TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

lasciate Archive

View 3 posts and 1,427 comments by lasciate on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,427 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

*Making rape gender neutral in US. *Successfully changing the legal definition of rape to include men as victims, instead of just women. This oft cited change is to a definition used for the collection of crime statistics. It is not a legal change. For an actual legal change - one that changes definitions in a way intended to include men - see the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. It's not gender-neutral when the definition requires penetration. Any benefit to men is an unintended side-effect…
/r/MensRights25/07/26 01:12 AM
3

Ah yes, even though these people use "I hate men" as punctuation and form entire communities and ideologies around their hatred of men we shouldn't say they hate men because other bigots also exist.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 06:40 PM
11

Your entire post is irrelevant to what was announced. This has nothing to do with "gym bros 'chugging' grey market steroids". Nothing in Hegseth's announcement video (why is it that Daily Wire's youtube can just post the video, yet most outlets won't play the full thing and/or editorialize it to death) was objectionable and every bit of criticism I've seen is strawmanning. People who hate men have taken the opportunity to launch vicious attacks against men and masculinity just because they can. …
/r/MensRights17/07/26 07:06 PM
36

The bar for what is called a theory is so low nowadays. It was even lower when Feminism was born in the 19th century. Its contemporary schools of thought were Malthusian economics, phrenology, and eugenics, i.e. hogwash based around superiority and social engineering and supported by recursive reasoning. While the men were in the smoking room circle-jerking about the "negro problem" and spitballing ways to civilize everyone who wasn't exactly like them, their wives and daughters were in the parl…
/r/MensRights10/07/26 08:09 PM
7

refusing to participate Yup. Why produce for a society that hates you? OP is just another Boxer (Animal Farm) larper who thinks the appropriate response to extreme mismanagement, exploitation, and bigotry is to say "I will work harder" and hope the boot just gets tired of standing on the neck on its own. It won't. Nothing that supports or rewards continuation of the current path of society can be considered an actual plan. Until there's a very large carrot we must stop signing up for the stick.
/r/MensRights30/06/26 08:04 AM
2

the constant denialisim and the assumptions that I don't need protection from that type of violence just because I have a penis and that I always must be able to defend myself unlike a woman is still in itself pretty traumatising. They chose physical strength, but they could just as easily pick something else. It's not actually about physical strength. That's just a common excuse they use for not caring because it's a stereotype most audiences will accept unquestioningly. Even if you could convi…
/r/MensRights26/06/26 11:55 AM
2

More commonly known as the "permanent bureaucracy" and it's how every country on earth functions. If your country's policies radically changed every 2-5 years ...well you'd be Maoist China and it would suck. Politicians simply don't want to do anything and Americans are too divided and apathetic to give either side a serious mandate/kick in the ass. The Senate could end the filibuster at any point and Congress could start governing. They haven't and they won't. And even if they did - likely as t…
/r/MensRights30/05/26 07:27 AM
2

Instead of ruling that is obvious Desertion, her disloyalty was supported by the government. You need to get yourself into a position to accept that no society, not even yours, values anything above gynocentrism. You might look around and see people talking big about how much they revere the same ideals and virtues you were raised to hold sacred - things like 'loyalty', for example. Trust me when I say that your society will throw them away one by one in a mindless quest to grant ever greater pr…
/r/MensRights18/05/26 12:17 AM
4

Does that not worry women? Coz surely the (for arguments sake) 5-10% of guys that do all these heinous things are not gonna cut themselves out of the dating pool. 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 are still massive exaggerations. There really aren't that many heinous men, so the argument doesn't hold. And women know this intuitively, even if they say the opposite. Otherwise they wouldn't be perennially eager to engage in dating despite the ubiquitous threat narratives. Does this not concern anyone? If it did …
/r/MensRights23/04/26 06:39 PM
17

They dont care that undeserible men wont date. But they do care that those men try unsuccessfully, because that pointless effort still represents a dangling carrot which compels a massive resource/wealth transfer.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 06:28 PM
8

I hate "lesser of two evils" appeals, primarily because they're usually employed when the choice is between two very close evils. However, the UK Labour party is outright stating that parents are optional and the state should decide if children may have access to them and vice versa. That's too insane a stance to ignore and they can't be allowed to remain in government. Given the multi-party system over there, I guess that's less "lesser of two evils" and more "anyone but them".
/r/MensRights16/04/26 07:54 PM
39

When they're 18 will she encourage them to burn their Selective Service cards to challenge gender norms, too?
/r/MensRights07/04/26 01:00 PM
0

What does that have to do with the fact that the Labour party said parents are optional and they will choose for you and your kids?
/r/MensRights07/04/26 10:29 AM
1

Well, sort of. There is a group of people who are above it. The people who put in the hard yards to not be evil. This is circular. "There is a group of people above it, it's the [another way of saying 'group of people above it']." You're just restating the concept as its own definition. Your group is defined by being 'above it', i.e. making an effort not to give in to hatred, fear, and distrust of the outgroup. This ad hoc group is not identical to any existing group, so my point holds. No group…
/r/MensRights07/04/26 10:27 AM
5

There's nothing "alt" or "right" about it. Hatred, fear, and distrust of the other are mainstream and bipartisan and always have been. Most people are mostly stupid. Thinking any group is above it all (and, consequently, above other groups) is just another avenue towards those same ignorant responses.
/r/MensRights03/04/26 01:42 AM
4

Even here you have upvoted comments attacking Muslims instead of the government(s) passing these draconian laws: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1saogmm/uk_police_given_stronger_powers_to_combat_public/odxsj6e/ It's clear that there's no willpower remaining in the UK to oppose the rising authoritarianism. Half of them would give up any and every liberty they have if it also meant a boot on a brown face. The other half would do the same as long as it's a male face. They're cooked. Fr…
/r/MensRights02/04/26 09:40 PM
48

Couple this with their new child custody policy: Children will be better protected from abusive parents as the Government moves to abolish the presumption of parental involvement in the new Courts and Tribunal Bill That bit of shiver-down-your-spine statement of principle plus the trend of hyper-criminalization alluded to in the OP plus the rest of the criminal justice "reforms" being proposed make me think the UK's Labour party is dead set on becoming even worse than Soviet communists. Hell, ev…
/r/MensRights02/04/26 09:24 PM
27

A thoughtful evaluation of CBU’s athletic programs occurred, including consideration of the student-athlete experience across all sports, changes to NCAA rules, investments required to fully fund athletic scholarships, and strategic considerations associated with positioning Lancer Athletics more competitively for the future. "It has become clear that we cannot maintain our current programs and realize the university’s goal of achieving greater competitive excellence that the new Division I era …
/r/MensRights31/03/26 08:49 AM
12

short term effect lasting from younger generation [college age] to 35+ sounds like a long-term effect. Going from young and attractive to old and less attractive (and the ensuing self-esteem crash) was always the deal.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 11:28 AM
1

are traditional gender roles "provide + protect and nurture + support" misogyny Taking a benefit and calling it a burden is what slave owners and aristocrats did for millennia to justify profiting off of the labor and lives of others. They claimed they were charged with "civilizing" or spiritually enriching (typically by their mere divine presence and not any actual action) the lower classes and, therefore, deserved their privileges. ...Privileges which contradictorily included having those clas…
/r/MensRights26/03/26 09:19 AM
10

Don't take people like that commenter seriously. They're just disingenuous tradcons trying to spread F.U.D. about male birth control. There are going to be a lot more of them coming out of the woodwork on male birth control as it gets closer to becoming a reality. Also watch for the feminists doing the same thing because they don't want to see men have more control over their own reproduction.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 08:18 PM
1

"I feel like I have a pre-existing roadmap for my bigotry so it's okay."
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:16 AM
1

The change means the courts will no longer start from an assumption that parental involvement is always in a child’s best interest "Why aren't people having kids anymore?" To call this a radical position is an insult to relatively sane people like violent anarchists and Nazis. There's no hyperbole I can think of to come anywhere close to describing just how insane the above linked statement is. The government is saying having parents is now an opt-in perk for children and they the government wil…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:05 AM
12

Yup. And naming a hypothetical system after a particular group when it isn't run by that group or has nothing to do with that group the name is a stand-in for the undesired system (in this case "hierarchy") that you are actually attacking the desired system - presented as a contrast or goal - is named after a group you feel is superior and opposed to the first group is straight from the bigot playbook. You can find examples of it in every hateful ideology out there. "Jewish Bolshevism" is a doub…
/r/MensRights16/03/26 10:53 PM
1

Can a business legally allow either customers or their contractors to discriminate? Not in the context of this issue. first is that this type of discrimination is covered under civil law not criminal (title 2), in which sex is not a protected category. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 criminalizes this type of sex discrimination and you can pursue civil action to recover damages. Further, all of your theoretical ways this could work a) substantively violate the requirement of providing eq…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:38 AM
1

All of the things I listed above are worthwhile Except federal statutes which are easily reversed and would be reversed if it ever looks like a draft will be required. And obtaining a federal statute ""ending"" the draft hamstrings efforts in the courts to make it equal, which are what we need in the short- and medium-term. Getting a law passed in Congress accomplishes little to nothing of substance and actually hurts serious judicial and constitutional draft equality/elimination efforts. Intens…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:02 AM
9

When large companies, especially publicly traded ones, do seemingly blatantly moronic things it's important to analyze their actions from an angle of devious sanity. It's obvious there's a grift or several going on and they probably see it as a win-win(-win*): Either the Court knocks it down, in which case they can go to feminists, say they tried, and still get whatever plaudits they're seeking; or the Court upholds it, in which case they get to rake in the dough. They can boost profits either b…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 06:05 AM
3

the Supreme Court The only worthwhile solution on the table right now. Playing games with simple statutes that can and will change on a dime ("just tell Congress to end the Selective Service System", e.g.) is a recipe for future disaster. A Supreme Court ruling at least has positive propaganda value. Getting a federal law changed has negative propaganda value, because it allows people to claim the situation has been adequately addressed only for the law to change right back the second politician…
/r/MensRights09/03/26 09:13 PM
10

I tend to lean more to the liberal side, politically speaking. I believe LGBTQ people deserve rights. So do conservatives and moderates. As long as you are trying to gel with people who have a warped ideology you will never find peace of mind or true acceptance. You will either have to adopt their ideology (you will likely find this uncomfortable because the people in question are promoting evil behavior - directed at people like you, no less) or find better-adjusted friends.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 12:17 AM
1

[x]man and man[x] words are gender neutral. Germanic (and by extension Old English) 'man' referred to any person, man or woman. When necessary, gender was specified by the compound words like 'wereman' and 'wifman' (these evolved into the Middle English words 'man' and 'womman'). All [x]man words follow the old Germanic convention and are gender neutral. It's Latin that genders words unnecessarily. Modern feminists push the idea that [x]man words are gendered purely for propaganda purposes. In t…
/r/MensRights06/03/26 11:49 PM
3

I ask because as a man, I've never once felt oppressed, or that the hierarchy has ever shifted against me. As a man, I do believe we have issues that are not addressed. DV and SA that often goes unheard. You believe in a dichotomy... I'd like to understand the difference between the two conversations of issues and rights ...that you don't understand? What?
/r/MensRights05/03/26 09:02 AM
0

most of the time the manager or CEO is a woman Source on most managers and CEOs being women?
/r/MensRights02/03/26 08:40 PM
0

Traditionalism is far too bad of a deal to survive the combination of post-scarcity economics and social voluntarism. In other words, you get the carrot for free and no one is swinging the stick. In fact, you're now more likely to lose the carrot and get hit by the stick if you pursue traditionalism. It's not courageous or "manly" or whatever to pursue traditionalism despite the overwhelming drawbacks - it's just stupid. And men are getting less stupid every day.
/r/MensRights01/03/26 10:28 PM
10

I was afraid to post this because I might be labeled a "male misandrist" or a "male feminist who betrayed his own gender," or that I’m trying to please feminists. 'Concern troll'. That's the phrase you're looking for, because that's what you're doing: concern trolling. Concern trolls plop down a vague fabricated or exaggerated 'concern' or problem they claim to see "way too often" in the target group's outward appearance, manners, or actions, yet provide no evidence of its existence except repet…
/r/MensRights27/02/26 11:17 AM
0

the politicians who publicly speak in favor of men Those are usually the worst of all. Not only are they useful idiots for any and every "won't someone think of the women?" cause du jour, but they squat on the side of the opposition and take up space needed by real reformers. They are controlled opposition to feminism. Their job is to look at feminist man-hating and say to the people "we can hate men better, because we are men". When it comes to men’s rights, the “Do more harm” approach is worse…
/r/MensRights26/02/26 07:15 PM
14

The fact that you were downvoted for simply asking why in a genuinely curious way should tell you everything you need to know about this sub. Lol. Wild. Why would you judge an entire subreddit by one commenter getting two negative internet points more than positive ones? Seriously I am genuinely asking why?
/r/MensRights26/02/26 05:13 AM
0

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows there’s a lot of variation between politicians in how they speak I'm not appeased by speech or the lack thereof. I haven’t seen any anti-Men’s Rights policies endorsed by Lowe That's what I thought. This is /r/mensrights. He can go fuck himself until he has a plan to address specific men's rights issues.
/r/MensRights26/02/26 04:57 AM
19

I am painfully ignorant of this situation. Was there something that kick-started this misandrist campaign? Just the feminist bigotry campaign of the week. They all coordinate pretty openly on global messaging and political parties cooperate across borders with their counterparts in other countries to align their policies. There's a reason you go from never having heard of some pressing "issue", to hearing about it simultaneously from a hundred different sources, to some new law or policy about i…
/r/MensRights26/02/26 03:00 AM
3

UK MP Rupert Lowe is saying some good things No one ever got elected without saying something someone wanted to hear. All you're saying is that he's a politician. What are the specific pro-Men's Rights policies this guy is planning to enact?
/r/MensRights26/02/26 01:48 AM
1

And yet your response doesn't address the link I posted. Complete non-sequitur. You have yet to explain the false claim you made about you first link: Not sure about mothers being favored. Clearly shows opposite. Why would I move on to a second link when you're ignoring the first? After you've address the lie you told about the study you INITIALLY posted, I'll think about taking a look at your second link. I'm not playing "look at this, wait no look at this, actually here it is, okay maybe this …
/r/MensRights19/02/26 08:51 PM
2

You're propagandizing so furiously you didn't even realize you sent the same link to the same user twice.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 11:21 AM
1

Not sure about mothers being favored. Why can't you address your own study that you posted that shows that mothers are still favored (even after they tried their hardest to rig the stats)? I literally posted the relevant stat and you've ignored it.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 11:20 AM
9

To be honest, feminists still want to impose masculinity on men. For example, they want men to be women's protectors. Don't forget their tradcon helpers are pushing the exact same thing from the other end. Feminists have just about squeezed all of the privilege they can from lying about wanting equality. Now they're going full mask off and formally demanding a two-tiered society outright. Any man who complains will be shouted down by tradcons who have plenty of gynocentric obligations and restri…
/r/MensRights17/02/26 11:15 AM
3

You and the people replying to you are both wrong. It shows that women are still favored even when fathers allege alienation, but by a little bit less and only in certain circumstances. Even cherry-picking to the cherry-bone they could only raise the portion of men winning custody to less than half: Table 5. Mothers’ custody losses when father claims alienation. Type of fathers' abuse claimed Rate of mothers' custody loss Any [i.e. Total] 50% (81/163) It's only when they reduce down to the absol…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 12:12 AM
7

The Limitations section alone is enough to damn this "study". The core limitation of the Study stems from its data source: since most trial courts do not publish their opinions (online or otherwise), the majority of the opinions analyzed were appellate decisions. This means that the dataset over-represents cases that are appealed and under-represents non-appealed cases. I.e., most of the cases included weren't normal cases. Otherwise we'd still see single-digit custody switches from mother to fa…
/r/MensRights15/02/26 11:38 PM
6

I'm not one of those people to ask "Where's International Men And Boys In Science Day?" You should be, it's the only tactic that's proven consistently effective in eliminating sex discrimination. The only thing stronger than people's desire to support pro-female discrimination is their desire to prevent pro-male discrimination. For a lot of people their hatred of men is stronger than their desire to grant privileges and subsidies to women. You have to use that emotion to your advantage because i…
/r/MensRights12/02/26 11:40 AM
-1

The premise of the comment I replied to was not "there's a false/exaggerated narrative that men constantly cat-call women" (true) or "too many things are misinterpreted as harassment" (true). It was that cat-calling is one of the most benign actions/comments (debatable, and certainly not necessary or worth doing): Society (and the piece) claiming cat calling is a form of harassment shows how the most benign actions/ comments are now framed as ‘abuse’. The first commenter tied their own rope and …
/r/MensRights11/02/26 09:00 AM
2

Good. You shouldn't support a society that hates you while it exploits you.
/r/MensRights11/02/26 09:00 AM
-10

You shouldn't be shouting anything at strangers walking down the street except "watch out for that falling piano!" and the like. Doesn't matter if it's "lovely weather ain't it?" or "where you goin' with all that ass?": summon the willpower to mind your own business.
/r/MensRights10/02/26 11:31 PM
11

Any guy who thinks women should have equal rights is a male feminist wth. Everyone thinks women should have equal rights. A minority of them consider themselves feminists. You should consider the entire scope of what being a "feminist" means and why people reject it. Feminists spend a great deal of time advocating against equality because they realize that being equal to men is a step down.
/r/MensRights10/02/26 08:14 PM
10

It has nothing to do with weakness or strength. Both are co-opted to benefit gynocentrism. Feminism is just one expression of gynocentrism. Even if there were no feminists there would still be men, weak or strong, falling over themselves to serve women's interests to the exclusion of all else.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 10:53 AM
3

assuming they probably (most definitely) didn't do so the previous international men's day Seems like you're unsure whether you have cause to be upset or not.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 10:46 PM
2

As a former military officer, I can tell you are misguided. I don’t want women in the military or draft. Screw your concepts of “fairness”. Why are you on /r/mensrights if you don't want fairness? If you don't want legal obligations for women comparable to the draft then you are advocating for men to subordinate their very lives to women's happy-go-lucky theme park existence.
/r/MensRights16/01/26 10:32 PM
12

Lot of words to address a red herring instead of just saying you want a male-only draft and no comparable legal obligation for women.
/r/MensRights16/01/26 07:05 AM
0

in the meantime I managed to learn and understand more about Business. Would you sign a contract with no terms? No, wait. It gets better: Would you sign a contract with no terms that can be dissolved by the other party at any time for any reason (or no reason at all), at which point you are automatically forced into a new contract with terms specifically designed to financially and socially harm you and punish you without providing you any benefit whatsoever? No-fault divorce, alimony, community…
/r/MensRights09/01/26 05:03 AM
3

a whole series of assumptions which seems to be the opposite of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' The people you're talking to don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Why would they when they have no reason to fear being falsely accused or maligned?
/r/MensRights07/01/26 07:53 PM
0

Here's the Reddit User Agreement (ToS): https://redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement Here's the Reddit Rules: https://redditinc.com/policies/reddit-rules Here's the Moderator Code of Conduct: https://redditinc.com/policies/moderator-code-of-conduct Link/quote the section that forbids banning someone for their participation in another sub. Oh and in the interest of fair play and so you can see how easy it is, here's the rule against complaining about being banned from other subs for /r/MensRight…
/r/MensRights07/01/26 07:40 PM
-11

It also violates Reddit’s terms of service No it doesn't. Autobanning isn't against the rules or the reddiquette or anything like that. Complaining about being banned somewhere like the OP is against /r/MensRights rules, though.
/r/MensRights05/01/26 05:45 AM
1

Or, are you going to suggest that women avoid their responsibilities yet again and outsource that responsibility... to men? I'm a man and I would like the police, men or women, to shoot (e.g.) active shooters for me, yes. I would also like them to shoot them on behalf of women. I am fine with outsourcing that responsibility to anyone who wants to sign up for it. On the other hand, I don't want the police to shoot (e.g.) cat-callers on anyone's behalf. All law is an attempt by society to address …
/r/MensRights24/12/25 11:28 AM
-5

We desperately need an education system that teaches young people that their emotions are not necessarily the truth See you had it there, but then you lost it here: Heaven forbid a woman learn to take accountability for her own safety and avoid dangerous situations. Danger is truth, fear is often not. It should be the responsibility of society to address and decrease undue danger. It should not be the responsibility of society to mollify (or indulge) excessive fear. This is the difference betwee…
/r/MensRights23/12/25 12:12 AM
65

It's often called a 'threat narrative'. It's countered by talking about the difference between danger and fear (and neuroticism/neurosis). I usually pose it to people like this: "men are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime and yet they are less afraid than women. So should men be more afraid or should women be less afraid?" This helps bypass the red herring conversation of perpetrators, because it hinges the conversation entirely on the victims and if they try to get off-top…
/r/MensRights22/12/25 11:24 PM
2

Native Americans and slaves have not held higher status in the eyes of white men since whites arrived here. Never said they did. All the founding fathers were white men. All of the people you care about as Founding Fathers™ were white men. Now account for all of the other people have helped build this country. They wrote to constitution, organized the continental army, and set up all our laws. Now account for all of the other things that have gone into building the country. Yes, slaves and nativ…
/r/MensRights22/12/25 09:56 PM
3

Unfortunate reality is this country was built by white men And Native Americans and slaves, as well as all of the non-white, non-male immigrants who've contributed their parts... Might as well say this country was built by Chinese women, for Chinese women if we're just going to cherrypick contribution and achievement and assign it to someone. we will always need to coddle them a little. Not only is the belief that this is a white man's country built for and by white men ridiculous and false, you…
/r/MensRights21/12/25 11:27 PM
1

Again, I'm being charitable in my interpretations of both the quoted lawmaker and the commenter. Because if I was to be uncharitable to the commenter the way they were uncharitable to the lawmaker, then I would conclude that complaining that women will have legal protection against being made to "feel afraid to say no in any way" is them saying men should be allowed to make women feel afraid to say no in any way. Instead I assume they were confused, worded their point poorly, or both. Charitably…
/r/MensRights21/12/25 10:17 PM
1

Sure, but the comment I was replying to didn't indicate understanding of that distinction.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 11:02 PM
3

I agree this bill wouldn’t stand a chance of getting passed if male circumcision was included. This tells you their priorities. Protect circumcision > protect children from abusive parents. Edit: As for the 'poison pill' nature of adding language banning circumcision (or removing language that exempts it) I'll say this: there are people who don't care if their issue is someone else's poison pill. We call them "people who accomplish their goals". Banning circumcision is going to be a 'poison pill…
/r/MensRights19/12/25 10:58 PM
-5

That is not the only thing that triggers fear. The quote clearly implies coercion, not a feeling of fear: “And when it’s yes, it must be a real yes, a yes that is not afraid. Giving in will never again be consenting.” I'm interpreting /u/Manaheaven's comment charitably, not any strawman of the above quote.
/r/MensRights15/12/25 04:39 AM
-10

So a woman can say yes, but because she felt fear it doesn't count as consent? Coercion invalidates agreements, yes. Edit: I'm assuming we're not pretending the quote refers to feeling any fear about anything in the world. It seems pretty clear that French MP was referring to coercion when she talked about "giving in".
/r/MensRights15/12/25 03:30 AM
8

According to the UK government website apparently your name can't be registered on the birth certificate without your signature unless you're married to the mother. If you're not married and not willing to sign, the mother can go to court to seek an order that your name be registered on the birth certificate. At that point in the billionaire scenario the judge will turn their brain on, acknowledge the ridiculousness of the request, and not grant the order (for the reason /u/clownmage stated). If…
/r/MensRights15/12/25 02:06 AM
6

It is undoubtedly true that we live in a patriarchy Maybe you think this is a harmless morsel to toss in the name of seeming conciliatory, but it's the whole ballgame. As soon as you open the door to this garbage, ad-hoc ideology they'll flood you with it. "We're glad you agree that [everything the feminist concept of 'Patriarchy' entails] is the problem, now shut up and let us fix it because we're the only ones who truly understand it." The idea that you can walk it back after accepting their c…
/r/MensRights13/12/25 05:09 AM
20

It's the same old "chivalry" stage with a 19th century supremacist coat of paint. The goal was always to stay on the pedestal and equality rhetoric was just one of many tactics. We've simply reached the point where that rhetoric has not only become less effective but is starting to backfire. Men's position is so undeniably abysmal by comparison (a comparison they always avoided outside of a few massaged, cherry-picked stats) that they're slowly dropping the equality tactic and shifting to "screw…
/r/MensRights12/12/25 11:48 PM
1

this notion is hurtful and offensive to the tradition and indigenous people. This is the point in the conversation where the feminists team up with useful idiots and drown you out with straight-up racism. Then the feminists slink away, switch sides, and pivot the conversation to how racist white men are while they feign impotence. And they pretend no real feminists like them were involved with any hate, so you'll have to start all over again. Repeat ad nauseam. This dance has been tried before. …
/r/MensRights03/12/25 08:03 PM
3

Women feel threatened by male strength and higher sexual drive. They do not have testosterone and don’t understand the level of self-control required by the average male. Classic feminist "all men are would-be rapists and only fear of consequences is holding them back" thinking. There are men-haters leading the charge — women who probably have good cause to distrust men. You're looking at bigotry and prejudice and assuming they must have a good reason to hold such a heinous position. Then you he…
/r/MensRights03/12/25 09:16 AM
1

Rich men subsidize women individually (Melinda Gates, MacKenzie Bezos, etc.) and en masse through tax policy. In fact, through taxation they constitute one of the biggest mechanisms of resource transfer by siphoning wealth from poor and middle class men and redistributing it mostly to women.
/r/MensRights29/11/25 08:43 AM
0

That change only applies to one specific statistical classification. It has no bearing on what a woman can be charged with by prosecutors.
/r/MensRights29/11/25 08:37 AM
8

Society is a mechanism for extracting excess resources from men and delivering them to women. Traditionalism, feminism, socialism, capitalism - all are ideologies based around fulfilling this most basic biological subsidy. Essentially, men are nothing but workhorses. So when you point out an issue men are suffering from in society all most people hear is that the workhorse might not do its job. They don't understand the concept of helping the workhorse for its own sake (or even helping the workh…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 11:41 AM
3

Happens all the time. My favorite example was noted unwilling MRA Steven "I'm not a men's rights activist, mras are pussies" Crowder. #2 would be that crazy guy who killed mostly men and some sorority girls: posthumously baptized an MRA by feminists apropos of nothing. No connection to men's rights whatsoever was needed. You can't get a feminist to admit another person is a fellow feminist if the latter is inconvenient at any given moment; even if said person is a self-proclaimed feminist, is a …
/r/MensRights28/11/25 10:23 AM
25

When and where does this guy say "I'm a men's rights activist"? Link please.
/r/MensRights22/11/25 09:47 PM
17

If the normal rules and/or basic logic applied this case would place the system in a double-bind: either this woman is a cold, calculating murderer who bided her time and fooled authorities until she got the opportunity to carry out her crime OR the authorities are criminally negligent and stupidly let a violent (homicidal) lunatic be alone with her intended victim. I.e., either she should go to prison for life or she should be in a padded cell for life and the authorities who allowed this shoul…
/r/MensRights17/11/25 05:03 PM
4

Mods are too lax in this sub in general. Rule violators, spammers, trolls, etc. stick around way too long. Posts that should be removed stay up for most of a day or more and then only get removed once they're reported, if at all. Case in point: your post violates the "no meta posts" rule, but has been implicitly endorsed by at least one moderator instead of being deleted. Meta-discussion Policy: Topics related to the moderation of the subreddit should be sent to either modmail or, for public dis…
/r/MensRights09/10/25 07:22 PM
1

I ask because the vocal minority of genuine extremist misogynists, that aren’t true MRA regardless of what they may label or believe themselves to be This is very easily evidenced in how feminism has used the minority of misogynists who are not true MRA, but hide among us Can you name a figure who claims (in their own words) to be a men's rights activist that you believe is a misogynist?
/r/MensRights28/09/25 10:13 AM
9

Why does it seem MRM is the lone type of advocacy that is universally mocked by everyone else? Acknowledging men's suffering and seeking to end it runs counter to the visions and goals of both progressives and conservatives. In their views men subsidize all other aspects of (a gynocentric) society. That is their perfect role and nothing can/should change that. If men are allowed to shrug off that yoke then neither group has anything to replace them. To continue the beast of burden analogy: every…
/r/MensRights26/09/25 04:10 AM
6

Women have been very successful over the past 100 years or so at organising female populations at all levels If you want to understand the world a feminist/pre-feminist dichotomy is not particularly useful (unless you are a feminist ...but then you don't have any especial use for understanding the world). to promote shared interests. Or individual interests. There is a lot of female political power up for grift grabs, considering women's general historical aversion to overt lobbying. You cannot …
/r/MensRights25/09/25 06:45 PM
62

Are woman still curious or in denial as to why? Yes, the majority of women are ignorant (some willfully so) of what feminists do with women's social and political power. Even feminists don't seem to understand the connection between their actions and men's response. They're too convinced of/invested in their own sense of powerlessness and too obsessed with being anti-male to self-reflect, so instead they blame and attack men all the more because they can't or won't see the feedback loop. Rarely,…
/r/MensRights31/08/25 09:22 PM
17

Not just male drivers: Enabling this feature may lead to fewer trip opportunities, which could affect your earnings. Adverse pay discrimination lawsuit from women drivers incoming. Uber cannot ensure that all rider matches will be women. A woman may still bring male companions They can caveat all they want, there's still going to be a lawsuit from women drivers resulting from the failure of their filters. If you are paired with a rider you believe to be male, you can cancel the trip and choose “…
/r/MensRights21/08/25 02:27 AM
13

How do these women believe this and do they genuinely believe it? As in all supremacist movements the philosophy is created ad hoc to justify the self-serving, bigoted acts and feelings, which are the real purpose of the movement. When you try to nail down or return to any of the previously crafted pseudo-philosophy outside of the context it was built for it becomes immediately apparent how ridiculous it is. Talk long enough and usually you also end up exposing how self-contradictory the philoso…
/r/MensRights20/08/25 02:02 AM
9

If you had to remake the Tea app, what kinds of controls and rules would you have? The sole purpose of these types of apps and groups is to slander and extort men. Regulating it completely defeats the purpose. My team is working on an alternative that's attempting to address the concerns from both sides. Except you can't. The concern of one "side" is that the other "side" has any input at all. And you can't make a male or gender neutral version of this app without it being banned immediately bec…
/r/MensRights01/08/25 07:33 AM
4

I was responding to your comment that was comparing women of different social brackets and saying they were the same. That's not what they said. Women are coddled regardless of their social bracket. Obviously women in different social brackets are not the same. Everyone else read it as "women are coddled relative to men in all social brackets". You misread it.
/r/MensRights29/05/25 09:19 PM
6

A single comment downvoted to oblivion altered your perspective of an entire subreddit? You're either lying or you already wanted your perspective to be altered and merely found a (lame) excuse.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:01 PM
69

Tradcons think Boxer from Animal Farm is an aspirational story. They bury their heads in the sand as feminists make society untenable for men. Then they poke their heads up just long enough to see the destruction, proclaim "men must work harder", and retreat back to willful ignorance. They are useful idiots for Feminism.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 08:41 PM
69

If a male star "made a creative suggestion" and "collaberated" to introduce a scene where he violently grabbed his female co-star's genitals he'd be cancelled. Just the request would be considered a gross violation. And, of course, Paul Feig the creepy masochist is right there. Also, the sheer lack of self-awareness to go out of her way to do this while simultaneously (going by production dates) allegedly experiencing something similar on another set is mind-blowing. This is a person of such pri…
/r/MensRights03/04/25 12:01 AM
1

The contract- obliging a certain level of work for a certain length of time- is gender-neutral. "In practical terms it's not gender neutral. Only women birth children. Only women are expected to balance their careers, their pregnancies, and their children. Only women are forced to leave their careers for the sake of birthing and raising children. You are discriminating against them in practice and saying 'fuck women'." Have you never spoken to a feminist before or read how they argue? Anyone wit…
/r/MensRights31/03/25 10:07 PM
21

If you're worried about them bailing on the job because they get pregnant (and given Japan's birthrates, that's hardly a danger these days), all you have to do is put some clause in their contracts with a minimum obligation. "So now you're saying 'fuck women' because they cannot pursue medical careers if they are punished for getting pregnant by being separated from their babies. You're discriminating against women. You must hate women and especially mothers." See the double-bind?
/r/MensRights29/03/25 09:30 PM
30

Seems like it's more about extracting a pound of flesh from male actors and socialized abuse than about the audience or the "art".
/r/MensRights27/03/25 08:32 PM
8

even when you were receiving pushback from rabid commenters. You're the only person who responded to this comment. What rabid commenters are you talking about?
/r/MensRights27/03/25 06:03 PM
1

Women are more likely to unite and tolerate each others crap for a period in interest of a cause before they split again The difference is that feminists offer women a grab-bag of privileges while conservatives and liberals alike offer men a grab-bag of exploitative obligations. Unsurprisingly, when you want to remove an unfair yoke it's hard to work with someone who just wants to burden you even more.
/r/MensRights21/03/25 01:15 AM
2

if the aren't harming anyone why they should be subject to such treatments, like getting killed, imprisoned or treated like a criminal or something just for your orientation. My point was that this is a new situation for the "Western world", so the idea that we should pretend there's some vast gulf in progress between it and Eastern Europe or the Muslim world is ridiculous. The first commenter above said "Saying someone gay is like a curse to someone. They receive hate a lot". That was the West …
/r/MensRights21/03/25 01:08 AM
3

Women perceived as gay or overly masculine are referred to as "dykes". Obviously they are not treated anywhere nearly as poorly as gay men, but let's not pretend no one has ever denigrated gay women.
/r/MensRights20/03/25 05:34 AM
-1

Same anywhere but the Western world really. Acceptance of gays is a relatively recent development. It shouldn't be touted as a stark social difference or mark of comparative progress.
/r/MensRights20/03/25 05:24 AM
9

British TV Thank you for confirming what I suspected while watching Spooks. I got up to Season 6 before I lost all interest. By then my casual count was: 3 gratuitous man-ass scenes, 0 female anything. For a show about spies willing to do almost anything it's pretty ironic how much they shy away from female nudity and sexuality. The sterilized, asexual anti-sexual femme fatale is a new archetype for me.
/r/MensRights17/03/25 10:03 PM
24

How young were you when you noticed girls were given more leeway than boys? Human beings have an innate sense of fairness. From the research I've seen, children between 4-24 months can recognize when they are being short-changed when it comes to food, toys, and even attention and will become upset by it before they can fully understand why. They'll also share altruistically when they see other children are being deprived. But I wouldn't worry too much about whether yours will notice or when: in …
/r/MensRights15/03/25 11:53 AM
-168

Going back 2 years OP has a comment:post ratio of 21:697 (only 5 comments on this sub in the last 2 years). He's mainly an amateur far-right/paleo-conservative propagandist on those kinds of subreddits with a minor in horny-posting under porn and thirst-traps on those kinds of subreddits. He's only here to post anti-feminist (for him this means pro-traditionalist) rage-bait, not to support men's rights.
/r/MensRights03/03/25 05:23 AM
10

I think we will have to notionally separate sex and procreation, with marriage contracts for procreation that can't be broken in the best interests of the child Based on your assessment of the costs/benefits of relationships there's no reason for men to enter into such a contract. Which makes sense, because this situation coupled with: but sex (beyond the requirement for procreation) allowed to be more flexible than the existing monogamy arrangement as long as it doesn't result in procreation ou…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:29 AM
68

If "no sexual fraternization with coworkers/customers/clients" was a uniform, enforced policy you would have a leg to stand on. But before the rise of hook-up culture and online dating, 'at/through work' was the #2 way people met their partners. Work is considered a romance spot if you're attractive and men are expected to make the first move. Considering these facts, making it an informal, unilateral taboo for a man to flirt with a woman at her workplace creates a Kafkaesque situation. And to b…
/r/MensRights14/02/25 06:04 AM
8

Most women in general are feminists or share feministic viewpoints even if they don’t call themselves feminists. The most harmful thing isn't the minority of people who self-identify as feminists and preach hatred of men and female superiority. It's the majority that hear them and think: "I have no particular issue with their rhetoric or their agenda, so I'm fine with their continued accumulation of power." "They say they're advocating for women and equality (by preaching bigotry and spreading m…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 10:34 PM
4

it’s not a good idea for us to diminish actual harm for women. The question is whether there is actual harm towards women. We are required to actively ignore the higher crime victimization rates men experience the world over to arrive at the conclusion that women are especially victimized. That implies they are our enemy and they’re not. What does it imply about your stance towards Indians that you are willing to believe they are especially evil? I get it. It's attractive to point the finger at …
/r/MensRights19/12/24 02:52 AM
4

The disgruntled juror spoke out to the prosecuting lawyer. So this friend had a trial where a juror went out of their way to commit contempt of court - risking jail time - just to moan about the gender breakdown of the voting? And an officer of the court and public official let it happen and did nothing? And then committed contempt of court themself to pass this information on to your friend?
/r/MensRights17/12/24 10:52 AM
4

9 out of the 12 jurors agreed it was without reasonable doubt SA, 3 (men) had reasonable doubt How do you know how each juror voted? The defendant was 19 at the time and a virgin. The man in question was 25 she What?
/r/MensRights17/12/24 10:21 AM
19

No I do not believe forcing women to sign up will help the draft get trashed. Sorry to say, but you're wrong. For example, Democrats in California seriously considered throwing out anti-sex discrimination laws as soon as women-only gyms began to be targeted in lawsuits. This is the fastest, simplest way to attempt to get rid of the draft. Attempts at direct repeal haven't worked and are unlikely to work in the future. And like the other commenter said, "as long as it exists it should apply for e…
/r/MensRights11/12/24 10:25 PM
6

The Fatty Arbuckle case is one of the most wild instances of false accusation ever. Damn near everyone - the police, the prosecutor, witnesses, interest groups, at least one biased juror, journalists, Hollywood, the public at-large - conspired to frame him for rape and murder and otherwise assassinate his character for money, for propaganda value, or just for a laugh. He went through 3 trials and at the end of the 3rd the jury deliberated for 6 minutes: 1 minute to unanimously find him not guilt…
/r/MensRights10/12/24 08:39 AM
6

They can hate me but at least I know they understand basic policy and will make peoples lives better. Whoops! They prioritized the hate part above the policy part and lost the election. Again. So much for making lives better... Democrats can pay lip service to any policies they want. They've demonstrated no serious interest in actually governing since conservatives took over in the mid 90s, even when they've controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Their policy goals have centered…
/r/MensRights09/12/24 06:32 AM
10

I find it pretty shitty for the players who actually recognize the need for segregation in sports. But regular girls who just want to have a fair playing field really deserve that fair playing field. Why subsidize women's professional sports in the first place? Men's AA and AAA leagues are subsidized because they feed into the money-making sports. Even men's student leagues can turn a profit. Women are not physically able to compete in most men's leagues. Leagues for people with disabilities are…
/r/MensRights16/11/24 12:54 AM
3

Can't be. They cited: a different survey (broken link) in the sources list at the bottom of the OP link a survey of the general population, not foster kids surveys with a different respondent total stats on involuntary/unwilling sex, which that survey lacks The only thing that matches is the response rates.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 06:18 PM
6

At least this survey actually seems to have provided the question set "Seems" is the key word. Try to find the actual survey where the question was asked. I don't think you'll be able to. I wasn't.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 03:00 AM
14

what can be done about it. It's not actually a question about rape. This is a classic woozle survey. They can't get the answer they want ("1/16 women call their first sexual experience rape") so they ask a different, vague question they know will be misinterpreted and then they choose how to interpret the responses according to their own bias and equivocate until they get back to 'rape' ("would you say that this first vaginal intercourse [with a male] was voluntary or not voluntary, that is, did…
/r/MensRights14/11/24 02:56 AM
20

This one is from a significant women's magazine and it should be pointed out and documented that they are whimsically, uncritically echoing and boosting the idea that women should use sex as a tool of political coercion. Trump is rightly criticized for his "many people - not me, but many people - are saying [horrible thing] and maybe they're right"-style statements. This is the same thing. If you don't remember these things feminists will soon come along and gaslight you, saying they never happe…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 06:20 PM
30

They only want equality in things where said equality is a benefit to women. They don't want equality in those things either. They want supremacy and continue to demand special treatment in areas where women have long been dominant. To address OP for a moment, the core belief of feminism is "women as a group are superior to (yet oppressed by) men as a group". So therefore equality will never exist. Equality of opportunity can exist. Feminists spend a lot of effort fighting against it from a plac…
/r/MensRights08/11/24 02:41 AM
4

This kind of thing is important in order to have a ready counter for the trolls that routinely show up to ignore, deny, trivialize, excuse, and/or encourage misandry. Don't let them get away with feigning ignorance to trick a gullible audience. Hatred of men and masculinity is: normalized and encouraged in mainstream media professed and enforced throughout the education system integral to Feminism and the concept of female solidarity in general deemed acceptable in those forums of discussion whe…
/r/MensRights07/11/24 10:10 AM
1

Then you go to a feminist sub and realize that a brainless idiot OP who doesn't know the first rule of Presidential eligibility would be considered an intellectual powerhouse there. Then you remember those are considered important, progressive voices and lose hope for humanity. men have gotten so thoroughly trounced by women in a society created by men in less than two decades. Society's trajectory has never changed. Unrestrained gynocentrism has always been the goal. It's simply been accelerate…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 02:36 AM
43

No one deserves chivalry. It's completely arbitrary - it has nothing to do with the person's behavior and everything to do with their "special" identity. Don't be a Manchurian candidate who does servile things because they're programmed into you.
/r/MensRights15/10/24 09:55 AM
15

It's an urban legend. I've never seen a study demonstrate that it's happened even once. The most you'll see is person given [pill X] thinking it's [pill Y]. It's almost always too much alcohol with too high an ABV too fast. We underestimate the properties and strength of alcohol and are surprised by how it affects us (it's definitely happened to me). People don't want to admit to taking drugs, "being a lightweight", or generally being irresponsible, so they come up with an alternate explanation.…
/r/MensRights16/08/24 02:10 AM
3

THESE FUCKS are who you choose to be leaders..?!? No. They have very specifically and brazenly bypassed the will of the Democratic voters to arrive at this point. This is the political fanfiction "sneak a woman past 'em" scenario that crackpots have been pushing for years that everyone else thought was a cringe-worthy joke. I.e., [Biden|white male] wins the primaries and bows out for [Hillary|random female, preferably WOC] so the racist, sexist chuds can't stop Her and will have to vote for Her.…
/r/MensRights22/07/24 03:29 AM
0

There's a disease where the candidate isn't 100% aligned with them so they won't vote. The real disease is the Democratic party making a mockery of their members for the third election in a row. The only reason they even hold primaries now is because Leftist voters feel better (and are less likely to riot) knowing they're being ignored than they do merely believing it. The real disease is relying on a 30-40% DemSoc member base to turn out for the incrementalist-at-best candidates of the 60-70% w…
/r/MensRights21/07/24 11:53 PM
2

Most are against individual steps to minimize risk (for... some reason) but view societal action as something that would work. It needs to be demonstrated that in this area fear and danger are not merely unrelated, but inversely related. It might feel reasonable to try to argue people out of the opposing viewpoint, but it's pointless. Their entire ideology is built on ad-hoc arguments. Don't make the mistake of treating them as if they are engaging in good faith. No one actually thinks "rape pro…
/r/MensRights21/06/24 07:27 AM
14

it can also be argued that the spreading and promoting of rape culture is the reason rapes are so unlikely. Except a key point of advocacy of proponents of the rape culture myth is against the idea that potential victims can take reasonable steps to minimize their risk. They call it victim blaming. So how exactly do you credit awareness of "rape culture" with reducing the rate of rape?
/r/MensRights20/06/24 03:32 AM
9

Twitter is full of assholes Threads is full of assholes This place is full of assholes Sounds like there are going to be problems everywhere you go.
/r/MensRights16/06/24 11:18 PM
18

I don’t really get what you’re saying here Read it again, then. It's pretty clear. There's bolding and italics and everything.
/r/MensRights06/06/24 10:18 PM
27

feminists feminists feminists feminists feminists this sub needs to spend less time hating women. women Feminists = all women. It's the classic bait-and-switch, but you're way too early for that, my friend. You're not supposed to give away the game so brazenly. Don't they teach you kids anything in concern troll school these days?
/r/MensRights06/06/24 10:13 PM
3

Actually only the rich women and some middle class women didn't work. Most women worked. I was talking about men's aspirations. Their highest concrete goal was generally to relieve women from the burdens of subsistence labor. A man who managed to extricate himself from that burden was considered a lazy scoundrel unless he quickly took up voluntary labor or (multiple) productive hobbies in order to contribute. Patriarchy divorced of gynocentrism is definitely possible and it was like that most of…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 09:50 PM
12

If feminism pushes men too far there will be a big backlash People have been saying this forever. It's not going to happen. It's based on a faulty (in this case, rose-tinted) understanding of what a society is and isn't. Up to the present day society has been a resource transfer scheme from men to women and not a particularly compassionate or mutualistic one. Do you think maximizing this transfer wasn't the point before feminism? In the time period where men's highest aspiration was to work so h…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 05:07 PM
1

I used dating apps a lot (or simply met people) from 2008-2015, when I finally met my wife tthrough Tinder. For people old enough to remember (I’m in my mid-30’s), have apps changed really dramatically since then? The horror stories I hear now are incredible. You aren't going to get a real answer. No one wants to talk honestly about sex or relationships. Being honest about these interactions demystifies them, and most people want to keep them mysterious. At most they just want to promote their v…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 04:23 AM
1

The largest group of women opposed to feminism exists not because of differing goals or ideologies, but out of a baseless fear that feminists surely can't get away with such unrestricted, blatant, bigoted selfishness and hatred forever. It is baseless because so far there's no significant evidence that men's forbearance will run out short of absolute social collapse. If you're waiting for rational self-interest to restrain gynocentrism and misandry you're going to be waiting forever.
/r/MensRights29/04/24 07:55 PM
1

As a refugee he'll likely become a net financial burden (perish the thought), but as an impressed soldier he his family gets a stipend, subsidized by Europe and America, until he gets killed - and probably survivorship benefits after that. So technically enslaving him and risking his life is preferable to letting him live as a refugee. Ya know, if you don't care about his human rights (which they don't). Ukraine will, in order of preference, collapse or surrender before asking women to meaningfu…
/r/MensRights18/04/24 05:53 PM
0

AI will reproduce to the identical (or nearly identical) a photo or even video of the person in an explicit position. A photoshop montage can be busted way more easily (depending on the skills of the person doing), and a drawing even more a) You can already commission stuff that's indistinguishable from real to the naked (hyuck hyuck) eye. You only think it's always easy to tell the difference because you've only seen amateur 'shops made by teenagers with more gumption and hormones than talent a…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 12:08 AM
1

Feminism vapourizes during the hard time of the country. They pushed through the women-only train cars during the war.
/r/MensRights24/02/24 08:43 PM
6

They do not give a toss about working class women to be honest. They do if those working class women pose a threat to upper class women's position. Then they have to be controlled and corralled into their rightful place.
/r/MensRights22/02/24 09:22 PM
14

I actually say this all the time to conservative USA men that I know and conservative UK men that I know. I say: "don't try to force a USA woman into a traditional wife lifestyle that she doesn't want. Marry a woman from another country who wants to live that traditional lifestyle." So you marry an international opportunist, bring her to a country where all the laws incentivize her to take advantage of you, and hope for the best. Yeah, that sounds like typical head-in-the-sand tradcon thinking. …
/r/MensRights04/02/24 10:48 PM
1

What? Not sure what you're referring to.
/r/MensRights31/01/24 07:08 AM
1

But when was the last time you ever heard a woman referred to as a loser? They don't get called losers. They can't be losers, because they don't exist in the same hierarchy that men do. Women can be "victims" if they're doing badly, not losers, which means it's society's job to course correct so that she can live a good life. And it will. It will, because the world is nice to women. The core purpose of any society is the protection and provision of women. Until you reinvent the very idea of what…
/r/MensRights30/01/24 10:21 PM
3

Remember this when tradcons come to the sub whining about OnlyFans, immodesty, etc. Tradcons don't give a single shit about Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights28/01/24 04:34 AM
15

They genuinely think men just need to "show their emotions" and all their issues go away No, they don't genuinely think that. They are, in fact, being very disingenuous. They want the idea of 'men's issues' itself to go away. They believe "showing emotions" is a feminine weakness and they want any men on the path to seriously considering* men's issues to adopt it to the same effeminating, weakening effect. They want men to hamstring themselves so they can't effectively push for their rights. In …
/r/MensRights23/01/24 06:21 AM
53

Divorce, alimony, supervised biweekly weekend visitation, exorbitant child support... The benefits are endless.
/r/MensRights17/01/24 09:32 PM
1

The only real problem tradcons have with feminists is that they think the latter will give away the game by taking so brazenly. Feminists have realized that gynocentrism will only bottom out when society literally collapses.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 09:37 AM
13

As someone who had a job where I regularly had to put irregularly shaped, unwieldy, heavy items into too-small cars I can tell you that any "backseat driving" is unwelcome regardless of the gender of the person doing it or even how correct they might be. Firstly, you're usually physically straining and stressing which in turn has a negative effect on your mood and desire to take advice. Secondly, someone who can't or won't do the task is telling you how they would do it, which is imperious and a…
/r/MensRights16/12/23 05:08 AM
2

The first clue that there is something deeply wrong with these men is the fact that they are well into adulthood and still trying to earn a pat on the head by turning a blind eye to (or even agreeing with) bigotry like "I hate men" and "kill all men".
/r/MensRights12/12/23 12:53 AM
1

Tyrion ended up alone, betrayed by every women he ever loved. Not true. Remember Jaime's revelation in book 3. It's debatable whether he loved any of the women who actually betrayed him.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 03:40 AM
4

The context of the quote makes its use not only inappropriate but full-on ironic on multiple levels. Brienne is an ugly young woman yet still wildly rich, powerful, and privileged in a world full of abject misery for those who lack those advantages. Because Catelyn shares those advantages and is blind to them she thinks Brienne has the most difficult life imaginable. Non-rich, non-powerful, non-privileged people don't even register in her worldview. In fact, Brienne's ugliness works to her advan…
/r/MensRights06/12/23 03:01 AM
5

For me it was: being acquainted with racist and antisemitic rhetoric, theories, and tactics; seeing feminists actually try to one-up those groups in their hatefulness and bigotry; and then watching them be greeted* with nothing but acceptance and approval. Once I woke up to the fact that they are worse bigots (or, at least, they very much want to be) than the quintessential examples while getting rewarded for it the entire false narrative of oppression fell apart. *Edit: grammar
/r/MensRights29/11/23 11:43 AM
0

NYT Both of your links are from washingtonpost.com and the second is a report on an arrest and criminal prosecution, not an "anti-FGM" article.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 08:16 AM
-2

Cultural erasure is not genocide. Yes it is. dehumanization is not genocide. Dehumanization is the companion to genocide. It's how you get your people to go along with it.
/r/MensRights18/11/23 04:57 AM
2

Honestly, the aim of Russia was never genocide. They kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children to be raised in Russia as Russians. They destroyed Ukrainian literature in the territories they control. They bomb civilians indiscriminately. They endlessly parrot the line that Ukraine is a mistake and an unredeemed region of greater Russia. They simultaneously claim that Ukraine is overrun with Nazis yet puppeted by Jews. There are people living in Ukranian lands occupied in Russia since 2014. "No U…
/r/MensRights17/11/23 10:28 PM
7

How was this even sexual harassment when she willingly went to his room at the hotel? What do women who go to the hotel room of a man, late at night, expect might happen, a game of Twister? These questions were asked during the height of MeToo and the answer was unironically "Hollywood producers travel a lot and have busy schedules so sometimes they have to take meetings with starlets alone in their hotel rooms at 2AM. It's all on the up-and-up."
/r/MensRights17/11/23 07:03 AM
1

"if you are a good person, you don't have to worry about anything" One of the reasons we have rules like "innocent until proven guilty" is the many, many, many times in human history when good people were oppressed regardless/in spite of their innocence.
/r/MensRights11/11/23 12:25 AM
5

Where are the feminists? Pushing for women-only train cars in Ukraine. To be fair, there are men-only trains in Ukraine already. They have convenient stops near Bakhmut, Kharkiv, Kherson...
/r/MensRights09/11/23 12:05 AM
1

I might agree, if the mods had not made clear this sub is a place were men can vent in a way that would get them banned from most other subs. Admins exist and they'll ban this sub if it engages in the same behaviors they banned the refugees for exhibiting. This sub has been going for over a decade discussing men's issues without much of a problem and the new influx of people discussing ..."off-topic" issues threatens that.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 05:24 AM
1

Ask the quiet Mexican family down the street. I'm asking you what men get out of the self-annihilation I described and your answer is "ask someone else who hopefully holds racially stereotypical views"? your knowledge is both one sided and from an outsiders' perspective. You just now introduced the "outsiders'" perspective. What the hell are you talking about? Who was talking about """the quiet Mexican family""""? Don't bother answering until you've asked the quiet Inuit family down the street, …
/r/MensRights24/10/23 05:20 AM
1

I'll feel better when Tradcons stop seeing the MRM as their ticket to oppressing men in favor of women even more. So ...no, I don't feel better yet.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 05:11 AM
2

the origins of feminism are indeed socialist. Then the CIA Ah yes, "feminism" if you ignore the first 130 years where it was an exclusive rich white women's parlor movement - pro-slavery, prohibitionist, pro-eugenics and always, always anti-male.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 05:08 AM
1

They will not demonize/shame other women who go against their own beliefs. Abortion/sex work is a clear example of this. Depends on the nature of the sex work/abortion, including the identity of the person doing it and any man potentially benefiting from it.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:30 AM
1

It is not their fault that they have been fed some distortion of reality and if you push them away then they will never open their eyes They don't want their eyes opened. They're not going to abandon the traditionalist ideal that men ought to be subservient to women. It's the foundation of their belief system. They white-knight for women So do feminists. They're in a race to subjugate the most men. It would seem that "the left" makes the rules, and "the right" simply plays along. "Playing along"…
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:27 AM
1

Sounds like you're whining about people pointing out TradCon whining.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:17 AM
1

The right aren't feminists I didn't say they were. Stop gaslighting, you leftist. Show me where I said the right are feminists: There is no reason to countenance, legitimatize, believe, or sympathize with TradCon whiners. They made their bed when they white-knighted for feminists for decades. TradCons made up the majority of the West, yet acquiesced to every feminist demand they could: Default mother child-custody? Sure! No-fault divorce? Sure! Infiltration/destruction of men's spaces? Sure! Ero…
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:14 AM
1

And assuming they got everything they wanted (a return to traditionalist values) all they would accomplish is a reset of the cycle that allows Feminists to obtain ever-increasing concessions from them.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:08 AM
1

Why is this sub inundated with TradCon whiners who have nothing to offer to Men's Rights but daily whining about OnlyFans and pining for kitchen-wives? Its not? You could maybe find a few posts at best It's constant and increasing in frequency. Let's be honest here, Feminism is a cancer that originates from the Left Wing. "First-wave" feminists were Christian prohibitionists who hated the idea of black slaves getting rights ahead of rich white women.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 04:05 AM
1

There are a lot of people in this subreddit who believe that there were no issues with men's rights in the past. There are a lot of people who believe that It is ok for men to be disposable like in the past: to be forced and expected to slave away for a job while the wife stays at home and to be conscripted into wars while women are not. I am more apt to blame education and the idealization of women as a group, not their political bend. If you think TradCons don't: believe that there were no iss…
/r/MensRights24/10/23 03:59 AM
1

Pointing out fifth columnists is important for any movement. They can't be allowed to distract from promoting the rights, liberties and dignity of men - something they've done whenever possible in the past. I'm pretty sure I pointed out their priorities above and they are not related to promoting the rights, liberties and dignity of men at all.
/r/MensRights24/10/23 03:49 AM
-6

I am a member of the Boy Scouts of America and I'm not a fan of girls joining. Too bad. You should have done something when you had a chance. The organization is "Scouts" now. Also they abuse children. Quit and/or shut up. Instead they could've changed Girl Scouts of the USA or Girl Guides internationally. Why would they? They could just steal a pre-existing superior organization like yours and keep the cookie money-maker they have. Quit or do their bidding. Either way: you lost.
/r/MensRights05/10/23 12:08 AM
4

The men who get laid like carpet, say stuff about women that would make your average feminist rage. No need to sugarcoat it, they say stuff about women that would make your average misogynist rage. There is no relationship between "respect" for sexual partners and sexual success.
/r/MensRights24/09/23 10:22 AM
7

The irony of trying to pressgang a man into supporting a random child, fining him [x] for trying to get out of servitude (depriving the child of [x] amount from its well of financial support), then forcing him to support the child anyway. Then again, it's not irony if you unironically support slavery...
/r/MensRights19/09/23 05:44 AM
18

it won't destroy the country. I was just saying that it's been in effect for a long time, and people are still reproducing. So what's your point then? Slavery didn't destroy America -_-
/r/MensRights19/09/23 05:38 AM
1

So they want equal pay As opposed to unequal pay? Why should women be paid less?
/r/MensRights14/09/23 12:58 AM
41

Now I understand girls go through a lot more trauma and danger when meeting with strangers. Not statistically true. Many serial killers have abducted women during dates. A number much closer to 'zero' than to 'statistically significant'. "Many" women have assaulted men during dates. I don’t understand their need to tell me that. It's in case you find out before the date that they were spying on you. Women have no interest in knowing whether you're "a serial killer". They couldn't care less wheth…
/r/MensRights11/09/23 12:37 PM
2

I could consider being in a long term relationship, maybe even have children with a woman, but I'll never get married. Family courts will just laden you with an alimony's worth of child support to provide the child a "proper" living situation after granting her primary custody. You might not lose your home, but you'll be paying for hers.
/r/MensRights27/08/23 08:19 AM
3

A man traditionally would have no problem being a provider because he knew he was coming come to a loyal, loving woman that appreciated his efforts. The big traditionalist lie is that this is a good deal for men. Unfortunately, it still does not account for the gender productivity imbalance. He was working towards their future together. I.e., subsidizing her lifestyle. You can't trust that to be the case anymore. You never could. She could cuckold you at any time, stop contributing to the marria…
/r/MensRights24/08/23 01:26 PM
15

Marriage shackles men to the role of performing excess labor and the excess resources they generate are used to subsidize women's (and to a lesser extent wealthy men's) lifestyles. Unmarried men have little incentive to work 60 hours a week. Marriage also introduces extreme pitfalls into a man's life that punish deviation from self-abnegating, subservient social behavior.
/r/MensRights23/08/23 08:58 AM
1

All she wants is children and a family. This mindset/behavior is non existent in American women. Jesus bro who hurt you?
/r/MensRights23/08/23 02:09 AM
9

Honestly it's a very reasonable concern. If women across society are doing more than their fair share of chores without any just recompense, that's definately something worth complaining about. The problem is it's hard to properly assess unpaid labour. For example: a recent trend among feminist columnists is the idea of "unpaid emotional labour", that women exert enormous energy in managing the tempermental emotions of their male co-habitants, and in the various organisational tasks needed to ke…
/r/MensRights23/08/23 01:46 AM
-8

I'm more annoyed by the fact that women do nothing for men who want to earn money with their looks in modelling, of, porn or prostitution. So what? People profit off of innate qualities all the time. Get over it or join your local Marxist-Leninist Socialist Party and cut everyone down to size. This is an insane thing to be bitter about. I'd love to get money from feetpics just because I'm young and not morbidly obese, but since I'm a man there isn't a demand for that. Tough.
/r/MensRights20/08/23 11:30 PM
2

They will blow your mind, or whatever else, at the beginning, then, once the ring in place, and the kids in the cradle, then, and only then, they will let the veil fall... I.e., you're going to lose all those (superficial) perks that you think qualify her to start a family with you. She's buttering you up because All she wants is children and a family. Only you see yourself as an inextricable, irreplaceable part of that picture. Everyone thinks they're the exception... If they were all correct, …
/r/MensRights20/08/23 11:20 PM
1

The fundamental organization of any large democratic society is republican and hierarchical, so it only makes sense to lobby for change at the higher levels of representation.
/r/MensRights20/08/23 08:57 AM
3

Self-centeredness and selfishness are not inherently psychopathic. Everyone expresses these traits to some degree.
/r/MensRights15/08/23 01:56 AM
2

I know it's not easy to comprehend for people who are purely monogamous It's the transition that usually kills things and otherwise indicates deeper issues. I would appreciate it if you could obstain from your negative projections, just ask if you're curious without coming up with conclusions that may fit into your worldview but are simply not true for my relationship. Well, like I said your phrasing implied you were the one who proposed the adjustment. As for the cynical conclusions, they're ba…
/r/MensRights15/08/23 01:51 AM
2

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/women-voter-participation-exceeds-that-of-men-in-2019-ls-polls-cec-chandra/articleshow/87936542.cms From the latest national election. A small lead, but a lead still.
/r/MensRights15/08/23 01:42 AM
8

Voting isn’t meaningless in Russia actually Yes it is. but it’s far less effective than you’d like. Yeah, I'd like it to be meaningful. You should look into the banned jobs list though. Does it relegate women to lower-paying, more dangerous, less-desirable, less comfortable, longer-hour work? One of the banned jobs is "Conscripted Soldier Dying in Ukraine" - by the thousand - by the way. Whether it's on a formal list of "men's work" or not. The female literacy rate in India is something like 60%…
/r/MensRights14/08/23 01:52 AM
7

Herpes and HPV both spread in areas that aren't covered by a condom, such as the upper groin area. Extremely rarely. Condoms also fail between 5-13% of the time at preventing pregnancy. False. Not just "false when used properly", but false in general, including improper usage and physical failure of the condom itself. You've made this statistic up. But at least after seeing you cite these invented problems I'm no longer curious what your point is. You're a proselytizing, lying prude.
/r/MensRights14/08/23 12:47 AM
13

A decade later we opened up our relationship simply to have variety and my partner was telling me for years that I've missed out during my younger years anyway. I assume from this phrasing that you were the one who was bored and the one to bring up the idea of an open relationship. I also assume you're heterosexual. No man goes from 10 years of monogamy to "sure, I'm fine with an open relationship ...I've been telling you for years that you should have slept with other people, after all!" unless…
/r/MensRights13/08/23 11:53 PM
14

Condoms. What's your point?
/r/MensRights13/08/23 11:23 PM
18

Men who sleep around are called perverts, fuckboys, womanizer, community dick, and manwhores. ...And then we all go back to rewarding these "bad boys" immensely. What's your point?
/r/MensRights13/08/23 11:16 PM
11

And women in Russia and India have very valid grievances with the patriarchal systems in their country. Women in India vote. They "elect [their] representatives and those people declare war, pass laws, appoint judges, and direct funding." There's a reason every day sees a new, ridiculous anti-male policy enacted there. Voting is meaningless in Russia, but women in Russia aren't being conscripted to die in Ukraine so their grievances can take a backseat to men's. There is no Patriarchy except the…
/r/MensRights13/08/23 10:51 PM
10

The feminist stranglehold on these types of discussions relies on the lie that women are uniquely, uniformly, utterly oppressed. They use belief in this lie to silence anyone who dares suggest we not dedicate 110% of resources and attention to women's problems. They use it to accuse anyone who doesn't pay them heed (or just pay them) of being part of the ubiquitous misogynist patriarchy. As soon as they admit men are worse off than women their entire game is up and their selfish priorities are c…
/r/MensRights13/08/23 10:44 PM
7

Data demonstrates plenty of things that people haven't admitted or won't admit. The data has demonstrated this particular fact for decades. The question is "why are they admitting it now when they were previously happy to lie about it?"
/r/MensRights13/08/23 07:57 AM
25

It's not a conspiracy. Governments are bending over backwards to fulfill society's main purpose: to protect and provide for women, up to and including whims that would otherwise be considered sociopathic. There is no allowed mechanism to determine when women have 'enough' and no group powerful enough to tell governments to 'stop' short of social collapse itself. After which we'll rinse and repeat. Both the tradcon response and feminist response to ever-increasing demands and to the social decay …
/r/MensRights11/08/23 11:15 PM
4

Fill up cushy positions with women, hire immigrant men who don't know any better for the hard labor, give them the same title and pay and pretend it's the same work. That's how it went at every retail job I ever worked. They even have lifting requirements for non-disabled employees (i.e. "you must be able to lift x pounds") a lot of the time. Turns out these are for show as the women can and will simply refuse to do any lifts and will leave them for the men. If I had a nickel for every irate cus…
/r/MensRights11/08/23 09:01 PM
3

The same thing happens in gaming as in real life. A lower portion of gamers is willing to give women the "Xbox Live chat" treatment, but when women do receive that treatment they are far louder and their complaints are taken much more seriously. Men, meanwhile, are more likely to incorporate it into the experience and consider it something that comes with the territory. There may be an argument that women suffer more from it qualitatively (because they have little to no coping strategies and are…
/r/MensRights05/08/23 12:59 AM
34

AWALT was a response to NAWALT (and NAFALT) which was in turn a response to people pointing out bad behavior by women (and feminists) as a response to "yes, ALL men [are like that]" which was a big feminist meme back in the day. GWW made a video about it. Feminists start a stupid trend and are shocked and appalled when a countervailing trend rises to the occasion. Luckily, if you ignore/don't know history that means it didn't happen and you get to pick your starting position! Bonus points: if yo…
/r/MensRights31/07/23 02:15 AM
1

Remember this when elected District Attorneys run as "tough on crime". Prosecutorial discretion means they can pick and choose what to prosecute, and they do so based on conviction (i.e., plea bargain) rate and public opinion. They will prosecute where the evidence is lacking or the alleged crime is something the public doesn't consider serious if there's a high chance of conviction. They will decline to act whenever there's any chance they can't convict unless public bloodlust is significant en…
/r/MensRights31/07/23 12:01 AM
5

I'm referring to a lot of stuff that makes the idea that America had universal men's suffrage starting from the mid-19th century a joke. Just a taste: "Universal suffrage" ...unless you were black and in the wrong area. "Men" ...unless you were under 21. "Mid-19th century" ...if 1870 counts as mid-century. "America" ...unless you lived in an unincorporated territory. But that doesn't even scratch the surface of the failings of the franchise, and it doesn't begin to acknowledge the failings that …
/r/MensRights27/07/23 06:18 AM
3

In fact, universal suffrage wasn't given to men until around the mid-19th century in America For certain definitions of the phrases "universal suffrage", "men" "mid-19th century", and "America"...
/r/MensRights26/07/23 08:40 PM
42

Less influence I can agree At the risk of making this a meme-tier comment chain, women have never had less influence than men. You're just unfamiliar with the ways in which women wield their influence. If you understood the power of femininity you would gladly trade it for the "right" to "vote" that men had in 1920.
/r/MensRights26/07/23 02:51 AM
3

they call it "stealthing" and act as if its something the man does all sneaky sneaky like and the woman won't notice... Anyone who's had sex with an actual woman can attest to that (including hearing endless complaints about how much worse condom-sex feels). The name is a misnomer. I'm pretty sure I've read of men being charged with this in other countries, so the bogeyman exists to some degree When I delineate between real bogeyman/not bogeyman I consider whether it's something worth checking f…
/r/MensRights25/07/23 09:11 PM
12

Ms Contos, who spoke before the senate committee today, is particularly passionate about the criminalisation of ‘stealthing’, which is the act of removing a condom without consent during sex. I do have to wonder, how the fuck do you not notice this? What makes you think the bogeyman needs to be real for people to make anti-bogeyman laws?
/r/MensRights25/07/23 09:18 AM
1

Someone who asks for cash upfront for a "relationship" is a prostitute, regular dating-prostitution (paying for meals, entertainment, transportation, etc.) aside. The idea that someone is "confused" about whether they should lie to a prostitute to "advance the relationship" for free or just walk away is insane. Either: You're okay with hooking up with a prostitute, in which case you're asking whether you should defraud her or You're not okay with hooking up with a prostitute, in which case you'r…
/r/MensRights19/07/23 07:51 PM
16

I can not wait until the law suits over this stuff starts to hit the medical industry complex - talk about a whole new level of Jerry Springer type stuff. It's not going to be trailer-trash slap-fights. It's going to be: "counselors responsible for preparing me for life after transitioning didn't adequately warn me about the significant, measurable, and well-known drop in quality-of-life -- above and beyond that which could be expected for a transgendered person in general -- that they knew I wa…
/r/MensRights19/07/23 03:12 AM
7

TwoX is the feminist version of white supremacist forums. It's an obvious hate subreddit. They invent anecdotes about being wronged by minorities men and circlejerk over fantasies of retribution for these invented slights against the white race female sex. Reddit typically proactively bans subs that could be even loosely construed as or associated with promoting identity-based hatred. Anything they don't ban, therefore, has the tacit support of Reddit - particularly if they let it exist for 14 y…
/r/MensRights13/07/23 08:35 AM
2

its fun to think that it will lead to their own self destruction. It might be fun to think that, but she's gainfully employed as a college professor.
/r/MensRights13/07/23 03:33 AM
3

She's tacitly proposing that women are inferior, having let themselves be horribly oppressed by men forever to no benefit of their own. Seems smart. What, exactly, does she believe suddenly caused women to stand up for themselves exclusively in recent times and empowered them to do so, and where was it in the previous... *raises eyebrow*... all of human history?! This is the kind of simple logic trap you can get yourself into when you only ever discuss your ideas in an echo chamber and then step…
/r/MensRights13/07/23 02:10 AM
1

Don't get dragged in by the troll.
/r/MensRights11/07/23 06:07 PM
98

What the hell do they know about our struggles? Since when do they care? Oh! I see! "Men are lost. Women most affected. Here's what we want you to do and to be". For decades they've done everything they can to create an identity crisis in men on a societal scale and are now trying to promote a self-serving solution. This is exactly how a religious cult operates. They mentally break down new members and rebuild them as loyal drones.
/r/MensRights11/07/23 06:28 AM
6

The power to force themselves upon men and men's spaces unidirectionally, which further emboldens them and other feminists to do the same with the forbearance/encouragement of a gynocentric society.
/r/MensRights10/07/23 03:19 AM
63

A move intended to obtain or demonstrate power.
/r/MensRights09/07/23 03:58 AM
17

Long term the same laws will destroy all same-sex spaces I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard of this happening to women's spaces.
/r/MensRights09/07/23 03:39 AM
2

The kids come a very very close second If you have to choose between feeding them, your partner, or yourself, who do you choose? Non-narcissists who put their partner/marriage first, then the kids (and then themselves, by the way) You found reasoning to put your partner before your kids (who actually need you), but think putting yourself before your partner is warped? Let's try this, then: The kids partner comes a very very close second, but they're immensely happy supported by a happy marriage …
/r/MensRights07/07/23 11:01 PM
2

Parents putting each other first to maintain a happy marriage will, in almost all cases, impart happiness onto the kids. That's what narcissists latch onto to justify their selfishness. Put your marriage before your kids, put yourself before your marriage and all that. You can't promote that kind of thinking and then act surprised and disgusted when people divorce on a whim and pursue ruinous child support and alimony. In any case, I never suggested that you become a robot that only activates wh…
/r/MensRights07/07/23 09:25 PM
7

I think the official statistic is something like 90% of marriages where the woman starts earning more than the man, she will divorce him. Is that "90% of marriages where the woman starts earning more than the man end in her divorcing him" "90% of marriages where the woman starts earning more than the man that end in divorce end in her divorcing him"? 90% of marriages where the woman starts off earning more than the man end in her divorcing him "90% of marriages where the woman starts off earning…
/r/MensRights07/07/23 09:41 AM
34

Once a couple has children their lives, desires, hopes, dreams, etc. should be secondary to those of the child. Reproduction and self-abnegation should go hand-in-hand. Don't like it? Don't have kids. In the event of divorce, custody should be split 50/50 *by default until and unless a good reason to do otherwise is presented to a jury or circumstances are truly and obviously extreme. Don't like it? Don't have kids. Every defense of reckless parenthood rests, explicitly or implicitly, on a "the …
/r/MensRights07/07/23 07:45 AM
20

Go to archive.fo, archive.is, or any other webpage archiving service. Paste the url of a trash article like this from a trash outlet like GQ in the box under "My url is alive and I want to archive its content" and click "save". Copy the archive link generated and paste as a submission. Like this You financially support the creation of these kinds of articles when you visit them and link hundreds or thousands of other people to them directly. When you link a submission from them just to point out…
/r/MensRights06/07/23 07:48 AM
18

Feminists' problem is that they perform the narcissist's prayer on turbo mode, so they're already at "yes we do it and you deserve it" before they've stopped to question how it would look to be proudly abusing children.
/r/MensRights04/07/23 10:23 PM
26

I’m a woman. I’m here cause I’ve a father, male cousins and friends and a boyfriend I care about deeply. I seek to understand and empathize with your struggles cause I know you have them. What if it cost you something to address those struggles and the benefit went towards a man you didn't know personally? But then I go to a women’s subreddit page and the first post I see is about a woman who was raped in the Navy by a guy also in the Navy alongside her and was never given the support in regards…
/r/MensRights27/06/23 08:23 AM
1

ITS TIME ! Especially now that there's more of them than men. Then and only then can they truly be equal and demand all those things they demand. I'm curious. What are some of all those things that women demand which need to take a back seat until they are required to register for the draft?
/r/MensRights25/06/23 09:02 PM
63

Marriage is absolutely not even close to worth it for men, the way things are now. Tangible contractual obligations, illusory metaphysical rewards. No-fault divorce, alimony, community property, child support, default mother custody... If a person defends traditionalism ask them where they were when it was kneecapped and ask them what fantasy world they're living in if they still support it when it's nothing but an albatross around men's necks. But I guess the albatross doesn't seem like much of…
/r/MensRights16/06/23 07:23 AM
15

Women fought against their own right to vote because they thought it could lead to increased civic obligations like conscription and working. When it became clear that they could get something for nothing they largely dropped their opposition. That's the only difference between traditionalist women and feminist women: traditionalists are worried that they can't keep making increasingly unfair demands without exposing the game while feminists have realized that the sky's the limit.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 09:50 PM
15

assuming there is evidence provided What about this situation would make you assume that? Not only do they not require evidence, but being able to make accusations without evidence is literally the core appeal of such platforms.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 03:06 PM
5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia#Repeal Ancient Roman noblewomen rioted to have their right to public displays of extreme wealth restored.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 07:16 AM
1

Some idiot was saying that while women can sexually assault men that it doesn't compare to how women are systemically sexually assaulted. I mean WTF? Does this person seriously think there's men assigned by secret government forces to seek out women to SA them? Systemic - pervasive throughout a system. Systematic - done with a deliberate plan. A systemic issue is one that is happening wherever you turn. A systematic issue is a purposeful set of policies intended to achieve a particular goal. E.g…
/r/MensRights09/06/23 07:28 PM
3

This thread is a whole bunch of people wasting their time. OP is a brainless tradcon "I will work harder" type. If it wasn't clear from the eye-rolling topic post it will be if you read his comments. Commenter: If you add a disabled contingency, make sure you add one for yourself as well. What if you become incapable of earning good money? If you are in a stressful profession and burn out, you need to feel safe that you can take time off work to recover. OP: Exactly. However, Im not adding any s…
/r/MensRights06/06/23 06:31 PM
3

As opposed to the "altruistic" sort that has, at best, sat idly by and silent as feminists successfully, endlessly wage their war on men. It's telling that "4/5 women that [he knows who] speak up for men" interact with male sexuality rationally and without a constant screeching disdain or weeping threat narrative. You say "they only care because they have a direct financial stake in men's success." I say "finally, someone feels they have a stake in men's success."
/r/MensRights03/06/23 08:12 PM
1

Women who a) don't see male sexuality as inherently harmful or adverse to femininity and b) interact with men on a consistent basis. The anti-sex worker shit is from tradcons who don't want to confront the implications of the sexual economics they claim to understand. For the vast majority of men it is better to have prices in integer values than to be subjected to the traditional nebulous, deceptive, fungible prerequisites that are far more exploitative than simple transactions.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 08:03 PM
13

I feel that a lot of feminism from the 1980’s on has focused on dehumanizing men. I understand the impulse to introduce some cutoff point (a point which continuously moves in parallel with present day btw) to appeal to the mindless "feminism = good" crowd, but feminism was never good. It was always suffuse with hatred for men.
/r/MensRights26/05/23 10:59 PM
7

It's not confusing when you realize this is the goal of society. Societies exist to protect and provide for women. Even if the demands made on behalf of women become insane, a society will attempt to accommodate them until it collapses.
/r/MensRights26/05/23 10:27 PM
1

It's nonsense and there is no boycott. Anyone who believes people are stopping having kids as an ideological act is huffing their own farts. There's a reason self-reporting of motivation in behaviorism is taken with a massive grain of salt. People rarely know why they do the things they do and in the absence of knowledge they will instead substitute whatever motivations they think would be pleasing to themselves, the questioner, or to society itself.
/r/MensRights26/05/23 08:42 PM
27

I blindly brought into the idea that the Ex husband might have walked away. Now [...] I can't help but wonder What did you do to drive him away? Still seems like you don't understand the dynamics. Women initiate divorce between 70-80% of the time. It's also pointless to think of these things as "one party drove the other away". If you believe marriage should be a lifelong commitment, then most marriages shouldn't happen since they were bound to fail anyway (and they do). People just don't get ma…
/r/MensRights26/05/23 07:13 PM
10

There are many communities which are matriarchal Matriarchy. Patriarchy. Neither of these apex fallacies matter because all significant societies everywhere existed and exist for the protection and provision of women. This is what needs to change. Look at what a society does and not the genitals of its "leaders".
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:58 PM
7

He also said: "A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him." He was a big fan of bon mots. Consistency, not so much.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:54 PM
50

Possibility 1: The Patriarchy™ ruled everyone everywhere with an iron fist constantly for thousands of years for the benefit of men at the expense of women. But also it can be completely inverted with little to no violence over the course of mere decades so that it explicitly, deliberately, and exclusively benefits women at the expense of men whenever possible. Possibility 2: There's no such thing as The Patriarchy™ and there never was.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 06:46 PM
7

And when you become aware of that you notice how much effort feminists put into defending that behavior despite nominally opposing traditional gender roles.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 10:23 AM
7

The state of everyone's rights is appalling in the Middle East. I don't support feminist bigotry where I live and I don't support it when it's directed at The Other either.
/r/MensRights16/05/23 09:43 AM
13

just like any smart trafficking organization would do. Feminists are fine with those organizations operating with impunity. Poor foreign women don't have money, typically don't have relatives in-country who will make a stink if they go missing, can't vote, and (maybe most importantly) aren't a significant threat to women's desired social position. That's why they've expanded the definition of trafficking to the point that organized trafficking now makes up a minuscule portion of the total "traff…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 04:28 AM
1

No they wouldn’t. But they would have to use some handwringing Did you mean "yes they would" or "But even if they did they would have to use some handwringing"? If it's the latter, I assure you they would use that handwringing. We already saw them do this when considering extending selective service to women, punting the issue to Congress with a 'handwringing' justification.
/r/MensRights03/05/23 06:10 AM
5

It was removed from the (now expired) text submitted to the states for ratification. But understand that the first case to come to the Supreme Court for any equal rights amendment would reinterpret it back in unless the amendment exclusively abrogated all pre-existing privileges under the law. They wouldn't need the Hayden rider to preserve pro-female discrimination.
/r/MensRights03/05/23 04:00 AM
2

Its more of a balance thing. It isn't, though. Balance isn't encouraged, the extreme is encouraged. The narrative is that incels are self-aggrandizing misogynists, but in reality they are punished for making everyone feel bad about the blatantly broken state of social sexuality. Conversely, while the "I'm a king/queen and anyone who doesn't like me is a hater" brigade is lampooned from time to time no one is deplatforming them and imputing violent malice on them nonstop. One extreme is clearly s…
/r/MensRights19/04/23 04:08 AM
9

The "healthy" advice for those facing rejection is to externalize to retain self-confidence. Society encourages and rewards narcissism and discourages honest discussion of sexual attraction.
/r/MensRights18/04/23 11:20 PM
4

The original point of the alpha/beta thing was to wake the vast majority of men up to how they're getting fleeced in the sexual marketplace. In typical fashion, feminists and traditionalists co-opted it as a bludgeon to try to force men into their preferred roles. Feminists do this by gaslighting men into thinking being "beta" is actually "alpha" (women actually want beta guys, not alphas) and traditionalists by ignoring that this dichotomy is descriptive of an undesirable, untenable system (jus…
/r/MensRights09/04/23 08:51 PM
1

You can see whatever you want to see with that episode. The society is a utopia for females and all males are punted out into the wilderness at birth to grunt and fight and fuck sexbots their whole lives. The females are crippled by the presence of spiders and farts and their emotions. I don't think feminists made Justin Roiland's girlfriend call the cops on him to get back at him for a weak-ass episode about male/female stereotypes that he didn't even write 6 years after the fact.
/r/MensRights26/03/23 10:02 PM
8

No one can force a woman into parenthood without her consent, other than in some US states In those cases they have the same rights as men, so there's still no imbalance against women. Edit: as /u/closetedapostate pointed out, safe surrender is a thing for women only.
/r/MensRights10/03/23 10:15 PM
4

Are feminists actually fighting for that right? The ones that do are the minority and they do it mostly for show because it is literally the only thing they can think to point to as "oppression". In reality, they a) don't have any intention of exercising the "right", b) do not actually want women to go topless except under extremely controlled conditions, and c) are not mentally able to deal with the predictable consequences of women going topless in public in significant numbers. The other peop…
/r/MensRights10/03/23 10:04 PM
0

Or with anyone you want. It's pretty straightforward, mechanically, and self-evident why people would do it with someone other than their "other half". It's solipsistic to think anyone else must share your arbitrary values and that they are harming themselves when they don't. Follow the golden rule. You don't want people telling you to treat it like it's not something intimate and must be shared with as many people as possible, so why do the reverse to them?
/r/MensRights26/02/23 07:45 PM
0

It kind of frustrates and disheartens me to see soooooo soooooo many women on Instagram and Reddit and social media with some type of Only Fans link or cash app link connected to their bio. It's tacky and somewhat cheap, some of them I'm even surprised to see have an OF. People have always been this way. Jump for joy that the mask falls away so quickly these days and you can sort people according to your arbitrary morality that much quicker. just because you have a body shouldn't mean you should…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 11:27 AM
0

More Sacred Feminine shit with a thin veneer of medical necessity and sprinkle in a little feminist panic at running out of new avenues to siphon resources and subsidies out of society to justify their existence. Expect ever more insane demands as feminists scramble to prove to women that they are still needed to bring home the bacon (in the form of socially mandated handouts).
/r/MensRights11/02/23 05:36 PM
2

That is patently false, especially if you consider basic freedoms as part of the “better” equation. Re-evaluate what you consider basic freedoms. You might be giving greater weight to the ones you feel women are more commonly denied. Feminists, like everyone else, see "not being killed" as the most important "basic freedom" and will call any killing of a woman a crime against women and humanity. But if you're a man they see your right to life as forfeit by default and it must be earned back by s…
/r/MensRights07/02/23 11:50 PM
13

Possibly because it's off-topic as a reply to the comment: Why wait so long? Why change the story? If she's really out to protect more victims, there's possibly been 20 yrs worth of victims. "To protect other 'teens and women'" is the reason the accuser is quoted as giving for coming forward in the article. Her attorney even says Carter "has a long history of abusing women". If this is true, that's 20 years (of 'teen and women' victims) where that motivation didn't exist or wasn't strong enough …
/r/MensRights03/02/23 08:14 PM
3

All societies are based around the protection and provision of women by men. Right-wing/left-wing distinctions are meaningless. The differences between the two are superficial arguments over how best to compel delivery of those resources. When you have an instance where the supposed beliefs or goals of a leftist or a rightist are in opposition to the exclusive benefit of women you will find that leftist or rightist suddenly becomes conspicuously incompetent and ineffectual, regardless of how muc…
/r/MensRights29/12/22 11:29 PM
3

I love Feminism 1.0. Women should be able to get education, have bank accounts, work in any field they can compete with men in for the same pay. Feminism isn't to thank for those things. Broad-based economic growth and technological innovations made those things viable and inevitable not just for women but men too. If feminists had advocated for social changes before they had been made feasible (and they did) it wouldn't have gone anywhere (and it didn't). Look at China and India, both countries…
/r/MensRights16/11/22 02:58 AM
0

There’s a protective effect to having children that women experience. You're talking about a different question entirely. You're offering an explanation of a behavior in a discussion about whether such behavior is reasonable. Anyone who irrationally fears for their lives, should see a therapist. That was the initial comment. You haven't said anything to counter the idea that the fear is irrational. If we are going to insist they stop ignoring our biology, we need to do the same for them. Sorry, …
/r/MensRights13/11/22 06:02 AM
1

I linked to a Jordan Peterson short on the topic. Did you skip it? I don't use Meta websites. they look to protect their young children for example against potential men who are definitely stronger than them. Unless that Jordan Peterson short details a "common, real social dynamic where hulking brute men are going around shoving wilting flower women out of the way to outrage their tender offspring" then it doesn't counter the idea that these fears are irrational and anyone who indulges in them s…
/r/MensRights13/11/22 02:33 AM
3

Due to the differences in men and women, women definitely experience, higher instances of fear for their lives, they look to protect their young children for example against potential men who are definitely stronger than them. How does this nonsense count as "nuance"? What common, real social dynamic do you think you're describing where hulking brute men are going around shoving wilting flower women out of the way to outrage their tender offspring? Are you maybe thinking of lions or something?
/r/MensRights13/11/22 02:06 AM
5

so a woman has to be seen as good looking to get higher grades? You have it inverted. Supposedly, if you're an attractive woman you can get higher grades than you've earned while unattractive women are merely on a level playing field with men.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 07:26 AM
10

Sexuality is not sacred. Damming the basic human desires of others for your own ends and beliefs is one of the most perverse things imaginable. Reddit is social media. Social media is a tool. Any tool can be misused and even the misuse of a tool can itself be useful as an object lesson.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 11:20 AM
2

you don’t need combat aged men moving to your country en masse Identify the test questions or type of question they believe is causing the discrepancy. Well, false discrepancy, since you said the average scores are the same between genders. Ask what about those specific questions played upon the knowledge/skills they believe women lack. Their answer won't make sense. In reality, the discussion is a waste of time, because it isn't ever about a specific issue, it's about maintaining a narrative of…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 06:41 AM
17

It's called false appeasement. "I agree in principle that you face issues, too, but I won't acknowledge any specific issues unless I can frame myself as the primary victim." "Moderate" feminism is just radical feminism in a conciliatory tone of voice.
/r/MensRights05/11/22 11:35 PM
41

Not sure, honestly. But "do for me" sure isn't it. It's an "everything looks like a nail" type of response from someone whose hammer is pure, unabashed self-centeredness.
/r/MensRights27/10/22 04:09 AM
130

Let's see if I can tease out the likely top response using prior knowledge of feminists' worldview. I'm gonna guess something like: "don't kill yourself for our benefit. Just live your life ...for our benefit." Aaaaannnd yup. Top reply: Just do your best to be an ally. No need for you to die. On a suicide watch forum. Probably don't even realize what they're saying, sadly.
/r/MensRights27/10/22 02:57 AM
67

Just another example of what really bothers traditionalist women (including feminists) and what they think of men and gender roles.
/r/MensRights22/10/22 11:27 PM
2

What's the right response to that statement? Not ad hominem. Not a strawman. But a genuine comeback. In your scenario they've already admitted that even from their perspective - and accepting their premise - they know what they are doing is wrong and are simply trying to shift responsibility for correcting said wrong onto the victims. It doesn't matter if you have the "right" response, as they've already told you they will reject it regardless of what you say. At that point your question is just…
/r/MensRights30/09/22 10:56 PM
6

I hate Onlycunts. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. Your morality is your own. If you think there is harm being done to the vulnerable it is possible to address it without shoving your morality down other people's throats.
/r/MensRights25/09/22 06:32 PM
5

Haven't there been several rape scenes involving women in the game of thrones series? I don't think that they were that scandalized Name one rape scene involving women that wasn't scandalized.
/r/MensRights20/09/22 09:58 AM
8

Is this a non-sequitur or did you misread my comment?
/r/MensRights08/09/22 07:27 AM
32

Her party will never put her up as a serious candidate because they already used her in the classic "attack dog" role, where you give harsh criticism of the opposition and specific congresspeople thereof to rile up your own party's base. You don't get to be President after this role (not least because the opposition won't ever work with you after you called many of them slack-jawed daffodils for years) and she surely knows this. She's lying about the reason she won't ever be President to push a …
/r/MensRights08/09/22 05:21 AM
6

Of course. But /u/Local_Swordfish_9209 was either ignorant of this fact or intentionally equivocating.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 12:10 AM
8

Do you even know what patriarchy means? Do you even know that when you put a word together with a modifier it changes the meaning of the former? Patriarchy != "patriarchy theory". Deliberate information biases? Lol 😂 What do u call the bible? Oh no. That 7 seconds I spent thinking about your comment was completely wasted. Well, thanks for letting me know relatively quickly, I guess.
/r/MensRights02/09/22 10:18 PM
15

Patriarchy theory is not relevant to any culture ever. Its application to non-Modern/non-Western cultures is based on deliberate information biases.
/r/MensRights02/09/22 09:14 PM
1

Do you think most people if simply asked "do you support double standards [or unequal treatment]?" would answer "yes."
/r/MensRights26/08/22 03:05 AM
5

True, but pointing out the problems is the first step. There are better ways to point out the problems than crying "no fair!" to a majority which broadly supports unfairness. It took femists decades to get where they are now... It didn't take them that long. They've been plenty powerful for decades before now. Even when they were behaving like a sideshow they had significant influence. What took decades was for their lies, greed, and hatefulness to become so overwhelming that they're right on th…
/r/MensRights26/08/22 03:03 AM
2

Feminists never seeked equal treatment though. Only privilege… Which dovetailed perfectly with the values of the traditionalist majority, values which are mostly in opposition to the kind of equal treatment the MRM seeks and in favor if granting ever-increasing privileges to women. Feminists and traditionalists are not the diametrically opposed enemies they like to pretend they are, but significantly overlapping groups.
/r/MensRights26/08/22 02:53 AM
2

Pointing out double standards is not specifically to win over feminists Which is why this post isn't about winning over feminists at all, but combating them and winning over the traditionalist majority. if you let feminists opinions decide what you are gonna talk about you are letting them control you Again, none of this is about changing feminist's opinions. I only care about what will be useful in affecting the opinions of the majority. I explained why relying on the double standard issue is n…
/r/MensRights26/08/22 02:44 AM
10

Better in my opinion to get reasonable people to see the flaws in the feminist arguments Just keep in mind that while most people agree in principle that double standards are doubleplus ungood, they don't see most specific gender double standards as undesirable. So attacking feminists as hypocrites for supporting the double standards they like isn't going to get you anywhere. Also remember that feminists will disappear into the woodwork the moment their actions are shown to be horrifically sexis…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 06:07 PM
6

Just keep in mind what arguments are likely to work on the neutral observer. They are likely to be a traditionalist and will care very little about the unfairness of double standards. They will care even less that feminists are inconsistent in their opposition to double standards.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 05:59 PM
56

Never understood why the default for one parent trying to relocate wasn't 'you're moving on your own'. Because the reasoning behind employment of a particular child custody guideline is ad hoc and the intent is to benefit the mother above all else (including the children themselves). What's "best for the child" in any given situation is really just what's best for the mother.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 11:55 PM
6

The terms of a marriage contract is a really bad one There are no terms for a marriage contract. Neither partner has any legal obligation to the other whatsoever. There are only terms in a divorce agreement, and they were designed and implemented explicitly to tax the male partner and benefit the female partner with the courts and social services sectors skimming off the top.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 09:39 PM
2

"Lefties"? I'm responding to a specific comment that uses that specific term in making a specific argument. If im not mistaken most of the right hasnt cared either. Irrelevant to the discussion. But also consistent with their long-held beliefs. This is less of a political issue and more of a societal issue. Most people dont care about most of mens issues so if a politician brings it up it might as well be carrier suicide. Agreed, but that's off-topic to the above comment chain. In any case, I'll…
/r/MensRights02/07/22 09:44 PM
11

The "lefties" went absolutely nuts when female birth control wasn't going to be covered. Crickets over vasectomies (and condoms, btw) for over a decade. You can lie all you want, we know where "lefties" stand on men's reproductive health issues.
/r/MensRights02/07/22 01:21 AM
12

The lefties want single payer healthcare for all so that all healthcare is accessible and affordable. That has nothing to do with whether vasectomies are covered or not. "Lefties" don't care if male-only procedures are "accessible and affordable". If given the choice they would actively oppose it.
/r/MensRights02/07/22 12:20 AM
2

If men could get pregnant their unwanted pregnancies would get the same reaction they've always gotten: "should have kept it in your pants, dude".
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:03 AM
19

They were also relatively powerless If you think women have ever been powerless relative to men, then I guarantee you that your idea of what constitutes power and what actually constitutes power are very different things. Men more often exert overt power. Women exert covert power. Only by denigrating women's exercise of covert power (as well as their goals and achievements) can you claim they were ever powerless. and couldn't make a lot of decisions affecting their lives. Relative to men? Even i…
/r/MensRights24/06/22 09:29 AM
10

Just because men suffered doesn't mean women have to as well, and vice versa. That's a pretty toxic mindset to have. There should probably be a bot to make the following reply every time this kind of response to equality comes up. Tying men's rights to women's rights is the surest way of achieving gender equality. Nothing else has been shown to work. Feminists and traditionalists (assuming you're the kind of person who thinks there's a difference) will actively encourage and enforce double-stand…
/r/MensRights24/06/22 08:58 AM
10

It's not 'cucks' who bought into the "I'm the one good man" ideology wholesale. That's on traditionalists. Any time an anti-male policy was put forward traditionalists scrambled over each other to protect the womenfolk and demonstrate that they were "the good one".
/r/MensRights20/06/22 07:01 AM
23

The worst part is that the Patriarchy is very real. No it isn't.
/r/MensRights10/06/22 07:15 AM
16

Not every feminist is a radical misandrist Patriarchy theory is radical misandry. The oppression narrative is radical misandry. You can't be a feminist without being a radical misandrist, unless your definition of 'feminist' is solipsistic.
/r/MensRights09/06/22 04:42 AM
31

If you are a feminist the #1 priority has to be altering women's behavior to get them to accept more responsibility for things like national defense. None of your stated goals mean anything if nearly all able-bodied women flee instantly at the first sight of a danger that threatens everything you claim to stand for. Or you can admit that you want to represent a supplicant class whose status is at the whim of others.
/r/MensRights08/06/22 01:06 AM
1

To pretend women don't have struggles that exclusively are due to them being women If I find myself ever doing that, I'll be sure to let you know. Until then, try to stay with the discussion you're actually having instead of the easier one you wish you were having. Alternatively, point to where I said "women don't have struggles that exclusively are due to them being women". When you realize that you can't, please admit that you've been imagining a different conversation. Women have easier lives…
/r/MensRights07/06/22 10:48 PM
1

I'm sticking to the narrative that I fucking hate my struggles being minimised and I don't want to be a hypocrit and ignore the struggles of others while talking about myown. That's exactly the selfish bs that feminism has pulled. The feminist narrative is that female struggles (real and imagined) are caused by male oppression. I don't know of any other "oppressed" group in history that has lived better lives than its "oppressors" by comparison. I will not refrain from pointing this out to kowto…
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:19 AM
0

Mate don't minimise the struggles of another to validate your own. Women are doing better than men in nearly all of the areas one would consider necessary to having a good life. I'm sorry the facts don't fit whatever narrative about fairness you want to adhere to.
/r/MensRights30/05/22 04:19 AM
2

that does not mean women don't have different but equal issues to contend with. The metrics say otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/05/22 09:22 PM
25

Because it creates a society where we treat others as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves… we create a society where we use each other. See: OP's picture. You've always lived in a society where we treat others as a means to an end. It's a natural consequence of human nature. The point of freedom of association in a market economy is to make that more beneficial and less exploitative for the person doing the labor.
/r/MensRights23/05/22 07:05 PM
11

It's just endless projection. They think there's conspiracy by men to keep women down ...because that's what they want to do whenever they get any amount of power. They project their in-group preference onto men.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:22 PM
1

The question Do You Think that every woman with an unintended pregnancy through an unwilling man will terminate her pregnancy or responsibilities to the child? is (intentionally) absurd and the answer is obvious.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 10:12 PM
1

If a woman can't unilaterally force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want, she will have less incentive to have a child the father doesn't want to raise. Do You Think that every woman with an unintended pregnancy through an unwilling man will terminate her pregnancy or responsibilities to the child? Are you seriously asking me if I think this would be the singular, perfect solution to fatherlessness?
/r/MensRights10/05/22 09:22 AM
0

And honestly, I would rather there be a double standard against men, than have both parties lose, while you seem to argue like a toddler who snatched a toy back from his friend that he wasn’t even using -An adult You see, OP assumes men weren't even using their rights, so it's okay if they have none.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:02 PM
2

We live in the real world. Your fantasies are irrelevant. That's why I looked past them. You admitted how you want to interact with the real world and it's not helpful to men's rights whatsoever. Edit: Hey remember when I said in the very first comment: People are 100% okay with double standards as long as they harm men and not women. Not enough people think men deserve rights. ...Until we tie men's rights to women's rights. Then people stop and think and care. And now finally you've said: And h…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:00 PM
2

And honestly, I would rather there be a double standard against men, than have both parties lose, while you seem to argue like a toddler who snatched a toy back from his friend that he wasn’t even using See? You didn't need to go through all this when you could have said what you really believe in the first place.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 08:51 PM
2

I can’t see how you can say that you support bodily autonomy whilst supporting the status quo where men lack it. I can’t see how you can say that you support bodily autonomy whilst supporting taking the right to an abortion from women Easy. Hold everyone to a gender-neutral standard of bodily autonomy. If you give people the choice between a double-standard that disproportionately burdens men and a gender-neutral standard, they will choose the double-standard every time. Sorry, that's just how i…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 08:32 PM
2

Infact, I’ve been a supporter of equal rights my entire life, but you know what I’ve also been a supporter of my entire life: More human rights And Human bodily autonomy Me too. This is how we get them. just because something is effective at doing one thing, doesn’t mean it’s the best way It's the only way that works. That makes it the best way by default.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:58 PM
1

Men being able to fully extricate themselves from the situation or remain present regardless of the woman's whims will discourage women from [seeking to raise children in a single-parent family]. The way I initially phrased it was a bit disjointed. Hopefully the above makes more sense. I will rephrase it below as well. If a woman can't unilaterally force a father out of his child's life while retaining access to his money then she will have less incentive to have a child in an otherwise undesira…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:56 PM
7

we should be saying “if you have (X) then we deserve it too!” We have been. For decades. It doesn't work. People are 100% okay with double standards as long as they harm men and not women. Not enough people think men deserve rights. ...Until we tie men's rights to women's rights. Then people stop and think and care. “well if I can’t have (X) then neither should you!” This is an extremely effective negotiation tactic. In fact, it's the only one that has shown any effectiveness in countering male-…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:32 PM
1

Men being denied access to their children is a cause of fatherlessness. Women having children their men don't want is also a cause of fatherlessness. Women shouldn't seek to raise children in a single-parent family in either case. Men being able to fully extricate themselves from the situation or remain present regardless of the woman's whims will discourage women from doing so. Currently women have the ability to force a man out of their child's life while retaining access to his money. There i…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:08 AM
12

There's nothing to figure out. It's a blank contract that gets filled in only when it's broken and only with clauses that harm you. It's the worst deal imaginable. Even if you think you're marrying the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being you've ever known in your life you're still signing a blank contract, which is one of the classical definitions of insanity.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 06:52 AM
21

Hope we've screenshot'd, bookmarked, recorded, etc. as many instances as possible where we were told the only method of family planning men had any right to was "keep your dick in your pants".
/r/MensRights03/05/22 07:17 AM
7

if You think You'll support paper-abortion, then go ahead, if You think You'll support anti-fatherlessness, then go ahead, but i don't think You can be both. His body his choice. If that choice is to care for and have access to his child, he shouldn't be denied that right. If his choice is to not be a father and to not care for or have access to his child, he shouldn't be denied that right. Same rights as women should have. i am Pro-Life, but even if i am Pro-Chouce, my stance on paper-abortion …
/r/MensRights03/05/22 07:07 AM
2

They arent all so constantly at war that their men are dying at such high rates They were, but in any case that's not the only measure of social or individual success. You have to consider the needs and goals of societies and individuals and how readily attainable they were for each gender. Does a person lack options because of oppression or because of biological realities and efficiencies? What do they want out of life and why do they want it? There are so many questions to answer to address th…
/r/MensRights24/04/22 08:42 AM
1

They want to restrict sexuality to maintain power just like regular traditionalists but "because God said so" doesn't work as reasoning anymore. "Women are children" will always work, though. And it only takes a light scratch of the surface to get them to admit they think sex is a "special, spiritual act that women bestow upon worthy men".
/r/MensRights23/04/22 06:11 PM
50

modern feminism is literally a ''pick and choose'' system that no longer stands up for the unfair treatment of women "No longer"? It never did. You can't declare treatment fair or unfair if you never measure it against the alternative. In no civilization ever have women on average had worse overall outcomes than men. Once you understand this, it becomes clear that any concept of gender equality that requires an improved status for women as compared to men is inherently bigoted. To put it another…
/r/MensRights22/04/22 10:21 PM
1

Mate, you're talking as if every person that supports Men's rights is somehow always a moraly good person. No I'm not. You want me to be doing that. Please don't put words in my mouth. My mum's a feminist, my sister's a feminist, they don't go to protests they don't do all that extra work but they're not fucking idiots and I trust their moral and ethical judgment when it comes to sexism and men's and women's rights because they are sound and competent, that also doesn't mean that they or I am/ar…
/r/MensRights05/04/22 10:48 PM
3

...As if Amy Schumer is the only feminist to jump to blaming negative behavior by a male on toxic masculinity. The sexist "toxic masculinity" concept destroys all feminist rhetoric and ideology. If "toxic masculinity" is supposed to describe innate traits of males, then feminists have admitted that there are psychological traits that are innate to sex, which opens the door to criticism of women as a gender for any and all behavior deemed undesirable. And in that case, the idea of "sexism" as a n…
/r/MensRights05/04/22 10:31 AM
50

No, the whole thing is thinly veiled male-bashing. The first half just focuses more on setup. "Now that I'm a man I see that it's not their our fault that we're emotionless, violent scumbags." It's a classic concern troll. The transwoman bigot analogue would be "people are always offering to help and support me no matter what I do, now, so I get why women are so infantile and bitchy all the time."
/r/MensRights02/04/22 10:06 AM
15

What about all the feminists who are married with kids? They say "fuck you, got mine", believe that they are being rewarded by Goddess/the universe for their virtuous beliefs, and assume anyone screwed over by their system had it coming. You know, society.
/r/MensRights01/04/22 11:26 PM
22

If you ask people about specific issues, many people will say they support them. And many of them are lying. They pay lip service to equality but either don't believe in it or are deliberately equivocating with their definition of 'equality'. They never oppose men's rights in principle, they only attack the people who advocate for men's rights. They oppose men's rights in principle, and do so by attacking the people who advocate for men's rights and the idea of men's rights in general.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 10:53 AM
2

Isn't it already that, considering the entire point is "anything you can do, I can do better also kinda-sorta if I'm given a significant handicap"?
/r/MensRights30/03/22 09:13 PM
10

"Women's sports" already goes against common sense. Almost all of them require massive subsidy to even exist, because they lack popularity. They constitute a propped-up industry that exists only to promote some people's ideologies and "identity politics", as you put it. Allowing a higher level of competition (which trans athletes could potentially bring in) might make them more popular and self-sufficient. Yet it is vehemently opposed.
/r/MensRights28/03/22 11:00 PM
16

one of the intended consequences was effectively doubling the pool of taxpayers. While kneecapping the unions and flooding the low- and mid-skilled sectors of the labor pool with temporary works, stagnating wages.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 07:47 PM
3

Used to be you could buy your way out of the draft. You could be drafted and sent to a racially segregated unit. You could get a deferment if your family was rich enough to get you fast-tracked into college and keep you there. "Lack of equality" has never been a defense against being drafted. Unless you're a woman. Then somehow it became okay under the absurd, ad hoc reasoning that they had a limited choice in their deployment (as if you have a choice in your deployment during a draft war).
/r/MensRights16/03/22 07:52 PM
15

if the sexes were reversed prosecutors would run on a platform of indicting her regardless of the evidence. eg Bill Cosby Replace "regardless of evidence" with "regardless of the ethics of bringing a bad case to trial" or "regardless of ability to make a conviction stick" and it works. The problem wasn't with the evidence, it was with the fact that Cosby was led to believe he had been granted criminal immunity. The prosecutor that ran on bringing him to trial explicitly pledged to prosecute rega…
/r/MensRights12/03/22 09:10 PM
1

You really think it's a "victory" that Women's Centers are the ones funding and organizing and running men's shelters because men are absolutely unable and unwilling to provide for each others' care in any meaningful way? It's a "victory" that we have to rely on feminists to shelter men whose wives have abused and isolated them to the point they're unable to function in the world? It is by the logic you demonstrated in your other comments in this post. /u/Sininenn said: Except the entire governm…
/r/MensRights11/03/22 01:26 AM
3

And if we don't have that, what else is there even to talk about? What on Earth is the point of pointing at kids and saying "they shouldn't have cancer" if there's absolutely no plan to remove the asbestos? Asbestos doesn't cause cancer. If you want to prove to me that it does you're going to have to talk to about it. Just like we need to talk about what feminists have done and are doing in order to convince people to drop support (including, but not limited to, financial support) for them and i…
/r/MensRights10/03/22 11:50 PM
8

Your major thrust in the comment chain with /u/Wylanderuk is that men deserve to have little to no DV resources because they haven't sufficiently fund-raised to lobby against feminist corruption in distributing funding. Not only is this victim blaming, but it's reductive of the aspects of society that lead to feminists dominating in the arena of tackling domestic violence. If you insist on reducing all issues to cash, then it makes sense to understand why feminists get more cash in order to stop…
/r/MensRights10/03/22 10:37 PM
-2

Defending and trying to clarify yourself against idiotic strawman attacks is a losing tactic. Reject their premises instead.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:58 PM
4

And adding stories about women doesn't take anything away from men. This is a non-sequitur deep into strawman territory. Whether it takes away from men or not is irrelevant to what the user above said, which is that the goal of increasing the percentage of articles about women for the sake of representation is inaccurate to their representation in historical events. No one said it needs to be 50/50 No, this time they just implied it, knowing how it would be interpreted by the reader. They want m…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:50 PM
101

Tradcons still promoting their relationship model (from dating to death do ye part) even though they stood by helplessly as feminists turned every step into a meat grinder. They can't understand why men don't want to commit to being made into hamburger and think mindlessly yelling "man up" over and over will convince them.
/r/MensRights01/03/22 09:14 PM
5

It would be like if a woman complained that breast cancer sucks and it’s primarily a women’s issue and then I told her about the vast minority of guys that have it. Your analogy is comparing inverse situations. Male sufferers of breast cancer receive disproportionately low recognition and support, bordering on none, whereas female Ukrainian soldiers receive disproportionately high amounts of attention and praise despite making up a small minority.
/r/MensRights01/03/22 06:31 AM
18

Also, a lot of women don't want their sons, grandsons and brothers drafted and support abolishing the draft completely. You may have always been there advocating for abolition rather than expansion, but we're talking about that totally random and inexplicable swell in your numbers that totally randomly and inexplicably disappeared as soon as the expansion was shot down. Just because most of them are not Redditer The ones on Reddit disappeared almost entirely, too. They were all over this sub whe…
/r/MensRights27/02/22 09:15 AM
1

The political compass would place me as auth center. If you're pro-authoritarian we have nothing to discuss. You're the stated enemy of anyone who values freedom and will engage in all manner of oppression to achieve your ideals. I hope you fail.
/r/MensRights17/02/22 11:48 AM
1

But for those of us who want to build something and contribute to a society that means something and works towards something, we're going to continue to examine and moderate behavior to try and make improvements to said society. Economic liberalism and technological advancement create social progress, not arbitrary, ephemeral moral precepts. The only thing tradcons have done in the age of feminism is strengthen the latter. You stand up to feminists like a wet paper bag and the society being crea…
/r/MensRights16/02/22 07:42 AM
1

What exactly are you suggesting as an ideal alternative to traditional values? Nothing. People shouldn't impose their values on others. My ideals are not your ideals. The golden rule should reign when they collide. I think a lot of young men view the solution to societal decay as either turning their backs on society or joining in the fray with a hedonistic, nihilistic attitude. And while that may work for the individual, it is short sighted and unhelpful in the end. Some of us actually want fam…
/r/MensRights16/02/22 02:04 AM
0

The traditional expectations of behavior are there because they help build a stable, prosperous society. A subsistence society. None of that is applicable now. Those ideas are relegated to the dustbin of history. What women want by nature is to mate with the most physically appealing male and be held in high regard by other women. If you define "mate with" as "pair-bond for life with", which you seem to be doing, then that is not what women want by nature. You should give more thought to the spe…
/r/MensRights16/02/22 01:10 AM
1

This is why monogamy enforced by social pressure has a stabilizing effect on society - it gives the average man something to hope for and work towards (a chance of having a wife and family) and it stifles the hypergamous instincts of women that end up driving them to be miserable and alone. That society is not worth preserving/resurrecting. The realities of humanity's deep-seated biological desires have been laid bare. The only way to return to the prior system is through deliberate (forced) bli…
/r/MensRights15/02/22 11:22 PM
1

Her reasoning that when women do it, they are fighting against the patriarchy. Say "just so we're clear, hate is the way forward?"
/r/MensRights15/02/22 04:12 AM
2

It comes from the idea, that women have to take care of kids Source? If this is solely, specifically what you believe the Polish reasoning to be, please provide a source saying that was the reasoning when the discrepancy was introduced.
/r/MensRights14/02/22 10:56 PM
1

That's what P.E. is for. Student athletics are not a substitute for P.E. classes. If we're talking about post-secondary then student athletics don't even scratch the surface of improving fitness for the student body.
/r/MensRights09/02/22 10:10 PM
1

Why do you say society does not pay for it willingly? What do you think is being paid for unwillingly? For all intents and purposes school districts MUST fund girls' programs in proportion to the overall funding received - from any source - for boys' programs. Evidence and reasoning is below. Schools just have to show that they have proportional representation between male and female athletic programs to the numbers of interested males and females attendig their school. It is not "equality of ou…
/r/MensRights09/02/22 05:33 AM
1

it's artificially inflated by the hookup types that think life's meaning is to get laid. Hookup culture is a result of the social pressure surrounding sex, not a cause. It's a dance of people trying to find the most efficient way to break a social taboo while staying within the bounds of an arbitrary ruleset. Consider how many of the ways to be "skilled" at doing that dance require financial investment (including time, which = money) when you aren't born with the analogous silver spoon in your m…
/r/MensRights09/02/22 02:59 AM
1

I believe in actual equality of opportunity. If schools did not have equal opportunity for females to participate in sports, they would miss out in large numbers on someting that I believe is actually valuable to both males and females and therefore, valuable to society as a whole. If society valued it they would pay for it willingly. Also, it's not equality of opportunity. It's equality of outcome by definition. It's not "opportunity" if outcomes are forced. Compare to something like mandating …
/r/MensRights09/02/22 02:35 AM
1

Feel for most part society has programmed people to cheapen it to that though. While increasing the "price" artificially. It's a racket to exploit people's sexuality and channel it into labor. You even described the mechanism, too: Makes me wonder though if it's been cheapened to just a bodily function then why are people willing to ruin their lives just to get it. Also seems like paying upfront would make more sense if that's all it is By design you're not allowed, legally or socially, to pay u…
/r/MensRights09/02/22 02:19 AM
1

So I legitimately believe that Title IX with regard to athletics is important and in the past have generally supported it. Why? It's extremely unfair to force people to support recreational/entertainment programs they don't want in order to get the ones they do want.
/r/MensRights09/02/22 12:57 AM
1

At that point must just think of it as just another bodily function Which it is. It's a simple question of libido. People with low libidos can't understand what's wrong with people with high ones and vice versa. That's where the "live and let live" principle should kick in, but many of the low libido people want to exploit others or force their own lifestyle onto them as a moral crusade (typically the latter is done in service to the former).
/r/MensRights09/02/22 12:55 AM
1

Look at it this way: if you could fuck whoever you wanted, you wouldn't be monogamous. Women are far, far more likely to be able to fuck whoever they want, due to the statistics of sexual attraction. Why on Earth do you expect women to be virginal/monogamous? Because of some religion or some ceremony where they pinky-promised to be? Monogamy in either sex is a symptom of not getting a good enough competing offer, whether it's due to logistics, standards (libido), demographics, or identity (means…
/r/MensRights08/02/22 02:27 AM
1

You said it doesn't redirect to misogyny at all. It does. In your own post you show that it does.
/r/MensRights08/02/22 01:53 AM
1

"Misandry UK" gives the following: What is misogyny? Meaning, is it a hate crime in UK law Doesn't redirect to misogyny at all. Bear in mind "misandry" is a much less used word than "misogyny". It's going to provide less results by default, and it's likely the results will be linked to "misogyny". ?
/r/MensRights07/02/22 11:59 PM
21

Can't wait to see all the feminists who were up in arms about the protests in India marching in the streets over this one.
/r/MensRights05/02/22 07:11 AM
13

Among academic sociologists men are said to be more "dominant" than women. And the definition of "dominance" is biased and the focus on this "dominance" as a trait is biased... The extent to which society reflects the will of women as a group is vastly underplayed. Just because we ignore or can't understand or can't properly communicate the ways in which women exert power doesn't mean women have less power than men. Ask yourself: is this what a society run by men for men at women's expense would…
/r/MensRights31/01/22 11:20 PM
2

here at MR's where men conspire to maintain equality Maintain? What statistics are you looking at where gender equality was ever an accurate description of society?
/r/MensRights31/01/22 11:13 PM
1

That's what FDS is all about. That's the voice of the silent majority.
/r/MensRights25/01/22 07:54 AM
0

she's free to leave him and do it by herself. That's not how this works. A man will be on the hook for that decision.
/r/MensRights25/01/22 07:52 AM
11

There's a pendulum swinging, but it's not that one. It's the growing cacophony of tradcon women who are outraged that feminists are losing momentum and can't bring home the privilege bacon anymore. Watch for the shift back to social conservatism (with a conspicuous entrenchment of all of feminists' gains). Unending puritanical attacks on porn/sex work, the end of that pesky alimony reform business in states like Florida, a renewed campaign against "deadbeat dads", etc. You can kiss the idea of a…
/r/MensRights25/01/22 05:15 AM
5

This is a similar tactic to the one used to kill government programs: gut the program, then claim it needs to be abolished/privatized because it doesn't work. Here it's: stack the court system with bad cases, then place justice solely at the hands of judges who will be (and already are) forced to undergo "retraining" when they don't hand out the desired verdicts.
/r/MensRights22/01/22 06:28 AM
10

It's almost as if feminists knew this would happen and wanted it so they could push draconian solutions to the problem they themselves caused...
/r/MensRights22/01/22 05:24 AM
2

I'm fine with transwomen in women's sports. It exposes the arbitrary and redundant nature of women-only sports programs. Maybe this issue will finally encourage a repeal of the parts of Title IX regarding sports programs spending quotas. And a rethinking of the professional sports quota systems too.
/r/MensRights13/01/22 09:26 PM
1

Patriarchy is the idea that men run society for men's benefit at women's expense. This is the opposite of how every society ever has worked. I'll address the concept in reverse order, starting with "women's expense". The point of society was (and largely still is) to subsidize women so they can devote their time to childcare and their own pursuits and leisure. As a given social stratum began to reach resource excess the ideal was to alleviate more and more burden from women. The poor farming fam…
/r/MensRights06/01/22 08:39 PM
1

There is no patriarchy and never was. It's an idea based entirely on superficial gender bigotry and prejudice - as well as apex fallacies galore - and not on holistic analysis of any society that has ever existed.
/r/MensRights05/01/22 11:11 PM
2

The simplest explanation is this: the legal form of marriage is a blank contract. You wouldn't sign a blank check, why would you sign a blank contract? The details are only filled in upon divorce, these details are legally mandated to subsidize and advantage one partner at the expense of the other, and 99% of the time (in hetero marriages) this entails the man subsidizing the woman. There is good reason women are gaga for marriage and men are not. Legally, women benefit and men are harmed by it.…
/r/MensRights05/01/22 12:38 AM
1

In that case I would answer your initial request for women to spread the red pill by saying female MRAs are already some of the most successful. GWW is probably more famous than Warren Farrell, for example.
/r/MensRights04/01/22 08:56 PM
13

Tradcon women do not oppose feminism or the grab bag of goodies they've obtained at men's expense. They oppose men's liberation from traditional gender roles. They oppose the requirements of gender equality that would see them lose privilege and gain obligations. There is never going to be a return to traditionalist society. No-fault divorce, default mother custody, the misogyny panic and unquestioning female worship - none of these things is opposed by traditionalists. Make a list of men's issu…
/r/MensRights04/01/22 01:58 AM
2

What's with all this Pope spam? We already knew the church was gynocentric. It's the definition of a traditionalist institution. Did people think the Catholic Church was previously against pedestalizing women? They pray to "Mother Mary" for intercession constantly. Noblewomen were the biggest patrons of the church. What has changed, exactly?
/r/MensRights02/01/22 05:40 AM
3

Yes. Society as a concept is a gynocentric transfer of resources from men to women. Feminists have manged to convince people that women bear the majority of the burdens of this system.
/r/MensRights26/12/21 03:57 AM
3

My point was that if such a system existed feminists would clearly be counted as supporters of it, not opponents. If society's reaction to your views is a thumbs-up it's stupid to claim you oppose the allegend basis of that society.
/r/MensRights26/12/21 03:48 AM
-4

If you operate in an oppressive system where your criticism and attacks against that system are applauded and encouraged aren't you just controlled opposition ultimately used to prop up and reinforce said system?
/r/MensRights26/12/21 12:14 AM
3

Insecurity 1: I don't have what they have and the relative shortcoming is affecting my interpersonal relationships, but complaining about it is treated as another shortcoming. Insecurity 2: I don't have what they have and while it has no practical effect on my relationships I'm still upset to the point that I will demand that everyone else either pretend I do have it or pretend it doesn't exist so I can feel better.
/r/MensRights22/12/21 02:10 AM
2

Hey fellow redditor saying that she is "emotionally attached" to her arguments and suggesting that she become less emotionally attached to her arguments could be viewed as sexist. Anything can be viewed as sexist if you have the gumption and write your own dictionary. That accusation is meaningless. I said a troll shouldn't become emotionally attached to their bullshit, because it hampers their trolling abilities. You are not familiar with that commenter's previous work and apparently haven't re…
/r/MensRights21/12/21 04:01 AM
6

My argument for not registering women for the draft is that it gives feminists a giant PR victory without actually moving towards equality. They will still oppose equal treatment in every circumstance where it matters. Advocating for women's registration is the very definition of a symbolic stance - a meaningless gesture. There's never going to be another draft in America. So if they fail they lose nothing, because they've invested nothing except platitudes and nothing was at stake. If they succ…
/r/MensRights21/12/21 03:56 AM
18

so many women want "equality" and yet they seem to get away with so much. Internally there's no contradiction here. That's their definition of equality.
/r/MensRights21/12/21 03:10 AM
12

considering the way the Taliban literally takes womens rights away and actually treats women lesser than. Less than dead, which is how they leave the men? You're awful at this trolling thing. Your effort:outrage ratio is abysmal. You need to be more provocatively dense and less emotionally attached to the nonsense you're spewing.
/r/MensRights21/12/21 12:55 AM
44

It means the same thing as your original post. Many people think that women are the sole victims of any suffering, even when the vast majority (or the entirety) of victims are men. We had a recent U.S. Presidential candidate who believed that "women are the primary victims of war" because they have to continue on when war claims the men in their lives.
/r/MensRights21/12/21 12:50 AM
1

You lack a basic understanding of how court cases work. Eyewitnesses are not supposed to make "best guesses", speculate, or use reasoning to create their testimony. They're there to recount their experience. Not what they came to believe after the fact. In your Rocky analogy you admit that you consulted IMDB. The 'prosecutor' would then ask: "that would be the internet movie database website editable by anyone with a computer?" shredding your 'testimony' entirely. Also, it would be more like: "I…
/r/MensRights10/12/21 07:35 PM
16

Unless you meant that you would lie on the witness stand. If I was 90 percent sure, and police told me they had physical evidence confirming it. I would go to 100 percent real fast. Ah so you did mean that you would lie. Wouldn't anyone? The "justice" system and witness testimony in a nutshell.
/r/MensRights09/12/21 08:34 PM
19

Among the many things wrong with what you said she didn't testify that she was "90 percent sure" in court and if she had he would have had a good chance of being acquitted. Unless you meant that you would lie on the witness stand.
/r/MensRights09/12/21 08:30 PM
2

As an unjust hurdle to obtaining privileges and exercising rights it's an annoyance. Adding women to it does nothing to fix that issue. It only lets people say they've done something for equality for definitions of the word 'something' infinitesimally different from the word 'nothing'. It lets feminists pretend they're bravely shouldering the same burdens as men without actually shouldering any significant burdens. You're giving feminists a W and taking an L for nothing actually gained.
/r/MensRights08/12/21 03:01 AM
3

Conservatives score points with idiot gynocentrist voters (read: almost all of them) by opposing a worthless gesture. The draft is a symbol, not an issue that affects daily life for men. Removing or equalizing it are symbolic exercises. I don't particularly care about symbolic exercises. But conservatives come down on the wrong side of men's real issues, too. As do liberals. I have no intention of letting politicians' stance on this fake issue affect my assessment of either major political movem…
/r/MensRights07/12/21 04:58 AM
2

Amongst themselves they consider being undesirable an admirable trait. When being considered a "bitch" is laudable you know it's over.
/r/MensRights30/11/21 10:37 PM
6

It's implemented mostly by white males, though. It's "one good man" syndrome taken to its ultimate conclusion. Men will do everything short of suicide for the hint of a sniff of [female approval]. Until men learn to undermine the tournament system this will keep happening.
/r/MensRights30/11/21 10:18 PM
2

The 'ShitRedditSays' sub. They ran a "woke" vote-brigading campaign with support from some of the Reddit Admins years back and engaged in doxxing and false flag attacks on other subs. This engendered a backlash from the rest of the userbase and they had to go private. It also happened in the context of Gamergate and Red Pill communities taking off. Reddit dealt with the issue by banning or blacklisting from the front page a lot of controversial subs and eventually removing the front page entirel…
/r/MensRights29/11/21 06:39 AM
2

This sub was explicitly blacklisted from the front page years ago. IIRC it was during the SRS fiasco.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 06:22 AM
3

In the news sub people are already falling over themselves to excuse her actions.
/r/MensRights25/11/21 04:41 AM
23

But there are countries where women are treated literally like animals. In those countries men are also treated like animals. There is no country in the world where the average woman is worse off than the average man. The scenario doesn't exist. Re-examine the biases and propaganda that led you to the incorrect conclusion that it does.
/r/MensRights06/11/21 10:56 PM
8

''the empowerment of women'' regardless of equality See also: 'supremacy'. Feminists are bigots to the core, historically and in the modern day. They took two different roles and declared one superior based solely on the anti-feminine hatred they gained as female outliers. Now that they're allowed to occupy the other role they've realized how comparitively shitty it is and are demanding to have the benefits of both roles and the detriments of neither - a demand made solely by justification of th…
/r/MensRights02/11/21 07:29 AM
14

Just be as thorough as one can, it's all any of us can do. Or you can never marry/cohabitate or have kids
/r/MensRights26/10/21 09:04 PM
13

I don't even know what the fuck to call it- fluidly-adaptable-freestyle-reasoning? It's called ad-hoc reasoning. When you have no principles beyond "achieve goal" you can make any argument at any time and if you end up making contradictory arguments, so what? You're serving a greater purpose, so the ends justify the means.
/r/MensRights26/10/21 08:38 PM
2

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is what happens: When an economist or statistician points out a real gender earnings gap (based on workers' choices), feminists encourage and rely on people to jumble up the term earnings with salary, pay, wages, income, etc. in their heads and can say "See? We're paying women less than men!" When it is pointed out that this is not what the stats show - that in fact no stats in existence show this and that it is illegal - feminists can pret…
/r/MensRights26/10/21 08:29 PM
2

Most people mean hourly salary when they say wage. It's used synonymously with pay. When people want to use it to describe their monthly/yearly income they specify "monthly/yearly wage" to avoid confusion. Hence phrases like 'living wage', which is given either as an hourly salary or a yearly salary extrapolated from the hourly one, and "wage cuts", which is synonymous with "pay cuts". Also consider the context in which all of these terms are used. Feminists are explicitly talking about a fantas…
/r/MensRights26/10/21 08:01 PM
7

Wage is not synonymous with earnings. You are not lying - you are mistakenly confusing the terms. The mistake you made is the same as the deliberate lie they tell and that lie is a major aspect of their deceptive agenda, hence why I said you are doing half their work (which is lying) for them. wage: An amount of money paid to a worker for a specified quantity of work, usually calculated on an hourly basis and expressed in an amount of money per hour. Wages are the same between genders when they …
/r/MensRights26/10/21 06:40 AM
2

You're already doing half the work of lying for them by confusing 'wages' with 'earnings'. There is no significant wage gap, which they claim is women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs. There is a significant earnings gap between the genders that is accounted for by the factors you mentioned.
/r/MensRights26/10/21 06:31 AM
10

While still benefiting from the anti-male gains of feminism. I.e., the FDS types.
/r/MensRights26/10/21 04:43 AM
2

Using 'discrimination' as a scare word only works when every single group isn't embracing and justifying it for their own benefit. We already acknowledge that discrimination is allowable (preferable, for some groups/people) when situations call for it. Retreating to absurdity when addressing specific cases in order to fight discrimination in general does not work. Your opponent will gladly take your principled concessions and then abandon the pretense of strict egalitarianism immediately once th…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 10:34 PM
10

Wouldn't even be necessary. We'll never have another draft war. This is a meaningless gesture for politicians to pretend they are pro-equality. Soon everyone will forget that for the entirety of the active draft it was male-only. All they'll care about is that it's gender neutral now (now that it's inactive and redundant). Even if we did have a draft war, women would be given cushy noncombat positions. Since they are deliberately dodging a Supreme Court ruling they can easily just revert the dra…
/r/MensRights29/09/21 01:53 AM
1

It's inevitable for feminism to dominate any discussion of privilege because it's not based on actual demonstrable privilege/oppression but on the feeling of privilege/oppression and the desire to commoditize this inexhaustible subjective resource - women are as oppressed and men are as privileged as feminists feel they are. There is no ceiling women can hit at which feminists will become comfortable sharing societal attention and sympathy. There is no floor that men can fall to at which feminis…
/r/MensRights16/09/21 06:20 AM
1

You wrote all that and I never said people shouldn't be educated. People aren't going to stop, consider protesting for Men's Rights instead.
/r/MensRights12/09/21 05:43 AM
3

Dude the discourse being had is that marriage is a gamble Marriage is a gamble. This is statistically provable. you're throwing your money away You are throwing your money away. everyone is out to get you Source? Marriage is not the problem. The laws are. They are inseparable in organized societies, especially ones with common law marriage. If you want to advocate for non-legal marriage with no cohabitation, no sharing of finances, and no children, go right ahead. Otherwise you're going to run a…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 08:41 PM
5

The sad part is that the radical pro-marriage people in these threads usually accept any and all statistics but still argue that marriage is "a blessing", "the only way to be happy", or some other metaphysical mumbo jumbo. The implication is that no matter how provably detrimental marriage becomes for men they should still enter into it and, in fact, the reality of the situation should be withheld from them until it's too late. You could tell them 28% of hetero marriages end in the woman murderi…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 08:20 PM
4

This is a statistic but in America. So you are aware of the scope of the discussion. Why are you arguing, again? You shouldn't start despising women and children over the actual problem. Where did I say you should despise women and children? Don't put words in my mouth.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:58 PM
3

You and a lot of other people in this thread are being doomers Reminder: 50% of all Marriages end in Divorce. 70-90% of all divorces is initiated by the wife, 90% of custody is given to Mothers. It's not being a "doomer". It's a statistical fact. You can't hope your way out of reality. rude In your opinion. You didn’t need to personally call out his username in all caps That's how formatting works, sorry. Strawman. OP never said to tell people “I told you so, fuck you”. Strawman. He didn’t say t…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:57 PM
2

Into the void... Reminder: 50% of all Marriages end in Divorce. 70-90% of all divorces is initiated by the wife, 90% of custody is given to Mothers.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:42 PM
1

I strongly oppose is the idea that men should have a choice in abortion. I think men shouldn't be able to force women into having a baby or making her not have one, that is obviously the mother's choice. I know you're not a concern troll and can demonstrate the "common idea on this sub" that a man should be able to force a woman to have a baby or to get an abortion, right?
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:47 AM
35

Most men probably aren't the type of person to irresponsibly gamble half of their present-day net-worth plus a portion of future income at a casino It is possible to leave a casino with more money than you came in with. There is no benefit to the marriage "gamble" above that found in any other form of relationship and there are many more detriments.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 06:42 AM
34

People should be educated about the fact that marriage is a sham and a scam, and that this is statistically provable. You're flipping a coin with your life and livelihood. And that's before you factor in the possibility that you have a shitty marriage that doesn't end in divorce but merely limps along until one of you dies. Good marriages are the exception, not the rule. Human beings are not made for life-long pair-bonding. Society used to compensate for this by incentivizing both partners to st…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 06:23 AM
1

In the West we are fed a propagandized view of the Muslim world where all the women are sitting around in burkas waiting to be raped, give birth, and/or die while all the men are sheiks practicing driving on two wheels in the desert in their Lambos. This propaganda campaign is on fine display right now with Afghanistan where men are and have been dying by the truckload (while being called weak cowards), but women's potential plights have taken center stage. In reality, life is shit for 95% of th…
/r/MensRights31/08/21 04:22 AM
7

Feminists don't believe in gender equality, abolishing gender roles, or any egalitarian ideal they pay lip service to. All of their rhetoric is bullshit in service of the unrestrained selfish accrual of resources and harming men. Give their words the disbelief they've earned and instead pay attention to what they do.
/r/MensRights27/08/21 01:44 AM
100

You are ineligible for federal financial aid unless you sign up. As an alternative method of encouraging or coercing registration, Solomon Amendment laws were passed requiring that in order to receive financial aid, federal grants and loans, certain government benefits, eligibility for most federal employment, and (if the person is an immigrant) eligibility for citizenship, a young man had to be registered (or had to have been registered, if they are over 26 but were required to register between…
/r/MensRights25/08/21 09:18 PM
5

Male was the face of the household and male were the bearers of the obligations and responsibilities. Females were subsidized from cradle to grave. To this day women are the primary spenders of the household, despite not being the primary earners. The family unit insulated women from both labor and most civil obligations, including warfare to protect accrued resources and even their own lives and livelihoods. Now that we have that out of the way, we can consider the other 99.999% of people throu…
/r/MensRights24/08/21 11:54 PM
1

They are legion and they are coming to enslave women near you.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 09:15 PM
14

So did patriarchy ever exist? No. A system of social hierarchy set up by men for the benefit of men at the expense of women has never existed.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 09:14 PM
21

Incel, neckbeard, misogynist, conservative, creep, virgin, basement dweller, loser, mgtow, rapist/rape apologist, PUA, chauvinist, traditionalist, Republican, Bernie bro, fascist, redpill... Lord, let me never know the joy of having all the people I dislike coincidentally share the same beliefs.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 07:16 AM
14

Jewish (and Muslim) groups lobby pretty hard to keep it legal in places without longstanding traditions of doing it. See: the recent attempts to criminalize circumcision in Iceland and Denmark (maybe that second one was the Netherlands?). The "religious intolerance" accusations came up a lot.
/r/MensRights23/08/21 11:34 PM
1

They did try out Levar Burton. He sucked and was easily the worst guest host. Mayim Bialik sucked too. Mike Richards was nothing special either. It was never about getting someone good, it was about getting someone Jeopardy's elderly audience (the people who loved TBBT) would recognize and about Mike Richards choosing himself.
/r/MensRights22/08/21 09:07 PM
1

This excepts the young that benefit from that money from blame (and responsibility). In fact, there are more young people that benefit from it than old, given the nature of family demographics. This is reminiscent of the relationship between men and women. We are supposed to believe that women are oppressed because they didn't earn their own money, but were instead forced to spend money earned by their men. Now I'm no fancy, big-city Marxist, but it seems to me that getting money without commens…
/r/MensRights22/08/21 08:55 PM
5

Here's another one: at what point in the marriage should the weigh-in occur: beforehand, like in boxing, or after the violence, as a kind of postmortem? Beforehand has its benefits, but the postmortem method is more forgiving to the loser who might have lost limbs or just a lot of blood. If a man cuts weight like crazy can he then wail on his wife/girlfriend to his heart's content? What if she's taller than him from the start (nearly unfathomable, I know, but bear with me here)? What about same-…
/r/MensRights22/08/21 08:29 PM
7

Which is the exact same garbage we had in school under traditionalists. Feminism and traditionalism, now and forever, one and inseparable!
/r/MensRights21/08/21 06:58 PM
3

The young outnumber the elderly they just don't vote. If they want more power it's there for the taking. The elderly are significantly reliant on welfare policies like medicare and social security. Those policies constitute a massive chunk of government spending and spending constitutes a massive chunk of government responsibilities. So the elderly must vote - selfishly and as a bloc - to stay alive. Not giving a shit about politics is a luxury the young can more safely enjoy over the old. A shi…
/r/MensRights21/08/21 04:36 AM
1

seeing news about women getting raped or murdered or abısed every.single.fucking.day in my country and then a man shitting on me for being scared to walk the street at night and talking abt this yeah thats what gets me riled up. Your choice of media is biasing your views, then. Men are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime at the hands of strangers, yet it is less acceptable and less common for them to be afraid. In the interest of keeping consistent with reality, should men b…
/r/MensRights21/08/21 12:48 AM
5

Thats what gets me riled up What gets me riled up is men and boys being mercilessly left behind to die and criticized while women and girls get extraordinary consideration despite suffering less and doing less to secure their own freedom and safety. Then why do some ppl do the same and expect to get treated nicely bc women? I don't expect to get treated nicely by women. That's an unfair expectation to have of random strangers whether as members of a group or individuals. I don't want or need any…
/r/MensRights19/08/21 09:15 PM
8

The reason nobody asked about the boys from Boko Haram is because they were already murdered. "They were already murdered" is the reason they couldn't be brought back. The reason nobody asked about them is because they didn't care. If the girls had been murdered and the boys kidnapped it wouldn't be #bringbackourboys, it would be #avengeourgirls.
/r/MensRights19/08/21 08:29 PM
25

Why aren't the women fighting? The country is flush with guns and apparently the women (and only the women) are facing a fate worse than death. The implication of the mainstream narrative is that even under the threat of unending rape/oppression/death/etc. Afghan women are unwilling to fight for themselves. I wish these champions of the female struggle writing this propaganda would stop and ask themselves "wait, what am I actually saying about women here?"
/r/MensRights19/08/21 08:14 PM
1

women are less than 12% of those killed but are disproportionately affected. LMAO. Disproportionately doesn't mean more, it just means at a rate not in proportion to the population. It does mean more in this case. What were you clarifying there? Cool story bro but take it up with the dictionary. too large or too small in comparison with something else. Glad the dictionary agrees with me. Again, no one was confused about what 'disproportionately' means. Either your reply was a non-sequitur, as th…
/r/MensRights18/08/21 11:55 PM
2

That comparison breaks down because the original statement was inaccurate in its implied context, unlike the homelessness one. If we're outside at noon in Death Valley and it's 0C and I say "it's hot out today" then I'm wrong, even though the avg temperature of the universe is -270. Technically all climates on Earth are quite hot all the time... if you ignore the context that people are almost always talking about temperature in a relative sense. In the same way the word "disproportionately" sho…
/r/MensRights18/08/21 03:50 AM
1

A certain female dating sub got hysterical at this news, calling all the men who left or tried to leave cowards. Still think it's just about "dating angst"?
/r/MensRights18/08/21 03:24 AM
5

fewer* and stronger
/r/MensRights17/08/21 06:08 AM
6

FDS is a hate sub masquerading as a dating advice sub. Anti-male hate is the explicit point of that forum. Instead of assuming it's harmless because they're gals or falling into some false dichotomy because MGTOWs merely exist, go and actually read [it]*. The only reason they are not banned is that they are protected by Reddit (meaning they can have tags like "Male Depravity" and refer to women as 'pickme sluts' and skate by) and heavily moderated to delete the open calls to violence. I seriousl…
/r/MensRights15/08/21 06:34 AM
1

Men are punished inordinately for men's and women's mutual violations of social mores because society can't adequately punish women and coddle them at the same time.
/r/MensRights15/08/21 04:54 AM
2

What makes Marxists gynocentric is their explicit advocacy for mandatory subsidy (whether by means of labor quotas or direct transfer payments) by the most productive members of society. 'From each according to his ability to each according to his needs' necessarily means men subsidizing women because of biological differences between the sexes. All social movements are gynocentric, because the concept of society itself has (until now) been inherently gynocentric. The goal of society for all of …
/r/MensRights05/08/21 06:16 AM
2

You're dodging the question. I reject the question because it's built on the false premise that what a person says they are is surely what they are in practice. If you believe a person's word at face value then you should believe feminists when they say they're for equality. Somehow I doubt that you do that. You are the one who came in here saying that you cannot be a feminist and a socialist I'm not the OP. Yes, there is a difference between the two ideologies but in practice they cohabit. Are …
/r/MensRights30/07/21 10:44 PM
2

Name a politician from a mainstream conservative party that has self-identified as a feminist. Name a politician from a mainstream conservative party that has accomplished something for men. I don't care about talk, gestures, names, labels, or teams. I don't care about dead-in-committee bills, drop-in-the-bucket donations, or funding for studies that will be buried. Results are what matter. Where is the conservative MRA Senator who has actually helped men? Where is the politician giving their al…
/r/MensRights30/07/21 09:33 PM
11

Sounds like some woke garbage Read all that, formed your opinion, and boiled it down into a senseless snarky remark in a couple of minutes, huh? Well done. You're a useful idiot for feminists. You can't identify them unless they're shouting "kill all men" and distracting you from the real feminists who are lobbying men out of society. Keep mindlessly shouting back at the distractions. That'll work eventually, right? Go team!
/r/MensRights30/07/21 09:05 PM
6

I've never met a conservative feminist! Never seen one ever, anywhere. Name one conservative feminist.....I'll wait Feminism is a traditionalist ideology. Both feminists and conservatives are gynocentric and have the goal of burdening men to subsidize women. Feminism is what a conservative woman does when economic and technological advancement have removed all practical restraints to her selfishness. She's increasingly able to replace hubby - who has a pesky individual prerogative against being …
/r/MensRights30/07/21 08:53 PM
2

I would say destroying the American socialist movement was pretty successful.
/r/MensRights30/07/21 08:36 PM
2

What? Economic status is the best indicator of social success. Are you implying that's pure coincidence?
/r/MensRights30/07/21 08:26 PM
8

Feminism has successfully infiltrated and acted as a parasite to every social issue and popular movement in the last decade in order to gain empathy and power for themselves, at the expense of genuine issues Last decade?! They've been doing it for almost 200 years. e.g. child abuse, racism, domestic violence, homelessness, murder, sexual harassment, unemployment, medical issues, mental health Going back further you can throw in voting rights, civil rights, anti-war, populist progressivism, worke…
/r/MensRights30/07/21 08:15 PM
16

Do they want to be treated equally to men or differently from men? Whichever gets them what they want at that particular moment. They are an advocacy cartel that will say and do whatever works best to accomplish the goals of obtaining more power and resources and shedding all responsibility and obligation. They advocate for preferential treatment under the guise of equality Ding ding. All of this does not mean I'm against gender equality as a whole. Being for gender equality is being against fem…
/r/MensRights30/07/21 10:04 AM
5

It feels like when it's the man who can't get a date people have considerably less empathy. When it's men they have zero empathy. Short of being in a coma you are allowed no excuse for having trouble in the dating market. This despite the fact that people will readily admit that for men getting a date is actually difficult; that the market is a byzantine fever dream of nonsensical or unreasonable standards; and that most of the advice out there is some combination of useless platitude, deliberat…
/r/MensRights29/07/21 02:00 AM
0

And feminist action is in opposition to prostitution and male gratification, regardless of any words they toss around. Controlling the dam of human sexuality is a great source of power.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 02:36 AM
10

Feminists didn't invent hypergamy. It's always been the driving force behind female mate selection.
/r/MensRights27/07/21 02:34 AM
2

They oppose it too. You need to become familiar with the feminist tactic of paying lip service to an idea and conveniently disappearing when the time comes to put action to those words. And how they'll support something in theory, but not in practice or not right now. Judge them by what they do, not their words.
/r/MensRights26/07/21 08:59 PM
1

Conservatives are the minority group. I can't imagine what your definition of conservative is if you think that. Stop fucking acting like we have any say in anything in the 21st century. Just electing two of the past four Presidents of the U.S. Any power lost by conservatives is due to them making a big stink about lost causes while gladly caving on the real fights like the ones I mentioned above in family law. Those are the ones that have practical consequences for society, not whether a pregna…
/r/MensRights26/07/21 08:56 PM
0

It's conservatives who argue against feminist dogma the hardest. While supporting feminist policy. They agree on everything except abortion and any conflict between them is a facade. And if your worldview begins and ends at abortion then a) you're being bamboozled over settled law and b) you're missing everything else going on. Conservatives are the wall feminists run and hide behind when they've extracted all the privileges they can and want to dodge any commensurate responsibilities. Anything …
/r/MensRights26/07/21 06:56 AM
2

They discourage being a ho and the garbage society we live in now Feminists don't want to allow women to be whores either.
/r/MensRights26/07/21 06:36 AM
1

Almost everyone in the West is a republican. You won't find too many people supporting totalitarianism, direct democracy, etc.
/r/MensRights26/07/21 06:33 AM
1

I just don't get how people cannot see the hypocrisy of "drafting women is wrong, but drafting men is okay!" In a general sense, there's no hypocrisy here. This is the "men and women are different and should be treated differently" group, so the double standard is consistent with their beliefs. And that should be kept in mind whenever some misguided soul tells you tradcons are potential allies for the MRM. There is hypocrisy in supporting and celebrating women in the military and opposing adding…
/r/MensRights26/07/21 06:16 AM
1

You're mixing time periods listing sexual harassment and franchise disparity. And depending on your definition of "appropriately", sexual harassment was definitely dealt with. Even when accusations were false. You also didn't address men's status during those time periods - they were worse off on average. Still are. Voting was (is) a largely meaningless exercise as candidates were (are) handpicked from the elite by the elite, votes were bought if not outright rigged, and many offices weren't eve…
/r/MensRights15/07/21 10:35 PM
6

IMO. Women were oppressed and treated badly. How? Compared to who? By who? For who's benefit?
/r/MensRights13/07/21 09:09 PM
1

I'm talking about the people who perform this routine: Ask a question. Fail to address answers at all (even just to demonstrate that they are inadequate). Assert that they "haven't heard any good arguments". Repeat. Generally when an answer doesn't address the question I've asked I will point this out and restate the question, usually in a clearer way just in case it wasn't understood. Just repeating the question isn't going to (and probably shouldn't) get a different or better response. But you…
/r/MensRights10/07/21 08:13 AM
7

It's a trivially easy "tactic" to counter: just know what you're talking about. For feminists it is a hardship because the ideology is supported mostly by revealed truth, self-reference, anecdote, circular logic, and outright bullshit and is ultimately founded upon a reverence for emotional reasoning rather than objectively justified belief. In any discussion Feminists are only ever a step or two away from having their feelings called into question and individual subjective responses can easily …
/r/MensRights09/07/21 11:20 PM
1

I don't know what you think you're doing, but I know averaging 100 comments/day on a 2-week old account is not the thing to do.
/r/MensRights09/07/21 07:06 AM
2

Let people buy sex the way they can buy food, water, shelter, clothing, a false sense of security, and extra big-ass TVs.
/r/MensRights03/07/21 05:56 AM
0

So the "men are brutes" feminists, then. Your game doesn't work if you expose yourself so quickly and so ineptly. I'm talking about the og ones too y'know I'm talking about the ones from 1960-1980,give or take. I'm talking about "give women the right to vote" feminists Better luck next time, friend.
/r/MensRights01/07/21 04:45 AM
8

Great idea. We can separate the different waves into the following: "Men are brutes" feminists "Men are scum" feminists "Men are pigs" feminists og feminists Define, please.
/r/MensRights01/07/21 04:38 AM
4

How about "all of the ones with any real power within the group" or "all the ones that support their ideas with actions rather than lip service"?
/r/MensRights01/07/21 01:23 AM
0

the few differences between the genders. Many, major differences*. Just as a start, one sex can be effectively incapacitated for months at a time in pregnancy and then requires significant resource subsidy for child-rearing for years afterward. You don't think this has had any effect on the evolution of our species' psychology? "we are biologically wired to worship women" the "simping gene" You are in an abusive relationship with a strawman. I can't address your objections when you are objecting…
/r/MensRights29/06/21 08:01 PM
1

This got nothing to do with biology. Yeah how could different treatment between the sexes be in any way a result of biology? Totally preposterous... Just out of curiosity, how do you think human societies have come to treat women and men differently? Random yet perfectly consistent chance? you're the one justifying it with "well that's how we're biologically inclined". I'm not justifying anything. An explanation of why something happens is not an excuse for it. We aren't beasts who have to follo…
/r/MensRights29/06/21 07:42 PM
10

We have closed Scotland’s only women’s prison at Cornton Vale and are investing in a new progressive model for women’s prisons. Scottish National Party (ruling party in Scotland).
/r/MensRights28/06/21 07:56 PM
12

They substitute a picture of an extremely abusive, ultraconservative, upper-middle class 1950's marriage for what marriage actually is and believe that's how all marriages are. They are also narcissists who fantasize that they are utterly self-sacrificing and put-upon and that their mere presence enriches the lives of those around them. They think sex is a magical, one-way gift bestowed by women upon men. In short, they see marriage as an angelic woman trying to civilize a brutish man, giving an…
/r/MensRights28/06/21 07:41 PM
1

Like suffering is a measurable item and people need to prove men suffer more to support men. If we base our beliefs on subjective measures women will always elicit greater sympathy and advocacy because we are biologically inclined to give women undue consideration. E.g. "100 people killed including 6 women". Or, if you're an "everything is a social construct" type, consider this: despite men experiencing nearly every measurable hardship at a higher rate than women, men are believed to experience…
/r/MensRights28/06/21 07:35 PM
4

If anything they might lean traditionalist in the "men should sacrifice for women because that's the way things should be" direction. That's what feminists believe too.
/r/MensRights28/06/21 06:14 PM
7

I don't like doing sex work so I don't do it. There are a lot of professions I don't think should exist at all, but I shouldn't have right to tell people what they can and can't do when they aren't hurting anyone else.
/r/MensRights23/06/21 09:46 PM
4

If you're being assaulted at work inform your boss and any relevant security guards and call the police. Luckily, being a male topless waiter is not a crime and you don't have to fear being arrested along with your attacker. In this case, the employer should have provided better security and managed the crowd better. The fact that criminals might victimize you is not a valid reason for making being a male topless waiter (or any other profession) illegal.
/r/MensRights23/06/21 09:32 PM
7

Don't engage in opposition to other people's feelings unless you are trying to make them feel differently. Trying to reason someone out of their feelings is a crapshoot, and trying to reason psychologically damaged people out of their feelings is a complete waste of time unless you are also a prescribing psychiatrist. If you want people to think differently, engage them with information. Preferably packaged simply and succinctly so they don't get distracted. In this case, we have the idea of str…
/r/MensRights21/06/21 11:23 PM
4

There's a better way to start a linguistics discussion than by derailing a thread where you yourself acknowledge there wasn't actually any ambiguity or misinterpretation.
/r/MensRights14/06/21 08:30 PM
1

Those with real power laugh at the idea of categorizing anything as strictly "left-wing" or "right-wing". For example, Feminists helped trick the largest population in human history into thinking it was a privilege to be cheap labor for global capitalists. Feminists have been also been present to distract and derail in every major left-leaning social movement in the West in the past century. Most recently they helped drown Occupy Wall Street with a deluge of intersectional sludge so thick not ev…
/r/MensRights11/06/21 07:01 AM
1

gender pay gap Earnings* gap. There's no significant gap in pay between genders when comparing between identical jobs. There's an earnings gap primarily because women work lower-paying jobs and fewer hours.
/r/MensRights08/06/21 10:21 PM
4

2: Women are physically weaker: On average this is true. However, we aren't fighting using spears and swords anymore. Physical strength isn't as important as it was during the Medieval Ages. A women using a gun is just as deadly as a man with a gun. There's more to being a soldier than just shooting things. There's more to gear than just a gun. Sometimes you have to carry your fellow soldiers, too. 3: I don't want to bet my life on a woman pulling my 200 pound ass: And yet, women have been servi…
/r/MensRights08/06/21 08:45 PM
18

Why would you like her when she thinks stuff like that and wanted to be Commander-in-Chief?
/r/MensRights08/06/21 08:14 PM
2

If it's any consolation, most Redditors are far, far more recalcitrant (and idiotic). Despite whatever issues you may have you have already displayed greater wherewithal than pretty much everyone else on this website. Keep up whatever therapeutic exercises you are engaged in and good luck to you.
/r/MensRights08/06/21 07:53 AM
1

I don't know what you or other are getting so mad about, all I said was if you don't like the laws, change them, and if your too lazy to change them, move. You may be replying to the wrong person. This is what you said, verbatim, and what I replied to: Idk where your living, but sex work is still illegal where I live, and carries the same penalty for both men and women. I don't know where this person lives, but I have never even heard of a push to change prostitution laws Then you haven't heard …
/r/MensRights08/06/21 01:05 AM
1

There's a trend to decriminalize only sex workers though which does seem a bit unfair. It's not the norm (yet, as far as I know), but there's a pretty big push for it. Idk where your living, but sex work is still illegal where I live So... your locality falls outside the trend and within the norm? A situation the commenter accounted for? For reference that trend is called the "Nordic model" of prostitution. and carries the same penalty for both men and women. Where I live getting an abortion car…
/r/MensRights07/06/21 10:03 PM
1

Keep replying to yourself in this vein. I genuinely think you're approaching an epiphany regarding *simplistic answers to complex questions. *Edit: word choice
/r/MensRights07/06/21 09:49 PM
1

Because of the imbalance of libidos between the sexes suppressing women's sexuality gives them more power, while suppressing men's gives them less.
/r/MensRights07/06/21 09:47 PM
1

In this case "industry professionals" would be more than happy with a Nordic model where they hold disproportionate power (and where they can still blackmail johns for more money). As in every industry they don't give a shit about customers.
/r/MensRights07/06/21 09:43 PM
1

If you still think that question warrants a 'yes' or 'no' answer you are hopeless. Are Chinese people thieves?
/r/MensRights07/06/21 09:34 PM
1

Her comment is not wrong It's wrong in context. Read the edit I provided above to answer your second comment. All this other stuff about what MRAs do is whataboutism, and I'd like to stay on topic with the article in question and your defense of it.
/r/MensRights07/06/21 09:24 PM
1

Focusing solely on the 1% (or the .0000001% in your case) is utterly pointless. And none of the women in that social stratum would have traded their lot in life with 99% of men. Considering their aspirational bent for most of history most wouldn't have traded with socially equal men either. Blah blah You can handwave away salient points all you want. Yours is still nonsense. "Yes your point applies to 99.99% of people, but I'm talking about the more important .01% (where I'm still wrong)". yes s…
/r/MensRights07/06/21 08:57 PM
2

However, it is also the case that for example Cambrdige university had no women and only about .000001% of the men. What a great point... If being denied to Cambridge is evidence of oppression then lower class men were oppressed too, which makes the relevant identifier in oppression class rather than gender. The feminist historical narrative of an undue social burden placed upon women by men is false. entire professions had no women in them. Not being forced to work to earn a living was consider…
/r/MensRights06/06/21 10:53 PM
8

False. And trying trying to link them together like this is simply more "all your problems are just the patriarchy backfiring on you" bullshit. Suffering is the just price of your success, dontcha know? The author of this essay acknowledges (in so many words) the apex fallacy at the core of this line of thinking, yet indulges in it immediately afterwards: Why is it that when we consider examples of gender disparities, we seem to only consider areas where men achieve success? And why, when we loo…
/r/MensRights06/06/21 08:48 AM
11

Also they never moved beyond the place in childhood where the right and wrong parties were determined by which one's burn got the loudest "OOOOOHHHHHH".
/r/MensRights01/06/21 11:00 PM
3

Mentioning Andy Dick at the same time as the actual murderer is almost always done in an attempt to deflect blame from her. He should be a footnote in the story, in reality he's the main focus. It's partly because he's more famous but mostly because he's a man and she was a woman.
/r/MensRights29/05/21 06:28 AM
2

Being married is often a tacit requirement for men to enter (and/or remain in) that social stratum. You might be surprised at how shut out of wealth and power a bachelor can find himself, especially in a corporate environment.
/r/MensRights29/05/21 01:52 AM
3

The topic was women who earn that much, not men.
/r/MensRights28/05/21 10:33 PM
12

I always find it funny when successful women can't find a man to marry them, "I just don't get it🤷‍♀️... I'm well educated, I own homes, I earn well over 6 figures, aren't I a catch?" ponder the womenfolk... No. To a man, physical attractiveness trumps all that stuff. We're looking for baby mommas. A healthy womb. We're willing to do the rest. Just be attractive. The reason those women "can't find a man to marry them" is that they are looking for a man who is even better educated, owns more home…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 07:51 PM
8

I think it's fair to blame both. Whenever this situation comes up Andy Dick gets the lion's share of the blame. The woman who actually did the murdering is often charitably deleted from the situation or even becomes just another victim. If someone takes your friend out drinking, then let's them drive home and they get into an accident killing someone you'd blame the driver but also the person who took them out drinking and let them drive drunk. The scenarios only seem comparable when you remove …
/r/MensRights28/05/21 07:43 PM
51

Andy Dick knocked Phil’s wife, Brynn off the sobriety wagon by convincing her to do some cocaine at a party. Then spiraling mentally out of control she and Phil argued at home, Phil goes to bed and she kills him in his sleep... then kills herself. Andy Dick is a piece of shit. Hypothetical: Phil murders his wife while on drugs. Do you still blame the drug dealer instead of the actual murderer? I've gotta tell you, I've never seen a situation where a man does a murder-suicide and gets any kind of…
/r/MensRights28/05/21 03:07 PM
1

you do know in the 2020 form update that copy pasting focused comments can change when the Op changes what they comment right? Do you honestly think I don't know how Reddit, forums, or copy-pasting plaintext works? Are you high or is lying like this a compulsion for you? also btw get recked i have the screenshot and im going to make an imgur image and send it to you through here, ill link it I suppose you think I don't know how long it takes to post something to imgur, too? This is just sad. No …
/r/MensRights27/05/21 08:32 PM
2

oops he edited his og points, sorry for that ill try to see if i screenshotted what he originally said You're a liar. Not only is the comment not edited at all but you quoted it verbatim: Women’s prime years are 18-30. The wall is undefeated. So the feminist teaching, that women can basically live a man’s life in their 20’s, is leading them on a road to hell, and they don’t even realise it. I’d advise any man to stay single, a woman won’t benefit your life in any truly meaningful way (unless you…
/r/MensRights27/05/21 06:50 PM
7

they said "most men dont want to be with a women who gave it away for free" hes directly saying that most men slut shame women and value sex as currency. Not wanting to partner with someone who is promiscuous is slut shaming now? And the sex as currency idea is certainly not the interpretation I would go with. When a politician says "our children are our most valuable resource" do you assume they mean children are a tradable commodity? ok buddy no, he said living a mans way after saying somethin…
/r/MensRights27/05/21 12:34 AM
4

none of those are strawmans, there what YOU said. you said. I am not the commenter you initially replied to. I made that clear in my comment. Your statements are not what that commenter said. You are putting words in their mouth, i.e. strawmanning. Women’s prime years are 18-30. The wall is undefeated. So the feminist teaching, that women can basically live a man’s life in their 20’s, is leading them on a road to hell, and they don’t even realise it. I’d advise any man to stay single, a woman wo…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 07:56 PM
6

i disagree getting your career rolling is a man's game, thats just toxic to say Strawmanning. but i disagree that treating people equal ruins generation Strawmanning. so then you acknowledge that men slut shame alot, good. Strawmanning. hope that helps, comment back soon so we can talk or we could take this to dm's to talk more If I were that commenter I wouldn't talk to you at all if you're going to put words in people's mouths so much. Why not tell women to be less permissive of promiscuity in…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 06:35 PM
2

İ can understand the frustration due the way society tells young women "they don't need men" and them behaving according to that , so you just repeat it as in "well ok , i don't need women either" , but as I said I don't think that's the way to go If you believe that the game is rigged and play anyway you're relying on luck to win, making it a bad game to play. No matter how good you are the "ref" can disqualify you, award the other team infinity points because they like them better, or otherwis…
/r/MensRights26/05/21 02:56 AM
5

women will eventually find a way to you This is something you might say to an incel, not a mgtow. The entire conceit behind "going your own way" is that you don't want women to find you.
/r/MensRights25/05/21 02:50 AM
2

The problem with applying that aphorism here is that women aren't weak and never have been. Traditionalism and feminism (i.e. selfish traditionalism) are both incorrect.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 09:11 PM
79

Protect women. Provide for women. These are tenets of traditionalism. Put 'only' in front of 'women' and you get feminism.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 10:20 AM
1

Of course women aren't safe. Women are safer than ever and far safer than men. What are you talking about?
/r/MensRights08/05/21 06:47 AM
1

It's not so much that men are taught to be unafraid but that women are incentivized to feel disproportionately afraid and more negatively affected by adverse situations, because these reactions will elicit a positive social response. A woman who feels afraid must be accommodated - comforted, protected, chaperoned, etc. A man who feels afraid is SOL at best.
/r/MensRights29/03/21 10:18 PM
1

I have to disagree with the first sentence because women used to have it worse. Emphasis on used to because the big issues like suffrage has been addressed. Suffrage is not the only measure of social status. It's not nearly the most important one. At no point in your adult life have you ever been as privileged as Bill Gates's or Donald Trump's kids were in their minority when they couldn't vote. Suffrage has also never been universal and far more men than women are currently disenfranchised in A…
/r/MensRights19/03/21 03:26 AM
3

Women do not "have it worse" anywhere on the planet and never have. This truth stands in opposition to our innate and socially reinforced desire to disproportionately protect and provide for women. Instead of mindlessly indulging the desire without pretense like a traditionalist, feminists want to be seen as morally and intellectually superior while also shedding the responsibilities traditionalists have acquired over time. So they have to put all empirical evidence through the contortions of th…
/r/MensRights18/03/21 01:01 AM
78

Try to get her "requirements" or at least her "disqualifying issues" with the previous candidates in writing. Be subtle. Email, chat, or text if possible. It's a wash whether HR will be on your side without hard evidence. Make sure you emphasize the legal liability she's creating when you talk to HR.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 10:05 PM
14

EDIT: Imagine being such a miserable coping incel fuck that you have to downvote "I'm happily married and not all women are cancerous tumblrinas". Or you got downvoted because your comment was a non-sequitur that implies /u/FanEu953 said something worse than what they actually said. Like if I replied to your comment about being happily married by saying "this isn't the place for your misogynist 'I like having a woman-slave to wait on me hand-and-foot' stuff". All that guy said was that the smart…
/r/MensRights15/03/21 06:34 AM
24

Marriage is a blank contract that is only filled in at the time of divorce with terms that harm one party - statistically this will almost always be a man. Women are incentivized to get married and incentivized to seek divorce, men are not incentivized to do either.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 03:24 AM
2

Also when did emotional labour become a thing and why are women in that sub so adament only they do it? Why not twist a few words and try to get compensated to do something you want to do and are already doing? When I queue up for a multiplayer online video game I'm providing enjoyment to a bunch of other people in the matchmaking system. So video game companies should be paying me to play their games - not the other way around. This will be called "eMatchional labor" and I will get paid per gam…
/r/MensRights17/02/21 10:17 PM
2

Not gonna argue with ya little man. It was kind of a waste of time to do it anyway, then: Just gonna insert links that prove your wrong and hope you educate yourself and can end your hate of women Insulated from violent crime,https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures insulated from military servicehttps://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/11/historic-number-women-uniform-vet-community-about-change.html#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Defense%20Departm…
/r/MensRights06/02/21 11:05 PM
2

Wow.. social preference for women? Is that what it is... Not having our rape kits processed Constant sLut shaming, CONSTANT mom shaming, constant beauty and weight shaming. Insulated from violent crime, insulated from military service, insulated from hard physical labor, insulated from the criminal justice system. Insulated from cradle to grave. The goal of society is to insulate women from the hardships of life at the expense of men. You don't get stabbed if you put down the lipstick tube. You …
/r/MensRights06/02/21 07:33 PM
3

I'm saying it perfectly within someone's right if they take certain precautions to feel safe around people, especially if they have trauma. That said, I don't advocate for discriminating against people just because of their gender. Making sure you're not alone in a room with a man who you don't know is a precaution, not discrimination. Acting in a way to address your irrational fears is one thing. Projecting your irrational fears onto others to label them a danger is another. You feel fear and b…
/r/MensRights06/02/21 06:21 PM
1

Well i mean look, it's hardly common now. It hasn't been common for thousands of years, if it was ever common at all. Cut the weaselly bullshit. You are making shit up to support a pro-pedophilia viewpoint.
/r/MensRights01/02/21 11:46 PM
2

throughout human history couples have married at 12 or so That's a myth. Most marriages happened in late teens, early twenties. Matches might be made with young teens or pre-teens, but the marriages and especially consummation would be put off until the underage party or parties were much older.
/r/MensRights31/01/21 03:24 PM
149

Feminists' goal is to solidify the preferential treatment of women as a special class and their position as its permanent lobbyists. This is a career for them (as well as a religion). Feminists will never accurately assess the status of gender relations, never accept the idea that women are doing better than men in the social and economic metrics that really matter in people's lives. They are drawing from what may turn out to be an infinite well of biological and social preference for women. The…
/r/MensRights27/01/21 07:18 AM
17

If the defendant is found not guilty, the college or university should allow the student back with no restrictions. They shouldn't be barred or removed without due process in the first place.
/r/MensRights14/01/21 12:29 AM
3

The only difference is religion did achieve something good, at least. Tbf that's a significant difference. Feminism is intended to achieve nothing. It doesn't adequately describe any viable desired status and, in fact, is constantly positioned opposite to gender egalitarian goals. Religions typically believe that all worshipers will be "saved". Feminists have decided that men are born damned.
/r/MensRights22/12/20 07:22 PM
26

This is by design. Part of the reason feminism gets so much "airtime" despite contributing so little and achieving so little of substance is that it hampers other movements that are less palatable to those in power. Organized labor and the civil rights movement were both kneecapped by feminism in the 60s-80s. It serves the same purpose that Marxism did (and does to this day) for the progressive movement - to provide a poison pill that makes sensible change unacceptable to the average joe because…
/r/MensRights19/12/20 10:01 PM
7

Very few people identify as feminists 6 in 10 U.S. women say "Feminist" describes them somewhat or very well. In any case, this is faulty reasoning. The popularity of an ideology is not necessarily indicative of its social political power. It would be pretty scare if they had that much control over government systems. Indeed. Nice try on shifting the conversation to "in government", but OP was talking about social movements in general. Can you imagine if it were the case that feminists could dis…
/r/MensRights19/12/20 10:00 PM
10

No psychiatric professional worth their salt could support or implement this claptrap. This is a prime example of 'reading it into record' in the medical field. In politics, for example, if you want to introduce an idea that hasn't gained popular traction you simply have an elected official read it into the recorded affairs of the political body - be it Congressional minutes, an Executive memorandum, or a Judicial opinion. The mere expression of the idea in an official setting constitutes an aut…
/r/MensRights19/12/20 01:08 AM
4

Your actions make it undesirable to engage with your trolling. You are only interested in attacking this sub and the MRM with vague, spurious criticisms. You are solely here to try to associate the two with negative behavior. Why would I help you in your goal? And don’t worry, I won’t waste my time by trying to find common ground with you anymore. Oh that's what you're trying to do with your nonstop "too bad you guys are so awful" posting.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 09:12 AM
7

That you'd rather cast doubt on my "loyalty" and imply that I'm some sort sort of "feminist spy" that talk to me about what I originally commented on. I have no desire to engage with your concern trolling. I'm just pointing out what you're doing for everyone else to see. You're a male feminist who views the world through a feminist lens. You haven't contributed one pro-men's rights idea to this subreddit in your entire comment history. You exclusively comment about this subreddit and the MRM in …
/r/MensRights14/12/20 10:29 PM
8

Your insistence that you do, and that all feminists are toxic liars, is net harmful to the MRA cause. Oh, you've realized the jig is up. Time to strawman! The irony that you are lying while complaining about being called a liar is rich. You can now go back to your feminist space and cry that MRAs said "all feminists are toxic liars" when you tried to engage them in good faith and get them to see how terrible they are. Concern troll: successful.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 09:24 PM
8

Anyone with concerns about the sub is a false flag? No, just the ones who constantly (or exclusively) complain about vague concerns while desperately trying to convince everyone they're an ally who just wants to help. Who do nothing except try to associate the sub/movement with words like 'misogyny', 'toxic', 'woman-haters', etc. in the guise of constructive criticism. Who are self-avowed feminists, but hide that fact because they know it will give away the game too quickly. but I hate the no tr…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 09:11 PM
10

You seem very concerned that the sub is toxic. In fact most of your comments on this sub are about your concerns... For the record, giving a shit about what dishonest critics say is counter-productive. They will simply lie and falsify if they want "evidence" of misogyny/toxicity. Often, they will come here in the guise of an MRA who's just so concerned about some nebulous what the sub is doing wrong, but generally they can't help but show their true colors. refusing to acknowledge [...] the idea…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:59 PM
7

Try pushing a stick on a table barely to the point of tipping, only pushing it from one side and not touching it from the other side at all. That's already nigh on impossible to do. Also the starting position of the stick was never empirically established, but has been subjectively defined as the other edge of the table.
/r/MensRights12/12/20 11:43 PM
2

If it wasn't for MGTOW I was ACTUALLy thinking of getting married again! That's 100% on you and makes me doubt that you truly "had no idea" the first time around. It seems like you just thought you were special enough to be able to sign a shit contract with no enforceable benefits and still come out with a win.
/r/MensRights12/12/20 11:08 PM
5

It's been going on for decades and is a major motif in pop culture. "I can't leave her because she'll take everything" was a cliche to me by the time I was 10. You didn't learn anything about the biggest commitment of your life before making it? You didn't think "what if this doesn't work out"?
/r/MensRights12/12/20 11:02 PM
10

I'm going to address several of your comments in one post. "Bad feminists" proudly claim the label of 'feminist'. The only reason they are (intermittently) discounted as feminists is because their existence is sometimes inconvenient for other feminists. "Good feminists" do little to nothing to oppose "bad feminists". "Bad MRAs" are in no way 'MRAs', don't even address the subject of men's rights, and in fact deny being MRAs and often vehemently oppose the MRM. "Bad MRAs" only appear in the same …
/r/MensRights12/12/20 10:33 PM
16

Marriage is a scam. Why would you knowingly sign a contract where most of the details are metaphysical and the concrete ones can be unilaterally altered at any time, and upon termination it is superseded by a strictly punitive version with harsher obligations and none of the benefits?
/r/MensRights12/12/20 07:36 PM
1

Let's hope so. The "courtly love" bullshit we've been living under is far too exploitative and exploitable. Enjoy your personal conception of metaphysical intimacy outside of strictures imposed by people who want to harness your desires for their own profit and can decide to renege on the deal unilaterally.
/r/MensRights07/12/20 05:47 AM
1

Rational self-interest is fine. Advocating in one's own interest even without regard for the wants and needs of others is generally fine. Essentially, "greed is good" is generally fine, because one's self-interest can and will be checked by a separate and opposing self-interest. The problem arises when one incorrectly believes that they are advocating for some absolute, egalitarian/corrective social justice - rather than their own selfish interest - and paints anyone who believes otherwise as mo…
/r/MensRights06/12/20 09:59 AM
1

This is now a you vs. other you discussion. Let's agree to disagree and move on holy shit. I owe jackshit to you. Stop quoting things from past responses I dont need to do anything for you. I can give you statistics if necessary I dont need to give statistics If you want, think that you are right I win this because of that.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 07:15 AM
0

The evidence I said could be easily given were the laws I was taking about. This is not a live debate. You can't get away with lying about what you said. Your statements don't disappear into the ether unless your opponent recalls them. They are there for anyone to see: I can give you statistics if necessary, but they are easy to find so how about you spend your time instead? Where are the statistics you said you could easily give? I want them. Now, if you please. Otherwise, admit that you can't …
/r/MensRights23/11/20 07:02 AM
1

This whole time, you have proved nothing. You have showed nothing. You have reasoned nothing. You have replied with nothing but strawmans, telling ME to prove things while giving no proof of your own. Still waiting on those metrics. 'Member? 'Member when you said: I can give you statistics if necessary 'Member that? It was one comment ago. Also, you originally asked for a way to quantify oppression "by what metric". Specifically what metrics you use to come to your conclusion that: In third worl…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 06:22 AM
2

To respond, no the oppressions I listed did not affect men, it was exclusive to women. Nah they affected men. I showed that they did. I didn't prove it or even bother to argue the case, but the statements suffice, right? And also, wtf did you mean by "men are forced to drive women's around"? Was that just you trying to sound smart because you didnt have a response? The man will drive the woman to where she wants if he pleases, otherwise no. It's his decision, and is therefore not oppression. The…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 03:02 AM
2

Ah, so basically women arent oppressed AT ALL, ANYWHERE, and men have been oppressed EVERYWHERE, since the beginning of time. Please quote where I said this, otherwise it is a non-sequitur. Define 'oppression' while you're at it. I doubt you'll realize that your definition is extremely gender-biased while trying to do so, but miracles have happened. The people that post on this sub are actually about equality and solving mens issues, you people in the comments are not. They are the same people. …
/r/MensRights23/11/20 12:37 AM
2

"The middle east needs feminism" is feminist advocacy, so that was never in question. I know what I'm dealing with, but thanks for the heads up.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 12:03 AM
1

If you dont agree women are oppressed in the middle east Even Israel? I see you like to challenge yourself and are definitely not just a moron lacking any understanding of cultural nuance (or geography) who thinks all middle east countries can be painted with the same brush and mindlessly regurgitates whatever they hear. If you dont agree women are oppressed in the middle east, you are straight up an incel, or completely uneducated. Not only does that not follow logically, it doesn't answer the …
/r/MensRights22/11/20 09:48 PM
2

In third world nations, especially so in the middle east, women are much more oppressed. By what metrics?
/r/MensRights22/11/20 08:53 PM
6

Essentially, the feminist's ideal man is someone who gets absolutely nothing out of a relationship except the privilege of dating a woman. Well ...yeah. That's what 'ideal' means when you have two parties with competing, mutually exclusive interests. One party's ideal is the other party's absolute defeat. It is more useful to talk about what feminists find acceptable or desirable. The feminist's desirable man is the same as the traditionalist's desirable man is the same as the egalitarian's desi…
/r/MensRights11/11/20 06:10 AM
1

Feminism is a tool and in every society it is used by those with power to obliterate the ability of those without it to organize and connect with each other. That goes for socialist countries where the goal is to make the government a person's only lifeline and capitalist countries where the goal is to make the corporation a person's only lifeline.
/r/MensRights11/11/20 03:01 AM
1

The details of the actual situation that (allegedly) happened don't matter because of a hypothetical you concocted that didn't happen? A woman assaulted a gay man while using a homophobic slur. What's with the alt-history version of events?
/r/MensRights02/11/20 03:31 AM
1

Replying to the wrong person, I think.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 05:52 PM
2

Even women, or even feminists, don't want to be treated equally in practice, even if they pay lip service to it. Damn, I should have scrolled down to see you say the exact same thing I was going to say but more succinctly.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 08:29 PM
1

People should treat gender like race. Acknowledge the differences The biological differences between races are trivial and irrelevant to the social issues surrounding race. The biological differences between sexes are substantial and vital to addressing sex-linked issues. Sex shouldn't be treated like race.* This is also a good opportunity to point out that feminists do not actually believe in doing away with gender norms or in straight-up gender equality. They believe in lying about wanting to …
/r/MensRights23/10/20 08:28 PM
6

Not necessarily. See: abortion in the United States.
/r/MensRights23/10/20 06:03 PM
1

I don't know if this falls under Reddit's definition of spam: If your contributions to Reddit consist primarily of links to a business that you run, own, or otherwise benefit from, tread carefully, or consider advertising opportunities using our self-serve platform. Does a youtube channel count as a business for this purpose? The following are examples of behavior that may be considered spam and are subject to removal/suspension: Sending large amounts of private messages to users who are not exp…
/r/MensRights21/10/20 05:44 PM
7

/u/Capman95 is almost certainly the channel creator and solely posting and reposting his own videos (the "How Feminism Ruins Movies" video 4 times this year, for example). Almost no comments, either. Just pimping his channel. Many subreddits have rules against posting your own content, hiding affiliation with the content creator, and/or reposts. This sub doesn't have rules against any of that. Edit: that being said, anti-feminism in general is a necessary stance to take and has nothing to do wit…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 10:14 PM
2

I was just pointing out the other day that the concept of "sealioning" is a) a cover for being lazy and/or stupid and b) a cognitive self-defense against being made to question one's beliefs.
/r/MensRights14/10/20 01:44 PM
0

He gives 8 minutes of evidence No, the video is 8 minutes long. It's obviously not 8 minutes of evidence. the tittle is very clearly on point No, the title is inaccurate. He doesn't discuss "movies", he only discusses "action movies". So how does feminism ruin documentaries? Westerns? Indie films? Show me where that is in the video. If you expect quantitative data on feminism in movies, you're not going to find it anywhere. No, I expect examples, which is why I said "examples" in both comments a…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 01:07 PM
-1

Nowhere in here do you actually articulate where the guy is wrong. I can't discuss what's not there, which is why I pointed out the absence of supporting evidence for his claims: the call for female characters to be inserted into anachronistic or other wise inappropriate settings (only discussed hypothetically, no examples given) male characters being dumbed down or needlessly villanized (this one seems like an afterthought and, again, has no examples given) I don't need to craft a counterargume…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 02:48 AM
5

What does this have to do with the video?
/r/MensRights13/10/20 05:29 AM
8

I'll repost this every time this video gets submitted: Kind of a ramble and the title conclusion isn't supported by the content. It's closer to "How Feminism Ruins Action Movies" and offers as evidence: female characters performing unbelievable feats of combat, particularly against men (demonstrated by the Charlie's Angels reboot) the call for female characters to be inserted into anachronistic or other wise inappropriate settings (only discussed hypothetically, no examples given) male character…
/r/MensRights13/10/20 05:22 AM
1

Feminists take the idea to the extreme and say that anyone who questions them at all is being disingenuous, so that they themselves don't have to question or even think about what they're saying. Also, most feminists don't understand feminist talking points and can't explain them, so when asked to do so they flounder. Cue sealioning accusations to protect their poorly thought-out positions. Sealioning is a replacement for their previous go-to cliche "it's not my job to educate you". A replacemen…
/r/MensRights10/10/20 06:28 AM
1

That explains the big "sealioning" push.
/r/MensRights09/10/20 07:33 PM
1

That'd be the "dubious sincerity" part. It's difficult to tell what is serious and what isn't. You rhetorically ask "were we really that important" immediately before comparing what happened to the start of the American Revolution. Or maybe that was a baseball reference. In another comment you say: I agree, but the upshot is that the peer validation comes from a girl who was a super into the guy, instead of "sneaking one in when she was fucked up." That's rape. You guys learned not to rape. You'…
/r/MensRights27/09/20 01:07 AM
5

Article seems like a mash-up of performative wokeness of dubious sincerity and "oh-and-by-the-way" defensiveness. Here's a line that embodies both: The girl who I awoke to find gyrating on me, and of whom I was later shown pictures of straddling me at that night’s party, meant that at least for that night I was the opposite of Brock Turner, not a victim, but an anti-assailant.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 01:26 PM
3

The problem is that feminists conflate addressing uniquely female issues with a struggle for equal rights. They selectively play special interest advocate and human rights champion depending on the audience (progressives are less susceptible to special pleading while traditionalists balk at strict egalitarianism). The reasoning and end-goals underlying each approach are typically at odds, so they end up constantly lying to one or both groups. Are feminists women's advocates or supporters of gend…
/r/MensRights19/09/20 03:16 AM
1

Anyone who clicks on your link and can read can see that. Anyone who reads my link can see this: In Unit 4 (Relationships and Sexuality), content from the previous three units was integrated and applied to participants’ sexual lives by providing a context for them to explore their own sexual and relationship values and desires as well as practice negotiating their needs which is the major addition on top of previous programs aimed at women, is considered responsible for the improved results, and…
/r/MensRights18/09/20 08:56 AM
8

Therefore, just exactly what are they looking to change? To demonize men and Perpetuate the idea that rape is more prevalent than it is in order to Gain power and Increase funding to feminist groups. They're trying to change that 5 figure sexual assault liaison salary into a 6 figure sexual assault czar salary.
/r/MensRights17/09/20 01:34 AM
2

Education could reduce the incidence of less than perfectly consensual sex between intimate partners. Which would be a good outcome, but doesn't address the rape problem and also presently discriminates against and vilifies men. EAAA, a program aimed at educating women about consent and sexuality had good results in reducing rape and sexual assault on campus. Or reports of them, at least.
/r/MensRights17/09/20 01:21 AM
2

The reality is that literary culture in general is being slowly overrun with bias against males. Literary criticism is where many of the anti-male feminist memes became popular. It was one of the earliest feminist takeovers because the profession has such a low bar for entry, substitutes reliance on trendy cliche for genuine insight, and revels in subjective analysis. For example, calling everything misogynistic (and, previously, homoerotic/homophobic) started there.
/r/MensRights08/09/20 07:36 AM
6

Marriage has always been a wealth transfer system. We just decided to dress it up in lies about "love" over the years. The only thing that has actually changed is that real wages have stagnated or dropped for most people.
/r/MensRights06/09/20 06:10 PM
3

It's the only contract where one signatory can unilaterally break it for any reason and end up with half the other signatory's assets. It's the only contract where the terms aren't hammered out until it ends and the only question is whether you lose or lose badly. Marriage was beneficial for women because it was (generally) an unbreakable wealth transfer deal that never had to be renegotiated. This was good because women's bargaining power and ability/willingness to fulfill the terms went down o…
/r/MensRights06/09/20 04:29 PM
19

OP is a likely concern troll. Don't engage. OP in response to an unfavorable comment: You are a woman, aren’t you While this sub unjustly being called hateful, toxic, misogynistic, etc. has certainly happened before, OP is not referring to any specific instance or outbreak of it happening. In fact, OP has done nothing but make a post on this subreddit associating it with the words 'hate', 'misogynist', and 'toxic' and been upvoted for it.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 02:48 AM
2

Dowry: paid by the bride's family to the groom or groom's family. Opposite of brideprice Dower: paid by the groom or groom's family and held in trust by the bride's family as a form of life insurance to support the bride in case the groom dies or leaves. Brideprice: paid by the groom or groom's family to the bride or bride's family. Opposite of dowry. Brideprice is historically the rarest form of pre-marital financial arrangement and was often a form of punishment for a groom who was known to be…
/r/MensRights19/08/20 10:45 PM
1

I disagree, it's bad form and usually not funny to punch down Every time you see someone try to set the boundaries of what is funny and what isn't they immediately have to reshape them because they realize a joke that kills them falls in the danger zone. They always end up with a box suspiciously shaped exactly like their sense of humor, assuming they have one. When people say that something isn't funny (for reasons of political incorrectness) what they really mean is that it isn't acceptable no…
/r/MensRights21/07/20 10:52 AM
103

The only ones who use terms like "punching up" and "punching down" are the people who don't understand the appeal of humor anyway.
/r/MensRights20/07/20 03:01 AM
1

You might be misunderstanding me. Feminists don't want any evidence to be required or requested, especially not from the alleged victim. The only thing they think should happen is accusation = guilty. So the answer to your question "wouldn't this lead to less convictions of people guilty of rape too?" is "not under the system feminists are ultimately pursuing." Stopping police from collecting evidence may result in fewer convictions in the short term, but in the long term feminists want evidence…
/r/MensRights19/07/20 03:59 AM
6

The goal is to move away from using evidence in rape cases entirely. If some cases have evidence it casts relative doubt on the ones that have none. And having evidence that a rape didn't happen is worse still. Real victims will still volunteer information that proves a crime occurred. Liars can now operate with greater impunity. There is a set of possible outcomes that proceed from the starting point of a criminal complaint. This set includes (but is not limited to): cases dropped due to lack o…
/r/MensRights17/07/20 06:26 AM
1

Mainstream feminism is not out for the blood of men, but rather it seeks to address the parts of society which unfairly favour men over women, e.g., women's and black suffrage, domestic violence, sexuality. None of which requires men to be put at a lower section of the totem pole. Does mainstream feminism include the National Organization of Women which goes around the country lobbying against equally shared parenting and alimony reform? What is your (and this sub's) definition of feminism? I ca…
/r/MensRights10/07/20 08:49 PM
1

I would need definitions of 'oppressed' and 'gender equality'; because, again, these terms enjoy such broad definition that if we were to jump into a discussion using them it's guaranteed that we'd immediately be talking past each other. For example, does 'oppressed' mean "has a list of grievances", "substantially worse off in most or all major aspects of life", or something else? Does being a member of the oppressor class require knowing, active participation or is one born an oppressor? As for…
/r/MensRights10/07/20 02:04 AM
2

What are your definitions for 'feminist' and 'radical feminist', and what do you think their relative proportions are. There are so many definitions out there that it's pointless to have a discussion on the topic without the terms being defined specifically for any given discussion. Incel ideology has nothing to do with Men's Rights. Your analogy is flawed.
/r/MensRights09/07/20 06:34 PM
8

I don't exactly see how this is in opposition to feminism. Feminists have never made an intellectually honest attempt to accurately study or describe gender relations, yet they speak and act with certainty regarding the origins, implementations, and purposes of gender roles and the way forward. They start with their desired outcomes and synthesize their ideology backwards to support their desires. An accurate assessment of human nature would most likely lead to a different conception of "gender …
/r/MensRights06/07/20 07:06 PM
2

When a sexist feminist position becomes untenable feminists pretend they never held that position. Thus, they remain legitimate in the eyes of average people despite being the ones responsible for obstructing equality and having myriad other sexist positions.
/r/MensRights04/07/20 07:48 PM
1

They opposed the thing, and now that their opposition has become untenable they pretend they always supported it. You're helping them preserve their obstructionist position. They ran out of bullets and you're saying "good on them for ceasing fire".
/r/MensRights04/07/20 07:44 PM
1

As an example of what I'm talking about, feminists demanded default mother custody of children in the case of divorce (and continue to oppose equally shared parenting to this day). Do you know what rank-and-file feminists say when confronted with this blatant sexism? "That's the fault of the patriarchy because women are traditionally seen as responsible for child-rearing."
/r/MensRights04/07/20 07:38 PM
2

Honestly if they do this would it even matter. Yes. They are a significant obstacle to progress and letting them take credit for progress after-the-fact (or avoid blame for opposing it) allows them to continue standing in the way on every other issue. Feminists demand a monopoly on discussion of issues like domestic violence because the Big Book of the Patriarchy™ has given them all the right answers. They then use that monopoly to silence men and engage in the circular reasoning that they must …
/r/MensRights04/07/20 07:34 PM
1

Feminists opposed the change until it happened against their best efforts. Giving them credit for it allows them to continue to oppose change.
/r/MensRights04/07/20 07:34 PM
564

Get ready for the "feminists never opposed this" revisionism.
/r/MensRights02/07/20 04:56 PM
3

Agreed.
/r/MensRights02/07/20 04:55 PM
339

OP is very confused. /r/radical_feminism is an anti-feminist subreddit. The subreddit was voluntarily set to private and that splash message was written by the moderators as a form of protest of the new policies. It's a parody of this: https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-subreddits-protest-racism-hate-speech-policies-black-lives-matter-2020-6
/r/MensRights01/07/20 12:48 AM
2

Did you mean to reply to /u/Mode1961?
/r/MensRights22/06/20 01:34 AM
2

There are tons of lonely men out there and they just give their money to women in order to gain attention and a meaningless connection. Meaningless to you. Probably not to them. And are we talking about sexual gratification or some kind of emotional connection being sold here? Let's not conflate the two. I believe that the women who are doing this are willingly exploiting those who are socially inept and making the problem worse. IT guys routinely charge hundreds to fix issues that could be solv…
/r/MensRights20/06/20 07:55 AM
3

I meant if they showed up and she hadn't run. It would have been a different story given the Duluth model, predominant aggressor policies, and pro-female bias.
/r/MensRights05/06/20 05:58 PM
24

Good thing she didn't call your bluff. If they had shown up it would likely have ended with you in cuffs.
/r/MensRights05/06/20 04:50 AM
3

The problem I have with it is that OF made it so much easier for the average non good looking girl to make money That's a ridiculous problem to have. by doing nothing and freeload. They're not doing nothing. They're doing something you don't respect. There are plenty of jobs I consider "too easy", "meaningless", and "worthless" that make money. People make thousands just by holding onto shitty comic books that cost a nickle 70 years ago and could easily be reprinted today, for example. That does…
/r/MensRights04/06/20 07:56 PM
1

You're a random person on Reddit. Don't ever respond to anyone then. We're all random people on Reddit. By this logic you've "wasted" dozens of comments and several on me alone. You'll be "wasting" another one when you reply to this one. Nah, I think you very much value this interaction (or winning it, at least) and just find yourself outmatched mentally. Prove me wrong by not replying. Show me how random I am. as far as I can tell your opinion and views hold no weight and your capacity to chang…
/r/MensRights03/06/20 09:08 PM
0

By what metrics? Murdered more, check No numbers provided. incarcerated more, check No numbers provided. separated from their children more No numbers provided. Still, I'll give it to you since the law seems to be concrete enough to discourage data collection and I'm charitable. homeless more, I don't know All of those should be "I don't know". You could have replied "I don't know" to my post and accomplished the same level of persuasion. Entire post No numbers provided. If you can't provide dat…
/r/MensRights01/06/20 08:30 PM
0

LOL dude, let it go, you're the only one who's taking this conversation seriously at this point. Knowing that you were taking this conversation seriously at the time of even one of your replies is very sad. Let your parents and your teachers know they've failed you. Here's a tip: colleges will take your money, but they won't give you a degree unless you can demonstrate a basic ability to communicate a rational thought. With that in mind I urge you to take up a trade and skip higher learning enti…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 04:08 AM
1

Eh, it's mostly me being lazy in what I consider an stupid argument Glad you can admit you couldn't hack it. I mean, dude, you're defending a Theocracy, the only thing that is as bad as that shit is a fucking communist state. What's your point here? That the name of a thing conveys all flaws you want to associate with it? FYI 'theocracy' is a type of government and 'communism' is an economic system. Comparing them in the way you have is meaningless. Pointing out flaws in your logic is not a defe…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 12:08 AM
0

I asked the other guy if women suffered disproportionately in key aspects of life in Iran, with example criteria. You chimed in with headscarves and patriarchy, and lied about women not being able to vote. Then you pathetically asked to end the discussion on your misinformation and failure to answer the question. I reiterated that I was talking about key aspects of life. I brought us back to your original topic which was that the problem was just with first world feminists. I addressed the conce…
/r/MensRights27/05/20 06:54 PM
0

Sharia law has rules for men and for women. You still haven't given a single metric. Women are not oppressed compared to men in any country and they never have been. You don't even know where to start in considering what equality means, so you've allowed Feminists to define everything for you. Your rejection of "1st world feminism" is as meaningless as your embrace of it for so-called "unequal" countries.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 06:30 AM
-1

Dude, they aren't allowed to vote, they have to FORCIBLY wear that stupid thing to cover them So... not disproportionately killed, homeless, incarcerated, etc., then? Feminism is the idea that women are especially oppressed by men for men's benefit. I reject the idea that any society that clearly harms men more than women is inordinately oppressive towards women if they are indeed inherently equal to men. I don't care if it's 19th century America or 21st century Saudi Arabia. If your only reason…
/r/MensRights26/05/20 11:27 PM
-2

By what metrics? Are Iranian women murdered more, homeless more, incarcerated more, separated from their children more, etc.? Don't fall into the trap of attacking the Other to take attention off yourself. Feminism is not justified anywhere.
/r/MensRights26/05/20 07:21 PM
3

A strawman is still a strawman no matter how uncanny it is.
/r/MensRights26/05/20 07:16 PM
12

Well it is coming by way of the pinkpill subreddit. A normal human being would be skeptical of the idea that preteen boys are raping more than adult women. A feminist just sees it as proof that men are evil from childhood.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 05:43 PM
9

Don't forget erasing inconvenient facts. "Crimes are committed by men, overwhelmingly." "Men are raised by women, overwhelmingly society."
/r/MensRights22/05/20 07:08 PM
2

Disbarment for what? Taking a client? Pretending a client has a case when they don't is fraudulent and unethical. The law isn't the wild west. There are a lot of rules governing lawyers' interactions with their clients and violating them is cause for disbarment, civil suit, and even criminal prosecution. She accused him of something, his attorney asked for DNA test and the judge agreed that this was crazy accusations so threw the whole thing. The justice system working exactly as it is supposed …
/r/MensRights17/05/20 11:58 PM
4

No lawyer would take that case. Pretending a client has a case when they don't is fraudulent and unethical. They'd be opening themselves up to litigation by the plaintiff defendant* and their client and/or disbarment. "I do know for a fact that he is the biological father," Sala, who represented herself, told the judge, adding that she had proof but could not show it to the court. But it seems the case didn't go to trial and the DNA test happened before the lawsuit. An Ontario judge dismissed a …
/r/MensRights17/05/20 08:50 PM
12

Courts throw out cases that are without merit. *Apparently this one got to the point that a DNA test was necessary. If every accusation led to a trial you would never leave the courtroom. *Edit: the DNA test happened before the frivolous lawsuit.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 08:07 PM
1

It must also be noted how rapidly each change occurred once support for it among women passed the 50% mark.
/r/MensRights15/05/20 07:45 AM
22

But because it was women fighting to be allowed to go outside of their role That "fight" was just a formality. Modern technology and broad-based economic growth did the real work of liberating women from their role. Actually, it was the glut of low-cost, low-skilled, non-union labor caused by this liberation that encouraged business to pull women into the workforce. Tricking them into thinking it was their idea to become a wage slave while they obliterated real wage growth was a masterstroke of …
/r/MensRights14/05/20 05:22 AM
-2

Buying out her contract would get her to go more quietly. Firing her would bring the lunatics down on them and almost certainly legal action.
/r/MensRights13/05/20 09:02 PM
6

I think we're only seeing it because Feminism has been faceplanting spectacularly over and over recently. People love a winner and hate a loser. I have little faith in people to actually reject misandrist attitudes en masse any time soon. Once feminists get their train back on the tracks we'll be right back on our way to "Kill All Men"-town.
/r/MensRights13/05/20 08:57 PM
2

Pointedly keeping members of the feared group away from them, as though the fear is justified, is the worst thing you can do. Their ideology says the fear is justified. Actually trying to help the victim would run counter to that idea, so sacrifices must be made.
/r/MensRights13/05/20 07:39 PM
1

If that was the case every post currently on the frontpage of that sub would be removed and only "0" karma posts would be up there. The comment you replied to is the real misinformation.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 07:04 PM
5

Feminism is an equal rights movement when it wants to avoid advocating for the things the majority of women want/need and an advocacy movement when feminists' greed demands blatantly unequal consideration. And in between playing both of those deliberately nebulous goals off of each other is a whole lot of profiteering.
/r/MensRights08/05/20 07:23 PM
28

Today's the day! Lockdown is over for Karren. She's ready to get back out there and take control of a devastated world! These lockdowns have caused society to collapse without anyone to maintain it. (I heard something about "essential workers", but obviously that must be referring to the maid I pressured into cleaning my house in defiance of the lockdown order.) She's been cooped up like basically everyone else in the world, too important to be risked. But now she's ready to get out there and pi…
/r/MensRights04/05/20 07:21 PM
5

I'm not a fan of "get 'em for something" style justice. I'd like to see people go to jail for crimes we can prove they actually committed. The reason they went after him for rape and not the other crimes he was accused of is because the women he made deals with would be accessories or co-defendants. So they get away with what they did and he went to jail for a crime there's no proof he committed. That doesn't discourage transactional sex any more than regular false rape convictions discourage no…
/r/MensRights02/05/20 08:28 PM
1

That sounds like context. Context that needs to be in the post itself, not in a followup comment and definitely not in a followup comment in a different post.
/r/MensRights01/05/20 04:38 AM
1

the constant spam of low effort i.redd.it picture posts No advice animals or other low-effort image or text posts A picture of a line of text with no explanation, commentary, or even context is not activism. It's spam, and it's shitting up the front page of the sub.
/r/MensRights01/05/20 04:35 AM
5

So you guys will censor comments for political correctness now, but the constant spam of low effort i.redd.it picture posts is fine? This post is a clipped image of a line of text with zero context and it's been up for 19 hours. No advice animals or other low-effort image or text posts, including links to images of headlines/partial news articles. Mods may remove these at their discretion. Your discretion seems to be lacking.
/r/MensRights30/04/20 10:58 PM
3

It's a picture of a repost of a months (or years) old copypasta. You know, frontpage material for this subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 03:17 AM
1

Spare us the treasure hunt. The source should be in the post. Don't submit a picture of some random decontextualized sentence that made you angry and is supposed to do the same to me. This isn't a difficult thing. Low effort/low value submissions are against the subreddit rules. Unfortunately enforcement is spotty at best.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 02:53 AM
7

i.redd.it should be banned as a submission source. At least with external image hosts people are inclined to make an effort. I have to assume reddit's tool lets you clip, crop, and post immediately from the mobile app.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 08:10 PM
6

If you are suggesting there are no more equal-rights-feminism then I disagree. My experience is that most women want equal rights. Maybe it's my demographic? Or yours? Does anyone have a better source than anecdotal experience? If someone claims to be a feminist and in favor of equal rights and you believe them, then you haven't discussed their views and goals enough. And don't forget to have them define their terms. Remember that for a long time under the law 'separate but equal' satisfied the …
/r/MensRights14/04/20 11:19 PM
3

Sounds like a typical feminist whine, then. The trivial problem justifies bigoted rhetoric proposing no solutions, thereby preserving the justification for more bigoted rhetoric. All they want to do is vomit their misandry on the world. Maybe that's cathartic for them.
/r/MensRights14/04/20 04:47 AM
1

Hence the part where I said You "earned" the bad thing through your own related bad actions.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 08:51 PM
2

in the same way that women who walk down dark alleys in skimpy clothing while spouting "don't slut-shame me" are considered to be pretty dumb for not looking after themselves, shouldn't we consider men who support this type of attitude, put themselves in bad situations and refuse to try to defend themselves from accusations as equally dumb? That's an apples and oranges comparison. In the former case that's ignoring well-intentioned advice. You didn't bring the bad thing on yourself, but you coul…
/r/MensRights05/04/20 10:20 PM
11

Everyone believes that "men and women are equal". Then you ask them to define 'equal'. Feminist gender equality: is different from Egalitarian gender equality is different from Native American gender equality is different from Marxist-Leninist gender equality is different from Shi'ite gender equality is different from Sunni gender equality is different from gender equity is different from equality of opportunity is different from equality of outcome is different from... Feminists do not have nor…
/r/MensRights03/04/20 07:48 PM
9

My abs were well-defined resting without any work outside of calisthenics in P.E. when I was a teenager and hadn't discovered beer.
/r/MensRights22/03/20 08:32 AM
5

NOT ACTUAL FEMINISTS There are no actual feminists, it would seem. Every feminist thinks every other feminist is no true feminist. If "feminism" means "believing men and women are equal" or "the radical notion that women are people", then even Saudi clerics are feminists and the term is meaningless. If it means more than that (and of course it does) then you're going to be in the situation we have now where no two self-identifying feminists can agree on its definition but each one thinks they fi…
/r/MensRights19/03/20 04:05 AM
5

An overwhelming majority of people accused and convicted of witchcraft were women (about 78%). So 22% of those convicted were men. Using feminist math this means it was actually a persecution of men. Puritans held the belief that men and women were equal in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the Devil. Women's souls were seen as unprotected in their weak and vulnerable bodies. Several factors may explain why women were more likely to admit guilt of witchcraft than men. Historian Elizabeth R…
/r/MensRights18/03/20 01:41 AM
0

femicide is a huge problem in mexico with the cartels. They actually have a patriarchy issue unlike america. Please define "femicide", "huge problem", and "partiarchy issue". I'm not trying to be combative here, these things genuinely mean different things to different people and we should be using the same definitions if we are to discuss them. They just want the president to do something about the cartels if anything. Do they, or do they just want the female victimization rate to (magically) d…
/r/MensRights14/03/20 12:56 AM
20

Supplicant mentality. Rather than address the issue directly for themselves they petition others to do it for them. It's one of the luxuries of tackling a minor problem. People with real problems have to take direct steps to combat them. People with fake or exaggerated problems get exploited by those out to make a buck and engage in petty acts of protest and disruption. Guaranteed the only outcome of this will be more slush money for advocates and a continuing rate of "femicide" proportional to …
/r/MensRights12/03/20 10:18 PM
1

Regardless of who these articles are "addressed" to, they're aimed at women readers. They're capitalizing on female self-centeredness to generate clicks. Every media outlet is slowly turning into Cosmo. Might as well call them: If You Need to Worry about Him, He's Not Worth It and 5 Ways to Get Him to Celebrate You Personally, I'd be offended if the sections/articles of a financial magazine aimed at my cohort were just fluff and nonsense, but maybe having one's ego stroked is that important for …
/r/MensRights12/03/20 07:41 PM
35

Pasting from last time this was posted: Kind of a ramble and the title conclusion isn't supported by the content. It's closer to "How Feminism Ruins Action Movies" and offers as evidence: female characters performing unbelievable feats of combat, particularly against men (demonstrated by the Charlie's Angels reboot) the call for female characters to be inserted into anachronistic or other wise inappropriate settings (only discussed hypothetically, no examples given) male characters being dumbed …
/r/MensRights07/03/20 07:41 PM
6

Journalism has always been a joke. "Just the facts, leave nothing out, and go wherever the story takes you" is movie stuff. In reality, people are lazy, self-serving, closed-minded, and easily bored. Journalists tell the stories they want to read while doing as little research as possible to get there.
/r/MensRights06/03/20 08:28 PM
3

If your municipality has elections for judges remember that people with the job titles "Prosecutor" and "District Attorney" are generally gynocentric pieces of shit.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 09:47 AM
19

It's the most obvious counter to the idea of patriarchy and inherited "male privilege". Women have fathers who love them and support them with every ounce of their power and influence to the same extent that they do their sons. Well, they do unless you engineer a society that divorces fathers from their children en masse...
/r/MensRights28/02/20 11:49 PM
21

It's important to understand that feminist ideology exists to justify feminist advocacy. It is not a logically or intellectually consistent philosophy, but one that is constantly changing to shore up the perpetually sinking house of Feminism. Feminist advocacy and worldviews are not based on conclusions drawn rationally from some evidence-based feminist theory; rather, feminist theory is constructed in parallel to justify feminists' unabashedly skewed perspectives and self-centered desires and t…
/r/MensRights28/02/20 08:57 PM
2

'Prosecutorial discretion' is synonymous with 'injustice'.
/r/MensRights28/02/20 04:51 AM
6

Because when they say "equality" they sometimes mean "meta-equality", a situation where any privilege given to women is justified because they are (infinitely) oppressed. Depending on the goal of the day equality is determined either by a comparison between two discrete individuals/groups or by a balance of all statuses across humanity. These statuses are based on narrow, arbitrary metrics or, more often, feelings of oppression to ensure that they always show women's status as "lacking".
/r/MensRights17/02/20 09:29 PM
1

More likely feminist groups are just going to turn on them en masse and force trans people themselves to demand that trans people are banned from women's sports in exchange for continued "progressive" support. "We thought you were going to turn men's sports on its head. So we read some biology books for once and, um, it turns out you can't play with us anymore. But if you could make that seem like your idea so I don't look like a bully that would be great, thanks."
/r/MensRights15/02/20 07:04 PM
8

It's all fun and games until some man girl loses his her job spot in a heavily subsidized female sports program! The song remains the same.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 02:19 PM
2

Like 3 replies up when you responded to Can you show me any evidence that he threatened them? with Does witness testimony count? you could have instead said No I can't. and saved everyone a lot of time. Same for 2 replies up and this reply as well. Or if you wanted to shift the discussion in an honest manner you could have said I don't need sworn testimony. I know he did it. because that's where you went anyway.
/r/MensRights13/02/20 08:42 AM
4

it would just reverse into men being the more oppressed class Implying that women are currently the more oppressed class?
/r/MensRights11/02/20 08:53 AM
3

The fate of all blind advocacy movements. Feminists don't know where they started from and don't care where they're going. They have never made the effort to accurately describe women's place in society and have repeatedly been shown to be unsatisfied by any instance of parity.
/r/MensRights10/02/20 09:55 PM
1

Admitting you are wrong gives certain people a "handle" on you, and they hit you with it any time another disagreement comes up. Acknowledging that you are wrong is a good move in an adult atmosphere, not so much with people who still mentally haven't outgrown puberty. When did avoiding an earned punishment (even one as light as an "I told ya so") become a valid reason to persist in evil? For women cowardice seems to be somewhere between a valid excuse for bad behavior and an outright virtue. "A…
/r/MensRights10/02/20 09:48 PM
3

Jesus it's like you don't even want this person fired. Here's how you really do it: They said something that I said to them verbatim 4 times this week that I feel was inappropriate. Please tell them it offended me and to be more respectful in the future. I can't do it myself because I'm in shock and fear for my life. Now they're being less chummy with me just because I'm trying to get them fired retaliating against me. Please make them kiss my the ground I walk on and pretend to like it be more …
/r/MensRights08/02/20 07:41 AM
3

If I had to guess, it's that the metrics used to define "equality" must be racist if they produce results that show white countries to be the most "equal". But if that is the reasoning it is faulty.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:49 PM
2

That was clear in the article. Which changes the context of your initial post. So in Italy, where the Supreme Court declared a woman cannot be raped if she’s wearing jeans, you think the people there don’t feel the need for feminism? You let people believe this was a recent, currently valid action but it is neither. Disingenuous. Kinda like this: "Did you know in Italy the Supreme Court ruled that women are allowed to perjure themselves in court to protect their honor?" I'll let you figure out w…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:38 PM
5

So in Italy, where the Supreme Court declared a woman cannot be raped if she’s wearing jeans "it is a fact of common experience that it is nearly impossible to slip off tight jeans even partly without the active collaboration of the person who is wearing them." One of these things is not like the other. You also failed to mention that this case was from 22 years ago and was overruled 12 years ago.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:24 PM
5

Only if it leads to more privilege for women or makes them look superior. Otherwise there are no differences and gender is a meaningless social construct.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 07:03 PM
6

Kind of a ramble and the title conclusion isn't supported by the content. It's closer to "How Feminism Ruins Action Movies" and offers as evidence: female characters performing unbelievable feats of combat, particularly against men (demonstrated by the Charlie's Angels reboot) the call for female characters to be inserted into anachronistic or other wise inappropriate settings (only discussed hypothetically, no examples given) male characters being dumbed down or needlessly villanized (this one …
/r/MensRights02/02/20 08:18 AM
7

At what timestamp in the video does he drop the incel talking points?
/r/MensRights02/02/20 08:09 AM
0

The same views and attitudes are still there, though a lot of it is sugar-coated for a mainstream audience at this point. When twoXC first started, it was basically what FDS is today. It's a sub that is inherently built on misandry. By that reasoning, you could say the exact same thing about /r/MensRights and /r/Egalitarianism, no? The question you asked didn't make any sense because of the part I bolded. The commenter you replied to didn't have any reasoning (which is a problem) - just claims. …
/r/MensRights01/02/20 07:55 AM
3

What are you trying to demonstrate here? That two subs can overlap on subject matter? They're saying that problem is the substance of the overlap between 2X and FDS (misandry), not the overlap itself. Bigotry is the problem, not redundancy.
/r/MensRights31/01/20 10:24 PM
4

you're not addressing anything I say in any way. I addressed every point you raised thoroughly and included pertinent background info as well as links to the Men's Rights FAQ that would have done the same had you read it beforehand. You say I need a safe space yet you can't even finish reading a comment that challenges your views before you have to surrender and retreat, presumably, to one of your own. You can tell your cohorts what a disservice you were done when you tried to engage with an MRA…
/r/MensRights26/01/20 08:10 PM
9

The MRM prioritizes statutory equality because it's a no-brainer, it's simple to communicate and codify, it's (relatively) politically neutral, and it solves a lot of men's issues. The kind of socialist/collectivist/welfare advocacy feminist groups engage in does not work when pursued by men, is not supported by everyone in the MRM, and rarely directly addresses men's issues. It doesn't matter how concrete MR issues/solutions are or how politely they are brought up. Opponents of men's rights wil…
/r/MensRights26/01/20 07:16 AM
19

Or women and traumatizing or killing people. No need to tacitly accept that sexist premise. This "fear" seems awfully convenient. They are afraid enough that men need to change their behavior, yet not afraid enough to change their own. Because we know that "take precautions" doesn't mean avoiding men whenever possible or even killing men with their own hands (the logical thing to do if someone poses a significant existential threat to you), it means demanding sycophancy from them. Otherwise, lik…
/r/MensRights23/01/20 09:46 AM
7

They let themselves be convinced that traditionalism wildly benefits men over women and are shocked and dismayed to find that men don't want to go back to it. Wish I could have been at the Patriarchy meeting that thought up Feminism. It's the greatest tool for exploitative capitalism in history: it convinced women that being a housewife who got bored sometimes was worse than being a 40-60 hour-a-week wage slave. Masterful.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 10:21 PM
1

the fact that like 60% of incels literally want women to be enslaved. that was hyperbole. There it is. You're a liar and shouldn't be surprised when no one interested in the truth will engage with you. Some "formal" debate/polisci programs teach the "make a bullshit, provocative statement to trick people into debating you on poor emotional footing" technique. If that's the case for you, please return to your instructor and ask them why they hamstrung you mentally.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 10:05 PM
7

That's also a big one. The extreme aversion and discomfort feminists feel around men who are not at least vaguely attractive and/or supplicating. We might even call it sexist...
/r/MensRights17/01/20 09:21 AM
84

Defining something by its opposition is a great idea in mathematics and a terrible idea in philosophy. You run into kafkatraps pretty much immediately. Edit: Define "strong woman". I have a feeling it's synonymous with "radical feminist" for the woman in the picture.
/r/MensRights16/01/20 07:46 PM
5

difficulties Warren would face being elected as a woman, which a statement of fact. Not really. Hillary Clinton coasted to a popular vote win despite being the most hated woman in America. Any other woman likely could have won outright.
/r/MensRights15/01/20 09:24 PM
6

That's why I'm accelerationist on this issue. End the desire to subsidize women-only sports programs by making them trans sports programs.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 10:10 PM
3

they are required to be present throughout the whole proceedings At a trial controlled by Mitch McConnell. Dems don't expect to benefit from the Senate portion of this charade at all. And they need their candidates out there stumping for primary season, not sitting in the Capitol twiddling their thumbs. This is likely the real reason they've continually delayed transmitting the articles of impeachment.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 09:53 PM
4

I think they were discussing it from a purely cosmetic POV. I.e. your typical braindead greivance-feminist discussion where they lament the possibility of male enjoyment of something they were going to do anyway a la "why do men force me to wear the hyper-sexualized clothes I love to wear to get men's attention?". But we won't know for sure because OP deleted his posts before taking the screenshot for some reason.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 05:42 AM
23

Sign a piece of paper with vague terms no one is obliged to uphold and upon dissolution you lose your children and more than half your stuff. What a great deal.
/r/MensRights11/01/20 07:33 PM
3

True, but that's not the primary reason feminists are unconcerned about the draft being applied to them. Underneath all their lies about oppression is the knowledge that they are a coddled demographic that is not likely ever be asked to make any real sacrifice, so having to worm their way out of such a requirement through extreme measures is not at the forefront of their calculations. Essentially, the nuclear option isn't the first line of defense - societies' general gynocentrism will almost ce…
/r/MensRights10/01/20 08:51 PM
3

It's why feminists are by and large completely unworried by a draft. I'd say the bigger reason is that they know they would be exempted from service, given their pick of positions, or relegated to safe support roles at worst. Those rigged infantry tests will suddenly become gender neutral. After that they know they can never be stuck with blame for any misfortune suffered by women because they're seemingly coated in teflon. That they can ultimately get out of service entirely through pregnancy p…
/r/MensRights09/01/20 11:48 PM
2

A lot of people work as cashiers, admin assistants, writers, nurses... etc. jobs are moving away from manual labor so it really doesn’t matter as much that women can’t “labor” as long as men. A lot of those jobs still require manual labor that then falls on the male employees. E.g. every retail job has the same title for cashiers as it does for warehouse workers, stockers, pretty much anyone who isn't in a supervisory position. So in theory those roles are interchangeable. In practice, men are r…
/r/MensRights07/01/20 09:21 PM
3

Men on average have a higher capacity for labor. Unless the game is rigged there will never be equality of outcome along gender lines. As this is an intolerable situation for feminists, they support rigging the game. Their big lie is that this subsidy will be temporary "until equality is achieved" at which point we can return to meritocracy. In reality it will need to be permanent lest women - forced into a role they are less suited for on average - become a structural underclass in society. The…
/r/MensRights07/01/20 07:53 AM
-8

Grammar Idiocy I know which one you picked.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 07:47 PM
14

This is equivocation and dog-whistling all in one. For the audience unfamiliar with feminist theory it is equivocation on the meaning of the word 'terror' (general fear vs. politicized violence). For the initiated it's a reference to the idea that "the personal is political", that every bad act against an individual woman by an individual man is a political act of oppression against all womankind. And as others have said, women's feelings of fear are often disproportionate to the danger they are…
/r/MensRights30/12/19 10:15 PM
1

They told her the evidence indicated she was lying and then pressured her into signing a document saying she made it all up. Standard operating procedure for police, then. I have sympathy for the wrongly convicted who are railroaded by the justice system. That isn't what happened here. In theory she could have just dropped the charges and not directly incriminated herself. At that point she was the suspect of a separate crime and it's good to see their tactics being applied fairly. Special plead…
/r/MensRights30/12/19 10:11 PM
2

But at the same time the police essentially entrapped her into admitting that it was a false police report. What did they do? I haven't been keeping up with the story. I don't know about Cyprus, but police in America are allowed to lie to you. It's your responsibility to not incriminate yourself. This is why the advice to everyone when interacting with the police is "shut up, lawyer up". Yes, even if you're the victim of a crime. This woman likely could have gotten away with her crime if she had…
/r/MensRights30/12/19 07:54 PM
1

I for one don't think we should give those subreddits any attention. On the contrary I think it's important to shine a spotlight on these female supremacy communities that are growing like wildfire (FDS, WvP, 2X, etc.) as well as the increasing anti-male/pro-female bias of existing communities.
/r/MensRights29/12/19 06:18 AM
4

Posts like this also implicitly pit men against women, which isn't what we want. It's cross-linked from /r/WitchesVsPatriarchy, a fast-growing, anti-male, unapologeitc hate subreddit for women, where it has almost 9000 Karma. So they at least think it's explicitly anti-men and approve of the sentiment. That's more interesting as a MRM topic than the post itself.
/r/MensRights28/12/19 07:57 PM
2

I think women being able to work is a good idea for equality. Women are forced to work now because of the increased labor supply-wage stagnation feedback loop their mass, unorganized entrance into the workforce created.
/r/MensRights17/12/19 09:46 PM
2

Implying it’s my fault is absolutely not okay. If something awful happens to you it's a tragedy. If the same awful thing happens to you over and over you need to change your behavior. Things don't always just happen to you. You're not a leaf on the wind. You are, dare I say, the main participant in your own life. So if the same bad thing keeps happening it's more than "okay" to tell you that you can should prevent bad things happening to you - it's necessary. A parent should have told you this a…
/r/MensRights17/12/19 08:37 PM
5

This is why rape is defined exceptionally, rather than being considered the default form of sex. It is not created in the mind of the victim, but in the action of the perpetrator. You are not a rape victim when you have sex you didn't actually want. You are a rape victim when someone has sex with you despite you telling them not to or to stop. Rape is not a thoughtcrime and it is especially not a crime born in the (silent) thoughts of its victims. If it their fault if their panic response is to …
/r/MensRights17/12/19 10:08 AM
5

Yet I’ve been penetrated without my consent after I said no multiple times, by 4 different men between 2007 and 2014. The common denominator is you. Make different choices. That it hasn’t happened in 5 years is I think largely due to #metoo. Or maybe you changed? Got older? Stopped being attracted to that type of person? Stopped putting yourself in that situation and then changing your mind? I’ve never been a bigger tease than I’ve been over the past 5 years. I’ve put myself in more trusting sit…
/r/MensRights17/12/19 09:40 AM
13

Yeah her dad isn’t a good dad All you have to make that judgement is a single recollection with no context from a misandrist who can't be bothered to hold her deadbeat mom responsible for her part in her shitty life. "How did you buy ingredients?" "How did you get to the store and back?" "How did you have a stove to cook on and plates to eat from?" "Did your mom abandon you because she could tell the future and saw the vile person you would turn out to be?" I would like to ask this "witch" all t…
/r/MensRights17/12/19 08:17 AM
4

I'd be curious to know exactly when they stopped having something new to say. It would be pretty suspicious if it was the exact moment they built society to a place where gender studies majors have a voice.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 07:39 PM
1

Anyone else enjoying the daily "Random citizen Hero confronts Boris Johnson" from the Independent on /r/worldnews?
/r/MensRights13/12/19 07:30 PM
10

Established legal principles and the justifications behind them are worthless to feminists. The idea that they would ever suffer at the hands of an unfair justice system is utterly alien to them. They don't care how corrupt the justice system is so long as it continues to unfairly favor them. "Believe the victim" is an insane, suicidal concept to anyone able to picture themselves as the wrongfully accused and foresee where that road leads. Listen to rich white feminists talk. They usually descri…
/r/MensRights04/12/19 01:03 AM
2

I think it's fair to assume he claims to be an MRA as well as an incel. It isn't fair at all. Timestamp where he claims to be an MRA? As I said, the video makes that claim not him. He doesn't mention a single men's rights issue and only makes a single passing mention at what I think is an incel talking point. He's just there to be sweaty and smarmy and have "men's rights activist" appear under his image. As I said, negative portrayals of MRAs are always fictional because finding someone a) willi…
/r/MensRights02/12/19 05:22 AM
5

They're not at all entirely separate, a lot of incels are MRA's. Source There is clear overlap No there isn't. incel ideology What? it takes one second for feminists to condemn misandry Oxymoronic. The entire feminist ideology is based in misandry. They don't just need to call out "kill all men", they need to call out "all men are responsible for all the problems ever". You want MRA:incel::feminist:radfem to be a thing. It's not a thing and you have no evidence of it being a thing. Not everyone …
/r/MensRights01/12/19 10:14 PM
18

It's a system that can help women, if rarely. It helps men even less often because it sees masculinity or maleness itself as part of the problem. When a woman goes in for help the focus is first and foremost on helping her. When a man goes in for help the focus is on keeping him from hurting others, especially women.
/r/MensRights28/11/19 06:38 AM
5

You see it a lot in the black community. Single mothers with three phases: "Bad bitch" whenever the baby daddy is (intermittently) in the picture. Melodramatic Fantine-type when he steps out. Coquette caricature when looking for someone to take care of them. Rinse and repeat.
/r/MensRights25/11/19 01:47 AM
8

It doesn't happen. If it does happen, it doesn't happen that often. If it does happen often, it's not that serious. Next up: If it is serious, you deserved it. Bonus points for: Other people do worse, so it's not that bad.
/r/MensRights14/11/19 04:13 AM
3

Your Supreme Court seems to be very sympathetic to the feminist/neo-traditional agenda.
/r/MensRights10/11/19 06:46 AM
9

Women are more likely to complain and society gives their complaints attention and weight out of proportion to their importance. It's a vestigial response from a time when women's discomfort was more important and their complaints far more urgent (i.e. "I'm not getting enough food to feed the baby", "there's a predator/rival male around", etc.). Now we live in abundance and complain about nothing, yet still give those complaints the same amount of attention as before.
/r/MensRights10/11/19 06:42 AM
27

I see so many post on red pill subs and /r/mgtow So take your concerns there. The problem here is that you think redpill or mgtow are trying to "beat them". They aren't even playing the same game. Meanwhile, the MRM is not doing the thing you're talking about. So who are you talking to, exactly?
/r/MensRights10/11/19 06:01 AM
11

To be fair, feminists have been complaining that they aren’t developing male birth control for some time. They are. It's just a harder problem to solve than female birth control. Feminists complain about this because they can get away with it. They don't understand basic biology or even history - it was Feminist funding and political activism that fast-tracked development and approval of hormonal birth control, resulting in a product that is not very safe to this day. Back then they demanded imm…
/r/MensRights04/11/19 05:29 AM
1

Yeah it depends on the definitions and methodology. That's why there's a range of estimates. To oversimplify it, they review reports, witness testimony, and evidence and determine which were likely false. The process doesn't involve the accused except as a part of the original investigation.
/r/MensRights27/10/19 05:03 AM
1

This is a great question. One study of college campuses I read determined the rate of false allegations with a preponderance of evidence standard sourcing self-reports of police and administrators who in turn used a uniform classification of what counted as evidence of likely falseness. If that sounds confusing it's because it is.
/r/MensRights25/10/19 03:19 AM
4

Most studies also intentionally under-define 'false allegation' in order to give the benefit of the doubt to accusers but not to the accused.
/r/MensRights25/10/19 01:32 AM
7

A: Probably nothing, good point. Reported as off-topic. B: Nothing sexual about caressing and grinding on a pole while dressed like Daisy Duke's easier cousin. Sure. C: Just pole dancing and other activities exclusively performed by sex workers. "Junior" competitive lap-dancing next? D: We hope. 1a. They came out pre-emptively to answer the question "is it appropriate?" and to defend it as silly and non-sexual, so obviously they're thinking about it in at least a potentially sexual manner. 1b. L…
/r/MensRights19/10/19 07:17 PM
0

It's more complicated than that. When they got the vote they were way more conservative as a whole. Remember that this was during the Red Scare so there was plenty of anti-left propaganda flying around. Even today women are not a solid voting bloc. For example California's Proposition 8 was supported by women (especially black women). I've often said that if you put abortion to an all-female plebiscite today it would be illegal tomorrow, polls be damned. As for fiscal issues you need to determin…
/r/MensRights19/10/19 06:35 PM
5

you can't argue that many legitimate goals weren't accomplished by the movent. Sure you can. Suffrage was granted to women to dilute the voting power of returning soldiers who had been betrayed politically, drafted against their will, and exposed to western European (particularly French) socialism. Not coincidentally, what followed was a contraction of the labor movement and the violent death of American socialism. Those soldiers couldn't even get fair compensation in the new ultraconservative p…
/r/MensRights18/10/19 06:27 PM
3

As an afterthought when you were getting called out for misandry. And while making an even worse point: I'm saying that all it takes is one shitty person to behave shitty and you end up with even more school bullying, even more suicide. Now unisex bathrooms will cause child suicide. Any other hypothetical social ills you want to throw in there? Further, why ever leave your house? You can prevent a non-zero amount of danger by staying home.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:40 PM
3

It's the exact same argument traditionalists and feminists make: women/girls need their own bathrooms because otherwise men/boys will assault them. This is the ultimate justification of all misandrist policy and behavior: that men are brutes, so anything negative done to or experienced by them is fair play.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:14 PM
5

Your argument is that males and females should have separate bathrooms because otherwise males will attack females. You should give up on men's rights immediately, because you're conceding everything to feminists with that reasoning. It's the linchpin of their entire misandrist ideology.
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:10 PM
28

Given that they guy I was at school with would absolutely have tried to look under doors or even force them open. Don't put that evil on men or boys. That's psycho behavior. If you ever seriously considered forcing a bathroom door open to make fun of someone who had an accident you were mentally unstable. We shouldn't make policy assuming any significant portion of boys are crazy. After all, why would other boys be safe from you at that point? You'd be a threat in any bathroom, unisex or segrega…
/r/MensRights06/10/19 11:21 AM
0

Strictly speaking it makes sense because everyone understands them to mean the same thing after many years of use, but you are right that "the mind boggles" is not technically a proper rearrangement of "boggles the mind".
/r/MensRights06/10/19 07:02 AM
1

"One example does not make a truth" and "one example does not a truth make" are the same phrase expressed differently, the latter being a rare/improper format. "Boggles the mind" and "the mind boggles" are different phrases expressing the same concept. The latter arose as a humorous reinterpretation of the word 'mind-boggling', as in "this idea is mind-boggling -- the mind literally boggles at the idea".
/r/MensRights06/10/19 06:49 AM
36

it is only for equality of outcomes. This assumes that feminists revisit their positions when women have equal outcomes. They don't. It's a blind advocacy movement where the actual conditions are irrelevant. All that matters is whether more resources/sympathy/publicity can be squeezed out of any particular issue. And the feminist ideology exists to justify the advocacy and has no permanent basis in fact or reason. *First it was about equal opportunities (without equal responsibilities), then it …
/r/MensRights05/10/19 06:12 PM
39

It's true, but that graphic is a masterclass in visual propaganda and lying with the truth (and also with lies like the 'wage gap' term they snuck in). Look at what's in bold/enlarged and what's in fine print, what info is included and what info is omitted, what terms are defined, what conclusions are drawn, etc. The graphic is intended to lead you to believe that women are paid less than men and kept out of high-paying jobs while maintaining plausible deniability.
/r/MensRights05/10/19 12:51 AM
4

When women only want to marry up yet also want to be high earners themselves it's an interesting and harmless social phenomenon. When men have any standards whatsoever it's misogyny.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 07:23 PM
0

Looking at her twitter, Warren doesn't mention perjury at all. From the context of the tweet I have to assume she's referring to the alleged assault against Ford.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 04:34 AM
5

What has Brett Kavanaugh done to warrant impeachment since his confirmation? He has basically been pre-acquitted for his alleged past acts by the branch of government that would try his impeachment for those same acts, so I'm wondering what new offense he has committed.
/r/MensRights28/09/19 07:31 AM
6

Not every insult is an ad hominem. /u/DunnyofDestiny made no claim about the validity of her statement.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 07:15 AM
8

Don't run around pointing at people calling them rapists because it ruins lives is not the same as I don't think real rapists lives shouldn't be ruined. Thing is she contradicts herself. If "rape allegations ruin lives" is a myth (i.e. it doesn't happen), then how can a perpetrator's "ruined life" be one of the things at stake?
/r/MensRights24/09/19 06:37 AM
2

I realized the pills are there to keep you down. Yeah totally. All those eggheads pretending to study brains and shit and tracking the effect of sarry tone in or whatever are really just scam artists. Everybody knows the surefire cure for depression is to nail some $lut$ 💯
/r/MensRights23/09/19 01:23 AM
3

Their actions could most charitably be described as "blind advocacy justified by revealed truths".
/r/MensRights22/09/19 07:48 PM
4

Putting aside the default assumption we should all have that every post on a self-post subreddit is highly fake, there are some big red flags with this post. Her problem is not that he's expecting her to become completely financially reliant on him, despite this allegedly running completely counter to her personality. Her problem is the prenup? Prenups are not about leaving your spouse in the lurch whenever you want. Divorce law and case law simply do not allow you to do that. They are about lim…
/r/MensRights22/09/19 07:51 AM
1

The best thing about the Clinton scandal was that the Republicans failed. In the sense of an organized political take-down failing, maybe. He was definitely guilty of the impeachment charges, and his acquittal raises serious rule-of-law questions and put the nail in the coffin of [legitimate] impeachment of the President as a concept.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 09:04 AM
3

I remember when trashy daytime talk shows would trot out some paid actor "misogynist" to hurl vitriol at the female audience and get told off by the host. 'Misogynist' is an appellation that should only be used for sociopaths. Not as an "I win" button in an argument.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 08:40 AM
20

I do not drink alcohol, ever. Oddly enough, at the same time they were saying I was toxicated, my blood alcohol level was not severely that high for me to black out So was it zero or was it "not severely that high"?
/r/MensRights14/09/19 07:02 PM
2

(at least she said something instead of going to HR like to many women do today) When someone informs you that they were "made uncomfortable" by inoffensive behavior it is not for your benefit - it's for theirs. Hate to break it to you, but you're now on the radar of an abusive lunatic. Her "saying something" instead of going to HR is more likely part of going to HR ("I informed him that his behavior was inappropriate *sniff* but he wouldn't stop"). She's almost certainly filed a report since ta…
/r/MensRights06/09/19 10:01 PM
5

What does Reagan have to do with rape awareness?
/r/MensRights06/09/19 08:00 PM
0

Why especially then? Am I required to act a certain way to receive just recompense from the government? Am I a government slave?
/r/MensRights03/09/19 09:46 AM
1

What does that have to do with what I said?
/r/MensRights03/09/19 09:45 AM
1

If someone really important to you died then YOU ...will have their ashes on the mantle rather than burying them in the cold earth miles from you and never visiting their remains. See how retarded it is to police other people's grief?
/r/MensRights03/09/19 09:45 AM
0

The kid doesn't care about a tombstone. Why should they?
/r/MensRights01/09/19 08:45 AM
1

"If you can clean behind baby's ears and wipe baby's butt you can clean under his foreskin. You have to clean baby's penis anyway, this requires a negligible increase in effort. All of that also goes for when he's old enough to clean himself. If you circumcise you're going to have a far worse and more stressful time cleaning until he's relatively healed from the procedure." Or if you're dealing with an idiot just say "you know you still have to clean it even if it's circumcised right? You have t…
/r/MensRights28/08/19 09:12 PM
51

The worst-off man is doing worse than the worst-off woman by every meaningful QoL metric. The average man is doing worse than the average woman by every meaningful QoL metric. The best-off man ...was recently required by law to make his ex-wife a multi-billionaire in their divorce. Even parroting of raw earnings numbers is a half-truth. While women in aggregate earn less money directly than men they control household spending to a degree that more than makes up for that gap. The only way feminis…
/r/MensRights27/08/19 10:55 AM
9

Several things wrong with that analogy. Dying of thirst is absolutely more pressing a concern than dying of hunger. You can be "dying of thirst" after 2 days with 1 day left to live and "dying of hunger" after 2 weeks with 1 week left to live. If you have to prioritize one (as we are often told we must do for female issues over male) you should prioritize the person dying of thirst. Or in the case of suicide the people literally dying more. The analogy presumes that bread and water are interchan…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 10:20 PM
6

Not in a society that facilitates and encourages dumping your partner if you get bored and/or think you can trade up. Advising people to "settle" is really advising them to "settle ...for now".
/r/MensRights25/08/19 05:53 AM
4

"Say nice things about me or I won't have a discussion with you" is literally what you're arguing right now. What's the problem? Just link to those times you mentioned above: In fact I have linked to them plenty of times here on MRA, and even you guys have posted some yourselves to this very subreddit. Or are those times also links to 3rd party literature that allow you to obfuscate your real beliefs? Look. You said "healthy masculinity" exists in opposition to "toxic masculinity". I haven't rea…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 02:19 AM
2

Nah, there's tons of descriptions of healthy masculinity out there. In fact I have linked to them I'm not reading any of that screed until you yourself describe one that you believe. I'm not taking the risk that I waste my time reading the [entire book] you suggest as a prerequisite for the purpose of an internet discussion only to have you then say you don't actually subscribe to those beliefs.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:28 AM
0

Oh thank god. ~Idiocy Lucidity returns! Are you busy for the next 5-7 business days? That's how long the gas company is going to take to get out here and fix this. Please note that nowhere in this comment did I use "/s" or "#sarcasm", indicating that I am 100% serious. Any effort on your part to leave this conversation - to go about a life of ignorance, for example - constitutes negligent homicide.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:18 AM
1

Also you forgot /s. I HAVE TO ^<sup>/s</sup> ^<sup>#sarcasm</sup> assume you are literally wishing me dead. Over an internet argument. If you can live with that on your conscience and murder in your heart, then you are truly lost. And if you live in the UK expect a visit from the Bobbies, because that's an internet no-no.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:10 AM
2

But, thankfully, fighting its effects. Not only can I keep this up, but my survival depends on you doing the same.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:06 AM
1

You're right. I feel myself slipping. Keep replying to me so I stay awake. YoU'rE lItErAlLy SaViNg My LiFe RiGhT nOw. PlEaSe KeEp ThE iNaNe ReSpOnSeS cOmInG⸮ /s #sarcasm #callthedwp #thatwasalsolesarcasmaswaseverythingelseinthiscomment
/r/MensRights24/08/19 01:03 AM
1

I'd love to, but ~strikethroughs, exclamation marks!, and LuDiCrOuS sTaTeMeNtS don't pass the sarc test anymore. Not sure I can ever enjoy anything again.* *Edit: NoT sUrE i CaN eVeR eNjOy AnYtHiNg AgAiN. /s #sarcasm
/r/MensRights24/08/19 12:50 AM
2

You seem really invested in this We have the same number of replies. Have you seen someone say 'goodness' is a feminine trait, only to lazily correct it to 'caring' with a strikethrough but opinions like your sarcastic one are posted here genuinely fairly often. So that's a no. You could just admit that a lot of people failed to recognize obvious sarcasm, as I admitted that people are really stupid by editing my initial comment.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 12:44 AM
2

Have you seen someone say 'goodness' is a feminine trait, only to lazily correct it to 'caring' with a strikethrough. I think if I saw that and assumed it was serious I would have to re-examine everything in my life. It's like making the finger-gun sign at your own head and a funny face while listening to a boring lecture. There are surely people who have done that who were really suicidal. But if I saw a random person do that I would never in a million years assume they were serious without a l…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 12:13 AM
15

Ah. Every question is a "gotcha" question. Every breeze is a hurricane when you live in a house of cards. This concept of "toxic masculinity" is an invention of man-haters to denigrate all masculinity by omission of its positive aspects. Every feminist reacts the exact same way you have (histrionically) when asked to describe positive masculinity. Because they either don't think positive masculinity exists or shamefully picture something very traditionalist.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 11:44 PM
1

I don't think they would say it as bluntly, though. A reasonable person should read a cheerfully misandrist statement like that on a forum dedicated to men's rights and maybe consider that it is facetious.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 11:35 PM
9

The opposite of toxic masculinity is healthy expression of masculinity. Define, please. Also, what demarcates femininity and masculinity? The gender of the actor or the nature of the action?
/r/MensRights23/08/19 11:16 PM
-2

You really do have to use "/s" on the internet, I guess. Sad.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 09:49 PM
-41

~Goodness Caring is a feminine virtue, so really these boys were displaying positive femininity! #sarcasm
/r/MensRights23/08/19 08:39 PM
3

Other biases were at play, too. To say it was just because they were women is facile. Coal miners are typically rural (out of sight, out of mind). Triangle Shirtwaist happened in the middle of NYC.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 07:28 PM
1

Yeah that's the same source as the above. It's reports not convictions.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 05:57 AM
1

without looking it up again, I'm pretty sure I saw 135k rape convictions for 2018 You might have to. I can't find that number anywhere.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 09:35 AM
1

Describing huge swaths of the opposition as a hopeless echo chamber is in itself an echo chamber behavior. /r/Feminism is indeed an echo chamber by design and definition, but you said "a Feminist site of any description".
/r/MensRights22/08/19 09:06 AM
5

Gender issues invite all the weasels to dart in and out of the woodwork. Don't start a discussion when you don't know exactly what you're discussing. Force them to cement their position before you commit to engaging with them. First things first, ask them what amount of labia/earlobe/nose/etc. they would be okay with cutting off of a daughter. When they inevitably answer "none", ask them why they're okay with cutting anything off of a son. This way you won't be duped into some disingenuous argum…
/r/MensRights22/08/19 01:43 AM
3

We're talking about OP (a man) engaging with feminists.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 01:14 AM
2

Two main survey systems inform the UCR* statistics on rape, but the parameters for both refer to reports, not convictions. NIBRS: Participation in NIBRS requires LEAs to report certain facts about each criminal incident coming to their attention within their jurisdictions. In most cases, officers capture the data through an incident report when a complainant first reports the crime. SRS: Since these crime statistics are intended to assist law enforcement in identifying the crime problem, partici…
/r/MensRights22/08/19 12:34 AM
3

The number of reports had gone up over the years as it became less taboo to report, according to Feminists. Now they are dropping. Is the taboo increasing again or are incidences falling? Feminists must answer this question. These stats only count the "proven" rapes, not the actual number of rapes. This statistic is from an incident-based report, not a conviction-based report. It includes all official reports to police, even those not acted upon. Edit: For clarification about the chart in questi…
/r/MensRights21/08/19 10:19 PM
-1

how does it really help the cause of Men's Rights to make us appear antagonistic? Isn't it "antagonistic" to claim all feminists are incapable of engaging rationally with evidence counter to their claims? Or is it okay as long as you only say things like that in your echo chamber?
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:50 PM
1

With alcohol you might have to answer questions about your personal responsibility for your vulnerable state and whether being drunk absolves you of further responsibility. With magic potions you can skip that part of the conversation and get right to the witch hunt.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 08:10 PM
3

I haven't found any complete source confirming drink spiking (with date-rape drugs) has ever happened. I found (!warning: it's a .doc direct download link!) a study (!warning: it's a .doc download link!) by UK police that indicated 4 suspected drug-assisted assaults involving sedatives out of 120 studied, 2 of which were GHB. 1 of the GHB cases had gone to trial and resulted in a conviction for "drink spiking" (weirdly informal language when compared to the rest of the paper). Interestingly, alt…
/r/MensRights21/08/19 09:23 AM
1

Do you have a scientific source on that? I can't find any primary source for those claims except one abstract here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15274975. The full text link is broken. Otherwise I just see a lot of repetition of alleged properties. At a glance it looks like a classic woozle.
/r/MensRights18/08/19 05:29 AM
5

making sure you watch a drink before accepting one, even if you trust the person offering the drink, just seems like common sense in my opinion that I think both men and women should do to keep safe at a party with some guests you don't know very well. It's based on a completely manufactured fear. There is no invisible, ingestible, undetectable, remains-active-in-alcohol date rape drug. The concept was popularized by the sensationalist news media in the 90s purely for ratings. Alcohol is the onl…
/r/MensRights17/08/19 12:59 AM
1

If you're on a road facing the wrong direction I'm not going to encourage you to start walking.
/r/MensRights13/08/19 06:50 PM
6

They should not be comprehensively dismissed. Until they say something that is actually progressive they should. This is simply a tactic to recruit and reassure misandrist feminists. You'll notice that no solution is offered. That's because once they've reeled you in with the fake sympathy they will immediately turn around and say that the solution is always "more feminism, less Patriarchy" and never anything intended to directly help males. So 'meeting them in the middle' means you conceding to…
/r/MensRights13/08/19 06:44 PM
1

Feminism is not needed in the 3rd world. They need broad-based economic growth. Women's liberation is technological not ideological. Technological advancement and proliferation is how you overcome the biological limitations of our species that necessitate strict gender roles. Feminism is a hateful ideology not based in science or any search for truth. I wouldn't wish it upon a foreign culture or even my worst enemy.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 07:59 PM
0

You say abortion is irrelevant to Mens Rights ? Men's Rights and abortion are not intrinsically linked.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:14 PM
2

However, even though I’m normally for Men’s Rights and whatnot I feel like it’s stupid to force someone to carry a child for months. Men's Rights and abortion are not intrinsically linked. No need for the preface. But the child barely knows it’s own existence. You and I barely know our existence. If it's a relative question does Stephen Hawking get to euthanize the mentally deficient? Will there be no harm if AI decides to eradicate lowly humanity in the future? I don’t feel like it’s “right” fo…
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:57 AM
7

One problem with the term "wage gap" is that the word 'wage' means "pay" to most people. There is no meaningful "pay gap" between men and women. There is an earnings gap which is explained by many factors including hours worked, job type, and seniority. Feminists deliberately, deceptively combine these two concepts to say "women are paid 30% less than men for the same work" and the term "wage gap" has become shorthand for this lie.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:28 AM
0

As other commenters have said the same people who repost images like that in the OP will commonly have posted "male tears" and "man up" shit too.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:27 PM
0

Your original post on that sub has been removed, so unless that image is the entirety of your post I can't say whether you came off as a concern troll over there. But here's the behavior you've displayed just in this thread. How to spot concern trolls: Typically not content to exaggerate an actual problem, instead they will invent a concern that makes you go "wait, what? When has that ever happened?" No specific examples of the problem they are concerned about are provided. Examples were later p…
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:24 PM
2

The poster is too vague in describing the problem (which "angry men" are they referring to, exactly?) to be useful except for drawing out one's own biases. Many of us on this sub have had too much of feminists dismissing all men's concrete issues and saying "just be like women and cry more and all your problems with solve themselves" to interpret things like this poster in a charitable light.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 06:48 PM
2

Emotions are on a feedback loop where the display can lead to the feeling and vice-versa. This is why smiling has been shown to improve mood. Edit: it's logical for women to make emotional displays because it impels others to fix their problems. Men engender the opposite reaction with those displays, which is why teaching them to display them is counter-productive (unless you want to set them up for harm and failure *cough*).
/r/MensRights27/07/19 06:22 PM
5

compared to middle century for example when women were raped and burned just because. Feminism is not the reason for dropping crime rates.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 03:03 AM
6

Because they believe that they can make listening to reason more palatable to feminists if they first throw them a bone by sacrificing foreigners or their own past. "Feminism [was/is] noble and necessary [in the past/in the third world], but it's not something we need in [modern times/the West]. So please stop being retarded [today/over here]." Spoilers: it doesn't work.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 11:24 PM
9

I would agree if men weren't constantly, purposely being led to believe untrue things about women for women's benefit. If you removed those malicious influences you'd see a lot fewer men falling for the BS.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 10:14 PM
54

...and the media still won't shut up about how Tinder "hurts women" because "they only care about loving relationships". This world is so far gone. And we've systematically removed those male influences that would give young men accurate information about relationships, sex, female goals and behaviors, etc. Instead we just have lies built on lies that present an impossibly angelic, ridiculously unrealistic picture of femininity, and anyone who questions it is a violent misogynist.
/r/MensRights25/07/19 10:05 PM
22

Fears of the white rapist have led to the erosion of due process. Turns out society hates rape so much they can be convinced to support anything to fight it.
/r/MensRights17/07/19 09:42 PM
4

For every C&H comic with a sensible take on men and masculinity there are 100 "all men are misogynists and creeps" comics. Or there were before I stopped reading it some years back.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 11:16 PM
7

Nah the point is to get power by any means necessary. If debate works, do that. If it doesn't, shut it down. If facts are on your side, use them. If not, lie. You just know you're right and everyone against you is evil, so any and every tactic is justified so long as it works.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 11:10 PM
6

in the USWNT's defense, it was one of the best teams, and these are the players who (if they keep playing soccer) can go pro. Why the caveat? The best "15 and under" boys beat the best pro female players.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 02:08 PM
3

Are there any feminists out there who aren’t blatant hypocrites and recognise the ways in which women are holding men hostage to increasingly difficult to achieve and damaging notions of masculinity that reinforces male disposability whilst reaping the benefits of gender egalitarianism? The problem is a significant portion of their ideology exists to explain away this hypocrisy. If they ever find themselves in a situation where women are to blame for something Feminism tells them to find a man t…
/r/MensRights05/07/19 04:57 PM
1

I wasn't criticizing you, more asking semi-rhetorically to point out the stupidity of most trigger warnings in general.
/r/MensRights05/07/19 04:52 PM
1

Grouping liberal and far left together is meaningless, regardless of any consideration of feminism. They are wildly disparate categories.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 07:31 AM
1

That's a very gender issues-focused way of viewing the political spectrum. Also, you didn't say far left and extreme left. You said far left and liberal.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 07:09 AM
7

Before I start I'd like to add a trigger warning for Sexual Assault Survivors. What's the point of this? If your mental state is so fragile that you will experience significant distress from reading a tonally dry, non-specific treatise on an anonymous internet forum then you don't need a perfunctory, easily missed/ignored warning message - you need immediate medical intervention.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 07:04 AM
3

So what is your point about informal accusations? "Be mindful of morons"? Whether one mistakenly believes a false accusation to be true or not makes no difference. Ignorance does not absolve a person of responsibility for their actions.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 06:49 AM
3

This sub counters that crap by existing and not being what they say it is. liberal / far left There's a lot of space between those two points. To the extent that grouping them together makes them meaningless.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 06:22 AM
9

Feminist subreddits like MensLib police your speech, only allowing you to regurgitate pre-approved talking points and deleting your posts/comments (and potentially banning you) if you go off-message. This sub doesn't do that. "pre-approved" is not recognized by Firefox's dictionary. It suggests "pee-approved" instead.
/r/MensRights02/07/19 06:16 AM
1

Extreme right = wanting to raise a family with a woman you love + loving your culture (if you are white). I don't get it. Are white heterosexual males the only ones who should oppose "clown world"? Why are those the two tenets you deemed worth mentioning?
/r/MensRights24/06/19 10:16 PM
24

They seem to have more fear of random men behind them than most people have of random pitbulls in front of them. Insanely entitled headcases. "How should I deal with my irrational level of fear? Should I: a) deal with my baseless paranoia myself or with the aid of a mental health professional, b) change my behavior to accommodate my mental illness, or c) demand that everyone around me change for my peace of (crazy) mind?"
/r/MensRights24/06/19 04:12 AM
13

Blaming men for everything and holding them to a higher standard Good luck getting feminists to admit/care that this core tenet of their ideology is counter-productive and harmful. Especially when your example is one where men are being harmed.
/r/MensRights23/06/19 09:24 AM
16

OP is a concern troll. Edit: How to spot concern trolls: Typically not content to exaggerate an actual problem, instead they will invent a concern that makes you go "wait, what? When has that ever happened?" No specific examples of the problem they are concerned about are provided. No supporting argument at all, just a big ol' concern plopped down on the forum like a context-less turd in a back alley. They out themselves by mindlessly restating the concern (e.g. Why do you refuse to welcome your…
/r/MensRights05/06/19 07:10 PM
1

The people replying to you are missing the biggest reason not to do what you did: financially supporting a woman's child can put you on the hook for child support even if you aren't the biological father. Even if it's candy or a video game or some other luxury gift or cash to buy them.
/r/MensRights31/05/19 09:00 PM
13

The claim that men can't control emotional reactions is pretty specious You might be interpreting the word 'reactions' as "outbursts". What the author probably means is filtering emotional response through goals. Men can do this on a basic level with conscious effort (psyching themselves up or down). Women are able to do it so automatically that they can divorce themselves from responsibility for having done so. I think you would be surprised to learn the degree to which women can control both t…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 05:15 PM
4

Nothing wrong with analyzing media to learn something about its creators and ourselves. For example, this scene in Captain Marvel is a ripoff of a scene in Terminator. In Terminator we are tentatively fine with Arnie stealing a guy's clothes and motorcycle because he's a reprogrammed killbot with a single-minded focus on reaching and protecting John Connor. He literally has to learn not to kill or maim everyone in his path in the movie. Carol, meanwhile, is supposed to be (or at least think she …
/r/MensRights25/05/19 07:28 PM
11

If we truly put the abortion question to the people the only uncertainty is whether it would be illegal in most states or all of them. Even if we asked only women. I wish this would spur a renewed interest in the concept of personal freedom and liberty trumping mere plebiscite, but I know that aspect of this conversation is only referenced out of practical convenience. Once this issue is done we can go right back to inflating the power of the tyrannical majority.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 03:43 PM
3

Fuck that sub, it got CringeAnarchy banned I spent a bit of time with a forensic psychologist who worked in prisons, with pedophiles and habitually violent criminals. Your attitude reminds me very much of the guys he described. You should be a billionaire if you can diagnose pedophilia/criminal violence in just seven words unrelated to either of those mentalities. No sub has the power to get another sub banned. Not even super subs with millions of users, let alone one with 500 users (more now). …
/r/MensRights15/05/19 03:37 AM
1

Gender studies and the like, as they currently stand, are about training, not learning. They belong in a trade school, at best. Or a seminary school. Edit: grammar
/r/MensRights13/05/19 07:04 PM
5

Look at what the labels actually say instead of what you hope people will interpret from them. They say men and anyone with any ambiguity should use one toilet and women alone have the other one. When you make a label that has to be re-contextualized to be interpreted "correctly" you leave the door open to people (perhaps someone in authority) interpreting it "incorrectly". US men are being honoured as pioneers by being unequally burdened? That's some hyper-traditionalist shit if I've ever seen …
/r/MensRights13/05/19 05:11 PM
19

Behold gynocentrism at work. Women need their own restroom because otherwise men will beat and rape and perv on them nonstop. Yet the statistically more at-risk population of transgenders are told to share a restroom with those subhuman brutes rather than the innocent female angels. They could also benefit greatly from the superior accommodations of women's restrooms considering the fact that some have to deal with significant physiological issues while transitioning. But hey, at least we circle…
/r/MensRights13/05/19 07:52 AM
18

To be fair I also used to think I was the One Good Man™ surrounded by a sea of brutes. For about a day and a half. When I was 14. I can't imagine being a 47 year old man who's thought that for decades.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 06:45 PM
1

Not a definition in the "Webster's" sense, a definition in the "what overarching meaning are you trying to convey with this word in this context" sense. In the first (second, I guess) comment in this chain you draw a line from Nazism to gynocentrism with no connective tissue in between. Inserting a dictionary definition of gynocentrism does nothing to remedy that. A full comparison needs show enough connections to make the terms interchangeable. After reading your original comparison (with the d…
/r/MensRights29/04/19 08:52 AM
2

Yep. Not every moron screaming into the ether needs to be addressed. It's one of the reasons I wish mods were more aggressive about banning screenshots of random TwitBook vomitus.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 04:28 AM
1

Your post is missing the definition of gynocentrism (and hopefully specific analogs between it and Nazism) required to lead into the conclusion Gynocentrism is starting to sound a whole lot like Nazism, is it not? I can't evaluate a comparison between X and Y without knowing what you mean by Y. I didn't say the comparison was necessarily inappropriate (in fact it's very appropriate), but it's incoherent because you didn't complete it. You also included some seemingly irrelevant paragraphs about …
/r/MensRights29/04/19 03:46 AM
4

Frankly, Feminists use far too much supremacy language (and even extermination/subjugation language) to avoid comparisons to the Nazis, but the person who first made the comparison in this comment chain was off base. Their post wasn't really coherent.
/r/MensRights27/04/19 06:27 AM
4

All of the social changes allowing women to work outside the home occurred immediately after the technological advancements that allowed them to do so. There's no proof that advocacy has any significant positive effect above and beyond necessity and efficiency, the traditional drivers of social change. To put it another way, as soon as it was feasible for the ruling class to exploit women's productivity they were put to work. Feminism was most effective as a tool to convince them that wage slave…
/r/MensRights27/04/19 05:52 AM
4

Talking about what's going on today, we are attempting to correct for the sexism and inequality of the past by creating laws that facilitate women being safer, successful in the persuit of opportunity and equal to the status that men have traditionally held in society. Are women safer relative to men than they were in the past? What laws have made them safer? Rates of all kinds of crimes have dropped consistently in the modern age. This is not attributable to feminism, but to broad-based economi…
/r/MensRights26/04/19 07:36 PM
2

And all the feminists who peddled this myth will disappear into the woodwork and we'll be told to pretend that no one was ever stupid enough to believe such an obvious falsehood.
/r/MensRights22/04/19 02:22 AM
1

she's been hurt a lot by males and her husband left her. That can cause anyone to become embittered. That doesn't excuse her misandrist outlook or proselytizing.
/r/MensRights13/04/19 02:57 AM
3

We live in a country where the political animal known as "prosecutor" is seen as a hero and the defense attorney is seen as a sleazeball. Prosecutors will let the guilty go free and throw the book at the innocent based solely on self-perceived ability to secure a quick, easy conviction and personal (often political) bias. Prosecutorial discretion is a joke. Judges are almost as bad. We live in a country where people think guilt should be determined by a person's "goodness" or "badness" (filtered…
/r/MensRights12/04/19 09:21 PM
2

It's not technically true. It's an earnings gap, not a pay gap. But using the correct word would expose the fact that feminists are whining about money they haven't earned. Conflating terms is not "technically true". It's a lie.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 06:49 PM
7

Which is the crux of the discussion. The myth peddled by feminists to the unwashed masses is that women are paid 20-50% less than men for the same work. And (apparently) 62% of them are buying it. This is yet another study disproving that myth and clarifying what is actually going on.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 07:08 PM
8

The idea itself comes from the intersection of extreme bourgeois thinking (I don't do anything without compensation) with extreme feminist thinking (since women haven't received reparations for 100,000 years of The Patriarchy everything I do is an exercise in self-sacrifice, even chores I benefit from). It's nonsense intended to force people to waste their efforts on a patently ridiculous discussion and to hide the fact that they have no coherent counter-argument or counter-evidence. It exploits…
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:56 PM
2

No, it's an exaggeration for comical effect. The police can and do ask for potential victims to come forward and will work with multiple agencies and non-profits to do so. Saying "it's not like the police can do anything" is provably false.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 01:11 AM
2

It helps normalize the principles Exposing the hypocrites to the consequences they wanted for others is far more effective in changing minds than turning the other cheek and letting them persist in their hypocrisy. your hate-boner for Joe Biden. I couldn't care less about Joe Biden except as yet another hypocritical enemy of the rights of the accused. Are you confusing me with another commenter?
/r/MensRights03/04/19 01:05 AM
1

There are also protections on revealing the accused's history even where this is relevant, e.g. if they have previous convictions for drugging and raping women this is not admissible in evidence if they are accused of a subsequent drugging and raping. The idea is you are tried on the evidence of this event, not others. That's the accused, though, not the accuser. I wanted to know what specifically Thornton might consider irrelevant to know about the accuser.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:38 PM
2

It's a lot of ground to give up to feminists just because you personally dislike someone. It's not giving up ground to hold someone to their own (awful) principles. The choice is between allowing them to be inconsistent for the purpose of spreading their backwards ideology or letting them die by the sword they lived by. Hopefully the "accusation = guilt" sword is made a little blunter on its trip through this particular hypocrite's neck.
/r/MensRights02/04/19 11:32 PM
1

And it's not like the police can do anything. They'll canvas the globe in an ever-expanding search for victims at the merest rumor that a man may have thunk an untoward thought about a woman, yet an admission of serial criminal activity by a woman is not actionable?
/r/MensRights02/04/19 10:42 PM
1

I would always lean heavily toward anything that helps the defense, which is why I would like to know what the spokesperson considers "irrelevant".
/r/MensRights26/03/19 11:56 PM
1

I didn't realize the OP was a picture (which conspicuously removed the context of the quote) and not an archive link. I will edit my comment appropriately.
/r/MensRights26/03/19 07:14 AM
144

By that logic a short skirt is the physical equivalent of text showing evidence of consent. Somebody didn't think that analogy through. Did this Sara Thornton make that comparison or did the article author? Edit: more context below from /u/antilopes. The pictured portion of the article misrepresented the quote and the picture itself stops just before some very important context. I would now be interested to see edge examples of what Sara Thornton considers "information which is nothing to do wit…
/r/MensRights24/03/19 04:00 AM
1

There was absolutely no evidence of racism Other than the racially-motivated accusations? At one point, they accused Peeples of threatening Nash with a gun in the park. In another incident, they accused him of being a part of a drive-by shooting.
/r/MensRights15/03/19 06:06 AM
0

Link to study showing this?
/r/MensRights15/03/19 06:02 AM
18

Judaism will be fine without circumcision. Like every religion around today it has survived losing plenty of distasteful practices over the centuries. Read your Torah/Old Testament and tell me that Judaism back then is the same as Judaism today.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:32 PM
19

Reposting from my other comment: OP the most important thing to do is not talk to HR or anyone in management anymore without a lawyer present. Once HR is involved the company is your adversary. Get a lawyer. Even if the job is not important your reputation is. Get a lawyer. If she's slandering you that needs to be addressed legally. You've been stupid thus far by not documenting and reporting her behavior including the hostile work environment she has tried to create. Don't be stupid any longer.…
/r/MensRights12/03/19 07:34 PM
29

The company is under no obligation to keep him employed. They are if they're performing an investigation. Even in an at-will state he would be protected against wrongful termination (and this is California to boot) if they fire him without substantial cause now. OP the most important thing to do is not talk to HR or anyone in management anymore without a lawyer present. Once HR is involved the company is your adversary. Get a lawyer. Even if the job is not important your reputation is. Get a law…
/r/MensRights12/03/19 07:31 PM
16

But of course circumcision is where you draw the line Eugene? Yeah, why not? Living baby who will have to deal with the consequences of a decision they couldn't make for themselves vs. barely differentiated fetus seems like a big distinction.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:30 AM
3

Why do you equate International Women's Day with a 24hr pass to lie?
/r/MensRights08/03/19 09:48 PM
2

Your average feminist that's accepted the basis of feminist theory will play around with these ideas but refuse to ever really believe it because it's such a shocking belief to hold Most people are questioned on beliefs like that and find it untenable to think that way (because of the hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance required). People in an echo chamber don't experience that questioning, so they can hold onto whatever nonsensical ideas they can dream up.
/r/MensRights03/03/19 07:05 PM
2

Feminism is an ad hoc ideological cover for blind advocacy for (some) women. Its tenets, such as they are, are tailored, discarded, and re-tailored purely to justify the cause of the day. It means everything and its opposite. If there is any true ideological core to feminism it is this: women are (infinitely) oppressed by men and this situation must be rectified. No matter the facts this must be the case. Even if the situation is the complete opposite it must be re-contextualized to maintain the…
/r/MensRights02/03/19 08:31 PM
1

From what I understand you choose your own level of 'Going'.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 05:57 AM
1

I get most of those but do not marry? Getting married is the highest "do not do" in the list. Do you know anything about divorce laws and stats? A marriage contract is essentially a blank piece of paper that gets filled in upon termination of the relationship with terms that are guaranteed by law to be unfavorable to you. Why would you enter into something like that? if I find a great women who I expect to be a good wife why not wife her up? You need to be married to be in a fulfilling relations…
/r/MensRights26/02/19 11:36 PM
4

Like as a man i am offended by this level of shit by media outlets, but a lot of people forget the actual women living in actual patriarchal societies. Where doctors can't tell the sex of a baby out of fear the parents would abort if its a girl , where disobeying your husband enough times causes you to get hanged in the streets with other "bad wives". Take even those stories with a grain of salt. They're often 4th-hand accounts of 3rd-world tabloid garbage. Don't fall into the cognitive trap of …
/r/MensRights14/02/19 04:25 AM
9

Fiction can be custom tailored to stroke an audience. Reality is often disappointing and boring. Most people prefer an entertaining lie to a boring truth.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 08:54 PM
6

On the other hand conscription has been used for non-defensive wars more often than not.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 01:56 AM
3

But still, a step in the right direction right feminists? The ones who supported this right up until it became a liability for them will simply disappear into the woodwork. They'll be replaced by those who have no idea how such a ridiculous and unjust state of affairs came to be, but are sure feminists didn't cause it and always opposed it. Edit: When something unjust brought about by feminists becomes unpopular we can't blame them because they're just cogs in the patriarchal society. But right …
/r/MensRights04/02/19 04:12 AM
1

If the arbitrariness of the number is what bothers you would you also have a problem with rules requiring high school teachers to interact with their students as if they are all minors regardless of their birth date? Frankly, the legal system is not particularly capable of nuance, especially with issues that can be so subjective. Police, prosecutors, judges, and juries are people. We should neither hold them responsible for finding the moral line nor should we allow them the leeway to impose the…
/r/MensRights29/01/19 08:44 PM
11

Feminists require an entire ideology complete with a new dictionary to justify their double standards. You see it's not sexism or bigotry when we call for discrimination and violence against men because... You see when we push for nakedly unequal treatment of the sexes under the law it's really a higher form of equality because...
/r/MensRights25/01/19 05:06 AM
1

And the rest of the incels, too? Consider the possibility that the overwhelming majority of people who self-select that label might fit it. Edit: a lot of them the attractive and average-looking ones. I'm sure they'd find that flattering, but let's be honest here.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 09:03 AM
1

I thought incels wanted to have sex, just nobody wants to have sex with them. Nah that's what incels believe. Some of them are probably right but a lot of them are just psychologically messed up, like Elliot Rodger. So you're saying women really want to have sex with Elliot Rodger/most incels, they just don't realize it?
/r/MensRights14/01/19 08:50 AM
1

It's "pretty interesting" that your post is factually inaccurate? Why not delete this shitpost?
/r/MensRights10/01/19 09:52 AM
1

I haven't strawmanned anyone. Feminists themselves talk about the "invisible" privilege of men, the "invisible" influence of male-dominated society on girls' opportunities, etc. They are always only one step removed, one interrogative away from the indefensible/unassailable declaration that "it's definitely happening, we just can't see it". That's the supposed invisible hand of the patriarchy and everyone in this conversation is familiar with that argumentation. The goal is not to logically conv…
/r/MensRights05/01/19 07:32 PM
3

Yeah good thing "Anglo" countries don't have a history of lynch-mob justice. Can you imagine if there was a modern social movement in "Anglo" countries that demanded we blindly believe accusers?
/r/MensRights04/01/19 05:05 AM
35

Even if you are "normal" you don't talk to a person you're romantically interested in the same way you talk to your degenerate retard friends.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:08 PM
10

He was the most popular candidate because of his stances on income inequality and the nation's ongoing student loan debacle, not because he wasn't an SJW/feminist. He was far closer to being an SJW than Hillary, in fact. He just thought (wrongly) that the SJWs in the Party wanted to win more than they wanted to hurt white males like himself.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:56 AM
1

Feminist theory contends [...] That the patriarchy causes everything you mentioned and when asked to provide evidence of this they can't and fall back on the idea that patriarchal privilege is invisible. Meanwhile as we see in the above research the opposite conclusion is supported by empirical evidence.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 01:13 AM
4

That data can be interpreted two ways--it can be used as evidence that women and men naturally prefer different things...or that society pushes men and women to do different things. Feminist theory contends that the patriarchy enforces strict gender roles, specifically that its invisible hand excludes women from the hard sciences. The data shows that more patriarchal societies actually have greater blurring of gender roles in this area. At a certain point, preferring to work with kids is just a …
/r/MensRights30/12/18 08:56 AM
8

The point is that it is distinctly possible that the more freedom of choice there is the more people choose traditional roles or jobs that mimic them. This conclusion is supported by evidence, whereas the theory of the omnipresent, invisible patriarchy is not. So as you move towards a "truly" gender-equal society you must be prepared to accept a greater gender divide due to self-selection. Unless of course you are a feminist in which case you simply demand more money for studies, seminars, march…
/r/MensRights30/12/18 05:35 AM
2

She looks like a potato and her uniform looks like a potato sack. There was a definite "tuber" theme behind the makeup and wardrobe.
/r/MensRights22/12/18 04:53 AM
8

She's cuter than she is in the movie. They purposely made her uglier because almost every choice in that movie was made to "challenge" (read: troll, annoy, disgust, and/or frustrate) the audience.
/r/MensRights22/12/18 03:41 AM
19

When you know a situation requires due diligence to be performed failure to perform it or deciding not to do it in order to maintain deniability does not absolve you of responsibility. Hodge v. Craig out of Tennessee established intent solely based on the mother's failure to inform a defrauded father that other possible candidates existed.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 12:42 AM
4

We need to teach people to value truth and logic first and foremost, otherwise all the debunking in the world is pointless. Can't tell you how many times I've expanded a comment that was hidden due to being below the karma threshold only to find that it was perfectly reasonable but opposed a preferred narrative. I got lucky because my comment happens to be a defense of the MR sub posted on the MR sub.
/r/MensRights12/12/18 07:15 AM
7

Agreed. That is not what I said though. When a woman says "I get paid less then men doing the same job as me" the response should be "that is atypical and can probably be explained by your specific circumstances." Now in this thread the top comment is a man saying "I get paid less than women doing the same job as me" and the responses are all saying "see, this is the problem. We all knew it." So when you were clarifying what you said you were actually just making a minor side point? My minor sid…
/r/MensRights11/12/18 07:55 PM
5

Irrelevant. No one is doing what you claimed, and most of the comments are skeptical or dismissive. Where are the responses that are all saying "see, this is the problem. We all knew it."?
/r/MensRights11/12/18 07:20 PM
21

the responses are all saying "see, this is the problem. We all knew it." Wanna take another look at those responses? There are 13 top-level responses and all were posted before you made this comment. 1 offering moral support 4 using the comment to make ancillary (off-topic) points/quips or to share their own anecdotes 3 criticizing the anecdotal nature of the comment 3 insulting the commenter 1 criticizing and insulting the commenter 1 questioning the commenter about his specific circumstances. …
/r/MensRights11/12/18 07:16 PM
15

Nothing moral about it. She only defended the guy because he worked for her, not because it was the right thing to do. She's one of those rare breeds you can always count on to do the wrong thing in any given situation.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 02:27 AM
2

The Einstein quote very clearly says that men work to generate income that will be spent (frivolously) by women, not that men work to acquire women. Edit: The O'Rell quote is one of a series of basically nonsensical musings that (eventually) culminates in him saying much the same thing Einstein said: The American man is the most devoted and hard-working husband in the world. The poor, dear fellow! He works, and he works, and he works, and the beads of perspiration from his brow crystallize in th…
/r/MensRights04/12/18 08:44 AM
3

Consider yourself spared. Take the Steffon sketch and replace "New York's hottest club" with "dad's house" and the list of crazy stuff with a list of negative stereotypes about divorced fathers. The punchline is that dad is an irresponsible failure on his own. None of the players seem to be very enthusiastic about this one. Really flat stuff and it only gets a few chuckles from the audience.
/r/MensRights02/12/18 08:39 PM
1

He's right, but he's demonstrating the inverse case.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 05:06 PM
9

In The Last Jedi Luke Skywalker is a disheveled, homicidal hobo who hates the Jedi and drinks space milk straight from the alien monster tit while praying for death to take him.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 02:59 AM
7

The ability to have people wrongly convicted on word alone is extreme privilege. If you can visit injustice on another person without repercussion solely by virtue of your class you are part of a privileged class.
/r/MensRights20/11/18 10:12 PM
4

The cover is actually unaltered. I didn't believe it either.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 01:40 AM
5

Whoever pushed for those quotation marks is either a spectacular idiot or a spectacular troll.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 01:39 AM
7

That's literally what I thought as well. Those quotation marks make it seem like they think she's secretly packing a dick or something. Edit: I actually thought OP might have edited it so I tried to google it. The results seem pretty scrubbed when you image search for "gq man of the year 2018 cover". The cover doesn't appear until you scroll past a bunch of red carpet shit. Could be copyright issues, I guess.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 01:31 AM
1

It's plausible that someone could do what that person did. It's not understandable, though, because it's utterly insane. This is George Costanza on LSD-level behavior. This is like saying "I grabbed your breasts to protect them because that guy looked like he was planning to bite them". Paranoia and white-knighting, the deadliest speedball combo. Also, just a couple of drugged up mugger-rapists hanging out on the street corner at 4 PM in the middle of Belfast cruising for victims. Average Wednes…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 09:01 PM
4

The biggest reason is that women flood the kindergarten/pre-K/daycare market and drive the wages down below subsistence-level.
/r/MensRights31/10/18 05:55 PM
8

Don't bother with the scientific argument. Just use basic statistics. In 1952 there were >55,000 cases of Polio in the U.S. In 2017 there were 0. Either Polio got bored with us or vaccines work and are not "bullshit". Also the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 10:51 AM
2

The post you agreed with didn't leave room for partial disagreement. It said that even if the person was a serial killer the only thing that matters is their policies. What are you actually agreeing with?
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:50 PM
2

/u/cowsinahelicopter said: A politicians personal life is a separate issue, the policies are what we should be voting for. We shouldn't even be voting for people in the first place, we should instead be voting for ideas. It shouldn't be a personality contest, it should be an idea contest. ... It seems nobody even cares about what he stands for, people are more concerned about the allegations. Seems like a distraction to me. You agreed with that comment. So do you still want him investigated and …
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:46 PM
1

What I would also like to see is a removal of the abilitybto escape jail time equivalent to the standard for their crime for anyone found guilty of committing rape. Men or women. Brock Turner is the most famous. Kid has been out after three months. This SHOULDN'T have happened. Consequently, we DO have an issue with female teachers getting away with blatant acts of pedophilia and sexual abuse within the school system itself. This is the only part that deals with rape, which is what you brought u…
/r/MensRights08/10/18 04:14 AM
2

making things easier for rape victims to seek justice. What concrete policies would you like to see enacted to accomplish that goal? How does the Supreme Court factor into those policies?
/r/MensRights07/10/18 07:05 AM
1

What someone is afraid of is a personal thing, not something society can or should have to compensate for. Even though men are more likely than women to be harmed by a stranger they are less afraid of it happening. If the argument is that women's fears are reasonable and men's lack of fear is not then do this simple thought experiment: imagine women's ratio of fear:actual danger as a baseline and then imagine how men should feel considering their higher level of actual danger. The belief that wo…
/r/MensRights03/10/18 12:58 PM
1

There are innumerable violations someone can visit upon you while you are vulnerable. That you're most concerned with being raped rather than being robbed, maimed, or killed says more about you than it does about society.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 12:52 AM
2

Save yourself the research time. Just ask them to show you a job where women of the same seniority (the amount of time you have worked for a company) and position (job title) are paid less than men while working the same number of hours. If you are living in most any western country they will either not be able to do so or they will point to a job that has a negotiated salary (unlikely since most wage gap parrots haven't done any research). The burden of proof for their claim is on them, not you…
/r/MensRights22/09/18 08:23 PM
1

Japan rigs their crime states to a ludicrous degree and their criminal justice system in general is a joke. They make The Wire look like Law & Order. There's a desert between "it never happened, so there's no need for paperwork" and "full confession obtained through borderline torture".
/r/MensRights21/09/18 07:59 AM
1

Did Cosby spike drinks with quaaludes or did he give people quaaludes, sometimes lying to them about what they were? Because the only case I've heard of that actually went anywhere (incidentally the one where he admitted on the record to doing exactly that) was the latter. Edit: Also, you and /u/TheMythof_Feminism are talking past each other. They are talking about date rape and you are talking about drink spiking in general. Nobody is claiming that no one ever dropped a pill in someone else's d…
/r/MensRights10/09/18 05:21 AM
16

Well, except for the misandric start to the post, they aren't wrong. The entire post is tips for lesbians on protecting themselves from getting lured/dosed and raped in public by gay men. They are insanely wrong on every level. Good to know what /r/"actuallesbians" actually think of their GBTQ allies, though. Comment sitting at a healthy +15 or so.
/r/MensRights09/09/18 07:25 AM
10

"Oh, men just want sex and women are whores now." Don't discount the power of biological impulses. The increased ease of access to female sexuality is absolutely something that needs to be examined as a cause of the decreasing necessity and value of committed relationships, especially among men. It's not the only reason, but it's a substantial one.
/r/MensRights08/09/18 07:17 PM
3

The accusations against Louis C.K. weren't false. He admitted to them. He even admitted to things he wasn't accused of.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 11:05 PM
1

You can't say anything about art because it is just a reflection of life. You also can't say anything about art when it depicts something fake intended to push an ideology. Sounds like a game of "I win". When art becomes nothing but a demonstration of the artists ideology (propaganda) and that ideology is absurd and hypocritical I will absolutely point that out. You are a leftist. That is very clear. I don't think you are a socialist/communist, but you are definitely an advocate of tabula rasa t…
/r/MensRights31/08/18 08:09 PM
2

Art reflects life. That excuse falls apart when they want to show the hordes of strong independent women super-soldiers who are somehow ubiquitous yet constantly beset by caveman-tier sexism yet also immune to harm. That reflect your life? Art reflects artist intent. They want to show strong female characters, but they don't want to see them face any real danger let alone come to harm.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 07:24 PM
5

Those games allow the player to be violent towards female npcs. It is extremely rare that male-on-female violence is presented by game developers unless it is intended to show how evil the male character (or the world itself) is. Name some games where a good guy brutally kills a bad woman (not a robot, demon, zombie, etc. - a woman). Because the reverse is commonplace.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 07:16 PM
5

the vast majority of the women are looking for exclusivity and marriage. Since the vast majority of women are young (unless you live in Japan, maybe), they're looking for peak physical attractiveness and are confused and dismayed that this does not lead to exclusivity and marriage. Edit: We are taught that women's genitals are divining rods (they are kinda shaped like it, to be fair) for [good|nice|confident|charming|that indescribable positive quality]. From there it is logical to assume that i…
/r/MensRights27/08/18 07:08 AM
2

We're talking about national suffrage.
/r/MensRights22/08/18 08:36 PM
10

Giving women the vote was done to dilute the power of immigrants, minorities, socialists, and returning WWI veterans who might be a bit ticked about being conscripted to fight a European war their leaders had promised to stay out of.
/r/MensRights22/08/18 08:17 AM
2

I already wrote off public schooling in the US as a lost cause too. From a MR perspective or a quality perspective?
/r/MensRights14/08/18 11:03 AM
6

They enjoy whining at and nagging powerful men, but ultimately they are seeking their approval and support. They hate weak men because their existence represents a potential net draw on society's sympathy, resource, and gene pools.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 08:50 PM
5

It happens constantly, it's encouraged by most men, and women are afraid to report it because no one will believe them. Remember that feminists can and will say anything, and unless their audience both disagrees with them and is willing to call them out they have successfully added another layer to a foundation of bullshit.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 05:18 AM
17

One of the things we are naturally good at is detecting threatening people—indeed, millions of years of evolution have more or less guaranteed this. What is he basing this on? This is faulty reasoning at its worst. But having been raised by a single mother since the age of two, I have always had a very visceral sense that men have a responsibility not to be evil jerks. And when they are, they should be sorted out—physically, if need be—by good men. Call me old-fashioned. Ah. Classic 'One Good Ma…
/r/MensRights22/04/18 06:41 AM
8

This video claims that a myth created and spread by feminists to advance feminist aims is not real feminism. Feminism is somehow always right and good and proper, even when it's in opposition to itself. If most people believe in "total equality of the sexes" but almost none of them are willing to call themselves a "feminist" maybe it's time to consider divorcing those two ideas.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 11:20 PM
1

smacked around, forced to cook and clean and being unable to even voice dissent about it You think that's what the world is like without your benevolence? Without these you have Communism Mistreatment of women is a cornerstone of ...Communism?
/r/MensRights03/04/18 09:21 PM
2

They are looking at a group (where membership is desirable, of course), seeing that it isn't at least 50% female, and deciding that this lazy, superficial analysis is enough evidence to prove the existence of a glass ceiling - case closed.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 05:57 AM
35

There's no misunderstanding. Feminists mostly deny the existence of gendered behavior until there is an opportunity to blame masculinity for [insert any evil] or applaud femininity for [insert any good]. The end result is a picture of masculinity that is always "toxic" and femininity that is always benevolent (and put upon/exploited/abused by men). Pure coincidence, of course.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 08:10 AM
1

I should have said privately owned, but my meaning was clear. Neither Twitch nor Amazon are owned or directly funded by the government, so they are not subject to issues of constitutionality. Some forms of discrimination by them may be federally or locally illegal, but they can't be sued for "unconstitutional" behavior.
/r/MensRights28/02/18 05:14 PM
4

How would this not be blatant unconstitutional gender discrimination? Twitch is a private company, not part of nor funded by the government, so constitutionality is not a relevant factor. Further, it's debatable whether the Constitution says anything about gender or sex discrimination (with the current understanding being that it does not).
/r/MensRights28/02/18 04:05 AM
10

Blaming "bro culture" for alleged serious criminal activity is nothing short of a stunt. On a side note, I don't know any "bros" who think slapping women around is "awesome".
/r/MensRights26/02/18 07:07 AM
3

If I'm understanding this correctly conviction rate is the ratio of guilty verdicts to trials, while attrition rate is the ratio of guilty verdicts to police reports. So the tweeter is incorrect in saying "the rape conviction rate is 3%". She's referring to an attrition rate (which she also has wrong, apparently). In other words conviction rate is "how many trials end in a guilty verdict" and attrition rate is "how many police reports end in a guilty verdict". "Due process" applies to trial proc…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 10:12 PM
14

How is that a play out of Trump's book?
/r/MensRights25/01/18 09:39 PM
8

Throughout history women's "empowerment" has happened only to check that of the lower-class as a whole. Look at the timing of every feminist moment and the contemporary happenings in the world. What /u/ee4m is saying is that modern Feminism has utterly distracted the progressive/radical faction to allow the status quo to be maintained.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 01:28 AM
5

The goalposts move for the explicit purpose of making equality impossible to define. That's by design. Defining equality is fairly simple. But not defining equality is immensely profitable. Feminism's actual goalposts (if you feel inclined to give them a charitable view) are more or less "we'll [be] stop[ped] when we've gone far enough", and that is where they'll declare Equality. A less charitable (and in my opinion more accurate) view is that they think "we can never go far enough".
/r/MensRights13/01/18 10:23 AM
3

Women often equate a straight woman being hit on by the average man to a straight man being hit on by a man. Essentially they're saying that the average man is repellent to them as far as romantic interest goes.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 09:00 AM
1

They just got another round of financing according to the same source OP's quote came from. How is it on its last legs?
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:48 AM
20

"All men's issues stem from the oppression of women and the evils of toxic masculinity. If we stop oppressing women and get rid of toxic masculinity men's issues will be solved somehow."
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:43 AM
6

...feminism running roughshod over balance by only addressing law and ignoring the mountains of obligations of men that are cultural They ignore law that unfairly burdens men, too. Anything that doesn't conform to man as oppressor/woman as oppressed is ignored, minimized, and/or excused.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 06:34 AM
1

The waves in order: Men are drunken brutes Men are misogynistic pigs Men are all rapists Men can oppress with a glance You're buying into the feminist revision of history. It makes us feel good to think we're better than our forebears, but in reality they were just people who largely lived their lives as best (and as decently as) they could. They weren't demons cheering each other for raping and beating women with reckless abandon. Already we're seeing revisionism about the most recent generatio…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 09:22 PM
5

They all work in tandem to accomplish the same goal of blindly gynocentric advocacy. When one wave's rhetoric is exposed as the unpalatable bullshit it always is its absorbed into the feminist body to reemerge at a more opportune time. Every rabid pro-female and/or anti-male sentiment under the sun can find shade beneath the "Feminist" umbrella. How many different waves ways do you need to hear "men are evil"?
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:22 PM
18

"More traumatic" needs definition. OP likely means more commonly physicall damaging. That doesn't necessarily mean more traumatic.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 02:33 AM
-1

Yeah, maybe if the wife literally is forced into staying home, it's fair to give her some of the money afterwards. That would be damages or reparations, not alimony. You're describing kidnapping and possibly slavery.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:51 PM
3

Despite proving she was willing to make criminally (I assume Italy has laws against false reports and/or perjury) false statements you still weren't able to even get 50/50 custody? Did you not seek primary or full custody?
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:42 PM
3

He released a statement apologizing for his behavior and to women in general in response to several reports about his decades of sexual harassment accusations and settlements. Nothing to infer from that, I guess.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 12:52 AM
19

Weinstein admitted to being at the very least a serial harasser and general sleaze. What's the point of defending someone who has already tacitly admitted guilt?
/r/MensRights27/10/17 09:40 PM
27

I get that you can say "it’s men who have enforced society’s rules regarding gender roles. That doesn't make it true. I asked you to consider, even for a second, whether women are human beings with a significant impact on society or the world or if they are impotent cows utterly at the mercy of men. Your failure to answer that question is an answer in itself.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 11:14 PM
31

The point was that men don't determine women's lives to the extent feminists think they do. In fact, women are more impactful in developing a person's (man and woman) personality than men are. But if men's problems are men's fault (despite the OP and the article implying the opposite...), whose fault are women's problems?
/r/MensRights12/10/17 09:53 PM
47

Who has more control over your personality: your Senator or your mother? Who is reinforcing the social rules? Why is prostitution illegal? Because "the patriarchy hurts men, too"?
/r/MensRights12/10/17 09:45 PM
1

Typically the answer to that question involves comparing having sex with an unattractive person to unwilling homosexuality. It's supposedly as revolting for a straight woman to have sex with an ugly man to get ahead as it is for a straight man to have sex with ...an ugly man to get ahead.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 04:13 PM
-1

You caved to an idiot (didn't consider how she was going to feed her child before she left the house, was planning to starve it to protect her own modesty) who later turned out to have a shred of shame and human decency. Seems like the victory was hers and now she has a little story of personal growth, though not because of you. What does any of this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 03:54 PM
3

Unfortunately yes. Unless you're a feminist, in which case you take it a step further and push for protections exclusively for women.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 09:05 AM
7

patriarchy I have a question about the supposed (feminist idea of) patriarchy. How can feminists believe both that men and women are equal and that women have been suffering helplessly under the yolk of the patriarchy for, essentially, all of human history? Didn't real slaves have rebellions constantly throughout history? Hell, didn't the upper-middle class rebel against the upper class proper if their was even the hint that there was any untoward distinction between plutocrats? Aren't feminists…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:00 AM
3

It's DTF-signalling like tattoos and piercings, so you might be subconsciously attracted to that; but it also signals an aversion to silly social conventions like honesty, emotional temperance, humility, etc. Basically you're seeing "okay with butt stuff", but missing "okay with burning my stuff". Or maybe you're attracted to danger. That's generally what bright colors mean in nature.
/r/MensRights18/08/17 09:06 PM
9

Because they're selfish.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 07:54 AM
8

And a stay-at-home parent, I would agree/argue-- especially with multiple children of the toddler-to-elementary-school-age-- does perhaps as much effort/labor as does a generally employed co-parent Not unless "generally employed" means some low-supervision, low-accountability office job that isn't results-oriented.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 07:51 AM
2

The fake quote is unreservedly pro-feminist. The real one is not. It's also introduced in a laughably biased manner: "...her brave feminist predecessors." That's presented as a paraphrasing of Jaye's thoughts leading up to and/or including the "quote", yet that isn't even close to the tone she was conveying.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 07:34 AM
6

Well in the US [...] the vaccine is free for everyone Source? Last I checked I would have to pay out of pocket.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 07:49 AM
2

Sorry I missed the comment, I usually don't browse while logged in. I wasn't talking about the deification of attractiveness. I was talking about the insane level of obfuscation of the reasons for our attraction to others that we as humans have embraced. Essentially, the lengths we go to in lying about why we find another person attractive. We are closer to Kim Kardashian than we are to Elizabeth Browning in matters of love and romance, but people are violently opposed to this concept. For examp…
/r/MensRights12/07/17 10:05 AM
5

She sounds like a person trying to reconcile being shallow, greedy, and picky (i.e. the human condition) with her brand of "good-think". As she tries to defend being attracted to attractive people she only ends up espousing more and more heinous views. Like a person with "not enough" friends of different races talking themselves into a rant on Their Struggle. It's incredible that society - women in particular - has bought into the idea that attraction should be a philosophical exercise. Romantic…
/r/MensRights06/07/17 06:37 PM
13

Unwelcome third-party interpretation: Our theory the only thing holding women back from 60/40 50/50 representation everywhere is direct meddling by the patriarchy isn't supported by observable reality in some professions unequal numbers of men and women will have sufficient qualifications so we'll meddle with reality until it matches our theory.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 03:57 PM
1

99% chance this is 100% fake.
/r/MensRights21/06/17 06:57 AM
12

Trickle-down empathy.
/r/MensRights10/06/17 10:38 AM
2

Can anyone with access to that issue of Ms. let me know if Steinem's piece on "how women vote" went into detail about how young women don't have sufficient independence of thought to vote properly? Because that's what she said in 2016.
/r/MensRights08/06/17 11:07 AM
2

Wouldn't the most likely thing he could get out of a court victory just be more money?
/r/MensRights10/05/17 09:04 PM
124

And if it was true it would mean Valenti follows almost no women on Twitter. They follow almost all the same people. He follows no women. Therefore she follows, at most, almost no women. Even in her fantasy she holds other women in almost no esteem. Maybe by "passive sexism" she was referring to herself.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 09:34 AM
0

The intersection of people who are pro-equality, pro-abstinence, anti-choice, and non-traditionalist/irreligious is vanishingly small and not a meaningful contributor to the social conversation. so nowadays when women are told they should keep it in their knickers, it is meant as a direct corollary to 'keep it in your pants'. By almost no one, and definitely no one with any power.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 02:14 AM
2

The only reason women are now being told to 'keep their legs shut' is simply a counter to the sexism and lack of rights men face in this area. You're right that there is a double standard, but that statement is not remotely true.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 11:43 PM
1

A great illustration of the difference between egalitarianism and progressivism. For most people this is an issue of the former.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 01:05 AM
4

A great illustration of the difference between egalitarianism and progressivism. For most people this is an issue of the former. Your suggestion is akin to a feminist suggesting that growing the economy overall will fix the "pay gap". It doesn't follow and they don't do that. Or another way of looking at it: if men are x% of workplace fatalities and women are y%, what makes you so sure an increase in OSHA/HSE funding won't go disproportionately towards reducing y%?
/r/MensRights04/04/17 01:43 PM
1

I guess it's gauche to not enjoy your privilege silently. Like with chewing.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 09:17 PM
2

Even with that analogy you still have two legitimate aims to be compared: secular government and men's rights. Trolling is, by definition, illegitimate and insincere.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 08:30 PM
6

A few [MRAs] even used sexist insults against me. I ignored them for the most part, but when I tried to engage with them, they seemed more interested in trolling me than exchanging ideas. At their worst, MRAs are simply looking to justify misogyny under the guise of “rights.” In fact, criticism of male circumcision is often thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Men are conditioned to be aggressive and domineering toward gender minorities like women And while MRAs make many good points, I’ve seen their be…
/r/MensRights19/03/17 07:24 PM
6

By her* stated logic she should, but she won't because she has to at least have a stable surface on which to build her house of cards. *Edited for proper identification of the author
/r/MensRights19/03/17 06:02 PM
5

Just one of the cognitive non-sequiturs that arises when you treat women as an oppressed minority in a society where they are an insulated majority.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:09 AM
5

Women have social options. Your typical male hardcore gamer (which is the pool professional eSports selects from) does not have social options. None of the current crop of pro eSports players got into gaming expecting to make a career of it. They got into it because they were social outcasts who found a reclusive hobby and later found that other social outcasts enjoyed watching them do it well. A question the hyper-concerned should be asking is how/why do so many boys become social outcasts duri…
/r/MensRights10/03/17 08:53 AM
2

We have concrete examples of such a liberty/power dichotomy. U.S. Presidents are arguably the most powerful people on the planet. But their movements are almost completely controlled, their contact with other human beings is monitored and requires approval by multiple third parties, every moment of their lives is rigidly scheduled.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 06:30 AM
6

Need to import a new underclass for cheap labor since the old, native underclass has realized the game and stopped reproducing.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 06:58 PM
1

It's a weak and cowardly avoidance of the feminist attack. Instead of facing their nonsense head-on one tries to put someone - who is not only worse off but not even present to defend themself - in the way to block the blow. In doing so one often concedes bullshit feminist points. The way to defend against 'rape culture' allegations is not to say "(yeah,) but [group] are even worse rapists and you don't call them out!", it's to point out that the allegations are baseless even from an entirely lo…
/r/MensRights24/02/17 08:02 AM
2

All I care about is whether they're making logical arguments, staying on topic, etc. I try to avoid playing identity games.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 10:56 PM
0

while I see a fair amount of arguably alt-right posts and comments here, I don't think the sub is being "taken over." The anti-Muslim "them, not us" stuff is getting out of hand and isn't shouted down nearly enough. Pointing the finger at people over there you've only met through nakedly biased news media - i.e. not in any meaningful way, shape, or form - is purely a distraction from the concrete issues we're dealing with here. I don't care about the alleged doings of a Muslim guy I've never met…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 10:19 PM
4

Venerating public figures who stand up for (some of) the ideas we believe in is an unfortunate side-effect of the unpopularity of this movement. Milo has always struck me as that type of journalist/commentator who makes themself the story, and it's never sat right with me. Plus he's not anti-circumcision enough for my tastes. But I have always taken his statements as they are, irrespective of him personally, and will continue to do so in the future. I do the same thing with every viewpoint linke…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 10:16 PM
2

that sex is a gift women grant only to the truly worthy It is, and they do. Before we get into equivocation or tautology territory let me clarify that I used 'worthy' to mean "socially upstanding" by whatever moronic definition-of-the-day "socially upstanding" has. Basically, women don't sleep with people because they are "good people", which is the predominant social belief, currently. Female sexual attraction is not a divining rod. "admirable." There is nothing admirable about being a sociopat…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 09:12 PM
2

Yup. In this case I was referring to this "feminine sexual mystique" issue, a set of dumb beliefs that even MRAs fail to consistently shed: the idea that for women sex is always special and meaningful that sex is a gift women grant only to the truly worthy that women should and/or do only have sex because of overpowering lust or love
/r/MensRights22/02/17 07:14 PM
1

I know neither the text of the legislation in question nor the precedent regarding its application. I can't comment on that.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 09:06 AM
7

Me: Women "is" able to use their vaginas as currency. Women "ought" not to to use their vaginas as currency, at least not in a surreptitious manner. Can we agree that those two satements are true? You: Ok no absolutely not. You in the post immediately preceding mine: By your logic, a penis could be used as "currency" as well. And I'm sure it has. Many times over the course of history. Both have been. So I asked if you could agree that both statements are true. You had already agreed that the sta…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 09:05 AM
6

Okay. It's fine to go into histrionics and invent a threat narrative when you ignore what's being said and instead decide to confront yourself with your own strawman conversation (I don't know what incels are or why you keep bringing them up). Well, not "fine", horrible, but you're your own person.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:18 AM
8

What if I feel both penises and vaginas have the same value? Reality disagrees. Men have a higher sex drive than women. Men are more apt to pay for sex than women. What exactly are you arguing, that your feelings be counted equal to objective reality? it should have nothing to do with gender. "Is" and "ought" are not the same thing. Women "is" able to use their vaginas as currency. Women "ought" not to to use their vaginas as currency, at least not in a surreptitious manner. Can we agree that th…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:07 AM
3

Because that's a phrase most likely to be used by female feminists. Edit: removed redundancy
/r/MensRights22/02/17 07:33 AM
1

The title is inaccurate. This is a federal bill (very clearly intended to throw a bone to certain interest groups while going nowhere legislatively). Soap dispenser, paper towel dispenser, toilet paper dispenser, seat cover dispenser, changing station, hot-air dryer, sink, now condom dispenser and pad and/or tampon dispenser. Oh, and a toilet. Anything else businesses must have in the bathroom? And what constitutes a business with "over 100 employees"? The rinky-dinkiest McDonald's in Nowheresvi…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 07:02 AM
6

"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face." is what she gave as an excuse for her actions. She claimed that the race of the person she assaulted was a mitigating factor.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 06:41 AM
16

Not all vaginas are "currency". Not all vaginas are used as "currency". Choosing not to use a vagina as currency may or may not be an admirable moral stance to take, but that doesn't mean it suddenly loses that innate value. And even in desperate/extreme circumstances it retains significant power.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 06:00 AM
3

Being able to prove the existence of a sexual relationship was part of /u/SodaPalooza's premise. You don't really need to prove that a sexual relationship definitely lead to favoritism, you just need to show that the former preceded the latter. Instant "hostile work environment", regardless of your gender. This is why (smart) companies don't allow managers to directly supervise or have any say in the career path of those they are in a relationship with. It's simply too likely that a jury will pa…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 05:35 AM
29

We shouldn't assume sex for a reason other than "twue wuv" or extreme lust is some debilitating psychological burden for women just because conventional wisdom says it should be so. And if it isn't, how admirable is it really to do something easy and immoral to get ahead? What I'm saying is don't discount the possibility that for at least those 15% the choice may be less "steel yourself, Sandra, this is your moment" and more "meh, I'm not doing anything else during my lunch hour".
/r/MensRights22/02/17 05:22 AM
4

It really is amazing isn't it? Any good faith attempt to prove the existence of the wage gap would quickly, clearly show it to be non-existent. But they don't have to prove the gender wage gap exists because people want to believe in it. It feels true, so it must be so. The burden of proof has somehow shifted onto those who would dismiss the claim. For some reason we must prove that 2+2 does not equal 5. Religion.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 11:45 AM
9

The wage gap was always based on a deliberate misstatement of the aggregate earnings gap between genders. It was a mutation of "women earn x% of what men earn" (a true but oversimplified statement) into "women are paid x% of what men are paid" (an equivocation at best) and eventually into "women are paid x% of what men are paid for the same work" (a specific lie). It was thoroughly statistically debunked for the sake of rigor, because showing how idiots lie in detail is too entertaining an oppor…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 11:31 AM
4

You're right. I usually catch that before I use the terms, but I goofed this time.
/r/MensRights05/02/17 11:01 PM
11

It's a positive* feedback loop. The less attractive teaching becomes as a career (because of anti-male hostility and fear-mongering, low pay, etc.), the less men will want to pursue it. The lower the proportion of male teachers (fewer people with a vested interest in fostering a gender inclusive environment, fewer people willing to unionize and fight for higher pay, etc.), the more teaching becomes undesirable.
/r/MensRights05/02/17 10:30 PM
3

This psychological...disposition? No, that suggests its innate It is innate. That doesn't imply it's right or desirable, especially for a species that can safely reject its vestigial instincts. Feminism is not a cause of such thoughts, it's an effect. A pseudo-intellectual way to idealize a desire to cling strongly to a certain female-protective instinct. Think phrenology; it's not a root cause of racism - tribalism, really - but a lame attempt at explaining why something we've always felt the u…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 08:30 AM
1

I'm not calculating at all, just saying the definitive statement: The state could fund the child support instead of incarcerating the father and save 83% of the money at the VERY LEAST. is not definitively supported by the numbers in the OP. If $31,000 and $430 were the lowest examples of incarceration cost and child support obligation, then the statement would hold. It's not a savings of at least 83%, it's a savings of an average of 83%.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 11:40 AM
1

The state could fund the child support instead of incarcerating the father and save 83% of the money at the VERY LEAST. Remember, you gave averages for incarceration cost and child support obligation. That means 83% may not necessarily be the floor for savings.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 11:27 AM
2

Thanks for the response. How does widely available birth control factor into the picture? Will it help stave off the polygynous collapse you mention or just help focus it on groups where BC is underutilized? Do you think the trend of women having children without the expectation of the father sticking around to support them will end? Not being a woman, I have to ask: is the biological pressure to have a baby (alone) really that great that women will always choose to do so at the cost of having a…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:58 AM
2

But prior to man as provider and protector was our male ancestors as polygynous harem-keepers who used dominance as the decisive factor in monopolizing mating opportunities. That instinct is much older, and still there, and I can't imagine once the "man as provider and protector" model is eradicated, women will be very happy with the outcome. Are you saying that women would reject harem behavior or that such a situation would be oppressive to them? And do you think "alpha" men would force women …
/r/MensRights20/01/17 10:09 PM
8

We should be discouraging people from letting their feelings influence their perception of reality, not coddling such behavior. Isn't the overall intellectual progress of our species measured by our relationship with objective reality?
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:53 AM
9

What they do in retail is give everyone the same title, regardless of the work they do. So the guys with dozens of certifications to operate the machinery and perform the services that are necessary to run the business make the same as the cashiers who are on their phones the whole day. And they have less opportunity for advancement.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 07:05 AM
0

What the OP said: I'm pleased to see that 100% of the comments on that article are calling the author out for her ignorance and misandry. has a different effect than: I'm pleased to see that 100% of the comments on that article are from CAFE people calling the author out for her ignorance and misandry. One might indicate broad support from the general public, which can be novel. The other indicates a brigade by an interest group whose sentiments on the issue we're already well aware of.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 09:08 PM
15

The classic excuse for ignoring the drop in instances of rape is "reporting is down, not victimization" while conveniently ignoring the broadening of the definition. They'll never give it up.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 07:08 AM
1

Condoms double as STD prevention as well as a general hygiene product for people who don't want to deal with others' fluids. Not an appropriate comparison when you consider the total picture.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 06:33 PM
2

It's a dog-whistle term. You might read a fairly innocuous statement, but the targeted readers know that "lack of diversity" means sex/race discrimination is afoot. IIRC diversity or lack thereof had nothing to do with Pao's case. She was alleging specific discrimination, not waging a one-woman war against Big Tech. But after reading that sentence those in-the-know are supposed to infer the following: The tech industry is sexist, or at least more sexist than other industries Ellen Pao's case was…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 08:17 PM
4

people who call themselves feminists while actually striving for superiority which means by definition they are not feminists. An appeal to a definition. The dictionary is not the final authority on reality. There is nothing stopping groups working against equality from proclaiming themselves feminist. They do it all the time, in fact. Further, feminists, anti-feminists, traditionalists, etc. can and do "strive for equality by improving the standard of women's lives". The definition is so broad …
/r/MensRights08/01/17 08:16 PM
2

If by some miracle the Trump White House reverses that policy based on the fact that college women are less likely to be victimized than the general population be on the lookout for feminists to claim that the policy itself was responsible for a "decline".
/r/MensRights07/01/17 12:59 AM
1

Likely they are working from a pigeonholed definition of "men's rights" as minority/gay rights only and pretending "Men's Rights" means pro-rape.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 06:25 AM
1

You advocate giving hormone-blockers to confused preteens. If you avoid calling yourself an MRA then I can only thank you for not marring the movement.
/r/MensRights30/12/16 11:07 PM
1

The consequences of being wrong include the consequences of applying blockers to a child that later "decides" to stick with their birth gender. You're citing potential future jawline aesthetic preference as a reason to stunt a child's growth and development. Can they not live a "normal healthy life" with a slightly squarer jaw?
/r/MensRights30/12/16 08:47 PM
2

Except those hormones influence brain development and would affect the child's psychology. By blocking them you ARE exerting influence on their choice.
/r/MensRights30/12/16 08:16 PM
2

You're trying to change the wrong thing. Rather than trying to slot your jumped-up toddler into the rigid gender role of their uninformed choice you should be supporting simple gender non-conformity. If you truly want your child to have options you should let them use the valuable grace period that is youth to figure out what they want. If your kid comes to you and says "I think I'm supposed to be a boy" your response shouldn't be "Let's get you hormone therapy and a name-change." It should be "…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 08:04 PM
6

When they said that only idiots would reproduce in the future we pictured hicks raising litters of fat, dumb children. Who would have thought that middle-class leftists would offer stiff competition in the form of encouraging identity disorders in kids just out of diapers?
/r/MensRights30/12/16 06:30 PM
19

I didn't see much soul-searching on the part of the people calling the other side "deplorables". I saw some moderate outlets speaking from outside the bubble trying to get them to realize the error of their ways, their pleas mostly falling on deaf ears. The doubling down started on election night. Actually, it's only this week that I've stopped seeing the daily "Trump is Retarded Orange Hitler for [any action]" front page post from the main news subreddits. Now it's every two or three days.
/r/MensRights29/12/16 06:57 PM
4

It really looks like both parties' insiders pulled a mulligan this cycle. The Dems because they needed to reward Clinton for being a loyal lapdog all these years and the Repubs because they were basically fine with Clinton since she aligns with their insane views on geopolitics. For her part Clinton expected to glide into office and didn't bother to "stoop" to campaigning to the parts of the country she needed to win. Also, most people just hate her. Anyone besides Hillary Clinton would have bea…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 12:33 AM
3

Requirements vs. qualifications. Requirements are set down in the Constitution. To be President (or Vice President) you are required to: Be a natural-born citizen of the USA Be thirty-five years old Have resided in the USA for fourteen years Not have already served two terms as president OR one full term and more than two years of another President's term Not be barred from holding federal office by the US Senate following an impeachment conviction Not have rebelled against the US after taking a…
/r/MensRights27/12/16 09:50 PM
7

Demonization* most likely. The idea that any expression of male sexuality is inherently evil and harmful to women.
/r/MensRights26/12/16 10:58 PM
35

And feminists will quickly step out of the way to let such female exceptionalist/supremacist bullshit spread unchallenged. Feminists have something to say about every aspect of male behavior and gender roles down to whether the way we sit is misogynistic, yet when women actively oppose equality they suddenly can't find a critical bone in their entire bodies.
/r/MensRights26/12/16 10:47 PM
6

I assume you mean fundamentalist* Muslim country. Only those westerners who are already very strictly religiously/culturally conservative would find such places acceptable, regardless of gender, so it doesn't comport with the point of the topic. OP is not comparing western women to non-western women, he's comparing western women to western men. As to OP's question I think the answer is "probably not any time soon". We can't even really get honest-minded feminists to drop the "wage gap" nonsense …
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:26 AM
7

Too often feminists shield and validate such people rather than challenge them.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 11:48 PM
316

Exactly. Threatening people is already illegal. We're not talking about that, though. We're talking about people who unironically believe that men should be made to cross the street or loudly announce their intentions when their paths happen to cross a woman's on the sidewalk at night. We're talking about people who claim to feel fear of imminent danger whenever confronted by ideas they disagree with. Poll /r/feminism and ask them if they feel "unsafe" when someone reveals they're an MRA during …
/r/MensRights18/12/16 08:37 PM
4

Dumb fucking cunts, everyone of em Who specifically?
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:01 AM
-2

It's bizarre that the media has completely turned off the filter on leftist extremists. At this point I honestly can't tell if it's being done to promote them or expose them, or if they're simply chasing their viewership and pageclicks with mindless catharsis/commiseration content now that they've lost.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 07:42 PM
2

there is a conservative bloc of feminists On college campuses? Certainly there are forms of class critique - conservative and progressive - that don't rely on Marxist thought. College Feminism isn't one of them. That feminists tend to favor socialism is incidental It isn't incidental, it's necessary. Campus Feminism's continued existence is reliant on a socialistic relationship with society. It's an extortionist, self-perpetuating make-work program. And it has fairly nakedly cribbed the centrall…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 06:23 PM
1

No argument here. Just pointing out the difference between that and the classic "she was asking for it dressed like that" bs. Style of dress has nothing to do with anything except in the minds of feminists and traditionalists who think men are driven to rape-lust at the sight of a high hemline.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 11:11 AM
3

You're spreading nonsense that only aids the hysterical feminist narrative. This isn't a Lifetime movie. Women aren't raped because they were out too late wearing a short skirt. In fact, the vast majority of victims are familiar with their attacker. An actual correlation exists between drug and alcohol consumption, so an example of good advice is "don't get blackout drunk/high around people you don't trust 110%". I follow this advice and I'm mostly worried about getting a photo-realistic dick dr…
/r/MensRights06/12/16 04:09 AM
26

It's likely subconscious action on the part of many individuals, but it certainly carries the mark of abuser behavior.
/r/MensRights04/12/16 05:18 PM
29

Showing vulnerability will not get you sympathy, but ridicule. They know this. It's a deliberate attempt to trick men into self-alienating themselves from most of society. Then the only people left to take them in are feminists. They'll be treated like insects, of course, but at least they'll belong somewhere ...right? It's a classic isolation tactic used by practiced abusers that can be summed up as "now nobody will have you but me."
/r/MensRights04/12/16 04:23 AM
7

height:men::weight:women If you're a tall man or a fairly thin woman you really don't have much to worry about. Only one of those conditions can be changed by actions, though. Also remember that women are focused exclusively on the top men not out of a sense of entitlement, necessarily, but because that's what they're wired to do.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 01:54 AM
3

Nothing facilitates traditional gender roles like broad-based prosperity and the availability of choice.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 07:52 AM
106

Actively replacing male workers with female workers is often an anti-union move. New employees also typically cost less than employees with seniority, and "feminizing" a workplace is a socially acceptable excuse to make such a swap. This could also be a move to shift women from the more difficult patrols (especially those more likely to deal with violent crime) to safer ones. Since the article fails to mention what happened to the previous male employees it's likely that they were transferred to…
/r/MensRights26/11/16 07:11 AM
2

As long as feminism objects to gender roles for women, it can't be traditionalism. Period. Paying lip-service to liberating women from the concept of strict gender roles doesn't mean they actually do so or even try to do so. In fact I would argue that feminism doesn't seek to liberate women, merely to exercise control over their harness. You saw how women were treated by feminists when they didn't support Hillary this election cycle. But even accepting the premises that feminists truly object to…
/r/MensRights24/11/16 12:19 AM
3

girlwriteswhat's videos go into some detail about the consequences for women's actions falling on her husband in pre-modern western legal traditions. Most women were not single mothers. Feminism is absolutely neo-traditionalism. It demands that men protect and provide for women with no expectation of reciprocity. It demonizes male sexuality. It relies on "protect the women" herd mentality as the prime mechanism of social coercion. It emphasizes women's primacy in matters of the home and children…
/r/MensRights23/11/16 11:10 PM
1

Is that first law about consensual sodomy or what we would call anal rape of a male? It seems to be solely a rape law. The second specifies.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 07:20 AM
3

Plenty of traditionalist societies place the consequences for a woman's behavior on the men or boys in her life, including pre-modern America. This is one of the tell-tale signs that Feminism is a form of neo-traditionalism.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 07:07 AM
16

He said that like feminists he has some negative views on the opposite gender but unlike feminists he doesn't try to mandate that they change based on his personal views. It's unreasonable to expect others to have a completely objective view on a topic. It is reasonable to expect them not to force their subjective views on others or to "make the personal political".
/r/MensRights18/11/16 12:35 AM
2

We must ask "is the system set up so that this seems like the sanest course of action?" Women are incentivized to make false accusations and any disincentives (the detrimental effect this will have on both their kids and her former husband) are greatly downplayed ("they'll be fine", "he deserves it").
/r/MensRights17/11/16 09:27 PM
1

By itself, sure. Not in conjunction with the other things OP mentioned.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 09:00 PM
3

It's really sad the way Clinton and co are blaming the loss on two things - gender and the FBI guy. I think it's only going to boost support for Trump at the next election. Insulting everyone who didn't vote for her, by eg. accusing them of being sexist, is not going to endear them to her or the next dem candidate. As someone who never wants to see that cadre gain political power it's not sad to me at all. I think the dems and left media have shot themselves in the foot with regards to doomsayin…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 06:20 PM
3

This is already done in Western countries. For example in the UK the Labour Party has women-only shortlists for 'safe' constituencies. And I think some countries have a certain portion of parliamentary seats set aside constitutionally the way they do for minority groups.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 05:52 PM
4

The biggest effect Trump had was showing that Regressives are divorced from reality and will use the "hate label" bludgeon indiscriminately. When you're trying to convince people that the guy holding up the rainbow flag is going to round up all the gays they figure out what you're about very quickly.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 11:56 AM
6

Women were willing to vote for a guy that was supposedly a pussy-grabbing maniac. Draw whatever conclusions you may from that, but this is the one I'm drawing. "I like his policy on trade, but then again he's on tape as a heterosexual male so it's a real tossup." "That Klan endorsement doesn't really sit well with me, but his boorish attitude just gets me so wet!" Neither of those seems likely to me. I don't think women vote with their vaginas like that. My conclusion is that comments about puss…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 11:37 AM
2

In America the Executive body and the Parliament (Congress) are separate. Those Constitutional duties you listed may originate in the Congress, but they are handled on a day-to-day (year-to-year, decade-to-decade, etc.) basis by the Executive. And bureaucratic functionaries within the Executive maintain inertia unless told to do otherwise. Congress is actually very far removed from "running the country". Except for a relatively small number of bills that will lapse unless renewed on a regular ti…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 10:52 AM
9

The vast majority of those on the left are not pushing for the radical Marxism you described. The vast majority of those on the right are not pushing for the radical (revisionist) traditionalism you described. What the hell are you talking about?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 01:44 AM
2

And as I implied above their reasoning is bad. They feel that there should be a woman president regardless of any other factors (number of viable female candidates compared to male, female interest in the office compared to male, perceived quality of candidates compared to male, etc.) and if that doesn't happen it's because of sexism. It's as stupid as saying black men have more opportunities than white women because we've had a black male President. Drawing conclusions about an office sought by…
/r/MensRights11/11/16 11:19 PM
3

The BLM argument is that blacks are suffering negative outcomes disproportional to their population. The feminist argument is that women are oppressed despite them enjoying positive outcomes disproportionate to their interest is many of the facets of life they claim are patriarchal, solely because women do not occupy 50+% of the positions feminists want them to have. Hillary's loss is not a defeat for little girls, the fact that she almost won (and did win the popular vote) despite being widely …
/r/MensRights10/11/16 11:21 PM
1

I remember strict English teachers scolding us for using it instead of "he or she", and that was decades ago. Yup. Then it was "if you don't know the gender pick a pronoun and stick with it throughout (pick 'she' if you want a higher grade *wink* *wink*)" as I got into Middle and High School.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 11:10 PM
7

I think this election showed that it's not about finding diamonds in the rough, it's about avoiding obvious traps. So to answer your question any woman can get the Republican nomination and win the general, as long as she doesn't have 25 years of skeletons in the closet and refuse to engage with half the country. The people saying white males won the election by themselves for Trump have ignored that Hillary pandered mostly to young white females. Even their much vaunted minority base was taken …
/r/MensRights10/11/16 04:35 AM
4

Exit polls. Pollster stands outside a polling place asks about the respondents' backgrounds, who they voted for, why, etc.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 03:38 AM
12

I hope that this is a wake up call for the left that their campaign of self-righteous outrage and the affectation of moral-panic is not working. Calling political opponents racist/sexist/homophobic/islamophobic/bigot/xenophobe/misogynist etc. does not work. It's time for the left to wake up, deal with the facts, stop dismissing valid opinions, stop deliberately mis-characterising the oppositions points, stop burying their head in the sand and start acknowledging the real problems. Nope. Check th…
/r/MensRights09/11/16 01:27 PM
59

IIRC Rolling Stone also pilloried one of the Deans of the university (Eramo) for what they claimed was a lackluster response to the "rape". Even though the person they got the "rape" story from (Jackie) was on the record with Rolling Stone as telling them the Dean's response was more than satisfactory. So Rolling Stone must now pay damages for libeling her (Eramo). The fraternity's suit against Rolling Stone hasn't gone to trial yet.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 09:58 PM
3

Who was arrested in the Jackie situation?
/r/MensRights08/11/16 09:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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