TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

missmymom Archive

View 0 posts and 139 comments by missmymom on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

Primary aggressor or the one that can cause the most harm.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 01:20 AM
-3

If your welcome here depends on what definition of feminist you use I'm sure, and what you think, just from your statement above I would encourage you to think about that stance a little more. What about when we encourage people to not go to safe neighborhoods to not get mugged, or shot? Does that make society a "mugging culture"? Do we teach people that mugging someone is wrong? No of course not. The answer is of course no, we aren't because no one wants other people to get shot or mugged, why …
/r/MensRights07/01/16 02:44 PM
7

But I don't know if you've ever been put before a judge... the process is extremely intimidating and is a form of punishment unto itself. While true, not exactly equal to her crime though is it? I mean a traffic court comes with a heavier punishment then just going in front of a judge. Simply filing the charge is enough to say that her behaviour is inappropriate, and she doesn't get to "just walk away". That's like saying filing charges on slander but not finding people guilty is fine, or when s…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:50 PM
1

I'm not sure I would start with calling it a deeply flawed study, but let's continue with this because I want to address your points; Are they are comparing unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities to all men? No, they are only comparing single women under 30 to single men under 30. I saw someone else digged up a link saying that. Are they are comparing unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities to all men? I searched everywhere and can't find the actual study. It appea…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 04:07 AM
2

I would throw out another possibility that perhaps these women are the younger "graduating" class that we've seen as more women obtain degrees then men. It's complicating matters as if they want to continue to "marry up", but there are less available men to "marry up" to. I'll be curious to see if this particular gap grows or shrinks in the next couple years when it can be re-done.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:20 PM
71

Not the person you are replying to but a random link; http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html There's a table somewhere if you spend some time looking for it that lays out all of the details.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 05:11 PM
1

I just want to say that this is amazingly well written definitely worth reading. I hope more people read this and I thank you for writing it.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:15 AM
2

I think the first question when examining any study is what is their definition of rape (or sexual assault) , and their definition of a false claim. The 1-10% is often only the cases where it is conclusively proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied. That's a PRETTY high bar to set and is also pretty bias. A great parallel is what statistic we use when accounting if someone is raped (or sexually assaulted). It's interesting to look at the studies that account for 1-in-5 statistic as an exam…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:13 AM
1

That's just the issue, when there is evidence of false claims, or even when the accuser comes forward to say they lied, they still aren't charged with filing a false police report. by the way, false rape accusations are about as prevalent as any other false allegations. That's one of those sentences that it depends on how you define a "false rape accusation". What definition are you referring to?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:08 AM
1

It's talking about cases referred to the FBI. If it is referred to the federal level, it is likely because the suspects are unknown and there needs to be a much more intensive investigation that goes beyond what the city/county police are able to do. So it is likely that a large number of this 25% is indeed talking about cases where police identified a suspect themselves. Yes, there will be a percentage where women are purposefully making a false accusation, but it will not be on top of this ful…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:02 AM
4

Part of the problem, and your even seeing some of the discussion going on here. What do you define as a false rape claim/accusation? Do we count all claims then compare then to the overall number that is found guilty? Is it if someone is found not guilty does that count as a false claim? Does the women drop the accusation without any other comment? If it is proven that she lies about it by other witnesses, or other comments she made? How do you count this number? These kind of questions would be…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:25 PM
-1

I think your also forgetting about the claims that are false before it gets to the DNA stage as well. Your also completely missing the fact that DNA analysis is part of the rape kit, so I would be surprised if it's just "stranger" sexual assaults. I wasn't able to find any statistics, but do we have any knowledge of the % of the tests are tested for DNA? EDIT: I love the downvotes, anyone want to share why?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:17 PM
5

I don't mean to sound crass, but Abandonment is not a legal option for women or men. Not true in the United States as an example, Look up the Safe-haven laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law) Adoption is an option but only if both parents agree to it. Not True, once again looking up in the United States. The Father can simply not be named on the birth certificate, and the mother is only required for adoption. As for abortion, you are too hung up on "No fair, women get abortions and m…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:50 PM
1

It basically means that they can't charge more for insurance of women.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:02 PM
2

? That doesn't make any sense, it's % of social class.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 08:45 PM
1

Just wanted to say I think this graphic is much better.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 08:45 PM
1

I'm not saying that things are difficult for them, that's not my statement. The question is what made it difficult.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 04:50 PM
1

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Or we could talk to any of the other female sports athletes before Title XI came out? Either way, my point still stands, Title IX discouraged many people, not allowing them to play sports. That's exactly what the law was made NOT to do. If you want to look at it microly (small picture) then sure, it helped women play, but macroly (big picture) it didn't just encourage people to play, it discouraged as well.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 07:43 PM
5

How can you say that's positive? Girls gained access, Boys lost access. I would say it's actually a negative overall, as we wanted to encourage more access but still caused people to lose access to the sports to participate.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 05:45 PM
5

It is fairly clear that women were discouraged, both socially and fanancially from participating in sports, before the implementation of Title IX. I would disagree with that statement, we don't have enough evidence to support that. We can say that women were encouraged by Title IX to participate in sports and that improved participation. (ie advertising and recruitment works) We can also say that boys were not encouraged in the same way to participate and even had to cut several programs at the …
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:53 PM
3

The problem with that stance is the cost it now incurred; At the same time, many contend that the current interpretation of Title IX by the OCR has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports.[31] For example, though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990, [32] scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period.[33][34] The OCR's three-prong test for compliance…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:35 PM
-4

How are MRA's trying to legitimize FGM? Are you grouping me in that statement? If you are, I think your mislabeling me and my stance (and why your grouping me as a MRA I don't really know) I'm saying they both are horrible. I'm saying there are benefits to both, and consequences to both. The benefits and consequences vary of course depending on what types you are referring to (or how severe the FGM and MGM is).
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:44 PM
1

I'm saying being mad that circumcision is medically recommended is pointless and a waste of time. I'm saying the consequences outweigh the benefits. We can research anything and come up with benefits. When you want to take an unbiased view, look up some of the western names for FGM, such as clitoris hood reduction, and notice that many of the complications you are citing simply don't exist are very minimal when dealing with a sterile environment. Saying that FGM has not benefits shows just how u…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:43 PM
0

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women. That's incorrect, please do some more research, off the top of my head it's used in the United States as a way to help prevent (treat) chronic UTIs in women as well as several other problems, I believe the surgery is called a clitoral reduction. Same surgery, different name in a sterile environment, and look at that, no complications like they mention for FGM. I can't find the link since I'm at work, as I'm reciting stuff from memory, but…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:16 PM
1

Circumcision is recommended because there are benefits. So your saying if there are benefits to FGM, we should recommend them? I'm saying we should be intelligence human beings and actually look at the benefits vs consequences and not just agree to it because it's a religious thing (which is what circumcision start as, similar to FGM again) If you want circumcision to stop, fucking work with the campaigns to raise awareness in the West.. but stop bringing up FGM. Oh the irony of what your saying…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:48 PM
-2

Even if it was done in a safe, sterile environment so a lot of the immediate risks go away, a woman is still left with crippling effects and severe long-term complications. What type of FGM are you referring to? Type 1 that's almost certainly untrue. It's important to not group all types when referring to the MOST rare cases of FGM (accounting for less then 3% I believe of an already rare occurrence). The point is, you should stop comparing the two. I disagree, the comparison between the two is …
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:45 PM
-1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the women on the council decide to boycott the hearing?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:41 PM
3

I disagree almost completely, the difference between FGM and MGM is not NEARLY as much as your attempting to institute. As far as the problem of FGM is how it's treated vs MGM. The cultural response to FGM (even type 1) was to outlaw it in many places, while MGM is often times recommended.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:38 PM
0

I'm at work so I can't have a real debate with you, but most of the complications with FGM deal with the places that do it, ie not as sterilized environment, vs circumcision which is practiced in those areas as well as in first world countries.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:36 PM
1

I'd suggest starting to link it to Men's Rights with a good source. Does anyone have one?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 02:35 PM
3

wow, seriously?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 07:39 PM
1

wow a little late? :)
/r/MensRights24/08/11 08:54 PM
1

Alright, I wish us luck either way :)
/r/MensRights16/04/11 03:46 PM
1

I agree, that's one thing, but what about the "details" of financial-abortion? How would we say it's acceptable? If we have 1 weeks from time of pregnancy to use our financial-abortion, is that acceptable? What if they don't know they are pregnant? There's no "quick" kill switch was more my point.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 03:31 PM
2

And I agree that a link showing that or article highlighting the overall trend would be a Men's Rights issue, but an individual incident, where the law was written to be the same, and will effectively have no impact on Men's Rights a whole does not qualify. I think your confusing something, I never said the laws are different, only that discrimination is present even when they are not supported by law. This isn't a new thing. It's discrimination no matter how it happens. The individual events is…
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:40 PM
1

Ah, that's understandable re-reading my comment. Thanks for your input either way ;)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:30 PM
7

I'll upvote you, only to have a good debate. I agree that a lot of this is very "subjective" to deal with mensrights, but it's more about establishing a pattern of behavior that men face with penalty punishments. On top of this, there have been guidelines established for judges to go more lenient on women then men. (I can find the link if you'd like) this only applies to certain countries but I think it's a showing that it's a societal issue.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:21 PM
1

I think that's a lot harder to say "objectively" or not to be honest with you. There's no clear way to setup a kill switch on a movement that I've seen that is good.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:19 PM
1

So, just out of curiosity, what objective goal can you set that would be a kill switch?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:07 PM
3

I've dealt with this questions several times throughout my time on reddit, the best response I have came up with first is quoting the wiki; Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. The important part of that definition is that feminism is about making women equal where an disadvantages exists, however the question remains that if feminism wants equality for all genders. The …
/r/MensRights15/04/11 04:10 AM
2

Do you believe I'm a feminist because I complained that it's from 2005?
/r/MensRights12/04/11 09:49 PM
2

Aw come on guys, it's from 2005! :/
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:17 PM
1

Anytime, I'm glad to have a reasoned debate just about anytime :) I'm fully aware of how large this business is what makes this case more interesting. I hope you are right and they are fully aware of the percentage of women in their management positions and are aware of what is keeping (and even what is not keeping them) from becoming managers. You might consider that none of this could be possible if Walmart was making ill-advised hiring decisions based on gender. It is simply not in Walmart's …
/r/MensRights31/03/11 02:52 AM
3

There really isn't anything to fix, now is there? I find that statement interesting, but most importantly that's what the court is going to find out. Here is where you're going off the tracks. You equate the imbalance with something that is wrong and needing a fix. No, I don't. I equate the imbalance with a reason to examine the reason behind the imbalance. If there truly are less qualified (and applying) women to wal-mart management, then they are completely fine and the court case will find th…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 11:51 PM
0

I never said they are admitting discrimination. They only admit that they are not equal to other companies (they picked to equate themselves to). They are no doubt TRYING to find QUALIFIED women, and they have every interest to do so. They are going to have to prove this in court. How are they trying? There's no doubt that there are less woman in leadership roles in wal-mart. That changes things from saying they are equal to other companies. So, now that puts them on different standings as they …
/r/MensRights30/03/11 10:25 PM
0

Are you reading what I wrote? I realize what that study is, I am talking about the "study" that wal-mart released that is quoted in that study. Wal-mart is the one that "cherry picked" their competitors, the plaintiffs did not.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:57 PM
-1

I normally would agree with you if you just look at the statistics, but the point of me saying that was that wal-mart said themselves they are behind, but yet did nothing to try to remedy it. That is evidence supporting the discrimination so it makes wal-mart at least go on the defensive trying to defend them finding that out but yet not fixing it. I want to note, I honestly don't know enough of the facts but I know there is more then just the statistical study that shows the discrimination. I w…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:52 PM
-2

That's not actually true to be fair, It's part of Wal-marts own assessment that they are behind Wal-Mart’s women in management percent (32.4%) is significantly behind several of the other retailers reporting (43.2% to 65.3%).” Using nationwide average EEO-1 data for 1997, this same report also concluded, “…Our Wal-Mart percent of women trails both the retail industry and workforce averages…”
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:52 PM
0

Um, maybe I missed that quote in the article, but can you show me where it states that?
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:06 PM
10

Great to see this collection of stories. Thanks kloo2yoo!
/r/MensRights30/03/11 05:38 PM
2

The problem is that many feminist say that feminism is about equality of the sexes (ie MRA is not needed) when in reality it is only concerned with the equality of women (not addressing the inequalities men encounter). I think the reason why feminism receives a lot of criticism for it is because some of the policies and things they want result in discrimination against men. A good example of this is college admittance rates, they are not unequally in favor of women. It seems to dismiss the discr…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 02:54 PM
1

I'm of the mindset that a man can not have children if he wants to, and he should take responsibility for his actions if he does. I'm sorry what? Are you saying that if he has a child, he should be responsible for it? Just because a woman can abort a pregnancy and shirk her responsibilities doesn't mean it's ok for a guy to. I'm taking the moral judgement out of this, and attempting to show that objectively the rights are the same. If you want to pass a moral judgement then using this logic abor…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 02:44 AM
2

He has every right to abandon the child and acknowledge its existence only in the form of a monthly child support check. That is not ending the relationship with the child. That is a VERY large relationship.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 02:06 AM
1

Should mom have to get an abortion if she can't afford to take care of a child on her own? She has to make that choice just as a couple would. That decision still lies with her. She could also put the child up for adoption. She still has other options then to just keep the kid. That seems to be an awfully petty reason to choose (what I believe to be) killing a child. I agree, but that is the choice she has to make, before she brings a child into this world as any responsible parent/s should. If …
/r/MensRights30/03/11 02:05 AM
1

I completely accept your apology. I wasn't offended by it, but it helps move the conversation forward having a civil tone for both of us :) Okay, let's talk about your 3 choices. I agree the first two do not really work because if one person wants to take care of the child they should be able to. This only comes into conflict with a father not wanting the child (abort) but the mother disagrees. This is where the 3rd option works as a solution. I do think abortion is killing, but I'm not against …
/r/MensRights29/03/11 08:10 PM
2

why are you bitching and moaning because you don't have control over every aspect of how your mistake goes wrong? I'm not really doing any moaning just having a conversation, your the one that's cursing. force a woman to abort a baby she has just as much right to as you No, she holds that choice, the father does not. She has the rights here. force a woman to give a baby up for adoption Sorry, wrong again, she holds that choice, not the father. If she does not identify the father he have to go th…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:47 PM
2

Yes, the difference here being the female does not lose that right. He did nothing wrong, he consented to sex not to fatherhood.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:24 PM
2

Yes it is, just because he had rights in the PAST, doesn't mean he shouldn't have rights NOW. That's exactly what your saying.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:11 PM
1

But regardless, people who get DNA tests do not represent the general population--they DO represent people with doubt. No, they are representative of the people who seek out a test. Do not attempt to hypothesis on their reasoning behind the test, because it can also be court ordered, or state ordered, or genetic testing for diseases. And while it is indeed very possible that there are people who wholeheartedly trust their wives/girlfriends/etc and shouldn't, there is no way to know what percenta…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:09 PM
1

I'd add more groups, people seeking help from the state, people seeking child support, etc. I'd also respond that you are missing a large group of people that are simply lied to successfully and are never found out. We don't have any statistics on either side. I agree that those groups should not be ignored, but we simply don't have any studies randomly testing groups of people to determine true paternity, so we can't make an educated guess either way. We can only cite the studies that we do hav…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:05 PM
1

That's true that the 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 applies to people applying for the test that does not mean that every father had doubts, sometimes it's required to seek custody cases, or in case of divorce. We don't have any better statistic on the actual reasons behind the DNA testing (unless you have a study somewhere). I agree the numbers may be skewed but to what amount is anyone's guess at this point. We honestly don't know, and can't really make any educated guess.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:59 PM
2

It's from statistics about getting the paternity tested.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:51 PM
1

This is from the statistics of getting a paternity test reveal that the "accused" father isn't really the father at all in 20% to 33% of the time.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:51 PM
1

That's like saying that prisoners can be abused and treated inhumanly because they had rights as "free" people.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:25 PM
2

I'm sorry consent to sex is not consent to fatherhood. It's like saying consent to a blowjob is consent to sex. It's not that's rape.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:38 PM
3

That's exactly the issue, the mother is making the "final" choice to bring the child into this world. That is acceptable as it's her body, but the father should have some right to end his relationship with the child if he decides to similarly to how the mother can.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:37 PM
2

I'm sorry you lost me at several points mainly He can't choose to just escape all of his responsibilities to the child because the child exists and is his. No, she still has the ability to end end it's existence (legally), he should have the same ability to at least end his relationship with it.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:36 PM
1

No, equal rights would mean that I have rights BEFORE (like her), however during the pregnancy my rights cease to exist, while she still has rights.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:30 PM
5

What's your definition of a feminist? I ask this because there is apparently some confusion even within the feminist movement about what exactly it means. The easiest definition I can find would be this Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. That is, that you are not concerned with the inequalities that face men only women, but yet many feminist attempt to say that feminis…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:22 PM
2

No, She has rights BEFORE the pregnancy part as well. She has rights before, DURING and AFTER as well.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:46 PM
1

How do you determine if she's lying or not? What's to stop her from just showing up and being like I'm not sure who the father is. Do we stop her from having an abortion?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:45 PM
1

What if we can't figure out who the father is (without endangering the life of the baby)?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:33 AM
2

Look up discrimination please, then come back when you wish to have a real discussion.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:32 AM
1

So we have a couple possible scenarios, however the one we are talking about; Perhaps abortion shouldn't just be a one sided choice. So, let's play this one out, let's say the mother agrees to an abortion but the father does not. What happens? Do we force the mother to carry the baby?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:15 AM
1

I neither specifically believe nor disbelieve it; and I will not attempt to prove a negative. If there are feminists who have stated such contradictory opinions, I would be happy to see documentation. That wasn't your stance before, you did assert something. Also, you are not proving a negative, you are proving a positive, and that is that there is at-least one feminist who does this. That would prove this post correct. Your debate about what is more and what is less is irrelevant to the post in…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:18 AM
5

Actually in a lot of places it is.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:06 AM
2

Agreed, but given that it currently is, would you rather make abortion the father to be required (How would you verify this?) it's a better and more logical solution to give either parent a way out.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:05 AM
3

Sorry you lost me there, because she has rights as well that extend PAST the "before the pregnancy part". That's the issue.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:04 AM
7

Yes, but the reality is not that. The reality is the woman is holding the cards in this case, he is being discriminated agianst because his wishes are not being respected and he is going to be held for child support. The mother on the other hand whatever she decides to do is respected. If she wants an abortion then he has no choice in the matter. It's not really worth nothing it in this case, as it doesn't change that in this case he is being discriminated agianst.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 12:25 AM
2

Yeah, I'm familiar with what they are. :) I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I realize that BolshevikMuppet isn't adding anything. That's why I said what I said, and they haven't responded.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 10:45 PM
5

I agree, and the "privilege denying dude" suffers the same problems.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:36 PM
4

That's not at all what is being said though. There are feminist who hold this double standard do you agree with that? If so then saying There are feminist who believe in a double standard would be a correct statement would it not? Then we can move on to your statements Just out of curiosity, are there many examples of the same "feminist" saying two contradictory things like these? My understanding and reading of the lay of the land is the tendency is more "feminist A says violence is always bad;…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 06:59 PM
1

I will give you points though for actually calling out bad statistics though. That's something that should be done more and more.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:05 PM
4

Just because I like a good debate, So your asserting that more people will disagree with each other, then change their own opinion later on? I would agree with that assertion completely, but that doesn't change that people do A and B.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 04:03 PM
7

What leads you to that conclusion? The end result of that is that in this case the man wasn't treated fairly. We can look at it as an example of female privilege, or as racism.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 01:04 AM
1

I would say not to ban it. I've always liked the openness that goes with r/MensRights. I followed one of your discussions and I was impressed with the idea that points made must stand up by merit. I have hope that the goodmenproject will offer some better articles in the future, but even not I would be hesitant to ban them simply because it helps knowing what other people are thinking (even if you disagree with them). However we want to twist it this movement is about convincing people that our …
/r/MensRights15/03/11 06:03 AM
6

I personally enjoyed this: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/playing-the-victim/
/r/MensRights15/03/11 06:00 AM
3

I'd be interested to learn more about who controls what wealth, because for example the wealth in the United States is controlled more by women then men. A good fact for example - Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth. (the United States) Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States Now you said: If the woman is working a job as well, she should still have to …
/r/MensRights13/03/11 05:02 AM
1

Look right below that, there's a table comparing the men and women. Figure 3.3 I would have to say though that housework is still work that goes unpaid, and if women are doing more of it than men then it's still a valid claim. No, because at that time you would have to split the men's earning in half to account for that. That's how marriage/relationships work. That work would still have to be done, and people still have to make money. I'm not debating that women earn more then men, I'm debating …
/r/MensRights13/03/11 04:14 AM
3

You welcome. I think that's the outstanding problem with any study that says "X does more work then Y". You have to answer questions like, does commute count, does farming count, or how about gardening? Does schooling count? There are lots of complicated questions to go along with these studies, and if you decide to say no include commute, it would more likely hurt men vs women (as more often men work outside the house), but then say would you include 3 walk to get water in third world countries…
/r/MensRights13/03/11 04:05 AM
2

As an example: http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights The lowest they quote is 28%, most being in the 30-40% range. This is them including "housework" as being unpaid. For many women, unpaid work in and for the household takes up the majority of their working hours, with much less time spent in remunerative employment. Even when they participate in the labour market for paid employment, women still undertake the majority of the housework.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 03:40 AM
8

Just a couple thoughts from http://www.glennsacks.com/both_men_and.htm about the world work as example Countries that men worked more then woman were deliberately excluded from the study. (Warren Farrell, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say) . Moreover, when the data provided by researchers in some countries (including the U.S.) did not fit the U.N.'s intention to show that women "do more," researchers were asked (in a private communication) to amend their studies. Researchers were asked to incl…
/r/MensRights13/03/11 03:36 AM
7

Nice catch I was about to submit this :)
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:48 PM
1

You welcome, it generally takes a year of you being "gone" before abandonment becomes an issue, but it does happen. In some states this won't come into play if the spouse that leaves is not contributing to the household at all.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 09:32 PM
1

Just wanted to sound off as far as abandonment goes, if you are providing for your ex, (ie you have a job and the spouse does not), yes you can be charged with abandonment.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:23 AM
1

Yes, feminism did original start to get equality of the sexes FOR women. That's an important part of the definition many feminist seem to easily drop off. It's not made to fix the inequalities that men face even if it helped CREATE (or increase) those inequalities. I would say that's pretty important because rape still happens and due to some people in our society, there's the thought that some women were asking for it. I don't disagree that rape convictions are important, however making them "e…
/r/MensRights06/03/11 08:27 PM
1

eh, it's okay I think I got your point.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 08:24 PM
5

Notice the point, SOME feminist. It's not a "principal" of feminism. That's the point. Some feminist are equalist, but not all. I'm not saying they don't care (some do, but i will cede that a lot do), but that's not the important part of feminism. It would be false to say that feminism is about taking away the rights of men. Depends on how you define "rights", such as making it easier to get a rape conviction (which a majority of the accused are men).
/r/MensRights05/03/11 08:24 PM
3

Most of the readers here don't even know what feminism is, feminists defend men's rights too, the same way I do. Feminists fight for social justice for both genders. I don't see many readers here as understanding this. Not to call you out or anything, but no they don't. Feminism is a movement geared towards equal rights FOR women. Men's rights are a byproduct of that fight but are not a priority. That's why it's called FEMINISM not equalism, or any other name. From wiki "Feminism refers to movem…
/r/MensRights05/03/11 07:27 PM
2

You know you can actually create a FAQ in one place right? Once a subreddit gets over a certain number of members, we get access to the FAQ on reddit.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 04:31 PM
10

I got the comment before the edit. It was: http://imgur.com/pen94 "I think you have found yourself caught in a corner and you are not sure what to do. Let me make this easy for you. I'm not going to tolerate your bullshit in this forum, and I think many others here feel the same. If I find you pulling the same crap here, I will make it my goal to derail MR as much as I can. You know exactly what you are doing here, but you argue against those who do it in MR, calling them 'concern trolls'. Stop …
/r/MensRights28/02/11 08:50 PM
1

Nope, that should be it. Thanks!
/r/MensRights10/02/11 08:57 PM
1

Glad we got one, but not to be crass but can you remove the #! from http://twitter.com/#!/mensrightsrdt Make it just http://twitter.com/mensrightsrdt That way it doesn't hijack my back button?
/r/MensRights10/02/11 07:50 PM
3

I don't think this is where they actually got it, but the original source is here: http://www.aei.org/docLib/GreatMancessionTestimony.pdf Some Highlights here: http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/06/trivia_tidbit_o_816.html
/r/MensRights08/02/11 07:22 PM
10

I would imagine that's not legal at all. Is this a state run day care or private?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 05:52 AM
1

That's the problem, we need to have a standard of consent, that if a person are of free mind and will I see no reason why they can not consent to something. A "Meeting" of the minds so to speak.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 03:31 PM
1

Depending on jurisdiction, your reasonable belief that she was continuing to consent can mitigate your culpability That is what I'm talking about. That's the closest comparison I have to having sex with someone who is unconscious.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:52 AM
1

That'd probably depend on whether you had engaged in consensual sexual activity before, and whether she had the opportunity to say "stop" if she so chose. If she's gagged, and bound she doesn't have the chance to say "stop" anymore. Is that rape? It's two different issues. The matter of law (did she consent) is separate from the ethical issue (is she being vindictive). Agreed.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 03:54 AM
1

You keep throwing up these strawman arguments: Sexual play isn't a rollercoaster where once it starts there is no way to shut off physics if you change your mind (unless you are fucking someone on that rollercoaster, that is). If you consent to be "shut off" then yes it is. Exactly how do you consent to 'no limits'? You'd like to believe that the death through gagging and assault through gagging are 'two entirely different things' but they aren't. No, for example, you can agree to have someone h…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 07:53 PM
1

Your argument isn't a counter. You simply picked another type of sexual act and tried to make the same point again. No, it's not an assault until they ask you to stop and you don't. No, that's not what you are saying. If you say they must be conscience, then that's a different level of consent then simply saying until they ask you to stop and say no. That's two entirely different of levels of consent. Those who are into any kind of bondage-play know about safe words and, in the case of gagging, …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 07:17 PM
1

Read this: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/21/israeli-arab-man-convicted-of-rape-for-assuring-lover-he-is-jewish/ Rape by fraud.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:13 PM
2

The whole question is not whether she consented beforehand, but whether she continued to be able to consent while incapacitated. That's exactly the issue, can you give consent to an action before it happens, for example if I gag and tie someone up, is that rape, if they said I could? When she chose to bring it up doesn't matter in terms of the consent question. The issue for consent, agreed, but if this is going to come up in the custody hearing then yes it's important when it comes up.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:13 PM
2

Perhaps. But, she didn't. That's what the court decided. Actually no the courts said she did consent, which is then being appealed etc. Irrelevant to the question of consent. Hypothetically yes, but in this situation the motivation for each party is important.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:11 PM
0

Following up on you; So, what's the problem. You're fucking someone, they tell you to stop. You don't stop then, yes, you are now fucking someone without their consent. I 100% agree and would like to hear the counter argument. The counter argument is if they consent and then I gag and tie them up (under their own directions) did they consent to this? Is that rape? I would argue that it is not. Now this case in particular is interesting and one hell of an interesting edge case but says nothing ab…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:09 PM
1

That's a question of fact not of law. No, the fact is she consented. The question is legally did she consent? On the point of law, you seem to have missed the point entirely. No, I understand that part completely. IANAL but the current standard, says that a person has the right to refuse consent at any time, and if they're so incapacitated as to be unable to refuse, they cannot be said to have consented. You cannot give advance consent to all acts that might take place while you are incapacitate…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:13 AM
-3

I would disagree, I tried to share it with people I felt asked about it. It won't show up as a "red" if I don't. I also learned more about it as I went which is why i added the other montrealgazette as well. I understand your point though, I'll try to link back to one comment in the future.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:46 AM
5

Domestic violence is ALWAYS a problem.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:41 AM
0

You need to cite more sources, such as using The Spear head.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:39 AM
1

Except, the person agreed to be choked unconscious, that person "consented", not to mention only brought this up when the couple was fighting for custody of the child. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Court+judge+advance+consent/3786976/story.html
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:39 AM
1

You are correct, it's from: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/09/feminists-fighting-to-squelch-advance-consent/ Which talks about a story here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Court+judge+advance+consent/3786976/story.html It has to do with if someone can give "advanced" consent.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:38 AM
-1

Take a look here: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/09/feminists-fighting-to-squelch-advance-consent/ for more background. That's where it relates to: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Court+judge+advance+consent/3786976/story.html
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:35 AM
-5

I don't think so, I would also look here: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/09/feminists-fighting-to-squelch-advance-consent/
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:35 AM
3

It's okay this a fairly common thing from supersheep.. like here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dw3e0/why_is_there_a_link_on_the_right_to_rfeminisms/c13fazo?context=5
/r/MensRights28/10/10 05:31 AM
0

I think my post was done first the one pointing to: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dw3e0/why_is_there_a_link_on_the_right_to_rfeminisms/ He complained in MRs thinking he was getting downvote brigaded etc. Queercoup responds by posting the other comment kloo2yoo brings this up to show that it's an ongoing thing with queercoup. That sounds about right?
/r/MensRights26/10/10 04:30 PM
3

I just wanted to say that you worded this much better then I could possibly do. You have done an amazing job at explaining what I was thinking then I could possibly have done. Kudos to you.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 04:05 PM
0

? at what point?
/r/MensRights26/10/10 03:35 PM
4

shrug I'm not saying I agree, just trying to give more context on the situation.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 04:28 AM
2

This one was: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dw3u4/well_comrades_we_are_in_the_midst_of_another_mra/
/r/MensRights26/10/10 04:00 AM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dw3e0/why_is_there_a_link_on_the_right_to_rfeminisms/ It's still ongoing.. take a look at some of the things queercoup says.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 03:53 AM
0

This convo: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/dw3e0/why_is_there_a_link_on_the_right_to_rfeminisms/
/r/MensRights26/10/10 03:52 AM
-1

Do you know what patriarchy is?
/r/MensRights25/10/10 09:51 PM
1

Just wanted to clarify, where do you stand currently? Do you stand by your assertions that the wage gap exists and if so how large is it?
/r/MensRights18/09/10 06:16 AM
1

Correlation does not necessarily represent causation. That example doesn't really hold water on a grand scheme of things, for example take the number of people who buy things at store vs people who steal things from stores.
/r/MensRights31/07/10 04:51 PM
2

I would have to disagree about adding to the conversation but i'll go ahead and reply to why your being downvoted. The fear that was instill in her was because of his "voice" being threatening and dominating, what if it was not on purpose? I believe both parties have a duty to truly communicate their wishes and she clearly failed in that regard. He just had sex with her before and then after so he clearly was communicated that it was okay to have sex with her.
/r/MensRights31/07/10 04:47 PM
1

Just wanted to say good luck.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 05:06 AM
1

We minimize the spaces that are separate such as toilets (which the debate rages if those even need to be separate), and otherwise allow free reign between the sex/classes.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 12:37 AM
1

I am all for recognizing the discrimination, figuring out a way to abolish it and move on. That's one of the reasons why I am against affirmative action and the such, it leads to discrimination the other way. I think racial and gender discrimination are much more similar then many people give it credit, this is really apparent in current times.
/r/MensRights03/07/10 09:42 PM
2

don't be sorry, it's my fault for assuming. It comes from seperate is not not equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) It automatically leads to discrimination between one side or the other.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 06:03 PM
2

but the ability to have seperate gyms is different then HAVING difference.. Look at title 7 as an example.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 03:22 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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