TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

failbus Archive

View 8 posts and 247 comments by failbus 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)
5

Yes, but that kicks in at point of birth, not point of conception. So you're on a timer when you find out. If you don't get the snip there's plausible deniability since DNA testing an unborn child is very difficult. So it's a lot better to get it done, if you are sure you are done with kids.
/r/MensRights04/05/19 06:48 PM
3

You're liable if you stick around and raise the kid as your own. If you have the snip, then the moment she gets pregnant you have time to serve papers and get the fuck out. It might be a legal fight, but you can win it nonetheless.
/r/MensRights04/05/19 06:31 PM
7

It is... in the same way that if you remove your baby's toenails at birth you greatly reduce the number of ingrown toenails.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:11 PM
2

Pretty sure he is against that too.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:09 PM
1

But Sarah Palin forfeited her intersectional points by siding with a white male, whereas Biden was a better ally to an African American.
/r/MensRights21/02/19 12:26 AM
5

Insults like "I'm so sorry that you have never had sex" are desperation games. If it's true and if the person is sensitive about it, it can hurt. But if the person has enough sex that they're happy with it, it's utterly failed as an insult. Like you might as well say "I'm so sorry that you're homeless." Doesn't really work if the person isn't.
/r/MensRights14/12/18 05:47 PM
4

If you look at a lot of the legislation he's signed, it's all very wishy-washy. It mentions women, but it doesn't commit any dollars to it. It's lip service. Turns out even Trump needs to pay it.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:06 AM
1

I'd be careful with that causality there. Trans people have a higher rate of suicide than normal, adult or no. I'm not saying that a child should be given transitive surgery as a child. I would question why a child wants to be a different gender. It could be as simple as wanting to do things typically associated with another gender. Those that do, especially MTF, can be given blockers to delay on the onset of puberty at minimum.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 08:08 PM
-1

If a kid really doesn't like having a penis, or wants a penis and doesn't have one, maybe there is something to it. I wonder how many of those kids get told early on that boys are X and girls are Y, and that makes them want to be a certain way.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 11:08 PM
3

Yeah, this is not the outcome I would have chosen. An EC/Popular Vote split does not a satisfied country make.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 08:45 AM
0

... which is why I'm saying "unless someone can tell me that the above is actually an affirmative defense" because my understanding is that it is not.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 06:51 AM
2

If rational behavior and intelligence correlated perfectly, our politics would be decided by getting all the smartest, most well-learned people together and having then produce answers to problems. The fact that there's such a thing as a "right wing think tank" or a "left wing academic organization" tells you all you need to know about how really internalize and debate this kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:42 AM
3

Thank god. We've reached a point where participating in post-secondary education is more or less a mandatory aspect to life and should have a protected status. As long as these universities take taxpayer dollars they should be forced to actually give their students a fair hearing.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:39 AM
1

Ugh, normally I'm all for this kind of thing but I don't think this article is doing us any favors. As far as the Reddit post title goes, that doesn't follow. "If it's illegal to stab someone, it surely means it's also illegal to get stabbed?" No. Not at all. And it doesn't have much to do with the issue at stake anyway. As far as the actual article goes, it's right to assume that the law will be applied in a non-gender-neutral way, but the law itself is gender neutral. Furthermore California do…
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:37 AM
1

No. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01407.htm The defendant in this case was unable to apply section (E) of the defenses because he could not prove he had no sexual intent. You should be safe under sections (A) and (C)
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:08 PM
3

Won't work. The issue was weather or not section (E) of this statue was an affirmative defense. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01407.htm You'll notice that sections A.) and C.) concern medical practices. Since it can be argued that chopping off the foreskins of babies because people once thought that would make them masturbate less is a legal medical practice, people who perform circumcisions are under no risk of being charged.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:07 PM
4

No more can a person get away with fondling a toddler for sexual pleasure and then passing it off as "but I was just trying to clean them" The thing is, anywhere with sane laws, they still can't get away with it, so long as the state can prove the goal is sexual intent. Yes, this means some people will get away because the state cannot prove what they did was with ill intent. But since the state has no desire to haul every parent up three times a day and make them defend themselves, they're goin…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 09:41 PM
1

Sure, I agree in principle. In reality, government programs tend to be disproportionately favorable to women because that's the more photogenic class of people to help. I can see the reason why guys might be "fuck this" after decades of selective spending. Hell, if you wanna see a great example in action, the early public housing (mostly targeted at african american families) explicitly prevented anyone from single mothers, because no one likes the idea of subsidizing men (who have it so easy an…
/r/MensRights03/09/16 07:27 AM
1

While I personally have no problem with it, a substantial number of MRAs are against what might be considered "nanny state" policies.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 07:49 AM
4

Yep. The draft is the most recent example. Alimony is another.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 05:26 PM
8

That's a pretty good assessment. I feel bad for her (right up until she filed the counterclaim) but we need more cases like this before people will realize what's wrong with campus "justice."
/r/MensRights01/06/16 07:21 AM
6

So, if you really want to get into it, the first time this term got largely popularized was this essay. The author recounts a somewhat hilarious tale in which a rich, middle aged, self-important, and obviously out of touch individual talks to this woman, and upon realizing she writes books on a topic asks her if she's read this new recent book... which the author had written. He required several corrections before he realized his mistake. The author expounds on this point though, saying that "ex…
/r/MensRights24/05/16 06:38 AM
4

Go for it. Bullying a man because he steps outside of his rigid gender role is the kind of bullshit we want to get away from.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:27 PM
2

Cross dressing and transgendered individuals are not the same thing. There are lots of men who enjoy dressing up in woman's clothing but have no desire to present themselves as a woman.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:26 PM
1

Because there's a chance the audience might agree with stuff on the MR front page. Wouldn't want to accidentally increase exposure of the four front page stories that currently showcase disingenuous reporting.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 08:21 PM
30

tried I think it's safe to say he succeeded.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 06:48 AM
10

Speaking to the Local, Nilsen acknowledged that the plan had not met with much support — one man had even suggested that all members of the Liberal Party be lined up against a wall and shot, he said. Imagine if someone had used that kind of language towards a pro-feminist bill?
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:46 PM
2

And here lies the ultimate dilemma that we face. We desire a society where we are equal. But we are not equal. Not exactly. For now we can say "women should register for selective service, same as men, so that if the time comes to vote for war, their ass is on the line to be drafted, same as ours" but when it comes down to jobs with hard physical requirements, it gets a lot trickier. Once lives are on the line, good intentions run afoul of reality.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:06 AM
1

Ah. I find that very worrisome, though at least he's not talking about criminal punishment.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:13 AM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights08/12/15 10:12 PM
1

The author spends a lot of time saying that silence is in and of consent, which I agree with, but also seems to indicate that nothing except verbal communication is consent. That means that, by the standards set here, I could take my naked girlfriend who I've already slept with to the bed, and she could strip her clothing off and pull me close, but she still hasn't met the standard of consent. As far as 5.) goes, about uninformed consent, let's just run that up against the notion that trans-pass…
/r/MensRights29/11/15 11:08 PM
1

As someone who recently re-entered the dating market in his 30s, let me just say that you're probably experiencing a little selection bias. Women who want children and who have a lot going for them? They are probably already married and probably already have kids. At any given point in time, the people on the dating market will be composed of some small percentage of people who are really good in a relationship but for whatever reason it didn't work out, and a whole bunch of people who have no b…
/r/MensRights29/11/15 06:32 PM
3

No matter the reasoning, I can't see name blanking as being discriminatory. Quite the opposite. All that matters is that they stick with the results no matter what happens. If name blanking doesn't change the ratio (or makes it worse) they should work on getting better female applicants instead of changing the selection process again.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 05:24 PM
18

If you want to read a copy of the actual legal opinion, you can find it here: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/06171146/Opinion-on-MTD.pdf or http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vawdce/6:2014cv00052/96678/54/0.pdf?ts=1438875388 I strongly encourage anyone who thinks that MRAs are worried about nothing to read the opinion. No blogs or bias or anyone with an axe to grind, just read the judge's summary of what isn't even under dispute in III. Fac…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 07:37 AM
1

Since when does correctness have anything to do with PR?
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:32 PM
1

... Why not just do an evaluation of male vs female employees within your organization, determine if there's a notable statistical bias w.r.t pay grade and gender, and then just give everyone the right corresponding raises to fix it? If you believe women are making 75 cents on the dollar, a 500 dollar bump would only help if you were paying men 2000 a year annually and women 1500. So either the wages are extraordinarily low, or this is a useless token gesture for PR that doesn't fix anything.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 12:04 AM
1

Because it's awesome?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:28 PM
2

It's a common theme that wherever there is money in prosecution, there will be zealous prosecution. Allow police to keep a portion of traffic tickets, and suddenly the speed limit is lower than it needs to be. Allow civil forfeiture for drug busts, and now they're busting a teen selling a dime-bag of weed on his dad's porch. So here we are, giving money to catch sex criminals, and suddenly everyone's a sex criminal. What a shock.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:24 PM
7

Yeah that's not a death threat. That's a punk ass bitch on the internet running his/her mouth. As a Navy Seal with over 300 confirmed kills, I'm hardly worried.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 06:38 AM
4

Of course this story is from Florida. Florida is a shit hole when it comes to spousal support gone wrong.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 08:52 PM
1

That's true. If the news article said "So there's this lawsuit about a woman who allegedly did this to the guy, but we haven't seen the proof yet" I'd be 100% behind that. Now to be fair, this isn't a criminal trial, where the standards of proof are high. It's a civil suit against the hospital. Nevertheless, we have not seen any evidence, and no verdict has been reached. But that's not even close to the tone the article took. It's not the healthy skepticism that should be delivered when someone …
/r/MensRights19/09/14 08:41 PM
1

Kinda astonished to see this in Time Magazine. That's about as mainstream as you can get.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 05:11 AM
15

Yes, this contradicts that whole women-don't-need-saving thing, but chances are, you're bigger than us—thus you have to be the one who gets killed first. I assume this is a joke and not a serious statement about men being expendable. Nevertheless, it says something that she thinks that joking about men dying is funny! And that's the most charitable interpretation I can think of.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:46 PM
8

I assume this is meant as a joke, but it isn't very funny in the context of a serious set of rules for a gender to follow. Violence is never an acceptable escalation from insults, even if you get a guy to do it for you.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:44 PM
7

It's not just the price, but the price and ease of reversal. If Vasigel ends up being a thing I can get for under 100 dollars, and can get reversed for under 100 dollars, that would be an instant purchase. I'm in a committed monogamous relationship right now and I don't really love condoms, plus condoms can break, but the alternatives involve telling my S/O to either take hormonal birth control (which have side effects) or get an IUD (which she isn't comfortable with.) I could, of course, get a …
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:40 PM
3

Ironically, this would be a pretty good outcome for anti-feminists under the British voting system, which is first past the post to elect MPs to a riding. It would siphon votes away from the most feminist-friendly mainstream candidate, ensuring the less-feminist-friendly mainstream candidates wins. The more successful they got, the less feminist the legislature would be, unless they somehow managed an upset, which seems unlikely given that Sweden's own feminist initiative party got less than 4% …
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:09 AM
8

Most people are ideologically neutral until it affects something they care about. Justice for the incarcerated? Whatever, I'm not a criminal. Child support? Whatever, I'm single. Workplace deaths? Whatever, I'm gonna work in an office. Selective Service? Whatever, we haven't had a draft in ages. But attacking games! This shall not stand. As an aside, it's truly fascinating to me to see the response to this. If the evidence about Zoe Quinn's personal (not professional) actions were released about…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:00 PM
3

Normally seeing a 14 year old article would be bad, but this actually is a useful link. It shows this struggle predates reddit and, indeed, most online activism of any sort The line "She says to me, when she sees me in court, 'I don't know why you're doing this. You're just going to lose.' " is anecdotal but touches on a suspicion I've often had. The reason men don't request child support is because people give up when they know they have no chance.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:18 AM
1

Oh I have no doubt he held a door for her and said something about her walking silently past, probably even afraid. I doubt that a camera recording of the event would look the way she tells it though.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 01:25 AM
4

I'm sure this is exactly how it happened.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 09:06 PM
2

If you commit a crime, you give up your right to privacy to a degree. Why do you think that? Do you think that doing so will make the community safer? The article prevents evidence that that is not so.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 09:04 PM
1

DAE get upset when news stories like the one we just read get no coverage? Seriously, I'm honestly just impressed a politician went on the air and told the truth.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 07:26 AM
3

This is not a sub where I expected to see an LoK reference.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 08:32 AM
3

This does not surprise me one bit. Most people don't realize that destructive power isn't the same as resilience. You might be a world-class boxer but you can still get a broken nose if someone elbows you. The one time I've had to tell a partner that hitting me was absolutely not acceptable, she seemed shocked at first, as if I had shattered her world. With all the messaging telling men, and only men, not to be violent or rapists, I wonder if people take away the exception that proves the rule. …
/r/MensRights25/06/14 06:52 PM
5

While 1000 people is a small sampling, it is at least enough to disprove the idea that men attack significantly more. Remember that the smaller the variation, the larger the sample size needs to confirm. 1000 people is plenty if the outcome is well outside the error bars.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 06:49 PM
1

This is pedantic, but I'd be careful on the wording there. Without solid counter proof, calling the other side straight up misinformation makes you sound like a fundamentalist. I prefer the wording from the article itself, a "true but highly misleading statistic."
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:47 PM
8

I don't know if there is. Here's what I do know. Divorce proceedings, like most extended forms of litigation, are emotionally trying and financially expensive. They get as nasty as the other side is willing to be in terms of character assassination, even assuming everyone sticks to the truth. Lawyers know this. They also know the odds of winning. They are obligated to tell their clients the best course of action based on their odds of success. Consider that 25% of false convictions overturned by…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:58 AM
0

Sadly this does happen to women too. It California it's banned, but was happening anyway. No idea if VA has banned the practice. I'm guessing not.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:37 AM
6

If you could source your metrics that would be amazing.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:08 AM
3

Thanks for sourcing the original full lawsuit. That was an interesting read.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 06:43 PM
1

Yeah, no surprise. A person's willingness to be careful and examine the evidence or extend the benefit of the doubt changes dramatically depending on how much the evidence fits into their preconceptions of the world.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 07:14 AM
1

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Again, we don't know if he got a jury trial, a judge, or just plea bargained. And you're right. In the absence of evidence, this man should not have been convinced. You're not harming anyone because your judgement can't hurt them, but speculating about actions in absence of evidence is exactly what you're doing.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:22 PM
1

I agree on many points, but the one currently on my mind is that there's a lot of actual anti-woman misogyny out there. Examples include Ann Coulter saying "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." Alternately you have Akin's comments about "legitimate rape", saying that a woman wouldn't ge…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:27 AM
2

You know the only woman I ever heard tell me she dislikes chocolate is a staunch antifeminist, so maybe you're onto something.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:20 AM
1

What caveats would you place on it?
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:19 AM
0

Could be. Could be. The point I'm making is that in the absence of any evidence it is wrong to draw judgement, one way or the other. We don't even know if the post secret is real, though it might be. Even taking it at face value though, we diminish ourselves by drawing conclusions not supported.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:17 AM
3

Well, start with this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFJ_3kAPB0 Granted it's more of a sexual assault and not a rape, and there's no proof they're feminists. They weren't prosecuted though. Of course he's 11, not 12.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:35 AM
-1

Even assuming this happened, that's not what the post said. It could just as easily be a young girl convinced to testify at age 12 by overzealous therapists.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:22 AM
1

So, a few things from this. One, considering how often MRAs focuses on US-centric issues, the US stats don't look particularly great for men. Two, I always thought Canada was more chill. Three, WTF Greece?
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:17 AM
1

I'm not sure I see the connection.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:03 AM
4

"Mental fitness." That's utterly brilliant.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:08 AM
3

You presume people will actually look into the topic. More than likely they will hear an initial opinion and that will be the opinion they stick with. Preconceived notions are powerful. Even though Elliot Rogers lashed out and killed indiscriminately by gender, most people I talk to seem to think his victims were entirely women. Even though he was a member of PUA-hate and would consider redpillers scum of the earth, he gets lumped in with the same. I've seen serious arguments online that this is…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:04 AM
8

Semen samples and DNA are not as useful as you might think -- the most common defense against sexual assault is "she consented" and DNA doesn't tell you if the sex was consensual. As far as signs of force go, I've been in a number of BDSM relationships, and it's amazing how pliant you can make a person through pain which leaves no mark. There is a reason your opinion is unpopular: it runs contrary to the facts. It is very possible for a person to be raped by someone they knew and trusted, and fo…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 06:58 AM
1

I dunno, the First Wives Club never had the women act violently or viscously, and at the end they do take a high road of sorts. It's not a perfect film, but it's entertaining. Maybe that's the "empowering potential" this movie is failing to live up to.
/r/PussyPass13/05/14 06:37 AM
4

Just stating the obvious here... What "Jen" wants to do is 100% legal. Unlike your ex-boyfriend, who could have been charged with assault for what he did, the reverse situation carries no penalties and Charlie has no mitigation. If he gets her pregnant he's on the hook, period. When people find out there's something hard that needs to be done, the bystander effect can kick in. It's very easy to go "oh, well, this situation will resolve itself I'm sure." I certainly had this experience when I dis…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 11:43 PM
3

I love how the guest knows it's wrong but says it anyway. "I'm not actually saying that you should lie, but look into my eyes...."
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:00 PM
3

These are very sharp rules. I am particularly pleased to see "Don't draw parallels between different sorts of discrimination" since that tactic has backfired so often, and "Remember, undecided people are lurking." People don't realize that their cause is a giant PR campaign. Your dedicated opponents are more than happy to cherry-pick moments where your ideas sound weak and put them up for mockery, let alone moments where you say something absolutely terrible. Your lazy opponents are happy to rea…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:20 PM
5

Some of these are decent, but the inclusion of weaker elements undermines the whole list. 14.) Cry out of a speeding ticket. This could use a citation. I've never seen a girl pull this off. 16.) Women don't get called butthurt fedora-wearing men who can't get any, but feminists often get called plenty of things, usually implying they're fat man-hating pigs. The list could use some serious editing and citations. List-form things are often weakened by inclusion of weaker points for padding.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:08 PM
2

I love the Freaonomics guys, and I've followed their podcast for a while. It's just interesting to hear the statement that "women are less competitive in a patriarch culture" being said in this particular sub, because the only implication I can get from that is that women are less competitive because of patriarchy.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:02 PM
2

So, are you implying we're currently in a patriarch culture?
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:07 AM
2

Yeah I know that MR is not just one guy -- there is a wealth of opinions, including conflicting ones. But I've had arguments in the past over designating women as "breeders". I'm awaiting the eventual schism. I myself agree that men should be appreciated for who they are, but I worry that appreciation of masculinity can turn into a circlejerk where men who don't fit traditional paradigms are excluded. I want men to be free who they are, not what we idealize them to be. Free to be fathers or not,…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 08:46 PM
3

Posts like these remind me that I can never figure out of MR wants a return to traditional gender roles, or just wants men to also be free of their traditional gender roles.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:50 PM
3

I'm dating a girl who has explicitly told me she doesn't want a diamond ring. I never did ask the reasoning -- there are many good reasons as far as I can tell -- but you're not obligated. Personally I think the ring "obligation" is at the ideal point now -- you can use it as a quick filter for people who expect to get a free ride just because they're female.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:48 PM
10

I'd be inclined to agree, but after reading the article I think he honestly just loves the sport. If a boy's team got introduced he'd be just as happy.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:45 PM
7

Legitimate question. Here is the supposed leaked set of slides, hosted on MSNBC, and I believe obtained via Snowden. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive1_nbc_document.pdf It's the 8th page of the document. Here is another article on the leak: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ While this is obviously a broader human rights issue -- no one should be spied upon -- it's telling how these organizations have quickly figured out that t…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 10:50 PM
4

That's a brilliant term. I like it. Works better online but still.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:20 PM
14

As much as I love what they're showing, I feel like she was far more subtle than he was. She did it without breaking her stride, and he was a little more obvious, reaching into her purse more visibly.
/r/PussyPass19/03/14 07:36 AM
5

Remember, though, the objective is to equalize opportunity, not outcome.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:41 AM
3

Even though men are not going into university at high rates, they're still overwhelmingly represented fields with a high return on investment, mainly STEM fields. I remember when we were supposed to see a surge of women entering computer science but it never seemed to happen. This is by no means universal, but I've found that the men I know are significantly more likely to be concerned with entering a field that pays big dollars. The "well rounded liberal arts education" is a luxury most men can…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 09:32 AM
1

I strongly doubt it. "The revolution" is always executed against those who are perceived to have the most power, and executed by those who can convince the masses they have been screwed the most.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:12 PM
5

She's right. I mean she's arguing from a one-sided bias that benefits her side, but she's right. If I had my way, pre-nups would be opt-out and not opt-in. Like, you agree to get married, and you also sign an additional joint-financial-entanglement clause. This way if the couple agrees that one partner will stay home and manage the kids and household, they can agree to the exact degree of liability and obligation of the other partner, but the default presumption is that your bank account is your…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 11:07 PM
2

I'm with you there. I am against the death penalty in all cases, but when someone's defense is based on the idea of "those people deserved to die because they were bad" it feels like their own rules judge them as worthy of death.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:59 AM
7

This is an extremely telling proposition. People don't advocate systems that cause them undue harm. You don't often see, say, a two party system advocate for election reform that makes a third party likely. You don't see people shut down arbitration and go to court unless they think they will win. The author has a lot of faith in system of academic justice. In particular, she seems to think that justice will support her views. It does not even occur to her that a system of academic justice would…
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:53 AM
1

I'm not saying I find it necessarily suspicious. I just find it utterly absurd.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:37 AM
2

Then she opened the dishwasher, pissed on the clean dishes, and went to bed. Wat?
/r/MensRights18/02/14 11:47 PM
1

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The preponderance of evidence standard only applies to sexual assault. The campus might not even have rules regarding false reporting. Campus justice is a parallel world to the proper legal system. I'm not even sure perjury exists there.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 09:41 PM
2

The bill has a huge glaring hole in it. Where does the standard of proof originate, if at all? Here's a bill relating to much the same subject. It asserts that affirmative consent is a necessary part of sexual activity. Notice the expression, "In a prosecution made pursuant to this subdivision, the prosecutor is required to demonstrate that the defendant did not reasonably believe that affirmative consent had been freely given." Now this is, as far as I can tell, reasonable. "She said she wanted…
/r/MensRights16/02/14 09:29 PM
1

I just had a great idea. Take all those pink pens and pink toys and whatnot that people complain about, and rename them feminist pens and feminist toys. Just change the name. Nothing else. Collect lulz as people argue about this being a good thing or not.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 01:51 AM
9

I kinda agree but its still happening to a man.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 08:54 PM
12

The law weighs intent and culpability very strongly. Not just the act, but the state of mind and the depravity involved. The final result was worse. He killed more people. That much goes without saying. However... He was charged with manslaughter and not murder, because he arguably did not intend to kill. It was reckless endangerment, to be sure, but he didn't intentionally aim the vehicle at someone. The state of mind was one of recklessness and stupidity, but it was not provably malice. He was…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:54 AM
6

Your comment made me curious so I decided to google and investigate. You might find this interesting. http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/kritzer/research/Law_misc/SSJ1977.pdf
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:43 AM
2

I am not a fan. Women initiate divorce far more often than men. Divorce sucks, but the best thing we can do is make it quick, painless, and easy. Get rid of alimony, make joint custody the default, and make it as easy as possible for the man to move on with his life, while still having access to his children. Conversely these laws tell a woman: "you either have to go through an eight month reconciliation course, or you need the guy to be convicted of domestic violence or sexual abuse of children…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:36 AM
4

Indeed, if you want to laugh at this shit /r/TumblrInAction is a great sub. I'm noticing a growing trend of "this woman / feminist / redditor said something bad about men" that keeps getting linked, as if we were SRS. I'm far more concerned with politicians and laws that actively hurt men then I am about some tumblrina who has no power over me.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:31 PM
2

About half the people I dated in any kind of long term capacity came from long term dates. For the most part my experience with online dating has not been negative, but I have learned that you have to approach it differently. Dating in the real world is like salesmanship. You meet someone, they're interested, you figure out what they want and upsell yourself if you have what they want. It's slightly adversarial but essentially cooperative. Online dating feels like telemarking. I should know, I'v…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:16 PM
1

While being male in and of itself is not a crime, it plays a pretty good role. When you have police targeting black males and when you can be arrested for resisting an arrest which is highly subjective, men will get arrested. The law criminalizes male behavior far more than female. From zero tolerance policies which can get a boy arrested for a picture to the criminalization of homelessness to disproportionate arrests in DV cases the fact is that men are very often target of the law. It is a com…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 07:44 AM
2

If you define "get arrested and convicted of a crime" then yes, men certainly do "more criminal activity." The problem is that very often what is being criminalized is the act of being male. Criminalization of homelessness, for example, causes men to be arrested more. So do stop-and-frisk programs which target males over females. Zero tolerance policies can play a role too. Guys are more likely to roughhouse with one another, or do things like draw a gun. If you start criminalizing that, you'll …
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:29 AM
7

All sorts of things can land a person in jail. I highly recommend the entirety of the Law Comic, particularly this chapter on strict liability and overcriminalization. It's fun to compare the US to, say, Canada, where you cannot be thrown in jail for a strict liability offense (i.e. one you committed unknowingly, like sleeping with a 17 year old you met in a bar who got in with fake ID.) Other things that are criminalized that disproportionately affect men. Homelessness. Simple drug possession. …
/r/MensRights07/01/14 01:23 AM
1

This has never been a problem with women, as they had the option to be a breeder. This argument seems to hinge on the idea that if a woman gets pregnant and pops out a baby, she's "succeeded" at being a breeder. But when women can choose to have children, they choose to have them when there's an economic support structure to do so. You can define that economic support structure through a social norm of marriage, or through mandatory child support, or general socialism. So just to be clear, you t…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:32 PM
1

I always find myself glancing a skeptical eye at the whole "men aren't going to university as much" panic. Sending people to university isn't some kind of "life will be awesome" card. Men are still overwhelmingly going into STEM fields, and there's no shock as to why. Women often flood into fields with high prestige, even as the economic return on investment drops. Law has been saturated for years, but female enrollment keeps going up. Conversely there's still a boom in computer technology, but …
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:41 AM
1

I think you mean agricultural. Ah yes, I did. You're right and I agree, the industrial father created the stay at home mum, a situation which I do not think has particularly benefited either gender. Children need fathers for more than their work support. I think Japan is a perfect example of where designating women as breeders gets you. Japan tends towards life employment at a simple company, with divorce rate half of what the US does and significantly more stay at home moms. The culture is sign…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:26 AM
4

Sounds like you're a Warren Farrell in the making. Warren Farrell has way more patience than I do. I have not the drive to write a book, nor the chops for public speaking, nor the energy to attend events where I get protests who pick out quotes in the most uncharitable way.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:14 AM
3

Like I said, I can understand why someone might find it offensive. I don't think you're wrong, but I think this is at best a generic symptom of some far worse problems.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:05 AM
1

I'm not so sure investigators would actively pursue exculpating proof for me. And if it's a strict liability offense in your state, it gets even worse.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 07:04 AM
9

I get why someone might find this offensive, but in the grand scheme of things, I just can't get too worked up about violence directed at CGI candy.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:43 AM
2

I don't know about windows, but on OSX I make damn sure to encrypt all my computers and never let anyone use anything other than an anonymous guest account if they need to borrow my computer. Someone could still plant a flash drive though.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:18 AM
3

I've usually heard the term "breeder" to imply heterosexual people who have children. Designating women as "breeders" makes no sense. It's not like women can have children alone, and its not as if that's the only thing they can do. And designating men as "workers" also makes no sense. In a industrial society women as well as men had to work fucking hard. Maybe not hard in terms of raw physical agricultural labor, but when step one in making dinner involves churning the butter yourself, it's safe…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 01:41 AM
11

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever defended the right of a man to defend himself when physically attacked by a woman the same as if he were attacked by a man. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has been called a pedophile for claiming that maybe a 17 year old young woman who voluntarily enters a relationship with an older man doesn't need the protection of the law, as evidenced by the many countries or states where the age of consent is lower and society hasn't gone straight to …
/r/MensRights05/01/14 01:25 AM
0

"Breeders?"
/r/MensRights04/01/14 11:26 PM
1

She might not have been "sleeper cell crazy" as much as a recent convert. Non crazy plus crazy friends sometimes equals crazy.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:29 PM
1

It's much easier with the advent of text messaging.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:28 PM
12

Let me add #6. Don't have sex with a girl who is in, who might be in, or is rebounding from a relationship. If there is any possibility another person might see what she's doing as "cheating" then she has incentive to claim it wasn't her fault.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:27 PM
130

See, this is how you do it. Let's go over everything this gets right. Targets the message at the person experiencing the abuse, who can actually do something about it. Doesn't go "Don't abuse" as if people who abuse are going to read that and go "Oh shit, yeah, I was wrong." Showcases different genders and different kinds of abuse, instead of stereotyping abuse as always male to female. Not only do they not exclude male victims of female violence, but they also don't exclude gay and lesbian coup…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 03:03 AM
3

You should denounce them for appropriating your suffering for their cause. I hear the 100 meter cultural appropriation dash is all the rage in the oppression Olympics. But seriously, it's shitty that something so horrific that happened to your people (as well as many others -- gay, mentally disabled, roma, and countless others) is being used as a prop for argument by association.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 07:32 PM
2

Indeed I do.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:02 AM
2

Well, they said "unless proven otherwise." There are thousands of cases each year, even by the most conservative estimates, which can be shown to be malicious false reports. So it will never be zero. Yet failing to differentiate between cases where the jury returned not guilty because he might have done it but it's hard to say, and where the police said "Yeah, we got NOTHING here" is a problem, though. Just watch, the next step will be to insist "90% of rapists aren't convicted." I mean people a…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 10:48 AM
2

This really is an important point, and I'm going to follow onto it. There's an infographic that went around a while back that shows for 1000 rapes, there's 100 reported, and of those 100 reported, 30 go to trial, and of those 30 that go to trial, 10 go to jail. The 1000 "happened" to 100 "reported" is speculative, but I'm not going to touch it. Let's focus on the 100 "reported." Of the 100 reported, by that infographic, 10 had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That means 90 did not have proof bey…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 07:58 PM
1

The Forensic Examiner has a pretty solid take on it, found here. The 8% is based on "unfounded accusations", which is not quite the same criteria as maliciously false. It's important that we note that false accusations come in all types, from the unfortunate mistake of fact to the willful and knowing false witness. (That said, I think I've listed elsewhere that David Lasik's study shows a near 6% rate of statements which were clearly false, so it's not as if "unfounded accusations" are all mista…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 07:43 PM
9

This is a thorny question. False claims can be broadly categorized into a few different situations. For example, there's the misidentification / mistake of fact that comes with stranger rape. There's situations where a man sleeps with a woman and the only issue is proving consent, which is super tricky. And then there's actual malicious reports. One study (with an admittedly small sample size) is by David Lisak, published in the 2010 Violence Against Women report. Wikipedia link here. What I lik…
/r/MensRights25/12/13 11:41 AM
1

Yes, but six hours of interrogation about him as a person? There's a high probability he said something which isn't going to help him in context. Nevertheless, I hope you are right. Good luck.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 07:07 AM
7

I admit a degree of skepticism given your posting history, but what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for legal advice. He spent six hours talking to the cops. This means there is a good chance they will find something to pin on him. This advice is a day late and a dollar short. I'm posting this because you asked if you should trust and support him. Yes you should. Not many people will. You should realize that there is a good possibility that…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 10:11 PM
3

Half the racial minorities are men. Are you sure you're in the right sub?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:37 PM
5

"While of course women get pissed off with men, I've never known a woman to carry that chilling aura of compressed perma-rage against the opposite sex that hangs around certain men." Translation: When women express rage about men, I think it's quaint and funny because I don't feel personally threatened or afraid.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:41 AM
2

I've always wondered if the fact that men are statistically taller than women has had anything to do with their hire rates.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 03:18 AM
6

In the grand scheme of things, I find this one of the most boring things on both sides. Oh no, a major video game franchise is repeating what worked before. What a shock. I heard Mirror's Edge was going to reuse the female character too. On the other hand, and I apologize if this comes across as blunt, but what the hell is this issue doing on the MR sub? I mean, someone wants a video game changed. Even if this woman got exactly what she wanted, my rights as a male would not be affected at all. N…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 03:15 AM
3

In your estimation, how many are "can't" vs "won't"? There's a big difference between those two. "Won't" is a problem of an over-agressive punishment and a system that might be broken, but "can't" is a human rights violation, IMO.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:10 AM
2

Indeed. Strict liability makes a certain amount of sense in some cases, but more in cases where the sentencing is intended to create restitution. I damage your stuff without intent, I pay you the value because for every harm there must be a remedy. Strict liability + jail time fails as a deterrence, because how can you deter a crime the "criminal" doesn't know he's committing. Removal from society is unneeded, because the "criminal" probably won't do it again. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't be…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:57 PM
1

Viscous gossip would be extremely hard to criminalize. If I say something about you which is damaging but true, am I warning other people about your behavior, or am I just harming you for no reason. Also, imagine trying to defend that in court. "She said this true thing about me, but it was really mean." Also, imagine if that law was implemented today. Talking about the worst aspects of feminism could be criminalized if you weren't very specific. I don't think the solution to the problem is more…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:51 PM
1

I would suggest going through the entire of http://lawcomic.net/ It doesn't take long and its interesting. While it's US focused, the principles apply in a lot of places. And if you live in the USA, you should understand this. It's the rules by which you are expected to live.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:44 PM
1

Yeah that's true. I think that's more an example of a law which is too broad, as opposed to just being about strict liability.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:47 AM
9

Rant incoming. No anger, just, a point I feel needs to be made. It's not "emotional chick panic." We need to remember that the majority of our legislators in the USA are still male. Even if the people actually writing the laws aren't male, even if the special interest groups aren't male, the majority of people who have the ultimate power to write laws are of our own gender, and they've sold out justice for votes. Moral panic isn't merely something women do to men. It's something men do to themse…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:46 AM
14

Precisely. One only needs to look at the case of Kaitlyn Hunt to understand why men are the target - no one feels the need to rush to defend a man who has been done an injustice. Women sometimes have injustice done, but people are more sympathetic in that case.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:08 PM
9

Most people don't realize how much the law screws men. Our just world fallacy means that when we see a man go to jail, we imagine he was guilty. Even if he's accused, we imagine he must have done something. We need to be able to explain what the law actually does, in technical terms.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:06 PM
20

The blog (which is great reading) isn't strictly focused on Mens Rights, but the concept of overcriminalization and "strict liability offenses" are ones which affect men disproportionately. This is a concept which we should all understand, because it will help give context to why we're against the current implementation of laws which do ostensibly good things, like "punish sex offenders."
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:06 PM
5

The house version is called HB 231 I believe. I'm not a citizen so I can't vote, but if you live in Florida, find out who has power and tell them this is a fundamental policy issue for you. The bill would end permanent alimony entirely, limiting it by default to a length of time no longer than one half the length of the marriage. It would cap alimony payments at 33% of income. It would let people file for an adjustment based on these rules. It's got broad support, but let's make sure it doesn't …
/r/MensRights05/04/13 03:35 AM
5

Listen, believe, and ask no questions. Sounds like my early exposure to religion.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:54 AM
7

Can you provide a link to that tripwire example in MI?
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:47 AM
1

Sure. I'm all for things liberals are for like a social safety net. I'd also love if said safety nets actually went to individuals which aren't politically popular to protect. The modern liberal ideas are good, but the implementation is horrible. We're focusing on protecting "the people who really need it" which really means "everyone but men." The "women and children" angle is a much better way to sell social services to people who are on the fence about liberal policy, which just makes the liv…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:12 AM
27

The association of gay men and pedophilia, which is pretty much a problem that men face in general.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:28 AM
1

That seems less debunked and more contested. Did the forms which showed he was there ever get shown?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:48 AM
10

To be honest, this kind of constructivist thinking is infinitely better than what we normally have. The pay gap exists because it makes economic sense for women to stay at home. If you want to fix the pay gap, making it possible for men to not always be the breadwinners is a great step. Not saying they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts for men, but at least it will work better than a blunt hammer of "pay women the same, always."
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:58 AM
171

I have no problem with that.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:53 AM
3

How high would it have to be before you do think its a generality. I picked engineering because it's one of the least common for women, in biology, the number rises to 50%. A STEM grad is still a graduate. A STEM grad who teaches will still understand the hard reality of science. A 20% exception is a very bad case to make a generality of "Woman's thinking." If 20% is not a sufficient counterpoint to a stated generality, then no man is in jail, there are no African Americans in the United States …
/r/MensRights18/09/12 12:32 AM
11

It is men who deal with reality in our society. They build buildings, bridges, and roads, build ships and cars and trucks. About 20% of engineering graduates are women. There is no field which confronts the reality of the world more than that. Please do not make wide sweeping gendered statements. There are plenty of women who understand reality, and there are plenty of men who have made a professional career out of sophistry.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:11 PM
2

Potato, Potahto
/r/MensRights15/08/12 09:23 AM
2

While researching the actual rates of mass homicide, I ran across this: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/female_mass_murderer/1.html Thought it was an interesting read.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:04 PM
6

They're feminist concentrate. When their ideas are diluted with moderate amounts of common sense, you get ordinary feminism.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 12:56 AM
3

Ah, it's ok. Serious social rights may not be the best place to make a joke about the relative costs of men's vs women's fashion. I'm pretty sure everyone got the joke, it's okay if they don't like it.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 05:51 AM
0

It costs about eight times as much to clothe them.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 10:04 PM
0

Oh god my drink... my keyboard. Well done, sir.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:29 PM
2

Fair enough. I'd just say that a 30% chance of anything is cause to be concerned, even if its more likely to be fine than not.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:51 PM
24

in 2008, only 14,748 people were murdered in the USA, out of a population of 300,000,000. That's like one in twenty thousand. Honestly, why bother with DNA testing for murder at all? It practically never happens. And the consequences of being put in jail are severe for the accused.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:23 PM
8

True. It's men who doubt it enough to get a test find out they were right 30 to 40 percent of the time. In other words, if are concerned, you probably should be concerned.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:19 PM
2

So instead of writing slacktivist content, you're reposting it?
/r/MensRights02/06/12 01:15 AM
3

Take pics of the SMS messages, get them backed up externally. No easily faked screen shot, just do the old fashioned way -- a camera aimed at the screen. There's nothing as frustrating as having SMS messages that proves something, only to have them disappear off your phone. It does happen. If you have the ability to download the voice messages, do that too. Act under the presumption that someone could take away your phone and break and/or not return it at any time.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 08:11 PM
5

I think this is what is commonly called "victim blaming."
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:28 AM
2

Indeed. I get the idea that social causes need to focus on their own interests. I donate to heart and stroke funds, but that doesn't mean I am A-ok with cancer. I promote technology education for underprivileged kids, but that doesn't mean I'm against them getting arts education either. Focusing on the things you're personally interested in is fine. Otherwise we'd have one "no more bad things" interest group, which would be totally meaningless. So yay for the egalitarians who are MRA's first, be…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:28 AM
3

In my ideal world, feminism is about attaining equality, with a specific focus on the troubles women faced in the past, and the issues they face now. Not everyone in the movement thinks this way, I know.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:47 AM
5

Oh man, I was almost in perfect agreement with you up until the point where you said there's no glass ceiling. I've seen the glass ceiling in action more than once. The irony, though, was that the individual woman was passed over for hiring because the founders were afraid of a sexual harassment lawsuit, or passed over for promotion because "everyone will think we're just doing it to be PC and won't respect her." The irony being that all of these problems were actually created by symptom-fixing …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:45 AM
1

Hmm. That's an interesting point, but thanks to more women choosing to stay at home, etc, men still have more earning power (at least for the moment.) The consumer spending power typically comes because in relationships men leave women in charge of household purchasing. That's a privilege which is easily revoked (though I suppose some argument could be made that alimony offsets this dramatically.) If women ever reach a point where they collectively have more earnings (not just earning potential,…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:40 AM
0

My personal experience does not line up with yours, the vast majority felt it was their "right" as opposed to taking advantage. Indeed, the few which sounded like you felt like it was the only way they could get back what "he took from them." But the thing about personal experiences is that conflicting anecdotal accounts can both be true.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:36 AM
0

Telling people to "talk to your lawyer, don't talk to the police EVER" is telling you how to use your rights, but it doesn't mean you think your situation with the police is unfair.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:08 AM
2

Eh, I could play devil's advocate, but this isn't the time or the place. I will agree that women have significant institutional backing, but I do not think things like "consumer spending" really count. The degree of privilege could make for interesting debate, which gender has more, etc. A pointless and useless debate (no one should have special privilege in any area) but an interesting one nonetheless. Where I draw the line is at "one gender has ALL of it and the other has NONE" -- and that is …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:07 AM
1

Well, truth told, I don't know either. I looked for sources but "do you think a man can be raped?" does not seem to be the kind of topic that academia wants to study at the moment. I don't particularly care though. The attitude hurts men. The source is irrelevant. Negative social attitudes can cross-contaminate across genders pretty easily. The men I've heard most often state that men can't be raped? They were victims. And that's the group I care about the most.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 01:04 AM
2

Do you have any studies which back this claim up, or is this your anecdotal experience? I've personally seen this attitude from both genders, and the number one determinant is how much an individual subscribes to traditional gender roles, regardless of their own gender.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:25 PM
5

Speaking as a guy, I've argued "for" feminism on a few instances. However I've noticed that when I argue, it's for changing a culture away form gender roles, and giving women the power to be more self reliant, and I focus on the problems that women face. Most of the feminists I disagree with want government intervention and laws to solve their problems, fixing the symptoms instead of the underlying behavior. These are the ones who are the most invested in proving that the deck is against them in…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:13 PM
4

MRAs get called misogynist all the time because when you get a large group together, some people will say truly douchebag things. There are, surprise, people who actually do make misogynist sounding comments in MRA. Of course this fact completely invalidates the entire MRA movement, much like how Valerie Solanis invalided all of feminism. Right? And "privilege" is an interesting concept. Much like how "racism" has been redefined to only be racism if you have institutional power behind you, privi…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:09 PM
-1

I actually feel bad for this woman. Because she's going to get charged with a crime equivalent to actual, serious assault. What she needs is a slap upside the head and rehabilitative education, just like every guy who gets consensually involved with someone too young. What she did was wrong, but it highlights how ridiculous the assault laws are. Too bad it has to be fairly applied to both genders before it becomes apparent to many people. People acting like the kid isn't a victim are scummy thou…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:04 PM
3

Then I'd say that the prevalent attitude that men can't be raped is systemic across both genders, and we ned to raise awareness even more. (Though if you're responding specifically to the comment above you, I'd ignore it, because I have no idea what he's going on about.)
/r/MensRights16/03/12 10:00 PM
2

This part is ridiculous. A widower (who is 100% responsible for raising a child) has to meet a certain minimum standard of expenditure which at best be 20k per year per child. The lifetime cost of a child is well under 200k, and that's assuming you pay for a public college education. The idea that someone else being involved in the process can force you to pay significantly more is ridiculous. Imagine a law which said that any couple which did not spend 35% of their income on their kids could be…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 09:55 PM
1

Personal experience dictates that when a person has an enormous and overwhelming advantage, they will perceive it as fair. I don't think they think its biased, I think they think it "makes up for the patriarchy."
/r/MensRights16/03/12 09:49 PM
7

I find it interesting that the response to "You better spend it on the kids" was not "I did" or "They're fine" or "I always take care of the kids first" but just a simple "Hell Naw!" I can't guess to this woman's financial situation, but getting a "flip out" amount of money followed by spending it all in one place is financially irresponsible. I hope for the kids sake its not as bad as it looks.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:03 PM
-3

The word "uppity" has some crazy racist connotations. Are you sure that's the choice of words you want to go with?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 06:58 PM
5

Wait, why did that atheist let a perfectly good meal go to waste?
/r/MensRights13/03/12 08:31 AM
9

Wait... wait... wait... someone actually believed that taking off the foreskin would prevent prostate cancer? sigh It bothers me how many medical procedures we've "grandfathered in." This shit would never be approved by any reasonable medical agency doing a double blind experiment, but since we've been at it so long, of course its fine!
/r/MensRights13/03/12 08:29 AM
1

I have, and it puts forth a well constructed argument for the premise, but the premise seems to be taken for granted. For example there may be data which supports the idea that males have higher IQ variability, but I've seen studies which go both ways. (Plus, I remain highly skeptical of any metric which attempts to measure intelligence in general.) It's a good idea, it's a good thesis, it warrants additional research, but I cannot personally raise it to the level of "just so" quite yet. Men are…
/r/MensRights13/03/12 08:17 AM
1

You're right that women have cultural pressure to perform, and with that has come more women moving into academia and generally being perceived as smarter. But it's still ok for a woman to "marry up" and rely on a man's income, much moreso than it is for a guy to do the same. It's also understood that starving mothers are deserving of government financial support than most other demographics. You cannot magically flip a switch and undo cultural biases, and I don't think we have. But I bet you ca…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 06:20 PM
2

It might certainly appear that way, but I'd be tempted to say that its actually more of an issue of risk management. Guys are well known for more risky behavior -- just look at insurance rates for a 19 year old guy vs girl -- those insurance companies aren't doing policies based on prejudiced ideas, they're using actual demographic data. When a dumb person does something risky and it goes badly, they seem even more dumb. When a smart person takes more risks, they usually have better pay off and …
/r/MensRights12/03/12 04:55 PM
6

I had a common-law relationship with an awesome lady; we split up on good terms. During the time she was a stay at home wife type, I paid her a salary so she could have her 'own money' and not need mine. When we broke up, I gave her a severance package so she could hit the ground running, since basically she was being fired and evicted at the same time. (I didn't tell her to GTFO right away, but nevertheless, she had to find employment and a new place.) Alimony laws codify that. Since in theory …
/r/MensRights11/03/12 10:07 AM
2

If you're having trouble keeping up, I was asking about something related a bit ago. You might find it useful. http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/qjfkt/blacklist_regexes_for_comments/
/r/MensRights10/03/12 08:53 AM
9

You can learn to ignore beauty. You can't ignore someone trying to hit you. I'm all for women relying on assets besides their sexual desirability, but this misses the mark.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 08:29 PM
1

I am familiar with all this. This does not particularly bother me, even with the emotional language of being called gruesome. Our definition of "alive" is an utterly arbitrary one. If you think life begins at conception, even without a nervous system, at least you have a consistent definition and I respect that. If you think that life is defined by having self-awareness, I'm not even particularly sure that a child who is born can be considered fully alive. But we have to draw the line somewhere.…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 07:27 AM
0

Now that is bullshit. The former example I was willing to wave as consistent because, oh hey, you took a fetus and declared it "born" via C section. The latter example is completely stupid, and needs to be fixed.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 09:25 PM
0

I caught myself and edited it, sadly I missed it before you replied. The point I am making stands though. Let's take your words and apply them to a one year old child. If nobody is willing to care for it, it will die. Are you saying laws against child negligence shouldn't exist? Because that's where this train of logic seems to lead.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 09:13 PM
0

I'm actually ok with this, for the same reason that I can opt to amputate a horribly damaged arm, or spend thousands on reconstruction. The line of "it's alive now" is utterly arbitrary as far as I'm concerned. What I care about is that the rules are consistent.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 09:05 PM
0

Death is never okay. But if there is no one in the world who wants to look after a child, death is what is going to happen to that child. You're insisting that the unborn child is a living thing, but then saying that death is just something that's going to happen. If you change the age to a 1 year old, it sounds like you're advocating the right of the parents to dump their kids in a dumpster. What's the distinction between a supposedly living unborn child which makes them ok regrettably acceptab…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 09:02 PM
2

I respectfully disagree with your idea as being morally inconsistent. You declare that a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy is "killing the child" which makes it sound like its murder. But if the future father has no intent to look after the child, then it becomes okay? It's either morally wrong or it isn't. Furthermore, this infringes on the rights of the mother to a degree that makes me uncomfortable. What if the baby is five months along? Does the father's intent mean she needs to bea…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 08:33 PM
4

But, see, a giant hulking man is a male power fantasy. Guys all want to be that, so it's actually for the men. But women don't really want to be muscular and fit. Guys just want women to be that. So it's for the guys in both cases. No, seriously. It makes perfect sense. I swear.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:59 PM
3

Woman arent designed to be sane after having sex with someone. Theyd all be saner if no one was having sex with them. ಠ_ಠ Seriously?
/r/seduction14/02/12 08:06 AM
2

I'm against throwing acid in women's faces. I guess I must hate middle easterners.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 01:17 PM
3

I'm watching TNG on netflix right now. As far as I can tell, there's more land than there are people, more energy than a person reasonably needs, perfect birth control, cures for all the common STDs, and holodecks give you a 99% experience for most activity. So as far as I can tell, a liberal ideology would be pretty damn possible in TNG, and why not? Just imagine, when you watch the show, that the replicators allow unlimited access to marijuana. Suddenly the way everyone acts makes sense.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:48 AM
38

I'm saving this post as an example of how SRS isn't a downvote brigade.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:30 AM
0

Is privilege a set of individual benefits, or the sum total? As great as I'm sure, say, affirmative action is for a black guy wanting to go to college, is it really worth all the other discrimination they run into? Is the net benefit positive? Is a wheelchair parking place a privilege? I guess so, but I think most people would rather be able to walk. It seems like whenever privilege comes up, there's the concept of an individual advantage, and the concept of the total advantages. Which one is it…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:12 AM
2

I see this in reverse, actually. My mom always told me my relationship with my daughter will template her relationship with the boys she dates. Likewise, I've noticed that a girl who treats her father with love and respect is capable of treating a guy with love and respect, a girl who sees her father as a walking wallet will see her boyfriend as the same. If you ever want to figure out what your girlfriend will be like after you move in together, just watch how she treats her dad. It's uncanny. …
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:59 AM
6

I really can't stand this kind of attitude to be honest. Punishing women who "give out sex like candy" is part of what makes the "rape culture" so fucked up. When you tell women that having sex is bad, they're far more likely to claim they were raped or manipulated instead of admitting to themselves they got horny and acted on impulse. We don't give them a pass the way we give a guy who claims he just needed to get laid. We should berate women for not being smart about birth control, not for hav…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:54 AM
4

If so, thank you lucky stars and think about slowing down on the drinking.... Oh sure, blame the victim! /s
/r/MensRights05/02/12 05:10 AM
26

Depends on the state. There are a number of states where even meeting them in a bar (strict 18+ or 21+ age limit) won't save you. The number of states where you can be guilty without intent is astounding. Everyone saying you should report it to the police is an idiot. You're the one guilty of a crime, she isn't.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 11:26 PM
1

Asking me why I hate feminism is a little like asking me why I hate Americans. A lot of people claim to be feminists. Some are reasonable. Some are not. I know self-identified feminists who are completely against the actions of NOW. There's no definition of a "real" feminist as far as I can tell. If someone identifies as a feminist I say, "and what social issues do you think need addressing the most?" Then I'll figure out if I should hate them or not.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 11:18 PM
2

It happens to men more than it happens to women, and rape accusations are the easiest to make based on he said/she said, so it disproportionally affects men. I'm not standing up for "men" or "women" so much as I am standing up for the law. If a law which screws men over happens to accidentally screw a woman over too, that doesn't make it "ok." MRAs should be fighting for principles which are universally right, not just special exceptions for their gender. The entire problem is that, so far, univ…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 11:10 PM
2

Because some crimes, not all, but some, are basically he said/she said. This means that you can be convicted in the court of public opinion basically on someone's say so, and its really difficult to get a job when "arrested for rape" or "arrested for murder" shows up when you name gets googled. Now in some cases, like this one, the evidence is pretty damning. But until that evidence is vetted by a court of law, it needs to be treated as suspect. Otherwise we're relying on the news to editorializ…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:55 AM
5

And in each and every case, that is not the correct thing to do.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 02:24 AM
4

You are almost certainly right. But that doesn't excuse publishing this information pre-conviction. Even if I shot a man point blank with a dozen witnesses, I should be granted anonymity until conviction unless I choose to have the media involved. The point of a principle is that you uphold it even when it's difficult or seems pointless.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 01:52 AM
3

Oh lovely, and it has the naming scheme of the mods. Except that the response rate is nowhere near as good as the bots are. Sigh.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 03:10 AM
10

So, after MR banned the spambots which you obviously had nothing to do with, you've now taken it upon yourself to advertise manually? What happened to not involving yourself in the museum of poop?
/r/MensRights01/02/12 11:11 PM
1

You're right. I have no idea if its serious, or a joke. If it's real, then there's reason to suspect she's a horrible person. If its a joke, then she thinks even joking about being a horrible person is great. If I have a bumper sticker saying "I beat my kids" then you might not conclude I actually beat my kids, but I'm still joking about it. Now for some reason that's wrong and bad. What makes this different?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 08:51 PM
2

She might. But that wouldn't be the funny interpretation. The funny interpretation is that a man lost his retirement savings so she could have a car. Isn't that hilarious?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 08:42 PM
15

Let's say it is a joke. Where does that leave us? If you follow most PC logic, you shouldn't use negative language because thought leads to action. Joking about rape makes rape more acceptable, joking about "niggers who steal" makes it harder for black people to get jobs, etc etc. What this kind of "joke" means is that we're advocating government theft. If the MRA PR branch was anywhere near as sophisticated as the feminists, we'd call it "alimony culture."
/r/MensRights27/01/12 07:01 AM
18

The problem is the fucked up double standard. If a 16 year old cannot legally consent to an activity, then they should not be held to the consequences of that activity. If a 16 year old boy, having sex with his teacher, had sufficient power and agency that you can justify hitting him with child support, then it should not be called rape, statutory or otherwise.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 04:00 AM
5

Yeah, I got that. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 06:05 AM
9

If you truly want to see slut shaming in action, go watch people talk about r/seduction. Here's men who have figured out the techniques to help women overcome their natural fears of being a slut, and are universally maligned as manipulating women and caring only about having sex and treating women like meat. No doubt there are some really negative attitudes towards women in r/seduction, but to hear the majority criticism, the mere act of learning an opening set makes you a horrible person. Ironi…
/r/MensRights20/01/12 04:58 AM
3

Mostly that men don't have empathy. The idea is that men think they understand the situation via some information they read online about female sexual selection, but having never seen a real woman, it's not actual interaction.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 02:28 PM
0

In the end it really does come down to proper kino.
/r/seduction16/01/12 11:10 PM
1

Calling out privilege is an attempt to get individuals to empathize with experiences that are not their own. No more, no less. I agree with what you're saying, and i wouldn't mind privilege if that's how the word got used. Nowadays its not. The concept of privilege on its own doesn't offend me. The concept offends me when it gets brought up as a response so, "So what are we going to do about negative portrayals of men in the media?" or similar. That's when it's stopped becoming awareness raising…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 03:34 PM
5

I love the part where you use sexist language, implying that the gendered role of a princess is more emotional and apt to whine about meaningless bullshit.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:54 AM
3

What a lot of people forget is that privilege is statistical and context sensitive. It is, in fact, possible to go to an inner city school where the majority of people are black even though you are white, it is possible to have multiple teachers which insist the boys are stupid and should join the army and pay special attention to the girls, and its possible to be told, straight, that, "you're not really diverse enough for this scholarship." It's also more than probably that such a person would …
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:51 AM
6

You know that "Derailing for Dummies" handbook isn't supposed to be an instruction manual, right?
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:38 AM
1

No surprise, people always hate metrics where they aren't winning, and based on your submission history, I can guess why. I'm sorry if scoring girls from 1-10 on attractiveness bothers you. If it makes you feel better, you even don't register on my scale.
/r/seduction14/01/12 07:16 PM
1

Manipulation is when these skills are used in a negative context, ie. getting women to sleep with you. Translation: Women are the gatekeepers for sex, and when they sleep with a guy, they're losing something while the guy is gaining something. Fuck off with your gender role bullshit, and take your dictionary with you.
/r/seduction14/01/12 10:28 AM
-2

That's a freaking huge definition of manipulation then. If I say "goodmorning everyone!" to my workplace because I know that being cheerful will "illicit favourable emotional reactions" -- is that manipulation? If a coach spouts vague platitudes about hard work because he knows that encouragement makes people respond better, is that manipulation? When telephone salespeople smile on the phone because it changes their voice and makes you more likely to listen to them, is that manipulation? And if …
/r/seduction14/01/12 01:37 AM
6

Oh fuck, no. I ain't touching r/SRS with a ten foot pole. Have you seen the style sheet they use? That shit is a crime against humanity. Feel free to repost for me if you want, you can deal with that.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 06:59 PM
1

He absolutely did consent to the act of sex with that woman. He may have consented under false pretences, but we don't put guys in jail for "sure baby I'll respect you tomorrow" and for good reason! Her reproductive status is separate from the sex act. It should absolutely absolve him from parental responsibility, but that's a separate issue.
/r/MensRights22/12/10 07:39 PM
4

Hey man, welcome! We're far too busy being sexist here to be racist, so I'm sure you'll fit right in.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 05:45 AM
3

While I see your logic, I didn't consent to sleep with a girl who would later decide she wanted to rethink her life and leave me behind. I don't think that qualifies as rape. If you call everything rape, then you dilute what's actually rape.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 02:46 AM
4

I'm honestly surprised it took me this long to get a look of disapproval. I feel like my life is complete now.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 02:31 AM
3

Ok, no. The person being found innocent does NOT mean they didn't do it. Being found guilty doesn't mean they DID do it.. It's proof beyond reasonable doubt, not either-or. A woman isn't going to magically go: "I guess I really did want it." She's going to maintain that he raped her. Did the family of Nicole Brown Simpson go "I guess he really didn't do it after all?" when the jury returned innocent? Most issues of false accusation don't pop up at trial anyway, they happen as a result of police …
/r/MensRights18/12/10 02:27 AM
2

Yeah, sorry, I was thinking about the case where the entire act was filmed. Though, if you have a priori video of consent, AND she said that she never consented to any act (as opposed to changing her mind) you have a pretty good case for perjury.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:49 AM
1

I was thinking instances like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5319636-504083.html
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:28 AM
2

I'm confused. Did I imply anywhere in my post that a priori consent is sufficient?
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:25 AM
6

Have an upvote of sanity, good sir.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:21 AM
27

No. You were not raped. And if she had a drink, she was not raped. And if she changed her mind after the event, it was not rape. And if YOU changed your mind after the event, YOU were not raped. And if you gang banged her younger, hotter sister 20 minutes later and sent her the video, she did not become suddenly raped. Repeat after me: Rape is not retroactive. Rape is rape. Other examples might be a dick move, and she's definitely a horrible person for lying to you about her birth control status…
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:19 AM
3

a rape lasts, what, an hour? maybe 15 minutes? Maybe when you're the one doing the raping.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:07 AM
3

So you're saying I can be a man hating feminist as long as I'm still a misogynistic prick? Cool, I'll carry on.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 01:03 AM
5

No, bad point. Innocent until proven guilty applies to BOTH parties. If you're 50% sure she's lying, then they both go free. You gotta be 99% sure she's telling the truth, or 99% sure she's maliciously lying.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 12:54 AM
1

You'd need cases where there was video evidence of consent, or her story has significant holes as to show she was lying about a great many things. You wouldn't, and should not, arrest a woman for mistakenly identifying a man (for the same reason you don't charge someone who mixes up testimony with perjury.) Likewise, a dispute of consent (hypothetical: she forgot the safe word?) doesn't necessarily imply guilt on his part OR hers. While most men would hate to be falsely accused by someone who wa…
/r/MensRights18/12/10 12:53 AM
2

Do take note though that in the linked article, the appeals court smacked the idea down and insisted that advance consent does exist, allowing the appeal. Where things get interesting? The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF has been granted intervenor status to argue before the Supreme Court of Canada. They take the position that allowing prior consent to sex while unconscious or incapacitated will set back the gains women have made during the last 20 years. They worry that finding…
/r/MensRights26/11/10 04:36 PM
3

capital letters imply subservience of the lower case letters and are inherent to the patriarchy. check your privilege.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 03:56 PM
2

Personally, I get tired of "Don't blame the victim" being shouted every time someone points out that getting drunk with strange men is dangerous behaviour. It is possible to say that rape is BAD, while at the same time realizing that YOU are the person that controls your behaviour. If I was a rapist, having a bunch of women going "no man has the right to rape me, therefore I feel liberated to get drunk at a bar without friends around" a fantastic idea. Men can do many things to prevent rape. Act…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:21 PM
3

Can we leave this stupid "society hates our gender?" to the feminists?
/r/MensRights15/11/10 12:05 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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