TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

nanomagnetic Archive

View 0 posts and 835 comments by nanomagnetic on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

wow, you guys are really too far gone, aren't you? "feminism = male disposability" is not talking about a movement; it's unequivocally slandering it.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:04 PM
-5

but there is no absolute coherence. perpetuating that kind of fallacy is nothing short of self-serving propaganda.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:37 AM
-23

those fifty+ downvotes you got? evidence of the ugly, bigoted, underbelly of this sub. absolute statements are rubbish when we're talking about something as big as a philosophy and political movement that is against misogynistic cultural mores.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 12:40 AM
2

the problem isn't that the game will encourage violent behavior; i've yet to hear anything definitive on whether games directly result in more violent behavior or not. the bigger problem is that the game is an unapologetic expression of a double standard.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:08 PM
2

you know what's funny? people who rage against legislation but have never read the full text. i'm not sure if i agree or disagree with calling VAWA a "sexist disgrace," but i will have a better idea once i read the damn thing instead of letting other people tell me how to feel about it.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 09:03 PM
2

you are fucking serious. you're a disappointment. warfare, even at the tactical level, is predicated on more than just brute force.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:29 AM
1

your headline is bullshit yellow and you know it.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:00 AM
1

you can't be fucking serious? a gun works just as well no matter the size of the soldier.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:48 AM
1

it is practically hardcoded into our DNA. but it's not literally hardcoded into our DNA. so, you have to ask yourself, why are do you insist on believing your own bullshit? what do you gain in terms of self-worth or whatnot by believing that women are inherently a liability on the frontline?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:34 AM
3

do you have any proof?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:24 AM
0

The left are totalitarians at heart. That's bullshit and you know it.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:06 PM
1

the charge was explicitly not rape -- not because of some made-up thing about federal statistics (jesus fucking christ you guys will never let that go, ehh?) -- but because california law differentiated between non-consensual sex crimes and consensual sex crimes. you might want to read up on california sex crime law before you make a fool of yourself the next time.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 01:51 AM
3

She becomes pregnant, you are financially responsible for the child that is created. Source? There is only one case I can think of where the male victim was in danger of paying. It was an illegal sex with a minor (not rape) conviction. Which meant the victim of the crime consented to the sexual contact, but the perpetrator was inappropriately and illegally older than the victim. The court decided the victim could be financially liable for the child, but deferred the decision until the victim tur…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:54 AM
1

i guess you and i have not been to the same events.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 10:36 PM
0

last i checked, slut walks aren't done naked. :/
/r/MensRights06/01/13 08:03 PM
2

would she? what criminal charge could you charge her with?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 09:56 AM
2

but would you be held directly, criminally liable for their harm? or would it have to fall to civil court and have the victim's survivors sue you?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:57 AM
2

the woman lies and it provokes a violent response? i guess i can see how it'd be hard to charge her with a crime, but it seems like she might be liable for damages since her actions caused harm and could be argued to be outside of the common sense standard.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:43 AM
-5

a better title would mention the fact that the counter-protester is probably racking up thousands of counts of sexual harassment. :/
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:30 AM
0

fuck you. you're just another fucking MRA troll, and you're refusing to see the context of the quote, the context of a fucking warzone, and the context of death and what happens to the survivors.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:34 PM
0

when you're dead, you're dead. or does that concept frighten you?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:29 PM
0

really? the whole point of sending money and supplies to war zones is to support the survivors. you can't really use money, water, food, law enforcement, etc, when you're dead.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:38 PM
-1

again, it's not that ridiculous when, no matter your beliefs, it turns out that dying in war is the end of your suffering.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:28 PM
0

and in context, you'll notice the quote is an opener to a much more nuanced viewpoint. Secretary Clinton is talking about the aftermath of warfare, the aftermath of losing men. No matter what your beliefs are, when men die in war, their suffering in this world is done. The harm caused by their deaths passes on to their families -- in many cases their wives with their children. the larger context being, of course, building political support for funding relief efforts in war torn areas of the worl…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:57 PM
1

consent under california law appears not to be strictly age-bound; and in the case being discussed, the victim of the unlawful sex act testified to the fact that the sex was consensual. i'm not sure where you get both women-hating and misandry out of that.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:34 AM
2

actually, after reviewing the case again, there's no mention of consent. and if you look up the code that convicted the perpetrator, california penal code 261.5, there's no mention of consent again. that's important because if you look at the larger body of california sex crime law, the lack of consent is a key component to a rape conviction, but it plays no bearing in an unlawful sex with a minor conviction. let me rephrase that: the Nathaniel J. case wasn't a rape case, consent was given (cons…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:58 PM
1

again. there's no specific mention of a twelve year old victim or an adult perpetrator found not guilty. in the first example, Nathaniel J. was 15, but that's a detail from the full court summary.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:40 PM
-2

these cases would be a much more honest way to build an article delving into paternity and sexual crime law. but i really hope you're not bullshitting me. nothing on that page says anything about a 12-year-old rape victim, let alone a perpetrator that was found not guilty of the act.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:47 AM
-3

of course AVfM mentions two more but doesn't provide substantiation. that's kind of what they do. they always seem to be overreaching what their evidence would actually allow them to say. the kentucky case is a joke. a prosecutor said he would help? which prosecutor? when? did it ever happen? would his colleagues have let him? and the colorado case is missing important details. there's an off chance out there that it's a clerical error, was never followed up on, and that's why no more court docu…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:37 AM
0

If I remember the wikipedia article source correctly, there was exactly one case where a California court ordered child support from a statutory rape victim. The details of the case included the fact that the boy gave testimony stating that he was a willing participant, which was enough for the courts to find him both unable to legally give consent, but financially liable for the risk he willingly took with his sexual partner. Not exactly something you can pad an entire, unsubstantiated article …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:22 AM
-4

If I remember the wikipedia article source correctly, there was exactly one case where a California court ordered child support from a statutory rape victim. The details of the case included the fact that the boy gave testimony stating that he was a willing participant, which was enough for the courts to find him both unable to legally give consent, but financially liable for the risk he willingly took with his sexual partner. Not exactly something you can pad an entire, unsubstantiated article …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:53 AM
1

how strange, in the pacific northwest that's the tolo dance. i think it's chinook jargon.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:27 AM
1

Well first of all I didn't say exactly that... Of course not, you said, "Feminists don't have convictions...They will say whatever they think they have to in order to get people to treat women the way they want." That's untrue, and you know it. Some people are definitely sycophants to popular ideology, so it's reasonable to assume that some feminists (and MRAs and other ideologically driven individuals) are sycophantic. But that doesn't even begin to cover the wide spectrum of political beliefs …
/r/MensRights11/11/12 10:24 PM
3

i think that kind of intentional destruction of your property and privacy would definitely qualify as abuse. it's espionage; it's being used to gain the upper hand in the relationship. which makes it less of a partnership and more of a competition. not to after school special you, but a situation like yours probably needs rethinking.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 01:37 AM
6

it depends on the context. if your girlfriend is going through your phone to look up a number, that's a pretty benign case. if she's deleting sexy photos of herself from your phone, you've stumbled onto a gray area. and if she's digging through your phone looking for something to harass you over, she's crossed a line.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:25 AM
0

in such a low level offense, it's not an excuse, but it's certainly a mitigating factor.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:45 PM
4

we're living through a relatively puritan time, so it makes sense that there's not a lot of respect built into "celebrating sexuality," and it also makes sense that there's a significant amount of backlash to it.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:32 PM
5

i think that people are assuming that professional basketball players, like professional football players, don't have a lot of experience or schooling to find a job that pays like the NBA pays. i don't know Blount's specific situation, but the last sentence says he's paying for schooling.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 06:31 PM
2

there's no conspiracy here. it's just the general trend of our culture. there's a big difference, and it would easier to take you seriously if you didn't conflate the two.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 02:05 AM
2

not quite. the government says a marriage license is akin to a business license. financially, both partners are holding the release on each other's guillotine.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 09:24 AM
-2

I did join the conversation, and you were just as irrational then. Why else would I tag you? And you're not helping your respectability any. At this point it seems more likely that you're lying about the entire event in order to make yourself feel and look better in your own eyes. I'd highly recommend avoiding any hallucinogens for the rest of your life. You might not like what you'll see...
/r/MensRights01/03/12 03:38 AM
-2

Yeah, I don't see how that's at all rage-inducing. It doesn't appear to be on company time, property or authority. It's a private get-together and you're not invited.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 01:42 AM
-3

Except that's not how our submissions are titled or the discussions can go. This forum ends up just being about which woman was the worst and so "ha! women are evil and men are okay." It's tiring.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 12:39 AM
-4

No, the story you told earlier was about a shopping trip your coworkers went on. If it was a party, I would have written "was strangely excluded from an in-office party". But, this is precisely why I don't trust your judgement.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 12:28 AM
-4

You know, you're that guy who, quoting your RES tag: "threw a hissy fit because some women at work privately went out together for shopping or whatever and didn't invite the boys." So I'm not sure if I can trust your perception of things.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 01:25 PM
3

You're warping the implications and providing no context.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 08:57 AM
1

Creative industries are not obscure special interests, for your information. Nearly every piece of copy that you read in your daily life, for example, was written by a professional somewhere. And most students who do liberal arts degrees aren't carrying around $100k in debt. Liberal arts programs are not that expensive. Private business schools are. Doing post-baccalaureate work is that expensive. But your run of the mill, state school educated graduate is probably carrying less than half that, …
/r/MensRights14/02/12 09:46 PM
1

You know, you don't know everything about graduation rates, degree distribution or expectations of the younger generation. It might be that they don't want a business degree and a business career. You see, there's this whole thing called the creative industry. It needs writers, designers, editors, managers, etc. You might want to look it up some time.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 06:15 AM
2

Sounds like a real break-down of communication with dispatch. The deputy definitely called in her report, but it's not clear if she ever had the chance to call again and make dispatch stand down.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 08:44 AM
1

Yeah, it disturbs guests when your jars of female sex organs are on pedestals in the living room... But seriously, what's wrong with a couple that compromises?
/r/MensRights11/02/12 11:59 PM
2

And if the dead are gone. The primary victims are their survivors....
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:47 PM
2

See, that's just being extreme to make a non-point. I never discounted what the casualties of war feel. I'm just trying to point out that whether or not you're theistic, the dead have moved on, and the only victims left are their survivors. When it comes to the aftermath of war, there is not a single policy you could follow to lessen the pain of the dead.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 08:32 PM
3

I'm just saying the dead have no feelings and no anguish and no loss. They're dead. Clinton's remark isn't completely off-base.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 04:58 AM
4

Well, technically, when you're dead, you're dead. The survivors, on the other hand?
/r/MensRights08/02/12 09:50 PM
3

Who are you to shit on that kind of compromise?
/r/MensRights04/02/12 01:49 PM
6

IT IS NOT fucking sexual harassment I'm sure both cases fit whatever broad definition the school was using to cower behind. It's probably something like '(in)direct contact with another person's genitals, attempted or otherwise'. There's probably no room in their definition to consider context or the the difference between, say, the mindset of a teenager and a 6 year-old kid...
/r/MensRights31/01/12 07:20 PM
0

That's not what he said, and you know it.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 10:27 PM
0

'Drunk' doesn't typically take away an individual's ability to consent. The courts don't care about inebriation or intoxication; the break point is incapacitation.
/r/seduction23/01/12 08:44 AM
4

You guys do realize that this 'brothel-owner' is being downvoted because he's unverified and no one's taking him seriously, yeah? Oh wait, no you don't. This is r/mensrights...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights23/01/12 03:15 AM
5

No kidding. I can't say I'm surprised, but it's always disappointing.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 03:03 AM
2

It does make a difference, that's the point. An institution like a university has broad powers to expel and exclude people at their discretion. And there's not much we can do to fight it, except to intrude state or federal government on both public and private institutions and enforce criminal law standards on evidence -- meaning the pendulum would swing to letting more guilty people go unpunished. For better or worse, that's not how universities want to operate.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:59 PM
1

I never said it was right. Where are you getting this bullshit?
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:48 PM
0

I never said it wasn't absurd. I just repeated what needs to be said every time a university story rolls up: The basis for their decisions is not held to criminal evidence standards...
/r/MensRights13/01/12 07:34 PM
-1

When you guys go to rightly flip your shit about this, please remember that colleges are not government institutions. Their decision to expel is not necessarily regulated by the standards of evidence you find in a criminal case.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 10:35 PM
1

I remember reading about how women's wages were starting to overtake men's when you actually compared the same jobs side-by-side. It was one of those effects of women completing more higher education if I remember correctly.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 12:09 PM
0

You know, no matter how much you dress up your website, it's still going to serve up hypocritical bullshit.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:46 AM
8

That being said, due process is to keep the not guilty out of jail, not to let the guilty off the hook, as the way it is now. That's not even close to true, and you know it.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 11:14 PM
1

They're "designed" in such a way that certain traits are, overall, best for their survival. Close. It's more like traits a species pick up are simply better than others. There's no guarantee of "best".
/r/MensRights09/01/12 11:49 PM
0

Yeah, no. Sexual assault is well-defined, though broad. You're just pretending there isn't a problem, or never was one, at this point...
/r/MensRights08/01/12 09:12 AM
-2

One, species aren't designed. Two...where'd you read that?
/r/MensRights08/01/12 09:01 AM
2

I think the quote you're looking for is 1 in 4 women in the US will experience sexual assault in their lifetimes. It's a much broader term, and given the scope of a person's lifetime, falls into line with common sense.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 11:55 PM
15

That's not scientific, however. You have to study even what seems like common sense. Otherwise there's no evidence for that common sense, or, sometimes, it'll turn out that common sense is wrong, or right for different reasons.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 10:23 PM
23

Again and again and again it seems that a lot of people need reminding that despite all the hype and the movies, marriage is actually, primarily, structured more like a business partnership...
/r/MensRights01/01/12 08:37 PM
1

Well, give me a bit, it must be buried somewhere in their history. here's a good one.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 12:09 AM
2

i'm not letting their past actions slip away into anonymity.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 07:03 PM
2

care to link the comment in question, or are you talking out your ass?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:38 PM
-9

Your RES tag already reads, "falsely stereotypes feminism"...
/r/MensRights18/12/11 09:37 AM
1

It's called lurking.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:34 PM
2

You guys do realize green text threads are typically make the saddest/most uplifting/craziest/walk the dinosaur story types of threads, right? You're not seriously taking 4chan at face value? How far can this subreddit fall?
/r/MensRights14/12/11 02:13 AM
1

Could be different journalistic ethics in Kenton. Or it's a shitty newspaper. Hard to say.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 12:05 PM
1

I would say these blogs are this subreddit's bread and butter, but there's never any substance...
/r/MensRights07/12/11 04:23 AM
0

That's bullshit and you know it. Wait until some ruling is made before you pretend to know the outcome... :/
/r/MensRights07/12/11 04:03 AM
0

That's not clear thinking...
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:15 PM
-5

This comment right here is what she's probably worried about...
/r/MensRights03/12/11 05:29 AM
-44

You're fucking kidding, right? You can skew facts to show a double-standard by refusing to take into account the details of the incident and just pretending that any sexual assault/harassment charge leveled against a man is perfectly equivalent. edit: since i only have once-every-10-minutes posting privileges on this board, let me just say, you cocksuckers need to read the fucking article. she was a drunk groper in a pathetic situation. find me one story with a man in that position who was "buri…
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:41 PM
-55

Where's the double standard? Show me one airline incident where a man received a conviction and jailtime for the same offense.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:20 PM
0

Yes, I do. And one incident of exclusion is obnoxious, but it's not necessarily a trend.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 05:51 PM
0

Remember the civil rights movement? Private businesses telling blacks to get the fuck out? Well here we are all over again, except it seems that political correctness looks the other way when PC-protected groups are involved. Lol, really? The hotel isn't excluding men. The hotel saw a profitable niche to capture, and they did so using only 2.5% of their available space.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 08:43 AM
1

Well, sure, that's a valid comparison, but you're missing the critical part: 10%. And i'm not even sure that's the right number... Okay, so twenty out of eight-hundred fourteen rooms is about 2.5%. I don't see the problem. What's wrong with dedicating 2.5% to a specific market? They're not even excluding men from the premises...
/r/MensRights25/11/11 08:23 AM
-4

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...
/r/MensRights25/11/11 07:15 AM
3

Do we even know if he was actually registered or convicted or anything? No reputable source is saying that the boy has been, or that he will have to register at 18.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 06:28 AM
4

That's basically what I was asking of the OP. So a private enterprise allocates less than 10% of it's service or product for women only...what the fuck is the big deal?
/r/MensRights23/11/11 05:40 PM
-14

Are you guys fucking serious?
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:31 AM
1

While I don't agree with posting opinions we disagree with (how in the hell is that men's rights anyways?), I think Wolf has an unsubstantiated and narrow view on pornography. She's completely missed the fact that perfect models is just another niche market. I'd dare her to type up the craziest thing she could think of into a search engine...and add sex to the end. It's likely out there...and raking in money.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 05:57 AM
0

hey, i'm just saying it's a possibility, and that it would 100% unethical to exclude that possibility. or are we revoking advertising privileges for people with disagree with or find distasteful?
/r/MensRights21/11/11 07:43 AM
1

technically, it's sexual assault in the first degree. But there's no justice in throwing the book at a six-year-old.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 07:33 AM
1

yeah, but it's more difficult to be exclusive or picky or uptight about it when you're putting an ad right in the middle of an urban area.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 07:19 AM
1

Well...technically...it's sexual assault in the first degree. But there's no justice in throwing the book at a six-year-old.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 04:06 AM
-2

alright. but that completely ignores the possibility of an advertiser targeting a dom/sub demographic.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 03:54 AM
-5

Would it? Do we have any real world example to compare this billboard to? Or is this just victimized, speculative bullshit?
/r/MensRights18/11/11 08:17 PM
1

o_O?
/r/MensRights16/11/11 07:31 PM
5

There's hints of double standard in his story.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:42 AM
2

forgive me for not wanting to be spoonfed from people whose agenda is telling people what's right and wrong.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:11 PM
2

until you can provide an actual news article, i'm pretty sure everything on that page (and this one) is just bullshit.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 12:18 AM
1

so is it company event or is it a private outing?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:43 PM
0

Better than this spoon-feeding, for sure...
/r/MensRights09/11/11 11:15 PM
1

Think all [insert trendy scapegoats] are harmless? Think again FTFY...
/r/MensRights07/11/11 02:19 AM
1

You forget that marriage is basically a business partnership...
/r/MensRights30/10/11 10:59 PM
1

Lol. It's okay. You've earned a pretty good RES tag and I'll probably be more reasonable next time I disagree with you: HPDerpcraft (we disagree strongly on many things, except giving the r/mensrights trolls shit)
/r/MensRights23/10/11 09:56 AM
0

I'm talking about r/mensrights in general. Notice how I'm being snide about the culture on this board? :/
/r/MensRights22/10/11 07:13 PM
-6

You're making sense. You shouldn't do that in a "women and feminism are clearly the root of all mens' ills" thread.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 10:43 AM
1

True. I guess I meant more that they're not government institutions. They're not part of the justice system. Just like a corporation can have you sign arbitration clauses that work against the employee and divorce internal disputes from more rigorous investigation and standards. I'm not saying it's right or moral or ethical, but it's certainly a common enough privilege that any organization enjoys that I'm not exactly up in arms about it.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:14 PM
-3

private institutions =/= public institutions. A college is allowed to have lower thresholds for evidence or accusation before moving against an individual. So, please, don't pull this card, it's bullshit.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 08:14 PM
2

Show me a North Ogden woman assaulting a man and getting away with it.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 04:41 PM
1

You don't know what you're talking about. You should read up on the laws on the books...
/r/MensRights23/09/11 09:24 AM
1

I've already had this discussion before. Mental incapacitation is the threshold in Washington State to release you from responsibility and ability to consent, and it's difficult to prove mental incapacitation when you've only been drinking or smoking weed. Most of the time the law treats people under the influence as completely responsible for their actions, like for DUIs. Second, minors can consent to sexual relations in a number of jurisdictions. Their consent is sometimes limited to an age ra…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 06:08 PM
1

intoxication doesn't remove one's ability to consent, legally.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 09:10 PM
7

Uh oh...you've invited the brigade XD
/r/MensRights17/09/11 02:22 AM
-2

Honestly, I just think it's an insidious "argument" to make that all the horrible things women do must be posted to advance men's rights. That doesn't make much sense at all. Show me a man who received a far harsher punishment for the same crime in this woman's jurisdiction and I'll call it fair game. Otherwise, it's just baiting and pandering all rolled into one.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 05:23 AM
-5

you've completely misread the situation in order to get angry...if men really do receive inordinate punishments in child-abuse convictions, then, and only then, would i consider this article pertinent.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:02 PM
-5

facepalm Last I checked my dick didn't pertain to any argument. :/
/r/MensRights10/09/11 03:38 PM
3

if they showed a man in similar circumstances receiving a greater punishment, then it would be a contender for men's rights. Otherwise it's just blatant, sexist pandering.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:16 PM
-9

This has nothing to do with men's rights and you know it. Please leave the "hurr durr womyn urr evilz" threads to f7u12.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:52 AM
2

Not really, if the mother is executing the estate...and the daughter is his biological daughter...exactly why are they denying the father's estate from picking new heirs? Yeah?
/r/MensRights02/09/11 07:54 PM
5

“We do whole house, driveway, door, everything for you.” “How much?” Let’s get right to the point gentleman. “How much you pay?” They put it back on me. I thought. “20 dollars” my honest reply. The guy laughs. “We do whole thing for 150.” One word. Extortion. What an entitled little punk. If it takes one person one hour to finish the whole all the front walkways, maybe I could see $20. But, this is literally back-breaking labor, fer chrissakes...
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:41 PM
5

Not really, if the mother is executing the estate...and the daughter is his biological daughter...exactly why are they denying the father's estate from picking new heirs? Ah, well there's this: The Legislature passed a bill this year granting inheritance rights to children conceived posthumously, but did not make those rights retroactive. The measure was signed into law in May.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:22 PM
1

i guess. even then i wouldn't be up in arms. again: private company, public property.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 06:31 AM
2

Whoa there champ... Yeah your twisting my words I never mentioned small talk. & I say all sorts of nice crap to make life easier. That's small talk. Saying nice crap is just shooting the breeze, you know? I was trying to say there's a difference between just making nice, and actually listening to someone talk about their perspective. A bad therapist is still massively better than an amateur. That can definitely be true, but it doesn't take away the fact that sometimes people go to their friends …
/r/MensRights26/08/11 07:06 AM
1

Huh? Talking one-on-one with a friend is not "small talk" like you mentioned earlier in the thread. Huh? Society is a members-only club. You have to be able to communicate and reciprocate in a variety of situations to fit in. And, for example, people on the autism spectrum (or at least claim they are in youTube videos) have difficulty fitting in.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:11 AM
2

But @tubecrush decided not to ask for pictures of women Meh, that's their prerogative. They're a private company doing whatever with pictures taken in public.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:55 AM
0

figured.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:24 AM
1

I say all sorts of nice crap to make life easier. But we're not talking about small talk. I'm 'socially blind' are you admitting society is a members only club? Well, people on the autism spectrum certainly have a hard time.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 01:37 PM
1

evidence of results beyond feeling different. Are you socially blind? If someone is coming to you with a problem, they're likely not looking for solution, they're likely looking to feel better about the problem. Though, sometimes that includes coming up with a solution.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 06:43 AM
0

your suggestions led to places where people are asking and given concrete advice, not circle jerking their emotions... facebook is different, i think. there's only a "like" button so it encourages that sort of sappy output. :/
/r/MensRights22/08/11 02:18 AM
0

I'd also say that female standards of talking about feelings are an endless pointless circle jerk. Then you've never listened in. I don't think any group of people (men or women) is really up to emotional circle-jerking. Except maybe an enforced group-therapy setting. There's a reason it's called a "heart-to-heart."
/r/MensRights22/08/11 12:35 AM
0

tl;drs can function like thesis statements too, you know.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:19 AM
1

not really...if it's well-lit and regularly patrolled and monitored on camera... :/
/r/MensRights17/08/11 11:08 PM
3

I'm not inclined to remove the link to the /malestudies reddit, because it has useful information and I like the academic male studies effort. That's pretty fucked up that you won't listen to your community. :/
/r/MensRights17/08/11 05:51 PM
2

What you say is pretty much true. I got a drive-by ban a while back, before I even knew that subreddit existed. (by the way, your RES tag says: "relies on science when wading into the false rape controversy")
/r/MensRights17/08/11 05:39 PM
3

funny, your RES tag for me says, "rampantly sexist against women". that doesn't bode well for your opinion.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 12:27 PM
6

Edit: Obviously I should have clarified, it's not a right to make rape jokes without criticism. Yes, free speech in public areas, et cetera. :/
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:37 PM
9

funny, if you read that part of the paper, the researchers didn't say that, a police commissioner "over 50%". Which is weird, because that doesn't agree with the sample space they used. 140/8500ish? and i can't quite tell if they agree with the 50% number or not in their conclusion. anyone else want to parse this thing through google-translate; or better, is anyone fluent in german?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 06:13 PM
1

Not really. I'm asking that we look at two similar cases. Same or similar convictions in the same, let's say, State-level jurisdiction. Let's actually see if men are being discriminated against. Otherwise you're just circlejerking yourself, you know?
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:46 AM
1

hey, i'm just asking.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:23 PM
0

Look, the laws in Washington are specific enough to account for non-coercive, non-violent statutory rape. That's why Letourneau's first conviction was so light. Maybe this sounds crazy, but we tend not to kill our prisoners and we tend to prefer rehab to just locking people up. Of course, that stance changes with repeat offenders. Notice how she got seven years after being caught a second time for the same crime? By the way, placing the palm of your hand to your head predates any Star Trek inspi…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:53 PM
0

"Facepalm" isn't a stupid internet meme, it's a nonverbal gesture. But if you're autistic or something, I'll understand. But again, the problem doesn't seem to be with the law, per se. The woman had three of her charges dropped. The man was up against nearly 10,000 of his own text messages to his victim. The woman lost contact with her children. The man's sentence isn't life, but something more fluid 10-to-life. Based on what they were convicted of, I don't see the disparity. The woman was caugh…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:56 AM
0

facepalm Dredging two cases where women were charged and found guilty doesn't really prove your point...
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:00 AM
1

you'll have to cite two comparable cases before just spouting that off actually has any credibility..
/r/MensRights24/07/11 03:09 AM
2

False More likely a server overload, or scheduled maintenance than anything sinister.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 01:20 AM
1

Male + female + alcohol = he raped her, in the eyes of the law. Somehow I don't think you get the "law"; cases involving alcohol fall apart quickly because there's not a single reliable piece of testimony to build any case from.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 12:34 PM
1

Depending on what state you're in, she's really got nothing on you. It's her word against yours, with a third-party tipping in your favor and no physical evidence. Not many police departments would investigate that, let alone pass it on to the prosecutor's office. Don't make any statements without a lawyer.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 12:19 PM
1

aka, Poe's Law
/r/MensRights08/07/11 10:17 PM
-8

shhhhh, you're making sense.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 09:03 AM
-1

Whoa there brosef, you mad... XD No, but seriously. Perhaps I mis-remembered backfire effect. I tend to read that website in big chunks. The information might get a bit scrambled. But I'm pretty sure being presented with contrary information is bound to happen as you research a topic. And the backfire effect says that you'll more likely strengthen your position, even when presented with that contrary information. I disagree that early 20th century feminism is the sole reason for federal expansio…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:26 AM
-1

facepalm Backfire effect is basically what you've been displaying: Have a viewpoint Research it ??? Come back with a more deeply entrenched view I'm saying early 20th century feminism isn't the sole reason behind the things you listed. And it's not, by the way. They had certain political alliances that put them in close contact with people who pushed welfare, drug laws, and temperance. All three of which expanded the federal government. But it's not sufficient to say the suffragettes caused fede…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:48 AM
0

So, you don't remember this? Backfire effect rearing it's head in your case, perhaps? :/ I guess denial is more your schtick anyways.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:28 AM
2

oh i see it now. i kept getting hung up on your change of angled apostrophe to straight apostrophe.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:31 PM
-1

if you want to go that route, can i just say your projection is showing?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:37 AM
2

your "facts" are little more than propaganda. it's not as simple as suffrage = taxes.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 08:50 PM
2

political alliances in the early 20th century don't make the women's equality movement the sole culprit of a "nanny-state" (something that wasn't instituted until a decade after the feminist peak), temperance, probation or the drug war.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 08:39 PM
1

Acquitted :/
/r/MensRights25/06/11 09:56 PM
11

Feminist take on Circumcision ban... No, no it's not. It's the comments section :/
/r/MensRights25/06/11 04:55 AM
2

The problem with that study is they're measuring the rate of infection. Passing diseases from a woman to a man is already low-probability. And there's no last word on the cost-benefit of the risks of circumcision against the reduction in disease rates. Thorough analysis is a much more hell-worthy argument. There are complications from removing the foreskin, and at the moment there's no telling whether there's actually a netgain in health benefits. Though, I imagine there's probably a strong argu…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:41 PM
0

there doesn't seem to be anything here I think reddit called it on this one. I'm all against circumcision, but this wasn't a very good article. Is there a link to the study or something?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:16 PM
3

Or in other words, the justice system is not a truth system, next.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 02:48 PM
1

Yeah...but you notice how such a shitty comment got voted down. As if it wasn't welcome in that community o_O?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 08:09 AM
2

Last I read up on it, circumcision imposes a higher health risk than it reduces. Getting cut is riskier than the reduction in future infections. That's a bad trade-off.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:33 AM
0

redefining terms to make yourself right doesn't count there bub.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:15 AM
1

Your version of it is.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 01:48 AM
3

There is no possible way to get the approval of feminists without kowtowing to feminism. That's false on its face.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 01:35 AM
-5

When I go to the page in question, there are deleted comments.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 12:55 AM
-10

False. The page shows deleted comments.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 11:41 PM
3

Your post is sitting at 20 and 30 right now, and that's just weird. There really is the school of thought that sexuality is primarily a social phenomenon. You'd think 30 downvoters hadn't heard of the Anasazi or Greeks or whoever. Though, maybe you crossed the line with your second paragraph...
/r/MensRights07/06/11 05:30 AM
3

So you have to pieces of anecdotal evidence. You're not convincing me of anything. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights05/06/11 11:37 PM
1

stealth edit :/
/r/MensRights04/06/11 07:25 PM
-16

You shouldn't be such a creepy jerk on facebook. The men and women in that thread had some valid things to say. And even if you could rightly say that they've come to the wrong conclusions, you don't help anyone by indulging in Poe's Law and showing off to reddit.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:49 AM
-2

That was shitty stealth edit. Original comment: lol.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 08:05 AM
-3

Nope, I'm full of shit, and I know it. FTFY
/r/MensRights04/06/11 07:42 AM
-3

No doubt if the genders were reversed the guys would be in jail already... Care to source that?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:12 AM
1

Until you can provide evidence that a husband threatening his wife in nearly the same type of circumstances in Florida would receive a drastically different sentence, you don't have a double standard here.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 01:01 AM
1

She's a third-party in this case, however.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 10:05 PM
0

No, she's fringe. The statements in the list more or less pass legal/logical muster, but clearly she's fringe given the comments. We're not actually going to let her be the voice of feminism, are we?
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:11 PM
-9

And the FAQ is a load of bull. This article has nothing to do with any kind of men's rights.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:01 PM
1

Yeah...except in the PNW. Do you not read before you comment? The USA isn't one homogeneous political entity, you know.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 04:11 PM
-4

It's not unbelievable, it's just unrelated. The cherry-picked memories you have of women not believing your story does not give you insight into the alleged hypocritical views of some kind of fictional feminist.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 03:55 PM
2

what's sad is no one is actually saying this except you...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights31/05/11 08:13 AM
2

no, she's fringe.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:52 AM
-1

Are you German? Because the controversy in the German judicial system has little to no bearing on "our" systems in the Pacific Northwest.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:29 AM
-4

confirmation bias confirmed.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 06:48 AM
2

Too much speculation and ethnocentricity and not enough actual analysis.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 04:29 AM
1

Yep. There's no room for extenuating circumstances in the MRA world...shoulda figured...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:21 AM
-16

sigh yeah, let's just jail all the kids and fuck up their future there bub...
/r/MensRights27/05/11 02:06 AM
1

You're even justifying going after child support from men who have been raped. No, I'm not. Remember how we were talking about consensual sex? Oh wait, of course you didn't, you just couldn't wait to build your strawman. :/ It's a burden that should placed on the state -- on the rest of us. As a society we've more or less said that a child has the right to parents worth of support. But we've also said that no victim of rape should be liable for ongoing costs or damages from the act. That would i…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 01:50 AM
-15

And if you had read the article, you'd've realized that's exactly what happened. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights27/05/11 01:37 AM
-27

On 14 July [almost a month after the arrests] one of the men came forward to tell police he had discovered a voice recording on his mobile phone which backed up their account. That seems a little suspicious. But if the court said it was good enough, I guess I'll take that. But don't let that stop falserapesociety from making up bullshit: It turns out the police arrested the men before reviewing the evidence. One of the men found a recording on his phone of his sexual encounter with Patenall whic…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 01:14 AM
1

Abortion isn't murder because, typically, we don't consider a fetus a person until it's passed some kind of "viability" threshold. After a baby is born, and now considered a person, the baby has the right to access the income of both of its biological parents. So, in your rape example, it's not that the mother is taking the father's money. It's the child taking the father's money. Of course, that money gets administered by the parent taking care of the child, and that's totally open to corruptio…
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:32 PM
1

no, they're not. pregnancy has risks, hormone treatment has risks, abortion has risks. it's not at all an equal distribution. and they should be taken into account since they're the woman's half of the implied agreement that comes with sex. they cost the woman money or whatever. and it's the other half of the whole sex rights and liberties debate or argument or what you want to call it.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 04:40 AM
1

but the inherent imbalance of decision making power comes from biology. only women can carry a child to term, that comes with certain privileges given modern legal philosophy on personal liberties. the man has no say at that point, DNA freely given doesn't follow copyright laws. there just doesn't seem to be any ethical basis to give him a say at this point. how exactly are we supposed to fix this legal tangle without compromising the already established privileges and liberties?
/r/MensRights26/05/11 12:17 AM
0

no shit, sherlock. did you not read the bullet points? plus, men don't bear all the risks. i mean, you do know what pregnancy is, right?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:33 PM
0

Yes, it is pinned squarely on biology. And until medical technology gets us out of this rut, there's really no way out given the legal precepts I just listed. But don't let that stop you from shoving your filthy words in my mouth. Seriously, this subreddit has got the worst case of strawman disorder. I disagree with using biology/law argument, in cases of rape, statutory or otherwise, or really any situation where consent to the inherent risks of heterosexual sex can't be given. That's just blat…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:00 PM
-1

or maybe it's just the natural imbalance of power dropped on us by biology. as unfair as it is: having sex implies that you'll take a share in the consequences. the only way out of that contract is if the consequences are nullified. in this case, the fetus gets aborted. but, the only person with the right to abort the fetus, is the person carrying the fetus. so, unless you want to change one of these fundamental legal premises, men carry higher risks in heterosexual relationships. and that's the…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:46 PM
1

Hmm, her website returns a 404 if you go asking about "Legal Stuff". That seems a bit suspicious. It's one thing to sell off your ex's abandoned items cluttering your flat, it's another to actively market yourself as an "evil idea" and not even mention legal etiquette and ownership and whatever.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:52 AM
-1

Fri Apr 18, 2008 What, did the outcome of the story not match your worldview? ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:41 AM
0

And yet you can't say that this applies to ALL women ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights21/05/11 04:06 PM
-2

Yeah, your headline is bullshit: Kroeger, the 38-year-old Nickelback frontman, was in a common-law relationship with Marianna Goriuk for almost seven years before they split up and she moved out in late 2009.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 03:43 PM
1

There's no corroboration. That's the problem with this testimony. I'm fine if enough people tell the same story and they've got a little evidence to back them up. But this wasn't even journalism :/
/r/MensRights19/05/11 06:02 PM
2

they really should. i mean, it's not exactly a show of solidarity if only half of the older workforce is turning out to protest these measures.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 03:02 AM
2

but are they going to the media or putting on a big show with a march? the news doesn't print a story unless it's relevant to their readership and it stands apart from the day to day.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 08:22 PM
3

but, are the men marching on parliament? that's what made this event newsworthy.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:35 PM
2

of course everyone is conveniently forgetting the austerity plans that place this march more in context... ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:23 PM
-3

Yeah, is this a double standard? What kind of sentence do men receive in Ohio for an Alford Plea?
/r/MensRights17/05/11 04:59 PM
-4

But you get what I'm saying :/
/r/MensRights16/05/11 09:54 PM
-3

Gossip. Straight gossip. Do we have any news sources here?
/r/MensRights16/05/11 08:58 PM
-1

You know, that's actually a good idea. And once you've tallied the total amount of media swinging one way or another, you could go ahead and write a paper about your findings. Sheesh....
/r/MensRights15/05/11 05:51 PM
1

And no links? You guys really hound on a particular narrative, but you also tend to keep a pretty shallow archive. It'd be nice if you could compile this information, write about it, then post your findings. Otherwise it's just been a long line of cherry picking dumped on this subreddit...
/r/MensRights15/05/11 05:36 PM
1

source? is it actually true in your laws and whatnot that a woman aggressor does not exist?
/r/MensRights15/05/11 05:25 PM
-15

And can any of that be sourced? There's a serious flaw here. I don't have any experience with anything you just claimed, and you expect me to take this all at face value? You expect me to believe that an absolute is true? Why is the man always the idiot/rapist/abuser/deadbeat? Or to not ask for a source on something like this? It's the trend: the villain must be a white male. Or this??? Every commercial paints dad as another child for the wise mother to pat on the head. Seriously. If you're goin…
/r/MensRights14/05/11 06:42 AM
0

Wait, with what money?
/r/MensRights14/05/11 06:28 AM
-3

You can't make that claim with your headline there, rantgrrl. It's one 40 second spot. One really tasteless 40 second spot. But I don't see anything that supports your headline...
/r/MensRights14/05/11 06:13 AM
1

Well, other than not having sex at all, that is sound advice given our lack of options, wouldn't you agree? Some of us would like to lobby for men to have more options than those regarding a choice of fatherhood, but the whole idea is not popular. See the implication there? "Some of us would like to lobby [and clearly you do not]"? I'm not going to make a statement on that point by the way. There's no easy answer to a problem that's been stacked by biology. Which should be pretty obvious given h…
/r/MensRights14/05/11 03:13 AM
1

You can take your imaginary shed, which contains a strawman, and shove it back in your mind or up your ass. Oh, he mad. :P I don't know where you get off saying the strawman is imaginary when you stated this: Well, other than not having sex at all, that is sound advice given our lack of options, wouldn't you agree? Some of us would like to lobby for men to have more options than those regarding a choice of fatherhood, but the whole idea is not popular. Or am I not allowed to follow the general r…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 10:26 PM
3

That's a pretty fucked title you have there, actually, pär larsson ಠ_ಠ (I see you in the comments) The mother has cancer and is "unemployed", but otherwise I didn't see any legitimate reason why she can't see the kids in the near term. She's a freelancer and it's hard to say if she has a fighting chance against her breastcancer. Imagine if the tables were turned and a father had metastasized testicular cancer and was an "unemployed" freelancer. I'm pretty sure edit: "you'd, pär larsson," you'd a…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:27 PM
1

Why aren't women encouraged to man-up and take care of the kid they created like men are? Health risks, for starters. It's expensive and potentially dangerous to carry a fetus to term. Second, the fetus isn't legally a person until well on into the pregnancy. There's no equal rights to uphold when a woman terminates a pregnancy. Third, women are encouraged to "man-up", have you not been even aware of Planned Parenthood and its critiques? When the weather is nice, it's pretty much a staple of any…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 03:15 PM
0

come back and check the top comment.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:09 AM
1

That's a good link. There's a little more analysis to the Nathaniel J. case: One who is injured as a result of a criminal act in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse. And what's funny (at least to me since I've run into people like kloo2yoo who believe in a "feminist conspiracy"), is that each court decision in this analysis rests on t…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:55 AM
0

facepalm You don't get law...do you?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 10:24 PM
-1

No. I was talking about the lone Wiki citation. I mean, no shit there's more than one case out there, but the wikipedia article has no authority to claim it's happening all over the country with that one citation.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:43 PM
0

My point is that the court ruled in this way for this one situation. It doesn't necessarily apply to all rape. Which is what you were implying with: "All that means is the law truly believes men and boys can't be raped by women." Which is just sensationalist on its face...
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:21 PM
0

It's a statutory rape situation. And in the one case that the wikipedia article is citing, the victim discussed a future relationship with his perpetrator and said he basically consented to the sex. Please, don't trust everything wikipedia says, check its sources!
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:39 AM
-2

And it's seriously not true. Check out the Wiki citations. There's a lone case out there and it was under very exacting circumstances.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:29 AM
0

The Wikipedia source has a lone citation. And it's not a very good citation. There's only one case in the linked paper (the paper's been cut down and there's no context), and it was a case of "mutually agreeable" sex. That's a nuance your title misses there, CapNRoddy. edit: Also, the last statement in that paragraph (and it's citation): This is true whether or not the male consented to sex.[19] are complete, bullshit speculation.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 01:18 AM
32

Explain to me, exactly, how this doesn't apply to mens-rights o_O?
/r/MensRights12/05/11 12:47 AM
-1

funny how i didn't say any of that. can you think of any shift in societal norms that was accomplished by one person acting alone?
/r/MensRights10/05/11 11:46 PM
5

you don't get society, do you?
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:31 PM
-1

and this is relevant...how exactly?
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:36 PM
-1

...who's saying it isn't sexist and that rights are actually privileges isn't how it works?
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:05 PM
1

well, clearly today's youth is fucked.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:11 PM
-5

not the time nor the place there buddy.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:32 AM
1

so...a private group has their own rules for entry and acceptance. is anyone else not seeing the controversy here?
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:22 AM
-6

confirmation bias confirmed, sir.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:12 AM
0

fair enough, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. clearly texas law is more lenient than georgia...
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:39 AM
0

nope. seen dozens of these. and they all look the same in this subreddit: chock full of misogynistic trolls who grew up in the 70s or 80s...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:29 AM
0

actually, classic magnetic properties breakdown at the nanometer scale, since you sound interested...
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:10 PM
-1

thetrollking No kidding!
/r/MensRights07/05/11 07:15 AM
2

Can you cite another case where a man received more than 180 days for a single count of "improper relationship with a minor"?
/r/MensRights07/05/11 07:02 AM
-2

yes. and that was a pretty shitty display of it.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:48 AM
-4

no one's making that argument...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:37 AM
-3

This was a completely useless contribution to r/mensrights...
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:26 AM
-2

A Voice for Men is one of those really subtle trolls. It's just legitimate enough to get mindshare, but at the same time every article throws it away for a little sensationalist hostility... SlutWalks, the newest emerging fad in the Sexual Grievance Industry, appear to be spreading like genital herpes, and coming to a city near you. & Taking on the bizarrely distorted guise of a social movement & Oh, and purportedly raising rape prevention awareness along with their discount store skirts. & What…
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:16 AM
2

Well, it seems like not very many are commenting on the article. The blog link started a lot of good conversations that are now at the top. I figure that's why it's in r/mensrights. You should really read those, by the way. They're not about slut bashing or anything else you mentioned.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 05:37 PM
1

Can I just say that the conversation here is at least 10x better than the article itself? Some days I worry about the hostility and anger that just stews here. Then, like today, shit gets real and everyone seems to be contributing good points!
/r/MensRights05/05/11 05:25 PM
1

Your post is still up o_O?
/r/MensRights30/04/11 07:57 PM
1

Seriously? I thought my sarcasm was applied with a sledgehammer, but sheesh. Two of the most important books in DV law education and women's studies education are decidedly NOT of limited importance. Source? And if you want to sit down in a women's studies class and point out flaws in the curriculum, you must first be invited to do so. All of that kind of went out the window when feminist academia read her book and deemed her a heretic. Hire outside help? Real world evidence is anecdotal evidenc…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 07:26 PM
1

Again, I understand, reading is hard. But for those paying attention, she presented Bob as the lone male in the play who was not brutish or violent, but still contemptible to women. The "one good man" in the Vagina Monologues is unlikeable and pathetic. Jesus fuck there buddy. I read the paper, and I thought it was intellectually lazy. Crucify my for it already :P If you have a claim, support it! That's how this shit works! But you're right. It's only two books of very limited importance in femi…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 05:23 PM
1

I don't know about this essay. She spends too much time trumping up her credentials, pointing out vague facts, and stomping on low hanging fruit. For someone starting a blog, this wouldn't be the direction I would tell them to go. Some of the evidence Sommers brings up doesn't even support her claims. In her Vagina Monologues section, for example, she claims the play portrays men as brutish and violent. But the part of the play she quotes doesn't support that, at all. However, I think she's righ…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:01 PM
-5

i did read it. try staying on topic next time. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights30/04/11 03:35 PM
-1

uh, i didn't say anything about national politics in my comments, did i, pssvr? i said the blog post was in a vacuum. there was no reason provided to off and manifesto like that.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:46 AM
-2

right...but can you source any of that? that's the key problem with a lot of what happens in this subreddit and in the blogs that get linked here. there often aren't these extreme views being published, and so there's nothing really to get riled up about. post a link, on the other hand. then things start to make sense.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:43 AM
1

then i hope that this goes as well as you say it will.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:42 AM
-10

It's one thing to know about the push and pull of feminist and men's rights groups. And it's an entirely other thing to off and rant without a source or target. That's what I was getting at...nevermind your wall of text...
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:41 AM
-3

What fucking sensationalism are you talking about? Uh, that right there. Notice how different a tone we've taken on this issue so far? The last thing this father needs is the whole mess of competing personalities on r/mensrights to come stumbling over the hill shouting about feminazis and pussies and white knights and all the other crazy name-calling and posturing that gets started on these topics.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:21 AM
1

funny how i never knew about r/malestudies (let alone posted or contributed there) until you randomly banned me out of god knows what kind of spite XD
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:16 AM
-9

for starters, where is this "modern feminism" and where is it making these claims? without citing when and where this happens, this manifesto is nothing more than an exercise in building and dismantling strawmen.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:10 AM
-6

"daddy" government? ha! i can't tell if i want to puke at your awkward phrasing or just laugh at it's ridiculousness. and i never said that "men have power"...please, don't pull that kind of bullshit.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:08 AM
0

good god. go back to your r/malestudies.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:01 AM
-4

i don't think you're doing the right thing. the last thing the father needs right now is a bunch of sensationalism from the r/mensrights subreddit.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:55 PM
-8

not sure if serious or trolling...
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:45 PM
-20

maybe because it's a bullshit screed in a vacuum? strawmen don't make for very good blogs.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:23 PM
-8

care to source any of that? where is this "modern feminism" you're rallying against?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:22 PM
-1

and that's the issue i have. why does everything associated with MRA have to devolve into a zero-sum struggle with the other side?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:24 PM
-1

It's a little shrill. Who are you fighting exactly? Why are you fighting?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:06 PM
-8

jesus you were quick to pull that card.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:59 PM
9

Jesus fuck. Did you even read your own article?
/r/MensRights28/04/11 06:08 PM
0

You gave me a mission statement. A rather vague one that promises to help small, minority, and woman owned businesses. Not exactly "the feds only give money to women." ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights27/04/11 11:59 PM
-1

I have to resort to name-calling and angry abbreviations because I can't source any of my bullshit. FTFY
/r/MensRights27/04/11 10:13 PM
-2

Thanks for the link. That's at least one verifiably crazy columnist at the WSJ.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:55 PM
-2

Funny how you don't actually have the evidence.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:50 PM
-5

sources? i've never heard of a women-only contract. and it's pretty obvious that boy need the most help throughout the public school system. and can you even name a publication that says "men's clubs are misogynist dens of rape-culture?" seriously. if you're going to put quotes all over everywhere, have the decency to link out or something.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 02:48 AM
-8

where's this affirmative action you speak of?
/r/MensRights27/04/11 02:07 AM
-7

ah, now i get it: r/MensRights = r/f7u12
/r/MensRights23/04/11 04:45 PM
1

but harassment is more than just something you report and then it goes away. people are social beings and harassment is an excellent tool for manipulating someone into not talking. that's why i said that i think the harassment argument holds water. in-groups and out-groups are inherent in people; it's systemic. and it's one time i would be okay with a little top-down social engineering.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 07:19 AM
2

I can vouch for equal pay, advancement, and treatment under Teamster contracts. The rest of your post seemed off. Unclean facilities affect everyone. PPE and PPC is never fitted to the employee. At least not in my experience. Who wants to cover that cost? However, I could see how the harassment part could hold water.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 05:57 AM
-1

yeah...that's not how you're supposed to use facebook ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights21/04/11 05:51 AM
0

I never said they should get away with it. Please, reread my comment.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 02:25 AM
-2

I could understand the sentiment. It doesn't make any sense for the police to charge the accuser of false reporting without evidence. That's an awful double standard. If the accused isn't charged because of a lack of evidence, it stands to reason that the accuser shouldn't either. Though, "getting away with [verifiably] false accusations" doesn't make any sense either.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 08:01 PM
1

I don't know the specific details, but I can guess. I mean, it's a newspaper. So some time in the last ten years they realized it's the 21st century and they can't rely on copy/pasting AP wires to bulk up their paper. They probably had to shrink the company, and now they've got a much tighter budget to worry about. One common way to keep a local newspaper going these days is to focus on local stories. So, I figure they've got to be on top of something like this.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:28 PM
2

Yes, that helped immensely. It seems like a lot of universities are jammed into a spot with their federal overhead. You really helped clarify the situation. (If I feel the need I'll look up the OCR numbers on my own.)
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:38 PM
3

I was just trying to be empirical. Sheesh...
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:30 PM
1

The policies being set by the OCR are clearly misguided. It doesn't make any sense to make disciplinary action by a university follow a lower standard than criminal law. Attending a university implies a lot of commitment, financially and otherwise. Still, are the OCR penalties all that bad? I didn't see a funding threat in the letter, even.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 07:02 AM
1

they would have fired him just the same. the guy drew controversial conclusions from inconclusive research.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:06 AM
2

The first claim is unsubstantiated. Synchronization of periods is likely a phenomenon of wave functions and confirmation bias than actual pheromonic signals. Ha! I found the full article that's cited next on EBSCO! (Not without some doing, the improper citation made that a pain.) They conclude that they find isn't very conclusive. They out and say that it's a preliminary study and more work needs to be done to seperate the causes from the correlation. Also, their standard deviations for the depr…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:05 AM
-5

but i don't think that their mission statement accurately depicts the kind of tone and slant they take with the news. i can read the paper just fine on my own, and i can draw my own conclusions just fine on my own. that's why i avoid political blogs.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:37 AM
0

bwuh??? i've seen you before, your RES tag reads: angry and insulting. is there a reason for that?
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:10 AM
0

What threat? Where is the federal government actually threatening to pull funding?
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:03 AM
0

No, I don't. For the same reason.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:02 AM
-1

facepalm False Rape Society
/r/MensRights19/04/11 04:58 AM
-8

I'm not going to read false rape society; their agenda is too obvious. But I think their sources helped. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, especially their follow up article from a couple of days ago, really covered all the questions. (I'm still confused why this is on r/MensRights, but it seems justice was served.)
/r/MensRights18/04/11 07:33 PM
0

But what part of title nine dictated the decision at hand?
/r/MensRights18/04/11 04:39 PM
1

damn, son. what evidence do you require of me? ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights18/04/11 04:31 PM
-4

except there's no evidence of any of that...we have one report, and the conditions of the attack are speculative at best.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 04:23 PM
1

that's pretty fucked.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 08:23 AM
1

It wasn't any federal office that made the decision. Warner (the student) can't return to UND because of a decision made by UND.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 08:21 AM
3

Except it was a troll post. And it's standing at about -10 points right now. That means the r/feminisms subreddit has rejected that post.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 08:20 AM
-2

You're fine. There's no physical evidence. Razor slashes on the wrist aren't consistent with the kind of struggle she's accusing you of. You have a clear and consistent story. You don't have a motive. And she has serious questions that could be raised about her character. Don't talk to the police without at least a public defender. And definitely get people to back you up and vouch for your character.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 04:53 PM
-1

evidence isn't a formal debate standard. it's an academic, empirical standard. one that's pretty important when we're taking pot shots at men and women all day.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 06:42 AM
3

Child Abuse, 3-601 Tthe definition is pretty severe. "Substantial risk of death"..."disfigurement"..."starvation". It's a good place to start if you're a prosecutor and you're betting on the charges being diminished, however. Assault 2, 3-203 Assault two seems to make the most sense. It's defined as causing physical injury. Rather than serious physical injury like assault one or child abuse. Shoving a child down probably didn't rank as "serious" physical injury.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 06:28 AM
2

...of trying to instill empiricism in r/MensRights FTFY
/r/MensRights16/04/11 12:43 AM
1

actually, another user linked me out to a couple of good sources.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 12:35 AM
0

hey, that's the way evidence works. and i've got a few sources in my back pocket -- after another user actually backed up their claims. funny how that kind of etiquette works, yeah?
/r/MensRights16/04/11 12:32 AM
4

uh...so because i took a look at the case in question and decided that assault is the more fitting charge...you off and call me a cunt? (better watch your blood pressure there buddy)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:54 PM
-1

right...but a one-off event probably doesn't qualify as abuse in that jurisdiction. assault is more likely the more fitting charge. (i could dredge the Maryland penal code, if that helps?)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:33 PM
-6

yeah, i don't think that's true. "child abuse" is for ongoing situations. like for neglect and whatnot. shoving someone is pretty much assault (not child abuse). sounds like the charge fits the accusation.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:49 PM
0

when and where, exactly, has feminism actually posited what you said?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:36 PM
15

How is this a men's rights issue, again?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 05:32 PM
1

But I wouldn't necessarily know the right search terms to uncover old news. (And wikipedia is only as good as it's non-dead links to resources)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 02:00 PM
0

I don't think we saw the same link? The production values on that website are definitely not at the level expected of a national organization.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:58 PM
1

I'm rereading...and I'm not seeing it...
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:57 PM
1

did you read the methodology? it seems pretty straightforward.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:56 PM
1

That's right, I'd forgotten about the cell phone defense.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:55 PM
1

your RES tag: "backs his shit up with evidence!" Reading the first blog right now. They cite a number of sources that explicitly say that men and women are about on par as far as being victims. But they make the distinction that women tend to be more seriously injured? (Skimming the other articles, I'm guessing that's why they post numbers like 85 or 90 percent)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:52 PM
1

It's based in california, and that particular Women's Justice Center's scope goes only as far as Sonoma County. So...yes, I guess you could call it a feminist source. (I was thinking about all the times I've been told that this is the narrative of the national agenda)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:21 AM
0

I mean feminists & white-knights keep telling us that female on male domestic abuse is so rare as to be statistically insignificant! aka, rampant, paranoid speculation.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:01 AM
-1

you have a problem with claims being backed up by evidence?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 01:00 AM
-4

Yep. And in Washington State they're gender-neutral. Got any more zingers?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:59 AM
-1

I think that qualifies as handwaving. (Though I'm not sure there really are millions and millions of abused men everyday. Not that hyperbole is much of an excuse.)
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:57 AM
1

Close. I wouldn't exactly call that a "feminist" source. It looks like tips for defense attorneys prepping their clients. Though I could see how some of the same sentiments could be published elsewhere.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:51 AM
1

_^
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:45 AM
-3

again, source? has any feminist ever published what you just said? making shit up is worse than asking for a source there buddy.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 10:06 PM
-6

like i said. you've got no source, no evidence, just an empty chamber in your head to shout paranoid ramblings.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:56 PM
-4

source?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:42 PM
-1

none of what you said is true, and you know it ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:42 PM
-3

i find it really weird that you don't link to said shenanigans. Or to the research in question.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:19 PM
0

dude. the OP was definitely stereotyping. sheesh, get over it.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:17 PM
1

right...baiting for facts... ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights14/04/11 08:56 PM
1

As much time as needed to read it and do my own analysis of the claims made therein. And I think it's an okay essay. It makes a lot of broad statements, but it references a lot of sources that could be looked into if I really wanted to spend the time digging deeper into the subject. But it also makes a number of claims that seem dubious, or at best need some better argumentative structure and evidence. It's like any other source I've read, basically.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:57 PM
1

Uh...care to source that? That's what I was asking for. (Funny how asking for facts on r/MensRights is basically asking for downvotes)
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:56 PM
1

But, after reading the whole thing, there are a number of interesting concepts and ideas put forward. whoever wrote this put in a lot of time and effort, and for the most part it makes valid, sensible arguments about the state and history of feminism. it doesn't help to dismiss something because of one statement you disagree with. that's a very closed way to approach anyone or anything...
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:55 PM
-3

figures. an r/MensRighs user is given a thoughtful, and thorough analysis of 20th century history (through the lens of feminism and jurisprudence) and they say no. that's pretty sad...
/r/MensRights14/04/11 02:17 PM
-7

Actually, I don't recall the rape accusations being demonstrably false. Her story was inconsistent and there was a lack of evidence. Anyone care to source the "demonstrably false" part?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 02:08 PM
1

but we don't actually know any details about the situation. that's my point.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:14 AM
0

unless the father was a mentally unstable ex-CIA operative with dozens of enemies and past grudges that posed a threat to the child. (i can postulate fantastical situations too!)
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:16 AM
1

Hm, I suppose. I'd rather leave it to the people directly involved to make that decision.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:09 AM
1

but on something as important as your perspective on the actual, measurable difference between men and women you're fine just pretending to know?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:09 AM
-4

So, we (acting through the State) should decide how the mother and child reconcile their relationship?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:56 PM
-1

i don't. it's a blog. it's another layer of obfuscation with an agenda. i'd rather talk directly to the parties involved, but i'd also settle for the reporter's notebook or tape recordings _^
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:55 PM
-6

and without a credible source, your little fantasy doesn't really have any bearing on reality...
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:30 PM
-1

Makes sense, in a twisted kind of way. The next question then, is how much the mother has changed after 6 years under medical supervision. Maybe she's actually recovered to a point where visitation rights make sense.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:27 PM
3

Actually, here's the rundown from a newspaper's blog: The boy was placed in the care of guardians in the wake of the shooting, and Spitz has had conflicts with them over his son's care -- while Lynn, a longtime friend of the couple, has been permitted regular supervised visits. And without knowing how the father has been behaving for the last six or seven years, it's hard to know who was wronged in this situation.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:17 PM
1

facepalm well, at least you're honest about being intellectually lazy and deeply entrenched in your ways.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:11 PM
4

Oh, he mad
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:52 AM
1

....are you trying to karma-bomb or what?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:51 AM
1

so you read everything except the data? o_O???
/r/MensRights12/04/11 04:40 PM
1

i don't have time to contribute to their agenda. and i don't subscribe to your false wisdom. i talk to people.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:51 PM
1

good lord you're dense _^
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:50 PM
1

edit: this is just a double post. but i guess i could tell you again that you don't know what you're talking about :P
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:50 PM
0

No, I'm not. If anything I would only criticize three outlets. r/MensRights, False Rape Society, and whichever blog this thread linked to...Human-Stupidity. The editorial slant is just too strong from those sources. I don't trust them to be able to read and properly analyze the data right in front of them -- particularly False Rape Society and r/MensRights, outlets that are trying to fulfill an agenda.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:21 PM
1

facepalm Funny, your RES tag says "only pretends to read studies." I'm really wary of anything you have to say now. If you had read the study, then you might realize that their experiment is pretty valid. I didn't see any glaring flaws in their method. Though, I'd still like to see follow ups verify the findings and explore some of the questions that get raised. And your bullshit about "priviliged [sic] language" and "objectifying gaze" really only show how little you've read or understood about…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:11 PM
0

Then you're finding a fault of the media in the study o_O? And they are speculating. Just their speculations reference some outside sources (which are few and far between). I would take their run-up to the data, and the conclusion, with a very large grain of salt, basically.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:08 PM
0

no, they speculated those things...and it shouldnt be controlled for. theres a clear difference between men and women in this very particular and narrow experiment. controlling for that difference doesn't make any sense. frantic MR blogs are free to spin this any way they want, but the data collected actually wasn't very controversial. (the scientists running the experiment, and their own analysis and opinions however, are a completely different issue).
/r/MensRights11/04/11 07:08 PM
0

yawn, troll harder.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:31 PM
0

Yeah, you definitely didn't read the study. Regardless of what the authors thought going into it, the design and execution of the experiment was pretty clearly about the difference between receiving eye contact and performance reviews based on action and receiving eye-to-body contact and getting performance reviews based on looks. But, you already knew that, amirite?
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:16 PM
0

That's not a flaw in the study...they pretty clearly demonstrated the fact that for these undergraduate men, not getting eye contact during an interview didn't affect them.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 01:58 PM
0

facepalm
/r/MensRights11/04/11 01:54 PM
0

So you didn't read any of the research? All you read was the introductory thought-process and completely rejected any of the data they gathered? Damn, bro, you mad...
/r/MensRights11/04/11 01:51 PM
-1

And where would you stare for men sitting with their interviewer? ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights11/04/11 01:56 AM
2

facepalm The confederates were also undergraduates in the 18-29 age range. The researcher was not directly involved. That's not how science works there buddy...
/r/MensRights11/04/11 01:55 AM
-4

Yeah yeah, I get it, this is r/MensRights and comment sections aren't supposed to be about the topic at hand...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights10/04/11 09:04 PM
-4

What? It was actually an okay study. ("Not the best"). And it didn't really say anything damning or particularly controversial.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:56 PM
-2

So, you only pretend to read studies? I'll have to mark that in my RES. "Objectifying gaze" was just giving the subjects a look up and down. And then staring at their chests instead of their eyes when conducting the interview. Clearly, you didn't open "the pdf."
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:54 PM
-3

I don't think it was the best study (a lot of variables to follow). But do we really need to Godwin's law so quickly?
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:02 PM
-3

It didn't matter what the women (or men) in the study were wearing. The confederates in the study doing all the gazing were supposed to stare at the men's and women's chests.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:01 PM
-7

facepalm That's not what this study said. That's just the paranoid echo in your head.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:00 PM
-4

Maybe. The confederates in the study (the ones doing all the gazing) were supposed to give the men and women coming in to the interview one up and down look at the beginning. And then several times during the interview looked at their chests instead of their eyes.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:00 PM
-5

First the study only used female participants. No, it didn't. It had 150 undergraduates, split about in half between men and women. Please, read the paper (not the biased blog) before making a statement like that.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:59 PM
-2

the men and women doing the gazing were confederates in the study; they didn't have any math to do. though, i'd like to see a follow up that looks into that!
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:58 PM
0

actually, everyone in the study was 18-29 years old. no girls or boys here...
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:57 PM
-5

i think you're on to something about the women in the study spending more time thinking about their math partner, but i wouldn't go as far as to say they were automatically entranced in a domestic daydream. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:54 PM
-4

you, also, should read the source paper. it doesn't imply any of that...
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:53 PM
-2

Actually, the study said none of those things. It said that women tended to perform worse at the supplied math problems under the objectifying gaze condition. And that they wanted to continue interacting with their partner more than when under the control condition. There were no other significant differences in men or women in the rest of the data. I'd like to see some follow up. And you should read the actual study some time.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:50 PM
1

that's a good point.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 06:48 PM
0

figured.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 06:45 PM
-1

well, there's no evidence three months out from the crime. there's really not much the police could do.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 06:45 PM
2

which would have to be proved, and i doubt they could.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:05 AM
0

uh...care to source that?
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:04 AM
5

i don't think it's bullshit. the police are investigating an allegation. that would include testing the accuser's story for consistency.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:02 AM
3

it's not full of shit. rape is not an easy crime to prove. "physical" evidence is really only good for establishing that sex occurred. and any lawyer worth his salt is going to dismantle eyewitness testimony. witnesses are notoriously unreliable and in an ambiguous situation would become liabilities to the case for or against. for the police, that means that if there's no reliable testimony or evidence to pass on to the DA, there's no case. And then they figure there's no point in wasting depart…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 07:01 AM
0

You're forgetting one key element: this is r/MensRights. That kind of standard of behavior is clearly the work of insidious feminazi sleeper agents :P
/r/MensRights08/04/11 08:01 PM
1

ahahaha no. it was nearly midnight PDT, so i figured it was so late your feeble attempts at communication were just lack of sleep.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 02:37 PM
1

you sound broken, bed time?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:50 AM
1

i'm sorry. you're just fun to rile up. seriously, you're not the only person in this world. your story doesn't necessarily fit someone else. and i never supplied a story...so...your whole witty reversal of my statement kind of fell flat. (which is why i gave you back your bracket)
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:35 AM
1

you dropped this, > and good job with the whole belittlement angle. it really shores up your account of reality :}
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:16 AM
1

They don't have to control for all the variables that may come up. But if they'd put in more effort we wouldn't need this conversation. And confirmation bias isn't gonna help you here, either. (And no, I'm still not trying to justify anything, sheesh.)
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:15 AM
0

you should slow down and think about the words in the articles you're reading some time.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:10 AM
1

because your one story doesn't account for the rest of humanity?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:10 AM
1

Actually, there are other ways to get those kind of numbers. For instance, a small number of men stalking a large number of women.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 05:10 AM
0

I focused on that statement because it was ambiguous and it intrigued my inner scientist. You're picking a fight with something that doesn't exist. AKA: strawman. by the way, congrats on your new RES tag, fondueguy (the strawman connoisseur).
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:35 PM
-1

your RES tag says "lacks reading comprehension" I did read the article. And if you notice the context of that snippet you took, they're just speculating. They don't have any data on why their numbers came out the way they did. Since it's just speculation (which can be colored by personal biases), I pretty much disregarded it.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:20 PM
0

facepalm This was bound to happen, I guess. don't you have somewhere better to troll, fondueguy?
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:00 PM
0

Well, to the study's discredit they never really looked too deeply into it.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:59 PM
2

I'm not sure what it implies. I mean you could also get the same numbers by having a small number of men abuse a large number of women. But that's a lot of simplification.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:19 PM
8

But, did anyone actually read the article? I thought this was pretty interesting here: Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 02:55 PM
1

i never said free pass. learn to read what's on the page, mate.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 03:03 AM
1

cool story, bro.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 03:02 AM
0

What, did you link goatse or something?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 01:18 PM
1

that's not what i said, but good luck with that...
/r/MensRights03/04/11 08:07 AM
0

facepalm
/r/MensRights03/04/11 05:51 AM
-2

Precisely. Took you long enough.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:09 PM
-4

Rah rah! Look at the sluts! Women must suck, amirite? /s
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:05 PM
0

right. you just don't want to look at the situation other than through your bias, got it.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:46 PM
1

I'm arguing that in some cases it's better than parole. Are you really going to tell me it's easier on the outside when you're carrying a conviction or deferment on your records? Good luck getting a job or an education, let alone a place to stay or food on the table.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:45 PM
0

Watchlists are not justice. They're little more than witchhunt lists for anyone unstable enough to go vigilante.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:42 PM
1

Really? For the next ten years not so much as a misdemeanor. Got it?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:40 PM
1

facepalm you can't read either, it seems.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:39 PM
-1

jesus fuck, yes that happens, but those weren't the situations i was talking about. learn to read some time.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:38 PM
0

and you've never been on parole.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:37 PM
0

the point of prison, ideally, is rehabilitation. hence basic health etc.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:36 PM
-6

yeah. random acronym. downvote. fuckin' for the win, right?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:47 AM
-11

...on the inside there's basic health, food plans, technical training...the same doesn't really apply to a parolee
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:41 AM
-12

and then when you fuck up (anything worse than a parking or speeding ticket) you automatically serve your time. doesn't seem that far from some time in jail or in the county prison.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:38 AM
-12

sigh You sound like you've never had to interact in the real world. DUIs can result in deferred sentences. Unlikely, but rape convictions are the same way. I mean, what about statutory or ambiguous situations? I didn't care for r/MaleStudies, more of the worst about this subreddit. Plus, nothing stops me from running a puppet.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:35 AM
-9

so...every citizen has a 4 years to life sentence hanging over their head? i mean i realize in the States we have the patriot act, but don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:33 AM
-11

facepalm I see you neglected to even think about probation or having to keep a perfectly clean slate for 10 years.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:27 AM
-17

Sorry, but if the government is monitoring your every move and is going to sit on enough evidence to send you to prison for life for the next ten years -- you didn't get away with it.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:25 AM
-12

Again, not justice, petty revenge there bud.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 04:59 AM
-16

Actually, if you knew anything about deferred sentences you wouldn't be saying that. From another article: The conditions include 500 hours of community service, which will require Cotter to speak at 24 victim impact panels and at least two of the panels must be in Pontotoc County. Cotter must also pay various fees for court costs, jail and victim compensation fees. On top of that if at any point during the next ten years Cotter is convicted of so much as a misdemeanor she's facing an automatic …
/r/MensRights02/04/11 04:59 AM
1

I have read it, top to bottom. The attrition rate for rape is much higher than other crimes; more cases don't end in conviction. Kanin's studies are bullshit, which you would know if you would read the fuckin' studies. And outliers don't tell the whole story. (Linking to a blog's homepage doesn't do you any service either) Seven years mandatory minimum is not justice. Grow the fuck up.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 12:12 AM
1

ah ha! here it is. the HORS293. PDF page 42. there's a chart with a four-year glance at prosecution and conviction rates.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:29 PM
1

It was a UK Home Office report. I don't have the link, or a copy on this computer. (If I could remote access my big laptop, I know exactly where it's at...). You're free to try at their website. Once I have the PDF from my other laptop, I will post it. Point was, there is no epidemic of false convictions or guilty until proven innocent. The vast majority of charges laid against men never make it to trial, let alone result in a conviction. The standard of proof is the same for rape as any other c…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:25 PM
-1

you do also realize that less than 30% of accusations result in convictions, right?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:08 PM
2

and a wrongful or even ambiguous conviction for false accusation should carry 7 years minimum, yeah i think you need to rethink that.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:37 PM
-2

getting disemvoweled for the first is probably a sign that you should go outside, close Reddit, etc.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:09 PM
2

mandatory minimums are truly fucked. just look at drug laws in the States.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:08 PM
0

That's far too steep, even for a joke. Nothing like mandatory minimums to fuck people up. Drug wars, anyone?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:06 PM
1

that's not what i said, but okay...
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:03 AM
1

nice engrish there, snark.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:39 PM
1

not a sheriff, either.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:37 PM
1

no, it wasn't. jesus....
/r/MensRights31/03/11 02:28 PM
1

facepalm
/r/MensRights31/03/11 02:28 PM
1

no, i just didn't have a need to shoot down feminicey at the drop of a hat.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:15 AM
-5

right there. that wasn't the original topic you started on. feminicey said this: No person has the right to force a dangerous medical procedure on another person. If you consent to having sex with a woman, know that pregnancy is a real probability, and be ready to take care of your responsibilities as the father if she falls pregnant. And at no point did I say any of that bullshit in your comment. I didn't claim a fantasy world or fair child support. Good fucking lord, man, do I need to append m…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:15 AM
-1

Wow, right to the "herp a derp u must be a woman" argument. go fuck yourself with a cactus there buddy. i don't care for your kind 'round these parts.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:11 AM
-12

i'll have to add "cognitive dissonance" to your RES tag. did you not read your last few responses to feminicey? you're not even on the same topic. all you're doing is shouting your alleged superiority from using "logic."
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:14 PM
-13

no, you're freaking out and can't even see straight. STFU and read and breathe, buddy.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:00 PM
1

Reddit Enhancement Suite you can do things like tag a user with custom strings. it helps me keep track of the extra crazy trolls i run into on r/MensRights
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:44 PM
-1

Hm...not sure if legitimate. Your RES tag for me says "doesn't understand how unsubstantiated bullshit is unsubstantiated".
/r/MensRights30/03/11 03:53 PM
1

None of that is valid evidence (or even invalid evidence) of incompetent women making more than men. Go troll something else.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:21 AM
0

so, no, you don't have any facts to back up your bullshit.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 01:23 AM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights30/03/11 01:07 AM
1

I would say most but I'm not trying to say all... then say "some."
/r/MensRights30/03/11 01:05 AM
-10

Source?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:47 AM
2

facepalm
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:47 PM
2

I seriously doubt that FRS is a giant exercise in Poe's Law.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:08 PM
2

Of course it's not the case. Why would they even need to spend the time saying so? That's my point.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 04:58 PM
4

I think that post was a load of outdated bull. Look at Clinton or Merkel, they seem more like generic politicians than nurturing mother types that are going to bring about world peace. And when was the last time someone seriously said that women are peaceful politicians? False Rape Society really oughta get with the times.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 02:43 AM
2

too true. up and downvotes don't do enough justice for the social aspect of the community. i mean, hyell, IRL we can exalt and shun all sorts of people!
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:14 PM
5

typical white knight RES nametag: resorts to namecalling to cover his trolling ass
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:33 AM
-3

I may just be editorializing based on coincidental anecdotes. confirmation bias confirmed.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 01:31 AM
1

ha! that one was almost good. but, i don't need a comeback; you think cum guzzling is intellectual. remember bro?
/r/MensRights23/03/11 07:24 PM
1

awww, I don't even remember the original topic. I just think it's cute that you keep rehashing the same irrelevant insults.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 03:51 PM
1

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You're a classic MRA troll, you know that? You claim a lot of bullshit, but you don't have any hard evidence, amirite? Keep working on your "i fucked your mother jokes," eventually someone might find them witty.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 01:51 AM
1

ah, reducto ad [what's the latin word for mother?]. thankfully i have the RES addon and I can tag you as..."thinks cum-guzzling is 'intellectual.'" congrats on your new title!
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:41 AM
6

You've never actually read any law, have you?
/r/MensRights21/03/11 05:13 AM
2

and that's where broadcasting the label rape everywhere doesn't help anyone. getting drunk and having sex (sex that is regretted later on) is more negligent than felonious, you know?
/r/MensRights21/03/11 05:12 AM
1

so you're still butthurt? ha! i'm sorry but that's pretty sad. there are better places to be putting all your energies.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:30 AM
-3

next time you want to throw a hissy fit about satire, do us a service and at least link to the full video. i'm all disappointed now. that looked like a good bit.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:54 AM
2

Yeah, that's some curious mathematics when you think about it. Presuming a relatively even population split between the sexes it's always going to be 75% women and children. And by the same token you could say that 75% of men and children are victims of whatever fad disaster you can come up with.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 05:11 PM
1

Yes.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 04:59 PM
1

this isn't a men's rights issue. take your victim complex elsewhere.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 07:27 AM
5

shit changes. i've yet to see anyone actually do the original play/monologue any more. The last few I've been to have been women sharing personal stories about sex and womanhood and feminism. so, it includes all sorts of negative and positive anecdotes, you know?
/r/MensRights19/03/11 06:47 AM
1

that's not what i said at all, and i completely disagree with everything you said. it's too bad i can't disown comment-children, you know?
/r/MensRights19/03/11 06:21 AM
1

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You haven't been to one either, bud.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 06:20 AM
6

you've not been to a vagina monologues in the last 5-10 years, have you? it's not at all like you described.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 03:24 AM
0

then you clearly have no clue what /b/ or Anonymous are.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 09:20 AM
8

wow, you're no better than a /b/tard.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 08:40 AM
0

ah, now you're changing past events. how many defense mechanisms can i trigger?
/r/MensRights16/03/11 08:39 PM
1

shifting definitions always win the day...ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights16/03/11 08:27 AM
2

You really need to take a formal logic class. Or just pick up any philosophical essay from the last two or three millennia before you can tell me that unfalsified or unfalsifiable claims must then be 100% true.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 05:59 AM
2

But why reply to me? Do you have no sense of "other?" I didn't make any of those claims. And the people who made those claims will never be notified of your counter-argument. It's just silly on its face. And no, I can't think of any situations off-hand, but that doesn't make it impossible. And still, your letter could have used some editing...
/r/MensRights15/03/11 07:43 PM
0

Jesus, i never asserted any of that, except my quote at the beginning. are you dissociating or what? this is just like your letter to the editor. you can really only attack points i brought up, not your own strawmen. but if you continually redefine the argument, i can also see how you're always 100% correct...
/r/MensRights15/03/11 05:54 PM
-1

facepalm That's still not how journalism works. Are you just as fucked-up-dumb as that last guy? Calling a woman a "girl" is unnecessarily disrespectful. It's an opinion...a bias...you know...what journalistic ethics is supposed to be holding back?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:31 PM
1

source?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:27 PM
1

I'm not so sure about that "definition" I've never seen op-ed used that way. I've always encountered op-ed when talking about the "op-ed" page...?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:27 PM
-2

no, he rambled on a lot of points that weren't even addressed in the original op-ed...did you read both materials?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:24 PM
0

Well, for one, your letter to the editor sucked. You gotta keep it short and punchy. Long, technically correct essays are not the usual form for the letter box. And "100 percent of paternity fraud"? HAHAHA! You're doing no better than Katic. If you really want to show up an op-ed you've gotta be succinct, accurate, and really jab at their weakpoints in a way that's clear to the public. Finally: We disagree with Cel's letter ಠ_ಠ That's just wrong on its face. If there's one thing I like about r/M…
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:24 PM
0

well, i can only take one further action. your new moniker under my RES is now: "dumbfucker who doesn't even know journalism" have a nice day!
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:02 PM
0

what is he then? anti-intellectualist? dumbfuckerist? refuses to actually look at the truth of what i'm saying-ist? There's absolutely no reason to refer to someone over the age of eighteen as a girl in journalism. Something the worst of the fuckers in this sub will never appreciate.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:01 PM
-7

facepalm facepalm You have no fucking clue how journalism is supposed to work...fucking sexist.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 05:13 AM
-12

Journalism fail. If that "girl" was a university student, it's likely that she was over 18, and thus a "woman." facepalm
/r/MensRights14/03/11 07:05 PM
2

150 million women in the US != the 3.5 billion in the rest of the world... ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights13/03/11 04:29 AM
0

facepalm You've got nothing, I see.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:31 AM
0

Paragraph two
/r/MensRights12/03/11 02:46 AM
1

I didn't see a lot of strong support, though. And it didn't really directly address the article.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 02:44 AM
1

You can use the permalink link at the bottom of your post to get your URL. Though I'm not sure your pseudo-intellectual wall of text really adds much to the conversation?
/r/MensRights11/03/11 05:07 PM
1

manginas Wow! You can copy-paste someone else's insult.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 04:58 AM
1

I didn't read the article. FTFY
/r/MensRights11/03/11 04:58 AM
-2

I also remember my fantasies where I'm the biggest and smartest asshole on the Internet. ie, source?
/r/MensRights11/03/11 04:57 AM
4

Yes. I'd laugh for a well-acted falcon punch.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 12:12 AM
1

Right: I said... Hearsay isn't a source.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:28 PM
1

an r/MensRights thread is hardly a source.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:19 PM
2

facepalm
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:25 PM
2

source?
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:18 PM
3

...which wasn't the point of that statistic to begin with.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:00 PM
2

source or get the fuck out.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:00 PM
7

yes it does. it gives a very narrow and specific view of the US military, but it's an "actual" view. personally, i think more should be made of that stat. ie: how different is the sexual assault rates between PTSD treatment-seekers and the general military population? are there any good reasons why that rate would be different? what can be done to lower that rate?
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:30 AM
5

Seventy-one percent of servicewomen may not be sexually assaulted, but according to the dirt this blog dug up, seventy-one percent of servicewomen seeking PTSD treatment have been sexually assaulted.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 01:48 AM
-2

I could be completely wrong. And without any citation, that's all I can really believe.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:07 PM
6

source?
/r/MensRights27/02/11 07:05 AM
3

The one-dimensional, uni-directional aspect of Time would like a word with you. Getting the irreversible cosmetic surgery =/= not getting the irreversible cosmetic surgery.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 11:03 PM
3

Hey! This is why I love the Reddit Enhancement Suite. Congratulations Mr. J1nx, you're now known to me as the "illogical penis snipper."
/r/MensRights23/02/11 10:58 PM
0

but your post plays right into the daily bullshit that gets posted here. you don't deserve any better.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:08 AM
0

Because perpetrator implies that the mother was directly involved in the child's death. There's almost no way to know when both the mother and father are indicted in these crimes. Who delivered the killing blow? Who instigated the confrontation? There's no way to fully pin blame on the mother. So, there's no way to fully state that mother's are the majority perpetrators. Further confounding the numbers, what about the time that mother's spend with their children. Traditionally, in the last 100 y…
/r/MensRights20/02/11 08:54 PM
1

Social situations are more complicated than that. But sure whatever, go ahead and be blind.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 08:12 PM
1

Right, when you can voodoo the confounding variables out of the situation where both parents are involved in infanticide, lemme know. You'll be the hottest thing in the social sciences.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 07:58 PM
0

facepalm
/r/MensRights20/02/11 09:13 AM
-3

Mothers are the perpetrators in the vast majority of child murders. reads pie chart ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! oh god your bullshit is obvious...hahahahah! 38% is a "vast majority?" HAHAHAHAHA!
/r/MensRights20/02/11 08:35 AM
-1

oh, right. forgot about ad hominemics. good on ya, keeping it classy and everything...
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:57 AM
0

hm, see what i mean? you always devolve right back to the victim card. regardless of whether it's legitimate, it's the reason why i tend to take your submissions with a grain of salt and ask for a high degree of substantiation.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 01:54 AM
-1

sure, whatever. but you only post in a way that leads me to believing that you're whoring yourself out to the victimization-vote in this subreddit...
/r/MensRights18/02/11 10:32 PM
0

Actually, that was an excellent link. It dismantled all the shitty research and had a lot credibility to back it. This would have been the better submission, you know, showing progress or where progress should be heading in shaping future policy. Instead, you linked to a dead and dying study that's coming apart at the seams. For what? Cheap victimization karma points? That's why I hold you to a higher standard.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 08:35 PM
0

right, but until you can produce the evidence that the paper actually led to policy changes and enactments, let alone just produce the full text of the document, you have nothing.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:11 AM
0

so, no, you don't. you have an abstract. that's not evidence.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:42 AM
1

any evidence of that?
/r/MensRights17/02/11 08:03 PM
1

I'm not going to bite. The publication in question is 19 years old... ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights17/02/11 01:02 PM
3

Meh? I didn't think it was that well written or creative. She just inverted all the popular myths... Though I suppose in the right dosage, that could be constructive.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 10:11 PM
16

This is not a zero sum game in which pointing out that there are wars against men negates the idea that there are wars against women too. This is really something that should go in the r/MensRights sidebar...
/r/MensRights15/02/11 10:02 PM
3

Don't mind me, just bypassing the spoon-fed raeg. Seems the dad was angry, and he made it known that he was angry. Justin Mulcahy, an Anne Arundel County Police spokesman, said a 911 call came in at 4:25 p.m. for "an adult male acting disorderly." He said the 911 report did not mention missing children. "It came to us as a disorderly conduct call." Also, in the last paragraph they mention he's black. I'm pretty sure the dad got himself in trouble by playing right into the angry-black-man role. I…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 07:22 PM
0

Yeah, except I never said any of that, and the implication is one you supplied...
/r/MensRights07/02/11 06:42 PM
-2

ಠ_ಠ No one said it's fair...
/r/MensRights05/02/11 10:25 PM
-4

the way that assets are held during the marriage and how they are divided at dissolution, yes, it's there -- not printed on the license itself, but in the laws and customs that back it. i'm not really sure what your second point is going on about. who are these two third-party business men in your business-marriage analogy?
/r/MensRights05/02/11 10:08 PM
-17

itt: the MR trolls forget that a marriage license is part business-partnership.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 07:47 PM
1

Yeah, clearly you haven't been to a public school in decades...
/r/MensRights03/02/11 06:16 PM
2

I can do platitudes, too: They haven't cancelled recess. The kids can still play sports. "Energetic behavior" has always been punished; the trick is teaching the kids to save it for the playground. Wartoys? Have you played any video games or with any kid in the last decade? All it takes is a stick to make a sword. Truancy, I guess you've got a point. But truancy applies equally to boys and girls. illegal drugs are a way out for a lot of people: men, women, boys, girls. But that seems unnecessari…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:43 AM
-3

No, you see, there are two types of headlines in MR that provoke an irritated response outta me: Look! A dumb woman, hurr hurr & BAWWW! Call the WAAAAmulance, that man got his Rights & Privileges looked at funny Yours fell under the latter.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 08:21 PM
1

Right, yep, I totally remember: I guess boys can't have anything good in their lives, huh? from the article.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 08:19 PM
-9

good god that is a fucking stupid headline OP.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 04:38 PM
1

That's fucking awful. I hope the leniency demanded by judges gains momentum for them.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:49 PM
1

That's a little short-sighted given the condition our economy is in. It's also ignorant of the Washington State prison system. Our inmates have room, board, healthcare, and technical training available to them. Plus, 17 years x $50,000 = $850,000. That's more than enough money to start over. Even if you knock out 20% of the purchasing power to account for inflation.
/r/MensRights28/01/11 04:38 PM
13

Don't let the fact that a minor was convicted of manslaughter get in the way of your agenda, OP.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:47 PM
1

Rule two, get the fuck outta my hole in the ground!
/r/MensRights27/01/11 03:39 PM
3

sorry, just reading your context.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 01:40 AM
2

...but without several paragraphs of rabble-rousing....
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:56 AM
2

many people seem to use them interchangeably in my experience. In my experience people don't usually think about what the killer is thinking or feeling. At a glance it might just be legal terms, but I think they describe actual differences. And I guess when consider death and punishment I prefer to reserved and nuanced in my approach. Shit's heavy stuff.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:11 AM
4

She was the one jailed for murder. She was convicted on manslaughter, which is homicide, not murder.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 11:35 PM
-3

This is my justification for murder. FTFY.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 11:34 PM
1

No. As someone who spins this subject very carefully, I can tell you that for the feminists who advocate about rape, she's typical. I wish that weren't the case, but she is. FTFY
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:48 PM
2

Why am I not surprised that the lot of you are eating right out of the hand of some propaganda, blogspam machine? You guys can't take the time to read the news?
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:47 PM
1

It's not that black and white, but you've almost made a coherent point.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:44 PM
1

Which article is that quote from? Everything I skimmed seemed to reference events in the last 10 years.
/r/MensRights23/01/11 11:19 AM
2

I don't like being spoon-fed my morning rage. Here's the legitimate news sources that these blogs go on and on about: Seattle PI Pitch UPI But, given the actual news, I have to say that's pretty fucked. Especially the PI article, I never expected that kind of bullshit up in my neck of the woods. But I also refuse to get completely belligerent over news that 12 months passed. What's happened to these procedures in that time?
/r/MensRights22/01/11 11:19 PM
10

ಠ_ಠ They were all taken in to custody and were needlessly questioned for up to 13 hours each, before they were released without charge. Journalism fail (seems really common in sex crime articles). If they were questioned for 13 hours and the woman's claims fell apart and she got jail time, I wouldn't call it needless questioning.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 11:56 PM
4

From the local news article: “I’d say he was a hero,” she said. “The fact that he took the time to stop and help makes him a hero.” Yep, clearly an "Eeek! A Male!" moment. Good god.
/r/MensRights13/01/11 12:42 AM
1

The bullshit outcry from all the closet bigots on this thread really shouldn't have surprised me. Fuck ya'll.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 04:29 AM
0

The bullshit outcry from all the closet bigots on this thread really shouldn't have surprised me. Fuck ya'll.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 04:11 AM
0

The bullshit outcry from all the closet bigots on this thread really shouldn't have surprised me. Fuck ya'll.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:56 AM
-8

A lipsticked urinal makes for really aggressive awkwardness. There's no way I could use that restroom. That's what offends me. edit: That's really pathetic, drive-by downvoter. Show yourself. edit2: awww, did i offend the MRA trolls? my opinion doesn't mesh with your victim complex?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 11:49 PM
-4

Well, I would have been offended and what, they're going to let me use the women's restroom?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 11:30 PM
0

It has no rational basis in the myth that only irresponsible people leave a genetic legacy.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 03:40 AM
-3

fiction
/r/MensRights07/01/11 09:08 PM
2

She's a minor. All convictions typically get watered down for minors. Six months is a long time, for a minor. Do you even remember high school and college admissions? Six months is enough to completely disrupt the rest of her life, which is a long time, given that she is a minor.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 09:33 PM
1

Your position is still wrong. The prosecutors are pushing the extent of Michigan's hacking laws. A breach of privacy within the family has typically never been met with a criminal charge. It is now, that's news.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 04:46 PM
1

So...no, you don't get it. Adultery is not news. It's such a common place occurrence that running a full length feature on a cheating wife would be a massive waste of time for both the paper and the readership. It would also unnecessarily sensationalize the cheater's actions. That is what tabloids do.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 07:41 PM
1

You still don't get journalism, do you? A law that's never enforced (adultery) is never going to carry the story. Breaking a novel, 21st century law is much more newsworthy.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 08:13 PM
1

You are clearly not a lawyer. Let me paralegal that for you: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 777.16a Adultery in Michigan is a Class H Felony against Public Order. The sentencing guidelines in Michigan are incredibly convoluted. I couldn't find precise guidelines to Felony punishments, only variables and guidelines to guidelines. Nothing like the clean guideline page Washington State has (the laws I'm familiar with). However I did find that "criminal sexual penetration" in concert with felony co…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:17 PM
-1

Sleeping around isn't a crime. lrn2journalism some time.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:30 AM
-1

Jesus fucking christ. Anything to pretend women are the devil and men are infallible, amirite? This is the same crime they charged that kid with when he "hacked" that Palin email account. It's harsh, but it carries equal weight whether you're a man or woman... :/
/r/MensRights26/12/10 08:02 PM
1

Aww...still tryin' to flame-bait the rabble like a wittle troll?
/r/MensRights22/12/10 04:58 AM
1

So...you're the King of men's rights, I take it? No lowly peasant may question your authority on the subject? No dissenting opinions may be formed? You have the absolute monopoly on truth and reason? I take it things are going well at the Ministry of Truth.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 04:23 PM
2

I swear to the fucking spaghetti monster A Voice for Men is just a circlejerk enabler. They want us to just read the editorialized (and blatantly false) reddit title and then feel entitled to spout completely unsubstantiated bullshit. Or worse we're supposed to swallow every bit of the predigested slop prepared by the A Voice for Men blog and pretend the kool-aid is unassailable truth. Rosin is completely off-base in breaking women and men into two camps of labor: manual and social. But she poin…
/r/MensRights18/12/10 08:05 PM
-1

No, no he didn't.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 05:02 PM
0

I precisely meant jurisprudence. Though to clarify I meant jurisprudence as I've come go understand it from an American perspective. At no point is it incumbent on any witness to defend the defendant. And it makes little to no sense for a witness to undermine their own testimony by saying they were under stress at the time. That stress also makes it entirely possible that the victim fully believed that she was identifying the correct individual. Also, lrn2jurisprudence was partially directed at …
/r/MensRights14/12/10 03:46 PM
-3

It wasn't her place to defend Newton...lrn2jurisprudence some time.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 05:49 PM
3

Jesus tapdancing christ. This isn't proof positive of the Conspiracy. It's only evidence of how badly an investigation went in 1984 and how badly the city handled the DNA request.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 05:47 PM
6

welcome to the real world. jurisprudence is flawed and vulnerable to the attrition of truth.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:11 PM
0

cuz you aint mad []()/sadtroll)
/r/MensRights09/12/10 03:05 AM
9

One of Assange's *lawyers** has been quoted saying*: "The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilen's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape. As much as I support Assange, there's no way I would take his defense attorney's words at face value.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 12:38 AM
0

freud.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 12:14 AM
3

Justice. Plus high-minded restraint on the part of the newspaper for withholding the names of all parties involved. All sex crime reporting and investigating should be held to this standard.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 03:57 AM
2

Whoa, easy there. I never said you wanted to fuck your mother. Or are you not telling me everything?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:55 PM
0

No, you should've let them know you felt used. The passive-aggressive bullshit is pretty lame.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:36 PM
3

hey that's a new twist. mommy-issues and homophobic language. let's unpack more of your bullshit yes?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 03:40 PM
3

are you always this dense? i could see why you would need to express yourself with cunt and fuck and project insults like twat and loser all over everyone.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 03:36 PM
3

awww, you've learned to mimic.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 03:08 PM
-1

Uh...you did catch the tongue sticking out on the angry-face, right? That means tongue-in-cheek. She's not serious. She may be irked that you blew her off for no apparent reason, but she's not actually angry... And really, if you were this woman's friend, that includes having her back without expecting or demanding compensation. It's good etiquette to repay a friend's favor with a favor, but it's also good etiquette to let people know what you expect out of the relationship.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 02:45 PM
-4

A priori and a posteriori are not necessary components of a confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is just a fancy way of saying you've been cherry-picking your evidence to suit your perceptions. And I quote: I haven't responded to either call.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 02:30 PM
2

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I've got no twat to get crusted, problem?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 02:26 PM
-4

Fuck off cunt. That's why I originally tagged you with such a crass title with Reddit Enhancement Suite. If it makes you feel any better I changed it; it's no longer R-rated, lol. U mad?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:52 PM
-1

Yeah, that's one way to understand the basic definition of a confirmation bias.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:30 PM
-3

No, you're trolling me. I can see that. You're similar to factory2 on this board. You randomly jump in and drag people down to your petty level with ad hominems. Don't believe me? Do some dissociative drugs and click here
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:23 PM
0

Damn dude. Talk about the pot and the kettle. BTW, should I be worried that I tagged you with RES as "complete and utter smegma encrusted dickhole"? I'll admit it wasn't very creative. Lemme just switch that to, "butts in on other's conversations to insult random users."
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:12 PM
-2

I'm getting a strong confirmation bias vibe from you. You have this preconceived notion of how men and women act, but you seem unwilling to talk with the people you think are using you.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 10:59 AM
-5

I think you accidentally where I called you out for expecting women to front you your tip while the men get to pay after the fact.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 10:21 AM
-7

You need to rethink how you're viewing men and women. You complain that your male friends "slip" you tokens of appreciation but the women won't even offer incentive. That's sexist, plain and simple. If your male friends don't have to front you incentive, why do the women?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 09:59 AM
0

So no, you didn't. The context of calling out blatant misogyny in the OP and the response from apostropheapostrophe makes beachedwhale's comment clearly pathetic flame-baiting. OR DID THAT NOT USE ENOUGH INDIGNANT QUESTIONMARKS AND BOLDING FOR YOU????????
/r/MensRights07/12/10 02:13 AM
-4

I take it you didn't read the linked comments...
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:04 AM
-9

So you missed the point of apostropheapostrophe's post entirely so you ran to your circle-jerking buddies to upvote you?
/r/MensRights06/12/10 11:43 PM
1

Yet another circlejerk on the Assange case. Is no one reading the news?
/r/MensRights05/12/10 03:11 PM
1

He doesn't know what he's doing if he can't even handle a fundamental legal definition.
/r/MensRights05/12/10 03:56 AM
1

That "article" blew all its credibility with this statement: Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. Rape hinges on consent, not violence, duress or deception.
/r/MensRights05/12/10 03:25 AM
1

Do you have a source on that?
/r/MensRights05/12/10 02:40 AM
1

I have no agenda, just a little respect for jurisprudence.
/r/MensRights04/12/10 10:55 PM
1

The amount of pathetic circlejerking in this thread is a little intimidating...
/r/MensRights04/12/10 03:54 AM
1

You're kidding right? This law is NOT gendered.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:22 PM
2

The sensations in your brain are the only ones that matter.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 02:29 AM
2

Take her violations to court.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 07:42 AM
2

And no one has the actual text of the law? Unless the pilot program's policy text is blatantly gendered we have no right to throw an MRA hissyfit.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:32 PM
1

Child seduction, a rather precise law in Indiana that covers the exact situation of a teacher having sex with a student is a class D felony -- minimum 6 months prison. No one was going to do much jail time for that, regardless of the sex of the offender or victim.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 08:02 AM
3

...source? Or is this just the usual MR circlejerking?
/r/MensRights24/11/10 07:57 AM
0

By Derek Devine Guest Commentary
/r/MensRights23/11/10 02:55 PM
10

Hey, check that out. They didn't run the accuser's name...
/r/MensRights22/11/10 07:16 AM
2

Fucking NYPost. Are we seriously going to take this article seriously? On-duty uniforms wear bulletproof vests. That's not newsworthy and doesn't change the fact of the matter: some police officers ticketed some men for a variety of criminal trespass.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 06:33 PM
1

White matter. Grey matter. The difference in white and grey matter between men and women isn't that large. From this paper women's brains showed an average 55% grey matter and 6% white matter by volume. Compare that to men's ratios of 50% grey matter and 8% white matter. The margin of error on those statistics shows a lot of overlap between men and women as well -- about 3% for grey matter and 2% for white matter. I have yet to see any publication say that this difference affects perception or c…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 06:14 PM
1

It directly calls into question the myth of absolute equality between genders. I would say sports and athletics calls into the question any myth of equality between the sexes. Men's bodies more readily bulk up on muscles meant for strength and power. One look at the difference between men's and women's boxing or sprinting or field hockey is all it takes to see that difference. And definitely, that innate difference makes men superior in situations that require strength or power. But that's it. T…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:23 AM
2

That's just lazy thinking. What precisely makes men and women so different in day-to-day life? Gender roles, and careers included, are imposed by society and culture, not biology. And "personal choice" is heavily dependent on what's socially acceptable. And the pay discrimination argument has been dead for a good decade now. Young women are making more than young men primarily because they're more educated. There's nothing innate about women that guarantees higher wages. Likewise there's nothing…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:14 PM
3

No sane feminist could argue that men and women are physically equal. That's just plain dumb. The upper bounds of athleticism are just not where equality rights are fought for. I agree, basically. In sports, men and women should be separated. They're using their bodies to compete and their bodies are different. Like you wouldn't expect a road bike to compete in a downhill mountain bike competition, to use a bad analogy.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:45 PM
2

Not really that great of an article. It's full of platitudes arranged by geometry. It smacks of ancient Greek geometric mysticism. What's so special about this pentagon anyways? And "hetero-normative" is a really presumptuous angle. Do these simple truths not apply to gay men or straight women? What about transgender and otherwise queer individuals? Does their happiness require some other type of shape? I guess I'm just not ready to put my faith in a system of well-being designed by a fourteen-y…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:45 PM
2

heterocentric...but otherwise an interesting interpretation of what's necessary for a fulfilling consumer lifestyle.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 04:58 PM
3

Don't be a prick: don't use anecdote and don't attack feminist views. You're just going to flunk your paper doing that. Gather evidence. And then draw conclusions from that evidence. Otherwise you'll just end up writing a wise-ass screed.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 06:58 PM
-2

Just so long as they continue to link to dead pages and obscure municipal court records, I'd be ok with it. Standards, you know?
/r/MensRights12/11/10 04:41 PM
-2

...the blog. It sucks. It's biased and there's often no way to substantiate their claims.
/r/MensRights12/11/10 03:43 PM
-4

The number of false repots filed with the departments in Seattle and PDX were about equal with reports found to be false for other crimes. But please, can you substantiate anything from the blog?
/r/MensRights12/11/10 02:23 PM
-7

The only link that actually matters: WKYC Everything else is speculation.
/r/MensRights12/11/10 02:03 PM
1

So, the UDReview upheld their journalistic standards? Good for them.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 06:43 AM
1

Hey, good link. I totally missed the actual news article. /sincerity
/r/MensRights10/11/10 12:55 AM
3

Good lord. This same old song and dance every single fucking day. Source
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:20 PM
0

Hm. Does this guy have any evidence of this...?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:07 PM
2

Now you're just making shit up.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:44 PM
1

Two things. Or perhaps three. The burden of proof rests with the claim, not the skeptic. And in other comments, I've made my case: the author found correlation, not causation. I care enough about truth to call bullshit when I see it, but I'm not always going to have the time or patience to be an amateur sociologist. The author pointed me to a book on Amazon with a footnote to a study from the 70s that allegedly validates his argument. He doesn't have the data on hand, and there's no way hell I'm…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 05:02 AM
1

I'm not going to educate myself by listening to you and pretending that it's unassailable truth...
/r/MensRights07/11/10 05:41 PM
3

London still counts as a trip. Three months is probably enough time to get a sense of the local dating culture, but not enough to actually study it. And your time in Israel can be chalked up to confirmation bias. That books looks like it might be informative. Have you read it?
/r/MensRights07/11/10 02:00 PM
4

I'm not any more ready to believe your anecdotal evidence either...
/r/MensRights07/11/10 01:56 PM
2

facepalm I'm talking about North America!
/r/MensRights07/11/10 01:55 PM
1

I don't think the evidence was of the greatest quality. The divorce rates in the United States is an interesting bit of trivia, but with that data there's no way to tell who is breaking up with who. Maybe it's custom for women to file the papers. Or maybe 70% of married women really are initiating end of the marriages. There's really no way to tell without further investigation. However, I think the relationship updates from Facebook were perfect for gathering statistics on when Facebook users t…
/r/MensRights07/11/10 04:57 AM
5

That right there should have been the first step before Scott wrote his article. Gathering the pertinent information before making an argument is a good way to keep from looking like an ass.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 04:30 AM
-1

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that between the public schools, the universities and the broadcast media people of any religious or ethnic affiliation are probably going to adhere to the North American holiday schedule.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 04:29 AM
9

It's a hair that should be split when the author of this article is predicating his entire "women break up with men to go on sexual escapades" argument on the simple, inscrutable fact that a majority of women in the United States are initiating the court proceedings. That tells us nothing about how men or women behave in a non-binding relationship in college.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 04:26 AM
2

That was an honest self-assessment.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 04:21 AM
0

Not really. December is kind of an all-encompassing family and gifts month between Canada and the United States. I wouldn't be surprised if other cultures adhered to the typical holiday cycle in North America.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 02:36 AM
6

No. They file the initial divorce papers the majority of the time. At no point do we have enough information to say that they initiate the breakup of the relationship.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 02:33 AM
5

That 70% applies to who initiates divorces. That number in no way tells who is initiating the breakup. A man could initiate the end of a relationship, but the woman could initiate the divorce proceedings. The variables are clearly confounded.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 02:32 AM
0

I think that may be a trait that's nearly universal across the entire species. Both men and women are highly competitive creatures. But, it's not impossible to find cooperative culture. I interned with an engineering group a while back, mostly men, and it was primarily a cooperative effort. Federal protocol made the corporate environment very tame.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 12:42 AM
7

I don't trust any of those stats or the sexist tone the article takes against women. Why are all of these breakups the fault of women? Are there no men who break-up, or homosexual relationships in Samuel J. Scott's world?
/r/MensRights07/11/10 12:19 AM
1

ethnocentricity detected No gender attribution is universal.
/r/MensRights06/11/10 08:08 AM
0

"not quite a shelter, but it's better than nothing"
/r/MensRights06/11/10 02:56 AM
0

[Domestic abuse helpline for MEN and women](http://dahmw.org/ "not quite a shelter, but it's better than nothing")
/r/MensRights06/11/10 12:47 AM
-1

Domestic abuse helpline for MEN and women
/r/MensRights06/11/10 12:37 AM
2

Yeah, because asking "Becky" for the details is the socially acceptable thing to do. Leave that to the police, for chrisakes. /eyeroll
/r/MensRights05/11/10 08:50 AM
-1

I lost you right about here: By the above quote being posted, I feel that women who have been unlucky in love will only continue to be encouraged to close off their hearts. It is not okay to bash men for being men. You really have no basis to generalize all women based on one facebook comment about one of your acquaintances being uncomfortable with a male gynecologist.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 10:19 PM
2

...ffffffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFREUD!!!!!
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:29 PM
1

So...you're upset that a light-hearted article treats the difference between men and women superficially? The author of the article seems to be just relating 30 of the small things she likes about the men in her life. Next.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:21 AM
1

They were diagnosed, but not necessarily given prescriptions. aka, your headline sucks, again.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:19 AM
2

confirmation bias confirmed, sir.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:17 AM
4

facepalm McDonagh's talking about developing an emotional attachment to a child that's not genetically yours. In that particular case, the paternity of the child doesn't matter. Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you mistakenly think to be yours as for one who is. Of course, it matters it terms of liberties, ethics, and money.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:09 AM
0

Source Not that I expected any more from this reddit. That blog is awful. I mean McDonagh's wrong in saying that DNA testing is anti-feminist, but can we at least get her quotes in context?
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:06 AM
2

Manslaughter. They both were convicted of criminal negligence, basically. I've never seen a sentence of more than a few years for that particular crime.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 11:59 PM
2

Does anyone else see this connection?
/r/MensRights30/10/10 11:54 PM
1

But it's a better place to start than surgery.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 07:02 PM
6

Except that she says her significant other gets the same kind of entitlement.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 12:11 AM
4

Yeah, not the central point of the article at all.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 12:08 AM
-2

H Y G I E N E
/r/MensRights29/10/10 08:21 PM
0

You still haven't proven the link between your emails and the newspaper article, falknern.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 06:41 AM
0

Reno police said being romantically jilted is what led to a 22-year-old woman filing a false police report claiming her paramour robbed her at knife point.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 08:24 PM
2

But those topics have no relation to Justice Ginsburg's joke. And I don't think equality "goes both ways." That implies, again, a false dichotomy. Sex and gender are hardly binary, despite what our language implies. Also, I think we're now on diverging conversations after your ninja-edit.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 04:08 AM
2

If who wants equality? I realize you're trying your damnedest to troll or get a rise or something, but I really can't follow. Everything you just stated seems to speak directly to your false-dichotomy, anti-feminist fantasy world...
/r/MensRights27/10/10 04:01 AM
4

From the years 1790 to 1981 the Supreme Court was all men all the time. The implication being that the public was perfectly ok with a supreme court run exclusively by men. Of course, these days a man trying to make a joke about how the SCOTUS should be run by nine men would not go over well. But that's not because men are scorned or found to be inferior. It would be because a joke like that would be so obtuse and ignorant of history that no one would find it very funny at all.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 03:51 AM
-1

Op-ed posing as a news story with blog posts as sources. Journalism fail. Downvote.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 03:02 AM
0

Congrats on the shittiest source ever... Here is ABC's article and video. And I mean seriously? A wisecrack from Ginsburg is going to send all the MRA trolls into a tizzy? You guys (the trolls) are totally mental.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 02:55 AM
0

The privileges you're arguing from, "women and children first," mean very little in your typical, modern-day capitalist society. Without access to education, careers, and property rights women were oppressed for many, many generations.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 07:02 AM
8

Because Men's Rights is a reactionary group who's main purpose is to preserve the institutionalized sexism of our society, deny the existence of the patriarchy and their primary acts are to oppose feminist struggles and ideas through derailment. This subreddit, and the movement as a whole, has PR issues. That's why you got downvoted.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 06:52 AM
1

If you'd read the article you'd see that it's entirely predicated on this: In reaching out for the opinions of likely voters, CNN/Opinion Research Corp. found that 23 percent of women polled described themselves as "extremely enthusiastic" about voting in the upcoming elections, compared with 38 percent of men.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 06:46 AM
1

Yes, you would also have to "go easy" on criminals. It wouldn't be injustice, it would be humane. Granted, rehabilitating people is never going to be perfect, but it seems more reasonable to at least try first.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 07:00 PM
2

I meant 25-point swing. My bad.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 06:59 PM
2

Yeah, except you can also consider the difference as a point-swing. Adding 25 percent of the cases to the girl's side would take away 25 points from the boy's side. Which makes a 25 point swing. I should have been more clear with that in my original comment.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 06:58 PM
-2

I don't think ADHD is an attack on masculine traits. With the advent of cheap electronic entertainment there's really no reason to be surprised that ADHD is on the upswing. It's somewhat surprising that boys are leading the girls by 25 points in the statistics. Of course, it's easy to just karma-whore in the mensrights subreddit and say that this is another piece of the feminist conspiracy. It's harder to actually contemplate modern society and question why boys are more vulnerable to this shift…
/r/MensRights24/10/10 08:35 PM
1

The idea isn't to go easy. A person so willing to destroy another's life isn't going to be helped by months or years of imprisonment and abuse. What ever happened to the idea of rehabilitation or therapy or some other such nonsense? If she ends up not responding to genuine efforts to change her behavior, then imprisonment seems best. It just seems backwards and medieval to kneejerk immediately to old testament eye-for-an-eye solutions.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 08:25 PM
1

...what's the deal with the picture of the random white dude? I'm pretty certain that Alan Newton is black.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 12:42 PM
-8

That's not disgusting, it's enlightened. Calling for blood or for her to be raped or to rot in prison are disgusting.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 12:38 PM
1

Except that would have been dishonest. Nothing about her statement says that the women were unwitting or unwilling to perform these acts. In her professional opinion, overseeing all five cases, Blanchard was the ringleader. You can chalk that up to subtle sexism all you want, but I think I'm going to side with the professional here.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 05:49 PM
2

Except that wasn't what she said. I've taken the time to transcribe what she says in the video. She's reading from a prepared statement: Colin Blanchard turned out to be a highly manipulative and corrupting man who controlled or influenced four women together, forming an extremely sickening paedophile ring. He encouraged Vanessa George, Angela Allen, and Tracy Lyons to take and share even more horrific images of the sexual abuse of children. It's still an evil act, but I can't believe the paper …
/r/MensRights19/10/10 05:15 AM
3

I got as far as FAQ 1, but 1A didn't parse. Also, the FAQ was kind of rambly and zealous. I'm not really going subject myself to that.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 04:14 AM
1

I completely agree. Sexual assault charges are too controversial to print anyone's name until the investigation is over and convictions/acquittals are handed down. Reporting on allegations is fine; all crime should be reported on the blotter. But, yes, definitely hide the identities of the parties involved.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 12:35 AM
1

So...trolling. Balloon boy has nothing to do with this article. The fact that the reddit link is a link to page two [a minor annoyance] has nothing to do with balloon boy. The fact that the accusers could not provide enough information to print an accused's name also has nothing to do with Balloon Boy. Sheesh. I asked two different questions and we got lost in the aftermath. Still, do you have any proof of journalists unethically printing everybody's name? That's the original question...
/r/MensRights18/10/10 11:59 PM
-1

...? I don't know what you're going on about. Is this some kind of subtle trolling?
/r/MensRights18/10/10 09:40 PM
-1

Yeah...do you have any proof of any of that? Also, non-sequitur much on the balloon boy thing?
/r/MensRights18/10/10 09:28 PM
0

They didn't...
/r/MensRights18/10/10 09:24 PM
7

I think we already knew that. I get the feeling that the only reason articles about women receiving convictions get posted in this subreddit is to feed the underlying current of misogyny.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 09:12 PM
0

No, that's journalistic ethics. lrn2media some time.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 09:08 PM
0

FTA: Andrea Rita Dworkin (September 26, 1946 – April 9, 2005) was an American radical feminist Also, wtf? Positions of power suddenly make fringe beliefs mainstream? That doesn't follow.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 06:11 PM
-1

Logical fallacies don't apply; I wasn't trying to argue a point. I was just giving my honest opinion of a person based on their actions and statements. kloo2yoo believes that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy
/r/MensRights16/10/10 07:14 PM
-5

kloo is a bit of a nutter. I don't think anyone is going to change his mind, to be honest.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 04:19 PM
6

How is your relationship with your daughter's mother? I know it might not be an easy situation, but I'd bet money that the school would react more in your favor if both parents were taking a stand. Also, that whole doors locked before 8:45 is total bullshit. Does this school not have a cafeteria or a gym? Back in my day [which was really only the late 90s] we had 75 cent breakfast, juice and fruit or something, and the gym was open and the covered play area was open to wallball and foursquare be…
/r/MensRights15/10/10 08:51 PM
4

One, terrible link. Two, "low on the totem pole" is an ancient malapropism. No coastal tribe ever "ranked" the symbols on the totem poles by position.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 06:50 AM
12

Penis burning wife found GUILTY of manslaughter.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 05:26 PM
10

What a fucking sheister. This guy's really gone off the deep end. "She fears you"?
/r/MensRights13/10/10 01:39 AM
1

You're kidding right? Both the boy and the girl were charged under some kind of Utah sexual delinquency law and both received protected persons status for being the victim of said delinquency.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 10:48 PM
1

FTA: She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her. and The girl appealed the petition, saying her constitutional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated. Seriously, take a minute and at least skim the article. Both parties were put through the justice system around the same time, but her story is more newsworthy because she appealed her conviction.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 10:46 PM
0

Reads reddit headline. No shit sherlock. Welcome to journalism. Admitting guilt in a domestic violence case is almost never frontpage, full-color photograph material. This isn't some conspiracy. This is just how news functions.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 10:25 PM
-5

Unsubstantiated bullshit. Give me something real.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 10:20 PM
0

I'd be willing to take that bet. The internet can't chase an individual that drops off the grid.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 10:14 PM
2

Maybe we should post this on TwoX and get some real responses instead of making shit up?
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:50 PM
2

Nine, they'll never know what hit'em.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 02:17 PM
2

Peace. And the article isn't defunct. I still get a valid webpage with your link. If you want to discuss Sterger's alleged actions, maybe we should start at the source? Then from there we can all bullshit about how or why she did it. And if you want to start something about which is "prettier," male sex organs or female, then there's your start. But grandstanding on an unrelated article is just annoying.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 05:38 AM
1

She pleaded guilty to statutory rape. Please, for the love of god, look up Alabama's criminal code before you jump to conclusions. Section 13A-6-62 Rape in the second degree. (a) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if: (1) Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex. (2) He or she engag…
/r/MensRights10/10/10 05:05 AM
3

You were being excessive, for sure. Her hitting you once isn't justification for you to wale on her till she's out cold. Defend your self, definitely, just don't let that be an excuse for bloodlust.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:54 AM
0

That's what it sounds like. FTA, my emphasis: "I learned the reason that for all these years I have not had a proper ID or valid Social Security number for `Melissa Reed' and why I could not get a driver's license, bank account, passport or travel by plane, all because of my assumed name," she said. Though, I'm not sure why she couldn't get a bank account. I set up an account in town with an ID and a piece of mail. I'm really curious how improper her ID was.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:46 AM
2

As hard as you're trying to spin right now, I can tell that you're just using that article as a soapbox to stand on. The article introduced Favre's story to talk about Favre, sports news reporters, and what the networks are going to allow on tomorrow's pre-game shows. "Childish little game" indeed.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:29 AM
2

So...you didn't read the article? It was interesting, a good find for once from mensrights101. Kanazawa laid out the recent scientific consensus clearly. Men end up slightly smarter than women because the men are taller. That's fucking intriguing. Is it testosterone? Stature? Skull size? The length of the spinal cord? Not that Psychology Today would really dig deep into their subjects, but you could have come back with something more than, "Herp derp, derpist herp."
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:19 AM
1

You covered up your access of the logs too, right?
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:06 AM
0

You're kidding, right? An Amazon page? I'm not even sure what the discussion is supposed to be. Is this a good book? Is it terrible? Is it something more nuanced like, "The books premises and conclusions ring true, but the arguments that lead from A to B are highly suspect"?
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:04 AM
5

Yeah, that's what we need. A lawsuit because a fire drill debriefing was tense and sexist. /eyeroll
/r/MensRights09/10/10 06:57 PM
1

I think the downvotes are more about the fact that it was a joke in bad taste that added little to nothing to the discrussion.
/r/MensRights09/10/10 06:55 PM
1

You're definitely not trolling. Trolling is more in the spirit of say, having a user come to this thread and make some convincing arguments that you can side-step the two-party law and get away with privately recording your all-female class as a male professor. You've just sounded overly paranoid. You're also an outlier, not a troll. I have an in-law who has taught at various grade levels k-12. If she went back and continued her education she could do undergrad. So on, so forth. I can understand…
/r/MensRights08/10/10 06:36 PM
1

I don't think single parents necessarily fuck their kids up just by virtue of being single parents. By "time and resources" I meant spending real face time with your kids and having the money to keep them fed, clothed, and schooled. I wasn't delving into unnecessary detail. Of course drug addled parents are going to be detrimental. Of course one loving, working parent can produce a good kid. But what I was getting at was the overall picture. A child's well-being increases with the amount of time…
/r/MensRights08/10/10 06:27 PM
1

Because labor laws differ from state to state...union to union. Like in Washington substitutes can bleed over a little from grade schools to middle school and high school down to middle school, but it's extremely rare to find an educator who has worked the entire k-12 spectrum. Likewise it's rare to find an individual who has taught undergrad and graduate classes and the entire k-12 in Washington State.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 05:07 PM
1

...In what country/state?
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:45 PM
10

We don't teach kids equality through sexism.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:44 PM
1

That sounds like a pretty reasonable solution. I feel like alienating your colleagues with recording equipment just hurts you in the long run. I mean, not to imply anything, but friends and allies are how people get away with things, let alone protecting themselves from false accusations.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:37 PM
1

Uh...every thing, k-12, undergrad and post-bac? I smell bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 01:51 PM
1

But this videography plan is going to paint you as the creepy loner who records everything to soothe the pain of his paranoid fears. That person is precisely where sexual harassment claims are going to land.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 06:52 AM
2

My edit may have overlapped your reply; doing all that recording is going to look suspicious. It's disrespectful to your students, who in turn may not respect you enough to learn anything. You are being counter-productive and vindictive with this plan. What makes you think these students are out to get you?
/r/MensRights08/10/10 06:44 AM
0

One, I am not a woman. Two, even if I was it wouldn't discredit my main point. You're acting paranoid and you're going to sabotage your own reputation. EDIT: Now that I think about it, it looks like you're building an alibi for an ulterior motive.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 06:34 AM
1

Except you're walling yourself off from people. You're starting with zero trust and respect for your students. It's going to get out why you're recording them, and then you're really fucked.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 05:30 AM
2

No I don't. I just think you're setting yourself up for worse consequences if you're spending all day videotaping the students. A clean record and a friend higher up are all you really need.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 05:11 AM
1

Done and done. They don't carry.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 05:10 AM
2

If you're working white collar that really shouldn't be surprising. More women than men are graduating college these days.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:17 AM
1

That manager is the very definition of a blunt individual. But, I guess if he sees more business come through his door with tactless jokes that's his thing.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:14 AM
1

It's called Godwin's Law. Nobody except the 4chan kids seem to upvote it.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:12 AM
1

If it's both realistic and apparently a toy, nothing. Easy. In this situation it looks like everything was handled correctly and promptly given the information available. Also, why is something this dry and non-controversial and non-MensRights being posted again? I missed the relevance.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:07 AM
0

That was a poorly written article. Did you even see that copy? Good lord. Lower-case names, the conversational tone, the god-foresaken quotes the reporter used? I didn't sense any background research going into that piece. Seems fitting that the reddit headline is just a lift from the story.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 04:04 AM
0

I L L E G A L
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:55 AM
-1

No, recording all day at an all girls school is going to raise red flags for the administration, possibly put the students on edge and bring the whole sexual harassment conspiracy crashing down on Maschalismos head much more quickly.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:55 AM
1

There's more to that story than just "gay instructor gropes student and gets fired, derp." His boss alleges that he had been trying to get rid of this particular employee for some time for other previous incidents.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:53 AM
-11

That's some crazy paranoia, especially at the college level. You're likely to get called out on that behavior before sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:52 AM
0

Have an upvote. My reddit proving grounds were the r/trees subreddits and I can't stand to hear that kind of thing.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 03:38 AM
1

You missed the thin line where picking up a gun in defense is an act of self-preservation first, with the intent of stopping the aggressor. The intent or desire to harm or kill is secondary, psychopathic, and can get your license taken away.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:35 PM
1

His argument I can agree with, but only if I consider it in an expanded sense. Single-mothers raising kids aren't going to have all the time and resources to really raise their kids right. Same goes for single-dads. To a degree children need more than just a pair of parents. Friends and family and peers all round out an individual's childhood. But Warren is definitely correct in pointing out where a lot of trouble starts and that's with absentee fathers.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:19 PM
11

I can't believe how bad your headline is AnnArchist. You actually topped the Post. No one involved in the accusations stated precisely why he was fired or over which particular incidents. Everything else is just speculation [read: bullshit] at this point, especially: "Gay Man Fired for Touching Woman While Preventing Her From Plummeting to Earth."
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:11 PM
1

madam, we grow tired of your rhetoric. Seriously?
/r/MensRights01/10/10 03:30 PM
-2

Blatantly editorialized headline receives numerous downvotes
/r/MensRights30/09/10 11:09 PM
2

[](/dude)
/r/MensRights30/09/10 10:50 PM
4

Do you hate women? Not usually and never categorically. In other words, give me a despicable individual who has personally slighted me and I'll probably hate them, but I couldn't hate someone solely based on their sex. Did you develop your views because you've been burned in the past? My views developed over time. I guess it could be characterized as the slow erosion of objectification. At 12 or 13 I first noticed women in a sexualized way and my path to adulthood has included realizing that whi…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 01:03 PM
1

You didn't read thetrollking's comment, did you? You don't know my sex, do you? Link me and I'll call misandry the slander of men. From thetrollking, my emphasis: Whether circ, or medicating their boy into submission or simply believing a false allegation against years of integrity or siding with women who kill their husbands or children and blame insanity or the nearest black man.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 12:07 PM
0

But that had already been said and done. Harping on a random Australian video for using a lot of bad actors to portray a bunch of men as aggressive and lethal drivers is one of the more trivial things I've seen on this reddit. So, I felt justified for responding in kind. Problem?
/r/MensRights30/09/10 01:27 AM
0

I'm not saying we don't follow the press. I'm saying we could, you know, write letters to the editor and influence the news organizations.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 05:43 PM
-1

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
/r/MensRights29/09/10 05:41 PM
2

You're kidding right? Fong took apart the misandric infographic piece by piece and you're repaying her effort with sexism? Damn. Welcome to the new r/mensrights record low.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:09 PM
3

I'm saying that we shouldn't restrict the press through legal means, but that they should hold themselves to a higher standard and recognize the controversy surrounding a sexual assault investigation. And it would be our job as consumers of news media to hold them to that standard. Along with not condemning a person for being accused of a crime. That right there would solve the entire problem.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:53 PM
0

A lot of redditors said that the piss-poor article used too many weasel words, while other users commented on the lack of citations.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:38 PM
-2

What is it with finishing your comments with the needless slander of women?
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:33 PM
20

Police records should remain public records. We should not be restricting citizen access to government files. However, the news should not run the name of a private citizen accused of a crime. It should be standard policy that all parties engaged in a sexual assault investigation should remain anonymous. It's too controversial and no matter how dramatic it sounds on the teleprompter, it's not actually newsworthy until conviction.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:30 PM
-6

Good lord. Chauvinist circlejerking after seven minutes of auto wreckage? r/MensRights delivers again!
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:14 PM
8

Confirmation bias confirmed.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:59 AM
6

I'm saying that your assertion is impossible. Women in our modern storytelling media have plenty of flaws. That's what makes a story compelling and interesting. Having a "perfect" character -- aka Mary-Sue -- is off-putting to the audience and would never fly in our capitalist society.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 02:04 AM
5

Ease down. Your absolutes are absolutely flawed. Watch something...anything from the last 40 years. No story would be commercially successful with a Mary Sue lead character...
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:59 AM
1

Downvoted for truth! Naw, j/k. You pointed out something important. This AP article was mostly about the recession, rising poverty rates, and other indicators of the economy going to shit. But let's not let that get in the way of sexist rhetoric!
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:54 AM
1

Was it really "floating around?" If she put up that status update, it wasn't necessarily for someone to come along and get political. Maybe she has recently come into first-experience of domestic violence and you made a serious faux pas.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:49 AM
6

I can't believe how many people are lapping up this absolute bullshit. Sure, the industrial revolution changed marriage. Instead of securing lineage and wealth, attraction and compatibility became the primary reasons couples got married. But stable human settlements -- not in danger from rocks, starvation, or wild animals -- have existed for thousands of years with a more nuanced understanding of marriage. Even less stable communities [hunter-gatherers or nomads] have recognized marriage as more…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:45 AM
1

Whine at other men is all i have EVER seen you and a few others in here do.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:04 AM
2

Ah, this is also what's wrong with r/mensrights. Instead of holding a discussion you've descended into name calling and questioning my sex. Stay classy!
/r/MensRights29/09/10 12:59 AM
1

Wow, that's a pretty bald lie you've got going there. My only sock puppet is an f7u12 novelty account that I almost never use. Relax, apparently I'm not the only one with this particular take on men's rights and the quality of the shared links.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 12:57 AM
-6

A year old and without substance. Next!
/r/MensRights28/09/10 01:03 PM
0

You claim to stalk me and know my posting habits, but you don't know the context of my comments -- really?
/r/MensRights28/09/10 01:01 PM
0

factory2 is pretty retarded. You're best just leaving that troll alone.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 05:27 AM
0

I don't lend Barbara Kay any credibility. Racism: Virtually all Arab and many other Muslim nations rely on Jew hatred to externalize an explanation for their own failures. Oversimplifications to suit her needs: I cited what I considered a perfect media representation of the phenomenon: the 2001 movie Bridget Jones’s Diary. This was supposedly an update of Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s classic novel of a meeting of true minds. Blaming the entire feminist doctrine for the declining birthrates…
/r/MensRights28/09/10 05:08 AM
-1

In a lot the stories referenced it was men carrying out vigilante justice against falsely accused men.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 04:48 AM
2

Bashing women is not going to bring us any closer to equality. I'm sorry you can't see that.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 04:26 AM
0

You are what's wrong with the men's rights movements.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 09:25 PM
0

So...she wrote a memoir and then realized she didn't need a professional accreditation to sell her story as hard science?
/r/MensRights27/09/10 08:31 AM
2

This individual's actions didn't change my perspective of women.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 08:28 AM
0

Alot likes you too.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 04:45 AM
3

I'm not sure that's what was being said in the other thread. The "cowboy the fuck up" redditor told the OP to learn something new and share it with three women per day. It wasn't in so many nice words, but it's half of what the OP needed. The other half is a friend to back him up.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 04:44 AM
0

Whoosh
/r/MensRights27/09/10 02:39 AM
2

No, that's petty and unjust. Learn to morals/ethics some time.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 11:13 AM
0

I'm not sure why the marihuana tax act guy is the thumbnail. Am I supposed to be voting with men or against prohibition or what?
/r/MensRights26/09/10 11:07 AM
-3

Again with a politician's press release. Not only political bullshit, but low-quality political bullshit. r/MensRights, I am disappoint. Blumenthal's maneuvering for political gain. And he's doing it in a prepared statement. You guys do realize that this happens every year in every congressional district in every part of the world, yes?
/r/MensRights26/09/10 10:53 AM
1

This is too paranoid. Why did you post this again? It sounds like you've been stalking her and you somehow got a piece of spam from her email address? She doesn't have your child but she still dumped you "without warning"? You're not telling the whole story.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 10:48 AM
-4

Opinion without substance. But I guess that's par for this course [/r/MensRights].
/r/MensRights26/09/10 10:42 AM
1

Eminem's more "homosexuals and vicodin" than "blunts, 40s, and bitches" if that helps any.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 05:37 AM
6

And I see that you're more interested in truthiness than anything. I think we're at an impasse.
/r/MensRights25/09/10 03:19 AM
8

Which doesn't detract one bit from the truth of the words. Oh, it's you again, lol.
/r/MensRights25/09/10 12:26 AM
2

Care to clarify? I think you've accidentally some my words: They feel justified in rebuking us in turn.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 11:28 AM
3

Damn son, take it down a notch. That video has been removed; I don't think view-count is going to be meaningful. If I remove my downvote [for blogspam] would that make you feel better? And I post news links that get over 200 upvotes, wtf have you ever contributed? Uh, no, you haven't. And I guess I contribute genuine criticism; no point in fighting for men's rights if the message we're putting out is dominated by trolls.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 11:25 AM
0

Except your blogspam was really just parroting their website: You: Earlier this year an American company announced the creation of the world’s first sexbot. Roxxxy TrueCompanion attracted the attention of the world’s media but seemed a rather primitive, if historic, first step on the road to fully fledged robots you’d actually want to have sex with. Now, however, the creators of Roxxxy have announced a new and improved version. The groundbreaking sexbot has been given a prettier face, improved A…
/r/MensRights24/09/10 10:12 AM
1

I find it telling that a significant number of links to this subreddit come through opinionated blogs rather than the direct source
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:55 AM
14

How many women have they had stoned to death this year for lesser crimes? That's the point. We rebuke Iran for its death sentences and they feel justified in rebuking us in turn.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:25 AM
-1

A news release? Seriously? We're taking a politician's press release at face value now?
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:23 AM
1

I'm not getting the relevance.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:21 AM
0

Blogspam. The cited news article was basically plagiarized. Here's a better article
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:19 AM
6

Your source didn't really back up what you were saying...
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:10 AM
2

You know, I've been trying to type a reasonable response. But you're too far gone. It's the year 2010 and you're still trying to blame rap for murder? You don't listen to any rap, do you?
/r/MensRights24/09/10 08:07 AM
4

In my experience the lubrication on a latex condom doesn't last nearly long enough for satisfying sex. And once it dries out it's painful for the woman. The most reasonable solution seems to be to use, you know, more lubrication for her sake? But from his perspective she's definitely gone past reasonable.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 07:59 AM
-1

This is one of the better execution pieces I've seen in a while. The only reason her sex is mentioned is that it's an oddity for the country -- and this state in particular -- to execute a woman. You sound like you're lashing out against emotions elicited from the astute observations in this piece. FTA: "I want Kathy to know that I love her and I'm very sorry," Lewis said. and A guard lightly tapped on her shoulder reassuringly as she slipped into death.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 07:53 AM
1

Fair enough. Though, I think the benefits of breastmilk would be beneficial in any society and not just in a non-industrialized country.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 06:48 AM
1

Ease down on that trollerderby, your partisanship is showing.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:42 PM
3

You forgot this: 9-month pregnancy. And this: childbirth.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:40 PM
3

If by "all" you mean you refuse to engage with reality, then yes.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:36 PM
5

Just...no. I mean, go ahead and get your nails done on the level, but don't start calling it the Rosa Parks of manicure rights. Sheesh...
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:34 PM
1

This thread is more helpful.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:18 PM
2

Whoosh
/r/MensRights23/09/10 08:07 PM
2

This. Instead of bashing a policy for the well-being of infants and childbearing women, let's focus on what men are not getting.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 07:27 AM
2

Hey, how about that, you got to the core issue instead of obliquely bashing women and children. Good for you. Oh wait, then you slandered women in the second paragraph. Jesus, I'd hate to hear the dissonance inside your head.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 07:24 AM
1

Right, editors are a smaller set of society, but they don't necessarily represent society in general. And instead of circlejerking here, why not write directly to the city editor for the offending paper/outlet and school them on their own policies? The media holds a lot of cultural inertia and if we don't work for change, they'll be happy to continue printing the status quo.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 07:22 AM
2

Er, no. This particular thread is about holding the news organizations to their own ethics and keeping men's names out of the papers when they file charges. Conflate that into some kind of culture war all you want, but it's off base and off-putting to the people you want hearing you.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 05:29 AM
9

Men, in general, take more risks with their lives. Plus, men don't have the protection of a duplicate X chromosome, leaving them vulnerable to diseases based in genetic mutations. Neither of which are pertinent to the neo-natal care or the childbirthing care that this $40 billion is targeting.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 05:02 AM
1

I'm not sure how this blog got from conservative christians denouncing all forms of pre-marital sexuality to feminists hate men who masturbate. All without a single outside source. That's just pathetic. Why are we upvoting this kind of garbage?
/r/MensRights23/09/10 04:49 AM
-1

You just broke both my irony-detector and my hypocrisy-meter, good game.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 04:41 AM
0

I wouldn't be as sure as this blog suggested. I mean, good for the AP and sticking with their ethics and shame on every other outlet that in a fit of sexism forgot their own sexual assault crimes policies, but to say that no news outlet would run a woman's name is just childish posturing. The issue isn't about absolutes or getting even.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 04:25 AM
0

Curious. Why hasn't the data been independently reviewed? And I find it telling that O'Shea is making the claims instead of her study. Lazy journalism. Verify those facts before you print them!
/r/MensRights21/09/10 07:47 AM
5

That's because it's not an article, it's an op-ed piece...
/r/MensRights21/09/10 07:39 AM
1

See, you're still arguing miutae and semantics, rahter than looking at the problem honestly. If there is no bias in rape shield laws, then why the resistance to extending equal protections to the accused as well? (As in the UK). Minutiae. Also, what? You've got no substance here. Edited: You may be interested to know that in the UK, rape shield laws WERE going to be extended to the accused as well. This was blocked by a group of female MPs, all self-avowed Feminists, on the grounds that it would…
/r/MensRights21/09/10 01:04 AM
1

But gender identity is already equal under the law. The law has most often been concerned with an individual's sex. And, it's a distinction associated with every single human being on the planet.
/r/MensRights21/09/10 12:25 AM
1

Whooosh? I'm not sure where you're going with more from the article. I was pointing out the blatant spin of aimbonic's title.
/r/MensRights20/09/10 11:54 AM
1

False accusations by women are extremely rare. Few women would willingly subject themselves to the pain, humiliation or the chance of getting caught to falsely report a crime just for revenge or sympathy. FTFY
/r/MensRights20/09/10 11:50 AM
1

Uh, you guys do realize the difference between sex and gender...right? EDIT: I'm going to take that down vote as a no.
/r/MensRights20/09/10 11:47 AM
1

Actually no, rape is the ONLY crime handled the way it is. There's even special laws to allow it... Not in Washington or Indiana. Those are the only two states I've had to time to review their shield laws, but the law doesn't have these special exceptions. To say otherwise is just being willfully ignorant of the letter of the law. These are the same police that are likely to arrest a man that makes a DV call? The same ones that are told to 'always believe the woman'? The same police departments …
/r/MensRights20/09/10 07:42 AM
1

That's not what I meant. This might blow your mind, but I'm only asking to better understand and empathize with the situation.
/r/MensRights20/09/10 06:57 AM
1

"editorial decision' my ass. How many times have you seen 'the victim cannot be named for legal reasons' in a news story. But you're right...massive sexism is involved too... Early in an investigation I would agree. The police keep records sealed and reveal details about the investigation at their discretion. Often this means they protect the people making allegations. This happens in more than just rape cases. However they often don't keep arrest records from public knowledge. I'm not sure ther…
/r/MensRights19/09/10 03:50 AM
1

More or less. Sex, genetically, is basically binary: XX and XY. But there's also mutations on the sex genes. Then, environmental factors can also affect how strongly those genes are expressed. Then there's the whole gender continuum to ponder. A person can present themselves anywhere from hypermasculine to hyperfeminine and that placement can change over time. And then an individual could view themselves differently than they feel they are presenting themselves. Neither sex nor gender end up as …
/r/MensRights19/09/10 03:26 AM
2

Blog spam, seriously. Go for the blog's source. The better discussion is on the apparent contradiction from last year's report on trafficking in the UK which failed to find any instance of exploitative prostitution and the reports of some gang members who were convicted for trafficking women.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 06:10 PM
3

I thought it was kind of funny. Was this really a US ad? I can't believe the FCC or whoever would let that run.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 05:57 PM
6

I would pick your battles wisely. Don't nitpick their "gender-balance" in their brochures. That's petty and will likely get your case dismissed. Likewise railing against women's only groups and calling for a 50/50 gender balance is tangential to your core issue. Leave it out. Also, you're at university now. You should really learn the differences between sex and gender. But, I think you're right in calling for the morning time slot to be open/co-ed/whatever. It sounds like Monday through Friday …
/r/MensRights18/09/10 05:53 PM
4

And if it was a rave, what kind of drugs was she taking willingly?
/r/MensRights18/09/10 05:39 PM
9

FTA, my emphasis: Sexual aggression is now a no-tolerance policy at four Tucson nightclubs.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 05:35 PM
1

Yeah, because asking for equal application of the law regardless of sex is so...pointless. I should just try and convince all the media to stop... Sheesh. Like I said before, rape shield laws do not block anyone's named from being published. That's an editorial decision. Police records are public, if you want to put the accuser's name out there and abolish the double standard you're free to start your own project and troll the stacks at your local department. Are you REALLY this naive, or simply…
/r/MensRights18/09/10 06:24 AM
1

Yes, and they also do little things like prevent publication of names. And since when is the accuser's past behaviour 'not relevant' but the accused? Not afforded the same treatment. No, no they do not. Perhaps in your state or country shield laws prevent publications of names, but I don't see how. Police records are public records. Withholding the accuser's name is a journalistic move. It's not one I'm sure I agree with, but there's nothing in the shield law that prevents a reporter from going …
/r/MensRights17/09/10 08:50 PM
1

I am not at all surprised at your cavalier attitude in this matter. And I'm not surprised that you've once again refused to actually engage in the discussion. Nonetheless, let's try this again -- it's good exercise for me. And the latitude for 'related' is VERY wide indeed. No. Like I said before, you've clearly never read an actual rape shield law. I misspoke before. Shield laws prevent the defendant from dredging up third-part testimony on their accuser's unrelated past behavior. You can't do …
/r/MensRights17/09/10 07:49 AM
0

You clearly don't appreciate the difference between government agencies and politicians and their political committees. I concede that corruption is possible, and I offer that police departments are a special case where blue walling can keep internal investigations from being completely truthful or thorough. But they're not politicians. HAHAHAHA!! Right. So if the police weren't 'part of the problem', why did they arrest those boys based on such flimsy evidence? What's that? They had no choice? …
/r/MensRights16/09/10 11:15 PM
3

Ah yes, I remember being a teenager too and survey-bombing every study that came across my desk or computer. I'd like to hear more about their methodology before drawing any conclusions. The clipped the outliers at least...right?
/r/MensRights16/09/10 09:32 PM
2

Exactly. "But my clothes were still on" has got to be the most pathetic defense I've seen so far on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights16/09/10 09:14 PM
0

I see, so you didn't read the study and went instead with an opinion blog that reflected your beliefs? William McCaffery is not a valid source. He's going to be biased against everyone involved in the investigation that put him in jail (however unjustly). He's not the authority on the gullibility of government officials. In the Orlando, Florida story, the NBC News affiliate reported statements by police saying that they do not want to arrest these women. Non-sequitur much? Which police? Which wo…
/r/MensRights16/09/10 08:59 PM
1

When the majority of rape allegations and charges are dropped then I guess men go free on NOTHING but their own word. Please, do some research and don't give me your outdated bullshit.
/r/MensRights16/09/10 08:10 PM
1

If the sexes were reversed the situation would be the same. Rape is the most challenging accusation to make stick. What would a woman do in this situation? There's no physical evidence, there are no witnesses. The trial, if it ever got that far, would break down into he-said, she-said, then the jury would deliberate on nothing but testimony and circumstantial evidence. Then of course there'd be the hardline jurists who either say that women always lie or that men always rape. Huzzah! Hung jury. …
/r/MensRights16/09/10 06:52 AM
0

Ah I see. The link didn't like having "http://" stuck to the front. I take it you're not using Chrome or other web browser that automatically suggests the same URL without "http://"? rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf Well, let's start at the bottom. But hey, instead of admitting it's unequal, and unfairly so...you just keep defending the status quo. Like all the other Feminists who 'really like men.... Ad hominem? Seriously? That was a classy touch to really cap your argument. The jus…
/r/MensRights16/09/10 06:43 AM
0

I read a study on UK rape charges from a couple of years ago. Let's start with Appendix 1, it's bookmarked in the PDF. And let's start with the top set of data, England & Wales from 2001. Out of 9,449 offences reported to the police 572 individuals were convicted. By your logic, the 95% attrition rate is proof that most rape accusations are false. From a purely judiciary standpoint you could say that's true. However, let's continue and narrow the scope a little bit. In the same set of data we se…
/r/MensRights15/09/10 08:47 PM
0

Oh I see. I wasn't really sure what this subreddit was all about. Thanks for clarifying! -frontpage
/r/seduction14/09/10 07:29 PM
0

You guys do realize that less than a third of accusations of rape filed with police ever make it to trial? Then, the vast majority of trials end in acquittal because the prosecution is unable to build a solid case under modern procedures for submitting and validating evidence? I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but to pull the victim card on account of your local, semi-annual, high-profile rape case is a little hysteric.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 06:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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