TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

lanana Archive

View 0 posts and 217 comments by lanana 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)
2

There were definitely a ton of pre-med women when I was in school. I was chemical engineering and women were more than half of the class.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:41 AM
2

I was pretty sure med school is about 50/50 now. Also, the over abundance of women in nursing could very well be due to a lack of interest on the part of men. If no men are applying to be nurses and teachers, then of course you will end up with a large percent of female nurses. I think in general both genders may be hesitant to go into fields that are extremely skewed. Even if everyone is perfectly nice and friendly, no one wants to be the odd one out.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:40 AM
2

Considering the large percentage of female doctors, I don't think it's accurate to say that women aren't interested in becoming doctors.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 02:23 AM
1

True. My sister wanted a much less expensive ring, and her husband insisted on Tiffany's
/r/MensRights04/04/14 02:43 AM
1

Remember the 80s? Tights as pants were all the rage.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 03:48 PM
1

Ok, but since they are not actually counted in the "wage gap" statistic, that seems like a different topic.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 11:10 PM
1

Yes, but all of those things are for the household, not personal discretionary spending, which is what it sounds like the way it is phrased above. Goes along with the role of managing the household.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 11:07 PM
1

Also, pretty sure the wage gap only counts those with full time jobs, so stay at home moms shouldn't be counted in the stat anyways
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:00 PM
1

The "spending gap" is because women do a disproportionate amount of the shopping for things like groceries and household goods, so not sure what you're trying to say with that...
/r/MensRights24/03/14 03:59 PM
3

This. There are laws in place to do this properly to make sure all parties are protected. If you don't do things under the correct legal framework, you are leaving yourself open to liability. Not saying he should have to pay here, but like many other facets of our society, taxes, running a business, if you don't go through the proper legal channels, you are leaving yourself open to getting screwed later. As much as people like to rage about sperm donors having to pay child support, as far as I'v…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 08:11 PM
2

If this is the same case I saw on CNN this week, it's the state going after the child support, not the women. The women applied for aid from the state, and the state, wanting to recoup it's expense, went after the father.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 08:03 PM
5

Just an observation, though, trash talking and over the top threats seems to be much more a part of male culture than female culture. Hanging out with my guy friends, or watching my husband interact with his buddies, they say some of the most heinous shit to each other, but it's all good because everyone knows they're all joking and that's just the way they interact with each other. Women, for the most part, for whatever reason, just don't interact like that. Ever hear a woman go up to another w…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 07:55 PM
3

They are out there, of course, but the number awarded and dollar amount are far far lower than one would think given the frequency and vehemence with which it is brought up here. The impression on these threads makes it sound like every woman is showered with aid with no effort whatsoever. In reality, the number of these given is so minuscule as to be irrelevant to the vast majority of college students. In addition, these are private scholarship funds which can do as they like with their money. …
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:51 PM
0

And yet neither side, amusingly, can accept that statement.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:56 AM
1

If it makes you feel any better, I doubt this add will attract any. More likely nauseate any already inclined to sign up.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:54 AM
-12

It's really not better than most, but it thinks it is the way Fox News thinks it is fair and balanced. Not to say I disagree with the overall aims of the sub, but the hive mind and woman bashing are strong in here.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:09 AM
2

This. Seriously. Why do more people not take responsibility like this. I get that sex is fun, but take a couple easy steps to be responsible.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:48 AM
1

Hey, who cares, I'll vote with my $$$ . If designers want to make games for a 100% male audience, go for it. I'll buy games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age which have awesome male and female characters and a large following of both genders, just because I think they are better games. I'm not going to get all offended at the lame scantily clad women in games, I just won't buy them if its a crappy game.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:34 AM
2

You say she didn't tell you she was on birth control. Did you ask??? Did you wear a condom?? It's within the first week or two of dating and you didn't take the slightest precaution? Not to excuse any shittyness on her part or the inequality of the system, but damn, take a little responsibility man. Having just gotten into a more casual sex scene, I am appalled with how many men will not insist on a condom or even ask if I am on birth control. I am always the one who has to insist on condom use.…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:23 AM
3

You may not. Many men do. When my sister got a raise which bumped her above her husband's salary, he made sure to let everyone know when he was back on top again, proclaiming 'all was right with the world'. My friend's husband refused to take any job that paid less than his wife. I've been the sole breadwinner for almost 2 years now, while my husband is working to start his own business. He had a really hard time with it for a long time. Commented once that it made him feel like his 'balls were …
/r/MensRights21/02/13 09:56 PM
2

Or, you know, because men are not actually guns and women targets, it is biologically easier to stop one egg on a hormonal cycle than it is to stop thousands of sperm that are always ready to go.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:45 AM
9

Whenever I went to clubs with girls I used to date, they would dress up nicer than when they were around me which led me to believe they wanted to look nice for other men. Clubs have dress codes. Of course they're not just going to wear their every day hanging out clothes. And it's fun to have a reason to get a little dressed up. That's pretty paranoid to assume they're doing it for other men. Most people will dress extra nice when going to a venue where EVERYONE ELSE is also dressing extra nice…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 05:23 PM
2

but what i do not have control over is the conscious actions behind the words that were said to me."trust" "everything is fine", those mean nothing to me until i see that she is in fact not pregnant. Of course..... I'm not sure what else you were expecting here. You chose to trust and not take matters into your own hand. The same would be true for STDs. Either of you could say "trust me, I got tested, I'm clean". And you're still taking a risk by taking the other person at face value and having …
/r/MensRights07/07/12 08:07 PM
4

Glad to see you are so concerned with equality. He didn't, and SHE didn't insist either. She CLAIMED to have an IUD, that's ALL that can be said there. If she has an IUD, this is a logical reason for HER not to insist on a condom, since she is already confident in her birth control method. If he wants that same confidence, than he needs to have his own birth control method. If you continue to have it both ways, then tell me why a man should EVER trust a woman, considering his 'rights' are subjec…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 07:15 PM
5

Which amounts to, from a guy's standpoint "trust me, I have it covered'. With the spectre of lifelong poverty and prison if it turns out she really is 'like that'. Oh, and NO recourse at all... Yup. Which is why responsible guy should WEAR A CONDOM. Especially for a one night stand where you have no reason to trust your partner. Both men and women need to be responsible for their own birth control. If the male pill ever comes out, you had better believe, I will still be adamant about using my ow…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:58 PM
2

If she is already has an IUD, then of course she doesn't want to take the morning after pill. There is no reason to. If the guy is so concerned about making sure she's not pregnant he should be responsible for his own birth control and wear a fucking condom not try to make her take drugs after the fact.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:52 PM
2

Yes. Don't you remember that story in the news a few years back when a man dropped off his seven kids at a safe haven site?
/r/MensRights01/07/12 04:45 PM
1

Did your wife have a job/ career plan before you got married? Was the degree a going back to school thing after a long time out if the workforce? How long has she been subbing or doing any kind of work?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:35 PM
2

What do you suggest instead? That women should at 18 make the choice to forgo college in the hopes that someday they might 1.) find a man to marry 2.) be able to have kids and 3.) have that man make enough money to support the family on 1 income? That's a pretty big gamble to make at 18 when you have no idea what life has in store. If you were a woman would you abandon all preparations to be able to financially support yourself and risk your financial security on being able to find someone to do…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 04:36 PM
5

I find it ironic that is comment is posted on the same day as the post asking why can't men wear dresses, which bemoans the rigidity of male gender expectations. It seems one faction of MRAs wants to free us from traditional gender roles, while those like yourself seem want to put us all back into our gender boxes where women have to act 'like women' and men have to act 'like men'. Sure, freeing men and women from their gender boxes is going to mean that some women are not going to fit your idea…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:07 AM
5

Nothing to protest? How about all the research development? If they're so adamantly against it, it doesn't exactly make sense to wait until it's on the market to start protesting. Besides, every time it comes up here, I keep hearing that the reason that the male pill isn't available is because of feminist opposition. If they're really the major opposing force keeping the male pill off the market, I would just think it would be easier to find evidence of widespread feminist opposition.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:49 AM
1

Off topic, but I've heard this whole women becoming men thing several times around here, and I'm always curious what exactly you mean by that. As in what are women now doing that you think should be reserved for men only?
/r/MensRights15/05/12 02:22 AM
11

That was my thought about this too. I keep hearing this claim over and over that feminists are rabidly against male birth control, but I haven't seen much evidence that that is the case. In fact a quick search of the topic mostly just brings up this interview (in which we are hearing about the account second hand and from only one side), and several men's sites that just make the unsourced claim that feminists hate male birth control. The only actual feminist sites I came across were positive on…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 02:13 AM
7

As I recall the 480 days are for both parents to share as they see fit. 60 of those days were then reserved for fathers in a 'use it or lose it' fashion to encourage more fathers to take some of the time and to help employers and fathers get over any stigma against paternity leave. Seems ok to me, apart from being a crazy long leave time compared to what we get in the US
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:57 PM
5

Um, you don't treat them as a whole. You treat them as human beings and individuals just like men should be treated.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:14 AM
1

I pay that in birth control every month... And that's a fixed cost whether or not I even have sex that month. At least yours is pay per play :P
/r/MensRights16/04/12 03:31 PM
2

That's why adoption requires legal documentation. If the adoption was just formed by undocumented oral agreement you probably could.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:57 PM
1

That's a good point, but then with that same argument, the Indian version may never make it through FDA approval here. And, by the way, I'm not sure which way you're intending here, but I often see this misattributed to some conspiracy the part of the FDA. The FDA does not care how cheap your drug is, it's the pharma company who has to pay for the clinical trials that does. Clinical trials are ENORMOUSLY expensive. If the company does not think that the drug will be profitable enough for them to…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 09:25 PM
-11

It sounds like you think that because your ex-wife has a good job and gets help from her parents that you shouldn't have to pay anything to help support your kids.....
/r/MensRights26/02/12 12:51 AM
3

Disingenuous headline is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 02:43 PM
1

It also says that male teachers give boys inflated marks compared to the control and graded girls at equal marks with the control.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 11:34 PM
1

Yes, a breakdown be gender would be great. But I dont know why you insit that it must be a vast majority of men they are afraid of marriage when the article seems to indicate they they found it was actually the other way around.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 02:17 AM
1

So what you're saying is girls now have far less emotional baggage.....?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 04:44 AM
1

Ironically, the same thing can be said about many here regarding men ;)
/r/MensRights31/12/11 04:23 AM
2

It's also a very prevalent statement around here....
/r/MensRights31/12/11 03:39 AM
4

I don't know about moody. I would say maybe serious or focused. I definitely find my husband extra irresistible when he is studying intently ;)
/r/MensRights31/12/11 03:24 AM
2

However some interviewees, particularly women, saw marriage as a “trap” that would burden them with greater expectations and prove difficult to get out of. “This flies in the face of the idea that men are the ones who must be dragged to the altar.”
/r/MensRights31/12/11 03:06 AM
8

I can envision many situations which can be mutually beneficial. If a collection of single women were to get together and decide it would be most efficient for one to stay home and watch the kids while the rest could continue their careers and support the household. Or by living together they could share the cost of hired in-home child care as well as household chores and babysitting for each other in off-work hours. You seem to be under the impression that all women do is cat fight all the time…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:05 AM
5

Woah there buddy. That's a lotta rage. Not sure what your problem with women is, but many of us can get along just fine.....
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:24 AM
5

What competition? And how are women acting like men? By getting a job?? What would you prefer?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:17 AM
2

Not sure what being a pot dealing pizza delivery-man has anything to do with not wanting to get married. It is possible to get a job and support yourself and avoid women/marriage. The 'failure to launch' problem seems to have more to do with him not making any effort to support himself at the age of 24. By all means play video-games and smoke pot and stay single if that's what makes you happy. I know many successful guys (and gals) who do, but make sure you can support yourself in the process. A…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:57 AM
3

I believe the problem with comments such as yours is timing. Giving tips on how to prevent rape to someone who has just been raped is not helpful to that person. They can't undo the act, go back and be more careful, so it comes off as just rubbing salt in the wounds. Women are routinely given advice on how to minimize their risk for sexual assault, so to say that giving such advice is somehow objectionable to women is just untrue. Through college I had many a dorm meeting where the RA's would em…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 04:24 AM
2

The benefits are gender neutral, why do you assume that only the woman gets the benefits? It seems many here are stuck in the paradigm that the man is always the sole breadwinner. My husband currently benefits from nearly free health and dental insurance through my job as well as my income which has given him the stability to quit his job and work on starting his own business. If you choose a relationship in which the benefits are all unidirectional, that is entirely up to you.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 03:42 PM
1

As an aside, how does one even get anonymity in these cases? It seems in all the dubious to false cases frequently discussed her ( assange, dsk, duke, etc.) the accuser has always been known. Does one have to make a special request for anonymity?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 11:59 PM
3

Just curious, but have you heard of a case where a man has accused a woman of rape with no proof where he has not been protected by anonymity?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 11:55 PM
2

Do you know other states that are gender specific? My understanding is that most states limit the age of the child that may be surrendered, but have you heard of any that specify the gender of the abandonee?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 11:48 PM
4

99% of your profs were female? What kind of major were you in? I was in engineering and I can count the number of female profs I had on one hand. (including electives).
/r/MensRights30/07/11 11:41 PM
4

regarding (4), I don't think save haven laws are gender specific as written. Remember that case a couple years back in Nebraska where a father dropped off 9 kids at a safe haven? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26887181/ns/us_news-life/t/father-abandons-kids-under-safe-haven-law/
/r/MensRights30/07/11 04:42 PM
36

In my experience HR Isn't really in charge of the hiring, just in charge of the paperwork. The manager in charge of the position makes the actual hiring decisions.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 03:46 AM
2

It's interesting to me to heard guys also had a negative reaction to the sugar and spice thing growing up. I had the opposite feeling towards this. As a little girl I always hated that I was stuck with boring things like sugar and spice, and jealous that boys got the way cooler snails an puppy dog tails. :P
/r/MensRights03/05/11 03:19 AM
3

By the way, I think those are all great goals, I just don't understand why you feel the need to devalue and insult women in the process.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 12:29 AM
3

Do you not find it contradictory that you both encourage men to shun traditionalism and advocate that the only roles women are capable of filling are traditionalist ones (childcare and typing)?
/r/MensRights02/05/11 12:02 AM
1

So what exactly is your goal here with this post in regards to modern society and how each gender should live? What is your ideal world order?
/r/MensRights01/05/11 10:10 PM
9

If you had intended to make this purely about physical differences between men and women, you could have, and perhaps had a stronger argument. Though in talking about primitive societies, you might acknowledge that childbirth also carried a substantial risk for women each and every time, and is still the leading cause of death for reproductive age women in developing countries. Regardless, you didn't stop there. That you condescendingly characterized woman's usefulness outside of child rearing a…
/r/MensRights01/05/11 08:47 PM
6

If 99% of the world's male population were to perish in some hypothetical scenario, I have no doubt that women would necessarily step into these roles and make it work rather than sit back and let humanity die off as you suggest. Lauding male accomplishments does not need to come at the expense of denigrating female capabilities
/r/MensRights01/05/11 05:10 PM
1

I am curious as to what core message you gleaned from this: Women, despite whatever deluded notions we currently maintain about their capabilities, would do nothing but ensure the end of the human race were they collectively given anything to do outside of childrearing, typing and complaining.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 07:02 AM
7

This is the line in question: Women, despite whatever deluded notions we currently maintain about their capabilities, would do nothing but ensure the end of the human race were they collectively given anything to do outside of childrearing, typing and complaining. You really think that if women were given responsibilities outside childrearing and typing that that would ensure the end of the human race? Why is this exactly? "Despite what delusions we maintain about their capabilities" how else am…
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:59 AM
5

During primitive times, I agree these roles were necessary, and largely based on biology. Women, having no method of birth control likely spent a large portion of their healthy adult years either nursing or pregnant, while men being physically stronger were the more logical choice for the physically demanding provider role. However, we are no longer in primitive times, and modern technology now frees us from both of these roles to a large extent. So I am curious to what extent you think the 'nat…
/r/MensRights01/05/11 02:02 AM
2

Yes, I realize they were falsely imprisoned. They were falsely convicted the same way murder suspects (who also have no victim to testify against them) are falsely convicted, by poor policework and a desire to put someone away for the crime no matter what. It was not her word, versus theirs, as you claim. She did not testify that she saw them, or even knew them. As far as I can find she testified that she did not recognize the suspects and had no memory of the attack. Now how is that bad on her?…
/r/MensRights18/04/11 12:13 AM
3

the other victims (the wrongfully accused men) suffered at the hands of the police when they forced some of the "confessions" out of them. Yes, the POLICE were the ones who clearly fucked up here. And yes, the wrongfully accused are 100% victims here. But to try to make it seem like the woman is maliciously trying to implicate the wrong men, or even that it is her fault that she did not correctly identify the right person after being assaulted in the dark and beaten within an inch of her life it…
/r/MensRights17/04/11 10:33 PM
13

Although, to be fair, downvoting because you disagree with something isn't the way it's supposed to work.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 06:44 PM
1

Not sure where you're getting the polyandry bit. It sounds to me like she's talking about multiple successive monogamous relationships.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 12:07 AM
1

That was the first thing that came to my mind as well :P
/r/MensRights26/03/11 01:06 AM
4

And, though I don't have stats in front of me, I'll bet many of then voted for the Iraq war.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 12:13 AM
3

In case you haven't noticed, there are many women in the U.S. senate now ;)
/r/MensRights26/03/11 12:10 AM
4

And of course, all that aside, I do have to roll my eyes every time someone comes up with the ridiculously stupid premise that if women ruled the world things would be all peace and sunshine. Besides just being human nature, I think we have enough hawkish female politicians to disprove this already.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 11:31 PM
5

Not even just that, but many colleges didn't even admit women at that time. Harvard law didn't admit women until 1950, and women undergraduates even later. Princeton and Johns Hopkins didn't admit women undergrads until 1969. And in 1969 when my mother graduated high school, her high school guidance counselor told her she could go to college to be a nurse or a teacher, that was it. Like you said, it takes time for things to change. Just giving them the right to vote, doesn't mean they had the ed…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 11:13 PM
1

Are you a guy? I doubt it happens much in crowded areas or places where there are other guys around. Every instance I can think of I've been alone (usually out jogging) or in a group of all girls.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:37 PM
1

Sigh..... you don't know anything about me or how I handle random encounters. Just because I don't want them doesn't mean I am not very polite. And as I am already very unavailable and have been for a long time, it doesn't matter how attractive or unattractive they are, I am not going to be interested in anything more than a friendly chat, and with all the negativity about 'friendzoning' around here, I hardly think that most guys in the bar are looking to become my new BFF, making the inevitable…
/r/MensRights23/03/11 02:35 PM
1

Or...... it makes me uncomfortable because I am socially awkward and have trouble making conversation with strangers.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 02:26 PM
1

So........... kind of like how some guys on here who insist I should feel flattered and grateful in such an instance rather than the reality where I feel awkward and uncomfortable?
/r/MensRights23/03/11 05:52 AM
8

Ok, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'll bite. This whole women have it so easy sentiment expressed by the over there and here is I think caused by the disconnect between what men imagine would happen and what actually does. I think guys that whey guys say this, they imagine that were the situations reversed, how awesome it must be to just sit back and get approached and hit on by young beautiful women all the time. In reality, since most normal people generally go to the bars to hang out…
/r/MensRights22/03/11 06:02 PM
4

Well said. This is the way it should be. And if you let you life be dictated by anything else, that's your choice too. It's useless to blame it on others.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 11:32 PM
0

This article is just as silly and insulting as the first one. While most of the men could be found drinking a beer or scotch, dressed in a button-down and jeans, most of the women were sporting tight jeans, high heels, and plunging necklines. Seriously? I doubt men's choice not to wear tight jeans and high heels to a bar is due to modesty rather than socially acceptable fashion differences between men and women. By 2am, it is almost always the girls who are the ones downing shots, screaming alon…
/r/MensRights26/02/11 11:23 PM
6

Exactly! That's my feeling about this whole silly back and forth. It's just people trying to force their preferred lifestyle choices on others.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 10:54 PM
1

I agree. There is a difference between this and being acquitted in a he-said-she-said, where no one really knows what happened. Sending the accuser to jail sends the public message of who was the perp and who was the victim in this situation. I think most people would feel bad that he was the victim of a crazy person. Another reason (besides preventing these cases from happening) that demonstrably false accusers should be punished.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 10:14 PM
0

This is always my feeling when this statement comes up. Additionally complicating the issue is the large disparity in sentences given for people convicted. How would you even decide what the hypothetical sentence would be for a case that never went to trial? Better just to treat it as an independent crime with a punishment sufficient to deter anyone considering committing it. I think 18 months is more than sufficient. If it were widely know that you could get a year and a half in jail for making…
/r/MensRights26/02/11 10:07 PM
4

What sort of result could give a negative test? Are you just talking about chimerism, or is there something else? I think at least for the former, the father at least appears to be related to the child by DNA testing, it just appears as if he is an uncle, so by testing all his brothers, you could probably still get a pretty conclusive idea.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 01:10 AM
20

This should definitely already be the case. If a named as the father, he should be able to unilaterally order a paternity test. As a woman, however, I would rather they just be mandatory for everyone, because to be honest, I can't deny that I would be a little sad if my husband asked for a paternity test, but if it's just one of the many tests and requirements done at birth, then it's no big deal. Like when they had the blood tests required before you got your marriage certificate. It's no big d…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 12:57 AM
5

Ok, not to in any way defend her ridiculous reaction, and I have no idea in what context this discussion was taking place, but I think it is fair to say that in general if you are talking to a random member of the public, it is likely that the have NO IDEA what men's rights is or what they stand for. To someone with no background or awareness of the issues, it might well sound like, "so what do you think of white rights?" It might be more productive to lead with your list of issues, or a particu…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 01:44 AM
10

Or people could just stay out of other people's sex lives. I never understand the obsession with moralizing what other people do in their bedrooms.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:08 AM
3

I have no problem with Wikipedia the way it is. I also don't have a problem with encouraging more people to participate as long as they keep it open just like always, which they are.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:03 AM
2

No one is saying there should be a quota. And I never said they need to do anything. I pointed out that article is merely wondering how to get more women involved. An interesting questions at least. I personally could care less who posts to Wikipedia. And in general, as long as everyone has equal opportunities, I don't care how the ratios work out. You on the other hand posted this: Why the fuck is it her business to invade any male space? Which makes it sound like you feel wikipedia should be f…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:02 AM
1

You're still young and idealistic. Be glad for that. Nice way to just dismiss everything I have to say. I'm probably still older than the average here, and have kept an 11 year relationship going this way on staying honest. I don't think it is healthy for any longterm relationship to really fully know the other person. Then don't be surprised when they turn out to be different than what you think they are. Not saying that you can know someone 100%, there is always more to learn, but if you base …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:38 AM
2

It must be common because Hollywood stereotypes tell me so. In reality, I don't know any couples that are like this, at least ones that are under the age of 40. But then, I'm a science nerd, so everyone I know is kinda wierd anyways :P . I wonder if it's because we're fed this idea that men and women aren't supposed to be able to understand each other. The whole men are from mars women are from venus stupidity. So people put up with this irrational way of life because they think that's the way i…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:02 AM
-3

Are you claiming wikipedia as male space? Should we just ban all women contributors now? Undermining the creation? You really think increasing the contributor base is undermining the creation? No one is trying to diminish the efforts of everyone involved in it's creation to date. Just pondering out how to get a wider variety of people to contribute.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:33 AM
4

Exactly. I don't think anyone is blaming men. That would be ridiculous. Just trying to figure out how to get more women interested as the more people interested, the broader and more complete the project it.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:21 AM
3

It is amazing to me that anyone might actually think this is some sort of revelation. Seriously, how hard is it NOT TO LIE to your partner. If you need to lie in order to keep the relationship going, how is that not a GIANT clue that you should not be in that relationship. Anyone who spends their whole relationship with someone lying to them and pretending to be someone else, deserves what they get. I've never lied to my partner, and he has never lied to me. Just treat each other like human bein…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:15 AM
1

I agree. This also largely explains the gap between married women and single or lesbian women without the need for baseless editorializing that women just aren't trying because they expect a man to come along and take care of them. Society is still more accepting of women sacrificing careers to take time off for a baby, or in the case of one commenter, giving up a job so that your spouse can move to a better opportunity than vice versa. So these choices (and yes, I agree that they are choices, u…
/r/MensRights29/01/11 11:52 PM
1

Fundamentally, they don't like it when fewer attractive men are available to them. I think there are enough straight men out there that it's not a problem. Do men really worry about lesbians shrinking their dating pool?
/r/MensRights29/01/11 11:40 PM
0

No, what the study says is that women will reject them if they have sex with another man. Probably because they feel that this indicates that their that their partner is not truly attracted to them. There is a big difference between not being homophobic, and actually sleeping with another man. Additionally even being macho or manly has nothing to do with being homophobic. You can certainly be seen as manly without actively hating gays.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 09:53 PM
0

I agree. Although I think society is on its way to finally becoming accepting of homosexuality in general. But the difference, as you say, is that it seems that for some reason lesbian experiences are seen as less serious. So if a man's wife cheats with another woman, it's not seen as an indicator as sexual orientation, just an experiment. I would imagine that he would be more threatened by his wife sleeping with another man, than with a woman. Based on pop culture treatment of male and female s…
/r/MensRights29/01/11 09:40 PM
3

Women dont like gay men because they are worthless to them in terms of resources. Women don't like gay men? Seriously?? So where does this stereotype of gay men with their female BFFs come from? Why are there so many women at gay bars? Women love gay men. Every gay guy I've know has a ton of gal pals.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 09:14 PM
0

they take any Guy suspected of same sex relations, even just a history, off the dating table It can't possibly be because they think that a man who is attracted to men won't be interested in them.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 08:53 PM
0

It looks like they did that. He ruled that £9 million of the assets belonged solely to Mr Jones because they were effectively generated before the marriage in 1996, leaving £16 million to be shared
/r/MensRights28/01/11 05:10 PM
1

My point is that most on here are assuming that the only thing at fault for this dynamic is the woman's desire to marry up, and completely dismissing that the men also contribute by refusing to marry women with higher education/status. Even if the women completely drop their status requirement, the system stays in place if the men will only marry women with status below theirs. Personally I find both requirements to be shallow and self-centered. Women wanting increased status, and men wanting to…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 04:40 AM
1

1.) If we take what the author says as true: "men have to marry downwards. It is humiliating for a Chinese man to be married to a woman with a higher or even equal income. Instead, men prefer to marry women slightly below them on the social ladder." "Yi men may need money a little more, but not enough to suffer the humiliation of a wife with a higher income." Then given the pyramid nature of social status, the Jia, Yi and Bing men all have lots of women to choose from who are slightly below them…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 04:24 AM
1

"the proportional amount of men being open to date up would be pretty substantial" Are you basing this on your personal knowledge of Chinese culture, or just making it up because you think it should be true? The article, on which we are basing this discussion, indicates otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/01/11 02:27 AM
4

You make a specific point to say that all men are not the same, but not so for the women. Also you make this statement to indicate that despite the prejudices held by chinese men, these women should have no problem finding a mate as there are "plenty of men" who will accept them. So then similarly the men should have no problem then since there should be "plenty of women" who think differently, right? In reality, I think it would be very difficult for both the men and the women in these groups s…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 01:44 AM
4

You're perfectly sure? So she just has to find that one guy out there who is desperate enough to get married that he will ignore his pride and actually deign to marry her, and hope that they have something in common and can make a relationship work. Would you say that to the Ding men out there too? Oh, don't worry that 99% of the women won't date you because of your status, there's always some woman out there desperate enough to marry you if you lower your standards enough. And everyone I've tal…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 01:11 AM
3

That's pretty funny that you say "Even in China, not all men are the same" but then go on to say that women everywhere are the same!
/r/MensRights28/01/11 12:56 AM
1

They are talking about China. Did you read the article?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 10:40 PM
1

They're talking about China here. Apparently men there are not willing to marry a woman that makes more than them.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 10:26 PM
3

The problem is that even if she is willing to "marry down" the men won't marry someone who makes more than them men prefer to marry women slightly below them on the social ladder..... marrying upwards would be a humiliation.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 10:25 PM
1

Really? This is your solution rather than addressing the cultural attitudes that are not accepting of men marrying women that make more than them?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 10:22 PM
1

I wonder if this might be at least partly due to a supply and demand problem. If women get rejected by men at the same rate that men get rejected by women, or if they have to work as hard to get laid, I think things would start to even out.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 05:29 PM
2

I was just pointing out the interesting conclusion that when the woman makes more BOTH partners were more likely to cheat. The poster conveniently left out that part of the sentence. And if you're going to live by percentages, best to stay near zero rather than negative, since large negatives increase the man's chance of infidelity Ah, but maybe it doesn't make that much difference anyways: But factors having to do with money -- such as the man making more or less than his wife or female partner…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:33 AM
2

A new study finds that men are more likely to cheat if their income is much lower than what their wife or female partner makes, while women are more likely to fool around if they make more than their husband or male partner. On the other end of the spectrum, infidelity seemed to rise when one partner made a lot more money than the other. And that held true whether the man or the woman was the big wage earner.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:11 AM
2

The article, however, gives no indication that she in any way convinced him to do this. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. My brother in law punched some guy in a bar cause the guy just came up and stood too close to his girlfriend. It definitely wasn't something she wanted him to do. As long as we're just making up scenarios, maybe being that he's a british guy at a football game, he's probably drunk and full of adrenaline and sees his gf's ex and decides to attack him either in a jealous rage or…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 01:07 AM
5

You've never complained about an ex before? Would you expect that your SO would go punch them? Even if she explicitly told him to do it, which the article does not address, that just makes them both stupid. "My girlfriend said to" is not a valid excuse for assaulting someone.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:18 AM
7

Nope. Ruby Thomas and Joel Alexander were the ones convicted of manslaughter. She Ruby got 7 years. It doesn't say how Rachel was involved.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 08:41 PM
6

eyeroll . Because a man can't be responsible for his own behavior? Please. No one made him throw a punch.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 05:51 PM
3

She also doesn't accept criticism in comments. Eh? There were only 2 comments when you posted this and neither appeared to be by the author. Not sure why you made this comment.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 02:01 AM
3

In the U.S. both men and women can get the same 12 weeks of unpaid leave guaranteed by the Family Medical Leave Act.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:54 AM
3

It's going to be unfair to the kid to have a dad who didn't want him also. If the woman wants to keep the baby she'll have to find a way to make it work.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:27 AM
3

I absolutely disagree. Just because something is legal doesn't make it the right choice for everyone. I would vote to keep it legal, because I don't think it is my business to make that choice for other people, but that doesn't mean I am willing to do it myself. You yourself say you are opposed to abortion, does your personal belief change with whether it is legal or not? It is not just another form of birth control. It bothers me that it is treated by some as such an easy solution. Sure, some w…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:24 AM
1

And the woman in the picture is what they chose as their example of a sexy newswoman. Is she sexy? Yes! Very! She's also dressed nicely and professionally. Female anchors like male anchors usually dress in typical business professional attire, shirt and tie maybe jacket, women in nice blouse and maybe jacket. A fitted jacket and skirt is considered professional, and it will look sexy on an incredibly attractive woman like this. If she shows up in a shapeless jacket and no make-up like they used …
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:20 AM
1

Dressing like sluts? Really? The woman in the picture has a shirt that comes up to her collarbone. That's hardly slutty. What would you rather have her wear? Just because she's attractive, that doesn't make her slutty.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:51 PM
8

I agree, this would be ideal, however until we can grow babies in an incubator, all the burden falls on the woman to carry the baby for 9 months and give birth, a process which can have a large impact on work life, personal life, personal discomfort, and leave your body forever changed, so I am still not comfortable forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy that she doesn't want.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:25 PM
13

Couple puts all birth control responsibility in the woman's care It actually doesn't say this. It doesn't say what birth control they were using, or whose choice it was if they weren't using condoms. A man can always choose to be responsible for his own birth control. Hell, my sister and her husband are still double-protecting and they've been married 3 years, they just really, really don't want kids now. And secondly, it's a lot easier to agree not to have kids, and stay on birth control, assum…
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:07 PM
2

Yeah, but you can see how having to ask makes for an awkward situation. Better to just make it mandatory. The only thing then is everyone expects the gov't to pay for it. I say just tack it on to the many tests and fees already accumulated when a baby is born. Like a baby licensing fee ;), making sure it has 2 authentic parents to provide for it.
/r/MensRights24/01/11 10:05 PM
2

More like the opposite actually. They are trying to maintain gender balances through admissions (ie. for equally qualified applicants, admit the men instead). But if twice as many applicants are female and the female applicants are better qualified it is difficult to maintain an even ratio even if males are preferentially admitted. As to why there are fewer males applying and they have weaker high school performance records, and what can and should be done about it, seems to be still up for deba…
/r/MensRights24/01/11 08:33 PM
3

That doesn't even make any sense
/r/MensRights24/01/11 07:14 PM
1

Yeah. That was the weird part. It seemed like that was the intent, so they could clear everything up by just keeping it "second earners".
/r/MensRights24/01/11 12:59 AM
1

The only point I can see to give a tax break (or allow separate filing) to the partner making less money is for couples who keep their income separate. If they have to file together, then their household rate is based on their total household income, so the higher earning spouse pays a lower rate then they would if they were single, and the lower earning spouse pays a higher rate than if they were single. Personally, I think it's easier just to do a joint account, in which case this wouldn't mat…
/r/MensRights24/01/11 12:57 AM
1

Ok, before everyone goes crazy, can anyone clarify if this is meant to apply to all women, or just married women earning less than their spouses. The title and webpage seems to imply the former (hence the outrage). From the actual document, it is under the section "attracting second earners to the workforce" and appears to be just targeting spouses that are earning significantly less than their partners. The problem is that they use "second earners" and "women" interchangeably. Which is offensiv…
/r/MensRights24/01/11 12:48 AM
3

So are you a virgin too then, or do you just hold women to this standard?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 02:43 AM
2

Do you really think that a 4 hour multiple choice test is a good way to find the best person for a job? All that shows is that you're a good test taker, not that you're a good teacher or a good leader or good problem solver. I've seen many people who are brilliant people, but terrible teachers.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 11:20 PM
2

Here is a really nice research paper on title IX that presents, what seems to me to be a fair view of both sides of the issue. It's really worth a read. http://www.athleticscholarships.net/title-ix-college-athletics.htm some key points: A perspective on the time before title IX: -"For example, the wife of former U.S Senator Birch Bayh, a sponsor of Title IX in 1972, was denied admission to the University of Virginia before 1970 due to the Virginia State Law that prohibited women from entering th…
/r/MensRights13/01/11 08:33 PM
2

Of course. That's what satire does. In this case it's making fun of any women out there who actually think like this by showing how ridiculous and stupid it is. Like the other articles on there such as "Setting your gay daughter straight!" the author is not actually advocating for this, but making fun of the sad fact that there are people out there who actually believe that you can "cure" your gay children.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:37 AM
5

yes. it's a joke.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 06:52 PM
22

It's written by Ann Thrope.... as in Miss Ann Thrope....
/r/MensRights11/01/11 06:38 PM
8

Have you ever seen dildos in a public restroom?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 06:11 PM
2

I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I have actually already had my DNA tested just for the fun of it;) I'm just elaborating on the reasons that make some people uneasy. And these aren't trivial reasons. You say that you only have to worry if you commit a crime, but as others have mentioned either here or in the other thread, what if you were in an area just before a crime takes place and happen to leave DNA behind. Do we trust our justice system to get it right 100% of the time? Some people…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 05:53 PM
2

Privacy issues. Some people don't want their DNA on file. Maybe they don't trust the government with that kind of info. Or imagine if the insurance companies were able to get a hold of your genetic info. Now they have a whole new method to discriminate based on genetic propensity for disease or even markers guaranteeing preexisting conditions. Some people may think it's better just not to have that information stored in the first place in case it ends up being used against them.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 04:49 PM
2

I would comment, but you said it all. Have an upvote. :)
/r/MensRights21/10/10 10:00 PM
1

Maybe if you're just chasing superficial barbie dolls.... Maybe I'm just self selecting that being in a science/engineering field nearly all the people I hang out with and work with would be labeled nerds by society's standards. Lots of nerdy men, nerdy women, and fabulously geeky couples. My own husband was one of the nerdiest guys in his high school. I met him freshman year of college. He had just burned the recently released human genome sequence to CD and pasted it to his door, it was love a…
/r/MensRights21/10/10 01:50 AM
3

Wow, so you have to be overweight and disheveled to be a geek? Now that's just insulting to geeks everywhere. and Gary Cygax was married twice, so that's at least 2 women who wanted him ;)
/r/MensRights20/10/10 09:24 PM
16

Not more worthy, just easier to get, therefore costs less. Supply and demand. If one component to build a machine is much harder to get a hold of it will likely cost more than one which is in surplus even though both components are required to build the machine. If men all decide that the current compensation is not worth it for the effort required, than the price would need to go up to fill demand.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 08:23 PM
2

Good catch. The headline and the blog link are both completely misleading. Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women and men addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long term or permanent birth control. http://www.projectprevention.org/
/r/MensRights19/10/10 07:38 PM
1

For the draft, I would heartily agree that this is a huge problem. Now that they army is all volunteer, people make the choice to join knowing the possible outcomes.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 08:53 PM
1

with the military and dangerous jobs men do them because they don't have other options There are always other options, there will just be another tradeoff, likely lower pay or other undesirable options. You have to make the choice which is more important to you. Oil rig workers get paid quite well, but the job is dangerous. Your choice. People on here like to point out that much of the wage gap is due to women's choice to take less demanding jobs for lower pay, and that is valid. But then the sa…
/r/MensRights15/10/10 08:51 PM
1

It was perfectly clear to anyone who is not willfully trying to misread it. Also, a large contribution to that is likely gang violence, and according to this source 94% of gang members are male, so more males are going to end up victims of this violence. http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/statistics.html
/r/MensRights15/10/10 08:40 PM
1

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, I think this the problem some guys here have is that some women want to be treated as equals when it benefits them but also keep the old fashioned special treatment in cases like this also. I've always treated guys equals, and as partners (if we're dating), and hope to be treated as such in return. Therefore it has always seemed wrong to me to expect a man to pay for me, even on the first date, just because he is a man. Now some guys are also old fashioned, like yourself…
/r/MensRights14/10/10 06:49 PM
1

Why? Because it's a guy? Because it's a date? You're both on the date and both presumably interested in the other, why is the expectation that they guy should pay? Personally, I consider they guys I dated to be my peers, equals, friends and treat them as such. I also hate feeling like a mooch, so unless it's going to be a you pay this time, I pay next time situation (which for first dates, who knows if there is going to be a next time) I'd rather make sure I throw in for the bill. It seems extre…
/r/MensRights14/10/10 06:01 PM
2

I've heard that standard deviation thing before, and as an XX I'll say that if that's what the science shows, than I'll accept that. I think that sometimes in our quest to have all things equal we cannot forget that men and women are biologically different creatures and subject to different evolutionary pressures over the millenia, therefore expecting to have a 50/50 ratio for everything is just silly. The main goal should be that everyone has an equal chance and is judged on their character and…
/r/MensRights14/10/10 05:33 AM
4

Are you kidding? I've actually only ever seen bachelorrette or coed auctions. One of the frats on my previous campus would have a bachelor/bachlorette auction every year for charity. Bachelorette auctions were even a running thing on Arrested Development. Getting pretty desperate if now we're making up hypothethical feminist rage, eh ;)
/r/MensRights14/10/10 04:55 AM
3

If a girlfriend asks you if you want to go see a movie on Friday night, would you expect her to pay for you too? Why should it be any different for a date? Especially a first date, when you don't know if it will work out, or if there will be a chance to reciprocate. I would always offer to pay my share.
/r/MensRights14/10/10 12:43 AM
1

No one is saying you need to keep a logbook or anything. Just that one person or gender shouldn't be expected to do all of they paying
/r/MensRights13/10/10 11:29 PM
4

I've had two jobs where I had to wear at least 1 inch heels per the company dress code. And 1 inch heels are actually hard to find so usually end up being higher. I didn't make a big deal cause i was just interning, but they are out there. Just sayin
/r/MensRights09/10/10 08:00 PM
2

It's not the marriage, but weddings which are very expensive for those people who think they need to throw a big party (which is still a lot of people). So the prospect of spending tens of thousands on a wedding in a recession, may make people put it off a couple years.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:28 AM
0

yes, you can. And there are lots and lots of marathons that do. I don't see what's wrong with letting any one of those categories have their own race though. There's something to be said about being able to come in actual first place in a race. Would you be upset if they wanted to have a marathon just for 60+ age group? I think it would be pretty cool! They are at a physical disadvantage competing against younger runners in an open race. If they could have one race where there were competing in …
/r/MensRights23/09/10 01:11 AM
2

Seriously guys? As much as we like everything to be all equal, there are significant biological differences between men and women. Men as an aggregate are significantly stronger and faster than women. That's just biology. Do you think that men should be allowed to compete in the women's olympics too? And there are lots of men in these races, and the only ones that are getting a poor reception are the ones who run it just so they can run against weaker competition to get first place. Like this gu…
/r/MensRights23/09/10 12:55 AM
5

I'm glad it worked out :) My mom went through a crazy time when she hit menopause. It came super early and with all sorts of hormone imbalance problems. Once the Dr.s could figure it out and correct it, she was back to normal, but man, it was a lot to put up with for a while. Kudos to our dads for sticking it out. I guess you just have to know the person well enough to see if they're just going through a hard time, or if that's just their real personality.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 12:03 AM
11

Wow, uh, this seems kinda crazy. I couldn't imagine putting on some act just to test the poor guy I married. That said, even if it is a test or whatever, do you really want to be with someone who plays these kind of head games? And after only one week? I gotta wonder though, were there really no signs of crazy before getting married???? I can't imagine anyone having such a complete personality switch like that
/r/MensRights21/09/10 11:47 PM
2

Wow! I hadn't heard that the first one was a hoax. That's terrible! Especially tragic since it apparently inspired a copycat a few days later. http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20100917/Mesa-acid-victim-finds-hoax-attack-unbelievable/
/r/MensRights18/09/10 10:07 PM
2

How is this a double standard? What does junk food have to do with gender? And for that matter, age of consent also applies to boys and girls.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 09:33 PM
6

I agree these cases are all stupid overreaches by overzealous prosecutors, but how are these feminist laws? In the first one, the only one that mentioned feminists at all, the "feminist logic" blurb was just written by the posters and included only a quote from the male prosecutor. Not to mention both women and men get hurt by these laws. The breastfeeding ones? If anything, it's overzealous conservatives who freak out at the sight of a nipple.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 05:32 PM
7

Wow, you're dissing the sister who doesn't even exist?? That's low. I had two sisters and a brother and we all rotated the chores equally, meaning girls mowed lawn and boys did dishes And everyone did yard work.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 07:03 PM
1

Late reply, but yeah, while I don't think women need any special scholarships anymore, like Certhas said, this doesn't come anywhere near explaining the nearly 15% gap in college degrees obtained by women vs. men. It's a fairly small amount of total scholarships, and many are only for small token amounts, or have strict degree requirements like science and engineering. And I would bet that most of the recipients who are motivated enough to get these scholarships are probably going to go to colle…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 09:43 PM
2

I agree with you completely! As a woman with soon to be two degrees in engineering, I have never faced any discouragement or discrimination because of my gender. Actually in my class nearly all of the top students were female. But my class was a bit of an outlier like that. We can't expect every field to have equal numbers of women and men, that's just silly. If not as many women are interested, so be it. As long as they have equal opportunity, whether they take it or not that's up to them. Same…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 09:30 PM
1

or is accidentally taking antibiotics instead? My gyno never told me about this one when I first got BC!!! I found it out years later from a girlfriend. I'm always super paranoid about getting pregnant, so I was horrified to hear about this. Fortunately I haven't had to take antibiotics for anything since I was a kid. Freaked me out.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 04:32 AM
0

True. It seems like you guys are arguing the same point. When you broaden the data to include all fields, it's really up to individual choices. The only way to measure a real wage gap (if there was one) is to compare wages earned for the same job.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 04:18 AM
4

I would like to know how men choose to get less degrees, though. ????? I suppose you can't choose for your whole gender, but every individual man certainly has a choice whether to pursue higher education or not.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 04:14 AM
19

Legally? I don't know of any law that says otherwise. Morally/ethically? Of course not, that would make her a hugely dishonest person and would place her below pond scum in my book. But as far as a legal "right"? Even if you tried to make a law, it's too much of a he said she said thing to ever enforce, unless they drew up some written contract or something. And even still, you would have to prove it was on purpose, and not birth control failure or some freakish chance thing. Bottom line for men…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 11:08 PM
1

Here is an interesting read from the CBO about the origin and effects of marriage penalties and bonuses. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7&type=0 It actually has some rather thoughtful sections on how difficult it is to make the system fair for everyone. And they state: Marriage penalties and bonuses are not deliberately intended to punish or reward marriage. It's a good read for anyone interested in the nuances of trying to implement a fair tax system. Made me reconsider some of my kneejerk re…
/r/MensRights28/08/10 12:01 AM
3

Thanks for the condescension mate! So you're saying that the marriage tax penalty is in effect because the government wants all wives to be stay at home moms and start pumping out kids right away? I really don't think the government is currently interested in encouraging women to stay out of the workforce. They get more income with two people paying taxes. Rather it was put in place when it was standard to have one earner per household and it would relieve the tax burden on the husband to be abl…
/r/MensRights27/08/10 11:53 PM
8

It's not always a tax break. only 51% of married couples get a tax benefit from being married. On the other hand 42% of married couples pay MORE due to being married than they would have if they had remained single. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/LoveAndMoney/TheMythOfTheMarriagePenalty.aspx For those couples where both spouses work, it is actually a PENALTY.
/r/MensRights27/08/10 09:10 PM
2

So why not treat two married people with no kids the same as a two unmarried people with no kids? Why not make the benefits just related to having kids? And why ever have a tax penalty for two married people with the same income levels??? That makes no sense to me? That would encourage people not to get married.
/r/MensRights27/08/10 08:48 PM
5

It is punishment if you have roughly equal incomes. Our tax burden went up quite a bit once we went from two single people living together to two married people living together. The benefit only helps you if one partner stays at home or has vastly lower income. So really, by that logic, the gummint wants wives to stay at home. Maybe that's their plan to solve unemployment....
/r/MensRights27/08/10 07:37 PM
2

So if they want to promote marriage then why have the marriage tax penalty for two people with roughly equal income? It seems what they are promoting is stay-at-home-moms (or dads, i guess), as that's really the only case where you see a benefit. Besides this post has to do with married tax benefits/punishments, not child tax benefits.
/r/MensRights27/08/10 07:34 PM
1

Exactly.
/r/MensRights27/08/10 04:35 PM
3

As someone affected by the marriage tax penalty I wholeheartedly agree? Why do I have to pay thousands of dollars extra just because I got married?
/r/MensRights27/08/10 02:52 PM
2

No, unfortunately. Fiancé now. Several closer friends tried to talk him out of it. I think like people of both genders in this situation he just doesn't want to be alone.
/r/MensRights26/08/10 03:24 PM
13

That's terrible. A friend of mine has been threatened by his gf with a knife. It breaks my heart that people don't take this seriously.
/r/MensRights26/08/10 03:34 AM
6

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/consent.cfm from the site: In all States, the birth mother and the birth father (if he has properly established paternity) hold the primary right of consent to adoption of their child If I am understanding this correctly, the consent of the birth father must be obtained in all states for the adoption to proceed. So this issue is not "should the father have a say?" As this is already established under law. The issue is should there be …
/r/MensRights26/08/10 01:37 AM
1

I see, I thought from the tone that he was talking about personal spending. Household spending is stuff that needs to be bought no matter what, so does it really matter who is buying it? Many of those commercials aimed at women are for things like cleaning supplies, and foodstuffs. If more men want to go out and do the grocery shopping, fine by me :) Actually come to think of it my husband actually does most of the grocery shopping too. Though that's just because he drives the car to work while …
/r/MensRights24/08/10 03:50 PM
4

haha. yeah seriously. If that were true that would imply that it was men doing all the hiring, and they're all idiots for hiring based on looks.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 03:40 AM
3

Absolutely. As long there is no hiring discrimination, everyone takes the consequences of the career path they choose. Just because a higher percentage of one gender gravitates toward a certain field does not imply discrimination. Similarly I would argue that a higher workplace death/injury rate for men is due to higher percent of men choosing dangerous occupations. Individuals choose their own paths and all the consequences that that entails whether it is lower pay or higher risks.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 01:33 AM
3

Ummm.... based on what? After using mint.com for over a year I can say that my husband spends significantly more on personal expenses than I do. And we both contribute to the family income.
/r/MensRights23/08/10 11:53 PM
1

Yeah, i think it more has to do with what is considered socially conservative dress for each gender. While the place I worked allowed women and not men to wear earrings, only a single piercing in the bottom lobe was allowed, no double piercing, or cartilage piercings, as these sort of fall in the same category of "alternative appearance" as earrings on men. Also, the women's code mandated that we wear nylons and high heels every day. Not exactly comfortable. Anyways, dress codes can suck for bot…
/r/MensRights20/08/10 09:26 PM
3

I guess my main point is that by posting it here in a subreddit for men instead of over at XX or even just to Reddit in general, you are missing the segment of people that could benefit from debate on the topic, and instead are more likely to just fuel resentment against women, even if that was not your intent. I agree that comments such as some of the ones over there should be drowned out. But unfortunately even over here in MR, I've seen some threads dominated by anti-women sentiment usually t…
/r/MensRights19/08/10 11:32 PM
4

I think it is certainly comes close. I certainly don't think you posted with any ill intent, as you seem like a very fair and reasonable person. The OP posted her complaint because like you she was surprised by the unfairly negative reaction of some of the men (presumably, though several in the thread point out that it could equally be women) who posted in her AMA thread. Likewise you came to post your surprise about some unfairly negative replies by women in her post, though there are also trul…
/r/MensRights19/08/10 10:23 PM
6

So you say that it's only a few people, yet by posting it here you give the impression (to me at least) that you think it is a general view of women. Otherwise why make such a big deal about what a couple individuals think. If so, then you're sorta doing the exact same thing as the OP over there taking a few offensive comments and extending them to the views of the whole group. In a heterogenous community stupid stuff will come up and sometimes people upvote without thinking things all the way t…
/r/MensRights19/08/10 09:09 PM
2

Sarcasm i hope?
/r/MensRights19/08/10 08:49 PM
1

Ok, so your argument is just because feminists do it, you should too? Wouldn't it be better to aim a little higher than that? There's a reason people think feminists are annoying. You don't want to get the same bad rap.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 11:28 PM
2

Another thing to think about, since some of your issues seem to be with society's expectations rather than rights being denied: Women who wanted to pursue a career outside the traditional feminine role in the 50s were not accepted by society. Rather society likely considered them bad wives and mothers for wanting to have a career outside the home. They had to reject society's role for them to pursue what they wanted, and now thanks to them it is completely acceptable in our society for women to …
/r/MensRights18/08/10 04:34 PM
2

Very insightful. I think this is what I was trying to reason through and articulate in my head, but you put it much more clearly.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 07:14 AM
3

I absolutely agree. I think this is the original intent of alimony, and this intent should be protected. And I can think of no case to award alimony outside the conditions you describe. If both partners have careers intact, they should be able to part and go along their separate ways.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 07:06 AM
2

I don't really know what to tell you then. If you really care so much about maximizing money, respect from society and 'man points', then I can't really help you. I guess working with a bunch of rebel scientist hippies, I just don't care so much about what society thinks of me. Their are trade offs for every choice you make. You're saying that you want to be able to work a demanding, stressful job that pays well yet have the same physical and mental benefit as a woman who works a less demanding …
/r/MensRights18/08/10 06:59 AM
4

So, I think there is definitely a grey area here, and these need to be looked at on a case by case basis. The thing is, not only is the partner who stays at home providing a service that is not measured monetarily, the bigger issue is that they are giving up their chance at a career and building earning power, and this is where I think alimony plays a role. In another thread I detailed a divorce case close to me. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/d1pc7/this_is_the_list_of_mens_rights_t…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 06:45 AM
2

How are we not allowed to sexually objectify women? No one can control another person's thoughts. And even in the media/advertisements, I think there is still plenty of sexual objectification (and even women who like being objectified). And actually, as a woman, I really don't care too much. People can objectify all they want, and as long as it does not affect my ability to get a job or be treated as an equal human being in the eyes of the law, than they are free to think what they want. And I w…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 05:44 AM
1

The thing is, that the culture doesn't force you to do either of those things. If the longevity difference is due to men being in higher stress jobs, and i don't know how much is actually proven on this, than one can argue that men are perfectly free to choose a less stressful career. I would liken this to the study that women earn less than men because they choose jobs that are less stressful and pay less. Women can't complain that they are earning less if they choose a career that is known to …
/r/MensRights18/08/10 05:29 AM
3

While a "right" may be harder to define, i think that for the case of Men's Rights, what's most productive is to focus on things that are institutionalized inequalities or at least things that have a cause and effect that can be identified, or a right that society is actively denying to men. There are plenty of the above that can be listed. The problem with the things you list are that it is unclear even how to accomplish them. You have absolute control over whether you commit suicide or not. Al…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 05:02 AM
1

Right. And I think the aesthetics are only an issue now because the majority of US men are circumcised so if you're not it looks different. A girl I knew who had been with several men was horrified when she saw her first uncircumcised penis and didn't know what was 'wrong' with it. Then told everyone how 'deformed' his penis was. If a generation of men go natural it will be the new norm. In case of doubt, it's a lot easier to cut it off later than grow it back!
/r/MensRights18/08/10 03:58 AM
1

I think that alimony is necessary for the generations when women were expected to stay home and take care of the kids and the household while the men provide the income. As it is now accepted, and even necessary for both spouses to have a career, this becomes less of an issue. Radiant's case seems to fall in the first category. A case in my own family also. After nearly 30 years of marriage the man is leaving for a younger woman. During those nearly 30 years the woman stayed home, raised 5 child…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 03:02 AM
12

Meh, why are we worrying about what other people do with their lives. If they are so unhappy, do you think they should stay? Should an unhappy man stay in his marriage despite having a good, loving wife? Would you want to be with someone who is not happy to be with you?
/r/MensRights18/08/10 12:03 AM
1

I'm talking about in YOUR scenario. In YOUR scenario when a man can force a woman to carry the child to term, this is not a possible outcome for him. As I stated twice now, and in both cases you have misinterpreted. As I stated: In YOUR scenario: the worst situation that can happen to man is that the woman has the baby anyways, and while it may be disconcerting for him to know that he has a child out there somewhere, he has no responsibility for it and it does not affect his life in any way. The…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 02:44 AM
1

So you're saying the feelings of one party are more important than the physical trauma and feelings of another. That's ok. We can disagree on which we thing is more important and should deserve protection by law. But what you refuse to admit is that either way it is fundamentally unfair to one party. I have said all along that I know that it is unfair for a woman to be able to terminate a pregnancy against the man's wishes, but letting a man force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 02:26 AM
1

Men have condoms. You can argue that they're not pleasant to use, but they are effective. The pill is not always so pleasant either, weight gain, mood swings, loss of sex drive. It can take some time to find one without these side effects, and for some women they never find the perfect one. That said, I really hope the male pill comes out too! I would love to be able to go off my hormonal birth control and let my husband worry about it for a change ;) Or more likely, we'll both take it, cause i'…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 01:05 AM
2

Except her having the child against his will requires him to do absolutely nothing, while him having the child against her will requires 9 months of her life, irreparable damage to her body, and potential loss of income. Tell me again how these are perfectly fair and equal?
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:39 AM
2

Agreed! :) Neither party should complain if they aren't being fully vigilant with the options they have.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:26 AM
1

And you missed the entire main point of my argument, which is that your way is absolutely not fair either, gives more power to the man and is open to abuse by said party in power. I could be open to your position, and have actually argued that side myself before. That if either party wants to keep the baby, that it should be born. But what you can't tell me is that it is fair. That equal options and consequences are faced by both parties. If you can grow the baby in a lab, then the choice would …
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:20 AM
2

Of course it's not fair, I have not argued that it is. But in your system you are also arguing for ONE party to have all of the power, except in your case it's the man. I think the problem here seems to be that you just don't think it's a big deal to have to carry and give birth to a child, so it should be ok to force a woman to do this, yet it is not ok to force a man to help pay for the child. So it's ok for a woman to be forced to suffer tremendously physically and to some degree financially,…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:02 AM
2

you're right. Both are responsible for their protection. It's not like the woman has no consequence of being irresponsible. She's the one who gets pregnant, with all the humiliation and physical crap that that entails, and has the crappy choice of having an abortion or having a baby. To both parties, the only one that you have complete control over is yourself, so women, be absolutely vigilant if you don't want a baby! Take that birth control religiously! You never know if you might get that one…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 11:09 PM
5

The woman should not have control of both the ability to bear a child... Ummm... biology sorta dictates that the woman is the only one with the ability to bear a child. It was your body, too, when you let someone impregnate you. You can also turn that around and say that it was your body when you chose to impregnate someone else, and now you have to accept the consequences. I get that the way things are now is not fair. And it does suck that men have less control over reproduction post conceptio…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 10:47 PM
2

So you're saying that the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term because knew the risk when she chose to have sex? This is the exact same argument that is used for a man paying child support, he also knew this risk before choosing to have sex. Except in the first case there is not only monetary consequences but potentially serious and unpredictable health consequences as well.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 10:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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