TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

itty_bitty_beaver Archive

View 1 posts and 530 comments by itty_bitty_beaver on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

itty_bitty_beaver/r/MensRights09/11/16 09:28 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Agreed. The OP should stick wih one topic to keep it manageable. DV? Circumcision? Workplace injuries and fatalities?
/r/MensRights31/01/17 10:07 PM
12

Unbelievable that bills like this make it out of committee in gender specific form. One day, we will look back on this period and laugh at how petty people used to be. The cunts ragging him during his statement are some pretty reprehensible people. Wish we had a politician like him in Canada. The guy is a saint.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:45 PM
1

Welcome to a world where NPD, HPD and ASPD rule the roost!
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:49 PM
1

Just read it. Not sure how far one can go calling it socialism when the core tenet of socialism (state control of production) gets tossed at the outset, but it's interesting and thought provoking, nonetheless.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 07:44 PM
3

The complete failure of MensRights to oppose the current attacks on on abortion, contraception and sex education So, you're truly mystified by the fact a pool of people that overwhelmingly cannot have abortions, and who have been relegated to the cheap seats for the discussion around it, legally, who have virtually no options for contraception other than condoms and abstinence, and who probably agree with better sex education as a whole ... aren't really in the front on those issues? I care a he…
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:33 PM
1

libertarian socialist Aren't those terms inherently contradictory? How can you extoll individualism and personal responsibility while everyone shares modes of production to help subsidize each other?
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:30 PM
2

Come on, this is a court room and not a court of public opinion. You HAVE to show damages in some capacity other than just hurt feelings. If you didn't even take a day off of work, and there's no indication of reduced performance, or impacted social relationships, what can the judge do? If he rules solely on your feelings, then every last person filing one of these claims is going to be "distraught, upset, and suicidal" in short order.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:28 PM
24

I remember reading commentary a few months back from Cisco about meeting a quota for female board members, and after scrounging around for someone with the necessary experience and finding no one, ended up with a quasi-activist. They are polite about it and don't rub it in her face that she's a token skirt, but they do reference the fact her resume isn't quite what they typically look for in a board member. I have had this discussion about 15 times, roughly, and my typical route is to show the p…
/r/MensRights31/01/17 04:02 PM
1

I'm not banned, yet, and I jumped in with a handful of posts to show how hypocritical Canadians are being about Trump. It's pretty nasty in there, I'll admit, but I kept myself to the limited scope of my argument.
/r/MensRights30/01/17 11:26 PM
2

In my province, we have a very successful shelter with a mixed program seeing excellent results. They are housed together and do mixed group work. To a great extent, the gender division in this space is artificial, created mostly by Duluth and its suppositions around victims and perps. Part of the fix, in my opinion, is breaking down a lot of these artificial barriers and recognizing that while there are some differences between male and female victimhood in IPV that will need some flexibility i…
/r/MensRights30/01/17 09:39 PM
21

Good luck getting a judgement. The SCC has already ruled that affirmative action programs don't qualify as discrimination based on sex or race, and the demographics of the tech industry alone is enough ammo for them to claim this is an affirmative action program. I don't in any way agree with it, of course. I'm just stating a fact.
/r/MensRights30/01/17 07:33 PM
3

And yet, what would be the best possible curtail to hegemonic thinking in both men and women? If you could have a child without the marriage and the risk that goes along with it, very few would ultimately opt for solo male birth, but just the existence of it as a possibility would change how women interact with us as a whole. A percentage of men in shitty relationships because they wanted kids and had to settle for some uterus with a mouth and demands can now just settle for the uterus, and that…
/r/MensRights30/01/17 04:37 PM
8

And that's just the 20th century. I can't tell you how tired I am of educating people on the history of the franchise, or on the history of serfdom in the west, but the absolutely appalling historical knowledge of modern people is frankly frightening. It's like none of them have picked up a book, at any point since high school, and the books they picked up in High School gave them a basic 2% knowledge they struggled to retain. I shouldn't have to TELL you that the vast majority of the population…
/r/MensRights29/01/17 11:17 PM
3

"Still, only 4 percent of U.S. employers now offer company-provided student loan repayment" WTF? She talks as if having your new employer pay back your student loan debt on your behalf is expected, even demanded, and it's shameful that 96% of companies don't bother. What astronomical hubris. What an abject abdication of personal responsibility.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 08:11 PM
13

My parents are divorced, and both of them maligned and slagged each other, post divorce. When my Mom died, the portion of my father's pension she won in the divorce was willed to we kids, and the three boys opted to sign it back over to Dad. We didn't work for it, we certainly didn't earn it, we didn't need it, and even if Mom wanted us to have it, Dad deserved it more than we did. My professional sister whose family income puts her in the top 0.5% of all Canadians? She kept it, and has been col…
/r/MensRights29/01/17 06:34 PM
2

Do not get me started on this. In Canada, roughly 350 kids are abducted a year, 300 of which are abducted by their parents as part of a custody dispute. Even if every last kidnapper of the remaining 50 was a man, the statistical difference between a random man and a random woman on the street for a lost child is infinitesimal. My sister posted something like this on Facebook and I lost three friends by stating the above.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 06:35 AM
1

Yeah, call me when it's more than just paper.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 05:30 AM
5

What I'd like to see is why this effect is even being discussed, despite the fact grade school is overwhelmingly female teachers, who have a measured marking bias in favour of girls, who preference female modes of learning (collaborative vs. competitive) and who discipline boys more often for the same behaviour. We're surrounded on all sides by girl power rhetoric, too (there's certainly no lack) and girls start to outperform boys, measurably, very early on in their school career. If we're truly…
/r/MensRights29/01/17 12:41 AM
6

Back when I posted all the time to the G&M and was one of their first pool of online subscribers, I really didn't like her. Maybe I aged into her bracket, or maybe my juvenile zealotry moderated, or maybe I simply read her instead of dismissing her, but ...
/r/MensRights28/01/17 08:11 PM
3

One's a Disney Princess that's all grown up, the other is a Youtuber that does prank videos where he asks for directions and uses that as a subterfuge to grab people's asses and film the response. Here's a helpful chart: Age 10-15: 50% chance of successful identification Age 16-20: 38.2% chance of successful identification Age 21-25: 16.4% chance of successful identification. Age 26-45: 0% chance of successful identification. Age 46-90: 0.08% chance of successful identification (Parent effect) I…
/r/MensRights28/01/17 04:33 PM
1

At bare minimum, can you admit that virtually all their concerns are not even in federal jurisdiction?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:28 PM
6

You just reminded me! Victimless crimes like pot possession? Both males and females engage in casual pot use. In fact, men use it more than women do.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:56 PM
31

There is no rationale for reduced incarceration for women that doesn't ultimately also become a rationale for reducing incarceration for men. Mental health? Both male and female inmates see rates vastly higher than the general population. Poverty? Come on ... seriously? Poverty and crime are bed buddies. Addictions? Both male and female inmates see higher than general population rates. Abusive pasts? Both male and female inmates see higher than general population rates. Parenting? Yes, Virginia,…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:31 PM
1

I've said this in another thread altogether, but that march was horrifically overblown. The vast majority of what was on those signs and stated as part of the march's justification are either state jurisdiction or pre-date Trump by a healthy margin. Sales tax on tampons? Get mad at your state. Poor access to abortion? Get mad at your state. Hasn't ratified the Equal Pay Act? Get mad at your state. Pissed at rich, powerful men abusing their position to get sex? Where were you with Clinton, JFK, B…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:00 PM
2

This doesn't deal with the core tenet of my argument: the overwhelming majority of the concerns you listed pre-date Trump. Even the disgust with his bravado should have been dealt with by marches against prior politicians. Don't like older, wealthier, powerful men leveraging that wealth and power for easy access to sex from women? Should have marched against Clinton, then, and most definitely against JFK. But, instead, blind eyes get turned and millions of women sit on their hands until 2017 and…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:32 PM
1

I'll come at this from another angle. PP was only defunded in FOREIGN AID by his executive order. While what you said is arguably true, it's also arguably true that the US is not the HC provider for the rest of the world, and a term like "oppression" doesn't really apply when you're talking foreign aid funding that's entirely optional, and is essentially charity. It's not "oppression" to remove charity. In the end, other nations around the world are free to use their foreign aid to continue fund…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:17 PM
0

Oh, good lord. JFK cheated on his wife, multiple times, with multiple partners. Clinton did the same thing. Neither president, even though they were putting into practice the very same mindset that Trump let slip by that trailer, provably, were even remotely called to the mat by women the way Trump has been. In fact, JFK has monuments laid out to him, so we've clearly managed to look past his family wealth, their collective hubris, and their ability to leverage wealth and power to get laid. We c…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:06 PM
9

I've said this elsewhere, but it deserves to be here ... Virtually nothing that you've listed has anything whatsoever to do with Trump, because at the time of the Women's March, he'd served a grand total of a few hours in office. He didn't enact sales tax on tampons, which are overwhelmingly imposed at the state level, by state legislatures. He didn't choose not to ratify the Equal Pay Act, which is also done at the state level and which the states have had the option to do since 1963. He didn't…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:58 PM
1

No, you're gynocentric because you miss the key logical flaw in the march and in your argument. Did all of the things you list in your missive magically appear when Trump became President? No. The states that haven't ratified the Equal Pay Act have had since 1963 to do so, but haven't. Differential differences in sales tax that affect tampons didn't magically appear under Trump, and have been in place for years. The US's dearth of paid parental leave and poor record on maternal/neonatal care has…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:48 PM
9

Awwww, look at you three wanking away with each other. You know, if it wasn't for the fact you actually came HERE, proving once and for all who the butthurt people actually are, this would be amusing. As it is, I kind of feel sorry for you guys. If losing an election, or perhaps seeing someone criticize a march you have a bit of an emotional investment in, hurts you so badly that you have to go out and engage in this kind of behaviour, can you imagine what it must be like to lose something perma…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 09:50 PM
2

I actually agree, but shouldn't there be room for division between public responsibilities vs. private opinions? Every western nation has policy manuals for public officials and virtually all of them allow for the private expression of political opinions. It's typically only the highest ranking officials, with the most public exposure, like Ministers or Directors, that are somewhat gagged of public expression. If you had a state with official secularism, for example, how could you reconcile bein…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:54 PM
2

Yes, the "affirmative action" exemption to sex, gender and racial discrimination by employers is religiously abused. It was even used in the AHRA argument leveled against Earl Silverman by the Province of Alberta. You can literally spend zero dollars helping men suffering from DV if you can spin your sexist program as "affirmative action" to right a "historical wrong".
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:45 PM
1

You are totally missing the point. If the AVERAGE child support is $430, there's clearly some men out there paying less than the average, right? Roughly 50% or so would be? So, for every last one of those men that pay less than $430, the savings for the state if they opt for paying their child support directly is even larger than what you've calculated. The guy is agreeing with you, offering information to support your argument even more, plus a suggestion on how best to frame your argument ... …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:35 PM
26

Are men and women equal in society? Well, we've kind of asked that, repeatedly. And whether we're talking perception of honesty, perception of altruism, perception of severity of crime, internal vs. external locus of control, etc. we repeatedly and religiously exalt women. We think they are more honest, more moral, less responsible for their actions, and treat crimes against them as much more severe than the same crime when there's a male victim. We give them shorter sentences, incarcerate them …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:24 PM
1

How is that any measure of "correct"? It's a fantastic measure of "popular", but we're talking a populist position here. WAW exists and can be measured literally everywhere, so are you honestly proud you fall IN LINE with that bias? Or will you accept that most MRA work is going to have to work AGAINST that bias?
/r/MensRights26/01/17 02:22 PM
4

You could honestly see this coming. When women's incarceration rates started to climb half a decade ago, you knew that it was only going to climb so far before there would be a reaction against the trend, using the trend itself as an example as "discriminatory practice" against women. There's literally nothing in their justifications, whether we're talking non-violent offenses, drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues, poverty issues, parental issues, etc. that doesn't also occur in healthy…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 11:37 PM
1

There's still a pecking order in the military. Ask yourself what would happen if all the uniformed men and women that made up the bulk of the infrastructure supporting the combat troops made a public play to be treated as equivalent to those combat troops. Do you think those soldiers, who saw friends die in combat, would be OK with some pencil pusher claiming equivalency to them, given that they experience a tiny fraction of the risk? Just look at service ribbons. The vast majority are for some …
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:39 PM
1

Go check out the EU report on workforce engagement in women. When 15-20% of working age women are simply not working at all and another 35-40% are only working part time, so over half of the working age women in Europe are working below capacity ... It's kinda evident why men pay most of the taxes, earn most of the money, etc.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:36 PM
2

Did Clinton spawn a multi million woman march to have him removed from office? No.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:30 PM
1

By the same token, the fact that some dude somewhere took some liberties with some woman doesn't smear us collectively either, but that seems to make up a significant volume of the base insinuations behind sexual assault programs in our culture, doesn't it? Either we share the guilt AND the glory, or it's the other way around and we share none of either, but right now there's a lot of picking and choosing going on.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:29 PM
2

Is that truly admitting to sexual assault, or is it just bravado?
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:25 PM
2

Can we mock them for hypocrisy on this topic, though? JFK cheated on his wife dozens of times, as did Clinton, and thus leveraged that very same "rich men can do whatever the fuck they want" gestalt to void social mores, violate marriage vows and abuse their positions and wealth to get pussy. But for some reason, because they are Democrats and didn't joke about it behind the scenes on a reality show, they are somehow acceptable and in JFK's instance, even lauded. Hell, I'd virtually never vote a…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:22 PM
6

I'd argue that this is essentially unprovable rhetoric. I could argue that there's just as many people who saw that image, were shocked into consideration of the scope of the price paid by men to win the two world wars, and perhaps had a rethink about things because those conflicts were not front of mind, prior, but now are. So, do my imaginary people who changed their minds trump your imaginary people who changed their minds, or can we measure these imaginary people in some capacity to iron out…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:10 PM
8

I fail to see the difference in those two. It's still a conscious act to deceive your partner into thinking birth control is present and being used correctly, when it truly isn't. That one results in solely pregnancy, while the other results in pregnancy and possibly STIs really should be handled in sentencing or in the specific charges levied, not in the decision on whether to lay charges or not.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:02 PM
3

Come on, the guy supporting the women's march sees 1100 upvotes, three times more than the entire active posting pool in the subreddit? There was some brigading going on in here, clearly.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 09:57 PM
2

you don't have to hold dominion over others to have rights. is that really a difficult concept? True, but sometimes you have to actually fight against people who have arguably have dominion over YOU to get them, don't you? Who is the number one opponent in the fight for 50/50 parenting, the one that always gets cited in the news and asked for their opinion? NOW. I'd have almost nothing at all to say about feminism if they weren't literally and overwhelmingly right in the way of those men's right…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 09:53 PM
2

True, you can say that opinion on the topic was fractured in the feminist world. Some supported, some opposed, as you'd expect from a contentious topic.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 09:49 PM
5

The question is why we belittle women who were VERY important through both WW. Is it belittling, or just pointing out some basic reality? The WACs, Medical Corps were important in the same way a clerk in the rear was important. If he doesn't do his job, there's no food, no ammo, no letters from home, no clothing, no fuel, no parts, no tools, etc. The entire war effort depended mightily on logistics, too, not just medical care. And yet when a battle picture like this gets posted, the reams and re…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 09:30 PM
8

If women lies about using protection(pill/syringe) can the man report women for rape/sexualt-assault also then? Yes, and he should cite this ruling as precedent.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 08:58 PM
3

So ... pointing out a false equivalency isn't an argument? Here in Canada, this is a very common argument. We've just changed the words to the national anthem to remove "all thy sons command" as sexist, despite the fact it was a reference to all the men heading off to the trenches of Europe in WWI. To defend the change, feminists argued that women served, too, and the reference shouldn't be solely male, and pointed out the death toll of the women that served as exemplar. At which point, many Can…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 08:52 PM
4

Agreed. How is this a double standard when this man was shopping around for different jurisdictions, ie. PA and CA, to try and get a favourable judgement he likely wouldn't have gotten in New Jersey? The job comment was by his ex and her counsel, too, not the court.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 08:46 PM
1

Sure they did. I applaud anyone that gets off their asses to make their views known, because apathy is a pretty nasty disease. All that being said, you only have to read twox to see the simply inordinate amount of virtue signaling going on by male posters around the march, and the inordinate praise they received in return, which is precisely why the virtue signaling happens. I am really not so sure welcoming all slices of masculinity really means that we should, let alone must, embrace the 1/5th…
/r/MensRights24/01/17 01:48 AM
5

There's a few big holes. 1) Crime as a whole went down heavily since the 1960s, but only SOME of those crimes saw the kind of monetary investment in front line shelter or triage services like IPV saw. What drove the massive decline in robberies or aggravated assaults that didn't see that same investment? Someone's confusing correlation with causation. 2) VAWA funding, unless it's drastically different than most federal funding for social services, is overwhelmingly going to administrative costs …
/r/MensRights23/01/17 07:30 PM
0

Now you're just trolling, asshole.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:47 PM
0

7/8 people don't go to the cops, and they don't go because they'd prefer to handle it themselves and consider it a minor issue. You plain and simply cannot handle that fact. If a concept matters to you more than reality, you're an ideologue. Have a nice day!
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:32 PM
0

Just keep struggling with that while all those people just ignore you. I see lots of cognitive dissonance in your future.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:22 PM
1

Yeah, the shift from "man" to "boyfriend" and "woman" to "girlfriend" and the implies space between our generic man and woman that don't know each other and "relationship". You're inventing a fiction in your head that removes all the connections, the history, and the give and take. That's YOUR issue, not THEIRS. Like I said, a majority of people are already using social avenues to deal with this, provably. You clearly don't want to, or can't, face that reality. That's a significant hurdle for yo…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 03:58 PM
1

You get that we're only talking about it because the social justice warriors keep using the terms, symbols and metaphors from it, right? We'd LOVE for it to die, but these nutballs keep resurrecting it in other forms.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 06:22 AM
1

They've ripped off the terminology, they've ripped off the class hatred, just replacing an intersectional mix of race/sex for that top class, and they've kept the iconography. There were a metric fuck ton of hammer and sickle styled icons over the inauguration weekend. Like this one, which was all over. Earlier examples from Cornell U.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 06:21 AM
2

If you know someone has their hackles up, and is prone to knee-jerk reactions, because they feel they are endlessly attacked ... should you applaud or pillory someone that intentionally goads them to provoke a reaction? Sure, we can all agree that it's largely histrionics, and the reaction in twox is over the top, but we're not going to badger them back to reality. That's got about a 0% chance of success. If you ever want these people to see reason, see their own hypocrisy, accept reasonable sta…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 05:59 PM
3

When I go to twox, I go to actually engage them. I'm ultimately still a progressive at heart and want all of us to have equality of opportunity, regardless of our situation, so there's still a lot of common ground there. I've had some good discussions, there. It's because of douche moves like this that they are now pseudo-shadowbanning people in that subreddit, so guys like me can't use our normal accounts because none of our posts are visible. Their moderation was already draconian, and now it'…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:57 PM
54

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... The number one sin of the social justice warriors is that they redefined sexism and racism to try and exempt themselves from any concept of bigotry. When this is all dissected a decade or two from now, that step made in the late 1980s to start intersectional feminism and come up with a ranking system for privilege, which underpins this notion that discrimination against the grain isn't sexism or racism, is going to be seen as the seed that planted t…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:49 PM
1

I do. When a Presidential candidate proposes a wall clear across the southern border of their country, a wall 2000 MILES LONG, it should be met with incredulity, laughter, and mockery. Who in their right mind thinks that this is a possibility? Building the 77km long Panama Canal took 11 years of construction, decades of low-grade planning, multiple nations, saw bankruptcies, treaty violations, military intervention, etc. Before we even get into the legal wrangling, getting the states on board, g…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:07 PM
2

With all due respect, though, it was the inauguration. Not a single bill has been proposed, not a single piece of legislation passed, not a single policy document written or Presidential Executive Order signed. They quite literally haven't DONE anything yet. Canada has just come out of a long run under our Conservative party, and they had majorities in both the House and the Senate, so they pretty much could pass whatever the fuck they wanted to pass. Going in, progressives up here (me included)…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:04 PM
36

This has to be fake. A huge proportion of the crap posted at that subreddit is so over the top that I can't take it seriously. They are playing meta for kicks. No one intentionally misconstrues to that degree or is that intentionally deceptive shy of ultra rabid ideologues, which are thankfully rare. I wouldn't put it past them to generate over the top garbage there, just so they can come and post it here to watch the results.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:44 PM
2

Exactly. I got the sneaking suspicion that my account had been somehow automodded out of twox, so I logged into an old account of mine I haven't used for years and went right back to the same post. Lo and behold, none of my posts with this main account of mine are visible. I'm not shadowbanned, so the mods of twox are fiddling with automod to achieve the same ends via some other angle. And, after posting a couple of times with my old account successfully, less than 24 hours later it joined my ma…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:38 PM
3

Don't feed the troll, people. The account's history is just like the overwhelming majority of "self posts" we've been seeing lately that show virtually no history in /r/mensrights and which then abruptly veer hard left into the subreddit for a good, old rant, seemingly out of nowhere. Rampant sexism, insults, debates and flipping shit about unimportant shit, and the attitude of "You can't put women first ever, men are ALWAYS more important and every issue that women face is a double sided coin t…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:23 PM
1

In the most general sense, I like it. People have become such armchair warriors that getting hundreds of thousands into the streets for any cause deserves some basic respect for motivating a lot of normally apathetic people. It is a bit of a hyperventilation, though. People on Twitter that support the march have referred to it as the first step in impeaching Trump, and that is just pixie dust. The Republicans fought for years to impeach Clinton and I cannot see it being any easier to accomplish …
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:30 AM
0

Oh, I don't know, there might be another person out there who might have a vested interest in whether that baby gets to term or gets aborted by its nutter mother because someone won an election? Someone ... male?
/r/MensRights21/01/17 04:27 PM
4

Why are we posting clear clickbait articles that tried to take me to the app store to download an app? Surely we can find better content than this?
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:35 PM
3

That's my old stomping grounds! I'm not surprised. Just off of Victoria street in Guelph there's a string of parkland that runs along the Speed River, and there's a playground there that's usually empty. I took my son there to play and was interrogated by three Moms who also had their kids there. Until I pointed out my son and he ran over to touch base, so they could see I was actually telling the truth, they were pretty aggressive. It's a granola city, for the most part, and that means a greate…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 03:29 PM
1

Look at all you ridiculously binary thinkers. Here's something to chew on. Up here in Canada we measure our crimes two ways, our national UCR that collects all our police data, and our General Social Survey (GSS) that surveys the public directly. Our UCR sexual assault rate (sexual assault includes rape up here, it's not a separate crime) is 58/100K. Our GSS survey rate is 22/1000, over a five year window, or roughly 440/100K annually. So, there's roughly 8 people that SAY they were sexually ass…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:39 PM
1

Stay on point. Everything I've listed, when done without consent, is technically sexual assault. My wife also gave me a blowjob to wake me up a little over a week ago. Oral sex without consent technically constitute a crime, you think? I've been married since 2003. I respect my wife's boundaries, and she respects mine. Good for you! Now, if my wife and I come to the conclusion that we're OK with waking each other up for sex, and we've explicitly discussed this in advance, are we free to decide f…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:26 PM
2

You can keep goading all you want. The world isn't your black and white version. We live in colour. In this colour world, that man is an adult, and doesn't need you to be his babysitter. If he wants to file charges, he will, and can. He doesn't need you to hold his hand. If he chooses to handle it socially because he figures the law doesn't need to be involved to solve it, what are you going to do about it? Nothing. He may even decide that he likes it and wants more. Humans are funny like that. …
/r/MensRights21/01/17 06:56 AM
2

They are making a base attributional error. If you walked across Europe and Asia and spent time enough with all the various peoples, you'd experience a pretty wide gamut of beauty standards in those various cultures. You'd see how even neighbouring cultures have slightly different beauty standards, sometimes even egregiously different beauty standards, side by side. You might, if you were stuck on one level of inquiry, come to the conclusion that beauty standards have to be socially invented, be…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:25 AM
1

Lol... laws are not written for hook up culture. They're written for sexual relations. Sexual relations exist within all interactions, short or long term. Riiiight, well, all over California there are couples slowly but surely getting upset with the affirmative consent laws, and articles are already being written about how it's chilling hook ups on campus, making the normal interplay of courtship artificial and robotic and rather unsexy. Like I said, most couples have several incidents in a week…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:08 AM
1

Just making a general inquiry as to your mindset. Some people are truly that damaged that they have never experienced the slow build up of trust and intimacy in a relationship that results in these basic assumptions of consent. Are you one of them? That would certainly explain why you seem so oblivious to how committed relationships differ, in relatively substantial ways, from casual encounters. Laws written for hook up culture fit poorly to long-term relationships. It's that simple. I could tak…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:57 AM
1

That is not in any way a part of my argument. Arguing that most of these incidents are because couples assume that the same sex that was on the table for the last five years is still on the table tonight, and is a miscommunication, is my argument. Or do you have such piss poor relationships that you don't slowly build emotional and physical intimacy with your partners and get to points with long-term partners that you don't reach with one night stands? Could it be you truly don't understand how …
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:52 AM
1

You're presupposing rape. Once you reach that presupposition, it's framing literally everything else. If you can't handle the fact that a simply enormous volume of couples make basic assumptions about sexual availability within their relationships, assumptions that are born out day after day after day in millions of relationships around the world, and can't differentiate that from a rape ... then you need some help, buddy. You're just as nutty as the rape culture freaks that see rape everywhere,…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:48 AM
1

That seems fucking terrible. That seems fucking human. Do you give your friends the benefit of the doubt more than you do total strangers? Do you give family the benefit of the doubt more than you do total strangers? Do you use prior behaviour as a metric to judge future behaviour? Are you more guarded with someone you're meeting for the first time than you are with someone you've known for a while? Do you relax with a new partner the more you have sex and engage in emotional and physical intima…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:39 AM
2

You're right, he didn't intentionally misrepresent my argument, he's just intentionally inflating the incidence rate of this behaviour, so it's more like the Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy, or the Anecdotal Fallacy. Should you build your life and plan your responses around the extreme rarity or the rule? Anyone who argues you should build it around the rarity isn't being honest, whether I chose the correct logical fallacy initially or not. If he feels that this occurs often enough that one s…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:29 AM
1

Oh, so where you do you draw the line? If the ongoing relationship is 1 day old? 10 days old? 30 days old? Here's the thing ... these people are all adults. I trust grown adults to decide for themselves whether their wife or girlfriend violated a line they don't want violated and how to handle it, so the sheer number of days doesn't matter. If they are comfortable after a week because that week was really productive, emotional intimacy wise, and they've already put it on the table that they like…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 01:16 AM
1

Well, to be fair, I'm in Canada and live in one of our highest crime cities, but that would slot in the lower third for US cities, so I can understand how US parents might have a slightly different take than I would. But, would you let your kids out in a group? There's plenty of middle ground in between scheduled play dates with adult supervision and literally unsupervised, solo wandering around.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 12:19 AM
6

You just can't get support rape victims if their men? Cue the histrionics. If I've been living with my wife for 10 years, we've had sex literally hundreds of times. HUNDREDS OF TIMES. The base assumption that we're OK with sexual contact, of various types and various acts, has already been ironed out 20 ways from Sunday. We've already determined what acts are off the table, what acts are on the table, and we've been living by those precepts for years already. If my wife assumes I will be OK with…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 12:12 AM
1

It's not a strawman because it literally never happens. It's a strawman because you're drastically and overwhelmingly overestimating its prevalence. How many functioning marriages and relationships did this happen in last year, where wifey or girlfriend put him in jail? Can you even give me a ballpark? How many were resolved by communication between the parties and didn't involve the state, the police or the courts that you'll never know about? How many went to court? If I'm not in the mood, and…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 11:59 PM
5

And you don't thinks that this is more than a little bit binary, almost artificially so, even robotic? Do you think that long cohabiting or married couples vet every single sexual expression or act past each other, as they go? Do I ask my wife's permission before I put my hand on her ass, if we've been married a decade? When I roll over and cup a breast to let her know I'm in the mood, do I ask first? If I have a headache and I'm not in the mood, do I sometimes take one for the team because I kn…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 11:53 PM
5

Cut it off at source. No man in India should be getting married when the state has created a permanent, unreasonable transfer of wealth to their spouse as the de facto reality of marriage.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 01:38 PM
14

Fuck wealth equality. I'm with you. It's a no win situation discussing this with feminists. M: You work less. I can prove that you work less. You take more holidays, take more sick days, take more and longer STD/LTD, take more sabbaticals, refuse more overtime, work shorter work weeks in general, take time off around children, etc. W: But, but, but we're raising your children! M: Who cares? I do, and you do, because we're the parents, but should the company? All they want is productivity, and th…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 01:34 PM
3

Psychologists and sociologists have long been aware of significant sex effects around risk perception. The general rule is that men UNDER estimate risk, and the younger the man the more likely and more egregiously he does so. Women, on the other hand, generally OVER estimate risk, and not by a small margin. Unlike men, who tend to get more conservative with risk estimation with age, women's fear tends to slightly increase with age. It's not evenly spread, too, so fear of rape and fear of their c…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 01:13 PM
0

We're talking a relationship, here, not some one-sided strawman. You don't think I get to benefit from the assumption of consent when you've been together long enough for that to be set? I think I had been dating my wife three months when she told me I could wake her up with sex, any time, even in the middle of the night. I was skeptical, but she insisted she pretty much is always in the mood or will get in the mood right quick. After she said it a half dozen times, I took her at her word, and w…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 12:58 PM
2

And that's effectively meaningless as a statement, because this is occurring in a huge proportion of active relationships as we speak, and the law isn't even remotely involved, on any level.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 12:45 PM
21

Having sex with your ongoing partner when it's not ideal, or when it's bothersome or irritating, expecting that they will get into the mood once you've started, is not quite the same thing as having sex with your ongoing partner when they truly do not consent. I'm fine with implied consent within ongoing relationships, so the onus flips and it's up to you and your partner to stop proceedings directly if you're truly not into it. The base assumption of communication within a relationship isn't th…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 12:40 PM
5

First off, it's recursive. Dad's don't try because they know how biased the system is. This x 100. In 15 years in courtrooms, I dealt with five lawyers, and every last one of them told me right up front the odds were long, the costs would be high, and I should seriously consider whether the fight would do more harm than good. Not a one suggested court, and all suggested working the soft angles to cajole Mom towards reason and reasonability as the best alternative. And, in a world where most men …
/r/MensRights20/01/17 03:17 AM
4

I can't take this even remotely seriously. First off, it is filled with anecdotes and has literally no stats. We all know the odd diversity hire, but Fortune 500 companies hire thousands and thousands of people a year, so the only really valid data are the quotas they have set. If you do not produce those, your article is invective, not information. Secondly he only gets three paragraphs in and he is mentioning the stereotypical corner office and the stereotypical rat race. Who is this article a…
/r/MensRights20/01/17 03:03 AM
8

To be fair, some of the VAWA grants are aimed toward especially at risk children, not at women specifically. There are grants for minority kids in Indian bands, kids in a divorce situation, etc. So, there will be some collateral damage. I would prefer an introduction of a neutrality mandate more than I would cuts, to be honest.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 02:39 AM
1

Don't I know it. I've been kicking myself ever since. I was in the process of getting rid of my Facebook account, and I'd already lost a couple of friends for my MRA stance and I didn't want to add further injury to insult on the way out the door. In retrospect, I should have just done it, because I'd have the survey.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 10:52 PM
6

It doesn't help when someone comes out and starts talking about how men are better than women True, but in the war of "who has the most chauvinists", women are clearly winning. Several months back, someone posted a link to a survey that asked people about attitudes towards the sexes, and it found only 5% of men were chauvinists. 44% of women were chauvinists, on the other hand. And if they went cross sex, there were actually more women that were male chauvinists (8%) than there were actual male …
/r/MensRights19/01/17 08:42 PM
9

I'm going all technical on you because I'm in that kind of mood ... In the world of literature, this kind of literary device is called a Dysphemism, which is the opposite of a Euphemism. It's a general slur or word with a negative connotation that's intended to take a broad group of people, with likely a lot of diversity within that pool, and reduce them to one easy to swallow negative caricature. In literature, this is used for shock value. In rhetoric, it is used to try and steer the thinking …
/r/MensRights19/01/17 08:36 PM
11

I find the easiest topic to be domestic violence. There's a handful of topics where men truly get no support - none at all - and DV is one of them. One of the many reasons I'm an MRA is that my Mom verbally abused my father for years, and on the one day he finally stood up for himself (he cuffed her on the back of the head after she mocked him for being a substandard parent in front of the entire house) ... she had him arrested. At 10, this looked like Dad hitting Mom. At 15, it looked like I ne…
/r/MensRights19/01/17 05:28 PM
1

WAW has been measured, repeatedly, across multiple areas of social science. We've measured, to give you one example, almost 50 years of public opinion regarding the perceived severity of crime. A crime with a female victim is routinely seen as more severe than the same crime with a sexless, neutral victim, and considerably more severe than the same crime with a male victim. How is pointing out that these effects are literally all over our society MGTOW? Can one safely point out that we routinely…
/r/MensRights19/01/17 04:51 PM
3

The magic bullet is this: You don't need other people's approval. Seriously, life is all about reconciling this and getting past your need to have a crowd behind you. You're plenty enough all on your own, so just ignore the haters and get down to doing what needs to be done. In your city, I guarantee you there's at least a dozen suicide lines available through different organizations. Go volunteer your time on the phones and do some good. I did it, and it totally changed my life. Even now, with …
/r/MensRights19/01/17 02:49 AM
2

You didn't provide any reason for your claim that the ratio in the applicant pool is even one reasonable thing to set the desired gender ratio on, let alone the only "honest" one. You can wish all you want, but the demographics of the applicant pool limit what you have available for your eventual hires. Assuming equal distribution of talent, a pool of 90% men, 10% women will produce hires in roughly the same ratio. It's only if there's more than 10% female hires, or less than 10% female hires, t…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 11:46 PM
2

The policy most definitely IS forcing if the ratio of women being forced deviates from the ratio in the applicant pool. Whether you use the "rung below" or "the general population" as your stand in for the actual applicant pool, you're just using a convenient estimate, not the actual pool, and you're instantly being dishonest. It's no different than Trudeau forcing a 50/50 cabinet and ignoring that he has only 25% female MPs because there's 7-8 male candidates in every riding for every female ca…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 09:45 PM
2

If you want to come at it from another angle, try the studies that looked at public perception of the severity of crime. For nigh on 45 years, it's been measured, and the very same crime against women ranks as significantly more severe than if there's an undisclosed gender, and by an even greater margin if there's a male victim. See Wolfgang in 1985 and Warren in 1999 for examples.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:02 AM
3

Did anyone catch the line at the bottom where a 65000 employee mining giant wants to have 50/50 split by 2025? HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, there's women galore beating down your doors to get into mining. We all know it's just for optics because there's no hope in hell of making that self-imposed quota.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 04:17 AM
4

Three years? More like 30.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 04:14 AM
3

I guess you didn't notice that this was the first civil case for rape in the history of Scotland? I'd love to see what delict or tort was used in this case, because regardless of which one was eventually chosen, this was absolutely precedent setting. Handing down that kind of ruling when the three drunk people involved were the only ones providing testimony ... yikes.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 04:08 AM
81

That really doesn't matter. I kept the only thing my son ever gave me, a stuffed Webkins camel, and the only picture I had of him, beside my bed at night so the last thing I saw before I went to sleep was him. When he finally came for a visit as a 15 year old, he laughed because the webkins was just a toss off, a gift he had two of and he sent it out on a whim. I just about bawled right in front of him because he was so utterly oblivious of the meaning attached to that stupid stuffed camel. Fake…
/r/MensRights17/01/17 11:03 PM
2

Well, of course you'd have to make your decision wisely, and if you have significant assets to use, then perhaps a better solution might be to liquidate them all and move to a jurisdiction with no extradition to your country of origin. Or liquidate them and use them in the legal fight. But most people out there don't have much in the way of assets, owe on the house they live in or rent, owe on their car, owe on their credit cards ... what's to lose?
/r/MensRights17/01/17 06:01 PM
2

Their statement of principles is like goulash. Almost every SJW faction you can think of is represented. They bent over so far backward to avoid offense and include something for everyone that it's all but meaningless.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 04:03 PM
7

Agreed. You organizers chose to make this march about women, chose to hang your hats on that entire schtick, and now you want men to line up and belly up to the bar beside you, after a half decade of pounding repeatedly on men? Good luck with that.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 04:02 PM
2

But what about those men who clearly are misogynistic – let's say at a men's rights conference or online – who say nasty things about women. Do you feel it's your responsibility as one of the intellectual leaders of this movement to speak out and say, 'Hey, this is wrong. Stop it.' Yes, answer for my straw man, Warren. Answer for it. Jesus.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 03:59 PM
1

Asian average household income is higher than many, if not most, Caucasian groups, in fact.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 03:11 PM
4

Agreed. There's been abundant and visible trolling in this place, pretty much from minute one. You can't post or even just lurk here for more than a week without seeing the pattern. Edit: Of course, if you follow /u/JebberJabber for a bit, you'll find the poster is pro feminism, and defends it often, so you learn quickly to take anything that poster types with a rather large grain of salt. JJ's over in the thread about Irish policy potentially forcing 50% female representation in parliament defe…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 11:37 PM
1

In the end, we didn't. The separation agreement was set up when he was an infant, with the intent to widen it past one week once he could fly. Of course, she point blank refused when that day arrived on his 8th birthday, and I spent the next 6 years fighting to even get him on a plane, fruitlessly. He eventually told her off and moved in with me shortly after he turned 15, but promptly imploded (kicked out of school for threatening other students, hoarding knives, making noises about school shoo…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 11:09 PM
42

At my nephew's birthday party. 20 kids or so, about that many parents. Kids are in the living room whooping it up and playing with all the unwrapped presents. Moms and Dads (mostly Moms) are in the kitchen drinking and kibitzing. One of the kids is 2-3 years younger than the rest, and is clearly there because Mom wanted in on the Mom Action with the White Wine and used her kid as the excuse to show up. That kid asks her Mom to read to her, but gets dismissed and told to "go play". I offer to rea…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 08:06 PM
31

DNA testing should be mandatory at birth. Many states have very short windows indeed to challenge paternity, sometimes even only a few minutes if signing the birth certificate is their legal marker. In those cases, the moderate charge for the DNA test seems quite reasonable compared to the possible costs.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:57 PM
11

CAFE misrepresented gender-based statistics. In 2015, it put up a Toronto billboard featuring an image of a wild-eyed woman looming over a cowering man with the statistic: “Half of domestic violence victims are men. No domestic violence shelters are dedicated to us.” That figure did come from a 2009 Statistics Canada study, but CAFE failed to note that women were three times as likely as men to report injury from serious violence, like being choked, raped or threatened with a deadly weapon. How …
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:35 PM
0

Did you or did you not say: "which it should be IMO" directly stating that you believe this discriminatory practice should be legal? If so, you're a bigot. I don't care what kind of rationalization you've cooked up in your head to justify to yourself that discriminatory behaviour, to be frank. If you engage in it, or publicly state you support it, you're a bigot.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:29 PM
8

I think that's a foregone conclusion, at this point. Any woman willing to use sperm collected orally to get pregnant with your child is hell bent on fucking you over in any capacity, and she's got the state backing her ploy. Quick! Choose a 20+ year financial penalty that will put you at the poverty line, hamper your retirement, transfer wealth to the woman and not the child ... or a considerably shorter prison term. And the entire time I'd be in prison, I'd be writing through my lawyer and maki…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:25 PM
0

If you feel that an organization should have the right to intentionally discriminate against any Canadian citizen, then I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Pretend you're not a bigot, if you want, but you clearly are. You're just a bigot who's justified his own bigotry to himself. Comparing it to a quilting club? Come on, the entire Elections Act deals with how your "quilting club" gets and handles money, organizes its jurisdictions, and deals with elections. You're insane if you …
/r/MensRights16/01/17 03:10 PM
1

The selection process for the candidacy in the riding association is independent of the election to the seat, though. I still think this is untested waters and the NDP are not "definitely exempt" from anything until that challenge happens and the adjudication occurs. There are usually several ways to skin a legal cat.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 02:28 AM
1

And the solution is to cut off the vector, i.e. marriage and kids, for the money transfer and let these women fend for themselves. They could still make even more punitive tax and fee structures to route money to women via welfare and social programs, etc. but it would be more blatant of a grab and easy to pierce, rhetorically. And, we might have a side benefit in that the 50% of Canadian, working-age women that either don't work at all, or work part time only, would be forced to engage in the w…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:01 PM
1

The NDP A: Isn't covered under any employment equity act of any kind So, political parties are not corporations, that file annual returns, that pay taxes, that employ Canadians and pay wages? I think that the NDP probably believes that being a political party exempts them from a lot of this legislation, but that this belief wouldn't really get born out in a court challenge. What you want to read is the SCC's ruling on the act itself which is actually more strongly worded and allows for even broa…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:55 PM
2

Holy hell, that it's verging on some seriously troubling cult behaviour. Join your local girl gang? Good Christ.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:50 PM
24

I really can't see how this ends well for Harvard. With 60% or more of your campus against the bans, and finals clubs arming with lawyers, this is a no-win situation at the moment. The solution, and the time for it to be implemented, was greater enforcement and easy access to reporting, not sweeping, dictatorial edicts that were guaranteed to create entirely innocent enemies to the policy.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:37 PM
1

You don't think it's an example of a) educational system with an overwhelming number of female teachers, b) tendency of said teachers to teach from an ideological standpoint, and c) said teachers adding ideology where it doesn't belong, largely to advance the narrative of poor women, poor blacks, poor sexual minorities, that men are asked to answer for?
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:22 PM
2

I would pretty much agree with this post. I do think there's distinct patient pools, one where the dysphoria is the chicken, and the other where the dysphoria is the egg, and different treatment paradigms have to be employed for the different contexts. The OP isn't in my pool of experience, but I suspect the stable ones don't walk in my door ...
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:18 PM
8

With all due respect, mothers don't need to establish the narrative of being a "great parent", because that's assumed. It's a goddamn SHOCK when a mother turns out to be totally evil, and then the hens get pecking and make sure she knows it, too. Violating the sacred trust of a mother and her children is a cardinal sin! Fathers, on the other hand, are presumed gone, presumed working, presumed busy, presumed indifferent ... we have to fight to be seen by default as parents. That's precisely why w…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:47 AM
3

I think it does. OK, let me rephrase: It doesn't HAVE to have anything to do with femininity or masculinity. There's nothing tying women to that chair, or forcing them to be "the voice of reason" or forcing them to be constantly molding or training or scolding, or forcing them to be the one that drives the play down "acceptable" lines. The very same fear that has half of them expressing fear of men and 3/4 of expressing fear of rape, when the risk is remarkably low, is the same fear that has the…
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:41 AM
5

Both parties signed the contract, so they are bound by the terms of the contract.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 05:33 AM
106

This actually hits a hot spot for me. On several of my trips down to see my son in another province, my ex would get pissy and jealous and tell me that she hated my visits because I became the superstar, and he loved me, and she had to be the day to day disciplinarian while I got to play with him. I asked her point blank when the last time she got down on the floor and just played with him, letting him set the agenda, letting him decide the plot and characters, etc. and just went along. Cue the,…
/r/MensRights14/01/17 04:22 PM
3

Just repeat the mantra: a) Everyone has a right to defend themselves from assault. b) You shouldn't have to justify defending yourself from assault to your friends and family. c) What does it say about your friends and family that they are willing to condone assault? Remove gender from all your statements and just keep repeating them in that order, over and over and over. This isn't the 15th century, and the people giving you grief need to get that into their thick heads.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 03:50 PM
5

I don't even know if this qualifies as low-hanging fruit. If there's a term for content-free content, this is it.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 05:43 AM
6

Maya Angelou is actually one of my favourite writers, but at the same time, this is math class, not math class with a side order of spoon fed diversity programming.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 05:39 AM
16

IIRC, the Honey Badgers attended the Calgary Comic Expo, spoke out calmly during a panel event questioning the narrative around some contentious topic, and then were told their booth had been cancelled and were ushered out of the expo the next morning. This is the first round of the lawsuit against the expo organizers for breach of contract, and so far, so good.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 04:24 AM
1

Deception is deception and a 20+ year, 250K+ child support tab for the average child is plenty damaging, certainly more than many STIs. Similarly, buying a positive pregnancy test online to trick your partner into staying when he wants to leave isn't fundamentally different than what occurred in the movie. If you use deception to trick someone into sex or a relationship, that's rape, right?
/r/MensRights13/01/17 11:33 PM
1

Considering this is the first movie of this type, where the two people are literally stuck alone for the entirety of their lives together, you're right! Oddly enough, there's only two possible outcomes, and they had to pick one.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:19 PM
1

Well, for one its pretty hard to prove that the women didn't take her birthcontrol out of spite or ulterior motive. It's more difficult, yes, but there's other forms of deception around sex that are much more easily proven, like paternity fraud. Attempting to use sexual contact with your partner to cover up for and obtain child support for someone else's child is also deceptive, is a DNA test away from discovery, and rarely results in any kind of charge at all, let alone a rape charge. Hell, we …
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:16 PM
1

Absolutely, but we both know that if the genders were reversed, this movie wouldn't be getting a peep from the feminists.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:13 PM
2

But thats just a hen <-> egg problem. Which is causing what? Both homosexuality and gender dysphoria were disorders in prior versions of the DSM, but the comorbidity we see with homosexuality is typically affective disorders, and while the biggest comorbidity for trans is also affective disorders, there's also comorbidity with dissociative disorders, psychotic disorders, and personality disorders that are not really a factor with homosexuality. A case could be made (and was made) that homosexual…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:10 PM
6

We've literally just had a 9 year old boy on the cover of National Geographic, raised by a single mother who is a trans advocate. Anyone who works with children knows the near programmability of early childhood and how that window is ripe for abuse by parents. While it doesn't necessarily mean male victims of female parents, that combination seems to be relatively common. Can we use men's rights as the angle to leverage children's rights in this regard? Argue on behalf of those boys in order to …
/r/MensRights13/01/17 02:46 PM
1

How does a single study with 912 participants in one country trump a meta-study that covers 100 different studies, collectively, from around the world? Individual studies within it may be suspect or could be cherry picked, but that's precisely why meta studies get done. In addition, if the author is automatically biased because he works with trans people who have regretted transition, or transitioned himself and regretted it, then every article I've read on the topic is full of biased citations,…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 02:22 PM
2

There's another confound, though. Roughly 60-80% of trans see gender dimorphism co-morbid with at least one other personality disorder, affective disorder or dissociative disorder. There's high correlation with abusive homes, foster care, etc. This isn't like homosexuality where the bulk of the suicide issues stemmed from societal stigma. Even after transitioning, suicide rates are still significantly above the norm. I've yet to meet, in 18 years of work in Psychology, a single trans person with…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 02:04 PM
2

Do the old tried and true ... flip the genders. Woman wakes up and finds herself alone. Obsesses over male passenger to the point where she wakes him up, too, lies to him to tell him that they were both woken up together, cultivates a relationship with him under that pretext, and then they face the trials and tribulations together without him knowing he's been duped. Is it rape or is it ordinary deception? This is kind of like the poor schmuck in Switzerland who removed the condom, mid-sex, and …
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:35 PM
3

The kid wasn't even confident enough to name the applicable body parts. Come on ...
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:24 PM
8

The account is only a few hours old and already has 20-30 submissions, all around race. Someone's trolling.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:21 PM
13

It may not be about BLM, seeing as there's no concrete connection between the perps and BLM, but it's most definitely about race. They targeted the disabled man because they'd have a higher chance of success, but they weren't screaming about disabled people, were they?
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:19 PM
1

There's more female chauvinism, in both males and females, than there is male chauvinism, by a country mile. But, of course, he doesn't mind that variety.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 01:15 PM
8

Fantastic. Enough is enough when it comes to forcing equal outcome, regardless of the input. It should have never gotten this far.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 09:33 PM
1

Absolutely. That Chris Weith took the Empire to mean White Supremacist shows he can't get his head out of 20th century nationalism and racism, even though the Star Wars universe is an entire galaxy of humans of every type, aliens of every type, and the whole mess works right alongside each other. Its structure (authoritarian) and methods (centralized control) are arguably shared by any movement looking to take over a larger collective, but the motives were nothing at all alike. Where was there a…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 09:28 PM
2

The feminists that you're hearing about are the extremists, and most rational people don't agree with their views. And yet they are driving the narrative. I get your concern, but it's not the moderates driving the bus, clearly. "Most" rational people ultimately doesn't mean much when we're inundated daily with pieces slagging on men and masculinity. Feminism at its core really is about actual equality. Don't let the jerks ruin it for everyone. You talk as if this is the exception! NOW has millio…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:54 PM
0

I'd flip this. Under the premise of vicarious liability, the business is responsible for the actions of its employees while they are on the clock. Even if the company had training, signs, etc. that taught that server/bartender to recognize intoxication and to intervene positively if it was recognized, it's still up to the business to ensure practices are followed when on shift. Slowly but surely, legal decisions are doing a shared ratio of responsibility, where the drinker is first, the bar seco…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 05:34 PM
8

All part of the general push in North America to evade personal responsibility for one's actions! My wife is a paralegal, and in studying for one of her last exams, she sat me down and showed me a dozen cases around business liability for children. If you are a family business, there's literally no degree of parental neglect or inattention that removes your liability as a business for injuries. A ski resort in Canada was successfully sued, even though Mom and Dad fucked off to the slopes for the…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 02:56 PM
5

Because you can't be sexist towards men. Why not? Because men are not an oppressed class. And every time they trot this bullshit out, it's incumbent on people like you and I to put the wooden stake through the heart of that crap. The idea that sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry only truly operate across power divides is a key component of intersectional feminism, but that power angle is a VERY recent addition and is only truly found in academia. Everywhere else, we use the regular definit…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:55 AM
8

Unfortunately, many jurisdictions consider the bartender and the bar responsible if they let someone drive drunk after leaving their establishment. Here's Canada for example.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:51 AM
8

As they should. The first bill passed both houses with huge majorities, and a similar bill should land on the governor's desk every stinking year until he has no other option, politically, but to pass it.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:44 AM
3

I'm curious to hear why you think feminists would have an issue with this. Well, there's feminists that are in theory OK with men and childcare, but you don't have to go very far to see some pretty strident, organized and well-funded opposition to 50/50 parenting legislation by organizations like NOW around the country, do you? Similarly, many feminists have big issues with technologies like sex robots or male birth control. In addition, many feminists have issues with masculinity in general, op…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:30 AM
1

So, "seek and ye shall find" proves true, once again. If they want to be victims, they will always be able to spin or misconstrue events to turn themselves into one, even if their victimhood is just being tired of the social masks we all wear.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:22 AM
8

That all humans tend to collect in like groups, tend to prefer those who are like us over those who are not, tend to be more altruistic and reasonable than we generally allow for, and tend to like positive attention when people give it to us, to the point where we're willing to do some acting to get it?
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:18 AM
2

I've said for years that they are getting gamed over there, far worse than you'd typically see in another subreddit.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 06:17 AM
1

Not sure that's relevant. 5 of 11 board members, including the chair, will resign from the board with the Verizon deal, including Mayer. That takes their votes on executive performance off the board, opening up the board to remove them as executives once the deal is done. Mark my words, any of the 5 that also have executive positions will be replaced, if for no other reason than it's becoming a holding company and needs a minimal executive presence. It's pretty typical to ask people on the board…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 12:36 PM
1

True, but removing herself from the board is generally the preamble to her removal as an executive. It's a pretty big conflict of interest to be voting on your own executive performance as a board member.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 12:30 PM
1

I actually wrote the NDP last week and told them that any party that enacted sexist and racist rules that kept white, straight men from being candidates when a riding came open was never getting my vote. Right now, I've only been able to confirm the policy in the BC NDP, but I'm sure that this is something in the works across the country, seeing as the NDP doesn't have independent provincial arms like the other federal parties do. So, that rules out the Liberals (cabinet quota) and the NDP (suns…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 11:42 AM
2

The SRSer is lazy, too. It's not like the organizations controlling the narrative right now don't have FAQs on their websites detailing why they feel there's no need for male shelters, or anything. Canadian women's groups haven't been shy about unequivocally stating that men don't need shelters and that they find the supposition they do to be insulting and even threatening.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 11:35 AM
1

It's multiple pieces of legislation, in multiple states, if we're talking the US, here, plus federal legislation. The Tender Years doctrine was the general principle, but that's been largely replaced with the Best Interest of the Child doctrine, which generally achieves the same result. Apparently, the Best Interests of the Child means keeping the child with Mom, giving Mom rope, rope and more rope to hang herself with, etc. You'll achieve more, I would think, without as much emotion in your wri…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 11:31 AM
1

Well, the SJWs are saying "why is this movie acting like it's no big deal to steal a woman's life from her". And for once, they have a bit of a point. I'm still not sure they do, and I think it's because they can seemingly only express empathy for one of the two characters. The expectation is that this man is supposed to endure 90 years of utter solitude, never break down and get lonely, never realize or get tempted by the fact he could just wake someone up for company and his solitude would end…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:04 PM
3

Oh, so because it's about "revenge", any general standards we have for proportionality go out the window? Nice to know. Maybe folks with this mindset should wear some sort of marker so the rest of us know that should they ever be wronged, that there is effectively no reasonable limits to their behaviour. Might help keep people safe, no? Sounds like a pack of compartmentalization to me.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 06:02 PM
3

I could see this as being abuse if she was constantly holding threats to do these things if he ever strayed. But this very much seems like he did it, and she went creatively wild taking revenge on him. Punishment or discipline has to be in line with the infraction. When parents take their punishment past the seriousness of the infraction, it's virtually always interpreted as abuse, so why not here? Irrational degrees of revenge shouldn't be normalized as acceptable.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 05:19 PM
3

I know why you did it, and replied to your other post, but there's a special kind of hell for people who bring a topic up and yet don't provide enough detail to discuss it. ;-) The movie's been out for three weeks, now, so I think you're fine.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 05:14 PM
19

And yet ... how is that misogynist? It's selfish, rude, controlling, manipulative, and even cruel to the character affected, but how is that even remotely promoting hatred of women as a class? It's clearly the actions of one character, who with all of his flaws and foibles, doesn't represent, speak or act for "men", against another single character, who for all her virtues and talents, doesn't represent, speak or act for "women". The film goes well out of its way to indicate that these people ar…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:44 PM
2

No, that's not why they claim it's misogynist. After seeing this post I went to look what their actual problem was, and to be honest - they're kinda right... Don't be evasive like that. Just fucking say it.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:14 PM
2

It's a great idea in principle. I don't know a single jurisdiction where DV shelters are fully funded and where they don't turn people away every year. In my region, pretty much 100% of men get turned away, and about 10 000 women get turned away as well, so there's two major issues - rank sexism and that the system as a whole is underfunded. Having extra eyes and ears in other areas to help identify possible issues quickly isn't a bad motive, and we shouldn't necessarily nail on this program bec…
/r/MensRights08/01/17 03:59 PM
2

Because rights have to be the primary focus. It was the civil rights movement, not the civil equality movement, correct? That's for a reason. LEGAL equality has to be step one, because then the law works for you, and not against you, and can be used to leverage everything else. Before you start building, you put the tools into your tool belt.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 03:51 PM
1

It's just a variant of the Apex Fallacy, where you judge the entire pool by the behaviour of the extremes within it.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 03:48 PM
1

Well, women tend to use weapons more often in domestic disputes I believe. Yes, they do, but another point is that when we talk about injuries, the stats come from our police forces who only see roughly 1 victim in 8, so there's a chance the proportions of injuries they see in shop don't translate to the larger pool. Men might simply get their injuries treated without ever mentioning domestic violence, and so they don't get counted as often. I was simply trying to head off one of the most common…
/r/MensRights08/01/17 02:52 PM
1

It is not a treatment program It's the theoretical basis for treatment programs around North America and many policy documents used by police forces in dealing with DV on the front lines. People focus on it because it's been the singular focus on both arenas for most of the last 40 years. You can pretend it hasn't been influential, but you wouldn't be particularly honest if you did. The US's National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice department, says it thus: "It should be no…
/r/MensRights08/01/17 02:48 PM
4

The author echoes my argument and frustration in dealing with this topic. I've argued long and hard that the ONLY salient characteristic when someone walks into your shelter looking for help is that they are apparently a victim. The minute you trot out sex or race or sexuality to use as a filter to determine if they deserve services, you're playing victim Olympics and using irrelevant concerns to determine who gets help and who doesn't. Women present more with injuries and are at a higher risk o…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 07:21 PM
4

I think, ultimately, what you need to accept is that DV in North America is a VERY skewed and VERY sexist pile of claptrap right now. The province of BC, here in Canada, was successfully sued in 2006 because their provincial DV policy directly told police forces across the province to arrest the male as the perp as default practice. Who would write such blatantly sexist policy? Someone who read Duluth's findings and bought them, lock, stock and barrel. Fighting against that kind of entrenched se…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 06:53 PM
4

This sounds like a pile of your perceptions and not much in the way of reality. Where, in this narrative, is there room for this sub to be a spot where people blow off steam, vent frustration at sexist policy, mock visibly illogical stances or claims that are in the way, make fun of chivalry and the benighted men that refuse to admit women are mere humans, etc.? You can't get more than a dozen humans together without there being some griping, and if the only way this sub will qualify as reasonab…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 06:35 PM
7

Don't bother. Even if it's right and most of the abuse lesbian's received was in straight relationships, it's not ALL the abuse lesbians faced ... is it? As long as that percentage for lesbians at the hands of their female partners is non-zero, then we have to accept female perps as a reality. And the minute you accept female perps as a reality, then the primary treatment model in the US and Canada, the Duluth Model, which assumes a male perp has to be rethought. Let's say only 1/3 of all lesbia…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 06:14 PM
6

What the fuck does this have to do with men's rights? The primary treatment program for DV treatment in the US and Canada is the Duluth Model for DV treatment, created by the University of Minnesota/Duluth in the 1980s. The treatment program was created by a handful of feminist profs, at least one of which has admitted that their statistical basis is suspect and that they cherry picked their findings. Under that treatment model, men are assumed to be the perp, women are assumed to be the victim,…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 06:09 PM
11

Oddly enough, most of us do, too. What we don't dig? Hypocrisy, ideologically driven treatment programs founded on sexist principles like the Duluth Model, automatic assumptions of guilt based on your sex, ludicrous chivalrous turds that will do or say anything to curry female favour and ignore mountains of evidence put in front of them to keep the illusions up, etc.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 06:04 PM
8

Pointing out that women are just as guilty of domestic violence as men are refutes the Duluth Model of DV treatment, and it also refutes a core aspect of "toxic masculinity", etc. Until the nearly half of women that are female chauvinists and the nearly 1/5 of men that are female chauvinists who support them, accept that women are, gasp, human too ... neither lesbians nor men will receive effective DV treatment and services.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:58 PM
11

It's breaking the prevailing narrative that only men can be the abusers and only women can be the abused, which is the core argument of the feminist Duluth Model of DV treatment, the overwhelming treatment option adopted in North America. Psychologists/Psychiatrists in Canada and the US met only a few years ago to discuss where the entire industry goes now that the statistical basis for Duluth has been found to be severely inflated. It's not "women bashing" that a this subreddit has reached the …
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:43 PM
3

That's because there's a lot of male enabling behaviour. I'm still trying to find this study for a second time, but it was a survey attempting to measure current perceptions towards biological sex. The survey found that only 5% of men felt that males were innately superior to women, so male chauvinism was found to be a declining, small minority opinion. The same study found, however, that 48% of women felt that women were innately superior to men, so female chauvinism was a large minority opinio…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 07:19 AM
28

Good fucking Christ this kind of willful dishonesty irks me. I'd be willing to bet that this director has the EU's big report on female workforce engagement sitting on a hard drive right now and has read the entire report. How can he or she sit there knowing that 15-20% of working age females simply don't work at all, and another 35-45% only work part time, clear across Europe, and come up with this tripe? HALF YOUR ELIGIBLE FEMALE WORKERS aren't even working full time, doofus.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 07:10 AM
3

So, two positions dealing with teens and mental illness and one ancillary position with the HRP. Sounds like simply bounds and bounds of experience dealing with PTSD to me. She's published four papers in her entire life, and none of them deal with PTSD or veterans. Forgive me if I question her credentials, but they are pretty sparse. I did my time on suicide hotlines and in youth emergency shelters too, while I was a student, but I didn't use those student positions to claim any kind of expertis…
/r/MensRights06/01/17 05:25 PM
4

And six heavily divergent publications, too, that ultimately have nothing at all to do with PTSD or its diagnosis. I'd be hard pressed to even guess her field of specialization from her publications, given how widely they vary. Spoken word poetry? Colonialism? Cuban Hip Hop Culture? How in all the hells did this woman get cited in this piece at all?
/r/MensRights06/01/17 04:08 PM
2

He's not an attorney. He said he's a corporate lawyer for 20 years. I'm Canadian, so we're all lawyers up here. We use specific terms for types of practitioners quite a bit more rarely than the US or UK. All that being said, every lawyer still goes through their legal education, where you touch on every aspect of law until you specialize, and thus even a corporate lawyer will have more of a grasp on family law, for example, than the typical layman. And, of course, there's the clear layman's writ…
/r/MensRights06/01/17 03:43 PM
140

Certainly not enough to get a card on the wall, that is. Maybe a cursory, "Dear white men, you aren't all rapists, violent thugs and/or capitalist bastards"?
/r/MensRights06/01/17 06:17 AM
2

Why do you go to all the effort to pass yourself off as a lawyer when your prose and style are so far from any reasonable legal writing that you stick out like a sore thumb? You are both an imposter and a joke. You know that the art of being a good troll means reasonably mimicking the persona you've adopted, right?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 07:55 PM
1

Blame that on the 'fake news' phenomenon. News agencies are getting more reticent to just leap on a story until they've found out whether it's legit or not. Which is a good thing, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 03:27 PM
5

My posting history speaks for itself, but of course the fact you didn't even do that little bit of legwork is further evidence against you being an actual lawyer.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 03:22 PM
6

I think the odds of that author being an actual lawyer hover between zero and minuscule.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:57 AM
1

Yeah, I get the rant, but we're talking about a phrase, "Men rape and kill people." Not "a small fraction of men" or "most rapists are male" or something that might honestly be defensible, but "men rape and kill people". I think making that broad of a statement is worthy of a little rebuttal, don't you think?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:52 AM
2

In passing, maybe. There is no toxic femininity courses, the phrase is by no means anywhere near parity in the literature, and it's rarely mentioned publicly except by MRAs, for the most part. Toxic masculinity is a direct byblow of Patriarchy Theory, so suggesting the female alternative gets anywhere near the same shrift is nonsensical.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 03:37 AM
3

She's been living with her mother, so she's been getting subsidized by both myself and her Mom. Mom has a heart condition and isn't doing well, and child support is on the verge of ending. Oh, and she's also getting subsidized rent from a family friend who once dated her older sister, but he's getting tired of her shit and wants a normal renter in there. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santy Clause, and the present this year is called "freedom".
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:45 PM
1

Yeah, that didn't happen, so it's 18 years of fiscal misery with nothing to show for it.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:43 PM
2

And if those players choose not to play and the coach sides with the administration? He's lost his number one method of motivating those players, ie. their respect. Abstention is his only true recourse, and even then both his players and the administration could argue that he should have sided with them and thus cost him anyway. That coach was fucked from minute one.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 08:56 PM
1

I think we all do. I certainly do, so I'm sympathetic.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 07:33 PM
29

Welcome to the club. I've been subsidizing my ex-wife now for 18 years, and she hasn't had to work full time for the entire window.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 06:38 PM
3

Because it's easy and facile? But seriously, archive that shit. If CH is going down this road, let's not give them clicks.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 06:13 PM
1

Might want to start with the spelling issue ... ;-)
/r/MensRights03/01/17 02:38 PM
3

I have no problem at all admitting that ignoring someone or refusing to have sex with them would be perfectly valid reasons for someone to wish to obtain a divorce, but this author is talking about incarceration. Incarcerating someone because they refuse to talk to you is well beyond the pale.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 02:01 PM
3

In other news, an adult woman inexplicably continues on in a 20 year relationship with a man who only responds to her with nods and grunts. Seemingly ignorant of any concept of personal responsibility, family law, or even of basic standards for human interaction, she opts not to leave the family home and wastes 20 years of her life turning herself into a martyr.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 12:41 PM
2

So individual writers/artists should intentionally dumb down their messages? Not necessarily, but agenda often interferes with story and character and can even break immersion for people. Above all else, artists are storytellers, and anything they do that deviates from telling that story can interfere with their primary role. For example, the hand holding scene between Rey and Finn in SWFA drove me mental. That was so blatantly shoehorned into the movie by Abrams as a grrrlpower moment that it s…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 04:11 AM
6

Green Arrow is a ridiculous libertarian not a bleeding heart liberal.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 12:10 AM
1

There can be no divergence on this issue. Yeah, you sound ... reasonable. I figure anything else I might post, about normalization of circumcision to the point where almost half of all boys in North America see it done, even now, or that almost 1/5 of boys in the UK see it by parental decree, would be wasted against a wall of extremist, exclusionary thinking. I don't personally support circumcision, but can easily understand how someone might, given its prevalence. I'll give you this, you're com…
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:03 PM
7

milo is not an mra and doesn't help men's rights. He's not solely an MRA, no, but he definitely talks often about how men get shafted. Even if he's not full bore, he's definitely sympathetic. sure he is still pro-circumcision. and very adamant about it. So ... we have no room for divergence of opinion in the Men's Rights movement? Surely if someone came along and agreed with 90% of what we said we'd allow him or her into the fold and not necessarily begrudge the 10%, wouldn't we? We'd have to be…
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:33 AM
1

Serveral of the publishers existing authors have criticised the deal including Tim Federle, Rainbow Rowell, and Danielle Henderson. Of course they have! What bloody good is a pulpit that you have to share with someone whose opinions you don't support?
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:27 AM
1

And miss the fun of mocking your poor skills? NEVER, I cry, NEVER!
/r/MensRights02/01/17 05:20 AM
8

Why would they include war in the UCR? It's a summary report of all the reported criminality to the nation's police forces.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:20 AM
3

Good lord ... a) If you had a toddler (I know you don't), would you just sit there and let that toddler hit you, hit other adults, hit other people? Of course not. If it was someone else's kid, would you continue to hang around with those parents if they just let their kid strike you with impunity? Of course not. So ... why are you giving your wife more leeway than you'd give a child? b) Patient of mine said the very same thing, thinking he'd never get hurt. Then he got a steak knife in the thig…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:49 AM
4

No, seriously, just get better at it. You have no excuses for this piss poor of an effort. Aim for vaguely plausible first before working your way up to reasonable. I don't want you pulling a humanity muscle by going too far, too fast. Leave it to the pros is another option, of course.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:24 AM
12

Get a better hobby than trolling? You really suck at it.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 04:51 AM
20

You're struggling with the concept of equality and egalitarianism. I don't even think you have the terms right. Equality of opportunity is 100% fair, as the door is fully open to everyone in society. That access doesn't mean you'll succeed at it, given the wide variety of performance and ability in our culture, but you have that open door. To me, this sounds like what you refer to as egalitarianism. Equality of outcome, however, forces parity for results, not parity for access, and that bumps up…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 07:43 PM
0

Anger is frightening, period, but male anger can be really frightening because of their size. Watch two large men have a fist fight and marvel at the kind of damage they can do to themselves and their surroundings. I'm never surprised that smaller people are frightening by these large blokes showing extreme anger. While it's normal for humans to express anger, it's neither pleasant nor particularly necessary to experience except in specific contexts. That being said, you don't learn to control o…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 07:22 PM
68

Protip for the author: paragraphs with more than one sentence. Fucking hell do I hate this modern style of writing where every sentence gets its own dedicated line, there's no real structure to the thinking, and it's like a numbered list where someone forgot to number. Otherwise, bang on.
/r/MensRights30/12/16 04:30 AM
1

For example... She could win 50 mil in a lottery and I'd still be legally required to pay. This would only happen if the judge in question was a total and utter fuck up. Even if you didn't have the kids for any time at all in a month, and she had full custody, a judge would have to be a total idiot to levy a CS order on behalf of someone with 50M in the bank. The assumption is that you negotiate first and only hit court after you cannot remedy your own situation, and that judge is going to ask w…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 04:08 AM
1

Yeah, you need to go back to court. You have the kids less than 40% of the time, which would normally mean you'd be paying child support, but any application for a CS order when there's shared custody would normally see both incomes get reviewed, lifestyles examined, cost of living examined, and with this vast of a discrepancy in income, literally three times the value, the odds of it defaulting to the amount in the provincial or federal tables is near nil. Think of it from a perspective of 50/5…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 04:06 AM
9

In my opinion, if you survey your population and find that more men are comfortable dating an unemployed woman than the other way around, that the overwhelming majority of May-December romances that involve a wealthy December typically have a female May, etc. you're going to see a greater percentage of female perps running scams like this. Is that men's rights? Arguably. Hypergamy is part of the general constellation of behaviours that men face in our society, after all.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:19 PM
2

Absent the practice, there is no ethical question to argue. You're kind of missing the point. You can attack the specific practice if you want, but if you do and win, you'll have only ended that specific practice. If you attack at a higher level, that of consent to medical treatment, you don't just end this specific practice, you also end any other medical practice done for frivolous reasons on our too-young-to-consent children. So, for example, by battling for that gateway, you could make an ar…
/r/MensRights24/12/16 06:49 PM
7

He's coming at it from the wrong direction. The basic questions are: a) was it medically necessary? b) was it consented to by a competent, majority aged patient? Are all you need. If both are 'no', that surgery shouldn't happen.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 03:02 PM
1

Just look at health care spending and where it gets allocated in your country. Virtually every western nation sees vastly more money spent on women's health issues than men's, even if those causes have similar lethality. Compare prostate cancer with breast cancer, for example, and you should find that they kill similar levels of people every year, but prostate cancer gets a fraction of the research funding that breast cancer does, has vastly fewer organizations raising money privately, and sees …
/r/MensRights24/12/16 02:49 PM
7

Or we can see how this case was turned into a cause celebre by the SJWs and used as an exemplar for "rape culture" because it fit their predetermined metric of Ivy League perp and supposedly light sentence ... but ignored that thousands of people faced similar court cases that day that didn't get the press, didn't get the calls to have the judge fired, etc. The public went off the rails with this one, clearly, turning it into much more of a torch and pitchfork brigade than anything. Celebrating …
/r/MensRights23/12/16 06:31 PM
2

Ummm, I pretty much admitted this with my post.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 11:04 PM
19

But of course they neglect to mention that while some men abuse the system and use it to their advantage, some women abuse the system and use it to their advantage, too, and get fraudulent restraining orders just to start the narrative of their ex-partner as the abuser. Trust the Guardian not to want to find the truth of the matter, but to find a specific truth they want to advance.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 04:42 PM
12

The fact is that in every one of those brackets, there's: a) more women that leave those fields altogether and stop working. b) more women working part-time or reduced hours. c) more women that take sabbaticals, LTD, STD, and virtually every form of time off. So, with all the extra zeros factored in for those non-workers, and all the reductions for being generally far less productive ... they earn less. What a surprise.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 04:38 PM
11

With male physical advantages, women being as talented or skilled as the top men is an impossibility in most sports. Do we acknowledge the best women in their sport for how well they perform relative to other women or do we compare them solely to men? I'm a HUGE supporter of women's soccer, and while I can acknowledge that the top women's players would struggle to break into Div 4 teams in England, for example, and women's national teams are regularly beaten by rep teams made of teenage boys, su…
/r/MensRights22/12/16 04:29 PM
3

I kind of agree, but there's this implicit notion that diversity is a strength in and of itself, but that's no better than contextual or even myopic. Will dating, same sex competition, and sexual behaviour increase in a mixed workforce? Absolutely. What are the costs of that to the company? Will language, ethnic and social friction increase in an ethnically diverse workforce? Absolutely. What are the costs of those to the company? The sell job of "multiple viewpoints is strength" is just a sell …
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:24 PM
2

The number one con? They don't actually fix the problem. The problem is almost always engagement. Women in politics? There's 7-8 candidates that are male for every candidate that's female ... no surprise there's more male MPs, Congressmen/Senators, etc. Women in business? Most western nations see 3-4 times as many male entrepreneurs as female entrepreneurs. No surprise, then, that there's more male executives, board members, etc. Slapping some quota on the back end isn't fixing the problem for a…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:21 PM
9

Insert chivalry into society so men will care for indigent women. Women laud chivalry because it makes them feel special and valued, long after chivalry ceases to be a necessary social force. After hearing women still laud chivalry, ordinary men try it a lot, thinking that it must still work. Ordinary men find out that chivalry is only part of the equation and that getting laid or getting a girlfriend requires more than just being chivalrous. Often, it requires something the man cannot provide, …
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:22 PM
3

Or he is trying to limit the social penalties of a process that threatens to have some. Why would the school even offer to make details of an ongoing case public?
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:03 AM
7

Would we? In most jurisdictions, fingering someone would be one of the mildest sexual assaults, one that would typically see a shorter sentence. Here in Canada, it would have been Summary Sexual Assault, with a maximum term of 18 mos, and an average of six months. With no prior record and some evidence that they left the party together, I do not think he would have seen a significant sentence up here, either. The case became a cause celebre, but we don't sentence based on how high the public thi…
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:59 AM
2

So, a gendered insult from history is resurrected to label someone looking to make language in bills and in committee titles gender-neutral. What a coincidence.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 05:48 PM
2

Sounds like a pretty selective reading of history, to be honest.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 06:03 AM
2

I've said this before in here, too ... A lot of hay gets made comparing 2015 era transgenderism to 1960s era homosexuality. Both had high suicide rates, both had all kinds of maladaptation issues like drugs and alcohol, risky sexual behaviour, etc. The general feeling is that just like homosexuality was removed from the DSM manuals because the bulk of its issues were social and a result of stigma, that at some point gender dysphoria will be able to be removed as well. The problem with this think…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:50 PM
4

If the rats have legal backing, societal backing, and all sorts of resources willing to fight on their behalf, you might very well consider moving to get away from Rat Town and its idiocy.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:41 PM
0

You're definitely in the minority if you don't think regarding women as inferior to men falls within the purview of misogyny. Hence the "everything is misogyny" effect I referred to earlier, and thus the term effectively becomes meaningless, because it transitions from actually meaning a specific effect, to a specific degree, towards being just some meaningless slur that gets tossed around and slapped on every possible situation. It is already getting to the point where it's being used dishonest…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:38 PM
6

Funny story. Waiting for the bus in a group of people. Bus stops right in front of a woman I see at that stop every day. She isn't ready, because she's been reading the paper, and fumbles for her pass. I have mine ready, and step into the bus ahead of her. "Women board the bus first in Canada." "This isn't 1950 and this isn't Mayberry. In the Canada we live in now, we're all equal." "I'll bet you don't have a girlfriend." "As a matter of fact, I'm married." I spoke to the female driver before ex…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:10 AM
2

This isn't relevant. For one, our dimorphism is only situationally or contextually reduced vs. other species. Our size gap, for example, is vastly narrower than female vs. male spiders, but right in line with male vs. female swans. That it's smaller than some size differences in nature, maybe even most of them, doesn't change the fact the size difference actually exists, and this has real world impacts like clothing costs, space requirements, weight tolerances, etc. Reduced =/= gone. And in some…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:58 AM
2

Men are simply larger, overall, and that means longer limbs, on average, but also longer torsos, on average, and in addition to having a longer torso, men collect more muscle mass in the top part of that torso, in the chest and shoulders, than women do. Even if you leave out the legs, our cog is still higher.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:45 AM
1

Wow. Alright, keep telling yourself that, dude. I will. I know the common trend is to slap the term misogyny on everything and try to widen the definition beyond all recognition, so everything is misogyny, but there's actual definitions for these words. I most definitely will continue to use the real definitions rather than the emotionally inflated versions. Thinking that men are better than women is garden variety chauvinism: excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:10 AM
10

I just lost one of my longest running friends. She dropped some crack about having a problem with "too much testosterone" and then just ghosted. 22 years of friendship vanished into thin air. The last time I saw her, she could barely look at me and asked me outright if it was true that there were virtually no men's shelters in Canada. I offered to show her on my phone, right there and then, what the shelter situation was in Alberta to give her a snapshot. A lot of these people have been living t…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:27 AM
0

I've seen people on this sub literally argue that women are inferior. That's chauvinism, not misogyny. You can still love, cherish, adore, pander to, care for, and even respect someone who you feel is your inferior. Chauvinism =/= hatred. Regardless, this is the rarity, not the rule, and is generally frowned upon in here. It's certainly not happening often enough that it's a "faction", and it sure as fuck isn't deserving of the degree of vitriol you tossed out about Infowars, conservatives, etc.…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 12:34 AM
1

I have not used extreme positions at all Nah, this isn't extreme at all: "uninformed, Info-Wars-reading, hyper-conservative jackasses that make so much noise on this sub." And this doesn't sound like concern trolling AT ALL: "we need to start getting our shit together and distancing ourselves from the factions within the MRM that are pretty much just straight-up misogynists—because they do fucking exist, people" Sell it somewhere else. The faction you're railing against barely even exists, here,…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 05:50 AM
4

Cue the "concern troll" trolling. I've been here for pretty much as long as the sub has existed, with multiple accounts because I change mine out roughly every year, and my take on it is clearly different than your own. The visible misogynists get down voted religiously, most of them are clearly trolls looking to piss in the pool to begin with, and the vast majority of discourse is perfectly reasonable. Nobody thinks the MRM is a bastion of purity, nor do they think misogyny doesn't exist. The v…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 05:38 PM
2

People will die because its shift work. Everything else has less impact. You seem to be discussing deaths among the firefighters themselves. I'm pretty confident that the lives people are referring in here are to the victims affected by the fire. It's not the firefighter, with their safety gear, air mask, team full of people to help, etc. that is truly at risk, it's the civilians without those protections, right? Your best aren't signing up to be firefighters. How is this at all relevant? The ma…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 05:26 PM
3

They didn't water down the standards, so at least if the standards are reasonable you'll get the same baseline treatment, but they consciously gave female applicants statistical preference, which is totally fucked. Take the top 120 applicants, and if that happens to be men ... so be it. People's lives are on the line and your little stunt didn't make your process any more gender blind than it was, it made it hyper gender focused. For the life of me, I can't figure out why forcing industries to s…
/r/MensRights15/12/16 09:23 PM
2

I'm totally with you, man. When I'm not voting the NDP to end a 44 year conservative dynasty in my province, I'm voting Liberal because the MP for my riding is a really decent dude that I used to go to university with. I'm pretty progressive, but I'm an MRA and I'm firmly against the anti-social methods and irrational stances of social justice, so that marks me for life as Alt-Right in many people's minds.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 06:07 PM
1

Actually, I kind of liked Finn being in maintenance. If this were a movie about ordinary military, I would agree. There's many more support staff than fighters in most armies, so let's have the odd movie show that reality. Nevertheless, this is an elite unit of soldiers taken from their parents and programmed from birth to be soldiers that don't even have names, so we're not talking the norm. We should be seeing Kurt Russel's emotionless, hyper-efficient "Soldier", not a temp sanitation engineer…
/r/MensRights15/12/16 02:41 PM
6

I had a long discussion at Heatstreat with some kid over TFA because I argued that Rey was a blatant Mary Sue. He pointed out that if you combine the character novelizations, the children's books, and the film together, a lot of the non sequiturs get ironed out. Finn being listed as working in maintenance? All Stormtroopers were assigned menial jobs to give them humility. Rey can speak tons of languages and pilot a ship? She's rigged up the computers in the downed AT-AT to teach herself language…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:31 PM
2

There's schools that have lead it, sure. U of Wisconsin or U of Vermont come to mind, but the big driver for it was the adoption in the LGBT community, largely in Tumblr, that pushed it over the edge. Without that adoption in the niche, it would have gotten nowhere.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 03:28 PM
3

Because she wasn't? She has a history of domestic violence, clearly married someone worth a lot more than she was, clearly recorded him while drunk and attempting to goad him into something, clearly asked for money several times higher than what she'd earn in a year herself for her 13 month marriage ... this was in the cards from minute one. I won't go so far as to say it was planned, but it was always on the table of possibles.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 12:42 AM
3

You're missing the point. It normally expands from niche use to general use naturally, when it does (most of the time it dies off), and is not rammed in via legislation or mandated institutional use. We've never seen terms leap from a niche right past the general public into regular government usage, let alone in the kind of truncated time frame we're talking about, here. Tumblr has only seen them in the last 5 years or so. We're seeing governments like my provincial government (Alberta) bring t…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 11:27 PM
1

It’s a standard practice It's standard practice in a few small niche communities like academia and Tumblr users. Outside of those, most people haven't even heard of this practice.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 10:05 PM
1

Does it work fine? They is a firm plural in normal usage, and is an implied plural even when used as the proverbial "they". It's referred to as proverbial because it's referencing truths that are largely held to be self evident, so it's more than one person that would see the basic value of the phrase. As an example, the phrase,"They don't know what they are talking about" still implies the person PLUS anyone that thinks like they do, not just that person alone.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 10:01 PM
5

I didn't say that N.A. had only 340M people, I said it had 340M people that primarily speak English. With the gender being handled by articles and nouns in Spanish, there's not really all that many third person pronouns to begin with, let alone special gendered varieties.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 09:51 PM
2

Yeah, no. General usage drives language, not specialized usage in a tiny niche, and we're talking a tiny minority of the English language speakers in North America driving the adoption of these terms. Even if every last Tumblr user was on board with these terms, we're talking 23M people, tops, out of 340M people in North America that primarily speak English. Nice troll, though. I give you a solid 9/10 for smugness and patronizing attitude, and an 8/10 for the implication of unreasonableness. Nor…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 08:32 PM
13

Exactly the situation I was thinking of when reading this post. Not only is there a Canadian doing this in reverse, but she's blogging about it. Something tells me she won't face several charges of petty theft because of her behaviour, though.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 03:09 PM
289

20 years from now, we're going to look back at how a bunch of invented bullshit made its way from teenagers on Tumblr into the halls of academia and government in only 3-4 years, and we're going to start unpacking how the current crop of politicians and professors were the vectors. Popularity and catering to the mob rather than reason.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 02:39 PM
3

Any parent that contemplates socially engineering their children to counter what they perceive to be broad movements within society has most definitely allowed ideology to trump basic listening. But they don't care. I deal with kids on a daily basis that have been rammed into religion, rammed into politics, rammed into lifestyle choices, rammed into ideological camps, and by the time they hit their teens are a total freaking mess. Almost every parent who has a kid dealing with my organization ju…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:52 PM
3

Brought to you by the makers of Barbie®, Mattel Inc.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:37 PM
1

You don't think there were abundant legal discussions about Google Glass? Come on, there's a bevy of those kinds of conversations only a Google search away. In the US, there's no universal yes or no, because the states have so much sway on privacy legislation, so the best advice is still to read up what your specific state allows.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:35 PM
10

There are no rules if you are a boy, as long as you have no acne, are younger rather than older, aren't overweight, aren't bald, submit to boy bands where someone writes the music for you, etc. She's dreaming if she thinks there aren't standards for men in the modern entertainment industry.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:27 PM
1

This is tough for me to believe. Not because it doesn't happen, but because you vacillate all the way through this to the degree you seem to be able to identify her. You use, for example, "someone" because you clearly don't have a clue who that someone is, but further down you say, "Despite the fact she was found to have sexually harassed her own mentees", which implies that you definitely know her well enough to know what position she holds, that it involves mentees, and what disciplinary steps…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:01 PM
2

I'd just as soon do it overtly. Haul out the phone, start up the camera, and make it clear it's all being recorded. That alone will end many of the issues.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:30 AM
1

The enormous gap between the rhetoric and the reality. On paper? Equality. When you follow the dollars and the time? Promotion of women above all else.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 03:30 AM
2

One of my friends from HS was his stand-in for Legends of the Fall, smoked weed with him on a semi-regular basis during filming, and said he was a really funny guy. Dumb as a post, but really funny.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 03:28 AM
2

The red flag for me is that they chose names intentionally for their ability to identify race and gender, rather than a random selection of names from people of the actual race and gender they sought to measure. They aren't measuring the real effect, but the intentionally maximized effect. It's like trying to measure how people respond to wealth cues by building a list with Thurston Howell III, Adeline Kincaid-Worthington, Bartholomew Saxon Jr. vs. Bubba Wilson, Jim Bob Huggle and Jeb Tuckett. I…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 03:25 AM
2

I urge you to look at the various studies that have been done over the years measuring public perception of crime severity. There's been several, and all of them found the same general trend: a) Exact same crime, female victim vs. unnamed victim? Considered 30% more severe, on average. b) Exact same crime, female victim vs. male victim? Considered 50% more severe, on average. In fact, in some studies (see Wolfgang from 1985), women are the highest rated victim group they measured, higher than se…
/r/MensRights11/12/16 04:29 PM
1

My impression of academia isn't that it's becoming a bastion of communist/Marxist thought. And you don't consider social justice to be similar? It's a modern offshoot of social democracy, which is an offshoot itself of socialism, after all. They don't have to be openly advocating killing academics, collective farms and forcing everyone to one economic class to be selling something VERY similar to Marxism, but with another angle. Look at social justice policy in action - quotas, affirmative actio…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 07:19 PM
2

That being said, it's from 1989, and as such, not really all that up-to-date regarding the present populace. Of course it isn't. I included it to show precisely how long the discussion about rising Marxism in our professors has been going on, in this case at least 27 years. But you fail to note that the article mentions that this in the context of the overall trend of people moving away from Marxism: That's kind of irrelevant. The fact that our universities are so much higher in self-rated Marxi…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 07:01 PM
7

People have been talking about the rise of self-avowed Marxists on Canadian and US campuses for a long time, and with 18 percentage of social scientists, give or take, self-identifying as Marxists on US campuses, we're talking a percentage in schools that is considerably higher than the percentage of self-described Marxists in the general population. It's pretty tough to argue that it isn't happening when surveys show people telling you outright that they are Marxists. I'm pretty damn progressiv…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 04:12 PM
72

Unbelievable. 300M for two years? She has to be the highest priced prostitute in history. What did she think, that one of the longest confirmed bachelors in Hollywood, who is in his mid 50s, would be a prime candidate for children? For fuck's sake, she is 38 herself, and at the end of her safely fecund period. Who, in this context, goes in expecting or even demanding, to raise a family? George, you got fleeced. Just tell everyone, repeatedly, that you got fleeced. Keep repeating the numbers: 300…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 02:19 PM
40

Totally precedent setting. Now it isnt just accrued assets or deferred assets like pensions that had accrued partially during the marriage, but money not even earned yet and that will be earned totally outside the marriage or any reasonable window for alimony. Never marry, never cohabit, men. Never.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 02:16 PM
7

Freedom for women means, for some women, the freedom to cling to traditionalist roles in a world where they are increasingly archaic. Any society that simultaneously allows for the same freedom in men will allow that these traditionalists have the right to meet and marry, arrange their families as they see fit, forward their viewpoint in the body politic, and even, gasp, run for President. Either one. I feel sorry for this author that she feels so strongly about the mere existence of these peopl…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 02:09 PM
2

I personally think they were being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights07/12/16 05:57 PM
2

I think that you are overlooking that the overwhelming majority of teachers in grade school plus the big majority of teachers in High School are female, and that we have shown that female teachers are just as prone to bias and prejudicial expectations as male teachers are. What stereotypes are going to dominate discourse in our schools? That girls cannot do math or science, even though they outperform boys pretty much across the board, have female teachers everywhere, and programs and messaging …
/r/MensRights06/12/16 10:14 PM
13

Under reported to the police, but there's very few modern nations that don't have some sort of social survey that goes directly to the public and asks for that information, so it's not some vast mystery. For example, in Canada the reported sexual assault rate in 2014 was 58/100K or 20 700 reported incidents. The GSS measured 22/1000K or 2200/100K over their cumulative five year window, for a 440/100K annual average rate. So, we have a pretty good starting estimate for the under reporting rate, i…
/r/MensRights06/12/16 03:16 AM
2

It started as a satirical counter to "progressives", so I'm not sure that this blanket is as wide as you are claiming.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 03:02 AM
4

When I first watched this, I said to myself that these people HAD to be trolling. Who sits out there, impotent, in a little protest all by your lonesomes, in masks, surrounded by communist symbolism, pretending that you're at risk of violence when it's clear as a bell you're not even relevant? Who argues that Janice Fiamengo wants women not to have the vote? Who is that rip-roaring stupid or blatantly dishonest?
/r/MensRights06/12/16 02:03 AM
8

I know. Someone should point out that they are gleefully flying the colours of the old Soviet Union only a few days after the day set aside to recognize the Holodmor. Millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin? Many of their families flee to Canada and the prairies to flee his persecutions? Who cares, as long as some feminist chump in a mask gets to co-opt the revolutionary rhetoric.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 02:01 AM
2

Toronto? Civic government is getting into contract law and family law?
/r/MensRights05/12/16 02:43 PM
8

Agreed. It's not that hard to give fathers first right of refusal in any situation where the baby is being put up for adoption, but by the same token ... can we really hold those women responsible for child support if we exercise that right to raise our child? If we argue that men should have the right to a financial abortion, then so should women. If we opt to keep that child, they shouldn't get hit with a 20+ year tab they didn't want or volunteer for.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 10:28 PM
1

Well, they do confess in some cases, so I'm not sure they are fully amoral. I'd argue that in a choice between a) admitting they aren't the best students and need help, and b) pinning the fault on a nameless, faceless man so they can retain some shred of dignity, while still getting the services they need, that the choice is easy. People go to some pretty extreme lengths to avoid losing face.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 03:49 PM
2

The only wrinkle: "Relies on him to handle household finances" Every other aspect of this piece is roping back controlling behaviour, but this is ceding responsibility. She's just as much a partner in their financial success as he is, and she needs to contribute to the collective management.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 03:34 PM
3

And yet, the vast majority of women would tell their bestie to saddle up and ride off into the sunset if their bestie told them her relationship was bed dead and she hadn't had sex in months. At the very least, they'd tell her it was a make or break issue and to get a commitment from him to work on it. My wife left her husband of 17 years because they hadn't had sex in two years and she wasn't ready for that part of her life to end (her words). Notice the change in language ...
/r/MensRights04/12/16 03:26 PM
10

No, women aren't inherently lazy or unintelligent, but they definitely have measurably different priorities. I'm reminded of a Pew Study where they asked working parents, both male and female, whether they would prefer to quit their job to raise the kids full time or not. For men this figure was 19%, for women it was 61%. Why are their fewer female politicians and business leaders? That stat says everything. Lazy or not, unintelligent or not, you can't have that kind of gap in opinion without a …
/r/MensRights04/12/16 03:10 PM
2

Well, here in a frozen, snowy land, children past 12 have to have their personal choice on where they want to spend their time factor into the decision in court. Past that age, agreements stop being anywhere near as binding, and both parents have to ultimately deal with the choices of that child, however unfair and ephemeral they might seem to be, to either party. So ... I think you pulled the right card. He can call them directly, he can arrange visitation personally, and it's up to the kids if…
/r/MensRights04/12/16 02:58 PM
8

What I'd like to know is the name of the sponsor. The theatre probably would have screened it if the only complaints were individuals, but that sponsor put them over the top. That business owner deserves a bit of the same medicine.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 10:58 PM
1

How we do explain this superpower to those who cannot know? ;-)
/r/MensRights02/12/16 10:49 PM
4

The mother has legal certitude. The father does not. It's not insecurity to want a fully equal legal playing field as parents, at the outset of parenthood.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:57 PM
6

I'm of the firm opinion that you should always, always, always test. IMO, this should be mandatory, at birth, in every state and nation. You deserve an educated choice on whether to become a father, not supposition. In New Jersey, you only have a five day window after birth to ensure that you get your name on that birth certificate as the father, and to do so, you have to have both father and mother sign a document indicating that you are a parent, and aside from DNA testing, this is the ONLY me…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:52 PM
6

I wasn't disagreeing with you, either! I was just adding information to the pile, to help show how long we've had parity or near parity in Canada.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:50 PM
5

Yeah, if you are married and have been with your wife for a while there isn't really a point to getting a paternity test unless you were super suspicious she cheated on you. Sure there is. NJ implicitly considers you the baby's father at birth if you're married to the mother, but that status comes from that marriage, not any genetic contribution to that child. The paternity test will further cement the fact you are the biological father of that child. Why would you do it? Because divorce gets sh…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:47 PM
11

There's been more males overall since 1999, and it's been at rough parity since the GSS was founded in 1985, IIRC.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:38 PM
5

You do make a good point. There is a shorter career window for female actors. That being said, what are the percentage of female actors that have to do the 300 workout for half a year to even appear in a movie? Chris Pratt had no chance in hell at leading roles until he put in the time to get uber cut. Women have to be fit, but not the kind of fit male lead actors have to be these days.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:31 AM
6

I actually have sympathy for Cersei. Imagine being intelligent but with no angle to go anywhere with it because you're female. Then imagine you're essentially sold off to cement your family to the throne, and you have to live with a boor that's half the person you are. Then you are in love with your brother, and you know that for the rest of your life you will never be able to openly live as you want to AND that your kids are one secret away from death. Then, once you think you've got all that c…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 05:29 AM
1

Why does not liking capitalism mean liking the kind of outcome based thinking that you mentioned? I think people are getting confused because they think I'm implying a causal relationship, in either direction, but it's correlational. It's like the relationship between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. There's a general shared core philosophy (maximal freedom) but after that point there starts to be divergence. There's different degrees, different methods, different relative weights, etc. …
/r/MensRights02/12/16 12:53 AM
0

All I'm arguing that is that just because YOU don't see the connection between SJW talking points and capitalism, doesn't mean there aren't any. They don't even have to be expressly anti-capitalist in order to make arguments for the structure of society that make capitalism difficult or even impossible. It's like having two political parties, both opposed to a certain provision. Sure, they are different political parties, and members of each would argue they are completely different, but someone…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 09:21 PM
14

When women didn't have the vote? Voting is a VERY recent historical phenomenon in western culture, it's rise has been slow and purposeful, with lots of fits and starts, and any argument that "men" had the franchise, as a class, is total historical bollocks. It took over 1000 years to bring monarchs to heel, force them to cede some of their powers to parliaments that were originally made up of only the upper nobility, and then eventually drag in representative democracy, but even that's a real la…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 07:50 PM
9

In places, sure. Emmeline Pankhurts and her daughter, leading suffragettes in the UK, were part of the White Feather campaign to shame men into serving during WWI. In a lesser sense, look at the push for women's suffrage from the perspective of the men who also did not have the vote, which was most men in western nations at the time. In the UK, 1 in 5 men met the property and income and class restrictions necessary to vote. In Canada, only about 7% of our population could meet the income and pro…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 07:34 PM
-7

Then I'd argue you're not casting your net widely enough. What is the central belief that drives actions like quotas, affirmative action, etc. that we're seeing so often today? There's a set OUTCOME that's deemed to be desired, and so the system is forced by legislative mandate into producing that outcome. That belief is pretty much anathema to capitalist theory, which lets the markets talk and people's behaviours drive the market in aggregate. A great modern example is coders. 92% of software d…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 07:23 PM
5

Why not? A big proportion of the professors advancing this agenda (among others), self identify as Marxists, and many people have noted the marked similarity between polemic against class and polemic against social divisions. You can pretty easily slip in the old Marxist terminology, ie. proletariat for POC/LGBT/Women and bourgeoisie for Straight White Men, and the rhetoric still ultimately makes sense. The entire gestalt is about forcing a common experience on everyone in the culture, which is …
/r/MensRights01/12/16 07:13 PM
4

Intoxicated means "consent cannot be given." Just go read the Criminal Code. The specific statute is 273.1, found here. The standard is "the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;" There's no tie to intoxication, drugs or alcohol, or any other inebriant made in that statute, nor any mention of inebriation as a marker for incapacity. In our case law, actual unconsciousness has been the standard judges have used, not inebriation.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 06:46 PM
4

lol who were the people who recommended the judge's dismissal? Judges, obviously, but I'd offer up that we're talking a 5 person commission that's got to render a ruling knowing in advance what the public stance is, because they've seen the reaction already. They know, before they even read a line, let alone rule, that if they rule in favour of this judge, there will be a backlash of immense proportions in the public. THEY THEMSELVES will face calls for their own dismissal, and they know it. Thi…
/r/MensRights01/12/16 06:12 PM
8

If you were truly for gender equality you would have no problem just calling yourself a feminist. And if you were, you'd have no problem at all calling yourself an egalitarian. That you devolve to a term that explicitly contains a feminine reference and carries with it a history of an entire political movement to advance women tells me you care more about the right group membership than actual equality.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 02:05 AM
1

That last one is gold.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 02:01 AM
1

I'm going from memory, but there was a power dynamic that affected the rate, if I remember correctly. So, if there was no high status person in the room, like a supervisor, the interrupt rate was roughly equal, but the interrupt rate for men upped slightly, relative to women's, if there was someone of status around.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 02:01 AM
5

By 16, over 1/3 of boys have lost their virginity, and just under 1/3 of girls have, and the average age gap between those girls and their partners is 1.5 years, so this dude at 19 is by no means abnormal.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:20 AM
7

You did have a winner of an argument in that mess, though. If you hone your craft a bit, you could get some structure and hit some real zingers. The winner was: "Is it because they don't have someone paying for everything for them?" Rephrased this becomes: "In most western nations, almost half of all working age women work part time jobs, and another 15-20% simply don't work at all. No kidding their standard of living drops, post divorce. The vast majority of them lose the huge subsidy their hus…
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:09 AM
62

Just go right to the professor. Any TA that didn't mark to the rubric should be called to the mat, anyway, but one that deviated because of clear bias should probably be looking for another prof to mark for. I'd have his head if he did this to one of my students.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:05 AM
1

And here I got all excited because I thought there was this wicked cool dyke comic that was going to take the piss out of patriarchy theory. Now I realize it's a semi-cool dyke comic that the author is using to score cheap gender points on the Interwebs.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 05:01 AM
2

Nope, not both. If the White Knight's value is contextual, and dependent upon that context for its moral justification, then the value is not IN the person, is it? Even in your example, where a woman is truly getting assaulted, if that white knight would walk right past a man getting assaulted, but will leap in if he happens to see a pair of tits he can save, he's still an asshole, right? He's just chosen not to be an overt asshole to that specific woman, in that specific context, and it's becau…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:01 PM
1

The disease is not in transpeople See my post below. The existing research indicates there's FAR more than just social stigma going on.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:42 PM
6

One of my favourite papers I've encountered was written as a critique of philosophy, and its goal was to take the entire discipline to task for its excessive verbiage and almost purposeful attempt to separate itself from the common man and any sense of real world relevance using language as the barrier. And the critique was so inscrutable, no one except a working philosopher could read it.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 09:40 PM
1

Wouldn't you agree that there is still a difference between the feminists of old, striving for equality in for instance equal voting compared to sjw/hugh mungus type of feminists? Absolutely, but one of those differences is that the former are retired or dead, and the latter are alive and running the current face of feminism in North America. I really don't understand what point you think you're making when you're arguing about past incarnations of feminism. I can point out, for example, that hi…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:32 PM
9

Yeah, the judge's decision was nutty, but the fact remains that a man with a million pound a year business at the time trusted a "verbal agreement" with his wife in a divorce case to stand in court if and when that wife decided to challenge it. Surely, with those kinds of resources, he could have had access to a lawyer to draft a written agreement that would be a lot more binding in these situations than a simple handshake, no? Of course, my stock response still applies: don't get married, don't…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:11 PM
1

Well, the reality on the ground in North America is quite a bit different than the reality on the ground in Sweden, let's face it, and it's North America that dominates online life at the moment. For example, here in Canada we've had feminist protests against men's rights speakers that turned violent (U of T, Warren Farrell), we've had feminist dominated student's unions abuse their power to shut down nascent men's centres (Ryerson University), we've had malicious and outright deceptive campaign…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:00 PM
3

Do you think we have reached a tipping point of Western men No. MRAs are still openly pilloried in the media, the vast bulk of public spending is aimed at women or women's issues, men still pay the vast bulk of the tax load, men's issues are ridiculed for the most part by the public at large, men's centres routinely see protests and resistance, and MRAs routinely have to deal with losing friendships, family relationships and even employment because of their stances. It is the end of the beginnin…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 06:50 PM
3

I know the general argument is that homosexuality was once a disorder in the DSM, but was removed, and thus Trans can see the same transition from publicly viewed disorder to public acceptance, too. In my professional opinion, there is a profound difference between the LGB and the T in that spectra, and it's a bit of a mistake to compare the two and expect the same general outcomes. For example, look at how LGB youth see higher suicide rates if they engage in queer identity politics vs. the rate…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 06:19 PM
1

Not sure I agree that this is salient. We're talking about a choice between zero penalty other than some mild public censure vs. a financial penalty plus the mild public censure. Regardless of how big that award could be, when comparing Canada vs. the US, it's going to be 100% bigger than zero, isn't it? And from a perspective of disincentive, any monetary award at all will have a greater effect at encouraging others not to bullshit the cops than that zero, right? You don't think a 20K award wou…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 05:14 PM
1

And there's plenty more you can find if you pull your head out of the sand. And you don't see your responses as being in any way ideological, too? For example, did you know that under McKenna there will be a DECREASE in public scientists from 3500 to 3300 and the gag orders on public scientists put into place under Harper have never been lifted? The rhetoric around freeing the scientists that had everyone abuzz at the election has largely been empty. Similarly, Trudeau's public rhetoric around b…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 05:10 PM
1

If his goal is to truly reduce sexual assault, he shouldn't intentionally limit his commentary to only a subset of the victims of that crime, should he?
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:49 PM
1

Not sure why you think this wouldn't be actionable in Canada. We most definitely have defamation as a tort, and this case meets all the normal standards for it: doesn't matter if it was intentional or by accident has to be a direct attack on the person's reputation, not insinuated. has to result in clear damages has to be specifically targeted at the plaintiff, not generally it has to be conveyed to a 3rd party A possible defence is "it's the truth" in Canada, but with them specifically admittin…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:47 PM
1

I fail to see how that's at all relevant when the tweet in question clearly talks about educating boys about boundaries around women so they grow up to be respectful men. It's pretty clear that already happens, regardless of what you see on the playground.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:34 PM
9

I have a general collection of essays I've been working on around this issue, and my wife pointed out a few months ago that I've basically described a pathological syndrome of linked behaviours. I'm starting to see what she means because the same general behaviours are being repeated all over the place. What do you call it when women use social media to a significantly greater extent than men do, when women engage in signaling behaviour to a considerably greater extent than men do, when women ge…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:24 PM
1

No, it's pretty woeful. Do some research into social touching and you'll get an education on how men and women interact in courting behaviour in our culture. Overwhelmingly, it's women that indicate to the person they are with that social touching is acceptable by touching their partner first, and it's only once that barrier is broken that men feel free to reciprocate. We are, generally speaking, a remarkably polite society when it comes to respecting personal space and boundaries.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:13 PM
1

I agree to an extent, but ... We have about 50 years of research into how the public views criminal behaviour, and the trend in those studies to perceive crimes against women to be significantly more severe than the same crimes against other victim pools has been evident for that whole window. For example, the Wolfgang study in 1985 showed: man stabs his wife and kills her (severity 39.2) a person stabs a person to death (severity 35.7) a woman stabs her husband and kills him (severity 27.9) Jus…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 04:09 PM
0

Come on, man. Lying by omission is a reality. Implication is a reality. We use the old "When did you stop beating your wife" trope precisely because that kind of framing works to drive interpretation.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 03:38 PM
1

He chose his phrase poorly, but the concept is sound. The overwhelming majority of Canadian children get raised with a bevy of "respect other people" education filtered into the general acculturation process. From "use your words, not your fists" to "we don't hit other people" to "sharing is caring" to general discussion of the legality of violence, we're inundated from birth with broad based education on respecting people's limits. The parents that don't control their kids get called out really…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 03:31 PM
1

Oh, the woeful gender stereotypes in this one ... good lord.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 03:28 PM
5

The tweet is being taken in context. a) Trudeau is an avowed feminist, even proudly so, and has shown unequivocally that he's willing to shaft men specifically to advance women. 75% of the MPs in his caucus are men, but he restricted them to 50% of the cabinet seats, artificially, as a stunt. Other parties, like the NDP, have been adopting polices to actively run straight white males out of politics and replace them with POC, sexual minorities and women. That's 2/3 of our major federal parties t…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 03:24 PM
3

Anyone notice the posting trend? It's clear to me this topic was put out for tender, because there's several accounts in here that rarely if ever post in /r/mensrights, they are all posting one way, ie. this tweet is perfectly normal, feminism is just about equality, blah, blah, blah, and they've all got much higher upvote totals than we normally see in here. I'm reasonably confident this post was flagged somewhere and the usual suspects piled in to skew the normal posting. Hence the pile of Cas…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:36 PM
1

exact same thing they do You're daft man. The "thing they do" is artificially limit inquiry or rhetoric to only female victims, only female concerns, only female causes, etc. This is precisely what fighting against extreme feminism looks like in practice - making sure that victims do not get left out of the discourse by calling them out whenever they attempt to do this artificial filtering. It's doing the direct OPPOSITE of what they do.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:32 PM
1

You're flipping the onus. The onus should always be to be inclusive first, exclusive second, not the other way around, especially when we're talking federal politicians that represent 35M people as PM. Unless there's a valid reason to write legislation or policy specifically for x demographic, for example, it should be written to benefit as broad a swath of Canadians as can be managed. Trudeau's comments are just the latest in a long bevy of comments by federal and provincial politicians in this…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:29 PM
3

His posting history is pretty clear. I think it's a really safe assumption that he meant exactly what he said when he's gone to the mat on the violence against women angle so very often, made a point about being a prideful feminist, intentionally balanced his cabinet by quota, etc.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:08 PM
7

This country has only benefited from feminism. That's your interpretation, sure, but it's not like we haven't just seen news reports about the "manplaining" tip line the country's largest union just instituted and how it was flooded with men complaining about the very existence of the line, right? Sounds to me like you might be bought and sold on the product, so you're seeing it the way most people who have already invested their money and emotions are seeing it, but other people in your nation …
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:02 PM
1

What a blatant example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:00 PM
8

In theory, sure, but at least in North America, the biggest feminist organizations like NOW have been directly opposing key legislation for the Men's Rights Movement, like alimony reform, equalizing the IPV space, shared parenting, etc. It's pretty tough to argue they aren't an opposing force when they are literally and directly lobbying against your concerns.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 12:59 PM
4

Everybody should talk to their kids about consent, but it happens to be true that men sexually assault more women than the other way around. If you believe the police statistics over what people tell us when we poll them directly, sure. Victimization surveys say that this issue is a lot closer to parity than the ratio the police see in people walking in to levy a complaint. Regardless, "men do it more" is a weak justification for choosing to artificially limit the lesson to men and boys. Teenage…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 12:51 PM
8

The singular focus of the statement is men and boys, implying they are the only ones that actually need the education. We shouldn't have to intuit that girls could also benefit from this lesson, or that mothers can engage in these kinds of talks, too. Trudeau inserted the singular gender focus because he wanted it that way. We shouldn't just give him a pass for that.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 12:48 PM
2

It's my main focus of study.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 12:42 PM
6

"The next slide in her presentation she said feminazi is a mysoginist term." The best advice I can give you is to nail her often and hard to keep her to the real world definitions of terms. One of the long-running goals of feminism is to intentionally conflate feminism with women, even though only a small minority of women self-identify as feminists. They want to immediately shut down your concerns by claiming you hate women as a whole, when instead you just hate the aggressive, belligerent, nas…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 05:48 AM
4

IPV is my baby, and when he said that it was difficult to find data on this I had to shake my head. 200+ studies since 1975 and you can't find any data? Jesus ... Otherwise a good review.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 05:38 AM
2

Not quotas, no, but any attempt to haul out the fat acceptance mantra should immediately be met with a call for short male acceptance. Neither will get accepted, of course, but we can at least shut down the whining by pointing out the blatant hypocrisy right to their faces. And this also from a short man who never truly lacked for dates. Confidence goes a long, long way.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 05:12 AM
2

Because that is what this sub is devolving into, a bunch of little whiny bitches who want to circle jerk around every little anti SJW piece on the Internet instead of actual issues men are facing today. One of the issues facing men today is that SJW practices and weaknesses have so infected modern institutions that they are negatively impacting those institutions, particularly for men. This IS a men's rights issue, at its heart. I don't think you've figured out that this obsession with victimhoo…
/r/MensRights28/11/16 04:51 PM
7

I like this particular study because there's such a huge mountain of data backing it There is, but if you read the study, they still aren't being honest. It's almost as if they grudgingly admitted that there's no discriminatory wage issues in order to position their organization as the only organization that understands the "real issue", but their conclusion is still ultimately that there's discrimination in the organizations. The whole paper deals with multiple reasons, ie. headwinds, why these…
/r/MensRights28/11/16 04:31 PM
2

Regardless, it's still ultimately a non sequitur. Whether we're talking the lingering effects of a disease or disorder they are dealing with, or lingering impacts of an injury they've sustained, or lingering impacts from some traumatic event they have experienced, the onus to deal with those issues and making sure they are physically and mentally capable of attending that class and dealing with that content falls ultimately on that student. What else do these types of moves (trigger warnings, co…
/r/MensRights28/11/16 04:24 PM
24

Moderately civil? That one poster is up and down the entire conversation hammering that "don't have sex, wear a condom" is proof men have the same control over the process women have, like a broken record. Regardless, if this is a toehold, it's a tiny, tiny, tiny toehold. Every time this gets discussed in the body politic, it's a bloodbath of people hammering on men to accept their responsibilities.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 02:41 PM
1

Issue One "11 distinct dimensions of masculine norms—winning, emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, playboy, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuals, and pursuit of status." Pretty much any study that approaches masculinity using the CMNI-94 inventory is advertising to the world that they are looking to confirm negative social stereotypes of men, first and foremost, and not actually study masculinity. Self-reliance is the only positive trait liste…
/r/MensRights27/11/16 04:48 PM
1

Why? They are ideologues. Like all ideologues, they have made a largely emotionally driven choice to hyper adhere to the ideology, even when the ideology is suspect, when the evidence runs contrary, etc. They get emotional support and validation of their self-worth from those around them also in the ideology, whether they are right or not, and those social benefits generally outweigh any cognitive dissonance they may experience. Of course, cognitive dissonance is irritating, so they actively wor…
/r/MensRights27/11/16 04:37 PM
1

I was just rephrasing what you said in a way that I felt might make the subtlety of the argument clearer for someone reading, not contradicting you.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 12:04 AM
5

Or ... it's a population effect, not an individual effect, so judging individuals by the effect is both dishonest and discriminatory.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 06:01 PM
8

I respectfully disagree. We're talking about victim services, here. The entire raison d'etre of the program and organizations is to help victims of these crimes, so any move by the organizations to subdivide the victim pool and only provide services to select victims is ugly, odious, ideological crap. Put it in a parenting perspective. Your child phones you at 2am, sobbing, because there's been an incident and they have been victimized. If the first thing you ask is, "Is this my son or my daught…
/r/MensRights26/11/16 02:10 PM
5

This was just posted to Feminism yesterday, and I noted that replacing 3/10 honest male traffic cops with 7/10 honest female traffic cops might be an improvement, but is still not as good as a 10/10 honest mixed force. Only a total moron would openly cite stats, admitting they can tell the honest ones from the dishonest ones in some fashion, and then not use that information to hire only honest employees regardless of sex. Agenda clearly trumped pragmatism on this one. Oh, and I got banned, but …
/r/MensRights26/11/16 02:02 PM
1

Actually longer. I pay until next October, so my mental math was off by a few months when I made that list.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 01:10 PM
4

1) It ranged from 267/mo when I first moved home and was working retail to survive on up to 1618/mo now that I own my own practice. All told, over the last 17 years of paying, I'd estimate I've paid 250K or close to that. It's been enough that my ex has not had to work a full time job her entire adult life. Those figures are CAD, obviously. 2) No. It's the typical story of parental alienation. Tried to bribe me on day one of separation to walk away. Chucked out gifts. Chucked out letters. Delete…
/r/MensRights26/11/16 03:09 AM
7

Short version: a) severely damaged woman who was abused daily as a child. b) lonely 20 something dude who meets a) through a communal friend. c) combine the two, date for 2 years, then get married. d) she takes herself off birth control without his knowledge or consent, and AFTER discussion about waiting until there is more money to have kids. e) wedding night they get pregnant (surprise, surprise). f) 11 months later, she's kicking the guy to the curb. g) 17 years and 10 months later, I'm on th…
/r/MensRights25/11/16 09:49 PM
18

Of all the technological advances coming down the pipe, this one stokes my fire more than any other. Within my industry, the general take is that the ubiquitous supply of online porn has been an outlet valve for a lot of anti-social behaviour. Contrary to the school marm mindset where deviant sexual expression is, well, deviant, and thus must be stomped out, there could be very real therapeutic benefits to sex robots. As others have pointed out, pedophiles are much better off banging robots made…
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:14 PM
1

I totally disagree. We've known for over a century, now, about the programmability of children below the age of 10 or so. It's a pretty powerful window that can set a kid for life, or screw them up for life, alternately. While an adult has free expression and free speech rights, those have to be tempered with the knowledge that speaking to a child is not like speaking to another adult. Adults can be plenty gullible, but children take it to a whole other level. Either the process of indoctrinatio…
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:02 PM
4

Of course, it's not the male student's fault that women were born with uteruses and experience menstruation every month, nor is it their fault that government taxation has been set up to treat feminine hygiene products as non-necessities, but that won't stop campus SU police from making those totally innocent male students help pay for it on campus as some sort of fucked up version of payback.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 04:06 PM
2

Most dice games use more than one die, so the plural is almost always used in the idiom. Example usage
/r/MensRights24/11/16 04:03 PM
3

I think it's handled on a province by province basis in AUS. It is here in Canada, and we have provinces that specifically direct the police to consider the male the aggressor (BC), and provinces that are kind of wishy washy and imply they are (AB), and provinces that are generally egalitarian in their outlook (QC).
/r/MensRights24/11/16 03:26 PM
13

You could always just walk into one or more women's washrooms and empty them of all the tampons. That would only have to happen a few times before this policy would get nuked.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 06:15 AM
3

They used to have a sentence right on the download page for that report, but I see that it's now been removed ...
/r/MensRights23/11/16 05:23 PM
9

Actually, the Hay Group said that if they went further with their analysis and controlled for tenure at the position, the remaining gap effectively disappeared.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 04:15 PM
1

That may be, but if that's your take, you should down vote and move on. I'd rather keep the posts up and just ignore them or down vote them than get into the censorship business. That's what TwoX and Feminism do, not this place.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 03:49 AM
3

That's a lot of typing for a troll. You should really strive to be more word efficient and save yourself some calories. Normally, you seem to hit that sweet spot of one line zingers, but this post is atypical. You having a bad day or something? Need to vent, little buddy?
/r/MensRights21/11/16 11:00 PM
2

As Lice138 says, these statistics aren't at all problematic. The comparison point should be what percentage of the overall population is represented by whites (63%), so if the percentage is below that figure, whites are UNDER represented in the population, and if the percentage if above that figure, whites are OVER represented in the population. So, you've got two stats where white men are less likely to commit them, relative to their population (rape and serial killers) and one that's pretty mu…
/r/MensRights21/11/16 10:24 PM
3

Feminism, in theory, believes in the equality of men and women, but it firmly comes from the perspective that women are on the lower end of the stick and need to be raised to meet men. Hence the name. When it's the other way around? Crickets.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 10:11 PM
2

My thoughts exactly. If this business is incorporated, then it's a legally distinct taxpayer, and the state shouldn't be able to touch that net profit, only the salary/dividends/bonuses you pay yourself as an officer of that corporation. Once those leave the corporate structure they become personal income, but not before that point. Any money that stays in the corporation isn't personal income.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 06:02 PM
3

Donald Sutherland? It's actually a thing, you know.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 05:49 PM
2

HAHAHAHAHA ... right. Sure you are.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 03:01 PM
1

My take on objectification is that it's one of the natural results of human category based thinking. Category thinking has so many positives, but it carries with it some potential negatives in all those "isms", in that we sometimes slot someone into a category, in this case "sexy", and never go past that to them as individuals. Whether that's a negative in even most contexts is arguable. There are so many contexts where there's literally no reason to know them as an individual because there's no…
/r/MensRights21/11/16 02:47 PM
4

How did you make the leap from my contention that both original photographs showed objectification, and differences between the two were minor and quibbling, straight out of the stratosphere into "objectification doesn't matter"?
/r/MensRights21/11/16 06:11 AM
8

I think you're well into hair splitting territory. If the intent is for you to view them as a sexual object first and foremost, they are being objectified. You can quibble about degree, but it's like arguing that 100-0 is worse than 95-5 when our gold standard is 0-100 the other way. You think that tiny five point swing really matters when there's still 195 points yet to go?
/r/MensRights21/11/16 05:40 AM
13

Who cares whether you can see the profession? Clearly the calendar being referred to is a beefcake calendar intended to titillate. Even if it's raising money for some charity, they are clearly leveraging the vet student's appearance above all else. You could replace those vets with [insert random profession] and the calendar really wouldn't change.
/r/MensRights21/11/16 04:00 AM
2

Note that on that list, Bow Valley in Banff and Wheatland in Strathmore are the only shelters that will take in men at need. The Calgary Counselling Centre works with victims, but does not provide shelter services. Note also that the wording in the section about assisting men was VERY recently changed, because the 310 number listed was previously listed for use by men at risk of committing violence, not who are victims of it. My wife just finished a report on the state of affairs in AB and caugh…
/r/MensRights21/11/16 02:04 AM
1

It does stink, yes. Add up her salary (51K), the provincial base support for disabled adults (830/mo or 10K), the additional income support (3K), her child support (9.6K) and her total household income is 73.6K. If this was all salary, she'd had an average combined tax rate in Ontario of 21% and a post tax income of 58K. HOWEVER, all of those supplemental payments are tax free for her. Child support's tax is paid at source, not at destination, and the adult dependent income is filed as personal …
/r/MensRights20/11/16 05:07 PM
6

The minute there's actual contact, we're no longer talking harassment, but assault.
/r/MensRights20/11/16 04:33 PM
3

This was clearly set up as satire, to satirize the Muslim Registry Trump ostensibly proposed. Its goal is to show that a registry of white males is just as stupid as a registry for Muslims, so it's not a serious proposal. That being said, see /u/mens-advocate and his post. It's a false equivalency, so it basically fails as a satire if anyone actually starts looking things up.
/r/MensRights20/11/16 04:32 PM
1

After reading the Wiki entry, I'm totally checking this out. What a surreal topic. Any time I think humanity has shown me all it has to show me, there's a new low bar set.
/r/MensRights20/11/16 03:00 PM
10

they're not trying to selfishly only benefit themselves. Ask yourself some really basic questions: a) In their crusade against genital mutilation, what percentage of dollars and hours are committed to ending MGM vs. FGM? b) In their crusade to fix the justice system, are they applying programs just for women, or for all prisoners equally? c) Are they working with men towards 50/50 parenting, or opposing that legislaton? d) Do they support events like IMD or oppose them? e) Do they work towards g…
/r/MensRights20/11/16 06:00 AM
1

Don't know if a paternity test would help him after years of paying child support. Unless he could show intentional deception on her part to trick him, he assumed a duty of care when he agreed to those payments.
/r/MensRights20/11/16 04:36 AM
1

Most provinces in Canada allow for disabled adults to continue to receive child support, but this has always rubbed me the wrong way. It's one thing when they are children and don't qualify for a lot of the low-income or disabled adult funding available through the province, but the minute they turn 18 and start getting that provincial income assistance, child support should end. Even some of the most expensive full-time day programs run 1500 a month, and with provincial funding AND child suppor…
/r/MensRights20/11/16 04:28 AM
26

Come on, man. There are dozens of airlines that won't sit men next to unaccompanied minors. Children's restaurants and play spaces routinely block out men from attending alone (see Chuck E Cheese for an example), and dozens of social experiments have found that men are treated much more severely around children than women are. I don't have to search very far to find advice for parents to street smart their kids that openly tells kids to find the nearest woman, do I?
/r/MensRights19/11/16 08:05 PM
1

There's clearly other historical expansionist regimes, but suffice it to say, we don't speak Persian, Urdu, Turkic or Hanyu as the international trade language, and we don't trade in major world commodities like oil in the currencies of those regions, either. The colonial push from Europe spread across the globe in a way that other empires simply couldn't match. Edit: you don't consider either the Umayyad or Ottoman Caliphates to be measurably more expansionist than the Abbasids? Both almost ove…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 07:41 PM
4

Context: this piece was done by the author of From Frazzled to Fabulous: How to juggle a successful career, fatherhood, ‘me-time’ and looking good, a book that was spawned by a successful Twitter and Facebook account that regularly mocks men in tongue-in-cheek fashion. While the article is in poor taste, and most definitely belittles and demeans men and men's issues, this type of article is right in line with the type of crap produced by the artist to date. The concerning part should be that the…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 04:32 PM
15

The forgotten truth: You can't Snapchat with someone until that person has expressly accepted your invitation. While she may rue the day she let him into her life, she most definitely let him into her life.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 04:26 PM
4

While I'm glad that the G&M even ran this piece in the first place, it shows the same general trend in reporting this issue for men: no article can possibly be written without expending a decent percentage of the column inches trying to pitch why women still have it worse. If the goal of the piece is to get an unrecognized constituency recognized, but you spend much of the time arguing why they are NOT equal to the people who already have the services available to them, you're basically undermin…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 04:09 PM
1

Most historical regimes were crushingly authoritarian, with power and wealth heavily collected into a tiny fraction of the population. Any ideology that confuses the oppressors for the oppressed, the rulers with the ruled, is bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 02:41 PM
3

Yes, white people have an advantage No shit they do. The three most influential and expansionist empires the world has ever known, the Roman, the British and the American, are all of European ethnic descent. The world trade language is English for a reason. The odd thing about having discovered, designed or built most of the world's infrastructure is that you generally hold most of the capital and influence. People act like it was malice, but we were just a couple of Emperors and their xenophobi…
/r/MensRights19/11/16 02:39 PM
10

Sure it is a dick move, but we are talking about 150 dick pics over three years to a complete stranger, and this is likely not the only person he has done this to. The odds that this is someone with serious mental health issues is pretty high. Shy of waving our magical wand and vaporizing all the people with issues like this that limp along an existence in our society, what can we do? Apps provide block buttons for a reason, and if she cannot be arsed to use them because she prefers a pollyanna …
/r/MensRights19/11/16 01:48 PM
8

Here is an idea ... deal with the real world, that has millions of mentally ill people, millions of drug addicts and alcoholics, millions of people with FAS and FAD, and millions of assholes who really don't care what you want or what is moral or right, and not the utopia in your head. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need block buttons at all. In this one, we do.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 01:37 PM
2

Come on ... who do you think you're fooling?
/r/MensRights19/11/16 04:16 AM
2

You guys must understand that no western society will ever support this movement regardless of what you say. You know, if you're going to troll, you should really change up your phrasing, because you used pretty much this exact phrase the last time you tried to jump in and troll us a few months ago. As for the "no results" thing? My wife just handed in a 25 page paper on unseen male victims of domestic violence and got a 94% mark in her paralegal studies program ... from a female prof. The peer …
/r/MensRights18/11/16 06:32 PM
16

I know! I kept waiting for him to pin her with that comment. Even if you think you are right about that, and even if you feel you have some justification for making those kinds of comments, even a rank dunce has to know that if you smear an entire block of people for their skin tone and perceived "privilege", a percentage are going to get their hackles up and tell you to GTFO. Do that enough, and you'll reliably cost yourself votes. And if you're dumb enough to consciously choose to stick it to …
/r/MensRights18/11/16 06:19 PM
40

The latter, mostly. The province actively subsidizes an all-female construction company, with partnerships in the trade schools like NAIT or SAIT, PR on city and provincial property, etc. promoting women in the trades, but that company has been in existence for roughly 35 years, and has enough employees that they could arguably cover a single shift on a single oil patch project for a single company ... maybe.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 04:14 PM
53

Of course, the unsaid: Alberta as a whole, and Edmonton specifically, see a wider earnings gap than the rest of the country because it's the only province where you can semi-reliably generate jobs that can limp along the 1950s ideal of the single income household. Because that's more possible there, due to high oil-industry wages, more Albertans take that option and put it into effect. Anyone who's ever lived in Alberta knows that an oil patch worker makes triple the average wage in the nation, …
/r/MensRights17/11/16 03:42 PM
13

I have to hand it to feminists. Getting a significant enough percentage of white men to hate themselves on pretty specious reasoning is a bit of a PR triumph. They had a pretty willing constituency, motivated to please, but the sheer volume of white knights and self flagellants is impressive. Nothing is uglier than self-imposed subservience, though. My respect level for him dropped through the floor with this video.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 02:07 PM
1

Yeah, it was started earlier than the Millennials, but it didn't become ubiquitous until after Gen X, for the most part. In my practice, we do a weekly meeting to discuss patients. When we have interns, the interns do case summaries that we vet, critique and offer suggestions on so that we can get them thinking about diagnostic work, different angles for care, different theoretical approaches, etc. In 22 years of this process, we've had four total meltdowns where someone left the room crying bec…
/r/MensRights17/11/16 05:57 AM
1

Reading that article hurt me. Bottom rung tabloid style, ridiculously poor prose, random factoids all slapped together like goulash, inflammatory headline that doesn't survive the text, hearsay, etc. I'm not sure that proves anything. And, for the record, I think that anyone who believes a woman with a known history of hard drug abuse, mental illness, and turbulent relationships is frankly nuts. If the article can't convince someone like me, it's not doing its job.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 05:32 AM
6

No, we don't need women at all. I totally disagree. Have you noticed that all of our most effective spokespeople are women? Male disposability and invisibility are so far gone that we verge on the edge of inscrutability. We're so easily and summarily dismissed precisely because we're already tossed on the dump pile. It's not that far of a stretch to pour on the gasoline and light the match. Having female spokespeople forces a different frame, which totally changes the narrative. It's leveraging …
/r/MensRights17/11/16 12:31 AM
2

we can no longer be written off as misogynists Well, we did get linked with Marc Lepine and Elliot Roger in the piece, so let's not go too far in patting ourselves on the back for escaping the woman-hating smears.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 12:28 AM
7

It's days like this where I wish I could take people back in a time machine. Here, hop in, and we'll go back to the banks of a small river in SW England where my ancestors lived, ca. 1200AD. When you see how all those "white men" are living in near slavery underneath the boot heel of the the local Norman lord and see what they have to live on, you'll figure it out. History be hard. You have to actually read dem books.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 10:53 PM
15

As long as there's an ex-girlfriend dummy available for exactly the same reasons, I'm game. If Blizzard has taken the usual course where stabbing a fictional dummy of a man is acceptable but stabbing a fictional dummy of a woman is not, then they are plainly sexist.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 02:26 PM
3

It's mostly griping that there's not enough inclusivity, that this will hurt them politically, and lays the fault at the feet of the rich, white, educated subminority that's controlling the narrative. So they've widened the oppressor class from rich, white males to rich, white female feminists ... in the right context ... when pressed ...
/r/MensRights15/11/16 10:44 PM
7

"The campaign is not intended to single out or add debt to all men," No, not at all. You're just asking people to call if MEN give them unsolicited lectures on things they already understand. When you have to put in provisos to pretend to yourself that your sexist program isn't sexist, you've lost.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 10:31 PM
1

To me the reality is self evident when we're talking millions of voters, with widely varying histories and contexts. No one argument can possibly hope to explain all that voting behavior, so it's quite likely a mix of possible motivations for each elector, and the best we can hope for is to pin down a top 4-5 that explain the primary motivations for a reasonable majority of the electors.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 04:04 PM
16

With Sweden's largest union instituting their hotline, and Sky News pulling the same kind of stunt, I honestly hope that the feminists double and triple and quadruple down on this kind of rhetoric. Nothing drives that wedge in there and separates them from rational, reasonable people more than hammering on this kind of petty nonsense. The more they do it, the more moderates slip over the line away from them.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:07 PM
1

a) No, I'm actually not. Most states don't count absentee ballots unless the gap in the regular votes is such that the absentee ballots would make a difference in the result, and those absentee ballots, being mostly active military, foreign trade, etc. typically break 2/3 to Republicans. There's enough absentee ballots just in California alone to hand the popular vote to Trump. Nevertheless, in a nation with 12M illegal aliens, there might very well be enough of those illegal aliens that cast ba…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:39 PM
1

Are they successful? The smell I get from them is that they are working as hard as they do precisely because the money isn't all that great. They self publish, for the most part, and you'd have to think that if their books were selling well they'd be getting approached by publishers and agents.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:27 PM
2

Intimidated by your words? The bullying I'm referring to is the pile of people rioting in streets across the country, not you. Your words seem to support their position, which is that they can legitimately use mob action to change the results of an election AND the process by which we determine the Presidency, literally mid election. I'm not intimidated by anything, merely pointing out that there's a process, and any reasonable, law abiding person would stick to the process rather than trying to…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:13 PM
1

"Good initiative. Judging by the comments, it seems quite a lot of men feel this is aimed at them, so it shows how much this kind of work is needed." What a raging dimwit. The entire program was specifically aimed at men, from the term to the rationale, so OF COURSE men are the ones up in arms.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:11 PM
1

I would like to see the President elected by majority vote. Fine, then work within the system, get the constitutional amendment, and going forward we'll do it the way you wish it done ... if you get that amendment passed. Constitutional amendments aren't a popularity contest you can win with Twitter, Change.org or Facebook campaigns. Ex post facto law is barred by the constitution itself, so get to work and do the real work to get the change made, not this public tantrum. Trying to bully people …
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:17 AM
2

a) Let's say what happens is that enough people sign that bullshit petition that the EC decides to vote with the popular vote. You don't think Trump will challenge voters and ferret out the people who shouldn't have voted but did? That all the absentee ballots won't get roped in and counted? The odds that HRC is still the owner of the popular vote count if this gets really ugly is actually quite low. Will the anti-Trumpers back down when she's lost the EC AND the popular vote in the end, or will…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:14 AM
2

Check the posting history. This account is used to vitriolically troll. Just downvote and move on.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:08 AM
1

So, you tacitly admit to being a wearisome pedant? Yes, yes, you do.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 02:35 PM
1

Get better at reading context and more honest in your interpretations of people's posts. Being a pedant just makes you look childish.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 05:01 AM
20

I recently had lunch with a feminist friend of mine. Fully blown Gender Studies grad and everything. We got to talking about Mad Men, which she loves to death and I've just finished. Get her talking about Don Draper and she's just about melting in the seat with the concept. I have no idea how she can reconcile the two utterly divergent worlds in her head or what she thinks she is going to find in male feminists. She sure as fuck isn't finding Don Draper.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 01:50 AM
2

Ah, nothing better than seeing a raging feminist getting hoisted by the twin petards of social constructivism and social justice. I'm sure she'll gain immeasurable wisdom by recognizing that stopping at 98% constructivism instead of the 100% constructivism Rabble clearly seems to want, still isn't good enough. Almost rabid isn't rabid, Meghan. Get to it!
/r/MensRights14/11/16 01:42 AM
1

We've had a flood of bullshit posts lately, all of them from brand new accounts or accounts that have long histories of posting in completely different subreddits and then doing a hard left into Mensrights for a quick drop off of the latest troll bait.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 01:35 AM
1

And that's part of the dishonesty. Legal innocence is not the same as childish innocence, but of course you knew that.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 01:22 AM
4

Legal majority defines adulthood in every western nation. Below that point you're legally treated as a minor. Above that point, you're legally treated as an adult. That determines CULPABILITY, not guilt. This metric I'm proposing works in similar fashion. They would be less culpable if they are below the age of puberty. But I recognize the dishonest game you're playing.
/r/MensRights13/11/16 06:06 PM
3

What makes it the first of its kind? There have been 44 more before this one, and many of those, if not all of those, have featured some serious partisanship. Some even included the assassination of the President.
/r/MensRights13/11/16 04:42 PM
5

And you don't see how you've just given yourself a semantic get out of jail free card? By saying it's unique, you've decided for yourself that you don't really need any evidence for your claim.
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:48 PM
15

Kissing someone's hand shouldn't produce this kind of result, at any age. At worst, we're talking a social faux pas, even if intentional. But a clear metric for children should be the onset of puberty. If they haven't hit it, it's likely innocent. If they have hit it, then you start looking at it more earnestly. Which is pretty much what we do when we're not losing our shit over six year old boys.
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:33 PM
2

Based on what evidence? This is an honest question ... Both Clinton and Obama saw protests, and one was threatened with impeachment and the other saw a general rise in white nationalist domestic terror organizations, but neither saw the kind of protests we're talking about here, where protests are being held to overthrow the results of an election.
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:24 PM
17

For your statement to be defensible, though, we have to aim our negative expressions at the individual. It has to be their individual words and individual actions that justify the negative statements, not some broad class they belong to like "women" or "men" or "white men". It's not the negative behavior that makes it misogyny of misandry, it's that the brush is so wide that you cannot really defend the statement in any realistic fashion from scrutiny. If the statement applies to only a subset o…
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:12 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 09:19 PM
2

Yeah, and I have decided to call out people making gross generalizations about entire classes of people that cannot possibly survive any reasonable scrutiny.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 09:18 PM
1

Plenty doesn't mean all. I think the phrase "impossible to prove" should really read "impossible to prove in every situation".
/r/MensRights12/11/16 04:28 PM
1

??? The law has to presume your innocence, and if you are found not guilty, has to treat you like you're innocent, but surely you can see how what a courtroom determines can be potentially out of sync with what actually happened, due to possible lack of evidence, right? Shy of being a mind reader, how can anyone truly establish innocence except in a legal sense?
/r/MensRights12/11/16 04:20 PM
1

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and you're totally honest, totally above board, and you were clearly 100% accurate in your title on your other post, too. You're a partisan hack looking to score some points. Look, I get it. You don't want to help investigate to save the lives of boys. So maybe others do HAHAHAHA! Yeah, that's the ticket. Try the shame angle and see how well it flies. You've tried misrepresentation, you've tried cherry picking, you've tried changing the goal posts, so why not this?
/r/MensRights12/11/16 04:14 PM
9

What is wrong that we have forgotten the biology and leads to women becoming sex objects and men becoming success objects? Men can't be sex objects. Yeah, you need to pare back that category thinking a bit. Humanity is just a tiny bit more variable than you're making it out to be with these simplistic, determinist categories of yours. What you're talking about are TRENDS in data, not RULES in data, but you're referring to them as if they are rules.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 04:13 PM
1

Are you a strong supporter of a cause, party or person? You most definitely are. That's what makes you a partisan. And you didn't post this to help men or boys or to point out some spot in the legal avenues around it where men and boys are being negatively impacted, you did it to take a poke at the Clinton campaign. You've cherry picked boys out of the supposed victim pool to justify your post, and now you're justifying it by saying there might be Republicans involved, too. You're clearly castin…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 03:56 PM
1

Still partisan activity. If you want to pound that political drum, there's political subreddits to do just that, but don't come in here and pretend that you aren't heavily aligned with one party and haven't been actively lobbying and posting on their behalf for a considerable length of time, then hide behind ostensibly victimized boys to justify your posting.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:30 PM
6

It's research like this that points the way to successfully dealing with underperforming boys, in my opinion. One of my major cause celebres is that there's all these ostensibly well-meaning feminists that go to a lot of effort to "help boys", but they only approach the issue from within the ideology, so they can only see the problem being fixed one way. And that overwhelmingly means the boys themselves are flawed, or if we're going to be generous, the boys are OK, but their masculinity is flawe…
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:26 PM
2

Boys are potentially being sexually trafficked and you're asking me what this has to do with men's rights? It is a total stretch to argue that because boys are possibly or even likely part of this claimed pedophile ring that this constitutes a men's rights issue. You're clearly bent on pounding on Clinton and that's clearly your primary motive. It's plain as day that you couldn't give a fig about men's rights except when they are useful for your agenda. Your posting history is a litany of partis…
/r/MensRights11/11/16 08:08 PM
3

I love how she openly admits in the comments to censoring all the "MR types" and filtering them down to just one example, and summarily dismisses their position as juvenile thinking. She clearly doesn't understand that she's wanking away intellectually and that while she's convinced herself of her own brilliance, there's important repercussions for this kind of thinking in the real world. Arguing from pragmatism and a neutral standard that's not based on personal perception isn't juvenile thinki…
/r/MensRights11/11/16 06:15 PM
1

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights11/11/16 04:53 PM
18

Nice editorial headline. The emails talk about making a FAKE Craiglist ad as a humorous way of pointing out Trump's supposed misogyny and sexual harassment of his staff. Clearly, the fake ad never came off and was kiboshed somewhere in the discussion phase. It's ugly politics, but they weren't fishing for women to go actually work for him and then falsely accuse him of of sexual assault. That's your pretty dishonest spin. This is the second anti-Hillary post you've tossed up in here, including t…
/r/MensRights11/11/16 04:51 PM
2

Some did, sure. It was a very divisive piece of legislation.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 05:17 PM
51

I wish I could give you more upvotes. Any "journalist" that willfully engages in rigging the electoral process to get a candidate in place simply because of that candidate's sex is both unprofessional and sexist.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 04:34 PM
9

Oh, the fact they are afraid of racism and sexism while making broad, unsupportable generalizations about white men isn't ironic? It's actually how they think? They don't get how hypocritical they are being ... at all? Say it ain't so. "How do I face these students who’ve just seen half of America repudiate their rights, their citizenship, their bodies, their very beings?!” Good lord, the histrionics are out on full display. Look at the quality of that victimhood plumage! The purple from the bru…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 10:31 AM
15

Yeah, I kind of get her disappointment in the state of the world, but then I remember that she was talking about a two tiered criminal justice system with a more "responsive" tier for women, I realize that we were going to have a sexist in the White House, regardless, and then I stop caring. If you don't want a misogynist in the White House you should probably stop looking and sounding like a misandrist.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 06:48 AM
2

How to date a feminist? Never stop apologizing, never stop checking in, never express an opinion without vetting it in milder form first.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 12:29 AM
15

Thought terminating clichés. That's got a nice ring to it. I'm going to shamelessly steal that description. It has a better ring to it than "conversation stopper".
/r/MensRights10/11/16 12:26 AM
9

That "unfortunate reason" is those pesky states! You don't need much of a statistical background to see how a state like NY, with its massive population, wasted a lot of Clinton's voting power in a heavily populated state she pretty much had won. Her votes were too collected regionally and more were wasted, as a result.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 09:41 PM
3

Or you could do what I did, which was to just forget the family. I moved back to my home town from across the country 18 years ago, and my siblings have been over a collective 5 times in that period. At some point, it's not worth the effort to even maintain that low grade fiction. Build your family, instead!
/r/MensRights09/11/16 09:21 PM
13

I don't know what I find more humorous: a) That you think intelligence plays much of a role in an aggregate behavior like voting. b) That you think his comments were enough to trump Republican brand voting, rebel voting, anti-Hillary voting, etc. It's almost as if people voted on "other stuff" and didn't much care, isn't it? c) That you think that most people in here were pro-Trump. Being Anti-Hillary doesn't automatically make you pro-Trump.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 04:39 PM
5

I think she misses the non-Marxist examples of female moralizing in history, like the Temperance movement, or the routine juxtaposition between the Brute and the Lady in Victorian literature, but it is a fine post indeed!
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:51 PM
32

Did they vote against her because she was a woman, or because she so shamelessly played the woman card, pretty much called people sexists if the were not voting for her, made several sexist policy promises like a responsive justice system for women, and made idiotic statements like women being the primary victims of war? It would be pretty hard to find a candidate that did more to turn off male voters.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:28 PM
1

I think he means "proof of cult", as in "this is proof of the victim cult".
/r/MensRights08/11/16 11:05 PM
31

The woman testified against the guy in his earlier trial and got a favourable plea bargain on her own case as a result. Of course, the reverse is rarely if ever offered, so women selling out men for reduced sentences effectively turns into a generalized sentence discount for women only.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 09:31 PM
14

And yet those boys overwhelmingly go right back out into society, don't commit crimes and have proper, functioning relationships with women. Oddly enough, people joke around a lot and what they joke around about generally has nothing to do with what they do in polite society. Everyone in that group knew it was all just ribbing, except for the lone white knight that decided to be an a-hole and turn a private conversation public. If I was in that group, the first thing I'd be doing is finding out …
/r/MensRights08/11/16 08:13 PM
7

http://archive.is/RXZVF
/r/MensRights08/11/16 08:11 PM
3

Why are rape 'victims' anonymous anyway? Because, try as we might, we can't get past the notion of women as fragile flowers that need coddling and protection because of that fragility. Ergo, a man beaten to within an inch of his life and who spent months in a hospital and a year in therapy to plug back into society can be named when he finally goes to court to face his attacker, but a women who had her breast grabbed on the tube can remain anonymous.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 06:00 PM
2

OK, at least I know what you're talking about, now. But I still disagree with your contention. Read that line again from the perspective of a) the author knowing that women didn't own property or earn income during these periods and were 100% dependent upon men for sustenance, and b) that because of this, most women wrote and performed music as a pastime, not a vocation, and c) male musicians didn't have the luxury of someone else paying the bills, so they were measurably more prolific in both v…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 04:46 PM
2

I hereby diagnose Reggie Bush as having Zero Self Preservation Syndrome. Reggie, Reggie, Reggie ... you could screw literally any woman on the planet while keeping all your cash, and all you'd have to do is get a vasectomy and never, EVER cohabit.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 04:32 PM
2

I didn't read anywhere in that piece a contention that women cannot do what men have done, anywhere. She clearly associates male risk taking with the fact there's more male CEOs, inventors, etc. Unless there's a social lock on risk taking, that doesn't preclude women from being just as productive as men typically are. It's very clearly due to risk assessment and tolerance and not something inherent to men at birth. Edit: in addition, this is a DEFENSIVE piece. She's responding to Michael Moore's…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 04:26 PM
7

It's not that women can't do these things, it's that they currently are NOT doing them, and historically have NOT done them. I always use infrastructure in my examples on this topic, because it's salient. Every building is designed, built and maintained by men. Every roadway is designed, built and maintained by men. Every sewer system is designed, built and maintained by men. Every vehicle from trains to trucks to cars to motorcycles is designed, built and maintained by men. The Internet was ove…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 04:21 PM
2

I'll use the novel allegory. About 1 in 10 people want to write a book and become a best selling author. About 1 in 10 of the people who want to write a book, actually start one. About 1 in 10 of the people who start a book, finish it. About 1 in 10 people who finish a book get it published. About 1 in 10 of the books that get published sell well enough to make money. About 1 in 10 of the books that sell, sell well enough to make you self sufficient. About 1 in 10 of those books sell well enough…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 04:11 PM
1

It's a valid point, yes, but the context is that he's in a Men's Rights subreddit telling them to be mindful of the Us vs. Them mindset when this is the demographic that's currently ignored or derided. We're a long way from having to mind it, because we're in no immediate danger of tipping the scale, are we? If he was in lecturing twox or feminism about having tipped the scale so heavily in their direction, I'd honestly respect the statement. But here? He's just being a concern troll.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 03:56 PM
6

How many frigging posts are we going to get on the same general topic of "feminists are actually really nice"! Come on ... We're only a few months away from having seen NOW oppose shared parenting in both Florida and Missouri, so the biggest feminist organization in the US is standing square in the way of 50/50 shared parenting ... and then this article says men haven't "kept up" by shifting to the domestic front? When you slag on men from both angles, by blocking fair parenting AND by nailing t…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 05:38 AM
9

Jesus, man. You can't admit in public to being an MRA without costing yourself relationships and possibly your job, while universities and governments throughout Canada and the US are falling all over themselves over rape culture. Juuuuust a tiny bit of a difference in influence, there.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 05:16 AM
6

Because I can't differentiate between the elite in the world, that mostly happen to be men, and the rest of the 3.5Bn men on this planet that have no power at all beyond their vote ... if they even have a vote ... if they even get enough to eat. When half the goddamn world lives in less than $2USD a day, there's a shit ton of men living in abject poverty, but I'll just ignore those guys. Because I really don't have the foggiest about actual history, and I'm working from fabricated history, becau…
/r/MensRights08/11/16 03:18 AM
6

Well, a perfect storm of one person going bananas, mostly. Half the posts are that one woman.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 03:07 AM
3

Privilege is just the old concept of original sin, stolen from the Catholics and put into a feminist wrapper. Anyone who tries to sell you the notion that your skin tone, sex or sexual orientation grants you automatic benefits is so blinded by identity politics and category thinking they are essentially admitting that they don't see you as an individual, anymore. Context? What the fuck is context? Uh ... context is what separates the mentally ill, straight, white male that sleeps in the vestibul…
/r/MensRights07/11/16 10:39 PM
11

This, to my eye, is naïve. NOW is the biggest feminist group on the planet, and NOW routinely opposes the very 50/50 presumption you list, in virtually every state it gets tabled. In that very real case, it most definitely IS MRA vs. feminist, because that organization is in direct opposition to the stated goal. We can all sing kumbaya and pretend we're all happy and friendly, but NOW's statements on this topic are full of mischaracterizations and fabrications, so they are even willing to get in…
/r/MensRights07/11/16 06:48 PM
3

If the continuing body of evidence showing the men suffer from sex crimes at a rate roughly equivalent to women becomes too big of a pile of evidence to deny, then perhaps you'll be right. But at the present time? The entire rationale for the extension is because of the rape panic we've got going on, and that's firmly male perp, female victim in all its messaging. If men benefit from this, it will be by mistake, not intention.
/r/MensRights07/11/16 05:47 PM
1

What you call ideologues, I consider them the blind tools that are being used. I think the ideologues are the ones that are the manipulators, and the ordinary rank and file people who really don't pay attention to things before they latch on are the ones being manipulated. I don't think my interpretation is all that far apart from yours, actually.
/r/MensRights07/11/16 02:39 AM
6

It's hard for me to respond to this and not come off angry or insulting, so here goes ... a) Did you honestly expect to come in here and drop the primary tenet in feminist thought about masculinity - that it's flawed/limited/broken and needs to be fixed - and not be as blatant as if you were wearing a neon sign? It's hard to even reach this conclusion without tossing all the other angles and aspects of society that affect men in the toilet as possible or probable causes. b) When we have 30+ year…
/r/MensRights06/11/16 09:10 PM
6

I'll admit the title threw me off. Perhaps: "Mankind Initiative gets no government funding, is forced into drinking-based fundraisers to survive. Please donate."
/r/MensRights06/11/16 05:58 PM
11

I was you, about four years ago. Now, after having a parent accuse me of impropriety in my business, an act that had me in front of my association proving my innocence with video because all my sessions are recorded, I am no longer that naïve.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 03:26 PM
1

I own my own practice, and work to insulate my business and my family from my online commentary. I honestly don't think I would even be on Reddit if I worked for someone else. Oddly enough, though, promoting self reliance, strong self esteem, responsibility for one's choices, etc. is swallowed a lot more easily in individual therapeutic sessions than it is when you suggest it globally. Get someone alone in a room and you can talk to them about why they chose Sociology, when they know it doesn't …
/r/MensRights06/11/16 02:12 PM
2

The difference is that SJW is, by definition, defined by behavior, not characteristics. Generalizing to a group of people because they happened to have [insert random characteristic here] is illogical and overwhelmingly unsupportable, but if they all engage in the same behavior, and that behavior is what drives your definition, there's no generalization going on ... at all.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 02:02 PM
5

There's definitely a political angle, too. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the fact there's some concerted ideologues out there that believe, and believe hard, because that's what ideologues do. The panic only helps them latch on and sink in, too, because once the panic has a life of its own, and organizations are falling all over themselves to cater to the fear, the ideologues rise through the ranks pretty quickly. They are little better than high priests and priestesses crying doom and gl…
/r/MensRights06/11/16 05:18 AM
18

After the Tongan flag bearer came in wearing traditional Tongan dress at the Olympics, ie. no shirt, oiled up, etc. the Today Show had him do the show. The hosts just started stroking his chest and shoulders without asking him first, and it was really awkward. Linky
/r/MensRights05/11/16 10:26 PM
10

Ah, yes, the "there's more where you came from, so we can fuck with you willy nilly" argument. It's ugly when employers do it to minimum wage employees, and it's ugly when Harvard does it to students, too. Schools don't exist in isolation. They are also members of associations, get federal and state funding, have reputations in the public they want to protect. Most corporations are private, but do they care about brand and brand image? You bet they do, which means the public has leverage. I've a…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:50 PM
6

But this was extreme by accident. The damage was caused by the pavement, not the punch, and I pretty much guarantee you that the man didn't intend to hospitalize her in any capacity.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:43 PM
9

This is genuinely misogynistic bullshit that doesn't belong here. She assaulted him, visibly. The days are coming to a close where men just sit there and take the beating because the one doing it is female. You shouldn't almost die for taking a swing Of course not, but the reality is that we're all one slip away from dying because of a brain injury, and if you engage in violence and strike someone, you've pretty much immediately ramped up the risk that you'll experience that kind of injury. She …
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:42 PM
12

Harvard can have standards, but when that standard would turn pretty much your entire student body into criminals, it's probably time to rethink the standard a bit. At bare minimum, modify the punishment so it is a misdemeanor rather than a crime. It's not all that different from drinking or pot use. Sure, you can go hard ass on that stuff as a school, but the harder you go, the more you're going to drive students away from your campus.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:14 PM
44

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. We like to think that the ONLY economy in play is the one where we exchange money for goods and services. That's never been true. We also have an economy of attention, validation, and social esteem that has always been here, chugging along, right beside the more traditionally viewed economy. And the characteristics of this secondary economy are: women plug into it far more than men do. the lower your education level, income level, and self-rated happ…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 09:04 PM
23

I don't think the opposition to this decision revolves around a belief in discriminatory practice at the school, ie. Harvard allows female athletes to engage in this practice but comes down on male athletes. It's a more general argument to sanity. Men and women routinely objectify each other, and that's essentially part of how humans think. We're never getting rid of category thinking, so let's just accept that before we know someone, that we tend to slot them into categories based on their appe…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 08:34 PM
10

I would hardly call circumcision a mutilation. Why not? We routinely refer to "mutilation of the body" around piercings, scarification, etc. and that still retains pretty much all the functionality of the body and only affects the appearance of it. Certainly it's removing tissue that doesn't need to be removed, and it's most definitely doing it without the consent of the person affected. It's not as aggressive and intrusive as FGM, but I'm not sure the differences are so vast that one is mutilat…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 08:12 PM
27

I find all this work interesting, of course, but ultimately see the same flaw being repeated, over and over and over. We have a number of studies indicating that female teachers show ongoing, repeated bias against male students, but yet all of the approaches to engaging boys in school are founded on changing the boys themselves. It's motivating the boys, it's challenging the boys, it's sparking the competitive instinct in the boys, etc. There's very little done to work on hiring more male teache…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 06:38 PM
3

That's the line that got me, too. A six month deployment in a hostile region is a vacation with his buddies?
/r/MensRights05/11/16 05:56 PM
3

I agree with your assessment, but I'm wondering if it's actually salient. How many of these women that align with feminism on a surface level engage in knee-jerk reactionary stances whenever feminism gets "attacked"? Whether they know what NOW is up to or not, or know how all these feminist organizations are actively fighting against equality on a lot of levels, they are still soldiers for the cause, in a way. They are still out there defending feminism on blogs, defending it in comment boards, …
/r/MensRights05/11/16 05:40 PM
48

To an extent, though, that's inevitable. Even if he had nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with the Republican party or conservatism in general, and didn't align with the Alt-Right, he would still be getting summarily dismissed by feminists and other ideologues outright for his message. There's plain and simply no representative or spokesperson that will EVER be good enough. Look at Murray Straus, who has been doing research into male victims of DV since 1975, and getting absolutely nowhere…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 05:30 PM
312

Lulu allowed women to rate men as sexual partners and on their attractiveness right in the app. Multiple online entities covered the packages of the male Olympic athletes. Female news reporters openly groped a male athlete on national TV. Humanity has been doing this for as long as we've been sexual beings, ie. forever, and I'm with Milo on this one. The Stepford Wife division between public face and private face only drives more issues the wider it gets. If we openly acknowledge that this happe…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 03:08 PM
3

a) "bad places, personally". There are people here like that, yes. Is it safe to generalize from those people to the entirety of the posting pool? No, not at all. Dismissing an entire subreddit this way is just lazy thinking. b) 'very sensitive' - do you know many communities that responds well to people who consciously enter the community with the goal of undermining it, picking fights, poking needles into eyes, etc.? One could argue that when faced with this kind of behavior in reverse, subred…
/r/MensRights05/11/16 02:24 PM
13

Sure, but there's women, and then there's feminists. Feminist organizations often directly line up against men's concerns, such as with alimony reform and shared parenting initiatives, but when polling the public, there is considerable support for 50/50 parenting being the default with both men AND women. Clearly, the organizational goals of NOW and other feminist organizations don't align with the bulk of the women in the populace for these topics.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 01:40 PM
1

That's not really how I would describe it. A better description, at least to my eye, is that the court doesn't really regard costs, so when that 200K aggregate household splits into two 100K households, the additional costs each parent incurs with the split isn't factored in, despite the fact it generally means a lowered standard of income for both parties. The state wants continuity, regardless of how much harder to maintain that continuity is after the split. Your CS is calculated on your 100K…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 07:07 PM
2

Besides, it ruins my long running epithet: Chivalry and chauvinism are two sides of the same coin. Throw gallantry in there and it ruins the symmetry. BAD, Mcfeely_Smackup, BAD!
/r/MensRights04/11/16 06:57 PM
3

Well, what I did was this: ramped my FB account to nuclear family only. created separate Google, FB, Reddit and Twitter account based on invented information. bought burner phone to verify FB and Twitter rather than use my normal phone. Done! Now you have an alter ego that you can use to engage in your activism and you keep your regular FB looking normal and reasonable. It's not fair, and it shouldn't matter, but with the state of affairs in MR today, being an MRA means a healthy percentage of y…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 11:37 PM
4

Very few people realize that assault is the demonstration of intent and battery is the act, so they can still be guilty of assault just from all the posturing that goes on before a fight.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 11:11 PM
1

But that doesn't mean that there are patriarchs, the way I see it. And I would largely agree. To me, the defining characteristic is who traces their lineage and how. To go back to my European example, the vast majority of the populace had no family names, and were typically named after their place of birth or the craft they practiced. It was only the nobility who traced their family lineage in the peerage of the realm and cared about inheritance. You don't see family names start to matter to the…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 10:00 PM
2

It is true that gender plays a larger role in tribal units, relative to class, but we see the really drastic class structures in all the major historical entities (Egypt, Rome, Greece, Inca, Han Chinese, etc.)
/r/MensRights03/11/16 09:30 PM
1

I'm an atheist, so I can't thank god, but thank god.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 08:58 PM
10

When talking historically, much of it has been fairly patriarchal. There's a difference between patrilineal, where the movers and shakers traced their heritage through their fathers and inherited position and property that way, and patriarchal, where the system as a whole is built for the benefit of men at the expense of women. Virtually every human society has been the former (with a few exceptions), but patriarchy implies that the primary divisor in society was along gender lines, not any othe…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 08:50 PM
3

Yeah, for Canada. And if she does, I'm holding you lot responsible. Expect a snowball ... or a frozen puck ... or a rabid beaver ...
/r/MensRights03/11/16 07:42 PM
6

Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't the point of his post here to indicate that bilking 20 men in this fashion should ALSO be construed as abuse, just like the example from his link? To me it seems evident that he's poking at a supposed double standard, ie. women can exploit men and it won't be deemed "abuse".
/r/MensRights03/11/16 06:26 PM
5

My point is that this man has nothing to do with men's rights. Only by a particularly strict (and I'd argue overly pedantic) view of what a subreddit must be because of the title at the top of the page. If Black Lives Matter supporters and Feminism supporters come to the conclusion that a certain political party is opposing their movements, should those supporters be able to use their two respective subreddits to discuss their common cause? Or are we going to be so controlling and limited that w…
/r/MensRights03/11/16 03:29 PM
6

It's not just memorizing invented pronouns, it's also memorizing which specific invented pronouns should be matched with which specific people. To do it properly, you'd need personal knowledge of the person's choice. How is that even remotely possible for every context where you might use a 3rd person pronoun? You're right ... the people who came up with this have no bloody clue how 3rd person pronouns are actually used and why.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 02:18 PM
18

You're seriously comparing the nearly thoughtless use of 3rd person pronouns to active use of a pejorative? Nigger is a great example, though. For all the work to drive that word out of the lexicon, what ultimately happened is that it's used now probably more than it ever has been, and its usage has widened from solely a pejorative to a catch-all word that has multiple contextual uses. You can't fucking police language. Every time we try, those slippery little words end up morphing in ways that …
/r/MensRights03/11/16 02:08 PM
16

No, he's a bigot who thinks trans people are 'absurd'. And he's entitled to come to that conclusion. Gender Dysphoria made it into the DSM V as an entry because a large enough pool of psychologists and psychiatrists came to the conclusion that it represented a significant enough issue, with significant negative impact on people's lives, that it needed handling. He's not in the minority opinion in his field if he feels many trans people need treatment rather than simply societal acceptance, he's …
/r/MensRights03/11/16 02:01 PM
5

For the life of me, I can't see why this has gotten as far as it has. Third person pronouns have only a select few contexts that we use them in, and in most cases, those contexts involve a) a person being referred to that isn't even party to the conversation and b) lazy discourse where we use third person rather than 2nd person, despite the person referred to standing right there. For all the contexts that are a), how do we even propose to enforce this, given that the reference is being made to …
/r/MensRights03/11/16 01:10 PM
39

Sure they do, but they also have established contexts for their usage, too. "I want to be treated as a special case because I have a hate on for sex-based pronouns that are commonly used" isn't one of those contexts.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 01:05 PM
3

It's been a couple of years, but there was a 15 year, longitudinal study that found that even after equalizing for full time work, tenure and education, there was still a small gap between law school students that were female vs male. Well, until you factored in that the male lawyers produced 40+% greater billable hours for their law firms, that is.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 01:02 AM
6

There's a few bright lights in there. I have to think that these guys would have had a much easier time of it if they hadn't so poorly thought out the proposed rationale for it, and hadn't made such ridiculous comments about what women do in their female-only spaces. Did they expect a great response when they implied that women have tea parties? That the reason they needed the safe space for themselves was because one of their mates pushed his wife around? I almost think they started it just to …
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:55 AM
1

SJW is a pejorative in the same way "keyboard warrior" is a pejorative. The term mocks them for acting like they are warriors when most of them can't even tolerate mild disagreement without flaking out.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:46 AM
12

There was a time years ago where I was laid off from my job and went about 10 months without work. I used my own money to pad me for about half of that window, and that screwed me for EI and welfare in the second half because I delayed my applications, and they were both turned down. So, my ex-wife phoned me close to 15 times in the last six months of that period, belittling me, badgering me, insulting me, cajoling me, mocking me ... doing everything in her power to get money I plain and simply …
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:42 AM
1

Not quite accurate in the title. The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride also raises money around the world for prostate cancer.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 09:25 PM
3

She's a lazy thinker. Human reproduction is one that has a single egg and multiple sperm. The simplest, cheapest, most easily handled solution to fertility is to affect the egg, not the sperm, as a result. It wasn't sexism that drove the creation of the female pill, but mostly pragmatism. It's no surprise that the much harder to deal with male solutions are taking a few more decades to arrive, is it?
/r/MensRights31/10/16 06:16 PM
50

My wife has gone back to school and has a position paper she has to table and defend. Her topic? Male victims of DV. It is coming around.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 06:11 PM
4

Knowledge is power. Get off Reddit and get onto state and federal sites devoted to family law. Get off Reddit and get to a family lawyer in Illinois. The best you'll get here is generalities. What you need is the specifics to your situation.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 05:57 PM
5

Ultimately, this author is fundamentally dishonest. He claims he wants to engage with people like MRAs, that he created his site, Homer, specifically to do so, and yet when the author of a piece on the site lazily dismisses a critic by calling him a sexist and a bigot, he cheers. Sure, he realized that this was his supposed core constituency he hoped to contact, belatedly, but he loved the smack down, clearly. And this bias leaks in later, as well, when he critiques The Red Pill and the MRA that…
/r/MensRights31/10/16 04:03 PM
5

Im so frustrated by the constant bullshit peddled by men. Well, then just stop doing it! When my kids were young, I very often picked them up from kindergarten or school or took them to their music lessons etc etc. My privilege, as I started later than most other people and mostly had the afternoons free. 95% of the other parents performing these tasks were women. I was almost always the only man. Pew Research interviewed working parents and asked them whether they would prefer to a) drop to par…
/r/MensRights31/10/16 03:46 PM
3

That's exactly what I mean. Split the difference so both parties share in the financial impact of not working, but neither party takes on 100% of that impact, individually. And, once that 50% of the impact has been covered off by the wage earner, he or she is done, done, done. If the person receiving the money isn't back on their feet by that point, it's too bad, so sad. Anything past that point isn't compensating for lost income, it's paying their way.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 04:03 AM
36

For people who spend so much time railing against gaslighting, SJWs sure use it as a tactic a lot. Of course, the fact he predicted the chill, planned for it, and worked to insulate his career and life from it ... and this still wasn't good enough, tells you everything. Until these despots get enough pushback to make their lives miserable in return for being despotic, they will just keep plugging. They are like water, filling every crack and every crevice. "As long as he airs his views with so l…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:32 PM
1

I absolutely agree. I'm not arguing on her behalf, at all, just throwing out the most likely rationale for why she's doing this. $800 a month is nothing to her, but having her gay friend pay for over half the cost of med school for those kids will save thousands and thousands of dollars. She couldn't give a fuck about the 800 bones. She's playing the long con and only wants to establish him as the father, legally.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:23 AM
2

Alimony usually is an equalizing payment to equalize incomes And that is precisely why it is so unpopular. The income sharing benefits of the marriage should end when the marriage ends, just like every other benefit of the marriage ended. With child support covering the kids, alimony should be for need, not some weird equalization formula that keeps marital income sharing going long after the marriage is over. Lifestyle arguments were always specious. One only got the lifestyle because of the ma…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:16 AM
5

Partial payment, sure. If the wage earner covers 100% of the loss, all you have done is effectively transfer the loss from one spouse to the other. The decision was shared, and the risk must be shared, too, so whatever the non wage earner lost should be split down the middle.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:13 AM
3

If anyone wonders why she is suing, despite the fact the $800 a month in current costs is a tiny fraction of her post tax income every month, this play is to offset future university costs. In Ontario, where this is happening, you pay child support and a prorated amount of school costs with no upper age limit, unlike other provinces that stop after one degree or diploma. With both Mom and the sperm donor being doctors, the kids are likely quite bright and her savings could be tremendous if these…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 02:35 AM
2

I think he was under the impression that the signed agreement he had with her in 2002 meant he was free and in the clear. Certainly that should trump the likely over-emphasized contact, no? The boys are teens and have seen this guy a handful of times. He doesn't even live in the same country.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 02:10 AM
1

The decision to do this was shared, as is the responsibility for the outcome of that decision. If it goes sour, some of the responsibility has to pass to the non-earner and not fall solely on the income earner. Risk is SHARED in this system, right? If the earner has to support the non earner for the rest of their life, then the risk isn't truly shared, is it? The non-earner should not get 100% of their risk offset.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 01:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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