, but does for men. Thanks for clearing that up.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:33 PM
6

I agree with you, but believe that term is used for rhetoric: It emphasises how less extreme the rights of fathers are in comparison, yet they still can't get legal support.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:24 PM
1

Coming up next election: Minister for racism against white people.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:31 PM
1

The actual title is "minister for domestic and sexual violence".
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:30 PM
1

Which is why it should have been posted to r/mensrants and not here in the first place.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 03:26 PM
1

Isn't it standard procedure to use a rape test kit for every reported rape? Remember, the physical evidence for rape is identical to the physical evidence of consensual sex. How do we know the untested rape kits aren't from cases where both parties agreed sex occurred but disagreed on consent? The information provided by a rape kit becomes useless at that point. How are they defining rape? If there were no convictions, how can they be sure what number of rapes occurred? Edit: This was posted on …
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:56 AM
1

But the overlap in the distribution of intelligence between men and women is >> than the overlap in physical abilities, so segregated tournaments in tennis make more sense than in chess. The average intelligence for both men and women is near 100. Is the average strength for men and women also equal?
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:24 AM
1

But how many people who play chess become grand masters? Why does it only matter if women are the ones being discouraged? That's the apex fallacy again.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:19 AM
2

And are left-handed and big-nosed under represented in success because they are intimidated by being different?
/r/MensRights31/03/15 04:11 AM
16

The fact that statement is intended to be treated like a joke directly disproves the notion that feminism is about equality. She's either denying that sexism against men exists or mocking the very idea that it would be addressed. Guardian has Jessica Valenti, Fairfax has Clem Ford. It frustrates me no end that vilification laws don't extend to gender in Australia; is what Bolt said any worse than what Clementine Ford writes weekly?
/r/MensRights31/03/15 03:51 AM
5

I know what you're saying, I just find it very hard to swallow - it sounds like cherry-picking to me that in 10 years there wasn't a single abusive female attacking and killing an innocent male. Especially when the examples listed in this very report include reciprocal IPV and a women hiring a hit-man to kill her spouse. How does that not count? Remember the Murry Street Murders in Cairns late last year? I can't even find a wiki page for it, but don't remember hearing about an abusive husband be…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 03:30 AM
6

Fun starts on page 9/122 of the PDF.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 09:26 PM
4

TERFs hate transwomen because they believe the process and abuse of growing up female is what makes a women a women. It's not that the person was born make, but that they were not socialized as a female.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 09:16 PM
1

Well written article. But it's still the herald sun, though, and I still feel dirty for clicking on it. This is the same company that pays clementine ford's wages. Never forget that!
/r/MensRights24/03/15 11:39 AM
17

It's a "women in journalism award". If the bar wasn't going to be lowered to the point of irrelevance, it would have just been called a journalism award.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 09:34 AM
1

It doesn't say "the one thing men are good for", it says "the number one thing men are good for'. Big difference, I think.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 10:36 AM
-4

I agree. My first thought when reading that more custodial mums receive child support than custodial dads was that we needed to compare the total amount of funds being awarded to mums vs dads. It's a bit cherry-picked. Likewise, the adjectives used for 35% and 51% being so drastically different seems a bit heavy handed. If the facts and stats are so conclusive, you wouldn't need to dress then up.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 10:37 PM
1

What? We have a constitution in Australia. You do realise there's more than one constitution in the world, right??? http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution
/r/MensRights20/03/15 09:38 AM
1

The person tortured was never named. Teale is male, but was one of the four attackers.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:29 AM
2

What's "glass" about it if the people on the other side are invisible or ignored?
/r/MensRights20/03/15 04:21 AM
7

You mean like those school boys kidnapped in Aleppo like 9 months ago? Remember Michelle Obama caring about that? Me neither.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:08 PM
1

Ending the cycle is my goal as well. Can you tell me which part of what I've said isn't aimed at denormalising circumcision? I hate circumcision, not circumcised people. Just because you never thought to mock intact people doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:21 AM
4

I agree that the person in this story has more agency than the average cut person. But don't you think that this is symptomatic of the same cultural pressures that need to change? Take for example Labial Stretching in Uganda. The girls are teenagers when they begin to do it, but they are under immense peer pressure. To what extent is it a free choice given the amount of coercion?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:33 AM
-2

As someone who's spent most of their life being criticized and made fun of by circumcised men, I'm getting pretty tired of being the one to 'keep the peace'.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:28 AM
3

But how do you tell when a circumcision is botched? The successful ones look pretty botched to me.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 07:38 PM
-1

"who", not "whom". She is the subject of the sentence. No one would say "her is an idiot". Sorry, it's a pet hate of mine. I'll leave you alone now.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 07:33 PM
1

I didn't vote. Cultural hegemony can be offensive, my guess is the down votes are for the "my way or the highway" attitude of correcting someone's spelling just they come from a different country.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 11:29 PM
6

Why would we want to adopt the same mentality? So that NO victims receive the support they need? The statement is wrong regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 02:42 PM
18

Actually, it's spelt "vapourised" in the commonwealth countries.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 01:08 PM
4

This is already law in Australia: All companies/organisations with more than 200 employees must submit their payroll for inspection by the wgea. So far, zero companies have been prosecuted for pay discrimination. Check out the website to see how impartial they are (hint, not very): Www.wgea.gov.au
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:45 AM
2

Leaving the situation is usually the most dangerous part, that's why they are scared to do anything. All of the emotions come to a head, and if the spouse isn't living with the offender anymore, the spouse no longer has a motivation to 'keep their secrets', meaning an increase likelihood of reporting to the police: which is threatening to the offender.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 09:30 AM
7

Exactly, that means male-on-male is actually under-represented (using the 10% number). I love how feminists would rather be homophobic than admit the possibility that women aren't perfect. "5% of the population cause 25% of the DV!" Edit: I went looking for the hotline and found this instead: http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0003/301179/DVSAT_guide.pdf It includes 11 example of Dv. The only example of that isn't male-on-female is male-on-male. See, equal parts sexist, ho…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 09:09 AM
1

Some sources are repeated, the pay scale article "do men choose majors to maximise money" one is near the top and again right at the end. Maybe a mistake, but could be interpreted as padding.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 09:21 PM
5

Shouldn't scholarships be gender neutral? Equality of opportunity? That's the end goal for me.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 05:42 AM
3

Women are more likely to use weapons during an assault, so that makes the strength difference almost irrelevant.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 07:56 PM
9

To say "birdman could have easily been birdwomen" means either they haven't seen it, or they are too dumb to understand the not-so-subtle subtext of that movie. Also, funny that they said "wasn't boyhood just as much about the women characters?" When so many other femtard publications wete using boyhood as an example of an exclusively male-driven story concept. And why the fuck would you put Rosamund Pike on the Gone Girl poster? SHE'S GONE!
/r/MensRights22/02/15 07:54 PM
1

The activity "sack-wacking" comes to mind.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 08:18 AM
3

Rape doesn't only cause physical damage. So using your model, assault laws should be amended to account for both physical and psychological damage, as opposed to only charging for rape in cases where physical damage has occurred.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 08:16 AM
1

It's not the norm in western culture, just nth America. USA is not the epitome and extent of western culture.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 09:02 AM
4

Never mind the natural"look", I'm more concerned with the natural function.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 09:00 AM
1

oneinthree uses Australian Institute of Criminology and Australian Bureau of Statistics data, which can be found here: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23.html The ABS data might under report slight since it requires men to recognise what constitutes abuse and be comfortable enough talking about it with the female survey takers. Also, the sample size for the male population should have been larger.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:40 AM
1

Except they are the only newspaper I know that offers a 'Men's' section. Do you know any others?
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:17 AM
1

That's exactly my point. To endorse the same actions that we condemn feminists for makes us worse than them.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 02:03 AM
1

Hell no. Those Kenyan circumcision "parties" are horrifying. But what's with the straw man? Why would you assume that about me? Are you implying that each and every Kenyan women should be held accountable for MGM of Kenyan males?
/r/MensRights11/02/15 07:30 PM
1

I strongly disagree that cunt has a similar history to nigger or abo/boong or coon or kike: you even acknowledged that it is used to insult men as well as women and that, when used as an insult, it is the most offensive insult in English. It's not a gendered slur and has not been used by one group as a means of subjugating another group. There is a selection bias with your reference to this sub. This sub deals with horrible people, the majority of who happen to be women. Edit: urban dictionary h…
/r/MensRights11/02/15 06:53 PM
2

Cunt is rooted in female oppression? But it's the LEAST gendered of the insults you mentioned, so why would it be the most offensive? I would argue that cunt is uses against men more often than against women.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:38 AM
5

Definitely true. I live in Australia, and both my girlfriend and I use the word cunt 5 or 6 times a day each on average. It's a lot like the word "mate" in that it can have massive range of meaning depending on context. There's even a history of it being used in official parliamentary meetings. Edit: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TsNL3uBw1g
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:33 AM
1

Although anyone can experience sexual violence, it is rooted a lot in patriarchy [citation needed]
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:28 AM
4

This is pretty much White Ribbon with the genders swapped. Why should all women and only women be held accountable for the actions of a minority of men and women? This guy is a dickhead.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:25 AM
7

She's trying to talk about her character, but the interviewer is only concerned about the clothes she wears! What a misogynist!
/r/MensRights10/02/15 03:48 PM
7

I know what you mean. In Australia, we have 226 Members of Parliament at federal level. Of those 226, 220 were elected by female-majority constituency. That over 97%! The funny part? Our media constantly complains about how men and the patriarchy are keeping women out of politics so they can profit from "in-group biasing". Around 30% of our federal politicians are female, but of the 6 elected by male-majority, 4 are female.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 01:40 AM
10

Change which name??? "Meninism"?? No one is proposing to start a Meninist movement. "Meninism" isn't a real thing. Its sole purpose is to use satire to highlight the hypocrisy of feminist rhetoric. That's the joke. I think you'll find that most people here are egalitarians, and the term "MRM" is only needed to counter feminism's bias. I would distance myself from the MRM the instant feminism's hegemony over the media and politics is abolished. Different ideologies can't coexist within the same m…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:33 PM
3

You're referring to Poe's law: Any satirical representation of extremism is, to a casual observer, indistinguishable from extremism itself.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:17 PM
2

Yeah, thanks for explaining the post to us. Wouldn't have been able to navigate the point of satire without you explaining it to us.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:09 PM
7

Every discussion of meninism on the internet invariably serves to justify why we need meninism in the first place - lewMAN law.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 09:04 PM
1

Men being stronger is directly caused by the gender role males had pre-agricultural revolution, where good hunting and fighting skills increased the chances of making it to adulthood. Males that weren't strong had much lower reproductive success rates. That's how natural selection works. The properties that are beat suited to animal's role in an environment are selected and strengthened. The fact that you have it backwards is probably why you can't see how irrelevant these ideas of gender roles …
/r/MensRights06/02/15 08:46 AM
1

factoid to accurately bat away. Fyi: "factoid" means a falsehood that is paraded as if it is true. The suffix -oid come from greek and means "resembling but not quite". Andros means "man" in Greek, so "android" literally means "looks like a man but isn't quite a man". Similarly, deltoids look like triangles etc. Tl;dl factoid means the opposite of fact.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 08:13 AM
4

"International Men's Day? Isn't that every day of the year?"
/r/MensRights06/02/15 06:46 AM
8

You mean like how sociologist academics offer their students credit for literally overwriting conflicting facts in wikipedia?? http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5028
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:28 PM
4

Yes, I totally agree that sociology is pseudo science, with very questionable methodologies and protocols that exist on the very fringe of acceptable science. Patriarchy theory, for example, is completely unfalsifiable and cannot be supported by evidence without cherry-picking or circular logic. Anyone who hasn't seen the Norwegian documentary series 'Hjernevesk' should do so asap. It's far from perfect, but definitely exposes a lot of the politically motivated hypocrisy in academic sociology. h…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:25 PM
-1

Op already started people had to stand due to lack of free seats, yet the clam-spreader did nothing.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:58 PM
0

Definitely never heard the LNP referred to as 'torries' in my 28 years jmin Australia. The wiki link you gave doesn't mention it being used in Australia. Interesting, the most upvoted definition for mansplain on urban dictionary are quite rational, yet their definition of misandry is "lulz, it doesn't exist".
/r/MensRights05/02/15 11:11 AM
1

A lot of people on here are missing the context of a lot of these points: Presumably because they don't live in Australia and/or don't pay attention to mainstream Australian journalism. The 'take a twirl' comment refers to a post-game interview at the Australian open tennis tournament last week, where a female competitor was asked to take a twirl by the interviewer and the femtard media lost its shit.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 11:04 AM
1

None. And neither are the men. You are using a point that is only valid in the USA to try to discredit Australian journalists.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 10:59 AM
1

Good point, but I'm not sure the "almost exactly the same rate" can be used in this context. Not a single one of the NSW or Australian datasets on violence or domestic violence show parity between men and women as abusers. Australian bureau of statistics and the Australian institute of criminology show about a 70/30 split between male and female abusers, while the NSW police recently famously tweeted that their records indicate 80/20 for ipv reports lodged with police. I know data showing parity…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 11:40 AM
2

J Valenti?? Really? If it's Jessica, I didn't think she knew what statistics were.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 06:40 AM
1

That's my point. Being able to control reproduction is mostly a female privilege.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 05:04 AM
1

Have you seen a cop car recently? Or a police officer's uniform? They've had white ribbon stickers and badges for quite a while now. Duluth model has already become mainstream in Australia.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:34 AM
1

Isn't that part of the issue? That male birth control is still not commercially available except for vasectomy?
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:03 AM
1

Why don't you want birth control for yourself? Why only for your significant other?
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:01 AM
-13

Hehe, you said "nazi jew" ...
/r/MensRights25/01/15 07:58 PM
7

Assuming OP lives in the US. Not a valid argument for the rest of us.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:01 AM
2

Well, almost. Not quote since forever. I'm Australian, and from the 1950s through to the late 80s it was done to >90% of boys. I was born in the mid 80s and get shit put on me all the time in shower rooms etc for being intact, because I'm massively in the minority with the 30 - 60 year old crowd I work with.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:00 AM
1

Yeah, I feel like this blogger is trying to defend traditional gender roles as a universal. I thought the most common mrm position was that people should be free to choose whether to reject or accept these roles depending on individual circumstance?
/r/MensRights24/01/15 07:33 PM
8

Wow. Vamp! I'm impressed at how efficiently you disproved your own point! "Of course feminism helps men!" Followed closely by "we can't have egalitarianism until every female everywhere has a perfect life and the disadvantages that men experience must take a backseat!"
/r/MensRights24/01/15 05:22 AM
1

Except the fact that this BECAME an issue is due to wide spread sexism against men in print media.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 12:15 PM
1

Check out oneinthree.com.au, a DV charity that bases its actions on facts, and not Duluth model bs. They have a section called 'misinformation' where they hold Australian journalists and politicians to account for lying about dv. Edit: didn't realise zuli 127 had already answered you questions with the same source.
/r/MensRights20/01/15 07:09 AM
1

You forgot The Guardian
/r/MensRights20/01/15 06:35 AM
4

ABS keep statistics on domestic violence and they say right on 30% of dv in Australia has male victims. Those figures are gathered from surveys, not from police reports.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 02:10 AM
1

Thanks for posting this. I wish I were precedence in more jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:25 AM
1

Technically, that was the pm before last. After JG was KR and now it's TA.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:18 AM
1

Is it really? Doesn't Sweden have gender quota laws? That's EU. I thought Germany and Spain were about to introduce them? Have you got any links about it being against EU law?
/r/MensRights18/01/15 04:03 AM
2

They got GTA V removed from target and Kmart in Australia due to "misogyny"...
/r/MensRights18/01/15 03:59 AM
1

No, you're thinking about this RATIONALLY! You've got to think like an arts student and ignore those pesky facts and statistics. This works perfectly because manspreading and manslamming only count as phenomena when men do it, so to use their own "logic" against them, femsteering only counts when women do it.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 05:33 PM
13

was published in the peer-reviewed journal Violence and Gender Yeah, peer-reviewed means nothing if the peers aren't willing to think critically. And nobody capable of critical thinking would accept the Duluth Model.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 02:55 PM
2

Using the word "mental" to describe Valenti's writings is already giving it too much credit. There's nothing cerebral about it.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 05:30 AM
9

Yes, and when they as a group have been allocated more resources than their "oppressors" in the first place. "My supremacy isn't supreme enough because my life involves inconvenience."
/r/MensRights08/01/15 03:03 PM
1

Notice how they mixed sources to cherry pick and support their false narrative? The very same report that the politian mentioned, from the Australian institute of criminology, puts ipv homicide at 30% men, not "one out of five" as hate-group white ribbon put it. In any case, how is that even relevant when the article is about societal and police reactions to female perpetrated violence? Fuck the guardian is a horrible newspaper.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 03:55 AM
2

How many times do I have to fucking tell you that I don't support equality of outcome??! How many times do i have to tell you that i know about sexual dimorphism and male diversity theory?? Between your strawmen and your ad hominems, I can't even be bothered to read the rest of your drivel. "people like you", you constantly write. But I am nothing like the people you claim I represent.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 01:20 AM
2

Thanks for the straw man, mate! I know exactly what sexual dimorphism is. But you haven't seemed to realise that sexual dimorphism is based on the median "score" of diverse populations. The outliers of particular characteristics between men and women can overlap despite the medians being dramatically different. Not every man is guaranteed to be taller than every women due to sexual dimorphism. Hell, not every man has a larger penis than every women, as the longest clits are larger than the short…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:33 PM
1

Evolution is on macro scale : Hundreds of generations. Why do you expect these impulses to be bred out of us in only 4 or 5 generations? We are not arguing that these impulses are morally applicable to 21st century society, we are just explaining the best theory we currently have as to why this phenomenon exists. We can't change something until we understand it.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:17 PM
1

True, but should we expect our biology to take into account the structure of our society?
/r/MensRights07/01/15 03:12 PM
1

And this is why men are shamed for not being stoic. We exist to protect and provide for the women and children as it's the most effective reproductive strategy. Any male who doesn't prioritise their own problems behind those of women and children is detrimental to the reproductive success of the community. Hence socialised male stoicism.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 04:02 PM
0

Women are weaker because strength wasn't as important for their reproductive success as it is for males because women select the strongest male - the one who can offer the most protection. You understand how evolution works, right?
/r/MensRights06/01/15 03:57 PM
3

Why are you trying to conflate bravery and stoicism with masculinity? That's exactly the kind of rigidly defined gender roles we are trying to eradicate. It's also the type of thinking that creates the problems described in disposable male theory. Yes this guy's story is amazing, but it is not a reflection on the behaviour of 21st century men, so the comparison with 3rd wave feminism isn't really applicable. Lastly, women during this time (and many others) have shown similar levels of stoicism, …
/r/MensRights06/01/15 03:18 PM
12

Ah, no. Not because they are the weaker sex, but because they are the more important sex in terms of reproductive rate. You can kill 50% of the male population without affecting population growth, but killing ANY fertile female will reduce reproductive rate. It's basic evolutionary biology. Look up Bateman's Principle.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 04:03 AM
2

Very stupid video. Not sure what point it's trying to make. All it does is reinforce the double standard that violence against women is intrinsically non-permissible in a way that violence against men is not. The use of children in the video was intended to say that abstaining from violence against women is biologically determined behavior, thus providing evidence for evolutionary psychology. It is the antithesis of the Duluth model, so feminist would not doubt hate this video. Also, the sexuali…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 07:25 AM
0

I'm not from the US... Can someone ELI5 why the republicans blocked it? Apart from the fact republicans are mostly batshit crazy?
/r/MensRights05/01/15 07:18 AM
2

Or to put it in more "academic" terms. FTFY
/r/MensRights02/01/15 01:32 PM
12

give women the things men have in abundance such as... ...reproductive freedom. Lolwat?? If she thinks men have reproductive freedom, then I can understand why she thinks men have no grounds to complain. Pitty she is objectively wrong and needs to check her privilege.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 07:31 PM
5

but infant consent is almost meaningless That's exactly why we shouldn't be mutilating their genitals.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 07:20 PM
8

But FGM isn't a central tenent of the MRM. Circumcision is. Bullshit, buddy. We've stated directly to you a bunch of times that we believe no infants should have their bodies mutilated without consent. That applies to both boys and girls. Interestingly, more MRAs are against FGM then are against circumcision. This is a group for men's right. Women already universally have the right to bodily integrity, so we bring it up because it is one of the glaringly obvious examples of gender disparity unde…
/r/MensRights27/12/14 03:32 AM
7

It tried so hard to be gender neutral for the first half-dozen paragraphs, until suddenly "abusive spouse" is swapped for "husband" and "victim" is swapped for "woman"
/r/MensRights27/12/14 03:22 AM
9

men have never had regulations put on their body Circumcision, slavery. have never had to fight for anything How about the vote, for a start?? Sorry, I'll stop oppressing her with facts. She naïvely says mras don't understand what feminism is. I think she doesn't understand what egalitarianism is.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:21 AM
7

So many strawmen and false equivalences in this!
/r/MensRights25/12/14 08:48 PM
4

asked 222 women whether women and men managed change differently. Why the fuck did they only ask women and how does that validate their results? Sociology style 'science' at work.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 11:46 PM
3

no real statistical harm with some statistical benefits. Well that's just flat-out incorrect. People die from botched circumcisions every year. You lose functionality and sensitivity of the penis. When you say my compromise is parental education Do you mean you don't want parents to be educated about adverse effects of circumcision?
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:27 PM
1

I can't even think if one argument that could be won with this shit, nevermind any argument.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:18 PM
5

Neither of you are experts in the topic. Neither of you are dealing with facts. Why is this post-worthy, except to titillate your narcissism? Should we all just start posting every banal discussion about gender issues as soon as we have one?
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:14 PM
2

No one has mentioned it: Andrew O'Keefe, the guy doing the interviewing, is a board member of White Ribbon Australia. He hates equality.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 11:48 AM
3

Confirmed, police now believe it was the mother: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-20/cairns-mother-of-children-arrested-for-murder/5980826
/r/MensRights19/12/14 11:22 PM
1

No, no crimes committed, but what they said was pretty offensive. She shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap. These guys sound like arseholes.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:40 PM
1

I HATE White Ribbon Australia so much! It's such a blatant hate group. I'm sure we all know of it already, but for those unaware, check out another Australian domestic violence organisation: oneinthree
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:32 PM
1

Of course! Of course someone who defends TRP is going to start a comment with the word 'bro'.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:22 PM
2

'All feminists are the same'? Come on, you know that's not true. And it's very easy to disprove. Just look at the conflict between liberal fems and TERFs, for example. You don't like being conflated with Elliot Rogers, so why would you subscribe to the same logical fallacy?
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:18 PM
1

It's more r/mensrants than an actually equality issue.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:13 PM
1

It's the government's advertising campaign to get more women to personalise their number plates, which the government 'rents' to you for like $1000 per year.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 10:12 PM
2

And, where I live, the majority of street violence has male victims, so if ANYTHING, being female is a privilege in that regard: you are statistically less likely to be affected by street violence. But no, feminists believe in equality and that the needs of women are always more important than the needs of men.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 09:59 PM
9

Hey #Meninist, have you ever been afraid to walk alone at night? #MeninistTwitter and #YesAllMen is a joke. – Breanna Elizabeth (@theotherbre) December 19, 2014 What the fuck? How delusional can one be? How is that seen as the rational side of this argument?
/r/MensRights19/12/14 09:31 PM
9

Ah, no. Notice how all the points are in "", as if they aren't real? Just in case you were tired of the online backlash against feminism, there is now another side to it: a Twitter hashtag advocating for “meninism”. It became a trending topic on Twitter and people attempting to critique feminism by mocking it continue to embrace it. And others mock abortion and domestic violence. Many share images intended to mock the “double standards” they perceive feminists to have. 'they perceive'. The autho…
/r/MensRights19/12/14 09:26 PM
6

To which they will reply 'because it's impossible for men to experience sexism. Sexism equals power plus prejudice' and all that bs.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 08:26 PM
10

Yeah, except they are mocking every single screenshot, saying none of these things matter. Check the comments, people are concluding that 'only fat undatable cunts would believe this stuff' and 'but feminism means equality, these people must be cunts'
/r/MensRights19/12/14 08:25 PM
2

Lesbians earn more than hetero women because of pregnancy and the effects that has on career trajectory, not because of 'bias towards masculine traits', unless 'not getting pregnant' is the primary trait of masculinity? This is the biggest contributor to the difference between men's and women's median pays. Take the UK, for example. Women are delaying having children until their late 30s their, and now women aged between 22 and 40 out earn men in the same age bracket.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 05:30 AM
3

It was a total hoax -- just like... ...every other claim of white men committing gang-rape. Huh? Citation needed.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 05:21 AM
1

Well, yeah, it was a military school that only ordered classes for girls from grades 0 to 3. And the militants targeted older students. But we need sources to make these claims credible.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 03:17 AM
1

I did, and then I wrote out the actual quote to show how it doesn't support your claim. How are you not understanding this?
/r/MensRights17/12/14 07:45 PM
1

Yeah, I'm sure the guardian would be interested. Jessica Valenti will drop everything to help...
/r/MensRights17/12/14 07:31 PM
3

Where's Rosa Parkes when you need her?
/r/MensRights17/12/14 07:26 PM
1

link Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 01:26 AM
3

That update was made 2 1/2 hours into a seven hour event. The Tribune story they are referencing published that quote at 12:56, only 2 hours in. The full quote says: (K-P Health Minister Shahram Tarkai) says says 12 students have been killed while 36 were injured. All of the injured students are boys. One female teacher was also killed while two others were injured. Does anyone have a credible source for the 'most victims are boys' claim? Since it was a military school, it would be expected. But…
/r/MensRights17/12/14 01:05 AM
1

You are cherry picking that quote: "K-P Health Minister Shahram Tarkai says emergency has been declared in four major hospitals of the city. He says 12 students have been killed while 36 were injured. All of the injured students are boys. One female teacher was also killed while two others were injured." The death toll is WAY higher than 12, so I don't think it's logical to conclude all 132 children were male based solely on that source.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 01:00 AM
1

Except one of the dead men was the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 11:14 AM
0

How sexist do you have to be to commission such a study?
/r/MensRights15/12/14 02:01 PM
-4

Really? "broke the story" or made it up? They are effectively the only source. I'd be more likely to believe it if it was verified by other sources, but so far it stinks of libel. Hugh controversy? Who else is even talking about it? We need to choose our battles and not jump on unverifiable band wagons - otherwise we are no better than those who oppose us.
/r/MensRights14/12/14 06:50 AM
-3

Typical woman?? Are you suggesting that making false rape claims is characteristic of being a women? That is literally worse/more offensive/less accurate than feminists saying all men are rapists.
/r/MensRights14/12/14 06:46 AM
-3

Got a better source than daily mail??
/r/MensRights14/12/14 05:13 AM
1

Also forgot to mention the government funded media, the ABC, is also massively pro-feminist.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 09:37 AM
1

Wow, are we living in the same country?? First of all, Abbott beat Rudd in the election, not Gillard. Our media and government don't spew out anti-male rhetoric? Is silent on women's issues? Are you fucking shitting me????? Seriously, just last week a senator tried to ban gendered marketing of toys because she claimed there was overwhelming evidence that it caused violence against women. Two days later, target and KMart ban GTA V based on similar (lack) of evidence. Two weeks ago was white ribbo…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 09:34 AM
2

Also, America is not a country. The country's name is USA.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 09:10 AM
6

Just how feminists always say, 'women are frightened of being embarrassed, men are frightened of being assaulted'.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 08:56 AM
1

A homemaker with three kids, whom they wish to live like decent people" "whom they wish" means the children are wishing for the homemaker.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 09:19 AM
1

Assuming you were guilty of the crime of which you were convicted in the first place.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:05 AM
1

I never said they did that. But it is used as justification for limiting career prospects for men.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 04:37 AM
2

No one is hurt by the wage gap myth??? What about all the work place discrimination that occurs in the name of the wage gap?
/r/MensRights06/12/14 12:33 AM
6

Why? Because da womenz are more important than everybody else, dah
/r/MensRights05/12/14 03:49 PM
2

It's not being banned. Two chains or stores (both owned by the same parent company) were petitioned to stop stocking it, and they complied. This headline is false and misleading.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 11:07 PM
2

Since you referenced the Australian version of white ribbon, here are the Australian violence statistics. For assaults in general, the Australian Bureau of Statistics keeps data of violence victimisation rates. See here for 2012 data: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0 Table 6 'Experience of violence since the age of 15 - relationship to perpetrator by sex'. According to this table, 29.0% of the violence that men experience, and 27.6% of all violence in Australia, is caused by fem…
/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:33 AM
14

Except there is a finite number of women, so many women (and men) will be forced into career paths for which they don't have the skills or interest. Society's efficiency plummets, completely undermining the original policy's intent. But hey, at least we reinforced a shitload of rigid gender stereotypes in the process!
/r/MensRights03/12/14 09:22 PM
2

Yeah, but then they'll winge about the bechdel test and how there aren't enough female characters.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:26 PM
1

Wait, since when aren't sociology papers intellectually thin??
/r/MensRights02/12/14 10:14 AM
2

Come on, not all rape allegations are 'drunk sex' or 'sex regret'
/r/MensRights01/12/14 11:33 PM
6

It feels good when people are subjected to violence? That's very sadistic.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 02:38 PM
2

Wow, I mean, the whole article was horrible, but those three dot points at the end went from 0 to cunt in no time.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 02:32 PM
4

*"who seek". "whom seek" makes my head explode. Is subject/object really THAT hard to understand?
/r/MensRights01/12/14 02:21 PM
7

You forgot to mention that black widows are sexual cannibals: after sex, the male is eaten by the female. Very relevant.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:26 PM
4

How many times do we have to go through this?! That's not a Voltaire quote! It's a quote from a neo-nazi white supremacist. Look it up.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 02:01 PM
1

Or, more likely, over supply of female actors.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 12:02 PM
32

Valenti does this each and every day of her life. She is one of the most mainstream, most well-known 3rd wave feminist yet every day she spews out lies and misandry. If she is not the true face of modern feminism, where is the moderate-feminist campaign to denounce her work, attitude and opinions? Their silence condones her actions.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 06:32 AM
6

First sentence is deeply offensive. The rest of the article is ok, just not sure why they deliberately ignored all of the victim-blaming of male students in statutory rape cases.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 03:04 AM
5

Well, I don't know him personally, so I can't know for sure. Regardless of whether or not he was framed, association with his reputation alone is damaging for us.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 07:33 AM
3

This is why we need proper male contraceptives, although I'm not sure this guy would be lining up for the vasalgel for some reason. Having that many kids is horribly irresponsible socially, financially, environmentally, ethically... Hope he learns to wrap his tool.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 05:03 AM
2

Kevin storm is a neo-nazi white supremacist kiddy-porn-watcher. Is he the best person for us to quote? The nature of that person undermines any usefulness of the quote, imo. Opposing feminism already attracts enough false claims of white-supremacy, we shouldn't give anyone any evidence for it. We are mostly egalitarians, right?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 04:42 AM
2

I've done some fact checking on that story in the past. That document is not an EU level policy, but a suggestion from some NPO or something. Do you have a source other than avfm that this was ever seriously considered by the eu parliament? Sometimes avfm isn't much better than jezebel or the guardian when it comes to accuracy and journalistic ethics.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 04:31 AM
1

Also, there's that little thing called menopause that only affects the fertility of one of the sexes. A 20 year old female has got 25 years of reproductive opportunity left, a 40 year old man has potentially until he dies, so 35-plus years. It's a false comparison from an evolutionary psychology point of view, but we know how sociologists feel about biology...
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:54 AM
2

I thought "legal" was implicit in the term "right". What other kind of right is there? I thought a "right" was a personal condition guaranteed by law?
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:32 PM
25

Ask them to name a single right men have that women don't. And then retort by naming rights that women have but men don't.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 09:08 AM
36

...and the remaining points are all strawmen.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:44 AM
3

I think maybe you are misunderstanding the context of those posts. It's not to say 'all women act like x', but more to highlight double standards that can be exploited by women: advantages that feminism and the mainstream media pretend don't exist.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 07:11 AM
2

It's a reprint from "the conversation", there's a link to the original at the bottom of the page. Not sure if that damages their reputation more or less...
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:34 AM
5

Got a source for that claim?
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:25 AM
5

Probably because you implied men were oppressed.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:11 AM
1

Because there will almost always be something worse than the issue you have the opportunity to address. The argument is saying that unless you are working to solve the ultimate worst problem currently in the world, why bother? That, and not everyone will agree what the objectively 'worst' issue is.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 08:04 PM
10

I regularly meet feminist who 'work in the domestic violence industry' and constantly tell me that nearly all male victims of IPV are homosexuals. Even after I show them the official government stats that show ~98% of male victims are due to female-on-male, they still outright deny its possibility. Here in Australia, the official government stats show a 30%/70% split in IPV between male and female victims. Homosexual males make up about 5% of our population. The assumption that 5% of our populat…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 12:27 AM
2

Agreed, I just thought that the author's stated political alignment was a relevant fact that hadn't been mentioned yet. I should have given more context to my previous post.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 06:08 AM
3

Gillian Flynn (the author /screenwriter) self-identifies as feminist.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 02:34 AM
1

You are correct. One person's views are obviously representative of a diverse population. Look, this terf hates transsexuals, therefore all feminists must!
/r/MensRights24/10/14 01:58 PM
7

They don't deny male privilege exists, instead they contend, as you have done, that in certain contexts, maleness is valued, and in others femininity is valued. Feminism, however, proclaims that because of the existence of patriarchy, it is impossible for femininity to ever be systemically valued, which is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 09:26 AM
3

It doesn't degrade women, and misogynistic comments around here are usually meet with a sea of downvotes. This sub includes stories about women behaving badly and discussions on female privileges because the core premise of feminism denies the existence of these occurrences (indeed, even there very possibility) for the purpose of reinforcing the gender binary. Women=victim, men=oppressor. The core premise of feminism names the problem after men and the solution after women. Western women profit …
/r/MensRights24/10/14 06:34 AM
20

Exactly, that's why supplying alcohol to minors isn't a crime, because the minors enjoy it... Oh, wait, that's right, criminal activity isn't defined by whether or not the victim had a good time. Stockholm syndrome doesn't nullify the illegality of abduction. And statutory rape isn't nullified if the victim brags about it.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 09:33 AM
3

Oh, I agree with your comments, she and her hardline-feminist pals are the biggest inhibitors to equality in the west. I just wanted to point out that her misandry is well-funded and widely accepted by the mainstream media.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 03:00 AM
2

Um, it's not really a blog. It is a section of one of Australia's most respected newspapers... But you know, "the media is dominated by the male perspective".
/r/MensRights22/10/14 02:42 AM
4

FCKH8 is an interesting name for a hate group. FCk,H8 seems more appropriate.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 10:57 PM
0

I dislike sociology as much as the next person, but... All the people this kid will interact with in society will not have undertaken a gender neutral upbringing, and so his interactions with society will still be based on traditional gender-based expectations. This in and of itself does not prove that gender isn't a social construct. If being alienated from his gender would prevent him from developing the skills requisite of that gender, wouldn't that actually prove that those attributes are ob…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:31 AM
4

By the same logic, violence against women in media and pop culture should be hilarious and violence against men should be abhorrent. After all, it is men who are subjected to the majority of violence, so referencing violence against women is just not as realistic a threat as violence against men.
/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:12 AM
1

I understand why you're getting defensive. This is clearly a difficult topic to discuss as everyone has different emotional responses to it. I thought I was treading the line carefully enough not to offend, but judging by your response I need to work on it. Allow me to clarify? The last thing I want to do is dictate to people how they actual feel. That's ridiculously patronising. I know because I get it all the time when circumcised guys (and pro-circ women) try to body shame me. I know it's not…
/r/MensRights18/10/14 11:33 PM
1

I'm happy that you're happy. But logically that doesn't work. Just because x is greater than y and z and greater than y doesn't prove z is not greater than x.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 09:46 PM
8

This story must be fabricated. Since the Gone Girl movie came out a few weeks ago, we've been told repeatedly that such scenarios are so unrealistic that using them in a work of fiction is misogyny. This literally NEVER happens, we were told. It's not like those journalists had a reason to lie about it or anything...
/r/MensRights18/10/14 09:42 PM
1

Yes, thank you. I am aware of the logistics of a toilet seat, derp. But you can obviously have lid up/seat down as well. Both the article and my comment specified seat, but your comment said lid, so I was checking you hadn't accidentally used the wrong word. Why is lid down automatically more polite, given that it increases the physical contact? Are you thinking odours?
/r/MensRights18/10/14 05:53 AM
1

Lid down? Or seat down? Not the same thing.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 04:24 AM
2

What does weight have to do with anything?
/r/MensRights18/10/14 03:18 AM
25

I particularly liked 'if you are a man, don't answer these questions'. The point of this article is literally: the defining characteristic of what makes a behaviour socially unacceptable is whether or not it is being done by a man. But, you know, feminism is about equality, right?
/r/MensRights18/10/14 03:16 AM
1

The toilet seat argument is pretty illogical. Good manners would be for women to leave it up, since women have to touch it regardless of doing a #1 or #2. That way, men would only have to touch it a fraction of the time.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 03:05 AM
9

Maybe, but vigilantism and self-righteous violence doesn't sound like justice to me either.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 12:51 AM
9

Yes, tell him to man up and smack down a ho'. That's what a mature, responsible adult would do... /s Advocating for equal sentencing for sex offenders regardless of gender is what the victim's father and mother should be doing, should he have both in his life.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 12:08 AM
1

Thanks for your considered response. I also disagree with the hyperbolization of its effects on pleasure, but those effects shouldn't be ignored either. People are going to exaggerate or marginalise that aspect of it depending on their opinion of the procedure. You are totally correct in that it shouldn't be a parent's choice. Adults can get themselves circumcised if they want, but they can't really 'uncircumcise' themselves.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 03:51 AM
0

I wasn't mocking you, just the offensive illogical nature of the 'they won't remember it' argument. Not sure why it's used so often when it fails the most basic logic checks.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 03:44 AM
1

I don't mean to shame you for someone else's decision, but how do you even know you are ok? How do you know what being intact is like? It's easier for an intact person to empathise with a circed guy than vice versa because 'wearing' the skin retracted is more like being circed than anything a cut guy can do. You know what I mean? I don't want to make you feel bad, but I think awareness of the fact is needed in order to "break the cycle". It's like maybe you really like chocolate, but you don't k…
/r/MensRights17/10/14 03:04 AM
8

I had a friend who got cancer and had to have a mastectomy, so all girls should just have their breast removed as soon as they form.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 02:46 AM
1

I_HaveAHat, can you explain why date rape is a problem, I mean of course it is bad, but it's not like they remember it. /s
/r/MensRights17/10/14 02:44 AM
5

You are of course entitled to your opinion. You are in the minority on this one, though. Most people don't take too kindly to victim blaming. "Didn't wanna get hit by a bus while crossing the street? Simple, just never go outside". So you are anti-abortion then? What about adoption? Does that all count as "neglect of responsibility" in your book?
/r/MensRights16/10/14 05:11 AM
8

Condoms break, no contraception is 100% foolproof. You argument is largely victim-blaming. The same logic applies to women, but no one says 'women chose to have sex, so therefore ban all abortions'. What is wrong with having options?
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:44 AM
2

I'm not following. Which part is matriarchy?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 11:04 AM
1

What makes you think it is society that is encouraging men to take risks? I thought it was more likely to be biological?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:53 AM
2

Because Christians are so critical of the bible. You've just demonstrates how dogmatic and closed-minded feminists are. I thought that was what you are arguing against? Society doesn't favour masculinity. You don't need a humanities degree to figure that out.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:23 AM
1

Why do you think men would give promotions to other men? Why would anyone do that? How would they benefit? That makes no sense to me. The fact you believe it indicates that you are a massive sexist.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:12 AM
1

You've just demonstrated that gender-based discrimination ISN'T gender specific...
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:02 AM
1

Why's that? Because nurses are female???
/r/MensRights14/10/14 09:49 AM
1

Sources?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 09:37 AM
2

Sydney, New South Wales Population 4.8 million and an "alpha+" global city. Sydney, Nova Scotia Population 32,000. I'm pretty sure it is reasonable to assume Australia until it's specified otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 11:27 AM
2

Suey Park?
/r/MensRights07/10/14 09:14 AM
2

But wait, you've got it all wrong. Mating strategy has no influence on human behavior, otherwise evolutionary psychology would be correct. And since those ideas are mutually exclusive with all the junk I learnt in sociology class, the REAL reason that girly man is less acceptable than tomboy girl is because MISOGYNY!!! /s
/r/MensRights07/10/14 09:02 AM
-7

Women live longer ON AVERAGE, big difference.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 07:49 AM
18

In fact, if 99% of drivers cause 80% of crashes, then the remaining 1% of drivers (the women) must account for the remaining 20% of crashes, meaning that by their data, women are FAR more likely to cause a crash.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 10:38 AM
1

Hahahaha, 'sociology' and 'critical thinking' in the same sentence...
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:16 AM
-1

Yeah, I didn't care for the way the article was written, but it's helpful that we have documentation about the double standards at play here.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 01:12 AM
3

Germany also has "women only" car park spaces, as required by law.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 12:40 PM
1

Oxford dictionary is from the UK. The rape definition in the UK is not gender neutral, hence why they can say "typically a man".
/r/MensRights15/09/14 01:19 AM
1

Because it sounds misogynistic
/r/MensRights01/09/14 08:37 PM
1

In the western world? I live in Australia and I don't have to sign up to selective service to receive rights, does that not count? The US legal system isn't representative of the western world as a whole, and is seriously lacking in freedom it allocates to its citizens.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 11:34 AM
1

They claim it's supposed to be 'ironic': http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/08/ironic_misandry_why_feminists_joke_about_drinking_male_tears_and_banning.html
/r/MensRights17/08/14 12:17 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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