TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

marktully Archive

View 9 posts and 164 comments by marktully on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
59

marktully/r/MensRights28/10/09 04:10 PM
20

marktully/r/MensRights23/09/09 05:19 AM
9

marktully/r/MensRights03/09/09 01:36 PM
7

marktully/r/MensRights26/06/09 08:33 PM
7

marktully/r/MensRights20/09/09 02:31 PM
6

marktully/r/MensRights26/01/09 07:01 AM
2

marktully/r/MensRights28/01/09 05:05 AM
0

marktully/r/MensRights12/02/09 05:36 PM
0

marktully/r/MensRights13/09/09 05:47 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Link?
/r/MensRights06/12/14 06:45 AM
2

This is outstanding. Have any more like this lying around?
/r/MensRights11/02/13 07:26 PM
3

Er... the doctor stuff's actually not even close to being a decent argument. First, the correlation that men are a majority of doctors does not mean that sexism against women causes this phenomenon. Indeed, it's more likely that sexism against men does. Secondly, the fact that some men are doctors has nothing to do with Farrell's argument that some men are being discriminated against in the area of being pharmaceutical reps. Similarly, the fact that men are a majority of CEOs has nothing to do w…
/r/MensRights05/02/10 05:36 AM
1

Hmm. Honestly thought it could have been much worse. Warren did a pretty good job, I thought, and of course they edited out the stronger things he said.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 04:46 PM
9

I'm pretty sure a massive amount of women could really learn something by coming here. Indeed. People can learn a lot by coming here. There's anger and outrage and so on, sure... but there's also some of the best gender theory going today.
/r/MensRights05/11/09 08:56 AM
4

Wait wait wait... So this broad strokes, Maxim-in-your-pocket silliness is so "bad" that Pepsi caved to pressure and pulled it, but this deeply personal, privacy-invading horseshit DateCheck is somehow OK? What the fuck?
/r/MensRights29/10/09 03:31 AM
6

No, no... I know that it is... Kanuk's explanation is awesome, and I'm tired, so I'll just paste it in: <sigh> Let me spell it out... The OP is not against Disney's characters, per se. The OP is against the blatant idiocy and unfairness coming from feminists who incessantly yammer on about female stereotypes and how they're all men's fault, going so far as to suggest that men are not affected by stereotypes (what with their patriarchal power and all that). Men are affected too. And the feminists…
/r/MensRights29/10/09 02:55 AM
5

Yup. Pretty much.
/r/MensRights29/10/09 02:54 AM
16

A response to this post, I thought putting the shoe on the other foot was... hilariously dead-on.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 04:12 PM
3

Well, our esteemed feminist interlocutors would argue that the first headline is sexist because it's assumed that an unlabeled Saudi will be male, though really I think the masculine pronoun does give it away. The three guys I think are the best MRA argument, especially when juxtaposed with the story about the woman. These poor sods are mere "also-rans", yet MORE faceless men, ground under by the world and barely noted by anybody. Cuz, yannow, it's only three hundred lashes. There are probably a…
/r/MensRights26/10/09 04:12 AM
1

I haven't gotten all through that chapter yet, but I'd imagine it's pretty interesting. Their arguments about livestock and methane sound pretty compelling so far.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 04:02 AM
2

To be fair, the guy's sentence happened earlier this month, and he did get his headline at the time. Here it is from the same source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_hai1l379e4&show_article=1
/r/MensRights26/10/09 03:23 AM
1

Yeah, I'm about 75% of the way through it, and it's pretty awesome, with some minor false notes here and there.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 03:13 AM
1

Right... except all comments on her blog are disabled. The only feedback she could possibly get, then, would be the news that her blog's been complained about.
/r/MensRights25/10/09 02:18 PM
-1

Yes. From Blogger administration. If her shit gets classified as hate speech, she'll know she's getting our attention, and she'll take perverse satisfaction from "destroying our fun" and taking up our time. Attention paid to this cunt is attention not paid to bettering anybody's lives--men's, women's, or children's.
/r/MensRights25/10/09 02:36 AM
1

Honestly, I'm not sure if the reporting her for hate speech is the best idea. That's just giving her attention. She doesn't appear to have time to promote or manage her blog, so why give her an incentive to pay more attention to it?
/r/MensRights24/10/09 06:45 PM
4

I thought so too... but here's a post about why: http://mrashavecooties.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-pick-on-mrasfras.html It looks like a severe case of straw-manning.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 06:33 PM
11

He's not hating women in se. The problem is that these issues exist, which leads him to a conclusion about trends in the population that he perceives. A converse example of this would be the way my girlfriend reacted when she had been in a relationship with me long enough to start to actually understand men better. She used to have a serious problem with knowing when guys were hitting on her. A large part of her difficulty was that she had no understanding how men think about sex. Once she start…
/r/MensRights23/10/09 05:17 AM
3

Upvote for Yin and Yang. The Chinese definitely had some of the most awesome gender politics out of anybody during the Shang dynasty, which was after Taoism but before Confucianism. Confucius himself, properly interpreted, probably isn't that bad in terms of gender theory... though the Confucian tradition rapidly screwed China's gender politics up. Currently, they're so fucked that China's the only country in the world where women kill themselves more than men do.
/r/MensRights20/10/09 06:06 PM
1

I thought the midwife argument was interesting.
/r/MensRights07/10/09 03:00 AM
2

Excellent article, especially for juxtaposition of GC myth analysis with hypergamy analysis.
/r/MensRights06/10/09 09:48 PM
2

Just... wow.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 04:23 PM
26

Warren Farrell, Why Men Earn More, page xxii: Women who have never married and never had children make 117% as much as their male counterparts. Note that Farrell was elected to the N.O.W. board of directors three times. Note that Farrell's numbers are based on census data, not on studies.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 02:30 PM
5

True, but if you wanted to be charitable to him, he could have a point in that most women do want that, though out of ignorance rather than malice. For example, I had a female student yesterday who watched a video on education. She remarked offhand that had to admit that she liked that the girl character was the smart one. When I simply and briefly informed her that women are now about 60% of all grad students and there seem to be legitimate problems with the way the system treats boys, she was …
/r/MensRights23/09/09 02:25 PM
10

It should be noted that as far as the brain is concerned, the difference between alcohol and roofies is one of degree, not of kind. They have the exact same type of effect on the brain. Drink yourself blotto, and you may as well have been roofied up. The courts' definition of consent is not workable. The laws should be changed Back when I was in college, I was in a class that had the ability to survey the class with little infrared remotes. Sometimes we used them to take quizzes, sometimes to re…
/r/MensRights23/09/09 02:18 PM
6

Section VII: Extrapolating these findings to the national level would give a total of over 140,000 inmates who have been anally raped. This is an educated guess. The data are utter shit, as the report points out, due to chronic underreporting and a corrections system that has no incentive to admit that this problem even exists, let alone address it. Even if this educated guess is inaccurate as hell, and even if it's inaccurately high, which seems unlikely given all the factors that would lead to…
/r/MensRights22/09/09 04:07 AM
1

many of us truly believe Gareth's point is correct... It's more than that, though. Many of us also have data from the Census Bureau, the CDC, the Dept. of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and the UN... 86% of all adolescent suicides are male, and that fact has exactly dick to do with anybody's feelings.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:26 PM
1

can't we just agree to set aside the word, "feminazi," in the interest of open and respectful dialog? Sounds good to me. As for the rest, you don't really list a single valid point. How long have you been on this subreddit? If you really want an explanation, I can go into each point, and will engage your arguments in good faith instead of airily dismissing them. There are some procedural errors in your thinking as well, such as the implication that "group rights" exist. If it's impossible to mak…
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:21 PM
7

With all respect to nitesmoke, who seems to have good ideas and a solid thought process, I have to disagree on the "feminism is about equality" point, among others. Feminism isn't about equality just because feminists say it is. "Feminism" is not a gender-neutral word any more than "chairman" is. You might as well call it "Women's Rights"... and people used to. "Women's Rights", "Women's Lib"... "Gender Studies", "Gender Theory", "Gender Politics"... These at least have the potential to be neutr…
/r/MensRights20/09/09 02:31 PM
2

Men also tend to fare better romantically as time wears on. There are more widows than widowers, and men have an easier time getting younger mates. Yes, men tend to fare better romantically... except all those that are, yannow, fucking dead. Though I suppose this is to be expected from the author of Are Men Necessary?
/r/MensRights20/09/09 02:07 PM
1

Men also tend to fare better romantically as time wears on. There are more widows than widowers, and men have an easier time getting younger mates. Yes, men tend to fare better romantically... except all those that are, yannow, fucking dead. Though I suppose this is to be expected from the author of Are Men Necessary?
/r/MensRights20/09/09 02:07 PM
2

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. The goal of feminism is not equality. It's advocacy for women's issues. Similarly, the goal of MR is not equality. It's advocacy for men's issues. Hopefully, it will someday be as ridiculous and unethical to be an MRA as it is to be a feminist. Edit: E.G. WBB posts have exactly dick to do with any kind of larger, more progressive gender theory that one might term "winning the peace". They will hopefully one day do more harm than good. That day has not yet come.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 05:12 AM
0

Dude, if you understood 'em you'd be like 'em.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 04:18 AM
1

Naw, no chance. Both are advocacy movements. It's just that there HAS been a women's rights revolution and there HASN'T been one for men's rights, yet. Eventually, I think the Men's Rights movement will make itself obsolete by being successful. At least, that's the goal.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 04:17 AM
2

Doesn't get better than Farrell.
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:39 AM
1

LOL Prove it. Explain where the reason breaks down. Label the fallacies.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 02:05 PM
3

Right, but the problem is that "sociological standpoint". See, the sociologists are operating under the assumption that the social differences are not inextricably linked to the biological differences. Mainly, it seems, as a side effect of some academic turf war. To take a page from the 2nd waver's book, "the power of Patriarchy is the power to define". Now while I don't think the "Patriarchal" definitions were intentional (see "man" etymology--though I agree they were problematic in a modern co…
/r/MensRights14/09/09 01:23 PM
0

Yes, but that's not the argument we're talking about... And if we were, we'd want to consider lacrosse, since lots of girls DO play it. I misspoke when I said "ankle"... What's at stake here is the ACL. That's what we're talking about, and that's what girls have a higher risk of injuring, regardless of whether it's a contact sport or nowt.
/r/MensRights13/09/09 08:43 PM
3

Fuck studies. Census data FTW. <3 Warren Farrell.
/r/MensRights13/09/09 02:19 PM
0

Of course, but that's not what seems to be happening, and if you check out the article, the current "warrior-girl ethos" culture seems to be entrenching a paradigm where injuries are more common. I dunno if you caught the bit where girls' increased pain tolerance is a liability--they won't listen to their coaches as readily as boys do and are more likely to play hurt.
/r/MensRights13/09/09 02:07 PM
-1

but if girls want to put themselves at physical risk, then we should let them. Eh, not necessarily. A 15-year old doesn't necessarily understand "your ankle will never be the same again." Maybe with their head, but not with their gut.
/r/MensRights13/09/09 02:04 PM
2

tl;dr: The existence of birth canals means that women's quadriceps pull on the knee at a greater angle than men's, meaning that there's greater lateral force on the knee. Bottom line, women athletes tear their ACLs FIVE times more often than men do. Our current "anything you can do, I can do better" sociology seems to be exacerbating the situation and leading many girls down the path of having surgeries and fucked knees for life. Just thought this was relevant to the discussion in light of the C…
/r/MensRights13/09/09 05:54 AM
1

But, really, men are generally stronger than women. Also, this just in: women have boobies. I'm actually having a rational discourse with an opposing point of view right now, so we'll see if that affects his stance.
/r/MensRights12/09/09 10:31 PM
1

Show me one rational discourse with an opposing point of view on the Men's Rights subreddit. Just one. I'm having one right now.
/r/MensRights12/09/09 10:26 PM
12

I thank you much for your engagement and good-faith discussion. the same (2) wants, hopes, desires, basic rights, etc, as men. But this doesn't appear to be true. Basic rights, yes, absolutely. Rights for individuals, rights of equal opportunity, rights to be whoever you want to be, absolutely. But in general, as far as wants, hopes, and desires go, it seems women still want to be women--with individual variation, yes--but variations on a ineluctably traditional theme. This fundamental truth is …
/r/MensRights12/09/09 06:09 AM
2

But in each one, the gender disparity has always remained, and the relations of the men and women with respect to one another remained static. Could you elaborate on this please? My argument is the contrary. Namely, that the women's movement has about fifty years head start on the men's movement, and has been effective, while the men's movement is in its infancy and has yet to be taken seriously by society at large or even academia. Please explain why I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 05:05 PM
4

Seconded.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 07:05 AM
6

Very glad to see you both here, but I would heartily encourage both of you to consider the label "gender theorist". See my analysis below.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 05:16 AM
17

Lots of downvotes, presumably because feminists claim that "feminism is about equality". It can't be. If feminists are correct that words have power and inherently frame the way we approach ideas, so chairman should be chairperson or simply chair, then it follows that feminism is not a gender-neutral undertaking. It's simply not logically consistent to claim that "feminism" is gender-neutral but "chairman" isn't. Note that this in no way denigrates the good that feminism did at a time when sexis…
/r/MensRights11/09/09 04:56 AM
21

Lulz.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 04:53 AM
0

Well, no, my point is that we shouldn't just look for opportunities to be outraged. We can make positive arguments as well. I see this as sort of the inverse of a WBB story.
/r/MensRights03/09/09 08:23 PM
6

Here's what my friend had to say about it. If they're really lucky, those falsely accused can get both Duke's policy and have a criminal trial in federal rather than state court. Congress, in a similar fit of zealotry, determined in the 90s that any EVIDENCE of a PRIOR sexual offense is admissible in the defendant's trial. That's not a conviction. That's any evidence (including perhaps ... Read Moresome of the nonsense Duke's investigator has in his file). It could even be a prior false accusati…
/r/MensRights03/09/09 01:37 PM
1

Um... Yes.
/r/MensRights03/09/09 01:18 PM
2

Pressler's book: http://www.amazon.com/Its-Not-About-Truth-Shattered/dp/1416551492/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251947666&sr=8-1 Good read.
/r/MensRights03/09/09 03:15 AM
7

I work in education, and I went to a single-sex high school. They're fucking awesome. As for the difference between boys at all boys schools outperforming girls at all girls' schools, that's pretty easy to explain. See, people only send their sons to a single sex school for one reason. However, people sometimes send their daughters to single sex schools for the sake of their hymens rather than their brains. So if your daughter's care has been entrusted to a crack team of nuns hell-bent on chasti…
/r/MensRights25/08/09 03:52 AM
10

It's good analysis, to be sure, and it's nice to know that even in 1973, the "rampant sexism" wasn't actually all that rampant, but there's an even easier way to debunk "sexism in graduate school admissions". It's called the Census Bureau. Women were 59% of grad students in 2008.
/r/MensRights23/08/09 04:57 AM
6

I'm with you that bashing women as a whole isn't good. Indeed, any progressive gender theory must of course involve both sexes. That said, bashing feminism is not the same as bashing women. Feminism is a defunct discipline academically and logically, not just ideologically. It frames the entire analysis and discussion of gender issues in terms of an oversimplified narrative that is completely divorced from reality, and does not incorporate the findings of other disciplines...Darwinism has a very…
/r/MensRights13/08/09 05:44 AM
1

redditbannedmeagain is correct, if blunt. Bashing WS isn't the same as bashing women. I would humbly submit that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The MR subreddit has its share of guys who have been badly burned and have come to ill-considered conclusions in anger, but they're hardly worse than an Audre Lorde or her ilk. The data found here is of higher quality, and the analysis encompasses many more disciplines of thought, than in other approaches to gender study.
/r/MensRights13/08/09 05:34 AM
3

BSC got to a few of these, but I think he let too many points slide. Shit is just more complicated than feminists claim, which is the problem with feminism--it frames the analysis and discussion in terms that don't have fully reflect reality. Remember that "privilege" means "private law," something artificial. So, for example, the ability to have babies wouldn't be a "female privilege" any more than the ability to pee standing up would be a "male privilege". One. (Sociology without Economics) Th…
/r/MensRights13/08/09 05:10 AM
6

Eh, I don't agree with everything I see here either, and there's some definite bad conclusions reached out of anger, but still... If "chairman" is not a gender-neutral term... How on earth can "feminism" claim to be a gender neutral-term? "Gender Studies" or "Gender Theory" might be a step in the right direction. there are still valid issues to address Such as? Then if you could explain how something can be "skewed" in a specific direction and still represent any kind of "equality", that'd be sw…
/r/MensRights13/08/09 03:59 AM
-1

I suppose, but what, fuck all those young guys right out of high school looking to "be all they can be" and get some college money? Isn't that like... most of them?
/r/MensRights07/08/09 03:47 AM
1

No, no, my point is that if it exists across time and cultures, it's not cultural, or at least not just cultural. And I agree. It's already taught everywhere, so there's no need for the government to be involved.
/r/MensRights06/08/09 02:49 PM
-3

Not sure I can roll with that. Isn't nonviolence toward women a value that exists across all times and cultures? (Edit: If yes, then fighting such a thing would be like spitting into the wind, much like trying to tell men they shouldn't find signs of good baby-making, like .7 waist to hip ratio, bilateral symmetry, evidence of estrogen in the face, etc... attractive. Some old school gender stuff evolved for a reason.) There's got to be a more nuanced position, one that doesn't mean men get the s…
/r/MensRights06/08/09 03:38 AM
3

Seriously? Seriously? Who the fuck didn't get this lesson drilled into your skull by the time you were five?
/r/MensRights06/08/09 03:11 AM
4

We been through this before, mate, and I think had to end up agreeing to disagree. But to reiterate the argument a little, more for some_asshole's benefit than either of ours, if we're not pro-life, a child in utero has no rights, which would include the right to a father as well as a right being born. As such, opting out is fine, since the child doesn't yet exist to be wronged. If a woman then persists in choosing to bring a child into the world without a father, then the moral culpability is h…
/r/MensRights08/07/09 07:26 PM
1

You can't win this argument with somebody who's pro-life, like AnnArchist. (Which isn't to say he's not a very smart guy.) They simply won't grant that a woman's decision to have a child or not is made after she's pregnant. As such, the sex act IS the reproductive act, and they can't be separated. To decide to have sex is to decide to have, or at least, to risk, kids. Now, the sex act USED to be the same as the reproductive act, so you're also going to be battling some sub-human brain instincts …
/r/MensRights08/07/09 05:40 PM
21

BSC, this here is a whole new level of fucked up you've attained. Kudos.
/r/MensRights08/07/09 05:25 PM
7

Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”
/r/MensRights08/07/09 05:01 AM
3

"What day of the weekend was it?" And the number of times she interrupts him is... impressive.
/r/MensRights07/07/09 03:48 PM
1

This just in: monogamy isn't natural, marriage is a social construct run off the rails.
/r/MensRights03/07/09 07:14 AM
10

Here's the tiny problem with your analysis. Women don't want to marry the alphas. They want to cheat on their beta husbands with them. When looking for a husband, his education/income is hardwired to be important. I mean, come on, when the time comes for the divorce, you wanna get half of a bigger pie, right?
/r/MensRights01/07/09 09:19 PM
7

No, no back flips, just addressing both sides of the argument. My argument is that the Freakonomics guys are correct. Unwanted boys and girls would both drag down averages, but the unwanted boys might reasonably be expected to have a more significant effect. Consider the wage gap arguments. There's lots of ways to come at it, but one way is to point out that there are more men at both ends of the bell curve--both more CEOs and more homeless guys. On average, though, the guys at the bottom would …
/r/MensRights30/06/09 06:36 PM
8

No, there are unwanted girls too, and so their claims about both boys and girls doing better since the 90s are somewhat suspect. But moreover, it doesn't necessarily mean that girl's scores would be dragged down by a similar amount. Girls as a demographic don't do things to the same extreme that guys do. I'm sure crime committed by young women also fell in the 90s, but I'm also sure that it wasn't as significant a drop as crime committed by young men; though we may be certain that it was more su…
/r/MensRights30/06/09 04:30 PM
11

This line of argument that compares the average numbers now to average numbers in the early 90s, saying, "Hey, boys now are so much better than they were back then!" are making an illegitimate comparison. In one chapter in Freakonomics, the authors argue, with a high degree of persuasiveness, that the primary cause of the enormous decrease in all types of crime that occurred during the 90s across the United States was the effects of Roe vs. Wade working its way through society, as fewer and fewe…
/r/MensRights30/06/09 05:20 AM
2

Expatriate, I think. You might still be patriotic.
/r/MensRights27/06/09 05:35 AM
1

Mine too. She said that it meant that such a thing is a statement about the woman as an ethical person, not as a potential mate, since she thinks cuckolding somebody is one of the worst things anybody can ever do. It's not really a resolved issue over here. I think the most recent thing I've said on the subject was "Look, it's not like I have to ask your permission; it's really easy to send off a cheek swab without your knowing. It's just that I'd prefer it if we were both on the same page from …
/r/MensRights26/06/09 11:24 PM
2

Yeah. If you have more money, education, and ambition... I mean, I know it's far easier said than done, especially after 2.5 years, but if she isn't on the same page as you when it comes to serious shit... That's kind of a big deal.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 11:18 PM
3

I don't think it would be cyclical, but it WOULD skew college admission numbers alarmingly, perhaps to the degree that people would actually take notice.
/r/MensRights25/06/09 03:27 PM
7

Not anymore. I quit wasting my time there. I've become convinced that the moderators there aren't really committed to productive discussion that might lead to more advanced Gender Theory.
/r/MensRights24/06/09 07:11 AM
3

but I am in favor of society encouraging women to again be responsible for not getting pregnant. Now that's just crazy talk.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 07:07 AM
2

Many girls in poverty find $30.00 a month to be a fortune--clothes, earrings, make up! Ortho Tri-cyclen!
/r/MensRights18/06/09 07:05 AM
2

Sort of. It doesn't say they can't have sex; it says they can't get pregnant.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 06:59 AM
5

Farrell is the shit, just for the record.
/r/MensRights12/06/09 04:19 AM
0

Success at what?
/r/MensRights29/05/09 05:12 PM
0

Shit, I shouldn't have waved something shiny. Go ahead and call your old professor for an explanation of straw men some other time. You were going to tell me how I started the personal attacks despite all evidence to the contrary. Well? Go on, I'm waiting.
/r/MensRights29/05/09 03:51 PM
1

Jesus, you're really fucking stupid. You don't call the foundation of your opponent's argument a straw man, you accuse your opponent of fighting straw men instead of your real argument. Holy fuck, you got all the way through law school AND the Bar, and you don't know what a straw man fallacy is? What the fuck were you doing all those years?
/r/MensRights29/05/09 03:48 PM
0

Certainly in no more poor taste than calling your interlocutor a "whiny brat" or insinuating that he's still wet behind the ears in his late teens. Here's the point, Mr. Lawyer-Man, you're not smarter than me, or more skilled at argumentation, and this is objectively demonstrable by the metric that's soooooo insignificant (keep telling yourself that) that ALL the law schools agree they should base roughly 50% of their admissions criteria on it. YOU brought ALL that shit up, not me. YOU began the…
/r/MensRights29/05/09 03:44 PM
0

Oh, I missed on the LSAT score? Really? How DID that go for you?
/r/MensRights29/05/09 03:26 PM
0

Oh no, I'm not a law student. That's not impressive. I had better things to do, but it sounds like somebody got into a decent school on some affirmative action bullshit in spite of an LSAT that was... not impressive. Still making excuses about that after all these years? Ouch. I love women. I think these marriage-rejection guys are barking up the wrong tree. My fiance and I fuck like rabbits, thanks. And she actually has PTSD. From being a block away from Ground Zero. The fact that you appropria…
/r/MensRights29/05/09 03:40 AM
1

Social pressure... by definition... can only be exerted by society. Your citations are for surgical abortion--surgical abortion that requires anesthetic--not for pills. Your own source, the Suliman study, concludes by saying: Presently the weight of evidence suggests that abortion does not cause lasting negative consequences. And then cites the findings of an entire panel commissioned by the APA to get to the bottom of this. Moreover, the study itself was hardly rigorous: There are several limit…
/r/MensRights28/05/09 04:03 PM
1

Your suggestion that a man should be able to bully a woman into an abortion is vulgar. I never said this. Woman often have PTS disorder from abortions and can become barren because of it. Source? With mifepristone and misoprostol in the last ten or so years, not coat hangers in the 15th century. How is this any different than "If he's NOT OK with having a child, then that's fine. He just shouldn't be having sex, which will guarantee that the girl will not choose to have a child." It's not. If yo…
/r/MensRights27/05/09 11:37 PM
1

Both parties agreeing to have sex is not the same as both parties agreeing to have a child. Unless you're pro-life. then he cannot opt out because it screws the child over and the child has no choice in the matter. Not a child yet, remember? So there's no child for the man to be obligated to. He can bounce if he wants to. If the woman STILL decides to have a child without a father for it, sure, it's her right, but then she's simply immoral, and there's nothing wrong with calling her such, and ex…
/r/MensRights27/05/09 05:30 PM
1

OK, so it's 100% an act of free will that a woman is having a baby. Why is it feasible to allow a woman to opt out of their responsibilities to a child? You gotta clear some things up. Is it a child when it's in the oven or not? If a woman aborts, is she opting out of her responsibilities to a child, by failing to provide what it needs (a uterus) as a dependent? Now if not, why can't a man do the exact same thing, since the child will only come into being by an act of pure will on the part of th…
/r/MensRights27/05/09 04:33 PM
0

True, though, to continue playing devil's advocate, if these kids don't exist or won't ever exist, then there's no constraint of the parents' freedom, since they're not parents. It's only in the case of having kids on the way that the freedoms would be constrained. Having kids on the way would have certain legal ramifications in the same way that a building under construction has certain legal ramifications. Zoning, fire code... Planning ahead isn't a lapse in logical rigor, right?
/r/MensRights27/05/09 04:25 PM
1

So... your argument is that she DID choose to get pregnant?
/r/MensRights27/05/09 03:17 PM
0

Gotta be charitable. Best construction of this argument: It's worth constraining the freedom of potential parents to procreate, because the natural rights of their children will be infringed upon if they aren't. As such, "parenting licenses" or whatever would be in the interests of the kids, not society or any other adults.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 03:01 PM
1

If you want to adopt a pro-life paradigm, then you have to do it all the way; i.e. it's her fault for having sex before marriage. But moreover, we don't live in a pro-life paradigm. If a woman has a problem with abortions, fine. She needs to disclose that shit, because it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's an option on the table, just like it's reasonable to assume that one ought to have a say in whether one has children at this point in time or not.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 02:56 PM
1

Looks like she also slept through First Amendment 101.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 02:48 PM
2

Shit. I'd go, but they're at capacity already.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 05:04 AM
3

Naw, chivalry is fine. Unexamined chivalry can be problematic. It's pretty obvious that men and women are very different. As such, "separate but equal" is the best we're ever gonna get when it comes to gender theory. So then what we need is some sort of conceptualization of gender that compasses this. If you look at history, women got some of their best deals in civilizations that had fairly firmly defined gender arenas: Sparta, Late Republic/Early Empire SPQR, Song Dynasty China... The idea bei…
/r/MensRights26/05/09 04:02 AM
3

Agreed. The sentencing double standard is bullshit. Genarlow Wilson, etc.
/r/MensRights25/05/09 03:27 AM
0

Yes, let's just downvote without commentary. Let's just ignore the vast majority of human experience and history. What the fuck is this, /equality?
/r/MensRights23/05/09 10:05 PM
2

Isn't it relevant that she went to prison for 7 and a half years? Isn't it relevant that after all that time, he wanted to marry her? Yep, it absolutely is. Alexander the Great was Regent of Macedon at 16. At the same age, Napoleon was an artillery officer. Livia Drusilla and Octavia Minor started their first political marriages at 16 and 15. Grand Dowager Empress Wu Zeitan, founder of the Zhou dynasty, "began her political career" as a concubine at 13. There's no magical event at 18 that bestow…
/r/MensRights23/05/09 07:13 PM
2

Don't bounce. The community's largely not reasonable on this one, but there's a lot of other good stuff around here. And the disparity in sentencing is absolutely true.
/r/MensRights23/05/09 06:44 PM
1

I'm curious. If sex is the act of reproduction, where does contraception fit into all of this for you? Obviously, the agreement would stand until the parties decided either A) that they wanted to have children together, no problem, or B) one party wants to, and the other doesn't, and the former will wait for the latter, or C) the former decides to break it off and find somebody who does want to have kids. We can agree on throwing the book at irresponsible mothers. 100%. Last bit, we have to be v…
/r/MensRights13/05/09 05:12 PM
1

Hang on, hang on... I didn't say "legally" or "realistically," for a reason. I mean, remember that we are entitled to rights regardless of whether our government works to guarantee them or to deny them. Hell, even if such a contract existed, imagine the conversation leading up to signing one. I said "reasonably" because I think given the weightiness of the matters, it's reasonable to expect somebody to follow through on what they say they're going to do. Bringing "human life" into the considerat…
/r/MensRights13/05/09 02:57 PM
2

No, no, I wasn't being critical of your conclusions, just pointing out that for pro life folks, there is no other hand, which is a big hairy deal for a bunch of gender considerations. You really are to be applauded for recognizing that this is a relevant consideration, and doubly so for considering perspectives outside your own viewpoint... I just wanted to emphasize to most other folks that this is a paradigm-changing consideration. The question of "should be" entirely hangs on this issue. One …
/r/MensRights13/05/09 02:30 PM
1

Edit: I'm pretty pro-life, btw, which maybe plays into a person's views on this. Hell no. It absolutely plays into a person's views on this.
/r/MensRights13/05/09 04:34 AM
1

I understand your line of reasoning, mate, and appreciate where you're coming from. I think it is more complicated than that, though. Check it: Suppose you and your girlfriend have been responsible and talked about "what if". Both of you are Pro-Choice, and you agree that where you are in your lives right now is not a good place to have kids. You both agree on some kind of plan to get an abortion in the event; maybe you agree to pay since she gets to fuck with uterine contractions (a not-so-publ…
/r/MensRights13/05/09 04:30 AM
1

I double checked the cite, and I think I figured out what was going on with it: the women-make-more-than-men number is when you look at the census data and control for family factors. Women who have never married or had children make more money than men who have never married or had children. As for the effects of marrying and having kids, such things seem to have more to do with the employees themselves, rather than any discrimination on the part of the employers, as your Time article suggests.…
/r/MensRights06/05/09 03:27 PM
3

I sure hope so.
/r/MensRights05/05/09 08:20 PM
0

Wow. That's pretty damning. I don't think they're worth your time, mate. Or anybody's. Fuck it. They're not serious about having a methodology that makes real progress.
/r/MensRights04/05/09 07:54 AM
7

Thought GBB was "gender behaving badly".
/r/MensRights04/05/09 07:51 AM
1

Excellent piece, well-aimed. Nicely done.
/r/MensRights01/05/09 06:18 AM
1

Meh, just to keep things in perspective, banning books is bad, 'mkay? We give shit like this power by paying attention to it and legitimizing it. Most teen girls don't want to read books period, and if they do, first stop is shit like Twilight, which is popular because by having an inhuman love interest, it avoids all kinds of things that cause friction in relationships because real men and real women have differences. There's some shit about not having sex in their relationship because it would…
/r/MensRights01/05/09 06:11 AM
4

/eq isn't looking for a war with /mensrights The fact that this is even in the realm of possibility, that there's any concern that things might be "misconstrued" this way... ought to tell you something about just how successful y'all have been in creating a community dedicated to actual equality.
/r/MensRights01/05/09 05:58 AM
0

Why should you follow a practice that you yourself do not agree with? It's cliche - two wrongs do not make a right. Reread my post. I said it was justified at the time. Not a wrong, in either case. As such, similar practices are justified and understandable because analogous conditions exist. Comments about "most women" are not personal insults, but they were getting downvoted as such; that was my point. Pissing contests involving Aerik or lawyergirl are... not interesting; I've spent no time lo…
/r/MensRights01/05/09 05:53 AM
1

most Source?
/r/MensRights30/04/09 07:58 AM
1

What's funny about that is that any anthropologist will tell you that exchange is the basis for LOTS of social ties. It's why we give presents at Christmas, for goodness' sake. If I'm dating an equal, she can ask me out and pay for the whole goddamn thing. AND put out like somebody who knows what she wants, dammit.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 07:56 AM
2

All other grad schools too. Check the Census Bureau.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 07:20 AM
1

No they aren't. They're paid 117% of what men make. Check Why Men Earn More by Warren Farrell... near the front, introduction or chapter one. It's in bold, and the source he cites isn't a study, it's goddamn census data. In fact, you probably want to read the whole book. Farrell is the only man to ever be elected to the N.O.W. board of directors three times, and quite possibly the smartest motherfucker doing gender theory these days. It's a fascinating read.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 07:14 AM
-4

Being polite or not has nothing to do with being right or not. It's an unreasonable burden. Ever see that "Well-behaved women seldom make history" bumper sticker? Simply put, what's good for the goose is good for the motherfucking gander. Also, making generalizations about the sexist assumptions of "most women" is completely legitimate. God knows the Second Wavers did it to "most men" to an incredibly large degree, and with incredibly large effects! It was completely legitimate then; just watch …
/r/MensRights30/04/09 07:08 AM
-2

No, guys will always be violent. We like it, we're programmed for it. (Across history, in every culture... this one's here to stay, folks.) The trick is to socialize it so it doesn't fuck up civilization. What the hell else did people think football and Chuck Norris movies were about?
/r/MensRights20/04/09 05:20 AM
2

Maybe, but more likely, they just have different issues. The more I look at gender theory, the more I think it's all about the Tao--you gotta have both the Yin and the Yang. Guys raised by dad alone run the risk of not having healthy relationships with women.
/r/MensRights20/04/09 05:18 AM
1

This route would definitely end up being good for publicity and certainly lead to a greater social good, but your chances of success are slim, and you might find you don't actually have the stomach to see such an undertaking through, leaving you with no social good and a bad grade. Just think the fucker through is all I'm saying.
/r/MensRights15/04/09 02:50 AM
3

For quibble-free, gut-punching sources, I would load up Duke Lacrosse and let both barrels rip. It's Not About the Truth is the book I read, but I'd also check out Until Proven Innocent, since one of its authors was one of the few guys to get it right from the beginning. Be sure keep track of Houston A. Baker, Jr. He's special, especially when he told one of the boy's moms that she was the "mother of a farm animal." That said, as an educational consultant, I have to recommend you not write this …
/r/MensRights14/04/09 07:11 AM
8

Yeah, I never understood why anybody would make a 15 year old boy read Jane Austen when they could just hand him Patrick O'Brian instead. Oh, riiight, nobody cares about teaching boys.
/r/MensRights11/04/09 06:24 PM
8

Yeah, it's about fucking time. As an SAT tutor, it's usually too late. I try to explain to some of the guys... Hey, you know that James Bond movie you liked? There are also books about shit strikingly similar to that... shit like... James Bond.
/r/MensRights11/04/09 04:01 AM
2

You're totally right, and I think it's a decent sub. You can totally do better than these for quotes, though. Dowd's said some crazy crazy shit. Include a couple of those and you got yourself a great sub.
/r/MensRights10/04/09 05:22 PM
-4

Wow. Just wow. LOL
/r/MensRights09/04/09 06:08 AM
5

I heard more unemployment numbers on the radio today. Have women become more than 50% of the workforce yet?
/r/MensRights04/04/09 07:11 AM
1

Most badass thing I've heard of since that British soldier who jumped on the grenade and lived.
/r/MensRights25/03/09 03:18 AM
1

Some of the most vocal first wave feminist women were very vocal polygamists. The idea was that a woman had more autonomy in a situation where her personal identity wasn't subsumed into her husband's. I think more importantly these days, though, is the question of marriage itself. For example, personally, I'm of the suspicion (I decided "opinion" was too strong a word) that gay marriage isn't a good thing (from the standpoint of raising children, only). It's just really hard to reconcile allllll…
/r/MensRights22/03/09 07:35 PM
1

I recommend Gabriel Marcel as food for thought. His "creative fidelity" is an interesting take on the interaction of choices with the realities of where we find ourselves. I also found it similar to Taoism's "creative quietude" that one cultivates when living in harmony with the Tao.
/r/MensRights10/03/09 05:26 AM
2

I didn't... the author says he's a man. He's judging his subject for not fitting her (the subject's) own values. Bottom line, this woman is unhappy by her own standards, and that's why he's coming to the conclusion that the way she's lived her life is problematic.
/r/MensRights09/03/09 03:52 AM
4

Er, no, the author is belittling a woman for not fitting her own mold. …and, you know, eventually I want to have kids. I don’t have all the time in the world to waste. Nothing wrong with judging somebody according to their own values.
/r/MensRights08/03/09 04:07 AM
2

I agree with your sentiment completely, and I certainly give you credit for being open-minded enough to take my point. Nevertheless, because I'm not just sitting at home trying to score imaginary points by debating people on the internet, I have to try to convince you that this comment is an example of the type of discourse that holds us back. First, there are no "sides". These are our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. The failure of the feminist movement to give up or ev…
/r/MensRights06/03/09 05:31 PM
0

No, they aren't, dammit. Certainly not as a demographic. They were, but then there was this whole feminist revolution thing, it lasted for decades, and it had an impact, legislatively, culturally, and practically. Women are more than half of all college undergrads, almost 60% of grad students, and according to US Census data, make more money for equal work than men do. (117% of what men do, Why Men Earn More, Warren Farrell.) These are not the behaviors of "chattel". There simply has not been a …
/r/MensRights05/03/09 11:29 PM
1

God, I think I spent like 4 hours on that post. Here's hoping the kids do some better work on their next installment of the series.
/r/MensRights03/03/09 08:40 AM
2

Great sub.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 04:32 AM
0

Hahahaha... I tried to explain to her that her that no attempt at a progressive gender theory can succeed without acknowledging that men's rights have not had a revolution similar to women's rights. She responded with talking points. I dunno that it's a lie so much as willful ignorance. She's still committed to the claim that women are treated as property.
/r/MensRights01/03/09 02:20 PM
1

OK, so you're committed to the claim that children without fathers do not suffer? Fathers are optional? OK, so explain then to me why, in a world where contraception and abortion exists, and a woman has full reproductive freedom, and full ability to "escape responsibility for her actions" if she's not yet ready to be a parent... Why then do men not have the same reproductive freedom and the same ability to "escape responsibility"? You've just said there's no evidence that children without father…
/r/MensRights28/02/09 04:39 PM
3

It's pretty obvious that I do, and I'm not the only one. The question is why. I read this in here the other day, and it made a compelling argument. There certainly is a mountain of evidence that children without fathers suffer. So, before folks go on a downvoting jag, ask yourself the question: Are fathers optional, or not? If fathers are optional, then you're committed to the claim that all paternity suits are a violation of the father's human rights. If fathers are not optional, then it follow…
/r/MensRights27/02/09 06:04 PM
1

It's becoming clear that it's immoral for a woman to bring a child into the world without a father. Her clear moral obligation is to abort the pregnancy. If she's morally opposed to abortion, then she simply needs to get married before having sex. This isn't hard, folks. If you have sex, you might get pregnant. It's like anything else in life; if you can't handle the potential consequences of an action, don't do the action.
/r/MensRights27/02/09 02:15 PM
3

Er, I always thought a large part of the Men's Rights movement is the degree to which society does not value men. Men are the disposable sex. See: Murder victims, slaves, prison rape, occupational fatalities, suicides, homelessness, and now, unemployment rates. Are you really arguing that a "revolution" has occurred in these areas? There is no pendulum. The whole idea of a progressive Gender Theory is to move beyond iron-clad gender stereotypes because they are neither necessary nor good in a mo…
/r/MensRights24/02/09 08:06 AM
2

Common ground is necessary, and both genders need to be included in any reasonably solid conceptualization of gender theory. There's only one problem... A women's rights revolution has already occurred. A men's rights revolution hasn't yet. As such, society is demonstrably more sexist against men today. How do you plan on dealing with this obvious imbalance? (Women have had a revolution, men haven't.)
/r/MensRights24/02/09 06:24 AM
3

Yeah, I kinda have to call BS on this one. Michael, Gabriel... all the ones that actually seem to get a name seem to usually be depicted as male.
/r/MensRights21/02/09 06:07 AM
2

I largely think you do a good job here, pn6, but at the same time, I have to say that I applaud your solicitation of criticism and respectfully disagree with our interlocutors that say such things do not need explanations. If we become too wrapped up in ourselves, we run the risk of groupthink and of being no better than the feminists. We also run the risk of alienating new folks that show up and see a lot of guys pissed off about things that we have all come to understand over time but that mos…
/r/MensRights18/02/09 03:38 AM
-1

See reply to wonkifier above.
/r/MensRights18/02/09 01:12 AM
4

The argument isn't about what people claim "feminism" means. That's not the question. The question is, what does the word itself suggest? If I CLAIM that: "'Mankind' means men AND women, obviously, you dunce, just look at the way the word is used," that doesn't make "mankind" a legitimate or inclusive term. Just ask... any feminist. Similarly, just because feminists claim that "feminism" is about equality doesn't make it a legitimate term... even if every flavor of feminism out there actually so…
/r/MensRights18/02/09 01:10 AM
1

Right, and concerned with... only one gender. It cannot be the case that "Gender Studies" is a less egalitarian term than "Feminism". If egalitarianism is good, well...
/r/MensRights17/02/09 11:18 PM
6

It can't possibly be the case. If "chairman" is a sexist term, them it must follow that "feminism" is just as loaded and sexist, if not moreso. Support the study of "Gender Theory/Gender Studies" and the advancement of "Egalitarianism/Equality".
/r/MensRights17/02/09 10:53 PM
12

Er... If "chairman" or "stewardess" are inherently gendered words, therefore sexist, therefore illegitimate, then how the hell does "feminism" dodge that bullet?
/r/MensRights17/02/09 10:50 PM
1

Good for some quote mining. I had to laugh. Her Majesty overstates the argument, methinks, but points toward the larger truth of the Tao. Men and women are at their best when they partner in dynamic equilibrium punctuated by mutual respect. It's when we get off balance that we do extreme and horrible things.
/r/MensRights12/02/09 05:38 PM
6

Er... she seems to go off on a pretty harsh misandry jag in the middle... Is that supposed to be sarcasm? At the end she seems to satirize the system pretty brutally... I guess it's a sad sign that the rhetoric used for misandry is already so extreme that it's impossible to push it any further into the realm of hyperbole.
/r/MensRights12/02/09 04:49 AM
2

As an SAT tutor, I've watched this shit firsthand. It's been fucking hilarious to see all the girls tell me in September that they have omigawd no time at all because they have to read soooo much for school. Then Twilight came out and they all read it and all its sequels in record time. It's absolutely fantasy that doesn't represent men as they really are. It's totally analogous to porn. I don't really think porn's all that harmful in the end, though, nor GTA IV, so I'm not really worried.
/r/MensRights10/02/09 06:12 AM
1

I take a gener'ly Taoist point of view on the subject, since those societies which seemed to pursue a dynamic equilibrium seemed to have given the best deals for both genders (Ancient Rome, Shang Dynasty China). As such, women would be completely necessary to the construction of a solid Theory of Gender. Without their integration, a Men's Rights movement is doomed to become just as petty as the feminist movement it hates. The problem is that while women benefited from the strident "consciousness…
/r/MensRights09/02/09 05:22 PM
2

Well, when I read my history, the civilizations that seemed to have the best gender politics (as far as I've come across) are ancient Rome and Shang Dynasty China (after Taoism, but before Confucianism). We've got a problem, because Brown vs. Board of Ed. tells us that "separate is inherently unequal," but with gender, "separate but equal" is the best that we can hope to get. Both Ancient Rome and Shang Dynasty China seemed to have figured out imperfect, but workable systems of dynamic equilibri…
/r/MensRights03/02/09 04:54 AM
3

It is. My understanding is that the drugs and techniques used to prevent that type of HIV infection are very good, indeed, the best of all possible scenarios where one might want to prevent an infection.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 05:58 PM
8

I'm not sure why this is a men's rights issue... Obviously some women may lie and have sex with unsuspecting men, but the article doesn't really talk about that as a trend. The article is weird, though. Haven't these people ever heard of artificial insemination?
/r/MensRights29/01/09 03:59 AM
1

This guy is good, and his philosophy of rights is solid.
/r/MensRights27/01/09 04:41 AM
1

Hmm. So does anybody know anything about reproductive contracts that aren't marriage? Does anybody know of a way for a man to have children and retain any sort of rights to them?
/r/MensRights26/01/09 06:02 PM
2

I concur. With all due respect to the very real, unmitigated freaky horror that is inflicted on men who are separated from their children and discriminated against by society, our primary focus ought to be on positive and constructive ends. Let's not make the same mistakes the thrice-damned feminists did.
/r/MensRights26/01/09 07:00 AM
1

Oh snap! Warren Farrell in the hizzy.
/r/MensRights24/10/08 08:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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