TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

imbecile Archive

View 8 posts and 1,197 comments by imbecile 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 1,197 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

It wasn't like that early on in the workers movement. They talked about workers and not men, because there were loads and loads of working class women in factories in the 19th century. The whole textile industry, the matchstick girls etc. Some of the most important early labor strikes and labor laws were entirely centered around women workers. Even Rosa Luxemburg still railed against suffragettes and feminists as enemies of the working people and as agents of the establishment. The problem that …
/r/MensRights21/05/23 01:57 PM
1

When you see hypocritical contradictions in the views of someone, it isn't any less hypocritical to just flip the sign on those two contradicting views. Stupid example: If you find someone who wants to "Kill all Men", but not all women, it isn't any better to say "Kill all Women", but not all men.
/r/MensRights23/03/23 12:08 PM
3

I wouldn't say those trends are great disadvantages in themselves. They are just symptoms of the general misandry in society. More men want to be women than the other way around, because because being a woman is more privileged. People expect more from men's occupation because only if men provide are they seen as valuable. And gays are viewed a lot harsher than lesbians, because they won't serve and provide for a woman, whereas lesbians are women.
/r/MensRights22/03/23 03:00 AM
16

Yes, getting propositioned is annoying. Getting rung up by vaccum salesmen and mormons is annoying. But it is far from traumatic, if it doesn't happen too often. Now, getting bombarded by ads all day every day has insidious effects and leads to a fatigue that creeps up on you and can ruin your mood. And some attractive women get propositioned so often and so tenaciously in some environments that it can become traumatic I imagine. Similar how always being rejected can become traumatic. But if you…
/r/MensRights21/03/23 11:52 AM
5

I think you are a little too occupied with names and labels and appearances. But that's ok, many people are.
/r/MensRights16/03/23 07:02 PM
3

Your name suits you well. Anyone with half of a brain can understand that I am not speaking about assimilation or modificiation (things that I criticized), but a natural expression. I am not a disgusting frankstein monster nor I am not talking about people like that. You are beyond help. I didn't say you are a Frankenstein Monster. That hat you put on all by yourself. I just gave a range of body modifications that I don't understand. I don't think people that dye their hair or put on fancy cloth…
/r/MensRights16/03/23 06:56 PM
9

I think the main reason gay and effeminate men face and historically faced so much more hate than lesbians or tomboys is, because those men don't serve and provide for women. And generally it's women, the Karens, who decide who gets ostracized and persecuted in society. Now, I myself never understood the urge to play dress up or putting a lot of effort into changing appearance in regular life. I like being myself, I don't see any reason to change anything there. If you like to color your hair, o…
/r/MensRights16/03/23 06:34 PM
13

I don't think it's that a tradesman or manual laborer cannot be a good provider. They often make more and earlier than many careers that require degrees. The problem is, that those professions are looked down upon. They are low status. And to many women, status is more important than even money. They want to be able to brag about their man.
/r/MensRights05/03/23 04:26 PM
1

I mean it's the same reasoning big bosses argue. "I told engineer Mr McTechCrack to build iSupergadget. After after a year we had a iSupergadget. I worked a year on that." Maybe they even say: "I told 1000 factory workers to build iSupergadgets. After a year I worked 1000 man years on that. I need to get paid like 1000 men."
/r/MensRights01/03/23 04:19 PM
1

Each property you own is a separate piece of property rights. Most obvious is it when people talk about intellectual property rights, i.e. "I bought the rights to this book." or "AMD has licensed the rights to the x86 architecture." Same with the right to vote. You don't have the right to vote to every election anywhere in the world. When you make it an abstract singularity like the islamic god, it wouldn't even be able to do the thing it is supposed to do: regulate access to resources between a…
/r/MensRights16/02/23 04:23 PM
1

What exactly is not true here? That Jeff Bezos has more property than me? That Biden has more authority than me? That there are people without the right to vote? That different societies enforce different rights in different ways? That there are and were different societies? That there are different rights?
/r/MensRights16/02/23 01:18 AM
0

Structure is always structured along authority rights. It just differed in who possessed those rights. Wrong. Power structures are determined by organization structures which are determined by communication structures, which are determined by the communication capabilities of humans. Which are quite limited. It's always easier for one person to speak to many than it is for one person to listen to many, which is why large scale human communication structures have historically always been hierarch…
/r/MensRights16/02/23 01:14 AM
1

Maybe I can make a little sense of it for you: In the dark ages society was mostly structured along authority rights. And the ultimate abstraction of authority rights is God. People had a hard time making sense of the world without god. And today still we have a lot of people who assert god to be absolute and true, and can't grasp anything that goes against that. But since about the enlightenment, when absolutism of authority was rejected and reigned in by checks and balances, our society is str…
/r/MensRights15/02/23 10:55 PM
2

Nope. We don't all have the same individual rights. Jeff Bezos has a lot more property rights than me. Joe Biden has a lot more authority rights than me. Children have the right to vote not yet, and felons have it often taken away. Different rights are differently enforced by society for different people. That's what makes society what it is. And when there are differences in how rights are enforced how much for whom, then we have different societies.
/r/MensRights15/02/23 10:41 PM
4

There is no such thing as individual rights. Rights are enforced by the group/by society. Outside if that they don't exist. The only reason your home is still your home when you come home from work is, because others accept and enforce that right for you when you are not there. The only reason you made it through the first hours of your life is because your parents or other caretakers enforced your right to life for you. So when someone takes advantage of the rights the group enforces to the det…
/r/MensRights15/02/23 09:58 PM
-3

That most super rich people in the US are white is no surprise. If you are rich and part of the entrenched elite with the connections, you are in prime position to become super wealthy. There are at least as many non-white billionaires that are at least problematic, may they be oil royalty or East Asian industrialists. Where you draw the line where one person has too much wealth and power without checks and balances, so they can dominate their community or society is somewhat debatable. But the …
/r/MensRights15/02/23 09:52 PM
5

Oh, I'm no big AOC fan. She mostly runs interference on the working class via intersectionalism. The usual. Doesn't mean she always says the wrong thing. Quite the contrary. Saying the not wrong things mostly makes her more effective at her job.
/r/MensRights15/02/23 09:27 PM
-1

To be fair, the really really big fish are male. The biggest female billionaires are part of a generational wealth dynasty or divorced from a billionaire. And generational wealth tends to be a far bigger problem than 1st generation wealth, because those had more time to infiltrate and corrupt the institutions of society. Being successful yourself is good and nice. Beyond a certain threshold, the wealth that you can claim for yourself is in no relation to your contribution anymore though, because…
/r/MensRights15/02/23 08:02 PM
5

Well, when you pass, you will be treated like a man. Probably like a not very attractive man. So to see what that is like, you can look in the incel communities. Although those are censored and banned a lot.
/r/MensRights13/02/23 02:47 AM
4

You never talked to anyone else who has transitioned? You never even googled people who went through with it and described their experiences? No youtube? Nothing? The internet is full of resources. The media is full of resources. In recent years it almost feels like spam, how often you get trans issues shoved into your face. There are probably like ten times as many Amish and Mennonites in the US as trans people, and you don't see them represented nearly as much. But you probably would have look…
/r/MensRights13/02/23 02:36 AM
11

This is probably a troll. I can't believe anyone would start transitioning without having researched other people who experienced it before first. I mean, even most people who take a new drug at least ask their dealer "What does it do?" or watch other people that have taken the drug.
/r/MensRights13/02/23 02:25 AM
6

Oh, there were a lot of threads and articles about this after the Roe Wade decision last year. I've seen a few before that, but it was almost impossible to miss that at that time, especially on reddit.
/r/MensRights13/02/23 12:12 AM
51

There were quite a few feminists who proposed to give all young boys a vasectomy before puberty, and only restore it, once they have proven themselves worthy or something. Sure this proposal was purported to be a rhetorical device on bodily autonomy in regards to abortion, but who knows. The "Kill all Men" chants sound quite serious and honest a lot of the time. Either way this demonstrates, that feminists don't really care whether men are snipped or not. They do care that men can't choose for t…
/r/MensRights12/02/23 11:38 AM
3

Yup. When you have to ask for a paternity test, the relationship isn't good and solid. And the chances of it ever becoming good and solid are very slim. The only chance there is for that is, if any doubt is removed by a test. But the relationship is not the only thing that is on the line here. Whether the relationship is destroyed or not, the paternity itself, with all obligations and struggles, legal and otherwise, is on the line. So what a paternity test does is, it keeps open the chance for t…
/r/MensRights10/02/23 12:41 PM
2

First wave feminism was the daughters and wives of the wealthy and powerful acting in their class interest. They wanted the vote for themselves, not for men and women of the working class. They wanted working class men to go die in wars. They wanted seats in the boardrooms of their husbands and fathers. They wanted to meet cute wealthy boys in university to pick themselves. In second wave feminism and onwards, they took those same rich spoiled women, and made them full assets of the class oppres…
/r/MensRights02/02/23 05:20 PM
2

Same with occupy wallstreet. As soon as the feminists showed up and made it about them, because no one dares to say no, it all fizzled out. And that is the main purpose of feminism, and wokism in general: To tear apart any form of popular movement from the inside before it can become big enough to become a threat to the establishment. And to cancel anyone who could become a voice. The result is, that the only movements and voices that can grow are the ones that don't care about women and minorit…
/r/MensRights02/02/23 02:09 PM
16

Picking the best possible mate is kind of the very reason different sexes exist in the first place. The two sexes are nothing more than two different strategies for procreation: Male is many cheap high risk gametes. Female is few expensive low risk gametes. And which strategy is better depends on the current environment. Which is why it is generally a good thing when both strategies are available to a species. Makes it a lot more adaptable and flexible. That the criteria that are used to decide …
/r/MensRights23/01/23 08:12 PM
7

Nah, Velma is just what you get when intersectionalism is enforced via quotas and merit is an afterthought. In the case of media the result is just bad shows. I mean, there are enough horrible right wing christian shows as well, Kevin Sorbo still needs work after all. It becomes scary, when this same practice of giving out positions and titles based on politics happens in areas where there are real world consequences. Like in fire fighting, engineering or in the military. This certainly is not a…
/r/MensRights20/01/23 10:19 AM
13

Well, that's the risk of being in a relationship. You become vulnerable. If you protect yourself in a way that this never can happen, then you can't have relationships. The important thing is, if the vulnerability in a relationship gets carelessly or cruelly exploited, you gotta end the relationship. Scars are bound to happen. But get out before you become a cripple.
/r/MensRights03/01/23 02:17 PM
8

I'm rarely if ever alone with any woman that isn't my girlfriend anyway. There simply is no reason to. And most women are reluctant to be alone with men anyway. So when she actually pushes for some privacy, that means you gotta pay attention and really figure out what her intentions are. But that's the same with men. Being alone with a man you don't know also requires you to pay attention judge the situation. I think kids today spend too little unsupervised alone with other kids growing up. So t…
/r/MensRights03/01/23 02:13 PM
30

Don't get passing out drunk in the company of people you don't know. Simple as that. Which means if you are just starting to drink, do it in a safe environment with friends and family, so you can learn to judge your inebriation levels.
/r/MensRights03/01/23 12:34 PM
5

The only reason I started using "female" is, because enough of them got offended when I used "girl" or "woman", when they didn't feel old enough to be called a woman or they felt too mature to be called a girl. And you never knew beforehand which one it was that was the offensive one. If you go back far enough in my comment history here, you could probably find the exact moment when I stopped using girl and woman and started using female. At this point though, I think all this being offended abo…
/r/MensRights08/12/22 05:31 AM
6

Yes I do care. A woman should be independent and successful. Because if she is dependent, she will become annoying real fast. And if she is not successful, that just means she doesn't have her shit together, is insecure, and can't get things done on her own. The whole point of a successful relationship where you build a future together is, that you take up and can delegate responsibilities to each other and depend on that. You don't want dead weight, and you don't want active sabotage. And all t…
/r/MensRights03/12/22 03:34 AM
1

Rights are guarantees and entitlements that the group gives the individual. Without the group enforcing rights, they don't exist. When you are alone on an island, there are no rights, because there is no one there to enforce them. When you are part of a group, you do your duty, and in doing so, you enforce the rights of the others, and earn your own rights, enforced by the others doing their duty. Which mean what rights are enforced for whom and to what degree is decided by the group. And all of…
/r/MensRights26/11/22 10:18 PM
27

A little observation I had watching Andor (which is actually pretty good): Andor is pretty good about diversity. Humans of all ethnicities and genders can be found everywhere. And loads of aliens of course too sprinkled in. But where is no woman to be found? In prison. Neither guard nor inmate. Not even in jail and in the crowd waiting to be judged was a single woman. While the judge was. You could find women in all levels of administration. I mean, the female mechanic has become trope by now, a…
/r/MensRights09/11/22 04:52 PM
1

Yeah, bad impulse control almost always leads to problems, no matter what impulses you find hard to control. Fact is, porn took care of my horniness for years and years. For free. (Why would you pay for it?). And with my horniness taken care of, I wasn't looking for women that just were the next piece of meat anymore. I was looking for a partner and a good person. Still took me many years to find one. I imagine, I would have been made jaded and bitter and ruined by the women I would have let int…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 02:09 PM
1

Well, influence is power. And power is influence. And as mentioned above, Mdm. Pompadour is a good example of a woman gaining great power and influence, (and this type of social power is only possible when the society around you accepts it and supports it), even though it is against the official rules this society says it has to conform to. If anything, it makes my original argument stronger. Because it demonstrates that the men in power actually went out of their way to accommodate and support …
/r/MensRights31/10/22 01:20 PM
2

A right is a guarantee or entitlement that the group gives an individual. Outside of groups rights don't exist, because without social enforcement, rights don't exist. Without your right to life being enforced by your parents or other caretakers, no one of us would have made it through the first few hours of our life. And the only reason your home is still your home, when you come home from work is, because your property rights are accepted by everyone else and enforced for you. Enforcement is o…
/r/MensRights31/10/22 01:06 PM
1

There is a famous Quote by Frederick that I'm referring to here: "The three arch whores of Europe are conspiring against me!" And yes, he did consider Mdm. Pompadour his actual opponent. Louis XV newer was considered the real power in his reign. And hthe other two "whores" were Marie Theresia and tsar Elisabeth, of course. And Saxony and Sweden were mostly irrelevant or made irrelevant in the War. They were not great European powers. Saxony never was, even as the zenith of its power fell exactly…
/r/MensRights31/10/22 08:07 AM
1

The most concise argument I can give is, that throughout history, there always has been a significant minority of women in wealth and power. And then I would start listing examples from history. Things like that the throne of England was occupied by a woman for half the time in the last 500 years that Queen Mary was preceded by a woman, was succeedd by a woman, had to get rid of several female competitors to get to the throne and also had primarily to deal with other female leaders in her foreig…
/r/MensRights28/10/22 12:50 AM
10

Ok, I pulled a snapshot of the MR front page, lets see how misogynistic it is: I made a list of male oriented subreddits where we can discuss emotions, grooming, and other topics Seems nice an healthy and supportive. New UK Rape Law Petition. Please sign! This is much better written than the previous poor efforts. Let's try to make this one a success! Activism concerning a real and long standing legal injustice towards men. Article gives a tutorial on how to baby trap a man. Awareness about a pr…
/r/MensRights27/10/22 10:45 PM
7

Worth the effort to do what? Everyone should put in the effort to be a decent human being, no matter if you want to shack up with someone or not.
/r/MensRights17/10/22 03:58 PM
3

There is of course a class difference and a class struggle, and those on top exploit those on bottom. But the line is not along the lines of gender. There are many many rich and powerful women, today and throughout history, that were not any better than the worst men in those positions. The fact that you think that oppression in general is a result of the patriarchy just shows that feminism has done it's job.
/r/MensRights17/10/22 03:52 PM
7

"Carrie" could have become an awesome slasher series. Like the ghost of Carrie coming back from time to time to possess bullied girls to make things bloody and ugly ...
/r/MensRights17/10/22 03:45 PM
1

But it is kind of a self-defeating approach. Societies are incentivized to grow larger. Because of productivity reasons and because of security reasons. But because humans can only ever communicate in hierarchies at a larger scale, larger societies inevitable become corrupt, entrenched class systems of inequality and oppression. And it is in those environments where hypergamy thrives. It is no coincidence, that polygamy and its siblings is most prevalent in the most unequal and corrupt and entre…
/r/MensRights09/10/22 04:03 PM
4

Pretty simple: Hypergamy can't run amok, when there is not much inequality in society. Extreme hypergamy is the natural and rational reaction to extreme social inequality.
/r/MensRights08/10/22 12:01 AM
13

DNA studies indicate monogamy started in one of the interglacial periods about 20,000 years ago. I have a suspicion it started because having access to women keeps more men in the group, which in turn makes the group far more defensible. And it also makes the group better at raiding other groups. The dominant males must have realized that it is better to share some than perpetuating the vicious cycle of being killed and replaced after short stints at the top and having it all for yourself.
/r/MensRights04/09/22 07:02 PM
1

What do I want society to look like, in regards to gender? That laws an policies are written and enforced without gender differences. With one exception: women that actually are pregnant and breastfeed and raise children, should get the social support to do that without having to work other jobs for that time. That our institutions and infrastructure are set up in such a way, that getting married and having and raising children are no existential risk for anyone (outside of unsolved medical prob…
/r/MensRights31/08/22 04:51 PM
5

Astrid Lindgren is mostly known for Pippi Longstocking, but she has written a lot of other books as well with male protagonists that are just as good. In the end it doesn't really matter though. If it's well written you can see through the eyes of any protagonist or character, no matter how many differences there are. I mean, there are loads of children's books where the main characters are animals, and this in no way prevents them from experiencing the story and lessons from it.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 07:52 AM
2

Rights that are given to specific demographics or even specific people are called privileges. Privileges are an important aspect of organizing any society. Assigning them by birthright has always been shown to be very very problematic, since that creates and perpetuates and entrenches class systems that lead to corruption and oppression.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 07:18 PM
2

So in your analysis a viable fetus has rights because Can have rights. Until someone else actually takes over care, it doesn't, because the right does not exist unless someone else enforces it for him. That's all what rights are. The only reason your apartment is still your apartment when you get home from work is, that the other people in society accept and enforce your right of property for you. carrying a fetus is guilty of double homicide so clearly we have a double standard Sure, we have a …
/r/MensRights10/05/22 01:09 PM
1

I believe people have intrinsic rights Universal/natural rights are as much a human invention as divine commandments. Rights only exist when they are enforced by the group. Even the most classic natural rights, like the the right to life, only exist when they are enforced by the group. No human makes it through the first few hours of their life, if their right to live isn't enforced by the parents or some other care-taker. Which brings us back to abortion. The difference between keeping a newbor…
/r/MensRights10/05/22 12:28 PM
1

you shouldn't kill something that's never done anything wrong This shows that even though you don't call yourself religious, you swallowed the religious reasoning on this wholesale, thinking in categories of individual souls, morally right and wrong and sin and punishment. If you think of life as individual, isolated living beings and individuals, that can be innocent and can do right and wrong, you have a very unrealistic view of life.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 11:56 AM
0

I think you meant 'atheist'. To put life on such a holy/exhalted level as an atheist, you need to have beliefs about life that are so ridiculously out of touch with reality, and you have been so throughly brainwashed by religious propagnada, you might as well believe in gods.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:59 AM
10

He's also a lot richer than people like Johnny Depp. And a lot more ruthless. People like Musk buy and sell sports teams the way middle class people buy lawn mowers or fridges. And sports teams that those people buy often have multiple people on their roster that are of comparable wealth level as Johnny Depp. Which is to say to billionaires, famous entertainers are basically indistinguishable from the homeless. Also, while Johnny Depp has a wild and "dangerous" side, as is nicely showcased in hi…
/r/MensRights28/04/22 07:21 AM
-3

It is often useful to have the two different words, because they express different things. The relation between "sex" and "gender" is sort of like the relation between "food" and "cuisine". Sex and food describe biological realities and necessities. Gender and cuisine describe the specific cultural implementation and adaptations for dealing with and adapting to those realities. Of course, once cuisine becomes so esoteric and removed from the basic realities of nutritional needs that it fails to …
/r/MensRights12/04/22 03:47 PM
8

I see outspoken male feminists as much of a red flag as outspoken religious homophobes. Are all religious people likely to to solicit underage male prostitutes at truckstops? No. But the more openly homophobic they are, the more likely I'd say they are overcompensating for something to not be found out. And the more openly and fervently someone spouts feminist ideology, the more I think they are hiding some cynical vile beliefs, desires and deeds towards women they can't act out openly in their …
/r/MensRights27/01/22 12:47 PM
2

There will always be people who hate some kind of other people. Some people hate blacks, some hate whites, some people hate the uneducated, some people hate the educated, some people hate vegans, some people hate meat eaters and so on. The question is not, how are there always some people who hate some other people, the question is, how come some people can push their hatred onto and into society, and others can't? Well, that's simply because some people are a lot richer and more powerful than t…
/r/MensRights26/01/22 07:09 PM
2

It is very possible for a woman to have sex with many different men, while shunning most of them. In fact, even the most slutty woman still will only have had sex with a tiny fraction of all men. (Except your mom of course) There is zero contradiction here. A woman that sleeps with every professional athlete in all the big professional leagues would undoubtedly be a major slut, while at the same time not look at anyone who isn't a multimillionaire in peak physical condition, because "Ewwww!"
/r/MensRights26/12/21 01:07 AM
1

Where did I say it was men attacking the family? Feminism to me is a capitalist intelligence plot to disrupt the organization of the left. And a highly effective one at that. Almost all the early prominent feminists where verily likely or even confirmed anti-communist intelligence assets from good establishment homes. From Simone deBeauvoir, to Helen Gurley Brown to Gloria Steinem, they all have very suspicious biographies. Even people like Jane Fonda i strongly suspect of being intelligence. Ju…
/r/MensRights04/12/21 09:46 PM
2

And you know why the family i under attack? Because it is the last major economic entity that is not primarily ruled by capitalistic principles. I.e. the resources and wealth created in and available to families are not easily up for grabs to the highest bidder or anyone with some leverage. Capitalism needs to expand to keep working, and the family is one of the last frontiers it can expand into. At least you need to be clear where the attack on the family is coming from. A freely movable workfo…
/r/MensRights04/12/21 12:45 PM
3

I think rather French Nationalists/Monarchists. But either could be true.
/r/MensRights24/11/21 10:33 PM
10

I think she was an intelligence asset. No other way to explain her career and biography. That doesn't preclude her being crazy of course. Epstein was both an intelligence asset and crazy as well.
/r/MensRights24/11/21 03:43 PM
3

Psychological traits are also just normal variation within a population, no need for any philosophical defence. Since the two sexes are just different and complementary procreation strategies, it would be strange if there weren't behavioral differences linked to it.
/r/MensRights14/10/21 10:54 PM
10

Why would you have to defend masculinity philosphically? The sexes are a reality, an adaptation to improve gene propagation and deal with genetic instability and changing environmental circumstances. You don't need to philosophically defend the different wing colors of peppered moths, or any other traits that exist in variability within any population.
/r/MensRights14/10/21 10:45 PM
39

Harvey Weinstein got feminist awards. Joss Whedon was touted as a pillar of feminism. Bill Clinton had and has feminists square in his corner defending him. I see an outspoken male feminist at least as much of a red flag as I see an outspoken homophobe as a red flag.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 01:18 PM
2

It's actually a neat little tidbit, that objectification exclusively means "guys thirsting over gals" nowadays. The original meaning from Marx is very different: "The object which labour produces… confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labour is labour which has been congealed in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor." ... and then goes on how those objects, the result of the labor that cost them dearly, is taken…
/r/MensRights25/09/21 12:46 PM
3

He's a major druggie and his assholery while on drugs is well documented.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 03:47 PM
5

hat black people are just more likely to be accused I said "against them". So you gotta have your slider between "97% of accusations against black men are false" and "black men rape 23 times more often". Since the black population is ~15% that means the lower limit of false accusations overall varies between ~15% and ~0.5%, depending on where you wanna put the slider and assume there are no false accusations against anyone else. white people are 23 times more likely to get away with rape Not rea…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 01:02 PM
15

There was this thread last month. Simple premise: official data shows a black student at university is 23 times more likely to be accused of rape than the others. This either means black men rape 23 times more often than others or that 97% of the accusations against them are false, or anything between.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 08:35 AM
5

But there is a difference, especially when you believe in "life begins at conception". The fetus didn't enter the mothers body. Well, except with artificial fertilization. But even then, it didn't enter because that's what fetuses do and is in their interest, they were specifically placed there by someone else, and not by its own action or even just statistical spread. In the normal case the fetus is an outgrowth. Like a mole or a hair or a tumor. And I don't see you wringing your hands about th…
/r/MensRights06/09/21 03:31 PM
2

Parasites do function outside their host, that's how they enter.
/r/MensRights06/09/21 03:03 PM
5

It is precisely not an organism, because it doesn't function independently.
/r/MensRights06/09/21 02:46 PM
1

Your snot has human DNA. The skin cells you shed every second has human DNA. The question is not whether it is human, because it 100% is. The question is, whether it is a person. Someone that can have own interests. And as long as it cannot survive without the mother, it cannot have own interests independent of the mother. Now you probably think why can't you just kill the injured sick and elderly that can't survive by themselves using the same argument. Very simple. In those cases someone else …
/r/MensRights06/09/21 01:23 PM
1

Just like the police is targeting and behaving a lot differently in poor neighborhoods than rich neighborhoods, the same goes for military recruiters. When you know the people you are talking to have no real help and connections, can't afford lawyers and are poorly educated about their rights, your strategy will be a lot different. Police people and recruiters are a lot more likely to brazenly and flat out lie to poor people to catch them. And they specifically go to poor neighborhoods to do so.
/r/MensRights29/08/21 09:23 AM
5

Well, there are some legitimate issues. There are still a lot of people who want to and do deny women birth control and body autonomy. That particular problem would be better served by universal health care though. Similar with pregnancy/parental leave. Would be better served with better worker protections in general. Better worker protections in general would also take care of 99% of everything women complain about in the workplace.
/r/MensRights07/07/21 10:39 AM
1

Possible. The thing is though, the processes and algorithms used to make decisions are generalistic and are implemented long before the programmer knows what kind of particular decisions have to be made. The machine just does its thing, without bias. What's different each time is the input people give.
/r/MensRights22/06/21 07:07 AM
0

Well, classless society, duh.
/r/MensRights22/06/21 07:03 AM
0

You mean like the Irish, or the Indians, both to increase the profit of some rich English guy?
/r/MensRights22/06/21 07:01 AM
1

You got to get rid of the large hierarchies, humans are not equipped for to operate without wasting most of human potential. Since that is only possible when we don't build our large scale communication structures with humans at the pivotal points, you gotta replace humans with machines at the large scale communication structures. Machines that don't only can pay attention to one thing at a time, machines that don't have their own agendas and biases and egos. Machines that can ask all humans all…
/r/MensRights21/06/21 03:44 PM
2

Capitalism doesn't work.
/r/MensRights21/06/21 02:50 PM
0

Good. Your loss.
/r/MensRights21/06/21 01:52 PM
-2

Oh sweet summer child. The primary reason that hierarchies are inevitable once human societies reach a certain size, and that those hierarchies inevitably slip into corruption, exploitation, oppression and eventually a class system is simple fact that humans can only ever pay attention to one thing at a time. This means it is always easier for one to speak to many than it is for one to listen to many. And when you build communication structures from such elements, you will always get tree-like s…
/r/MensRights21/06/21 01:51 PM
-5

Make the world better for everyone. The biggest inequality is not between race, religion, gender, sexuality or any other imposed division. The only inequality that actually matters is economical inequality. All other inequalities are a function of and tools to perpetuate economic inequality. As long as there is "the man", who often enough is a woman, not white, gay, of any or no religion, and "the man" has enough wealth and power and leverage to rob everyone else and impose their ways on others,…
/r/MensRights21/06/21 12:36 PM
2

Huh? Isn't it normal to do things you wouldn't do by yourself when you have a significant other? Like, cook and eat certain dishes more often than you would by yourself. Visit places you wouldn't rally visit by yourself. Watch movies that you wouldn't really watch by yourself. All those kinds of things. And dressing or grooming a certain way, that you wouldn't do by yourself is part of that. I can say for sure that I trim my pubes when I have a girlfriend, but not when I'm single. Less spitting.…
/r/MensRights17/05/21 05:35 PM
8

Worrying about how your body is perceived by others and trying to appeal to everyone is a losing proposition. What is more important is caring about whether your body can do the things you want it to do. Can you perform your job and concentrate? Can you do your daily errands without feeling exhausted and pain? Can you enjoy the activities you do for fun without having to worry? So, be glad you have a filter. If someone likes you and your body, then they will be ok with you. If not, you won't hav…
/r/MensRights17/05/21 11:38 AM
3

I actually had some success making some women rethink their position on this. First I agree, that it is probably a lot more annoying and a lot more common for women to walk around town and having to deal with horny drunk men. I've seen it happen often enough. I have seen drunk, unhappily married men at company christmas parties being disgusting often enough as well, where I watch and think, if she can't handle that herself, I might have to say something. But annoying and disgusting is not the sa…
/r/MensRights11/05/21 09:33 AM
1

Or like bombing the freedom fighters, and not the arms dealers.
/r/MensRights22/04/21 12:18 PM
1

The fact that they can do this for women led businesses, but not for businesses that don't profit from war and slavery is quite telling.
/r/MensRights22/04/21 12:16 PM
16

You still say loudly and calmly "Will you stop hitting me?" and hold your ground. What it does is it takes away the sneakyness and it creates a stalemate where it is on her to deescalate or on others to intervene.
/r/MensRights30/03/21 10:00 AM
6

When toddlers hit you, you don't hit back. You just restrain them so they can't hit you anymore and calm them down. So, when she hits you, grab the wrists and hold them and ask loudly "Will you stop hitting me?" If for some unlikely reason she is too strong for you or knows self-defense and can escape your grip, that demonstrates to the others around, that it is not just harmless. If she can't escape, it still demonstrates her being the aggressor. And if she likes it too much being manhandled by…
/r/MensRights30/03/21 09:47 AM
1

I agree to some degree. But I do think you generalize a little too much. There is a lot of female policing going around. The controlling MIL is a trope that is still true in many ways. Also, the oft complained about slut shaming is a thing mainly women do to each other as well. The "mean girls" trope also comes from a real phenomenon. The very existence of the fashion industry is due to women policing each other.
/r/MensRights12/02/21 11:44 AM
1

I'd say it is more nuanced than "Men awesome, women suck!"
/r/MensRights09/02/21 11:29 AM
1

Of course it is selection. Women had more important things to do than climbing ladders. They had to keep mankind alive. Simple matter of biology. That biology is changed now with medicine and secure food supplies and reliable contraception. That's why you see more women in business and public service now in the places where child mortality is not a problem anymore. If, as you say, it was a question of inherent biological ability, then you wouldn't see women in those roles anywhere.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 10:22 AM
4

Yes, there were usually more men in positions of public power than women. But that was not a result of men conspiring against women and making it impossible for them. Because at any time in history you will find a good number of women in public positions of power, which shouldn't be the case if anything like the patriarchy was even close to being true. Examples? The English throne was occupied by a woman half of the time in the last 500 years. Every major European power was ruled by a woman a fe…
/r/MensRights09/02/21 03:15 AM
4

MM is/was a major druggie. Even if that was the only issues he has, I would not be surprised in the least if he becomes violent and abusive on a regular basis. As it stands, I suspect he has a lot of other issues on top of that, which would make this even less surprising. In any case, legally you need evidence and a trial to do anything. Professionally, he has enough of a back catalog and enough of a following to be set for life with royalties and concerts, even if he spends most of his money on…
/r/MensRights04/02/21 06:56 PM
2

What is ethics? Ethics is methods and means used to solve conflicts of interest. The first conflict of interest was two organisms wanting the same piece of food. The first method to resolve this was violence. Denying someone else the resources to live is what we call violence, or evil. It is built into the very essence of what life is, because life always replicates exponentially until that replication is limited by the scarcity of some resource, at which point anyone can only live by claiming t…
/r/MensRights03/02/21 12:37 PM
13

Objectification is, when your sexual gratification or desire is the only thing you care about with that person. Employees are also often objectified. All the owner cares about is the surplus they produce for him. The owner doesn't care about their health, their needs, their plans, their potential, and especially not about their feelings and opinions. They are human resources, objects to him, for his own material gratification and desires.
/r/MensRights19/01/21 04:29 PM
1

Not more than Jordan Peterson.
/r/MensRights17/12/20 01:37 PM
3

It's a small minority of men who are violent. And many of them are forced into it against their will via conscription and similar mechanisms. Men are stronger and tougher than women, so they generally are better at achieving physical results with violence. That doesn't mean they resort to it more often. Women are better at getting away with violence. Which is I think women actually resort to violence more often than men. Never forget that the vast majority of violence against children is committ…
/r/MensRights15/12/20 04:22 PM
1

Well, I'd like to see you try to start living off the land without using any of the knowledge other built or tools others made. If you want you could even call it a job. At least no one would have to hear you slapping yourself on the shoulder anymore.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 10:18 PM
0

An occupation you can have without wages, a job not. Being a hermit is an occupation, but not a job. And today we are more interdependent than ever. For one, there is not a lot of land left that could support people by itself. And for another, our production chains and social interdependcency has grown to such a level, that most of the things we produce and do, can't be done without the work of thousands if not millions of others as a prerequisite. And there are other animals that use tools, and…
/r/MensRights10/12/20 07:21 PM
-2

An occupation is not a job. Helping each other is absolutely essential to our survival. Cooperation is like the defining skill of humans that ensures their survival. But at least you now have an idea of how stupid your argument sounded to me.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 04:18 PM
-6

Ok, then lets start comparing a little more. You need an income to survive You only need an income to survive, because the resources to survive are being gatekept by the people who wanna exploit you. I wouldn't certainly help a woman that is threatening my life. So why would I help others to exploit and threaten more people by enriching them? A man has no NEED to help women. A man also has no NEED to have a job. Men were helping women long before there were any jobs, and it was essential to our …
/r/MensRights10/12/20 04:03 PM
-6

Yeah, I heard someone had a job once and wasn't paid. That's why I'll never get a job myself.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 09:43 AM
3

What do we call it when those of lower social status have to pay for those of higher social status to enjoy the drugs of life? Civilization. The social hierarchy is an unavoidable constant throughout history. And it is only a few years since we have the technology to maybe get rid of the hierarchies on a larger scale.
/r/MensRights09/12/20 10:42 AM
1

Some of the most impactful early labor disputes where cottons spinners and matchstick workers, both basically completely female industries. Not to mention that governesses and seamstresses were almost completely female owned businesses for centuries, basically ever since those professions existed.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 12:22 AM
1

I think "Man with the Harmonica" is one of the songs that describes one of the key male experiences. It's the story of how fear and despair and sadness against the backdrop of an uncaring world becomes anger and determination and finally pitched cathartic action only to fade away in to sadness again.
/r/MensRights06/11/20 09:13 AM
1

A right is defined precisely by not being self-enforced. That's the difference between a possession and property rights for example. Possessions are a personal struggle and achievement. Even animals can have possessions like a lair or a territory or a carcass, and they claim and defend and use those all by themselves, no other animal will help to do this. Property rights are agreed upon and defended by others. That's why your home is still your home after you come home from work. You don't even …
/r/MensRights19/10/20 10:46 PM
1

Oh you sweet summer child. Not even your right to live exists without enforcement. Without your parents or some other caretaker enforcing your right to live, you wouldn't have made it through the first few hours of your life.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 10:17 PM
1

Rights only exist when they are enforced, i.e. when the group as a whole believes it is beneficial to enforce. So no, men don't have that right. And if you think they should have that right, you must convince everyone that it is beneficial to enforce equality for all. And I don't think you are a commie.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 10:08 PM
1

Well, of course people are sexist. People are all kinds of awful.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 08:48 PM
1

"Buying into the sexism" sounds like you don't think it is true. But apart from saying it's sexist you haven't given any arguments. Yes, a man acting like a girl can expect some lashback. I said so myself even before you did. But that still doesn't cahnge anythign abotu the fact that millions upon millions of girls and women fall and swoon for young male performers that make money off of them, and millions upon millions of boys and men fall for sex scams involving young damsels that make money o…
/r/MensRights19/10/20 08:32 PM
1

You can call it sexist all you want, it's still true. And I care more about the truth of my statements than their sexism.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 07:56 PM
1

Those behaviors are general enough to support whole industries.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 07:46 PM
0

I certainly am not waiting around for the spice girls or tlc to make love to me. Yes, you are no girl. Boys are attracted to other things. That's why the luring works differently. Girls throwing panties at performers and mass hysteria is recorded at least as far back as Franz Liszt. Elvis, The Beatles ... this kind of behavior is almost expected from girls. If a boy would behave even closes the same you get "Leave Britney alone!" guy and become a meme. No, boys are attracted to damsels in distre…
/r/MensRights19/10/20 11:36 AM
14

Every single time in history when a a town or a village was taken they killed the guys. And when someone killed everyone it was specifically pointed out that they also killed all the women, and how unusually cruel that is. Guys pick fights with guys in bars. Gang violence is something that is mainly between men. Go into the wrong neighborhood as a man, and you will get threatened and harassed and maybe stabbed, because you are seen as a threat. And then of course the by far biggest source of har…
/r/MensRights17/10/20 12:26 PM
-1

Sure, they sell the fantasy and hope of sex without it actually happening.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 08:58 AM
-1

Eh, I don't see this stuff much different than boy bands, which are also just a sex scam. The only big difference is what men and women are attracted to. For girls you have to create an illusion of status and virility. For men you have to create an illusion of youth and availability.
/r/MensRights16/10/20 08:45 AM
2

When you have white people making laws that hurt people of colour then you have white supremacy. Sure. There is racism and xenophobia and all that. But the reason it is a big problem is that some people can afford to make it into law and enforce it. The racist and xenophobic laws in the Gulf states would make your eyes water. The genocide and ethnicity laws in China would make Hitler jealous. The treatment of white farmers in Zimbabwe is not too far from the Nuremberg Laws. You will find those s…
/r/MensRights16/10/20 08:39 AM
3

Men (again, not all men) have always had the right to vote and own property. Well, the right to vote is pretty recent overall for everyone. A little over 100 years ago most men didn't have suffrage either. Yes, suffrage for women lacked a bit behind in most places. But it wasn't centuries as you imply, usually it was just a few years. As for property, you will find women running businesses all throughout history, in contracts and court rulings and in literature. In fact you will find many profes…
/r/MensRights16/10/20 01:57 AM
4

Agree with all of that. But lets not pretend "Innocent until proven guilty." doesn't have downsides. The obvious one, that everyone points out is, that guilty people are more likely to go free. While that sucks, it isn't the end of the world. Far more worrying is a consequence of that: When the legal system enforces based on "beyond reasonable doubt", then the society at large develops a moral system based on plausible deniability. And the result of that ultimately is a complete breakdown of tru…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 08:49 AM
6

Oh, I'm aware that most day to day politics was done by ministers, but don't think for a second that they weren't acting in the orders and interests of their monarchs or the regent (who often also was a woman). You will be very hard pressed to find any time where there weren't a few women in positions of real power and influence. This by itself should put to rest any claim that women were prevented from so. Even in in countries where the salic laws were upheld it was not unusual to have a woman …
/r/MensRights20/09/20 05:48 AM
6

Ah yes, even when women have the power and the wealth and the titles and respect of their subjects the anger of their enemies, they are oppressed. Got you.
/r/MensRights20/09/20 05:23 AM
6

So you are saying there were no women in power? You know, in the last 500+ years there was a woman on the throne of England nearly half of the time. And even in the time when there wasn't the real political power was often with a woman, like Margareth of Anjou or Queen Caroline. Queen Bloody Mary was preceded by a woman on the throne, was succeeded by a woman on the throne, and she had to get rid of 3 female rivals to geth there, and even in her dealing with foreign powers she mainly had to deal…
/r/MensRights20/09/20 05:12 AM
7

Better a pussy once than a sucker for life.
/r/MensRights15/09/20 01:56 PM
4

But they still have pointless wars (well, not Japan, it's in their constitution), they still have highly censored and conformist media propaganda ... and bullying is a way of life there.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 09:27 PM
9

Strangely, the nazi position is at least somewhat more falsifiable. Because it is possible to have societies without jews, you can make a partly test. And surprise surprise, societies without jews also have the same kind of issues. But since there are no societies without issues (and without women or without men), you are stuck with a tautology in the feminist case.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 01:47 PM
8

There is a lot about the voting system that needs reforming. Women voting is not among that.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 08:50 PM
10

The whole premise of feminism, i.e. the patriarchy boogey man and historic oppression of women is completely fictional. And since they derive their goals and justify their means from this fiction, it is an highly unlikely accident when feminism sometimes does something that is not wrong and harmful not just men but everybody. The biggest problem I have with feminism is that it is probably the most effective "divide and rule" campaign the ruling elites have launched in the last 200 years. The amo…
/r/MensRights20/08/20 04:00 PM
4

Liberal? What is liberal? The people who are called liberal in the democratic party are more right wing on the topics that matter, like healthcare, than the OG fascists like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. You would have to add like 5 more options to the left of liberal to come even close to where I am, and frankly where most people are.
/r/MensRights20/08/20 11:51 AM
6

The term "toxic masculinity" is not much different from the terms "savage" or "heathen" as used by the colonial powers. It's just victim blaming and justification for exploitation.
/r/MensRights02/08/20 05:01 PM
2

A privilege is an entitlement that is socially enforced only for a specific demographic, but not by default for everyone. A right it an entitlement that is socially enforced by default for everyone, and only not under certain circumstances for some. What the criteria are to decide who a privilege is enforced for and who a right is not enforced for can vary wildly. Having this biological personal attributes like age or sex or skin color or belonging to a certain family tree, that all has been don…
/r/MensRights02/08/20 11:23 AM
1

If you are so entitled that even just asking someone to make a little room for you is just too much for you to handle, you should stay home where all your trained servants are that know what you want without you having to say anything, and not use public transport.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 10:18 AM
1

I specifically followed an article about horrible lines in Soviet Russia, and that article had no good examples. So when someone specifically wants to write an article about the topic, and can't come up with any good examples, and my personal experience and the personal experience of the people I know tell me as well that this "bread line" talking point was nothing more than propaganda, I'd say I'm right, and you are wrong on bread lines. So what was your original point? That capitalism is the o…
/r/MensRights14/05/20 03:29 PM
0

Ok. Let's do some research, additional to my personal experiences. If there were actually all lot of soviet bread lines, you would think there would be a lot of pictures of them, especially since this is such an often repeated talking point. Let's look at the results for "soviet bread lines" in google image search. There were 5 images of lines in the war era. There were 11 images from the late 80s early 90s, of which most were the opening of the Moscow McDonalds. There was 1 image definitely fro…
/r/MensRights14/05/20 03:01 PM
0

In the sense that you have a line every day at the supermarket checkout as well. Yes, around Christmas there were long lines. But around Christmas we still have long lines in a lot of shops, especially butchers and stuff like that. The thing that is true is, that there was a lot less variety. There wasn't a few dozen different kinds of cereals or ice cream. There were 2-3. And fresh fruits and vegetables were very seasonal, and at the end of winter you mostly had cabbage and root vegetables and …
/r/MensRights14/05/20 01:38 PM
0

Well, I haven't been to the Soviet Union when it existed, but I know many who have been. And yes, sometimes you had lines. But I have lines in supermarket checkout and at the meat counter and at the bakery today on a regular basis as well. Queuing lines are just a normal part of retail. And I don't know about grueling. In school breaks I regularly went to the shop to get me some cookies or ice cream or soda. And oh horror, I had to stand in a line because a lot of other students did the same in …
/r/MensRights14/05/20 11:34 AM
1

There were no bread lines in the 60's through the 80's in the USSR. Well, maybe late 80s the shelves got emptier. But that was comparable to the empty shelves at the start of the lockdown this year. I mean, when you google articles about soviet bread lines, you can find plenty from WWI over the Civil war and up to the 50s, a time of constant invasion and civil war and the aftermath of that. At that same time there were long bread lines in the US for no other reason than capitalism. And then they…
/r/MensRights13/05/20 07:56 AM
0

Google "bread lines great depression" and see if you find something. As for standard of living, choose your metric. Child mortality, literacy, life expectancy, crime rates, abortion rates, divorce rates nutrition, employment, health care ... you will find those were all a lot better in East Germany than in Mississippi or Alabama. Ignoring scary facts doesn't make them go away.
/r/MensRights13/05/20 01:27 AM
1

Ok, I'll go backwards and try to find something that could be considered a point. Let's see: Accusation of ignorance. ("Your ignorance is showing.") Feigning ignorance ("The Planet? ...") Feigning more ignorance ("So, you are saying that capitalists are exploited by capitalists", Not everyone in the capitalist system is a capitalist. And the abused can be abusers too.) Accusation if ignorance. ("You haven't thought this through very well... have you.") Point addressed. ("So, becoming capitalist …
/r/MensRights12/05/20 02:13 PM
0

Oh, you have called me many different variants of idiot and literally idiot. I get it, it's my username, and it's quite often people seek refuge in that when they are upset by what I write.
/r/MensRights12/05/20 01:34 PM
0

The thing is, you haven't posted anything to counter. You called me a few names, and that was it. Typical fear response.
/r/MensRights12/05/20 12:30 PM
0

I guess I scared you. I better leave you alone now and let you marinate.
/r/MensRights12/05/20 12:27 PM
0

So, becoming capitalist is becoming a plunderer? Yes, almost by definition. who are they plundering? The mineral exporters, the workers, the planet. Everyone who is at the bottom of the supply chains and social hierarchies. If you don't really care about plundering brown people, look at the massive corruption Chinese influence has in Australia and the massive price they are paying with the destruction of the barrier reef, the fires, etc. Look at the families where two parents each have to have m…
/r/MensRights12/05/20 12:19 PM
0

Nope, china just has joined the plunderers. And see, at the time the Soviet Union had bread lines and starvation, the US and most of the Western world had them too. And in the west there wasn't a multinational coalition of invaders waging a war and supporting and arming opssoition in their territory. It was just capitalism as usual. And today there are long bread lines in the US again. I am old enough to have lived in an Eastern Block country, and let me tell you, the standard of living there fo…
/r/MensRights12/05/20 11:59 AM
0

Oh, the Romans raised the standard of living where they went too. Slowly. I mean after they absolutely devastated the lands to make them new colonies. Burning and pillaging Mass executions, slavery, salting the earth, the works. Oh, and the Soviets improved the quality of life where they went as well. I mean, electricity, space ports, new industries, literacy, doctors ... So, that's also not unique to capitalism.
/r/MensRights12/05/20 07:44 AM
1

Oh, there were a lot of societies that became rich by plundering and exploiting others. Always comes with an expiration date.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 04:37 PM
-3

Well, I guess it makes sense that you swallow the infomercials whole.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 03:22 PM
-7

Now you're getting it! Stew in it a little more and you become serious.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 01:18 PM
-4

There is a small number of very wealthy and powerful men that can afford to fund and use and protect sex trafficking networks. Those are not just a means of entertainment, they are also a tool of business and power. And because these are rich and powerful men, these are the men most women are attracted to, so this is what they experience when they enter those circles and compete with each other for the attention of the men who have more women throw themselves at them every day than they could po…
/r/MensRights11/05/20 11:45 AM
-11

Hmm, it seems to me, that the problem is less the men, or even the women that erodes and prevents relationships. It is the pressures of capitalism that suck up all the time and energy needed to have relationships.
/r/MensRights11/05/20 11:36 AM
3

I just would like for men to die less. Most men's rights issues are literally a question of life and death at their core. From the legislation and legal practice around violence, working deaths, suicides, conscription and war, health issues ... If you are an informed and activist feminist, I consider you the equivalent of being a member of the nazi party. If you just call yourself a feminist and support feminism, I consider you the equivalent of a nazi voter. Equality before the law. Which also …
/r/MensRights30/04/20 12:57 PM
4

Feminism was always toxic and divisive. It just had a good misleading marketing for a little while. It was peddled like tobacco.
/r/MensRights30/04/20 12:43 PM
9

If it happened before modern medicine and agriculture, we would all be extinct. The risks of pregnancy and child mortality were simply too high. If we didn't do everything to protect women and the next generation, it would be over pretty quickly. Now that children dying is a rare thing in the developed world, I think we are moving towards the end of gynocentrism. It's a rocky road with many bumps and pitfalls, it's inevitable to go down that road of finding new roles, tasks and a new balance for…
/r/MensRights23/04/20 07:21 AM
2

I'm an average guy. In a fight I would win against pretty much every woman, and against about half the men I meet. Which means I would probably lose against half the men I meet. Which still means when I walk in the city there are dozens of people near me at any given time that can beat me up. But in the end it doesn't really matter if there are 20 or 50 people in your vicinity that can beat you up. And ultimately this is even the completely wrong thing to think about. Whether you can take someon…
/r/MensRights21/04/20 09:20 AM
3

I completely understand that it can be scary, annoying and exhausting to be at the receiving end of male attention fueled by raging testosterone. But learning to handle this gracefully is something everyone needs to do indivdually, because sex is ultimately something that is negotiated between individuals. Men need to learn to channel their testosterone drive into healthy forms of expression. And women need to learn to manage the stream of attention that comes their way. But this is a constant e…
/r/MensRights17/04/20 02:06 PM
3

Simone de Beauvior was almost certainly an intelligence asset. I mean she was in high up, but somewhat sideline, positions, in French Republican, Vichy Nazi and Eastern Block Communist institutions throughout the war, and she survived the war without a scratch. And sexual blackmail and manipulation is bread and butter for intelligence work. And her biography shows a lot signs of this going on.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 09:37 AM
33

I guess Jane Austen and the women that inspired her didn't exist then. Or all the other catty women that were written about since there was writing. Pretty much all polytheist pantheons, which we know about from writings 4000 years old and older, are full of catty women.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 09:29 AM
3

As unhealthy and financially damaging as this is to the men, it's almost certainly better for them than falling for the same kind of woman in real life.
/r/MensRights16/04/20 07:46 AM
5

I have a hard time coming up with things like that, that I would consider uniquely masculine. From managing your emotions and expectations and desires and balancing your own needs and the needs of others to pushing boundaries and being content, demanding something from the world and having something to offer to the world, those are all things everyone should learn.
/r/MensRights08/04/20 01:02 PM
6

Not showing emotion serves two purposes. It is to protect you from the manipulations of others. When others know how you feel and what you want, they can play you. So showing emotions is only somewhat safe, when you know the others can't or don't want to play you. It is to protect others. Showing emotions with you body language is a very powerful but crude means of broadcasing to the world. It directly affects other people on a visceral level that can be very distressing to them. People can feel…
/r/MensRights02/04/20 08:57 AM
11

A an outspoken male feminist is as much a red flag as an outspoken homophobe.
/r/MensRights27/03/20 12:11 PM
3

Asia Argento with that young boy costar. There was that case in Russia where two chicks abducted a guy, tied him down, fed him viagra and had their way with him for days until he died from a heart attack. There was this case in Germany where some nazi chicks locked a retarded guy in in a bathroom and raped him for days, and eventually killed him by shoving a toilet brush up his ass. If you buy into the notion that rape is mostly about power and not about sexual gratification, then any false rape…
/r/MensRights27/03/20 08:25 AM
1

Yep, the traditions regarding gender are different in different cultures. In muslim countries a lot happens we find objectionable. So go there and fight for women's rights there. They need it according to your own words. But even there the situation is a lot more complicated than just stating women are oppressed. People are oppressed there. And even in those countries the vast majority of people who are executed, incarcerated, tortured and beaten are men. Just as it is in the west. What you wann…
/r/MensRights26/03/20 07:50 AM
3

Now that's a little cheeky. Proving a negative is logically impossible. Just like it is not possible to prove that "god" doesn't exist. What is possible is showing that any positive claim by people that god exists are false. For example by showing that the earth is older than a few thousand years, you show that the god that created earth a few thousand years ago doesn't exist. So lets look at similar claims made in connection with patriarchy. Women were prevented from holding political power his…
/r/MensRights25/03/20 03:35 PM
10

They can't have the same goal, because they have different understandings of reality. The premise of feminism is the patriarchy, i.e. the historic and current oppression of women by men. And that premise is both monstrous and and downright wrong. It is this notion of patriarchy that makes the difference between women's rights and feminism. Once you get rid of patriarchy theory, there is no feminism anymore. And all that is left is women's rights and men's rights, i.e. human rights.
/r/MensRights24/03/20 02:11 PM
11

Well, if you do say you are only interested in something serious, that scares away most. It's too heavy, even if they are looking for something serious. Because serious is scary. They want to find something serious while pretending it is not. Plausible deniability. You'll have more luck finding someone ok with being blindfolded and handcuffed on first date, than someone who is comfortable answering honest questions about life plans, like goals and dreams and expectations.
/r/MensRights23/03/20 11:01 AM
3

My rebuttal is, the reason "Man Flu" is even a thing is, because when men complain, it's unusual and no one know how to deal with it. With women it doesn't matter if they are sick or not, they always complain, so no one notices a notable difference.
/r/MensRights20/03/20 11:23 AM
2

but are there virtually no theories about the criticizing use of men as workhorses, disposable producers, and beasts of burden for women and society The exploitation of men's labor for society is literally the most important pillar of all the marxist/leftist philosophy. Except that it doesn't gender the issue at all, at least originally. All that gender specific stuff doesn't enter this tradition until about 1900, only really taking up steam after WWI and becoming dominant in the West after WWII…
/r/MensRights04/03/20 08:04 AM
5

Throughout history you could always find a small but significant percentage of women who were powerful, who were educated, who were rich, in short, you could always find in any culture women who did anything men did. What does this tell you? It tells you it wasn't the mere fact of being a woman that made everyone else prevent them from doing anything they wanted. Because if that was the case, you wouldn't be able to find any such women at all for long stretches of history. But of course there re…
/r/MensRights18/02/20 08:26 AM
2

Nope. And the reason is, when men need/want to resort to violence, they usually have to do it themselves. Nope. It's always possible to find someone weaker and to find dangerous objects and substances to use for violence. Violence against the weakest, violence by proxy, social/emotional violence, undetected and unbelieved violence. The cause for the disparity in different forms of violence between the genders is the different biological capabilities and social incentives of the genders. The exis…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 02:04 PM
6

I'm just gonna give my little rant that I often give, when someone asks about the discrepancy between men and women in historic cultural contribution. You know the great Director Akira Kurosawa? He came from a wealthy Japanese samurai family and had 7 siblings. 4 of them died early. You know German Emperor William II ? He of course was from one of the wealthiest families in the world and also had 7 siblings. 2 of them died early. So despite those families having access to all the resources and t…
/r/MensRights04/02/20 01:10 PM
5

Someone who makes a point of labeling themselves with an ideology, probably benefits personally from being associated with it. In the case of feminism those benefits usually are funding and preferential treatment in institutions.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 10:27 AM
4

I just think there should be some division of labor and specialization in a partnership. If both are doing the same thing, then there is no real gain in being together at all. How exactly the roles are divided up needs to be negotiated though. A lot of negotiating at the start, less and less as the roles solidify. And of course everyone should still be able to fill in for each other occasionally without everything falling apart.
/r/MensRights20/01/20 10:52 AM
8

America is the only Western country where it is still wide spread. Initially the reason is because of puritans saw it a s good measure against masturbation. And so they made it a standard procedure in the American hospitals, many of which were founded by puritans. The main reason it is still practiced is, because it makes money. Hospitals can charge for circumcisions, and they can sell them for the stem cells and to the cosmetics industry. For similar greed reasons caesarians are a lot more comm…
/r/MensRights28/11/19 12:18 PM
2

The way I see it: women always complain and need to be coddled, so no one notices a difference when they are sick.
/r/MensRights30/10/19 07:31 AM
2

If that's a hill either of the partners is willing to die on, then just don't get married to each other ...
/r/MensRights27/10/19 02:30 PM
14

I'd fuck 60-70% of the women between 20-50 I see. With enough alcohol probably over 90%. That's probably because I'm not in the US and obesity isn't nearly as much a problem. And dating site statistics strongly indicate that this is true for most men. So what does this mean? For one thing it means for me, when I go through life and want to decide who I wanna ask out, physical attractiveness is an utterly useless criteria. I wouldn't be able to do anything else in my life if I'd ask out all the w…
/r/MensRights09/10/19 12:36 AM
2

Not really. There were "House Niggers" on every big plantation in the American South. The only real difference in the Ottoman Empire was that they were the official "House Niggers" of the Sultan, who happened to be head of state.
/r/MensRights24/09/19 04:42 PM
2

Yes, there was more of a slaver traditions and some more regulations and institutions regarding slaves there, which means it was possible for some slaves in the Ottoman Empire to attain official positions of certain privilege and influence, which was utterly impossible in the New World. But that shouldn't detract from the fact, that slavery for most still was just a brutalizing grind in fields and mines and manufacture.
/r/MensRights24/09/19 04:37 PM
7

Just saying, the Ottoman Empire was the biggest Slaver Empire for centuries. The numbers of slaves in the new world pale in comparison to the numbers put up from the Ottomans, who got their slaves from raids all over the Mediterranean and the Balkans, and had regular slave trade routes into Russia and the Asian Steppes and many slave trade outposts along East Africa. I mean, even their elite soldiers were slaves ...
/r/MensRights24/09/19 04:26 PM
3

By getting out of bed you are taking a risk. To avoid the risk the only option is to stay in bed and don't see and talk to anyone. Because chances are if you see and talk to someone in bed it leads to pregnancy.
/r/MensRights01/09/19 03:29 PM
1

Yes, there are pains that you need opioids for. I don't see where I said you never should take them for any reason. And I do have migraines sometimes. And I deal with them by curling up in bed and whimpering quietly for a day.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 07:46 AM
1

I haven't taken even an aspirin in my life. I did take local anesthetics a few times when I had surgery, like when they pulled my widom teeth or they had to stitch me up and set bones after accidents. But I nevert took any pain medication.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 07:14 AM
55

Real and decent doctors also don't prescribe Opioids by the pound, but here we are ...
/r/MensRights28/08/19 02:31 PM
2

All it takes for a rape to occur is an asshole with an opportunity. And it is well established that almost all rapes are committed by a few assholes. For a rape accusation to the damage it does and be as common as it is, there must be something fundamentally wrong with society and its values and institutions as a whole.
/r/MensRights27/08/19 02:22 PM
32

The core issue as a man is, no one gives a shit about you. If you want someone to give a shit about you, you have to earn that. That has some advantages, like you can do anything you want, no matter how outlandish, stupid and dangerous, as long as you don't get in anyone's way, and no one will try prevent you from doing it. But it also has many disadvantages, like if you actually need help, it is very very hard to find, and often you are even punished for looking for help. Because no one gives a…
/r/MensRights27/08/19 07:30 AM
3

Well, that's just basic decency. You ask for dates, and everyone is allowed to say yes or no.
/r/MensRights15/08/19 07:43 AM
2

Yep, you can find people who are willing to do it, and others who aren't. But demanding it of everyone is a dick move. That's almost like Trump demanding constant flattery and everyone telling him how smart and rich and attractive he is and how great his hair is. Sure, there are enough people willing to do it, because they get something in return. Or because they just don't wanna deal with a temper tantrum or his lawyers or goons, so they nod and smile and walk away and don't want to have anythi…
/r/MensRights15/08/19 07:33 AM
4

I don't care if you want to change your gender. But it is on you to pass as the other gender. If you start demanding of others to call you a gender you clearly aren't you are asking them to lie, you are asking them to say the emperor has the most beautiful clothes when in fact he is naked. Now, lying for social etiquette isn't that unusual. You laugh at the jokes your boss tells you etc. So, someone demanding to be called and treated as a woman when they clearly aren't is an eccentricity. And de…
/r/MensRights15/08/19 07:16 AM
4

Being able to control your emotions is as important as being able to control you bowel movements. And learning that is part of growing up and becoming an adult. Because if you don't you turn everywhere you go into a stinking toxic mess. No one wants to deal with your emotional shit just as no one wants to deal with your bowel shit. You just don't spray it around everywhere. Everyone produces and accumulates shit, that's just a result of all things you have to swallow and digest every day. And th…
/r/MensRights14/08/19 11:42 AM
1

Making people feel guilty by default is a powerful tool to control them. That's what original sin was about, that's what debt is about. Wealthy upper class people don't want all the others competing with them. They don't want want anyone to even try to challenge them. And depressed people riddled with guilt don't do that.
/r/MensRights10/08/19 01:13 PM
2

Well, you wouldn't advocate for less hatred against fascim and whipe power movements, would you? Sure, you shouldn't drown everyone in hatred who says she is a feminist, maybe she just didn't know any better the way she was raised and grew up. Especially since it is impossible to escape feminist propaganda in media and education. There are also a lot of racists who just don't know any better the way they grew up. Doesn't mean they aren't blameless and aren't contributing to discrimination and hu…
/r/MensRights06/08/19 06:11 AM
2

I'm not watching anything anymore either for almost 2 years. Different reasons though. And I used to torrent a lot of stuff. I don't even want all that shit for free anymore. Main reason being, after having watched so much stuff, it felt like I have seen everything already. Nothing new or innovative or original, everyone following all the writing rules with the the act structure and story arches and so so many tropes. And all the same characters everywhere and you would think there is only a han…
/r/MensRights26/07/19 12:55 PM
9

First a quote by probably the most important female Marxist out there: In truth, our state is interested in keeping the vote from working women and from them alone. It rightly fears they will threaten the traditional institutions of class rule, for instance militarism (of which no thinking proletarian woman can help being a deadly enemy), monarchy, the systematic robbery of duties and taxes on groceries, etc. Women’s suffrage is a horror and abomination for the present capitalist state because b…
/r/MensRights11/07/19 08:15 PM
1

Yet, there are no advanced societies without distinct masculine and feminine roles. Sure there is variation in what those roles entail, just as there is variation in what people grow and grew for food. But the roles themselves always exist. And it would be strange if it wasn't so. It's not that long ago that we had horrible child mortality rates. And horrible rates of maternal death. +100 years ago, even in the families of the European monarchs a quarter to a third of the children died before re…
/r/MensRights06/07/19 07:16 AM
1

Ok. So male and female are two biological strategies within sexual reproduction to match two gametes together. And Masculinity and Femininity are cultural adaptations to account for those different biological strategies. Sort of like agriculture is a cultural adaptation to account for the biological reality of needing food. Sure, we could do away with agriculture. It just would mean billions will die. Because the underlying biological reality of needing food doesn't go away. And the consequences…
/r/MensRights05/07/19 11:16 PM
4

The most succes I had was to simply list powerful women in history. There never was a time when there were no powerful women. Sure, they were always fewer than powerful men, but you'd think if there was actual concerted effort to keep women as a class from power, there would be extended times where there were no powerful women. The best examples for Western and English speaking people would of course be European and British history. So you can say, that in the last 500 years the English throne w…
/r/MensRights30/06/19 12:19 PM
1

Most males not being able to procreate follows almost by definition of maleness: many expendable high risk gametes (in search for a few expensive low risk gametes). So this is the case in most species with sexual reproduction. But in any social species, the individuals that don't procreate usually also are highly important in the reproductive success of their relatives, i.e. the ones with the most similar genes. Most extreme example would be something like state insects, where only one in a mill…
/r/MensRights26/06/19 05:53 AM
-4

I'm all for more for HIM.
/r/MensRights13/06/19 02:44 PM
6

And as with every other area being taken over by women, it is a big sign of its decline. Teaching, journalism, equestrianism. All once very respected and essential parts of society. Today mostly the butt of jokes and memes and handwringing over how much it has declined and the damage that decline causes to society. Not sure what is cause and what is effect here.
/r/MensRights13/06/19 12:50 PM
2

I don't think it makes too much difference whether it's rich men or women. Yes, there are less women in publicly visible powerful positions, but there always are and always have been a good percentage of them. And if a woman is not in a publicly visible powerful position, she still has major control on the decisions of her husband who is. So no matter if you are a rich man or a rich woman, feminism is just another tool to divide and control the people below you and make them exploitable. Just li…
/r/MensRights07/06/19 06:25 AM
1

If you don't make the girl feel special and give the impression that any girl would do, you are not gonna be too successful convincing her to get with you.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 08:09 PM
6

Throughout history there always were powerful women. Sure always fewer than men, but there always was this more or less constant amount. If there was actual oppression, you would be able to find lots of times times when there were none. But instead the English throne was occupied by a woman for almost half of the time, and even when the king was a man, it often was a powerful woman who wielded the political power, like Margeret of Anjou or Queen Caroline. Hell, Bloody Mary had to get rid of two …
/r/MensRights14/05/19 12:48 PM
1

I don't think any religion wants to control peoples thinking as an end in itself. That's the reason organized religion exists. To have a cohesive population that can be addressed and manipulated and ruled and controlled in a shared framework of thoughts and ideas and idioms and phrases and traditions. There are non-religious ideologies that are used for the same thing, but the main difference between those and religions is, religions usually are explicit and open about the supernatural aspects o…
/r/MensRights13/05/19 11:44 AM
77

For decades they screamed at everyone that there are absolutely no differences between men and women. And persecuted and silenced anyone who disagreed. And they are confronted with people who actually took them by their word and believed them. Funny, and well deserved.
/r/MensRights13/05/19 11:22 AM
5

What are the goals of religions? To control people by controlling their thinking. To divide and rule. That's the overall arch, the high level. But even if you go into the specifics, I don't think you will ever find a goal in any major religion where you can't find an equivalent or closely related goal in feminism. Force their morality on others? Especially when it comes to sexual morality? Using any legal and semi-legal means available? Check. Pursue careers and receive public funding and donati…
/r/MensRights13/05/19 11:17 AM
3

The goals are the same.
/r/MensRights13/05/19 10:52 AM
3

Masculinity and Femininity are simply two different strategies to procreate. As soon as there is multicellular life that produces specialized cells for procreation (gametes) that can be recombined with other gametes to create new traits, the question arises what is the best strategy to do that? Do you spend all your resources and effort to do as many re-combinations as possible? Or do you make sure the re-combinations you do have the best shot of succeeding? The answer is: using both strategies …
/r/MensRights10/05/19 04:59 PM
8

Just another confirmation that all those social inequalities people like to address are just a function and symptom of economic inequality.
/r/MensRights10/05/19 08:04 AM
7

I'd say they rather want to become a harem for rich prep-boys. Pay loads of young impressoinable girls to come there with scholarships and loans. Teach them about the empowerment of promiscuity and casual sex. Scare and drive all the boys away who don't have parents that donated a wing or a library ...
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:06 PM
16

Yeah, the series of events in the article written a little too smoothly for me not to be suspicious, although it's certainly in the realm of possibilities. So instead of worrying about the few people being driven into meme-nazim by being accused, they should worry about all the hundreds of thousands of if not millions of people who can't bring themselves to support and vote for people who openly support feminism and all the other variants of intersectionalism and ever more obscure social activis…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 07:25 AM
12

The same people who always benefit from division. Their motto has been "Divide and Rule." since recorded history, and likely before, although they didn't write it down yet. Gender division, religious division, racial and national division ... it doesn't matter how division is created, as long as it keeps people fighting amongst themselves and distracted while the rich and powerful squeeze them for whatever they can. The only division that matters is between those on the top and at the bottom of …
/r/MensRights06/05/19 02:27 PM
2

until the main consensus from trusted sources How do you decide what is a trusted source? That's a big problem. And even trusted sources can be wrong for one reason or another. So even if you have trusted sources, the answer isn't to just believe some sources and don't believe others. You always will need a method, and an established framework of assumptions that you can use to interpret and understand the world, no matter where the information comes from. Because if you don't have that you just…
/r/MensRights06/05/19 01:31 PM
6

Of course this is allowed. And if you are worried about becoming "toxic", just the fact that you use this word shows, that you are still quite deep in feminist land as far as your thinking and ideas and worldview are concerned. That word toxic, when referring to people, I only ever see used when you refer to a very negative person, someone you suspect to be borderline or a narcissist or a sociopath. Someone who is a burden on those around. And in the feminist context it is used to to refer to al…
/r/MensRights06/05/19 11:27 AM
5

What will happen when men are systematically excluded from universities? When the only people left there are a few frat boys of rich parents paying for everything and no interest in studying that the university will do everything for to protect and keep. And a majority of young, impressionable, flaky girls that are taught that promiscuity and hook-up culture are liberating? Somehow I get the impression that this is the purpose of the whole thing.
/r/MensRights23/04/19 12:24 PM
15

Not really. When you look at how much flak the MGTOW people get, without being gay, just for not following traditional gender roles, there is the same harsh treatment. It actually has little to do with being gay or not. Or not following traditional gender roles or not. The main distinguishing factor here is being male or not. Men are treated harsher. period. No matter what for, in most contexts, men are treated harsher.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 01:34 PM
6

In any mall like 90% of the floorspace is catering to women. Daytime TV. Most mainstream media actually. If your target audience is any gender you gotta be a lot more careful about the women, because they complain more and more readily. Any Fashion. Any living space that has a woman living in it. The men get their cave/corner if they are lucky. Public spaces in general. Unless something is really primarily targeted for men, like old football stadiums, it is designed to be safe for women and chil…
/r/MensRights29/03/19 08:45 AM
1

And by using the same arguments as the trickle-down economy proponents, you can say that mainstream feminism has the same origin and goals and beneficiaries.
/r/MensRights27/03/19 10:09 AM
46

Don't know much about him, but I get the impression that he made his career via catering to the kind of entitled middle aged women he complains about now and normalizing and reassuring them in all kinds of toxic behavior.
/r/MensRights19/03/19 01:19 PM
1

The funny thing is, with the recent revelations at companies like google, they do prefer to hire women and to pay them more.
/r/MensRights07/03/19 12:37 PM
3

Let me guess, the woman decided what was a bad relationship and what not ...
/r/MensRights04/03/19 04:53 PM
46

I think there is a massive cognitive disconnect going on with a lot of women here. Most men are quite easy sexually. Hell, for a lot of them just their hand or a doll is more than enough. And billions of them are married to women who are far from models and don't perform like porn stars and are happy and satisfied with that. Looks and sexual performance rarely are a reason for a man to not commit to or to end a relationship, as long as there is sex at all (and sometimes not even that). No, the r…
/r/MensRights04/03/19 01:05 PM
7

F: "They're taking our jobs!" "No one would take you for that job." F: "That job is beneath me anyway."
/r/MensRights21/02/19 05:25 PM
6

I wonder which white guy hurt her that she's constantly lashing out at a single gender with a certain skin color... I think the Oscar campaign for Room broke her. Something happened along the way there where her ambition finally got the best of her and she did something she feels ashamed of now.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 11:55 PM
4

A sex worker is probably less ideological, more objective, less likely to push you drugs and cheaper.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 12:42 PM
8

No reason to be mean. Just tell her that whenever anything threatening (or even just annoying or inconvenient) happens to a girl or woman she immediately starts drafting all the men around her to help her out. And since this drafting of men to help women happened and still happens all the time, men started over time to do this in a more organized and effective and efficient way. That's how civilization started.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 01:38 PM
-5

No one deserves that kind of money. This kind of money can't possibly come from your own work and productivity. The only way to get that kind of money is to take your cut from the work and productivity of literally millions of other people down the social hierarchy, down the supply pyramid. So if you think it is obscene that someone can get this kind of money from one other person just because property rights happen to be enforced this way, then it is even more obscene to get this kind of money …
/r/MensRights08/02/19 07:32 PM
1

That's what I was saying: Media coverage and more exposure can drive people with preexisting inclinations and ideations towards drastic action. May that be suicide or a killing spree or sex transition. Now, what causes depression and violent anger and the desire to escape your gender role, there probably is a big part that's purely biological predisposition. But I also think that the social environment triggers those predispositions. Not necessarily media exposure or simply knowing that suicide,…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 02:02 PM
1

It can be both. For comparison, media has the long standing tradition of suppressing stories about suicide, because it causes more copycat-suicides. So, while it's not the case that suicide comes out of the blue, and usually comes at the end of a long development, we know that exposure to others committing suicide makes it more likely that you do it yourself. Similar with killing sprees. So, gender dysphoria is a thing, just as suicidal and violent thoughts are a thing. Taking drastic action on …
/r/MensRights02/02/19 11:26 AM
12

Why does this remind my of Aryan Physics? Or Intelligent Design?
/r/MensRights29/01/19 03:08 PM
7

Sure. Many examples for that. And lots of initiatives to talk about that and to remedy that. Maybe not enough, but at least something is happening. But the well known trope of fatherless black families for example, is more of a men's issue than a race issue. If it was a race issue above all, you would see motherless black families equally often. When it comes to men's issues, and men's issues often are literal life and death issues (life expectancy, work place deaths, selective service, suicide …
/r/MensRights22/01/19 02:48 PM
8

A very outspoken male feminist is as much a red flag as a very outspoken homophobe.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 01:25 PM
7

Intersectionality is literally the "divide" part of "divide and rule", the maxim by which the upper class lives since recorded history. There is only one kind of inequality that really matters, economic inequality. All the other divisions, no matter if by race, sex, nation, religion, ideology are the most effective tools and means used to create and further economic inequality. The divisions created by racism, nationalism, religion and political ideology all get a lot of attention and are well c…
/r/MensRights22/01/19 12:58 PM
20

The whole premise of historical oppression of women by men. Yes, there was a lot of historical oppression. But it was oppression of lower class men and and women by upper class men and women.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 09:26 PM
15

A little side note to one of the points made in there: If you are wondering why people who get outraged about rape accusations, but not about rape you must realize one important difference between the two. If you hear about a rape accusation in the media, it means it has already done damage, likely irreparable damage. And the thing is, for a rape accusation to do damage, it needs the complicity of all of society and its institutions. All it needs for a rape to happen is one sicko having an oppor…
/r/MensRights10/01/19 01:59 PM
1

I see this more of a problem with capitalism and economic inequality than with gender inequality. Without the economic inequality that enables a single person to amass such wealth, taking from millions the fruits of their labor, you wouldn't have to gripe about a women targeting the most profitable targets and getting this kind of payout.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 10:47 AM
11

Yes, the difference in effect is huge. When you are an average man, you'd lose a fight against half the men you meet, i.e. 1/4th of the people you meet. When you are an average woman, you'd win a fight against 1/2 of the women you meet, and lose again 3/4th of the people you meet. In both cases you meet enough people who can kick your ass every day, that you should have learned not to start fights willy nilly, no matter your gender. Apart from that, this chain of reasoning is actually only true …
/r/MensRights05/01/19 04:42 AM
16

not because he wasn't an SJW/feminist Yes, he was the only one who was clear in his messaging, that the economic issues are more important than the social pandering. That's why he was/is popular.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 04:12 AM
35

Yeah, that's just feminism doing what it was designed to do: divide the left and detract from the actual economic issues at its center. Bernie was the most popular candidate precisely because he didn't put all this SJW/feminism bullshit at the center of his campaign and one of the main reasons Hillary lost was because she did. When they keep pushing the economic issues out of focus in favor of feminism, then the message the heartland voters receive is clear: It doesn't matter that your cities ar…
/r/MensRights03/01/19 02:28 AM
35

or get into situations that can be misinterpreted Which means the death of privacy between men and women.
/r/MensRights02/01/19 03:38 PM
10

And most kids with the same qualities never even get a chance to do that.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 11:29 PM
23

Lisa Su is a good role model. And she has talent and works hard. But she also has some of the best connections you could ask for in the Asian tech industry through her family, which were certainly more important in getting her into the position she is in.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 07:56 PM
1

Was some years ago from a reddit link. I think it was even in the same study that established that 80% of women since then got to procreate but only 40% of men ...
/r/MensRights26/12/18 05:55 PM
1

I've read that according to genetic evidence, monogamy started around 20,000 years ago. Before that it was a lot more like with gorillas, i.e. the alpha got to procreate most of the time, and the others got the what was left. My personal theory is, since it is incredibly hard to defend and feed all your women and the tribe from others if you don't have help, especially against other tribes that have more men than yours. So monogamy was introduced to attract and keep more hunters and warriors in …
/r/MensRights26/12/18 05:00 PM
-5

Still not any closer to the one goal they really want: validation and respect by the men they meet in their lives. Similar to Trump actually.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 02:21 PM
2

Yes, being more obnoxious and intolerant can get you what you want more in the short to mid term. But it also loses you any allies and goodwill in the long run. Being intolerant puts a strict upper limit on what you can achieve and how far you can go until you get the smackdown.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 01:38 PM
3

People who have lots of money have lots of resources to keep that money Yes, that's why they get away with all that bullshit for so long. but secondly inflation is a thing Yes, but it is a thing no matter where the money lies. It's actually one of the main methods to concentrate more wealth and buying power at the top. Remember the bailout? It gave a huge amount of money to the wealthy, who kept it. I.e. it inflated the overall amount of money, while largely increasing just the percentage the pe…
/r/MensRights23/12/18 09:37 AM
3

Well, considering that less than 1% of the people have over 50% of the income and and a few dozen entities control well over 80% of the wealth, it is quite clear where this money must come from. When they take away money from me and people like me, it wouldn't be enough for a pay increase that's even noticeable for nurses and teachers.
/r/MensRights22/12/18 07:14 PM
3

Well, I'm all for nurses and teachers getting more money. And as sad as it is, making it about a gender thing looks more promising nowadays than making it about a labor/class thing. Which of course was the whole point of starting feminism in the first place.
/r/MensRights22/12/18 04:20 PM
7

humans are complex, and you’ll find examples which seem to go against the rule. Yes, humans are complex, and I find consist more of exceptions than of rules. Especially when it comes to such individual and personal choices as life-partner. I'm just complaining that you make overly broad, generalizing, even borderline collectivistic statements. And more important that that fully unsubstantiated statements. And now you complain when I give broad sample demographics of people that go against your s…
/r/MensRights20/12/18 09:24 AM
7

That's some pseudo bullshit. Masculine men prefer feminine women and vice-versa I've seen too many bodybuilder-couples and androgynous goth couples to think for a moment this is true. A very feminine woman is going to be submissive by nature and very nurturing The worst home-dragons I have seen are the princesses and bridezillas. I've also seen it quite a few times that the personality/attitudes at work/in public and at home/in private are pretty much the opposite, and for both men and women. No…
/r/MensRights20/12/18 08:45 AM
1

Well, the "should you do it" question is always an individual question, to be decided case by case, and not a question for whole demographics. And what would "they shouldn't" mean anyway? That would just mean there was a law or policy that prevents them from doing so based on their demographics. And that's not equality before the law, because that's literally different laws for different people.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 08:28 PM
1

Who is not allowing women to go into those jobs/careers? Women being politicians and even women being in military and army trains are known for as long as we have recorded history. You know, Queen Mary of England (the bloody one) had to gain her throne against two female rivals. She was preceded and succeed by a woman on the throne, and the foreign rulers she had to deal with in her rule for the most part were women. And it's not like this was a big exception. For almost half the time in the las…
/r/MensRights09/12/18 06:37 PM
6

There are enough words that aren't gendered to throw at weak and annoying people that are too self-absorbed and revel in their own feelings too much. And sometimes you need those or an even tougher approach to bring the point across that feelings can not only get in your own way, but when this keeps impacting others as well, those others will lose respect for you. Of course sometimes you need a gentle approach as well to do this. And it's usually better to err on the side of gentleness.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 04:05 PM
2

Feminists and capitalists are statists. This has been the big novel development of capitalism: the state became the enforcement service agency of the rich and powerful, so they could outsource it. Before capitalism the rich and powerful were the nobility, who were the state and had to enforce their interests themselves. In capitalism the rich and powerful (noble) factions of the nation took a backseat, and had others enforce their interests for them, which was cheaper and kept them more out of t…
/r/MensRights03/12/18 01:29 PM
3

Well, I can tell you, from personal experience, after the reunion in East Germany, marriages and child births dropped like a stone and abortion rates skyrocketed (despite there being virtually no restrictions on abortions in East Germany until 12 weeks, and it was all free, just as contraception), and divorces skyrocketed too.
/r/MensRights03/12/18 10:56 AM
3

Look at what happens in Japan: people don't have families anymore, simply because they are overworked and the employer monopolizes all the time and energy the people have. And to maybe a lesser degree this is happening everywhere else. The parents that work multiple jobs and can't spend time with their children are a trope in America too. And it also becomes increasingly difficult, even impossible, for most people to be able to afford a house somewhere and work there for as long as it takes to r…
/r/MensRights03/12/18 10:35 AM
5

Of course they want to destroy the family unit. It's the last wide spread economic entity that isn't completely ruled by capitalism. And by destroying the family, all the needs that are met by the family become available to be provided for by business for profit. Also, the family is the only way you average person can have division of labor and specialization available to them. That should also only be available for businesses. Not to mention that a family is a support system and families are an…
/r/MensRights03/12/18 07:47 AM
3

I got no problem changing pronouns. If I ever meet the Queen of England at some function I would address her in plural too. That still won't make me think she is more than one person, but if it makes her feel better, and the situation is made clear I'm gonna do it. And if you make it clear to me that you want me to call you "she" I'm gonna do it too. I'm still not gonna think you are a woman, but if it makes you feel better ... But I'm also pretty sure the Queen would not be offended if I got my…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 11:06 PM
4

The only real problem I have with transgender people is how much attention they demand. They are like a few thousands of a percent of the population or less. And then they also tend to cluster in a few urban centers. So unless you are in one of those urban centers, chances are you will never even come across any. They simply are irrelevant to everyday life and statistically irrelevant in the population. Yet they (or at least a vocal and influential minority of them) require that laws and policie…
/r/MensRights02/12/18 09:00 PM
8

When diddling a kids genitals for the gratification of the parents is a criminal offense, I'd say cutting them up for the gratification of the parents should be a criminal offense, too.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 10:04 AM
4

Well, at least in Germany corporations are not considered people to that great extent. So it doesn't concern them. On the other hand, those corporation receive most income and hold most wealth and created the economic climate where children are a burden. So taxing them seems more promising to me to increase revenue and more promising to redirect resources and dedication towards children.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 08:57 AM
4

Don't know. That lack of passion towards making your company more successful may be the totally rational reaction to the stagnating wages of the last decades. If they don't care about you, you certainly won't care about them. The young people of today grew up in that climate. They know it doesn't really matter how much harder they work, the wealth they create won't be shared with them, neither by wages, nor by taxes into society as a whole. It just will become then nth house or car or yacht or w…
/r/MensRights28/10/18 06:38 PM
0

The problem is not porn, the problem is economic inequality facilitated by capitalism. Because most wealth and resources are controlled by few people, there isn't enough for everyone else, and this forces most people into doing things for money they usually wouldn't do. You know, things like destroying the environment, or screwing others out of money, neglecting your family, become henchmen and enforcers etc. Doing porn or prostitution is actually one of the less objectionable things you can do …
/r/MensRights23/10/18 10:48 AM
3

Don't be scared. This irrational fear of the opposite sex is responsible for most of the bullshit coming from the feminist camp. Just be aware and minimize your exposure. And beyond a certain point it is out of your control, so worrying too much is pointless.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 06:05 PM
3

Someone else had a nice summary: https://np.reddit.com/r/BlueMidterm2018/comments/9kl4ce/irrefutable_evidence_kavanaugh_perjured_himself/e70gwee/
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:20 PM
3

Consistently and blatantly selling out to business interests, fucking over everyone else.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 07:10 PM
9

Well, I don't want him. But sadly, although his professional record should be enough to disqualify him, it isn't the way congress is atm. So the only way to maybe get rid of him, is by public outrage, which is a blunt and dangerous tool. And old sex scandal is one of the best ways to achieve that, with the added benefit that no one is talking about all the horrible corrupt stuff he did for corporate interests in the past, because that would just show how much of this is business as usual. I full…
/r/MensRights03/10/18 01:28 PM
2

I just found it curious, that work to you is getting paid and not doing something productive. Which means getting residuals or rent from something your parents did is work to you, but slave labor is not. Should have know, because that's the reverse of the prosperity gospel: if you believe that everyone who is rich worked hard and deserved it, you of course cannot believe that work without monetary compensation is possible.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 01:08 PM
-8

work is when people pay you do do things for them or the company whether it was work or not what you were doing is solely decided by whether you see a big payday down the line or not? I have no idea what you are talking about here. Seems that way, in general. You say what is work is determined by getting paid for it or not. So a man like Gutenberg, who went bankrupt with his bibles, wasn't working at all, and did contribute nothing to mankind, right?
/r/MensRights23/09/18 01:43 PM
-15

So you are saying before there was wage labor, people didn't work? Subsistence farming is not work? Going hunting and cutting up and skinning animals is not work? Building huts is not work, unless someone pays you for it? Nothing Robinson was doing in his decades on his island was work? If you start a company and keep at it for years, whether it was work or not what you were doing is solely decided by whether you see a big payday down the line or not?
/r/MensRights23/09/18 01:28 PM
35

So we have so many unwanted pregnancies, because women can't muster the discipline to not fuck for two days a month? Is that what she is saying?
/r/MensRights15/09/18 01:07 PM
1

You are still missing the point: Making it policy to not allow some demographic into some opportunities, to play gatekeeper, is wrongheaded especially when there are many other powerful forces and circumstances that usually prevent it. And rights are implemented and enforced by the group not for the benefit of individual, although that usually is a side effect. Rights are implemented and enforced by the group because it benefits the group. Rights are statistical by their very nature. So looking …
/r/MensRights04/09/18 10:09 PM
1

I have no idea what you are going on about here. Terrorist organizations are definitely are (primarily) men banding together. And when they bomb girl schools, they are banding together against women. And I still don't see the word "all" in the thread title. And even more so, if there was the word "all" in the title, it wouldn't even be worth discussing, because would be the nonsensical premise of patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 01:01 PM
1

You are getting stuck in this generalizations game, which I have no intention of playing. I don't care if most women can't and won't contribute at the level men do. Fact is, there are still many that can, and if we flat out refuse them their opportunities based on gender, we are wasting their potential. The many who can't and won't contribute this way won't use those opportunities anyway, even if they are forced on them, as can be seen by choices they make today in academia. So all that is neede…
/r/MensRights02/09/18 12:54 PM
1

"Women" doesn't have to mean "most women". Even if most women didn't have any interest in academia, not allowing them to do it in the first place, I'm sure we have missed out on a lot of brilliant women throughout history. This is the "equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome" theme we hear so often around here. I don't think allowing women into academia would create equality of outcome. Hell, even with all the female centered programs and outright discrimination we have today we don't ha…
/r/MensRights01/09/18 11:33 PM
0

Oh, most European countries had a few, and the larger ones had a few dozen. Sure, most women probably still wouldn't want to go to university, considering there was no contraception available back then and pregnancy was a high risk undertaking. But making this official policy also meant the option didn't even occur to most.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 10:59 PM
2

That wasn't the question. The question was whether men banded together and tried doing something against women. Bombing girl schools is definitely on the list there. And almost never allowing them into universities, no matter how well intended or sound the justification might be at the time (and usually it wasn't), is in there too.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 10:51 PM
1

True. But whereas a few thousand men went to university each year in most European countries, it was maybe a handful of women every decade.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 09:49 PM
0

Just an honest answer to your question. Just because I gave you examples that you didn't wanna hear doesn't mean I'm trolling. And just because universities were men only for the most part, doesn't mean there wasn't put a lot of resources and effort into educating upper class women. All the famous composers we still play today earned their living primarily by teaching rich daughters to play piano or sing. Same with poetry and painting and things like that. Tutoring rich girls was a major busines…
/r/MensRights01/09/18 09:41 PM
1

Well, recently there has been a series of bombings of girl schools in Pakistan. Higher education for women in general has been a really really rare thing for women. Universities simply didn't accept women in most places before 1900. There have been a few dedicated girl schools, and a lot of tutoring, both for the wealthy, but university was a sausage party for the most part, by explicit policy.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 09:18 PM
11

Ancient Slavery was prison labor as well. That's how slavery was created in the first place: you took prisoners from your neighboring tribes and put them to work.
/r/MensRights23/08/18 12:07 PM
4

Another side effect: the only adult men that still will bother interacting with teenage girls are the ones who don't have to be afraid of being accused, i.e. people rich and powerful enough and with enough criminal and/or legal connections that they don't have to care. The best people.
/r/MensRights23/08/18 11:13 AM
7

Well, if the toilet is clogged, you can't just keep flushing, you first gotta get rid of the turds. The problem with the bailouts was, they kept flushing still with too many turds left.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 06:14 PM
6

I don't think most even think that deeply about it. For most it's just: it takes away attention from me. And that can't be. And if they think a little further, which I don't think most even do, because it would require to think beyond their own immediate desires, then they see, that male genital mutilation is actually a far bigger and more wide spread problem than female genital mutilation, which is one of the poster issues for feminism they could always count on to get attention for.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 11:20 PM
1

As long as there is this massive pool of racism and religious backwardness at the republican base, many will understandably but sadly think the SJW is very much needed as a counterbalance. What they don't understand is, that it is counterproductive, and actually just serves the divide and rule approach the wealthy and powerful always try to adopt towards the general population.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:24 AM
1

When the rubber hits the road, those all also become individual interpersonal transactions, unless policy is implemented by programmed machines.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:59 PM
1

"individually treating everyone the same" is a logical contradiction. As soon as you start comparing how you treat individuals to determine if they are treated the same, you stop treating individuals as individuals. Treating people as individuals is a lot of effort, and most people maybe have a few handful of other people in their lives they treat as individuals. If you even try to do that with more people than that, you stop being a functional human being. Everyone else gets treated as categori…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:15 PM
1

What exactly elicits respect highly varies between individuals and cultures. And because it is different for everyone and changes over time, I don't think it contributes much to consolidation of power and wealth. Far more important is the disconnect between the stratification of human communication in hierarchies and concentration of human productivity rewards within hierarchies. When you sit higher up in the hierarchy, you can claim the fruits of the labor of those below you in the hierarchy. T…
/r/MensRights05/06/18 06:19 PM
3

Of course all the higher ups in the Eastern Block states were privileged. But the very fact that there were higher ups and a hierarchy and a class system means it wasn't communism. Communism is a classless society, by definition. What exactly that looks like wasn't described by Marx or anyone really. But Marx was very insistent that communism will only be possible once the technological and social means to achieve it have been built by capitalism in its quest for productivity. The Russian school…
/r/MensRights05/06/18 04:59 PM
2

Private wealth is privilege. Any personal wealth that is greater than what you can carry yourself is privilege, because it depends on everyone else in society enforcing your property rights for you. When you go to work and come home, your home is still your home, because everyone else accepts it and enforces it. And when they accept and enforce that you have 12 mansions, but don't accept and enforce the homeless guy his cardbox in the alley, and try to get rid of him, that is privilege. And oppr…
/r/MensRights03/06/18 11:40 AM
18

A vocal feminist guy is as much a red flag as a vocal homophobic guy.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 07:07 PM
6

Naw, this is a land grab, plain and simple. They make it prohibitively risky and expensive for any man to interact with women, unless he is able to to afford to make legal problems just go away. As a result, women will not only have the natural inclination for hypergamy, they won't have the option not to go that route.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:35 PM
5

If you’re not a formidable force, there’s no morality in your self-control. If you’re incapable of violence, not being violent isn’t a virtue. Someone has read Nietzsche.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 03:09 PM
1

I don't think it is any worse or better when the favor traded is sex. No need for special laws there. The ethical problems come from how it affects the others, the work and the functioning of the organization it is happening in. And in that context it doesn't matter if the favor is a blowjob or dog sitting or some hard to get tickets, an movie role, a phone number of someone important or an endorsement.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 05:43 PM
2

I don't think it is any different as any other kind of trading favors: in itself nothing problematic, but a slippery slope to quickly fall into all kinds of ethical conundrums, depending on what your intentions and goals behind trading those favors are. I think it's safe to say that in many if not most cases of trading sex for other kinds of favors it isn't something that happens strictly between the two people directly participating. The one offering the sex wants to get the favors over someone…
/r/MensRights11/05/18 03:25 PM
7

There is this story of Richard Feynman about how he was pestered by a feminist activism group in the early seventies at Berkeley, that was led by a man. This always seemed odd to me, but I never really could find anything more about it (not that I tried too hard) and this man. And I do strongly suspect that this man was an asset of some sort and this protest movement and this grooming of young girls into feminism was his mission.
/r/MensRights05/05/18 05:31 PM
7

It's almost funny when you read Luxembugs "Accumulation of Capital" where she addresses in how others interpreted Marx writings (and fills in some gaps left by Marx), where she basically say how the Russian school gets it wrong, before the Russian revolution actually happens.
/r/MensRights05/05/18 12:41 PM
27

I hesitate to call myself a leftist because of this. And I have the strong suspicion this is the whole point of feminism: to divide and cripple the left. If I need to quickly put a label on my stance I'd say I'm an old school marxist, meaning I have read a lot of the books, just like I have read a lot of other philosophy books that I found on library shelves, and found a lot of enlightening and interesting stuff in them. But despite the feminist using a lot of marxist buzz words, their actual st…
/r/MensRights05/05/18 11:32 AM
0

Bitcoins are backed by thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics I trust more than any human institutions and laws.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 12:12 PM
5

Without such "gotcha" moments, people never really start thinking and reflecting. Those are what puts things in motion. Sure, there is still a long way to go from there, but without such a slight slap to the head nothing will happen. This argument is especially useful for people who regurgitate the old "historic oppression" narrative. One of the most effective ways to argue is always to use their own arguments against them. Because it means they either have to abandon their position, or find oth…
/r/MensRights30/03/18 05:29 AM
7

No. The simplest way to disprove the apex fallacy to a feminist is to say that in the 1830s, right at the transition of the oh so oppressive Austen Era into the oh so oppressive Victorian Era, the two wealthiest people in the world were two women: Queen Victoria at #2, Elisabeth Leveson-Gower at #1. Therefore those eras can't have been that oppressive. Sure there were a few movies made about the struggles of young Queen Victoria how the most handsome and high status prince charmings of Europe we…
/r/MensRights30/03/18 04:54 AM
2

I like walking through cities alone at night. When I visit foreign cities, I spend a lot of time doing that. Sure, you see a lot weird shit, that's the point, but never had any serious trouble. The times I did have trouble were always where there were a lot of people, at events like festivals or fairs or similar gatherings. That's where the scum gravitates to, because there are a lot of easy targets, and that's also where things can get a bit out of control because of all the booze and drugs.
/r/MensRights28/03/18 05:18 PM
2

I don't assume only males are abusing children. Maybe read my last comment again.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 03:48 PM
6

Ah, so you were thinking because they were protecting and accepting the fucked up shit that the men in their lives were doing, I think they don't do bad things? Well, I don't think women form pedophile and child grooming rings because they don't need to. Society more or less accepts when a woman abuses minors. There sure are a lot of women who run those rings on the business and operational end, but they don't particularly need to form criminal organizations to serve their urges, because their u…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 02:36 PM
4

Not sure if you are being sarcastic. But all the dozens of big child abuse rings that have come to light in recent years in the UK was either Muslims or very connected rich establishment. And this is just the tiny tip of the iceberg. Especially considering into how much trouble all the authorities went to cover it all up and bury it at every step of the way. You could almost get the impression that at a certain level society runs on that shit: unless you join in the club of mutually assured dest…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 01:45 PM
9

Well, it's not like the rich upper class women and girls are getting groomed and abused. That's what their fathers and husbands and uncles have poor girls and boys for. But a construction worker looking at them for a few seconds, now that is outrageous.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 01:32 PM
10

I wish it was left wing state. No, this is the same old English aristocratic entitlled lady mindset that brought you the white feathers and the suffragettes, the 11'o clock curfew and needed protection from all those dirty poor working class men and crushed the unions in the impersonation of Thatcher. You know, the kind of people Rosa Luxemburg called "the parasites on the parasites of the people"
/r/MensRights13/03/18 03:55 PM
1

Ah yes, dealing with with someone who somehow doesn't pick up on "You can end all rape by decalring everyone willing, that's why men cannot be raped, because they are all always willing." being heavy handed sarcasm. When I would say "You can end murder, by declaring everyone non-human, that's why you cannot murder jews, they are not human." you would probably also say "That's fairly true."
/r/MensRights07/03/18 02:41 PM
0

Worked for men. Men always want it. So they can't be raped. Even 12 year olds by their teachers. That's fairly true. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
/r/MensRights07/03/18 09:23 AM
7

Don't know. From Red Riding Hood, to Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Frau Holle pretty much all the main characters are women. If anything the it's the prince charming that is the side character arm candy trophy. In Red Riding Hood the hunter that saves the day barely gets 2 sentences.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 08:14 AM
0

So not only do you say men can't be unwilling (with a little qualifier, granted), You also say that willing is on really valid wiithout drugs when I directly ask you for it, but you then keep insisting that giving minors drugs and then having sex with them is not rape. That level denial and mental gymnastics you usually find in religious fundamentalists.
/r/MensRights06/03/18 02:44 PM
1

Literally 3 comments above.
/r/MensRights06/03/18 05:28 AM
1

What's so hard to understand? As you have admitted yourself, someone on drugs can't be willing. So as soon as you give someone drugs, any sex can only be rape.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 08:01 PM
0

So rockstars giving minors drugs and then having sex with them is rape. Because they are willing with drugs.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 05:46 PM
1

Willing with drugs or without?
/r/MensRights05/03/18 05:38 PM
0

Well, then just declare everyone willing, and you have ended rape. Worked for men. Men always want it. So they can't be raped. Even 12 year olds by their teachers.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 05:26 PM
0

You seem to be really comfortable assuming the intentions and motivations of others. You sure there was no pressuring, no group pressure to take drugs or to have sex? You sure there was no manipulation, no seedy dealer sales tactics? You sure there never was something slipped into a drink (the drink alone is already illegal). You sure there were no girls that just wanted to be a little closer to their idols? I certainly can't say any of those things for sure. I also can't tell to what degree Pol…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 04:58 PM
0

Doesn't matter if they are drugged whether they threw themselves at them or not. And I wouldn't be so sure that all of them actually threw themselves at them for sex. That's all case by case, and can't really be judged from a distance. Saying they all threw themselves at him (which was said of Poalnskis victim too btw.) is just as ignorant as saying none of them wanted it. All you can say in all cases for sure is, they were given drugs and they were minors. And that's enough to make it criminal.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 03:46 PM
1

Well, to decide if it is rape or not, you actually have to know the mental state and intentions of the alleged rape victims. And as I said, I can't do that, apart from saying they were drugged, which most likely makes it all rape. It's definitely all statutory rape, because for that the mental state and intentions don't matter. And it is well known that Polanski's victim at least considers all this dragged out attention and scrutiny to be worse than what happened back then, and maybe doesn't eve…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 03:20 PM
1

Isn't the whole point of statutory rape that minors can't consent? Isn't the whole point that druggedIt doesn't matter if they throw themselves at someone or not, at least legally. Edit: and I'm not even talking about the consent issues surrounding drugs and alcohol yet.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 02:52 PM
1

I'm in no position to judge the mental state and intentions of adolescents and young artists from decades ago. What I can say is, minors were given drugs and then used for sex. I can't say if it only happened once for Roman Polanski. Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. What I would bet on is that it happened hundreds if not thousands of times for many many rock stars and no one bats an eye.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 02:28 PM
1

There are a few diseases we have eradicated already. And it was not by people who said it is impossible to do so.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 09:35 AM
3

Nope, a disease always has an underlying cause. We may not always know it, but it's always there. And the underlying cause for all religious strife, racism, sexism, nationalism etc. becoming large scale problems, is the need of the rich and powerful to subdue and control and exploit the people via divide and rule. Stir them up to fight among themselves and be preoccupied while you take their shit.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 07:57 AM
1

Well, there shouldn't be any puzzlement about why it failed so heavily in the soviet union if they had actually read Marx properly: Marx was very insistent that for capitalism to be superseded by a classless society first the technological and social prerequisites must be developed, and that this will happen naturally in the ever escalating search for productivity gains within capitalism. He didn't elaborate too much on what a communist/classless society would look like and what those technologi…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 07:52 AM
4

I say racism and sexism are some of the means and methods by which class oppression are implemented, just like any other available tool is used by the ruling class to divide and rule. Other really successful tools historically were religion, nationalism ... It is a symptom, not the disease.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 04:30 AM
5

And I think that is the whole point. To subvert the whole left movement. Think about about who started 2nd wave feminism, people like Gloria Steinem, Simone deBeauvoir etc. who are confirmed or highly likely intelligence assets working in anti-communist operations. They talk about everything but economic inequality, and when they talk about poverty, they make it a race and gender issue and not a class issue. You will be hard pressed to find the word patriarchy or patriarchal in Marx' writing, an…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 02:31 AM
2

Well, most men are treated harshly, some are treated leniently. Most women are treated leniently, some are treated harshly. It all depends on who is seen as more undesirable. And women tend to be seen as more desirable and men are seen as more of a threat.
/r/MensRights02/03/18 10:36 PM
5

Yes that's bad. And it's just another example of people not treating this kind of stuff consistently. The dark undertone here of course is, when you have crimes that everyone just expects to be treated so inconsistently, no matter if it is drug or sex offenses or any number of behaviors anyone can fall into at one time or another, you have the perfect tool to take out undesirables with plausible deniability. More honest oppressive regimes have political prisoners, where they straight up say we d…
/r/MensRights02/03/18 10:04 PM
4

Seen as serious? Just today I saw Robert Plant on some talk show getting smoke blown up his ass. This is just seen as rock star life and everyone chuckles and is a bit envious. I mean I can fully understand when geeky band nerds in their twenties suddenly have teenagers throw themselves at them to take advantage of that and it becomes normal well into their forties to them. But at least people should treat it consistently and not say it's bad when some people do it and say it's awesome when othe…
/r/MensRights02/03/18 09:52 PM
2

If you think Roman Polanski is bad, you should take a look at basically all the classic rock bands. They did what Polanski did almost daily on tours.
/r/MensRights02/03/18 09:30 PM
15

If banning infant circumcision is anti-semitic then is banning foot-binding anti-sinologic, and combating fetal alcohol syndrome is Anti-Irish?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 03:50 AM
13

Well, I don't think he has anything particularly interesting or enlightening or original to say. The only thing he has going for himself is a spine to stand up for his adopted opinions. And the fact that this is enough in this climate to be considered an intellectual heavyweight by many is more than telling.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 03:38 AM
5

The guy is even pretty ignorant of history. In pretty much every culture historically there were large parts of the male population that were powerful and respected, but usually completely eschewed sexuality, aggression and violence: clerics, which often were 10-15% of the population. If there ever was something like a patriarchy, it was the clerics, so I wonder why he isn't aware of them. Of course their power and respectability to a large part came from the fact that they were not beholden to …
/r/MensRights16/02/18 01:15 AM
29

The only exception was in the Trinidadian slave trade, where men outlived women, but the researchers believe that slave traders have a greater incentive to keep male slaves alive, because they were worth more. So we can conclude then that everywhere else people have greater incentive to keep girls alive, right?
/r/MensRights05/02/18 01:13 PM
2

Avoiding women and marriage may seem too extreme to you, but I'm not exaggerating when I say most men I have known a little better have been destroyed by the women they wanted to build a life with. In all the ways you have mentioned short of being accused of crimes they didn't commit. No need for a breakup even. I have seen a virile, brilliant, funny man devolve into sad isolated husk over decades of being married. And that's the successful marriage, of which the other successful marriages I kno…
/r/MensRights02/02/18 01:35 PM
11

There are many many examples where the reputation of "A Ladies Man" has been fabricated in the media or just by rumors, and then became a self fulfilling prophecy. Every boy band is a prime example of that.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:25 PM
30

The feeling I get is, that only people rich and powerful enough to have multiple extended legal battles running at any time or pay many people off will be able to interact with women anymore. Maybe that's the goal even.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 09:50 PM
5

There are a few rare examples of where women are used as cannon-fodder. The most extreme example is the finale of Buffy, where an army of freshly made vampire slayers gets thrown into the jaws of the hell mouth against an army of vampires. For some strange reason female goons seem to be more common in the fantasy/gothic/vampire genre. In Penny Dreadful there were quite a few naked witch goons, dying horribly. And the Brides of Dracula were used a few times too. Female zombies aren't that rare ei…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 01:37 PM
2

Considering the amount of crazy PTSD chicks that came out of the original show, that set must have been a nightmare.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 04:35 AM
1

And yet, that's never going to be able to happen. That was my very point. That requires designating people to make decisions. Yes. That's why I said it has nothing to do with designating people to make decisions or not. The difference between socialism and fascism isn't that one designates more or less people to make decision than the other, as you made it seem with this statement: The moment you do (designate someone to make decisions), you begin the move from a socialist country to a fascist c…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:00 PM
0

is impractical. In it is impractical precisely because of those attention restrictions. If everyone could pay attention to everything at once, it would be practical. And you have your nomenclature very wrong. Socialism and fascism have very little to do with designating people to make decisions (to speak and others have to listen) or not. Socialism means that the economic gains of large scale organized/socialized productivity are also socialized and not privatized. Fascism is a little more fuzzy…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 07:36 PM
2

In every case, those in power decide to stay in power, and hold that power for themselves. Exactly. And they manage to do that because of hierarchical communication. Those higher up in the communication tree control the information flow. And once the whole system exceeds the natural village size and not everyone can talk to each other anymore as a side channel, the ones in power can tell different people different things to further their own interests. That's what we call politics. Or corruption…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:42 PM
2

Every economic model is top heavy (even socialism). Yes, and that is because large scale communication for humans always had to be hierarchical, because that's what the communication technology allowed. Not anymore. We had a major step in communication technology recently, and as always throughout history, every time that happens, economic and social structure will adapt, usually accompanied with a lot of violence. The level of what is considered poverty in capitalist countries would be consider…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:13 PM
1

You see, no one is gonna pay you more than they expect you to make them. And if they do they won't stick around very long. This simple fact should show you that wage labor is nothing but a tool of wealth concentration. As is interest and profit margins. By definitions. So all the major economic mechanisms within capitalism are wealth concentrating, and unless this is counter-acted by other mechanisms, you very quickly get very top heavy. And since the very concept of property rights, which is a …
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:17 PM
2

You seem to be under the impression that acting ability is the limiting factor to make a living from acting. It couldn't be further from the truth. The limiting factor is the attention of an audience that either pays (like in tickets) or someone else is willing to pay for (like in ads). And the attention of the audience is largely controlled by big media, because they control the communication channels. That's the limiting factor, the resource they use for leverage in all their deals and they do…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 03:01 PM
17

This is feminism and the whole SJW thing in a nutshell: turning attention away from class issues towards anything else, no matter how ridiculous.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 03:17 PM
11

This kind of argument won't fly much anymore. Nowadays pretty much every man lives without a girlfriend or wife for a few years. May that be by himself or with roomies. So it isn't like they can't fix themselves sandwiches or don't know how to do laundry like those semi-mythological 50s husbands. They know how to clean, to get through the mail and the bills, to cook, to do the dishes, to get croceries, to organize chores with roomies etc. So if they stop doing those things once when they are in …
/r/MensRights07/01/18 09:51 PM
4

The white man had the schmaltz, the black man had the blues ...
/r/MensRights29/12/17 09:11 AM
2

Yes, I'm aware my obliviousness is my biggest issue in that regard. And over the years I came to the conclusion, that when I just don't notice all those advances and all this flirting, that it's always my friends who have to tell me later, or it is the girl itself that tells me years later how much she was hitting on me back then, that it probably isn't that important to me.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 03:17 PM
1

Hehehe. Back then (that was about 15 years ago), I did upload my picture on hotornot.com, and got an 8.6. Today I have a bit more weight. What can I say, I like cooking.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 03:03 PM
3

I'm a low key dude, and also socially pretty oblivious, so I usually don't notice when girls hit on me to comical degree. Hell, I generally was too dense to notice that the girl showing up at my doorstep and going straight for the bed when I let her in was there for a booty call, probably because even in those situations girls like to have some plausible deniability. But there were two times in my life when I was verbally asked out for a dinner date in such a direct and straightforward way that …
/r/MensRights13/12/17 02:21 PM
3

And most people who kill men are men. What's your point?
/r/MensRights13/12/17 12:26 PM
2

I highly doubt many people genuinely see it that way, considering how wide spread hypocrisy is among the pro-life evangelical demographic. If they genuinely saw it that way there would a whole different attitude towards contraception and sex education among them.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 03:26 AM
1

And contraception is also primarily a female issue, simply because there is a lot more available technology for women.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 11:59 PM
4

Yes. It affects both men and women. But let's be honest, the reason primary it is targeted is because women get abortions there.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 11:52 PM
1

Well, I just think that division of labour, specialization and economy of scale are the reason we form societies in the first place. Not everyone can do everything and know everything. In fact it's hard for anyone to be an expert on more than one or two things, and it is a waste of time and effort and resources to require everyone to take care of everything and pay attention to everything themselves. And it is especially nefarious to only make the benefits of specialization available to those wh…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 11:51 PM
2

Intercourse without contraception leads to pregnancy. Intercourse without contraception can lead to pregnancy with a certain probability, or not. There are many who want to get pregnant, but can't, and many who don't want to be, but become. Not only is the relationship between intercourse and pregnancy with a certain randomness, the very act of intercourse has a high degree of randomness to it. Every weekend millions of people go out "to get lucky" as they say. Making all this more plannable is …
/r/MensRights12/12/17 10:58 PM
3

Well, then it's worth discussing what "individual control" and "personal choice" means. It can be very much argued there is no such thing as free will. I'm certainly not a fatalist, but I do think there are not a lot of things people actually have control over. People don't even have control over most of their own thoughts. And while an individual pregnancy usually has a choice component, at least today to the degree contraception is available and affordable, without the right infrastructure and…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 10:35 PM
2

I think health care should be left to the individual If the government is supposed to protect it's citizens from human threats and provide military and police forces and fire departments, I don't see how you could argue against the government protecting it's citzens from infections, injuries, toxins and all those other dangers most people will encounter sooner or later in their life far more likely than a murderer or an invasion or their house burning down. In fact you could argue that health in…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 09:40 PM
8

Oh, there sure are a few woman specific problems that need tackling. Things like the deliberate forced closing of planned parenthoods or lack of late paid pregnancy/early motherhood leave (parental leave would be preferable, but men aren't pregnant, don't need to recover from giving birth and don't breastfeed, so their leave is not as high priority). But complaining about men looking at women the wrong way and ensuring fathers don't get to see their children seems to be higher on the priority li…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 08:50 PM
6

Since she is a history teacher, ask her about Mary I of England, "Bloody Mary".
/r/MensRights12/11/17 08:53 PM
4

You brought it here. So I'm gonna reply. That doesn't count as "derailing feminist discussion", right? The problem seems to be that you really believe that history is men conspiring to oppress women for their own benefit. If that really was the case, then there are a lot of historical facts that don't make sense at all. Like Britain being ruled by women half of the time in the last 600 years. Or that Bloody Mary had to violently dispose of two female competitors before claiming the throne hersel…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 04:44 PM
4

Unlikely. Feminism is patriarchy theory, and if they abandon that, it isn't feminism anymore. Feminism without patriarchy is like racism without racial inferiority. I don't participate in feminist discussions. Pointless. When someone comes with feminist arguments to me, I try to bring the point across how destructive and stupid and often even evil the feminist approach is. I don't hate promiscuous women or promiscuous men. I just don't want close personal relationships with them, because when yo…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 12:27 PM
4

Yes, there are alternatives to marriage. But the main thing you need to keep in mind about having children is this: It's the hours that kill you. Taking care of children, unless they are special needs children, isn't that hard in itself. Anyone can do it for a few hours or a few days, even a few weeks. But it means you never have off, you always need to be on. You are lucky if you can find an hour or two every day for yourself. You will enjoy it for the most part, but it still means you never re…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 07:47 AM
1

Well, not always, but mostly. Hence me giving up on sex for myself. It doesn't have to be this way though.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 05:38 AM
1

Oh. Well, I've given up on sex for myself a long time ago. But I don't think there are many things I would get upset about if others did them for their enjoyment. One of the few things I do consider immoral is, when someone uses sex for ulterior motives.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 03:05 PM
1

Would be weird for me to be an atheist puritan. But there is no doubt that all living things have urges and instincts that guide their behavior, and many if not most of them are geared at gaining advantage at the cost of others. Which is what we would call dark, isn't it? And while humans are probably the best of all animals at ignoring those urges and determine our behavior with higher brain functions (control them urges), we are still pretty shitty at it, and some people are really really shit…
/r/MensRights31/10/17 01:59 PM
10

The things I learned: Doing normal business in the movie industry is such a a disgusting and unpleasant shit show, that apparently only people who have uncontrollable dark urges to feed would do that to themselves. Even wealthy and well connected and pretty girls need to suck dick to get roles, especially if they don't have talent.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 07:34 AM
3

There are those 1-2 years when most girls started puberty already and most boys didn't. This is a brief window in which girls are on somewhat equal footing physically with boys (if you don't count the geriatric stage, where men tend to deteriorate a lot faster than women too). It is also the reason those girls start looking for older boys, because the boys their own age just aren't mature enough for them. And they conclude from the older boys being interested in them, that they are so much more …
/r/MensRights29/10/17 08:56 PM
16

When you put on your tinfoil hat you would almost think NOW is a clandestine operation designed to fight overpopulation, high labor costs and lack of consumption, and economic agency of the family.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 03:06 AM
77

At that time, I did feel objectified, and now I’ve learned how to control that. Why can't women do that? The entertainment industry is probably one with the best gender ratio balance out there. Which kinda seems strange considering how sexist and creepy it is, and how wide spread favors for sex is there. But maybe not so strange. One thing you can definitely say about the tech industry and the engineering/science fields in general is that favors for sex is very rare there, almost unheard of. And…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 08:17 PM
2

Yep. A lot of men trust too many women.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 05:20 PM
0

Nope. Would be pointless with my sex life. There are two scenarios where a vasectomy is a valid option: a) You have a partner you expect to be with for the rest of your life and all the children you want. Then a vasectomy is just the least hassle option. b) You don't think you can manage without having sex with women you don't trust on a regular basis and you never want children.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 04:30 PM
1

I have to say, I didn't write those words above in anger at all. I was actually jolly more than anything else, using some ridiculous level of cartoon violence that is so obviously over the top as a comparison. And then when you maybe think about it, you might notice that this isn't so far off from what has been proposed there in half or maybe even full seriousness. I'm just amused by absurdity. And whenever I see it I have a chuckle, and usually try to make it more obvious to those who might hav…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 06:21 AM
2

First teach women to not vomit garbage, then unsew their mouths. /s
/r/MensRights19/10/17 12:17 AM
1

I don't even pay for porn to jerk it. Considering this I doubt I'd ever buy a sexbot.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 02:28 PM
2

Well, since only men can be (held) responsible of anything, that just follows naturally.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 05:56 PM
2

Sure. But as far as I can tell, there were many who came out and said they had sleazy encounters with him, turned him down, and do have successful careers despite of that. I don't doubt he could and did make life difficult for some. But declaring him an all powerful godlike creature does seem to be a bit overblown in face of this. There simply were many who were willing to stroke his ego and whatever to get what they wanted, and many who didn't wanna do that. As long as there are enough people w…
/r/MensRights15/10/17 08:54 PM
5

Naw, the ones who are attractive, but didn't wanna abuse it were victims here too. And I don't think that category is that small either in Hollywood. Sarah Polley wrote an article on all of this. She definitely is very attractive, even by Hollywood standards, but taking advantage of that with the industry people apparently wasn't in her moral compass. She had enough talent and grit to make it behind the camera on her own terms, but there are many who don't. Luckily there are enough content produ…
/r/MensRights15/10/17 08:36 PM
12

Yes, there are a lot of helpless victims to go around. But maybe, just maybe, there is also a lot of greed and ambition. Maybe it is all the greedy and ambitious women that use their sexuality with gate keepers to get a leg up, that makes those gate keepers feel like this is something they can expect from everyone, even to the the point to taking it for granted. Two of the most prominent examples of Weinstein targets were Gwyneth Paltro and Angelina Jolie. Well, they both come from wealthy and c…
/r/MensRights15/10/17 06:09 PM
1

If we are startign to overhaul the grammar of our languages, I think there are other concepts that need far more adjustments than gender. Gender is a social reflection of sex, and since sex is one of the most important aspects in the life of most multicellular life, it isn't that unsurprising that pretty much language reflects that reality in its most basic constructs. And changing language to not reflect that reality and distinction anymore and thus making communication about sex and gender mor…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 05:49 AM
1

I can't say how much keeping women in line is behind all the anti-abortion activism. It's plausible that it is a big part. But I think even more important is, that it is a marvelous tool to divide and control people too. As long as the people are at each others throat about abortion and guns and all the other wedge issues, which are more or less just stand ins for religion and race and gender divisions, people won't have the time and energy to see how they are exploited by the rich and powerful.…
/r/MensRights01/10/17 06:34 AM
2

It's one of the more successful tools to divide and control the common people.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 05:29 AM
2

HR is somewhat like the political commissars in the red army, making sure that everyone is in line ideologically.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:35 AM
52

The difference is of course, Weiner pissed of some wealthy special interest groups, whereas a teacher raping students is of no concern to economic interests. That's the beauty of fuzzy legal definitions and laws spanning wide ranges of human behavior: You can convict anyone who becomes pesky of a wide range of offenses at any time.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:23 PM
8

All it takes is one deranged triggered woman to become violent in there and they will be screaming for men.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 08:19 AM
17

I don't necessarily think she should make a sequel on men's rights. But she did make a few movies from the feminist perspective, so that's kind of her thing. So a documentary on all the feminist leading figures that ushered in the 2nd wave feminism from Simone de Beauvoir to Gloria Steinem, and are either confirmed or very likely intelligence assets in some form or another would be very interesting. They all had quite interesting lives too. But that would also be a kind of departure for her styl…
/r/MensRights25/09/17 01:52 AM
7

There is a major difference though between the KKK and feminist organizations: For at least 50 years no one is publicly endorsing and praising the KKK anymore in the mainstream media without serious backlash. There certainly are quite a few racists and KKK members in public offices or similar social power institutions, but they always have to pursue their agenda in the shadows or at least with plausible deniability. Feminist organizations get direct government funding and endorsements, specifica…
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:44 AM
2

Feminism assumes a class by birthright. You can't get further form Marx than that. If feminists were actually communists, they wouldn't complain about there not being enough women on corporate boards, they would complain about the existence of corporate boards. Something I like to do with feminists is to quote Rosa Luxemburg on them: Most of the bourgeois women who play the lioness in a fight against ‘male privileges’ would, once in possession of the suffrage, follow like meek little lambs in th…
/r/MensRights15/09/17 12:00 AM
1

Ok, lets assume Trump survives his term, which isn't a given, then she deserves to lose against him again if she really runs against him again. And if the democrats nominate no one else to run against Trump, they deserve to lose again as well.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:01 PM
2

Ok, let me quote Rosa Luxemburg, certainly the most respected and iconic female marxist intellectual on feminists: Most of the bourgeois women who play the lioness in a fight against ‘male privileges’ would, once in possession of the suffrage, follow like meek little lambs in the wake of the conservative and clerical reaction. Indeed, they would surely be far more reactionary than the masculine portion of their class. Apart from the small number of professional women among them, the women of the…
/r/MensRights07/09/17 09:15 AM
12

So the NY post is openly stating that the only thing women are any use to for men is for sex? There couldn't be any other reason men would wanna spend extended time with a woman? Well, maybe they have a point with the majority of women out there. I don't know. I'm out of the loop there a bit.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 12:50 PM
1

I don't know what is self aggrandizing about saying I'm a guy of average, possibly below average, physical prowess. Although that could mean dick size, with dick size there is of course the unspoken agreement that my dick is enormous and yuuuuge and the best. More important than being able to win fights is to be a good judge of situation and character.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 03:13 PM
1

Well, the primary reasons for teenage pregnancies is broken nuclear family backgrounds, lack of sex education and lack of access to contraception. The biggest thing that destroyed the nuclear family is the labour market (there are other things like systemic discrimination in some demographics): It is impossible to support a family off one income nowadays, and it is equally impossible to find a city to live in where both parents can find a proper job. This puts a lot of stress on any family, and …
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:20 AM
2

Well, fighting prowess is irrelevant in normal life, luckily nowadays almost nobody has to fight. And even if fighting was something many people in the west had to do every day, it still wouldn't really matter. Everyone I ever meet, no matter how weak, can easily kill me when I'm sleeping or preoccupied. All they need is a knife. And I sleep every day and I'm preoccupied with other things almost all the time, and since I live in a city there is always someone less than a minute away from me with…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 05:28 PM
3

Well, that is boxing where you have rules and referees. And in a real fight you can't just hug your opponent and hope he won't do anything. If you hug a stronger and bigger and heavier opponent, you are starting a wrestling match, and you will get crushed. The only real chance you have is if you have a weapon that can incapacitate almost immediately, and your opponent has not. And even that would be risky.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 11:25 AM
3

Maybe. If they have specific fight/self defense training that could work sometimes. But that requires a lot of training too.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 10:16 AM
6

You really really have to look for them though. Apart from the short time when girls start puberty earlier than boys and have a little head start on their class mates, it's almost impossible to find a pairing where the woman can physically dominate the man. I'm not a very fit person. Nowadays almost any woman that does basic fitness could probably outrun me on any distance longer than 200m, because I will be out of breath after that. I would still just destroy those same women in any physical fi…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 01:58 AM
11

There are loads of different attention grabbing and impractical fashion choices that you see every day if you walk around in any city. Big braless pierced titties under a white t-shirt is comparatively quaint and low key and low effort in that area. There are so much more important things to be worrying about than other peoples clothes. I'm much more bothered by other people's obesity or stink than by what they wear, because those things can have an actual impact on others in shared public place…
/r/MensRights14/08/17 10:23 AM
1

You can't say that and simultaneously say that the wage gap is the result of women's choices.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 09:45 PM
2

As long as women also make up the majority of the cleaning and cafeteria staff ... Also, there used to be a time when every middle manager and even many of the more important engineers had a secretary that took care of his schedule and screened all of his communication and took care of most of his standard communication tasks. Imagine the productivity gains by not being interrupted every few minutes.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 09:07 AM
3

You know, I think at this point reimplementing a draft would be the government shooting itself horribly in the foot. The first reason is, a draft citizen armies is basically a good representation and portion of the citizenship. You can't use that too obviously as imperialist/corporate goons, as demonstrated in the Vietnam war. The second reason is, suddenly most of the population are trained in the latest weapons and tactics the government has at its deposal. Talk about the government being afra…
/r/MensRights10/08/17 08:19 AM
1

Divide and rule has always been the game. And it can't get more literal than identity politics with this.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 11:51 PM
13

Yeah, somewhere in the mid-2000s all the more progressive activists realized that protesting the Iraq war and the patriot act etc. didn't do anything. So they moved on to areas where they could have an impact, because no one cared that much about this stuff. Maybe there was even some deliberate redirecting within the educational system and msm going on.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:46 PM
1

Being able to defend yourself violently can never hurt. You don't need to be able to win all the fights, you just need to be able to do enough damage to make others reconsider getting physical. But remember, violence is always a last resort when other communication breaks down. So if you wanna avoid being violated and being taken advantage of, there are other things that are far more important: first and foremost communication. Being able to judge people and situations and act accordingly and be…
/r/MensRights04/08/17 07:27 AM
5

Don't really see that chain saying women are only good at popping out babies. It's just saying that that's the most important thing women do, not that they can't do anything else. If anything this was a complaint that women won't/don't contribute more in other ways. Possibly even an expression of wistful longing for a time where that might be the case.
/r/MensRights01/08/17 05:22 PM
2

Well, there are also loads of retards who think they are smart and scumbags who think they are gods gift and talentless hacks who have music careers. That's nothing new.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 05:04 AM
2

I got no problem with weaklings playing action heroes. I also have no problem with retards playing geniuses and degenerates playing saints and tone deaf people playing musicians. It's the movies. So unless the movie specifically insists on being realistic, its gotta really really suck for something like that to pull me out of it.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 04:52 AM
11

My go to counter when I see this is to bring up the fact that the two wealthiest people in the world in the 1830s were women: Queen Victoria was #2 and Elisabeth Leveson-Gower was #1. And therefore you can conclude that in this favorite era of British costume drama, where women are oh so oppressed and face so man challenges, women are actually the most privileged. The fallacy is of course immediately spotted in this case. But usually I have to point out that they are making the same mistake when…
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:19 PM
1

She's just a paid shill. It's just that she's shilling for the feminist establishment instead of for a corporation or industry or church.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 02:22 AM
1

The opposite is at least equally as true: people like to attribute anything good happening to them, any success, to themselves, or often, if they are religious, to Gods blessing, which is the same thing, just even more solipsistic. And the success of others many see as undeserved and sheer luck. Pride and envy. Two very familiar concepts and even two of the cardinal sins. Well, fact is, it is a lot harder to climb the social ladder than it is to fall from it. The Japanese imperial family is at t…
/r/MensRights11/07/17 04:04 AM
0

My point is, neither side is right. The actual truth is somewhere in the middle. My impression is, and it seems to be supported by evidence, "success" is far more determined by social circumstance and position than by individual qualities. So, in that sense the progressive paradigm is a lot more right on this than the conservative one. It's even clearly demonstrated in one of the main issues of the MRM: boy and young men are struggling academically, precisely because their social standing has be…
/r/MensRights10/07/17 10:23 PM
16

It's equally stupid as the diametrical opposite ideology you find so often on the right: Identify an area of human activity Note a distribution of success Identify winners and loses Claim that winners are winning only because of their individual qualities Claim allegiance with the winners Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world Revel in your moral superiority Target your resentment towards your newly identified inferiors. Repeat. Forever. Everywhere. One of the more well known…
/r/MensRights10/07/17 07:08 PM
1

Oh, but it has a precise definition, just a negative one. "Classless society" in its simplest form. You can always say what is and isn't communism using that. And using that definition it is very obvious that there hasn't been any practical example of it on any scale larger village/commune size (and even that is debatable). So railing against it using historical examples is not possible, because there are no historical examples of classless society. But there could be infinitely many implementat…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 11:31 AM
1

... requires exponential expansion to survive ? It doesn't. ... because I want more You see the contradiction there? Saying that capitalism doesn't require exponential growth is the same as saying capitalism doesn't require credit, interest, profit margins and inflation. Any percental growth is exponential growth. And the panic that ensues any time the economy or some enterprise fails to meet its percentage tells you everything you need to know.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 08:21 AM
6

It's one of his trolling for attention articles again. I don't doubt Elam is a Trump supporter, and largely for the same reason I was a Trump supporter, namely to throw a big shit grenade into the political system to wreck and soil as much as possible there. But but no one can seriously praise a man for integrity, that lies as routinely and blatantly as Trump and who sucks up to criminals and dictators as shamelessly as he does. You can't even praise Trump for having balls, because Toddlers who …
/r/MensRights03/07/17 01:25 AM
0

Well, that depends on what you understand communism to be. And since I rarely ever meet anyone who actually has read "Capital" and thus understands that there isn't a definite definition of what communism is supposed to be, that there is no prescription of how exactly it is to be implemented, and how it will eventually be implemented depends entirely on the specifics what the technological and social reality is at the time. The only aspects that are defined about communism are some negatives, ac…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 11:40 AM
-2

Yes, you drank the cool aid. "Greed is good." and "Long live the King." and "My enemies are evil.". That's what your arguments are. Those are not arguments, those are bumper stickers. Well, I told you why communism failed historically, and why it can succeed now. And I told you why capitalism will fail. If I had to express both more succinctly, it would be like this: Communism failed so far, because the technological prerequisites to be able to create non-hierarchical communication structures di…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 09:02 AM
-2

The thing is, capitalism always works towards that extreme, that's how it is set up. So when we make it to be the dominant principle of our society, our society will always head for that extreme. I'm not opposed to using the capitalist toolkit on a small scale in a possible future communist society. Got no problem with small businesses being privately owned and run. But beyond a certain size, this can't be allowed to exist, because then the concentration of wealth and power in private hands with…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 01:18 AM
-2

If capitalism has been working perfectly fine for the past 200 years Oh, there were a lot of practices that worked "perfectly fine" for a lot longer than 200 years and then were suddenly gone never to return. (Also, the capitalist idea itself is quite a bit older than 200 years, it started in Tudor England, but it was about 200 years that it completely took over Western society). But capitalism can only sustain itself as long as there is exponential growth. And to sustain exponential growth, the…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 11:05 PM
-4

Not gonna give up on communism, because I see no alternative in the long run. Capitalism is unsustainable on a physical level, it directly runs against the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics. And you can't negotiate with physics and mathematics. (If you want to be buried in text on this, just ask, I can provide :) ) Communism has two major obstacles, and both are solvable/manageable now, although one wasn't historically. The first and bigger problem communism had was that the available commu…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 10:01 PM
5

I said it a few times already, but I strongly believe that feminism was deliberately shaped by western intelligence agencies , especially from the 40s forward, to undermine and incapacitate the political left. Too many of the early feminist players from deBeauvoir to Steinem have strong anti-communist intelligence ties for that to be a coincidence. And it was very very successful in that. But anyone who actually reads the Marx and the early Marxists like Luxemburg can clearly see how little this…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 04:31 PM
23

Yeah, been saying it for years: female hypergamy is one of the primary obstacles to a classless society. You get a lot of flak though if you say that out loud.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 04:01 PM
-1

They could have done a lot better by giving out free beers and blowjobs in pubs.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 08:27 AM
2

Well, being able to navigate the treacherous waters of sex and procreation is of such essential importance for the survival of the human race, that gender/sex are built into the very core of the grammar of pretty much all languages we know, and all cultures we know have gender and sex specific traditions and mores. It is inescapable. And even the the best case scenarios, navigating sex and procreation in a society is never easy and small mistakes easily can lead to ruin. Just think about the fac…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 01:55 PM
7

Making demographic statements about individual roles is a stupid approach in itself. Even if there was a significant difference in leadership ability between two demographics of people, the individual variance between people always means that you have to look at people individually if you try to select for an individual role. There have been good and bad leaders of both genders throughout history and in modern times. Ruling out certain demographics for certain roles is just as stupid as making m…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 12:13 AM
3

Stalinist feminism You do know that feminism as an ideology was practically absent and unheard of in the former commie states. I know, because I grew up in one. It's an entirely Western phenomenon, where all they key players and funding come from the most affluent and influential social circles. It's almost as if setting the people against each other makes it easier for them to stay on top.
/r/MensRights15/04/17 02:59 AM
5

Well, feminism is a religion. They center their beliefs around this invisible all-powerful force called patriarchy that controls everyones life since time immemorial. And even the organizational structure and funding and rhetoric is very religion-like. Also look at how feminists are very reluctant to actually confront religion in society, even though pretty much all the few issues women still face are religiously motivated and Church structures are pretty much the only place where you could actu…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 08:44 PM
1

One of the most central prerequisites of capitalism is, that there are people who seek employment and people who seek employees, i.e. people who have capital to spare and people who don't. That's anything but equality of opportunity. And if you once heard the phrase "Everyone according to their ability, everyone according to their need." you would immediately recognize that that is anything but equality of outcome.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 05:45 PM
2

Feminists complain about the number of women on the boards of big corporations. If feminists were Marxists, they would complain about the existence of big corporations.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 05:46 AM
5

Feminism assumes a class system by birth right. You couldn't be further from Marx than that.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 12:23 AM
9

Nope. This fear of sex robots is nothing but a demonstration that feminists deep down are aware on some level, that women on average have nothing to offer to men and society but sex and wombs. Improved medicine and low child mortality have massively dropped the value of wombs already. Once sex can adequately be provided by an appliance, there is not much left for women. You already see it. The spiral of one-up-womanship when it comes to sex. How many women think they have to go to ridiculous len…
/r/MensRights28/01/17 03:36 PM
12

Don't care who it is an insult to. What is worse is, quotas are a guarantee of election results to a specific interest group. Once you start doing that, democracy is dead. Has the same negative effects as gerrymandering. It's just much more blatant and obvious, so there is more resistance historically. The question I ask any quota supporter is, what other special interests groups should get guaranteed election results. Catholics? Investment bankers? In reply to that I once had a woman tell me, t…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 10:01 AM
5

In England, it is especially ludicrous to speak of politics being male dominated. In the last 500 years, at least since Margaret of Anjou, there was a woman on the throne almost half of the time. Mary I had to get rid of two female rivals to secure her throne, and was succeeded by a woman. And even if the ruling regent wasn't a woman, there usually was a female figure dominating politics, from Lady Margaret Beaufort to Queen Caroline or Elizabeth Leveson-Gower.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 12:55 AM
4

Well, I was a mgtow before the term even existed.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 11:25 AM
8

Most people, and especially kids, are never gonna encounter a transgender in their life. Something British kids need to be prepared for is how to spot and avoid the upper class or Middle Eastern pedophile.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 08:05 PM
2

Looks like I have overestimated my audience. Take care.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 12:22 PM
1

Only if that contribution leads in some way to higher chances of producing successful offspring. But reality shows the opposite is the case. The more women invest into careers, the less children they have and I suspect those children are also less likely to succeed but that's just a guess at this point. You still haven't fully realized how much the game has changed. We are approaching the end of possible population growth on earth due to resource limitation. The game isn't anymore a game of quan…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 08:33 AM
3

It's not like that anymore here of course too. But for West Germany in the 80s it was like that for the most part. The laws haven't changed that much since then, but the culture as whole has in the wake of the reunion. The economy makes it harder to get by on one income, and attitudes have changed too with that influx of women that grew up in the East. Britain had it's economic downturn in the 70's that made two incomes necessary by default. West Germany didn't have that until the 90's after the…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 05:30 PM
3

I think you may be overstating the case as regards West vs East German women. West Germany is a lot more conservative in that regard. Yes, it was and is ok for women to choose to work. But the whole tax law and child care infrastructure was, and to a large degree still is, designed to strongly encourage women to be stay at home mothers (or rather designed to strongly encourage the breadwinner/homemaker divide, which usually amounts to the same). And the churches and christian parties fight tooth…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 04:50 PM
3

I would dearly love to know more about why it was that more women than men moved westwards during the 90s. Service industry jobs in the west were much more abundant. The women of East Germany basically became hotel and restaurant and retail staff and nurses and secretaries in the west. There were no similar sectors with male labour demands. In contrast to West German women, East German women grew up in a society where women were expected to work. the birthrate of eastern German women has since r…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 01:36 PM
1

Who says so? I mean, sure, it would be nice when looking at the big picture, but why should women do this when they don't have to? Evolution. Letting nothing go to waste is the biggest selective pressure there is. Having half the population contribute only marginally is a waste on a scale that will ensure extinction. Firstly, having to raise children for longer is not an advantage. It's a liability. Yes, a liability, but also a biological necessity. Our prolonged childhood is what makes our neur…
/r/MensRights31/12/16 10:37 AM
0

Of course. It's very remarkable nonetheless. Alone because the results are unlike anything else and clearly far superior to what any other species does. With that in mind, successfully bearing and raising children is also far more demanding for humans than for any other species. Mentally, physically and intellectually. And since this was. and in most of the world still is, primarily the work of women, it's kind of arrogant to assume that only men have advanced beyond what other species do. This …
/r/MensRights31/12/16 05:43 AM
2

they're misguided I don't think most people who voted for Hillary are misguided. At least not more than among those who voted for Trump. It was two exceptionally shitty candidates, and I can't blame anyone for voting against either of them. I ended up supporting Trump myself, because he would be the perfect demonstration of how broken our institutions are while at the same time he would do the most damage to them.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 08:02 AM
4

Yes. We produce enough food to feed everyone and we "just" have the problem that a capitalist economy can't distribute it where it is needed. Current food production levels happen at massive costs of non-renewable resources. We are turning oil into food. We are draining and polluting the aquifers. And that can't go on for much longer. We are also destroying the natural ecosystems that sustain life on earth on a massive, unprecedented level. And food is not all that is needed, isn't it. Shelter, …
/r/MensRights12/12/16 01:25 PM
6

Intersectionalism: one word for "Divide and Rule".
/r/MensRights08/12/16 04:09 PM
5

Yes. But the only tough work the women of the classes where feminism came from generally had to do was being pregnant and raising children. I mean, especially driven women like Elisabeth Leveson-Gower still could do things like becoming the wealthiest person in the world (before Queen Victoria in second place) by inheriting slaver fortunes, raising (gang pressing) soldiers to fight against those American rebels, dancing with Marie Antoinette, throwing parties in London and killing highland clans…
/r/MensRights07/12/16 09:46 PM
11

So many half truths there. First of all, the suffragettes and first wave feminists and suffragettes were the educated and bored wives and daughters of the rich. They came from Austenland, from the privileged classes. They didn't care about making it easier for the working classes, they just wanted to get out of their golden cages, without ever having to give up all the comforts and amenities of those golden cages. Just read what Rosa Luxemburg, an actual Marxist woman, had to say about the femin…
/r/MensRights07/12/16 09:14 PM
3

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but are those protesters plants? Poe's law certainly makes life confusing.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 01:43 AM
2

Something that I noticed in Westworld: There are not really any female guests that do anything dark or immoral or even just anything of consequence. The only human women that have any "agency" are the corporate tools, and they don't even really have an arc. And of course as usual, the male hosts are slaughtered by the hundreds, but almost the only suffering that counts (with the exception of Dolores father) is that of the female hosts.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 01:16 AM
14

If he ever says anything in favour of it, he will become the face of it. And it is not a pretty face. It probably will do more harm than good. So lets hope he stays as self-absorbed and ignorant as ever and just not care and do and say nothing.
/r/MensRights05/12/16 07:37 PM
2

Something I have read growing up, and has always been quite helpful, both when trying to get at the truth and when trying to be right and in deciding which of either is needed at any moment.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 04:45 PM
3

Oh, even when the father is there, when the mother is insecure, that can poison all interactions within the family when everyone has to cater to the mothers insecurities.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 11:47 PM
4

Ok, now let's take a look at the reverse claim: "Insecure mothers have have unhappier children."
/r/MensRights23/11/16 05:22 PM
4

What we know today as the "Service Industry" only became possible because of the break up of the nuclear family. The service industry provides things that usually happened within a family. The difference is of course, when it happened within the family, all the wealth created by it was available to the family. When it happens within the service industry, even if it may be more efficient or even better in some rare cases, most of the wealth and gains created there just make the business richer.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 05:00 PM
7

I'd rather say: Because nuclear family is the last important economic entity that isn't ruled by capitalism. For capitalism to have access to the wealth and productivity tied up in nuclear families and grow and expand further, the nuclear family needs to be destroyed, just like all the other non-capitalist institutions have been destroyed and the spoils absorbed.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 03:53 PM
3

You mean those that have been labelled BernieBros and worse by the Clintonites?
/r/MensRights22/11/16 01:16 AM
3

i.e. Marxism that has nothing to do with Marx and the economy anymore, and as such is acceptable for corporate capitalism. As long as the people don't worry and do something about economic inequality/exploitation/discrimination, let them worry all they want about racial, gender, sexual, religious or whatever inequality and discrimination. Divide and rule.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 07:32 PM
1

Hehehe. I was just trying to make a point, and it seems I made it. And while we are at it, I should maybe also mention my broad shoulders, strong hands and 8'' penis.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 09:26 PM
1

I don't think I lack conversational skills. In fact my eloquence and clarity of expression and thought is the thing I get complimented the most about, both by the women I dated and the people at work. I just found that very few people are interested in the things I'm interested in. And everyone has their own burden to carry, why should I add to that?
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:29 PM
5

Well, I got my normal run of the mill mental health problems. And I do my best to keep them to myself and don't spray all my mental shit around on the people around me. Because I have first hand experience how my mother spraying her mental shit around and not keeping it to herself or at least trying reign it in has soiled and infected the whole family.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 08:00 PM
1

Its supporters merely ape their leader's rhetoric Well, certainly not Chomsky. The thing that gets Chomsky the most hate by everyone is that he applies the equivalence principle consistently and to the end, i.e. "If it is bad when they do it, it is bad when we do it."
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:07 AM
0

The reproductive rights situations are very different for women and for men. Yes, the men are in a much worse situation there, but that doesn't mean there are no problems for women in this area either. Those problems are almost entirely of religious origin, but they exist. And those very different situations are the reason why it makes sense to have different rights movements for men and women, even in the west. There are different things to do for each. You talk about it being impossible to rep…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 01:48 PM
17

There are a lot of places that could use women's rights movements. Even in the west, since women's reproductive rights are under attack in some places. There are none that need feminism.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 07:38 PM
1

The question is, how relevant tax breaks will be in the tanking economy and once the pitchforks come out. You don't see everyone in the establishment harping against Trump in unison because he promises them tax breaks. They are scared of the fire and the pitchforks and burned ground Trump will leave in his wake.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 05:59 PM
2

No, the change will not come from Trump. It will come from the reaction to him.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:18 PM
1

Yes, they didn't get what they want, and maybe will not be able to buy that Jackson Pollock they really wanted. To many people in those circles this is unbearable and requires years of therapy. This kind of entitlement is a phenomenon well known to MRAs I thought.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:07 PM
1

Yes, it will likely get a lot worse before it gets better again. But many people are so desperate and have nothing to look forward to that this looks like the better option to them. And I tend to agree with that, even though I don't agree with anything Trump is and stands for. Yes, there is also this ugly racist and sexist religious current within the Trump movement, that is comparable to the ugly racist and sexist feminist/sjw section within the Clinton camp. But those are not really the electi…
/r/MensRights09/11/16 02:09 PM
15

Why that is mystifies me to be honest. Simply because Trump scares and threatens and likely hurts the establishment too. Watch how they are all wringing hands and shedding tears now and fear for their futures. That's a fraction of all the pain and worry the working people had to endure over the last decades and were ignored and actively dismissed and trampled over again and again. Now that the people who matter are starting to hurt too, maybe something will change.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 01:55 PM
1

Well, you should be all for feminism then. One of the greatest agents for capitalism in the last decades. If feminism was actually Marxist, they would not complain about the lack of women in corporate boards, they would complain about the existence of corporate boards. Feminism declares a class society by birthright, you couldn't be further from Marx than that.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 05:01 AM
0

Feminism has as much to do with Marxism as Mormonism has with Christianity. Sure, they share some buzzwords, but beyond that there is not much in common at the core. Both Mormonism and Feminism started out as cons to get money and sex that lent some vocabulary from popular ideologies for credibility.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 10:12 AM
28

Europe has a 3000 year head start on Africa when it comes to writing. A 600 year head start when it comes to printing and wide spread literacy. That more than anything else explains the big advantage. China and India, the other big literate cultures are not too far behind, and together with the Arab world (that stopped caring about anything but the holy books) used to be ahead of Europe before printing. So lets just say reading and writing and printing is racist and stop teaching those loons to …
/r/MensRights16/10/16 07:59 AM
4

I have a tinfoil theory here. She basically became the target of the hormonal rages of pretty much every teenage boy in the world over the last 15 years. That sure as hell ain't a pretty thing, especially if you already have all the money you need and don't actually need to depend on male affection to get by. Becoming a vocal feminist pretty much was the only option left to her to reverse that and find any peace.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 02:45 PM
2

Well, I went on several big rants in the past about how feminism is a capitalist establishment initiative. You just need to look at who the early and most important players were, from de Beauvoir and Steinem H.G. Brown, and who their financiers and supporters were and who has to gain the most economically and politically. And what is also interesting is that feminism was practically non-existent in the Eastern Block and that early communists like Rosa Luxemburg were anti-feminist. Feminism is ab…
/r/MensRights02/09/16 07:26 AM
6

The primary beneficiaries of feminism are the big money capitalists, the financial elite: They destroy the last major economic entity that doesn't work according to capitalist principles, the family. And as a result, they can take the spoils. All that wealth that was generated in families and benefited the families can now be gobbled up by big capital. More and cheaper labour, the necessity of a service industry for all those things that have been done within families previously, but now has to …
/r/MensRights01/09/16 04:43 PM
5

Naw, whether a man wants to beat you or not doesn't depend on how charming he is, it depends on how mouthy you are. (/s in case it is necessary)
/r/MensRights30/08/16 09:35 AM
47

People that injure themselves for insurance fraud is a well known phenomenon. The difference is, insurances are big companies with whole departments dedicated to defending against this every day, and the laws and policies are not too biased. A man who is faced with something like this has no experience and no resources to deal with that, also a biased law against him, and often he isn't even informed of what is going on to make sure he can't defend himself.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 11:21 AM
2

I'm all about reaily reducing economic inequality, because I think that would most of the most pressing problems in the world. And by that I mean to have lower and upper caps on wealth and income. But that's not because I'm racist. Some of the first people who need to be cut down a few sizes are all those oil sheiks and kings and sultans and all those other heads of state that use that position to fleece and oppress the people. The difference in western democracies or republics is, that the supe…
/r/MensRights28/08/16 10:43 AM
3

Yep. Nietzsche is all about how God is the ultimate abstraction of authority made up by repressed minds, how it poisoned the spirit of human thought and creation, how it was still necessary to bring the belief in the spiritual to its pinnacle under tremendous tension, and how getting rid of it will bring about a great cultural crisis, but you have to get rid of it to free the individual psychologically to strive towards self-actualization symbolized by the superman, without going much into how e…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 10:06 AM
1

I regularly combine Nietzsche and Marx, they are quite complementary.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 09:36 AM
3

"The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets through many a dark night." - Nietzsche And it is true. The thought that I can just kill myself any moment is one of the main reasons I'm able to go on with life. I'm procrastinating for over 20 years by now, still going. Never actually attempted, because "There is not try."
/r/MensRights27/08/16 05:45 AM
14

Why would I care what you subscribe to?
/r/MensRights18/08/16 06:43 PM
3

Well, she has kind of a point. But the thing is, with the Solanas and Dworkins and Steinems of this world, feminism has jumped the gun on this decades ago. She now starts to get the idea how the other side has felt for a long long time already. It's sad that the MRA went this way. A few years ago I was still hoping we could avoid this trap, learn from the bad example.
/r/MensRights23/07/16 05:38 PM
6

Well, at least in England it is close to 50% of the time in the last 500 years. And if you count the cases of Margaret of Anjou or Caroline, who were the real powers behind their husband kings, it is even more. And then there are cases like Bloody Mary, with her father being described as a prime example of the evil patriarchy, but who nonetheless had two female rivals to the throne, had a female successor, and the two foreign leaders she had to deal with the most at the time were women too.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 06:56 AM
6

Funny how all the "Marxist feminists" she fought against and mentioned by name have old Biritsh Commonwealth upper class , even noble, family backgrounds. In combination with the confirmed intelligence service background of many other prominent feminists like Steinem, tells you all you need to know about modern western "feminism" and "marxism".
/r/MensRights18/07/16 06:29 AM
2

I'm living with male roomies for years. None of us do dishes very often, but overall it is happening often enough for all of us to not see it as a problem. Is that sexist? Or does it only become sexist in the unlikely case a girl moves in and does the dishes more often on her own, because it is more important to her?
/r/MensRights12/07/16 12:22 PM
7

All you need to do is go through laws and official policies and eliminate everything gender specific. Equal rights.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 11:25 AM
3

I'm friendly and considerate to everyone by default. But if you want me to do something for you, you better ask nicely. Usually I'll oblige.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 02:12 PM
1

Not the onion.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 06:22 AM
15

I've watched men pine over women, talking about them like future wives, yet after staring at them for two hours, let them walk away. Yep, sounds about right, after about two hours it becomes clear there is nothing worthwhile there with most women. It's always fun to see how completely lost and confused most women are when they realize that they can't score attention points with someone just by being a woman and trying to be sexy. And when they try something else it is usually by trying to be a f…
/r/MensRights26/06/16 09:33 AM
1

The lower the wage, the more likely workers are to pass up the job altogether. Yes, men are not working, because the wages are not worth it. Over the last decades most wealth got redistributed to the top. There is not much more wealth to suck out of the American people for the wealthy, so it is not worth it anymore for the rich to pay anyone decently to do so, and it is not worth it anymore for anyone to take such a job.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 11:45 PM
4

I used to be quite opposed to the draft too. Now I think one of the best things that could happen to government is to fill almost all administration roles and civic service positions with a draft, not just military. And a large drafted military as opposed to a smaller volunteer/professional military has three very valuable advantages as well: The army doesn't just largely consist of desperately poor people and meatheads. An army that consists of all citizens is hard to use against citizens. Almo…
/r/MensRights21/06/16 06:03 AM
2

Yeah, I also only watched the first two seasons, and already felt a steep decline in the second. But I will forever be grateful to it, because it introduced the phrase "cunt ramming awesome" into my vocabulary.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 12:52 AM
4

I once saw a TED talk where the presenter said "If a teacher can be replaced by a machine, he should be." Same here: if you have nothing more to offer than a machine, you deserve to be replaced.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 11:27 PM
1

Nothing wrong with that. It was a project that needed initiative, creativity, determination and putting your own money on the line. Of course that's a man's job. That women then complain and it is not good enough is just normal. That's what they always do.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 10:10 PM
-8

Nope, there is no real difference between using public roads or public healthcare. And even if you don't use the public roads yourself because you don't drive, or don't use the public reproductive healthcare yourself because you won't have kids, you still will benefit from it. In the case of roads you benefit from the transportation that fills your stores or can get you to hospitals. In the case of reproductive healthcare you benefit from mostly having only wanted and well cared for healthy chil…
/r/MensRights31/05/16 12:06 AM
-2

Well, that's because those alimony laws are in place. Of course they are gonna want to have both if they can have both. That's why I'm saying it could be an opportunity in the US to trade one for the other.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 08:54 PM
0

Certainly they get more free reproductive healthcare than men do! Well, this is an area where I don't see any problem with women getting more than men, since their reproductive system takes a lot more maintenance and care even if they are not pregnant. Biological differences are biological differences. You see, planned parenthood is under attack in many areas right now, and while parental leave of course would be better than just maternal leave, I'd see it as an opportunity. Let women choose, wh…
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:19 PM
-16

Always depends in what you want to incentivize: breaking families apart, or having healthy children. I suppose you have no problem with free public roads either.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 06:03 PM
-26

You know what would be great? Women get paid parental leave and fully free reproductive healthcare, and in exchange alimony and child support are abolished. Then at least women who actually need it get support.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 05:05 PM
1

Well, in a world where how much money you make is based on effort and performance that would make sense. But we don't live in such a world. How much money you make is based on how much money you make your employer. So if female athletes in some sports are more marketable while having to put in less effort, taking less risks and performing worse, because they have the inherent female sympathy and attractiveness bonus and consequently a greater and wider appeal, so be it. I have less of a problem …
/r/MensRights29/05/16 09:48 AM
2

No, I wasn't suggesting that this is the better form of government. I was merely bringing it up as a real life example and social experiment that disproves the theory that big welfare for women is to blame for them disrespecting men and becoming feminists.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:52 PM
1

Yeah... the CCCP collapsed, didn't it? That wasn't the question.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:40 PM
1

Well, in the eastern block there were massive state social programs, from generous maternity leave to free health and daycare. But they also had women and men working side by side equally. And you didn't hear a lot about those radical Eastern European feminists that don't respect men back then, did you?
/r/MensRights26/05/16 09:33 PM
4

I think the root of this is even earlier, it is a side effect of capitalist production, where the work is removed from the home and its benefit abstracted through a paycheck. It's a prime example of Marxian alienation: Women are removed and isolated from all the things men are doing for their benefit, they don't witness it, and as such can't even register, much less appreciate, it. The women in times past that were bringing the lunch to the field, they saw it. While there was division of labor o…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 03:41 PM
2

The prevalence of transgenderism The prevalence of homosexuality is measured in significant percentages of the population. Around 10% most say. The prevalence of transgenderism is so small, it's something you can measure in absolute numbers I'd say. A few ten thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand world wide? I'm not talking cross dressing here. I'm talking true hormone taking, name changing transgenderism. More concentrated in a few places, but still more or less irrelevant in the big picture. …
/r/MensRights22/05/16 03:52 AM
4

I kind of have the impression that the the words "machismo" and "masculinity" are conflated today. I never identified as a macho. In fact anyone who seriously cultivated a macho persona has always invoked smug amusement or even pity in me. Don't get me wrong, I love the macho action hero trope that was so popular in the 80's and early 90's. But when someone takes that seriously you end up like Steven Segal or Ted Nugent: a sad joke you can't even laugh about anymore. So, if people think of that …
/r/MensRights20/05/16 09:40 AM
2

Feminism has as much to do with Marx as Mormonism has with Jesus. If feminists were communists, they would not complain about there being not enough female CEOs, they would complain about the very existence of CEOs.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 12:55 AM
3

Are you being sarcastic here? Yes. Either there are stories about women that just aren't being made The thread up to here contradicts that, at least for TV. There are loads of stories about women ever since the beginning. there AREN'T stories about women because they've been excluded from history due to an institutional bias against women. Well, as I said, if you would make all those movies about women getting things done, usually with major support from men, then it would be quite hard to uphol…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 06:29 PM
3

Can't tell if trolling or not, but lets assume not. In that case, are you saying there are not enough shows and movies about families? Because that's the only thing we are allowed to make if we have to always include women equally. You know, women have been maliciously excluded from everything else by the evil patriarchy throughout history. You can of course always abandon realism and go the fantasy or science fiction route if you want to include more women, but that is more expensive. Or we cou…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 06:03 PM
3

I don't know too much about 60's TV, what could be considered the best there, Star Trek? In any case, you don't hear Adam West complain about having to swallow pills to shrink his balls so housewives don't get a shock when he runs around in tights. The best shows in the 70's was probably "M*A*S*H", and it would be weird to make a show about the military centered around women. Still, quite a few memorable ones in there. "All in the Family" is probably one of the other great 70's shows, and it is …
/r/MensRights28/04/16 02:57 PM
4

In movies, maybe, but in TV I'd say definitely not. There were loads of female headliners and characters in TV since the very beginning, from "I love Lucy" and "The Flying Nun" and "I dream of Jeannie" and "Bewitched" and half the cast of "Gilligan's Island". And if those characters seem silly to you, that was TV at the time for men and women. The 70s had "Three Angels for Charlie" and the "Mary Tyler Moore show" and "Maude" and ... and ... And if anything, by the 80s at the latest you could say…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:49 PM
7

Buffy is one of the few shows where women were actually used as cannon fodder. And none of the female heroes there were just handed accolades or just considered awesome because they were girls, they all worked hard, fucked up and learned and paid dearly for their accomplishments. There was none of that "I deserve this because I'm a woman and I'm fabulous" bullshit, and none of that "I don't need no man or anyone" bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:18 PM
-1

As I said, women entering a sector in decline is not always the cause. In fact in none of the examples I think it was the ultimate cause. It's just a symptom that doesn't make things better. Actually I even see it as a positive sign sometimes: the fact that more and more women enter politics and corporate boards, often by legal mandate, gives me hope that the top institutions of our society are in major crisis and are gonna collapse soon and something better will emerge then.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 10:41 AM
-10

Well, happens to many sectors as they decline: the women take over. Sometimes it is a cause, sometimes it is an effect. Horses are mainly considered a women's thing for decades already. Print journalism is largely women for quite a while too. Education turned into a major problem, a laughing stock even that spits out illiterate brats, as it became more and more dominated by women. Happens the other way around too: IT was women to a big part for decades, but as soon as men took over it started to…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 09:35 AM
1

Hehe, even back then the accusers name was kept secret.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 01:26 PM
10

Speaking of old stories, or Greek mythology: Phaedra accused her stepson of raping her because he refused her advances, and her husband Theseus then kills his own son. This stuff has been going on forever.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:31 AM
3

Imagine Lous CK would do the kind of comedy Amy Schumer is doing. I mean, like her he is not the best looking, more in the cute and cuddly department if you try to be positive. And like her he produces writes and directs and acts in his own show. So there certainly is talent there for the both of them. But then imagine if he would make jokes about how he is so ugly slutty and fucking everything he has a shot at and complain about how girls only like the Fabios of this world and how Fabio is so d…
/r/MensRights20/01/16 08:49 PM
5

Ever since I moved out home, I never lived in a household with a woman. You can definitely tell my apartment is a bachelor den, but I do my own house work as I see fit. Over the years I developed many designs and practices to reduce the required house work as much as possible. In my experience, yes, men's apartments tend to be less clean than women's apartments. On the other hand, women's apartments tend to be a lot more cluttered and untidy than men's apartments. Having more clutter of course r…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 08:26 AM
-1

Cultural Marxism is what all the university professors that had to flee the Nazis came up with to stay employable in the us. It's basically mis-using phrases and words and patterns that Marx used in his analysis of economic classism and applies it to all those social areas that ultimately don't matter much. As long as no one takes a closer look at the economic injustices and are occupied with irrelevant battles against windmills, everything is fine with the powers that be and professors stay emp…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:56 AM
2

And trickle down economy has nothing to do with economy in the same sense.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 12:25 AM
1

Yep.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 08:54 PM
3

The term progressive derives as an opposite to the term "conservative". A conservative is someone who supports the status quo. A progressive is someone who wants to change the status quo to something newer. A reactionary is someone who wants to revert the status quo to something older. Note that only conservatives can agree on a clear idea of their perfect world: it's just the way things are currently. Reactionaries also agree on some clear ideas of their perfect world: it's how things used to b…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 07:40 PM
1

Well, a soldiers standard of living would be just fine for her?
/r/MensRights04/10/15 11:21 AM
3

Yep, even brain damaged men are a more capable of supporting themselves and others than your average woman.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:24 AM
1

Just not from the philosophy departments.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:08 AM
0

Ok, then tell me what you think what rights are. And don't say natural rights or divine rights, both are equally bullshit and quickly fall apart under any scrutiny.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:25 AM
0

Where all rights come from: a society agrees that something is a right and puts infrastructure into place to ensure and enforce it.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:07 AM
0

The food comes from automated factory farms. And they get it because it is their right to get it. Whether that right is still mediated with coupons (money is nothing more than that) like today and those coupons are distributed electronically and automatically or whether we get rid of this notion altogether is a different question.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:47 PM
1

Well, if you could back that claim up, that would be great. At least Western societies have long moved past subsistence economies.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:34 PM
1

They don't need to do anything to support themselves. Nobody needs to do anything to support themselves when all the major production is fully automated. People are free to pursue their own interests. For some that's drinking beer and gambling and chasing tail, for others that performing or creating, for for some it's learning things and building things (but machines took over all the boring and tedious and dangerous stuff).
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:20 PM
1

You know, asking "How will I buy food without money." is a lot like asking "Who will I pray to for rain without god?" When machines do most of the labour, you don't need jobs to do all the production, the machines do that, and you don't need wages to get money, this is done either by distributing money with other social contracts or by not having money in the classical and current sense anymore at all. I can think of a lot of different ways to manage the distribution of wealth in a society witho…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:39 PM
0

As I said, with the automation that is going on they won't need jobs to support children, and with contraception being ubiquitous, they won't necessarily have children by chasing tail. Wage labour is a completely unsustainable way of distributing the wealth within a society when most things are automated. It can be a minor way to do so, but it can't be the main way. And contraception is the big game changer that allows mankind to escape the Malthusian Trap.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:59 PM
-2

Nope, they can spend all the time they have chasing pussy if they want until they are bored maybe and then do more useful stuff.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:36 PM
-1

It is probably a minority, but not a small one. And I'd wager that with increasing automation of much of the labour and management necessary in a society that minority of people not motivated pussy is more than enough to fill all the roles that cannot be automated.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:02 PM
1

I mentioned clerics and eunichs, which made up a significant if not the dominant part of the social establishment in many cultures, because the focus of the article was so much on the highest levels of achievement and the core social infrastructure. But at the other end of society it wasn't much different. Most people doing the hard work were slaves or in similar forms of unfree labour. They weren't free to choose mates, if they were allowed to mate at all their mates were chosen for them, or as…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:33 PM
59

Well, there are and were plenty of men who accomplished great things and kept society going without being motivated by pussy. The contribution of the monasteries in keeping the European societies going and even advancing them can't be understated. There were even quite a few important scientists who were celibate clerics. Or look at the eunuchs that formed the backbone of the administrative infrastructure in a lot of East Asian and Middle Eastern cultures for millennia. And they were put into th…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:14 PM
2

A link in another subreddit.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 02:33 PM
1

Oh, I'm the last to want to see discrimination against men. I'm just pointing out that it is especially the fields that render themselves more and more irrelevant or a rendered irrelevant by technology that women flood into. And as long as that is the case, men still have a chance where it matters.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:23 PM
1

Naw, academic philosophy is just the next thing becoming irrelevant, that's why women become dominant in it, and the more women enter it, the more irrelevant it becomes. Just look at horse-keeping and journalism.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:58 AM
2

That money is the very reason why you don't get interesting and relevant philosophy out of universities. If you have a hand that feeds you, you don't bite it, and thus you are in conflict of being truthful and intellectually honest. The point of philosophy departments is to keep all the great past philosophy alive, so others can build on it once they are out of university.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:06 AM
2

Doesn't matter, most interesting and relevant philosophy didn't come out of universities anyway.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:18 AM
2

Well, it used to be that the rich and powerful people kept harems and courtesans. The downside of this is, just as with serfs, that they are responsible for them and have social obligations to them. Now, they got rid of all such obligations to the people that do the work for them when capitalism swept over the world in the last centuries. All that labor is is a body for a price as low as possible. Have all people in the world walk over each other for a chance to be exploited by them for some mor…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 12:11 PM
-3

Well, it wouldn't really work if she just says she is a lesbian to deter all that male attention she gets, which frankly must be suffocating. Put when you make it very clear you are a feminist, the only men still feeling attracted to her are guys too timid to express it openly or rich enough to can afford to not care.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:52 PM
3

So if it is a "poor problem", does this discrepancy in imprisonment between the sexes show us that men are at least an order of magnitude poorer despite women only earning 73%?
/r/MensRights27/07/15 11:29 AM
4

Was at a 15 year class reunion. That girl still wasn't over me rejecting her back in high school. I haven't seen her or talked to her in all those years.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 11:17 AM
1

Usually, when something isn't done that is beneficial to everyone isn't done, the reason is special interest. Which usually means profit, i.e. capitalism.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 02:00 PM
4

Ok, let's go through your 3 example issues. Abortion: You won't find many MRMs who want to make it illegal. You'll find a lot of people here who would want to give the fathers a voice in this too though. Pay discrimination: A myth. If controlled for other factors like hours worked and seniority and industry it all but disappears and you often find young women make more than their male colleagues. One of biggest factors here is that women prefer to be mothers and spend more time with the family. …
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:02 PM
5

There you go wrong, you are still under the assumption that feminism ever was about equality or even empowering disadvantaged women. I think probably the biggest cause the MRM where the MRM has something very valuable to offer to women is parental rights. Because only when fathers have equal parental rights, and this also includes reproductive rights to a large degree, women have more freedom to pursue professional careers. But in especially this area there is the most long standing and vehement…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 02:25 PM
1

Sure. If you aren't a commie, you most likely would even call me a commie.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 02:39 AM
1

Depends on what you understand under communism and being a communist. There are so many different understandings and misunderstandings of that, it's hard to tell what you mean by "communist". What I can tell you is, being part of a movement and of communities that fight for the rights of those disenfranchised of many of their rights by the establishment is a very typical thing to do under most understandings of communism.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 04:03 PM
2

I'd say all government positions, not just military, should be filled by a draft. Reduces cost, people get an education and job experience, people are more involved in government, less entrenchment and opportunities for corruption ...
/r/MensRights17/05/15 05:18 PM
1

Would need a reason to do so. I once did for a while when I played a woman on stage.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 04:46 AM
2

WEll, but big companies will require boards with women, so they will be performing worse due to having prioritize genitals over competence.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 12:53 PM
1

Well, maybe it is incentive to keep companies small enough so they don't need a board. Can only be good to have less huge corporations and more small businesses. Just trying to see the silver lining here.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 12:48 PM
2

Well, horror has somewhat different rules. Usually horror movies are also often the only movies where children exist.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 08:28 AM
4

Yep, women today have more privilege and power than the President of the United States.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 12:22 AM
8

Divide and rule. As long as people are fighting each other over race, religion, gender, culture, environmentalism, partisanship or any amount of wedge issues, they are distracted from the common underlying issue, that no should be allowed to think about for too long: class. That's why inequality is exploding and we are losing more and more rights, because the class warfare is framed under a myriad of other terms, so no one can see too easily what is actually going on.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 07:07 AM
2

Private foster care would have even less accountability mechanisms and a profit incentive. I'm sure there is nothing that can go wrong there ...
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:57 AM
3

How about this: Communism is the belief that free people interacting in independent communities will magically solve all problems. Libertarianism is the belief that independent people interacting in free markets will magically solve all problems. Both is equally stupid and narrow minded. Anyone who thinks they can explain the world in a paragraph and solve all problems in two is just an ignorant lazy hack. The real world and its problems are far too diverse and complex for that. And even just sc…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 10:46 AM
6

You might be surprised to learn that the most iconic, respected and important female communist, Rosa Luxemburg, viciously spoke out against feminism, because she saw it as contradictory to true equality and as a distraction and deterrent and even destructive to the thing that really matters: the class struggle. The women that shaped and practically created modern feminism, like Simone de Beauvoir and Gloria Steinem and Helen Gurley Brown actually came and were bankrolled more from the conservati…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 12:54 AM
4

So death is a defence that actually works. Good to know. I'm sure this loophole will be closed soon.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 08:45 PM
2

Have you heard of this new rock'n'roll thing? Also, everyone needs fall out shelters, you never know when the Russians are gonna flip the switch.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:44 AM
10

Wait, are they trying to tell me women are uninterested in hydrology until someone explicitly tells them that the field will allow you to solve water related problems humans face? That "robotics is stupid boy stuff" but "building smart machines that take over the unhealthy, hard, dangerous possibly forced labor" is suddenly something girls wanna do? That civil engineering seems irrelevant and pointless to women, but making our cities and human environments safer, cleaner and and more connected i…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:36 PM
3

Trans people is a curious thing. I consider it a kind of body dysmorphia similar to anorexia. The difference is of course, if you let anorexics indulge in their compulsions un checked, they will sooner or later die horribly. So there isn't really anyone who disagrees with the way to deal with anorexia being to fix the self-image anorexics have in their head or resist their compulsions. Now for trans people, they wouldn't die. They just would become infertile (and often awkward) members of the op…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:48 AM
1

Oh, I wasn't arguing that the establishment left isn't wrong about a lot of things. But all the things you hinted at, both sides are wrong about. There is a huge amount of things both sides are very wrong about. There is a big amount of things the right is wrong about and the left is at least a little bit better about. But as far as I can tell, feminism is the only thing where the left is very wrong about and the right is at least a little better about it. Not that I endorse the "pregnant in the…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 10:46 AM
-5

Yeah, feminism is pretty much the only real issue point the left are clearly and utterly wrong about. And it would be very strange indeed if the right didn't drill into that, given all the complaining and bitching they do on everything else, where they are clearly wrong about.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 01:31 AM
2

Well, as you said, the (upper class) English at least this repressed Hugh Grant thing going for them. And the Sid James brand of working class saucyness is not without its charms either. Neither of that really exists in Germany on any cultural scale.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:12 PM
2

Nope, Germany. I've been to England recently, and the guy over there are smooooth as far as I can tell.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:51 PM
2

Nope. Worse.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:35 PM
14

Don't know. I've always been doing this going my own way without making much fuss about it, before I ever even heard there is a name for it (other than bachelor) and that there is some kind of movement to this. I'm not big on joining any movements or groups anyway. I always assumed this was because I'm still young and innocent at heart: I'm eight years old and girls have cooties, basically. I did do some dating and hooking up in my early 20s, but always quickly lost interest, too much drama and …
/r/MensRights24/04/15 01:44 PM
6

Well, presidents and founding fathers i.e. "more sacred than most presidents".
/r/MensRights20/04/15 11:33 PM
8

Just putting a woman on 20s for its own sake is stupid. There are simply no female presidents yet to choose from. Now, if there was a general redesign with a whole different theme of all notes, I'd see no problem with putting women on some of them. There are certainly a few women in US history that would be very suitable to put on there, from Harriet Tubman to Mary Jones.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 10:42 PM
5

Well, thanks to modern agriculture and medicine that massively dropped the child death rates and death rates connected to pregnancy, women don't longer have to have 10 attempts to get 2 children to adulthood. The market value of working uterus and mammaries collapsed basically over the last 100 years, and a lot less work is wasted on raising children that die before they grow up. Women became a lot more disposable and have to find other roles than motherhood to be contributing meaningfully to so…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:01 PM
6

That's because you only see her inner beauty.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 02:18 AM
-2

Right when all the other religious people realize too that this is the main point of the whole thing: a big side show to control and defraud and skim. In other words, never, there will always be suckers. And once you got them good and deep, they will be your most vicious defenders, because having to admit how good they have been had would be just too shameful and painful.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:26 PM
1

Well, it is true. But if she really wants to go down this road you might want to mention that it is also true that the chaff is weeded out far more thoroughly and ruthlessly from the men than from the women, starting at the moment of conception, because the single Y chromosome if far less tolerant of any disadvantageous aberrations. The higher selective pressure on men starts in womb, and doesn't get any less throughout life for them.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:10 AM
-18

Or that. But very obviously she felt the need to do something.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 09:08 PM
-20

Yep. Just a slap would have been better. But then the woman would have the risk of getting slapped back, and that's not a risk she could take, and thanks to the state of rape law enforcement, she didn't need to take that risk.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 09:00 PM
-21

Violence is at the very essence of life. Where there is life, there will be violence. And we evolved to deal and deal with violence. And any institutions designed to deal with violence must take into account that it is a natural and biological thing and make very careful decisions about when to pull out the hammer and when not.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 08:44 PM
-26

Delegating violence to the state makes it a question of policy and politics. This is overall a good thing. But it also screws up all violence related natural thresholds on the lower end that we evolved to navigate carefully.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 08:38 PM
-29

Yes. That's my point. Escalation to violence for men has real costs and risks. Not only the risk of injury, but also the risk of legal ramification if it is disproportional and unjustified. That's why assault legislation exists. Someone who resorts to violence of simple name calling has it coming. But name calling can escalate to real harassment and bullying, and for people that can't afford lawyers and be litigious, violence is still a viable option to go, like it or not. That's one of the main…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:53 PM
-59

That actually is kinda one of the legitimate concerns of women. When the name calling and insulting gets too much between two men, decking each others faces often is an appropriate step of escalation to clear this out. And men are usually pretty good at making the cost-benefit call on whether to escalate to violence or not. For most women being insulted by by a man this option of escalating to violence to clear it out in private simply does not exist. Which means she has to delegate her violence…
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:05 PM
3

Not a friend of such blanket statements. Adorn it with the standard qualifiers that always apply when you make demographic statements, then I would say yes overall though: women tend to be more conservative than men.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 09:10 PM
5

That's why left vs. right is the false dichotomy in politics. Those are far too burdened with far too much ideological baggage. The proper distinction is conservative vs. progressive. Conservatives are those who want to conserve and support the status quo, i.e. those who benefit the most from it: the current and/or recent establishment, the wealthy and powerful. Progressives are those who want to change the status quo. And simply by doing this they become the enemy of the establishment and their…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:36 PM
1

the property rights of every individual are paramount When you do this in a world where property is distributed so vastly unequally, all you are doing is cementing the inequality. It's no coincidence that those who are the richest are most in favor of property rights. And this vastly unequal property distribution has been in existence since pre-history. Apart from that, the whole concept of property is a social construct. It's the human cultural bastardization of natural possession. Similarly to…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:14 AM
1

That's exactly my point, all those things people call marxism today has nothing to do what Marx wrote about.
/r/MensRights17/02/15 10:48 PM
1

Just read Capital. There is virtually nothing in there you today associate with pop-Marxism. Marx has nothing to say there about race, multi-culturalism or even gender roles. When he talks about objectification he means a capitalist turning his monetary capital into infrastructure to be more productive and products to sell. Not even this "everything is a social construct, human nature is irrelevant" trope that you find so often in modern Marxists is anything even hinted at. Actually this bullshi…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 09:14 PM
2

Ultimately all rights are aimed at resource allocation problems. In that sense there is no real difference between human rights and "natural" rights. Where the difference is between the two, the "natural" rights assume there are no upper and lower limits. The classical "natural" right of property for example. Natural right approaches completely ignore the fact that when you put no cap on the top, you also remove the cap from the bottom. I.e. if you don't put limits on the property of individuals…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 11:36 AM
1

Well, more like Marxism 4.0. Marxism 1.0 died with Rosa Luxemburg. Marxism 2.0 is the Russian School, Lenin, Trotzky, Stalin, who all completely ignored Marx points that you can't have communism without the proper technological basis, before Capitalism has rn its course and eaten itself. Marxism 3.0 is the Frankfurt School, who took Marx dialectic approach and completely ran haywire with it, redefining terms left and right, leaving a big mess generally called "Cultural Marxism". And today you 4.…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 05:36 AM
13

It has always been the brain child and domain of white privileged princesses from the very beginning.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 09:44 PM
1

This is something that Liberal idealists will never understand. You can't force people to behave like demographics...because they're people, not numbers. Well, the same misconception seems to apply to censervatives when they favour stuff like abstinence only education and racial profiling.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 10:18 AM
0

I don't see much use in the terms left and right either. I prefer conservative, and progressive. Conservative: those who want to conserve and strengthen the status quo, i.e. those who benefit the most from the status quo, the establishment, the wealthy and powerful. Progressive: Those who want to change the status quo, and as such of course have the wealthy and powerful establishment against them. A lot of people put feminism in the marxist/leftist corner, because they spout a lot of cultural ma…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 02:23 PM
-1

Well, that's when modern feminism started, when the term became widely used. And pretty much all major players in that time, the ones who developed all the feminist terminology and ideology and marching orders, were women from very wealthy conservative establishment backgrounds and with a lot of them plausible or even very obvious intelligence ties. And even today I find it strange how fast people like Julian Assange are faced with feminist rape accusations, or movements like Occupy Wallstreet g…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 01:35 PM
-1

Ok, lets look at two of the central founding figures of modern feminism: Simone de Beauvoir: Before WWII deeply embedded in the heart of the French establishment from a catholic banking family, going to the elite schools. During the war in the propaganda arm of the Nazi Vichy government. Right after the war active in the communist organizations on Balkan when the Eastern block was established. No one at that time works for those three parties and lives without intelligence ties. And considering …
/r/MensRights06/02/15 01:15 PM
1

Well, it is mostly perpetuated by paid for propagandists, so its no surprise that it is less prevalent in times when less people go to their jobs.
/r/MensRights30/12/14 04:17 PM
3

The Duchess of Sutherland's situation tells us fuck-all about the life of the hog farmer's daughter. True. But at least the hog farmers daughter didn't need to worry about being pressed into navy service. True, being at risk to become a harbour tavern wench isn't a nice thing either. According to estimates up to 20% of the women back then were prostitutes. Arguably still better than facing naval punishments, as the many sailors they served did. So, I'm not claiming women didn't have their unique…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 02:54 PM
2

Marx wrote about her a few times, especially the highland clearings. But there is also a biography, that is linked from wikipedia I think.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:47 AM
2

That's always the issue when you put people into boxes and assign them roles based on some generic criteria: Even if it is statistically unquestionable that people from a certain group are more suited for specific roles and tasks on average, maybe even by a big margin, that doesn't mean everyone in that group must be forced into that role. Because there are always outliers, and by forcing everyone into a predefined role, you miss out on the outliers. And it is the outliers that often have a disp…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 07:56 PM
6

That's not just today, that was always the case. Upper class white women like the Pankhursts wanted the vote for upper class white women and continue to deny it to most men. De Beauvoir and H.G. Brown were almost entirely patronaged and bankrolled from their big capital background. All the while true fighters for equality like Luxemburg had nothing but scathing criticism for those kinds of damsels and viewed a seperate movement for women for what it is: a division and weakening of the people and…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:41 AM
-1

None of the things you mentioned were anything Marx wrote about. So it is quite a stretch to call that Marxism. What it actually is, is the indoctrination and dogma by the capitalist establishment in the last 50 years.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 09:46 AM
0

It's not classical Marxism, it's cultural Marxism. Well, they are only Marxist in the sense you could call Mormons Christians too. Because it's a poison pill, to destroy capitalist nations from within and usher in a communist revolution. There's no need for it in a nation that's already communist. Well, a revolution will take place once capitalism will run its course. It won't be too bloody though, because by then it will be only a handful of people who own everything. Won't take long anymore. I…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 04:19 PM
-1

it's hard-core Marxist progressivism Feminism postulates and acts on the basis of a class society based on birthright. You couldn't be further away from Marx. Or to quote Rosa Luxemburg, definitely the most distinguished female communist on feminists (i.e. privileged white women and their grievances): "... they are simply joint consumers of the surplus value which their men squeeze out of the proletariat; they are parasites on the parasites of the people. And such joint-consumers are commonly mo…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 02:58 PM
2

Been saying it for quite a while around here: feminism is a fundamentally conservative and reactionary movement. The early feminists that actually really popularized the term and created the ideological underpinnings and turned the women's rights movement from a rights movement into a social engineering project, like deBeauvoir and Helen Gourley Brown all enjoyed heavy patronage from old capital and the establishment, and their biographies almost scream intelligence asset. And the goal of course…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 10:27 AM
1

In her essay on suffrage, first entry on google.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 01:05 AM
46

Ah yes. That's an old one. "When she excuses her inexcusable behaviour with PMS, she's a poor thing." - "When he excuses her inexcusable behaviour with PMS, he's literally Hitler."
/r/MensRights16/11/14 06:27 PM
3

Funny that you use that word parasite. That's precisely the word Rosa Luxemburg already used to describe feminists. Feminism is one of the more effective tools in the box of the capitalist establishment to divide and exploit the masses. It's highly effective at undermining and disintegrating any form of solidarity and community that would allow people to support each other against the onslaught of capitalist interest. Feminism is the ceremonial knife with which the family was sacrificed at the a…
/r/MensRights16/11/14 06:20 PM
2

Well, I often go as far as calling feminism an ultra conservative and reactionary affair. Because when you look closely, feminism always somehow serves the establishment and gets supported by the establishment. And somehow it always undermines and co-opts any movement that might become a threat to the establishment. I'd almost go so far as to say that feminism is the go-to agent provocateur and cover used by the intelligence community to divide and conquer any progressive or interesting social m…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 11:44 PM
7

It's not new. That's the same attitude as the ladies of the temperance and suffrage movement had.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 07:24 PM
3

Yes. Without a government serving the wealthy and powerful, there is no capitalism, and as capitalism and the capitalist entities grow, the government must grow too, to serve them. But, and this is the important part, while government power and size grows, they ways of the people to actually influence government decision making doesn't grow. There is still a distinct ruling/governing class, and their interests necessarily are different from the interest of the people. If there is anything that w…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:23 PM
1

Capitalism can only come into existence under very special circumstances with a very special kind of government: a small and weak and poor one, so it needs to play nice with the wealthiest and most powerful people in the land and sell them government offices and titles and privileges. That's what happened under Henry VII. in England and as a result the wealthy and powerful could disown the free cottagers and yeomen under the protection and with the active violent help of the crown in the enclosu…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 02:21 PM
3

Capitalist interest via growth and consolidation inevitably always ends up being corporatist interest unless a more powerful entity, lets say a government actually beholden to the people, caps the size of privately controlled entities. Where exactly that size should be is up for debate. Although I think a pretty good case can be made that the wealth difference between the poorest and the richest people in a society shouldn't exceed a factor of the Dunbar number, because if the differences are bi…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 01:43 PM
34

Naw, I'd prefer feminists just losing their political power over this. The ideologically dogmatic feminist left is to the Democrats what the ideologically dogmatic Christian right is to the republicans. And it's stupid, because while everyone is fighting over those marginal issues and public discourse is poisoned and drowned with it, the increasing robbery and oppression of the people by capitalist interest goes on largely unopposed.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 12:49 PM
1

I used to write little summaries about decidedly anti-communist and anti-marxist feminsim is. I mean you just have to see how feminism works entirely from a postulated class system by inherent birthright: You couldn't be further from Marx.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 05:14 AM
10

The big trouble with this is, if you define class by sex, it is a class system by biological birthright, which means this is a class system that never can go away and there is no class mobility. So when you see sex as a class boundary, you cannot abolish this class system, you can only try to be in the class on top at best. And that's what feminism is about.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 07:15 AM
5

Saying "Men can't be victims." is like saying "Pitbulls can't be abused."
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:52 AM
11

The lack of ambition in men is not only because marriage isn't really an incentive anymore. There used to be this thing called bachelor or playboy lifestyle too, where unmarried men work hard and play hard, and get themselves the toys they like. But there is far too much wealth tied up at the top and not "trickling down" of course. Wealth accumulation is a one way street towards more concentration. Men are realizing there is no real chance to get at any piece of that big pie, no matter how hard …
/r/MensRights22/10/14 07:05 AM
2

Naw, I think the reason Democrats will take over the MRM vote is because they can do so without losing feminists to the GOP. I mean seriously, just look at the rhetoric on women coming from a lot of the GOP candidates completely oblivious to how insulting it is. Makes the famous Hillary quote on how women are the primary victims of war look heartwarming (probably because you need to think a second to notice how awful it is, whereas the GOP diatribes are obliviously in your face). So what are fem…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 02:08 PM
1

Great great writing. Average performance and presentation.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 02:24 PM
2

If you seriously think the Ray Rice story is one of mutual violence then you either have not been following the story carefully Yes, that's very telling. Don't pay attention to the video and evidence. Only pay attention to the story like you are supposed to.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 05:01 PM
8

Yes, equally available birth control for men and women would improve the situation a lot. But it would still be a far cry from resolving it. Women still can unilaterally choose whether to abort or not (Which I completely support in the first trimester. As long as the child cannot survive without the mother it happens to grow in, the interest of the child is irrelevant, it cannot have independent interests from the mother, and thus is no independent person). But mothers also can unilaterally give…
/r/MensRights11/10/14 11:39 PM
23

I once had a discussion with a woman about women quotas for parliament. I asked her what other special interest groups she would want to give guaranteed election results. When she was confused by this I explained that other interest groups like old nobility and Catholics and Muslims should also get guaranteed seats. That was of course an outrage, and when I spelled it out for her that when you start guaranteeing election results to special interest groups you destroy and shit on democracy. To wh…
/r/MensRights24/09/14 10:06 PM
1

An often repeated factiod from genetic studies is that through history and prehistory about 80% of the women got to procreate, but only 40% of the men. ( origina paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15317874) What this means the number of men to die before getting a chance to procreate was double the number women. Conclude from that what you will. Or look at slave prices in roman times a female slave generally was more than ten times more expensive than a male slave. Or read the Odyssey and…
/r/MensRights15/09/14 07:06 PM
5

Quoting Rosa Luxemburg, certainly the most prominent and important female communist, on feminists: ... they are simply joint consumers of the surplus value which their men squeeze out of the proletariat; they are parasites on the parasites of the people. And such joint-consumers are commonly more rabid and cruel in defence of their ‘right’ to a parasitic existence than those who directly carry on class domination and the exploitation of the working class.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 01:08 PM
4

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519
/r/MensRights09/09/14 08:43 AM
2

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519
/r/MensRights09/09/14 08:43 AM
7

There is recent research that to change someone's ideological point of view it is more productive to appeal to their sense of self than to reason. Demonstrate how their views turn them into something they don't wanna see themselves as.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:33 PM
1

Yes, that's how monogamy came about.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 10:35 AM
1

I seem to recall that those "genetic studies" have been debunked? Maybe. Wikipedia still says 10,000-20,000 years ago monogamy came about, and before that it was much much less diversity in who got to procreate. And it is certain that the alpha wasn't the only one who got to procreate and have sex. What matters is that they statistically dominated the field almost completely. And in tribal societies a lot could and can get you killed. But as long as societies/groups don't grow beyond the Dunbar …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:06 AM
1

How much of this is due to adaptation to a hierarchical culture and how much of this is "innate"? A hierarchical culture is an environment like any other, and biological adaptations to it are just as innate as adaptations to disease vectors. And that it is a biological adaptation and not a conscious decision is readily demonstrated by the disconnect between what women say and what they do in this regard. So even a change of culture would take a few generations at least to have a significant effe…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 11:23 PM
3

Naw, the new roles for women became necessary when modern medicine let the child and childbed mortality dramatically drop. Because that dropped the marked value of the working uterus dramatically. Not having to raise 5 children for 1 or two to become adults just left a lot more time for other things. And not dieing in pregnancy or childbirth or becoming infertile via infections and other complications meant a lot more working uteruses were around. That's why it became possible and necessary for …
/r/MensRights01/09/14 03:31 AM
17

The first 5 electric household appliances that came to market were the flatiron, the vacuum cleaner, the toaster, the vibrator and the dishwasher. Because men only think of themselves.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 12:51 AM
5

Troll post? In any case, it's a good show and full of good male role models too. And there is no shortage of female pieces of work in it either. And the finale is one of the very few instances in entertainment were women serve as cannonfodder. It's not feminist I'd say, rather quite balanced.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 07:58 PM
1

Historically women had their cross to bear too. The death rates in pregnancy and child birth were phenomenal. As were the child mortality rates. A working uterus was a very very valuable thing indeed, and having one was life threatening. And if you didn't have a working uterus as woman your option was basically prostitution. Well, when modern medicine and agriculture started dropping the child mortality rates the market value of the working uterus dropped. There was a real need to find new produ…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 02:10 PM
1

I'd choose to be a man. I don't like attention and being handed things. I like that no one gives a shit about me. That means I can just do my thing and no one cares.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 04:14 AM
1

topic can be further expanded to address specifically mens rights So how would you go about this?
/r/MensRights19/08/14 06:08 PM
1

That place where the mostly comes from is where the interesting stuff happens, so please elaborate.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 01:09 PM
1

I don't know who is a woman here or not. I don't care. Isn't that the point? I was just pointing out that economy on a physical level is a zero sum game. Conservation of energy and stuff. It only isn't seen as a zero sum game on a political level because of political decisions what to include into "The Economy" and what not. And precisely because it is a zero sum game on a true physical level, no matter what the other policies are, if you allow big concentration of wealth, i.e. the entitlement t…
/r/MensRights09/08/14 03:36 PM
4

So you are basically agreeing: economic growth is just accounting tricks. Parents having time for their children and for each other is of no economic value, because that time doesn't show up in accounting books where someone says that time is mine. When they do spend that time barely scraping by in 3 jobs each, making someone else who is already rich richer instead of enriching their own lives, that is ecomomic value and the economy has grown. Or: a river that supports millions of lives has no e…
/r/MensRights09/08/14 01:37 AM
1

Post-modernism is a useful tool to have in your bag. It great at detecting bullshit and useless masturbation. If you find yourself using a lot of post-modernist arguments you know you are becoming useless and fruitless. It shouldn't be your only tool though. If it is you are a useless wanker. That's the problem with it though: it's very easy to apply post-modernism to everything and for it to then take over completely, and then to convince yourself that it is all you ever need. In a sense post-m…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 09:30 AM
8

Recently I come more and more to the conclusion that feminism is the result of alienation in a very Marxist sense. Only because women are so isolated from all the work men do, all that infrastructure men build and maintain, because that work, all that struggle and the shit men go through, is hidden away from them at jobs. Because the benefit of that work to them is impersonalized and can be taken for granted. Any true personal connection they may have had to it filtered out through uncaring mark…
/r/MensRights17/03/14 11:55 AM
1

Well, maybe you are not able to recognize the difference between laws that are applied according to unchangeable biology and laws that apply according to individual achievement and choice. If you indeed do have a problem with giving privileges to people who pass certain tests, like lawyers, doctors, congress people or even the president, you better take it up with those. Yes, it wouldn't be bad to restrict access to public services to actual citizens, as long as being a citizen is open and achie…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:05 AM
1

The point is that we are letting ourselves be feminized So you consider being able to cook and do the dishes and the laundry to be "feminized"? Sorry, but that's just stupid. I prefer being independent and not needing a woman or anyone else for those things or anything. Not least of all because it enables me to just show the middle finger and walk away. So fuck protecting people's sensibilities, including yours.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 07:22 PM
0

A lot can change in 10,000 years of evolution. The eye color and skin color differences aren't that much older. As is the whole concept of monogamy. Lactose tolerance is much much younger. Loads of immunities are only a few 100 years old. Or the differences of penis sizes between old established cultures like China and India where social status and material wealth were the dominating factors in sexual selection, or Africa, where sperm competition and physical fitness were still more important fo…
/r/MensRights18/02/14 12:48 PM
-3

Oh, histroically there were of a lot of men living on their own and managing their own household. From armies to monastaries to hermits, pretty much all frontier and explorer situations: it's always men living without women and still being able to take care of the menial daily chores with no problem. And if you just consider how frequently women just died during pregnancy and in childbirth, men raising children by themselves were no rarity in the least either. It's actually kind of a staple in G…
/r/MensRights18/02/14 12:28 PM
4

Considering feminsim is postulating a class system by birthright, you couldn't be further from Marx' ideas. If feminists were actually communists, they wouldn't complain about not getting enough CEO and board and government positions, they would object to the very existence of those positions.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 04:29 PM
0

But there is a fundamental difference between math and reading: to be considered a great, or even just a good, mathematician you must do things no one ever has done before, by definition. Mathematicians change and shape the world by advancing understanding. Even if you are really really really good at reading, you don't really change anything. It just means you do things everyone else is doing too a little bit faster. So it is comparing apples and oranges.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 04:02 PM
2

So if your ... That's for courts and expert witnesses to decide case by case, not for legislation to declare. And for 12 year olds and care takers there are no special laws needed. Well, unless the abuser happens to be female, that means she's getting a pass most likely anyway, even with strict statutory rape laws. The intent of those laws is as intentionally discriminatory as the drug laws are. You can't have laws based on birthright demographics. That violates the core principle of equality be…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 03:48 PM
1

Or to put it more succinctly: Telling millions they can't say yes or no is even more of a rape than ignoring someone saying no.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 09:43 AM
1

I am just saying that your assertion that all young (12-16) people are able to have sex with an older person and not be hurt by it is a lie and a weird fantasy. It's also not what I'm saying. Hence those tests. What I'm saying is that a significant part of them, if not the majority, can and do make those decisions for themselves, whether they decide to have sex or not. And that making those decisions for them only stunts their own development. It's not whether they have sex or not. It's whether …
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:45 AM
1

You guys act like humans are machines who all experience the world the same as you. Who is doing the generalizations here now? A super smart female or male can be totally unready to have sex, especially with an older person That's not the question. The question is how do you evaluate that properly without opening the doors to corruption and oppression. I highly much doubt that almost every human being that lived before 1900 was traumatized because they had sex too early at 14. And outside Wester…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:18 AM
1

corruption your test is just as likely to suffer from that. Not really. For one it's written, it's always different and goes through a few hands who all evaluate it. I suppose you can design a handful of written equivalent emotional evaluation tests. But not nearly as well as designing many different equivalent language and reading comprehension tests. And someone with the intellectual capability to pass a language and reading comprehension test has no problem getting/researching the correct ans…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:42 AM
0

Problem is, this "emotional maturity" is something completely subjective. It's the personal opinion of the one making the call. That kind of single person gate keeper bottle neck and point of failure with no hard criteria of evaluation is not something you want anywhere. It's an open invitation to corruption and power abuse.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:06 AM
0

The age of consent is not what I'm primarily concerned about here. It's just incidental to being the age of majority too in that example. And I wouldn't even involve psychologists in that. Maybe as part of the team that designs the tests, but the ones checking the results will be the teachers. And in any case, improving the education for everyone has a far higher priority than ending statutory rape laws. In fact improving education for everyone would largely make statutory rape laws almost irrel…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 06:28 AM
0

It is a nice incentive to give all children better education. Especially if "No taxation without representation" is upheld.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 05:50 AM
1

The whole notion that people are able to make certain decisions by a certain day in their lives and not before that is ridiculous. Maybe I'm going a little bit too far off into utopia, but the most sensible solution to all of this is tests and certificates, even in a broader sense in society as a whole. As an example: Citizenship isn't automatic for anyone born in the country. There are citizenship tests for everyone, which are primarily language tests and reading comprehension tests. After all,…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 12:31 AM
2

Well, let me rephrase again: "Don't look at my boobs when I dress slutty! It's rape! Unless I want you to. Then you have to and think they are perfect and give me everything you have. If not you are oppressing and abusing me." Feminism is largely about leveraging and abusing issues like rape and domestic violence to extort money. And if feminism really was about reproductive rights for women, it would be far more anti-theistic. But instead of picketing churches you see them picketing the few men…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:23 AM
1

Ok, let me rephrase the first one: "Don't look at my boobs when I dress slutty! It's rape! Unless I want you to. Then you have to and think they are perfect. If not you are oppressing and abusing me."
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:07 AM
5

To put things into perspective: Feminism: "Don't look at my boobs when I dress slutty, unless I want you to! Then you have to and think they are perfect." MRA: "We want to die less."
/r/MensRights26/09/13 07:53 AM
2

You attain leadership positions by social fakery, not by competence.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 04:21 AM
1

Well, all those questions still take place in an environment where contraception is real, where procreation is a choice and more or less independent of sex. This is a prerequisite for this convergence of sexual behavior to happen in the first place, for it to be an option. The physical environment changed. Behavior is adapting. Also, you are arguing backwards and in circles again, coming with the conclusion first, then restating it in different words as arguments, only to triumphantly presenting…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 08:07 AM
1

Who says this similarity (which I guess is mainly researched in western college student volunteers) is not a result of socialization?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:22 AM
1

when it seems you are saying it takes hard work but is possible When I say impossible I mean on a social level. Individuals can manage their instincts occasionally. But even there you have to pick your battles. And they are all never-ending uphill battles. That's why it can't work for whole populations. As for evolution happening in us: we are adapting to our new diets, our more hygienic surroundings, and the fact that getting the resources we need to survive is a social problem for most people …
/r/MensRights17/08/13 01:49 AM
1

Cultural influences are mind-bogglingly powerful. Sure, but they only ever can work on top of the instincts that are already there. It's very possible for us to make decisions not just via instinct. But it always takes active effort and relearning and always is a struggle. Sometimes more, sometimes less, all too often it is an effort people are unwilling to invest or even are aware of having to invest it. And I do mean biologically, eventually. Evolution is far from over for humans, in fact it a…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 12:31 AM
1

Sorry, I'm too anti-social to even like sex with one partner most of the time. Much less several.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 11:25 PM
0

Nothing really. It's by definition: Male is many cheap gametes, female is few expensive gametes. That dictates the market situation and strategies on a purely biological basis. So for men pushing volume will be instinct and for women gauging prices will be instinct. And that can only change on evolutionary time scales. One can try to culturally alleviate this a little. Monogamy and arranged marriage are such attempts, but that will only ever work to a maybe barely adequate degree. What will chan…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 10:21 PM
1

Capitalism existed long before then, in the Assyrian era, under the Romans, during the Arab and early Muslim expansionist period, and in the early medieval times. Well, who is redefining now. There is more to capitalism than just a non-local market and private property, that's why you have different words for it.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 11:22 PM
1

Declining labor value and societies dominated by greed occurred for thousands of years, prior to the advent of capitalism. Actually the startof the development of capitalism in Tudor England was kind of a reaction to the rise of labor value. Because most of the population were independent cottages that could supprt themselves and afford to say no to the rich and powerful, the rich and powerful started to violently throw them out of their homes and tore them down and claimed the land for sheep gr…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 10:41 AM
1

Decilining labor value and a society dominated by greed are inevitable outcomes of capitalism.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 11:30 PM
1

Actually a big portion of Marx' "The Capital" consists of him elaborating how capitalism erodes the family. Children in mines, 18h work days, failing health, general insecurity etc. etc.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:48 AM
5

Wrong. There has been nothing more destructive to the family than the capitalistic labor market. Finding a place where both partners can have a career, both parents having to work possibly multiple jobs etc. All this eats away at the time for and cohesion within the family. True, feminism is also something that contributes to disintegrating the family. But you are very mistaken that this is a marxist goal. The family is one of the last non-capitalistic economic units, it doesn't work according t…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:05 PM
3

As far as I remember, back in school there wasn't a big difference in math between boys and girls. In fact, as long as math mainly consisted of learning multiplication tables by rote and making neat drawings and the like, girls fared a bit better. But at the latest by the time trigonometry came up the top of the class were all boys.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:27 PM
1

Actual commies (and I know a few) don't consider me communist either.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:46 AM
-4

Something I thought about a little more recently: male to female transgenders are pretty overrepresented (compared to their miniscule representation in the general population) in the top echelons of computer science and IT to the point where you sometimes might think there are more of them than actual women. Let that sink in, people that choose to be socially treated as women and usually face some of the worst sexist discrimination and harassment because of that have comparatively little problem…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 12:51 AM
-7

No, men are just better at getting shit done, while women are better at getting attention for trying to get shit done.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 10:19 PM
6

The people you call good feminists didn't even call themselves feminists. They called themselves after whatever specific issue they were tackling, like suffrage, if at all, or just women's rights activist. The term feminsim rose to prominence after all those rich wifes and daughters went to college (in the 20s and 30s admission was about 50/50 already, the GI bill pushed it back into male favor again) and created the ideological tenets of tha evil patriarchy and eternal female victimhood. That i…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 06:07 AM
-1

If the woman was genuinely unable to tell she was pregnant before she had the ability to get an abortion. Would someone like that be a proper mother?
/r/MensRights30/03/13 04:35 PM
5

I would give these girls the opposite advise. If you are a driven and competitive young woman, find a driven and competitive guy who is not competing in the same area as you. That usually makes it very very hard to find a place where both can have a career in their respective field. One party will usually have to take the backseat. That's just the nature of the labor market.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:32 PM
3

Plausible deniability. Allows you never to have to be held responsible, can play the victim etc. Downside is, it's hard to take credit for anything too.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:49 AM
3

Which drugs? Penicillin and aspirin? No...you probably mean the state banned ones, You're being facetious, I mean of course mind altering drugs, most often used for recreational purposes. Wood for lumber and paper come from tree farms, where they farm trees year after year, while planting more than they harvested Yep, that's why the woods vanished from Europe, pretty much whereever there was a big wood market, first in Greece and Anatolia (ship building), then in Rome (ship building), then in En…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:47 PM
4

What you know as "communism" was actually just state capitalism: the state was one big corporation with no competition and no oversight. And that works as you would imagine. The biggest tell is that all those "communist" states still had money and banks, and yes, looked at the international markets to make a dime. Also: markets aren't all good. In fact you could make the case that they ruin everything they touch: Drugs are ok, and where ok for most of human history, but when there is a drug mark…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:29 PM
5

A common belief held by libertarians is that all humans have the same potential to be great without the need for things like affirmative action. That's a very commie idea. The libertarian notion that independent people acting in free markets somehow magically solve all problems is pretty much the same as the communist notion that free people acting in independent communities magically solve all problems. But ultimately communism vehemently opposes classes by birthright, which is why it is very i…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:54 PM
1

Oh, I much rather would have a party far less corporate and warry and orwellian than the democrats. But everything I hate about the democrats is far worse with the GOP and then they add a myriad of craziness of their very own brand on top of that.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:12 AM
1

Duh! (but actually I think it would good to try someone the system hasn't had time to corrupt too much yet occasionally).
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:31 AM
0

Ok, when you actually care about the overall situation, you can't possibly support anything from the GOP. That said, I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren to get the democratic nomination too. On the other hand, letting her to do some real cleanup work for some more years is nice too.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:33 AM
2

Being a one issue voter is stupid.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:43 PM
-1

Well, maybe she didn't notice on the way to the pharmacy that 70-80% of the floor space in the mall was dedicated to businesses that primarily cater to women. But sometimes a single blemish can ruin the whole thing I guess.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:48 PM
27

Everyone is crazy. People in general are ridiculous and pathetic. Some endearingly so. Women tend to have less incentive though to keep it under control and for themselves.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 11:12 PM
1

Ugh what a disgusting leap in logic. You sound like one of those feminists who knows what conclusion they want and do mental somersaults to get there. Exactly. 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. 18% of condom use, over a year, ends up in pregnancy. How exactly are those two numbers on the same scale that you simply subtract them? With the brazen assumption that everyone is responsible, so that the only unplanned pregnancies are those where contraception failed. So the contraception most likely to…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 07:52 PM
-2

Ok, let's make some educated guesses: Condoms are the least effective wide spread contraception method with up to 10-18% failure rates when not perfectly used to specification (i.e. typical use) according to wikipedia. So you could consider those 18% the upper bound of true unintentional pregnancies when you assume everyone is sexually educated and self-determined. The two ways to explain the other 30-40% : There is a severe lack of sexual educationand resulting in recklessness. That certainly i…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:15 PM
3

Growing up in East Germany we didn't have spray cans readily available. That meant graffiti was either chalk and didn't last long, or it was carved. And the carved vagina dominated school desks, tree bark, toilet stalls and wall plaster. Straight lines are simply easier to carve.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:33 PM
2

Is that because bad teachers tend to be more feminist? Or because feminism makes teachers bad?
/r/MensRights21/02/13 12:48 AM
6

Yes. The ideology of patriarchy and eternal female victimhood should be vanquished. Women's rights movements are completely acceptable though. There are quite a few areas where women have some very specific problems after all.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:30 PM
1

Same reason we refer to "catholic priests" or even just "catholics" when we talk about child molesting: Not all priests and catholics actively rape children, or actively protect those that do. But all priests are at least complicit by inaction and building and supporting the structures that facilitate the abuse. And all catholics are responsible for lending the organization credibility and providing it with the power to do what it does by associating and identifying with them, even if they often…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:10 PM
1

Well, if you expand the definition of infanticide to include abortion, you can also claim that virtually all women are child murderers, considering the average abortion rate is 0.9 But expanding definitions like that is something only crazy people on a religious mission do. The difference is, the some crazies enjoy substantial government support in funding and policy.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 10:49 AM
2

Well, my mom taught me and my brothers to cook, because she said a man who can't fix himself a meal or even make himself a sandwich in a fully stocked kitchen is kind of funny and pathetic. And such men used to be quite common. Though the ones in my extended family all could cook. So, I think the notion that men depend on women to the the cooking for them and are completely helpless without them in that regard is very sexist. I was actually quite eager to learn all that house keeping stuff, beca…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 08:42 PM
3

That's one of the big problems of feminism: that they develop theories on how to deal with reality from an ideological point of view with no basis in reality. There is no gender identity theory in the MRA. Whatever the the scientific state of the art is, that's what should be used to try to deal with reality. As far as I understand it, gender identity is just a subset of the self image modules that are in every brain, and those are pre-formed for the most part in utero before any meaningful soci…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 07:41 PM
2

As long as the training and tests are not compromised I'm all for it. Women have fought in a lot of armies in combat roles, also modern armies. Although it will probably hard for most women to meet the requirements for typical grunts. It could very well be possible that, once women start dying, people lose their taste for war a little.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:40 PM
1

but most of it is towards white males A bit hyperbolic. This isn't a contest about who has it worst. Lets just say that depending on context everyone and anyone can and wil be discriminated against. but if I was African American I would be able to attend top ranked schools like Harvard-Yale-Stanford with my identical stats. If there was a need for affirmative action, it would be ensuring that that no one would need special programs to be allowed higher education and access access to the institut…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 08:01 AM
1

Sure. Churches put most of their effort where they have the most potential to expand and grow.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:40 AM
1

Well, the historically most important means to do that is unions, which you are fully supportive of, right?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:58 AM
1

It is in Y’s best interest to cooperate with X, because Y is able to increase his score by doing so. However, in so doing, he ends up increasing X’s score even more than his own. He will never catch up to her, and he will accede to her extortion because it pays him to do so. Also the basis of capitalism as wage labor, interest and margins all work on that principle.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 03:49 AM
1

I really don't think those are universal attributes everyone can recognize, much less appreciate. A lot of people may say they do, but they really don't, and fall for fake version of that and end up in a train wreck. Also, if that was the case, I'd think elections would generally play out much differently, for example.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:42 PM
1

See, I would say treating people well and doing your fair share in a relationship is pretty universally appreciated. That's something you only really get to know once you are in a relationship. And I said above, that's when objectification tends to fade into the background. Since women generally focus most of their efforts on their looks and don't develop other qualities they are judged on their looks. That's strange to say in an age when women outdo men in school and college and university (no …
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:22 PM
1

We are not really disagreeing on the first part, only on the second. Maybe I should make myself clearer: If you develop other qualities and abilities, your acknowledgement will largely only improve for those people who who need and appreciate those qualities. Which won't be a lot compared to all the men (and women) who can appreciate superficial attractiveness. That's why it is called superficial attractiveness. It doesn't take a lot to appreciate it, so everyone can. The mistake is to expect th…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:05 PM
2

You don't need to be physically attractive to be sexually attractive or desirable. For example, the actress in the 50's that was most known to be able to break your heart with just a look wasn't that physically attractive: Guiletta Masina.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:49 PM
2

That's only (a small?) part of it. The elephant in the room is, that female sexuality and the prospect of procreation is the only thing men absolutely need a woman for. That's the distinguishing feature. That's what she brings to the table and he lacks. So of course that's gonna be what he focuses on. That's how most human interactions work: you focus on what the other one has to offer to you. That's the objectification that happens to everyone and everyone is guilty of. That kind of objectifica…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:23 PM
-7

That's what feminism has always been, from the very beginning: the quest of rich privileged women to find a reason and be busy so they can forget how disgusted they are with themselves.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:41 AM
12

Ok, I'll bite. Men's Rights: No law and policy should enforce social roles based on biological classification of people, only based on individual action and merit. Feminism: Men by definition oppress women.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 01:49 AM
2

I contend that the real conflict today is not male versus female, but urban versus agrarian values. That's the conflict ever since there is a discernible difference between urban and agrarian culture. That conflict is what our oldest literature, the Gilgamesh Epos, is about. Urbanization facilitates division of labor and specialization, and as a result amplifies both social differences and productivity. The price you pay is classes and alienation. And it's only in those circumstances of higher p…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 10:21 PM
-18

Women always complain and moan and want to be tended, so when they are sick you don't really notice a difference.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:04 PM
2

Lol, then why did the words feminism and patriarchy emerge in unison? I can't believe the intellectual dishonesty you are exhibiting here. Well, actually I expected it, sorry. As long as Solanas is a celebrated Feminist icon and the basis of modern femism is an de Beauvoir style idea of patriarchy, you can't possibly make those claims.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:01 AM
5

I wonder then why there were so many queens. In particular in the Germanic and Celtic tribes there were lots of powerful women and chiefs. Tacitus has written about it, and the old legends give a lot of hints at that too. And it's not like they only pull men out of the ancient royal tombs from Egypt to Siberia to Central America. I'll admit, within big religion you can find something that you could call patriarchical structures. But then I wonder why you so rarely if ever see feminists picketing…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:43 AM
3

So how do you think the patriarchy works its mysterious ways?
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:21 AM
3

No true Scotsman would ever do that! No true feminist would ever discriminate against men!
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:19 AM
5

oppression against black people invisibly micromanagaes everyone's life. Ah, but for the oppression of blacks I can point to actual organizations, people, policies, laws and huge social efforts and spending to explicitly implement the discrimination. There was a big big profit incentive behind it for centuries. There were thousand, probably millions of people explicitly paid and trained to keep down the black man.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:13 AM
7

Ah yes, the typical response of a believer: Prove to me that god doesn't exist! Well, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I never was invited to any backroom meetings to conspire against women.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:07 AM
8

A yes, you also believe in the patriarchy. You are aware that the patriarchy is just the god of the religion of feminism, right? All encompassing, all powerful, invisibly micromanaging everyone's life. But also a complete fabrication to exert social control and further special interest. Believing in it might make you feel better about yourself,and always gives you someone and something to blame, but ultimately it keeps you in a state of arrested development and stunts your agency. It makes you s…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 09:52 AM
4

No true Scotsman if there ever was one. If you believe in the patriarchy, you are a feminist. If you don't believe in the patriarchy, you aren't. And believe in the patriarchy is inherently misandrist, hypocritical and resoundingly non-egalitarian.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 09:34 AM
4

Often people are not even aware of something being a right. Considering something a right requires some sort of social awareness and self awareness. They just think that's how it's supposed to be and are completely stumped that it's not, completely oblivious to it being no that way for most everyone, and are sure there has to be someone to blame.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:02 PM
14

Because nobody can.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:16 PM
2

There once was a women's right movement that fought to abolish laws and policies that explicitely discriminate against women. For the most part they have achieved those goals by the 1920s. Then came feminism. Women from the richest and most powerful families were sent to exclusive private schools and colleges to be groomed to become the spokespeople of a new generation of female activism. Feminist theory was born out of their writing, and with it the patriarchy and eternal female victimhood, and…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:54 AM
9

It's the god of the religion of feminism. All powerful and invisible permeating reality and inescapably micromanaging everyone's life. And like every god is is just a big racket and a means social control and brainwashing. And also like all the other gods, it tells you a lot about those who created it and worship it.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:51 AM
5

I'm just bored or annoyed by pretty much everyone very quickly. Just a "Leave Hulk alone" kind of guy. I guess you just don't want to be left alone by women and like the promise they offer merely by being women.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 06:55 PM
-3

Because they always have their ovaries and/or vagina to bargain with. That usually helps to get you out of the gutter, unless you are intolerable on a level beyond comprehension. But even then there are a lot of government programs that ensure you don't even have to deal with the people in person who pay you for your ovaries.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:52 PM
0

This is the only post I ever made on r/communism, which was followed by the only ban I ever got in all my years on reddit within seconds. If feminsism is so left wing, 1. Why is it treating sex as inherently degrading, the way the most backward religions see it as inherently sinful? 2. Why are they often so anti-pornography, anti-prostitution and suspicious of cross-gender people? 3. Why is it so utterly pro-consumerism? 4. Why do they say and enforce that "Children belong with their mother." so…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 09:35 AM
3

Don't know. Never put that label on myself, and never even knew about that label until about a year ago. I'm just annoyed and/or bored pretty quickly with pretty much anyone I interact with and wish I was somewhere else by myself. And I have no reason to assume that people feel any different about me than I feel about them. In a way that "MGTOW" seems to me like the logical conclusion of the "men are appliances" attitude that pervades society. Men are only allowed to seek help and cooperate if i…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:50 PM
2

Didn't need to pander that much. All he needed to do was remind the people what was on the republican ticket when it comes to women's reproductive rights. And even here those are positions not a lot of people support.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:50 PM
8

Somebody has to be a waiter, or there will be no restaurants. So either you want restaurants to disappear from our culture, or you are happy to live in a culture where the existence of restaurants equals gross mass exploitation.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:01 PM
12

That labor rights are so trampled that waiters have to depend on tips to make a living?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 07:41 PM
4

Just fulfilling the actual promises of feminism. Making it more possible and acceptable and required for men to take care of kids and be a father makes it more possible for women to have a career and eliminates all systemic reasons men still tend to have higher paying jobs. Giving men actual reproductive rights too allows everyone to not reduce women to their reproductive role. Upholding equality before the law by abolishing genderized laws and policies gives women true protection and opportunit…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 03:51 PM
11

Should be possible to figure out who that man leading the feminist group in the 60s was.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 12:51 PM
2

Ok, lets come up with something that is good about women, but specific to women and not something that applies to men too: They give birth and come with natural baby feeders. That's nice, because procreation is kinda important to all life. But apart form that, a lot of women are great human beings too.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 12:54 PM
27

So you say penetration is inherently degrading? When you teach your children that, they will have pretty fucked up sex lifes and attitudes towards sex. That's basically the same as teaching them sex is inherently sinful. And equally atrocious. But then again, I always thought feminsim is an ultra-conservative ideology on par with the most backward religions and churches.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 07:00 AM
6

Those kinds of discrepancies happen without government interference. How do you think anyone got big and large enough to call himself government? There are a lot of ways to corner a resource without government help. In fact, if there is no government interference to protect the common people, it is even easier. Can even happen today. Google cornered internet search and ads for example.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:51 AM
3

Once you acknowledge that rewards and success are not the same thing, you will probably start to see it. You can be a very successful nurse, but the rewards you get for that will be squat compared to the rewards of a fuck up trust fund heir for example. Once you realize that economy of scale and division of labor immensely distort the rewards for people who have a lot already (for whatever reason), even if you don't take such things as favorable deals with banks and tax loopholes into account th…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:40 AM
1

Of course there are differences. They should be acknowledged. But not enforced. I got no problem with 80% of the women staying home keeping the house, as long as those who don't wanna do that aren't forced to. I also got no problem with 80% of the men working, as long those who don't want to are not forced to.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:25 AM
22

It should also be noted that not all the issues the MRM concerns itself with are connected to feminism. It's just a considerable subset. A lot of the injustices men face are older than written history. Men have always been the the working life stock and the cannon fodder for the powerful. Or to put it more crudely: Men were the meat, women were the flesh. And reducing either to that is unacceptable ethically.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 10:51 PM
22

I don't think that women's rights movement is fully about seeing men as eternal oppressors or women as the eternal victims That's the very core of feminist theory. That's the patriarchy. You can't be feminist without believing in the patriarchy. But you can be a women's rights activist without believing in the patriarchy. Saying all women's rights is feminism is like saying all charity is religious.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 10:39 PM
45

Any law or policy that applies itself depending on who people are, and not depending on what people do, is unjust and discriminatory. And in the west the by far largest part of laws and policies in that category are gender specific laws and policies. Stuff like the "Violence against Women Act", the Duluth model, the gender specific definitions of rape in law, any kinds of quotas (not to mention that guaranteed election outcomes for specific interest groups is destroying the very essence of democ…
/r/MensRights20/10/12 10:17 PM
1

right wing people tend to spend more time working to aid them with charity work. That may be true in the us, where the left labor movement was basically gunned down and eradicated around 1900. In Europe most left activism and union activities were actual poverty relive, health care and peoples education related, and those structures and institutions still exist there, and became "legit" as the labor movement became part of the political establishment.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:14 PM
1

Being left wing just means being open to new experiences and wanting new things. Like being open to the rapture and wanting new shiny guns? ;) They can happily ignore people who don't want to uproot power structures or who don't like what they're doing. Never disagreed there. The only thing that makes leftists align with the common people more often than not is, that the common people tend to be those who don't have a lot of power.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:41 PM
1

Regardless of what revolution type you have poor people tend to come off badly. That's not what I want. I just want my ideas to be out there, so people can think about it and improve on it and maybe some time use some of them. People that say you can't do better than what we have now are not much different than the people who said you can't do without kings. So you think the democrats want to fundamentally change the American institutions? They don't even want to change the electoral college and…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:26 PM
1

Yep, the "communist" Soviet Union was basically a state run capitalist cooperation, as is North Korea. And that goes as expected when there is no competition and no checks and balances in such an economy and society. Poor people are just so easy to oppress. Yep, they don't have the resources to fight back. Regardless of what revolution type you have poor people tend to come off badly. That's always the case, by definition: poor people come off badly. If the politician cares what you say and what…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:49 PM
1

Revolution is your proposed difference. Nope, not revolution, challenging the power structures. That can be done without revolutions, but usually only in times when things are so dire revolutions are inevitable real change happens. As you said, there are lots of leftists that don't support violent revolution and prefer to change the system from within. How little success this usually has is nicely demonstrated by the fact that today more blacks are in unfree forced labor than before the civil wa…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:52 PM
1

Everyone cares about politics and everyone is morally good and doesn't want to hurt anyone. Wrong. While it certainly helps to have big mass support, the October Revolution wasn't that big of a mass uprising, and hurting people was certainly on the agenda. The bolshevik party was specifically designed to be a small party of professional revolutionists willing to do dirty work. So while no one had any illusions that it would be pretty and a cakewalk, what really made it go all full blown terror a…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 03:53 PM
1

So do you think the government can represent your interests or not? Do you think it's possible for the government to serve the people?
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:29 PM
1

The whole notion of "intervention" shows that you see government inherently as something that cannot represent your interests. This libertarian notion that independent people interacting in free markets will solve all our problems is is not so different from the communist notion that free people interacting in independent communities will solve all our problems. Both is very ignorant and misguided of course.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:52 AM
1

Both have goals they want to achieve which can only be achieved by being prominently included in existing power structures. There is no such thing as right wing revolutions. A right wing overthrow of government is called putsch. It originates in existing power structures when the government start to become a threat to them, and usually is over quickly, because nothing really has to change. A left wing overthrow of government is much rarer, and much uglier, because it faces civil war and invasion…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:44 AM
2

Nope, it's not immune to corruption. But you can only abandon and ignore and contradict so many core principles of an ideology while still honestly saying you adhere to it. And while I have listed quite a few bullet points here that make feminism stand in opposition to leftist ideals, I really can't think of feminist beliefs and goals that are contradicting conservative ideology in the sense that it wants to fundamentally change existing power structures: they want to keep them, be prominently i…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:02 AM
1

Ethics is the reasoning you use to resolve the conflicts between different goals and values. Morals are a specific set of goals and values that usually are conflicting and contradictory and accepted without reasoning. The former is the domain of secular philosophy. The latter is the domain of religion and ideology. It should be noted that science doesn't really help that much with ethical questions beyond helping to get the facts, the possibilities and likelihoods. Choosing from that what is des…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 12:38 AM
3

modern left's theory of social justice. Do you see that anywhere outside of feminism on the left? I mean, implementing measures to alleviate social differences is a socialist thing to do. But identifying those social differences with unchangeable physical attributes is not. I mean if feminists were actually left, they wouldn't demand to be handed top executive positions because they are women. They would be against the existence of top executive positions. If feminists were left, you'd think the…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:07 PM
4

Don't know how superior classes by birthright has anything to do with social justice. Wasn't it kings and nobility that claimed (god given) birthrights and justified their oppressive violence with it? Wasn't it Calvinists that saw gods natural order implemented in social differences, and saw their actions justified and blessed by the self-serving outcomes? Wasn't it utilitarians who pondered about the birthright of the white burden and colonization and imperialism their duty to civilize the sava…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:36 PM
7

If feminism s so leftist, then why are they so consumerist, so anti-porn and anti-prostitution, so paranoid about gays and transsexuals? Why do they think children belong with their mother? Why weren't there women's studies or gender quotas in all those commie lands and divorce was not a way to make a living there? Why were those early feminist writers like Simone de Beauvoir and Helen Gurley Brown bankrolled and supported by big money like Rockefeller and Hearst and went to exclusive private sc…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:53 PM
1

I said it several times before: the origin feminist theory is rooted far too much in the rich bourgeoisie and big capital, and its goals and effects align far too much with their interests for it to be considered a leftist movement. From "children belong with their mother" to "porn is disgusting and wrong" to "gays and transsexuals don't belong here" to debtors prisons to the consumerism to their longing for (and enforcement of) a provider, to "limited liability" for them ...
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:18 PM
5

Reddit sources are open, you can set up a reddit clone no problem. And due to the reddit api, you can pull all the posts too and repopulate the clone.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:59 PM
2

Which rights? When values conflict, that's when you need ethics. The thing is, when you argue that self determination and physical integrity are not as important as enforcing cultural norms, you cannot complain when the cultural norms of the country you live in are enforced on you even at the cost of your self determination and physical integrity. Not that anyone is doing that. But, surprise, surprise: Religious people being hypocrites.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:38 PM
15

That's the main practical problem with all affirmative action: by the time those programs become relevant in a career, it's usually far too late for them to have positive effects. All they do is highlighting the differences they are supposed to counteract and weaken the social instiututions as a whole. And when quotas start producing guaranteed outcomes of elections in favor of certain special interest groups, they even undermine the very essence of democracy. When your intention is to reduce in…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:09 PM
2

Materialism is leftist, while demonstrating how well you adhere to the common values is rightist. Ah yes, I guess the Romney's, Koch's, Murdoch's, Limbough's etc. of this world haven't gotten the memo. And all those commune living hippies haven't either. Edit: And because Christianity is infiltrated from within by feminists, all those Christian organizations are pushing to abolish women's reproductive rights, right?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:17 PM
1

Because they are pawns. They get fed the lies they wanna hear, so they do what they are supposed to. Feminists complaining about all the rich male elite is ok, as long as they keep buying shoes and lip gloss. Just as rednecks complaining about the rich liberal elite is ok as long as they keep coming back to Walmart and KFC.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:05 PM
2

So how do you explain all those bullet points? I could add more. Like "How come, you never really see feminists picket churches and there are so many christian feminists?" or "Why is consumerism such a big part of feminist self-image?"
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:02 PM
3

Why vote so many poor people republican?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:57 PM
-1

Destroying and eroding grown socio-economic institutions and cultural practices, so the resources and working potential tied up in those become capital and labor, and the needs that were taken care of by them become market demand, is the bread and butter of capitalism. It's how it came to be and it is how it generates growth and spreads over the world. The destruction of the family is what allowed the service industry to grow and become dominant, making the lives of the common people poorer and …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:51 PM
2

Well, there is not much secrecy on the money trail. A lot of it is direct government subsidies nowadays. But a lot of it is also largely payrolled by big business, like early on by Hearst and Rockefeller, who made activists like Helen Gurley Brown possible. And don't forget the Simone d Beauvior also comes from a big banking background.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:44 PM
11

Women's rights movements predate feminism. They became feminism when the ideological foundations of the evil patriarchy and the eternal victimhood of women were introduced, which was pretty much after suffrage and similar original women's rights goals were already achieved. With this ideological foundation came new goals. The focus was not to abolish gender specific laws and policies anymore that put women at a disadvantage. The goal became to introduce new gender specific laws and policies that…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:12 PM
8

If personalities are not compatible, there is nothing wrong with going separate ways.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:14 PM
2

Rights are socially enforced entitlements. They are socially enforced, because people see value in enforcing them. When we speak just of rights, we talk about entitlements that are socially enforced for everybody or most people, by all or most people. Enforcement cannot be perfect of course, and often shows a lot of flaws, but stuff like the right to bodily integrity, the right to live and the right to eat are generally pretty well enforced and supported by most people. So, imperfect enforcement…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:16 PM
-2

basing solutions on natural law I guess that's why conservatives attack science so much and don't like it taught in school. what works once you understand cause-effect relationships Like abstinence only, supply side economics and the war on drugs. The only way those could be the result of understanding cause-effect relationships is, if the announced goals of those policies are not the actual goals, and the actual goal is to preserve and promote existing power relationships and structures. So eit…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:04 PM
-1

At least wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica agree with me: that promotes retaining traditional social institutions Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited In other words, promoting and conserving what is and has been, the status quo.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:48 PM
0

Conservatism is a lot of different things. But the one thing they all have in common is, that they conserve and promote the status quo, i.e. those who are currently or were until recently fully established in power and wealth and control the social structure.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:23 PM
0

The lowely marine doesn't go to Iraq because he believes that Halliburton should have more profits, but that's what he is fighting for anyway, whether he knows it or not. A lot of the higherups do know though.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:02 PM
3

10 signs why modern feminsim is not a leftist/progressive movement: 10. The often very conservative view on prostitution and porn and gay/transgender paranoia. 9. In the communist Eastern Block, women generally had to have real jobs, couldn't make a living on divorce and gender/women's studies where unheard of in universities, as where gender quotas anywhere. 8. The wide spread very conservative view that taking care of children is for women, and children must stay with the mother. 7. 2nd wave f…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:39 PM
4

To be fair, in that area of the world, men often offer their advice to women by beating them.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 04:51 PM
1

Socialism? Who the hell do you think will be paying for the coming collapses of the welfare states? Capitalism? Who do you think will pay for all those profits, without no one would produce anything?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:55 AM
2

Also, feminism isn't really a leftist movement. Your standard western feminist would cower scared under some blanket if she had to live in the Eastern block, which was pretty egalitarian when it came to gender roles. Because they'd actually had to have a real job, and divorce was no free meal ticket.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 06:55 PM
4

Don't know. Self defense is taking appropriate action to stop the danger. Punches are not really that good at stopping someone without risking doing some serious damage. Given how physically superior men usually are, how much real hard training and effort women have to put into to be able to even have a chance against an average untrained guy, I'd say in almost every case as a guy you should first try to restrain her, put her in a submission hold. That demonstrates how utterly hopeless her under…
/r/MensRights16/09/12 10:25 AM
2

There have been special womens night dive bomber squadrons in WWII in the red army called "Night Wtches", and apparently they have been quite successful. There have been quite a few women in combat roles the Red Army in WWII overall. Still a vast minority, and usually not as your typical grunt. But snipers, recon, artillery, such things all had a few women's units and programs that perfomed comparable or better than the average male unit. There were quite a few women in the Viet Cong too.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:34 PM
9

Snooker The pro tournaments are not gender specific at all. Apart from the top 8/16/32 players (depending on tounament) anyone who applies and gets through the qualifying rounds gets in. There are special women's tournaments though, and the one woman who won virtually every tournament there for years never was able to qualify in a pro tournament.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:33 AM
1

I prefer learning from the universe. It's called science. Edit: BTW, I just found your penchant for deferring to and appeals to authority adorable and a perfect demonstration of the conservative mindset.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:46 AM
1

Well, I haven't yet heard a single own thought from you. You liberally copy and paste opinion pieces of others, but no real data to support those opinions. Most of what I have written in this thread are my own thoughts I came up with myself. Except the data pieces and examples of course. I consider myself successfully trolled by now. Was fun though.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:38 AM
1

not when the status quo is what it is now. Or recent status quo, not yet dissolved power structures. Like Jim Crow, Southern oil baron aristocracy. Conservatives will find out what causes will give them they effects they want, then try to implement those causes Made me chuckle when thinking of one issue abortion voters. Those who accept all are always accepted; those who accepted only some run the risk of being rejected. I guess that's because there were the great purges in Russia, and western c…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:08 AM
2

The the difference between conservatives (the right) and progressives/liberals (the left) is not in any particular policy or stance on some issue. All there is: conservatives want to conserve the status quo (i.e. they support current power structures or want to restore recent power structures) and liberals challenge the status que (i.e. they seek to liberate those disenfranchised by current power structures). When those terms first came up, conservatives where monarchists and liberals were the m…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 08:58 PM
3

Wait, I hear far more complaints about the "rampant collectivism of the left", whereas the right usually trumpets their "rugged individualism". Both is of course bullshit. Now, the thing is, strong inequality heavily undermines stability, defensive ability and thriving. Social inequality has consitently be found by far the most relevant destabilizing factor in society. As for defensive ability, the tale of the highly unequal established and encrusted civilization being overrun by unruly barbaria…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 08:35 PM
2

And they assume that is a problem and therefore "not optimum"? Well, if you care anything about freedom and self determination and accountability, then yes, that is a problem.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 07:37 PM
6

Sure there is. Edit: maybe I should elaborate a little. The pareto principle kind of defines a minimum amount inequality needed. In the most straight-forward application you get that the wealth ratio between the top and the bottom shouldn't go below 16:1. The ballpark estimates about where the top limit is are more recent. Most put it around 30:1 (+-10). Absolute upper limit has been thought to be determined by Dunbars number, i.e. 150:1, because if one person has more wealth and power than the …
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:29 AM
10

There is a social cost for enforcing too much equality. But there is also a social cost for enforcing too much inequality. When guy A has a million times more wealth than guy B, that is not because of some innate million times superiority of A over B. It is because there are social structures and institutions that enforce a disproportional amplification of any differences that happen to be there. Now, those structures and institutions that amplify differences have a role in society. But the stru…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 11:08 PM
1

Why do you consider monogamy a higher standard of civilization? And the monk example you got all backwards. Monks are removed from the mating pool, but the effect of their removal was negligible to everyone else. If you fear polygamy and promiscuity remove too many viable candidates for monogamists ... (about the only way some major cross effect would be possible theoretically), this shows that this fear is unfounded.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 05:47 PM
1

When something becomes a cultural norm, it excludes others. Except I'm not talking about making something a norm. I'm not talking about making polygamy or promiscuity or monogamy the norm. I said it 4-5 times already here. When the norm is permissiveness, all options are available. Maybe an example that is more up your alley: just because a significant portion of the population used to be in monasteries, didn't mean the others couldn't get married anymore. And a monk or nun is removed from the m…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 05:24 PM
1

No, because at some point, the culture norms to one -- say, promiscuity -- and the ability to have a monogamous relationship is fairly trashed at that point. How? You still haven't said how that happens. And you are aware that those dominances shift and remerge in different ratios all the time. That's empiric proof that it is rather impossible to eradicate one of them. Including enforcement of permissiveness. What do you see as enforcement of permissiveness? How exactly would that happen? You co…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 10:32 AM
1

or the reasons that it produces a stable society where non-traditional marriage does not, you won't be getting vanilla. Where do you get that idea from? The societies in the middle east and in India haven't changed much for hundred, even thousands of years until very recently. I'd call that pretty stable. And the tribal communities in Papua where promiscuity is the rule have been stable and unchanged for tens of thousands of years. Additionally, if only 10% of the population wants vanilla, it pr…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 12:05 AM
1

Why would you care about not getting vanilla, if you don't want vanilla? And if you do want vanilla, you can definitely get it, no one is preventing you. Or are just too much of a pussy to take vanilla, when the majority of the class took chocolate?
/r/MensRights08/09/12 11:01 PM
1

You still haven't said how. How does allowing Peter to have chocolate ice cream exclude Betty from having vanilla ice cream? Is giving Peter chocolate ice cream the same as taking Betty's vanilla ice cream away? Or is Peter just mad that Betty doesn't have to take chocolate ice cream too? One person usually has to choose when several optoins are available. That's true. But the world doesn't only consist of one person. You are not the only person in the world. When there are enough people, all av…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:33 PM
1

Ah, so again, this is not a question of of the mating strategies themselves, but a question of what is enforced by the powers that be. Yes, when there is a huge enforcement apparatus of institutions and powerful interests that put substantial effort into promoting one way, and marginalizing the others, then of course that promotion of one at the cost of the other is exclusive. But as mentioned above, full enforcement of conformity is impossible, even in small communities. But that is a question …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:14 PM
1

Sure in the same societies. Even in the most Victorian monogamous protestant England, people fucked around (almost inevitably in this insecure climate of social upheaval lowest classes faced at that time that only allowed the most fleeting relationships and tore millions of families apart) and most rich guys had a little accepted harem of kept mistresses of semi-legal state. If it is not legal, it will just happen out of sight. And you have to tell me how approving one excludes the others. I onl…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:52 PM
1

How am I trying to force anything on anyone? It was the much repeated central point in this thread that all forms can and do always exist in parallel next to each other. And that focus should be more on enabling and using this coexistence rather than trying to eradicate anything that's not your way. Your monogamous marriage is not threatened at all when there is some polygamous household down the street and maybe a small free love community a few blocks further away. It's all your choice, depend…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:37 PM
0

Not necessarily. "it takes a village" and when the whole village is invested for promiscuous reasons. Now, within enforced social structures that are tailored to monogamy, children growing up outside of such structures obviously have some challenges the other don't. And building and finding an environment where children can thrive outside of the dominating monogamous structures is obviously harder in such a context too. But that is more a problem of traditionalists trying to force their ways on …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:27 PM
1

d5 is my next target.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 07:31 PM
0

Ah, the old "Logically correct, but just doesn't feel right" argument. And again, my point is not that one thing is right for everyone and one thing is wrong for everyone. Whether something is the right thing to do or not can change multiple times over the life of one person even. And sorry, "This is the universally right way, because I say so." is not what I consider reasoning.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:37 PM
0

Ok, I think the best thing for you would be to go back and play peek-a-boo with your daddy.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:33 PM
0

Unfortunately, that's inherent to the definition of sex itself, so I think your containership is broken here. Huh? How does an obviously inherent attribute, from which this whole hierarchy emerges, somehow invalidate it? Ok, if just having one partner over a life span is considered monogamy (and strictly enforced), then this strict enforcement creates the market for promiscuity, since the differences in life spans and demographic gender balance are not suddenly all abolished by enforcing monogam…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:27 PM
1

That is very interesting. Monogamy is a type of polygamy? Wouldn't classify it that way; can you explain more? Case of having just one partner is just a special case of having partners. Almost every polygamist starts out with just one partner. And then that special case gets extended. Same for promiscuity. It's hard to have multiple partners at ll times. Having just one partner for a short time is the starting point. Whether you then add more at the same time, or go through many in series, the s…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:08 PM
1

It's of course also a form of oppression/repression. That's the whole point of the original post. The thing is, the people who are in the position to do such enforcement on a whole society rarely are people who like sharing a lot. But most more importantly: just as monogamy is a special case of polygamy, polygamy is a special case of promiscuity. That makes enforcing promiscuity without also leaving room for polygamy and monogamy pretty much impossible.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:44 PM
0

Mathematically impossible, unless there is a huge difference in the number of genders in a society. And if those in power try to create those number differences, they face a whole different set of problems.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:25 PM
1

If it is enforced on everyone, and no alternatives are accepted, it is.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:11 PM
2

Culture is environment. And the results of each strategy are of course highly dependent on the environment, of which culture is major factor. But a culture dominated by monogamy creates an environment for promiscuity to be a successful strategy (by sexual repression). And a culture dominated by promiscuity creates an environment for polygamy to succeed (by economic dependency). And a culture of polygamy creates an environment for monogamy to succeed (by marginalization). There are other factors …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 04:28 PM
1

Who gets more sex is not the reason why this argument keeps reappearing. The reason is more ideological: people simply declare their personal "oughts" the natural "is", and then they declare the freshly coined "is" into the universal "ought". A pretty common chain of fallacies in any ideology. It's how people justify and rationalize forcing their personal views on everyone. It's how they argue for establishing and preserving laws and social institutions that enforce their desired "natural" or "g…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 12:35 PM
2

Actually, black slaves in the south had longer and healthier lives than white wage labor in the north. To give you a little impression of how bad it actually was: They primary reason the rich capitalists in the mid 19th century agreed to labor regulations in England, like work days of less than 18h and minimum ages of 7 years, the main reason was that conditins were so bad, that they couldn't find enough people physically fit for military service, to send overseas and kill brown people. The poor…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:13 PM
19

Feminism isn't a women's rights movement. Feminism is an ideology centered around the dogma of partriarchy. In a way, saying that feminism is women's rights activism, and the only women's rights activism is feminism is like saying church is charity, and the only charity is church. Actually the very word feminism (and the associated ideological underpinnings) only became common after most of the specific laws and policies that were discriminatory to women were already abolished in the west, and t…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:42 AM
15

First of all, not all issues of interest here are a result of feminism and feminist policies. It's a considerable subset, but it's not all "their fault". For example, that men must perform and provide for a woman and are disposable work horses and cannon fodder for the rich and powerful has been true throughout written history. That's not something you could blame on feminism. Feminism has just made the "perform and provide for any woman who says so" part legally binding for life while almost co…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:22 PM
1

Better than most elsewhere, yes. Which makes it even stranger that moms get extra money for staying home.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:31 PM
1

Universities are not free, there are basic admission fees of around 100€ per semester (depending on university, there were some raises in some places recently), and you gotta live somehow too. But true, compared to American standards, that's practically free.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:36 PM
1

Or consider universities with connected child care: would allow people to become parents in their prime fertile and most healthy years, and a university schedule is much more friendly for that than a work schedule. That of course also assumes you don't need to work to pay for the university though ...
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:27 PM
2

Ideally you'd want one parent work part time and the other full time, maybe even with switching once or twice over the years. Just mom with the kid home alone is not very good for both. Kids need a lot of contact with kids their own age, and parents need something else in their lives than kids 24/7 too. If all they ever know is each other, both get mushy in the head. So, a good infrastructure for childcare is needed very much. Parental support payments are good. But handing out government money …
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:38 PM
6

In comparison, it's mainly women, almost exclusively women, that judge the looks of other women. For example I don't know any man who cares whether or not a girl had her nails done. Most men don't even notice most of the time if soem women they see every day has a new hairdo. All this social pressure for good looks is almost only created by women. All those evil fashion magazines: almost only women write and edit there. But that's not the issue. Regardless of who is the main perpetrator of any p…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 07:56 PM
2

Somehow I don't hink you have read any Marx or feminist writings.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 05:44 PM
1

Haha. You have no idea wat leftism is. Not your fault. It was essentially guinned down in the US around 1900, and the following century was spent censoring and vilifying it. That's why most Americans still shit their pants a little bit when they hear the word commie. When the women's rights movement started to call itself feminism, i.e. after all the main legal and institutional discriminations against women were abolished, it became mainly the movement of the wives and daughters of rich men, wh…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:35 PM
2

I'll remember that when I discuss the ethical implications of gravity the next time. And maybe you will think of it when you accuse the rock stumbled over of moral depravity the next time.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:16 PM
4

And again someone cannot distinguish physical laws and social laws. Usually 5 year olds can get that right. You don't need to specially enforce blind people's driving abilities. The laws of nature don't need enforcement. Ethics are irrelevant for laws of nature. So, if you can pass the drivers license test as a blind person ...
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:25 PM
1

No, not anything. Well, Hegel has actually shown that. As has Schopenhauer. And if two people that were on each others throats that much can agree on that ... And actually I have read Kant, and I have read Schopenhauer. Not a lot of Hegel though. And there is a lot of Hegel, and it's so tedious and convoluted it makes Kant light reading. But in the end this is what it comes down to: Rules that are so inclusive that the apply to everything can't make distinctions, and as such are useless tools fo…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:04 PM
1

It's perfectly possible to write laws that apply to everyone, but treat different subsets differently. That's exactly why it is not very useful a statement, especially in the above phrasing you gave at the start. I'd even go further and say that the very idea of a moral universe is counter productive. The first step in evaluating any ethical problem (and all ethical problems are a conflict of interest), is to establish who the relevant parties are. Only after that is done it is actually possible…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:34 PM
1

But no, that isn't a universal law. You could try to make it one. It has of course it's problems. Like, if two women disagree. Or the common case where a woman disagrees with herself, maybe in consecutive statements. But by applying the law consistently, you get that both are right, and thus making it a universal law. Just not one really worth looking at. You can't tell if one set of values is better than another set of values, except if you apply a third standard to compare them, and then that …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:39 PM
1

"Women are never wrong" is not an act, Kant refers to acts. But it is a universal law. And it just demonstrates that just referring to universal laws doesn't do anything to regulate behavior, because depending on what universal laws you make up, anything can be justified. What Chomsky does is specifying a minimum requirement that needs to be met to maybe consider something a universal law of ethics. And as simple and basic as this minimum requirement is, most people are so utterly unethical that…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 11:59 AM
0

Kant's version doesn't say anything at all. Can be used to justify everything and anything. You think "Women are never wrong." shouldbe universal law? Kant fully supports that. Chomsky's statement is the litmus test for hypocrisy and bigotry at its core. Be careful to note that he doesn't phrase it as an imperative. It's basically saying: If something is an option for me, it is an option for you. And if something no an option for me, it is also no option for you. And we are talking here about so…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 08:48 AM
1

Petty crime. Sure. But I would not be surprised if that only was because rich people are less likely to be investigated, less likely to be prosecuted and less likely to be convicted because they need to take less risks going about it because of their wealth and social status. Another factor is, although less relevant for women, the police investigates almost exclusively crimes where there are only a few well defined victims and perpetrators. The crimes rich people commit usually involve dozens o…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 07:51 AM
1

I get pretty annoyed by a lot of the "American Heartland" attitudes and positions that get spouted around here too without much reflection. I'm particularly peeved by the notion that a lot of those people complain about women not having to pull their weight and not having to be accountable for their actions in a lot of ways, but rather want to be left off the hook too than expect from women to step up. But I'm much more annoyed by the hypocrisy, bigotry and pathetic depravity that is spread by u…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 02:16 PM
1

One way to counter someone wanting equality of outcome is is by bringing up elections: Ask them if they want a 50% quota for women in parliament. If they say yes, ask them which other demographics should have guaranteed election outcomes in a democracy. If that doesn't the point across, ask them whether all the gay men that choose to not sleep with women should be made to have sex with the Kate Uptons and Giselle Bündchens of this world, because that's what every man deserves.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:45 PM
2

The funny thing is, Tacitus complained how the Germanic tribes listened to their women, treated them with respect and often even were had female chiefs. And who overran the Romans shortly thereafter? Roman and Middle Eastern society was traditionally pretty oppressive to women, and oppressive in general with staggering inequality not only between genders, but also between social classes in general. That's the sign of any established, stagnating society: the power and wealth structures have been …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:26 AM
2

Officials that actually write the policies and even laws usually don't get elected. The people that vote/decide on those proposed/prepared policies/laws are the ones that are elected. And often not even those, or no vote happens at all. The people in the feminist mindset will die/retire. And the people coming up will be the ones who know more than just feminist public discourse. That's how social change always happened, that's how feminism itself got into the institutions. Just takes a while.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:46 AM
2

Activism? Just making people aware of those things can do a lot already. And in the end it's all you can do. Things only really change when the old people who hold the old convictions die, and the young people who hold the newer convictions get to make policy.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 03:55 AM
2

I did specifically also said policy, not just laws. Our institutions are regulated by many many more non-law policies than actual laws.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 03:32 AM
4

I think only one solution is necessary: The abolition of any gender specific laws and policies outside the medical fields. This is just one specific area of the more general and common problem of demographic specific laws. I think any law that is based on what a person is/was, and not on what a person does/did is a bad and unjust law, since it creates and reinforces social classes and doesn't really regulate behavior. I guess that is 3. is simply no option, because we are technologically way pas…
/r/MensRights30/07/12 02:46 AM
2

Anecdotal evidence. I take care a lot of my niece and nephew ever since they were born, and as every baby, they had distinct personalities right from the beginning. The nephew had no problem with being by himself for a while and have fun alone. And as soon as there was any mobility he would go get and investigate anything he could reach and never was bothered much by the inevitable bruises. He would get most angry when you wouldn't let him do what he wants. The niece from the beginning always wa…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:16 AM
6

On a global scale, on average, whites are in a far better position than anyone else in pretty much every aspect. That's primarily because we still reap the benefits from being the first to have the industrialization and the social structures that were established in that time and developed from there. That is privilege. I'm better off than 80% or 90% of mankind, and that is only because I was born in Central Europe, and not because of anything I did or accomplished. That being said, the big thin…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 08:01 PM
9

Yep. For some strange reason it is the poor oppressed women that is the only demographic, that apart from having a exceedingly well funded and organized special interest lobby, also has legally guaranteed election outcomes. Yay democracy.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 05:44 PM
-11

You can end the wage gap! Earn more!
/r/MensRights17/07/12 06:32 PM
19

Nope. Because by then being looked at is rape. And not being looked at is rape too. Because both make them feel bad about themselves.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 01:56 PM
3

While I like to make some Jew jokes sometimes, and I also have no problem criticizing Israel and their far too often destructive policies, and I also do my fair share of eye rolling when a jew plays the antisemitism and victim card again: declaring a whole population a destructive force is some really bigoted shit. I don't like it wen feminists call all men that, and I don't like it when other idiots call jews that. That stuff gets ugly quickly.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 09:29 PM
3

And how does ethnicity provide motivations here?
/r/MensRights06/07/12 08:57 PM
3

And that is relevant how?
/r/MensRights06/07/12 08:18 PM
2

In a sense yes. But PETA are just animal rights activists too in that sense.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 02:32 PM
0

The suffragette movement, in particular the one in the anglo-saxon countries, was anything but leftist/communist. They were exactly the kind of people that were called "the parasites of parasites" in the above link.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 02:04 PM
8

You might want to read this. Clearly shows that even such iconic left/communist women as Rosa Luxemburg primarily saw the struggle for women's rights as part of the general struggle for civic rights, and saw its usefulness in how it benefits everyone and puts husbands and wives in a better position to help and support each other. That development that turned the women's rights movement into a confrontational movement that pitches the genders against each other, and actually really tarted calling…
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:46 AM
3

From an idealistic point of view rights don't exist. Human rights are essentially the same as divine commandments. From a practical point of view rights only exist if they are protected by some social agreement. Just as duties only exist if they are enforced by some social agreement. Rights are what you get, duties are what you give.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 07:10 AM
1

It's because men can't commit.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 07:15 PM
1

Well, what societies for example? I just gave you a few examples where quite the opposite is true.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:51 PM
1

Haven't seen any compelling evidence for that yet. Quite the contrary. All the societies that treat women the worst seem to be the bottom feeders, as this is just a symptom of an entrenched class system and class thinking. And there is nothing that cripple societies more. Sure, the core social structures may survive for thousands of years in such societies. But that is no good sign usually. It just means stagnation until you are run over by outside forces that evolved beyond you, and has incenti…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:45 PM
1

Problem is, if change is slow, those who are unworthy will stay at the top longer and have more resources at their disposal to do damage. And just them using their huge resources to stay at the top and prevent upward mobilty is already doing a lot of damage. But at least you seem to have quietly accepted that the freedom of women has little to do with encouraging men to achieve. Far far more important is how much prospects they have of getting a piece of the pie if they put in the effort and ach…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 05:05 PM
1

When society disincentives men to achieve, that resource diminishes True. But the primary incentive is the reasonably expectation to be reasonably rewarded by work and achievement. Something that is simply not possible in societies with unchanging classes by birthright. And also simply not true in societies with high inequality of wealth distribution. You can't get fair rewards, when 1% own 60% of the wealth and do everything to keep it that way. If oppressing women would add anything to give me…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:49 PM
0

Why? Because you say it is? Ok, so we're going into ethics. You can't argue that it is not oppressive. It's pretty much the definition of oppressive. But maybe oppression is something you want. So why do I say oppression is evil? My prime value is development/advancement of mankind, may that be on an individual, social or biological level. Oppression suppresses that. It's directly destroying goodness. That's why I call it evil. Humans are not animals? Sure they are animals. But they are differen…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:03 PM
0

Why not? Why not set up two very different roles and get team synergy for our society? Because putting everyone into an unchangeable class at birth is evil and oppressive. Humans are not like cows. The biggest thing a single cow can achieve is maybe opening a gate and lead a few hundred cows out of the shed for a night. But a single human can change the life of whole nations and all humanity forever. If you make sweeping demographic decisions on who should be allowed to do what, you are wasting …
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:11 PM
1

True. Physics and biology will always provide uneven playing fields. Doesn't mean laws and institutions should compound on that, and we shouldn't strive for it. Similarly, you won't even be able to abolish violence and murder. Doesn't mean laws and institutions should reward those that do, and doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to reduce it. It's a matter of personal freedom. It's not the prerogative of the government and not the prerogative of corporations or any big institution in society to enf…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:42 PM
1

You said it yourself: "willing to accept" not "expecting". It's a matter of individual choice and negotiation for every relationship for both involved. When the environment and society supports either choice, it becomes a choice, and a selective pressure for everyone to account for the wishes of the partner. Not only for the man to account for the wishes of the woman, but also the other way around. Because hypergamy also means female choice is limited.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 10:22 AM
1

Regarding college/university: The biggest problem with it in the US is that it is driven by profit interests. Prevent the profit making for the most part in education. Suddenly the main value and motivation becomes the quality of the people coming out of it, and not degrees for money. And there is nothing wrong with having unequal distributions in primary child care between the genders, as long as anyone who wishes to divert from the norm is free to do so. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. B…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:28 AM
1

Well, that is a problem. But no problem that can't be addressed. A much worse problem is that college graduates, regardless of gender, won't find jobs that meet their qualifications for years, or ever, while being in debt. If everyone goes to college, college just become primary education. Improve the overall quality/availability of free public child care, pre-schools, schools and universities(which then of course are more bound by entry exams/grades and not money), which is desperately needed a…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 01:46 AM
1

Nope. Gender is not obsolete. But a lot of the social consequences of gender differences are obsolete. So if you really wanna continue this discussion, you either have to tell me what those inevitable consequences of changing gender roles (from what to what actually?) according to this book are, and how those changes cause them, or you're gonna have to accept my position that we are in a historically unprecedented position that makes rule changes inevitable.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 12:28 AM
2

Unlike any period before us, we have contraception, safe abortions, our physical labor is not primarily dependent on muscles, large parts of the population reach ages beyond 30, infections, which includes STDs are manageable or curable, most people can read (at least on some level) etc. So I'm assuming any "inevitable result" of changing gender roles that Mr. Unwin has extracted from history at least has to adjust for all those things (and more). As for the second part: I fully believe that all …
/r/MensRights19/06/12 11:28 PM
3

Well, I have no social experience of how to treat gods. Crucifying seems to be popular at times, but I'm pretty non-violent. I do know how to treat women socially though. I try to avoid any special treatment, but the sexual procreation is so important to our species that the sex of a person is deeply ingrained into every culture and the most basic grammar of most languages. So this this cultural reflection of the sex we call gender. I got no problem calling someone with an xy set with female pro…
/r/MensRights19/06/12 09:44 PM
3

Kids need a lot of interaction with other kids outside the family. And adults need a lot of interaction with other adults outside the family. Both kids and parents get so mushy in the head and entitled at the same time if all they ever know is each other. Part time work and day care is one of the best solutions to ensure that both parents and kids have meaningful and constructive interactions with others and in the community. Especially today, when the adult life becomes more and more isolated, …
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:51 PM
1

Technology made it possible for procreation to be a conscious decision in the developed world. But technology didn't suddenly abolish all the instincts that drove procreation and still do to a big degree. The whole attraction dynamics between the sexes didn't change at all. And those drive behavior and who mingles with whom. Now just less children are born out if it, and less children die.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 07:01 AM
0

Say what you want, but resource management is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, selective pressures there is. Replication and the acquisition of the resources to do so is the very definition of life. Sure you can deny that this resource situation of the very resource directly needed for replication is not a primary guiding factor in the evolution of most traits of all life with sexual replication. Especially life with only sexual replication. It's pretty hard to come up with experiment…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 12:51 AM
-2

Except inescapable biological differences. It's from the very definitions of the sexes: males are the individuals with the many cheap gametes, females are the individuals with the few expensive gametes. That's the inescapable economical situation of supply and demand. And behavior evolved to deal with this difference.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:15 AM
1

That's why I at least mentioned the how often men get fooled by the carefully faked looks of women. As long as the looks are a-ok, even basic human decency doesn't matter. That's one of the reasons why gold-digging is such a wide spread phenomenon.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:13 PM
3

But you never ever see men going into mass hysterics over female performers, whereas it is an accepted and expected behavior from women at least since Elvis- and Beatlemania. At least that is since they started documenting it. When a man exhibits this typical female behavior, you get "Leave Britney Alone!" guy: which is an isolated incident, and generally regarded as sad, disgusting and ridiculous.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 10:40 AM
6

Women are attracted to social status. Men are attracted to fertility. Problem is, most people are stupid, which means it doesn't actually matter that much whether the fertility or the social status are real or fake for most people. Women have the cosmetics/fashion industry to fake the signs of fertility, and most men fall for it. Men just need to act as if they have high social status, and the female juices get flowing. It's actually even worse. Normally you'd think social status is kind of a re…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:50 AM
15

He probably only knows all the too good to be true and wise beyond their years teenage daughters from all those TV shows and movies. Or those adorable and a little bit naive ones in the rest of the shows and movies.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 04:40 AM
2

The problem is in finding real conservatives, and I don’t see any Republicans that fit the bil He seems to think that Democrats represent "real" progressives or anything that could be described "left". Nothing that could be called "real" left has ever come close to holding any public office in the US. The labor movement was gunned down and practically eradicated well before 1900. The left never became part of the establishment in the US, no matter how many complaints about the "leftist elites" t…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:51 AM
1

There has has been quite a bit of research about Basic Citizen incomes. Those can replace all other welfare systems and state subsidies and often can already pay for themselves simply by having zero administration costs, expensive checks who is eligible etc. It would require national ID though for that to be possible.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:16 PM
2

A small government still has more power than any organization, institution, or individual, because it can exercise violence directly or indirectly through ultimatums. Only if they are strong enough to maintain that monopoly reasonably well. There are enough countries where this is not the case. Also, the government will use violence in the way that benefits itself the most, i.e. that pays off best for them. In a small government with few checks and balances this will always be by serving the ric…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:09 AM
1

You don't want to live in a world where there are organizations and institutions and individuals more powerful than the government, but that don't even have to pretend to care for the people and have no checks and balances. The rules they enforce when there is only a weak when or irrelevant government will be the same as if there was no government. And if there is no one that is the unquestionably biggest gorilla on the block, you get something like Afghanistan or Somalia.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:38 AM
2

The not being able to be held accountable has nothing to do with size and everything to do with structure and process and lack of transparency. The way to hold a government accountable is not by shrinking it. That way you only ensure that it will be run by a small political caste and can be bought a small prices. The way to hold government accountable is by including as many people as possible in a meaningful and transparent way in it. By making it big. When most of the people are involved in th…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 10:04 PM
3

I'm a big fan of a Basic Citizen income. The way to do it is to have certain but substantial amount of the government revenue to be equally distributed to all registered citizens. This could replace every other welfare program, like pensions, has practically zero administration costs, ensures domestic consumer demand is always there, and forces employers to make jobs actually worthwhile without having to resort to such things as minimum wages, while allowing everyone who wants to become an entre…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:56 PM
12

What problem? I thought the problem here was a for profit alimony racket.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:39 AM
1

Better idea yet: have a social security system that gives everyone and every child a minimal agreed upon living standard. Then you don't need any enforced alimony and child support payments at all.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 08:33 AM
1

You are the one assuming criminalization will reduce occurrence without citing anything. Do you see how unscientific that is?
/r/MensRights26/03/12 10:00 PM
1

That's assuming the only factor is survivability outside the womb. You asserted that, I did not. It's the most important factor. Because as long one cannot survive without the other by mere physical matter of fact or even make its very existence known, it is absurd to speak of separate interests, much less a conflict of interests. However, in most places, it is legal to get an abortion up to around 22-24 weeks. There is no country where pure choice abortions are legal after the 1st trimester and…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 09:45 PM
1

Yes. And if you want to reduce occurrence, criminalizing them is one of the less effective ways to do so and the only effect it has is that more women will die of coat hangers. Creating an environment where people would want to raise children, education and availability of reproductive health care are the most important factors. But those 3 are usually all sacrificed on the altar of profit and religion.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 07:44 PM
1

But for a baby someone else can take over that responsibility. So as long as other people are there that are willing and able to take care of the baby, the mother is not the only one whose interest is relevant. Still most relevant though.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 07:14 PM
1

Yes, there is a very early period where we can say for sure the fetus can't survive (pre-18 week or so). And that's the period relevant for choice abortions. Because that's the period where the only relevant interest is that of the mother, because any interest an embryo might have is utterly irrelevant without the mother.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:32 PM
1

First of all Legal/Illegal are just two points on the incentive scale. And not even the end points. So I don't really think that making something illegal should be seen as the all-deciding step. What it shows is, that direct encouragement or discouragement of the acts themselves often have very little and even counterproductive effects on their occurrence. That is because people do things for their own reasons and motivations, and it is mainly those reasons and motivations that dictate what they…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:18 PM
1

Are you really going to try to tell me with a straight face that legalizing a demanded service or product will not increase, to a greater or lesser extent, the number of services performed or products sold/distributed? Yes. There are good number on drug use that support that, in Portugal and the Netherlands. And even in the case of abortion. In East Germany there were no restrictions on first trimester abortions, and they were fully covered by then state. After the reunion there came restriction…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:56 PM
1

It comes down to the question of when does life begin? Nope. What it comes down to is, when can the embryo survive without the mother. Until then, the only thing that matters is the interest of the mother, not only from a the physical, also from the ethical point of view. As long as it is the mother, and only the mother that can keep embryo alive nobody has the right to force the mother into anything. Only when you are at the point that someone else can and will take that responsibility of carin…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 02:09 PM
1

Abortion numbers pre- and post- Roe v. Wade disagree with you. It was hard to get good numbers pre-. And technical/medical progress also plays a big role in that. Does that look like a fish to you? Nope. But that's because it is human. I'm more talking number of brain cells and brain activity which is about the same order of magnitude. [n]early half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion Then I guess wikipedia is wrong by a fe…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 12:51 AM
-3

Obviously it is a question, or we wouldn't still be debating abortion. Well, there are people still debating evolution, but the physical reality of it is, if a woman doesn't want to bring a pregnancy to term, it won't happen, no matter what the law is. A newborn baby can't express its own interests either, but our laws protect them Sure they can. Very limited, but there is direct communication going on, crying, shuffling, facial expressions ... And fetuses, even as early as 8 to 10 weeks, do res…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 11:17 PM
2

violating the right of another human being to exist As long as the embryo can't survive without the mother, it can't even be a question whose interest is the only one that matters. The embryo can't express any own interests, and we can't decipher any even if there was anything expressed. And in the time span that is relevant for choice abortions there isn't even anything that would need expressing.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 10:09 PM
26

democrats pretending they are personally against abortions and would like them to cease but doing everything in their power to ensure they persist as an option Actually that's the only ethical stance. The question is not whether abortions are good or bad, no one really likes them. The questions is whether they should be criminalized or not. And that's not even a real question either, because criminalizing it just does unnecessary harm and suffering. I may not like what you have to say, but I sup…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 08:44 PM
5

I don't hate the philosophy of what feminism is/was. That's the problem, the philosophy of feminism, centered around the concept of patriarchy, is some nasty destructive bullshit. You can't turn this into something acceptable without completely dismantling this very core. The women's rights movement, that fought to get rid of the gender specific laws and policies that prevented women from fully participating in public life if they so chose etc., this was a noble undertaking. But at some point it…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:30 AM
1

Who says I'm hating movies? I'm flat out not interested in a lot of them, and then I don't watch them. And often a movie I watch turns out to be awful and boring and stupid. Then I hate the fact that I have wasted my time like this. None of the movies we have talked about I hate. Some are obviously better than others though.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 12:09 PM
1

And today all we talk about is young Jodie Foster. Or with the Wild Bunch: today all we talk about is that there were women killed in it.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:49 AM
1

Mostly about showing young Jodie Foster though, right?
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:41 AM
1

Yep, Waterworld made almost 200 million in profit worldwide.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:26 AM
1

Which is good, artistic freedom and stuff. Now if they only would stop complaining when things happen to women too ...
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:19 AM
1

If I knew Peter Travers I probably would have gotten that reference. I hope Tarantino's next movie hates men (especially white ones, considering the subject matter) as much as Deathproof and Kill Bill. It will. And everybody will applaud and nod, and no one will complain. Except when a woman gets slapped or so.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 11:08 AM
1

Good. So you just confirmed that we all care less about what killing men says. If there was any general conclusion to all of this, this is it.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 10:48 AM
1

True. That's the point of this whole thread. The question I have, if you haven't noticed, is why can you kill men left and right without thinking twice, as cheap thrills, or scene fillers or a dime a dozen plot device, but when a woman is killed on screen (or just treated badly without any harm), you suddenly have to think about what it all means, if the message is an acceptable one to the political establishment and the usual concern groups, imbue it with a deeper meaning.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 10:54 PM
1

So you never should be able to show a woman being treated badly without raising your moral finger and give a little lecture?
/r/MensRights12/03/12 10:32 PM
1

Haven't watched that. And yes, it's very rare that a killed woman in a movie is not an innocent victim. Generally killing a woman, or being mean in any way to a woman, is used to establish the character firmly in the evil/creep category. As rare as the "she had it coming" and "female villain" categories are, the henchman/cannonfodder category that is so extremely common and we don't spend a moment thinking about ever, is non-existent for women. Apparently the death of a woman, if we dare to go t…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 10:30 PM
1

Ok.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 06:53 PM
3

Actually it is kinda scary: once you have quotas for on special interest group, it is only a question of time until other special interest group will want to have one too. A real slippery slope.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 05:07 PM
7

Seems to be a general pattern: Marx was cool, Marxists are not. Jesus was cool, Christians are not. Even Simone de Beauvoir was cool, feminists are not.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:45 PM
3

Well, the biggest problem with quotas is that they are decidedly anti-democratic. Under any other circumstance there would be a major outcry and legal action if someone tried to introduce laws that predetermine the outcome of elections so blatantly. I mean, either the gender of the elected has not influence on their policy making: then why have quotas? And if it does, then this is akin to saying 40% must be from a certain party, or 40% must be from the extended family of the President, or 40% mu…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:20 PM
1

Haven't watched Transformers. But showing that women were treated badly back then: I thought that was just realism. Because you can't have both: complain that women were treated badly a lot historically, and complain that they show women being treated badly in historical movies. And as I said: men were treated bad too in the movie. Just a different kind of bad. And the same is true historically. Which is one of the big themes in the MRA. Both sexes have had their own sets of problems and struggl…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 07:35 PM
2

Would you consider that woman being killed being more a punishment for a deserter, and not a case of misogyny? Because that's what I thought the intention there was. I guess I'll check out those other movies. where the audience would cheer along the violence, despite who it was happening to There are hundreds of movies released each year that have utter hatred for women, people of color, anyone who doesn't fit the model American type. Where are they? Why can't I find them? Because they don't exi…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 06:04 PM
2

The death that I remember most from the Peckinpah (and the only movie I'm aware of is the Wild Bunch) is the shotgun to the face at the start that dragged out forever until someone put him down. Or the being dragged behind the car. At least in this movie I don't think there were women that had it worse than that. Movies are fake anyways so it's not like Friday the 13th is anymore real than Platoon. So how do you think the world would react to a Taxi Driver like movie where a guy goes on a killin…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 05:07 PM
2

misandrist, so asking whether a potentially misogynist I'm not looking for misandrist or misogynist movies. I'm just trying to figure out if you can draw some conclusions on general attitudes by looking who gets killed for what reason, and which movies get made and which don't. So, I guess what I'm looking for is, whether there is any movie where in a non-fantasy setting a man can kill off women and still unquestionably stays "good" and the "hero" without having to specially justify it, or it is…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 10:59 AM
2

Jason IS the hero May be my selective memory, but the only killings I really remember are Kevin Bacon and the last scene on the boat. But it's true: women are killed more often in the supernatural/horror genre. I guess that's the only way you can get away with it: by making it very very clear that it's not real. As for Peckinpah: equal opportunity torture/killing. "Pulling a Wild Bunch" is still used to refer to killing off the whole cast.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 10:50 AM
2

So do you know a movie where a man dreams of killing a lot of women in excruciating glorifying detail? Do you know a movie where an human-like male alien kills a lot of women after he targets them sexually?
/r/MensRights11/03/12 10:18 AM
2

but maybe you should step back and let someone better make it? All for it. But I tend to start discussions before I have made up my mind and fully developed all possible arguments. That's what discussions are for. As for the movie examples: Do you think a scene where a a few dozen women henchmen lie about crying and moaning in the middle of their own body parts and blood would fly in any major movie? Do you think a movie where the completely justified killing of a woman becomes the pivotal liber…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 01:14 AM
2

Yeah, but also squarely sits in the psycho killer category, not in the hero category.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:59 AM
3

Oh, actually I have nothing against women killing a lot of men in movies for entertainment. Quite a few of those movies are even good. And it's kinda retarded to hate actors for the characters they play. I just find the absolute lack of movies where men kill a lot of women a little curious. And in the few movies where this is the case, the women are poor innocent victims, and the men are evil psychos. Now, a movie where women get gruesomely dispatched like the henchmen in bond movies, or a reven…
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:57 AM
3

To keep it in the animal kingdom: like a dog needs mange.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:27 AM
-1

Well, sounds like as virtually every case where age of consent is brought up: this is a parenting fail. While I don't approve of what he did and consider it stupid, I actually think she will be better off with him than with her mother. One word from her, and he goes to jail for a very long time, with all the authorities just waiting on the edge of their seats. If she really becomes aware of that power she has, it could screw her up more than anything he could do to her, or her mother already did…
/r/MensRights02/03/12 01:09 PM
-2

Just start campaigning for lower standards for men on verbal test. That's what women are supposed to be better at naturally, right?
/r/MensRights27/02/12 07:02 AM
7

You can have reddit, if we get the rest of the world. Deal? Or you may just adjust your filters a little and never have to see much of it anymore.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 06:29 PM
8

Has an atheist ever knocked on your door to bring you the message? Has an atheist ever disrupted your church service or picketed a funeral? Has an atheist ever made medical procedures illegal that you need to survive? Do atheists build several big monuments in every city, while being subsidized to push their message into the face of everyone who leaves his home?
/r/MensRights15/02/12 05:34 PM
7

It just seemed that the fine gentleman PissedOffNinjaBum was surprised how people could use completely bogus and debunked facts and narratives to further an agenda. I wanted to put that into perspective. It's like people who still get caught off guard and get angry when they meet and have to deal with idiots. They just don't know how good they have it.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 05:26 PM
-1

Well, I was a virgin who didn't drink smoke or gamble too, and I never was religious in any way. I did the dating and sex thing for a while, and I also started drinking in my mid 20s. Gave up on the sex and dating later. I still do drink some beer once or twice a month though. And with that I don't wanna say there is anything wrong or right with any of it. None of my friends I hang out with did ay of that abstinence stuff. All the good ethics you can find in the bible after dismissing 90-99% of …
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:24 PM
11

You realize the irony of this, right? You are a decent person precisely because you don't truly follow the book, because you know which parts of it are decent and which parts are backwards, authoritarian, sociopathic lunacy.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:03 PM
11

Have you heard about the people who still believe that some guy was resurrected 2000 years ago and use that to discriminate other and force any of their views on others via legislation?
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:53 PM
1

I haven't really noticed this overarching feminist narrative. I'm European, and took atheism more or less for granted most of my life. Only after joining reddit some years ago I became really aware of how much of a problem religion still is in the US because of the degree it informs policy of the institutions there. Had some fun time discussing. But it was precisely those discussions that made me shift my focus more on feminist doctrine, precisely becasuse it is so much a religion, and because i…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 02:15 PM
6

Also the notion that single fathers were unheard of until recently and the former high fatality rates in connection with pregnancy and labour seem kinda contradicting. Who finds more?
/r/MensRights08/02/12 02:01 PM
1

Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard too.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 10:56 PM
1

I've read it. But I don't tend to lift my opinions out of fiction.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:57 PM
1

I'd say you have no real understanding of evolution and some real dubious thought processes going on here. Selection doesn't care if something is good or bad according to any ethical system, it only matters if something gives your genes an advantage in replication. When we create an environment where behavior we want to spread gives you or your kin an advantage, it will have an effect. Even sociopaths can't capitalize on their traits unless the majority of the population is capable of empathy. I…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:31 PM
-1

Muhammad: ... and we're gonna ban alcohol. Ali: But how are we gonna have some poon then? Muhammad: We just make it that they can't say no and stone them if they complain. Ali: Genius!
/r/MensRights03/02/12 09:26 AM
1

I contend that ostracized fathers have limited rights and no theoretical way to get out of it even with their mistress's agreement Situation sucks, sure. But compare that to gladiators, who actually were some of the better off slaves and with a better chance to be free some day. Don't think many would like to switch places. I was talking body count NOT "violent death percentages of the population" and that's not even taking into consideration civilian bombings of WW2. Ok, by that logic you would…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:45 AM
1

Additionally, the government allows, through alimony and child support laws, men to be slaves to their ex-wives. There again I’m sure many Roman slaves were treated with great kindness and compassion, educated and cared for. That many dependent people today have it worse than a percentage of the slaves back then isn't the issue. The issue is that they had social class with no rights and not even a theoretical way to get out of it without their masters agreement. I believe it was WW1 that saw the…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:30 AM
1

Ah, I see. You believe we are more 'enlightened' than nations of the past or indeed any of those that are less technologically advanced as ourselves? Technology allows us to to shift priorities about what we care about. Are you saying we are more morally advanced than let's say the Roman Empire of antiquity? Interesting... Why do you think that? We don't have slavery for example. We also don't crucify people. Just two small examples. You couldn't measure the 'moral standard' of a nation on the s…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:40 PM
2

Hmmm, I thought a sheriff that knows everyone in town and their parents and is known by everyone in town has a greater reach than the police department that drives through a ghetto once a week barely recognizing any faces. The presence and enforcement is more important than the actual laws when defining government reach.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 10:39 PM
3

Also much lower than than non urban areas of today? And were Indian tribes that were disappearing conveniently at that time also counted?
/r/MensRights02/02/12 10:15 PM
1

Ok, so you don't like that that the violence in our society is empirically just a fraction of what it was before the governmetal institutions were redefined in the enlightenment. And that is not only true in those larger time spans. Violent crime deaths are on a steady decline over the last decades as well as over the last years. Yes, there were and are a lot of civilian casualties in Iraq, and our justification for this is hypocritical at best. It's still better than the hundreds of thousands k…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 09:23 PM
1

At much lower rates though. Here a reference I used a few times already.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 08:52 PM
1

While all this is true, this is merely because it hasn't been deemed necessary yet to overcome or reign in those base gender instincts, because they were generally seen as beneficial and necessary, and they are in any society that hasn't solved most immediate survival risks with technology and social institutions. Now that we are at that stage in the west, those gender role problems are moving further up the top of the priority list. And the tools to address them have already emerged. Once enoug…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 07:16 PM
3

It certainly is possible to contain or manage, and eventually maybe even overcome our base instincts, either individually or with social pressures. This ability is what makes humans special and together with our rational capacity (as spotty as it is too) is the the primary evolutionary advantage our species has. We all have cruelty the instinct to maim and kill and be savage. But modern society and the state monopoly of violence is a success story of reigning that in on a large scale. Of course …
/r/MensRights02/02/12 11:09 AM
1

The moment you try to put a monetary value on a marriage and treat it like a business you have to treat it like a business. It's not that rare that an employment is life long and far more stable than a marriage. Actually most employments are non-temporal in character, and are a mutual agreement I'd say. And all I know about spousal support for men is that you usually can find some media outrage about how unfair it is in the few cases that happen.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 11:07 PM
2

it doesn't seem fair to make one party come out of the relationship very much worse Which is legally enforced. Just for the man. Often for the rest of his life. If I don't like my job anymore and quit, and expect to still be paid fr the rest of my life, I'd be laughed in the face. And if I'd say to my employer that I could have taken a better paid job, but because I instead chose to work for him the life long payments should reflect my fantasy salary I'd probably be recommended psychiatric help.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:42 AM
23

I'm just gonna voice my one nitpick, as I usually do. She says a woman's work at home has value. Yes it does. But since most men nowadays are able and do all that housekeeping work and taking care of children too, it's gonna be hard to convince them that it is worth the house and the car and, and, and. Once cleaning nannies on the free market are able to buy themselves houses and cars and, and, and you might have a point. But as it stands, that's not the case. It is not your housekeeping and nan…
/r/MensRights25/01/12 05:34 PM
1

Nothing different here. It must be an individual choice if and how much you sacrifice for someone or something else. What I wanna stress is, contributing and being helpful doesn't have to mean sacrifice in our modern world. That means acting selfishly out of principle is even more condemnable today than it ever was. Most of the time it doesn't cost me anything to hold open the elevator door. So I just do it without thinking because it is a nice thing to do, and I wanna be a nice person and someo…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 07:34 PM
1

While I agree with almost everything here, there is still one thing that leaves a very stale and rotten taste in my mouth in almost all AVfM articles. It seems to them it is a self evident truth that any contribution to the greater good means self-sacrifice. That's you can't contribute to the "greater good" without self sacrifice. That any act that isn't done out of self interest is a sacrifice, and as such discredits the whole notion of the greater good. Doing something good for someone else wi…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:45 PM
1

Well, marriage was well and alive in East Germany. And religion played virtually no part in it for the majority of people. Divorce was also very easy. But due to the state dogma that women are equal, guaranteed work for everyone who wants to and a well developed social safety net with free child care facilities and all that jazz, no one had to pay for anyone after divorces. A divorce meant a fresh start for both parties.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:15 PM
4

Why is knowingly passing on infectious diseases considered immoral and is usually treated like assault or murder by courts, but knowingly passing on genetic diseases is considered a human right?
/r/MensRights21/01/12 05:24 PM
-1

Talk to him, he seems to think the opposite.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 09:18 AM
1

Ok, so trolling it is.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 09:37 PM
3

You make no sense. How is abolishing gender specific laws leftist? How is having gender specific laws and policies fair, if we can clearly see now that they are not, which is why we have an MRM in the first place? I kinda have the impression you saw the word "commie", got the good ol' scare and needed to do some chest pounding. Or you are just trolling. Can't tell.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 09:02 PM
3

No, keep the ideology out of MRM. Else it eventually will become like feminism. Not to mention that it will make it weaker, not only in numbers, which isn't something anyone here could want. Stick to the specific issues. You could almost call me a commie in a lot of ways ideologically, but that should be irrelevant in pointing out MR issues and even for most solutions for those issues, since it mostly comes down to abolishing existing gender specific law and policy.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 01:20 PM
2

What would that debate be about actually? I actually like that people with a lot of different ideological backgrounds agree on the specific sets of problems of the MRM. It is a clear sign that there is something to it that needs to be addressed. While I myself am often really annoyed with the (religious) backwardness I hear from some of the people here, when I feel the need to shred some ideology (other than feminism), I can do that somewhere else.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 12:55 PM
3

Some day I'm gonna make the most yummy stew with the most deliciously aromatic ingredients and spices. And then I'm gonna fill a bowl with it and carry it through town, waving the emerging vapors into every face I see. And then I'm gonna look at them judgmentally and scold them that all they think about is food and that they should grow up and that they probably are fucked up deviants that think they can have anything they come across.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:41 AM
6

I'm not aware of any tenets or systematic worldview someone must adhere to to consider himself a MR activist. All that is needed that you see a specific problem or unfairness in law or policy in the institutions of society.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 02:46 PM
12

It's pretty simple: Feminism is an ideology. The premise is the bogus concept of patriarchy and universal female victimization, usually with a big dose of female superiority. It has no bounds in it's grasp and ambition. MRM is the attempt to address a set of concrete specific concerns and difficulties that men face. A few of them are the direct result of feminist activism.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 06:58 PM
-1

Sexuality would be a better indicator than sex. Gay men to guard women, straights to guard men. That way a whole class of problems just disappears,
/r/MensRights24/12/11 12:18 PM
1

All value is relative. And everyone has to judge for himself what has value to him. But in the end a value judgement is always a comparison. So while it would be nice if a human would always win a value judgement in compaprison to a stone, and this default could be described as "intrinsic value", it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes some people consider a diamond more valuable than a person, for example.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 08:32 AM
1

That load you want us all to share may not be one that I am willing to carry, and I may have damn good reasons for it. No problem with that, as long as you don't have a problem with me viewing people that do contribute in a way I value as more valuable (to me) than you, and when I have to make a choice about who I'm gonna support or help out, I'm gonna prefer them. The intrinsic human value that you speak of, to me it consists entirely in the potential each individual has to advance mankind.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 09:35 PM
2

... I hope some day you will join us ...
/r/MensRights20/12/11 06:34 PM
3

Great article. Only one nitpick: I judge the value of any human being, not just of men, by their utility to others, by their ability and willingness to contribute and not be detrimental to others. Rather than vilifying this most noble human trait by excusing men from it, we should fight to put that duty on everyone and share the load. Because with one thing he is right: we live in an age where utility doesn't have to be complete self sacrifice.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 06:03 PM
0

Well, old news with he narcissism and hedonism. The me gusta and sweet jesus faces appear more often on 2X than on FU.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:20 AM
0

More female doctors could be a good thing: no malpractice lawsuit will ever work against a woman. The health care system costs will plummet.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:17 PM
4

It's true that feminist ideology borrowed quite a bit from marxism, especially when it comes to human nature. But those are also the bits about marxism that are the flawed ones, because those assumptions and views where developed by Marx at a time when evolution and psychology didn't even exist in science yet. And its also those assumptions that can be used best by power mongers like feminists. You should note that some of the most influential communist women like Rosa Luxemburg actually specifi…
/r/MensRights29/11/11 11:38 PM
5

Well, there were female jack the rippers. Quite a few actually.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 05:57 PM
44

Almost. You only need to substitute "behaved" with "were treated".
/r/MensRights27/11/11 03:13 AM
1

If she's wet it isn't rape: Use lube!
/r/MensRights22/11/11 01:02 PM
7

The premise of evolutionary psychology is a very sound one: that a lot of neurological and mental functions are shaped genetically, and as such are subject to to the forces of biological evolution and put hard limits on how they can be shaped within an individual. Examining this close is a very important task, but also a task that offers the scientific method some real challenges. You can't really observe and compare behaviours over generations in fossils. And all behaviour is a also shaped by t…
/r/MensRights20/11/11 07:46 PM
6

Science is not the only pillar of modern society feminism undermines and directly fights in the name of their ideology. Freedom of Speech Guilty until Proven Equality before the Law Free Elections Freedom from Debt Slavery and Imprisonment Personal Property
/r/MensRights10/11/11 12:10 AM
2

Trolling: making people think since Socrates and Diogenes.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 01:57 PM
2

And you know it's true. The whole marriage and divorce legislation is based on that premise, as are the dating conventions.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 02:29 AM
2

Women can do some things better than men and men can do some things better than women that are innate (mostly statistically speaking). When some of those things need to be taken care of ... Anyway, most of the trouble I'm referring to here isn't innate but created and groomed by feminist ideology. And it is also not referring to the myopic self-centered "taking care of yourself" but to the prospering of children and women and society as a whole. Women are very capable of taking care of themselve…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 11:41 PM
1

Many do. As do many men. The difference is, women usually get cheered on for their destructive behavior.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 10:05 PM
2

There is a difference between "protect and serve" and "pamper and indulge". Sometimes people need to be saved and protected from themselves. Actually that's a big part of parenting. And a part of MRM is about that very ability to provide and protect, which is not just taken away, even demonized. Concerning your wife: I bet she earned your indifference over a long period of time, and there was a time where your first instinct would be to protect her. Unless it was an arranged or forced marriage.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:02 PM
2

The MRM is actually just an extention of that instinct to protect to a large part. Because the biggest thread to their families that men experience, the women and children they want to protect, is feminist ideology and policy. It is the fathers rights that primarily jump started the men's rights movement. And that is no coincidence.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 08:09 PM
-4

Making noises or saying something also doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom. Dressing yourself to flaunt is a form of communication. A broadcast. Catcalling is also a from of communication. A targeted one. I think catcalling and dressing up sexy without particularly looking for sex with it is both stupid. Yes, what is considered the line of sluttiness in dress differs and changes with culture. But so is the line of lecherousness in in male approaches. Both are part of male-female courtship inter…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:54 PM
12

Lots of women have PMS without bleeding. If they manage to learn that, they surely can learn to bleed without PMS. It's the considerate thing to do.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 02:33 PM
2

At the end the article kinda drops the ball though: It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that feminism has helped men in important ways: It’s reduced the financial burden of men; it’s allowed men the option to be stay-at-home dads and thus nurture their relationships with their children; it’s allowed men to look at women as their equal partners. The financial burden is actually higher now, considering that you potentially need to pay for the rest of your life for women you probably met only …
/r/MensRights23/10/11 01:37 AM
0

Not any more than not disclosing you are married in a one night stand for example. Makes things a lot easier and smoother. Which usually is in the mutual interest at a one night stand.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:14 PM
1

Well, not disclosing this big fact about you is still kind of a dick (sic!) move. But dishonesty and misrepresentation are normal parts of the dating game and not anything to be morally outraged about. Just keep in mind that it is exactly this kind of mind games that makes people frustrated and jaded about dating and eventually turns them into cynics.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:04 PM
1

True. If it comes anywhere near that stage, all sides should put the cards on the table. And that's the point where when not disclosing becomes morally wrong. Wasn't that what I said above?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:14 PM
0

If it absolutely clear that it is just sex, then no problem. But there are a lot of men who don't want just sex, and only go for it if they hope for or see the prospect for a long term thing with children. Which means by not telling them you are playing with their hopes and and most precious desires for their life and waste their time and energy.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:41 AM
2

The German word "Mädchen" (girl) used to be gender neutral too and basically meant toddler. Edit: but that is as long ago as the middle ages.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:41 PM
6

It nothing unusual historically that vast parts of the population, especially male population are excluded from having a family and procreation. In the centuries before they were clerics/monks, soldiers/mercenaries, servants/peons, sailors etc. They had their place and role in society and could contribute to society. Those places and roles simply don't exist anymore. Society doesn't know what to make of them, how to make use of them properly. And we are in the process of figuring this out again.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:33 PM
3

DADT is actually good policy, when it comes to religion. Would be interesting to see if the people who want to bring it back would willing to accept it if it also includes religion.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 09:53 AM
6

Very simple: don't develop a big bullshit ideology around it. Stick to simple to define and verify real world goals. Don't fight to introduce gender specific laws and policies and regulations, fight to remove them. There was nothing wrong with people fighting laws and policies that denied women access to voting, academics and certain careers. It was the honorable and good thing to do. There is also nothing wrong with people fighting laws and policies that deny men their children, incomes, protec…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 11:45 PM
1

Someone's getting agitated. But my while initial post was making the point that this is not the case, that in fact this is quite unlikely to happen, after which you found it necessary to try some curbstomping on that. Gotta go, maybe we can continue later when I come back home drunk.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 04:54 PM
1

Well, who started with the absurd over- generalization that every sex act between a 17 and an 18 year old, or other ages, depending on where you live, always leads to traumatizing damage to the development? Not me.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 04:35 PM
3

Nope, it is just an artifact of women being attracted to status. It doesn't matter how that status is gained or if it is even real. Fake some status with a badly singing teenage boy by giving him media exposure and a lot of bought cheering, and the girls and women get all tingly by the millions. Musical geniuses sitting at home are losers. Guys playing games with balls or at the computer are losers too. Put enough other guys around them to cheer them on and pay respect to their skills, and sudde…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 01:50 PM
1

So you are saying almost every single human being up until very recently was a non-functional traumatized mental wreck, because that is the inevitable result of early sex? And you also would say that sex is a high level social construct like slavery, and not a basic biological function like, let's say eating or walking? Would you also propose to introduce age limits for walking, because the danger of injury is quite high for little kids that just learn to walk and the potential traumatic experie…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 06:48 AM
1

Sure, law can define a lot of things as a crime. But that is circular reasoning: Crime is bad, therefore everything that is criminal is bad, therefore everything bad is criminal ... The Nuremberg laws were laws too, you would probably agree with them. Yes, I went there. Throughout human history virtually everywhere in the world it it was completely normal for 20 or even 40 year olds to have relationships with 14 year olds. If that was so bad virtually all of mankind must have been completely tra…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 05:53 PM
4

Sure. I'm back in Berlin tomorrow. PM me a time and a place convenient for you. I'm assuming your schedule is busier than mine.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 12:20 PM
5

Feels strange to have things translated for me in such a discussion because it is on the internet. I'm German and live in Berlin after all.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 12:07 PM
7

You might wanna arm yourself with some Rosa Luxemburg reading/quotes on the topic. She is accomplished and respected enough, especially by the left, for no one dare to shoot back or dismiss it, and has a lot to say about freedom and freedom of information, but also was decidedly non-feminist .
/r/MensRights22/09/11 11:54 AM
16

That's normal politics. Saying the truth is always bound to offend some interest groups. And nothing is fought more viciously than the truth, because everyone knows you can't win in the long run against it.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 11:14 AM
20

Yep, seems more a lack of interest from women in the movement than a lack of interest from the movement in women.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:05 AM
3

Where am I blaming anyone, and where am I talking about jobs? Raping is bad. But it is malicious intent and coercion that makes something rape, and not the age of those involved.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 06:34 PM
1

Some can some can't. There are 3 year olds that can't be pressured or controlled by their parents or anyone. Because a lot of adults are weak pussies and a lot of kids are manipulative cunts. And there is a lot in between and all over the place. And it is not the age that determines that ability. Saying that you can't consent and are completely inept at matters of the heart and crotch because you are 14 is like saying you can't do math and are completely inept when it comes to symbols and number…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 06:00 PM
3

It is very well possible a relationship between a 20 year old and a 14 year old is exploitative. And it looks like that is the case in the OP. But that in no way means that a relationship between a 20 and 14 year old is necessarily exploitative in nature, it doesn't mean that it is the 14 year old exploited by the 20 year old, and it also doesn't mean that the age difference itself is in any way a morally questionable thing. It also doesn't mean that relationships between 2 14 year olds can't be…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 04:38 PM
1

To be honest, my general impression is that the vast majority of such cases are "seen through" by judges and juries Oh, just search the history on this subreddit, and you will find plenty examples where this wasn't the case. More importantly, the damage is usually done long before there even was a hearing before a judge, let alone an acquittal. Also, the heavy bias of courts in favor of women is also quite often discussed on here. This goes from unequal sentences for equal crimes, to crimes that…
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:20 AM
1

There is a difference between judging individuals and judging laws and rules and circumstances brought about by an ideology. Todays rules and laws are implemented to a large part by feminism and feminists and they concern virtually everyone. This is where sweeping statements about feminism are correct and justified. And every woman that self identifies as feminist has to expect to be able to address the logical shortcomings and unjust consequences of the ideology.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 12:18 AM
14

As I said, when I'm in private keeping up appearances is not high on the priority list. It means he sees his wife as part of himself.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 12:22 PM
21

Well, I also behave different in public than I do alone in private. This is just an extension of that.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 11:54 AM
0

Woah, someone is digging in old stuff. How come?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:08 AM
-1

I don’t hate children either, but I sometimes find them annoying, largely for the same reasons I am annoyed by a lot of women. ... except that if I correct a woman I am subject to persecution. Also another difference ... with a child there is hope that it can get better. I really think, emotionally women stop maturing at the age of 3. All that matters to them is how they feel and what they want. And what they want most is attention.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 11:10 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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