TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

loose-dendrite Archive

View 4 posts and 2,140 comments by loose-dendrite 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 2,140 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I suspect the problem is the breakdown of family. It started with the nuclear family isolating immediate families then exacerbated as even that eroded into single-parent households. We used to be raised by many people who cared about us throughout our lives. Now it's many people raising us (teachers and the like) but only a small handful care about us... if any.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:03 AM
1

Aha! Ad hoc hypothesis.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 11:45 PM
1

I don't know the exact one but it's similar to confirmation bias and rationalization. It can be hard for humans to tell the difference between fitting theory to evidence(good, science) and fitting evidence to theory(bad, rationalization). Requiring advance prediction fixes this. This is the problem with Patriarchy Theory. Men oppression of women should predict male custody. That's how oppression works and that's how actual patriarchies (father's rule) historically work. That is not how any Weste…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 11:43 PM
1

It doesn't actually follow but this is the exact line of reasoning feminists use when they say that men can't act feminine because patriarchy while women can act masculine because patriarchy. The real reason is gender roles are tighter for men because feminism does what it does: free women. Feminists say that femininity itself is loathed and gay men are treated as women are treated.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 04:09 PM
2

Perhaps boys with only female siblings become conservative and in favor of traditional gender roles because they were forced into their gender role. The article doesn't mention, so I'll assume the researchers didn't measure, the effect when a girl has only brothers or what happens in various mixtures. Only familiars with a single boy and one or more girls and families with all girls are mentioned. Without those numbers, this study means nothing except that gender roles exist and influence politi…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 07:22 AM
1

It's possible the study has enough power to make assertions out of those percentages. I kind of doubt it though.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 07:10 AM
2

You can't dismiss what they say on the basis of what else they believe but you can not listen to them on the basis of what they believe. Starting from a flawed premise, any true thoughts are coincidence.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 06:23 PM
1

Yup! The latter. Thanks for asking for a source anyway. I need it to keep my statements in check.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 06:01 PM
1

That's the whole premise behind the "Teach rapists not to rape" and "Take back the night". That's what "rape culture" means: society considers rape the fault of the victim aka it's not wrong to rape, it's wrong to incite rape. Try wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:51 PM
1

Well she's dead but when she lived, it was good. This seems like a pointed question so I'll elaborate: my mother gave me anti-feminist advice that I disregarded because I actually believed feminist bullshit when I was younger.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 01:09 AM
1

My apologies. I actually agree with you about that.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 12:16 AM
1

Oh it would definitely be a double standard. It'd just be more cost effective.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 10:58 PM
1

Not sure how that's relevant or why I got upvoted and you downvoted for expressing similarly cynical points of view. Again I don't think we were having an earlier related conversation ???
/r/MensRights07/07/13 10:57 PM
2

You believe some things good and some things bad but you didn't come to these beliefs yourself. Others gave them to you or set you up to come to these conclusions. We get our beliefs from our environments. Had you been born several hundred years ago, you would view slavery as moral. Not only does everyone believe it's acceptable but it's better than just killing your enemies or leaving them to starve after you pillage and burn their homes. It's also essential to the economy! Unless you have enga…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 06:12 PM
2

I suspect it has more to do with fear of appearing immoral rather than actual fear of being enslaved.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 11:06 PM
1

Gratz!
/r/MensRights05/07/13 09:42 PM
1

That isn't good advice because he will go to jail. So you are bad advice mallard (the red one) instead of the regular good advice mallard.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:55 PM
1

Your mallard is red ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:45 PM
1

Your word choice implies that she acted reasonably. You really mean to say that she likely had reasons that seemed good to her. You should focus on how the fundamental attribution error is a failure mode rather than actually discuss her behavior because people aren't reading what you are writing. They're responding to what almost everybody who writes like you says, which does not suit your purpose.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:44 PM
1

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:42 PM
2

But that is the reality of it all. The biggest pissant thing about it is that these people are the safest demographic in the world. They're safer than every man of every age and race, they're probably even safer than children - especially if you count bullying. They're safer than all other women anywhere else in the world. They're completely, utterly out of their minds when they walk around scared out of their minds. I've long ago concluded that their mentality is only made possible because they…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:26 PM
1

/r/mensrants is the place for this. This isn't a wrong choice either though.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:58 PM
1

Beating them if they resist is.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:49 AM
1

They kidnap (arrest) you for it. If you resist then they beat you and cage you for longer. I use these words because they are accurate even though we dress these actions in nicer words.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:30 AM
1

This is similar to my view.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:57 AM
1

PUAs don't give shit tests. They have strategies for responding when women give them shit tests.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:11 PM
1

There is also nothing wrong if you want to use the term "femmsplain" or whatever to refer to a woman who thinks a father needs to be taught how to take care of his children. I am reasonably certain that a non-trivial portion of the feminist population disagrees. The unilateral notion of privilege exists precisely to allow gendered terms against men but not against women. In this case, femmsplain is nonsense because women lack the privilege men wield when they mansplain. Though you disagree with …
/r/MensRights01/07/13 07:48 AM
1

You need more upvotes but I can't afford to give you gold :(
/r/MensRights01/07/13 07:40 AM
1

Women take longer to use the restroom than men. Unfortunately that's this optimistic reasoning doesn't explain why both bathrooms aren't unisex.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 07:36 AM
1

Every analogy ignores the particulars in favor of the abstract. It's not the very best analogy but it's also only really dealing with the morality of a person part of one set making decisions about people in another set. The underlying reality is that consequences aren't isolated to any arbitrary set of people directly involved.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 02:55 AM
2

/swoons Of course username_logon! I guess it is a good idea...
/r/MensRights30/06/13 04:47 PM
1

The fact is that taking the starting point at gynocentrism as a product of survivalism, is the only productive manner of examining mens' and womens' issues in a productive and profound manner. Since this isn't what you said, I didn't assume it was your meaning.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 08:15 AM
2

It's written "transgendered". You can also say MtF for a shorthand though I suppose that might be offensive to someone. And yeah, it is suspicious that a game built to reward high multitasking skill is dominated by men when women supposedly are better multitaskers.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 07:58 AM
1

You just stated that the need to survive causes gynocentrism. A direct contradiction to your earlier statement.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 07:48 AM
1

I think bare survival is a more basic cause than gynocentrism.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 07:08 AM
2

Where my mind immediately went.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:43 AM
1

Your thesis is outside the scope of mine but I agree. I hadn't considered that male authority could legitimately derive from experience. On reflection that was my underlying assumption but I never directly considered that. Thanks!
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:58 AM
1

That's fair. I judge him on some of his posts looking like something an earnest person is unlikely to write. Too many of his posts are like that. Also he has messaged me saying to be quiet about his trolling. (I wish I could leave it at that but to be honest, that isn't strong evidence.)
/r/MensRights29/06/13 12:09 AM
2

They found a 20% increase in sociopathy in circumcised men. The error margin was 5% so there's a real chance that it has a serious impact.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:11 PM
1

I think he's just the rare competent troll.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 10:55 PM
2

There's a non-zero chance he's just a troll trying to build cred but is actually deluded enough to think mras agree with that bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:31 PM
2

Ironically, feminism ignores material conditions in their theory while applying marxist materialism to gender.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:28 PM
1

Forcing men to labor for women increasing population growth, reducing labor cost and increasing potential military membership.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 08:25 PM
2

Your post was perfect in length.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 11:28 PM
2

Does patriarchy theory anticipate men having default custody or does it anticipate women having default custody?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:50 AM
1

The reasoning is pretty scary. Men oppress women in exactly the same sense that the master oppresses the slave. Prostitutes are forced to fuck men, specifically the johns, to survive. By attacking the johns, this oppression dynamic is attacked in exactly the same sense that attacking slavers attacks slavery. There are of course variations. The only important feature of these variations is that they start with the conclusion that prostitution is bad and men's fault and develop a reason to believe…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:29 AM
1

We were recently vote brigaded.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 12:16 AM
1

Socialism works fine even in scarcity. If there isn't enough to go around then socialism permits some to starve while others survive or prosper. Communism however does not operate under scarcity. Socialism's big difference from capitalism is just who gets the profits and makes the business decisions (or chooses management). That drastically increases the size of the middle class but doesn't actually do anything for non-workers. At least not directly. Edit: Sorry I should say that the more restri…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:10 PM
2

No, communism is where people work as they are able and consume as they require. Socialism is merely worker control of capital.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:03 PM
1

Oh. Under communism, resources are shared so women needn't work to benefit. Under socialism, resources aren't necessarily shared so women may need to work to benefit.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 09:22 AM
1

Right wing means capitalist, among other things. Rightists support hierarchy and social inequality (or maybe merely social difference?). There isn't anything about the men's rights movement as a whole that's capitalist or socialist. Most MRM issues are related to statism but that has nothing to do with capitalism. Note that the free market also has nothing to do with capitalism, at least with respect to socialism. Most people and indeed definitions lump free market and capitalism together but th…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:58 AM
1

Examples of forms of socialism? There's state socialism and libertarian socialism. State socialism is kind of like state capitalism in that that the State takes from men and gives to women. Libertarian socialism lacks a State so women have to actually be directly involved in labor to get its benefit. Of course, a cooperative can be designed to give homemakers a stake in the business. Their fortune's tied to it, after all. Sorry if that was unclear. I don't know the extent of your knowledge (or w…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:48 AM
2

I am not a naturally assertive man, I forced myself to be that way because it's the only way a man can have any success. And the spinoff benefit is that I'm now assertive and take initiative at my job, something a lot of women struggle with. Exactly the same for me. Hell, it even helps me in my job a lot. I'm naturally very against being assertive because it feels like invalidating others' opinions but only like 10% of people who react at all to assertiveness react negatively. Nine allies for on…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:51 AM
2

That information has already been provided for you. Repeating it here wouldn't help.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 11:05 PM
2

I don't know how the word is commonly used. I have only ever seen it used in terms of reciprocation e.g. escalating conflict by pulling out a gun when someone pulls a knife on you.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:59 PM
1

That's a mirror of alimony, not cs
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:56 PM
2

That isn't actually necessary. This is nowhere near hard-hitting evidence about the pay gap but it is pretty good evidence against the belief that women earning less must be discrimination. Though of course there's already a great deal of evidence that the wage gap is not due to discrimination. This bit of evidence may not be very strong but it's better rhetoric to most audiences than the research. Actually it would go well with the research.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:21 AM
1

I'm upvoting you for your intention but 'tranny' is usually considered a pejorative.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:41 AM
1

Not really true. A woman can lose a lot of social standing in some communities if she accuses someone well-liked.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:46 AM
1

They just had to embrace what they hated.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 03:17 AM
1

I'm left-wing and there are several other left regulars as well. Like genuinely anti-capitalist rather than social democrat. Plus there are social democrats here.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:41 PM
1

Shit, /r/mensrants (with an 's').
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:07 AM
2

/r/menrants might be better
/r/MensRights20/06/13 02:36 AM
2

That documentary might have been about way more than just that but it did deal with how rape is treated in prison.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 02:17 AM
1

The difference is 400%, IIRC. Definitely more than 300%.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:42 AM
1

It sounds like this is compatible with your view but patriarchy actually strengthens male parental rights. It's feminism that reversed from men unfairly getting custody to women unfairly getting custody. So you are asserting that the feminist movement has promoted patriarchy at least in some ways.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 11:06 PM
1

MANY, in fact the majority of the Worlds population, would ague with that. No further explanation is need on their view. Or do they have cognitive bias? The default state for a human is heavily biased in predictable ways. But specifically this bias is something like projecting or personification. Maybe treating intuition like it's a special class of knowledge rather than the algorithms presently encoded in the brain.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:47 AM
1

Wait, libertarians? That's just silly.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:39 AM
2

'God did it' is also simpler than many scientific theories. 'God did it' is actually an immensely complex hypothesis. The physics behind lightning strikes is trivial compared to complexity of a human-like entity like Thor. Thor just feels simpler because our minds are built to simulate humans so things like "anger" feel simple even though they are actually very complex.' I see this as more an argument over epistemology than how cognitive biases evolved. Our disagreement isn't on which theory to …
/r/MensRights18/06/13 02:18 AM
1

That's a nice enough hypothesis but hard to test. I think it's simpler - and therefore by default (without any evidence) more right - that cognitive biases are merely the baggage of evolution. Much like how our optic nerve blocks our vision, we evolved intelligence and stuck with that flawed model because any mutation away from it was harmful. We hit a local maximum.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 12:21 AM
1

Er, lesbian separatists do exist. I know one and it seems likely some of her friends I don't talk to are the same. I don't know if it's common but you're the one who brought that notion into the discussion.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 09:18 PM
1

Heh heh. More people with no sense of skepticism. I wonder, how many such people even thought "who has the most money" or "who controls the most money"? Is it zero?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 08:31 PM
1

I think it's more likely that we have cognitive biases because they just came along with our version of intellect. Any evolutionary advantage is up against having a faulty view of the world and therefore doing things like throwing away virgin women to appease fake gods. Being wrong is expensive but mutating better cognition is extremely unlikely to occur.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 08:20 PM
2

Naw. Some radical feminists consider transwomen to be essentially infiltrators into female spaces. It's a whole big drama.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:56 AM
2

YES! It's a theory that predicts everything. Men get custody? Patriarchy! Women get custody? Patriarchy! Human thought is just broken unless intentionally guided to avoid this class of failure.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:36 AM
2

Well they are speaking in terms of classes. The idea is that in the same way that rich people have to deal with being harassed for money, men have to deal with male-specific problems. Bullshit, of course, as an honest objective measure of gender advantage/disadvantage clearly shows men as a class are in a far worse position than women as a class even though some men are above everyone else.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:34 AM
1

That's the one that had a 0% rate of actually being correct, right? That was amazing to read. It's extremely improbable that the author could be that wrong without knowing better and deciding to lie.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:32 AM
2

This is the standard feminist position on sex work. Pro-sex feminists are in favor of full legalization but I haven't met any who care very much. The anti-sex feminists, like all radical feminists, care a great deal so their will is what is actually enacted.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:30 AM
1

Eh? I could see an argument for the second law of thermodynamics but the first?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:24 AM
1

I don't mind pimps being prosecuted but I might have to defend the protection of pimps on ideological grounds. But customers shouldn't be prosecuted. It's really just the sex-negative feminists who hate johns but pity prostitutes since they needed a model that attacks men and defends women and couldn't find any other way to criminalize sex without also criminalizing women's choices.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:22 AM
1

I don't remember it that way. I'm sure individual MRAs were douchenozzles but in my recollection /MR was actually very classy that day.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:20 AM
2

Oh yeah, I remember that. /MR was actually very classy that day.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:18 AM
1

Libertarian market socialist. Maybe anarchist... I'm not yet entirely convinced.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:23 PM
2

Don't trip. I've posted in amr, several srs subs, and several feminist subs including a relatively (relative to feminist subs in general) bigoted one. I just wanted to get out of the mr bubble. My views were only reinforced but it's crucial to avoid confirmation bias and to understand others. If I wasn't once willing to come here to see what those crazy probably-misogynists were saying, I'd still believe a great deal of feminist bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:16 PM
1

It's not a matter of what you're owed. It's a matter of economic inequality. If women can't earn as much as men due to being barred from the trades and higher education then women don't really have a choice. They either get and stay married or live in abject poverty. Though I doubt this was ever a realistic concern for women except in the class where men were impoverished too. Anyway, the concern for women that justifies alimony is much like the concern men have today that justifies the abolitio…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:44 AM
2

Irrelevant correction: there is a beetle that has a vagina but instead gets impregnated in the abdomen.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 03:54 PM
1

You shouldn't pay attention to ideals or rhetoric. Look at impact.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 03:43 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:33 AM
1

Some doctors do the same with men getting vasectomies.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:26 AM
1

mrref or somewhere has the stats. Basically, a metastudy of over 200 studies found that half of violence is recipricol, a quarter is purely male->female, a quarter is purely female->male.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:19 PM
1

Not sure about custody but prenups don't do shit about child support regardless of what the mother does because child support is the child's right, not the mother's, so the mother can't sign it away. Of course the checks still get made out to the mother.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:43 PM
2

There are infinite possibilities. This means that any given possibility has effectively zero chance of being true. Evidence distinguishes between possibilities. Therefore every possibility is considered false until evidence supports it. If one does no demand evidence to believe then the only way for them to be consistent is to believe everything with that level of evidence. If you can call that belief.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 04:54 PM
1

My assertion actually doesn't involve authority at all. I'm relying on the fact that two people using Bayes' theorem to determine their certainty in their beliefs approach agreement as their evidence increases. No matter how certain each was originally. Of course Bayes' theorem is intractable for actual human decision-making but there're heuristics so it's still practically useful. Which of course is the solution to the problem post modernism sought to answer but utterly, utterly failed. Oh, eve…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 07:59 AM
2

Well, the attrition rate is like 2%. IIRC, the conviction rate is over 50%, in line with other crimes. But prosecutors only want to go to court if they think they'll win so that isn't a surprise. But it's been a year since I looked this shit up.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 07:20 AM
1

It seems that almost every social organizational structure/ideology will eventually split into sects if left to grow and change for long enough. Without a central authority that actually maintains control, yes. Faith-based belief structures diverge because they are not based off of a single source aka reality. Their source is interpretation, of which there are literally infinite possible sources.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 07:13 AM
2

Whats more, it can be emotionally crushing if a guy doesnt push boundries. Source: had a female friend with a not terribly het boyfriend (I have additional evidence of that)
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:16 PM
1

Hit me up if you make a sub. OThompson (sp?) tried before but then he disappeared. I didn't stop wanting an egalitarian MRA sub.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:59 AM
2

By left you mean liberal like democratic party or left like socialist (aka left).
/r/MensRights22/05/13 11:03 PM
1

Not all women... but yes, it's generally beneficial for women so most women are OK with it. Most people are really very apathetic about ideals.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 05:08 PM
2

You might try actually reading some of the comments in that thread.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 10:54 PM
1

It's possible that virtually 100% of men were raped by women. Not likely, but the data doesn't say either way. But yeah, it's probably 60:40 or thereabouts.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:02 AM
2

That's the lowball estimate of female rapists. ~80% of males were raped by only a sole woman (at a time?) in their lifetime. If they were once raped by a woman and another time raped by a man then the female rapist is ignored. Also maybe if multiple women raped him. Yes, their reporting is that ambiguous. But it's amazingly good compared to most.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:05 AM
2

Women have more rights than men already. What's left is culture, which I am personally attempting to change. It's a small thing but more than most. Kind of identifying though so I can't say outside of promiting female agency in media.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:24 PM
1

Man I really hope this catches on. Right now any evidence of gender differences is attributed to Patriarchy no matter who is harmed or benefited. If feminists start using evidence of lack of gender difference as evidence of Patriarchy too then they will have gone full theist. Even the non-skeptical atheists may start wondering wtf is going on.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:54 PM
1

Oh my bad.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:42 PM
1

That's a website about rationality. Unfortunately some beliefs are just incompatible with rationality or empiricism. People correctly identify beliefs like "all beliefs should ultimately be grounded in empiricism" as a threat to a cherished belief they hold. This is true of religion as much as it's true of some sects of feminism (historicism, new or otherwise). The basic problem is that our minds don't discern truth automatically. Without training, we lack an intuition for truth. If a bunch of w…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 07:08 AM
1

You strike me as someone who actually cares about having correct beliefs rather than merely appearing to. Unfortunately I can't offer any advice on fixing people in general because being right conflicts with many people's beliefs. But if you haven't seen it already, the sequences at lesswrong are an excellent place to learn about how your mind sucks and how one actually approaches being right. I recommend Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions as a start point.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:28 AM
1

It makes it unlikely on its face. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong but it does mean investigation or third party testing is needed. In this case, the methodology is crap. For one, it's not "rape", it's sexual assault. Two, many of the questions do not describe sexual assault and therefore are invalid. Three, they ignore the other obvious question - how many men were raped using those criteria - and therefore privilege the beliefs they want. If you're interested, the CDC found that men are …
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:19 AM
1

That is what the CDC found, though they explicitly declined to count male rape victims as rape victims.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:12 AM
2

TMF's point is that even with absurd levels of non-reporting, 1 in 5 is an absurd claim. Such a statistical improbability would require quite a bit of evidence to believe.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:10 AM
1

No. They do not consider hours worked beyond 35. Men work way more than women so they can't and still show a gap.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 08:01 PM
2

I can corroberate (sp?). I have newbies run through my testplans to tell me where they are unclear or incorrect because I am too practiced to even notice.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:07 AM
1

Picking a single definition is meaningless. Intent behind words is what matters unless your aim is manipulation. Which, I suspect, is why casual feminists believe weak definitions of patriarchy while hardcore feminists believe strong definitions. You get snagged with the weak and led into the strong. The strong definition of patriarchy is the one every feminist uses to support sexist beliefs, though they hide behind weaker definitions that are easily proven and far more pleasant on the mind unta…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 03:50 AM
1

CrossHook abandons accuracy for impact with little provocation. The essence of his statement may be useful but it's clearly incorrect in its actual form.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 03:23 AM
2

Women did start living far longer when childbirth stopped being as dangerous. Which is just a medical issue - it's possible that most medical resources should be given to men because women need far fewer resources to advance their average lifespan.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 10:37 PM
1

If anything it's a women's rights issue that only the MRM could help with since MRAs outright reject feminist orthodoxy. But not an actual MR issue.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:17 PM
2

They are definitely decentivizing marriage by incentivising divorce. The legislation is intended to help the oppressed women of India by being vastly unequal. But then it also applies to nonoppressed women. A non-Statist solution would be better but that ain't gonna happen.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:53 PM
2

You may find that people you thought would ridicule you actually support you. Most of the people I know who actually know anything at all about men's rights love the ideas and hate the people in it. Others would just get sad because they love how tragic their life is (a coping mechanism, I imagine). But while I don't particularly like a sizable minority of the MRM, I understand them and do like a lot of the people here. They're passionate and purposefully anti-PC but they don't actually hate wom…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:40 AM
2

Dudebro
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:19 PM
1

Whew. Had that not been utter projection I'd worry about aerial swine.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 03:49 AM
2

Excellent point. I still assume it's feminism based on raw chance but confirmation would be best.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 05:12 AM
1

This isn't really effective with the irrational but if you find yourself with a rational person, just point out that patriarchy theory is fitted to the evidence rather than the reverse and is therefore a bogus theory. It's non-predictive. For instance, under patriarchy would you not expect men to get child custody since it's desirable? Guess what? Men do get child custody under patriarchy! But when patriarchy dissolved, women started getting it. Patriarchy theory can't explain mutually exclusive…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 05:08 AM
1

I suspect that the fact that women have an in-group bias and men do not is because of feminism teaching women gender solidarity while teaching men gender betrayal. Ideally it'd be teaching human solidarity but that would support oppression according to their olympic "thinkers".
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:48 AM
1

You should have told her that men do do that. Feminists tear them down. Because men (well, MRAs. Not all men) do do that and feminists do tear them down.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:45 AM
2

This is how berkeley's works.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:29 PM
2

I doubt they are being gobbled up. They're just getting outnumbered.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 05:11 AM
2

Mostly a reaction to how the people bitching about objectification when cosplaying aren't talking about gawking but mere looking. Or they are incompetent communicators.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:43 AM
1

He is a meditation of reddiquette.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:13 AM
1

Minor critique: state not government.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:10 AM
2

I'd give it poor odds. I've followed only a few quotes people have made of what FRAs have said and every source I followed either lied or was hearsay in that they didn't ever directly quote a FRA. Also that's a feminist talking point despite MRAs rarely having a victim narrative in the oppression sense. Anyway tl;dr I give it a 60% chance it's a lie and an 80% chance it's dissembling in some manner. I'd go higher but I don't actually know the group in question.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 04:08 AM
1

Yup. But they fit their theory to even that data and say that that is benevolent sexism and therefore still oppressive to women. Which means that patriarchy theory cannot predict. Which means it's no more scientific a theory that Phlogiston theory.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 03:59 AM
1

So... are you decoupling organism and ejaculation or foregoing both?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:01 PM
2

Hahahahaha.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:00 PM
1

The original is where the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Matriarchy is the same only female. Feminists use a few definitions depending on how strong a claim they want to make but they don't use the original because even they don't believe we actually live in a patriarchy. Were they to use the original definition, they would have to conclude we live in a matriarchy if anything. Anyway, the weak definition is just gender roles. They could c…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:12 PM
2

It's an issue I have difficulty caring about outside of general egalitarian motivation. I have no interest in enforcing sex-gender pairing. I also can't imagine transgendered people having a negative impact on men's rights.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:34 AM
1

Is a troll but only I believe that, apparently.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:38 AM
1

I so much hate how much feminism resembles a virus and how it has infected leftist movements.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:36 AM
1

Contrary to your expectation, this would give power to the very misandric feminists you seek to disempower. This is exactly the belief that egalitarian feminists have that permits supremacist and hateful delusional feminists to use as a smokescreen. Casuals claim misandrists are not feminists but give them money, support, and rhetoric ammo by actually being egalitarian and therefore giving a positive public space to feminism.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:31 AM
2

Did she really just reason that because some men use kindness to harass, no man should be kind? Like, because she can't tell the difference, there isn't one? I know the speech she is using. It's what I use when I don't actually have a good reason to believe what I do. She could be partially swayed with a good argument 3 months after the argument. Long enough for her ego to accept it as her own idea.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:23 AM
1

Hey sorry to derail (yes you should downvote me) but I want to ask. Do you believe in Patriarchy?
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:20 AM
1

Ugh, I so hate how this is true but yet it is. We must teach the oppressed to be strong instead of teaching them that they are weak. It is true that they are weak for reasons outside their control but people internalize narratives. You have to teach someone that they are strong but held down. I really wish the left in general did this because that's what will actually bring about change.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:14 AM
2

Which can, of course, be voided at a later date if retroactively determined to be rape.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:12 AM
1

I enjoy this sort of comment you make. However, I think they would be better if you can fit in the notion that feminists promote a Victorian* view of sexuality and female agency. * I know a little bit of history here. Apparently Victoria was actually very into sex but played the "pure" lady for her subjects. Might just be Fair mythology though.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:10 AM
2

SRS believes in male consent. They just make sure to frame things such that male consent is irrelevant unless the male is Malay and the woman white or whatever.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:06 AM
2

It's kind of black right now. -SCIENCED BITCH
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:02 AM
2

Given gender rates of violence, he went with an extremely safe bet.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:01 AM
2

So this. She chose to cage and abuse him for years though he committed to crime. She's a monster even if she thinks herself good.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 03:52 AM
2

I love the naturalist fallacy. It may be the very easiest fallacy to convince someone is actually a fallacy.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 03:42 AM
2

Dude... a grown man claimed racism at a charity thing where we bagged food and gave it to people who needed it, every week. I wasn't there that day to attest to what happened but the church we were running it out of stopped the charity to avoid a lawsuit. I doubt there was any racism involved. The most likely reason is that a white woman cut him in line and when he tried to cut back, only his actions were seen so only he was rebuffed. That's usually how it went down in lines in elementary school…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:37 AM
1

How on earth did you find this comment 9-10 days after I posted it? Very few vegans support PETA and most vegans I know decry PETA when it comes up at all. Veganism is also not very political for most... but if veganism were a front for anti-human lobbying or something I'd call myself something else. "Strict vegatarian" is common for some.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:57 AM
1

Heheheh they actually cite the wage gap.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:29 PM
2

Just in case it isn't clear, all forums related to SRS are equally circlejerks. Their other forums just don't couple their two minute hate with their masturbatory discussion.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:31 AM
1

Will you please define then prove your belief about patriarchy?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:47 AM
1

?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 12:07 AM
3

This is part of why I consider common sense to be a red flag. Sure it's more likely to be true than a random belief. But it's not very likely to be true unless its truth directly affects someone's interaction with reality in a way that bullshit becomes immediately obvious.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:56 PM
2

Not all women but know how she reacts to past breakups. If she was at all vengeful then she will be the same with you. In divorce she will be worse - much more emotional investment and much more to gain from false accusations.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 03:42 PM
1

Whoa deja vu. Didn't this exact thread happen like six months ago? And a year ago? And 18 months ago?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:38 AM
3

There's a lot of folks here from anarchist to fascist. Recently the conservatives have been loudest. Sometimes it's the liberals.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:54 PM
1

If there aren't any female feminists around then male feminists can define it as they like too.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:52 AM
1

The correlation by education and gender is interesting.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:44 AM
2

I agree.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:30 AM
2

I can't speak to world-wide.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:24 PM
2

To be fair, they newspoke the definition of patriarchy once we stopped actually being one. So now it's everything from mere gender roles to what you said, depending on the feminist or how much misandry a feminist thinks her audience will swallow.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:06 PM
1

All possible evidence confirms existence of patriarchy. QED patriarchy exists!
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:04 PM
1

Ignore, mock, fight, co-opt, win?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:59 PM
1

It would be gracious of such feminists to refer to it as the matriarchy, then. But they won't because they don't really mean "gender roles" when they say patriarchy.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 07:24 PM
3

You're an interesting character crosshook. Half the time I want to strangle you and half the time I want to cheer you.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:30 PM
1

Femdom encompasses that.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:08 AM
2

Heheh it helps to TA. Suddenly I didn't need bathroom passes.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:04 AM
1

And they do get the same damn number.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:00 PM
2

He sounds like me if I were in such a class. I successfully argued for gun prohibition once despite being against it. Arguing the other side can be fun.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:49 AM
2

That's pretty close to my male experience in dating. I even have experience asking a girl out platonically and her switching from super noncommital to gung ho once I made it clear I just wanted more people at my event.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:38 PM
2

That's a weak version of patriarchy. Others believe that women are outright oppressed, not merely disadvantaged. By which metrics do you judge gender advantage and disadvantage? Your definition of patriarchy is susceptible to the apex fallacy - the notion that you look to those on top and judge society to be pro-male when those on the bottom are almost all male as well.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:47 PM
3

I had an OK time in /r/socialism when someone told me to fuck off for being an MRA* and everyone supported me since that was their reaction to my polite question. Dunno about the rest of the sub though. I don't think there actually are any leftist subreddits that haven't been infected by feminist thought. Unfortunately feminists talk a game of oppression and very few people anywhere are rational enough to reject it. Luckily the atheist community is doing so, at least... * I'm not really an activ…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:56 PM
2

Everyone has the right to be proud of who they are. This is the heart of white guilt and the heart of male guilt. If it actually accomplished anything good I wouldn't mind but it doesn't.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:05 PM
2

they're going to have an EXTREMELY hard time adapting to the rigorous coursework given to them once they arrive at the university One of the failing of equality of outcome...
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:03 PM
1

It's really just a casual hypothesis but thanks for the advice.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:57 AM
2

Judge an organization by its choices. I don't judge a person's stomach cells for the actions of the person. But nor do I withhold blame for the person who does evil when its stomach is blameless. Feminism is not so unified as a human body but even morality can be judged so so too can feminism. Feminist organizations are universally at best neutral to men and usually actively seek to harm men through lies, legislation, and anti-male propaganda*. Hundreds of thousands of feminists support these or…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:48 AM
1

Women thought that this was unfair and they wanted the vote but none of the responsibilities which came with it. This isn't entirely fair. Most women at the time were fine with this but it took some decades for the majority to decide this. Prior, women were fine with no suffrage and no obligation to kill and die for the State.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:32 AM
2

What the history books of 2200 say.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:27 AM
1

This is what I aim for. Anarchist?
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:20 AM
1

Interesting. That does quite a bit of damage to a hypothesis of mine. If women still usually file then there's some value to the idea that women, not men, having an easier time leaving abusive relationships causes women to initiate more divorces than men. If not then it's probably false. It's related to the hypothesis that women kill their husbands so much less than before for the same reason: they can actually leave while husbands being abused get to feel trapped until they snap. Though for thi…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:17 AM
1

Yeah somewhere but it was dead last I checked. If you want to get a mensrights irc channel going, I recommend posting a meetup time here to get the population high enough to be sustained. Just make sure you stay long enough that others can show up so 100 people don't all show up then leave before anyone else shows up...
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:10 AM
1

Of course it's moot. It's a thought experiment...
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:08 PM
1

Thanks! I needed feedback. What sounds air-tight to me clearly fails when tested. Which is basically my actual job so I dig it. I considered the class angle. It's a good rebuttal. I could probably go into how that means feminism only matters for the upper class since their only metric only deals with them. Something to get across that gender difference by itself only offers hypotheses, not proof. Yeah lived experience is an annoying argument. No chance of empirically proving it's meaningful and …
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:06 PM
1

Well, India has a legal system, but she decided to take the law into her own hands. I am arguing that it effectively doesn't. I don't really believe this but that's beside the point. If your land lacks a justice system and you want to prevent violence, you have very few options outside of capital punishment. Very much like what the first courts did - you punish crimes extremely harshly because justice could only be applied sparsely due to general poverty. So you either cut of a thief's hand or y…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:36 AM
2

(sorry for the rant) they'll waste time with showing you the majority of politicians are male. This is what I want them to do, actually, because it's the very best argument I know for the existence of patriarchy. And I know how to refute it: You're in college, right? Did you know that virtually all {politicians, CEOs, etc} are educated? Do you believe you seek to oppress the uneducated? I might also bring up height (adjusted for sex) but anyway that's the idea - their metric for oppressiveness i…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:24 AM
3

There really has been a stark increase in mildly feminist folks here. But that's a good thing. That's how we get new egalitarian MRAs - people who really do want equality but don't yet realize that feminism is NOT an egalitarian movement. But they are willing to give other modes of thought a chance.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:12 AM
3

Yup. Which is why my stock response to someone mentioning the patriarchy is "Can you prove the existence of the patriarchy, with concrete definition?" (I'm still working on the precise wording) It's a damn near neutral thing to ask since I'm not accusing them of being wrong. I'm merely asking them to define and defend the foundation of their entire belief structure regarding gender. I am a bit shocked and proud that I actually got an amazing response using this once. Not by the feminist of cours…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:00 AM
2

I really wish it worked quicker than it does. Unfortunately someone can become feminist by merely listening until their outrage shifts their perspective. Becoming rational is hard because you have to actually think critically even to learn it.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:30 AM
2

Oh ok lol. I'll do that now.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:12 AM
1

Um... Even if there is no legal system, that does not give her the right to murder her rapist. Her rapist deserves to have a a fair trial. Who is going to provide this fair trial? Monarchs?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:07 AM
2

I don't think it's much, if any, more exploitative than capitalism is anyway. Attacking the lack of worker ownership of capital would do more for hookers than prosecuting their only good source of income...
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:21 AM
1

Gender differences at the top are evidence. But they aren't very strong. For to believe male overrepresentation at the top to be proof of male oppression of women you must also believe that the educated oppress the uneducated and the tall, the short. Men don't have a bias in favor of women. They actually are biased in favor of women. Women however are biased in favor of women. This is from studies on gender differences on in-group bias.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:03 PM
2

Opposing free female birth control helps men since men pay most taxes. Not exactly a heavy-hitting example nor a men's issue (it's social and economic, not gendered).
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:57 PM
2

Communists aren't all like the dickheads of /r/communism.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:48 PM
2

That makes you a statist but I don't see why you'd call yourself a capitalist. Do you believe workers mustn't or cannot effectively own the capital they work?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:43 PM
2

Libsoc here.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:42 PM
2

They're definitely not polar opposites. Attempts at communism on a large scale have all degenerated into extreme capitalism (all capital is owned by the ruling party) but that doesn't say anything about actual communism except that feudalism probably can't transition directly into it. Anarchism is just a lack of oppresive hierarchies like states or owner-worker relationships. Communism when practiced without a state is very much compatible with anarchism.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:42 PM
1

Unfortunately there are people who come here you literally believe as you pretend to.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:56 PM
2

I discussed this with a radfem once. She had a info thingy on her wall to the effect "it's rape if she's had even a single drop of alcohol". I asked her about when the guy drank too and she said the poster isn't saying that's rape. So I told her yes, it very much does say that when a man and woman have drunken sex, the man is a rapist and the woman a victim. Since that's what it literally says. I don't think she understood what such propaganda does to impressionable males like, you know, the fre…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 06:12 AM
3

Again again again, that doesn't actually prove that women rape men as often as men rape women. It shows that women rape men at least 80% as often as men rape women. It doesn't explain the other 20%, which might be multiple females, females and males, or males. Also you might try incorporating some of sigil's talking points into your comment template. You already mention feminists so it might be a bit more biting if you pointed out that feminist covering-up of male victims is actual rape culture.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 06:09 AM
2

Comedians play off of stereotypes anyway so I wouldn't use them as a source of laughter unless they're doing actual social commentary. For what guys themselves say: there's a lot of variety. Some guys on reddit are extremely insistent that literally every straight male will fuck any hot woman regardless of things like relationships or crazy even though most men on reddit (who comment) disagree with them. They actually think they're lying. I know guys who talk about wanting to fuck all the time a…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 06:07 AM
1

Just pointing out that mdma isn't a hallucinogen.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:31 PM
1

That isn't what they mean by patriarchy. They use a new definition since the old is trivially untrue today.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 07:55 PM
1

My brazilian-american friend says gender roles are stronger in brazil than the US. California, anyway.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 07:37 PM
1

The assumption is that the justice system where she was wouldn't do anything even with evidence. If the State won't ensure justice then it doesn't have even a flimsy claim to a monopoly on force. I don't know if the part of India where this took place is like that or even if she was actually raped. Nor do I know the details enough to know if the death penalty would be reasonable here, though I doubt it. I have zero problem with "vigilante" justice if that's the only justice available. I mean, if…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:41 AM
3

This is why my ideal parenting situation is a group of people sharing child-rearing responsibilities. Let children be exposed to more personalities and ways of thinking while also ensuring they have many people who deeply care about them.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:16 AM
3

The short- and long-term impacts affect us even if all we do is live nearby.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:07 AM
1

Utter conjecture: women who want children get them far more often than men who want children so childless men are on average more likely to actually want children than childless women.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:08 AM
2

That's why I advocate no direct image posts (self post ok) in this sub. People can still see their images but the karma whore incentive goes away.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 12:57 AM
3

This is feminisms.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:16 PM
2

Many mras are former feminists or current feminists which feminists hate, to the point of blockading their speeches. The mrm exists because feminism has nothing positive to offer men despite the rhetoric.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:52 AM
3

Sadly, I doubt she realizes how it made him feel. People who believe such things have very little empathy for men. She probably believes he doesn't really mind being called a rapist since our culture totally supports rape.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:37 AM
3

Since the latest concern post we got an influx of lazy skeptics commenting. It's better than their absence but it's annoying while they learn.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:32 AM
2

Kind of telling.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 01:17 AM
2

My understanding is that males are more likely to excuse bad female behavior in juries. Rape cases, anyway.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:25 PM
3

My strategy is to teach rationality and let them lose feminism on their own reason.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:25 AM
3

I fucking love this.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 09:04 PM
1

We really shouldn't have brigaded. Upvote mras but please don't downvote people for being bigots when they don't realize it. It will only exacerbate the problem.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:09 AM
2

You are confused. Sex isn't inherently terrible so you must think men ignorant of what they do are malicious.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:58 AM
2

That review is wonderful. So much crazy.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:55 AM
2

Not often.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:31 AM
1

Sigil's saying that rejecting women who drink at all and citing feminism for why will create animosity towards feminism.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:13 AM
1

Beer can be done in 2 weeks but is more complicated.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 04:45 PM
2

I wonder how women would react to someone, male or female, defining what it means to be an adult woman, and how they are failing at it. They'd create feminism.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:30 AM
1

You know, I actually have seen this happen before. I hung around to make sure she didn't undress the half-conscious guy she mounted. Worked out in the end but I may have been the only person there who thought anything was wrong with that seen.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:09 AM
1

If that were the implication. But bearsalot_ said "suffering negative consequences". You are reducing the set of all negative consequences down to extremely negative consequences. This is obviously not a place where that particular bit of rhetoric is useful so I must assume you believe it's actually a good argument.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 02:11 AM
1

I knew a chinese man in high school who literally believed women were inferior to men.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:08 PM
2

I'm getting the impression that sexist men only express their sexism to their SO.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:06 PM
2

I get that. I mean specifics that show that western culture or US culture is rape culture. But without accepting common sense as reason since it's frequently wrong.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:00 PM
1

I think you are right but terrible at presenting your beliefs.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:13 PM
2

Do you really mean sub-culture? There are definitely localized memes and environmental factors that make crime more likely in certain areas and therefore is a crime sub-culture. Memes in the culture at large that cause pockets of high crime (capitalism (NOT free markets), other poverty factors, idolation of gangsters) do cause crime subcultures but do not make the culture at large a crime culture because crime does not happen in the culture at large. Muggings anyway... This does mean that the la…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:09 PM
2

You may be surprised to learn that a large number (majority?) of MRAs are former feminists. Usually because they are gender egalitarians who believes feminist rhetoric that feminism is pro-gender equality but then learned that actual feminism in action is not pro-gender equality. Kind of like scientology seeming scientific and useful but is actually a scam.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:43 PM
2

This article is amazingly fair-minded.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:40 PM
2

Your wife sounds uncommonly well-suited to birth humans.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:26 AM
2

Yes, exactly. Raw annual earnings. For the reasons you cite. That's what everyone is saying.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:23 AM
2

Strictly speaking, men far outearn women in raw salary. This is also almost soley because women want to underearn men because women trade earning potential for better hours and such and men heavily subsidize women's living expenses.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:07 AM
3

It's possible that natural and sexual selection are directly at odds w.r.t. breast size.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:15 PM
1

This is exactly what I've seen, being among people in both camps.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 06:45 PM
1

You replied to the wrong comment bud.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 04:48 AM
1

I've read a study on the effect of rape jokes on the prevalance of rape. It was extremely unconvincing once you take into account that it wholly relied on a very unconvincing metric that didn't even account for time since rape joke. Best I can say is that rape jokes could conceivably make rape more prevalent but it is by no means a solid theory and yet is an important part of "rape culture" theory as feminists use it.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:43 AM
3

More accurately, a female 4chan poster
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:31 AM
1

I'm reasonably certain feminism has little effect on male incarceration, positive or negative. It's a gender role issue that affects only males so feminists don't care. Now if incarcerating males for drug use helped women in a tangible way, feminists would promote it with the typical justification.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:03 PM
1

All evidence confirms the Patriarchy. Ergo, there is no upper limit on how strongly we should believe
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:45 PM
1

Non-sequitor?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:15 PM
2

I like the unity but the eu doesn't seem to be helping that very much. Plus it's another layer of state.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:13 PM
1

How do you reconcile your feelings with the facts since your feelings are wrong?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:44 PM
3

Thank you.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:38 PM
1

They also needed to avoid being publicly identified again so they can't be "doxxed".
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:56 PM
1

Elaborate to op
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:06 PM
3

Men like soap operas too.....
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:03 PM
1

Ah ok. Too much haskell >.>
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:17 AM
1

Put another way.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:17 AM
3

It's weak evidence for India but not non-evidence. We don't know the Indian rape rates but we do know the American rape rates and it's more likely that Indians are similar to Americans than different. Simply because humans are incredibly similar.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:15 AM
3

The theory could work that way but quotas do not. Quotas enforce equal outcome for unequal work and talent. The gloass ceiling is used to justify such quotas.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:48 AM
1

100% of the hang gliders I know are women.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:31 PM
2

What do you mean by ">>>"?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:23 PM
1

Not my experience at all but I do live in a college town.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:52 PM
1

Are you sure they actually do that comparison? All the wage gap studies i've read group professions too broadly and only differentiate hours by fulltime/not fulltime instead of hours worked.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:51 PM
1

If I'm unclear or missing something important, please let me know. I've never actually encountered someone who can argue about abortion rationally (in either camp) so I only barely developed my beliefs about it. It is clear that abortion does not solve single motherhood but that does not mean outlawing abortion won't exacerbate the problem. Did your mind immediately try to come up with excuses why women might have a harder time under the same circumstances? No, I just don't like the notion of a …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:27 PM
1

Disclaimer: I started writing this sober then got drunk. My apologies if this is horribly off. Genocide also reduces population growth, as do mass or nuclear bombing, or seeding the population with incurable, terminal diseases. Or we could go for a more open, honest method like those used in Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, or Michael Fedo's The Carnival, or Stephen King's The Long Walk. (Or the Hunger Games.) All of which cannot occur without policies worse than the population control they provid…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:27 AM
1

Which is why I argue from a policy perspective instead of moral. Abortions reduce population growth and planned pregnancy tends to lead to better people (I highly suspect). If it weren't an issue of conflicting rights then it would be easier to just stick with rights since they're usually the best policy.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 01:00 AM
2

I assumed he was pulling straight from Rand. If he wasn't then damnn he does need to read up on Objectivism.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:12 PM
2

A surprising number of people get their info from study summaries.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:33 PM
1

Seattle International Film Festival? Anyway it sounds like the sources have been updated since when I checked, no MRA was actually directly quoted and no MRA's public statement was used.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 08:11 AM
1

Assuming it hasn't changed since I last looked, each source looks fine but ultimately sources utter crap. Like quoting people quoting people who aren't representative of the mrm. Afaik that doesn't matter though. Wikipedia's epistemology isn't bayesian. It's an encyclopedia. As you've said, the solution is to get men's rights into sources we can use.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 07:03 AM
1

Haha yeah, we did stuff a bit like that too.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:53 AM
3

For what it's worth, I can confirm.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 04:07 AM
2

Children of nearly all ages flirt. They don't have the same intent teenagers or adults do but it's still flirting. And children use trivial acts of violence to flirt. Girls too.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 10:25 PM
1

This would be how things like child support and alimony aren't "income", yeah? Or how shared finances usually act as income for women, if you take an intense capitalist approach to property.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:07 AM
1

Or just poor. 1%ing virtually requires middle class childhood.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 07:18 PM
2

"So what evidence doesn't support your theory?"
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:23 PM
1

My experience with radical separatists has actually been positive. Could easily be an outlier, of course. Her friends were always cold to me but I don't know their self-identification.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:48 AM
3

I got banned too. I try to learn from non-mra communities but they are incredibly, objectively, close-minded.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:24 AM
1

I argue from a strongly rational* front. It rarely helps keep undefensive but it keeps most audiences neutral or on my side. Even when they actually disagree with me. * Relative to most. I get irrational when I get angry and don't carry around my sources.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:02 AM
2

They measured debt specifically so you're just wrong.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:20 AM
1

State controlled means of production is absolutely capitalism. Free markets are unrelated or the market leftists wouldn't exist and yet they do.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:11 PM
1

I know this isn't universally true but I live in one of the few places where an exception is likely.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:59 AM
1

This is something that occurred to me when processing the whole objectification thing. Did not the ancient Greeks find the male form beautiful?
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:00 PM
1

I see what you mean. But it's more effective to require the soundness of reason be dependent on how well believing it lets you predict the future. There're a few more or less precise ways of saying that but that's the gist. I think you are calling ideas logical just because they involve reasoning, which is giving them far too much credit. Since this is /MR, I'll tie this in by noting that this is why I'm not feminist. Feminist ideas are very logical in the loose sense and clearly involve a lot o…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:26 AM
1

Hmm. How can you disagree with something you consider logical? That's choosing to be wrong. That ain't how you should think if you care about doing anything useful.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:43 AM
1

How much do you actually know about how to use evidence? You should start there. I can give you some guidance if you are earnest but you can probably get ahold of something online. Hell, one of your fellow students has got to know, though probably not in the class you're taking.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:01 AM
2

Dunno why factories are listed as negative but anyway women do all of those things.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:24 AM
2

Well that would be greed. Racism is a mechanism used to make slavery possible.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 06:51 AM
1

Your statement is absurd but perhaps true because it's absurd.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 05:28 AM
2

It's your fault for looking suspicious. You should have chosen your parents better, rapist.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:06 AM
1

Not all people who disrespect or hate men are feminists. Feminism is more the propaganda wing.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:05 AM
2

That's true. We should continue to judge feminism by its actions, not its rhetoric. Even its most hateful rhetoric.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:08 AM
3

Which can include not willing to get married without one. Given this, it's not really reasonable to say that prenups are a good option. If you actually need one, it will be thrown out.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:51 PM
1

This is my tact. I'd get married if by objective standards I can predict the outcome. I know that by default I am so incompetent that I cannot judge my own incompetence but eventually I learn.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:11 AM
1

For what it's worth, I agree with you except for the capitalism.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 03:07 AM
3

Does she even know how to use her knife in a fight? It's probably a liability for her because Mythical Rapist Man will just take it from her and now he has a knife.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:47 PM
1

How many pockets do you have?!
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:45 PM
1

That site is almost perfectly badly done for mobile.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:07 PM
1

This is how I see them used and why I use them even though I don't personally care much about respecting my gender role.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:54 AM
1

They acquire allies in a very realpolitikal(?) way.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:13 AM
3

Heh, I'm left-wing and it bothers me that these groups try to insert themselves in my politics.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 05:20 PM
2

I don't think they're trolls. A lot of people actually feel this way. It's horrible.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 06:26 PM
1

Still shocks me when I encounter women who don't realize this and yet I do.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:01 AM
3

I think misandry has died down since he was in college. I interact with a lot of young women and would describe very few of them as misandrous yet almost all consider themselves feminist to one degree or another.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 11:49 PM
3

You are misusing "bourgeois" but I suppose that was intentional.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 01:11 AM
3

I've got to agree about the objectivity. Even the anti-egalitarians here have well-reasoned beliefs that can't be dismissed out-of-hand. Far too many feminists lack the ability to defend their beliefs well enough to be taken seriously. Even when I agree with them.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 01:10 AM
1

Basically the only people who are handcuffed are young men who aren't indentured to the State in a role where their lives are forfeit to defend the people who aren't handcuffed.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 10:00 PM
1

I agree that we should usually say "institutional feminism" even if all feminists contribute as a smokescreen.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:20 PM
2

Do you have a problem with saying "feminism" when you mean "the feminist movement" rather than "the beliefs shared by most feminists"? That's usually what MRAs mean by "feminism" but you are talking like what feminists collectively say, rather than collectively do, has any relevance. It's usually a fairly high comment in relevant posts that lots of feminists are completely reasonable egalitarians or "equity feminists" but the movement is in fact not egalitarian.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:17 AM
3

Fuck.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:10 AM
1

Talk about spin...
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:29 PM
3

I'm gonna go with "literally every feminist" since their epistemology is rooted in this being true. Though I'm being hyperbolous. But everyone who believes in the Duluth model believes such nonsense and that's nearly every feminist if only by supporting those that do.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:20 PM
3

Lol. For fundies, try interspersing a Sequences readthrough with a HPMoR readthrough (like chapter-sequence-chapter). Multiplicative indoctrination/ensmartening.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:11 AM
3

The term "predictive power" is precise. If you want to read somethin extremely interesting, check out "sequences" on http://lesswrong.com. If you want the same idea in story form, google Methods of Rationality.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:07 AM
1

Well-said.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 03:15 AM
3

If you use the loose meaning of privilege then men and women both have gender privilege. If you use the strict meaning then only women have privilege since now they can officially be in combat (a dubious privilege but still a special right reserved for men. the draft being irrelevant to this point) yet still have the privilege of being the default parent (whether they want it or not), default victim in DV (even if they are the sole perpetrator), sole beneficiaries of Title IX, and basically ever…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 06:43 PM
1

It's also the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. Theoretically "check your privilege" is isn't a fallacy, it's a reminder that between any two people there's a difference of experience that causes people to misunderstand others and the impact of events in their lives. Practically it's a silenc…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 06:37 PM
3

You're over-generalizing then you're under-generalizing. I don't think most female rapists are abused, I think they don't realize men can not consent. And I was clear that it's only sometimes that trauma doesn't happen until adulthood. I don't recall the source though so it might've been a shitty study.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 10:02 PM
3

Well, trauma due to being molested as a child seems to sometimes only manifest when the person later remembers the event and recontextualizes it as an adult. AFAIK this isn't gender-specific. Children and adults have some differences in how they deal with terrible shit though so this isn't as strong of evidence as I'd like to suggest a policy like "don't tell girls how terrible rape is" since that would correspondingly increase rapes.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 07:52 PM
3

2k for passing a test? Holy shit I could have used that. California, eh?
/r/MensRights02/02/13 05:36 AM
2

Such women would only be selected against if they didn't breed as much as happy women. Whether or not someone is happy doesn't matter so long as they survive to successfully reproduce.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 04:31 PM
1

I'm in favor of self-posts-only. A lot of excellent articles and videos get linked here but they'll be linked here without the karma incentive.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 03:21 AM
2

This is exactly my experience.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 10:51 PM
1

They have an internally inconsistent model of the Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 10:17 PM
1

Troll account.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 09:19 PM
2

You weren't specific but the SPLC did not list /r/mensrights as a hate group. That was a misunderstanding now propagated by an actual hate group.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 09:12 AM
2

The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is yes: the scientific consensus. But that's boringly short: The MRM lacks ideological unity so it's hard to say the MRM has any particular set of beliefs outside of the desire to advance men's rights. Most MRAs are egalitarian or equalists and I think all are interested in fairness even if they aren't egalitarian. But this covers a huge range of beliefs. Most MRA beliefs about sex and gender follow the empirical research so your question could …
/r/MensRights25/01/13 09:14 PM
2

I'm being a bit flippant. If a theory isn't grounded in empiricism then it's not worth the time it takes to think it up. A lot of groups spend a great deal of time theorizing but their theories rely on each other or rely on theories with low prediction power. So even though there's a lot of very precise ways of thinking available, it's all almost certainly wrong. This is pretty much everything in gender theory. Though a lot of this is because the empirical grounding they use is misinterpreted ei…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 07:51 PM
3

How would we develop a theory if we aren't running studies? Or do you mean bullshit conjecture? As far as sex and gender go, for the most part they seem to be separate since a lot of gender varies by culture. However there are definite biological roots to gender found by observing newborn behavior. I don't know how we'd identify which parts of adult gender are biological and which are environmental short of greatly advancing neuroscience. Maybe someone has something more concrete.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:00 PM
1

Yup.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 05:52 PM
1

From a discussion I had with an older woman, I understand that women are more fearful of men today than they were a few decades ago. Despite actually be safer.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 08:10 AM
1

Awesome, someone who read the study with some depth! By the sound of it, they needed a gigantic sample size to reduce the noise from the various factors they ignored even though those factors aren't gendered. Had they controlled for things like professor-to-professor differences then they wouldn't need so large a sample size.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 05:53 AM
3

Personally I wouldn't marry a woman who I didn't trust with my life. This is my standard for best friends. It honestly never occurred to me that someone would marry someone they didn't trust with their life. I just assumed most people are incredibly gullible or naive.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:43 AM
1

I want to get married a great deal but this is heavily tempered by the danger of divorce and how divorce colors the power balance of a relationship. I am unwilling to marry if I don't know the woman very well and know I can trust her. So I develop my understanding of human personality. Sadly I've learned that I am very compatible with one sort of personality fairly common in women that also correlates with flipping from love to hate. Somehow when they feel hurt they don't register that their act…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:39 AM
1

Very good question that I hope someone can directly answer. All I can offer you is second-hand knowledge that some people here quote specific figures that show that women pay less alimony than men would with the same relevant variables factored in, which means that a study must have been done. Something hard with methodology and hopefully a bit o' raw data would be fantastic though.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:12 AM
1

for example identical resumes with different names will receive different salary estimates I wonder exactly how they produced this result. IIRC they made it clear it was an estimate and would not actually involve hiring anyone and almost every professor they used as a test subject failed to respond. I'm not sure their total sample size was large enough or their test subjects an accurate sample.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:08 AM
3

Low blow. Hilarious.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 02:50 AM
1

In a sense. Left-libertarians are about the same from the perspective of authoritarians.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 07:44 PM
1

I imagine it usually happens to men in places where women handle all finances but that just isn't the US.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 01:02 AM
2

Kind of depends on what "didn't care about" means. If they are still in relationships or having sex then they are expressing an opinion that is not the same as herbivore men who are not in relationships or not having sex. One hardly cares about water until there isn't any.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 04:42 PM
1

I wonder what Marx would think about women's oppression today. Unlike his time, England isn't actually a patriarchy anymore.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 04:12 PM
3

Education as criteria in itself just seems like chauvinism to me. People like to be with their own kind, good or bad be that.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 12:28 AM
1

Others have given statistics. I just want to point out that these statistics suffer from court bias. Women are far less likely than men to get charged or convicted when they do commit murder so any statistic is actually a high estimate.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 11:23 PM
2

She's just a bully. She thinks she's virtuous enough to judge you but a virtuous person doesn't make that judgement.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 11:01 PM
2

Unfortunately no one thinks the draft will ever come again. Why on earth they trust the State so much in this while decrying its cronyism and corporate favoritism is beyond me.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 05:43 PM
3

Crass but accurate, given the context. Not really an issue for love and long-term relationships but shallow people aren't good relationship material anyway. A woman expecting the upper hand in relationships needs to be aware that her young woman privilege runs out and she won't get the men she's used to without developing her personality. Of course she'll still complain about her loss of privilege like it's actually male misogyny but that's part of not developing your personality.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:42 AM
1

Basically people are lazy. We assume that if something/someone is popular then it must be for a good reason. (emphasis mine and wholly intentional) So much this. People don't update their beliefs at all if they don't need to or aren't trained to, and even when it's necessary they don't always do it either at all or in a timely fashion. Plus this behavior can produce floating beliefs: beliefs that don't ever actually ground out in reality. Instead a belief gets spread without ever being checked f…
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:35 AM
1

If I only consider women I've known single and in a relationship, I've noticed that I prefer taken women. I think that's mostly because single women are far less calm. Even the stoner girls. It's not a large enough difference to usually affect my decisions though. If I consider total women I know then I vastly prefer taken women but then there's the fact that I share with other men much of the same metric of attractiveness.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:30 AM
1

Is it also true that black women are a high risk group for certain STDs? I've heard that this is so but I haven't looked into it deeply enough to determine its credibility.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:26 AM
2

Good description of the practical meaning of creeper.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:13 AM
2

That's the correct usage and I wholly approve of using "creepy" for this case. From personal experience I'd rate correct usage of this term at 20% IRL and maybe 1% on the internet since I don't recall anyone using it correct online but I'm sure people do.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:04 AM
2

That's a good thesis for an article.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:21 AM
1

speculation Call it a hypothesis to keep the terminology straight. /fuckinghomonyms
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:18 AM
1

Also there's incarceration disparity.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 05:47 PM
2

The counter argument is simple history. Before feminism and economic changes loosened women's gender role, women were looked down on for doing men's work, dressing like men, etc. Men experienced a minor loosening of their role. Feminists are framing the direct result of their movement's influence as the work of the Patriarchy. Point this out, maybe?
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:07 PM
1

Reread what he wrote. He is speculating that the very phenomenon you describe skews the numbers but there is evidence (from adult cases) that sex of perpetrator doesn't play a strong role in sexual abuse.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:18 PM
3

I think calling gender relations in the western world "oppressive" is incredibly offensive to actually oppressed people.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:24 PM
2

Fantastic comment. Exactly how I feel about Patriarchy and uses the key contrary evidence.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:17 PM
2

enforced by law or by violence I just want to point out that this is effectively redundant since State law means the threat of violence.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:04 AM
3

Most of your comment was right on but why do you say "opened her fucking piehole"? It wasn't her talking that's shitty it's what she said.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:32 PM
1

I think you should focus on the egalitarian movement, such as it is.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:26 PM
1

oppression That's the thing. Women's role in society now and in the past has never been oppressive in the same sense that classes and peoples are oppressed. It's classist and racist as shit to utter "women's oppression".
/r/MensRights12/01/13 03:28 PM
1

I meant race->sex (aka gender), not racism->sex. Thanks for the clarification.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 07:21 PM
3

Now I totally understand WHY they believe men couldn't be raped etc. but, why exactly do they generally respond with so much emotion? Also, is it just a coincidence that these people (which I'll call accusers from now on) both respond with and AND hold their naive beliefs that men couldn't be raped? My speculation is that they consider them to be attention whores detracting from real victims and thereby mocking the seriousness of rape. That's how people occasionally respond to white people compl…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 10:51 AM
1

Eh? There are all-male interactions that I firmly believe men need to have that the attack on male spaces has eroded. Even in a gender egalitarian society there would be a need if only because a person's sex matters in many small ways that become big ways. Hell even our moods follow a different pattern from women. Boys and young men need to hear from older men how to live in their bodies.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 10:49 AM
2

This article is lacking context as to why things are the way they are and completely ignores that a fathers movement exists and is attacked by mainstream feminism. But it is just stating that a problem exists rather than speculating on the cause or offering a specific solution.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:43 PM
2

Feminism is primarily a white woman's movement. The Oppression Olympics aren't clear on whether or not white women or black men are worse off so they avoid making the comparison where black men can hear. Of course this is true of any male of any race or minority status. I just say black men because of how painfully obvious it is that white women are better off than black men, as a whole.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:38 PM
1

Even wikipedia refutes that, though they still use a silly .8-.9 value.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:59 AM
1

I actually posted an album of these there, from the /r/4chan thread based off of /pol/ (I presume).
/r/MensRights09/01/13 10:14 PM
2

Naturally, every observation is fitted to the Rape Culture or Patriarchy theories.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 08:24 PM
1

That is what I believe, if that is the case then perhaps the true 'murder' rate between the sexes is a lot narrower than is generally accepted. Before divorce reform, men killed their wives at a slightly higher rate than the reverse. Seeing as there's a sentencing disparity and proxy violence is hard to prove and (probably) more commonly done by women, I think it's likely that spousal murder was equal 40 years ago. Today it's far morel likely a man kills his wife than the reverse but divorce ref…
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:54 PM
1

The more honest radicals say that any heterosexual sex is coercion for that reason. Putting the line at twice is just so they can still fuck men without feeling they are betraying their sex.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:33 PM
3

Interesting hypothesis but I doubt it's accurate. More likely the quote is horseshit created to add legitimacy to prejudicial practices. Not that they're a bad idea. In a society where girls are de-emphasized for education (or outright barred?) it's perfectly reasonable to target girls. You'd generally get more out of boys due to gender roles and pregnancy but the marginal utility of putting more resources into boys eventually gets to where it's more rational to allocate resources to girls. I re…
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:27 PM
3

Almost every feminist belief is either easily proven false or false by virtue of being unproven. I think it does occur to each feminist. They just settle for believing trusted but ignorant people as well as poor evidence of plausible theories. Then it stops occuring to them because their minds close up as their confidence and unity grows.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:12 AM
1

Exactly that.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:08 AM
2

Or conservative. The problem is authoritarians rather than left or rightists.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:08 AM
2

I've known one. I know there have been a handful of others who've worked with my dad. Nowhere near 1:1 though.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:51 AM
2

From my experience, when someone notes a lack of masculinity in a peer, guys and lesbians tease and straight women shame. When there's a power difference such as adult-child or even older-younger brother, it's shame rather than tease.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:34 AM
2

It's the sort of indirect phenomenon that is hard to study. Counting murders is one thing since the evidence is strong but violence by proxy involves much weaker evidence due to its cause not usually leaving physical evidence.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:58 AM
2

I'd say a father should have a certain time, after learning of the pregnancy, to choose to accept both parental rights and responsibilities or to opt out. If he doesn't learn about it until near or after birth then he has no rights or responsibilities unless he opts in. He should have something like a year from learning of his child to opt in without the mother's consent and would need her consent afterwards.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:39 AM
2

She described his behavior as a complete change from his prior behavior. It's entirely plausible that he had a brain tumor. She still needed to not be near him or dump him for her sake but getting him help was the right thing to do. IIRC he ended up not going to a doctor and she ended up leaving him.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 05:24 AM
2

Health is attractive. Even plain women look good when they are healthy. In a way, clubs and bars serve to mask the unhealthiness of the people inside through bad lighting and cognitive impairment (which actually contributes to unhealthiness). Obesity is only one mark of unhealthiness today.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:50 PM
1

I don't think he said "everything". /pedantry
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:46 PM
1

Looks like The_Patriarchy did.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 07:01 PM
1

A radical feminist argued in favor of this to me in the US. The justification is that only 2% of rapes end in conviction. Of course that she was comparing the attrition rate of rape to the conviction rape of other crimes was lost on her because she trusted liars. I didn't know that at the time though :(
/r/MensRights06/01/13 06:47 PM
1

No. I also live in an area that doesn't always differentiate between male and female bathrooms.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:22 AM
2

Feminism and economic changes expanded women's gender role and only mildly expanded men's. This is something feminists actually do work for for men's benefit, albeit only where it doesn't hurt women (forced labor). The awesome part about the feminist argument about why men can't act feminine is that feminists are blaming the Patriarchy for something their movement is directly responsible for.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:56 PM
1

Ah. I just marked CD as a liar for the future but SRS adds some context.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:44 PM
1

Er, by attack we mean actually going out and attacking. Misinformation campaigns, denials of free speech, physical assault, harassment (including attempts to get a mod here fired), and credible murder threats. There's also an attempted murder in there. MRAs disparage feminism. To some degree there is misinformation but seriously, it's not at the same level. MRAs don't even censor feminists who come into MRA spaces but feminists not only heavily censor but actively seek out MRA posters to tear do…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:24 PM
1

I was thinking of leadership qualities being determined by more than just the desire to lead. If what gives men the edge is desire to lead due to testosterone then women who have equal desire for whatever reason would be comparable. If what gives men the edge is something aside from their desire to lead then women may not be able to compete even if they really want to. So it's not semantics but I didn't explain myself very well.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:56 AM
1

Nah. Feminism is pro-female. Whatever happens to males in that pursuit isn't considered.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 09:29 AM
1

Physical, economic, and social coercion (assuming his name was published. It probably was) by the State on behalf of a woman, against a man.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:33 AM
2

Evolutionary Psychological/Biology can usually be bent to fit any theory you want if you put your mind to it. It can be used to produce all sorts of theories but if used correctly, most of those theories are given low certainty.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:18 AM
3

Maybe certain cognitive functions of men allow them to make better leaders. There's no evidence that men are better leaders, just that they're more inclined to want to lead. Gotta agree. Testosterone causes status-seeking behavior, not competence. This behavior may cause higher competence but that would be conferred to women with abnormally high status-seeking behavior as well.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:15 AM
2

It is often asserted that VAWA causes the use of the Duluth model in the handling of domestic violence by law enforcement. It would be nice to have something concrete that shows that VAWA implements the Duluth model and that this implementation is discriminatory against men. I'd be shocked if it didn't exist but I don't recall ever having seen it, either.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:06 AM
1

You are right but /r/mensrights is the only place some people know to go to for this kind of advice.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 05:23 AM
1

OP probably means to say that it wasn't regretted consensual sex but actually coerced.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 05:16 AM
2

From my experience, black (really just non-white) feminists do call out mainstream feminism for being racist and/or classist. I haven't seen any actually defect though.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:32 AM
1

It could be but that measurement doesn't account for women tending not to run because they know they won't succeed. It does make it less likely though.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:32 AM
1

The top comment doesn't appear to be sarcastic and does make this all about women. The actual video appears to be satirical though.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:15 AM
3

Seeing women as victims is not feminism. How would that benefit anyone? It justifies allocating shared resources to women instead of women and men. This is how DV resources go despite victimization and perpetration both having gender parity. The rest of his argument is kind of silly though so I won't defend it.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:31 PM
1

Class matters. By ignoring that poor women had to work you are implicitly accepting the feminist upper class white woman "oppression" narrative.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:47 PM
1

Happy new year!
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:02 PM
3

not everyone calls this place misogynistic because they have a bias, sometimes it genuinely can get that way and keeping a check on it needs to be a bigger priority. Sometimes subthreads support it. So there's a chance they could get that impression legitimately. Almost every instance of misogyny requires you to assume misogyny when it's ambiguous. Especially since misogynists tend to also be anti-PC (though not the reverse). But I have seen it here before even when I give the benefit of the dou…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 09:20 AM
1

It also correlates with sociopathic tendencies.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:52 AM
2

Mount & Blade That game is crazy hard if you play without a coded advantage. I ran around for hours and hours getting good enough that I could win most battles but actually amassing enough fighters for the endgame was beyond me. Hella fun though. Moving my walkers up a hill to draw the enemy up then hitting from the side with my cavalry, mowing the fuckers down. Good times.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:43 AM
1

I think this is the first time I've seen someone downvoted on this subreddit for being technically wrong.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:38 AM
2

I feel like too often MRAs on this sub treat "Feminism" as though it is one monolithic entity, which it is not, just like the MRM is not. We don't. We just talk about it like one thing because we use a more meaningful definition than you do. If you defined feminism as "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." then nearly all MRAs are feminists. And yet nearly all MRAs are in direct conflict with nearly all feminist-influenced legislation …
/r/MensRights01/01/13 05:03 AM
1

This is excellent. On another note, I met a feminist on here who was against forced gender roles without believing in a Patriarchy. Just one though. Every other person I've met who wants to remove forced gender roles or gender roles stopped calling themselves a feminist.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:14 AM
1

/r/minecraft and /r/dwarffortress. We could be friends.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:05 AM
1

Right. Feminists believe that legal equality is not equality in the wider context. That doesn't make them wrong but it does make them against legal equality.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:26 PM
1

Their survey found them to be mostly white males in their twenties. Like all of reddit.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:23 PM
2

What percentage of women who ask for sole custody get sole custody? IIRC the female stat is closer to 90%.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:18 AM
2

Boys being shamed for acting feminine doesn't differentiate between gender role enforcement and Patriarchy since girls were shamed for being masculine during actual lower-p patriarchy. Since the existence of gender roles and gender shaming isn't in serious contest, feminists using this as evidence of Patriarchy are irrational.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:42 AM
2

Usually aimed at making fun of "nice guys" who have views they dislike about women or dating Maybe they are former Nice Guys who now hate on present Nice Guys because they reject their former selves. Kind of like how PUAs do the same.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:57 AM
3

But only in an argument. Here, it's being used as a mere insult. If their beliefs were attempted to be discredited by calling them mangina then it would be ad hominem. If I call you a poopy-head because you took my toy then I did not commit ad hominem.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:03 AM
2

Women however are ONLY considered sluts if they have sex with these men, because attracting lots of men is considered easy and assumed. I don't think this is quite true. If woman 1 attracts the men woman 2 wants more than woman 2 does then woman 1 will be called a slut but woman 2.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:02 AM
2

Well women are being paid to fuck him and he's semi-famous because of it. He's basically a special case.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:47 AM
1

Equality but not legal equality.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:22 AM
1

That feels like the wrong hypothesis. We're talking about something that started in the industrial revolution, right? When women started working at factories instead of farms. Young women did have money but were paid way less than men. But did men have jobs too? I never did learn about male history during this time. Odd as that sounds. So why did it start?
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:20 AM
2

People who use this assume that because men are in power, they will always choose to further other men's power at the expense of oppressing women. This is the definition of Patriarchy I use to disprove because it's the most likely to be true and actually mean oppression. Some feminists call gender roles Patriarchy but that doesn't mean oppression. Some feminists call Patriarchy a literal conspiracy by males to oppress women, which is so painfully obviously false that it doesn't bear exploration.…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:16 AM
2

Ah. You definitely do need something to combat insults. Mostly I mean to say that one should be called hard-working when they do something that requires hard work or intelligence so they optimize for hard-working-ness. But everyone needs to be called pretty/handsome.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:07 AM
3

They aren't a circlejerk. They recognize the terrible things they are laughing at. So their comments can't be taken as sarcastic by default. They can be sarcastic but it's not like /r/circlejerk where nothing serious is to be said.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 08:08 AM
2

Most of it is reactionary. The most pressing issues men face aren't that they can't openly cry even though shaming is a huge problem. Men are legal inferiors to women due to feminist lobbying and propaganda campaigns. Despite excessive evidence that domestic violence is either ungendered or primarily something women do to men, people believe that it's virtually always something men do to women. This is purposeful misinformation*. The law reflects this due to VAWA implementing the Duluth model in…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 06:28 AM
2

What men provide for women has been externalized so they don't recognize it.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 06:04 AM
2

God damn it I can't read it. I teased out the thesis but the actual content is just so badly presented.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 04:17 AM
2

I wouldn't be surprised if she did. People who think all PIV is rape conceptualize sex as a power game where men have all of the power. In her mind, a woman tying down and forcing herself on a man is, at worst, fighting her oppressor by doing to him what he does to women.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 04:11 AM
1

Shitty. There's nothing wrong with the nuclear family. Just the way it played out for middle class white women around the time of feminism's second wave. Women with too little to do and stuck at home all day.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 04:09 AM
3

A lot of statements are called misogynistic when very very few actually are. The same is true of misandry proportionally but while I have seen very few instances of actual hatred of women, I have seen several instances of hatred of men. Extending it to mistrust and whatnot just makes misandry crazy prevalent while expanding misogyny merely a lot.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 02:26 PM
3

They got hit hard with downvotes.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 02:22 PM
1

Unfortunately I've found there is a lot of hate and resentment which makes /r/MensRights[1] overall a toxic place to discuss gender equity. I'd like to set up a male safe space to direct negative emotions resulting from abuse and other unfair treatment but I am worried it will die out or distract from this subreddit.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:13 AM
1

Why, is feminism strong in Texas? King of the Hill makes me think no but I've only ever been there on a plane. The stewardess was super polite without being withdrawn though.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:11 AM
1

This is how I look at it and the only way that makes sense from a Buddhist perspective (IMO). That doesn't mean it always makes sense to think or act like you think this way but this isn't an existential conflict so empathy isn't a suicidal move.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:09 AM
2

Excellent. Do you care to make a blog post on this? If you can explore the link between feminism and Puritanism deeper I'd love to read it.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:07 AM
2

Haha, also pot growers. I'm never going to stop giving them shit for acting so fucking selfishly and pro-authoritarian.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:06 AM
3

Right? I had assumed it was convergent evolution, so to speak, of belief systems that want to control how others think and behave.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:05 AM
1

Smart at the community level and stupid at the individual level? A bit of guessing but I doubt I'm wrong: Though really it's educated people who reproduce less. That correlates with intelligence so it's a net loss but if educated people tend to have educated parents then eventually the education level will just drop. But getting educated in the traditional manner is headed for an end anyway. Most information you can get at a university you can get online and eventually the education bubble will …
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:52 AM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights28/12/12 04:46 AM
2

That sounds right. And by right I mean exactly the kind of wrong I recall.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 02:20 AM
3

Totally.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 12:28 AM
1

I'm still new to it so I am by no means authoritative or willing to marry. Right now I look for how a woman reacts after a breakup. If she hurts the guy then I know she would hurt me too. If it were a more serious relationship then they'd be even more vicious. Concrete examples: The two women I've identified 99% bad wife material were distraught after extremely casual breakups and attacked their ex. One tried hard to cockblock him and attack his reputation when they weren't even dating prior (ju…
/r/MensRights27/12/12 11:51 PM
2

Right. It just sounded wrong to me when described as a right to breed since, depending on the meaning of "right", it could mean that if someone wants parenthood then others would be aggressing against them if they denied it. Even if that denial were by refusing to have sex with them. But like I said, it's a matter of words.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 11:36 PM
3

Most women think that they have an inalianable right to conceive a child with any man they want I recall reading something here where 60% of women polled said they would force their SO into fatherhood by not taking birth control if they wanted to have a baby with him. I don't remember exactly though. Do you happen to have saved such a link?
/r/MensRights27/12/12 11:33 PM
3

I'd say that everyone has a right to not be denied the ability to breed but they don't have the right to breed because breeding requires another person who has the right to not breed. Same idea but different use of words.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 11:21 PM
3

I'm so sorry for what happened to you. No one should have that kind of power over another person.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:19 PM
3

Right. This is why I let a lot of comments slide that I wouldn't normally tolerate. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, most men don't have any safe space at all. Like 99% "most of". This is the only safe space I know outside of that random men can join. I wish we had another place that was a safe space but I don't know how well that would work on reddit.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:13 PM
1

Right. I'm just saying that not all women do it. I did say that marriage is dangerous anyway because of this risk. I'm either optimistic or naive in that I think it's possible for me to learn how to differentiate between women who will hurt me in divorce and those who won't. I've identifies several who I am naturally attracted to (physically and personality-wise) who I know I can never marry (or date, probably) because they would ruin me in a breakup. But obviously I'm not there yet.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:03 PM
1

I've got a female friend like that and truthfully it used to happen to me when I was younger, though not that badly. She isn't abusive or a serious risk for abuse, either as perp or victim. She just freaks out sometimes.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:00 PM
1

That's not what you are to every woman in the US. That's just what the courts and society enable. Not every woman exploits this even if enough do that marriage is dangerous.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 09:43 PM
1

It may depend on the type of mental problem. If it's something that causes them to hurt others then it's dangerous but if it doesn't then it's just difficult, not dangerous.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 09:37 PM
1

Are you a lesswrong reader? Promoting rationality gets to the root cause of the problems causes like the MRM exist to solve. Short-term we need to focus on laws and helping individuals survive but long term we need to promote right-thinking.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 11:30 AM
1

Very much so. I even get this here.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 09:43 AM
2

It's possible he looked at the message screen without actually reading it. The message would be marked read even if he hadn't actually even glanced at it.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 08:57 AM
1

don't understand feminism Standard description despite the oddly large number of former feminists here. Almost as if they're lying because their worldview doesn't accept the possibility of people who know about feminism disagreeing with them.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 08:54 AM
1

You believe in 100% certainty. I don't. You keep accusing me of putting words in your mouth and now of lacking a concrete argument. Yet you repeatedly accuse me of beliefs I don't have. You're projecting.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 03:03 AM
1

Do you think it is wrong to punish others for hurting people? I am not arguing in favor of the current system. Just how certain we need to be to exact retribution. Maybe you are against revenge but for reeducation of probable rapists? Or psychological help?
/r/MensRights26/12/12 02:07 AM
1

The question is how certain a court needs to be to imprison. You are saying 100% because you say even 1 failure is too many. 100% is impossible so any imprisonment may ruin an innocent life. Ergo you want no one to be imprisoned.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 01:30 AM
1

This is what my mom did with her fiance even though he wasn't abusive. Better to sever a relationship cleanly.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 01:13 AM
1

Do you have any point where you would support this? Because it sounds like you are against ever punishing for crimes.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 07:03 AM
1

Letting rapists go may ruin more lives.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 07:02 AM
1

If the utility of 50 locked-up rapists is larger than the negative utility of 1 imprisoned innocent then yes. Keeping in mind the social damage of this accepted failure rate and that it might not be good to give the state power.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 06:59 AM
1

I doubt it'd need to exist at all. Without a group actively attacking men's rights, people would settle down into something reasonable equitable. An egalitarian movement would still have a place but it wouldn't need a masculine focus.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 06:52 AM
2

Haha wow that's fucking brutal. Great counter-list.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 09:18 AM
1

It's just an anti-trolling response. Most SRSisters don't have anything to contribute anyway so it's low-risk and moderate-reward and they aren't actually being censored so it's not unrecoverable.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:56 AM
1

This is how I see them. I don't really care about the gender role but I prefer people with passion and don't want to get destroyed in divorce.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:29 AM
2

Market Socialism, in the sense of a "shadow market" to bypass the Economic Calculation Problem, was disproven by Hayek. I'm reading up on the ECP. I get the impression that economists never actually try and prove anything. They just argue a lot. Theories without experiments. Wikipedia's article on the ECP shows a long progression of disproofs and fixes and even modern criticism. It's beginning to look to me like the problem the free market is supposed to fix is just a management problem and the …
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:09 AM
1

Ah. I'd be a rightist by that definition.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:30 AM
3

Thanks for your responses, by the way :) For sure man. I like having this conversation outside of the anarchist sphere. I was talking about people that support the ideology of Social Democracy, rather than the US Democratic party. Oh my bad. From skimming wikipedia, social democrats sound like a compromise between authoritarian capitalists and socialists where the socialists have the upper hand. Economic democracy is leftist but leaves capitalists still effectively in control of their capital. S…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 01:29 PM
2

Are you unaware of the political compass?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 09:01 AM
3

She's about as pure right as you can get. Left-right is just a crappy way to describe political beliefs. That she's pro-liberty and most on the right are pro-authority doesn't change that they all believe in private ownership of capital. It's not even accurate to say pro-free-market is a rightist belief. Leftists can be pro-free market. I am. I just don't want ownership and labor to be decoupled.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 08:56 AM
2

This is my experience. For a short while I dealt with anger by expressing it and I just got angrier than I had in the past. Now I isolate my feeling and let it mentally express itself then moe on.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:46 PM
2

It would be best if a woman calls since they might lie to a man about it.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:35 PM
1

Dumb judge. Doesn't realize he just told you he would beat a woman at the minimum. People saying men shouldn't fear women due to their size aren't very bright.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:30 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:22 AM
1

If that's a guy then my guess is he is projecting. He cheats so to think himself a good person he imagines every guy cheats. He imagines himself better than just any guy so he tells women that men will cheat on them. If it's a woman then she is dealing with having been cheated on by spreading misandry. Typical human behavior but not something five people should laud.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:21 AM
1

I honestly regret starting this thread, I should have just read the sidebar. Eh, this thread has been interesting. You are being very polite so I don't think anyone really cares that much.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:15 AM
1

Haha well, #3 isn't usually necessary; it usually just happens.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:12 AM
1

This is basically why I am MRA-symapthetic instead of a feminist. I couldn't find any true feminism. Even sympathetic feminists listen to the misandrists or will let them silence feminist men who are just seeking out equality from a different angle. I'm glad you feel the way you do and I hope you can bring some openness to feminist spaces.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:11 AM
2

No longer insured so it's moot but you're right. I will get a new one when I work again. Hopefully next month!
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:52 AM
2

Sorry but this violates the anti-crossposting policy because /r/AskMen is much smaller than /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:29 AM
2

That's a good idea if you can't afford the insurance but insurance is precisely for mitigating the risk of losing your car. Of course in the case of young men and men in general your advice is fantastic. If you know you're a safe driver then it's far cheaper to not be in the same pool as reckless drivers even if you might end up without a car for a while. Slightly higher risk with more payout.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:27 AM
1

No idea what he thinks but I go infrequently because my doctor hints that I am wasting resources. He framed it as an age thing though.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:15 AM
3

Holy shit a solid source on 80%. Awesome. I've been waiting for one to write this: Let's make a comparison with political power. Men make up most positions of political power. Women control most votes aka have the most voting power. Women control most of the money*. Men make most of the money. Feminists use #1 to justify Patriarchy Theory and ignore or downplay #2. Feminists use #4 to justify Patriarchy theory and ignore or downplay #3. I juxtaposed them this way to equate votes to making money …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:02 AM
1

I get that feeling too. Especially recently as I notice more and more how irrational people tend to be. Like earlier there was a discussion on justifying CP. Even though I agreed with basically everyone I felt wrong for wanting to tell them all how their arguments are so bad they are actually supporting child porn as a position. On topic though, you talk about the bottom and top of society but the middle may be where one could say a homemaker and a breadwinner are more equal work loads. Can't af…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:50 AM
1

The way I look at it is that in America's early days everyone (or all but upper class, at least) worked maximally hard because you did that or you starved. But now labor has been largely automated or made more efficient through scale and infrastructure. Being a housewife used to require all your time and you had to work hard no matter how many kids you had. But now machines do most of the work so just staying at home is leisure time. That doesn't make it mentally easy due to boredom or make the …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:45 AM
3

Facebook sells ads same as google. Their customers are advertizers and their products are people.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:32 AM
2

My hypothesis is actually that they exacerbate gun crime when guns are still widely available. So like the UK is fine with strict gun laws because no one had guns to start with while in the US restricting gun ownership only affects legal guns so criminals are still shooting each other rather than stabbing or beating like UK criminals.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:31 AM
2

Right. For them 100% equality is anywhere from egalitarian society everywhere to men being literally property (not even wards) everywhere. They think that's a useful metric but they are not long-term thinkers... or are just gender supremacists.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:20 PM
1

Actually I've heard that having another person inside of you is the more traumatic aspect. Like you can't control what goes into your body. It's pure conjecture of course. And doesn't even seem like it would be true.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:49 PM
1

I don't see how their ages matter when it's adults producing it. No other complaint with your comment.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:47 PM
1

This is why I want /r/mensrights to straight up ban image posts. Self-posts with an image in them are fine because they mostly avoid voters like you say and prevent karma whoring.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:45 PM
1

That's a depressing thought. Female feminists interact largely with feminist males and Hugo stands out as a prominent male feminist.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:21 PM
1

Do you know if the gun laws in Illinois and Texas differ in ways that might help explain this?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:19 PM
1

While interesting, those are no more useful than the last links you gave. Those aren't studies and journalists aren't remotely trustworthy when it comes to specific details*. It's also full of vague language. Apparently Rights and Democracy actually produced the study behind all of these links, though they don't make it easy to find on what I think is their website and Google isn't finding it either. So unfortunately all I can say is that child soldiers are probably largely female and probably a…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:05 PM
2

Oddly enough I think Sweden might get there first because of how feminist it is. Feminists in Sweden are obviously whining about nothing so their momentum dies so men's issues finally get some attention. This is actually true of other parts of Scandinavia too. Also Sweden has pro-men's rights seats in the European Parliament via the Pirate Party. Like two but that's more than the US has.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:27 AM
1

That's unfortunate. Do you ever read lesswrong? It's where I got my rational foundation.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 12:11 PM
1

Very interesting. Also sorry for calling you a swede. My main political interest is in promoting rationality as the means to ending the root cause of stupid policies. It sounds wonderful to live in a place with a higher level of reason.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 10:09 AM
1

Feminism started before the USSR. Obviously.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:42 AM
2

The MOTHER is in charge of them? All the positive things I hear and apparently it's been explicit discrimination all this time. Do swedes really openly discriminate like this? Maybe that's why y'all're actually fixing things. The liars can't deflect.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:02 AM
2

We are alike in these ways.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:56 AM
2

Will actually get you props from egalitarian women.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:56 AM
3

Lack of someone to love and such though I suppose you can get that from friends to some degree.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 01:54 AM
1

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19920820&id=zbkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=83sEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5515,6763282 Whether or not she succeeded is another matter but it's a risk.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:41 PM
2

For sure.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:37 PM
2

I was under the impression that lesbians are actually more likely to commit DV than any other coupling.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 02:59 PM
1

Gymnastics maybe? I know pearl diving favors women because their higher and more-distributed body fat keeps them warmer. So maybe a cold water sport where players can't be swapped out frequently.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 02:57 PM
1

ah, thanks
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:07 AM
1

I'm having no luck finding anyone in /r/anarcho_capitalism who posts anywhere feminist. So inconclusive. I'll ask some about it.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:49 AM
1

Really? Feminists tend to deny female agency while ancaps heavily promote human agency. There's no theoretical reason one can't be both but actual feminism is heavily authoritarian. Though I haven't actually asked any ancaps if they are feminist.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:40 AM
1

Ah ok.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:30 AM
1

Yeah there are exceptions but those can be expanded upon to give women better options.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:29 AM
3

By safety I think you mean school's safety from being sued. It's a shitty situation for an institution because if they keep her out she may sue and if they let her in she will get hurt and may sue. I don't know if women literally can't handle the beating of football so much as can't compete against men at the sport but I have read about a girl suing for getting hurt at football so it's a concern even if it's from a sue-happy legal culture rather than anything natural.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:13 AM
3

Sauce please. That's horrendous.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 12:31 AM
1

Oh. Well they're also amazing and wonderful sometimes too. It just takes purposeful effort for a person to become good rather than neutral so it doesn't happen en masse.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 09:52 PM
2

I think I am being misinterpreted since I am being downvoted for agreeing with an upvoted post and you are making an argument that makes little sense since it's based on a thesis I didn't give. My fault for being unclear. Feminists I know accuse MRAs of believing biotruths but the very opposite is shown here. Also I am aware of the usefulness and limitations of evopsych.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 04:45 PM
1

I dated very few of these women. Usually it's desire for me to buy them something or romance drama I might even be tangential to. I don't see how you haven't been manipulated even this much. People are often selfish.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 04:36 PM
1

Your quotes are probably best. Women may choose the very best males effectively (from a genetic perspective) but for the most part sexual selection seems to mostly just aid in immune system diversifying, not picking out the best mate for more obvious attributes.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:20 AM
2

I don't know about rates or anything but I can list some ways women have manipulated me. Note that I mean these in a manipulative way. Some are perfectly fine when genuine. Creep shaming, flirting, framing a scenario in a way that makes them seem harmless or justified, withholding affection and increasing affection (Pavlovian style), and telling me my friend is using me. Men do all of these too but not often to me. Probably because they won't work intra-gender on heterosexuals.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:15 AM
2

Right. It's not all that way but that aspect can't be ignored. It's why I have to be extremely careful about what PUA stuff I read. Reading influencing my thoughts too much and I don't want to get predatory in those ways.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:10 AM
2

Which is so obviously wrong. You posted about something feminists did that got media attention. The article wasn't on their side but it wasn't like an MRA blog or something. Completely relevant.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 09:41 AM
1

One of the few things about texas my californian self prefers.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:01 PM
3

Which she will, from my experience.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:49 PM
1

Lmao
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:51 AM
2

Are you truly unaware that that stat comes from defining rape as penetrating another? Of course that shows rape as something men do to women. It's defined to exclude 80+% of male rape victims.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:39 AM
1

Ah that makes sense. I wonder why homeless women are disadvantaged like that though. I hypothesize that homeless women are selected for traits that lead to a shorter life than homeless men. But more feminist hypotheses are very possible if not more.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:34 AM
1

Gandhi
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:23 AM
2

Thanks for the info. Saving your comment.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:21 AM
2

manipulate Absolutely. That shit was true in 7th grade and it's true today.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:15 AM
1

I can't even watch that shit. I just rage. Very glad I couldn't go because staying calm would've been hard for me. I'd have yelled back.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:12 AM
4

I just looked and Jezebel really does not consider itself feminist. Hilarious but you are totally correct.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:11 AM
2

I wouldn't call it misandry because it isn't hatred but it's accurate to call it sexism against men in every instance.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:07 AM
2

Actually in all and in what context?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:05 AM
2

Oh wait so Elam is against convicting only when he thinks the guy won't get a fair trial? Wouldn't him just being on a jury ensure that a guy would get a fair trial? Though I suppose it could be called jury nullification if he ignores the judge's commands and just decides on actual evidence instead of what the judge considers permissible. Not failing to render a conviction if it's warranted but not convicting if critical evidence is disallowed or irrelevant evidence is introduced as supposedly i…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:05 AM
1

it'll be through a game of telephone This is fucking brilliant.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:00 AM
1

lose Loosing the masses would be more intentional, I think. Like they are done with them and want them to be free. They are actually trying to round up the masses and failing.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:00 AM
2

This makes sense to me. Give feminists without public beliefs the wiggle room to pretend they never really had the shitty beliefs of their leaders. Otherwise they will just dig in deeper. If we also keep from wavering off into tangents and just focus on men's issues like an arrow we will have the momentum or vitality to attract interested people who just need a movement to join. I know what it's like to be in low and high momentum projects and it is important to stay high momentum if you want to…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:58 AM
3

Unfortunately. I really hope the skeptic community withstands feminist annexation attempts. Even as irrational as they are, they're more rational than most populations so they're the best bet we have for humanity to grow the fuck up. Feminism is purely regressive here.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:53 AM
1

Not true of attractive young tramps in my town. Their women aren't usually attractive but lots of women just want to bone or care most about a man's body than his status. Older men are (or aren't) fucked though.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:50 AM
2

Ten times? Source?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:44 AM
1

Sometimes it really is that overt. I was in exactly this situation only I didn't trust her not to steal my stuff since she was clearly desperate. Also it felt rapey as hell.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:44 AM
2

Haha thanks.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 12:46 AM
3

She actually fucking says "I would have trained my husband differently. Sheesh". And why the fuck would the slobbiness of a male affect her opinion of them seeing her naked ass? And why the fuck does she think men are slobs when they're way the fuck neater than women in public bathrooms? Dude your school mate is a bigot.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:03 PM
1

Ooh good point.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:54 AM
1

You ought to frame this in terms of the male gender role and circumcision since those are the status quo we fight against.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:17 AM
3

Plus repayment for the fucked up shit that happens in prison and libel. Falsely imprisoning somebody is an incredibly terrible thing to do to somebody. Only a good thing because we used to just maim or kill them.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:24 AM
2

No but it might make you a bigot.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:13 AM
1

The groups that are trying to co-opt the MRM are those that are seeking to do so for political reasons. They're pandering and trying to push a warped form of conservatism that I don't think can survive now that families can't survive without two incomes. I was what you mean. Hopefully that doesn't become a "thing" but I imagine it will.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:09 AM
1

Depends. Egalitarian MRAs don't want the same things as traditionalist MRAs, outside of legal equality. Religious fundamentalists agree with feminists on how men should be treated so they're hardly MRA material.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:44 AM
2

Is it co-opting though? From what I can tell, the oldest MRAs alive are conservative. Not necessarily Republican though. This is just from what I gather from what they say.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:42 AM
4

Statists gonna state.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:37 AM
1

I like to frame imprisonment as kidnapping because people's feelings about words influence their thoughts about them more than we usually realize. Very few people would kidnap another person for smoking pot but most people vote to make it an imprisonable offense despite them being the same thing morally and ethically.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 11:21 PM
1

False accusation is attempted or successful kidnapping by proxy.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:46 PM
1

Ohh. Well you have a talent for succinct visual refutation :)
/r/MensRights11/12/12 08:13 PM
3

They also include "refusing to sleep with her" as evidence of a man abusing a woman. I think by their stance alone, less feminism would definitely help this. I wonder where this rests in the sex-positive and -negative divide.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 06:28 AM
4

Actually yeah, if you can make these for other feminist truth distortions it'd be super useful. If you put your source on it and it's a solid source.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 06:09 AM
2

Right? Art students are required to draw all sorts of people. Women and men and not necessarily attractive either.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:18 AM
2

While your interpretation may be correct, I interpreted iamamodernmaleman's statement as against the person blaming others for his poor choices. He is complaining about not being able to pay off debt with a degree he knew going into would not pay off his debt. It's fine to study art and it's even fine to go into debt for it but it's not fine to then bitch about the debt.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:17 AM
3

It occurs to me that "forced to penetrate" does not specify vaginal penetration. These numbers may include male perpetrators as well, so I'd like to look closer at the numbers to search for more specificity in that area. I can imagine somebody making the claim (based on their own conventional wisdom, of course) that these numbers must be men forcing other men to penetrate them. They also say that 80% of males victimized here reported a sole female perpetrator. That means that at most 20% experie…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:12 AM
6

Not in the trenches nor the leadership. You do have to believe that men have it better than women in myriad nebulous ways or you will be excommunicated though.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:05 AM
2

No man, socialism does not imply central planning. Libertarian socialism (formally known as libertarianism or anarchism) is very much against that bullshit. Nor does capitalism imply a lack of central planning since it doesn't preclude monopolies or just one organization owning so much that its leadership directs the economic activity of millions. I'm pro-competition at the organization level. I just believe that organizations should be directed by the people who actually run them rather than so…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:02 AM
2

Probably.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 07:55 AM
1

There's at least two personalities if not people. But yeah, basically
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:21 AM
3

They set child support at the salary a person can achieve, according to the judge. Bank statements don't actually matter. The judge's opinion matters and judges can be idiots.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:09 AM
1

It is on wikipedia. I'd link you but I am mobile.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:01 AM
3

With IQ as we measure it, most geniuses and the extremely stupid are male. Anything needing a higher than average IQ will naturally have mostly males unless other factors are at play.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:00 AM
1

Right, those are actually very good tips.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 05:36 AM
3

Agency is that a person acts on their environment. It's the social construct underlying blaming people for their bad choices and lauding their good. So in short, someone with hypoagency is not responsible for their choices. Hyperagency, they are responsible for others' choices. Women "not being taken seriously" is "hypoagency". It's useful to not be responsible for your actions even as it's patronizing.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 05:35 AM
1

The advantage of hypoagency is that this works.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:19 PM
1

I don't see how the porn section is useful. It could be replaced with telling women to exercise, respect their SO, or even just listen without judgment.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:21 AM
1

Thanks! That's hella comprehensive.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:00 AM
1

I guilt tripped a woman once. To see what it was like when she upset me. It's just like anchoring. You set the start beliefs to frame things negatively for them, even when they did nothing wrong. She deflected it with more bullshit though.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 10:29 PM
1

kekeke
/r/MensRights07/12/12 12:49 PM
-2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:26 AM
2

Fuck if I wasn't broke and a world away I'd send him something. If the local charities aren't going to help then someone has to.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:58 AM
6

Fucking poseurs.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:20 AM
5

I don't recall that ever happening but I'm only very mildly sensitive to it.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:13 AM
9

piqued Damned french :P
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:11 AM
1

4% is in the range of the percentage of rape claims that are blatantly false. Like, the police wouldn't even file a charge or w/e except they have to. To use that number like it's a reasonable estimate or max is dishonest or ignorant. If he isn't a researching type person himself then he's probably just ignorant. Does anyone have the actual source for this? I can't find it in my notes.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:26 AM
3

Ah. Carry on then. Lol.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:59 AM
2

I worded that all wrong. Sorry. I meant to say that the zeitgeist is that men have always avoided deep male friendships because of homophobia. You're completely right about what I actually said though, so I will change it. Thanks!
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:58 AM
1

I think there's a lot of subtly to this but traditionalist vs egalitarian is probably a useful distinction. Traditionalists want chivalry because it's the obligation that goes along with power. Egalitarians don't want it because it gives men more obligation than women which is contrary to egalitarians wanting equal power and responsibility between the sexes. MRAs can be either. So can WRAs, actually, because rights are others' obligations to you, like being obligated to not kill you outside of s…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:54 AM
1

The real threat that may occur in [a men's center] is the emergence of misogyny in a form that is so subtle and so positively-spun that few will even take notice. There are a lot of instances of this type of thinking, but the men’s rights movement has to be the most obvious. The projection here is palpable.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:45 AM
1

Please spell better. Anyway the best argument I have against Patriarchy Theory is that it lacks sufficiently strong empirical grounding (evidence) so it's wrong by default. For a rational person that's all you actually need because all the attempts I've ever found have been wrong in critical ways. If you are arguing against an irrational person (well over 99% of people) then good luck! /r/MensRightsLinks has a ton of good stuff. I'd focus on DV/IPV because it's overwhelmingly obvious that femini…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:38 AM
3

The bad: chock full of conjecture. The good: not an argument so that doesn't matter. It shows the history of male friendship. The zeitgeist is that men have always avoided deep male friendships because of homophobia. Remembering that that's a transient state can do us a lot of good in making male life better. Material changes aren't even needed! Shows male friendship in a positive and, from my experience, accurate light. Loyalty is immensely valuable emotionally and materially and, if you find a…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:29 AM
2

He's a mid-quality troll. Please stop feeding him.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 03:42 AM
2

Pokemon appeals to the reddit population. Not idea about the rest.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 03:41 AM
2

Abortion is argued as a right to bodily autonomy while LPS is argued as a reproductive right. One has to argue that sperm falls under a man's bodily autonomy to compare abortion and LPS on equal ground.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 02:19 AM
1

Women in general don't cry misogyny. That's a feminist game.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 02:11 AM
3

My theory is that most MRAs started off as feminists but changed when they realized how anti-intellectual feminism is. This is how it was for me.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 02:06 AM
3

Of those countries that speak English maybe.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:48 PM
7

I won't even begin to address all of her lies about the MRM It'd be infinitely quicker to list the complete truths. ninja edit: Not that I read it but I've read such things before and the talking points seem universal.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:46 PM
1

You spell badly and do you think I believe this?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:04 PM
2

Awesome thanks!
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:09 PM
3

I don't know about the left in general, but it's kind of fun to imagine what feminists will say. It's a way for men to remove the little power women have in that men need them for childbirth. Thereby strengthening the Patriarchy. I think this will not be publicized but will be talked about in forums. Why would men want to cut women out of their lives in this way? They must hate them - misogyny. I expect this to be used at rallies and shit because the stupid crazy really comes out there. I can't …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:07 PM
4

I don't entirely agree with their abortion stance since it gives a husband the right to force his wife to carry to term but compared to being forced to abort I think this is a minor issue. Not having any direct experience or stats on how women deal with abortion vs being forced to carry to term but from second-hand losing a fetus has a larger impact. But in general though, Indian men need representation as a gender because there doesn't appear to be an actual egalitarian movement there with any …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:02 PM
2

It's a moral difference and the solution is education instead of fighting.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:46 AM
5

They believe that qualified women are being kept out of those jobs because they are women. Or they believe that qualification of individuals doesn't matter because putting women in power will cause more women to seek power as it breaks gender roles. The first is probably not true and the second is a shitty way to achieve equality* and requires feminists to have a rational view of reality so they can let the fuck off when women do make choices that lead to power as much as men. * It makes more se…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:29 AM
2

I hope you don't really think all women who identify as feminists believe men want to rape women all day long. That doesn't strictly follow from bukkake's statement and would be kind of insane so I doubt they believe that. But hey, crazy is all around us.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:25 AM
2

India's got some problems. I don't really understand the full context but from what I gather, laws that heavily discriminate against men are passed to deal with the way the men in the country treat women but are applied primarily to men in the cities, where women are treated fairly. The result is laws that do nothing but hurt good men and enable bad women. But again, I am pretty ignorant. This is just what I remember from articles several months back.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:12 AM
2

Wait, is anyone living in your house in that situation someone you can count as a dependent? If so then that's awesome for me. ninja edit: assuming "home you own" includes "home you rent"
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:07 AM
5

People are giving her shit for saying she chooses to be a lesbian because you can't choose that. They're also giving her shit for calling all men rapists. I think tumblr has its head on straight here, at least.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:17 AM
1

Our biggest foe is ignorance. It has its agents but they are just soldiers.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 07:44 AM
1

That's not really fair. The author is probably just ignorant, not sexist. If someone actually believed that terrorists are arabs then them saying that would be fair as if they were actually right.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 07:10 AM
2

Lol. I wouldn't say that as a rule but mostly yeah.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:06 AM
2

Pet peeve but it's Patriarchy not patriarchy. Even feminists recognize that we don't live in a literal patriarchy so they invented a subtle system of male oppression over everyone else.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:53 AM
1

I think the problem with feminism is that they won, but couldn't accept that. So much this. Every single really important female issue has been solved, plus many smaller ones. Presently the only thing feminists really need to do is remove gender roles but they cannot do that without removing men's as well. That requires feminists to let men redefine themselves because women just don't know how men actually feel about life. Like, they see oppression where men see hard choices to fulfill obligatio…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:51 AM
3

It can be argued that men can choose not to have sex so that's the extent of their reproductive rights. This has some unintended consequences though: It means that abortion is not necessary to fulfill the reproductive rights of women. They can just not have sex, too. Probably this is why feminists talk about body autonomy. Financial abortion is irrelevant because the issue is the existence of children not obligation to children. It means that a man's reproductive rights are violated whenever the…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:38 AM
1

Do you have a source that isn't a marketing group trying to sell their female-centric services to businesses?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:57 PM
1

The things you describe are statist more than they are leftist.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:56 PM
6

In a large way, we become how we frame our lives.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:49 PM
8

I don't see how the past matters here. Gender roles have been loosening. We know this. The contention is in why girls can wear boy clothes but boys can't wear girl clothes.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:47 PM
–

Drat. Thanks a ton for checking it out.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:53 AM
3

Yeah... breaking a major bone just hurts. Being maimed would probably bother me more than being raped but giving birth? That shit's just pain. Trauma's qualitatively different!
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:21 AM
3

Rape is basically torture so I rank it the same. Torture someone long enough and it could be worse than killing them. Torture+kill is way worse than just kill. That's just ethics though. Morally, torture is extremely bad. Especially if you don't actually have a goal - you just want to hurt someone. It is far more common for killing to be useful than for torture to be useful so it's usually not even a tradeoff.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:19 AM
–

Since the majority of medical attention and research has focused on women Do you have a solid study showing this? It directly contradicts the feminist narrative so it'd be useful.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:12 AM
5

I was not aware that watching the Victoria's Secret fashion show got men labeled as perverted. The only people who have called me perverted were upset that I wouldn't sleep with them.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:11 AM
0

You're mixing up causation. For some reason everyone does that when I write things... and I really don't know why. I think that most powerful people got powerful by being terrible. If they exclude others for even benign reasons then they don't identify with those people. There's nothing to do about class exclusion but at least with gender, something can be done. And no I don't trust them. Becoming powerful in an exploitative system means being exploitative. Everyone's got it in them but powerful…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:40 AM
6

Awesome :)
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:59 AM
1

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't indict her on my belief but it's extremely improbable that she believes that men and women suffer equitable amounts of domestic violence. But you are right that I shouldn't be too certain here.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:58 AM
24

Seriously though, he is. Rationality is uncommon. Most people use facts as pawns of emotional reasoning. Our internal monologue is rationalization.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:12 AM
1

I don't think the author is using "minority" in the technically correct sense. I believe they believe that men suffer far less domestic violence than women. That is what almost every person, including feminists, believes and it supports the feminist narrative so they have emotional reasons to believe it, if nothing else.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:06 AM
2

There isn't a reason that should be true. The only studies on it I'm aware of show that men in power at best don't care about gender and at worst hurt men to help women. I don't really see powerful men as a threat, specifically. But if avenues of acquiring power are kept out of reach of women then equality of opportunity is lost. I also just don't trust anyone in power to be egalitarian so I don't want them to have the opportunity to be exclusionary.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:04 AM
10

That's what I've heard too. Maybe it differs between the US and the UK?
/r/MensRights04/12/12 09:04 PM
6

http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightslinks/comments/11raq0/dvipvstudy_among_violent_relationships_nearly/ I didn't look in it but this claims to be the source.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:50 PM
3

The situation confers more power to women than men even if it damages non-power dynamics that are extremely valuable to women.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:48 PM
-8

I can see why feminists want to make golf courses and hunting clubs accept women since powerful men go there so anyone barred is at a disadvantage. They still protest places for common men to meet so their stated reasoning is probably actually rationalization though.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:46 PM
15

Perhaps this is because it is common for men find shame in seeking help in our culture? A large percentage of the time, abused men who seek help from shelters are actually referred to information on how they can stop abusing. They also just won't get any help the majority of the time. If DV shelters were a business, their word-of-mouth marketing is that men are not welcome so it doesn't go much beyond the few men who seek them out. That isn't to say that your organization does this.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:44 PM
5

I doubt they actually mean to say that since there's no reason to be gender-specific about the ratio of men suffering violence to those not since the female ratio is also similarly under 1:1.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:39 PM
1

Perhaps if feminists controlled the NBC video they would have contextualized it as pro-whatever-they-want and loved it. The sex-positive feminists, anyway.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:46 AM
2

It bothers me that men aren't "objectified in art" as much as they used to be. The male form isn't seen a beautiful anymore. Opposite interpretation of the facts as you, though.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:44 AM
1

Others have addressed my disagreements with you but I want to say thank you for arguing. Dissent helps the movement from falling into an echo chamber.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:30 AM
4

Ok cool. I mostly ask to cement my understanding.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 05:41 AM
4

Wouldn't an LLC prevent that?
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:25 AM
2

It does in fact do that, depending on what one means by matriarchy. However the lack of women in power is strong evidence against matriarchy. This works because the simultaneous non-patriarchy and non-matriarchy hypothesis can occupy most of the hypothesis space's weight.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:21 AM
2

You bring up the best evidence I've found that a Patriarchy exists. None of it is actually strong enough to believe in Patriarchy. However, some of it makes some hypotheses likely enough to be worth pursuing. Mainly, men being in power doesn't mean men use their power to oppress women. Men being in power is evidence that a Patriarchy exists but one has to show that men holding power is meaningful wrt oppression. What if people in power are taller than average? Does that mean tall people oppress …
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:29 AM
1

Sorry, I got a bit off topic. It's not individuals doing anything, really. Patriarchy is all about social norms and small acts of sexism done by like everybody creating a situation where women are oppressed. It's still like a conspiracy theory and may sometimes become one but at its heart it's not. Note that they call it Patriarchy, not patriarchy. Overt instances of control don't exist* as far as I can tell so they had to alter definitions to make themselves relevant. The reason Patriarchy is l…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:17 AM
1

First, the call it Patriarchy, not patriarchy. The distinction lets them frame everything in terms of oppression when it's obvious that fathers don't literally rule over their family. Anyway, outsmarting them is mostly a matter of rhetoric because the simplest way to destroy their beliefs is to demand they provide sufficient evidence. I've never encountered a feminist who could and believes in the Patriarchy. The very best argument is that most positions of power are held by men but this does no…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:03 AM
2

"Check your privilege" is ad hominem. Even when it's not an ad hominem, it's the genetic fallacy, which is closely related to ad hominem. Occasionally there's someone who actually understands the concept well enough to know that "check your privilege" is not fallacious when used as a shorthand for saying the other person's argument is fallacious due to confirmation bias. But of course, they could just say "confirmation bias" but then they wouldn't get the effects of an undetected ad hominem.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:59 AM
0

Frustratingly the most rational counter to their belief is to dismiss it out of hand because they don't have strong evidence, but that won't actually convince anyone insufficiently rational, which is virtually everyone. What's awesome about that sentence is that it applies equally well to (most of) feminism and religion.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:56 AM
2

Oddly, none of those have ever happened to me on the Internet. Either feminists are willing to have a real discussion or they ignore/ban me. My posting history may have a strong influence.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:52 AM
9

They were specifically protesting Warren Farrell, not anonymous youtubers. Why do you think those youtubers are MRAs? Youtube comments are known to be crap. All that's needed for youtube commenters to say fucked up shit is fucked up shit being able to get a rise from people.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 05:32 PM
0

Replace utility for each individual with utility for the social structure. Can a culture make the two one?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 03:22 AM
72

Funny how NOW's demographic mocked Romney for what they themselves advocate. Hilarious, even.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:28 AM
4

Feminists call MRAs violent but that's never yet happened so their extreme view is actually further than the actual extreme. If an MRA calls feminists pro-genocide, there literally are feminists who are. One side knows less about the other - and itself.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:33 PM
2

It does vary by culture but afaik all english-speaking cultures put it inside. I put it outside because I code.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:18 PM
5

It's not a severe twisting at all. She says exactly that but it's not word-for-word so the title's quotes make it a lie. And don't be dumb. These are all anecdotes anyway. Measuring sexism is incredibly hard so very few people even try. They just assume they either experienced it or didn't. Somehow believing one set of people over another is a moral imperative that you seem to be espousing.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:45 AM
1

From what I could tell, this community is angry at Watson's response to the comic, not the comic itself.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 08:39 AM
1

How the fuck can they discuss that book without bringing up Scout's hatred of heathenism toward the end of the book? It's kind of important that she starts out against the social norms of prejudice and keeps others.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:58 AM
0

Hopefully most are against all religion and therefore islam as well.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:36 AM
1

I don't disagree with how she treats Venker or conservatives. That's just normal for a political piece, sad as that is. The strawman was a small thing since she basically ignores Venker's article. It honestly didn't occur to me that she was trying to be fair and open-minded so I might have missed that as so much more posturing, which it is. She insinuates that what men may want in a relationship is only valid if it matches what she wants, yet demands that men meet all her standards whether they …
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:55 PM
2

Not a bad point. The first time someone beside my mother called me attractive I was willing to do very nearly anything for her. Not remotely a healthy reaction on my part but male life is often in a dearth of affection. It's not relevant but I think it's important: I don't know if most women really understand what that does to a person.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:17 PM
2

I doubt they'd vote the way people think they would. If that happened, I predict feminists would be very happy for a month or so then never talk about it because the justices would vote like individuals instead of a gender.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:13 PM
2

No, she says that the other woman says women's shouldn't work but she believes women should work and have a family.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:01 PM
2

This is why the only movement I really care about is the rationalist movement. It's the only one that addresses the actual root cause of human problems. Even the MRM is just dealing with the symptoms of irrationality.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:41 AM
0

Thank you.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:32 AM
6

I didn't get very far before I found a misunderstanding of evopsych: We are accustomed to hearing that men are eagerly trying to propagate their genes into future generations via casual sex. If that is true, then one might expect that husbands would be much more likely to have affairs than wives. Are women truly more faithful than men? Erroneous logic. Women can still cheat to get the best genes. They just don't get to do it as often because they're usually pregnant (heh).
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:26 AM
2

So you believe that the more loose women's gender roles, the more misogynistic society is? You also appear to believe that men were the arbiters of what women could wear. This fits into the oppression narrative but you should try actually learning history instead of just listening to what gender warriors say things were like. Did you know that women could be craftspeople in post-medieval England? Guild voting rights, ownership of property, ability to take people to court. All these things that f…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:07 AM
2

Suit, not suite. suite/swēt/ Noun: 11 A set of things belonging together, in particular. A set of rooms designated for one person's or family's use or for a particular purpose.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:03 AM
2

Awesome, thanks.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 07:07 AM
2

women instinctively act in exactly the opposite manner Source? I don't dispute that women actually act in this way (though I don't have high confidence) but calling it instinct requires ruling out cultural factors or showing that genetic factors point to this while ruling out competing hypotheses in this vein. That isn't trivial.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 03:27 AM
2

I SPENT THE LAST TWO MONTHS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR HARRASSMENT How the fuck does harassment get one in the hospital at all? Two months? I can't get past her preamble without thinking she's a pathological liar...
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:39 AM
7

Pure Machiavellian intent behind that woman's words.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:37 AM
2

So it's run by egalitarians who believe feminist lies. About the best you can hope for in the mainstream right now.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:36 AM
0

Yeah.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:20 AM
1

That's why they need to take classes or work or something. With any luck computer-oriented labor will catch on among stay-at-home spouses and they can have tiny stay-at-home businesses that are actually profitable.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:59 AM
1

That's why they need to take classes or work or something. With any luck computer-oriented labor will catch on among stay-at-home spouses and they can have tiny stay-at-home businesses that are actually profitable.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:58 AM
1

I don't see any that aren't. I'm assuming that OP is only showing the insane points since if this is the comprehensive list, feminists literally have no idea what the MRM is about. If this is true then I've been wrong about trying to argue against Patriarchy being real since they think I believe completely batshit things.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:49 AM
1

cherry pick them and ignore the real data This seems to be the latest anti-MRM argument tactic since I've been seeing it used more, recently. Kind of hard to argue against when your opponents universally lack the understanding necessary to differentiate between good and bad data. The best argument has to be an appeal to authority, which is shitty.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:46 AM
2

Gods, I went to /r/communism and just said that they were oversimplifying the MRM. They banned and insulted me. It's incredibly authoritarian for a supposedly communist community.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:43 AM
1

When the agent orange doxxing hit, the SRSisters were freaking out that now MRAs were going to violently attack radical feminists who were outed. That never happened yet radical feminists tried to ruin the lives of several MRAs who they doxxed. It's hysteria. They imagine MRAs as violent even though no MRA has ever committed political violence against another person while their own group has done so repeatedly. I imagine this is because they imagine traditional masculinity as inherently violent …
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:38 AM
1

I've seen a mix. My best and worst teachers were both women but I've had several good male teachers too. Actually, nearly every teacher gave me preferential treatment up until high school and I'm male. I'd feel bad about it but they really just treated me like every child should be treated.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:29 AM
8

That could be justified in that girls take longer but have the same necessary toilet frequency. Could be solved by not being a douchebag and forcing children to keep from undergoing normal human bodily functions, of course.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:26 AM
7

manner, not manor
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:19 AM
10

This is my opinion as well. I actually judge how radical a person's feminism is by if they think women are oppressed today in the same way that blacks were in the South either during slavery or after legal reforms to disenfranchise blacks (USA, obviously). Radical feminists believe this to be so. I have to ask this because "oppression" means very different things to different people. To some, gender roles giving one gender more overt power is oppression while to others actual violent suppression…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:18 AM
3

I interpreted his statement as him wanting to take the lead in dating and relationships but not necessarily being against a partner that is very aggressive in other areas. Hard to say though.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:14 AM
6

Etymology of robot robot (n.) 1923, from English translation of 1920 play "R.U.R." ("Rossum's Universal Robots"), by Karel Capek (1890-1938), from Czech robotnik "slave," from robota "forced labor, drudgery," from robotiti "to work, drudge," from an Old Czech source akin to Old Church Slavonic rabota "servitude," from rabu "slave" (see orphan), from a Slavic stem related to Ger. Arbeit "work" (O.H.G. arabeit). According to Rawson the word was popularized by Karel Capek's play, "but was coined by…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:11 AM
1

Chauvinist does not mean male chauvinist. Feminists are often female chauvinists.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:10 AM
3

Thanks! This is amazing.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:53 PM
6

"That's what we're doing."
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:31 PM
2

Ah. I definitely meant consumption meaning the person who actually uses them. I suppose it could fit into the economics definition if one considers all sharing of resources to be purchasing but it'd be honky.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 10:27 AM
2

Current production is depleting fresh water reserves in the US so it's not really sustainable. It also demands deforestation to produce the grain to feed the animals, which keeps carbon from being captured in plantlife. The US can totally feed a fuckton of people though.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:43 AM
1

Ah, that's very likely true. The labor makeup of each gender is not very similar so one contributing more is extremely likely. Men do more resource gathering and processing, which use up tons of resources including energy and therefore men do contribute more in that way. If the meat thing is true then that's also valid since meat is usually a horrendous misuse of resources, delicious as it may be.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:56 AM
2

Not exactly. Men are participants but women have full veto power. Men aren't faultless here, so long as they actually consent to fatherhood or possibly sex (depending), but it isn't an equal portion of power.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:43 AM
1

I'm not certain but are you arguing that men occupying those jobs makes men more responsible for global warming? Women consume the products of those labors. Vehicle use statistics are valid so long as they are largely recreational.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:37 AM
3

Yeah... men and women are not remotely distinct economic classes anywhere that families exist.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:34 AM
3

I don't think the zeitgeist even uses that overly-specific definition. I'm not sure it ever did. Where did they get it?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:32 AM
3

Holy shit that was well done. Bravo!
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:30 AM
3

It might be against the new rule against linking to threads not yet a day old in subreddits sufficiently smaller than this one.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:27 AM
2

If you can source this and add it to the mr links page, a whole class of internet feminist lies/ignorance will be soundly defeated wherever debate is open.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:52 PM
1

Well that's what she wishes were true about your beliefs so that's what she believes about your beliefs.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:47 PM
3

Yeah. If you shoot straight for egalitarianism then this comes off as insidiously anti-egalitarian.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:46 PM
11

My money's on an MRA or soon-to-be-MRA.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:38 PM
6

mindwalker94 has a valid point. It's annoying as shit for a feminist to respond to but he's being very cordial here. You are the one dropping the level of discourse. Don't claim to want to engage MRAs in a dialogue if you can't keep yourself from getting defensive against mild criticism. Your intent may be there but you don't have the capacity.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:17 PM
2

Just make sure you learn how to evaluate personality! Very cool girls don't necessary deal with breakups well and what is divorce but a breakup with more legal avenues of revenge.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:22 AM
2

Hella. That's why I post the links when I like them, which I usually do.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 06:06 AM
1

It's somewhat unlikely that the 9 year old incapacitated the 11 year old at all since the 11 year old probably wasn't stupid-drunk.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:50 AM
1

The rest of my comment was the important part.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:09 AM
3

I don't know if this is true in Germany but feminists are the direct cause of this sexism in England and America. It's hard to take feminist protestations seriously when their actual collective actions are the very opposite of their presented beliefs.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:14 AM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 01:51 AM
1

Nothing Farrell says is contrary to socialism so if so they are very stupid socialists.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 01:03 AM
3

Shit :/
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:40 AM
2

The phrase you all should know is "biotruth". Normally this term is misused about as much as evopsych. Both have valid purpose though. Evolutionary psychology produces plausible hypotheses and calling something a biotruth reminds people that those are hypotheses. Though people who say "biotruth" don't usually understand what a hypothesis actually is.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:40 AM
1

Yeah, almost always the sanest bet is very close to 50-50 odds.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:34 AM
1

Dammit, thanks.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:22 AM
9

Those people get their information from people who are either stupid or liars. They're ignorant tools. There isn't a cure for them except to teach them how to actually be right. Teaching someone wisdom has some pitfalls including them only sticking with it long enough to make themselves even bigger fools. That's why you get people spouting shit about ad hominem attacks that aren't or using statistics horrendously wrong.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:21 AM
4

How long ago was this? Gay == child rapist is fading from the zeitgeist but was totally there in the past.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:17 AM
1

Is wiretapping actually illegal or just inadmissible in court?
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:57 PM
1

all his "risks" were really not that risky because he could have moved home or w/e at any time Something that middle-class and up people really don't understand about what risks are. People say they took a risk starting a company but if they don't live on the street if they fail then they aren't taking a very big risk. Risky behavior is about the personal cost of failure. If the only thing lost is resources you don't need to live a comfortable life then you are only risking capital. It's no diff…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:49 PM
2

Glad to hear that. Your statement looks misogynistic so I wanted to clarify.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:38 PM
1

No one mentioned the Patriarchy (or patriarchy) so this post is far removed from actual discourse. Anyway: Anything you do to your oppressor is justified. Of course the others in the oppressor class don't think so but that's because they don't know what it's like to be oppressed or want to hold on to their ability to oppress you, as is the case of e.g. white women who are also oppressed but want to oppress black women since the Patriarchy creates such a dominance hierarchy. Men oppress women so …
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:36 PM
1

You weren't being sarcastic at any point, right? You also didn't explain how it's the patriarchy's fault. Instead you explained how everyone failed and did not offer a moral stance on who acted more reasonably. From this I can surmise you have no moral problem with violence in response to non-violence and that you are reasonable.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:25 PM
2

Still hella light as these things go.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:25 AM
1

Most of them just have bad information. It's somewhat frustrating that this is usually the case. Gullible people executing the will of bigots.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:36 AM
0

There's no real reason they should be proportional. Title IX accounts for this but only if a university cares more about being fair to its men than it does about its money since the good option - assessing interest - is more expensive than cutting male sports teams. IMO only assessing interest and having a delta toward matching that interest should matter. Right now the law pretends men and women have identical interest in sports when really they do not. From my own experience it seems that wome…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:29 AM
8

It certainly seems to be female nature to avoid responsibility. This seems to be the default behavior for humans, if children are any indication. Men are taught to accept responsibility when they are young. Perhaps women are not. This ties in to female hypoagency/male hyperagency.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:09 AM
7

Your skin isn't even dark o_O.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:59 AM
1

Ohhhh lol. I am studying cognitive science. Still doing prereqs though.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:39 AM
1

No, I'm really just being flippant. On the other hand it's useful advice whether or not it's true, since she is acting irrational regardless of how it affects her body.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:35 AM
8

Aziz? Though I suppose you didn't mention famous.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 01:08 AM
3

Lol I forgot about that. Awesome.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 12:32 AM
13

That much neuroticism must be killing her body from stress.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 12:16 AM
25

justice porn
/r/MensRights21/11/12 12:13 AM
3

One resolution can be employment. I just didn't quote that part. It sounds like they can do just about anything to resolve a discrimination issue. A lot like forced arbitration.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:12 PM
2

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html, XIII compensatory and punitive damages also may be available where intentional discrimination is found. Damages may be available to compensate for actual monetary losses, for future monetary losses, and for mental anguish and inconvenience. Punitive damages also may be available if an employer acted with malice or reckless indifference. So you can totally get paid for it. At the very least, though, it would put a dent in discrimination because management wou…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:04 PM
1

This isn't an opinion here. They say there is misogyny here but did not actually call this a hate movement. You can infer that they did but it's at best implied, not explicit. And since they are bothering to point out a distinction it's a stretch to believe they are implying that /MR is a hate movement. Not impossible though.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:00 PM
1

Yes, people who don't understand the term added their definition of it. Check out the urbandictinary definition for MRA. It's not like the urbandictionary definitions come about by researching how words are used by people who actually use them. It's just internet people with bots spamming votes. Not that you can actually use a dictionary in this argument anyway. Dictionaries follow word usage. They do not define it. Your use of UD, btw, should be interpreted by you as additional evidence that yo…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 03:54 PM
19

Excellent chance to sue them for blatant discrimination and thereby advance women's rights. It's not like women don't do those jobs. They're just less than 10% of the population. Refusing to hire women would be notable even without your testimony.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 10:17 AM
5

Probably they believe that men wouldn't really let women do those jobs. Not necessarily outright discrimination but like belittlement and stuff. So yes they would blame the Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 10:15 AM
1

alienating So true. Yet somehow these people don't understand why egalitarians of those categories don't like to play with them.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 09:56 AM
11

Right. People avoid being around those that don't want them there because that's a great way to get killed, pre-civilization. Still a pretty good way depending on the people who hate you.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 01:50 AM
4

You are extremely ignorant about the MRM. If you want to understand the movement, don't listen to talking points from people who hate the notion that men could have a rights movement. You'd be equally well-served by listening to Fox News to understand the Democratic position. You are literally as bad as the people here who think the entire Left is just people who want to steal from people who actually do useful work. Feminine men aren't shamed in the MRM. As far as I've seen, the MRM is universa…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 01:00 AM
4

...What you have quoted is notably lacking in allegations of being a hate movement. Entirely lacking. That you believe otherwise should be evidence for yourself that you have biases here that prevent you from understanding.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:53 AM
2

This power is controlled by responsibility. That's kind of my point. The breadwinner has the ability to stop working and fuck over their family, rise up in the ranks, or sometimes switch careers. But in patriarchies, men will be socially and physically beaten if they try to step out of the breadwinner role. The same is true of women but we aren't in a patriarchy anymore. Now men are still stuck in the gender role with responsibility but women are not penalized for attaining the same power as men…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:46 AM
2

Awesome.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:41 AM
5

Please don't speculate. Link to comparable situations where genders are treated differently. You know they exist so show them.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:22 PM
9

Well the breadwinner role gives one more power. Also more responsibility and greater risk but for people who can't see anything in human relationships but power, that's enough to define a narrative.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:19 PM
1

I am using it the way feminists do - to explain, not prohibit, every possible related observation. If they turned it into a useful theory then it would look like your comment and be disproven immediately. Unfortunately the disproof of the way it's actually used required the listener to understand that disproof requires only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. And most people are theists.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:31 PM
5

Does your profession tie into your interest in martiality?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:07 AM
1

Wouldn't there also be less other-trafficking since with fewer males there'd be more hard labor shortage and therefore more incentive to enslave laborers?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:05 AM
2

Nobody in the MRM has ever said misogyny isn't real. What the fuck is up with feminists thinking the MRM is feminism for men? Too much echo chamber, can't think about anything without an oppression dynamic looming in the background?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:59 AM
1

Oh wow I finally got why some feminists* think that shaving ones legs is a manifestation of the Patriarchy. Women shaving their legs is them succumbing to the Patriarchy forcing them to be less masculine (and therefore less powerful since power is tied in with masculinity). * or so I'm led to believe. This is really a 70's stereotype so I don't know how made-up it is.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:54 AM
1

No, because complicated non-predictive theory that happens to make bigotry in one direction not only acceptable but righteous.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:51 AM
2

The funny thing is, you could easily turn this argument around for many things by pointing out women are mocked for being unfeminine. Fail to shave your arm pits? Wow, just like a man (what a bad thing). Luckily they reason* themselves out of that trap by pointing out that society at large hates women so it must be a manifestation of hating women. The evidence is exactly those things you listed because circular reasoning is the sturdiest of reasonings. *rationalize
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:49 AM
1

The author doesn't know what socialism is or what socialists believe. They have constructed a straw man. An ineffectual golem whose meaning of life is to be defeated by a single swipe of a cardboard sword.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:43 AM
2

but nobody has said oppression of men kills men! I had a conversation with such folk tonight. They literally believe that MRAs believe that men are oppressed. As you've said, MRAs generally do not believe this and perhaps never believe men are oppressed in the same sense that feminists believe women are oppressed. I don't know where this belief came from but I suspect malice.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 10:21 AM
2

My experience going to my female friend's birthday party at a gay bar was that they are actually very nice to women there. She's great at interacting with gay men though and did bring a bunch of guys with her. But I don't actually know what they were thinking.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 04:36 AM
3

Just want to say that the opposite gender situation is extremely common. It is common knowledge that men consent by default. That's far more rape culture-y than gray area around coercion and alcohol, IMO.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 10:22 AM
0

Thinking about it, I agree with you over my own statements. I was thinking of specific notable instances which blinded me to less obvious instances.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 07:55 AM
3

I'd say that's ultimately true. The notion that masculinity is inherently bad is something you get from people who have been seriously hurt by men and stereotype all men as the problem. I'm guessing that this is mostly women because it's far easier for women to "other" men than for men to "other" men. So hatred of masculinity is really a rationalized and extended Pavlovian-like response to being hurt by a male. The rest - Patriarchy, Rape Culture, Toxic Masculinity - are rationalizations after t…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 07:04 AM
2

Yeah that's what I was referring to. No idea why I was obtuse :/
/r/MensRights18/11/12 06:44 AM
2

Do they realize who Orwellian/hypocritical they sound? In their eyes they are fighting against dangerous hate speech. They might or might not realize that other people see that they are coercively preventing others from assembling or practicing non-violent free speech. If they do realize it then they think it's because other people are too ignorant or stupid to understand the underlying reality. They at no point seriously attempted to empirically ground their beliefs, however. Dunner-Kruger effe…
/r/MensRights18/11/12 06:15 AM
8

Someone in their group has shit-poor reading comprehension and interpreted Warren Farrell talking about how consent is a tricky thing because girls may verbalize "no" but mean "yes"* as Warren Farrell advocating for date rape. * Like, body language can be extremely explicitly giving consent while saying "no". This is apparently ubiquitous in Japan.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 05:24 AM
8

How frequently do feminists give death threats to people even giving men's rights a chance? At least since the first domestic violent shelter it seems to be a time honored tradition of feminism. Bigoted feminists seem to have a habit of threatening to kill non-bigoted feminists.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 05:06 AM
3

They just don't want men to think for themselves or what's in their best interests. Probably accurate, actually. They believe that masculinity creates Patriarchy and therefore must be eliminated. If men work together without specifically trying to eliminate masculinity then they will work to strengthen the Patriarchy whether they intend to do so or not. It's an example of ignorant and stupid people believing they know best how others should think and act.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 04:59 AM
3

We aren't even allowed to link to any of these except /r/canada and probably /r/masculism since it's related to /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 04:12 AM
6

Since it's a teacher and teachers expect to answer questions, you could try the socratic method on him. Ask him questions that cause him to admit your viewpoint. It's very difficult to do well but also very rewarding.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 03:58 AM
1

Ah. I hope that's true since I consider myself both and I highly disapprove of their actions. Doubly because they are working off of false information that they didn't even try to check or, if they did, weren't intelligent enough to understand.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 03:54 AM
1

Not sure what you mean. Socialists can be anarchists.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 07:31 PM
2

I reckon so but you must communicate that. However maybe you do - I don't know your past posts.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 01:54 AM
11

Good idea! It seems the tact is for women's centers to gain footholds in men's centers when they manage to exist at all. If men's centers communicated with each other then they could resist local feminist pressure.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:59 PM
3

Libertarian of various shade is probably the most common here. Left or right. Republicans and democrats are both asshats.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:53 PM
1

self posts only, I think
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:49 PM
4

Suicide method choice is utter conjecture. It's popular conjecture but still conjecture. We don't know if those women actually wanted to kill themselves or know that an "attempt" will get them help while men don't believe it will.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:47 PM
2

Feminism is literally chauvinism. Look up the definition - chauvinism does not imply male chauvinism.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:41 PM
4

feminists are starting to have thoughts about what they said Then subsequently blaming the Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:37 PM
4

If by "it" you mean capital-p Patriarchy. Actually patriarchies have and continue to exist.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:35 PM
8

He was detailed. People call things religion to vilify it without really understanding why so I can't tell if you actually understand why it makes sense or not.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:32 PM
2

The article itself is pretty legit even though the comments are full of fuck. Possibly the very best Jezebel article ever written.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:36 AM
2

They seem to be repeating what is considered common knowledge among women. It's an almost entirely floating belief since very few men are actually unhappy about being asked out. If anything I suspect men who get pissy about it didn't want to date the woman who asked them anyway and used that as an excuse.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:30 AM
1

Possibly. So far we've had a huge problem with people thinking communism can be done immediately. Despite even the earliest communist thinkers disagreeing. So we know for sure that trying to go from capitalism or feudalism straight to communism is just another way to get an oppressive regime.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:28 AM
1

Sounds like the backstory to Preacher.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:24 AM
2

sexually males Missing word.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:21 AM
2

Oh, so the poster is confusing free will and free action that actually makes more sense.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:57 AM
2

Are men better leaders? Testosterone causes men to exhibit more status seeking behavior than women which causes men to practice leading more than women (on average) but I don't know how big an effect such a thing would have.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:11 PM
2

It's also much harder to get a good job than a bad one.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:06 PM
3

Oy, depending heavily on the culture.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:02 PM
2

Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:56 PM
0

I don't know the utility calculation so I haven no opinion either way but a possible reason that occurs to me is that there's some risk from people not trusting FDA approval so it makes sense to err on the side of not releasing drugs. Not usually a good argument since that's Standard Authoritarian Propaganda but it can have merit.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:56 PM
10

Not remotely accurate but it is a funny joke.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:01 AM
6

She is saying that lack of feminism causes most halloween costumes to be slutty. Yet halloween costumes are slutty because women want them to be slutty. Feminism broadened the female gender role and women used that to dress sluttier. More feminism would probably increase the sluttiness of female dress. Maybe if sex-negative feminism gets a stranglehold that will change. That isn't to say that the lack of choices doesn't suck. It's just not something feminism can solve. I feel weird saying "slutt…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:52 AM
1

Yup. It doesn't even matter how your source justifies what they write. They can literally make shit up (and do!) and it's sufficient for wikipedia.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:07 AM
1

That'd actually be fairly accurate; aren't the numbers of men and women who are raped pretty similar? Very nearly identical.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:05 AM
10

They can dress slutty if they want to without repercussions because feminism works to expand female choice and power. Since women prefer slutty costumes, most costumes are slutty (free market).
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:53 PM
15

Feminism isn't the solution to women being sexually liberated... I hope. She has no idea why things displease her are the way they are so she assumes feminism is the solution. It's very mockable.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:24 PM
2

I mean to say that their beliefs about how they should believe and their actual beliefs are in conflict. Cognitive dissonance. I hadn't thought about it but now that I do: I see what a person wants to believe and what they believe to need to be treated differently. I argue with people on their conscious desires because there isn't an argument about subconscious ones - "yeah they exist and I'm working on them" is just about the only mature response they could produce. Now that I think about it, t…
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:22 AM
5

I don't think any of the feminists I know IRL think men should be gentlemanly. They still want it, as far as I can tell (drunken rambling can be revealing) but don't posture that men should fit their gender role.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 08:08 AM
1

Pick an issue and learn it well. When you argue, use statements that are really fucking hard to argue against; either they're framed such that disagreement is terrible (circumcision is easiest here) or you have strong empirical backing from a source they won't dismiss out of hand.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 08:06 AM
10

Depends on what you mean by rape. TyphonBlue goes over the CDC study here. This is the report (PDF warning).
/r/MensRights14/11/12 05:18 AM
1

Same for me.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 03:32 PM
2

Number 6 rests entirely on anti-sex beliefs being her default. She didn't say shit about other jobs, which all have that attribute.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:02 AM
3

Are you an ancap?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 03:05 AM
3

Isn't it satire and not sarcasm? The point is to show how ridiculous anti-rape advice is by reframing it.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:48 AM
1

Sexism against women = sexism Sexism against men = benevolent sexism Equality = sexism because Patriarchy imbalance When your theory doesn't predict anything, it predicts everything!
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:20 AM
2

You make it sound like an arbitrary two hours.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:11 AM
1

It was a patriarchy so yes it was sexist. But still, men suffered incredibly more for suffrage than women and still have greater responsibility tied to it than women.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 11:26 PM
1

One can be an activist for the rights of men and also hate women.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 11:21 PM
1

Wikipedia's iq page actually notes this,though I don't know if it is actually 5 points.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 11:20 PM
6

It does not appear to be about a double standard, just rape of anyone.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:56 AM
1

Wait you play tsrp? havok9? (sp?)
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:48 AM
1

I don't really understand why you disagree with her. Do you dislike her flippant attitude?
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:46 AM
1

Sorry but that's not a citation. At least link to your blog post, where I assume you cited.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:33 AM
2

Similar shit happened to a friend of mine. He was a sweet guy to have such a selfish mother.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:10 AM
1

This may sound very odd but I get the impression your military service intimidated your counselor.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 05:08 AM
0

You provided an equally unfounded hypothesis for comparison. It is a good way to show how irrational someone's hypothesis choice is.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:58 AM
6

The women bloc as a micro demographic? It still to this day shocks me how stupid people are.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 10:04 PM
3

They did not. It's on a watch list or some such bullshit. Even the folks here thought they did but later they specifically stated they did not. The people saying that today are ignorant or liars.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:39 PM
1

It is depressing that you are right. "Forced to resign" just because you point out that factually established biological differences could influence the real world.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:36 PM
1

I knew several but I'm not sure they'd even show up on a study since they were purposefully homeless.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:52 AM
1

Indeed. At best, they correlate. Outside of education that requires expensive equipment... if all you need is book knowledge then you can get it from books.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:49 AM
5

Good tactic. It's rare for someone to actually question the why of the gap because it's always been presented to them in a context that implies it's from discrimination. Making them actually think about it opens their mind, making convincing them actually possible.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:46 AM
1

If she's a small woman and he's a big boy then he could fucking destroy her, physically.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:45 AM
2

He thinks it's a lie designed to get a rise out of people.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:44 AM
1

I never got one from a conversation but just sitting down I'd get one then have to engage in conversation.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:43 AM
1

Same. I couldn't stand 2 but it isn't obvious that feminism ruined it.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:39 AM
1

I disagree but you are contributing to discussion.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:27 PM
1

Could be possible to construe war as a way to attain a positive masculine identity.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:25 PM
7

This is the judge who allows stuff and he isn't allowing this. Heed him.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:19 PM
-2

Wow, they donkt even try to be accurate.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:15 PM
4

I'm not so sure. How a person treats others is very much how they treat their SO. This woman blames other people for her failings so she blames her husband for her failings. That isn't healthy by itself though other factors might make up for it. This is the metric I use to determine the marriageability of a woman, regarding her personality. If she attacks an ex then I know she'd abuse divorce and family court. It is critical for men to avoid "sticking their dick in crazy" or they will have their…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:46 PM
19

She deflected while the dad did not. It is reasonable to assume the defensive party is the one who did wrong.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:36 PM
11

Intersting point. This sub's lack of censorship compared to the rampant censorship of virtually all feminist spaces makes them think we endorse far more than we do. Censorous people don't actually understand free speech.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:22 PM
3

Which means that the writer intentionally wants the reader to associate the test's finding, which are touching, with grabbing breasts. Why you think an underhanded manipulation in the medium is proof of its intentionally misleading assertion's truth is interesting.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:13 PM
4

It would be a surprise if rape had a better chance of orgasm than consensual sex.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:15 AM
3

Sauce?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:14 AM
3

Protip: it's called a ninja edit
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:13 AM
1

Huge stigma against going over your boss's head. Sometimes you must but even the boss's boss will look down on you for it.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:00 AM
1

I imagine it would increase in the short-term as men afraid of divorce decide to marry and continue decreasing in the long-term as people stop caring about religious rituals.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:38 AM
2

That sucks man but you've got to know that stupid and brave aren't the same thing even if your dad doesn't.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:36 AM
2

I can completely dig this line of reasoning. Many feminists, even radfems, actually do think this way. They only divulge this belief when confronted with the absurdity of their apparent beliefs because the rhetoric that even a drop of alcohol == no consent just makes perfect sense to them. I'm not sure why but my guess is that they believe rape is political (men against women) so you only argue your side.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:23 AM
2

"poor reading comprehension" is quickly becoming my most-used RES tag :/
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:20 AM
1

Not a fantastic example since drug dealing to non-minors is illegal for extremely stupid reasons. However it's a perfect example if you want to show that the state is entirely willing to make it possible for people to rape each other simultaneously.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:17 AM
2

apex fallacy
/r/MensRights05/11/12 11:22 PM
2

Well it's just a hypothesis. There are others. My guess is that that one gets circulated because it fits the overall story as told by feminism.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 11:13 PM
7

I dunno how bad you have it but just in case you are unaware: /r/SuicideWatch
/r/MensRights05/11/12 11:05 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:58 PM
3

It's really all about the risk factor. For some reason many many MRAs are bad at grokking specific women so they are easy prey for the sociopaths out there. The generalizing language is crap of course but it's entirely fair to warn men that dating a single mom is sufficient to need to pay child support.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 10:13 PM
2

Super critical comment ^
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:21 AM
4

Women are more assaulty than men. We know this because assault is relatively easy to measure. How does emotional abuse stack up by gender and relationship type (mm, mf, ff, other)? Legal abuse? I'd be surprised if women weren't the primary abusers in those categories too, though I don't know how gendered emotional abuse's damage might be.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:16 AM
2

I'm a premium user for the rest of the month, at least.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:12 AM
2

Oh wow I didn't know I could share evernote notes. I've got all of my mensrights sources on it. Is there a way to make like an MR dump with evernote notes? I grab comments with interesting anecdotes or reasoning along with sources so it could end up being a sort of "bestof".
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:06 AM
3

If men and women are the same, why do gay men have more casual sex than lesbians or straight people? Their answer is that society conditions this. It's crap evidence since gay men aren't exactly following society's conditioning wrt sexuality to begin with but it fits their grand theory so it passed the filter.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:03 AM
1

Any society where following the rules is not safe is a society where people stop following the rules.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:02 AM
2

Ha, so she actually aggressed against you but managed to "hurt" herself.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:01 AM
3

Please delete this post. From your other comment it's clear that this is not a mensrights issue, it's a technical issue.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 09:56 AM
6

It's a societal alteration so liberals will be into it if you can frame it right.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 11:15 PM
1

Yet feels that condescension is acceptable.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:26 PM
1

I don't know if this is true of humans but casein (milk protein) exacerbates (IIRC) liver cancer in mice. Also, most people should avoid milk to avoid lactose also but many people can handle it. I think fish is probably pretty healthy if you can get ahold of fish without elevated mercury levels.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:01 AM
8

It's 100% player hating. Sometimes good natured sometimes not.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:03 PM
1

That's exactly what I had in mind because I also sourced it.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:18 PM
8

Not necessarily. I was subscribed until they banned me because I wanted to see what they thought about things.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:59 AM
17

Perhaps Wikipedia's greatest flaw is that that is completely acceptable by their rules. Sources not needing to be grounded in reality is why the men's rights page has sources that amount to hearsay and yet removing them isn't justifiable because technically they are legitimate!
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:41 AM
1

I'm not whoever you disproved it to so it doesn't make much sense to say any of that to me. I'm guessing it's how you write a prelude to throwing your hands up in exasperation at all the hopelessly stupid people who somehow don't agree with you. Anyway, the last post of mine you will bother reading: Ok, so OBGYN does not suffer from that bias. I don't know how they accounted for potential discrimination in CEO pay since CEOs don't compete for wages in the same way as most professions. So I'll st…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:45 PM
3

Ah, I already hang out with socialists a bit but I'll add debateacommunist. Thanks!
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:16 PM
3

I doubt it. I just took stats from sources that looked authoritative. I did pull from the studies myself but I didn't check methodology. Took me a couple hours just with that - the right traffic fatality stat was hard to find.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:12 PM
5

That's good. I actually scolded him for giving communism a bad name but I don't think it affected him any. Is there a more legit communism subreddit?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:18 PM
0

Interesting point! I shall henceforth use it in debate with a certain radfem I know.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:35 AM
5

Excellent! Glad to hear it.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:26 AM
1

I wasn't arguing with you. As an original member of Civcraft, I would like to impart to you that the whole thing is total nonsense and shouldn't be taken seriously. The game is too inadequate to provide a meaningful metaphor to reality. It's just for fun. I get that. More than anything else it's a place to learn about this stuff in an interactive way. Do you think working in exchange for payment is not voluntary? It's not inherently involuntary but it also isn't always voluntary. I consider it v…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:51 AM
2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:43 AM
1

I don't yet have an opinion on which side is more aware of physical constraints but I wouldn't be surprised either way. I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or elaborating but I agree with you. I completely agree that left and right aren't very meaningful to anarchism compared to authority vs liberty. I also definitely have some emotional baggage informing my beliefs on left vs right, though I make up for that by assigning lower certainty to those beliefs. It would take a significant emotiona…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:40 AM
2

An-caps will be different from left-anarchists in that private property is one of the foundational principles of their view of society. My impression of left-anarchists is that there's no state, and people within the community agree to share property, or have private property except for production goods, or some other variations. An-caps have the private property thing across the board. This is pretty much it and also what I think is ideal for me and also fits in the ancap property view pretty w…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:10 AM
4

Yeah. I posted there a short while ago because they said something that was entirely black-white/boolean thinking so I told them it's actually a bit more complicated than that. They banned me then slung the sort of low-brow insults you expect from SRS. I'm having a hard time believing they are communist any more than /r/anarchism is anarchist. Aside from being intensely authoritarian, I heard that communism is incompatible with feminism because communism is materialist and feminism is post-moder…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:00 AM
3

Really? I posted there a week or so ago and they banned and insulted me a bunch. Maybe they think I was invading them when in reality I thought they were like socialists only more hardcore (totally not, btw. they're fascists).
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:56 AM
2

Does that not include marital rape? It's possible to force your husband into fucking you. I'm not sure if you consider it rape but aside from holding a gun to his head, she could threaten to lie to police about DV or CP or something. Lots of ways to coerce a spouse into sex.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:55 AM
5

It makes you mad because he believes that, while entitled to those opportunities, his daughters don't actually have them. Knowing this requires knowing Biden better than that image provides. In reality his daughters have more opportunities than his sons since everything that reduces their chances of doing whatever (STEM, astronaut, rockstar) are in how they are raised but women get opportunities regardless. Unless Biden is secretly sexist against his daughters or their social network is, they wi…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:48 AM
2

Prostitution should be legalized and pimping should be heavily penalized. I'm not sure if slavery is actually overtly against the law but any laws that cover slavery should apply. This is acceptable to many radfems except they also want johns to be prosecuted because Patriarchy. It's not internally consistent if you think they believe in a legal system but they don't so it ends up working out. Oh and I think legalizing prostitution can only help men and women, so long as pimping is quite illegal…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:43 AM
2

Could you edit your OP and future posts to reflect this?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:39 AM
2

Heheh awesome. I'm from the left so I went from liberal to libertarian socialist. I like to talk to ancaps though because they are incredibly open-minded and more reasonable than most people. I'm not sure how they stack up against left-anarchism since I actually agree with those folks but they are incredibly more reasonable than communists.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:33 AM
1

In basketball I know how much someone makes. If I feel I'm getting the short end of the stick I can speak up. In the workforce, it is frowned upon. Some jobs will fire you if you bring it up/ask other employees. Most people don't know what their peers make. Negotiations also generally tend to favor men. The study also showed that women who applied for jobs were not as likely to be hired by male managers if they tried to ask for more money, while men who asked for a higher salary were not negativ…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:25 AM
1

This is the real problem with male and female salaries but for some reason the feminist talking point is misleading. Perhaps it's just the meme that caught on so no one questions it even when ignoring the real problem and therefore failing to fix it. We have a situation where the leading pro-women's lobby is ignoring why women have less independent income (a source of power) in favor of blaming people who aren't even causing it. Feminists are figuratively throwing women under the bus to blame me…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:11 AM
1

I think he's elaborating, not debating.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:08 AM
1

It's not feminist math, it's misleading math. They compare field to field by lumping high-paying male-dominated jobs with low-paying female-dominated jobs. This makes it look like women brain surgeons are underpaid compared to male brain surgeons when in reality they are comparing brain surgeons to pediatricians*. * Example is made up. I haven't read that study in a while so I don't remember specifically. You are free to disprove my assertion by doing this research yourself, however.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 04:07 AM
3

I never really believed this until today.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 03:33 AM
2

Have you checked out /r/anarcho_capitalism or anarcho socialism?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 03:31 AM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights30/10/12 02:57 AM
4

Or a power game akin to gaslighting. From what little we know, they look the same.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:01 AM
3

Fair point. Those women are choosing to act in a way that society shames while when men are shamed for e.g. not performing they are not choosing.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:00 AM
6

offtopic I love your IRC italics but reddit doesn't use them for markup. Use a single pair of asterisks for italics and a double pair for bold.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:58 PM
1

I appreciate it.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:45 PM
2

Well. If men can retaliate better than women then even areas that are neutral themselves are affected. This is actually true to some degree in actual patriarchies. This mostly rests on women needing to survive on male labor e.g. farming, sailing, mining... Doesn't work in a modern economy or even that well in a pre-modern economy due to social and legal pressure from abusing women but it does work.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:42 PM
1

This is hella cool dude.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:37 PM
1

A thousand thanks!
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:34 PM
3

Yeah it's silly to think that men wouldn't use their sexual value from super high demand:supply ratio to their advantage. So long as women aren't willing to rape him as a matter of course, he could gain a great deal of privilege by selecting women for their usefulness to him.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:26 PM
2

There's a book I read that was a utopia. It was actually pretty good in that it didn't discount men it just formulated a society centered around children. On the other hand, it was written from the perspective that women don't like sex. Probably because when written that would imply lesbianism, which might have prevented its publication or at least made it obscene. It was also mildly racist and had unrealistic notions of technological progress. My favorite part was that the ideal male wasn't a, …
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:24 PM
3

Source? The difference noted here is big enough to be meaningful so if it isn't true I need to update my beliefs.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:20 PM
3

The same question for men is very good at dispelling false beliefs of self. For me, anyway, I ask similar and don't feel self-conscious for a while.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:19 PM
4

I used to live in a trailer park. There's a mix of lazy and hard-working to the point that's it's silly. My mom worked till she died when she had a legitimate reason to get SSI while the largest family in the park was supported on SSI for a non-problem. The people were all just people though. If they had a positive external push to work hard then they would have worked hard, just like the kids in the suburbs I lived in at another point in my life. It's a systematic problem that is unfortunately …
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:17 PM
2

I'm pretty sure incest is only taboo because Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:12 PM
4

I like to call feminism metaculture since it's a culture of (changing) culture. Unlike some metaculture, feminist beliefs are weak when exposed to many other beliefs. This is because most feminist beliefs lack empirical grounding so a rational person will be dissuaded from believing it. Feminism succeeds because it includes memes to give their memes tactical advantages. Tried-and-true: if you disagree with feminism then you are a misogynist. I'm a little excited about this actually. I think I mi…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:02 PM
7

Their conception of choice requires the total absence of coercive factors, including reality. They literally don't see a difference between free will and free action. This isn't because they think they are the same. It's because they have never thought about the natural conclusion to their beliefs about free will.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:54 PM
3

Maybe he is thinking of gorillas, which totally do have harems. It's super interesting that we can talk to Koko about it and apparently she just prefers having other females around. It seems like gorilla women don't compete for males.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:50 PM
5

Authoritarian socialism*. Not all socialists want forceful redistribution of wealth.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:47 PM
3

link? That sound awesome.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:46 PM
3

Depends heavily on the region. In very nice places like present-day San Francisco, one survived mainly on acorn meal which was gathered by everyone and prepared by women and sometimes gay men. Meat was still fairly common though. Other societies fed heavily on meat. Eskimo being the most obvious but the Yurok of modern-day far northern California had salmon as one of their staples. Without men, meat would be far less common a food and therefore humans would not have expanded as they had. They wo…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:44 PM
6

You haven't even tried to name non-raping species. RIght now Izicata is far, far more convincing that you.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:37 PM
4

Not remotely true, at least in their youth.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:29 PM
3

They consider physical abuse of males by females as self defense. Their reasoning is that males have the power in basically all relationships. It's sexist in exactly the same way poll taxes are racist.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:24 PM
2

Then Patriarchy is potentially a perfectly fine, egalitarian system. Hurray!
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:32 PM
2

Patriarchy is where women are actually excluded from positions of power. That women choose to pursue other life options is not strong evidence of a Patriarchy. It is, however, evidence. Gender roles aren't Patriarchy any more than they are Matriarchy. They pretty much have to exist to create either but you need to show that there is a power imbalance that actually falls on gender lines. The important thing to remember is that not every imaginable set of people are biased in favor of their set. I…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 12:02 AM
3

Excellent response. Exactly as concrete as possible without actually talking about a specific region's court system.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 11:50 PM
2

As a California: please oh please let this fucking happen. It's fucking shameful and I'm paying for it!
/r/MensRights28/10/12 11:48 PM
4

I would like direct links to facebook posts banned just to raise the level of discussion.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 11:05 PM
1

Inheritance isn't smooth. She could have a white-skinned sister but herself be dark. It is rationally far-fetched but anyway true. Since you are not me I don't actually expect you to trust me enough to overcome your prior :P
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:59 PM
1

I very clearly said that her skin tone is what matters. I mention her ancestry just to increase credibility since Russia is so overwhelmingly white that claiming to know a native non-white russia is very suspicious. I also haven't implied anything racist. Just because racists say similar things doesn't mean anything I've said is racist. Even if I'm talking about ancestry, I have to actually say something implying essential differentness or differing virtue for it to be racist. I can try being cl…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:01 PM
1

My view is that the ego is the will that passionately fights on behalf of another will. When untrained it ends up taking sides for little reason, causing divides and confusion in the mind. If trained, the other wills can work things out harmoniously. The ego can get involved after decisions are made. Without an ego obscuring things, it becomes apparent that a person is really a collection of wills. Furthermore, those wills are identical between people. So when the ego does take on a will, it doe…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:43 PM
1

??? She's the descendant of someone who immigrated to russia and was not white. She's actually only like an eighth non-white but her skin tone is sufficiently dark to stand out in russia.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:31 PM
1

No, she's a non-white russian.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:26 PM
1

OK. Do you know if it relates to enlightenment? I hear about it in the context of drugs but it sounds like it should be relevant to buddhism.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:22 PM
1

. I just know that some non-white feminists have a problem with the mainstream on racial grounds. this sentence is virtually contentless Eh, it's my original point and is accurate. But it isn't valuable in discussion or prediction so I've got to agree with you. coming from Russia to being an out-student (?) to 90210. ? She immigrated and became a student in Beverly Hills by being smart enough to be accepted despite not living there. I believe it's so the district could inflate their stats.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:17 PM
1

What is the significance of your name and, if you are serous about ego death, what is it and how does it relate to enlightenment?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:53 PM
1

Dammit I can't find the quote wherein a prominent feminist says she'd rather women of color not be involved than change their organization's agenda to suit them. Anyway my other evidence is unfortunately extremely bad for the internet since it's a radfem WoC I personally know who says the same thing. Though for her I think class is more important since she experienced an insane amount of class stratification coming from Russia to being an out-student (?) to 90210*. Anyway I don't actually know i…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:50 PM
2

That does not follow.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 05:56 PM
6

How to tell if someone's mind is broken: Ask them what it would take to convince them they are wrong. If they misdirect, can't say, or say something truly ridiculous then they don't actually know why they believe what they believe. If they have a reason (silly or not) or are honest about their ignorance then they're just mislead and will change for the better.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 10:26 AM
14

Holy strawman batman!
/r/MensRights28/10/12 10:22 AM
12

Only people getting fed straight bullshit believe as you do. This sub has been the historic target of false flags for reddit's history. It only slowed when the mods started taking strong measures against it starting with that post.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:09 AM
1

It's not a joke. This is how the courts rule.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 12:59 AM
4

It's not clear to me that feminism is really relevant here.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:30 AM
0

He used to be ironic but now it's all shitposts. Needs to be retired I think.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:07 PM
5

I wouldn't call it a lot but they definitely exist and can be kind of loud.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:05 PM
4

No more facebook screenshots I'd be happy if the mods outright banned directly linking to images. Not self posts that contain links to images, just direct posts to images. This doesn't seem to be a popular opinion here but I think it would raise the level of discourse without censoring.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:03 PM
29

Just the other day /MR had a rational dissection of Patriarchy. Not as technical as I'd like but the meat of the problem was actually discussed.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:00 PM
0

Thanks!
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:43 PM
2

Naw man it's cool. My knowledge of statistics is limited and anyway I spent tonight studying Solomonoff induction and Bayes theorem so I'm kind of pooped. If the article on inferring causation from statistics (or is that simply inferring from statistics?) doesn't make sense to me now I'll bug you. Thanks!
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:42 PM
1

Oh I'm totally just expanding on what you wrote. Rereading my post and I see that I should have been explicit: I agree with you. I'm also confused that some people disagree with you unless I assume unfavorable things about those people.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:19 PM
1

IMO you are right to be when linking to subs small enough to be significantly influenced by the link.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:17 PM
3

Couldn't you say that about everyone? Absolutely. I made that statement to try and coax something more specific from geiger, though I do believe it. I think you know that, though :P ("It's almost hoodoopsychic coldreading how vague the poster you're replying to is.") I'd like to take this opportunity to say- in person? Maybe you guys only meet hardcore attention seekers who broadcast far and wide their trans-ness because those that don't are, you know, going about their daily lives as passing me…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:15 PM
–

I went ahead and did a pedantic correction... I hope that doesn't count as a invasion because I have a hard time not correcting :/ I didn't do any kind of voting though.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:49 PM
2

Late to the party but I wanted to add something. It's interesting that the socially-constructed hypoagency of women is actually a belief feminism and the MRM share. Related beliefs are where they differ. For one, feminism blames hypoagency on Patriarchy while MRAs blame gender roles and, to a lesser extent, feminism itself for pushing the victim narrative. For two, feminists only consider power when conceptualizing privilege and never consider responsibility. Since MRAs consider both, MRAs belie…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:46 PM
2

For funsies, do a utility calculation! Say, one happy day is 1 utility, a neutral day is 0 and an unhappy day is -1. Marriage produces how many happy days and divorce produces how many unhappy days? Now compare to living together w/o marriage and probability of divorce multiplied by how many unhappy days. If marriage + divorce is smaller than just living together, don't marry! Of course there are other factors... but you need to normalize them to happy and unhappy days.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:17 PM
1

Your compromise would be good if it did not perfectly meet the definition of common law marriage in, afaik, every single state and is therefore absolutely meaningless. If you two act married for long enough then you will literally be married. About how you feel about prenups: I wouldn't marry a woman unless I'd trust her without the prenup. However, I wouldn't trust a woman without a prenup unless she would be fine with a prenup. That you are not fine with a prenup means that you do not understa…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:22 AM
6

You have no idea to what lengths women go to cradle and nurture your fragile male egos. Just to be clear here, do you also believe that women have fragile egos?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:05 AM
8

It's pretty funny that a non-trivial portion of women hate facial hair on men.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:00 AM
1

That wouldn't have helped any. His attacker was fully tribal at that point. Any good argument would be met with deflection. The most he could do is get her to scream at him but that would only help if the crowd was previously dispositioned in his favor.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:59 AM
1

Quagmire is always shown as the scum of the cast This is so damn critical that missing it is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity. Regular people don't idolize quagmire and in fact are disgusted by him so any attributes given to him are taken as negative. If anything, this rape joke normalizes non-rape by attributing it to terrible people. It is very much like the anti-rape poster feminists like but without the snark or misandry.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:56 AM
3

It's extremely common for statisticians to actually believe that causation cannot be inferred from statistics. From your name I surmise you actually know why this is untrue, though I myself don't actually understand.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:52 AM
1

I believe that students so often seek easy courses because they hadn't any real life experience. When you must work, even in the field you like, your learning slows to a crawl or even halts after a few months to a year. You have to seek out learning experiences yourself and, if you're most people, you really need some structure to get you to learn even when you crave it (school perhaps does this to people). This is just from my own experience however. Now that I know what working is like I actua…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:49 AM
2

I couldn't get through very much of your post without raging quitting. Your teacher's complete lack of understanding of the bro code is just... just too much.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:44 AM
2

I've met several but all I got is that they obsess over their identity and they are mildly standoffish and elitist. But I can't really say that's generally true from just the few I've met in person. Especially since most I've met online aren't like that, at least online. I'm not denying that your evidence doesn't seem strong to you but that I don't actually trust you to overcome your biases well enough to trust your word on it. Nothing personal - I trust extremely few people to this degree. But …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:13 AM
1

I believe that one should try to be the greatest pessimist possible but only if they know how to do this safely. Very few pessimists are pessimistic enough to be realistic but very, very few anybodies know how to be happy and like people while also accurately modeling themselves or others. Buddhas have got this down, at least, but I only know a handful of non-buddhists who I suspect may also.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:06 AM
3

Your explanation is highly suspect without a mechanism.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:02 AM
1

Indeed. Though, while not perfect evidence it is still valuable evidence. If one can account for biases then there's still something to learn there. It just takes a far wiser mind than most to actually do this.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:00 AM
2

Hey, excellent juxtaposition!
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:58 AM
2

I have approximately zero respect for SRS but I'm afraid you are wrong in totality but not in parts. SRS has sex-negative parts, would prefer women ruling over men ruling but not demanding it, and is inconsistent but it isn't anti-trans or any more anti-male than Standard White Knight is anti-male. Meaning not genocidal but not egalitarian either.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:56 AM
2

Do you have strong evidence of this or just a plausible theory?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:51 AM
1

I have no idea if that's true but it makes me sad that Persia can be pushed around like that when they used to be mighty.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:49 AM
13

I would be EXTREMELY interested in that study if you find it. Actually, you should fucking post it to /MR.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:48 AM
1

Very true. I only compliment the people who compliment me back.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:47 AM
1

I admit I am too young for it but a singer I like references her so I am passing familiar.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:41 AM
1

Just make sure to be tried just after lunch!
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:38 AM
38

If you let someone slip into homelessness, suicide, starvation, exploitation, or other desperation then they won't be in a state to learn a lesson anyway. Their state is one where one doesn't actually recover from. Rock bottom poverty scares people into avoiding it but teaches no lesson. Otherwise lottery winners wouldn't be subsequently poor with such regularity. This is the same issue with prisons enacting vengeance instead of rehabilitation... over-emphasizing individuality and under-emphasiz…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:30 AM
18

I would't say liberals in general but... well, it IS extremely common for stupid or foolish liberals to use exactly that tactic. That being said, conservatives have their own host of thought-defeating cliches to use in place of reason. It's not like political affiliation has ever mattered as much as rationality when it comes to actually being right.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:07 AM
3

I don't believe one can really call a non-agent prejudiced. Even companies and governments are agents in enough of a sense that bureaucracies that discriminate without any person deciding to discriminate can still discriminate. So if someone calls someone else's statement racist then it's just a cowardly or rhetorical ad hominem.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:05 AM
2

DUDE. I was the same way until I decided fuck it I'll give it a try. Turns out I have perfect (male) hair. Down to my chin I get actual locks and when longer it's wavy. So you might luck out!
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:45 AM
1

Ah cool but now I feel like a dick for being pedantic :/
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:37 AM
11

They fabricated it. For instance, men win the majority of custody cases where they seek sole custody. What they fail to mention is that women win the vast majority of custody cases where they seek sole custody... they pretend like it has to add up to 100% and it doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:54 PM
2

Calling it the weakest point is sort of what I'm wondering about. It's also suggestive to divide by gender if one believes gender isn't a factor. Most people I wouldn't consider it very much but frederickharttt keeps saying shit like that.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:55 AM
2

Havne't seen it but GWW probably nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE How I define it: Agency is the notion that a person acts upon the world rather than is acted upon. People are agents while objects are not. It carries with it the notion that agents are responsible for their actions. Hypoagency is where a person is considered less of an agent than they ought to be. Hyperagency is where a person is considered more of an agent than they ought to be. Husbands being legally culpabl…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:12 AM
11

Put another way, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:54 AM
1

Equality of outcome but not opportunity.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:41 AM
2

Male programmer here. I received no career guidance at all except that I was absolutely NOT to become a lawyer. I'd actually love lawyering but it's not a productive career anyway.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:10 PM
3

It's like poison. It exists for NPCs to do to PCs.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:03 PM
5

Depends on the country and possibly more than just feminist influence of society. I haven't fact checked it but TB and I think demonspawn should be able to point out sources showing that women got the vote once a majority of women wanted it.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 01:30 PM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_State_Pension#State_Pension_age
/r/MensRights20/10/12 01:27 PM
1

Combined with the belief that there's an all-powerful force antagonistic to you, you get _______.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 03:09 AM
2

Except, I want to say, John Adams. One of those early guys was a badass. Couldn't happen but he was like "I'll only vote my conscience" and then did.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 03:05 AM
3

I'm not a historian but I'm guessing abortifacient teas and dealing with pregnancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
/r/MensRights20/10/12 12:42 AM
1

I bet he was a fast fucker. The short guys I knew in high school who fought were fast. Reach doesn't matter when they've already closed.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 12:13 AM
2

How did you get downvoted for this? I mean you might be wrong (I don't now) but then someone should tell you you don't know how to fight. Pointing out that strength isn't everything is extremely relevant because the #1 argument against reciprocity across gender lines is that men are stronger.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:50 PM
0

ultimately comes down to use having different definitions of a word and not some big ideological split Awesome! I'll try to keep that in mind when responding to you later. Nice talking to you. You too.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 09:28 PM
6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusker She uses this word correctly then uses it incorrectly in place of "fucking". I had to look fusker up to get it, too.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 08:14 PM
0

It doesn't have to be intentional but yes, oppression in the sense that word is used elsewhere. "Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control." sounds right, only I'd add that it must be one-way. The way the French and English used to deal with each other was prolonged, cruel, and unjust but involved a lot of back-and-forth while the way whites in the US treated blacks was almost entirely one-sided. edit: I would call patriarchy oppression in about the same way I call modern american capitalis…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 08:08 PM
1

I'm not a scientist or a sociologist or a proper academic feminist though, if you are looking for the kind of advanced rationality you are hoping for, I suggest looking at the works of said academic feminists. I'm not saying you should be rational just to argue or debate. It will make you effectively much smarter and wiser.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:56 PM
0

Patriarchy as merely gender roles and hyper/hypoagency (I assume you mean this by "leader" and "object") does not imply oppression. I'm not sure you actually believe as most feminists do. If this is your belief about Patriarchy then you could say I also believe in Patriarchy. Since the situation you describe is nothing at all like economic class oppression, racist oppression or religious oppression, I would not classify it as gender oppression.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:55 PM
1

As someone spending their first period of time ever having neither job nor school, this is absolutely correct. Even with insomnia and a poorer diet I feel fantastic compared to working full-time.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:08 PM
0

Possibly. It does tie in with the traditional role of marriage but it isn't rigorously proven either.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:07 PM
6

The mods used the turmoil created by outing of VA to shut down these subs which were neither illegal nor did they violate reddit's rules. None of the reddit subs which centered on voyeurism of males were affected. Do you mean "The admins used ..."? Anyway there is apparently an unspoken reddit rule: any subreddit that makes reddit look bad will be banned.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:55 PM
2

Thank you.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:47 PM
4

It's a play on words, not self-censoring. Also it's a woman (oneiorosgrip).
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:43 PM
2

I hope you read all of this. From the many posts of yours I've seen, you seem smart enough to be rational but rationality is neither natural to humans nor taught in school so you haven't picked it up. Even scientific training involves very little; you have to get it from other rationalists. First, I respect your willingness to argue here. I do however encourage you to learn how to think rationally (lesswrong.com -> sequences. Make sure to read enough to doubt your own abilities because, as they …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:28 PM
3

You are right to bring up this notion. For most feminists, this is true; they do not understand the theory well enough to actually define it in a falsifiable way. However, MRAs don't generally have this problem (no emotional ties to its existence) so we have formulated Patriarchy Theory to be falsifiable. Then we falsified it. Easy to do, really, since as a scientific theory it is laughably useless.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:53 PM
2

I did this once! She told me that when women control an equal number of high government positions (congress and probably Justices (USA)). I didn't get into an argument about it since the medium was bad for debate but at least there's a counter to that: she must also believe that lawyers are oppressing doctors, scientists, and to a lesser extent, businessmen.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:46 PM
2

It's not necessarily $800 but that's the gist, yes.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:30 PM
2

What do you mean by "Having children is not a right?" Do you mean the State should have the power to enforce sterility or possibly that no one is entitled to parenthood?
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:29 PM
2

This is hilariously ill-conceived. edit: Just saw the post edit. Nevermind, this is an extremely well-conceived sociology experiment for a class.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:24 PM
2

His latest post is exactly the tone I work best with. Thanks!
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:15 PM
1

IIRC, what I tried to read immediately tried to shame me into wanting to adopt their beliefs and practices lest I remain a beta. While the language of alpha and beta embody this, my actual problem is that the phrasing was constructed to cause shame instead of enlightenment. Crude but effective and manipulative enough that I wouldn't put up with it without more incentive than they offer. Anyway, I'd benefit most from a clinical look at male-female relations with interspersed case studies (imagine…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:09 PM
1

Most of the lesbians I know are very much like the guys I know. Kind of... normal only they bang chicks. A couple lesbians are super horn dogs but so are a couple guys.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:59 PM
1

I hadn't considered that before. Boys want to run around and compete. Fight, form together to accomplish goals (interesting to boys), test their mettle. All suppressed in early schooling and lead to self-confidence, physical prowess, and team spirit. Not to say boys should run wild with it since children will bully if let totally loose but with some adult direction it's positive. Instead adult direction it totalitarian and pervasive and suppressive.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:55 PM
1

Look at women as a primary example. A lot of women have no issue with woman on woman action. The thought doesn't seem to be repelling in much the same way it is for men. A recent study brought up in this sub shows that women disdain lesbianism more than they do gay men banging. Men disdain gay men banging more than lesbianism. However, the levels of disdain were different: lesbianism is more acceptable overall.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:48 PM
2

No idea about PUAs but mildly interesting story: I heard about a guy who actually did charge women for his company like 10 years back. Apparently being hot and charming was enough to get random women to give him ten bucks until he could pay rent each month.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:44 PM
1

+1 black nail polish of dexterity That's actually a pretty cool idea for temporary minor stat boosts. Alchemy, probably.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:42 PM
1

Are there PUA materials that don't one-dimensionalize everybody? I haven't even been able to evaluate any because it immediately goes in to manipulating the reader with framing tricks, of which I am susceptible.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:36 PM
11

gold strip mining I am going to steal your wit.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:33 PM
2

Oh my bad.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:26 PM
5

http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking tl;dr: It's legal to take pictures of people in a public place. I reckon stalking laws could apply but you'd probably need to do far more than take a single picture to get convicted.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:11 PM
0

Women aren't mistreated in modern society. They do have reason.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:01 PM
1

No, you are entirely wrong about rape. Men are actually the majority of rape victims in the US due to prison. Outside of prison it's equal (though that includes recently freed men). 60% of rapists are men and almost all rape is heterosexual. The ONLY reason rape appears to be one-sided is that it is defined in a sexed way - penetration. When women rape, they themselves are penetrated. I'm not making this shit up. The Center for Disease Control studied the incidence of various sexual assaults in …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 03:51 PM
1

Oh, that's what you were getting at. I hadn't considered that sentiments about poor countries wrt women are that it's cultural/racial rather than economic.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:12 PM
0

I assumed she was being sarcastic but I guess she could be double sarcastic.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:43 PM
-2

I do. My point is really that male victimhood is hidden so it is hard to say that women have it worse when we don't know much about how men actually have it.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:42 PM
1

Anecdote etc.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:13 PM
2

Honestly, you can't. If she were intellectual honest and, well, rational, you could ask her to explain the concrete reasons her beliefs are true but no central feminist belief is actually grounded in reality so she won't be able to. She will eventually say the Patriarchy is to blame but she won't be able to actually prove it even exists! If you choose to go this route, make sure to explain to her that her proof of the Patriarchy fails. Here is what she will say: Proof of Patriarchy: Men are in p…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:49 AM
0

Is that a fair sentiment? Calling people racist for their non-racist view isn't any better than screaming misogyny.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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