TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

germaneuser Archive

View 4 posts and 294 comments by germaneuser on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
7

No - double jeopardy would require being charged with the same crime for the same incident in a separate case. This is a current case whose judgement was over-ruled via appeal (I presume), hence not falling under double jeopardy.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:23 PM
2

It's like your saying all the wrong things, and have no idea what your saying.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:46 PM
2

FYI - this right was considered reciprocal. I.e. this wasn't disparaging wrt women - this was disparaging wrt an individuals right to deny sex to the one they were married to. It isn't something that society believed should be given on demand, but that long periods of refusal would be considered wrong. That whole line of reasoning allowing the rape of women is non-sensical - it is an explicit assumption that sex is something each person in a marriage owes to the other. And in fact, some of this …
/r/MensRights14/08/15 07:08 PM
4

Even more important - this right was considered reciprocal. I.e. this wasn't disparaging wrt women - this was disparaging wrt an individuals right to deny sex to the one they were married to. That whole line of reasoning allowing the rape of women is non-sensical - it explicitly says that sex is something each person in a relationship owes to the other. SMH
/r/MensRights14/08/15 07:06 PM
3

[Rape] It was pretty much a social norm up until the 20th century. Are you kidding me? It has never been considered a social norm. There have beens law forbidding it for millenia. It has always been considered a serious crime, with murder generally being the only crime considered as worse. A rapist is someone whose inherent lack of empathy allows them to disregard the needs/desires of someone else for personal gratification - the very crux of what it means to be a psychopath.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:35 PM
1

tldw?
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:29 PM
2

Yeah, I mean, seriously, whodathunk that involving criminal investigators to deal with a criminal matter might be a wise thing to do?
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:18 PM
6

Don't teach your daughters that they have agency, teach your sons not to be psychopaths. FTFY. Psychopathy really isn't something that is taught, so what the hell?
/r/MensRights14/08/15 05:13 PM
4

hetero-normative denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation. Yeah this really doesn't get at the crux of what you are trying to address so I can see why some might take exception to it. I think a better way to describe the MRM is that it is an inclusive environment - no one hear really cares about your background, your gender, your sexuality, etc. But neither is it an echo chamber - if something smells like shit, it's going to…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 05:18 PM
10

Honestly, I'm not sure if they've always been on point. Whenever I hear about rights struggles with respect to gender, I always hear about increasing rights, but never concomitant talks of increased responsibility. Case in point: the right to vote. A bit after men gained the right to vote (in the USA), the constitutionality of the draft was challenged. One of the reasons used to defend the consitutionality of the draft by the SC was that it was men's 'reciprocal obligation' for their right to vo…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:49 PM
3

Not by MensRights.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 05:57 PM
3

That's an interesting point. In that light, it seems similar to referring to short guys who are angry as having 'little man syndrome' or having a 'Napolean complex'. In general just not really cool, regardless of how true or false the sentiment is.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 05:53 PM
1

I know - that's why I was wondering if you were being sarcastic. That phrase tends to get used often when speaking sarcastically about feminists which is why I wasn't quite sure about the post. The first part started out like what I would expect from a "devlil's advocate" type of post, and are points worth considering. That last paragraph just came off as incredibly sarcastic by comparison. No biggie, I get what you are saying, sorry if I came off more reactionary than I should have.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 05:01 PM
1

Click on the 'FIXED SET OF TAGS' link, then Ctrl+f <enter username> <hit enter>BAM! Did you make the list?
/r/MensRights29/07/15 04:56 PM
1

I understand what devil's advocate means. They way you worded stating women as the primary victim's of war at the end doesn't sound like playing devil's advocate - it just reeks of showing little to no value for the many men who were killed in war. If anything it sounds more like a strawman argument. Just throwing out the words "devli's advocate" doesn't suddenly make this any better. It just comes off as trolling - which is likely why you have so many downvotes.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 09:41 PM
1

Also, women are the primary victims of war. When a man gets killed in combat, women suffer the most. Are you a troll or are you seriously insisting that its worse for the person who wasn't mowed down by machine gun fire? Are the family members of the deceased victims? Yes. Primary victims? No, not really. Edit: Now am wondering if you are just missing /s or something, don't know what to think. Looks possible given your last paragraph that's the case, but the initial paragraphs are confusing.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 09:32 PM
1

Accept this analogy falls flat with the data from the article you are referring to. That very same study shows that when women seek custody they gain it - and at better rates than men who seek custody. The above study about running for office actually shows that when either men or women run for office, they are just as likely to win.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 09:28 PM
177

Is it just me or does it appear that this should run afoul of reddit's new rules concerning harassment? This is trying to simplify targeting users based on their subreddit association in an attempt to make them feel unwelcome or unsafe in reddit discussions. Also, considering they group coontown with MensRights really does show how much contempt they have for those who would like to talk about and defend Mens and Boys rights to equal treatment. SMH Edit: Welp, I'm on a list.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 07:03 PM
3

From the comments section: If the placement of the bug was as subtle as her makeup, she will be in trouble Rekt.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 04:04 PM
1

Aaaaaaand now half of reddit feels fat. Half? That seems a bit low....
/r/MensRights27/07/15 03:50 PM
2

what about issues of domestic violence? This point seriously grinds my gears. What they are basically advocating for is the idea that all men in divorce, by default, are considered criminals and should be treated as such. FFS.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 10:53 PM
3

Yes, when one of the rules about commenting in that subreddit says this in the sidebar: "- be informative: i.e. aim for facticity, and avoid merely expressing non-feminist preferences;" they have no interest in the truth, but merely parroting feminist-approvedTM thoughts
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:25 PM
3

Yes, because only republicans are against abortion?
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:41 PM
32

An independent is someone who realized the democrat and republican party are the same beneath the surface: they both lie constantly to maintain the status quo.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 05:20 PM
1

http://www.theonion.com/video/judge-rules-white-girl-will-be-tried-as-black-adul-18896
/r/MensRights15/07/15 07:12 PM
1

I'm pretty sure poster just forgot they weren't in /r/iamverysmart
/r/MensRights15/07/15 05:27 PM
6

Here is a good start. This is a pretty good article looking at the work of Professor Starr at the University of Michigan. Here is a link to a pdf outlining her paper on gender disparities in federal criminal cases. She outlines a lot of the problems I just brought up, and why past research on disparities in prisons due to gender has woefully been under-estimated. A quote from the article linked in my first sentence above outlines in short why past studies are highly problematic: There are other …
/r/MensRights14/07/15 06:35 PM
6

There are multiple steps in the process where the differences in judgement between men and women take affect. At the very least, at every step that we can measure it has been shown that: 1) greater likelihood of being charged, 2) greater likelihood of being convicted (and not reducing charges if conviction is likely), 3) greater jail time when being sentenced, etc, for the same crimes and same criminal history. These differences compound each other and would account for much more than a 3% chang…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 05:43 PM
3

You also forget that at every step of the criminal process that can be tracked (likelihood of charges being brought, conviction, and sentencing) that men are judged much more harshly than women - a disparity that is even greater than the disparity between races, even when controlling for severity of crime and criminal history. Are men being judged too harshly, or are women being let off too easy? These are the types of things that we can be looking to address as well.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 05:40 PM
1

Exactly. I mean, study of climate is what gave birth to chaos theory. This shit is not simple, no matter which way you slice it.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 08:18 PM
1

You two still seemed to be going at it from what I saw. Sorry if the comment was annoying and you had already stopped:( Not trying to hurt, just help:/
/r/MensRights09/07/15 05:22 PM
2

The dude is a total troll. You will do yourself a big favor by not feeding him.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 05:14 PM
8

My understanding was that she didn't have a deep knowledge of the subject and that at most she was skeptical of claims, but was open to being less skeptical given more discussion / knowledge. That generally sounded reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 04:51 PM
6

This is marriage, according to abusive assholes FTFY
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:20 PM
1

I get your point and agree however, whenever these types of discussions I can't help but think - fuck I will take being "discriminated" against if it means I get a boat load of money.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 01:06 AM
1

Interestingly enough: One of the women was beheaded along with her husband in Deir al-Zor city.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 07:24 PM
2

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+alimony+legislation&oq=new+york+alimony+legislation&aqs=chrome..69i57.8697j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 Apparently if you do a search in google, and click on it from the results, it's readable. At least for me - someone else can try it out and see if it actually works for them. ETA: Should be third link down - first one under the 'In the News' portion of google search results.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 05:13 PM
3

Page looks down - anyone know what happened?
/r/MensRights22/06/15 11:50 PM
6

Holy awesomeness. I read about two sentences in - clear call to action, reasonable clear-headed description of whats wrong, and was like I know who wrote this: DougDante. Looked at the username, was not disappoint. Thank you for your tireless efforts!
/r/MensRights22/06/15 11:49 PM
2

The graph is really hard to see, and when zooming (with RES at least) in the legend gets shunted off to the side. It looks like three things being graphed 1) LF to adult, 2) Employ to adult, and 3) Wages/GDP. I'm not sure what LF means, how 1 and 2 relate to each other, and what 3 say is supposed to mean in this context. I think just a 1 sentence blurb on each line in the legend, and then a one sentence blurb connecting them together would greatly simplify what people should take away. Just my 2…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 11:42 PM
1

My bets are on massive trollage. Probably best to not feed 'em.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:52 PM
2

Thank you for your efforts, they really are appreciated. Every single person counts, and it's good to have people like you calling out dumbassery for what it is. With all the flaws this sub may have, the fact that people appreciate and work towards not being an echo chamber is why this sub continues to be as strong as it is.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:50 PM
2

No, it should not be softened, because it is invariably true. Saying it is not significant is just ridiculous. Could it be meaningless, given more context, absolutely. But you just flat out say you know exactly what one bit of information means, without any context, and you are just as bad as the people you feel you are raging against. ETA: Additionally, softening a statement doesn't mean your original conclusion is false. Only that there are further considerations that must be made to determine…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:08 PM
5

This, by itself, does not mean anything. I think it's this absolute statement. This should be softened to say that "This, by itself, is not conclusive." I think most people here could agree with that. But, I also think that many here, including myself, would not argue that it has no meaning either. I have a hard time believing that it is not significant, given just how lopsided it is.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 05:10 PM
8

As far as lubrication, isn't that from sweat? The same way you can say your armpits are lubricated? No, the type of lubrication that a foreskin provides is mechanical in nature. The "sheath within a sheath" so to speak. I've found the best analogy is to look at the skin on your forearms and try to move it back and forth. It holds pretty well, and has little moveability. Now trying doing the same thing to the skin on your cheeks. That skin moves much more readily because it isn't attached to musc…
/r/MensRights19/06/15 06:10 PM
3

Someone forgetting to lock their door doesn't make robbing them legal. It is still a crime, and it is still the thief's fault.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 06:14 PM
3

If you were this guy you would be singing a different fucking tune. It's awesome your circumcision was just dandy, but there are infants who fucking die because of this shit. Even in the west where much better medical procedures are in place. These are deaths and amputations that occur for a wholly unnecessary reason, period.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:06 PM
3

A bigot.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 05:59 PM
1

I realize that there are probably many people that are satisfied with Frontiers, and that it is likely publishing good science. From the source you just cited. Read the paper - the way the study is presented is actually fairly solid, although it could be drastically shorter to provide the same data. This might just be a difference in sociology studies though. When a journal is open-access the business model will have to be different in order for the publication to stay afloat. That doesn't mean …
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:05 PM
247

Considering that /r/AgainstMensRights actually generates a list of active users in this sub (essentially doing exactly this) to target for banning (and who knows what else) (source), how is that subreddit not already banned? This is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:59 PM
12

Holy shit! They do have this. Source. This sounds exactly like the type of shit that should get a subreddit banned. How are they still around? FFS
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:57 PM
9

Their description of being harassed after leaving sounds like it straight-up came from /r/thathappened. All they needed was a slow clap, hugging, and a little girl in the back ground crying while saying, "THIS is why I need feminism! Smash the PATRIARCHY!"
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:12 AM
1

I was buzzed during the post bakedpotato486 Sounds about right, lol, j/k:) No problem mate, I figured that was the case.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 08:11 PM
1

Are you saying we've only done so because in most cases it's been a man? I think you're misinterpreting what was written. They are saying that /r/mensrights sides with those who are unjustly punished - irrespective of gender, i.e. /r/mensrights actually cares about gender equality, not just helping men they feel are unduly punished.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:15 PM
12

Completely agree, but there are some interesting nuggets in there that show how little compassion the author has for men and how much more compassion men, on the whole, have for society (especially compared to the author). The economic marginalisation this brings erodes family life. Women who enjoy much greater economic autonomy than their grandmothers did can afford to be correspondingly pickier about spouses, and they are not thrilled by husbands who are just another mouth to feed. They show t…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 06:35 PM
5

AT Hayley Purdon’s high school, to her it appeared almost every girl was engaged in some form of self-harm or battling low self-esteem. “Everyone knew, but we didn’t know what to do,” she said. This makes me really wonder. If "Everyone knew" and "it appeared almost every girl was engaged in some form of self-harm" what does that say about society's observations concerning men and young boys considering that 4-5 times the number of boys are killing themselves? The empathy gap and the disposable m…
/r/MensRights31/05/15 05:44 PM
3

The court heard how Medkour stole Gaget's identity papers and credit cards, forced him to sleep on the floor near the front door and prevented him from accessing the toilet. For over a year he suffered beatings, insults, she burned him with cigarettes or a white-hot knife, threw salt into his eyes and blocked his contact with the outside world. Medkour told him that if he rebelled, she would accuse him of paedophilia. ... During the trial Medkour tearfully apologised to her former boyfriend, say…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 11:44 PM
1

Thank you. This was the first thought that came to mind. I imagine if you monetized the contributions of child-care by women, you would see a much different picture in terms of contributions to social welfare. This is a wholly apples <-> oranges situation.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:15 PM
6

Fuck I know - Monopoly brought my family together. Board gameist - smh.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 09:25 PM
7

I know. What pains me even more is that I hadn't heard of this case in particular, but had heard of others. I just took about 30s to Google a case, and it was ridiculously easy to find an example of exactly what this person says doesn't happen. :(
/r/MensRights25/05/15 06:42 AM
43

This ruling would say otherwise.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:28 AM
7

They're probably not referring to the meta data defining the time-stamp information of the document. They are likely referring to the date and time the accusation was made not being recorded in the word document.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 06:18 PM
2

I've discussed this with some female friends and my mother and they're of the opinion that it should be up to the father to make that decision and that if he wants to do it I should bite my tongue because at the end of the day I am not a man and I can never fully understand the experiences of men. This is a horrible mentality going into a marriage where you are both responsible for the well-being of a child. These are lifelong and permanent decisions. Any decision like that, in my opinion, shoul…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 04:18 PM
1

Assuming the giving of said gift wasn't initially illegal In this case I can only imagine this would go into effect if the person had reason to believe the person should not be given the gun in the first place (i.e. bad/no background check, etc.) - which I would agree with. If this could possibly be done with any legal gun sale, no one would ever be selling a gun again.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 08:44 PM
1

We did it Facebook! /s
/r/MensRights08/05/15 05:31 PM
4

The thing that always bugged me about this reasoning is I cannot think of any instance in which someone else can be held accountable for how a recipient uses their gift. Assuming the giving of said gift wasn't initially illegal, are there any instances in which the gifter is responsible for what the giftee does with said gift? If I gave a friend a baseball for his birthday, and then said friend killed someone with said baseball I wouldn't be charged with helping murder someone would I?
/r/MensRights08/05/15 05:15 PM
5

I regret that I have but one down vote to give:/
/r/MensRights07/05/15 06:01 PM
2

Considering that evolution requires mutation to proceed, in a very real sense you could say that men are just more highly evolved. In reality, it doesn't fucking matter and this is just bigotry wrapped in sophistry. The Nazi's made very similar arguments to debate the "less-evolved" status of Jews. This is just shit wrapped in more shit, nothing more.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 06:37 PM
3

I know right? I mean, fuck, if it's legitimate rape a man's body has a way of shutting that shit down. Duh.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 05:04 PM
2

In fact, she had a very legitimate reason to leave her husband and she didn't. Not exactly something I'd expect from someone with a supposed "men are worthless" view. But is exactly something I would expect of a politician who knows they can benefit politically from maintaining the marriage.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:52 PM
2

No where does it say men are worthless. I feel it is implied here, as you say She just fallaciously equated a widows suffering with actual suffering and death. No she didn't equate the two - she implied a widows suffering was a greater travesty than the death of her spouse showing men have less value; hence their deaths aren't as bad as someone suffering but still alive. That's rather blatantly spitting on the worth of a man's life.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:34 PM
5

Its somewhat hyperbolic to say Hillary believes men to be worthless. "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." - Hillary Clinton
/r/MensRights29/04/15 07:21 PM
4

it's just a ban, it only zings forever! FTFY
/r/MensRights24/04/15 05:18 PM
6

So normally that sub annoys the crap out of me because it comes off as 'People I hate and want to punch in the face', but the smirk on her face and her general derpiness makes me inclined to agree.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 04:36 PM
29

I think more the earlier years of Malcom X. Later in life he seemed to change quite dramatically.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 04:28 PM
9

That was very encouraging to read. It always feels great to see someone who doesn't have their head up their ass roaming around in the wild!
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:35 PM
4

Walk it off man, walk it off!
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:28 PM
2

Who the hell has a sexually active infant, and why hasn't CPS intercepted these fucktards?!
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:27 PM
5

This claim always fucking gets me. Who the hell has a sexually active infant, and why hasn't CPS intercepted these fucktards?!
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:26 PM
3

My guess is it has to do with the strong "hippy" vibe that permeates almost all of the Pacific North West and surrounding regions. There tends to be a mentality up here along the lines of "If it occurs naturally, and there is no immediate threat posed, leave shit the way you found it."
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:24 PM
16

Apparently, 'calculating' is one of those words that would indicate sexism. Ironic that this words comes up in a calculated attempt at defining the narrative surrounding HRC. smh
/r/MensRights16/04/15 09:31 PM
1

I thought his comment on expanding the scope was referring to his own statement on "Kill all black men" the sentence immediately prior to the expand statment. Second sentence is a bit ambiguous and easy to misread. On a second look through it seems the second sentence was likely referring to the original statement implicitly. Mea culpa.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 08:32 PM
-3

Every single female comedian ever has a period joke. Yeah, I mean, it's almost like all women have periods or something. Crazy, right?
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:23 PM
14

If you saw someone straight-up say that all male "whatever" sucks you would call them out on it - but when it's women we're talking about, no problem right? People like you make it hard for anyone to take this sub seriously.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:07 PM
-5

I don't think targeting fewer people would being expanding your scope:/
/r/MensRights16/04/15 04:55 PM
5

No - not really. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 04:48 PM
1

Nah - it doesn't really need to stay in there, it detracts from your main point which stands perfectly on its own (i.e. 'had a crappy counselor - thoughts, opionions, ideas on what happened?' type of off-my-chest post). I think your rant (minus the swipe at women in general) is totally justified - you had a crappy counselor and would like some advice on how to manage.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:55 PM
2

Are you suggesting that their being male keeps them form being misandrist? No...don't know how you got that from my statement. I was saying that being misandrist occurs irrespective of gender, and gave a counter example to OPs suggestion that being female was part of why the counselor was being misandrist - specifically, an example showing a male counselor who is misandrist.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:50 PM
10

So now I am wondering if because the counselors were female, and are more likely to deal with women being abused, are they biased to think that men are the problem? I would be very careful with that accusation. It is a huge leap based off some anecdotes and speculation. I know I've heard of male counselors who've done the same thing (looking at you Dr. Phil >:/), so I think it has more to do with just finding crappy counselors. Often times in seeking out help you will have to talk to a couple of…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:21 PM
2

Probably true of the the majority of subreddits TBH.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:13 AM
6

The first step that those who are oppressed need to take to overcome the tyrants in their lives is realize they are not alone. When they see others standing up, it gives them the opportunity to raise their voices as well. It may not work - heck it may make the situation worse. But I can guarantee that doing nothing will not change anything. At least through protest there is some chance, even if not guaranteed.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 05:22 PM
6

This echoes my own dealings with being hired in a university environment. I have had it told to my face that when I was being hired they had to be sure that they had a solid justification for hiring me, despite it being an internal promotion due to my showing good work in an earlier position. They had to be careful because they couldn't hire me with out posting the position publicly, and if anyone was not hired because I got hired they would have to make sure that they could explain why the whit…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 05:14 PM
2

And if the cops were this keen to pounce on a conviction, I get the impression those kids may have been "encouraged" to pick their attacker out of the few awfully unfortunate men who were gathered for the lineup. No doubt. The whole situation just makes me sad :(
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:24 PM
11

For example, if she had positively identified this particular man as her rapist then that would obviously be a crime for which I don't even know an adequate punishment exists in civilised society. Memory is a tricky thing and can be wrong even when recalling an eye-witness account. I cannot fault someone for being incorrect in doing their due diligence to cooperate with the police. I can, however, absolutely find those who were doing the investigation to be at fault here, and who owe some seriou…
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:08 PM
1

Nope - totally got what you meant. The world doesn't see it as a big deal - totally agree. It just happens that currently, the world sees this type of bigotry as ok - because penis. ETA: To clarify, I totally agree that the world doesn't see it as a big deal - not that it isn't a big deal. Because it most definitely is.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:43 PM
3

Didn't quote you - talking about the hair stylist.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:38 PM
9

Yeah, bigotry - no big deal right?
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:34 PM
6

This sentence right here makes me really sad...it shouldn't even need to be flipped for it to be seen for the absurdity it is:(
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:30 PM
9

Dunno - what's the price of dealing with an asshat who treats father's like second class parents when the only job they are being paid for is to cut someone's hair? As opposed to being paid to give parenting advice?
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:21 PM
9

This is what really gets me when people talking about the MRM or any group dealing with men's issues and saying that "they do nothing" or "are terribly organized" and other B.S. like this. The empathy gap makes a huge difference on whether of not people show up to support a cause. How can you do something or get more organized, if whenever you do bring issues up the response is crickets? Example - Boko Haram burning little boys alive not much happens on the national scene, yet the moment they ki…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 05:56 PM
2

but it's strange how a 5% difference is significant enough when it favors women, but a 3% difference is insignificant if it paints women in a bad light You are jumping to conclusions here. The 5% difference may be significant because of very little variable - i.e. very narrow confidence interval, whereas the 3% difference may not be significant because of a lot of variability. You need to give the margin of error here if you want to show that they truly show a biased perspective of the researche…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 07:14 PM
3

The couple -- who are both successful geologists for oil companies -- was arrested after Dack allegedly bragged about the sexual abuse to one of her friends, who called police Wow. How much of an oblivious, fucked-up sociopath do you have to be to do something like this? How come these dumbasses weren't caught sooner? Damn - this entire story just makes me sad...:(
/r/MensRights25/03/15 06:32 PM
6

It's an opinion piece in the blog section hosted on the Washington post. It's not just some dude on a word press blog spouting stuff...
/r/MensRights24/03/15 04:22 PM
1

There were no reports of the guy speaking out of turn, yelling, use of profanities or other such nonsense. They also mention shit about his facebook (which other students brought up), which isn't relevant unless they want to bring up a charge of harassment which no one did, so I'm much more inclined to believe his side of the story.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 03:32 PM
1

I read the whole article. This is college - not grade school. If the kids need their hands held like that, then they shouldn't be in the classroom. There were no reports of the guy speaking out of turn, yelling, use of profanities or other such nonsense. They also mention shit about his facebook (which other students brought up), which isn't relevant unless they want to bring up a charge of harassment which no one did, so I'm much more inclined to believe his side of the story.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 03:30 PM
21

any, real, rape culture is actually in prison, where nearly 250,000 men are raped annually. This part right here is so frustrating to hear, because a lot of people (this professor I'm sure included), do not realize that the phrase 'rape culture' originated in a documentary on prison rape. (Source)
/r/MensRights19/03/15 10:00 PM
15

I'm sure he will be in front of Reed's Honor Council very soon. Looking forward to seeing the paper that describes this process. Having spent time at Reed, which has an extremely non-traditional judiciary committee, I am quite certain it would "fly" I too have spent time at Reed and have even worked with one of the Professors there. The climate and expectations are quite different there compared to most universities precisely because of the high expectations it has for its students and desire to…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 09:14 PM
35

If he was being an asshole (enough so that banning him from discussion is warranted) then he should be in front of a disciplinary committee. The teacher knows that would not fly, so instead he took the route of just silencing discussion. I don't find this particular argument very convincing.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 08:52 PM
320

“Of course, we are an institution that encourages dissent and active discussion, but there is a difference between stimulating discussion through opposition and making other students feel unsafe.” When "making other students feel unsafe" consists solely of stating an opinion contrary to the approved narrative, there really is no difference between "stimulating discussion through opposition" and "making other students feel unsafe". What a pathetic excuse for an institution of higher learning. ETA…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 04:33 PM
3

http://www.theonion.com/video/judge-rules-white-girl-will-be-tried-as-black-adul,18896/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:NA:InFocus
/r/MensRights17/03/15 05:39 PM
1

If it will make my princess happy, I’ll stop putting her on a pedestal. Comedy gold right there - I love The Onion:)
/r/MensRights17/03/15 04:35 PM
65

I think an additional point is that this is one of the few times in a man's life it is socially acceptable to be considered vulnerable: when you are elderly. As such, men are much more willing to state how vulnerable they truly feel, compared to when they were younger.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 08:29 PM
6

Holy fuck are those numbers disturbing to the extreme. I mean, FUCK. Why is infant MGM not outlawed? That statement right there should be enough to have it outlawed overnight.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 06:19 PM
3

No. Because the hypothesis is that any group that is more victimized would feel more vicitimized, which their own data shows is false. Emphasis mine: Here is there hypothesis: Note: Men are the victims of crime more often than women, so we expect a higher proportion of men to feel vulnerable. Here is the data they show. 27 of 56 black women said they felt vulnerable. That is ~ 48%. 46 of 63 of black men said the felt vulnerable. That is ~ 73%. It lines up with their assumption - no flaw in logic…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 06:08 PM
5

Let's call this "assumption" what it actually is - a hypothesis. The data they show is looking at possible data which would correlate with this hypothesis. The data does correlate with their hypothesis, and therefore shows the hypothesis is worth further investigation. You are getting too fixated on the word "so", and attempting to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 05:50 PM
3

Just edited my reply above - they show data which confirms this assumption. The assumption isn't wrong - it is just likely that it is not the only thing at play here - so again, no fault in their logic.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 05:13 PM
16

One example does not falsify an assumption. It only shows that there are other factors which could be at play here, and that there may be exceptions. Additionally, the text itself never made the claim "..there is no such relationship between level of actual vulnerability and assumed vulnerability..", you were stating that is what they said. Here is the actual quoted text from the image: 13.26 Fear of crime among older blacks. The elderly fear crime more than younger people, even though they are …
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:59 PM
7

After reading /u/lost_garden_gnome's comment I feel compelled to do the same. I see you everywhere in this sub doing a lot of advocacy outreach and I too really appreciate it.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:34 PM
25

They just got through saying that there is no such relationship between level of actual vulnerability and assumed vulnerability, but they go ahead and say it anyway. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Emphasis mine. There is no fault in their logic. They got through giving one example in which a certain level of fear and level of danger do not correlate (at least not perfectly). The faulty logic is in you assuming that this will obviously always (i.e. 'no such relationship') be the case. Not to mention, th…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:19 PM
1

No. There is nothing that would be gained from that.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 09:45 PM
5

It really made me realise how risky it would be to offer a woman a drink without letting her see you pour it. Or how risky it would be to offer someone help who may have been drugged (at least if you're a guy): http://np.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/2yoeg5/tifu_by_picking_up_a_drugged_girl_in_a_slutty
/r/MensRights11/03/15 09:02 PM
23

I know this is a mens right sub so feel free to downvote me for not being stronger / more of the alpha male it will be worth it if my story helps one person. The strength you describe in meeting the challenge (especially considering you actually persisted for years) makes you very strong and you should never feel like you need to apologize for living your life to the best of your ability. It is all that any of us can do.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 07:24 PM
12

I think it's OK to be on the side of disregarding this parenting plan with no reservations whatsoever. Any parenting plan which includes non-therapeutic surgery, let alone non-therapeutic genital surgery, should in no way ever be legally enforceable. Sort of like certain terms and conditions cannot be part of a binding agreement between a consumer and producer if such conditions would violate the law (i.e. handing over your first born son as part of the agreement - to go to the extreme here).
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:03 PM
1

Pretty much. But I like to use the gender-neutral term 'assplaining', because this is the way assholes explain things.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 09:57 AM
3

When individuals question whether or not you have a right to have someone advocate on your behalf, you know more so than at any other time you need an advocate. You shouldn't have to justify that shit, FFS.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 07:04 PM
2

I don't know how to add text to the submission, but I will just copy what I put up above so everyone can see it: ETA: It looks like the post was removed. The gist of the story was that the guy was feeling lonely post divorce and decided to respond to a 'women' online who, after getting to know the guy, let OP know she had a boyfriend but that they were interested in a threesome. OP agrees and meets the boyfriend in a hotel room. Apparently, the 'girlfriend' stepped out for a moment to give the t…
/r/MensRights26/02/15 07:01 PM
2

So I would agree in some cases, but reading OPs story (which was removed, but I added an edit to my comment above to summarize the story), I don't even know how this could be 'mis-remembered' as sexual assault. This was just straight up sexual assault, no question. The guy lied to OP about the girlfriend, tricked him into pulling out his johnson under the pretense of 'comparing dicks' (which OP naively assumed was benign), and then grabbed OPs dick before OP even realized what was going on. Fort…
/r/MensRights26/02/15 06:45 PM
2

Reading this entire piece I kept on waiting for him to talk about going to the police or something (not that it necessarily would have done anything and it may have been better for him to just leave well enough alone). After getting to the edit at the end and finding out it didn't occur to him that he was sexually assaulted, I just felt incredibly sad. I'm glad the guy doesn't come off as being traumatized, but it can be very difficult to address these problems when an event can't even be accura…
/r/MensRights26/02/15 09:00 AM
1

"We believe that the goal of the bill can and should be achieved in a more narrowly tailored way," said Christopher Wilson, general counsel for university system in Fargo, in written testimony. By "narrowly tailored way" I presume he means a way that leaves Due Process outside of the scope of the bill. Freaking disgusting.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:38 PM
2

Only if said space exists in a 'Feminist framework'.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 10:00 PM
5

There is a lot more data to support the notion that differences in wages are primarily choice. In fact, when comparing young single women to young single men - women have an edge. I have yet to see one report that shows that women commit suicide at greater rates than men in the west. The MRM is not inconstistent on this issue. People have a hell of a lot more choice in which job they apply for compared to when they feel like killing themselves. This is a seriously false equivalence.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:01 PM
1

And of course I was being ironic when I said that men could simply choose to not kill themselves. I was mocking how easily people dismiss the wage gap by convincing themselves that they earn less by choice. It is dismissed precisely because there is a substantial amount of research demonstrating that it is, indeed, choice. In fact, when comparing single women to single men, we find that women have an edge. I have yet to find one report looking at men and women in the west in which women ever com…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 07:44 PM
8

However, every man who commits suicide have chosen to do so himself, so if we must follow the same line of reasoning, this is not an MRM issue - the "suicide gap" is a myth, as it merely reflects the choice of men. If men didn't want to kill themself, they could just stop committing suicide. The main problem with this: the difference in wage earnings is usually ascribed to the fact that women have more choices to earn more or less compared to men (at least if you want any semblance of a relation…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:42 PM
4

Man that is heart-wrenching to read. Speaking as a father, I would be absolutely devastated by a situation like this. Someone telling me I could not see me son, let alone see him on Christmas, would feel like being told I was not allowed to breathe... :(
/r/MensRights19/02/15 07:56 AM
2

Sorry if my post came across that I didn't believe you felt that way. I was more intending it for others who may not have read the article more thoroughly. When I first read this I didn't look close to see what age the guy was, and originally thought he was much older so that this particular scenario would of seemed even creepier. When I learned his actual age I changed my perspective on what was going on, and was mostly making this statement for others who may not have realized the guy was a te…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:47 PM
3

"Also, I believe that disrespecting what some people think or do is completely different with disrespecting the person entirety! [sic]" Good thing the original post made that distinction abundantly clear. /s
/r/MensRights17/02/15 10:23 PM
5

As creepy as that incident is, the kid was 14 years old when this happened. I would imagine counseling and/or some sort of residential facility (at least part time) would do a lot more good for him then jail time / putting on the sex offender's list. Unless of course the whole point of punishment of children has nothing to do with rehabilitation and everything to do with feeling good about punishing someone with a diminished capacity for controlling their behavior. Then sure, throw the book at '…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 10:18 PM
3

EDIT: This in reverence to IR. One must be quite solemn when talking about IR.Just a joke, don't hurt me.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 06:52 PM
10

Thank you for this. There really are people who think that since it primarily affects men that they don't need to think about it. I imagine a lot of people would be shocked to see how many women are affected by it, and that women in general need to be more concerned with heart disease. The target demographic for these ads are women - specifically increasing women's awareness about their propensity for heart disease. This isn't a problem - this is attempting to educate.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 05:50 PM
5

What year is this, 1984?
/r/MensRights11/02/15 08:37 PM
5

Plot twist: Emma Sulkowicz is the anonymous writer.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 06:51 PM
1

Reminds me of this now infamous false flag. :0
/r/MensRights10/02/15 10:54 PM
0

I doubt you could consider the reason Planned Parenthood exists now is eugenics - it does a lot of good. However, considering that Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, and her connections and beliefs with eugenics in America are definitely enough to give some pause. It still does a lot of good, but I can't blame some for feeling a bit reserved considering some of its past.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 10:29 PM
1

It takes principal to stand on principle. That's an amazing way to put it. Sums up the legal system perfectly.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:20 PM
6

Tell that to all the 18-20 year old men who died while never having the right to vote. it's really easy to put 21st century expectations on 19th century individuals and feel superior. Especially since you have never had to deal with even the concept of universal suffarage (regardless of gender) being a hotly debated topic, let alone dealing with such a debate being concomitant with a fight for independence from colonial rule, and a massive civil war destroying a substantial portion of the popula…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:00 PM
4

My guess is that while they would agree that such a situation wasn't necessarily fair, that it would be, nonetheless, equitable. From what I've understood, the draft was considered constitutional because it was the reciprocal obligation placed on men for their right to vote. Such a similar obligation for women before or after they got the vote has never existed.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:04 PM
1

You know, I've often heard that men need to "open up" more and engage emotionally to help alleviate depression. So when I read However that doesn’t just betray a disturbingly deep misunderstanding of men and masculinity, it’s flat-out wrong. The National Suicide Foundation tells us that in the year prior to death, 81% of the people involved had been in contact with their doctor or a mental health service. I was floored. People seriously need to stop asking how can men change, and start asking ho…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:41 PM
4

“Now more people are more aware of SDS and we’ve gotten a lot of clients,” Smith said. “Everybody is excited about this in SDS.” He added that students across campus have been “overwhelmingly positive” about the outcome. And the Streisand effect strikes again! Exposure is the cure to those who would crush free speech.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 08:19 PM
17

Holy shit, from that article: The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support A fucking 13 YEAR OLD KID, a kid barely into puberty, was responsible for his rapists crime? WTF!?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 10:25 PM
1

Only two words can adequately express my sentiments after reading that piece: Holy Shit.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 10:21 PM
0

This statement: the vast majority of those with money= white heterosexual males and this statement: white heterosexual males= those in power are not equivalent. For example the vast majority of those abuse children = women and women = those who abuse children not really equivalent statements.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:01 AM
1

This statement: They want to be the new ruling class that they view white males to be (and truthfully once were). and this statement: And I'm saying that the vast majority of the people in power were white, heterosexual males, therefore leading to the assumption by these minority advocacy groups, like feminists, that they must aim their hatred and policies of "equality" toward them. are qualitatively different. I agree with the latter of the two statements. I disagree with the former. The former…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 01:22 AM
0

I'm saying their "rule" is a function of their power and money - not their race / gender. That's all. White, heterosexual males don't run anything as a class - people with money do. That is an apex fallacy. I can guarantee you that white heterosexual homeless man down the street didn't get a fucking say in how things are run, and to lump him in with everything else is just bullshit.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 01:00 AM
1

They want to be the new ruling class that they view white males to be (and truthfully once were). Money/power determines whether you are apart of the "ruling class". A whole generation of males (including all races) being wiped out during world wars, while those born into money could side-step that whole process, would likely disagree with you.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:30 PM
7

Neighbor Tammy Ramsey expressed concern to KOMO about the potential for missed opportunities to help the family. "Why weren't we knocking on the door?" she said. "I think that we need to rally and love to understand and not to judge." Normally I would be all about compassion and helping individuals, but I am absolutely going to judge someone who slashed the throats of three helpless children. Judging this person is the right call.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 11:00 PM
0

That guy's voice is very hard to listen to and take seriously. Interesting video, just very distracting voice.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 07:45 PM
6

I can't understand how you even get to this line of reasoning. You, like most people, are not a narcissist, so it's pretty easy to understand why this would seem illogical. You know, because it is:/
/r/MensRights27/01/15 07:14 PM
4

Now I am just imagining this awesome "Patriarchy Weather Machine" With all these various settings to oppress women. We have the "Standard Oppression - Snow Days" "Depressing Oppression - Rainy Days" "Catcall oppression - Really Windy Days" "Gaslighting - Sunny All Day - except when women walk outside, then it rains." This would be really bizarre.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 07:10 PM
2

Is it just me, or does the guy in that sketch look like he came straight out of an anime or something? I think it's the eyes - creepily large and just weird looking.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:50 PM
1

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"
/r/MensRights23/01/15 08:22 PM
21

Because the state needs the money NOW.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 07:16 PM
1

At least they are honestly calling it an "earnings" gap as opposed to a "wage" gap considering men and women's wages are the same - they just earn different amounts based on hours / type of job.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 07:05 PM
2

Proofiness. My new favorite word.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 06:56 PM
28

This would seem to be a pretty good case for selection bias. There are numerous cases showing, when compared side-by-side, women get a sentencing discount compared to men for the same crimes. When a women gets charged with and convicted for domestic violence it will almost be certain that it was very serious (as in attempted murder serious as in OPs article), because it takes that type of drastic action to overcome the WAW (Women are Wonderful) effect before anyone even takes action. The reading…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 06:40 PM
24

I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist. Of course it does — and that’s why it’s so important not to discredit the idea by making issues about gender when they’re not. This line right here in my opinion is the most important line of this entire post. When you trot out fabricated statistics, myopic interpretations of data, and claims that are pulled out of nowhere people will begin to ignore you fairly quickly - or they will continue to push forth in their own echo chambers making things worse. 'Gend…
/r/MensRights21/01/15 10:15 PM
1

I...I am so confused. What does a kid asking his father where the g-spot on a woman is have to do with anything....? (Or so says Google translate...)
/r/MensRights16/01/15 08:43 PM
3

When someone has to use an individual's genitals as "evidence" for why they are right, you can be pretty damn certain that person is a certified dumbass.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 07:29 PM
6

And the answers of just 73 men were used for analysis because the researchers discounted missing data and one man whose answers confused them (he said he would rape but not use force to obtain intercourse). LOL. Found the guy who wanted to dick with the researchers because he saw how ridiculous the "study" was.
/r/MensRights14/01/15 01:36 AM
0

I wasn't referring to the misandrists, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was referring to the statement saying that radical feminists were proving their point. Just saying that nothing was really being proven by radical feminists:/ Hopefully that is what you are talking about in the first paragraph of this post. Let me know if I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 07:17 PM
1

This statement: A lot of the old men misandrists (lets just call them that for sake of argument) actually claim that one of the reasons a women doesn't belong up there with men is that they lack the mental maturity needed for those jobs. All these radical feminists do is prove their point. This proves about as much as male pedophiles do wrt why men shouldn't be left alone with children. Which is to say nothing at all. I don't think that you support this mentality, especially since you follow thi…
/r/MensRights13/01/15 06:18 PM
4

"So a man makes no decisions leading to the birth of a child?" Not when that women was impregnated by some other guy. I thought that was kind of obvious...
/r/MensRights12/01/15 07:49 PM
5

This reminds me of a another story I read concerning elephants. Here is the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-delinquents/. I'm sure there is a ton of interesting stories like this that could give much of our society pause when it believes that the role of the father in raising children is superfluous. ETA: The tl;dr of the article is that juvenile male elephants were killing rhinos and no one knew why. Turns out, these elephants were orphans who grew up without role models. The fix was to i…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 06:39 PM
1

It seems like there is really only one thing that can be done with crap like this: ignore it. The article should have never been published, and we really don't need to waste our time talking about it. Just my $0.02.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 06:35 PM
2

And this is why it is really stupid to state that since men are in positions of political power that they would care about passing laws to help men. The only time that type of thing happens is when, because of being men themselves, they happen to be caught up in the grip of terribly sexist laws.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:44 PM
3

This has never been true. Ever. Both the father and the mother have always been equally important in the lives of their children. Either as providing constant guidance while in the home, or ensuring that they are clothed, fed, and have a home to live in - both of these traditional roles are critical to the well-being of a child. Regardless of who is fulfilling them.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 05:42 PM
4

Yeah - that is a little crazy! ETA: It still floors me that gender parity has existed in overall degrees received since the 80's (over 30 years ago!) and yet I still hear about the need to make sure girls get into higher education (with basically nothing targeted especially for guys - at all. Guy's are getting the shaft and everyone is essentially, 'meh'....) One MORE ETA: Holy crap! I didn't even realize that the bachelors STEM had reached parity around the 2000s. That would be a good thing if …
/r/MensRights02/01/15 07:14 PM
2

I think these plots would be even more crazy to look at if you plotted them side by side and used the same y-axis scale for both. The lopsided ratios for degrees in all majors is rather disturbing.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 07:01 PM
5

I think some people just like a nice break. Nothing to do with bragging. Everything to do with being exhausted by negative media posts.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 08:56 PM
3

Just because you are a great judge of character doesn't mean you can't make a mistake. Objective criteria exists to reduce as much as possible the one universal human trait - our fallibility.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:39 AM
6

Interestingly people are more likely to die of food poisoning than that scenario, but you don't see food hysteria do you?
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:36 AM
2

"That may be a stereotype [that displays my abhorrent bigotry], but I'm sure [many people are bigots just like me]." FTFY
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:34 AM
2

Yeah, but the denotative vs. connotative definition is worlds apart. Cult has much stronger negative connotations then the word religion, in general, i.e. the majority of people on the street are much more likely to have an extremely negative view of the word cult than the word religion.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 08:25 PM
5

Don't worry, I'm right there with you to bring on the downvotes.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 12:20 AM
1

Not sure if you capitalized the 'i' or put an 'l' instead, but to be clear the author of 'What's wrong with women's studies?' is Dr. Janice Fiamengo. ETA: Can someone please explain the downvote for pointing out the correct spelling of the author's name?
/r/MensRights16/12/14 06:35 PM
9

Cool comment bro it really took off
/r/MensRights16/12/14 06:28 PM
33

'Woods continues to deny wrongdoing saying, "I only wanted to protect my children."' Holy hell the logic of this woman. She promotes the exploitation of children to protect her children. So apparently its OK to exploit children just as long as you do it for the right reasons. FFS ETA: "...Meri Woods had her husband kicked out of their Clymer-area home with a protection-from-abuse order." Methinks this prior order should be re-examined in light of this outrageous behavior.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 06:20 PM
3

Talk about karma.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 06:18 PM
1

You aren't confusing me. You have just made very poorly worded arguments and are backpedaling to save face instead of owning up to mistaken statements. Not to mention your overall thesis is just flat out wrong. I will just leave it at that.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 01:44 AM
-1

Your original statement is "I love how men in general are physically stronger and more mentally capable than women" which is worlds away from what you just stated, and not even close to saying the same thing. Even further, it is incredibly disingenuous to use a phrase like 'in general' to refer to a very specific item (i.e. the extreme ends of the bell curve). Your wording is horribly ambiguous and strikes me as purposefully moving the goal posts to defend an indefensible statement.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 11:45 PM
2

"Yeah that's why I said in general." And this is why your statement falls flat on its face. The men on the extreme ends of the bell curve do not represent men in general. The reality is that men and women, in general (i.e. the mean of the bell curve) are equally capable (when referencing mental capacity).
/r/MensRights15/12/14 10:51 PM
1

Yeah, I hear ya. Definitely do what you think is best. I can't help but fill if this is what the mother is like that in the long term it might be better still and would be one of those 'when he gets older' moments that he would better understand. Not an easy choice either way.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 09:05 PM
4

from a quick glance, pretty much crickets...
/r/MensRights05/12/14 08:57 PM
12

I doubt much will change. The two situations are completely different - all the people involved are known and public, as well as multiple different accounts from people with similar stories. Not settled in stone, but these stories are radically different in nature and degree.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 08:54 PM
90

Yup, nailed it: The WaPo reports: "A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault awareness advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to her, but they also have come to doubt her account." The mental gymnastics of these individuals is astounding.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 08:50 PM
1

I think at that point I would ask would should actually be comfortable forcing another mother to raise her child? Cause that is, in essence, what she is advocating for - incredibly ludicrous. Or how bout having someone else force her to raise their child? This is trying to make someone else responsible for your decisions...
/r/MensRights05/12/14 08:46 PM
6

If that is the case, then honestly having her time would be in the child's best interest. This type of toxic personality destroys a child's ability to form trusting, honest relationships in life. While it would potentially hurt your economic potential, there is a massive amount to be gained economically and emotionally from limiting the time and influence of a toxic personality. I wouldn't underestimate the damage the mom can cause.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 08:43 PM
1

So that's why women are upwards of 20x times more likely to die on the job then men? /s
/r/MensRights04/12/14 07:51 PM
0

Perhaps you should put up a similar sign but instead of using the ratios of earnings between men and women, you should use the ratios of on-the-job deaths. Price of a cupcake for men: 5 cents Price of a cupcake for women: 1 dollar
/r/MensRights04/12/14 07:31 PM
1

I don't think the situations are analogous (for the purposes of consent at least). A car is a lethal weapon you're driving, your body is not inherently lethal. Driving drunk would be more analogous to waving a loaded gun with the safety off in a crowded room - that shit just doesn't fly.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 12:34 AM
2

Yeah, at that point the only thing that can get through is an emotional appeal. This is why gender-swapping works so well. Until someone can see it emotionally from your point of view, it may be impossible to get through to someone.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 11:57 PM
18

'Girls are never taught not to accuse someone of rape falsely.' See how ridiculous that sounds?
/r/MensRights03/12/14 11:43 PM
1

/r/nottheonion
/r/MensRights03/12/14 11:41 PM
2

And why do you think you are the final arbiter on what should or should not be part of a definition? You're appeal to feels > reals makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. I pointed out a definition - definitions evolve over time to meet the needs of those using them, and instead of admitting being wrong you just gave that emotional cop out. Definitions are not, in and of themselves, moral stances on an issue and your appeal to emotion to say they should be defined how you know deep do…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 10:08 PM
2

Assault does not require physical contact, but the way sexual assault is defined legally it does require physical contact (at least in the US). Relevant definitions: 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally section b, states: (b) Sexual Assault.— Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) commits a sexual act upon another person by— (A) threatening or placing that other person in fear; And then later on a sexual act is defined as: (g) Definitions.—In this section: (1) Se…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 09:22 PM
18

[citation needed] Or more specifically [citation of credible journals / authors] And lastly - breast cancer is a real risk for women, but we wouldn't promote mastectomies in infant girls would we? If the foreskin was evolutionary poor it would have evolved out of existence millions of years ago. No, you are just wrong. ETA: Additional useful information can be found in the FAQ here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq#wiki_3._why_is_circumcision.2Fmale_genital_mutilation_such_a_big_issue…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 12:17 AM
6

Imagine if these votes are tallied in person - this seems utterly ridiculous. If a masculine women wearing unisex clothing came up to vote and they were all, "Sir, you cannot vote." and the women was all, "Ummm, I'm a women." Would they be all "Prove it!"? Man, this whole policy sounds ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 10:56 PM
1

Nope, sperm and egg cells are not capable of reproduction (being haploid), and as such are not alive, meaning this line of reasoning could not apply. When fused, yes, but separately no.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 08:43 PM
1

Considering humans are incredibly dependent on their gut bacteria to be able to digest food (which also feeds the bacteria), you could use this same reasoning to describe humans as merely large incubators to provide food for bacteria. Especially considering that most (if not all) bacteria could live just fine outside of the human they reside in, while this same level of independence does not necessarily apply to humans. No, I don't find that argument very convincing towards attempting to say tha…
/r/MensRights20/11/14 08:01 PM
2

"A fetus is not a living human because it is unable to survive on its own. It is a parasitic sack of cells, at least up to a certain point." And you accuse me of hyperbole. If you sequenced the genome of the fetus - it would match a human genome perfectly. If I were to talk about a bacterial cell half-way through division it, would it somehow stop being alive during cellular division? No, it's at a different stage of its life, but it is still alive. Yeah, you really are trying to twist the defin…
/r/MensRights20/11/14 06:27 PM
2

A fetus is a living human. Specifically a living human who's current stage of development would be called a fetus. It's not like the fetus is some different undead species prior to birth....whether you consider that fetus should or should not have the rights pertaining to personhood is a different matter, but you don't help your case by trying to define out of existence a biological reality.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 05:44 PM
15

While men may not raise hell over things like this, I think part of the problem is, even if men did, no one would care. The empathy gap plays a huge role in these differing reactions. People will support someone trying to defend women from such "attacks" because women are considered worthy of defense. People will not support a similar defense for men, because, well, they should just "man up". Not saying this is right or wrong - that will always depend on the situation, but the empathy gap strong…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 06:02 PM
2

Holy crap, 4 days held before it was determined it was self-defense? People on the interent half-way across the country new it was self-defense before the people pressing charges who should have had all this evidence did. smh
/r/MensRights13/11/14 06:47 PM
8

Why is the women in the skirt criticizing the women in pants? That's pantsist.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 09:18 PM
3

So basically, Canada states that discrimination is bad...except when it's not. Well, that little loophole won't be exploited...at all...
/r/MensRights12/11/14 08:51 PM
1

While not required, they will absolutely look to include the individuals in the case. If no one was going to testify/cooperate or no one wanted to press charges, attempting to move forward with this case would be really difficult if not impossible.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 08:50 PM
2

Damn. All I got.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 10:20 PM
1

Come in with an asinine comment and you will get an asinine response - communication 101.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 09:57 PM
1

"Right, but it's possible to get charges dropped before a court date." Wouldn't that require everyone not press charges or agree to some settlement of sorts? I somehow doubt that that is going to happen considering the rather heated exchange that occurred. "Then they are going to say what I said they were going to say." If they go that route they will look like fools for the above mentioned reasons, so I have a hard time believing they will if they want to make a solid argument. Seriously, two s…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:58 PM
1

Like agree with feminism? I assume this is where you are going with that statement, no?
/r/MensRights11/11/14 08:54 PM
1

"Then why has he been charged with assault?" /u/eletheros above puts it best: "This is normal. Everybody involved in a brawl gets charged, and the courts sort it out. We don't want police making judgements that lead to not filing charges, as that will invariably lead to women getting off more, not less."
/r/MensRights11/11/14 09:41 AM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 06:25 AM
1

Holy crap that slap scared me. Sounded like the dude bodygloved her after she got out of the pool.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 06:23 AM
1

"We're afraid of [what the other people who don't toe the feminist line already] will believe." FTFY. Yeah, you are not fooling anyone. The quote above applies perfectly in this context. smh
/r/MensRights11/11/14 06:17 AM
5

The time between her hitting him with the purse, and his retaliatory slap is 2 seconds because he had his back to her. Purse hit is at 1:06, slap is at 1:08 - 1 second to turn around, 1/2 second to gauge where she is, and 1/2 second to slap. This is really easy to judge and obviously not too long before retaliating. So no, they will not probably say that he waited too long.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 06:09 AM
82

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
/r/MensRights04/11/14 11:22 AM
6

/r/nottheonion material right there.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 09:10 AM
1

Ahh, I'm getting myself confused with the term assault in general. It does appear sexual assault implies physical interaction, which is weird since assault, in general, does not necessarily require physical interaction. However, "unwelcome verbal sexual conduct" can fit the definition of assault, and could make those acts sexual harassment. At the very least they should state sexual harassment - not sexual assault. However, "..so the 539 in 3844 number does not actually count "sexual assaults"" …
/r/MensRights31/10/14 08:34 AM
1

Not necessarily - 284 were undergraduate women. It could also be that the other 255 students were graduate women, undergraduate men, graduate men, or some other combination. "The survey’s response rate ranged from 30 percent of male graduate students to 46 percent of female undergraduates. " This is the only part of OP's post concerning the breakdown for male and female students (aside from the aforementioned 284 of 539 stat), and as far as I can tell it only corresponds to the percentage of tot…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 08:12 AM
1

While I think you are highlighting some important drawbacks, I don't think this statement is correct: "unwelcome verbal conduct" is not assault, so the 539 in 3844 number does not actually count "sexual assaults" It didn't say unwelcome verbal conduct - it said "unwelcome verbal sexual conduct", and yes this can be construed as sexual assault. "In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a thre…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 08:01 AM
1

Is there a /s missing from your comment?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 07:57 PM
2

I don't know why, but the first thing I heard in my mind was a weird conversation, something like: OPs coworker: "Hey Russ_T_Razor, your wife lets you have such a big beard?" Russ_T_Razor: "Yeah, we got this nice compromise worked out. She lets me have a big beard, I let her out of the kitchen." I would love to see someones reaction to this :P
/r/MensRights09/10/14 12:03 AM
1

Thank you for clearing that up. It makes more sense to me now what you were trying to get across. The second scenario feels like it could go either way and would depend on how the story was initially related and being remembered over time. Since I wasn't there, and without more input from the original poster, I can't say one way or the other - although I think everyone can agree that the subordinate is a jackass and should be fired. Perhaps take his actions up with HR if your boss won't do anyth…
/r/MensRights25/09/14 03:18 PM
1

I guess then I don't get what you saw as being the point of the post from above. Depending on the point, yes - who says it can matter. It looks to me like you have a different point you are trying to make from the above poster - hence why I didn't think who said it mattered with respect to the original poster's point. Not to mention that you were trying to paint the above poster as having some sort of agenda, which I thought was unfair given the point he was trying to make appears different from…
/r/MensRights25/09/14 12:44 AM
1

The point, as I saw it, was that how you were told to address the subordinate would have been the same if you were a guy acting the same way. Cutting off a subordinate who is butting in where they don't belong is not rude - it's called being a boss, it sucks, but that's the way it is. Why would it matter who gave you the advice wrt the point - that a guy would have been given the same advice, i.e. act like a man and do something about it. The boss tells you, the subordinate tells, doesn't matter…
/r/MensRights24/09/14 11:46 PM
1

To be quite honest: the "changed details" weren't too far off from how you described it and didn't change the message - they sound close enough like someone who is recalling an event, but not 100% perfect cause the poster is human like that. It's fine to rant about things that are frustrating, but expect people to point out the obvious when you do - the phrase "It's a dog eat dog world." exists for a reason. It doesn't sound like you are being asked to "communicate more like a guy" - it sounds m…
/r/MensRights24/09/14 06:39 PM
-2

While I understand your point, I would imagine it's because crap like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V9FV3G3noE is more likely to happen to men. Mom and Daughter having a fight? Better kill the father, obviously.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 08:57 PM
6

Disgustingly, according to the CDC this isn't rape - it is merely "made to penetrate.". smh
/r/MensRights13/09/14 10:30 PM
1

I think you forgot something...
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:24 PM
1

So - politicians don't understand that just because it was written in a book does not necessarily mean it's true. Who knew?
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:54 PM
17

Reading your comment reminded of hearing about the perfect formula discovered by George Lucas for the Emperor's lines in Star Wars: " Something something darkside (Patriarchy). Something something compleeete."
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:03 PM
6

Did the women interviewer actually just ask how suicide victims are to blame for their own problems? Would she have even dreamed of asking such a question if they were talking about women committing suicide at 3-4 times the rate of men? WTF?
/r/MensRights09/06/14 07:44 PM
1

Only thing really needed to be said after those first few responses, "You are a bigot full stop. I don't need nor want such toxic people as friends. Bye. " * unfriend
/r/MensRights28/05/14 09:38 PM
1

Ironically, a large number of them are probably religious (specifically Christian) to some extent and pointing out that Mathew 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." ALSO applies to those who are in prison, but whatever - 'MURICA.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 08:38 PM
2

But past comments may have given enough data close to that - I don't know if I would want to comb through my past comments to make sure that hadn't happened, especially if I had been commenting for years. Easier to make a throwaway and save time, but I get what you mean.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 07:18 PM
3

I dunno - it can be kind of creepy what type of information obsessed people can piece together from a story.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 06:33 PM
1

Premise: The world has more important issues to deal with (i.e. starving children in Africa). Conclusion: We should address that issue before we tackle what you are complaining about. Both are made by implication (unless you want to clarify why you were making that statement). I never accused you of making a Strawman fallacy - that was someone else. I accused you of making a red herring fallacy. Why don't you read what both you and I wrote.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:22 PM
1

A definition of Argue: to show; prove; imply; indicate If you were not implying anything about the comment you were replying to with your statement about starving children, why the hell were you bringing it up? Why make the statement at all? I'm sorry, but your belligerent insistence on what you weren't saying makes me feel perfectly comfortable in assuming you are were entering that discussion, and continuing this discussion, in bad faith. You made the statement in direct response to another's …
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:02 AM
1

Are you replying to me or to TEARANUSSOREASSREKT? I ask this since none of my comments replying to you use the word 'because' (except for this comment, obviously). My statement just points out the absurdity of pointing to a logical fallacy while making one yourself. You made a logical fallacy when referring to starving children in Africa (i.e. a red herring - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) by implication. Edit: Take back my statement regarding fallacy not being an argument, since by d…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 08:39 PM
1

This, unfortunately, seems like the most likely explanation from other news reports that I have seen as well. This whole situation is just messed up and sad all around:(
/r/MensRights08/05/14 06:21 PM
1

LOL! Pot - MEET KETTLE WOOOOOOOOH!!!!
/r/MensRights08/05/14 06:17 PM
1

And you are the mush provided by the corporate media. This is kind of fun - lets see how long we can keep this up. It will be awesome.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:49 PM
1

That sounds like a special case of the red herring concept...they both imply that an individual is making an irrelevant statement. Only difference is your fallacy specifies the type of irrelvancy... Edit: Yup, that is exactly what that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:46 PM
1

Ahh gotcha. My bad.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:43 PM
1

I never planted goalposts to move in the first place...I was just stating that the correct definition of his statement was not a strawman, but in reality a red herring...Stilgar1973 is the one who called it a Strawman...
/r/MensRights07/05/14 11:05 PM
2

So what are you doing about the civil war in Syria huh? Why aren't you protesting that?
/r/MensRights07/05/14 09:10 PM
2

Wow...that was pretty harsh.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 09:08 PM
2

Ok, how about red herring? I think that accurately describes your statement.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 06:36 PM
10

If this exact same comic had been made but with a Black Guy seeing the "African-American" signal and busted through a window mid someone saying, "I'm just sick of how black people-", then this would have been sharply criticized and protested for the bigotry it would be rightfully called out as.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 10:49 PM
1

From the article: "This [increased acceptance for divorce in the public] is a sobering development, insofar as more permissive divorce attitudes are associated with lower-quality and more unstable marriages." I'm really curious if an increased likelihood at initiating a divorce is also correlated with more permissive divorce attitudes. If that were the case, it would seem to explain part of why there has been a decline in happiness among married woman despite an increased level of economic indep…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:22 PM
2

I can hear you on that. When I say simple, I don't mean easy - only that you don't need a million exceptions to preserve the intent of the law (in this case protection of privacy), but protect individuals from over application of the law (such as what happened the bullied kid). I will never feel comfortable with shying away from making such attempts purely because it is difficult and there is nothing I've seen from other states that have such exceptions that points to it being a net negative. Fr…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 09:56 PM
1

I didn't downvote you - I upvoted you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they downvoted you, so don't assume and accuse as much. And yes, if they believed your were committing a crime and you weren't, then yes that would be reason to make an exception. Except, at that point, the onus is on them to show that they had reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime which, depending on the situation, might be difficult to prove. Additionally, once established that no crime …
/r/MensRights18/04/14 05:12 PM
2

In principal I would agree with your statement, but a blanket statement requirement of two-party consent is unreasonable in a lot of circumstances. It would be really easy to make some simple, common-sense exceptions to this rule. For example - criminal behavior should not require two-party consent. If you are committing a crime or violating serious conduct guidelines for a given public area (e.g. bullying students in a school classroom), you have no reason to expect that it be illicit to record…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:18 PM
1

I think if it had been me this would have gotten pretty ugly. I don't think I couldn't have kept myself from shouting at her, "I just LOST MY CHILD. WTF?' Just, holy cow.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 05:53 AM
57

Next on 10' O'clock news: Bigots explain how race and gender invalidate someones argument.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:13 AM
1

perhaps a /s is in order:P (Especially consider Poe's Law and all...)
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:42 PM
1

This whole event felt really meta. Protesters (presumably feminist) protesting an event that as explicitly addressing feminist censorship. I'm just glad to know that women like Karen exist. Faithinhumanityrestored.jpg
/r/MensRights16/02/14 07:46 PM
1

Yeah, its funny they decided to interpret it that way, despite that very same article citing a number of independent events where Obama clearly uses the less ambiguous phrasing which make this claim far less credible.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 06:37 PM
6

It almost makes you want to make T-shirts that say - 'This is what an MRA looks like.' and see the looks people give when various non-neckbeard, non-fedora-wearing individuals walk around with it on. Maybe even see a head or two explode if a woman is wearing the T-shirt. :)
/r/MensRights05/02/14 08:02 AM
0

Was surprised that it didn't end with "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Perhaps you should fix it for them since they obviously forgot to put that in there.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:03 PM
5

Your caps lock is bad, and you should feel bad.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:10 AM
2

Where the hell do these blogs pop up from? I would love to regard this as satire, but the rather straightforward analysis (albeit mentally @&#$ up) and the following comments under the post say otherwise. I would also like to believe this is fringe, but there are actually prominent feminist historical figures who have basically made this exact same argument. It kind of freaks me out to see how someone will rationalize this type of insanity. It gives the notion that 'The road to hell is paved wit…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 07:51 AM
4

Thank you for this. I have a close friend of mine who was only recently diagnosed with ADHD as an adult, but when he started taking medication for it, he said the difference was like night/day in his ability to focus, function, and overall improved quality of life. It has taken so long for this diagnosis to be taken seriously precisely because it normally would have been ascribed to 'boys being boys' which causes many children to not get the treatment they so desperately could use. I personally …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 10:16 PM
1

*Unless they're a man.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 01:18 AM
3

Still does not change the fact that the title is incredibly misleading. The article displays a glaring double standard, and I can appreciate the anger displayed by the OP. It's hard to make a strong case, however, when using ambiguous, and easily misread, statements such as OP's title. The title sounds more at home in /r/MensRants then in /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 01:31 AM
10

DAMN, she destroyed that 'debate'. Not that there was much to begin with, but still - pointing out a spade is a spade is absolutely needed in our society. Misandry is largely ignored, and unless we have sane voices like Barbara writing poignant articles such as this, it will continue be ignored. As they say - "All it takes is good people to do nothing for evil to win."
/r/MensRights20/11/13 11:49 PM
2

Fair enough. I am kind of on the fence on this one with regards to whether it is OK or not. With certain types of birth control (e.g. abortefacients) I would lean towards it probably not being OK. However, in the case of BC that is used for chronic problems associated with menstruation (i.e. cramps, migraines, etc.) I could totally see how we should be supporting coverage.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 03:32 AM
1

"I think it might be more accurate to say that the American government is requiring employers to subsidize birth control." I don't think that this would be more accurate in general. Only that it would be more accurate for certain groups in how they purchase birth control. For instance, this would not apply to individuals who are unemployed, or even to those who are employed, but whose employers choose to pay a fine instead of provide health insurance to their employees.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:57 AM
5

I am talking about it. I never said it should be supported or opposed. Additionally, saying: "...can you provide a reasonable argument as to why the government should pay $50, 000 for uninsured ER visits from pregnant women rather than $20 a month or less depending on the type of contraception?" would seem to be begging the question. Do you have evidence to cite such a statistic to support your argument? Or are you just throwing out hypotheticals? More specifically, would publicly funding birth …
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:40 AM
5

Totally true - but that does not make the above statement false. It also does not negate an individuals right to argue about the specifics of what taxes are funding either.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:56 PM
3

"Yes you can say that taxes support the government which is charged with mandating coverage, but now we're getting into a chicken/egg argument" I don't know how this is a chicken/egg argument. It is precisely clear the order of events here unlike the statement, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg". The order is basically: "Government mandates that health insurance covers birth control" -> "Government states that individuals must buy health insurance" -> "For those who can't afford it, gove…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:54 PM
5

Didn't really answer my question, but OK. I was not making a case for one way or the other, I was curious as to why the statement "America's government isn't paying for birth control..." would be true considering the argument I made above...
/r/MensRights11/11/13 08:43 PM
13

Beautiful article - nice to have something positive here:)
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:06 PM
22

If the government mandates health insurance must pay for birth control, and you must have insurance or pay a fine, and then subsidizes the health insurance for those who cannot afford it, while maintaining that the insurance they are subsidizing must cover birth control...that seems like the government is in essence doing just that. Am I missing something? While not directly paying for it, it basically makes it impossible for the government to not use tax money to subsidize the cost of birth con…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:39 PM
1

To be fair, the articles are written by two different authors, even if they are published by the same site. However, I would not be surprised if they would both agree with each others' article. Still, would be even more hilarious if both articles were penned by the same author.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 07:27 PM
4

Please remember to make links 'np.reddit'.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 11:45 PM
3

Regardless of who said it, that quote is freaking gold. Love it!
/r/MensRights05/11/13 06:12 PM
6

While I understand the sentiment, I still think the primary reason for not making such antagonistic generalizations should be first and foremost - they are toxic and do you no favors. As others have stated otherwise on this thread, making unfair generalizations about women, and any group really, is going to do more harm than good. Being specific and focusing more on the behavior than on the individual, i.e. avoiding ad hominems in general, will always give you more mileage in your arguments.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:39 PM
0

"Strictly, the article doesn't prove anything." Strictly speaking - none of your points have been proven either, and as such, you are still begging the question. Edit: Additionally, saying "It's similar, not the same. And even groups of clones can have genetic selection, thanks to heterozygosity, epigenetics, tandem repeat mutations, translocons, viruses, etc. These can and do occur in the span of a single generation. Even groups of clones can have divergent evolutions." makes it difficult to se…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:17 PM
0

"Your link showed group-level selection, which is still governed primarily by the genetic makeup" That's begging the question there - how do you infer that? You can give hypotheticals and what ifs all you like, but I think a really good point that shows that this may not be the case is the example with chickens. Both examples use siblings for selection, i.e. the genetic make-up being selected for is similar, however changing the group parameters gives you remarkably different results. Making suc…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:54 PM
1

"Evolution is based on genes, not individuals." You state this as a fact when in reality it is a hotly debated question. There are definitely examples of gene-centric/driven evolution, but there are also examples that show a more complex dynamic occurring. An interesting piece that details evidence for this can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/truth-and-reconciliation_b_266316.html
/r/MensRights04/11/13 07:40 PM
10

Wow she is a piece of work - awesome way to take responsibility for yourself... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24516626
/r/MensRights30/10/13 07:05 PM
5

Hashtags...hashtags everywhere!
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:21 PM
1

I feel ya:) Considering your civil tone and desire to bring awareness to men's issues, even in the face of such ridiculous replies, I figured that was the case. Keep on keepin' on. I love those who seek such feed back - they make reddit, and this sub-reddit in particular, a worthwhile place to be.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:42 AM
2

Please fix your link to correctly show np.reddit. This post seriously brigaded a tiny sub-reddit. Not only that, but this post violated the 'do not cross post to a sub with less than 30K members in less than 24 hours' rule. I assume this was done mostly in ignorance - I can totally feel your frustration after looking at the post and seeing a lot of the replies - they were just disgusting. However, with that said, I make this post to bring awareness to these issues because I like this sub-reddit …
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:30 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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