TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

froderick Archive

View 1 post and 240 comments by froderick 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)
106

Opinionfroderick/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:11 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Depends what subreddits you peruse. The subreddits like the ones you describe generally aren't worth visiting anyway.
/r/MensRights06/09/22 05:10 AM
2

Hate comments like this, because it stops honest critiquing. I've enjoyed She-Hulk so far, but there's definitely some things in it that could be better (besides the obvious CGI issues).
/r/MensRights05/09/22 01:51 PM
4

I'm in Australia too. What uni/course you doing that has excursions?
/r/MensRights05/09/22 01:28 PM
1

I get what you mean, which is why I don't use the term "Toxic Masculinity" personally. And I agree with everything you've said.
/r/MensRights04/09/22 03:23 AM
1

There could be a lot better educating on what the term means, I certainly agree with you on that.
/r/MensRights04/09/22 03:00 AM
8

Self-reliance can at times be negative if its a situation where you're clearly not coping and need help but refuse to get it because you feel you need to be "self reliant". There are occasions where it can be negative.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 12:46 PM
0

I feel like people didn't read this article at all and are just projecting their anger and frustrations. This article agrees a lot with stuff I've seen people say in this subreddit! Toxic masculinity simply means the cultural pressures on men to act a certain way, even when it's harmful for them. Some of these cultural pressures are "If a man is facing depression, he's a pussy/weak, getting help is a sign of weakness, if you're a man you shouldn't ever be weak", etc.. It doesn't mean men are bad…
/r/MensRights03/09/22 12:44 PM
5

Is the page actually saying that though? Because someone in here linked to the actual page and when you actually read it, they aren't really saying that. If anything, it's more a note of "When prescribing it to a female patient, don't fall into the trap of thinking 'Nah they won't overdose on it' because the rate of women doing that is going up".
/r/MensRights03/09/22 12:39 PM
4

Just seems like they're saying "women's death by prescription painkiller overdose is on the rise, although still behind men", which is completely fair and accurate. I don't read any particular tone in this text at all, this seems like OP is kind of projecting.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 12:36 PM
1

Can't create anything new? Then you may as well wash your hands of the entire MCU because it's literally all based on pre-established characters. As for She-Hulk, my verdict so far is that it's OK. Not bad, not good. So far its all very low stakes, but most comedy-focused shows are so that's not a surprise, we'll see what comes of it. But I'm willing to actually watch it and decide for myself instead of parrot the view of other people who have at most watched contextless clips and have an axe to…
/r/MensRights03/09/22 09:12 AM
1

That the whole "But Bruces childhood!" may be a moot point in the context of this show and the MCU itself.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 09:07 AM
2

In the comics she knows, I mean in the context of the MCU specifically. Because now that I think about it, I don't think they've even alluded to Bruce's troubled childhood in the MCU either, just in the Eric Bana movie which is its own continuity.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 03:55 AM
2

But the show isn't that in the slightest, which you'd know if you watched and judged for herself. The character (so far) feels trapped in their situation because they have this power/form they don't want, but it's the only thing anyone wants her for, personally and professionally. She's literally a diversity hire at the law firm she joins in the second episode because they want a superhero to head up the Superhero Law division, and she hates that.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 03:54 AM
-3

Sounds like what you're describing is a flawed character, who has room to grow and develop, which takes time. Meaning they shouldn't be written off after just the pilot episode of the series. All the other big characters has 90+ minutes to grow and develop in their debut movies, I'd think this character ought to be given at least equivalent screen time to do that same.
/r/MensRights02/09/22 11:06 AM
5

How many people in his family even know about his childhood (in the context of the MCU), is what I wonder. Wouldn't be surprised if she has no idea about that.
/r/MensRights02/09/22 11:01 AM
1

During her little rant, doesn't she end up transforming, which kind of puts a little hole in her rant, which was kind of the point of the scene? And doesn't she later end up apologizing and they see eye-to-eye by the end of all of it? Been a bit since I've seen the first episode since I sailed the high seas to get it, but I got the distinct impression she realised how out of line she was. The character is obviously not perfect and has flaws, which are going to be worked on as the series continue…
/r/MensRights02/09/22 11:01 AM
3

I know you're only 24, but this post has strong "Old man yells at the sky" vibes. Also, prostitution is legal in many places in the world. Yet the extremely vast majority of women don't pursue sex work in those countries. Stop being so silly.
/r/MensRights01/09/22 06:14 AM
2

Ah, that makes a whole lot more sense.
/r/MensRights27/08/22 03:16 PM
6

10 years ago in my 20s I actually turned down quite a few women because they KNEW me. Know who and what I was, and was attracted to that I'm confused. Why would you turn down women because of that?
/r/MensRights27/08/22 02:01 PM
3

What the heck is "Asian fishing"? I've never heard of that.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 12:20 PM
3

Makes sense, women outnumber men in these institutions. Question is, why? I've seen it posited before in this subreddit that it's because the current education system isn't doing male students justice, so less would be able to even get into University. Fixing that would then in turn help fix the debt imbalance so more men are in debt than ever before!
/r/MensRights25/08/22 12:13 PM
1

I'm not saying that's what Star Wars is about. Star Wars is a very classic Hero's Journey, and they went with an enemy who is simply just unambiguously evil. And where did they draw inspiration from when making that enemy? The Nazis. Doesn't mean the film is about WW2, but when you go off of George Lucas' own words during the commentaries of the original trilogy where he sometimes literally refers to the Stormtroopers as "Nazis", it's clear what they're based on.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 02:36 PM
-2

You either don't know what autonomy means, or you're just a troll. Given your last sentence, it's not much of a wonder which it is.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 02:33 PM
-8

I ain't ever seen that happen over there, as I said before they're very consistent when it comes to bodily autonomy. I've seen posts there against male circumcision too. Surprising overlap between that sub and this one at times.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 12:17 PM
-4

Don't be absurd, no they wouldn't. You can hate on them but they're pretty consistent when it comes to bodily autonomy. You're letting your own dislike and hatred massively affect your perception.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 10:22 AM
2

It's all about what you're used to. Seeing heads caved in is something that's been in media far more than depictions of C-Sections. When you see a lot of it in media, you become desensitized to it in media.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 03:20 AM
1

I was never saying Star Wars is an allegory to WW2, just that the Empire is an allegory for the Nazi Regime, and all fascist regimes in essence. But with particular attention paid to the Nazis. Even if someone were to say "Oh but the other aliens aren't a different race, they're a different species, it's not the same thing", it's missing the heart of it entirely. The point is they both boil down to the same core ideal, which is "You're different than me, therefore you're inferior". Whether you w…
/r/MensRights24/08/22 03:00 AM
2

They did but they didn't insert diversity to the Empire, though. Sure, there's women higher up than what was shown in previous films, and different skin colours since they stopped using clones for reasons I don't recall (not sure if it was ever stated in Force Awakens), but they still retained the whole Human-Superiority thing. The Rebel Alliance was always shown as a multi-species amalgamation, the Empire has always just been shown as human, with some extremely rare notable exceptions like Thra…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 03:45 PM
2

I don't disagree with your stance on Disney in your comment here, although ball punch jokes are something a lot of male audience members still very often enjoy. I don't think female audiences enjoy unnecessary sexualisation of female characters as much as male audiences appreciate a good simple crude ball-injury physical gag.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 03:40 PM
3

He was drugged by someone he let his guard down around. You could call that unwise of him, but not weak. The shackles they put him in were literally technology made to limit the use of magic, which were probably developed by Reed Richards, whose descendant founded the TVA, where magic was also able to be controlled as well.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 03:36 PM
2

Still a sign of woke agenda over logic and consistency, with her physique she should never have a job that might require things like running, or even walking fast. Also she beats Loki in their first encounter. You could say that about her weight, sure. But not about her race, so bringing up she's black is pointless and just makes it look like you're upset about something that isn't a factor. Also she beats Loki in their first encounter. Loki very obviously underestimated her since he was still b…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:49 PM
2

The sequel trilogy is a steaming pile that should've never been made. But even then, the similarity between the uniforms they use and Nazi uniforms shows and obvious intentional similarity. As I said in a comment to someone else, it's not meant to be a direct comparison, the Empire is very obviously an allegory to fascist regimes in general, with special attention to Nazis back when George Lucas was involved in Star Wars (which he hasn't been since Disney acquired it). The soldiers are literally…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:43 PM
3

"Race" is a very nebulous term. It can mean entirely different creatures (like humans VS other primates) to just different shades within the same creature (Caucasians VS Asians VS etc..) depending on the context. The Stormtroopers and the Empire in Star Wars are very clearly an allegory for Nazi Germany. In George Lucas' own commentary on the films, he sometimes refers to the Storm Troopers as Nazis. He even mentions their militaristic dress, saying that they're designed to be very authoritarian…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:37 PM
5

Only random monster I recall him having issue with was that octopus thingy at the start, who was Gargantos (but really was based on Shuma-Gorath, they just couldn't get the rights to the name so they used the name from something else). Said being is basically an ultra powerful demon capable of traveling the multiverse of its own accord, and is basically a Lovecraftian Old God, so... it's extremely powerful. The version in the movie was a nerfed version of that character, so if anything you shoul…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:28 PM
5

Germany also believed in racial purity to the extreme, and Jews and Gypsys were considered to be "different" enough to warrant being intimidated, imprisoned, and eventually put to death. This whole thinking of "Oh, Russia is white, Germany White, all of Europe is white" is a very American way of thinking. In Europe, they drew and still often continue to draw ethnic distinctions between different regions of Europe, and consider things like Italians to be ethnically different from Romanians, or Hu…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:14 PM
5

Still waiting to hear how the TV series Loki is in any way "woke". Because so far, I'm just not seeing it. No one was shoe-horned in, all the actors did their jobs reasonably well at the very least, people's identities/sexualities/gender/etc weren't shoved down peoples throats and made to be a big deal or important. I'm not grasping how it's woke, outside of "They cast someone who was a woman / who was black". But that in and of itself isn't enough to be "woke".
/r/MensRights23/08/22 12:48 PM
6

Loki has taken the form of a woman before in the comics in order to give birth to children, so making it a alternate-universe-variant was a clever way to include it without him literally turning into a woman, because then you'd probably be complaining about them including trans-ness wokeism in the show instead. Female Loki wasn't even made out to be superior to regular male Loki in any way, just... different. They each have different strengths and skills. Why is including it or showing it bad in…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 12:33 PM
13

How do you figure it was designed to frame white men in a negative light? There were white male characters (Tarkin and Krennic) who were antagonists, yes. But that doesn't mean they're meant to be some statement or punching bag to serve an attack on white men, any more than having a flawed female character is an attack on all women,
/r/MensRights23/08/22 12:29 PM
4

The TVA guard being a black woman has nothing to do with the conversation at all. Hell, Loki even bests her, so your point is moot. And Sif was there for fan-service since her character hasn't been seen since Agents of Shield (and also just for humour). It wasn't in any way meant to be an attack on men, and it was used as a moment for Loki to actually do some self reflection and admit how messed up he is.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 10:39 AM
10

notice how almost all of the good guys are ethnically diverse while the baddies are all white. Considering how the Empire is quite obviously based on Nazi Germany, I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 10:37 AM
6

I never saw Shang Chi so I can't make any comments about it. Doctor Strange isn't neutered in Doctor Strange 2, it's just that he's outclassed by Wanda, which is pretty true to the comic source material. And saying he's "serving" Chavez is quite a severe mischaracterization of their relationship. He's protecting her because she's the mcguffin who can't protect herself. And Chavez being raised earlier in her life by two women is incidental to all of this and isn't relevant to anything, that's jus…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 09:25 AM
14

Monica Rambeau has been black for a long time, hasn't she? The comic panels I find of her look old as hell. The Endgame scene was harmless, it was a moment for female side-characters to get a moment to shine. It didn't put men down in anyway at all. The execution was cringey but again, completely harmless. And America Chavez always had two mothers too, that's just being faithful to the source material. Having her in a multi-verse movie mad sense. Granted, the focus wasn't as much on Stephen Stra…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 09:09 AM
19

When it comes to MCU titles, I don't know why you consider everything where Wanda is powerful as "woke". She's been one of the most powerful entities in the source material for a long time, and in neither Wandavision or Doctor Strange 2 do I recall male characters put down because they're men. I don't see how "this female character is strong and independent", which you put on the low end of the woke scale, is considered woke at all. Wouldn't bat an eye at a male character being that way, so why …
/r/MensRights23/08/22 08:32 AM
1

Good question, although this didn't go to court anyway so it's moot.
/r/MensRights08/01/22 11:43 PM
7

Someone could become mentally unstable from being raped, so it wouldn't be conclusive anyway.
/r/MensRights08/01/22 04:01 PM
-1

The reason she isn't being expelled is because there's no proof she is lying about it. This is a typical case of he-said/she-said. Just as people shouldn't automatically think the guy must be guilty, you shouldn't automatically think she's guilty of falsifying that she was raped. Why are you so convinced she made it up, rather than the more reasonable approach of "I don't know, I wasn't there, but she hasn't got any proof so I'm not just going to assume he's guilty"? You seem utterly convinced h…
/r/MensRights08/01/22 03:59 PM
3

As long as they continue to be a womanizer, I could be down with that.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 09:48 AM
17

Whom did you hear the rumour from? Someone in your friend group? What connection did this rumour-revealer have with the women in question?
/r/MensRights16/11/21 07:34 AM
7

Context? What is this from? Is it made by/for Netflix, or do they just have streaming rights? What's the actual story?
/r/MensRights05/06/21 01:26 PM
1

I have, and I'm not seeing them. Unless they've been downvoted enough that they're not visible above other comments anymore.
/r/MensRights04/06/21 11:15 AM
2

You can screenshot them though. You must be really focusing on specific comments because the only trend I can see in the comments I can see is: Practise with a friend? You'll break their arms lol This wouldn't work in a real world scenario
/r/MensRights04/06/21 09:48 AM
3

Using cuck as an insult, really? How old are you?
/r/MensRights04/06/21 09:37 AM
4

Where in the video or the comments is that happening? What you've linked isn't evidence of it happening. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it hasn't happen here.
/r/MensRights04/06/21 09:37 AM
3

The title of your youtube link isn't gendered at all. It's the text in the video which you could argue is gendered, since it's phrased as "Every GIRL needs to know". But none of the actual content of the video is gendered, they just say "attacker". The comments are mainly jokes about accidentally breaking peoples arms by practicing the maneuver as the person in the video suggests. I didn't see any comments shitting on men or anything. How is this video "pointlessly" gendering things, and showing…
/r/MensRights04/06/21 09:34 AM
5

Literally the only context to this is that OP saw that the text in the video mentioned it was a handy tip for women to defend themselves against a rapist, and OP then interpreted that as an attack on the male gender. That's literally it. In the audio they just go over hold and maneuvers, the only mention of gender at all is in the text at the top of the video, and it's not putting men down or anything.
/r/MensRights04/06/21 08:44 AM
5

It's weird that when you see a video saying "This is a handy trick for women to defend themselves against a rapist", that you interpret it as an attack on men.
/r/MensRights04/06/21 07:11 AM
2

MILITARY TV | #Shorts is a cancer title? I'll admit, I didn't even look at the comments, who the hell even does that on YouTube? Although when I look at the first "page" of top level comments, I don't see any sexist comments directed at either side. Sure you submitted the right link? Otherwise, Feels like you're just looking for reasons to be upset.
/r/MensRights04/06/21 07:09 AM
3

I'm confused.. what's the problem with the video?
/r/MensRights04/06/21 04:33 AM
1

Misogyny seems to manifest as a bunch of mean comments I'd say blaming rape victims for being raped is more than just a mean comment. And yes, it happens to victims of both sexes. Western society has done a decent (but incomplete) job of getting away from blaming female victims, but get outside of the West and it's a different story.
/r/MensRights06/05/21 10:11 AM
1

I'll admit to being ignorant on this one. What are his climate change views?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/02/21 04:54 AM
0

No, they mean it's men's role to not actively hurt women (as it should be everyone's role to actively hurt other people).
/r/MensRights03/07/20 02:02 PM
1

Probably against the rules, due to potential brigading. Although the post is a year old and archived, so one can't comment/vote on it anymore regardless.
/r/MensRights29/03/20 12:31 PM
3

The sub it's from says this is the sidebar: "A radical feminist sub focused around the PinkPill, lookism, female separatism, and the true nature of men. You can't tell me you're surprised by this post.
/r/MensRights05/11/19 11:18 AM
4

If this was an article about an attempt to cover it up, or about the person getting an extremely light sentence, I'd be right there with you. But this submission is basically "Bad person gets caught doing bad thing, is arrested".
/r/MensRights13/06/19 03:04 PM
12

How is this /r/MensRights material? Just because it was a woman who did a bad thing? Is that the only criteria is takes to be considered content?
/r/MensRights13/06/19 12:31 PM
4

Wait, what are they basing that on? They're saying most men's first sexual encounter is them being sexually assaulted? I'm going to need something to back that up.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 05:18 PM
13

Did you not notice, in the very image you submitted, it's confirmed that is indeed the assailant's mugshot?
/r/MensRights25/05/19 07:45 AM
12

The Hero of Terminator 2 did indeed do that.
/r/MensRights25/05/19 07:40 AM
5

I don't know why either. Upvoting you for being so polite ;)
/r/MensRights09/04/19 10:51 AM
7

I knew that last bit (I'm uncircumcised), didn't know the other bits.
/r/MensRights09/04/19 10:33 AM
6

Don't get me wrong, I'm against circumcision if the owner of the penis doesn't or isn't able to consent to the operation, but how could she feel the difference when it was inside of her? When a penis is erect, the foreskin becomes pulled back, looking almost indistinguishable from a circumcised penis.
/r/MensRights09/04/19 08:30 AM
2

finsta? Is that a typo or some new term I'm not familiar with?
/r/MensRights15/01/19 08:43 AM
1

That's Doctor McCoy, not Spock.
/r/MensRights22/08/18 04:26 AM
3

If you truly wanted to know, you would've sent me a direct message So that's what you'd prefer? If multiple people don't understand the phrase or aren't familiar with it, to just all direct message you so you need to answer the same question multiple times? Wouldn't it make sense to just respond to the publicly viewable comment, so when others think "Wait.. what does that mean?" and scroll down into the comments, they see the explanation, which saves you time and effort of having to answer them?…
/r/MensRights23/04/18 06:18 PM
1

Eh, seems pretty fair. They mentioned economic privilege, being born in a peaceful nation, health, etc.. which are things you don't hear the other side acknowledge much.
/r/MensRights23/03/18 04:57 PM
1

Oh, I'm not American, didn't know they were different networks. Thought it was "HBO Showtime" or something.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 05:00 PM
2

To be fair, wasn't HBO home to a show about a serial killer, whom was the protagonist?
/r/MensRights20/03/18 04:31 AM
2

Sounds like they have some kind of fetish, if talking about taking estrogen and chastity.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 08:10 AM
24

Sounds more like he has an actual fetish involving this stuff.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 05:46 AM
11

.. Why is this in /r/mensrights?
/r/MensRights11/12/17 12:19 PM
1

Society at large doesn't recognise that men have been discriminated against in the past as well as today, Mexicans however is a different story.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 12:16 PM
1

Mexicans have historically been discriminated against, in some cases still are, so people will draw connections between the two and cry racism. People won't as easily recognise the sexism in doing the same to men.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 11:40 AM
2

Then your expectations, while admirable, aren't the most realistic.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 10:02 AM
1

Of course there's basic security for everyone, but when it comes to a select part of the population that faces more issues on public transport and they're expected to do something about it, do you really expect them to do anything other than the cheapest, quickest, laziest option? It'd be nice if they didn't do that and went further, but what do you realistically expect?
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:28 AM
1

They would to some degree, but they weren't being sexually assaulted to a disgustingly large degree, so there wasn't as much outrage or expectation to do something to remedy things, so they didn't feel pressured to spend more money.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:16 AM
-1

It's not about discriminating against men, it's about being cheap. Sectioning off stuff for only women means you only need to police and monitor the access points so men can't get in, whereas bolstering all transport security would take more people, more training, more money. It is in effect discrimination, you're not wrong. But it's also a good idea to look at the motivations too. It's about being cheap and lazy, not about a hatred for men.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 08:38 AM
-1

It's a stop-gap measure to stop the sexual harrassment these people face, while at the same time they attempt to work on the social issues at play so its no longer required.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 08:22 AM
-1

I've heard of situations like this in other countries, wasn't the law introduced because there was a lot of sexual assault happening to female passengers, so it was done in an effort to protect them from such things? Granted it's by no means perfect, but it wasn't done out of hatred/dislike for men.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 06:29 AM
1

Margaret Thatcher was also hated by a lot of people too. The week she died, "Ding Dong the Witch is dead" shot to the top of the iTune charts as people downloaded and played it for a laugh.
/r/MensRights30/09/17 08:14 AM
1

.. I don't get it. What is this a reference to?
/r/MensRights27/09/17 01:54 PM
22

This isn't a gendered case, it's a mentally ill case you nitwit. There's injustice in the justice system, but how about you actually post about those cases instead of ones don't fall into the "women getting off easier than men" category?
/r/MensRights17/09/17 02:01 PM
1

Are you literally just copy-pasting your previous comment and adding a word to it each time? Do you even read the responses? This stopped being productive a long time ago (if it even was productive to begin with). If you fail to respond with a proper comment, then this will be my final comment. All I ask of you is that you keep in mind that when you post the argumentative comments that you do, to remember that you're not only trying to convince the person you're responding to. You're trying to c…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 05:43 PM
1

You've got nothing. I've pointed out how your behaviour actually pushes people away from your cause (not just the people you directly talk to, but those who read the comments and see how you act), your horrible arguing style of "You don't completely agree with me? Then fuck you". Even when you keep referencing the initial thing I said that got you all in a tizzy, you can't even refute it, or have just given up. I don't know if it's laziness on your part, or that you know you've got nothing so yo…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 04:56 PM
1

I notice you never tried to explain why it was wrong. You demonstrated it's bad for humans (which we both already know) but that doesn't mean it's worse. Try to refute the argument maybe?
/r/MensRights27/08/17 04:46 PM
1

You're cut aren't you? That's the only thing I can think of to explain the bitterness.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 01:42 PM
1

Is this the only response you're capable of? You can't argue the point or refute arguments so you resort to childish responses?
/r/MensRights27/08/17 05:28 AM
1

Do I really need to copy paste my previous comment to get the point across? I'm not questioning your crusade (it's one I strongly agree with), more your methods. And your responses to people questioning your methods are just pure insults or childish responses. If you were genuinely interested in changing things rather than galloping along on your moral high horse, you'd realise you just push people away from your line of thinking and closer to the pro-circ camp. I don't know how you can live wit…
/r/MensRights26/08/17 07:27 PM
1

You didn't at all address the point I made. At all. You just blithely ignored it because you have no counter to it.
/r/MensRights26/08/17 07:05 PM
1

And no one in that thread was belittling or promoting thr sexual mutilation of infant boys, so your commentary in it wasn't required. Yet you did it anyway. By your own logic, you shouldn't have commented in that thread.
/r/MensRights26/08/17 06:59 PM
1

So you specifically trawl /r/AskVet just for that? If people think that circumcising a dog was biologically worse than a human, but was still strongly against human circumcision as well, why would you want to alienate them? They're on your side. What do you have to gain by pushing them away?
/r/MensRights26/08/17 06:52 PM
1

Did you somehow forget I'm against circumcision? You're talking as if I'm for it. Does your attention span not last past a single sentence? Address my comment that started this whole chain. Why do you try to hijack other threads and conversations? Does it make you feel good when you potentially turn people away from what you have to say by acting so insufferable?
/r/MensRights26/08/17 05:02 PM
1

I've already said that Human circumcision is worse than Canine circumcision, at this point you're either intentionally obtuse or just an idiot. Why do you try to hijack other threads and conversations?
/r/MensRights26/08/17 04:34 AM
1

I'd suspect you were trying to imply that your argument is a pile of shit, but I don't think you're that clever. Why did you go into that thread in /r/AskVet and bring up human circumcision when it had nothing to do with the topic?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:49 PM
1

Link me to the comment where I said one was "much worse" than the other. I said they weren't exactly the same, but I never said one was much worse than the other. You're just inferring that, but I never said it or even implied it. Don't forget, I said Human circumcision is worse. Which if you properly read the comments, you'd know. Address the issue I raised in my original comment. Why do you try to hijack other threads and conversations?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:18 PM
1

The concerns about canine circumcision was that there's more chance of an infection since animals are less hygienic and more likely to be in dirty/unsanitary conditions than humans, I was talking strictly on a biological level, not overall, which is where I said Human circumcision is worse. If you didn't take things out of context and read the whole exchange, you'd know that. But none of that isn't even relevant, since the comment I linked you to (which started our back-and-forth) was about your…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:15 PM
1

You're cut, aren't you? Is that it? You're so bitter about what was done to you that it consumes you and you bring the topic up even when it isn't relevant?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:09 PM
1

Is it you're incapable of seeing how childish you were, or you know you're wrong so you're responding with non-sensical things until I leave you alone? Address the issue I raised in my original comment. Why do you try to hijack other threads and conversations?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:06 PM
1

Address the issue I raised in my original comment. Why do you try to hijack other threads and conversations?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 02:40 PM
1

I didn't say the responses were false, but considering they have reference numbers in them that don't link to anything because you literally copy and pasted everything in that wall of text, then yeah, I'm going to call it a copy-pasted response. who think that hacking-off chunks of a dog's penis is far worse than hacking-off chunks of an infant boy's penis Never said it. No one in the original thread said it, and I never said it. Again, if you read the whole comment chain of mine that you refere…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 06:13 AM
2

If you had read the other comments in the chain, you would've seen that I said overall Human circumcision is worse, because human beings have things like rights, and are more important than animals. Again, you're preaching to the choir. I'm not intersted in your copy-pasted responses. Address the comment I linked to in the first place about how you were trying to co-opt someone elses discussion because of the chip on your shoulder and acted all pissy when called out.
/r/MensRights24/08/17 04:19 PM
2

Ok, you haven't read enough of my comments to actually understand my position. You're preaching to the choir. I'm against circumcision in cases where the owner of the penis has no choice or unable to make an informed one. I myself am thankfully not circumcised because my father made the right choice, and any future male children I may have I will not have circumcised. Now that that is out of the way... I just clicked on a random link in that wall you threw at me (the one about circumcision leadi…
/r/MensRights24/08/17 03:28 PM
2

My commentary was about a comment you left on the post OP linked to. Here is the comment in question.
/r/MensRights24/08/17 10:23 AM
1

Couple of comments higher.
/r/MensRights24/08/17 05:35 AM
1

Haha my bad, guess that's what I get for reading/commenting at 4am. I redirect my remarks to /u/Consilio_et_Animis, it wasn't the time or the place to bring it up.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:07 PM
3

They never actually said human male circumcision was good or ok, from what I can see. You just kind of barged in and brought it up when it wasn't relevant to the discussion. People in there even agreed with you that needless circumcision is not a good thing, but it wasn't the time or place to bring it up. They were talking about Topic A, and you just butted in and tried to change it to Topic B for no reason other than the chip on your shoulder.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 06:50 PM
0

You finished your first semester fairly recently, according to you.. Wouldn't say its enough to begin calling yourself a bio-engineer just yet, you don't have the qualifications to make that claim. For the life of me I can't find that goddamn case study anymore, it kept coming up last night in Google searches when I didn't want it but now I can't find the fucking thing, it was of dogs experincing dryness and chafing for up to 22 months after removal or trauma to the prepuce and required a new on…
/r/MensRights23/08/17 05:31 AM
-1

Humans are regularly cleaned even when they're wearing diapers so there's less chances of infections. Canines don't wear clothing so they're more likely to get infections, especially since they aren't cleaned as often either. With humans, after keratinization takes place that's pretty much the end of it as far as I know, rarely are there persistent problems. With dogs it's not always that simple, they can still experience drying and chaffing for an extremely long time afterwards. I'm just saying…
/r/MensRights22/08/17 07:11 PM
-1

That's sort of my point. Human glans are able to adjust via this process so it no longer bothers the person. Does it work that way for dogs? Do you know enough about their biology to know if they're able to adjust over time like a human to not feel any pain or discomfort? We're on the same side here, we're both anti-circumcision. I'm just saying they may not be directly equivalent because humans are not dogs and have different biologies, and you're all "Fuck you for not agreeing with me 100%".
/r/MensRights22/08/17 06:31 PM
-1

Well from what I can see, removing a dog's prepuce (essentially their version of a foreskin) isn't quite the same since it leads to issues of the dog's glans actually drying out and severe chaffing, and owners of said dogs need to keep the animals glans moist and covered in ointment to avoid damage (probably because they're always naked). Humans aren't always naked and even without a foreskin, they're able to adjust and not have those same issues. So in terms of "Which organism is it worse for?"…
/r/MensRights22/08/17 06:24 PM
1

I meant underwear, you don't typically piss and shit in underwear. I'm against circumcision of people that don't have the ability to make an informed choice (babies, young children, etc) except for medically valid reasons. I'm not for circumcising dogs too. These are both things I don't like. But lets not pretend they're on equal levels of being bad.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 05:59 PM
-1

Clean. The ground isn't.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 05:37 PM
-1

More likely to rub against or be irritated by things that are not clean.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 02:49 PM
-4

I thought the point about their penis being much closer to and more likely to come into contact with the ground, plus not wearing clothing were fair points.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 07:46 AM
1

Eh, I thought it was cute. It was obviously meant to be silly and funny, not make any actual biting social commentary.
/r/MensRights27/07/17 05:20 PM
3

They don't hire black people?
/r/MensRights14/04/17 07:27 AM
9

I find it deliciously hilarious that Hulk Hogan was being bankrolled by a Billionaire who wanted personal revenge on Gawker.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:16 AM
6

She messaged him, saying she was only looking for someone to come over to install her air conditioner, making it very clear it wasn’t a date. Find it hard to feel sorry for a dude in this circumstance.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 07:27 AM
1

It's mostly just her Jackport series that I listened to, but this whole thing kind of poisons it for me now.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 02:58 AM
2

Oh no... I actually liked some of her stuff.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 05:24 PM
2

Whenever this topic comes up on /r/TwoXChromosomes, a vast majority of the popular posts express the exact same idea.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:40 PM
2

That's because they're indundated with men who'd like to donate sperm for cash. If they took it all, they'd be overflowing (perhaps even literally), so they can afford to be picky. Whereas number of women who eagerly want to donate eggs is significantly lower, so they need to lower standards to get what they want.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 05:59 AM
1

You see, I just viewed the "Sets" as things that come with very non-versatile pieces. Things that are very limited in how they can be used. I guess as a kid I just prefered the basic bricks because then I could do anything I could think of at the time, whereas with a "Set" I was kind of locked in.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 01:46 PM
2

“the stuff LEGO is marketing for girls is just so limiting;” ‘girl’ sets replete with themes such as baking, cooking, care-giving, homemaking, decorating and hair styling So don't give them sets. The "Sets" suck anyway, it's all in the basic rectangle and sqaure blocks. Seems like this problem could be solved by just getting more legos so all kids who wanted to play with them could be happy.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 09:32 AM
-3

From a quick look on the Wikipedia page regarding the situation, the prosecution did not dispute and even admitted that her husband had a history of abusing and controlling.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 10:14 AM
2

Video was posted to YouTube 2nd of November, so I doubt it. Maybe some of the individual clips, but not this compilation.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 11:04 AM
4

I know it's been abused but we don't actually know for ourselves what's truly happened. I just try to preserve judgement in these cases.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 12:00 PM
13

How do you know they were banned for copyright infringement? I know literally nothing about this channel or the videos within, so I have to take everything on your word and you've given zero links or anything to back up what you're saying. Could it be the creator voluntarily removed these videos? Could it be they were flagged for copyright infringement because they didn't actually belong or didn't have the rights to put the videos up? If they were falsely taken down by bogus copyright infringeme…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 08:26 AM
19

She could serve as a role model for disgusting rapists too, considering what she did to her sister.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 05:03 AM
1

What was the original prank that she was paying him back for? Considering the brief excerpt showed panicked screaming, I thought maybe she was paying him back for thinking a pet got stuck in the dishwasher or something. If that's the case, and she just used normal hair waxing stuff on the chair rather than an actual adhesive, then I have zero problem with this revenge prank.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 03:17 AM
1

Sorry, I followed the link from their Facebook page, which linked to the video in their playlist, and I simply used that link when posting it here. I'll be more mindful of that in the future.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:45 PM
11

That was pretty much her conclusion at the end of the video: Don't increase punishments for women to compensate, but reduce some of the punishments for men.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 05:36 AM
1

Yes.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:10 PM
3

I don't think OP here was saying that people in the comments were saying "Just get over it", but that the OP of the original post was being told that by the people in their life. OP here was only quoting the OP of the original post.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 03:20 PM
2

Out of curiosity, didn't you try asking your husband for ideas or opinions? To get a male perspective on it?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 11:33 AM
9

Parent Alienation Syndrome, I think. Basically one parent does what they can to turn the kids against the other parent. First starts with isolating them from said parent, then goes on to constant disparaging remarks about the other parent in the presence of the kids, etc...
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:58 AM
5

This is all a first-person account. No offense to the author, but is there a third party that we could hear from? Someone that wouldn't be nearly as biased?
/r/MensRights22/02/13 03:28 AM
10

Given that OP used a "." instead of a "," to seperate the "900" from the "000", I thought he just owed $900 and that they put an extra zero in the cents spot by accident.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:44 AM
12

Next time when you blur out the names, use different colours for different people, so it's easier to follow which party is saying what.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 04:38 PM
13

The women didn't go to jail over the rape though, they were found not guilty of that. They were jailed for the murder of another woman who was one of the rapists but grew a conscience and was going to report the others to the police. Oddly enough, the actress who played one of those women? Same actress who played Casey Novak years later.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 02:29 AM
6

We told her it's cause we already started and felt bad a girl had too clean up this horrible, disgusting mess You felt bad about letting her do it, partly because the other employee was female? That does seem sort of... sexist.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 12:35 PM
6

The solution to sex problems is to teach boys self-control, since girls in reality don’t want to have sex very often. Wow, even though this are supposedly made to "help" women, it's based upon such a stupid stereotype.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:02 PM
3

Ah, OK. I'm on board with that. People use that tactic against /r/mensrights all the time; pointing to those who spew hate-filled vitriol and saying they represent the whole subreddit.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 01:24 AM
3

Ah, so that's why I can't see his, yet he can see mine. Thank you for informing me. Since I can still see it when logged in, I edited my earlier comment to add a screenshot of my comment, to give the people in here some context.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:59 PM
3

The problem, or so I think, is that there can be a fine line between "Here is some advice on how to avoid the issue in the future", and "It's your fault this happened becuase you didn't do {some action} to avoid it". If you read the former with the wrong tone, it can be misinterpreted as the latter at times. I think that's what may have happened here.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:38 PM
5

I'm the person who left the comment that OP linked to, and I feel I've been drastically misconstrued. Here is a comment I've posted in /r/mensrights to explain what's going on.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:19 PM
11

What the hell are you talking about? I'm the person who posted the comment you linked to, and it hasn't been deleted at all. It's still there. What I find amusing is that you call me a cowardly moron for deleting a comment (which I didn't do), yet you have deleted the comment you left in response to it. (Edit: It seems that the mods in that thread took action and deleted our thread of comments, so we can't see one anothers comments anymore -- although we can still see our own while still logged …
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:13 PM
26

Edit: Looks like the mods in /r/TwoXChromosomes deleted my original comment and all responses to it. Since I can still see it while logged in because it was my comment to begin with, here is a screenshot of the original comment. Wow. Well, this is awkward... I'm the person who made the comment that OP has linked to. I regularly visit /r/TwoXChromosomes, as well as /r/mensrights and /r/oney, although I don't usually submit, just lurk, read, and occasionally leave a comment. I think I've been seri…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:13 PM
11

Keep in mind that that number would be high due to the circumstances. The only men who would get a paternity test done are those who would suspect there's a chance it isn't theirs. Men who have no such suspicions or doubts aren't going to pay for such tests, now are they? If that figure is correct, all that it would show is that out of the men who had doubts about being the biological father and chose to have a paternity test done, 33% of their doubts were confirmed.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 06:23 PM
1

I would change number 3 to "Don't use false rape as a means of getting out of trouble with your parent/s". It isn't just a father who might be upset.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 06:35 AM
15

Some of the responses are similarly sexist.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:57 AM
2

I was about to point out that there's more people in Commonwealth countries than there is in America, and went to look up some figures, and... holy crap, there are a lot more people in North America than I previously thought.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 06:36 AM
0

not all people, everywhere, but a significant number Guess this depends on what you consider a "significant number" to be. Remember, it's mainly North America which considers "cunt" to be an extremely offensive word for women. Go to any Commonwealth country, and it can be positive or negative, and used in reference to men and women.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 02:28 PM
5

Didn't Michael Jackson go through this too? I thought that's what that song "Billie Jean" was about.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 03:05 PM
1

Allecto.. Allecto.. aha, I knew I recognised that name! They made a ridiculous post about how Firefly is super-sexist. Sadly it seems this person isn't a satirist. Or perhaps the best Poe to ever exist...
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:51 PM
1

I've noticed a similar gender disparity at some restaurants, yes. The wait-staff will be mixed-gender (but still mostly female), yet all the cooks you can see in the back are male. Hell, I see the same at fast food places in Australia too. Most of the time, the people who take orders in the drive-through or the cash register are female, but when you look in the back where they're putting the burgers together, mostly guys. It isn't even confined to the food industry. People who are the first cont…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:35 PM
2

Can't be viewed outisde of the US. Can someone give me a synopsis on the episode?
/r/MensRights20/04/12 08:35 AM
3

So they troll for comments, take one, shine a spotlight on it and say "This represents the majority!" ?
/r/MensRights12/04/12 09:59 AM
1

Never heard the word "cushty" before.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 04:08 PM
7

Of course. I'm male, and a feminist in the sense that women shouldn't be treated unfairly due to their gender. I'm also a mens right activist in that I don't think men should be treated unfairly due to gender. I don't see why a woman couldn't be both because of the same reasons. It's about ideology, not your gender.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 07:13 AM
3

Thank you, I read it and got the same impression you did, yet all the other comments were filled with indignation so I thought I was missing something obvious. Guess that something wasn't there to begin with and people are just being silly.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 01:30 PM
1

As I said before, I'm not saying gender had no role in this, just that it isn't the only thing in play. Also, as I said before, there's been reports of things as brutal as rape (in those cases, a man raping a woman) in public yet no one lifting a finger to help, due to the Bystander Effect.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 04:17 AM
1

Perceptual children? I'm unfamiliar with that term. What is it and why are some men going to jail for it?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 05:01 PM
1

Perceptual children? I'm unfamiliar with that term. What is it and why are some men going to jail for it?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 04:53 PM
8

There are multiple forms of female circumcision. Some forms remove the clitoris and sew the vagina closed most of the way, some less extreme forms just remove the clitoral hood so the clitoris is constantly exposed (like the head of the penis is when the foreskin is removed). The issue here isn't that your dick works fine. A majority of men who were circumcised at birth don't have any serious issues with their penis. The issue is that no one should have made the choice for you. Your body, your r…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 04:51 PM
0

I know, I was making a joke since the quote had a double negative, which actually said the opposite of what the person intended. I guess it didn't come across well in text.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 11:33 AM
-4

Well since that's a double negative, does that mean they were hoping he'd do something to her? ;P
/r/MensRights31/03/12 09:33 AM
-6

I find it amusing everyone here assumes everyone sat by purely because it was a woman hitting a guy. Now, I'll agree, that may have been a part of it. But it was more likely to be the Bystander Effect, which is a well observed and studied phenomenon in where the larger the group of people witnessing a distressing event, the less likely someone is going to help because they figure someone else will do it instead. There have been stories of even things like rape going on in front of groups of peop…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 07:29 AM
1

Although I agree with you in essence, there are plenty of gay people who have sexual relations with people of the opposite sex, either for a desire to have children or because of societal pressure to have a "normal heterosexual relationship".
/r/MensRights31/03/12 07:22 AM
5

It's less well known for one. This is the first time I've ever heard of it.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 06:51 AM
25

I'm a guy and if someone suddenly pulled up beside me in a car to talk to me about the dog I was walking, I'd be kind of weirded out too. I mean.. who actually pulls over to the side of the road to converse with someone on the sidewalk when it's a complete stranger? But then again, I'm not a social person.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 12:29 PM
3

Yeah I somehow glossed over that specific "sitch" and didn't see it. Now that I've actually read that "sitch", I could easily see what was wrong with it. But thank you for your time and effort.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 07:31 AM
3

Ah ok, I somehow completely glossed over that. Thank you for pointing it out. ...What the fuck?!
/r/MensRights28/01/12 07:26 AM
1

far more emphasis and encouragement is placed on girls and minorities than boys But some minorities are boys. I think what you mean is "Far more emphasis is placed on minorities and white woman, and somewhat neglecting white men".
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:40 AM
1

I keep going over the article and I don't see the spot where they imply men are predators. Am I just not reading it closely enough or something? Perhaps I accidentally skipped over it but I'm still not seeing it. I'd appreciate an excerpt.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:39 AM
1

Yes, however when you give up sperm to be used for impregnation, you trade the privilege for not paying for it for not being a part of the kids life. You either be in the kids life and risk paying for it, or don't pay a cent and never be involved with it after the sperm donation. It's usually one or the other. At least that's how the law seemed to see it.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 04:55 AM
1

If it's the case I'm thinking of, it wasn't just a simple sperm donation. After the child was born, the donor in question actually got himself involved in the kids life. Practically became a surrogate uncle to him. If he had treated it as just a one-time donation of biological material and never tried to get involved with the kids life, then he wouldn't have been ordered to pay money for the child's care. Instead it seemed like he was trying to find a way to have a kid but pass the burden of pay…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 10:26 AM
23

Damnit /r/mensrights, don't fucking do this. This is the shit people do to this very subreddit. In TwoX, they post links to topics here about a disgusting post, and all the people over there pat themselves on the back, saying "Yeah, I knew those /r/mensrights people were sexist jerks". But the thing is that person submitted a link to that topic before the disgusting and sexist comments had been downvoted to where they belong, and before people posted comments calling out OPs behvaiour. Now the e…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:17 PM
24

I passed over the TwoXChromosomes because I knew it would be the same old catty girls talking about the same crap But it's not. I regularly read TwoXChromosomes and MensRights. The former isn't what you think. For the most part it's about women talking about health issues, such as menstruation and pregnancy. A lot of stuff about clothing as well. And issues as well. A vast majority of which I think most people in this subreddit would agree with their view on. Don't think it's some radical-femini…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:36 PM
2

Oh, I thought you were saying "He can't be in high school, he's 12!".
/r/MensRights11/05/11 05:06 AM
2

A full suit at a retail job? What were you selling that they required you to wear a full suit?
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:18 PM
1

Just like Australia it seems.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:16 PM
1

Not all schools have air conditioning throughout all of their buildings. Not all demountable classrooms do either.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:16 PM
2

Congratulations, now you know what public and private high school students throughout all of Australia have to deal with.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:13 PM
2

This is a school in Britian I believe, not in the US. I don't know if Britian has "middle school" like America does. It may be just like Australia where you go straight from primary school to high school. A lot of kids beginning high school in such systems would be about 12 years old.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:10 PM
3

A company has the right to tailor their image. Image is very important. You seem to be missing the point. No one is saying a company shouldn't be able to do that (well, maybe some are, but I'm not). They're saying that it's silly for a guy wearing shorts to be considered "non-professional" looking in today's world. The issue isn't with business' enforcing dress codes to maintain an image, the issue is with the image itself. Why aren't people more accepting of men dressed in more comfortable, coo…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:07 PM
6

I always thought Rabbit was female. And old female, but female nonetheless.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 04:00 PM
1

Yeah, I get that they were trying to get the reader to feel for this guy. I guess I wasn't in the mood for a story, just more in the mood for news.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 04:42 AM
4

Shameful situation here (that the guy is being punished like this, not that he had consensual sex with his sister), but this article takes wwaaaayyyy too much time getting to the point. Instead of sticking with facts and just telling us what has happened, it gives the reader a deluge of non-relevant information like telling us the tone people spoke with, their body language and all, this reads more like a short story than a news article.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 02:36 PM
2

I haven't seen the music video and don't care to since I hate the artist. Anyone care to tell me why the character in the video does some crotch kicking? Is it in retaliation to something, punishment for some deed, or just for the hell of it?
/r/MensRights02/01/09 04:42 AM
1

Oh yeah, that's why there's so many single parents who have never been married before.
/r/MensRights16/11/08 02:23 AM
1

Ah, I guess I didn't read it closely enough, or didn't read enough between the lines. My bad.
/r/MensRights15/11/08 11:40 AM
1

Marion County sheriff's officials say Sandra Lawrence, now 41, dreamed up the bogus rape because she'd had unprotected sex that day with a 16-year-old boy and wanted a morning-after pill. If you go by the sheriff officials statement, it would seem the title is completely accurate.
/r/MensRights15/11/08 10:12 AM
1

I don't know how much you know about biology, but you don't need to be married to have children. If you just made a verbal commitment like this article suggests, you can have children all the same. You can even get someone pregnant if you AREN'T in a relationship. Imagine that!
/r/MensRights15/11/08 10:09 AM
2

That's why the poster said "satirical". He made it known up front that it shouldn't be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights27/10/08 02:22 PM
2

and the Dutch.
/r/MensRights15/10/08 05:02 PM
2

Really? Most users I've seen comment on the "Can a man be raped by a woman?" topic all pretty much freely acknowledge that not only is it possible, but vastly under-reported and dealt with in the real world. Then again, maybe I just lurk in the Mens Rights subreddit too much.
/r/MensRights10/10/08 12:19 AM
4

I think we (men) should be able to object in >the first trimester in some legal setting to >avoid this. People have been suggesting this for a while. Of course, there would be the problem of some women intentionally keeping the pregnancy a secret from the man, until he couldn't legally back out of said responsibilities. Then he could still be trapped. Maybe something like "can back out within a certain amount of time after first learning about it". But then you'd have to get him to sign somethin…
/r/MensRights07/10/08 01:36 PM
0

I've always thought that too. But some people would see that as a lack of trust. Sort of like "You want to get a prenup, because you aren't certain we'll be together forever? You don't trust me to be fair to you if we break up?". I would think it could be seen as an even greater act of love. It'd be like saying "I love you so much, that I want to make sure you get what you deserve, even if somehow in the future, I, for some inexplicable reason, come to dislike you."
/r/MensRights06/10/08 02:48 PM
1

Besides these two lines: "...In fact, many battered *women** who are controlled by their partners"* "...Carry out threats to hurt you, your children, pets, family members, friends or *himself*?..." the article remains fairly gender neutral.
/r/MensRights03/10/08 10:08 AM
1

That never occurred to me. Thanks.
/r/MensRights28/09/08 11:49 PM
2

FTA: "contributes to inferior sexual relations" Although there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin, I've never heard of it making that much of a difference in sexual relations. I haven't heard stories of men circumcised as adults, complaining that the quality of their sex life was reduced afterwards. This was the only part I had the slightest misgivings about.
/r/MensRights28/09/08 01:43 PM
1

FTA: "contributes to inferior sexual relations" Although there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin, I've never heard of it making that much of a difference in sexual relations. I haven't heard stories of men circumcised as adults, complaining that the quality of their sex life was reduced afterwards. This was the only part I had the slightest misgivings about.
/r/MensRights28/09/08 01:41 PM
1

While I agree the circumcision is pointless, some of the remarks in this "quiz" border on pure propaganda.
/r/MensRights28/09/08 10:33 AM
1

But the fluctuations aren't as large and wild. At least not from what I've observed with myself and the men in my life.
/r/MensRights23/09/08 12:10 AM
1

Perhaps, but I'm betting that hormone levels fluctuate throughout the day for anyone and everyone by some degree, so that seems like a bit of a moot point. We're talking more about the wild fluctuations that can lead to rapid and drastic mood changes.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 01:52 PM
-1

Very interesting links, but the whole "male PMS" things normally happens to men who are well past their 40's. It doesn't start from puberty, like with women. I'm not saying it isn't relevant, but not quite the same either. It isn't usually (at least not yet) considered to be normal, or expected. Whereas with women, if they don't begin menstruating by a certain age, it's normally a sign of something not quite right.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 10:15 AM
0

Men regularly experience monthly hormonal changes too? This is the first I've heard about this (unless you don't mean with the regularity of menstruation). I'd like to be better informed about this topic. Any links you'd be kind enough to share?
/r/MensRights22/09/08 09:41 AM
-1

I... I think I love you.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 04:17 AM
0

Although I agree that purpledrank may indeed be a troll or rather opinionated person, I feel I should ask you to not resort to personal attacks like the one you just did. Sure, purpledrank didn't do much better, but please try to refrain from turning this into a flame war.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 03:32 AM
5

Although I agree that the double standard mentioned above is crap, I don't feel your argument holds up. Hangovers aren't exclusive to men, but periods are exclusive to women. Men can choose to not drink and thus won't get a hangover, but a woman can't really choose whether to have her period or not.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 03:29 AM
1

My pary are with the father who lost his chrildren. I am truly sorry for your lots.
/r/MensRights16/09/08 06:21 AM
1

Interesting article and all, but why is it in this subreddit? Just because something mentions gender, doesn't mean it belongs in Mens Rights.
/r/MensRights10/09/08 04:19 AM
1

It's normal for the groom-to-be to be anally penetrated at bachelor parties? Is this some sort of American tradition or have I just been to some tame bachelor parties?
/r/MensRights10/09/08 04:03 AM
1

People are voting this comment down? I thought it was rather obvious that it was in jest.
/r/MensRights04/09/08 03:24 AM
2

You're assuming that all groups are equal, or are at least identically apt in the exact same areas. Countless research shows that men and women tend to excel at different things.
/r/MensRights03/09/08 12:11 AM
8

There are very few stories here that make me feel extremely fucking angry and disgusted. This is one of them.
/r/MensRights01/09/08 12:31 AM
1

Submitting articles debating the usefulness of circumcision to this Subreddit makes some sense, since it is a largely unnecessary surgery that is more of a cultural thing than medical thing. Yes, it sucks that some men's health issues are ignored by Congress. And if this article actually discussed the appropriation of money to said offices, then it'd belong here. But this article doesn't discuss that, it only discusses a health issue and treatment of such. It doesn't put in it the context you're…
/r/MensRights31/08/08 04:05 AM
1

While this is a very interesting case, I don't see why is was submitted to Men's Rights. If this was Men's Medicine, I could understand. But this isn't an article about the inherent rights of men as human beings, and the violation of such. This is about a medical procedure which only men could be subjected to. That's like posting an article on vaginal thrush to the feminism subreddit. Sure, it only affects that gender, but still doesn't belong there.
/r/MensRights30/08/08 05:20 AM
3

I originally read this title as "the corrupt system...". Now I see that my initial reading wasn't too far off.
/r/MensRights18/08/08 10:12 AM
1

They were both quirky, alright. But the Father was still the one of the two that was generally sillier, and did the most stupid stuff. The Mother was always the more conniving, intelligent one.
/r/MensRights10/08/08 09:07 AM
1

It said no arrests were made...
/r/MensRights09/08/08 06:35 AM
2

The stuff from Glennsacks.com is starting to read too much into things and see misandry and sexism when it isn't really there... sort of like the uber-feminists themselves.
/r/MensRights19/07/08 02:37 PM
1

Classic Passive-Aggressive behaviour. The girl bully, instead of going after the boy herself, got others pissed off at him so they'd punish him for her.
/r/MensRights19/07/08 05:13 AM
2

Was it Colonel Mustard?
/r/MensRights19/07/08 05:10 AM
1

I don't see why this is in MensRights. I admit, it's a bit hard to find a category for this, but does anything that could be possibly construed as Anti-Woman have to go in MensRights?
/r/MensRights18/07/08 09:43 AM
5

FTA: They will be used as domestic violence shelters for women, as well as training rooms and 'cooling off' spaces for male perpetrators of family violence. Sounds like they're adhering to the "Female=Victim, Male=Abuser" mentality. Although the NT does have a large proportion of Aboriginal people, and that area in particular is known for not exactly being a good environment for women.
/r/MensRights03/07/08 11:06 AM
1

Any word on why this individual made this up, then?
/r/MensRights28/06/08 06:44 AM
3

Well it's obvious, isn't it? The ones who whine about that but treat men in that same derogatory manner are hypocrites.
/r/MensRights26/06/08 09:03 AM
1

Self-diagnosis can be extremely dangerous if you don't have professional medical knowledge, and is normally considered a very unwise idea. Many ailments, ranging from serious to harmless, can have similar symptoms which are very difficult for the average person to differentiate. Oh yeah, and when it comes to tonsil problems nowadays, Doctors generally tend to try to treat it with antibiotics and other medications, in effort to avoid surgery.
/r/MensRights14/06/08 03:44 PM
1

Oh come on, Redditors? How can so many people think this site is actually serious? The whole thing is one big POE. It's bloody obvious, and I weep for people who don't realise it. And for those who will inevitable say "What is a POE?" : *** "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." *** That is what this is.
/r/MensRights14/06/08 09:28 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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