TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

just5this Archive

View 0 posts and 425 comments by just5this 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

It doesn’t even have to be an intruder. It could be a mouse. Now suddenly every noise is life threatening? The guy is reading too much into it. And if you need to argue for your rights with your wife then that is not a men's rights issue, it's a respect issue. Umm I’m not sure I agree with that. Lots of men’s rights/women’s rights can be boiled down to respect. That doesn’t mean it can’t be related. Although in this case it’s not
/r/MensRights16/11/19 10:06 PM
1

At least you responded. Idk if I’d say pacific island = black. You’ve probably been trolled before, but not to the level of an accusation like that.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 07:50 PM
2

Right, the other guy/girl is probably a troll, but op is probably one too. Look at his past posts and I doubt he’s black based on that pic.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 03:34 PM
-5

What narrative? The conservative narrative? Yes they control that. The liberal narrative? No. The mainstream? Well I refer you to the president.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 09:35 PM
3

Literally nothing. The current right wing president called for the death of young men wrongfully accused of rape.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 09:18 PM
-3

Conservatives since they are in the whitehouse?
/r/MensRights06/09/19 09:13 PM
7

Ehh I like Stewie’s version better (honestly think the flyer whatever is trolling) https://youtu.be/A9IlKM_3JSs
/r/MensRights01/09/19 11:14 PM
3

Sure, but you called it the real problem. I’m just saying I don’t think the connection is that strong.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 09:00 PM
6

I think the real problem here is the idea that people are either good or bad. Yeah she cheated on her boyfriend, and that’s bad, but she shouldn’t be considered a bad person. She made a mistake. People should never be considered good or bad, that leads to people feeling like they’re irredeemable. While I generally agree with your sentiment idk if this part makes sense. I don’t think suicide is always about being a “bad” person so you’re irredeemable more about being in a bad situation, physicall…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 08:44 PM
6

I hate Cardi B, but these are different situations. CB admitted to criminal acts on IG (possible boasting). KP is being accused by multiple people. That being said I agree she probably won’t face consequences.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 01:56 AM
1

If they don't know about it, then one that's inclined to trap you will still try. She'll fail, of course, because you'll have proof positive the fetus isn't yours, but now you'll also know exactly who and what she is. Why would you want to waste your time on someone trying to trap you? Hell why would want to play the “gotcha!” game with someone who’s gonna cheat on you? Risk an STD just for the satisfaction of saying “gotcha bitch” in a Dave Chappelle voice?
/r/MensRights12/08/19 01:01 AM
1

I’m sure they’ll still get the degree in that “useful field” if they can pass their classes. instead of being fed a bunch of political opinions about how you need to hate yourself and everyone who looks like you That’s projection and assumption of nonsense
/r/MensRights09/08/19 11:34 PM
0

Yes and I’m saying that’s an unfair assumption.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 08:10 PM
2

Not my point in the slightest. It's a much more complex, holistic issue than can be summed up by looking at a single aspect. The post is an image of a tweet. If anything is being looked at from a single aspect it’s the post itself. Focus on one part of this post if you want to, but such a thought process ultimately prevents you from a meaningful understanding thereof: hence your confusion. No I’m understanding it fine. I’m just not looking at it the way you want me to. Why respond to me if your …
/r/MensRights09/08/19 07:47 PM
2

If you see African American perspective and think Social Marxism you have more reading to do
/r/MensRights09/08/19 07:37 PM
2

For example, saying that people don't call the cops because the cops only oppress nonwhite people and support hegemonic whiteness. There was no addressing the mentality of the community scorning people who call the cops rather than just accept crime or take matters into their own hands. In every place that whiteness could be blamed, they stopped there rather than talking about the black experience of black culture. I mean that might sound crazy to you, but it’s not exactly unheard of for POC to …
/r/MensRights09/08/19 05:58 PM
1

how is whiteness the default? How is it not? The majority of elected officials are white. The majority of people in the US are white. Before Obama many thought it wasn’t realistic to have a black president, even if that President was 1/2 white. Majority of entertainment is skewed towards white people. When a show is focused mainly on people who aren’t white it is normally seen as an (insert demographic) show. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not crazy to acknowledge that fac…
/r/MensRights09/08/19 05:38 PM
2

Yes I have been to college. Again I ask have you spoken to an African American about his experience to make you think that equates to anti white
/r/MensRights09/08/19 05:18 PM
-1

You keep trying to conflate one hypothetical black person’s views on life with the perspective of a college university which is a breeding ground of leftist thought and progressive rhetoric, which obviously is ridiculous. No you’re trying to conflate “leftist rhetoric” with anti-white. And the example you’re using is someone you don’t know in class about the African American expierience, from a college you don’t know, with a curriculum you don’t know about. You’re the one making the ridiculous a…
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:58 PM
1

In fairness though we're viewing 1999 through the lens of 2019. I would have been in his courr 20yrs ago I mean the “it was a different time period” doesn’t normally hold water for me. In this case I really don’t think it plays in his favor. 1999 wasn’t some far off time where women were super oppressed. Maybe you’re a lot older than me and remember the 90s in a different way. This example in the OP is such a weak case of “male oppression”. I have a friend who recently got married and they decid…
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:53 PM
0

So you were participating in anti-white discussions?!
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:40 PM
3

Yeah, it was kind of an A hole move. Unfortunately the spin here is the opposite.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:39 PM
-17

I have. I went to a highschool where being white made me the minority. Fair enough, but that’s not the common experience. I also went to college and anything they called diversity wound up being a class, seminar, or lecture about whiteness being the default and therefore whiteness is the root of all that is wrong in the west. Whiteness is the default. Being the root of all wrong sounds like a cartoonishly gross exageration. I'm not a white nationalist or white supremacist. I'm just speaking on w…
/r/MensRights09/08/19 04:36 PM
2

That’s bc the post is intentionally misleading to make it seem worse than it actually is.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 03:59 PM
-14

Yes... have you actually had a discussion with an African American about their perspective?
/r/MensRights09/08/19 03:54 PM
2

That’s exactly what the husband did not want. Did you even read the post?
/r/MensRights09/08/19 03:31 PM
10

African American perspective is anti white? Wtf does this have to do with being a man?
/r/MensRights09/08/19 03:17 PM
0

I say that about feminists too as well, you're thinking of sexism as words, I'm talking about actual discrimination, too many people seem to think just saying something equals full on sexism which is dumb. I think your opinion is dumb. Or at the very least short sited and limited in thinking. Words aren’t >>>> than actions, but they aren’t meaningless either. Words effect opinions. Opinions effect actions. Those actions don’t take place without talking, without communicating, without comfirming …
/r/MensRights27/07/19 11:45 PM
1

's insensitive and I would say borderline sexist, but the fact is it's really just an insensitive comment at worse and that's it, you guys are just desperate. You didn’t even directly answer my question ( if you forgot my question was what is sexist and why doesn’t this apply?) You basically say yeah it’s “a little” sexist, but so what? It’s not a stretch, and if you’re tired about people “loosing their shit” over sexism I don’t know why you are in a sub designed to go fight sexism against men. …
/r/MensRights27/07/19 09:09 PM
1

What’s the difference between “genuine sexism” and implying women can only create dumb niche inventions? I correct people like that a lot on how that's all to do with feminism rather than 'women'. It’s a sexist joke and it doesn’t say “feminism” it says women. If that’s your correction you’re incorrect.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 05:43 PM
0

1)Who cares. That sub is not related to this sub, at all. So what feminists say in their sub isn’t related to this sub ? It’s related bc the sub is dedicated to gender issues. It’s also related because it’s purportedly representing many men’s views on those gender issues.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 05:02 PM
1

Yeah at first I was gonna say the 50 shades wasn’t sexist but that title is a bit cringe. The other one is pretty blatantly sexist.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 04:57 PM
1

~Optics matter more than truth, certainly more than a man's life Why is this mans life worth more than anyone else? Surely can’t be optics. ~guilt by accusation, he said / she said, so believe all women No that’s more like admission by silence. ~only teens play video games, so he's guilty Kids would never lie about their age. And if they did they’re expert liars who Jared could never detect by a conversation. Why would he even suspect them to be part of his fan base? The most impressionable fans…
/r/MensRights22/07/19 04:03 AM
2

I got you. Yea it sounds like dumb mods/rules
/r/MensRights13/07/19 07:59 PM
4

I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this, but I say things because they're true, not because they're popular. This sub does downvote unfairly on occasion, but you probably deserve it. Though the reply is right in saying that she's being a fucking terrible person, the way it's phrased is fucking idiotic and unacceptable. Oh what’s the appropriate way to say that? We're clearly faced with an individual who is already doubting her morality and who is clearly open to change. That’s debatable she got per…
/r/MensRights13/07/19 07:22 PM
6

I think calling someone an asshole is an insult on a personal level. You can be right and be an asshole.
/r/MensRights13/07/19 07:04 PM
6

Also it wasn’t removed for an agenda, the mods over there have a rule to not insult op in responses, which obviously this comment broke. So the sub is basically tell me I’m not an asshole?
/r/MensRights13/07/19 06:52 PM
2

Glad this is upvoted. It’s not as straight forward as the cartoon makes it out to be. There’s obviously other factors for the pay discrepancy besides “boo women” (or “boo men” if you think men aren’t paid fairly).
/r/MensRights12/07/19 02:06 PM
0

Uhh no your mistake. This post is reference to a period in American history about the right for women to vote in America. I have no idea what crazy rules your country has. Maybe you elect people by lottery, but you didn’t correct me when I said congress controlled taxes and just went along with it.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 05:09 AM
0

War on poverty started decades ago and has no end in sight. I didn't sign up to fight that war but no one seems to care. What the hell are you talking about? You’re going on a random tangent right now. Social welfare benefits account for 3% of the budget. Military is about 50% with no end in sight on the “war on terror”. But you’re ok with that. So much so that you thought it should be a requirement to have a fundamental right in this country.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 05:01 AM
1

That’s a whole separate issue. It’s not something I explicitly agree/disagree on. What I do have an issue with is tying a fundamental right to something so closely related to income. That’s a very short sited way of thinking.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:36 AM
1

Someone could pay $500,000 a year and if they have tons of surgery, healthcare, tax breaks, etc they could still end up negative Yeah but if they can afford their heath care/surgery without the tax break then they have that option. A poor person is less likely for that to be an option. So they’re more likely to be effected by this insane idea. Your scenario isn’t realistic or likely especially if the consequence would be losing an essential right to citizenship. *edit you also you don’t address …
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:15 AM
1

Congress votes how taxes are spent but congress is voted in by citizens, some of whom don't pull their weight. You don’t see a super huge conflict with congress determining how taxes are distributed/calculated and that factoring in who is allowed to vote? This just punishes the poor. Anyone who gets tax breaks would have to choose whether to pay them or be allowed to vote. Those who actually need the money are put at a disadvantage. And they can’t make any recourse because their rights are taken…
/r/MensRights11/07/19 12:47 AM
1

We can augment their wheelchair with a .50 cal, give them a hook hand, they to can fight ! I want to believe you’re being sarcastic and aren’t actually that foolish to think the military is some disabled superhero group. As for income if someone is taking more thhan their putting in they shouldn't have a say over how other peoples money is being spent. Congress decides how our money is spent. Taxes are (almost?)never directly voted on. There are also more laws than just those that determine tax …
/r/MensRights10/07/19 09:43 PM
2

Maybe the fact that the majority of people who were against women's suffrage were in fact women? Could you point out where it says that in the image?
/r/MensRights10/07/19 08:42 PM
1

Not everyone has the same opportunity. Physical disability can prevent you from joining the military. And OP suggested your tax payments factor into voter eligibility. It’s absolutely second class citizenship based on income and physical condition. If it was just registration then you’d have a point. Everyone can register. That’s not what was proposed so stop pretending it was
/r/MensRights10/07/19 08:40 PM
0

It’s not the worst idea if you want to create second class citizens. But otherwise yeah that’s a terrible idea.
/r/MensRights10/07/19 08:10 PM
-1

You’re posting the wrong thing. If somewhere on that poster you think there’s a nugget of insight just post the insight. Don’t couple it with something intended to limit women’s rights then get confused as why people focus on the main intent of the poster/flyer
/r/MensRights10/07/19 04:11 PM
2

I’m pretty sure I know how to read. “Reject the women’s suffrage amendment “
/r/MensRights10/07/19 02:44 PM
1

This post is pretty pathetic. Suddenly this sub isn’t about men’s rights, just men’s rights over women? Taking away their right to vote? How’s that equal?
/r/MensRights10/07/19 02:20 PM
11

There might not have been a woman’s bathroom. That being said her complaint is just silly
/r/MensRights03/07/19 11:57 PM
1

So I saw your response to the other person, and you’re right at least to an extent. The discrepancy could be a combination of uninterested, bias (on the departments part), ignorance (on the benefits of job or application process) etc. Your statement definitely could be misconstrued bc of the context of the post though. The combination of race and gender makes dissecting the issue tricky so when you latch on to race there’s always the possible interpretation that you’re just throwing shade then a…
/r/MensRights30/06/19 11:36 PM
1

Right? Isn’t this the most ideal situation? One parent wants to opt out. The other doesn’t if they can come to an agreement why not let it work out? I get that it shouldn’t be looking for men’s rights to only benefit women, but the rage from the comments and op is overblown. Baby steps guys
/r/MensRights29/06/19 05:34 PM
1

I'm wondering, has there ever been a live action Barbie? I’m not sure what your point is regarding a live action Barbie flick. But women have gone to crazy lengths to look like her. You just have to google “real life Barbie” to find it.
/r/MensRights28/06/19 10:24 PM
1

This feels like Poe’s law at work. I can’t imagine such lunacy especially publicly admitting it. But you never know sometimes.
/r/MensRights28/06/19 08:45 PM
1

I only brought that up bc he said I assumed things. It doesn’t really matter because it was a hypo
/r/MensRights28/06/19 04:46 AM
1

While on the other hand harping on (and only on) his statement that he lied once (but you don't know if it was to this woman. Well we know he lied once directly and lied other times by lying by ommision. You are absolutely right that I don't know if it was her who he lied to directly. Thats not my point. He was an asshole to whoever he lied to directly. And depending on the facts an asshole to whoever he lied to through omission But let me tell you a few things, medical information is sensitive …
/r/MensRights26/06/19 06:19 PM
1

Dude you’re not arguing in good faith (anymore?) So did she disclose to to her boyfriend that she was having sex with other men? Some weird people might think this is something important for him to know. She wasn’t having sex with other men while in the relationship (in my made up hypothetical). She had sex before the relationship stated a month or two went by in the relationship and she realized she was pregnant. How is that hard for you to follow? Then there are even weirder people who think l…
/r/MensRights26/06/19 01:50 AM
1

Oh, so then is you position is that she had sex with so many guys she was honestly confused about who the father was? So many could be two. It’s not my position that it happened it’s my position that it’s a possibility See, there is no sign that she disclosed that she was desperate to get pregnant. Sure but we’re both making hypotheticals with assumptions here. I really don’t have a problem with you thinking she’s in the wrong, just that you think it’s ok for to lie about it on the off chance yo…
/r/MensRights26/06/19 12:16 AM
1

Not at all, I invented a hypothetical situation where we had full disclosure up front, and labeled it as such. And I based it upon what actually happened. Yeah but your hypo is based on assumptions like she was planning on getting him trapped. Her: hey Ive been trying to get pregnant and have slept with a few guys before you. Him: well I have a vasectomy so that won’t happen. Her: Bye Well the calendar would say something about when she got pregnant won't it? Sure but nothing in the posts mentio…
/r/MensRights25/06/19 11:54 PM
1

I just reread this post, he does not state that he know she wanted to get pregnant. Why are you inventing things? Umm I was basing it off your assumption. You don’t remember saying “she obviously wanted to get pregnant so bad”. That aside I wasn’t only talking about her I was talking about any relationship he’s had in the past. And again we know that at least once he directly lied about it. That’s an asshole move for sure. Even BF/GF is not a committed relationship and either can end it at any t…
/r/MensRights25/06/19 11:42 PM
1

It seems pretty clear that she wanted children, bad enough to pick up some guy at a bar (or something) and get pregnant, then instead of taking the morning after pill or aborting, she sued for CS. I don't see any complaints about her lack of disclosure. Two people can be assholes. You’re not making much sense here. Why would she get an abortion if she was trying to get pregnant? Also this isn’t the only relationship where he lied/lied by omission which is why I said it depends on the circumstanc…
/r/MensRights25/06/19 10:43 PM
3

I don't think that applies unless there is some disclosure requirement that he failed to meet, and currently there are no disclosure requirements in law or custom for men or women. I mean that would depend on each individual situation. If it was brought up but she never asked him directly it could still be a dick move. And we’re not taking legal here, it’s “am I an asshole” not am I legally at fault.
/r/MensRights25/06/19 04:40 PM
4

Yep. He said he lied by omission a few times and once directly so he’s leaning towards being an a-hole there. That being said it’s kind of ironic that there are so many comments are saying how a vasectomy isn’t always reversible and how it doesn’t always take. That’s never brought up when the woman wants you to have one. I’ve read articles/fb posts advocating for men to get them over women taking birth control because of how easy it is to reverse, and how safe it is.
/r/MensRights25/06/19 01:42 PM
3

gay trans issue and there would be xalls to arms and public servants and politicians screaming about the injustice and forcing business to get in lock-step or face the consequences Yeah I can’t believe the gay men and trans men bathrooms have changing stalls but men’s don’t... oh wait they use the same male bathrooms guys do and there aren’t laws for changing stalls. So maybe your not aware of how things go for “protected” classes Maybe you’re not aware of reality. There are no gay bathrooms wit…
/r/MensRights22/06/19 07:30 AM
0

You might not be aware of this but John Legend is a singer not a politician.
/r/MensRights22/06/19 06:10 AM
1

I love how being factual is regarded as 'negative' when it comes to anything involving the issues men have to deal with on a regular basis this is why I take such an issue with your viewpoint. You didn’t say anything factual in your statement that got massive downvotes. ..... The fact that you could only think of a cartoon character says a lot more about you than this sub, That’s an opinion based on an assumption. also, no it doesn't, people here are just far more capable of facing reality than …
/r/MensRights19/06/19 12:06 AM
1

What flew over your head and it turns out many people trying to downvote me is that you think posting a cartoon solves anything. Yeah you just made that up. No one said posting a meme will solve anything. I like to improve my reality rather than live in a delusion, that's what feminists do and I refuse to be a part of that when it comes to serious topics The post is obviously made as a counter to the “negative” memes that are often posted here. If you think this is a serious topic fine, but pret…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 06:31 PM
1

You got downvotes because you made an ironically dumb statement. The fact that you’re doubling down on the head in the sand comment means the downvotes flew over your sand covered head.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 05:57 PM
17

The fact that you start your comment with an insult, then go on to say the sub isn’t negative, then imply you’re more capable of facing reality than others says something about you.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 04:42 AM
1

Dunno about you mate, but they are already shit show to me - maybe because I lean right. Politics especially claims to want civil discussion but calls for violence against people on the right are regular. Yeah I had a feeling that you would have said something like that (they’re already bad!), but you really don’t think having memes would make it worse? I guess your opinion that they should change the rule gives me an answer I just strongly disagree. I’m fine with memes in a meme subreddit. If y…
/r/MensRights15/06/19 11:11 PM
1

Uh... mosquito landing on a man's cheek can happen to any man. Sure but she’s talking about her husband. I think you’re splitting hairs at this point. If she said it about her friends I don’t think there would be outrage if a man said it about his (male) friends I don’t think there would be outrage. there would be outrage if the genders were flipped. That post itself is not problematic but the double standard is I agree that there’s a double standard and it shouldn’t exist. I was going to go int…
/r/MensRights15/06/19 07:43 PM
1

Age of account doesn’t mean any sense of authority but I comment on posts in this sub and have for longer than you’ve had an account. If “random” means anyone you don’t know personally that’s everyone on reddit. So ok I’m a random, and so are you. But your random ass hasn’t said anything of substance.
/r/MensRights15/06/19 06:35 PM
1

I’m not saying the mosquito post isn’t sexist I’m saying both are. Ohh that is right Domestic Violence is only funny if it is women hitting the man.... I guess you’ve never heard of Family Guy, or the Honey Mooners...
/r/MensRights15/06/19 02:10 PM
0

This is targeted only to the hypocritical ones that enter gender studies but then cry how not enough women go to STEM. The nuance is different on the link you gave You’re right the link I gave is even more targeted to one individual rather than a whole group. Yes you can make the argument that it’s only for the “hypocritical” ones but every woman in the meme is looked as an idiot with the man looking as reasonable. At best it implies women are hypocrites. At worst it implies they’re too stupid a…
/r/MensRights15/06/19 02:05 PM
-8

How is this a misogynistic meme? The same way people think this is misandrous. It makes women look stupid. I don’t know why memes are allowed on this sub tbh
/r/MensRights15/06/19 04:31 AM
1

Random my ass. Your account isn’t a year old. Your argument isn’t an argument it’s a conclusion. “This wouldn’t happen if he was white”. Where’s the argument? You’re just using buzzwords like strawman to avoid the issue.
/r/MensRights15/06/19 04:01 AM
1

Bs. If hr was a white dude it wouldnt have mattered. What are you basing that on? Your gut instinct? Are you really telling me white men have no presence on the internet? Look at YouTube trending and tell me most of it isn’t white peoples. They push this if anything because he is black and black families are disfunctional. That’s not racist at all /s 🙄 Who the hell is “They”? You’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist pointing at the wind when you use this imaginary boogie man of nameless people…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 08:41 PM
2

Why do we have to pretend? Why would you care if he’s white? This issue has 0 to do with race and everything to do with gender. Black women don’t get extra changing tables over white women. Black people don’t get better bathrooms than white people. And don’t you say white people don’t trend on the internet. It’s not even something that will only effect this one person or only black men. Men of all races can use the changing tables if they’re in the area. This sub is getting dangerously close to …
/r/MensRights14/06/19 03:51 PM
1

Of course the man can put on a a condom. However, in a normal situation, the woman can clearly see if the man has a condom or not. The man can't really check if the woman is properly applying contraceptive measures, which is why I say women has more power than men in this regard I agree but I think those differences are more practical and biological than anything. Women have more options, but are any of them better than the male condom? I’d argue no, especially considering it’s the only one that…
/r/MensRights02/06/19 02:43 AM
1

First I wanna say thanks for being civil in your responses so far. In my opinion, #1 is more than balanced out by the fact that, if a woman really doesn't want to get pregnant, then there are very few chance she will get pregnant. Women have much more contraceptive choices than men. I respectfully disagree. At least to the opinion that if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she won’t. Condoms exist and are more readily available than women exclusive bc like the pill or the iud. And even when th…
/r/MensRights01/06/19 09:54 PM
1

This summed up the argument much better than whatever OP was trying to say. I still think you miss why women feel an abortion right should be greater than “paper abortion”. There are two burdens that come with pregnancy. 1) the physical burdens that the mother goes during pregnancy/abortion 2) the financial/parental burdens of raising a child. They focus on #1 where you focus on #2. The balancing starts to get trickier when you start to think about the specifics on how it should work.
/r/MensRights01/06/19 08:49 PM
0

I'm not saying he wasn't born here/wasn't a U.S. citizen. I'm saying that there are legitimate/non-racist reasons to question it. Except they were not legitimate. Even that snopes article you linked says as much and I quote with emphasis added. Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. That’s the smoking gun? So the legitimate reason is a sentence that also claims he is American? The rest of the article goe…
/r/MensRights27/05/19 04:25 AM
-2

Gee, I guess the only reason that someone might think that Obama wasn't American is that they're racist right-wingers... or they listened to his own publicist. And then continued to ignore evidence presented after including statements from the man himself. But yeah a publicist/agent is more reliable 🙄 Let’s also ignore that being born from a US citizen (i.e. his mother) would also (likely) make him a citizen even if he was born in Kenya Gee I guess Americans don’t know what makes an American a c…
/r/MensRights26/05/19 09:39 PM
-3

It doesn’t really matter what random fact caused the conspiracy theory, but I’ve never heard of that. You should know why it was pushed so hard for so long after it was proven bogus. That initial suspicion of hiding something imo is racism leaking out.
/r/MensRights26/05/19 09:29 PM
1

I’m not sure you made a point. And you’re definitely ignoring mine. His fathers citizenship/where he spent most of his time is irrelevant to Barack Obama’s citizenship. It was only brought up because of his race. Trump isn’t the only white person to run for President so that’s not a fair comparison. Hell Rubio had 2 immigrant parents, and it wasn’t as big of a deal as Obama who had an American mother. He’s not the only person to have an immigrant/Non-American parent. Look at some of the other Re…
/r/MensRights26/05/19 09:02 PM
8

What does his father have to do with him? The guy who ran for President was born in the US grew up in the US, went to school in the US and served in US government. His father living in another country has nothing to with his citizenship status. If we’re gonna look at fathers Fred Trump had connections to the KKK. That’s more of an indication of his son being racist (something that’s can be hidden an argued as “opinion”) rather than his citizenship which is purely objective and has nothing to do …
/r/MensRights26/05/19 07:29 PM
-3

This sub can be very dumb. Asking for Obama’s birth certificate is pretty blatant racial profiling. Idk why it’s a even a question for some, much less “100% media created”
/r/MensRights26/05/19 06:25 PM
1

That arguably makes his case stronger. You can’t punish someone if they are acquitted, but when they are found guilty and the punishment is minimal that’s not a good indication of “justice being served”. Socially I agree women offenders aren’t seen as bad, but both sides have instances where the crime isn’t taken seriously by the eyes of the law
/r/MensRights01/05/19 10:50 PM
-1

That doesn’t show men are raped more than women. And some of the male section has missing citations.
/r/MensRights27/04/19 11:05 PM
1

It’s really that easy to convince you that a racist stereotype is true? “Take my word for it” He called people from DR, Peru and Central America (so like 7 other countries) trashy and you’re apologizing for being sassy? Wtf
/r/MensRights28/03/19 09:09 PM
1

Have you been to a liberal college lately? Professors calling to call all whites This article is not about college students. Maybe high school, but I don’t think they get free meal qualifications so I’d guess middle/lower school. I also have no idea what calling on white students has to do with anything. When’s the last time you were at a liberal college? What even qualifies as a liberal college in the UK where this study took place?
/r/MensRights08/03/19 03:01 AM
-1

I think this is a bit disingenuous. It’s based on grades so poor white guys get the worst grades and therefore are less likely to get good jobs. Across the board women had better grades then their male counterpart. Being “not poor” (that doesn’t mean rich) benefited white people (white girls 33% boost white boys 31%) the most but generally gave improvements across the board. It also breaks the groups down by White, Mixed, Asian, Black, and Chinese. I’m curious to what qualifies as white, mixed, …
/r/MensRights08/03/19 01:10 AM
-2

That’s what this sub used to be. The memes were supposed to go to /r/mensrants
/r/MensRights07/03/19 08:44 PM
2

Eh, depends on what they’re marketing, the sport, the model, and the athlete. I also think professional athletes have more of a hard cutoff limit for who can make it. I don’t think you can always shrug your shoulders and say well that’s the market. Sometimes the market over values or under values things. Hell even NBA players went on strike.
/r/MensRights08/02/19 09:46 PM
1

The OP is being a bit disingenuous because we’ve seen certain men claim abuse and get feminist support (Terry Crews). But I think you’re being a bit disingenuous with your response in terms of toxic masculinity/toxic femininity. Toxic masculinity is seen as something that negatively effects men and women. Your examples of “toxic femininity” seem like they are only negative in how they effect women. And often times those flaws in femininity are framed as being the fault of men. I don’t think toxi…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 07:28 PM
3

What does this have to do with attacks on straight (white) males? Where in the sidebar does it say this sub is only for white people? I think it might be a stretch to say this was due to his gender, but still.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 01:45 PM
9

This was posted literally today https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/aiankb/a_high_school_football_star_had_a_rape_charge/
/r/MensRights22/01/19 05:56 AM
1

2018-1991 = 27 unless this story is a few years old. Not sure how you’re counting that
/r/MensRights06/01/19 10:27 PM
1

If you search "white" in this subreddit you'll find posts like this where race is accepted as a reason for discrimination then get posts like this where they get upset that race is even mentioned. It wasn't always like this. Race used to never be mentioned, white or black.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 06:19 AM
1

Don’t you know, race can only be used to show discrimination if it’s against white people in this sub?
/r/MensRights06/01/19 04:33 AM
4

My point is that you can't simply swap the genders and treat it the same. My point is you can and should. There’s no biology reason for it. At least not in this instance. what it does mean is there is a fair chance the boy will sometimes be less psychologically affected than a girl would. This doesn't seem to be the case here, but it is not an unreasonable assumption to make I’d like to see some basis for this other than this “common knowledge” nonsense you’re giving me. Its not purely promiscui…
/r/MensRights21/12/18 11:00 AM
9

You’re confusing social and biological differences. Social differences can change when society attitudes change. Biological differences not really. The fact that this case shows that this kid had longer lasting negative effects proves it’s not as hardwired in biology as people make it out to be. It’s not a trap. Feminisms big issue is that they make issues out of nothing. Sex assault isn’t a small issue. If feminist made a big deal out of a male teacher sleeping with his student I don’t think we…
/r/MensRights21/12/18 09:45 AM
17

It’s a circlejerk feel good piece by the author. The implication is that she lost because she was a girl. It’s not the worst thing in the world but it’s irksome and a subtle slap in the face to the boy who won.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 04:36 AM
0

So let me get the right. A few very rare occasions of slut shaming are used to justify the generalization and condemnation of all men as rapists?? No it doesn’t, that’s my point. What is the point of the title and this article? Women do bad things too? That’s fucking obvious. The response is just as childish as the initial attack. You're fucking stupid. For reals. Slut shaming started 3rd wave. Lol. What the fuck. Fuckn wiki 3rd and 4th wave moron. It is nothing like you said I’ve seen it used a…
/r/MensRights17/12/18 01:38 AM
-2

...are you serious? You’ve really never seen women complain about “slut shaming”? That’s basically what started this new wave of feminism that we have today. if you can't handle a sexist rephrasing in the clear attempt to showcase the initial sexism, perhaps online conversation isn't for you. What a load of shit. You’re giving me the “nuh uh you!” response. I’m saying it’s dumb on both sides. People know rape and murder is bad.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 01:18 AM
-3

Yeah, but that in turn is a response to people telling women to dress better so they don’t get raped. It’s a back and forth of bs sarcasm on both sides until the nuts start taking the slogans seriously.
/r/MensRights16/12/18 10:57 PM
-2

50 shades of Grey is a dark adult novel/R rated movie. Baby it’s cold outside is a family song played on the radio. This is a stupid comparison.
/r/MensRights11/12/18 10:14 PM
1

Like I said agree to disagree. I don’t see a slogan that specifies a group by default makes it worse than one that says nothing. All slogans aren’t empty or equally meaningless.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 01:35 AM
1

I'm not opposed to terminating the use of empty slogans/platitudes overall, especially exclusive and prejudical ones, in favor of deeper and more busted political discourse. Well changing the way politics are discussed and presented as opposed to slogans is kind of a separate issue than the slogan itself being divisive No need to derail the discussion I’m not trying to derail. You brought up the fact that anything phrase not neutral is (intentionally?) divisive. I don’t think that’s the case and…
/r/MensRights05/12/18 09:45 PM
1

If you support inclusivity then I would expect you to oppose non-inclusive slogans. Especially in the political realm, given the influence that world has over everyone. Saying "people are the future" is neutral but doesn't say anything. I'm guessing you're against the phrase "Black Lives Matter?"
/r/MensRights05/12/18 08:29 PM
-1

If you think women don't have a major role in shaping societies I don't know what else to say to you man. Not proportional to the population. Not in the same direct way that men have. If you don't see the difference between asking your husband to vote for something and actually voting for it yourself I don't know what else to say to you.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 08:21 PM
0

Nobody said that. The person I was responding to equated it to “white power” phrase so if they’re not saying it then it’s very much implied. Of course. And so are men. Yes, but it doesn’t need to be overstated because that’s how society has been. Just to clarify I don't have a problem per se with the quote women are the future or the future is female Then I don’t know why you’re arguing with me. do have a problem with the kind of people that tend to use this phrase. People that would be up in ar…
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:55 PM
1

I would argue their overarching point that "the future is INSERT DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP" slogans are divisive and prejudice and should be left behind any society that honestly prioritizes equality. I sort of get what you’re saying, but I think you and others here are taking it too far. It’s reaching to create a divide rather than it being a naturally divisive phrase on its own. Yes everyone should be a part of shaping the future of society (within reason you don’t want “murderers are the future” or s…
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:45 PM
-2

Why does “women are the future” push anyone out? For a large portion of human history women were not seen as leaders or agents that shaped the future of society. Saying that they are the future doesn’t equate to them enslaving men; that’s a huge leap. Women will have to be a part of future society that is a fact too.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:16 PM
0

Equating it to White Power is also false equivalence.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 07:00 PM
-2

And I’m saying the future is female doesn’t push dominance over men.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 06:59 PM
-1

That’s nonsense, so by your logic the phrase “children are the future” is ageist and pushes dominance over the elderly.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 06:07 PM
1

The actual title of the article says unwanted pregnancies. So a lesbian getting sperm would presumably be wanted. It’s still stupid
/r/MensRights01/12/18 02:40 PM
2

Yeah this article is just nonsense. I’ve seen this posted on fb before. Makes so many assumptions to show the title is “true”. Biggest bs indicator is she advocates the pull out method as a reasonable form of birth control.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 02:38 PM
7

Reminds me of that post where a guy offered to get her drinks and ended up charging them all on her tab.
/r/MensRights27/11/18 06:02 AM
1

and giving the Democrats a pass for the same behavior by pretending it's only Republicans doing it. Democrats and Republicans are shit on men's issues. Op advocated voting for Republicans. I advocated not voting for Republicans. That’s not the same as voting Democrat or prasing Democrats on their advocacy for men. I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life, but good luck with your partisan nonsense I find that hard to believe since you’re berating me for suggesting voting for Republican…
/r/MensRights08/11/18 01:42 AM
1

How is it Republicans are pandering to white men? Because they're not explicitly anti-white and anti-male? They pander to white men by doing exactly what you’re doing. They claim the other side hates you, but when push comes to shove if you’re against them on anything else they throw you under the bus. Is this a joke or are you totally incapable of objectively analyzing behaviors when a Democrat does them? I’m not even analyzing Democrats behavior I’m analyzing Republicans. Are you incapable of …
/r/MensRights07/11/18 02:57 PM
4

Pandering to white (men) isn’t good for equality either. I’m pretty tired of this bs logic that it’s ok to vote for a racist/sexist party because it’s slightly less sexist then the alternative. This is the same party that devolved into insulting a mans genitals. A party that insulted war veteran(s). And why were these statements made? Because they thought there opponent had a strong moral failing? Because they thought there opponent was a criminal? No, it was the the lowest form of mudslinging t…
/r/MensRights06/11/18 06:45 PM
4

Sure but I think most banned people would unsubscribe
/r/MensRights06/11/18 03:42 AM
1

Who said I wasn’t? I’ll vote for the candidate I think can and will best help my community. But the libertarian party isn’t going to control the House of Representatives.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 08:04 AM
1

If you haven’t heard about this then you should be more informed when advising people of what party they should vote for here are a few sources 1 2 3 It’s obvious both sides at the very least are willing to throw anyone under the bus if they don’t agree with their politics so I’m not giving the right a pass. It’s also clear that the current representative of the right is willing to throw innocent black men under the bus even after they are proven innocent. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime…
/r/MensRights04/11/18 08:01 AM
4

Because women have to spend a fraction of a second taking a pill while men have to wear latex on their dick through the entire experience. But women taking a pill doesn’t protect against STDs. Also they have to take the pill every day. It’s not only something that has to be used during the act it’s a part of their daily life. I don’t think it’s oppressive, but it is something they have to deal with. (Reddit commenting is being buggy)
/r/MensRights03/11/18 08:01 PM
10

Because women have to spend a fraction of a second taking a pill while men have to wear latex on their dick through the entire experience. But women taking a pill doesn’t protect against STDs. Also they have to take the pill every day. It’s not only something that has to be used during the act it’s a part of their daily life. I don’t think it’s oppressive, but it is something they have to deal with. (Reddit commenting is being buggy)
/r/MensRights03/11/18 07:59 PM
6

How is it on another level? It’s the better form of Bc on almost every level. We just don’t have many alternatives
/r/MensRights03/11/18 07:46 PM
17

4 is really dumb. You acknowledge that, but it’s not really a downside. Having a method of bc that protects against pregnancy and STDs is a good thing to have. The rest are pretty good especially 6-8
/r/MensRights03/11/18 07:32 PM
5

The right has made false allegations against men just as recently as last week. Or did you forget about the Muller thing drudged up?
/r/MensRights03/11/18 07:02 PM
1

How did I imply that black men are a greater threat? I’m just saying you can’t blame a specific section of the population entirely for something that every group does. He’s referring to the people who are willing to shoot up places of worship and send out bombs. So when you respond with a sarcastic quip about how black men kill it makes it seem like you’re directly comparing the two.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 06:05 AM
1

The dude that said it is black AND talking about white people killing other people So you criticize his racist and sexist (I assume thats why its here) comment by bringing up his race and how they also kill people? The implication is that black men are a greater threat.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 03:39 AM
0

What “facts” are you stating? Black men kill people? Ok you could have said that about any race/sex. You could even say it about heart disease.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 01:12 AM
3

I’m really disappointed in PBS if it’s just like he said in his complaint. Seems like a huge overcorrection after the whole Charlie Rose debacle.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 11:44 PM
0

Since black men never kill anybody... Wtf are you trying to say with this comment? Fight racism with racism?
/r/MensRights02/11/18 11:35 PM
1

I’m talking about the claim in the title. Donald Trump is not an advocate for due process.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 06:59 AM
0

Lol look at all the comments below you. Many MRA are making that claim. Or at least people on this sub claiming to be MRA.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 04:00 AM
1

I think that’s a real stretch to say it’s because she’s a woman. I never hear anyone trying to claim a race they don’t have a connection to other than that woman from the NAACP and she got called out for it. The only other somewhat close example I can think of is race themed Halloween costumes and now woman or man would get called out by the same people.
/r/MensRights17/10/18 12:52 AM
1

Wtf is this? I get the jab at Warren, but this has nothing to do with men’s rights. This is more of a race issue which I thought this sub frowned upon
/r/MensRights16/10/18 05:16 PM
3

And if you live in such a neighborhood then get a concealed carry license, buy a gun, and learn how to fire it. I’m not oblivious at all. Yes you are. Your go to solution is to get a gun when you should know there are many places where getting a concealed carry is not as easy as you’re implying. If you’re under 21 you can’t even get one in places like NY. People who are oblivious are the ones such as yourself who live in fear but don’t solve their problems or change their behavior to avoid probl…
/r/MensRights14/10/18 11:28 PM
8

Wow you’re oblivious. Some people live in or near those sketchy neighborhoods. If someone wants to attack you walking briskly in a bad neighborhood only works if they’re not fast. Maybe some people do get themselves in bad situations, but you can’t act like that’s always on the person being attacked.
/r/MensRights14/10/18 07:18 PM
5

It’s not rape, it’s grooming to an extent and pretty shameful but according to the article it was just words.
/r/MensRights14/10/18 04:53 AM
1

But with all that said, the title clearly has the intention of being racially decisive. I disagree. I think it’s relevant for the obvious historical context. I think pretending it’s not or never relevant is what creates a racial divide.
/r/MensRights14/10/18 01:09 AM
1

I think it’s the responses that are more racially divisive. Historically, throwing black men under the bus for stuff like this was a common practice. Somehow trying to twist it to say white people are the victims when posting this story is absurd. The guy I responded to gave away his hypocrisy through his name, but he could have the same mentality if he had a different name he’d just be better at hiding his hypocrisy. Do you think this sub wants a divide between men and women? I hope not, so why…
/r/MensRights13/10/18 04:19 PM
1

Why the conflict? Is this gonna lead to an unproductive debate? What’s your name...aww crap
/r/MensRights13/10/18 03:40 AM
27

You know what subreddit you’re in right? This wasn’t posted here because the villain was whit. You also realize that any post you respond to will still show that same name? You’re telling me you only use your account to talk about race? Or do you shoehorn race into any conversation? You’re whole identity is about race, but you’re upset that an article mentions the race of the two people involved.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 06:34 AM
20

Why are either of their races mentioned in this title? ... why is your race mentioned in your name? /u/ImSorryForBeingWhite
/r/MensRights10/10/18 06:11 AM
-5

Female sexual predators against boys are taken less seriously than those against girls. But this picture doesn’t show any double standard, there’s barely any context besides the boys tepid reaction to it. This sub is becoming circle jerk bait.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 08:25 PM
0

The Republican party's southern strategy and recruitment of 'dixiecrats' since has flipped this Yeah that’s a pretty big asterisk to gloss over. The last time we shrugged off due process was the Patriot Act introduced by a non liberal republican. And that wasn’t about getting a political job that was actual detention and torture of people. My guess is she’s just being partisan in her support of Trump.
/r/MensRights29/09/18 06:35 PM
10

Yeah but what makes them white “liberals”?
/r/MensRights29/09/18 06:09 PM
2

I don't consider it hypocritical to hold hypocrites to their own standards. Trump didn't target Clinton to the "listen and believe" + "guilty until proven innocent" standard because he was an "enemy", so much as because his Democrat establishment is promoting that kind of rhetoric. No that’s still hypocritical. Doesn’t matter what you consider it’s still hypocritical. And again the Central Park 5 shows it has nothing to do with “listen and believe”. You’re just looking for a way to excuse his hy…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 11:56 PM
2

I'm doubtful Trump called for the death penalty for ALL criminals. It seems more likely he wanted it for murderers. That seems pretty unlikely considering the victim in that crime didn’t actually die and the page he took out was days after it happened not after or during the trial. All he was doing was waiving flames of hate and mob justice Matias Reyes confessed in 2002, what did Trump say when he "doubled down" in 2016? That it’s a shame they got a settlement for wrongful conviction and that t…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 11:45 PM
3

That was a 1989 case, Trump was born in 46 so he was 43 at the time compared to 72 now (29 yrs later). Yeah except he never apologized corrected or admitted being wrong since. In fact he doubled down on it in 2016. So what he matured over the last 2 years? Are you sure it was "death penalty" and not "death penalty if they are guilty"? There was no “if guilty”. In his eyes they were guilty. I’ll quote some of the add he put out. criminals must be told their civil liberties end when an attack on o…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 07:22 PM
1

Which at the moment is innocent until proven guilty, that's good for me. Why is that good for you? Yeah he doesn't support it for guys like Bill Clinton, but that's only to point out the hypocrisy of people who situationally purport to support "listen and believe" stances until it applies to them. Thats still hypocrisy. And your rationale for accepting the hypocrisy makes no sense. “They’re the enemy so its ok” isn’t an acceptable way to handle human rights Trump has never supported that BS for …
/r/MensRights27/09/18 06:56 PM
2

I’m not looking for a perfect politician. But I’m not giving credit for doing the “right thing” only when it benefits him.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:55 PM
5

He’s not standing up for our rights he’s standing up for his nominee. Coincidental overlap isn’t standing up for anything. So yes it’s still bs.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:40 PM
1

Trump's support for the right to a presumption of innocence is inconsistent and patchy. But some support is better than none. Then it is not support for the right to the presumption of innocence. That’s my point, you can’t have partial support for a right, you either do or you don’t. Saying “I support the right to vote unless it’s not for me” isn’t supporting the right to vote. Same applies here.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:16 PM
10

Trump saying a thing does not automatically make the thing right, or automatically make it wrong. Supporting a thing he said does not make me a trump supporter nor does it make me support some fucked up thing he said in the past. I support Innocent until Proven guilty. That's it. The thing is he’s not supporting innocent until proven guilty. He’s supporting whatever fits his agenda. When you promote and associate with his statements it gives him credibility which it shouldn’t because the stateme…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:03 PM
-3

I’m saying it’s not something. It’s him speaking to fulfill his own agendas. I’ll repeat. If a right is inconsistent and patchy that’s not a right that’s preferential treatment. Advocating for special treatment goes against what this sub is supposed to be about. So something bad is better than nothing? And he is not the best of a bad bunch.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 04:22 PM
5

I'm gonna take Trump's partial, patchy and inconsistent support for men's basic legal rights Rights can’t be patchy and inconsistent. What you’re describing is discrimination. You might be ok with that, but I’m not.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 03:10 PM
48

Right? Is this sub really going to pretend that Trump didn’t call for the death penalty for the Central Park 5 case and how he doubled down on that opinion while running for president.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 01:49 PM
2

There are tons of jobs that don’t require you to be in the public eye. I get the slippery slope argument but you can’t force people to hire who they don’t want. Maybe a government job? That problem isn’t exclusive to sex offenders
/r/MensRights09/09/18 02:00 AM
0

the point is you should be in a metoo sub and not here your comment history is a fuckin shit show. Who hurt you? So the point you want to make about this article is that I shouldn’t be commenting in this sub...
/r/MensRights09/09/18 01:49 AM
1

You asked me which ones I had brought attention to. As in past tense. And I answered that. You are not even understanding the question you asked. So your answer is this post right here. Meaning never before. Ok gotcha just a coincidence it’s a sex offender story.
/r/MensRights09/09/18 01:45 AM
0

I point out that you didn’t read the article and you complain about my logic. Your point can’t be summarized in less than a paragraph instead of bloviating about something not related to the actual story at hand.
/r/MensRights09/09/18 12:15 AM
1

Yes other specific felons. Others. Your Iq doesn’t make my hard so don’t worry. Glad you brought it up though very big of you.
/r/MensRights09/09/18 12:01 AM
1

I asked for others. Meaning not this one. Or are you dumb? I’m done discussing this with you.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:50 PM
0

My supposive tangent was the main reasoning of your previous claim that ones wage (popular high paying actress) has more rights than a small paying role. l Why didn't you address my main issues in my latest reply Yes rich people have more rights. If that was your point I missed it. And again if that’s your issue there are way better examples than this one. You can be innocent not make bail and that mess up your life. It's actually common place to have the ability to get others fired with the lat…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 11:27 PM
0

Really what other non sex offender felons have you brought attention to?
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:36 PM
0

Oh I thought you were trying to make a point. I guess I gave you too much credit for someone who likes supporting pedos
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:28 PM
0

...I thought you were done discussing? Yes cons need work. Just not as extras in Blockbuster films. I think he can find something else.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:20 PM
6

Benefit for who? Society? It says that if you try and have sex with 14 year olds then you won’t be able to continue to profit in a competitive and financially viable industry. The studio? They now have no association with hiring and paying a known pedophile.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:12 PM
-1

Fired because a co worker complained about working with a convicted pedophile sex offender is just wrong. Fixed that for you. I don’t think its any more wrong than hiring a con just because theyre your friend. Get the fuck over yourself. You decided before you even read anything that you wanted to argue about it. I’m done discussing this with you Right I’m sure you were open to changing your mind through discussion and dialogue.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 10:04 PM
1

Just because someone makes more somewhere doesn't mean that job is inherently better than another. You’re going off a tangent, but it’s not about being “better” (although if you make millions and I make thousands your full of it if one job isn’t better for the person getting paid.) Its about what’s more important to the project. yeah I'm not even gonna open this can of worms but I'm sure you get where I'm heading I think I do, but thats a totally separate issue from an admitted and convicted sex…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:51 PM
1

Dude if I had my say I wouldn't vote to work with most of my ex coworkers (female included).... You don't really get the right to choose who you work with (if she was so uncomfortable what was stoppping her from working somewhere else -- since it was her problem) ... I'm confused are you a famous actor? Is your work more valuable than a bit part in a multimillion-dollar movie? I find it pretty strange you think anyone would or should choose a convicted sex offender over a headlining star. Like w…
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:02 PM
-1

That’s just inherently wrong. Never said I thought he should be a teacher, but he shouldn’t be removed of every single possibility to work. And I never said he should be removed from every single possibility to work. We are talking about one instance from one industry in one movie. So how about you don't stretch my words and I won't stretch yours. How are you, and adult (presumably) male, at risk from a pedophile? Or an adult female? So he's less of a threat because he preyed on a child instead …
/r/MensRights08/09/18 09:01 PM
-3

So what you’re saying is he shouldn’t be allowed to work ever again? If every person in the world said they didn't want to work with him maybe. But until that happens I guess he just shouldn't be allowed to work with Olivia Munn. Are you saying he should be allowed to work anywhere he wants? So I guess letting a pedo become a teacher or school nurse is fine by you
/r/MensRights08/09/18 08:24 PM
-5

It’s for public knowledge, not to fire him from jobs. Why does the public need to know that in the first place? If the public wont or sholuld never act on it then there's no reason for it to be known to the public. You do realize Hollywood is full of pedophiles and rapists and sex traffickers? And you think thats ok? You think we should add more? "Other people are bad" isn't a good argument to allow something bad
/r/MensRights08/09/18 08:13 PM
-6

What do you think the point of having a public sex offenders list if not for the public to make decisions based on it? In an industry based on public opinion and popularity you think it makes sense to hire a known pedophile?
/r/MensRights08/09/18 08:05 PM
6

You think he should continue to be punished for life? Isn’t that what the sex offenders list is for?
/r/MensRights08/09/18 07:25 PM
3

This sub has gone down the shitter. It used to be a place to actually discuss the issues that men faced, and now it's just a bitchfest filled with anti-women posts, this being a great example Yeah this sub is turning into the villain they hate. I stay here to try and push back against some of these shitty posts. But it’s harder as people with some reason/logic skills leave, and the ones that stay troll/argue in bad faith. Consider staying because this sub needs people who challenge whatever dogm…
/r/MensRights11/08/18 12:26 PM
1

If this is real it’s clearly fucked up, but that archive link brings me to nothing. So... http://archive.is/ph0z2
/r/MensRights08/08/18 12:09 AM
0

Yes, you are. I was highlighting the anti-male bigotry in addition to the anti-white bigotry. Clear? Good. It was pretty well highlighted just by being posted in the subreddit that was meant to push back against anti male bigotry. I think they call that putting a hat on a hat. Hence the confusion.
/r/MensRights04/08/18 09:46 PM
-3

I’m confused. Isn’t her hateful comments about men the reason this story was posted multiple times in this subreddit? This isn’t a revelation, this is just the same story. Still those are some shitty statements
/r/MensRights04/08/18 09:18 PM
6

Why does Trump and the “left” have to be brought into this discussion? So why does the right love Trump if he’s doing the same as the left? What point are you trying to make about Trump, the left, and the right? Because it seems you’re trying to discredit the left while playing dumb to the major issues of the right.
/r/MensRights03/08/18 02:19 PM
1

Why would we? generalizations , if correct, are a good thing. You.... understand this, right? ... because people use generalization true or not to unfairly marginalize and mistreat groups and individuals. Of course we have to generalize sometimes, but cats aren’t people. And sometimes generalizing is bad even if correct. If I have a cat with 3 legs that’s lost and you’re generalizing looking for a cat with 4 legs you’re not going to be helpful.
/r/MensRights01/08/18 12:40 AM
9

She encouraged the guy to kill himself, and he did (probably because he was retarded) So she told a mentally disabled guy to kill himself and you don’t think she has any culpability in his death?
/r/MensRights15/07/18 05:10 PM
1

What does that have to do with anything? I’m pretty sure there are a lot of boxers who are better than Mcgregor who’ll never even get the chance to make 1/2 of what he made fighting Floyd. Hell heavyweight fighters won’t make it either, but they’d still stomp the lower weights that make more money.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 02:30 PM
2

One of the things that makes a sub an echo chamber is when the mods and even the commentators remove or delete comments or ban commentators. It rarely happens here. I've removed maybe 2 or 3 comments or posts and none due to down votes. That’s not the only way for a place to become an echo chamber. Not a lot of banned or deleted comments, at least compared to the feminist subreddit. But Reddit in general has a problem with being an echo chamber it’s not specific to this subreddit but downvotes d…
/r/MensRights08/07/18 07:44 PM
2

Find me a show where a female character gets routinely hurt for gags while the male characters are rarely hurt. It's a very high bar, no? But the reverse is the reality for a lot of shows. This is hardly rocket science. The only one I can think of I think applies is Flavor of Love. I admit that I can’t think of too many, but I honestly don’t watch too many shows with more female characters than male especially comedies.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 11:05 PM
1

No one says that women never get hurt as comedy in films, it's just not as commonplace I got the impression that most people here thought finding a women getting hurt for the sake of comedy is like finding a unicorn(very difficult to find). But I just named two popular mainstream shows. As far as the men getting hurt in those same shows there’s more male characters in those shows so you’ll get more examples just by that. I wasn’t trying to show that men don’t get hurt in those shows just that if…
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:06 PM
1

So why is it a problem to compare it to a humorous cartoon?
/r/MensRights07/07/18 02:51 PM
1

I’d have to see the scene, but I’d judge it on how funny it is since I’m assuming it was played for laughs.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 02:56 AM
1

The question wasn't 'do women EVER get treated the same on screen". It was "By comparison, does it RARELY happen to women". That's clear cut. Well that might be the title, but the post says things like this And I understand why they do it. If they did the same things to women, the public would go nuts. They know it wouldn't be received well. Which implies that it never happens or its almost impossible to find the reverse. There’s an entire episode of Family guy about Quagmires wife beating broth…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 12:34 AM
2

I’d say that’s probably true that men getting hurt is used for humor more often then women, but I wouldn’t say it never happens to women. I’ve never heard of that show the Mick, but google says it’s a dark comedy with a female lead (meaning it was probably meant for a female audience) and it’s been canceled after 2 seasons. I don’t think it’s too out there for a show like that to have violence against men used as comedy because it’s intentionally dark. As far as the other side Family guy definit…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 08:45 PM
1

Well currently women aren't 50% of sanitation jobs... if we want that 50% goal we need strong female role models there right lol You’re the one who brought up the arbitrary 50% goal and now youre using it to show what exactly? That people don’t look up to garbage men? Those are pop culture icons though, lots of people would consider most or all of that list "bad influences" Yet lots of people follow them and look up to them. I don’t want to turn this into a political debate about Trump or really…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 05:49 AM
1

How else will they get role models for trash collecting? I never said forced work camps, I said that to get 50% of everything also women we would have to force some women to get hired and fired at places to fit quotas. Its just the truth. Who said anything about trash collecting? I ignored that part of your comment because I thought that was a joke. We’re talking about role models so the only way to get more is by making people take sanitation jobs? Kind of a big leap? What is an example of a un…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 04:47 AM
1

Society isn't making them choose anything. If society controlled how everyone acted, nobody would have made choices that went against society (therefore making it change). Society = lots of people. Influence =/= total control. You’re taking what I’m saying to far I happen to like our society a bit, I don't think we should try to force changes so women get equal representation (that they might not want) across the board. No ones suggesting forced work camps lol. You’re loosing me on this. Still d…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 03:36 AM
1

Exactly, so why is women's representation in X important? Its due to their choices, not them being excluded. It’s not entirely due to their choices, and their choices are influenced by society and the representations they see. Why not? The smaller ones are more influential to me and many others by far. I mean that’s not really backed by anything by your opinion. Again it might be more influential to you but not everyone is you. And the small have a greater chance of being influenced by a big one…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 01:37 AM
1

Ok and? Its how they feel and also its like... the usual feminist thing of never getting enough. Is 50% of everything good enough? IDK either. I don’t think it’s fair to lump all women with the crazy feminist this sub likes to complain about. You’d think 50% would be fair and I think we can agree there are plenty of fields that arent 50/50. Still some of those changes cant be fixed over night. Its probably a combination of society and the choices women make. A more personalized influence is usua…
/r/MensRights04/07/18 09:26 PM
1

Never said they were the same level, but the inhabit different spheres. The first lady has a lot more power than the manager of a random company as far as public influence too. Downplaying the role of her is weird... especially since the first lady isn't elected, the president is. She can do next to no work and has a lot of influence. You didn’t have to say it you implied they were when you compared them in the same sentence. I’m not downplaying her influence, and I’m not sure how doing no work …
/r/MensRights04/07/18 07:56 PM
1

The facts say otherwise though That’s an article from 5 years ago and the link to the study the article is based on goes to a non existent page. So I can’t really comment But having quotas to get women into power isn't the solution... also is it really a problem that much? President... first lady... both have a lot of power, both are role models. I never said anything about quotas. You’re absolutely nuts if yout think the President and the first lady have the same amount of power or influence. I…
/r/MensRights04/07/18 05:26 PM
-1

I’m gonna have to disagree with at least two of your points. 1) online harassment. I have been harassed online, but not to the extent that I see it happen to women. The “suck it up” mentality does exist, but that’s kind of a separate issue from the general online harassment that people talk about 2) under representation of women in power. That’s just true imo and it doesn’t have to do with men helping other men reach that level. It’s more about having role models to aspire to reach those levels.…
/r/MensRights04/07/18 03:18 PM
0

I think this sub mostly is against false accusations and the fallout that comes with it, not just shielding alleged rapists. I mean how many times have you seen an upvoted story about a teacher who allegedly slept with her student? Usually a picture and a name comes with it.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 01:59 PM
1

Yikes that last comment you quoted really aggressive to say the least Come try and make us, you weak, frail useless woman. You talk about power - you have no idea what men could do to you if we wanted to. You speak to us as though you don't realize you are free because we allow you to be so. But it’s not surprising in a response to stuff like this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. These are the t…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 03:04 PM
-11

How sad is it that you need to pretend to be a black woman in order for people to take you seriously? That’s what you take away from finding out it’s a catfish? I don’t even see any likes on the post in the picture so whos taking it seriously? I think it’s sad that this person is using a lie to tell a truth. And I should know I’m Bill Gates.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 01:48 AM
1

but if you cant understand how topics regarding pretty much anything cant have subtopics, well I dont know what to tell you. there are many reasons to subcat and separate discussion on slavery Of course there are. But trying to make a statement about the timeframe of the history of exploiting black people isn’t one of those reasons. its a large topic and America should not bare sole responsibility. believe it or not, but there were many many many countries that partook in the slave trade. Americ…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 10:46 PM
1

its hard to believe your bullshit when the only time i hear the same 400 line are when people are talking about america. every single time. You can't talk about the history of slavery without someone pigeonholing the same 400 years bullshit. How often are you talking about the history of slavery and excluding the American slavery part? Why are you trying to separate American slavery from the exploitation of African slaves as if there is no connection? source-ba in history. every class topic, eve…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 05:56 PM
-1

We are discussing slavery in America. Only those of you who wish to paint Kanye as something else have decided it is a discussion of the whole of the Atlantic Slave trade. I am sure Kanye was speaking to the plight of African descendents in Portugal. That’s bullshit and you know it. No one says there’s 400 years of slavery and be referring to America when the US isn’t even 300 years old yet. (2018-1776 = 224). When people say 400 years of slavery they are talking about the 400 years of exploitin…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 01:31 AM
1

So America is now Portugal, or we are now responsible for every country ever owning slaves? Nice try shillbert. Fuck off. Who said anything about America? We were talking about the slave trade. Just because America didn’t start it doesn’t mean you get to ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen. It happened, and America continued it. It’s not like they were entirely separated
/r/MensRights09/05/18 08:43 PM
2

This place is becoming less about men’s rights and more of a place for “conservatives” to bash “liberals” with 5 day old troll accounts.
/r/MensRights09/05/18 08:27 PM
0

The only people saying that are the shill asshats who are freaking out at the tidal wave of Black support washing over Trump because of what Kanye said. That’s bullshit. There’s a guy right below you saying the slaves could have revolted. And this guy is agreeing with you. You’re full of it if you don’t think it gives the wrong impression.
/r/MensRights09/05/18 07:56 PM
-3

Yup... and slavery lasted 246 years, from first slaves arriving in 1619, to the end in 1865. Strangely, if you count up to today, it is 399 years... the fabled 400 years. In short, he is saying that slavery ended long ago and it is now self imposed mental slavery. But nice try. Not sure where you’re getting this 1619 date. It started in the 15th century with Portugal. That’s the 400 years most people are referring to. He did say mental slavery... And as said previously... actual slavery was 246 …
/r/MensRights09/05/18 07:51 PM
3

Or the fact that stupid people still think he was talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade when he talked about slaves? listened to what he said. If you did you would have heard him say that 400 years of slavery sounds like a choice. He stepped off the liberal plantation. That isn't insane. That is having independent thought and a difference of opinion. You can have an insane opinion. Those don’t have to be separated. Someone who believes the world is flat. That is an insane opinion. He’s talked a…
/r/MensRights09/05/18 06:54 PM
-1

He didn't. He said "it sounds like a choice". That’s not an important distinction unless his next sentence was “but it’s not.” You sound like a moron. I guess I’m not calling you a moron? And then goes on "It's like we're mentally imprisoned." Context is important. Yeah and making that statement in the context of actual slavery doesn’t make his statememt much more palatable. But go ahead, choose to be offended by someone thinking different things than you. It’s crazy that someonet would be offen…
/r/MensRights09/05/18 06:35 PM
14

Can we not compare a reasonable take from Venus to the insanity of Kanye?
/r/MensRights09/05/18 06:03 PM
-1

But, isn't it possible that the detective just made shit up? Of course it’s possible. There was none of the normal corroborative evidence...actually, no real evidence Stop saying that. Testimony is evidence. A witness to a robbery testifying is evidence. It might not be enough but I’ve already admitted that. Plenty of testimony on either side, or are you just choosing to...conveniently disregard the defense' and prosecution's divisive testimony? I’m not disregarding testimony you are. There is t…
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:35 AM
-17

Testimony is evidence. If the judge and jury heard the police testify in court it is evidence. That doesn’t mean they made the correct choice or it was good or very credible evidence, but don’t make shit up
/r/MensRights30/04/18 11:06 PM
2

I just don't consider him the world's most innocent man. ...I mean that only applies to one guy. He might be guilty of an affair, but next to a murder suicide its like comparing a rock to a boulder. It’s worth mentioning because of context to the story, not as much in terms of guilt. That’s why it seems you’re playing it up. But you know what he did have an affair as far as we know so yeah I agree he’s guilty of that and probably not worth defending as much as I did lol
/r/MensRights29/04/18 05:02 AM
1

He should just feel guilty for having had an affair, as any other man who has an affair should. This guilt being purely moral and not legal. Calling this insane might be harsh but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Yes people shouldn’t cheat, on their partner. But let’s also remember that this partner planed and committed a murder suicide. Maybe you’re a zealot about that, but if not it I’d look for extenuating circumstances before you put him on the cross. I’d guess he feels more …
/r/MensRights26/04/18 06:38 AM
1

Yeah no argument here that was my point. As far as I know fuhrer isn’t a reference to anything besides Hitler.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 01:53 AM
0

Wait so if someone’s name is dothebartman I should think they hate the Simpsons? I’m not saying a name reference automatically means support but in this case that’s what it leads people to believe.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 06:44 PM
1

I think we’re well beyond “bad” by over a decade now. There can be more than one piece of bad art in the world. I guess youre the art critic now too? No one in their right mind would see his name and think, “ah, a neo-Nazi supporter”. There’s almost no room for misconception here, I can’t imagine a person that would honestly take someone calling themselves literally Hitler seriously Then your imagination is paper thin. He even said its meant to mislead so actually there’s all the room for misint…
/r/MensRights11/04/18 06:13 PM
-1

No, just like I wouldn’t think a “gay fish” name means he’s a fan of Kanye. “Ze fuhrer” doesn’t really shit on Hitler. (Fun fact drumpf is a John Oliver reference)
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:56 AM
5

I didn’t realize your reddit account was a post modern art project. But seriously that’s just bad satire. It seems like just your normal account and if you say stuff like “yeah we should hit em” the satire really gets lost. It’s a hat on a hat. You’re inviting misunderstanding
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:44 AM
2

Folks who see my name think I’m a neo-nazi. I mean your name is a pun on Hitler. If I had a screen name that was a pun about the Simpsons people would think I was a fan of the family in yellow.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 01:55 AM
1

And you wonder why men will never support feminism. Because you can't even recognize at least one of the issues we as men face without being defensive to your own kind in some way. ... I’m not sure how to respond to that. I’m a guy, I don’t consider myself to be a feminist, and the op is about comparing men issues to women’s. Addressing points made in the post isn’t defensive, it’s just not circle jerking. You’re acting like I went through and attacked each one of his points unfairly.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 12:28 PM
6

Thanks for responding for with some sources to back up yours and OPs claims. The second link doesn’t work for me, but I’ll take your word for it. The third link is actually a great find! And it gives a lot of evidence that boys have become over drugged when regarding ADHD. But it also links to data that shows women are more likely to be prescribed anti-depresents which sort of goes to my point too. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm While specifically over prescribing ADHD medicat…
/r/MensRights27/03/18 03:49 AM
3

Right. That's the issue. And I’m saying there’s no proof it’s actually an issue, or at least not one that disproportionally effects boys/men over girls/women. That data isn’t out there like custody rates or some of the other things you pointed out. At minimum we should be teaching women that the odds of their being assaulted are significantly lower than the odds of men being assaulted I think thats fair, but if you don’t want to deal with irrational fears then you should probably deal with compu…
/r/MensRights26/03/18 10:00 PM
1

There is a huge difference between an adult self-medicating and a child being forced to take a drug by adults for engaging in natural behavior “Forced” to take a drug for “natural behavior”. You could make a similar argument for 13 year olds taking birth control or vaccinations. The issue would be if the drugs are given inappropriately/unnecessarily. That and you don’t have a source that shows boys are diagnosed with mental disorders at a higher rate/number and/or prescribed drugs at a higher ra…
/r/MensRights26/03/18 07:48 PM
-2

Your personal anecdote really doesn't matter. Your conjecture without sources doesn’t really matter either. If you’re gonna say boys are 3 times more likely to be diagnosed you should have a source. Other mental disorders should be included too. (Bi polar, depression). That’s at least somewhere to start. It wouldn’t be absolute proof, because diagnosis doesn’t equate to prescription but it would be much more credible. that women make up the vast majority of Psych undergrads, a growing majority o…
/r/MensRights26/03/18 05:40 PM
-8

I'm talking about boys, not grown adults. I’m talking about both. The idea that one gender is over medicated doesn’t disappear at 18 Why shouldn't it be? Because the same dismissive attitude can be used for basically any argument in your post. If women really don’t feel safe you should ask why. Plus it makes it seem like you don’t care if women feel safe and that’s just digging a hole for yourself.
/r/MensRights26/03/18 10:04 AM
-13

A lot of good stuff (besides the clickbait title). But you pepper it with either exaggerations or conjecture. They are often drugged for natural boyish behavior, and docility/conformity is rewarded I personally know more women than men who use prescription drugs especially adderal. That could be just my expirence, but I’m not going to take the opposite to be true without some evidence. While young women complain about "feeling unsafe", Why is feeling unsafe in quotes? It’s stuff like this that u…
/r/MensRights26/03/18 09:33 AM
14

Therefore by your reasoning, a teacher having sex with students outside school grounds, say, in their car or a basement, is not abuse, because they are no longer in position of authority/control over the individual since they're not restrained on school grounds by the teachers' authority Students don’t go to school one day and then never have to return. So your analogy is off. If anything it’s closer to a parole officer and their parolee. It has nothing to do with physical location. And it would…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 11:03 PM
1

Then what is your argument and how have I misinterpreted it? If this is just a misunderstanding, no time better than now than to clear it up. Hint: saying "pot meet kettle" isn't doing that. I've been clearing it up and you (imo) purposely ignore or add things to my argument that aren't there. Victimization and "perpetrator" are not exclusive states. Victimization isn't nor should it be cancelled out by perpetration. This is where you shift the argument. It went from exclusive meaning the two ca…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 12:43 AM
1

So when I say a group can be victimized, you responding with "that could be a mistake", is therefore false. Thanks for settling that. I said that could be your mistake. Meaning you could make the same error you’re accusing me of making. It’s not that complicated. You’re just trying to reinterpret my words to mean something they aren’t. You didn't. It's the premise of your argument. You argue against him being a victim on the grounds that he's a perpetrator. If that isn't your argument then what …
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:10 PM
1

This isn't even coherent. Try to organize your thoughts better and describe what was said with at least a bare minimum of accuracy. Pot meets kettle. Is it or is it not possible for groups to be victimized? Yes or no answer only. Yes it’s possible, but I never said it wasn’t. Ah we're at the "you implied slavery is good" level debate. Not working. Take what I said and not what you feel you'd like me to have said. Huh where did I mention slavery. Why are you totally making shit up? nothing. I'm o…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 10:59 AM
1

Saying it could be my mistake that some groups are victimized, is self-evidently false. It could not. That’s not what I said. You said my mistake was “sometimes groups are victimized.” That is the mistake you could have made too That's a different assertion but feel free to substantiate it with something other than "Hilary said something completely different and I'm going to try and fail to look witty when I contrast that with what you said". Why do I have to substantiate it? The person above me…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 08:52 AM
0

No one ever asks "What was she going through?" or "What as a society could we do differently?" We always focus on the victims, right? We never try to understand the demon woman's motives, right? People definitely ask. Just not the people here. Do a search for mother on this subreddit. The child abusers aren’t viewed as victims and the people that do view them as such are ridiculed usually with sarcasm. And asking what could society do differently or looking for a motive is not the same as callin…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 06:05 AM
1

A criminal can still be a victim. While I'm not saying what he did was right in any way at all he had something going on that drove him to that point. I don't want that to ever be a thing again. I don't want people to be driven to such things at all. But that’s something you can say about virtually any criminal. I've been there I've been near that point and I do not ever want anyone to be in that place ever. Maybe that’s why you categorize him as a victim. But that doesn’t make it so. Do you eve…
/r/MensRights24/02/18 02:11 AM
1

I have literally in every comment highlighted that students need more psychological support and that men suffer not only from the poor support systems offered by schools, but also at the hands of a societal norm That is not the bad part in itself. It’s using the shooting as a start point for an argument that at the very least boarders on defending the shooter by labeling him as a victim. That’s what I have a problem with.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 01:07 AM
-2

No you moron. That groups can be victimized is well documented. Now take your pathetic attempt at a tu quoque and go fuck yourself so far up your ass that you turn inside out. “Can” and “are” mean two different things. Your mistake could be victimizing group that shouldn’t be. Or the reverse of not acknowledging victims. I’d say the another mistake was babbling like an edgy teen with anger issues.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 11:57 PM
-4

Could be your colossal mistake too.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 11:04 PM
-5

Men actually are the majority of school shooters. That's an actual fact. Yeah but that’s not the fact you were claiming. Men are actually the victim of a shitty outdated societal value and providing better psychological services and actual care to our children we can prevent these horrible events from occuring. This is your claim. Which totally ignores the actual victims being the students who were shot at. I'm not making anyone a victim who isn't already a victim of a broken system. Hillary or …
/r/MensRights23/02/18 10:54 PM
-3

Society doesn't care about men and we're shooting up schools because of it. This is exactly the kind of statement that MRAs criticize feminists for all the time. Remember Hillary’s “women are the primary victims of war” comment? That’s basically what you’re doing. You make your group the victim in a situation where it’s totally inappropriate.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 08:56 PM
13

There’s no reason that should have been deleted. Really disappointed in the mods. I can understand locking the comments sometimes but this is too far for a normal uplifting story.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 08:42 PM
0

... the top comment made it a race thing.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 10:22 PM
3

No. No. Noooooooo. Stop trying to subdivide us (men). The parent comment does that well enough. It has close to 200 upvotes Incase you missed it
/r/MensRights21/02/18 10:20 PM
-1

I think the point being made is that this woman's false accusation may be seen as more scandalous because of the race of the falsely accused, and if she had falsely accused white men of raping her there would be less outrage. Sure but that’s a pretty big leap/assumption. I could say the opposite that the only reason it even got as far as it did was because she accused black men. And frankly that might be true. The article looks like it’s down now, but I remember reading that she admitted to lyin…
/r/MensRights21/02/18 06:37 PM
-1

No one is trying to anger or intimidate black people asshole. Under your “dictionary definition” you could just be trying to anger white people not just intimidate/anger black people. Obviously I think your comment was an attempt at race baiting calling me an asshole doesn’t change that.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 06:22 AM
7

sadly this probably only matters because it was racially motivated by the 'black men'. Jeeze I can’t believe this is the top comment. Race bating by implying black men get treated more favorably by the justice system in Texas of all places.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 06:03 AM
0

This was never the policy. Obama claimed it, but never followed through. Carmen Ortiz still cracked down on dispensaries. I never said Obama, I never even said Federal government. But you are right it could be misleading. And you’re right that it wasn’t Obamas policy to not raid.... but my point still stands. Whatever the govt policy was isn’t just what’s “written in the books” because as of now States have conflicting laws. Clearly, I'm not confused as I can quote you. Yeah but you keep quoting…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 02:55 AM
0

No, you make it sounds like Obama followed through on his words and then changed his mind. He never did. It was all a PR stunt. Uhh no I didn’t. But even so how does that make this statement by Trump any less of a PR stunt? The only law that mattered was the one that was written and enforced by the federal prosecutors. That enforcement is a pretty big deal you gloss over which was my point. It’s not just the law on the paper that matters it’s how it’s implemented and enforced. It’s due process w…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 01:18 AM
0

President Obama said that, but Federal Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz cracked down on things in California. It's was as two faced as ever. So you agree with me then? Politicians (like Trump) can change their policies at the snap of a finger without having to write it or go through the legislative process.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 12:37 AM
0

Why did you post this twice? Accidental because of mobile Six Flags could claim to be the most popular since that is a hard claim to prove or disprove. 1) You're changing the argument. If it is an objectively wrong statement do you still think it's a white lie? If so you're on the wrong side of the law. The obvious harm there is as obvious as any of Trump's lies 2) It's not that hard to prove or disprove. Look at attendance numbers 3) Even if it was you can't make claims that you can't prove and…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 12:31 AM
0

No, policies are written down on paper, understood, and then change through our legislative process Ehhh not exactly. A policy can be something implemented and not written down. The govt had a policy to not raid marijuana dispensaries (often?) in states where it was legal. The law wasn’t changed through legislative process.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:21 PM
0

Misinforming millions of Americans about his political popularity isn’t harmful? Using that logic Six Flags could say they were the most popular amusement park (even though they aren’t) and that would be a white lie.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:14 PM
1

That’s a bit foolish. Their good policies can turn to bad policies when it suits them if their only motivation is self interest.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 08:05 PM
0

I’ve never told a lie white or otherwise to millions of people the media all while running the most powerful country in the world just to make myself or my accomplishments seem grander than they are. And I question your definition of white lie
/r/MensRights14/02/18 07:04 PM
1

It’s not really a fair question unless you’ve been in a coma for a few years. As someone else said the inauguration one is a blatant lie very early on in his presidency. So either the person isn’t paying attention or purposefully ignoring things.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:35 PM
2

No it’s actually a great example because it doesn’t require much research is straight forward and a non debatable lie (even though you’re trying to make it debatable). Other lies have potential to be debatable because they might have grains of truth in them or even just brush it off as an “opinion” rather than a true or false claim.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:25 PM
1

Perhaps it would have been the biggest inauguration if Hillary had won instead. You can’t just say something isn’t a lie because it “could have been” in some alternate reality.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 05:49 PM
-7

Username does not check out
/r/MensRights14/02/18 05:38 PM
5

Buzzfeed is basically Cosmo in sheeps clothing.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 09:51 PM
1

I’d like to freeze myself until we get to Star Trek level socialism. A man can dream.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 08:12 PM
4

But that would be the same case if men or anyone held a march or protest... This is just fake outrage.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 09:02 AM
1

You don't get to deny the common usage of "really" in negative sentences. I’ll say it again it’s intentionally misleading at best. If I said magicians don’t really cut women in half or leprechauns don’t really live in Ireland you showing one example wouldn’t disprove that? I could just say “oh, well really allows for exceptions”? Come on. But the time to say this would be in your first response to my request for examples. Why? I only bring it up now because you say I don’t have enough of it. If …
/r/MensRights11/01/18 12:33 AM
1

So I don't buy that you didn't get it. Regardless, you get it now so that settles that. No I don’t buy your explanation either. At best you were being intentionally misleading. If someone said they used the figurative definition of literally I’d say they were full of it too. If you meant it like I believe you did than one would be enough and it would end right there. Your words on the other hand very clearly require more than one example to demonstrate validity. Nope, examples are not meant to d…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 09:58 PM
0

Depends. Sexism is complicated No no no. You don’t get to say sexism is complicated after being so anal about its definition. We’re not having that discussion now. You’ve made it clear that’s not what you were trying to do. I added "really" as a qualifier to indicate that it I'm not saying that you don't ever see this. I always allow for exceptions. Wait you’re really going to tell me really doesn’t really mean really? Really doesn’t mean usually, often, or whatever other word you could put to a…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 07:31 PM
1

So Straight White Men never have to face struggles that you might never have ever had to think about? Give your Head a shake!! Only one question targets men. Only one question targets white people and even that a white person could respond in the same way depending on the circumstance ( you talk white question). As far as straight, yes a lot of the questions imply straight people have more privilege than gay, but I didn’t know that was debatable. If you think there are more issues that straight …
/r/MensRights09/01/18 12:13 AM
0

So much for not responding. Get some discipline. So you responded to me in hopes you could throw insults and not have to have dialogue. How brave. You're goalpost shifting. We're talking about sexism against women, not “problems" (whatever that means). Wait are you saying sexism isn’t a problem or problems that only effect women have nothing to do with sexism? Ok, so you found an example which means you've shown that it exists. Problem is, you didn't argue that it exists. You said there's "a lot…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 11:57 PM
0

That's fundamentally different from saying "there's no sexism against women". No it’s not but ok. Where? What exactly did they say? I linked you to the exact quote. I said cat calling was a problem and the response was that it was an imaginary problem. Look at all the responses and you’ll see people say that’s not an issue. If you had critical thinking skills you’d realize that by refusing to acknowledge any problems you’re saying there aren’t any. But I guess you got me on a technicality. Wait …
/r/MensRights08/01/18 10:57 PM
1

Asking for people to 'acknowledge their privilege' in the way that you seems to want people to do is nothing more than the bitter jealousy Please tell me what way that is? I’m glad I have “““heroes””” like you to tell me my opinions. I don’t remember saying any of that, but it must be true; you’re u/aivias world renowned mind reader. Did you meet your troll quota yet?
/r/MensRights08/01/18 09:54 PM
1

Are you kidding me? The tittle of the thread says “women you are not oppressed.” The other one responded to my comment saying women have imaginary problems. Yeah you’re obviously turning a blind eye so I’m done responding.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 09:42 PM
1

Your comparison has nothing to do with the varying definitions of the words. At best it's irrelevant, at worst you're arguing my point for me. The comparison was to help you understand the concept of entitlement. You genuinely seemed to still be confused, sorry if it didn't help. You're the one who started referring to definitions which is why I included them in my previous replies. I honestly don't know if you're trying to argue with me at this point or not.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 02:23 AM
1

Those are fairly neutral, but of course they are informed by the same old body shaming narrative I’m not sure what you mean here. Men can feel insecure about their bodies or be body shamed. Why is the “same old body shame narrative” bad especially when neutral. Questions like "I have never felt like I need bigger muscles" or "I have never worried about people finding me attractive because of my height" would both be questions to do with self-esteem but from the perspective of female privilege. O…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 12:47 AM
1

I wrote a long ass response and then hit backspace sending me back a page and deleting it all so I'm just going to link the examples. I will say going through my controversial comments I noticed deleted posts (of mine or others I'm not sure), so maybe that's why you don't believe me, but other people in this sub acknowledge it and try to call them out. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5qartx/dear_women_you_are_not_oppressed/dcxx10n/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2pwhyc…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 12:21 AM
1

If I have the privilege to do something, I do not have the right to do it...or else I would have the right to do it, not the privilege. But saying someone has a privilege now includes all sorts of things that people have a right to, like their skin color I think your confusion comes from your misunderstanding what a right/privilege is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right Scroll down and you’ll see this. something to which one has a just claim: such as a : the power or privilege to w…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 11:10 PM
-2

I think you’re looking at it through unfair lenses and your 3 examples kind of points that out especially #3 Women may not be concerned with the size of their vagina, but many are concerned about the size of their breasts. The questionnaire also talks about body confidence and none of those 4 seem targeted to men or women. I have never been told I’m overweight or “too skinny.” I have never felt overweight or underweight or “too skinny.” I have never been shamed for my body type. I consider mysel…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 10:15 PM
0

The dictionary definitions I looked up dont agree with you. Entitlement is thinking you deserve a right, privilege or benefit over others. Privilege is a right or benefit over others. Calling someone entitled is more of an insult than calling someone privileged. It’s kind of weird to say someone deserves (or does not) a privilege. It’s usually a roll of the dice out of the persons control. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege http://www.dictionary.com/browse/privilege https://www…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 09:57 PM
1

If you answered yes to all of these questions yeah you probably are very privileged. Privilege doesn’t have to be a dirty word though. It’s just an acknowledgement that other people have to face struggles that you might never have had to even think about. Only one question directly referenced being a man so I think that’s a very lose connection to this sub. I do think giving it to 8th graders is questionable to say the least, but no one is attacking men. I mean if you were a woman who answered y…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 08:32 PM
1

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If feminism has no real meaning other than the perspective of the individual labeling anyone who doesn’t identify as feminist is at the least anti-discussion.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 08:01 PM
-1

Examples of what people here saying there’s no sexism against women?
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:38 PM
-6

or there's no sexism against women I see that on here A LOT. The other stuff not so much, but plenty of times a comment will say sexism against women doesn’t exist in 1st world countries.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:23 AM
12

No discussion is not welcome there. This sub has certainly taken a dip in quality since getting bigger, but even that preview bot of shows the top post of r/feminism is a meme stating anyone who isn’t a feminist is automatically sexist. Unfortunately this sub often becomes men’s rants rather then men’s rights
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:15 AM
1

It doesn’t matter how you know him, you still know him. I doubt she’s getting GOT cameos either. I didn't want to have to explain all that, but my point still stands. she could go full Mattress Girl. She “could” go mattress girl, but the point isn’t that she can’t lie just that the motivations for her lying seem much less likely given the circumstances. I think you rely on the little finger method of discovering motives a bit too much. Worst =/= most likely
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:04 PM
1

...obviously you do know who Ed Sheeran is or you wouldn’t have used him as a stupid straw man to make your point. I could probably easily find a video of his with over a million views, don’t think I could say that for anonymous accuser. I’d be surprised if I could find a video with a million views talking about Dustin Hoffman being accused, much less one about the accuser herself.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:34 PM
1

Yeah but this subreddit chomps at the bit to complain about things even out of context. And reading some of the other statements I sort of agree with him. Hoffman saying “that’s not me” is kind of a cop out. I don’t agree with the blindsiding him, but that’s really not the issue
/r/MensRights17/12/17 11:09 AM
2

That is why stopand frisk works to decrease crimes. Lots of things can work to “decrease crime” like constant monitoring and curfew. I think North Korea has no African Americans; crime rate is very low you should go there. But if you’re here in America NYC stopped their stop and frisk policy yet the crime rate continues to go down. Hmm If you profile African Americans in the 16 to 40 age group, you can stop almost all of violent crimes. Hmm so you’re just openly advocating racism. I’ve never see…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 06:39 AM
1

African American males aged 16 to 40 make less than 6 percent of the population but they have been convicted in upto 40% of violent crimes It’s like you didn’t even read the 1st two panels of the comic in this post.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:48 AM
-5

And current presidents
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:42 PM
1

Feel free to put forward your own arguments. Oh, I see you haven't got any. My argument is that you’re saying (not so) subtle racist remarks to demean black people. A blatant example of that was what I quoted. All of those points can apply to more than just black people By the imagined fear of being shunned or ridiculed, I meant a fear that is common to all of us Then how does that separate them from other groups if it’s common to all of us?
/r/MensRights26/11/17 12:09 AM
3

How does this bs have any upvotes? Several paragraphs to malign black culture about an article on father figures. A bunch of contradictory and assuming and self fulfilling points you have up there Blacks never integrate. They like to stay in their own tribal mentality. The reason they say is their culture is superior. But the real reason is their imagined fear of being unwelcome. You made a bullet point list about shit talking black culture and you say there’s an imagined fear of being unwelcome…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:17 PM
2

Raised by a woman. Suffered for it. Made the realization that women aren't better people than men (worse in many ways because traditional sex roles shield them from reality). Switch the gender and that statement seems a bit iffy. I don’t think this sub is a hate or misogynistic group, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is the pitfall feminism is falling and it’ll happen here if we keep blinders on like they have.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 07:44 PM
0

The defenses that Moore was getting was not about presumption of innocence, but excusing the behavior.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 08:07 PM
0

I don't think talking about your feelings is a feminist concept. They didn't invent psychology/therapy.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:27 PM
4

Ok but who cares where your lines are vs someone else’s? You might be ok with someone grabbing your ass on the bus. I agree that being stated at doesn’t warrant a panic attack, but that’s on her. Still I understand how it can be uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 08:44 PM
7

If I had a woman do that to me I would at feel good because someone thinks I'm attractive. Please don’t use that argument it’s just stupid. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7bctof/the_stupidest_feminist_argument_ive_ever_heard/?st=J9Q2DTLX&sh=4a050522
/r/MensRights07/11/17 08:26 PM
1

That sentiment was implied by the person who posted above me coupled with your response of “wait til someone lies about you” defending him. Getting a settlement doesn’t make a rape victim a whore. (Literally the words of the poster you’re defending). Can you actually make a point when debating instead of throwing out pointless distractions.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 11:17 PM
2

So because that happened to someone all rape victims are liars and whores? You’re not using any logic. You can’t ALWAYS believe one side and not the other.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 11:28 PM
5

Comments like this make this sub look terrible. You wonder why people think men’s rights is a bad word? Look no further.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:17 PM
2

Oh so you just like stirring the pot with no solid logic or arguments behind your beliefs. I hear that’s quite popular on the internet.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:39 PM
1

Because when you self censor you admit intent of offense. That literally makes no sense. When you censor yourself you show that you DONT mean to offend. Only on Opposite Day does choosing your words carefully show intent of offense. Ether intent is what matters or all use of the word nigger is offense regardless of how it is used. Why is it all or nothing? Why can’t intent be a part of the equation? Why not censor books with it out of school? Because hopefully the authors who use it are saying i…
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:17 PM
2

So intent not effect matters? Obviously intentionally being offensive is worse than unintentionally, but if the word in context of a conversation serves no additional purpose censored or not where is the harm in not using the word? Why do you and others get a boner from saying the full word when the point in most cases is made without it?
/r/MensRights18/10/17 07:28 PM
4

Why is that a bad thing? Self censorship and restraint on using offensive words unnecessarily should be applauded or at least supported. Why look to offend?
/r/MensRights18/10/17 07:16 PM
1

Nope
/r/MensRights04/10/17 03:24 AM
91

First I’ve heard of it
/r/MensRights04/10/17 03:15 AM
38

Kind of like...the Red Pill?
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:33 AM
12

Is this what this subreddit is going to turn to? Tired memes?
/r/MensRights12/04/17 02:26 AM
2

This completely disregards cases where there is no cheating involved. Or cases where both cheated. If cases where he cheated results in a 50/50 split ( or "however it works") how is that different from a divorce with no cheating? If she shouldn't get money from a divorce with no cheating then how is it different from getting no money for cheating? Divorce is more complicated than you're making it out to be. There are plenty of valid reason someone might get one with these factors appearing on bo…
/r/MensRights11/04/17 09:24 PM
2

This should be higher up. Hopefully you get the deserved views. Edit- he was at about 4-8 upvotes when I commented. Glad to see him closer to the top now
/r/MensRights01/04/17 08:03 AM
9

"Man kills man". Yeah that's a men's right story /s
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:29 PM
1

The transcript of the judgement indicates clearly that there was no evidence of sexual activity. so her ability to consent or lack thereof was moot. So why is the title of the post about consent? The whole post is moot?
/r/MensRights05/03/17 01:15 AM
1

I think Mensrants is a real subreddit but maybe I'm mistaken
/r/MensRights01/03/17 06:17 AM
4

It's strange that much of reddit regularly adopts this attitude until it comes time to criticize someone they don't like for holding it. You realize that this is the men's rights subreddit? If there's any subreddit where that isn't the regularly adopted attitude it's here. I didn't know anything about Milo until I saw a clip of him on Bill Mahr. I also haven't seen anyone mention it in their criticism of Milo. I was hoping to see someone talk about it here, but no we get "whataboutism". When you…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 04:26 PM
29

He also talked about it in general not just his anecdotal instance. Oh not to mention calling the teachers who sleep with boys the victims. I shit you not he said the women are the victims who get seduced. Not really relevant to the op, but you brought up Milo for some reason.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 11:29 AM
19

Of course there would be. What kind of question is that?
/r/MensRights13/02/17 08:23 AM
0

Sure you can be against both. But comparing the two is ridiculous. One is profound institutional oppression, the other is a few dollars. See the problem? You're more worried about a few dollars than men's lives. Comparing the two is ridiculous. You're completely blind to your own bias in the way you phrase it. Yes one is a much more serious violation of rights BUT practically speaking one effects no one today. One hasn't effected anyone in over 40 years while the other effects millions every day…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:30 AM
1

He already stoped funding to countries that allow abortion. Yes this is something any republican would and has done. No that doesn't make it better. He's also said he wants to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe v Wade. That's less likely to happen, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't voice their concerns about it. It's not fear mongering, he's said a lot of crazy stuff it's hard to know which things he's really going to push for but he has a lot of government support behin…
/r/MensRights24/01/17 10:20 PM
2

There are male tennis players who have done as much and more. If there are male tennis players who have as many accolades, championships etc as she does then you're right. I'm unaware of such players. If she was a man and she played the way she did against other men, then no one would know who she was. This doesn't really make sense. The way she played was better than her opponents. The best opponents in her class, league, gender whatever you want to call it. If she did that against men then she…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 11:07 PM
1

they compete on the same physical level as most male athletes only cheapens what women have accomplished. But that's not what she's saying. I quickly read the article and I didn't see anywhere that said she's better or stronger then male athletes. She's saying the obvious. If she was a man and had won the accolades in the men's division like she had for the women's she'd be considered the greatest. Women's sports accomplishments aren't valued as much as men's. I saw someone in the comments compa…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 09:03 PM
1

What I'm getting from these comments is women can't be great athletes because they don't compete against men. Every day this sub seems to rant more and more rather than talk about serious issues.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 09:01 AM
1

Don't really care what she posts on twitter tbh. She's the prime example of a hypocritical feminist. She could say one thing in line with one view then do something completely counter too it. The fact that she has foot in mouth disease and has actually been called on it says 1) people are starting to see through the bs 2) what she says doesn't mean shit. I think she uses feminism to just to promote herself and just fulfill her own agenda (i.e. help "unprivileged" white wine like herself). If she…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 10:04 AM
63

Lena Dunham doesn't hate white people. Quite the opposite she only has white friends according to her show.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 09:33 PM
2

Yes but the title that the op used is suggesting innocent to mean did not commit the crime. It's applying a legal "definition" of innocence to actual innocence.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 10:43 PM
-2

Thats bs. The jury does not have a verdict of innocent, it's not the way the system works. Also there are often two separate court systems civil and criminal. So if one is guilty an the other is not guilty he's innocent and not innocent at the same time? Innocent means you did not do the act, not guilty means they could not prove it beyond the standard required. There is a difference. Innocent people can be convicted and vice versa.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 06:47 PM
2

Then they should be taught to not automatically revert to their personal bias....So police should be taught to not automatically assume that every black person is a thieving drug dealer. Agreed but that's kind of an impossible thing to just put out of their minds. They choose to stop and frisk based on suspicion. Well what else are they going to base their suspicion on besides personal experience? If it was actual evidence then there wouldn't be a need for stop and frisk in the 1st place. But I …
/r/MensRights22/09/16 05:55 AM
2

There is a complete difference, unless people like you automatically assume that people of the same skin tone are susceptible to the same mentality. I never made such an assumption. My point is that there's nothing to show that difference until after you are stopped. The officer doesn't know you or the next guy they stop its all a big question mark they fill with their own bias/experiences Nope and nope. If you take a scientific look at the crime statistics, you would automatically assume that p…
/r/MensRights22/09/16 05:16 AM
2

That doesn't make it any more ethical or less hypocritical. Stop and frisk is based on a hunch saying it has positive merits is foolish. I'm not handing you a line, I'm letting you know that there is a difference between me and brothers like myself who have lived in the shit but have strived to be better and the general consensus. You are absolutely handing me a line. There's no difference between you and the others who get stopped. Your judgement of who should get stopped is they live in a bad …
/r/MensRights22/09/16 04:24 AM
2

It would be equally hypocritical if a white person said he approved of using stop and frisk against other people but not himself. And I hope you know stop and frisk is a very ineffective way to stop crime so please don't give me that nonsense
/r/MensRights22/09/16 03:19 AM
3

Then you're a hypocritical black man. It's not right if they do it to you or when they do it in "high crime" areas.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 02:59 AM
1

This sounds so ridiculous I don't believe it. No really I don't. I went to a very liberal college about 3 years ago and I can't imagine professor showing Family Guy as an attempt to show racism. How stupid does she think you are to not know what a racist stereotype is. And if it was offensive why show it to the class, to possibly offend people? This post gives me a Poes law vibe. That being said if she had shown say some old 1920 blackface comedy and you had bawled out laughing I could see it as…
/r/MensRights20/09/16 04:11 AM
2

MURDER: * That's a decision even a kid could take and he must be held accountable for his decision. FUCKING: * NO he is just a lil kid, he can't consent to the HORROR of getting his dick sucked! Well first I don't think children should be tried as adults under murder charges but there are various reasons why some think they should that wouldn't apply in making apply to these types of statutory rape cases. I think everyone is familiar with the concept of death even kids as young as 5-7 can know t…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 12:12 AM
3

Plus 25 fucking years because she gave an orgams to a kid!!! Under that logic those priest who molested boys shouldn't face any punishment either. "Hey I gave them a nice prostate orgasm. He kept returning to the church. He must have liked it" It's bullshit and you know it. And if you don't then you're the one "brainwashed" Beside why the fuck am I wasting my time writing this when I know I will be called either a pedophile or a pedophile apologist. I *eagerly await your response to the question…
/r/MensRights10/09/16 11:49 PM
1

This should be higher up. Yes there often is a disparity between men and women but claiming its across the board when a similar case involving a girl is happening at the exact same time is a bit hasty. Our justice system has a tendency to over punish men but also women of color as someone else said. Both cases should be brought to light even though this subreddit focuses on men (as it should). Imo this is more about domestic and parental abuse than just a simple double standard.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 05:38 AM
1

Comments for the most part were agreeing with the op. Some said get over it but I'm pretty sure those people would say the same if it were Hillary. they seemed anti PC/tumblr feminist etc. So yeah not really hypocritical
/r/MensRights24/08/16 01:47 AM
1

Huh the link op posted is saying its not ok to body shame Trump. So kind of the opposite of what his title suggests or am I missing something...?
/r/MensRights23/08/16 06:21 AM
16

This subreddit is really going off the deep end. I don't think she's funny at all, but she was getting a lot of unwarranted negative attention because of all the controversy behind a stupid movie. It seems like people here think women and black people have some criticism proof vest which is so far from the truth. This really has nothing to do with Mens rights. I know the female playing the victim is something people like to jump on, but if she's actually being harassed with racist (and sexist?) …
/r/MensRights22/07/16 02:18 AM
0

Leave it to this subreddit to upvote comments saying the black people who are harassed or killed brought it on themselves.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 05:56 PM
2

If the age of criminal responsibility is in the low teens, then a teen who commits a criminal act, such as fucking someone under the age of consent, is still committing a criminal act. So if both parties are under the age of consent. As is the case here are you saying they both (or all 14) parties committed a criminal act? Because that's the only thing that could follow from your logic.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:48 PM
5

That's the entire fucking premise of the people who think that this is wrong: Someone who manipulates an underage boy/girl into sex is a monster. It shouldn't matter that he's also underage. Not true. The premise of statutory rape laws are that an ADULT who manipulates children for sex is in the moral and legal wrong. Both parties age matter and calling them victims is absurd
/r/MensRights17/03/16 02:06 PM
2

This post is higher up and more race related than the one you're commenting on now. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/48rlnx/i_love_my_white_male_privilege/ All men are effected by the bias that we are guilty without proof, less believable and deserving of harsher punishments than women. Some races are effected more than other but the bias can effect us all. All men are not effected by the white privilege white guilt that the other post is focusing on.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 11:38 PM
1

I already told you that you do not understand my point. So when you quote me and say "this is what you mean" you're wrong. You are misinterpreting my words and at this point it seems intentional. You can question me but you can't tell me what I mean, especially when I told you right off the bat that you don't get what I am saying. Here's a nice proverb that you might like since it over simplifies the situation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This applies to what happened to both white …
/r/MensRights25/02/16 01:08 AM
1

I dont think I could ever agree that some levels of racial discrimination are ok while others are not. Please don't put words in my mouth. I hope you learn and grow as a person too.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:43 PM
1

You don't get what I'm saying at all, or if you did then you just ignored my points. And when I read this Imagine what would have happened if the emancipation proclamation, freed the slaves, and then promptly slapped the chains on the southern whites. This is what the regressive left is proposing and why it is the exact opposite of any sort of justice I realized there's no way I could explain myself to you or at least not without putting more time and effort than I think it's worth for someone I…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 08:28 AM
1

Maybe I've been talking to much in this thread, but I'll still explain how I see it. You know how some women will look at the US and call it sexist because we have a high female prison rate that is rising, but then conveniently brush to the side that our male prison population is actually higher? This is kind of the same thing but instead of gender the focus of the discrimination is race. Men of other races are already feeling the system stack against them and have for a while. I go into more de…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 08:51 PM
3

What's "wrong" is that it's misleading and divisive. It has nothing to do with being of European decent but rather the actual numbers. During a 15 year period the number of deaths increased by 134 ending up at 415 deaths per 100,000. Even if over that 15 year period the deaths had increased by double what it did (268) you'd get 549 still not at the current death rate of blacks (581) after moving in this positive direction Also to quote the article They concluded that taken together, suicides, dr…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:26 AM
1

If he really believes that he's completely lost perspective. At best his statement is extremely hyperbolic.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 03:54 AM
5

Sometimes I feel like this is a white mens rights, and not mens rights subreddit. While it's bad that death rates are rising for that demographic it's still lower than black male death rates as it says in the article. This is the kind of cherry picking to gain sympathy I'd expect elsewhere.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 09:21 PM
8

Of course pop stars especially female popstars are going to side with her. We're in a judge first ask questions later society. when it comes to these things. My guess is that this producer isn't a nice person, but a rapist is still a toss up imo. As far as Sony being the big bad shady company well as far as I can tell they eventually reached a deal and it was a lengthy legal battle so I doubt it was as one sided as you try and make it.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 04:06 AM
2

We obviously have different views on this. I don't see these laws with higher age of consent laws as banning teens from sex but banning adults from having sex with young teens. In most cases if the teens are of similar age no crime has occurred (say a 18 yr with 16). I also disagree with your view that sex isn't complicated. Sure you can put it simply like that, but that's not how the real world works. The dumbest adults manage to make a lot of mistakes concerning sex and it ends up damaging the…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 01:22 AM
2

You know who has higher teen birth rates according to that list? Bulgaria and Greenland. You want to know the age of consent in those countries? 14 and 15 respectively. It has more to do with sex education and contraceptive use and availability not infantizing them like you claim. Hong Kong has an age of consent law of 16 and even lower teen birth rates than Denmark. I'm not saying teens don't have sex, but they shouldn't be having sex with adults.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 11:40 PM
3

I'm not sure I understand why we'd need to infantilize a normal 15 years old - surely, they are old enough to make a determination of their own volition as to whether they want to sleep with somebody ? I disagree. I don't think 15 is old enough to be able to make that kind of judgement (in general). Here in America 15 isn't even close to being an adult so I don't see why sex would be the exception. They still have 3 years of mandatory school so we obviously don't think they're educated to go out…
/r/MensRights17/01/16 04:30 PM
2

It was posted there just under the actual title "An Unbelievable Raped Story"
/r/MensRights16/12/15 09:49 PM
0

15yo and 18yolds can have valid consensual relations. Yeah that's obviously where we disagree. One is clearly more inappropriate, but I don't think a 15 yo is a old enough to make that kind of decision. An 18 yo is an adult in (almost) every sense.
/r/MensRights31/10/15 07:27 PM
1

...because there's obviously a double standard. Never implied there wasn't. Funny you call that rape, but not the case in the op
/r/MensRights31/10/15 01:55 AM
0

18+ year olds shouldn't be sleeping with 15 year olds. At best it's predatory at worst its criminal. In this case I believe it's criminal. Women might get off, but that doesn't mean either situation should be excused. I don't know why so many people in this sub think people at such a young age should be allowed to consent.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 11:59 PM
1

And he died at 32 as he tried to rule the world. Comparing a modern teenager to Alexander the Great is just spouting nonsense.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 10:17 PM
2

Stop moving the goal post.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 06:03 PM
2

According to Wikipedia 20. Not sure what your point is
/r/MensRights04/07/15 06:25 AM
-3

This sub really likes to make mental gymnastics to make it ok to fuck high school teens. It's illegal unethical and well known that teachers shouldn't sleep with their students. Just because another state/country has a different age of consent law doesn't magically make it ok. One thing I think everyone here agrees on is that the law isn't perfect. I just don't think it can be, and in situations like this there's a very easy way to not get in trouble with this law.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 06:20 AM
4

Some might say the people sleeping with children especially while in a position of power are sick. Not sure why you seem to think of it as such a soft crime, but either way I disagree.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 07:54 PM
1

Men do it more often than women because the comfort gains to men are greater than the comfort gains to women. I think it's also because women wear dresses and men don't (...normally). You can sit with your legs apart crotch wide open like you can with pants.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 12:47 AM
2

That might not have occurred to you either. I happen to think making the generalizations you've made based on gender were wrong. Thanks for being the bigger person by resorting to name calling. I guess generalizing is ok, but generalizing about generalizing is too meta for you.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 10:31 PM
1

I had to sleep on it, and it seems like you're using the same thought process that feminists use with male privilege and making it ok to generalize all men accused of rape as guilty.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 07:41 PM
0

attention Well in that case it would be like stealing and not asking since attention can be taken especially if obnoxious enough. No it isn't. You're very simple minded. People of necessity make generalizations all the time. Please explain to my simple mind what you mean by people of necessity. It sounds like someone who can't be bothered to make a case by case distinction. That made no sense You complained about women not willing to give up their privilege in exchange for the lack of attention.…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 04:50 AM
-2

But just saying "that's really bad logic" isn't logic at all. I know, it's a statement If you're rich you get a lot of people begging you for money. Is that attention positive? Do you see many rich people giving their money away? What are you trying to say here? Catcalling is like people asking for money? What would the women be "giving"? I repeat: when it stops, the women complain that it stops. I'll repeat you're generalizing all women which is wrong. That's part of the faulty logic I was taki…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 04:14 AM
1

Meaning it's a fictional "problem". The problem I was referring to was that no one walks around a city for 10 hrs straight. If women are harassed it isn't necessarily on a daily basis multiple times a day. It might happen once in a while Most men would love to have that sort of power and attention and women complain when they get older and no longer get the same attention. What the hell kind of "problem" do you complain about when it goes away? That's really bad logic and just general stereotypi…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 03:02 AM
0

Cat calling is the only one I can think of off hand. I know that catcalling YouTube video had some problems but it happens to women who aren't wearing revealing clothes or don't look like supermodels.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 10:37 PM
2

A friend/acquaintance posted this on facebook saying that this proves why we need feminism if the biggest complaint is short men not getting girls (he's about 6'2). I wrote saying oppression Olympics doesn't help anyone. And he responded by saying it's not even a competition. I mentioned the discrepancy of prison sentences and draft/forced military services and he didn't respond. He did get a handful of likes for his shallow condescending responses. People just don't take this stuff seriously.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 08:17 PM
5

I do not believe for a second that if Lebouf were a woman anyone here would call it rape. I agree with you there, because quite a few people are saying it's not rape/sexual assault in this sub. A woman initiated a sexual encounter with him and he went along with it. He was not forced, threatened, in danger, or incapacitated. "Going along with it" doesn't say much either way. I haven't seen any specifics on what she did to him (other than removing his clothes). But for all we know she could have …
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:43 PM
2

Yeah happened to me about a month ago for criticizing another commenter for approving of Anita's videos. Got a message saying I was banned; I messaged the mods and never got a response. There's a reason a lot of the content is just downvoted without comments
/r/MensRights13/11/14 08:48 PM
2

There's a very good episode of American Dad that deals exactly with this. "Wife Insurance" and I think it shows the absurdity of having a backup partner
/r/MensRights01/10/14 09:37 AM
1

Legally it might be better to follow age of consent laws especially when you're a married teacher. I'm not saying the guy was a baby, just that there is a reason for consent laws. I'm sure there are 16 year olds who could consent, but I'm pretty sure there are those who couldn't especially when it's from a position of power like a teacher. At what point does it become predatory behavior by the teacher? She could have been flirting with him since his first boner. It gets to a really grey area tha…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 05:35 AM
1

Meh. I'd support it if the authorities looked at someone who got busted with pot and said, "Ehhh screw it. Pot shouldn't be illegal. Kid should walk." Same thing applies here... but consensual sex shouldn't be illegal and this was probably consensual. That's totally different unless you think anyone who can speak can consent. Is it possible for a 16 year old to consent sure probably, but there has to be some line. There's no objective point where the ability to consent is magically just like the…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:50 AM
3

but unless there's a principle of "follow the law because it's the law That's pretty much how society is meant to work. So yea...
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:07 AM
1

I ask again if the same was said in /r/feminism would that not be considered trolling? If MR was brought up and being misrepresented and it was pointed out do you really think it wouldn't be labeled as trolling?
/r/MensRights14/05/14 01:17 AM
1

Are you serious? I switched feminist and MR for a proper comparison. You go on one sub and declare they have no idea what they are talking about when referring to another subs main focus.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 12:50 AM
1

So if I went to /r/feminism and said, "I'm prepared for downvotes. This sub has no idea what Men's Rights are!" that wouldn't be considered trolling? Ok sure
/r/MensRights14/05/14 12:16 AM
1

The difference is that I'm not belittling MR issues. Yeah you were just belittling the people who go into the sub. Just because you think your point of view is right doesn't make it less of a troll than op's post. In fact I'd say it's more because you started off confrontational by completely dismissing the sub without making any counter arguments. Please stop the bullshit, you were caught in your own hypocrisy http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/25cm81/the_other_woman_three_men_gang_up_…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 11:53 PM
1

But it's ok for you to invade and troll this safe space? Or are you yourself a "strawman feminist"? http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/25fbjc/for_my_cake_day_i_tried_to_defend_feminism_in/
/r/MensRights13/05/14 10:31 PM
11

... Wow people here are really trying to say having sex with someone who is so drunk they're passed out isn't rape? This is what makes this sub look bad. That being said she's a (bad) comedian. I take anything she says about as serious as used toilet paper. I really hate that she's getting more popular
/r/MensRights04/05/14 09:42 AM
-4

We should all be able to control our negative traits because we do have that power equally. Then why does it matter? Seriously we know women and men are different physically that much is very obvious. It doesn't make sense to bring it up when you think it shouldn't change anything. Its just bringing it up to bring it up, like stating women also have periods and men don't. Yes it is technically correct difference, but so what?
/r/MensRights28/09/13 08:25 PM
5

No one is the same, we all have different DNA, and even twins don't always behave the same. You're making a distinction where it doesn't really matter for I don't what reason
/r/MensRights28/09/13 07:46 PM
7

You're getting upset at the company who made Manhunt 10 years ago...
/r/MensRights21/09/13 05:58 AM
10

It makes sense not tot have unprotected sex if you do not want to have the child. Sooo...why does that same logic not apply to a woman?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:56 PM
1

There has never been privacy in public places. I agree with that, and I'm not really trying to argue that shouldn't be the case. The app is a double standard for sure if people did complain about the female equivalent but my point really was that its not a big deal to take pictures in public which is why I asked why there should be outrage in the 1st place
/r/MensRights17/09/13 03:17 AM
1

I can't figure out what's the point of that subreddit or how it relates, but my point was more if you're out in public you might get your picture taken and put on the internet, man or woman. It's creepy weird and rude, but people are still gonna do it. And I don't think you really need an app for that
/r/MensRights16/09/13 06:11 PM
-4

Why? No seriously, why should/would there be outrage?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 08:12 AM
0

You only made one observation. That the woman's word would be more believable than Zimmerman's. The thing is that consequence didn't actually happen. They questioned him and since there wasn't really evidence they let him go. No one's side was taken here. It could have happened, but not in this case so whats the problem? As far as no consequences for calling the police, I don't think anyone gets in trouble for making accusations. So yet again I'm asking about actual instances of misandre not pot…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 05:00 PM
0

As a woman, Mrs. Zimmerman could rely on the fact that greater weight would be given to the charge that her husband assaulted her, as well as the likelihood that a false accusation would bear no consequences for her. This assumes just as much as assuming he did threaten her so... The fact that she was accusing George Zimmerman added to this. added to what her getting the benefit of the doubt? You can't blame her for his reputation She must be an idiot to think that the truth wouldn't eventually …
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:44 AM
-2

You guys overreact to things more than r/feminism sometimes. This really has nothing to do with MR
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:38 PM
2

Well in the US you're not really considered an adult/man/woman until 18. I would consider a 40 year old man an adult, I wouldn't consider a 16 year old and adult so, saying "it's their call" isn't something I necessarily agree with. As far as my view on Mens rights we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think its oppression under the government, but rather the right to not get criticized publicly or legally when accusing someone of statutory or non statutory rape simply because you are ma…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:45 AM
7

You're making it a drinking age/consent age is fucked up issue. Mens rights men and women sharing the same amount of responsibility in society. There were many comments saying what an idiot the guy was for telling his mom. I'm pretty sure if the genders were reversed the top comments wouldn't be what an idiot the girl was for telling a on the guy giving the dick. As far as consent and alcohol go sure you could make the case that they're physically ready for anything (although everyone develops d…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:07 AM
1

Well, legalizing robbery would also get rid of all crimes related to robbery wouldn't it? Which I'm assuming is a lot. This is a pretty blatant strawman so I'm done. That and it's clear we don't agree on some fundamental things, but I have to make one more comment. So 90% of their stop and frisks were unsuccessful? Oh; except for the 1/10 frisks that turn up contraband, half of which are black people. If 55% of the people searched are black and we assume a normal distribution, 55% of the success…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:06 PM
1

That's because it isn't. It is the police department's job to respond, investigate and arrest crime and criminals. Preventing it before it happens is a methodology that's been adopted sometime in the recent past to 'stop crime before it happens! great idea!'. So as of now it is their job or not...? Legalizing drugs wouldn't get rid of crime. Legalizing drugs would get rid of criminal convictions, but not stop crime. It's not like people wouldn't still be robbing, murdering and fucking one anothe…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 10:54 PM
2

Not exactly the topic of the article, but how is this whole Anthony Wiener debacle not slut shamming? You would think feminism would be all over this.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:25 PM
2

I'm saying that stopping people who have committed crimes is reacting to crime, not preventing it. These frisking measures are a preventative measure*; much like the searches at an airport. Huh? But in your last post you just said that it's not a cops job to prevent crime. Also there are other ways to prevent crime, that really doesn't involve policing. One is to legalize drugs (note I don't want to get in to a legalization debate, just stating that stop and frisk isn't the only/best way to solv…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:25 PM
1

I'm in the opposite I guess. I think our liberties are very important, and a safe paternalistic government isn't worth losing them.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:10 AM
1

Really you think one gun/weapon arrest out of the thousands who are searched justifies it? That's actually crazy. I know you could be speaking in hyperbole, but cmon. You could start a curfew and prevent/catch a ton of crime, but that doesn't mean its worth it.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:46 AM
3

Considering the job of the police is not to PREVENT crime, but respond to it; how do you propose that they get their numbers down? Which is what society demanded? What society still wants? I'm not sure what you mean by this. By numbers down do you mean stopping less innocent people? I also don't know why those last two sentences are referring to. My solution is to stop people when there is evidence of crimes being committed instead of suspicion. If that doesn't work then they're not very good at…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:45 AM
4

"Inconveniencing" (violating personal rights) of 90% to catch 10% doesn't make sense. Using race or gender as a justification for those violations makes even less sense. Also an airport and a public sidewalk are very different things, although I'm not 100% cool with racial profiling there either
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:42 AM
-2

Like this
/r/MensRights16/07/13 05:30 AM
1

Laws don't do much? Literally millions of slaves were freed after the law was changed during the Civil War. 150 years later and the culture basically makes a 180 but in between then and now a lot more laws were needed to ensure everyone was being treated in an equal/fair way. I don't know what country you're from, but in the US laws actually affect how people act
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:26 AM
5

Yeah this really seems more like a troll blog than anything
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:34 AM
1

You and I guess op either don't understand it when people tell you to recognize your privilege, or had it explained to you incorrectly (or at least my understanding of it). The idea behind checking your privilege is understanding the social differences and advantages you have over other who lack that privilege (whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation, class etc.). It's not only male privilege that exists, but that is one of them. It's not that you or others with privilege have it easy, bu…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 06:07 AM
2

In that sense it is arbitrary, but that's the case for most laws that depend on age, so that becomes a different argument. Edit: (In my state at least you have to wait until 17 but can get your permit at 16, but that really doesn't matter.) In the US at least there is an understanding of the difference between being a legal adult (18) and being a 16/17 year old with a job and a license.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 02:54 AM
1

If your point isn't "statutory rape is not as bad (or bad at all?) if the 15 year old wanted it" then its a misunderstanding. What were you saying?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 02:51 AM
-2

whoosh I agree a 15 year old most likely would want to fuck the hot teacher. A 15 year old is also likely to want to skip school and party and drink all the time. Do you still not see why what the 15 year old wants is totally irrelevant?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 02:30 AM
-1

Yes because a 15 year old boy always knows whats best for him. If he wants it must be good -_-
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:35 AM
2

You sort of make it unclear, because an adult is (almost) always in a position of power next to a minor. Just by being a minor there is a cultural aspect that says "I still don't have full adult rights like this legal adult". Its not a arbitrary # if it's imprinted in the culture.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:27 AM
1

I don't view it as a perfect study, but I dont think the results should be totally thrown out as this isn't the only study to find the same thing about purchasers bias.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 04:41 AM
2

That was a pretty well thought out response. I'm glad you admit the existence of racism, but I'm still not sure why you don't think it's an example of racism. Ok maybe the buyers aren't thinking "hmm I'm going to buy from the white guy because he's racially superior", but there has to be some type of conscious or subconscious idea that white seller is superior to black seller. Also for you there might be a difference between racial discrimination (difference?) and "racism" but for me they're the…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:27 PM
1

... ok but that's where some of the problems occur, if the other factors (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.) help or hurt your situation theres a problem. It effects the poor most because social mobility, which is a goal of many becomes more difficult. At the top even if there is a discrepancy (unless its an extreme case) can only hurt or help so much. If he was saying the effect is lessened (or eliminated) with wealth there still a whole lot of poor people being effected
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:16 PM
0

Way to put words in my mouth, I never used the term white privilege patriarchy or any "feminist" buzz words as per your request. All I did was give you an example where a white male was favored in modern society over a non-white male. I'm still confused as to how you don't see it as exactly what you asked for. Because its an ebay purchase that makes it ok for racial preference? That's your response?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 07:59 PM
-1

How large scale does a study have to be for it to be accurate for you? As I'm sure you saw there was another study on the same page talking about sales of ipods rather than cards which found similar discrepancies. I never said it was representative of the whole population but I don't see how that matters at all. If you had believed the study would your response be that its ok because its only a representation of Ebay shoppers? Why shouldn't I post links to journalists commenting a study? The one…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:07 PM
-1

Thanks for defining racism for me /s So using race as a signal that the product is worth less isn't an example of racism? Oh and those correlation are called stereotypes. I wasn't trying to prove racism because we know racists exist; I was trying to give an example where a white male was favored in society. Are you saying racism doesn't exist or needs to be proven to you?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:34 PM
1

Are you serious? To me it seems like you're denying/turning a blind eye to racism. You might not have heard of this study here which is fair, but to imply there are no instances in moderen society where racism occurs is insane. Edit: for grammar
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:46 AM
2

Ironically, anyone else be they white or not or male or not are treated with just as much value when they have just as much social capital or money. I'm really confused by what you mean by this. Are you saying a rich white man is treated the same as a rich black man, a poor hispanic is treated the same as a poor asian? If so I'm going to disagree with you on that one
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:33 AM
2

...You're supposed to link us to a screen shot
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:01 AM
1

I'm sorry but yes it is a bit silly. Appreciation days tend to be about things that get overlooked. No ones overlooking white men's place in history/politics. That's most of what is studied and talked about.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 02:08 PM
11

My mistake I thought we prosecuted people for breaking the law, not what it accomplishes
/r/MensRights23/11/12 09:02 AM
27

a lot more than locking someone up for something they didn't do...
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:32 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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