TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

enkidusfriend Archive

View 3 posts and 466 comments by enkidusfriend 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)
2

Someone else in these comments noticed this passage, but I thought I would point to it as well: The economic marginalisation this brings erodes family life. Women who enjoy much greater economic autonomy than their grandmothers did can afford to be correspondingly pickier about spouses, and they are not thrilled by husbands who are just another mouth to feed. What the author is saying is that the perception of a man's value in a family is closely tied to his ability to bring economic benefits. A…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 09:08 PM
8

The height of bookshelves in an office. I had a professor complain to me that the bookshelves in her office (which were built into the wall) were an example of patriarchal oppression because they were designed for men who tend to be taller. She was under 5 feet tall.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:11 PM
1

Women take longer in washrooms than men, so it is an efficient allocation of washroom space.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 03:56 PM
9

TIL: liberal university students make the best internet Republicans.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:56 PM
2

inner evolutionary truth What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Who wrote this garbage?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:03 PM
10

I don't think people understand the relationship between guilt and due process, or rather the fact that there isn't one. The complete certitude of guilt prior to a trial is not a reason to forgo a trial. Even a situation in which a criminal act was clearly committed by a known individual - let's say that everyone in the country has clear and persuasive knowledge that person X committed a crime - that would still not be a good reason to skip the trial and get right to the punishment.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 12:29 PM
3

The paucity of girls in high-profile positions, they said, leaves younger students with few role models and discourages them from even trying for the top. Men can't be role models for women? Women can't be role models for men?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:37 PM
1

Quorn is scary and evil and wrong.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:06 PM
2

I agree that our dietary habits, in general, need to move towards including more veggies and far, far less meat. I don't have problems with killing animals for food, but I do have problems with killing the planet so that we can kill animals for food. The current production systems are ridiculously harmful and they produce shitty food. That said, what vegetable do you think I am eating in an "uncomfortable" quantity? I feel pretty comfortable. Also, what counts as a "natural" vs an "unnatural" di…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:06 PM
136

I'm a vegetarian who hates other vegetarians, mostly because they all act like damn vegetarians all the time. Vegetarianism as diet choice = generally good. Vegetarianism as pillar of personal identity and sense of self = asshole factory.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 03:54 PM
6

How dare you deny her experience.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:53 PM
2

Intentional or not, this is somewhat like the Talmudic strategy of "building a fence". The actual "line", if such a thing exists, between consenting sex and rape seems to be fairly fuzzy in some situations. If you're not quite sure which kinds of acts cross the line, you draw another line a fair distance away from the fuzzy one, and you give strict and clear definitions to help identify that line. This is where the concept of "enthusiastic vocal consent" comes from. If you have that, you're nowh…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:49 PM
8

“Regardless of gender it is still an issue that we’re continually striving to address,” said Cheryl Tkalcic. “Most of our services are available for males or females. Either gender that contact a shelter is provided with help and supports and resources.” While no bed exists in Calgary for men, there is one in Strathmore in a women’s shelter that is available to men if it is not being used by a woman. Pointing to a bed in another city that might be available if a woman is not using it now counts …
/r/MensRights15/03/13 12:37 PM
4

Seeing is believing.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:20 PM
10

"Let me just have a quick look at your cervix before sex, please!"
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:49 PM
3

It seems poorly worded, perhaps because the author is paraphrasing whatever was actually said in the study.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:19 PM
4

Any my point is that the statement is, in fact, meaningless.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:15 PM
2

What do you mean by "like this" and how would you want to test it? Are you proposing someone should test how women react to strangers offering help when they are sitting in broken down cars on the road? I think the funding for that kind of research dried up a few years ago... /s
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:29 PM
6

File this under: "how to take a shit on intersectionality".
/r/MensRights12/02/13 04:40 PM
1

My partner and I do not participate in this ridiculous charade, and we are happier for it.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 04:02 PM
21

Some women score social points with other women for claiming that some men are "creepy". I do not understand how it works.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 01:59 PM
4

It is strange to see how many people in the comments do not understand the difference between child support and spousal support.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 07:11 PM
0

Good stuff.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:46 PM
21

A PhD student would be identified as a "PhD candidate".
/r/MensRights23/01/13 07:41 PM
0

This opinion could be validly stated by postmodernists against modernists or modernists against postmodernists.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:07 PM
3

Well, the fushcia SRS tag was the initial hint, and your posting in againstmensrights would seem to be a major giveaway.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:02 PM
0

The basis of this post is that feminists don't know how to argue. Based on the article, this interpretation is entirely wrong. The different modes of discourse will have different standards of argumentation. Within the postmodern discourse, a modernist thinker does not know how to argue or is arguing poorly. The author of the article is not presenting the "modern" discourse with good discourse or the "right" kind of discourse. He is pointing out a difference and using it to explain a feature of …
/r/MensRights22/01/13 03:08 AM
3

This is probably not the best way to open discourse with feminists. I have a slight suspicion that you are not really interested in discourse.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 03:06 AM
15

MRAs are modernists; feminists are postmodernists. The author of that article does not believe that people operate only in one mode of discourse or the other, and it would be silly to think that any group can be fit neatly into the categories he describes.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 03:04 AM
2

I was not aware that the mother could put any person's name on a birth certificate they liked. This is not limited to Louisiana.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:39 PM
-1

Yeah, O'Leary Funds is doing really well...
/r/MensRights19/01/13 05:42 PM
14

It’s obviously good news for men that they are starting to catch up with women in longevity First sentence of first article.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 03:49 AM
1

If the men's rights movements wants to be seen as a real activist movement, a major project should be the development of DV support services for men, starting in major cities.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 04:10 PM
6

Let me rephrase that: 80% of child criminals in the UK are living with their single mothers. Isn't that intersting? This is incorrect. It says that 80% of the court orders are going to single mothers, not that 80% of single mothers or children of single mothers are receiving court orders. It is very likely that multiple court orders are being issued to the same parents for the same children committing various offenses over time.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:21 PM
0

They really need to pay for some decent editing.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 02:42 PM
-1

No No Yes. Who are "you guys?" I have a personal concern for the intersection of gender and race discrimination, but this is, as many opponents like to point out, not a particularly cohesive "movement" or even a movement at all. I barely identify with many of the claims and points being made by other people on this subreddit, and many of my posts here tend to get down-voted. There is no "you guys". Much like the "feminists" bogeyman often paraded around here doesn't really exist. People tend to …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:24 AM
1

That would be a different issues for a few reasons. The linked article is not a "Teacher's resource", it is a report covering the activities of the charitable organization and giving an overview of the domain of charitable activities. Even if the document were intended for teacher's, the issue would not be with the production of the teacher's resource, but rather the decision by a school board or school department to use an obviously political document in a school system run with state funds. My…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 04:30 PM
1

Political agendas don't necessarily have to be connected to any political party or recognized political actors. It depends on whether the interpretation of the word "political" includes all political activities or is limited to those of the current and established political institutions. My suggestion is that if the interpretation is the former, pretty much every charitable organization and community support/services group is in serious, serious trouble.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 02:12 PM
3

There are a huge number of charitable organizations, particularly local women's centers, that very clearly identify as feminist organizations. If this were a flagrant contravention of Canadian law, I can't see why there has not already been a litigation explosion. Further, this would apply to pretty much every charity where social justice (a very plain political ideal) is the main focus of the charitable activity. When you're talking about large-scale social change, pretty much everything is pol…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:44 PM
7

You are a terrible person.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:48 PM
11

Feminists groups in academia have - in part - been responsible for many of the "speech codes" adopted on college and university campuses. As someone who has always come down with J.S. Mill on this sort of issue (don't use institutional power to ban speech, use social power to criticize it), I find the attempts to apply institutional power ridiculous and harmful.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:45 PM
4

Good. Boys should be encouraged to experiment with and value cooking. If that had been the case a years ago, it would have saved me the trouble of having to teach some of my male friends basic cooking skills.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:24 PM
21

Counter-experience: I went to the local women's center (which identifies as a feminist organization) in order to meet with a staff member. The staff and volunteer staff - all women - were extremely pleasant, informative, and we stood around talking for awhile until I had to go. At no point did I feel demonized or hated.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 01:21 PM
1

I thought you'd make this argument. Let me counter this: Would you marry somebody you don't like because it will make her life better? A rather poor counter, as the answer is contained in my previous statement. Marrying someone you don't like would preclude self-respect. Further, I'm not talking about marriage, I'm talking about lasting relationships. Marriage is one formalized type of relationship. I've just learned that this isn't really a reality any more. Maybe you've just picked the wrong s…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:28 PM
5

Call it a mating strategy or sexual strategy, what ever you prefer. I would be more general and talk about "relationship" strategies. The fact that divorce rates are at an all time high and this forum is full of guys getting screwed by alimony or child support, you'd be simply naive to believe that we don't need to formulate a strategy that protects our interests. It is unclear to me how a strategy focused on sexual conquest is going to do much to change that... Blindly entering marriages believ…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:16 PM
3

If one is to accept the assumption that what you label "the age of feminism" calls for different strategies, I don't think it follows that A) a specifically sexual strategy is called for, nor B) that courtship strategies should be entirely egoistic (e.g. game).
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:59 PM
30

This particular "nice guy" approach to courting has been hammered into all men as the proper and appropriate method for years. The most cringe-worthy example in popular media is probably Billy Wilder's film, The Apartment. Examples of this are everywhere. It is among the only male courtship approaches that has any large amount of social sanction, so it's not surprising to see many men using it and wondering why it doesn't really work.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 01:36 PM
2

Her plan, defense attorney Ara Ohanion said, was to kill herself and make it look to her children like she just fell asleep. How on earth do you plan to kill yourself by falling asleep with a stomach full of pills and end up killing your children instead? "Y'see, your honor, I was just doing my regular nighttime routine, swallowing a bunch of pills and vodka, brushing my teeth, washing my face, smothering my children to death, when I found that my children had been smothered to death!"
/r/MensRights28/11/12 06:09 PM
1

The police stated that the report was "fabricated". That seems to be a positive claim about the status of the report, not a negative claim about the lack of evidence supporting the report.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 06:03 PM
1

On Reddit, particularly on the gender-warrior subreddits and threads, not liking brigades is a useless reaction.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:53 PM
8

This is a place of support and friendship. You can share your feelings here. If you're hurt or upset, no one will make fun of you or belittle your pain. Actually, most everyone else here will probably make fun of you, but not me. I'm here for you. Until my bedtime.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:21 AM
7

You don't have to hide it. It's okay to hurt sometimes. We're all here for you.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:16 AM
21

"I DISCOVERED THAT SOMEONE HAS BEEN TAKING MY INTERNET POINTS AND NOW I WANT ANSWERS!!!"
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:13 AM
1

It would be interesting to look at a similar study done in post-secondary education.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:22 PM
2

This is almost as funny as the rhetoric of some of the more radical environmental protection groups (full disclose: I am, in general, strongly in support of robust environmental protection - I am making a point about rhetoric here and not the goals pursued by use of said rhetoric). However, the environmentalists often work out one trope or argumentative category at a time, instead of just letting loose the whole torrent in one go. Piling on insults or negative claims can work in some contexts, b…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:52 AM
1

they shouldn't be allowed to use the accused's sexual history of allegedly giving this alleged victim an STD as evidence that he raped her. They didn't do any such thing. He had already been convicted of the sexual assault; his sentence was lengthened due to the additional harm of having given her an STD.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:24 PM
8

she said her attacker had a skull tattoo Those are pretty rare.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 01:37 PM
4

“The focus seems to have been on my character. All supposition aside, it doesn't change what he did to me,” Ylen said in a Facebook message Monday evening. “It doesn't change who he is. He is still a convicted sex offender — a bold, brazen registered sex offender. So anyone who thinks this is a victory is sadly mistaken. All that has happened is a few misguided people have enabled a sex offender to have a new playground.” Taken from the article. It looks like she's still alive and thinks it was …
/r/MensRights21/11/12 01:36 PM
1

If the claims are all false, they are not about sexual history.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 01:32 PM
3

Are you guys all Republicans of various shades? Republicans are in the United States. Right now, we are on something called an internet which allows people from various different countries to communicate with each other. A result of this is that there are many people on the internet, on Reddit, and on this particular Subreddit who are not Republicans because such a category does not apply to them. Welcome to the internet. As for my politics more generally, I live in Canada and typically vote for…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:21 PM
1

Sounds like bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:37 PM
-2

Hey, that crazy lady who wrote the books for dummies made it back here again. How nice to see her!
/r/MensRights09/11/12 01:05 PM
0

Even with a vehicle description, I find it amazing that the cops managed to find you. Baltimore isn't exactly small. Was the place you were eating/getting gas near the concert venue?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:31 PM
1

While pumping gas a Baltimore County policeman pulled up behind me. He told me that my wife had accused me of violating the restraining order by driving by her house (I hadn’t). I was arrested, booked, spent the night in jail, had my car towed ($250 impound fee) and was let out of jail on my on recognizance the next morning. I was devastated. How did the cop find you?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:22 PM
8

What does this photoshopped image have to do with this sub-reddit?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:29 PM
1

What evidence lead them to a diagnosis of Bipolar Type 1? One would typically expect a period of self-reporting regarding mood by the patient, combined with observation and input/log-keeping by family members.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:59 PM
2

The problem is that the fedora has become a go-to accessory for a peculiar subculture of love-entitled male nerds whose social inexperience and awkwardness manifests in a world rocked by a gender revolution Evidence?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:51 PM
6

I had a brief look at the top thread there, and I found this gem: I personally think there's no way you can be a communism without being a feminist, and no way you can be a feminist without being at least left-wing. when you fight against one type of oppression, you soon realize you have to fight against every single type. Translation: "There is my set of political values and positions, and there is oppression. You either believe what I believe or you are an oppressor." Fundamentalism by another…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:34 PM
1

If the situation occurred as described, the boyfriend should have said something supportive to the girlfriend. Something along the lines of "don't listen to those assholes". It's not entirely clear that the girlfriend was expecting a direct confrontation between the boyfriend and the racist group. Don't know if it's just me, but there's something to be said for expressing solidarity with your relations, particularly when they are the subject of a racist verbal attack or something similar.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:36 AM
10

I've got privilege, and I know how to use it. ...in jail.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:31 PM
1

Wouldn't that mean it's unnecessary to put "relatively" attached to small? Given your confusion above, no.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:57 PM
1

Small is a relative concept. Tell me what is absolutely small.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 05:10 PM
-1

Could you explain what a continuous probability distribution has to do with "normal" features of human beings? I think what you mean is "not strange". There aren't really reasons that would prevent a white man from living in china, so it wouldn't be strange to find a white man in china. It would just be uncommon. No, I mean it is normal. White men living in China is not something that contradicts or violates any norms associated with the country. You seem to be automatically associating uncommon…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:13 PM
-3

Thanks, sweetheart!
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:19 PM
-2

I don't think anybody's trying to say "this person is the definition of norm." Rather, it's more along the lines of "heterosexuality is the norm for sexual orientation, while asexuality isn't." Exactly my point. We have terminology to point out the nuanced differences between categories of persons in human life in certain contexts, and so we need a robust terminology to describe those differences such as "cis" and "trans". When you are talking about racial groups, you do not say "that person is …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:14 PM
-5

White man in China isn't the norm, but white man in England is. Likewise, cis/straight is the norm, while the myriad of other gradients aren't the norm. This account is going to fall to a death by inches. A white man is a member of two categories: "man" and "white". As a "white", he is not a member of the majority group, but as a "man" he is. Is he the norm or not the norm? Is he the norm with regards to certain categories, but not the norm with regards to others? If so, how many people fit the …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:01 PM
-4

Sorry, normal is not an objective feature of the world. If race, in a particular society, is not a category whereby people habitually go about distinguishing one another, then there is no such thing as "normal" with regards to race. Categorizing certain human features as "normal" is one of those rare social phenomenon that is almost entirely subjective. We choose to see some things are "normal" and not others. As a minor mental exercise, think of all the features of a person that we do not norma…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 03:33 PM
-1

But then you're just politicizing things. You're not being clear. Cisgendered identifies a large group of human beings. Transgendered identifies a relatively smaller group of human beings. That's it. Please tell me where politics comes into it. You may be thinking of terms like "heteronormativity" and "cisnormativity". I'm not talking about those. LGBT people have a defining quality that makes them extremely different from the average person No. In most ways, transpeople are extremely similar to…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:23 PM
-3

The gender studies people who use this term want to challenge this kind of thinking. No one is going to deny the fact that the majority of people have a match between their physical body, personal identity, and presentation of gender. However, there is a broader range of gender expressions, and the "cis" term helps to show that while it is the most common kind of gender experience, it is not the only one. If you simply define alternative forms of gender expression as some sort of deviation from …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 12:45 PM
7

Anti-abortion feminists exist.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 02:24 PM
1

Someone missed their undergrad philosophy lecture on why teleology is a bunch of hokum. Oh well!
/r/MensRights03/10/12 01:00 PM
3

I'd love to see the sources cited. This is what tends to happen when you either bring your political values to your research or to your reading of primary research when writing your course materials. I also wonder what particular views the author of the course booklet has regarding gender norms. A typical - although not universal - claim by some liberal feminists is that gender differences are arbitrary; there is nothing inherently unique about either gender if one is dispossessed of socially co…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:27 PM
7

This is less than useless without more details about the publications these people are working for. If I work for a piece of shit publication then I will get paid less than someone working for an A-List, widely distributed publication. "Editor-in-Chief" is just a title - the actual job and compensation will vary widely depending on the publication.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:27 PM
5

It seems that both definitions could be improved by distinguishing between "homeless" persons and persons with insecure housing. Instead of using "wiminz", why don't you cut out the bullshit editorializing and just let the point stand on its own?
/r/MensRights13/09/12 03:26 PM
7

It seems pretty clear, in this case, that a crime has been committed. Also, you are a terrible person.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 10:05 PM
-14

It's a Libertarian. Everyone hide.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:59 PM
-1

Stupid sign, but I'm not really buying the "feminism is a global conspiracy to take over the world and replace your testicles with walnuts!" angle. I thought the whole wacko end of things was supposed to die when Kloo2yoo left.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:31 PM
1

A gender does not have power. Individuals and multi-gendered groups (goverments, banks, etc.) have power. If individuals are using that power with prejudice with regards to a gender, they are sexist.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:32 PM
2

I will go against the party line here and say: If someone is "black-out drunk", don't have sex with them. No person in that state is anywhere near capable of making decisions about who they want to have sex with. It will protect you from exactly the situation you are now in. If you are not a troll, you're going to jail and you deserve it.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:36 PM
1

There are a number of individuals who post ridiculous, hateful things here. Some opponents of this sub-reddit - who see any advocacy regarding men as inherently oppressive to women and contrary to their pursuit of women's rights - represent the "contributions" of these individuals to be the norm.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:30 PM
2

They need someone to edit the articles.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 01:06 PM
5

I can't tell whether or not you are a troll, so I am going to pretend you are some sort of satire-obsessed comedian poking fun at MRAs with your over the top antics. Oh you!
/r/MensRights20/08/12 10:27 PM
5

Those two are idiots. I have trouble believing that Jeremiah is not a troll.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 10:23 PM
1

Seems like a troll blog.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 08:03 PM
4

Women have historically been oppressed and disadvantaged compared to men. Feminism was instrumental in addressing this. Further, there are still some situations in the West where women are disadvantaged compared to men. The treatment of women in many non-Western countries, on the other hand, is clearly horrific and indicates a clear and completely unjust gender imbalance in those places.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:11 PM
5

"Good for her. You go girl."
/r/MensRights10/08/12 12:20 PM
1

Fake story is fake.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 12:15 PM
3

Ask almost any evangelical and they will tell you that they "know" god exists.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:20 PM
1

All sorts of ridiculous and utterly trivial rules can be derived from the categorical imperative. It is less than useless as a guide to action.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:13 PM
5

I went to grad school.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:29 PM
3

Eve Ensler is the satirical representation of Eve Ensler.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:15 PM
2

A co worker of mine has 6 children and 4 baby mamas some people are just fucking stupid and need to be held accountable for their actions. All but one of his baby mamas or on some sort of welfare or food stamps. I do not feel the slightest bit of pitty for him when he complains that he cant afford shit or pay his bills because of child support, when he smokes 2 packs and drinks a six pack a day. If i have to pay taxes for his fucking kids food as it is he should damn well have to suffer and pay …
/r/MensRights02/08/12 07:21 PM
2

In "video games" is implied "some", otherwise I would have specified with a universal modifier such as "all".
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:51 PM
1

I'm not blaming video games, I am stating that video games - like other representations of men in popular media - express certain cultural norms about proper male behavior.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:10 PM
2

Their instincts were to protect, not run away. And this is a gender roles problem. Men are taught that they should protect and run towards danger. In fact, this is one of the hilarious things about the video game tropes kerfuffle. Every single violent video game tells young men that it is their duty and responsibility to run towards danger and put oneself in harms way. What a dangerous and stupid expectation to hold half the human race to. They believed that there are things in life worth dying …
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:17 AM
9

Cultural context. Tell someone who lives in a culture that openly accepts FGM, and they will be offended that you are calling it mutilation. Most people in America live in a cultural context where circumcision is NOT, for the most part, considered mutilation, and so the same kind of reaction results. Having people justifiably understand and accept that male circumcision is mutilation is our destination, but we're not there yet.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:47 PM
1

I'll just leave this here: http://www.nosm.ca/classprofiles/
/r/MensRights09/07/12 01:26 AM
2

My ex only used her talon-like fingernails. Can we classify those as weapons?
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:45 PM
1

It is quite possible that treatment occurred at the JCC, in Hamilton. Some medications are covered, depending on the province. Your grandmother's doctor prescribed medications that were not covered.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 12:55 PM
1

Some medications are covered and some are not (typically, the newer drugs are not covered). Travel for someone living in Hamilton is a negligible expense as that is where the cancer treatment would most likely have taken place. In any case, lack of coverage for travel expenses is not unique to cancer treatment.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 01:39 AM
2

He did not have issues with his child support payments. He had issues with spousal support payments.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 12:49 PM
1

The fact that some types of cancer treatment are not available in certain provinces does not mean you will not get free treatment. Your condition will be treated, but perhaps not in the way you want, or in the most expensive, state-of-the-art manner.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 12:45 PM
6

No. Cancer treatments are free in Canada.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 12:42 PM
1

In most cases, yes. Not in all possible cases.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:46 PM
3

There is no such thing as an absolute moral responsibility. What you are expressing is your personal preference for how others should lead their lives and relationships.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:25 PM
6

Whoops! They failed to categorize me. I have two graduate degrees and wrote about feminist thinkers and concepts in my work. I am already well familiar with feminist thought and do not stand in need of "education", and yet I do not self-identify as a feminist (nor as an MRA for that matter, though I do recognize legitimate men's issues). I do love the indoctrination/education distinction. A very under-handed way of dismissing all legitimacy to the opponents, whom you are paying so much fervent a…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:32 PM
4

People take their religions very seriously; many people will be willing to have circumcisions performed on their babies, perhaps in unsafe conditions, in order to satisfy their religious demands. This is not a good reason to cut a baby's penis.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:44 PM
1

If the major men's athletes are upset about this, they should refuse to play five sets.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:06 PM
3

Do not under any circumstances let someone read Fifty Shades of Grey to you.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 01:01 PM
0

As interesting as this may be, Sun TV is the Canadian equivalent of Fox News in the U.S. I simply cannot take anything they broadcast seriously.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 12:31 PM
2

So to some degree there needs to be a willingness to at least listen to claims and I think a readiness to grant AVOs is a concession to this. On the other hand the fact one has been granted (especially an interim order) is not proof that a man (or woman) is guilty of a crime. The AVO alone is enough to condemn most persons (typically men, most here would suggest) to a quick social death. If the claims of the alleged victim turn out to be unfounded, what recourse does the accused have with regard…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:05 PM
0

Well, that's your problem, right there. You feel entitled to impose your wishes and desires on others. Getting quite aggressive now. The down-votes on my previous two comments are a cute touch. I haven't said anything about my own position. I am asking you to clarify yours. What, exactly, do you think is wrong with being rude and obnoxious to others?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:56 AM
1

In my personal life I behave this way toward people who want to 'save' me from my sinful ways and I do it unequivocally. The funny thing is, those persons trying to "save" you from your sinful ways probably have a non-emotivist approach to ethics. Religious ethics is generally poor, but teleology is one way of out of the emotivist bind. Unfortunately, teleological ethics was appropriated from Classical thought by religious thinkers and turned into a fetid waste-hole.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:47 AM
0

Your assessment is based on the false assumption that there are o only two possibilities here. The two possibilities that I mentioned are the relevant ones, and you have not offered any credible alternatives. Based on my own experience at conventions, and what details are provided in the story, there is nothing to indicate that the couple making the advance had any reason - other than that she was there - to believe that the woman they hit on would be receptive. Nor were there any indications to…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:43 AM
1

So you are aware that most people are emotivists with strong feeling about sexual preferences, yet see no 'justification' there for adjusting initiator behavior in line with that? No, emotivist reactions are not justificatory in any useful sense. And majority reactions/beliefs are not good justification either. If a majority of people in a particular city thought "Ewww, black people, get them out of here!" would you consider all black persons to have an obligation to leave the city? They are cle…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 08:22 PM
2

Sexual behavior is not 'impersonal' so good luck with that! I never said anything like this, so I can't imagine what you must be reading. I am talking about justifications for refraining from engaging in certain types of social behavior, and those justifications should be impersonal, or arbitration between conflicting viewpoints is impossible or simply a power struggle. My personal feeling are actually pretty typical. Everything I don't prefer is icky, which is how most people feel - or this sub…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 07:06 PM
2

The problem is that the target and initiator have different ideas about what is appropriate, but no insight as to why that might be. I offered insight (see 'handy vagina' post' for example) If we're going down the emotivism road, then I am not interested. I do not care if your reaction to a certain type of proposition is "ewww, this person wants to use me for sexual purposes" - that does not tell me anything about whether or not a specific kind of approach or verbal locution is appropriate or no…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:36 PM
0

That the social end of it exists does not excuse unwanted advances. This seems to be a tautology. "Don't make unwanted advances" is an impossible rule to follow since you won't know an advance is unwanted until you make it. I'm having trouble distinguishing between whether you think such approaches are "inappropriate" because ineffective or because wrong in some other way (and I assume that would be morally wrong). If you are talking about the latter, I don't see you as having provided a reason …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:36 PM
2

The target does not get to control the initiator's approach. The initiator does not get to control the targets response. You are once again describing the vagaries of normal human social interactions. I am asking you what the problem is. I assume the issue has something to do with the particular nature of the propositions being made, but you have yet to clarify what this has to do with social encounters involving sexual propositions. People can take onelorosgrip's excellent advice on how to init…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:05 PM
2

It's not a metaphor, it's the actual impression in the target's mind. Alright, so you just can't make your point any clearer. Isn't this generally what proposition for no-strings-attached sex entail? This doesn't seem to be a point so much as a description of a particular kind of proposition. You haven't actually told me anything yet. What is the problem with these kinds of propositions? Because the target is outnumbered. More loaded language here. You initially claimed that the individual was "…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:49 PM
2

Because from a stranger it comes across as 'I need to sneeze my snot somewhere and your vagina is handy' Metaphor makes things a bit harder to understand. Could you explain more clearly what the problem is? And the two against one dynamic is also troubling. Why?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:07 PM
4

Having two people corner you and suggest unusual sexual activities is not something I personally would brush off with a polite little 'no thanks'. Why not?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:58 PM
2

There are also physiological differences. The prefrontal cortex of an 18-year old male is not fully developed.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:59 AM
1

What is the correct apportionment of treatment in your opinion? Is it maximising fairness in terms of spending (so a 50:50 wealth distribution), maximising fairness in terms of outcome (so 33:66 in terms of spending) or maximising 'lives saved' (so a 0:100 split in this massively oversimplified model)? We have entered the heady field of ethics and distributive justice. Thankfully, I have a fairly straightforward view on this kind of thing. I think that there are two answers depending on whether …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 02:39 AM
2

The key-question 4 data seems to be for all vascular events. I'm not sure what that class includes, but incidence of serious vascular events may account for only a small portion of overall incidence. I'm not particularly interested in trying to find that Yao study to clarify things. I only suggest that what could happen in the future with enough funding is not a good guide to what we should be campaigning for now. This I am happy to leave to health officials working in public policy. I imagine t…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:09 PM
3

The reason for this is that it is very exclusionary for those MRAs or interested onlookers who either cannot or do not want to wade through mountains of medicalized statistical evidence. I appreciate your concern, but those who are incapable of understanding the study or unwilling to look at it will feel absolutely free to comment, I assure you. I am not actually seeing the data on blood clot formation as a result of biopsies. Is that covered in the full report? Both of your conditionals seem to…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:31 PM
3

You have not provided any figures, and I am not willing to assume that they are correct without seeing them.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:41 PM
7

My comment, for those interested: What you are really saying in this article is that men are no longer behaving in a gender-normative fashion. Many men aren't doing "man things" anymore. If we are to believe the rhetoric about socially-enforced gender roles being the harmful relics of a crumbling male-dominated society, then you don't really have much of a basis for criticizing men who don't conform to your ridiculous expectations. They are simply breaking from a system of domination. One of the…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:28 PM
2

Very interesting section: The set-up: A couple has a fight. Either the wife calls 9-1-1 in a desperate plea for police intervention, or the husband makes the call first in a preemptive attack. When a woman calls the police following a fight, she is looking for "intervention". When a man calls the police following a fight, it is an "attack".
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:36 PM
4

The word "God" came up as his only real justification. He's flying the idiot-flag high.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 04:40 PM
1

Since no one else is likely to say it: Remind him to be compassionate. If the ex has a diagnosed mental health problem, then her behavior is, in part, an expression of the disease. This doesn't mean he shouldn't fight to be free of her harassment - that is a given - but it does mean that the best solution may be a moderate one. Good luck.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:32 PM
3

Is this a cross-post from First World Problems?
/r/MensRights14/05/12 12:23 PM
6

He's going to have extremely early onset metabolic syndrome and a dramatically shortened life.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 11:16 PM
4

Hyphenating seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:29 PM
17

I suggest that you become our shitty-comment detector as an act of contrition. When you see other people advocating the ugly things that you have, remind them not be so shitty.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:40 AM
0

Save your rage for a real story.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 01:25 PM
1

I don't think the women held such a reductive view of me. The fact that they expected me to marry and produce children does not imply that they considered mating to be my only function or value.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 09:17 PM
3

I was single for a couple year-long periods in my 20's while in a workplace dominated by older women (all 35+ years). I was constantly asked why I wasn't getting married, having kids, etc. etc. There is, in my experience, a significant expectation among women (particularly older women) that men should be available for marriage and procreation, at their convenience. This is not an expectation that I have ever been eager to meet.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 12:19 PM
3

She is pretty proud about her BA. Those are tough degrees to get!
/r/MensRights22/04/12 12:57 PM
2

It isn't a case of discrimination, though. As I said above, this isn't about rights. But there are other gender-normative factors that may contribute to the public health problem. I was having a discussion about this exact this issue with my sister, a medical doctor, and a male friend of mine who does lighting and sound for a large theater. My sister suggested that men are simply less concerned with their health, and so they make poor health choices in terms of when to seek medical advice. My fr…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 04:19 PM
2

This is because a) the costs to run the health care system are the same whether you use it a little or a lot The government still pays the service providers for each particular service, so cost increases with use. This is how it works in Canada, in any case. Emergency patients are seen on a basis of severity, so women and men have equality there. If men use the health care system less, it is a basis of choice, the same as if women choose different careers. In what respect is this "okay"? If you'…
/r/MensRights21/04/12 12:58 PM
2

I don't buy the depression angle on this one. People with severe clinical depression often suffer from psycho-motor retardation - they can barely get up to make themselves food, do the laundry, care for themselves in basic ways. Add depressants such as alcohol and sleeping pills into the mix and it's unlikely that a severely depressed person would have the energy to murder two children.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 11:41 PM
2

Looks like someone needs to freshen up on their endocrinology...
/r/MensRights19/04/12 10:32 PM
1

The CRA consider you a common-law partner after one year of continuous cohabitation.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 12:52 PM
1

This is rocky terrain. A world where a significant number of women still stay home to raise kids is also the world where things like alimony make a lot of sense.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 12:47 PM
1

It seems that quite a few people are conflating having a "right" and having an "ability".
/r/MensRights12/04/12 03:21 AM
5

Another excellent creative writing exercise. Online journalism is a joke.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:46 PM
7

They're idiots. If you ban abortions and reduce the availability of birth control, then the number of abortions will not decrease. The only number that will go up is the number of dead women who will go through unofficial channels to procure abortions. There has been, is, and will continue to be a demand for contraceptives and safe abortion services. Providing them is the only responsible thing to do.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 08:59 PM
3

Don't mess with the king, baby.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 11:14 PM
8

You should be no more or less suspicious about their motivations than you would be about the motivations of anyone else.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:00 PM
-6

The "transcript" reads like a high-school level creative writing exercise. I doubt this conversation ever took place.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 02:21 AM
6

the american aversion to nudity. I think this is the more important point. The law doesn't really matter in this case. As per my post above, it is legal for women to go topless in any public place where I live, but no one exercises that right. Why? Because it's a broader set of social mores and inhibitions that keep women from walking around topless, not a law. *edit: Saying "keep women from..." implies some kind of coercion, but I don't think that's the case. Some people see societal values are…
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:42 PM
2

Cheers for having the most even-handed and insightful comment.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:39 PM
7

she received her bachelors last year and told me once she did she'd get a job. Seems to be about trust and responsibility instead of money.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:37 PM
10

The law was changed 20 years ago. In that time I have never seen any topless women walking around in public. It is not an issue at all.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:42 AM
35

This is legal where I live. No one does it.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:47 AM
2

This woman makes bad films. That said, what does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:46 PM
3

I am nearly speechless. This is terrible.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 01:40 PM
5

Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry. Mama's gonna make all your nightmares come true. Mama's gonna put all her fears into you. Mama's gonna keep you right here under her wing. She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing. Mama's gonna keep baby cozy and warm. Ooooh baby, ooooh baby, oooooh baby, Of course mama's gonna help build the wall.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 01:01 AM
3

I'm sorry to hear that ended badly for you. Don't listen to other people here who will suggest not providing aid in the future. Remember that helping others will often involve putting yourself at risk, so you may want to think of strategies for protecting yourself as well. The suggestion by hardwarequestions to get friends to help is a good one. Helping the vulnerable can make you vulnerable. That's not a reason to avoid helping, just a reason to be careful.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 11:58 PM
2

What a stupid article.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 11:50 PM
1

Looks like the link changed. Seems that's CBC doesn't tie the content to a permanent link, so the link used to lead to a story about parental abductions, but now it leads to a story about marijuana.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 03:03 AM
1

Beating a man and then tearing down his house neatly illustrates that difference. As I already pointed out, it's not his house.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 03:12 AM
1

Now, feminism is just about institutionalizing the idea that women don't have agency and need to be protected from their own choices. Feminists even want women to be seen as less culpable for their crimes. See, this is yet another problem with this sub-reddit. You don't understand what feminists are actually saying, and so you just strawman the shit out of things. You have to make a distinction between what feminists think feminism is about and what you think is the case. At the moment you are c…
/r/MensRights06/01/12 03:27 PM
1

And how does that make her ownership of the mansion in any way less legitimate?
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:25 PM
1

No, patriarchy is seen as being institutionalized within governments. The solution, then, is not to get rid of governments, but to change them. That is the political goal. If certain feminist groups think that expanding government is the solution to removing institutionalized constraints on women, and advantages for men, then that is what they will seek to do.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:21 PM
3

According to feminism the patriachy is government. This is completely false and no feminist would agree to it.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 10:44 PM
1

Then we agree entirely. Different political groups will have different problems (e.g. the laws in Canada and the U.S. are different and there may be a men's rights issue in one country, but not the other). There is also the matter of tailoring goals to different political contexts. The best approach to getting more discussion about issue [i]X[/i] in one political context may be very different from the best approach in another - we have to take politics into account. The problem with threads like…
/r/MensRights05/01/12 08:59 PM
-1

A right's movement is by its very nature a political movement. What I don't like is the consistent belief, among some posters here (and Reddit more generally), that the American political situation is particularly germane, or uniquely of interest to this community.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 08:39 PM
1

Many feminists are quite interested in using public institutions to redress what they perceive to be societal gender problems and imbalances. That means more government to identify, address and resolve the problems. What is it about a belief in "patriarchy" that you think is inconsistent with expanding government?
/r/MensRights05/01/12 08:37 PM
10

She bought the mansion from him. It was hers, not his.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 06:54 PM
3

The descriptions of the men sound... fabricated. I doubt this is journalism, so much as creative whimsy.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 02:41 PM
1

Well, you don't even have an argument, so I'm at least doing slightly better than you.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 04:58 PM
2

Is Now not an organization? How about RadFem hub? Actually I don't even think this makes sense as a criticism of my analogy. Sure, they are organizations. Now, which of them has the SCUM Manifesto, or a similar document advocating the murder of men, as a central document identifying their institutional goals? Which of those organizations has been directly involved in cutting up men? Your analogy doesn't make sense because of the point above, and because it commits the fallacy of composition. Whi…
/r/MensRights03/01/12 02:20 PM
1

Same reason as given in my other comment.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 02:12 PM
3

Would you have a problem with jews making 'a fuss' over a Nazi document outlining a 'final solution for the jew problem?' False analogy once again.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 07:02 PM
7

Would you have a problem with black people making 'a fuss' over a KKK document outlining a 'final solution for the n****r problem?' False analogy. The KKK is an organization, feminism is not - it is a political and intellectual movement. The SCUM Manifesto is not a document identifying the institutional objectives of feminism, because feminism is not a unified institution. Some feminists may eagerly support ideas within a particular text, and those ideas may be terrible - but it does us no good …
/r/MensRights02/01/12 05:58 PM
8

See above. Pretty obvious trolling. Some people here make enough of a fuss about the SCUM Manifesto, so they have posted it expecting many of the idiots here to yell "OMG WE WERE RIGHT, THEY DO WANT TO CUT UP MEN!" Ignore it.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 02:39 PM
2

Expected by whom? If the woman in the relationships expects it, then that is something she should communicate to and discuss with her partner. This decision should be made at the relationship level.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 02:32 PM
1

If you say so...
/r/MensRights18/12/11 12:21 AM
2

Human rights as defined by whom? Are we talking about the UN Declaration? Which particular article? Note also, that the declaration doesn't apply to individuals. If you really think some people would read a survey asking about some violent activity (let's take rape as our example) and then say "Wow, I think I should go rape some people", then I think you're way off. It also doesn't matter if "someone would think" the question would imply violence, but whether real violence actually occurs as a d…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 12:13 AM
2

I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't think anything is necessarily wrong. I assume by "necessarily" you mean something similar to "absolutely" which means an action which is always wrong in every situation, without any counter-instances. Please clarify what you mean by "rights". This is what you asked about, not whether the survey was "wrong" or not.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 12:00 AM
2

Horses for courses...
/r/MensRights17/12/11 11:52 PM
1

And I would like a clarification of what you mean by "rights" in this case. Are you willing to clarify, or not? I also said "despicable" not "wrong".
/r/MensRights17/12/11 11:52 PM
3

I thought the fraternity survey was despicable. That said, no I don't think a similar survey directed at men would violate any "rights". What "rights" do you think would potentially be violated? Are you talking about legal rights? Human rights? Rights rooted in some notion of justice?
/r/MensRights17/12/11 11:37 PM
6

You mean like how they complain about invasion threads, while posting invasion threads?
/r/MensRights17/12/11 11:32 PM
6

The amazing thing is that even after being called out repeatedly, they keep going and going. It's almost as though all this hateful vitriol is building up inside them, and once they get a chance to release it, out comes a torrent of shit.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 04:02 AM
4

The statement as quoted doesn't make sense. What does "uncommon" do in that sentence? Do men win custody 50% of the time or not?
/r/MensRights15/12/11 03:57 AM
6

Looks to be an SRS troll.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 12:00 AM
5

Entered a plea of not guilty. I wonder what her defense against a video and a verbal admission of striking him will be.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:51 PM
3

Yes, if you want to connect some "feminist" influence to the incorrect claim, then you have to show that it was first made by them. Otherwise, they are simply guilty of not checking sources. That is hardly an error that is the exclusive domain of feminists. In this case, they are clearly using MSNBC as a source for the information. Whatever you think about the state of journalism is an entirely different matter. Unless you think that journalism has also been infiltrated by those pesky feminists.…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:00 PM
3

You're going to have to give me a link to a particular article. Further, you're going to have to prove that the false claim originates with them, as opposed to being repeated by them.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:11 PM
5

How exactly is this connected with feminism? Which feminists were claiming this photo was taken during the attack on Pearl Harbor?
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:16 AM
8

It was the aggression of the male gaze!
/r/MensRights09/12/11 01:36 AM
7

Is this more crap about a leftist plot? Could the Americans please leave their ridiculous political ideologies at the door? There are people from other countries here, and we don't generally share your crazy, bi-polar political views.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 01:34 PM
4

Poor men, causing trouble for women by being poor.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 12:48 PM
2

No wonder you are a socialist/communist. Where on earth did this come from? As much as I enjoy reading some threads in this sub-reddit, it also manages to bring out this special kind of crazy.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 01:49 PM
4

I had an argument with a former partner. We were both getting angry and not coming any closer to resolving the dispute, so I told her I was going out for a walk. I turned away and she clawed my back (I was not wearing a shirt). Given her extremely long nails, she left three long, bloody gashes on my back which left scars I still have today. This was about 8 years ago. People sometimes see the scars and ask if I was attacked by a wild cat.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 01:36 PM
1

What is this crap?
/r/MensRights25/11/11 11:27 PM
1

I never claimed there was a settlement, only mentioned there may be settlement offers. And I'm claiming that your mentioning such a possibility is meaningless since the obvious public results would be different. It is not, at present, a reasonable belief to hold. Threats of litigation are routinely used in settlement negotiations. And in this particular case, that does not appear to be true.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 12:23 AM
1

They might if it involved settlement offers. Which you do not know about. It can be entirely rational to make these decisions given certain facts; facts that you wouldn't know. If there were a settlement, then Bieber's legal team would not presently be threatening further legal action against Yeater.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 10:32 PM
1

So... Sir Mix-A-Lot was objectifying women?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 02:23 PM
1

Only 19% consider themselves “prochoice, without qualification” They seem to present this as a bad thing. Taking any position "without qualification" is generally a bad thing in my books. I certainly support the right to choose in most situations, but it is the height of arrogance to deny the possibility of any conflict cases where some other moral commitment may take priority.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 11:09 PM
2

Men: Not even a statistic.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:31 PM
2

"more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases are considered to be intentionally fabricated. Within the subsample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%" One-third of all abuse allegations are unsubstantiated and 12% of abuse allegations within the contexts of a separation dispute are intentionally false.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 10:49 PM
4

Why wasn't the woman who slapped the cashier charged with assault?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 12:28 AM
2

Has Jezebel posted any form of apology for contributing to the hateful attacks against the innocent man?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 12:24 AM
6

African-American men are men. So it is fair to say that if she believes the statement "Women don't need men except to laugh at" is true, then she must believe that the statement "Women don't need African-American men except to laugh at" is also true. What is her problem with African-American men? Why are these racist sentiments being broadcast on a national TV network?
/r/MensRights15/10/11 02:41 PM
2

You must live in a very scary world.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:45 AM
1

To be clear: This is not intended as a "women behaving badly" kind of post. It is intended to foment discussion about the differences between the ways in which men, boys, women, and girls express and engage in aggressive activities against others.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 10:31 PM
1

I don't think you're grasping what an absolute moral obligation is and it's leading you to the predictable problem of conflicts. During WWII, the moral imperative was to defeat the Nazis and so other moral obligations took precedence - producing munitions, training and fielding troops, etc. This cannot happen with absolute moral principles, they must be observed at all times. If you want to maintain that there are absolute moral commitments towards children, then you must conclude that the leade…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 12:09 PM
1

"We" as a society have absolute moral obligations to children (and the handicapped, and the elderly). Why? Keep in mind what you mean when you say "absolute". You are saying that there are no other moral obligations or commitments that could reasonably conflict with the putative obligations to children. The interests of children must always be put first, no matter what other consequences may result for anyone else. I can see plenty of good justifications for having obligations to protect childre…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 02:46 AM
8

Personal sexual preferences are inscrutable. As I said in a previous thread, this is the logical opposite of puritanism (well, the modern caricature of puritanism). Puritanism: How dare you like that! Reverse-Puritanism: How dare you not like that!
/r/MensRights02/10/11 11:08 PM
1

Disagree with what? The claim that we don't have absolute moral commitments to children? Or the claim that we need to score that rhetorical point, as it were, before taking on the larger issue of reproductive rights?
/r/MensRights02/10/11 12:13 PM
6

For the good of the child, all over the place. We will not get anywhere in this kind of debate until people come to accept that we do not have absolute moral obligations to children, just because they are children.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 02:14 PM
1

Then the proper phrasing would be "The FAQ says..." The FAQ is not a "you".
/r/MensRights28/09/11 12:19 PM
5

So I was reading some of your stuff "Your stuff?" Whose stuff? Who are you directing this question to? Are you addressing a particular individual? Each individual who participates on this sub-reddit? The "hivemind" of all MR participants?
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:36 PM
3

We're both right. The rate as in % of Canadian men who are circumcised is around 50%. The rate as in % of newborns that get circumcised each year is reported to be anywhere from 30% to 9%.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 09:32 PM
12

To be fair, don't people here sometimes post MR-related articles to /2XC to see how they will react? If the people posting these articles to /OneY are spamming links, then that is unacceptable, but simply posting off-topic or female-related links really doesn't seem that bad. We have this voting system and all.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:35 PM
7

...and Canadian. The rate is around 50% in Canada.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:29 PM
12

Once again, the irony is that AMR is a sub-reddit dedicated to posting invasion threads, while constantly complaining about invasion threads.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 02:00 PM
2

Can stupid things be eloquently written?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 03:07 AM
1

How many hours of community service do they give out for stabbings these days?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 03:04 AM
1

Don't begrudge people their fantasies.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 02:55 AM
5

If men in real life were as stupid and lazy as the men shown on television, the world would stop.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 02:53 AM
1

Upvote for apparently knowing the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 10:34 PM
3

Atheist.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:36 PM
2

It would be odd, but not an evil idea. I'm not saying it would be an evil idea, but it would be very strange to place medical resources towards solving that "problem" until most of the things that cause pain, suffering, death, and so on, are dealt with.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 02:37 AM
2

For that last bit, a part of the reason is obviously biological, men can't give birth. Yet. (I don't know if that's a feminist or men's rights issue... Either way I support it.) Is this person saying that they support working towards giving men the ability (presumably through some surgical procedure) to give birth?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 10:31 PM
3

Or he could use the publicity he has generated to work toward reforming the laws and institutions. I wouldn't blame him for that. I would blame him if he went out and started killing people, as you suggest.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 12:39 PM
1

Lions and tigers and bears just got rights. Viruses apparently have super-rights.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 10:12 PM
1

The more intelligent thing to do would be to ask why intelligence is a morally relevant feature in this discussion at all. It was picked arbitrarily.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:00 PM
1

So we only get rights at a certain intelligence level, then? Which intelligence level is that and how should we measure it?
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:00 PM
5

Sexist representations of men and boys in the media.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:22 AM
1

Even humans with significant development disabilities or brain damage? How about newborn babies? Some animals are more intelligent than some humans at the low end of the scale.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:23 PM
1

Less intelligent than what? All humans or just some?
/r/MensRights07/09/11 11:30 AM
2

Why not?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 10:03 PM
3

Yes, it is.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:26 AM
2

You're thinking of Hannah Rosin perhaps?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:23 AM
1

What I was saying is if you are short and not strong then you should still FEEL like a man. Absent stereotypical gender roles, what does it mean to "feel like a man"?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:21 AM
1

We in the scholarly realm do NOT like to use the term "Feminism" anymore. As someone in the "scholarly realm" I find that this is manifestly untrue. You may be able to speak for people in your corner of the "scholarly realm" but you sure don't speak for the people in mine. We are fighting for the abolition of gender roles/stereotypes NOT for women above men. This is the standard of what I call the justice position. What you want is a more just society for everyone. The problem is that there are …
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:16 AM
25

Wow, I never realized how cute domestic violence was! Look at her cute little skirt. She's so angry so it's obvious he did something really bad. Men only get punched in the face by women when they deserve it.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:09 AM
1

And even more hyperbole.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:18 PM
1

More straw men and pointless hyperbole.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:24 PM
1

Rarely, and abortion could be enforced. You're arguing for state-sponsored mandatory abortions? I have a better idea. Teach the people not to have sex and produce children in the first place. The solution is not: "Let's abort the babies!" In part because that's morally wrong, in part because it's completely unenforceable. Please tell me a way we can identify children produced by incest while still in the womb. How are the authorities ever going to know? I suppose you're in favor of prison time f…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:08 AM
0

No, the likelihood for recessive disorders from incestual relationships is far higher.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:01 AM
-1

Which is exactly why the practice should be and is illegal.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:59 AM
3

This is not even an argument. If you want to spout truisms, make a subreddit for it.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:52 AM
1

Anyone can have a child with a debilitating genetic condition. The problem is the precedence of those children. Incest couples will have an extremely high rate. Homosexual couples will have them at about the same rate as heterosexuals.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:51 AM
0

Sperms donations generally have karyotype or chromosome analysis done to screen for abnormalities, the possibility of genetic disorders and so on. The risk of getting a recessive gene in there is probably the same as the background risk for all heterosexual couples. The risk of getting recessive genes in the progeny through incest is much higher.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:34 AM
1

You're essentially saying that football causes horrific injurys to children, therefore it's wrong for children to play football, therefore touch football is also banned because it has the word football in it. No, I'm saying no such thing. Football does not cause genetic conditions and we can mitigate the risk factors to children by having them wear safety equipment and teaching them how to take hits, protect themselves, ect. (oddly enough, things we already do). therefore touch football is also …
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:29 AM
0

Having sex would not need to be criminalized, because there is not necessarily any harm from incest unless children are produced. Telling people to avoid having children is not going to work, children are going to be produced anyways. Contraception will fail, or will be used improperly, or not at all. A more effective strategy would be to ban the practice as a whole and teach children (as we already do) that having sex with your close relatives is a bad thing. Putting your faith in people to avo…
/r/MensRights04/09/11 12:26 AM
-3

Nothing is intrinsically immoral, I don't even think such a statement has meaning. I generally take a utilitarian stance, so on the whole incestual sexual relationships will produce a significant amount of harm through the production of children with genetic conditions, even if not all such sexual relationships produce that harm. In communities that practice polygamy, incest is also a serious problem not only for the production of such children, but also because it sometimes results in very rest…
/r/MensRights03/09/11 11:32 PM
2

argue against them! Do you seriously think that's what you're doing? You're pretty damn deluded.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 11:28 PM
3

Good way of reaching equality: Giving disenfranchised the same rights, or similar rights to those enfranchised persons or groups. Bad way of reaching equality: Taking rights away from persons or groups because you don't have the same.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 11:27 PM
-2

Homosexuals can't produce children with extremely debilitating genetic conditions due to recessive genes.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 11:23 PM
31

Puritanism reversed. "You have different sexual preferences from me!? I find that offensive and hateful!" I have always found it odd how many people think it's perfectly acceptable to judge others based on their sexual proclivities or hang-ups (barring those nasty illegal proclivities). It's intensely personal, radically subjective, and none of your damn business. Get over it.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 11:36 PM
60

Oh don't worry, you still are. Monster.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 11:34 PM
7

The proposed modifications would make some forms of contraception illegal. Either way, they are completely crazy and I hope they don't succeed.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:36 PM
6

So, what you're saying is that one case of a woman claiming damages against the DoD in Australia is evidence of a coming conspiracy to defraud the United States military using developmentally delayed children with autism? Did you hear that the moon is made of blue cheese?
/r/MensRights28/08/11 09:12 PM
1

Why should we stoop to the level of those we disagree with?
/r/MensRights28/08/11 05:15 PM
14

The crux of her point is in one of her comments: The rape of a man can certainly be as serious and traumatic as the rape of a woman. For a cis man to be raped by a cis woman is, on the other hand, not equal, in any way, to the rape of women, by men.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:19 AM
19

I think the definitions they are using are pretty bad in general. Apparently a man can only rape another man if a woman is also involved: In the NIBRS, at least one offender must be of a different sex than the victim for the event to be classified as a forcible rape. For example, a female can rape a male, or in the case of multiple offenders, a female and male can rape a male. However, a male cannot rape another male, or in the case of multiple offenders, two males cannot rape a male.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:15 AM
1

And why does she think fewer (not less) women would choose to be stay-at-home moms if other people were made to do it? Because she holds homemaking in such low regard. That doesn't make very much sense. You are saying she thinks women would make different choices because she has a low opinion of their current choices? Or are you saying she is in some way biased against women who stay at home. Notice, first of all that she was not talking about all women, but women with professional degrees and c…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 01:15 PM
1

The author clearly believes that being a stay-at-home mom makes you less of a person. No, she believes that less women would choose that role if some constraints were removed to make child care easier.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 10:46 PM
1

You know that is not the opinion of the author of the article, right?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:49 PM
0

Was there something particularly upsetting to you about this article?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:16 AM
1

A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses. While I think the mother should in some cases talk to the father before going through with it, I don't think she has any strong obligation to defer to his judgment on what to do. The support issue is a separate issue and I do not think the problems with child support, adoption, or any other parental issues, should impact or constrain that decision.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:47 PM
1

I suppose you think a doctor's finger up your butt is preferable?
/r/MensRights25/08/11 01:33 PM
10

When I written that letter to you all in r/mensrights, it was a sarcastic exaggeration of my attitudes towards men(and a purposeful strawman both ways). It was trolling pure and simple. Why should we take one statement over the other? Perhaps this is the real trolling and the other your true message? Maybe now you've just realized the ugliness of the shit you've said and thought and are backtracking. I don't know one way or the other, and I don't care to figure out which is which. The fact that …
/r/MensRights24/08/11 02:02 PM
3

The problem is you have been infiltrated by anarcho-feminists who also have the bonus of being ban happy. So, you think that anarcho-feminists have taken over the sub-reddit, you call them out, and then you are surprised that they ban you?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:40 PM
1

Ergo, DSK is the victim of a false rape accusation. No, this means the case cannot go ahead because the prosecution has good reason to think she would lie on the stand. If the accuser is charged with filing a false police report and found guilty, then DSK would be a victim of a false accusation.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:35 PM
2

Wow, I don't even know what to say. That's a pretty terrible situation for you and your child. Hope you can find a good solution to your problems and I'm glad to see you found this to be a good place to talk about it.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 04:37 PM
3

What exactly did you think would happen?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 06:20 PM
5

I am talking about addressing those issues actively and not allowing them to be a part of men's rights advocacy. It damages the movement when the fringe isn't expelled because the bias is "women are oppressing men." I disagree, in part. I think we should be criticizing the fringe opinions expressed here, but I don't want to see them "expelled". I want the people who hold those fringe ideas to feel free to express them openly. The fact that you may be able to scare or suppress people who hold suc…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:51 PM
7

The fact that your post was deleted exemplifies why I consider the people in charge at AMR to be dogmatists. You thought they could handle a dissenting view. You were wrong. They are right and if you don't agree with them, regardless of the reason, then you are wrong. The problem is not that they are guilty of "ignorance, bias and misguided and misapplied anger", nor is the problem that they disagree with positions expressed here. I disagree with things people say here all the time. I can forgiv…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:28 PM
2

Personal amusement. I find it almost painfully funny when people running a sub-reddit devoted almost exclusively to linking to another sub-reddit complain about that sub-reddit linking to other sub-reddits. A daisy chain would exhibit the absurdity of it all.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:39 AM
2

I have an idea. We can create a Invasion Thread Prisoners Dilemma. Every time they link to one of the threads here, someone should link back to that same thread with the title "AMR Invasion Thread #x". AMR will invariably link back to the just-posted AMR Invasion Thread and call it "MR Invasion Thread #x". At that point, someone should once again link to that thread as "AMR Invasion Thread #x+1" and on and on and on we will go.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:33 AM
2

Which is strange, because they apparently started counting at #139.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 10:44 PM
7

One might have hoped that in response to OCR's reduction of due process protections some professors and high university officials would come forward to object. Anyone among those two groups who came forward would be ending their career, unless they were extremely influential, had a significant amount of prestige and a number of very powerful friends.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 10:26 PM
11

The point is not that one has a "right" to have proper procedures for the determination of guilt. The point is that the processes that are in place are contradictory to the political and social philosophy upon which, so Mr. Berkowitz claims, academic institutions are based.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 10:25 PM
6

What on earth is this supposed to mean? One down-voted person is suddenly conflated with "r/mensrights"? Let me help you out a little bit: getthefuckoutofhere is an individual and r/mensrights is a group composed of individuals with different opinions. Predicates that you can apply to individuals do not necessarily apply to the entire group. Here's some logical fallacy education for you: Fallacy of Composition.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 05:28 PM
2

You're both trolls and you both deserve the same treatment.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 05:26 PM
2

“I think highly educated women have a moral obligation to take top positions, to set an example by their choices,” says Mees. “When women just stay at home or work part-time, they don’t reach the top, and they set bad examples for their daughters and daughters’ daughters.” Very interesting. What this person is pointing to - whether they know it or not - is a conflict between what they think is a moral imperative (pursue top positions and career opportunities to set a good example) and what I gen…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 05:22 PM
1

Structuralist marxist.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 01:40 PM
3

The new poster alone is not what suggests to me that this is a troll post. In fact, I didn't know they OP was new until you pointed it out.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:39 PM
3

That would be pure speculation and I can already tell how such a discussion would go, as I'm sure you can. Just imagine it in your mind and it'll be just fine.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:36 PM
2

No one would attract attention because no one is allowed to take pictures at the pool. I really don't care what you would "bet". The article says nothing about different reactions to men vs women at the pool and it certainly doesn't establish any sort of reasonable basis for believing that such a difference was the reason behind the policy. If there are other articles that do establish such a bias towards men, then they are relevant to that issue, unlike this one.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:18 PM
2

Seems a pretty stupid decision. The reason they give in the article: The reason they gave was that last summer someone walked in front of a patron who was taking pictures, and there was "an altercation", so now they just don't allow photos. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. This seems tangential to MR issues.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:02 PM
-10

Lost me at "crazy trick". Legitimate points can be made without name-calling.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 06:34 PM
5

As you please.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 06:23 PM
6

A known troll and an unknown troll both have the distinction of being trolls. I have seen plenty of evidence that the people at AMR are dogmatists. They believe firmly that they are correct and will only accept a change in the position of those they oppose. You cannot have discussions with dogmatists and your association with them gives me more than enough justification to assume you are a dogmatist as well and that whatever you are here for, it is not a discussion.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:32 PM
7

Good of the children is primarily stated by women Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. Arguments are bad when they display poor reasoning or do not justify the conclusions they would have us draw. Arguments are not bad because of who uses them.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:23 PM
4

"For the good of the child" They did not force him to do a drug test, he voluntarily provided a sample. That said, the ex wife used the system to coerce him into providing a sample because she made a fraudulent claim.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 04:10 PM
-6

I've been asking to be banned from your sub-reddit in another thread, but apparently you didn't see it. Figured I would take the time to ask you directly since I see you posting here. Could you please ban me from your sub-reddit? Edit: Got my ban! Now my men's rights bans outnumber my anti-men's rights bans.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:56 PM
5

This is very probably an invasion thread from AMR. Probably safer to ignore it than feed the trolls.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:55 PM
2

Sorry, you're from AMR and I will not be discussing such issues with anyone related to that sub. I would be happy to discuss the issue, but not with you.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:35 PM
1

I'll give you a basic distinction to chew on. Let's say there are two versions of heteronormativity: strong and weak. As a straight male, I am a weak heteronormative individual. I think being heterosexual is a good choice, a good thing for me. I like being heterosexual and endorse that kind of behavior. However, I do not do so exclusively. I also think that other expressions of sexuality are entirely acceptable and good for the people who choose them. I think that the fact that a majority of per…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:15 PM
3

Into the coal mine for you!
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:05 PM
16

Someone will trot out the "for the good of the children" argument, as though children's interests invariably trump all others.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:02 PM
5

Main title is "10 Signs You May Be in an Emotionally Abusive Relationship" so you would expect something that covered both genders. The only reason I could see it being directed mainly towards women is that the article is in the schizophrenia section of the website and men are much more likely to be schizophrenic. This is confusing since the article doesn't seem to draw any connections between emotionally abusive partners and schizophrenia.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:01 PM
2

Two sets of competing cultural standards for men are clashing here, and the bulldozer of the hyper-masculine male without emotion is crushing the competition.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 12:56 PM
1

You have individually considered each and every cultural practice in which you engage? I'm impressed.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 12:50 PM
6

Note that the notion that one partner is a "freeloader" is an idea proposed by the "dominant" partner. The truth may be somewhat more... complex.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:22 AM
1

Wow. I've been a bit sceptical about the claim that the legal system is biased towards women, but this takes the cake. If a judge can say this, there's no denying it. Careful. A judge made the statement, not the legal system. Do not conflate one judge with the legal system as a whole. There are certainly other judges who have expressed similar views and there some aspects of the legal system that are certainly biased - but that does not necessarily apply to the system as a whole.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 06:48 PM
23

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Eric Bergstrom told Peterson on Monday that "the reality is you love your children and had absolutely no intent to harm your child." You just decided to do a little bathroom operation on his penis! Something any loving mother would do...
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:18 PM
6

Damn. I got pre-emptively banned from r/rights4men, but I haven't been banned from r/malestudies yet. If the administrator of r/malestudies is reading this, I would like to request a ban for myself. I do hate being left out of the club.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:09 PM
2

Well then, thanks for being my muse.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 10:23 PM
5

If it is proven that the woman raped the man, then wouldn't the woman likely lose custody of the child anyway in a custody dispute? This seems to be the main issue here. If a male is raped, and a child is produced, couldn't the man sue for custody, and then put the child up for adoption (just like if the genders were reversed)? I have no idea. We would have to look at the known cases where this is the case and see what happened. The most frequent cases I see are where the child is a product of s…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 08:24 PM
7

For a feminist A feminist? Which one? the question of whether or not to abort is entirely separate from the question of how to provide for a child once it is born. The question shouldn't be separate, since deciding whether or not to abort directly impacts whether or not there will be a child that needs support at all. One set of conditions are contingent upon the other. I'm fine with accepting that the contingencies should not necessarily have an impact upon a woman's decision, but I'm not fine …
/r/MensRights16/08/11 08:16 PM
6

What do you mean by this? If the situation were reversed, the mother would still probably keep the baby and pay to raise it, or else put it up for adoption, in which case neither parent pays child support, correct? Exactly, the potential mother could, but is not obliged, to keep the child and thus care for it. She can either terminate the pregnancy, or put it up for adoption and those are perfectly acceptable options for her to choose.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 06:50 PM
31

I was thinking much the same thing. The author of the article never mentions why the financial burdens should be placed upon the "father" in such cases. There are certainly obligations to support the child, but we would justifiably not expect those obligations to fall on the mother if the situation were reversed. Edit: This gets me thinking. There are two factors at work here that we seem to think are relevant in cases of custody and parenthood: Consent for the activities that create the child A…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:42 PM
9

Being scolded by a child is cute and ultimately benign.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:36 PM
7

Nope. Won't be leaving this place to trolls like you.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 06:08 PM
3

Seriously, in the light of learning how feminist trolls behave, I can understand caution and suspicion of any woman on here. I can't. If women see this place as being automatically suspicious of their motives based entirely on their purported gender (something very easy to fake on the internet), then that is a serious problem.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 02:43 PM
1

Actually, I did call that one guy "dense", but thanks.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 01:40 AM
4

I would have called them on it, but I was banned after this thread, presumably because they hate their own apologists looking bad.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 10:08 PM
2

This is a known troll
/r/MensRights12/08/11 01:14 AM
4

Men deserve rights and our support regardless of their sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 01:11 AM
3

He considers Gravity's Rainbow to be a long book? Must be a short attention span on that one. It’s also of the essence of bad writing. Who’s to say the book wouldn’t have won more fans without it? What’s wrong with shapeliness, anyway? What does he mean by the book? If Wallace had cut several hundred pages out, it would not have been the same book. It would not have been Infinite Jest.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 01:15 PM
2

A reasonable person with a goodly enough number of drinks in him/her Yes, a reasonable person would not have approached someone who announced they were going to bed in an elevator to propose a random hook-up. At the bar is the place people generally broach such subjects. and who may or may not have understood her skewing of the purpose of the panel (communicating atheism) to her own ends, to the bewilderment of the rest of the attendees? What on earth does this have to do with it being a bad pla…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 11:14 PM
1

She explicitly stated, supposedly in his presence, that she did not like such approaches. A reasonable person would conclude that such an approach would not be successful with her.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 08:52 PM
2

That is tangential to the original issue. I think pretty much everyone agrees that what the guy did was awkward and pretty dumb. However, there's often a distance between doing something that is stupid and doing something that is wrong.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 12:32 PM
5

I see nothing wrong with the question nor with your responses. You handled the disagreement politely. Well done.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:51 PM
1

Hope you do. I would like to see more input from outside contributors.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:25 PM
1

Are there... are there communists in my breakfast cereal? Because my Cheerios have been tasting very strange lately.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:22 PM
1

I do as well, for two different reasons. Firstly, I think it is a remarkably poor rhetorical strategy. Secondly, I think the men's rights movement has quite a bit to learn from feminist thought and activism if it is going to be effective and achieve it's goals. My basic rule of rhetoric, as you've probably seen from the previous post is: "start from audience assumptions". Look at what your audience believes and start your argument, or your discussion, from the assumptions that are the most perti…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:20 PM
1

I'm not on the anti-feminism side of the discussion here, so I'll just direct my comments to your rhetorical strategy. You're probably wondering why you got down-voted and why so many of the comments express opprobrium towards your views. Just examine your claims and the words you used for a moment. This, first of all, is a pretty bald generalization, particularly for the modern West: Our society teaches men to be dominant/strong and women to be subservient/weak. This particular dichotomy has be…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:01 PM
1

You think pretty much everything is a communist plot, don't you?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:37 PM
3

(and) technological change in the form of new domestic appliances has freed women from domestic drudgery,” they wrote That and men are doing significantly more domestic work, but that's probably not important.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:35 PM
0

These women have very clear, distinct memories of the doubts, issues and concerns that existed in the relationship all along. They can also tell you exactly what they were feeling before they walked down the aisle. There's this thing called "false memory" that happens quite frequently since it is our brains that make our perception of reality, and our brains often turn parts of our reality into a narrative. The fact that someone "remembers" something, even vividly, is absolutely no reason to con…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:30 PM
3

Well, you have to distinguish between physical gender differences and socialized gender differences. Men and women have bodies that are physically different - they aren't a product of a social system. Many feminists are against the socially constructed gender differences since they often arbitrarily assign certain roles to each gender, and, so they claim, systematically oppress and reduce the opportunities, rights and freedoms of one gender to the benefit of the other. Having physically differen…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:19 PM
11

This is the same woman who is against paternity testing, right?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:11 PM
2

Where every did I say anything about MRM being my movement, dearie?
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:43 PM
2

You're not even right. If you were right, then I'd bow down to you I'm not right that you're a troll? That's sad, because I would really rather believe you're a troll than someone who actually believes most of the shit you say.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:41 PM
2

It assumes a great number of things. There's no data I can use to figure out what percentage are still together and what percentage are not. Given how high the divorce rate is, it's safe to assume a large portion, but perhaps not a majority of the fathers are no longer married or become divorced at some point while child support is still due. The only thing I could do would be to try to find data on what a father would spend per month on child care, if he were still with the mother and do separa…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:27 PM
0

Given your comment history, I'm going to lump you in with him as well.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 03:18 PM
0

she can still have sex, and therefore relationships Do you mean sexual relationships specifically? I'm a guy and I'm pretty sure I could have relationships with women even without my dick.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 01:52 PM
2

Congrats on getting your book published.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 01:51 PM
2

I have also come to the troll conclusion. Even if he's not a troll, he's not the kind of person I want vocally representing men's right issues.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 01:49 PM
7

Warning: These numbers assume none of the alleged fathers are still with the mother, that the mother has custody, and thus that the fathers are paying child support. However, we can safely assume that fathers still with mothers would be contributing financially to the child anyways, and my assumption for these numbers is that the amount paid in support is at parity with the amount contributed by a father still with the mother. Even if we take the low % number that he cites for a North American s…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 01:31 PM
1

Well, I'm sure as hell not giving you the secret immortality plant now.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 12:52 AM
20

The article clearly states that he admitted to having sex with the girl. If people here want to label women who have sex with underage boys as rapists, then the same must hold true for this man. The fact that he is not the father doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 05:59 PM
11

There's that word again. "Uncomfortable". We do not have a right to be comfortable.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 01:26 PM
1

Agreed. The best response to these people is no response at all. Ignore them.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:07 AM
1

Banning people is not the solution. Calling people out when they make intentionally hateful comments is. Unfortunately, many people here don't seem to agree with me (and probably you) on what constitutes a hateful comment. I usually get downvoted when I make even moderate suggestions about avoiding generalizations. Whatever, I can take the downvotes.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:59 PM
2

This isn't relevant anymore since this portion of the law is not enforced, but it's still interesting to read. From the Nova Scotia Public Highways Act: ‎"All physically fit male persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty, residing within every such section or division, are required to work with their shovels on the highways during the winter whenever the highways become impassable from snow, but persons actually in regular attendance at any public school are not, during school hours, require…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 05:42 PM
2

Aside from the dismissal of false claims, her point is reasonable enough - print both names. Most people here are demanding equality by having the name of the alleged perpetrator hidden until trial, but the opposite, printing both names, has a very similar result. Unfortunately, the solution really doesn't deal with the damaged reputations after the fact, regardless of the outcome of the trial. People here will tend to focus on the damage to the reputation of the alleged perpetrator (and really,…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 03:16 AM
1

My point was that many may do it inadvertently, but /r/mensrights still supports the patriarchy. The original post doesn't say anything of this sort. You made a universal statement without any qualifications, which means the statement applies to the class and all members of that class (e.g. all individuals). So should I take this new point as a clarification of what you are saying? but /r/mensrights still supports the patriarchy You're not making sense. /r/mensrights is a sub-reddit, it can't do…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:21 AM
1

If you've clicked that link, you've probably already seen that those who are there support the patriarchy and continued oppression. I beg to differ. You wrote this statement and I don't see a way of reading it where it does not clearly apply to all individuals at /r/mensrights. You're probably clever enough to know that within any group of around 25 000 people (probably more since I post here but don't subscribe), there's bound to be a fairly stratified set of opinions. I'm having trouble unders…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:54 AM
2

I'm going to have to re-examine my position on you. Given this post, I thought you might actually want to have a discussion, but then I found your blog and discovered you are quite happy painting all the readers here with the same brush.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:28 AM
1

Guilt by association is an informal fallacy.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:23 AM
4

What is the actual issue? We fundamentally disagree with feminist theory. You may fundamentally disagree with it, but myself and some other people here aren't nearly as antagonistic. Even if you take the strong position that the MRM cannot in any way work with feminist organizations, you can still learn quite a bit from them. If you agree that Men's Rights is about identifying and rooting out forms of oppression, then some feminist literature is one of the best places to look for conceptual and …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:58 PM
3

Unlike most people here, I see nothing inherently wrong with the idea. I've said before that the MRM has quite a lot to learn about activism and oppression from some feminists thinkers and organizations.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:52 PM
5

Damn. As soon as I read that my penis and testicles retreated back inside my body. At least it will be easier to wash the nether-regions now...
/r/MensRights27/07/11 12:34 AM
3

Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a nazi. Therefore... The stupid logic is stupid.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:20 PM
3

So which way do you want this to go: should we start assailing women's teams when they lost, or stop doing it to men's teams?
/r/MensRights24/07/11 12:34 PM
1

Well done.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 12:29 PM
2

He's a troll, so even if he knows it, he wouldn't admit it.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:37 PM
4

How exactly is that different from other subreddits?
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:17 PM
24

No one on this subreddit who is even halfway reasonable thinks all women are "stupid cunts".
/r/MensRights23/07/11 01:01 PM
3

Why are we giving that other reddit any attention at all? Stop picking at the scab, imagine it isn't there, and it will go away.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:01 PM
3

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/Gender-primary-education-teachers.html In the US, 88% of primary school teachers are female and 62% of secondary school teachers are female.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 10:17 PM
2

I agree entirely with the first point being made. Despite the fact that the statement indicates it is kloo2yoo's belief, that belief will be attached to everyone else who participates here. As a moderator, kloo is taken as a leader of this institution and what he says and believes can justifiably be taken by others as a belief of the institution itself (in this case, /r/mensrights). I do not believe in this "international conspiracy" and I suspect others here do not. The side bar is not an appro…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 09:11 PM
1

I'm gonna have to tell this to all the biologists I know. The mycologists are gonna be surprised too.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 12:47 AM
5

She's just a temporary pedophile. A little topical medication will clear that right up in a few days.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:26 AM
1

Ask yourself the same question about any other field of research, thought, or social organization and you will come up with exactly the same problem. Do all "Democrats" identify themselves as having exactly the same political views, or are there disagreements? Even serious disagreements? Are philosophers all in agreement on the basic concepts and terms in philosophy? Nope. Not even in specific areas. Epistemologists disagree widely, and yet they all still think they are doing epistemology. Very …
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:55 AM
1

How exactly did you go from "not all" to "every" ? If you want to discuss the point I made, then go ahead. If you want to argue against a completely different position (e.g. the one you just made above) then start a thread about it.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:50 PM
0

My conclusions were never "it was necessary given that I accept x", at first I believed these draconian sex laws (sex offender for 19 y.o. sex with 16 y.o., very little proof needed for sexual assault cases, men being on the registry for urinating in public, etc), were the work of the religious right. But as I looked closer, almost all of these laws were passed with someone testifying the need for them in front of congress (state and federal), and they always come from a feminist organization or…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 09:47 PM
1

I don't see how the basic idea changes if you take gringo1980's first reply to you and replace "feminism" with "feminists." Because not all "feminists" would identify "feminism" as the same thing, nor would they have the same goals, or advocate for the same changes. Either statement is a significant generalization that is, rhetorically speaking, quite stupid. I want to see better rhetorical principles used in MRA exposition and avoiding sweeping generalizations is one significant improvement tha…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 09:34 PM
1

People are certainly well within their rights to attempt to advocate for the kind of social change they want. The kinds of behavior may be condemned in "the court of public opinion" as J.S. Mill says, but they may not use the institutions of law and government for that purpose. When those institutions are used, a significant line is crossed.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 09:32 PM
1

It depends on how closely you hold those ideas and what commitment and obligations you think flow from them. If I hold some ideas that I think override my commitments to the well-being of other people (I need to do x and so I have to kill y even though I had a previous commitment to not kill people), then you may start having problems. It won't look like a problem from the inside, since the logic of dropping some commitments is perfectly obvious to you. "Of course I did that, it was necessary gi…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 06:51 PM
-2

You're once again failing to notice the distinction, even though you are using it. You have 1) Feminism and 2) Feminist organizations. They are two different things. One has agency, the other - absent people and institutions - does not.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 06:38 PM
1

This is part of the practical application problem I pointed out. Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is an interesting read in this light. He points out the fundamental immorality that we would have to assign to the origins of our moral systems.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 06:37 PM
-2

"Feminism" is a system of thought, not a thing. It does not have agency and does not do things nor does it "allow" people to do things. People informed,inspired or aided by that system of thought, and the institutional systems impacted by it, have agency and can do things. If you have a problem with the way that feminism has impacted those institution, the solution is not to rail against feminism but attempt to change those institutions yourself. Assuming, wrongly, that feminism has some sort of…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 06:15 PM
2

And what frightened women want is "society" (i.e. white knighting men) to protect them from that which offends them. Actually, what many feminists want is significant modifications to the social and institutional systems that create the situations in which they are "frightened", "threatened", etc. This is why socialization is such an important feature in much feminist thought. The idea isn't so much "protect me from those bad people and things" as it is "let's make a society where those kind of …
/r/MensRights14/07/11 05:53 PM
4

I don't see how this is "feminism" destroying someone's life. It appears that LaVonna Arena is the person responsible.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 05:45 PM
13

I'm very interested in how many people are assuming the truth of this statement from the linked thread: Something I've noticed recently is that when many men don't want to change their own behavior regarding something that women are uncomfortable with. I see this opinion expressed in gender-neutral terms as well. Some people seem to assume that we have a right not to be "uncomfortable", "bothered", "creeped out" and other such things and that the burden is always upon the person making you uncom…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:53 PM
2

It actually touches on a mundane issue, which is exactly the point. A closely held claim of most feminists is that sexism and misogyny suffuses not only institutional systems, but pretty much every kind of social interaction. On this view, sexism operates on the woman who doesn't get a promotion because she was competing against a man, but it also operates on elevators with strange men on them. The mundane stuff is extremely important. If you have a specific list of institutional claims (and I'l…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:39 PM
-1

Ah, more internet arguing. We should have a new fallacy for the internet called "It's true because I linked to something!" to argue against someone who works in a field tangential to survey design. Sure. And when people are arguing about politics, they suddenly have poli sci degrees. I have no way to confirm your "qualifications" and don't care to. You're a name on the internet here.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 09:15 PM
0

It is methodologically flawed because all random telephone surveys are. You will never get a completely representative sample. You can use your experts to get closer to that ideal, but you will never get there. Arguing that you know the CDC or any other authority has the special sauce - simply by virtue of being an authority - to do the impossible is an informal fallacy, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:31 PM
0

Argument from authority. How cute.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:00 PM
1

Are you dense or something? Read what you just posted: Your telephone number has been chosen randomly, and I would like to ask some questions about health and health practices. Hence the person being called can opt-in or opt-out of the survey, thus making them part of the selection process. Whether or not that leads to more rape victims participating is an entirely different matter. It might. We would need an actual scientific survey to determine that. Original point remains: Survey involves sel…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 01:58 PM
0

Self selection is a form of selection bias.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 01:36 AM
0

Selection bias. Next.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:19 PM
15

There's that amorphous and undefinable word again: "Creepy". Creepy is the automatic red flag. If you call someone creepy, it's over for them. No explanation. No clarification. It's like being called a Zombie-Nazi-Pedophile-Werewolf with bad breath. And no one knows what the hell it means.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 01:57 PM
9

the skeptics, the atheists, the pundits who tout themselves as rational thinkers - should be treated with the utmost skepticism themselves. I made a similar point about this on /r/atheism. It seemed very strange to me that various members of the skeptical community were buying into the whole testimony thing. Rebecca Watson said it and she talks about feminist issues in the skepticism movement, therefore she must be correct! The lack of a critical stance on this particular issue has tarnished the…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:48 PM
8

I'm a young female immigrant (legal) but I'd be scared as hell of reporting a real rape if my rapist was a lot more socially powerful than me. This is entirely true, but it would also be true about a bunch of other crimes that could be perpetrated against you as well. And it would be true for men as well. The fact that socially powerful members of society have a significant advantage in the legal system is a problem, but it is not a problem that applies specifically and exclusively to rape.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:35 PM
1

Exactly what a troll would say. Thanks for the confirmation.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 04:18 PM
1

This is clearly a troll account.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:50 PM
1

Is this a troll account?
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:28 PM
1

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be ti…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 04:17 PM
6

The work-place harassment mentioned in the first part of the story is unacceptable. Being a target for mistreatment and abuse is going to make construction an extremely inhospitable workplace for women. The issue of weekly pay needs some more study. It is entirely possible that male-dominated contractors won't hire female electricians because they are female. It is also possible that male contractors hire male electricians because they know them personally. Men with years in the business will ha…
/r/MensRights18/04/11 02:26 PM
1

Upboats for reasonableness! I would not be at all surprised if the person you're responding to is actually a troll.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 02:27 PM
1

Whether it does or not is a different matter than someone openly advocating or supporting prison rape, as the title of this post suggests. The first is an issue of bad policy, the second is an issue of bad character.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 12:03 AM
3

To save money and space. I figured the answer would be obvious.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 10:32 PM
0

Put two men in one room. I think rapes are more likely than when there is just one guy in a room. This does not mean she supports men being raped. She may not believe, nor have seen any credible evidence that the practice of double-bunking leads to more rapes. OK, I don't have real evidence to support my case. That does not mean you can conclude on the contrary. I haven't concluded anything about the position Ms. Collins really takes since I can't read the mind of Ms. Collins and so I do not kno…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 07:57 PM
2

I'll ask again: Please clarify how anything in that quote entails support for it leading to more rapes.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 07:33 PM
2

Please clarify how anything in that quote entails support for it leading to more rapes. Her claim is quite the opposite: That it will not.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 07:08 PM
4

This statement was made by a man, Mr. Garrett, not corrections minister Judith Collins. The title of this post is very misleading.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 04:02 PM
2

Translation: The author of the article sees the legislation as sexist because she thinks it was written by men who want a legal way to discover and punish female infidelity, which those men view as pervasive. I am suggesting that such a view of men and their motivations is myopic, which in this case, means that she is only able to see those negative motivations which fit most easily into her ideology about gender relations.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 02:14 PM
-6

The classic art of imputing negative motivations to people based on your myopic understanding of them.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 07:51 PM
1

Because Freud is definitely a valid and widely accepted source on basic human motivations...
/r/MensRights27/02/11 04:18 PM
1

What experience do you have? Diploma? Further, have you ever actually tried to get a construction job, or is your belief that you would not be hired enough to make it true, for you, that you wouldn't?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:54 PM
2

This is a website for health care in India and one might notice that it says "Usually it is advised that both the male and female partners should give consent for the procedure" not that consent is required. Given the different cultural status of reproduction in India, it would probably be a good thing to discuss a vasectomy with your wife before going through with it.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:01 AM
6

Please stop posting this misleading and inane bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 07:12 PM
1

I'd love some clarification on this. Could you describe what portion of the post was sexist? Was it this part: You will never understand, you're a women. There is quite a body of literature on gendered experience and I doubt it would be a controversial statement if made as "You will never understand, you're a man." I've heard this statement quite often regarding pregnancy, power dynamics impacting women in institutions, etc.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:18 PM
1

If that is something amenable to all parties involved, it's certainly an option. I can envision situations in which this could cause significant issues between family members, so it would be good to look at a variety of contextual factors specific to the family before going through with it. What I mean about familial progeny in my post was that I and most people generally treat related individuals and their children better than people we do not know (thought some people are asshole's to their fa…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:10 PM
3

That's pretty selfish--selfish enough I would wager it would preclude you from engaging in meaningful long-term relationships and commitments. Classic ad hominem attack. What a position entails in terms of possible personal relationships has nothing to do with the validity of the statement. Particularly when the statement describes a personal preference.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:05 PM
1

It's nice to say "Men have this imperative and women have that imperative," but I think that we as a species have moved on fairly well from those genetic paradigms. Where did I say that men or women had an imperative? I was talking about my imperative and did not in any way indicate that it was a normative claim for others. The "genetic paradigms" are a modern development and we are embroiled in them whether we like it or not. Reproduction is, in part, about genes and one of the questions we can…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:02 PM
6

You are correct. Not everyone has the same experiences as you. I suppose there are issues that affect women in the same ways, though, too. Why can't we all work together and fight all kinds of injustice, whether it's "male" or "female" in nature? I think the problem is seeing justice as some sort of universal goal that all people have the same interest in. Society is, at present, a field of competing interests and justice for many of the agents in that field means "whatever is best for me and th…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 04:26 PM
2

And I can understand wanting to adopt because that is giving a child a wanted home. I agree on this point. If you're incapable of producing your own children, you should at least seriously consider giving a home to a child without one. Again, however, this is often a great reproductive strategy in cases where the people abandoned the child to the state. I can go around making progeny and then have the state give them to other people who will invest their care, time, and money in propagating my g…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 03:09 PM
2

What leads you to think they have the same view on this as I do? Personally, if my little fishies were not swimming and I still very much wanted to be a father, I would consider either adoption or donated genetic material given that promulgating my own was no longer an option.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 05:01 AM
1

I have a biological interest in making sure my genetic material survives for future generations. I also have a biological interest in the genetic material of relatives surviving since they share much of it with me. I do not have any interest in the genetic material of some other person whom I do not know, male or female, surviving for future generations. This does not mean I will hinder them in any way. In fact, if I think there reasonable social services that will help other people do this, the…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 03:49 AM
1

State sponsored revenge.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 12:39 AM
-2

Remember, the dominant idea here is that we're all being conditioned by porn and various other forms of media. It transforms us all into misogynist rapists because it's being made by other misogynist rapists. If we change the porn and show more "inclusive" things, people will just magically become more inclusive. Isn't it obvious?
/r/MensRights11/02/11 05:01 PM
8

This is a non-issue, at least for me. Some people find great significance in certain days and think that other people have special obligations towards them on those days (and this is not something that is limited to women, obviously). If you find someone with that opinion about Valentine's Day, you might as well write them off unless you're willing to play along. Thankfully my partner and I don't care about this day. We'll likely go to a card to store to laugh at the tacky cards and balloons and…
/r/MensRights08/02/11 04:12 PM
2

Step 1. Find any situation where % of men > % of women. Step 2. Blame on misogyny. Step 3. Lather, rinse, and repeat. That said, I think more female contributors to Wikipedia would be an excellent thing. There are going to be topics and positions that women will be able to contribute to in ways men cannot. The "problem" here is that Wikipedia is not as good as it could be if it had more female contributors. There is no need for any recriminations directed against men.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:37 PM
9

An amusing result. If you see a man physically assaulting a woman, then the man is guilty. If you see a woman physically assaulting a man, then the man is guilty.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 02:53 PM
3

The E-mail doesn't say anything about feminists. It is directed to women in engineering.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 02:42 PM
2

Apparently they write their script by copying old Cosmo articles.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 02:50 PM
1

I always wonder where the "three" comes from with these rules. Why three? Why not four? Why not some other random number? There is absolutely no principled reason why three is chosen, and yet it is satisfying to many people.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 04:42 PM
1

The terrible grammar and punctuation told me this wasn't a real academic article. Pass.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 04:13 PM
8

Absolutely. There is a preponderance of evidence which proves that little boys talking about "Mr. wiener" becoming rapists in later life. The connection is obvious. I mean, the boy was talking about his wiener. His wiener. I bet rapists also talk about their wieners. Obvious connection. Really, all little boys are just future rapists so they should all get at least one punch in the crotch as well. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that children who find it acceptable to punch ot…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 01:30 AM
0

I have no idea what Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do. Neither do you.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 06:39 PM
-1

When you go to a hotel, do you want a clean hotel or a dirty one? Do you sleep in a soiled bed or a clean one? Making sure you are in a clean environment is a way of caring for yourself and showing that you respect yourself enough to live in this way. If you live in a filthy environment and don't clean it, that says to me, at least, that you don't care about yourself enough to make sure you live in a suitable space. That has everything to do with self respect.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 05:49 PM
2

If you have respect for yourself and the people who visit your place, you will keep it clean yourself.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 10:07 PM
1

As it now stands, you speak for everyone but me.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 02:37 AM
7

Assuming that yellowmix has some connection with academia, or at least reads the current literature, it's pretty clear where the focus on ableism is coming from. Ableist discussion is pretty big in some feminist and a select set of ethics journals right now.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 01:10 PM
9

A campaign generally advocates positions that would benefit the group which the campaign represents. Such a group would not spend money advocating for something that would not be beneficial to that group. This does not allow one to conclude that the group is against that position.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 02:52 AM
4

It is a bit of a stretch to read the rather sad opinions of two women and assume that the attitude and bias behind those opinions is endemic to all women. This is a practice we should be critical of when applied to any group or gender. I am a man and I love cooking. On the cooking angle, you can look at it in a number of ways: -Many women find it an attractive skill to have. If you take a "peacock feathers" understanding of personal skills (e.g. any skills you develop are just ways of showing of…
/r/MensRights14/10/10 04:21 PM
1

The justification doesn't make sense to me. You can both argue with MRAs and have a dialog with feminists in a single blog thread. What constraints on the dialog in either direction are created by having a single thread?
/r/MensRights13/10/10 12:23 AM
2

Thinking like this leads us one step closer to all relationships being thought of primarily as means of economic exchange. "I will work to bring in x $ and in exchange you will do the following housework, appraised at x $." Does anyone really want that?
/r/MensRights12/10/10 02:04 PM
6

Whenever I know a female student is coming to my office hours for a class, I make sure my door is open and there is someone occupying the office directly across the hall. If a female student drops by unexpectedly, I suggest we meet in the student lounge for my department instead. Public with lots of windows.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:11 PM
1

You're starting my reductio for me... Why is it that human beings "deserve" happiness?
/r/MensRights02/10/10 03:30 PM
2

Fine to feel that way. Why is it something that anyone should "deserve"?
/r/MensRights02/10/10 02:43 PM
10

I always have trouble understanding the "he/she will need psychological counselling" comments in all these stories. She committed a crime. If it is valid to assume that in every case that crime x (false rape claim) occurs, the problem requires psychological care, then I don't see any reason why this line of reasoning would not be valid with almost all other types of crime. Robbery? Murder? Fraud? All caused by deep psychological issues that require counselling. Not jail (or a minimal sentence). …
/r/MensRights18/09/10 07:03 PM
2

The article did a good job of covering way too much material in not nearly enough space. As someone working in philosophy of science right now, I have come across these types of opinions about rationality, scientific methodology, and so on. It makes me want to cry.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 09:19 PM
3

If I were a fat, sweaty, hairy, bearded Slovenian man then I would have cause to be insulted by this comment. Lucky for you I'm not Slovenian.
/r/MensRights13/09/10 11:12 PM
1

Interesting results. Four comments: I wonder how many of the participants in that thread who propounded on the legal benefits are or were married. My contention is that many people don't put much thought into the legal vagaries before getting married, but they probably do afterwards and definitely do after getting or considering a divorce I'm not too familiar with the 2X subreddit, but I imagine that the level of familiarity with the mundane aspects marriage (laws, benefits, etc.) there is proba…
/r/MensRights13/09/10 11:11 PM
3

I avoided mentioning the woman part to avoid causing any undue psychological trauma to readers.
/r/MensRights13/09/10 02:59 PM
40

The negative reaction you will get from most men and women regarding your position on marriage has nothing to do with any of the problems created by the current legal system. Most people, in my experience, don't even bother considering the legal vagaries of the arrangement until the lawyers are being hired. Marriage has tremendous symbolic significance and this is where people operate, first and foremost, when thinking about it. The marriage industry has built it up, along with modern notions of…
/r/MensRights13/09/10 02:33 PM
2

I'm sure you and your balls are in charge of all sorts of women.
/r/MensRights12/09/10 02:44 AM
24

People who base their ideologies on hating another group of people and then talk about the "moral high ground"... Something seems a bit off about that.
/r/MensRights30/08/10 01:01 PM
1

Assange should have made a post in the relationship sub-reddit first. Everyone knows you don't go home with crazies in pink jumpers.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 12:44 PM
-1

Some research into the activities of certain communities of vigilance in the States during colonization and expansion West might be in order.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 05:50 PM
1

Fake pregnancies have the right to not be exploited as a means for a woman to defraud a man.
/r/MensRights25/08/10 11:53 PM
2

Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despair…
/r/MensRights25/08/10 01:31 PM
2

I was a karate instructor for a number of years. Along with more traditional kata's, drills and fitness stuff, we also taught more practical self-defence methods. We offered and taught only to mixed gender classes separated into age groups. There were never any problems with the girls and boys class that I experienced.
/r/MensRights23/08/10 01:15 PM
1

They forgot to add: "In many cases, your lie will never be discovered and the falsely accused will go to jail for years and years."
/r/MensRights10/08/10 03:01 PM
1

We really need to get clear on distinguishing between helping and harming here. You cannot help your child by harming them. You are not in a better moral position if you claim that you are helping your child when you are, in fact, harming them. If your intention to help goes directly contrary to all sane, modern, medical advice, you are harming your child. This is a clear example of child abuse. It is simply uncontested because it exists under the false veil of intended help from "concerned pare…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 02:06 PM
6

You have the fleshy equivalent of an ICBM in your pants and without ad and education based indoctrination, it will spray rape all over the place. Thanks for the positive message, modern media machine!
/r/MensRights09/08/10 03:45 AM
4

Rape is bad for women. False rape claims are bad for women. Bad for men? What men? How can anything be bad for men?
/r/MensRights07/08/10 03:17 AM
11

I agree. Hitchin' my trolley to the fake train!
/r/MensRights08/07/10 09:15 PM
0

Given the propensity for men to hit women, I don't think the brainwashing is taking hold with a very high degree of strength. Further, I don't think there are "valid excuses" to hit anyone, but there are justified reasons. The distinction is important.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 01:36 AM
19

Part of the problem is that many cultures and justice systems still perceive rape as a "sex crime." The understanding is that: Men commit rape because they want sex, they are in it to fulfill some sick desires. It is more difficult to make this claim for a women sticking a vacuum up some guys ass, so it comes off as "degrading" assault instead. Here's the problem: Rape is not a sex crime, it is a vicious form of assault. Until we get this straight, there will be a divide between perception of me…
/r/MensRights07/07/10 01:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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