TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mister_ghost Archive

View 7 posts and 227 comments by mister_ghost on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Maybe they were aware that they didn't have any proof? If someone gropes you and no one else sees, it's your word against theirs. Probably not worth it to go through the reporting process if you know it won't get anywhere.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:13 AM
2

Not a single answer question- the data has been posted elsewhere in this thread. My guess is it just got scaled to add up to 100 due to either oversight or naivete.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:04 PM
7

well, it seems inevitable that there are a lot of sexists at the very least reading here. This is an enormous anti-feminist community, and anyone who hates women also hates feminism. That doesn't mean everyone here is a sexist, but we should certainly be mindful of it.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:31 AM
3

You can, but no one will like you for it. If you have sympathies for both movements, you might feel at home in /r/FeMRADebates
/r/MensRights03/04/14 10:00 PM
2

After ensuring he has its consent in writing, gotta cover your bases.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 08:15 PM
3

Scorch. Honestly, I get the complaint that women are often seen as bossy where men would be seen as assertive. That should certainly be addressed. But men are often seen as violent criminals waiting to happen while women aren't. Both need to be looked after.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 08:09 PM
-2

You're right, it's ridiculous to suggest that false rape accusations should be treated as anything other than perjury, filing a false report, and maybe obstruction of justice.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:10 PM
1

A lot of people believe they think conpletely logically and disagree with you. Can you present evidence which they cannot proving that you are the exception?
/r/MensRights09/03/14 05:59 PM
12

There's not enough info here to draw a conclusion. alcohol can be used to facilitate assault.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 01:26 AM
6

First of all, you can't convince people of anything using only logic. It would be a nice world if you could, but it just doesn't work that way. What you need is a similar knee-jerk reaction, and stats aren't great for that unless they're extreme. Hearing DV is gender neutral is not emotionally compelling. What you need is a reaction that gets them to question the humanity of their beliefs (read- not accuracy. Telling someone their beliefs are useless is useless, they'll ignore you. Telling them …
/r/MensRights09/03/14 01:24 AM
2

It makes no difference if it's a traditionally male fantasy or not, it's being foisted on all men. Case closed.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:55 PM
22

Anything to do with male pleasure. The man's sexual role is conqueror. For him, sex is not about enjoyment but accomplishment. Obviously I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but stepping out of that role and being open about enjoying the actual act of sex is seen as really weird for someone who is meant to achieve sex, not enjoy it. Don't believe me? What do you think you're more likely to see on the cover of a men's magazine: "Last longer in bed" and "the number one trick to bring her h…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:47 PM
1

It's not just about literal virginity. Men who don't express an overblown interest in sex all the time get a lot of shit for it. "What are you, gay?" "you're just trying to be nice to get laid", etc. If women are shamed for wanting sex, men are shamed for not wanting it.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:38 PM
1

Like Kuato2012 said, the stronger analogue is virgin shaming. Creep shaming is not something that's explicitly directed at men, it's a byproduct of the sexual dynamic which says 'men ask women'. In general, men don't get hit on often, so women don't tend to be labeled creeps, but there's nothing actually in the way of it.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:35 PM
2

For me, it was a paranoid psychotic episode. 1 week long, I was 16 years old. 1984 themed, standard stuff, never likely to come back. The illness is gone, but my memory of it never will be. And the one thing that I will never, ever get used to is that people talk about me like I'm a mass shooting waiting to happen. Not me personally, but whenever people ask 'they can just walk around like that?' about schizophrenics, they're talking about me, whether or not they know it. If you're open about men…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 01:04 AM
1

No, I'm preempting a typical response. The argument that it does constitute assault is based on impaired judgement; the 'open season' comment is not a part of it. It's meant to reflect that even if the assault is a direct result of the victim getting drunk, it's still assault. The reason I included it is that, in my experience, this sort of claim is usually contested by someone saying something like: "If that got that drunk voluntarily, then the consent they give is always valid". It's mistaking…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 03:25 AM
1

They aren't really comparable. The capacity to commit a crime is not the same as the capacity to consent. The thing is, getting hit by a driver isn't an agreement, at least typically. If a drunk person came up to you and said 'hit me with your car', you can't really justify hitting them with your car (not sure about the legality). A more analogous case might be this: A thirteen year old cannot consent to sex with a 25 year old. No matter how much they want to, their 'yes' does not constitute con…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 02:58 AM
5

Yeah, there's a level of drunk beyond which someone can't make an informed decision. There's no hard and fast way to draw the line, much less tell what side of it someone's on, but it's there. If someone's had, like, two drinks, odds are they still have the wherewithal to understand the consequences of what they're agreeing to and their judgement isn't heavily impaired. Anyone telling me that person can't consent is going to get one, if not two, crooked eyebrows. On the other hand, if someone is…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 05:26 PM
3

I feel like getting hit in the head with a wooden spoon kinda falls flat here.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:52 PM
1

That would be a more persuasive argument if attitudes about consent were an evolved trait, but I feel like they change far too rapidly to support it. It's true that women bear a greater risk in childbirth, which might explain the "men can have sex and women can't" attitude, but that wouldn't translate very well into the social mores of actor and acted upon, nor would it explain the taboo on men enjoying sex. Furthermore, something I didn't fully address, it doesn't really hold up when we conside…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:27 AM
3

I've found it's slightly more complicated: Men are encouraged to have sex, but their enjoyment is taboo Women are encouraged to enjoy sex, but their having sex is taboo Think about it. Men are given tips on how to bed women. They are encouraged to keep track of how much they get laid. The gain the respect of their peers by having sex in unusual locations or circumstances. But there is derision towards men who are open about enjoying sex. A fleshlight is disgusting, as is the idea of men masturba…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:16 PM
30

Yup. This is a case where systemic power really doesn't matter, because whether you kill someone or kill them systemically, they just end up dead.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:46 PM
2

I would certainly not claim to be the real victim of violence against women, but men are the main victim of this particular initiative, something which shouldn't have any victims at all (except, perhaps, abusers). But you got me. I'm defensive. I'm defensive because I'm being accused of perpetuating abuse. Let me put this in context for you. My girlfriend was abused before she was with me. Not physically, but abuse is abuse. Then along comes Katz to explain to me that the reason her ex was abusi…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:36 PM
2

It's likely just a quirk of statistics. We, as humans, tend to see patterns when there are none. Think of it like this In general, some phrases will be dominant some of the time. There's probably some spreading of ideas attributable to it, but it's mostly just things being more random than we expect.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 01:34 AM
6

No one is opposed to preventing violence against women. Seriously, if that's what you're taking away from this I suspect that you arrived here with an opinion already formed. The first thing that rubs people the wrong way is the phrase 'man up'. It's used to shame men who are not traditionally masculine, especially when it comes to showing weakness. The second issue, and I would describe it as the main one (although the success of this post has everything to do with the phrase 'man up' being inc…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 01:28 AM
2

23?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 12:32 PM
1

the post is about using genital mutilation to lower sex drive, an argument which has not been made in a long time.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:54 PM
5

Might as well give a baby girl breast implants
/r/MensRights24/01/14 11:54 PM
5

This is not comparable to arguments in favour of MGM.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:16 PM
2

I think the idea is that he's looking forward to it, which is also disgusting.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:07 PM
1

To be fair, the joke isn't a rape joke. It calls on popular depictions of rape (e.g. dropping the soap), but the joke seems to be that Bieber wants to have sex with men in prison. So it's like 90% homophobia: it does reference rape to be funny, but it isn't a joke which involves an actual or imagined rape.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:06 PM
1

I'm assuming some degree of cultural similarity: men tend to be seen as disposable, so their risking their lives in such situations is normalized, and as such more common. Assuming that's true, it's not misandry to assume an enemy combatant is a man, but the fact that it's a reasonable assumption is a reflection of misandrist cultural norms. I don't agree with the policy, it's clearly an attempt to hide civilian deaths. But it's based on guessing characteristics of an enemy combatant, and male i…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:18 PM
3

The argument is basically as follows: the vast majority of enemy militants are men. Assuming that there is one known militant in the strike zone, we can assume that everyone else who fits the profile of a militant with them was also a militant. Of course, it's bullshit. It might be a good assumption if I'm out in the woods with three known militants, but what if I'm hitching a ride with someone who turns out to be a militant? What if I'm in the same cafe? Honestly, I don't think this policy refl…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:37 AM
1

This is a useful tool when arguing against the 'feminism is just about equality' claim. Other than that, the only thing you could accomplish (and, in my opinion, what is worth accomplishing) in such an argument is getting them to acknowledge that feminism is not the only path to gender equality. I believe that feminists really do want equality. The issue is that to some feminists, approaching any issue from a non-feminist perspective is equivalent to misogyny. What you need to communicate in thi…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:08 PM
3

Mother of god that is a poorly phrased title.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 10:55 PM
1

Perhaps not in juvenile cases?
/r/MensRights19/01/14 10:51 PM
2

Honestly, I think that's misguided. This campaign would not be targeted towards female prison guards, it would be for a general audience. A better slogan might be "rethinking sexual assault" or something along those lines, because the goal would be to break the association of rapist=man.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 10:50 PM
1

Tender years doctrine and police policies related to domestic violence. They both pretty explicitly discriminate against men. Also, the selective service in the USA.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 05:28 PM
2

Or acknowledge that there are other ways to address other kinds of sexism. I'm fine with feminism based on helping women out where they're disadvantaged, it just can't be the gender equality movement if it refuses to ever focus on men
/r/MensRights10/01/14 11:52 AM
0

I don't see the issue with this, it's what I want to see from the feminist movement, especially because it accepts that not everyone has to be a feminist. Feminism, ideally, should be viewed as an activist movement focused on alleviating disadvantages to women. With the advent of intersectionality and 'the personal is political', the movement has deteriorated into one that is not really about changing anything, and is more or less defined as 'wanting to make things better, especially for women'.…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:21 AM
1

The IWK is a children's hospital, in case anyone's wondering. (assuming we saw the same one)
/r/MensRights09/01/14 07:16 PM
1

There is not and never will be a male abortion. Either the fetus is alive, in which case it's murder, or it's part of the woman's body, in which case it's her choice. Legal parental surrender, on the other hand, already exists for women in a lot of places (I believe they're called safe haven laws?), and should clearly be extended to men.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 04:56 PM
1

It seems intuitively obvious to me that sexism against women exists, as does sexism against men. Everyone with eyes has seen both of them. the two seem to me to be fundamentally different and need to be addressed differently. As such, I'm happy to let feminism address women's issues. The main issue I take with feminism is the insistence that no other gender equality movement can exist. So I have a rule: when I seek to address women's issues, I do so as a feminist. When I seek to address men's is…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:29 AM
15

Bravo! This is a great thing! Now where's the protection for baby boys?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:57 AM
2

Pick your battles when you engage. I wouldn't expect to turn someone off feminism, just try to get them to see a failing in it. Definitely, definitely don't attack the concept of patriarchy, it will not lead to a productive discussion. Here's how I would reply: Ideologically, I can accept that feminists are no out to harm men. But the very existence of the men's rights movement demonstrates something important: whether or not feminism is interested in helping men, men are beginning to feel poorl…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:47 AM
5

No one here is complaining about the content of the movie. The audience reaction is what has us riled up. The reason is simply that the audience is full of real people. These are the same people who tell male victims of domestic abuse to 'take it like a man' and congratulate female on male rape victims. The people who think, for some reason, that it doesn't really matter if men suffer. We're angry because it's a reminder that we live in a world that seems to have one answer to all the pain and s…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 06:26 PM
2

This is an important thing to be talking about, but I think this community tends to approach it from the wrong perspective. Everyone becomes concerned with why it's not okay to hit a woman. This is foolish because a) it really, really makes our movement look bad and b) it's not even the biggest issue at play here. The question we should be focusing on and asking until it's impossible to ignore is 'where is the fucking sympathy for male victims of violence?'. I don't think it's a common belief ar…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 06:21 PM
2

Yeah, if someone is being inane, don't present your case to them, present it to the onlookers.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:34 AM
7

Everyone is welcome here, as long as they believe in helping men when they need help. Sex vs gender isn't really a thing that comes up for discussion. One of the interesting differences between the MRM and feminism is that it is much more common to see MRAs saying 'this is not a men's rights issue' than feminists saying something isn't a feminist issue. I'm sure there are MRAs who view sex and gender as synonymous, but I personally don't and I'm equally sure that there are others like me.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:32 AM
0

It's not really relevant to the movement, it's just useful if you're the kind of person who relies on snappy analogies rather than arguments.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 02:56 AM
2

here
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:26 PM
1

Well first of all, your proposed use of the phrase "check your privilege" has nothing to do with the word privilege Hardly. Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. So when we talk about privilege in this context, we are talking about privilege related to one issue. Women have the privilege of not being drafted, for example. So telling someone to check their privilege, in a legitimate use, is about pointing out that t…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:53 PM
1

I smell an argument! What's illegitimate about the uses I suggested?
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:24 PM
1

Okay, get this through your head. I'm not trying to legitimize them. I'm using hypothetical legitimate uses of them to show the flaw in another argument.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:17 PM
1

And you don't see the obvious difference between redefining mud to argue that mud is a good thing and reconceptualizing the phrases 'check your privilege' and 'mansplaining' to highlight an issue with the concept of the male power fantasy? Here's the difference. Me: These phrases are ridiculous! What's a theoretical better way to use them? Oh! Those definitions highlight an issue with another argument. Let's talk about that. You: I'm going to redefine mud to mean something good! Now I can prove …
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:08 PM
0

That's not comparable and you know it.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:53 PM
0

Check your privilege: recognize that because you are not directly affected by an issue, your perspective on that issue may be incomplete. Mansplaining: a man explaining something to a woman as though his perspective is absolute, esp. regarding issues that do not affect him and do affect her. Both seem to be reasonable, non-obtuse definitions. That they are not in common use is of no consequence, we're using theoretical legitimate uses to get at the crux of the male power fantasy issue.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:37 PM
1

The issue of comparison you bring up is a very important one, and important to keep in mind in any discussion. As you say, no one has perfect information, but there was a clarification I meant to make in the post: The term doesn't work well if privilege is a ranking system between different people. It works well when it's used to describe one party not being a target of something another party is. So a man saying 'no abortion just adoption' needs to check his privilege, so does a woman saying 't…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:23 PM
1

It's not a hard and fast rule. As I said, not 'no uterus no opinion' just 'no uterus, be prepared to critically examine your opinion on this issue related to uteruses'. You should note that this is not the same as 'conform you opinion', it just means you should approach recognizing that you experience is not universal; you have to account for the fact that you might be wrong about how someone experiences something.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:14 PM
1

I was concerned about that. I also stopped writing halfway though, there was going to be a part two.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:05 PM
0

But, at the end of the day, aren't emotional issues also important? I mean, whether or not crime rates actually warrant it, people living in fear is a real issue. Of there are biases being created by emotion, and they need to be addressed, but that's not the point. Take, for example, the cancer researcher and their patient(s). If you want to know what the survival rate for cancer is, how far away a new medication is, or where a cure is likely to come from or whether chemo is worth it, you ask th…
/r/MensRights10/12/13 05:04 PM
1

How the phrase is used is not something I meant to address, just how it might theoretically be well used. The motivation behind it was not to figure out how to use the phrase, just to see what we could learn from it. In essence, it's pointless to reverse a useless concept like what 'check your privilege' currently entails, but a reversal of the theoretical basis behind it might be helpful.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 04:49 PM
6

Oh dear, they mad. You're just a big ol' mansplainer, aren't you? Seriously, mansplaining just seems to be equivalent a man thinking he's right about something.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 03:22 AM
6

It means 'recognize that your perspective is not absolute, and is not necessarily the most valuable'. The idea is that people who do not directly experience an issue should not dominate discussions about them. In its modern extreme, it means that people who are not the main target of an issue cannot have useful opinions on said issue. It's really a matter of personal opinion as to where it's appropriate to use it. For example, a straight person saying "homophobic slurs aren't that bad, someone c…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 02:26 AM
3

what about "don't talk to strangers"? Stranger danger is in the image, and it seems like a much better analogy: we tell children not to talk to strangers not because it's their job to protect themselves, but because it's a really bad idea to talk to strangers. And the idea that this picture is being used to suggest women are children is absurd. The post could just as easily be "don't tell me to lock my door, tell home invaders not to invade homes". The point of the post is to demonstrate that gi…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 06:24 PM
0

if a woman is raped, she should only be as surprised and offended as should someone who walks into traffic No one here is talking about whose fault rape is or how a victim should feel afterwards. That's the point of the image: the fact that we tell our children not to play in the street has not created a culture where if a kid gets run over it's their own damn fault. What we're saying is 'look out for your own safety, because you can't be sure someone else will do it for you'. Take another, more…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 06:17 PM
4

Reddit has hilarious issues with analogies. If it doesn't match up at one point, it's a totally invalid comparison dontchaknow?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:56 PM
3

I'm not saying there's a human right to sex. I'm saying, pragmatically, there are benefits to free birth control.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 05:31 PM
2

Even from an environmental perspective, the carbon footprint of a human being is enormous. On that basis alone, shelling out for birth control is probably in the public interest.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 03:58 PM
3

'Claiming a song is sexist' has nothing to do with whether or not it's fair use. The question at hand is "does using a parody to advertise a product fall under fair use?". The answer strikes me as probably yes.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 09:16 PM
1

In point 4, I'm pretty sure you called me a rapist. Don't do that, it's beneath both of us. Anyway, this is getting off topic. I would never dispute that every single rape could be 100% prevented by the rapist. So it always was, and so it always will be. But that doesn't mean that the victim was always powerless to prevent it. I acknowledge that murder is not a perfect analogue for rape. There is no such thing as a perfect analogue. It, as well as the mugging example, are simply demonstrating ho…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:59 PM
1

wow... that's... wow. Paragraph by paragraph it is. First one: The fact that not all rapes are preventable by the victim doesn't mean that some are not. Second one: 'what on earth were you thinking' blames the victim only in a technical sense. It is acknowledging that you can influence what kind of risk you experience. It should go without saying, however, that I wouldn't ask this of a rape victim so much as someone who took extraordinary risks in any situation. While it might be valid to think,…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 02:23 PM
5

That only holds up under a 'one person is at fault' model. Someone can wear a sign that says 'I would be easily exploited right now' and get wasted. I can see them preparing to do this and say 'hey that's a bad idea, you're going to get raped'. If they did get raped, that doesn't mean the rapist isn't at fault, but, crucially, that also doesn't mean that the victim couldn't have done something to prevent it. We tell people not to walk alone in sketchy parts of town, that doesn't mean we view it …
/r/MensRights28/11/13 11:29 PM
3

To go one step further, there are issues which feminism addresses well. The main issue with feminism is its insistence that it makes all other social movements obsolete.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 11:20 PM
33

A movie fails this brand new “Masculinity-Movies.com test” if it has a leading male role who: Is risking his life in order to serve/protect Is risking his life in service of truth and/or justice Is risking his life/wellbeing in order to make it in the world/“become successful” Is jumping through hoops to get the girl (for the lazy)
/r/MensRights26/11/13 04:53 PM
10

It's eerily similar to the experience of people who struggle with mental illness. People talk about them like they're mass shootings waiting to happen.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 03:34 AM
1

Just keep in mind that you don't do the movement a disservice by only focusing on part of it. Talk about some specific stuff, and talk about it well. If you're interested, there's a study in my miniscule posting history about how men, much more than women, can lose their status as a real man. It's called "precarious manhood"
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:44 PM
3

If you have personal experience, mention it. I, for example, know that men with mental illnesses are pressured to fight their way out of them rather than seek help. Don't make your argument based on personal experience, though. It's not an argument, it just makes it real. It's there to show that we aren't spoiled brats playing with technicalities. Once that's done, reframe the conversation. Don't talk about why the MRM is harmless, talk about why it's necessary. And, above all, don't play the 'm…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 04:50 PM
2

Seriously? Fuck. Source?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 01:08 AM
3

You could argue that you are 'innocent beyond a reasonable doubt' one certain cases. For example, in a libel case, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't do the thing you were accused of to get the libel conviction. So there's no judgement of innocence, but a court of law might find that that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accusation that you did something was a lie.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 01:04 AM
2

I'm not always a fan of Elam, but this is brilliant work. Bra-fucking-vo.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:50 PM
4

Pleasantly surprised, actually. I expected to read 'men hide eating disorders because they're womanly. Being a woman is shameful! Patriarchy!'. Instead, I got 'men are pushed into traditional masculinity, and it's becoming an issue'.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 03:02 AM
2

Did you read the article? It's kind of specifically against that point: take the anecdote at the beginning with the guy she wasn't attracted to. The launching point if that she thought of him as a creep because he was open about his sexual desires, and in retrospect she felt it was unfair.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:36 AM
33

Semi-relevant.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 06:52 PM
2

crosses boundaries a normal person would have and feels entitled to your sexuality. I've never heard of 'trying to talk about your sex life in a committed relationship' as a sacrosanct boundary.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 06:34 PM
2

Summary- a series of studies demonstrating empirically that men are required to maintain their status as a man (or risk being labeled 'not a man'), and having their manhood question queues anxiety and aggression in men, with no similar response in women with their womanhood being questioned.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 01:47 AM
2

that did strike me as a bit odd, come to think of it. In the world of oppression politics, any vulnerability becomes an identity, I suppose.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 01:24 AM
0

note- yes, the author is a feminist. Try to look past it, you'll find what they say entirely unoffensive.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:21 AM
11

Meh, that seems like blowback against feminism more than anything. In general, women are shamed for wanting sex, men are shamed for not wanting sex. The shaming from some feminists towards men who seek out sex isn't as big a deal, imho. I think a better corollary would be a... prude parade? I dunno. We need men demonstrating that they aren't constantly sexually motivated, and challenging the narrative that men who aren't constantly seeking out sex with attractive women are somehow defective.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:50 PM
18

Obviously. That said, the video of a man punching a woman who attacked him is currently being described as 'man hits woman'. So, you know, there may be some reporting bias in the first place.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:42 PM
12

It sounds to me like they're talking about two separate people. There's a 16 year old he punched before the video and the girl who he punched in the video. Edit: from video description: Last Saturday night after a Halloween party in Totnes town, a previous fight happened at the Totnes Grill in which a 16 year old was punch in the face by green hoodie man, blondie took offence to this and the rest is what you see police were called and ambulances arrived shortly after.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 06:51 PM
21

According to the uploader of the clips, the incident caught on camera followed on from the man in the green top punching a 16-year-old. Consider the plot thickened. Like a milkshake.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 06:01 PM
1

Are women's dating preferences a men's right's issue?
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:23 PM
1

the existence of gender-specific shelters is not sexist, as abused women may very well come to distrust men and be uncomfortable around them. What's sexist is that there's no acknowledgement of the reverse situation.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:21 PM
1

Yup. I do it. You need to define these words for yourself, though. I think of feminism and the MRM as sets of tools, not philosophies. When you start viewing either toolbox as one that can address every issue, you're going to run into problems. For example, we are often told that the solution to our problems is feminism. What's interesting is that a some feminists will tell you this before hearing about the issue. They will tell you that men's issues are patriarchy backfiring, then find out what…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 04:17 AM
3

Is anyone here upset by women taking precautions against rape? Rape happens.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 03:11 AM
0

Brilliant, brilliant article. I'm just going to prewrite a response to 'these are all caused by patriarchy' down here. If these were pointless, trivial problems, that would matter. But the men dying overseas, the men with guns in their mouths right now, and the men who garner no sympathy for the violence committed against them don't have the luxury of addressing these issues indirectly. Maybe the 'dismantle the patriarchy' plan will work eventually. Maybe if we stop men from catcalling, women wi…
/r/MensRights03/11/13 02:58 AM
3

Mental health issues. You'd think that it would be okay to be a bit fucking vulnerable once your brain turns on you, but nope. Still get praise for being tough and not showing pain. Still get treated like the way for me to beat mental illness is... well, man up. Fuck that.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 02:42 AM
2

A sex worker who was torn up about being a sex worker wouldn't likely be keen to do an AMA though.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 01:51 AM
1

...We're not talking about elected positions right here. At any rate, people selecting men as better leaders is a plausible form of patriarchy. The only useful, meaningful definition of patriarchy is to refer to it as the unseen cause of something we can see, at least until we can directly see it. That means we have to abandon any assumptions we have about its nature unless we can back them up with evidence, including that it's a conspiracy of men.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 01:36 AM
1

Patriarchy is an unobservable system with the observable result of the top tier of our society being filled with men. Because we can't directly observe it, we have to approach any claims referencing its inner workings with extreme skepticism. It seems obvious that something is filling boardrooms and governments with men. It could be biological differences, it could be socially constructed differences in motivation, it could be outright discrimination. Certain claims may be more persuasive and se…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 04:24 PM
1

I think that it's best to avoid engaging with concept of patriarchy if you can. It deserves to be addressed, but it has to be done directly, not tangentially to another argument. Another response might be: "Why does that matter? If we both agree that this is a bad thing, can't we just both work against it?" Or, if you want to more verbose "If you think it's caused by patriarchy, that's fine. But this is a real, tangible and pressing issue for men. We can't sit on our hands waiting for feminism t…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 03:45 PM
3

what was most notable about the rally was that not a single speaker proposed a solution to any of the problems they identified. First, that's not a standard by which grievances are judged. At the very least, no one is wronged by me naming a problem without knowing a solution. Second, most of the problems that the movement concerns itself with are, at their root, caused by our society viewing men as disposable. Suicide, short life expectancy, erasure of sexual assault victims, erasure of domestic…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:01 PM
3

They certainly are. It might make them awful people, though, and this movement should strive for a bit better than that. Also, not giving a damn about rape victims and not giving a damn about female rape victims are two different things. If you say "It doesn't really bother me when white people get mugged" or "I don't really give a damn if a gay person is raped", you're plainly racist/homophobic. How is empathizing with rape victims depending on their gender not sexist in the same vein?
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:05 PM
3

By arguing against the video, you're saying that men are required step in and put themselves at risk See, no. I'm arguing against part of the video, and not the whole. When he said he that men are not society's unpaid bodyguards, he was right. There is no obligation to intervene, especially if it puts you at risk. When he said he didn't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims, he threw empathy under the bus in a pissing match with another…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 02:59 PM
6

Saying that feminists don't care about male victims of rape, therefore we don't need to care about female victims of rape, is doing exactly that. It's a case of taking out our anger at feminists on women. I'm not saying that you're obliged to step in an put yourself at risk, but saying "I don't give a damn about female rape victims" because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims is over the line.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 01:39 AM
3

"I don't give a damn about female rape victims" is a terrifyingly callous way of putting it. Why not 'a woman is not inherently worth more than me, and I am under no obligation to risk my life protecting her' There are some situations where you are, I believe, obliged to help someone. For example, if you see someone put something in someone's drink and the would be rapist leaves them alone, you should certainly tell the target. If it's the fairy tale rape at knifepoint, You should probably call …
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:20 AM
3

This is worse than fighting dirty: it puts MRAs on team men and feminists on team women. While it's true that those cases often play out, it's a bad plan of action to try to force the movements into those roles.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:10 AM
1

It depends on your audience. If you're talking with them, say "I don't believe those things. Do you want to have a conversation about our beliefs or a shouting match over whose team is better" If more concerned with general image, we need to be more proactive. People who are flagrantly sexist are often called out on it here. Step one would be for the mods to publicly display things that the readers here agree are anti-woman. We don't even need to ban people, just adopt a system where if a person…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 05:17 PM
1

Dad's a family lawyer (Canada). He says that they're far more likely to be thrown out if they're done in a hurry, so there's that.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:10 PM
1

The top voted posts are not the exception to the rule. I'll be the first to admit that this community has hateful, misogynist people in it, but I'll also hold that it's not the unifying factor or driving force of that community. The top posts show that very well. When I said 'I don't know what to tell you', I mean that I would have trouble finding hard and fast citations, as this is a common experience to most MRAs but is rarely explicitly stated. Rather, it's the attitude we encounter with many…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 03:10 PM
10

Seriously? All of a sudden we're all over 'men are inherently violent'? Ranking men by alpha and beta is fucking stupid. This man is just presenting gender roles to us and swearing, there's no reason to listen to him. While it's true that there are biological differences between men and women, they don't need to be enforced. Let people do what they want. Saying "women need to stop pretending to be men" is fucking vile. What's more, no matter how many complaints we have about feminism, anyone her…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 01:46 AM
0

You misunderstand. I'm asking if the top voted posts do not accurately represent this community. Let me summarize them for you: 1: Man feels his right to say no to being groped is being ignored, and his concerns are dismissed 2: applauding a university for posters acknowledging male victims of domestic violence 3 complaint about how men are very rarely seen as parents 4 image of a domestic help line website for female victims of abuse and males who fear they may become abusive 5 poster claiming …
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:02 PM
1

Heterosexual men and women, on average, have the same amount of sex. And then you claim that slut shaming is justified because... it's easy for women to have sex? But also slut shaming isn't a thing, because 'men being congratulated, women being shamed' does not exist. Am I missing something? The double standard is there, but it has its opposite: Men are shamed for no having sex, women are not. By the way, you aren't on the red pill subreddit.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 10:20 PM
0

It's true, certain men here blame feminism for just about anything. But almost everyone here is frustrated by constantly being told that feminism is the (only) solution for very real problems that don't seem to be improving. The frustration with feminism may not always be very productive, but it's a typical response to being told that your problems are being solved while they aren't. Would you say that the top posts are a bad representation of this community?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:39 PM
2

A lot of men here have an axe to grind about feminism, and it's pretty understandable. They've been told time and time again that the solution to their problems is feminism, and it doesn't seem to be working. Then they've been called sexist for trying to take matters into their own hands. That said, looking at your history it seems as though you mostly interact with this page via AMR. Considering that, you may not have the best concept of what gets ignored and what gets discussed. Try looking at…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:01 PM
0

Just throwing this out there: find a new national anthem? I can understand the complaints about the song (it's also religious), but the existence of a song shouldn't upset anyone too drastically. Endorsement of that song by a country is a fairly reasonable complaint. I could also get right behind changing it to the original 'thou dost'. If complaining about having a song not include your gender is making a mountain out of a molehill, what's complaining about having to say 'thou dost' ?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 04:17 PM
1

Am I the only one here who's totally unperturbed by the existence of feminism? Whether it's only for women or it's for everyone, it's not, to my knowledge, working for men. So men need their own movement. That's intuitively obvious to me.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 04:07 PM
3

Is it possible you're framing the message of this sub in an oppressor/oppressed context? That's not something we're typically concerned with. Individual privileges that women experience at the expense of men are certainly discussed, but my experience has been that most MRAs aren't overly concerned with which gender is 'the privileged one'. That is not to say that MRAs necessarily reject the oppressor/oppression narrative as a concept, and there are certainly people here who think women are a pri…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 04:01 PM
4

yeah, this is a terrible article. Depending on its purpose, I guess. If the goal is to get MRAs fired up, it's decent, but otherwise it's just confirming people's opinions of us.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:41 PM
1

Which conflicts between feminism and the men's movement are avoidable, and which are bound to happen. Is there a way for them to coexist? Since a lot of discrimination is not visible unless you're looking for it, how do you know where to look?
/r/MensRights17/10/13 03:26 AM
7

I think the most important response to this is that even if it's a stereotypically male fantasy, not all men have the same fantasies. Any feminist worth their salt will tell you that the concept of a 'female fantasy' is offensive. Basically, it's important to point out that this paints all men with the same brush. Take your pick on anything between "be that as it may, it still puts many men into a role they are uncomfortable with" and "why the fuck do you think you get to tell me what I fantasiz…
/r/MensRights17/10/13 01:45 AM
3

Right, but we do say they killed someone. No matter how accidental. So maybe we need a new word to mean 'having sex with someone when you wrongly believe that they are consenting', because being able to refer to that concept is important to everyone's safety. We need to be able to address the fact that if you don't avoid risky situations, bad things are going to happen, and we need to be able to address it without stepping on eggshells about victim blaming.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 10:07 PM
1

Link? I would assume that doesn't fit the 'wide' definition of rape (drunk sex, etc.)
/r/MensRights16/10/13 10:00 PM
4

It should be a no-brainer that a culture which celebrates impaired judgement will lead to poorly judged decisions. That said, this shouldn't just be aimed at women. I see no reason to believe that drunk sex is a uniquely male>female situation. Perhaps predominantly (apparently women get drunk faster?), but not exclusively by any means. At any rate, I'm happy to include drunk sex in the definition of rape (unless the drunk person is question has made clear (while sober) that they feel their conse…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 03:15 PM
2

True or not, it's telling that that statistic is used as a persuader. 4 Girls in danger are more persuasive that 6 boys in danger.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 01:34 AM
5

The MRM is not a blueprint for a society, it's a toolbox for addressing problems that no one else wants to or is aware of.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 07:52 PM
3

I really don't think this is a typical male behaviour. I get that it's an issue, but just telling all the men to knock it off is a foolish response.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:29 PM
3

Are you serious? That's not what it says at all.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:47 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:10 AM
0

Current top comment Crystal Gayle Mangum (the serial false accuser) has been charged with murder for the stabbing death of her "boyfriend" in April of 2011. She has 3 children from 3 different men. There was absolutely NO DNA evidence or any proof whatsoever that she was assaulted, because she wasn't, assaulted. No rape and/or sexual assault occurred. She had the sperm of no fewer than 3 other men (NONE of which were Duke Lacrosse Athletes) on her underwear at the time of her false accusation. S…
/r/MensRights14/10/13 09:50 PM
1

As a non-American, can you clarify that? The way I hear this, what this means is that the supreme court feels their involvement is not required for this trial to be fair?
/r/MensRights14/10/13 09:46 PM
3

To be fair, that is entirely fucked up. Stupid double standard, but 30 days for rape is absurd.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 09:41 PM
2

We should note that knowing about these biases does not make us exempt from them (I know OP didn't claim this). I'm going to do that tumblr style, actually: UNDERSTANDING A COGNITIVE BIAS DOES NOT MAKE YOU IMMUNE TO IT You can consciously correct for it sometimes, but this one is pretty tricky to get a handle on.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 06:26 AM
2

For another fix, I have an idea. It involves someone who isn't me creating a bot, though. Basically, if you find a comment misogynistic, you reply with a specific comment, for example "summon the bot". The bot checks the upvote/downvote score on the comment reading "summon the bot", and if it's higher than some threshold, it saves a copy of the comment. Anyone can see this list of misogynist things. That way, when someone says we're sexist or tolerant of sexism, they'll need to point out sexist …
/r/MensRights13/10/13 06:21 AM
1

what do you mean by 'the guy isn't accused'?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 06:23 PM
1

But if she can't, that doesn't make her a liar. It just means she couldn't prove her claim.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 06:12 PM
1

Where did you find the DoJ methodology?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 05:19 PM
1

No, she's innocent until proven guilty, same as anyone else.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 05:14 PM
3

FBI stats from here (on the general prevalence of rape) Prison rape stats are unavailable because the government went belly up, but they're a citation of the wikipedia article "Prison rape".
/r/MensRights10/10/13 02:19 AM
1

I think there certainly are such members of the movement. My opinion is the oppression, especially oppression by a specific group, is not always a useful concept, especially since it's a loaded word as of late. The men's rights movement is far more concerned with finding specific injustices than empowering a group. Bringing the concept of oppression into that would make it far more difficult. If we decided that men were oppressed and women oppressors, we'd lose one of this movements greatest str…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 03:37 PM
1

Here's an idea to test the wage gap: We split people into two groups. Then we write reports about some other people over a wide range of jobs, about half men and half women. The reports include details about the job, (hours worked, salary, benefits, risk level, their qualifications, etc.) everything but the person's gender. We then give these reports to the first group of people and have them guess the genders of each report. We give the second group the same reports, but leave all the info abou…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 03:20 PM
10

Also, just throwing this out there, but opposing feminism is not at the core of this movement. At the core of this movement is simply the idea that feminism isn't a working solution for many of the problems men are facing. Now, a vast majority of people here blame feminism for these problems, and there's nothing wrong with that. But you can be a part of this movement without hating feminism. And at best a tiny minority oppose women's empowerment or independence. Actually, a big part of the movem…
/r/MensRights05/10/13 11:16 PM
12

Fairly informative read. I'm having trouble figuring out who the target audience is. That said, the line about women being encouraged to enjoy their sexualities while men are told to restrain them is a very succinct way to describe a problem that resonates with many young men. There's also a tone of analysis-from-outside that rubs me the wrong way (e.g. these are the real motivations of red pillers, MGTOW, PUAs...), if only because it comes off as a bit fake.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 03:01 PM
2

anarchist fellow here. "Diversity of tactics" is a buzzword. Basically, it means that parts of a movement may be window-smashy and other parts may be leaflet-givey. Some might even be ballot-casty. The point is that these parts are not condemning other tactics by employing theirs.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 11:25 PM
2

So we need two branches of the movement: one well behaved and one threatening?
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:40 PM
1

We don't know that it hasn't seriously impacted that ability. In either case, feminism has put into practice policies that are obviously informed from an anti-male standpoint, which could only be attributed to their harbouring misandrists (or all being misandrists, a concept I consider wholly barmy). That suggests to me that the more we tolerate sexism, the more anti-woman any progress we make will be. Aside from the obvious ethical questions about keeping our spaces safe for sexism, there are s…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:39 PM
1

And I'm not saying that recognizing and acknowledging bigotry is misogyny. But, every once in awhile, someone will say something like "women's suffrage was a mistake" or "women are gold digging whores". Not often, but it happens. And when it does, no one will speak up against it because we're going to fragment the movement or something.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:30 PM
2

I totally agree. There's a 'by any means necessary' attitude around here that means people don't criticize each other for anything that feminists might also criticize them for. We're not getting anywhere until we accepts that no matter how many valid points we have, we're also a great place for misogynists to hang out. No one wants to criticize it because they don't want to alienate people, but it's a serious image issue for now, and we need to address it.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 08:04 PM
3

If men had the power to stop other men from being violent, and we didn't, we'd have a bizarre situation: Most violence that men commit is violence against other men. So, if men were all in it together, we probably would start by speaking up against violence against men. Because they're on our team. Based on the rate of violence against men, we can safely say that has not happened. So either we're not all in it together or there's something about violence against women that men are uniquely suite…
/r/MensRights23/09/13 11:52 PM
2

The MRM is not about undoing women's rights. It is about finding specific sectors of our society in which men are disadvantaged. For example, men kill themselves and die on the job far more often than women do, and in general die younger. They are far more likely to be profiled as violent, be homeless, and receive longer prison sentences for identical crimes. They control very little spending, have comparatively poor voter turnout, and are a minority in higher education.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:31 PM
2

I'll get a lot of flak for this, but I think feminism is far too varied to be unambiguously opposed to it. I am opposed to many branches of feminism which put forward male domination as the only possible relationship between a man and a woman, in other words those which claim that only women can suffer for their gender. Women are afraid to go out at night, men die early. Both of those are problems that need fixing. I actually think a lot of this conflict stems from two different motivations for …
/r/MensRights12/09/13 01:24 AM
1

Not really. "That guy" does kind of imply an outlier, and frankly if the phrase "don't be that guy" does stop a few rapes, it's likely one of the less harmful ways to go about it, as it's not suggesting the good men need to stand out from the sea of rapists. I take much more issue with the macho, tough guy attitude it's suggesting men should be carrying themselves with. "Sexual assault? Not on my campus." "Take a stand" etc. That contributes to the idea that men a dangerous, powerful, and have t…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:51 PM
1

My issue with this is that it collapses back into gender roles in a really obvious way. Feminist rhetoric is all about not pigeonholing people by gender (which is great), and then this issue rolls around and it's all "Every man wants to grow big muscles and every woman hates that". The 'male power fantasy' argument isn't just bad because it's obviously wrong, it's a problem because it implies that men all fantasize about the same thing and women unilaterally don't.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:42 PM
2

I think the most important thing is to get whoever you're talking to to explain what they mean by 'patriarchy'. It gets used in a sort of 'we all know what we're talking about' way, but there are many possible definitions. Here's mine: That system which results in the members of the ruling class in our society's being male. Once you get a definition, it's much easier to debunk it if it needs debunking. Here's the way I address it: It is true that the people in charge of our society are dispropor…
/r/MensRights20/07/13 06:57 PM
4

My preferred line is "I'm not a patriarch. The patriarchy only helps the guys on top"
/r/MensRights09/07/13 03:14 PM
0

My dad's a family lawyer (Canada). His advice is to not get it done in a hurry. If a prenup is important, get it done early.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:26 AM
1

It's a bit eyebrow raising that of a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators only male victims reported only female perpetrators is highlighted, but good info. I'll definitely use that some time.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:12 PM
1

Nope.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 11:16 PM
0

Anarchism and anarchy are two different things. One's a political philosophy, one is a condition of chaos or disorder. I, like an idiot, did use the phrase 'global anarchy', but in general, the word 'anarchy' actually almost never appears in anarchist dialogue.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 10:55 PM
0

Destabalization isn't necessarily what we're talking about. The justification is basically that, because everyone has a right to not be controlled, interfering with control is not the same as controlling someone. There are those in the anarchist movement who would disagree, though.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 10:51 PM
-2

Excellent question. First of all, no, anarchists oppose both. It falls pretty nicely under self defense (as an anarcho-pacifist, I would view all forms of control as violence) to actively prevent someone from controlling someone else. Your question, if I understand correctly, relates to how this could be implemented? The answer to this, as it turns out, is a bit convoluted. There are two answers. The first one is the utopian one. In an anarchist society, people would organize themselves to preve…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:40 PM
-1

Anarchist here. Here's the short version: Anarchism is not about chaos and lawlessness, it's about eliminating hierarchies, i.e. systems by which one person can control another. While it would appear that a moderated and strictly controlled subreddit is hierarchical, because membership and participation in the subreddit is voluntary no actual control over individuals is being exerted. Happy to answer any questions
/r/MensRights21/06/13 05:15 PM
1

The idea that rapists are striking randomly and there's no way to avoid them is based in ideology, not fact. Of course some rapes are random and no amount of safety consciousness will change that. But the idea that it's even possible to make the claim "that doesn't cause rape" is absurd. Refusing to help give women tools to protect themselves on the grounds that they shouldn't have to is just foolish.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 03:26 PM
3

I don't think that anyone denies that hearing "This is how that rape was your fault" is a horrible thing, and probably shouldn't happen. The issue is when women are treated preemptively (that is, before any rape has happened) as blameless, it causes a whole host of issues. I'm talking about things like how telling a woman to not go to x part of town at y time of day on her own is immediately met with outrage. This means we get ad campaigns involving men who bravely don't rape women. First of all…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 12:08 PM
2

Perhaps it's not the word for it, but can we agree that telling someone of another gender how their gender experiences things is a) a pretty bad thing and b) common enough to warrant a specific description?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:00 AM
7

I think you've got us mixed up. I'm the one who's being a bit silly and finding fun ways to address you, and you're the one who's trying to be intimidating. If it says 'slowpokers' in blue on the top, that was you that wrote it.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:27 PM
11

Yeah, I'm going full beatbox. You're beyond debate, man. BOOM BOOM CHIK SHIK WOW-OW-OW-OW-OW-OW RAU! RAU TIKKITA RUMPATA-TUMPTA-TUMPATA BOW BOW BOW SWOOP! POW! BAM BAM BAM RUFF REAUGH (techno version of 'the ants go marching fades in) BOW!
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:20 PM
6

Putting your replies in as edits. Why? You want a live debate, you get one when I'm satisfied that you know what a debate is. So go ahead, argue something, or I'm just going to start beatboxing at you.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:13 PM
9

Dude, leave the homophobia to him. We're better than that.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:47 PM
12

Are we playing that translation game? I love the translation game! My turn! Translation: "I think you're frightened" See how that fell flat and sounded kinda dumb? That's what you sound like to everyone here, because you're the only one impressed by the stew of vulgarity and homophobic obfuscation you think makes you a great debater. Mods: can I keep this one? He just followed me home, I promise I'll take care of him
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:45 PM
-14

I totally agree that having a gendered term for being wrong and being an asshole about it is bad. Full stop. The word 'mansplaining' does have a place, though, and of course there a woman to man equivalent. It will probably be easier to explain the second version, because it's something we all recognize, even without a word for it. Let's talk about the 'male power fantasy' argument against male objectification. There are a lot of problems with it: it generalizes men, it suggests intrinsic violen…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:37 PM
17

sigh... Do you know why no one takes you up on webcam? I'll give you a hint: it's not because you're intimidating. No one is quaking in their boots when the academy rolls in. We all just lose our shit. You know why? Because we all know exactly what that conversation would look like. Someone makes a statement or asks a question, you say it's bitch logic and call them pathetic. Repeat until someone gets bored and disconnects. You and your bros shout until you lungs are empty, slap each other on th…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:09 PM
3

Women attempt suicide more often than men. You've identified one possible cause, and I think a very valid one (another might be that men choose more dangerous methods, or that men are less willing to 'wimp out'). The reason it rings true with me is that our attitudes about mental health, especially depression, are much more accepting of women. If men know that no one cares if they're depressed, a suicide attempt won't be appealing as an attention-getting device. Mentally ill women, on the other …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 04:05 AM
1

While this onus is a pretty good rule of thumb, people often trot it out like it's a law of logic. At the end of the day, there are no positions which are by default true. "Unless we can prove the existence of a god, no god exists" just isn't true.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:09 AM
4

This really isn't shocking. "Not guilty" just means that the prosecutor can't prove guilt. Basically, the judge is saying this: "There's not enough evidence to prove that this did happen, so no one will be punished. That doesn't mean that no assault happened, and it doesn't mean that you are a liar in the eyes of the law." Why the judge chose to say this is anyone's guess, but they're 100% correct.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:24 AM
2

Usually, but I suspect it's because both sides are allowing the audience to think of it as a zinger competition. If we can make it abundantly clear that only one side is interested in mudslinging, we'll score more points than by shouting, because feminism has decades and decades of zingers stored up for us.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:49 PM
2

That's quite clever. The only thing I would add is that this would work better if you embed it in a larger post. If you're full response is 'why do you say I'm a rape apologist?' then whether or not they look like a jerk, the discussion is about whether or not you're a rape apologist, which you can't win, you can only lose less. If you tack it on to a larger post, then the subject hasn't changed. That's assuming that this insult came bundled with an argument. If it was out of the blue, do this o…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:42 PM
1

At the risk of invoking NAFALT, not all feminists are ideologues, on account of it's the default position in our civilization. For every man-loathing radfem, there are likely dozens if not hundreds of people who call themselves feminists because dolls and the glass ceiling. Whether or not you're arguing with them at the time, they are an important audience. While there are certainly some we can't de-escalate completely and have friendly conversations with, we can always tone things down. And, if…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:28 PM
3

Even if we aren't out to convince the people we're debating with, being confrontational still isn't useful. In a shouting match, bystanders will almost always side with the person they agreed with before, because they're not being exposed to much new information compared to the amount of insult they're receiving. We're currently on the losing end of popular opinion, so confrontations rarely work to our favour. The only way the can is if someone is being outright hostile towards us, and we, in ex…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:45 PM
2

Sure, sure. Some people need to be confronted bluntly and directly. The point is that it's very easy to see discussion turn into confrontation, because both sides are perceiving hostility, and we can avoid that if we act in good faith by making our tone more accommodating instead of waiting for them to do the same.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:38 PM
4

That's an easy trap to fall into. Flat statements can come off as hostile if they don't match up with the tone you've encountered. If someone is being conversational, be conversational back or they will escalate. What is true is that flat statements are a great way to avoid escalation from your own side. They can absolutely be perceived as hostile, though.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:34 PM
4

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the argument mindset, one quibble I have is with the sources part. While it does strengthen an argument, seeing a response filled with links creates an awful tone if that's not the kind of argument you've been having. A great alternative is to say that you have sources, and if they want you can provide them. It creates a collaborative tone instead of an intellectual arms race, and you don't lose any academic credit.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:48 PM
3

Whenever you're stating your views, you should be NEGATING the opposition's views, not just passively stating factual information. Yes. But that doesn't mean you have to be foul about it. If you read the rest of my comment, I'm clearly talking about de-escalation. Leaving someone an out so they don't have to cling to a vitriolic argument that's been destroyed in front of them, identifying common ground between you so that they're less hostile towards you, using language like 'discussion' instead…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:42 PM
3

There are indeed times when it's appropriate to be angry, but what we're talking about is when it's useful to act angrily, and in the case of this movement, that's almost never.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:23 PM
126

I think it's much more simple than that: let's try to be nice to people, and try to have more discussions than arguments. Believe it or not, no matter how hostile someone is, you can always de-escalate significantly. Actually, we should be routinely talking about de-escalation here. This movement is not poised to win shouting matches.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:57 AM
5

probably career and life management
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:48 AM
6

Right on the money. There's nothing wrong with having gender specific spaces, as long as they don't dominate to the extent that the other gender can't get in.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 04:49 AM
1

This is presented in the wrong way. It's an incredibly valid point, but "why is it unacceptable to cut a girl?" is a very bad question to ask. A better phrasing might be "why shouldn't they both receive the same protections?", because it takes the focus off of the male/female comparison and places it on "WHY THE FUCKING FUCK ARE WE CUTTING BABIES?"
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:04 AM
1

Well, it is a pretty cool story and I guess there's an okay analogy to sexual consent, but I don't think it's predictively useful. BUT Boys will be boys is an awful, awful concept and the MHRM should clearly be fighting against it. As a man, nothing personally bugs me more than hearing someone act like every boy is basically the same person, no individuality required. It especially bugs me when 'boys will be boys' is used to excuse nasty behaviour like what's described. "He can't help himself" i…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 12:59 AM
10

I'd throw in Don't try to tell me about male sexuality, male fantasies, or what men aren't afraid of. If you're not a man, you can't possibly know more about these things than I do.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:45 AM
16

Which really, no one needs feminist to tell them. That's elementary stuff.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 02:22 PM
1

I took that to mean that the same abuse would impact a woman more, but that's just my read.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 12:28 AM
2

It's abuse. Because of the conditions of our society, she may not understand that it was abuse, and therefore may not be abusive in any meaningful sense. If she gets that you consider it abuse, and continues to abuse, then I would say she is being abusive (in more than a technical way).
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:53 AM
8

It's called a weasel word, and wikipedia is pretty explicitly against it
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:43 AM
1

She would speak to be understood That is not a real way for a species to develop language. That said, coming up with an inaccurate theory is not bad science. Were there any evidence of her deliberately ignoring the facts in order to create this theory (I suppose you might argue the above is such a case) it would e a different story. Otherwise, this is just a scientist being wrong, which is a normal and crucial thing for scientists to do.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:30 PM
2

But especially for someone who earns as much as a judge, the extra effort is not worth what they personally gain.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:05 PM
2

Absolutely. I just don't think the judges are the ones to blame.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:02 PM
-1

Not if they don't stand to benefit from it. The minimum wage workers at mcDonald's don't care how well the store is doing, even though the benefit from it. Tragedy of the commons: putting in effort to help a group which includes is gets less worth it as the group gets bigger.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:39 AM
5

Even more important, the 'male empowerment fantasy' argument assumes that all men have the exact same fantasies. That's really shitty. Moreover, it doesn't really matter if it is a male fantasy. "It's men hurting themselves" is not a valid argument in a society that conditions us never to admit to being hurt.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:20 AM
5

You're dead on the money with the wage gap, but unless judges are individually paid for child support they assign, there's no real individual motive, so are you alleging some kind of formal conspiracy?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:14 AM
3

I never got if 'sexualize' was an active thing I could do. Like "see this girl is just wearing normal clothes, but through the powers of patriarchy I will find her ankle sexually arousing!". Try this. It doesn't work. That said, there's not a huge issue with this poster's message. People should be able to wear what they want and not be harassed for it (that's assuming there is a harassment issue. 'I can see your vagina, put some pants on' is not harassment). The issue I have is 'normal'. Apparen…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:17 AM
1

True, there is a definite element of covert power, but no one has to appeal to public opinion to get into a covert position of power. That's why we see so many gender roles which say men are this trait, which makes them good at leadership and also good at (insert godawful role here). No matter how much covert power is there (I don't think there's an easy way to measure it), our current power structure depends on a small group of men maintaining overt power, and the people who this structure has …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:22 PM
7

I've tossed this idea out here before, with varied reception. Here goes: We talk about apex fallacy a lot, but often it's just used as a means of countering accusations. Let's examine what it really implies. There are a bunch of men at the top of society, and they want to stay in power. I think they're willing to throw their own gender under the bus to do it. That's where we get apparent 'backfires'. When feminists say that the patriarchy backfires, they're thinking of a massive social structure…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 12:10 AM
2

Seems reasonable, I just noticed that this is very much a thing with feminists moreso than others. Sacred cows, etc.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 06:52 PM
8

Great list, the only addition I would make is that if you want to have a productive debate, you must be willing to entertain a premise without accepting it, and accept that your opponent may be doing the same thing. If someone is holding certain aspects of their beliefs as 'not up for questioning' it makes those beliefs, and their results, impossible to examine. Example: Warren Farrell is often accused of supporting incest because he studied how incest could be positive. What he was doing was ex…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 05:29 PM
1

Feminism didn't reinforce it, but it helps it go unnoticed by suggesting that women are the primary victim of strict masculine gender roles.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:18 AM
2

This is a very important point: no one thinks rape victims should be presumed to be lying. What we believe is that rape victims should not, in a court of law, be assumed to be telling the truth. In a system that presumes innocence, there is what is provably true, and there is other stuff. There are also provable lies, that's perjury. If we presumed that alleged rape victims were lying, we would say they were all guilty of perjury until proven innocent. The fact of the matter is, our legal system…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:17 AM
4

Bingo. If patriarchy is real, it's really just for patriarchs, not men in general.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 06:17 PM
2

Can you copy it into the comments? I'm getting a subscriber only message.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:25 PM
2

Here it is in the 50s, presumably written in the late '40s, so it's certainly not a recent trend. Why is it a thing? No clue, but we can assume that it was in the mainstream at least by that time, so any explanation we come up with would have to make sense then as well.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:23 PM
1

Saying men are the oligarchs is only an oversimplification if you assume it's the whole story about where the power lies in our society. But the fact of the matter is, the oligarchs are men, and oligarchs have a unique relationship with their own gender.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:16 PM
1

So it's not a social phenomenon. It's clearly something. And whatever is causing it doesn't really matter. All I'm posting is an analysis of the runoff caused by the oligarchs in our society being men.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 10:16 PM
1

You can definitely be opposed to all those things, but if you think that when people vote against something you like they shouldn't be allowed to vote, you don't really believe in voting at all. If politicians aren't oligarchs, who are?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:32 PM
1

So women voting changes things? That shouldn't on its own be something you're opposed to. Even if they're voting their own interests, and that doesn't turn out well for you. But you're missing my point. My point is that oligarchs, the select few people at the top of our food chain, are mostly men. Whether voting demographics put average women over average men is part of a different discussion.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:15 PM
2

it's not an issue of power-hungry men, rather it's power-hungry/profit-hungry individuals 100% agree. Whatever reason it is that the top is full of men, those men are power hungry. If it were full of women, it would be power hungry women. None of the actual theory in my post is gender specific, I just used men because it currently applies better. The point of the theory is that people in power have a different relationship with their own gender than people without power do, and that we see that …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:03 PM
1

I understand that, and it does nothing to damage my argument. You would have a point if we looked for the highest IQs around and assigned top positions to them, but that's not what we do. If smart people get into office, it's because they're good at playing politics (because they're smart). Playing politics, according to what I put forward above, involves fucking over your own gender. Make sense?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:56 PM
1

Because everyone knows that men and women are treated differently, and this explains it. Oligarchs would absolutely describe these people, but there wouldn't be room to analyze their relationship with their own gender and with the other, two relationships which differ fundamentally, especially in terms of what benefits the oligarch. It benefits the oligarch to portray their own gender as powerful and efficient, the other gender as precious and delicate. As for the second issue, you'll notice tha…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:52 PM
1

Patriarchy theory paints an incomplete story Absolutely. You'll notice I described patriarchy as a social phenomenon, not as the overarching structure of our society.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:46 PM
1

Women may hold that power, that is, the power to select who is on top of our society, but that doesn't mean that when we examine who is actually on the top, we come up with women. It's also a bit silly to describe every voter as in power. If more men than women vote for a winning candidate, does this power of theirs disappear?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:45 PM
1

But doesn't that still allow for the kind of abuse I was discussing? It seems like, if primarily men are in power, then those men can achieve that image through normalizing violence against men, etc. I think your ideal situation is great, but it's far from our current one.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:36 PM
0

If you want people in office who 'get the job done' then isn't it a good idea for male leaders to portray men in a 'do what must be done' way?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:43 AM
-1

Well, if it's not true anymore, and we've got this perfectly good word lying around which describes people in positions of power being predominantly male...
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:56 PM
2

Even if these things were caused by a patriarchy, the only way feminism is working on them is by attempting to dismantle it. Simple response? Even if that's true, we can't afford to wait until your movement reaches completion to stop dying at work, war and our own hands. Whether or not you think we have common issues, our movement is necessary because these problems need to be addressed directly.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:02 PM
0

Theoretically, it's possible. Patriarchy could be a system designed to benefit a few men at the expense of everyone else. In that case, patriarchy would be pro patriarch and anti everyone else. It would make sense: it's to the benefit of the few men in power for men to constantly appear powerful, and it's not really their concern if it means a bunch of men not in power die at work/ at war/ kill themselves. That's not the patriarchy we usually hear about, though. 'Patriarchy backfiring' is the pr…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 08:27 PM
6

Even if it were true that the sole characteristic of the feminist movement was that genders should be equal, it still wouldn't make sense to say that everyone who believes that is a feminist. Movements can't just call dibs on issues.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 08:02 PM
0

I've been working on an essay to put up here in a similar vein. The gist of it is, there's no need to debunk patriarchy, it is very real, but only in the sense that the people on top are men. It's not a useful model for looking at all of society. Basically, patriarchy exists, but it doesn't benefit men in general, it benefits patriarchs, of which there are very few.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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