TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

junkeee999 Archive

View 0 posts and 1,112 comments by junkeee999 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,112 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Obsessing with a partner's past is generally a young man's thing. It seems really important at first. I was attached and married in my 20s and suddenly single again in my mid 30s. By that time everyone in the dating pool has a past and a lot of water under the bridge, and nobody gives a fuck about it. The present is all that matters.
/r/MensRights26/07/25 03:01 PM
-23

...and he never did answer the question. I'm not saying he has to, but... Also, people don't discus and question female actresses' genitalia? What planet is he living on? I like the guy, but I don't see any double standard in this case. Downvote away.
/r/MensRights17/03/25 02:25 PM
1

And it’s possible some of those people don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
/r/MensRights26/02/25 06:00 AM
1

But people bitching and whining about DEI aren’t spewing bullshit? Got it.
/r/MensRights25/02/25 04:56 PM
-2

Maybe look up what virtually means.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 12:49 PM
3

Just because you’ve learned all about fallacies doesn’t mean they always apply.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:31 AM
75

Virtually everyone cheering the demise of DEI has no clue what it actually is.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 01:11 AM
-6

Of course. That alone is not a deal killer. It depends on the whole person. I suspect many here are envisioning the worst possible image of a ‘feminist’. But that’s not a universal assumption.
/r/MensRights21/05/24 01:31 PM
-1

Your point is 100% correct, of course…which is why you got downvoted. Such is life in this subreddit.
/r/MensRights05/05/24 12:10 AM
-10

In other words you’re trying to belittle her bravery.
/r/MensRights30/04/24 01:31 PM
11

He’s not actually going to be castrated. He will very likely not live long enough, as the castration is done just before release. Just pointing that out. It’s still a weird law, but at least in this case it will never be carried out.
/r/MensRights28/04/24 11:18 AM
4

Came here to post this. People are allowed to conduct their dating life however they choose. It’s their life. If you want oddly specific or even hypocritical standards, go for it. Dating is not an equal opportunity activity.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 02:13 PM
-10

What laws specifically? There are no laws which directly favor women. It is the application of law in practice that can do so, however.
/r/MensRights06/04/24 09:41 PM
1

Okay. Thanks for the tip!
/r/MensRights16/03/24 02:30 AM
1

No. Absolutely not. I’m 62 and far more liberal now than I was in college when I considered myself fairly liberal. And there’s not a goddamn thing ‘misandrist’ about it. Total bullshit.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 10:36 PM
-3

I understand all that. Fact remains, there’s only one sure way of preventing a child. Don’t put your dick in a vagina. If you do, there are risks. And you bear responsibility for the resulting child.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 08:45 AM
-2

Tricked? You stuck your dick in a vagina. There is ALWAYS a chance of being a father when you do that.
/r/MensRights19/10/23 05:16 AM
-3

Why should I say the same thing about a totally unrelated topic?
/r/MensRights03/10/23 11:44 AM
-2

Okay, but a prenup agreement would not have likely helped any of that. I think many people are not aware what a prenuptial agreement can and can't do.
/r/MensRights03/10/23 03:19 AM
-16

But the joke was making 45k and demanding a prenup. At that salary a prenup is pretty much unnecessary. There's nothing to fight over when you're living paycheck to paycheck.
/r/MensRights03/10/23 02:23 AM
-20

Wow. Some people here need to lighten up. What I've seen of the girl math was them poking fun at themselves if anything. Then when they got toxic responses from some humorless guys, created boy math in response. Nothing here is 'horrible'. It's humor. Relax.
/r/MensRights03/10/23 02:18 AM
3

I don’t care if I see any age adult human dating any other age adult human, so no. It’s a silly thing to worry about.
/r/MensRights23/09/23 12:46 PM
6

I don’t understand your last line about showing the support you show 'for any other male'. I support people I like. What’s male or female got to do with it? As for trans people, they can live their life how they want. I don’t care. Why is there an insistence to take a position on it? It’s their life. Just let them live it. This isn’t complicated.
/r/MensRights14/09/23 01:32 PM
0

Leave it to this sub to figure out a way to make men the real victims in Iran.
/r/MensRights26/09/22 05:55 PM
1

For legitimate men’s issues, sure. But just be aware that this sub has a significant percentage of awful bullshit. So be choosy.
/r/MensRights18/09/22 03:16 AM
5

And he had a motive for quid pro quo harassment. Potentially. I’m not saying that’s what happened. But that’s what HR could make a case for.
/r/MensRights01/09/22 02:04 PM
1

trends Yeah that all depends on where one looks for one’s trends, doesn’t it?
/r/MensRights01/09/22 01:39 AM
1

Right? If I wanted to I could search and find lots of stories of male first responders who were negligent in their jobs. I could easily match the female stories one to one. And where would that leave us? Right where we started. People here think if you keep score on stories it means something. It doesn’t.
/r/MensRights31/08/22 08:42 PM
-10

So if I read enough stories on an insular ‘mens rights’ sub about women who suck, it becomes empirical evidence that women suck? Oof. I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit.
/r/MensRights31/08/22 02:35 PM
-18

Because it’s anecdotal. It’s assuming the two people failed due to gender and likewise the people who did the job properly did so due to gender. Maybe it was just two women who suck at their job.
/r/MensRights31/08/22 12:38 PM
-27

There’s no need to put a sexist spin on it. You came across two responders who were not good at their job who happened to be women. Period.
/r/MensRights31/08/22 12:11 PM
2

Sarah Jeong never said that. It’s old 4chan bullshit. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-journalist-fabricated-quote-idUSKCN26D2J8 Not that this will matter. Carry on with the pitchfork brigade.
/r/MensRights31/10/20 10:38 PM
-9

No, it would be no problem at all. If someone wrote an article about something stupid that women wear and said snarkily ‘Women please stop wearing this’ nobody would care. And nobody should care. Stop taking it so seriously.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 11:53 AM
0

It's true...but I like it that way. I have no problem proving my value. Unconditional love is nice but ultimately when it's given to me and don't feel I'm worthy of it it makes me feel hollow.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 09:39 PM
2

The same shitty argument. Just what the person said who I was replying to.
/r/MensRights15/05/20 11:49 AM
2

What page would that be?
/r/MensRights15/05/20 11:46 AM
255

It does go both ways. You see it here all the time.
/r/MensRights14/05/20 03:05 PM
6

Absolutely nothing. You're right, this is a really baffling post. I mean, good for these guys but does everything have to be turned into a battle of the sexes?
/r/MensRights30/04/20 04:22 PM
5

Why bring the 'toxic masculinity' thing into this story? Seems like a really weird spin.
/r/MensRights30/04/20 04:21 PM
0

Wow
/r/MensRights22/04/20 04:48 PM
-6

I didn’t say I was insulted. I don’t get insulted by anything, much less anything reddit has to offer. I said the video was insulting. Also I’m a guy so...
/r/MensRights22/04/20 04:24 PM
-16

You’re right. It’s quite complimentary.
/r/MensRights22/04/20 03:10 PM
-55

Nice. Fighting stereotyping of men with an insulting video which stereotypes women.
/r/MensRights22/04/20 12:55 PM
-3

I mean, yeah there's some truth to all of these observations. But it comes across as just whiny cocktail conversation complaints. Women could make a long list of things wrong with men too. so what?
/r/MensRights16/09/19 04:11 PM
6

Yes, how many times on Reddit and elsewhere has a woman's unattractive appearance been called out on a post that has nothing to do with her appearance. I'd say this sort of thing happens equally to both genders.
/r/MensRights12/08/19 12:38 PM
0

First of all, the man does not always buy it. Secondly, you make it sound like if a man does buy it, he must be doing so unwillingly. It’s not always ‘extortion’. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes a man genuinely likes to buy extravagant gifts for a woman he loves? You might think it’s stupid, I might think it’s stupid. But if it works for them it’s none of our business.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 11:08 AM
-1

In your opinion, sure. In a courtroom, it's a whole other matter.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 01:42 PM
3

Aim high sure. But still within realistic range. Otherwise your suit comes off as frivolous. Judges aren't idiots.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 01:35 PM
6

That's all I'm saying, 50k-100k is not a million. Huge difference. You hear people say "Sue for a million dollars" all the time. It has no meaning. It usually doesn't work that way.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 01:28 PM
4

I would need to see citations on a situation like this getting a million plus settlement. I could be wrong, but that seems very high
/r/MensRights24/04/19 01:21 PM
3

Fine. But the million dollar figure is probably without merit.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 12:06 PM
3

It's just confusing language, that's all. Pedophilia is a psychological term not a legal one. So there's really no such thing as 'legally a pedophile'. It's like saying legally a schizophrenic.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 12:00 PM
7

Eh no. He just wants to have a decent job without all the drama.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 11:55 AM
9

Potentially sue, yes. But where do you get the million dollars figure? Lawsuits aren't lottery tickets. You have to show a justification for the figure you are suing for.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 11:53 AM
6

Well if you're trying to make an apple to apple comparison, then do it, that's all.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 11:26 AM
27

Why would your comparison be a breast grab? Women have asses too.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 10:29 AM
-9

My reaction exactly. Really? We're going to get all upset about a silly little joke t-shirt? I see it not as supporting the idea that it's really her day. I see it as a little self depreciating humor. Like "Ain't that the truth"?
/r/MensRights15/04/19 02:46 PM
1

So unskew it by doing more for prostrate cancer. But don't do it by begrudging breast cancer efforts.
/r/MensRights13/04/19 04:18 PM
18

This is my main issue every time this subject is brought up here. There is NOTHING wrong with breast cancer awareness and fund raising efforts. Instead of being ticked off and bitter about pink ribbons, why not just try to elevate prostrate cancer efforts to the same level? Leave breast cancer out of it. You don't win by knocking the other down. Both can co-exist.
/r/MensRights13/04/19 03:22 PM
2

Ther difference is nobody cares about Cardi B. Never has. Plus, she's not had any criminal charges, she's just running off her mouth about it. So people just treat it like bullshit noise, which it very well may be.
/r/MensRights09/04/19 12:16 AM
0

Wow
/r/MensRights04/04/19 01:01 PM
0

Again, you are stating opinion, not fact.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 12:42 PM
0

STEM is just one factor of hundreds when determining aids and barriers to advancement in employment. It is impossible to to conclude definitively an overall net result of which gender has more advantage. The difference between you and me is, i leave it at that. You fill in the blanks with conjecture.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 11:32 AM
-1

That is your opinion. You have no statistical basis for it. Because it's almost impossible to quantify. You're entitled to your opinion, fine. But realize that it is nothing more than that.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 03:50 AM
-9

Yes everyone has limited options. But we don't know whether women's options are more limited in certain areas. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm just saying it's a much harder thing to quantify.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 04:58 PM
-12

Well? There may be some factual basis to this. It's a very hard thing to quantify. Yes the wage gap could be at least partially attributed to 'choices', but how many of those choices were because they felt their options were limited?
/r/MensRights03/04/19 03:48 PM
1

I don't see anyone approving of it.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:22 PM
-2

Well it happened at least once. Yes I know it happens more, so spare me more links. My point is, this article alone proves nothing. It's one anecdotal account.
/r/MensRights04/03/19 03:15 PM
4

Further, OP uses this story to claim 'many women' do this. Despite the article only referring to one case and not citing any statistics at all. It's posts like this that make people not take this subreddit seriously.
/r/MensRights04/03/19 03:10 PM
-1

His subreddit. He can do what he wants.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 02:39 PM
1

I don't identify with femimism, whatever that means. I don't really feel the need to label myself. I've never really had a tribal mentality. Apparently that's the only way you know how to sort out the world though.
/r/MensRights15/02/19 08:17 PM
1

It means there are certain areas where men are legitimately at a disadvantage or are treated unfairly. And these should be addressed. Pretty simple. Where I part ways with most of this sub though, is they take this a step further and feel that overall men have it worse of than women. This is absurd. Each gender has it's own advantages and disadvantages to be sure, but on the total balance of it, I as a white, American male belong to one of the most privileged demographic groups in the world. I h…
/r/MensRights15/02/19 07:14 PM
0

I'm here to discuss men's rights topics. Differing views aren't allowed?
/r/MensRights15/02/19 07:00 PM
-1

Nope. The message is some men need to stop doing these things. You are simply looking at this as through your own personal filter and claiming the results to be fact. They are not.
/r/MensRights15/02/19 04:37 PM
0

There are plenty of initiatives out there aimed at a certain element of black men to be better people. I do not see any any general black male outrage over this. Because they know it's not a blanket denouncement of the entire group. Something which you apparently do not know.
/r/MensRights15/02/19 12:23 PM
0

That makes no sense
/r/MensRights15/02/19 12:19 PM
-1

I think I'm missing things that are clearly not in the ad yes. I'm missing things that you are reading into it that simply aren't there. Period.
/r/MensRights15/02/19 12:16 PM
-16

You are reading things into the ad that simply aren't there, in order to promote your very narrow and specific view.
/r/MensRights14/02/19 10:40 PM
-14

You're not being made fun of for showing emotions. You're being made fun of for being offended due to a logically flawed belief.
/r/MensRights14/02/19 10:38 PM
-4

Strawman
/r/MensRights14/02/19 10:37 PM
-27

This is a false choice sort of argument. Yes men should express their feelings. That doesn't mean your feelings are free from criticism. If someone is of the opinion (as I am) that the Gillette ads are not aimed at all males then they would naturally criticize your taking offense to them.
/r/MensRights14/02/19 08:51 PM
2

Because women are never made fun of for their appearance.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 11:55 AM
2

I've read it. It still doesn't make you right. Health insurance and car insurance simply aren't 100% congruous. You seem to think they are. One is providing a basic human need, so more of a case can be made that it should be priced equally. The other is just insuring a convenience.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 04:39 PM
5

I doubt if anyone there saw it when it happened. That's why they 'stood by'. And I'm not downplaying it. I'm agreeing it's equally bad no matter who does it. The strawman is, assuming many people are ok with what happened in this video. I doubt if most women are. This is creating a false division where it doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 04:33 PM
2

Again, wages and setting insurance premiums have nothing to do with each other. Show me where they do if I'm wrong. As for the health insurance vs car insurance comparison, one difference is, health care is considered more of a basic need that every human is entitled to. There is no such assumption regarding driving a car.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 01:58 PM
1

Wage gap has nothing to do with insurance rates. Insurance companies don't care about a wage gap, real or perceived. Actuaries calculate risk for various demographic groups and set premiums accordingly. If this were ever defrosted illegal, do you think they'd rectify this by lowering your rates? No. They'd raise the lower risk group premium to the higher level.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 01:29 PM
-17

Bit of a strawman. I don't think many people would watch this clip and think it's ok.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 01:18 PM
0

Yeah you don't need to know more. Trials and hearing and stuff are just stupid wastes of time. Just give us a one sentence tldr and let the internet dish out a sentence. Just think of the time and money we could save!
/r/MensRights26/12/18 02:38 AM
1

The whole point of the post is that this girl basically got set free, when if the father had, he would be given a much harsher sentence guaranteed. If he could be tried as an adult and executed, he would be. This is the part I'm talking about. You say 'guaranteed' like it's a fact, like you were there, at the investigation and hours of testimony and examination, when in fact you read a one paragraph story on the internet and decided that qualified you to be judge and jury, and make a snap judgme…
/r/MensRights25/12/18 10:21 PM
1

You said if the child’s father did that he’d be tried as an adult and executed. This claim came from a very deep dark region of your ass with zero eveidence to back it. It’s a region I don’t want to think about, much less engage in conversation with.
/r/MensRights25/12/18 02:11 PM
2

Wow, that's all you got? That and your baseless claims? OK, I can't debate against shit you make up in your head so you win.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 11:11 PM
-1

No it doesn't make it OK. But it also doesn't mean a male would have gotten any different treatment for it. That part is pure speculation.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 10:25 PM
3

Just because you say so?
/r/MensRights24/12/18 10:24 PM
4

Yep, it's classic gatekeeping. Basically if someone complains about something, scan the world and find a case of someone who has it worse, and use that to invalidate the first person. "There exists a person who has it worse so you have no right to raise concerns". And you were downvoted for calling it. Nobody likes gatekeeping...until it's their own pet area. Then it is applauded.
/r/MensRights04/12/18 02:48 PM
12

But in most places, probably Texas too, but I don't know, it's still illegal for a person in a position of authority to have sex with a person they are directly involved with, age doesn't matter. Like teacher/student, therapist/patient.
/r/MensRights15/11/18 11:41 PM
8

Why was "Interviewed" put in quotes? Are we saying the police didn't conduct a real interview? It sounds like a he said / she said. The police probably had no real evidence to make a conviction. Doesn't this subreddit abhor when abuse victims make claims without proof? If you are want an arrest with no evidence, how does that make you any different than the people you regularly protest against?
/r/MensRights15/11/18 11:37 PM
1

Ok I'll go take a nap. Good luck on your quest to find purses on subway seats... If you ever do make your way to your first subway. Let me know if you find even one.
/r/MensRights11/11/18 04:20 PM
1

Nope just bored and having fun running logic circles around you.
/r/MensRights11/11/18 02:01 PM
0

I answered your purse question by pointing out how irrelevant it was to a subway space discussion. Something you apparently don't know, suggesting that don't actually ride subways and this discussion is all just abstract theory to you. I answered your second question by pointing out that the notion that women carrying more things than men was patently absurd. Men carry all kinds of things, including shopping items. Men buy things. Just different sorts of things than women. I'm so sorry
/r/MensRights11/11/18 01:43 PM
0

Purse? Women ride with purses in their laps, clutching them tightly with the strap around their arm...because they're riding in a FUCKING SUBWAY. Have you ever even been on a subway? In fact, forget that, have you ever been out in public? Are you seriously saying men don't carry stuff? Ever heard of a backpack? Ever heard of work needs and equipment? Ever heard of the concept that men occasionally buy things too? Ever heard of men transporting items from one place to another? Do you realize how …
/r/MensRights11/11/18 01:29 PM
0

Your anecdotes are 'known facts' while mine are crazy, insidious lies. I see. Hell of a way to go through life, son.
/r/MensRights11/11/18 01:12 PM
0

My evidence is my own observation. Believe it or don't. I don't give a shit. But answer this? How is your anecdotal opinion any more valid than mine?
/r/MensRights11/11/18 04:07 AM
0

The difference is, leg spreading is much more of a male problem, while putting stuff in the seat next to you is a problem that both genders do, and in fact in my experience more men do. So to call this a female problem is a strawman. Just a clumsy, inaccurate attempt at whataboutism.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 06:27 AM
1

Then I don't get what you are arguing. Are you saying putting shit on the seat next to you is a female exclusive problem? Frankly I've seen more men do that too. Inconsiderate behavior is inconsiderate behavior. Male or female. So I don't get the point of this post on a mens rights thread
/r/MensRights08/11/18 10:09 PM
0

In a crowded space it is inconsiderate. When people are packed in tight, your space is the width of your hips. By spreading your legs you're infringing at least 1/4 to 1/2 space of the person on either side of you. And there's a real, real easy solution. Put your fucking legs together. If nobody is next to you, fine. Go for it. I don't care. But when it's crowded show basic consideration for others.
/r/MensRights08/11/18 09:54 PM
1

And how exactly does this post, showing one inconsiderate person negate other inconsiderate people of a different kind?
/r/MensRights08/11/18 05:43 AM
1

You're exactly like the woman in the picture. You know that, right?
/r/MensRights06/10/18 11:18 AM
7

Sometimes this sub acts like it’s living under a rock...on purpose.
/r/MensRights15/09/18 04:19 PM
39

I always check for the look back. In a crowded place like a bar, you're bound to make brief accidental eye contact with people. It lasts a split second, then both usually look away. When it happens with a woman I'm curious about I'll look away slightly but keep her easily visible in my peripheral vision to watch her. If she's interested, within a few seconds after the first accidental eye contact, she'll sneak another glance over at me. If you get that look back, you know you've made an impressi…
/r/seduction14/09/18 10:28 AM
3

What are you proposing politicians do about it?
/r/MensRights14/09/18 09:44 AM
2

That's what I'm saying. It was a 10 year kid who said he was being punished simply for saying ma'am. I guarantee there's more to it than that.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 01:12 AM
1

I don't know. None of us were there and neither was the boy's mother. It all depends on the tone of voice and the circumstances. I could call someone ma'am and have it sound like the most sarcastic, sassy, bratty reply ever. Teacher: No talking Student: Oooh! SOOORY! Yes MAAAA'AAAAM!!! Student (later to mother): I got in trouble just for saying ma'am. Mother: What?? My poor little angel!
/r/MensRights26/08/18 11:49 PM
2

Why is this article being met with so much derision here? A person, it doesn't matter male or female (does it?) is complaining of the exact treatment that is bemoaned here constantly. Is she not allowed to complain about it because she doesn't belong to the right team?
/r/MensRights09/08/18 04:23 PM
4

It's true. Nobody commenting here was in the courtroom or knows any details of the case beyond a brief superficial summary. But hey that's cool just jump in and make an unsubstantiated claim that a man in exact same trial would have gotten worse. What a circle jerk
/r/MensRights08/08/18 06:33 PM
-1

And so could a man.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:21 PM
-2

Safe haven laws apply to any custodial parent. It is not limited to a mother.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 12:52 PM
1

Ok and I'm explaining why that decision process will ultimately not matter. The father says I don't want a baby. Mother defies the wishes and has the baby. She shouldn't have done that, no question. But now... There's a baby. And that baby is blameless in the whole situation. And that baby should have support of two parents. You're so wrapped up in mother vs father that you are forgetting the consequences of what happens when your clever, sophisticated choice mechanism breaks down, as it inevita…
/r/MensRights18/06/18 11:13 AM
0

And my point is, once the child is born, nothing that you wrote matters. Zero. It's a clean slate. Because now there is another little human in the world. It's no longer about your choices and her choices. That's all gone. That little human's welfare has priority over yours, whether you wanted it to exist or not. That's why financial abortion or whatever you want to call it won't work. The child has rights too. And they supercede everyone else's.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 10:48 AM
1

When I say the child exists, I mean after it is born. I'm not making a statement on abortion itself. I am or choice. So the welfare of a child is the top concern of the government. It doesn't matter what the father's (or mother's for that matter) wishes are. The courts demand that both parents provide support, whether they chose to be willing parents or not.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 10:18 AM
-5

In the eyes of the law, the welfare of the child supercedes any right of either parent to opt out of parenthood. Regardless of what transpired before that child was born, once that child exists, none of that matters. He/she should be supported by two parents whenever possible.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 09:18 AM
-2

But by an objective standard, it is senseless. The author is merely making super obvious observations.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 12:25 AM
-2

You're talking in circles. Making a false rape report is a senseless act. And that's exactly what the author called it. And this subreddit is somehow throwing a fit over that. Would it have been better if the author would have called is sensible? Yeah that would have went over real well here I'm sure.
/r/MensRights25/05/18 11:53 PM
0

Because it's a high risk action to take. Plus you know, it's evil as hell. So senseless. Yes that is an absolutely perfect word for it. This isn't complicated. It's like if someone murders someone to steal 5$ from them. Yes we know the reason was theft. But that still doesn't make it a sensible act.
/r/MensRights25/05/18 11:06 PM
-1

... And that's illogical and senseless to do.
/r/MensRights25/05/18 12:47 PM
-5

Well, it is all those things, isn't it? Would you rather have the writer downplaying it and trying to excuse it? The writer is doing exactly what you want. Acknowledging the senselessness of false rape claims. And you're still finding a way to be mad about it?
/r/MensRights25/05/18 12:07 PM
1

I'd say giving him and the mother-in-law a beat down is domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 05:35 PM
0

It's not. It's just a circle jerk in the name of 'awareness'.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:29 PM
1

Why would there be character assassination? You just read about it in major media and they clearly put all blame on her and none on him.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:28 PM
1

Obviously. So what's your point?
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:27 PM
1

Yeah, she will be far from penniless in a divorce. She'll do fine.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:26 PM
8

Well it was both wasn't it? He was unfaithful. That doesn't justify violence however.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:25 PM
1

So what?? So shit like that is what makes people disbelieve anything they read here. You should be mad at such exaggeration instead of circle jerking to it. Present an argument coherently and accurately or don't do it at all.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 07:38 PM
1

I'm asking a simple question about one case. OP claimed a man would have gotten 18 years instead of 18 months. That's 12 times the sentence. All I'm asking is if there is any factual basis to back that up. And everyone is getting all snippy about it. If there is, post it. If there isn't, it's just meaningless hyperbole that does nothing to promote the cause. I get mad at people on my side when they present an argument badly, because it makes people tune out. That's what this is about.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 07:31 PM
-2

18 years? You have statistical proof that men get that sentence in Louisiana for that crime?
/r/MensRights14/05/18 07:09 PM
-1

OK same question to you then. You have examples of Louisiana men committing similar crimes of similar severity getting 18 years?
/r/MensRights14/05/18 04:02 PM
0

What does that have to do with this? I'm simply asking if op has any fact to back his sensational title or if it's completely opinionated speculation.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 03:39 PM
-1

And you have examples of Louisiana men committing similar crimes of similar severity getting 18 years?
/r/MensRights14/05/18 11:55 AM
1

I don't see any contradiction here. They were just advocating to use gender neutral expressions when making a generalization about people. They didn't mean you can't call a group of women women. There is no clever gotcha here. Plus there's the whole thing about not knowing what a pronoun is, as others have pointed out.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 05:55 PM
-2

You can call them crap and stop getting angry that a crap website does crappy things.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 02:39 AM
3

Wait, did you just call Buzzfeed a mainstream news outlet?
/r/MensRights12/02/18 01:25 AM
-9

This is fucking buzzfeed. What’s the point of this post?
/r/MensRights12/02/18 01:22 AM
1

And nobody believes a changing station is only for women either.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:17 PM
0

Come on. You see two restroom doors. One has a plain stick figure, one has a figure with a skirt. Which one do you assume is for women?
/r/MensRights28/12/17 02:51 PM
0

No, but they have skirts, which without getting into a whole assumed gender discussion here, suggests female. We've been conditioned to assume skirt=female, no skirt=male in our stick figures. Without a skirt there would have to be some other female characteristic to identify it as female, like breasts.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 02:34 PM
0

No breasts
/r/MensRights28/12/17 02:13 PM
1

Does it equally infuriate you that the vast majority of generic figures seem to be male, like the 'walk' guy on stoplights for example? Why can't he be a woman?
/r/MensRights28/12/17 11:28 AM
20

Of course. It's almost like each individual case needs to be judged on its own merits without a predetermined agenda. Weird.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/17 06:12 AM
4

But if everyone acted the way Weinstein did it would create an industry where the only way for a woman to get ahead was to be used for sex. You don't see anything wrong with that?
/r/TheRedPill19/12/17 11:36 PM
28

Because it's not one answer fits all. Just because golddiggers exist doesn't mean abuse doesn't also exist.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/17 11:06 PM
1

Though I agree with your assessment, I think we can also agree that it's a bad strategy to promote prostate cancer awareness by comparing it to breast cancer. The message is unclear and can be easily misconstrued.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:44 PM
-24

Don't let that stop you. Remember the subreddit you are on. Just make assumptions to fit your worldview.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 01:00 PM
2

I'm basing it on the way the post was phrased. And yes he's on mensrights, and the reason I felt free to generalize is his opinion seems to be by far the prevailing view there, not just a few bad apples. Its 'worst element' is the vast majority. That's my opinion, you are free to disagree. But yes I suppose I could have more accurately called him 'a person from men's rights reflecting the majority view of the subreddit', in order to make it more clear, but I shortened it.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 03:40 PM
2

No, I'm just judging this person from mensrights, not the whole subreddit. This person obviously has a very rigid, narrow view of feminism.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 12:24 PM
4

A person from mensrights accusing others of judging a group by it's worst element. That's rich.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 11:20 PM
2

How so? I'll give you a chance to explain yourself. I'm a great guy that way.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 10:06 PM
18

I've been on Reddit almost ten years and this is perhaps the most ironic post I've ever seen. The lack of self awareness is mind boggling.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 10:47 AM
-2

But mostly, the point is for guys to feel good about being lazy and not shaving for a month by saying "Um yeah it's totally for cancer or whatever. "
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:52 PM
2

Mostly, yes.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:51 PM
-5

Exactly this. Why does this subreddit want to make a zero sum competition out of it? Good for breast cancer awareness. Now let's do the same for prostrate cancer.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:51 PM
7

Legally maybe it's as if it didn't happen. That doesn't do anything to lessen the trauma of the victim who was legitimately raped. It's still a real problem. Just not one played out in the courts.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 10:02 PM
3

Exactly right. It's not a male issue. This post represents the dumb side of this subreddit. Everyone, male or female is entitled to physical preferences in a partner despite their own body type. You might find yourself lonely if you set your standards too high, but it's your choice to be lonely while waiting for what you want. Also, I think the OP was mainly objecting to the headline using different terms. Plus size vs. overweight. I say a big ' blah blah, who cares?' to that one as well. People…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 05:56 PM
2

Exactly.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:13 PM
177

Haha, yeah right. Two beers later, ” Yer sooo bewtifoe".
/r/MensRights08/10/17 12:18 PM
15

The article never says you can't. It's just about some large women who don't like large men.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 12:16 PM
2

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. So were mad if a 19 year old man who has sex with a 14 year girl ends up on a registry for life, but not the other way around?
/r/MensRights20/09/17 07:34 AM
1

Regardless of what she labels it, the bottom line is, she's arguing against tougher sentencing for men. Isn't that a good thing?
/r/MensRights13/09/17 07:46 AM
1

Because workplaces can be dysfunctional and stupid. Like having two different kinds of uni-sex signs lying around and a flunkie assistant manager giving unclear directions to a flunkie subordinate on how to install them.
/r/MensRights03/09/17 03:14 PM
2

Please enlighten me. What exactly is my 'lie'?
/r/MensRights03/09/17 03:08 PM
1

No, dysfunctional workplaces and companies are very easy to believe.
/r/MensRights03/09/17 03:05 PM
0

She quoted me and proceeded to make fun of me, calling everything I had to say as "fake news" and make me look like an asshole. Maybe you are one? I don't know. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying we are only hearing one side of this (yours). You are asking the internet to just blindly accept that she is wrong and you are not an asshole, without providing any content.
/r/MensRights02/09/17 09:40 PM
867

Nope. Notice the sign to the right of the 'womens' restroom. Both are unisex. Obviously they were both recently switched from single sex to unisex, but the signage is inconsistent and hasn't been fixed yet. This post is a whole lot of whining about nothing.
/r/MensRights02/09/17 09:33 PM
18

That made zero sense. People shit. It happens at all times of the day and really has little to do with what you ate a few minutes ago, or are about to eat.
/r/MensRights02/09/17 09:30 PM
22

It was straight ahead. Let me know if you need help with anything else.
/r/MensRights02/09/17 09:28 PM
2

Yes, a man would have gotten... Two years. http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/274312164-story My point is, every case is different. You simply can't look at a brief internet news story and pretend to know what sentence someone should get. There is a lot that goes into it. It's not all about gender.
/r/PussyPass25/08/17 12:16 PM
3

Simply pointing out that there were no significant female parts in the movie isn't an attempt to re-write history. Nobody said the female part had to be 'on the battlefield'. It could have had a parallel side story about a spouse back home, or some other support role of another nature. I'm not complaining about the lack of it. It's fine with me. It's a war movie depicting war. I don't recall a single female in Saving Private Ryan until the end scene many years later when Ryan is surrounded by hi…
/r/MensRights24/07/17 03:44 PM
1

But you are afraid. Not physically and in a danger sense. But you've said you wouldn't marry a woman who has had lots of sex. You're afraid she can't make a commitment, so you're steering clear of her. Pretty silly.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 02:59 AM
1

You just said a woman who has lots of sex is making poor choices. Why? What's wrong with enjoying sex?
/r/MensRights17/06/17 01:03 AM
1

Then you're exactly what the woman subject of this post is talking about. She has no qualms about enjoying her sexuality freely. And you have a problem with that.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 11:54 PM
1

But the term slut is generally used with a negative connotation. Do you think that a woman who has sex with lots of men should be looked down on for it?
/r/MensRights16/06/17 11:05 PM
2

I suspect this is the truth. Slut = a woman who sleeps with lots of people but not me.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:22 PM
2

Why? What's wrong with consensual sex?
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:15 PM
1

A little bit of hyperbole to make a point Oh, no. The horror. Again, I just don't understand the insecurity around here sometimes.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:14 PM
1

But to a large percentage of men, it just makes her a slut.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 12:26 PM
-1

This is what this subreddit is now? Any time a woman makes a fairly benign observation about an issue we need to bombard back with a laundry list of unrelated complaints? Why the insecurity? Yes men have legitimate issues, so do women. Why not both? It's not a contest. Woman: "I'm unapologetically​ in control of my sexuality". Man: "Yeah well I get testicular cancer". What? How does that make any sense?
/r/MensRights16/06/17 12:06 PM
13

Well I wouldn't want the girls' futures ruined either. They're too young for that. Same if they were boys. They should be punished though.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 12:10 AM
-1

What do you mean there's no reason? She wants to be a boy scout. That's the reason.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 10:37 AM
-1

So she wants to be a boy scout. What's the big deal?
/r/MensRights04/05/17 08:35 PM
49

What a misleading title. ...'because a woman would never intentionally do something like that'. The article never mentions gender as playing a role in the sentence, let alone make a sweeping statement about what all women would or would not do. If you want to be taken more seriously, avoid sweeping excess like that. It is impossible to determine if the sentence was merited based on an extremely brief internet summary. There were likely hours of testimony and deliberation. "She drove 93 mph and c…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 02:13 PM
1

To be fair, many comics talk primarily about themselves.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 11:46 AM
-2

It's like when Reddit couldn't get enough of ragging on Justin Bieber. Let's rant about music made for 12 year old​ girls.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 11:44 AM
1

This sub was always shit. It's a stupid concept, appealing to 15 year olds.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/17 11:43 AM
1

Yeah, that still doesn't answer the question of whether a fictional character describing a good rape translates into the author in real life thinking rape is good. Another deflection. Nobody has been able to answer yet. So I guess I'm done too.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 10:03 AM
1

Are we being asked to support it? Or are we simply being shown a bizarre character profile? You guys are just filling in the blanks to support your particular views.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 02:39 AM
1

It's a play. Plays have featured rapists, murderers, criminals and moral defectives of all sorts. You're still not getting it.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 12:34 AM
1

OK, so if I made a play based on actual interviews of the Manson murderers, reciting their words, recalling their memories and feelings on those nights, does that mean I'm supportive of the murders? Or am I just making an artistic statement peering into their minds? Are you guys really having this much trouble understanding what I'm saying?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 11:13 PM
1

So accepting what you say, that Tarantino sees his characters as blameless, does that translate into him supporting murder in real life? Or just within the universe of his movies?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:07 PM
0

It is a play. The fact that she herself is monologuing as a part of the play is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 09:43 PM
1

Except she didn't 'utter the words'. Her fictional character did. Do you believe that say Quentin Tarantino promotes murder?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 08:48 PM
1

Is it promoting assault of a 13 year old though? Just because a character in a work of fiction says it?
/r/MensRights21/02/17 08:26 PM
1

My point was, even though there are stats showing men have certain disadvantages in certain areas, that doesn't disprove male privilege in other areas. Nor vice versa for female privilege. That is as objectively simple and correct as a statement can be. By just throwing more stats at me you are doing exactly what I said is futile to do to disprove male privilege. Assigning male or female privilege isn't a winner take all contest.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:29 AM
0

No I don't want more stats. You missed my entire point.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 02:55 AM
1

These numbers may all be true and it still doesn't disprove male privelige. Male privelige doesn't mean males are advantaged in every single aspect of life. Women could produce an equally long laundry list of ways they are disadvantaged. It's not a contest of who has the longer list, and the winner gets to claim the other has privelige. It can simultaneously exist both ways.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 06:27 PM
0

Concern troll does not mean 'Anyone who doesn't agree with me'.
/r/MensRights26/12/16 11:56 PM
11

I believe what the story is suggesting is that Brando, the actor not his character, did things in the scene that she did not know about in advance or consent to. Yes the scene does depict rape, that's not the issue. The issue is during the shooting of the scene, were things done to her that she didn't approve of. If so, does that then cross the line of dramatic rape to actual rape?
/r/MensRights07/12/16 12:40 PM
2

Why is this in mens rights? Serious question.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 10:45 PM
0

Except this isn't murder. It's manslaughter.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 10:44 PM
2

How is this a men's rights issue? She's being justly charged with murder.
/r/MensRights01/10/16 10:17 PM
1

Yes it's true the wage gap largely disappears when comparing apples to apples. There is one caveat however that this article doesn't address. There is the argument that the reason women end up in lower paying jobs isn't entirely by choice, but because they are systematically shut out of avenues to attain the higher paying jobs. I'm not arguing for or against this point. But any article on the wage gap needs to at least acknowledge its existence or else the author is demonstrating less than a ful…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 02:33 AM
0

I suspect the same thing. Despite the witch hunt mentality around here, the truth is women generally don't just make accusations like that or of the blue. But regardless, I ask again, what exactly is a lawyer supposed to do at this point. You'll go in, explain the situation, and he'll basically say, well lay low and let's see if this blows over... That will be $200.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/16 03:20 AM
-1

There's no need for a lawyer until something actually happens. Nothing has happened. What exactly would a lawyer's role be at this point? I'd like to know. One of Reddit's knee jerk responses is 'lawyer up'. Often the response makes no sense.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/16 02:48 AM
1

There's no need for a lawyer at this point.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/16 10:52 PM
11

This is terrible advice. This is not a time for games. It's a time to avoid all contact.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/16 10:42 PM
1

I don't know how I feel about that statement because I have no clue of its accuracy. And neither do you. But while i refuse to pass judgment on things I don't know about, you are more than happy to do exactly that, biased by your preconceived notions.
/r/MensRights07/09/16 03:10 PM
1

I didn't think I had to. What if he was harassing her in class, giving her unwanted attention? That's two. Do you want a couple dozen more? Can you really not envision any scenario where a person is removed from a class short of committing a crime?
/r/MensRights07/09/16 02:33 PM
1

So you think committing a crime is the only criteria for getting removed from a class? There could be hundreds of other reasons.
/r/MensRights07/09/16 02:13 PM
2

I agree with you, but it's really nothing new. Years ago when I first joined Reddit I subscribed to this sub because I had experienced first hand related issues during my divorce and custody settlement. I quickly learned though that this is mostly just a bunch of insecure 20 something's worried about stupid shit like 'pussy passes'.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 04:25 PM
-13

So you're promoting lawsuits to add pressure. Frivolous, justified, makes no difference to you. You just want a flood of litigation, facts be damned. I will have to disagree with that tactic.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 08:59 PM
-19

You have absolutely no basis to form an opinion, besides the fact he wasn't convicted of a crime. You simply don't know the nature of any of the other circumstances. Yet you've concluded he is being unjustly discriminated against. You are approaching this story from an obviously biased standpoint.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 08:54 PM
35

Just wondering, what criteria is being used for for all the reactions saying 'about time' and wishing him well? We're given two paragraphs of sketchy information and no detail. Yes I acknowledge that universities can sometimes create a hostile environment for men. But we simply have no clue if this particular man's lawsuit against this particular university has any merit whatsoever. Blindly cheering him on reveals a great deal of bias in my opinion, every bit as much as a feminist group blindly …
/r/MensRights03/09/16 05:38 PM
3

At least you saw the movie, so I give your comments a lot more validity. I think it's fine to demonize people who never saw the movie but still spout agenda filled hate towards it. I haven't seen the movie, may watch it on Netflix or something someday. But I do give movies that take chances credit even if that chance fails and I end up not liking it. They could have gotten the old fossils back together (which could have been disastrous), they could have rebooted with a younger male cast (which c…
/r/MensRights18/07/16 11:56 PM
1

'Obvious impression'. Lol
/r/MensRights11/07/16 07:07 PM
1

What article? It's a picture.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 03:04 PM
1

This photo implies nothing of the sort. And I don't need to take it up with anyone. There are hundreds of people who work on a major Hollywood movie. Just look up the crew on imdb. There are many men who worked on this film.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 02:09 PM
1

The movie wasn't made entirely be females. This is just a picture of women who worked on it.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 09:57 AM
1

Who said it was made entirely by women? It's not.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 09:55 AM
0

So you've seen it?
/r/MensRights11/07/16 09:53 AM
0

Well there are some sexist elements to Movember...just as there is in a lot of the breast cancer stuff. Raising awareness is fine, but some of the marketing and other stuff that goes along with it is sexist. I've never liked Movember anyway. I think the whole thing is misguided.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:41 PM
0

Exhibit A
/r/MensRights21/03/16 01:05 AM
11

I don't think they're trying to make it one. I think there is a significant subset here that tries to do exactly that. Everything has to be expressed in terms of men vs women. This includes bitterness over any breast cancer awareness effort.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 02:56 PM
5

Yes it is inconsiderate. I'm a man and it pisses me off when I get stuck next to an idiot like that.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 03:06 AM
2

She was originally interested. But you blew it. She called an audible and changed her mind.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 11:57 PM
1

Pointing out that someone's shirt is on backwards is hardly negging. It's flirting. It was her in to start a dialogue with you.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 11:38 PM
-28

Ok. Good luck with being the big slavery expert of the Internet.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:57 PM
-31

You're doing it again.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:46 PM
-30

Stop with the slavery hyperbole if you want to be taken more seriously. Anyone calling anything slavery except slavery automatically loses credibility.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:38 PM
1

She wasn't trying to mitigate Stewart-Banks responsibility. The main point of the article was how damaging Stewart-Banks stunt was to female journalists. She does try to at least put some context into the article by pointing out the state of her industry which demands that females be sexy, but that is in no way intended to let let Stewart-Banks off the hook. Bimbos like her are the bane of the author's existence and if you think the title to this post, claiming she's being sexually exploited is …
/r/MensRights06/02/16 12:55 PM
0

No, she asked questions.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 04:15 AM
-1

It fosters the perception that a woman working in sports journalism needs to be sexy. That's what this whole article is about. If you're a man in sports journalism, all that matters is your knowledge and ability to communicate about the subject matter. If you're a woman, the main thing that matters is if you have sex appeal.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 11:56 PM
-5

Where is she implying that? At no point in this entire article is Stewart-Binks made out to be a victim. Did Stewart-Binks consider that every time a female in sports media acts inappropriately or unprofessionally it unfairly reflects on all females in sports media? (Let me know if a male sports reporter has ever had to defend himself for the way a male colleague dresses.) Judging by her tweets, this has not registered with Stewart-Binks. She thanked Gronkowski on Twitter and retweeted the clip …
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:46 PM
-2

Show me where in the article Stewart-Binks was made out to be a victim. This was an article that was critical of what Stewart-Binks did, written by a female reporter who was pointing out that fellow reporters lowering themselves to being sex objects makes it hard for her to do her job and be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:44 PM
-2

No, she answered her own question later in the article that Stewart-Binks did indeed seem OK with it. Judging by her tweets, this has not registered with Stewart-Binks. She thanked Gronkowski on Twitter and retweeted the clip calling it “incredible.” This article was being critical of Stewart-Binks and you missed that point completely.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:39 PM
-6

I don't know what you mean? The author is mad at Stewart-Binks and is in no way defending her.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:23 PM
5

What? Did any of you actually read the article. I feel like I'm in Bizarro World here. The article was criticizing Stewart-Binks, and pointing out how hard her inapropriate behavior made it for serious female sports journalists to do their jobs. Seriously, are none of you getting this? Did Stewart-Binks consider that every time a female in sports media acts inappropriately or unprofessionally it unfairly reflects on all females in sports media? and So when a woman in sports media purposefully de…
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:19 PM
-12

There's a difference?
/r/MensRights05/02/16 10:10 PM
31

But it's not too soon for him to get on a soapbox and post about it on Reddit? And he expects no discussion about it? I tried to be as respectful as I could.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 02:38 AM
53

Please keep in mind I do not wish to troll in an already sad situation. But your account brings some questions to mind. First, are you sure he is innocent? Please understand the spirit this question was asked. He was your friend and obviously you like to assume your friends don't do those things, but what else are you going on in your steadfast claim of his innocence? You mention the $30,000 in legal fees to a 'female attorney'. Why do you bring up her gender? What role do you feel that played i…
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:13 AM
2

It's a good example of there being stupid people on the internet. Nothing more. That's not breaking news and never has been.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:05 PM
1

I get that this won't be a popular view here. But it is pretty stupid video. Not sure him retweeting it should merit being uninvited to a conference, but it is an ignorant video.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 04:10 PM
1

It could be real, and the person is just an idiot. Breaking news...there are some stupid people on the internet.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:57 PM
5

Why? I mean it's just a shit conversation with a moron on the internet. Oh, boy. Breaking news there.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:50 PM
-1

Ok I'll reverse the sexes. Male reporter, on a deadline is trying to get quotes from female athlete for his story. She doesn't take him seriously, just shows him her boobs, and acts like an idiot. Having had his time wasted and not getting the material he needs, he has to go off and write a substandard story, meanwhile his female peers get full cooperation, write more comprehensive stories and further their careers. Yeah no problem there.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:57 AM
1

I don't think what he did in that one isolated video was 'criminal'. But it likely did violate the team's code of conduct which he signed off on when he signed a contract...which could basically be summarized to say "Don't be a dickhead and embarrass us or well fine you". Plus as other posters have mentioned, he's had lots of troubles in the past worse than this, so the fine isn't surprising.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 04:26 AM
-1

per layorz post: She was in the team changing room when Chris Gayle saw her, deliberately removed his towel exposing his penis, and asked if she was "looking for this?". You see no problem with this? Seriously?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:06 AM
0

It's not poorly written. In the workplace people should be free to do their jobs without sexual overtones getting in the way.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 09:57 PM
0

What you seem to be missing here is, they were not at a nightclub or social event. They were at work. In the workplace, the definition of harassment takes on a whole different meaning: The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) defines workplace sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances or conduct of a sexual nature which unreasonably interferes with the performance of a person's job or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment can range…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:15 PM
1

Yes. This is a work environment. She was working. Doing her job. And he was preventing her from doing her job by making sexual remarks. Explain how that is not harassment.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:38 PM
4

Worst title ever. First of all it wasn't 'Australia' that fined him. It was his employer. Secondly, how in the world is what he did a compliment. She's a reporter, trying to do her job, and she's being harassed.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:25 PM
-4

Give it up man. He was engaging in harassing unprofessional behavior regardless of where it happened. There's a difference between an incidental exposure of genitals and what he did.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:22 PM
-1

This is such utter bullshit. It's all written like the man is a helpless spectator and can do nothing to change this scenario. I was divorced with two small children and worked very hard to avoid having it be that way. It can be done.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:07 PM
26

Oh bloody hell. Really?
/r/MensRights16/12/15 03:12 AM
-6

It all starts with the fucking though. Fucking might lead to kids. That is just a fact you must be ready for when you fuck.
/r/TheRedPill07/12/15 05:15 PM
-13

You realize that fucking can lead to children, right?
/r/TheRedPill07/12/15 02:39 PM
-18

You suck at life. Take responsibility for your actions.
/r/TheRedPill07/12/15 02:15 PM
1

You're going to have to help me out here. How is this a debunking of feminist philosophy?
/r/MensRights23/10/15 07:20 PM
4

I'm glad I'm not the only one. That is how I took the ad also. She did all those other things. And the large print was what the partner (and society) inferred. But the point is, even if you do all those other things it's still not an excuse for non-consensual sex.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 08:33 PM
1

Not the same. Any reporter would likely be denied. There's no reason to conduct the interview in the locker room. After a sporting event however, reporters are on deadlines, need to get the story out fast.
/r/TheRedPill09/10/15 06:19 PM
-7

No. Don't even go there. This is a pretty piss poor choice to hold up as a martyr for mens rights. Jesus fucking Christ.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 08:40 PM
-1

I think most rational people realize that both men and women are capable of horrible acts. I've heard this 'highlighting' and 'visibility', 'vital function' justification over and over. Repeating it doesn't make it true. It's still bullshit. These stories are posted because a significant portion of subscribers like to relish in the misdeeds of bitches. Plain and simple. The link was posted from a major mainstream news source. Do you realize how silly it sounds to claim the monster's misdeeds are…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 12:32 AM
-1

First of all, I'm 'in here' every fucking day so spare me your pointless pretentious smug lectures. There is a lot of good stuff here. And there is occasional shit, and that's what I protest. A discussion about inequalities is relevant and belongs here. A discussion about 'Look what this fucking cunt did' does not belong here. It accomplishes nothing. Men's rights is about solving problems. It is not about trying to prove which gender is better. It's sad and pathetic that so many here don't get …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 12:15 AM
0

You really need to read that Washington Post article again, and then read my post again before throwing down the 'stupid' gauntlet, oh brainiac. Because it's exactly what I was talking about. Reading is hard I know. But try.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 11:23 PM
-1

That's all fine. So why not post that instead of a single isolated incident of a monster? That's what I'm protesting. Is it pertinent for a feminist site to post a news item about an isolated incident of a dad beating and abusing his children? If the answer is no, then this post is just as irrelevant.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 11:18 PM
-5

I frankly don't see it. As far as I've seen anyway, nobody has suggested not incarcerating violent felons. But the hope is to reduce nonviolent incarceration for both male and female. And since most female prisoners are for nonviolent offenses, and there aren't even that many total female prisoners to begin with, the numbers just wouldn't (ideally) be there to justify keeping women's prisons open. Female violent offenders would still be incarcerated at some facility, just not a full blown prison…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:41 PM
-5

K thanks. This is the kind of intelligent discourse that is the hallmark of this place.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:38 PM
-3

So now we're going to post stories based on mens rights stuff that might happen?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:09 PM
-7

What's that got to do with this story?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:57 PM
-4

How is this a men's rights issue? Unless there is some demonstrable information that boys are being systematically abused in this way exclusively by women and getting away with it unpunished or something like that, this is not a men's rights issue. And it demeans this subreddit by turning it into nothing more than r/lookatthebadstuffawomandid. It's what gives the subreddit a bad reputation, because it's just pointless hate mongering. This subreddit gets pissed at the suggestion that all men are …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:48 PM
0

No. I'm the guy saying i have no idea what's going on inside Amazon. Go back and read. And I'm saying you don't know either. But please feel free to write more hurdur laced tirades. You obviously think it's cool, so go for it.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 11:15 PM
-8

My comment assumed no such thing. I can't be responsible for your reading comprehension problems. Sorry.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 07:57 PM
-3

Of course it's not the only way. Who said it was? Thanks for the condescending lecture. But it is a possible way. And you don't know it to be true or not in the case of Amazon.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 07:38 PM
-1

You have no idea what they are basing their claims on. Again you are speculating to match your particular world view.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 06:37 PM
-9

The relevant part you seem to be referring to is: "Many women at Amazon attribute its gender gap — unlike Facebook, Google or Walmart, it does not currently have a single woman on its top leadership team — to its competition-and-elimination system. Several former high-level female executives, and other women participating in a recent internal Amazon online discussion that was shared with The New York Times, said they believed that some of the leadership principles worked to their disadvantage. T…
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 06:13 PM
-13

Unless you have worked at Amazon and truly know the dynamics going on there, you are simply speculating on the reasons why there are no women in leadership there. How do you know 'women don't like to compete in Amazon's corporate environment for the upper spots'? Maybe plenty of women are competing and are deserving and are being systematically rejected. I don't know if that's case or not all I'm saying is you don't know either. You are just making up explanations that want to be true.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 05:25 PM
-17

It's not a bad thing, it's not a good thing.... it just is. Well no. It's an indefensibly bad thing if someone is getting passed up for a promotion based on gender, either gender.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 04:59 PM
-17

But you're talking about a general gender gap in the entire work force as a whole. There could indeed be pockets of gender gaps in individual companies. And there could very well be one at Amazon. We don't know.
/r/TheRedPill09/09/15 04:47 PM
2

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind." Basically, it's made up of two separate words, mank and ind. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 06:50 PM
2

or even if I didn't know them but they were 2/10 obese and repulsive looking That was pretty cringey and doesn't do much to support your point. "It's totally cool to get sexually abused just so it's not a fat chick, yo."
/r/MensRights20/08/15 03:36 PM
6

I don't understand why you're bringing gender into this or making it a men's rights issue. Sounds like just a malpractice suit to me.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 05:09 AM
11

Admits? This is a very poor title to an otherwise good article. She's educating people and seeming very sensible about it. But oh nos she's associated with the big bad 'F' word, so let's paint it like she's 'admitting' to something wrong and making a big mea culpa.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 06:54 PM
4

The quote in the title is a really poor, over dramatic generalization. Even though I bet it was fun to write racy, edgy words like anally raped and dragging around mattresses. It seems to be suggesting that anyone who suffered real trauma would just shut the hell up about it, so any activist who tries to bring about change is a faker. I think the ridiculousness of that assumption is obvious. Yes it does take courage to publicly open one's self up like that. But guess what? Some people have coura…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 02:00 PM
0

Consent under the influence of alcohol is a tricky matter. But you are absolutely right, the article was very one-sided and strategic in which parts it quoted and which parts it leaves out…specifically all the parts about him actively and aggressively initiating sex. It should at least be a part of the discussion and it's a shame you were down voted for pointing it out.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 06:28 PM
3

So...you think that trailer was portraying a comedy?
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:14 PM
17

I'll tell you one thing you can do. Provide us with some details.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 02:45 PM
2

Aw darn I guess there will be no breakthrough where you learn to discuss using facts to support assertions. I'm guessing guessing you're a very religious person. That's how they operate. Nothing wrong with that. Whatever gets you through the day.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 11:54 AM
2

Just say you can't do it. It's OK. Nobody will care. It's only us here now. Come into the light. Come clean. Be a new WhoFilledFather!
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:46 PM
1

The deflection is strong in this one. You literally cannot come up with one shred of an example of your Really Big Important Point about victim shaming. You can only stamp your foot and say "It's true. You did it. You did it" I can only conclude you went back, reread my posts and realized your claim came straight from your ass.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:09 PM
11

Then all you'll have to show for it is a wrecked door. How is that better?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:55 PM
-3

Really? How can you make that promise?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:54 PM
-1

Why? The incident is over.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:51 PM
1

I think a case could be made that the police had reasonable cause to make sure everything was OK. But you are right. That would have been an extremely messy situation had your husband been home.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:47 PM
0

Report her to who? The police?
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:46 PM
1

Still waiting for one example of said victim blaming. Just one. You can do it!
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:27 PM
1

Can't argue using fact. So just call names and compare upvotes, and say "I'm right just because". Great. Tell me more of your grown up ways, oh wise one.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 09:39 PM
1

Still waiting.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:48 PM
0

Hahaha. You're going with upvote counting now? Classic. Still waiting for you to provide an example of where I did what you claim I did. Reading is hard, I know. But congrats on outperforming me on upvotes. That's pretty sweet.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:28 PM
0

No. I'm saying don't assume the school has put everything they know about this guy into that letter. I'm saying we simply don't have enough information one way or the other. I'm saying the school should provide a justification for their concern. That's what I would demand if I was a parent there. This subreddit is saying there is absolutely no cause for concern, and they seem sure the guy is just being picked on. Big difference.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 02:31 PM
1

If I was a parent at that school and they sent me a scary letter saying watch out for a guy, the police have been called, etc. without saying what specifically he did wrong, you're damn right I'd demand more information. So I could make a determination myself. That's not saying the man did anything wrong. That's asking for the school's basis for making such an assessment. Huge difference.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 02:24 PM
-2

OK, I'll keep playing, just because I'm amused at how bad you are at this. Please point out where I blamed anybody...except the school for writing a poor letter.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 01:44 PM
-2

Please point out where I said this man has done anything wrong.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 01:42 PM
-8

Yes trying to judge things objectively is a sure sign of immaturity. Whereas completely misunderstanding plain written English and coming to completely bizarre conclusions is a sure sign of mature sage wisdom.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:40 PM
-9

What the fuck are you even talking about? Read my posts.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:24 PM
0

Sure. But applying it here is very subjective. The men's rights view is that the simplest explanation is that a principal alerted parents and police for no good reason whatsoever. I think another equally plausible explanation is that there is more to the story than we outsiders on the internet can know.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:14 PM
-4

No that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even remotely. I'm not telling anyone to assume the worst, I'm not telling anyone to assume the best. I'm saying this is a poorly written letter by the school. And I would tell them exactly that if I was a parent there. Then I would demand more clarification so I could determine if this guy was a threat or not. Because they haven't made clear at all why they think so. They might have good reasons or they might not. This subreddit assumes the guy is not a…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:56 AM
-9

But that still doesn't tell the whole story. What was his behavior like at the play? Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very poorly conceived and written letter and if I was a parent who received it I would demand more information. They tell people to be on alert then are vague as to why. But my objection is different than the rest of this subreddit who assumes he's doing nothing wrong. He could very well be doing something wrong but the letter just did a shitty job of explaining that.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:28 AM
7

I agree. If I was a parent who received this letter I would chastise the school for it. It's telling people to be on alert then being vague as to why.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:14 AM
-7

That can mean a lot of things.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:11 AM
3

If they had a chance to, sure. I'm not saying the school is handling this well.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:11 AM
-3

Well again, nobody on this subreddit knows the circumstances of where and when he was seen, yet are classifying it as him doing nothing wrong. Admittedly it is a poorly written letter for allowing such ambiguity, but it could in fact be a very justified letter. He might well have been seen under suspicious circumstances. This subreddit is in no position to make that call.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:32 AM
3

I still don't understand why you are making the assumption he was seen only at public events at the school. The letter only says he was twice seen on campus. It could very well have been under suspicious circumstances. We just don't know.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 10:05 AM
1

We don't know the circumstances, and admittedly the letter is poorly written in that it doesn't describe the circumstances. It just says he appeared twice on campus. That could mean he was innocently attending a public event as some have suggested here, or it could mean he was roaming the halls or playground without authorization on a school day which certainly would not be 'doing nothing wrong'. Jumping to conclusions that he is doing nothing wrong seems just as unwarranted as jumping to conclu…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 09:50 AM
4

Do we know he was going to public functions at the school? I don't see where it says that.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 09:44 AM
4

That's a really ridiculous comparison.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 04:21 AM
-1

And you're misinterpreting this how?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 08:45 PM
0

All I'm saying is, discussion is fine, and no I'm not a 'marriage supporter', nor am I anti-marriage. That's my whole point. You can discuss the merits and dangers of something without turning everything into a one size fits all proclamation. "I ate pizza last night and got heartburn. Guys, NEVER EVER eat fucking pizza!!" The subject of being aware of the legal ramifications of marriage and prenups is fine, and exactly the type of thing this subreddit should be tackling. I only objected to the s…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 03:37 PM
-2

Whatever you call it, it's bad. It's blanket 'advice' intended at everyone. That's ridiculous. Marriage is fine for lots of people. Everyone is different.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:01 PM
2

Yes it's definitely a topic worth discussing, but it has a horse shit title. That's my point.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:55 PM
1

No one is ordering people to not get married. Um, what is - 'Don't EVER get married guys', if not an order to not get married?
/r/MensRights11/04/15 08:54 PM
-7

A good topic, but spare me the anti-marriage preaching. Everyone is different and must do what's right for them. Don't tell them what to do.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 07:01 PM
20

There is pending legal action by the frat. There will never be an apology by a defendant in a pending lawsuit. That's pretty normal.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:07 PM
0

Only a select few.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 10:31 PM
-1

Yes hardly anyone ever uses it any more.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 10:29 PM
2

Not seeing how this is relevant to men's rights. Little help.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 05:11 PM
1

The reaction is far from perfect. Why can't they have a discussion board to discuss problems? The man's intrusion was completely out of line. I hope he was at least being tongue in cheek about it and meant no harm. But if he's serious he should create his own group and quit being a whiny little bitch about someone else's.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:09 PM
1

Is there a particular reason to comment without reading?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:28 PM
-2

You are using a very narrow definition of men's rights in order to exclude red pill. That's exactly what feminists are accused of doing. Narrowly defining the term to suit their own individual beliefs. You are doing exactly what is very common in many areas - art, music, literature, politics, foreign relations, on and on. It's human nature to see endless subtlety and variety within something that interests us, while those on the outside claim it's all the same. Non-metal fan: it all sounds the f…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 05:39 PM
3

In other words, your group has many sects , making it easier for you to write off the ones you don't like, but other groups are monolithic hive minds making it easier to criticize them.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:31 PM
1

You obviously don't read it then. You just like taking pot shots at the idea of it. It's odd I'm in the position now of defending srs, but I don't care, I'll take the mantle for one more post. Even though I think I may be banned from it. I don't remember. I made a comment questioning a post. I got banned because I didn't follow rules...if you want serious discussion you're supposed to take it to one of the secondary srs subreddits, while the main one is reserved for witty rejoinders or something…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 03:30 PM
1

You seem to be hung up on the idea of taking offense. I guess you see srs as a bunch of people sitting around being offended all day. I honestly don't. I see it as people pointing out what they perceive to be awful things about reddit. That's not the same as being offended. Being offended means you have surrendered power to the offending thing or person to affect your life. That's not the vibe I get at all from a majority of srs. They are merely making critical commentary and ridiculing things t…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:43 PM
1

Who's taking offense? Me? Srs'ers? And for the third time, what does this have to with my question about hating x vs. hating an xist opinion?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:44 PM
1

Obtuse? I made what I thought was a fairly simple, straight forward statement on a point in the article I didn't understand. You replied with an unrelated general rant about srs, then chose to speak in some kind of clipped cryptic code. But I'm the obtuse one?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:32 PM
1

...aaand still not addressing my basic question. This is fun.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:14 PM
1

This really isn't a reply to what I was talking about, but hey nice knee jerk rant. I'm wondering what is the difference between hating sexism for example vs. hating a sexist opinion? The article seems to imply one is ok but one isn't. If you hate sexism would it stand to reason you hate sexist opinions?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 12:56 PM
1

I don't get the point being made. It lists things to hate: racism, sexism, etc. but criticizes the practice of hating 'opinions'. Well what if an opinion is racist or sexist? It's a pretty odd semantic distinction being made. As for srs, I subscribe to it and monitor it because I like to expose myself to multiple viewpoints. I never contribute to it though. Not really my crowd. My overall opinion of it is, there is a lot nonsense and unwarranted hate there, but much of it, maybe 2/3 if I had to …
/r/MensRights09/01/15 12:14 PM
1

Not the same thing, the early rating on Facebook was not consensual. You say you don't care if it's consensual or not but you should. It's a pretty big difference, and you saying you don't care doesn't make it less so.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 04:39 AM
1

I think in this instance anyway she's absolutely correct. She's getting judged for her lyrics on a different level than most male songwriters would when writing about similar topics. It's ok to say sometimes a feminist has a valid point.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 09:26 PM
-5

I think it would have been even worse. She would immediately have been labelled a trashy slut.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 05:32 PM
8

To be fair, if she was involved in the comet landing and wearing that shirt it would have caused just as much stir.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 01:36 PM
6

Actually that is not a very good example of his game theory. It was invented for the movie. Not saying it wouldn't work, but it would be wrong to say it's an accurate illustration of Nash's Nobel Prize winning work.
/r/seduction01/11/14 12:08 AM
1

I don't think she'll have any trouble at all finding willing men who fit her profile. Rich good looking men use prostitutes too. Why? They are paying for the convenience and the no strings aspect. Hooking up with a woman for a one night stand still requires time, effort, and a certain amount of messiness afterwards, even for rich guys. Plus she has youth going for her. She's 19. Guys in upper 20's don't have many 19 year old girls readily available going through 'normal' channels. I think just t…
/r/TheRedPill27/10/14 09:36 PM
4

Meh. Likely written by an immature self centered person with obvious specific issues related to her own limited experience with men. Not worth getting into a bunch about.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:49 PM
0

No. It's impossible for a group to fight for all things all of the time. When a scientist focuses on curing a specific decease, does that mean he or she is against curing all other deseases? No. But the person has to narrow focus to one specific task at hand or else nothing would get done. Charities work the same way. One charity provides food to the poor, maybe another shelters the homeless, maybe another provides poor people with medical care. They all want to end poverty but each is focused o…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 03:11 PM
-5

You haven't come across it in any classes because it's basically meaningless. It's used on Reddit and on the internet in general like it's some sort of irrefutable axiom, that instantly vanquishes any statement of 'Not all ____ are like that'. It's not a true logical fallacy though. It's more like just shorthand to describe a situation that often comes up in discussion. Nothing more.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 03:02 PM
-1

I'd argue that feminism is still necessary. As is men's rights activism, As is civil rights activism, as is gay rights activism... Sure they all strive for equality, or should. But they all deal with historically different sets of issues and conditions. It would be far too broad for any one group to just say 'Equality is equality and I'm fighting for all'. It's natural that each movement focusses on a specific subset. There is a long list of valid issues for feminism to concern itself with. Issu…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:30 PM
-6

look it up Could you be more condescending? Yes I'm familiar with freshman level logical fallacy terms. Thanks. But it's also one of the most overused terms on the internet, and just randomly throwing it out there doesn't really prove or accomplish anything. Every group or movement of sufficient size has its extreme radical fringe. Every group also has its share of assholes and idiots. And the more moderate elements in the group who comprise the vast majority could reasonably say exceptions do n…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:21 PM
8

And you are implying that all feminists are like that?
/r/MensRights29/04/14 07:46 AM
2

It still is that way for pregnant and old women. And should be. Old men too. Able bodied people should give up their seats for obviously less abled.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:40 PM
1

You are what gives this sub a bad reputation.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:39 PM
1

And how is that logic any different than what the meme portrays? One gender is without fault, the other sucks. Round and round we go. Wheeee!
/r/MensRights07/04/14 12:28 PM
3

Not much you need to do. It's more a question what will she do? She's not some inanimate prop. If she doesn't have the common sense and decency to turn the guy away, then forget her. I'm not going to make a big scene and fight over her.
/r/seduction28/03/14 05:40 PM
1

Here's what it boils down to. You are pissed because women can choose abortion and men can't. Fine I understand that. And I agree men should have a voice in the decision. But here's the dilemma. It's a democracy of two. And you can see the inherent problem there. How do you break ties? Well to me the tiebreaker in abortion is, it does effect the woman slightly more because it's her body. So that gives the edge to her. So a democracy of two with a tiebreaker always on one side is in effect logica…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 03:50 AM
1

Yes what you describe is the standard reply. But my question is what would stop every father of an accidental pregnancy from immediately filing the 'abortion clause' to release him from all financial responsibility? By this system, no noncustodial parent of an accidental pregnancy would pay child support, ever. Because the abortion waiver would become automatic. it would get evoked constantly. To take it further what would stop men from refusing to take any responsibility for birth control? Just…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 12:46 AM
2

I understand the sentiment represented here. But I feel the alternative being suggested is worse. I have asked several times in discussions if people really want a non-custodial parent to have a legal right to simply opt out of child support. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that question.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 11:35 PM
-11

I did read the article. And was unable to discern what happened or who was at fault. And neither can you.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 07:04 PM
-17

From that vague sketchy article so many internet geniuses here are ready to pass judgment. I am dazzled by your ability to glean so much information from so little, when it dovetails with a particular world view.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:50 PM
-11

That the police aren't providing explicit details about this encounter is unconscionable Really? So the police should just start blasting information all over the internet on an ongoing investigation, just to satisfy your curiousity?
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:46 PM
-14

So, you were there? Do tell us more.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:44 PM
2

She's right. The death penalty is inhumane.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 12:55 AM
0

So your 'solution' is for him to post upwards of 2,000 false accusations on the site. Yeah what could possibly go wrong?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:42 AM
1

Cease and desist letter? The post is already taken down. They've already ceased and desisted. Or am I missing something?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:39 AM
-2

I didn't see anything in the article claiming sexism. I saw a woman discussing what she liked and didn't like. I guess I'm not seeing how you jump from that to 'sexist'.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:34 AM
1

I wouldn't say it gets you nowhere. It allows you to learn from mistakes. There simply is no substitute for going out and doing it.
/r/seduction03/02/14 04:05 PM
2

Yeah welcome to the cesspool. The term white knight is thrown around here so much it has lost all meaning, even on the occasions when it's justified. Usually around here it means 'a guy who I'm pissed off at for treating a woman with some decency and thereby raising the bar for everyone'. It's probably the single most trait I dislike about this subreddit, and there are several.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 02:30 PM
0

No it doesn't. That still does not explain how this specific story is a men's rights issue. There seems to be nothing gender specific about the story at all. It's just some people doing some bad things to another person.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 05:32 PM
1

Where in the article does it say her sentence is lighter than what a man would have received? You're going to have to back that claim.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:45 AM
-5

That's a straw man. I don't think many people think males aren't victims of this type of abuse.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 04:59 PM
-5

Just like only a few commenters here care that this isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 04:57 PM
1

Of course not. Neither is abuse of girls. However, by 'isolated' I mean the article simply presented what happened, an act of abuse, without any overriding circumstance that may have been gender related. My questions remains open for you to answer. But by your complete failure to answer it, I think I that says a lot. It would be bullshit on a feminist site, just like it's bullshit here.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 08:12 PM
3

...and still haven't answered a very simple straight forward question.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:51 PM
2

Billions of dollars spent specifically concerned with girl child abuse and not boys. Yeah, you're going too have to tally that one up for me. And by the way, you didn't answer my question. Is an isolated incident of child abuse of a girl a relevant issue on a feminist forum. What purpose would it serve there?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:37 PM
1

Did I say nobody should discuss it? No. But it is not an issue for a men's rights forum. If this happened to a girl would it be an issue for r/feminism? Do we really want to go there?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:01 PM
3

You really can't figure this out? Nobody is disagreeing that this was extremely unfortunate, and of course the boy has rights. Don't be ridiculous. But he was in no way targeted because of his gender. It was a random shitty act that could have just as easily happened to a girl or been perpetrated by a man. Gender had nothing to do with it so it is not a men's rights issue. And frankly, posts like this are what make this subreddit get viewed as a joke and not get taken seriously. Because all it s…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:44 PM
2

It's a line in a soap opera. Really? Is this what we're going to rage against?
/r/MensRights26/09/13 03:22 AM
2

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted. It is by far the funniest and best answer. Guys around here are pretty clueless little dweebs sometimes.
/r/seduction25/09/13 12:09 AM
-9

That's a lot severe. Could it be any less welcoming of women? Boy it sure is a mystery no women wanted to hang with them. Then they wrote it off as an attempt at 'humor'. Ha ha ha, fucking cunt bitch whores don't understand our sophisticated wit.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 04:23 AM
12

You shouldn't. Only about 75% is worthy of support. A fairly good ratio compared to some other subreddits, but still...
/r/MensRights20/09/13 01:47 PM
2

Wait, you believe that ideologies and ulterior motives aren't rampant on Wikipedia?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:49 AM
1

No, I don't think you do. Sarcasm is still used to refute a real point. You were refuting a point that nobody was making.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:47 AM
2

But the term 'feminist' edit, can have vastly different meanings. The demonized version around here is not the only interpretation. It gave an example of a list of American writers, and women were being removed from that list and placed on a separate list of women American writers. If they reverse that act and put women back on the main list, is that 'vandalism'? Maybe an edit is to point out a significant act or contribution by a woman that was ignored. Maybe they are seeking out misogynist pos…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:33 PM
2

I don't care if they're equalized. I was just pointing out they think there needs to be a larger female presence on Wikipedia.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:23 PM
-2

I don't think you understood the point of the article. Nobody suggested women were being prevented from editing Wikipedia. It was merely pointed out that the majority of contributors were men. So they are trying to equalize those numbers.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:16 AM
-1

Well like I said, nobody can make you work. They will still however require support payments to be made.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:34 PM
-1

Are you talking about the custodial or non-custodial parent? Either way it doesn't matter I guess. If the non-custodial parent quits his or her, it doesn't relieve them from child support obligation. And for the custodial parent, if he or she quits working, in principle they could have quit in order to spend more time with children, so it would be deemed that they still need support.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:57 PM
1

As to why government services don't do nothing if she doesn't work, they can't actually 'make' her work. In principle anyway, the reasoning is she's not working in order to concentrate on raising the children, hence she needs your child support to pay the bills. As to why payment isn't reduced if she gets a better job, that mainly depends upon the divorce agreement. In my case it was specified in the agreement that we re-calculate support every year based on a formula which took into account cur…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:27 PM
1

And clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Who or what exactly is anyone supposed to 'turn her in' to? Especially considering she didn't violate any law, regulation, or guideline. Is this just mindless internet BS or do you actually have something specific in mind?
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:10 PM
1

Sorry you had to be in the middle of that. It illustrates perfectly why the person paying support shouldn't try to micromanage the other's affairs. For years I was on the side of paying child support to my ex. And the support largely paid for her way through school. I never complained about it, and damn sure never put the kids in earshot of any dispute. The kids were always cared for and never neglected. And now she has a good job and is helping my kids financially as young adults. Every situati…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:33 PM
2

A lot of people here don't get it. Child support goes to enhance the entire household budget of the custodial parent. It is not necessarily dollar for dollar earmarked to be 'child only' purchases. It's impossible to micromanage it that way. It goes into a general bucket, which takes care of the children, provides them with not just food and cloths, but housing, transportation, and yes also includes some discretionary spending for the parent. If the children are legitimately being neglected then…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:22 PM
1

Yes it is a harsh comment considering you don't know anything about the person who made this post. Boots and nails are hardly a new SUV. You have no idea what her monthly budget looks like. She might scrimp and save and spend every dime of her own money on her kids. We just don't know.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:12 PM
0

Turn in for what exactly? You have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever been in a child support situation?
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:10 PM
3

Thank you. Was ready to rage against this post, and the mentality behind it. And there aer certainly a fair share of fucked up comments that I was expecting. But was relieved to see this well stated comment as the top rated one. It's just a shame that what you stated about not knowing the full context of the post has to be explained to sao many people. Main problem with the internet is people so eager to jump on crap like this without a shred of background or detail, just because it triggers an …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:06 PM
3

But my comment was about the ad. Divorce has nothing to do with this discussion.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:25 AM
3

What's that got to do with this ad?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:06 AM
1

So your point seems to be that an ad telling teen girls to not get pregnant is enabling teen girls to get pregnant. And I'm supposed too take advice from you on how to avoid ideological bias? Yeah you're a real fountain of impartiality.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:03 AM
2

But getting back to the point of the ad, it is simply saying to teen girls, if you think you're going to get pregnant, get married and have a fairy tale ending, think again. It usually doesn't happen that way. I don't see anything wrong with that message.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:15 AM
3

This ad is simply suggesting teen girls don't get pregnant. You are the one projecting some big angry agenda on top of it.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:11 AM
2

The custodial parent is entitled to support from the non-custodial parent whether they are together or not.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:52 PM
4

But in the context of this ad, it doesn't matter how many are being driven away. It is simply pointing out that if you get pregnant chances are you will be going it alone. It doesn't matter whether the reason is hormonal or otherwise.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:08 PM
31

I think in the case of teen pregnancy men are primarily responsible for leaving. All this ad is doing is pointing out cold hard numbers. If you're a teenage girl who gets pregnant, chances are your dude will disappear.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:01 PM
0

So much stupidity in so few words. The efficiency of your ineptitude is quite impressive.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 10:52 AM
11

It'a not a fucking competition. You are what's wrong with this subreddit.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 05:39 PM
1

Who cares if they're doing less? Sports salaries have absolutely nothing to do with amount of 'work'. Where did you ever get that idea? It's entertainment. Should an opera star get paid more for a 3 hour opera than a 2 hour one? That's ridiculous. They get paid a percentage of what the opera company thinks they will make at the box office. Nobody's punching a clock. Women's tennis seems pretty popular. Sure it's a different game than the men's, men are more powerful, play longer more greuling ma…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:07 AM
2

No, WNBA games are shorter. 10 minute quarters instead of 12. But that had nothing to do with why WNBA players get less. It's simply a less popular sport.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:51 AM
3

Why? What rule says athletes should be paid by the length of their events? That's absurd. Athletes are paid whatever the market will bear.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:16 AM
2

Lots of bro science I'm guessing.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:14 PM
4

a) If the going gets tough, it is always the men who get put in harms way. Without any information to support that claim besides just the raw statistic, you are in no position to make that claim. Couldn't I just as reasonably argue that the reason is that women are more adept at the job and men are more careless and reckless and therefore die more? I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying that without further information, that explanation is just as valid as yours. You have to be very careful a…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 05:23 PM
1

If there was top 10 list of least likely phrases to be championed by SRS, "Boys will be boys" in the context of downplaying sexual assault...regardless of the gender of the victim, would certainly be on it. You don't get it.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:01 PM
8

That is completely unlike anything I've ever seen on SRS. Fun game. Make stuff up about a group and then criticize them for it.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:38 PM
3

An OK list overall. But I have to say I'm having trouble with: Society told me because I was a man, I was required to prove myself to women in a relationship. I didn't feel that way because I felt that both persons should be committed to trying to discover if a relationship works. But because society has put a tremendous amount of high value on women when dating, and women have developed a strong sense of privilege and control in the process, I was considered less than a man for expecting someth…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 04:32 PM
3

This ad was likely one of many with different themes and targets. We are viewing one ad and making judgement on it like it represents the entire value system. This one may have targeted heterosexual men, I'll grant you that. But the whole point was to increase condom usage. You can bet there were other ads highlighting other aspects.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:09 PM
2

The ad isn't warning just women. It's warning anyone to not have sex with 'someone like that', meaning a man who has had unprotected sex with multiple partners. It is this subreddit that is misinterpreting it as a warning to women only.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:56 PM
2

But males have the organ which a condom goes on. And back then, maybe more so than now, it was primarily mens duty to purchase and use condoms. A woman buying condoms was unheard of. That's the bit that I think is getting missed here.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:44 PM
2

From unprotected sex without a condom. Which is the point of the ad. I think too much is being made of this.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:39 PM
2

But worse hate speech is worse. There are degrees. Why pretend there aren't?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:40 AM
1

That doesn't make sense to say it was 'disproved' in 1981. It's not some static thing that remains fixed, like a scientific principle. It could change with the times. To say it was disproved in 1981 is to ignore 32 years of economic and societal trends. In fact, going back to 1981 for 'proof' comes off as a bit desperate. There have been studies done, and much more recent than 1981 too, that do level the playing field by taking into account the various factors commonly cited to discredit the gen…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 12:16 PM
2

See, I don't get why this is a mens rights issue. The woman did something bad, was found guilty, will be charged harshly for it. If she was given lenient treatment by the courts then I could see it being a valid issue. But that's not the case here. This is the way it's supposed to be handled. Men and women both do bad things. Are we saying when women do it, it's automatically a 'mens rights' issue? I don't agree. Until someone gets special treatment due to gender, it's just people behaving badly…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:06 PM
-1

Perfectly horrible advice.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 10:09 PM
4

Always their go to? Whose?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 08:25 AM
2

I'm embarrassed for this subreddit that I had to scroll down this far to find the obvious glaring question.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 03:18 AM
2

I rest my case.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:37 PM
2

Yeah I can see I'm dealing with a real scholar here, right from the instant 'fuck you' just because you disagreed with something I wrote. Never mind. I really don't expect you to be able to construct a coherent explanation of your views. Party on dude.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:23 PM
0

No I'm not a veteran. But I don't see what that has to do with anything some I'm not disputing that a problem exists and that this guy in particular got royally shit on. But I'm wondering why specifically it is a men's rights issue. The only real answer I've gotten so far is, because it happens to more men, since there are more men in the military. But using that logic couldn't any problem faced by vets be labeled a men's rights issue? That is not in any way trying to downplay the numerous issue…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:43 PM
1

How so? Can you explain?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:32 PM
-3

Wives specifically? Or spouses? I understand it's a very unfortunate issue, and it happens to a lot of men simply because there are a lot more men deployed overseas. But my point is, could it not just as easily happen to a woman deployed overseas? Is there a specific gender bias going on here? If so, I don't see it.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:47 PM
16

Yeah, if she ends up with the house or something, and gender bias can be shown, then sure. But otherwise it's just a horrible person doing a horrible thing and there is no gender related angle to consider. I always use as a yardstick, if you switch genders in the story, would it be relevant fodder for a feminist site? I say no, it's still just an asshole doing something bad.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:48 PM
64

No need to cross post this here. It has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:09 PM
0

So I don't get it. You grew some balls and dumped an overbearing abusive partner, but you get mad at the phrase 'Grow some balls'.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:13 PM
2

'Burden of care'? Are you kidding me? Yes a 20 year old camp counselor is 'burdened' to not fuck the little 12 year old campers. Holy crap.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:03 AM
1

No but 20 year old guys are burdened with not fucking 12 year old girls. Please tell me you're trolling, because that's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen here.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 01:25 AM
10

He should be fired. And he should get no sympathy. Are you seriously suggesting that a 20 year old counselor shouldn't get fired for having sex with 12 year old campers?
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:10 PM
18

The point is, she was 12. Even if she knew what she was doing, it still doesn't mean an adult should oblige her desires.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:06 PM
11

She was 12. Even if she was asking for it, she was a minor. It does not make it OK for an adult to have sex with her. I think that's what she means. You shouldn't blame yourself for the life changing events caused by what you 'ask for' when you're 12.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:04 PM
9

I think everyone is talking about it from that perspective. That has been the thrust of most discussion I've seen on the topic. People more worried about the athlete rapists than the victim.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:58 PM
3

This was my thought as well. Has this place really gotten so fucked up that if a man brings up a legitimate problem for women he is viewed as some kind of traitor?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:29 PM
1

As a matter practicality I can see where the phrase 'Women and children first' would make sense. In a nautical emergency, those more physically fit should ideally help with the evacuation, launching lifeboats, assisting those less fit, etc. On the average, adult men are stronger and more physically adept than women or children. It's not a sexist thing to say, it's just a fact. So there is some logical sense to it. But perhaps a more modern adaptation of the phrase would be something like, "Small…
/r/TheRedPill10/03/13 10:14 AM
0

I don't like the way the question is framed, like the only factors involved are save money vs. getting laid more. First of all, I don't understand an adult even wanting to live with his parents. As soon as I was 18 I was dying to leave. And no I was not from a bad or abusive family in any way. I just wanted to be independent, even if that meant some financial hardship. Secondly, I am on the other dise of this now. I am older and have adult kids of my own. Give your parents a break. They have liv…
/r/TheRedPill10/03/13 10:07 AM
1

That won't matter in the least. Both parents can be held liable for support regardless of the circumstances of conception. You had sex, you must be prepared for the worst. Period.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:12 PM
0

The fact that this comment is near 100 points illustrates why it's so hard to take this subreddit seriously sometimes.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:00 PM
1

I agree. In most any other business or retail situation a policy like this would be wrong. But I never minded it at a bar. They're just trying to even out the clientele. I enjoy being around more women, and never got upset that they saved a few bucks. It always seems like a pretty whiney thing to complain about.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:38 PM
1

People here seem to be confusing a police investigation with legal rights in court. In court it's innocent until proven guilty. Police investigating a crime are under no such restrictions. They make assumptions and follow leads as they see fit. It makes absolute sense for police to proceed with an assumption of guilt while in the evidence collecting phase. Otherwise something vital could be missed. Once evidence is collected, or failed to be collected since it didn't exist, that's when police ca…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 11:40 PM
1

Acceptable, yes. It's a joke. There are jokes about penises, vaginas, breasts, asses, male, female, large, small. You're just learning this now? Funny? Not really. But just because it's unoriginal, not because of any sense that it's somehow unacceptable.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:31 AM
1

Quite the opposite. I'm here to advocate for this forum to keep its integrity in order to be more effective.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:40 PM
0

I care, don't be an internet idiot. But by your definition, everything is a mens rights issue. Global warming? Men are getting hot. The deficit? Yes it's effecting the economy for men. School shootings? Yes, if boys get shot. A video of a guy getting hit by a train? Yep, mens rights again. I disagree. I think it's only a mens rights issue if it can be shown that men are being disproportionately discriminated against. It doesn't mean I don't care that a guy gets hit by a train. It just means I'm …
/r/MensRights28/01/13 05:52 PM
0

If you are a "feminist" then you AT LEAST support "patriarchy theory" That is your definition. And it's a 'no true Scotsman' definition. It is not a global one. We're just going in circles here. Now please, without sounding mean, you have A LOT of reading to do. I've seen your shining examples of 'reading'. Thanks. Perhaps you are the one who needs to venture out of his comfort zone occasionally when reading.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 07:04 AM
2

One time anecdotal accounts of women doing bad things simply don't belong on a mens rights forum. Studies showing a larger problem, absolutely belong. Do you see the difference? One just needlessly fans flames, one discusses real trends and what to do about them. Consider this story. A father puts a gang tattoo on his 7 year old son. Everyone could agree it's wrong. But should this story be posted on a feminist forum as an example of how fathers are shitty abusive parents? I would argue no. It d…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:59 AM
-2

There are a great many people who would fall under the dictionary definition of feminists, which means simply having an interest in rights and equality for women, who wouldn't fall into your narrow stereotypical 'Feminazi' mold. You accuse me of a no true Scotsman tactic, but aren't you doing exactly the same in your definition of feminism? Throwing out anyone who doesn't match your predefined expectations? I take a broader view of the term. The 'dictionary' view. You do not. It's really as simp…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:51 AM
6

Jesus I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. A single 1 minute video is proof to you of an epidemic problem? Do you have any idea how many epidemics could be 'proven' with that method?
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:35 AM
4

The video is NOT a mens rights issue. It should not be posted in any mens rights forum that as any desire to be taken seriously. I can't say it any more simply than that. You said yourself it's not a pissing contest. That's all this video is accomplishing.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:32 AM
-6

Good, please start with this. I have read that. Lots. Now that I know the source of your world view, things are starting to make sense to me a little more.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:29 AM
6

Oh I have no doubt it will remain here. And get vigorously upvoted. Doesn't change the fact that this video has nothing to do with mens rights. So the treatment of 'our' children is an issue. But not the treatment of women's children? Mom's forcing tattoos on children is a thing, but dads isn't? Based on one ambiguous video? Is poverty a mens issue? Hunger? Global warming? Nuclear weapons proliferation? All these affect men, surely. But wait, there is no global warming video depicting an evil mo…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:17 AM
-5

Thanks! I'll go read now. You obviously are smarter than me. Not only do you have clairvoyant insight into my reading habits, but your super brain can also determine what every SINGLE feminist thinks. Do you have any idea how silly you sound? But just say NAFALT a few more times, because fuck that feels good. Finally, yes I will continue the let's all be friends game. You continue the "Let's defeat these horrible motherfuckers and put them in their place once and for all (whatever that means)" g…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:03 AM
-9

Your narrow, self-serving definitions and pigeonholing of things are very tidy and convenient, I'll grant you that. The world is sure easy to figure out when with a broad sweep of your hand you can proclaim ALL of a group to believe xyz.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 05:41 AM
14

It's an issue, sure. But not specifically mens rights. Except the video title identifies the mother as the person holding the child. So yeah I guess a woman doing something bad = yay mens rights, women are stupid and bad! First of all there is absolutely zero context provided here. How do we know there were no men involved in the act of giving this child a tattoo? She acted completely on her own? Secondly, even playing devil's advocate and conceding she acted completely on her own with no input …
/r/MensRights28/01/13 05:36 AM
23

It was fine for me. There are good feminists and bad ones. Just like there are good MRA's and bad ones. Why not assume she was talking about the good elements of feminism? I think a knee jerk reaction that assumes all feminists are enemies is unhealthy. There are genuinely some areas where women are discriminated against and there are people advocating against that. I'd have to hear more about Ellen Page's specific views (or anyone else's) before I slap a judgment on her. I really don't see why …
/r/MensRights28/01/13 03:20 AM
24

Nothing to do with mens rights
/r/MensRights28/01/13 03:14 AM
1

I know I'm in a minority here. And I know what Farrell was arguing. I just disagree. There are certain areas of inequity where men are disadvantaged, sure. And mensrights fills a valid need in addressing these. That's all fine. But taken in its entirety I fully acknowledge that I am a part of the most privileged demographic in the world. White American Male. The scale is tipped in our favor. Anyone who doesn't see the numerous advantages inherent in this position are just blind because they take…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:49 PM
1

I'm saying it works for me. I'm perfectly happy to take the advantages of being a man along with the added pitfalls. Because there is more potential for success than having limited benefits and limited pitfalls. The problem with this forum is it only sees the pitfalls, won't admit any of the advantages, and many here honestly believe women have it better overall on the balance of it. Which is absurd.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:47 PM
0

I'm fine with being stronger, being perceived as stronger, and having added consequences to deal due to the perceived strength. Works for me.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:36 PM
2

And reddit. Just check out /all/new sometime. Scary bad. You're only seeing the front pages so of course it looks great. If there was a front page for Twitter and Tumblr they would look equally as impressive.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:47 AM
0

I don't think a facade of strength is a weakness. It has helped me in many situations.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:27 AM
5

Because nobody has ever wished for a boy before. Seriously, why is this posted here? It has nothing to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:24 AM
-9

Me too. A wall of text, with a labyrinth of links which must be followed to piece together a complaint. Sum it up in a few sentences. Don't be so arrogant to think everyone wants to spend their whole morning on this drama.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:52 PM
0

So...a story where a guy abducts his kids would be relevant in a feminist subreddit too? Is that the the rule in play here? Just find stuff to point fingers at? And yes I understand that it's in the faq here about how pointing out bad women is so vitally important to the mission, because 'awareness' or something. Putting in the faq doesn't make it any more sensible. This has nothing to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:26 PM
0

What is the mens rights relevance here?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:27 AM
1

But the article was about mass murders. It wasn't about a battle of the genders. Why is it shitty to write an article that isn't all encompassing on every subject?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:33 AM
6

I don't look at the validity of the excuse. Valid excuses are extremely easy to make up, so that tells you nothing. The key is, does she make it clear that she wants to re-schedule, or at least agree to re-schedule immeduiately? Shit comes up, it happens. But if she really wanted to go out she'd be "Damn I can't believe this. What day could we do this instead? How about Saturday?" etc. If she just drops the old excuse out there, and then...nothing, I'm generally done. Her heart isn't in it. She …
/r/seduction20/12/12 04:40 PM
0

According to the article, 61 out of the last 62 over the past 30 years are male. This was citing another article from Mother Jones. But they are talking about only a specific type of mass murderer. Someone who does the killing in one violent outburst, not a serial killer. And likewise, they didn't include people who killed family or spouses.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:18 PM
1

I disagree that the article is pure male blaming. I guess we'll just have to have a difference of opinion on that. So the subject of why virtually all mass killers are men is a taboo subject? Why?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:54 AM
1

I knew it. Most rational comment on the thread is at the bottom. Of course.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:19 AM
0

But the overwhelming majority are men. The exceptions don't disprove the trend that's being discussed.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:17 AM
2

It never said all men were killers. And either you know that and are being dishonest, or you never read the article. The article was simply examining why mass murderers are overwhelmingly male. Isn't that a valid thing to examine? It's an interesting topic to explore. What if mass murderers were almost exclusively female? You think this subreddit might hold a certain fascination with that little tidbit? And want to discuss it in depth?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:12 AM
-1

Well those things would be relevant if the article was about "Are men good or bad? Let's add up the score." But it's not about that. So why bring up that stuff? Storming the beaches at Normandy? Really? The single thing I hate most about this subreddit is it constantly views everything from the perspective of men vs. women. "Oh hey look an article exploring why mass murderers are overwhelmingly male. They are bashing all men! Let's point out some good things men do! How about that Gandhi fellow?…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:08 AM
-7

r/mensrights. Bravely fighting the good fight against air headed 13 year old girls on Facebook.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:30 PM
1

You are simply making a blanket statement that is not true all the time. We'll never know, but in this particular case I bet he could have defended himself successfully and not been charged. And by defending himself I don't mean beating the shit out of her. If he did that he'd deserve to be charged. But he could have defended himself and defused the situation.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:40 PM
-3

I'm not saying that never happens. That would be a pretty stupid stance. So your point is really lost on me. All I'm saying is, in any given situation you can't assume what will happen, because each one is different.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:02 PM
-9

That's complete hyperbole. He could have defended himself.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:51 PM
-15

I'm not so sure of that. If it was a big scary dude doing the beating, people would be hesitant to intervene directly. They'd try to get help, yell at him to stop, etc. But knocking him out? Maybe, maybe not.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:15 PM
-21

Why is this a mens rights issue. She was arrested, no? I don't get it.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:04 PM
0

Since reading this headline, I did my own completely unscientific survey. Watched 10 commercials. 4 had what could be considered dumb women. Only one had a dumb man. Just sayin' I think this is a bit overblown as an issue. If a commercial script calls for a dumb person, what decision process should occur? They have to choose one gender. Is every dumb guy in a commercial evidence of bias? Would we rather see all dumb women? That would be just as bad. Would we want new advertising standards ensuri…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:02 AM
7

I was right with you until: I just keep my head down and mouth shut I'm not changing the way I live. I'll deal with the consequences. I think it's important that men don't get browbeaten into altering their public persona and living in fear.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:44 AM
1

I'm not giving advice. I'm not pushing a 'subjective opinion' (redundant phrase by the way). My argument isn't flawed. I never used the "real man" phrase myself. Otherwise...spot on post.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:55 AM
0

Of course it's subjective. And something subjective cannot possibly be 'always fallacious'. That makes no sense. If itr was always fallacious, it could not be subjective.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:44 AM
1

Are you not even allowing the possibility that the phrase No True Scotsman gets used occasionally when it's silly and inappropriate?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:52 AM
0

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you trying to frame this argument like I'm giving blanket approval of any suggestion which is prefaced with "A real man..."? Sometimes it works sometimes it's ridiculous. This isn't complicated.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:48 AM
2

That's ridiculous. Obviously when someone says something like 'real men...' it is hyberbole and not to be taken literally. The phrase is a dated colloquialism and perhaps isn't as meaningful as is once was, but I still don't have a problem when it is used in connection with an honorable trait.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:37 PM
7

I disagree. You cannot universally declare that any statement about how men should act is an example of No true Sctotsman. 'No true Scotsman' is one of the most overused phrases on the internet. Sure it is often valid and appropriate. But It is also applied very often by someone who has run out of arguments but feels quite clever and bolstered in hauling it out.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:11 PM
1

So in your definition a person who uses flattering, flirty language towards a female is a white knight? That's a bit fucked up. So take subreddits like 'am I sexy' or 'first impression'. In your opinion if a man is more interested in commenting to women than men he's a white knight? I just call it human nature. I've seen hundreds of guys giving other guys advice very similar to your example, basically be confident and you will be more attractive. The only thing different here is the tone of the …
/r/MensRights04/11/12 07:02 PM
1

There are better ways to support your offspring than separating the parents from the children and getting the father to pay the mother money. The sort of person who views that system where the father has no rights except to pay the mother money is understandably not viewed positively. Of course it's not ideal. But when parents are divorced, what choice is there? Even in joint custody child support is usually involved. Courts will generally take the percentage of time the child is with the other …
/r/MensRights04/11/12 05:57 PM
1

In that case I don't know what you mean by 'no controls'. Child support at least where I live (Minnesota) is determined by A) who has custody of the child and B) how much money each makes. It is determined by the courts. It is not dependent on gender. If a man has custody of the child, she must pay support. There is nothing white-knightish about saying people should support their offspring. Jesus, is that really the point you're trying to make? If so, you are absolutely 100% an example of someon…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 12:58 PM
2

I don't consider that example a 'white knight' in the least. So maybe it's an issue of terminology. It's simply guy who wants to make a woman feel good. There's a huge difference. He was just going overboard to make a point that the most important feature of being attractive is to be confident. And he's absolutely right. What's white knight-ish about that? True he used far more sugary and elaborate language on her than he would have for a male, but so what? Are you telling me you interact with w…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 12:51 PM
0

I have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:12 PM
-15

The white knight label is chronically overused. I'm not saying the phenomenon doesn't exist, but only around 5% of the time when the label gets slapped on someone is it justified. Most often it is used towards someone who has simply displayed a modicum of decency towards women, and is perceived to be ruining it for men who want to act like pigs and still get laid. It reveals more the social ineptness and laziness of the accuser than it does anything about the so-called 'white knight'.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 09:52 PM
0

I wonder why this place is never tken seriously, when all we do is tackle very important issues of the day such as this.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 09:46 PM
1

I said as a general policy it is a good idea to not talk. I am in complete agreement with you on that. But there are exceptions. This case sounds like one of them. That disproves 'NEVER talk to the police'. Thanks for making my point.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 12:26 PM
2

Well stated. I've been down this road too on this forum, and you can imagine the results. It is a fact of life that when you have sex there is a chance, however remote that you could end up being a daddy. You must accept that as part of the deal. You have no inalienable right to fuck without parenting. You can wish against it, you can scheme against it, you can go to great lengths to prevent it, but you must also accept that it can all break down. If you don't accept it there is an obvious solut…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:57 PM
3

A fair response. A couple of points though. They can give the child to the father and usually will not be asked to pay for child support That is untrue at least where I live. This is giving both parents final say as to whether they want to be involved in the child's life at a point in time where abortion and adoption are still possible. And once again this argument is all about fathers' rights vs mothers' rights, and turns a blind eye to the rights of the child, which in our legal system (at lea…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 07:37 PM
-8

Here we go again. And my answer is the same. No. This forum is concerned about men having equal rights to opt out of parenthood. That is a valid concern. But there are other factors which supercede that right. Primarily, the right of the child. The child's welfare comes first and that means having two parents providing support whenever possible. You simply cannot compare a man 'aborting' responsibility of a child with an actual abortion, since there is an obvious glaring difference. One results …
/r/MensRights02/11/12 03:18 PM
0

One case does not prove that it's never a good idea under any circumstances.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:19 PM
0

Then you did not judge correctly did you?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:12 AM
-1

Nope. You are wrong. In general, not talking may be a sound policy. But there can be exceptions. Sometimes it can actually be beneficial to cooperate. But you have to be careful and really be sure you have judged the situation correctly.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:04 AM
-1

I used the phrase a bit tongue in cheek. But yeah, this is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:48 PM
-1

If there was any chance I'd see a joke such as that one made about women then I would simply shrug my shoulders , maybe even offer a muted laugh , and forget I ever saw it . Then you should do exactly the same for this joke. Shrug your shoulders and offer a muted laugh. Nothing else you wrote matters. That's my whole point. You should form your own opinion on each joke, on a case by case basis and not worry about what society thinks or what feminists think. If you choose to take offense, fine. T…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:20 PM
2

Sorry but that just simply is not always true. I know, I know. It's the popular refrain around here. And yes by law he doesn't have to say anything, etc. But look at the practicality of this matter. The police obviously already had their radar up on this woman. And after 15 minutes of speaking with them, he had the cops on his side. That's worth a lot, because although the cops aren't ultimately the prosecutors, they work hand in hand with prosecutors. If he had just clammed up and gotten defens…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:52 PM
-1

If you find it mildly offensive, then sorry but there's no way you can label yourself as someone who can take a joke. Just sayin'. Becasue it's a pretty mild and lame joke. If you can't take this, I'd like to see an example of the jokes you can take.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:40 PM
1

So what? I'm serious. Either we are for the occasional lighthearted ribbing between genders or we are against it. Either way, I don't really see why a feminist view on the subject has anything to do with my opinion. Or are we just concerned about some juvenile tit for tat game and because we imagine they'd be mad at it we have to somehow react to that and we don't think it's fair that they howl about it and we don't? As far as this particular one, it doesn't bother me one bit. It's a harmless jo…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:38 PM
4

This is perhaps the most pointless post I've seen on this subreddit. And that's saying something. What the fuck is wrong with you people who upvote shit like this? It's a little facebook joke. Oh, no! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:22 PM
2

And there we have what exactly? Another stupid fb post. This place gets suckier and suckier by the day.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:30 PM
3

NO! Breaking down a Facebook tiff of questionable validity between two immature idiots is vitally important stuff. If we don't stand up and do it, who will?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:18 PM
-1

Really? fb screenshot arguments? This is what we're going to concern ourselves with? This is pathetic.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:14 PM
-4

You should look at more recent stuff than old 'debunking'. Taking everything into account, the gap did close, but it is still there.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:31 AM
3

Actually there is truth to this. First let me save time. Yes. I know and fully understand the repetitive claims here that women earning less for same pay is a myth, and the oft cited studies which show that women are paid less due to other factors, making it not a true apple to apple comparison. But there are also recent studies which adjusted for these factors, and found that although the gap closed by a few percent...women still were earning less.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:25 AM
0

Thanks!
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:43 PM
-1

Don't you think it is your responsibility to check these things out before you haphazardly click on a link by them? If you feel so strongly about Gawker, why aren't you holding other websites up to the same standard? If we've been so diligent on Gawker, how can we afford to be careless with everyone else? You have no idea who you're giving money to with all these lucrative clicks. Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But why are you burying your head in the sand on everyone but Gawker? Because ig…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:10 AM
-1

OK. Keep fighting the good fight, brave internet warrior.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:01 AM
-5

So let me get this straight. You know for a fact that every single link posted on Reddit goes to a site whose values you are 100% in line with. You've thoroughly checked them out and found that nobody ever associated with the site has ever done anything devious or immoral. Every single one of them checks out and posting links there is totally cool...except Gawker. Yes. Petty and silly.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 09:03 PM
-9

I'm afraid I am painfully aware of all the Gawker/Reddit drama. That's my whole point. The drama is petty and silly. OMG don't post a link to Gawker, it's the horriblest place on the internet. Whatever.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:02 PM
-11

And the drama continues.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 06:42 PM
-10

I understand that. But why gawker and not any other site on the entire internet?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 06:41 PM
-18

I know. That's what I'm saying is stupid. This reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer and Lisa are fighting, and won't speak to each other and have to communicate through Bart. It's childish. We're talking about Gawker. Why not link there? All this Reddit drama just fucking kills me. Free speech for all! (Unless it's a Gawker link)
/r/MensRights16/10/12 05:37 PM
-21

My point is why not just link to Gawker?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 04:38 PM
-22

Because it's true?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:57 AM
0

Wouldn't that depend on whether it's an official school sanctioned event or not? Don't get me wrong, either way I don't see the logic of gender specific programming workshops. But just wondering if we know for sure it's a Title IX violation.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 03:53 PM
-2

And that's precisely why it's a bad post. Because you should feel bad about living at home.
/r/seduction09/10/12 02:17 PM
-1

you forgot the most important one. Stop being a child. Grow the fuck up. Move out.
/r/seduction09/10/12 02:15 PM
1

Why do you bring Obama into it? You've never heard of Title IX?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 06:55 PM
-1

That's what this post was about, yes.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:27 PM
-2

This a war to you? Silly comics?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:19 PM
5

You know, I just can't get upset about this. I'm sorry. We can sit here and debate whether it's accurate, we can speculate on which gender can take a joke better. But the fact remains that each gender passes stupid insignificant shit like this around to each other and says "Har har! Good one!" Always has. Always will. Is it really such a fucking crime? This is really what we're concerning ourselves with?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 11:13 PM
0

I fully agree with you that mens right is and rightfully should be concerned with male victims of violence. That is not in question. But I respectfully reject your premise that due to some notion of society being given more warning about abusive men than women, a child victim of abuse is any less likely to be scarred from it if the abuser was male. It's terrible either way, and the child's pain is not likely to be affected by some posts on the internet saying mom is bad. And I simply don't buy t…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 02:48 AM
-2

I see. You're one of those 'awareness' guys.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:05 AM
-1

I have long asked this question. How are anecdotal stories of women behaving badly relevant to a men's rights forum? Couldn't a feminist site do the same and just endlessly post stuff about bad dudes all day, and circle jerk about how bad they are? What does either one accomplish? But then I inevitably get a response like, "No it's totally OK because it's in the faq." It's supposed to increase 'awareness' or something. Great, huh?
/r/MensRights24/09/12 07:57 PM
1

So not only were you too exhausted to give good advice, but you do not have kids and so do not have a very good reference point to give advice. And still you forged ahead. Further down the rabbit hole we go.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:25 PM
1

So you were cognizant enough to know you'd likely give bad advice, but still felt compelled to give it anyway. Sometimes I just don't get the internet.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:59 PM
2

Well, it depends on what she meant by 'not allowed'. I could easily see where she did not mean it in a literal sense, like it was against the rules for men to talk about it. But more as a figure of speech, as in "you are in no position to make informed decisions on this, because you are a man". I wouldn't agree with that opinion either, but it's not as heavy handed as someone actually trying to limit free speech. In print on the internet it's hard to tell which way she meant it, since you can't …
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:24 PM
1

This is really bad advice. First of all, maybe, just maybe the guy loves his kids and wants to be a part of their life. Secondly, even if he wanted to 'walk away' that still wouldn't relieve him of financial responsibility for the kids.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:12 PM
1

It sucks to have to deal with such a person, to be sure. And I sympathize. But legally, it sounds to me like the cops were correct. Until a final settlement is in place, it is all joint property, and she just slashed her own tire. Even if, like you said the car was bought and paid for by you before the marriage, it is all in dispute so assumed joint property until there is a final settlement in place legally formalizing things like that.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:08 PM
2

I have home movies of my dad standing me up and balancing me on one of his hands. This was before I could walk. Babies are strong enough to stand upright at a very early age, it is only the balance that is lacking. So when the balance is provided by someone else they naturally stiffen up in that situation, and usually have a grand old time. Good thing that lady wasn't around then. My dad might be in jail.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:58 PM
3

I don't think any witty remark is going to do anything for you there, especially a canned one. Just be confident, pleasant. Don't show any hint of disappointment or obsession. Move on, and act as if you have plenty of other options in your life, because you do.
/r/seduction07/09/12 02:14 PM
1

And in this case you are forgetting that the house legally is not his. At best it is jointly owned by her, and probably entirely owned by her. As for if there is a mortgage, i doubt if the bank would allow the burn. Then their security on the property goes right out the window. They can't foreclose if the owner stops making payments, because there's no longer a house to foreclose on.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:23 PM
1

You need to read beyond common law. In many states, California included, the definition of arson includes your own property if there was intent to commit fraud, or to harm someone. And beyond that, it sounds like in this case, there is at the very least, disputed or joint ownership of the home. You are being a bit disingenuous here and you know it, if you claim that the fire department would assist in a controlled burn of such a place where the property rights are jointly owned or in dispute. He…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:08 PM
2

Well of course the situations you described aren't arson. But maliciously or fraudulently setting a fire is arson, whether your own property or not.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:28 PM
3

As with all cases like this on the internet, we are hearing only one side, custom tailored to a specific audience. And several aspects of it seem suspect. I am withholding judgement.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:20 PM
12

this the type of expert internet legal advice I've come to depend on from Reddit.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:16 PM
21

Wrong. It is absolutely arson, even if it is your own home. Arson is often done to one's own property. For insurance fraud, cases like this, etc. The owner becomes the prime suspect.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:13 PM
2

Child custody disputes are always an independent proceeding. That's the way it is now and always has been. It would never be part of a criminal trial. Both sides present their case for how they are better suited to raise the child, and the judge decides. My point was, in most cases, she could practically say "Your honor, the child's father is a convicted sex offender. I rest my case" and that would about do it.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:24 PM
2

He would have parental rights. But what rights are ultimately granted can be decided by the courts. The mother could petition for sole custody if it can be shown that contact with the father is detrimental. And based on the father being a convicted imprisoned sexual offender, such a ruling could be a slam dunk. And yes he could still be ordered to pay support even though he doesn't have custody.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:21 AM
1

Yeah nobody ever commercializes father's day in America.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:07 AM
8

And so despite your initial assertion being shown to be clearly wrong, you're still going to charge down this path full speed ahead. Facts. Who needs them?
/r/MensRights22/08/12 09:01 PM
2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights22/08/12 12:38 AM
7

Aaaand, the shitty side of the subreddit rears its ugly head. Good luck hating half of humanity for your whole life.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:43 PM
1

Um, OK. I think I'm done here.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:18 PM
2

They have accomplished nothing by nagging to customer service lines.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:12 PM
2

you are confusing activism with calling customer relations lines. That's not activism. Feminists do not accomplish anything by making nagging phone calls to indifferent support reps who probably don't even work for the company, I guarantee you. An email or simple message saying you will no longer do business with them would accomplish much more.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:05 PM
3

Make the call, and log your dissatisfaction, sure. That's not the pointless part. You could have accomplished just as much though, and probably more by simply telling her you didn't like the policy, you weren't going to do business with them until it changed, and finished with a polite, thank you and goodbye. But it sounds like you went further and got into a heated debate with her. That's the pointless part. You weren't debating with Virgin Airlines. You were debating with Nancy, the Virgin Air…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:50 PM
2

Enjoy getting into heated policy debates with low level customer support reps? What did you hope to accomplish with your call besides venting at someone who has nothing to do with the policy, is about 6 levels down from anyone who has any power to change the policy, and really doesn't care how insulted you are by it? I don't mean to be the negative guy. But pick your battles. This was pointless.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 02:01 PM
1

This remark is nowhere close to what I was saying. I don't even know what the hell you're getting at. Nor do I really care.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 11:32 PM
0

I've replied to all of this several times. You are bringing up nothing new. Don't feel like going in circles any more.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:51 PM
1

I have said many times, but I guess people only read what they want to...once it's born it is a child, all the decisionmaking during pregnancy no longer matter. A child exists, it is here. And it needs support. No matter what transpired before that point.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:21 PM
1

If the other parent became the legal custodian, you bet the noncustodial parent doing the abandoning would have financial obligation regardless of gender. You are only talking about when neither parent wants the child and the custodial parent then abandons the child to a third party. A man would have the same rights as a woman in that case, if he was the custodial parent who was abandoning the child. The scenario you describe does not afford a woman any special privlege.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:31 AM
-1

Not where I live. Strictly by the law, gender has nothing to do with it. If you're a noncustodial parent there's a percentage of your income that is expected to go to child support and that's that.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 11:35 PM
-1

You are really barking up the wrong tree here. I too have two children from a previous marriage, fought for custody, and lost. So spare me the lecture on how I don't know what it's like. I said in an earlier comment on this thread that women do get preferential treatment in custody matters. Not by law though, at least where I live parents have equal rights, but by bias in the judgment process. That is a completely different topic than what was being discussed here. This discussion started out CO…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 09:16 PM
0

Abandonment is indeed a very legal option for women... it's protected in all 50 states (since 2008) by the Safe Haven law. See my other response. For safe haven type abandonment usually both parents are on board. I'm talking about when parent disagree. both parents do not have to agree to adoption if the non-custodial parent has no parental rights Sure, but you are talking after custody has been established. Before that, if either parent has any desire whatsoever to raise the child, and unless t…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:42 PM
1

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm talking about situations where the parents disagree on what to do with a child. In most 'safe haven' type cases, dad is more than fine with it. He usually split a long time ago. But If one parent wanted to abandon or give up for adoption, and the other parent did not, the parent who wanted the child would almost always have a right to get custody, if he or she asserted themselves. And could then get support from the other parent. In that sense men and women…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:29 PM
-1

I have commented. Over and over and over. This is going nowhere. Abandonment is not a legal option for women or men. Adoption is an option but only if both parents agree to it. So on those two, men and women are equal. As for abortion, you are too hung up on "No fair, women get abortions and men don't" to even think about anything else.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:42 PM
-2

You simply cannot give a parent the option to absolve responsibility. I am against involuntary child support. That position will simply never get you anywhere. Because the law has made it clear. Don't want to care for your offspring? Too bad. You're going to. This conversation is following a very familiar path. I've said all I can say.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:55 PM
-5

Being a parent is not enslavement. That's an extremely skewed view of life. You created a child, you must provide for his or her well being, regardless of circumstance. It's not just me saying that. It's the law. It's called taking responibility for your actions. Look at it the other way if your plan was instigated. Millions of mothers raising single children with no help, and guys moving on with their lives simply by stating "Screw you bitch, I wanted an abortion" and walking away free. I think…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:31 PM
0

No it's not that simple. The courts say that two parents are obligated to support a child, no matter how much mommy and daddy are at odds with that idea.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 03:16 PM
-2

You are still doing exactly what I said. Focussing on 'Not fair, not fair, not fair'. It's still grinding your gears that the mother had more choice than the father during pregnancy. And that's understandable. But to make your point, you are willing to throw the innocent child under the bus to stand on your principle. The law does not agree with that stance. All that is out the window once the child is born. The slate is wiped clean. The law focuses on the child. And both parents are obligated t…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 03:12 PM
-2

I've been through this a hundred times, and I always get downvoted for it, but it's what I believe so...here goes 101. Is it unfair that she has the choice to abort and you don't? Yes, I suppose. But it's far more unfair to a child to be denied the support of two able parents. That's why once the child is born, a parent cannot simply choose to ignore responsibility. Every mens rights argument for the right to ditch a child focuses on everything but the child. Courts see it just the opposite. The…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:37 AM
3

This seemed like a good of a place as any to ask what should for sure be in there. Yes. A bunch of 18 year old internet legal eagles will know just what to do.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:48 PM
4

Well stated. Deva vu. I just had this same discussion here on another thread, and got no support. Basically this subreddit is saying (as a formally stated part of its mission, no less) that in order to get people to stop saying men are bad we need to point out bad women. wut? It's a joke. It's juvenile logic. And it's not what a real mens rights forum should be concerned with.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:48 PM
1

To make it better.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:10 PM
1

That's exactly what it says and you know it. It can be taken no other way. This isn't complicated.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:16 PM
1

It says it's not anti-women, but that rings pretty hollow when followed up with: Posts about "Women Behaving Badly" are simply case studies of instances where this socially accepted view is challenged. Over time, as society's view of men and women becomes more "individual based" and less "gender based", these will disappear. However, for now, they are reminders that both genders are capable of committing crimes, and it is not appropriate to demonize men. In other words, to show how wrong it is t…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:00 PM
1

It says it's not anti-women, but that rings pretty hollow when followed up with: Posts about "Women Behaving Badly" are simply case studies of instances where this socially accepted view is challenged. Over time, as society's view of men and women becomes more "individual based" and less "gender based", these will disappear. However, for now, they are reminders that both genders are capable of committing crimes, and it is not appropriate to demonize men. In other words, to show how wrong it is t…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:00 PM
1

Nope. You need to go back and re-read my initial comment. All I'm saying is, if it's OK one way it should be OK the other way. This subreddit specifically states in its faq that trashing women is OK, indeed necessary somehow as a reminder to stop demonizing men. (I feel stupider for even having to type out that putrid logic). So given that, why is it wrong to point out James Holmes maleness? Personally I think both are a waste of time and not constructive at all. Nothing hypocritical about that.…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:45 PM
0

When this forum has posted about bad female behaviour, there is never an implication that it applies to all women. I strongly disagree with that conclusion. You seem more interested in criticising the subreddit than the criticisin the anti-male bigotry of this article; an odd choice for someone that claims to care about men's rights issues. Just commenting on one certain aspect which is pet peave of mine. It was never my goal to launch an all encompassing discussion. There are plenty of others t…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 03:03 PM
0

The scope of this discussion is not the basis of my approach to women. You would have no idea about that. If you go back and re-read, the only point I'm trying to discuss is whether posts of women behaving badly are relevant to a mens rights forum. You say yes, they provide a valuable service. I say, that is not what 'mens right' should be about. It means a something very different thing to me. It means things like fighting for custody rights, health issues, workplace equality in all fields. Non…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 01:42 PM
-4

Why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of the acronym? Yes I'm familiar with the term. Whether it's real or not and to what extent it effects society is not relevant to the point I'm making. But for the sake of argument I will concede it's real and running rampant, just to save time. Does that mean a proper way to combat it is a bunch of junk posts of "Nuh uh, womens ain't so great. Look at this link of one who smokes crack and beats her kids and cheats on her man, hurr durr" so…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 12:38 AM
2

You really don't get my point. I'm not saying that's what I think. I'm saying that's what they think. They post bad stuff about men because they feel completely justified. /r/mensrights posts bad stuff about women and feel completely justified. When does the cycle end? What does it prove? What a waste of time.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 12:10 AM
-1

Because I want it to be a real mens rights forum, and not a joke. That's why I'll stay subscribed, and speak my mind about the things i don't like around here, if that's OK with you.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:37 PM
0

This article currently in question states all the facts about men and how we are so violent, but does nothing to offer an explanation or a solution to the problem. It really is just a bunch of words thrown together for an emotional effect. One could call it rhetorical pandering toward a general mood that is prominent among a certain population. This is EXACTLY why I oppose the standard around here that posting anecdotal stuff about bad women simply for the sake of it is OK. I couldn't have state…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:01 PM
-1

Still just a rationalization to come to the same old conclusion that a certain behavior by them is not OK. But it's OK for us because they somehow have it coming.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:54 PM
-5

Wow thanks, condescending internet dude. If only I can someday possess your insight. Read my responses again. Everything still stands. If only you care enough to learn.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:51 PM
-1

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:48 PM
-8

I think I got your point just fine. Your point 1. is a broad overstated strawman. The feminists are all so bad that we need to be bad right back at them. Your point 2. is an equally large strawman, since most of the woman behaving badly stories are culled from...the mainstream media. Hardly seems like a women are wonderful bias to me. And to your point about there being female mass shootings too. So the hell what? Playing devils advocate here, couldn't a feminist say that overwhelmingly mass kil…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 07:56 PM
-8

So you're going to show your disapproval of feminists by acting just like them. Great. Jump through all the hoops you want. The bottom line is: MRA points out a bad woman. Great! Bravo! Well done! Feminist points out a bad man. Whoa, whoa, whoa! That's out of bounds. And you wonder how this subreddit gets a bad reputation.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 07:31 PM
-5

So I guess we should decide then. Are posts with links of women behaving badly relevant to a mensrights forum? Because this subreddit is littered with them. Often they have no hint of any special treatment being given to the woman, or anything to suggest any unfairness. Just "Here's a terrible woman." If that's OK, then yes James Holmes' penis is in play as well. And it's fair to use him as an example of what our gender does. You can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:21 PM
16

This is the high rated stuff on mensrights now? Wow. Keep fighting the good fight against the idle chat of 14 year old girls, oppressed brave warriors.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 08:21 PM
-1

You are only considered creepy when she's obviously not into it but you ignore that and keep persisting anyway. The simplest way to not worry about being labeled creepy is to simply do as she said - move on. This isn't rocket science.
/r/seduction06/07/12 10:47 PM
0

Because it's basically true, whether you choose to believe it or not. If a girl just isn't into it, sure you could continue fighting it, beating your head against a wall, or you could just move on, because there's a whole fucking club of other women.
/r/seduction06/07/12 10:45 PM
6

BI think you're overthinking it too much. She had an itch to try out someone else while you and her were not seeing each other. She did it, took him for a test drive, then realized she'd rather stay with you. While it is perhaps not a ringing endorsement of you that she felt the urge to compare in the first place, the fact that she ultimately chose you is worth something. Now it's up to you whether you feel it's worth continuing with someone who at the present anyway feels you are not Mr. Perfec…
/r/seduction05/06/12 10:28 AM
1

The painting thing sounds like a very bad approach. It evokes an image of you obsessing over her, building a shrine to her in your living room. Kind of creepy. I think the best approach at this point...and probably your only option, is just a simple direct approach. Send her a message explaining that you understand her not accepting a friend request from someone she doesn't know personally, but you ran across her on facebook, you have mutual connections, she seems like an interesting person and …
/r/seduction05/06/12 10:07 AM
1

Setting aside for a moment the fact that it's a chain mail (which is always annoying) and the fact that it's from work, it's just a joke. Are we really going to be so pissy that we can't take some ribbing once in a while? But meanwhile "Bitch make me a sammich" is highbrow sophisticated humor, I suppose.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 04:24 AM
-10

You are of course absolutely correct. But you'll get insulted for it. There is absolutely a place for men's rights concerns. But there are a lot of people here who actually go so far as to think men overall are worse off than women. Perhaps it's true in isolated aspects, and they absolutely need to be addressed, but that still doesn't change the fact that as a white, American male, I readily admit I belong to the most entitled group in the world. I am given endless advantages, and the world is m…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:42 AM
-1

I don't get it. We don't know the back story. Maybe the guy was a giant douche. They do exist.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:36 AM
2

Many people are also apparently not aware that it was a fucking joke.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 10:37 PM
12

Unless, you know, the troll is a woman. Then MRA's care very very deeply. Then there'd be a shit storm.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 10:23 PM
-1

You really don't get it. There are some circumstances where I'm just not concerned about getting value for my money. I'm not buying a relationship. I'm buying dinner. It's just something I like to do. Dating is a crap shoot. I know that going in. Do you ever just buy a beer for someone, and not worry about what you are getting in return for your investment? It's like that.
/r/seduction30/04/12 09:08 PM
-1

I don't consider it a waste of money even if the relationship goes nowhere. I guess we just have different priorities and views on life, so I'll leave it at that.
/r/seduction30/04/12 04:24 PM
2

That's a really sad way to look at it. I don't see it on terms of simply maximizing my dollars spent / fucks achieved ratio. Sorry if that makes me a sap.
/r/seduction30/04/12 03:04 PM
6

I always offer to, and am fairly assertive about it, but not inflexible if she objects. There are of course lots of logical reasons why I shouldn't be expected to, blah, blah, blah, but bottom line, money is not an issue for me, and I just want to do it.
/r/seduction29/04/12 11:43 PM
3

The casual acceptance of the rape of men by 3 idiots on facebook is not something /mr should concern itself with.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:56 PM
0

This is the most sensible and yet down voted post I've seen here in a while. You are absolutely right, it doesn't belong here. A Facebook screen cap showing three insensitive women demonstrates absolutely nothing and is a colossal waste of time. Breaking: There exists 3 shitheaded women. Behold the startling proof! This is what passes for mens rights discussion around here? And you wonder why this place is considered by many to be a joke at best and a hate site at worst?
/r/MensRights12/04/12 09:51 PM
0

The person in yellow could have been joking. She could have assumed it was an accident so jokingly said haha do my boyfriend next. Maybe not a funny joke. But it does not prove anything was intentional.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 03:19 PM
5

That's exactly what I assumed also. Sounds like an accident. And was posting on Facebook in a 'I can't believe what just happened' way. It is at least possible.OP overreacted.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:36 PM
6

Maybe it was an accident
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:31 PM
1

I don't see where the person said it was funny.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:29 PM
3

What does that even mean?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 08:44 PM
0

I reject your premise. I am 6'4 and have never felt it gave me higher value.
/r/seduction07/03/12 03:24 AM
2

Someone who has an opinion which differs from OP's
/r/MensRights01/03/12 02:33 PM
1

This has to be the whiniest comment thread I've seen here in quite some time. OMG president makes a joke.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:49 AM
1

No, misandry would mean she did it solely because she hates men. There could have been 100 reasons she did that which have nothing to do with gender.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:41 AM
0

Finding anecdotal links to women doing bad stuff is NOT data. I don't see many people claim NO women do bad things, so posting 20, or 30, or 100 links proves nothing. It would be equally easy to find as many posts about men doing bad things. It is pointless and just comes off as misogynistic.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:38 AM
2

mensrights Raging over some silly shit that a girl posted on the internet since forever.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 01:37 PM
0

I am not advocating protecting yourself at all costs. If you don't protect yourself because you have a comfort level with a partner, that is certainly a valid choice. Just know the potential consequences of your actions is all I'm saying. There is ALWAYS risk associated with that choice. Maybe you've decided the risk is miniscule because your sweetie pie would never lie to her smoochie woochiekins, but just know that there is always always always always the potential of becoming a parent when yo…
/r/MensRights01/02/12 07:13 PM
15

I've argued this line before, but I guess I'll say it again. If you really, really don't want to be a parent, you and you alone are responsible for preventing it. Blindly accepting "Don't worry baby I'm on the pill" is not an excuse to escape the responsibility of the resulting parenthood.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:20 PM
-1

haha mensrights. Find bogus list from who knows where. Assign it strawman status. Rage.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:12 PM
11

I'm glad I wasn't the only confused one. From the description to actually reading the discussion I wondered if the link was incorrect. The top rated comment for example, by 3Dimensionalgirl was pretty sensible I thought.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:24 PM
1

This is clearly the only correct response to this video.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:11 PM
1

Good question. I started out just responding to the notion that SRS was all just a bunch of trolls with no merit. I didn't think that was entirely accurate. They often have valid points. And they officially do not advocate 'downvote brigading' or trolling. Their description instructs to leave everything as they found it, like a museum or something. But sure there are obviously members who don't follow those guidelines. But I don't really feel the need to do anything in retaliation. That's the pa…
/r/MensRights24/01/12 08:16 PM
-1

Again, you're getting into that us vs them drama. And Jimmy crack corn and I don't care.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:58 PM
-4

If you find that pigeonhole convenient, fine.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:35 PM
-2

The courtesy I was talking about is, don't tell me how to post and I won't tell you how to post. All I'm saying is, your post is filled with 'they' and 'them'. I frankly am not interested in a big 'us vs them' battle. I really don't care what their banning policy is. I prefer to treat people as individuals.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:19 PM
-5

If that's what you want to do fine. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to post. All I'm saying is, extend the same courtesy. I will engage people or shun them as I see fit, thanks. And whether they post on a particular subreddit will not enter into my decision.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:12 PM
-1

That is a far too broad generalization. NOBODY forfeits a 'right' to real discussion based simply on the subreddits they choose to frequent. That just comes off sounding petty, immature and insecure. I often browse SRS, curious about what the mindset is. I subscribe to it, though I never contribute to it. My summary, take it or leave it, is that about 60% of the time they have a valid point, and the rest of course is either misguided or just plain crap. It's a mixed bag, so to shun anyone who is…
/r/MensRights24/01/12 03:46 PM
4

Mighty broad brush you're painting with there.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 03:28 PM
3

It's a comedy. Self depreciating humor. Am I really reading about the 'evils' of a tame comedy like Everybody Loves Raymond on the same place that implores women to lighten up and not get all defensive whenever 'kitchen' and 'sandwich' jokes are made? This is pathetic.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 03:25 PM
-1

A useful man has value. A "useless" man is nothing. Wait, you're telling me people value useful people over useless ones? How unfair!
/r/MensRights24/01/12 03:21 PM
1

Sure why not? That works too.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 09:36 PM
1

I don't feel like I have to. I want to. I offer to buy friends rounds too, although that's a little differnt, we usually just end up taking turns buying rounds. It's just not a big deal to me. I meet someone new, we hit it off, I'm having a good time, I want to show that I am pleased and I offer to buy a drink. As far as, does it 'work'? Yeah I guess so.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 09:35 PM
2

Of course they see sons as more beneficial. That's my whole point! But you've got it slightly wrong in that male offspring are simply seen as manual laborers. In some areas the practice of selectively aborting females is higher among urban than it is rural and higher among educated than uneducated. Men are leaders, have access to education, careers, social standing. It is very important to have a male child. Women are seen as having little value, they are simply servants, homemakers. Only mensri…
/r/MensRights20/01/12 09:22 PM
0

haha losing ground fast on the initial point, so let's make it racist thing. Good one.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 07:47 PM
5

No it generally has more to do with not wanting second class citizens for children. So you're really going to just blow off this problem by shaming me for 'going there'? Has this place really become so fucked in the head that it can't acknowledge a single situation anywhere where it is disadvantageous to be female?
/r/MensRights20/01/12 07:28 PM
3

And...?
/r/MensRights20/01/12 05:06 PM
2

I don't see the men bashing angle you are alluding to. The article simply said men favor boys and women favor girls. That on its own is not an anti-male or anti-female thing, it's just a fact. But then it goes on to examine whether this preference could lead to feticide. If the man prefers boys in a patriarchal society where men are calling the shots, that does not bode well for girls. You realize that feticide of girls is a huge problem in many parts of the world don't you?
/r/MensRights20/01/12 04:44 PM
3

I personally wouldn't do that. I generally do buy drinks for a woman I just met and am conversing with, or at least I offer. You see, I'm what mensrights calls a 'white knight'.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 02:59 PM
15

Don't buy them stuff then. Jesus, this stuff isn't complicated.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 02:23 AM
3

Nobody is saying there is no right to wear a sexist T-Shirt. They're just saying it's pretty fucking stupid. There's a difference.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:36 PM
1

Not if it's true. I don't understand your point. People who were there reported what they saw. It doesn't make men universally worse than women. It is just an account of something that happened.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:31 PM
1

I did RTFA. It may have 'started there' but there's a reason why these things take root. If there were no practical logic, it would have been long forgotten.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 07:23 PM
2

I'm not saying it should be a hard and fast rule. Every situation is different. I was just speculating on the origins of 'women and children first' and I can see a practical reason why it came to be, not just some concept of whose life is valued more.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 07:15 PM
-3

I think originally there was a very good, practical reason for women and children first. Men were generally stronger, bigger, more agile, had better mechanical, logistical aptitude, etc. They were better able to assist in the evacuation. I think a more modern adaptation would those less able and firm first regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 07:00 PM
1

I feel the same way. Many of the stereotypes of men are positive ones and I don't mind aspiring to live up to them. Unfortunately that is a very unpopular view around here.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 05:04 AM
-3

No. I can't guess. Insufficient information provided by retarded headline.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:48 PM
19

Why is this a men's rights issue? So Barbara Walters didn't immediately get the evolution connection to the statement 'People who aren't afraid of snakes don't reproduce'. So what?
/r/MensRights27/12/11 11:13 PM
2

If you're only talking about mutilated genitalia, sure. But an item like pepper spray can leave a person completely vulnerable to any sort of abuse or violence. Give me some stats showing the percentage of rape axe users who abuse the product, vs users of other self defense items and maybe there's something to talk about. But otherwise I don't see a distinction.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:42 PM
4

It most certainly can. It can incapacitate a person and leave them defenseless to any sort of attack which could follow.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:29 PM
2

Any self defense item can be abused. Pepper spray can be abused.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:22 PM
3

I have no moral compliant against rape axe, but it just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Even if it worked as advertised. Now instead of a rapist on your hands, you've got a wild, howling mad rapist on your hands. Unless the pain is completely incapacitating I think you've just created a more dangerous situation.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:17 PM
1

Hello old friend...
/r/MensRights23/12/11 04:26 PM
1

So what exactly am I supposed to be looking for in that link? I went back a few pages and only found one other mens rights post and it was at a +25.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 07:14 PM
3

I don't see making a lot of submissions to a subreddit as a prerequisite to voicing an opinion on content. Some people don't have the time or inclination to scour the internet to submit content, but still want to frequent the subreddit and have the content be pertinent.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 05:54 PM
5

Could this headline be any more misleading? You know Redbook is a women's magazine right? As such they asked women about their holiday complaints with men, then wrote what I thought was pretty fair and balanced replies to them.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 05:48 PM
2

I am subscribed to SRS, just because I like to keep my finger on the pulse of many different viewpoints, but I never post there. It's read only for me. First of all the name is a misnomer. It's definitely from a feminine point of view. I have no problem with that, a subreddit doesn't need to be all encompassing, but the name seems to imply that it is all encompassing. As for the content itself, like many other forums (including mensrights) it is a mixed bag of good and bad. To pigeonhole it and …
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:17 PM
1

No I'm not missing the point. The scope of this article was about using foreskin tissue for medical purposes. It was not about the legality of circumcision.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 03:51 PM
0

I'm not debating circumcision, so you're preaching to the choir. But I presume the circumcisions were going to be performed anyway, they were not done specifically to harvest a foreskin. So in that sense, the parents did decide to donate the otherwise discarded tissue.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 05:02 AM
-2

Well no, obviously. By the parents. I don't even see what the point of this observation is. There is much I don't understand about the internet I guess.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:15 PM
-1

The fact that women putting unwanted pressure for sex on men is being discussed on a mens rights forum implies to me that at least some around here view it only as a problem for men and not women. And of course that's ridiculous, but that's how this forum rolls sometimes.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:44 PM
1

Yeah, when you're 'out there' dating you should be wearing condoms anyway reagrdless of vasectomy. So it doesn't save you from the bother of condoms.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:35 PM
2

It was great for me. But I had it later in life after I already had two kids. This may not be a popular view around here, but I wouldn't recommend it at 18. Your life can change in so many ways that are unfathomable to you now. It's great if you're A) in a monogomous relationship in which you're sure you don't want kids (Doesn't do any good for casual sex since you should wear a condom anyway for desease), and B) are sure you'll never want any more kids, with any partner, ever. And I just don't …
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:31 PM
-1

There's a whole subreddit for this, r/relationships.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:11 PM
-2

Not that you'd ever turn one down.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:06 PM
3

You are correct. The issue of feeling entitled to sex goes both ways. I don't why this is being discussed in the context of it only being a problem with women.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:05 PM
-4

It said the foreskins were donated. That to me doesn't sound like an illicit big money foreskin market.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:57 PM
6

You are correct. This story has nothing to do with the circumcision debate. That is a seperate issue, unless parents are surrendering up their infant boys to be circumcised specifically for this purpose. And I doubt that's the case. The article sure didn't imply anything like that.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 03:18 PM
2

If I didn't feel physically threatened by them, yes I would at least try. It may not be a long effort, but i would at least start on the high road.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 12:12 AM
1

You could make one. It's only a minute long.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:45 PM
2

I would have at least tried. Otherwise I'm no better than them.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:42 PM
7

It makes no sense. There is obviously something being left out.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:34 PM
2

Have you tried engaging in dialogue to see what they're upset about instead of telling them to fuck off? Maybe they're just misinformed about you.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:29 PM
0

She was arrested and is being prosecuted. This has nothing to do with mens rights. It's just another 'Hey look a woman behaving badly' post. And please spare me the link to the faq which says it's vital to post these, to raise awareness that women are bad, because otherwise how would anyone know, or some such shit.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:16 PM
1

And that still doesn't make it reasonable or right. If you feel these stories are relevant simply because they illustrate a woman being bad, that's retarded. All the 'we need to raise awareness' justifications in the world don't change that. It's just an excuse to post shit about women. And I'm sorry, but a mens rights forum shouldn't be about hating women. It should be about mens rights. Or else change the name to Men Are Great and Women Are Cunts or something. If you believe these stories are …
/r/MensRights02/12/11 02:32 PM
0

I think most people have a basic understanding that threatening someone with a knife is a crime.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 04:05 PM
0

It's just a small group of guys, one of whom's mother died of breast cancer, raising a couple hundred bucks. I really think you're making too much of this.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 02:32 PM
0

I really don't understand logic like that. If I agree with someone, my tendancy is to upvote it and move on and not circle jerk about it. When I don't agree with something I comment on it and hope to have discussion on it. I really don't give two shits if this means negative karma. Anyone who uses karma accumulation as their main guideline in posting stuff is pretty messed up in my opinion. So opposing opinions aren't allowed here? Just let me know. Oh and by the way, this sidetrack still doesn'…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 02:13 PM
0

The woman was arrested for aggravated assault, domestic violence and phone tampering. How is this a mens rights issue? Sounds like she got what she deserved from law enforcement.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 01:33 AM
-12

So...all breast cancer charity is wrong? Is that where we've landed here? The dudes mom had breast cancer. Lighten up.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 01:26 AM
1

Thanks I'll keep that in mind.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 01:14 AM
1

Thanks again. I feel humbled by your amazing internet grasp of all things.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 11:43 PM
1

It's chicken and egg. Pair bonding is important...so you can have a regular partner to fuck more often. Because the more you fuck, the higher your chances of reproducing. But you're the expert, obviously. I'm just a guy pulling stuff out his ass. Thanks for your insight, Internet Einstein.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 10:57 PM
0

Yes humans are social, because ultimately that enhances our chances of survival. I'm not making this stuff up. Unless you also feel Charles Darwin is making it up.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 09:11 PM
0

Did you even read what I wrote? You are confusing cause and effect. Of course we choose to engage in sex for a variety of reasons, but strictly biologically speaking, all those reasons evolved only to provide incentives to fuck, for reproduction.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 08:46 PM
1

Like what?
/r/MensRights30/11/11 07:09 PM
1

I understand that sex is done for other reasons than reproduction. But reproduction is still the only biological reason for sex. It strengthens bonds, relieves stress, feels good, etc because we have evolved that way as incentives to fuck and fuck and fuck, so we will have babies. If it was a chore, we'd never get around to it.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:38 PM
0

You're still not getting it. I will give you just one example. I have in the past used a condom with someone who swore she were using birth control and swore she was monogamous to me so desease was not an issue. I used a condom anyway. And yes I was in an almighty 'relationship' with this woman. Because I decided even though I cared about her, a child with her would be absolutely horrible. I was still taking a chance, sure. But now it was down to, she's lying about birth control AND my condom br…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:26 PM
-6

Sex is sex, and there is a physical product which can occur from it. You're just romanticizing by assigning special relationship strings. In your shooter case, you are saying I should consider the possibility I will be shot in the face when I exit my home. Well, OK I suppose I do. And I daily accept that risk. And yes I'd be shocked if I got shot. Although I can do lots of things to prevent it, it could still happen. And yes the shooter would absolutely be at fault, even if I carelessly let my g…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:37 PM
-3

See my myriad other posts. I'm not trying to assign blame solely on the man. As far as trust, you can trust or not trust. But you should realize that there is no such thing as 100% failproof trust. You should make an assessment of what the percentage is, and act accordingly. Do people who sign pre-nups not trust their spouses? I think they have a reasonable amount of trust. They are just being realistic about life though.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:13 PM
-10

No in that case I think it would be the shooter's fault. See if you can find the flaws in your analogy. It will be a fun exercise for you.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:48 PM
0

If you took my meaning to be I was blaming him entirely, that is incorrect. Of course she did a bad thing. I liken it to leaving a bunch of stuff in your car and leaving the door unlocked. Your stuff gets stolen. Am I blaming the thief? Of course. The thief did a real shitty thing. But I also blame the car owner for not seeing that coming.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:37 PM
-7

His say was deciding to have sex. Deception is just another form of birth control failure from his point of view.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:34 PM
-3

That's all I'm saying. You said it more clearly and succinctly that I did. If she lied about birth control, she did a horrible thing. But people can and must take precautions against people doing horrible things to them.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:33 PM
-12

Doesn't matter. When you choose to have sex there is also a risk of the person you are having sex with is lying. It's just statistical reality.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:30 PM
-7

I'm not blaming the guy solely. Certainly any woman who lies about birth control has done a devious thing. But ultimately the man does have a method of avoiding that risk.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:29 PM
-15

... and at no point have any say in the matter. Really? That's what you're going with? OK admitedly this isn't going to be too 'helpful' at least in the way you're looking for it. But I hear this on r/mensrights ALL THE TIME. 'I had no choice in the matter'. That is wrong. You made a choice when you had sex that there was a chance, however remote that you would be a father. That's how it works. That chance could materialize in many ways, her lying about birth control, her forgetting, birth contr…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:50 PM
1

Again, what are the monetary damages? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. You need to answer that if you want to sue. What I'm getting at is, a company or person doing something wrong does not always equate to 'grounds to sue'. For a successful lawsuit, you need to show in tangible way that this action has cost you X amount of dollars. Were you passed up for a promotion or raise based on gender? Something like that. Either that or you'd have to show emotional distress, and that would be …
/r/MensRights11/11/11 02:03 PM
3

How is asking someone to back up a frivolous lawsuit suggestion being an ass? You were more of an ass just by calling me an ass.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:12 PM
-4

I'll be the first to say the guy's sentence is too harsh. Doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and generalize all child porn to be just the private hobby work of a few disturbed individuals, just a byproduct of their abuse. It is that, but in addition it is also sometimes created and distributed as an end unto itself. And anyone who possesses it could potentially be fostering that activity.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:23 PM
3

Yes? So what are the damages? Tell me how you arrive at a number for a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:14 PM
3

Really? I can't believe the shit I just read. Classic attorney speak, citing court cases, risk of lawsuits, chains of command. This is not complicated. The grad assistant saw a guy FUCKING A KID IN THE SHOWER. Ask this simple question. If Joe Paterno was informed by someone that he saw your own child being FUCKED BY A GUY IN THE SHOWER, what would you want Joe's response to be? Somehow I don't think passing it on to the AD and going about his business would be it. Maybe you'd want Joe's reaction…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:07 PM
-10

That's the longest most passionate rationalization for someone's secret CP stash I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 08:46 PM
8

No. You wouldn't. That sounds like internet talk to me. Sue for what? How would you determine damages for that sort of thing? How were you monetarily impacted by this girl's night out? Or lacking monetary impact, how were you otherwise irreparably harmed?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 08:36 PM
0

Sexism? Are you out of your mind? Sorry to be harsh, but honestly, who would get butt hurt over an email like this?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 08:23 PM
1

Sadly I wish I could muster up enough interest to care about what my sporadic internet clicks do. Oh, well. Society will just have to forge ahead with my $.0000001 contribution to DailyMail.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 09:38 PM
-1

Sadly, I can see the point of "25 is the new 13". I am old, and this is just my opinion, so take it or leave it. I know every generation when they get old always says "What's wrong with kids today?" and I don't mean to come off that way, because I understand that 90% of those complaints are just meaningless garbage. I am constantly defending traits of the younger generation to my friends, telling them - "You were no different". But I do notice a growing number of 20 something men who are just im…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:32 PM
0

Why? Who cares?
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:08 PM
3

Common? I'm gonna need some references for that claim.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:07 PM
7

Yeah, that was my first thought too. Never trust quotes of surveys that don't include the source. Without that, it is meaningless. You have no idea if it was scientific or not.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:04 PM
1

The only reason it became such a big deal was because there is video. That's it. Nothing more. I'm not defending this piece of shit. But I'm just commenting on the curious phenomenon of "video or it didn't happen". What about the thousands of kids today who will get beat just as badly as that girl or worse? Or tomorrow, or the next day? Should we post those all over Reddit too? Sorry, without video we can't help.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 12:22 PM
1

What if it was you trying to get custody of your child and you got assigned to a judge who didn't seem to care about the evidence against your abusive ex? I guess I'd be concerned. And if I felt the reason behind it was gender based, it certainly would be a men's rights issue. In the case you linked to, it was hard to follow the point exactly, but the judge ruled for the father, even though the mother tried to introduce evidence of abuse against him. Oh and also the father's lawyer 'looked homos…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:02 PM
1

False. My preferences are also taken into account when I point out innappropriate content to a sub-reddit's moderators. If it was all just a grand upvote system, why even have mods? Just allow any shit to be posted, and let democracy do its thing.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:45 PM
-2

No thank you. I'd prefer it if they just didn't show up where they don't belong.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 04:27 PM
-1

Fine. I don't need to see it on unrelated subreddits though. There are a lot of problems in this world. I don't need every subreddit to become an activist spam posting site.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:46 PM
-4

Yeah, it's a terrible video. But, 'Please spread'? Why? Spread where, and for what purpose? He's a bad guy. If I help 'get the word around' what difference will that make if it gets posted in a few more subreddits? Why this and no other tragedy? Also, what's the mens rights relevance here? I'm serious. I don't get the thought process here.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:15 AM
1

That would be fine with me. Still wouldn't eliminate the problem completely. You'd always have illegal minors being trafficked I suspect. But it would go a long ways.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 01:29 PM
5

Well I always assumed it was a minority of sex workers. That still doesn't mean trafficking is not a problem.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 10:28 PM
1

Yes those people did a pretty shitty thing. What's the mens rights significance?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:58 PM
1

I have no idea about this person's posting history, and frankly don't care enough to even look. But can you explain how this post is trolling? I don't understand. I mean, the subject matter may be a bit flippant, but so is a good percentage of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:46 PM
2

There's no need to defend it. That blog is historically poor at editorializing.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:36 PM
2

Jesus. Lighten up Francis.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 03:08 AM
1

No, I'm under no illusion that anyone will 'listen' to me. That's not my purpose. My simple point is, if you call a black person a nigger, even a bad black person, you have revealed a certain thought patern. Same thing with labelling a woman a cunt, even a bad woman. You have tied her bad behavior with her gender for no reason. She is a person who behaved badly. What's her cunt got to do with it? By bringing it up at every opportunity you have revealed a deeply rooted misogynist attitude. It's j…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:37 PM
1

Right. Just like when a black person hits you, it's justifiable to call him a nigger.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 12:59 PM
1

Oh my. I'm deeply shocked and offended by the naughty words you type on the internet. You must be a bad ass.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:28 PM
-1

You don't get it. If a black person hits you, and you say "A motherfucking nigger hit me", it is not about offending one idiot who hit you. You have revealed yourself to be a racist just by the way you formed your statement.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:27 PM
2

No. You really need to know a lot more than that. You were not in the courtroom, and I'm assuming you haven't read the court transcripts.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:22 PM
0

I so want this subreddit to be of good quality, because it deals with some important topics. But it continues to suck so bad.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 06:50 PM
-10

Misogynous hate language...in bold type. And it's being upvoted. Good one.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 06:10 PM
43

On the surface of it, it's hard to believe the jury even rejected a lesser manslaughter charge. But may I remind everyone, we were not in the courtroom. Accurate judgement cannot be made from a short, one page internet piece.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 03:14 PM
2

Makes you mad? Like seriously mad? It has absolutely zero effect on me. I have plenty of other things to worry about.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:14 PM
1

Ha, ha. Most dead on accurate negatively rated post I've read in a while.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:36 PM
1

Three bitches in a made up internet conversation do not equal a reason not to get married.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:33 PM
1

Just stating my own opinion and reaction to the phrase. I don't pretend to speak for others.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 10:37 PM
1

I know they're not exclusively male qualities. But why would it bother you that they are associated with manhood? Like I said, I take it as a compliment to my gender and try to live up to the positive stereotypes of my gender, and avoid the negative ones. I'm still not getting why this is such a bad thing. Just me I guess.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 09:38 PM
1

I approve of this message. After a while, you learn that nobody is in lockstep with all your views. People say stupid shit sometimes. No reason to discredit the person. Just focus on the common ground instead. If you're constantly saying "Fuck this guy, because he said xxx", before long you've basically said fuck everyone.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:34 PM
2

Downvoted? Really? I lol'd. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:29 PM
1

I usually don't have a problem with 'man up'. That is, if it's associated with showing some backbone, being responsible or something like that. It's a compliment that the person saying it equates these good qualities to manhood. But not in a case like "Man up and smack your woman around". I guess it all depends on context.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 08:16 PM
6

Been there. Done that. Thanks. This has nothing to do with plilosophy. More to do with clear concise writing. "I hate bigoted Christians" is ambiguous and could be taken more than one way. "I hate Christians who are bigoted" would be better.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:53 PM
-2

I'm talking more about when it pops up in comment discussion. Guy sides with a woman's point of view. Oh, obviously he's a white knight.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:41 PM
4

Yes, I would strongly suspect that.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:18 PM
2

Something like that would be FAR better. Not even close. I don't want to be a part of a group whose stated primary focus is 'earning scorn', no matter who the scorn is earned from. It just sounds petty. It should be more about one's own actions, not about what someone else thinks of them.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 04:22 PM
5

I don't think the wording makes clear that it is only about a specific subset. It sounds more like you're calling all feminists bigots. Despite the good intentions I think this may be worse. It's like saying "I don't like dishonest blacks". That's a loaded, confusing message.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 04:18 PM
5

I'd rather not see the white knight verbiage added. The white knight thing is vastly overplayed around here in my opinion. I'm not saying the syndrome doesn't exist. But it gets hauled out here in pretty much any situation where a guy shows courtesy or empathy towards a woman. That is NOT what being a white knight is about. Sometimes, it reminds me of the new guy at the factory, working his ass off on the assembly line, only to earn the scorn of co-workers. "Hey, what the hell are you doing? Slo…
/r/MensRights04/10/11 04:02 PM
4

Seriously? If that's true, those guys have a real problem, and good riddance to them.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:48 PM
-1

It's a temporary thing, is it not? Just giving a nod to LGBT? In that context, who cares?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:44 PM
2

Not hypocritical at all. She was speaking specifically about male modelling being a dead end. I don't agree with her view at all. Male models have nothing to be ashamed of. But she's certainly entitled to her opinion. She doesn't dig male models. Big deal. This is just idle chit-chat.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:34 PM
13

You're overreacting a bit. I often don't answer the door either if it's someone I don't know. For me though it's just because I don't feel like dealing with it. But I can see how a woman home alone might not answer out of fear. I'm not saying that the fear is justified, but your mind can play tricks on you when you're home alone. You watch a scary movie and suddenly you're looking around and hearing every creak and imagining all sorts of stuff. Is it stupid? Yes. But it's also human. Don't be so…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 08:32 PM
19

No. That's not what it says. Admittedly, It's written very confusingly, and I'm not sure how 'economic abuse' can constitute violence. But while the first paragraph says violence can include economic abuse as well as physical, sexual, psychological, further down in the article the 6 of 10 number only includes physical and sexual.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 11:59 PM
2

That's what I thought too. Both were simply theories, with about equal amounts of conjecture.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 04:14 PM
1

I couldn't make any sense of that unfocused rambling. Is there anything resembling a point in there? If so, it would have been a good idea to place it in the neighborhood of the first paragraph.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 03:56 PM
-4

Exactly. I executed my own little downvote brigade on this post...because who really gives a fuck?
/r/MensRights20/09/11 03:50 PM
8

Strawman argument. 'All men are rapists' simply is not a widely held view.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 03:47 PM
4

That's always the excuse, sure. "We have to point these bad women out to raise awareness" or some such bullshit. Just wondering, would - Missouri man charged with rape of a development-challenged 13-year-old girl - be relevant fodder on a feminist forum? What point would made by it? Is this really nothing more than just a contest about who can link to the most nasty stories about the opposite gender?
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:50 PM
4

Exactly. What's the point of a 'Bad stuff about women' forum? What does it prove exactly? She was charged with rape. She got exactly the treatment she should have gotten. Same as a man would have gotten and should have gotten. That's what we're striving for. So unless your post was intended as evidence of a lesser need for a men rights forum, I don't think it's relevant.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:53 PM
11

And your first post has nothing to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 01:10 PM
1

I don't know, but I still feel women have more. There are lots of shitty stuff that happens to men, I'm not trying to downplay them a bit because I've been subject to them too. But that still doesn't blind me to the fact that women have significant hardships due to their gender too. And I think it's more. Sorry, just my opinion. I've been given every opportunity to succeed in this world. I'll be damned if I'm going to play a victim card.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:51 AM
-3

Exhibit A
/r/MensRights09/08/11 09:09 PM
1

As I've said before, r/mensrights is at its best when it's tackling very specific areas of injustice, like child custody. When it goes beyond that and starts looking for injustice everywhere, and honestly starts believing that men have it worse off than women not just in certain areas, but overall, that's when it's at its worst. Because despite the very real specific areas of injustice, men have it no worse off than women overall. I'm the first to admit we are the more fortunate gender.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:28 PM
3

Only one that comes to mind is Homer Simpson killing Maude Flanders. And it was pretty funny. But no I'm not going to research it further. Because it's beside the point. Whether a man or a woman gets killed, it can be serious or funny, sexist or non-sexist. It all depends on the show, the context and how it's presented. I'm not going to pass judgment on a show that hasn't even aired yet.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:20 PM
5

Yes.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:30 PM
3

I don't know who you think I am or what I represent, but I didn't understand one single bit of that cryptic response. Do you think I don't think false rape accusations happen? Just because I wanted a simple question answered about what constitutes a false rape accusation? And by the way when you say: We count false rape accusations as false rape accusations. I'm not sure who the 'we' is you speak of. It certainly isn't this entire subreddit. Many would count any rape case that doesn't end in con…
/r/MensRights06/08/11 12:10 PM
2

My first thought too. Don't know why you were downvoted. Redditors in particular have a real blind spot about just accepting at face value any random blog entry or internet factoid which supports a favorite view. Maybe it was a false accusation or maybe not. But I wish the article would have said more about that. Poorly written. We're being asked to be enraged without being provided any detail or justification.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 08:36 PM
0

And yet you didn't answer his/her question. Is it not a valid point (though rudely stated)? I'd like to know the answer myself.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 08:29 PM
-3

No it really isn't. You need to broaden your horizons a little. Feminism is more than a handful of horror stories, and quotes from insignificant poor quality extremist blogs.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 08:23 PM
2

Failing to see the mensrights angle. Two consenting adults have sex. One gives the other one money.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:13 PM
1

What you posted is utter tripe No. What he posted was utter truth. He's been there...and so have I. Does that count for anything or does only hypothetical theorizing count? NEVER act like a douche in front of the children. Be the bigger person. The better person. Always. You need to show the children that you are the force for good, the stable rock in their lives they can always depend on. In the end it is an amazing source of good feeling and self esteem. As opposed to wallowing at her level, a…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 01:24 PM
0

Not helping carry stuff does kind of sound like a douchebag.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 12:59 PM
0

FCC complaint? No! Since when are opinions governed by the FCC? Just because you don't agree with something, don't cry for the government to censor it. This is America.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 01:29 AM
1

I don't get any of this. What the fuck are you on about? Jesus, just relax.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:26 PM
2

Which is why widespread, mandatory testing is opposed. There's no conspiracy here. Generally speaking, widespread, mandatory anything is opposed because its viewed as a matter of government overstepping its bounds. And that certainly would be the case here. This violates a basic, basic principle of liberty. You don't just institute a blanket policy for everyone...cast a wide net and see what we can catch. This is a privacy issue. You can't assume that every man wants a paternity test. It's as si…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 03:36 PM
2

You are confusing issues here. The solution to one problem is not creating another problem. The difference between you and me is, you see a government problem, men having difficulty reversing paternity judgements after finding out they're not the father, and as a solution you propose even more government intervention and intrusion, forcing paternity tests on everyone, even the vast majority who doesn't want or need one. I propose fixing the government, making it easier to change the unjust judge…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 02:10 PM
1

men should have the same defacto right to know parentage as women have. Agreed. And nothing in the world is stopping them from running paternity tests on their 'suspected' children. That doesn't mean the government should institute blanket testing for all children. You have many rights in this country. Doesn't mean the government has to fund them. If it's that big of a deal for you, fine go get a paternity test. But don't push your fears on everybody. And don't dig around in my underpants at the…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:56 PM
-2

Hence the question mark.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:16 PM
-13

Because this is America? Seriously. You see no problem with the government stepping in and mandating a paternity test on every single newborn baby? r/libertarian would have a heart attack at the notion. Or at least they should. Parenthood is a personal matter. If a dispute arises, the parties involved can pursue paternity testing if they want to. But there's no way it should be mandated. Also, just as a side note, despite the myopic view around here which is focussed on money grubbing women scam…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 07:43 PM
-22

Nothing is a good argument for mandatory paternity testing at birth, because it's a bad idea.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:10 PM
0

True, all forms of physical humor are conditional. Even a blow to the groin. In movies and TV, events that are quite dangerous and could injure or kill are depicted humorously all the time. I don't see this as being any different.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:46 PM
11

Ted has a right to know the truth. That's obvious. But what you are doing with your internet tough guy routine is just as bad. Not in an esoteric make believe internet sort of way. In a very real way. You are part of the problem.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:34 PM
1

It doesn't work as satire. And if it's on the level it's absurd. So either way it's crap.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 03:14 PM
2

If you disagree, name another group that has more advantages. And be honest.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:31 PM
-1

I view this subreddit often, because ever since going through a rather contentious divorce and child custody battle, the subject of men's rights has hit home with me. There's a lot of good stuff here. There's also frankly a lot of complete crap. It's a constant sorting out process. Some men here have completely lost perspective and actually think they have it tough being a man, tougher than women. This is a completely foreign concept to me. While I readily agree there are specific areas where me…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 05:48 PM
4

I don't hear the 'women and children' phrase much any more. Just children. When you do hear it, it's a holdover from old times when women were considered weak and inferior and not able to protect themselves...like children.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:05 PM
7

Well, first of of all, is that just headlines or comments? Secondly, total numbers mean nothing when not taken in context. If one subreddit uses a bad word, then another subreddit complains five times about that single instance, by your logic the subreddit with the complaints is five times worse than the original subreddit. So any time something bad happens, only one response is allowed, or else it is considered excessive? Oh, how I wish that really was the rule on Reddit sometimes.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 01:21 PM
2

All evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 10:14 PM
1

Why would you hate it? Some men and women have a definite preference about the gender of their doctor. No, logically it shouldn't matter, but it does, so what are you going to do. It is an accepted part of the profession. Not a mens rights issue at all.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:52 PM
-1

Why is this in mensrights? Are you implying that no men lie and take on fake personas and mess with girls on the internet?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 11:11 PM
1

No, I think for many here, hate is exactly the right word. No way around it.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 01:02 AM
1

No one is arguing that ratty t-shirts, shorts and sandals are business attire. Yes people on this very thread were arguing exactly that: Comfort is all that matters, and if people think shorts are unprofessional in this day and age that's apparently a huge problem. But look at it this way: these women are all professional looking business women. This is what business men look like. They are all wearing the same suit, the same colors, the same damn cut of clothing. Who said men have to all wear t…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:57 AM
1

Aren't the vast majority of the links here about women victimizing men from MSM? I think it's just the opposite of what people here claim. I don't think think MSM is a non-stop 'males victimizing females' angst-fest at all. I see far more stories of the reverse (and no not just because they were linked here). I think MSM thinks it makes for a better story. Think about it. If the 'myth' is 95% of violence is against women, then violence against women ceases to be a big story. They print more viol…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 08:31 PM
-1

So if I post a link of a man beating the shit out of a woman, does that then debunk the debunker? What a fun game. So productive too.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 07:39 PM
0

You may be right, but I don't see what can be done about it. I do happen to think shorts look less professional. I don't know why. I just do. Yes, fashion is a frivolous thing when you break it down. But you can pretend it isn't important, and comfort is the only thing that's important and just walk around in a soft velour jumpsuit all day I suppose. That would be pretty sweet, but it's just not going to impress too many folks. I can't change that.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 07:07 PM
0

Men's jobs? You've completely lost me now.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:11 PM
0

What do mean by 'can wear'? There's nothing in most dress codes preventing men from wearing bright colors for example. It might not be the normal fashion choice for many situations, but now we're just talking fashion, not oppression.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:08 PM
1

It's valid to talk about issues like false rape claims, sure. But far too often we see posts here about a woman mistreating somebody or behaving badly, and no larger point is being made besides "Ha look at that stupid dumb bitch". So would this article about the man filing a false report belong on a feminist board? Would it be a valid discussion point? I say no. Men and women are human and do stupid things. I imagine they do them about an equal amount, perhaps in different areas as influenced by…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:22 PM
-6

We have a business dress code for women too. Yes they wear dresses and skirts, but far from 'anything they want'. It is not defeatist at all. Should President Obama meet with a foreign head of state wearing a ratty T-shirt, shorts and sandals? I make the extreme case to make a point: The clothes you wear send a message. Nothing I do or don't do will change the consensus people have about those messages. A company has the right to tailor their image. Image is very important. I just don't look at …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:49 PM
1

It's got as much to do with men's right as a post about a stupid woman. In other words neither has anything to do with it. And yes I'm aware that 'Evil women' posts are addressed and even encouraged in the FAQ. Doesn't make it right.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:29 PM
1

Yes. I was talking more specifically about business. Which metaranha brought up in his post.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:16 PM
-8

I just don't feel it's that big of an issue. Business dress codes exist because like it or not a man just isn't considered 'business-like' in shorts. He's not taken as seriously. It's just the way it is. I rarely even wear short sleeve shirts at work. Always dress shirts. It is my choice. It is the image I wish to convey. But I do roll the sleeves up. Added bonus...gives the subconscious impression of working hard. We do have casual Fridays though and I do admit that sometimes on very hot days I…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:08 PM
2

Well we're kind of doing a mix and match now. I'm sure sexual torture at POW camps torture is prevalent, like those wonderful photos and stories from Abu Ghraib for example. As for 'Leo Logan', I assume you mean what if a male journalist of equal stature to Lara Logan were violently sexually assaulted while on a field assignment. I think it would have been just as big of a story. In this case, I think you're implying a double standard where none exists.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 03:59 PM
2

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see a link of sexual assault of male journalists. And as far as which is the bigger story, I don't get your point. So now only the biggest story gets to be on 60 Minutes? It's an entertainment show.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 04:23 AM
2

I don't know if any complained or not. I doubt it. But that's completely beside my point. If a man or a woman reporter get injured, neither would complain. It can be a dangerous job and it goes with the territory. But this woman was sexually assaulted. That doesn't normally happen to men reporters. And if women would complain about it, people would say, well women don't belong there in the first place. And anyway I think it's miscategorization to say she was 'complaining'. She was telling her st…
/r/MensRights07/05/11 02:00 PM
2

Because it's a woman who did something bad. That qualifies as relevant. It makes us feel better about ourselves in comparison, because we have fairly low self esteem. But hey at least we're better that this bitch, right?
/r/MensRights07/05/11 03:56 AM
4

She was talking about within her industry. And she's right. Women reporters can't complain about getting mistreated because then it will be followed by claims that women can't handle it, women don't belong on the front lines, etc.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 03:47 AM
2

I guess I don't really see this as the same as most false rape cases which are discussed around here. I just see a dumb girl in denial that she could possibly pee her pants, so actually believes what she is accusing you of.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 02:42 PM
1

Brings the whole community down? Haven't been around here much? A significant portion of the community will consider this clever and witty.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 02:22 PM
2

I see nothing in the story which indicates attempted murder. I do however see aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Perhaps we should wait until more facts are known.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 02:53 AM
11

That was an extremely stupid story to tie the terrible incident in Indiana to Palin's innocent remark to a women's hockey team. I'm actually forced into the position of defending Sarah Palin on this one. Only in this subreddit. Thanks, r/MensRights. You've accomplished the impossible.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 08:18 PM
1

The argument was about female judges seeing through females' bullshit, no matter how hard you pretend it wasn't. I'm done.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 05:52 PM
1

Your original premise was: Anyone else notice the trend that it's female judges that don't put up with women's bullshit? If this was a male judge I suspect the odds would be much lower of things going the way they did. I asked for citation. You had none. So instead you stretched and detracted and detoured until you landed safely in an area where you could conclude that women have it made. It's a common tale around here. I ask for specifics and facts. I get unrelated rants.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 05:39 PM
1

GTFO Gladly. I have no time to waste on people who don't know the difference between civil cases and criminal cases.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 05:08 PM
1

This isn't a discussion about prison sentences.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 01:14 PM
0

Well, the whole story about the cops and the stabbing is a completely different topic. As for the rest, how I should pay attention to the gender of judges, and judges going all white knight etc. all I can say is [citation needed].
/r/MensRights18/04/11 12:08 AM
3

No. Your logic is flawed. If real men don't buy girls, it does not follow that anyone who doesn't buy girls is a real man. Example. Real Irishmen like to drink Guinness. Wait, I like Guinness. Does that make me Irish?
/r/MensRights17/04/11 10:02 PM
2

That's really what you got out of the ad?
/r/MensRights17/04/11 09:58 PM
0

I guess I haven't noticed that 'trend' at all. I don't necessarily see anything gender related about this story, and find the slant you put on it...female judge sees through woman's bullshit...to be kind of odd. What does it matter that either one was a woman? What in this specific case points to gender as being a prevailing deciding factor? And more generally, what larger point are you making? More women try to screw an ex out of money than men? Men judges don't see through bullshit as much as …
/r/MensRights17/04/11 09:39 PM
-2

No it most certainly doesn't. Look I understand the innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof and all that. I'm not 9. But that is not the same as flat out calling someone a liar. They are not a liar, they are not telling the truth. They are simply in a state of suspended judgment.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 07:58 PM
-5

I know I have no idea. That's my whole point! I am not making any kind of judgment one way or the other. You are twisting the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean, assume everyone is lying. It simply means we don't know yet.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:57 PM
-4

I think he used the word to make a point. And it was a valid one.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:54 PM
-2

He didn't call him a terrorist. He laid out a possible broad spectrum of what the father could be, based on what little we know of him from the article. It was a best case and worst case scenario. Worst case is, the wife's accusations are true, and he was indeed terrorizing his family. I find it real interesting that on this subreddit we are required to assume the worst about women, and give the man every benefit of doubt in cases where facts aren't known. I hate to harp on stuff like this, but …
/r/MensRights09/04/11 02:23 PM
-4

You have no idea what is going on in that case, outside of one brief internet article. Pure speculation.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 02:18 PM
-7

Do you realize how ridiculous that logic is? There is absolutely no indication in this case whether there was real abuse or not. But because some people sometimes lie about about it we need to assume everyone is lying about it.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:02 PM
-4

This is probably the most sensible well thought out post with a double digit negative score I've read in quite some time. WTF is wrong with people to not see that you make completely valid points which if nothing else add to the discussion. But you committed a cardinal sin. You called for a fact based discussion based on the specific details of the story in question. In this subreddit, speculation and supposition are king. If we decide she was a greedy lying bitch then by God that's what she is.…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 11:59 AM
1

I do not agree with the nun analogy. Her attire should have nothing to do with establishing consent. And the distinction between availability and consent is: Availability - I'm open to potentially having sex with someone. Consent - I'm willing to have sex with you specifically. I can see where attire could be used to advertise general availability. Consent however is granted on an individual basis. This guy yes, that guy, no. And attire has absolutely nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:26 PM
2

Attire should not be even considered a piece of the puzzle when trying to determine consent. He's trying to say that consent can be a cumulative thing, built from many factors, like there's some kind of scoring system. Coy smile is 5 points, low cut top is 10 points etc. If the score exceeds a certain amount, you're free to go ahead and have your way with her. I completely disagree with that assessment. Clothing should not even enter into that mix. I think consent is being confused with availabi…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 02:06 PM
1

OK. Then enlighten me on what the point was then. I'm serious. I don't get it. When I read the following passage: None of these factors are alone dispositive of the question of whether or not there was actually consent at the moment of penetration. But to varying degrees, they are consistent with conduct a reasonable person associates with a romantic tryst that often leads to consensual sex. And, yes, that includes the way she dressed. It seems to me you are saying that attire is at least one of…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:49 PM
1

If I understand correctly, your point seems to be, provocative attire = consent?
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:26 PM
0

OK forget the studies. In this particular case there is absolutely nothing in the article which suggests this person got special treatment due to gender. Which means any gender reversal speculation is not a fact based discussion.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 12:20 PM
0

I'm not saying the trend doesn't exist. Do not misunderstand that key point. I am merely saying that scanning the internet and finding stories of women who did not get the book thrown at them is NOT proof. Numbers are proof. Legitimate studies are proof. An investigation revealing evidence of sexism is proof. Here is an example of proof: xxx study shows that men received xxx% more jail time than women for the same crimes. Here is an example of NOT proof: "Hey check out this link to a two paragra…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:48 PM
1

My point is, there is absolutely nothing in this story which suggests the person is getting special treatment due to gender. But everyone is just willing to assume the worst. It is not fact based discussion. It is all speculative, since nobody here knows the details of the case. I just get tired of it.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:30 PM
0

It's just another example of this subreddit imagining what would happen if genders were reversed, formulating a horror story about it, and getting extremely pissed by this odd mental exercise, all without the benefit of a any real life corroboration. Good times.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:11 PM
0

Oh great, now we get to be treated with rage comics about what bitches our wives and girlfriends are. Now we're accomplishing something important.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 04:05 PM
3

What point exactly are you trying make by sharing this study? Not sure I follow.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 03:56 PM
2

Am I missing something? She is in jail.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 03:48 PM
1

Thanks for proving my point. I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but if you are, well done.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 09:29 AM
1

You are absolutely correct. There really is no evidence of a sexist factor to this story. But that doesn't matter around here. Getting all worked up and pissed off about hypothetical speculation is what this subreddit does best.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:21 PM
10

The headline is extremely misleading. Feminist unhappy? To me that reveals a basic comprehension problem. The writer was not defending herself or her attitudes. This was a self-examination, and a pretty good one. Perhaps I’m being too hard on myself – I’m reacting to behaviors that are directly opposed to my past 22 years of social programming. It’s fascinating to find that I don’t even know what my ideals are. Culture shock gives you the chance to reexamine your culture in a new light. Just be …
/r/MensRights23/03/11 08:10 PM
4

Relevance to men's rights?
/r/MensRights19/03/11 04:26 AM
7

Yeah, if this was on 4chan and if the genders were reversed, as long as the chick was fat and/or ugly (and therefore deserving of universal scorn) it would be fine.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 05:44 PM
8

Yes, normally 4chan style motivational posters are so sympathetic to women. Wow.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 05:38 PM
-4

I know nothing of this person or his blog, nor do I really care to delve into it further. I can take issue with some of his post. But fwiw I will say that this paragraph - Men’s rights activists aren’t much like any other activists I’ve ever run across. For one thing, for supposed activists they are almost completely inactive. Sure, they complain endlessly about things they see as terrible injustices against men. They just don’t do anything about them. While some of those who consider themselves…
/r/MensRights11/03/11 04:18 AM
0

I see nothing in this article blaming any man. In fact it was sympathetic to the father, saying he was "paralysed with grief". Nice try, but the fact remains that the appearance of a story like this on a mens rights forum serves no purpose other than to say "Look what this bad bad woman did." And we can all feel better about ourselves knowing that there's an occasional monster of the opposite gender. Hooray for us.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:03 PM
1

For one, do you think if the sexes were reversed, the courts would behave the same? Well she was charged with murder. Yeah I think courts would behave the same either way. If so, do you think this wouldn't be posted all over feminist and womens forums? I didn't ask would it be posted on feminist forums. I asked should it be posted on feminist forums. The answer is no. So the same should apply here. If you don't believe that to be true, remind me again how we're different than them?
/r/MensRights08/03/11 05:35 AM
2

Yeah I've read that too. And I've heard over and over the logic that we have to increase awareness of these incidents. And it's still complete bullshit, and it still belongs nowhere near a real forum on mens rights. And it's why this particular forum will always be minor league. I use this this as a yardstick: If the gender in this story were reversed, would it be an appropriate post on a feminism forum? Of course not. Because it's anecdotal, it's pointless and proves nothing.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 01:51 AM
2

The word may be overused. But anyone who denies that there is indeed a specific type of behavior that can be defined as creepy, and that people who habitually engage in this behavior can be rightly labeled as creeps just doesn't get it. This is a complete non-issue.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 10:08 PM
1

I don't see them as equal terms at all. Totally different meanings.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 10:02 PM
-1

Relevance to men's rights?
/r/MensRights07/03/11 09:38 PM
2

It's not. And it's shit like this that detracts from important actual issues. This is r/mensrights, not r/bitch about stupid things that chicks do. I wish people would learn the difference.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 06:24 PM
1

I won't be next. Bucause I'm not a fucking idiot
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:20 PM
1

Morally, sure it was shitty And thus my lack of concern over his teaching career.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:13 PM
2

Didn't do anything wrong? How can you even say that? I've said about multiple times now he didn't do the crime he is charged with,and I don't want him convicted of it, but he is not without fault. I don't know how else to say it.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:07 PM
2

Well not that he deserves the charges against him. But I have very little concern for his teaching career, since as demonstrated by his extremely poor judgement on this matter, he himself apparently doesn't care a whole lot. Why is it so hard to admit the guy's a jerk? He's not a sexual criminal, but he's an asshole. He lied his ass off to get into a classroom and made a video using little kids without their permission. Maybe teaching isn't the best career path for this guy.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:01 PM
1

I made no such point. Calm the fuck down. I merely stated that kids' parents have a right to decide whether or not their kids are going to be used in such a way.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 03:53 PM
2

Well yes and no. If initial investigation reveals sufficient grounds for arrest, you go get the guy. Then you still have to do a full fledged investigation before trial. I fully afree he shouldn't be charged with the law he is being charged with though. I doubt the law was intended to prevent someone from making a video in which it appears a guy sings a dirty song to kids. That's the way the sherrif is interpreting it though.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:38 PM
0

I don't see it getting that far. Because conservative or not the DA still has to prove it to a jury. And it wouldn't stand a chance. He would be in a shitload of trouble for even trying to take it to trial and wasting the court's time and money. The judge would not be amused.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:26 PM
3

Thanks. This is exactly what I was trying to get across. I fully agree he didn't commit a sex crime. I was merely discussing another side issue in the matter that he still acted unethically and used extremely poor judgment. And I get downvoted by goofy ass r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:23 PM
3

I agree.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:15 PM
1

I didn't accept the levying of false charges. I said it will likely get investigated and thrown out. It wouldn't stand a chance. Doesn't mean he's not guilty of a lesser infringement against those kids and that school though.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:15 PM
-8

The aspect of this story where he used the children in the video without permission is not a free speech issue. You can't do that. Think about it. What if I made a video of a giant cock having intercourse with a small shaved vagina. Then I edit in tight shots of a 5 year old girl's face as she squeals with delight from being tickled or something. Then imagine I did this all without the girl's parents' permission and put it on the internet. Even if the female in the sex shots was 18 and even if t…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 03:43 AM
2

He didn't violate the law that he is suspected of, exposing children to pornographic material. But he's still a giant douchebag. He lied his way into the class under false pretenses, then used the children in a video with obscene language, without the parents' permission: The camera in the posted video scanned the audience of smiling children and every child’s face was recognizable. That's the key point. 20 years? No. That will get investigated and tossed out. But I would think he's still in som…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 03:21 AM
3

Just curious, by this logic does every crappy thing that men do belong on feminist pages? And by the way, I'll police it all I want, thanks. It's my subreddit too.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 01:39 PM
20

This story has absolutely nothing to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 09:20 PM
0

I don't think counter examples have any value whatsoever. They don't demonstrate any kind of trend. Would it be useful on a feminist thread to post "Bradenton man gets life in prison for raping 5 year old girl"? What exactly would the purpose be? Are we just keeping score on rapes and whoever digs up the most dirt wins?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:52 PM
-1

I'm flattered that you keep such close track of my posts. But honest I'm not on every thread asking the same question. Occasionally on r/atheism when someone posts something about a bad Christian and occasionally here when someone posts something about a bad woman. And I do contend that neither one belongs.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 05:46 PM
0

I'm sorry. I was under the impression she got life in prison.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 05:43 PM
-5

Relevance to men's rights?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:55 PM
1

Relevance to mens rights? Hint: Links about women doing bad things aren't relevant.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 10:23 PM
4

Couldn't be further from the truth. There are some perfectly nice looking guys who I have had women friends regard as creepy. It's all about behavior and just in general how one carries one's self.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 08:21 PM
0

Base a lot of your life outlook on shitty meaninless retarded TV shows like that, do you?
/r/MensRights28/12/10 05:53 AM
2

Can anyone give a synopsis of the reasoning behind the statement? Because I have no desire to read the book.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:51 PM
6

Really, r/MensRights?
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:48 PM
8

Oh I see. It's sluts telling lies. That's entirely different. Proceed. Maybe we should amend the policy to say no posting of personal data unless king_hobo determines they're sluts telling lies.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 04:24 PM
19

Good call. Some people just don't get it.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:46 PM
1

The person doing the grading wasn't exactly the shapest bulb on the tree either.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:42 PM
4

That's exactly how I took it -- poorly done satire, by a young writer. I can't believe it's being dissected here like it was intended to be top notch journalism. Sometimes this subreddit reeks of insecurity if we have to stoop to targets like this.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:35 PM
2

Relevance to r/mensrights? Sounds like everyday celebrity gossip BS to me.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 08:03 PM
4

Mind numbingly stupid.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 08:00 PM
1

This is where it hurts? Seriously? Who could possibly be hurt by such a thing? Grow a spine.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:57 PM
5

Could your title be any more inaccurate? Did you even read the post, or the discussion which followed?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 03:27 AM
5

So...just to be clear, you support patriarchy?
/r/MensRights04/11/10 12:48 AM
6

Me too. I have no idea why. I have never been there.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 02:51 PM
-2

I didn't say there were men only tournaments. I only said there was no complaining about men only tournaments in this article. The person in the article was merely saying she liked women's only tournaments. If she turned around and also said men only tournaments were sexist, she'd be a hypocrite. But she never said that. So what she said was fine and mensrights just invents the rest so they have something to bitch about.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 01:27 AM
-1

I agree. I didn't see any complaint about men only tournaments in this article. But this subreddit is known to occasionally make up scenarios to rage at when they don't actually exist.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 03:02 PM
5

The term historically has been used far more often to describe discrimination against women. I think the definition is merely acknowledging that.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 04:30 AM
0

I guess you're not familiar with the term 'outnumber'. It means there are more of one thing than another. It doesn't mean the other thing doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that pointing examples of the minority disproves the statement. And by the way even in your examples they prove my point more than yours anyway. Star Trek NG. for one example. Who are the stars? Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, LaForge, Dr. Crusher, Troi. That's five men and two women. And while the women characters certainly have…
/r/MensRights09/10/10 03:26 PM
-1

I'm not sure you get my point. I was specifically talking about females in a leading, title role. Not a sidekick supporting housewife in a sitcom. A vast number of the main stars are men, in any genre, comedy or otherwise. Many are cool, honorable, respectable. And many are on sitcoms where they are buffoons. Because buffoons are funny and buffoons need a straight character sidekick. And it makes perfect sense in a family sitcom that the 'straight guy' be the wife. Although they are usually pret…
/r/MensRights08/10/10 11:52 PM
-6

It gets so tiring to hear the whining about TV characters. There are more male feature characters of every type: smart, dumb, good, bad. Because men dominate the entertainment industry. Shows which feature women are in the minority. The few which do feature a positive female lead...I'm talking a central title role, not a wife in a goofy sitcom...are still seen as revolutionary, groundbreaking. They are outnumbered by positive male leads several times over. Yet we still hear that because Homer Si…
/r/MensRights08/10/10 10:38 PM
5

"I am going to pass this (clip) between your legs." That would be a sensible professional way to disarm the situation. "Don't worry, I'm gay." is not.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 07:13 PM
2

Congratulations. You're just like her.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 06:47 PM
3

She's obviously a nut. But why does mensrights seek out and concern itself so much with nuts like this? You can find extreme fringe views on just about anything you search for. The internet is truly wonderful in this way. But to continually point them out just to say "OMG OMG OMG!", seems rather insecure.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 06:46 PM
-4

This exemplifies the problem which is often displayed in r/mensrights. In these areas of the world education for girls goes against the culture, and the Taliban actively oppose it. Girls are expected to stay at home, and not leave unaccompanied. Yet halfway around the world, Redditor gamer notices a charity to do something about it, sees girls not boys being helped, and can only think of men getting screwed. Yeah girls have it so cushy there.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 09:37 PM
2

I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgment. When he says she took stake in everything he owns, it's kind of shorthand for "she's trying to take a stake in everything I own". this is all still going on. No conclusion has been reached yet.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 02:28 PM
1

Can't think of a better reply than that. Anything else is pointless. That shit has no place here.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 02:23 PM
15

Feminism does not believe that parenting is an exclusively female privilege. Neither does custody law at least where I live. And before you go there, yes I am generalizing so you don't need to bother linking to some nazi-feminist blogger who thinks men shouldn't be near children. There are fringe wackos on both sides.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 03:08 PM
30

By this logic every issue on the front page of Reddit becomes a men's rights issue...because feminists aren't speaking up about them.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 01:21 PM
8

Exactly. Posts like this are futile, because how easy would it be to find an equal number of idiotic polls revealing negative qualities about men? In the end, what is accomplished by either one?
/r/MensRights09/09/10 03:38 PM
13

And I'll go one step further. Even if the numbers are dead on scientifically accurate, how is this a mens rights issue? Mens rights != a contest to find out ways men rule and women suck.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 03:19 PM
8

That's different because this one trashes women. Duh.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 03:16 PM
1

Hard to say what the bouncer's motivations were. I wasn't there. And the fact that the women acted like they did I still don't see as a mens rights issue. There are all kinds of drunken jerks hanging out in bars, male and female. Every time a woman does something bad, are we really going to run to mensrights and cry "That's what's wrong with women"?
/r/MensRights09/09/10 02:59 AM
2

I don't need no stinking encyclopedia. I'm a member at the YMCA and women go there even though it's named for men.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 12:49 AM
2

And they could have easily called the YMCA the YPCA, because women go there too. Oh nos.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:58 PM
4

Did you even read the page you linked to?
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:55 PM
0

I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to put this: That was one of the lamest 'mens rights' rationalizations I've ever heard. A guy got into an altercation with some idiots at a bar. Period.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:43 PM
0

You are right. This has nothing to do with mens rights. A common act on this subreddit is to report anecdotal stories about some woman acting like a jerk and then somehow pretending it has something to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:39 PM
0

It doesn't.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:37 PM
0

Interesting story. Not sure why it's posted in mensrights though. What's the connection? The woman and her friends were assholes. So what point are you trying to make from it?
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:34 PM
4

Somehow I think there's more to those discussions than you're letting on. And your statement confuses me. Is there some area which isn't in geographic proximity to females? My own opinion on the matter of government funding of birth control - I have no problem with subsidized birth control based on financial need. Since the alternative is likely government support of a child, I suspect paying for birth control up front is a bargain.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 03:34 PM
6

In this case though, it is the oppression of the women which in turn causes the systematic victimization of boys. As the article states, women are simply innaccessible. Can't speak to them, can't look at them. So the mens' sexuality simply gets channeled elsewhere, to boys. Make women full equal citizens in the society and this problem with the boys largely goes away of its own accord.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:53 PM
7

I pretty much do check out women all the time.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:42 PM
10

Thank you for this. How does anyone think that 2xc is supposed to be about womens rights? I've thought it was more like just a clubhouse for women to talk about stuff that interests them. That may include an occasional discussion of feminist issues, or just pics of hot guys, or anything else under the sun.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:35 PM
2

Well I do read r/feminism sometimes, but I'll stay here too, and point out lapses in reason where I see fit. Gosh I hope that's allowed.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 01:52 PM
1

You are absolutely correct. It's not perfect. But the existence of these spaces is entirely understandable. But this is mensrights so common sense just goes by the wayside sometimes.
/r/MensRights06/09/10 04:05 PM
2

Violent crime is a pretty broad category. The type of violent crime which inflates the numbers towards men is not the type which is perpetrated by stalking vulnerable victims in deserted corners of a parking garage.
/r/MensRights06/09/10 04:02 PM
7

This is one of the saddest threads I've ever read. Asking mensrights how to deal with women isn't the greatest idea. Might as well ask how to deal with aliens from pluto. Just live life and be sensible. Women aren't the devil. They can be quite fun.
/r/MensRights25/08/10 02:02 PM
8

So answer my question then. What exactly in the article led you to believe he was being picked on solely because he's the husband? I honestly don't understand.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 03:55 PM
8

Are you kidding? Stories, articles, best selling books abound on every serial killer who comes along. Breaking down why they did what they did. What pressures existed that pushed them over the edge, what psychological factors were at work, what makes them tick. You seriously are unaware of this phenomenon? Show me a famous murder case where it didn't occur.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 02:28 PM
8

The police consider him a 'person of interest'. I think CNN is merely reporting the facts.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 02:20 PM
7

What exactly in that article led you to write the headline you did? I see nothing like that. Do you know all the details of the case enough to conclude the husband shouldn't be a person of interest? If so please share this intimate knowledge with us.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 01:10 PM
11

I think you're seeing disparity where none exists in this case. I could easily have seen that SC article written about a man who committed the same crime. It's about what drives a parent to kill his or her children. And besides, from reading that article I never got the impression they were trying do excuse the behavior (i.e. it's not her fault). They were examining it. Big difference.
/r/MensRights19/08/10 01:06 PM
2

It has everything to do with your comment: If a woman feels entitled to a meal being paid, then she should expect that there would be a similar feeling in return. I agree that panel was shaky. But I think they were portraying situations where date rape may likely occur. Guy springs for an expensive night out. Later he wants some, she says no, he gets pissed. You have to kind of fill in the rest with imagination, but I agree it's poorly done. I don't think they were saying that paying for a date …
/r/MensRights09/08/10 02:45 PM
2

In no way is the message suggesting that men should always pay. But when they do pay, it doesn't mean a guarantee of sex.
/r/MensRights09/08/10 12:12 PM
3

I guess so. Old Rapey Jayhammers doesn't like stopping.
/r/MensRights09/08/10 12:08 PM
3

Ah yes, the most common logic flaw on mensrights. Anyone who does anything to increase awareness or prevent sexual assault must think all men are rapists. der
/r/MensRights09/08/10 12:05 PM
1

So is MensRights is just 'Post bad stuff that women do'?
/r/MensRights06/08/10 03:57 AM
3

Parents don't always bring kids to the park. Sometimes kids just go there.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 07:25 PM
-2

I agree 100% the rule is a bad one. I do however question the sentiment in your headline. I see this logic often. "Oh they think everyone is a predator". Well no, not really. Not any more than by locking your car you must think that all pedestrians who pass by are thieves. In other words, I agree the law is an unnecessary precaution, but I just find fault in the title is all.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 06:52 PM
1

I fully understand the seriousness. All the more reason to be on his side and offer advice in a helpful tone and not a mocking tone and calling him an idiot. He's much more likely to not be turned off by it. Guy comes to mensrights asking for help (First mistake, but that's beside the point) and basically gets spit on and called an idiot and a Jerry Springer show retard. Real supportive. He's in a bad situation, yes. He needs to wake up and get out, yes. But there's no reason help can't be offer…
/r/MensRights15/07/10 02:17 PM
-15

While I generally agree with your advice that he should leave her, can we do without the attitude? Every situation is complicated and we don't know all the facts. There's no reason to ridicule and insult the guy.
/r/MensRights14/07/10 04:29 PM
0

Answer my question. Your base rate which you put so much stock in only applies if you are replacing a person of unknown gender in the seat with a man. This is never the case. You have a good knowledge of math. You have a problem applying it correctly.
/r/MensRights25/06/10 06:17 AM
0

No. Did you read my reply? I am very familiar with Bayes' theorum. Thank you. Your math is correct, but your application to this situation is flawed. People on planes are not of unknown or random gender. They are known to be male or female. Please answer this simple question: If you replace a woman in the seat with a man, how many more times likely is that person now a pedophile than before? The answer is 9. Because we know the prior person was a woman, not a random gender unknown member of the …
/r/MensRights25/06/10 06:06 AM
-1

A 90:10 split doesn't even double the base rate across the entire population. I don't see the relevance of considering general population pedophile rate in this case. It only complicates the issue. The only number which matters is the 90:10 split of men to women pedophiles. Given your numbers, 1 in 5000 women are pedophiles and 9 in 5000 men are; or 5 in 5000 for the general population. But who cares about general population in this situation? When a person sits down on an airplane his or her ge…
/r/MensRights25/06/10 04:38 AM
-4

Personally, as a single man I'd much rather go to a ladies night at a bar than a mens night. The feat of guzzling cheap beer with my guy friends is not too difficult to accomplish. It is far more difficult to attract a decent female to male ratio at a nightclub. Sure, technically it is discriminatory. But I can't imagine the weenie-ness of a guy who would file a formal complaint about such a thing. Thanks, weenies.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 08:00 PM
-8

Or meet any women.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 07:54 PM
2

As I said, the system needs improvement and is far from perfect. But the alternative is letting parents arbitrarily decide to turn their back on children. Do you not see how this would be far more dangerous than my 'idealism'? Problem is many on Reddit can't get past giving satisfaction to evil bitches who trick men into child support. I think they need to widen their perspective just a little.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 03:47 PM
1

No, the noncustodial parent is not powerless to stop adoption of their own babies. The article talked about paternal registries. That is what they exist for. For a father to stake an official parenthood claim and prevent adoption. It worked in the first case you linked to...in one state. Until the mother fled to another state. But the fact that the mother was being deceptive and fled to another state does not mean she was 'allowed'. The next link complains that men don't know about father regist…
/r/MensRights27/05/10 01:48 PM
1

Sperm donorship is a completely different set of circumstances. The mother knows beforehand that she is attempting to get pregnant, and the biological father is only providing a service. Everyone knows what they're signing up for.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:45 PM
1

You are giving fetuses and babies equal legal standing. That is a whole other debate.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:37 PM
1

Women most certainly are not allowed to do those things. Not when the father is known and involved.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:36 PM
-3

Same old argument. And I'll still draw the same conclusion. It's unfortunate that a child gets born against the father's wishes. But once that child is born, the argument ends. Period. And the father should be expected to provide support. Because at that point the primary concern becomes the child and not the bickering of the parents. It is not a perfect situation, but the alternative - allowing a non-custodial parent to 'opt out' of child support whenever they wish, is completely unworkable.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:18 AM
5

Wouldn't an antonym for misogyny be like 'woman loving' or something? I don't see misandry as being the opposite of misogyny. Because a person could possess both traits and hate everyone I suppose. But someone could not at the same time hate women and love women.
/r/MensRights26/05/10 05:54 PM
5

Good post, but be prepared for lots of abuse (and I see you've gotten some already). Because sadly, there are too many people around here who just plain hate the likes of you.
/r/MensRights25/05/10 06:57 PM
7

Would and did. What the fuck is the difference?
/r/MensRights24/05/10 06:43 PM
1

Public service announcement.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 06:42 PM
1

I just disagree. This is not a PSA. It's poetry. Not very good poetry, but that is beside the point. Edit: For more information people should call 1−800−799−SAFE(7233). Sorry, wouldn't want to be remiss in my duties.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 05:40 PM
1

You need to calm down.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 05:28 PM
3

The message was: "If i as a woman feel like you treat me poorly, i've got 20 other guys who I can just run off with, so screw you" I think that's a healthy message. I think that's a sentiment that abuse victims are far too often incapable of realizing. That was the point. You may disagree with the syle in which it was delivered, but that definitely was the point. And no, I will say again, every statement on abuse does not have to encompass the entire topic. It is intended to only deal with one a…
/r/MensRights13/05/10 04:10 PM
0

I am a male. I have deep concerns for legitimate mens rights issues, that's why I read this subreddit. And that's why I dislike it when it gets sidetracked by a paranoid preoccupation with finding misandry lurking in every corner. MensRights will never be taken seriously by the masses as long as this prevails. And your 'on the rag' comment just demonstrates to me you are part of the problem. It's my Reddit too and I have a right to say what I like and don't like about it.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 03:53 PM
2

From society's standpoint, yes everyone is worthy of rehabilitation. But not by me personally. If I'm abused, I'd wish society all the luck in the world at the rehabilitation...just so it happened far away from me. Life's too short. I'd be moving on. Many victims feel they can't move on. That was the main sentiment the post was trying to combat. Also, just my opinion, but I don't feel that the post meant to imply that all abusers are men. As a literary device it chose to use specific language to…
/r/MensRights13/05/10 03:33 PM
6

"Don't you think that the right way to handle domestic abuse is to take the abuser and show him the error of his ways, instead of just telling the victim that she should "run away". You are doing nothing to help those in domestic abuse situations with this ridiculous statement." Show him the error of his ways? Fine, but that's assuming that the abuser is even worthy of the effort. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with running away from a piece of shit, rather than trying to reform it. That would …
/r/MensRights13/05/10 03:16 PM
-1

I probably am a little biased in this area because I see so many otherwise intelligent people on this subreddit so quick to snap off at 'misandrist' statements. To me it seems like a real blind spot is all. If anything, this writer was being pro-men. All it was saying was "Hey there are lots of great guys out there. Why don't you dump this loser?" And I have to say I often think exactly the same thing. I think people on MensRights need to calm down sometimes.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 03:02 PM
3

I do It seems this is more of a bias or comprehension problem on your part. I don't take it that way at all. It's a commonly used form of literary shorthand. It's assumed the message is addressing an abuser, and the rest of us are sort of eavesdropping on the conversation. It is not assuming that all readers are abusers. Sure the writer could have written "When *a person * does this..." instead of "when you do this..." but I think it loses some power that way. It reads much better as a direct st…
/r/MensRights13/05/10 02:42 PM
-2

Oh, no I totally didn't think of that. Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for pointing out that completely relevant case which is just like this one.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 09:56 PM
-4

Her point is valid when you consider that men who join the military knew what they are getting into and went willingly. The women left behind had no say in the matter. If they die that does not make them a 'victim'. It's a tragedy, but that is the risk they took when they signed up. If I engage in a dangerous activity and then die from said activity am I a victim? I'd say no. My wife and kids are are more of a victim.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 07:47 PM
1

I don't understand what the men's rights issue is here. Why did you cross post it?
/r/MensRights28/04/10 07:40 PM
1

The article never did clear up the bit about giving kids candy. That would certainly be suspicious. I don't understand the outrage here. It was worthy of investigation. They didn't find anything wrong. Police just did their job.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 07:37 PM
5

Yeah, good rule. Call them pigs to their face too. They like that.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 07:32 PM
-2

Not reckless at all when he qualified his statement by making it clear that he had limited knowledge of the case. No more reckless than pretty much anyone on the internet expressing an opinion an any legal case anywhere. At least he admits it.
/r/MensRights19/04/10 09:00 PM
-1

I disagree with your conclusion. There is nothing whatsoever in that article that indicates the only reason Mr. Freeman wanted charges brought was due to a historical pattern. In fact we don't even know he wanted charges brought. He only said he was surprised charges weren't brought. The article contains his quote - "It's understood there's a history of people taking advantage of women who are intoxicated. It's a pattern people use to their advantage," said Mr. Freeman. This was probably a excer…
/r/MensRights19/04/10 04:52 PM
1

No I don't have any inside information. And so when I don't have any, I tend to just agree with the people who sat in that courtroom hour after hour, day after day. And they found him criminally negligent. The 'burden of proof' of internet commentary lies with those who disagree with what those most involved and most qualified have decided.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 09:46 PM
-1

So the dad is completely without blame here? You're prepared to read a one page internet summary of a case and make that blanket statement?
/r/MensRights02/04/10 08:28 PM
50

Could the headline be any more deceiving? Mom didn't 'go nuts'. Mom already was nuts. And dad had been warned not to leave alone with the child. He was criminally negligent. And by the way, he got 10 years, not 20. But other than that your headline was right on. There was a mom and a dad and a kid so you got a few words right anyway.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 06:56 PM
0

You're free to organize something. To whom is your complaint aimed at exactly?
/r/MensRights24/03/10 10:18 PM
1

WTF is your problem? It's a cancer benefit event spiced up with some enticing marketing language. Oooh I'm so pissed at those damn people raising charity money.
/r/MensRights24/03/10 10:15 PM
2

The headline is in quotes. It's a quote from the video.
/r/MensRights16/02/10 11:11 PM
13

Thanks for bringing this vital mens rights issue to light.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 11:49 PM
2

So, if I'm understanding it right, you claim there are two kinds of women in America: geek chicks and those poisoned by feminism. Is it really that bad? You can't find any non-poisoned non-geek women anywhere? Where are you looking. Get off the internet and get out once in awhile.
/r/MensRights12/02/10 11:47 PM
1

I thought the dude was a little annoying. He lost me from the very beginning when he compared marriage to sky-diving: If the odds of sky-diving failure were equal to marriage failure he wouldn't go, etc. Well gee, in one case failure means death. In the other case failure means "OK see ya. I'm moving on with my life now". There are about a million things in life which you try where if the same odds of failure applied to skydiving, skydiving would be nuts. OK, yeah I know lighten up it's supposed…
/r/MensRights12/02/10 12:43 AM
3

Thanks for bringing this vital mens rights issue to light.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 09:11 PM
2

I think our wires are seriously crossed because I really don't understand your point. A man can't force a woman to have an abortion. That's just a fact and frankly I hope it always remains true. A woman can choose to get an abortion. So yes there is inequality in the abortion decision and always will be. I don't see how that can be avoided. But once the decision is made to carry the child to full term, regardless of how that decision was made, both parents are obligated to support him or her. I …
/r/MensRights11/02/10 07:25 PM
5

This very discussion though proves that those posts weren't to everybody's liking, including many people with genuine interest in mens rights. Why should those voices not be heard? To blame every downvote as the work of misandrists is a bit like assuming every girl who won't dance with you is a lesbian.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 04:35 PM
3

I think it has everything to to with that. Much more so than the "threat of rapists" theory.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 04:00 PM
2

Bill Gates has no connection with the child. The father does. Do we seriously want to argue on these lines? One parent gets the kid and gets to pay 100% of it. Just as if I want a videogame my brother doesn't: I get to pay the full of it; we cannot share it because he doesn't want it in the first place. As usual, this kind of proposal ignores the most important part of the whole equation: The child. The child deserves the support of two parents. Regardless of what complaints the parents have of …
/r/MensRights11/02/10 03:53 PM
0

Well I think just the opposite. I think I'm trying to instill some balance into a place where it doesn't usually exist so I can understand why you find it odd. And I think I'll stay on the subreddit if it's all the same to you. Thanks.
/r/MensRights11/02/10 03:45 PM
0

Yes. I am a martyr...and a champ. And all my avenues of escape have been quite deftly cut off by obtuse brilliance that is XFDRaven
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:54 PM
1

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying: Everything is cheeky. If that's truly all you have gleaned from this conversation, I have nothing more to add.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:43 PM
-1

Nothing you just wrote even applies in this case. The paternity battles you describe involve deception, malice, deceipt, cheating, etc. This case is none of that. It was a clerical error. And yes if you are victim of such an error by the courts it is unfortunately your burden to disprove it, if you know what's good for you. And by the way you are wrong about the state making money from child support payments...if the payments are made as ordered, on time and paid directly to the custodial parent…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:34 PM
0

I have no idea what you're talking about any more. I'm not saying mistakes aren't bad, I'm not saying they don't happen, I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen. You're slowly drifting off into your own hyperventilating world. All I'm saying is, a case of mixed up records is not a mens rights issue. It's bad, it sucks for the guy, I'm sorry it was so hard for him to straighten it out. But that's it. There's no mens rights issue to get up in arms about here. You're saying he was mistreated s…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:28 PM
1

In the case of the statutory rape, doesn't a female rape victim end up supporting a child she did not want or ask for? How is this different? A woman does not have the ability to run in order to prevent the father from gaining custody. Not legally. In any sort of entrapment scenario you can think of, be it squeezing sperm from a condom or whatever, yes the father is partly responsible for the childs' well being. That's just the way it is. There's no such thing as 'right to sex without reproducti…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:18 PM
1

So the female is not supporting her child in any way? Either the boy or the state is doing it? She's not sacrificing anything?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:08 PM
2

I was in a custody fight too and lost. I paid my ex every month for 16 years. So what? No court got a cut of it. The court's interest is deciding what is the best interest of the children. Sometimes they err and show a definite bias towards the mother. That is wrong. But the court doesn't rule for payments just to get their 'cut'. This whole idea that it's just a scam to make money is BS.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 11:00 PM
1

It's biased how? Is there a downward limit on requiring a female to provide child support? Do not female statutory rape victims have to support their children?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 09:00 PM
1

So if an agency retains say 15% to 35% of money collected on behalf of custodial parents, that makes the whole thing nothing but a big money grab? First of all, the non-custodial parent could make payment directly to the custodial parent, eliminating those fees and taxes. Because he or she didn't, it necessitated the involvement of a third party and yes extra fees will be incurred because of this.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 08:56 PM
3

The current system is broken. I keep hearing that, but I hear no solutions other than "If a man doesn't feel like paying he shouldn't have to". There is no solution and it's never going to be perfect. And it's never going to be equal because it can't be. A man can't force a woman to have an abortion, nor would I ever want him to be able to. So that means yeah another life is going to come into the world if she wants it to. And that means the new life is going to have to be supported, because tha…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 07:57 PM
2

It doesn't force all responsibility on the father. Only half. The father 'takes the hit' because he is a parent. And in a civilized society parents are expected to tend to their children.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 07:52 PM
1

You really are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't know how much more plain I can make it. I'm not saying because it was a mistake that makes it OK. I'm saying it was not gender discrimination and therefore not a men's rights issue. The real father is a man also. You do realize that, right? In your case of the black man on death row, it's only discrimination if authorities knowingly executed the wrong guy just because he was black. Knowingly turned their back on evidence that maybe a white …
/r/MensRights10/02/10 07:45 PM
0

With regard to the child's quality of life in that scenario, I wouldn't deny that it would be lessened without a father That is the crux of the issue. That is all I'm trying to say. Do you realize the implications if all a man had to do to escape parental responsibility would be to sign a paper saying "Well I wanted an abortion, so too bad."? Can't you see how unworkable that would be?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:14 PM
-4

You didn't answer my question.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:10 PM
2

How do you handle it when the parents do not agree, in your reproductive equality scenario?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:48 PM
0

Not arguing that. But once the child is born the slate is wiped clean. It doesn't matter if the child slipped past the goalie, was a mistake, was the result of a trap, was not wanted. Doesn't matter. The father is obligated to support the child. I fully understand how that chaps everyone's ass around here, but it still trumps all other arguments.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:43 PM
1

What's Bill Gates got to do with it? And about that 'unequal abortion law', how do you propose to break a tie? If one parent wants an abortion and the other doesn't?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:41 PM
4

As a divorced father of two, I'd say womens and mens rights issues are everyone's issues.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:39 PM
-1

Again, it is a mistake. And bureaucracy works slowly sometimes and can be very difficult to correct. Yes it seems plainly ridiculous that a 7 year old is the father. But it's no more ridiculous than countless cases of mistaken identity we hear about all the time: People getting bills after they're dead, people being declared dead who are alive. Mistakes like this can haunt people for years even though it seems like they could be easily corrected. Are these men's rights issues too?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:33 PM
4

I'm willing to discuss issues and not say end of discussion. But on this particular point the same old stuff gets spewed over and over: Women get to choose parenthood and men don't. Therefore men shouldn't have to support kids if they don't feel like it. That's not 'emotionally framing the issue'. That's what's being preached here. Men have the right to abandon their children, simply by saying "I never wanted you". This isn't real complicated.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:24 PM
2

Yes you can. Because the result is a little human being who is innocent in this matter and whose parents have a legal duty to support.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:18 PM
3

Yeah, I'm real confused on that simple human right of a child to be supported by his or her parents regardless of the conditions surrounding his or her conception.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:17 PM
-1

No! That would not be a women's rights issue. It would obviously be a mistake. I'm not even sure what to make of the 'vandalizing temptress' angle. Are vandalizing temptresses even a thing? This is no more a men's rights issue or assuming 'all men are guilty until proven innocent' any more than if a man got an erroneous overdue parking ticket fine notice in the mail due to a transposed license plate number. If the guy was erroneously listed as the father then yes, payment will be sought, until s…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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