TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mythin Archive

View 5 posts and 1,073 comments by mythin on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,073 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Did you mean accusee there?
/r/MensRights22/11/12 02:19 PM
11

I wasn't speaking of our justice system specifically, just as a general concept, justice requires a presumption of innocence.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 09:37 PM
17

I'm not even sure "right" is a strong enough word for this, especially considering the abuse that word sees. It is necessary for a functional justice system. Without the presumption of innocence, you no longer have a system seeking justice, you have a system to reward accusations.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 09:17 PM
2

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of rac…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:54 PM
1

I think it might be more to do with the fact that there are 66% more scholarships for women then there are for men. In addition, the scholarships "for men" are usually open for both genders (I believe, I may be wrong on this), so that ups the number of scholarships for women even higher.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:42 PM
1

The origin of a double standard does not in any way validate its existence. I don't care why double standards exist, I just want them gone. Understanding why they exist can help in removing the attitudes that cause them to exist. In that sense, I do care "why" they exist, but it doesn't justify their existence, it just explains it.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:37 PM
14

HOWEVER, if you are married, tell her immediately that the two of you are going to go to counseling. Immediately! Don't beat around the bush, don't be all wishy washy about it. The moment you hear, "Fine I just won't have sex with you." Your knee jerk reaction needs to be, "We are going to counseling, I will make the call." There is no asking. There is no option. You go to counseling. Because if she doesn't want to go. Guess who doesn't want to save the relationship? Her. If she does go, any cou…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:26 PM
6

Your relationship has serious trust issues. If you want the marriage to continue existing, and if you want it to be happy, I would recommend seeing a couples therapist. Now is better than when things fall apart completely.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:22 PM
1

Coast [the accuser] now faces prosecution for perjury.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:33 PM
1

In once case, the guy was later freed based on DNA evidence even though the woman still saw him in her memories of it, and they eventually joined together to inform others about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. I would be really interested in reading about this if you have a source. Thanks :)
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:22 PM
3

To expand on this, we have two situations: Wife wants an abortion. Husband doesn't. Wife gets an abortion. Husband wants a vasectomy. Wife doesn't. Husband gets a vasectomy. Up until now, those situations are identical. The problem comes in afterwards and how the other party handles it. In this post, the wife is threatening to never have sex if he goes through with this. That is what's not okay. It's not that she has an opinion on the vasectomy, it's that she is threatening him over choices he r…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:57 PM
1

NAFALT is true, but it's a useless argument when someone here mentions feminists or feminism. They (probably) aren't talking about the ones who aren't like that, they are specifically referring to the ones who make men's lives more difficult. I'm sorry it includes some truly good people as well, but feminism is a chosen label, not a label you take on at birth. That doesn't mean we should attack someone who uses that label. I don't, and I haven't really seen anyone else here do so. The feminists …
/r/MensRights17/11/12 12:06 AM
3

After being told which quotes were from lads' mags the surveyed men said they identified more with these - even when they were misled and the quotes were actually from rapists. So...you're telling me people don't want to admit to being associated with rapists, regardless of the content of the message? What a revelation! In a separate group, including women, the participants were asked to rank the comments on how derogatory they were. So...quotes taken entirely out of context are ranked in a way …
/r/MensRights16/11/12 11:37 PM
2

I know a few, but I'm not going to call them out specifically, as I don't want to bring them possibly unwanted attention. They're pretty rare, though. They're also the ones who come to this forum and actually get positive responses, because they care and are honest when they don't know something, and react well to statistics.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:11 PM
2

Unfortunately, your typical feminist isn't the one with social and political power. I agree that I'd love a future where feminists and MR people could get along perfectly, but I don't see it happening as long as feminists, by using that term, are giving support, even unwitting support, to organizations that actively harm men's rights.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 09:04 PM
3

Notice I said drop these stupid theories? I agree with your main point, that bandaid solutions are harmful and understanding "why" is important. Patriatchy theory and kyriarchy theory are complete hogwash though.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:59 PM
1

Exactly. And those people probably are driven by social standards and stereotypes. But that doesn't imply some form of patriarchy or kyriarchy, which requires that group dynamics are causing oppression, rather than individuals.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:36 PM
3

My wife and I handle this easily. If one of us hits the other, the other gets to hit back. Please note that we only do this playfully, and if either of us hurts the other it's an accident and we apologize immediately. We've been out together and gotten the "he deserves to be hit for that" thing (jokingly!) and it's amusing to see peoples' reactions when she or I just respond with "He/I hit(s) back."
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:27 PM
4

I still have major problems with this statement, as it takes as fact a class of ruling men, or possibly a set of social viewpoints (depends on how you define patriarchy), that hold men as better than women, and works towards the betterment of men. Yet, at the same time, this same set of people and/or social expectations, the one that supposedly believes men are better than women, is somehow treating men as bad. That's just plain logically inconsistent. Now, a feminism that would drop these stupi…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:26 PM
5

The problem I see with even the term kyriarchy is it assumes an oppressor. I don't see a single person, or even people oppressing others. What exists are harmful social expectations, and those need to be deconstructed, but it doesn't mean there are different dynamics of oppression, as kyriarchy theory states, or a single oppressive group, as patriarchy theory states. You're absolutely right about using the term egalitarian, as it doesn't hold the same theories about requiring an oppressor, and a…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:18 PM
5

Read it as a continuation of the title. The reason I’m not writing at the moment at dear Zero at the Bone, is that I, Chally Kacelnik, am in the bad place. Or, rather, the feminist Internet is. Bad form, but it makes more sense. (I'm assuming Zero at the Bone is a blog or something.)
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:12 PM
1

Sounds like "was mistaken" rather than "lied." Still, the title is completely wrong either way.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:08 PM
1

My fiancée The masculine of "fiancée" is "fiancé." Not really trying to be pedantic, I just enjoy trivia and language. :)
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:06 PM
1

I've asked several people in this thread to show me a website where less than 90% of costumes for women are revealing. And I did so. And it was amazon.com. I haven't been able to do it so far, because I look for them for my own purposes and can't really find them. So apparently amazon.com is a very niche site that you would never have heard about. Yes, feminism is supposed to allow for women to choose slutty costumes. Feminism also allows for women to choose not to wear slutty costumes as well. …
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:54 PM
1

Right, but how many Slave Leia costumes exist in comparison to Hard Gay costumes? Not a whole lot. Wait what? There's one Slave Leia costume, and one hard gay costume. If you have a problem with how many are purchased then you're having a totally different argument. We were discussing availability, not actual purchases. See, that's another issue. you claim 18 out of the 46 are not revealing. That still means that the majority (28/46) are still pretty sexualized. Okay, so now you've moved the bar…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:49 PM
2

My point was just that the under 30 number includes all rape, so you really can't come to any conclusions from it. Let's make sure we back our opinions with strong evidence here.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 02:35 PM
1

The 4th one is the one that was posted and torn down (I don't know why huffpo listed the others), and the point is just to get people to realize men's rights are usually ignored. It may or may not be effective, but it's not misogynistic.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 02:32 PM
6

You walk the razorback ridge between joke and serious mighty thinly. Have care you don’t shift your weight too suddenly and take a tumble down the wrong side of it How is that a threat?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:57 AM
3

It's called movember, and people all around the world are currently growing a moustache, and have opened charity website accounts that will keep the money flowing in for this good cause. I actually heard a mainstream radio DJ talking about it! It was nice. :)
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:43 AM
3

A court in France has ordered a man to pay 10,000 euros ($13,300) in damages to his long-frustrated ex-wife after he failed in his marriage “duties” by withholding sex from her for years. I especially love this: “The wife’s expectations were legitimate in the sense that sexual relations between married people are an expression of their mutual affection and part of the duties that proceed from marriage,” the court said. If a man, at least in the US, tried to argue the same, he would be called a r…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:37 AM
5

In one case, we are saying people who are drunk cannot be legally allowed to make decisions (sex, tattoo). In another, we are saying that people who are drunk are fully responsible for their decisions (drunken bar fights).
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:35 AM
1

Goddamn it, I laughed. No worries, sometimes laughing is all you can do. Nobody here will judge you for that! Although seriously, thank you for the source. That blog post is by our very own /u/typhonblue, a regular commenter around here. We have a lot of insightful, well sourced people, many of them women (/u/girlwriteswhat has a bunch of great videos on youtube, if you have 30-45 minutes at a time). My solace was that she got the max sentence for what she could be charged with. That's both surp…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 12:14 AM
2

Sorry, I didn't read that specific article, it was just the first one I found. My focus was on the posters being torn down. There's a video of it being done with the person who put the posters up debating with the people tearing them down that's much better than this article. It's kind of ironic that feminists are attacking you, while their processors had to fight against something like this. I agree, and it's one of the things that have made many people here anti-feminists, because the hypocris…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 11:56 PM
3

Actually, most rapes are by family and people known to the victim, which could also explain the 80% of rapes being under 30. And there could be other explanations as well that I haven't thought of. Don't be so quick to assume that your explanation is the correct one.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 11:19 PM
1

No need to apologize! I actually figured you meant international, and just typed the wrong word. :)
/r/MensRights15/11/12 10:43 PM
1

You know, there may be a misunderstanding. When I think "slutty costumes" I think of costumes that are slutty despite the source material. For example, a Slave Leia costume wouldn't be "slutty" because the source material itself is very revealing. A "sexy police officer" would be "slutty" because the source material is not revealing. If you just mean anything revealing, then your problem isn't with Halloween costumes, it's with mass media, which is where the source material for most costumes com…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:35 PM
1

How does that refute anything you're replying to. The important part of what you're replying to is: If the costumes didn't sell, they'd be off the shelves. So, the absence of non-slutty costumes which you note tell us that they don't sell when on shelves next to slutty ones. And who buys these costumes? Women do [mostly]. They choose what they want and it is overwhelmingly slutty. So feminism has given women a choice, and women have overwhelmingly chosen "slutty." (Which I disagree with, but tha…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:27 PM
1

Two points. The store I'm talking about, while a local chain, doesn't sell online. As you can see, though, they specifically have a separate "sexy" section versus their "adult" section. As pointed out by this comment, there is nothing preventing you from buying a "male" costume. You want to be a police officer? Why are you buying "slutty police woman" rather than "police officer" just because one has a woman in the picture and one has a man?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:21 PM
2

http://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:06 PM
4

Men, on the other hand, have other characteristics that are viewed more prominently than our looks. Really? Men who are at least 6' tall make an average salary of $5,525 more than their shorter, 5'5 counterparts, says Harvard University They found that mature-looking Caucasian men were perceived as more powerful. attractive men earn 9% more than unattractive men, and attractive women earn 4% more than unattractive women. 60% of businessmen without beards or moustaches feel that these features ar…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:04 PM
4

But I like my sex life!
/r/MensRights15/11/12 08:13 PM
10

As far as this issue pertains to men's rights though, I don't see it. Neither do I. The article doesn't mention gender, and the quotes don't mention gender. Their motivations may have been gender discriminatory, but just as I demand evidence when feminists claim gender discrimination, I demand the same of myself before I jump to the "gender discrimination" conclusion.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:41 PM
1

Strong magnets and a vacuum chamber. (Air is a surface, after all.)
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:26 PM
1

According to that logic, I can choose my frame of reference to make pretty much anything appear outside of the chosen frame of reference... Welcome to how crazy people justify their actions. It is ludicrous, but you did ask "how."
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:20 PM
1

I agree it's stupid, but within their chosen frame of reference, it's logically consistent. You asked how it's unusual, and it's unusual because of their chosen comparison set. It's completely and unforgivably intellectually vacuous to define it as unusual by limiting their comparison set, but that's how they can do so without having cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:07 PM
7

You want to know what happens to our attempts at grassroots efforts? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/10/mens-rights-posters-vancouver_n_1871526.html#slide=1498180 The poster being torn down? PDF Warning. This poster was called misogynistic. That's what we fight against. The statement "Men's Rights are Human Rights." is considered misogyny by many feminists, and attempts at grassroots efforts are torn down.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:01 PM
1

You want to know why nobody knows about male rape? Because when men are raped, it doesn't count. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ First note that this is a U.S. federal agency. Then look at the full report, tables 2.1 and 2.2, and notice how men being "made to penetrate" is not considered rape. In 2010. And then they have the Executive Summary report, the one everyone actually reads and gets their statistics from, where it says: Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in t…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:57 PM
6

When was the last time that you saw a prostate cancer awareness campaign? http://us.movember.com/
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:47 PM
16

I've already had multiple people ask about my facial hair, and it's given me an opening to talk about why I'm doing it. People don't even think or know about prostate cancer and testicular cancer. When they ask about my facial hair, it let's me raise awareness. How can this be a bad thing? Yes, it's light-hearted in many ways, but it allows for talking about a topic that otherwise nobody would talk about. So far, I've had nothing but positive responses, and I'm just one person. I think that's wh…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:46 PM
6

In general, you're absolutely right. There are far too many interesting things in the universe to worry about who is having sex with whom.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:14 PM
3

International.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:06 PM
1

They're claiming it's unusual because their other male students generally can't grow facial hair. They're using their schools population to determine unusual, rather than the whole of their society. Wrongheaded and stupid, yes, but logical within their frame of reference.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:04 PM
9

You're right, it certainly doesn't sound like a gender issue. I'd be interested how this school would react if their male populace could generally grow facial hair. Would they use the same arguments? At that point, it would be gendered. That's entirely conjecture, of course. It honestly sounds like a forced conformance and attempting to stamp out independence issue to me, though: Whilst the school dress code does not explicitly mention facial hair, it does mention unusual hair styles and colouri…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:03 PM
10

While it's nice they're doing a fund raiser still, I find the school's attitude completely stupid. We should be pushing for more individualism in schools, and celebrating what the individuals can do, not restricting an individual when someone else can't measure up. I mean, yeah, it's just facial hair, but they're still saying "Because others can't do this, you can't do this." Whilst the school dress code does not explicitly mention facial hair, it does mention unusual hair styles and colouring t…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:00 PM
2

A_Pathological_Liar (tells the truth) I am so confused right now.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 05:56 PM
3

Good for your mother! :)
/r/MensRights15/11/12 05:55 PM
1

They quoted somebody in the article who had that concern. I found it odd that the school didn't provide an answer, but it could easily be that the journalist didn't give the school the opportunity to respond, or that they did, but the journalist chose not to publish it (possibly to keep the air of controversy?).
/r/MensRights15/11/12 05:09 PM
2

My suggestion would be to present the topic as a question, rather than a refutation. Ask your professor about David Reimer and how the gender differences being entirely socially constructed can be explained by his situation. Something like: I know you said [gender is entirely socially constructed (use your teacher's phrasing here)], but I was reading about David Reimer recently and his story doesn't seem to mesh with that concept. Do you think you could clarify this for me? It is more likely to …
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:49 AM
6

Actually seems like a fairly interesting experiment. I liked many of the comments by the school officials: And when boys hurt themselves, teachers are taught to give them every bit as much comforting as they would girls. and “The interesting thing is that it’s not a problem for a girl to be Santa Claus,” she said. “But it is a problem for a boy to be Lucia.” One part I found a little troubling was the exchange near the top of page 2: In an article for the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, she questio…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:43 AM
1

This could easily be rephrased as "people have a right to make their own medical decisions." Also known as a right to bodily autonomy. That doesn't mean they have a right to access a specific medication, but if they have the means of access (usually economic), then they should have the right to access it. This is probably overly broad, but it's less problematic than picking and choosing which medical decisions people have a right to make and which they don't.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:10 AM
2

Please bring to your class' attention the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561 Modern psychology holds the opinion that gender is both inherent and socially learned. In what proportions isn't known, but the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is outdated and not respected by modern psychological teachings.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 11:02 PM
3

There's nothing wrong with BDSM styled relationships, but as wubblewobble said, there need to be safewords. Also, this isn't something you just fall into or expect, there has to be talk about boundaries and negotiating what each party wants up front. They need to be entered into with great care to avoid problems.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 10:43 PM
9

This is inspired by a trip to Africa that I took to aid with female victims of rape, while learning about how many men and women were raped, yet not finding a single shelter or psychiatric center for male victims. You are a good person and should feel good about yourself. I am overwhelmed with everyone sharing so many stories and links. Also, I am glad that everybody is patient with me and that everybody is being supportive. I have so many questions and am very, very grateful! I've observed here…
/r/MensRights14/11/12 10:01 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/136xbz/well_guess_what_you_actually_believe_it_or_not/c71fjx7
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:58 PM
3

As a woman I'd just like to point out that the best gyne I've ever had was a man and the worst was in fact was a woman. I have it when incompetence and skill are attributed to gender. And my wife went through numerous gynecologists before finding one that would actually listen. That one is a woman. It just goes to show that you're right, competence has nothing to do with gender.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:57 PM
5

Really? At the local costume castle, they have 1 aisle of "sexified" costumes, and 3 or 4 aisles of other female costumes that aren't sexified. They may be sexy, depending on the source of the costume, such as super-heroines in tights, but they aren't like "sexy nurse." So, maybe 20%-30% of the costumes are slutty? That held true for all the costume shops I went to.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:54 PM
13

The problem with women's clothes is the sizing is a set of arbitrary, meaningless numbers. If their clothes were sized sanely, with you know, the actual sizes, most of their problems would disappear. I don't see how this has anything to do with feminism though.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:52 PM
1

No similar mandated support, yes. And that's the issue. It's not whether or not it's covered, it's that it's required to be covered without a copay that is such a big deal. Yeah, the copays are generally pretty low, but it's the complete lack of consideration that worries me. Basically, I'm going to remain skeptical on the public supporting the idea, wholeheartedly, of men having control of their reproduction. Saying they support it is one thing, actively campaigning for a man's right to birth c…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:01 AM
1

You could be right. I've read a few articles along similar lines, but it definitely is a fringe. My big worry is based on how male sexuality is already considered a non-issue. For example, in the ACA, females can get tubal ligations, completely covered without copay from their insurance, but there is no similar support for men getting vasectomies, which is analogous. Seeing that happen, as recently as it did, makes me seriously wonder how much support research into male BC will actually get. (An…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:12 AM
2

I don't really want to get into a debate on where abortion fits into the family planning options. Your second sentence seems odd to me: so long as they have abortions if they get knocked up. Are you suggesting there's some way to ensure this happens? If a 16 year old isn't going to use contraception, do you think they should be trusted to choose an abortion? Or are you saying that teen pregnancy is acceptable?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:05 AM
3

"Large number" is relative. It is definitely a minority, but it's more than I'm happy with. Let me see if I can dig up that survey I found... A recent survey, albeit in Kansas, found that of the 300 women they interviewed, 92% were pro-male-pill. In other words, 8% were opposed to a male pill. I'll admit, this isn't the best study, but what I can't figure out is why anyone would be opposed to it. Out of this small sample, 24 women were actually opposed to men having a birth control option. Wheth…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:59 PM
2

Well, a lot of the posters like this come down to that, but the dancing one was more blatant than most. Also, as pointed out elsewhere, #2 is a troll.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:53 PM
7

The point that's missing is "context." Over an 10 year 9 month period, 11,766 women were killed in a domestic violence scenario. That's terrible, but the comparison numbers have no relevance to the comparison being made. What is a relevant comparison for DV numbers to determine how out of hand it is? Other violent crime rates, as a percentage of the population. Comparing like to like. Looking at just 2010, not even a multiple year period, there were approximately 1,210,800 violent crimes. Extrap…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:52 PM
12

Wait what? What women's centers are you talking about? I've never seen a women's center that had any nursing or physical health services involved. Of course, me not seeing or hearing of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Assuming you're right, that's a valid reason for a women's center. What, out of pure admitted ignorance on the topic, would a men's center be necessary for? If what you're saying is true, than the same thing, but focused on male issues. A place to go if you have male speci…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:06 PM
2

I'm sorry you went through that. :(
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:55 PM
1

That's why I support abortion as an option.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:52 PM
4

You're right, men aren't told any of this. You know what else men aren't told? Men aren't told "It's okay, I'm here for you." when something bad happens.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:34 PM
25

And that's fine...but that's where men are at right now. At least you support research into male BC options. There are an unfortunately large number of women who wouldn't trust men, and think that's a reason not to research male BC options.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:32 PM
9

For 3, I'm not willing to look at it in black and white. However, if 16 year old you wasn't smart enough to use contraception, 16 year old you shouldn't have been having sex.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:23 PM
39

5th: I need feminism because I don't want to take responsibility for my choices.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:20 PM
22

It seems reasonable that a woman who has only a son has nothing for comparison, and a woman who has only a daughter won't see the injustices. A woman with both a son and a daughter can compare how their children are treated under similar circumstances more easily. That's not to say mothers with only one child, or women without children, can't see the injustices. All I'm saying is that if your observation holds true (I haven't noticed or paid attention), the above seems likely to be the reason.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:59 PM
4

But needless to say, pre-established times for when I want to be doing something are times for when I'm going to want to do that one thing, wow, or dnd, or whatever. Exactly this. It shouldn't matter whether or not people think the activity is nerdy. It's a set time that other people are relying on me to do something. Why should it matter if it's WoW or volunteering at the local YMCA?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:40 PM
2

See the comment thread here. This blog post has a good breakdown of the numbers, along with additional sources.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:35 PM
24

It is. As soon as you include "Made to penetrate" as rape for men, men and women are raped at nearly identical rates in the column labeled "12 months" on tables 2.1 and 2.2.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:34 PM
1

Are we talking a sea sponge or a kitchen sponge?
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:57 AM
2

Look at the actual study and break out the parts you think are relevant. For example you could just look at "forced penetration" and "made to penetrate".
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:26 AM
11

I don't mind giving advice even if this person is a fake. Someone else could benefit from it.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:25 AM
3

But if it's similarly lower across the board, that would suggest it was lower for male rape as well, not nonexistent.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:10 AM
60

Unless someone is going to argue that the crime rate is that different in Canada, that's actually even more evidence for his point. He could compare the crime rate between the US and Canada in other areas, and if those match up, he can surmise that this one should match up as well, especially if the female rape numbers match up.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:51 AM
1

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:38 AM
450

A good source would be the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Table 2.2 has everything you need. You can show that yes, men are raped. And you can show how men being raped is not taken seriously, by pointing out that a man "Being made to penetrate" is not considered rape at all.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:37 AM
226

I thought about going to the Principle's after school but she's also a woman and I'm mortified that she might escalate this into something worse, like a suspension. First question: will your parents back you? Everything here assumes your parents will have your back once you explain the situation. I would go to the Principal. If they don't listen, keep going up the hierarchy. If you can't get anyone in the bureaucracy, go to the news. Tell them that a teacher has given you a zero on an assignment…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:35 AM
-2

That was a very well worded "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:28 AM
6

Nor can I tell what dirty, underpaid, unappreciated jobs they are referring to.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 12:24 AM
13

Gender is really friggin' complicated. Gender is partially socially constructed, and, as evidenced by gender identity disorder, partially biological. What is what and how much of each really isn't known, but the feminist idea that "gender is socially constructed" is, at best, overly simplistic and, at worst, an outright lie that detracts from social and scientific progress.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:26 PM
2

That's pretty much the entire narrative of the "rape culture" concept. The feelings of the victim of a crime are more important than the objective reality behind that crime. Therefore, any attempt to determine that objective reality is victim blaming and supporting "rape culture." Even when determining that objective reality could help reduce crime rates.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:15 PM
1

Yup. That quote is pretty much. Men commit the majority of all violent crimes Therefore: Men abuse women more. Completely ignoring that men are also the primary victim of all violent crimes. Why are we focusing at all on the "all violent crimes" numbers at all when discussing domestic violence? Oh right. To support our preconceived narrative of man as evil and women as good.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:13 PM
2

I thought that's what you might be trying to get at, I just wanted to clarify, both for myself and others. And I wouldn't say trumps at all. Maybe in this case, but I've been known to chew on my foot plenty of times before.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:44 PM
5

Most professionals prefer the way you described here. The person is not their disability, it's just a part of them that needs to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, many of the institutions those professionals work with (schools, group homes, etc.) determine how those professionals get to do their work, and the people running the institutions are...bad at it, to say the least.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:36 PM
3

That's not what the flier says. It says number. "Asks for your number and hands you his phone..."
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:30 PM
4

They're not saying put in that number as a fake, they're saying she should send the actual text out herself, with the appropriate keyword.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:28 PM
5

Wait, how is that when the fun stops?
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:20 PM
18

It's not even being unwilling to admit that looks play a role in deciding who to have a relationship with. Most people will admit that. The problem is when looks play a role in whether or not a person is "creepy." If the only difference between two peoples' approaches to a woman are the level of attraction that woman holds towards those people, and one of them gets labeled as a creep, it is clearly creep shaming.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:19 PM
1

Yeah, it would be very tricky to word that right. Personally I think, if this was the intent, a different approach should be taken.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 02:18 PM
1

I just meant it isn't in the sidebar. I'd add it where the SRS Bab and Gawker ban is mentioned.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 02:14 PM
1

Reading? I thought we were all illiterate here...
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:44 PM
2

Perhaps the sidebar with the mod policy should be updated to add that? It's pretty obvious for anyone who's been around for any amount of time, but it really isn't explicitly stated.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:35 PM
1

That seems pretty likely. I definitely am out of my depth here, so anything I say is entirely conjecture.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:25 PM
1

Thank you! I do try to make positive contributions. It's nice to hear at least someone thinks I succeed!
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:24 PM
1

I believe a counselor may ask it such as the second "quote" I made above. As I said, I was pretty much reaching for a reason to be asking at all, and that's the best I could come up with. Not very good, I know, but I like to try and give the benefit of the doubt when I can.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:22 PM
2

Yup, if I don't bend over backwards to put you, as a woman, before me, as a man, I'm not an empathetic person. Equality!™ /s
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:57 PM
3

Admittedly it's started a few conversations about men's health issues - which is the point - but I don't feel it's enough. That actually is entirely the point. Most people don't know that prostate cancer is just as prevalent as breast cancer, and also has a high death rate. It's the same as wearing pink for breast cancer awareness, it starts conversations. Now, you seem perfectly respectful to those who choose to do this, and you've just chosen a different method of basically the same thing (tal…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:51 PM
1

I'm not sure it was legal, but in Massachusetts, I saw a bouncer remove someone, physically, from a club. It's probably a state based thing in the US.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:45 PM
5

They can physically remove you from the premise, though I imagine there are restrictions. Bouncers would be illegal otherwise.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:57 PM
2

The title link sends you to the login page...
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:55 PM
11

Even assuming your narrative about why men kill themselves is true, does it not make sense that men kill themselves for these reasons because more pressure is placed on them in those areas, specifically because they are men? Poverty: Men are expected to be well off financially Sexual Ability: Men are expected to be great in bed and have a large lovelife Race: What does that even mean? If that were the case, we'd see similar number of minority women suicides due to race. Slut Shaming: Women are e…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:50 PM
4

A counselor cannot force a marriage to work. They can't hold either party accountable. They're there for when the individuals want it to work, but can't, by themselves, figure out what's wrong or how to fix it. There are cases where counseling has fixed issues, even when one party didn't see those issues and had no desire to work on it, but those cases are more rare. You're absolutely right about the risks versus rewards being very different between the individuals when they go to counseling.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:25 PM
3

So no worries. :) Well, like it or not, I'm still going to worry about you. It's your choice to make, but I don't like to see anyone living in that type of situation (regardless of gender). In any case, best of luck to you!
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:54 PM
3

You make a good point, which is why a lot of these fields are called "behavioral science" while still giving out "art" degrees. They don't use science the way hard sciences do. They can't say "if I add this chemical to this other chemical, I think this is what will happen and why." and then test it. They do have studies, but the studies aren't as "hard" as even they would like. They formalize as much as they can, and there are multiple approaches that counselors are taught to use, approaches tha…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:44 PM
7

I'm so sorry for your situation! :( Is there any way you could get your SO to seek help for her anger issues? I mean, since you have to live with her anyways, might it not be worthwhile to at least try to repair the relationship?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:39 PM
5

It was about the fear women are socialized to fear at night. Not all women feel that way; it's a personal thing. Nobody's asking to be worshipped. Nobody is accusing you of rape. We're just asking you to mind your manners in situations which already have an element of fear. We have two individuals in this scenario. Person A is applying a label, without cause, to Person B. You are now writing an article on how Person B can work towards avoiding this label. In any other scenario, you would be argu…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:36 PM
2

That's really weird. The Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology with an Emphasis in Marriage and Family Therapy The weird part is they list everything at their school as an MS degree, even things like Education and "Public Safety" (whatever that means). In fact, only two of the first page colleges listed here are listed as MS, while 6 are listed as MA, the rest aren't specified It does look like some universities call it an MS, but the majority don't, and the majority of professionals I've talked…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:26 PM
23

My SO does similar, breaking my stuff, but it's always something i can fix or is under $200. Your SO either needs anger management help, or you need to leave. It's not about the total monetary value, it's about her willingness to take her emotions out on you in a negative fashion, in this case by breaking your stuff.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:32 PM
3

Maybe the counselor was going somewhere with it to talk about OP's decisions and responsibility, I don't know I wasn't there. I honestly can't picture how that could be a lead up to discovering the root of the problems, and determining ways of resolving them. Even if it were, there are better ways of saying it (which is why I agree that finding a good fit for counseling is important). Assuming we have the wording correctly, she didn't just ask about the kicking very hard, but followed up with tr…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:29 PM
5

When you go in for couples counseling the counselor is more focused of protecting the relationship sometimes than protecting the individuals. That is not how they are trained or licensed, but I don't have enough real world experience to deny that that may be how it is practiced in the real world. Even when a couple counselor acknowledges abuse they often will try to get the victim to figure out their responsibility in the altercation. If you are an abused spouse that can really feel a lot like y…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:48 PM
3

The problem with “men’s rights” is how they generalize these experiences, who they ignore and who they blame. These groups claim there is a “large societal pattern of discrimination, ignorance and harmful public policy that disadvantages boys and men.” This implies that men are oppressed as men, and in relation or because of women—a claim that is justified using simplistic sound-bytes and “evidence” that is cherry-picked, ideologically-driven, and easily debunked. And they support feminism why?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:11 PM
9

I don't know if there are statistics relating incidence of rape to dress Statistics have shown no evidence correlating dress and incidents of rape. There are risk reduction measures people can take, such as being careful about imbibing alcohol in large quantities, but dress is not one of those. The problem is, even when legitimate risk reduction advice is given, it is labeled as victim blaming. And questioning a victim, which would help us improve our risk reduction advice, is labeled as victim …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:02 PM
3

This is pretty typical about marriage counselors. In the United States, the APA covers marriage counseling. This story sounds like an ethics violation to me, as it is implying that some amount of domestic abuse is acceptable when directed at a man. I don't know how common it is, but it seems likely that this counselor could have their license to practice revoked. I'm not sure about the articles you're talking about, but this is why you always go to a licensed counselor. A good counselor doesn't …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:57 PM
5

If this is the United States: http://www.apa.org/ethics/complaint/index.aspx edit: A brief non-comprehensive list of possible ethical violations.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:52 PM
3

Counseling isn't a pseudo-science, because it's not considered a science at all. It has various theories, but there's a reason you get a B.A. and M.A., not a B.S. and M.S. You make a very good point about what a relationship is (two people), and the purpose of a marriage counselor is to first help the couple realize they are individuals, and that the other person is an individual as well, and then to mediate between those two individuals. A lot of people think marriage counseling is about counse…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:49 PM
-3

Joanna Russ presented us with an early vision of a woman-only society. James Tiptree, Jr. wrote a story in which the women characters flee earth entirely. Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:33 PM
2

The thing is, the radical feminist minority wants to, if not literally, than figuratively lynch men for being men. They want to breed society in such a way that only about 10% of society is men. It's not, quite, the same as going out and killing them, but how would we get there when the birth rates are roughly equal...unless we have sex selective abortions, or killing of male infants?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:30 PM
7

In either case it's best to simply report and move on once they've been smoked out. The mods have made it clear that they are not welcome here.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:59 PM
1

Prices will likely be vastly inflated due to the regulatory requirements and other externals outside the material costs. If your insurance covers vasectomies, it will probably cover this too, so your copay comment seems likely. :)
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:53 PM
1

There are. Check your state and county laws. At the very least you can keep a journal of incidents including dates, times, locations, and specifics about the incident.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:40 PM
1

Okay, that makes more sense. I wouldn't say shaky ground myself, but I'm pretty sure I'm just disagreeing on degree of uncertainty, not on the existence of it.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:36 PM
1

it's a weird way to celebrate getting married. I actually agree it's a bit...odd? Weird is a good word. I'm not against it, but it's certainly a strange tradition. I should have given you more benefit of the doubt about your sarcasm, since I am too. It doesn't translate well into text, unfortunately. Back to specifics, I think your dread may be due to trust issues, but not spawned by your boyfriend, but spawned by your other friends, who you had every reason to believe were upstanding, but then …
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:05 AM
3

I'll need sources on that paternity test ban. For the rest, I'm not sure. This is one area where most mainstream feminism, even the groups I normally hate, don't seem to be active. They're not out in the streets asking for it to happen, but they're silent on the subject. I have a suspicion they would lobby against it being part of something like the Affordable Care Act, but that doesn't mean it'll be banned as an option (by the feminists). I think it's far more likely that big pharmaceutical com…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:59 AM
1

My major point has always been that the Lilly Ledbetter case isn't an example of the Wage Gap Myth. I wasn't reading that from your point. If that's all you were trying to get across, than I don't know, nor do I particularly care. I don't know all the details from that case. From just the snippet you posted, there could be other explanations. That's the point other people are trying to get across, that when someone says "discrimination" it is very unlikely to be true. Was it true for her? Maybe,…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:57 AM
3

It's currently going through rabbit trials in the U.S. with a goal of human trials starting next year.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:21 AM
1

Hey, you came here for opinions. I'm giving you mine, and you're insultingly sarcastic in return. It really sounds like you're the problem here, not anyone else.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:11 AM
4

I'm not looking for sympathy, I just needed to rant I guess. I can totally understand that. Little things that don't bother us usually can certainly build up. If I were to complain, it would be directly to the offenders. I like this position. If you do go this route, may I suggest making it about you, not about them? Saying something like: I've been getting uncomfortable in XYZ situtations. I know you didn't mean any offense, but I'd really appreciate it if you could let up a bit on it. comes of…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:41 PM
1

My evidence is what my friends (who are actually really decent people) have done at strip clubs which makes me worry. I have some pretty strong evidence that they aren't really decent people, actually. I am not trying to demonize men's sexuality But at the same time you have all but said that a man in front of a naked woman is unable to control himself. You have specifically stated that you are afraid that a man can't, and that you find this fear reasonable. Believing that someone, because of th…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:37 PM
6

I dunno...I always heard that song as calling out those women for being complete liars and bad people who abused the corrupt system. The words make it sound like what they've done is fine, but the entire context is about a corrupt system and these women who abuse it and, literally, get away with murder.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:01 PM
1

I think that's something that needs to be determined for each couple. The problem I'm having is you're making huge assumptions and stereotypes here, without much evidence aside from how you feel. I can present anecdotes that oppose your anecdote, but that doesn't really get us anywhere other than "people are different." And really that's kind of where we should get. I have a problem with this idea that men shouldn't look at strippers because their SOs might be uncomfortable with it, when the SO …
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:57 PM
11

I'm sorry you're going through that. What are you looking for, exactly? You have admitted you benefit from how things are. Do you want to lose those benefits? You certainly can't have it both ways. If you want the harassment to stop, you should either discuss how uncomfortable it makes you, or possibly even escalate through HR. Doing so is very likely to lose you those benefits you mentioned. I'll be honest, I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for you, since you don't appear to have done an…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:48 PM
1

Nudity is something I feel more private about, maybe that's just me. I don't think it's just you, but I do think that's the root of where a lot of your thinking is coming from. And it's fine for you to have nudity be a private thing. Your original post comes off as very judgmental of those who don't share the same view, and very judgmental of those who may enjoy looking at other naked women. It sounds like you don't trust your boyfriend to be able to control himself, and that you don't trust men…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:42 PM
-1

Oh, absolutely. I actually think transgender individuals are the perfect example to use against both biological essentialism as well as to use against...I believe it's called the blank slate theory? Not sure on that term. Basically, evidence strongly suggests there are biological and social components to our gender identities, and denying the existence of one is anti-intellectual (or anti-science, as the initial post was stating). My question is, how can you say: I think it's justified to be dub…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:35 PM
1

Because I was replying to two different statements you made? Your use of the "@" sign suggests you aren't used to threaded conversations. In this thread, you made the claim that, because X is illegal, Y must be X, even if the reason was actually Z. That is not correct, and I did see your other reply, and you did not reply to this statement in any way.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:29 PM
2

First, this isn't the Civil Rights Act, it's the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Secondly, you are completely mistaken in your initial assumptions. except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex You are correct that if you can show institutionally there is a pay differential between genders in the same position the employe…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:27 PM
7

which is undeniably a systemic, historic occurrence with unique roots in the way that we treat gender. You are trying to create the environment for debate based on your own opinions, where your opinions are, by definition, correct. Using the word "undeniably" is immediately putting anyone who disagrees with you on a footing where they first must deny what you have defined as undeniable, and intentionally creates a dishonest environment for debate. Your first claim of undeniability is wrong, sinc…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:12 PM
2

Right now, I'm sitting on a little over a week of...roughness? More than stubble by quite a bit, but "mustache" may be going too far. My (mostly internal) debate is whether I should shave anything at all, or just grow out all my facial hair.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:54 PM
4

It's really this part: And the more and more I read, the less and less biological essentialism seems like a rational argument at all. Unfortunately, David Reimer can't disagree. Since, you know, he killed himself from people trying to raise him as a girl. Honestly, the comment itself doesn't really bother me, but the idea that biology has no determining factor on gender is ridiculous. As is the idea that biology is the only determining factor. Modern psychology has the view that it is a combinat…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:49 PM
1

Nope, I'm not saying anything about morality. Just the fact that the law was in effect during her employment means, by definition, she was discriminated against. The law being in effect has no effect on whether or not this was gender discrimination. The law makes gender discrimination illegal. It does not make other forms of pay differentiation illegal. The law was in effect during her employment. Therefore, if it can be determined the pay difference was due to her gender, it was illegal. The la…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:21 PM
3

The act was in effect when she was employed so it was/is illegal to pay her a lot less than her peers for the same work due to her gender. They could pay her pennies on the dollar for the same work, as long as that determination did not take into account gender.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:19 PM
2

For your second example, it could be even easier. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager So we have a sample size of 1 woman, and the assumption is that she is making less due to her gender. It doesn't even need to be women, on average, are less good as men, on average, at this job. It just needs to be: This women is below the average competency for this job, and none of the men were worse. This quote, at least, doesn't have any evidence of gender discriminat…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:17 PM
2

How am I arguing that at all? He has a right to give up custody. I'm specifically arguing against the idea that there should be the ability to force her to carry to term because of his rights to custody.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:13 AM
2

While I would love to believe that men would line up to get prescriptions for male birth control pills, I just can’t see it. A recent survey, albeit in Kansas, found that of the 300 women they interviewed, 92% were pro-male-pill. Meaning 8% neutral or opposed. of these 280 odd women, almost ¾ said they would continue to take the contraceptive pill even if their partner was on the male pill. Meaning 3/4 of those women don't trust their men, and yet at the same time find it acceptable for men to t…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:10 AM
1

As I said elsewhere, there apparently weren't any signs of this behavior beforehand. At least that's the assumption I'm making since he said he was going to marry her. Hormone changes can do all types of crazy things, and they could, in theory, completely explain this behavior. That would mean it's a medical problem, and that they should either abort the child, or find a way to keep her medically stable during the pregnancy. Now, it could also be not hormone changes, and that, without more infor…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:46 PM
1

That makes the assumption that there's a 1 to 1 relationship between those getting laid and those doing the laying. If every woman has sex with the same man, and only that man, that's a lot of men not having sex. Likewise, if every man has sex with the same woman, and only that woman, that's a lot of women not having sex. then it is mathematically impossible for one gender to have a higher average amount of sexual encounters than the other. As a gender, this is true...but averages are useless as…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:31 PM
22

No. Next question?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:05 PM
4

and wouldn't even try to sympathize. You can sympathize without having gone through it. In fact, I think you've done an admirable job of doing so here. Don't undervalue the comfort you can be to others.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 10:50 PM
3

Most slut shaming is done by women to keep the price of sex high. That is exactly the issue. It's this same reason behind why some women are opposed to a male birth control pill. They act as though it's because they wouldn't trust men, but it boils down to control. Keeping female sex on a pedestal, keeping male sex demonized and "always wanting it," all of the negatives surrounding men and their sexuality, and all the rules of engagement surrounding females and their sexuality (see: creep shamin…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:35 PM
11

I understand the anger and I sympathize with it, but just as I don't want other people writing laws that may negatively effect me based on anger and emotional responses, I refuse to let myself do the same. As for why I should care, I care because I don't want the terribly, entitled, horrible women out there ruining it for the women in my life who are amazing and truly caring, including caring about men's issues to an equal, or even greater, extent as women's issues.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:42 PM
39

You did nothing wrong. Not only was she wrong, but the man who reprimanded you was also wrong. The idea here is that she is a woman, and you are a man, and therefore she is worth more than you. These people don't even realize that's how they're thinking.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:38 PM
16

If that happens, sue them for malpractice in amounts that will more than cover the child support requirements you're saddled with from the false paternity.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:28 PM
3

He can do both, attempt reconciliation while taking the same steps to protect himself. If this is just a really bad hormonal change from the pregnancy, she'll understand why he took those steps. If this is her real personality, he'll still have the recordings and other steps he did to protect himself. The OP's description of the situation made it sound like practically an overnight change, with no evidence at all of this personality before the pregnancy. That's why there's a suggestion that it m…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:26 PM
28

It doesn't make it acceptable, but it may offer an explanation. Hormones can go crazy in a pregnant woman and cause all sorts of reactions that are undesirable. That's why people are saying "record everything, but feel free to attempt to talk to her." It doesn't make it right that it happened, but the extenuating circumstances may make the situation reconcilable. If the person is being strongly negatively affected by their hormones, they may need medical attention for it. We're not just talking …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:24 PM
7

SMS Backup + is good for this.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:16 PM
0

Then you agree that when you're in a relationship, you hold a responsibility to act in a way that is not emotionally harmful to your partner, as long as that action is also not harmful to yourself? edit: Or to find a compromise, or to leave the relationship if you cannot act in such a way.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:07 PM
0

So your argument is that you hold no responsibility for how your actions and inactions effect another person?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:48 PM
0

If you demand exclusive access to another person sex life, you take on a responsibility to service that sex life. That is not codependency, that is the exchange that occurs in a monogamous relationship. This is not "I'm responsible for your feelings." This is "I demand you not have sexual relationships with others, and in exchange I will ensure your sexual satisfaction." Let's look at our options for a monogamous relationship: We are exclusive to each other, and we do our best to sexually satisf…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:42 PM
4

How about this poor soul from 1967? Here's the book about this poor man on Amazon.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:04 PM
1

This was mentioned I believe just yesterday, but I'm upvoting anyways, as more publicity for this can only be a good thing!
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:58 PM
28

If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create. I cannot agree to this point. A father should be able to give up all parental rights, just as a mother can, but being able to force someone via court order to carry a child is something I cannot agree with.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:43 PM
3

They have a responsibility to satisfy the other because part of their partnering agreement includes exclusivity. You are promising your partner nobody else will satisfy you, and because they have accepted that promise, they have also accepted the responsibility. This actually goes straight back into what we talk a lot about here in regards to rights versus responsibilities. We talk about how people have a right because they've accepted a responsibility that goes along with it. People have a righ…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:20 PM
3

He may not be saying it very gracefully, but it is still a good point. In a monogamous relationship, you are agreeing with your partner to sexual exclusivity. The presumption is that your sexual needs will be taken care of by your partner. If your partner is unable or unwilling to care for your sexual needs, why do they have the right to have exclusive access to those needs? Let's say your sexuality is a child. A parent is under the obligation to care for their child because they are the parent,…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:18 PM
2

Like any other part of a relationship, if your partner isn't satisfying you in some way, and you can't come to a compromise, there will be unhappiness. If your partner isn't even willing to admit there's a problem, or acknowledge your feelings on the issue, there's a major problem. Differing sex drives is pretty much guaranteed. Good relationships work because the people in it consider the other person's wants and needs. That doesn't mean saying "yes" every time, but it doesn't mean you don't al…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:12 PM
4

It's actually more like if you twist the statistics and exclude all these extra causes then poof, 77% wage gap due to discrimination! Basically, statistics are really easy to lie about, because most people don't understand how they come about and what assumptions are being made, nor do they truly understand the implications.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:55 PM
3

It's like an intentionally dishonest game of telephone!
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:52 PM
6

I think it's a great idea, but I think it should feature all statistics, whether debunked or supported. When someone says "Domestic Violence isn't a gendered issue because [number]." and someone questions them, they can just point to the post featuring those statistics.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:47 PM
1

I can see that, but I can also see how it's a valid question and an increased understanding of that why could suggest ways to combat that view. A circlejerk would more have been "My class is full of idiots, eh guys?" Basically, just looking for agreement. This was asking a question, one that I will admit has been answered before, to help the poster (in theory at least) better understand what may be the causes behind the attitudes he observed.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:10 PM
1

a lot of people don't think a male can get hard if he's not actually aroused. What boggles my mind is that a lot of men seem to think that men can't be raped. Everyone believed my story without a doubt and I doubt it would've been as easy if I were a man. But don't you know we live in a rape culture that shames victims and refuses to believe sexual assault actually occurs? Or that, at the very least, the victim was asking for it? Clearly your memory must be wrong, and you were shamed and nobody …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:07 PM
1

I wouldn't use all, but definitely all of them with anything resembling this "reasoning."
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:59 PM
1

See, I understand confirmation bias. But there comes a time when it is impossible to rationally interpret the evidence in a way that confirms your bias. If I believe there is a government conspiracy to kill everyone with blue eyes and yet all statistics point to brown eyed people being the primary target of governmental violence, maintaining my belief and reinterpreting evidence is no longer a form of confirmation bias, it is a form of insanity.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:19 AM
4

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio It looks like the sex selective abortions definitely have a major effect on the birth rate differences, but because of longer life expectancies, women are still the majority of the world population.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:14 AM
42

They didn't give a clear definition, so they obviously are leaving up to you to decide. Check the box. If they complain, take it to a court of law, and make it clear that you checked the box in a good faith understanding that in the program you were applying to, you would visibly be a minority. So without clear direction, you went with your understanding of the form.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:33 PM
35

Because male sexuality is considered bad, and men are considered as always wanting it, therefore they can't be traumatized by rape. If you have the opportunity to continue it, you can bring up case studies where a man's rapist was awarded child support. This is where a court has legally determined the man was indeed raped, and ordered him to pay child support anyways. See if they're still laughing after that. http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/ http://human-stupidity.com/stu…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:28 PM
25

The problem with your thought is the theoretical you only get to be a man on their terms. Their terms include earning for them and serving them, really no better than a slave, or as what put in the article, a stud. So they take care of you sexually, and you take care of them financially. How easy is it to slip from your "alpha" position when they get tired of you? If you are not the one controlling your social status and life, if they are defined by someone else, then you don't have any control …
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:11 PM
2

I can't understand how someone can have such an honest disconnect from reality. To be able to be so blind, and to still be able to have one's voice heard, is truly a privilege. Literally not a single thing you quoted bares even a passing resemblance to reality. Like...I don't even understand how she can see what she's claiming, no matter what your worldview is. I understand one's worldview can vastly change one's interpretation of facts, but how is it possible to see men as the primary victim of…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:02 PM
8

The best response to comments like this? That's a really nice Internet you're posting on. It would be a shame if nobody had ever invented it.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:44 PM
4

That, I can't answer, because I don't feel we need more of anything in particular. I'd love to see more global interest in STEM, that'd be pretty awesome. If it can be shown that our largest gains, as a society, can be made by targeting women, than that might be a good argument. But I don't see any particular reason that the trait "woman" is inherently desirable for STEM fields. I also don't see why the trait "man" is desirable either. The trait "smart" is one of the most desirable aspects, espe…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:18 PM
2

I haven't personally been through the system, but I've read enough horror stories, and read how the actual laws are laid out, and that's what I base my statements on. And yes, this is the USA I'm talking about, so I'm glad to hear it isn't universal. My only point is that a social behavior can be a rights issue if the legal framework is set up in a way that encourages that behavior.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:15 PM
7

The legal framework for child support, as it stands right now, encourages this behavior by rewarding it. Even if the reward is rare, the negatives for attempting these actions are non-existent. Yes, there will always be shitty people, but the number of occurrences would go down without the perceived legal and social framework to back them up.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:42 PM
5

Unless it comes from a court or lawyer, ignore all communications from her. Have a lawyer aware of the situation so if something does come, you have ready access to legal counsel. Don't worry about the paternity test unless either your lawyer recommends it, or she takes legal action first. If she continues attempting contact, get a restraining order.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:41 PM
1

It seems to me that the doctor holds some responsibility as well. At the very least, this seems like malpractice. This isn't just small slip of the tongue, this is seriously bad advice that a first year med student would know better than to give.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 09:07 PM
1

I agree completely. I can see offering scholarships based on need (they even have a name...need-based scholarships). Application to the program, though, should be completely based on the ability of the applicant. I can see doing some outreach about your need based scholarships (Hey, don't think you can afford college? We have XYZ to help!), but getting in and staying in need to be completely merit based.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:55 PM
1

Yup, that's pretty much what I mean. What I mean by outreach program is something like "Oh, we're putting an ad out for our program where we don't have many women. Let's put some women in it." or even something like "Hey, let's talk up this education program at this all women's private school." Anything past that becomes special treatment and extra assistance. Helping someone socialized not to do something to think "Hey, that would be cool to do!" is fine. Giving them any special treatment is no…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:53 PM
7

Well, I'm of two minds on that. On the one hand, I would much prefer targeting ads based on the actual program being offered (like you said, people with an inclination to logical though and creativity). On the other hand, I can understand trying to overcome some peoples' social conditioning, people who may not have otherwise considered a degree in X subject because they were told, directly or implicitly, that it wasn't what they do. I'm not sure what the best approach would be, and I'm not even …
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:48 PM
3

Nothing about being a woman or minority implies failure I think the specific point is not that being a woman is a failure so much as having reduced standards based on your gender implies that those who wouldn't otherwise qualify will get access to these programs. In other words, it's rewarding under-qualified people (failures) by qualifying them based on an unrelated trait. There are two options: Some women require special assistance to get into these programs. These women, due to lowered standa…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:37 PM
3

Wouldn't single parents generally be covered by the socioeconomic checks? If they are a single parent and can afford college for their children then why do they need special consideration based on their single parent status? If they are a single parent and can't afford college for their children, it immediately reverts to socioeconomic checks. That's why household income is what's asked about during scholarship stuff, not individual parental income.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:31 PM
13

Personally I don't take issue with outreach programs. I do take issue with any form of favoritism or modified standards. For a school's computer science program, for example, I have no problem with an ad campaign primarily targeting women. I have a large problem if those women who do apply get any sort of preferential treatment during the application process based on their gender, rather than their qualifications. Flip the gender's and apply it to nursing and I feel the same way.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:28 PM
11

I'm not sure about worldwide, but it is, by a small amount, in at least the US.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:25 PM
12

Women are more numerous than men. Any man is, technically speaking, a visible minority as long as they are visibly male.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:24 PM
2

It is somewhere!
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:43 PM
5

Wait...is feminism back to the "anti-sex-industry" stance again? I can never keep track of whether they love it (Women can do what they want! Sexual freedom!) or hate it (Women are being sexually objectified!).
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:29 PM
1

It sounds like something from a bad anime. Or possibly a hentai...
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:26 PM
2

I've never heard of this. Where is this happening and what's it all about? I saw that line and I honestly was just confused as to what she was talking about...I figured she was talking about ancestors from 100+ years ago...
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:23 PM
1

You don't happen to have a link to that article, do you?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:10 PM
0

I agree. In my answer, I was trying to imagine how it might effect men's social situation one way or the other, but I think I was stretching. Overall, I don't see why we, as a group, should have an opinion on it until someone can show why it's a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:04 PM
3

I'm not sure how much men would be effected. It might help men somewhat socially, since with legal prostitution, women as a group would have less control over the sexuality of men as a group, since one could just hire a prostitute if one wished.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:50 PM
0

Okay, so it's probably more of a case of "men don't divorce, they just cheat". Last I checked, statistics showed women cheating just as much as men. I may be wrong, and don't have a source, so take that with a large grain of salt.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:39 PM
5

Is it just me, or is this list all about how men can service women better? Oh right, The Good Men Project. Carry on then.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:33 PM
30

Or I could have some self respect and find someone who respects me for who I am right now, rather than waiting for her and people like her to respect me later. And that's what this author fails to grasp. The nice guys you're asking to wait for you? They won't wait. Because, unlike you, there are nice girls who appreciate them right now. And you know what? Those nice girls still like to go out to clubs, they still do all the same stupid shit you do. You want to know how they're different? They ha…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:30 PM
3

"Oh I'm a 'nice' feminist, I'm not like the 'other' feminists." Now, to be fair, it does happen. 9 times out of 10 they stop calling themselves a feminist, the other 1 time out of 10 they continue to do so, but also keep a wary eye on their own biases. Most of the time, though, they're just following their ideology blindly. The rest of your points are completely spot on, and it gets really tiring arguing against them, or even reading others arguing against them.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:07 PM
2

It's extremely dependent on the population. The last number I heard was the unmarried women in their 20s without kids are making upwards of 108% of what unmarried men in their 20s without kids are making. If this was a real science, that would be the evidence to prove the hypothesis of "discrimination" false. Unfortunately, this is a "science" instead.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:04 PM
2

Last I read was a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (so it applies to the US) and it is actually 77 cents on the dollar (comparing yearly pay, I believe, not hourly). The amount not explained by known choices is something like 5 cents on the dollar, and their may be unknown explanations for that amount that aren't discrimination, or may even fall within the margin of error. So yeah...77 cents on the dollar is technically correct, until the implication is made that it is due to gende…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:01 PM
2

Unfortunately, it is. Every time circumcision is brought up, people everywhere talk about all the reasons they'll do it, and they either ignore your logic, attack you for it, or (believe it or not) call you anti-semitic. edit: See here.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:51 PM
1

I black list Radio Shack because I was buying a simple cable, and they tried to sell me 5 or 6 unrelated things at the register, in a very insistent and annoying manner. That's not "new guy" syndrome, that's store or corporate policy, and it's not okay.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:39 PM
2

Equal rights is a legal position, not any form of business enforcement. Discussing how to get more women into STEM isn't the issue. Trying to legally enforce getting more women into STEM via government Title IX mandates is a problem. Government enforced equal outcomes is not possible. Men's rights groups and individuals wish to remove inequality from the laws based on gender, specifically in regards to removing cases where men are discriminated against, either through benefits that only apply to…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:27 PM
5

The son seems to have gotten the lion's share of the family's resources. How does that fit in with the gender oppression viewpoint? That's what confuses me about that exchange. :(
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:21 PM
2

Why does that matter? Specifically, why does that matter when talking about giving an option to men as well, that would in no way remove any of those options from women. Or are you suggesting that because of biology, a women should have the legal right to make choices for a man?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:36 PM
1

This isn't really a joke is the problem. Legally speaking, it's been repeatedly shown that he is responsible as soon as he ejaculates. Women have become pregnant from used condoms, and the man was forced to pay child support. Women have gotten pregnant by raping a man, and the man was forced to pay child support. So, legally speaking, ejaculating when there is a woman involved in any way, even if you do not ejaculate into her, makes you legally responsible for any child from that ejaculation. Wo…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:31 PM
2

Finances. Lack of evidence in a biased system. Lawyer recommended it. Was hoping for a plea deal. Maybe it was a plea deal. The only people who know are those involved. But it doesn't invalidate (or validate) his statement, as you seem to be implying.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:44 PM
2

Two different events that they believe the same man was involved in. The description given for the bear hugging one sounds, if completely accurate, very sketchy. If it is the same man in both, using first event may show a behavioral pattern that suggests the second event was not just a "do I know you?" moment.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:33 PM
6

Not necessarily. In other words, the methodology for asking the questions was acceptable, but the questions themselves may have created an unnoticed bias.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:28 PM
39

I'm curious, how was the word "force" defined? Physical force? Coercion? Guilt tripping? None of them are okay, but they are also very different situations. Was the term "asking" being used in a literal or figurative manner? Did the researchers specify what they meant? Without seeing the original data and methodology, I have too many questions to trust these numbers. 8% of college men have either attempted rape or successfully raped. And yet, when we look at the crime rates, even accounting for …
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:25 PM
9

At the time I was thinking of a religious pregnant woman, who feels that she actually does not have a choice in the matter of abortion. But perhaps religion should not be considered in this situation. Religion shouldn't affect our legal framework. In fact, in the U.S., it is explicitly forbidden. She has the legal choice of getting an abortion. Whether or not she views it as a choice is immaterial when determining legal options. In addition, her religious views should not be able to limit or cha…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:17 PM
1

Part of me wants more interesting options. The lazy part of me completely agrees with you.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:12 PM
5

That's a damn fine mustache. I am now jealous. *stalks off*
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:11 PM
1

Yup, the true numbers are hard to come by, because there really are just too many different variables. There is a real gap in salary, but the variables that go into a salary are incredibly complex, and every company will have different weights on different variables.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:51 PM
2

I'm glad you can admit to something being reasonable and recognize your own bias in the matter.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:48 PM
5

This is because it shifts full responsibility of the pregnancy to the woman She has all the choices, therefore the only fair method is to give her all the responsibilities. Most people I've heard agree that if she opts for an abortion he should pay some amount (usually half), but beyond that, he's stating he does not want the child. Again, since all the choices are legally hers, all the responsibility should be legally hers unless he accepts responsibility as well (either opt-in or opt-out, both…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:46 PM
1

Generally there is a bit of recovery time. Very true, and I'm not trying to say a woman getting time off is bad. I'm saying that taking that time off reduces one's hours on the job, and that's the "why" for how that effects pay. The argument I commonly see from feminists is something about how it unfairly burdens women for a biological factor. My follow up is giving a different perspective. If we give women who take time off for childbirth / care the same pay as a man who worked straight through…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:21 PM
1

Good point, although they're used interchangeably, they are different. Wage refers to "some" time period, and usually means hourly, whereas "salary" is pretty much defined as "yearly wage." Using "wage" without a specifier allows people to make it sound worse than it is, because the listeners will automatically assume it means "hourly wage."
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:15 PM
1

I believe they separate by "experience" in the sense of "years on the job" or something similar, but not "total hours on the job" or "consistent years on the job."
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:14 PM
1

(Sir, btw...or just "mythin" is fine) I definitely have my biases, I also try to avoid them or explain them (hence walls of text...). The wage gap is calculated by taking people doing similar work and comparing their wages. I believe it takes into account areas, so someone making a lot of money in silicon valley is adjusted to correspond to someone working the same, or similar, job somewhere that pays a lot less. And it has been found that there is a wage gap, and that it is approximately 77 cen…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:13 PM
1

Umm, what? I was specifically talking about maternity / paternity leave. You know, the stuff people take after the birth?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:07 PM
3

Even controlling by field even further, you could say they chose to be an actuary at a small company making $100k, whereas you chose the larger, more demanding (at least on your time) company making $200k. Or perhaps you work more overtime at the same company. Or take fewer sick days. Or negotiate better in salary discussions. Or have earlier relevant experience (maybe you interned in high school at a similar company, or even the same company). Pay is based on an almost infinite number of variab…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:59 PM
1

Familiarity breeds contempt?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:56 PM
2

The wage gap exists, the interesting question, and where the debates occur (at least the real debates, not political showboating) is "why?". That also happens to be the largest disagreement I've seen between self-proclaimed feminists and self-proclaimed MRAs (and self-proclaimed egalitarians, for that matter).
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:55 PM
1

That's pretty much his argument.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:54 PM
2

I work at a 7-eleven and make $8.30 an hour, for about 40 hours a week or more. there's a woman minal who works here, an guess what she makes. $8.30 an hour. Well, your anecdote isn't really evidence of anything. Now, your anecdote does happen to line up well with statistics from neutral sources, but by itself doesn't offer support for anything. Do the feminist sheep really think that women go into a job, and are blatantly paid less than a man is, or are they willingly overlooking different fact…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:53 PM
3

Please tell me this wasn't your one phone call.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:59 PM
2

Crap, it's been 2 hours. Time to start getting a defense fund together!
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:33 PM
1

It turns out that, at least with DavidByron, the issue was pretty much just miscommunication, where I worded things really badly, and he had interpreted it a certain way (a completely understandable way, based on my wording) that was pretty much the opposite of my intent. :/
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:02 PM
1

I feel as if there IS a level of gaucheness to ask someone such a potentially emotionally-provoking question in an unsafe place. You're falling into the (very easy to not notice!) trap again of using her perception as the measuring stick for his actions. Yes, it is unkind and, at minimum, gauche to ask someone in an unsafe space an emotional question. How likely is it that the man found the elevator, moving between floors with someone likely to get on at any moment at a crowded convention center…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 12:09 AM
1

Based on what I have read here, many MRA's think all feminists are whiners and a huge problem. Let me clarify a bit what you're seeing. Because they see organized feminism as a negative, they also see people who identify as feminist as implicitly supporting that negative, even if they aren't supporting the negative ideas directly. Could you provide me some links or sources for those organizations making women look like victims? Keep in mind that it's also not just making out women to be victims,…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 11:49 PM
2

Those are very good points. I just want to mention that causation in such cases is either extremely difficult or impossible to determine. Oh, definitely. I'm also not trying to dismiss the studies themselves, just the blog post, because it came to sort-of the right conclusions, but for the wrong reasons and did so insultingly. The promiscuity itself is invariably caused by something else, and it's likely that something else also has effect on marriage stability. That "something else" might be a …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:43 PM
1

I would say your experience is very dissimilar to the posters experience. In your experience, we're talking seconds, and afterwards saying or not saying anything wouldn't have changed the situation as it happened. Maybe you should have said something, but you didn't hold any responsibility for stopping the action. Also, in your experience, it would be very easy to grope someone like that without anyone noticing, due to the crush of bodies. The poster's experience was very different. First, unles…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:33 PM
3

That blog is both incredibly biased, and incredibly insulting. The study itself quite specifically only finds a correlation, and yet the blog author uses demeaning language to shut down any calls regarding correlation not equaling causation. Feminists and Leftists will, with same logic of tobacco company lawyers, attempt to do the same. I am not attempting to convince them. Logic and empirical evidence are no use to people who practice cognitive dissonance as a voluntary habit. This is completel…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:17 PM
3

Based on your description, you must not know many feminists because we are not all like that. We've heard that, and we aren't talking about you. We are talking about the feminists with political and social power, the ones that actually shape the gender conversation. They are (generally speaking) like that. Just like not all men's rights activists are like that guy here who called me a cunt for no reason other than that I am female or others that rant that women shouldn't have any rights at all. …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:02 PM
2

Time to go reading. I honestly think he's full of shit but hey. This is the attitude I see here, and I love it. To paraphrase: I don't think he's right, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong if someone presents evidence. If the evidence is strong, my position will align with the facts. Simply being open to the possibility of being wrong is required for true skepticism, even about deeply held beliefs. It's the very reason I can't respect the "skepchick" community, because they have certa…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:48 PM
1

If we include implied /s comments, than I'd be dead from my own comments too. :(
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:41 PM
1

I've heard that as well, but that's basically saying: Since this will just make your last days miserable, and you're going to die of something else anyways, we aren't going to worry about that. As a society, we would never accept that answer for a disease that hit primarily or solely women.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:40 PM
3

Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. And yet this is a 100% factual statement. This statement, by itself, makes no claim towards the rightness or wrongness of that definition, it's just stating that this was the definition of rape when he was learning what rape was. I'm not saying I like or hate this guy, but criticize people on facts, not on feeling lik…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:35 PM
4

I say this as someone who supports a universal single-payer healthcare system (please, don't get political on that topic, just giving my biases before this comment). Politicians -- especially male politicians -- shouldn't be making decisions about women's health care. So politicians shouldn't b e making decisions about women's healthcare, and yet Obama supported the Affordable Care Act, which makes many decisions regarding women's (and men's) health care by enumerating what must be covered and w…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:29 PM
2

I wouldn't trust a news organization's poll, because the respondents will generally be biased because of who follows that organization (self selecting audiences are a no no). I'd love to see (and don't have time to search for) and actual study by a recognized scientific / psychological research group using proper random sampling techniques.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:26 PM
1

Possibly because they realized they have no reproductive rights of their own? I don't think it's a conscious thing, but I think you may be right about the subconscious motivations.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:24 PM
9

On an emotional level I agree, but I could never trust anyone to come up with a non-biased test.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:22 PM
3

Can we please have a source for your quote? I found something here. And it's absolutely right to raise questions about representation in the museum's collection—women are just the tip of the identity iceberg. But institutional change is overdue. It would be tragic to give life to these questions in the galleries for three months, then kill them behind the scenes. In context, that's not nearly as offensive. It sounds like she's just saying that having a museum take artist identity into account fo…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:17 PM
1

They do caching for non-logged in users, so they may have slowed down the cache updates to help with load of some variety.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:14 PM
2

If a woman hits a man, it's funny or obviously the man deserved it... All my female friends know that I hit back. ;) (Please note that it's only ever light-hearted stuff that happens...or they wouldn't be my friends!)
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:12 PM
5

I think I did the right thing too. I'm not upset that I was called an ass (but thank you for the support!), I was just showing how this subreddit, in general, seems to support the idea of research and data being superior to anecdotes to a greater extent than most. With an anecdote. Like a damn hypocrite. ;)
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:09 PM
1

It is very very situational. Looking back at the poster: That all changed when I was literally finger-fucked at a state fair when I was waiting outside the portapotties for my dad to finish up, while I was wearing a loose t-shirt and a skirt that covered my knees and I was holding my little sister's hand. There was another group of people literally 5 feet away and this still happened. I was 15. First of all, how does that logistically happen against someone's will? People were literally (as in a…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:07 PM
1

and seemingly really sexist. No, you are not being sexist. You may have some slight discrimination going on, but you are specifically trying to get another perspective. You are specifically trying to find the line between caution and villainizing. That is not sexism, so please don't insult yourself that way. As to the rest of your comment: It comes down to individuals versus groups, in my opinion. Let's remove all traits from the equation for a minute. You had a bad experience with Person A. Is …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:45 PM
1

It's not really to reply to them, it's so if SRS (or anyone trying to make us look bad) goes to a third party and says, "See what they support?" we can respond with "We were actually supporting this other thing, and here's the evidence, they just changed their post."
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:26 PM
2

Again, I just want to reiterate--I really want to learn. I'm NOT here to yell things like "privilege" or whatever. You are a good person and should feel good about yourself! :)
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:25 PM
3

Your point is good, but I also immediately noticed that they don't actually provide a list of those five signs... Reminds me of "This thing could be dangerous kinda maybe...find out why, tonight at 11! (oh, and continue giving us delicious ad revenue...). I don't believe for one minute that they don't harvest phone numbers texting them in order to create a "business relationship" that bypasses the Do Not Call Registry and can be sold to business partners.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:16 PM
7

One small step for man a boy, one giant step for mankind?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:14 PM
4

We now have studies to prove this. I vaguely remember hearing about this. Do you happen to have one of those studies available?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:12 PM
1

Jesus Christ, feminists will literally shame men of ANYTHING to try and justify their position. Honestly, I would need to know the context of where this image first appeared before I could make any judgement about what it's trying to say. Who produced it? Was it attached to a satirical argument? Taking it as a raw comic, it appears to be the concept that once the sperm leaves your body, you have agreed to being a father, and must live with the consequences. Or possibly that porn is wrong. I'm no…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:11 PM
5

What's to stop men fathering children, waiting until they're born, then running off? Nobody is suggesting that should be legal or acceptable. The suggestion is that, during the time a mother can opt out of motherhood, a father should have the right to opt out of fatherhood.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:04 PM
8

Informing someone that you will not be financially supporting them or their child could only be considered "force" under the absolute loosest definition. If I tell someone I've made a decision, and that decision may affect them, is that "forcing" them to make a decision? Should nobody ever be allowed to make a decision that someone else may not like? She can choose to have an abortion, or she can choose to keep it. The only thing this would "force" is she would be required to take into account t…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:01 PM
1

According to the American Psychological Association, it is not currently possible to distinguish a true repressed memory from a false one without corroborating evidence. And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:53 PM
2

most the posters here feel they should be let go of all responsibilities and when anyone speaks against it you get ousted. No, the argument is you should have the same options for removing this responsibility as a woman. If you choose not to take one of those options within the timeframe that a woman has for taking their options, you then should be held responsible. There is a huge difference between being a "deadbeat" and saying "During the timeframe when you can remove your responsibility, I s…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:49 PM
-1

Generalizing and saying "all" are not equivalent. You generalize because you are specifically talking about something that is prevalent and likely to be observed in a member of a group. Should generalizing use words like "most" or "in my experience, most"? Probably, but people trying to accuse someone who is making a generalization of referring to "all" of a group do sound like a concern troll, even if that isn't their intent.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:26 PM
20

I actually have a hard time with TV because of this. I saw an ad last night and had to comment on it because it was so positive in its portrayal of everyone, and this is so incredibly unusual. It was an ad where the Mom was on a business trip or away for some reason. The little girl in the ad clearly missed her mother, and the Dad was at home taking care of the daughter. Now, at this point, almost every ad would go into how disastrous this situation would be, and the mother walking into a giant …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:14 PM
25

The difference between this subreddit and pretty much anywhere else (that isn't a purely intellectual subreddit like /r/AskScience): Ask for a source, and you'll get a source, or get an apology that they don't have a source, and likely a statement that you should, therefore, take everything with a grain of salt. Someone posted an anecdote the other day in TIL that was counter to a linked study. I pointed out it was only an anecdote, because it was implicitly being presented as "this is how thing…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:45 PM
2

an assessment of strength based on grip Hrmm...that's not what I'm trying to say, but I can see how you're seeing that. When I say firmness, I'm not referring to grip strength so much as grip...confidence? I'm not actually sure I can explain what I'm trying to say, and what I'm trying to say may be completely based on my own biases, so I could just be crazy. Basically, there's a difference between "hesitant", "firm", and "death grip." "Firm" to me means shaking the hand with confidence. It has l…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:37 PM
5

A firm handshake is supposed to show that you're confident in the situation at hand. If you're off balance or uncomfortable in a situation, you're less likely to be firm in your handshake. You mentioned that it shows the person is self-conscious, and in a way that's exactly what it is. Someone who is uncomfortable or off balance is very likely not to remember the social norms, like a firm grip, so even if it is purely a self-conscious social norm, it does indicate what it is intended to indicate…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:00 AM
2

That was a decision by a panel of judges that affirmative action is legal, not that diversity is beneficial to productivity. The closest the majority opinion came to saying that diversity is beneficial was in the following quote: does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Let me be clear, someone saying something is so, even someone from the …
/r/MensRights23/10/12 10:03 PM
1

he was definitely grounded for expressing his opinions in an unacceptable manner. The time he called my mother a cunt sticks out vividly as an example. Which is why I said: (Assuming we got the whole story.) And: we can only judge and give advice (which was asked for) based on the story presented to us. Obviously we may not have the whole story, but the story as presented suggests the grounding occurred purely based on the difference of opinion. Now, was that the whole story? Was their shouting …
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:50 PM
2

A comment in there: People don't choose to be offended. They are offended. Their feelings are valid. And this is pretty much my entire issue with feminism as I've seen it portrayed pretty much everywhere. This is an explicit renunciation of control over your own sentience, and an acceptance that you are not an actor in the world. People reject their feelings all the time, in fact that is pretty much the basis of society. This idea that we are unable to do so and must accept whatever comes at us,…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:09 PM
1

And you also make a good point! I don't know if anyone's calling for that, but we definitely shouldn't be calling for it, especially for something like this. I'd like to think we can identify something without implying a specific action, but it's really hard to do so without qualifiers, and I can completely understand where what you said could be inferred from the statements about it being abuse.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:03 PM
1

Wasn't this just $0.72 on the dollar at the town hall meeting? We're already up by 5 cents in just over two weeks! Imagine what another 4 years can do!
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:48 PM
2

Diversity creates productivity. And your evidence for this is?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:34 PM
1

She grounded him She grounded him for having a differing opinion. (Assuming we got the whole story.) That is pretty clearly a form of psychological manipulation and controlling tactics, and could be classified as abuse, even if it would be very low on the abuse scale. The reasons for the punishment matter, and we can only judge and give advice (which was asked for) based on the story presented to us.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:28 PM
2

I countered with the BLS study, and it was rejected because s/he didn't agree with the findings, basically. So we are supposed to accept at face value the study from a special interest group, but not the study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It stopped being worth my time to play with stupid.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:48 PM
2

She tried making it more open and nobody would give her a straight answer throughout over 2000 comments. So she's saying, "Fine, if you want to talk, answer these questions first, because I've already wasted enough time listening to people who won't answer a question straight."
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:34 PM
3

AgentOrage and hardwarequestions were shadowbanned for merely discussing doxxing They were? Are they unbanned, or posting under a different name? They are good posters. :(
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:06 PM
2

I had someone in that thread (not that subthread) call me sexist because I said that IWPR report should be viewed with skepticism as there is likely bias involved. My argument was that they are an organization that are financially dependent on women being victims, and therefore are suspect when they find that to be so. The person repeatedly focused on the fact that I dismissed a study by a woman's group, and called me sexist for it, rather than accepting that any group with a financial interest …
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:59 PM
1

Eh, I don't think I'm an underdog. I truly have led an excellent life. But my experience is almost entirely due to good luck and good people in my life. My experience doesn't lessen the need for the MRM. I'm not trying to inspire envy, just saying I have it pretty good...but it is not related to being male. However, I agree that this guy sounds like a troll. He didn't come asking any questions, just assuming that we have no reason to complain because he has no reason to complain. That's either t…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:51 PM
2

Being a man, and specifically a straight, white man, is amazing. You are making the assumption that these benefits are from your traits "straight", "white", and "male." It doesn't even appear that you've made an attempt at identifying other traits that may lead to your positive treatment. For example, are you above average in height? It has been shown that taller people tend to do better socially and economically than shorter people. Are you above average looking? Like height, beauty has been sh…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:48 PM
1

Maybe not over there, but it's been talked about here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11nvns/i_am_confused_women_cosplaying_as_vixens/
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:42 PM
3

Agreed. Hell, I don't even have to like the words to agree they aren't violence.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:37 PM
3

It's the exact opposite of implying all because you are explicitly stating that you are not referring to all. It's not the exact opposite of "all" it is the exact opposite of "implying" because it is not doing so. And yes, you are correct in your definition of tend. And when you're speaking of groups of people, and you say a group has a tendency to act a certain way, you're saying that behavior shows up within that group with frequency. Any given individual may never show that behavior, but when…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:34 PM
1

Feminists tend to be violent, especially those in positions of power. The phrase "tend to be" is the exact opposite of implying all.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:24 PM
2

A belief in equality doesn't lead to that belief. Because they're still separating men and women in your example, which is directly opposed to a belief in equality. It's a belief that women are inherently superior to men, and that men are collectively identical, a belief that the average can be applied to all men. A belief in equality would be more like "Some men can rape, men and women are equal, therefore all people can rape." Any gender divide is specifically against the concept of equality (…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:19 PM
6

Not even just that, but it relies on the honesty of the people being asked questions, specifically the self-honesty in identifying their own feelings on the situation. A question could be designed well, but someone may still lie about the situation because they perceive it as worse then it was. Was the sex forceful, or did they just feel forced into it because they didn't want to say no? We can't really know the under-reporting rate, and unless we can start getting a reasonable amount of repetit…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:41 PM
2

Honestly, I'd recommend taking a simple rule: if it wasn't reported, it's unlikely to be serious at all. More like, if it wasn't reported, then it is not society's responsibility to care for it, other than to possibly make criminal reporting easier.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:29 PM
4

Obviously even this is subject to underreporting, but it gives us a lower bound on the numbeer of unreported rapes. Well, it also may be subject to over-reporting, where the questions asked lead someone to say "yes" to rape, where they would have otherwise said no. Or even where they may have felt raped, but it doesn't meet any legal definitions, so while they couldn't report it, saying "yes" on an anonymous survey validates their feelings in their own minds.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:28 PM
-1

I agree to a certain extent, but knowing how people are going to react to vast displays of wealth should, at the very least, prepare me for expecting the treatment where people ask about my money. It doesn't mean I'm obligated to give them the time of day, but I shouldn't act surprised when they treat me like I'm a big money bag. Similarly, if I'm a really good looking woman, and I dress in a tight fitting vixen style outfit, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to let people objectify me, but I should…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:17 PM
7

I don't really buy into the idea of male privilege, and I say that as someone who is very privileged in life. I was pretty lucky to be born into a middle class family, and to not really have anything terrible happen to me throughout life. This definitely gives me advantages in our capitalist society, through better access to education for example. However, my sister has those same advantages. Now, I may have a few minor advantages due to my gender, but I really haven't seen them. Better pay? I h…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:03 PM
2

We have to stop looking at womans rights and mens rights and just look at simply the rights of people. But that's not what you said: If you think of men's rights and feminism as a war between two sides People here don't generally view feminism as synonymous with women's rights.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:56 PM
1

Internet civility is a rare thing these days It is, and I strive for it, but felt I failed, hence the apology. but it's nice to see it on display here. At the end, I tried. I can admit when I've done wrong by someone! Good talk, and take care. I agree! You've given me names and directions that some people are trying to take feminism that I could actually get behind, and I should always be striving to be open minded! Thank you for that, and best wishes in your studies!
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:54 PM
1

True, but just because something is easier doesn't make it right. If we try to fix the symptoms of the problem, we're just going to end up with a load of unintended consequences without really resolving anything. That's why I'm bothered so much when people talk about businesses being discriminatory. Not only is it already illegal for them to discriminate based on a host of things (including gender), trying to "fix" businesses is not going to help, and will only make things harder for everyone.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:48 PM
2

You know, you gave me a very good response here, and it deserves a lot more time than I have to give it right now, so unfortunately I'm going to keep it brief. First, when I'm talking about feminism, I'm referring to the groups "in power", which tend to fall under the "radfem" label. I can't really bring myself to call groups in power radical. Second, I really like a lot of your points, and if I felt like your position on feminist thought and feminist mindset, because it really sounds like a sys…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:59 PM
1

First, you don't seem pretentious at all, because I often reply in the same, long-winded way in order to try to make my point very clear. I often fail at this, I seem to be not very good at clarity, but I completely understand the attempt. As to the rest, I agree almost completely. I try to be moderate in my views, but of course that is best judged from the outside, not by myself. I'm happy to hear you'll look into here occasionally, because we really do need moderate voices to keep us from beco…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:48 PM
2

It's a trial, but someone has to do it!
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:39 PM
1

While threads like that are very uncommon, I agree that was a very bad thread. However, it's hardly characteristic of this subreddit, and someone saying it is is flay out lying.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:27 AM
3

I don't know what you mean, I'm never sarcastic.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:10 AM
7

I'll show myself out now, since I came here through bestof. Stay, comment, learn, teach. Join us, we're a welcoming (yet very abrasive at the same time) lot! (Also, I agree with your overall point.)
/r/MensRights18/10/12 12:05 AM
1

You repeatedly throughout your comment accuse me of grouping feminists together, and yet Haraway does the exact same thing when she accuses feminists of distancing themselves from these studies...and somehow I'm the one who's wrong for grouping feminists together? I'm done here, because we either can talk about feminism in general terms, or we can't do so. You switch between doing so yourself, and praising someone who does so, and then telling me I'm not allowed to do the same thing. If you're w…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:37 PM
3

I agree in theory, I just don't think will be seen our way in a PR shitstorm.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:16 PM
1

Oh, I don't agree that it's okay, I'm just saying it's understandable that those accruing more experience are more likely to get raises and promotions. I don't see any way to prevent this outside of making it illegal to work more than X hours a week...and that would end in disaster.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:02 PM
7

While I don't condone this, it would be completely hilarious!
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:00 PM
2

Well, I'm over there, and I've recognized a few others, but it doesn't look like it's primarily names I recognize from over here! :)
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:52 PM
5

I did debate doing so, but I specifically wanted to avoid any more accusations that we are a downvote brigade. If you really want to say something, you can go find it, but even though that comment really does deserve downvoting into oblivion, I'm more worried about our own reputation. We finally seem to be getting a better reputation around reddit, and I'm not going to risk that.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:45 PM
15

Yes, yes it is. The real question is, how can we get even more meta?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:05 PM
83

I refuse to believe that the MR subreddit represents true MR interests. If they did, I would be legitimately terrified, due to the sheer number of times I have seen violence and even death subtly suggested or even directly advocated for women in general, feminists in particular. Really? I mean...I've been actively posting here for like 6 or 8 months or something like that, and not only don't I ever see this upvoted, it is actively against the mod policy and will be deleted. How is something that…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:43 PM
-2

Didn't say that. Neither does Haraway. You didn't say that, but you said yourself that Donna Haraway expressed concern over the feminist movement's tendency to distance itself from certain qualitative methodologies. Then the part I responded to seems to be Haraway explaining why feminists have distanced themselves from scientific thought. My response was specifically towards feminism in general. Haraway admits to this, so she's seeing exactly what I'm saying, that feminists see scientific studie…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:41 PM
1

Well then...that stops me in my place. Carry on then!
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:29 PM
1

My guess is it's probably easier to see it now that we know it's there. Just a guess, take grain of salt.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:47 PM
1

If only that were so. People will use any excuse to villainize people they disagree with.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:45 PM
3

Let's assume that you're right. Why is the focus on changing businesses behavior if the problem is not the behavior of businesses, but is instead the upbringing and education of women? If you say it's a stop gap measure, than I would suggest you seriously consider what will happen when that stop gap is no longer needed. Do you honestly believe anyone benefiting from such a stop gap measure will want it removed?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:41 PM
24

but the gender gap is a well documented, based on HOURLY pay (so amount of time you work per year is irrelevant) and similar qualifications. So you don't believe someone working more hours, gaining more experience, and likely gaining promotions and raises faster due to increased experience, is going to to have any effect on hourly pay rates? Perhaps you should consider changing careers. Please don't take your facts from news outlets (who probably do not hire Economics PhD laureates to write thei…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:39 PM
-4

Though it's worth noting that she also says it's because when you really drill down into the practice and the culture of the people typically using those methodologies you find that their "objective" findings too often rely on socially constructed (especially gendered) assumptions as starting points, which wind up producing gendered results that pass as objective, disinterested facts. So the answer is to remove any attempt at objectivity? If a study is flawed, you point out the flaws and attempt…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:35 PM
10

Assuming you are correct, then why is the problem always presented as a business problem, rather than an upbringing / educational problem? Assuming the wage gap can be explained by choices women make, how is trying to make the businesses adapt to those choices equality? It seems to me that making businesses adapt to these choices is both preferential treatment, not equality, and only reinforces the idea that women can make these choices, rather than working towards breaking down gender roles. Pe…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:30 PM
1

No dirty fightin' from our end! Well...reduced dirty fighting. We can't judge everyone here with the same brush (yay mixed metaphors!), but we certainly try to avoid dirty fighting.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:51 PM
8

You really weren't missing much by not knowing about that subreddit. Your world is now just a little bit darker...
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:12 PM
20

It's because atheism plus at its heart is no better than any religion -- it is religion. Not atheism, atheism plus. That subreddit / movement that is seeking to combine atheism and feminism. It is a religion in the sense that it follows blindly with faith that the tenets of feminism are true. There may be skeptical thought within that community, but it follows from an unwavering faith in feminism.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:01 PM
1

Because you are choosing "skin color" as the defining trait when deciding what averages to look at. Why not look at "socio-economic status" or "height" or "beauty" or any number of other factors which are much better determiners for someone's likely outcome in life?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:42 PM
1

I would think it supports the idea that rapists are rapists. As I said, I'm not sure if I agree with this idea, and if I do, I only agree if we're talking about excessive expectations. Expecting someone to wear their seatbelt to be safe is not excessive, expecting them to only drive when nobody else is on the road would be excessive. Where between those extremes the line of "excessive" is, I'm not really sure.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:29 AM
-1

And long winded...which I really need to work on. :-/
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:57 PM
5

I'm just going to quote myself here: Male sexuality is seen as aggressive and negative, while female sexuality is seen as gentle and positive. Once you understand that, a lot of the world makes a sad sort of sense.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:57 PM
2

I should say the a false accusation doesn't automatically make the accuser a bad person (context and circumstances). Please remember there is "false" as in cannot be proven, and "false" as in "lied about it." When people are talking about "false allegations" they are almost universally talking about "lied about it." They aren't talking about misunderstandings or issues where there isn't proof, they're talking about bald faced lies. Lying during an accusation does, in fact, make one a bad person.…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:55 PM
17

People around here refer to that as the "Apex Fallacy." The idea that because you share a trait with someone at the top, you are comparable to that person at the top. Or when it comes to sub-groups, the idea that because sub-group A is at the top, all members of sub-group A are at the top.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:34 PM
16

'because you have more power you can't have any problems or talk to me about them, you may only be a sounding board for my anger' Which is the exact opposite of having power, in a social sense, because you have no consideration. The grouping they choose to put you in may have power, but you, personally, are being ignored. Why are they choosing white male as the grouping anyways? Why not rich or poor? Christian or atheist? They see you, and they are specifically saying "You have these traits, the…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:25 PM
5

If you'll notice there are also zounds of poor and homeless white men who haven't received the magic white man privilege bag that comes with billions of dollars. Well, we tried shipping it to them, but we couldn't find their address.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:16 PM
2

The proper response is: Shit, thanks for the reminder! I was just about to get my rape on. It's a good thing you brought me back from the precipice! Note: this is probably not actually the proper response.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:04 PM
2

Feminists love trying expand the definition of crimes so they can continue to claim to be victimized even by the smallest things. It's not even that they love it, it's that it is a requirement of the ideology. Let's play pretend for a minute. Let's pretend that women are not legally or socially oppressed, that anything preventing their advancement or lifestyle is either self-inflicted or at least not indicative of a systemic problem. In this game of let's pretend, what role does feminism play? N…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:00 PM
1

That last post seems to be much clearer about what he's trying to say, and it jives pretty well with my overall opinion. I believe that rape prevention methods should be taught to people, but I don't think they should get any more emphasis than other ways of protecting yourself. Now, what those methods are should be determined by experts. I'm not an expert, but from what I know alcohol moderation appears to be something that might help, whereas clothing hasn't really shown any evidence at all of…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 10:32 PM
3

I was trying to say that believing it is desirable to have government enforcement over the sexuality of consenting adults is a fantasy.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 08:51 PM
5

They live in a fantasy land where eradicating pre-marital sex and recreational sex is a desirable goal.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 08:34 PM
1

I'm pretty sure that was sarcastic, though I'm not positive.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:55 PM
18

Male sexuality is seen as aggressive and negative, while female sexuality is seen as gentle and positive. Once you understand that, a lot of the world makes a sad sort of sense.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 09:54 PM
3

people just need to be less determined to be offended. Truth.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 07:28 PM
1

If it is, I haven't heard of it. Any details on what you heard?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 07:20 PM
4

You're absolutely right that the experts in these fields don't know for sure what may be preventative, but they have some evidence of correlation. It is true that people should control their alcohol intake, but only mentioning this can make you come out as been blaming victims, because of that stupid notion that men and only men can stop rape. Yeah, there's definitely some of that. This also shouldn't be told to someone who is already a victim, it should just be used to teach people ways of redu…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 07:19 PM
3

Any chance we could get a screenshot for that claim (screenshot of the email with personal info blacked out)? Not proof positive, since it could be faked, but we don't want to do the same thing where we start saying "This has no source, here's our source to say that!" but all we can point to is someone saying that someone said something. ;)
/r/MensRights11/10/12 06:03 PM
3

Intel says family, that says community. Also, where does the other money go? How do they determine "benefits the community"? Where does the other 10% of women's income go? The other 60%-70% of men's?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:59 PM
1

/s?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:56 PM
10

That's actually questionable. It's been shown that stranger rape is about those things, and other rapes may be about those things, but date rape or acquaintance rapes seem to often involve a sexual motivation as well. Clothing is still not correlated with rape rates in any study I've seen, so you're right about the clothing having nothing to do with rape part. However, uncontrolled drinking has been correlated with an increased rate of rape, so suggesting people drink in moderation, or in contro…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:37 PM
3

Bad wording happens to the best of us. Not that I'm claiming to be part of "the best of us."
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:13 PM
14

That is what they aspire to be.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:03 PM
1

ADHD is primarily a male diagnosis. It's hard to tell exactly how over- or under- diagnosed it is, but as someone with ADHD, it is a real diagnosis. I fully agree that medicating children who can be reached by alternative education is just a bad idea. I went un-medicated for most of my school years, and thanks to excellent teachers and parents I can somewhat cope with my symptoms. I'm on medication now, but I'm on a very small dose compared to most adults, and I attribute that to learning coping…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 02:20 PM
0

I think that some Gold users can go into private subs As someone who's been a gold user since its inception, I don't believe this is true. The rest of your statement absolutely is true though. Honestly, I don't see the point of a "private" subreddit when the contents really won't remain private. If someone wants to try digging up dirt, they will, as you said, fake their way in and then post under an alternative account so as not to get their insider account banned.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 02:15 PM
4

May I suggest talking to the mods over at /r/scifi? That subreddit gives a lot of traffic to io9, and the mods may be amenable to a ban, which could severely hurt the Gawker network financially. Thanks for all your hard work!
/r/MensRights11/10/12 01:55 PM
1

arguments based on what is "natural" are usually intended to justify morals with the usual irrational arguing from an is to an ought. Gah, I hate people that argue that way, but I can totally see why you'd think I was doing so. Again, I'm really sorry this became such a big misunderstanding, and I think most of the fault here is on my end. I don't recognize what you describe as standard already. To be honest, I could be very wrong. I thought it was, but I've also been out of the dating pool for …
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:48 PM
1

there are no such rules. I wouldn't say they don't exist. I would say (and this is what I was trying to say in the linked comment, but I realize I was doing so very badly) that they shouldn't exist, but because they do exist (source: my experience and the people I've talked to / observed, probably not universal) making things clear up front avoids the issue.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:16 PM
1

edit: this is long, I tried to explain in a point by point format at the bottom exactly what I'm trying to say. It seems to me to be a disagreement whereby you are saying the situation where men pay more is OK and others are saying it is not. No, I'm specifically trying (and apparently failing) to say this is NOT okay, but unfortunately it is currently how it is (or at least this has been the expectation I've seen from pretty much everyone, male or female). What I'm then saying is that because i…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:11 PM
1

Not at all. I hang out without paying a lot as well. Sometimes I just feel like treating my friends, so I do so.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:35 AM
5

Yeah, I knew that, I just didn't realize they were Manhood Academy people. DavidByron is not (I've got him at +66 according to RES), and I'm beginning to think that was an honest misunderstanding due to me wording my initial point awkwardly (at best).
/r/MensRights09/10/12 11:52 PM
3

You said the man has to make things clear but the woman doesn't. I said the asker has to make things clear. I should have also said the askee should also make things clear when they suspect the asker has an expectation they aren't okay with. I realized I used the word "should" in a way that strongly implied (basically outright stated) something I didn't mean to say, so for that I apologize. All I meant is that people are going to have expectations when going into a date, and if you know or have …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:55 PM
0

This is an argument that favors WOMEN. What don't you get about that? This is an argument that favors those with a spine. Perhaps you lost yours?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:20 PM
1

the central tenet of every civilized justice system is just a pleasant-sounding lie. I don't know if I'd call it a lie. It's an ideal. One which most people fall short of.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:17 PM
1

Wait, so making things clear up front on a date doesn't remove (or at least mitigate) the advantages a woman brings to the table at a date? So what are you suggesting someone does when they ask someone on a date and it comes time to pay the bill, when there is a differing expectation from both parties as to who should pay?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:14 PM
1

Okay, the following seems to be the only part that is in any way related to dating: THEN on top of that, women get to benefit from their biological advantage of being pursued by men. They know that men will PAY to be with them. Again, women gain an unregulated economic advantage. In BOTH CASES, the playing field favors WOMEN. What don't you grasp about this simple concept? Fine. Now, please explain how making sure you have an explicit agreement that the date will be dutch (each party paying thei…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:10 PM
1

Well, all that added text wasn't there when I responded, so now that it IS there, I'll go ahead and read it and see if you really have shown that I'm an idiot.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:03 PM
3

I took his comments to mean if nobody says anything, you shouldn't presume and always have the cash to back up your order. I think you two are both closer to each other's position than you realize. Then why does he continue to argue that reality just doesn't work that way? I've made it very clear in multiple comments that I'm not talking about should, I'm talking about prevailing social standards. He's basically denied they exist. Am I off base in believing that there are prevailing social stand…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:59 PM
2

I'm pretty sure that between the two of us, I'm not the one completely missing the point. Now, I could be wrong, but nothing you have said is even on topic, let alone an argument. Yeah, women have advantages. Yeah, that sucks. You know how to get around that? Explicit understanding before an event of the expectations by both parties. If you aren't willing to get that explicit understanding, you're allowing that advantage you're railing against. And yet somehow I'm the idiot for suggesting you pu…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:56 PM
2

But you're a fucking idiot or a cowering white knight if you allow women to take advantage of theirs while hypocritically restricting men. Well, I don't do that, I just don't see how any of that has to do with the idea of dating, and specifically the idea of making things clear up front. Hell, making everything clear up front pretty much completely removes those advantages you mentioned.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:53 PM
1

I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I was hoping that if I was missing something, someone here could explain it, as that sub-thread has basically devolved into /u/DavidByron trying to catch me contradicting myself or acting as if I'm entitled to other peoples' money.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:49 PM
2

Yup, those are them. It sucks, but I like to at least try to be clear to avoid someone saying "Look! MRAs agree that they were guilty!" or some other such BS.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:41 PM
6

I care because I want to understand.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:39 PM
1

Once again you seem to want to say "I am always right and if I am not then someone better pay my way". Nope, I'm saying that people have expectations that they base on societies standards. Those expectations aren't right, but they are there. Making things clear ahead of time avoids having those expectations ruin what may otherwise have been a good evening. I'm not even excusing those expectations. I'm just acknowledging that they exist. Someone less foolish would not base their behaviour on assu…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:39 PM
1

Nope, I either wouldn't go out with them again, or I'd make sure they could pay before we ordered anything.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:34 PM
1

You're now claiming some sort of mental or physical disability that prevents you from either asking if you'll be paid for OR bringing your own money? You're now claiming some sort of mental or physical disability that prevents you from either asking your date to go dutch? You just said you'd do that. Never have I said I'd do that.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:33 PM
1

Really? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but especially look at DavidByron's comments. It honestly sounds like he's saying that nobody needs to say anything, and anyone expecting the asker to pay is a bad person, even though that's the prevailing social standard. He basically seems entirely opposed to the idea that the prevailing social standard exists at all.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:31 PM
2

I disagree about your concept of prevailing standards so evidently you'd be fucked if you just assumed on someone else's generosity and it turned out they disagreed with your views. Does that seem smart to you? Well, it's clear you have no ability to read social situations in the slightest. I don't set prevailing standards, I just observer them and do what I can to make sure I'm not negatively effected. You obviously feel entirely entitled to someone else's money. What if that attitude by itself…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:29 PM
1

Are you now saying that you'd feel you had to pay for someone no matter how entitled they felt? Nope, I'm saying I wouldn't abandon a friend who forgot their money. If I had evidence they did it deliberately, too bad for them. I'd also be expecting them to pay me back later. If they didn't pay me back later, well then I won't be doing that again. They've lost my trust in their ability to pay me back.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:23 PM
1

That you take 10 seconds to ask someone if they will pay for you if you're thinking of taking no money with you. Or you could take some money with you. How hard is that? And yeah, that would be ideal. But this isn't an ideal world, it's reality. I have to ask you the same question then. You're the one refusing to ask. Really? I am? Huh, I'll remember that the next time I expect someone to pay for...oh wait, I've never done that. You mean if they are so stupid they don't even check? The same thin…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:21 PM
2

But you just got through admitting that your expectations are not everyones. You're right, my standards are not everyone's. The standards of the society I live in have been pretty normal throughout living on the east and west coast of the United States. If I was living in a different society, I would try to learn there standards. And again, you say the exact opposite under some circumstances -- circumstances your date may disagree about. I have never said the opposite. I'm saying the exact same …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:14 PM
3

So you're an asshole -- it's what YOU said you do with platonic dates. If it's platonic, it's not a date. So no. Also, if I'm out with a friend, and they forgot their money, of course I'll cover them. It's what friends do. And then they'll pay me back. If you want someone to pay for you then ask for it. That's an awesome ideal. Do you understand that I'm talking about the real world? As for whether the other person will pay for you because you deliberately brought no money I suppose it depends o…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:10 PM
1

I did? Men gave up their physical and intellectual superiority using laws, regulations and societal pressures to make the playing field more even. Okay? Women refuse to budge on any of their sexual or reproductive advantages. Also, okay? I don't see what this has to do with asking someone to go dutch before a date to make sure everything is clear. I mean, they can't force you to go on a date. You tell them it's going to be dutch or GTFO. If they show up without money after you've told them it's …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:07 PM
3

Thank you for actually realizing that social standards exist, for better or worse, and making things clear beforehand is good. Looking at the other responses here I just can't understand how these people even function in society.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:01 PM
3

How ridiculous to suggest that such a statement would be reasonable or "minor". Wait, why is that ridiculous? You've never made plans before, including who pays? And indeed why would the burden be on the person already likely to be paying? And you expect the burden to lie where? Let's make it super clear. If you want something, ask for it. Don't spring it on someone after the point of no return. Common decency says otherwise but if you like playing Russian roulette with your ability to pay go ah…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:59 PM
2

And that has what to do with the topic at hand? This is super simple. Person A: Will you go on a date with me? Person B: Sure! Person A: I expect us to go dutch, by the way. Person B (option 1): Okay, cool! [insert figuring out details] Person B (option 2): I'm not okay with that. Person A (in response to option 2): Okay, nevermind then. I'll talk to you some other time. You know, or it could go like this: Person A: Will you go on a date with me? Person B: Sure! [Insert date here] Person A: That…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:55 PM
3

Have you ever even been on a date? Yeah, your way is great. That would be awesome. But that's just not how people expect it to work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with going against social standards, but for things to run smoothly, you need to make it clear when you're doing so.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:49 PM
2

Wait, I'm a fucking idiot because I accept reality and have proposed ways to smoothly avoid the negatives that exist, while still being able to have a social life? Please kindly learn...I don't know, anything.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:47 PM
1

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might meet someone with whom you don't agree? It happens sometimes you know. Maybe you meet someone who disagrees with you that "the default" is for you to be paid for? What do you do then? What suggestions do you have? Are you saying we should just go on a date with the complete assumption we'll be going dutch? What happens when we decided not to inform the other party, and they wouldn't have agreed to the date if they knew they were going to be…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:46 PM
3

Sorry, two different thoughts. In a date situation, the current social default is for the asker to pay, so any deviation from this default needs to be made clear ahead of time (really by either party, but this will most likely be the standard). In a platonic situation, the current social default is for everyone to pay their own way. I like to treat my friends, but I will not do so if it becomes expected or if I'm taken for granted. Please note that /u/lwoodnj said: Who the fuck is paying for the…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:12 PM
1

Don't bother. He doesn't appear to believe that a person who has a feature will become defensive when that feature is referred to in a negative fashion in another person. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1164s8/my_brother_wants_his_son_circumsised/c6jzstg
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:08 PM
1

Really? You need a citation to realize that people internalize things that are said around them, even if not directly about them? I honestly don't have time to give you a class in basic psychology, but you could start by reading up on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact terms, but Identification is likely a part of the resulting issues.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:07 PM
2

Right now, it's standard in society (at least in the U.S.) that whoever is asking the person out on the date is the person who pays for the date. Whether or not it should be the standard is besides the point, it is the standard. Because that is the standard, it is the responsibility of the person who is setting up the date to make sure it is known beforehand if there is going to be any deviation from that standard. This really isn't complicated. Let's say there's construction on a road near your…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:04 PM
1

Even if you aren't planning on splitting a bill? Even if you're there by yourself? You still ask if they'll split it? I mean...good on you for getting information. I'm never going to say getting more info is a bad thing. It's just...odd I guess? Still, since it's important to you, that's a very good idea! edit: If this sounds condescending, I apologize. It's absolutely not supposed to. It was just my thought process based on what you said.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:57 PM
0

no this is bullshit reasoning. this is like saying "whoever has the biggest muscles or the most brain power should get the job." Wait what? I'm saying that if you want something, ask for it. If you want to go on a date, and want it to be dutch, ask for it. What's so hard about that? If you don't want to initiate dates, don't do it. but since men are LEGALLY prevented from taking advantage of their biology, women shouldn't be given special privileges. They shouldn't be allowed to take advantage o…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:56 PM
3

Wrong. Endorsing the euphemistic language of mgm is how it survives. The conversation using your methods: tiffybug69: Don't mutilate your son against his will. Father: I'm not mutilated, circumcision isn't mutilation. How dare you judge me. I'm not discussing this with you any more. tiffybug69: ... Avoiding the word mutilation: tiffybug69: Without any immediate medical need, this child should have a right to make decisions regarding permanent changes for himself. Father: [honestly, I don't know …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:04 PM
2

When it matters to me, I do ask. You just seemed to be refuting the statement that some places won't split the bills by saying that you've never been to one that won't. Your experience can't really be generalized out (nor can mine). I actually agree that if this is important, you absolutely should ask. It doesn't hurt anything to ask. The worst that can happen is they'll say no.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:56 PM
1

Sorry, I wasn't trying to comment on your username. I was just replying to /u/0bvious_Atheist and wanted to be clear that my "your" was actually referring to you, not him. I wish you the best of luck in this! Between you and his fiancee, the unborn child has two very strong advocates!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:54 PM
8

Yes.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:52 PM
3

I've done the retail store thing, so I definitely understand some of it. I feel less bad, I don't think I've done that with a party of 20 before, and if I did, there would be a very large tip involved. Thanks for the perspective!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:22 PM
2

Yeah, no. We don't need the government enforcing relationship standards any more than they already do.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:05 PM
3

I don't like oppression olympics. My take away from the "woman does x bad thing" posts and the other stuff is not that all women are bad, but that women and men are humans, regardless of gender, and both women and men can be perpetrators of bad stuff and victims of bad stuff. "Woman does 'x' bad thing" posts just help to oppose the narrative that only men are perpetrators and only women are victims, when the truth is that everyone is capable of good and bad. (Obviously this is all how I see it, …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:02 PM
1

The truth can be inconvenient. That's not a reason to ignore it. In general I'd agree, but here we're looking for a specific result. Don't lie, that's wrong, but you can put things in terms that won't put the father on the defensive and are more likely to get the desired results. We can save the full, harsh truth for the larger picture of banning this completely.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:58 PM
3

When arguing with the father, don't use the word mutilation though. I agree that it is mutilation, but for this, the point is results. Talk about the child's right to choose. Talk about how it can be done later in life if the child wants it done. Mention that the only "benefit" supported by evidence (even if it's weak support...don't bother mentioning that) is regarding STDs. After mentioning that, ask him if he really expects his infant son to be having sex that early. I'm not sure what will wo…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:57 PM
1

Unfortunately, sneaky is how we have to do this. Anything else gets us labeled anti-semitic.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:54 PM
1

Which means innocent to a court. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, you aren't really ever proved to be innocent, you are proved to be guilty. Anything else is innocent (not-guilty). Yeah, I see your /s, but there are people who actually for reals believe an accusation of rape == a rape occurred == the accused party is guilty.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:48 PM
1

Absolutely! And it doesn't need to be replaced with "Men are victims, women are violent." What it needs to be replaced with is "People can be victims, we should help them. People can be criminals, we need to protect ourselves from them."
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:44 PM
2

That was very strangely disturbing...
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:43 PM
4

Really, I'm not the one grasping at straws here. Of course, my conclusion from this study is only evidence that male victims of DV need support, and we need some way of encouraging men to report DV against them. I don't care about the specific numbers when it comes to perpetrators, I just care that there is even more evidence that men can indeed be victims, and that we need to give them help and support without shame.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:41 PM
3

I haven't either, but that doesn't mean there aren't places that won't do it. I have been to places where I haven't asked to split the bill, so even of the restaurants I've been to, I don't know that they will universally do so.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:38 PM
3

People in monogamous relationships should be mature enough to determine what works for them. Splitting the bill should be the default position though. Unfortunately, "should be mature enough" doesn't really apply in a lot of situations.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:36 PM
1

Is it really that much effort to split bills? I've had many waiters offer to do so when I'm out with friends. I've never waited tables, so I don't really know how hard it is. Is it possible that the difficulty is different for different billing systems? Now I feel bad, because I end up with split bills fairly often. :( Well, I typically am a big tipper, usually around 18% for good service (rather than the typical 15% starting point) going up to quite a bit more for exceptional service. I also ma…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:35 PM
10

I do on a fairly frequent basis, but it's because I like to do it. Every one of them knows I do it at my option, and if it becomes expected or becomes taken for granted, it stops. I absolutely won't do it for a platonic friend who feels entitled to it.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:31 PM
13

Whoever did the inviting should either pay, or make it clear beforehand that they want to go dutch. The person being asked can make the offer, but the responsibility is on the asker to set the terms of the date, including whether or not it will be a "dutch" date. Personally, I think going dutch is definitely the most fair way, but since it's not the normal way, it should be made clear up front.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:28 PM
3

Actually, I just looked at the study that this is a meta study of, so I can tell you how they determined their numbers! The study is this one here. Specifically, the questions asked are on this page. The specific part of the questionnaire regarding violence in relationships is Section 19, starting with Question 109. 109. How often [if LONG = 1, add: “in the past year”] have you threatened <PARTNER> with violence, pushed or shoved {HIM/ HER}, or thrown something at {HIM/ HER} that could hurt? 110…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:19 PM
0

I wonder if during November they'll have awareness for men's health issues... Watch "Big Dick" videos and we'll don't to penile cancer research!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:14 PM
2

Pseudo-intellectualism, and lack of integrity: this sub in 6 words. I actually happen to agree with you when it comes to the title posted here. It should have read either what you said, or something along the lines of "Study finds that 70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is perpetrated by women." or something more specific. The user who posted this actually apologized for this elsewhere when it was pointed out. I don't agree that the study itself is pseudo-intellectual. Or at least it's no m…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:03 PM
2

I was quoted! I just realized today that I did my math wrong...apparently simple subtraction is beyond me. It should be: 49.7% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 50.3% of domestic violence is not reciprocal. The study does NOT state that women are responsible for 70% of domestic violence You're right, it says they are violent within 84.9% of domestic violence situations. They hold sole responsibility in 35.2% of the cases, and shared responsibility in 49.7% of the cases. Now, this is making the…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:42 PM
3

You know...I don't particularly like you, but that lamb is all kinds of adorable.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:33 PM
0

That's in non-reciprocal. Reciprocal is, by definition, both of them performing violence. I understand what the study is saying, just that specific parenthetical seemed very much weirdly placed.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:27 PM
1

That's a fair point. For me, the entire argument boils down to consent. You don't perform irreversible cosmetic procedures on people who cannot consent, especially when those procedures may effect the quality of life for that individual. Especially when the supposed benefits are regarding STDs. I hope your infant isn't having sex...
/r/MensRights09/10/12 03:04 AM
1

I'm not actually sure.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:28 AM
1

Thanks and I too wish you wel-Fuck you. I will say, at least your lack of intellectual honesty and basic human decency is consistent. I'm very sorry you find basic integrity to be lacking in flair or flavor. Perhaps comedy would be more your speed rather than debates on serious topics? Your viewpoint isn't incomprehensible to me because it doesn't fit within my logic structure, it is incomprehensible to me because I can't imagine wanting to appear like a complete imbecile while still expecting s…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:27 AM
5

Brief comments (end of day, I have to go home from work!): Please remember when people here hate upon feminism, they're talking about Big F Feminism. Groups like NOW and major feminist bloggers and organizers. The people with the money, power and influence. The people getting laws passed and social changes implemented. These Big F Feminists are largely opposed to men, and in favor of a victim mentality when it comes to women. If you want to know why, it's quite simple. If Feminism wins, they los…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:15 AM
1

youre a typical dumb liberal idiot who cant understand my side and you think this sentence is only a validation of that. its pointless so im going to stop. And you're not teaching me annnnything about debate. so get off your high horse Again, you're making assumptions that are not backed up by reality. You're right that I clearly haven't taught you anything. I'm not particularly on a high horse, more like a high stage. There's room for everyone, but I won't lower the bar just because someone ref…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:07 AM
1

And the burden of proof is on you to show undeniably that it wasn't just that the applicants accepted were more qualified but that it was actually an underlying racism/sexist issue. Which is where the burden should lie with any accusations of wrongdoing. The point is we aren't even seeing an attempt at a large number of court cases. We'd be hearing about it in the media all the time if there were a lot of cases being thrown out of court as being without merit if they were being brought forward i…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:41 PM
4

No worries. I'll try and take the time to read your blog post and give honest feedback. Please be gentle. I'll warn you, that is pretty unlikely. Unlikely from two perspectives. The first is that people here aren't gentle. They're honest, but often harsh. It's far more direct than you may be used to, so please try to expect language that is both direct, non-compromising and just plain blunt to the point of sometimes being hurtful. The second is that feminism has a pretty bad name around here, of…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:28 PM
2

vaginoplasty lololol. Planning on making an actual point here about how they're different, aside from the religious implications? I'm willing to bet like 1/3 of those doctors are circumcised themselves! What does this have to do with anything? (whats your point? my point is I dont know where you got this idea from. probably from your one sided field of view). What view? The view that medical organizations around the world oppose circumcision? Oh, that came from the comment you summarily dismisse…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:22 PM
2

Note: You cannot have body text (self post) and a link. Because of this, there is no actual link here. I would suggest linking in your body text (you can edit it) as well as giving a short summary (just to be nice!).
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:14 PM
4

"We don't know how big, so lets assume it's terrible! Can we have our funding now?" Yeah, that pretty much sounds like the argument. The conviction rate is 58%, the attrition rate is 12%. I just did not know the proper term. Don't feel bad. It's confusing, and dishonest people (intentionally or otherwise) make it even more confusing. I didn't know the difference between the two or the terms until someone was arguing a 6% conviction rate...which sounded ridiculously low. Since I like to argue wit…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:12 PM
1

<Devil's Advocate Counter Argument> And then you look at the company statistics and realize that said women are about 10% of the company's force (and the black people are 5%) and they've held that position since the company's inception :P. And then you compare that 10% (and 5%) against application rate as well as qualified application rate. Difference of scale at this point. You're talking about changing the way hundreds of millions of people raise their children versus changing the merit polici…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:10 PM
1

Are you seriously saying that by posting a piece of anecdotal documentation in video form, the only equal and appropriate response is another piece of opposing anecdotal video? Not quite. Evidence of equal or greater value would be valid. Anecdotes are not valid points of data, but neither is rhetoric. You are arguing against this anecdote (which has been repeated in a number of other videos) by merely saying "No, that's not true!" and im not dismissing your video with ad hominem, though he is a…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:55 PM
4

The rape conviction rate (at least in the U.K.) is about 58%. This is very close to the average conviction rate for reportable crimes there. We don't know how many rapes go unreported (not honestly). We also don't know how many false rapes there are. What we do know is that the 1 in 4 figure on college campuses is complete bullshit. If we assume a worst case of 90% non-reported cases of rape, the number (per year, rather than per college career that the 1 in 4 refers to) is more like 1 in 188. A…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:47 PM
3

It is a cosmetic procedure, with minimal, if any, medical benefits. Even the AAP does not actually recommend it as a routine procedure. The vast majority of other first world medical institutions oppose circumcision. If it was a purely medical procedure, we would not see doctors around the world opposed to the practice. It is clearly a cosmetic procedure, very similar to vaginoplasty. And you're right, this isn't like genital mutilation in Africa. In fact, I never said it was, so again you're ar…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:43 PM
2

Whether or not that is true, it does not invalidate other arguments against non-consensual circumcision. You are attempting to dismiss this video by using an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the religious (lack of religious) bent of the poster of this video rather than the content of the argument. You argue the practice is not gruesome. Evidence has been presented that it can be gruesome. Do you have evidence contrary to this? Your word is not evidence. Because this post is a documented anec…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:31 PM
4

Rawr!
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:24 PM
2

It is interesting, and I'm far more likely to believe in some form of ingrained racism (as there's actual evidence for this). Of course, while interesting, it's also an unrelated (while still important!) issue.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:15 PM
1

I was going to post that! Short version: Men and women are (approximately) equally the victims of rape per year (as of 2010) excluding prison rape. Men are approximately 60% of perpetrators, women are approximately 40% of perpetrators. This relies on defining rape of men differently than the CDC defined it. Most people (especially here) will have no problem with the redefinition.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:14 PM
1

"Women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of cases of [non]reciprocal domestic violence, though they caused fewer injuries than men I realize you probably meant that, just making sure you (and anyone else reading) doesn't get the two confused! You weaken your case when you exaggerate. Agreed. Being accurate is important. It reduces your rhetorical targets and increases the likelihood that other people will take your point seriously.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:08 PM
18

The study is saying: 49.7% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 50.3% of domestic violence is not reciprocal. 2a. Of that 50.3%, women are 70% of the perpetrators. 2b. Of that 50.3%, men are more likely to cause injury. Basically, women hit more, men injure more. Edit: Subtraction fail! It turns out 100 - 49.7 does not, in reality, equal 51.3, it actually is equally to 50.3. Who knew!?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:51 PM
1

Okay, I was wondering if it was some special type of notation specifically used in studies like this. To me, it just makes the sentence confusing and unclear. Thanks!
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:48 PM
2

(The penal code is here) Most of the arguments I hear are about how a child receiving money from their prostitute mother is going to be considered a human trafficker because they financially benefited from the illegal commercial sex act. Almost everything is a variation on that theme. It has always been primarily a bad interpretation of the following two bits from Section 6 (h) (the definitions for the terms used throughout): (1) "Coercion" includes any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:46 PM
12

The short answer is "We don't know." The long answer is "Somewhere between 2% and 90%" In other words, we really don't know. The commonly accepted answer is somewhere around 6%. If you need to use a number, this is the "safest" number to use. Wikipedia actually has a good breakdown on this with links to different studies that have gotten different numbers. Using the actual sources is probably a better bet than just getting a number from us.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:43 PM
1

True, it is hard. On the other hand, if the hiring manager has a history of not even interviewing female candidates, or if there are no females on staff, you can make a complaint with the EEOC (EEEC? something...) and an investigation will probably occur. Basically, we're always told how horrible this is, but we're never shown data, we aren't shown case studies, we aren't shown evidence. We're shown "77 cents on the dollar!" and are supposed to reach the conclusion that it is because of gender d…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:37 PM
2

Yeah, that's the part I'm really not sure about. I'd have to look up penal code 290.015. If that section of the penal code is specifically talking about human trafficking, than the registering stuff (and internet stuff) only applies to human trafficking, not all sex offenders. If it applies to all registered sex offenders (for example, if it is the section of the penal code that just talks about registering), then the internet stuff would apply to all registered sex offenders (and probably grand…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:33 PM
4

A better phrasing may have been: It's nice to know that everything turned out as well for him as it could given the already shitty circumstances! Hey, this is positive. Yeah, it sucks, but right now this is good news. We get so little of it, I'd say just let it stand as is (edit: not to imply I'm an authority on this, just my 2 cents).
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:29 PM
1

More importantly, we found that violence was perpetrated more frequently (by women only) and was more likely to result in injury when it was reciprocal as opposed to nonreciprocal. Can someone explain why the "by women only" is in parentheses?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:27 PM
15

But...but...VAWA! Good link to what looks like a good study. I'd also suggest a link on /r/MensRightsLinks. This is the type of study we need to use when people dismiss us. The dismissals I hear are either: Men aren't commonly the victims of domestic violence. OR When men are the victim, it is in reciprocal violence that the man most often initiated.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:20 PM
2

It could be that the stereotype, like many stereotypes, is based in part in truth. It could be, but I was specifically trying to avoid that, as it's a fairly weak argument. As a scientist, you understand the importance of hypothesis and expected outcomes. What I'm trying to do is illustrate the expected outcomes, and then ask the question, "Why aren't we seeing this?" Fact: There is a gender based wage gap when comparing the same line of work. Hypothesis: This wage gap is due to gender based dis…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:14 PM
2

stop bastardizing the practice as something cruel and barbaric, which it isnt. Make an argument or shut up. "It isn't" is NOT an argument, it's a statement.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:02 PM
2

Yes, lets use one video from atheists who openly oppose the practice And we see where you're arguing from. This is entirely based on your desire to cut on a child because you believe some god somewhere has told you to do so.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:01 PM
2

EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, r/MR. Heaven forbid I agree with you but question an analogy. Actually, I upvoted your question. Trying to become educated is a great thing. I downvoted this, because you were given the functions that a foreskin performs, including one for protecting against damage and irritation, and you conclude that it still doesn't perform a necessary function. I'm guessing your definition of necessary and mine are different. It's a function that we can manage without, yes, bu…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:48 PM
2

Ears? Fuck ears.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:42 PM
3

We should stop the practice because it is wrong. Yes. Every other argument is secondary to this important fact.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:31 PM
1

There must be some kind of an issue here in CA if they pushing through a bill. This is not always correct. This is a proposition, which means a person or organization wrote this and it is going to a vote of the populace to be made law. Anyone can propose a proposition, and as long as they get the requisite paperwork / signatures, they can get it added to the ballot. If I could get the support for it, I could have a proposition renaming Sunday in California to Funday (which, come to think of it, …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:25 PM
2

Of all the complaints I've had to argue against for prop 35, this is the first one that is actually valid based on the reading of the proposition text. A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person. Specifically, it does not Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. It specifically requires those who are registered based on that specific Act to disclose those things. If you are a registered sex offender due to anything other …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:19 PM
1

I'm a 6.5 year old account with only 700 karma. Admittedly, over 6000 comment karma, but only 700 regular karma.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:14 PM
2

So your suggestion is to convict people without evidence?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:06 PM
3

Does anyone ask why this is the image pictured by that hiring individual? Is it gender discrimination, or is it that every female lab manager they've worked with has met that stereotype? Does she let it actually effect her hiring practices? There's a difference between having an image in your head and letting that image apply to all the people you meet. The ability to generalize is a really useful tool. Humans pretty much require that ability to function. You just don't apply your generalization…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 08:05 PM
1

Very well explained. I believe you got the downvotes because people were interpreting your statement to mean it wouldn't be bad if women were left to initiate sexual contact because men are incapable of doing so responsibly. In the context of your reply, I can see what you really mean is that sexual power unequally favors women, and forcing women to become initiators would have the effect of evening out the sexual power between the genders. That, I can agree with. I just wanted to know what you …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 07:45 PM
3

Especially not if they can point at their other employees and say "Hey look we hired women/black people. You just aren't what we're looking for." That seems to be a pretty strong argument to me, actually. If they have hired women, it's a pretty clear indication that they are willing to hire women. Especially if they have hired women in similar positions. I think the argument then becomes that women are trained from birth to make said decisions and using that as a way to determine who gets paid m…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 07:37 PM
0

That wouldn't be altogether a bad thing. Could you please explain this?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 06:21 PM
6

If they're not hired, you don't have to worry about paying them less. Which would also be illegal, and if that claim is being made, I have the same questions. This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Alternatively, there are merit systems that can be used to favor men, etc etc. It's pretty easy to get around that snippet as written. If the merit systems are specifically favoring men, then the merit system would run …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 06:15 PM
6

Awesome! I'm glad this came out right in the end. Let's just hope the university accepts the affidavit from the judge. Universities often use a different standard of evidence, so they're under no obligation to drop the investigation just because the judge has said it doesn't pass legal muster.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:56 PM
6

My questions still apply there, though. Okay, there was a study. If it's gender discrimination, why isn't it being prosecuted? I've seen links to the study, but I'll admit I haven't read it in full. No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a r…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:47 PM
-1

In fact easily in the top 10% least awful feminist boards I've seen. maybe it got worse recently. Is that really saying much?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:24 PM
-1

If they want that, they should make a private subreddit for it. Have 2 subreddits, one subreddit is open and is primarily used to request access to the second, private subreddit. The idea of an open forum (most of reddit) and a safe space are entirely incompatible. You can approximate it with heavy moderation, but that doesn't make it "safe" just "censored."
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:23 PM
39

Women cannot legally be paid less than men because of their gender. Let me repeat that. Women cannot legally be paid less than men because of their gender. So, we have two possibilities: Any wage gap between women and men is not due to gender discrimination. The vast majority of companies are criminally liable for gender discrimination. This article, and all conversations around the gender pay gap, assume number 2. And yet, these same people assuming number 2 are not suing for damages. They are …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:56 PM
1

Switch your square brackets and parentheses. link text [link text](http://google.com "title text")
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:44 PM
1

Behold!
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:57 PM
8

If you are male, you’re a man. Anyone else who tries to tell you otherwise is deluded. We may strive to be better human beings, but it has nothing to do with manhood. This. 100 times this. 1000 times this. We don't need to reclaim "man up," we need to kill it.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:43 PM
3

I try to use "Man" and "Woman," "Male" and "Female." I specifically do this not because I personally care, but it removes a target for derailing my argument. If I make a good argument, but use "girl" or "girls" someone is bound to come along and dismiss the whole argument. More importantly, other people looking on may not notice it for the derailment it is, and they will also ignore my argument. If i don't have easy gotchas, it becomes much more obvious to third parties what the actual argument …
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:25 PM
2

I agree with what's being said here. There really isn't enough information to form a valid opinion. I will say my initial reaction is to wonder "how could this happen?". The boy says there were 13 people there. The superintended says the class has an enrollment of 25. I'm assuming the teacher didn't just leave during the video. There was forceful pulling away, there was a call to stop. None of this was noticed by the teacher? This is going to sound like victim blaming, and it may be, but she did…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:20 PM
4

In general, I agree. It's the word "gentleman" and the implication that these male workers need to be nice in order to make the place more comfortable for women that bothered me.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:35 PM
17

Any young chef is desperate to prove themselves; I was as well, but I put myself under that added pressure to prove myself because I'm a woman too. She accepts that she put the pressure on herself, it wasn't some patriarchy or discrimination. there hadn't been too many women that had come through the kitchen and done well. The guys rolled their eyes and said, "She'll be gone in a week." A reasonable expectation given their past experience. I've been in this role for five years now, and I don't h…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 07:26 PM
5

Absolutely! It's about choice. If you're choosing to align yourself with a group, you're choosing to support that group. Any and all groups have negative influences, so I don't expect perfection, but at a minimum a willingness to accept criticism of your group and a willingness to admit to those negatives and agree that they need fixed is a requirement to earn my respect. When a group is almost entirely negative (as I believe feminism is), and you still choose to align yourself with said group, …
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:53 PM
6

Very succinctly put! I was just arguing that we already say this on this subreddit, so telling us we need to remember isn't really accurate. We do need to not ever forget though!
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:21 PM
1

I completely agree. I was engaged to my wife at the time, and I had no problem if that's what she wanted to do. I was offended that somehow her choice was worthy of shame. The only two people who should have a say in how our family works is she and I. edit: And she wouldn't be a stay at home mother, since we're childfree (by choice), just a stay at home wife.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:19 PM
6

I'm a little crazy, but I hope it's in a good way! Well, we're all a little crazy. I don't trust people who seem completely sane! You're welcome! :)
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:13 PM
1

My wife told one of her professors in college that she wanted to be a stay at home wife (turns out that's not what she wanted, but she thought it was at the time). Her professor shamed her for "wasting her potential." Apparently women are supposed to be able to make their own choices, as long as those choices come from the feminist approved list.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:11 PM
1

It's progress. This is an example where men are being told "You're not disposable, take care of yourself, you're worth it!" It's not exactly where I'd like to see awareness either, but right now I'll take whatever progress we can get towards not seeing men as disposable.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:57 PM
1

Baby steps. This is progress, even if it's small progress.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:56 PM
4

May I apologize of behalf of the crazy members of my gender, we aren't all mad. No, you may not! You are you. Do not feel shame unless you have been crazy. The mere fact of you being here and posting this, being aware that there are other points of view that are valid, is a strong indicator that you are not crazy and need not apologize.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:49 PM
1

I can see the appeal of your point of view, but disgruntled middle age women love to sue to test the system if there's any hint of vulnerability. Yeah, I'm definitely talking from an ideals perspective. I'm not sure how it would be well implemented. We already have this written in to law, but it is constantly challenged and has caused qualifications for various positions to be lowered. The concept is great, the real life implementation has, so far, been quite lacking.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:47 PM
18

You might also find /r/Womens_Rights interesting. It's designed to discuss women's rights outside of the sphere of feminism, purely on a rights basis, not on an ideological one.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:46 PM
22

that both subs need to remember Every time a woman has come here to apologize for crazy women, or crazy feminists or anything like that, she is always told not to apologize for her gender. It is almost always the top comment. I that we want to make sure we don't forget that, it is already the majority opinion here and not something new that needs to be brought to the table. Aside from that, I agree: don't apologize for your gender.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:45 PM
6

Where do professional feminists draw their power from? If nobody but they identified as feminist, they would lose their power very quickly.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:39 PM
3

Basically, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they can meet the qualifications. In addition, the qualifications should never be lowered to accommodate someone or a specific group. If the qualifications are set too high, go ahead and lower them across the board, but your group (gender, sex, sexuality, minority status, whatever) should never grant you different qualification requirements.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:16 PM
2

why is this an issue? The issue is the expectation that a man should risk himself for a woman. The voluntary choice to assume that risk is not an issue and every single person should be able to make that choice. This is a magazine article basically saying that part of being a man is risking your life for women, it's supporting the idea that men are worth less then women, that men are disposable. Again, your boyfriend doing this of his own accord is fine. I do the same with my wife. If I didn't d…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:12 PM
2

Obviously the person who has better eyesight, or is more often aware of their surroundings!
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:09 PM
7

That Cracked article was fine...until it ruined a perfectly good expose on how men are discriminated against by needing to remind everyone that women still have it worse. That right there is exactly what the entire previous article was basically talking about! We can't even talk about how something is bad for men without reminding everyone that women have it worse, which strongly implies we should just ignore the problem that we just finished talking about. How ridiculous is that?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:22 PM
8

Fair enough. I'll admit, I didn't go try to find it and read it in context. It just gets frustrating hearing how, even when women are the beneficiaries and men the discriminated against, it's somehow harmful to women and proves men are hateful misogynists.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:16 PM
3

However, I think the idea some women have in their heads that they are less responsible, comes from ages of a patriarchal society enforcing the idea that women are weak, hysterical, and can't be expected to make decisions, take care of themselves, or be held accountable for falling prey to their foolish feminine whims. How long has it been since women have been considered weak and hysterical? I've heard nothing about that my entire life, I've only heard things about girl power and how a girl can…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:10 PM
9

Half off drinks for those with Scottish heritage?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:50 PM
13

Wait a second. So ladies' nights, designed to get more men in the bars, under the assumption that men only think with their dicks, is discriminating against women somehow? In fact, that whole paragraph only talked about how women are negatively affected. I'll admit there may be some negative repercussions on women, but the entire concept of ladies' night treats men like their entire purpose in life is to chase women!
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:49 PM
3

Yes.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:45 PM
4

Apparently he already won his primary, so that's good!
/r/MensRights03/10/12 12:00 AM
2

If you win, make sure to come back and celebrate with us here! :)
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:55 PM
5

I personally read it as calling out frothy-mouthed Republicans. Specifically the ones who believe Obama is not a citizen. It seems like it was just a convenient analogy. I agree, though, that's it's walking a fine line, and it's better if we leave politics out of this place as much as possible (at least, party politics and politics unrelated to men's rights).
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:42 PM
1

*TL;DR: Odontophobia is the fear of teeth. * Thanks again for keeping us updated (and educated)!
/r/MensRights02/10/12 10:11 PM
2

/u/GirlWritesWhat speaks about Legal Paternal Surrender.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:25 PM
1

(aisle)
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:23 PM
1

The reddit formatting can be odd. If you make a list like: 1. list item one 2. list item two 3. list item three It shows up as: list item one list item two list item three But if you do it with breaking text: 1. list item one explanatory text 2. list item two explanatory text 3. list item three explanatory text It shows up as: list item one explanatory text list item two explanatory text list item three explanatory text
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:22 PM
2

...What?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:19 PM
5

But if somebody wants to commit a rape, wouldn't they do so and leave no evidence behind? What recourse should the rape victim have if this is the case? It's sad, but the rape victim should not have any legal recourse. Without evidence, there is no crime, and there can't be in any fair legal system. The rape victim should still have rape victims services available, because even without evidence (even if it isn't a rape, legally), they may still need psychological and emotional support and assist…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:13 PM
3

this is one of the few places I've seen discussion without the rhetoric! Take that, everyone who calls us crazy woman haters...
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:10 PM
9

Sorry, I should not have said "sole" responsibility. I should have said "his sister and her in-laws." I was merely trying to make the point that he doesn't bear responsibility for something that wasn't his decision, especially when he did try to prevent it. Specifically, the ultimatum that she will never forgive him if he doesn't attend the Bris is her responsibility. Even if her husband is pressuring her, the responsibility for that emotional damage and possible familial rift lies with her.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:07 PM
5

I disagree with him, there's not much more you could legally do. What you can do now is stick up for your own beliefs and your own respect, and don't allow ultimatums to be placed on you. Also, don't accept any responsibility for any hurt that comes from this.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:26 PM
1

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:08 PM
2

Agreed. Just as we don't want to be lambasted when some of our members say more controversial things, we shouldn't judge a whole community by the words of a few, or even by a single thread.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:07 PM
12

Stand up for your beliefs. You are not hurting anyone, though you may be hurt in return. Your sister gave you the ultimatum, you did not give it to her. Your sister had her child mutilated, the sole responsibility for all the hurt here lies on her shoulders. Even if there is some disagreement over the circumcision, asking you to come celebrate something you've made clear you oppose is disrespectful of you. Your sister carries all the fault here, from the circumcision to the disrespectful ultimat…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:03 PM
12

I wanted to take a stand, but if they're going to be that childish about me holding to my opinions then I guess it can't be helped. If they're going to be that childish, I'd say let them. If they're going to ostracize you from the family for not attending a celebration of something you have explicitly told them you disagree with, they are not worth it. Again, they are specifically ask you to celebrate genital mutilation. Give them an ultimatum: until they treat your position with respect, even i…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:00 PM
4

A theoretical perspective is not helpful when determining the effects of the real world upon people. In theory, MRAs and Feminists would get along famously, flanking the issues surrounding gender roles and gender inequality. In the real world, MRAs and Femininsts (big F, meaning organizations, lobbies, the people with actual power and influence) can't get along because those Feminists are not just for women's equality, they are for women's superiority and quite specifically against men's equalit…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:42 PM
3

Mary Kellett was Maine, not NH.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:25 PM
6

What happened over there? It used to be mostly just talking about the social issues women face. It was an interesting read, as a man, to see the different perspective that women have regarding social situations.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:22 PM
3

makes me ashamed to have a vagina sometimes. I realize this is probably hyperbole, but please don't ever be ashamed just because there are idiots that have the same sexual organs as you! Just as all men are not responsible for male rapists, you are not responsible for female idiots.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:20 PM
1

This is an archive of the NH Commission on the Status of Men's web site. The Commission ceased to exist as of June 30, 2011. As such this is no longer an official NH government web site and is being hosted privately The question is, I suppose, is there any move to bring it back? Would you (Robert Fisher) initiate or support such a move?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:04 PM
1

Thanks! I completely understand not being able to go into details.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:00 PM
5

I am going to go with Demonspawn on his response here Was...was that a pig...in the air?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:56 PM
1

I believe the Men's Commission was closed. If I remember correctly, the women's commission sunsetted and wasn't renewed, instead becoming a private organization, and although some wanted to continue the Men's Commission, it was decided to close that as well. I don't know the current status of that and I also could be mistaken.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:55 PM
0

Excessive intervention is going to do more harm than good. Isn't that even more reason to spend money researching intervention methods that aren't excessive?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:43 PM
4

Do you know if Lt. Col. Joel Kirk is going to have representation on Thursday, or if there's anything we can do to make sure he does have representation on Thursday?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:30 PM
7

How do we eliminate the chance of innocent people receiving jail time? How do we define consent in a workable manner? The first step is to enforce anonymity for the accuser and the accused. They both have reputations that may need protecting, and the mere accusation of rape can be enough to destroy someone's life. This gives a lot of incentive for a vindictive person to use an accusation as a weapon, even when they know it would never proceed to a conviction. The second is just to make sure the …
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:15 PM
1

Ack, I read that the other day and forgot which number was which. 1 in 188 is still a far cry from 1 in 4. It's also assuming that 90% of sexual assault goes unreported. Seriously, the 1 in 4 number is from almost 20 years ago. We've had 20 years of "men can stop rape" bullshit, and somehow the numbers haven't changed from 1 in 4? Perhaps it's time to try something else...like...I don't know...the truth, maybe?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:19 PM
0

The problem with this is that rape is really underreported. Giving the under-reporting rates (90%) the largest benefit of the doubt, the incidence of sexual assault on campuses is about 1 in 1,877 edit: Reading fail on my part. After including the theoretical 90% underreporting, it is 1 in 188, not 1 in 1,877.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:51 PM
1

It'll likely in the the region of 2 per year, this would highlight how exaggerated this issue is. Giving the under-reporting rates (90%) the largest benefit of the doubt, the incidence of sexual assault on campuses is about 1 in 1,877 edit: Reading fail on my part. After including the theoretical 90% underreporting, it is 1 in 188, not 1 in 1,877.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:50 PM
2

Because rape is so difficult to prove, and our justice system demands that crimes be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there are lots and lots of rapists that aren't convicted. This is false. The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:36 PM
1

http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:27 PM
20

It's the casual air of "she's probably lying" The presumption of innocence requires the assumption that the accuser isn't telling the entire truth. If we assume the accuser is telling the truth (in any crime), then we are not presuming the accused is innocent. Now, it doesn't need to be "lying," it could just be "mistaken" or "misinformed." (Again, speaking about all crime, not just rape).
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:44 PM
2

It's incredibly difficult to prove rape Ignoring unreported rape (since they never tried to prove it in those cases, we can't say whether or not it would be incredibly difficult to prove those cases), why do you believe it is incredibly difficult to prove rape? The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. In my own words: The conviction rate for rape is effectively identical to the …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:39 PM
1

Please note that I don't agree with this complaint, it's just the one I've seen. I guess that's the rational? I don't really know.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 11:47 PM
1

Okay then, mistakes happen. We get a fairly large amount of trolling, so we're often cautious, possibly overly so. It actually doesn't seem stupid to me, just off topic and possibly a false flag. I'm going to take you at your word that it wasn't a false flag attack, so don't feel stupid or bigoted.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:57 PM
2

Not the same article, but this subject was discussed yesterday.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:53 PM
1

You said "I". Did you make the original post? If so, why did you delete the user it was posted under? Why do you also post a comment here which sounds like you're responding to someone else's post? Mods, I have a suspicion this person is a false flagger or troll. At the very least, this post is off topic, which is against the mod policy.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:50 PM
2

Why is this being downvoted? It is unrelated to men's rights. In addition, since the user is deleted less than an hour after posting, I strongly suspect it's yet another person trying to get us to agree with a position so they can point out how bad we are.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:47 PM
2

that is a lie, of course. A lie implies intent, and I am in no way lying. They are also not using that fallacy, they are using hyperbole. If your idea is making an attempt, than you should have specifically said that. You didn't. You asked how we can stop it. You took a hardline position, and this person used hyperbole to show how ridiculous that hardline position is. Nobody said we shouldn't do anything at all, they contended your very specific question. You didn't ask what we can do to reduce …
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:08 PM
4

First of all, can my wife be the referee? Second, what does that have to do with anything? I'm not talking about some experiment, I'm talking about this specific case. In this specific case, this boy was not allowed on the team. The reason given was he performed far above an average girl on a fitness test. Unless they would use the same reasoning to disallow a girl onto the team, this is gender discrimination. It's as simple as that. Let's break this down: Person A (performs better than average …
/r/MensRights28/09/12 09:28 PM
2

Apparently glow in the dark condoms exist too! Now you see it. Now you don't. Now you see it. Now you don't.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 09:11 PM
1

They said far better, I believe. This doesn't invalidate your argument, it just means that they need to publish their expected distribution and disallow any players falling above that distribution. Well, either that or they could continue in their sexism. It's not like they'll suffer any consequences for being sexist against men.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:48 PM
1

I'm confused by the school's backing. The school can back him very easily: "Let him play or close the team." I don't understand how the school can be backing him without him automatically getting in. How does a third party sports league have more say about what goes on at a school than the school administration?
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:43 PM
6

This boy is not being allowed to play because he specifically performed far better than an average girl, not because men in general perform better than an average girl. This is gender discrimination unless they would also disallow a girl who performed far better than an average girl.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:41 PM
10

First, I'm not a very good advocate, but basically where we're at right now is that people need to be aware that men can be discriminated against, are being discriminated against, and deserve to be treated equitably, not as disposable. genuinely equal pay [for both genders] Second, this idea doesn't have much traction among the MRM since all evidence points to there already being equitable pay for both genders. The majority of the pay gap can be explained by different life choices made by women …
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:36 PM
7

You keep saying that, and yet your initial question is a nirvana fallacy. The nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. You're comparing actual things (rape instances in real life) with unrealistic, idealized alternatives (rape is stopped!). The person you are responding to is NOT using the nirvana fallacy. They are showing examples of how you used the nirvana fallacy, and ridiculing you for it. How can we stop rape? We cannot stop …
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:25 PM
1

The most common complaint I've heard about that poster is that it is sexist because it links to A Voice for Men.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 08:05 PM
3

The overall movement publishes nice academic articles. The movement that actually does stuff is regularly opposed to men's rights (as I said elsewhere). Often it seems to be unintentionally harmful. I'm not going to say they (always) intend their activism to be harmful, but in this case, intent isn't important.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:59 PM
3

If you have links to prominent people who act how you describe them, that's something I want to know about. Is the National Organization for Women prominent enough? I think the major disconnect lies in the definition. When people here are angry at feminism and feminists, they aren't speaking about a random individual equity feminists. They're talking about the movers and shakers of the feminist world. The academics who teach false rape statistics, the organizations that oppose supporting men's s…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:56 PM
1

People have told me they won't come to this subreddit and post because they tried in the past and were stalked. I'm not going to deny this happened to them, but they shouldn't accuse this sub of being so bad when the subs that they support do the same damn thing, and do it far more publicly.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:57 PM
-3

correlates Using this word correlates with being awesome.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 11:30 PM
1

Hey, I'm finally on one of these lists! I feel so special now! =D
/r/MensRights27/09/12 11:24 PM
2

For example, knowingly receiving rent from a roommate that you know is engaged in prostitution could be legally construed as pimping. Ridiculous and completely untrue. Which part of Section 6 supports this claim? Many women in the sex business are independent workers. They don’t have a pimp. In which case nothing in this proposition will effect them. Why are you bringing them up? If she pays a phone company for a phone to do business, does this make the phone company a pimp? Why would it? They a…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 11:07 PM
7

What will be interesting is to see if any of them are prepared to change their view or apologize when they realise the mistake they've made. The answer is, no they aren't. As of writing this I have 9 upvotes and 3 downvotes. I have 3 downvotes for doing nothing but correcting a persons misinformation. I don't give an opinion, I don't say anything other than correcting something that was factually incorrect (what you said). I didn't even make a claim as to the truth of your statement, I merely qu…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:41 PM
1

I think I might be confused. A legal guardian here in the U.S. is someone who is legally responsible for the care of a child. Most of the time, that person is also the parent, but there are times when that isn't the case. Here, the law considers this man the legal father of the child, and he is suing for visitation rights, not even custody or guardianship. It seems like, in the U.S. at least, legal guardianship is the same as legal custody.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:16 PM
2

You need to read the fine print! It is obvious that you didn't. Actually, I read the entire proposition, and followed many of the references back to the actual penal code it's referring to, taking hours of my own time to do the research. This was about a week or so back in a disagreement with my friend. It puts innocent people in jail. How? You keep saying this without showing how this update to the penal code can do such a thing. We need prop 35 since California men can rape children in front o…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:11 PM
4

How do they even justify that? They don't. Justify implies that their reaction is based on reason. It's based on pure ideology. The concept of misandry is in opposition to their ideology so they don't believe it, and their own confirmation bias supports this viewpoint. Try getting one of them to explain why "misandry don't real" and you'll quickly see their justifications fall apart. Or as Factory2 put it: Rationalization hamster.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 09:57 PM
1

No it can't be. Coercion is very specifically defined. Heck, I even copied the definition for you! There needs to be: intent to cause a person to believe there would be serious harm, physical restraint, abuse or threatened abuse, debt bondage, or being their drug dealer. "Insulting them" in NO WAY matches any of these. The definition is VERY specific. edit: As to reading the fine print, I would suggest that you do so. Start with Section 6, which defines what is being changed in the penal code. L…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:55 PM
0

Rape victims are approximately 50/50 male/female (ignoring the prison population). Rape perpetrators are approximately 60/40 male/female (ignoring that same prison population). This blog post goes over the number and cites many sources. edit: I had my 40/60 backwards. I was trying very hard not to change the male/female order to avoid confusing people and I still wrote something wrong. :(
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:21 PM
1

The girl is obviously contesting this guy saying it was coerced, not consensual. Why didn't she contest this when the case originally was argued? I really hate to sit here and say that I know which way it happened, because I definitely don't. And neither do I, which is why I've repeatedly said that unless there is reason otherwise, he should be granted the same rights as any other parent. But if the dudes description of events is accurate, even then, I'd say that's not the best person to be havi…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 07:04 PM
1

More important, any intimacy with a woman under 18 years old (even if the "perpetrator" is also under 18) results in a penalty as follows This claim is not supported by the law. Any use of coercion in a commercial sex act falls under this law. Coercion, for the sake of this law, is defined as: (1) "Coercion" includes any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; the abuse…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 06:30 PM
2

No, this proposition doesn't do what you're saying it does. I had a LONG argument with someone on this already. The text is here. Please note: underlined text is being added to the existing penal code, strikethrough text is being removed. The blog posts there are terrible. The claims you've made are not backed up by the actual text of the law. Every single part of Section 6 is based on coercion. Coercion, for the sake of this law, is defined as: (1) "Coercion" includes any scheme, plan, or patte…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 06:29 PM
1

This guy created this situation, single-handedly. According to his lawyer, the relationship and intercourse was consensual. The reason it is rape is because society has decided that a 14 year old cannot legally consent to sexual activities with anyone 18 or older. Forced pregnancy on this adolescent, forced life on this child. Nobody can force a female to carry a child or to carry it to term. She had every opportunity to abort, but chose not to. I don't care if it was religious reasons, religion…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 06:10 PM
1

I agree that the case is very weird. The family's lawyer is saying they just want to cut all ties, but that they want child support. They now want the original probation offer to be modified to be restitution instead of legal parenthood. This sounds very much like the family is doing everything they can to get money out of this guy. At the same time, this guy is now the father, paying child support, and is looking to get some benefit from paying child support. He's not looking to benefit from th…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:57 PM
1

The presumption should be that convicted rapists of the mothers should have parental rights terminated from the get go. Why? Other than an emotional response, I haven't seen much reasoning behind this position. This ties into the stereotype that the child is owned by the mother, and the father only has access if the mother is okay with it. This guy was let out of jail on one proviso, pay child support. So now he wants to use the state's charity to him as a lever. Wrong, this guy was let out of j…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:22 PM
1

I don't write just for the person I'm replying to, I also write for anyone else who may be reading. Also, many people I've talked to hold your opinion, are willing to admit they may be biased, but still believe they're right. I try to avoid assumptions.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:31 PM
1

Conviction of rape of the mother should be trivial for terminating parental visitation. If it truly is trivial to terminate parental visitation based on his conviction, then why the outrage for him asking a court to make this decision? I have two teenage daughters about that age, I may be biased. I'm pretty sure you're very biased. This reaction is exactly why the victims of crimes are not the deciders of justice. This is exactly how "think of the children" laws are put into place, even when tho…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:25 PM
1

I don't see point 1 as being applicable, per se. He is legally considered the father of the child. He is not currently considered a guardian. In fact, it seems to me that the entire case is tied very closely to the idea of default shared custody. If he wishes shared custody of the child, he should have shared custody of the child, unless the court determines he is an unfit parent. People are outraged that he's even asking the court to decide this. It's this outrage I can't understand.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:16 PM
1

I'm not sure I understand why any of that matters. The child is partially his. The courts have acknowledged the child is partially his. Unless there is evidence he would make an unfit parent, there should not be a cause to deny him visitation rights. This goes straight back to "default shared custody" as an ideal. By default, unless one parent is shown to be unfit or one parent does not want custody, the custody should be shared. Having sex with a post-pubescent individual does not indicate an i…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:13 PM
3

There actually is virtually undeniable evidence that many employers really do discriminate against women, whether in hiring or salaries, in cases where subjectivity plays a big role. I'm willing to agree that some employers may discriminate, but you're claiming virtually undeniable evidence that many employers discriminate based on gender. I'm going to need to see a source for that. I agree with the rest of what you said, case studies here are just a fancy way of saying "anecdote" (I'm not sayin…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:09 PM
1

He is being forced to pay child support by the state, that's what I mean by parental responsibilities. The family's lawyer is claiming they just want to cut all ties...but they still want the child support. They just want it to be called "restitution." Basically, they want to turn this man into a source of income for the next 15 years (the child is 3 now). Other than that, you're right, he did engage in an act that can lead to parental responsibilities. He's now being expected, and forced by the…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:06 PM
1

I wasn't arguing over the relevance of the study in this case, only that from what I can see the study was run properly for what it is. I hate when that happens... Also, just as a quick note, it looks like your article mentions extra counselling specifically in one Ugandan study(not the one I linked to). Ah...as I said, I'm not really qualified to critique the methodology...I make too many stupid mistakes like that. Thanks for making sure I'm staying honest! In my opinion, us skeptics have to ca…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 11:29 PM
4

This seems like kind of a dumb post (even to me), but I'm here to answer any questions that anyone may have. I don't really have any questions, but because of your explanation for how this relates and belongs here, I don't think it sounds dumb! Not that I'm the arbiter of dumb or anything. :p
/r/MensRights26/09/12 11:11 PM
7

the wage gap can be explained down to 7 cents on the dollar by their measurable factors? By their measurable factors that they thought to measure. If the wage gap is supposedly 23 cents, but we can quite easily explain it down to 7 cents by factoring in certain choice differences, doesn't it make sense that the last 7 cents could be explained by things we haven't thought to look at? The last numbers I saw had it down to 2%, but unfortunately I lose the really good source I had that explained it …
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:59 PM
2

I agree with you except for: for the identity of our birth. I do not consider religion an inherent trait.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:52 PM
3

The interesting thing is the statement by his lawyer that they were in a consensual relationship... if they were it's likely the father would be considered a guardian of the child, and therefore deserving of visitation (at least that's how I believe it works here in New Zealand). The question will be, does the father being a rapist mean that they can not be trusted to provide adequate care for the child during any visitation. If they were in a consensual relationship, then the father is only a r…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:50 PM
0

From every angle, it's proposterous that he can sue for visitation. Why? He's being expected to pay for the child, he's being forced to have parental responsibilities. Should he not receive parental rights?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:47 PM
4

I'd say you have two options. Drop it Let her fully explain herself, ask questions respectfully, ask for her sources, and ask for her reasoning behind why she believes there is a wage gap. If you opt for number 2 and she claims there is a wage gap and she believes it is due to sexual discrimination, argue against that specifically. Technically she's correct, there is a wage gap. The problem is, the phrase "wage gap" has a lot of baggage these days. Try to find out the baggage she's attaching to …
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:43 PM
5

Done, tried, and I still find a lot wrong with it Then perhaps explain what you find wrong with the assertions? Also, do so either without any references to some invisible patriarchy, or with a very specific definition of what you mean by patriarchy, and very clearly explain the relationship. Let's put it this way. The people who post here regularly have heard many different definitions of patriarchy, as the definition changes every time one definition is refuted. To people here, you're just ano…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:39 PM
6

She says that until I can provide evidence that men and women in the same positions are earning the same amount that I am wrong. You can't provide that, because it doesn't exist. You might try to instead convince her that yes, there is a wage gap, but it is not based on sexual discrimination. It sounds like she has already made up her mind (wage gap == sexual discrimination), so unless you can show there is no wage gap, there must be sexual discrimination.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:26 PM
2

I agree, but abuse is not the same as a mental disorder. I would agree with some type of legal definition and use for PAS, but whether or not it is a mental disorder (belonging in the DSM) seems to need more research.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:22 PM
2

Might want to consider reading links, considering the abbreviations are both in the title of the post, the linked article, and the Wikipedia pages I linked. Not only are the abbreviations used there, they are fully explained there. I'll give you the "too lazy to read version": PAS -> Parental Alienation Syndrome DSM -> Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:21 PM
1

My point for number 3 was pretty much that even if the entire study was taken as true, western nations already have a very low risk of getting HIV. I believe this study says it reduces the risk by 60%. If we take that number at face value and assume it is applicable to western nations (as proponents of MGM are doing), we can get some numbers and see if these numbers justify MGM as a means of HIV reduction. In the U.S., approximately 1.2 million people have HIV. I can't find a gender split, so le…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:18 PM
2

I didn't know that, that's pretty awful. :( Yeah, that can be really painful. The fee is unethical, in my opinion. It gives those involved an incentive to award child support even when it isn't needed. As I said, you're a good person, and this attitude is wonderful! I wish you all the best in getting this worked out!
/r/MensRights26/09/12 09:53 PM
10

"He hasn't cared up until now. Why should he now? She's three. She doesn't know who he is," the teen mother told FOX Undercover. He cares because he's being forced to foot at least part of the bill for this child. If you don't want the father to have any involvement in the life of your child, that's fine, but that the father shouldn't have any involvement in the life of your child. Financially supporting the child is involvement. edit: "All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist ou…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:34 PM
2

I'm not sure that a case can be made for including PAS in the DSM. I was looking at it briefly the other day, and it doesn't seem to have a lot of scientific support. It has been proposed to get further research, which seems to be the stage at which it's at. parental alienation disorder does appear as a "Condition Proposed by Outside Sources" to be reviewed by a working group. Even proponents of PAS, who believe it's a real thing, agree it needs more study. Proponents of PAS concur that large sc…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:15 PM
2

Why is this always brought up? This is a stupid and useless comparison. What was stated: Group A is comparable to Group B What you said: The least bad item from Group A is in no way comparable to the worst item from Group B! How can you say the groups are comparable!? What you should have said: You're right, there are different types of MGM that are comparable to different types of FGM. While the worst FGM may be worse, both are wrong.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:06 PM
2

This one's easy! He can stop paying for your car and stop paying the $700 in mortgage, and instead you pay it out of the $1000 you get from child support. The entire thing is stupid, though, since the entire reason the state wants to enforce this is so they can take their cut. Good on you for not only trying to be fair, but going out of your way to make sure the state isn't being unfair! You're a good person and should feel good about yourself!
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:54 PM
1

And the post specifically said "most" in multiple places, acknowledging that there are some feminists that don't fall in the generalization.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:29 PM
2

If a thread is posted in a different subreddit that is relevant to this subreddit, why shouldn't it be posted? If that other subreddit doesn't want the opinion of outsiders, they can make it a private subreddit, otherwise it is a public forum. If it's relevant, why shouldn't someone with knowledge on the topic speak up? If it's relevant, why shouldn't faulty logic and incorrect information be downvoted? I'm not advocating downvote brigades, but I do believe that incredibly uninformed or misandri…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:22 PM
2

South African culture is different than western nations Education and condom availability are generally lacking The overall prevalence of HIV is higher in South Africa than in western nations They only controlled for circumcision, not for the HIV status of sexual partners Even if every part of that study is completely valid, even if it were done perfectly, the results are not applicable to western nations and should not be used to justify male genital mutilation in western nations with low preva…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:14 PM
4

Actually, in this one area, most feminists I've talked to and read about are generally opposed to male genital mutilation, including circumcision. Unfortunately, most of them also see it as either a low priority or an unwinnable battle. I don't see this as an example of feminists being sadists, but I do see it as an example that "feminism helps men too" isn't true.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:43 PM
1

used to stare and say inappropriate things until I very firmly told him to stop. And then you told him to stop and he did...I'm not really seeing where the problem is? You were uncomfortable, you took responsibility for that by letting the other person know, the other person stopped doing the thing that made you uncomfortable. Sure, it would be awesome if you weren't uncomfortable in the first place...but it happens.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:33 PM
1

Gotcha! I read it pretty much the exact opposite. I thought you were saying that the feminist definition of sexism (prejudice + power) successfully carries all the connotations and therefore should be the accepted definition. You're saying that feminism cannot redefine sexism, because even if they do, the use of the word still carries the connotations that are outside their definition. Does that sound right?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:01 PM
1

Wait...when are those times?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 09:49 PM
1

Common usage according to whom? "Prejudice + power" is not at all what I mean when I use the word sexism, nor is it what anyone has implied to me except for when that other person was attempted to deny their own sexism.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 09:38 PM
4

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/103ha2/gentlemen_i_need_trustworthy_information_on/c6aa8k8
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:25 PM
1

Where did you ask? Did you ask using the feedback form? If this is true, you might want to bring it to the attention of one of the larger subreddits, where it could get more attention. I'm not sure which would be appropriate. Maybe /r/TheoryOfReddit?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 11:21 PM
3

Many people here see feminism using the tools of censorship, both public and private. Many people here are opposed to feminism for a multitude of reasons. When these same people see a feminist subreddit advocating censorship, they oppose that, vocally, as they see it as another attempt at silencing a dissenting viewpoint. I have to ask, why does it matter? The people who will see /r/mensrights as supportive of the content of /r/beatingwomen likely already have a negative view of this subreddit. …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 09:08 PM
3

And yet...nobody is defending the content of those subreddits. People are defending the right for opposing viewpoints to exist openly, that is all.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:51 PM
2

Why? If the sole custodial parent wishes child support, they can share custody, which would inherently share costs. If they can't share custody due to the other parent being abusive, I have no problem with seeing child support in those cases as a form of restitution for the abuse. If both parents are capable of being a parent, why is their a sole custodial parent in the first place?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:07 PM
1

Unfortunately, I actually like the admin policy of being mostly hands off. If we could get SRS banned, I wouldn't cry about it, but I don't want it in exchange for a more involved admin team.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:51 AM
5

Agreed. I actually think it would be nice if this could be used as precedent for shutting down SRS.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:44 PM
2

People who can admit when they're wrong are awesome. Congratulations on being awesome!
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:30 PM
2

Thanks for the polite response! :)
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:28 PM
2

"Mind Warp Trivia" is actually a great thing, in my opinion. If you answer honestly, and she gets pissed, it's time to end that relationship! The same goes for men asking women "Mind Warp Trivia", although I haven't heard of that happening.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:13 PM
6

Have you contacted the admins about their reasoning? When doing so, ask how that subreddit was different from the actions of the SRS subreddit. http://www.reddit.com/feedback/
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:53 PM
6

And the child is being adequately supported by a single parent. Why should a non-custodial parent be required to pay for a child (edit: that is being adequately supported by the custodial parent)? If they are in a partial-custody arrangement, they obviously already pay to support the child. Your statement doesn't support the idea that a child needs the financial support of two parents.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:49 PM
2

Why should it be?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:21 PM
1

Clothing choice has not been correlated with rape in any major study. People who talk about what the victim was wearing aren't necessarily victim blaming, though, they're just ignorant. Heavy drinking, however, is correlated with rape. Not just regret-sex, but actual rape, being unable to fend off the rapist, being unconscious, being unable to say "no" and the person assuming a yes, real honest to goodness rape. Still, telling a victim after the fact isn't really helpful, but giving advice to pe…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:19 PM
1

This was posted 3 hours ago. I am calling it a repost: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/107gbm/child_support_xpost_from_rfacepalm/
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:15 PM
6

Maybe she had completely spent her income covering her child, and now that she has this money to give her a little breathing room, funds that were previously used for her child are now free to be spent as she wishes? Given your scenario, she doesn't require child support to support the child. Every argument against child support is responded to with something about the money being required to support the child. If the mother can support the child without income from the father, that is no longer…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:28 PM
1

It does not imply a hatred of women, it makes a generalization about women. Generalizations are not hatred, therefore it's not misogyny. Historically speaking, the gender role of men was to protect women, and if men failed to provide this role, they weren't considered "men" and were likely to become outcasts. It follows that, at least historically, the linked comment would be the likely result. In modern times, it is arguable that the majority of society still sees the role of men as the protect…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:13 PM
8

I'm just kind of amused at the both of you. Sometimes you both say really insightful things, other times you both appear to be trolling. I vote based on the comment, so it's not a problem, it's just fascinating to watch!
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:08 PM
3

She may indeed be a nutcase.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:01 PM
8

The sometimes troll SuicideBanana being called out as a troll by the sometimes troll Manzboobz...
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:57 PM
2

because as much of a wimp i seem now for this No, do not belittle yourself. You were in a bad situation and were confused. You were taken advantage of. That doesn't make you a wimp. Staying away from her is a good idea. i dont really know what to make of it. What you make of it is up to you, but don't belittle yourself over this.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:39 PM
1

There is a correlation between excessive alcohol consumption and non-stranger rape though, so giving advice about drinking safely could be helpful, and could be considered advocating for personal responsibility. Even this advice is rejected as "victim blaming" or "women should be able to do whatever they want and be safe!"
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:24 PM
2

the new absurd definitions of rape. I see that as the "personal responsibility" versus "victim blaming" debate. Thinking that someone who agrees to sex after "nagging" is rape is a removal of personal responsibility (and a subsequent weakening of the term rape). Saying the person should have left the situation (advocating personal responsibility) is called out as victim blaming.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:23 PM
1

The problem with those links are what exactly? The first one makes a fair comparison, holding people accountable for taking reasonable precautions in any crime is not considered victim blaming...except for when it comes to rape. This is a discussion that exists within the sphere of men's rights because it is a case where women are not expected to be held responsible for their actions while men are. The cry of "victim blaming" when no victim blaming has actually occurred is just a method for remo…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:17 PM
8

In the last 10 years, the male prison population has increased 45 percent, while that of women is up 81 percent. The law is becoming less gender biased in sentencing. Women are starting to face justice at increased rates, whereas men, who already faced a large sentencing disparity, are seeing less of a disparity, so their increase in prison population is just following the "normal" trend of locking everyone up based on an increasingly complicated legal system. 73 percent of women in state prison…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 04:52 PM
1

I stated my opinion, and you were free to refute it. Even if this politician is completely worthy of discussion, I still don't feel this picture is a worthwhile submission. As far as reporting it, I am of the opinion it is a meme, since it follows the image macro form pretty closely. Memes are against the mod policy. It's not up to my final judgement if it is a meme or not, but I decided to bring the post to the mod attention via reporting it. I never report something because I don't personally …
/r/MensRights20/09/12 03:40 PM
1

imposing on someone, in a repeated way, words or actions that have a sexual connotation (emphasis mine) It sounds like they're specifically talking about "checking someone out" in a repeated fashion. I'm very leery of how this law will be used. What is repeated? What is "looking at someone up and down"? It seems very easily open for "he said, she said" style abuse. It's not quite as bad as you made it out to be, but I agree that it is worrisome.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:14 PM
3

You make a very good point. Sorry if I sound critical, we get a lot of useless troll posts around here, especially for young accounts and first time posters, so unless it's obvious I like to get clarification of how something is related. On the topic, it's definitely an interesting correlation. Men have been increasingly discriminated against in family court, and at the same time we're seeing a decrease in marriages. It seems to me the two are likely related, but it's hard to tell. What would be…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 10:00 PM
2

Links can't have text, only self posts can have text. If you have a link, either include it in the self post text, or do what you did here and leave a comment. I'm curious, how do you feel this is related to men's rights? It's interesting, I'm just not sure it's related...feel free to prove me wrong!
/r/MensRights19/09/12 09:02 PM
8

(note: This is apparently satire, which would explain everything...I'm not mentally alert enough right now to make my own judgement call on this.) Don't underestimate women, there are definitely times when individual men have needed the protection of individual women. It usually isn't physical, but even that has happened. It just isn't the norm, and expressing it as if it is the norm is mind boggling. For the slowing down, it is entirely topic dependent. When my wife talks about her area of expe…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:59 PM
6

No, I'm a redditor just like any other. My initial post specifically asked for how this was relevant. I did not get a response saying how this was relevant, instead I got two responses telling me to do my own research. In other words, I got two responses specifically telling me that this post wasn't relevant, but the politician in question may be. As far as trolling goes, my question of relevancy is specifically there to prevent trolling. We get a lot of trolling on the new page, but I like to g…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:54 PM
5

If it is satire, you're right, it is very good satire. I don't have the mental energy to process satire today, so I'll go ahead and defer to your judgement on this one.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:41 PM
7

This post is irrelevant. Whether I can discover issues about this prime minister on my own or not is irrelevant. The purpose of posts is to show something, and this link does not do so. In fact, this post would probably be considered a meme, being basically an image macro, and therefore against mod policy.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:37 PM
4

Then post to a link about that, not this image macro. If you are trying to make a point or present an issue, the burden is on you to present it, not on the readers here to try to understand what you mean. Without context, your post has no value here.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:35 PM
1

I didn't take it as patronizing. Honestly, I know some people don't like it, but I much prefer the approach you took with the explanation. Your way, if I hadn't known, I would now. Without that, we would have needed another round of clarifications! I'm going to offer some advice based on our conversation. If this feels patronizing, I apologize now, as I absolutely do not intend it that way. My advice is, when reading this subreddit, try to keep in mind my point of view on this topic. I'm not say…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:33 PM
10

Please explain how you believe this is related to men's rights. From my point of view, it's a stupid picture making the same tired old "politicians bad!" joke and it doesn't have anything to do with people here. This isn't the "let's show negative portrayals of women" subreddit. This is the men's rights subreddit, which often shows negative portrayals of a specific woman in order to discuss the double standards of a situtation.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:26 PM
27

I couldn't even read through the whole thing. It was incredibly belittling of men. It treated men as if we're all children who need women around to care for us. No men around to worry about, to protect, to impress, to slow down for. Wait, what? Men, historically and currently, are considered the protectors of women. It's only anecdotal, but every woman I've talked to about it will admit that they try to impress other women or possibly a specific man (husband, boyfriend), not "men." What does "to…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:20 PM
6

Actually, to be fair it's really more like a long term exclusive escort, since you are probably going to be utilizing the "sugar baby" for more than just sex. Note: I am not trying to be in any way derogatory towards prostitutes or escorts. I have no issues with either profession. I'm just calling a spade a spade. This website feels dishonest to me because of the relabeling involved.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:12 PM
1

I'm glad we came to a respectful disagreement (note, I didn't downvote you above). It's much more pleasant than angry disagreement. Thanks for explaining the TW! I know what a trigger warning is, I just had no idea that's what "[TW]" means.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:06 PM
14

I agree with others here. As long as their is no deceit involved, I see no issue with any of this. Because of alimony laws and child support laws, I would strongly suggest anyone using that site never ever marry the person they are a sugar daddy of, and to ensure your own infertility via a vasectomy first. Honestly, I would rather prostitution just be legalized, since this is effectively prostitution anyways, just long term exclusive prostitution via a dating site. They even quites specifically …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:03 PM
1

I've already determined /u/Grapeban and I disagree at a fundamental level, but your second paragraph really stuck out as very important. It seems like you are responding to: The fundamental difference between coercion and seduction is the attitude of the person when they are having the sex. If they are convinced into having sex, but don't actually want to have sex at the time, they have been coerced. If they have the sex, and actually want to have the sex at the time, then they've been seduced. …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:57 PM
2

There's two issues being discussed here, and I should clarify my position in both of them. There's the purely legal issue. From a purely legal standpoint, /u/Grapeban doesn't have a leg to stand on. I don't believe they are actually disbuting this, however, which leads us to the second issue. The second issue being discussed isn't what is legal or illegal, it is discussing what is right and wrong, and consequently what should be legal or illegal. The first issue is a purely factual one, and can …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:49 PM
5

What's the harm of allowing people to coerce people into sex? People get raped. This is tautological. You're saying that coercive sex must be defined as rape because coercive sex must be defined as rape. We already determined we disagree on basic principles elsewhere (and you were remarkably consistent, which I can respect, even if I disagree), so I'm only pointing out this falacious argument here, not trying to convince you.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:36 PM
6

Well, that clarified your position for me nicely. We will never come to an agreement on this, because I am of the strong opinion that people can say no and are responsible for their own actions, including giving in to persuasion. I believe strongly that a person agreeing to something, as long as their is not deceit or withholding of information, should be held responsible, no matter the nagging involved. We won't come to an agreement because you and I are arguing from different places. I believe…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:23 PM
1

Last I heard, France just passed a law that will jail men for gazing at a woman the wrong way. [citation needed]
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:09 PM
2

As it turns out, having both a male reproductive parts and a lighter skin pigment doesn't inhibit your ability to give a shit about people that aren't you. Very true, but your anecdote can't identify trends. Trends should not be used to classify all individuals in a group (Men can stop rape!), but trends CAN be used to identify problem areas and attempt to rectify them (More people in the "deep south" bully gays, we should implement programs to identify bullying, increase awareness, and increase…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:08 PM
5

The major argument used against assisted suicide in Britain is that providing the option means that people will feel pressured into taking that option, the option to die becomes the duty to die. That logic is also flawed. Under that logic, merely requesting sex could be considered coercion, and if coercion is considered rape, than trying to actively seek consent could be considered rape. To your other points: A tattoo is permanent. Getting a tattoo could result in negative lifelong events. A tat…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 07:02 PM
1

While I disagree with your original comment, I hope people can recognize that this specific comment is a very fair rebuttal to Ma99ie's comment.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:32 PM
6

Why is sex different than any other interaction? If you buy a car because the salesman nags you to buy it, you still have bought the car, nothing illegal occurred. If you bought something because of advertising on television, you were coerced, but that is perfectly legal. Sex is an interaction, you can either agree to the interaction or not agree to the interaction. In any other human interaction, coercion (or peer pressure, or nagging, or whatever you call it) doesn't invalidate the interaction…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:31 PM
1

Why is this on /r/mensrights?
/r/MensRights19/09/12 05:20 PM
12

men are somehow (unintentionally) sexualizing little girls. How can someone unintentionally sexualize something? If I say something that is not intended to sexualize that thing, and you find that it is sexualizing that thing, I am not the one sexualing it, you are. Sexualization specifically requires intent. It specifically requires the intent to treat something sexually. At the VERY least, it requires sexual feelings. Unless using the word panties makes someone think of a little girl in a sexua…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 11:39 PM
2

/r/loseit /r/Fitness Remember, weight loss is 80% diet. You can do it! =D
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:54 PM
2

That's not really a fair comparison though. Can anyone really compare to The God Damned Batman?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:53 PM
2

Male teachers, by contrast, awarded them higher marks than external examiners. I actually had missed that line, thanks for pointing it out. You're right, this is discrimination. I'm of the opinion that positive discrimination is just as harmful in education as negative discrimination.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:29 PM
2

True feminists will be on our side believing in human rights as being equal regardless of gender. Femi-nazis are the crazies who want to see men eradicated since to them we are "useless counterparts". This is a textbook case of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It even uses "true" in the example! His argument is that we shouldn't go lumping all feminists into one crazy boat, but his arguments for why we shouldn't do so is fallacious. A fallacious argument means the conclusion itself is fallacious, s…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:05 PM
2

NAFALT is just the other side of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Using the phrase is almost never helpful to the discussion at hand. Remember, a fallacy is not ALWAYS a fallacy, it is always contextual. Look at the following (made up) scenario: News: Feminists lobby for a law creating a new governmental grant program to help more women enter college. MRA: With limited space for college, this harms men, who are already underrepresented in college environments. This right here is an example of how…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:01 PM
3

While in the elevator, the man expressed interest in talking to Rebecca some more and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. She declined, but felt that she had been sexualised in the process. She also said it made her very uncomfortable to be approached this way, and suggested to ‘guys’ that – as a general rule – they should not to do this You don't see anything wrong with publicly shaming someone for expressing interest in her, just because that someone was a man and it was in an elevator? …
/r/MensRights18/09/12 07:55 PM
2

I agree that is very misandric. I'm curious, what discussion are you looking for? I doubt anyone here will disagree that calling all men borderline rapists ("and sometimes they'll just force you to.") is wrong.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 07:28 PM
201

Meh. Yahoo answers. No need to be ashamed about your gender over trolls trolling trolls.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:47 PM
1

You shouldn't feel stuck in an unhappy marriage because you can't afford to leave. I agree, but why should the person who makes more money support you if they've done nothing wrong? Everyone always talks about the sacrifice of the carer, but nobody ever discusses the sacrifice of the earner. The earner must make a certain amount to keep them in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, even if the earner would rather work a lesser job, or even not work at all except odd jobs to feed themselves. The …
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:31 PM
3

I could see a tangential relationship, I guess. I also see it tangentially related because MRAs are generally opposed to political correctness, which I see this as. Unfortunately, nothing in this story helps us determine anything, so I don't see this specific link as useful. The story in general, with many more details, might spark useful discussions, but here the only useful discussion comes from first creating what may be a straw man of this woman. With the lack of information, it's just as ea…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:20 PM
1

Agreed. There do seem to be correlations between certain behaviors and the risk of being raped, but modest clothing doesn't really seem to be one.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:16 PM
1

You didn't postulate that though, you asked how writing was inherently girl friendly. That is a valid postulation, but I'd argue that the number of successful male authors is evidence against a genetic inability to write as well as women. It may lead to a genetic problem with the specific type of writing required by schools, but that just leads back to my questions above, where I ask if it's possible schools just aren't accommodating how boys learn (or in this case, how they write). Not all post…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:14 PM
2

Might be interesting from a "I'd like to know" point of view, but not really a men's rights point of view.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:07 PM
11

There is a source up there. She received hate mail and threats by private messages (which she will be reporting to police); and was publicly bullied, shamed, and silenced by a number of my friends and fellow activists. (emphasis mine) edit: In fact, the very line you quoted is a link to the source.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:09 PM
7

know that the answer to the question being asked is a resounding NO. So...this was set up to allow MRAs to hang themselves, and then feminists act exactly like the radicals that MRAs are calling them, and yet somehow the answer is STILL that the MRAs are wrong and that feminism hasn't gone too far? How do you...what...I don't.....what?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:04 PM
3

This notwithstanding, there is no good evidence that what you wear has a causal relationship to your chance of being sexually assaulted; there's a correlation for sure, but the trend doesn't hold in a controlled regression. Additionally, you are far more likely to be raped in your own home by someone you know than by a stranger on a night out so many feminists see the emphasis on controlling what women wear as needless and oppressive. Personally, I think it's 'pointless' rather than 'oppressive'…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:51 PM
6

Stupid, but not men's rights. Not even related to gender discrimination, really, since both father-daughter and mother-son events are being banned.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:48 PM
1

I can actually see a use for no-fault divorces...people should be allowed to dissolve their relationships. I can also see a purpose for temporary alimony when their is abuse in the relationship...divorces with fault. If one partner is being abused, they may not be able to get a job until they've left the relationship due to the abuse and need some short term support to get back on their feet. I don't see a problem with punishing abusers by making them pay. My problem is when no-fault divorces an…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:39 PM
2

Well, than shouldn't alimony be abolished for no-fault divorces? Under your example, there wouldn't have been a no fault divorce. In other words, alimony wasn't being awarded because of "divorce," it was being awarded because of "abuse." It seems like our system of litigation would already cover this. You left your partner because of abuse, and then sue your former partner because their abusing you, necessitating your leaving, has caused financial hardship. Alimony could easily be reformed to sh…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:36 PM
1

I'm honestly not sure how one would even determine the cause(s) behind this discrepancy. Maybe look at the scores from all boys schools compared to mixed schools? That's not perfect, because of things like grading curves, or just different grading standards. Also, we know female teachers grade boys more harshly than they grade girls, where male teachers showed no preference...could that explain the "writing gap"? I personally believe these educational problems are urgently in need of fixing, but…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:11 PM
1

How exactly is writing "inherently girl friendly"? First: Your anecdote doesn't matter when discussing trends. We have studies that show boys don't do as well as girls in school writing. Are you disputing the linked study? Second: I didn't say it was...I gave a list of possible explanations for boys not doing as well as girls in writing. Let me list them out again: Is writing taught in a way that reaches boys and girls equally? When a boy has trouble writing, does he get the same support as a gi…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:02 PM
0

That's because there's no such thing as a psychological test for psychopathy. Psychopathy is purely a pop culture and criminal justice creation. Check the Wikipedia page about it.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:38 AM
1

"Psychopath" is not a recognized psychological disorder. I wouldn't really trust any source that doesn't know this. Although it may be used in the criminal justice system, there isn't a large body with an agreed upon definition. Perhaps most psychopaths are men because it's defined after the conviction and more men are convicted?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:33 AM
8

I have never fallen a victim to being discriminated against solely for being a boy First of all, you wouldn't always be aware of such discrimination. Second of all, you aren't important when it comes to statistics. This study may or may not be sound, there may be unconsidered factors, I don't know, as I don't have the original study, but your anecdote doesn't refute it. For ways in which the school has been redesigned, it's a lot more subtle, and some of the changes likely benefit everyone. One …
/r/MensRights17/09/12 08:04 PM
10

That's not to say that it was the school's job to entertain me 24/7 No, but it is the schools job to educate. The best method of education is to engage the pupil in the subject matter. Helping students pick topics of study that will both educate them and keep them interested is not entertaining them (primary focus: entertainment), although it may be entertaining (secondary effect: entertainment). Since we're talking about writing, is there anything about this one topic that the student hates tha…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:47 PM
4

I'm not going to dismiss that possibility completely, but I don't think it holds much water. Historically, boys did a lot better in school and other intellectual pursuits. There has been a lot of focus on getting girls more involved, especially in the hard sciences and maths. The education system (at least in the US) has been redesigned since the 70s/80s for the benefit of girls. On top of that, there is evidence that female teachers, which are the majority, have a tendency to discriminate again…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:36 PM
9

Haha, yeah. Also, this idea that more girls write than boys...maybe for fun, but I don't think it holds true for professional authors. If I'm correct, that shows boys are certainly not less capable of writing than girls. The big difference is a professional author can write to a topic of interest. I think the topics probably play a role in the difference in boys and girls writing, but I'm not going to hold fast to that belief without studies to back me up.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:32 PM
2

I agree with you, which is why I put possibly. As in, I don't take a hard stance on it. For a minor crime, I can see taking parental status into account giving alternative punishments. From a purely economics standpoint, it may be cheaper to have a parent do some form of community service rather than jail time. They definitely shouldn't get a free pass, though. Even alternative punishment seems...not right to me. Why should they be offered alternative punishment when someone else isn't? Honestly…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:27 PM
2

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothes ... and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:15 PM
1

You've been very patient and kind through the entire discussion. I just jumped in at the end here, your thanks rightfully belong to shoar. I just wanted to add my piece at the end to make sure you don't feel down on yourself for not knowing something.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 07:05 PM
0

I'll agree with that statement as far as any specific law goes, but the concept of law as it exists should be applied equally, ignoring gender. "Stop doing illegal things" may or may not be good advice (since not all illegal things are bad and not all legal things are good), but it is a pretty good way to stay out of jail. If you do something illegal and get put in jail for it, the gender if the individual shouldn't matter. Possibly the parental status, but if so, it should matter equally for fa…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 06:56 PM
15

A key reason boys lag behind in the classroom is revealed for the first time - female teachers.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 06:51 PM
18

There are plenty of other possible explanations. Is writing taught in a way that reaches boys and girls equally? When a boy has trouble writing, does he get the same support as a girl in that same situation? Are boys encouraged by their teachers to write? Are the topics of writing interesting to boys? There are MANY possible explanations for the problem of writing, and most of the possible explanations I can think of can be laid at the feet of a female-oriented education system. That's not neces…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 06:47 PM
5

I just meant that I'm sorry I even had to ask. Better you ask than live with your assumptions. Just asking the question and trying to be more educated makes you a good person! I'm sorry you had to ask as well, but I'm not sorry in an "I blame you" way, I'm sorry in a "society needs to stop villainizing men" sort of way.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 05:23 PM
3

Wait, you mean I'm not getting a sandwich out of this? Dammit...
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:48 PM
2

Feminists have no problem throwing harassment around and yet when a criticism is leveled against them suddenly harassment is undefinable? I am not a feminist, I am not claiming harassment is undefinable. I merely stated that it is not well defined, so it's hard to make claims about it. Why doesn't the market for women's clothing reflect that women are being sexually harassed and that this is a problem for women? if it were a problem for women we would find this is evidenced in their clothing cho…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:47 PM
22

When you're 80 years old.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:15 PM
1

Thanks for posting the text! When you're talking to prove expertise rather than to connect with another person, the chances are high you're mansplaining. So it's one or the other? Either I'm getting verbally touchy feely with the person, or I'm trying to prove my expertise? Apparently debate is not possible, or calling someone out on their bullshit. Where that normal human penchant slips into mansplaining is when a particular guy assumes he knows more about women than the woman to whom he's spea…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:13 PM
42

As long as we accept the same for women, I doubt anyone here would disagree.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:06 PM
2

Are they fighting to be able to do something men can do and they can't? No. Men don't walk around in booty shorts, free of harassment. On this specific point, they are fighting to be able to wear what they want, free from harassment, and this is an area where they actually generally support equality, believe that men should also be able to wear what they want. Regarding your other comments, there are a lot of issues at play. One major issue I've seen is harassment is entirely context dependent, …
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:02 PM
1

I also believe that a woman(or group of women) would have been a better choice and sending in a man--who would have been statistically more likely to be attacked--was the worst thing they could have possibly done. Isn't that what DavidByron said, or am I misreading him? because people are far less likely to attack a woman than a man. Throwing a man in there was very risky.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:44 PM
5

Being able to admit when you're wrong is nothing to frowny face over! You'll get a lot of people thinking very highly of you around here as long as you keep that attitude! :)
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:42 PM
-3

If I remember correctly, this was initially set up as a complement to the sex offender registry for women who may have been accused of raping someone, but received a lesser sentence (due to plea bargaining, or whatever) that didn't include registration on that state's sex offender registry. As far as what it is now, or whether it's problematic, I have no comment on that, seeing as I don't agree with having any sort of permanent sex offender registry for either gender.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:39 PM
2

This was vandalism and should be legally pursued as such. I have no particular opinion on Chris Brown. Apparently the person he abused has forgiven him, so who am I to lessen her right to forgive her abuser?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:23 PM
1

That would actually be a pretty big win for the feminine hygiene industry...
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:13 PM
1

Honestly, I don't know nearly enough about this case. His abuse came out after the case, so it wasn't included in the sentencing, for example. He was sentenced to murder, with no circumstances justifying that murder from what I can tell. Also, the abuse is an accusation. I don't know how good or bad the evidence is, so I can't say whether or not it happened. He also wasn't a minor during the second murder, it says 17 and 18 in the link, so for one of those he would have been tried as an adult. S…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:08 PM
1

The people here generally don't claim the MRM is about gender equality. It is stated pretty clearly that the aim is correct issues where we see men as being treated unequal, but there is no claim that we support women's equality. Most of the people here seem to also support women's equality, but that isn't quite the same as saying the MRM is about gender equality.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 09:08 PM
1

Vigilante justice is never okay.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 11:01 PM
11

Charged is not the same as convicted. I'm very much conflicted over this. It sounds like the order to remain off the campus may have been a court order, but it isn't clear. A person charged with a crime is still, in theory, to be considered innocent. Putting restrictions on that person based on the possibility of their guild is not treating them as innocent. I'm just not sure how this would best be handled. If this person is not found guilty after court proceedings, this email (and other public …
/r/MensRights13/09/12 11:00 PM
1

I should really get a "not a men's rights issue" macro...
/r/MensRights13/09/12 08:21 PM
3

At minimum, this is not the appropriate forum for discussion. Anything stated here could be taken out of context in a way to paint us in a bad light. If this is a real problem, there are better places to discuss it. Benefit of the doubt is why I posted links to the appropriate locations for discussion. This is not a men's rights issue, and the title could very easily lead to further non-contextualized villainization of the people here.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 07:12 PM
6

/r/sex /r/relationships /r/DeadBedrooms This is not a men's rights issue. I'd also say it's possibly an attempt to get someone here to advocate rape. The last part of the title, with no body text whatsoever, leads me to believe this. eg sex when the other partner isn't in the mood?
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:56 PM
7

The guy that keeps spamming [2] /r/MensRights with his blog posts. I personally like your blog posts, so thank you for continuing to spam us! It's good to hear positive stuff.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:22 PM
12

Is that the cognitive dissonance hamster, by any chance?
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:09 PM
3

I'm greatly amused by the vast majority of us being upset we aren't on that list. /r/mensrights doesn't usually make me laugh, but it is right now! Thanks! :)
/r/MensRights13/09/12 05:52 PM
2

I eat mine medium rare now after many years of eating them medium. Someone undercooked my steak once and I saw the light! That was my "red pill" moment for how to prepare a steak...
/r/MensRights13/09/12 05:47 PM
2

Bonus! No risk of heart attack! Such privilege! ;)
/r/MensRights13/09/12 05:43 PM
2

Everyone is capable of doing good. Even Hitler killed Hitler.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 05:14 PM
8

Good for her! Unfortunately, the Nordstrom response is pretty obviously a form response.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:14 PM
2

Well I posted this twice to figure out why the URL I put for the link changed to a link to itself Posts with a body of text cannot link to outside sources, they must be self posts.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:13 PM
2

That's a better definition, but it still isn't great. There is one major factor that assists every criminal with committing crime without prosecution, and that's "innocent until proven guilty." Unfortunately, proof is hard in rape cases, so it looks like our society has factors supporting rape, when it is really the nature of the crime that makes it hard to prosecute in a just manner.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:06 PM
1

Goodnight!
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:04 PM
1

I saw that. In fact, I have a link on that list. My link she dismisses because, according to her, GWW didn't find a link to a domestic violence article problematic. She later clarified and she specifically did not find having a discussion about said link problematic. In other words, she supported freedom of speech, even when the topic might be offensive. Just that one statement alone shows that they aren't interested in listening, they're interested in taking stuff out of context to further thei…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:03 PM
2

Honestly, I can't say. As I said, we are only hearing one side of this tale. This is also an anecdote, and not evidence of anything, really. For all I know the DA is part of the KKK and regularly beats black people in his off hours. Or he may honestly have not seen any evidence making this specific case worth pursuing. This case could be almost anything, but what it isn't is evidence of systemic victim blaming or a rape culture. The issue I see with "rape culture" is it starts with a conclusion,…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 10:38 PM
1

Haha! Thanks! The problem is, people don't seem to be willing to give us a try. They see some of our harsh criticism and see misogyny, rather than a possible valid complaint. I have had someone dismiss my comments before based on the fact that I post here in /r/mensrights. Whenever someone comes here willing to talk, like you, or /u/YourGloriousLeader, we seem to do a pretty good job of welcoming them.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 10:23 PM
1

Oh, almost definitely, I'm just not sure how to simultaneously feel like a more welcoming place for individual feminists while simultaneously calling out organizations doing harm.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:49 PM
1

My suspicion is it is /u/shady8x, so you could try checking his user history.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:45 PM
2

I will not ever deny that victim blaming occurs. It does and it's horrible. I just deny that is is systemic. Without a strong definition, neither of us can really "win" this, so there's no need for you to concede. I respect you too much to want to "win" an argument with you! =D Aside: Links can be done like so: [text](link) Reddit uses something called markdown (or at least their own version of it).
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:40 PM
1

First off: An ethnically diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. Sampling bias right there. Second off, I'm not claiming feminists hate men, I'm claiming feminist organizations harm men's issues and rights, whether intentionally or not. Frankly, I don't care if NOW hates me or has a negative view of me (they demonstrably do, but that's besides the point), what I care about is NOW would deny me default equal custody of childr…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:37 PM
2

(broke this into two replies) As far as your link goes: Rape in this country is surprisingly easy to get away with. The arrest rate last year was just 25 percent - a fraction of the rate for murder - 79 percent, and aggravated assault - 51 percent. The second sentence doesn't really prove the first sentence. First of all, there are no sources for that 25 percent, it's just a news story. Second of all, arrests aren't made where there is no evidence. With Murder and Aggravated assault, there is an…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:22 PM
2

Ok as far as my example goes, it continues to put the onus on the rapist while giving advice. The clothing argument relieves the rapist of their responsibility. That's entirely dependent on your interpretation. "Go with your gut. If this person is pushing your boundaries and making you uncomfortable, don't feel the need to be polite. It's ok to act cold and disengage yourself. It's ok to say they are making you uncomfortable." That is putting the onus on the victim to go with their gut, to act c…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 09:21 PM
1

Well yeah, context is always relevant. You asked for the reasoning behind the "requirement of yes" which I interpreted as "explicit consent." I was only trying to explain the subtle differences between "no means no" and "explicit consent."
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:32 PM
3

Giving a suggestion on how to avoid being raped, even a misguided or incorrect suggestion, is not victim blaming. It may be insensitive, the suggestion may be wrong, the person giving the suggestion may be a complete idiot. That doesn't make it victim blaming. Victim blaming only occurs when someone is placing the blame on the victim. That only happens when someone suggests the rape was their fault. Suggesting they could have avoided it is not saying it is their fault, it is an attempt, often a …
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:27 PM
2

The dress one doesn't have much basis in reality, but a misguided or incorrect suggestion is not the same as victim blaming.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:23 PM
2

At the very least, it is a disregard for men. Whether it's hatred or not is debatable. Hating someone can lead you to disregard their needs, as we see with this law, but hating someone is not the only thing that can lead to such disregard. I don't really know what the root cause is, but even if it is the most well meaning discrimination ever, it is still harmful towards men.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:13 PM
2

The end goal of banning a practice, such as circumcision, abortion, gay marriage, etc. is to eliminate its very existence. This is inaccurate. People generally don't care if you get a circumcision as an adult, they only care about circumcisions being performed on children.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:11 PM
2

I downvoted for: "bodily integrity," which I think is a load of bunk That is a stupid viewpoint.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 08:04 PM
0

Eh, statistics have shown that a man is more likely to get into a dangerous accident than a woman. I honestly don't care if private companies choose to base their fees on statistics like that.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:01 PM
2

I'm not sure what you mean by just anecdotes. I mean I have never seen any study that shows victim blaming, by any definition, is a prevalent problem. Everyone can tell a story about a rape victim who had their behavior questioned, but that isn't evidence of a systemic problem. To make this science, something we can have policy and legal changes based on, we need to: Come up with a strict definition of victim blaming (I'll talk about this further down) Determine how common victim blaming is Dete…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:47 PM
1

I do think that it is women who are more likely to be sexually assaulted They really aren't, though. (Looking at all sexual assault, not just rape, they are, but not by a large amount)
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:11 PM
1

The problem is, the way it exists is more like "We will have universal health care for all citizens, EXCEPT for this host of things for men." Vasectomies, male wellness visits, male cancer screening...none of that (or anything else male) is covered. The exceptions should be equal, or non-existent.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:05 PM
1

Certainly it should be required that insurance cover birth control. Not necessarily free. But isn't it also good for men if women are using birth control? Unwanted children, now that's a tragedy. On this specific point, my issue is that the ACA has specifically gender worded language where it isn't needed. Did you know it provides for "free with premium" tubal ligations, but does not allow the same for vasectomies? That is only one example of the gender bias in the ACA. Hell, I don't even disagr…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:03 PM
2

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:47 PM
3

He didn't call them children, he's showing how teaching children is done, and comparing it to showing new information to other people. We understand well how to teach children stuff, we've been doing it for a long time. We are not as good at introducing new ideas to adults. To get better at introducing new ideas to adults, he is examining how we introduce new ideas to children, and suggesting how we can learn from that approach.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:15 PM
7

I would also include a CC for the teacher themselves. Make it an open letter. Make it understood that you found a teacher limiting your topics of conversation due to gender bias to be unacceptable. Let it be known to all that you felt mocked and belittled by this authority figure, and let the teacher know that you informed others. A teacher should NEVER be discouraging conversation. If she really had a problem with it, she could have easily redirected the conversation, without mocking, onto the …
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:06 PM
2

I think the whole "our bodies, our decision" idea is a fallacy I've seen people on /r/mensrights expend it to "Our body, our decision, our responsibility." Meaning since they have the choice, the consequences are there's to deal with unless someone else is willing to share those consequences. (Also known as legal paternal surrender)
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:02 PM
8

Not much to say on the article, but I'm very pleased to see that 5 of the 6 comments were supportive. This issue being covered, even if it's just a local paper, is progress. Very happy to see it.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:55 PM
1

Silence is not consent for sure though. It is important for both partners to be actively engaged, there is a danger in passivity. Absolutely. I'm at least a little bit playing devil's advocate here. Everyone should take responsibility for their actions, but if someone feels bad about a past action, that doesn't mean there was a perpetrator...but they should still be able to get resources to help them resolve their internal struggles. The term "regret rape" is definitely offensive, but unfortunat…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:39 PM
2

Getting explicit consent is basically the idea that other people must be asked for something, specifically for sex. At that point, they can say yes or no (or otherwise indicate either). The concept just relies on the fact that consent must be actively pursued, rather than assumed. "No means no" is very similar, but that occurs after consent has been requested. Think of it like quantum physics. Someone you want to have sex with is simultaneously in a "no" and "yes" state until we collapse the con…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:35 PM
6

That's why I included "(although they may be completely non-empathic)". The problem with trusting body language is it isn't always obvious, and more importantly it isn't always obvious to everyone. We need to trust the words that are spoken, everything else is borderline mind reading at best. As an example, let's take your exact situation, but give you fairly mild Asperger's. He said yes, and you have a legitimate mental disorder that usually makes it much harder to read body language. Should yo…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:58 PM
3

Oh, I'm aware. Since prison rape is still largely ignored, I might (read: probably would) be willing to agree that prison rape is a true rape culture. Beyond that, I just don't see it, and the numbers don't back up the claim that it exists.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:47 PM
1

You are likely right, which is honestly just more support for the idea that modern feminist organizations are more concerned with their own power then actually advancing the cause of women.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:45 PM
7

2-8% does seem to be the most reliable number. You hit the nail on the head for why it's so problematic. The really hard part is a person's life can be ruined just by being accused, because there's no assumption of anonymity for the accused (which is another beef I take with feminist organizations...they usually block this attempt when it comes up). I'm of the fairly strong opinion that we need to punish false accusers. Not accusers who are just mistaken, or who don't have the judgement go in th…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:43 PM
8

(Also from the USA) I'm only speaking from my experience at the Sexual Assault Center Be very careful here about situational violence. My wife works in a group home where the majority of her kids have been sexually abused by their parents. She gets mad a lot, and has to remind herself that her childrens' situations, while tragedies, are statistical outliers, not the norm. I imagine working in a sexual assault center would be similar. Hearing about sexual assault every day, it starts to seem like…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:41 PM
3

I brought up the past because SkyrimNewb mentioned women being protected by staying at home. Fair enough, but he was doing so in response to your comment about women having been historically more oppressed. Everyone who wasn't rich was oppressed, we really can't judge "more" with our 21st century eyes. Though it's sad that it took so long for women's suffrage. There are many reasons for this, one of the primary being that women didn't really want it until around the period. Take that last senten…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:11 PM
20

You're not rambling at all...or at least no more than I do. The reason I don't like the term rape culture is because it is the opposite of what we have. NOBODY accepts rape. There is comedy about it, but it is the single most reviled offense anyone can perform. The mere accusation of rape can ruin someone's life. Now, there's a lot of bad information about what is rape, or how best to handle someone who has made the claim they are raped, but that is not the same as supporting rape. The chances t…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 11:05 PM
10

NOW is an extremist group? The 9 or so feminist groups in India trying to prevent rape from becoming gender neutral are proposing things to help women? I'm not talking about radfemhub or something, I'm talking about some of the most powerful mainstream feminist organizations. Extremists do not represent feminists as a whole. This is the worst statement you could make, because NOTHING represents feminists as a whole. Anyone can call themselves a feminist, the word has no meaning beyond "women, ye…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 10:51 PM
21

They were treated as mentally inferior and often denied an education and a voice. This was true of everyone who wasn't upper class though. Men and women were both oppressed by the upper classes and their expected roles. Looking back with our 21st century sensibilities and trying to decide who was more oppressed is a waste of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Milestones_of_national_franchise_extension Women gained the vote in 1920. Until 1860, you weren't guara…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 10:34 PM
17

Feminism as it's practiced and preached by large organizations often does contradict men's rights, unfortunately. The concept of ensuring women are treated equally legally and socially is not in opposition to the same concept from a male's perspective, but that's not how academic feminism works (patriarchy theory, duluth model, etc.), nor is it how feminist organizations with actual power (lobbying groups and the like) work. I made a comment yesterday with sources on how feminism has specificall…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 10:23 PM
2

You’re probably aware of the basic trends. The financial rewards to education have increased over the past few decades, but men failed to get the memo. Really? Men failed to get the memo? Men already had the memo! Everything has been done to advance women in education at the expense of men. Female scholarships, Title IX, female outreach program's, women's safe spaces, affirmative action in the job market, restructure of primary education to increase female "buy-in." So, women are doing so much b…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 10:11 PM
18

ex. I believe in a rape culture Could you please explain what you mean by rape culture and source where your beliefs come from? I don't say this to attack your belief, I just want to understand where you're coming from. To show my good faith, I'll start. The way I've heard rape culture is as a culture that accepts and supports the act of rape. Victim blaming is used as an example of this, but I've never seen a source that this is a wide spread problem, I've only seen anecdotes. In fact, if you l…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 09:27 PM
6

If this happened, it would be a great argument against alimony.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:20 PM
1

The biggest thing I really don't know how to respond to, would be something like the fact that the majority of ceos/politicians happen to be men. Is that evidence that maybe some men are privileged or is that just the result of a completely non-sexist difference between men and women? I just don't see how that can apply to all men, and am fairly sure of it, but I hope maybe you have a better wording for that argument Many people around here call that the apex fallacy. Men are also vastly more li…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:23 PM
1

The tomato is botanically a fruit, but culinarily a vegetable. Technically, "vegetables" don't exist botanically, it is purely a culinary term. Here's a venn diagram with some examples.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:15 PM
1

I know you said specifics aren't going to be useful due to the nature of the text, but I made a comment with some specifics that might be useful to you if you can distill them down.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:12 PM
2

Here's the wiki page about it.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:10 PM
10

Ow, my brain. :(
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:47 PM
8

Thanks! I personally did follow the jumps in "logic," I just don't find them to be valid. I was using confusion on my part to show how ridiculous the original points were. The two I really can't understand are: Censorship is a form of free speech? Having permission to place a poster on private property is the same as vandalizing that same property? I really don't understand how anyone could reach those conclusions. I have a feeling they were just flailing around in their blind self-righteousness…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:34 PM
5

And yet, that's not at all what is spoken of here, or at AVfM, or anywhere else I've looked in regards to the MRM. It's amazing how people looking for something will often find that thing, but are unable to cite where they found it. This is why many of these people are trying to get others to accept their emotional responses as valid in a rational argument, because they can't argue based on citations, because they don't have them. They feel like the MRM is about self-victimization and vilificati…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 09:00 PM
2

Anecdotes about statistics are fine. Saying "I saw an example of your source in this situation." doesn't really add anything, but it doesn't take away anything. Anecdotes in lieu of statistics are not fine. Saying "I saw this happen, therefore this conclusions." not only doesn't add anything, but it actively hurts the conversation and is in direct opposition to rational discourse.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 07:21 PM
1

Nobody is saying it isn't wrong. They're saying it isn't legally wrong. In fact, that's EXACTLY WHAT ConservativeSpin SAID. Would you be ok with women doing the same? I would be equally okay with both happening. Meaning I wouldn't be okay with either occurrence, but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 07:00 PM
1

Nobody here is saying there isn't a problem with men sexually harassing women in public. What is being said is that there shouldn't be legal repercussions and limits on freedom of speech based on someone being offended. Nobody is saying that a woman harassing a single dad in a park should be legally punished. What is said is she is socially in the wrong. Do you understand there is a difference between social and legal repercussions?
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:58 PM
56

So denying emotion as valid in a rational debate is sexist? Censorship is a form of free speech? Having permission to place a poster on private property is the same as vandalizing that same property? Saying no decent person should hate or fear women is the same as hating and fearing women? I'm confused...
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:22 PM
3

Downvote comments that are worth downvoting, upvote comments that are worth upvoting. For example, the comment here admits that many feminist groups are problematic in their regard for trans people. She talks about how that needs to be fixed. That's worthy of being upvoted. Other feminist comments, such as the complete misunderstanding of "innocent until proven guilty" should be downvoted, as they are wrong and risk spreading misinformation. But they should also be corrected without resort to em…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:02 PM
1

Sure, I don't remember what Google search I did, but this is what I found regarding current and future coverage. Pretty good and neutral overview of the facts, without much opinion injected (at least at the beginning, I skimmed it pretty quickly).
/r/MensRights10/09/12 04:57 PM
1

Don't be too hard on the guy, most people are used to arguing based on ideology without sources. They aren't used to the /r/mensrights method of arguing, where we have sources most of the time.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 05:52 AM
1

For transgender people, just have everyone accept them as the gender they identify with and use the bathrooms accordingly. I wish this were the case, I truly do. You're right about the "rape culture" disaster. I hadn't thought of that.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:08 AM
1

she's calling for more women to have an active voice in politics beyond voting. I can agree with that. Really, I'd like to find a way to encourage people from all walks of life to get more politically involved. I'm not sure how to go about doing it effectively, though. We definitely do not want something like affirmative action in elections.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 11:33 PM
3

I had to stop. The complete ideological fervor displayed is the opposite of what I would call skepticism. Did you know that we apparently support spousal abuse and burning down courthouses? I was unaware of this. Does anyone have a spare torch? I didn't come prepared for the arson...
/r/MensRights07/09/12 11:06 PM
1

Thanks! I love being able to ask for sources without people getting offended. I also love seeing rational people who are willing to admit they were mistaken about something! This subreddit is one of only a handful where both those aspects exist.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:50 PM
1

As much as I hate Jezebel, I actually used them for a source on some of the specifics for female coverage in the ACA. Like the law or hate it, that specific post was a good breakdown of the female stuff. I don't have kids...instead my wife and I get to be the aunt and uncle that buy their nieces and nephews all the noisiest toys we can find! I can't speak for everyone, but I'm happy you found us here. I've already seen you around adding a lot to the conversation. It's been a pleasure to watch!
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:48 PM
2

Do you have a source for this?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:23 PM
1

That's awesome! If you'd like, you could send your mom this link as well. It's an article discussing how rape statistics are misrepresented to create a fear of a statistically unlikely event, and are likely having the opposite effect from the intent. There's also this article discussing how the gender wage gap is almost entirely due to the choices women make. ...I'm doing that whole "overload other people with information" thing again, aren't I...Sorry about that.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:22 PM
2

I think we're probably using represented in two different ways. I'm using the political definition of represented, for example "elected officials represent their electorate." You seem to be using the "make up a part of the group" meaning of represented, for example "women represent fewer elected officials then men." Your version is factually correct, but I'd argue it really isn't important when talking about political power in a representative democracy. More women than men vote, so women are mo…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:18 PM
2

Oh definitely! I agree with getting a lawyer, or at least having a brief consultation with one. I do see how saying so can sound paranoid though. At the very least, he deserves to know a false accusation is likely to be leveled at him.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:50 PM
0

You miss the key point: default shared custody. As in, custody will be shared unless there is a reason it shouldn't be, such as abuse by one parent, or one parent being unable to provide meaningful support (food, housing, etc.).
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:43 PM
2

to make all restrooms unisex. I can actually agree with that to some extent. It would help a lot of trans individuals out, and considering stalls are enclosed, there's no real need for gendered bathrooms. On the other hand, I've heard horror stories regarding the sanitation (or lack thereof) in female restrooms...not something I want to deal with...
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:34 PM
3

Your advice is sound, at least the heads up part. If you don't want to sound paranoid, just don't mention the lawyer. Suggest she warn her boyfriend, and explain how even an accusation can be harmful, both socially and in the workplace. A heads up is the least she can do if she cares about the boyfriend and is on his side, not her grandmother's side.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:31 PM
3

more women should be represented in politics Your key word here is represented. Women vote at higher rates than men. Women currently make up 55% of the vote (those are the last numbers I heard at least). Women are already more represented in politics then men. Just because there are not more female politicians does not mean women aren't being represented. In theory, these women who are voting are voting for their own interests (or at least believe they are), so they are being represented. What s…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:02 PM
1

It's actually 40% female perpetrators, 60% male.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:17 PM
1

It is much easier to look over and see a picture than to look over and read a paragraph. If both glances are accidental, or while walking by looking for a seat, the first will get the person a face full of porn, while the latter will get them a likely indecipherable wall of text.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:41 PM
1

A comment I made yesterday is sort of related to this. I'll link (and quote) it below. While there may be some significance to the woman being the one to bear the child, I believe (without evidence) that it has more to do with how men's sexuality is viewed. Men's sexuality seems to be portrayed as aggressive in nature, which leads to not wanting to give them more control over it which would (if you accept the aggressiveness theory) lead to more irresponsible sex and rape due to lowered consequen…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:38 PM
9

The Duluth Model is used in much of the U.S. by police when determining who should be arrested during a domestic violence call. According to the Duluth Model, "women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society".
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:10 PM
2

Why not both?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:00 PM
1

Not in America so I don't think that's applicable. You're right, not applicable. This entire thread is specifically talking about the U.S. and the Affordable Care Act.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:24 PM
0

While there may be some significance to the woman being the one to bear the child, I believe (without evidence) that it has more to do with how men's sexuality is viewed. Men's sexuality seems to be portrayed as aggressive in nature, which leads to not wanting to give them more control over it which would (if you accept the aggressiveness theory) lead to more irresponsible sex and rape due to lowered consequences. Obviously I don't believe that, but I think the dismissal of men's reproductive co…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:24 AM
1

I have very mixed emotions on ACA. On the one hand, it's full of gender politics and fluff designed to appease insurance companies. On the other hand, it is progress (slow progress) towards acceptance of a truly universal healthcare solution. Since I do support a universal healthcare solution, I accept the ACA and don't want it repealed, I just wish it wasn't so gender biased. I also wish those who support the gender biased parts of the legislation would stop being dishonest about it. They want …
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:00 PM
1

I intended my main point here to be the dishonesty between comparing a legally mandated copay free medication and a company policy copay free medication. Personally, I'm in favor of covering birth control, I'm just not in favor of covering it with a gendered law. I would just have that law say something about medications and surgical procedures approved by the FDA that require a doctor's prescription or intervention (to avoid condoms, for example) being covered. It would be simpler, wouldn't req…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 09:49 PM
1

You still haven't addressed my main point though.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 08:23 PM
0

You still haven't addressed my main point though. None of this required gendered language, and yet it was gendered. (Regarding the ACA coverage for women's birth control and sterilization) I also take issue with the dishonesty in the proponents comparing birth control being covered without a copay by government mandate and viagra being covered without a copay by company policy. The two are not the same. Whether or not it saves money is immaterial when discussing the dishonesty in these statement…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 08:08 PM
1

Vote for none of the above!
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:51 PM
1

Please do the research on prostate screenings. I do not have a primary source on how useful they really are, so I could me mistaken without knowing it. If you find I'm wrong, please do correct me. (I hate spreading misinformation due to ignorance, but there's too much stuff out there for me to know everything...) Even if I'm wrong, though, prostate cancer screenings are viewed as less useful, and prostate cancer itself isn't give the same "respect" as, for example, breast cancer, so I still thin…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:45 PM
2

According to the CDC, the number of children 3-17 in the U.S. with ADHD is 5.2 million. This isn't counting any adults. I don't have the numbers on women requiring birth control medication for reasons other than birth control. Also, I don't have an numbers on the severity and ability to function for either group without their medication. Even if there are more women use birth control for non-birth control reasons than there are people with ADHD who use ADHD meds, if the women are able to functio…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:42 PM
3

See, I'm one of those crazy liberals that would support free medical care (free secondary education is something I'm less convinced about). I don't support gender exclusionary language in laws without a damn good reason, and I haven't seen any good reasons for gender exclusionary language yet.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:22 PM
10

Prostate screenings are controversial, since there is little evidence that they help to a significant degree. I like to use vasectomies as the example, since they are identical in purpose to tubal ligations when discussing reproductive health, and tubal ligations are covered while vasectomies aren't.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:19 PM
3

My sister is currently in Med. school and her insurance does not cover birth control. Are you sure about that? What is her enrollment / re-enrollment date? If she's not covered now, she will be the next time she re-enrolls (with certain exceptions).
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:17 PM
4

But with the ACA, it doesn't depend on what plan you have. I don't particularly care what a private insurance company offers with a premium, what I care about is what is written into law. A law stating X must be included free with premiums is not comparable to a company policy of Y being free with premiums.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:10 PM
27

The problem with every single one of these comments is they aren't looking at reality. If insurance companies can offer free VIAGRA just for mens' fun activities They do not offer free viagra. They COVER viagra with a COPAY (and insurance premium). They are now required to offer FREE (no copay, just the premium) birth control and sterilization services (tubal ligations) to women only. Even though vasectomies are cheaper, they are not covered under the same no copay laws. The issue isn't requirin…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 06:04 PM
5

It definitely is. I know I appreciate that you're willing to read it with an open mind. That is more than I usually get. If you want to discuss it more once you've read / watched it, I'm more than willing. I'm just happy to talk with people willing to listen.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:37 PM
9

Analyzing that report leads to numbers where men and women are approximately equally the victims of rape, while perpetrators are 60% male, 40% female. (Analysis here) The problems is that many of the major feminist organizations are misandric, at least partially, and calling yourself a feminist gives them more power, due to the completely nebulous definition of feminism. GirlWritesWhat has a video about NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) speaking to how that isn't a very useful thing to sa…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:17 PM
18

Anything from Manhood Academy is considered by most here to be trolling at best, and honest to goodness misogyny at worst. I'd recommend just ignoring him.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:08 PM
2

That seems likely to me also. For obvious trolls, I ignore them. For more subtle trolls, I respond for the sake of other people who might read it. If they wanted to inflame me, though, they failed pretty miserably.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:07 PM
1

That should help narrow it down. I'll go poke around google when I have some more free time. If I find it, I'll let you know!
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:55 PM
12

Do you happen to have any links to those studies handy? I've heard this before as well, so I'm not disagreeing, I just like to be able to whip out research when making a point.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:44 PM
1

Advice on shaving your junk isn't a rights issue. /r/wicked_edge
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:42 PM
3

It's absolutely hypocritical to pity a rapist who was murdered yet treat his victim who killed him like a monster. I don't think anyone here is pitying the rapist, they're saying the mother was in the wrong. I've seen two types of comments here. The first is that the mother was in the right and they'd do the same. The second is that the mother was wrong, even if understandable. Nobody here has stated that they pity the rapist being a rapist. I do pity a human being who was burned and living in t…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 04:36 PM
3

Thank you very much for this. Our own anger is not justification for vigilante justice. Every time I see argue this, people from all walks of life ask me "What if it happened to you?" or "What if it was your [loved one]?" I just don't understand that attitude. That's why we have jury trials, that's why we have an arduous jury selection process. My personal feelings should not be the basis of justice. That's not justice, it's vengeance.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 06:29 PM
3

Can't say I've ever heard anyone argue this. Unfortunately, while I have heard it, I can't source it, so I'll concede it may not be as widespread as I thought. I've never seen a woman blamed for her rape, and I've never talked to a woman who was blamed. I've heard suggestions on how it could have been avoided, some of them very misguided, but that is not the same as blaming a woman for being raped. Men, however, are treated as if they can't be raped. The NIPSV survey from 2010 done by the CDC sh…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 08:28 PM
2

(Two things to note first. 1, I added a HUGE edit above. 2, thank you for reasonable discourse, it is greatly appreciated!) Some feminists certainly do hold that men are more violent than women and often do more damage and are more abusive. The problem isn't that "some feminists" do, it's that the feminist organizations with actual power who make actual changes in society and legal policy believe this, despite data to the contrary. Regarding the privileges and responsibilities: it matters becaus…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:26 PM
4

My point more broadly though, is that if MRAs really do care about the kinds of issues you mentioned (like domestic violence against men) that's where they should be focusing their energy. They should not be blaming feminists for fighting more for women than men, they should just roll up their sleeves and fight for men themselves. "Pizzey says it was after death threats against her, her children, her grandchildren, and the killing of her dog, all of which she states were perpetrated by militant …
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:56 PM
3

Once a non-barrier type of birth control is released for men, they can be analogous. You mean like vasectomies, which are not covered by the ACA, whereas tubal ligations, the female equivalent, are? It really would have been as simple as "FDA approved methods of birth control and sterilization requiring a doctors prescription will be covered blah blah blah." See, it would have been easier to write the law in a non-gendered way, and yet it wasn't done. Why is that?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:46 PM
9

So...she feels unsafe, so she asks an almost complete stranger to walk her home? Really? I'm confused...
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:37 PM
4

Feminism does not fight to coddle women Title IX Women are already the majority of college students and college graduates. Feminists are fighting to extend Title IX to STEM fields despite there being no legal barrier for women getting in to STEM fields. Using social stigmas as an excuse to expand Title IX does exactly what we're talking about: belittles women and reduces their responsibility to choose. People get uncomfortable in life, deal with it. Affirmative Action Basically the same as Title…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:32 PM
1

If you have time, this GirlWritesWhat video seems to cover many of the same ideas you do here. Not exactly the same focus, but the same idea of there being a lack of expected female responsibility.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:07 PM
6

You all seem to agree that women are not taken seriously in North American culture. Agreed. This is a very feminist point and is exactly the sort of thing feminism fights against. I agree that this is feminisms stated purpose. So to see them come out in favour of it here is surprising. See, the issue is that I see feminism, as it is practiced today, as causing many of the problems facing men and women. Women are often not given respect because they haven't earned it. Feminism has repeatedly foug…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:06 PM
2

I know another feminine strength is the willingness to work together without competition I remember reading a study where a group of women were given testosterone and another was given a placebo. The group given testosterone had an increase in their ability to work as a cohesive group, while the group with the placebo had no change in their behavior. If I'm remembering the study right, and if the study was well done, it would seem to contradict this statement. Unfortunately, I didn't save the li…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:00 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/z3w8x/so_i_was_talking_to_a_friend_about_to_turn_18/t1_c61fgnn
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:22 PM
12

Actually, in this specific case, feminism and feminists have been working to get women in combat roles which is kinda a prerequisite to selective service equality. Usually I agree with feminism's critiquing, but this one specific time we seem to be on the same side.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:18 PM
2

Well, I think you're awesome! (Not a physical compliment I know but it's something, right?)
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:07 AM
2

To me building a strong community on the foundation of balance between all genders and sexual orientation is more important than bodily integrity Bodily integrity is one of the points where there is gender inequality. We can't have a foundation of balance between the genders when one gender is explicitly legally given bodily integrity, while a different gender is explicitly and legally not given bodily integrity.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:59 PM
3

I downvoted this specifically because we already get enough flak for being "anti-woman." I realize you intended this as a joke, and yeah, it is amusing...but I don't want to give people who criticize us more ammo. Not because I think we'll change their minds (I don't), but because I don't want them to have "evidence" that will bias third parties against us.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:48 PM
2

Then I'm subjected to a wave of cognitive dissonance as everyone goes, "It's not the same thing! HIV and hygiene and turtleneck and dick cheese! Rabble rabble rabble!" It's like talking to a brick wall. So annoying! It is the same! They're making the claim that your husband gets to make all penis related decisions since he has one. It logically holds that you get to make all vulva/vagina related decisions since you have those! You aren't comparing the two, you are merely stating that if having d…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:45 PM
1

Well, the earlobes at least. The ears help direct sound. Of course, that's not a very good example, as the earlobes have far fewer nerves and no (known) function...so I suppose the ears IS a better comparison.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:41 PM
1

Why is he so attached to the idea of circumcision? I'm honestly curious why he cares so very much, what is at the root of this desire of his. It can't be as simple as "I want him to look like me!" The fact that you, a person who seems very intelligent and thoughtful, have an otherwise happy marriage with this man speaks well of him, it suggest he isn't shallow. If we accept that he isn't shallow, then there must be some deeper reason for getting into "full-blown arguments" over this. Have you co…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:38 PM
1

I really like this about /r/mensrights. Ask for sources, get them. Other places: ask for sources, get yelled at. edit: live -> like
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:32 PM
1

Plenty of people tell me I should shut up and leave the decision to my husband because he's the one with the penis, therefore he has the authority to decide what to do with our son's penis. You should say something like: Oh, I totally agree! That's why when our daughter is born I'm going to have her clitoral hood removed. Since my husband doesn't have one, I expect him to respect my decision on this with no input!
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:29 PM
2

In regards to number 4, there's a point that I don't feel has been brought up as the primary factor, though it's been touched upon. As everyone else has said, there's no issue with doing something nice for someone you care about. The problem comes in when it is expected and the person doing the nice thing is taken for granted. I generally make more money than a lot of my friends. I like to treat people to things, like food or whatever. All of my friends know that it is a treat. I am not obligate…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:05 PM
2

Just so you have evidence, rather than just stated facts, here's a blog post that links to and analyzes the 2010 NISVS report. Looking through it, we get numbers such as: An equal risk of rape between men and women in the last twelve months. That works out to about 40% of rapists being female and 60% being male. Note that this blog post is very well sourced with non-biased sources. That is one of the hallmarks of the MRM: evidence.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 10:55 PM
6

I'm pretty sure almost everyone here likes equity feminists. When we discuss feminism though we're talking about the mainstream, as that's the branch with the loud voice and the power to make a difference.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:28 PM
1

Here's a link to a breakdown of the numbers.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:02 PM
2

I don't know where they got their numbers, but this blog post analyzes and links to a study done by the CDC and completely dismantles the 90% number you mentioned.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 09:04 PM
2

This blog post analyzes and links to the study.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 09:02 PM
1

It fails your last point as well, because an infant isn't likely to be having sex. If it's truly an issue, they can get the procedure when they reach the age of sexual maturity and can at least have some input, even if they aren't 18 yet.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 09:30 PM
3

I agree completely...this stuff is hard, and making it black and white doesn't help anyone.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 02:36 PM
9

Engaging in one form of sexual behavior does not necessarily imply consent to another. According to their own definition, Hugh did not consent to oral sex. He consented to intercourse. She consented to oral sex. If you think Hugh hasn't consented to oral sex, then I think a woman's consent to have sex shouldn't include the consent for the man to touch her breasts. I personally think Hugh has consented to oral sex. I also believe that by her actions, Elizabeth consented to intercourse. Here's a b…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:07 PM
9

This specific description, however, isn't so black and white. In this description, he asked for sex. It is never stated that she didn't say no to sex, it is stated she wanted to take things slower. She never communicated that she wanted to take things slower. She begins to perform oral sex on him. He believes she is consenting to sex...which is completely reasonable given the described scenario. During the time it takes him to lay her on her back, remove her clothes, and penetrate her, she does …
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:04 PM
3

But then you would be discounting the feelings of the victim, male or female. Legally speaking, that's actually a very good thing. Obviously the victim deserves whatever social and psychological support they need to lead a healthy life, but what they feel should have nothing to do with what the law observes as a crime. I don't think that it would necessarily be fair to place the term "misconduct" on things that don't sound rapey enough. The issue is what we call it legally and what we call it so…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:25 PM
1

Ah, your gentleness led my ability to read astray. Have a most pleasant day! :)
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:21 PM
1

If you feel you have a good reason to go that route (on this board, almost all say no) they go for it. The problem is, as this very article stated, the medical reasons for going this route are minimal. What is argued here is the right to bodily autonomy is far greater than the medical benefits. In addition, the medical benefits primarily deal with STIs. We are suggesting performing an irreversible medical procedure on an infant to prevent them from getting sexually transmitted infections. There'…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:08 PM
10

Doing what I can to correct people over there, although I don't expect it to make a dent in the willful ignorance on display.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:08 PM
2

/r/Intactivists
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:49 PM
2

It was the fact that he stood there and suggested that I have a goddamn magical uterus that I can just turn on when I'm getting raped in order to prevent pregnancy. While obviously not true, wouldn't it be awesome if you had a magical uterus?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:15 PM
2

Oh, I definitely won't weigh in on which is worse. All we can really compare between the two is what resources are available to the victim's. In that one specific aspect, false rape accusation victim's are definitely receiving the short end of the stick. I don't feel that is a reason to fear women, but it is a very good reason to know exactly what situations can get you in trouble. No drunken sex outside of a relationship is fine as a rule for avoiding this. Just like there may be ways of reduci…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 11:44 PM
4

If you are literally blackout drunk, you can't give consent, it's rape.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 11:34 PM
2

This biggest difference here is in legal protections. If you are raped, the perpetrator performed an illegal act. In actuality, their power over you, as terrible as it is, is temporary. If you are falsely accused of rape, the perpetrator is unlikely to face any sort of justice, and in many cases, a guilty verdict can be handed out on the accuser's word alone (see Brian Banks as an example). The perpetrators power over you is long lasting and far reaching, and they are very unlikely to face justi…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 11:32 PM
3

I would seriously explore your legal options to press kidnapping charges on that kindergarten. /u/oneiorosgrip pretty much covers all the details beyond that.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:45 PM
2

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10828645 Not quite exactly the same, but even if it's not actively opposing male birth control, it's acting to remove support through a "Why would we want that?" type of attitude.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:43 PM
1

While I am pro-choice, this is unfortunately a pretty good description of most of the lobbying groups. Aren't more women pro-life than pro-choice anyways? By that measure, more vagina bearing people are opposed to abortion than vagina bearing people who are in support of it. By that measure, we should clearly make abortion illegal. I don't agree with that, but that's the logical follow through from this picture.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:41 PM
8

Gotcha, I have no prior experience with this blog. If it gets people on our side, I guess that's okay, I just wish people could see beyond what men can do for them, and see the moral and ethical implications of treating half the population as second class citizens. After lurking and commenting here a lot, I've gotten a bit sensitive to seeing men only valued for their disposability and utility. Other than that, it is a good argument, and can really be applied in a more generic way. When you trea…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:38 PM
10

If we keep bashing men and ostricizing them, nothing good will happen. Every time we take away due process from men, throw them in jail for debts to women and children (child support), portray them as perverts and rapists in the media, and treat them as expendable, we break the bonds of trust and threaten our own survival and that of others at the same time. It is societal suicide. So the only reason to stop bashing men and to treat them well is because of the benefit to society? Because of what…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:27 PM
4

Before women did not have human rights, husbands could beat and rape us and it was no ones business. Before what? This hasn't been true for a long time. Please see the following. https://pay.reddit.com/r/LadyMRAs/comments/ygxuo/the_myth_of_womens_oppressionwhat_do_you_all/c5x6yuh if you look at any head of anything of financial or powerful significants in the western world (Large corporations, presidents, prime ministers) it is run and has been run by a man for a very long time, and the number o…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:25 PM
2

Edit: I get it. I'll just go suicide myself. Dammit guys, lost another.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:47 PM
1

The problem with that is it ties men to the whims of women. It is basically saying a man cannot attempt to initiate something unless he first has approval, via signals of interest, from the woman in question.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:28 PM
2

I agree with NoGardE. You, more than most, have a reason to stereotype and hate. What happened to you is horrible. You're obviously a strong and thoughtful individual. Seeing your resilient spirit has warmed my day! :)
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:05 PM
2

It's not even that, it has to do with survival of an ideology. Feminism has effectively won in the western world. Women are legally equal or even more than equal. Socially women are equal when they make equal choices. So, then, what's the purpose of the multitude of feminist organizations? Yes, they could work for equality and raising up of women in places where they truly have a hard time, but where's the money in that? The power? How many women and men will donate to NOW if they talk about how…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:02 PM
4

This is strongly related to female hypoagency. The idea that many hold that women are objects to be acted upon, and men are actors. Under this view, the women weren't having sex with a man, they were having sex done to them by a man. Even if they wanted it, they weren't equal participants in the mind of people like Drew. Because they weren't equal partners, the responsibility for their satisfaction lies completely on the shoulders of the man. Drew probably doesn't even realize he feels this way,…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:49 PM
25

It is very odd to me that a group centered on "female empowerment" would spend a huge chunk of its time teaching women that the world is far, far more dangerous than it really is. If women have equality, if there is no more danger for women than for men, if women can, by their choice, have every opportunity a man can have, feminism has won and feminist organizations lose their purpose. People with power almost never give up that power willingly.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:04 PM
2

For that, I truly have no answer. I'm circumcised. I'm not angry or depressed or suicidal about it. I am a little saddened since I've learned more about this, but it's more of a wistful "I wonder..." type of sadness, not a deep depression or a deep upset. What does upset me is those who are actively opposed to making it illegal. It is a clear violation of bodily autonomy, and although I'm not personally upset that it happened to me, I still wholeheartedly support making it illegal going forward.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:54 PM
4

is actually a bachelor tax. Not really, since females are taxed the extra amount as well. It really is an unmarried person tax though.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:49 PM
1

Thanks, I try to be civil. After typing that, I was afraid it came off aggressively. I've been arguing the ethics of this in a few different comments today...probably time to get away for a bit before I become completely uncivil!
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:46 PM
3

It is unethical to perform unnecessary cosmetic medical procedures on a person without their consent. The burden here isn't to say why we should be making this illegal, the burden is on those who support it's legality. Every single argument I've heard for why this should be legal apply equally to the less damaging forms of FGM (such as removing the clitoral hood). FGM is still (rightfully) illegal, because it's not about the damage done, it's about the unethical nature of performing the procedur…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:45 PM
4

Hell, I'd be happy just getting a cake. :(
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:37 PM
3

It is something that has been removed, without consent, that cannot be replaced. Your arguments for why it isn't a big deal work equally well for FGM or foot binding, but we (rightly) consider those a terrible thing. While there are forms of FGM that are far worse than circumcision, there are also forms that are similar, or even less bad. They are all illegal because it is ethically wrong to perform unnecessary cosmetic medical procedures on someone without their consent, and a child cannot gran…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:36 PM
3

It seems normal to you because that's what you've had your whole life. It seems normal to an uncircumcised man to not be circumcised. It seems normal to women to have a vagina. It seemed normal to Chinese women to have their feet bound. Normal isn't always right or wrong, just what you're used to.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:32 PM
4

Please read all the comments here down, somebody asking a similar question. (Of course, they just dismiss anything that remotely smells like evidence or an opposing viewpoint.) quick edit: Nobody is opposed to medically necessary circumcisions (very very rare), or to voluntary circumcisions of an adult.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:30 PM
4

Mmmm....cake.... Sorry, I was referring to the fortune cookie's tendency to have pithy sayings that are vague enough to be applied to any situation. :)
/r/MensRights23/08/12 09:20 PM
4

She just says: "fewer demands". I bet this really connects with her readers, they can take that to mean anything that they don't like. Fortune cookie feminism?
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:59 PM
1

NALALT ;) It's possible, though, that most family court lawyers are like that. :(
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:47 PM
8

It deserves more attention in the western world because FGM is already illegal here. FGM needs no attention in western governments because it is already illegal. In places where either or both is practiced, both should be eradicated. What I don't understand is why you feel it is better to try to prevent only one form of infant genital mutilation, rather than trying to prevent them all.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:29 PM
4

As I said, I was simply looking at my own personal experiences with it and how I really don't feel it's negatively impacted my life in any way (and some positives, from my viewpoint). It doesn't matter if you, personally, feel effected. Some people do. Should not those people have had a choice? I guess what I'm fishing for here is solid justification that circumcision is every bit as bad, or even close as bad as FGM. You will never anywhere find neutral sources supporting this viewpoint. FGM is …
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:26 PM
11

I don't seem to experience any less pleasure than other people out of it It's hard to say, since you weren't given the choice. Biologically, there are a LOT of nerves in the foreskin, so it at least seems like there should be greater sensitivity, and pleasure, in uncircumcised men. I definitely have an easier hygiene routine Really debatable. You wash yourself down there when you shower, I assume? Uncircumcised men do the same, they just also pull back the foreskin. Maybe an extra 10 to 15 secon…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:20 PM
2

Where I grew up in New Hampshire, I never had this thought that women were better than men, or men were better than women, or anything of the sort. I had male friends, I had female friends. The very idea that I should discriminate based on gender (or race, but that's a different topic) would have been ludicrous to me. Fast forward to going to college. I'm a bright eyed 18 year old. We had various core courses required at our school which included going to open forums discussing equality issues. …
/r/MensRights23/08/12 05:47 PM
-1

These are decent women Based on your story, I am forced to disagree with this.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 05:34 PM
20

and emphasize the extreme need for a Men's Officer given that men receive so little assistance and support compared to the catering women typically receive. I wouldn't phrase it this way. Specifically, I'd leave off comparing it to the catering women receive. Although completely true, it seems like an attack and is unlikely to get results. Instead, bring up that you see an extreme need for a Men's Officer as you see many men's issues in education, such as falling grades and drop out rates, and y…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 04:51 PM
10

I'm supposed to now applaud this group because they have arrived at what has been considered the correct method for justice for about 1700 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#History
/r/MensRights23/08/12 04:25 PM
5

"It's okay to harm men for the benefit of women because women's rights are bigger and more important than men's rights." She probably doesn't even realize that the bigotry and hatred behind what she said is showing... She probably doesn't even realize that the part in quotes is exactly what she said, just more verbosely. Is it really easy to be so blind to what you're saying? That it's somehow okay to treat half the species like crap as long as their is any perceived injustice? That is just icin…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:04 PM
11

I loved that the sources were a couple wikipedia articles and "Go read a women's studies book." (funny enough the same graph is used, but if Wikipedia doesn't suffice, go to your library and read any textbook on Women's Studies) Oh, I have seen the light from this oh so unbiased source of gender theory! There is no way a book specifically designed to show how bad women have had it and how to overcome this badness could at all be biased to show the badness is very bad! /s If women aren't oppresse…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:57 PM
1

Reddit doesn't post links as part of self posts (posts with body text).
/r/MensRights22/08/12 07:29 PM
2

That's not at all what that was saying. The man WANTS to have sex with her, and just has always been told having sex with a housemate is a bad idea. The people at /r/sex are just telling him to go for it. This is seriously a non-issue. So my long time buddy and I have just had a new housemate move in and she has made it pretty clear (albeit non-verbally) that she is DTF with both of us. We are both incredibly attracted to her, and my friend and I are cool with trying a MFM threesome. edit: Speci…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 07:26 PM
-1

While I completely agree, a part (a very small, evil part) of me is laughing on the inside while imagining that scenario.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 06:23 PM
0

You weren't downvoted, but those comments were ridiculous. Especially the comments about how using logic wasn't logic, it was enforcing your world view on them, and how logic is totally based on your experiences. And because logic changes based on personal experience, they dismiss it completely, rather than challenge the underlying viewpoints. Seriously, they act like children. You don't agree with them, so they piss and moan about being forced to accept your opinion.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 11:46 PM
2

I'm not a pedo Absolutely true, even if you were trying to get into the sack with a 15 year old. Pedophilia is having sexual attraction to those under the age of puberty. This isn't just me being pedantic either. Finding a physically developed girl or boy of 15 or 16 attractive isn't in any way the same as finding an 8 or 9 year old attractive. In the first case, there are many maturity reasons why a relationship may not be a good idea, in the latter case, there are definitely maturity reasons, …
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:33 PM
2

By the power of The Patriarchy, I have the power!
/r/MensRights21/08/12 08:10 PM
1

The issue is, There seems to be a link between the promotion of circumcision to control the spread of ST(I/D)s, such as HIV, and a reduction in condom use. Where a condom is significantly more likely to prevent an STI, but is less likely to be used by someone who has been circumcised specifically with the purpose of STI reduction, it seems to be irresponsible at best to recommend circumcision. That is in addition to the fact that every study I've seen supporting circumcision as a method of STI c…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:22 PM
1

Please do not bring a child into the world with this still on the table. Also, you are right (which I'm sure you know) and us anonymous internet strangers support you!
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:14 PM
2

Looks like "Richard" never came out to prove "himself," eh?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:33 PM
1

http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:15 PM
1

My only issue with the ACA is that it covers tubal ligations but not vasectomies. Also, if we could get subsidized BC on the grounds of contraception, without having to justify it as a medical necessity, then it would set a good precedent for subsidized condoms. The ACA doesn't provide for subsidized BC, it provides for BC without a co-pay, just your insurance premiums. Most insurance companies already provided subsidized BC options for women. Nobody would be talking about this if it had remaine…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:06 PM
1

The way I see it, the ACA should state that FDA approved prescription or surgical birth control methods are covered, without copay. Currently, the ACA covers everything that would fall under the above list except for vasectomies. It covers both prescription female BC, as well as tubal ligation. Changing to the above wording would, right now, add in vasectomies as well as any future prescription male BC. I understand not covering things you don't go to the doctor for. It makes little sense to cov…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:03 PM
15

The stupidity, blindness, and complete judgmental nature is painful to read. I honestly wonder if any of them actually read about the MRM or visit MRM subreddits or blogs. I don't see how you can arrive at their conclusions after reading and interacting here with an open mind.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:46 PM
5

You mean someone responding with hyperbole in defense of their argument? Someone who was also downvoted? Please read comments in context, and before saying we need to distance ourselves from these views, please look at vote totals. I won't deny examples exist, but this isn't one.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 08:56 PM
1

Reading: I can't do it. :p
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:27 PM
1

There's a problem with what you said in regards to your quote. You said: And I'd dispute that the fear of being raped for a man is "vanishingly small", but that isn't likely to cut any ice here. And I'd say that's true. Most men don't fear being raped. The fear is vanishingly small. However, what you quoted says: men possess the privilege of being subject to a vanishingly small likelihood of being raped by either men or women Which is only true if you don't include forced penetration in your rap…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:22 PM
1

Someone did a breakdown, though I don't remember where, and it comes out to a 60/40 split. 60% of rapists are men, 40% of rapists are women. Men and women are equally likely to be victims.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:08 PM
0

Any place called "Psychology Today" that is willing to so quickly dismiss ADHD as a valid excuse for why something didn't get done, and places the blame and expectations on the person with ADHD, rather than giving the advice to the partner to be patient, fails at being a psychology magazine. Oh, that's right, I forgot. Psychology Today is considered pure stupidity by most people with an actual degree in psychology.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:04 PM
3

Interestingly, points 3 and 4 from the court decision could be copy pasted straight into a document enshrining the right to legal paternal surrender. Point 2 could be gender reversed and the same would apply. Basically, it sounds like the reasoning behind RvW is almost the exact reasoning used in support of legal paternal surrender.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:16 PM
1

Well yeah, not exactly free. On the other hand, once the law goes into effect requiring everyone to have health insurance, it is de facto free, since it is included with something you are required to own. It may not sound like it, but I'm actually in favor of the included-in-premiums birth control! I just have the same wish I have for a lot of this legal stuff, that is was written in a gender neutral form.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:52 PM
1

What's interesting is there is a legal parental surrender option currently in place, adoption. Yet, the father is not allowed to take this route by himself, yet the mother is. So it seems to me that I, were I to magically become a father, could give up my child for adoption, and the mother than immediately adopts it. Seems fair to me.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:31 PM
17

Possibly contact the police and file a missing persons report on your ex-wife and children? They will have to investigate that, and they can determine if it's a case of abandonment or child abduction. Not positive this is a viable route, but if it isn't, the police should be able to tell you what is a viable route.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:22 PM
3

No thanks, but some of that cheese and mayo would be delicious if you could pass it over? Here's the meat and the bread for your own sammich! :)
/r/MensRights17/08/12 10:36 PM
1

Things like free birth control and not being able to turn people away based on pre-existing conditions were a trade the health care companies gave in exchange for the "everyone must have health insurance." part of the bill. Without the second, the health insurance providers would never have agreed to the "must accept pre-existing conditions." part. The other free stuff dissappears in the margins once you have everyone signed up for BC. This is one reason I'm leery of ever seeing male BC covered …
/r/MensRights17/08/12 10:24 PM
2

RISUG is the acronym for it. But you are right, it's called Vasalgel in the U.S. and it just completed rabbit pilot studies this month.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:15 PM
2

That's exactly what /r/childfree is for. It's mostly a place for those of us who don't want children to go so we can get away from the constant "You'll change your mind." or "That's so irresponsible!" or "Don't you want a family?" or any of the other annoyingly insulting questions and statements we receive in the daily world. /rant Thank you so much for acknowledging the responsibility of our decisions! =D
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:08 PM
3

Can I at least have my damn sammich first?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:03 PM
2

I wouldn't say it's the same, since analyzing a person or groups past behavior is a good indicator of current or future behavior. I believe character analysis is normally permissible in a court of law, for example. If a person or group has repeatedly shown they are willing to do X, and X happens again, it is reasonable to at least suspect that person or group had some involvement. It is NOT conclusive, and I don't think anyone should make it into a conclusive statement, but it is a reasonable as…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:49 PM
4

Just delicious sliced meats...mmm...sammiches... What were we talking about again?
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:04 PM
2

There isn't a lot of hard information on this specific topic, but feminist groups have lobbied against male equality under the law in the past. VAWA, how Title IX is applied and default joint custody are some examples. We really have no reason to think this issue would be any different.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:57 PM
2

Well, there's a difference between coverage and free. See, most insurance will cover both tubal ligations as well as vasectomies. I have no problem with this, as it's a private business and you're entering a contract. However, the ACA makes tubal ligations fall under the same auspices as other forms of female birth control, making it free. That's actually the very issue many conservatives had with BC under the ACA. The ACA isn't just requiring insurance to cover BC, they're requiring that women …
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:58 PM
2

One issue I see in your reasoning is (I believe) tubal ligations are covered via the ACA, whereas vasectomies are not. Another is, if pharmaceuticals were really interested in male birth control, I would expect RISUG to have a huge backing in the R&D department. I actually do support free birth control via the ACA (unlike some here), but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to see if a BC solution for men (outside condoms) becomes available, and especially not waiting to see if the ACA will c…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:27 PM
2

I actually happen to agree with you. Yes, the comment thread linked to was about who pays, but the replies given were almost all very reasonable. The overriding notion seems to be, "figure it out beforehand" which is pretty good advice. Geeze, I get into a huge argument with you a couple days ago, and today I'm agreeing with you left and right. What a weird internet this is.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 11:55 PM
1

Yup. This is an interesting conversation, but has little to do with this subreddit. The not-paying thing was just icing on the cake of someone already being a jerk.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 11:52 PM
3

This was just another case of selecting numbers to make the point! Santa Claus makes $0, so clearly Mrs. Claus also makes $0. Putting it in percentages is just being used to create a myth of a wage gap. Yes, she does indeed make 75% of what Santa makes. She also makes 5000% of what Santa makes! Stupid mythological creatures rights activists, twisting stats to make Santa look bad!
/r/MensRights16/08/12 11:27 PM
-1

That community isn't very skeptical, is it? Or is it just that one thread? edit: Here is my biggest contribution. I did comment in a couple more places as well.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 11:17 PM
2

Sounds like verbal Aikido! :)
/r/MensRights15/08/12 07:15 AM
6

That is pretty cowardly, and may also be illegal. Teachers are required to report perceived abuse and neglect. http://www.californiacasa.org/LocalPrograms/mandated_reporting.html This is about mandated reporters, teachers fall under this. California law states that a mandated reporter must make a report “whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasona…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:52 PM
6

Bring to CPS all the evidence you brought to the court. They are separate entities. Not just the drugs, but the eternally late, the false accusations, everything. That seems like enough evidence that the children are not being cared for to me. If the courts won't help you, get CPS on your side. http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/pg93.htm Specifically: A child is neglected by a parent or caretaker who fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision. I think you have…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:47 PM
6

The cop s told me that I should push for exchanges at the police station and always record them. That's very good advice.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:34 PM
3

Small details do get lost, you need to not let them get lost by specifically bringing them up to the judge. A summary like this might help. Sir or Madam Judge Person, these are the bullet points for why I feel my ex-wife is an unfit parent. (bullet points). Evidence for each bullet point can be found in other court documents filed, each bullet point referencing the location of that evidence. Maybe offer that it would be a good idea for both of you to submit to drug tests? Makes it look like you …
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:29 PM
8

You can get them removed from a case if you feel they are being discriminatory. I don't know the details involved on how to do so, but it sounds like the judge is willing to give your ex-wife a pass despite overwhelming evidence. Would it be possible to get CPS involved? If you can get them involved, I believe they can force a drug test, which should be immediate grounds for removing custody from the ex-wife. With you involved, custody should then default to you. Bottom line is your children are…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:26 PM
3

Can you file a record with the court stating you requested a drug test during mediation, and the results (mediator asked, ex-wife cried, struck from the record)? Basically, every time someone is discriminatory, get it on public record. Hold them professionally responsible for their discriminatory behavior. If they don't like it, tell them to change their behavior. Stay completely and totally professional in all of this. Never make it personal. But do get it on record that you feel the mediator h…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:10 PM
6

As a person who has been malested as a child I still to this day ask for some1 to move or I move. Maybe ppl should grow up and act like adults instead of whining like a baby. Yeah...maybe some people should grow up and act like adults instead of whining like babies. Hello pot.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:06 PM
2

Can a mediator strike something from the record if you demand it must be on the record? If I say something in court, and I say I specifically want objection XYZ or statement XYZ on record, aren't they required to put it on record?
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:41 PM
6

Get a new judge, file suit against this judge for discrimination. I don't know if that's even possible (legally or financially), but if it is, it would send the message you're trying to get across. I assume your attorney is current on all of this? What have they recommended?
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:40 PM
4

But if it's socially unwise to deny those wishes, it is indeed power. Women control 55% of the vote (last number I saw, could be off). If they wanted more females in office, they would get it. As far as women being seen as needing of protection and provision, I agree completely. It is my opinion that the primary force (currently) for that view is feminism itself. I fully agree that women are not viewed as equals in society, but I don't believe they are viewed as less than men. I also don't belie…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:12 PM
2

You ask a fair question, but be warned, this comes up a lot. I would suggest reading stuff in the sidebar first, and then you can ask more questions from there. In case you can't see the sidebar, here's a good place to start: Discussion on why feminism is not a solution for men's issues
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:07 PM
3

I disagree with your point, but I also disagree with Jesus_marley just writing it off. you're distorting reality if you'll say that men are not the primary social and structural leaders. I say that men are not the primary social and structural leaders. Men may be the faces of the leadership, even up through the presidency, but to see who leads, who really has power, you need to look at who benefits. When women want something, as a group, they get it. That's power. In fact, it's more power than i…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:28 PM
4

It's existence is an advocation. Sorry. Those are the breaks. No, it really isn't. Do you honestly believe that a person allowing something to be put in a place they control is approval of the topic? Were I a mod there, I would also allow it to stand. I would probably, at the same time, be speaking out more strongly against the subject matter, but I wouldn't delete it. See, that's the thing about free speech. When someone supports it as strongly as I do, or seemingly as strongly as GWW and the o…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:09 PM
6

I just read through that thread. Your entire argument is based on the idea that a post in a subreddit means that subreddit supports the content of that post. That is a very fallacious argument. Specifically: If someone presents an argument and you find it offensive, deal with it. All arguments will be argued on their rational merits--if you don't have a rational counter argument then you lose. Rational counter arguments do not come in the form of 'that is badthought and you're not allowed to thi…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:47 PM
4

She advocated being able to discuss domestic violence, even if it hurts someone's sensibilities. Nowhere was she actually advocating the violence itself, just the discussion.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:00 PM
5

Not stupid, inexperienced. Debating for men's rights seems very different to me than debating most other topics. People are more likely to get into actual discussions on most topics (yes, even on the internet!), but on the topic of men's rights, they go on the attack. Even someone experienced otherwise is debate is likely to have a harder time when debating men's rights with someone who goes on the attack. I don't consider myself inexperienced with life, or debating topics, but I still often hav…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:57 PM
5

They didn't say that. They said everyone new to men's rights is less experienced than they are in the art of debate. While not universally true, it is quite likely to be true for any given person. Newbies are scared shitless about being called a misogynist because they have not yet developed the skills or argument structure to confront adhoms like that. (emphasis mine) Notice he's not saying incapable of developing? He's specifically saying they are inexperienced, and being inexperienced can be …
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:43 PM
1

Sorry, not intending to put words in your mouth! I was calling myself an sometimes-idiot to try and remove some of the abrasiveness of my post! I'm not suggesting you treat a given individual based on an analysis, just that you may decide a group as a whole isn't worth it, based on whatever criteria. You never even get to the individual level because you've decided the danger is greater than the reward of meeting a new friend. I don't do that, personally, but I understand why someone might choos…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:56 PM
7

Patriarchal theory came from academic feminists. I'm just naming it for it's origin. I wouldn't call it idealist though. Maybe naive? Uninformed? Ignorant? Lots of good words! :)
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:46 PM
2

I don't mind it existing for extreme cases, but where I'm at, it's the default. That sours me a bit to the whole concept (even though I haven't dealt with it personally). California has a half-the-length-of-marriage alimony payments up to 10 years married, and 10+ years married has alimony for length-of-marriage. Married 9 years? Pay alimony for 4.5. Married 10? Alimony for 10 years. I mean, 10 years? Really? I understand helping someone out, I do, but damn... Why does the financial responsibili…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:42 PM
2

Clearly we aren't going to agree. You are asking the state to enforce an equality of outcome, for something to be "fair." This term is meaningless without context. The person formerly married to that lawyer probably doesn't see it as fair that the individual who initiated a divorce against them is getting money to get back on their feet, after emotionally destroying them. Just an example, but a good illustration of how "fair" changes depending on who you are. Further, why place the financial bur…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:40 PM
5

I'm not trying to win friends. Nor are the MGTOW. What I'm saying to you is that you don't win any friends on the female side when you make the good ones feel like they are the bad ones. What you said is making any sort of statistical generalization and making decisions based on that is "lumping them all into a nice tidy category that allows one to generalize." This is often followed by denunciations of sexism. Now, you did NOT go there, so I apologize for putting words in your mouth there. I gu…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:21 PM
1

For example, what about the partner who stays home to look after a disabled child foresaking an education. Upon the termination of the partnership, should the stay-at-home partner be cast aside with the child to go it alone? Why should they get the child? Should the other partner get to continue earning without having to be responsible for the results of the partnership? They are responsible in the form of child care. Either through custody, or child care payments. This is completely separate fr…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 09:42 PM
3

I am not lumping anyone into any category. I'm saying that every woman (in the U.S. at least) has this power. It is impossible to know with 100% certainty that a specific individual won't use that power. Therefore, these men are choosing to avoid situations where this power can be used. It is purely a cost benefit analysis. Women have power over men in relationships. This is a fact. Some women will use this power. Also a fact. Some men are saying it's not worth the risk. These men are not lumpin…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 09:15 PM
2

Factory2 is abrasive and unable to articulate his opinions so I welcome a fresh perspective. Yes, he can be abrasive, but I don't find him particularly inarticulate. Call this abrasive if you want, but your wording seemed to be pretty cut and dried, but when Factory2 responded to that wording, you said that wasn't what you were talking about. That's fine, and yes, he was abrasive, but please don't make it all about his misinterpretation. At the least, you did not express yourself clearly. How ab…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:57 PM
2

Not true. Or partly true. Yes, it locked them to one man. Yes, it did so to ensure paternity. The goal of this was not to benefit men though. The goal was to give men a reason to give provision and protection to the family unit to ensure continued survival of the species. Almost all the benefit under this system was to the woman and the child. The man's only real benefit was knowing the child was his, and the purpose of that benefit was to keep him interested.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:02 PM
5

Marriage has always been about trading a man's ability to provide for a woman's ability to procreate. In addition, it has also been a means of creating and cementing alliances between families, to enhance the power of all members of each of the families by increasing their numbers. Never was marriage about controlling women. It wasn't even about controlling men. It was about creating stronger units of provision to both increase the likelihood of children, and to increase the safety of women and …
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:00 PM
4

What is your point in that statement? You specifically state: sometimes it is a good idea to compensate one partner for this time spent child rearing while they were incapable of also advancing or maintaining a career. So you are saying that the parent that sacrifices their time for the family unit is deserving of compensation. If that's not what you're saying, please, explicitly, say what you mean. That is the statement, and the interpretation, that Factory2 is responding to. He is reading this…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:53 PM
14

Thank you. This is my exact response to this. We aren't proponents of the patriarchy, we don't believe this academic concept exists in the first place. This enrages feminists and they then say we support the patriarchy and oppression of women. So yeah, there's a disconnect, but it's not on who supports what, it's on the very basics of our beliefs.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:37 PM
6

The only ones who don't end up dropping the label feminist pretty quickly when presented with evidence. :p
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:33 PM
7

I think you're missing the point a bit. The point is that you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether or not she is that way. Even if it were only 10% of women that were that way, it is a risk. Many people are deciding that that risk isn't worth it. I say this as a happily married man who considers himself relatively sane. I still completely understanding not wanting to take the risk. And heck, in some places, alimony and bad child custody is a given even if the divorce is amicable. Even if…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:09 PM
2

born as a woman I don't fall into this category, but thank you for including it! :)
/r/MensRights10/08/12 11:16 PM
1

Hey now, look at the man on that card. Do you think he'd accept someone telling him bubblegum wasn't a manly flavor? I don't think so. Take that card back, chew your gum and stand proud!
/r/MensRights09/08/12 11:44 PM
4

This one works well too: http://youtu.be/AQWoNhrY_fM
/r/MensRights08/08/12 12:04 AM
9

The pinprick suggested certainly would not have prevented the recipient from having sex, nor would clitoral removal or clitoral hood removal. All of which are rightfully banned. The core issue has nothing to do with the severity of the issue. The entire issue is one of bodily autonomy against unnecessary surgical procedures. Someone else can probably whip out a bunch of sources, but I don't have them on me. The procedure does not help with hygiene, or STDs or anything else at a significant enoug…
/r/MensRights08/08/12 12:02 AM
5

To be fair, you did come off as fairly aggressive as well. Please never talk to a woman female ever again. However, I still don't believe his complaint belongs on this forum, and I do believe you made otherwise good points about worrying less about how others perceived him, and worrying more about how he is.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 11:47 PM
2

I don't even have kids. Anymore...
/r/MensRights07/08/12 08:12 PM
2

I don't know what the solution is though, how do we stop men going to jail and their lives being wrecked like this when proof that is needed is quite erm, awkward to attain? We maintain the innocent until proven guilty basis of our laws. The man is innocent until he has been shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, this means guilty people will go free, but the alternative is, in my opinion, far worse.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 07:38 PM
6

I was trying to argue how feminism is the exact thing that is keeping women down right now, and some people just won't believe me. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xsbw1/how_the_feminist_definition_of_rape_made_me_feel/c5ph458?context=2
/r/MensRights07/08/12 07:16 PM
2

You honestly believe someone requires a political position to hold political power? Also, I'd hardly call Hillary Clinton not a political figure. The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Before feminism, society literally viewed women as objects/property owned by men. This is overly simplifying the issue a great dea…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 07:09 PM
2

Oh gotcha! Sorry, it sounded like you were saying we needed all these extra definitions because otherwise women wouldn't know they were raped. If I'm reading you right now, it sounds like you're saying all these extra definitions confuse the issue for actual victims. Am I getting that right?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:59 PM
2

Why do you feel that many women won't know if they have been "legitimately" raped? The idea that a woman won't know what has happened to her and needs an outside person or group to tell her this is distasteful to me and treats the woman like a child.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:46 PM
1

Okay :) I was curious about the reception you've received in each place. I've heard both subreddits referred to as hostile, but I've never really seen it here, while I've seen plenty of examples in the strictly feminist ones. I'm also subscribed to twox! It's generally a great place, but if a man has a differing opinion, it can get pretty hostile as well.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:15 PM
1

You know, I had typed out a long response, but I'm tired of arguing right now. If you honestly can't see how feminism itself is the cause of the problems you see, and how more feminism isn't the answer, then I'm sorry for you.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:15 PM
1

This still falls under the assumption that women are objects to be acted upon, and men are objects that do the acting. Women, adult women, are just that: adults. Why are they the ones being taken advantage of? What if both parties are drunk? Was the man raped as well? Why do women need protection from their decisions? Part of equality is equal responsibility. The expectation that women, as individuals, have agency. This implicit assumption that women need extra protections is the exact opposite …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:49 PM
2

I don't give a damn about philosophy. I care about the world we live in. You claim these are extremists, and yet the law and society is in support of the views expressed by these extremists. Sure, they're extreme, but they're the ones in power. You can define feminism however you wish, but feminism, the version with power and influence, exists as a self-perpetuating machine. To maintain relevance, they create a culture of victimhood among women. That means equal protection under the law -- not p…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:44 PM
1

No, the reason why the crazy feminists are the ones everyone thinks of when they hear about feminism is because they are the ones with the power and influence in our society and government. VAWA, Title IX and other such laws didn't appear whole cloth in our body of law one day.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:36 PM
1

And isn't that supposed to be the goal of feminism? Female autonomy? It is simultaneously sad and rage inducing that the only way for you to feel autonomous is to stop identifying with the movement that, in theory, exists to bring you more autonomy.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:31 PM
1

All that is unimportant. When people say "feminism" and "feminists" they are talking about those with power and influence. Yes, we all realize that "not all feminists are like that." We know, we get it. But the ones with influence and power are like that. The ones successfully supporting VAWA and Title IX. The ones successfully opposing men's domestic violence shelters and men's centers on college campuses. Feminism can mean whatever you want it to mean, but while those with the power and influe…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:28 PM
3

It's unusual he wouldn't enjoy those things, but not everyone is wired the same way. I'm glad you respect his boundaries! :)
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:21 PM
2

But at the same time, I feel many girls actually wont know if they have been "legitimately" raped, and stay in a relationship with their abuser. Why do you feel this way? To me, this implies a lot about women. Implications I just can't agree with. The implications all boil down to one thing though: the implication that men are actors and women are acted upon.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:20 PM
2

So you call yourself an egalitarian, and post in /r/mensrights but not in /r/feminism. I'm curious as to why you choose to post here, rather than there or in both places. (no judgments intended, wording is an attempt at complete neutrality)
/r/MensRights07/08/12 02:16 PM
6

Well, running around topless in some places is totally legal, for women and men. New York City, for example. I have no idea about London, and I also have no idea about their laws on protest (time, place, permitting, whatever).
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:58 PM
5

Oh yeah, sorry, missed the context a bit. The whole "hour" thing that was quoted is totally a dick move. As electriophile said: That's why I added a ridiculously long timeframe to the scenario.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 11:46 PM
10

They can leave the situation? Or if it's their place, tell him to leave? Or if it's neutral territory (bar or whatever), go to a separate area of the neutral territory? There are ways of telling someone "no" that will absolutely stick if they aren't willing to back off after one "no" and you have no interest in being pursued further.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:59 PM
2

And we've now legalized prostitution...in a very roundabout way.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:25 PM
1

I don't know, and I wish I did. Maybe it's some variation on The Big Lie?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:39 PM
3

Why feminism seems to not take a stance on this is beyond me. Because the branch of feminism that's actually in charge, the one with the power, is an engine which has the sole purpose of victimizing women to maintain its own power. The idea of women as wholly human and wholly capable is so opposed to feminist ideals because, were it true, these organization would fail. If any given woman is considered the equal of any given man, what point is there to organizations such as NOW? Alimony, affirmat…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:59 PM
3

If I ever get a divorce and the court demands I pay alimony to maintain their lifestyle, I will demand regular sexual encounters to maintain mine.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:54 PM
2

These are all SWAGs. I am unfamiliar with this term. What is it?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:14 PM
2

/u/rightsbot is only on self posts.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:51 PM
2

I can agree with your first point, but not with your second. I wouldn't actually call it "aggressive" in getting what they want, though, just focused. I have never seen anything in our culture (U.S.A.) that made me feel that I was entitled to sex. In fact, if anything I've seen the opposite: Women as the gatekeepers to sex and I must earn the privilege from them through good deeds and sacrifice. This last bit is where a lot of the "nice guys" and "friendzoning" are coming from.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:06 PM
3

:) When I posted this, I didn't have any upvotes (or downvotes). I wanted to make sure I explained myself clearly and hadn't misrepresented the viewpoint that is largely espoused by the MRM. I try to be well informed and coherent, but I'm far from perfect.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:02 PM
2

No, I don't.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:39 PM
3

If yes, you are quite possibly a man. But not definitely! (Showing some trans love in here!)
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:38 PM
1

Oops, yup!
/r/MensRights06/08/12 04:22 PM
1

It's a good theory, actually, and I can't really refute it. I will say this ties into the MRM view of male hyperagency and female hypoagency. The view is that feminism supports a culture of victimhood in women that has the effect (arguably, intended) of removing agency, expectation of self determination, from women while at the same time putting all responsibility on men. The entire concept of victim blaming comes to this. Studies have shown there is a correlation between binge drinking and bein…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 09:33 PM
1

Also there is no patriarchy to eliminate. I agree, but I generally prefer to attack the assumption of power. Patriarchy theory can mean a few different things, and attacking the assumption of power completely undermines one of the ways patriarchy theory is defined. I choose to undermine the theory, rather than attack it directly.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:32 PM
1

I'm absolutely willing! I was worried about coming off as trying to lead you into an argument, as I truly wanted your opinion. If you won't be offended and think I was trying to lead you into a position I could attack, I'll be happy to expand! :) I do think that women generally make less money than men Now, I may be making an unfair assumption here, so let me state it straight away. When I hear this, the assumption seems to be that women make less money than men due to sexism. If that's not what…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:29 PM
1

Okay, thanks! There are point you mentioned I disagree with, but that wasn't my purpose here, so I'll just say I hope you keep reading all sides of the issues at hand and come to your own decisions based on the facts you find, not based on what other people tell you what to think.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 07:34 PM
2

Personally, though, I hold to the view that these ideals are attainable by no one, and so should not be thrust on anyone--whether or not they're normative; whether or not they make the happiest societies; whether or not anyone else thinks differently. I'm with you there. Trying to put my expectations on someone else is just a retarded way to make us both unhappy. Society is often just this on a large scale. sigh
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:58 PM
0

Have you noticed a difference in reception when you post here, versus when a self-proclaimed MRA posts in /r/feminism or /r/feminisms? Honest question, and I hope I worded it in a non-biased fashion. I'm not planning on arguing one way or the other, I just want to know if you've seen any difference in reception in the same-but-opposite circumstances.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:58 PM
1

If equity feminism were the branch in power, with the influence and loud, listened to voices, we as a movement probably wouldn't have a problem with feminism. We might disagree, but we wouldn't be opposed to them as a group. edit: would -> wouldn't
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:52 PM
1

Which is something that I thankfully haven't seen since getting involved in reading MRM materials and forums. In fact, the MRM seems to be willing to welcome anyone, as long as they are in favor of helping men obtain social and legal equality and don't try to convert the MRM into another branch of feminism.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:50 PM
3

Feminism supports and even creates in many cases, knowingly or not, female hypoagency. Women as objects that are acted upon, without the ability to act.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:46 PM
2

Sure, absolutely: if you accept that there can only be one ideal human being, the next negotiation is whether that one ideal human being is female or male in today's society. Perhaps this is a path to constructive discourse with feminists who hold to this notion of patriarchy. The problem with having constructive discourse is I believe most people here reject the assumption that: there can only be one ideal human being If feminists are starting from that position, and we're starting from a rejec…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:44 PM
1

There is no coherent, quantifiable consensus to this model, which makes it hard for the term "the patriarchy" to be utilized as a road to truth. I'm so glad to hear you say this. Unfortunately, being hard doesn't seem to stop the cries of patriarchy from the loudest and most influential feminists. Nor does it stop the cries of "check your privilege" or other concepts that rest entirely on the shoulders of patriarchy theory. :(
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:39 PM
2

Like I said earlier, I think there's reason to see the patriarchy discourse emerging from social contract theory, which has an inherent singularity to it. I don't see any inherent singularity to the concept of a social contract. The inherent singularity is an assumption, and that assumption is what's driving this explanation. It is equally valid to make the assumption that a social contract, while a singular thing, applies in different ways to men and women. Men's social contract is that of prot…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:32 PM
2

The perspective holds that a woman is required to own up to everything that the ideal man is not, precisely because she stands zero chance of ever being that ideal man. For a man to perform female traits, or for a woman to attempt to rise above her station by performing male traits closer to the Platonic form, are equally seen as unacceptable deviations under the patriarchal model. Even saying things like "rise above her station" holds so many assumptions. I realize you're describing the theory …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:25 PM
1

Patriarchy is just a red herring.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:14 PM
2

I'm sorry, but even going by your platonic ideal definition, there is not a patriarchy in the U.S.A. There are platonic ideals for both males and females, and neither males nor females can ever live up to that ideal. The platonic ideals for women often focus on their feminine nature, their beauty, their ability to mother, other stuff, but just because the ideal is different doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, this exact platonic ideal of females is exactly what feminism supposedly opposes. S…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:12 PM
1

Since men have more power That is a large assumption to make. Yes, in the U.S., men make up a larger portion of the representatives. Women, however, make up a larger portion of the voting population, as well as a larger portion of consumer spending. Corporations driven by the almighty dollar are going to cater to the population that spends the most. Politicians are going to cater to their voting base, or at least not oppose them. Women may not have the largest amount of direct power, but that ju…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:04 PM
1

I figured that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure! :)
/r/MensRights03/08/12 12:52 AM
1

But then I go back to "Canadian"--a term that also cannot be said with absolute pride because of how much baggage it also carries. When I call myself a Canadian I ascribe to a vague sense of cultural values that bind certain nations of people together; when I call myself a Canadian I similarly tether myself to Canada's not-so-great past. I don't really understand this attitude. I call myself American because I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and that's what we call ourselves. I coul…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 11:27 PM
1

I know this is a day late, but I've seen you say this a number of times, and you seem confused. Nobody is calling for automatic joint custody, they are calling for default joint custody. All that means is that without other demonstrable reasons, custody of children will be shared in a divorce. Currently, men must fight to win join custody, there is default maternal custody, and anything else must be argued for. Am I making any sense, or am I rambling? I do that sometimes...
/r/MensRights02/08/12 11:09 PM
1

Did you make this account name just to be able to give that reply? If so, that's awesome
/r/MensRights02/08/12 09:41 PM
1

While I've certainly came across posts here that I absolutely disagree with, they almost always are downvoted by the majority here. Also keep in mind, though, that disagreement is not the same as hatred. You may run across posts you disagree with, but that does not mean that the post is attacking you, attacking women, or attacking feminism. Please don't fall into the trap of assuming the worst about a person or group you have a disagreement with! :)
/r/MensRights02/08/12 09:38 PM
2

A hyperbolic hypothetical: if men are assaulting men, and men are assaulting women, then shouldn't women be afraid of men? This hyperbole is ridiculous. I've already shown it's clearly untrue, so using it to create any type of hypothetical situation is not only a waste of time, but also does nothing except increase tensions and fear. Nobody should be afraid of an entire gender. The amount of men who are victims doesn't somehow offset the impact on women. There's no one at a giant scoreboard maki…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:06 PM
1

It's in the report I linked down a couple posts, but I was having trouble finding it. For the sexual assault rate, it basically comes down to 40% women, 60% men are the perpetrators. I really wish I knew what page it was on, since I don't expect anyone to go through 200 pages or whatever that is. I'll look again to see if I can find it. Regardless though, I'm curious as to why you feel the assaulter is more important in a response to: Nice counter poster, but not everyone sees women as equals e.…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 07:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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