TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mugsnj Archive

View 0 posts and 227 comments by mugsnj 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)
-24

Society does not, and has never given a fuck about men. Let's not get crazy here.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:51 PM
10

I'm pretty sure the reason this article is focused on the father is because only the father is fighting for custody of the children. From a previous article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/03/new-jersey-dad-wears-nazi-uniform-in-court-during-custody-hearing/ "Officials cited allegations of abuse by Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah Campbell, against their other three children. Heath Campbell said to WCAU that she had given up her custody rights following the couple’s separation." I don't …
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:03 PM
0

Remember, she only wants a law to punish men for infidelity. Where did she say that? Also wants the ability to retroactively remove consent. I think her theory is more like this: in the beginning of the relationship she gave ongoing consent that was conditional on her partner's fidelity. His infidelity invalidated that ongoing consent, so future sex was non-consensual. Of course this is contrary to the law, but I don't really see the basis for your assumption that she wants to retroactively with…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 07:42 PM
1

I mean, if you want to be honest here she's saying that you should be entitled to make your consent conditional on the honesty of the other party. It's not specific to male infidelity at all; the same would apply to female infidelity. It seems pretty clear that this isn't specific to one sex when she says "no consent = rape. Period." I'm not commenting on the validity of her point of view, only the OP's interpretation of it.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 07:38 PM
-1

Sorry I wasn't clear enough about why your statement was so stupid. You said "If [being excluded from a jury because you don't believe in a law] were true, then we could do away with juries entirely and let the judges to the judging." What you're missing is that the jury's primary role is finding of fact. You're entitled to trial by a jury of your peers so that the government can't convict you in a sham trial. Jury nullification is a feature of our legal system, but deciding the validity of the …
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:15 AM
2

This is among the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on reddit. Your post implies that the jury's role is to decide if the law should exist. That is not a jury's role.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 07:40 AM
5

Have you seen an obituary? Dying during childbirth is pretty rare.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:37 AM
1

Where is the hypocrisy? Are people saying that men never have body image issues? My issue is this: women's groups, despite whatever flaws they have, make an effort to rectify women's issues. In all of my time reading this subreddit I've mostly seen complaining and circlejerking.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 08:46 PM
7

Why must every thread here devolve into jump straight to complaining about women? Here we have a topic where you could actually discuss a men's issue, and the top comments are nothing but complaints about women.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 07:53 PM
2

Were there some intervening events, or did the police have time to get a judge to grant a search warrant based on nothing, meet up with CPS, and show up at the guy's house in the time it took him to drive home from the grocery store?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 10:50 PM
3

I wasn't arguing either side. I was merely illustrating the double standard. Well, that guy was in Australia and Lulu is not. So, since you asked, I sit somewhat in the middle on this issue. I find Lulu to be rude, distasteful and a huge invasion of privacy. I hope that the app stores take down the app. I hope that facebook intervenes with integration of facebook with lulu. I hope that the site gets shut down. But I don't think anyone should go to jail for it. I agree with that.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:58 PM
1

So which side of this are you arguing? Do you think that guy did nothing wrong (and the same for this app), or do you think this app is doing something wrong (and same for that guy)?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:28 PM
1

Yeah that happens all the time. Guy has two articles that have a spike in views, and BAM, raise.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:44 PM
22

Yeah, unless and until he gets screwed by the legal system, it's just a woman who did something terrible. I don't think a judge will look kindly on what she did.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:53 PM
4

It doesn't say they should proceed with the assumption that the accused is guilty. It says they should not proceed with the assumption that the accuser is guilty.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:26 PM
9

You know, it's entirely possible she made the same mistake the father did (assuming she's the mother of the older child). If he was so far behind on child support for the older child that he was still paying when the child was in his 30s (or at least thought he was), it's just as possible that the mother also thought the money was for the older child. He was also paying surcharges because he was in arrears - do those surcharges even go to the mother?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 06:41 PM
1

Yeah I'm sure nothing has changed in the intervening 14 years, so if they're divorcing now they might as well have divorced then. Did that make sense in your head?
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:25 AM
0

So you're saying that because she could have avoided signing the contract by ending her 16 year marriage she wasn't coerced to sign it?
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:33 PM
2

Yeah, I think he was wrong to wait until they had been married for 16 years and then threaten to disown his son unless she signs a contract. That's coercion. If he had done it before they got married, that's a different story. You're looking at it only from a financial perspective, but there is the family aspect too. If he disowns his son, he's basically kicking him (and his grandkids) out of the family. Reverse the sexes and see if you still think that's reasonable.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:29 PM
-3

They had already been married for 16 years when she signed it. Her father-in-law threatened to disown his son if she didn't sign it. I would think that in /r/mensrights of all places, people would have a problem with using family relationships for coercion. Surely some people here have gone through breakups/divorces where that has happened to them.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:08 PM
2

I'm one of those people who think /r/mensrights is too focused on bashing feminists (and in some cases just women in general; and in some cases, certain types of men). If every article that was posted here was something like this one, I wouldn't feel that way. But that's not the case.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 04:23 PM
3

How do you pay the bills and live comfortably on $10,000 per year?
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:38 PM
14

As a childless man nothing like this has ever happened to me, but I'll have a daughter in a few months so we'll see how that goes.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 10:45 PM
132

Which is the actual reason they made him stop (according to the article).
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:10 PM
12

I was starting to wonder if anyone in this circlejerk had actually read the article. I still think it's kind of silly, but it's not at all sexist. And they organized a school-wide fundraiser where kids can wear fake moustaches as an alternative. Those sons of bitches.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:08 PM
1

So earlier this week we were supposed to write a short essay on any topic we were passionate about. I asked the teacher if it'd be appropriate to write an essay on rape How did you pull that off without explaining that your topic was rape's impact on men?
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:45 AM
9

Hughes was not actually being attacked when he lined up for his uppercut, so he had options Yeah this is his problem. His punch wasn't self defense, it was retaliation. Sucks that he was put in that position.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:39 PM
16

As I recall from when this happend she had already robbed the guy and he was trying to get his stuff back when the "good samaritans" passed, which is why it looked to them like he was robbing her.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:01 PM
2

Yeah I don't understand this. Does he not know how many men work in offices? You do of course have to be qualified, and there's a limited supply of office jobs for 18 year olds of either sex.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:01 PM
3

I looked around to see what she was charged with originally, can't find anything. My suspicion is that the law in Scotland is not adequate to handle this situation, and the original charges were a stretch that likely wouldn't have yielded a conviction. At least her license was revoked, so she can't do this again with a kid in the same position.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:07 PM
-4

Because children can't support themselves
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:41 PM
-1

What? Why shouldn't the cost of raising the child be shared by the two parents?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:18 PM
2

What is absurd about the Rolling Stone cover? It seems consistent with the image that Justin Bieber has cultivated.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:01 PM
8

I'll elaborate. If the OP wants to complain about apparent sexism or objectification or what have you, that could be a men's rights issue. Personally, I see that as a non-issue. But some people are offended by that stuff. What he posted is not a men's rights issue though. This is something I see all the time here. Something happens relating to men, people assume feminists would react a certain way if it the sexes were reversed, and then everyone circlejerks over the perceived hypocrisy of women.…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:29 PM
-16

That is entirely possible, but it doesn't fit in with the circlejerk here. Dollars are dollars. The only issues are whether adequate money is being spent on the kids, and whether the child support is truly reflective of the cost of raising the kid(s). We can't determine either of these things from the linked picture.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:14 PM
1

Vigilante hailed as hero By whom? This is the only indication that I found that he had any kind of support: She also said Drum's supporters harassed her outside her home. I don't see this guy being "hailed as a hero." He was sentenced to life in prison. Which is what should happen. Why do we have to twist the facts to make things seem worse than they are?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:07 PM
3

He got life in prison.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:05 PM
6

Is this what this subreddit should be about? Not real men's rights issues, just complaining about feminists (and not even about something they did, but about something they didn't do)?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:57 PM
3

It's the fourth most visited website on the Internet. It's reasonable to assume that people remember it exists.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 04:34 PM
-5

this woman needs to die 18 upvotes. Just keep giving them ammunition.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 06:27 PM
6

Where did you get the idea that she doesn't have the means to take care of the child?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:20 PM
1

So fuck you, and the mare you rode in on You couldn't resist, could you?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:47 AM
-7

This guy is asserting that feminists want to protect their ability to make false rape accusations, because it gives them power. He has 22 upvotes and 3 downvotes. Stuff like this is why feminists call /r/mentsrights a hate group. Edit: guys, I don't care about the downvotes, but I hope you at least think about what I said. This guy is making a pretty heinous accusation, and there's no reason to believe it's true.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:02 PM
-1

You have no legal agreement with the mother for custody of your child, but currently the child lives with his mother. And you just decided on a whim to pick him up from school without telling his mother? That seems strange to me. You need to at least communicate about when each parent is going to have the kid in their custody.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 07:05 AM
25

He meant that there wasn't a specific person she intended to shoot. You're trying to read too much into his choice of words.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:03 PM
37

Most likely it won't be mentioned at all. Really? Where did you hear about it? In the news article that mentioned it? Oh...
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:00 PM
2

That's bias intimidation, and it's not what happened here.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:49 PM
1

OK, I'll take your word for it and assume that what she did would have been a hate crime if she did it in the UK. When I said it legally wasn't a hate crime, I was obviously meant it's not a hate crime in the United States (because that's where the crime took place).
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:22 PM
0

You think she would have recanted her story if the Police did charge three men? I think there never would have been three men. If the police did somehow find three suspects for a crime that didn't occur based on no descriptions and no physical evidence, then I don't know what she would have done. She wouldn't have been able to provide any useful testimony or evidence against them. As to your no victim, no crime. Woah there slugger, I said it wasn't a hate crime because there was no victim. It's …
/r/MensRights22/08/12 09:43 PM
5

She was engaged in activities that lead to investigations that could only have sent three ( if any ) INNOCENT men to prison. There is a big difference between accusing a specific person of a crime and claiming that you were the victim of a crime perpetrated by three unknown people in masks. When you accuse a specific person of a crime, you are doing real harm to that person. The penalties for this are insufficient. On the other hand, this woman gave information that wouldn't have identified anyo…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:48 PM
4

I didn't say anything about hate crimes. Edit: I'm not sure it would fit the legal definition of a hate crime though, because there was no victim.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:27 PM
14

She wanted three men to face violent incarceration because of their religion and because of their gender. I don't think she wanted to send anyone to prison - she didn't accuse any specific people. Her goal was to discredit and embarrass anti-gay groups.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 01:57 PM
3

Depends on whether my friend or I are bigger. This is poor judgment. I pretty much said the opposite of that right here. It's easy to say you'd do something when you have the benefit of knowledge that people in this situation didn't have. You're saying you'd break the law in this situation because forcing someone to give their side of the story to the police is the "right thing to do."
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:07 PM
5

In hindsight it's easy to say you would have stopped her from running away. But you and your buddy just restrained this guy who you thought was assaulting the woman. Are you going to leave your friend by himself with the guy while you chase down a woman who is running for some unknown reason? You'd probably assume she's running because she's scared and you'd let her go.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:25 PM
1

So these bad samaritans they jump out of their car and assault a man who is rightly defending his property. From the article: The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle, when the passing motorists apparently intervened, restraining him but not assaulting him, Hellwig said. If you ignore the sexes and the outcome, I think you'd say the guys who intervened acted properly based on the knowledge they had. The outcome couldn't be predi…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:24 PM
4

And have a vet put your dog down.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:05 AM
1

I don't know how much press this is getting in Nigeria, but we don't get a lot of Nigerian crime news here in the US. Most US rape cases don't even get much (or any) press in the US.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 06:52 PM
0

Like I said, the Banks story was national news, but the fundraiser came later. This lady's fundraiser coincided with the time she's in the national news. It's not that the news media decided his story wasn't worth telling. They told his story and moved on. His window of opportunity to capitalize on that was very short.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 02:03 PM
1

If the same set of people who are aware of this lady's fundraiser were also aware of Brian Banks's kickstarter campaign, you'd have a good point. I doubt that is the case. I think far fewer people are aware of the Brian Banks fundraiser. I've only heard about it on r/mensrights. Brian Banks's story was national news, but the fundraiser came after that. This lady's story and her fundraiser are national news together.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:56 AM
0

A picture of the accused minister. A picture of the implicated police commander. A picture of the husband. The husband is also accused of a crime. No picture of the wife The wife is not.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 06:12 PM
15

Why did you post it? It's complete shit.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:44 PM
34

It's also not an infographic, it's a bunch of text in an image. Would have been better as just text, without the childish "LOL FEMALES" part (come on man, you should be embarrassed to post that).
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:42 PM
15

Other way around... the one you posted is the modified version.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:09 AM
5

I'm aware that they witnessed what happened and filled out police reports. But we don't know what they told the police.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 08:54 PM
3

Do you know what the kids told the police? Has that been released to the public?
/r/MensRights25/04/12 08:26 PM
-1

She was certainly portrayed as mentally ill, I don't remember anything about abuse. Wow, that was 14 years ago.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 06:09 AM
6

Women also have to dress appropriately for court. I think this TerriChris person is a troll who is trying to make MRAs look irrational. See comments in this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/s2gw7/mom_convicted_of_manslaughter_after_pleading/
/r/MensRights11/04/12 04:40 PM
7

How do you know that she did not intent to kill? Because she said so. It doesn't matter what I know (or think), what matters is what can be proven. In one case intentional harm can be proven, in the other it cannot. Will you defend a man's killing with as much enthusiasm? If a man was responsible for the accidental death of his child and he was accused of murder, you better believe I would.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:18 PM
1

Shouldn't it be?
/r/MensRights10/04/12 04:21 PM
10

You should at least compare a man and woman in remotely similar situations. These two are not at all comparable.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 03:30 PM
3

I only needed to read it once. They divorced in 1991. The false rape claim was in 2001.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 04:17 AM
2

Yeah, you're right. 9 years in prison versus a self-imposed meth addiction. Seems like karma got her back, the poor girl. Do you think we should start a charity fund for her? Where did you get the idea that I thought her outcome was at all equitable with her father's punishment, or that I felt sorry for her at all? My assumptions about the mother's wrongdoing stem from the mom not sticking up for her husband and the fact that 11 year old girls don't normally hate their fathers enough to lie abou…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 02:45 AM
5

The father only got to see her one weekend a month. Do you think that was his choice or the wife's? How is that relevant to what I said? I don't know whose choice that was. Isn't every other weekend more typical? Your guess is as good as mine as to why he had the kids only once a month. And why didn't the mom push her to tell the truth after she recanted her story? Like I said, the mother should have reported that to the prosecutor. But how do you know how much the mom pressed her to tell the tr…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 02:26 AM
13

No doubt the mother has had a role in this. This is so disgusting. She didn't, but she really should have told the prosecutor about this: http://tdn.com/news/local/local-girl-lied-about-rape-father-set-free/article_bf9cac36-7c7a-11e1-a9e4-001a4bcf887a.html Cassandra's family members recalled to police this year that, during a 2002 trip to the beach, Cassandra told her mother she'd lied about the rape allegations, according to reports. However, Cassandra took back the statement a day later and in…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:35 PM
1

Appeals cost the state millions in a death penalty case.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:56 PM
1

This happened in Spain. They don't have capital punishment.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:51 PM
-9

And if she's able to take care of the child's needs without the support and can then spend the support on herself it's evidence that child support, as it currently stands, is not about the child's well being but the mother's comfort. Child support should be regulated in a fashion similar to foodstamps. Waaaaait a second there - you think that a father should only have to financially support his child to the extent that the mother cannot afford it? So if the mother can afford 90% of the child's e…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:57 PM
7

The horror stories I could tell you. Go on...
/r/MensRights11/03/12 03:53 PM
3

More like $500 billion The citation on that sentence doesn't appear to support the $500 billion claim.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 04:54 AM
1

I have no idea WTF that has to do with my comment.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 08:11 PM
2

Concurrent sentences are the norm, but 3 years is not nearly enough for sexually assaulting two kids for a year.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 04:02 AM
-1

Then I wish you hadn't wasted my time in the first place.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 05:37 PM
-4

You really need to learn to express yourself more clearly. I can't figure out WTF you're talking about if you're not even referencing this comment thread. I'm not going to read all 400 comments to figure out which ones you're talking about, but most of the higher voted comments are about women creating a "hostile work environment," not about men being wrongly accused of sexual harassment. Meh.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 05:54 AM
-3

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. Especially the professionalism part. The way the OP and his coworkers are acting (ignoring and alienating women) is unprofessional and is likely to make women uncomfortable. That is not really a good way to avoid a sexual harassment claim. Acting professional at work is a great way to avoid a sexual harassment claim. That's the main point I'm making (and the point I started with in my first comment). Men DO need to be wary of behavior that cou…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 08:47 PM
-2

"It's no big deal." makes no sense - it's a contraction of saying "Do that again, and you will be fired and your family will starve - this is your first and last warning. But no biggie ok? You still have a job, now back to work, just watch your back." How difficult is it to stop doing something that you've been told not to do? It's "no big deal" because all you have to do is stop. It's "no big deal" because you're not going to be fired for doing something that you didn't realize was offensive.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 08:24 PM
1

If 10 years isn't a long enough professional career to have a sexual harassment claim filed against me, I guess I'm doing something wrong. Or right? Edit: Everything I said was supported by the HR manager who commented: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/q0tob/sexual_harassment_training_at_my_workplace/c3tu6im
/r/MensRights22/02/12 08:17 PM
-6

You should read the OP again. He didn't say those were rules. He said, "Basically, he said if you obey the following guidelines, you won't have to worry about a sexual harassment lawsuit or dismissal for inappropriate conduct." That doesn't mean you have to do those things to avoid a sexual harassment claim or that not doing those things would result in a sexual harassment claim. Really, did you think his company has a rule against making eye contact with the opposite sex? I have to assume that …
/r/MensRights22/02/12 08:14 PM
-6

Well, I interpreted "because we need our jobs to support our families" to mean that he doesn't want to risk his job because he has a family to support. Seems pretty straightforward. In context, I interpreted your comment "Someone doesn't have kids" to mean that I don't know what it means to have a family to support, so I don't have to worry as much about losing my job. Which is false. If I misinterpreted anything, please correct me. Maybe you misinterpreted my comment? You can be just as secure …
/r/MensRights22/02/12 07:39 PM
-7

Losing your job is a big deal regardless of whether you have kids. I know how to act professional at work, so I have never had to fear losing my job because of a sexual harassment claim. Also, if you're a valuable employee the company will make an effort to keep you despite a sexual harassment claim. It doesn't mean you're going to lose your job unless you're very easily replaceable.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 07:27 PM
-15

and basically try to alienate them as much as possible, because we need our jobs to support our families. That's a pretty childish and unprofessional way to act at work. You can be sure to avoid any sexual harassment issues by following the guidelines you listed, but you don't need to follow those guidelines to avoid sexual harassment claims. You need only to use some common sense and have some social skills.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 04:48 PM
2

I've found the one guy on the Internet who has never heard of Google Docs.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 09:04 AM
1

21 JUMP Street!
/r/MensRights17/02/12 07:02 AM
7

Courthouse News Service is not exactly a reliable source of information. They only present one side of the story. They might as well just post press releases for lawyers.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 03:25 PM
6

I wonder who took over her risk when she left the job. Do you think it could have been a man? Who ever took over her job did so voluntarily. You could make the point that men were drafted and women got to choose if and where they worked, but that was 70 years ago, and a lot has changed since then for both men and women. No one has been drafted in about 40 years, and it's likely no one will ever be drafted again in this country.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 04:33 PM
4

I found it more interesting that the poster was never seen by the public until the 1980s.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 04:25 PM
5

Were you going to link to an article or something?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 06:21 PM
5

You compete with me for employment, for promotion and even for females!? So why would I help my enemies? Wait, so you view all women and all men as your enemies?
/r/MensRights25/01/12 03:29 PM
3

That's like saying Burger King has better hamburgers than McDonald's because their bathrooms are cleaner. The professor's statement IS true of the men's rights movement. The goal is "equality," but the focus is on the issues of only one sex. And unfortunately the men's rights movement has some of the same kind of extremists as feminism; in both cases I think they're a minority.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:30 PM
14

I agree with the professor's claim, and the same thing is true of the Men's Rights movement.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:12 PM
1

It's not surprising that she would be offended when the graphic exaggerates the pain to such a ridiculous extent that it minimizes the pain that women feel. Seriously, it says the pain of childbirth is less than 1% of the pain men can feel. I've heard that a kidney stone is reasonably close to the pain of childbirth. I've had stones, and I'd take a kick in the balls any day instead of a kidney stone. Like childbirth, the pain from a stone lasts a long time. It may not be quite as intense as a ki…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 02:46 AM
1

That graphic is clearly a joke. The numbers are exaggerated to make that obvious.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 02:41 AM
0

pjwork is downvoting the people who called out this idiocy :D
/r/MensRights17/01/12 08:36 PM
-1

I can't believe how anyone could read that article and believe it. /facepalm
/r/MensRights17/01/12 08:01 PM
11

if she does get it appraised, it means that she is really in it for the money Expensive jewelry usually has to be appraised in order to be covered by homeowner's insurance.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 07:58 PM
6

Perhaps abused women should not be taking instructions from the Irrigation Minister of a state in India.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:00 PM
3

You better not let Terry Tate see you posting this junk.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:28 AM
3

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how this is a men's rights issue? Because it's not.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 06:11 AM
6

Sadly, some people here are entirely focused on showing that women are worse people than men.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 06:10 AM
-4

Comparing supporting your child with slavery is a good way to discredit the men's rights movement. If financial child support is akin to slavery, then so are child neglect laws. All parents are required by law to do things for their children that require spending money, not just parents who pay child support.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 08:56 PM
1

Me? WTF did I do?
/r/MensRights16/12/11 02:21 PM
6

When you claim you're not a downvote brigade, shit like this doesn't help your cause. Every time a bot notifies a user that his post has been linked on SRS, it gets downvoted to oblivion. The only logical explanation is that SRS people downvote it.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 07:44 AM
2

It's easier to complain about inadequate consequences for women when the verdict hasn't even been rendered yet.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 03:53 AM
3

I don't see any indication that the prosecution intends to go easy on her.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 03:49 AM
5

Do you actually know if they have a living father who the reporter would have been able to identify before publishing the article? Or are you just getting your panties in a wad because the article was published with the information that was known at the time?
/r/MensRights08/12/11 01:00 AM
3

Victims. There were two victims, the children. Perhaps the identity of the woman was withheld because it would reveal the identity of the victims. Oh, I see, you ignorantly thought the police were viewing the woman as a victim. That's nonsense.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 12:58 AM
1

How many years of coverage is that for? That's crazy expensive regardless of gender
/r/MensRights05/12/11 02:47 PM
11

Does anonymity make a person any less deserving of criticism?
/r/MensRights02/12/11 07:44 PM
13

That just seems like way too much work for free food.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:32 PM
4

and told her make her plans on the basis that her potential motherhood would be as single parent. (Seriously WTF?) I think the reason for that is that most teenage girls think they're going to stay with their boyfriend forever, and that rarely works out. So she needs to make her decision with the assumption that she won't be with you forever. It sounds like they're guiding her away from keeping the baby, so quit complaining.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:50 PM
1

In that case: I knew it was wrong, but I would accidentally-on-purpose skip days of my birth control, eventually ceasing to take the pills at all.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:21 AM
1

Did you even read the article? So far your marriage is built on the flimsiest foundation, with both of you behaving dishonestly and You two desperately need to strip away the obfuscation and start telling the truth How did you conclude that the author only found fault in the man?
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:50 AM
3

Skip the blog, full article here: http://www.dnainfo.com/20111018/greenwich-village-soho/women-beaten-by-mcdonalds-cook-verbally-attacked-workers-witness-says
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:43 AM
6

That's kind of cryptic, but it doesn't make you look awful at all. It makes her sound bad. It certainly wouldn't be good for a guy to say "You cannot leave me like this. I am still hard. BITCH!"
/r/MensRights15/11/11 08:08 PM
6

Yeah, so he said something he shouldn't have said, and then a rumor started. Was the rumor related to what he said, and if so, was the rumor true?
/r/MensRights15/11/11 07:40 PM
-4

What would happen if a father sends nude photos to his friend's 16-year-old daughter? I don't know.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 07:22 PM
2

It appears their justification is that combining girls from multiple schools is a necessity for girls hockey, because there aren't enough players otherwise; there are enough boys playing so they don't need to do it. Except in this case there aren't enough boys... I'm guessing they're concerned about one school gaining a competitive advantage by pulling players from another school (essentially having a larger pool of players). They need to come up with a solution that allows these kids to play ho…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 03:51 PM
2

How can you compare a 34 year-old woman... Could you start by showing me where I did that?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 08:42 PM
-6

So then whether this should even be a crime is pretty important. If you think it should be a crime, then you're saying it's right to treat all of those males as criminals when they have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who is close to their age. I think that's wrong.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 05:20 PM
2

Who cares if it should be a crime? It would be hypocritical to be outraged about a crime if you don't think it should actually be a crime. There's still a double standard. Assuming you're referring to the double-standard mentioned in the linked article, that the law treats the perpetrator of statutory rape as a criminal while at the same time recognizing that the victim is not necessarily an innocent victim - yes, that is a double-standard. And that's the problem. We know that with an age of con…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:56 PM
18

I look at this situation the same as if it was a 19 year old boy and a 16 year old girl. The real crime here is that consensual sex between a 16 year old and a 19 year old is a crime at all. I'm surprised that California is one of the few states that still have an age of consent of 18 with no exception for a small age differential (though it does reduce the severity of the crime). Ignore the genders of the people involved here - does anyone actually think this should be a crime?
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:41 PM
4

Also enough worthwhile sources of information that we can ignore unsubstantiated reports on Internet forums.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 12:56 AM
11

2) This is a case of paternity fraud. I'm curious how you know that.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:33 PM
2

How do you know there is more than 3 years difference in age? She is 20 now, he is 17 now. She was 19 then, he was 16 then. Do you know her birthday?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:31 PM
8

This is about as absurd as the "using logic is abuse" article. Seriously? Who is upvoting this? Please tell me it's feminists trying to make r/MensRights look bad.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:31 PM
4

From the article the difference in their crimes appears to only be the amount they possessed. Not receiving jail time at all despite possessing child porn would not happen if the females were men. I'm not really familiar with other child porn cases in Sweden, but apparently the punishment is surprisingly light across the board. Additionally, I think the clearest case of sexism here is how the women were painted as if they had little responsibility in the matter by the courts. You may have a poin…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:39 PM
17

The difference in punishment was clearly because he's a man. It certainly had nothing to do with this: along with a 43-year-old man believed to be the mastermind behind the network. And it absolutely wasn't because of this: The raids came following the arrest of Skoglund last September, who was in the possession of 1,181 still shots and 40 films featuring child pornography. The women, several of whom had short-lived sexual relationships with Skoglund, did not have large quantities of the illicit…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:06 PM
-3

Apparently these downvotes indicate that men's rights advocates disagree; mocking someone for pursuing a career in drama does not give men's rights advocates a bad name. My apologies.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 03:05 AM
-4

People like you give men's rights advocates a bad name.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 12:31 AM
-2

People like you give men's rights advocates a bad name.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 12:31 AM
-1

I can't speak for this admin, but membership in a wikipedia project does not indicate advocacy of a cause. And an advocate for a cause can edit wikipedia articles related to that cause without breaking Wikipedia's rules. A men's rights advocate could be a member of WikiProject Feminism and edit pages related to feminism without breaking Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia's rules are pretty reasonable. If you're unhappy with the way someone edits a page, you can improve the page yourself.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 12:30 AM
7

Yeah, this is really a bad comparison. If you want to show a double standard, use comparable cases. Or better yet, statistics.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 04:28 PM
2

Breasts are sexual organs They actually aren't though... but I think what you're getting at is our society has sexualized breasts, which is true. And it's kind of silly. But we've also put breasts on a lower level than our actual sex organs, which is why movies often so breasts but rarely show anything below the equator. And we've even made the areola and nipple the dividing line between what is acceptable and what Nancy Grace should never, ever expose for the love of god. The whole thing is pre…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 03:44 AM
3

Perhaps. People get worked up over some silly stuff here, so I can't tell.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:14 PM
5

In that regard we treat the pubic region the same for both sexes. Comparing pubes to chest is silly.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:10 PM
3

Why?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:19 PM
2

Come back to reality.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:51 PM
3

Being a parent isn't particularly hard, most people in the world are capable of doing it without screwing it up too badly.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:27 PM
2

From the clip she seems to be claiming he hit her car, not the other way around. Was there evidence that showed who hit whom?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:27 AM
1

What I find interesting is that several people apparently read this article and downvoted this guy, but didn't take the time to comment on the supposed Men's Rights issue here. Maybe that's because there is no Men's Rights issue here.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 01:43 AM
17

Domestic abuse would be a better term than domestic violence. Verbal abuse is abuse; violence denotes physical force.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 01:34 AM
1

Not just upset, but "murderously furious" over something that was really of no consequence to him.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 01:30 AM
13

I've never had a woman or a man get mad at me for anything door-related.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 09:54 PM
1

Certainly, comparing it to the max is misleading because nobody ever gets the max. Certainly not when pleading guilty. I did a search like eschermond's and found similar results - 18-36 months for a second offense 5 years (perhaps because he moved to a new state?) Clearly there is a wide range of sentences that men get for this offense, so comparing one to the other just by looking at the length of the sentence isn't really valid. Different circumstances dictate different sentences - including t…
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:07 PM
-2

I know PLENTY of 14 year old girls who could pass for 21 Have a seat over here...
/r/MensRights03/10/11 04:15 AM
3

Clearly that isn't true. I don't know what that article said though, because I'm not going to bother with a website where I have to bypass three ads before I can read the page. But it definitely isn't true.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 03:07 AM
1

At least in my profession, that form would only be seen by HR, and HR doesn't decide who gets an interview.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 07:39 PM
2

What sucks is when you're white but have an ethnic name. I wish I could subtly identify myself as white on my resume.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 05:21 PM
1

Wait, what? How in the world does car insurance cost that much?
/r/MensRights01/10/11 09:58 PM
0

This guy gets it. You don't fight sexism by lowering yourself to the level of sexists (that being people who make baseless claims of sexism where there is no sexism).
/r/MensRights01/10/11 09:54 PM
3

What posts about male victims of domestic violence have been downvoted? I doubt they were downvoted by anyone who is interested in men's rights. I've seen a lot of comments downvoted, because a few people decided to go on a jihad against the LGBT month and post comments about it where they aren't relevant.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 02:07 PM
-1

Nevermind that the woman's motive is described as man-hate in the article. The article's completely appropriate here, but apparently you'd rather have no discussion at all. Do you understand what it means to be crazy? Her motivations aren't based on rational thoughts, because she's crazy. Yeah, she did a terrible thing, and she'll probably spend the rest of her life in a mental hospital. I think a crazy man would face the same fate. Then there's the known fact of a gender based double standard i…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 01:49 PM
0

You're complaining about inequality of outcome of trials between men and women, and you're supporting that complaint with a trial that hasn't finished and a hypothetical trial of a man. And then you tell me I should find the evidence to support your claim. Nevermind that this woman probably is actually mentally ill.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 06:18 AM
0

If you're trying to make that point, maybe you should post an article about a man who received a harsh sentence despite mental illness, rather than an article about a mentally ill woman whose trial hasn't even finished.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:51 AM
0

That's her accusation....he says that's not what happened and he has a witness Don't both sides have witnesses? We don't really have any idea what happened here. It seems unlikely though that he would flip out and hit her because she accidentally kicked him unless he has serious mental issues.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 12:21 AM
4

The risk of teens having sex. That's the main one that these anti-vaccine whackos are worried about. And if they DO have sex, an STD is a suitable punishment.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:06 PM
5

Some people are pretty bad at judging time. He would have been in a lot of pain, it probably felt like 10 minutes.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 01:45 PM
2

That would actually be a 12.8% difference (.53/.47 = 1.128). Percentages of percentages are funny. As of 2000 females were 50.9% of the population and men were 49.1% (a difference of 3.6%, or 1.8 percentage points), and men were gaining.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:06 PM
1

Should be sexual assault.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:55 PM
2

Why isn't it sexual assault when she lies about birth control? I'm guessing the distinction has something to do with unwanted fluid exchange.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:54 PM
7

Well Winston Churchill is currently dead so he can't offer an apology. That was kind of the point - that it took decades for us to ge to the point where we'd actually apologize for chemically castrating someone for being gay.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:01 PM
7

This LGBT month is really bringing out the best in people.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 08:23 PM
11

the prime minister at the time Unfortunately that's "at the time of the apology" not "at the time Turing was chemically castrated." And unfortunately that apology came decades after Turing (apparently) committed suicide. It would be nice to say that's in the past, and at least we aren't chemically castrating people for being gay anymore, but we still aren't treating them like just another human being.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 08:18 PM
0

It's about men vs feminism. That should be the case (to the extent that feminism interferes with men's rights), but it is not true for many people here. Even saying "it's men vs feminism" misses the mark though. This is men vs the abridgment of men's rights, whatever the reason.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 03:54 PM
4

I don't see any reason to believe it's astroturfing. It's not unbelievable that he's honestly describing his experience here. The first thing I noticed when I started reading this subreddit is that for a lot of people here this isn't really about Men's Rights, it's about men vs women. I've also seen misogyny here, including one guy who advocated killing a disturbed teen girl because she had gotten several guys arrested for statutory rape (starting when she was 12 IIRC).
/r/MensRights28/09/11 03:09 PM
11

The term "astroturfing" has been used much more broadly than what you're limiting it to. It's pretty obvious what he means by it, so does it really matter if it doesn't fit your definition of astroturfing? It's the action that he finds distasteful, not the terminology.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:57 PM
3

which is represented by a pink ribbon because the assumption is that it only affects women, even though it affects men too. Men can't be represented by a pink ribbon?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:27 AM
1

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the reporter is confused. In Rhode Island "cyberstalking" is chargeable as domestic violence when committed against a family member (which they define to include recent dating relationships, but that wouldn't apply here); it also exists as a crime outside of any kind of relationship. Maybe the reporter made an assumption. It certainly doesn't sound like this falls under Rhode Island's definition of domestic violence.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 05:23 AM
1

I don't think this is really a Men's Rights issue, but I oppose the death penalty because there is no doubt in my mind that we have executed innocent people. There have been enough death row exonerations in recent years to prove that we often wrongly convict people and sentence them to death. Before we could test DNA, we would have just convicted those people. I can't believe that we just started mistakenly convicting people in the last few decades, so I'm certain that we've executed an innocent…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:30 PM
3

Is there a link to the video(s)?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:57 PM
-1

Where is the outcry over the ad only portraying males as victims of abuse? They're implying that young girls are never abused.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:57 PM
-9

This is straight-up idiocy. There is no implication that only men abuse children. They even went out of their way to take the focus away from the abuser, you only see arms and legs. Score: Men who need to feel victimized - 1 Abused children - 0
/r/MensRights27/09/11 05:14 AM
0

Contrary viewpoints are downvoted.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 05:08 AM
0

What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage. The answer is the Great Depression.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:20 AM
1

Thank you for posting a link in support of my position. It is clear from the definition you cited that there is no involuntary servitude here. No one is being forced to do work against their will.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:16 AM
-1

All we need to do is give custody to people who can afford to take care of kids Why shouldn't both parents bear the cost of raising their child? What if neither can afford to take care of the kid(s) on their own? Force them to put the child up for adoption? Speaking of egregious violations of the constitution...
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:25 PM
-3

You've never read the 13th, have you? Wouldn't it be more productive to establish the constitutional basis for your definition of involuntary servitude? The words "involuntary servitude" are clearly there, but a financial obligation does not equate to involuntary servitude. As an educated American, obviously I have read the entire Constitution and all of its amendments.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:02 PM
16

No. You seem to be assuming that we doubled our workforce and divided the same amount of work across twice as many people. Growing the workforce allows the economy to grow. When women started working and generating income, they also started spending the money they earned, creating work for someone else. Look at it this way - what if we didn't start increasing the size of the workforce in the 40s and 50s by adding women; what if instead we reduced the size of the workforce by removing half of the…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 06:10 PM
2

Women and the vote: Our government went from 2% of GNP to 40% of GNP since women have had the vote. All of those extra taxes take money out of a family's pocket. I assume you didn't intend to imply that giving women the right to vote is the reason the size of our government exploded, because that would be silly. But just in case - 1. Your numbers are wrong. 2. Women were given the right to vote in 1920. Government spending dropped slightly after that (lag from World War I), held steady throughou…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:51 PM
6

Are they? I'd understand if songs that portray or advocate violence against women are criticized, but this is more on the level of songs about cheating on women. Are songs like that criticized by feminists? If they are, they shouldn't be. And just because they do something that is absurd, that doesn't mean we should do the same thing. Edit: In case it isn't clear, I'm not saying this song is about cheating; I don't know of any rap songs (or other songs) about men withholding sex, but infidelity …
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:37 PM
-1

Not to mention, how did this financial obligation exist? Were it a true financial obligation, then EVERY parent would be under a "pay this or go to jail" order. As every parent is not, it is involuntary servitude. Every parent DOES have an obligation to support their children until adulthood. Failure to provide your children with basic necessities result in a charge of neglect. When the parents have separate finances, that obligation to support the children necessarily becomes a financial obliga…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 05:30 PM
-6

Being forced to pay your financial obligations is not involuntary servitude. Being forced to do work against your will is involuntary servitude. Comparing a man's obligation to support his child to slavery is not going to help the Men's Rights cause.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 04:02 PM
3

Yeah, the media loves to do that because bigger sentences are more sexy. They always report the maximum possible sentence even if that sentence would never be applied. Even if he is convicted, he could still be given a suspended sentence on the condition that he make child support payments.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 03:59 PM
13

First, he's not going to go to jail for 24 years for failing to pay child support. He's charged with 7 counts, and apparently the maximum sentence for that offense is 3.5 years. The only way he could serve 24.5 years is if he was convicted on all 7 counts and sentenced to the maximum prison term served consecutively. Prison terms for multiple counts are usually served concurrently. That brings his maximum sentence down to 3.5 years. Again, that's the maximum. People are often given sentences tha…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 03:08 PM
1

What did I say that was inaccurate? The person I was replying to is complaining that the father is not seen as an integral member of his family, but he chose to leave them. He was put in a difficult position, but it was his choice to leave and cut off contact with them. It makes no sense for the police to help find an adult who chose to disappear. On the other hand, he is still obligated to support his children.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 04:00 PM
0

No really, you're not going to win any arguments with this piece of information. If you flip it around so the list is mostly women with a man at the top, and a woman used that information to make a point about the violence of men, you would rightly criticize her for that. This information is only really useful for proving that women are capable of being serial killers. Is there anyone who disputes that? I think most people are aware the there are female serial killers. Charlize Theron won the be…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 11:23 PM
1

What is childish about using acronyms? The use of acronyms in personal ads started when personal ads were placed in newspapers and you had a limited amount of space to express yourself. When classified ads moved onto the Internet, the acronyms were carried over.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:39 PM
-3

Seems like just another example of a dad being an indentured servant rather than a father and integral member of the family He wasn't really an integral member of the family after he abandoned them... But he was still obligated to support his children.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:31 PM
-3

Why would you mention this instead of data that is actually meaningful? Unless you like losing arguments.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 05:22 PM
7

I didn't say she should have the right to demand support or that the law shouldn't be overturned. Read what I wrote.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 12:25 AM
9

It doesn't sound like this law applies only to sons, and the mother also hasn't been successful in her suit. If the son's response is truthful, it sounds like she is just a terrible person continuing to be a terrible person.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 11:17 PM
13

You can't really say he was using something as an excuse to kill unless you thought he intended to kill, which doesn't appear to be the case. From the article it sounds like he punched the victim in the face one time. That doesn't sound like intent to kill, and apparently the police felt the same way - they charged him with negligent homicide. You could say he was using it as an excuse to harm. Edit: spelling
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:58 PM
3

Well, sometimes it's stupid. But not when you're trying to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:39 PM
5

The short answer is no, the accurate answer is yes. If you have been ordered by a court to pay someone and you don't do it, you can be put in jail. And it does happen for non-child support orders.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:42 PM
4

No, judges see right through that. Justice may be blind, but it's not stupid.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:39 PM
5

And murder. Equality and murder of women who do bad things.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:20 AM
14

The first amendment protects you from the government imposing limits on speech. That's it. You have freedom of speech while you're on the clock, but freedom of speech doesn't protect you from punishment or termination by your employer. If you're at work and you tell a customer they're an asshole, the government isn't going to do anything to you. But it's also not going to protect your job, and there is nothing unreasonable about that. This shit works both ways...I assume this woman never says an…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 08:39 PM
3

If she wanted to report him, she could have done it already. She didn't, she gave him a chance to change his behavior. I don't think he has anything to fear as long as he starts acting professionally at work. There is no need to shun her.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 08:31 PM
1

Yeah I did. I've been reading this subreddit for the last couple of weeks, and the impression that I get is that for a lot of people this isn't about men fighting against unjust treatment, it's men vs women. This isn't the He-Man Woman Haters Club.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 04:43 AM
1

That's a valid question, and I'll explain my thought process. When I read this article and saw that the "victim" is a 16 year old (which most of the world except 19 states and a few backward countries have determined is an acceptable age to be having sex) who was not a student of the "teacher," my first thought was that it would not be just to punish someone for this. Man or woman. And a lot of the more recent commenters have commented that lack of punishment is just in this case. But the impres…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:18 AM
2

During the course of the investigation and in the courtroom Martin admitted to raping the boy. But she did not enter a guilty plea as being in possession of a vagina is considered to be mitigating circumstances in our court system, if not outright exculpatory. Martin asked, on behalf of her vagina, to be granted a diversion from conviction. And the asshole judge granted it, lending some credibility to the term, “rape supporter.” Wow, must be nice to have a vagina. Or a penis as it turns out. I d…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:58 PM
5

Men in Tennessee can also receive pre-trial diversion for statutory rape. Facts in this comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kf77s/double_standard_38yo_female_teacher_has_sex_with/c2jxlpv
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:41 PM
1

What matters is equal treatment by the law And there's no way a man in Tennesee would be allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program for statutory rape. And certainly not a man in his late 30s or even 40s, and DEFINITELY not a man who was charged with aggravated statutory rape, right? http://crossville-chronicle.com/local/x1446228868/Cumberland-County-Criminal-Court-docket-published-Aug-4-2009 Jason L. Bryant, 40, aggravated statutory rape, pre-trial diversion granted; placed on probation for …
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:33 PM
0

what matters is whether or not its legal in the state it took place in Is that what matters? Are we to see the law as something sacred and inherently right? If all laws were just, there would be no need for discussions of men's rights. Is the solution for unjust treatment of men to treat women the same way? I've been reading this subreddit for the last couple of weeks, and the impression that I get is that for a lot of people this isn't about men fighting against unjust treatment, it's men vs wo…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 05:47 PM
2

This was prior to birth. I think that to declare someone the mother of a fetus that is in someone else's body could create a complicated legal situation. It seems that the only reason it would matter who the mother is prior to birth is if some medical decision had to be made, and there was a dispute over who gets to make it. You can't let the mother (egg provider) make medical decisions for the baby, because that would affect the surrogate. After birth, if there was one, the mother (egg provider…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:35 PM
4

And that somehow makes it better? Where did you get the idea that he thought that?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:23 PM
4

I'm sure you're right. So when AnnArchist responds I'm sure it'll be something to the effect of "I didn't intend to advocate murder." /looks up Nope, he just justified his previous comment. I recognize that the "spider" part was a reference to the title. "Kill this" was not. Downvote away.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:20 PM
8

In many states their relationship would have been legal whether the older participant was a man or woman and whether the younger participant was a boy or girl. The age of consent is 16 in 31 states. That does not apply to student-teacher relationships though, so it is very relevant to point out that not only was she not a teacher at his school, she was a teacher's aide at an elementary school.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:13 PM
3

And something should be done about that. Something other than killing her, preferably.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:06 PM
3

How the hell does this get upvoted? Really? Kill her because her parents screwed up raising her and she turned into a sex-crazed teenager?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:35 PM
5

I thought the rest of the world laughed at how strictly we deal with consensual sex?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:21 PM
3

Why bet 1000 karma when you could just look at the source and see that it's referring to people who have an income? Not people who don't "actually work." http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/index.html
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:21 AM
1

One of the disadvantages of being a celebrity is that things that aren't really important are reported by the media just because they involve a celebrity. Just walking out the front door of your house is enough reason to have your picture taken and published. Would I like living in the public eye? No. But it's part of being a celebrity. No one's name is being smeared here.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:55 AM
1

I'm trying to figure out why it matters if Meriweather was there or not, because it doesn't sound like there is any chance of him being charged with anything. "We haven't commented on that," Traub said, "but the allegation that came forward from the alleged victim only involved conduct of the person being charged." That being his guest.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:53 PM
1

"The only winner: women, whose median inflation adjusted income over the same period has increased by 188%. That said, it is still at 65% of what the median male makes." Hard to call that "winning," more like losing less badly (but still pretty badly).
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:45 PM
4

She was assaulted in Toronto, raped on Reddit.com.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:52 PM
2

And the guy in that story was arrested and charged with rape, right? Oh wait...
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:52 PM
2

How is this related to men's rights?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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