TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

hopeless_case Archive

View 7 posts and 1,068 comments by hopeless_case on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,068 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Very well done. Thanks for posting that.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 10:52 PM
1

This is another great article by a feminist lawyer fed up with the anti-male bias in family court who put together a great list of reforms that should be implemented to fix many of the problems.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 03:28 PM
4

The cover story linked from that article was amazing. It was filled with information and on how the family courts operate in detail, making it obvious how the anti male bias serves various interests. For example, a typical hearing is conducted with no more evidence than a five minute explanation from each side with no cross examinations so a single court can decide 10 or more cases in a morning. Although these are the preliminary hearings, and the findings temporary, it can take 14 months to get…
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:47 PM
1

That was refreshingly well written. Ill have to look up his other articles
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:02 AM
2

Very well done. Bravo.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:50 PM
3

It becomes a competition when there are people who don't want to do anything about MGM (for any number of reasons), and they need a reason for it to be OK to.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 08:09 PM
7

that both sides seem to believe that if one is worse, then we should focus on that and forget about the other. Both sides? The anti-MGM crowd thinks that non-medically justified genital cutting of any kind should be illegal. Some anti-FGM people in the west think that only non-medically genital cutting against females should be illegal, and that against males is OK. The anti-FGM activists in africa who were mutilated themselves and have gone to prison for being outspoken against the practice, an…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 08:03 PM
1

I defy you to find a better analysis of the duke rape case than this one.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:49 PM
4

Having your penis develop gangrene and losing it or dying is worse than having a tiny nick made in your clitoris as an infant who wont remember it? How do you figure?
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:17 AM
1

Some of the articles at the GMP are the best MRM advocacy I've seen anywhere. Its more than cute, its a fundamental shift.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 12:12 PM
2

Either they are reaching out or they have just given up on engaging the wider feminist movement (sites like feministing, jezebel, feministe, ...) and stopped caring about offending them. I remember watching a TED WOMEN talk from GMP a few years ago where this guy was describing a scene from.his youth. He was about 12 at the time and a bunch of his friends were in a house with a local drug dealer who had a prostitute in a room and was offering fir each of the boys to go in one at a time to have s…
/r/MensRights18/01/12 11:48 AM
2

That link was amazing. The author kept careful notes on how various newspapers and websites wrote about the case over several years and did a great job of calling bullshit. His concept of the 'metanarrative' was well argued. I have not read a better piece of analytical writing in some time. I think I am.beginning to see why hugo left in such a huff.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 03:53 AM
1

Thank you for your work at the gmp, lisa. You are most welcome here. The linked article was an eye opening piece. Please post here often.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 03:35 AM
2

That was great. Thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 04:25 PM
1

I can't believe that universities persist in their current form, given how cheap the internet is and how well it works. I suspect the ultimate resolution of the corruption of the universities is to simply abandon them.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 03:30 PM
2

I would think that even in a typical civil case governed by the preponderance of the evidence standard, an accuser's word is not enough. There would have to be some sort of evidence beyond that. Unless preponderance, in the sexual grievance industry, is just a term of art for 'witch hunt', in which case your point stands.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 09:38 PM
2

What was your school counselor's reaction to the whole thing? Did she already know how broken the grievance procedure was? Was she suprised to see how bad it was in person? What lesson's has she drawn from it?
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:46 PM
1

I would be curious to know if you got an audio recording of the hearing, or a faithful transcript of any kind. Did your lawyer suggest taking that step? Does the university forbid it? How could they have stopped you from concealing an audio recorder, even if their procedure forbid it? It would be pretty easy to conceal an mp3 player capable of capturing any conversations near you. I suspect an actual audio recording of the events you described would be a lot more actionable (both in a civil cour…
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:43 PM
3

The point of this thread is to brain storm ideas on how he can fight back, assuming his story is true, not decide his or her guilt or innocence. If he does fight back and win, we may soon hear of it in the news. Especially if FIRE takes his case and starts publicizing it. At which point, you will get to hear her side of the story and decide who you think was wronged.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:39 PM
5

What do they mean by saying "the girl's word is involved"? Do they mean that the only evidence in the whole case is her word? You would think that would make this even more actionable against the school. If their process can find you guilty based solely upon her word, then your right to due process is nil, and the school is not treating you fairly if they don't give you due process in their grievance hearings.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:13 PM
3

Not all women are out to get men, but a mans intetests in preganacy, marriage, and children are not protected by the courts. Just to pick one example, if the wife wants a divorce, she can easily get primary.custody of the kids, and relegate the husband to seeing his kids a few days a month. Such a power imbalance can easily warp a marriage that starts out normal and sane. Until society restores a balance of power in thr family courts, it makes sense to boycott marriage and children altogether.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 08:59 PM
2

well done
/r/MensRights11/01/12 12:26 AM
4

One theory in the back of my head is that the larger MRM, by engaging feminists on all fronts these past few years and refusing to be silent, forced this confrontation between the extreme (marcotte, swyzer, ...) and mainstream (Tom, Julie, Lisa Hickey, ...) feminists where before there had been a conspiracy of silence between those two wings. If so, it is an amazing demonstration of the growing influence of the MRM.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 08:24 PM
3

That is how I have viewed them as well. Their attitude is changing, though. They are starting to call feminists on their bullshit, although they are still careful to not demean the name of feminism directly. In the linked article, for example, Julie even speaks of 'calling bullshit' on the compiling rape statistics where the forced envelopment of a penis is not counted as rape. They are beginning to stop refocusing away from men's issues at every turn and actually engage.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 07:55 PM
3

This one by Julie Gillis. I am hearing more sympathy for MRA issues from the GMP these days. I wonder what is going on? What turned the tide in our favor? Were they always sympathetic and I just didn't notice?
/r/MensRights10/01/12 06:40 PM
0

I also don't consider a foetus a child, and I am fine with abortions before the first trimester where both parents agree, but I also know that losing a fetus can have a devestating emotional impact on some (a non-trivial number of) men and women. Some people never recover from it. To use your phrase from a few posts ago, losing a fetus plays bloody hell with the emotions of women and men. So I don't think it matters whether a foetus is a child or not. What matters is that people are built emotio…
/r/MensRights10/01/12 04:18 PM
-1

Men also have enough at stake to deserve that certain promises made to them are enforcable. the unique burden of pregnancy should not brush that aside.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 11:51 AM
-1

The general risk of pregnancy is low enough that millions of women enthusiastically seek to become pregnant and give birth every year. You cant use the fact.that it is a non zero risk of death as a general argument against restricting abortion in any way, absent detectable medical complications.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 01:35 AM
-1

I agree about the unreasonableness of asking someone to put their life in danger should there be medical complications, which is why i spoke of a good faith effort meaning that she is only promising to see the pregnancy through in the absence of such complications. So my question remains.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 08:16 PM
0

I love short and sweet arguments that bring common sense to the table and leave it at that. The pro-circ crowd will have a hard time responding to that. I hesitate sometimes to read circumcision stories because I get so pissed off that society tolerates MGM, and, as the author alludes to, their arguments make my head explode. Just to keep my sanity I sometimes deliberately avoid thinking about it. She so completely outmaneuovered the usual pro-circ talking points with her simple observation, how…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 03:48 PM
-1

I am curious to know exactly where we disagree on this. Do you agree that there are men and women who are and would be devestated by the loss of a fetus and who would want (for men, or would agree to, for women) some binding legal mechanism in place to ensure that the fetus can't be aborted without compelling medical cause? Would you agree that, for women who were willing to agree to having sex under those conditions, that it is an honorable agreement? That is, unlike agreeing to sell a kidney, …
/r/MensRights09/01/12 03:35 PM
2

The goal here is to make sure the legitimate interests of men and women are both protected as regards pregnancy and parenting so that people will agree to commit the enormous resources of time and energy required to have and raise children.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 06:36 PM
-4

I think a woman should have to get the fathers consent to abort absent unusual meducal complications (a threat to her well being). For example, if she were risking paralysis by carrying the baby to term. While it is her body, it is his potential child and the loss of a fetus can be devestating to both mother and father. So I consider it an implicit promise a woman makes to a man when she consents to sex that she will make a good faith effort to bring any oregnancy to term that might result to te…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 06:33 PM
3

I cant really day whether they are.in a small minority or not. They may be for all.i.know. but that doesnt mean the lack of legal protection for a man's legitimate interests in his potential child to be is a small issue. I consider it a crucial issue.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 05:51 PM
2

Because society has been built on the sacrifice of men, and the socieies that didnt find a way to silence concern for the welfare of men were overrun by the ones that did. Thousands of years ago. So the cultural current we are swimming against runs deep.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 12:26 AM
6

That was a nice turn around. Well done.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 04:04 AM
-2

Your last sentence is a really neat, widely applicable argument. Collecting gems like that is the main reason I come to r/mr. Well done.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 10:21 PM
15

I got that response from a woman who was arguing that women had it worse than men in the serbian ethnic cleansing of kosovo. I pointed out how the men were being shot, while the women were being raped but at least survived, and she responded that being raped was worse than being killed.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 08:54 PM
4

That article was full of good information, analysis, and references to other books and sources of information. Thanks for submitting it.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 08:49 PM
2

Well said
/r/MensRights01/01/12 03:14 AM
2

Only if you were under the absurd illusion that women were so morally superior to men that the possibility that they might lie doesnt bear thinking about. Back in the real world, any accusation should be investigated seriously. Those with credible evindence should go to trial. Those with no evidence that can be independently verified should be dropped. When the evidence indicates that the accusations are false, then the accuser should be put on trial. You cant take a crime seriously, unless you …
/r/MensRights30/12/11 10:25 PM
3

What would feel that way if the issue were his daughters prepuce (or some portion thereof)? I suspect not.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 04:45 AM
1

Not bad. Welcome.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:31 PM
1

So what are some of the more significant men rights issues in your opinion?
/r/MensRights27/12/11 03:48 PM
2

the rights enshrined in the Constitution occasionally conflict and must be weighed against each other. I am not sure I agree with that. Can you provide a compelling example of such a conflict? your complaint is not that the state is in charge, your complaint is that the state is unfair. That's basically where I come down. However, I think the state is so unfair w.r.t child support that abolishing the system altogether would be a step up in total fairness to parents+children. I have no problem wi…
/r/MensRights23/12/11 03:27 PM
1

Allowing the enforcement of child support to be so heavy handed that innocence is no longer a valid defense (paternity tests proving you are not the father still don't get you off the hook), and keeping the concept of debtor's prison (putting someone in prison for non-payment when they demonstratably do not have the money to pay) alive only for child support cases (when it is considered unconstitutional otherwise), is a good way to discredit the entire concept of the government's ability to look…
/r/MensRights23/12/11 03:19 PM
1

Sorry about that. Here is the link.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:29 PM
1

Sorry about that. Here is the link.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:29 PM
1

That's the one. Well worth reading.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:28 PM
1

Sorry about that. Here is the link.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:23 PM
2

Paul elam is a bold, imaginative, genius. Bravo, Paul.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:45 PM
4

Regular here, have a break. I have been following your recent comments here and it is refreshing to have an outsider engage us in good faith. Welcome.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 03:43 PM
3

For me most MRA issues come back to how society treats men as disposable. I consider this short essay to be an excellent introduction and coherent theory of how it got to be that way, and what the challenges are in addressing it.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 02:36 PM
2

In addition she's acting as an egalitarian on male issues as well. In particular, as an outspoken opponent of FGM who edured it herself, she considers MGM to be as bad if not worse. Now that's integrity. You will not find a feminist who is her equal. There are a precious few. I consider Nawal El Sadaawi her equal. Also endured FGM, and considers MGM just as bad. And goes out of her way to say that when FGM is discussed. Also has been to prison for being outspoken. Isn't it interesting that weste…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 02:04 PM
3

That was beautifuly phrased.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 04:15 AM
1

Don't worry. I'll wait. Just don't hold your breath ;-)
/r/MensRights16/12/11 06:34 PM
1

I've noticed that the people who love to use the word "Patriarchy" the most also resist giving it a clear definition. It's almost as if, to them, there is utility in leaving it undefined. Since you seem to be a fan of the word, what exactly do you mean when you (or people whose writing you find insightful) use it?
/r/MensRights16/12/11 06:33 PM
2

A somewhat extended rewrite: A short, not very well thought out, reply to her rant: I have only this day properly come into contact with her blog and one thing above all strikes me about it: it’s not about women’s rights, it’s anti-men’s rights. I may have a biased view since I have a limited knowledge of it but from what I’ve seen this seems to ring true. At this point I would like to offer some specifics so I can't continue turning around her vacuous, unfounded assertions. Exhibit A, from her …
/r/MensRights15/12/11 05:54 PM
2

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml
/r/MensRights14/12/11 11:31 PM
5

They can say "that different", but now you have their attention and can explain that just because you have no conscious memory of a trauma you suffered doesn't mean it had no effect on you. Infants that were circumcised cry more at their first vaccination visit than ones that were not. An fMRI study of an infant that was circumcised showed that his brain function was measurably disturbed by the circumcison and did not return to its baseline patterns before.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 05:03 PM
1

I am adding that to a file I keep of short and sweet rejoinders. In lots of social situations, If you have pause to explain yourself (just because you have no conscious memory of it doesn't mean the trauma was without effect, for example, in the following study...") , you've already lost. A one sentence reply that forces the issue beyond all doubt and throws the ball back in your opponent's court is necessary before anyone is going to listen to a longer explanation. Well done.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 04:58 PM
1

Thirded. What an amazing display of double standands in the MSM.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 03:04 PM
1

I mean, it's generally accepted historical fact that women were, for a very long time, viewed as property and could be bought or sold. If you are open to reading a serious presentation of an alternate theory of the history of gender relations, and to the idea that men have grievances worth paying attention to, then read this. I consider this talk is my foundational text for understanding gender relations. Here are the first few paragraphs: You’re probably thinking that a talk called “Is there an…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:51 PM
1

"First, acknowledge that you are privileged and society was built for you. Then, tell me what you're so mad about." You really hit the nail on the head. What a beautifully structured post. If I might add my two cents, you know that someone is using a word as intellectual duct tape when you ask them to define it and they show no interest in doing so. If a word is well defined, then you should be able to re-phrase any sentence using it as another sentence not using it. If you can't do that when ch…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:45 PM
8

Spanish inquisitor scared of witches having sex with the devil . That was brilliant. Such vivid imagery. I will be adding that to my pure gold file.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:10 AM
1

So if you have any ways in which we can be more respectful to male issues as we fight for women's issues, please share! Come out against the Obama's Admin's Dear Colleague Letter, in which they inform universities that they should use the preponderance of the evidence standard for judging sexual assault cases between students, and they endorse other unacceptable restrictions of due process, like allowing the accusser to appeal a decision (question: do you understand why this is a denial of due p…
/r/MensRights12/12/11 07:31 PM
1

You seem to be saying that you can't be a feminist (believe that women's rights need to be actively improved) unless you believe in the patriarchy (the idea that the society is run by men and for men, so as to advantage the average man at the expense of the average woman). If you believe in the patriarchy as I just defined it, I don't think you will have much sympathy for the idea that men have serious issues that need addressing (grossly unfair treatment in family court, society treats them as …
/r/MensRights12/12/11 05:38 PM
1

I realize now MRAs just hate women. The principles may be sound and the individuals worthy, but as a whole (and I realize you personally cannot control this) it's a bunch of freaks. I think that judging the relative numbers types of MRAs by looking at threatening emails in you your inbox is a mistake. Do you believe men have legitimate civil-rights issues or not? If you are comfortable writing off a movement seeking to redress serious grievances as freaks because a few of them are harassing you,…
/r/MensRights12/12/11 03:12 PM
1

Fascinating, thanks for posting that
/r/MensRights12/12/11 10:41 AM
2

Fascinating, thanks for posting that
/r/MensRights12/12/11 03:07 AM
2

I recommend you google "is there anything good about of men", if you would like a novel view of feminism and mens rights.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 01:52 AM
2

Shouldnt or isnt?
/r/MensRights11/12/11 06:36 PM
6

I sometimes wonder if the circumcision of infant boys isnt a way that society reassures itself that it can sacrifice men without opposition. Very moving and insightful piece gww.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 05:29 AM
2

Thanks for posting that
/r/MensRights10/12/11 04:47 AM
1

Does anyone know what the rules are regarding a/v recording in the senate halls? I assume she was just making that up, but you never know.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 06:29 PM
7

She wonders aloud who made it a war, then drops this line: Let alone the fact that women only hold 3.2% of the top CEO positions and, across the board still earn roughly 79 cents to the dollar If you don't want a war, stop throwing hand grenades. Women make 79 cents on the dollar because they work 45 out of every 100 hours worked while men work 55 hours, and 45/55= 0.81.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:55 PM
5

I cant wait to watch this when I get home
/r/MensRights08/12/11 11:32 PM
1

If true, then feminist psychologists must not have much influence on the framing of the public discourse on rape.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:43 PM
25

But if you strike a man then no one is going to get too worked up about it. It they did, then society could no longer dispose of them so easily in hazardous jobs, and in aggression against other societies. The societies that figured out how to keep their men's safety from being taken very seriously, so as to always be ready for war, overran the ones that didn't. All that's left in this modern world are the societies that figured this out. In conclusion, don't worry much about men. But if you tar…
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:41 PM
8

I wonder which women's advocates criticized the definition as narrow, and if they were worried about male victims being excluded or some other aspect being excluded (sodomy, for example).
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:44 PM
4

Asking for clemency. Brilliant phrasing. I have long thought that the mrm wont really get rolling until enough women join the cause, because civilasation has always been built on the sacrifice of men, and it will not tolerate men complaining about their lot in life.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:18 PM
2

Well said
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:04 PM
1

Exactly. You tube made the difference.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 12:08 PM
2

I agree, but I think the host should have brought skepticism to bear on them. His challenge should have been for them to prove their claims. He did do some of that, but he also did a bunch of chest thumping, guffaws, snide chuckles, .... I suspect he understands his role as primarily entertainmemt and not journalism as such. Which is rich given what a hurry he was in to stop any discussion involving kim kardashian, as if mentioning her name would sully his shows image.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:35 PM
5

That was an excellent video, thanks for posting it. I notice the host felt obliged to nay say their claims using every argument he could muster, many of which amounted to saying,"oh come on, get real". I think he would have looked like a more serious kournalist if he had asked them to back up their stats. He could have asked how they knew that men and women abuse each other in equal numbers. The guests handlef him well.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 02:17 PM
2

I really liked the way you structured your piece. You would cite a little theory, rephrase it as common sense, then cite a real world case that illustrates the consequences of the theory. You go through several rounds of this. That structure lends rhetorical force to the piece. you are a writer of some skill. Bravo.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:57 AM
1

So the question then is how do men get their voices heard in a legitimate way? By complaining. By expressing their unvarnished anger in large enough numbers, and in a wide variety of venues especially when told to stop whining and "man up". Telling a man to stop whining and man up is often all it takes to silence him. This "whining" will be viewed as illegitimate for some time to come. The switch from being viewed as illegitimate to legitimate will happen once the standard shut-downs stop workin…
/r/MensRights05/12/11 09:22 PM
1

I understand you need a different framework that is not feminism to work out what you recognize as male specific problems. This I think is very helpful to your cause at it was feminism's establishment of flexible epistemological and methodological frameworks that advanced our cause. Which feminist theorists do you credit with innovative epistemological and methodological frameworks? What are their salient points?
/r/MensRights05/12/11 08:50 PM
1

At which point, several people in the room would dismiss that with "false accusations almost never happen, and given how rare it is for a rape to be punished at all, the important point here is how future rape victims won't be believed." Here is a counter argument I picked up in a discussion in the reddit, which I would never have thought of in a million years. After the "the next time a woman is raped, she won't be believed," you respond with: "That doesn't make any more sense than if, in respo…
/r/MensRights05/12/11 04:03 PM
2

I just get tired of seeing the constant complaining about injustice and inequality without any motivation on their part to actually do anything about it. When only one side does the complaining (feminists, complaining about how badly men have oppressed them through the ages), law and custom will start to drift to disadvantage the group being disparaged. Men complaining about how society treats them, giving voice to their anger, is an essential step toward their obtaining justice. One thing this …
/r/MensRights04/12/11 01:32 PM
1

To not enforce an agreement to sell a body part would be a limitation on bodily sovereignty, not a recognition of it. I don't think bodily sovereignty is the operating concept here, I think it is the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can not alienate, or give up (in a bargain, say), certain rights. You have an inalienable right to life (which would include the wholeness of your body), as well as to liberty (you can't sell yourself into slavery or indentured se…
/r/MensRights04/12/11 01:13 PM
1

You keep complaining about our inactivity, but what have you doneabout it?
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:44 AM
1

Brilliant!
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:43 AM
1

I think you are missing pigmans point about a fathers wishes. Suppose a man and woman are sbout to enter into as sexual relationship, and the man says,"before we start having sex, I want you to agree to make a good faith effort to bring any resulting pregnancy to term, and to love and support the resulting child. I would be devestated if you aborted my child to be. If you feel that is not a promise you can make that is fine but I will not consent to sex under those conditions.". Why shouldnt a p…
/r/MensRights02/12/11 09:49 PM
1

Well said.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 09:42 PM
1

Taking made up stories and presenting them as evidence for all women being cheating, lying, cunts For me the point of stories like this is not how likely a situation like this is to come up, or how many women are like this, but how the courts deal with it when something like this happens. If the courts were doing their job, it wouldn't matter how many women were like this.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:29 PM
1

so it isn't that surprising that she decided not to have one After she promised to? Had she not gotten an abortion, he would have been liable for child support on the logic that his consenting to sex was making a promise to make a good faith effort to raise any resulting children. She promised to get an abortion if she got pregnant, and he agreed to not get a vasectomy, and to have sex with her, on that condition.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:19 PM
5

Because it would cause society to sympathize with men and question their lack of reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 03:45 PM
2

Ending a pregnancy be very traumatic for the father as well. Funny how rarely any sympathy is extended to mem in that case. I feel a lot.more sorry for them than I do for men whose partners refuse to get an abortion.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 02:24 PM
2

I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 07:49 PM
2

I missed the importance of that declaration. Thanks for catching that.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 07:48 PM
1

Exactly. Her apology was never sincere. I am really kicking myself for defending her.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:41 PM
3

I was one of the regulars here who thought her apology was sincere. I've been watching her since to see if how she would act once the spot light was gone. From one of her recent blog posts: As everyone who reads this blog knows, recently I was crucified by an obscure "men's rights" group because I blogged about my hesitation for my two-year-old to be taken to the potty alone in a secluded bathroom by the male preschool volunteers. I forgot to cite my statistic on that fateful day (Abel & Harlow,…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:53 AM
3

Good question. I suspect whats going on is that police chiefs / prosecutors / judges / congressmen want to be able to point to a high conviction rate as a defense against the charge that they are 'doing nothing about rape', so they convict as many people as they can and will do anything to keep people convicted / listed. To change this we need to confront people who, in casual conversation, reinforce the idea that sexual predators are a growing threat so large that reducing the rights of the cri…
/r/MensRights29/11/11 08:39 PM
2

Try reading/contacting fathersandfamilies.org
/r/MensRights28/11/11 10:22 PM
2

I really got a kick out of your observations and conclusions. Thanks for stopping by and sharing them with us.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 10:01 PM
19

was said to have been unaffected by the incident. It may be that the steward is really unaffected by this, or it may be that the steward is affected, but social norms prevent him from saying that he is affected by it. Men who complain are often met with "oh for pete's sake, will you stop whining already?"
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:02 PM
25

Instead of treating women like men, let's treat men like women. Except sometimes, when power group politics is afoot, the only way to get reasonable treatement boths ways is to go from unreasonable treatment one way, to unreasonable treatement both ways, at which point the group with all the power says,"Oh, I get it now. Let's treat both sides reasonably."
/r/MensRights28/11/11 05:32 PM
2

That was well done.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 12:55 PM
2

Here is a great essay on where gender roles come from, how the males ones are constricting, and why female roles were relaxed first: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm And here is a book where the author expanded on the original essay: http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X
/r/MensRights21/11/11 04:03 PM
4

This isn't a problem with all women or with all men or with birth control, it's a relationship/trust/communication problem. No. It is a problem with the courts refusing to hold women accountable for their own actions, and for the promises they make to men and children.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:57 PM
5

I hope you are not in a relationship with someone you do not trust. Because lord knows if she takes advantage of you, the courts won't defend your honorable interests to any minimal degree. If anything, they will be the instrument she uses to violate you. While I agree that the courts do behave that way, I am lost as to why you think they should behave that way. As long as the courts refuse to protect a man's honorable interests in marriage and children, the chaos in the home will increase until…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:17 PM
2

We do not chain women to the obligations of motherhood just because they had sex, no matter how careless they are. We do chain men to the obligations of fatherhood, no matter how careful they are. The woman has all the rights wrt reproduction, as she must, and the man has only responsibility. I like the no-matter-how-careful-...--not-matter-how-careless phrasing you came up with there. That make the double standard in play much more obvious. Bravo. It occurs to me that one of the main things I g…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:15 PM
3

You could try talking about what choices you both would be comfortable with before having sex. Suppose a man and woman have that conversation, and the man says,"If you get pregnant, I want you to make a good faith effort to bear the child and raise it with me. Once you are pregnant, I would feel that that is our child developing and if you were to get an abortion (without clear medical cause) I would be devestated. I understand if you aren't willing to sign up for that; in that case, don't agree…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:11 PM
3

yes, but the guy does not need to leave ALL the responsibility to the woman. How is failing to guard against fraud on the woman's part (her poking holes in the condom, retrieving it from the trash and impregnating herself with it, ...) leaving all of the responsibility to the woman? It's like you consider women an inferior species that have no moral agency of their own.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:04 PM
1

Throughout the last 2000 years, men have dominated women. I am curious. Can you tell the difference between the following 2 statements? 1) Almost all of those who are in power are men. 2) Almost all of those who are men are in power.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:58 PM
1

Thanks for posting the link about Adbi.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 06:10 PM
2

It would be really cool if you arranged for a round 2, using what you learned here, then reported back to us on how it went.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 04:15 PM
2

That is intetesting. There is a lot of resistance to valuing the lives of men when you approach it from the civil rights angle. When you step back and simply examine the trafe offs an societal stratgies of keeping men disposable, people are more willing to listen. His example of jazz music I think is beautiful. You have a lot of middle class women with enough leisure to learn to play piano against desparately poor black men after the civil war and the black men change the face of music profoundl…
/r/MensRights15/11/11 01:28 PM
3

Brother! Long and oft may you post.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 10:51 PM
3

You did a great thing by posting this, and insisting that there must be good counters to her response that would sway a third observer. And by refusing to give up after so many people told you it was not worth bothering with. I think that casual arguments like this are how a culture continnually asserts and reinforces itself, and that much of the real work of changing a culture consists of deconstructing dismissive arguments like this until you find the right conversational hooks for turing it a…
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:37 PM
4

You did a great thing by posting this, and insisting that there must be good counters to her response that would sway a third observer. And by refusing to give up after so many people told you it was not worth bothering with. I think that casual arguments like this are how a culture continnually asserts and reinforces itself, and that much of the real work of changing a culture consists of deconstructing dismissive arguments like this until you find the right conversational hooks for turing it a…
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:36 PM
4

Excellent responses. Your first response leaves open the counter, "yes it is very sexist of men to allow themselves to be bribed by sex. They should be ashamed of themselves." The other two are gold though.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:28 PM
2

Shouldnt that same argument require a woman to get the fathers permission before aborting his child? Would ou be in favor of that requirement being legally enforcable (absent undue medical risk, I mean)?
/r/MensRights12/11/11 04:48 PM
1

Good find. Thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 09:21 PM
5

That was a pretty cool "wave" summary you just gave. While I see what you mean about circumcision posts preaching to the choir, I always welcome them as the question of how to wake up society to the obvious harm circumcision does is a deep one. There are many segments of society with a vested interest in not dealing with the circumcision issue, and the number and variety of ways they can avoid the issue is astounding to me. I actually welcome the trolls who show up and try to dismiss the issue a…
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:16 PM
1

Interesting that it was an all female panel as you point out, but I did find most of the commentary insightful, articulate, and intellectually honest.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 06:42 PM
1

Another point is that Skepchick's anxiety wasn't actually predicated on any statistical analysis of the situation, because that isn't how anxiety works. The fight or flight response takes place in the animal brain, which is impervious to reason; and being alone, at night, with a stranger who has expressed sexual interest in you will make most women feel uncomfortable whether they are in real danger or not I think what we are anxious about is a result of what we think the likelihoods are, and tha…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:24 PM
1

Allow me to clarify the question. Would a lack of existing statistical data either way be enough for you to dismiss the indirect evidence that false rape accusations are a significant problem in society that should be addressed?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:13 PM
2

A more accurate turn around would be to poke a hole in the condom before sex, or to replace the birth control pills with fakes.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:26 PM
1

So a lack of data either way would imply to you that it only a small number of people were affected?
/r/MensRights05/11/11 03:18 AM
1

"Rape is extremely uncommon". "Rape hysteria has been manufactured by the media". "Women have been trained to be paranoid about rape". What someone means by saying any of those things depends a lot on when they say them. For example, I would have said those things during a discussion of Elevator Gate to a Rebecca Watson fan. I would also be inclined to say those things to anyone defending the Dear Colleague letter that instructs collages to lower the burden of proof in sexual assault proceedings…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:44 PM
1

I am curious about something. Let's assume, once the dust settles in this discussion, that there is no statistical data about this (either way, showing that a lot of men are ruined by false accusations, or that not very many are) that any of us can find. What would you conclude from that? For example, would you conclude that our worrying about false accusations is unfounded?
/r/MensRights04/11/11 03:49 PM
1

I appreciate the intellectual honesty you have displayed in arguing with me. Its refreshing. edit: there are lots of unfair tricks you could have used to dismiss my points and I noticed that you didn't take the easy way out.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 03:22 PM
1

Even if true, it comes at the cost of innocent men having to do without the right to gather exculpatory evidence. You find that acceptable, I do not.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:13 AM
1

I think the overriding issue is that both men and women consider men expendable. I dont think that men or women in isolation are the problem. And it is not about our generation losing its balls. It has always been this way.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 10:38 AM
12

I know her relationship with her boyfriend is volatile, so I asked her whether the pregnancy was a joint decision. ‘Well, it was joint, yes. I think so. You have to remember that no man will ever think he is ready for a family. Sometimes you have to push.’ ‘Did you steal his sperm?’ I asked. ‘Not in the way you described, no, that’s disgusting. But I stopped taking the Pill, mainly because it was making me fat and moody.’ As if not taking the pill were less of a fradulent act than retrieving a d…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 12:22 PM
1

The conviction rate for rapes brought to trial is 50 percent. The attrition rate ( the percentage of convictions from complaints) is something like six percent. I dont see how you can claim that the accused has such a small chance of getting convicted that it is ok to deny them the ability to gather evidence that would prove their innocence by having their accuser named, thus allowing people to come forward with information. Disallowing that makes it more likely that innocent men will go to jail…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:29 PM
1

I think many of the fundamental rights of the accused are about making it possible to disprove an accusation, even though they shouldnt have to. this is very much a legal issue. So you agree that accusers should be named then?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 04:18 PM
1

Seeing as how disproving a rape accusation may hinge on people coming forward with knowledge of the accuser (for example that she was not where she said she was when the alleged rape took place), shouldnt the accuser be named as well?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 03:15 PM
1

Thanks, I will read that. I really doubt that, though you claim to have a serious appetite for statistical research. Feel free to discredit my doubt, however, by posting a followup with your reaction to / thoughts on the pdf rg provided.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:37 PM
1

This is exactly the kind of thing I was complaining about in the other thread. This, right here, is the problem with the MRM. It is insular and self-congratulatory. It is full of people who believe themselves to be morally superior and their opinions to be above contention. Most political groups strike me as intellectually dishonest in that way. I don't think they would get results if they weren't. I don't like that fact about reality, but it would be suicide to pretend it weren't so.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:35 PM
1

I've already told you that I don't want easier convictions. What else do you want me to say? So do you agree that he said /she said cases should not even go to trial? What do you make of the administration's recent Dear Colleague letter, urging collages to adopt a preponderance of the evidence standard in sexual assault cases? What do you think the standard should be on collage campuses?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:32 PM
1

I think what someone means when they say "X is a minority" depends on what other issues were on the table when they said it. For example, if we were discussing the recent Dear Colleague letter in which collages were urged to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases to 'preponderance of the evidence', and I objected to that move with the logic that 'hey a false accusation can destroy a man's life' and someone responded, 'yeah but that happens in a minority of cases,' then what they are…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:16 PM
1

Certainly this is far more true of MRAs on reddit than it is of feminists. Do you have any statistical evidence of that, or are you just engaging in anecdotal reasoning? Tsk, Tsk.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:55 AM
4

If she wont say how she knows that, then respond that its only as minority of rape victims that cant just get over it and move on with their lives. I mean if she is just going to make shit up, then respond in kind.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:32 AM
1

I think they must be rounding some of the stats down to zero (those that are less than 1). Surely there is some rate of phimosis in the intact population. Also, how could a circumcised boy get phimosis?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 12:14 PM
1

I have a 14yo daughter and a 16yo son. I suppose in the late afternoon there is a period where my kids could watch TV when my wife and I are not home, but in the evenings we are all home. In the course of a week, we all probably watch 2-3 hours of TV together. I also typically go to the movies with my kids. And when they go without me, I know what movies they are watching and discuss it with them later.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 07:27 PM
1

You hit that one out of the ballpark, aetheralloy.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:21 PM
2

Damn you're good.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:20 PM
6

Assure that she can trust you, not punish her for your shitty feelings that are caused by the media. How does my script punish her? Because it includes him telling her that she was disrespectful? NOT how it hurt your feelings The issue is not how it hurt his feelings, or even whether, but that it would hurt most people's feelings.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:47 PM
3

You would sound like an insecure, petty father. How so? You need to be strong and helpful (especially when your feelings are hurt). How was I suggesting he not be strong and helpful (or how did my conversation script show insecurity on the father's part)? I think learning how to treat other people with respect as an adult begins by learning how to treat your other family members with respect as a child. How is it insecure for an adult to say to a child,"Do you see how what you said was not respe…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 03:52 PM
1

Actually, I think watching shit tv is an excellent learning experience, both for young children and for adults. If you want to really understand a culture, don't read the op-ed page of the newspaper, read the advertisements. Or in this case, if you really want to know what messages the world is sending your children (and you), then watch the shit tv programs. Watch, pay close attention, and then comment on it to your daughter.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 12:47 PM
24

Well put, venereveritas. carchamp1, you might want to strike up the following conversation with your daughter: Y: "Remember last night when we were watching TV" D: "Yes." Y: "You turned to me and said, 'If you ever do that to Mommy or me...'" D: "Yes." Y: "Do you see how disrespectful it was for you to say that to me?" D: "No. I was just saying that 'if' you ever did that to Mommy or me, how awful it would be, not implying that you would" Y: "So how would you feel if I said, 'If you ever molest …
/r/MensRights27/10/11 12:07 PM
1

If the registry is used that way, it will quickly lose any sting to be placed on it.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 10:48 PM
7

I think of register-her.com as a place for women in Jessica's Valenti's class: people who are deliberately advocating bigotry against men, or have perpertrated actual crimes (like falsely accusing someone of rape). Jenna's views, that men are not to be trusted changing diapers in a day care, are quite common. To include her in the registry, with the likes of Valenti, debases it.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 06:35 PM
24

Her apology was sincere and heartfelt. It would have been very easy for her to dismiss the MRM, once she noticed it and actually went to the trouble to read up on it. Instead, she was persuaded that the MRM is legitimate. The intellectual honesty she is displaying here is impressive. I applaud her. Paul Elam is tarnishing his own name by making her out to be some demon. Its disgusting to watch.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 03:09 AM
1

Thanks for sharing. In my case, I didnt think men were disadvantaged until a male relative of mine was falsely accused of domestic violence by his wife, and I got to see the family court operate up close.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 12:21 AM
1

I think we are both in.general agreement on mens and womens rights. I'd be curious to hear about how you came to your present undetstanding. Its a rare.view outside of the mra movement.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 11:01 PM
1

I see your point and I agree with you. Its a point that cuts 2 ways, though, and I'm curious how you deal with the other half of it. When you take part in a conversation about how "men have all the power" (based on metrics like how many CEOs and senators and millionaires are men and how few women are) are you also quick to point out that very few men are actually CEOs and therefore don't benefit from that power?
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:20 PM
2

This picture is showing an extreme example of men taking risks. The expectation that men take risks and women not has much more common, everyday, less extreme examples. When the family is driving somewhere and the car gets a flat, does the husband or the wife usually change the spare? When the roof needs fixing, does the husband or the wife climb up to fix it, thereby risking a potentially fatal fall in the process? I don't see how it's fair of you to criticize women for not wanting to do his jo…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:10 PM
3

Because, since the hunter-gatherer days, the societies that encouraged their men to take risks with their lives, and encouraged the women to stay safe and raise children, overran the ones that didn't. Because, among other things, a society can take a huge loss in its male population and numerically recover in a single generation. A society that takes a huge loss in its female population can not; it is done for. All the widespread and powerful cultures left in the world found a way to make risk t…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 11:56 AM
1

Define mostly
/r/MensRights20/10/11 10:00 PM
1

Which, I gather, you don't the MRM, or this subreddit, qualifies as?
/r/MensRights20/10/11 04:25 PM
1

Thanks for posting that. I got a big kick out of it.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 04:21 PM
1

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 04:01 PM
1

What do you donate funds to? That's an interesting question. I don't usually donate. If I was going to donate to a men's rights cause, it would be to the innocence project.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 03:58 PM
1

Yet you keep talking about real activism versus reading-writing-thinking, which gives the impression that you don't consider reading-writing-thinking as worth much by comparison. Surely changing the public discourse is largely a matter of reading-writing-thinking, and the examples you keep using of 'real' activism (lobbying to get laws changed, organizing protests and marches, ...) are only possible once the public discourse recognizes the legitimacy of the target issues.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 03:53 PM
4

What got me interested in the men's movement was watching how the police and courts treated one of my male relatives when he was falsely accused of domestic violence by his wife. I followed his case and helped him draft letters to the judge. He lost his job shortly after he was accused and during the next year, when he was trying to find another job, I noticed a pattern that kept repeating. He would get an interview, then a job offer, he would accept, and then HR would inform him that they could…
/r/MensRights20/10/11 02:17 PM
1

If you are looking for a quick hit to get their attention, that they will have a hard time dismissing, you might try "Women are the only oppressed class, in all of history, whose oppressors went out into the fields and worked for them." If you are dealing with people that are intellectually curious and willing to have an honest debate, then you might try presenting the following framework. The curse of women throughout history has been that they are forced to focus on raising children, and kept …
/r/MensRights17/10/11 09:58 PM
3

Likewise, you have to consider whether the men were put in jail because of institutional sexism, or if they were pressured due to their social position to commit the crimes. So if a woman was pressured by societal attitudes into being a wife and mother, instead of pursuing an education and developing her talents as a professional, then you don't consider that a women's rights issue?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 09:17 PM
4

I think most of the men who ended up in jail deserved it, I really don't see the men's rights issue here. That's like saying: "I think most of the black men who ended up in jail deserved it, I really don't see the civil rights issue here"
/r/MensRights17/10/11 06:58 PM
6

And did your read that part about "Some people say if a woman dresses a certain way she was just asking for something to happen," Some people actually say that! Such strong, brave women to walk defiantly out into a world where "some people say". Wow.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 04:31 PM
2

How did he threaten you?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 10:07 AM
1

Well done.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 06:52 PM
2

But the right way to do that is to be mindful of the drugs you and others are taking I understand, given where you are coming from, why you think he should be mindful of the drugs others are taking. Your point is that he should know whether his girlfriend is on a drug that would make it so she couldn't consent. What did you mean, though, when you said he should be mindful of the drugs he is taking?
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:07 PM
3

How do you figure he may have accidently raped her?
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:02 PM
2

MRAs seem to love to doubt it when a woman claims she was raped or whatever Can you exhibit a comment or a story from R/MR that illustrates this? He's not asking you to believe his story and testify on his behalf. He's asking for advice. If you have anything that might be of use to him, offer it. If you don't, then don't.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 01:11 PM
1

Realize when your anger wastes your time and energy, it is of no use to you. Sitting still while someone separates you from your kids and helps themselves to your money is not easy, but for your sake, and the sake of the people who love you, you need to master it. Read about the life of a man who was messed up a lot worse than what you are going through, and for whom the flame of justice burned so brightly in his soul that he turned his back on any sort of comfortable, calm life and took his lif…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 12:32 PM
1

but she told me she only wants sources from people with a degree in human health/biology. Interesting position. Does she consider a practicing pediatrician, of OB/GYN, to be someone with a 'degree in human health/biology'? Or did she pick that description because she's taking a source in biology and read about circumcison in her text book? It occurs to me that she is trying to bring the weight of the amercian medical establishment to bear with her "only wants sources from ..." Two points. First …
/r/MensRights11/10/11 07:51 PM
9

If the right to 50/50 joint custody in divorce is sought, would you also earnestly commit to the responsibility of 50/50 divison of child-care/household duties in a marriage? You seem to be saying that the person who spent more time raising the children at home has earned a greater claim to custody should a divorce ensue, proportional to the time imbalance. That's like saying the person who earned most of the money should walk away with more of the combined assets (and future income) in a divorc…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 06:06 PM
5

and then explained how men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex She seems to be conceding one of the strongest arguments in favor of not circumcising: circumcision blunts a man's sexuality. Why would she want to do that to her son? If she retreats to "it doesn't blunt a man's sexuality, but men think it does, which is the only reason they resist getting cut", then I have to ask what makes her so sure that removing the foreskin doesn't blunt a man's sexuality. There are strong common sen…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 02:55 PM
1

It will be intetesting to see what poindexter's sentence will be in the end.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:43 PM
1

Performing non-medically necessary surgery on an infant should be considered assault.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:54 PM
3

Our laws against assault don't constitute a moral code? How do you figure?
/r/MensRights06/10/11 04:45 PM
3

You are seriously OK with causing a newborn enormous pain and suffering simply because they have no conscious memory of it afterward? Really?
/r/MensRights06/10/11 04:43 PM
1

The foreskin, having a mucousal inner surface, is also part of the immune system. One of its jobs is to intercept bacteria before they reach the meatus (the urethal opening). While removing it may lower you chance of getting some types of infections, it likely increases you chance of getting others.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 10:29 PM
1

You know, some of the african female activists who have spoken out against FGM, at great peril to themselves, go out of their way to point out that MGM is just as bad as FGM. Nawal El-Saadawi (you may have seen her being interviewed a lot after the revolution in Egypt; she's a greatly respected feminist) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have both done this.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 06:03 PM
1

You don't have to look very far to find adult men who are conscious of the unique sensations the foreskin provides during masturbation and sex, and would dearly miss them if they were circumcised for some reason. Let's suppose that only amounts to 1 in 20 men. That right there should disturb you. If it doesn't, then suppose your parents had had some procedure done to your eyes as an infant that dulled your color perception enough that you would miss it if visual art were going to be a significan…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 05:56 PM
0

There should be every understanding that boys are five to ten times more likely to suffer sex abuse than girls and that the propagandisation of boys by feminists is sex abuse. Five to 10 times more likely?
/r/MensRights05/10/11 04:13 PM
2

She did a great job with these two posts. After tangling with her earlier over her earlier post about the male rape victim ordered to pay child support, I would never have dreamed she could write an analysis like this.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 01:11 PM
1

I had no idea. Very interesting.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:10 PM
2

Not necessarily. They may just not be paying attention. The reality deniers are the doctors who profit from the procedure, or the ones who realize that if the issue ever gets a fair hearing by the public, it will unleash a flood of lawsuits that would threaten to undo the entire medical establishment. You'll never convince them, but then you don't have to. You have to convince expecting parents to listen to you and not to doctors trying to cover their ass. The parents are looking for an excuse t…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:10 PM
4

That would only make sense if there were a fixed amount of wealth that could be created in a year. If that were true, we would never have progressed beyond the stone age.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:55 PM
4

And I forgot to include my argument. Here it is: Although I have yet to see scientific evidence that seems widely agreed upon discouraging circumcision I take it by that you mean, you don't see any scientific evidence that circumcising an infant harms their overall quality of life as an adult. What more evidence do you need, than the fact that the foreskin is richly enervated with nerves (stretch receptors), and that you don't have to interview many uncut men before you find a few that talk abou…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:24 PM
0

There is a middle ground between not caring enough to do anything, and caring enough to organize a march. I propose we call it: Caring enough to speak intelligently when the topic comes up. "People generally" don't engage in activism of any kind. So true. Yet I still think people should be aware of far more issues than they can personally lead crusades against. You think Celda speaking up but not personally leading a crusade is an odd combination, but you don't think caring about homeless women,…
/r/MensRights25/09/11 08:57 PM
3

Although I have yet to see scientific evidence that seems widely agreed upon discouraging circumcision I take it by that you mean, you don't see any scientific evidence that circumcising an infant harms their overall quality of life as an adult. What more evidence do you need, than the fact that the foreskin is richly enervated with nerves (stretch receptors), and that you don't have to interview many uncut men before you find a few that talk about how pleasurable the sensations of the foreskin …
/r/MensRights25/09/11 07:06 PM
1

I didn't realize it until you phrased it just so, but I feel exactly the same way. I never thought much of her acting work, but I really like her answer. It shows a depth of understanding you don't run into every day.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 05:08 PM
2

Applause ;-) I do believe you uncovered the subtext perfectly. Well done.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 05:04 PM
6

I believe her point was that people generally care about the welfare of women more than they care about the welfare of men. Pointing that out is helpful. Certainly more so than missing the point and then insulting the person making it.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 03:50 AM
1

A lot of black women were subject to systematic rape. I'll grant you that one, I just don't know that it outweighs the greater disposability of black male slaves though (I'm guessing that they would be executed, maimed, tortured, worked harder, and died younger than black female slaves). I'm willing to listen to an argument with some meat to it, but it has to be more than 'being raped is worse than anything else'.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 09:00 PM
2

I think the 'I don't want my son to look different' meme is more of a symptom of the double think involved than any sort of prime mover. It's just a way to stop the thougt/dicsussion process. I think the prime mover thought is more along the lines of "I need to do what everyone else is doing when a child is born, and I am not qualified to be skeptical of any routine procedure." If you did manage to talk people out of the 'I don't want my son to be different' position, there are lots of others th…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:48 PM
5

The fact that these conversations are happening more frequently is a great sign. I think widespread circumcision relies on ways to get people to stop talking and thinking about it. have you ever.noticed how obgyns and pediatricians dont bring the subject up unless you ask them, then right after the baby is born, the obgyn asks if you want the baby circumcised?
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:19 AM
2

Do you think more black men were lynched, or black women? Whats your metric?
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:17 AM
3

Thanks for posting that. And GWW, thanks for writing it.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 04:49 PM
4

Compared to black men? How do you figure? The obvious metrics (incarceration rate, poverty, liklihood of being assaulted, suicide rate, life expectancy, high school and collage graduation rates, ...) all imply black men are more disadvantaged than black women. Which metrics did you have in mind?
/r/MensRights21/09/11 04:48 PM
2

If getting an abortion is so much worse than having to bear and raise as child you didn't want, then dont get one. At least you have as choice. minus the bearing part, and the choice, that is what men face. If bearing s child is such a burden, then why do most women choose to do so at some point?
/r/MensRights17/09/11 03:18 AM
1

I am not sure what 'directly related to the sex' means. If he had an infectious disease and didn't tell her, and she got sick as a result of having sex with him, is that 'directly related to the sex'? Because the disease was transmitted through sex? You could just as well argue that her having sex with a guy that had lots of money would give her a claim to his money and that by lying about having it, he was causing her harm. I think the limiting principle here is whether most people would consid…
/r/MensRights17/09/11 12:48 AM
1

I agree that men or women in that situation should be able to sue and win if they can prove it. I think the reason people around here are hesitating to agree with you is that they've accepted that the courts (to say nothing of society at large) have no sympathy for men in these situations and they think that if the principle you were espousing were to gain traction, it would only be used to help women in that situation and not men. If a man were in that situation, people would just say 'but men …
/r/MensRights17/09/11 12:34 AM
6

I think being forced to raise/support a child for 18 years that you were tricked into siring is a lot worse than having to get an abortion because someone tricked you into getting pregnant. I think both cases should result in criminal penalties if you can prove it.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 11:52 PM
1

Update? I understand if you kept your mouth shut. I would be interested to hear your report on what the atmosphere was like at the seminar. Were all the men cowed? Did anyone put up the slightest resistance?
/r/MensRights16/09/11 12:20 PM
2

You might ask the following question: is it true that campus proceedings use the preponderance of evidence standard to determine guilt instead of reasonable doubt? Isn't that a violation of due process for the accused, given the heinous nature of sexual assault crimes? I would think that's much safer than trying to debate the 1 in 4 figure in a crowd. I can't see how anyone could accuse you of being some right wing asshole for simply asking that question. At least not yet.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:10 PM
2

I think the comparison is much more apt than you let on. Most men in the U.S. were done as infants, without anesthesia, have no conscious memory of it, and are immersed in a culture that both actively suppresses any discussion of circumcision as negative and actively encourages the idea that it is cleaner and the 'way to be'. Asking them if they would change that fact doesn't really measure the harm that was done to them. Most women circumcised in africa would not want to change that fact either…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:40 PM
2

I think it is brilliant. It forces the other side to get into details, by quoting the most obvious measure of how much someone actually works. I will be using this at dinner parties for years. It is much more directly useful a thorough analysis would be in most settings.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 11:34 AM
1

Tha is a great response becuse it forces them to have to dig into details, where they cant win.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 09:46 AM
2

Why would you hesitate to answer sexymalcontent's 4 points above? They were arrived at by dropping the substitution on your original statement (the game you were objecting to), and presented as a set of 4 explicit, simple, snark free propositions.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 08:30 PM
2

His intent and action were consistent (he was a fit parent, was providing consistently, and wasn't the one who wanted out), while hers were not (she made kids with the guy and now wants to kick him out of their daily lives and take his money to boot), so your "jack shit" aphorism seems to support my line of argument. My point is that if you want men to sign up for parenthood, then their legitimate interests have to be protected. Giving the woman the ability to divorce him without having to show …
/r/MensRights06/09/11 06:39 PM
1

Suppose a man who intends to do right by his children is divorced by his wife (through no obvious fault on his part like adultery) and she gets primary custody, while he is ordered to pay a hefty child support amount. You still have no problem with no fault divorce?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 03:28 PM
2

Whats your position on no fault divorce?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 02:14 PM
2

You have a good point about anti male laws existing long before feminism had any power. I would like to hear your thoughts about VAWA, though.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 06:14 PM
1

Which MRA issues do you feel are legitimate and weighty, and which do you feel are not? Are you aware of the dear colleague letter asking collages to lower the burden of proof to perponderance of the evidence, amd that 80 percent of collages already use that standard? Does that say anything to you about academic feminism?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 04:37 PM
8

unbelievable. thanks for posting this.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 08:33 PM
2

Farewell and I hope to see you back in the future. This subreddit is a constant source of encouragement and insight to me.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 02:57 AM
3

I have treasured the text of his talk by the same name for years. For me it is the most important foundational work on.mens rights yet written.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 02:22 AM
2

I think a child is owed the love and support of the two people who risked bringing it into being, when they chose to have sex. I am against anonymous sperm donation for the same reason.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 10:14 PM
2

Enforcing her promise after the fact seems a bit unreasonable, yes? What could enforcement of any promise possibly mean but that breaking it comes with a penalty of some sort? Perhaps forcing the woman to become pregnant again and giving birth to a child that she has no rights to and force her to pay support for it? Suppose the two are married. If she breaks that promise, he gets the right to divorce her with prejudice. Meaning he gets more than half the assets and primary custody of any existin…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:03 PM
1

I disagree with the financial abortion option, but I agree that there shoyld be some legal obstacles that discourage a woman getting an abortion when the father objects. I am thrilled to see a poster besides myself thinking along those lines. I have a detailed proposal along those lines, and would like to get your take on it.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 03:01 PM
2

I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-society-can-force-you-to-keep-your-honorable-promises. I'd like to ask you a question. Suppose a man, before agreeing to have sex with a woman, asks her to make a good faith effort to bear and raise the children of any pregnancy that may result, unless they both agree she should get an abortion at some later point. She agrees. They have sex. She gets pregnant. 2 months into it she changes her mind and gets an abortion over his objection. Should the legal system…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:27 AM
0

What is wrong with hypotheticals? Your list of more important issues is advanced by articles that ask "what would happen to her if she was a man?" because it questions the double standards operating in those areas.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 12:31 AM
1

I googled that as well. That's the only thing I can find on their website. One 1 min audio file? That's pretty weak on their part.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 08:13 PM
2

Thanks for posting this. will definately follow.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 07:02 PM
2

Anyone know what the ACLU's position is on how the DSK case was handled? This may be an opportunity to call the ACLU out on being feminists boot lickers, even when the basic rights of the accused are on the chopping block.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:42 PM
6

Glad to have you aboard. My personal foundational text (on why an MRM is necessary) is here.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:36 PM
1

I don't think that raising someone to deny their feelings is necessary in order for them to later develop the ability to deal in violence effectively. I think the reason societies have typically raised men that way is that they want to be able to send lots of men to their deaths on a moments notice, absent a compelling, obvious, existential threat (natural disaster or invasion), without having to entertain serious objections from the men in question or their relatives. If your society's primary …
/r/MensRights23/08/11 04:35 PM
1

we will need to train our men to be capable of it. We would only ever require a small number of men, though, to be capable of that. Not even one in a hundred. So I don't see how this informs how we should raise the average male in any sense.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 08:59 PM
2

I think the chain of implication you laid out is the most significant root of misandry. It is far more pervasive and powerful than feminist anti-male streams of thought. However, I take issue with: As long as we need men to do the defending, we will need to train them to control their emotions in order to be effective killers This is no longer true, at least not in the sense that the society that does the best job of that wins. It is more true that the most educated society will take power and r…
/r/MensRights22/08/11 07:58 PM
3

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (born in somalia) was the first activist I mentioned in my other comment, who was circumcised herself and has said that MGM is just as bad, as practiced around the world and in the US. Nawal El Saadawi is the egyptian feminist, physician, and former public health minister of Egypt whose name I couldn't remember. She was being interviewed on all many of the MSM news shows for a few weeks in the aftermath of the uprising. She was a political prisoner in Egypt for 13 years. Her cred…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 02:13 AM
3

Let me also add that I really appreciate the work you have done both the men's rights subreddit and in posting and arguing about circumcision stories. You've put a lot more effort into this than I do. Thanks.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:51 PM
5

Amputating people's sexual organs against their will to deprive them of sexual pleasure is institutionalized sadism and a psychological pathology. I'm thinking that, back in humanity's hunter gatherer days, the groups of people that encouraged their men to risk their lives, and encouraged their women to stay safe back at camp and watch the children, overran the ones that didn't. Now, well-adjusted, thoughtful people don't cede authority lightly to thugs. But, when humanity consists of small scat…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 05:49 PM
5

On the other side are people unconsciously carrying out cultural practices without questioning. I dont think.the majority are evil. what this demonstrates is a control mechanism socities use to cohere. Its a dimmer switch for rational thought, and its hooks reach deep. The societies that figured out how to do this overran the ones that didnt long ago. I get emotional about circumcision also, but it is a grave mistake to think of this as intentional evil. Youll miss.the real insights, and opprotu…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:00 AM
7

that was a great article. Thanks for posting it. I have noticed that women who were circumcised and speak out about it are quick say that.mgm is just as bad. Hirsan ali and the former health minister of egypt (also a world famous feminist) have both done this, for example. It would be interesting to compile a list of women like that to display the next time someone comments on how different mgm and fgm are. We could say,"interesting that the activists who have experienced fgm first hand and been…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 02:49 AM
2

I dismissed your comment the first time I read it but then I mulled it over and something occurred to me. Child support is a civil matter. In civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies. So while sending the rapist to prison should require proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, defending against a child support claim should only require you to establish that the rape occurred under a preponderance of the evidence. I still don't agree that a mere accusation should be enough to de…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:53 PM
2

You hit that one out of the ballpark. Well done.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:48 PM
1

What everybody needs to remember is that the moment a child comes out of a woman’s body and takes his or her first breath, s/he stops being a woman’s body part and becomes a person. Even Roe vs Wade draws the line at the first trimester (women are only guaranteed the right to an abortion before the first trimester). She is drawing the line at birth? Jeeeeeeeeeez.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:47 PM
1

I think the way it should work is that, if rape can be proven, then the victim gets to make the call to have the rapist undergo an abortion or carry the baby to term (and then she's on the hook for child support as well, but with no visitation rights). The rapist would be imprisoned either way. True, it is her body, but she gave up having any say in the matter when she used that body to rape someone.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:39 PM
1

And by making the argument even in cases of forcible rape, the OP is preventing the questioning of the injustice in the case of fraud (poking holes in condoms). I suspect that's what she's really aiming for, among other things.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:36 PM
1

I suspect what she is really doing is, as a side effect of denying the male rape victim even the most basic reproductive rights in even this aggregious case (by appealing to the welfare of the innocent child), denying legitimacy to any sort of reproductive rights to men generally. All human behavior is solving a problem. When someone's behavior appears irrational, it's usually because the problem they appear to be solving (figuring out what is just and fair in this case) is not the problem they …
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:34 PM
1

Or, to put it another way, to defend the legitimate rights of even the weakest person, not to dispense illegitimate advantanges to the weakest person, like a child support obligation from someone who was raped to produce the child. That's as morally bankrupt as allowing a mother who robbed a bank to provide for her child to keep both the money and her freedom because that 'would be best for the child, who is the weakest person in this scenario.'
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:29 PM
1

Good one!
/r/MensRights16/08/11 10:41 PM
2

I don't see the moral problem with forcing the violinist to give the kidney back. Care to explain?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 10:38 PM
1

Fascinating! I didn't see that angle. The OP agrees that the rape victim should be able to get full custody. Once he has that, he can put the kid up for adoption.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 10:36 PM
3

That 'its only money' line is pretty rich. Its also not true in all of the scenarios she was supposedly agreeing to. In case B, is it logically impossible (even given her 10% child support fantasy) for her to pay that much money, as she would then owe five times what she makes. At which point she would be in prison. If she wanted to stick to her principles, he next response would have to be: it's only your freedom, that's nothing compared to the life of a person who is half of you. Which reminds…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:50 PM
6

To her credit, in the comments, she agreed that the rapist should not retain custody. She really goes off the deep end later, though. Check out this exchange: Clarissa – I tried to talk to you over at Danny’s site – but you didn’t return. I am not an anti-abortion MRA or anything like that – but I think the position you hold is untenable. You seem to value a child’s livelihood above all others when it comes to “fairness.” I’d like to see your response to some hypothetical situations: Scenario A:…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 06:58 PM
0

Well done.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:57 PM
6

my 16yo son getting a girl pregnant. much more than I fear someone else's son getting my 14yo daughter pregnant.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 07:56 PM
3

While reading this, I got the impression the author was proceeding reductio ad absurdum (essentially she was writing satire). The fact that she kept putting 'in a patriarchy" in italics in front of her outrageous claims was one clue. The name of the blog is another. Am I the only one who read it this way?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 03:09 PM
1

Thanks for posting that, it was very informative.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 08:12 PM
1

I wouldn't be at all suprised if that were true. In a similar vein, I've often said that the men's movement won't really get going until women join them in significant numbers. It's just too easy to dismiss men complaining about being treated badly as whiners. It's not nearly so easy to dismiss a woman complaining about how men are treated badly.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 08:00 PM
1

I'll grant you that, but how does that justify the judge ordering him to shut down the blog? The proper thing for the judge to do in this context (if he/she finds that this constitutes parental alienation) is to assign custody to the wife on that basis.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 07:57 PM
8

Your curfew comparison is great. How are these two statements different? I know of many women who have been raped late at night when they found themselves alone with a man (that was much bigger than them) they didn't know in a public place. So I feel scared. Men should be considerate and not get in an elevator with me and talk to me late at night. I know of many people who have been attacked late at night when they found themselves alone with a black man (that was much bigger than them) they did…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 06:02 PM
5

Such a passion you have for decency! You went to the earlier article and left a comment about how outrageous it would be for the 13yo boys to be sentenced, right? Or, after you got the rush of indignation from slapping the symmetry argument down, did you let the matter drop?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:18 PM
3

If any man, after reading r/mr for a while, gets afraid of working as a teacher, for instance, I am not sure that's a bad thing. Men who become teachers without knowing the risks they face are being led to slaughter.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:06 PM
1

Thats an excellent point to push back on.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:32 PM
0

The problem is that the guide assumes that an accused student is guilty. It is a rights issue because the presumption of innocence is a fundamentsl right. It is a mens rights issue because the accused are overwhelmingly men. Did you really need me to spell all that out for you?
/r/MensRights05/08/11 04:59 AM
2

Amazing. I wonder if part of the reason she went after this topic so well was to redeem herself? If there is any truth to that, I applaud her. It takes real character to, after screwing up that royally, fix what you broke with a serious effort. Well done Kay.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 07:24 PM
2

You mean if your mother had intentionally deprived you of a father by getting pregnant through a sperm bank, you would by OK with that? Really?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:41 PM
3

I'd also like to know what fraction of the welfare mothers got pregnant through a sperm bank (and thus have no claim to sympathy for being single).
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:37 PM
4

I thought the article was pretty clear that the cause of the problem was the subsidization of women raising children without fathers, and that the first step toward fixing the situation is to help the men that currently have such poor access to education. I don't consider that a 'man-up' stance. Unless you are picking on the fact that the article stops short of suggesting that women be denied state support. In which case I agree with you.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:35 PM
5

Can we agree that sperm donation should be limited to women with partners that are willing to be on the hook for child support, and with equal parental rights (the woman can't dismiss her partner from her child's life unless they are shown unfit)? Or does your concern for children without fathers end when a woman decides on her own to be a single mother?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:33 PM
0

What do you suppose the difference between these two statements is? 1) most of those who are in power are men 2) most of those who are men are in power
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:19 PM
-1

I just also recognize that had Feminism a voice of true egalitarianism decades ago, numerous problems could have been avoided. Feminism had rational voices, but it didn't limit itself to that. If it had, it would not have been nearly as successful as it was. I think the problem was that Feminism didn't have any serious philosophical opponents to its irrational voices to keep it rational overall. The MRM will succeed to the extent that it becomes that opponent. Irrational, angry voices are a nece…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:06 PM
2

And, without such a movement will Men's Rights and Feminism be doomed to dance forever, always correcting each other while making new mistakes? The goal of social agitation is to get the average person to stop ignoring the legitimate issues of a victimized class. Once that happens, real change takes root. Getting the average person to take notice is not purely a polite, rational exercise. It involves screaming bloody murder at the top of your lungs. Consider Malcom X. He was effective at assigni…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:58 PM
2

I think size is very deceiving indicator of how likely someone is to be violent. A vicious personality is. Most of us, when we run our eye over a room full of people, note the larger people (mostly men) as possible threats. When a large and small person live together, the fact that the larger person would win in a fair fight counts for little simply because: you have to sleep sometime, at which point you are completely at the other person's mercy. A better way to get a feel for how likely men an…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:04 PM
1

I think the rational voices on both sides of a power dispute can only be heard if both sides are complaining equally loudly about each other. If only side A is complaining, neither A nor B's rational voices will be heard. You can't have Dr. King without Malcolm X laying the groundwork.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 01:53 PM
2

It is true that women are starting to get arrested for domestic violence, but that is pretty recent and I dont think most police would take female on male violence very seriously.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:08 AM
0

Guy needs to call the cops before she kills him, If he calls the cops, they would arrest him, even if he were bleeding and she were untouched. What he needs to do is set up a hidden camera that covers the likely conflict areas in their house and document her abuse, THEN go to the cops.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:15 PM
13

Guy needs to call the cops before she kills him, If he calls the cops, they would arrest him, even if he were bleeding and she were untouched. What he needs to do is set up a hidden camera that covers the likely conflict areas in their house and document her abuse, THEN go to the cops.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:15 PM
10

I'm a girl (not that it matters), It means a lot more when a woman believes that female on male violence needs to be taken seriously, then when a man does. It is very easy to dismiss the man's concern, and much harder to dismiss the woman's. Thanks for posting.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:10 PM
3

Brilliant!
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:08 PM
3

Thanks for posting that link
/r/MensRights01/08/11 04:34 AM
1

Nothing about that history 'had to be this way' except because women carry babies. I agree Making all of the other claims about the type of interaction 'preferred by a gender' seem specious. Correlation does not imply causation. What other claims? The one about social relationships also follows from 'women carry babies.' Since men are expendable and women are not (from baby carrying), men are sent to hunt while women are kept safe at camp. While on the hunt the men have to be silent, but still c…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 01:18 PM
1

Are you saying that because you think any agreement written down and signed is valid, or because you think this particular agreement is honorable and deserves the protection of the law, unlike, say, an agreement is which one person is selling their kidney to the other, which is not honorable and does not deserve the protection of law.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 01:15 PM
1

It makes it unavoidable when cultures compete for power and resources by sending lots of young men to die in wars. It is avoidable once technology is enough of a factor that the educational level of the population at large is more of a factor in the wealth of nations than the ability to turn out soldiers willing to die. I would say, given ancient and recent history, that that theory holds up well.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 12:20 PM
1

What if you're a man that wants your partner to agree to make a good faith effort to bring the pregnancy to term before agreeing to have sex with her? Why shouldnt that promise be enforcable?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 02:32 PM
-7

suppose a man, before consenting to sex with a woman, asks her to promise to make a good faith effort to bring the pregmancy.to term. Why should that promise.not.be.enforcable? Is that not an honorable promise? edit: I don't suppose anyone would like to answer my question, instead of downvoting me silently?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:51 PM
3

I wonder if by 'a lot to think about about' she meant she didnt have any counter arguments ready and needed time to construct some.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:56 AM
2

It would make it easier for people with information that casts doubt on the accusers story to come forward.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 10:54 PM
1

Google "for every 100 girls"
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:12 PM
1

I think there are ten men im prison for every one woman
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:11 PM
1

I cant imagine how it must feel to be kieu's victim and hear what sharon orborne said, or how the audience and the other hosts acted. Both laughing at his mutilation and assuming that he must have done something to deserve it. If sharon had meant her apology, she would have addressed kieu's victim, concluding that he deserves our deepest sympathies.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 03:38 AM
2

Its been a good week and a good year
/r/MensRights22/07/11 11:40 PM
3

This is fantastic news!
/r/MensRights22/07/11 11:33 PM
1

You're gracious, witty, and I think we already have similar thoughts on gender issues. It's been a pleasure exchanging posts with you.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:49 PM
1

I promised you my feedback. Melissa McEwan's article talks about the negative expectations of manliness in some depth, but keeps using the work Patriarchy so much that I doubt her sincerity. The pervocracy article did a good job of making the point that we shouldn't ignore men as victims of domestic violence (made more powerful by her testifying to seeing in non-trivial numbers them first hand), but when talking about what fraction of domestic violence is against men, only says "it's not 50/50" …
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:13 PM
6

Wait a minute, Hugo. It's OK for a woman to lie to a man on a daily basis by telling him that her child is his, but its not OK for a man to lie to his wife about whether he watches porn or masturbates? Wow.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:54 PM
0

That was a really cool story about how families should communicate about sex and morality. Thanks for sharing it.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:49 PM
3

That was a really cool story about how families should communicate about sex and morality. Thanks for sharing it.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:49 PM
6

The life/well-being of men would be taken as seriously as that of women. Off the top of my head, some signs of this occurring would be: Rebuttable presumption of joint custody in divorce circumcision of minors illegal no more anonymity for rape accusers. restoration of the presumption of innocence. end to the sentencing gap VAWA made gender neutral, both in the first and second set of books. the humane treatement of prisoners needs to be a higher priority than education (spending wise), in my bo…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:40 PM
2

But I think it's way more acceptable nowadays for a man to not have to be the primary breadwinner of a family, to express feelings of sadness or affection freely, to be a super-involved father, to be a pacifist, than it was in the early-mid 20th century. I agree. But as much as it is better, it's hard to look at the number of women in political power or at the tops of corporations and not conclude that many people are still quite uncomfortable with the idea of women in positions of political or …
/r/MensRights20/07/11 08:29 PM
3

But I don't think it's possible to just eliminate gender roles for one and not the other. I think that female gender roles have been significantly relaxed, while male roles have not been nearly so. I do think it's a mistake to view feminists as the enemy, though. I agree. The enemy are traditional gender roles that go back thousands of years. Some powerful feminist organizations do routinely oppose men's rights, though (NOW arguing against the rebuttable presumption of joint custody; though in f…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:50 PM
3

From the article: The biological father must show he did not and could not have known an adoption was being considered; begin court proceedings to establish his paternity before a birth mother gives consent for an adoption to proceed; and demonstrate he is fully committed to assuming his parental responsibilities, such as paying for pregnancy-related expenses. How backwards is that? Before the mother should be able to place her baby for adoption without the father present, she should have to sho…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:39 PM
3

Very nicely done. Concise and powerful. However... I can agree with you that women have in the past been marginalized, and not had the due rights that they, as human beings deserve. Society can be very callous in the way it uses men and women to perpetuate itself and expand its material reach. While I agree with the usual examples of how women had it hard in the past (few legal rights), I disagree that they occupied a worse position than the average man did (all too often the role of work-horse …
/r/MensRights20/07/11 05:16 PM
3

Agree with your gender role argument, except I think that the restrictions on women have been dealt with (I mean we've come a long way, not that we're done here) while the restrictions on men have not (we haven't even scratched the surface yet). Agree. I would even widen your argument to say that most of the issues men face today pre-date feminism, not just family court. However, feminists have been fighting to perpetuate these injustices on the logic that women should have more power. For examp…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 05:13 PM
5

I was being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:54 PM
3

yes I was being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:53 PM
6

And boy did he get what he deserved. A humiliating blog post about how he didn't do enough. I really hope he learned his lesson. Somehow I doubt it.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:35 AM
2

Can't up-vote you enough. Brilliant! So obvious in hindsight, so hard to see in the first place. Someone should write a parody piece in which they talk about a female friend of theirs, Charlene, who is a hostess on a daytime talk show and who tells them about how her co-hosts made light of a man getting his penis cut-off. Then go on about how Charlene should have spoken up.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:33 AM
2

Oh come on. The difference is that women face institutional oppression so the rules are different. In any event, you need to get with the program and err on the side of feminism. edit: I was being sarcastic y'all.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:28 AM
5

WOW! Great find. I missed that one.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:21 AM
3

I noticed a number of commentators like honeybee pushing back against the OP's nonsense. I thought they did a pretty good job of taking the hatpin of common sense to the OP's victim balloon. I wonder if this is an example of the tide turning in our favor.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:19 AM
8

I hadn't thought of the slut shaming angle. Well done!
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:13 AM
4

Ineffective? Are you kidding me? How do you think VAWA got passed, and men find themselves in their current position in family court? Because feminists pursued these tactics ruthlessly with no serious opposition. Until we respond in kind, the more moderate voices among us will never be heard. Without Malcolm X giving expression to the raw, undiluted anger of black americans at all white people (especially the ones who were happy to sit on the sidelines and lead comfortable lives, feeling wonderf…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:08 PM
11

Why hasn't feminism created a vision on how to raise boys into loving and strong men, upon whom women can trust and love? Because feminism is about grabbing power by making the argument that women are pure victims lacking any agency. For someone to write about a subject like child raising in any non-trivial depth, they would have to draw from their personal experiences and talk about the mistakes they made and how they learned from them. You can't make a mistake of any consequence (regrading the…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:38 PM
12

no true scotsman. In your opinion, was Andrea Dworkin a feminist?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:27 PM
2

Thanks for posting the link for complaining. Here's the complaint I submitted: On the 7/14/2011 episode of The Talk, the hosts were discussing Catherine Kieu's recent mutliation of her husband (she cut off his penis and put it in the garbage disposal). They panel thought the incident very funny and went on making jokes about it at some length. I think the hosts should have to publicly apologize to Kieu's husband for making light of his mutilation, or face dismissal by CBS. I can't imagine anyone…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 04:37 PM
1

I used the word most, and in answering me, you change it to all? overreact much?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 11:19 PM
0

Which can be taken two ways. Which one did you mean?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 11:16 PM
3

How does that benefit most men?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:48 PM
2

Do you understand the difference between 1 those in power are all men 2 all men are in power
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:47 PM
5

I was also impressed by how well thought out the article was, and what a good job she did defending male sexuality with common sense and with the authority of someone well read in sexual abuse studies. Very powerful
/r/MensRights16/07/11 03:41 AM
3

It will be interesting to follow this story as it evolves. Supposing she is arrested and then convicted, will the university still consider him guilty? I gather the student no longer attends UND, as it would be easy to arrest her if she were. I wonder how hard the Grand Forks Sheriffs Deparement will look for her. How can they look for her if they don't publish her name? Are they unable to publish her name because she made an accusation of sexual assault?
/r/MensRights15/07/11 09:38 PM
9

Many men who choose circumcision as an adult do so to treat legitimate medical conditions. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect a relatively high portion of these men will experience a benefit after circumcision. And yet 48% of men in the study responded that masturbation was less pleasurable, while only 8% found it more enjoyable. I would imagine the 48% would be even higher if you could run an (unethical) study in which you selected man at random from the population to circumcise. If I …
/r/MensRights15/07/11 02:11 PM
3

Shes being the asshole. You tell whether someone loves you based on the pattern of their actions, not whether they feel butterflies, or some other sensation.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 10:49 PM
1

Maybe Pam is anticipating what the woman's argument as to why "he deserved it" will be it in court. How could anyone disprove that he raped her at some point? Come to think of it, what did the evidence amount to that John Bobitt raped Lorena, beyond the testimony of her friends that he was abusive toward her?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:56 PM
1

So do you see the moral issue or don't you?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 03:42 PM
1

I don't get why you were down on the author on her comments page. I thought this was a great article.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:22 PM
1

In no study you or I have cited have a majority of men said that they preferred sex while uncircumcised. 20% in one study, and 38% in another. I don't get why the majority threshold has to be crossed before you admit the moral issue here. If there is a non-trivial proportion (say one in ten) of men who preferred their sex life while uncircumcised, you don't see how circumcising men as infants then becomes morally problematic? Suppose there were a medical treatment that dulled your visual color s…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:10 PM
1

Satire is a very effective way to confront someone who very carefully assembles a snarky argument with the main assertions deeply buried between the lines of the surface argument. Think daily show. I applaud this piece.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 10:35 PM
1

Can't upvote you enough.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:55 PM
2

You mean you don't count Malcolm X (with his undiluted expression of black anger at all white people) among that key group? You think Dr. King would have been taken seriously without X?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:51 PM
3

or at least unavoidably informed by their advocacy tactics. Bingo. Underhanded tactics work. For a rights advocacy group to not employ them when the groups opposed to them do would be suicide. There would have been no Dr King without Malcolm X giving expression to undiluted black anger at the white people leading comfortable lives and sitting on the sidelines telling themselves it wasn't their fight. Ask the vast majority of women (and men, for that matter) if they think a man who can prove he i…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:50 PM
5

I read the linked post. Thanks for writing that. You are one of the brightest lights in this subreddit.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 01:05 PM
2

Are there any cases where you side with men out of a sense of justice and fair play?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:54 PM
2

The social workers who make the call to remove children from homes do not have guns. But the police they would call in the event the parent's refused to hand over their children, would. You really couldn't connect that dot on your own?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:49 PM
1

I'm talking about the kids who are placed in care because, for example, one or both of their parents have beaten them hard enough to cause brain damage. Then stop characterizing the moral/legal basis of the CPS authority to take children as "what's best for the child", like you did originally when you opined that CPS "made a judgement call about how overwhelmed the dad was". The only acceptable basis for removing a child from its parents is criminal misconduct on the part of the parents (abuse, …
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:46 PM
2

CPS probably made a judgment call about how overwhelmed/under-resourced they perceived the dad to be in general, I think that if you are going to separate a child from its parents, there should be evidence of criminal misconduct on the part of the parents, not a judgement call from a governmental agency about what's in the best interest of the child. What's next? Will CPS remove children from poverty stricken families and place them in better off ones?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:40 PM
3

Learning to spot irony like this, and calling the public on it, is one of the main reasons I frequent the men's rights subreddit. This is the raw ammunition I need to speak up during polite conversations about current events, as they occur at the water cooler, at dinner parties, ... Well done, and thank you.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 09:55 PM
1

Initiating a divorce (which women do in 70% of cases) doesn't count as walking away from a responsibility in your book? What does a woman have to do to a marriage for you not to blame it on the guy?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:56 PM
1

and that shared power doesn't come from a court system, just from the two people involved A woman who decided to divorce her husband can do so without having to demonstrate fault on his part, and is almost assured to get primary custody if she wants it, which implies child support. Do you see how that is power, and how it comes from the court? It sounds like your argument is that any relationship involving a man and a woman is doomed from the start because women have all the power since the cour…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 05:43 PM
1

I think traditionalists are a more serious opposition to the MRM then feminists. They feel directly threatened by the idea that men should not be disposable. If men are not disposable, then who will protect society and shoulder all the risk required to support it? Look at Doctor Laura. On the surface she seems to support men's rights, but do you notice how she never dwells on the topic? Her points are always made in passing. The last thing she wants is for soceity to stop treating men as disposa…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:06 PM
2

Excellent point. This may be a backdoor way to get the injustice men face into the public consciousness. At least then it's existence is not denied.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:41 PM
1

You cant expect a sharing of responsibility unless power is also shared.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:49 AM
6

I gather the case worker was faking their reports. Seems like an investigation of the child protective services officers involved would be in order. I couldn't bring myself to read more than one of two of the quotes from the boy's writings.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 10:24 PM
6

Well said. I think TheManWithNoName11 is whistling in the dark. He really wants to get married and have children, which is commendable, but he refuses to acknowledge that he until the rights of men are respected by family court, he is selling himself into bondage. That's not bravery on his part. It's wishful thinking.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 06:34 PM
4

Entering into a partnership agreement with someone in which your obligations to them will be enforced but their obligations to you will not is not brave, it is stupid and degrading.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:21 PM
6

They are worse off because family court refuses to treat men fairly, so men are refusing to marry. You would be worse off too if the court system refused to enforce other people's contractual rights against you, since then most people would not want to enter into contracts with you.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:19 PM
6

I take it you've never had a male family member or friend destroyed by family court. I have. More than once. Interesting that you don't want to talk about whether the family courts are being unfair to men. It's almost as if you are afraid to go there. Which would make you a...
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:16 PM
4

Are the family courts biased against men or not? If they are, then blaming them is both rational and just.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 02:32 PM
4

I'll grant you that his case study is flawed in that the guy who lives with his parents is not supporting himself, but the rest of his post hangs together. He could fix is by changing the case study to be a guy who rents an apartment. How is that a 'ton' of flaws? Maybe the world is shifting and women will work and have babies and men will become stay at home husbands, but waking up at 12 and playing games all day and going out with friends is not good preparation for that either. Until the fami…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 02:20 PM
13

I hadn't thought to connect this issue directly to the wage gap and wanting to be taken care of. Women are now making more than men, but don't want to marry men who make less than they do. The connection to materialism was also well done. Men are less materialistic than women, but traditionally have had to pursue money at the expense of happiness because women demanded that they do. Very well done. I believe I will be hauling out these points the next time I find myself in a conversation on the …
/r/MensRights05/07/11 01:50 PM
2

That was glorious. Thank you so much for posting it.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 09:05 PM
6

That was a heartfelt call to action, without any cover-your-ass waffling on the victimhood of circumcised men. Well done feministing. Well done elanafulana for writing the article, and well done to the discussion participants like TD who answered the comments trying to minimize the issue.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:32 PM
1

I'm to the point where society's indifference to male suffering is more disconcerting to me then the government's attempts to restrict women's rights. WRAs don't seem to have any interest in MRAs beyond shutting them down and marginalizing them at every opportunity. Both men and women only seem to care about the welfare of women. If abortion were made illegal, or significantly less legal than it currently is, and WRAs had some real issues to worry about, they might start looking toward MRAs as p…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:03 PM
1

Punishment would typically mean jail time, correct?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:22 AM
1

That was a great article, thanks for posting a link to it. It was very heart warming and reminded me of some of the best things about dads. I should spend more time reading avoiceformen.com.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 07:47 PM
1

Parents are relying on their doctors to inform them of the relative weight of the risks and benefits, and the AAP's position is that the benefits do not out-weigh the risks in the common case (absent a specific medial indication).
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:58 PM
1

But, considering we're now just repeating back and forth "you're wrong", perhaps we can walk away. My take is that you keep omitting this sentence in the AAP's report: These data are not sufficient to recommend routing neonatal circumcision and its implications, and I keep returning to it.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:45 PM
1

Hardly. I am putting their statement that parents be informed of the benefits and risks together with their own summary of the relative importance of those risks.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:39 PM
1

What do you imagine the distinction is between civil and criminal cases, if not that in criminal cases you can go to jail?
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:21 PM
1

giving parents both the risks, and benefits, and allowing them to decide The AAP statement goes on to summarize both the risks and benefits thusly: some rare infections (UTIs, etc) become less likely when circumcised circumcison procedure itself has some risk of infection and death 1 doesn't generally outweigh 2 enough to recommend circumcision routinely. So taking those points together with "parents should be informed of risks and benefits then make their own recommendation" would mean that doc…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:15 PM
1

What do you suppose they mean by "fully informed", if not that unless there is a problem requiring circumcision (which is very rare) then you shouldn't do it?
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:19 PM
1

I can not thank you enough for writing that. I think a lot of the extreme unfairness in family court could be redressed if we strengthened the principle that people need to keep the promises they willingly make to others. While I sympathize with the MRAs who advocate for financial abortions (especially given how unfairly the courts handle child support cases), I think going that route further undermines the idea that fathers are important to children and does not seize the moral high ground.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:15 PM
0

Expanding your quote of the 1999 AAP statement backwards one sentence, we have: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child" "These data are not s…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:34 PM
0

Thanks for your post, and for going so far as to say men should have some sort of say in whether his child is aborted. As you point out, it is very rare for a man that doesn't want his wife to get an abortion to be accorded sympathy from any quarter, even from MRAs, which amazes me. The fact that you are willing to say that, even though you don't know exactly what could be done to equalize men's rights in this area is all the more impressive. I think most people can't imagine what could be done,…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:56 PM
1

circumcision has no proved adverse impacts. Wouldn't those (proved adverse impacts) be the risks the AAP is referring to when it says that the benefits don't outweigh the risks? As such, even a small reduction in HPV risk justifies it. At best, the studies you are alluding to establish that under certain circumstances, circumcision lowers HPV risk. For all you know, though, the risk of other types of infections, or even the risk of HPV infection itself under different circumstances than the part…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 08:28 PM
1

It seems like for a lot of them, it's a "who has it worse" contest. So thank you! You're welcome. I do think, however, that the MRA movement needs groups within it that play the 'who has it worse' game to the hilt. If it were not for the partisans screaming blood murder at every opprotunity, the any rights-group's concerns would simply be dismissed as unimportant next to the priviledges of competing groups. So while I don't think men have it worse overall than women do, I think it is necessary f…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:57 PM
6

Shared parenting as a presumption doesn't mean mandatory shared parenting, its just a starting point from which arrangements can be made. The article's quotes from the research were conflating the two. Oddly, the article goes on to talk about how negotiations are often made in the 'shadow of the law'. As things currently stand, the 'best interests of child' is code for 'give primary custody to the mother'. Given that, the shadow of the law would be that fathers, knowing they will lose a bid for …
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:43 PM
6

I think the definiton of terms like feminist and masculist can float quite a bit in the course of a converstion, so let me change your question to: Can I work for women's rights and men's rights at the same time, without contradiction? I would say yes, if there were a contradiction, then you wouldn't be working for the rights of the given group, you would be working for the priviledge of the given group, which could easily contradict the priviledge of the other group. If the word "feminism" only…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:24 PM
1

I am thinking about his 'fringe wackos' argument and what's behind it. Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe. The medical establishment is firmly against it, while the american medical establishment says that the benefits do not outweigh the risks, but they also don't take any stand against it. I think the wackos argument is a pretty common one. What's really going on is that the person making the wackos argument was either circumcised themselves, or had their son(s) circumcised, so when f…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 07:10 PM
2

The current circumcision rate is below 50% in the U.S., so his argument is actually anti-circ. In a mixed setting, would you rather have to explain why you have some extra, or why you are missing something?
/r/MensRights15/06/11 05:04 PM
1

My wife got more and more annoyed with my bringing up men's issues so I backed off on discussing it with her, or at dinner parties. She and my daughter have a whole act they do from time to time to make fun of my interest where they make a parody of my arguments. Neither of them are hostile to men's issues, though. My brother's wife and I got into it once and I am pretty sure she has declared me persona-non-grata as he stopped returning my phone calls to chat. I would be curious to hear a detail…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 02:49 PM
3

I had to fight my wife pretty hard to get her to agree not to circumcise our son, when she was pregnant. She wouldn't listen to any of my medical arguments on the grounds that I was not a doctor and we would do whatever her obgyn recommended. So at our next visit to see him I asked his opinion, leading with "it seems unnecessary and cruel to me". He completely took my side, leading with "I hate that shit!" She kept her word initially, and adopted my position, but then her mom started working her…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 01:41 AM
2

The Jean Valjean analogy is inapt. You are conflating a violent crime with a purely civil liability. I promise you that if a woman holds a man at knifepoint to induce him to pay for a child, I will be all in favor of sending her to jail. What would you do to support a kid in that case, once its mother is in jail? To remove your violent/criminal act objection, sssume that as an accountant, she defrauds her employer out of money that she then uses to support her kid. What then should happen to her…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 12:46 AM
2

If a mother robs a bank, in order to provide for her kid, and she is caught, do we throw her in jail, or not? If we do that, then what happens to her kid? How dare you slap a kid around like that!
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:37 PM
6

but far more FGM actually involves gouging out the entire clitoris. Do you have stats on the relative prevalence of type 1A versus the others to say that, or are you judging by what the media focuses the most on? BTW, far more men are subjected to MGM than women subjected to FGM.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:28 PM
8

Type 1A (removal of the clitoral hood) is directly analogous to male circumcision. So are you suggesting that the current law against FGC in the U.S. be amended to allow type 1A, or is there a deeper principle at work, in whose light FGM and MGM are for all intents and purposes identical? Removing healthy tissue and/or organs from minors without medical cause should be outlawed regardless of the sex of the victim. The same principle is at work. they are extremely different. Because different tis…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:21 PM
2

without preventing the children from obtaining support they do deserve? A child does not deserve the support of a person who did not willing bring it into the world, unless that person is presented with the choice to adopt the child and is willing. Children are owed the love and support of their parents because they didn't choose to be born, their parents forced that choice on them. When you force a man who was tricked into thinking a child is his to support it, you weaken the moral force of the…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 01:14 PM
5

but the child didn't do anything wrong. I think if paternity fraud were punished when discovered, instead of shrugged off, there would be less of it, and therefore fewer children put in that position, which would be better for children generally. Also, holding a guy responsible for a child that he didn't intentionally father is so unjust that it undermines respect for the law. If you want the law to be respected, then your first duty is to make the law respectable.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:33 AM
2

Funny how no one asks that question when discussion anonymous sperm donation. Hmmm.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:27 AM
1

The picture should show the Guy looking at his girlfriend with admiration, as if it were a special woman that had such strength of character (to mirror the absurdity of the " men can stop rape" posters) I think you are doing great work with the posters, BTW. We are just beginning to get a grip on all the fronts on which men are assaulted in the media, and pushing back in all those directions is crucial. Well done.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 07:42 PM
1

Unless you pass a law saying the man must agree for doctors to do an abortion, which would be politically impossible for good reason. That's not the only possible legal remedy (and I agree with you that that it not a good one). I would like to propose one that I think is good. I call it 'divorce with prejudice.' Suppose a married couple conceive, and the woman gets an abortion over the husband's objection, without medical cause. I think under those circumstances, the man should be able to divorc…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 08:47 PM
1

But I can also think of the intense trauma men who have their children unwillingly aborted go through. I can't thank you enough for writing that. It seems to me that man and women can get very invested emotionally in a child that has been conceived long before it is born, and that the loss of a child before it is born can be emotionally devestating. And yet it is so rare for fathers, where the mother gets an abortion over his objection, to be extended sympathy from any quarter, even in some corn…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 02:30 PM
1

I'd be very happy to engage about instances where men want a child and a woman aborts it- that I consider an injustice. This is where I wanted to drive the discussion when I read your original post, since you didn't address it there, yet you were doing a good job of arguing from principle. I thought for sure you would balk at the suggestion that a woman who gets pregnant by a man should have to make a good faith effort to bear the child unless he is OK with her aborting it. The obvious inequalit…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 02:13 PM
2

What makes you so sure?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 01:06 PM
3

Suppose a man and a woman are about to have sex, and the man asks the woman to promise to bring any fetus conceived to term, unless her health were in danger. She agrees. She then gets pregnant and wants to get an abortion without medical cause ( changes her mind). Should he have any recourse under the law? In other words, should that sort of promise be enforceable in any sense?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:06 PM
0

While I completely agree with the points you made, and your moral theory behind them, there is a particular set of implications you didn't ponder. Before I get to that, I'd like us to agree on the moral theory you are putting forth. I would paraphrase your main point this way: consenting to sex means you are also promising to make a good faith effort to raise any children that may result, since there is always that risk, and society has every right to enforce promises freely made, especially whe…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 03:59 PM
2

I didn't get that either. What's the article mean by that?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 03:32 PM
3

It used to be that putting up with a woman was the only way to ever see a pussy on a regular basis. Now you don't. To be attractive, you need to stop just being a woman and be a valuable interesting lovable human being. What an excellent point. Well done.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 03:32 PM
9

She's got some nerve complaining about how this went down in broad daylight and then not pressing charges. What the fuck is she thinking? Does she realize her son was just sexually assaulted?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 12:19 PM
6

exactly. both sides know this.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 04:09 PM
1

The only benefits to circumcision for which there is any evidence are slight reductions in infection rates for diseases that are rare to begin with in the U.S. , and rarer still in Europe, where circumcision is almost unheard of (which argues that other factors are more significant for infection rates). The only operations which parents should be able to force on children are ones that are medically necessary, and circumcision clearly isn't, so allowing parents to elect it is clearly wrong. The …
/r/MensRights05/06/11 06:43 PM
1

He expressed black anger at white people in a way that could not be marginalized or dismissed. What he achieved was an appeal to white america for racial justice that resonated with them. If fear of millitancy was all he instilled, he would have worked against black rights, as blacks were out numbered 10 to 1 and they would have lost any sort of general street fight. Consider his confrontation of the police over their jailing and brutal beating of Johnson Hinton. If Malcolm had not confronted th…
/r/MensRights05/06/11 06:31 PM
2

Most of the valid knowledge we come by does not have an indisputable body of facts behind it. If you limit your self to only acting on knowledge that is incontravertable, you will get absolutely nothing worthwhile done.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 10:47 PM
1

Malcolm's legacy is unimpeachable. If mras achieve 1/10TH of what he achieved, we will have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 10:33 PM
2

I disagree that the men's rights movement lacks a significant moderate component. One example is Fathers and Families.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:15 PM
5

If Malcolm X had not given expression to pure, unapologetic black anger at white people, I don't think Dr King would have been taken nearly as seriously as he was. It was not true that the overwhelming majority of white people were evil, but they were willing to live comfortable lives by keeping their heads down and not risk confronting the forces that kept black people down. X was correct in addressing the vast majority of whites, sitting on the sidelines, as the main problem. In all power grou…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 02:35 PM
1

My wife's cousin was falsely accused of domestic violence by his wife, and separated from his daughter. Observing how the court treated him up close (I helped him draft letters to the judge) opened my eyes to the anti-male bias in family court. 2 more of my male relatives since then have been destroyed by the same bias in the courts.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 08:21 PM
1

Does not exist. Cannot. Universal statements drive me up a wall, particularly when they're incredibly inaccurate That is indeed a topic worth discussing. You've got a point.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 07:31 PM
1

Magnitude matters. You can make either situation worse than the other by simply raising the amount high enough, which is why a man would be willing to accept a one time settlement when threatened by a constant drain. They are essentially the same thing in that they are both unjust financial hit that are often exchanged for one another in negotiations, and estimating how bad alimony is (hey its only 9%, stop getting so excited about it guys) by not counting the settlements won in exchange for dro…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 07:06 PM
6

Alimony is not the sole issue facing men contemplating a divorce. A more complete list would go: alimony child support. access to their children. loss of the emotional support a family typically provides to a man. I think the increase in suicide rate in divorced men (over married men, not even counting that men are already 4 times as likely to commit suicide as women are) indicates that getting divorced is a much scarier prospect for men than women.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:02 PM
2

she wasn't saying that any iota above zero % might as well be 100 (in which case man and women have it equally bad since there are some women who pay alimony), she was saying that of the 9% of divorced people receiving alimony, the vast majority of the payors would be men. In fairness, that has started to change (more women are getting nailed for alimony and are waking up to how unfair the system is), but only just started. Did you really need that spelled out?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:47 PM
1

I would be curious to hear how you came to be interested in the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 03:28 PM
3

Yes, that's clear if you follow the logic of her entire argument. If you don't like the her article, though, you can just play dumb and accuse her of excusing spousal rape. Since she didn't explicitly explain what she meant (she made that point in passing), I predict her opponents will seize on that and play dumb. If a regular at feministing were to link to her article, you could imagine them dismissing it with 'she said spousal rape is OK so who cares what else she thinks"
/r/MensRights01/06/11 07:13 PM
1

Then I don't get why you think she's advocating that women withhold non-marital sex en-masse. She's clearly proceeding reductio ad absurdum against the article she is criticizing, and disapproves of the tactic as 'bullying'.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 07:05 PM
3

Here's the surrounding context of your quote of her: The only way I can see women being able to bully today's men to start making the same choices as yesterday's men, en masse, is by returning to sexually unliberated days. I do believe that if the only viable option for most men to get sex was to be married, many more of them would do so. But again, all women would have to work together to make this happen. On an individual basis, it would never work, because an individual woman who saves hersel…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:14 PM
1

That sounds like a dispassionate survey of the tactical landscape to me, especially when coupled with her other assertion that it will never happen, because women would need to be near universal in their adoption of the strategy.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 12:46 PM
1

The only way you could know that would be implications from the surrounding context, or familiarity with her other writings.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 12:44 PM
6

I think you misread her. She is not seriously suggesting that women abstain until marriage, she says that wold only work if it were near universal.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 04:03 AM
9

Nicely done, girlwriteswhat. I think the weakest point is the one on spousal rape. People who want to dismiss your other points will just point to that.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 03:43 AM
6

What makes you think there was ever an 50% equal split?
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:37 PM
4

anyone know what the evidence against them was?
/r/MensRights29/05/11 10:13 PM
1

in this case a woman will potentially face significant repercussion if they reveal the precautions they wish to take before the act and then refuses the act if the husband doesn't agree to her conditions. It's unfair for a husband to commit to a woman with the expectation she will bear many children only to have her secretly deny him that ... either way somebody's getting royally screwed. I think the key to unraveling this moral puzzle is to ask: screwed by whom? Is the woman taking advantage of…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:41 PM
1

In many poor countries women are told by the society around them that they have to marry someone and have lots of children. Any attempt to say no to that is met with overwhelming pressure. Staying resolute in the face of that can result in your being shunned, if not beaten, by the family/village around you. In the face of that, do you still think it is wrong for a woman to secretly go on the pill (if, for example, foreign aid workers are making it available), so that she can have some control ov…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 02:55 PM
1

What are your thoughts on women who take secretly take the pill to avoid getting pregnant by their husbands, who would probably divorce them if they found out (especially women living in poor countries where the cultural expectation is that they will have lots of children)? Shouldn't they admit they don't want children (or more children than they already have) rather than continue to stay married under false pretenses?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:21 PM
3

Well said. That we are willing to change the subject to quickly from "holy shit those guys lives were almost ruined in a purely he-said-she-said case" to "oh that poor girl" speaks volumes about how society feels about the rights of criminally accused men. to wit: we couldn't care less.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 06:29 PM
1

just wanted to chime in and say I really like what you wrote here, especially the way you think out loud and explore the justifications for your claims.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:00 PM
1

Furthermore, you have no guarantee that the recording isn't going to somehow fall into the wrong hands. That's a good point. And even if you intend to keep the recording secret, you could make a mistake. And even if you don't make any mistakes, you have put yourself in a position where you could blackmail the woman, and thus you have gained power over her without her knowledge or consent. You've been doing a good job of principled argument in this thread; I salute you. I happen to believe that i…
/r/MensRights28/05/11 04:01 PM
1

I don't understand how you are harming someone (or invading their privacy) if you don't release the recording and only keep it to protect yourself against a false accusation.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 02:35 AM
1

And if women would baulk at that offer, then isn't that their right? Yes, but men's presumption of innocence has been so weakened that purely he-said-she-said rape can actually go to trial. Under those conditions, it perfectly understandable that men protect themselves with surreptitious recording. If the justice system were not so warped, then I would agree with you that it would be unfair to record someone without their knowledge.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:17 PM
1

But in cases of abortion or adoption or anonymous sperm donation the rights of the mother are paramount and the rights of the child are irrelevant. FTFY.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:49 PM
6

funny how the article didn't even ask that question, since it was only a grown man who was being shafted after all, and it might take away from the glorious single motherhood angle.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:41 PM
2

You are the only soul in men's rights that I have yet encountered, that agrees with me that the rights of children are violated through anonymous sperm donation. It amazes me how few people are willing to call bullshit on such an obvious moral travesty.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:50 PM
1

Do you think anyone among these examples wouldn't view a donation of sperm as a simple generosity? Of course they would. But the child, the person forced into this situation and, thus, the one's whose rights are paramount, would not.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:48 PM
6

The next time I hear someone say "men are in power" I am going to shoot back "no, you mean those in power are men, do you see the difference?" Thank you for adding a very sharp arrow to my quiver. That's one of the best I've heard since someone on mensrights reversed the genders in "the problem with false accusations of rape is the next time a woman is raped, she won't be believed" by observing that "the problem with rape is that the next time a man is falsely accused of rape, he won't be believ…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:43 PM
1

but I don't really see a lot of discussion on constructive ways to actually be activists for men's rights. I think that by far, the most important thing the average man can do to advance men's rights, is to call bullshit when they see it, and to not pull punches. If it were not for Malcolm X, no one would have taken Dr. King seriously. And if it were not for the thousands of Malcolm X's followers, who spoke up in their daily lives as the opportunity presented itself, he would not have been taken…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:37 PM
1

The cool thing is that men are still in power. You just have to make them realize what's happening. It isn't like it is all women in laws, all women police forces, etc... Civilization is built on keeping men as disposable commodities, and ignorant of their plight. 'making them realize what's happening' is much harder than it sounds. The man only draft was invented by men, not women. I believe it exists because of sexism It exists because, since the dawn of time, those societies that were able to…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:28 PM
1

Good point. We need to make it clear that such men need not consider themselves "defective". Not having a foreskin is indeed a defect. You can't pretend otherwise in the interest of healing.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 07:03 PM
8

Having an honest, nationwide discussion about circumcision will be quite a trick. There are lots of people with blood on their hands who will go to great lengths to avoid having to own up. When you try to have a serious discussion with them, they are quick to derail the discussion using any number of tricks. What mother wants to admit that she allowed a doctor to harm her infant? What doctor wants to admit that he not only sat idly by, but perhaps even persuaded couples who trusted him to circum…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 05:47 PM
2

I appreciate how badly you want to ruin people's lives for the high crime of being charitable though. Charitable to whom? The mother or the child who has been given into the care of a mother that wants to raise it without a father? That's hardly charity.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:17 PM
0

The child was not party to that contract, so is not bound by it. Parent can not bargain away the rights of a child.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:30 PM
2

Exactly. The men's rights movement, when it stands up for the rights of children to have access to their fathers, is on firm moral ground. When it defends men who want to walk away from their responsibilities, it loses all moral force. We need to make it harder for women to walk away from their responsibilities, not easier for men to walk away from theirs.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:27 PM
1

By donating sperm, you make it possible for the woman to get pregnant with your child. That makes you culpable for its creation. Next you will be telling me that dropping a rock is not assualt, since gravity pushed the rock on top of them, you merely provided the vertical alignment
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:12 PM
1

I couldn't agree more. Children don't ask to be born, you if you choose to bring one into the world, you owe it your full emotional and financial support. No agreement between mother and father can bargain away the child's rights.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:53 AM
1

That you shouldn't bring a child.into the world unless you intend to give it your full emotional and financial support. Its wrong for a man to donate sperm, and it is wrong for a woman to get pregnant intending to raise a child without its father. Wouldn't you be pissed at your mom if she had done that to you, and you never knew your father?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:47 AM
-5

It's about time.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 09:54 PM
1

There's no corroboration. She quoted a number of researchers (not only quoting their statistics, but the rationale behind them) and public figures, including prosecutors (who had similar observations to hers about how the court system railroads innocent men in order to win points with a public hungry for convictions). So there was plenty of corroboration for her observations about how the court system works. I'm fine if enough people tell the same story and they've got a little evidence to back …
/r/MensRights19/05/11 07:10 PM
1

But isn't most of the valid information people gather as they move through life from anecdotal sources? A good anecdotal source will contain observations that resonate with the reader's own life observations in a way that is hard to fake. Do you really mean to say that the article was not worth much because it told a story and wasn't a research report summarizing a large scale, well founded statistical analysis carried out by the author(s)? Or did the details of her anecdote rub you the wrong wa…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 01:28 PM
2

If her hypothesis was sexist for saying that women have it harder, then why do you talk of her results the way you do, by saying it has earned your admiration? She started out wrong headed, but put her money where her mouth was and tried to demonstrate that she was right, found out she was wrong, and then started to spread the word. I don't blame people for where they start out, but I do blame/admire them for where they go from there. To me, 'sexist' is just the wrong kind of word to be throwing…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 01:20 PM
4

'sexism' is kinda strong language for what she was trying to do. She had a 'hypothesis' Her hypothesis was sexist. I admire her for recognizing that men's burdens are worth taking seriously, and working to spread the word. Less worthy people in her position would simply drop the subject and move on, since it didn't validate their victim status.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 07:48 PM
1

I like what you wrote. Regrading the blaming angle, though, the target article was full of discussion about how women need more support, and didn't have much about how women need more punishment. Had the article been discussing a man that murdered/abused a child, there would have been none of the 'men need more support' discussion and a lot of the 'men need more punishment' discussion.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:18 PM
4

I used to donate $20 a month to the ACLU. They would call me about once a month to ask and I would always offer 20. Then one month I asked the rep why the ACLU wasn't doing anything about how men were treated in family court. I said that if they didnt start supporting mens issurs i was going to donate to the innocence project instead. She agreed with me that they should, and promised to pass my comments along. I pledged $20 that time. The next month they called again, and I made the same comment…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 11:13 PM
6

I'm sorry, Ms., but you didn't raise a "beautiful strong man". You raised a cripple. I know you love him and wanted the best for him, but you have wronged him grievously. Well put. Especially this part: You spent too much time worrying about the wrongs he might commit, rather than about the wrongs he might suffer. The author does deserve credit, though, for telling her story so well realizing that feminist ideology is to blame mastering all of the research and statistics that she did, and doing …
/r/MensRights17/05/11 02:43 PM
2

If the courts were doing their job, instead of railroading innocent men in order to get brownie points with feminists, 'sticking your dick in crazy' wouldn't be such a risk. Why should it? Crazy doesn't always present as crazy, BTW. The first person you should want to smack upside the head are the prosecutor and the judge. The last person you should want to smack should be the falsely accused won.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 02:41 PM
2

if it werent for sites like a voice for men and angry harry, I don't think anyone would be taking mens rights seriously. polite activists have their place, but require an army of pushy assholes behind them or they get nowhere. for example, I.dont think dr.king would have.been taken seriously without malcolm x's expressions of undiluted anger at white people who stayed silent and led comfortable lives. I dont like the fact that underhanded, dishonest power group tactics work, but they do. To esch…
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:52 PM
3

What in the world makes you think being circumcised is more hygenic? What do you even mean by that? If you are thinking that being circumcised makes you more resistant to disease, you are wrong. First of all, in Europe, the incidence of the diseases (STDs, HIV, urinary tract infections) that people think circumcision makes you more resistant to is less than in the U.S., indicating that other factors are much more significant than whether you are circumcised or not. Secondly, it is well known tha…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:40 PM
4

Thank you so much for writing that. I generally try to not think about circumcision that much because it pisses me off that the american medical establishment thinks it is ok, and so many americans have no problem with such obvious mutilation/violation. A week doesn't go by that I don't wonder what sensations I am missing as a result.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 02:56 PM
6

Wrong again. There is a whole spectrum of FGM practices, and you are only describing the more severe types. Removal of the clitoral hood fits into World Health Organization's type 1a. The wikipedia article on FGM explains this in detail
/r/MensRights13/05/11 02:53 PM
14

AT which point, it happening to females will be seen as completely different.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 11:46 AM
1

if what you want is control over your DNA, then don't deposit it in other people's bodies. There's really no way around that one. I don't see why a man can't ask a woman for a promise that she will make a good faith effort to bring a fetus to term as a pre-condition to having sex, and to have the courts enforce that agreement. By good faith, I mean she won't get an abortion without medical cause. If the woman has a problem with that arrangement, then she can simply refuse the deal and not have s…
/r/MensRights12/05/11 09:02 PM
2

The MRM angle is that society doesn't care about sexual violence against men. I am not faulting this particular study for focusing on women, I am faulting society at large for a lack of interest in the well-being of boys and men. How many people do you think are aware of the existence of the sexual trafficing of girls in Afghanistan, and how many are aware of the sexual trafficing of boys (google 'the dancing boys of afghanistan' if you are interested) there?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 06:48 PM
1

So how would your proposal deal with this scenario from my edited post above: I am curious to hear where you stand on the cases where the DNA tests show that the presumed father is not the biological father, but he is still obligated to pay child support anyway after discovering that his wife cheated on him and they get a divorce as a result. I assume you are OK with that. Are you?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 04:10 PM
1

I was hasty in my reply and you must have seen the first version before I edited it. I removed the bank robber part and attempted to analyze your apparent principles in more depth. I think you are saying that the law sometimes has to sacrifice the interest of justice for the sake of order. Is that a fair reading of your position?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:22 PM
1

Courts have taken seriously mothers changing their mind, despite contract, about not seeking child support from sperm donors. And yet they fail to notice the plight of children who grow up yearning for a father they will probably never know, because the mother would rather go to a sperm bank than have to deal with a father? Why do you suppose that is, if the courts are really interested in the welfare of children? After thinking about it more, the best solution is probably a crime of inseminatio…
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:44 PM
3

The courts already try to view everything in terms of best interest of the child. They why do the courts tolerate anonymous sperm donation? How is allowing women to bring children into the world without the love and support of a father in the best interests of the child? Also, shouldn't the 'best interest of the child' imply the best legitimate interest of the child? If the best interest of the child is taken to override all other considerations of fairness, then the courts would allow a female …
/r/MensRights12/05/11 10:30 AM
1

the reason we generally hold parents responsible for their children is that they consented to be parents by willingly having sex, even if they used birth control and it failed, since there is always the risk that it will. By contrast, the child was offered no say in its own creation so all of the responsibility is from the parent to the child. When you are raped, however, you clearly did not consent, and there is no moral basis for holding you responsible. Holding you responsible under those cir…
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:18 AM
2

I think the reason MRAs want to require paternity tests is because they are so frustrated with how the courts will stick men with child support obligations even if they can prove they aren't the father. When a guy find out, during a divorce, that he isn't even the father, the courts will obligate him with support anyway saying that he should have made a false paternity claim within some time limit and he didn't so tough luck. So MRAs want to force the issue by introducing a test from the get-go …
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:52 PM
2

I like what you wrote. Your list and your commentary on it place you well withing the orbit of people seriously concerned with men's rights. I'd like to run one of my thoughts by you and get your reaction. One thing that strikes me when I read the stories of men that were falsely convicted of rape and spend years or even decades in prison, and then have their convictions overturned, is how a purely he-said-she-said rape case can even go to trial. I think in most other crimes, there needs to be s…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:36 PM
2

what do you think some of the weighter men's issues are and what proposals do you have for dealing with them?
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:02 AM
1

what do you think some of the weighter men's issues are and what proposals do you have for dealing with them?
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:01 AM
2

The benefits of circumcision come about through preventative protection from HPV, other STIs, and cancer. Which are awfully rare in the U.S., and rarer still in Europe, where circumcison is unheard of. That tends to argue that circumcision is a minor variable here, and other variables (diet, cleanliness, sexual practices, ...) are more significant. And one of the risks of circumcision is that, by removing the foreskin, and drying out the mucous membrane of the glans, you are defeating the mechan…
/r/MensRights03/05/11 02:34 PM
4

The jury is largely out on whether the benefits of circumcision outweigh the costs. Which jury? The one (the american medical establishment) that stands to be sued into oblivion if it admits that it never had a sound basis for circumcising male infants before proceeding to do it en-masse? The rate reached 90% before it started to fall in the age of the internet where people could start to do their own research and talk to each other on a large scale. Of course that jury is going to pretend that …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:52 PM
1

But that being said, I don't believe that a child raised in a single parent home cannot be raised in a loving and secure environment. True, but I don't think that makes it OK to deliberately deny a child a relationship with their father. They should have a right to that, which neither parent should be be able to easily deny. Maybe we're trying so hard to have things be as equal as possible between genders that the baby's rights for a full and loving family are forgotten. I think my solution does…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 05:54 PM
1

However since so many abortions occur out of marriage, I think the idea put forth in the comments above is the more viable solution. I think it is only fair to hold both parents responsible for supporting the children they willingly create, or risk the creation of by having sex while using birth control. While allowing men to walk away from the financial obligation of a child they don't want balances the rights of both sexes (since a woman can always abort a pregnancy she doesn't want during the…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:40 PM
2

I think the fact that you opened by acknowledging the legitimacy of the subreddit (and offering kind words), rather than challenging its legitimacy ("what issues could men possibly have to complain about that approaches what women have to deal with?!?"), accounts for most of the positive response you are receiving.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:28 PM
1

True, I would also assume that. I am guessing getting-an-abortion-in-bad-faith doesn't happen very often. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on my proposal. Also, that adultery should be handled the same way (the wronged party gets the upper hand should it lead to a divorce).
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:19 PM
1

I think that a woman who gets an abortion in bad faith (over the fathers objection and without medical cause) is breaking a promise made when getting married, and that she should get a raw deal in a divorce proceeding from that. There should be no crimimal penalties, however, as it is her body.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 01:55 PM
2

Thanks for writing that, it means a lot.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:01 AM
31

I thought her article was fantastic. A feminist lawyer is validating most of our complaints about false accusations of domestic violence.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 02:19 PM
1

The courts should not be deciding which parent is most fit. Only if either parent is unfit. If neither is unfit, then custody should be 50/50 joint unless one parent agrees to let the other have more time.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:58 PM
1

Cheating is an act of war against a marriage. I think a parent that cheats has shown that they are unfit. You don't?
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:56 PM
2

WEll, his academic career, anyway.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 02:01 AM
1

You mean unfit, or some other category of crappy?
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:26 AM
1

I meant they should be able to get primary custody if they want it.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:24 AM
0

I think the way cheating should be handeled is that the cheated can then initiate a divorce and they get more than half of the combined assets, and the cheater doesn't get any alimony. And the cheated gets automatic custody of any children.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 08:01 PM
0

I think the way cheating should be handeled is that the cheated can then initiate a divorce and they get more than half of the combined assets, and the cheater doesn't get any alimony. And the cheated gets automatic custody of any children.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 08:01 PM
3

Women have as a gender progressed because they fundraised, organized, educated, hired lobbyists, wrote their congressmen, and in other aspects became a respectable and influential movement I don't think its true that women did more work for their liberation than men have for theirs. First of all, quite a few men did the work of liberating women, and its not clear to me that they were a minority in the women's rights movement. Secondly, women have progressed because their liberation had an immedi…
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:35 PM
2

I am very impressed with her. I'll be reading more of her work.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:34 PM
5

She is trying to get feminists who resist seeing men as victims of society to entertain the notion that men actually are victims, and serious ones at that. In order to do that, she first reviews her personal thought process growing up and all the signals she received about womanhood that were limiting and damaging. I think that will resonate with a lot of anti-male feminists and draw them in. She then extends that same thought process, only this time she shows some of the signals men receive, an…
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:07 PM
0

I never thought I would see the day when I read an article about a false rape allegation in which I didn't read the usual comment about how this makes it harder for future rape victims to be believed. The judge was wholly concerned with the plight of the falsely accused, as he should have been. Bravo to the judge, to the author, and to creelar for posting this.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:32 PM
1

We're mostly talking drugs and theft. If the men are doing the drugs (and they are) and the men are doing the stealing (and they are), how do you raise this specter as somehow "atrocious". Interesting. Black men commit proportionally more crime than white men. Do you feel the same way about the racial skew of prison inmates as well (namely, that it is their own damn fault)?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:46 PM
1

Your point is like saying "The UC school system is hostile to whites because there are so many Asian students". Perhaps, but it's because the Asians are outperforming us. There are only 2 possible reasons for one group to outperform another: inherent superiority. better environment. Asian-Americans outperforming whites can easily be explained as having more support/encouragement at home. Absent a huge number of single sex households, women outperforming men or vice versa can only be explained th…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:42 PM
1

It's a complex and difficult issue, which is why I've refrained from offering a solution. I don't see what's so complex about innocent until proven guilty. It seems rather basic.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:36 PM
1

I do not believe universities would be LESS willing to expel as they are now given federal mandate to do so. Exactly. I would expect the expulsions to go up.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:34 PM
1

What is next? Universities investigating murders under perponderance? Should we lower lesser crimes to culpability if you are even accused?? I saw you drinking beer in class, sorry you are now suspended for a semester. Nicely done.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:30 PM
1

Surely in a civil rights complaint like the linked article, the assumption of uniform standards is being actively disputed.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:28 PM
1

From the first paragraph in the article: Under the Obama administration's new directive, a male accused of sexual assault may be expelled from college, and his freedom to go on to graduate school and obtain decent employment may be curtailed and even destroyed, even if there is only a very slight probability that he committed the assault. How does that contradict your 10-25% figure, such that you are calling him a liar?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:10 PM
2

That depends on what modelling assumptions you make. There are lots to choose from, and it is not hard to imagine a corrupt system with many actors at cross purposes giving us both lots of guilty going free and innocent convictions. For example, a school that finds a student guilty looks like it.did something for women, on the other hand a wealthy, well-connected student may be able to pull strings to get off.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 12:09 PM
2

You seem to be arguing that a judicial process that lets more guilty people go free than it should can't also convict more innocent people than it should. In other words, evidence of the guilty going free contradicts evidence of the innocent being punished. Do you see how that's flawed reasoning?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:13 AM
1

great article. Thanks for writing it.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:18 PM
1

WEll put. That's my take as well.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 10:46 AM
2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:34 PM
2

Yes. Calmed reasoned contemplation does not grab the attention the way well focused anger does. Until men express their anger, no one is going to take them seriously.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 01:32 AM
8

Yes, they should. Women have been allowed to step much further outside their traditional role than man have been allowed to step outside of theirs.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 04:06 PM
2

i dont think dr king would have been taken nearly as seriously as he was were it not for malcolm x expressing anger so well.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 01:55 AM
3

I have to wonder if the unfair blaming of all women that.you are.reacting to is a bad thing, seeing as how effective the unfair blaming of all men was for feminists. Or how effective the.unfair blaming of all white.people was for.malcom.x It sucks that such tactics are as effective as they are, but I think any rights group that refuses to engage in such.tactics will lose.to its.opponents.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:26 PM
8

but a lot of the literature makes me feel like I'm being painted the enemy and the problem just because I'm female. That's exactly how I feel when reading feminist literature.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:18 PM
1

I think opening up the world of work and education to women was a great thing, although I question the forces that really made it.happen. I think the first societies that figured out how to get.half.their workforce off the bench was destined to take power and resources away from those that dragged.their.feet. Men, on the other hand, have always been.treated as disposable.economic producers. fixing that is a scarier prospect for society to sit still for than liberating women. The cry holding wome…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:38 AM
0

Exactly.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:12 PM
2

IF the tapes were made without her knowledge, then I could see how they could be excluded, but these tapes were made with her full knowledge, so if the judge was doing his job, neither lawyer would have been able to stop him from seeing the tapes. This is clearly a problen with the judge, or the biases of the system he is upholding.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:11 PM
2

Another: that's not funny Yet another: where are you going with this?
/r/MensRights30/03/11 10:42 AM
8

You told that story brilliantly. Well done. Did you pick that particular set of expectations out of a much larger set that were discussed in one class (to illustrate unreasonableness), or did the discussion seem to naturally follow a fairly tight path that hit mostly those points?
/r/MensRights27/03/11 03:51 PM
1

I agree that the police did follow the evidence where it led and got to the truth despite the false accusation. Do you propose that police investigations go forward with the presumption that everyone who alleges to have been a crime victim is lying? No. That would be no better than going forward with the presumption that everyone who alleges to have been a crime victim was telling the truth. I would prefer the police reserve judgement and follow the evidence where it leads, and refer to a person…
/r/MensRights22/03/11 02:23 AM
0

GReat find. Amazing how language controls thought. Even after we all know she was not a victim of sexual assualt, the officer excuses his absence of mind by.saying that, as she was a victim of sexual assault, he had no choice.but.to.believe.her.story. Wow.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 05:54 PM
2

First of all, not all instances of stay-at-home-parenting are agreed too That's a good point. I am mostly thinking that there should be a way for a couple to agree to an arrangement where one stays at home and the other works and then if the worker wants to call it quits they are obligated to pay for a limited time. Marriage, as it exists today, that is the "ball-and-chain" version, is simply a human rights nightmare Some of the miscarriages of justice that perpatrated by the courts under the ba…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 03:32 PM
2

I imagine that proving adultery is not that hard, given that the adulterer would be sneaking around weaving a steady stream of lies to avoid detection. If that went on for any length of time, it would leave all sorts of evidence.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:15 PM
2

Well, if you declare that you want a divorce and you are done with someone (let's call that separating), then start a relationship with someone else that is honorable. Sleeping with someone behind your spouse's back (let's call that cheating) is not. I think separating should be treated as 'you want out', not as 'you cheated'. The penalities for cheating, however, should be a lot more, given that you were defrauding the other person and breaking a serious promise (possible exposing them to STDs,…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:12 PM
3

Which makes sense, given that a lot of people would only be willing to have sex with someone who agreed to not have sex with anyone else, and who would then commit serious resources to building a life with that person, and further given the risk of STDs. I don't think making a promise of behavior enforcable (establishing serious penalities for breach) is limiting anyone's freedom. If you don't like the limits one person sets on who they are willing to build a life with, find someone else.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:06 PM
3

I think the concept of alimony as a compensation for a partner who became a stay at home parent when the breadwinner decided to call it quits is legitimate. I do think the courts bring a lot of other concepts into play (she should be supported in the manner that she has become accustomed, and other bullshit) and often render grave injustices as a result. So if a genie appeared and offered to erase the concept of alimony from the courts, particularly given how well integrated women are into the w…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 12:59 PM
2

SOmeone who is committing adultery woulf typically go to some lengths to hide that fact, which would leave a trail of.lies and witnesses, which is how you could prove adultery beyond the shadow of a doubt. In fact once you figured out they were.cheating on you, you.could set up a sting and catch them in the act. Another easy to see scenario would be when the adulterer wound up pregnant.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 12:26 AM
8

If two people both put $10,000 each into a restaurant business, they would typically sign a partnership agreement such that if one of them tries to walk away from it, they forfeit their share. If it weren't for such partnership contracts, people would not be willing to commit to joint projects. It makes sense to me that if two people are going to make a romantic life together and pool their finances and possible raise children together, they would want a similar arrangement. If one person is goi…
/r/MensRights16/03/11 10:22 PM
11

YOu don't own you partners body when you marry them, but they do make a promise to you about how they are going to use their bodies, and those promises should be enforcable.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:33 PM
8

Finally! A way to get feminists to admit that even now, women are the ones who are usually awarded alimony in a divorce.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:30 PM
12

'breathing this shit all our lives!' You captured it exactly!
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:28 PM
1

If we didnt agressively punish false accusers, then a person about to falsely accuse wouldn't think twice about it. notice how general the commentors argument is. By their logic, we should also be lenient on murderers who come forward after someone else was convicted.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 03:59 PM
22

I think the prosecutor, who sat on exculpatory evidence in this case, needs to lose his license to practice law, be fired, and face charges for abuse of office / perverting the course of justice, and serve a jail term. The prosecutor, wielding enormous power which he took an oath to use faithfully, betrayed the public trust and knowingly sent an innocent man to jail. Leaving such enormous breaches of trust unpunished on the part of government agents is a fundamental corruption of our legal syste…
/r/MensRights16/03/11 12:24 PM
6

or which part. Jeez. Talk about spineless.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 12:46 PM
2

Well done. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 12:44 PM
2

Very well done. I notice you are getting a lot of help in the comments section as well. That article, your response, and the comments made my day. Thanks!
/r/MensRights15/03/11 12:38 PM
4

your comment is one of the most inspiring I have read in a while. I found myself sympathsizing with the author of the article because of how well he anslyzed the dirty tricks involved in power plays. But where was he when vawa was being passed, and has he ever raised his voice against how boys are failing in school, or how a man can be convicted of rape purely on a woman's say-so? If he has stood on the sidelines, along with the bulk of sociologists, and only raises his voice once mra's are gain…
/r/MensRights14/03/11 10:45 PM
2

I thought that was a great article.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 07:31 PM
2

I am absolutely floored that there is so little sympathy for men when their wives (or girlfriends) get an abortion over their objection, and without medical cause. I am always left cold when a discussion gets started about the fact that women can always decide they don't want to be mothers by getting an abortion but men have no similar choice, and the suggestion is made that men should be able to declare whether they want to take responsibility or not once their wife gets pregnant if they decide…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 04:13 PM
2

I would be curious to know what woke you up to the mens rights cause. In my case, a male relative was falsely accused of hitting his wife. I learned a lot about the anti male bias in the court system in the aftermath. My favorite overview on mens rights is the paper "is there anything good about men?". If you google the article it will take you right to it. Welcome to the movement!
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:17 PM
2

Not by themselves, but they surely participate fully, and they always have. Are you familiar with the white feather campaign?
/r/MensRights09/03/11 06:05 PM
1

So we're at the ridicule stage. Exactly, We are far enough along that even a comfortable, rich, established entertainment artist/writer like Scott has decided to stop ignoring us. This is a huge win for us.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 03:48 PM
1

Very good response. I find it interesting that Scott says, on the one hand: Get over it, you bunch of pussies. yet also says: A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. In other words, he won't take up a fight based on how right it is, but on whether he thinks he can win it. Or to put it another way, he is a pussy, who, on the heels of calling us pussies, admits he has no character. Jeez. Then Mr. Touch Guy deletes his o…
/r/MensRights08/03/11 03:45 PM
1

I think this is success in the sense that we forced his hand. He acknowledged us.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 11:33 AM
1

I think you nailed it. He can't afford the shit storm that would rain down on him if he took up the banner of men's rights. He seems to acknowledge that in the way he handles the wage gap. Surely he knows the truth on that front, yet he talks about how 'you don't argue with women about it.'
/r/MensRights08/03/11 11:22 AM
2

Its interesting that scott doesn't know that the raw wage gap is not due to discrimination but.to womens choice to work less.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 11:13 AM
6

Napoleon and Frederick the great may be able to "do what they want" in war but their poor foot soldiers are being fed to a meat grinder, not "doing what they want." Nice try, Scott.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 03:58 AM
3

THat is fantastic news!
/r/MensRights07/03/11 11:45 AM
37

THanks for the support. I think the problem is less the existance of a few crazy, vindictive women, though, than a court system that is biased against men. I dont think, for example, that a case that is purely he-said she-said should even go to trial. have you ever noticed how often a judge will remark, after it is clear that a woman made a false accusation of rape, that the main victim is the future rape victim who then wont be believed, and not the man who almost went to jail? I think that bia…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:38 PM
0

Good call, noticing that and then posting it.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:26 PM
1

I wanted an example that you considered worth talking about.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 11:13 AM
1

So you can't think of any examples, then?
/r/MensRights27/02/11 08:56 PM
6

exactly. The liberation of women, while a scary proposition for many, had an immediate economic justification. The societies that embraced it took power and resources away from those that didnt. The liberation of men would mean that society could no longer treat men as disposable, and would represent an economic loss. So it scares the shit out of everybody and hits much more resistance.
/r/MensRights27/02/11 08:29 PM
2

Very interesting site. Thanks for posting a link to it.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 01:58 PM
1

What would be an example of something that you do think has to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 01:48 PM
3

I think men and women both have a problem accepting women as leaders because women are such a protected class. no one wants to be led into battle by someone thats not expected to die for the cause.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:06 PM
3

Her body, her choice, his responsibility.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 03:57 PM
6

Good point. She also fails to notice the self centeredness of women who use a sperm bank to get pregnant, thus denying a child a father. How would she feel if her mother had done that to her?
/r/MensRights19/02/11 04:54 PM
2

Also, which gender doesn't have to register for the draft? Being an adult means, among other things, that you are willing to put yourself in harms way to protect the people around you.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 04:49 PM
3

Well put. Funny how she doesn't ponder the legal risks of marriage in her analysis of the choices men are making.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 04:44 PM
2

THAnks for sharing that, it put a smile on my face.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 04:21 PM
1

WEll said.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:53 PM
2

WHat an ingenious experiment! Thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:40 PM
2

Is it true that a father can be sent to prison for failure to pay child support without being given the right to a trial by jury? Isn't that blatantly unconstitutional? Doesnt the fact that prison is a possible penalty imply it is a criminal matter and not civil?
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:53 AM
2

Excellent find
/r/MensRights17/02/11 04:34 PM
1

As for the father or mother automatically getting custody of children if there is a breach of trust or breaking of a promise, Not just any promise, but the marriage destroying kind, like cheating or getting an abortion in bad faith Daddy cheated on Mommy, so Mommy gets custody even though she's an abusive alcoholic. I was presuming both parents fit. The unfitness of the wronged parent should prevent them from walking off with the kids, I agree. Parental rights should be based strictly on the mer…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:49 PM
0

I think the missing ingredient here is the concept of forcing people to keep their promises. If society didn't force people to keep their promises on a regular basis, it wouldn't last long. I don't see how the biological asymmetry of childbirth takes equality off the table. Even in thought experiments where we made the biological asymmetry even more extreme, I still don't see it. In fact, I defy anyone to invent such a scenario I can't solve by applying the principle of 'you have to keep your pr…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 02:51 PM
-1

What a beautiful way of turning the argument around. I will be using that argument a lot. There are many reasons I like this subreddit, but the most compelling is that I run across gems like the one you just presented. I've notice them more frequently than I used to. I take that as evidence that the cause of men's rights is gaining momentum.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 12:54 PM
-1

The fact that so many women chose to have children implies that most women do not feel the way you do about pregnancy.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 12:48 PM
5

you mean you don't know any happy, engaged fathers? Really? Most men want to have children at some point in their lives.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 12:14 PM
1

PArt of self ownership is being able to make and recieve promises about what you are going to do with yourself so that you can cooperate with other people and not be taken advantage of. And part of that is keeping the promises you make so that you don.t tske advantage of others.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:44 AM
-1

WHat if the woman agreed that she was going to make a good faith effort to see the pregnancy through? Most people don.t think that even in that case the woman dhould face any consequences for getting an abortion unilaterally. So there is more at work here than the "its her body principle"
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:38 AM
1

I realize the law is trying to have it both ways. I was asking how anyone could justify those laws.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 01:08 PM
2

It is no more just to make the boy pay than to pick a man at random and make him pay, seeing as how neither consented to getting her pregnant. I also don't understand why this situation is any worse w.r.t. public support for poor children than, say, a poor woman going to a sperm bank and getting pregnant. Or a poor couple having a baby.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 04:37 AM
1

it's just none of YOUR fucking business You brought it up, silly.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 10:43 PM
0

Did you have a good relationship with your father or not? I'm guessing not, since you don't have a problem with your mother cutting your father out of your life. As a father and son, I find your lack of respect for fathers personally insulting.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 07:17 PM
1

A woman who gets pregnant by a sperm donor is not honoring the child's right to the love and support of both parents who chose to bring it into being. The sperm donor is also not honoring the child's right. Therefore, the agreement is not honorable. What is being swept aside are the rights of the child. Would you really be OK with your mother denying you a relationship with your father like that, if she had done that to you? You wouldn't feel like you had a right to something that she callously …
/r/MensRights03/02/11 01:50 AM
1

Really? You don't think the concept of honor shows up left and right in the legal system? Have you ever heard of honoring a contract? If I had talked about how someone had not acted in good faith, would you then talk about how faith should have no place in the legal system?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:15 PM
1

Does a child have a right to the emotional and financial support of the two people who chose to bring it into being or doesn't it?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:58 AM
1

Because a child has a right to the emotional and financial support of the two people who chose to bring it into being?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:56 AM
5

What a beautiful thought experiment to show how the courts are failing to take the responsibility of women into account in cases like this. I believe I will be cherishing that argument for a long time.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:34 PM
5

I have a lot more sympathy for this guy than I do for a sperm donor. A sperm donor is consciously enabling a woman to bear and raise a fatherless child. This guy would not have consented to the blow job if he knew she was going to impregnate herself with it. He took no deliberate action to conceive a child. I actually think sperm donation is not honorable the way it is currently conducted. I think a child is entitled to the love and support of at least 2 parents. Sperm donation should be handled…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:30 PM
4

I fault the courts more than I do her. They are the ones with all the power worth talking about. Why are the courts awarding child support in cases where the father was tricked into being a father? How is this verdict any more just than if the court simply ordered child support from a randomly selected man? In neither case was there consent in any form from the father.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:25 PM
7

How is the plight of this child different from one born to a woman that went to a sperm bank? So should sperm banks be illegal then?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:21 PM
17

this is truly a high water mark for misandry. simply amazing
/r/MensRights28/01/11 05:05 PM
1

I think that the women who falsely accuse are only really hurting the men they accuse. It is a real stretch to say that if it weren't for a few assholes like that, women could just be believed and we wouldn't need to insist on evidence beyond their say-so, It is so far-fetched, that I think the only real point to making such an absurd claim is to deflect attention away from the victim hood of the falsely accused men.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 10:24 PM
12

Why would you imagine that the justice system would treat the lack of proof that a rape occurred as equivalent to proof that the accuser lied? If you think that the justice system is that confused, then why would you trust it to handle the trial of a man accused of rape at all?
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:14 PM
2

The idea that men should be sacrificed for the well being of women is bigger, though.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:10 PM
-1

Why don't the advocates realize that false accusations also increase the amount of suspicion/scrutiny with which subsequent accusations are treated. I don't think that even a massive reduction in the number of false rape claims (a 50% reduction for example) would do anything to allay the suspicion that a person who cries rape might be lying, and that serious evidence beyond her say-so needs to exist. Anything short of so few women lying about rape that it almost never happens could do that, and …
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:08 PM
1

watching that really did my heart good. Thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 12:48 PM
3

great find!
/r/MensRights22/01/11 03:13 AM
2

Good point. While it is important to get excited about Incremental gains, it is also important to keep them in perspective and not lose sight of the larger goal of achieving fairness and how far off it is.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 11:27 AM
19

I think you are looking to a woman for your happiness and sense of self-worth. Your life has to have meaning and worth regardless of whether there is a woman in it first. What do you do for a living? Is it satisfying, engaging work that makes a difference? I suspect your life is starved for meaning, and you are trying to fill that void with women. That's not going to work. You need soul food. You might start by volunteering you time to help out the less fortunate. The local hospital can always u…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 02:35 PM
1

Of course now if she ever actually get raped the local cops are probably just going to roll their eyes and tell her to go away too. Is that not poetic justice in this case, seeing as how the men she accused, had they been convicted, would likely be raped in jail not once, but many times over the course of their sentence? I also wonder why the second round of questioning took 13 hours. They realized what she was doing after the first attempt. Assuming different detectives were involved, don't the…
/r/MensRights18/01/11 12:40 PM
0

It then becomes a problem when a woman with "a reputation" genuinely does get raped, and the police thinks she is lying because she is known to be promiscuous. Seeing as how the crime of rape is so hard to prove (or disprove) and often comes down to he-said-she-said, why is that (the promiscuity of a woman being weighed as making a rape less likely in the absence of hard evidence) more of a problem than a man who just looks suspicious to the jury together with a woman who looks innocent being us…
/r/MensRights18/01/11 12:36 PM
1

Sentencing her Judge John Reddihough said: 'False allegations of rape were made which saw a number of men kept in custody for many hours. The first incident was a misguided attempt to win back a former boyfriend. 'The second saw three men spend from 11 and a half to 13 hours in custody over allegations made against them. Perhaps you were ashamed of your own sexual conduct to these men. It's nice to see a judge mention the harm done to the falsely accused men before talking about how much time an…
/r/MensRights18/01/11 12:32 PM
1

I am not familiar with the show, but I really like the letter you wrote and the sentiments behind it.
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:51 AM
7

What pushed me over the edge was watching my wife's cousin destroyed by the family court system, starting with a false accusation of domestic violence his wife made against him.
/r/MensRights16/01/11 11:35 PM
1

You answer really hits the spot. None of the other answers to the OP called her on precisely that point you just made. I look forward to making that point again and again in future discussions. Thanks again.
/r/MensRights15/01/11 12:13 AM
3

I love seeing people reach into their past and bring forth personal stories like that in discussions like this. Thanks for taking the time and effort to write that. I like the lessons you draw from it as well.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 04:11 AM
3

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think Tony's talk was about violence against women at all. He had to tack on a statement about violence against women for his main point to be heard at all: men suffer greatly from societies expectations of them. If he hadn't tacked that on, I don't think he would have been invited to speak at TEDWomen. Society has a hard time taking seriously the damage that the male gender straight-jacket does to men.
/r/MensRights13/01/11 02:07 AM
6

great link. thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 04:00 AM
3

Nice one. the MR subreddit has lots of informative articles like this with much needed, practical advice for men. OP, which other subreddit do you recommend for men that need good advice?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 10:59 AM
1

I'm sure you could say the same thing about a lot of women when they were in 7th grade w.r.t their male teachers. A large enough percentage of boys and girls of that age are emotionally not ready for sex, however, which is why we don't lower the age of consent that far. Also, just because you fantasised about it when you were in 7th grade doesn't mean you would have been OK with it had it actually happened.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 11:17 AM
1

what a beautifully argued article.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 12:10 AM
1

1) so what? when a girl gets pregnant, she has all the power worth talking about. When a boy gets a girl pregnant, his future is in her hands. I am much more worried about my son getting a girl pregnant than someone else's son getting my daughter pregnant. 2) What is the basis for your belief that boys are not as negatively affected as girls by underage sex? Did you read something that made a good case for that?
/r/MensRights09/01/11 08:17 PM
4

My response to your quote of his would be: History is the study of those rare men like Napoleon. Male studies is the study of those common men like Napoleon's foot soldiers.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 01:05 AM
1

great list. thanks for posting a link to it.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 12:58 AM
1

I realize that. I am just floored that a mainstream feminist would even begin to rethink anonymity.
/r/MensRights08/01/11 06:19 PM
1

very nice analysis. thank you.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 07:39 PM
1

I would not have expected a call for the end of anonymity from her quarter. Fascinating.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 06:46 PM
1

I think men are the most violently victimized by it How so?
/r/MensRights03/01/11 04:05 AM
2

Because it implies that men can't be trusted in public places around women?
/r/MensRights03/01/11 04:02 AM
1

I think it would be no big deal if it happened, but convincing people to let it happen is currently impossible.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:59 AM
1

Thanks for writing that. Well done.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 05:04 AM
0

Because everyone should be allowed to change their mind. Not if they have made a promise to another person in which the other person committed resources to a joint project. If two people each commit $50k to start a restaurant, and one of them changes their mind after the fact, they don't get to take their $50k out and walk away. In the case of a couple where the man and woman made an agreement that they would see the pregnancy through and the woman decides to change her mind after she is pregnan…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:48 AM
3

It's her body, and that's her choice. Why shouldn't a woman be held to promises she willing made about what she was going to do with her body? Can't you say she made her choice when she made the promise? Consider the following example. It is common for men and women to both get excited about a baby on the way, and to be devestated at its loss due to miscarriage. Isn't it reasonable for a man who feels that way about children to ask his wife to make a good faith effort to see the pregnancy throug…
/r/MensRights25/12/10 08:02 PM
0

She seems to be saying that men are falling behind and society needs to wake up and do something about it. I thought she did a great job with her talk.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 05:19 AM
11

I thought that Whoopi was chuckling as she said that he was the "face of male reproductive rights" so I was expecting her and the rest of the women to dismiss the concept. To my suprise she held her ground and defended the concept of promises to men being worth something. Thank you Whoopi, that was nicely done and much appreciated.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 05:09 AM
7

Similar incidents are what put Men's Rights on my radar and woke me up. My wife's cousin, a very close friend of our family, was hung out to dry by his wife. She slapped herself on one side of her face until it was red and marked up, then called the police and claimed he hit her. When the police arrived, she was holding the ice bag on the side that wasn't swollen. The police officer noticed this, wrote it in the police report, and hauled the guy away anyway to spend a night in prison anyway. Tha…
/r/MensRights24/12/10 04:22 AM
2

excellent article
/r/MensRights21/12/10 11:09 PM
2

I don't think that would fly, as the idea that a man who has an erection must have been having sexual thoughts leading up to it is well ingrained, so the discussion would go like this: A: um, don't you think it's kind of rude for you to be sporting an erection in public, let alone in a business meeting? B: How dare you call attention to my sexual parts in a place of business, let's march right down to HR and have this out. A: Maybe if you concentrated on your work instead of whatever sexual fant…
/r/MensRights15/12/10 01:36 PM
2

Mr Barlex said Johnson was very sorry for lying and apologised to police and all victims of rape. But not to the falsely accused men? A bit backward, isn't it, as they were by far in the most peril?
/r/MensRights04/12/10 03:06 PM
1

So are you going to comment now?
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:43 AM
1

Thank you for telling your story in this thread. I have long felt that the men's movement won't get very far until women start taking up the cause in earnest, telling the stories of how the men in their lives were destroyed by the biased court system. I think the most important thing MRA's can do is set the stage for women like you to tell their story. It is just too easy to dismiss male complaints as whining.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 02:07 AM
2

fair enough
/r/MensRights27/11/10 06:02 PM
9

She accused him of rape, then recanted. In other words, she confessed to a serious crime. The article is telling the story that the original accusation was true and that she was pressured into a false recantation. I am sure that is possible. I can't really comment on whether the courts made the right decision, since the article doesn't present much of the evidence (for example, it doesn't mention whether there was any physical evidence of the rape recovered when she was examined). I tend to thin…
/r/MensRights27/11/10 03:14 AM
1

"Feminism is about equality" - then why call it feminism? It's about equality + the assumption that next to the problems women face, men's are not worth talking about. "FGM is nothing like male circumcision" - W.H.O. type Ia is. Are you saying that should be legal? "Every time a man is falsely accused of raping a women makes it that much harder for the next woman who is raped to be believed" - every time a man rapes a woman makes it that much harder for the next man who is falsely accused to be …
/r/MensRights25/11/10 02:45 AM
1

very well done.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 02:32 AM
1

Great find.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 02:45 AM
10

It will indeed be interesting to see if she gets off scot free.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 09:54 PM
1

Very nicely done. Thanks for writing that.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 03:26 AM
2

if you enter a contract in the business world and it doesn't work for both parties, one party doesn't get to follow the other for the next twenty years badmouthing it to its divisions and causing harm to the business. Interesting comparison. I do think a marriage has a lot in common with a business partnership in which both parties contribute resources to a project and make promises to each other to see it through. If one partner wants to withdraw their share, though, they don't generally get to…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:15 AM
3

I wonder how much alimony and child support her ex has had to pay her, and if she would still be so pro-divorce if she had to pay him that amount instead? Her self absorption is truly awe-inspiring.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:10 AM
2

he kinda gave up on being an asshole towards the end I think you captured the feel of the interview perfectly. He just gave up on trying to snag her, one he realized his usual tricks were going nowhere with her.
/r/MensRights12/11/10 03:35 AM
1

That was an amazing interview. What struck me was how she took every opportunity to expand on her conceptual framework. She had a well defined set of principles and used her answers to keep connecting with them. The interview reminded me of several of Jesse Ventura's. I have noticed that professional interviewers don't really know how to handle themselves; they are so used to playing patty-cake with politicians that will do anything but commit to a principle, let alone a coherent set. Bravo, Ms.…
/r/MensRights12/11/10 02:42 AM
6

I can't figure out what she's trying to say. She talks about writing a manual for men, but what would she put in it?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 02:06 PM
1

Not every contract is about being paid to complete some fixed amount of work. Some contracts govern partnerships, where 2 or more parties commit resources to a project and if one partner wants to pull out there is a penalty (they don't just get to take their fraction back out and leave). In that case, the usual penalty for violating the contract (not living up to your commitments) involves forfeiting some fraction of your share, and maybe even paying a penalty on top of that. If it weren't for s…
/r/MensRights06/11/10 07:23 PM
1

I'm not talking about sending anyone to prison. Because one is binding according to our legal system, the other is not. And you are OK with that? Why should one be binding according to our legal system and the other not?
/r/MensRights06/11/10 07:19 PM
1

So a surrogacy contract calling for a good faith effort to see a pregnancy through would be binding in your view but a man asking for the same from a woman before agreeing to sex would not be? Why not?
/r/MensRights06/11/10 01:46 PM
1

OK. Suppose a married couple hire a surrogate mother to carry their child term term. Should there be any legal consequences to the surrogate if she starts smoking/drinking/doing drugs while pregnant with their fetus?
/r/MensRights06/11/10 02:08 AM
1

OK, it sounds like you are with me on the justness of the cheated being able to divorce the cheater with prejudice (by which I mean the cheated gets the upper hand; I think it should be both in the division of assets and that the cheated gets custody of any existing children.) The principle at work here is that by getting married, a person is promising to be faithful (unless both people were OK with the marriage being open; since most people would not be OK with that, I think the default assumpt…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 11:36 PM
1

I'm not aiming for anything like full control. The smoking issue you raise is an interesting one, though. Suppose a woman gets pregnant by her husband, wants to bring the baby to term, but also refuses to stop smoking and drinking while pregnant. Do you think the husband should have any say in that case?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 11:06 PM
1

Do you acknowledge that some men and women are devestated at the loss of a fetus?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 10:48 AM
1

Suppose a man and a woman are about to have sex, and the man says,"If you were to get pregnant as a result, I would be devestated if you had an abortion, although I would understand the necessity of an abortion if your health were in serious danger. So if you don't want to make a good faith effort to bring any pregnancy that might result to term, then don't have sex with me" First of all, do you think that is a reasonable condition to ask for on his part? Secondly, if the woman agreed and promis…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:50 AM
1

I really like what you did in your class, and your post. What changes to the law do you feel are necessary to protect YOUR rights, if any? I'd like to lay the groundwork for my answer before hitting you with it. Before answering your question, do you think there should be any legal consequences to cheating on your spouse?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:43 AM
3

As much prison time as the crime the person being accused of would get. And registration in a public wolf-cryer's list.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 01:32 AM
1

OK. I see what you are saying now. By probation, you mean you have to check in with an officer so they can keep track of your movements, surrender your passport, and things like that. I think the courts routine do something like that already, and it also is tied to the strength of the evidence. That is, to restrict someone's freedom before a trial like that, the evidence has to be somewhat stronger than the minimum necessary to have a trial in the first place. I actually think that's reasonable.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 01:30 AM
2

I think there is a lot of pressure brought to bear on employers to fire men who are accused of rape; a zero-tolerance concept that amounts to 'innocence is no defense'. Until the source of that societal pressure is dealt with (widespread misandry) such suits won't be likely to award damages to the falsely accused. If there were some way to make it more likely for such suits to prevail, that might do some good (companies could push back against dismissal policies on the logic that they would lose…
/r/MensRights03/11/10 03:06 AM
5

As per your other points, I do see the value in protecting the person's identity. However, there would have to be some way of protecting the public from the person should they turn out to be guilty (perhaps some form of probation). I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Are you saying you are for granting anonymity to the accused, but want extra scrunity on the accused for some time after the trial in case they are acquitted, but in reality they were guilty, and they then go on to rape …
/r/MensRights03/11/10 02:57 AM
1

That was amazing. Great find.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 02:30 AM
2

What it tells me is that your admiration of kloo2yoo is not sincere. You are trying to come off as sympathetic while undermining him. If you really thought he was brilliant you would have no problem rattling off a list of his ideas/arguments you liked.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 10:33 AM
1

So you can't think of any arguments of his you like, but you think he has posted good articles?
/r/MensRights26/10/10 01:55 AM
2

I'd be curious to know which of kloo2yoo's arguments you find brilliant. I happen to agree that his posts are brilliant, but given the posts you are making in this thread, I am at a loss to see which of his ideas you would appreciate.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 10:47 PM
1

Sometimes expressing righetous anger is a necessary and moral thing to do, when your group is being systematically deprived of its full humanity. Witness Malcolm X. I submit that Dr King's message would not have been nearly as effective had Malcolm X not given expression to black anger. Men need to give expression to their anger, or they won't be taken seriously by society.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 10:41 PM
1

You captured my sentiments exactly. I especially liked this: You really get the feeling that feminists are so used to knocking over strawmen and bullying that they've almost lost the ability to engage in actual real debate.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 11:16 PM
7

While I think it is a perfectly reasonable to knock someone out who punches you in the head, I think it's pretty rude to tell someone you would do that to them if they punched you in the head. Because by bringing up the subject out of the blue, you are in effect saying that you think they might hit you. So I would say it depends on how the subject was raised.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 02:40 AM
1

As I said, though, he should have called the fuzz. but he didn't. Why? Because society conditions people to not take female violence seriously. That's what makes it a MR issue. We don't really know, though, do we? I suspect it is true, but I don't know for sure. I could point to some evidence, and you could point to some counter evidence. I'm telling you why I think it is a MR issue. I suspect a lots of women's rights issues are just as debatable.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 10:09 PM
1

I only read the first page (my internet connection is flaky) of the article but it seemed to me that the author was talking about mothers welcoming closeness and emotional openness in boys instead of teaching them to repress their feelings. I think that's a wonderful idea. I don't get the hostility to the article that's being expressed here.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 04:40 PM
2

How does dragging the girl out by her hair not count as 'laying your hands on someone'? Or "shaking" the male roommate awake?
/r/MensRights05/10/10 04:28 PM
4

It's an MR issue for two reasons: He was not conditioned by society to view female aggression as a big deal worthy of calling the police. Until society conditions men and women to view female aggression as a serious issue when it happens, we have a men's rights problem. If he had called the police, do you think the new media would have run with the story, or ignored it? I'm betting they would have ignored it, as it was at odds with the male aggressor female victim narrative.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 04:26 PM
1

I get that (except the part about "until the 20th century", as the ability of women to have separate property and legal existance has had its ups and downs throughout history) those were serious disadvantages of the female role though history. What I don't get is how you think those are obviously worse than what men had to put up with through history. Do you have a rough idea what I am referring to, or are you completely unaware of any of the male disadvantages?
/r/MensRights05/10/10 04:12 PM
1

It only makes sense to make promises about things that you have control over. It's not his fault if, as a couple, the two of you are infertile, so of course not. Quit changing my questions into ones you want to answer.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 10:16 AM
1

It's not. But if he works longer hours, and travels more, then it is.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 10:10 AM
1

I am not asking for a list of female historical burdens, and I asking for an accounting that weighs the male and female historical burdens against each other, and concludes that the female burdens were harsher. Because I think the male list is pretty weighty as well and is not obviously lighter than the female one.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 12:01 AM
1

The reason the median female income is 75% of the median male income is that men work longer hours at more difficult and risky work. That is, indeed, equal and just.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 11:59 PM
1

Not unless there is a signed legal contract/document. Getting married entails making certain promises to each other, and default agreements that are in place unless specifically agreed to otherwise. So we are arguing about what those commonly understood promises should be taken to be. I will not argue this point. That the prospect of 18 years of child support is enough of a consequence to establish some standing of a man in the issue of whether or not his wife gets an abortion? Yes, I agree you …
/r/MensRights04/10/10 11:52 PM
1

Good faith effort? You seem to be arguing that no woman in her right might would ever get pregnant and carry a baby to term. If that's how you feel, then shouldn't you just refuse to have sex with a man under those conditions? I think you are simply amplifying the burden of pregnancy to nullify any claim men have to equal treatment before the law. You are coming across as a female supremicist. Pregnancy is just one of several stresses women bear that men do not in life. Men also bear many stress…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 12:57 AM
1

Suppose a man says to you that he would like to try to have a child with you, but he won't agree to have sex with you to try to get you pregnant unless you agree to make a good faith effort to see the pregnancy through. That is, barring any unusual medical complications that may require an abortion to safeguard your health, you have to agree to not have an abortion (and not smoke, or drink, or do other things that would endanger the health of the fetus). You say OK, have sex, get pregnant, chang…
/r/MensRights03/10/10 02:06 PM
1

First of all, thanks for saying that. Secondly, I'm am going to try to engage carolinax in a longer conversation on this point and would like to hear your response to my arguments. Here's my opening: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dkx1o/my_first_time_inmensrights_observations/c1150z7
/r/MensRights02/10/10 02:08 AM
2

But there can never be true equality on that issue... I'll make the connection clear in a moment, but if you would give me some leeway... Do you think that when two people get married that they generally promise to be faithful to each other sexually (I understand that two people can agree to have an open marriage but most people don't), and that there should be legal consequences to one cheating on the other? I think there should and the consequence should be that the wronged party gets a right …
/r/MensRights02/10/10 02:02 AM
1

How do you figure that women are generally worse off than men (now, and/or throughout history)?
/r/MensRights02/10/10 01:48 AM
1

So you are defining feminism thusly: The belief that men and women should have equal rights. The belief that women have fewer rights than men, and have for some time. So much so that the problems men face are hardly worth talking about.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 04:16 PM
1

Do you hate women? No. Did you develop your views because you've been burned in the past? A number of close male relatives of mine have been destroyed by the unfair family court system and unfair views of men held by society. Do you believe that men are passive because they don't want to anger women which would lead to a lack of sex? If men weren't passive, they would be harder to dispose of when the need arose (war, natural disaster or crisis, ....). Any society that didn't teach men to be read…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 08:03 PM
3

I am curious if you agree with me that there is no clear "more oppressed" gender, or if you agree with most people that women, generally, have it worse (now and throughout history).
/r/MensRights25/09/10 03:03 PM
1

And lastly, are there any of you who really feel that women have it better in the industrialized world? I don't think men have it any worse then women do overall in industrialized countries, nor do I think the reverse. The disadvantages of being male are very real, and they get a lot less press than the disadvantages of being female. Most revolve around society treating men as disposable ("women and children first"). Men are encouraged to take more risks with their lives and more stress, which i…
/r/MensRights25/09/10 03:59 AM
4

they’ve fought hard for it, Have they? What makes you so sure? You mean women generally, or feminists in particular? Im a scientist so I researched them: i met them, read the papers, read the blogs and my conclusion is that they are not our enemy. Which feminist authors did you read? What did they have to say about men's rights? Give any mainstream media outlet 2 stories, one about a feminist who wants equality and respects men and women as equals and a story about a feminist who hates men and t…
/r/MensRights25/09/10 03:29 AM
6

Pierce: That was a great connection. False rape accusations have a long history. I wonder what happened to Ms. Comins's career since her 1991 quote?
/r/MensRights23/09/10 05:56 PM
15

She has an interview over at salon here: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview/index.html Glenn Sacks is coveing this story here: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=5036 Check out this quote from the Salon piece: I'm fairly close to a man still in prison, and really believe he is innocent. I know how he's suffered. I know he's 80 years old and in ill health. He's spent 20 years in prison, for no reason. If every elementary school child is now taught how to protect …
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:20 AM
1

How is that any more fair than forcing a man to pay child support on a kid he doesn't want? They are both equally fair, in my opinion. I think getting married means you are making certain promises to each other. And it's only fair that people keep their promises, or pay a penalty for not keeping them, especially when one person commits resources to a project that another person promised they would see through. If promises like that are not enforcable, then society can't function. One promise you…
/r/MensRights20/09/10 01:31 AM
1

The law only gets involved when contraception fails, and the law is trying to have it both ways. Improving male contraception does nothing to address the underlying problem in the law.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 08:16 PM
1

But if the woman has to choose between having a baby she doesn't want, and losing her possessions/children, with no consequences for the man, The consequences to the man are that he has to raise the child and support it as well. How is that 'no consequences'? The inequality lies in women's ability to give it up once it's born, which men don't have As a practical matter, women are aided and abetted in numerous ways that make it easy for them to give up a baby for adoption without having to get th…
/r/MensRights19/09/10 08:14 PM
1

But, it can be assumed that if the overwhelming number of single parent families are headed by women, it is likely that men are more likely to leave children than women. Not if the courts are awarding custody to the mother because of an anti-male bias. Again, there are two possible explanations for why women get custody 90% of the time: men don't want full custody men can't get it.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 08:09 PM
2

That's certainly more fair than the status quo. The other way to improve fairness would be to grant the man a right to a divorce with prejudice (he gets sole custody of any existing children and more then half the assets) if his wife gets an abortion in bad faith (over his objection, without medical cause). I think adultery should be handled the same way. The wronged party should get the right to a divorce with prejudice. Personally I prefer to make it harder for women to walk away from their re…
/r/MensRights19/09/10 03:37 AM
5

I think a child has a right to the support of the two people who chose to (or risked) bringing into being. If those two jointly decide to give up the baby for adoption to another couple that is better able to care for it, then I think that's valid. If one wants to give the baby up and the other doesn't, though, then I think the one that doesn't should have the right to force the other to pay support. A better example of the law trying to have it both ways is the anonymity of sperm donors. Does a…
/r/MensRights19/09/10 03:32 AM
3

The statistics point to men abandoning children far more often than women How do you figure? one statistic I found claimed 86% of single parent families are headed by women Is that because the men left voluntarily or because their wives divorced them against their will and were awarded sole custody? Unless you have some information about that, then you can't interpret that figure as 'men abandoning their children'.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 03:20 AM
1

I'm an MRA and I wouldn't say that.
/r/MensRights17/09/10 03:15 AM
1

Do you think it is fair to compare male circumcision to the form of FGM in which only the clitoral prepuce is removed (WHO type 1a)?
/r/MensRights15/09/10 11:52 AM
1

I agree. I just wouldn't describe that as saying he it offering to take more than he is offering to give.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 11:15 PM
2

He has made it clear to me that if I moved out, he would not take custody, nor would he pay child support or daycare fees. It sounds to me like you are being more than reasonable, and he is way out of line. You are willing to take more from this woman (companionship under terms that you are comfortable with) than you are willing to give I'm not sure how you figure corpseflower is offering to take more than he is willing to give. His terms seems honorable to me.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 02:00 AM
1

I am not sure you got that out of my posting. Care to explain?
/r/MensRights11/09/10 02:03 PM
1

Why have a statute of limitations on any crime that can be solved with DNA (murder, theft, assault, ...) then?
/r/MensRights11/09/10 02:15 AM
1

Makes sense to me, what does the number of prior sexual partners have to do with any given rape case? If she were in the habit of cheating on her husband, then accusing the men she is caught with of having raped her as a cover, that fact might, together with the other facts about the case, make it likely that her alleged rape was another false accusation. So prior sexual history can be very relevant to the defense. I really had to explain that to you?
/r/MensRights11/09/10 02:06 AM
2

Again, how does this relate to men's rights? Because if you reverse the genders (if a woman tapped a man on the shoulder, and he started yelling bloody murder, ...,) the passive bystanders would no longer be passive. They would step in and stop him. Now do you get it? Yes this is only an anecdote, but it relates to a well known phenomenon. It serves as a real life example. If you want to see a more careful demonstration of this (I mean assuming you are not just playing dumb): watch this abc news…
/r/MensRights09/09/10 12:52 AM
11

You don't consider being choked problematic? Really?
/r/MensRights08/09/10 10:49 AM
2

well done.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 03:31 AM
2

Patrick Hamilton, a Columbus adoption lawyer, said the rulings could create "a race to the courthouse" to see which is filed first - the adoption petition or the paternity suit. She says that like its a bad thing. Why? You would think that lawyers involved in family court would be praising anything that got fathers to claim paternity, and thus the obligation to support their children, seeing how often we hear what a problem dead beat dads are! Would she rather have men abandon their own children…
/r/MensRights26/08/10 02:03 AM
8

I would think that if he contacted the police, and told them the he has been checking the browser history and noticed the searches and thinks his wife is viewing kidde porn, they could get a warrant to surveil her. If she is stay-at-home, and she does this while he is away, is should be easy for the police to catch her in the act. He needs to get a lawyer and put this in motion within a day or so, though, before she springs her trap.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 11:03 PM
1

Um, you do remember that HIV attacks immune cells specifically, right? That's what makes it so evil :/ Yes, but removing part of the immune system as a way to reduce your risk toward HIV would only increase you risk toward other infections, so that rationale still doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 11:37 AM
6

I don't think your explanation makes sense. I think nature has solved the problem of protecting mucous membranes by placing specialized immune cells there that actually require the moisture to work properly. That's one reason why dry mouth increases your chance of getting an infection in your mouth. Drying it out hinders the natural action of the immune system. One of the jobs of the foreskin is to intercept bacteria and viruses before they get to the meatus (the opening of the urethra).
/r/MensRights17/08/10 11:21 PM
2

That really hit the spot, thank you for writing it.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 11:57 AM
6

From her earlier article: But men undoubtedly get screwed up by this stuff, too. Not screwed up as badly as women, to be sure... but not trivially, either. I care about it. And I think other feminists -- and other women and men who may not see themselves as feminists -- ought to care about it, too. Not screwed up as badly as women, to be sure. What makes you so sure of that?
/r/MensRights16/08/10 11:55 AM
1

Can you name any feminist writers or websites that appreciate what men are up against and argue in favor of men's rights? I'd also be curious if you could make a list of the complaints MRA's make that you think are legitimate.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 08:59 PM
2

I'd be curious to hear an outline of the conversation.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 03:46 AM
1

Useless? Hardly. If you can get people to believe that being falsely accused of rape is much less of an ordeal than being raped, you can get them to go along with getting rid of the traditional rights of the accused.
/r/MensRights07/08/10 07:38 PM
4

and the men who get raped in prison are often raped repeatedly throughout their sentence, a period of years. That is a far worse fate than being raped once.
/r/MensRights07/08/10 07:36 PM
1

Exactly. The only sense in which the public will acknowledge that false rape claims are bad is that they are bad for women. It's a very clear demonstration about how much society cares about the welfare of men.
/r/MensRights07/08/10 07:33 PM
1

why should we stand up for people who won't stand up for themselves? Well, the U.S. has quite a bit of Afghan blood on it hands, so we do have some responsibility toward the Afghan people to fix what we broke. I would be suprised if the average Afghan woman was worse off than the average Afghan man, though. Consider the cover with the mutilated woman. I'll bet that Afghan men bear the brunt of the violence in their society, even if you narrow the focus to only include mutilation.
/r/MensRights06/08/10 11:08 PM
2

Bravo, Karlsruhe. And let's have 3 cheers for Justice minister Sabine. Not only is this great news, I love the matter-of-fact tenor of the article.
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:42 PM
2

If the father opts out then the child will only have 1 person taking care of them, with 1 income stream. And that's not fair to the child. So are you against the anonimity of sperm donors when a single woman is the recipient for the same reason? If not, why not?
/r/MensRights02/08/10 09:44 PM
3

I am always amazed how people shake their heads at people who abuse the court system and not the court system that let's itself be abused.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 02:51 PM
4

I had the same reaction. Why is that a legal stunt? BTW, thanks for writing that.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 04:22 PM
1

Nicely laid out. I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to bring a baby to term, just as I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to not have sex with another man, if she decides to, for some reason. But if they are married, and one partner cheats on the other, then the wronged party should be able to get a divorce with prejudice (they get more than half the assets and they get custody of any children). I also think that should be the sanction a woman faces when she gets …
/r/MensRights26/07/10 06:27 AM
1

Or that she really wanted to have kids, and then refused to once they got married?
/r/MensRights21/07/10 10:00 PM
0

Of course. Why is that a bad thing?
/r/MensRights15/07/10 12:46 AM
1

You are suggesting that if he had not shown them the tape, then when they found no other evidence they would have simply dropped the case, since you should need more than he said she said to get a grand jury to indict?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 11:30 AM
1

The problem I have with the police and the courts going after him for that is that had it not been for his breaking that law, he would have been defenseless against them. Lack of evidence on their and her part should have been enough. In other words, his innocence should have been presumed, unless there was proof otherwise.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 03:39 AM
1

I think casual sex is a bad idea all around, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In my mind, picking up someone you don't know in a bar and sleeping with them that night is an extreme form of casual sex. If some guy were to do that with some frequency, though, then I think secretly videotaping his encounters is reasonable and rational (given the irrational and unreasonable premise that he is going to have that extreme form of casual sex).
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:40 AM
1

As you point out, the article is light on details, so it is hard to analyze in much depth. However, it is interesting how skeptical you are of his having had a good reason to suspect that he might need the tape, given that he then needed the tape That your skepticism is so out of line might lead one to think that you had some agenda you were trying to dress up reasonable sounding argument.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:04 AM
2

You can't have it both ways. I think if you want the law to be respected, then your first duty is to make the law respectable. If he said / she said is all it takes to convict a man of rape, if lack of any other evidence isn't enough to have a case thrown out before it even gets to a grand jury, let alone a trial jury, then secretly videotaping sexual encounters becomes a reasonable thing to do, and the law needs to change. Now, if he secretly videotaped a sexual encounter, then started distribu…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 11:59 PM
4

Being falsely convicted, losing your family and career, and going to prison for a period of years where you are likely to be raped on a weekly basis versus being embarassed. 2 wrongs. Hmmm.
/r/MensRights07/07/10 10:40 PM
0

Which pales in comparison to a false accusation of rape.
/r/MensRights07/07/10 10:36 PM
22

And newspapers can't quite believe that a woman would do something so despicable as to falsely accuse a man of raping them, so when they write a story about it, and the implication is clear that she did that, they still don't write anything directly accusatory against her. It is amazing to see the double think in the article.
/r/MensRights07/07/10 03:49 AM
2

I basically agree with what you just wrote. I would just add that my guess is that without Malcolm X, MLK would not have been taken as seriously. Your final point Could end up hurting you in the end. sums it up nicely. As much as I am intrigued by dishonest tactics, I have no heart for them. There is a tactic I frequently see women's rights advocates using that I find dishonest and I am wondering if you agree. Using the word 'Patriarchy'.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 11:48 AM
2

That was the most powerful point made in the article. I don't think that was true of many homes, though.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 11:44 AM
-3

Well done. You hit that one out of the ballpark.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 03:37 AM
2

It's a shameless rhetorical method used to make the point seem stronger and uncompromising. You are making a good point. I have to wonder, though, about its real world application. When there is a street fight going on, and one side unleashes an army of pushy assholes, isn't it suicide not to respond in kind? I have no stomach for dirty, underhanded tactics, but damn if they don't get results. Malcolm X was a master of the sort of tactics you are railing against, and he insulted and denigrated l…
/r/MensRights02/07/10 03:20 AM
1

I had the same take. I didn't think it was well reasoned, and I thought she was exaggerating too much. I think the fact that feminism made it acceptable for women to take work and education seriously is a good thing, and her "but then who will take care of the children" objection rings hollow with me. While I don't think much of modern feminist theory, the real obstacle to men's rights has always been traditional values, not feminist ones. The rallying cry against women's rights has always been:…
/r/MensRights02/07/10 03:07 AM
-1

People have to be responsible for the likely outcome of their actions. If you jerk off into a cup, knowing full well that the semen will be sold to a woman who will use it to get pregnant, then you should be responsible for the resulting child.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 12:22 PM
-1

Expected by whom? The mother? She doesn't have the right to bargain away the rights of a child. The child? The child was not asked, the choices of the parents were forced upon it, which is why it's rights are the issue.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:51 PM
-4

I see a conflict between the concept of child suppport and sperm donor privacy. The idea behind child support is that a child has a right to the love and financial support of the two people who chose to bring it into being, so if one parent tries to walk away, the other can force the other to support. Even if one parent makes a deal with the other that they won't sue for support, they still can because parents can't bargain away the rights of children. Such bargains are thrown out of court routi…
/r/MensRights30/06/10 03:52 AM
5

If he had hit her back, and she had gone to the police, there is a good chance she could have had him on serious charges. If he had tried to charge her for assault, I would be suprised if the police would have taken him seriously, or that the judge would have laughed him out of court.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 03:41 AM
7

Found this at the end of the article: ‘False allegations undermine genuine victims of rape and the continuing efforts of the criminal justice system to improve the confidence of those victims,’ she said. One of the boys attempted to commit suicide, but the real victim is not him but a future woman who won't be believed when she claims she was raped. Her comment makes no more sense than if, when discussing a rape conviction, I were to point out that next next time some guy is falsely accused of r…
/r/MensRights19/06/10 07:30 PM
5

I wonder how many feminists who protest that it is only the fringes the have significant anti-male voices among them, are aware of our and sympathize with our objections to VAWA, and how many would count the passage of VAWA as one of mainstream feminism's prouder moments?
/r/MensRights14/06/10 02:08 AM
1

I don't get your point. Why does the fact that rich, white men don't have much to worry about imply that the average man does not have much to worry about, particularly when it comes to his rights as a father in court? Or are you saying that whenever someone tries to talk about the rights of the average man, the subject is immediately dismissed by pointing out that rich white men don't have anything much to worry about, even though that is clearly a non-sequitr argument?
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:45 PM
1

In the grand sweep of history, men have been oppressed as much as women have, at least as near as we can tell. I don't see how you can say that women have been more oppressed than men have. How do you figure?
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:40 PM
1

I second this idea. It is amazing how well modern mp3 players can pick up conversations around you even when they are in your pocket. Keep one on you running at all times when you are at work. At the end of each day, discard any recordings that don't contain anything you need (which, of course, would be most days). Practice using software like audacity to pull out segments you want to keep. Eventually, she may catch you alone and say something incriminating, and you'll have it recorded. Once she…
/r/MensRights05/06/10 08:08 PM
1

How is that different from the example in the article where the mother promised to get an abortion if she got pregnant then reneged? Didn't everyone know what they were getting themselves into in that case? The reason that doesn't hold up in court is that the mother has no right to bargain away the child's right to the support of the two people who made it. Again, I don't see how sperm donation changes any of those considerations. Anonymity should not be protected.
/r/MensRights28/05/10 04:26 AM
6

Why doesn't that same logic apply to sperm donors? Why is their anonymity protected? How is that in the interest of children?
/r/MensRights27/05/10 01:49 AM
3

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on NOW and why you don't like them.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:14 AM
0

I am curious, do you ever use the word "patriarchy", as in "the patriarchy requires this" or "the patriarchy wants that"?
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:13 AM
2

I understand you are not my enemy. When did I saw you were?
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:05 AM
0

I think most men and most women believe that women should get primary custody in most cases, and that mothers are more important to a child's life than fathers are.
/r/MensRights26/05/10 04:12 PM
5

I really like what you wrote, the story of what led you to thinking about men's rights, and how you've illustrated your points with heartfelt examples from your own life. Bravo. And I'm here to tell you; I'm not unusual. I also think the average woman is not hostile toward the average man. First, you all have the same radial shitheads that the feminist movement does. Doesn't every pressure group? What did you expect? The time has come and gone for women vs. men's rights. Has it? VAWA is currentl…
/r/MensRights26/05/10 03:01 AM
1

So I wanted to ask, what do men dislike about notions of masculinity. The idea that a man's life and safety is worth less than a woman's. Witness how much attention society pays to the subject of female victims of rape, and how little it pays attention to the subject of prison rape. The idea that we have to watch men more carefully when they are around children, since they might molest them when we are not watching, and that we don't have to watch women as carefully. The idea that separating a m…
/r/MensRights23/05/10 12:51 AM
1

Well said. I have to pick a nit, though... Feminists may have a point that history is "HIStory", a story whose characters tend to overwhelmingly be male but those stories have very little to do with the average male inhabitant of history. The life of powerful / successful men has very little to do with the life of the average man or woman. The story of the average man is as untold as the story of the average woman. Why are men not associated with creation, construction, art, love? Good question.…
/r/MensRights23/05/10 12:26 AM
4

This makes a lot of intuitive sense, because generally speaking women are smaller than men, You have to sleep sometime. At that point, it doesn't matter how much stronger you are than the other person. All that matters is who is vicious and who is not. So the next time you are running your eye over a room full of people, don't ask yourself "which are the biggest people here", ask yourself "which are the most vicious"? I think women are men are equally vicious, and that in the general population,…
/r/MensRights20/05/10 03:07 AM
2

If someone is thinking of levelling a false accusation, they would naturally weigh their chance of succeeding against the penalities if they are caught. If you raise the chance of succeeding, or lower the chance of being caught and punished, of course you would increase the rate at which people decide to take the chance. Your comparison to murder is a good one. I don't think that if you accused someone of murder falsely you would easily walk away from it. You would likely face criminal penalitie…
/r/MensRights18/05/10 01:12 AM
2

It makes sense to me that it is easier for some women to falsely accuse someone of rape than admit that they were having sex to their parents (if they were raised with the value that you shouldn't have sex until after you are married), or for a woman to admit that she was cheating on her husband. That's hardly the reason society is having such a problem with false accusations, though. The bigger problem, I think, is that it is so hard to defend yourself against a false accusation of rape (or of …
/r/MensRights16/05/10 08:22 PM
-1

What would happen if this were posted to the women subreddit? I would hesitate to do that. I'm pretty sure it would be unwanted, at least if a regular mens rights member like me did it. edit: Jesus! All I have to do is think about posting on women and I get two down votes.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 01:28 AM
5

It really does my heart good to see so many mothers taking up the cause. I have often thought the men's movement would not really take off until lots of everyday women got involved, appalled at what is being done to the men in their lives.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 01:22 AM
1

excellent link
/r/MensRights12/05/10 11:34 PM
8

great article. thanks for finding it.
/r/MensRights12/05/10 08:46 AM
0

Well said
/r/MensRights08/05/10 09:55 PM
3

I salute you. That would not have occurred to me in a million years. It's brilliant.
/r/MensRights08/05/10 01:03 PM
1

What do you mean by 'tie the statistical likelihood of rape lies to the accuser'? Did the defense 'tie the statistical likelihood of delayed reporting to the defendant'?
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:15 PM
1

The problem with statistics is even if the statistics are 99 out of 100 times, a person lies, in this individual case it does not make the reporting witness any more likely or less likely to be lying ... gambler's fallacy Suppose I flip a coin 10 times, which we already know to have 50% chance of heads or tails, and it comes up heads 8 times. The gambler's fallacy would be to expect the next flip to have a greater chance of tails because of the earlier run of heads, thinking that over time they …
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:03 PM
0

You are saying that expert witness testimony about how often women who have been raped delay reporting is relevant if she was actually raped, and testimony about how likely women are to lie about being raped when they are not is relevant if she was not raped, therefore... I can't figure out what your next step is. Are you saying you should only allow expert witnesses to testify after the jury decides whether he is guilty or not? That the judge should disallow both sorts of testimony, or neither?
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:55 AM
1

confirmable symptoms can be faked, especially when talking about psychological syndromes.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:49 AM
1

Yes. And I am relying on the sense of the jurors to separate the wheat from the chaff. You are relying on the sense of the judge to allow / disallow certain lines of argument. You are aware of the fact that duelling expert witnesses are a common occurance, aren't you? Or did you think it was common for the judge to decide which expert witness (the defense's or the procecution's) they liked better and only allow that one, so as not to confuse the jury with the obvious fact that scientists often d…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:32 AM
2

Is that also how you feel about the expert testimony about how women delay reporting a rape? That it is the prosecutor's job to make sure that no juror that believes that no woman would hesitate to report a rape makes it to the jury? Besides, what if a potential juror lies because they want to punish women who accuse men of rape, or because they want to punish any man accused of rape? You don't think that happens? Maybe the ability of people to lie in different situations really isn't common kno…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:10 AM
5

It is common knowledge that people lie about all sorts of things. It is not common knowledge how often women lie about rape, or what the more common reasons for lying about rape are, and how trivial they can be (not wanting to get caught having an affair, not wanting to get caught going bar hopping by a parent, ...). Which is why the expert testimony should have been allowed. Similarly, it is not common knowledge what some of the more common reasons why women would delay reporting an event would…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:00 AM
1

It's like someone telling you that yellow teeth cause lung cancer No. It is like someone telling you that abused children grow up to be abusers. It is like someone telling you that early infant trauma can cause long lasting negative mental effects even if you have no conscious memory of the event. It's plausible.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 01:53 AM
2

It's one thing to say there is no evidence linking X to Y, if people had actually looked for any. It's another to say that when no one has even tried to look for it. And it is quite another to say that when people have been deliberately suppressing evidence. The (american) medical community has a vested interest in making sure no one looks to hard for any evidence of harm from circumcision. It society woke up to the harm circumcision does, the lawsuits would destroy the medical profession, consi…
/r/MensRights03/05/10 03:18 AM
1

a (dishonest) woman is never so strong as when armed with her weaknesses
/r/MensRights29/04/10 11:15 PM
1

If you want to know whether someone loves you, don't ask them, observe their behavior. Was he actively interested in your well being? Did he put serious effort into becoming a part of your world?
/r/MensRights28/04/10 09:18 PM
2

I gather from the title you chose, you are down on the article. I think his argument was more sophisticated and insightful than you are giving it credit for.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 10:51 PM
1

I agree that men should be entitled to a "legal abortion" or a legal separation and disowning of the fetus; as much as any woman is entitled to abortion. I just wanted to thank you for saying that and identifying yourself as a feminist. I don't think there are too many people (feminist or traditionalist), outside of MRAs, who think that men should have the right to a financial abortion, or that it is only fair they they do seeing as how women have a right to abort (I think most people would not …
/r/MensRights27/04/10 10:45 PM
0

circumcision?
/r/MensRights26/04/10 11:33 PM
2

Even if I granted a fetus the full rights of a person, I would still say that a woman who was raped has the right to abort the fetus, as she didn't consent to have her body used. I agree that whether a fetus has the rights of a person is as big an issue as the body control one, I don't think it overrides it completely, though. You realize that there are people who would disagree that a woman who was raped should be able to get an abortion, and that we would be disagreeing over the body control i…
/r/MensRights26/04/10 11:32 PM
4

Because that's the main reason why I think women should have the right to an abortion. There's a deeper principle at work than the 'right to an abortion', it's ownership of your body. The sole right to control what operations you have or have not done to your body. What basic principle do you think was behind the right to an abortion?
/r/MensRights26/04/10 10:47 AM
5

the rights to have abortion are one of the good things to come out of the feminist movement. I strongly believe in the right to choose, and I thought it was a common view among other people here I don't think anyone has the right to force another person to have or not have an operation. However, I also think that people have an obligation to keep their promises, especially the ones that require other people to commit resources to each other. If a married woman gets pregnant by her husband, and h…
/r/MensRights26/04/10 03:06 AM
4

You mean you never use your personal experiences in life to try to understand what is going in society, and you only build up your beliefs by reading the results of large scale, carefully constructed, behavioral studies (or perhaps by conducting them yourself)? Really? It would never occur to you to, perhaps, have a discussion with some friends about what you think your personal experience might mean on a larger scale? I think the original poster was offering his thoughts in good faith, and not …
/r/MensRights25/04/10 03:24 PM
6

Here's the contradiction that most stuck out for me from the article: Feminists can be defined as those women and men who recognize that the earth doesn't revolve around anybody's son--or around any one group
/r/MensRights25/04/10 02:43 PM
2

“The question is how to remedy that. First to stop any future child support requirements on that person who is not the father; second to do so in a way that doesn't disrupt totally the life of the child,” said Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland County. In other words, don't fix it. You can't take the rights of men who are victims of paternity fraud seriously unless you are willing to disrupt the lives of the children whose mothers put them in that position. In makes no more sense than to say,"How d…
/r/MensRights24/04/10 08:42 PM
1

Why do you suppose men generally opt for the means with the higher success rate?
/r/MensRights17/04/10 02:44 AM
1

It should take some sort of evidence and not just the presumption that fathers are male, and therefore, much more suspect than women for being child molesters/abusers. As far as the Australian case (I don't know the case; I'm working from your description of it), if he was a convicted sex offender, then I would find unsupervised visitation outrageous. Whatever evidence got him convicted of a sex offense against children should also render him as unfit for purposes of custody rights. If your argu…
/r/MensRights16/04/10 04:05 PM
1

I think the de facto statistical preference represents an unfair bias against the fitness of fathers as parents. I agree the presumption is de facto and not de jure. I don't see why you find that so significant. Most discrimination is de facto and nor de jure, and has been for some time. What's your objection to my fix: a rebuttable presumption that both parents are equally fit.
/r/MensRights16/04/10 10:25 AM
1

I am not sure what theory of children's rights you are advocating. Here's mine. Children have a right to the love and support of the two parents that chose to bring them into the world (or risked bringing them into the world by voluntarily having sex). Parents have a "right" to contact with and guardianship of children, but only because it is in the interest of children that they do. In other words, the rights of parents are just another way of talking about the rights of children. If the court …
/r/MensRights16/04/10 02:46 AM
2

it is my sense that it springs mainly from a concern that children will be at higher risk of being placed with abusive parents That concern is tantamount to saying that men are far more likely to abuse their children than women, is it not? That's pure misandry.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 10:33 PM
11

Thanks for writing that. Well done. I've started reading your other posts and I'm hooked.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 12:40 PM
10

I don't think she argues in good faith.
/r/MensRights15/04/10 12:38 PM
1

Is concept also true for a sober woman that has sex with a man the is "too drunk to give consent" or does it only work one way?
/r/MensRights14/04/10 02:26 AM
1

what a fascinating book. Thanks for pointing it out. I added it to my wish list on amazon.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 02:09 AM
1

That's an excellent example of how easily the civil rights of men can be swept away under the modern terms of the public debate, simply by holding up the possibility of a future victim. In other words, "Future Crime". This quote made my blood run cold: "The bill allows us to continue to help victims," said Lisae C. Jordan of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "People wanted to come up with something that was fair. Like [in] any compromise, everyone is a bit unhappy." Compromise? What…
/r/MensRights11/04/10 12:07 AM
1

That was beautiful substitution you pulled off. It brings out a lot of points that were swept under the rug the way the framed the article. Let me say, though, that I really liked the article and found it insightful. I applaud her.
/r/MensRights10/04/10 11:56 PM
1

I wouldn't go so far as to say the problem is mostly female attitudes and not male attitudes, although she does seem to lay the problem at the feet of men when she says: "Come on Men! Fight for your right to be soft!" I think those two sentences really weakened the article.
/r/MensRights10/04/10 11:53 PM
1

How would restricting a father's access to his children reflect a real concern for the safety of children against abuse, unless that concern reflects (and therefore reinforces) the stereotype that the fitness of men as parents is questionable, next to the fitness of women as parents?
/r/MensRights10/04/10 11:37 PM
3

Very well said.
/r/MensRights04/04/10 03:27 AM
1

Any luck so far?
/r/MensRights28/03/10 10:26 PM
3

I propose that if you are thinking of getting married, ask youself how hard working the woman is. Is she filled with ideas and ambitions of what she is going to do in her career? Does she ever stay up late working on something because she is fascinated with it and can't tear herself away from it? Because if she isn't, if she has no particular interest in work, and you marry her, the law will make her your obligation, with no corresponding obligations leveled on her (if she cheats on you, then ge…
/r/MensRights28/03/10 01:53 PM
3

Thanks for telling your story. I think it is very important for young men to realize what they are risking when they get married and have kids, and what to look out for. My bottom line is not that young men shouldn't get married, but that they need to know what warning signs to look out for. You can trust me when I say that nobody could have seen through her act, at least I think so. She was a perfect liar. I suspect that if you had been better prepared, you could have seen through the act, and …
/r/MensRights27/03/10 04:06 PM
2

That was truly magnificent, and let me start my day with good cheer. Thanks!
/r/MensRights26/03/10 11:08 AM
0

What aspects of that health care / education do you think lead to lower rates of STDs? Are you supposing Europeans wash more frequently? Use condoms?
/r/MensRights26/03/10 11:06 AM
3

If circumcision is so effective in stopping the spread of STDs, then how do you explain the fact that in Europe hardly anyone is circumcised and they have a lower incidence of AIDS and STDs than the U.S.?
/r/MensRights25/03/10 10:31 PM
0

"He said, she said" isn't admissible, I think there are many innocent men that were convicted of rape solely on the basis of "he said, she said." If only it were true that "he said, she said" were not admissable. I take your point though. In his case, "he said, she said" is not going to get him far.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 10:48 AM
6

Yes. Very much so. Men's rights is about, among other things, allowing men a broader gender role (loosening the straight jacket, as it were). I also consider the plight of lesbian social mothers directly analogous to what men go through when they are pushed away from their children by the courts after a divorce.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 11:14 PM
2

I had a similar thought to yours. You need to leave the mp3 player in your pocket, running in voice record mode. If you have to pause to put it in record mode, that would be a dead give away. If you leave it running, you can pull out the important parts later. Saying "Ouch, what did you hit me for!" out loud is a great strategy. Just don't overdo it or she might get suspicious. In fact, saying it that way might already tip her off, since she probably figures he already knows damn well why she is…
/r/MensRights18/03/10 04:01 PM
2

I wonder what would happen if you tried talking to the police (perhaps the officer who wrote the report)? You might try explaining what she is doing to you and the kids and ask if they could set up a sting in your house with their cameras and a warrant.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 03:54 PM
3

I know lots of people have suggested you buy a video camera and hide it to catch her on tape. Much easier than that is to keep an mp3 player in your pocket and running at all times that you are home (in voice recorder mode). I have a creative labs sansa and I am amazed at how well it picks up conversations in a room, even when it is in my pocket. I record all my doctor's visits that way, in case I forget anything important. I'll bet it would have no problem running for 6 hours straight. I would …
/r/MensRights18/03/10 10:35 AM
10

PH: Thanks for all the work you do running your blog, telling the stories of the falsely accused who are presumed guilty. I don't often comment on your posts. I don't know what to say, except "thank you." I know if I were to forward this story to some of my female acquaintances, I would be blown off with "nice anecdote which proves nothing." As if they never suspected the truth of things that they didn't already have hard data on. There is a large spectrum between 'means nothing' and 'proves han…
/r/MensRights16/03/10 04:20 PM
2

If you are going to accuse black men of walking away from their children, then you should have some evidence that is what is going on and not, say, that family court are quick to separate black fathers from their children. He has not given his speech yet but somehow I doubt there will be much in the way of analysis of why there are so many fatherless children in the black community.
/r/MensRights14/03/10 02:04 PM
5

If that hate were to become all consuming, I wonder which movement they might join where they could indulge in that hate?
/r/MensRights10/03/10 11:59 AM
3

well done.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 02:50 AM
1

Sorry for taking ages to respond to you. I don't think that the bias against fathers is so bad that any unfounded allegation would be taken at face value. If it were that bad, then there would be no point in tweaking the legal system at all. Anytime a woman wanted to hang a man out to dry, she could simply make up an allegation, the court would believe her, and he would go to jail. I think the nature of the bias is that men are thought to be worse parents than women, which is why they tend to wi…
/r/MensRights08/03/10 02:43 AM
1

Assuming there is some reduction in the liklihood of a urinary tract infection (which is rare to begin with) with removal of the foreskin, might that not also be accompanied by a rise in the liklihood of other infections / problems that we haven't thought to attempt to measure? If your salivary glands stopped producing very much saliva, wouldn't that increase the chance that you would get in infection in your mouth because the immune system relies on the mucous membranes being moist to function?…
/r/MensRights04/03/10 03:24 AM
1

I don't think there is anything wrong with no-fault divorce by itself. When coupled with how unfair the courts are with alimony and child support orders, though, the combination becomes absurdly unjust to fathers. I don't know much about what pre-no-fault divorce was like but I think a sensible policy would work like this: if both sides agree to a divorce, then they can get one at any time. If one side wants to impose a divorce on the other, then they either have to show fault (like adultery or …
/r/MensRights04/03/10 03:04 AM
1

I think child support amounts should be based on how much it actually takes to raise a child in the area the child is growing up at some reasonable minimum level and not on how much it takes to provide an upper middle class lifestyle. I also don't think child support amounts should be raised above that minimum level because the non-custodial parent's income is above average at the time of the split.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 02:56 AM
1

That piece could not have had less information in it. It should have started out with the question of how much money is spent to raise the median kid. How could you do a piece on child support without asking that question? There is no fucking way that approaches 2700/month, as you pointed out.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 11:59 AM
3

So what fraction of men and women become sexual predators?
/r/MensRights01/03/10 11:38 PM
9

Thanks for posting. I think sharing experiences like this is one of the more important purposes of mensrights. Both for understanding the breadth and depth of society's misandry, and for the theraputic value in realizing that lots of people are starting to stand up for men. It warms my heart and puts a smile on my face.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 11:32 PM
3

I haven't run across Saydrah's posts much in the last several months, although I used to run into them a lot more. What's all the fracas about?
/r/MensRights01/03/10 12:37 AM
6

Hi. Noticed that you are getting beat up on. Just wanted to say for the record that I find you an open minded and creative thinker and I especially appreciate your contributions to mensrights stories and comments.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 10:52 PM
6

I second ignatiusloyola's comment. I'd love to here about what happens in your class.
/r/MensRights28/02/10 10:41 PM
8

That was a great article. Thanks for posting it. My favorite argument from the article: if circumcision is so great at reducing the incidence of HIV, then why does the U.S. have one of the higher HIV rates in the western world, and the highest circumcision rate?
/r/MensRights27/02/10 03:14 AM
5

Excellent article. One thing that grabbed me about this article was this: Then, after Peguero recanted her story in March 2009, it took yet another nine >months before he was freed. What possible reason can the court have to take 9 months for him to be freed after she recanted? I don't get how one person can be put behind bars solely on another's testimony. She also played the criminal justice system - the police, the Manhattan district attorney's office, a judge and two juries - for fools. They…
/r/MensRights27/02/10 01:11 AM
3

If you were rendered color blind at birth, in a society that renders 95% of its people color blind needlessly, you'd feel the same way. You would see a lot of color blind people leading rich, meaningful, fulfilled lives and say to yourself,"It's not so bad"
/r/MensRights26/02/10 01:55 AM
1

Thanks for posting this. It will interesting to see if the media pays it any attention. I sometimes think that one role circumcision plays in our society is to demonstrate the disposability of men. If society thought that it did not have the right to send lots of men to their deaths on a moments notice (to deal with a natural disaster or war), I think it would get very nervous. If you can convince parents to let a doctor take a knife to their infant son's genitals, though, then you have demonstr…
/r/MensRights26/02/10 01:50 AM
6

I don't understand how any self respecting court of law can adopt a standard that would require it to reward fucking (literally!) fraud. If 'the best interest of the child' does not imply 'the best legitimate interest of the child', if truth and justice have no place when this mighty principle is brought forth, then why isn't is in the best interest of the child for Bill Gates to be pay the child's support? Surely that is in the best interest of the child? If the phrase 'the best interest of the…
/r/MensRights20/02/10 12:17 AM
1

One of my wife's cousins was set up by his wife (she slapped herself on one side of her face, then called 911 and said her husband was beating her) and falsely accused of domestic violence against her. Another one of my wife's cousins and his wife got a divorce after 5 years. They have no kids and he was supporting her while she toyed around with preparing to go to medical school. She is taking him to the cleaners. One of my wife's nephews in Iran (he's in his late 30's) went to jail because his…
/r/MensRights09/02/10 05:08 PM
1

My wife showed me that article the other day (we get the washington post delivered to our house). I had the same thought that you did: a few years ago a mainstream newspaper like the post would deny that abused husbands existed so this is great progress. I have to take issue with this piece of her advice though: Go to the police for an order of protection, and don't have any contact with your wife other than through a lawyer. She left out an very important step: record your wife abusing you with…
/r/MensRights05/02/10 01:29 AM
4

If you are in public and someone realizes they are in your way and that person apologizes and moves aside, it’s probably a woman. The original poster has obviously never been to a supermarket and tried to get past the women's shopping carts, which are strategically placed in the aisles to maximize the blockage. If the woman's husband is there, though, he will probably notice and rush to get it out of your way as you approach (while his wife remains oblivious)
/r/MensRights25/01/10 06:44 PM
1

CG: Thanks! No, I had deduced that explanation from this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
/r/MensRights14/01/10 12:02 PM
1

That was a beautiful explanation. I'm adding that to my personal archive of kick-ass arguments.
/r/MensRights13/01/10 10:31 PM
2

The biological root of the disposability of men is this: it only takes a few males to keep all of the females pregnant. A given population can lose most of its males and recover in a single generation. A population that loses most of its females is done for. I believe that nature may have taken advantage of this and that it rolls the dice more often with males. That is, the expression of some genes linked to the y chromosome may exhibit a wider variation in males than females. I believe that all…
/r/MensRights13/01/10 10:30 PM
10

I really like your comment. I'd like to dispute one point though: It's a general given that men aren't in much concern about being beat to death or some such. While the average man is more physically powerful than the average woman, that advantage is taken off the table by the fact that if there is any mark on her after a fight, and she calls the police, they will believe him to be the aggressor, even if she did a lot of damage to him and she only has a bruise from where he tried to push her bac…
/r/MensRights09/01/10 03:06 AM
2

I'm a woman, and have recently had my eyes opened regarding circumcision. I'd be curious to know what opened your eyes. I am amazed at how hard it is to sway people from going along with the American pro-circ crowd to being anti-circ. I could not believe how much determination I had to have to prevent my son from being circumcised. And I never would have guessed that before I went through it. If my wife's OB/GYN hadn't turned out to be very anti-circ himself (once I insisted we ask him his opini…
/r/MensRights09/01/10 02:43 AM
1

I am not sure I am following you. You seem to be saying that while you think comparing MGM and FGM is valid, the average American would stop listening to you the second you made that comparison, and we ultimately want the average American to change their mind, so then it doesn't make sense to compare MGM and FGM if you want to sway them. Is that what you are saying?
/r/MensRights09/01/10 02:35 AM
3

I think lots of american men who were circumcised at birth don't want to contemplate the idea that something valuable was stolen from them. Getting their sons circumcised is a way of denying that possibility.
/r/MensRights08/01/10 01:55 PM
2

I don't think that comparing it to FGM is useful. So you don't think comparing the removal of the foreskin with removal of the clitoral prepuce is useful, but you lump removal of the clitoral prepuce together with clitorectomy+infibulation in the catch-all term FGM?
/r/MensRights08/01/10 02:21 AM
2

I'd be curious to hear more of what's behind your point. What is wrong with complaining in general, or the complaining the men's rights does in particular?
/r/MensRights28/12/09 01:28 PM
3

You say 'whining' and 'bitching' almost like those were bad things to do. What's wrong with complaining? BTW, you yourself are complaining that other people are complaining. So even you can see how it is a good thing sometimes.
/r/MensRights27/12/09 11:06 PM
1

I agree. I think that was our "shot heard around the world".
/r/MensRights27/12/09 10:08 PM
1

That's quite a compliment, thank you.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 04:11 PM
4

Good article. Thanks for posting it.
/r/MensRights23/12/09 12:51 AM
1

Why would you refer to the position you were defending as a straw-man? You mean you were not sincerely advocating your side?
/r/MensRights23/12/09 12:46 AM
1

Then I suspect that the laws of your country are creating artificial constraints limiting the growth that should be happening.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 02:13 PM
2

It is pretty clear to me that we are labor constrained, although I consider what an engineer, doctor, and teacher do to be labor. You seem to be using the term 'labor constrained' to mean 'primairly constrained by the lack of unskilled labor.' We needed a lot more factory workers in the aftermath of WWII than we do now (as a fraction of the workforce). I'm not talking about factory workers.
/r/MensRights21/12/09 08:34 PM
2

The phrase 'the welfare of the child', if it means anything, has to mean the welfare of children generally, not one particular child. Do you see how reducing the payoff for paternity fraud is in the interests of children generally? The very child you are saying it would suck to be would be less likely to be in that awful position if his mother (and mothers generally) was not able to get away with paternity fraud. So, it is in the 'best interests of the child' that paternity fraud be grounds for …
/r/MensRights21/12/09 05:56 PM
2

I think the author is working from a good set of concepts but is missing a few things: the societies that figured out how to integrate women into the workplace (once non-farm work, that women weren't physically unable to perform, became plentiful and more productive than farm-work), and that therefore doubled their effective workforces, were destined to take power and resources away from those that didn't. So a lot of the progress women made (in business and education) was not because men were h…
/r/MensRights21/12/09 05:42 PM
2

First of all, thanks for starting this thread. It's fascinating and you are doing a great job with it. To answer this question: I don't understand the power that the media has, or why it's chosen to demonise men this way. People need to feel like they, and society, are in control of the world around them. Everything has to happen for a reason. So we gravitate toward simple explanations. Women are innocent and nuturing. Men are ambitious and dangerous. Anything that doesn't fit into those soothin…
/r/MensRights18/12/09 02:55 AM
5

This inability of soceity to protect the safety of the men it puts behind bars, is a human rights tragedy of the first order. As Oscar Wilde once put it,"If England doesn't treat her prisoner's any better than she treated me, then she doesn't deserve to have any." When was the last time you heard a joke whose punch line was some guy was raped in prison? If Jay Leno can go a week without telling one, it would be unusual. And when was the last time you heard a joke whose punchline was that some wo…
/r/MensRights13/12/09 08:45 PM
1

I have often had the experience of trying to express some of the significant problems men face (trying to discuss some of the items in the list loosediamond gave) and had the person I was talking to attempt to shut me down with the observation that "men have all the power, so how can they be victims in any non-trivial sense?" The reason that tactic tends to work is that saying "men have all the power" is obviously true in the sense of my first statement above, and it is easy for a listener to ac…
/r/MensRights11/12/09 02:11 AM
1

Would you agree that these two statements are very different? Or do you think each one implies the other? Almost all of the really powerful positions in the world (heads of state, heads of huge companies, ...) are held by men. The average man has significantly more power than the average woman.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 03:19 AM
1

No it's not up for debate. I don't think women face fewer disadvantages than men do. How did you get that from what I wrote?
/r/MensRights09/12/09 10:55 PM
2

Is it really up for debate that, broadly, men by and large wield the most political and economic power in the world? That's a vague statement. It could be taken to mean that the very few people at the very top are mostly all men (true enough), or it could be taken to mean that the average man wields a lot more power than the average woman (not true, which your list of male disadvantages illustrates). Do you see how those are two very different statements? Do you see how the vague statement you m…
/r/MensRights09/12/09 02:59 AM
3

And thank you for yours. You are a real class act.
/r/MensRights09/12/09 02:44 AM
2

You're right, it does work the other way around. Which I also don't get. When I say I don't get it, I mean I don't sympathize with it, not that I don't understand why people adopt that strategy.
/r/MensRights09/12/09 02:42 AM
13

As an MRA, I feel that most feminists (actually, society in general) are pretty hostile toward MRAs. I understand that it's not hard to find MRA sites that view feminism as the enemy. What I don't get is why I see the hostile MRA so often used to tar the thoughtful ones. For example, in the article above, the author only discusses the MRAs that are hostile to feminism as if those are the only ones worth talking about. If you're game, I'm curious to know what you think of Glenn Sacks and Pelle Bi…
/r/MensRights08/12/09 03:32 AM
10

I accept the MRA label and I think men's oppression has little to do with feminism. Most of it is rooted in the fact that society treats men as disposable. That disposability has been a fact of life for thousands of years and feminism had nothing to do with it. However, I have also noticed that feminists like to view men as oppressors (as if men as a class have oppressed women as a class) which I don't think has ever been true. If it were true, it would make women the only oppressed class in all…
/r/MensRights08/12/09 03:21 AM
2

I think what's going on is this: society for a long time has encouraged men to take risks and women to raise children (and to not take risks). Until recently (the last 100 years or so), this made a lot of economic sense. A society could lose most of it's adult male population and still recover (numerically, anyway) in a single generation but it could not lose much of its female population and still recover. So it was not as big a deal if a man (compared to a woman) was killed or maimed, and it w…
/r/MensRights15/11/09 07:54 PM
2

My wife's cousin had his life destroyed when his wife faked a domestic violence incident. His wife was not as bad as the woman you describe but not much better. I was unaware of the men's rights movement before that incident, but as I sought out help for him I ran across glenn sack's website, and I have been closely following cases like the one you describe ever since. I am still not sure what to make of it all (I don't think it is sound advice to tell men to, en masse, refuse to get married and…
/r/MensRights14/11/09 11:24 PM
8

I was going to quote that and I see you beat me to it. Anyone happen to know how likely you are to experience a violent assault in your life if you are a man or a woman? How much you want to bet violence against men is a much bigger problem than violence against women? Just to get the ball rolling, let's just talk about murder. Here are the numbers on murder (from U.S justice department site here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm): Male offender/Male victim 65.3% Male offender/Fe…
/r/MensRights07/11/09 02:19 AM
10

I don't get it. How would giving a harsh sentence to a woman who blatantly lied about being raped make it less likely that a woman who was raped, but who perhaps couldn't prove it, would bring charges? I could see that concern if we had a case where a woman was convicted of making a false accusation on scant evidence. This was an open and shut case. Is there some sort of slippery slope argument afoot here? Something along the lines of "Once you start having sympathy for falsely accused men, you …
/r/MensRights31/10/09 10:07 PM
2

Nicely put. I was brought into the fold when a male relative of mine was jailed on a fake DV charge and his wife proceeded to separate him from his money and daughter. She slapped herself on the right side of her face to make it look like he hit her then called 911. When the officer arrived she even made the mistake of holding the ice bag on the left (which the police officer picked up on and wrote in his report). Did the officer put two and two together and use his discretion appropriately? Of …
/r/MensRights29/10/09 01:52 AM
2

What was she doing to you? You won't specify.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 11:21 PM
4

True, but it can also be a tool of defense. I honestly don't see what was so objectionable about wanna_dance's posts. You are not being up-front about what you don't like.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 11:20 PM
9

I was having a hard time following you there because you were accusing without showing examples or any reasoning, but then when I saw you capitalized some of your words, I was convinced.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 10:19 PM
2

How was w_d trying to whitewash male abuse by women? I don't get it.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 10:16 PM
1

You've never heard of perjury? Really? It is considered a serious offense, and rightly so.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 12:30 AM
2

Genuine irrationality is very rare. All human behavior is serving a purpose. If someone's behavior strikes you as irrational, it's almost always because the problem you think they are solving is not the one they are really solving. I haven't tangled with Aerik enough to know exactly what he's up to, and I don't want to, but here's one guess: perhaps it pays the bills in some sense. Taking care of women is a big industry and taking care of men is not. Lots of men are employed in taking care of wo…
/r/MensRights19/09/09 01:33 AM
7

I find it amazing that he-said she-said is enough to convict a man of rape. I wonder what the male-female breakdown of the jury was? It would be fascinating to interview a juror in such a case and see how they defend finding someone guilty with only the flat assertions of each side as evidence.
/r/MensRights08/09/09 01:27 AM
1

I see the female gender as being the source of half of the problems men face. I see men as being the source of the other half. Ditto as a source of solutions.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 03:46 AM
2

If it were true that men tend to be mean toward fat women, wouldn't you be making her point (that men deserve her contempt for being shallow jerks)? I would be suprised if men, on average, were any meaner toward fat people than women are. I would also be suprised if her being fat is what really turned her into the men-just-suck-evangelist that she is.
/r/MensRights15/08/09 10:34 PM
1

This article is awfully short on detail. How exactly was the stripper in a position to force this on him? I'm not saying she didn't. I just want to know how.
/r/MensRights30/07/09 09:40 PM
1

I fully understand that they should not break those promises. OK. There should be a mechanism for that and I think that mechanism, to some extent exists in prenuptial agreements. I don't think most people would agree with us that a woman should not be able to break the implicit promise in the scenario I outlined to make a good faith effort to have the child. They would consider it a violation of her right to an abortion. As a consequence of that, I think any prenuptial agreement to that effect w…
/r/MensRights11/07/09 03:11 AM
1

I may be wrong, but it seems more likely that the bulk of not-medically-neccessary-non-rape-abortions (NMNRA) are performed on younger single women. That may be true. I think most married women would act honorably in my scenario. But if you are concerned about the unfairness toward men, I think the most unfairness occurs when men are acting honorably (they are married and ready to accept the responsibility of having a child) and when women are acting dishonorably (they got pregnant with the unde…
/r/MensRights11/07/09 02:43 AM
1

My saying 'it was a black mark against men's rights that they banned you' was just another way of saying that I didn't like her being banned. I think Men's Rights is a great subreddit. I am a big fan of kanuk876's posts. And does Saydrah, and by extension her fellow moderators and her subreddit, deserve your praise? I thought her acknowledgment of my basic point was a pretty cool thing for a feminist (or anyone else, really, that wasn't already a hard core MRA) to do. I have no idea who her foll…
/r/MensRights10/07/09 12:16 AM
-1

I'm not against abortion, I just think the current laws are completely skewed in favor of the mother. I see two ways of equalizing the power men and women have when a woman gets pregnant so that it is not so completely unfair to men. One way is what you are suggesting, which is to allow men to walk away from the responsibilities they willingly undertake when they consent to sex. Another way is to make it harder for women to walk away from their responsibilities when they consent to sex. I have a…
/r/MensRights09/07/09 10:16 PM
1

Marriage doesn't, nor should it, mandate by law a monogamous sexual relationship. I agree that consenting adults can make whatever (peaceful and honest) sexual arrangements they want to, and that the law should not define what is acceptable in that regard. However, do you see how some people would refuse to marry someone unless they agreed to commit to a monogamous relationship? Do you understand why they might be dead serious about that, and how one partner violating that agreement should be ac…
/r/MensRights09/07/09 09:59 PM
2

OK, we are basically on the same page then w.r.t. father's/children's rights. Here's my proposal w.r.t. abortion. I'd be curious to get your take. I agree with you that a person's right to control their own body is very fundamental and as a consequence of this, women should have the sole right to choose / refuse an abortion. However, I also believe that people should face conseqences for breaking promises they make to each other. W.r.t marriage, if one partner cheats on the other (adultery) I th…
/r/MensRights09/07/09 04:55 PM
1

I have all the sympathy in the world for the man who wants to be a father to his kids but the mom stole them from him and then forced him to give up his paycheck. But I have very little for non-custodial by choice fathers (or mothers) Me too. I am curious to know how you think the law should be changed to support such fathers, or if you think it should.
/r/MensRights09/07/09 03:44 AM
1

Also, he blames feminism for the fact that men's liberation has lagged behind. However, without feminism paving the way to even think about gender, I'm not convinced we'd be having any discussion. I agree with your point/ And the class justice way of framing things spotlit how working class men (primarily) were oppressed. Men's liberation could have come about from those roots. Furthermore, perhaps the class justice way of framing things obscured that men were hurt in non-economic ways, but he's…
/r/MensRights08/07/09 12:08 AM
3

I wasn't expecting a compliment in response, or for you to admit the validity of my comparison. I have to say you are a class act, Saydrah. It's a real black mark in my book against the men's rights subreddit that they banned you. I can't imagine what they were thinking. Well, OK, I can imagine; I just don't agree with it ;-)
/r/MensRights07/07/09 01:50 AM
1

Howdy, wanna_dance. I didn't get that impression from reading him, although I've only read a few of his essays and I'll grant the possibility I could be thick on that front ;-) Can you point me to some of his text that strikes you that way?
/r/MensRights07/07/09 01:44 AM
5

I am not for extending the draft to women because that would be a step away from repealing the draft entirely, which is the direction I'd like to see things go If the draft only applied to black men, would you say that you were in not in favor of extending it to all men as a matter of equality, because you would rather end it entirely?
/r/MensRights05/07/09 11:24 PM
3

Extending the draft to women would put way more pressure to eliminate it completely. And your failure to acknowledge this betrays your bias. I agree.
/r/MensRights05/07/09 11:22 PM
6

Men are learning how to complain about the ways in which society treats them badly in ways that are starting to get noticed, for the first time in history. using the internet including sites like reddit. So the bitterness you are noticing now has been there for sometime and is just now finding expression. Feminism's bitterness has been around (and been taken seriously) for hundreds of years. An interesting question is why did feminism come first? I think this essay is a good analysis of that que…
/r/MensRights04/07/09 06:57 PM
1

She is a neoconservative woman and a defender of the status quo in all its forms, including the oppression of both men and women. Plainly stated, well reasoned, no venom. Nicely done.
/r/MensRights28/06/09 12:24 AM
1

I'm a big fan of wanna_dance and kanuk876. I'd rather she not be banned. She's anything but a troll. I didn't think much of this article either. Nothing but one anecdote after another.
/r/MensRights22/05/09 02:47 AM
1

Hi wanna_dance. I don't get much time to read reddit these days (can't do it from work anymore as they are filtering it), but when I do I usually look you up to see what you've been commenting on. Sorry you are getting beat up. If they ban you, they can ban me too.
/r/MensRights22/05/09 02:42 AM
3

So you and I can yell at those women at what utter pieces of vile shit they are. Very good point. I think the lesson I take from isn't "oh my god look at how vile those women are", but "oh my god look how at how there is no limit to the evil society is capable of when people think it is OK to malign an innocent group or people (men, in this case)." It is NEVER ok to malign an innocent an group of people.
/r/MensRights25/04/09 02:53 AM
7

And we can NOT blame women for this environment. I agree that you can't blame women solely for this environment. I think men and women together are active participants in the oppression of men, and only men and women acting together will stop it. That said, part of the solution is to tell men and women to stop laughing at situations like this. Which is a form of blaming. As in,"How DARE you laugh at that, you asshole." So I think blaming individual people for inappropriate behavior is necessary …
/r/MensRights24/04/09 11:04 PM
1

Howdy, wanna_dance! By the way, the source of my confusion must that I've actually read many many many feminist works and none of them say anything of the sort. I would be curious to know the feminist authors and books that you especially like. Also, any you especially dislike.
/r/MensRights15/04/09 12:11 PM
2

What statistic/source do you use to show prevalence of false rape accusations?
/r/MensRights15/04/09 11:22 AM
1

Agreed. She should be facing perjury charges at a minimum. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
/r/MensRights11/04/09 06:23 PM
9

So you would be OK with it if the judge offered her the choice of another 6 months in jail, or to make the public apologies?
/r/MensRights10/04/09 11:40 AM
7

So are you also against plea bargains (you state your guilt in exchange for a lesser sentence)? And parole boards, which require you to admit guilt and to show remorse, in exchange for early release? Both of those are examples of the government compelling you to "express a certain statement."
/r/MensRights10/04/09 12:59 AM
3

I am glad that journalists are starting to see the light on false rape charges. I notice that Kimberly A. Brehm still managed, in her list of the victims of false rape claims, to list everyone but the men and boys that are accused. Granted, in this particular case, no man or boy was accused, but false rape claims sometimes lead to innocent men being jailed for years. I would think that merits a mention. I am always asthonisned how rarely they are mentioned, though. There is a curious conspiracy …
/r/MensRights23/03/09 03:44 AM
1

That's exactly the sort of thing I want my secretary of state to do from time to time. Thank you, Hillary.
/r/MensRights06/03/09 12:29 PM
18

From the article: “An enormous amount of police time was taken up with the police investigation while you persisted with the lies,” he said. “I am in no doubt that this matter is so serious only a custodial sentence will do.” Figures. The judge was worried about the police time wasted, not the trauma caused to the suspect they arrested, or the jeapory he was put in. The suffering of men is invisible.
/r/MensRights16/02/09 10:14 PM
1

I keep seeing various ways in which society treats men as disposable and it really frosts me. None fascinates me like circumcision. How more in your face could society be? Taking a knife to the genitals of infant males for no good reason? I had to fight a holy war against my wife and mother-in-law to stop my son from being circumcised. I still can't believe the pressure that was brought to bear against me.
/r/MensRights11/02/09 02:10 AM
1

The change (if it comes) will come from MEN standing up to the bull-shit, and making women accountable. I have to wonder. I think the change (if it comes) will come once women start complaining about society hanging men out to dry. Society (man and women goth) is just too good at dismissing men who complain as whiners, but dismissing women who complain is not as easily done. I also don't think that primarily women are doing this to men. Plenty of men are in on it as well (a typical male family c…
/r/MensRights10/02/09 12:51 PM
1

Thanks for writing that. Your final point is one I think about a lot: Everyone needs to take a tone of respect for each other person because our life experiences and backlog of hurts may not be all that different. I am amazed as I go through life how much needless sniping and snarkiness I see around me.
/r/MensRights10/02/09 12:45 PM
2

As substantial as that list is, women could make one 10 times longer I don't think the length of a list of bad things that might happen is much of an argument either way, unless you attach probabilities to the items in the list as well. You can consider me a male MRA for the purposes of this discussion. I can't say overall whether women or men have it worse, although I have some opinions about various ways in which men or women have it worse. What I keep running into is that women (and men) don'…
/r/MensRights10/02/09 12:37 PM
1

For my money, women are very welcome as allies, MRA blogs and boards are not men's only clubs, and women don't have to agree with me politically in order to be allies. My biggest gripe with the state of men's rights in the U.S. is that women and men both have such a hard time seeing any way in which men are victimized by soceity. I get serious resistance from most quarters when I try to point out ways in which men have a hard time in life. I have noticed the following general reply in response t…
/r/MensRights10/02/09 12:13 PM
67

I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask him. I think it is reasonable for him to say no, but unreasonable for him to be offended by the question.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 12:24 PM
1

Well put. If the justice system wants to support fatherhood, then it should make it harder for fathers to be separated from their children. lady justice: "fatherhood is about more than biology" fatherhood: "it's about more than money as well"
/r/MensRights09/01/09 07:10 PM
2

That's a good summary to start with. When countered with eyerolling + "oh, you are just making that up, prove it" I can counter with the centers for disease control numbers on female initiated violence.
/r/MensRights08/01/09 06:57 PM
4

I don't think everyone that ends up crazy starts out crazy. In most lives with children involved, the going can get very tough from time to time. When the court system establishes an unfair balance of power between married couples that gives one side the option of hanging the other out to dry, it makes it more likely that the person with the upper hand will crack under the pressure of life and take the out. Inbalance of power is the root of all evil.
/r/MensRights08/01/09 06:54 PM
2

I mean how do show to a skeptic at a dinner party that restraining orders are being abused and men are being denied their civil rights, short of reading the entire article above out loud.
/r/MensRights07/01/09 10:00 PM
1

I'd be curious to get your thoughts on my "what do you say" question to rafaelmaderia in this thread.
/r/MensRights07/01/09 08:28 PM
8

I agree. That was a great article, even if it made my head hurt to read it. Now, assume you are at a dinner party and the topic of restraining orders and domestic violence comes up. Someone opines,"I heard some men's rights groups want to make it harder for women to get restraining orders against their abusive husbands. Isn't that awful?" What do you say?
/r/MensRights07/01/09 08:27 PM
1

To be honest, I think more than one might expect. Really? I'd be suprised if it were more than one in ten. The topic doesn't come up often, so it is hard to know. You can't judge by the prevalence of anti-male themes ("dead beat dad", wife batterer, ...) in the media either, because the media represents a deliberate attempt to manipulate the public.
/r/MensRights07/01/09 03:41 PM
2

While I think the issue of how unwanted pregnancies are treated is important, I think an even more important one is the ease with which a man (through no fault of his own) can be divorced, separated from his children, and rendered destitute through inflated child support awards. I find the fate of "traditional marriages" (where the man focuses on earning money and the woman focuses on running the house and raising the children) especially telling. The extent to which the man fullfills his end of…
/r/MensRights07/01/09 03:32 PM
3

That was a very well written and thoughtful reply, thank you for taking the time to write it. What percentage of women would you estimate would agree with your basic approach to child support? I've tried to make similar points to yours at dinner parties with women and just gotten nowhere. I usually get funny looks along the lines of "what planet are you from?"
/r/MensRights06/01/09 10:10 PM
4

I feel in many areas of life (especially child support and custody issues) men are treated with less than equal rights I am curious to know how you think it got to be that way (that men are treated badly in the courts), and what laws you would rewrite if you could to make child support and custody treatement equal.
/r/MensRights06/01/09 04:42 PM
1

The lack of comments is ironic, isn't it? Good article, BTW. She has a interesting writing style. She simply states a long series of small, obvious facts about what soceity does to men (men are not allowed to cry or have feelings, men are expected to be strong, ...) that even most misandrists would have a hard time calling into question. Yet, all of her simple statements, taken together, make a powerful and very controversial statement that nails misandry. Well done.
/r/MensRights05/01/09 08:30 PM
2

Good link and good warning. Thanks!
/r/MensRights16/12/08 05:17 PM
-2

Would you have any fundamental problem with the justice of such a law?
/r/MensRights15/12/08 10:08 PM
9

I think equality should be pushed toward more protection of children and not less. My proposal (for married couples) is that when a woman gets pregnant and decides, over her husband's objection, to terminate the pregnancy, he should be able to get a divorce with prejudice, should he want to. By prejudice, I mean he gets custody of any children and she owes him child support (assuming he is a fit parent, of course). Soceity recognizes that a husband owes his wife a good faith effort to raise any …
/r/MensRights15/12/08 02:54 PM
5

If a man has a financial abortion, the child still exists, only without its father's financial support. It presents a problem for the state So do you think poor single women shouldn't be able to get impregnated by a sperm bank, since there would be no father to present financial support for the child?
/r/MensRights15/12/08 02:25 PM
0

If I'd considered the abuser I would have assumed it was obvious I often see people online defending the right of certain people in certain situations to abuse. The specifics of the situations and the entitled abusers change quite a bit from poster to poster, of course. People come up with lots of clever arguments to dress it up. I wasn't sure what tack you were taking. As for the rest, fair enough, except it has been my experience that there are generally at least a few indications that someone…
/r/MensRights12/12/08 01:56 PM
0

Abuse is a spectrum. I think the point in calling that behavior abuse is to say that it is dishonorable, hurtful, mean spirited, and indefensible.
/r/MensRights12/12/08 02:34 AM
2

I just don't think that "right" can be applied to something that someone else has to provide I think you have a right to expect other people to follow through on promises they've exchanged with you. That's a valid use of the word 'right'. It's really the right not to be defrauded. As regards people who get into a relationship with an emotionally abusive fuckup, I find it interesting that you consider it a moral failing to get into such relationship but not to be the emotional abuser. You don't c…
/r/MensRights11/12/08 10:13 PM
3

Nicely done. I think a lot of people were thinking exactly that.
/r/MensRights10/12/08 04:27 PM
2

I dispute your medical arguments. You do realize that the American Academy of Pediatric's view is that circumcision's possible benefits don't outweigh the known risks, don't you? http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686 "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" Also, circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, which I as…
/r/MensRights08/12/08 05:34 PM
1

There's a lot more tissue involved. Also, the foreskin is a complex skin organ with a very high density of nerve endings and muscle fibres. It's more like an eyelid than a 'flap of skin'. Would removing the hood of a girl's clitoris be nor more mutilation in your book than an ear piercing? I didn't think so.
/r/MensRights08/12/08 05:18 PM
3

Well put. That would be one way. Another would be when both parents are fit joint custody is the rule. None of this,"Hmmm, let's pretend to try figure out who the better parent is then always assume it is the mother."
/r/MensRights02/12/08 02:38 PM
3

I take it you don't think much of the piece. I agree with your criticisms. Especially about how men are the source of a lot of men's opression. a male judge that grants a restraining order with no evidence, for example, is a common vehicle of men's opression. still, I think her piece is compelling list of what men have to put up with. those issues are very easy to ignore and putting them all in a list like that is a good way to point out that they should not be ignored.
/r/MensRights02/12/08 02:18 AM
1

Went to the website of the shelter, www.shieldfoundation.org. It gives the appearence of a going concern.
/r/MensRights26/11/08 05:23 PM
2

If this information is not made available to the public, how does it damage the man's legal/social standing in an inappropriate way? It wouldn't. I didn't realize you were talking about records that could not be made public. I would still have reservations with the police being able to compile arbitrairly detailed internal databases, since soceity at any given time has at least a few witch hunts it is engaged in (witness how easily a man can be falsely accused/convicted on domestic violence char…
/r/MensRights26/11/08 05:10 PM
1

If there is a single incident, with proof, then I can see maintaining a record of that fact. If there are multiple incidents, with none of them proved, then I can't see keeping any of them on the record.
/r/MensRights26/11/08 02:31 PM
0

Interesting. So you don't believe any statistics about the status of men or women? On what basis do you hold any beliefs about the sexes, then? Or are there statistics that you do believe just not about the issue of domestic violence? Do tell.
/r/MensRights24/11/08 11:36 AM
0

Which men's rights post was implying generally bad behavior on the part of women? Also, you didn't asnwer my question. Do you find the statistics I quoted from centers for disease control reasonable or laughable?
/r/MensRights23/11/08 11:09 PM
12

That was a great find. Powerfully written.
/r/MensRights23/11/08 11:06 PM
0

Are we well aware of that? Do you agree that 50% of intimate partner violence is initiaited by women against men, and that 1/3 of the serious injuries inflicted are sustained by men? Or do you find these statistics absurdly inflated?
/r/MensRights23/11/08 10:40 PM
0

if a man feels he's being mistreated or made a victim What are some of the ways, in your view, in which soceity is unfair to men?
/r/MensRights23/11/08 10:16 PM
2

No one would make that argument directly, but someone who thought there was nothing wrong with this cosmetic treatment, and who also thought that FGM and MGM were two totally different phenomena would, in effect, have no problem with that argument. They just would never think to put it together that way.
/r/MensRights19/11/08 03:57 AM
2

Now, now, let's not fall into the trap of comparing FGM and MGM, you despicable MRA you. FGM is a horrible mutilation of women while MGM has applications to beautifying a woman's face, making her look 10 years younger. One injures women and the other heals them. See the difference?
/r/MensRights18/11/08 05:45 PM
3

I don't know what to say beyond the fact that this boils my blood.
/r/MensRights18/11/08 05:38 PM
-4

That's a pretty neat way of framing the problem. I often hear feminists talk about how fiercely they fought for their rights. If men were so powerful (physically and legally), and conspired so openly and pitilessly against women (as the typical feminist historical narrative would have you believe), then how did women manage to win this fight? With what weapons? Against whom? Did they even win? Something doesn't add up here.
/r/MensRights11/11/08 06:49 PM
4

Well said. From the article: Angry women's groups said last night that it would be the children at the centre of the disputes who would suffer most if money were paid back Couldn't you say the same thing about single women that robbed banks and were discovered years later and expected to pay the money back, that their chilren would suffer the most? Hmmm, it's the children who suffer the most, and we can't have that. Maybe that's not such a bad principle to explore the conseqences of. You could a…
/r/MensRights11/11/08 03:15 PM
3

That was a pretty interesting read. I especially liked his wife's comment that the only reason the group of women at the party couldn't resolve the conversation about who was at fault was that there was no man in the story to blame it all on.
/r/MensRights05/11/08 07:41 PM
6

Men write lots of letters, but they are ignored. It is too easy to discount any harm done to men if there is any possible upside for women (credibility for rape accusers), and to write off men complaining as whiners. What really has to happen is women have to complain about false rape and how it hurts men primarily. Have you ever noticed how quickly, in the public discussion of a false rape accusation, the focus turns to the potential future female victims who won't be believed and away from the…
/r/MensRights04/11/08 04:38 PM
1

nicely done.
/r/MensRights04/11/08 04:32 PM
1

More harm than good? What possible good was on the radar that you had to compare it to the obvious harm?
/r/MensRights04/11/08 04:31 PM
-1

While I find your proposal compelling and very well argued, I don't see that it is possible for soceity to change the expectations placed on men. It goes very deep. So deep, in fact, that even when sperm is stolen from men by women who then impregnate themselves with it, the women are awarded child support. I do think it is possible to change the expectation placed on women (that by having sex while married, they are willingly promising to make a good faith effort to bring the pregnancy to term …
/r/MensRights04/11/08 01:52 PM
1

Thanks for the links. Very interesting and encouraging.
/r/MensRights03/11/08 04:56 PM
5

How much you want to bet that if you did that, and then got married, the courts would grant your wife access to the frozen sperm over your objection? I wouldn't put it past them.
/r/MensRights03/11/08 02:58 PM
3

Theft of sperm is possible, but rare, I'll grant you that. When it does happen, though, the courts take no notice of the fact and treat it as if the man was willing, even in the case of rape (boggles the mind, I know; I'm referring to cases in which a guy passes out and a woman pulls his pants off, waits for an erection, then mounts him until he ejaculates, all while he is unconscious; in those cases courts still award child support to the woman, and refuse to punish the woman for rape).
/r/MensRights03/11/08 02:49 PM
0

Since only women bear children, men have no interests or rights regarding the bearing of children. If all you mean by that is that a man should not be able to force a woman he got pregnant to abort a pregnancy, or to not abort a pregnancy, then I agree. I can see much wider readings of that statement, however, with which I disagree. I assume you didn't mean to imply any of those. Any argument along the lines of "I own my sperm and I didn't give her permission to become pregnant with it" is moot,…
/r/MensRights03/11/08 02:42 PM
1

That this campaign was successful gives me hope. I would not have expected it to have nearly this success. Excellent work, Glenn.
/r/MensRights30/10/08 12:54 AM
3

I wonder what fraction of men that are falsely convicted of rape and sent to prison wind up being raped in prison as a result?
/r/MensRights27/10/08 01:32 PM
2

The speed with which a story about women victimizing men and boys can be turned into a story about women being oppressed is awe-inspiring. (apologies to Ms. Manners).
/r/MensRights27/10/08 01:27 PM
5

I wonder how influential or widely circulated that essay (or others like it) was. There is always some amount of discord between what people say they believe and what they actually believe. This can reach to tremendous heights at times, though. I have to believe that even in the darkest periods of our history (from the point of view the public sentiment regarding the enjoyment of sex), the average couple was merely paying lip service to that nonsense and actually enjoyed having sex.
/r/MensRights23/10/08 05:27 PM
4

I often hear people, when discussing female circumcision and how bad it is, brush off any attempt to bring up male circumcision as "attempting to compare two completely different things" This list of similarities is a nice answer to that.
/r/MensRights17/10/08 06:46 PM
1

When research on male circumcision is done by a group as clearly partisan as the "International Coalition for Genital Integrity", it becomes difficult to take it in earnest. I would take these results more seriously than anything that came out of the American medical community, which stands to be sued into oblivion if it becomes widely believed that circumcision is harmful in any way, given for how long, and with so little justification, they performed routine infant circumcision. At least the I…
/r/MensRights17/10/08 02:07 PM
5

The original judge (the one this decision overturned) didn't think domestic violence programs that exclude men violated the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment because women as a group suffer the majority of the injuries, even though men suffer a significant number of the injuries. Men suffer 38% of the injuries, and because that number is less than 50% it is OK to exclude them and their children from benefits? That's a pretty lame excuse. The original judge should really apologize fo…
/r/MensRights15/10/08 03:41 PM
5

I have sometimes remarked that women have to be leaders in this fight, as only their complaints will be listened to.
/r/MensRights15/10/08 03:37 PM
1

Percentage of new marriages that end in divorce for 2002? I am not sure I understand what that means. Is that the number of marriages that were done in 2002 that have already ended in divorce?
/r/MensRights14/10/08 09:13 PM
1

I posted the link before I got through the whole thing (and saw the eugenics ad on the last page). I feel like an idiot.
/r/MensRights12/10/08 04:33 PM
1

I had no idea what 'The Occidental Quartely' was, btw, when I posted this link. Had I known, I would not have posted the link.
/r/MensRights10/10/08 07:25 PM
0

I found his comparison of the sexual revolution's phases to the french revolution's phases (anarchy, terror, reaction and restoration) enlightening. That was a glorious read. I wish he hadn't gone overboard when thinking aloud about remedies; it's going to make it very easy for lots of people to dismiss the bulk of his piece for that reason alone. I also enjoyed one of his closing paragraphs: Marriage, like most useful things, was probably invented by men: Partly to keep the social peace, partly…
/r/MensRights10/10/08 02:03 PM
1

If you make her mad (instead of just disinterested, as the article suggests), she may be tempted to use the court system, which famously fails to punish false accusations on the part of women against men.
/r/MensRights10/10/08 12:49 PM
1

Everything comes out in evolution's wash. I agree that the consequences of callously discarding men will be unavoidable. I just don't know what form the reckoning will take. I think a righetous vindication of male values and worth is too much to hope for.
/r/MensRights10/10/08 12:46 PM
3

For the record, I'm a 41 yo guy, happily married for 17 years, with an 11yo daughter and a 13yo son. This nation of weenies, as you put it, has had the rest of the world put together on the ropes for some time now. All the power worth talking about in the world is right here. I'm not happy about the injustice of it, but it works. And it will take more than brave talk to do anything about it.
/r/MensRights09/10/08 03:00 PM
2

I just noticed this sidebar on the site: Sex Ploytation Quote Slowly women are beginning to brush away the wool the feminists have pulled over their eyes. What women are looking for now is a way out of the prison their greed and self indulgence has built for them. What they want is the cozy life their mothers led. They are tired of working and want to be taken care of again. You've come a long way, baby, only to arrive back at the starting point, but it's too late. By unsurping men's jobs, by bl…
/r/MensRights09/10/08 12:31 PM
1

My favorite quote (from one of the comments to the article): At the end of the day, this is a gender war and a marriage strike. Men didn't start the war, awakened men do not want to make peace, and there's no doubt men will win in the end I don't see how men can win. They are simply too drawn to be fathers and start families. I predict it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. If the author really wanted to help men pull off a marriage strike, he would analyze the thoughts and fe…
/r/MensRights09/10/08 12:29 PM
4

Do you know more about the Esther M. v. Mary L. case? I am curious to know the details. I assume she was raped, had the child, then lost custody through being unfit, and was sued for child support.
/r/MensRights08/10/08 02:09 PM
2

That was quite an exchange. I went through the thread and responded to several of IOIOOIIOIO's posts. I can see why you gave up.
/r/MensRights06/10/08 08:56 PM
1

For the record, I have been happily married for 17 years and have an 11yo daughter and a 13yo son. I don't think all women are nuts. I think the law gives them such an upper hand in divorce proceedings, though, that men should be much slower to get married than women should be, and should avoid certain situations like the plague. I made a second post because I wanted my "psychos behind the bench" line to stand out clearly for people skimming the discussion. I didn't mean to beat up on you ;-)
/r/MensRights06/10/08 08:14 PM
0

The problem is you think the psychos are the norm when they simply aren't. It's not that I think psychos are the norm, it's that I think: trying circumstances + female upper hand = innocent man screwed badly In fairness to you, I don't know that the situation is so bad that I would recommend that all young men go on a marriage strike. However, I don't think it's so mild that your position of "just don't marry a psycho and you'll be OK" holds water. I think a young man that has sex before getting…
/r/MensRights06/10/08 08:02 PM
1

TFour: saying that a child’s welfare should be foremost does not negate the rights of the two parents. The appropriate action is one that preserves the rights of all involved through negotiation if at all possible. Only if a parent is a clear threat to the child should his or her rights be summarily abrogated. While I thought this article was well written and argued, I have a problem with one of the assumptions hiding in this paragraph. The issue of conflicts between a parent's rights and a chil…
/r/MensRights06/10/08 04:43 PM
0

So you are saying that no matter how biased the courts are against men, a man can avoid that downside by just not marrying a psycho woman? You never really know what someone is capable of until they are put under great stress. When that occurs (which may be long after a couple is married), the temptation to walk away and stick your partner can be very strong. If the courts allow women to take their husbands to the cleaners and separate them from their children without cause, then it will increas…
/r/MensRights06/10/08 04:16 PM
-1

What about the psychos behind the bench? You don't have to marry one of those for them to ruin your life. Getting married to any woman puts you in their grasp.
/r/MensRights06/10/08 04:08 PM
2

Don't you think the writer had some sense of what would go through the minds of his future viewers, including the female minds, and that that insight would guide his hand while writing? The problem I have with your analysis is that you don't think the anti-male attitudes in soceity are actively advanced and maintained by men, and firmly rooted in the contents of their minds. They are.
/r/MensRights02/10/08 01:17 PM
3

Do you think the same could be said of removing the hood of the clitoris of an infant girl (that it's no big deal)?
/r/MensRights29/09/08 08:09 PM
3

Judging a phenomenon by how often you've you hear other people talking about it is a dubious practice. Consider the position that medical profession is in. With no medical evidence of necessity, they started performing (and adovacating for) routing infant circumcision on a massive scale. If it ever becomes generally accepted that circumcision is harmful, try to imagine the avalanche of lawsuits that would unleash. The american medical community has to, at all costs, continue to convince people t…
/r/MensRights29/09/08 08:04 PM
1

Which remarks?
/r/MensRights29/09/08 07:57 PM
2

While I found some of his analogies very good (water running muddy after a storm and the necessity of distilling anger before confronting someone), I got lost in the poetry. I think Will Ferrel does a better job of helping men distill their anger by compiling statistics on the ways in which they get the shaft at home. His male housework list is brilliant, for example (he compiles a list of all the tasks men do at home that are not recognized as housework, like cleaning the gutters).
/r/MensRights29/09/08 12:27 PM
1

Should we stop the poor from having children? I don't think so. Why should we deny a single person who wants to have a kid that same right? I agree that the presence and involvement of both parents is the most important thing in the welfare of children, not the financial resources made available to the child. I do not think it should be illegal for poor couples to have and raise children. I consider it a fundamental right for couples to have children, no matter what their financial circumstances…
/r/MensRights25/09/08 02:10 PM
1

Just as a couple who can't have a baby can adopt, with the natural parents giving up their rights to the child and the responsibility to the child, so should one parent be able to give up their rights and responsibilities to the child In the case of natural parents putting a child up for adoption, the natural parents found someone else willing to accept the responsibility of raising the child. I would think this would tend to work in the interests of the child as a couple that don't want the res…
/r/MensRights23/09/08 05:15 PM
1

A single parent that volunteers to raise a child is a step up from two parents that don't want a child, so I don't see the problem there. Planning to bring a child into the world fatherless, on the other hand, should not be OK. I also wasn't saying we should get rid of sperm banks, but that women should not be allowed to be inseminated by one unless they can get a man to volunteer to be the dad. What law did you want to change, BTW?
/r/MensRights23/09/08 01:59 PM
2

The courts have time and time again held that children have a right to their father's income and women can not negotiate that away when getting pregnant because it is not their rights at stake, but the child's. Does it not follow from this that a single woman should not be allowed to use a sperm bank to get pregnant unless she can get a man to agree to accept the responsibilities of the fatherhood for the child? Should women be allowed to, by design, bring fatherless children into the world? Or …
/r/MensRights22/09/08 09:13 PM
1

Sometimes I wish we could just have a big meeting and hash some of these things out. You mean between MRA's and feminists? Did you have a particular set in mind, or were you thinking more generally? Meetings like that would only work between honest people. A lot of activists are not so interested in solving problems as benefitting from the social churn resulting from the existence of the target problems they agitate over. That last thing the dishonest ones want is for the problems to go away.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 03:02 PM
1

Again, the truth is never black and white. I'm sure that somewhere there is an abusive man who wants to see his children and I'm sure somewhere there is an unjust accusation from a bitter woman. There have been children murdered by their estranged father. There have been children murdered by their unstable mother. There are children who are hurt because both parents are trustworthy but simply can not get along. Your point here is close to something I've noticed. I wonder if you have the same thi…
/r/MensRights22/09/08 02:53 PM
2

I thought pre-nups were routinely thrown out and voided for all sorts of miscellaneous reasons.
/r/MensRights19/09/08 02:43 PM
2

Also, you need us as allies and (most of you, at least) want us as allies. I find this statement to be extremely manipulative. It presupposes some kind of gender war. I'm sorry you read it that way. The truth is that I'm going to be committed to ending oppressions of all sorts, and men's and women's oppressions in particular. Some of my favorite people and best allies are men, and I'm committed to them. I am going to switch directions and acknowledge some of what you are saying. I think there is…
/r/MensRights19/09/08 02:21 PM
1

Elissa: The scene you describe illustrates the concept very well. The imagination and wit you bring to these discussions is greatly appreciated.
/r/MensRights19/09/08 01:41 PM
3

he parents were married in ’99, but in ’03, Mother filed for a PFA, claiming that Father had told her that he had ‘thoughts about killing her’, which led to a divorce – she requested joint legal and primary physical custody, as well as a request for relocation. As a result of the PFA filing, Father consented to a PFA being issued, resulting in his removal from his child, his home and the loss of his job as a mobile therapist, and a prohibition against Father contacting Mother for 18 months, desp…
/r/MensRights19/09/08 11:18 AM
1

Good find pn6. So we are seriously considering crossing the line of forcing people (well, men anyway) to undergo medical procedures as punishment now? I have not art to reckon my groans.
/r/MensRights18/09/08 08:51 PM
1

I'm getting better at preceiving soceity's disregard for men, thanks to these stories and your highlighting efforts. I actually caught the part about laughter in the courtroom on my first read of the story this time.
/r/MensRights18/09/08 08:43 PM
1

Hi hopeless_case, long time no see! Hi Elissa! It's always a pleasure discussing things with you. First, he said that the concept that "women can do no wrong" is one of those ideas that very few people in their right minds actually subscribes to. (That said, yeah, women are treated as if we're "better people", as shown in the unequal legal treatment.) Well, you can "subscribe" and you can "Subscribe". I agree that few people would agree straight up with a statement like "women are never evil". T…
/r/MensRights18/09/08 12:20 PM
3

I appreciate you think it's a useful tactic, but I don't think it moves men's liberation forward as much as you think it does. Useful tactic? Are you kidding me? I believe the demonization of men in the media has contributed to skewing family law so far against men that a man can be jailed on little more than a woman's say-so. The drum beat against men (portraying them as the only evil-doers and never as the victim) is overwhelming. A reasonable way to fight that is to keep highlighting the nume…
/r/MensRights17/09/08 03:57 PM
2

You mean by, for example, showing a story about a disabled girl whose father refused to abandon her and whose mother then drowned her? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/71k1l/father_wouldnt_give_disabled_daughter_up_for/ The very story in which pn6 was asked why he is such a mysognist for posting so many stories about women behaving badly, and for which he started this thread in response?
/r/MensRights17/09/08 03:50 PM
1

Excellent point. It didn't cross my mind the first time I read it. I only noticed it when you highlighted it. The bias against boys, and the blindness to it, runs awfully deep.
/r/MensRights17/09/08 03:36 PM
3

I think the value of noticing stories like this is that it helps disabuse us of the notion that only men are violent and destructive, a notion which so pervades our court system that men can be jailed on a woman's say-so with no other proof (in domestic violence cases especially). Women are then not prosecuted when found to have lied. It is almost unheard of for a false rape accusation to be prosecuted seriously. By staring the reality of women's capacity for violence in the face, we can begin t…
/r/MensRights16/09/08 01:54 PM
1

You mean for cross posting?
/r/MensRights12/09/08 11:05 AM
3

I think of it as no worse and no better. I think it is wrong to plan to bring a child into the world without a mother or father. I wonder how many people would volunteer to be born into such an arrangement?
/r/MensRights09/09/08 12:59 AM
1

Good one! If I might elaborate, what reasons might a young man typically have for getting married? I don't think horniness itself would drive most men to the altar. I think many feel the pressure of the expectation that they should be raising a family and respond to it recklessly. If you want to talk someone out of making that mistake, I think you need to get to the bottom of why they feel pressured, not just warn them about the dire consequences of what might happen to them. I think low self-es…
/r/MensRights08/09/08 07:47 PM
1

It's amazing what power does to an otherwise sane mind, isn't it? The state committing fraud in the name of justice?
/r/MensRights08/09/08 02:20 PM
3

It really should be obvious that a paternity test is really in everyone's best interest In the meantime, there is the issue of what to do with the men that have been paying child support under false pretenses. I think their support obligations should be cancelled and the mothers should have to pay back the support they received. Would anyone like to object?
/r/MensRights08/09/08 02:19 PM
1

Although I am pro-chice, it's stories like this that make part of me wish that abortion were simply made illegal again, just to see the look of the face of the women that believe the innocence of a guy should be no defense against "the best interests of the child." If the best interests of the child trump justice, then isn't it always in the best interest of a child to have Bill Gates pay its child support?
/r/MensRights08/09/08 02:19 AM
8

Sometimes you would be suprised what writing a simple letter to the relevant judge can do in which you state the facts and ask for his/her help. I recently helped my wife's cousin (let's call him F) draft a letter to the judge and it made all the difference in the world. F's wife falsely accused him of beating her and called 911. They arrested him on her say-so with no evidence and his lawyer advised him to plead guilty. Years later he was laid off and started interviewing for a job. Three times…
/r/MensRights05/09/08 08:49 PM
1

And do the children deserve what their fathers signed them up for? Or are you going to ignore that question a second time?
/r/MensRights05/09/08 07:41 PM
1

And if you are a child born into a family where the mother uses the court system to destroy the father, what do you do then? Blame the father for getting married and trying to raise children? I think it is in soceity's best interests to create a balanced legal system that doesn't let one sex destroy the other. What good purpose does giving women an overwhelming edge over men serve in your mind?
/r/MensRights05/09/08 05:58 PM
1

Well, certainly. As long as a power imbalance exists between men and women on this front, however, otherwise sane women will be lured by the possibility of hanging their husbands out to dry instead of having to work through whatever problems they have. So you might marry a woman who is perfectly sane and 10 years later find that she has decided that a certain insane course of action (abusing the upper hand she has in the court system) is easier than living up to her responsibilities and promises…
/r/MensRights05/09/08 05:43 PM
3

Since you asked... My wife's cousin (let's call him F) is paying child support while going through a divorce. His wife slapped herself in the face on the left side and called 911 claiming that F was beating her. She was holding an ice pack on the right side of her face when the officer arrived (the left/right goof is noted in his report) and promptly arrested F and stuck him in jail for the night (despite no evidence to go on of F's guilt, and actual evidence of deceit on F's wife's part). She g…
/r/MensRights05/09/08 05:35 PM
3

I agree the article is shit, but even shit can be useful. In this case, the article is showing what the world would look like if we held women to the same punative standard we hold men to. I agree it ain't pretty. It's a clever reductio ad absurdum, even though the author didn't intend it that way.
/r/MensRights03/09/08 03:31 PM
1

What makes you think this book is against no-fault divorce?
/r/MensRights02/09/08 04:46 PM
3

Women almost have to lead this fight (to recognize and address the suffering of men). The rule that men are disposable and women are vulnerable and need to be protected is so deeply ingrained that men who try to agitate are too easily dismissed. I predict that if this issue is ever addressed head on, it will be because of female researchers that took great risks with their careers who refused to remain silent.
/r/MensRights02/09/08 04:10 PM
0

You'd rather not hear another round of bickering?
/r/MensRights02/09/08 11:10 AM
1

That's a good list to keep around for polite dinner converation where people often share the latest information that came their way about how men are oppressing women. Speaking of which, would you mind taking a look at my request here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6y6h8/it_seems_that_vawa_isnt_something_to_brag_about/c057ibp I want to start hitting people with the facts about VAWA but I need specifics.
/r/MensRights01/09/08 07:05 PM
2

I remember a few months ago when I first ran across this simple question, which had never occurred to me before. The lack of interest in this question, and in the question of why American soceity tolerates the routine circumcision of boys, strike me as clear evidence that men are disposable when compared to women.
/r/MensRights30/08/08 07:59 PM
1

Could someone boil down the bad provisions of VAWA into a few bullet points for me? I imagine it would go something like this: adult women perpretrate 50% of the abuse and adult men sustain 38% of the injuries in domestic violence, yet VAWA allocates 100% of the resources to help women and 0% to help men who have been battered. an adolescent male child that has been beaten by his mother will be denied shelter under this act. the act lowers the standard of proof so far that a woman can accuse a m…
/r/MensRights28/08/08 07:23 PM
2

Glenn Sacks always misses the point a little bit, however, and he does selective editing that pisses me off. He's always trying to score 100% pro-male and 0% pro-female, and it's obnoxious. I know what you mean, although I hadn't thought to put it that way. Although I think he digs up good examples, his commentary shows few signs of careful thinking and only serves to take away from the examples themselves, instead of adding to them. He is trying to score 100% pro-male and 0% pro-female points a…
/r/MensRights27/08/08 01:16 PM
1

Does anyone know why she isn't facing perjury charges? There wouldn't happen to be a law preventing a woman accusing a man of rape from being prosecuted for perjury, would there? Absent that (which wouldn't suprise me at all), I would have to guess that the DA chose not to because going after women for perjury looks bad. My only other guess is that proving perjury is harder, in general, than people think. Which makes me wonder: how many perjury cases are persued every year? What exactly do you h…
/r/MensRights25/08/08 06:09 PM
1

Nice catch. I was so overwhelmed by the gall of the story, I didn't notice what a non-sequitor that was.
/r/MensRights25/08/08 05:57 PM
3

That article was very well written. Thanks for submitting it.
/r/MensRights24/08/08 03:37 PM
2

Every time a justification for circumcision gets shot down, a new one miraculously takes it's place. Yesterday it was UTI, today it's HIV. Consistently pro-circumcision evidence makes front-page news while anti-circumcision evidence is ignored. The circus never ends. I hadn't noticed that, but you are right. There always seems to be some new reason or other for circumcising. Which is why any, and I mean any justification for circumcision should be met with the highest suspicion, especially comin…
/r/MensRights20/08/08 05:24 PM
1

Well look, I don't like people being stupid. If you have sex, there's a possibility of pregnancy even with birth control. If you don't have the conversation with your partner about what happens if, then you're a fool. If you can't stand the other person's decision, that ought to be a deal breaker. Some people just play with risk though. I someone wants to play with risk, then they have no basis to complain when they find themselves on the hook when the risk is realized. Hey yeah, what's that abo…
/r/MensRights19/08/08 02:33 PM
1

Is a man (or a woman for that matter) who doesn't consent to raising/paying for a baby still responsible for it's upkeep? You say yes, I say I don't have a better solution, but I think it's unfortunate to hold anyone to a contract they didn't agree to. Well, we disagree over whether the person agreed to be on the hook to raise a child that resulted from sex they consented to. I am saying that by consenting to sex under certain conditions, you are agreeing to be on the hook. You are saying that s…
/r/MensRights18/08/08 12:39 PM
1

Is a man (or a woman for that matter) who doesn't consent to raising/paying for a baby still responsible for it's upkeep? You say yes, I say I don't have a better solution, but I think it's unfortunate to hold anyone to a contract they didn't agree to. Well, we disagree over whether the person agreed to be on the hook to raise a child that resulted from sex they consented to. I am saying that by consenting to sex under certain conditions, you are agreeing to be on the hook. You are saying that s…
/r/MensRights18/08/08 12:36 PM
1

When you say you have no solutions, you mean there is nothing you would change about the current system if you were given the chance to write the rules? You would rather stick with the status-quo? Since you asked, here's a thumbnail sketch of my view of what principles the law should be primarily concerned about. Having "the state take care of a child" means all of us are forced to take care of it. I am against that. What I am for is people keeping their promises, and shouldering the burdens the…
/r/MensRights17/08/08 03:19 AM
1

Another thought just popped into my head, driven by the notion that: "The truth about a person lies chiefly in what they conceal" I don't think cases like this come up often, and the media doesn't cover them when they do. Therefore, you get to see how judges act when no one (or relatively few people, in any event) is watching. Cases like these are excellent ways to see past the facades of fairness the court system wraps itself in. A few more quotes: "If you really want to understand a soceity, l…
/r/MensRights16/08/08 03:21 PM
1

The main thing I take away from this story is how deeply ingrained the social rule is that men are walking pocketbooks. Even the damned serious protection we afford children below the age of consent is no barrier to that rule. Fighting it is like pissing into a hurricane. I don't think it's purposefully anti-male. I think it's mindlessly anti-male though, and comes down to states being non-human and simply making decisions based solely on saving the state money, rather than on the interest of an…
/r/MensRights16/08/08 03:09 PM
1

I am curious to get your reaction to this article: http://www.reddit.com/comments/6wekp/yes_a_boy_raped_at_15_at_16_or_at_13_can_be_held/ I think it speaks to how deep seated the bias in the courts is against men regarding child support and theories of consent.
/r/MensRights15/08/08 06:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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