TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

franklindeer Archive

View 16 posts and 1,447 comments by franklindeer on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
149

franklindeer/r/MensRights27/06/16 02:43 AM
132

franklindeer/r/MensRights18/10/16 02:58 PM
87

Feminismfranklindeer/r/MensRights12/02/16 03:21 PM
48

Anti-MRMfranklindeer/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:48 PM
36

Legal Rightsfranklindeer/r/MensRights17/11/15 04:22 AM
36

franklindeer/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:19 PM
16

Discriminationfranklindeer/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:43 PM
16

Legal Rightsfranklindeer/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:22 AM
15

Social Issuesfranklindeer/r/MensRights24/06/16 02:15 AM
11

Generalfranklindeer/r/MensRights17/11/15 07:02 AM
9

Discriminationfranklindeer/r/MensRights09/08/16 04:03 PM
7

Generalfranklindeer/r/MensRights17/11/15 07:10 AM
5

franklindeer/r/MensRights04/03/16 10:08 PM
2

franklindeer/r/MensRights27/10/16 06:16 PM
2

Activism/Supportfranklindeer/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:04 PM
2

Generalfranklindeer/r/MensRights17/11/15 07:24 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,447 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

That would be an appropriate use of the term and that is what it means. It's not used outside the U.S mind you, but the term specifically is meant to refer to people of African decent living in the Americas.
/r/MensRights02/08/17 02:56 AM
1

Even that's not entirely true. Rape shield laws are not binding on judges, they don't actually have to do anything. They're intended to be suggested guidelines. However, that's often a distinction without a difference and many judges will treat them as a requirement just as many treat existing rape shield guidelines as a requirement. That's why this new policy is so dangerous. The outcome of it will be much the same as if these were binding decrees rather than a form of guidance.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 01:12 AM
2

I'm not sure about specifically when the last school was closed, but as far as I know the majority of these schools, and particularly the worst practices of them, ended by the 80's. So if there were schools after that it's fairly safe to say that they were significantly reformed. Not excusing it, but the scale of the problem in the 70's was pretty extreme.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 07:14 AM
4

Yup. There are living victims of this policy and as you can imagine it's highly political.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 05:56 AM
7

We had residential schools which a large percentage of natives were forced to attend in order to be "integrated". They were often sexually abused and routinely physically abused and prevented from speaking their native tongue. This went on until the mid-70's and Canada feels a lot of guilt over this so the government and SCC have been making some absurd decisions and creating really stupid policies that on paper, privilege native people. In reality I don't think that's the end result. I think mo…
/r/MensRights11/07/17 05:50 PM
-1

This isn't really a men's rights issue. Canada makes distinctions between natives and non-natives in terms of the law and if this were a man it's just as possible that they would receive a similar sentence, which would be equally unjust. But in any case this is a race issue not a gender issue.
/r/MensRights11/07/17 05:45 PM
3

It wasn't that long ago that spending that kind of money when you still have to work those kinds of shifts would have been considered irresponsible. That kind of effort was historically used either just to get by, or to get ahead so you could stop doing what you were doing by investing in a business or paying off a house. I don't fault the guy for his choices, but they're not smart choices long term and the thousands of dollars spent on vacations to make everyone happy could have been used to bu…
/r/MensRights11/07/17 05:40 PM
40

There is no need to mischaracterize Mrs Murrell's position on the whole thing. The argument was over stopping the thing that was killing him. This is not how you get someone to slow down and it's not a compassionate response to get angry after the 16 hour shift. I work long days sometimes, my girlfriend worries about my health and well being, she doesn't get angry and make me sleep on the couch. If anything she's extra nice when I've had a long day. Furthermore, if there is to be any discussion …
/r/MensRights11/07/17 05:36 PM
13

"You've run yourself ragged, now go sleep on the couch because the best way to get you to slow down is to be mad, but also not let you sleep in a bed".
/r/MensRights11/07/17 05:31 PM
1

It's a fineable offence on the subway system and it has been used to jail people who were on parole.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 04:52 PM
5

North Korea is a cult of personality and publicly the government celebrates things that the rest of the world can't make heads or tales of. I would say "gender equal snow removal" is sufficiently nonsensical that it would be in line with something I might expect to hear from NK propaganda.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 10:39 AM
11

https://www.thelocal.se/20161112/stockholm-transport-heads-defends-gender-equal-snow-clearing
/r/MensRights10/07/17 10:27 AM
3

Also I don't think in my lifetime I've ever heard anyone, even in passing suggest that someone's clothing choice contributed to them being raped. Maybe that was a big problem at one point, but it doesn't seem to be now and as usual it seems feminists are living in 1950 still where victim blaming is concerned. They're so ideological they can't even see they've won.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 06:02 AM
2

Yeah another commenter just gave me an update. It seems they're trying to broaden the definition almost beyond usefulness.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 05:59 AM
3

I would expect them to rise the first 2-5 years as law enforcement adjusts to the new definition. It's now been 12 years and they continue to increase or at best, remain the same. This is the opposite of the trend the rest of the western world is enjoying. That to me indicates a problem. Either way, this does not fit the narrative that assaults have been rising because of imigrants. There is also some data on the rates sexual assault perpetrated by native Swedes vs non-Swedes. It's also not posi…
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:38 AM
22

Unfortunately it was not.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:13 AM
-1

I've seen no evidence of that, the sources I've seen from Sweden indicate that the definition was changed significantly in 2005.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:13 AM
7

It's not: https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html But a stagnant rate of sexual assault would also be the opposite of the trend seen throughout most of the west, which has declining rates of most crimes.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:09 AM
13

I just looked into it and it was in fact 2005. https://www.thelocal.se/20170221/why-sweden-is-not-the-rape-capital-of-the-world
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:56 AM
4

Correction, it was 2005. Feel free to confirm that for yourself and compare the stats from 2005 onward. It's an upward trend.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:55 AM
68

It appears that way, yes. They also had "gender equal snow removal" that nearly crippled Stockholm because it prioritized areas women were perceived to use over clearing the roads. The degree of their insanity knows no bounds. This is the kind of shit you expect to hear in a dystopian fiction or from North Korea.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:53 AM
23

And since that change a little over 6 years ago, the sexual assault has continued to increase despite the apples to apples comparison.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:47 AM
39

That change was several years ago and if you compare stats from 2011 (the year it changed I believe) to current stats, there is still an upward trend while the rest of the west has the opposite trend.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:46 AM
10

its sweden, at this point ignore them At your own peril. Sweden is also the home of "manspreading" and even Vice mocked them a few years ago. And yet...now it's a crime in NYC and the subject of publicly funded campaigns throughout Canada, the U.S and the U.K.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 02:45 AM
2

They often do. People will avoid addicts and people with huge debt or mental health problems or all sorts of other things even if they are attracted to or in love with them.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 04:31 AM
1

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success You're not correct.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 04:28 AM
2

You are incorrect. Women passed along their DNA over 80% of the time.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 01:31 AM
5

Nobody marries only for love. There are obviously other considerations given the fact that it's a legal contract. But yes, it appears that women's dating and marriage habits would indicate that status trumps a number of other factors. In fairness to women, this appears to be biological and not easily mutable given that historically only 40% of men were able enter the gene pool. So this pattern is older than civilization. It's not nearly as important in modern life though and women are perfectly …
/r/MensRights05/07/17 12:22 AM
3

There are 8 billion people on the planet. By that reasoning, you can't complain about anything. How is that remotely what I said. I am saying that one should be wary of news sources reporting trends or pushing a narrative based on a handful of people. If they were reporting "12 people think this movie is racist" then that would be fine, but that's generally not what happens and the reporting suggests a trend or commonly held opinion which isn't necessarily the case, which is why people should be…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:05 PM
1

When the entire planet has the ability to share their every inane thought as it occurs to them, you need more than a few dozen tweets before you start reporting on this. Why mot say that it's an abhorrent position to take and even if there was only one person who took it, it's wirth pushing back against? I'm not condoning it at all, I'm saying that it's dangerous when we let the press push a narrative by dredging up a few tweets. The danger of that is that there isn't an idea or narrative you co…
/r/MensRights30/06/17 10:52 PM
7

It's not poetry but it certainly gets to the heart of it in less than a paragraph which is a really tall order.
/r/MensRights29/06/17 06:14 AM
28

I have to hand it to u/girlwriteswhat in that she's consistently able to summarize and communicate ideas that many of us intuitively understand but frustratedly, and often poorly, describe. I have a fairly good grasp of the language, I am a decent communicator, but I could not have distilled this down in a way that is so effortless to grasp. That is indeed far more difficult than it seems in hindsight having already listened to the explanation.
/r/MensRights29/06/17 06:12 AM
2

I'm not expecting them to count, but nonetheless the number matters. It doesn't have to be completely accurate, but if it's 100 people it's hardly newsworthy. By that measure you could almost report anything about anything because there will always be 100 people on twitter that think and are saying the thing you want to report on from the angle you want to report it from. It's entirely different if there are enough people to indicate that it's a widely held opinion or a trend. but unless you're …
/r/MensRights29/06/17 05:28 AM
1

German rearmament was done largely in secret at first and was not funded by western capitalists, that's nonsense. And Stalin was a strange bedfellow who was necessary to defeating a nutcase bent on world domination. Furthermore Stalin didn't win the war. The USSR won on the eastern front and the rest of the allies took the Western front. The war really turned after the D day attack which was only western allies, mostly the Brits and Canadians. There is obviously more nuance to all of this but yo…
/r/MensRights28/06/17 10:27 PM
1

Which is basically what this article describes in less absolute language.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 07:29 AM
29

The level of delusion in this article is astounding. It's like reading about what went down through the filter of North Korean propagandists.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 07:05 AM
16

I'm sure there were, but how many others? 5? 10,000? It matters if you're going to write a story about it.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 06:10 AM
50

I think we should be wary of making too much of this. It's a few tweets from randos and this is the same tactic used by MSM outlets to push whatever narrative they feel like pushing by digging up 3 tweets to support it. This is essentially an anti-sjw version of Misogynists are boycotting Ghostbusters; here's 3 tweets we found to justify this story we came up with before we actually had any reason to In other words, 3 tweets is not a trend or epidemic or newsworthy.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 05:43 AM
8

Why even speculate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters
/r/MensRights27/06/17 09:22 AM
1

Goof luck getting an accurate stat on that. Some say as high as 60% of both men and women have at some point cheated in their marriage and other studies say 8% of women and 12% of men. The best one I've seen, and just because it was a big survey suggested that about 20-25% of people have cheated in a relationship at some point in their life (though someone who continues to or has multiple times isn't accounted for separately). The biggest problem with this subject is that there are a lot of webs…
/r/MensRights27/06/17 09:19 AM
7

What I would/will do, is not associate with the idiot who made this video. He was totally inappropriate, convinced no one of anything (and maybe reinforced their views) and made an ass of himself. He might be on the right side of this, but he still acted like a total asshole.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 09:07 AM
8

There are actually laws against this in many jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights26/06/17 05:49 AM
1

I'm not suggesting that Europe is communist at all. But it's simply not true that European governments or English speaking governments are right wing. They are in some ways, but they also employ Marxist ideology and socialism all the time in regards to economics and social policy. So this simplification that all things negative are right wing is just not true. The world is not that simple and the right wing isn't devoid of value either.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 08:13 PM
2

They're essentially being fired for speech. None of which is that controversial. It's a kind of censorship, or an attempt at it. Edit: to be clear that is the label's right. But I don't think it's reasonable in this case and I think it's worth criticising.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:17 PM
1

Yup, and the USSR just didn't understand communism. /S
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:15 PM
1

And if you're in Canada it's all good. We don't have stupid fucking laws that protect corporations and law enforcement from being recorded.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:32 AM
1

Seriously? Over-incarceration and police brutality is met upon men almost exclusively.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:25 AM
1

This guy needs to sue the department, this is just ridiculous, and not in a way that wasn't carefully considered. This wasn't just a reaction or a mistake. He knew what he was doing and he asked for clarification and then he put someone in cuffs for absolutely nothing.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:23 AM
3

And what is the left wing in Canada and Australia and Europe, which are increasingly anti-liberal and authoritarian and yet by every measure, still left wing? I am on the left, but this idea that all things bad are actually right wing is just nonsense and it's partly the fault of the fairly useless political spectrum.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:17 AM
3

You're really making hay here. The OP never made any claims about first amendment issues, he said "silencing" which someone other than the government does in fact have the ability to do in some circumstances and censorship as any sane person knows, does not have to be carried out by the state in order to be censorship.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:15 AM
1

Does anyone know if any of the current ministers have given government money to this organization in Canada? Lietch gave them money 3 years ago but she's not the minister anymore so I can't see any value in sending her an email. I'm just wondering if there is anyone I can contact within the current government and let them know what I think about tax dollars going to such a sexist organization and one that doesn't respect the legal rights of Canadians.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:07 AM
3

Yup, just let her fade into the fucking background. She's like Tinkerbell, she only lives because we acknowledge her.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 06:57 AM
1

You should take any local reporting from Zimbabwe and a variety of other African nations with a grain of salt. There is a lot of totally fabricated news from both local and international agencies. Part of the problem is that there often aren't any international journalists on the ground and so you have to take a lot of things on faith without confirmation. That's not to say there aren't female rapists, obviously there are. But I personally don't think it's okay to take the bullshit news you agre…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 06:56 AM
4

This guy can't make the distinction between being irresponsible or flirting with danger and deserving something. Like a black guy in Mississippi dating a white woman in 1940 is flirting with danger, but he doesn't deserve anything but continued peace and happiness.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 06:24 AM
3

If I go rolling through Compton ( a pasty white guy ) decked out in gang colors with rolls of hundreds hanging out of my pockets, do I deserve what happens to me? I'd say yes. Deserve it? No, absolutely 100% you do not deserve to be the victim of violence for really any reason shy of committing violence or possibly inciting it. Is it stupid and irresponsible and predictable? Yes of course. So my sympathy would be limited in this hypothetical. But that's really not the degree of stupidity this yo…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 06:22 AM
0

Frankly this is the whole issue with using spree killings as the basis for gun regulation. It's a weak argument and a tiny, tiny fraction of the issue. The majority of gun crime in the U.S is committed by normal everyday criminals with illegal weapons and is not anything like spree killing. There is no gun regulation solution to this overall, but certainly gun crime can be reduced by better regulating gun dealers, which is where these weapons originate. Only a small fraction of illegal weapons c…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 05:55 AM
-1

It's actually in your constitution and I would argue that the main proponents and opponents of gun control both have no idea what they're talking about and use faulty reasoning and arguments the defend their almost nonsensical positions. The anti-gun folks don't seem to understand the most important aspects of gun regulation in countries where guns are still relatively available, and only see the consumer regulation aspects which are a tiny portion of it. And the pro-gun folks don't seem to unde…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 05:46 AM
1

I'm not claiming to know why there is a difference in outcome for men and women, just that it seems unlikely that socialization is that explanation.
/r/MensRights24/06/17 12:36 AM
1

They do and they don't. So in the past there has been some polling done by users and most people were economically centrist and socially libertarian. If you were to try and apply that to simply the left/right dichotomy though it would be all over the place since currently most political parties throughout the west are fairly schizophrenic. So people place themselves all over the place on the spectrum as a result.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 07:24 AM
2

That's really not correct at all. Polls have been done in this sub in the past and the majority of people are economically centrist, what you're describing is very far right in terms of economics. In terms of social politics the majority were libertarian left, not surprisingly. This is using the political compass rather than spectrum which provides a little more insight.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 07:20 AM
1

Girls and boys throw pretty well the same until puberty actually, at least in competitive leagues that heave measured throwing speeds. So it's not really a justified remark unless you're only levelling it at adult or adolescent men, which is often not the case. I can see the point on this. It's a little petty, but probably not a great idea to use a comparison to women as an insult.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:48 AM
3

This is the repost of all reposts.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:40 AM
1

you're presuming his guilt I'm not presuming anything, that should be clear. My point is that you couldn't possibly know with any degree of certainty whether there was anything credible or incredible about this case. Based on the linked article, it's entirely possible that he could be guilty and there is no strong reason to think he's not, as you're doing. That's not to suggest he doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence, but you're not presuming here, you're essentially declaring it by pain…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:38 AM
2

Tolstoy after all was the master of the scientific method. /s
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:28 AM
1

It seems to me that being good at chess involves very, very little socialization. I don't know why anyone would conclude that there was some social factor working against women.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:27 AM
1

According to her claim, she was extremely drunk, vomiting, climbed into bed fully clothed and has no recollection of any sexual activity with this guy and yet woke up next to him. Now that has all the makings of a regret/shame type false claim, but it's not at all atypical in terms of genuine sexual assault either. This is far from clear cut, it's clearly something worth investigating or possibly hashing out in court. I don't see how you figure you have some special insight into this or indeed h…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:21 AM
2

That's not the accusation. The accusation is that she was incapacitated and never agreed to sex or even got into a situation where it was probable. So this is hardly clear cut. I don't know how you figure you know this is a false accusation without any real information.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 03:07 AM
8

I agree, she's very gender neutral in that both men and women find her to be thoroughly off-putting.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 07:59 AM
2

That's all much too general to have any meaning. God only knows what he thinks specifically about men and women.
/r/MensRights10/06/17 07:09 PM
11

That's an insane waste of money. Surely there are still important issues facing gay men and women in Spain that focusing or spending money on this trivial nonsense is taking away from.
/r/MensRights08/06/17 10:07 PM
12

That can't be true, everyone hates women and 2017 is the first time a women has been successful in the movie business. /s
/r/MensRights08/06/17 04:17 AM
13

I haven't seen it, but like all Blockbuster films there are lots of people who didn't care for it. But this media narrative that it's a big win for women has certainly shielded it from some typical criticism. It's hardly the next Citizen Kane, but that seems to be how the media is treating it. Which will lead to people trying to take it off its pedestal, a normal reaction to this kind of thing, and the media will then call that sexism and misogyny. People will eventually tire of this and they'll…
/r/MensRights08/06/17 04:14 AM
6

That's a pretty ridiculous and childish conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 07:07 AM
3

"Neither of these claims are true and Jess Phillips has said she “really really” does care about men’s mental health." From the author. I guess they didn't bother just watching the video of exactly that happening?
/r/MensRights06/06/17 11:28 PM
6

Except in this episode the host bends over backwards to make this about how terrible life is for women and she completely skims over the fact that sentencing, even sexist sentencing, exemplifies female privilege. Essentially her take on it is the equivalent of covering a story about men being taken more seriously at the mechanic and painting that as if it's some terrible burden on men.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 11:25 PM
7

That would be awfully dumb of her. Yes, that doc was popular, but within her space and speaking circuit, it will absolutely, 100% hurt her career. So either she's being honest and growing, or she's very naive and dumb.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 11:20 PM
1

My response to you was balanced and thoughtful and not at all angry. Though had that not been the case it would have been immaterial as my emotional state is irrelevant to the validity of my argument. You're enjoying a fallacy.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 12:07 PM
2

Look up the costs from conviction to execution in the U.S, it's millions more than lifetime imprisonment because of the legal fees associated with appeals which are necessary before allowing the state to kill someone.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 08:27 AM
3

Re: Trump is to blame. I don't know about that. He is in some sense in that he certainly egged on media reaction to him, that was part of his success. But now the media is just hurting society with its hysteria. Nobody can even focus on reality because almost nobody is discussing reality. And if it turns out that Trump is as awful and unstable as so many are claiming, we're all fucked at this point because the level of hysterics in the media can't get any more feverish. If he declared war on the…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 12:22 AM
1

It's necessary to provide such appeals when the state is going to take a life. Again though, it's a moot point. The SCC isn't going to reverse themselves. Beyond all that, the objective should not be to give the accused what they deserve, but protect the public interest. The death penalty accomplishes the former and fails to accomplish the latter as nothing extra is gained with the death penalty in terms of public benefit, and it costs them a great deal more money.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 12:16 AM
2

No, I understood. There is a big difference between thinking something and saying something, especially in this context.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 11:57 PM
9

It's wrong no matter who it is. But in the context of politics, it's incredibly backwards and authoritarian. Killing your political opponent has thankfully not been considered acceptable in the west for a very long time. The U.S is moving backward in this regard and the media should be doing more to condemn the casual calls for violence against Trump.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 11:34 PM
1

Almost certainly not. The measure in Canada is based on a reasonable interpretation. I think most reasonable people would feel legitimately threatened by such a depiction of them. I know I would, and I am generally highly skeptical of some of the standards set out by Canadian courts in terms of threats and harassment. But this is like a half step from putting a horse head in someone's bed. It's very clearly threatening.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 11:29 PM
2

I agree, but if you created a photograph with your neighbour's head severed and held by their hair and made it public, that would almost certainly be seen as an overt threat of violence and reasonably so in my opinion. This is the president, so there is more leeway, but that's my point here. Is the line (not the legal one) for reasonable people, should probably be at "if I did this to someone other than the president, would I be arrested?". In this case, you would 100% be arrested.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 10:35 PM
2

You don't think that threats of violence or incitement should be criminal?
/r/MensRights02/06/17 10:20 PM
2

Well it's certainly worth being concerned about when people are fired for political views unrelated to their job. That's never the case with public figures like she is, they represent their employer, but when it's some lady who works in HR or a guy who does maintenance, it's a poor precedent. That said, even if she were not a public figure, this is so, so over the line of what's appropriate and bordering on an overt threat, it would likely be justified to fire almost anyone in your employ for th…
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:45 PM
1

The line in comedy is the same line as in any speech, incitement or threats of violence. Arguably this qualifies as the latter, and therefore is over the line. I don't think charges will be brought because the president is such a public figure and it's unlikely that this would be taken as a genuine threat more than a commentary. But if swapped his severed head for that of almost anyone else's this would just look like an overt threat of violence, which is not protected speech in the U.S, which i…
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:42 PM
5

It would possibly be justified to "silence" this kind of speech. Probably not in this specific case, but only because it's the president. If you did this to almost anyone else it would be completely reasonable to take it as an overt threat of violence and would therefore be criminal.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:39 PM
16

I think that the line should probably be drawn at "if this wasn't a public figure it would be criminal". No matter your thoughts on Trump, it was pretty threatening and tasteless and incredibly authoritarian in many ways. You don't like someone's policy so they should be dead. This is justified by hyperbolic claims about the harms of his policy, which is mostly just hysterics at this point. If this image depicted your boss or colleague or neighbour it would be criminal, that's an overt threat of…
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:37 PM
4

I think she has great moments, but she uses crassness in place of actual jokes. Like shocker, this woman's got a dirty mouth, hilarious. I think she could do much better. There are lots of great female comedians though, but Kathy Griffin is definitely not one of them, and Amy Schumer is going down the same path as Sarah Silverman and just saying gross things that aren't well crafted and hoping we'll laugh in surprise that she's saying them. It's hacky.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:34 PM
16

It's also really inaccurate and silly. As much as there have been some shitty old white dudes in western history, it's also been old white dudes that have driven the vast majority of progress, be it technical or social. This is inevitable in a white society where historically men have had greater access to public life. Of course they're going to be responsible for most of the terrible stuff that has happened, and conversely, most of the best stuff that has happened. In Saudi Arabia, it's old bro…
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:31 PM
15

Nah, check out sanity sunday at r/tumblrinaction, there are plenty of sane people, it's a big community.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 09:25 PM
-2

You can be given multiple life sentences for multiple crimes in Canada and be jailed for the rest of your natural life.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 07:29 PM
4

The same is true of a life sentence, so no, not a pragmatic argument.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 06:25 PM
2

There is no pragmatic argument in favour of the death penalty. Even if it made sense to have it for the worst of the worst just for the purpose of justice, it would still cost way more than jailing someone for their natural life. Beyond that the SCC has ruled against it so it's not going to happen.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 06:12 PM
1

I was being hyperbolic in regards to 9 year olds, though it's been attempted. However, people under 18 and as young as 12 are routinely charged and prosecuted as adults in the U.S. This is commonplace. Young offenders legislation has been eroded to such a degree that it's completely meaningless in many cases, even in terms of protecting identity and prosecutors regularly succumb to public pressure or try and win popularity with absurd "tough on crime" approaches. Plans that often involve abusing…
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:29 PM
1

Except that's generally not how thing play out. Most of the first world appoints judges, largely without issue, and they manage not to prosecute 9 year olds as adults and make politically motivated decisions to avoid public upset. And then there is the U.S, which by and large functions reasonably well, but has produced a long list of examples of outrageous decisions and where bowing to public pressure within the judiciary, in ways that are antithetical to justice are mentioned openly as if that'…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 09:06 PM
1

I disagree as they're still subject to public pressure and their jobs rely on remaining popular. This is antithetical to justice and that's obvious. And that's not just in theory, there are countless examples of this playing out in practice. The D.As being elected is even worse and there are even more examples of politically motivated decisions, often ones that are openly acknowledged to be political since it's become part of the system. In the West Memphis case for example the D.A that agreed t…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 10:53 AM
2

Yeah,I get that, and yet it works. As does appointing cheifs of police and crown prosecutors. Look at the mess in the U.S where Sheriffs are elected and D.As are elected, even coroners in some regions. D.As charge 9 year olds as adults because of public pressure, coroners don't need to have medical training or experience and sign off on death certificates and there are Republican and Democrat Sheriffs and some like Arpaio, who are objectively terrible and get reelected over and over. It's a mess…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 10:45 AM
4

Appointment. It's not perfect either,but it's not quite the disaster that electing them is. The idea that a judge should have to worry about making popular decisions and that the electorate understands or cares enough to make an informed vote in this area is nuts. There are indeed some areas where democratic rule has no place. The judiciary and law enforcement are two of them.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 07:06 AM
1

The consequences of having to make popular decisions is way worse. There is no perfect system, judges and prosecutors absolutely should not be part of the political system and act as policians. There are countless examples of how this has failed as a system.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 07:00 AM
6

If any judge touched that case it would be career suicide. Which is one of a long list of reasons judges shouldn't be elected.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 10:45 PM
1

This is likely true of seasonal labour in western countries as well. It's my understanding that harvest seasons in California are staffed by a great number of female labourers.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 10:19 PM
2

It's the BSJ study, it's easy to pull up on Google and the full study is viewable.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 12:23 PM
6

I agree completely. We obviously need to point out male victims, but not dishonestly in the exact way we routinely criticize.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 08:43 AM
3

If that analogy made any sense we'd all jump at teaching. Winning the lottery is incredibly rare. Being accused of some kind of assault as a teacher is almost assured, much more similar to playing Russian roulette.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 07:50 AM
1

The only way to get to this figure is to either do bad research, or start just folding in every kind of awful thing into a single stat. But it's a stupid fucking game, it doesn't actually inform anyone, and it seems to mislead almost by design.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 07:14 AM
3

My bad, the methodology is different than I thought. The data is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, so it's still a survey. The methodology looks to be a lot more rigorous and the sample size is way, way bigger than comparable studies (between 50,000 and 80,000) and the data is from an 18 year period in which the survey was done twice yearly. All that said, the survey still uses an overly broad definition of sexual assault which includes lesser assaults like grabbing or fondling and l…
/r/MensRights16/05/17 11:48 PM
15

No, it's a figure from the BJS that includes convictions, complaints and credible estimates I believe. Basically it's based on some pretty thorough data collection rather than a survey with sloppy questions.
/r/MensRights16/05/17 11:01 PM
44

Except that's almost certainly a bullshit statistic since we know that only about 6 in 1000 women in college will be sexually assaulted. So if we assume an identical rate for men (in fact most stats put it around 20% lower (not including prison rape)), then it's also 6 in edit:1000, not 10,000.
/r/MensRights16/05/17 10:34 PM
3

Presumably DV is being removed, or at least only tried in civil court, which is the court the family courts operate within, so this is likely not unconstitutional simply because nobody is being tried for a crime. It's stupid and dangerous and DV remains a criminal issue regardless of OK's view on it, but I doubt it's unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights15/05/17 05:14 PM
6

"Rape is particularly bad if you're from X,Y,Z group" What a fucking joke. The impact of a sexual assault has practically nothing at all to do with one's identity and it's probably one of the few issues that is barely impacted at all by class (in terms of the experience not frequency).
/r/MensRights15/05/17 05:09 PM
4

It can go the other way. Look at The Good Men project or r/menslib. They become the voice for these concerns and then we can all pretend they care when they don't and are in fact compounding the harm.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 09:53 AM
10

I.e lip service. We're seeing the same thing with some men's issues that simply can't be ignored any longer so feminists are giving a nod to them while continuing to think and act exactly as they always have. It's just rhetoric.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 09:32 AM
2

Silence and inaction is being complicit. That's not far from saying "silence is violence". Furthermore, by this measure a considerable percentage of men are complicit in this as well. I don't buy any of that. I think a percentage of men and even more women want men to be unable to have mens or boys only spaces. Those people are assholes, and they're responsible, but the rest of the population isn't also guilty because of their genitals. That's sexist and it's exactly the kind of sexism that has …
/r/MensRights07/05/17 01:04 AM
2

I highly doubt that it's feminists who are responsible for calling men who change diapers pedo's in shopping malls. Feminists do a lot of terrible shit, this just isn't typically one of those things.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:51 PM
-2

You're suggesting that all women are on board with these things or complicit in taking over men's spaces, that's not true and it serves no purpose to be so general in your criticisms.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:18 PM
1

It's not about winning or giving her what she deserves, it's about doing what's in your own self interest, which in this case is almost always going to be to walk away and not engage.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:11 PM
-7

This is not an issue of all or even most women.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 12:02 PM
-9

That's overly general.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 10:40 AM
2

Good call, you have to document and avoid even the appearance of anything untoward.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 10:17 AM
7

Honestly it's not worth engaging at all with these kinds of people. That woman was obviously unreasonable if not unstable and there is no reason you should even stand and listen to that kind of shit let alone feel the need to make a counter-argument. In future I'd just walk away and let her have a little melt-down. As much as our society is a little fucked sometimes, 99% of it still thinks it's perfectly normal for a father to change diapers and would not expect you to explain why you're not a r…
/r/MensRights06/05/17 10:06 AM
1

No it's clearly a parody of the rhetoric used by some feminists and activists in regards to abortion or any reproductive issue. The suggestion being in part that only the individual should decide, but also that collectively men should have no part in the discussion even on a policy level. As if identity is the defining factor in the validity of someone's position. This post really just promotes the same kind of bullshit. There is nothing about being a woman that prevents them from having perfect…
/r/MensRights06/05/17 10:01 AM
5

It's what happens if you don't agree to be drafted in the event that there is one. It's a fairly slim possibility, but it's also a sexist policy and men don't even have voting rights in the U.S without agreeing to this responsibility.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:57 AM
6

If people are really serious about this they need to create sample policy that addresses the many ethical concerns of financial abortion. Here's my detailed comment on this from a similar thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/68cxhj/the_legal_abortion_movement_is_often_less/dgyga3k/
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:37 AM
5

And a woman can't abort if the man wants custody even though it is her body. They can almost anywhere in the western world. Also adoption can be chosen with almost no notification to the other parent and unilateral, anonymous surrender is offered in many, many jurisdictions. Not to fucking mention abortion has been made illegal in some countries so no even though it's her body she doesn't have a choice. Those places are obviously not the topic of this discussion. That goes for both men and women…
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:27 AM
1

Moreover, men are far less likely to report DV to the police for all sorts of reasons Which is actually referenced in the survey from StatsCan. There is data to support this claim.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 08:47 AM
1

Thats not just a waste, it's very likely criminal. The use of government funds for party promotion is a crime.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 08:43 AM
41

First false accusation they have actually confirmed. You can't take anonymous complaints like this with no investigation and not publish false claims routinely, it's just not possible.
/r/MensRights04/05/17 12:48 AM
1

No feminist has yet been able to explain why anti-violence legislation shouldn't be written in a gender neutral form. No feminist has been able to respond to the gender sentencing gap with anything other than an accusation that Davies is sexist just for bringing it up. They just toss out some red herring and avoid even addressing such questions.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 08:15 PM
8

Holy fuck man. The testimony all indicates that we was extremely drunk in the common room and having difficulty walking and standing straight. It's entirely likely that shortly after that, he would be unconscious, which is the normal course of events. But in any event, you're being a pedant, it's not that important whether he was unconscious or not, it's clear that he didn't assault this girl and that he was the one in a more vulnerable position.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:18 PM
8

He has no word, all the relevant testimony is from uninvolved third parties, Jones and Jones' own text messages.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:11 PM
5

Her testimony isn't credible, we know that she was lying because of other evidence. And again, you're resorting to pedantry in an attempt to excuse and diminish the fact that you basically tried to mislead this thread about the details of this case.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:06 PM
9

He was black out drunk and has no recollection of the sexual interaction whatsoever, he makes no claims about his consciousness. And really? That's the route you're going to go after you attempted to completely mislead this entire thread about this case and quoted only her testimony which suggests she was sexually assaulted which doesn't seem to be the case taking the case as a whole? You're a weasel and you're relying on pedantry to excuse your attempts to deceive.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:04 PM
4

I read the case, Doe provides text messages from Jones' that indicate that she intended to lie because she could get away with it and because she needed to explain away having fucked her roommates boyfriend. How did you miss that. And that's not Doe's claim, that's straight from Jones, so how do you explain that exactly? You literally just provided Jone's claims without context or any of the evidence that directly contradicts those claims. That's textbook cherry picking.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:52 PM
12

So text messages, which detail her intention to fabricate a story to save herself from embarrassment and conflict, that's just testimony? Because it's not, it's hard evidence that Doe had no ability to fabricate.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:48 PM
19

Not to mention Doe's complaints have actual documented evidence of Jones' intention to deceive, which is a lot more credible than a claim without evidence. The texts from that night paint a pretty clear picture that Jones is a completely incredible witness who announced her intentions to fabricate a story about their interaction.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:46 PM
67

Sort of, but there is no link to the source.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 10:29 AM
56

Can you cite your source?
/r/MensRights03/05/17 10:21 AM
3

If you talk to older women they tend to be more empathetic to the issue and understand how it destroys people completely. Maybe it's marriage or having male children and not age that has this impact, I don't know, but just anecdotally this has been my experience.
/r/MensRights02/05/17 07:17 PM
1

Message again with the comment link tomorrow. It's the only way, and the other mods need to know this person is out of control.
/r/MensRights02/05/17 07:29 AM
1

I would suggest telling him that you'd like to address the issue with another moderator and they will likely jump in in the next 24 hours. I wouldn't respond after that though. Just make the request and then say nothing. He'll just get all defensive and try and rile you up.
/r/MensRights02/05/17 01:53 AM
2

I am a regular user, I wouldn't brigade even then, and so far as I can see, there is nothing to brigade. This is a reference to a specific comment which was already removed and there is no link to any thread. Relax.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:46 PM
2

They're looking for new mods in part because many of them aren't active enough. Generally speaking though, the sub is fine and functions well, they just need one or two more moderators who aren't super biased and they should get rid of the one bad one.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:42 PM
3

Because I and many others have had run ins with him/her in r/canada. I've also referred to him/her by their username and then had it echoed by other mods in the discussion. Velvet is also the only mod that's a SJW, you can see what the other mods have to say in their commenting history.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:32 PM
3

It's velvetjustice. None of the other mods are keen to censor unless they have to.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:25 PM
3

Mod* FTFY It's really just one person who does this, the rest don't.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:21 PM
3

There is just one in r/canada, the rest are moderates and quite reasonable, but only a few are active and sometimes only one is active and acts like a crazy person.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:20 PM
3

$50 says it was velvetjustice, who has been a problem many times in that sub. Contact the mod team and complain, be polite and state your case. Most of the mods in that sub are fair and reasonable, but aren't always active. And when I say be polite, best of luck, the last time I had this issue with velvetjustice he accused me of gaslighting and intimidation. I was ultimately vindicated by another mod, but christ that person is a pain in the ass.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:19 PM
25

I'm actually still very surprised at how little many women can relate to the shame and fear such an accusation creates. I don't like to generalize, but in this case many average women under 45 don't quite seem to grasp the impact of such an accusation, despite this being a fear and accusation that brought deep shame even in the old testament. This is not new, and there are lots of people out there who just don't get it. Aside from specifically child rape, there is no accusation that's worse. You…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:11 PM
2

You know what would be great? If this republican asshole was actually a men's rights advocate. In the irony of all ironies, he's a red piller, yet genuinely has the power to help advance men's issues and remedy some of the problems in society and instead has chosen to game the shitty situation that exists.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 07:05 PM
3

There aren't any policy guidelines for legal abortion. Nobody has created an example policy or worked out the considerable complications. So it's just not a practical demand until that happens. I've thought about posting this before actually and there are some hurdles that proponents of legal abortion need to address. The details. How would the notification process work? Women would have an obligation to notify so that men can agree or not agree to participate and this needs to be handled within…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:42 PM
3

Hopefully the very first person caught in this web of crazy is someone with a huge war chest that they can use to challenge the constitutionality of this law in the higher courts where it would almost certainly be over turned. Regardless of whether someone thinks this law is a good idea, it's almost certainly unconstitutional to reverse the burden of proof. I'm not certain because I don't know much about New Zealand's constitution but if it's anything like the rest of the Commonwealth the burden…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:22 PM
2

As are rates of just about everything, despite all the hysteria. The most extreme example of this is child abduction and child sexual assault, the rates for which have basically fallen off a cliff since the 70's all while coverage and concern has constantly ramped up. Then we wonder why children grow up to lack independence or the ability to handle problems on their own. They've been prohibited from having any independence for at least 20 years because of this unjustified hysteria.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:19 PM
2

Any New Zealanders know whether this would hold up to a challenge in the higher courts there? I know it wouldn't in Canada and the U.S as the burden is on the state as a requirement.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:15 PM
5

That's still kind of irrelevant. People are entitled to their preferences, and should expect to be subject to them. The problem here is that this girl thinks it's fine to have specific preferences about height but be exempt from other's preferences. She also seems to think that one preference is fine, but another even more justified preference is a form of hatred towards women.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:06 PM
2

It's also not elective in most cases. It's a fairly invasive, high risk surgery and most doctors will not perform such a procedure if you're a healthy individual simply because you want to be taller.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:03 PM
1

I posted it to the USB sub and pulled it down as soon as the mod here (you I guess) pointed out it was a fake. I doubt r/the_donald is going to take it down or mark it fake, but hopefully they will.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 08:15 AM
4

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the response.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 08:08 AM
1

Ahh. Thanks for the info. Good work!
/r/MensRights29/04/17 08:08 AM
1

What happened that it needed to be revived? What's the saga of r/pussypass?
/r/MensRights29/04/17 07:57 AM
9

That's really not very true. You are totally fucked if you're a fat man without some kind of status generally. I don't think we need a body positive movement for either sex though, it's just dumb and you don't build confidence by telling people they're wonderful for no reason.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 07:55 AM
3

Shouldn't you just delete this post then? No sense it leaving fabricated information up.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 07:49 AM
1

It's pretty much spelled out in the email why they don't want that.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 07:26 AM
4

On the bright side the push back against feminisms oversteps aren't ideological or organized. It would be difficult for the same kind of ideology driven revenge to occur. It's possible and it should be avoided because that's the best way to move forward, but it seems like a long shot at least at the moment.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 05:31 AM
6

It's probably an unrealistic fear considering how almost nothing is done even when these kinds of accusations are caught on tape, but an overreaction like the one that's victimizing men accused of sexual assault right now isn't good either. It would be good to avoid an over-correction. I don't want to see genuine victims revictimized anymore than I want to see these college students victimized.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 03:25 AM
2

Can you explain what happened?
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:45 AM
6

So basically this guy is just a fucking loser and he, like everyone else, is blaming the world for his problems. Like for christ sake if you're in your 30's and you're less interesting than you were in your 20's, that's on you, and it's not normal at all. Clean yourself up, lose a few pounds and get your fucking shit together.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:41 AM
1

There are even layers on top of that. When it comes to trans issues which feminism has lots to say on, gender becomes innate and not cultural. This of course isn't considered true for everyone else (though a strict determinist view objectively doesn't hold water either), for them gender is entirely a social construct, even sex is a social construct in the opinion of many. All that said, we're essentially talking about a religion here so expecting some logical consistency isn't really reasonable …
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:37 AM
11

That wouldn't be enough for this person, he wants to employ a philosophical measure of truth that can't reasonably met in day to day life or even by the courts.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:32 AM
16

By your standard there is no such thing as "provable". There is nothing to even respond to there as I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of the existence of the entire criminal justice system.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:31 AM
25

The standards of the criminal courts seem sufficient.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 11:58 PM
1

While the current system is pretty absurd and needs reform, there is no simple answer to this problem and abolishing child support entirely isn't a solution either. There are deadbeat dads and deadbeat moms and there are a variety of situations where personal choice and stupidity were not the primary factors. Like any welfare there are those that abuse the system and those that are good people who deserve assistance. The best we can do frankly is make a fair system that respects the rights of ev…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 09:54 PM
20

Ugh, the article comments section, which has 321 comments as of right now at 5:45pm eastern time.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 09:45 PM
71

Sometimes certainly, but that gets very sticky as ethically it should only be done if it's a provably false or malicious claim, which isn't necessarily true if you're suing the college. Many of these cases are brought against colleges for not providing proper protections or procedural fairness to students accused of sexual assault. Meaning that their guilt or innocence isn't entirely relevant to the success of their case against the college. So you can't just transpose all of these cases onto th…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 09:18 PM
23

So many apologists in the comments section.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 08:33 PM
1

That's not my point. My point is that as much as they deserve to be the victims of their own creations, it necessarily means that we have to live in a world where these creations exist and if it comes down to it, I'd rather not see these idiots victimized if it meant that due process and reasonable protections and laws existed that prevented that. Again, like my original remark, the rules that apply to my enemies apply to me, so I want them to be protected from injustice as well.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 12:02 PM
1

Of course, but I hope it doesn't, because I don't want to live in that world just to see cosmic justice.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 10:55 AM
2

Presumably because this is so clearly a violation of a number of rights, this will not stand up to challenges. Hopefully there are some activist lawyers in PA with a war chest willing to take this to the higher courts and have it overturned.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:31 AM
3

The irony of any group that tries to erode such protections is that they erode them for themselves as well. Any protection you're unwilling to extend to your enemy is unavailable to yourself, which is a good thing to keep in mind whenever discussing these subjects.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:27 AM
1

Only at trial. The reality is though that an anonymous report of a crime like sexual assault is totally worthless and can't even be investigated so this is a pointless exercise. Now if this were something that resulted in a kind of summary judgement like on a University campus, it could be a real problem, but criminal complaints where the only evidence is a witness can't even be investigated without the cooperation of said witness so unless they are willing to give up their anonymity, it's a poi…
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:26 AM
0

If the person is unconscious it's rape. The standard is "incapacitated" but otherwise yes, all your points remain.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:08 AM
3

That's just not true! This is total bullshit both from Biden and OP. There is no jurisdiction in the first world that criminalizes sex while under the influence. The standard is incapacitation which is not the same as "drunk".
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:07 AM
5

Jurors heard she had knifed Mr Rayner twice before - but acquitted Ms Hart-Browne of murder at the Old Bailey today after deliberating for 14 hours and 55 minutes. And yet the jury believed that this was a violent struggle where he was the aggressor? Outrageous.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 04:05 AM
7

This is actually illegal in a lot of places.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 03:58 AM
3

All you need these days is a couple of trumped up tweets and you have enough to create outrage. I see this kind of nonsense all the time and I'm certain that on some occasion even the handful of tweets are from accounts created by the writer, not that 5 tweets would have meaning if they were real, but the lengths that people will go to for outrage bait knows no limits.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:47 AM
2

Okay so I miraculously found an article that addresses this specifically because your link only refers to age of consent, which is 17, and that's standard throughout the western world. You can't have a sexual relationship with someone under your care or authority even if they're of age of consent, but that only ever extends to the age of 18 at which point they're legal adults and all bets are off. However, in Texas, and only Texas, they extended the age to 20 in 2003 under new legislation, but i…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:42 AM
1

This is almost certainly not true if he's 18 or older. These kinds of laws usually apply when the age of consent is 16 and exceptions are added for instances where a guardian, or authority figure are involved. But that's no longer the case at 18. You can't criminalize sex between a mentally healthy adult and another adult, even if they have authority over them, it would never hold up in the higher courts and unless you can cite this, I find it highly suspect.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 04:51 AM
3

I'm 99% sure that this stops applying at the age of 18, as is the case almost everywhere in the first world. The age of consent is generally 16, and the exceptions are, bosses, teachers, coaches, people in positions of authority. After 18, you're a legal adult and a law like this wouldn't last beyond a single appeal. Edit: Shockingly this is true, but only to the age of 20 and it only applies to primary and secondary students. There is also only one prosecution I can find involving an 18 year ol…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 04:46 AM
2

That does seem unlikely in a 30 year old sexual assault case though. It's almost questionable that any court would hear such a case without considerable evidence of guilt,but they often do anyway. It can't be assumed that there was physically evidence or compelling third party testimony in other words. Like a cold case murder trial would almost certainly have overwhelming evidence if it went to trial for example. But mere accusations are prosecuted in Canada, U.K and Australia all the time despi…
/r/MensRights24/04/17 06:23 PM
9

Let's assume for the sake of argument he was genuinely innocent. In what way would his behavior be different? Would he need to show remorse? Would he not have good reason to claim the accusations are fabricated? Furthermore, one is not required to put up a defense at all, the burden is on the state. Also, how does one prove that 30 year old allegations are false? It's definitely not slanderous to defend ones innocence with or without proof. Now this guy may be very guilty, I'm not familiar with …
/r/MensRights24/04/17 06:17 PM
-1

That's sort of moot and it's difficult if not impossible to prove. Alternatively, making the same statement about the individual accuser is not unprovable and isn't that controversial. The issue is really his generalising.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 03:28 PM
4

That's a misrepresentation. He suggested that women in general are especially good liars. Lawyers accuse people of lying every day, that's not why people are pissed off.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 12:15 AM
1

Fair enough, that part was edited out of all the other clips I could find. He's clearly wrong to an extent, at least about the views of MGTOW in regards to women. There are certainly some extreme MGTOW that generally just fear women as people. But in my experience most fear the laws and aspects of culture which favour women at their expense. So Peterson's conclusions aren't wrong based on the information he's starting with, but his starting point is pretty far off the mark. Well, this is a guy w…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 06:20 AM
1

Seems to me that there is a context here; in the video above, he's speaking, not generally, but in the context of MGTOW. The clip that's circulating and being commented on makes absolutely no reference to MGTOW at all. Please direct me to Peterson's mention of MGTOW. Peterson displays a basic misunderstanding of their position It's not at all clear that his remarks are in any way intended to address the MGTOW position in the first place. his perception of a slight to "all women" excites his inne…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 06:04 AM
1

Opinion isn't journalism anyway. No rigour or investigation was needed to stop this from being published. Nobody was hoodwinked. If you submitted an article that argued that blacks should be rounded up and gassed you wouldn't need to vet the writer or the opinion to know that that's a racist and backward opinion. Like "yup, this guy is legit, here's his degree and past work, let's publish this article promoting the abuse and murder of black people".
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:28 AM
1

The Sokal hoax is interesting, but it's fundamentally different. Sokal was trying to dupe a journal by making his submission unintelligible nonsense, to prove that the standards of rigour within many social science journals are poor and that post modern language is largely meaningless nonsense nobody really understands. In this case, there is a clear opinion, it's clearly articulated, it's bigoted and racist and the Huffpo wasn't just too lazy or stupid not to publish it, they published it becau…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:24 AM
2

Yeah it's insanity. The guy who submitted an overtly racist article he absolutely did not agree with in order to highlight the racism in the media is fired. Not the people who thought this article was valid and reasonable and endorsed its contents by publishing it. Basically this guy was forced to resign because he's against racism.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:21 AM
1

Educated professionals as of late don't have a better record. And how were they trolled? It's not like they were tricked into agreeing with the opinions espoused in the article. They did that freely and without coercion.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:19 AM
1

Well it is real in all the ways that matter. It was an opinion piece, they published it, it's irrelevant that the writer was insincere, Huffpo wasn't and the writer didn't concoct facts or stories, he concocted an opinion. This can't be treated like falling for false information or a fake news story. It's opinion. Edit: It's like if I wrote an article saying "we should kill the Jews". My sincerity isn't important, publication clearly indicates that the editor thinks that view is worthy of public…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:13 AM
1

I am confused as to how one "falls for" a stupid and bigoted opinion. If a guy walks up to you in the street and says, "black people should be rounded up and murdered" and your reaction is "yes, for sure" you didn't "fall for it" if it turns out that guy was joking. This is not like cooking up a news story and sources. This is an absurd opinion that Huffpo editors evidently agreed with, it's irrelevant whether or not the writer was sincere.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:10 AM
1

That analysis was the basis for denying the right to vote, so in effect it's an open defence of those conclusions, which is what they were defending in their second article.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:08 AM
1

It's not really a troll though. It's satire, but it's an opinion piece that passed editorial muster. Had it not been satire it still would have been published. It's quite clear that the editor of Huffpo thinks this opinion is valid and worthy of publication. They're acting like they were hoodwinked, but they weren't, it's not like someone cooked up a story and sources, they just wrote an absurd opinion.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:06 AM
2

Well they were tricked, but only in the sense that they believed the article wasn't satire. It's 100% their fault that they published such an absurd and bigoted article. If it was a genuine opinion, how would it be any better and how would they have treated it differently? They wouldn't have, they agreed with the content of the fake article and they published it as a genuine and valid opinion despite being deeply prejudiced and bigoted. Voting is probably the most fundamental right, and to promo…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 05:04 AM
3

Israel from the looks of the alphabet. Edit: Also the yamulkahs and the Israeli flag kind of give it away.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:57 AM
5

I think that this is being misinterpreted and the context is being ignored. Peterson is saying generally that if you think there is something wrong with all women, you're wrong, and the problem may be with you, since it's an obvious truth that not all women are bad. This is absolutely true if your reasoning for avoiding women is that they're all bad. Conversely, MGTOW aren't really saying that women are bad, they're saying that the law empowers the one's that are bad, to abuse men with impunity.…
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:53 AM
5

I'm not on board with this. The problem with changing the term to "sexual assault" which is what we have in Canada and many countries in Europe is that as a term it draws no distinction between groping and violent rape. Obviously both are wrong, but this is regularly used as a tool in the media and by activists to misrepresent the issue or a specific crime that has grabbed the public interest. Very frequently the degree (first, second, third) is omitted from media stories and it's almost always …
/r/MensRights22/04/17 04:31 AM
6

I agree, but he was decent in the film.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 08:01 AM
9

that feminists have been pushing lately. Lately being the last like 45 fucking years. And they were largely successful like 35 years ago. But unless everyone is on board with talking about menstruation in any context, the fight hasn't been won. Ignoring of course that stigma or no, it's a unpleasant bodily function not unlike shitting, which is also not something discusses seriously in a great many contexts, yet nobody is ashamed of taking a dump.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:22 AM
4

Many women love sucking dick, just like many men love eating pussy. It's not a chore and nobody is forcing anyone to participate. I can think of a million reasons not to lick an asshole, and yet it's a fairly popular activity. Cosmo seems to not understand the purpose of sex and why people do it.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:20 AM
3

The figures for male deaths, a considerable percentage of which is made up of young boys, is somewhere well north of 10,000 in the last few years. Not that the media has bothered mentioning it.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:18 AM
8

Their reasoning is silly. What if a documentary included interviews with Hitler? Would it therefore be illegitimate? Because that's essentially their claim in regards to Elam. That because he was interviewed, and he's awful in their view, the film itself is harmful. That willfully ignores context and the message of the film. Evidently Australia, which has public universities, needs to appeal the power of universities to censor speech in the higher courts. Canada did this years ago precisely beca…
/r/MensRights21/04/17 07:16 AM
1

That's great, im just saying that the tens of thousands of members of the media and millions on social media that pass around English language articles or republish them, don't do that for foreign language articles for the most part. So the filter is less fine and things will be missed in the English press.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 09:57 PM
12

Yep, we don't hear much about it though. Probably the language barrier. It's more difficult to report on stories that need to be translated to be understood by the English speaking public.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 09:12 AM
3

If there were no harms to the production of child pornography it wouldn't be illegal. It doesn't matter how old you are when you're watching it, watching it still contributes to the exploitation of children which is largely why it's a crime in the first place (there are some exceptions). A better example of what you're talking about are cases where there objectively was no exploitation or risk of exploitation at all. Like when teens are charged with possessing child pornography for having nudes …
/r/MensRights20/04/17 05:14 AM
2

I agree. As much as none of this should have been happening in the first place, it is legal and you're not negligent just because what you're doing is unnecessary and stupid. One could argue that anyone who puts their health at risk for any elective procedure is negligent. But that's not how the law views it, so I agree with this decision, I just wish they'd outlaw this nonsense already.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 05:10 AM
3

It's clearly satirical. How is that lost on you?
/r/MensRights20/04/17 03:05 AM
1

Democracy is irrelevant to constitutional issues for the most part. The USSC has ruled that criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional, it should be a settled issue in the law (which it is for the most part). Unless the population of the U.S want's to vote for a constitutional amendment that would alter the interpretation that produced the Roe V Wade decision, it doesn't matter how many people think abortion should be illegal. Frankly nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or perform and ab…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:27 AM
1

I agree. There is absolutely no reason why one can't acknowledge that some states are constantly attempting to limit access to abortion while also acknowledging that men's issues are important or that generally speaking, abortion rights are a settled issue in most western nations and most U.S states. I think one of the issues with the abortion debate in the U.S as it relates to feminism is that the rhetoric is often way too general and over the top. If Mississippi wants to restrict abortion acce…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:04 AM
1

This is true, and in the U.S there are all sorts of attempted work arounds for Roe V Wade that don't outlaw the procedure but make it difficult to get or criminalize unsettled aspects of the laws around abortion. However, this is still a talking point among feminists in Canada and all over Europe where abortion is legal, unchallenged and paid for by socialized medicine. This is one of those issues that will be beaten like a dead horse regardless of its legality, availability or cost. Much like t…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:57 AM
1

Which they also have in most western countries, just not the U.S, a country that doesn't have socialized medicine. If it did, it wouldn't be an issue, it would be paid for like any other procedure through taxes.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:53 AM
2

This says less about politicians and more about society in general that he would even think this was okay to turn into the butt of a joke. Politicians are frequently charlatans that say whatever they have to to get elected. Apparently making light of suicide is something enough of society is okay with that he not only said it, but got applause for it.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:49 AM
1

Nobody is arguing that date rape doesn't happen, it certainly does (though drugging is involved in only a small minority of cases). The issue I have personally with this, is that for one thing, it solves nothing. If someone was too scared to mention their concern to a bartender, to a friend through text, the authorities, then a code word that means the same thing as their concern isn't going to be any different in terms of outcome. The other issue is that it's infantilizing in that it suggests w…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:45 AM
10

The sign says "do you feel unsafe or even just a bit weird". It doesn't say, "do you suspect you've been drugged by your date". This is just a bunch of fucking infantilizing nonsense. If you feel a "bit weird" on a first date, you're part of the human race, not under threat.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 08:22 PM
2

"See what happens if you say no" That is threatening yes, and it's also not something that is said to women routinely for refusing advances. Like where do you think you live that this is the typical response to refusing an advance? Do you live in the Congo? Because this just isn't happening in the first world with any regularity. You're just spreading bullshit to justify your hysterics.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 07:46 PM
3

Not that this is like, hard evidence. Just a collection of news stories. Firstly, these are partners killing partners, which of course happens, but that's a far cry from murdering someone for refusing your advances, which may happen on occasion, but is not at all common. You're talking out your ass here. You're right, I exaggerated. My friends don't get threatened with rape or murder. It's usually rape or physical assault. No, they don't. This is a complete lie. Unless you spend your evenings in…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 07:32 PM
3

You know, women get killed all the fucking time for rejecting men's romantic/ sexual advances. Citation needed. they usually get threatened with rape or murder Bullshit and given how many times I've heard my women friends get threatened with rape or murder Total bullshit. "woman killed after rejecting man" brings up tons of news stories from just the last 24 months It doesn't actually.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 06:37 PM
3

I'm also atheist, as is a considerable portion of the western world. However easter and Christmas are largely secular holidays at this point with secular traditions that are completely separate from Christianity and the idea that we should shirk these traditions because of their association with religion is just crazy. May as well stop listening to classical music or enjoying renaissance art while we're at it if that's how we're going to go about things.
/r/MensRights17/04/17 06:05 AM
41

This is a bullshit idea for both men and women. We live in the first world, it's remarkably safe, and it's a bad date not a kidnapping. You can ask for help, text someone, call law enforcement or just generally yell for help if you're actually at risk of harm. If you're in such a situation where you can get out of it by ordering a special drink in a fucking room full of other people, you were never in any significant harm to begin with. This is infantilizing, fear mongering nonsense that is equi…
/r/MensRights17/04/17 06:00 AM
2

If people in the future will be protected cars must simply removed from the collection sites and city centers. It is not reasonable for a big truck can be driven right into Stockholm's popular walking street on a Friday afternoon just before Easter. Politicians have been good at protecting themselves, but now they must also ensure citizens' needs for secure environments. Direct quote from google translate. The rest of the article mostly makes the argument that safety is the issue and that cars h…
/r/MensRights13/04/17 11:56 AM
2

Sweden is just going to burn itself to the ground if it keeps on heading this direction. They're at the point where they can't be satirized. Home of "gender equal snow removal" (read: female prioritized ploughing that shuts down the country's capital), "Manspreading", "the world's first men's rape crisis centre" (Ie Sweden finally allowed men into a rape crisis centre and though that was very high minded of themselves), completely open borders for anyone claiming refugee status (this includes 45…
/r/MensRights13/04/17 11:50 AM
3

He was being charged with assault, not a sex crime. There is really no place in the first world that has a statute of limitation on assault or murder. That said, those charges were quite clearly motivated by public opinion. The crown had a weak case, they failed to prove it, and they dropped other charges a few months later, likely because they figured they had a losing case the second time around.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 11:50 AM
2

Yeah but laymen haven't been corrupted by the system either. These people have been in the "game" for a long time and bending ethics becomes the norm. I doubt if they ever really think what they're doing is wrong. In other words, I don't think these people are charlatans.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:47 AM
2

I wonder how many ever really practiced law though. It seems that most became lawyers and then immediately went into some kind of political field rather than actually working as lawyers.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:26 AM
7

If anything ever needed an archive link, it's Slate. http://archive.is/XUcjP
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:25 AM
3

Those kind of lefties are a minority and the rest of us are furious with them over people always lumping us in with them. This is true, but I feel like anytime this is mentioned it's like an ethical requirement to mention that even though SJW types are a minority and most of the left of centre hates them, they do absolutely have solid representation in institutions, government and the media and despite being a minority have a great deal of influence. Like radical feminism is a minority position,…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 10:21 AM
1

the precedent is likely to be that either wage negotiations will become a thing of the past This will never happen in practice, it's too antithetical to market forces. If they won't negotiate pay, the best candidates will go somewhere that will or they'll jump ship every time they want a raise beyond what's being offered. This already happens to an extent because switching companies offers bigger bumps in pay than raises, but it will happen a hell of a lot more if policy dictates no negotiation.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 09:01 AM
5

...in the U.S. There aren't statutes of limitations on sex crimes everywhere. Certainly not in Canada or the U.K. It's a bit insane IMO given the fact that it's incredibly difficult to try a recent case because there is usually no physical evidence and no witnesses other than the alleged victim and the accused. I can't imagine there is any sense in pursuing a 20 year old case of this nature. I know it happens in the U.K. I can't think of any from Canada though, so maybe the crown generally agree…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:58 AM
3

Frankly I don't think his hyperbole accomplishes anything. He's got the winning argument by a mile on this subject, there is no need to make hyperbolic statements, they just diminish his position. It's clearly not illegal even though is should be, and the office is not a crime scene even though in a just world, it would be. There is absolutely no moral, ethical or medical justification for elective circumcision of babies, being opposed to it is a very strong position to begin with and he's be be…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:52 AM
1

For the vast majority of the first world such a fear is equally unjustified for men, despite being the vast majority of victims. The western world is a remarkably safe place and outside of a few high crime areas, you can generally walk around unmolested. Now in those higher crime areas however, you better watch the fuck out if you're a guy. I grew up in a bad area and as soon as it's dark out there are people who will try and start fights because you glanced in their direction from across the ro…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:46 AM
1

There is one long thread about women's fear in public. This one drives me absolutely nuts every time it's brought up. It is a fact that women are far less likely to be victims of violence in public than men. It's been true since they started collecting data on the subject. The only reason that women have this fear is because activists and the media have essentially fear-mongered for decades about it. It's not a rational fear, even for men unless you're in a very high crime area and rather than s…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:42 AM
3

That's not necessarily true, but they certainly have considerable representation in the media and politics whereas racists generally have little if any (which is how it should be).
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:28 AM
2

No side of the spectrum has a monopoly on intolerance or arrogance or smugness or anything else.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 08:27 AM
1

If by that you mean he'd be arrested, you're probably right, there is a very good chance of that.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 07:01 AM
1

There wouldn't be charges with this video as evidence regardless of how he punched her. There would be calls for it in the press no doubt, but you absolutely couldn't get this to trial and if you did you'd lose.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 06:04 AM
-7

You won't go to jail if she is assaulting you on camera first. His name would have probably been dragged through the press but no D.A would waste their time trying to get a conviction and I'd be surprised if any judge would let this get past the hearing stage.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 06:03 AM
1

I'm pretty sure if he turned around and decked her toward the end that there wouldn't likely be any real consequences. Had he reacted after the first 10 shots though they'd be calling for his head for no justifiable reason.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 06:01 AM
0

There are socialization benefits to school in addition to the education benefits. I certainly wouldn't say that home schooling is really a decent replacement for public education.
/r/MensRights07/04/17 12:54 AM
2

The judge's logic here is extremely flawed. Most of the first world doesn't fine for truancy and parents are able to take their kids out of school for a holiday if they so choose and all hell has not broken loose. This slippery slope claim is bunk.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 08:40 PM
7

It didn't fail so much as society changed dramatically around it. We need to find a new norm that encourages some aspects of domestic and family life so that our birth rate doesn't drop through the floor, while not allowing such encouragement to turn into expectation or requirement. Currently, in the push against traditionalism we have a very low birth rate, very high rates of divorce and more and more women are having children later in life, if at all, which isn't good ultimately for them or th…
/r/MensRights06/04/17 07:32 AM
13

The whole thing is clearly an endorsement of traditionalism.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 11:51 PM
6

I don't see a way he would have to pay her. And yet such craziness can and does happen, despite all sense and reason. This should be an open and shut case, but it's not, which is a testament to the total shit show that is family law.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 11:45 PM
4

Similar situations have arisen and men have been taken to court over them. There is one case in the U.K where 20 years after a divorce a woman sued her husband because he had grown his wealth to something like 60 million. The worst part is that despite the fact that he was left destitute by the divorce, she still feels entitled to the earnings of his new life. Edit: correction, 30 years after divorce. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-aft…
/r/MensRights05/04/17 11:35 PM
3

I think they've proven to be such a farce in the U.S that they're unlikely to spread much in the next few years. I don't think any university would invite this kind of trouble upon themselves given the track record. As awful as these institutions can be, they still care about their own self preservation and handling criminal issues internally has created tens of millions in legal costs and payouts on both sides. You get sued by falsely accused men and any female student that feels their criminal…
/r/MensRights05/04/17 11:28 AM
9

This is the point where a lot of people kill themselves.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 06:49 AM
9

Well god forbid they think anyone has any agency or personal responsibility even after they've consumed alcohol. Of course men's agency increases with alcohol consumption according to the folks who wrote this survey. This whole way of thinking is so regressive it's unbelievable. This is exactly the kind of hypoagency, paternalistic nonsense that the women's lib movement fought on campus in the 60's and 70's and here we are a hair's breath away from bringing back chaperones, curfews and no men in…
/r/MensRights04/04/17 08:09 PM
5

Those are at least questions that are fairly straight forward and understandable and difficult to completely misrepresent later. The rest of them are unclear, highly suspect, and completely irrelevant to any negative qualities. So what if you were super competitive? How does that translate into any anti-social behaviour or behaviour that should be discouraged?
/r/MensRights04/04/17 08:04 PM
9

That seems pretty clear. I would encourage everyone on campus to refuse to fill this out. This is a terrible survey that is clearly designed to malign those that fill it out. If that weren't the case they'd be honest about what it was they were asking, but instead they use clearly misleading answers which they will then misrepresent to present frats as rapist colonies.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 07:58 PM
7

So are they planning to link competitiveness with sexual violence or some other negative trait, because they clearly have a bone to pick with wanting to win. Also, the questions about violence are so vague and without context they can't be answered without being misused later on. Of course violence is sometimes justified, and of course anyone might theoretically be okay with engaging in violence if it were justified. It's pretty clear though that they're going to completely misrepresent any answ…
/r/MensRights04/04/17 07:56 PM
7

Other than the second response to question 19, is there anything wrong with the other 3 responses? If you get drunk and have sex and then don't remember it, that's your responsibility, not anyone else's. The implication here seems to be that black out = incapacitated which isn't true at all and very often people who are black out drunk don't appear to be particularly drunk at all let alone incapacitated. If you have problems with blacking out, you need to take responsibility for that. If a girl …
/r/MensRights04/04/17 07:50 PM
2

That's not true. The SCC made a ruling on the EEA and said that the charter allows for the amelioration of disadvantage, but the EEA's only apply to specific fields and in fields not covered by the EEA, which is many of them, discrimination based on sex, race, religion etc is not legal. The bigger problem IMO with the EEA as legislation is that there is no clock or review built into it, meaning that the legislators either didn't care that if their legislation worked it would become discriminator…
/r/MensRights04/04/17 07:34 PM
2

The employment equity act allows preferential hiring in some fields. Unless it's an in home care position you can not be prevented from applying and must be offered the job if you're the most qualified and meet the requirements. Report this to the labour board.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 08:37 AM
10

Start reporting these incidents to you state or provincial labour board.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 08:35 AM
1

No, not thought police. It's about intent you fucking moron. If someone's intent could lead to harm, they don't actually have to do harm in order to be charged and convicted of a crime. That's how the charge of attempted murder works. In this example, if this woman was essentially molesting the child, even if she didn't do harm, had that escalated, great harm could result. Now I'm done responding to your obtuse, willfully ignorant nonsense.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 09:49 AM
1

Show me where the intent to cuase harm is here. It doesn't have to. What part of that don't you get? A guilty mind is all that's necessary in many crimes. You are just talking out your ass and have no understanding of how the law works.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 07:40 AM
1

It's one measure, but there are countless crimes where no harm is committed necessarily, but the intent was there and therefore it's still a crime. If you attempt to defraud someone and aren't successful, there may be no harm, but it doesn't make it legal.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 07:03 AM
2

Don't use women as a synonym for feminists and ideologues.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 06:45 AM
1

You realize that this is an infant we're talking about right? You also realize that some things do require explicit consent while others don't? We require explicit consent to all sorts of medical procedures but one can implicitly consent to committing a crime or any number of other things. You seem to be under the impression that if anything requires explicit consent then everything should require the same level of consent regardless of context. Basically you should fuck off. You're an idiot, yo…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:56 PM
1

So frame of mind of the supposed PERP determines whether its molesting or not? Intent is the basis of a huge swath of laws. Are you suggesting state of mind is not a significant mitigating factor?
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:51 PM
1

Its about challenging people with mixed up, crazy, SJW-like beliefs. If you think these beliefs are crazy and SJW like you need to have your head examined. And you'll know it's an examination because it will be gentle and for good reason as opposed to having your skull hammered open for the purposes of murder.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:48 PM
2

As far as the law is concerned, babies have absolutely no personal agency. They cannot sign contracts, refuse medical treatment, engage in sexual relationships or even be held responsible for crimes they commit. In terms of mental capacity, we use our common sense, babies clearly do not have the capacity to so much as feed themselves or wipe their own ass, they certainly can't decide whether they want their genitals altered. Is that an acceptable answer to an absolutely stupid fucking question?
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:44 PM
19

Even that's not material as the origin of the word isn't gender specific. Man is humanity and man and a man in this context are two very different things. It's the same as "a man" and "woman". "Woman" is not simply "wo" tossed in front of the term for an individual male. This fucking idiot should have a better understanding etymology if she's going to teach English.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 12:33 PM
1

I think the whole left/right yardstick is stupid. These issues largely come down to authoritarian/liberal. Whether you're left or right, if you live in the first world, chances are that you're liberal. You care about traditional liberal values and you want to see individual liberty and freedom protected. You can be on the right and feel this way, or the left. It's not really material. Most left/right policy concerns the economy and how important individual vs collective rights are.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 02:27 AM
2

I don't think the far right is any less insane, but the media is left and keeps that in check, and most major institutions lean left. The right isn't a big concern in terms of fringe politics becoming mainstream for the most part. The left on the other hand doesn't have any checks and balances, they hold sway in most institutions, particularly the education system as well as the media. This has created a monster where there is no negative feedback on policy from the left that almost nobody agree…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 02:24 AM
1

She also briefly mentioned sex selection in China, and implies that people in China are choosing to have girls. She says the exact opposite actually and condemned sex selective abortion, which is usually used to abort females, especially in China.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 02:21 AM
1

This test is dumb, but the video maker should better understand why before making a video on it.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 04:37 AM
5

No it's not, that's nonsense.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 04:17 AM
10

There's a lot of traditionalism and anti-abortion rhetoric tucked in to this monologue. It's nice to see someone buck the trend, but there's lots to not like.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 03:18 AM
1

Totally missed that, I assumed it was NZ because of the source.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 08:27 PM
2

Most jurisdictions also allow women to anonymously abandon children at drop off centres.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 08:20 PM
1

This is already the law in Canada. Someone's sexual past can't be brought into evidence. I agree with this to an extent because it's usually not relevant (a prostitute can still be rapes for example). But at the same time, placing broad limitations on these kinds of things can also exclude relevant information like past accusations or a history of taking revenge on sexual partners. In Canada the judge does get to decide what's relevant and the rape shield laws are jusy guidelines, but even then,…
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:42 PM
16

Well that was super narcissistic. She posted that for attention, none of it seems genuine.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:28 PM
8

and especially offensive to the African-American community K let's just clear this up. Unless they're referring to immigrants from the Americas, which they're not, these are not "African-Americans". The phrase is dumb anyway, but it's particularly dumb to use in reference to black people living is Oceania.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:11 PM
5

https://web.archive.org/web/20170325190404/http://www.upworthy.com/a-5th-grader-wrote-7-rules-for-talking-to-girls-but-grown-ups-could-learn-from-them-too
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:04 PM
5

The article is not archived properly and all that can be seen is the title.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:01 PM
5

There apparently needs to be a mandatory class in high school that explains due process and the procedures of the justice system to the youth of the west because increasingly people just don't understand why it is that people accused of things aren't just thrown into a spike pit and are instead afforded some protections.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 06:59 PM
2

That's insane. I've been in a surgery theatre before and standards are extremely tight because of the high risk of infection. Operating rooms should be spotless and cleaned top to bottom multiple times a day.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 06:54 PM
1

Perception isn't reality. And I haven't read the paper you're referring to but there is no doubt IMO that constantly highlighting women's issues without context contributes to women's largely false sense of insecurity. Take ads like one that circulated in Canada for instance that stated 1 in 2 women would be victims of violence at some point in their lifetime. This was based on self reported surveys, included pretty much any kind of violence one could imagine, and didn't give rates for men for c…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:22 PM
1

All violent crime committed by someone unknown to the victim is included in that statistic. The rates have dropped significantly throughout the west since the 70's and the gap has maintained. Similarly, men are 3/4's of all homicide victims. There are crimes suffered disproportionately by women, like murder by a partner or sexual assault, but the gap is not nearly as big unless you use activist statistics and ignore what organizations like the CDC and statscan have to say. Nonetheless, plenty of…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:08 PM
1

It's a term without much meaning in regards to men in the workforce. There is no field in which men are paid more for having a penis and the vast majority of the absolute worst jobs are filled by men.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:44 PM
1

I know that. Statistically men are 3 times as likely to be victimized by a stranger and this stat has remained even as crime has fallen.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 03:53 PM
6

Oh bullshit. Female engineers are sought after and overpaid just to fulfill representation targets. There is no fucking way that any firm in the west is hiring male engineers over female engineers if they're more or equally qualified. Take your story to r/thathappened.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:46 AM
2

Because feminists oppose any attempt to improve the lot of men who disproportionately suffer from certain issues. Also because feminist theory is harmful to men. Also because feminist activists routinely mislead in regards to certain problems, like male dv victims, all while falsely claiming men are the primary perpetrators. Or how about attempts by feminists to erode due process for those accused of sexual assault or attempts to erode women's agency in sexual encounters. I could go on all day, …
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:42 AM
4

"Even the newest men on our team get paid more than experienced women due to the glass floor." Feel free to substantiate the existence of this.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:36 AM
2

Feel free to quote the part where men, who are the vast majority and most over-represented, are mentioned.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:33 AM
1

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:31 AM
2

You mean a graphic that even when put in context looks awful. And it sparked outrage because this is typical, it's part of a longstanding trend of ignoring male homeless and highlighting female homeless.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:31 AM
1

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html Excuses.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:28 AM
2

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html There's your context, men are not mentioned.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:28 AM
2

The context doesn't improve anything. http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/05/31/vancouver-homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:27 AM
1

It's not, it's a profile of Vancouver's homelessness problem.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:26 AM
9

There is no additional context. The article simply doubles down on the headline and highlights every demographic except men, who are the majority.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:25 AM
5

In what way is it illegitimate?
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:22 AM
6

How do you figure? Men are far more likely to be victimized by a stranger.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:22 AM
2

If only men were allowed to cry everything would be fixed. /s This is the Michael Kimmel approach and it's nonsense. These issues are made worse by lobbying efforts on behalf of women, usually by feminist organizations. What men need is representation, not to get in touch with their feelings.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:17 AM
25

This is basically a less crude way of blaming patriarchy. These are concrete problems with concrete solutions and the idea that we need to fix society from a feminist perspective in order to increase the number of beds for male homeless is nonsense.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 06:13 AM
1

Sounds like a very slow, indirect system with few protections.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 02:26 AM
1

So the supreme court can't overturn this?
/r/MensRights20/03/17 02:16 AM
2

They're about to be out of the EU. Presumably though, the higher courts in the United Kingdom aren't big fans of eroding due process rights.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 12:30 AM
2

Can this be challenged in the higher courts for subverting due process rights?
/r/MensRights19/03/17 09:06 PM
1

You're an asshole-bot.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 04:00 PM
1

Don't quote me on that, IANAL but I believe that's that case.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 03:59 PM
1

I'd be comfortable speculating that this was a ruling on the principle and not the facts. It seems as if they were deciding that no, it's not okay to award money to spouses and family members for wrongful imprisonment suffered by an individual.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 03:02 PM
2

I'm fairly certain you can cite precedent from other states if there is no precedent in your own jurisdiction and it will inform the decision of the court.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 02:58 PM
3

Which if I understand correctly means (because of the appeals court decision) that this is now precedent.
/r/MensRights18/03/17 11:53 PM
3

Why did the father of Rateah Parsons post a picture of this guy's dick or think it was okay to do so?
/r/MensRights18/03/17 06:21 PM
6

Sure, but this isn't an example of what you're talking about, it's just an article critiquing her skill as a comic.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 01:06 AM
17

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights16/03/17 11:23 PM
2

This is certainly the case in remote parts of Canada. There are some native reserves where the teen suicide rate among men is astronomically high. In those places the rate among women tends to also be elevated, but not to the same degree. As for stats there is some limited data that could be tracked down but the news reports are sufficient as we're talking about communities with a few hundred people that have had 15-20 teen male suicides in the last year. You don't need a statscan report to do t…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 12:41 PM
1

Agreed. If this was a case of an unproven accusation it would be different, but if you walk in on the act itself, there is no question of guilt, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 12:35 PM
46

Her writings are very much a part of academia and are pretty standard for low level gender theory courses. You may not know of her, but her work has been institutionalized.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 09:04 AM
1

The term should never have existed, it's sexist.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 12:44 AM
55

I hate the "x number of girls worldwide don't have access to education" stat. Of the 110 million or so children who have no access to education, about 58 million of them are male. The difference in access to education by gender is slim, very slim. It's evidently not a gendered issue, it's a poverty and development issue. This wouldn't be so irksome if there were wealthy or powerful figures and organizations working on educating boys but there simply aren't and referencing that stat with no conte…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:34 AM
4

It shouldn't really be surprising. There is and has been a concerted attack on men and white people in the media for several years and to a lesser degree, decades. And that's not to say woe is me or that it's such a terrible struggle being white in the first world, but certainly the kind of rhetoric and depictions that have become common have coloured the way people treat other people in regards to race and gender, and not for the better. Ultimately this harms minorities and women as well in tha…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:27 AM
2

To put some perspective on that, we are comparing two of the least likeable people ever to run for public office. You're right, but it's like being the sanest person in group therapy.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:23 AM
2

There is probably some truth to some of that, but you kind went off the deep end with "How dare you prove me wrong when you can't back it up with violence!" I don't think aggressive rhetoric is the same as backing something up with violence.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:20 AM
3

It effects more men in India as well. There likely isn't a country on the planet where women have a higher suicide rate.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:01 AM
9

They are wrong, men commit suicide at twice the rate of women in India.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:01 AM
27

"According to WHO data, the age standardized suicide rate in India is 16.4 per 100,000 for women (6th highest in the world) and 25.8 for men (ranking 22nd)." "The male to female suicide ratio has been about 2:1"
/r/MensRights09/03/17 08:00 AM
6

Both of these make sense. Ladders kill an injure more people than just about any tool or device ever invented, and poor sanitation is one of the number one causes of illness and death on the planet.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 10:07 PM
1

You claimed all trials in Sweden concerning rape are closed door which is very far from the truth. I did not make that claim. I claimed they can be closed door, which is true. which is firstly why they only happen when there is a proven need for closed procedure (you can disagree on this need and I would not fault you for it, I would even agree with you). So there we have it, you're not disagreeing with my actual claim. I disagree that there is such a circumstance that could require, or would ju…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 10:25 AM
1

So there aren't rape shield laws in Sweden? There aren't closed door trials ever? Witnesses never testify in camera? All of those things happen and all are due process concerns. Your entire commenting history is dedicated to disagreeing with unpleasant claims about Sweden's policies and you have not substantiated any of them in any way at all. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 09:53 AM
3

That was never the argument we were having. I'm not engaging further in this discussion with you.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 06:18 AM
1

You make a reasonable argument, I think the difference is that there is something especially heinous about sex crimes and they're more frequently directed at children than most other violent crimes committed by strangers.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 06:18 AM
2

That doesn't need to be the case and that shouldn't be the case IMO. In Canada the list is for law enforcement use only, this is how law enforcement prefers it, and it doesn't seem to be a big problem. There is no reason that the U.S can't follow suit.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:25 AM
5

Profoundly stupid it is.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:10 AM
6

Hahah so because Arizona has additional stipulations the other 12 states don't matter? I sincerely hope you're a troll because if you're not you're a profoundly stupid person.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:04 AM
4

"At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;[109]" And you can fuck right off if you think the only proof of this happening is a police report from 1986. Enjoy this report from Human Rights Watch instead dumbass.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 04:40 AM
6

This is an easy claim to disprove if it were untrue. Feel free to actually reference something to substantiate your incredulity rather than repeatedly disagreeing with everyone based on absolutely nothing.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 04:20 AM
10

Oh sorry, did you miss the part of the article where it stated public urination is a crime that can get you added to the registration 13 states? Not public indecency, which is what public masturbation is, but public urination specifically.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 04:02 AM
7

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offender-and-not-know-it%3famp
/r/MensRights08/03/17 03:12 AM
-1

Because the severity of the crime and the type of victims involved warrant keeping track of past offenders in order to prevent or cease future crimes. Considering that keeping track of someone's address is a very uninvasive measure, it seems justifiable. As for why they should be released in the first place. Only a minority reoffend and it's not just to keep 70% of people in jail to stop the 30% from being dangerous, especially when that danger can be mitigated by keeping track of them uninvasiv…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 03:07 AM
2

In most places the age of consent is still 18 when one partner has authority over the other, or where prostitution or pornography are concerned. So it's very likely that this would be illegal in the U.K as well.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 02:57 AM
-1

There should absolutely be a list, but that doesn't mean that those on it should have their rights restricted for life. But I think the state should have the right to keep track of them in some kind database.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 02:52 AM
25

Yes, actually. There are some examples of people being charged with a sex offence for urinating in public, unless you think drunk 20 something's pissing in an empty park in the dead of night is likely to be public masturbators.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 02:47 AM
1

I am aware. I am suggesting that it shouldn't be that way for the benefit of everyone.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 12:33 AM
1

Then she has to actively pursue a settlement in civil court in most jurisdictions. She wouldn't file for divorce, she would have to bring a claim against you just like you would your neighbour.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 08:00 PM
1

You're being very general. Common law marriage varies quite dramatically from state to state and country to country.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:59 PM
1

It depends on the jurisdiction but if you were taken to court in theory it would be the same as a formal marriage. But from what I can tell reading discussions on cases in Canada, the court generally doesn't view the two as equal in practice and is less willing to enforce the same rules. It's also a lot less common to end up in court in the first place as you don't have a legally binding contract or legal guidelines for separation that require lawyers to get involved. This makes a big difference…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:57 PM
1

Even when that's not the case, and common-law is assumed (as it is in much of Canada and the U.K) when the relationship is dissolved one must actively pursue a settlement in civil court, but it's not required like with legal marriage. This changes things quite a bit in that you never have to actually get a lawyer or break a contract or anything so there is nothing to get the ball rolling and most people just take what's theirs and walk away. Beyond that, the courts generally don't view common la…
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:55 PM
-3

Nonetheless, that was his choice and he should have considered the consequences. It's not like he was sacrificing his career for their children or for her career. He sacrificed nothing, made a dumb choice, got caught cheating and he should get nothing but what he put in, just as women in comparable situations should get nothing but the dissolution of their legal partnership.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 07:51 PM
2

Sadly our society failed to instill in them the respect for and understanding of the importance of the presumption of innocence. Evidently. It's not hard to do either. This is such a fundamental principle and a surprisingly recent one, it's easy to demonstrate what life was like under the power of the state when no due process was afforded, and there are examples in the modern world as well. Look at Nazi Germany or present day Saudi Arabia where brief hearings result in death sentences for made …
/r/MensRights02/03/17 09:07 PM
9

It was a fucking joke, relax asshole.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 08:40 PM
4

Is this like "gender equal snow removal" where women are prioritized at the expense of all men and the basic functions of the nation?
/r/MensRights02/03/17 08:27 PM
3

To me these downsides are temporary. Feminism is mainstream now, but it wasn't at all at the beginning of the women's liberation movement and since then minds have changed, the idea that women should have equality in the law and in society is commonplace. In the case of men's rights, the idea that men could get the short end of the stick is still alien, despite strong evidence to suggest that it's often the case. However, in the last three years this idea has gained momentum and become more wide…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 01:40 AM
8

If anything you could argue that im over optimistic. Which is not fundamentally different than being naive. Not everyone in the feminist movement is a misandrist and believes that men are the oppresors. I never said they all believed that, but feminist theory is now a field of inquiry, it's entrenched in institutions and it's extremely misandrist. Unless feminist theory is ditched altogether, feminism is never going to reform, and I don't think feminist theory is at risk of being ditched any tim…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 10:03 PM
3

Again, I would argue that this is also commonplace. That's not a defence of Buzzfeed, but more of a criticism of genuine news outlets that have adopted clickbait bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 08:15 PM
3

Also she has a boyfriend.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 07:41 PM
2

Iran isn't that dangerous, it's just very backward politically, but their basic bureaucracy, like law enforcement, functions pretty well. So it's not entirely crazy.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 07:40 PM
3

So does every news outlet on the planet, what's your point.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 07:37 PM
11

How do you work with an ideology that is almost from the ground up, designed to view men as oppressors and incapable of being victimized or discriminated against? I think you're being naive.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 07:36 PM
4

Jesus christ, it was a largely meaningless choice in words. You're being ridiculous if you're reading into that.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:28 AM
3

People who work with children are far more likely to sexually assault a child than the general population for instance. Do you really not understand basic statistics? Child care workers as a group, are more likely than the rest of the population, as a group, to abuse children. I.e if there is 1 instance of abuse among 10,000 childcare workers, and 100 instances among the general population of let's say 20,000,000, childcare workers are still statistically more likely to abuse children than the g…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:26 AM
2

you are arguing that since women have access to children (i.e. spend more time with them) that explains why they abuse them more. And similarly, nursing home employees abuse the elderly at a higher rate than the rest of the population. Why is literally every example of this kind of disproportionate access to group X = disproportionate crimes against group X not a good enough reasoning to draw such a conclusion? Nearly all crimes against a specific demographic are effected by how much access the …
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:21 AM
2

If you are correct then this means that daycare workers would also commit the lions share of abuse because: That's a non-sequitur. There are considerable differences in terms of roles and oversight between parents and daycare workers, you're trying to argue that an apples to oranges comparison proves an apples to apples comparison wrong. That doesn't make any sense. Would you also argue that women are inherently more likely to abuse children because they make up the lion's share of daycare worke…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 09:09 AM
3

I'm familiar with that stat, but there is no gender breakdown provided so we don't know what percentage of juvenile prison guards are male and female. So unless we have that data I can't draw much of a conclusion other than that sexual abuse of male children in juvenile facilities is rampant. Conversely, we do know that women are disproportionately caring for children compared to men, so it makes perfect sense that they would be the majority of abusers.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 02:07 AM
5

All this ignores the fact that feminists regularly abuse stats in the way you described when it suits their opinions. So why would I want to participate in the same kind of nonsense? I hope people posting here are pointing this out to them on their forums with as much vigour. I am not sure what this is in reference to. I am not a feminist and I don't post in feminist subs, and if I did, you can bet I'd last about 3 seconds before being banned for criticizing bullshit stats.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 12:10 AM
5

It's not about time alone, it's about who's even around to commit abuse. Men have less access to children and are a much, much smaller percentage of hired caregivers/daycare workers etc. Of course the demographic that has the lions share of access is going to commit the lion's share of abuse. It would take a concerted effort on the part of men to match those stats given the realities. This is akin to saying "prison guards commit 95% of the abuse suffered by inmates, it must be because prison gua…
/r/MensRights28/02/17 09:08 PM
5

I don't because I don't have access to the data, but it wouldn't be surprising to me at all that men commit abuse at a rate proportional to their representation as caregivers.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 09:04 PM
2

Precisely. Additionally, if you have limited access to victims, you're going to commit fewer crimes against them. This is true of just about any crime stat. People who work with children are far more likely to sexually assault a child than the general population for instance.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 09:03 PM
0

The stat you've quoted does not take into account the fact that children are more often in the care of women than men. It is not at all clear that women are more likely than men to abuse children but that more women are in a position to abuse children.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 06:27 PM
0

Children are actually better off in the hands of fathers and husbands than in the hands of their own mothers. That's not what that stat indicates. Women are more likely to be caregivers and therefore more likely to be responsible for abuse. It's certainly worth pointing out to people who think women are incapable of child abuse, they are, but it's not something that at all proves that men would be any less likely to be abusive of children in their care.
/r/MensRights28/02/17 04:48 PM
1

Hey...hey, I wasn't talking about you or suggesting that people don't get gutted in court. I'm saying that if employment is an issue when you have children, dedicating a lot of time to artistic pursuits is not a good idea. It's high risk path that too rarely pays off. It's not a luxury you can afford when you have no job and children to feed.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 09:02 PM
2

but if he had a stable job and income I see nothing wrong with writing. Me neither. I am just kind of taking him at his word and assuming this was written while employment was/is an issue. If not, do whatever. I'm just saying that when you have children to support and aren't employed, artistic pursuits are very much a luxury you don't have.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 02:32 PM
-6

If you're unemployed or underemployed, have kids and legitimately have time to be a poet, you're doing something wrong. You don't just crap out art, it takes a considerable amount of time, which is a pretty big luxury.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 02:18 PM
1

Men had less freedoms 100 years ago too, lets not be too enamoured by the rose tinted view of the past. This is true, but it's not that simple. Women certainly had less access to public life. The main difference though was that for men, this access came at a high price. Sure, you could go run for office or enter the work force or a variety of industries closed off to women, but you were also held responsible for your wife's crimes, debts and for providing for your entire family, not to mention b…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 02:17 PM
1

I think the suggestion (and I'm just speculating) is that the way women were protected from society at the expense of their agency 100 years ago was the right way of doing things because it protected women against male sexuality as they see it. We don't live in that world and the risks of what would have been considered impropriety 100 years ago don't exist in the same way. I can see why you might want to keep sex exclusively within marriage pre-birth control and pre-abortion and why you would t…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 02:09 PM
31

I'm glad that guy took a no nonsense hard line on this because it's not complicated, you just shouldn't electively remove parts of people's bodies without their consent. However, they just made a big fucking joke of this issue for the majority of the video. It's really not funny to throw knives at wieners in the context of a circumcision while making dick jokes about said wieners. The whole thing was in poor taste and I doubt people would see the humour in throwing knives at halved papayas in th…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 01:56 PM
-4

Yes. This fact obviously precedes unemployment. I'm not saying that his unemployment is earned or anything, I'm saying that if you have people to support and employment is an issue, maybe spending any significant amount of time on poetry is misguided.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 01:51 PM
-12

This is very interesting, and I don't know anything about him or mean to insult, but if his story is true, he should maybe choose a more productive line of work than poetry.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 08:55 AM
0

And according to Freedom House Sweden has among the lowest corruption in the world. So apparently our closed door-trials are not affecting it that badly. You evidently don't get it. Closed door trials, in and of themselves allow for potential corruption. Whether it's happened yet or not isn't really all the important since you wouldn't know, because the trials are behind closed doors. And I don't suspect Sweden in general is corrupt, which is what you're arguing against. I am saying that closed …
/r/MensRights23/02/17 10:15 PM
1

Basically the only kind of rape by deception that is recognized is impersonating someone's spouse. Outside of that there is no such thing because it's not reasonable to enforce it. If I pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a devout Muslim woman, that would perhaps be rape too but it's less obvious. It would 100% not be rape. That's absurd.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 09:42 PM
2

Who cares if it's "normal"..? Sweden has been in the fore front of many human rights decisions (e.g. banning beating of children), that was not "normal" either, that's a bullshit argument Well that wasn't my primary argument, but you're arguing against a straw man now. You're comparing the erosion of due process rights to the "progressive" criminalization of a form of abuse. Eroding due process rights is not progressive and there is a reason there is a typical set of rights afforded to people ac…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 09:14 PM
1

At what point does unilaterally changing the nature of the agreed-upon encounter become rape? Probably when it affects the fundamental physical act, which condom use doesn't. You're comparing apples and oranges here. I use this example because it is not merely a matter of degree. Removing a condom mid-coitus is introducing a much greater degree of danger (of STI or unwanted pregnancy) to a sexual encounter than unwanted anal penetration with (presumably) sterile equipment. The charge of rape has…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 08:10 PM
0

the court can decide to have the proceedings behind closed doors if the defendant is a minor, they can also choose to do this in sexual cases because of the potentially embarrassing and distressing nature for the defendant. This isn't normal, and closed door proceedings are the precise opposite of "public". Most countries use publication bans if there are minors or privacy concerns, but the trial is open to the public and media, only names are withheld, and only in the press. The documents from …
/r/MensRights23/02/17 12:52 PM
3

If you give consent under a specific set of circumstances and your partner violates that, then they have violated your consent. No, and do you know why that can't be? Because an infinite list of absurd agreements could be made as conditions of consent and we can't be enforcing these agreements with the criminal courts. By the exact same standard one could reasonably argue that if you lied about having had a drink that you'd be committing rape if not drinking was a condition of consent. You could…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 06:15 AM
19

She continued sleeping with him and having him stay over at her house for like a week after this alleged event even though others made offers for him to stay at their place several times, offers she turned down. Furthermore, it is not rape to not use a condom when it was agreed to. It's wrong, it's unethical, you shouldn't do it, but it's not a fucking crime (or at least it absolutely should not be), let alone rape, that's completely insane. Also, that aspect of this alleged crime is very much i…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 11:52 PM
33

If you were being charged with murder in Sweden you would have normal due process rights; rights and procedures that could be commonly found throughout western justice systems. If you're subject to a rape trial in Sweden however the proceedings are not open to the public (only transcripts at a later date), there are different rules for cross examination and witnesses are afforded a number of rights that they wouldn't normally be afforded in order to protect the due process rights of the accused.…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:50 PM
43

I read the details of the accusations against Assange, they're absurd and he's clearly innocent, at least in the specific case being brought against him. Many have said the motivations are political, and maybe they are, but it seems a lot more likely that the Swedish prosecutors are acting on the deep seeded feminist politics common in the country rather than acting as U.S puppets of some kind. And unsurprisingly Assange isn't rushing to go to Sweden for questioning, if it goes to trial he'll be…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 07:54 PM
28

I don't know too much, but I know the trials aren't public so there is little oversight in that regard, and the definition of sexual assault is insanely broad.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 07:42 PM
5

From the Guardian article on the subject: an incident that the musician was allegedly “left shaken by” and that “will inevitably shape her perception of Cambridge”. . The report goes on to claim that witnesses saw Frasqueri hit the audience member three times. The post says that she felt the incident left her in a position “where her safety and comfort were severely compromised”. Wait a minute here. So she assaulted someone who at no point was a physical threat to her and yet she was "left shake…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 07:11 PM
2

I'm confused about this. So far as I can tell a civil partnership is the same thing as a civil marriage. So are these cases over labels or what?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 06:50 PM
13

I've also previously tweeted the phrase "Kill All Men" or riffed about building a cannon in the desert to fire all men into the sun. There are a few things not taken into account when people criticise me for that (or repeatedly share picture collages of my tweets saying similar as 'evidence' of my violent misandry). The first is that when I've said "Kill All Men", it's usually in direct response to someone who's accused me of hating all men and wanting them to suffer. The joke here isn't that I …
/r/MensRights20/02/17 01:05 PM
2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed http://menssheds.ca/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sheds-for-men-lanark-county-1.3770084
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:58 PM
1

There are also men's sheds that are cropping up all over.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:55 PM
2

So I agree with you that this specific example is of a not entirely positive event. But the criticism made in this article, is very general and justified based on a single example. This I have a problem with. There is nothing wrong with the basic idea of "daddy-daughter" events in and of themselves. There are lots of examples of extreme traditionalism, but also totally benign and positive events that would fit under the same description. To attack all of them based on one example seems absurd.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 08:07 PM
6

She probably paid good money for that terrible haircut. The irony here is that she is calling for male genocide, surely out of some belief that men are privileged and there she is with $400 glasses and probably $600-$800 of ugly but expensive clothing. This woman is upper middle class, bitching about how her life is so hard.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 09:46 AM
1

We need to stop this stupid crap and set some legal guidelines around who can and can not have children. You simply can't. The choice whether to procreate is essentially a fundamental human right, as much as people joke about how it's harder to own a pet, it's not something you can start licensing or putting standards on, at least not in terms of actually bringing a child to term. If you want to create stricter guidelines for care after that point, that's a different story.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 08:38 AM
4

It seems as though you thought that it was productive to the conversation to say that my attitude was regressive and unhelpful Yes: "The man consented to having a child when he had sex with the woman." This is no better than saying "if you didn't want to be pregnant you should have kept your legs closed". even if a woman is already pregnant by his doing This wording illustrates your view on this. Pregnancy is something a man does to a woman apparently. I responded that the man consented to havin…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 10:18 PM
1

And if the parents don't provide for the unintended child, society will have to. This isn't true with adoption or surrender. There are more fit parents in want of a child than there are children available for them to adopt. In the case of single parenthood we run into some potential problems, but I think the data we have over decades would indicate that if fewer supports are provided by the state for single parents, people make different choices. There are currently incentives in any welfare sta…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:45 PM
5

Women consent to the possibility of becoming be a parent when they have sex with a man and forego having an abortion. Except they don't. The law in most jurisdictions allows for nearly unilateral adoption as well as completely unilateral surrender of a child. So at no point in the first 12-15 months from the day of conception does a mother have any real legal obligation to become a parent, even if they opt not to have an abortion. This is not because the law is discriminating against men Yes it …
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:28 PM
11

Women should have absolute authority over their own bodies and should definitely not require anyone else's permission to have an abortion. Similarly, men should be able to choose whether to become a parent, just like women are able to do (and I don't mean abortion). There is precedent for this in that the notification procedures for women giving a child up for adoption are almost non-existent and they also have the option of surrender in most jurisdictions. The man consented to having a child wh…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:43 PM
3

It should only apply to people that actually made some kind of sacrifice. If you're married to a millionaire, have no kids and don't need to keep working, that's not a sacrifice. Similarly, if you had no career, had children with someone wealthy and also had staff to help with children, you didn't exactly give up your dreams for the marital arrangement. Of course there are cases where someone leaves a career to be in the home with children and they shouldn't be kicked to the street with nothing …
/r/MensRights14/02/17 09:35 AM
2

Pizzagate is nonsense.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 06:13 PM
4

What facts? It's all tenuous bullshit stacked on top of other tenuous bullshit. If only one part of it is slightly exaggerated the whole thing falls apart. It's nonsense.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 06:12 PM
1

I hold that people are responsible for their own indoctrination (to a significant degree). I agree. I'm just arguing that the malice that results is usually a product of of the indoctrination/ideology and not setting out to do bad things. Whatever those things end up being are still the responsibility of whoever committed them however. "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 06:57 AM
1

I think we're just talking past one another. I think people who think this way are entirely responsible for the behaviour it creates. I don't excuse their ideology simply because it's presumably well intentioned. I think the same could be said even of fascism. Fascists no doubt think their goal is noble, they're just wrong and do a lot of harm in pursuit of that goal and there is no excuse for it.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 06:40 AM
7

This author needs to keep the dictionary out of reach next time they write an article. That quotation is so needlessly wordy it seems they're making more of an effort to sound poetic than actually convey their thoughts on the subject at hand.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 10:35 PM
1

It's not fake news, jesus, just not great journalism.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 09:04 PM
2

I agree. I don't think we should tell students who they should be having sex with. But that can be done one of two ways. Both by telling students that sexual orientation is entirely binary and fixed, and telling them it's completely untethered from biology and is entirely a product of culture. Neither is supported by science and neither is likely to be true. Including the latter approach in the proposed curriculum is a problem in the same way that the former would be a problem IMO, so I'm glad t…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 08:26 PM
2

The narrator just straight up lied at one point when he said "women on average earn 72 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same type of work". There is no data that suggests that.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 08:17 PM
1

Sure if you're going to indulge their delusions. I don't think I'm doing that at all. But that same train of thought could be used to justify anything. I can't argue there. But the problem with your analogies is that they're outcomes, not motivations, which is what we're talking about. I am not saying that the outcome isn't supremacy or hate directed at men, but that the motivation isn't supremacy, the motivation is a twisted, ideological version of equality that produces the kinds of things we …
/r/MensRights09/02/17 08:06 PM
1

This has nothing to do with men's rights. I disagree. Teaching students that gender is entirely a social construct creates the incorrect impression that any difference between men and women is a product of culture. This is exactly how you end up with upset and activism whenever men and women on average tend toward different things like career choice or field of study. How is censoring ideas you don't like any better than what feminists do to MRAs? The language used in the article is intentionall…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 08:01 PM
2

I don't think it would effect bisexual men in reality. Bisexuality is a "non-binary" sexual identity to be sure, but this is just a part of the proposed curriculum being scrapped, not an actual ban on delivering information to students. There is no reason why bi-sexuality couldn't be discussed, teachers just won't be required to teach sexuality as if it's generally non-binary, which it's not. To me that's the most important issue here. This program was not going to simply discuss the existence o…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:54 PM
1

Not likely. This is just the scrapping of bad, ideological content that was going to be added to the curriculum. This doesn't mean that none of it can be discussed or taught, but that it's not part of a streamlined, enforced curriculum.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:49 PM
1

Yes and no. Gender is unequivocally influenced by biology. But there are also aspects that are cultural. How we dress, how we cut our hair, the kinds of hobbies we view as male/female. What we don't know is anything beyond the obvious as nature and nurture intertwine and are hard to separate at a certain point. As Gad Saad has put it, gender is like a cake, you need flour and eggs, and they are definite parts of the final product but are almost impossible to differentiate in the finished cake. T…
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:46 PM
1

I think the language used is just a product of the bias of the source here. Basically all that's happened is that a highly ideological curriculum on sex and gender has been scrapped. Nobody is being "banned" from teaching anything, they're just not being instructed to teach this specific content or include it in the curriculum.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:41 PM
1

All of which is informed by the belief in patriarchy theory. I'm not at all saying it's okay or excusable, I'm just saying that it's a product of misguided ideology, not a desire for simple supremacy.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:30 PM
1

I think that's correct, but an oversimplification. Patriarchy theory is essentially a world view, so they see this as an attack on equality, which would be true if there was any truth to patriarchy theory. So I don't think these people are opposed to equality, but have a completely twisted view of the world.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 07:00 PM
3

It's not slang and it's not Australian. It's just a word that means the same thing as "whine" or "complain" and it's commonly used in the U.K.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 05:07 PM
5

Different word entirely, pronounced "winj".
/r/MensRights09/02/17 05:39 AM
1

You could compare the children's dna to eachother. Though this would only tell you for certain that one of the children was not her husband's.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 06:08 AM
48

Ignoring the stupidity of the message itself, this is basically abuse porn. It's just a series of women attacking men and it's being portrayed as a positive thing.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 06:34 PM
3

I truly cannot stand Patton Oswalt.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 06:03 PM
1

Citation content can vary depending on the type of source and may include: Book: author(s), book title, publisher, date of publication, and page number(s) if appropriate.[7][8] Journal: author(s), article title, journal title, date of publication, and page number(s). Newspaper: author(s), article title, name of newspaper, section title and page number(s) if desired, date of publication. Web site: author(s), article and publication title where appropriate, as well as a URL, and a date when the si…
/r/MensRights24/01/17 05:32 PM
1

You can start by reading the pink book from 2006 Just an FYI, that's not a citation.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 09:01 AM
1

In Canada, where these complaints are no different, toilet paper, men's razors and most other "staple" hygiene products are also subject to sales tax. Why anyone would feel it makes sense to be outraged about just tampons and pads is beyond me.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 02:12 PM
1

You need make love to those feelings, even if it makes men uncomfortable. … And also, the cool men — the men who are on our side — will understand.” I.e, if you're not okay with dealing with this woman's baggage constantly, you must hate women.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:28 AM
22

Yes, but the point remains, the idea is absurd and her opponent must swallow it because her ideology requires it. Lauren Southern is legally male now, yes, but that doesn't mean it's not absurd nonsense, that's kind of the whole point.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:18 AM
1

I can't remember who the woman was but there is a researcher in the U.S that is trying to figure out how to teach inner city kids "grit" which she claims is the deciding factor in their success. I tend to agree. You need to face and be able to overcome adversity in order to succeed. We can try and alter the world so it's softer, and that's not an entirely ridiculous goal, but the world isn't soft and easy, so in the meantime, people need to be able to deal with it.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:50 AM
1

Haven't even looked have you? The last version was published a couple of years ago. Can't be bothered to read actual party ideology. The whole reason we're even on this topic is because you claimed that the LPC had a policy in the 90's that excluded men from various positions within the party. You haven't cited that claim, and I am not going to go looking for it. And frankly it doesn't matter because it's not currently a policy. This is a straw man. . That was a point. Really? The point was to a…
/r/MensRights17/01/17 02:44 AM
1

You should probably stop commenting on politics beyond a surface level then. Because I'm unwilling to sift through hundreds of pages of party policy that's 30 years old to find proof of a claim you made? Yup, that seems reasonable. Only if you don't understand that political ideas survive their masters and shape the future. If you don't think so, you should go spend more time reading about the political history of Canada. This is a straw man. Have a nice night.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 02:26 AM
1

Gotcha. You're unwilling to read something that can be covered over a couple of lunchbreaks because you're unwilling to take the word of someone who was a voting delegate for them at the time. Yes, I am unwilling to do both of those things, understandably so I would say. But you're willing to spend the time complaining that you don't care. I don't care to argue about what at best would be 30 year old policy that objectively does not exist anymore. Is that crazy to you?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 11:34 PM
0

I'm unwilling to go searching for evidence of a claim that you made, that's now 30 years old and was likely always buried in a 400 page text, if it ever existed at all.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 09:00 PM
1

The only way I can see a high court deciding this isn't legal (which it should be IMO) I wrote that confusingly. I meant that it should be illegal. I don't so much think that with a quilting club or any other small private club; they should be able to elect whoever they want however they want, but despite political parties having largely the same designation, they're of much greater importance and I don't think they should be treated as private organizations in that regard. If so, you're a bigot…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:49 PM
0

That's not a citation and even your description doesn't amount to official policy. In any case I don't really care. I don't agree with the policy, I'm glad none of the federal parties currently have such a policy, and I am disappointed that the leadership of the NDP does and that Trudeau thinks it's acceptable to use race and gender as a measure of merit.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:22 PM
1

You've intentionally misunderstood most of what I said and now you're trying to slander me by calling me a bigot for explaining not my opinion on the matter, but the law's view of it. Go have a dishonest argument with someone else.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:18 PM
1

The only way I can see a high court deciding this isn't legal (which it should be IMO) is if they feel that despite being internal elections, the victor is likely to have major advantages in gaining public office and thus earning money. But if we think of this as a quilting club, the state doesn't give a shit how the quilting club elects a president.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 02:32 PM
1

that employ Canadians and pay wages? If this had anything to do with employment it would not be legal. It doesn't though, it's internal elections for unpaid jobs. The government pays these people a salary if they're elected, not the NDP. I think that the NDP probably believes that being a political party exempts them from a lot of this legislation Probably like 50% of them are lawyers, they know whether or not the specific position is exempt or not, and internal elections of a private organizati…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 12:43 AM
0

I don't agree with the policy in the slightest, but you'll have to cite that policy.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 12:40 AM
1

No federal party has internal policy that excludes any group, including white men on the basis of identity. You're not understanding my comment which mentions both. The NDP put it to an internal vote, it was voted down and did not become part of their policy. The LPC has never even proposed such a policy. However, and this is where there might be confusion. The NDP voted for the gender equity bill in parliament which would essentially require policy like this to be put in place lest they lose su…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:25 PM
1

So yes, they are allowed to have incentives to insure that more women and minorities are hired. BUT they are not allowed to exclude white men entirely, which the ndp is doing here. The NDP A: Isn't covered under any employment equity act of any kind and B: Isn't subject to any other law that might seek to interfere with their internal elections process. Furthermore while you're right, you can't exclude white men entirely, you're reading the wrong thing. The act itself is not that important in th…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 03:38 PM
2

I'm not sure what you're expecting to prove by posting a series of 30 year old opinions based on very little, or biased observations of "primitive" tribes in modern times. These are observations, there is no data. Sexual dimorphism itself suggests quite a different and long lasting form of human existence, and of the primitive tribes we are currently able to observe, the rate of intentional homicide is absolutely, unbelievably high. I'm not claiming that primitive groups necessarily mirrored mor…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:42 AM
12

Canada has a huge female:male education gap and women have equal access to healthcare and use it more frequently. That anyone could claim that women in Canada are disproportionately being denied or failing to access either is absolutely laughable and contrary to all available data on the subject. Ignoring the elementary and secondary performance gaps for example, which also favour women, they're about 66% of college grads, which is a 26% gap; absolutely massive.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:22 AM
8

Primitive hunter-gatherer bands are fiercely egalitarian -- it is their defining ethos This is not so much based on strong evidence, but has been the prevailing opinion among many anthropologists for the last half century. What is well supported by evidence is that as soon as humans formed complex hunter gatherer societies, hierarchies were commonplace. To me, the primitive egalitarian concept is a bit of a fantasy as it runs counter to just about everything we know about human behaviour current…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 03:57 AM
2

Not true. None of the federal parties have a similar policy and the LPC voted down legislation that would punish parties that had less than 45% female candidates. Granted the federal NDP put this same policy to a vote and the LPC used gender and race as a qualification for cabinet. Shit's not good.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 03:16 AM
2

In Canada it's legal under the employment equity acts. It's evidently also legal in other contexts as this is not the only attempt at such a system. The parties are also essentially private members clubs, no law governs their internal election process, though I think there should be some requirement to respect the charter given their importance.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 03:11 AM
3

There are side effects to all vaccinations, people were a little hysterical when this was first being given to girls in schools in Canada and the U.K and of course you're going to hear a few stories when literally millions of people are receiving a vaccine. In reality though it's very safe and side effects are quite unusual. The primary thing is that boys in B.C at least will now be protected from contracting and spreading HPV and their risk of oral and throat cancers will be significantly reduc…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 08:41 AM
8

Or....an increased likelihood of mouth and throat cancers for life. HPV has for several years now been strongly linked to mouth and throat cancers in men. The fringe benefit of vaccinating boys is also herd immunity which can't be achieved if only half the population is receiving vaccination.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 08:39 AM
1

To me it seemed more like he was prefacing with "you could discuss these things...I guess, but I don't think it makes sense here". The rest of his remark was actually in opposition to the very idea that there is some greater context that downplays or excuses or explains this act.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 09:14 PM
1

That's not really what that commentator said. What he said was essentially "sure, there are aspects of our culture worth criticizing, but I don't think if the races of the assailants and victim were different we would even entertain such a discussion because of the horror of the crime committed". Which is very different from what you're suggesting. Now on the other hand, the other commentator, Simone something or other, was doing exactly that and trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth. We…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:32 PM
2

Turns out the guy was an at risk special needs patient. To be honest beyond the horror of this, it would have been only slightly better had this guy been a fully functioning Trump supporter. Like what the fucking fuck makes anyone think that it's okay to do this? And on top of that, so much of the response has been a product of the fact that the guy was special needs as if it wouldn't have been kidnapping and torture no matter who it was or how competent they were.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:23 PM
1

Yes we can, and we should. This should not be a crime simply because it's ridiculously hard to prove and in reality you're going to end up convicting innocent people most of the time. It's a shitty thing to happen, but it's not something that we should make part (or have made part) of the criminal code. There is just way too much risk of this being used to torment exes through the legal system and there is really no way of proving that someone did or didn't consent to having their images posted …
/r/MensRights16/12/16 12:18 PM
2

I don't think banning is the solution. But it's worth acknowledging that something is going on.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 01:39 PM
3

Is atheism an ideology because all atheists don't believe in the factual accuracy of religion? I wouldn't say so. That the MRM almost universally doesn't buy into feminist ideology does not make it an ideology in and of itself. If anything it's my experience that MRAs are opposed to all kinds of ideology on the basis that they're ideological. In any case, the issue I am trying to address is not people with genuine concerns about men's issues who are also feminist. There are lots of those people …
/r/MensRights15/12/16 01:30 PM
15

They're just regurgitating the same textbook nonsense, it's a waste of time and I'm intimately familiar with their ideology as it is.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:46 PM
7

Here's another one from every corner of SRS and AMR https://www.reddit.com/user/SimWebb
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:44 PM
3

Just something to be conscious of. Maybe the mods should give people the heads up with a sticky post.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:23 PM
7

It's beyond that. There are regular posters here from places like SRS. I think there is some concerted effort involved https://www.reddit.com/user/PM_ME_A_FACT
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:14 PM
2

Well congrats. That's a far cry from the policy in place in a great many other places. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/domestic-violence/impacts-of-violence
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:11 PM
8

It's not the odd comment, it's 20-50 in some threads, and while they're being rebutted, demonstrably false feminist theory is being upvoted quite a bit, and frequently, in the very last place you'd expect it to happen. That's suspicious.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:04 PM
18

It's pretty blatant. The concern is the 50-100 others upvoting their comments. The comments in this thread are just crazy. There are "men suffer from the patriarchy" comments with +50 upvotes. That means there's at least double that number voting that up. This is a real issue. Other subs have been usurped by this kind of stuff and basically just destroyed from the inside. I know that sounds paranoid over some commenting trends, but I don't think it is because I keep seeing it over and over and t…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 08:02 PM
1

No it's not. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5i6mz9/interesting/db626zd/ Jesus, this shit is right in the side bar info. It's not hard to find. Studies have been showing parity for like 30 years.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:45 PM
1

Jesus fucking christ, what's happening to this sub that this is being upvoted? This has been addressed so many times. As u/celda has pointed out, there are hundreds of studies showing DV is not a gendered issue. The worst part of this is that these studies have existed for decades. This is not some new information that's been stumbled upon, it's been true for a very long time.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:43 PM
1

This is nothing but feminist apology. Feminist theory itself, even the most universally agreed upon aspects, are detrimental to men and lead to lopsided world views and thus actions. These are the logical conclusions of things like patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:38 PM
4

These are feminist organizations that adhere to the core philosophies of feminist theory, many of which are the reason such opposition exists. Feminism is a world view and that world view shapes the way adherents interpret the world around them and how they address certain issues. Feminist theory is how you end up with things like the Duluth Model. You can't just pretend the ideology and the theoretical underpinnings have no impact on how people who take on the label act or see the world. It's n…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:35 PM
2

The Duluth Model is widely being done away with. Go read the domestic violence policy of your local police or sheriffs office. It uncommon to see it referred to as "the duluth model" but police forces worldwide use models that are in practice almost identical. This is true all over Canada in particular where intervention models are based on power and control theories and assume the male to be the perpetrator. This is textbook Duluth Model nonsense. Calling it something else doesn't mean it's goi…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:31 PM
1

No but it is a little funny. Awful, not the kind of thing we want to be happening in the world, but the headline is a bit of dark humour almost.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/16 02:57 AM
8

This is always how it is whenever they have an avowed feminist on the show. They all give them their opportunity and stay silent, and then the second someone who disagrees with them has their moment they immediately and repeatedly interject.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/16 02:46 AM
2

That's not really clear in this situation actually. There is a clear threat and in many jurisdictions that's enough to justify defensive action. There are lots of cases where crowds like this have surrounded vehicles and banged on windows and then ultimately been run over where the driver was not charged as the crowd posed a threat by any reasonable interpretation.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/16 02:34 AM
22

And of course the news media is just thrilled. Evidently To Kill a Mockingbird needs to be required reading again because nobody seems to understand why violently murdering people based on an accusation is wrong. From other trailers it also appears the show plays on just about every false narrative surrounding sexual assault that exists, including the primary one, that sexual assault on campus is an epidemic. Not that television must accurately reflect reality, but the reviews are positive in la…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 02:23 AM
3

I don't think it's a waste of time. They're a public broadcaster, they don't have the luxury of ignoring complain letters. It's not going to fix the CBC, but it may at least force this show to run a correction or consider their rhetoric next time around.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:34 PM
1

Sure. But typically that's not the reason an archive link is used in this sub. It's used so we don't generate ad revenue for sites that publish nonsense and disparage half the population. If it's being used here just to actually archive for posterity, great. But we should be clicking on the original link and generating traffic for good content for the same reason be avoid doing that for bad content.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 09:06 PM
0

I think you're using a fairly absolute definition of "oppression". The restrictions placed on women in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran to a lesser extent are certainly oppressive. They're not treated like indentured livestock, but nonetheless, their rights are certainly limited in society. As for this study. It's certainly interesting, but it's also a small piece of a puzzle that requires a lot more study to draw any real conclusions from. The "gap" between men and women was measured and the t…
/r/MensRights09/12/16 08:46 PM
3

Why would we want to punish this kind of writing? The media publishes for clicks. This is a valuable piece, let's click.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 08:29 PM
8

It's not impossible, but even in places that truly are patriarchies, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, the oppressor pays a very high price for their status. In many cases they take on the full legal responsibilities of their wife and are wholly responsible as providers. In some cases if they fail to fulfill those roles they are jailed. It's obviously not a fair trade for women in these countries, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it's not quite so simple either.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 08:25 PM
2

TIL Robin Morgan in still alive.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 08:22 PM
14

Close in age exceptions exist for that reason. The typical absolute cut off is 12 or 13 depending on the jurisdiction, but if you had two 12 years olds engaging in sexual activity, neither of them have the capacity to consent so in theory neither should face legal penalty. In reality there are definitely cases where the male party is held responsible simply because he's male.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 02:18 PM
6

Just checked, age of consent is 16 and close in age exceptions don't apply here. I even looked at when the law came into force because it used to be 13 in the U.K. That changed in 2003, which was several years before this all took place. This is statutory rape. The headline is clearly meant to outrage and they're being biased given their reporting on other events where the gender is reversed, but nonetheless, there is some meat to the claims in the article.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 02:16 PM
2

They're not, they're just not infringing on it or discriminating against opinion. The hall is being rented, it's a private event on city property.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 08:25 AM
2

Why do you think that only the government can engage in censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
/r/MensRights03/12/16 08:23 AM
12

Jesus.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 07:50 AM
1

There's a bunch of terrible shit on TRP. The MRM by an large tries to keep its distance precisely because TRP is used to paint the MRM even though there isn't any real relationship between the two. But it certainly doesn't help if we're just going to pretend it's all kosher.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 07:36 AM
2

"One key difference is we have proof of feminisms bullshit, while there is zero proof of anything wrong with MRAs." is objectively and demonstrably false. Obviously. There are plenty of assholes here. I think the argument I would make is that feminism has a lot more power and influence and the worst of the MRM is totally irrelevant, even to the MRM. Assholes also have a hard time holding much sway because there is no real formal structure. Within feminism someone could hold an institutional posi…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:55 AM
4

You can kind of add Jordan Peterson to the list. Even before the bill C-16 issue, he was a strong proponent of a scientifically informed view of sex and gender, which despite being overwhelming supported by empirical study and just common sense, is considered taboo. This tends to touch on men's rights issues in areas of equity or workplace or education discrimination.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:31 AM
1

Not sure why you're being downvoted except for maybe the over generalization. I'm Canadian, censorship is a problem here whether it be legal or voluntary.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:28 AM
2

This was my first thought when I heard about the film. "Oh fuck, why would you call it that, it's already a struggle to disassociate from TRP".
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:26 AM
3

That's a little dishonest. There is a lot of overlap with other subs that nobody would argue are representative of anything let alone the ideological views of men's rights activists. Furthermore, if you're willing to go to TRP, see what the rhetoric is like, and then come back here and watch the same rhetoric get downvoted to hell, you'll see that the crazy misogyny and nonsense is not tolerated here, or generally in men's rights circles. It should also be noted that there isn't much of an ideol…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:22 AM
2

In the case of feminist theory, yes, I do mean academic ideology. All schools of feminism believe that society is patriarchal and that as a result all women are oppressed. There is literally nothing in terms of the interaction between the sexes that isn't considered a product of patriarchy. If women experience privilege and men experience disadvantage in one area, it's still a product of the patriarchy. It's internally inconsistent and has as much value as an explanation as does god in the conte…
/r/MensRights03/12/16 05:56 AM
2

I'm not talking about Marxism as an academic ideology, I'm talking about people who actually believe Marxism is the solution to social ill. Much like many armchair anarchists, the problem, no matter what it is is a product of capitalism. And feel free to poke around feminist ideology. You'll find that there is almost nothing negative that isn't a product of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 04:24 AM
7

The typical interpretation of patriarchy within feminist theory is that all problems that stem from gender of both men and women, are a product of the patriarchy. If you're at all familiar with marxist rhetoric it's very similar in that many marxists just blame every form of human suffering on capitalism. No specific mechanism are really required. It's not much different than a religious view of the devil.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 02:34 AM
15

There are areas that all schools of feminism agree on though, like patriarchy theory, and even that is an oft abused concept that is incompatible with real equality IMO. So I don't see how you can separate the term from some really problematic (hate that word) ideology.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 08:12 PM
2

I agree. But I feel like you may need to read up on McCarthyism as it was a much more acute problem than is feminist academias influence on policy and society.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 07:30 AM
2

Well it's at least as pervasive. But it doesn't have the weight of an out to lunch authoritarian senator behind it or the same level of legal power as McCarthyism did. It's a big problem, I agree, but McCarthyism was a special kind of hysteria.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 07:21 AM
2

It's not good, but McCarthyism was far, far worse, especially in terms of legal rights.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:49 AM
2

It depends. I personally have no qualms with pissing off acquaintances. I'm fine with that so long as I feel like I'm being reasonable. But I remain silent because of the industry I work in is heavily populated by the most extreme of these ideologies and it would put my income in jeopardy potentially. Maybe when I'm more established in a decade I won't give a shit, but at the moment it's a fairly high risk gamble I'm not willing to make. I try and do my part where I can amongst friends in person…
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:36 AM
3

This should have an "np" link or admins may accuse this sub of brigading.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:14 AM
2

I think there are always skeptical or at least unsold people seeing these things. It never fails to surprise me how few people actually agree with this kind of rhetoric and how many disagree and say nothing for fear of the consequences. Hell, I'm one of those people. I don't say anything with my name attached, I just remain silent.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:06 AM
3

As u/iainmf said, you're usually hoping to expose other people to a better argument than the one being presented. You're rarely, if ever, going to convince an ideologue of anything. But you may convince others who haven't already joined the cult and expose them to new information.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:37 AM
1

Exactly. And this isn't going to be accomplished just by being right. You have to do a good job of explaining why you're right in a way that people can relate to and try not to come off as crazy while you do it. I'm not arguing for policing tone, I don't think that's ethical or necessary, but if you come off as unhinged or rambling, you've already lost the battle. Passion or emotion is fine, you don't have to be calm and stick to soft language, but you have to pick apart their claims point by po…
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:35 AM
2

His attitude is so typical for gender studies profs in the public eye. I have to imagine there is a certain uniformity to their behaviour as a result of their education rather than their attitude as people. if physicists all started acting like pricks you'd start to wonder why.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:15 AM
1

And if and when that happens you'll get no objection from me when its posted here.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 12:07 AM
11

Either engage with these people with well laid out logical arguments, or not at all. You kind of flew off the handle and I don't know if you really won the argument.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:56 PM
0

The mods don't have to agree with me, it's their prerogative. And people report things for not relating to this sub or other subs all the time, it's not fascism, it's how you keep a sub on point. Its the reason videos are removed from r/pics for example. I guess in the strictest sense it's censorship but it's not done to conceal information, it's done to keep erroneous content out. I have no problem with this article being highlighted, I just don't think it fits with the theme and purpose of r/m…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:18 PM
2

Feminist theory itself is irredeemably misguided and harmful to society. Ignoring even all of the bad actors doesn't change that. It's an ideology, not just a label. Equal rights for both women and men is at its core 100% salient concept that everyone should fight for Sure, but at no point has "feminism" specifically been a good reflection of that goal. Patriarchy theory is not new. It's been at the core of feminism for nearly a half century and the movement to which you refer fondly, was the wo…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:41 PM
6

Academia in some areas is so far down the rabbit hole that this kind of stuff happens. It's a real problem in areas that effect policy like gender studies, but even things like English go off in this way where they're so many branches removed from the original source that they're debating things and creating arguments about things that have absolutely no relationship to reality. It's just not a problem for all of society when a Shakespeare scholar has completely lost touch, but it's a big proble…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:42 PM
3

Matte is not liked by his students. He's very poorly rated on rate my prof and they're not recent ratings kicked up by this controversy.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:29 PM
1

Or "gender equal snow removal" in Stockholm. Not to mention that Sweden is the home of manspreading and Roks.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 06:46 PM
2

His response was to my remark which included a timeline. At best he's got poor reading comprehension. At worst he's intentionally trying to muddy the discussion.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 06:08 PM
17

Did you just link RAINN as a reliable source for rape stats? http://equalitycanada.com/why-are-so-many-women-raping-boys-research-into-female-perpetrated-sexual-violence/
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:29 AM
8

It's not a binary. I am a left leaning Canadian and I don't think this comment is appropriate. It's one more of thousands that suggest that only men can be perpetrators and need to understand consent and that they can never be victims. Edit: And you want to talk about bias, here's your earlier remark about Trudeau. We need to stop saying the president is the leader of the free world. That is no longer true. Not Trump. The free world won't follow him. Let's elevate the Canadian PM to that title. …
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:52 AM
0

Fucking off? Yeah it's gonna be a bit.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:19 AM
1

It's nice to get credit you know? So thanks for that. Also, this post has no relationship to men's rights issues.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:18 AM
2

I'm fucking off right now. You can't see it, but I'm fucking off good and hard. But while I do that, I think I'll stick around here for a bit.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:15 AM
5

If a single woman commits sexual assault against a man (and it's more like 30+% of all sexual assaults) that would be enough not to gender this statement, and it would have been incredibly easy not to. The problem is that it's also part of a chorus that repeats these kind of statements exclusively directed at men and never at women. Trudeau is his own chorus in the regard. He has made dozens if not hundreds of remarks in this vein.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:14 AM
4

I'm sure he's got one to advise mothers to talk to their daughters so they don't commit sexual assault. That one's comin, I can feel it.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:08 AM
2

Hahaha. "this doesn't have anything to do with men's rights" is a comment left about 20 times a day on various posts. It's an opinion. I hold the opinion that this has no place here as it has no relationship to men's issues. But you should definitely ramp up the rhetoric. Have any more exciting, new, edgy insults?
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:05 AM
2

You're just being a pain in the ass contrarian as usual. And you fuck off, how's that sound?
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:59 AM
0

That's a long stretch. It's mostly just a post about a crime that has little if any relationship to men's rights issues. If and when she gets a light sentence or no charge or the media starts painting her as a victim, I'll be right on board, but none of that is happening as of yet and if we documented every crime committed by a woman against a man, regardless of other details or context, that's all this sub would have space for.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:14 AM
11

I have no idea. It's like stepping into the twilight zone. I haven't been active on here in a while and I come back to "well you know, it is mostly men assaulting women, this is fine" like what the fuck?
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:10 AM
39

Feminism in the last 20 years is largely not a good cause and not only opposes reasonable attempts to rectify long standing inequality for men on certain issues (domestic violence/custody etc), but has essentially led an endless campaign of demonization of men. It's an impossible reality to deny at this point and feminism has become a toxic ideology that harms society at large.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:05 AM
34

Men are about 40% of the victims of sexual assault and women are a not insignificant percentage of perpetrators. Furthermore, it frankly wouldn't matter if that wasn't true, the very existence of female perpetrators and male victims is enough to avoid gendering this kind of statement. Also, where the fuck am I? Did i fall through a wall into r/feminism?
/r/MensRights29/11/16 08:01 AM
17

He could have said "Today, I encourage all parents to take 20 minutes and discuss consent and boundaries with your children". Not very hard. He didn't do that, he gendered it, he made no tweet to address mothers and daughters and his past rhetoric explains why. He is a textbook feminist and he views the world through a feminist lens.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:44 AM
2

Nah, he has always had a tendency to get passionate, even well before this particular issue. I like it personally because there is nothing wrong with passion, but to some it does come across as angry when the content is more controversial. Nobody has a problem with it when it's his lectures on concepts of evil etc.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:37 AM
5

hummm i thought we talk about things the effect men and boys and this is more documentation of the abuse boys go through with their mothers and how mothers feel entitled to their sons lives. No, it's one example of a criminal who's also female. There is no men's right's element to this at all as far as I can see. Her behaviour isn't being excused, she's not yet received some kind of light sentence. Nothing has happened except for that a woman has committed a terrible crime. That happens. It's no…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:32 AM
12

His point of view is well laid out through past rhetoric. I don't think anyone being critical of this tweet is seeing Trudeau or this remark in a vacuum.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:26 AM
60

The statement implies men are A: never victims and B: Always perpetrators. In theory, yes, it's fine to suggest we teach children about boundaries and consent. But this is gendered and if you're waiting for another tweet where he gives the same advice to mothers about daughters, don't hold your breath because it's not coming because Trudeau doesn't see the world that way.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:23 AM
25

He could have easily left gender out of the whole statement if that's what he intended to say. He's not a stupid guy or someone who is unaware of how to speak to the public. Based on his past rhetoric on the subject of women's issues and feminism, he meant exactly what he said and nothing more. Furthermore, I don't think it's "stooping to their level" to criticize a world leader for totally ignoring one half of the population while also treating them as perpetrators. This is a real problem we se…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:20 AM
1

This isn't r/pussypassdenied. This sub doesn't exist to document women behaving badly.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:10 AM
3

Wow they really came out in droves. /s At least it's happening in Parliament.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 02:45 AM
7

Most country's allow reasonable force in self defence. Reasonable is entirely dependent on the situation and can include deadly force.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 05:20 PM
3

I think part of the problem, as with providing reasonable protections for accused rapists, is that nobody wants to take the political risk of appearing to defend pedophiles, so nothing will ever change, and it will likely continue to get worse as again, nobody wants to oppose someone claiming to come down harshly on pedophiles.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 10:49 PM
3

Ignoring the arguments made below which turn fantasy into depiction, mere fantasies which involve pedophelia are one of the few things considered a thought crime in the western world and most countries have mandatory reporting for these kinds of thing. I don't think it's helpful as it likely discourages people with these urges to seek treatment for fear of being arrested, but nonetheless that is the current state of things.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 09:22 PM
1

It's illegal in Canada technically. I don't know if that's enforced but depictions of children engaged in sexual acts or where the primary focus of the imagery is genitalia, is illegal. So presumably that would have to cover things like lolicon and hentai.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 09:20 PM
6

I don't even understand the concern about this. What we know about pedophelia is that it's essentially a product of biology in that a certain percentage of the population will have a preference for children. This of course doesn't mean it should be legal, but if there are ways in which we can limit the impacts of this deviancy on children, we should do that. Sex dolls may be one potential solution. I think most of us find the whole idea quite repulsive, but if you put that visceral response asid…
/r/MensRights25/11/16 09:19 PM
1

It reads very much like the rantings of Hitler.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 04:24 PM
1

I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying that exacting the same horrors inflicted on her victim is't the best way to handle this with a 13 year old.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 02:05 AM
1

I don't think we should for drug use no. But in this case, while the consequences were horrible, the crime was a 13 year old lying. I don't know if anything would be helped, other than to exact revenge, by jailing this girl. Surely there are better avenues for kids.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 01:56 AM
0

I'm not a fan of using the justice system to teach lessons to children unless it's absolutely necessary.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 01:51 AM
11

Can someone explain why there is any need for a semen sample and not just a DNA sample? What additional information would semen contain? Furthermore, why in the hell would they feel the need to put a 12 year old in a jail cell at all? Surely children that age could be kept in an interview room instead.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 12:59 AM
-5

Obviously nothing is to be gained by prosecuting a 13 year old for a false accusation, so I can see why they didn't. But Jesus Christ this was poorly handled.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 12:51 AM
7

We have a lot of important issues and the last time IMD came around it got laughed at by a member of the UK's parliament! So yeah, maybe we're a bit upset. So what? They want to have it both ways. Men's rights activists bring these issues to the fore, bitch endlessly that men's day is mocked, then the media half assedly embraces it and the only people being dicks now are apparently men's rights activists? Typical bullshit. Feminism does the same kind of highjacking the second they realize they c…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 06:14 AM
5

She basically did, I just agreed with her and wasn't at all bothered by it.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 11:58 PM
4

Apex fallacy.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 11:57 PM
8

That's just crazy. Like I'm sure incest happens, but it's also uncommon enough that you should have some pretty compelling evidence before you make such a grand accusation. In my case I'm not even that close to my sister, she just lived near by and every few weeks I'd pop by for an hour and say hi. So the jealousy was just completely irrational.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:32 PM
7

I don't think it is. Just look at the decency with which men are treated by women in more traditional societies or even by older generations. I don't think we need to go back to traditionalism, but somewhere along the line that was tossed out the window and actively hating men became not only accepted, but celebrated. Weirdly, if you look at some of things we often discuss here like working more hours, more dangerous work, male disposability. These are generally things traditional societies and …
/r/MensRights18/11/16 09:00 PM
13

And of course anyone who has any grasp of the current stats knows that the pecking order of success is not top heavy with white men, or any kind of men. Yes, white people have an advantage, probably for historical reasons in most jurisdictions at this point, but women of every race are doing better, by a wide margin on several issues, than their male counterparts and yet the rhetoric of the media and assholes like this woman are willfully blind to that fact. White men are more likely to kill the…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:54 PM
12

"Do you want to be right or do you want to win?" ("being right" mostly meaning imposing your views on everyone). The problem with this is largely that believing you're right and being right are two different things. The far left believes they're absolutely right about their conclusions on subjects that are not at all settled and are entirely up for debate. There is no one solution to immigration or illegal immigration. The make up of gender is not fully known or well understood. Cultural appropr…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:43 PM
17

Number 7 is just more misinformation from what I can tell. I don't know of any men's rights related rhetoric in opposition to men's day.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:23 PM
6

Canada and not Quebec. We're safe on that front.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 07:55 PM
1

They're not taking them and they're generally not pleasant jobs from what I understand. If you're working in the oil industry in labour the winter is absolutely brutal in terms of working conditions and in a lot of cases it requires being away from home for weeks at a time. If you're ever on a plane back from Calgary or Edmonton to Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa you'll usually see a plane load of young Newfie men who leave their families and fly cross country for work. Now the compensation is very …
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:21 PM
28

I dated a girl who got jealous when I went to hang out with my older sister. I dated another girl who apparently was mad that I broke up with her when she wanted to genuinely break up.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 02:14 PM
4

I hate the defence there too. "It is a word that's used". Like so is "nigger", but it's still a pejorative and not something we consider to be acceptable, especially among government officials.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 01:59 PM
2

No, they definitely don't. I'm sure most would be surprised to find out that they are the vast majority of college grads, have greater success in every level of education, and out-earn their male counterparts until they're 35-45 depending on jurisdiction. This is really the biggest part of the problem we have right now in regards to men's issues and the loud shouting of feminism. There is a constant barrage of rhetoric from every corner of society telling women that they are disadvantaged. Very …
/r/MensRights17/11/16 01:52 PM
4

I own a business and I have worked in many small businesses. I think nearly everything in the tax code is a bigger concern for small businesses, or even aspects of the ADA (depending on what we're talking about) are far, far more burdensome than this. We're literally talking about about $150 every maybe 5 years in order to meet the requirements.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 06:30 PM
3

It's not unduly burdensome to business owners and in many jurisdictions they're already required by law to have changing tables in women's bathrooms. I guess you could make a libertarian argument against, but it's not out of keeping with other, already existing laws in similar areas.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:52 PM
0

There isn't anything wrong with the Independent. They publish a lot of reasonable stuff.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 08:25 PM
-1

Woah woah, slow down here. We're looking at your life through a keyhole and there are some extreme opinions in here. Your wife an daughter acted like assholes and you obviously need to make some changes and address the problem if this is ongoing. But don't go file for divorce and stop paying the tuition because of the reactions in here. Think of this as support/some advice and mull it over and consider your situation and how best to proceed. Don't make major life changes based on internet advice…
/r/MensRights13/11/16 12:04 PM
5

I agree with OP. My girlfriend and I have disagreements about social and political issues all the time, even in a heated fashion on the rare occasion, but I can't imagine her speaking to me this way or suggesting that I should not hold an opinion, or that I was a bully or should apologize for my opinion or disagreement. Now if you were a rude asshole, apologize for that, but not your opinion. If that's not the case though, in future, you really need to stand your ground, no so much on your opini…
/r/MensRights13/11/16 11:54 AM
3

"We all feel angry that this grown man couldn't control himself from a little girl hurting his pride." And this is exactly what's wrong with the view that men should never hit women, even in self-defence. In order to justify such a position one must infantalize women as a whole. This "little girl" is 19. She's a woman. She put herself in harms way and paid the price. She could have avoided this completely by not trying to assault people. This is something men learn real fast. If you go around hi…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/11/16 11:31 AM
3

Why?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/11/16 11:23 AM
2

The comment section on that article is jus awful. Dozens of people saying he used excessive force even though it wasn't his punch that did the damage. One person was arguing that they should both be charged, but her with simple assault and him with aggravated assault, despite not being the aggressor. I really hope we can move past this kind of regressive thinking as a society. If these people want to protect women they should encourage them not to start fights as that's the surest way to injure …
/r/PussyPassDenied13/11/16 11:21 AM
1

It's nonsense. There is no alt-right media in Canada and you'd be hard pressed to get any volume of information on Trudeau from non-Canadian sources.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:39 AM
6

It's not even his pandering to ethnic groups. That's a really, really minor issue in terms of Trudeau. The problem is that he's an upper middle class, avowed feminist who's never lived a day in the real world and who informs his whole world view with social science theory. He created a gender balanced cabinet by giving female MPs a 3:1 advantage in getting a post and then justified it to the public by stating "because it's 2015". He fired two of his MPs; elected fucking representatives, over tot…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:38 AM
2

A Trump style candidate would never win in Canada. At best they could form a minority government which isn't stable and usually results in another election shortly after, especially if the minority is on the right. We just can't ever be cornered in the same way as the U.S because of the multi-party parliamentary system. If there were Trump/Clinton equivalents, at worst a third party like the NDP would win a minority government or form a coalition with the Liberals. There are just too many reason…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:22 AM
5

Neil Young and Leonard Cohen. Edit: I almost forgot. We're responsible for Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know if we can really overcome that.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 12:16 AM
3

hormonal birth control wasn't available until 2001 and is still unpopular. I have a strong feeling that is a big factor in Western women that hasn't been looked at too closely by science. What are you suggesting.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:59 AM
2

Just incase you didn't get the introduction memo from the patriarchy shortly after your transition, you're now a bad person and responsible for the following: War Rape Trump Any and all bad policy by any government anywhere, including those created by women. Genocide This is a partial list.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 05:03 PM
3

I'm convinced that she focused grouped the term "woman president" which almost nobody uses because it's stilted. Most people would say "female president" but in certain contexts (not this one) referring to women as "female" is sort of derogatory and I'm fairly certain that's the only reason anyone would avoid using the more accepted term of "female president". It's that kind of calculating, focused grouped, canned rhetoric and dialogue that failed to connect with enough people to win an election…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 04:57 PM
31

It's like they can't wrap their heads around the idea that there are a bunch of people that disagree with their rhetoric and would prefer to bury their head in the sand or dismiss them rather than engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue or acknowledge that they may have a point from time to time.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:21 PM
1

That's a really dumb thing to say. I have no intention of making the same choices you did, and I don't feel any of the guilt you seem to think I should for not acting as a wallet for my spouse. I'm doing just fine in my equal partnership.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:09 PM
1

Nobody can make you do or not do anything. You're responsible for the choices you make for yourself even if they were agreed upon by another person. And your husband or wife already did live with the results of that by paying for you to live while not working, that's essentially an income. So I don't think they should have to continue to pay, plus give you half the assets, after the marriage is dissolved.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:02 PM
2

agreeance Agreement. Agreeance is not a word.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:24 PM
1

Yes, if they earn less and the judge orders it. People keep acting like alimony has anything to do with raising children or lost wages due to children, it doesn't. If you're married and childless for 10 years and then get divorced, you may still have to pay for your ex for a long time, or life depending on the law and children have absolutely nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:22 PM
1

Alimony shouldn't be forever, but long enough to get educated and find a decent job. That's still absurd in the world we live in today. The average middle class person has no guarantee of anything and yet they're supposed to guarantee the income of someone else while they go to school and then find employment related to their education? That's nonsense. Furthermore, it's not the 50's. If you weren't educated when you got married, you probably were never going to be educated. We don't get married…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:19 PM
1

Alimony doesn't factor in children at all and you don't have to have children to receive it.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:14 PM
1

I like that logic though: "I got to live off you for free for several years, so I'm entitled to at least half of whatever you make from here on out because I never decided to better myself, yet I require the exact same lifestyle." All the proponents with their hypotheticals keep leaving out the costs of paying for someone else to not work, as if that shouldn't factor into calculation during a divorce. Like yes, you made a sacrifice in term of a career to raise children, but you also were paid fo…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:13 PM
1

Let's bring this back down to reality here. If someone is earning $45k outside the home and the other person is not, I don't feel that the earner is responsible for making sure that post divorce they continue to get half that income, or ensure that the make an equal income, especially since they already receive half the marital assets in the divorce. Furthermore, if you decide not to work, you're essentially receiving a salary for the effort you've put in in the home, since you're being paid for…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:05 PM
3

So I'm the one selling snake oil for being against a highly controversial concept that rebrands mental disability and mental illness as a simple issue of brain diversity? That views curing autism as genocide? It's me who's throwing around crazy ideas? I don't think so. The neurodiversity movement is dangerous and cult-like and autism should be cured, as should bipolar disorder and other burdensome illnesses. Is someone with severe autism who's self harming, never sleeping, non-verbal and who's l…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:54 PM
3

It's not neglect either in the legal sense. It's just bad parenting.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:33 PM
4

No. It's not good parenting IMO, but it's not abuse since the other parent is around and presumably looking after the wellbeing of the children.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:32 PM
1

Spousal support and alimony have absolutely nothing, zero, zilch to do with kids. It's not even a factor in deciding whether it's awarded. That's not even the intended purpose. The purpose is to maintain the quality of life that the lower earning spouse had inside the marriage. Which is an absurd concept on its face because the costs double essentially outside of a marriage. Furthermore, how is anyone getting screwed? The marital assets are split in the majority of jurisdictions, right down the …
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:31 PM
4

Well, why should it be cured? Because for a lot of people it's a profoundly disabling illness. Even mild autism is a serious burden. There have been recent experiments using focused magnetic fields on specific areas of the brain in autistic test subjects, and one in particular, who is a successful medical doctor described the short term effects like the difference between seeing in black and white, and seeing in colour. There is a richness to social interaction that is just not available to peop…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:19 AM
51

"There have been times when I have put Calais before everything, before my children, before my work, before my family. And this has a knock-on effect on everyday living. Wow, what a hero. /s
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:06 AM
22

She mentions it in the same breath as the following: "There have been times when I have put Calais before everything, before my children, before my work, before my family. And this has a knock-on effect on everyday living." These are not adult kids, these are children under the age of eight and she's spending massive amounts of family resources and huge chunks of time volunteering in a dangerous tent village in France. That she openly admits putting her volunteer work ahead of her own children i…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:05 AM
3

Jesus christ you really ran with the pedantry there. A cure for something like autism necessarily requires a way of preventing it since it's a congenital developmental disorder. Likewise, curing Down's syndrome would require a preventative cure since it's chromosomal. To mention in passing that a cure would be nice is obviously not a call for genocide. That's completely ridiculous and an abhorrent accusation to level against someone for saying "morons that believe autism shouldn't be cured."
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:59 AM
5

It's not a subjective issue. Does "neurodiverse" accurately describe what it's intended to describe? No, not at all. So the opinions of people with mental handicaps is immaterial to the issue. Edit: Also the rants about monkey piss are just crazy, you sound crazy.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 04:11 AM
4

It's a meaningless term. If you're mentally handicapped or mentally ill you're not merely "neurodiverse". That's a total misrepresentation and the sole purpose is to sugarcoat reality. You may take offense to that, or feel that your activist cred makes you an authority, but we're talking about the meaning of words, and as a word to describe mental disability, "neurodiverse" is meaningless. We may as well change the term "amputee" to "appendage diverse" while we're at it.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:44 AM
2

Seriously fuck off with the "neurodiverse" though. That is the most sugar-coated, meaningless term I've ever heard.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:29 AM
0

I guess you're confused about the purpose of what is commonly called "spousal support" then. Have a good one.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:24 AM
1

What you did is fine for you and that's great, but it shouldn't be required by law, which is what is at issue here. I don't think any of what you've described should he your legal responsibility.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:14 AM
-1

Alimony is for the sake of the former spouse, not the children, that's what child support is for. And no, I don't think that it's reasonable to cover the cost of a former spouses education because the other partner has one. That's a choice that had potential consequences when it was made. My advice would be to make good choices from day one so that you're not left out on your ass in a divorce, and currently there is little incentive to make good choices when there is a cushion for non-breadwinne…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 02:14 AM
1

"should" was the keyword, save your breath.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:09 AM
1

I don't think people should be insulated from the risks of their partnership agreement, which is what you're talking about. If you agree not to go to school, for what reason, you need to consider the implications then, not have someone pay to remedy the consequences later. It's not feasable in most cases and it's not just, IMO.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:09 AM
1

To me, setting up a good home for a parent that earns less is more the place of child support, with alimony you're covering the costs of a partnership that's been dissolved and I don't think thats right for more than 6 months to a year, even if it's only semantics.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:06 AM
4

That's also nonsense. If you're rich, children evidently have about 20k worth of needs each month. It's based on the earning potential of the non-custodial parent.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:01 AM
-1

Why should they be guaranteed anything but some time to get their shit in order? Do you think that just because you got divorced someone should have to pay for your career choices or lack thereof?
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:57 AM
1

No, they will also get half of the marital assets. The point is that the partnership and the agreements kept within it are dissolved. There is no logical reason why someone is entitled to be paid for forever simply because the choices they made have consequences. If one partner stays at home for 20 years, knowing divorce is a possibility, that choice is not risk free. What you're saying, is that whoever earns more should absorb the risk of all the choices made in marriage while the other partner…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 12:43 AM
27

Even then though, it should only be provided for a fixed and brief time, like a year. Then you're on your own. It's no longer a partnership so we can't pretend it still is but just for one person at the expense of the other.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:46 PM
66

I think it does for about 6 months to a year if the relationship is arranged with one partner staying at home. But beyond that no. The arrangement has now changed, it doesn't get to stay the same way for one person at the expense of another.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:44 PM
1

Surely though that even in the event of an amendment the final say goes to the high court yes?
/r/MensRights28/10/16 11:16 PM
1

They surely can. It's just more complicated than saying "this contravenes this amendment." But there are fundamental acts and pieces of common law which are not to be trifled with, as they are part of the constitution (i.e founding legal principles of the nation) and legislation which oversteps will be struck down on that basis.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 10:28 PM
2

And yet..this lecture.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 06:31 PM
2

I would agree if the media didn't make a habit of highlighting women and girls in every story. As a principle I think what you're saying is great, but given the reality we need to hold the media to account when they specifically avoid mentioning men and boys.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 02:48 AM
2

That is how all legislation is created, and still, high courts rule against legislation all the time. I am not saying at all that it's not a concern, it absolutely is, I am saying that the silver lining is that it is such an obvious erosion of basic due process that any sensible higher court would be compelled to overturn it.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 08:57 PM
2

I will grant you that, for sure.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 08:55 PM
2

I guess, but the justice system seems to have a way of protecting its fundamentals long term. The right to face one's accuser is pre-Christian so I don't think it's going anywhere. That doesn't mean we should ignore this in the short term, absolutely not, it will be disastrous in the short term. I just think long term it can't survive.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 08:11 PM
3

The activists were pissed that the judge called the witnesses liars, which they were proven to be in court. But because these people don't bother reading things like judgements they all assumed that he claimed they were lying about the accusation and not the dozen other things brought up during the trial which is why they were considered incredible witnesses and he had to essentially ignore their accusations. If you are shown to have lied about a number of details and colluded with other witness…
/r/MensRights27/10/16 08:09 PM
6

They most certainly do, it's just not codified like it is in the U.S but that's true for most nations, and it's absurd to claim that most nations have no constitution.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 06:55 PM
32

On the bright side, it is such a fundamental element of justice that it's unlikely to stand up to a higher court challenge. It's amazing to me that the reporter never interviewed a constitutional lawyer though.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 04:35 PM
3

I'm just wondering because in one of the police statements they mention insulin separately. I just did some reading though and apparently it's not very effective as it takes too long and can be treated easily once symptoms present themselves. Charles Cullen used Digoxin though so clearly it works. The problem with that drug is that in recent years it's also become much more strictly controlled and as far as I know, it's very easy to see in a blood test if you're looking for it and can be easily …
/r/MensRights26/10/16 10:38 PM
1

This has been attempted before, it will fail. There aren't enough women willing to drive for these businesses to sustain a proper staff. It's amazing to me that people that start these operations never wonder why there are so few female uber drivers when there is almost no barrier to entry where discrimination could become a factor.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 10:33 PM
3

What about insulin?
/r/MensRights26/10/16 10:30 PM
1

He will obviously not be returning to face charges in Brazil.
/r/MensRights25/10/16 02:48 AM
3

Sure, but the situation would be the same even if she was not the mother, which is the scenario discussed in the article and reason for my comment. Who knows what legal weight is given to such a document when it's so easy to be the assumed father to a child.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 09:31 PM
5

I'd also be concerned about what "your GF is the primary caregiver" means in terms of future legal proceedings. You don't want to accidentally assign some legal rights to your girlfriend by signing some piece of paper for a child benefit.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 08:43 PM
3

OP is just upset that the scientist didn't provide the explanation he preferred. It's dumb and this isn't MR related.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 02:06 PM
2

Arguably he could have dealt with it better. As an adult I would have just walked away into my house. But ultimately that's really not the point and he still isn't the aggressor and he still didn't really do anything wrong here.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 01:59 PM
11

Yes. In the case of Ray Rice I think the main issue was that he was just so much stronger than her that he did a lot of damage, but there is really no question that she was the primary aggressor. It's amazing to me how uncomfortable we are as a society about this issue. If you're attacking someone, they have every right to use reasonable force to defend themselves. We need to have stronger stomachs and realize that the victim isn't the one who lost the fight.
/r/MensRights20/10/16 01:57 PM
4

You can't hold all women responsible for a radical ideology.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 04:26 PM
1

By that measure any man that doesn't join a protest against rape is pro-rape.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 04:25 PM
7

https://web.archive.org/web/20161019110522/https://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor/alleged-assault-at-wsu?utm_term=.ytz9401LJ#.vi4W80Ajk
/r/MensRights19/10/16 11:06 AM
10

I don't think this is something we should dismiss. Is it as awful as being treated as a perpetrator at all times? Absolutely not. But I doubt very much that most women were on board with the existing policy before it affected them in this way either. We can't hold them all responsible for the actions of ideologues. That said, feminism has for a long time diminished the agency of women and maybe now some people are waking up to that. It's not an empowerment or equality movement, it's a cult of vi…
/r/MensRights19/10/16 09:16 AM
20

The RAINN stats are some of the most commonly quoted and not only do they assume the guilt of anyone accused, they also make no distinction between reported and unreported events when providing a conviction rate. Well obviously an unreported assault cannot be brought to trial so it obviously says nothing about the conviction rate, but of course they don't let reason get in the way of their message.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 09:13 AM
23

It did in at least one instance. Buzzfeed published a story about a female accused who essentially had the same experience as a male college student accused of rape except they wrote it in a sympathetic manner because she was female and like most men in these situations, was railroaded and given no due process.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 09:12 AM
6

This is such nonsense. The idea that it is only women that have to deescalate or calm a situation so as not to be attacked or endangered in some way is just crazy. Men are 75%+ more likely to be the victims of random violence, and generally speaking are the primary victims of most violence. Yet we also have the luxury of never having to adapt to threatening situations? Just fuck right off.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 08:54 AM
1

Maybe she died in a fire.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 08:47 AM
7

This is a "social experiment".
/r/MensRights19/10/16 08:40 AM
2

good Christ, how much more validation do Mom's need for doing basic child care? I think it makes sense within the first months of childbirth when people are super sensitive and emotional, so I can see where it comes from. But we've taken that short window and extended it to a lifetime.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 08:36 AM
14

She is already divorced and it appears she was never granted spousal support otherwise should wouldn't be trying to find a way to get it now. I agree with you to some extent, if the marriage was such that one party never worked then for a short period, maybe 6 months to a year I can see awarding some kind of spousal maintenance so that the unemployed party has a reasonable time frame to figure out their new situation, but this doesn't appear to be one of those instances or spousal support would …
/r/MensRights18/10/16 03:43 PM
2

I don't know if the law needs to step in, that's not my argument
/r/MensRights16/10/16 05:50 AM
1

When the alternative is a compulsive liar and possible criminal who's main attraction is to continue to entrench the already broken, corrupt system, it's a little absurd to say that those who vote for their opponent even like him let alone actively support his rhetoric. Furthermore it would be totally reasonable to say "here's why you shouldn't vote for Trump". But instead the author has attempted to slander people who do vote for him. That's underhanded and last time I checked Trump is not prom…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 05:32 PM
1

It's not about enforcement, it's about criticism, which is what I am doing right now and it's what you're arguing against.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 06:12 PM
1

The point I am making is that it's a problem if business is regularly being done in a place that excludes people based solely on their identity. I don't know if the law needs to step in, that's not my argument, but it's certainly worthy of criticism and I think there is good reason to not bring this aspect of gentlemen's clubs back.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 05:19 PM
3

I disagree. I think people had a point when they criticized gentlemen's clubs. Not because there is anything wrong with gender segregated spaces for social interaction or discussing issues etc. But when you create gender segregated spaces for business, you automatically exclude people from those business interactions on the basis of gender and I think that's a problem.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:50 PM
2

She's not completely wrong, women have been oppressed through protectionism for most of history. But the flip side of that is that men weren't because they were considered low value, disposable commodities. Failing to figure that into your analysis of history and current society makes any resulting conclusions completely off base.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:41 PM
16

Trump is a piece of shit, but this kind of criticism, if you can even call it that, is totally underhanded. Saying "if you vote for X you're a misogynist, racist, nazi, communist etc etc." is not valid criticism, it's hyperbolic generalization.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:26 PM
3

Are men and women equally "good" at being CEOs. i.e. what determines the current ratio of female to male CEOs. Interest? Ability? Bias? I think it's safe to say that that question is largely answered outside of percentage. I have no doubt that there are female CEO's that are just as competent as the most competent male CEO's. Are current females CEOs more or less competent than their male counterparts? This is the real question and I would say that a small percentage are not. The problem I see i…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:11 PM
11

My guess would be that female CEO's are just as competent as male CEO's, but when there is such a push to get women in the boardroom at any cost, less than capable people sometimes end up in positions they're not qualified for, hence the failure rate. I don't see how this helps the status of women in business at all.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:23 AM
1

Then you find another way to memorialize them. You can't just say "fuck it, we don't have photos, let's do a different memorial".
/r/MensRights12/10/16 05:42 PM
3

women/girls around the world are deprived education This is true but it leaves the second half of the sentence off which should be "as are boys". In Africa for example there is only a few percent difference between boys and girls in terms of lack of education. The reality is that it doesn't really matter all that much if you're male or female if you're in an underdeveloped country.
/r/MensRights12/10/16 11:08 AM
3

There is lots wrong with it. Should it be a criminal issue? Absolutely not, but let's not pretend that there is nothing wrong with adolescent children sending nude images to each other in a world where everything is endlessly reproducible and nothing dies once it's on the internet.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 09:49 AM
1

The post is to verify that most women lie about assault. Wait, what?
/r/MensRights09/10/16 10:20 AM
5

The provincial acts still say "ameliorate" though so there is at least some protection. But I am not defending the Employment Equity Acts, especially the provincial acts which have entrenched protected groups as if they will always require protection. That to me suggests that legislators are under the impression that their legislation is either useless, or they don't care that they will be institutionalizing discrimination at some point after passing their legislation into law.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 04:20 PM
7

As unpopular as it is, I think biology needs to be discussed in entrepreneurship. The reality is that a big part of these kinds of ventures is the ability to take risk. Risk taking is a rarified trait found in only a small percentage of people, usually men. It's all well and good if the plan is to find the minority of women that possess this trait, but I doubt that's even a consideration. They would be way better off creating a program to fund immigrants, who have already self selected for risk …
/r/MensRights07/10/16 02:01 PM
2

Thank god for tenure. People like Janice or Jordan Peterson are some of the few out there that can say what they want without fear of losing their job.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 01:17 PM
2

Insulting people is morally neutral, regardless of the gender or race of the person being insulted. It's entirely context dependant in terms of morality.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 01:13 PM
36

In Canada the employment equity acts allow for some discrimination but fortunately have specified that it can only be done for the purpose of "ameliorating" disadvantage. There is currently a law suit against the government for discriminating against a male public service worker.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 12:20 PM
16

Nobody should have been punished for this. The girl got exactly what she deserved, nothing, and the guy was treated unfairly by being prosecuted for such an absurd bunch of crap. The only reason the police even knew is because the mother reported the girl missing when she missed her curfew and the sex came out when she was later questioned.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:01 PM
0

I pretty much across the board don't agree with mandatory minimums. Judges don't want them, we hired them for a reason, I don't think we then need to tell them they have to ignore whatever is in front of them and employ and minimum they don't agree with.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 07:51 AM
0

Judging by the wording here, this is a totally redundant addition to the law. It is already the case that having sex with a person who is "unable to consent due to intoxication" is illegal. The term is "incapacitation" and if anything, this just creates unnecessary confusion due to an inconsistency in language. My guess is that judges will continue to use the mountains of precedent to define "unable to consent due to intoxication".
/r/MensRights06/10/16 06:23 AM
1

I guess they're going to go this route. As much as I think Trump is a dangerous idiot this tactic reminds me of the dejected UofT protester whining "FUCKING SCUM!" when she didn't get her way. I'm sure they'll be demanding networks stop covering him because his speech is triggering or some shit.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 12:57 AM
1

That doesn't even include VHS sales or merchandising. All told I bet they made close to $2 billion in todays money.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 12:54 AM
1

MTV wasn't informed that men are the majority of writers, painters, poets, wine makers, sommeliers etc I guess.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 12:51 AM
4

So they're exactly like they're depicted on Portlandia. No surprise there.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 05:50 AM
0

It's tough to say. I think the status quo is that men are never victims of sexual assault. Stating that it exists and that it's okay may at least create some push back whereas sticking with the status quo creates no discussion at all. That said, Trump should not be president.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 11:43 PM
5

Also menslib says right in the sidebar that its intent is to address issues in a feminist framework. It's lip service and nothing more.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 11:41 PM
2

Also they toss "being drunk doesn't mean you can't rape someone" in there to confuse things even further. They know damn well that has nothing to do with consent while under the influence they're just trying to mislead. It doesn't even address the question they posed to themselves. This is a huge problem. I'm all for teaching people that drinking and having sex is risky and maybe should he avoided, especially with strangers, but I draw the line at suggesting it's the law either through omission …
/r/MensRights29/09/16 01:58 PM
2

It wasn't cited at all and used intentionally misleading language in order to suggest that sex under the influence was illegal. The rest of the page used gendered language to discuss rape and referred to rapists as "he". It was a mess of the worst kind of bullshit. Edit: Here's the quote. "Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape. Fact: When intoxicated, an ind…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 02:52 PM
29

The fact that they even feel obligated to pretend to have a gender neutral discussion is progress IMO. Just a year ago there wouldn't have been any shame or pretence about having a gendered discussion about the subject.
/r/MensRights28/09/16 05:33 AM
10

The problem with this shit is that A: consent is covered in compulsory health classes in Ontario and B: Activists aren't teaching the legal definition of consent and make no distinction between advice and the law. I literally just had someone in another sub argue that sex under the influence of alcohol was illegal and linked to a crisis centre website for proof. Where do people get these ideas? It's certainly not all on their own and it's certainly not from anyone familiar with the law. This is …
/r/MensRights28/09/16 05:28 AM
3

It's a great shot, a nice cover, and white people do in fact make up the majority of people in the U.S. She needs to relax.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 07:07 PM
1

As if. What mother doesn't think they're children are beautiful gifts to humanity?
/r/MensRights26/09/16 07:07 PM
2

Why anyone would want to drag their kids through a lengthy process and separate them from a decent parent because of their own bitterness is beyond me. One would think that trying to have as little impact on the routine of the children would be the primary goal, but it doesn't seem to be in most divorces.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 07:00 PM
1

Tldr; can hormone therapy be malpractice? Absolutely. Always? I don't think so. I disagree just because puberty itself resolves the vast majority of cases of GID in children. Which ones will be in that small percentage that continue to experience GID and might have benefited from early hormone treatment seems impossible to know.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 02:20 PM
1

It happens more that you apparently are aware. It's increasingly common to prescribe hormone therapy or give puberty blocking drugs as a pre-surgery treatment. It's not millions of kids a year, but it's easily thousands and there are hundreds of documented cases in the media. It's definitely happening. Though I'd agree it's probably a small minority of doctors willing to involve themselves in this. But it only takes a small minority and people with resources in a private system will seek them ou…
/r/MensRights23/09/16 02:18 PM
0

Puberty blocking drugs are actually designed to shrink the prostate in cancer patients pre surgery, they're totally untested in children as puberty blockers. So the idea that the medical community is being super cautious about this is total bullshit IMO. If this were any other treatment for something that wasn't an immediate threat to one's life there is no way they'd be so haphazard about it.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 02:15 PM
3

As much as this sub has gone down hill over the past few months, I still can't guess at what sub you're talking about it's OneY which has very few users and very little content. If you're talking about menslib then you're full of shit.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 02:08 PM
2

People keep saying the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of war and strife and terrorism, but if that were true there wouldn't be so much fucking time to write this kind of garbage, which is not at all unique.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:48 AM
1

Feminism was always about the most entitled: young, middle to upper class white women. Yes, except now we have more young, already entitled, middle to upper class white women with nothing to fight. Feminism is a natural fit. I'm not arguing that feminism has changed, just that such nonsense has more appeal to people who have never actually experienced any difficulty and we have more of those people than ever. In fact, it's pretty common for older women from the women's lib movement to be kind of…
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:45 AM
1

Which any sane person should know is true of anything. Your political affiliation, religion, law, leaders. Nothing is without fault and nothing should be shielded from criticism absolutely, or at all. I'm not sure why feminism should have special status.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:35 AM
1

You should see some of the threads where it's unavoidable to conclude anything other than "this feminist/feminist theory/concept disparages men". They wrap themselves in knots to try and reconcile the idea that feminism is all that's great and good and yet here it is taking a big shit on men.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:32 AM
5

Menslib eschews any criticism of feminism regardless of context and requires that issues be viewed and addressed within a feminist framework. So if you were sexually assaulted and negatively impacted by a law or policy created or lobbied for by NOW, or dismissed by family, friends, institutions who as a result of feminist rhetoric believe women to be the only victims of sexual assault, you should keep that to yourself.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:29 AM
0

I think you're ignoring two big factors. One being the claim made in this study. The rhetoric has amped up in the last ten years, it's coming mostly from millenials and mostly from middle and upper middle class people who've rarely if ever faced any adversity. The other factor I think is at play is the fact that women are constantly told they're victims. That they're being exploited for emotional labour or every time they do the dishes. Not surprisingly many eventually believe it, especially bec…
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:23 AM
10

This is the most Orwellian pre-crime nonsense I've ever seen. And the fact that the order includes a ban on discussing his thoughts with medical professionals? How does that help anyone at all? It's insane.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:18 AM
22

Not really. It's a problem for both boys and girls. For girls they start hormone therapy at puberty to create a more masculine appearance and for boys they will often use puberty blocking drugs. In both cases it's unethical because puberty itself seems to resolve the vast majority of childhood gender identity disorder. In any case so far as I can see it's not a uniquely male problem. The only thing I can see that might be a male specific issue is the acceptability of Tom boys vs feminine males.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:06 AM
75

That's not usually the purpose of these drugs (which are untested in children that age btw). The typical purpose is to block the physical changes that are caused by puberty until it's ethical to perform surgery. This is really limited to boys who will develop masculine features that aren't easily altered. It's got little to do with commitment, you just can't perform sex reassignment surgery on an 11 year old. The problem with doing this, beyond the fact that the long term effects of these drugs …
/r/MensRights23/09/16 07:03 AM
32

Not really a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 04:56 AM
1

Which is a moot issue anyway because if a bench trial is an option in a rape case, defendants usually take it. If anyone is unfairly sympathetic to alleged victims regardless of the facts of the case, it's juries.
/r/MensRights20/09/16 06:15 PM
2

Pointing out that men being violent is over represented in the media is a men's issue, the opposite is not.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 06:07 PM
0

No, it's not.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 11:29 PM
2

And are you saying that's okay and we should mirror them? Because I am trying to say the opposite is true and that you don't have to hold yourself to a very high standard to exceed that quality of discussion.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 08:54 PM
10

No shit, but still not a men's issue. Save it for r/pussypass. If we posted every example of women being assholes to this sub, there wouldn't be any space for actual men's issues. Furthermore, I think we'd be rightly critical if a women's sub did the exact same thing with men.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 08:17 PM
9

This is not in any way a men's rights issue. This is just a woman behaving badly.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 07:50 PM
15

Oh yeah, because the men of Michigan are just doing so great. Jesus, what an idiot.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 06:35 PM
1

Not just Brexit. Calais is where there are huge numbers of illegal immigrants coming over from France to England and it's created a lot of animosity between the U.K and France.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 06:24 PM
1

A national leader by 5% by the looks of things, compared to an average of 31%. 5% isn't nothing but it wouldn't be the only particularly high crime related stat from Baltimore so I'm not exactly ready to condemn their police force just yet. Though a review of practices may certainly be in order.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 12:56 AM
1

The data quoted in that thread suggests that the unfounded rate in 2009 is a few percent lower than the rate in Baltimore. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 11:33 PM
8

The reason such limitations exist is because certain crimes become impossible to bring to trial at a certain point and the risk of unfairly dragging someone through a pointless process outweighs any benefit of a prosecution. If that weren't the issue, there would be no clock on prosecution and that would be perfectly fine. But that's not the case for sex crimes with no evidence or witnesses other than the alleged victim. The USSC has said as much several times. Granted, many other countries have…
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:48 PM
2

I don't agree with that general statement at all. The media is doing it's job if it's reporting on oversights by government organizations and thats a good thing. That doesn't mean that Buzzfeed is correct, and I suspect they're not given their bias and the fact that the unfounded rate is in line with other jurisdictions, but nonetheless it's not wrong in principle for the media to be critical of a police organization's methods or standards.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:41 PM
0

You may not be entirely wrong, but you're not arriving at that conclusion for any good reason and you're making all sorts of unsupported claims in the process.
/r/MensRights09/09/16 04:29 PM
2

even most ordinary people would be able to see. Most people can already see a great many contradictions much smaller than that. Very few people pay any attention to these issues though and just assume that any claim of female disadvantage is true because they don't investigate or think about it that much.
/r/MensRights09/09/16 04:28 PM
6

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse all or most women of not caring about justice. However I don't think women have the same anxiety as men about false allegations and I don't know if they're as able to empathize with people who've been falsely accused of something. Its just not something women have really ever had to deal with for the most part.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 02:24 PM
1

No arguments there. If anything my point only further illustrates the necessity of due process. People lie. If they didn't lie, we'd have little need for courts. It always kills me that for some reason the exception to this basic part of human nature is sexual assault for some reason. Like a person's ability to be full of shit disappears wherever sexual assault is concerned.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:46 PM
2

If you read the comments section they seem unmoved and are critical of Buzzfeed for "defending a rapist". I guess at least they're not hypocritical. But for christ sake, these people need to have way more concern for due process.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:37 PM
1

I think it's a reasonable suspicion though. Similarly it's reasonable to suspect an alleged female victim who has a boyfriend and engages in sexual activity with another man might have a motive to write the whole thing off as an assault. It doesn't mean that either are true in all cases, but it's certainly a possible or even likely motivation to lie.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:35 PM
6

If you read the comments section, these twits are actually consistent on this, they don't like due process for anyone. Most of the comments are condemning Buzzfeed for "defending a rapist". I certainly think Buzzfeed is being incredibly hypocritical, but they're not wrong to highlight the absurdity of this whole process, they should just do so consistently regardless of the gender of the accused.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 05:33 PM
1

If you're going to have kids you may as well be married as you stand to lose all the same things but you won't get any of the tax benefits and really, the last bastion of marriage is child rearing. If you're not going to have kids though, you're better off having absolutely no shared finances and no formal agreement in most jurisdictions. Even if you were to lets say have a relationship agreement drawn up to lay out who owns what and who is entitled to what and how you agree these things will be…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:45 AM
1

That's pretty pitiful considering how easy it is to dismantle feminist arguments and critique their positions. They say so much absurd, easily disproved nonsense it's not like you have to get real nuanced on most of the issues.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:36 AM
4

There is a certain Gavin McInness-ness to him and it's sometimes difficult to pin down what he actually believes and what is meant to be provocative hyperbole. I listened to his recent interview with Joe Rogan and for about 30% of it it was impossible to figure out if he was trying to get a reaction or laugh or whether he really was opposed to abortion for example. I tend to ignore anything he says that doesn't sound at all considered and put it in the "Milo's talking nonsense" category. Otherwi…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:31 AM
2

The difficulty is maintaining the reasonableness of the limits you've mentions because they all represent potentially slippery slopes without the safety net of a reasonable judiciary. In Canada we've not yet slid down any of those slopes for the most part, but there have definitely been some close calls and there is always the fear that the SCC will fail to act in favour of reasonable expression, or that new, untested legislation will allow a great many to fall through the cracks before it's cha…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:26 AM
6

MGTOW seems to be a lot of things to be frank. I've seen everything from the perfectly reasonable to the chauvinistic, to straight up paranoia and genuine misogyny. It's fairly diverse and from what I can tell, spans an awkward and wide gap between the MRM to PUA. I don't mean for that to be insulting or accusatory, I've seen a lot of really sensible MGTOW rhetoric. But there is definitely a spectrum of opinion within MGTOW that varies quite dramatically but is arguably still grounded in the bas…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:16 AM
2

i don't think it's as huge as you think. outside of the internet the world is a different place. This cuts both ways which a lot of people forget. If the average person in the west were directly exposed to the things that feminists do without much press coverage, they'd be appalled. I think the reality is that while most people aren't familiar with the backlash, they also aren't very familiar with the instigators of that backlash either.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:12 AM
3

In most of Canada it's been a thing for like 30 years and in Quebec there are boobs on the television by like 3 in the afternoon. It's not ever really been an issue in the last 3 decades.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:09 AM
1

I meant that I'm not sure why even Milo is giving her a free pass.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 09:44 PM
6

Even Milo Yiannopoulis believes that she was merely being ironic when she wrote that article. I disagree and while I'm sure some hyperbole was involved, the underlying message is still sexist and incredibly disparaging to men. I'm not sure why she gets a free pass on that one.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 08:40 PM
5

In Canada you can choose to have a bench trial and you can bet that in nearly all sexual assault trials defendants choose a trial by judge. Juries are extremely high risk in cases where they're likely to be prejudiced against the accused based on the accusations alone. In other words, the idea that having a jury is detrimental to the alleged victim, is absolute nonsense. If that were the case you wouldn't see defendants opting for bench trials so frequently.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 08:38 PM
1

I agree, but the last 50 years of history suggests that these kinds of practices can't persist. Ultimately the courts will respect charter rights/guaranteed freedoms and side with complainants. Really, it would be a lot better if this nonsense were written into law because then it could be challenged immediately in the high courts. Because they won't actually be bringing charges it's the civil courts that will have to put pressure on the police by essentially extracting money from them until the…
/r/MensRights12/08/16 06:01 PM
1

I don't think that any distinction need be made since it's not a crime either way and the law has no reason to define it.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 05:10 PM
1

That may well be the plan but the police will do what the police always do, and use this change to abuse the general public wherever convenient. You can't do that for very long before you start having to defend yourself against constant lawsuits and I think it's very likely that a few big losses will make this nonsense go away.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 05:08 PM
3

Realistically though, the police are 100% going to use this change to abuse the general public. First it's going to be the lowest in society, but if they start fucking around with the upper classes, which they will, they're going to start losing huge sums of money through litigation and this practice will quietly disappear.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 05:04 PM
5

is the photo sick or is the forcing him to take it sick? Bashing trannies? What are you drunk? Pretty much anything, including the most vanilla sexual habits are "sick" when your partner is a 12 year old. No, there's a threat hovering over him/her. What threat? The threat of actually being punished if she molests or assaults a child? By that measure we all live with that threat because presumably we would all "go down" for such a heinous crime. The threat of actually being punished for a crime i…
/r/MensRights12/08/16 01:01 AM
1

It's much easier to explain this using literally any form of crime that isn't rape. People are much too emotional about rape to see the logic of it. If locking your doors reduces the chances that you will be robbed, then it's reasonable to suggest people lock their doors. If you don't lock your doors and you're robbed, the blame is obviously still on the robber, but taking precautions is still a good idea.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 08:20 AM
1

Is that not reasonable? The whole idea is that children do not have the same ability to reason and make decisions. They are not fully developed adult humans. They literally have partially developed brains and one of the main effects of that is the inability to accurately predict longterm consequences. Beyond just that aspect of it; if you can't rehabilitate children at the age of 12, then the prospect of rehabilitating anyone over the age of 18 is essentially nil. Evidently that's not the case, …
/r/PussyPassDenied07/08/16 07:44 AM
1

6 years isn't a short stay, and if you can't reform children I really don't see why we even bother with adults. All crime should just result in a life sentence if that logic is sound. Furthermore, the entire purpose of having a juvenile court system is to recognize that children are not fully developed adults with the same ability to reason and make decisions. Male or female, charging children as adults is backward and ineffective.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/08/16 07:39 AM
3

I don't think anyone is actually getting a free meal, so I wouldn't worry about it. how about having some empathy and compassion for less attractive women, who may know they never realistically stand any chance of being considered hot? Why? That's just stupid. They're adults, welcome to the real world where we can't all be genetically gifted beauties.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 02:13 PM
11

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, no business should be giving out freebies to one sex or race or religion etc. On the other hand I think it's a funny promotion and I like that fat ugly feminists are offended by the dumbest aspects of this.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 07:06 AM
1

I am saying you personally are falling into the trap of allowing posturing and perception to inform your opinion too much. I think millennials are more promiscuous, or should I say we lack the same values as those before us to start a relationship. Before, it took a little work from both sides before it was considered a relationship, now we are willing to label casual sex as a relationship, but a short one, or faithless. That way they can say that they aren't sluts, or "easy". This isn't in any …
/r/MensRights03/08/16 07:00 AM
1

Osheaga is notorious for being underserved in terms of bathrooms and access to water as well and it's outdoors. I don't want to outright assume that she wasn't drugged, she might have been, but heat, dehydration and alcohol create a lot of sleepy passed out people all on their own and it would be very difficult to drug someones drink at a festival where nobody puts their drink down and where you would have almost no chance of keeping track of them if you did somehow manage to spike a drink.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:57 AM
1

Beyond that it's just a wildly general statement. If you're in an industry where there are long hours to meet deadlines then you can't expect to keep bankers hours. In those industries getting the work done isn't much good if it's done late and unless women are super-human they'll also need to put in long hours to meet deadlines on occasion.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:55 AM
1

I work in an industry where this is truer than for most. I deal with clients in other time zones and regularly have tight deadlines for delivery. If I were regularly unavailable during hours that were convenient for clients then it would definitely have a negative impact on my earnings. Granted I am not staying up all night to have discussions or anything, but I do have to answer phone calls and emails outside of work hours and if a project has to be delivered in a short timeline then that's jus…
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:49 AM
3

I am all for paternity leave, but you're not going to change the fact that taking time off will decrease longterm earnings somewhat. If you did correct for that you'd now be penalizing employees who choose not to have children by paying them less per hour worked and less per year of experience. There is no fair way to make leaving work to parent have 0 impact on earnings.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:46 AM
1

It's a choice. Not one I fault, but nonetheless a choice. I personally am in a career where I will never have children as a result. I was never enthralled with the idea of having them but either way I have made the decision and I have to live with it. If I made a different choice it would come with a huge pay cut and lifestyle change and that would also be a choice. It's not a punishment, it's just basic economics. If you can't work or gain experience, you're not worth as much.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:43 AM
2

I sort of agree just because we should all work less, not more as we move into the future and the opposite is happening. But her actual argument is mostly nonsense. So much of career success is just being around at the right time, if you're not making sure you're keeping your eye out or around for those opportunities you miss them. If you're a contractor, answering a phone call at the right time could make a massive difference in earnings that year, how can you alter that? You can't so far as I …
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:41 AM
1

I think you're conflating perception and reality. Promiscuity is promoted, it's condoned, the assumption is that most people are having lots of sex with lots of people and that that's typical. But studies on the subject show a big gap between what people perceive to be the amount of sex and partners the average person has and how much sex and how many partners the average person actually has. In other words, while it's a common belief that everyone has 10 or more partners and has lots of sex, th…
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:34 AM
2

Has anyone considered that men maybe just cry less than women and express their emotions through different, but equally healthy outlets. I don't think we should discourage crying, but it's very female-centric to assume that men should responds exactly the way women do to everything.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:31 AM
5

Mothers can have a great impact on this. A huge part of the reason I am so opposed to the tenets of modern feminism is because I've seen my mother being independent and capable and responsible. Women don't need an extra leg up, they're as able as men to do whatever they would like to do. The idea that they need special care is regressive and sexist and I can't abide by such a notion.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:28 AM
9

I think there are probably two double standards here. The obvious one being the male/female double standard, but less obvious is I think is that part of what influenced their decision here was almost certainly the political affiliation of each subject. If this had been Sarah Palin, I doubt it would have raised any eyebrows.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 01:18 AM
2

So is it cool to circumcise women for religion ritual then? I don't think so. Of course there shouldn't be a religious exemption for circumcision (for a long list of reasons), it should just be banned, and many MRAs feel that way.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 08:03 AM
5

It's an amazingly horrible, stupid thing to say so casually.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 06:35 AM
7

The scary thing is that people will likely support something like a lower burden with lower punishment. Which A: is fucked up when you're talking about the crime of rape, which is about as serious as it gets and B: will still brand innocent people entrapped by unreasonably low standards as rapists. Even if rape was only punished with a small fine, it would still infringe on the accused's right to due process. We already have a big enough problem with people jumping to unfair, unconsidered conclu…
/r/MensRights26/07/16 06:35 AM
1

My understanding from the way past cases have played out and the fact that the burden is on the state is this: If a reasonable person would think that consent was given, then as far as the court is concerned, there was consent. So no, texting "let's bang" isn't consent. But a text, an announcement to the bar, going home to this guy's place willingly, having a previous sexual history with that person, engaging in sexual activity and then hopping into bed naked, would make a reasonable person thin…
/r/MensRights26/07/16 06:17 AM
1

Maybe you can clarify, but I've had this discussion before and it seems abundantly clear that the Canadian courts definition of "affirmative consent" and what exists in places like California are quite a bit different. "Affirmative consent" in Canadian law just means that you can't assume consent for no reason and that you must have a reasonable belief that consent was given. I.e "he/she didn't say no" isn't a valid defence. However, no verbal "yes" must be given, consent can be given subtly, li…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 11:03 PM
1

There are rape shield laws in Canada and essentially they prevent the defence from bringing up things that have nothing to do with the alleged rape but would prejudice the judge or jury. Like questioning someone about their promiscuity, which unless it leads somewhere else, really has no impact on whether or not the complainant is credible or likely to have been raped. I think the concept is reasonable and it does cut down on the unrelated bullshit that used to be common in court more than anywh…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:46 AM
2

Yup. I mean, it's one thing when an advocate with no law background says it, it's another when someone who knows damn well how fucked up that is says it, and then it gets published and supported.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 08:42 PM
0

I think though, given the fact that almost nobody, and certainly nobody with the platform of the U.S president or state has accurately described the real gap and has only referred to the 78 cents figure or something close, it can be assumed that any broad mention of the wage gap does not refer to a 5% figure. I.e, they're still misleading, even if there is a smaller gap that can be shown when apples to apples comparisons are made.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 08:40 PM
2

Like I said, I think your concerns are valid. The repercussions of this creeping stupidity could be significant. That said, the state of Washington subverted due process in a very narrow set of circumstances in regards to sexual assault prosecutions and after a number of years (and that's where the problem is) the law was overturned on the basis that it reversed due process. I think ultimately the courts usually opt in favour of basic principals of justice, but there are frequently lags due to t…
/r/MensRights24/07/16 04:29 AM
1

Not to be a pedant but affirmative consent standards that apply to universities are not part of the criminal code. Though I think your concern is certainly justified.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 03:56 AM
0

It's all about as well reasoned as the "self hating jew" of 1930's Germany, and that's about how much thought it deserves, none at all.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 03:10 AM
2

David Butt, her lawyer, is also the same man IIRC who wrote an op ed following the Ghomeshi verdict advocating for sexual assaults to be moved over to the civil courts and have lawyers and costs covered for complainants. In other words, a fucking lawyer, who very well understands the underpinnings of our justice system, is in favour of a greatly eroded standard of proof and a financial incentive for people making accusations of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 03:08 AM
1

Sexual assault in Canada is not a strict liability offence. Outside of violent assaults or assaults involving incapacitation, those who are not consenting have a responsibility to make that non-consent or withdrawal known. They do not have to verbalize it necessarily, but it must be in a way that would be understood by a reasonable person. This is essentially what "no means no" consent definition consists of.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 03:05 AM
5

Yes. The only real problem with this ad is the mention of the fictional wage gap itself. There is nothing wrong with this at all otherwise and I quite like the older lady who chimes in at the end to give support.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 02:51 AM
2

Oh man, you need to explain that to me because it sounds awesome.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 02:31 AM
3

It's still not widely known. We should all be impressed that Shatner just busted it out like that.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 12:49 AM
4

When I read that I said "God damn" aloud when nobody else was in the room. I cannot believe how in touch he is for a man his age. He fucking nailed it. Also his yellow journalism reference was on point.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 12:48 AM
1

Then you sue the state for discrimination. Unfortunately when the state oversteps it usually requires the deep pockets of a motivated citizen to correct it in court.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:09 AM
3

Evidently. My point is that if you're going to get some lunatic to speak at your convention you may as well find one with broad appeal. Dunham is crazy and niche.
/r/MensRights21/07/16 11:00 AM
2

This is nonsense. The same thing happened after the Ghomeshi case and Canada has rape shield laws that prevent defence attorneys from asking irrelevant questions of alleged sexual assault victims. Nobody actually present at the trial claimed that the defence overstepped in her questioning but of course the media used the opportunity to essentially campaign for even more stringent limitations on what a defendant's lawyer can ask during cross examination. Many even suggested that sexual assault ca…
/r/MensRights21/07/16 08:52 AM
8

The relationship between the media and Twitter in general sickens me. In the west it's about the least diverse place on the internet. The only people with a real presence are journalists and activists. Everyone else is mostly a passive user or not a user at all, and even amongst the passive users it's largely young women and some young men that tend to be far left leaning. Yet the media reports on Twitter remarks as if they're a good sampling of the general public and they regularly use Twitter …
/r/MensRights21/07/16 08:38 AM
6

How exactly is that supposed to benefit the Democratic Party? I think the left in the west has largely lost the plot in that they seem to think that what is said on the internet by a small minority of people with rather extreme opinions is representative of their base. This is not at all the case and the vast majority of Democratic voters and centrists likely either have no idea who Dunham is, or have no strong positive feelings about her. I mean, at least when the Republicans had Eastwood talki…
/r/MensRights21/07/16 08:30 AM
1

Did you go to CND by chance?
/r/MensRights21/07/16 07:57 AM
1

It could be fixed almost instantaneously if the ATF were given powers it should already have. 1: They should be able to pull licenses without prosecuting just like liquor licenses can be pulled. Of course there should be reasonable appeals processes for dealers but currently the system is completely in favour of dealers and it's not working. 2: The ATF should be able to collect sales data in an electronic database. Currently, as a result of an amendment lobbied for by the NRA they're only allowe…
/r/MensRights21/07/16 07:07 AM
1

Illegal guns in Canada for instance, enter the country through smuggling. In the U.S at least 80% are produced domestically, sold legally from manufacturers to licenced firearm dealers and then through straw purchase or dealers just straight up supplying to criminals, getting on to the illegal market. So in the U.S the leaky faucet is the legal supply chain. Where as everywhere else, the major concern is smuggling. Unsurprisingly, the legal supply chain manages to supply a lot more guns to the i…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 07:49 PM
19

I'd say that's a bad measure of anything except for double standards. In reality, we probably shouldn't be up in arms over this regardless of the gender of those involved. It's mildly inappropriate for sure, but it's not abuse and while you're totally right, people would be losing their shit if the genders were reversed, it wouldn't make them right.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 07:47 PM
11

Do hot women just have it easier than unattractive ones? Yes, that's absolutely true and has been studied several times with consistent results. Attractive people, male or female have an easier time getting work, finding partners and are generally treated better by everyone they know.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 05:13 PM
1

Okay? Also, I do enjoy the irony of being reported to mods by an anarchist who is against the existence of law and law enforcement.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 06:47 AM
2

Ahh, I see you're just trolling. Based on the votes on this post, you have failed. Have a good day.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 06:38 AM
2

OP needs to give an awful lot of context because this appears to just be some idiot being an idiot.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 06:25 AM
1

Yes, but your question was whether misandry of the kind we see today is biological.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 04:38 PM
1

Chivalry is a broad term that covers all sorts of behaviour toward women it was largely about protecting women and women's chastity/purity etc. It didn't have anything to do with women despising men, even when it represented male disposability.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 09:18 PM
3

Gay clubs don't enforce anything, they're just displeased by this. And while nobody has any guarantee that other people will be attracted to them, imagine going to a club where only 1-2% of the people in it were even interested in someone with the same genitals. You're making a ridiculous comparison. Gay clubs make perfect sense and it's evident that you've made no effort at all to empathize with the situation gay people are in terms of dating.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:21 PM
1

No. This is almost certainly a recent change that's only possible due to modern convenience. If you relied on male labour and protection for survival it wouldn't be in your best interest to degrade the men around you and be hostile toward them. There have always been elements of female suspicion of men and vice versa. Like the women's movements against alcohol or coffee houses. But never before has there been such a broad hatred and distrust of men as a whole.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:16 PM
1

I think this arrangement is becoming less and less common fortunately. Most men I know have input as to how the house is used and decorated. I think this stereotype is more applicable to previous generations. That said, rarely is it the case that men are dominating the use of the house.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:09 PM
3

Actually, as a Canadian who lives with regulation and is in favour of it, the one area I find concerning is removing one's right to own a firearm without proper due process and unless the guidelines are strict, banning ownership on the basis of mental health creates a lot of potentially slippery slopes. Does a single bout of depression mentioned to a counsellor mean you can't own a weapon? A prescription for Prozak? Where is the line and how many people are going to end up straddling it or unfai…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:17 AM
1

This dichotomy doesn't really exist though. It's not a free for all or full out ban kind of issue. There are lots of things that can be done to better regulate dealers and sales that would greatly reduce the volume of illegal weapons on the U.S market and have no impact on law abiding gun owners. The worst problems at the moment are that there are number of legal shields for criminal gun sellers that were won under the guise of protecting responsible gun owners from prosecution. Even the most ex…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:12 AM
-2

How familiar are you actually with gun regulation? Because I've yet to talk to an American that actually has a good understanding of regulation internationally and nothing that has been tried in the U.S even begins to resemble reasonable gun regulation. It's either an ineffective ban, which I would agree doesn't work, or nothing at all, which also doesn't work. For starters, gun regulation has to be a nationwide policy. It doesn't work in places like NYC or Chicago that have no actual borders wi…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 05:53 AM
4

Statistically, if you carry a gun you are no less likely to be raped or assaulted. Gun regulation isn't a feminist issue. The only time that's true is when they want to prevent people who've been slapped with protection orders from owning weapons, which as someone who is Canadian and in favour of gun regulation, is an underhanded breach of due process. There are reasonable ways to reduce gun crime and allow relatively easy access to weapons for those that want them and will be responsible owners…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 05:36 AM
6

It's not just the behaviour though, it's the volume as well. Straight women have always been going to gay clubs and they have always been welcome, but if you and 15 other straight people show up to a club with 30 people in it, 33% of the club, at minimum is now straight, which I'm sure is irritating when you're part of a minority orientation and you can't just go to another club and assume most people around share that orientation like you can when you're straight.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 05:32 AM
2

I had a conversation just this week with a gay New Yorker that complained of straight women overtaking gay bars. He was understandably annoyed since it's really not for straight women in packs but even beyond bachelorette parties, gay clubs are seen as trendy. It's not as if straight people aren't welcome in gay clubs either, I've been to many, never felt that vibe, but you can't take them over or completely fuck with the numbers. Homosexuality after all is a minority orientation and gay clubs a…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 05:29 AM
8

Nobody is colluding IMO. There are 3 things at play here, 4 maybe in the case of this movie specifically. First, you've got a media that is dominated by journalism students, a rarified group, who all attended similar schools where they learned similar things about the world because that's what university has become. You're not going to find a gender studies professor or a race theory professor that fundamentally disagrees with the world view of another. The disagreements are rather minute in the…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 05:22 AM
1

The interviewer even subtly jokes about the number of times she said the title at the end of the interview.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 09:42 PM
1

Naomi spews so much nonsense and plugs her book so many times it's difficult to keep track. She also references herself as if her baseless arguments are some kind of primary source.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 05:29 AM
1

Not only that, they were both incredibly condescending and rude in a polite tone, Wolf in particular who does it repeatedly to this day.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 05:26 AM
2

interesting how they all seem to decry people like MacKinnon and Dworkin as anti-male, but today many feminists would deny that. Wolf is notorious for talking out of both sides of her mouth. She makes a habit of controlling her tone and pretending to agree with criticism at the beginning of a tirade before contradicting herself 3 sentences in. She does this multiple times in this discussion and it's even more plainly obvious in her discussion with Karen Straughan. In the latter case she responds…
/r/MensRights16/07/16 05:26 AM
3

Fuck, let this asshole fade into obscurity.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 05:52 PM
2

Yeah I waded into that discussion once in r/trans in the context of treating prepubescent children with hormones and hormone blockers. It got heated really fast. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's unethical to provide such untested, high risk treatments to any children before puberty given the numbers, but for trans people it's very personal and I don't think that many can take a step back and look at it based on the numbers and risks like we would any other treatment. It's not a life savin…
/r/MensRights15/07/16 05:47 PM
5

In fairness to reality, the vast majority of children with GID no longer have GID after puberty. So for prepubescent children, which is what is being depicted, the idea that wanting to transition to another gender is a phase is totally accurate. That said, I totally see your point and I get how it could create or feed into inaccurate views of gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 08:38 AM
1

I never even commented on that.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 08:13 AM
0

I don't care for articles like this. Cathy Young, rightfully, doesn't give a shit about the success of feminism. It's dishonest to pretend that she has any concern about the ideology and is looking out for its best interest. She's probably not wrong, and I happen to agree with many of her positions on a number of subjects, but this kind of stuff is a little patronizing and deceptive.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:20 AM
2

This is essentially a pointless internet argument video. Nothing of great interest and the Amazing Atheist is really wasting his time here.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 04:44 AM
1

Apparently the author was unaware that overwhelmingly it's women, not men, that are interested in reading about celebrities and how they look, what they wear etc.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 04:30 AM
4

This should be easy to complain about then. There a free pretty strict rules in public buildings in Canada.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 02:15 AM
-1

Good for him, but this guy's nuts. If he has any sense he'll remove himself from situations where accusations can easily be made. And as much as that might sound like paranoia, the same goes for anyone who works with children, including women. The reality is that at some point in your career, you're going to be accused of something. That is a guarantee. Given that reality, it's wise to make every reasonable effort to avoid being alone with children or in compromising situations where there isn't…
/r/MensRights30/06/16 06:38 AM
1

The issue is that Rolling Stone, though ultimately responsible for any of the end effects of their story, didn't actually defame these guys in the story itself. You'd have to find out who exactly it was that linked their names to the story and sue them instead.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 05:37 AM
0

No, you've been arguing that the rate is in fact close to 70%. You're just backpedaling now.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 08:08 PM
1

And yet you're comfortable with estimates that have no foundation beyond opinion. That's sound reasoning. /s
/r/MensRights28/06/16 07:21 PM
1

You seem to have absolutely no interest or understanding of what qualifies as research and what is mere speculation. If you want to think that the vast majority of people cheat despite strong evidence to the contrary then be my guest but I'm not going to waste my time giving you considered responses when your replies amount to your own uniformed opinion absent of any evidence to support it.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 07:05 PM
2

Meanwhile, the 60-70% studies They're not studies at all. They're not even surveys. They're estimates from individuals. Furthermore, the survey studies that have been done are completely anonymous and have thousands of samples. Even if you just assume an additional 10% are lying, which wouldn't be entirely unreasonable, you're nowhere near 70%. If you think that the actual rate of paternity fraud is lower than 30% because of self selection by suspicious men, then you have to also conclude that t…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 06:35 PM
1

I did yes and the highest reports are at 60% and that's estimates which are meaningless. Actual studies put it at 20% for married men, 15% for married women and as I already mentioned 25% lifetime rates regardless of marriage for both genders. Feel free to actually give a source that puts it at anywhere near 70% and is an actual study.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:15 PM
2

I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from. The rate has been 25% for a number of years across multiple studies, and that's not 25% of relationships but 25% of people that have in their lifetime, cheated on a partner. That still makes it quite common, but it's nowhere near 70%. This rate is consistent regardless of gender as well.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:52 AM
3

Roks is crazy. This is them on their best behaviour and you left out the "if it is needed" portion of the quote; you can bet Roks would be the first to argue that it isn't.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:24 AM
2

Give Gad Saad a call. He's got all the right boxes checked.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 12:38 AM
8

It's insane Orwellian nonsense. There is nothing an alleged victim could do that couldn't be explained away by the claim that "there is no perfect victim". If you continue contact with someone who is a near stranger and has no control or power over you "everyone processes trauma differently. If you write love letters to your alleged attacker "everyone processes trauma differently". Hell, you could write a verifiable 2 page letter explaining that the attack never happened and "everyone processes …
/r/MensRights28/06/16 12:05 AM
8

The phrases--suck it up, move on, and get over it--are violence. Except that's objectively not true. But this isn't a person that's ever let the truth or reality get in the way of a good narrative. Also, who the fuck decides "that picture where my hand is needlessly in front of half my face is the best one I think"?
/r/MensRights27/06/16 02:42 AM
2

That's kind of dumb and needlessly provocative though. The behaviour of an abusive spouse vs a non-abusive spouse, to the outside observer, is often not starkly different.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 11:34 PM
1

I'm actually surprised at that, the moderation in r/canada has typically been very fair, even on contentious issues.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 01:29 PM
1

Said warp is a product of the same kind of "tough on crime" light on reason or sense thinking that has produced mandatory sentencing.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 12:03 PM
1

Be better, be better, be better,bebetterbebetterbebetterbebetter.....
/r/MensRights24/06/16 03:09 AM
48

I mostly meant that he stepped in at all to defend her from the big bad man and thought that he should be the filter for opinions and communication that's directed at her, like she needs that kind of protection from other people's thoughts. That's super sexist. He was acting like the father of a small child.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 03:06 AM
2

Menslib is largely just feminism dressed up in concern for mens issues. They're far more concerned about the framework and approach to the issues than the issues themselves. So if you don't discuss something the right way in their opinion they're not interested.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 02:58 AM
1

“He’s a sex symbol. Get over it,” she said. “You have an amazing career and you’re on a hot show. Take your shirt off.” Maybe. That's a valid point. You're getting paid millions and nobody is forcing you to do anything. But if that's true, then it's true for men and women and the same standard should be applied to both. It's not okay to objectify men but also not okay to objectify women. It's one or the other, that's what equality is. Personally I tend to think that objectification is about as o…
/r/MensRights24/06/16 02:57 AM
174

Ironically, what her boyfriend is doing is incredibly sexist, and what OP did is not at all.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 02:51 AM
1

You're drawing firm conclusions from the defense counsels arguments in absence of the prosecutions refutation of those arguments, which doesn't currently exist because there hasn't been a trial. So whether you're saying that it 100% happened that way doesn't really matter since you're refusing to acknowledge that you've only got half the story currently.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:59 PM
1

Guess you'll have to wait and see. Yup. You on the other hand have the benefit of psychic ability and already know exactly what happened and what will and won't be presented when this goes to trial.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:44 PM
1

I don't get why my personal opinion that it probably happened is so frustrating to you anyway. Does admitted rapes might sometimes happen somehow damage men in general? Do you just not like that I think something different to you? It's frustrating because your opinion is based on information provided to an appeals court by her defense counsel and has yet to be refuted because a new trial hasn't actually started yet. The particular subject of the case is immaterial. I don't think that it matters …
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:33 PM
1

This is all pretty fucked up. Basically what they do is they groom and sexually assault these young boys for most of their childhood and then when they hit puberty, they convince them that they should put on a suicide vest and in most cases tell them that they'll survive the whole ordeal. Then if they get caught, they're brutalized by the system in most cases and if they don't get caught they end up in pieces. There are a few organizations that basically take in these kids and deprogram them, fo…
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:28 PM
1

You realize that this hasn't gone to a new trial yet right, and therefore the prosecution hasn't had a sufficient opportunity to refute the defense's claims? Because that's where we're at right now. The appeals court has decided to give her a new case where she'll be able to present this evidence, the evidence you're accepting wholesale from her defense counsel, but it hasn't actually gone to trial and nobody has had a chance to refute it publicly. But given our discussion up to this point I don…
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:16 PM
1

And as I said if there was any really good evidence she made it all up, it would in all likelihood be up on the web too but all the articles I found were about this or the original incident. Which is entirely your assumption and you're basing it on a single article from a local news station. That's crazy. Never heard of those, got any links? Do your own research. You're the one making the claim that there is only one possible explanation here, not me. My general point, though is not that it was …
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:06 PM
59

That's an equally dumb idea. Let judges make judgements. There are always exceptions to broad rules like this and people end up being unfairly punished, or unfairly under-punished.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 01:44 PM
1

You're very frustrating. The point I am trying to convey to you, is that you're hearing only part of the story from the side that is employed to zealously represent their client. For all you know she is into, and had rough sex with her fuck buddy Jim at 6pm that day. Which would produce the same physical evidence as a rape, which we now know from a half dozen recent studies. Again, for all you know they have a witness that will testify that she was so hammered she took her pants off before getti…
/r/MensRights23/06/16 12:53 PM
2

I think you're missing the point a bit here. The whole article seems to be mostly based on the defense counsel's arguments and evidence. I.e, the reporting is rather one sided. It could be that they really do have that strong a case, or it could be that what is being presented is out of context or bent to fit the defense narrative. The point is that it's not wise to assume that the defense counsel, or the prosecution for that matter, is being totally up front with everything, hence my skepticism…
/r/MensRights23/06/16 12:23 PM
1

How is that even remotely democratic?
/r/MensRights23/06/16 11:07 AM
2

Again, this is the case being presented by her defense. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would be comfortable saying that there is a considerable spin on the evidence. That much is certain. I'm not sure why, given the circumstances and source, you're so comfortable taking this information at face value. I'd at least be curious to see what the prosecution and their experts have to say before drawing any conclusions based solely on the claims her her lawyers.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 11:01 AM
7

but it seemed she was actually raped. That is far from conclusive. What you've linked is essentially the defense's arguments in a drunk driving case that lead to two deaths. You cannot take that at face value. Edit: For those interested these claims are literally taken from the defense counsels arguments presented to an appeals court. A new trial has yet to begin and therefore we don't know if these claims can or will be refuted.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 09:54 AM
1

That's how it works afterall. You're probably even guaranteed a cabinet position and everything.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:28 PM
1

Well then you'd best have some random congressman rewrite a historical song then right? Because that's essentially what is happening here. Also, to me it feels like we're revising a piece of living history. The lyrics have been the lyrics since the early 20th century and the proposal wasn't even to turn the clock back to the older lyrics, but to use new ones proposed by a politician with no expertise in writing lyrics. It's a stupid process with a stupid outcome.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:27 PM
1

It's kind of a march so if you want to hear a really good version you need a choir with an orchestra and a decent tempo to keep things moving. It makes a lot more sense that way. When it's too slow and not structured enough, like the pop style solo versions it's not great.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:13 PM
2

I disagree. I think the anthem is pretty good, and internationally it's considered to be a good anthem. Maybe having heard it 8000 times you're a little tired of it?
/r/MensRights16/06/16 08:00 PM
1

You seem to have the requisite skills.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 08:00 PM
1

You're trying to use governments long history of being bad at their job as an excuse for being bad at their job. It's circular.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:48 PM
2

But most of Canada doesn't support it, therefore if you were in the position of an elected MP, you would have to consider the desires of your constituency in your vote, which nobody has evidently. Personally I would have voted it down on the basis that MP's shouldn't be writing lyrics. It would be less awful if the new lyric were decent, instead it's "in all of us".
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:33 PM
6

They changed it to absolutely awful lyrics, the majority of the country isn't interested and it was like a "make a wish" piece of legislation for a dying MP. Those are all good reasons to leave it alone.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 07:21 PM
1

While who praises it? Youtube channels and MSNBC? I guess that means the government is going to do what youtube says right?
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:55 PM
0

Again, I never said that, I am responding to your original claims, which are about mass shootings.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:45 PM
0

I don't believe I ever said there was no correlation to crime, I think that's been linked pretty conclusively. What I said was that there is no strong evidence that single motherhood is related to mass shootings. Those are rare and exceptional crimes and single motherhood is exceedingly common. But you're welcome to change your argument again or throw the word "liberal" around like it's some kind of insult.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:23 AM
-1

You're literally arguing, as is the article you linked, that mass shootings are the product of divorce. That's absurd. If it were at all true, 50 percent of households would produce a mass shooter. They don't. Mass shootings are actually a very tiny fraction of crime. Also: Jiverly Antares Wong James Holmes Robert Stewart All three committed some of the most deadly mass killings in U.S history, all grew up with both parents, in fairly functional households no less. You haven't even considered ho…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 12:31 AM
1

Elliot Rodger for one. But in any case, you're making unsubstantiated correlations that aren't necessarily causal. The overwhelming majority of Muslims and the overwhelming majority of children from single parent households do not commit murder. You could make the correlation between mass shooting and eating meat or watching T.V or using the internet. The rate of divorce or single parent households isn't dramatically different in Europe or Canada either and they don't experience the same number …
/r/MensRights15/06/16 11:53 PM
1

Mass shootings are not typical crimes and a great many perpetrators had relatively normal family situations. Many shooters were also white and were not targeting groups from a different ethnicity or culture. If you want to have a discussion about the merits of having a father around or multiculturalism, great, but those discussions don't necessarily overlap with the issue of mass shootings in the U.S.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:14 PM
1

Well she really does need the plastic surgery from the looks of it.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:12 PM
3

There is no evidence to suggest either are true. The whole "power and control" view of violence involving women is not strongly supported, it's kind of just taken on faith and used as the basis for entire volumes of research, invalidating all of it in the process. It's a woozle of sorts.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:03 PM
1

There is no evidence to suggest that either of those things would solve the issue.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 05:58 PM
3

Nobody want's to regulate or ban gun owners and nobody ever takes a big shit on them, that's a ridiculous straw man. What people want to do, is better regulate guns in the U.S. Again, even this is regularly described as a "ban" which it's not. Even if everything stayed mostly the same in the U.S a lot could be solved just by letting the ATF actually enforce the existing law and pull licenses from dealers that break the law. In fact the law is so absurd in the U.S that even non-law abiding gun ow…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 05:56 PM
1

It's worse that the headline claims IMO. The law is being used to censor speech. That is clear from the Kipnis fiasco.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 09:26 PM
2

Oh yeah, it happens all over the place. You don't even need to find examples of the thing you're arguing against, you can just claim they exist and argue against them.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:43 AM
1

My mother, though it's not political for her, she just doesn't like the current feminist rhetoric and is a little appalled at how far society goes to blame men for everything. Because of her work she's seen equal numbers of dead beat men and women, false rape accusers etc. She is fully aware through personal experience that these things happen and that an accusation or claim that all men are assholes or perpetrators is simply not true, so she doesn't easily go along with the current feminist nar…
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:28 AM
1

There is no such thing as strict liability sexual assault that doesn't involve minors so far as I know. Can you explain your claim on that point?
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:22 AM
9

It's amazing how popular it's become to argue against straw men in the media. Where these guys that are making the claims referenced in this article? And we're focusing on Fox's use of the "some people say" method of inserting bullshit into news? I think maybe we're ignoring something far more pervasive right under our noses.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:12 AM
1

To each his own. I don't really care how people want to live their own lives, but I think at a societal level we need to have a kind of consensus and land on something that works for most people most of the time.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 05:27 AM
2

INAL, but as best I can tell, at least in my jurisdiction, don't get married, don't sign any paper work, don't combine finances. If you do get married, the most iron-clad prenup is nearly worthless, and any kind of paper work agreement about finances actually makes it more likely that you'll end up in court fighting to keep control of what you contributed. That may sound a little extreme, but it's really not. Unless you're having kids, there really is very little reason to combine everything or …
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:29 AM
1

This isn't men vs women, this is common sense vs idiots.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:20 AM
1

"There is no context" Oh..because the fact that they're clearly characters from a wildly popular comic and movie series doesn't count as context?
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:19 AM
1

It's amazing. It's almost like the things that aren't actually criminal are more common.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:11 AM
1

the draft is a necessary evil. Except it's not in a country that hasn't used it in 50 years and could choose to institute it at the drop of a hat if it needed to. There was no draft in Canada or England before WWII, but there was immediately after war broke out. This is the typical way of things in countries that aren't under constant threat, like Israel which is a terrible comparison to the U.S.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:05 AM
1

This was put on display over the issue of bathroom access in North Carolina. It would be almost impossible to argue that any of the people against allowing trans people into whatever bathroom they wanted was a result of a fear of trans people. They were scared of men hurting women, plain and simple. Nearly all of the rhetoric against the idea was grounded in the idea that men could hurt young girls a women, not that trans people in particular were to be feared. The whole thing was largely born o…
/r/MensRights07/06/16 10:03 AM
2

Yes and no. I think that as regressive as traditionalism is, it's actually more fair than the existing situation, so in that sense it's not as horrible a thing to promote. By that I mean that at least in the distant past when men had extra burdens, women had corresponding burdens placed on them. What we have now, for men, is very similar to what has always been. Whereas for women many of the traditional burdens have been removed. This I think is an even worse arrangement than the crazy, but ulti…
/r/MensRights07/06/16 09:59 AM
1

Fortunately, nobody gives a shit about Rose McGowan, or what she has to say. She's not a great thinker, she's not contributed much to society, she's a washed up, never was, actress who's openly bitter toward the industry and has nothing but bile to spew.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 09:51 AM
1

As a general rule I don't listen to the personal philosophies of people who still sleep in bunk beds and have to get permission to stay out past 10:00 pm, this is no exception.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 09:48 AM
2

As far as I'm concerned it's an insult to people with gender dysphoria to call this high school girl a trans guy. She's a she, she presents as a she in pretty much every way imaginable and quite clearly has bought into trans-ness as a fad rather than something she simply can't ignore. This girl is the archetype for tumblr trans nonsense. She's adding fuel to the argument that gender dysphoria or homosexuality is a trend, faze or something people do for attention, which is largely not true.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 09:45 AM
2

I'm not okay with this for any reason. IMO it would be worse if it was some bullshit about women needing safe spaces, but special religious accommodation is a pretty terrible reason to discriminate in public space also. If someone wants to adhere to the ridiculous tenants of a several thousand year old religious ideology, that's their business, but it should never interfere with government funded services and facilities.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 08:11 AM
1

Not really in this case, though I don't agree with the reasoning here either. In this instance it's discrimination in order to accommodate religious fundamentalists rather than restrict access for its own sake.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 08:09 AM
4

and men(myself included) have used them for years for men only counseling and support groups. What you're talking about is reserving one of many rooms for a private function. Something that is built into the purpose of a community centre. Nobody is saying that there can't be a women's support group in room 2A at 5:00 pm every Thursday. They're saying that you can't restrict otherwise public access on the basis of sex. If there was a private reservation of the pool (not that that's even possible)…
/r/MensRights07/06/16 08:07 AM
2

Very possibly, and I am not in a position to say whether it's a big deal or not, it may be in many situations, but objectively it is not illegal and it does not constitute rape. I am really curious to know why the article says that most of the incidences met the legal definition of rape, though. Unless most of the incidences weren't incidences that didn't involve force, threats or violence or incapacitation, they weren't incidences of rape. Let's not forget how little the media, particularly med…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 06:12 AM
3

I think what needs to happen is the system needs to change. There needs to be sweeping reform of campaign funding and the two party system needs to be completely done away with at every level. To a non-american this seems obvious and the idea that there are only two choices essentially from municipal right up to federal politics is totally absurd and harmful. The opposite end of the spectrum where there are 30 parties and constant coalition governments isn't ideal either, but basically no other …
/r/MensRights05/06/16 06:04 AM
2

I am not American and I dislike Hillary as much as anyone, likely for all the same reasons. But the idea that Trump is somehow not full of shit I think is a full of shit idea. He is clearly pandering at all times. He does so brazenly and without concern for the media or political correctness, and I see the appeal of that, but he also reverses himself every three minutes, he quite literally doesn't have a coherent position or plan on any issue, it seems unlikely he has any deep understanding of a…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 06:00 AM
2

I don't actually know if talking your partner into having sex, or sex without a condom is legally defined as rape. It's absolutely not.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 05:10 AM
3

It would be, but OP, not to insult, isn't that well versed with the criminal code in regards to rape and sexual assault. There is no legal definition of coercion that doesn't specifically involved physical violence or threats. Manipulation, which is how the term "coercion" is being used in this context is not something that voids consent. So none of the events described in this study, unless they involve threats, violence or incapacitation meet the legal definition of rape or sexual assault.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 05:10 AM
5

I'd like to point out that there simply is no such thing as "verbal coercion" without the use of threats. Coercion by definition is persuasion by way of physical violence or threats. This is not how the term is used colloquially, it's often a synonym for "manipulation" but in a legal context, coercion does not mean mere manipulation or persuasion, it means violence and threats. Therefore, anything less is not coercion and is not considered illegal and therefor doesn't constitute rape or sexual a…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 05:07 AM
3

They have raised practically no money, their website looks like it was made in 1990 and Jack Teter has basically been a radical asshole in public repeatedly. I think shining any light on this stupid, ridiculous campaign will only increase their visibility. Let it die in silence.
/r/MensRights03/06/16 02:48 AM
3

Masculinity is only fragile when someone who has just made a point of insulting and generalizing all men gets called out or critisized. Then it's about how the group they just shit on reacted and not about their own actions. It's a classic red herring.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 02:31 AM
1

You're being a pedant, and an incorrect one at that. Witness testimony is considered evidence. Its not terribly compelling or reliable, which is what I already said, and on that basis she shouldn't have been expelled, or even kicked out of the dorm. But on the other hand, neither article provided much detail. The post article provided almost none at all and Buzzfeed only provided one side of it. Meaning it's entirely possible that there is more to the story that we haven't heard about yet. You'v…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 06:21 PM
5

We don't want this kind of equality. This may be a means to a better world where weak accusations aren't enough to be expelled from a school, but if the end result is just both men and women being railroaded by school administrations, that's not an accomplishment.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:37 AM
3

While it's entirely possible that she sexually assaulted a drunk man, that absolutely does happen, the school still railroaded her from the looks of it. There is no compelling evidence in the affirmative, there are just two hazy versions of the story. All that said, this is a buzzfeed article and they don't mention in any detail the account of the alleged victim. There could be a lot left out that changes the narrative and puts some nails in the coffin. Her story is plausible though and based on…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:36 AM
1

Yup, this has been true for many years, and despite some reports most people don't cheat. It's still common, but not so much that it's more common than not cheating.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:52 AM
8

Yes and no, ultimately it all boils down to popularity. Obviously the quality of play has a major influence on that, but in theory the existing women's teams could and should make the same amount of money if they draw the same crowds and advertisers and ratings, they just don't.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 06:50 AM
5

Beyond the potential harassment problem, gender segregated schools past elementary grades IMO don't work. Both girls and boys fail to learn how to properly interact with the opposite sex and the results as an adult can be disastrous. I've seen girls from all girl high schools fuck anything with a pulse in college, or do the opposite and fail to interact with men at all. Neither outcome is healthy. I don't have any personal experience with all boys high school students as there aren't many all bo…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 10:33 PM
1

Both these videos leave a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy and fact.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:10 AM
3

I wonder this also. They're being disruptive, they should be removed, with force if necessary. If this were any other venue that's exactly what would happen. I don't know why it has stopped happening or why feminist or BLM protestors are somehow immune to the normal security procedures.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:04 AM
1

It's weirdly common. I've noticed that many of the new SJW are the jock bros who also tend to be very homophobic.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:02 AM
1

LOL Black Woman. FTFY
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:01 AM
1

No shit.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:50 AM
1

I don't know too much about her managerial style, and you may well be right, she may have been no good at her job, but she is one of many people that has attempted to do something with Yahoo that has failed. Even if she was a total ass like Pao, it would prove nothing about all women which is the point u/rassellers0 is making anyway. Women are neither better or worse than men at running companies, at least not so far as we know.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:48 AM
18

The fact that they were running plays experimentally means little, women's teams typically play much younger boys teams for practice and lose frequently enough, this isn't an aberration. The Canadian women's hockey team, easily the best in the world, also plays boys teams around the same age, and also loses with some regularity. The gap between men and women athletically is way, way bigger than most people are aware.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:27 AM
3

Ironically the opposite advice is given by therapists and psychologists to patients suffering from PTSD or who are working on dealing with trauma. The idea is to not create a reaction to harmless events. Feeding into it as this university has done has the opposite effect and feeds into negative behaviours. Surely there are enough professionals at this institution that know this as there is little to no evidence to the contrary. They are literally bowing to pressure from students in a way that do…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:21 AM
1

They do more and more in North America.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:16 AM
2

Accusing your opponent of being angry or riled up is such an irritating tactic, not to mention that even if there were anger involved, anger doesn't invalidate an argument.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:09 AM
4

There was a discussion in a thread recently about genderless bathrooms where someone argued that urinals being present would alienate trans people. It was a perfect example of this kind of absurdity.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 11:42 AM
2

I hate to say it, but your wife sounds like an asshole. Granted, opinions vary quite a bit. I'm in Canada and while circumcision is popular enough, women having a preference is less typical. In any case, pretty much all erect penises look the same anyway, cut or not. Unless she really likes flaccid penises it shouldn't even be a concern.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 05:45 AM
1

Even my wife had to 'get used to it' and finally stopped dropping hints about me getting circumcised when I finally told her I was not going to do it. That would have really pissed me off. I'm surprised to didn't hit at her having her clitoral hood removed to make a point.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:40 AM
2

I thought the rates were roughly similar. I don't normally downvote for ignorance because we're all ignorant sometimes and you're not making any claims. But jesus christ it's absurd to think that FGM and MGM happen at equal rates. Use your brain. One is legal nowhere, and the other is legal everywhere and socially acceptable to boot. There is obviously a massive gap in rates.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:38 AM
4

Comparing cis men’s “mutilated genitals” to cis women’s “whole and protected genitals” is a default argument for intactivist extremists as a way to cast circumcision as evidence of men’s oppression. It's a reasonable comparison from a anatomical standpoint and it's supported by data on both kinds of circumcision. However, in every discussion on the subject of circumcision I've ever come across it's detractors of intactivism that make the direct comparison in order to diminish the seriousness of …
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:32 AM
2

It's actually a little strange because typically such a serious allegation made in the press would be followed by at least one specific example. Even the laziest reporting from major outlets is way more careful.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:24 AM
1

This is why many countries have no fault insurance and your own insurance company decides fault and usually bases it on the police report's conclusions. The amount of money spent by insurance companies suing or chasing other insurance companies far exceeds the cost of paying for your customers claims while not being constantly sued or suing.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/05/16 10:55 AM
6

That's the most arrogant headline I think I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:11 AM
8

They all look under 25. Which is probably one of the many reasons HuffPo is terrible. This is happening a lot in new media and the movers and shakers these days are basically without any real experience whatsoever. Not that young people have no place or that there aren't exceptional 25 year olds, but very often they were hired right out of school, taught nothing on the job and then given an important position within a few years while they still know almost nothing. Scaachi Koul is a great exampl…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:08 AM
4

Identity for the most part doesn't create diversity. Diversity of experience and opinion is what matters. That's not something that can be measured by skin colour or gender alone. In this picture we basically see a bunch of 20-30 women who are all likely from similar neighbourhoods, in similar cities, with a similar education etc etc. So very probably, they are one of the least diverse groups of people one could find. Even if there were no two people from the same ethnic background this would pr…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:05 AM
5

This happens in the creative industry and now with recent social politics has become a a bunch of bullshit. Most creatives that actually produce stuff are male. It's super high risk, high failure, the hours suck and it's just generally a tough area to work in. Think film directors, illustrators, commercial artists, photographers etc. But the people who do the hiring and work in the offices and make the decisions are overwhelmingly female. I have always been fine with this, it was never a pointed…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 10:01 AM
3

There was a commenter recently in a thread about the UofO unisex bathrooms saying that having urinals would alienate trans people. Which is like saying stairs next to an accessible wheelchair lift will alienate disabled people. The whole discussion left reality a while back.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 10:12 PM
2

The thing with this bathroom bill is that it's less a concern about trans people and more a fear of men and what they might do if they shared a bathroom with women. It's all rooted, and not distantly, in misandry. The conservative response in NC has been almost exclusively about a fear of men.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:27 AM
1

It wasn't federal and it didn't set precedent. The Greg Elliot case at best (and it's not nothing mind you) discouraged future prosecutions of a similar type through example. It wasn't a high court decision or an appeals decision so it doesn't mean much in terms of precedent long term. It was also a decision that only affects Ontario courts and it was an Ontario law used to bring a prosecution.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:22 AM
2

To whomever runs this new site: Clean it up. The design is pretty cheap looking, it's not a magazine so why call it one in the internet age, and the "don't tread on me" flag in where some clean branding should be. If you're going to make a go of it it may as well look professional and respectable.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:20 AM
21

Oh christ. On the one hand, it's nice to see Trudeau's own brand of bullshit working against him. On the other hand, this MP, who was at worst shoved a bit having to leave the room to collect herself because she had been in some way violated is fucking nonsense. She won't last long in politics if she can't handle such a non-event without needing a time out to process her trauma.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:17 AM
10

Unusual Suspects, American Beauty, L.A Confidential, Pay it Forward, Se7en? Really? You've made it through life without seeing any of those? Those are just the few that are still considered important, 10+ years later. He's been a lead in another dozen box office and critical hits. He's a top tier actor.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:12 AM
1

We don't actually know if men are seriously injured less as procedures at hospitals for collecting this kind of data vary dramatically based on the gender of the patient. I would comfortably speculate that injuries to male victims are underreported. As for murder, the numbers aren't much different. What happens is that they're reported as a percentage of all murder by sex. Because men are murdered 3 times as often its a much smaller percentage that are killed by spouses. In terms of sheer number…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 10:19 PM
36

Feminist activists are already on top of the growing concern for male victims. They're now claiming that previous research vastly underestimated the number of female victims. It's the same BS pulled by Canadian politicians in response to the growing irritation of men being ignored in the MMIW campaigning; just claim the hard numbers are wrong and that your off the cuff estimates are more accurate and wildly inflate them by a few hundred percent.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 12:44 PM
9

Arguably no crime except for obvious self defence is relevant to whether or not someone has been a victim of domestic violence. The whole creation of the syndrome has a questionable foundation in science and there are so many exceptions and inconsistencies it seems more like a creation of defence counsel than a legitimate syndrome supported by research and data from the science of psychology.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 09:27 AM
42

She stabbed an unconscious man in the face twice in public in front of a bunch of people. Premeditation or not, that's callous and extremely violent, not to mention incredibly arrogant. This kind of person is a danger to the public and given her lack of remorse and the fact that she committed the crime in front of others as if she was above the law, I would say it's unlikely that she's going to all of a sudden learn the error of her ways in a prison setting.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 08:41 AM
27

Note her claim that she was battered. It's almost meaningless to make that claim at this point. Maybe 15% of couples participate in some kind of domestic abuse, including cases where women are the perpetrator but since the popularity and utility of the "battered woman" defence has risen it seems that 100% of female defendants in criminal trials are victims of domestic violence. Amazing how that works.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 08:38 AM
1

The fact that it's sacrilege to mention ot kind of proves the point. Women are a protected class and even when they dominate or have advantage it's considered close minded and regressive to mention it. It's like dealing with the church.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 08:46 PM
3

If the movement were a genuine human rights movement I wouldn't see the issue of making it a race issue. It is a race issue in the U.S. However, the movement is an extremest, black power movement that is as hateful and bigoted as the people they protest against. There is a reason the Black Panthers didn't have the same impact as Martin Luther King. They were divisive when they required the support of the majority to succeed. BLM is the same. They need unity to create change and what they promote…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:22 PM
3

They are and they aren't. In some ways they're magnified online because reasonable people keep their mouth shut or simply aren't interested. In that sense they're still very much in tye minority, they just take up a disproportionate amount of space online.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:17 PM
0

To be perfectly frank, even if there isn't much to lose, unless your friends are open to have a reasonable debate, it's not worth it. There are some people who want to have a real discussion, and there are many who don't. For those who don't, address the subject in person and you'll have much better luck. These opinions don't hold up nearly as well in person and the kind of angry rhetoric they come with is much more unwelcome in person. It's amazing how different real people are from the Interne…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:16 PM
2

Firstly, you should have expected this. Secondly, there are surely a number of people that agreed with you and said nothing, precisely because of the response any criticism of feminism gets. I say nothing on Facebook when I see total nonsense and I say nothing when I see something controversial that I agree with, I can't be the only one.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:08 PM
2

"its gotten so bad" As if things have gotten worse somehow rathet than improved considerably for the last 100 years. That illustrates how out of touch the whole argument is.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 03:10 PM
2

Also, as a side note, the girls groups do the same activities, and have for many decades. Great for either gender, but segregated until the teen years which I think makes sense in terms of what we know about development. Granted YMCA's reasoning is much more practical since they're sleepaway camps.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 03:07 PM
1

I agree. On the bright side, if you do have kids, Ymca summer camps are sex segregated in groups and the more remote ones do outdoor stuff way beyond what was offered by the scouts. So there are still options. But it sucks that the scouts is no longer one of them.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 02:28 PM
1

Sort of, at least on the surface. But it goes way beyond that in that there are clear political goals behind it.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:44 AM
1

In fairness I think accomplishing things builds confidence regardless of gender but surely if an organization wants to have sex segregated activities they should be allowed to. Furthermore, one of the big complaints that lead to desegregation was that boy scouts were doing more interesting things. Rather than also doing those things in girl scouts they demanded that girls be allowed to join the boy scouts.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 12:49 AM
4

Yeah I'm seeing it more and more. It usually leads back to "men are broken and need to be feminized to function". On the one hand, men aren't allowed to share their feelings or discuss their issues and this is a problem. On the other hand, masculinity itself is not the cause of the big problems nor does it need to he scrapped altogether. I don't think it can be either, it's not a purely social construct.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 05:20 PM
1

Ironic considering that they spouted a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense, have no qualifications, their "organization" essentially doesn't exist beyond this interview and they still were totally comfortable acting as authorities on national radio. Also the study to which they refer wasn't race or sexual orientation specific. It merely was a study of men and women. Men are more likely to go after positions they aren't fully qualified for than women. That's a far cry from a crisis of overconfidenc…
/r/MensRights05/05/16 06:06 AM
2

The fact that an organization that had raised a total of $120 in the month prior to this interview was brought into NPR to promote an overtly racist, sexist and heterophobic campaign speaks to the bias of NPR.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 06:03 AM
3

There is a page full of insulting, ignorant, bigoted nonsense...but there is also this gem: "Democratic activists Jack Teter and Kyle Huelsman registered the organization last month. So far they've raised $120 from six donations." I'm glad their fundraising total reflects the value of one month of their labour accurately on this totally absurd and bigoted goal. I hope they get hit by some white guy's campaign bus.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 05:52 AM
7

This has become the new way to disparage men while maintaining that you're concerned about their wellbeing, just suggest all of men's problems have nothing to do with the law, education or government policy and boil it down to something trivial like the books they read or that they're not held for that extra 3 seconds as an infant. It amazes me how feminist academics can prejudicially dismiss very big, obvious causes in favour of totally insignificant nonsense.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 05:46 AM
10

Had he sent the images it would still be him being charged here. This is clear cut sexism.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 07:59 PM
16

Then women will just stop living with their boyfriends, just like many avoided getting married so they could keep the alimony train coming. This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 04:38 PM
2

I can agree that there still exists a minority of men that have a 50s viewpoint on marriage. Which is totally fine and harmless so long as they don't want to impose that view on society. Similarly there is nothing wrong with being pro-life or in favour of shariah law if those beliefs remain personal and not political.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 02:09 AM
22

One of their basic tactics in an argument is to make the man look angry This is a type of ad hominem where one's opponent portrays them as angry or uses their opponents actual anger or passion as a basis for disproving their argument. It's exceedingly common when discussing left social issues. I'd say the "why are you threatened?" tack falls into the same category. Essentially they're just attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. As if having any kind of emotion …
/r/MensRights02/05/16 07:43 PM
6

Mostly agreed, although sometimes it's more innocent than that. Men aren't expected to speak up for themselves, they're expected to buck up and succeed anyway. I don't think that applies in this context. I think what the OP is referring to is the last 40 years of men being expected to shut their mouths in relation to gender issues and women's victimhood specifically. You're right, men are expected to keep quite about their needs, but more recently they're also expected to show deference to women…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 07:35 PM
8

I think his point was reasonable. In a sense it's an ad hominem but mostly he's attacking her for her radical positions and illustrating it clearly to viewers by pointing out her extremist political affiliations. If she is an anarchist he's entirely correct in saying that she represents an extreme wing of politics that doesn't reflect the opinions or thoughts of the overwhelming majority of the population. I don't think anyone would have a problem with pointing out the same thing from the extrem…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 07:28 PM
21

I think he's probably just fed up with having provably incorrect bullshit thrown at him every time he has this discussion. Basically every statistic brought up in that discussion was bullshit or given out of context and the feminist columnist had the nerve to use Clementine Ford as an example of a writer that doesn't disparage men or paint them all with a single brush. Clearly it's not an intellectually honest discussion at that point. He pretty much just said fuck it and tapped out at that poin…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 07:23 PM
5

I don't think knocking someone out is a balanced response to having your face touched. I think throwing water at her was probably the right response to her stupidity.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/16 01:14 PM
1

Pretty sure that was the case. It's recorded late at night as far as I know.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/16 01:13 PM
2

I don't see why, if people don't agree they can't just say so. Why does someone have to come in and censor everything all the time. If I think a comment is racist, I have every right and all the necessary tools to point that out or downvote it, I don't need a mod coming in all the time to sanitize everything.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/16 01:04 PM
1

The top comment is hilarious and worth a read.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 08:22 AM
1

We're not talking about Oliver, we're talking about the city of Edmonton. That was your claim.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:13 PM
1

Or I could save you the trouble and send you news articles and official city budget and policy that directly contradicts your claim. I never said they kept the roads perfectly clear btw, but your claim is that they don't clear anything but main streets and it's left up to citizens to do the rest, which is probably bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 02:19 PM
1

That's not what an aperture does. Aperture effects depth of field not field of view.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:17 PM
2

Not relavent to this sub at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:10 PM
1

In fairness, nobody else has been able to turn around Yahoo either. I wouldn't blame her as an individual for this.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:10 PM
1

Pretty much, though you won't get a lot of support in this sub saying that.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:09 PM
3

The U.K has some extremely censorious tendencies when it comes to expression it seems.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:08 PM
12

This is always the scapegoat and I'd liken it to an athlete saying "I'm just grateful to be here" because they don't know what else to say on the spot. We all know logically, that the reason there is a dress code is not so that male students will not be distracted by the female form. It's a basic minimum required based on what our society deems appropriate in a classroom context. The same rules are applied to boys and if they were showing up with their ass cheeks hanging out of their shorts, the…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:01 PM
0

While your story about your own suburb may be true, the claim that only thoroughfares are cleared in Edmonton is a flat out, provably false statement.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 04:38 AM
0

Oh well then, since your family and friends could clear a single rural road with farm equipment surely we can manage in a city like Calgary or Montreal with just a little community spirit and elbow grease right? Just call up Jim when the 401 needs a good plow? That all seems perfectly reasonable and not totally fucking stupid at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 01:00 AM
3

I don't voluntarily donate to a whole list of perfectly good causes, just like you and everyone else.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:13 AM
4

Ahh so people should just give $20 a year to it voluntarily? All of them? Because if it's not all of them, it will be a lot more money for those that do give voluntarily. It's like you don't understand humans or taxation in the slightest.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:58 PM
2

That's like being the best looking girl in a Florida Wal-Mart. I don't know if it means much.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:51 PM
0

You're insane if you think snow removal is something individuals could do themselves in a winter climate. It's literally 50% of the yearly budget in most snowy Canadian cities.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:49 PM
3

It's not a valid belief unless they don't use the sewer system, roads, electricity, law enforcement or any emergency services. So unless you're living in a log cabin 1000 miles away from a city and plan on dying there come what may, it's a totally absurd position to hold.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:47 PM
2

It's a matter of basic math. Unwanted children cost the state money for decades, birth control is a much smaller cost. Free birth control leads to a steep decline in unwanted pregnancy. It's simple math. In Canada we had a similar issue recently when a provincial government announced it was going to cover the first round of IVF treatments for couples trying to have children. This on it's face seems absurd because it's largely a middle class issue and IVF is expensive and entirely optional. Howev…
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:42 PM
1

They're not going up where it counts. Too much of the tax burden is shifted to the middle class while the extremely wealthy are able to use loopholes or havens to avoid them, all while receiving reasonable rates to begin with. Estate taxes are also way too low and that's a fairly big revenue stream.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:32 PM
1

I think it's a little insulting that she would think that most or all women are dumb enough to simply vote for someone because they're female.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:30 PM
1

It is almost like they want to create a criminal class by overreaching and maintain it through disenfranchisement. This is actually happening and it's the product of a few issues with the U.S system from what I can tell. For one, D.A's, Sheriffs and some Judges are elected in many jurisdictions and almost all of them campaign on a "tough on crime" platform. This has been going on for the better part of a century. The politics of getting elected in these positions incentivizes policy and practice…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:00 PM
0

No, what you said what a series of fabrications that can't be substantiated but I guess your appeal to the absurd is one way to go when you don't actually have a counter-argument.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 05:01 AM
1

Yeah, yeah, you keep swallowing what the government spoon feeds you. The MRI issue hasn't been solved for years. Exactly WHEN is it not going to be an issue? I never said it was solved, I said it was being addressed, which you would know if you bothered looking into it before opening your mouth.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 08:44 PM
-1

No, you likely couldn't tell the difference between an American hospital and Canadian hospital if you were standing inside of one (except there is no billing department). And I assume zyk0 said that because he doesn't know any different and there has long been a belief within the U.S that socialized medicine leads to bad health care and crumbling infrastructure. This isn't at all the case, at least in Canada, and all the facilities themselves are private anyway. It's the services that are paid f…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 08:43 PM
1

I take it you didn't watch any of the links, which actually address this claim. Firstly, only a small number of Canadians go to the U.S for treatment each year. About 40,000 out of 35 million. Secondly there is a false perception that U.S medical treatment is better, which is a falsehood you're propagating right now despite all the available evidence. In the example given in the video I linked a Canadian premier went to the U.S for a heart surgery when the hospital that pioneered the treatment a…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 08:34 PM
0

He is flat out not informed about Canadian health care. He regularly spouts nonsense about the alleged shortcomings of Canadian health care which are entirely based on anecdotes. The irrefutable reality is that for patients who receive treatment the two systems produce similar outcomes across major illnesses, there are similar wait times (despite this being the go to attack). This is the case despite Canada spending far less of its GDP on health care and having lower prescription drug costs as w…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 06:43 PM
-2

You didn't learn anything. zyk0s hasn't said anything that's actually true, he's just regurgitated the same old unfounded nonsense. Here is a senate health care panel where a Canadian health care policy specialist answers these claims, all of which can be substantiated with study and data. Feel free to watch the full discussion on CSPAN, it's even more interesting and informative, but it is quite long. Really the only thing where the U.S is ahead, despite spending way, way more money and not ins…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 06:36 PM
-1

Have you been to a Canadian hospital? They're also clean and modern. This isn't the USSR we're talking about it's a G7 nation with one of the highest standards of livng in the world. If you want to talk outcomes, both the U.S and Canada are comparable except in Canada it costs a lot less, nobody is denied treatment, there is a longer life expectancy, and much lower rates of infant mortality. Even wait times are similar and actually falling in Canada. Given all that, which can easily be substanti…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 06:20 PM
-4

This guy falls into the same category as someone like Gavin McInness in that on occasion he stumbles onto something reasonable but mostly just spouts a bunch of crazy, uninformed nonsense on the internet. For example, he regularly rails against Canadian health care in the most ignorant, baseless ways and claims to be in the know having lived there for a few years as a teenager. Good on him for this one instance I guess though.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 06:20 AM
1

Yes of course, and that's not what I'm taking issue with. I'm taking issue with the idea that men as a gender are not equipped to care for a child.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 04:49 AM
1

This doesn't belong here. I fail to see how this relates to men's rights in any way.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:39 AM
2

I don't even know how this stereotype managed to come into creation. It's not like men have a history of being incompetent idiots as a general rule. I mean for christ sake just look around at the roads and bridges and satellites and technology. Most of it was created by people who are somehow incapable of keeping a child alive for 8 hours?
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:36 AM
-2

That would be straight up gender discrimination. I don't see why all women should be judged by this idiot.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:32 AM
15

What makes her think we want her?
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:31 AM
2

Sigh, you have to actually listen past the first 30 seconds. The study was redone from scratch by the team that discredited the original study, it was reviewed by an independent third party before it was published, and all the data was made public. The results were even more impressive than the original fabricated study in many respects.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:09 AM
1

Yes...and? I don't think I claimed that it was anything other than a tactic to change political views. The debunked study, if you bothered listening was also re-conducted by the organization that first criticized the original study, all the data was made public, it was reviewed by an outside third party, and the entire process was under a microscope in way most studies aren't. The chances that the data is bullshit is almost 0. As for the opinions of the author you're quoting: Is there research t…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 07:33 PM
5

I think if anything, the reaction to it will have a larger impact than the content of the film itself.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:31 PM
6

This kind of research tends to be unreliable and one has to be careful in putting too much stock in it. I'd have a good look at the methodology and criticisms of it before giving it any meaning at all.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:30 PM
1

and even if it will have an impact upon any elections around that time. P¬)) It would take a miracle for that to happen. It's possible but I wouldn't get my hopes up quite that much.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:24 PM
3

I don't think the Red Pill movie focuses as much on the basic science of gender as much. This doc really puts NIKK's views of gender in stark contrast to the available scientific research and then essentially exposes them for completely ignoring any evidence that doesn't line up with their preexisting positions. The Red Pill movie so far as I know focuses more on the political movements than basic data and research, so it may soften people's views of these movements but it's not going to fundame…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:23 PM
3

All I could think is that there is nothing at all stopping these women from getting a job in a call-center, where their physical forms will never be an issue. Or literally the majority of restaurants within 1 km of the place they're currently employed. It's a small minority of restaurants that require these kinds of dress codes. I don't agree with the "you choose where you work" philosophy 99% of the time because it's simply not true that low income employees can easily leave and find other empl…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:17 PM
2

This particular issue drives me insane. I resent the claim that low income workers should just "find another job" but at the same time, the restaurant industry is one of the few where that is actually very easy to do. It's a transient profession and if you have some experience, especially if you're female, it's very easy to go elsewhere, and people do, frequently. Beyond that, the overwhelming majority of restaurants do not require women to wear revealing clothing. There are a few chain restaura…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:13 PM
6

It may just be that the police are trying to use one against the other before they use the big stick that is an arrest. It's not an uncommon tactic so I wouldn't read into it too much just yet.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:08 PM
4

I think it would be naive to say that it mattered what the boy wanted. These kinds of fights are about jealousy and hatred of the victim not about the desires of the boy involved. I also don't see that as something that can be fixed per say.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:07 PM
1

Does the U.K have actual life sentences? I know Canada doesn't and a "life sentence" would typically be around 30 years anyway.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 05:56 PM
1

Seems like if you light your kid on fire in the middle of a street you don't need to provide much wiggle room in a plea deal though. Usually prosecutors will shave off time or charges for a quick conviction when the case is solid but not a slam dunk. It seems strange to me that they would offer her much of anything considering they were in such a strong position.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 05:55 PM
2

The head chef thing killed me. Firstly, being a chef is an absolutely shit job as nearly any chef will tell you. Secondly, the rate of disfunction and substance abuse among kitchen staff is extremely high. There is a reason a considerable percentage of kitchen staff in parts of the U.S are recent immigrants with no formal skills and limited ability to speak english. It pays shit, it's backbreaking, exhausting labour, and almost nobody who's done it once wants to continue doing it. If this magazi…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:54 AM
1

He should have told her to piss off and been done with it.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:38 AM
2

I do this with pretty much all single person, gendered bathrooms everywhere. It's only me in there, I don't care what the sign says. Nobody has ever so much as given me a funny look about it.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:19 AM
0

Why do we even need to go that far? The current configuration is perfectly fine, just slap a sign that says "restroom" up and be done with it. I don't think that there is a need to create little fort knox stalls simply because they'll be mixed gender bathrooms.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:18 AM
1

You'd still need the same amount of facilities, not fewer so it would be relatively cost neutral. Like if you have an arena with 500 toilets you can't make them genderless and cut it to 250.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:16 AM
2

Zero tolerance policies are as stupid as minimum sentencing and they remove any humanity or context from the process of punishing students. You've hired this entire staff of people to run a school, you've required them to meet a whole set of standards but then instead of letting them do their job, you're going to legislate some policy that dictates to them how they must address a given situation. It's nonsense.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 04:08 AM
1

That seems to be a big factor for both men and women. Fathers of only daughters seem to take similar tacks to feminists and mothers and fathers of sons seem to at least be more even keeled on the issue. There are notable exceptions in both cases but I think it plays a role.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 09:14 PM
5

Which will of course be paid for by people who've already contributed their fair share to the fund.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 07:39 PM
1

And those people are still genetically European or African to some extent.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:09 PM
5

True but the migration is much more recent for American indigenous groups. In the case of Eskimo and Inuit groups it's even more recent and some of the languages on either side of the Bering sea remain quite similar.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:07 PM
1

Probably not, there is no genetic census anywhere. But there are a number of scientists that have done research on central and south american indigenous populations and they're not free from african and european ancestry with the exception of some isolated tribes.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:05 PM
67

Mentioning that really pisses people off too because they so deeply believe that women are a vulnerable population. Once they find out that men in nearly every context but particularly in public are at a much higher risk of being victims of violence they just react with anger. Edit: Of course not anger at the situation or having been led to believe differently so long. They get angry at you for even bringing it up. They're angry at the information itself.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 02:54 PM
33

A lot of Mexicans are actually descendants of only indigenous peoples That's not true at all. Very few people anywhere in central and south America are that genetically pure. The overwhelming majority of the population, including those in what are viewed as indigenous populations, have some african and european ancestry.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 02:52 PM
1

So men doing absolutely nothing to stop a natural process is an attempt to be dominant? That's sound reasoning. /s
/r/MensRights22/04/16 06:50 AM
1

I always get a laugh out of the feminists that lament "just because I'm being nice doesn't mean I'm into you" which is a thing I have dealt with as a man dozens of times. These people have absolutely no ability to empathize or try and see things from a different perspective. This girl would be horrified if someone spoke to her that way and if you want to talk about feeling entitled to someone's body or sexuality, holy fuck you couldn't find a better example than this.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 05:15 AM
1

INAL but I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of this change in the law. Go read the existing definition of sexual assault and consent in the criminal code and it pretty clearly still employs a no means no standard. Consent can't be implied ("implied" in the legal sense), which may be one of the impacts of this change, but if consent has been given in a way that a reasonable person would interpret as consent, it must be withdrawn rather than placing the burden on the other partner to ask …
/r/MensRights22/04/16 05:10 AM
-2

Fuck off back to TRP. You clearly have nothing of value to add here.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:58 AM
1

That much is evident.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 01:42 AM
11

They seem to think it must be a social experiment to show how it is for women on public transit. As if they're being masturbated at on the regular let alone expected to join in.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 06:33 AM
2

It's possible, but it's kinda difficult for a penis to just slip into a vagina without seeing it coming so I have to imagine that the comment just wasn't made since she likely would have made it right before penetration if it was being ignored. I think it's more likely that people don't like condoms, unprotected sex is great, and it can be very tempting in the heat of the moment. If she decided they needed a condom after penetration it would be the millionth time that exact scenario has played o…
/r/MensRights21/04/16 06:13 AM
9

I don't think it was an accident and I don't think she's telling the whole truth in that statement. Grant says nothing about her pre-penetration statement in his description of events and her version doesn't even make sense when you think about it. In her version: She tells him she won't have unprotected sex and he goes ahead and penetrates her against her wishes but then stops when she says "stop", pulls out immediately, discusses the issue with her, puts on a condom and they continue pleasantl…
/r/MensRights21/04/16 05:40 AM
1

I take it you didn't understand anything I said.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 01:22 AM
1

and what happens to the video after it's created. That's why I clarified this point specifically. In most places with few exceptions it's perfectly legal to record video of other people without their consent, often even in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. What you do with that video afterwards really decides if there is a penalty.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 05:28 AM
2

It's also a civil issue in most jurisdictions and typically applies to commercial use of your likeness. For example, in most places, if you have sex on your front lawn and I record it and sell it and it's used editorially, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. However if I sell it to McDonalds and they use it for advertising (silly example obviously) then you have a good case.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 03:14 AM
1

That depends on the jurisdiction and what happens to the video after it's created. In many instances there is no right to an expectation of privacy and in a lot of contexts where there is, you're protected from the state and commercial interests, not individuals. So you may be right, but it's not quite so simple
/r/MensRights19/04/16 03:09 AM
2

I don't understand why the issue is pronouns when he just spit at someone. And I say "he" because my acceptance only goes as far as trans people who actually want to present as the opposite sex and suffer from some kind of dysphoria. Anything else is pretty much self contradictory.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 07:16 AM
1

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the "exculpatory" evidence which is largely not exculpatory.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:57 PM
1

So once he started viewing men and masculinity through the lens of feminist theory, which he evidently wasn't aware of up to that point somehow, he saw the light. It's like starting out as an atheist and then converting to Catholicism after viewing religion and god through the lens of Catholicism.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 08:12 AM
1

Even the most poorly conceived constitution would likely prevent a law like this from being upheld.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 07:07 AM
-2

This is a tough one. On the one hand, having lots of sex doesn't mean you weren't raped. On the other, there were texts that seemed to indicate that the sex was consensual and her sexual past may at least make the likelihood of her banging four dudes at once more likely. This case really just proves what we already know, rape cases are difficult and complicated.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 07:04 AM
1

Well thank fuckin God you came along with certainty ajd were a dick about it.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 12:09 AM
3

It won't even get that far. If this gets off the ground at all it will last weeks or at best months. There simply aren't enough women that want to drive a cab for a living, and this isn't the first attempt at a female only cab company in recent years. I'm also a little confused as to why its existence is justified. Some women may feel uncomfortable with male cab drivers but the number of criminal incidents involving cab drivers is so minute that any fear is totally irrational. You're about as li…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:20 AM
3

There are two documented examples I can think of just off hand. One in Edmonton where the driver was accused of sexually assaulting 3 women but had video of the entire ride, and another from a driver in Israel. In both cases their only protection was video recording. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think police officers are the only people that would benefit from body cameras. Accusations against teaching staff, particularly men, but also women, at all levels of education I think justi…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:14 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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