TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

enzikio Archive

View 7 posts and 177 comments by enzikio 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

You have completely missed the point. How about something simple then? Why is he still obligated to pay child support but can not see his child that he is paying for? Shouldn't him being/not being the father already be established then and all rights settled. The fact is that he shouldn't even HAVE to prove this. If the state wants him to pay child support, then they should be the ones to PROVE he is the father. If you take the states claim that his name on the birth certificate is enough eviden…
/r/MensRights26/10/16 05:11 PM
–

Except that is (sort-of) a false dichotomy. He was probably under the incorrect assumption that men have reproductive rights and that a DNA test would be a no-brainer in terms of rulings. In all honesty, comments like yours are why I think MRM has a loooooong way to go. Here we are, a group of people who are supposed to be very sympathetic to this man's plight and yet there are still comments like yours that throw him under the bus and assign agency to the victim. Meanwhile, feminists are able t…
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:49 AM
–

I don't know why they didn't at least post a link to their website but here it is: http://www.mensrightsofarizona.com/about-us.html I've seen some comments posted concerned about having religious affiliation. I don't see anything on their website that implies anything more than they offer the service, not that they push the service on to people. There is a big difference between "Pray the Gay Away" type faith based initiatives and people who are already of a faith looking for a faith based appro…
/r/MensRights04/10/16 10:38 PM
14

Right! We'll just make them separate but equal. /s
/r/MensRights28/06/16 01:40 AM
1

Could you be more specific about what you take issue with here? Everything I see here is semi-moral to me.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 05:05 PM
2

The cognitive dissonance in this article is astounding! Just look at the one quote they chose to highlight: I can see 2 men in my #AllAboutWomen queue. Normally I'd be all about man-free spaces but it'd be nice if dudes turned up for feminism. Normally I'd be all about man-free spaces but... Gee, I can't begin to see why men might feel uninvited to an event that sounds billed as a "man-free" space. Feminists - advocating for male-free spaces, surprised men don't show up to feminist events...
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:40 PM
–

Ok, to be pedantic then. You are still wrong. I said "it loses it's fun and mystery". You implicitly agree with this as you say this It's just a different type of fun. Then again, I really love watching magic. So we start with fun of type A, once trick is revealed fun of type A is gone. For you, a new type of fun B replaces it. Congrats, you have managed to add nothing to the conversation, fail to follow basic levels of respectful discourse, and of course waste my time.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 01:14 AM
–

oops, Freudian slip...
/r/MensRights05/03/16 01:06 AM
1

That because you don't see the next step which is to make it illegal to have even the pretense of discriminating based on this. So even though it will mean women working even less hours, gaining less experience, and not being around when needed, feminists will still demand the same pay as men for less work.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 12:47 AM
–

I think maybe you missed my point then. The point is that the "trick" doesn't work anymore. Just because you find a new way to be amused by the trick is completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 12:19 AM
–

First, I assume you either just read some PUA material or at least just recently learned about some of the techniques discussed within the PUA groups. Having read "The Game" myself, I totally get why you would see her as "negging" you. Once you learn something new, or hear about something or even just buy something like a car, it tends to become more noticeable to us. It is a well known phenomenon, although the word for it escapes me. The thing to know about things like "negging" is that it real…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 11:52 PM
1

Just to add to what /u/DavidByron2 wrote: The numbers are skewed towards women due to the high correlation of poverty and being elderly. Women live longer than men so they skew the numbers in favor of women. From DavidByron2's own link, they also sweep men under the rug with this little trick: People Whose Poverty Status Cannot Be Determined Unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children): Income questions are asked of people age 15 and older. If someone is under age 15 and not livi…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:46 PM
–

This study also ignores what other studies have demonstrated. Namely, that teachers discriminate against boys in grading. Most pronounced at the lower levels. I absolutely saw it during my time in school, especially with some of the more subjective subjects. Perhaps the male students, being male themselves are actually ignoring the gender bias in grading and that is why they rate the other males higher. Meanwhile, the female students, unaware of the bias, don't have the ability to cut through th…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 10:50 PM
–

Um, there was a pretty big joke with that scene that you forgot to mention. That Deadpool comments on this exact thing. Something along the line of "Is it more sexist to kill you or not kill you?". They were lampooning this pretty hard core with that scene. I really applauded the scene when I saw it for calling out the double standard so openly.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 08:24 PM
1

What is he saying start ~@19:30? "...Boys need to learn many of these basic skills from girls...". I even went and tried to watch more for context and it still seems to be more of the same claptrap of "boys are broken girls that need to be fixed." Boys don't need to learn from girls. Society needs to learn how to educate boys again. Stop cutting recess. Stop structuring classes to cater to girls by removing competition and hands-on work. Add more male role models to the younger grades, even if i…
/r/MensRights15/02/16 08:10 PM
–

I don't understand. Why would I need to provide historical precedent? Women have never been included in the draft so this discussion is all theoretical anyway.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 05:24 PM
–

It's not how they operate because women aren't drafted. There is a big difference between volunteered vs drafted.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 09:58 PM
–

You probably aren't thinking this through. If you are drafted, your life if forfeit. Your right to bodily autonomy is gone. If a woman got pregnant while drafted she would be forced to abort. Unless you find it less morally reprehensible to send men to die than to force an abortion. I don't, but maybe you do.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 06:32 AM
–

Come on man, you are stretching hard for this one. The daughter was 12. How was she paying the phone bill? If a news outlet was reporting this I would already be skeptical of how accurate their reporting was. I also can't believe you can determine the phone "belonged to the mother". If the phone was bought for the daughter, then the money to do so supposedly comes from child support. Money if fungible. You can't say, "oh no, this is my money not child support money". Also, cops almost never show…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:54 PM
2

So i actually went looking for more on this story. I find nothing that indicates other events or issues between the two except the payment issue. Of the payment issue, I see some news reports stating the state was withdrawing the money, the other being that his employer did withdraw the money, but didn't remand it to the state. But it seems apparent that from his point of view, the money was gone from his paycheck like it should have been. It also seems apparent that as soon as he was notified b…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 08:00 AM
8

It is not what I believe. My position exists solely on the information available to me. I also don't have an inclination to go researching this specific case since I am only referencing the Snopes article. I am more than willing to change my position based on new evidence. That's what makes me post here in /r/MensRights and not in /r/Feminism. I also don't believe for a second that court documentation is perfect. I know someone directly that was affected by the courts "losing" their records. So …
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:34 AM
–

Nope. Please read before commenting. However, available court records indicate that Hall was straightforwardly held in contempt of court for failure to pay child support in a case which had a motion for contempt dating back to April 2013 (and a court document briefly glimpsed in the Houston television news report about the case shown above displays a header indicating Hall was indeed held in contempt for "for failure to pay child support"). emphasis mine. Plus, even if this were true, look at al…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:30 PM
–

I think you should read that page again. It sounds like there were some issues with how his payments were processed by the state and that he paid an additional $3,000 to correct for bureaucratic errors, but that was not enough to keep him out of jail(an issue with Texas law and Men's rights for sure). Snopes is not some perfect organization when it comes to their verdicts, by any measure.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:43 PM
1

I fully support proper sexual education, but it still changes nothing. Even if he never had kids "accidentally", most people will choose to have kids at some point. And then these men can enter into the "system" at any point in their lives going forward. So education and availability of resources does what exactly? Puts off the risk of child-support from accidental pregnancies? This guys problem wasn't condoms, or education, because even men who use condoms and are educated about their use event…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:34 AM
2

"When used properly" is how they sell condoms. In real world testing the number always comes back much lower. People just don't use condoms "properly" all the time in the real world. Also, you misunderstand my comment about living as a eunuch. The condoms don't make you a eunuch, the abstaining from sex to secure your basic rights makes you a eunuch(i.e. not having sex).
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:25 AM
–

And you really think that if they were suddenly magically free someone like him would use them? I doubt very much that education and free condoms would have changed the outcome for this person. Which goes right back to my original statement that if someone makes a mistake/is stupid, they should have their rights secured.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:02 AM
–

Your statement is bullshit. Condoms can still fail. I would much rather have a fair justice system in the country I reside then to live like a second-class eunuch just to keep my BASIC rights in this country.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 11:07 PM
–

That varies depending on the extent of the violation and the jurisdiction in question. Of course this is true, but it is just a cop out. The whole idea of involving the police is for them to determine if the extent of the violation is warranted. (e.g. I show up at the designated time and my ex doesn't comply with the order vs my ex is late by 15 min). The problem is that it is better if the parents can sort things out between themselves. Immediately escalating to police involvement creates its o…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 12:22 AM
–

The problem I have with just declaring what he did as assault and attempted forced entry was that he had a legal right to his child(I am assuming a parenting schedule was set up). Suddenly you have someone interfering with your right to your child. If I came and took someones child and held them in my home and they forced entry into my home and assaulted me getting them back it would be considered justified. Yet, somehow, when violating a parenting agreement it's not kidnapping?? So instead, the…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 11:40 PM
–

I think this might be a bit unfair to them. Physiological responses are non-specific. This means that yes, his emotional state may be because he is very indoctrinated... or that perhaps he was just nervous about publicly speaking. Or even a mixture of both. So he gets nervous about his public speaking (asking the question) which causes a physiological response that ramps up his adrenaline causing his to come off as much more combative that he may have intended. If you watch his hands, they are s…
/r/MensRights21/10/15 11:57 PM
–

Because smashing a window is usually seen as an aggressive act. As soon as he does that, she can call the cops and claim domestic violence and "fearing for her safety". And due to biased DV laws he'll be gone to prison and won't get out since if he doesn't have the money for a divorce he certainly can't fight a DV charge. Meanwhile, forcing your spouse out of the house they are entitled to live in doesn't count as DV even though economic coercion is a part of DV as defined by thing like the Dulu…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 12:45 AM
–

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. You linked to one person's comment and are trying to pass this off relevant. This does nothing but help discredit the MRM and follows the same underhanded tactics feminism uses. An anonymous person's comments on a forum mean nothing, it's the people with power within feminism that matter. And it is true that Feminists Who Matter(FWM)™ also espouse this behavior, so perhaps update your link to a more relavant feminist?
/r/MensRights20/08/15 11:38 PM
3

Actually, it should be apples and oranges but it's not. The main distinction between the two scenarios is due process. Unfortunately, we see all too many times that an accusation alone(i.e. lack of any forensic or corroborating evidence) is enough to set in motion all of the steps that /u/TheDude41 listed, which then makes the process no different than the second scenario of just getting a bunch of people together to punish an accused since all the steps in due process are being steamrolled righ…
/r/MensRights20/08/15 09:35 PM
–

Thanks! Very interesting indeed. The issue with the federal minimum wage law(I can't speak to all state laws) is that these comments do show that FDR wanted the federal minimum wage to reflect this. However, what he wanted does not in fact constitute what the is. When examining the language of the law itself(FLSA) there is no such language about living wage. This is what I would consider the biggest fundamental flaw of the act. This is why I think that it is not a myth to say that the min wage l…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 11:00 PM
2

How can one claim that there should be no "punishment" in divorce but then claim that divorce should be "fair". I am aware of no other contract that allows one party to violate the contract without repercussion. Even something as simple as my cell phone contract has a basic understanding of "punishment" for failure to uphold my side of the contract, yet with something so important as marriage there shouldn't be? You then go on to state divorce is supposed to be "fair", yet give no indication wha…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 08:09 PM
–

Do you have a source for this statement: Mainly on the fact min wage wasn't meant to be a living wage when that's literally what the law was put in place for I find nothing in the language of the law that states anything about it being for a "living wage". As someone interested in labor rights, I would love to learn more about this.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 08:01 PM
2

I am not well versed in AVFM articles but I wouldn't be surprised that the article did exist. If you concerned enough about it you can use this site to see if it was ever there: https://archive.org/web/ As for the register-her, I remember that absolutely existing. I don't know why it went away but I assume it was because enough people here or at AVFM pointed out how absolutely terrible the idea was and that it was no better than an internet lynch mob with no verification for the actual accusatio…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 12:20 AM
3

I don't think much will change. Even with United States v. Kantor, I have ready plenty of cases since then where a "good faith" defense should have been employed but wasn't even mentioned. But strict liability has been extremely warped to the point of breaking. If you haven't read/seen this comic it is well worth the time: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:37 PM
1

Yes. OP's link. Oops, I got deep into a different discussion and totally forgot which thread I was in. How is it "victim" blaming, if we haven't even established if she is a "victim"? I think you need to reread what I wrote. I am agreeing with you and explaining why I do.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 01:22 AM
–

Do you have any sources that debunk Predator Theory? Also, victim blaming is something to avoid. The real issue is the term victim blaming has been distorted. No longer is it used to describe a past victim, but instead to describe potential future victims making any crime prevention techniques "evil".
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:44 AM
1

Oh well, thanks for the consideration. I'm still really interested in either Lisak (2014) or a good refution of Lisak (2010). If you do find them I'd be happy to look at them. See ya in the next thread!
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:40 AM
–

I know you are a big contributor on this subreddit, but some of are not and it is possible to not see everything posted here. I did not see the article and after searching for a bit I still find nothing listed. If you could provide a link that would be great.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 10:34 PM
–

Maybe, but I have yet to see any in depth refutation of the study as a whole. But perhaps some context is important. In a different sub, I saw someone mention/cite Lisak (2014) and cite 5.6% which i could not find. I only saw Lisak (2010), which did have the 5.6%. So when you mentioned another study I was hoping you knew where to find Lisak (2014) since it is newer. Here are 2 of the best refutations of the study but they only point out what I really know and have stated earlier, that 5.6% repre…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:54 PM
–

Then it appears we are talking about 2 different studies. I am referring to the linked study Lasik (2010). This study used 4 coders, paired into teams and both teams analyzed the same reports. This to me seemed reasonable. The biggest issue with this study that i find is that people inherently misunderstand the coding system. After all was coded, the most accurate statement that could be made is: "According to the Lasik(2010) study, the minimum false accusation rate is 5.6%. Beyond that, we don'…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:10 PM
–

I would love to see this debunking then.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 11:18 PM
–

As much as I would like to skewer bad science and bad researchers, I would love to know some of the context of this conversation. For starters, was this a cold call? Was Lisak given time to prepare answers for this interview? Was it possible that Lisak was confusing 2 different studies? What was the tone of the interviewer like? Perhaps the interviewer was somehow rude? It seems that there is enough evidence to suggest this is bad science and I would hope that the author was not playing a game o…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:41 PM
–

The problem with that is that it assumes that the women knows who the father is. That isn't always the case. Then she should have to give as much information as she can to help identify the father. I am 100% sure the state would spare no expense finding him should the state have to "cover" child expenses later. If they fail to find him after a certain time period, the father should be exempt from costs period. If a man is expected to pay for a child, he should have the right to know his child. P…
/r/MensRights24/07/15 11:30 PM
–

It's about messaging. Not in the "text message" sense, but in terms of getting an idea propagated. In this case it is about false allegations. And look at what that message is. Feminists do everything they can to minimize the fact that false allegations happen. They make statements that it is so rare as to not even be worth discussing when discussing rape. And therein lies the problem. False allegations do happen, and at greater frequency than the Feminist lobby lets on. So when it comes to tria…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:23 PM
–

This sounds like total BS. They couldn't corroborate the claims. An airport with cameras everywhere and supposedly a ton of security doesn't even have enough records to know if a person was working at an airport. What kind of shit show are they running there???
/r/MensRights09/07/15 10:00 PM
5

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I am more concerned with the idea that they are being punished in the mothers stead in general than any of the specifics. In this case, they are the victims of their mother and now the judicial system. I also dislike contempt of court charges in general. They allow a judge to perform an end-around people's rights. In this case, they are jailed for 2 weeks without any due-process. But in Men's rights terms, contempt-or-court charges are used to create debt…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 08:51 PM
–

I don't understand. Why did the kids get punished? If the judge feels that parental alienation was so bad that it warranted this type of response, then shouldn't it be the mother held in contempt. Locking the children away has probably done nothing more than guarantee that they will resent their father. His relationship with his children is over from this moment on.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 07:28 PM
1

I just got done playing with it as well. This chart is even less helpful. I was warned that "bitch" is filtered out by RateMyProfessor. So "bitch" is apparently a word not allowed to even be left by the website but "dick", "jerk", "asshole", "cock", and "douche" are allowed. simply amazing
/r/MensRights26/06/15 10:58 PM
4

That was a terribly done news segment. They kept mixing up 2 separate legal rulings. The first woman only appears to be speaking about the first of the 2 legal rulings. But that ruling is very uncontroversial. But why does she not mention anything about the second part of the ruling. That clearly doesn't fall under medical privacy. Next jump to a man who clearly says "men's rights" which will inevitable raise some heckles. But we don't know specifically which part of the legal rulings he is addr…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 11:27 PM
0

Mike Buchanan does so many things well, but if I had to grade his performance on this interview as about a B/B-. He has improved significantly from the first interviews he has given but I think there are some areas he can still improve. Perhaps my 2 cents may one day help him out. :30-~:55 Mistake #1: So the interviewer's opening question was a wide open question that Mike should have used to it's fullest leverage. Here would have been the time to bring up all the studies that are used improperl…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 08:04 PM
1

For visual conformity, I would swap the statement of the last pie chart to "Loser of custody" or similar so that blue becomes the dominant color. Otherwise I believe it loses some of its impact.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:08 PM
3

Meh. It wasn't terrible. She didn't straw man any body(like the MRA). She was definitely guilty of watering down Feminism for sure but she does only have 5 minutes. She also sounds like she would be a sex negative feminist. The second part of her act is essentially just a long scumbag brain meme. For people on Reddit it's going to seem like beating a dead horse since we are familiar with it but for an audience like Late Night, it could work. Her biggest problem was her delivery and timing. I cou…
/r/MensRights24/04/15 09:48 PM
–

I actually think when this type of thing happens it's great! This is the type of thing I can use to destroy people in arguments about Feminism and The Patriarchy. Think about it, if white males truly hold all institutional power then wouldn't white males be the only opinions that matter? By not inviting white males they are effectively acknowledging that The Patriarchy isn't real and that white men don't hold all the power. Either that, or that or they believe they can smash the patriarchy someh…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 08:50 PM
1

Not really. If you look at what these rulings do, they have removed any practical enforcement of the law. The SJC has effectively gutted this legislation.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 11:53 PM
1

I'm sorry you missed the entire point of my post. My reference to respecting the rule of law was that the "difficult" juror sounds like someone who would have never given the death penalty. That is directly subverting the rule of law by allowing yourself to be on a jury where you will be asked to apply the law that includes applying the death penalty. In capital cases, you are specifically asked if you are able to do this. If you oppose the death penalty you are supposed let the court know. If y…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 05:45 PM
–

You can be opposed to the death penalty but respect the rule of law. On a capital crime case, they ask jurors if they are able to apply the law, including the death penalty, impartially. If she was against the death penalty from the start then she should be held in contempt. FYI, I oppose the death penalty but respect the rule of law.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:58 PM
–

This isn't justice. She should have received the death penalty. Her not getting the death actually just reinforces the idea that pretty white girls don't get the death penalty.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 10:20 PM
–

Here are the results of a more recent study with graphs even. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/23e27p/mra_survey_results/ The results are even less dramatic and more in line with my experiences on this sub. Also, where did he get "strongly conservative" from? It's not in the survey results at all.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:57 PM
1

Not sure if you meant to add the link in the comments section that shows it was all actors, so here it is: http://verne.elpais.com/verne/2014/12/07/articulo/1417939184_159010.html
/r/MensRights26/01/15 09:41 PM
1

No, they do not as they have been thrown out by the courts with far too much consistency. One of the reforms within family law has been fighting for is the upholding of pre-nups. Enforcement of pre-nups is a right's issue. As an aside, the mere existence of the prenup should be a huge clue as to the staggeringly unfair divorce laws if an extra piece of legalese is needed to be completed before a marriage. I would prefer to fix divorce laws instead of requiring people to spend money on pre-nups. …
/r/MensRights09/01/15 10:10 PM
2

Are you purposely missing the context of the discussion? It is a woman, after getting married unilaterally being able to change her mind about wanting to be a stay-at-home parent and the man not having any recourse. Of course pre-marriage the issue of stay-at-home parent is just a relationship issue. Big daddy government isn't involved yet. After marriage it is definitely a rights issue.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 09:53 PM
–

And yet men lack the ability to do just that. Maybe in the dating game but MRA's aren't concerned with the dating game. Leave that to the PUA's and the RedPillers. You say just leave the relationship, but as soon as the ink is dry on the marriage license, your partner in a lot of states is now entitled to 1/2 of everything. And since statistically speaking the man will have more assets and wealth, he now has to lose half of his wealth. Not only that but in the context of this conversation we are…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 09:39 PM
1

You can't even be sure you are a 'victim blamer' really. When they say "self reported" this can also mean "asked questions of women that the surveyors then defined as sexual assault" as has been seen in numerous other surveys. This way they can drastically inflate the number of "sexual assaults". Until I see the actually questions and methodology used, I will disregard the top wedge of that image. Once you do that, the numbers don't seem anywhere near as bad beyond that. Edit: I tried to find th…
/r/MensRights05/12/14 11:02 PM
2

He addresses this issue further in a comment. He points out(rightly) that only white people have variations in their hair anyway. So of course black/asians/latinos won't talk about it. It would be like someone talking about how many eyes they have. I personally also like the swipe at men for preferring youth. And of course the obliviousness of saying that "40 is when men hit the brick wall of looks" but not ever considering that perhaps the men on this site seem to think women hit it at maybe 25…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 10:00 PM
3

Better yet, make a magnet with a black guy bowing to a white guy. Keep the same words and put it up next to that one. Put the offensiveness in context for other people.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 11:45 PM
–

I would like to point out that all your statements are not about "to how things were" or going back, but about moving forward. Looking at your list, what you really want women to keep what they have already earned, but now you want some parity for men too. I could be misinterpreting some of your bullet points though. For example: No more divorce rape. This could mean either going back to "how things were" and not allowing divorce, or do you mean creating more equitable divorce laws?
/r/MensRights12/11/14 05:15 PM
–

So honest question, how far would you go "to how things were"? Can women have jobs? Can women vote? Can women use contraceptives? Can women get abortions? Can women drink and smoke? Can men spend time with their children? Can men cry and show emotion? Can men not have to act as women's bodyguards?
/r/MensRights12/11/14 04:39 PM
–

You're old fashioned. Done. Now, Let's look at what you said. Let's be honest if we are in s bad enough war that we start drafting again it's gonna be serious enough that you don't want women in the front lines. Completely untrue, the US has 300 million people. We are in no danger of depopulating any time soon. POGs sure, front lines no way Also, this is just short-sightedness. Just one solution would be to have women only combat squads/platoons. Then have Generals and other high ranking decisio…
/r/MensRights12/11/14 04:59 AM
10

I think you misread what i wrote or I wasn't very clear. The point was that after Vietnam the draft was de facto abolished since no politician could ever force a draft on the population again after the disaster of Vietnam. This left them with only being able to participate in conflicts where they could use only "volunteer" forces. Yes, Vietnam was voluntary but it still involved a draft. That was the distinction I was trying to make. The issue specifically with Vietnam is the claim I hear that "…
/r/MensRights12/11/14 04:49 AM
–

Ending conscription is pointless. It certainly would create a feel-good vibe but little else. I have little doubt that should the U.S.A ever get into a real battle the draft would be reinstated in an instant. You have to look at the US's involvement in all the conflicts since Vietnam. None of them required the draft because the US chose to insert itself into the problems willingly, and I have no doubt that part of that decision to insert itself was whether it would require a draft or not. But so…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 09:58 PM
1

Incorrect. This law did not cause injustice. An incorrect application of the law did. Two entirely different things. An incorrect application of the law can and does happen even outside of this law. It's why there is an entire appeals court side to our justice system.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 06:48 PM
–

I'm not sure what your point is. It says right in the description that the evidence was improperly excluded, meaning that it was a legal error just like any other and the rape shield law did not produce broken justice. Am I not understanding your intention for posting this?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 05:12 PM
–

This is a troubling post. Rape shield laws generally are not overly burdensome. Most strike a reasonable balance. Check this link out: http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_shield_laws_us.pdf Most of what is inadmissible is past sexual history. In my state as well as where the alleged assault took place, previous false allegations are admissible. I assume from the chart that if it is not explicit then it is perhaps decided by the judge if past false allegations are admissible.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:38 PM
1

UN Women. She spoke about women's rights. There are many issues that affect women and men differently. Hence UN Women. And yet there is no UN Men? Isn't the MRM supposed to be championing men's rights? Where are all the posts in this sub talking about women's rights, though??? Weird. The MRM exists because the current gender issues movement(feminism) is doing nothing to address men's issues. In fact, it is the outright causes or fights against correcting the issues faced by men. There is no evid…
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:30 AM
–

Um, so you agree with seenloitering then? Otherwise your statement makes no senses. think about women's rights and stand against violations of those rights. How is this not prioritizing women's issues over men's? Also considering there is no UN Men, this doubly shows that we are prioritizing women's issues over men's. I am just completely dumbfounded how your statement contradicts /u/seenloitering 's statement at all.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 09:55 PM
6

I find it frustrating that no one has bothered to ask the most important question "Why is this boy hitting (these) girls?". Is he generally just acting out due to what is obviously a home situation where the parents don't get along? Is it because he is hitting both boys and girls but only the girls being hit is noticed? Or perhaps these girls are bullying him and he is reacting to that? And by punishing him for his reaction instead of finding the cause of his behavior they are just enabling his …
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:40 PM
–

I would be careful with the language you use. When you say "If they actually teach these people to be MEN.." it disturbs me. To be a man is nothing more that a combination of your gender and time, no more, no less. It is NOT a mantle or title to be earned. Making the word MAN into a title is what enables the shaming and guilting of men into becoming the puppets of the state and women. Take away the title and take away a tool of manipulation.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 10:41 PM
1

It gets even better, if you apply the same standard to /r/MensRights, ~60% of this subreddit is <25yo. So if we can dismiss these young women out of hand for their age and call them bimbos then we should be dismissing about 60% of this subreddit and calling them "bros" or whatever the male equivalent of bimbo is. I like some of his videos, but this one does nobody any favors.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 09:05 PM
1

Here is a slightly longer clip that contains the linked clip: http://youtu.be/gNZn1A6sxtQ
/r/MensRights08/07/14 09:59 PM
2

You are right. A gay man would definitely be something they will never have and described much better as ForbiddenFruit. I still think that what Freiling was describing falls better under cat-string though as his affections are not forbidden but are just out of reach due to his perceived higher status.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 11:24 PM
1

I have to laugh at this. I don't believe there is a lot of RedPill/PUA cross-over here in MR generally bug looking at what you and parent wrote about is something that already has a name: http://www.attractology.com/articles/inner-game/cat-string-theory/ I have read "The Game" but I don't participate in PUA. But I just thought you might want to be aware of the implications of what you are saying.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 09:54 PM
2

While I don't agree with DavidByron, I do think he is raising a valid criticism but perhaps not being very clear. The way I see it is to first look at age of consent laws. The average age for consent in the United States is 16. In Europe it ranges from 13-18. But I find it vitally important to make the distinction between age of consent and age of majority. Since these 2 things are separated legally in most countries, I think it only makes sense to discuss sex crimes in the context of age of con…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:43 PM
1

Um, you are right. We magically ended up with rape trials being conducted on campuses after someone wished on a falling start. Please, take the time to actually make well thought out comments instead of just empty, useless comments.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:26 PM
1

Your comment makes no sense at all. It's like the point of my comment went right over your head. Perhaps try reading and please engage your brain next time before you comment.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:23 PM
1

There most definitely are blurred lines. You could say there shouldn't be, but there currently are. Like it or not, we didn't get to the point of ad hoc judicial committees in a vacuum. If we don't take the time to look at how we as a society got to this point then we will have no chance of winning over people who are not ideologues and our time would be just as well spent tilting at windmills.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:43 PM
1

I agree that we shouldn't be letting universities handle legal matters but it also doesn't help to ignore the reasons why we got to where we are in the first place. First the legal lines are blurred by the fact that campus police are often an actual part of the police force of the town the campus resides in. This is done because some colleges are cities unto themselves. Here is a list of the largest campuses in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enr…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:50 AM
2

The problem is that most university police ARE the police. They are fully authorized to act in all ways that a non-university officer would. This is where legal lines get blurred because now the university has the ability to put pressure on these LEO's. I completely agree with your sentiment but I think it helps to have a historical perspective on how we got to where we are now. This can help to frame our arguments so that we can persuade those on the fence.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:46 AM
11

The problem is this was allegedly the university system 40 years ago, except with the affected gender women instead of men. The claim was that colleges weren't doing enough to protect the women who did come forward with legitimate rape claims. It was to the universities benefit to cover up any rapes so that they could claim a safe learning environment. It wasn't until pressure was brought to bear on these universities that they stopped covering them up. I suspect that if you looked at what the p…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:06 AM
2

It seems to me that Elam can be quite radical anyway. This part in the article made me cringe. With rape shield laws and their trampling of every defendants right to a fair trial, the law itself cannot be trusted. Indeed, even your fellow jurors, who can be assumed to be living unconsciously in the misandric matrix, and prepared to condemn men on accusation alone, cannot be trusted. I swear you could replace "misandric matrix" with "patriarchy" and you would be right in feminist territory of bei…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:47 AM
–

I suspect that you and I believe in the more nuanced approach. That for starters, not all states have the same rape shield laws: http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_shield_laws_us.pdf (sorry for PDF) I would also argue that the ethical thing to do is to announce your standing before trial, not to act in a subversive manner. With that said, I think you may have missed the point of the article. If an accusation of rape has progressed to a full criminal trial by jury, you can damn well be sure i…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:55 PM
2

It ended up being about ~630 entries. It is a really small sample size compared to the number of people who are subscribers.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 04:06 PM
2

Oops. I can't believe I missed it. I added the link to the post but here it is for your convenience. http://imgur.com/GkFDiWc This is much more of what I expected than the original results.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 10:38 PM
1

I think you are making the classic mistake of construing racism with classism. The reason black men fair worse that white men is not due to race, but rather the fact that a black man is more likely to be poor than a white man. This means the black man cannot afford justice. A rich black man will still fair better then a poor white man.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:37 PM
–

It appears that a coworker pulled a prank on this man which is fairly supported by the information in the article.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 06:42 PM
1

Maybe the issue is that I am speaking of principals and you are referencing the article. In the context of this discussion I am not speaking to the specifics of the case. With this in mind, I would ask you to reread my comment. Speaking to your comment however By lying he has drastically changed her life in a negative way and he knew full well he would be doing so before he slept with her. Pure conjecture on your part. We do not know any of his motives or reasoning. Since abortion is legal in In…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:41 PM
1

They are only different because you have arbitrarily deemed them so. If on principal you consider it bad to lie to get sex, then makeup and other ways to change your looks would fall under this category. You also wave off how many sexual partners someone has had. Again you choose to ignore something that may be important to you. It does not mean that it isn't important to someone else when determining if they would have sex with someone. We also don't know if she also lied as well. Perhaps she l…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:08 PM
0

Try broadening your definition of dishonesty. What would you consider okay to lie about and what would not be okay? For me, if dishonesty should not lead to sex then we should include all the ways in which people are dishonest towards who they are. Let's start with makeup. Women are lying about what there appearance is. Not how about number of previous sexual partners. I can go on but I think you see where I am going with this.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:01 PM
-1

I didn't know about Marc Lepine until your post, but it looks like his page was updated with a feminist slant with this great quote A few men's rights activists seek to rehabilitate Lépine as hero of the anti-feminist cause. A look at the sources are a joke. They all appear to reference a single person who apparently made some comments that agreed with what Marc Lepine did. No where do their sources rise to the evidence of the quote above.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 09:54 PM
1

For the point at hand, this is the only method to consider. Complaining about sample sizes does not make sense. The sample size is set by the size of congress, which I cannot change. I also cannot change the makeup of said congress at the time of the vote. The using of public opinion polls does not make sense in the context of this post. The idea is what women would do if they ruled the country, not lived in it. For that you need to look at what women in power do with that power. The motto to fo…
/r/MensRights03/12/13 11:04 PM
1

Just to be clear, I was actually addressing a stereotype and proving it false. Not creating one.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 07:36 PM
10

After always hearing the cliched comment of "Only men make war. If women were in charge there wouldn't be any war" I decided to check the voting record for the last big military intervention. From the charts, we can at least dismiss the idea that ONLY men make war since there are clearly women politicians that voted for the war. Interestingly, we can see that perhaps women are more reluctant to go to war. The only caveat being that we don't know what the vote would look like if we swapped out fe…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:40 PM
1

In other news, all the men at the Australian financial company quit after women openly given more pay for less work.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 12:13 AM
3

Yes, but now you are exchanging a "mommy" penalty for a "family" penalty where only single people are able to reach higher levels of income.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 11:47 PM
0

Do you have any thoughts on how false positives could skew the data at all? My initial thought given the idea that more women than men use false allegations to get leverage in divorce proceedings(this is my impression but I have no data to back this up) that this would have an impact on this as well? It just seems to me that if a group of people are given a free pass on the use of violence in general, you would generally see more of those people committing violence.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:06 PM
1

What is the video pictured? It's hard to know why the video is bad if I don't know what the video is. Is it something obvious and I'm just not up on my pop culture?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 03:07 AM
1

I think the really scary part of the whole thing is the complete lack of interest to actually fix this problem. Dave Foley is getting a de facto life sentence for a debt. Here in the states debtors prison was supposedly outlawed, but of course exists in a twisting of words to make the prison time for "contempt of court" and not for a debt. Of course it is actually "contempt of court for a debt you haven't paid". If there was any moral integrity at all in the Canadian government they would be out…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 09:12 PM
3

In this case, the boy was 15.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:11 AM
1

Yep, tough on crime laws. Protecting me from those dangerous poor people. /s
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:49 PM
3

A quick google seach revealed this: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/20062010%20TCdecisioncvl/2007-4-5-1.pdf It sounds like he was a repeat offender and his sentence wasn't just for the burglary but somehow "enhanced" due to his repeat offenses. I don't know exactly how that works but it does explain the seemingly absurd sentence for a burglary.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:18 PM
2

I think it is more complicated than that though. A certain view of rape takes into account power dynamics so as to remove any gray areas. This is where the whole idea of "all sex is rape" comes from. It starts with the idea that men have much more power over women and can therefore never know if a woman is truly consenting or just fears retribution. I reject this particular instance of this notion but agree with it overall. A different example would be the dynamic between teach and student. In m…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:14 PM
2

My question was in response to JaydenPope's comment saying STEM needs more women heading towards it. The way someone phrases something is very telling about their own biases and thought processes. If JaydenPope had instead said "it would be nice to see better gender balance in occupations" then I wouldn't have commented. Instead JaydenPope chose words that impart a level of bias in their comment. This is what I was trying to draw out. Just a small realization that how we word even the most simpl…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:46 AM
1

I will post later tonight
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:22 AM
1

actually, you would be surprised at the number of threats and weapons that are pulled on teachers. You just normally don't hear about it. I didn't realize it until talking with my gf, her sister who is a teacher, her mom who is a teacher, a friend who's a teacher, another friend who is a teacher. Dang, I know a lot of teachers lol
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:21 AM
2

I never said it was a problem it was just a suggestion, most men don't go into women's jobs cause they usually are low pay and statistics show men love high risk jobs that bring high pay. You did use the word need in your original post. Usually needing something implies that there is a problem... I am only trying to be a devil's advocate really. I hear the statement "we need more women in STEM" but I never really hear why. The only answer I ever get is higher pay but then it comes back to my poi…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:07 AM
1

Nurses are exposed to diseases, accidental exposures, violent patients... My girlfriend has had knives pulled on her as a teacher... Although, looking at your post I guess I never realized the risks I was exposed to that I never really though of. Good point.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:03 AM
0

Haha. This is true, but I myself would probably concede that this answer does come off very, slightly sexist. ;) I do understand your intention though. I would point out that STEM degrees are only 4 years out of your life and that most people are too busy in school while getting a STEM degree to worry about a social life. School is for learning, bars(or whatever) are for socializing :)
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:23 AM
7

I think you might have the causation backwards here. I suspect that crazy radfems choose the Genders Studies majors and not the STEM job and non radfems choose the STEM job over the Gender Studies degree. I would say that the work dominated by women traditionally will probably stay relevant for quite a while since they tend to go into work that requires human interaction(teaching, nursing, etc). We probably do need more STEM majors in general, but this isn't a gender specific thing.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:19 AM
6

This was the answer I expected but I didn't want to make any assumptions. When people make this statement I wonder if they understand the underlying implications they are making. Why is it a problem that women are not in STEM but the lack of men in fields dominated by women isn't? Why is a gender imbalance in any specific field a bad thing? Why should we provide "extra" encouragement to one gender over another to go into specific fields? Why focus on women in STEM as opposed to men in nursing? W…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:13 AM
20

Can I ask why you think STEM needs more women?
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:13 PM
2

If you believe that the Patriarchy is real then you should write a decent primer for those of us who challenge the provided definition of Patriarchy Hypothesis, instead of just hand waving and stating that it is too complicated to summarize. Looking at just the posted definition on wikipedia: Patriarchy is a social system in which society is organized around male authority figures. In this system fathers have authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule …
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:16 PM
1

Do you have more info on this?
/r/MensRights24/09/13 11:17 PM
18

How is this even moral? So feminists are deemed too violent and/or dangerous on campus by the University that CAFE needs extra security to meet and so they charge CAFE the fee? Shouldn't they be charging the groups that are the ones causing the problems? People can donate but I don't like that CAFE is waiting until after the event to do something about this horribly misguided requirement.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 10:43 PM
1

Well, my whole argument is about expanding the argument, not shifting it. Let us only consider only contemporary times for the sake of this discussion. My essential point was, in terms of reproduction men don't share an equal burden, pregnancy can kill you and men don't get pregnant. I agreed with this statement. I also stated that this wasn't enough considering the fact that humans are a species with a higher level of sexual dimorphism. This means that while women do risk death during pregnancy…
/r/MensRights18/09/13 11:50 PM
2

I don't really understand what your point is exactly. But your time period for large extended families leaves me curious as to what time period you are referencing. I feel like your statement actually proved my point. That it is better currently to be on the male side of the reproductive process because all the male side of the responsibility has been shifted to society as a whole but that it is still the male side of society that takes up the responsibility. It is now a male cop who will most l…
/r/MensRights18/09/13 09:44 PM
3

I think you are choosing to ignore that the reason men are taking these jobs is because they are in fact losing their agency in such matters. Men and boys are falling behind when in comes to their educations. This is a fact and something that the boys themselves who suffer it have NO AGENCY to fix. Increasingly higher education is becoming toxic to men, not just in regards to things like the Dear Colleague letter, but in terms of access to scholarships, men's centers and other types of academic …
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:15 PM
2

I believe you are taking too narrow a view of what the male side of the child making process is. I would argue that the male role of the child making process became protecting the lives of your mate and/or children, even if it cost you your life. So the trade-off became I take a mate, I now am responsible for her safety. I don't have a mate, less risk of death. The reason you would probably prefer the male side today is that the risk of you having to personally protect your "mate" is incredibly …
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:08 PM
1

Thanks. It looked like a troll to me as well but I make it a point to assume that the post isn't a troll and answer honestly. Even if they choose not to respond or learn others may read my response and learn something. At the very least, I don't want /MensRights to be a place where people can be dismissed as trolls if there is even a slight chance that they may not be. If they want to troll, that is on their conscience. The feminist movement was toxic before I was even born so I choose not to id…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 06:41 AM
7

I believe you are conflating the concepts of legal paternal surrender and parental alienation. Men's Rights has 2 stances regarding these 2 different concepts not just 1. For legal paternal surrender the idea is that since there is now a legal inequity when it comes to choosing to be a parent are not. The development of abortion of a medical procedure combined with the legal concept of bodily autonomy to get this medical procedure allows women complete control over their reproductive self determ…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 10:24 PM
8

I'm sorry, but I had to read the quotes several times and the "rape joke" isn't there. I think you are reading into his statements and adding something that isn't implied or intended. You have to look at how the statement is written: If he wants to be Chelsea, he can practice all he wants at Fort Leavenworth, because those guys are there for a long time. So he can get good practice and when he gets out, he can have the operation or whatever, and he can pay for it. If this were meant to be a rape…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 11:09 PM
8

In the context of your previous post, The Good Man Project is aimed entirely at men. So are the "Men can stop rape" campaigns. It implies that currently men are NOT intervening when they should be. The issues is that Your own example shows that rape prevention campaigns are nothing but smear/shaming campaigns because it were truly about protecting people from rape, then the posters would read "Everyone can help stop Rape". The posters are created by feminists groups whose ideology includes belie…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 10:57 PM
11

Regarding your second point, it seems that you really haven't thought things through properly. For that catcall, what if he tells you to "mind your own business" or "go fuck yourself". Now what? Do you go over and hit him? Do you push him? You have now initiated violence over words. You have now initiated vigilantism. And if you don't escalate, what else can you do but walk away grumbling and have accomplished nothing. Not to mention you have treated the woman like she is not capable of handling…
/r/MensRights27/06/13 09:14 PM
11

This article is nothing but him showing his sexism, against both sexes no less. For women, it is him giving them no agency in society. From the choices they make voting, to which sports they choose to watch, somehow women are not capable of making their own choices in his mind. His articles does nothing but turn them into children. For men, he assumes that they are incapable of representing the interests of women. And yet we know that women vote for men over women all the time. Why? Because wome…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:04 PM
2

Honestly though, if it comes down to the wire and it is really close I am seriously thinking I'll fill the gap. It would be nice to maybe get a sticky on this thread, at least just until the deadline.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 06:10 AM
2

I didn't top your amount but I did match it. This issue does affect the U.S. somewhat (where I am from) since we are a common law country along with Canada. To any others reading this, if you are thinking of holding back just because you are not Canadian, I suggest reading up on how common law works.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 06:03 AM
0

Well, sure, if they're honest enough to let the cat out of the bag at that point. Fixed that for you
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:08 PM
1

Thanks. I have been looking through that link already and collated any study I found that tried to measure severity and damage as well. Do you know of any study that gets done to the granularity of things like: Unwanted pregnancies Permanent bodily harm—e.g., lost teeth, loss of hearing, etc. Lasting non-permanent but significant bodily harm—e.g., broken bones, bruises Missed time at work Property damage
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:15 AM
1

These are all links that I have already showed my friend. His argument is that frequency is not as important as magnitude (damage done). /r/mensrightslinks doesn't seem to have this type of information.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:16 PM
1

Thanks for the response. I will try to address each of your paragraphs. The issue that my friend is having is that he believes that men do cause more damage, even with a weapon. So image that being a man added some form of multiplier to each category. So hit with a bat by a woman is X, hit with a bat by a man is 1.2X. My friend also feels that damage is more important than frequency. So 1 woman with a black eye is worse then 10 men with slapped cheeks. So in the case you provided the men doing 7…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:10 PM
1

I hear these "two wrongs don't make a right" comments all the time from people who couldn't care less about fixing wrongs that are inflicted upon others, but get incredibly wound up if the same thing were to happen to them. So I'd love nothing more than to point out the hypocrisy of that. I can so agree with this.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:05 AM
1

This answer is exactly why the poll was posted then. Assuming you believe in equality, why do you feel it is okay for men to suffer what POW's or even soldiers do but not women. I see it boiling down to 2 options. You believe women are less capable as men You believe men's lives are worth less that a women's Perhaps there is an option I don't see that you could fill me in on? Because both of these options show promoting a not egalitarian view.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:56 PM
1

I agree that the words "as males do" does talk about "the system that currently applies to males also apply to females". Part of that system is the ability to vote to end Selective Service for men. If I am able to interpret the question multiple ways, I assume others are as well.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:53 PM
1

It may be true that women are the only ones interpreting in that way or it could be that the men are too, but just not caring. We have no way of knowing. That is why I am saying the question is too open for interpretation.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:49 PM
8

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. When I first read it, my first thought was, "I would like to see it banned for both sexes". Seeing as I have similar thought patterns as other people, I am going to go ahead and assume others had this same thought. If you don't make your assumptions explicit in a question like this, your results are open to a lot of interpretation.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:03 AM
74

This is a bad question really. I would guess a great deal of people voted no because they feel that nobody should be drafted, which this poll does not allow for an answer. This question needs to prefaced with something like "If the draft could not be abolished," that way everyone voting is within the same context.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:01 PM
2

I think you should. It is actually incredibly sexist... against women. Think about what she is saying. Her comments implies that women are NOT capable of designing flavored birth control pills and that since it isn't a male issue really, they haven't directed their greater intelligence to solving this problem. The very statement implies women are less capable. It also ignore the fact that women have greater voting power just in sheer numbers. So apparently even with a greater voting block, they …
/r/MensRights08/02/13 10:05 PM
19

How is it not? It is clear from the story that because he was male that he was somehow supposed to endure her insults or to "handle" the situation himself. Play the reverse the genders game and do you still believe that the bus driver would have not intervened sooner. Or kicked the victim off the bus? I suspect that even fellow passengers would have stepped in to protect him at that point. It is clear that the woman was being racist, yes, but that the reactions to her racism by the bus driver an…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 09:28 PM
1

haha. Nah, not a tool. If I wasn't in the exact frame of mind you described, why would I be on /r/MensRights asking the question I did. If you are a tool for thinking like you do, then I guess so am I. :)
/r/MensRights08/02/13 09:17 PM
1

I wouldn't call you a tool at all. It is the same thought I have grappled with myself. But every time I think about it I just can't let myself live my life with that kind of fear. If I fear divorce and false accusations so much as to be paralyze from about them, then my time lurking /r/MensRights has done to me what Feminism has done to women (in regards to fearing men). I am willing to put it out there that most women are not like the horror stories we read here daily. It just happens to be tha…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 06:11 PM
4

I have always wanted to post a question to /r/MensRights about what divorce is like in each state. It would then break down by each state. Since you come from the state where I live as well, you perhaps would be able to give some insight into what things are still wrong with AZ divorce. I am currently in a relationship heading toward marriage and my biggest fear is not knowing how bad divorce can be. There seems to be a "what the law says" and "how the law is applied" type of thing. Is there any…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 09:10 PM
2

I myself have only faced situations like this twice (as a male). The first time was while I was walking on a path that passes by an amusement park. The park itself is smaller and size and aims for the tween/teenager age groups. I was walking with a friend and we started to get cat calls from the park and from some of the rides. This of course was from tween/teenage girls. I myself workout so I was around 190lbs @ 6' and ~10% bodyfat. My friend is a huge cardio nut as well. Both of us being men n…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 12:30 AM
1

Oh, the point wasn't to downvote. It was to show that an opportunity to provide a factual rebuttal was lost because sarcastic comments were used instead of logical, factual rebuttals.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:29 PM
–

I will wholly concede that this could be true. When I was young I actually suffered from exactly this. I was well ahead of my class in not just homework but in actual knowledge. I was looking and sometimes doing the work my older brother brought home (who was 2 grades above me). This lead me to do things like talk and even get in trouble for doing coloring books during class. Of course, this lead to notes being sent home to my parents about my behavior. My parents, being good parents actually in…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:24 PM
–

Talking at age 5 is normal socialization. Talking out of turn is not. If the kid is already talking when he is supposed to be doing work, how is giving him more work going to help?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:08 PM
–

How is this a MR issue? There is nothing here to indicate malice based on gender. I'll be honest, this barely registers as "that" bad of thing a teacher could do. She really didn't raise her voice, she didn't swear, she didn't hit him, she didn't belittle him for being a boy. The only thing that might be an issue is if you consider boys to be a little more rowdy that girls and this woman wasn't considerate of that fact. Unfortunately this video is not enough to weigh in on this. The biggest conc…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:07 AM
1

Maybe it's the rail police doing the assaulting?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:21 PM
–

I was thinking the same thing. Is there something unique about the train that makes it so only females have issues?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:53 AM
–

Why fake mustaches? It is called "No Shave November" not "Grow Facial Hair November". It just happens to be that men shave their face. Women shave other parts. If they wanted to support the cause, what would stop them from not shaving their legs or armpits?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:31 AM
1

From what I could see it is not just a physical fitness website. It is a health and wellness website. Look at some of the articles that are posted and you can see that not all of them are just about push-ups.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 05:12 PM
–

All of these are nice health goals, but why are they the ONLY things listed? Apparently MEN are nothing more that walking meat bags. Why does a man not do things like: Read a book Pursue a new hobby like painting *Spend time with friends/family This is just an awful generalization of men.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 02:46 AM
3

Finding the previous Forbes article will not help. The author of this article already points to an older article in her piece and doesn't even have the decency to at least refute it. In fact, she goes out of her way to insult it. Worse still is that if you look, she is "Forbes Staff" while the article she points to is by just a "contributor", meaning that she will be assumed to have more credibility. The author clearly already had an "angle/agenda" in mind and nothing will convince her to change…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 07:25 PM
2

I have a degree in engineering. Business law is the only thing that was required. We did touch on some criminal law, but that was just for fun. I can tell you that things like this fall well under state law which can vary wildly. I can only assume that Ohio does not have a "stand your ground" law if they are charging him. Although this is an example of why a lot of people like those types of laws, myself included.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:17 AM
–

I assume you have never been in a fight then. He would have been incredibly stupid to turn his back on her in a fight, or even look away. A sucker punch can end a fight real quick. And if you don't know, a girl is more than strong enough to cause damage to your skull/face with a single punch. Don't try to judge based on relative strength, but rather is she strong enough to hurt him. If you view the video you can clearly see she is fully capable of hurting him.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:23 AM
1

Do you have the knowledge and inclination to update the page? I would think that false allegations falls under a DV tactic for sure. Even with its gender slant of use by women against men {citation needed really}, it is still a problem for both genders.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:32 PM
3

I think when posting these types of articles, we need to be critical about the methodologies used, for ones that support both sides of the issue. After reading through the article, I found that a lot of questions were left unanswered or were stated vaguely. The researchers controlled for that, along with other variables, but an “unexplained” 6.6-percentage-point gap remained. This alone bothers me. What are the other variables? When we are getting down to numbers of less that 10%, I want to see …
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:56 PM
1

I suspect that a large amount of extra time is taken up by hovering or >laying out paper in places which don't have arse-gaskets. Oriental-type >squat toilets might be the solution to that. I'm pretty sure that is most of the reason for longer times. But this would be solved by urinals that didn't require a full sit. As much as I would think squat toilets would be quick, they are pretty bad for anyone with disabilities (including weight issues). There is, but the designs I've seen pictures of ta…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:02 AM
–

I would have to disagree with the statement that "nature has ordained that they take longer". I would assume you mean that they have to squat or sit to pee. As an experiment, I would suggest that the next time you pee try sitting vs standing. The time it takes is negligible in my experience. The reason I found the reason the line is longer in women's facilities is due to there being just less places to urinate (which i find the more common bodily function). But this is caused by women preferring…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 09:40 PM
–

Thanks for pointing this out. I came to say the same thing. I read the article and thought it was just another "look how feminism helps men" article. I then read through the comments and saw that the user "Pcarvious" quite an interesting post and that the author actively encouraged him to continue and showed genuine interesting in having an open discussion.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 11:31 PM
–

The reason for a person wishing their significant other not to view porn is irrelevant to my point. The biggest issue is whether this was agreed upon behavior before they were married. If she let him know that it made her uncomfortable and she felt it was disrespectful to her before they were married and he agreed not to do it, then he is being disrespectful. If he wanted the be able to view porn while in a relationship then he should have found someone who agrees with that view. I myself would …
/r/MensRights26/06/12 07:36 PM
–

I feel like there is a lot of missing context here. If she made it known before you were married that she found you viewing porn as disrespectful to her, than she has a very valid reason to criticize you for doing it. There are exceptions I would think, such as her going long periods of times without taking care of your needs but you have not indicated why you were viewing porn so I can only speculate. It is thought that men and women find enjoyment differently. Men tend to be more visual, women…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 11:31 PM
1

This article was already posted. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vdzcj/why_women_still_cant_have_it_all_would_be_very/
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:45 PM
5

I agree with this completely. The important thing to note about her story is that, in today's world, she is no longer inhibited by overt sexism preventing her from succeeding.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:40 PM
1

The thought did cross my mind that it was problematic that none of this was apparent to her. I found myself debating whether I should address this exact thought in my post. I decided that the fact that this is written from a more feminist perspective and that the target audience is not me but other women like her, that this lead her not to emphasize her husband's support more.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:33 PM
–

It's interesting to note that there is a missing narrative in her story, namely her husband. The author states that a lot of the women in the room felt they had to "accept" they would have to compromise their careers slightly if they wanted to have a family, something they said many men would not have to face, yet fails to acknowledge to these women that her husband had made this exact choice. By her own admission he did the lions share of the parenting while she pursued her dream. She talks abo…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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