TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

nigglereddit Archive

View 9 posts and 2,797 comments by nigglereddit on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,797 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

You're so humble, you're an inspiration to us all.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 10:47 AM
4

Objectification is an interesting feminist doctrine. The objection to objectification is that it entails regarding a woman as an object, a body, instead of a whole person. This is interesting because it implies the belief that your body is an object inside which a 'real' person is living - the two are separate, like a driver in a car. The body is not the person or part of them, it's just a container for the person. This is a pretty bizarre belief. Clearly there is no actual evidence to support i…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:57 AM
5

We do need to admit that there is something going on with men, boys, and mass shootings. This is nonsense of course, and trivially easy to prove. If your claim, "there is a specific link between male gender and mass shootings" is true, then people of male gender should be carrying out mass shootings everywhere since guns are available everywhere. This is not the case. Therefore your claim cannot be true. I agree we should be looking at stopping mass shootings. But if we begin from a mistaken and…
/r/MensRights26/10/14 02:54 PM
2

This is all fine with a few obvious exceptions I'm sure we all spotted. But to see the real problem, you have to look outside the list. The list is a pretty credible stab at equality - but in her own relationship, she doesn't work but her husband does. As a father myself I can assure you that there is no useful way to compare the value of childcare and a career because they are so completely different. But that difference also makes equality impossible. Now reread the list and see how incompatib…
/r/MensRights18/10/14 08:57 AM
9

This is the horseshoe effect, where crusaders become exactly what they claim to be against. "Everyone should be free to be who they want to be without prejudice". "I want to call myself a boy". "Well you're not allowed to. You will shut up and call yourself a penguin".
/r/MensRights11/10/14 08:24 PM
3

The worst thing about being abused by your mother is that very often, what they do is considered legitimate and acceptable. My mother is a seventies-era feminist. That meant that she wholeheartedly believed in the patriarchy, that male sexuality is inherent filthy and evil, and that viewing pornography is literally rape. That meant periodic searches of my room and if any porn was found, punishment. Serious punishment. Lots of people thought, and still think, that being against porn is fine. But …
/r/MensRights04/10/14 09:50 PM
4

Hey. Exciting news! You must be pretty nervous! Well I guess the first thing is to establish how the boy is doing and what his family arrangements are. You'll need to find out whether there's another guy who's already "dad" and whether the mother feels that you should be involved. If it's no and yes, you've got a good time ahead of you - having a child is pretty good fun most of the time and all being well there shouldn't be any real conflict with the mother after the long gap. I can understand …
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:01 PM
22

I’m just not sure whether a man who refuses to roll a latex sheath over his penis is going to put his legs in the stirrups and let a doctor pierce his scrotum. The whole point of vasalgel is that if you get it, you don't have to use the condom. So yes, men who won't wear condoms will get vasalgel. Obviously.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 04:51 PM
1

I don't have to; they speak for themselves. The only thing about this rarer than rape is rapists. Which makes it twice as futile and reprehensible to frighten women into avoiding contact with men.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:18 PM
3

It's porn. It's pretend. Exactly. Neither side in that little debate seems to understand that it's not real and fantasizing about rape does not mean you want to be raped.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 03:47 PM
5

No, in the UK you are virtually certain to be accused of sexual misconduct. It's normal teenage behaviour for girls to try out their budding sexuality on mature men. My dad was a teacher his whole career and was accused many times. No one should have to fear normal health behaviour. What they have to fear is that their fellow adults handle it totally inappropriately and without due process. It's not the kids who are the problem. It's the other teachers and the parents.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 07:00 PM
3

What people like the mod don't realize is that people who give their time and effort to populating a sub with content - the reason it exists and without which there would be no sub - are what makes it exist. There's a good reason why reddit runs at a massive loss and had proved impossible to sell after four attempts: no matter how big a user group is, if they are not rewarded for building the content and can be locked out for no reason, they will never commit enough for the site to make real mon…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 08:33 AM
3

There is no evidence that humans lived in matriarchal societies prior to the neolithic revolution. In point of fact there's little evidence of anything from that period because so little material has survived. There's certainly no evidence that women 'kept society connected or 'fed the community'. There's also no evidence that after the appearance of agriculture and animal husbandry huge numbers of workers were suddenly required, necessitating breeding programs for humans. In fact, agriculture a…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 07:20 AM
6

Murder is simply even rarer than rape. That doesn't make rape common.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 10:16 PM
5

Rape is common No, it's not. Here in the UK there are about 16,000 reports of rape to police per year, and far fewer convictions - you agree of course that considering all reports to be true is irrational. Source That's in a country of about 27,000,000 women. That is very, very rare.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 08:36 PM
6

Not frequently, no. It's probably the most common rape scenario, but rape is very, very rare even in this form. Telling women that rape is common does men a disservice, but women too; it leads them to live unhappily and to be afraid of something they should enjoy - socializing with men.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 07:18 PM
2

Are there feminists who disagree with this extreme anti-male doctrine? Where are they? Where are the harsh denunciations of radical feminism from “moderate” feminists? And if they don’t denounce such extremism, aren’t they tacitly endorsing it? They're not endorsing it, tacitly or otherwise, no. It's not reasonable to presume someone's position from their lack of stating it. BUT That being the case, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, we must take what is said as the mainstream femi…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 11:11 AM
1

You're right. The rhetoric works by ignoring the fact that it's a choice.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 09:34 AM
2

Yeah well they said Elliot Rodger was an MRA too, so don't be too surprised.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 09:23 AM
54

This is a bit of a red herring. The real reason they're opposed to this is very simple: actual drugging of drinks in bars and nightclubs is incredibly rare. In fact of those alleging that they've been given the drugs, only 5% actually were according to reliable sources. I worked as a doorman and saw numerous girls who claimed they must have been "roofied" because they'd "only had a couple of drinks" - then when we tallied up how much they'd actually had it turned out to be ten or more drinks. We…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 09:22 AM
0

Look, you said you have sexual thoughts about small children engaged in normal everyday activities. Get help. I'm not joking. Get help.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:01 PM
5

This is not a mainstream view, even for the more radical feminists. Actually it is - see radfemhub for many examples. Feminists routinely celebrate and applaud killing men - Valerie Solanas is still a cult figure, and Kiranjit Ahluwalia received worldwide acclaim and a major feminist award for burning her husband alive while he was asleep. I really don't think anyone can seriously debate the fact that reveling in the pain and death of men is an absolutely mainstream feminist position, from celeb…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 03:18 PM
4

Yes, having a bath with your two year old daughter is perfectly normal. So is having a shower with them. Naked. Normal people do not see a small child in a bath and assume they are having sex. That is deeply unhealthy and wouldn't occur to any healthy person. Seek help. You're seeing sexual content where there is none. And if you object to the suggestion that you find children sexually attractive, even though you admit to thinking about sex when you see kids naked, then you should think twice ab…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:04 AM
0

There is nothing sexually suggestive about any of the photos. A child in a bath is not a child engaged in sex. A child bouncing on a bed is not a child engaged in sex. A child watching TV is not a child engaged in sex. None of the photos show children engaged in sex in any way. Nor are they posed as if having sex. Those things are just inside your head. Seriously: if you see a child in a bath and assume they are having sex, I think you should consider seeking professional treatment. Normal, heal…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:01 AM
6

Yes, because you said you find naked, non-sexual photos of small children sexually suggestive. I genuinely think you should seek help; that level of projection and sexual interest in children is not normal.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:55 AM
6

You said that you find images of naked children "sexually suggestive". What did you think the response would be? If you'd received support for saying that, how do you think AMR and SRS would have treated us? We oppose you, you whine the you're "harassed". We don't, we get called pedophiles.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 10:25 PM
3

I'm afraid your claim that this is not typical of feminists does not stand up. Feminists have a track record of encouraging and admiring women who kill men. Clearly, Valerie Solanas is a feminist icon and feminists salute and award women like Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who they rewarded for her "strength, personal achievements, determination and commitment" after she burned her husband alive with home made napalm while he slept. I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that mainstream feminists do not…
/r/MensRights24/08/14 09:23 AM
1

Actually neither makes me uncomfortable, in fact they happen to me all the time. But it's time for women to stop pretending they don't do it.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:33 AM
9

Actually that user said that they find photos of naked children sexually suggestive. That's a strong indication of pedophilia.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:30 AM
13

If you find photos of naked children sexually suggestive, the pedophile is you.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:29 AM
1

Great talk. But it's just talk. Because you know the politicians and the business interests they serve? They don't give a FUCK about you. Getting rid of poverty and prison literally mean less to them than their next holiday in St Bart's. Poverty and prison are what provides them with power and position. They are NOT going to change it.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 08:25 AM
2

That's the reporting rate, not the offending rate. And considering that it's actually women who have popular web sites for posting creepshots of men on the tube, not vice versa, it's a little comical to imagine that men are not under reporting this.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 08:16 AM
1

Teaching is massively female-dominated. It's a model of what feminists want in every safe well paid profession, so they're not about to give that up.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 07:55 AM
5

It's very very common. Subs like r/askmen are regularly hosts to threads asking things like, 'how soon should I tell my SO I was brutally raped by my bf/friend/a complete stranger'. The tales all have several things in common beside their tragedy: there is never a report to the police no perpetrator is ever named no media coverage or corroboration exists numerous factual errors riddle the story The fact is that these stories gain the tellers what they want: attention, sympathy and recognition. T…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 07:43 PM
1

Well, whoever concocted this just knows the same as you do: outrage attracts attention. Attention means sales. But it doesn't mean sustainable sales. Negative messages never translate to long term loyalty and stability because audiences only remain with providers which threaten and frighten them as long as they can be kept afraid. That's why men's rights will eventually win out over feminism. Men's rights comes from compassion and care for men; it's positive and creates positive results. Feminis…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:53 PM
0

Reddit is fun, but as as startup it's dogshit. It bleeds cash and and is totally unsellable. If she backed reddit she's a moron.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:25 PM
1

I've never heard of her before today and I work on startups that are selling to Apple and Google. I wouldn't do business with her and we don't need to - neither would anyone else with a great project.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:15 PM
24

We should look at articles like this as a good thing. Any men considering doing business with her will now know that dealing with her is risky because she is likely to regard ordinary business talk as sexual and to accuse them of being predators and report them in the press. This is a timely warning.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 01:43 PM
4

Men need to grow the fuck up and not assume we own every public space and cat call/harass/whatever the fuck it is we are doing to fuck up so bad that we have to have Women only sections. Ah, so lesbians should be excluded too? A no-lesbians policy in a gym. Oh yeah, like that's ever going to be allowed.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 01:28 PM
6

This is a common stumbling block because most people don't get into fights so their experience is limited. I on the the hand have been in many, many fights - I used to be a bouncer and came from a very rough place. Strength is not really relevant in a domestic violence or street fighting context. Yes, women are generally not as physically strong as men. But believe me, a punch from a woman will still put you flat on your back because you do not have to punch like a world champion boxer to knock …
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:38 AM
25

I too believe that women should have a choice. But believe something more: that men should have a choice.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 03:02 PM
2

Feminism is "like a religion" only in so far as they are both ideologies. Again, whether a religion is truly a religion without belief in the supernatural is open to debate, a debate which I don't think has any place here.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 02:22 PM
1

Ah, I see. Then in answer to your question, feminists do not grow naturally, they are created. That's especially true in places like the games industry. For practical purposes there were no feminists in the industry until it began to produce money, then they moved in to colonise and harvest it.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 01:01 PM
0

Yet you did say, "do these spaces themselves give birth to their own homegrown predators?" So who are these predators then?
/r/MensRights21/08/14 12:37 PM
27

Do predatory feminists (1) seek these spaces out because they're easy prey or do these spaces themselves give birth to their own homegrown predators? They seek out these spaces because there is wealth and power in them. For decades, guys who played games and focused on computers were ridiculed as nerds, especially by women. Now that the games and software industries have produced great wealth and position, women suddenly want into them. But they're not demanding that women take on the ten year d…
/r/MensRights21/08/14 12:00 PM
2

Saying "I want to stop rapes" and "I lied about how bad rapes are to make people care about them more" do not contradict each other. That's not what's being said. What feminists are saying is, "I want to stop the epidemic of rape" "So I lied and said there is an epidemic of rape". Those two directly contradict each other.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 10:18 AM
2

Because feminists use statistics like "one in five women will be raped" to claim that there is an "epidemic of rape" caused by "rape culture".
/r/MensRights21/08/14 09:51 AM
1

Because it's a way of demanding attention and action for a problem which doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 09:13 AM
0

The end can't justify the means because the end achieved is largely determined by the means employed.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:46 AM
1

That doesn't follow, no. It would imply that fabricating statistics is an identifying trait of religion. That's clearly open to serious debate, but it's not a debate which should happen in r/mensrights - I see no reason why we should be closing our doors to MRAs based on their personal religious beliefs.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:45 AM
122

Well, skepticism comes with a requirement: it doesn't mean just doubting that what you hear is true, it means checking if what you hear is true. You can look up Meg Lanker-Simons for yourself if you want, and you can see the OP's evidence too. Yes, I have an agenda, but that doesn't mean I am lying.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:53 PM
0

Lori Anne Cole and Roberta Williams are both responsible for a large portion of my childhood I've told you a million ties not to exaggerate.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:46 PM
1

Cases like this make for interesting debate over the death penalty. I don't think there's any real doubt that they committed the crimes in question, and I can't see any advantage in keeping them alive. They're not benefiting society at large, their children or each other, so it's difficult to see the sense in paying large sums of money to feed, clothe and house them - and in forcing other people to pay for that to happen. It might well be more humane to simply take them down to the basement, sho…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:36 PM
2

People are fearing their government instead of the government fearing it's People I doubt that making the government afraid is the solution. But I suppose that there will always be people who think that those they oppose will break, run, or comply if they are simply terrorised enough by armed people. Because cowards always think other people are cowards too.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:29 PM
215

This is very common among feminists; Meg Lanker-Simons did the same thing. They do it because they see their cause as so important that anything they do is justified if it leads to the outcome they want. This is so common that they even do it when doing so is self-contradictory, like using vastly inflated rape statistics to justify demanding more funding and attention for rape prevention.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:25 PM
22

Well, look at this sub as an example. When men start talking, they start to realize how badly they're treated. See, most of us (men and women alike) put on a brave face in public because we don't want anyone to think we're failing in our lives. But there's a huge contrast between what men and women talk about when they're allowed to discuss openly - and you don't have to look far to see it, you can look at almost any media, subreddit or discussion forum. Women typically discuss how they are not …
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:56 PM
5

The guy sounds like an absolute fucking tool.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:37 PM
2

Well to be fair it's not the government who should pay him back, it's his revolting slag of an ex who took and spent all that money knowing full well that the child was not his.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:35 PM
3

It doesn't seem to be working very well. Where were all the gun-wielding heroes when your government was starting wars in the middle east and murdering its own citizens?
/r/MensRights20/08/14 03:23 PM
3

Yeah, lucky them! And the lying bastard claimed that they'd assaulted him and even managed, while lying on the ground being kicked, to convince two total strangers passing by to lie on his behalf and say they'd seen the whole thing. The courageous officers had to threaten to arrest them too before they'd stop lying and leave. Honestly, you can't trust anyone these days. If those four lads hadn't been prepared to come forward and bravely identify their attacker he might never have been caught.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 03:15 PM
3

Pick one: Women are discriminated against in games development and have been unake to participate fully Or When have been leading game developers since the beginning. You can't have both, feminists.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 12:07 PM
3

If only that was surprising. I once went to pick up a friend of mine from a police station, to find him trying to sign his forms at the charge bar confirming his release pending a court date for the assault he was charged with. He was having difficulty because the four men he was charged with assaulting had beaten him so badly that both his eyes were swollen shut. They appeared to have been very lucky and weren't injured at all beyond some nasty bruising on their knuckles.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:59 AM
5

I was attacked by my ex, who was also a co worker, in the office. She kicked and punched me in the body and face, then when she picked up a heavy table lamp to increase the attack, I choked her unconscious. I was subjected to severe disciplinary action and threats of police reports. She was given the day off and went to a bar with one of the directors to get drunk in the company credit card. She boasted about it for a long time after.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:50 AM
1

No, there's no difference between criticizing religion and feminism. But then, there's no difference between criticizing atheism and feminism either. Or any other ideology. But they are separate. It's perfectly possible to be an MRA and be a religious believer. So it would be unreasonable to turn men's rights issues into a soap box to attack believers.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:38 AM
3

This is Theresa May's dream - crimes for which not only will there normally be no evidence, but for which there cannot be evidence. If anyone seriously believes that this will apply equally to men and women, I would urge them to remember that the same government proposing this legislation is considering a proposal to abolish prison for virtually all female criminals, turning women's prisons into men's prisons so more men can be jailed.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:29 AM
1

I was obviously talking about windows. Windows has never had a monopoly. It was one of several operating systems, but it offered Office, which was and still is the best in its class. using his [very rich parent's money] Citation needed. And don't forget to include evidence that no woman has ever had the same education and family background as Gates.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:22 PM
4

There are programs for boys also. I'd like to see some male-only comp sci funding programs please. The obstacles women face today is making up time. Before the first and second wave of feminism that brought females to an even playing field, males have been allowed to stake their claims and establish a brand. Ha! Ha! "Allowed"? By whom, exactly? No one prevented women from entering technology fields, they chose not to. And no one helped those men stake their claims, they did it with hard work and…
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:09 PM
2

Bill Gates started Microsoft from scratch, using his own and others' ingenuity to build a global company. And IE is free and always has been, even when it was available for Macs.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:06 PM
5

Ah, I see the notmenzrites trolls are back. Well, I'll explain: Overall, men receive harsher sentences for identical crimes to women. Therefore, it is instructive to see what happens when women do actually receive the same sentence as men would.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:03 PM
5

Absolutely. I was really surprised to find that all of them are explicitly intended to benefit women, most at mens' expense. I know it's just a coincidence, but wow!
/r/MensRights19/08/14 04:52 PM
9

Yes, by giving them preferential treatment and funding which men do not receive. There is nothing stopping those women from doing it the same way men always have.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 04:45 PM
9

Leadership of major companies is enough of a meritocracy for men to hold over 90% of patents and for four of the five richest people in the world to be men who built their own companies. Feminists want to see a female Bill Gates - but not by following in Bill Gates' footsteps, by replacing Bill Gates with a woman.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 04:01 PM
5

This must be fake. We may disagree with much of twoX's content and opinions, but their mods do care about the community they're building and wouldn't discredit it like this, I think.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:55 PM
1

And she's already said quite openly that she has no intention of paying it.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:50 PM
4

Yet it's still uncommon for women to have short hair, which is often called "boyish" and it's widely considered undesirable for a woman to be flat chested, because they are missing two of the most obvious characteristics of women. Gendered insults are certainly not exclusive to women or to men.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:49 PM
9

Very true, and a good explanation of the mechanics of the insult. It's certainly not gender specific.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:45 PM
23

They see what men have but are blind to what men paid to get it. I think you may be right about that. It might also explain the concept of patriarchy, in which the things men have are not earned or worked for, which is why women also deserve to have them in the feminist view.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:44 PM
-1

And if you want to insult a girl you call her a tomboy. I think I already explained that.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 12:16 PM
75

This isn't specific to games and geek culture. To understand feminism it's important to look not at what they say but what they do. Feminists campaign for more women to be CEOs of big companies. But do they campaign for more women to start companies, to endure the late nights, long hours and failure, innovation and pain which make uo the ten year death march to IPO? Or do they campaign for women to be given lucrative jobs as the heads of companies other people built? Feminists campaign for more …
/r/MensRights19/08/14 11:44 AM
56

And girls are called 'tomboys' as an insult. It's not because being a girl is seen as bad, it's because acting out of your gender is seen as bad, no matter which gender you are.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 11:33 AM
3

Actually, even "normal" women have extremely severe in-group bias and routinely select women for preferential treatment over men. Every study I've seen shows this to be universal. American colleges have been taking the problem of low male student population seriously Can you show me how they've been tackling this? From what I've seen the problem is getting worse not better.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 08:07 AM
5

No reasonable person would take your image as evidence for the simple reason that you haven't shown what was in the deleted posts - so no one reading it has any way to know if you were the victim of censorship or had your posts removed because they were abusive spam. You're from a group which routinely comes here to call us names and verbally abuse us, in order to promote your product. That's why your posts are removed - it has nothing to do with them containing ideas the mods want to censor, it…
/r/MensRights19/08/14 08:05 AM
1

Nevertheless, I'm sure we can agree that it's as wrong when it advantages a man as when it advantages a woman.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 07:56 AM
13

Every study I've seen which examines gender-based in-group bias shows that women have a far, far stronger tendency to support other women in every area of life. Here's an example. Their bias is so severe that I doubt anyone hasn't encountered it at work or in personal relationships.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 07:44 AM
2

I can go back and forth with this, but a popular feminist author seems like a pretty mainstream feminist representation to me. Yet if we showed you feminists pulling fire alarms and making death threats to stop men's rights conferences, I am quite sure you'd say "not all feminists are like that". just the fact that an average woman will make less then an average man in the course of their lifetime. Did you read the article? They do NOT earn less because of discrimination, they earn less because …
/r/MensRights19/08/14 07:22 AM
1

There are no known cultures that I've ever seen which treated women as property. Even cultures which did treat human beings as property - slaves in Rome for example did not have legal personhood - did not do it to women only.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:24 PM
3

Top post from our subreddit regarding a major feminist writer legitimizing some of our concerns. And? That's one person, not a group with widespread support. Tumblr Post/Top post from this sub apparently spread by young women on tumblr itself. Again, that's not a mainstream feminist group either. the Male-Female Pay Gap, which is a very real gap that doesn't seem to be shrinking at all The wage gap is a totally fake statistic created by deliberately avoiding comparing identical work by men and w…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:11 PM
5

Top post from our subreddit regarding a major feminist writer legitimizing some of our concerns. And? That's one person, not a mainstream feminist group with widespread support. Tumblr Post/Top post from this sub apparently spread by young women on tumblr itself. Again, that's not a mainstream feminist group either. the Male-Female Pay Gap, which is a very real gap that doesn't seem to be shrinking at all The wage gap is a totally fake statistic created by deliberately avoiding comparing identic…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:11 PM
4

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm absolutely sure that you believe you would never do these things. And maybe you're right. Maybe. But the power being held by women is huge and seductive. All she has to do is pull the trigger and his life will be destroyed for decades, AND she gets cash, property and a good income for doing it. Imagine they'd had a fight - she was wrong and she knows it, but she can't back down. She's furious but has no way to vent. How many people can hone…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 09:28 PM
8

Well to be fair this is a fetid cesspool of misogyny and violence. No one wants to see our rape plots on bestof. /s
/r/MensRights18/08/14 09:18 PM
8

Just because it's easier does not make it right. Absolutely. But if there's one thing we know about human nature, it's that trusting people to do right without incentive for or against rarely has good results.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:21 PM
2

Thanks for doing that - I firmly believe that it's better to send it and talk about it even if ignored. Women's Aid was one of my mother's favourite charities. She never saw any conflict between sexually abusing her own son and supporting an anti domestic violence charity - a very faithful feminist indeed.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 07:07 PM
1

The fact that he was able to earn lots of money does not entitle other people to force him to do it - especially since the stress and pressure of the work was what drove his addiction in the first place.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 07:03 PM
15

I've said this before but why would a woman not resort to this tactic against a man she wants to harm? It's only illegal in a very tenuous sense, since there is really no punishment for doing it - she admits herself that she just isn't going to pay and it's not like she's going to be jailed for refusing. She wrecked his life for years and what did it cost her? A few printouts and a couple of hours of work in Word. She's lost absolutely nothing.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 06:24 PM
1

As I said, you have still not given any reason at all why his wives should have his money. In fact if anything you've described why it's a bad idea to force an addict work constantly to pay alimony.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 06:18 PM
1

So you don't like his work? Doesn't matter. Lots of other people did. You haven't given a single reason why his wives should have his money.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 04:32 PM
1

It's still government funding to a state-regulated broadcaster. I didn't say C4 was state owned, so I'd appreciate it if you could stick to what I actually said without lying.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 04:29 PM
1

Vince Cable announced in June this year that a group including Channel 4 will get 16 MILLION POUNDS to "develop creative skills". They've ALWAYS scammed "arts" funding.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 04:04 PM
6

It's a good idea but be careful; as you know mensrights is excluded from bestof and may well be banned from other meta subs.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:57 PM
3

The famous fiction author Irvine Welsh? And yes, dictionaries cite Shakespeare. They don't cite his characters because they weren't real people.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:55 PM
1

I didn't say he lived in poverty. But I will say that he earned what money he had, fair and square, with supreme talent and hard work. Can we honestly say the same about his wives? How did they earn the money they demanded? Can you really say that they had more right to the money he earned than he did?
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:53 PM
4

She's not even close to a first-time offender. In English law the presiding authority can take into consideration whatever facts he sees fit and in this case he choose to deliberately ignore her history of violent offenses.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:50 PM
2

But it's only the women and feminist groups? Yet it still made it so far? Those groups have a virtual stranglehold on UK politics. There is discussion in our government of abolishing prison for virtually all female offenders and turning their prisons into men's prisons so more men can be jailed. since when are women exempt from rape laws? What idiot came up with that idea? They always have been. It's written into the law itself.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:20 PM
16

not all feminists are just patriarchy believers and not all feminists are fighting against imaginary threats. Then simply prove it: show us the mainstream feminist groups which do not believe men oppress women and who do not use fake statistics like one in five women raped. Then show us the mainstream feminist groups who support, for example, having women included in the UK's rape laws so that they can be charged and jailed for life for raping men. It should be very easy indeed for you to provid…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 03:16 PM
3

I certainly haven't seen any opposition to it from women's and feminist groups. Women are already exempt from the rape laws in the UK, so this is just a broadening of the same movement.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 02:08 PM
1

Channel 4 have received repeated government funding, both to set up and keep running.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 02:06 PM
1

Abortion doesn't fall under this category because it's a choice about three people's bodies: yours, the child's and the father's. No human rights charter that I know of considers it a human right, nor should they.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:24 AM
5

No. They deliberately charged her with the least possible crime by ignoring her use of a weapon, then gave her the minimum possible sentence for the crime. The judge and CPS's hands were entirely free and they purposely applied them to make sure she walked free.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:21 AM
16

She lives in the UK. Violence by women is almost entirely ignored here.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:12 AM
2

But it's a very good start. As is women against feminism. But it's only a small group of women - and you see the reaction they've had from the rest, including death threats.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:05 AM
1

It's good, but from a professional designer, it needs a call to action. Someone reading this is likely to want to know more and/or do something, so it needs a way for them to do that. Something like: "Please support men's rights. Because men are people too. r/mensights". If anyone can get me the text for this poster I'll show you what I mean.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:54 AM
2

So presumably there are huge numbers of women openly opposing anti-male hate like the OP's image, and campaigning about things like the UK's female-only rape law examption? Right? Right? Could you point me towards them? I'll settle for a large women's group campaigning to be included in the rape laws so that women can be convicted and jailed for life for raping men. No hurry, I'll wait.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:45 AM
1

What you're saying is, "why should he complain about being broke due to punitive alimony? He could have taken on loads of work he hated, against his will, to pay it!". Why should someone be forced to work to support another adult who's perfectly capable of supporting herself? Being forced to work long hours at a job you hate so that someone else can get the money, not having done any of the work herself, would be enough to drive anyone to despair.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:41 AM
1

I honestly don't give a fuck Then thanks for taking the time and effort to come here and tell us all how much you don't care.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:33 AM
2

I find this outrage incredibly disingenuous. Title IX didn't have "unexpected consequences", it did exactly what it was intended to: it provided a hammer with which to smash groups who the administrators designated as undesirable. If it wasn't intended to be used this way, they would have stopped using it this way. Complaining about this is like saying that the new sex assault rules in colleges have unfortunately caused a large number of men to be targeted and abused. Well of course it fucking d…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:31 AM
2

Very true. But this is happening in the UK, a country where women are exempt from rape laws. One of the main reasons I'm a men's rights advocate is that the voice you describe, simply saying that equal rights for all people should be embraced by all people, so so badly needed here.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:21 AM
10

Actually it matters quite a lot that the example you're using to support your argument is fictional.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:01 AM
3

It's a major problem, I agree. The problem with this in the UK is that there is no effective way to oppose it. Agreement with this idea is so widespread that a national newspaper and media figures can back it without anyone being allowed to point out the sexism on display. Opposing it would be political and media suicide.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 07:59 AM
32

This has been going on for a few years and is exactly whay it says: a serious campaign to abolish prison sentences for 'most' female criminals. Here's an overview In case you're not from the UK and don't know who the key figures are: The newspaper is a major national newspaper. The author is a news reader on a government funded TV channel, Channel Four. The Prison Reform Trust is a national lobbying group/charity. Vicky Pryce is the wife of a politican, who took penalty points for driving offenc…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 07:33 AM
1

I'm sorry but abortion is not a fundamental human right. I think it should be available to all within reason, but that diesn't make it a human right, just a desirable service.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 06:58 AM
69

This is in the UK, where we have senior political figures campaigning to abolish prison for women entirely. Many people were shocked by that, but when cases like this finally get publicised, the questions has to be, what difference would it actually make?
/r/MensRights18/08/14 06:37 AM
11

Begbie was also Scottish. And not a real person.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 06:33 AM
1

This is perfectly common here in the UK. I'm terribly sorry for this man, not just for his suffering but for the terrible mistake he made in attempting to deal with the police here. I'm not sure who told him that this was a good idea but it was a horrible, cruel thing to say. Dealing with the police here is incredibly dangerous. They do not exist to solve crimes, they exist to enforce policy, which is of the worst social justice kind. Remember, this is a country where women are explicitly exempt…
/r/MensRights17/08/14 07:37 PM
3

Here in the UK it's virtually impossible. The custody here works like this if you're a man: If you are employed, you are more able to pay maintenance (child support) and should be forced to pay while she gets custody. If you are not, you have no way to provide for the children and cannot obtain custody. The same is true of fitness to parent: if a woman is unfit to be a parent, how can she possibly be forced to pay maintenance? My brother has custody of his son from his alcoholic, drug addicted, …
/r/MensRights17/08/14 07:20 PM
2

No, he thinks that framing it the way he demands is important. And how he demands it be framed is by starting with a filthy fucking lie: that equality exists. Guess what? Not happening.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 07:09 PM
5

They don't. They believe that the outcome is so right and so important that anything at all is justified in reaching it. They don't really care what happens and to whom as long as the goal is reached.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 02:58 PM
7

So if we ignore the feminists they'll just leave us alone, right? Oh wait, that didn't work for the men's rights conferences. They sent death threats and pulled fire alarms. And it didn't work for this sub, which is brigaded daily. And it didn't work in the mainstream press, who blood libeled us with claimed links to elliot rodger. Face it: ignoring the femimists is impossible because they're actively trying to stop us. Ignore them and everything else we do is for nothing.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 02:54 PM
1

Oh look, yet another concern troll. Did you think you were the first person to come here and tell us that we're all doing it wrong and if only we'd do as you tell us everything would be great? Or to phrase it more accurately, did you think you were the first person to come here shortly after the international men's rights conference in the US and tell us that all our newspaper coverage, online attention and 96,000 member subreddit, books, articles and international coverage are all doing it wron…
/r/MensRights17/08/14 02:51 PM
2

Historically women lost rights to real estate and some other property if they got married in some some western nations. If you expect everyone else to "carefully research claims" then you need to be specific yourself: which nations and when? It certainly was not the case in the UK, where the ruling monarch is currently female and has been female many times in the past.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 11:53 AM
8

Climber here. No, this won't be regarded as an 'all female ascent' by anyone except feminists. Getting a team on the summit depends on everyone involved. Hilary and Tenzing summitted because a couple of days before, two other climbers from their team, Evans and Bourdillon, got to within a hundred metres of the summit but elected to dump spare equipment and oxygen and turn back, so that the next team would have a better chance. Their claim is childish and it'll be roundly rejected by the climbing…
/r/MensRights17/08/14 10:26 AM
4

I don't even understand how some women think it's okay to actually assault a man. It's pretty simple: they see women assault men every day in sitcoms and dramas, to the accompaniment of gales of laughter and acknowledgement, often by the men themselves, that they "had it coming". Feminist magazines like Jezebel run articles discussing how many of their staff have assaulted their SOs. Every online thread about domestic violence will have responses insisting that a man can't be hurt by a woman. Wo…
/r/MensRights17/08/14 10:14 AM
3

No, doctors are using them fill their wallets.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 11:15 AM
2

This sounds great until you realise that there is no such crime as a woman raping a man in the UK. It's impossible by definition. I hope this is a success, but they're starting from an almost impossible position.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 06:15 AM
1

I work in advertising and the news is not good. The first thing to understand is that advertisers do not shape their audiences, they reflect them. They tell them what they want to hear, which is to say, what they already think. All those adverts with stupid, incompetent, ugly, unreliable men? They're made for women. They reflect what many women already think. Because they've trained each other ruthlessly for lifetimes to see men like that. Mother passes it to daughter. Friend passes it to friend…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 04:34 PM
11

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What women have is effectively unlimited power over their spouses. If they choose, they can effectively end their happiness for decades, possible for life, while being given cash, a lifelong income, property and custody of children for doing so. Even the very best people can be tempted by that kind of a deal. And much as women may say, "I would never do that" and men, "my wife wouldn't do that to me", who can honestly say that after a major arg…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 04:13 PM
5

Yeah I've encountered this too - I was stopped by a member of staff at a swimming pool and told that I couldn't be in the family change area because I "might be a pedophile or something". My four year old daughter, who I had left in the cubicle behind me for thirty seconds, then came out to see what was going on. So we had a nice chat, then we stopped by the manager's office for another nice chat before we left. It was a valuable experience for my daughter and I was glad to have the chance to sh…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 09:40 AM
13

Bluntly, I don't believe you. Non therapeutic circumcision is not available on the NHS, even for religious reasons. The British Medical Association advises against routine circumcision in strong terms. Elective circumcision is also not covered by private health insurance in the UK. It's not medically necessary, so it's not covered. So you're claiming that you know not one but several British men who elected to get themselves circumcised and not only found a doctor willing to breach the BMA guide…
/r/MensRights13/08/14 08:20 PM
8

What, you know british men who got themselves circumcised without needing it? I am british and i don't know a single one; you'd struggle to find a doctor to do it. Even phimosis is rarely treated with circumcision here.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 07:41 PM
15

We also know that despite all the claims that it's not a big deal, virtually no uncircumcised guys get cut as adults without a medical necessity.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 07:13 PM
2

When it's hard you can't tell the difference, Yes of course you can, they look and feel completely different.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 07:10 PM
3

You can hear the mainstream media sound like its wrapping its mind around the MRM. Exactly. Here's how it goes: "I hear these men's rights people are real extremists who want to legalize rape and who hate all women. It's just disgusting". "Hey what's that over there?" "Holy shit, that's a bunch of feminists trying to silence a public meeting. Wow, that's not cool - freeze peaches and all that". "Wait a minute. Wasn't it the feminists who told us the MRAs all hate women and wanted to legalize rap…
/r/MensRights13/08/14 03:26 PM
6

Oh look, women telling me how to be a man. And - hang on, that's weird - almost all the suggestions are for the benefit of other people not me.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 07:10 PM
7

But they almost certainly prevented him from addressing his depression. It's difficult to stop the bleeding when you're still being punched in the face.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 04:58 PM
165

Clearly you don't understand, so I'll explain: When a woman marries, she becomes accustomed to a certain standard of living, especially if she marries a famous person like Robin Williams. So when the marriage ends, she's entitled to continue that standard of living. It's like when you buy a really nice car. After you crash the car, you still have the right to drive it, you see? Or when you get a job, no one would say you can't collect a paycheck just because you quit or got fired, would they?
/r/MensRights12/08/14 04:56 PM
1

Yet simple manners benefit everyone.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 08:23 AM
0

You need to learn to pick your fights. You're trying to start one right now and this is not the time or the place.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 03:15 PM
1

Yes I know, I used to be a medical illustrator. I was paraphrasing for brevity.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 03:02 PM
13

It's very simple. Fetuses are anatomically neither male nor female. They are genetically one or the other as a general rule. As time passes, a hormonal trigger appears and one of two things generally happens: the fetus has an XY chromosomal setup and becomes anatomically male, or it has XX and becomes anatomically female. Their genitals develop from a non specific blob called the genital tubercle. Some bits which are more functional for one sex than the other remain; men retain things like nippl…
/r/MensRights10/08/14 01:07 PM
0

I can discuss my beliefs with anyone - for example, the fact that the need for salvation was not invented with original sin in the secind century, it had existed since the first days of judaism and expanded on by Jesus on several ocassions. But I shouldn't have to defend my religious beliefs to discuss men's rights. And possibly more importantly, you should be able to restrain yourself from knifing fellow activists in the back.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 08:19 AM
-1

Your commentary on Christian theology is not relevant because it's simply untrue. This isn't the right sub for religious debate. I don't think believers should have to defend their religious views to be able to discuss men's rights, or to tolerate being attacked.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 10:33 PM
-5

I feel sorry for the guy, he was just another sucker which thought that proxy violence on behalf of women is somehow admirable. It's not. It's stupid and extremely dangerous. If you think that the punishment for saying something woman doesn't like should be a summary beating in the street, you have a medieval grasp of justice.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 09:41 PM
9

Somewhere between "a lot" and "a substantial majority". It's encoded in the official policy of all UK social work bodies. They all hold to one simple rule: do what is best for the child. What is best for the child, they have decided, is that the child should wherever possible be kept with the mother. Note: not parents or family, mother. So a competent loving father can be a serious obstacle to that, especially where the mother is less capable. I got to see this first hand. When my brother was ba…
/r/MensRights09/08/14 08:19 PM
-1

Or because it wouldn't be relevant? I don't think it's up to you who is and is not included here.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 08:08 PM
7

This reminds me of the feminist who came here and told us that a disabled man who was brutally beaten to death over a false rape accusation actually gained from the experience. You're saying that being abused for no reason is positive and constructive. That's not acceptable.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 09:46 AM
1

Not all MRAs are atheists mate. And even those who are will realize that taking side pot shots at religion and comparing it to feminism is both irrelevant to your point and a cheap, bullying tactic. How do you expect to claim the moral high ground over feminists when you're just as ready as they are to abuse and mock you chosen hate group?
/r/MensRights09/08/14 08:24 AM
12

So you're saying that to be a feminist it's necessary to be viciously abused for no reason and accused of crimes you didn't commit? That seems a very dangerous and destructive ideology.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 08:01 AM
11

If you want to raise it you have to do it constructively. Say something like, "I was doing the abuse training and it doesn't seem to say what I should do if I'm the one who's abused. What do I do if a female co worker comes onto me or something?" The answer will almost certainly be that you should do the same as a female would - but you've highlighted the disparity by pointing out that it needs to protect men too.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 07:56 AM
1

It's in his post on r/domesticviolence.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:23 PM
1

Chemo wrecks your body man. You're just displaying your ignorance again. Loss of bladder control in prostate cancer cases has nothing to do with chemo. It's because the main treatment for prostate cancer is destroying the prostate. it is as equal as can be, 1 out of 36. I've already pointed out that it is not equal. Yes, men survive at the same rate. But the treatment is far, far worse than breast cancer and has horrible results for virtually all of them. You ignored that of course, because you …
/r/MensRights08/08/14 07:20 PM
3

It's stupid to risk your life to rescue a dog from a burning building, but it still takes courage.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 01:11 PM
3

His wife is mentally ill and being prescribed medication which exacerbates her symptoms. His choice is to stay and try to help - there's real courage in that.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:45 AM
2

This question has caused a rift between leading scientists and feminist scholars HA! HA! HA! Who cares? Evolutionary biology has caused a rift between leading scientists and batshit crazy religious fundamentalists but we don't say we should shitcan the whole field because some people are offended. Please, let them speak. Let them shout their ideas far and wide so that everyone can see how backward and hateful modern feminism is.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:35 AM
7

A clearer example is the law on rape in the UK. Here is the definition from the act: 1Rape (1)If a person (“A”), with A's penis— (a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and (b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape. Under this definition, it is impossible for a woman to commit rape. They are sim…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:29 AM
9

If we were to take away from breast cancer to give to prostate cancer the death rate of women could go up while the death rate for men could go down facepalm That is seriously not how medical research works. It's also not how cancer works. the current treatments for breast cancer leave women with a host of options to retain almost full breast appearance and in some cases function, while the treatment options for prostate cancer almost always result in partial or complete loss of bladder control …
/r/MensRights08/08/14 08:48 AM
3

it's not. But what it would do is rob women of many special privileges they current receive that are associated with child bearing: up to a years paid holiday from work, extensive government payouts, total domination of custody and their stranglehold on reproductive rights would all be at risk. In the same way that paternity testing has been decried as misogyny because it gives men reproductive rights that currently only women have, this will be strongly opposed by feminists and almost certainly…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 07:11 AM
6

If you genuinely beleve that circumcision is equivalent to clipping toenails, you should not be commenting on this issue at all. Toenails are dead tissue which grows back. The foreskin is an essential protective sheath which contains muscle, blood supply and is one of the most richly ennervated areas of the entire body. You clearly know virtually nothing about anatomy and sexual function and you should stop making pronouncements about this issue immediately.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 07:04 AM
6

the cases and types are so much more abundant which could also be part of the reason Could you at least try looking this up before running your mouth about it? Here are Cancer Research's own figures. 50,000 cases of breast cancer and just over 40,000 prostate cancer. And you think that gap justifies demanding over 2.5 times as much money for breast cancer? The fact that you didn't even bother to look this up and just immediately assumed that women must have it worse is the whole point of the pos…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 06:50 AM
5

So what you're saying is that millions of men should be left to die because you personally don't know any of them? You're one of the people the poster is talking about.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 06:42 AM
12

I've had a quick look and I can't see anything there about the double mastectomies you perform in Africa. You know, the ones to prevent breast cancer? Could you point me in the right direction?
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:58 PM
8

Actually, "practically the entire HIV/AIDS research community" is not a scientific body, it's just a vague appeal to an invisible authority, and claiming that millions of men should be circumcised because they "say so" is entirely unscientific. The opinion of any reasonable person should be that preventing infection with amputation is totally insane and any doctor who prescribes it is a fucking quack who should not be allowed near living patients. I like your sneering dismissal of "arm chair exp…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:34 PM
10

I presume you mean the WHO study. That study has been entirely debunked; the researchers gave the circumcised group sex education but "forgot" to do the same for the uncircumcised group. They also "forgot" that men who have just been circumcised can't have sex. Then when they got the results they wanted they ended the study before the full results were in. WHO is heavily pro-circumcision. You probably don't want to trust what they say in the subject.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 05:45 PM
3

What on earth could be a good reason for that? I can help. It's the same reason I wasn't allowed in when I was homeless; some of the women are fleeing domestic violence and they'd be at risk from men like me or young boys.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 07:02 AM
7

This is a demand for protection which is not needed. Where cycle lanes exist they can be used equally by "pootlers" and "lycra-clad mad cyclists". If a pootler is going slower than a lycra lunatic, it's up to the lycra to pull out of the lane and into traffic to overtake - or to slow down and stay behind. It's the lycra who is at risk, not the pootler. Needless to say, she doesn't actually say in what way the lycras are "scourging" the pootlers. Because they're not. Disclosure: I'm a very fast l…
/r/MensRights05/08/14 11:12 AM
12

Well you have to remember that in feminist mythology, childbirth is Literally The Most Difficult Thing A Human Being Can Do. And it is also The Worst Pain Any Living Being Can Endure. The myth is so bad in fact that prenatal classes actually deal with this first thing, by pointing out that if it was that bad even with modern medical intervention, the human race would have died out millions of years ago. But it's an important lie because it claims credit which is grossly exaggerated and as this p…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 03:55 PM
3

It's great defense since the person she is accusing is dead and can't defend himself.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 12:53 PM
13

It's a research method which does exactly what it's designed to: support circumcision. WHO is heavily pro-circumcision and promotes it especially heavily in third world countries, so they designed a study which would give them "scientific" support.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 08:58 AM
34

That would be the WHO study, in which they gave the circumcised group sex education and told them to stay abstinent for most of the study but did neither with the uncircumcised group. Then announced, surprise surprise, that the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV infection.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 06:35 AM
6

This is a common argument but it's badly flawed. Feminism includes, by definition, an adherence to patriarchy theory - the claim that all women, everywhere, are necessarily oppressed by men and always have been. It is impossible to believe in patriarchy theory and be an egalitarian because it frames all men as culpable. Therefore it is impossible to be a feminist and egalitarian.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 11:47 AM
5

Feminism is not about equality, it is about female supremacy - enforced gender quotas on company boards, access to superior healthcare, exemption from rape and draft laws and he pro-women bias in family courts among other things. Since the definition of feminism includes patriarchy theory, someone who does not subscribe to patriarchy theory is not a feminist. And someone who subscribes to patriarchy theory cannot be egalitarian, by definition.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 06:53 AM
1

why does one have to worse than the other? the point stands that just because there are options it doesn't mean that they're accessible for everyone. You listed one option which is sometimes unavailable, out of about thirty total. Not compelling. you said that women have a monopoly on child custody, but then also say they have no responsibility to raise the child they were given custody over? Support, not raise. Child support, enforced by law. Even if the child is not his the man pays or goes to…
/r/MensRights30/07/14 09:49 PM
1

So one option is sometimes unavailable in some places? And that's worse than having almost no options prior to conception and none at all after? i don't understand what custody rights have to do with reproductive rights? Being able to have sex knowing that you will have no responsibility to support any children that result unless you want to, and the ability to force another person to support you whether they want to or not is absolutely a reproductive rights issue.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 09:33 PM
2

Women have near-total control of reproductive rights, with ten times as many contraceptive options as men, a monopoly on child custody and a similar dominance in child support. I think a rational examination of women's reproductive rights shows that they have more than anyone else. LGBT rights is something we should all be concerned with I think.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 09:16 PM
1

So now you're comparing consensual sex and pregnancy with rape? Unbelievable.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 06:33 PM
2

You can apportion blame and responsibility all you like, let me know when it changes any of these facts. I see, so suddenly rights and responsibilities don't matter, after you spent the last half dozen or so posts insisting that he was "responsible for his actions"? Here are the facts: She is being accorded all of the rights and all of the choices, but bears NONE of the responsibility for those rights and choices. He has none of the rights and none of the choices, but bears ALL of the responsibi…
/r/MensRights30/07/14 04:05 PM
2

have to take her at her word, he didn't have to ask. We are responsible for our actions no matter what other people say. Yet all the responsibility in this case is being borne by him. Responsibilities come from rights. If you claim a right, you accept the responsibility. She is claiming the right to have the child, but without the responsibility to pay for it. He is not claiming the right to have the child, yet he is being made to take the responsibility of paying for it. You are absolutely abso…
/r/MensRights30/07/14 01:23 PM
1

she helped he put his sperm inside her when she had other options. She could so easily have avoided this situation. Again, if he is to blame then so is she since she did the exact same thing. now his choice is to either support that life or not. He doesn't have that choice; if he tries to not pay child support he'll go to jail.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 12:59 PM
2

She's expecting him to give 18 years of child support because she wants him to. Why is it okay for her to force him to do things he doesn't want but not vice versa?
/r/MensRights30/07/14 12:49 PM
1

I'm not talking about now We are talking about now - we're talking about feminism as it exists today. So I'll ask again: which rights is feminism aiming to obtain?
/r/MensRights30/07/14 12:38 PM
8

It's very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men Yes that's right, if you expand the definition on "children" to include people who are not children, you'll find that more people are attracted to children.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 11:18 AM
0

Which rights to do women not currently have? If feminism is the means to obtain rights for women, which rights is feminism aiming to obtain?
/r/MensRights30/07/14 11:15 AM
1

Men have their own secluded places to go, why not women? Could you gives me an example of these men only places? I'm not aware of any in the UK, where this article was published.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 06:37 AM
6

You have this back to front. By attending comic con you place yourself in a venue where you know there will be photographs taken. If you do not wish to appear in photographs you should not attend. If photography is permitted in the venue - and I gather it is - then everything in plain view including people is fair game.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 06:11 PM
2

In reality, pro-female bias in Scots Law is so extreme that women are exempt from the rape laws and less than 2% of sex crime prosecutions are brought against women. Domestic violence runs along the same lines - for practical purposes there is no chance of having an abusive female partner arrested or charged in any way and attempting to do so would bring you into contact with the extremely dangerous Scottish police force. Not recommended.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 05:44 PM
2

In Scotland all charges are brought by an official called the procurator fiscal who acts on police reports - members of the public cannot bring or drop charges. And yes, it's for exactly the reason you mention.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 05:39 PM
20

The central team at Twitter is five men. According to this formulation, that's unacceptable and sexist. But they're in charge because they invented Twitter. They thought it up, built it and endured the seven year death march to IPO, consisting of long hours, failure, ridicule, work, work and more work before success. Anyone can do it. If they have the idea, anyone can start a company and do everything those guys did. No one will stop you. But you will never, ever see "equality" groups lobbying f…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 02:48 PM
1

Perhaps if you learned the difference between "a patriarchy" and "the patriarchy" you'd understand. Ha ha! Only joking. You don't want to understand.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 02:19 PM
4

Actually it's been around since roughly 4000 BCE, according to anthropologists. Citation needed. This is totally untrue and has no basis in reality. The "patriarchy" as described by feminists has never existed. Again you're confusing the feminist definition of patriarchy with the actual definition. There is no definition of the patriarchy outside of feminism. There have been patriarchal societies and patriarchs, but they are not related to "the patriarchy" of feminism. They didn't hijack or twis…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 12:41 PM
2

The patriarchy is a social structure ruled by men This might be a shock but actually the patriarchy doesn't exist and never has. Common sense should show this very clearly: if the patriarchy actually existed and had been oppressing women for thousands of years, we would find references to it before the appearance of the brand of feminism which uses the idea.But we don't. There is no mention of "the patriarchy" prior to feminism because they invented it. The idea that we're living in a patriarcha…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 09:41 AM
20

Ummm.... feminists are the only ones who believe in the existence of the patriarchy. They invented it. They defined it. It's feminists who say all those things about men, because the patriarchy is their creation.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 10:25 PM
2

Yep.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 12:41 PM
3

Well you have to remember that the mother in this case is clearly mentally ill, as so many mothers who kill their children are. And like all those other mothers, prison would be inappropriate, as would treating the mental illness or recognizing it in any way.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 10:13 AM
4

Look, the solution to this is very simple. First, stop imagining that organizations dealing with rape exist primarily to help rape victims. They don't. They exist to make money. The rape industry, like the famine industry and the clean water industry, the organizations are businesses. The reason the rape industry doesn't serve men is because they haven't realized there's a market there. The second there is money available and customers to be served they will show up with their professionally pro…
/r/MensRights24/07/14 07:21 AM
2

You don't accidentally omit half the victims of a crime. Here in the UK when are still exempt from rape laws. Less than 2% of sex crime convictions are women and it is anything but accidental.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 07:09 AM
1

Good point, thanks!
/r/MensRights24/07/14 06:57 AM
2

Your appeal to common sense isn't very logical. The largest demographics that were getting HIV in the 80s were not men having heterosexual sex. If circumcision supposedly protects from HIV infection, how can it only protect from HIV infection acquired during heterosexual sex? That makes no medical sense at all. If the type of sex engaged in lowers the risk, it's the type of sex that should be addressed, not circumcision. The WHO study was utterly laughable. There's a breakdown of just some of th…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 06:11 PM
6

I'm not clear on this: how can there have been witnesses when according to the police no sexual assault occurred?
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:15 PM
26

:) Usually it was refusing them entry or asking them to leave. I've had more than a few cups of piss thrown over me in my time. Men and women probably started fights equally frequently but the men almost never complained when it didn't go their way. The women on the other hand were far more likely to tell the police we'd assaulted them (or tried to rape them) or to come back later looking for trouble, often with a boyfriend in tow.
/r/PussyPass23/07/14 01:18 PM
2

The WHO study has been comprehensively debunked. They gave sex and HIV education to the circumcised group but not the uncut one, then suddenly stopped the studies when they got the results they wanted and ignored the rest of the data which had not been collected. You can actually apply simple common sense to this if you like: in the 80s in America HIV spread rapidly, yet 85% of US men were circumcised. Where's the protection? Does it only work in Africa?
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:34 AM
2

Since they'll be maintaining the home and purchasing necessities like food and gas, they will have a much better idea of how much they need to be spending That's not what the site being discussed and its supporters are lobbying for. They want special women-only prices which are not available to men - even if those men maintain the home and purchase the necessities, as many men including myself do. By all means push for lower prices for those managing households. But that is NOT a women-only issu…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 10:26 AM
11

While I agree with the framing of the problem, I disagree with the vagueness of addressing it. The problem is not with the teenage girls. There have always been young girls and they have always flirted with older men - it's normal and it's an important way that girls learn to explore their growing sexuality by testing boundaries with men they know are experienced. But two things have changed: firstly, technology has changed the nature of the interaction. We can't deny that but it's not a problem…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 09:47 AM
4

the MRM is a misogynistic reactionary movement, which is abundantly clear from reading the comments and submissions in this sub Could you give us some solid examples of mainstream, accepted misogyny in this sub? I don't think I've seen any.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 09:10 AM
44

The general rule of thumb in most jurisdictions is very simple: you may use enough force to prevent yourself being injured by your attacker. Just how much force that is is generally stated as what would be acceptable to "a reasonable person". I've defended myself against women on several occasions. In each case I used what I believed to be reasonable force and in each case was not arrested or charged. My ex attacked me in my office, punching and kicking me several times. When she picked up a tab…
/r/PussyPass23/07/14 09:03 AM
21

Only someone who has never been in a fight would say this. I used to be a doorman and I've seen men knocked out cold, had their teeth broken, been choked, glassed and sent to hospital more times than I could count - by women. The argument that the disparity between a man and woman's punching strength excuses the woman is just plain stupid; it's like saying no one should object to being shot with a .22 bullet because .50 rounds do more damage. Yes, they do, but a .22 will still kill you stone fuc…
/r/PussyPass22/07/14 01:39 PM
2

I never said you can't complain. Complain as much as you can and want. I'm saying that drawing comparisons between anti-male slurs and anti-black slurs is not very productive. So we can "complain as much as we can and want" - as long as we never point out that it's as wrong to hate a black person for being black as to hate a man for being a man? Tell me, what is the point in objecting if we allowing you to police our objections and stop us from voicing valid, correct ones when you object to thei…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 10:28 AM
2

Are you honestly comparing the word 'nigger' to the word 'manchild'? No, you are. You're comparing them and claiming that because men (according to you) have not historically been oppressed as badly as black people, that men should complain less. I'm not comparing them. I'm saying they're separate. There is no connection between them. There is no competition between "men" and "black people" for the title of "most oppressed". The history of black people has no bearing on the current plight of men…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 09:54 AM
2

I just said that there's a weight of history behind the words 'nigger' and 'coon' And there's not a history of men's suffering and deaths being ignored and marginalized, is that right? If that's what you think this may not be the right sub for you. As I said, you are literally parrotting feminist talking points now, by insisting that the fact one group has historically been oppressed somehow changes how we should treat another group which is less oppressed. Read what you're saying: you're actual…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:32 AM
3

Actually, when we start claiming that it's okay to abuse, belittle and disrespect men because they haven't suffered a holocaust we'll have adopted feminist rhetoric. That's their platform you're parrotting - "men should shut their mouths and stop complaining about their problems because they haven't been oppressed like us". That's exactly what they say. And it's wrong coming from them and wrong coming from you.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 06:41 AM
1

That's exactly what I said.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 08:45 PM
1

Do you seriously not know?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 08:44 PM
2

Find a dictionary and fucking look it up you moron. It's not a racial slur it means a minor irritation.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 08:43 PM
8

That's the same PZ Myers who publicly abused and slated me for leaving my wife to look after our baby daughter alone all day (no such thing ever happened, my wife is a financial services consultant and our daughter was in full time child care, facts I made clear in the red it post of mine he used)? No surprise there then.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 06:39 PM
4

That's nonsense, of course. No one has the right to say whatever they like whenever they like. Try walking down the street behind a group of black people shouting, "COON! COON! NIGGER! NIGGER!" and you're going to get arrested under any one of a dozen laws and rightly so. The only people who defend bullying as if it's some kind of "right" are bullies. It's not "censorship". It's defending innocent people's right to freedom from harassment. And that IS a real right, unlike the imaginary right to …
/r/MensRights21/07/14 06:11 PM
6

I've answered every point you've made - and you're reduced to complaining that you were "trying to be friendly". Fact: virtually every bullied group in history has had jokes made about them, with the universal defense being, "it was just a joke". Black people did and it was unacceptable despite the intent being, as you put it, "amusement, even endearment, but not insult or malice". You have yet to demonstrate why it should be acceptable to do it to men when it is clearly unacceptable to do it to…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 03:19 PM
9

That excuse has been the piercing whine of bullies for centuries - "come oooooon! It's just a joooooooooke". Including, by the way, people who verbally abused and bullied black people. Like the Golly dolls, and blackface "comedy". "Just a joke", right? Right?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:54 PM
21

Not in the eyes of the law, no.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:50 PM
8

No, the second is ridiculing one individual for his haircut. The ad ridicules all men for their gender, which is exactly the same as ridiculing all black people for their skin colour.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:19 PM
2

Like any kind of speech, a joke can be fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, just or unjust. The subject matter of a joke is not what makes it these things, it's the content of the joke itself and the context in which it is used. For example, the Danish newspaper which printed extremely offensive jokes about Mohammed and Islam was wrong to do so. Not because it's wrong to make jokes about Mohammed but because the joke deliberately targeted all Muslims, even the vast majority who just want to live…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:18 PM
21

I think this comment sums it up: Try to get over your concern for rapists. Poor babies. They are not rapists - not until they're found guilty of raping someone. But this is the thought process behind the whole thing: we don't have to have due process for men accused of rape, because they're rapists.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:04 PM
9

Wrong. It's not comparing two unrelated actions - like physically pushing and telling a joke - it's comparing two exactly equivalent actions: ridiculing a black person and ridiculing a man.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 01:54 PM
62

Good man. It's surprisingly difficult to dump an abusive partner, especially when you've been socialized by just about every tv show and movie to think that men can't be hurt by being slapped by a woman and that they often deserve it.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:08 PM
14

On the fourteenth try. Don't get too excited.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 07:58 PM
2

Well thank goodness for that. We can trust him to tell us when he's ready to get back on a bus.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 06:33 AM
4

Until you can prove that severely mentally ill people can be cured instantly, your reasoning is totally false. Until they are cured they are a danger to themselves and others and must be prevented from causing further harm. Other people have rights, and their right to not be harmed trumps the mentally ill persons right to freedom 100 times out of 100.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 07:44 PM
9

This is 30% of children being born. No it's 30% of those cases in which paternity was tested - we can fairly say that those cases probably have a higher rate of being fraudulent than cases in which paternity is not disputed.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 02:27 PM
1

Great news, hope your son is back on his feet soon!
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:54 AM
1

That's because some patients are very, VERY stupid and don't realize that the procedure will involve touching their genitals, leading to accusations of assault. A same-sex chaperone can explain better and be taken more seriously by the patient.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 08:13 AM
3

Yup. This is actually so common that it was satirized in Family Guy - and episode in which Peter accuses his doctor of raping him by giving him a prostate exam.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 08:07 AM
0

How were male rape victims and male victims of domestic abuse treated before modern times? There weren't any. Have a look at the laws in places like the UK. There are no male victims of rape by women in the UK. There never have been and never will be, because women are exempt from the rape law by definition. So how much support do you think there is in the UK for male rape victims, seeing as every single available statistic says there aren't any? Do you think there's any funding? Do you think th…
/r/MensRights12/07/14 08:49 AM
1

Simple rule from history: give power to group whose core ideology is hate of another group, and before long you will have show trials.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 10:50 PM
-1

I'm not sure why they don't realize that one can spend the same 3 months on W3School or Stack Overflow and learn a lot more for free. Same reason you won't see women lobbying for the "right" to start companies like Microsoft and Google instead of lobbying to have more women appointed to their boards: it's hard. Women's groups are not about lobbying for equal opportunities, they're about lobbying for women to be given everything on a plate without any work. This Google course will have one result…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 01:14 PM
2

The Rolf Harris case has really bothered me. I actually knew him a little - I did my thesis on his work and interviewed him on a number of occasions. EVERYBODY knew that he was a difficult guy. It was so well known that I was warned about it twice before meeting him, once by his brother and once by his support act. It was no secret that his stage face was a sham, even I knew and I only met him a couple of times, and everyone knew that he had a bad dark side. Same goes for Jimmy Saville. I never …
/r/MensRights11/07/14 12:50 PM
4

Roger roger.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 07:18 PM
13

it's also worth noting, most other (non-Jewish) feminists would disagree with her as well I'm sure there will be widespread feminist support for the fight against circumcision any moment now. They're just busy making sure there are enough female characters in video games, they'll help us soon, you'll see.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 09:46 AM
394

How are they going to find a doctor to do this? Every doctor on earth should refuse on the grounds that it's a grotesque violation of his human rights.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 04:16 PM
2

neither's actions should be lumped together with "emotional torture" or "breaking someone's knees with a crowbar". I didn't say they should.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:31 PM
6

Wouldn't work; the proposed ruling doesn't define what acceptable consent is so no consent, even written and signed, can be relied on.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 03:46 PM
15

Really? She reacts to being made fun of by punching people. How do you think she'll react if something really upsetting happens?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 09:46 AM
14

it is made overcomplicated by what Raff did previous to the punching - ribbing the new girl on her first day of work. Oh, is physical violence an acceptable solution to being made fun of now? Oh wait, no it's not. Seriously, you need to stop making excuses for a dangerous, violent person here.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 09:17 AM
0

This is an area in which the government really needs to get a grip on some areas of the media. Women are told every day by magazines, TV shows, blogs and newspapers that rape is the worst thing that can happen to anyone and anyone who rapes is worse than satan. This is taken to such an extreme that news outlets routinely refer to rape accusers as "victims" and sometimes even refer to the accused as "rapist". They back this with a torrent of fake rape statistics showing that hardly any rapists ar…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:45 AM
1

Yeah I saw that too, it was really great.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:38 AM
6

Actually young women are far more controlling and aggressive than men. Now that you know that's a fact, will you advocate for mass brainwashing of girls in school to control them and stop their violent, animalistic urges?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:32 AM
30

If he'd punched a female colleague, would you be telling her to apologize to him for being punched? I really doubt it.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:30 AM
6

You haven't answered any of the questions posed and instead are now resorting to screaming troll and pretending to be offended. You should probably stop posting, but when you do I'd like you to ask yourself how you'd feel if your child was murdered by someone you'd said should be released because punishing murderers doesn't work? That's what you're making everyone else risk living with.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 09:41 PM
7

I really don't think you're in a position to be objective about the issue of child murder since you're friends with a child killer. What's disturbing is that you're not even able to question whether your view is at all skewed, and whether your idea that child killers should be released without question is informed by the fact that one of your friends is a cinvcted child murderer.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 09:27 PM
8

Also, where did you get the idea of brutally murdering from? Quite the opposite. This is just bizarre. Now you're pretending she didn't murder her child. And you're actually blaming the child for being murdered by their own mother. I'll be honest, I think you may have some very serious problems relating to having a child killer in your family. No whole, healthy human being blames children for being murdered and advocates releasing the killers without treatment or correction.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 08:46 PM
10

You're not answering a single question here. You're just making shit up now. First she's insane. Then she's not. Now she's insane again. She's not driven to kill She DID kill. She killed her own child in fact. You cannot seriously claim she is not driven to murder children when she already has. As with another poster, we also appear to have differing views on punishment - that of retribution vs rehabilitation. Seriously, just stop making shit up. I said nothing about retribution, I recommended p…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 08:29 PM
6

Since when has having mental issues been the same as being pathologically driven to kill children? Well if she didn't do it because she's insane, she's sane - then why shouldn't she take responsibility for her actions? who gains from her being in jail? I've already answered that. The people who gain are the people, including children, who would be protected from her. Releasing a known mentally ill killer without treatment or punishment is literally one of the most irresponsible things it's possi…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 08:07 PM
2

You're a bad, bad man Pierce! :)
/r/MensRights07/07/14 07:43 PM
8

Actually it's called the duluth model. It's official policy and openly states that men are always the aggressor.
/r/PussyPass07/07/14 07:02 PM
15

It's interesting to see the claim that severe mental illness is once gain claimed as a reason not to punish a killer and to in fact let them off - so long as they're a woman, of course. When men kill children because of a mental illness which they have no control over and which drives them to brutally murder defenseless children they're usually seen as less eligible to roam freely in fact we say they're criminally insane. Can you explain how as woman who is pathologically driven to kill children…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:52 PM
15

Feminism has a severe image problem Not true. Feminists have a problem with what they do, which is what causes people to see them this way. Rule one of PR is: if your product is poison, consumers will figure out it's poison no matter how great your PR is. You can't make poison into champagne with image and PR, you just have to stop selling poison.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 07:59 AM
2

It is like me as a German American saying there is only two types of people in the world, Germans and Non-Germans. When it comes to german-ness, there are only germans and non-germans. A non-german can be Scottish, female, short and any one of a million other things, but they are still non-german as well. Gentile just means "not a jew". It's like black and non black; it's not racist it's just a statement of fact.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:34 AM
7

That was my immediate thought too - how the fuck are gay rights people meant to gain traction with this sort of thing getting funding? I'm 100% gay rights but if this is what the money goes to in practice, even I'd have to vote against it.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 05:15 PM
9

Cultural differences can be difficult to overcome. But not as difficult as being an obnoxious, whining, entitled, self absorbed slag who writes news articles publicly mocking any man who dates her. I'm pretty sure I know which is responsible for her romantic issues.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 12:51 PM
7

Why not just do a wordpress install with a free theme?
/r/MensRights05/07/14 11:03 AM
100

The solution to this is very simple: the authorities need to start enforcing the law instead of knuckle-dragging scumbags' paranoid fantasies. It is not illegal to take photographs in public. It is however illegal to harass and threaten someone for taking photographs in public. If the authorities started actually enforcing their own fucking rules this sort of shit wouldn't happen.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 10:18 AM
0

By the logic of those comments, since she was obnoxious and obstructiv first, he should have attacked her.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 06:46 PM
5

BAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Whenever I think gender studies students and faculty can't get any more laughable, they go and prove me wrong. By the way if anyone's interested, the claims about the origins of shaving body hair are lies, as you'd expect of course. Have a look at some classical greek sculptures and you'll see that removal of body hair was been popular for a lot longer than Gilette razors have been around!
/r/MensRights04/07/14 06:11 PM
2

In Scotland they should wearing shoulder numbers at all times while in uniform and should produce their warrant card (official ID) when asked.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 05:32 PM
5

put up some of your own posters Im not saying we need to put up posters, You're just openly contradicting yourself now. Is this what you believe will get all men behind us? Just lying through our teeth and calling each other names?
/r/MensRights04/07/14 05:14 PM
10

We get a post like this about once every two weeks. You have every right to be critical and we have every right to defend ourselves. As such: You're posting to a men's rights group with almost a hundred thousand members, complaining that all we've done is run a major men's rights conference covered by the world's media and discussing and reflecting on the issues men face - but we haven't been putting up enough posters. No one person speaks for the whole group here, or determines what should get …
/r/MensRights04/07/14 05:04 PM
7

To clarify: in the UK (our two legal systems are the same on this issue), women cannot be charged with rape, but a woman forcing a man to have sex could be charged with sexual assault, which also carries a theoretical life sentence. To anyone who might argue that an identical sentence is identical punishment, I say this: I will agree to leaving the current system as it is if you agree to have domestic violence against women removed as a crime. We'll include it in a sentence in the law about a mu…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 06:38 AM
-2

Yes yes, we all work with charities. You can stop being so smug, you're not special because you helped some people, okay? And you can stop asking me what I'm doing to prevent the problems the social services cause. You work in social services and I don't. You're a social worker telling me I should be stopping the problems cause by social workers.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 03:15 PM
4

Then why did her colleagues and the other members of the academy not call her out. Even a newspaper journalist can point out in a few paragraphs how and where she lied.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 02:41 PM
-4

So social work causes those problems? No, social workers cause those problems. Not only do you not have to enforce the rules which ensure that men cannot see their own children let alone gain custody, or find a safe place away from their violent spouses, or to get help instead of killing themselves, you are in a position of power to change those rules. But you don't, do you? Instead you challenge people like me, who do not work directly with the victims, who are not paid to do it and have no say…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 02:39 PM
-7

Yes, the system you work in brutally abuses men. And if you were even REMOTELY honest you'd be the first person to admit that in child care, mental health, homelessness and numerous other areas men are neglected, abused and often left to die. Because the is the reality of the social care system in most "developed" countries.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 01:19 PM
5

Av average influential MRA meanwhile, misgendering and attacking a trans woman merely for being transgender No, he's attacking Connell for not being objective in academic work. Connell's gender issues are fair comment since the work in question is on gender. In fact it's so fair that when publishing academic work, authors are required to disclose any vested interests that are relevant. Describing a "freak show" The group in question pretty much is a freak show and has no academic credibility out…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 10:14 AM
29

Like all – yes, all – men, I can’t truthfully understand what it feels like for a woman to suffer harassment or abuse from men. This doesn't make any sense. Men are also harassed and abused by men. And by women. Of course men can understand how it feels. I realised that the “not all men” defence was something that marked me out as a potential misogynist This is the new wave of feminism: not only is no defence against their accusations possible, even attempting to defend yourself is a hate crime.…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 08:21 AM
-6

The devil you know is still a devil.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 08:08 AM
-1

Yeah that occurred to me too.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:06 AM
-6

With all the respect you are due, if you are a professional social worker then you work to enforce one of the systems which most brutally abuses men. Not only to you support it, you make money doing it. That's a very good reason indeed not to listen to you on this issue.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:46 AM
3

See! Yet another way in which women are oppressed!
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:35 AM
6

Exactly right. Female feminists as a rule don't value insight or reasoned response from men - this is derided as mansplaining and no matter what is said it is rejected. What they value from men is self-hatred and self-abasement. Its the only way male feminists can curry favour with female ones. And there are bonus points on offer if male feminists throw other men under the bus too. Now, I could well be wrong about this. Perhaps this man's tweets were met with an avalanche of responses from femin…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:32 AM
1

Meg Lanker-Simons was a high profile example albeit not on Reddit.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 02:51 PM
13

Reminds me of my experience taking my daughter to the swimming pool. I stepped out of our cubicle to put our gear in the locker right opposite. The second I stepped out, there was a shout, "HOY! YOU! YEAH, YOU!". A large, bald man in a company uniform stomped towards me. "What are you doing here? This is the family changing area. You're not allowed in here". I was bemused and a little intimidated. "Why not?". The answer was a predictable as it was aggressive: "you could be a pedophile or somethi…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 11:29 AM
3

How is this not a reiteration of traditional gender roles? Because the fact that the men's rights movement deals with facts not feelings doesn't mean that men don't have feelings; indeed the problems we have are the hurt and pain which come from the hard facts of discrimination against us. What is the MRM stance on the reproduction of traditional gender roles? Most of us believe in freedom to choose. Some men may choose to live a very traditional role of provider and protector, just as some wome…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 11:07 AM
4

This would be more helpful if you didn't cherry pick to criticize but rather engaged with the content of what I'm saying. I'm afraid I can't read your mind, so I can only work with the words you type and not the intent or supposed content behind them. Men's rights is about facts not feelings; it's one of things which brings us into conflict with feminism. You'll find that complaining about tone and saying you feel bad will gain you very little ground here. Perhaps it is clear to you that the ter…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:25 AM
4

I'm sorry for your loss - the loss of your innocence, the loss of your sexual identity and the loss of the love and trust of your family. You can get past this. I promise. I went through some of the same things and I believed that I would never have a normal, healthy sex life. I very nearly didn't but I have a daughter now, something I thought was absolutely impossible. Your anger is good. Anger is progress because it is better than passive numbness. But you need someone to help you through your…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 08:42 AM
5

I also don't make the absurd correlation that hating feminists means one must hate all women Actually you did: You said that you see a lot of woman-hating. You presented an example of a derisive comment about feminists as an example. Therefore, you presented an example of derision of feminists as hatred of women. I'm earnestly asking for reasonable arguments presented in a serious, peer-reviewed, or scholarly work. It's not possible to find reasonable, peer-reviewed academic material on the patr…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 08:21 AM
5

I also see a lot of woman-hating (a comment elsewhere on this sub said we were living in a "country full of femtards) Being opposed to feminism or critical of feminists is not the same as hating women. Even hating feminists is not the same as hating women, because not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. You'll find a lot of problems like this one in feminist rhetoric as you follow men's rights and your critical thinking sharpens up.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 07:17 AM
2

Right, right, right and right. There have been fools in drama and comedy from the Romans to Shakespeare. But the specific prohibition on female fools is new as far as I know.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 06:27 AM
5

Yep, can’t believe we’re not taking this more seriously. Seriously enough to feel the need to write an article about it, listen to all the points being made to try to poke fun at them, then field a load of comments about it.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 10:01 PM
7

I don't describe myself as an excommunicated feminist because I have never been a feminist. It's a simple as that. To elaborate: I am not opposed to what feminism and feminists say and do because they've somehow thrown me out of their group and I'm bitter or angry about it. I am opposed to what feminists say and do because it damages my life and those of the men and women around me, placing us at risk of terrible injustices, denying us support for our problems and fighting to keep us from being …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:01 PM
4

I just find this stuff utterly bizarre. There's stuff which is obviously just crazy, like claiming that feminism was responsible for the civil rights movement. There's stuff which is just illogical, like claiming that legalizing abortion has improved men's reproductive choices even though men can't have abortions and have no control of any kind over whether a woman has one. And there's stuff which is just made up, like claiming feminism was responsible for the jockstrap (it was invented by a man…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:13 PM
1

It's actually worse than it appears. The media and the people in it have no agenda to create animosity towards men and disdain for what they do in otherwise reasonable and considerate people. Imagining that they do or even could is giving them FAR too much credit. No. I think we all know that what the media seeks to do is tell people what they want to hear. And they do that by reinforcing what they they already think, pandering to their petty prejudices and jealousies. In short, adverts and dram…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 10:01 AM
2

fuckwit asshole too stupid you're a tool. I don't think there's any point in continuing, really.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:10 PM
2

Oh look you didn't read the study, choosing instead to parrot a figure you don'tg understand because it appears to support your bigotry. Oh and you didn't answer the question.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 10:15 PM
8

Oh that's hilarious! Reminds me of the guy I read about last month - he felt pretty unwell and was openly ridiculed by his wife for having "man flu". She laughed at him, mocked him and generally enjoyed his suffering tremendously. Trouble is, he actually couldn't get out of bed because he was paralysed by the virus he had. Fucking hilarious, right?
/r/MensRights29/06/14 08:10 PM
2

What a strange view. Is it easier to grab a finger or to forced your finger into someone's fist? Oh and you might want to check the figures for female on male rape - it's nearly as common as the other way around according to the CDC.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 07:51 PM
10

Reminds me of the truly horrible thread in askmen yesterday about how common it is for women to be drugged in bars and raped. The number of posts claiming to be true stories was dispiriting, but I found it eve more depressing how many claimed things like, "I know I was drugged because they gave me a blood test at the hospital". Hospitals don't do blood tests for date rape drugs, they test urine with a simple testing kit. Blood tests for drugs have to be done with GC mass spec, which is really ex…
/r/MensRights28/06/14 08:09 AM
12

The reason you've never seen this is because that's not what feminism does. You'll certainly see feminists campaigning for more women to be given jobs on the boards of companies like Google and Microsoft. But what you will not see is feminists campaigning for women to build companies like Google and Microsoft; to endure a twenty-year death march of innovation, failure, imagination, crippling hours, brutally hard work, flashes of inspiration, growth, betrayal, success and eventual IPO. There are …
/r/MensRights27/06/14 10:28 AM
0

Women have always had a great deal of control over domestic finances. Can you explain how someone with no income has control over finances, behind that granted to her by the breadwinner? Women have never been prevented from meeting with friends in analogous ways Can you explain how someone who looks after children all day every day is able to meet friends without the children being there, beyond what the breadwinner allows? This has never been the case. Can you explain how someone with no income…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 06:31 PM
1

Nobody except for you has brought up the bogus statistic about 43% of boys being coerced into sex And notnotfred and ajfirecracker. Yeah apart from a whole bunch of people no one brought this up.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:55 PM
18

She gets one thing right: men don't want the traditional gender roles of the past. But she misses something else: women don't want their traditional gender role either. The traditional role for a man is provider, protector and leader of the family unit. But the traditional role for women is not just raising children, making chutney and basking in the glow of a happy family. No, the traditional role for women is: you're not earning the money so you get no say in what we buy, what we do and where …
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:52 PM
3

Straight up, there is almost no female leads in video games (in comparison to the number of male leads). This is not an opinion, fellas! There are hardly any male leads in romance novels. Are you campaigning to change that or even complaining about it? You aren't are you?
/r/MensRights25/06/14 10:01 AM
2

Actually this is the single most common argument used to defend females who assault men; the claim that it's not assault because women are weaker than men.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:28 AM
3

"Fighting for the establishment of a Basque state" certainly wouldn't fall within the realm of Men's Rights activism Neither would fighting for gay rights. What are we supposed to do, only fight for the rights of gay people who happen to be male and ignore all the rest? What kind of gay rights activism are you selling here exactly?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:42 PM
9

I used to believe exactly what this guy says. Pretty much to the letter. I dated on it, fell in love on it and got married on it. I really, truly believed it. I believed that there was inherent nobility in providing for a woman talking a year off work to raise our child, in paying for everything, in always making sure she got what she wanted without ever expecting or receiving recognition, praise or respect. I congratulated myself on being a grown man, just as he says. I was a real man, taking m…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:55 PM
4

I rarely if ever see MRA's actively fighting against the alienation of LGBT men in male groups, and we all know this still exists, to varying extents. You probably don't see us fighting for the establishment of a Basque state either. Does that mean we're all against it? No. Just because you have a pet cause - and I do too - doesn't mean everyone else has to support it or be branded an enemy and a traitor. I have no interest in being branded anti gay rights by you or anyone else just because I ha…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:27 PM
18

MRAs point out problems men face, but they don’t point out a cause of the problem. This is untrue of course. We can tell you exactly why men are not fairly treated as rape victims where I live: women are exempt from the rape laws and organizations like the CDC exclude men from their statistics to further ensure they are not helped. We can tell you exactly why family courts treat men so badly: they're based on the tender years doctrine and the duluth model. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:06 PM
1

You're seriously going to try to compare this case to a rape? Yes of course, since both are about being forced to be a parent without consent. Perhaps you can explain the difference without the really intimidating and scary personal abuse?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 09:46 PM
3

But people have a right to reproduce. That's the essence of feminism. Whatever a woman wants - like children, or being CEO of a company, or having video games containing the characters you demand - is framed as a right and not a privilege.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 03:07 PM
4

I'll do you a deal: I'll agree to this woman being allowed to have her way when you agree that pregnant rape victims should be forced to carry the child to term then hand it over to their rapist. After all it doesn't matter whether one of the people involved didn't consent to the pregnancy or birth, right?
/r/MensRights22/06/14 09:04 AM
11

This case is the natural result of the moronic "you go gurl" culture women are soaked in from birth. I'm utterly appalled that we as a society could routinely be producing people who think that the fact that they want to be a mommy should trump someone else's basic human rights to self-determination and bodily integrity. The fact that this even got to court is an indelible stain on our already questionable record. Every person she asked about this from her family onwards should have laughed in f…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 09:01 AM
6

Why can't we live in a world where women can do whatever they want? Because actions have consequences. His genetic material is his resource to do with as he pleases. No one, not even a woman, gets to take and use other peoples resources without permission. That's morally repugnant.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 08:49 AM
9

If you can prove it's wrong, go ahead. If you can't, it doesn't matter what the source is.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 08:41 AM
2

It's not real. It's a flat out lie.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:35 PM
6

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble ... commented that Mr Sullivan should have resigned or taken a leave of absence until the criminal investigation was completed So as soon as someone is accused they should lose their job? FUCK you, you FUCKING filthy cunt.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:32 PM
40

Because the feminists who picked it up were dead serious. That's the whole point of the article.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:23 PM
31

Because men aren't expecting to be treated differently because of their sex.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 06:20 PM
8

Seems fairly likely; as far as I can see she's not being required to register as a sex offender and for some reason her attack was not prosecuted as sexual assault. There would be very little to prevent her seeking contact with the boy or possibly filing for custody.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:50 PM
3

If you gave men the right to opt-out of child support, then you would be giving them rights without responsibilities. Opting out of a child's life is not accepting a right (and therefore it's commensurate responsibility), it's opting out of accepting a right (and therefore opting out of the responsibility).
/r/MensRights19/06/14 10:42 AM
6

Well, Brave was written and directed by a woman. But it's full of odd modern hangups. The ancient Scottish celts didn't have any problem at all with women pursuing their own ideas. In fact they were very egalitarian and allowed things like "annual marriages", an agreement to marry for a year then if either party wasn't happy, to split without consequence. They worshipped a goddess and while they certainly didn't see men as dumb and pointless they had no preconceptions about women either - their …
/r/MensRights18/06/14 03:47 PM
4

It's a difficult subject. For business owners, maternity leave is often a huge problem. Here in the UK the requirements on employers can be very difficult to meet. Employers have to provide 90% of the employees normal pay for six weeks then £138 per week for 33 weeks. Of course, they also usually have to employ a replacement - AND they cannot replace the employee even if they were totally incompetent or the replacement provides better value to the company. Even going out of business is not a def…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:22 PM
3

We all depend on statistics to decide where and how help and resources should be applied - that's why the CDC compile them. If the statistics say that no men have been raped by women, now much help and resources do you think will be given to men who are raped by women? I'll do you a deal. I'll withdraw my objection - if you agree that women should be erased from the domestic violence statistics. We'll include domestic violence against women under a new name which isn't actually a crime, like "sh…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 06:29 PM
6

Where it's labeled under doesn't change the fact that the information and percentage is there. Yes of course it does. In fact, definitions are absolutely key to any statistic. If you're counting the bottles of wine you own and say that french wine is not wine it's fermented grape juice, the statistic stating the number of bottles of wine you own will be smaller than if you included french wine. Same is true of rape: clearly if you don't regard men being forced to have sex with women as rape, the…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:43 PM
5

Yes, exactly. As I said, men being raped by women is classified as "made to penetrate" under "other sexual violence", not rape. So men being forced to penetrate a partner against their will is explicitly not considered rape by the CDC and not included in their overall rape statistics.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:02 PM
4

I did, thanks - didn't you notice all the blank spaces in the tables where the number of men raped would be? CDC have been questioned about this by men's groups many times and have not yet provided a satisfactory answer that I've seen.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:34 PM
4

Yes, exactly: an organization which specifically excludes men from its rape statistics - the CDC doesn't accept that men can be raped by women - reports that more women than men suffer violence including rape. Is that a surprise in some way? Excluding one gender from whole areas of crime statistics lowersd the overall crime statistics for that gender? Now imagine what would happen if the CDC did accept that men can be raped by women. Imagine if, as a knock-on effect, they actually began to accep…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:26 PM
3

the electorate will want to move for something shiny and new. You mean the other party, the one that's always been there?
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:22 AM
4

Clinton wasn't naming names Of course she wasn't. And she wasn't saying exactly what the supposed misogyny was either. And neither was Gillard. In fact for all their claims, I've never seen any of them actually say what was done that was sexist, just that their political opponents are all sexists.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:20 AM
8

Here's my guess: As men's rights gains even more traction, it's going to become increasingly apparent that violence against men by women outside the context of violent crime is actually more widespread than violence against women. For now this is based on simple observation: I don't think I know a single man who hasn't been kicked, punched, pushed or slapped by a woman. I also don't think I know a man who reported it to the police. And an hour or two of TV watching in the evening will show that …
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:14 AM
2

Exactly. As soon as I saw this I thought, surely NZ has a bill of rights that this would directly contravene.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:23 AM
10

So you came all the way over here to tell us you don't like what we're saying and we should stop it? What are you going to do, cry and piss yourself? Tell your mommy on us? Some "real man" you are.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 11:46 PM
1

The article is not about the conflict in the occupied territories, it's about people playing devils advocate in discussions.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:29 PM
2

Why do you assume I was talking about today? Because we're talking about an article written today, published today about things happening today - and you used the present tense, not the past, throughout your comment.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 09:18 PM
6

You must have read different article to me. Firstly, the phrase you quote isn't even in the article as far as I can see and it even pushes the utterly ludicrous fake stat that, "more than one in five women are raped by their husbands or partners". It's a bullshit buffet and doesn't debunk a single actual rape myth.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:42 PM
4

Well actually, "oppression" is not such a bad way to look at things racially. Can you explain how Barack Obama, the president of the United States, is oppressed by homeless white men?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:34 PM
16

If anyone's interested in the idea behind this, here's how it works. In feminist theory, what matters is the class of person you are. Your gender and skin color matter most. Some classes of people have what they call "privilege", which means that members if that class have freedom from oppression and social power of various kinds. One class oppresses another, that's the fundamental feminist definition of classes. It's impossible for a member of an oppressed class to oppress a member of their opp…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:50 PM
3

Yes of course. That will of course lead to national advertising campaigns saying all women are potential batterers and saying only women can stop domestic violence - after all, we'll know for sure from the statistics that only women commit domestic violence. So they won't need any protection or support service either, those will have to be for men only. We'd need to suspend due process for women in universities of course and form government task forces to tackle the epidemic of female-only viole…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:33 PM
3

Okay i'll do you a deal. Let's make men exempt from domestic violence laws. Only men. We'll write the law in such a way that no men can ever be charged with domestic violence no matter how severely they beat their partners. But we'll change a sentence in another law, oh let's say a law about shoving people, so that men can get the same penalty as women for domestic violence. They'll never be charged with domestic violence, never found guilty and everyone will just say that they shoved their wife…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 08:34 AM
-1

That's because almost every thread has at least one notmenzrites troll. There is a pretty big group of people who don't want anyone saying that men are human beings who deserve thensame consideration as everyone else. Some use threats, some use violence, some use lies - and some spend their time picketing our events and forums saying that nothing we discuss is a men's rights issue. But read between the lines. Supposing this topic - hate against fathers - is not a men's rights issue. Let's assume…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 08:25 AM
97

It's deplorable but not a men's rights issue Can you explain why a very large groups of people saying "all men are a threat" and we should "end father's day" is NOT a man's rights issue?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 03:44 PM
18

Sounds fine to me. I'm bisexual, so I'd get in for free. Okay admittedly I haven't so much as kissed a man in over a decade because I'm married with kids, and in every other respect I'm firmly in the excluded group, but because of one tiny quirk of my biology which matters to me less than my hairstyle, I'd be "acceptable". Which is quite extraordinarily stupid.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 02:43 PM
17

If you take the view that anyone who isn't in 100% agreement with you on every point in every part if their lives is not a supporter, then there can be no supporters. A truly strong movement can tolerate differences, discussion and disagreement without trying to censor or exclude anyone.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:53 PM
-1

That's because porn is made by and marketed to men, This is utter garbage, some of the biggest players in the industry are women, like jenna jameson and suze randall for example. there's no category for big, ugly women Wrong again. Check fuskator and enter ugly as a search term and you'll get plenty of hits.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 05:44 PM
0

Have they tried renewing them? They may be asked if they're over 18.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 01:52 PM
15

Absolutely. "You don't have to register... but if you don't you can't vote, drive or be a citizen. Your choice. "
/r/MensRights10/06/14 01:18 PM
1

Well what?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 01:03 PM
25

Military conscription. Signing up is consent to potentially being conscripted.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 12:52 PM
38

In most states you have to register for selective service to be eligible to get a license. The only states which don't have the requirement are Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 11:45 AM
9

Headline should be, "Horrible things happen in wars, says leading member of British government which started two totally unprovoked major wars".
/r/MensRights10/06/14 09:01 AM
9

That's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26349198 And he mentions men and boys in this one too.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:58 AM
0

At a guess I would say a lot of the cost will be school fees. But it certainly seems a huge amount even considering that.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 08:38 AM
12

Anyone who stands to either make or save money from enacting these kinds of laws. That's what I said: his wife, the court and professional feminists. The reason that this legislation is enacted is that professional pressure groups who want to secure prefrential treatment for their members are able to bring money, time and attention to the issue and don't mind lying to do it. And when it comes to child support and custody who is the pressure group and who are the beneficiaries? Feminist groups li…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:57 PM
51

Is there a winner in this story? If so, who? His wife, the court and the feminists who support them and the legislation which makes this possible. They all worked together to ensure that not doing what a woman wants carried the death penalty for this poor man. In the end this is not about money. It's about control. It's about ensuring that men are placed at women's disposal at all times and if they refuse to comply, even if the demands or totally unreasonable, then they are brutally punished.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 04:14 PM
6

those are my assumptions and I have no evidence for them yes. Acting on claims for which you have no evidence is extremely dangerous because it means you don't have a clue what you're doing. Again though it's instructive to look at what you're trying to do here. Are you concerned with their victim or the bereaved? No of course not in fact you don't even mention them and you make it clear that you couldn't care less about them, even accusing them of being part of a "blaming culture" if they want …
/r/MensRights08/06/14 03:31 PM
2

Your reasoning is problematic for a simple reason: you have absolutely no evidence of any kind that there are "many factors" contributing to this disgusting crime, nor even any reason to believe that there are. So what you're actually doing is making stuff up which excuses their crime and absolves them of as much responsibility as you can manage under the circumstances. Clearly that's not rational in any way. It also dangerous because it stops us from understanding why they really did it and so …
/r/MensRights08/06/14 01:04 PM
13

You need to stop derailing the conversation. A few girls have been kidnapped in the same country and that's what we should be talking about. This is just another example of MRA misogyny.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 09:01 AM
-2

I don't want to get into an argument with you about a basic fact. You haven't presented any facts and you won't answer a straight question. I want you to provide examples of women being prevented from starting tech companies. If it happens there should be evidence.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:24 PM
-2

You assumed that it would be men discouraging women from starting tech companies, because starting tech companies is men's work. Every one of the top fifteen tech companies was started by men. And you gave no examples of how that stops women from doing the same.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:02 PM
0

Look at what a woman is in the 40s and 50s, and look at what it is now A woman was the queen of great britain in the 1950s. And she's the queen now.They worked in factories then and now. Drove cars, voted, had their own jobs, money, homes and education. Wooooo. Go feminism. Changing the world in ways even their own supporters can't list.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:39 PM
1

This statement makes the downright awful implication that people are incapable of deluding themselves into thinking their lives aren't worth living, in spite of what might actually be true. That is so horrible. Actually depression is triggered by real events and it's a real illness. What's horrible? Helping victims seek the triggers for their illness? Or telling them they're just imagining it because it's all a delusuon?
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:35 PM
0

Women are culturally discouraged from starting tech companies. Yeah we're gonna need a source for that - actual examples of men preventing women from starting teach companies. And no, negative feedback is not preventing them, it's a normal part of starting up.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:33 PM
-1

It can be different for everybody No, it can't. If they were all different they'd all have different illnesses. And if depression can't be spotted then it couldn't be diagnosed. In reality, depression is a recognized illness with defined symptoms and effects. Professionals, who have a lot more than just personal experience, treat it all the time. Anyone could spot it - if they gave enough of a fuck to look.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:00 PM
10

They learned how to fight for something rather than it be given to them. Not true. Have you ever seen women campaigning to be allowed to start tech companies from scratch, to endure the crippling fifteen year death march to the IPO and to work brutal hours often alone and unsupported doing it? Or do you see women campaigning to have women appointed straight to the boards of tech companies started and built by other people? Being handed things is exactly what they want. There is no fight to build…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:49 AM
2

And how could you possibly assure someone that he said plenty? How much experience do you honestly have in this situation that you would be able to make a presumption like that? He's been suicidal and so have I. That's our experience. What you're asking is like saying, "how was I supposed to know he was fatally injured? He was just bleeding and screaming and then unresponsive". Depression has symptoms like any illness. All you have to do is look.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:43 AM
7

I'll second that - again from my own experience of suicide. The persistent myth is that the people around victims lived them unconditionally and showered them with love and support 24/7 - and they had so much to live for, so much potential and vitality. This is of course a lie, told to salve the consciences of the family and friends. If the victims' lives were so perfect then the fatal episode would almost certainly never have been triggered. Throughout the therapy I went through, the most diffi…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:40 AM
4

when I'm out alone at night, I rarely ever fear for my safety. Well, let's have a look at that. Overall, men in the US are twice as likely to be victims of crime than women. That especially applies to violent crime, with 76.8% of murder victims being male. This clearly shows that contrary to the articles claims, men are actually at far higher risk than women. So where does this leave us? Well, we can only reasonably arrive at one of two conclusions: Men like the author are morons for not realizi…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 08:25 AM
20

This is good to see but as usual it's a clumsy, fumbling attempt at helping, from the people least equipped to actually do anything. They really want to understand but they've been conditioned from birth to not give a fuck about men's welfare. We all are. This girls brother killed himself after three years in a living hell of agony and self loathing. And as is always the case in male suicides, hands are wrung, tears are shed, then the victim is blamed for somehow 'hiding it' and not appreciating…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 08:06 AM
1

Malnutrition and neglect, measles and tuberculosis and pneumonia, compounded by disgust for the mothers who bore them, laid waste to these children. Those fucking animals. Can you believe how they tortured those families by not inventing penicillin until over twenty years after the home opened, and by not inventing the measles vaccine until years after the place closed? It's a fucking disgrace.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 07:18 PM
-1

I gather this myth has a counterpart in the US in which the superbowl is an annual festival of football, cheerleaders, beer and savage, mindless wife-beating.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 07:16 PM
3

it seems that men have dominated while women have been relegated to the background. Like Elizabeth I? Mary I? Mary Queen of Scots? Queen Victoria? Margaret Thatcher? The present queen, who is one the longest serving monarchs in history? No, women were not "relegated to the background". That's a feminist myth. In the past, male and female roles were more different than they are now, but in Britain at least you're not going to find an era with no famous women in positions of power.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 06:40 AM
2

And you have good evidence that persons with extreme ASPD coupled with delusional, homicidal impulses can be cured, do you? Well that's a first for medical science.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 03:41 PM
3

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140602/METRO/306020106 It's in this one.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 03:22 PM
6

Possibly - but the article is saying it's a direct quote and I can't find it anywhere.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 12:52 PM
20

I can't find any source for their claim that SPLC said MRAs are, "women haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations" and it seems very unlike their platform to make such accusations. I've sent a quick email to them asking for clarification but I'm very suspicious of this supposed quote of the quoted rebuttal from Paul which I also can't find a reference to.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 11:46 AM
3

If no death threats exist, why is the hotel asking for large sums of money to spend on security?
/r/MensRights03/06/14 11:07 AM
1

It's intended to. Feminism is totally reliant on making women believe that men are their deadly enemies. If they can't do that, how will ordinary, sensible women be convinced to support brutal discrimination against their brothers, fathers, husbands and friends?
/r/MensRights03/06/14 10:42 AM
2

When you first commented on this experiment, you were more than happy to draw complex conclusions about it, even going so far as to say they "made sense". Yet now, when the deep sexism in it is demonstrated, you change tack and suddenly claim the experiment is worthless and invalid. So which is it? If it's good enough for you to draw conclusions from, why is it not good enough for everyone else? Why should only conclusions you like be valid?
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:14 PM
7

Well, being unable to imagine men being harmed, even when it's by something you know for a fact causes harm, is a very serious form of sexism. It's a basic failure to see a man as a human being who can be harmed by things you know are dangerous to other humans. In an objective sense it's one of the most dangerous kinds of discrimination there is.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:53 PM
32

Well that that's unexpected. A group of women get together to discuss what being a man is and what men should do - and all the conclusions directly benefit women! It must be some sort of freakish coincidence. A weird quirk of fate. Because if it's not then this says a lot more about women than about men, and none of it good.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:37 PM
5

Most people who see a man put something in a woman's drink can easily think of a scenario in which that might be happening, but not a lot of people can so easily determine what is happening with the reverse, because they haven't ever given it much thought, seen it happen, heard a story about it, etc. Possibly true but it explains not excuses it. It's still sexism of the very worst kind.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:57 PM
-2

Ah, so we should all "man up" and stop being so sensitive about small things.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:13 PM
11

How many black people does it take to eat a fried chicken? What do you mean, that's not funny? It's just a joke. It's not like racism ever has any bad consequences. Stop being so bitter.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 03:20 PM
57

It is much, much harder to approach any kind of pastoral issue with a teenage boy. Ask them to explain how they feel and they’ll usually shrug. Boys learn very early on from their own experience and from watching their peers that there is no answer to the question "how do you feel" which cannot land them in trouble. "I can't cope with my schoolwork" = you probably have ADHD and should be medicated into a zombie. "Girls don't seem to like me" = you're at best a creep and at worst a sexual predato…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 01:11 PM
11

Yup. And the mainstream press will continue to call you a victim and say the house is crooked.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 08:49 PM
3

Not true. I'm uncut and so is virtually everyone I know, yet none of us have had this happen. And even if it was true - like, say cystitis, which is very common in women and a lot more common than foreskin infections - do we treat infections with amputation or antibiotics?
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:53 PM
7

I have doubts that a woman who had got a man falsely imprisoned would be dumb enough to confess online and that of all the evidence this is definitive proof. Why wouldn't they? There's little or no effective punishment for women who knowingly make false accusations, in fact they often receive a lot of money in "compensation". If a woman is vicious enough to make the false accusation, why would they not be vicious enough to admit to it, knowing that there is almost no chance there will be consequ…
/r/MensRights01/06/14 06:57 PM
2

Men and women do not have identical reproductive value. 1 man and 1 woman have identical value when they're the only ones available. As soon as it becomes 2 men and 2 women, the individual women have more value than the individual men. I'll say this again, since you didn't respond to it: if men or women had identical reproductive value in any way there would be no such thing as evolution. It also doesn't matter which women the most prolific reproducer chose. This is utter absolute bullshit based…
/r/MensRights01/06/14 08:20 AM
2

I can't quite believe I'm going to have to explain this, but it looks like I have no choice. You're reducing men to statistics which ignore their individuality and unique value. Then you're using those statistics to justify the deaths of real men. Your grasp of biology is utterly laughable - no, no all men and women have identical reproductive value. If they did there would be NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION YOU IDIOT. Evolution and natural selection only work because organisms differ from one anothe…
/r/MensRights01/06/14 08:10 AM
-5

Nice try notmenzrites troll. Men get struck more often because they're more likely to work outdoors in physical jobs where they're more likely to be hit.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 08:01 AM
2

You're the one posting to a men's rights forum that men are all interchangeable and it's right that they should be disposable.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:49 AM
1

any of the men could pretty much serve as a drop-in replacement for another man Wow. I think that's actually the most disgustingly sexist thing I've ever seen someone say openly. Men are totally interchangeable and not unique individuals. That's absolutely fucking revolting.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:37 AM
2

Ah, I see. What does she save them from? The girls who were questioned admitted that they were told to lie by Mam and weren't saved from anything.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:35 AM
0

That's it? No reply, no comeback, no reasoning, nothing of value. Take your own advice, go on your merry way. We don't need the ADH-Kydex Tone Police Department running the sub. Not when you can't even come up with a reasoned response to fair criticism.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:13 AM
3

If people don't like my idea they can downvote me and continue on their merry way. That's funny! See, because you didn't like everyone else's approach. But instead of taking your own advice and going on your merry way, you decided to do a great big grandstanding post about how we're all doing it wrong and if we were only to listen to you then everything would be so much better. See how that works? When anyone else takes issue, they're just supposed to shut up and fuck off - sorry, I meant, "down…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 11:47 PM
11

being an active father is not a Men's Rights issue. You are totally wrong. Huge numbers of men are denied their right to be active fathers, by a system which is stacked against them from the outset, in a society which denies them any credit for what they do. You're just another member of the silencing mob who come here to chant "notmenzrites! Notmenzrites!" In virtually every thread.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:57 PM
2

And who will decide what's allowed and what's not? You, right? If that's what you want, set up your own sub. Get your own audience. This is just yet another whining post complaining that you're not a mod here and the people don't behave the way you want. Yes, you are not a mod. And thank God for that; if you were I'd probably be banned because you had a delusional fantasy about me "posting screen shots", as would anyone else opposing feminism and the harm it causes.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:49 PM
3

Who said anything about "posting a screen shot"? This was someone responding to a thread here about the killing. The comments were made right here. Should we be agreeing with them so as not to "alienate" them? Is that your plan? Or is it actually okay to disagree with people who say horrible things?
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:12 PM
3

It's an interesting idea. How do you propose to deal with the feminists we have visiting with us? For example the person I spoke to recently who came to tell is that a disabled man who was beaten to death over a false rape accusation actually "gained from the experience"? Unless you plan to agree with that sentiment, how can we have people like that without creating "a them and us situation"?
/r/MensRights31/05/14 09:42 PM
2

I'm not some all-knowing judge on the validity of religions and cultures Good, well shut up and stop telling everyone what to wear and how to worship then. Thanks!
/r/MensRights30/05/14 07:59 PM
2

Exactly: because you say so. Their traditions are acceptable or unacceptable only on your say-so. You're behaving exactly like that character.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 07:13 PM
2

It's silly to use the example of a traditional hijab and not consider the extreme oppression in Muslim cultures that essentially require them to wear it. You're just proving the point: you're making a gross generalization about all women who wear traditional muslim dress and saying they're all victims of "extreme oppression". And why? Just because you say so. Not because they spoke for themselves, not because they are all individuals with their own reasons. But because you say so. That's exactly…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 06:16 PM
2

What we dont know is how much of a multiplier we need to use to get an estimate of the total size of the problem Notice how that's phrased? "How much of a multiplier we need to use to get an estimate of the total size of the problem" . Not, "whether a multiplier should be used". Not, "whether there is a problem". You've already decided there's a problem. You've already decided it's bigger than the available numbers indicate. You've decided there is a group, 'we', who should address it. And you'v…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 05:37 PM
7

That user sends charming personal messages too.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 04:06 PM
10

I guess there's truly no such thing as bad publicity. That's pretty much right. It's the quality of what you really offer that matters. If the offering is bad, no one will buy in no matter how many good things you say about it. If the offering is fundamentally good - and at the risk of pointing out the obvious I believe with my whole heart that what we're doing here is overwhelmingly positive - then no matter how many bad things are said about it, people will buy into it.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:55 PM
9

You baited me into discussing this quote, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Which I never should have done in the first place. Why? I didn't say that. It was a completely different user. The quote you posted doesn't say it either. I didn't post that quote either. Again, a different user. What I did do is ask you, "Glen Jones was unjustly accused of rape. Did he gain from the experience?" And you replied, "Of course he did". You said Glen Jones, a disa…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:13 PM
14

If anyone would like to know what one of our visiting feminists think of this disabled man's brutal murder, have a look at this: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26up5z/false_rape_claims_never_hurt_anybody_right/chusyll That's right, apparently the victim gained from the experience.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 01:00 PM
4

If anyone would like to know what one of our visiting feminists think of this disabled man's brutal murder, have a look at this: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26up5z/false_rape_claims_never_hurt_anybody_right/chusyll That's right, apparently the victim gained from the experience.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 12:59 PM
8

Of course he did... That's how life works. But, again, 'gain' does not mean 'never hurt'. So, yes, really, yes. Sigh. He was beaten to death with bats and an axe handle. And you're saying he gained from the experience. I actually feel physically sick.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 12:56 PM
6

Not really, no. Glen Jones was unjustly accused of rape. Did he gain from the experience?
/r/MensRights30/05/14 12:38 PM
8

I think this is one of the issues that really turns people off feminism, particularly as they progress in their careers. I'm sure we can all agree that everyone should have equal opportunities. In fact I think that's at the heart of men's rights. But that's not what feminists are fighting for. They're not fighting for women to be able to do what Sergey Brin and Parry Page did with Google - to get a doctorate the hard way and start a technology company then build it slowly and painfully over twen…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 09:52 PM
7

The Chibok Kidnapping. 200 girls girls kidnapped meant to be sex slaves. No, the girls were being used as hostages in a prisoner exchange. Boko Haram released a video on 12th may showing the girls and making demands about which prisoners they should be swapped for. I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. A terrible incident being hijacked to fit a grossly inappropriate agenda.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 09:31 PM
18

It's possible, but I think it underestimates the amount of effort put into this issue by the police and security services and their competence. Underground or not, wouldn't they have found at least some evidence of the colossal numbers of people supposedly involved?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:35 PM
20

she is very much helping women in need. From reading the article, the "women in need" she "helped" lied too.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:22 PM
2

Am I the only person who is aware that fathers have children too? Where's his childcare pass?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:09 PM
51

The issue is very simple: there's little or no understanding of what drives young men to suicide. The government has made vague fumblings about body image, self-esteem and so on, but there's little or no will to tackle the real issue. Men are facing a double whammy. They're treated as little better than a beast of burden whose purpose is to provide for wife, children and government through his work, taxes, child support and so on. But at the same time they're spat on everywhere they turn; portra…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:06 PM
1

As has been mentioned already, please check the CDC's statistics. A word of advice though, the CDC don't believe men can be raped either, so they list men forced to have sex with women as "forced to penetrate", although like me I'm sure you'll wonder how that is not rape. Generally when women molest the victims are other women or kids. I'd say this only proves my point: sex crimes against men are simply ignored, leading to this very assumption.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:44 PM
71

The sex trafficking industry is something of a sacred trope among feminists and social justice warriors, yet there seems remarkably little evidence to actually support the claims. It's common to see claims that large numbers of women and children are trafficked for sex, yet a major operation in 2009 failed to find a single person who had been trafficked for sex. Like Somaly Mam's, the stories are gory and lurid - and questioning them seen as unthinkable. But they should be questioned and careful…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:42 AM
2

Yes, this is correct. There are two main legal systems in the UK, Scots and English law, and both adhere to this definition. In theory, a woman who has sex with a man against his will (rapes him) can be tried for sexual assault, which also carries a theoretical maximum life sentence. In reality, the thinking underlying this legislation has a huge knock-on effect. Those who are familiar with the available studies will know that women commit sex crimes against men with almost the same frequency as…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 09:40 AM
3

So what do feminists hate about MRM? Feminism is about creating progressive, flexible and attainable opportunities within society which reject old, rigid roles. For women. For men, most mainstream feminists want absolutely rigid gender roles which define them as providers, protectors and supporters. Men's rights reject those roles for men in the same way as feminism rejects them for women. That's a problem for feminism because without feminism's goals are impossible without men bankrolling them.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 09:18 AM
5

This petition, with thousands of signatures, is just a fringe group of wing nuts, is that right? A really, really huge group of wing nuts addressing the government directly and unopposed by mainstream feminists.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 11:39 AM
1

Disqus comments at the bottom.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:54 PM
-1

If you had to sent sacrifice 50 people to defend your village, you're going to be better off sacrificing the men, because it doesn't reduce the size of your village's next generation. Actually, sacrificing half of the people who protect the next generation and provide for them, whichever gender, will reduce the size of the next generation hugely.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:53 PM
-3

Mormons practiced polygamy because the men were commonly being attacked and they didn't want the religion to die. What? No they did not. Mormons began plural marriage because their prophet had a revelation from God. When China tried to cut down its population, women were killed more often than men so that there would be more men than women. Less women means less offspring. Oh for fuck's sake, China controlled population by implementing the one child policy, not by killing people. This is idiotic…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:22 PM
0

No. You're comparing the value of one man with the value of all the women together then concluding that all men are less valuable than the individual women. There are so many mistakes in this it's difficult to know where to begin.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 05:25 PM
-5

No. You're comparing the value of one man with the value of all the women together then concluding that all men are less valuable than the individual women. There are so many mistakes in this it's difficult to know where to begin.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 05:25 PM
10

it's not as if all police, consistently, ignore male victims of violence just because the perpetrator is female. Look up the Duluth model. It's the standard model of interpersonal violence used by the police especially for domestic violence and yes, it does specifically dictate that men, by virtue of almost always being physically larger than women, are targeted and assumed to be at fault no matter the circumstances.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 03:31 PM
13

Actually society tells women that they are entitled to everything a man has. Your attention (but only if she wants it). Your body (men cannot be raped, often by law) Your money (buy her a drink, take her to dinner, support her children) Your work (If she wants to be a stay at home mom, God help you if you say no to supporting her) Your children (kiss them goodbye when you divorce, you may never see them again) Your possessions (half of everything you own whether or not she contributed to it) And…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 03:09 PM
4

The comments call him out on this pretty comprehensively.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:15 PM
-5

In terms of reproductive value, men are largely disposable. Men's reproductive value is identical to women's: reproduction requires exactly one woman and one man.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 11:52 AM
-6

This is clearly untrue; if there is only one man in a village then he's the most valuable person because he is the sole possessor of the reproductive resource, not the women. Same is true of women: if there is only one woman then she is the most valuable. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with resources.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 11:50 AM
1

The obstetrical dilemma (yes that's right you even spelled it wrong) didn't appear with bipedalism, it appeared with large brain size. There are plenty of animals like gibbons which are frequently bipedal but don't have the dilemma. Greed is not genetic and is not heritable. Because economics is not genetically determined and is not heritable either, so it cannot be selected for.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:43 AM
3

But a male attacker would generally be more dangerous than a female one given his comparatively larger strength. I've just told you that strength is rarely a deciding factor in a fight.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:35 AM
4

What on earth are you talking about?
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:33 AM
13

No, not even slightly. Strength is only a factor if those fighting are pushing or wrestling. In any normal fight, the attacker has a huge advantage no matter who they are.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 11:02 PM
3

I think the benefit of the doubt angle that you described is the most logical and ethical thing to presume until something else is proven. Then why are you presuming him guilty until proven innocent?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:58 PM
10

No, it's not. There is no correlation between testosterone levels and number of sexual partners. If there was then it would be impossible for women to be as promiscuous as men (which they frequently are) because it's virtually impossible for even the highest levels of testosterone in women to match the lowest in men - average men have 7-8 times as much testosterone as average women. Libido is not caused by testosterone. It's a lot more complicated than that.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:55 PM
21

Men are generally physically stronger than women Spoken, as usual, like someone who has never been in a fight. I've been in lots of fights. I used to be a doorman. I'm six foot four, 250 pounds. I'm trained in kick boxing and experienced at street fighting. Do you know who can put me down? Anyone. Long as they catch me by surprise. And I've been put down plenty, including by women. Because it's got nothing to do with muscle. It's got to do with aggression, initiative and luck. and women have as …
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:48 PM
10

There is no proven link between testosterone levels and promiscuity.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:34 PM
1

Oh, is equal rights for men a "shitty finger-pointing political agenda" now? This may not be the sub for you.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:43 PM
-1

Australopithecus is only about 3 million years old. That's young on an evolutionary scale. Not for humans it's not, in fact australopithecines aren't even regarded as humans. I never said it wasn't. Yes, you did: "survivability is a much harder thing to gauge than fertility". You're ignoring the law of supply and demand. Ha! Ha! This is utterly absurd, that's a general rule of economics and has nothing to do with evolution, let alone an immutable law of it.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:19 PM
2

Your claim that the vast majority of what women do and say together is hate etc. IS the actual point regarding misogyny. Ah, so stating facts is now hatred of women, if those facts are unflattering to women?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:07 PM
-6

That's a goalpost shift No, it's not. You asked for evidence that men are really being harmed and I provided it. I am only saying what others have told you, this analogy is extreme and unhelpful Yet somehow you haven't been able to show that it's wrong or inaccurate in any way. Which means your objection is just that some people won't like it - probably the same people accusing us in the first place.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:37 PM
-1

Virtually none of the above is true. Firstly, size and strength is clearly easy to gauge, not difficult at all. As is fertility, all you have to do is look for big families. Secondly, bipedalism is not recent in humans, it evolved before brain size and was present in the earliest hominds right back to australopithecus. Thirdly, if men were considered naturally less valuable than women, virtually every civilization in human history would not have been founded by men.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:26 PM
2

Loneliness =/= involuntary celibacy. No one has a right to sex.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:11 PM
-5

Men are beaten, raped, abused and have their children taken away because of widely accepted lies which claim we are less fit to taken care of children, that we cannot be harmed by domestic violence and that we cannot be raped. Isn't that enough? When will we have your permission to speak out against the lies told about us?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:03 PM
6

Do a search for the word 'cunt' and see how often that one pops up. Can you explain how any use of that word is hatred of women?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:00 PM
-2

Yes, claiming that jews as a group are complicit in murder is exactly equivalent to claiming that MRAs as a group are complict in murder. If you don't agree, please demonstrate the difference.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:50 PM
2

I agree completely. Thanks.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:47 PM
2

Can you address the actual point please? I've said twice now that women's own media proves that I cam correct and you've shown nothing to contradict that.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:46 PM
1

the fact it's a bad idea to compare anything to the blood libel That's not a fact, it's your opinion. As is your approach to persuading people by resorting to half truths and vague suggestions instead of facts. You probably didn't notice this but in your suggested approach to telling people that more men are raped than women, you missed out one small fact - that more men are raped than women. I really have no idea how you think this could possibly work. How can anyone learn the truth without hea…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:37 PM
-1

Did you miss the part where I said, we are not associated with people like this? In what way is that "celebrating the association"?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:04 PM
0

I agree is it like the blood libel against the jews in many respects. If you can accept it, why should other people not accept it? They are no less intelligent or critical than you. I don't accept that the best time to counter a wrong against a group is long after that wrong, when everyone has accepted that wrong as entirely justified and the group as culpable. Allowing only the accuser to speak can only have one outcome.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:02 PM
-1

maybe don't celebrate the media associating you with people like this if you don't want people to think you share mentalities. "Share mentalities"? With video games, Marilyn Manson and weed? I have no problem being associated with those things. Why would we?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:57 PM
-3

Can you explain how we can have a dialog and get people to understand when we're not allowed to talk about the problem because it might make someone uncomfortable? How can that possibly be a meaningful and productive conversation? The whole point is that something is happening which should make every single reasonable person a lot more than merely uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:41 PM
4

I don't think we are ever going to agree on comparing the persecution of Jewish people to the persecution of mens rights activists. Perhaps you can explain the difference between accusing an entire group of the mass murder of babies and accusing an entire group of the mass murder of women? I have always been under the impression that PUA, MGTOW, The Red pill, mens rights are all linked by the same users and the same underlying misogyny. Well you're simply wrong there - this sub shares less than …
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:34 PM
-4

I would seek to avoid equivocating "blood libel" with anything... just don't. It doesn't matter if it is comparable, it's wrong-- just don't. Actually it really, really matters if it's comparable because if it's wrong to do it to one group it's wrong to do it another.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:31 PM
-17

I think you're a fucking lunatic for trying to compare the quasi-association made by a handful of cable news anchors between this spree killing and the mens rights movement to the systematic enslavement of blacks throughout American history and the systematic extermination of Jews throughout European history. I didn't, I said that unjustly accusing us of the mass murder of women is no different to accusing Jews of the mass murder of babies and blacks of mass rape of white women.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 01:30 PM
9

plz dont compare this to the holocaust you know that's not a nice thing to say I didn't, I compared it to the blood libel against the jews. Both consist of accusing an entire group of being linked to terrible crimes - I think saying we're complicit in mass murder is "not a nice thing to say". Do you? the guy also definitely shared the ideology of the manosphere - I don't think that can be easily refuted Actually it's very easily refuted indeed. Read what he wrote about his failure to seduce wome…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 11:35 AM
1

It's unlikely, even if it existed it would be on his computer wouldn't it?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 11:01 AM
23

As far as I understand it, Elliot is subscribed to a lot of MRA stuff on youtube He appears to have been interested in Pick Up Artist material, and subscribed to some PUA channels as well as some anti-PUA ones. That's very different from Men's Rights. It's common for us to see feminist outlets claiming that PUA and men's rights are the same but we're very different. PUA is about seducing women while men's rights is about equality for men. They're really not linked at all. While we're talking I w…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:57 AM
6

There have been a lot of claims about his online activity, yes.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:35 AM
42

Most feminism is rooted an idea called patriarchy theory, which states that women are actively oppressed and prevented from achieving their potential by all men. To someone who believes this, a man could at best be a defector who is well intentioned but who used to commit horrible crimes, but could never be fully trusted.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 09:12 AM
2

Thank you for posting this. It really touched me. It troubles me that this could easily have been posted in another sub as, "man leaves girlfriend because she had an abortion" and attracted widespread outrage, reinforcing the idea that men should have no say or rights in reproduction and therefore cannot have any right to be upset or hurt by what happens.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 09:06 AM
3

a bunch of people who were mostly girls just got shot and killed by this asshole and all you guys are worried about is not getting blamed for it Yes, we are worried about being unjustly blamed for multiple murders. There is absolutely nothing strange or unfair about that. In fact the only strange idea is yours: that our group should quietly accept being convicted of links to a terrible crime we did not commit and did not condone. This is called blood libel. Look it up.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 08:06 AM
3

people don't owe you or anyone else anything for existing. it doesn't matter what you think you deserve, you are not entitled to sex, or success, or a job, or a relationship, or wealth. the sooner we get people to stop thinking this the better. And that's exactly what the MRM wants. Only, we want it for women as well as men, which is why we're against gender quotas at work, bias in family courts and anti-male hate in the media - and it's why this sub is being very heavily brigaded right now by f…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:56 AM
2

We're not associated with people like this. Read the Forbes article debunking the claimed link.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:50 AM
-2

Thanks, that's pretty much what I was going to say.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:54 PM
-5

Nah, you don't fight false narrative. A little is good, it drives consumers to want to decide for themselves by trying the brand.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:51 PM
2

Yes, I suppose you don't.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:37 PM
-5

I work in advertising and branding. Trust me. No one wastes resources slandering a competitor who poses no threat. More people are buying our brand every day.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:36 PM
-8

So we're joining Marilyn manson, heavy metal, video games and reefer in being blamed for deaths. Well, we're doing it right. We're visible and they're afraid of us.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:04 PM
1

See, this guy was exactly the kind of man MRAs want to reach out to. He measured himself by what use he was to women and grew to hate them because instead of basing self esteem on his own actions and caring about himself, he based it on what he was told he should be and do. Men's tights is about freeing men from exactly this, and tackling the epidemic of suicide this guy became part of.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 09:58 PM
8

okay, you're talking about it but you didn't talk about it soon enough This is just desperate.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 09:51 PM
2

In what way is this "misogyny"? It's an observation. As i said, if you disagree I encourage you to read the sub in question and to watch tv shows and adverts directed at women. I'm open to persuasion. I'll be very happy to see, read and watch mainstream media created for women which is not centered on encouraging women to hate, fear or ridicule men or themselves. And I'll also look forward to hearing how voicing this opinion means I hate women. Because crying misogyny is another very common sile…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 09:31 PM
6

I think the idea is that a fully grown man is almost always physically stronger than a woman, and that if the woman's abuse becomes too violent he would always be able to defend himself. As a former doorman I find this comment simply childish and ignorant. I'm six four four and over 250 pounds. I'm a kickboxer and an experienced street and bar fighter. But I've been sent to the hospital by a woman on several occasions. But that should be impossible right? No regular women could be stronger than …
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:15 PM
11

And you have never ever been or seen a fight with a woman, have you? I used to a doorman and I've literally held a man's face on while the ambulance came, treated fractured skulls and what I think was a broken neck - all caused by women. I'm six foot four, 250 pounds and I'm trained in kickboxing and experienced at street fighting. Do you know who can beat the shit out of me? Damn near anyone. Long as they catch me by surprise, just about anyone can put me down because it's got NOTHING to do wit…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:07 PM
0

Well, hitting on girls isn't illegal and it can happen anywhere, so is the solutio now to ban men from every public place? (And just so you know, women hit on men too. If men need banned then women need banned. Is that what you want? Because that's equality)
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:32 PM
39

Very common behavior for feminists. Meg Lanker-Simons did the same thing.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:25 PM
7

So you're saying that you think it's wrong for the woman to be cautious about moving ahead for fear that she will lose some of the income from her ex? Yes, it's wrong that she receives her income from her ex. She should receive it for working and contributing like the rest of us. If she chooses not to work and contribute she should be choosing not to have income.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:19 PM
4

The women at TwoX are not 'typical'... I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. If you look at mainstream media directed at most women - magazines, tv shows and adverts for example - you'll see exactly the same messages as in 2x. Hate, resentment and ridicule pointed at men and complaints, whining and self aggrandizement for themselves. In fact as is often remarked here, you'd be hard pressed to find a tv advert or show addressed to women which presents men in anything other than a negative…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:07 PM
2

Yeah, because sex was never a weapon when she was thrown down on the floor, and fucked while she fought him. Again, I can only remind you that you're not going to find anyone here or at AVFM condoning rape in any way. In fact, the very article you're referring to doesn't claim any date rape victims deserved it, but that like someone waving a wallet full of cash in a bad part of town they may have attracted those who commit such crimes. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that, it's simply a …
/r/MensRights24/05/14 02:38 PM
1

So lesbians should be banned too?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 02:21 PM
8

Here they are, being disgusted by the fact a wife is legally protected from rape. No, there they are commenting accurately on changed attitudes towards sex. In fact anyone can search the page and find that not only do they not call marital rape laws 'disgusting', that word is not even used once in the article. Anyone who wants to can also read the rest of the site to see that AVFM's editors and writers are opposed to all rape and nowhere do they support it or complain that anyone is protected fr…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 08:19 AM
0

1) Religion 2) Avoiding guys who flirt at the pool 3) Hot chicks avoiding guys who admire her bikini body 4) Fat chicks feeling to insecure and lacking self-confidence not wanting to be in bikinis around men This reasoning is badly broken. Here's why: you're blaming and excluding all men for something only a tiny minority ever do. And not only that, you're also blaming and excluding all men for things which are actually women's internal problems and nothing to do with men at all. If I said that …
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:59 AM
0

I'd tell them politely to leave me alone, just like I do when a guy hits on me. Well actually the response to men hitting on you was to ban them from the pool for a while, not to ask them anything politely.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:48 AM
11

It's certainly changed, I don't think there's much doubt about that. But it's a simple change: this is just a group of fairly typical women just doing what typical women do. They talk about typical women's concerns and share typical women's viewpoints. Then one day, someone has thrown open the windows and now everyone can see what typical women do and say. And that's an uncomfortable experience since what typical women do and say together is composed almost entirely of fear, hate, anger and whin…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:41 AM
10

I'm so sorry for your troubles. Your story made me sick with rage. I've seen so many good men go through this, even in my own family. What I would say to you and to all men facing it, is this: Do not imagine that what's happening is down to a system which is stacked against you. It is not an impersonal set of rules which mechanically hamper you in fact you'll struggle to find a single rule in the book which specifically discriminates against you. What's happening is absolutely personal. It is ab…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:14 AM
1

Technically yes. In reality it means that after a period of probation is successfully completed (meaning nothing, a normal life), the sentence will be dismissed. It's a non sentence. And yes they keep the money. It's spent. The government will 'try to get it back', which means sending them stern letters, and while that happens the pair will be unable to get jobs due to their criminal records, meaning.... can you guess?.... that's right, they'll be able to claim benefits.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 10:51 PM
12

There's an elephant in that room and I'm glad to see the writer pointing it out. The essence of feminism is exclusion and hate, which come from the persecution complex almost all feminists have since they believe they are being oppressed for being women. This leads to a perpetual witch hunt in which they seek to find and punish non-feminists. This is what these celebrities are being subjected to: are you a feminist? Are you? If not why not? And if you not we'll make sure every major news outlet …
/r/MensRights23/05/14 11:05 AM
3

Men and boys can't actually be raped by women under English and Scots law, by definition. "Statutory rape" isn't actually a named offense here, but is usually applied to sex with a child of 13 years or younger. Anyone of 16 or over can have sex as long as meaningful consent is obtained.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 01:11 PM
2

No, the age of consent in the UK is 16.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 08:29 AM
4

Oh you're from Manhood Academy. That explains it. Thanks!
/r/MensRights20/05/14 08:19 AM
7

said the little bitch coward hiding behind his keyboard. lol! your panties still wet? Just copying this comment so we can all see it. This troll's plan is pretty obvious: complain about censorship then be verbally abusive and agressive enough to get comments removed, thus "proving" there is censorship. In reality you've actually destroyed your own argument: if your comments are removed it'll be because they break the rules. If not, it's only evidence of how tolerant our sub is. You need to try a…
/r/MensRights20/05/14 06:58 AM
3

I disagree with endangering the public And how does releasing known offenders into the public achieve this? Care to explain why you're defending this system? I'm not, and your anecdote has nothing to do with the suggested abolition of custodial sentences for women only.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 02:54 PM
2

Oh is Kenneth Clarke a mainstream feminist now? No, the article refers to two different issues: a feminist lobby group which wants no prison sentences for women, and the justice secretary who wants sentences for only female "serious offenders". They're separate issues in the same article. You should be advocating the same thing for men. Not really; our existing justice system doesn't work precisely because it panders to criminals and treats them as victims while leaving those criminals' actual v…
/r/MensRights19/05/14 02:17 PM
2

Why did the teacher with a living student spend more time in prison? Because the two incidents happened in different countries. Here in the UK we have feminists in government actively pushing for prison sentences for women to be abolished. I presume you don't see that as a pussy pass either?
/r/MensRights19/05/14 01:32 PM
3

Does this mean I can hold Paul Elam against everyone here? When he starts writing for a national newspaper with significant political sway, saying that it's okay for men to rape 15 year old girls, and none of us are speaking out against it even a little bit, yes you can go right ahead. What's that? No, I can't hear mainstream feminists condemning this column and demanding that action be taken. It's silent over on your side, not here.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 01:29 PM
1

But that is some pretty terrible shit right there, but I can assure you that it's not in a feminist's agenda to beat men. He just gave you hard evidence that it definitely is the mainstream feminist agenda to beat, abuse and where impossible imprison men. He's not generalising feminists with people who support violence against men, he's proving that feminists ARE people who support and relish violence against men. Don't like it? Stop doing it.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 06:11 PM
-1

this legal right extended as far as allowing him to kill members of his family with impunity No, it did not. That would be murder, and illegal. For example, Honor Killings were a big deal in classical Rome; killing your wife after she was raped was seen as a mercy and encouraged. Again, not true. Rape was a very serious crime in Rome and both legally and socially unacceptable - so much so that when a prince committed rape the monarchy was overthrown. In fact Rome was much more advanced than most…
/r/MensRights17/05/14 11:02 PM
1

Yes, you're right. Domestic violence again men (especially if they were citizens) certainly wasn't illegal. Historically speaking, men have always been screwed. Patriarchal societies like Rome have always protected and elevated women at the expense of men, while the matriarchal society feminists propose would do exactly the same.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 07:49 AM
1

Well done. In reality, domestic abuse was both illegal and totally socially unacceptable in classical Rome.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 06:50 PM
2

Yes men deserve recognition Mentioning the gender doesn't (to me) add anything to the story You're openly contradicting yourself. Either men deserve recognition, in which case they deserve to be recognized as men, or they don't. You cannot have it both ways.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:33 AM
0

Articles like this reveal an ugly, stinking truth about a significant section of women: for them protecting women is not enough, they must also ensure that men continue to be harmed. If this offends you or you think I'm wrong, I'm open to having my mind changed. Just show me the vast numbers of women's groups opposing male circumcision and campaigning to have it banned. Good luck.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 07:11 AM
14

Why would they need to mention the fact that they are men? Exactly. If girls are kidnapped by boko haram, that's the first thing mentioned: they are girls. If men die, we actually have people asking why the fact they're men would be mentioned. Men deserve recognition just like women. Yes, really.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 07:02 AM
0

You misspelled "victim".
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:01 PM
4

No she may be an extant threat, like most people are No. Most people do not attack without provocation and as such are not a threat. This woman does and is. End of story.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:43 PM
10

Immediate threat you say? Yes, a woman who had only moments before attacked him without provocation is an immediate threat. If a person mugs you then knocks you down you aren't allowed to shoot them in the back as they run. No one is talking about killing her. But attacking someone then turning away does not magically absolve you of all responsibility. I take it you believe he should simply have let her go, is that right? And I assume you can see no problem with that idea?
/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:24 PM
9

You have no way of knowing that she no longer planned to attack him and neither did he. You can't read her mind, and the fact that she didn't appear to be about to attack is irrelevant because she had already attacked without warning. There is no part of the law which says you must allow yourself to be harmed or killed by someone you know is an immediate threat before defending yourself.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:17 PM
14

So her walking away with her personal affects and disengaging from combat isnt enough? No. She could turn around and attack - or for that matter go and fetch a weapon or another person and then come back to the attack. Until he is safe from further harm he has every right to defend himself. Oh and by the way he also has a right to restrain her until the police arrive. Under your logic any form of retaliation, even vendetta, is justified until the moment your attacker is dead. No, just unable to …
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:33 PM
25

Wrong. Unless she is no longer a threat, the fight is not over. As long as she is able to attack him there is a real risk that she will; she's already attacked him without provocation. The fight is over when the attacker can no longer attack and not before.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:22 PM
6

Thankfully astronomers and biologists of the past we're willing to martyr themselves to share their findings, despite what the church thought at the time. You do know that the church funded almost all early science and invented universities, right?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 12:48 PM
5

Actually it would be more accurate to say, "you are not a father unless the mother of your child says so". If you read the explanation of how to get parental responsibility, all except the court order require the mother's consent - and in case you're wondering the court order would only ever be granted if the mother is totally unable to appear in court; in almost all cases if she appears she gets custody.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:09 PM
2

Give it up. Seriously.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 09:01 PM
2

Most Muslims are disgusting, horrible people, by my standards You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this aloud. It's utterly repugnant.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:28 PM
1

Being wrong is not reprehensible - if you then admit you are wrong and change your position. Hitchens continued being loudly and gleefully wrong even when it became clear to everyone that the violence he relished was totally unacceptable. I found, and continue to find, his anti-muslim hatred utterly revolting and I am dismayed at the level of support he enjoyed from otherwise rational people.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 07:23 PM
0

And Hitchens was sweetness and light, is that right? You clearly know almost nothing about Hitchens.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:00 PM
1

He was also extremely violent and strongly advocated things like bombing muslim civilians. It would be wise not to ignore the fact that he held some utterly repugnant beliefs while lambasting a rabbi for doing the same.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 02:59 PM
32

Because a key trope which leads to men being discriminated against is the idea that women are innately more caring and pose less danger to children. It's very important to prove how wrong and dangerous that idea is so that men can be regarded as equals.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 02:42 PM
1

By this rationale it's okay to steal food from starving children - if they don't have the food yet it's not theirs and the consequences of your taking it don't matter. All you're saying is that it's okay to deprive someone of life if they don't have it yet. But that's circular: they don't have it because you're depriving them of it.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:35 AM
0

You're argument is so weak that you'e rebutting your own points! Yes, we all have to work. No, most of us don't want to. But we take responsibility: we live in a safe and prosperous society and we work to earn that. Just so you know by the way, expecting someone to give birth to a child they conceived is not the same as forcing them to donate organs without their consent. Virtually all women consent to the sex which gives rise to their babies, and giving birth rarely results in death.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 01:14 PM
1

Then you must feel that having a job is a criminal act, right? After all it demands the use of someone's time, body and skill, often against their will, in exactly the same way as asking a woman to take responsibility for the child she conceived and carry it to term. And no, sperm don't become children. That takes eggs as well.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 08:44 AM
2

Can you explain in more detail why it's better for a child to be killed than raised by its father? All the children you see in the street were "non-viable fetuses" once. So was my own daughter. Taking away the "non-viable fetus" kills the child it will become.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 08:04 AM
2

Can you explain in more detail why being dead is better for a child than being raised by his father?
/r/MensRights03/05/14 08:01 AM
0

Bad news, you're probably not. Models, and especially male models, need a very good working knowledge of nutrition and training to stay in that kind if shape. Many are students or hold advanced degrees and run their own businesses.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 08:14 PM
2

If you want to know what feminists will do if we let them gain political power we only have to look at how they act in places where they're already in oiwer like academia. The first thing they did was to make rape a crime so terrible that no defense can be allowed, not even innocence. The next thing is to make it a crime to even suggest that someone might be innocent of rape. This is your future if you allow it: a future where even according someone due process and their human rights is a crime.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 08:05 PM
5

Society frowns on men having physical contact for two reasons: because it's perceived as homosexual activity and because it reveals men's need for support and affection. The former is unacceptable in some parts of society and the latter is almost universally condemned. Let me tell you about my mate Richard. Richard has been my friend for almost twenty years and we've been climbing partners for most of that time. Climbing forges deep physical and emotional bonds between partners; I've saved Richa…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 08:29 AM
2

Thanks for that, and love that new handle. ;)
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:54 AM
2

Of course anyone can see that I didn't say anything about wars and industrial jobs, and that you've rather dishonestly chosen some of the only examples of men's problems which are not caused or made worse by feminism. In reality, problems with custody, divorce, alimony, circumcision, sentencing disparities, educational underachievement, rape, false rape accusations, body image issues and much more are all either actively supported and encouraged by mainstream feminists or kept out of discussion …
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:50 AM
2

Why's this tagged as outrage? And is it in the right sub? It seemed very good to me.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:18 PM
5

If those "traditional gender roles" have been "consistently opposed by feminists", show us the ongoing campaigns by feminists to get more women into those damgerous roles, please. And you have still not answered the question, which I'll repeat for convenience: Can you explain how "male privilege is a very real thing" too please?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:09 PM
11

Many of them, yes. Can you explain how "male privilege is a very real thing" too please?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 08:42 PM
3

All true of course. But it's well worth mentioning that this kind of article is getting more and more common as our movement gains momentum. The minds are being freed, the asses will soon follow.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:48 PM
13

Well I'm sure we'd all love to hear in which matters male privilege is a real thing. And I'm sure my good friends here will also join me in breathlessly awaiting your compelling explanation of how we can solve men's rights issues by ignoring the very people causing them.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:36 PM
2

They didn't even have enough data on men's lifetimes experiences to fill the fields - no one's even done that kind of research largely because major organizations like the CDC simply don't consider it to be a problem at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:39 PM
4

It's a common statement/sentiment by rabid intactivists. Actually it's not, because it's so obviously untrue; in fact I would ask you to point me to a single source which claims that "being circumcised necessarily means your dick can't feel anything". stop telling me and other cut people that our dicks are defective Your position makes no sense. You're saying that circumcision is wrong but no one should be allowed to say that what was done to you was wrong. How do we go about changing this if no…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:06 PM
8

I was disputing the generalization that being circumcised necessarily means your dick can't feel anything. Can you point me to where anyone here said that?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:30 PM
8

It's quite easy to illustrate this. You say that the tip of your penis is sensitive, yet it rubs around inside your underwear all day every day, correct? In uncut men, the tip is so sensitive that if it becomes exposed while clothed (it happens) it's very uncomfortable indeed although not painful and most men will correct it immediately. If your tip was a sensitive as an uncut man's you'd be inconstant discomfort.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:20 PM
6

There are numerous serious problems with the CDC's data and agenda but unfortunately a deeply flawed and biased source is still all we have. The first problem is the CDC doesn't really believe men can be raped, and they try to erase those cases by reimagining them as a special kind of sexual assault. The second is that as your commentator points out there is a serious discrepancy between the 12 month and lifetime figures. But she gets them back to front: the 12 month figure is assaults on men wh…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 12:04 PM
6

Thanks for adding that. You're right, an infection under the foreskin at age 4 should be impossible and would most likely be the result of damage caused by trying to retract the foreskin while still fused. I find it sad to see how many circumcised men know so little about this and actually fight to defend it, although I can understand that it will be difficult for someone like this to hear that he may well have been circumcised because of an injury caused out of simple ignorance.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 11:54 AM
7

Sorry I should clarify: in places where circumcision is not done routinely to babies, infections of the foreskin are treated with antibiotics not amputation. Obviously in places where circumcision is popular, urologists and pediatricians already think that it's a good idea and often for no reason at all. Asking a urologist who already thinks that circumcision is fine for his opinion on circumcision is not going to get you an objective answer, that's the whole problem.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 11:14 AM
2

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your headline. The influence of fathers has not been overlooked, as if by mistake. It has been systematically and deliberately erased by powerful groups in society and government alike.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:31 AM
35

Yes of course. Circumcised men are far more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions of various kinds and their partners suffer too. Saying otherwise is not just against the evidence it's against common sense - you wouldn't say that cutting off someone's toes couldn't possibly affect the way they walk or run and it's equally strange to imagine that cutting off part of your penis wouldn't affect how it works.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:27 AM
14

Have you ever stopped to wonder why men wanting the same rights as women makes you so angry?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:20 AM
15

I was circumcised at age 4 because I was passionate about my own nudity and refused to wear clothes, resulting in an infection under my foreskin. I'm sorry, you were treated for an infection by having your foreskin cut off? You treat infections with antibiotics not amputation. Somebody has been lying to you for a long time.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:19 AM
7

This isn't feminism I'm sorry but it absolutely is feminism. What you see there is 100% mainstream feminism as promoted in best-selling books, magazines and articles all over the world. It's extremely dangerous to pretend that this sort of activity is somehow "not real". These are real people and those are their real ideas, ideas so horrible that they can only voice them under cover of anonymity.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:14 AM
10

This is a huge and very dangerous mistake. What you read was not written by tumblr, it was written by a feminist who is a real person. And her opinion is not a a joke or something she only thinks when she's online, that's her real opinion about men and rape. She probably can't voice it in the real world but it's really what she thinks. You've got this back to front. It's not the tumblr stuff we shouldn't take seriously, it;s the real world stuff. The tumblr posts are their real ideas, it's the r…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:12 AM
7

"Feminists" is not the same as "women". Criticizing feminists is not hating women.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 06:50 AM
2

To be fair, I wouldn't recommend commenting on anyone's undergarments, it is a bit creepy. Actually he was using it as a nice way to tell her it was showing. That's not creepy in the slightest.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:18 PM
8

Very interesting article. It's fascinating just how angry MGTOW makes some people. What they're doing has no real effect at all on the author (in fact the whole aim of the movement is precisely to have as little involvement as possible with people who oppose or are not benefical to you), yet look how furious he is about it: You don't have to dig very deep to find Men Being Angry Because They Don't Know How to Talk To Women open, misogynistic hatred There is absolutely no way the person who start…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:08 PM
3

I'm constantly astonished by the sheer lack of knowledge amongst american men regarding circumcision. I've discussed it a few times recently and here are a few highlights which I have been confidently assured of by american men on Reddit: It is abnormal for the head of the penis to be sensitive to the touch and an uncut man who's glans is purple and sensitive should go to the doctors (bonus: he probably needs a circumcision) Uncut men require lube to masturbate because that is the normal way. Wh…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 11:38 AM
0

All of the above relies on gross generalizations. You claim that "some" or "many" men hold racist views about Asian people, yet the OP made none of those claims. So the only person making a generalization is you.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 11:26 AM
2

Not that we don't understand it though - the guy labored in obscurity for a loooong time before making it big very recently. The feminists simply put a knife to his career and said that if he didn't do exactly what they said, they'd cut it off. It's not too difficult to make a few anti men jokes if that's what it takes to keep a seriously successful media career.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:15 AM
8

I've looked at that poster a few times and I can't see where it uses the words "crisis", "regularly" or in fact one single thing you just said. Care to clear that up for us?
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:12 AM
16

It also demonizes women. No it does not. Nowhere does it say that women are responsible for the problems men face and it doesn't even mention men's rights. In fact one of the biggest challenges men face today is the fact that society is so against them, and so blindly biased toward women that any mention of men having problems is commonly seen as an attack on women. Men and women can both have rights. It's just that men have fewer and every time we try to get the ones we want, someone like you c…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:51 AM
1

I was in a thread on as men a few weeks ago. It's very common to see women there claim to have "a history of rape" and sure enough before long a woman arrived to tell us all that she had been raped. She went to a party with her brother, leaving her boyfriend at home, and had a few drinks. She then went into a room next to the main party to sleep. As soon as she was in bed, an unnamed man entered the room and violently raped her repeatedly in every available orifice, including sex acts she denied…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 05:55 PM
15

You didn't read the article did you? It wasn't a yes no question. "Hilarious" was the largest group.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 05:34 PM
8

From the article: Yeah, it’s not as if comments suggesting that a man allegedly wronged in divorce court should turn to murder got literally dozens of upvotes in r/mensrights, or anything. Actually the comment being referred to was deleted and the user banned, with warnings from the mods about our rules regarding advocating violence Yeah, it’s not as if Men’s Rights Redditors gave literally hundreds of upvotes to a post about a t-shirt suggesting that men could be convicted of rape simply for be…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:57 AM
39

I would speculate that this is a trend which will continue and increase, for two reasons: Firstly, men will increasingly realize that they have no effective rights once married. I am married but I don't believe there is any reason for a man to get married. It secures absolutely no protections for him and exposes him to huge financial and personal risks. Secondly, women will increasingly realize that they have near-total power once married and can do anything they like. That will inevitably lead …
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:08 AM
11

I do. The fathers of those children do. All those who believe that children have the same rights to life and liberty that the rest of us do. These were newborn babies. Murdered and dumped like trash. I'm not going to ignore that and excuse the woman who killed them as "deranged" and a victim while allowing the media to smear her ex husband with irrelevant, unrelated details about a drug conviction. Excusing the murder of babies is horror unimaginable, not placing responsibility where it belongs.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:37 AM
4

Well, this is what happens when you hand one group absolute power over another group they may wish to target, then never hold them accountable for their actions. It's no different to rape accusations, child abuse allegations or domestic violence claims - give all women a big stick and tell them that they can beat any man they want any time they like and sooner or later some of them are going to decide that there are men who deserve to be beaten.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:26 AM
5

Anyone who thinks this is an isolated case in the UK would be in for a surprise if they ever had to deal with the social work department of their local council. They have absolute power and no accountability of any kind. When my brother was splitting from his ex - sorry, I meant to say his alcoholic, drug-addicted, mentally ill, violent, criminal ex - the social worker decided that he was an alcoholic and despite no evidence of any kind being presented and no actual assessment taking place, he w…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:22 AM
76

This is a highly effective teaches tool for men. It delivers a shot of truth in a very hard-hitting way, withe two key messages: "If you don't risk your life to intervene in rape, we will hate and abuse you". "If you do risk your life to intervene in rape, we will still hate and abuse you". It doesn't matter what you do, you lose either way. That is a key teaching in dealing with feminists: whatever course you choose you will be attacked and abused. I'm impressed; I can't think of a better way t…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:03 AM
3

You've just said childbirth doesn't really hurt that much No, I said it SOMETIMES doesn't really hurt that much. they are effectively shitting a watermelon This is exactly the kind of hyperbole we're talking about. Even the very largest newborns head is much, much smaller than most watermelons. Yet you exaggerate for effect to draw sympathy.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:41 PM
5

I'd laugh. That's what I do when I get funny messages like that - and I used to get plenty when I was doing internet dating. Why, how do you react to messages that are inappropriate but totally harmless?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 04:02 PM
23

I am sure that giving birth is really painful. Actually it varies greatly. Some women give birth with only mild discomfort while some need the most advanced pain management medical science can provide. The positioning of childbirth as "the most painful experience in the world" is nothing to do with childbirth, it's to do with power. It's about creating a narrative in which women suffer the most (childbirth) and do the most demanding jobs (raising children) and therefore deserve the most consider…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:57 AM
4

And how would you stop it from happening? Bachelors are one of the smallest and least powerful shares of the vote.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:49 AM
3

Hi, professional designer here. If someone can point me to the originals we want to parody I'll be happy to make print ready artwork.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 09:49 PM
0

I'm all for equality and taking male rape seriously No you are not. In the UK the law doesn't even allow women to be prosecuted for rape; it's impossible by definition which is one of the reasons for the disparity you found in the figures. It's grotesquely offensive to male rape victims to claim you take their violation seriously while erasing them from your statistics and supporting laws which deny them even the right to name their crime in court.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 07:32 PM
2

As I said earlier, the CDC doesn't classify women raping men as rape, so you need to look at the numbers not the conclusions drawn from them in the summaries. Please look at the tables on pages 18 and 19 of the full report. You'll see in the 12 month stats that an estimated 1,270,000 women were raped while 1,267,000 men were made to penetrate. The numbers are almost identical. Also, could you please answer my earlier question regarding your beliefs about rape? I'll repeat it here for convenience…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 04:17 PM
1

Again: do you actually believe that there are three million rapes a year in the US despite the number of reports being slightly less than 90,000? That alone should tell you that there is a very serious discrepancy in the figures. If you actually read the NISVS, you'll find that the number of men being raped is so low because the CDC don't believe men can be raped by women - a fact which should make any reasonable person very concerned indeed right away. But they do record a figure for the number…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 03:26 PM
0

The "1 in 5" figure has been so extensively debunked that it's actually a little surprising to see someone quoting it these days. Just out of interest, do you actually believe that over a woman's lifetime there are three million rapes a year in the US? The same US where there are about 90,000 rapes reported per year? Oh and you might want to read the CDC's report on IPV, which is the one with their actual statistics (there are no statistics which show that 1 in 5 women have been raped).
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:55 PM
1

You realise that is partially because most male sexual assaults are carried out by other men, right? Actually the available data from organisations like the CDC shows that women rape men about as frequently as men rape women, which they categorize as "made to penetrate". Which leaves you needing to explain why it's okay not to call raping men rape.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:31 PM
1

For those asking what the connection between the BBC and this discrimination is: the BBC is the official UK government media outlet which is owned by the UK government, overseen by it and which has its content regulated by it. If you listen to the BBC you are listening to the UK government by definition. There is no separation between the two.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 01:53 PM
1

The sentence they actually receive in practice is another matter but that they aren't usually charged with an offence called "rape" is largely a semantic issue, as the sentencing available for what they are charged with is the same. No, it's not. If you create a special group who have automatic immunity from prosecution for serious crimes, you make it far less likely that members of that group will be prosecuted for less serious crimes too. And this is exactly what we find in Britain: despite th…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 01:49 PM
4

Yeah it's only got 2.2 billion adherents now. Don't hold your breath.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 12:06 PM
81

Little girls already have a full-time, non stop training course every day of the week built into adverts, tv shows and magazines, teaching them that men are stupid, incompetent and laughable in every way and should only be valued according to their utility to women.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 10:48 PM
1

Ideas have no ears. You can't attack them or criticize them, or have a discussion with them. And she didn't say islam is a bad idea, she says mainstream muslims condone mass murder. In what way is that not a claim that Islamic people are bad as a group?
/r/MensRights18/04/14 07:49 PM
1

I'm talking about it but I'm not claiming to insult it. You still didn't explain how you communicate with an ideology and not the person.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 05:43 PM
1

You didn't explain how you communicate with an ideology and not the person.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 04:50 PM
1

You can't insult an ideology because ideologies have no ears. You also can't dissuade an ideology, change an ideology's mind, intrigue an ideology, inform an ideology or engage with an ideology. You can only do those things with people; nobody actually talks to an ideology. Claiming you are communicating with the ideology is patently false and nothing more than an attempt to absolve those who hate of responsibility.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 04:21 PM
0

Hate is hate, whether it's because of skin colour or religious beliefs. The problem is not the person being hated, it's the person doing the hating.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:59 PM
6

The COTWA website is very similar to some of the white supremacist websites on the internet. You have done nothing that a reasonable person would find fault or offense with, so they have to link you conceptually to groups who have.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:55 PM
-4

That's like saying you don't hate black people, you're just extremely critical of their skin.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:40 PM
1

she believes her right to speech has been infringed upon She doesn't have a "right" to stand in front of a crowd including Muslims who have paid for her presence and to make abusive, defamatory statements about Muslims.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:35 PM
1

Talking about Hirsi Ali as if she's inexplicably been denied a fundamental human right is ludicrous. What's happened is that an organisation which includes Muslims is declining to host a speaker who openly hates and slanders Muslims.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:34 PM
3

You're conflating the right to speak with the right to acquire honorary degrees. They're not even remotely related; she has a right to speak which no one has denied her, but receiving an honorary degree is a courtesy and rightly dependent on opinion.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 02:21 PM
4

What she has done is reacted to a denial of her right to speech. She's an international writer, author, speaker and activist. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that Hirsi Ali has been denied the right to speak, in fact she earns an excellent living doing it.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 01:16 PM
5

Hirsi Ali finds a highly compatible partner in feminism. She's a highly outspoken "critic" of Islam and Muslims, if you can call an ex-muslim claiming that mainstream muslims approve of mass murder "criticism". And that's fine. I'm as happy for her to air her views as Dawkins or Craig. But the thing about airing views in public is that if you want to be controversial, you have to accept that there will be a reaction and that the people who react have just as much right to speak as you. Hirsi Ali…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 11:45 AM
11

She's a woman. Everyone knows that women are naturally nurturing and caring, she your claim that she could have intended to harm the child must be false.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 03:14 PM
1

Men don't initiate slut-shaming because they benefit directly from women being sluts and they directly participate in that process.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:26 AM
5

I absolutely love this story. A highly-paid "consultant" whose job it is to find discrimination against women comes to the UK and... finds discrimination against women. The consultant is a woman and there is no corresponding highly paid consultant to look for discrimination against men, and the conclusion from this is that men have unfair advantages and protections. Matthew Hopkins would be so proud of this woman's methods.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:00 AM
4

When I see my daughter naked, I don't think about sex. Because she's my daughter. Do you think about sex when you see pictures of naked children? Is that what you're telling us? That you're aroused by naked children? If like me you're not, why would you object to someone taking pictures of their kids naked?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:03 PM
6

There is nothing weird about being naked or about seeing your children naked.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:59 PM
12

If the child is yours and you are able to pay, yes you will almost certainly have to pay child support if the child is born. While it would be good to have more options to offer you, according to your account you were not tricked into this or deceived in any way. Saying that you don't want to be a father while physically doing the one thing that will make you a father is redundant. The girl may well be all that you say and more. But you chose to have unprotected sex with her despite knowing what…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 11:17 AM
1

This has nothing to do with sexism, discrimination or prejudice. It's about money. A lot of money. Twenty years ago the programming and home gaming industries were nothing, just hobbies with no real money in them. Now they're multi-billion dollar industries. A certain group of women has seen all that money and influence and decided they want it. But they don't want to build it up from scratch, they want to be given it for free, no hard work required. Don't believe me? Quick quiz: Question 1: Are…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 09:43 AM
3

People don't use products because of their names, they use them because of what they do. Republicans in the US are not primarily interested in creating a republic. Democrats are not primarily concerned with creating a democracy. Wild Turkey isn't made of turkeys. Miller beer is not made by or for millers. All you have to do is pick up and look at one of these products and you'll know this. That's what people do: they check they're right. Someone who knew nothing about men's rights would see the …
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:50 PM
3

So call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a gender equality advocate. Call yourself Schlomo The Magical Clown. Call yourself whatever you like. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself. The whole point of men's rights is that we live in a world where for many people including yourself the idea of a man having rights is framed as automatically meaning domination over women. When we can talk about our rights without someone immediately shouting that it's not fair to women's we'…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:23 PM
1

That would be highly illegal. Yet you've already claimed to be able to recognize porn addiction and the damage you allege that it causes. Yes, offering such a diagnosis for an unrecognized, completely fake condition like porn addiction would be illegal. That's my point: there is no such condition. So either you are not a mental health professional, because you claim to be able to diagnose a completely fake condition, or you're breaking the law. You can't have it any other way. My money is on the…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 12:30 AM
1

You should work on the problems which cause the behavior. That's how you treat the behavior, not by selling fake treatments for fake conditions. I'm sorry but I really don't believe you're a mental health professional. I suspect you're some kind of unregistered counselor peddling cures for fake conditions you found on the internet. You certainly can't be APA registered.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 09:59 PM
1

Thanks but that's not the study and the full text is password protected,
/r/MensRights11/04/14 09:31 PM
1

I am a mental health professional No, you're a salesman selling nofap. There is no diagnosis of pornography addiction in the DSM. There never has been and there never will be because it doesn't exist. If you're a mental health professional who claims to diagnose and treat pornography addiction then you are not using the DSM which makes you, politely, a fucking quack. I also know that there is overwhelming evidence that porn can be harmful. Yet you can't present any and the APA doesn't even accep…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 09:27 PM
7

Exactly. It's not about health, it's about control.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 07:43 PM
0

You claim my evidence based research is wrong, prove it. I can't, because I'm unable to find a copy of your "evidence based research" and it's not referenced, discussed or cited anywhere credible. I've asked you to provide this "evidence" and you've refused.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 07:30 PM
0

A small risk group is still a group A small group of people is allergic to peanuts. That does not mean the unqualified statement, "peanuts are harmful" is true. I specifically refer to it as addictive like behavior because there is no formal "addiction" diagnosis. Food addiction isn't recognized either, but the brain pathways show addiction none the less. The same way the brain pathways of the reward system, as triggered by pornography, mirror that of substance addiction. No they do not. Porn ad…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 07:27 PM
0

do your own damn scholarly research. It's your claim. It's up to you to back it up not me. I'm open to reading any evidence you present, but you're refusing to present anything and telling me to find it myself. You provide me with a scholarly article refuting my claims I don't have to, OP did.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 07:18 PM
-7

Yawn. Another claim, more avoidance. I'm looking for a credible source here and the only one you claim is credible is mysteriously unavailable and not referenced anywhere reliable. Is this all you have?
/r/MensRights11/04/14 05:00 PM
-6

You didn't read that study did you?Even the abstract says that the at risk group is small, which flatly contradicts your claim that porn is harmful. There is no such thing as porn addiction. It is not a medical condition. That's it.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:57 PM
-6

You guys are full of excuses. Let's see the credible sources which support your claims.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:48 PM
-6

Sorry I can't hear you over the incredible health benefits I've gained by not enjoying myself for several minutes.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:47 PM
-7

Unfortunately I can't find a copy of the study and the only texts citing it are anti-porn crusade sites. I hate to nitpick but I did ask for a credible source.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:41 PM
-8

Well that's put this issue to bed. A self-conducted non reviewed study with no control group and a sample size of one. We don't need to look any further. I'm a convert, sign me up for the nofap cult, I'm going full retard.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:35 PM
-2

Then let's see the science. We're all waiting, put up or shut up.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:33 PM
-1

Come on now, that's not a source, it's just another claim, you guys are full of them. Let's have some actual science to compare to all this science.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:24 PM
-3

So you're saying that the study in question is completely wrong. We all appreciate your long list of the many dangers of enjoying looking at naked people, but I'm sure we'd all love to see a credible source which contradicts the OP. And no, nofap is not a credible source.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 04:02 PM
0

Not at all. Thanks!
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:44 PM
3

Actually in most places, a proportionate response to grabbing someone's shirt to put more force into your attack we be to punch her full in the face. His response was excellent and almost certainly well below the level of force he could legally have used.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:34 PM
3

Can you explain why you feel he needs to address his verbal behaviour but you don't even comment on hers?
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:33 PM
1

I've never seen solid evidence that this is the case but it's not difficult to make a compelling hypothesis that there might be. I don't think any seriously questions the link between hatred of a whole group and actions against that group. In particular, people who believe that all members of a target group are different from them will typically not accord those members the rights and protections they claim for their own. I was certainly sexually abused by my mother and indirectly by my father a…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:28 PM
0

I didn't say it would make everyone into model citizens, nor did I say that they wouldn't change their behavior. So which is it? If the behaviour which you claim reflects badly on us won't stop and those doing it won't be changed, what exactly are you calling for? You are acting in the problem minority - your comments are saturated with derision and your tone is to offend. Please reconsider this - neither of them help our mutual cause. Because what you seem to be calling for and what you're doin…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:22 PM
-2

Oh so it will make everyone into model citizens after all? What a remarkable reversal of your previous position.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:02 PM
-5

I think we have to be realistic about this. There are a lot of video games out there which feature female characters with large breasts, medium breasts and sometimes small breasts, fighting, being fought, saving other characters and being saved by them, and sometimes doing everything or possibly nothing. The only way to fight this rampant misogyny is to ensure a new wave of female software developers are mobilized to battle the scourge. We're saving society here. You should be glad.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:01 PM
-1

Well if it's not going to stop the behaviour which you say reflects badly on us then how will it change perception? Those who are going to be civil are already civil and you admit yourself that the problem minority won't change their behaviour because of it.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:56 PM
-2

And that will make everyone here into model citizens, will it?
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:37 PM
-2

No problem. Just let me know how I'm supposed to change the actions of people I've never met and who you won't identify and I'll get right on it.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:22 PM
0

Men's Human Rights Advocate.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:20 PM
2

I've never been that that sub before. It really is extraordinary.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:01 PM
16

Doormen get the same treatment for the same reasons. And as this case shows, drunk girls can get really, really offended when you turn them down.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 06:55 AM
5

As pointed out on that forum, this is a very common story: Feminist becomes moderator Feminist immediately threatens any user who criticizes feminism or feminists. The only thing I'd add to that thread is to note that this was the feminist mod's FIRST action as a new mod. Nothing else was discussed, considered or done, that was job one.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:16 PM
-2

Tumblr is a blogging platform - it allows you to build lists of text and image content which people can then read. I'm sure you know what twitter is! You can put ads on your Tumblr blog which give you a very small payment every time someone views or clicks them. What he's suggesting is that you should screen capture the horrible things she says, then put the resulting images on a tumblr blog and tweet the tumblr posts. Lots of people would then look at your tumblr, gaining you ad money. 4chan an…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 09:08 AM
29

This is fucked up due to gender expectations and is something modern feminists are trying to alleviate Sorry but you're wrong. NOW and other women's groups actively oppose presumptive joint custody, also known as "shared parenting": http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html These laws were passed during an era known as first-wave Then why are current feminists (which wave are you guys on now?) not opposing them? Alimony these days are now gender-neutral but statistically go to women By a factor o…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 04:13 PM
10

Looking over the front page all I ever see is "Female does X to male. Gets away with it!" If we don't acknowledge that men are treated unfairly, if we never discuss or examine it, on what basis do we call for change? And if we never show anyone else that we are treated unfairly, how will they choose to support our call for change? You're saying to Rosa Parks, "stop sitting in the wrong seat and go do something about segregation!". She was doing something. She was deliberately sitting in the wron…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 11:02 PM
1

On the other hand, the article is very clearly biased. It starts from the assumption that everything should be equal, and if it's not, the world is unfair. Been there, done that. When I was younger I was the creative director at a successful design agency. I got an official approach, via HR, from the four girls on my team, asking me to work fewer hours and produce less quality work because I was "making them look bad". Yes, really!
/r/MensRights07/04/14 04:02 PM
0

If anyone's interested in this subject, I recommend the book Tampa. It's fiction and it's hardly Dostoyevsky, but it does a good job of showing how much further than simple sex the abuse goes in these cases. How does the rapists keep the victim from telling their parents? How do they arrange the encounters themselkves? How are the victims coerced? All these require ongoing, extremely damaging control and manipulation which causes long term trauma arguably worse than the sexual acts themeselves.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:06 PM
8

No, never.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 11:51 AM
6

Wrong. They are a sanctioned news outlet governed by state oversight which prevents them engaging in certain types of speech, like censoring specific groups.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:01 AM
9

Well, she's an intelligent woman who knows the law. Why wouldn't she cry rape for personal gain? It's not like there are any realistic penalties for doing it and the benefits are enormous.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 03:36 PM
5

what the hell is the NCPCC doing They're making adverts. Tens of millions of pounds worth of adverts. They don't actually do anything else that I know of.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 02:03 PM
7

ShitRedditSays, an extremists feminist sub. Don't link to them, it causes major problems.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:46 AM
2

You do know that circumcision is real, don't you? The women saying they like cut cocks best, they're expressing a preference for a real thing that really causes harm, do you know that?
/r/MensRights03/04/14 03:46 PM
2

So cutting off someone's lips with a pair of scissors doesn't cause harm now? Well well.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 03:40 PM
5

I really like women with black eyes and broken teeth. Freshly assaulted is best, preferably with a bat or a kuckle duster. I like it best when they're crying and shaking in fear and it's a big bonus if they actually piss themselves in terror when they see me. Disfigured for life is best; if the attacker has cut off her nose, ears and lips with a pair of scissors that's great. Of course, I would never assault a woman myself; someone else should do it. And the fact that I really enjoy the results …
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:26 AM
26

prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV UTIs are treated with antibiotics, not amputation. 4 out of 5 men diagnosed with penile cancer are over 55. Babies have no risk of sexually transmitted infections. None of these are arguments for infant circumcision.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 07:39 PM
5

The author's making a fundamental mistake - he's seeing the opposition as action when in fact it is reaction. Actions have motives and rationales, reactions often don't which is why we often call them knee-jerk or instinctive. So I think it's a mistake to imagine that feminists are acting thoughtfully - I don't think they are. They're reacting to something unexpected: men discussing what they should do together. A large majority of our society, mostly women but some men included, measures a man …
/r/MensRights02/04/14 08:39 AM
8

I see she's also lost custody of her daughter, which sounds reasonable under the circumstances. Hopefully the head teacher will now be encouraged to seek damages for libel and/or slander as appropriate, if only to cover his costs. But this is a clear indicator of just why there are so few men in the teaching profession and the extreme bias they face.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 09:38 AM
22

Prevention is part of medicine too, in fact it's one of the most important parts - like vaccination. Condoms prevent a wide range of conditions including pregnancy.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 08:51 AM
1

Actually taking pictures of people in public is perfectly legal and safe virtually everywhere. That's why you need to attach negative consequences to it like "being an asshole" and "being a creep" for your argument to work - there actually aren't any negative consequences at all for either side. In reality, this is an attractive woman who's comfortable with her body, taking part in a protest. She's pleased to be seen and positive about being seen. I'm a photographer who is comfortable seeing and…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 08:41 AM
4

Ah I see! Thanks for filling out the details! Out of interest, what do you think of the failure of the Nazi atomic bomb project? It's always struck me as odd that a physicist of Heisenberg's quality would make such basic errors in the calculations. Almost as if he didn't make them by accident? Or is that going too far?
/r/MensRights01/04/14 08:21 AM
10

No he was pretty pacifist. He wrote a letter to the president warning him of the possibility of nuclear weapons and that german physicists were more than capable of developing them, and was horrified and very angry when the president took this to mean they should build their own. He was a peaceful guy but quite naive.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 07:01 AM
1

you'd be acting like an asshole. you know that you'd be acting like an asshole you are an asshole with zero regard for the woman's feelings an inconsiderate, deliberately creepy, and passive-aggressive asshole. Is this it? Is this all you have, and does this pass in your circles for reasoned argument? It's nothing but name calling and shaming tactics. I've searched your post end to end and there's not a single actual idea I can respond to. You're shrieking that if I take pictures of a woman in p…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:56 AM
3

Not seeing how this is "privatizing" the legal system. Denying fair access unless you can pay for it is privatization by definition.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 04:52 PM
6

Probably downvotes because he's describing a country where barely 2% of the population is Muslim as "Islamified".
/r/MensRights31/03/14 08:55 AM
1

It's not irrational to join the side you think will win. It's cowardly, yes, and it's really, really bad when they don't win. But it's rational if you you believe that you will receive the benefits of being accepted by those with resources to share.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 08:54 AM
9

This is a problem, but not the problem they think. The problem is not that people have to represent themselves, the problem is that it's difficult for people to represent themselves. It shouldn't be. The government and legal profession have laboured ceaselessly to ensure that justice is totally inaccessible without a lawyer. By deliberately creating a system entirely composed of riddles, word mazes and obfuscations requiring years of training to even approach, they've created obscene wealth for …
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:32 AM
3

Not unless you also think that straight men are just gay men who only ever experiment, and gay men are straight men who only ever experiment, no.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 07:35 PM
1

Ha! Ha! Well it varies. Sexuality is pretty fluid. I'm predominantly straight - I'm married to a woman - but my same sex attraction varies from very strong to not very much at all. I've dated women almost exclusively and had a lot of fun with men, but I kniw several men who are the other way round and identify as primarily gay.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 07:29 PM
6

There's a bisexual movement? Where are they moving to? I'm pretty happy being bisexual where I am and everyone around me seems fine with it too. Hope this movement isn't compulsory.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 02:14 PM
3

Their aims and methods - removal of due process for men accused of crimes against women and summary justice based on hearsay - match the aims and methods of large numbers of progressive feminists in universities in western countries, so it's no stretch to suggest a link.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 11:16 AM
-1

. I don't think it's right to take pictures of unconsenting people in public - whatever gender or attire. Well you're simply wrong - there's no expectation of privacy in public, whether you're naked or not. That's why it's perfectly legal. As are you if you are hypercritical enough to say this but then not see the consequence of taking sexually charged pictures of people who are trying to protest is not being a pervert or a creeper. Taking pictures in public doesn't make me a creeper. It might m…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 10:25 PM
3

But why go out of your way to maximize the consequences suffered by someone? Oh, does looking at someone cause suffering now? Does being photographed? Does other people seeing those photographs? Of course not. That's superbly silly.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 10:10 PM
0

I would probably take pictures of you taking pictures of these women. I would post them on the internet and similarly without your permission on various websites about creepers as well as social networks. Congratulations on proving my point, and the point of this sub. A woman goes naked in public and wants to be seen. But if a man does see, you brand him a "creeper" and a "pervert". That's not my problem. I'm not afraid of you or your threats. It's a problem for you though, because you're trying…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 09:57 PM
15

Well, it's true that a woman being naked in public is not asking to be fucked. Totally fair. Showing her breasts is totally okay and not an invitation to sex. But I'm gonna look. Hell I'm gonna stare. And stare and keep staring. Then I'm gonna get my camera, the huge professional one because I'm a professional photographer, and I'm going to take pictures of you. Lots of them, high definition, huge megapixels. And I'll probably post them on the internet. And I won't ask for your permission or be …
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:47 PM
8

Yeah I much prefer circumcised girls. Girls with intact clits just smell, you know? And they look really weird too. It's my preference, I just want a girl who's been cut when she's a baby, it's not my fault. Anyway I'm going to make sure my daughters get cut. It's not a big deal, snip snip. They'll thank me really.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:35 PM
1

HA! HA! HA! "Misquoted". I love it! actually did my research and she doesn't say this, a character in her book does French said the book was "about women's lives today" and this is absolutely her view (and the view of many prominent feminists) being voiced by a character she wrote. She is also not universally respected or liked in the feminist community Then why do they buy hundreds of thousands of copies of her books and pay her so much money to speak to them in lectures they flock to? This is …
/r/MensRights28/03/14 09:39 AM
1

How about you prove there is no disagreement between the 1970s sex negative feminists you are quoting and the sex positive feminists we are dealing with. I didn't make that claim. In fact I've given you examples which prove that we are not only dealing with "sex positive feminists".
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:15 AM
1

then provide the official statement rejecting the above quotes.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:07 AM
-1

Okay, then simply tell us who the governing body of feminism is and where its headquarters are, then provide the official statement rejecting the above quotes. If I just made up the idea that none of these exist then it should be very easy to prove.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:02 AM
0

you are clearly making it up as you go along Okay, then simply tell us who the governing body of feminism is and where its headquarters are, then provide the official statement rejecting the above quotes. If I just made up the idea that none of these exist then it should be very easy to prove. In reality, it's all too easy to find feminists fighting to remove due process for men accused of rape in universities and who are absolutely against prostitution, for example. Are those actions sex positi…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:56 AM
0

Yet there are still women who say that men should be culled, twitter hashtags like #killallmen and anti-men facebook hate groups. There are plenty of feminists who agree with the sentiments above and plenty who are possibly even more extreme like Germaine Greer who says publicly that fathers kissing their daughters goodnight is abuse. "3rd Wave Feminism" is not a group or an organisation. It has no headquarters and no governing body. There is no official statement rejecting the above quotes. It'…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:41 AM
0

there isn't any such thing as an official position that women shouldn't have to take any precautions. There isn't an official position that they should either because feminism has no "official positions". There's no governing body and no statements of intent or vision, so there can be no official policy.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:36 AM
1

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French It's easy to claim that "Not All Feminists Are Like That" because feminists are not a homogenous group - there will be feminists w…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:34 AM
0

They are not saying women should have to take no precautions whatsoever. Feminists themselves are starting to publish good situational awareness advice, which is far better than the lists of don'ts that they are replacing. Well, it's a mixed bag - some are actively promoting awareness, some are saying women should not have to take any precautions. It's easy to find examples of both. We do understand what we're arguing against: a huge, powerful movement which is extremely disorganised, making it …
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:19 AM
1

Yeah it's a rough estimate really. But it's applied by governments and health professionals as a highly public measure of health in their campaigns so it's not really the public who have a problem.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:46 AM
8

It's an overly simplistic measure which doesn't take build into account. At six foot three and over 100 kilos a BMI calculator shows that I'm borderline obese. But in reality my body fat is about 12%, I do strenuous exercise six days as week and my overall fitness is very high. BMI is just a blunt tool. It's not precise enough to be really useful.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:59 PM
181

This really is grotesque. For anyone who's not in the UK, the NSPCC (the organisation who arranged this stunt) are a children's charity whose main area of business - spending millions of pounds a year - is making adverts portraying men and men only as violent, abusive predators attacking women and children. Yes, that's right. The leading player in creating child abuse hysteria is doing publicity stunts to show that child abuse hysteria harms children. This is an absolute fucking disgrace.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:46 PM
27

As someone who has worked in a very good restaurant, you didn't handle that very well. You should have immediately spoken to the maitre'd - the person responsible for the front of house staff - and explained the server's behavior. The maitre'd would be absolutely horrified to hear any such thing and you'd find a hefty chunk taken off your bill.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 08:19 PM
1

It's an interesting contrast to society's usual intellectual diet, and while I'd certainly read it I can't say from that excerpt that I'd agree all that much. Yes, men are pushed to specialize in the areas in which they are of the most utility, but not by women alone. And women suffer the same fate. In fact women are even less happy than men by most measures. Thank you for the recommendation - I firmly believe that being open and enterperising in what we read and consider is the route to ideas w…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 08:08 AM
23

This is quite interesting: If I didn't believe in equality for men and women, why do you assume that would mean I hated women specifically? Wouldn't it be just as likely that I hate men or both sexes? Why do you jump to assuming inequality must mean hatred of women?
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:55 PM
29

They're not college kids, they're people who have been given a column by a major national newspaper to promote their views. And their view, as detailed in the tweets, and as many feminists have said before them, is that men today should be held back and discriminated against in revenge for wrongs in the past which they neither had anything to do with nor even condone.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:45 PM
37

Did you read the tweets in question? That might give you a different view.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:23 PM
11

Remember: this legislation is only bizarre and incomprehensible if you believe that the aim of sexual assault laws is to give people protection from sexual assault. If you accept that they are often about giving women power to destroy men with impunity, they make perfect sense.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:10 PM
7

Just wanted to check that the author remembered to include the ludicrous "1 in 5" and "97%" statistics. No one except feminists actually believes these figures and it really does a great deal to make sure non one believes anything else they say.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 01:36 PM
131

Feminism: retribution against men who have done no wrong, carried out by those against whom no wrong has been committed.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 01:30 PM
12

I think this is part of a bigger picture too. If you read r/askmen or r/relationship threads you'll find it's very common for women not just to immediately claim status as a woman but to also claim status as a victim: their initial post will say that they're an abuse survivor, mental health problems, rape victim etc etc. The motivation for all these is I think simple: to garner sympathy before talking about the actual issue, so that people get onside and are reluctant to criticize.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:25 AM
5

And beautifully handled. /u/saint2e, it makes me proud to be in a group which can handle hate like that.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:57 AM
7

Correct. But not all women, just feminists. It's the inevitable result of gaining power. "Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship ... The object of power is power."
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:17 AM
3

My thought exactly. If he's guilty, bury him. Until then I'll treat him as innocent.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 08:00 PM
3

Never gonna happen. Look at the women's aspirational icons in modern culture. 'Lean In', they say, like Sheryl Sandberg - CEO of a company created by a man, built by a man and made a success by a man. I am totally in favor of women taking ownership. I'm just not in favor of them taking ownership of stuff men built then saying it's theirs. So yes, let's have women take responsibility for their own problems. Then right afterwards, we can talk about how they can have their companies, organizations …
/r/MensRights20/03/14 07:57 AM
1

Thanks for your time.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:54 PM
1

I am arguing no such thing Yet in your own words: There is only one person who knows with certainty (who the father is) and it is entirely possible she didn't want him around because at the end of the day he was going to blow a gasket upon finding out he isn't the father. This was your argument for allowing mothers to exclude men from the delivery room: to prevent those men from finding out that they were victims of paternity fraud. Men do not have parental rights until they are parents Yet men …
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:47 PM
0

And you're an aggressive, abusive atheist directly proving my point that there are a lot of aggressive, abusive atheists.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:07 PM
0

I'm not saying anything about black or jewish people; I'm talking about how aggressive and abusive some atheists are - a point you immediately proved.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:57 PM
1

So now you're arguing that women should be allowed to strip men of their parental rights to make it easier for those women to commit paternity fraud? That is not equal treatment under the law. In fact it's an utterly bizarre argument.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:31 PM
-1

Yes, exactly: you can't even discuss a simple issue of internet trolls without immediately resorting to verbal abuse. I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised that people who are so quick to begin abusing and attacking a complete stranger would soon resort to more serious threats.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:26 PM
1

What you are implying is the very definition of patriarchy that a man, by dint of being a man, has some GOD-GIVEN right. No, I'm saying that that a man, by dint of being a child's father, has the right of access to that child. And that the child, by dint of being a child,has a right to access to its father. No man should have to negotiate whether he will have access to his future children, nor should they have to negotiate access to their father. Those should be rights which all have equally; mo…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:34 PM
2

Fortunately, the UK already has good anti-trolling laws which should deal with this effectively.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:53 AM
1

NO man in the USA has the "right to be at the birth of his child". And that doesn't strike you as problematic at all?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:44 AM
-1

Of the groups I've dealt with, atheists are by far the most violent and dangerous. Over the years I've had numerous threats of violence, had my email and forum accounts hacked, been sent death threats, been told that I would be hunted down, that my home was being watched and that my family were being followed. They're one of the few groups who have attempted to take their aggression into the real world, confronting me in person as well as pursuing and threatening me online. That's how I develope…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:43 AM
1

You're really going to force her to let someone in the room while she's naked and going through a medical procedure, just so that someone can see their kid an hour earlier? Have you even thought about how unethical that is? It's not unethical at all. If you have a baby, people are going to see you naked. Including the medical staff and someone who has almost certainly done a lot more than see you naked, the baby's father. That's inevitable. And the result of allowing one person to simply "switch…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:39 AM
-5

This is a hugely important ruling. It enshrines in law the end game of anti-male campaigners: a woman's feelings, her subjective temporary inclination, automatically overrides and invalidates even a mans right to be at the birth of his child. If we were to reverse this, it would rightly be seen as unacceptable. Imagine we lobbied for any man to be able to take his child from its mother and just decide that she should not be allowed to see or hold her child, without stating any reason beyond simp…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 10:00 PM
11

I'm really sorry to hear that. Assault can be terribly traumatic, especially when the victim wasn't able to adequately defend themselves. I really hope he can learn to live with it.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:24 PM
6

Then why were they not photographed and shamed, if this is not a gender issue?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:22 PM
4

There are still a lot of meatheads out there who like to try to look "manly". They're the same men who say things like, a woman cannot hurt a man if she hits him.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:21 PM
7

I'd bet there were women there, yet somehow it escaped your notice that none of them are in this collection. That in itself sows you are wrong and eloquently demonstrates that you can't even see your own bias.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:12 PM
54

The utterly terrifying thing about this is that all the discussion on sentencing surrounds the rapist's feelings and gives them primary consideration. The fact that she was embarrassed about it is actually given as a reason to reduce her sentence. The boys feelings, and the damage caused to him, are not even mentioned let alone actually considered. It's utterly appalling.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:08 PM
10

Of course we all know this is not true, in fact the reddit creepshots sub was banned for being misogynistic. This alone would prove you wrong, but the most obvious evidence is in the OP's article: how many women were included in this supposedly ungendered collection?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:00 PM
7

All feminists don't want to bash men and all feminists don't think men shouldn't have equal rights on the things they are lacking them at the moment. A feminist is by definition a person who believes that men are privileged or advantaged in ways they do not deserve. Someone who believes that cannot and will not fight for equal rights for men; it's literally impossible like a person who says, "everyone should have equal rights, even coons and niggers, who as we all know smoke reefer and rape whit…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 07:52 PM
22

If you must engage in high risk activities, make sure your accounts are registered to email accounts with no personal information in them, and use an anonymizer if the site you're on records IP data. Have a honeypot account and a clean account: use the honeypot to attract the lunatics and only use the clean account to post innocuous stuff so you'll be able to use it to check if the honeypot gets banned or shadowbanned. If possible have a second clean account registered to a friend's dead end ema…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 07:30 PM
12

That's like saying black people shouldn't talk about white supremacists or criticize them. It's a men's rights issue because those people in the article don't want men to have equal rights.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 07:02 PM
2

If she's competent to stand trial she's competent to understand what she did, by definition.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 03:20 PM
0

It's very difficult to construe reporting facts about her as harassment.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 08:19 PM
-1

In what way is that doxxing? As far as I can see that's a public figure with public views.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 07:57 PM
-2

I'm not so sure this qualifies as doxxing; the person in question wasn't anonymous, in fact she's a highly public figure, and the incidents listed seem to be public knowledge too.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 07:56 PM
0

It's very common for feminists to be in favour of sexual relationships with children. Harriet Harman had long standing ties to an organization trying to make it legal, Germaine Greer published a pornohrqohic book of nude photos of underage boys.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 05:37 PM
33

Wt least one of the Reddit admins has known ties to SRS and extreme feminist groups, and is thought to post on SRS under an alt account. That's the reason SRS and other groups can continually break major Reddit rules regarding things like doxxing with impunity. At a guess I'd say that this admin got involved through SRS and enacted the site ban.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 09:09 AM
5

One in seven of the 1.5 million or so females students in the UK would mean about 55,000 sexual assaults per year on female students on campuses. So how does that fit with the real figures? Well, it doesn't. But there are about 55,000 sex crimes a year in England and Wales in total. So this claim would mean that all of them occur to women in universities. Likely?
/r/MensRights15/03/14 08:35 AM
3

She's surprised because feminists claim to be better than other people and to be able to point out all their flaws. If it turned out that feminists were pointing out the flaws in everyone else's working environments yet their own were hellish, they'd be disgusting whining hypocrites, wouldn't they?
/r/MensRights15/03/14 08:18 AM
1

That's an interesting idea, I'd be interested to hear if someone who's knowledgeable about US law can confirm. Here in the UK we have a crucially important legal concept called the eggshell skull principle. It simply means you take your victim as you find them: if a blow which would not harm a normal person, like tapping them on the head, kills them then you are guilty of manslaughter or murder. This is common sense because otherwise it would be possible, for example, to stab someone then defend…
/r/MensRights15/03/14 07:56 AM
5

That's nothing! If you burn your husband alive while he's asleep, they'll give you an award!
/r/MensRights14/03/14 09:03 PM
9

The most common defense of this I've seen (yes, anti MRAs actually defend the police over this) is that the police officers were justified in killing him because he failed to produce ID. In reality, the legislation states that the police may only demand ID if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in illegal activity. But that's exactly why this is a men's rights issue: the police automatically assumed that the man was involved in illegal activity because he was male and dome…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:53 PM
17

She's pleased that men are judged because she's a revolting fat old mess who couldn't score in a bucket of cocks. Oh no! I'm not allowed to say that, am I? Yet she's happy that "ugly" men are judged on their looks. Well if it's good enough for us, its good enough for you, you flabby sexless gutbucket.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:04 PM
-1

False equivalence: you do not have any rights regarding his foreskin. The father of a child has rights regarding his baby. You're deliberately demanding that men be excluded from having legal standing. You cannot even pretend you want equality.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:29 PM
-2

Only those that the mom not want to witness the birth. So any father who the mother excludes from the labour room, even maliciously to hurt him, must be abusive? MORE BULLSHIT. I hope my sons will be attending their kids birth. Not because they'll have legal standing Exactly. You don't want men to have legal standing. End of story, nothing more to say. You want women to have absolute power over men, allowing them to exclude the father of their children from the birth of their own child for no re…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:08 PM
-2

Well, you can't get pregnant and have kids then complain that those kids have a father who wants to see them. That's just stupid.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 02:02 PM
-3

Fetal distress can be caused by distress of mom during birth which can be caused by abusive people around her (for example the babys dad who she didn't want there). So now all fathers are abusive, necessitating giving all mothers the power to strip them of their rights? BULLSHIT. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it. That's utterly revolting. I think I found no study about how having uninvited people there during birth might effect birth outcome Because that is not…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:06 PM
2

Did she want him dead? Yes, she lied to a man with a gun that she was being sexually assaulted by a stranger. There can be no question about what the consequences of her lie would be, any reasonable person could foresee it.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:02 PM
-4

And yes, there's absolutely medical basis for increased risk and difficulties if the mother is panicking, tense, and uncomfortable. You're conflating "mother in medical distress" and "mother just wants father gone". They are not the same thing. If there is a medical issue to be addressed, it would be addressed by the medical staff, not the mother. They already have the ability to ask the father to leave the room, there is no medically relevant reason to hand the mother the power to strip the fat…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:01 PM
-4

Sure, fetal distress is a big problem. It can be caused by many things. If you're going to look up the studies, make sure you get relevant ones: you need to prove that the mother just suddenly deciding that the father should not be allowed to see and hold his newborn child is somehow harmful to her. Good luck, you're not going to find any but you'll have a long search.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:39 AM
1

All I am suggesting is that its hard to see her as the 'winner' in this absolutely awful situation. Why? She got what she wanted - she had a young man killed to cover her embarrassment about fucking him. Of course, she got found out, but that doesn't change the fact that she wanted him dead and she got him dead. I'm absolutely sure she considers this a big win.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 11:36 AM
2

You don't think she may have incredible regret and misery over this? You don't think this won't damage her life incredibly? She's got a life. The boy she had killed doesn't. How dare you suggest that she has been harmed in any conceivable way here. She directly caused his death. Any regret or remorse she experiences is down to her actions, actions which caused the death of a young man, and she deserves no sympathy of any kind for it.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 10:20 AM
-5

I'm a mom and I think having anyone there during birth who isn't invited by the mom is detrimal to babys wellbeing There is absolutely no medical basis for this claim, it's nothing more than extreme entitlement. You're saying you think your wishes - just what you happen to want at any moment - should totally override the father and the child's right to be together. Try reversing this and see how comfortable it feels: imagine that as soon as your baby was born, the father had the right to say, "w…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 10:16 AM
2

No, the question was are you going to teach her not to rape?
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:50 AM
0

It helped her just fine; she sentenced a man to death because she felt a little bad about spreading her legs for him. She is 100% the winner and so are other women who now know that they have the power to legally have a man killed if they're embarrassed about fucking him.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:48 AM
-2

In other words you can't show that I'm wrong - which means I'm probably right. So you're going to run away from the truth.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 10:37 PM
-2

The doctor can't do it without her consent. Of course he can. Surgeons carry out procedures without the patient's consent all the time. Patients can't demand surgeries against the surgeons wishes and force them to carry out without their consent! That's a ludicrous claim!
/r/MensRights13/03/14 10:31 PM
-3

Nonsense. The doctor decides if the c-section proceeds not the mother. If he says no, it stops.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 10:10 PM
-4

"Because I feel like it" is not a medical issue. Real medical decisions are made by doctors not mothers and that won't change if you just say it's not so.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 10:04 PM
-1

Consenting to care decisions made by a doctor is not the same as making medical decisions yourself. The point stands: if this was a medical issue it would fall to doctors not mothers.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 09:55 PM
-4

If this was a medical issue, the decision to bar fathers from the room would fall to doctors. Not mothers. Since when are mothers competent to make medical decisions about childbirth?
/r/MensRights13/03/14 09:42 PM
-5

This is a lethally dangerous ruling. What it's saying in effect is that your status a a child's father can be suspended just because a woman feels like it. Not for a medical or ethical reason, just because she says so. You lose your right to access to your child and they lose their right to access to you. This will not stop with labour. If a woman can claim a right to privacy so extreme that it removes all parental rights during labour, she will soon claim it elsewhere. And why not? It makes as …
/r/MensRights13/03/14 09:21 PM
-5

What fucking asshole would want to be in a delivery room when the woman doesn't want you there? The man whose child is being born. He doesn't stop being a father just because she says so.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 09:13 PM
3

How is the research on autism coming along? About the same as schizophrenia and anti social personality disorder, I gather: snails pace.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:29 PM
8

I think the undiagnosed conditions have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It's very popular to lay claim to a range of supposed disabilities for the same reason it's popular to claim to be transgender; it makes you different and a victim, thus deserving of attention and sympathy when otherwise you might have to earn regard and respect. The proof is very simple: line up 100 teenagers and ask them what their problems are and you'll get lots of PTSD, lots of transgender, lots of I'm a socipat…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:23 PM
4

Unless the sex is guaranteed in return for the payment, it's not really prostitution, is it?
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:11 PM
2

Oh that's not the average for families with kids - they get far, far more. That's just the money a single person gets for themselves. Unlimited travel and medical care is free and it's perfectly possible to get clothes for comparable prices to the US. I'll tell you what does cost a lot here though - mobile phones, tobacco and booze. But you're not going to see an unemployed person without a new phone, plenty of smokes and booze for the weekend. My wife used to work for a credit union serving low…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 07:36 AM
-3

i didn't question her right not to "shit and split" i questioned whether someone else had a right to witness that; which they don't. Yes, they do. The father, the medical staff and the baby all have the right to "witness it". Because that is the result of her choice to have the baby: she created the situation in which the will be a baby, medical staff and a father. Anyone not comfortable with those things should not be having a baby because they are the near-inevitable consequences of that choic…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:52 PM
0

I've got one: fewer than 58,000 husbands are under the age of 25. And no, my visiting here says nothing about what else I do. Obviously.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 09:10 PM
2

Oh really? You seem to think you know a lot about me. And which experiences/circles of mine are biasing my opinion, exactly?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:59 PM
-3

No, the mother lost the right not to shit and split when she chose to have the baby. Those are her responsibilities caused by her choices. They are NOT caused by the father or any decision of his, and it is deeply irrational and bigoted to expect him to suffer for them. Yet again you are seeking to punish the father and child for the mother's decisions.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:49 PM
7

Well of course they do. There's virtually no punishment for being caught lying about rape and big money if the lie sticks. Is anyone honestly surprised that some women have learned to target wealthy men for rape accusations?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:54 PM
0

A reasonable person should be able to understand that the presence of a ex-spouse, gf/bf can be troubling especially during childbirth. Troubling =/= medically significant. I've pointed out several times that you are conflating these two unrelated things and it's time you stopped.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:53 PM
-2

If this was genuinely a widespread problem and not an opinion piece you dug up, fathers would be barred from the delivery room all the time - but as we have already established, they are not. You are claiming that a woman objecting is the the same as a medical problem. This is false. What rights? His right to be at the birth of his child and his child's right to have its father there. And you did not answer my question: do you support the idea that a father could remove his child from the mother…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:32 PM
-3

When a mother gets upset at childbirth, she can slow down and even stop the process. I really don't know where you got this idea. Childbirth is by nature stressful and difficult but women do not have conscious control over contractions, enabling them to somehow stop the birth. In this case the feelings of the mother do carry weight and the feelings of the father do not. We're not talking about the father's "feelings". We're talking about his rights. His right to be present at the birth of his ch…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:13 PM
-2

You're joining two separate things in an extremely dangerous way: if the mother objects anything that prolongs and/or complicates the birth These are categorically not the same thing. So we cannot reasonably conclude that the mother's simple objection should overrule the father's right to be at the birth of his child. Creating a rule whereby one parent can just object, and by objecting remove the other parent's right to see their own child is totally unacceptable.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:47 PM
28

Another UK resident here, agreeing. From a practical point of view, there is little or no incentive for women in particular to get married; they can live in real comfort without ever having to work due to the huge benefits payments they qualify for automatically - averaging roughly $150 a week in American money, which is a LOT when your tax and housing is basically free. To be blunt though, in the UK the general cultural view is different to the US. Over here it's widely accepted especially amon…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:21 PM
1

I'm all for society moving more towards rehabilitation being the primary goal rather than just jailing people en masse. Of course. But as of right now there is no effective treatment or cure for extreme, sadistic personality disorders like this woman's. Since we cannot stop her from wanting to torture and kill people and animals, we cannot reasonably say that allowing her to mix with the general public is compatible with their fundamental right to not be tortured and killed.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 11:25 AM
0

Not for all medical procedures, no - only those where your presence would be a problem. In childbirth that is clearly not the case, since many fathers are in fact present.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 11:15 AM
-8

It's also a medical procedure on his child, the most important procedure of the child's life in fact. Why should the child not have the right to the love and support of its father, and the father have the right to give that love and support?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:19 AM
2

This isn't about fathers, this about a man who is no longer with a woman. He didn't stop being the child's father when he stopped being the woman's partner.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:17 AM
3

I also don't think a mother should be forced to have the kid just because the dad wants to. What? This case is about a father's right to be present at the birth of his child, not to force a mother to carry a child.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:16 AM
2

He didn't exploit it. He simply got what he wanted and didn't give what he didn't want. That doesn't fit with what she wanted and she thinks he should have to do things he doesn't want just because she says so. No dice.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:10 AM
5

This is nothing more than moving the goalposts to make it as easy as possible for the women to score and as difficult as possible for the men. Instead of judging the winner by who runs fastest, they've judged by who gets closest to an arbitrary time - only, the men's time is a near-impossible seven minutes outside the world record while the women's time is a comfortable twelve minutes outside the women's record. There is absolutely no question that this is biased in favour of the women.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 08:28 PM
2

It is impossible for a woman to be arrested or prosecuted for raping a man in the UK. The definition of the law does not allow it. It is in theory possible for a woman to be arrested and prosecuted for sexual assault but in reality less then 1% of sexual assault reports are against women.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 04:15 PM
5

It's impossible by definition for a woman to be charged with raping a man in Scotland. The crime simply does not exist.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 01:15 PM
2

Well done, great work!
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:49 AM
6

But let's not pretend like this is some huge case of discrimination/injustice. We don't have to pretend, because it very clearly is. A woman was paid three times what a man was paid for doing a worse job. If that's not discrimination then I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:48 AM
11

The woman who won it did, she pocketed three times what the winning man did despite running a far, far slower time.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:45 AM
9

It's unlikely but the overall effect is similar. This happens from time to time: a group becomes very powerful and gradually stops self-editing what they say. Before long, they simply start saying what they really think. That's fine if what they really think is moderate and progressive. But if they've only being pretending to be moderate and progressive but are actually extreme and hate-filled, saying what they really think backfires. This leads to a downward spiral: the more people turn against…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:41 AM
30

Exactly. The skit was like saying, "did you hear about the nigger who walked into a bar? He was wearing basketball clothes and raped a white woman". It doesn't matter if it looks a little like a joke. It's not funny and not acceptable.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 11:07 PM
4

For those who are wondering why this is a men's rights issue, it's very simple: law enforcement agencies have an extremely sexist approach to domestic violence and in many places have an openly stated policy of arresting men without asking whether they are at fault. That is why in this case the man was approached, threatened, arrested and killed despite not actually being involved. This is one of the key men's issues: we want to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:53 PM
4

Ummm.... make the plumber and manual labourers women? Those roles are played by men because virtually all those jobs in real life are men. David is complaining that movies reflect real life. When I see her fighting to make sure that more women work in sewage and construction I'll listen to her calls for movies to show female sewage and construction workers.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:43 AM
1

Straw man. We are not talking about six year old children, we are talking about adult women. Please stick to the facts.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 08:58 PM
1

Why stop at a six year old? Since you're using a totally fake scenario which isn't relevant, why not a newborn baby? Why not a bowl of custard? Why not a leprechaun? You very clearly have almost no experience at all in fighting, which is why you're reduced to this nonsense. But it does mean you should stop running your mouth about fighting.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 08:11 PM
1

Straw man. We are not talking about six year old children, we are talking about adult women. Please stick to the facts.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 07:48 PM
1

You are TOTALLY wrong. Injuries in real fights are not down to physical strength. They are down to who hits first and who gets lucky. This is a dangerous myth born of ignorance and sexism.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 07:39 PM
1

But it seems reasonable to think that part of the difference is that on average, women suffer more damage when punched by a man than men suffer when punched by a woman. People who have never been in a fight should not hold forth about fighting. The idea that women cannot inflict damage on men is surprisingly persistent and utter bullshit. Get this straight: it does not matter who you are, if you get sucker punched or taken by surprise, no matter who by, you will go down. Stop watching those god …
/r/MensRights08/03/14 05:11 PM
0

That's a great point. You're right of course with one small modification. The aim of feminists' push on rape is not for you to know if you have committed rape, it's for you to be told if you have committed rape. Remember, feminism is fundamentally a two class system: in sex they claim there is as class who must be controlled (men) and a class who have the wisdom and insight to control them (women). Women, they say, must be given total and unconditional control of all aspects of sex and reproduct…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 04:31 PM
6

Exactly. I've just been told by one of their posters that I'm foolish not to recognize a potential ally in someone who says they hate us and who participates in a hate sub which exists to oppose us.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:54 PM
4

How can someone who openly hates us and opposes us from an organized hate sub possibly be an ally? There is no failure in not accepting that.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:51 PM
0

Science, as a general rule of thumb, teaches to not believe things without evidence. Then you should retract this statement immediately: "it is bizarre to believe in a god for which there is no evidence". It is not bizarre, the scientific evidence tells us that it is completely normal and universal. A follower of science should change his view when the evidence changes. So why are you clinging desperately to your old view now that it's been disproven conclusively? If, as you say, it is not possi…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:49 PM
2

You should be honest with yourself: you're an active member of a hate sub which openly opposes us, and you admit that you and your peers hate us. You should understand full well why your sincerity counts for so little and why you have no credibility here. This is not our problem, it's yours.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:38 PM
4

placed on the MRA ignore list. No such list exists; you're paranoid. You're the one who hates us, not vice versa. You're the one acting out of hate and bitterness, mocking and abusing us. We're well within our rights to defend ourselves against you, to deny false accusations leveled at us and to reject your message and your presence. Don't pretend you're some sort of victim for that. You're part of a hate sub which exists to hurt us, undermine our credibility and to abuse and bully us. You're th…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:20 PM
-1

Atheism is simply conscious rejection of a faculty we now know to be perfectly healthy and natural. But just as closing your eyes and saying there's no such thing as light doesn't make you blind, pretending you don't have any religious inclination when you did as a child, as did everyone, does not mean there's no higher power. There's no faculty for atheism, it's just a choice not to use another faculty, the one which causes religious belief. That's simple scientific fact. I understand your desi…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:12 PM
7

I've never done a single one of the things you list, so you can just quit the accusations. In fact I don't think I've ever even spoken to you before. And we never said we were the only ones helping men. But we do help men. And we will claim fair credit for that whether you like it or not.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:39 PM
-1

The default position for humans is to believe in a higher, unseen power. It doesn't have to be taught and is not dependent on culture. The Trigg meta study at oxford last year showed this worldwide. So we all believe almost from birth and it's normal and natural. Obviously that's a major problem for atheism but it raises far worse questions, like, if religious belief evolved, what did it evolve in response to? Light didn't evolve because we have eyes, our eyes evolved because light exists. Worse…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:57 PM
-1

The way you phrase your first paragraph makes it sound as though atheism is a movement of like-minded people complaining at the fact that people are really stupid... When said other people are not stupid. Not at all: all of atheism's current public leaders strongly promote the view that religion should be ended. Sam Harris said that if he could get rid of rape or religion he'd get rid of religion. Christopher Hitchens advocated bombing Muslim civilians. Richard Dawkins preaches that raising a ch…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:21 PM
0

There have been many different forms of atheism. The current version, tied to scientific materialism and characterized by extreme hate speech and calls for the public harassment and destruction of religion and the ostracization of believers, is especially unpleasant but not novel. EDIT: It's worth adding that atheism is also declining as it becomes increasingly clear that it's totally incompatible with scientific evidence. Some versions of some religions are too of course, but for a system suppo…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:46 PM
25

Be a man. There is so much in that phrase that is good. Be strong. Be courageous. Be a provider. Be generous. Be a friend. Be dependable. Be durable in hard times. Be compassionate. Be a leader. But somehow our society has changed and while it still demands all these things and more from a man, it has quietly removed any possibility of getting recognition or credit for them. They've stopped just being desirable and started being expected: the people around you have a right to demand them from yo…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:39 PM
-1

In other words, you can't answer any of my points, you can't finish the fight you started and most of all you do not like the taste of your own medicine. This is the reason atheism is failing yet again. Because once you get past the abuse, the calls for public bullying and ridicule, the claims that believers are responsible for the world's ills, there is nothing there. It's empty. You have nothing at all to fall back on once I call out the abuse and bullying and you're reduced to simply retreati…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:30 PM
6

Thanks, that's like the local skinhead leader congratulating the Gay Pride organizers on their parade. We get it. You supposedly hate us. That's fine. So coming around here and faux-congratulating us makes you look very weak and ineffectual.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:16 PM
8

Well don't criticize us for it then. Is everyone over there as oblivious to their own nonsense as you are?
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:01 PM
17

Your entire sub only exists to complain about us and you didn't participate in this success at all. You're ones who are all talk and no action.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:43 PM
10

Against Men's Rights. It's a hate group dedicated to defaming us and ridiculing what we post here.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:41 PM
-1

Your take on the statistics is utterly laughable. "Well not all the atheists there were at that speech and even those who were probably didn't agree with what was said and anyway everyone else who didn't attend doesn't agree either". For any real purpose, 20,000 people from one group would be a perfectly acceptable sample size and you know it. Skin color is not a choice, religion is. Again, a very common atheist idea. And again, horribly flawed. It rests on a foul, stinking idea: "well unlike bl…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:36 AM
-1

Are you really implying that atheism has any uniting beliefs? Actually there have been many forms of atheism over the years and they all had three things in common: They all claimed to be the only possible version of atheism They all proclaimed the imminent demise of religion They all disappeared and were replaced by another version making the same claims. Read the Cambridge Companion, it'll help you understand. There's nothing to reveal about atheists as a whole, even if there are 10 or even 20…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:55 AM
-12

I can dismiss what you say because it's delusional nonsense, rejected in a court judgement. It's no more meaningful than animal noises. I don't care if you don't like it. You're fucking wrong. We're right.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:55 PM
-18

squeal! Shriek! Oink! Yeah that's really nice but the court says you're wrong and we're right. Oh well. That's the end of that. You can try to understand the courts judgement if you like. It might make you feel sad though, it basically says if you show your body in public, people can look and take pictures. I'm guessing a law protecting men from totally bogus accusations won't sitwell with you. Thanks!
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:42 PM
-1

Atheism as a whole and new atheism in particular is simply subsiding into irrelevance, ignored by news outlets and web sites which once hosted their snarling. It's entirely due to atheists' behavior, relentlessly abusing, bullying and ridiculing the religious, who have as always meekly accepted their abuse, knowing that just like every form of atheism before it, new atheism would soon disappear.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:05 PM
-2

Didn't you see the footage of the "Reason Rally?". Where he preached to a slavering crowd of snarling, baying atheists that anyone found to believe in the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation should be mocked and ridiculed in public? It's worth watching. Especially for the crowd and organisers' reaction, not of horrified disagreement but of brutal, animalistic support. It reveals so much about atheists. Especially since no one can pretend that thousands upon thousands of howling bigots liste…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:02 PM
-9

They were trying to prosecute him for photographing in public a part of their bodies which anyone could see from that angle. That's totally insane.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:56 PM
1

Men can't control themselves many times. Men aren't infants. Do you even read what you write?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:54 PM
4

Naturally. And they should be able to decide later, based on regretting what ensued, that what they did was in fact rape. Just like in Ohio.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 05:03 PM
2

This is just ridiculous semantics. Yes, it is. If the clothing exposes part of her body to viewing from one angle, she cannot demand that anyone viewing it from that angle be prosecuted. You've provided no answer to this point at all, just repeated statements that "you don't think it does". It's a fact: it does. If the skirt didn't expose her body, he would have been unable to see it. He didn't change the skirt or interfere with it. Now do you have an actual argument or are you just going to say…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:59 PM
2

Bedrooms. At 3am in the morning? Yes that's what adults do. Sometimes we have something called sex, which is tremendous fun. The horror of her subjecting him to a public blogging. Yeah that's not what adults do when they reject someone.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:55 PM
-3

I do not think that wearing a skirt exposes you to the public unless it is a seriously short one and thereby makes it okay to take upskirts. You're contradicting yourself - you've already admitted that wearing a skirt exposes you to the public, to the extent that it's banned in the Ford factory. You can't accept that (and the identical risk posed by steep stairs, glass walkways and gusts of wind) and still say that a skirt does not expose you. It does.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:42 PM
2

Yes, we believe it should not be illegal for men to ask women to join them for coffee in their hotel rooms.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:38 PM
-3

It's a part of a bigger picture. Once Dawkins and others started to feel really safe and started calling for believers to be openly abused and bullied in public, the end was in sight, but cunty, bullying bullshit like FSM was a good part of that trend.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:36 PM
-8

If her skirt had blown up or she had pulled it up by mistake the result would also have been the same. It is her action that caused her to be exposed, he only took advantage of that by looking at what she chose to expose to one angle of view.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:33 PM
-2

Yeah, we don't really want to be where the feminists (or the atheists) are. Thanks.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:29 PM
9

I mean what's next, making it illegal to look at someone in public? That is exactly what many women want, yes.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:18 PM
-6

It was visible from one angle without changing the clothing. If she had walked across a grating or a glass floor, anyone looking up would have seen the same. You cannot expose part of your body in public then prosecute anyone who sees it. That's ludicrous.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:17 PM
-11

You're absolutely correct. If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body. You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:15 PM
0

Take a look at the flying spaghetti monster stuff from a few years ago. Yeah it got r/atheism taken off the default subreddit list and heralded the death spiral of new atheism by making atheists look like a bunch of intolerant, bullying pissants. Congrats.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:06 PM
2

Pretty much. It's a whole worldview. For example, lots of people believe that if we torture our enemies, bomb their families, abduct their sons and fathers and hold them without charge, they will break and run. Because cowards always believe other people are also cowards. They have no experience of courage so they cannot factor it into their thinking. Same goes in this case. Someone who has never imagined equality and in fact whose whole worldview is about hating and denigrating men and creating…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:00 PM
15

This is simple. The problem is not rights or responsibilities, it's that one side (women) has all rights and no responsibilities, while the other (men) has all responsibilities and no rights. The solution is to match rights with responsibilities. Anyone freely laying claim to a right has to accept the responsibility that goes with that right. Allowing unilateral abortion is an obectively worse solution than allowing men to opt out: the former grants all rights to the woman and none to the man, w…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 02:31 PM
9

Yeah I used to swim at lunch at the olympic-size training pool near my office. One day there was a cleaning sign at the entrance to the men's changing, so I turned the other way and went into the family change. I'm forty, married with kids. But within thirty seconds a staff member was there. "What do you think you're doing?" "I think I'm getting changed mate". "Not in here you're not". "The men's is shut. I'm short of time. I'll be gone in a minute". "No. You can't change in here". "And why not?…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 12:16 PM
8

Obviously this is vile and totally unacceptable, but it explains something very important. The reason so many women are against things like International Men's Day and Movember and believe they will be used against women is that they invariably use International Women's Day and similar events to attack and abuse men. People who are controlled by hate always assume everyone else is too.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:02 AM
8

This is just something that's become part of our culture: it's a virtually infallible way to obtain attention and sympathy. Have a look at r/relationships sometime. The number of women claiming to have been raped and abused in the past is staggering. But no one is allowed to question or disagree with these assertions: in their narrative "victims" are untouchable.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 11:03 AM
0

Then show that I'm wrong. Provide evidence that I claimed a conspiracy and that Ross quit without consultation. Should be easy, right! Dipshit.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:47 PM
-4

Look, we get it. You can't back your claims about Ross, so you're attempting to divert attention away from that fact with imaginative but baseless claims that I said something about a conspiracy, which I clearly didn't even in your own quote. That's a win for me again. You lose.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:02 PM
-4

And what good evidence do you have of some deep feminist conspiracy? I said no such thing. You made the claim about Ross, back it up if you can but stop trying to divert the argument with made up nonsense.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 06:25 PM
-1

And you have good evidence that that's all that passed between Ross and Hugo, right? You're accusing Ross of being seriously unprofessional.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 06:12 PM
2

Again: the FBI figures you've quoted yourself flatly contradict your claim of tens of millions of rapes a year; they're quoting less than 85,000. Under reporting is certainly a problem for every crime but you're claiming that less than half a percent of rapes are even reported. That's a staggering claim and one that I must say I have never seen anyone even attempt to seriously support.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 05:44 PM
9

So you believe he withdrew without any consultation or agreement with Hugo representatives? Well now that just doesn't seem likely, does it?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 05:29 PM
9

There's a discrepancy of multiple millions between your figures - I think a rational person would realize this indicates that they may be dangerously unreliable rather than dismissing the problems as "nitpicking". Still, I'm interested to hear how women being raped explains or justifies death threats against men.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 04:30 PM
11

Again, in a population of 150 million women, how can an 18% occurence rate produce only 250,000 cases a year? It should produce tens of millions. Can you see the problem in your numbers?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 04:02 PM
1

Mandatory recording laws are fine so long as the limits of what the records can be used to imply are rigidly fixed. Accusations are free to make and there's no limit to how many can be made; we already know that some men in divorce cases have had allegations of sexual abuse against their own children made by their ex wives in an effort to get more money or custody. It's okay to record accusations as long as we also record which are unfounded, lead to no action or are found to be malicious.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 03:48 PM
14

Since you were reluctant to provide a source for your claim I googled it. What I found suggested the rate is closer to 1 in 5. Did you consider checking your sources and avoiding those that are clearly biased and agenda driven? You should realise that you're effectively claiming that there are nearly twenty million rapes a year in the US. How do you reconcile this with the real figures from the US beaureau of justice statistics which show around 90,000 reports a year and far fewer convictions?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 03:41 PM
16

So you do believe that one in four women survives rape or attempted rape? And that somehow means we should ignore death threats against men?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 03:13 PM
12

what with one in four women surviving rape or attempted rape This claim has been debunked so many times that it's actually becoming surprising to hear it. Do you actually believe this?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 03:03 PM
47

Did they address the fact that there are violent thugs like this person, who make death threats against men because they imagine their sons are rapists? It's interesting that we seem very keen to ensure that women live free of rape threats, but not quite so quick to say that maybe, just maybe, men should be allowed to live free of death threats.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 02:47 PM
67

Should have simply been titled, "feminists ruin event. Again". I don't like Ross either, but an audience is more than its most obnoxious noisy members. If the Hugos pander to this they're going to have an evening of hell with an audience actively looking to slander, trip up, misrepresent and abuse anyone brave enough to take the stage.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 01:57 PM
4

A brief look at history will tell anyone that any system which affords absolute power with no accountability will attract two kinds of people: the evil and the weak. The evil join because they know they can do whatever they like without risk. The weak may have good intentions and genuinely want to help, and join to be afforded protection. But being weak they are inevitably controlled by the evil. Ask any teacher in places like the UK and they will tell you that bullying and harassment of both st…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:36 AM
2

Yeah this looks like an attempt to get us all upset over nothing, probably as bait for SRS or similar.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 12:37 AM
0

Yes, I agree. And I hold that if you believe that people who not only condone the sexual abuse of children but actually openly form organizations to try to have it legalized should not only be allowed a trial conducted by their own friends in the very government they ran, but should be paid by the taxpayer to do so, then I am sorry but you are not a civilized man.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:50 PM
0

I understand your difficulty with such a statement, I really do. But if you look at Harman's track record you may begin to see just how gleefully sadistic and evil she is - and remember, that's only the stuff we know about including her links - all too common in feminist groups - to pedophilia. This is not just a person who takes pleasure in harming and constraining others, it's a person who has sought power to enforce and pursue that harm by any means. What we consider civilized is fluid. We co…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:28 PM
1

Well your argument as now descended into claiming that women who have cosmetic surgery aren't real and you're down voting all my comments. This is a clear win for me. Thanks!
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:29 PM
1

Well I use the definition, "like reality". In reality, some women have cosmetic surgery, most don't. Same in porn. They're real people, in reality. That's in stark contrast to women's open preference for dangerously unhealthy body images and those digitally altered to impossible degrees. That's not realistic.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:05 PM
-3

In civilized cou tries, politicians like harman are dragged from their offices by angry mobs and hanged from lampposts. But we don't live in a civilized country so I'll live with resignation, lifelong humiliation and a well deserved reputation as a profoundly evil, sick woman.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 06:45 PM
9

This is very, very dangerous thinking for feminism. It's dangerous because it openly acknowledges that women contribute differently to the workplace and it's a very short step from there to realizing that people who contribute less get paid less. Bye bye wage gap, bye bye glass ceiling, bye bye patriarch.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 06:39 PM
1

And how is that unrealistic, exactly?
/r/MensRights01/03/14 06:33 PM
1

Actually natural breasts are preferred on virtually every mainstream site and totally unnatural breast are a niche market. Do you have anything more convincing than this? It's like listening to the feminists who claim violent rape porn is popular and mainstream. Just go look at some porn and you'll see that almost all the popular girls are beautiful and natural.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:46 PM
2

In reality there's hardly any retouching in most porn; they can't afford it and men don't want it. So again, what's unrealistic about the young, busty women whose solo sets are by far the most popular type of porn? We all see girls that that every day.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:30 PM
2

Well you're just gonna have to explain how porn stars aren't realistic people. Pick any kind of woman. And I mean any. Tall, short, blonde, brunette, fat, thin, young, old, hairy, shaved, you pick em. And for every single one there's whole sites online dedicated to guys who find that kind of woman perfect. No you can go right ahead and show me the sites for women exclusively featuring old overweight guys and I'll accept that men and women have equally realistic tastes.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:08 PM
10

Playboy - and almost all male-targeted porn in fact - offers and promotes a wide range of healthy, normal body types. Vogue, targeted at women by women, promotes unhealthy, dangerous body images. It's impossible to sexualize the human form because the adult human form is already sexual.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:09 PM
5

Exactly. I'm six three and 230. By most standards I'm extremely strong but the only actual difference it makes in my life is how many women are attracted to me.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 02:03 PM
3

We must end slut-shaming. I want all my sisters to have the freedom and sexual drive to give away the goods to whomever they want and as freely as possible. There is nothing wrong with being a sexually free woman. But sh*t, the value of what I have to offer is diminished by your freedom. Can I go back to calling Becky a slut? There's another side to this, which is when they realize that women being free to have lots of sex also means men have lots of sex, and that's unacceptable to them.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 09:18 AM
57

We hear this all the time. "If only MRAs would keep quiet about their concerns and stop making us uncomfortable, things would change".
/r/MensRights22/02/14 10:25 PM
24

If someone has just hit you, you are in danger.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:42 PM
25

Obviously it's stupid, but it's instructive: look at how a man is expected to divide his resources. Everyone else is entitled to his time, effort, money and work. And what does he get for himself? He has to laugh at himself and "know himself". These things always come down the same way: here's a really shitty deal which will leave you broke and miserable while everyone else lives large and happy. If you don't accept it, you are not a real man.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:33 AM
2

I know people that work at consultant agencies (and this one in specific) and when they are asked to speak about a subject like this, they literally do google searches (not even good ones) to get their answers. Well they're obviously not very good consultants. Professionals buy data from market research companies which is usually pretty accurate.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 07:32 AM
19

Take photos before you do anything else.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:16 PM
5

You find it fairly believable that a complete stranger rang her doorbell, came into her house, raped her then ran away without being seen despite her neighbors knowing the rape was happening? Without waking up her children, even though her neighbors were concerned enough to bang on her door? And without leaving any evidence for the police to act on? And without a rape kit? And with no support workers of any kind available? The list could go on but the point is clear: yes it's possible this happe…
/r/MensRights16/02/14 04:59 PM
2

I think there may be some misconceptions of the part of my American brethren here. It would be fair to consider this a problem if you believed that british cops were required to be effective in any way, but that's not the case. Here in the UK it's extremely rare to actually see a cop and I've never, ever seen one chase down or restrain a criminal. If you were to ask the average person here what police officers in their city actually do, they'd have no real idea. We're long past the point where a…
/r/MensRights16/02/14 09:17 AM
2

Picture of GWW. Large headline: "I'm a sexy woman". Yup, sounds about right, is there something else here? ;)
/r/MensRights16/02/14 08:58 AM
9

Why wouldn't she? There's no punishment for lying about rape and a host of benefits. It's not a surprise that women lie about rape, it's a surprise that they don't do it more.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 08:55 AM
4

Yes we get it, you have a problem with religion. But this discussion is not about religion, so please stop trying to make it so. It's perfectly possible to be religious and an MRA but not a feminist MRA. It's not a related issue and frankly religious MRAs don't deserve to have their beliefs pilloried in irrelevant discussions.
/r/MensRights16/02/14 08:53 AM
0

Seriously? You can't have a mature discussion with your wife about the financial impact on your family of her quitting work and trying to start a business without her threatening to divorce you? I'm sorry to hear that, but it still sounds like a problem in your relationship. It's simply the way society is. It's set up to give total power to women in this situation and any man who complains gets a financial and emotional death sentence. This is absolutely not unique to our relationship. I don't k…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 07:21 PM
14

I sincerely doubt that's true. There's really no question that it's true. Our society enshrines as totally holy the "right" of women not to work. We give them money to raise their children, give them total control of reproduction, force their partners to pay for their needs, give them custody of their children, maternity leave and cash and prizes for getting divorced. If you're a man - well, fuck you says society. You get none of the above. Shouldn't that have been a joint decision if it impacts…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 02:30 PM
36

Absolutely right. For most women, work is basically optional. They have a wide range of choices which allow them to simply not work if they don't feel like it, which are pretty much all based on a man providing for them. Stay at home mom, housewife, trophy wife, sugar baby, we've all seen this before. For most men this is simply not the case. Try announcing to your family and friends that you just don't like having a job and don't feel like working any more, so your wife should support you compl…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:42 AM
4

perpetuate the same creep-shaming culture that insists all adults are child predators There is no such culture. There's a culture that insists all men are child predators. That's the point.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 01:47 PM
5

It is totally normal to want to love and raise your children. But in every relationship this issue will appear, for the simple reason that it is much easier and more practical for one partner to stay at home with the kids. It's just the way our society is structured: work, travel, taxes, money and relationships are all geared towards one or both partners working full time; other mixtures are not accommodated. The risk is this: a lot of people are very attracted to the idea of doing little or not…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:50 AM
4

Fuck me. That is completely insane.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:01 AM
12

Yeah my experience matches this pretty much exactly. I was a doorman for quite a few years in some bad bars and the disparity in behaviour was not just clear to me, but accepted as a matter of fact by those in the job. I thin kit comes from one simple fact: men typically have more experience than women with the consequences of violence because they're by and large not shielded from them in the way that women often are. Yes, men would start a fight with me, even guys a foot shorter and half my we…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:00 AM
1

I really see nothing wrong with this statement You're only saying that because all women are stupid.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:41 PM
12

This kind of thinking is uniquely dangerous. Much as I may find Sandberg herself utterly odious and repugnant, I think she's worked very hard and made a lot of smart business moves in her career. I respect that. But her message, and the message of the mainstream feminists who adopt and promote it, is not, "work very hard and make a lot of smart business moves and you will get to the top". As we know all too well, it's "you deserve to be at the top because you are a woman and it's not your lack o…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:26 PM
1

She's saying that men don't exclude women consciously, they do just because they are men.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 04:20 PM
3

What? This is her response: "I think that's a boys' game that works for boys," she said. "It's not like they built it to screw women over, it's just that boys built it so they made it to work for boys. If I go on there as a token woman, it's not going to work for me," she said. That's about as sexist as it's possible to be, quite apart from the fact that she refers to grown men as "boys". She's saying that men don't exclude women consciously, they do just because they are men. If women want thei…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 11:11 AM
14

I am told by my wife that I don't respect her because unlike "everyone else's" husbands, I don't treat her to spa breaks and expensive gifts. "Everyone else", I am told, lives in a bigger house than ours and drives a better car than ours, and they all go on expensive holidays. If I point out that I don't currently lavish her with those things because she isn't earning any money and I'm laying out many thousands a month to look after us all, I am told that I should toughen up and take it because …
/r/MensRights09/02/14 01:51 AM
5

Not in the UK, no. Custody is virtually unobtainable for men too, regardless of the circumstances.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 07:52 AM
2

Well it doesn't seem to be on their front page. Guess they didn't feel like it was very important.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 09:57 PM
15

I can't understand why anyone would make a false rape accusation. I mean, her target was only libelled publicly as a rapist, arrested, thrown in jail, questioned, forced to leave the city he lived in, separated from his support and friends and named and shamed as a violent criminal, while she suffered no consequences at all and is not even named. Why would that possibly encourage false rape claims?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 09:13 PM
3

The patriarchy forces them to do it. Well, either that or they routinely encounter so many patently false claims that they are careful about who they believe. That's possible too.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 01:51 PM
4

In my feminist frenzy, I bought him dolls and dressed him in neutral-colored clothing. Well then why the FUCK should we listen to your views on masculinity you fucking idiot? Oh, you got it completely wrong last time but THIS time, you're spot on? Fuck off.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 05:15 PM
7

When literally everything is rape, you're a busy guy.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 04:04 PM
5

Yeah, it's the BBC. Expecting good content from them on gender issues is like expecting good sex tips from Cosmo. Hey if you really want a laugh, check out what they did when they were told their kids shows didn't have any good role models for black kids. It's called Rastamouse and it's the most racist thing you'll ever see.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 01:19 AM
5

Obviously this is all unreasonable to the point of delusional. Obviously. And it's also 100% mainstream media, entirely representative of the messages women see, accept and act on every single day. This is middle of the road, average stuff, not even extreme. If this content had no audience and no agreement in that audience, it wouldn't be published in a mainstream outlet because no one would read it. This is mainstream female thought, in black and white.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 04:46 PM
5

We've only just begun. We're sitting in the wrong part of the bus by saying out loud that men are human beings with problems too, and deserve equal recognition and rights. That doesn't change laws by itself, it just makes people aware that laws need changed. That comes much later.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:02 PM
4

Well, this is how it starts for a great many MRAs. They self-identify as feminists. Then they realize that the feminists they align themselves with won't hesitate to give them the exact same treatment they give everyone else they disagree with; shaming, bullying and abusing them. They're bewildered. How could this happen to me, they ask. I'm a feminist. Other feminists shouldn't be savaging me. I'm not one of those men who rape, abuse and belittle women. The brutality continues and intensifies a…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 11:28 AM
3

Living in the UK, I find this extremely difficult to believe. Experience and practical observation suggest to me that the figure is much, much higher. I don't know any divorced mothers who haven't deliberately broken or ignored custody arrangements for their own benefit and I don't know any who haven't manipulated their child support payments either. The idea that there are divorced mothers in the UK who fully respect fathers' rights is absolutely laughable to me. It's as absurd as saying, "most…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:26 AM
8

Just my opinion here, not one you hear very often but, um, it is the truth: Enjoying looking at other people naked is completely normal. There, I said it, I feel better. It's not some weird, deviant behaviour which places stresses on our minds and bodies that they're not designed to handle, causing long term damage. It's an activity which all healthy adults engage in regularly and devote considerable time and effort to pursuing. There is no mechanism I know of or can even imagine whereby looking…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:12 AM
2

I haven't been able to unearth any studies that really document what the effect of "porn addiction" are. There aren't any because porn addiction is completely made up. There are no diagnostic criteria for "porn addiction" and it's not listed or assessed as a pathological behaviour in the way that, say, gambling addiction is. In short, it is not real.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:01 AM
1

Absolutely. I'm every bit as confused by people who are totally in favour of gay parenting without evidence as I am by those totally against it.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 09:53 AM
7

I don't think we can be certain of that - or that it's relevant. She would have been checked by several people to my knowledge and the fact that they all apparently cleared her is very worrying.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 09:53 PM
20

The worst thing about this for me is that in all the hand wringing and crocodile tears from the grief athletes, no one will ask the most important question of all: What the fuck was this deranged, fucked up bitch doing outside a secure mental hospital? Seriously. I want to know who checked this person over and concluded that she was safe to be out in public. That's not some minor forgiveable mistake, it's criminal fucking negligence, sending a deluded, extremely dangerous child killer out among …
/r/MensRights05/01/14 10:26 AM
3

Perhaps you should have actually looked up the statistics before claiming to know? Preventable causes are causes which can be prevented. There isn't an easier way to explain it, if you don't know what prevent means, please look it up. As for the numbers, about 35,000 women and 53,000 men die from accidents - falls, road accidents and injuries etc - in the USA every year. These are basically non preventable. But 172,000 women and 208,000 men die from coronary heart disease alone. So your claim th…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 02:34 PM
5

1) in a finite-resource healthcare system, "men deserve less health care" is the natural corollary of "women deserve more health care". In fact in every meaningful way they are equal, and there are many, many people who will say the latter. 2) this is just nonsense; yes more men die from non-preventable causes than women but in both sexes non-preventable causes are not even in the top ten. Preventable causes are the overwhelming majority.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 02:07 PM
9

Yes, I'm bi. I've never even seen any anti-lbgt sentiment here let alone actually experienced it.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 09:43 AM
9

I think if I wad a "woman in tech" I'd start by loudly denouncing hard line feminists like Watson, Sarkeesian and Richard who have made it dangerous for men to even meet and talk about tech issues. Thanks to them, women now have to climb mount everest just to get to the starting line with men. Add to this the fact that men are so severely discriminated against in education that they have to self-educate and yes, I think you have a two tier system: men who expect nothing, start from nothing and c…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 08:40 PM
2

They could certainly try, but we all know that anonymous accusations are not how real rape accusations are dealt with. So there's little risk that a reasonable person would think that we're dealing with real rape accusations here.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:05 PM
-3

Ah, falsely accusing me of making a false accusation in a thread about false accusations. Splendid.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:51 PM
8

The only people who will think badly of MRAs because of this already think we're scum. Everyone else will see how insane the policies being lampooned are.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 01:48 PM
3

Now this is funny. And brilliant. And effective. Wonder if the mods here will censor this too?
/r/MensRights31/12/13 01:47 PM
5

Tries to be gender neutral. Fails completely, with literally unbelieveable figures: According to the Home Office, some 1.2 million women in the UK said they had experienced domestic abuse last year. I don't believe for one second that the home office conducted a survey of millions of women in the UK which revealed this statistic. Mostly because the home officed doesn't carry out surveys like that. Last year 400,000 women were sexually assaulted, of whom 70,000 were victims of rape or attempted r…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 01:37 PM
6

Oh look, you can get it printed on clothes for your baby too.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:10 PM
5

If anyone's interested in how trades unions operate in Britain, have a look at the recent issues at the Grangemouth oil refinery. The unions were hitting the owners with increasingly insane demands for vast pay and pension entitlements, so much so that the owners simply couldn't afford them. The staff began to panic. They asked, then begged, then voted for the unions to stop, to no avail. Eventually the owners did the only thing they could: they announced their decision to close the plant, with …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:07 PM
1

Vet med has one of the most demanding sets of entry qualifications of any higher education course. In countries where school education is specifically tailored to girls' needs to ensure they gain the best sets of qualifications, it would be astonishing if girls didn't comprise the majority of vet med students.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 10:15 AM
1

There is no such data that I know of either and I can't see a reliable way to collect it in a society which is structured to place men in physical or violent roles and women in nurturing ones.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 10:09 AM
1

We do talk about it here. The education gap is huge and growing. But this has to be seen in light of the fact that women are more likely to do useless pseudo-degrees with no real world value while staying out of productive fields such as STEM. Feminists will complain about this but they can't change it because women are choosing it for themselves. Pay for women has grown, but only to become roughly equal with men. Equal pay for equal work is something I think we all support. Singhle child less u…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 10:06 AM
1

But I've provided no evidence Yes, that's right. You found a few isolated images, ignored the tens of thousands which are the exact opposite, then tried to justify yourself by pretending Google filters out nude images when it clearly doesn't. There have been no personal attacks made by either of us. Now you're just being silly. To paraphrase your own comment: "your pride has been bruised... your response... is so immature." Now do you have a coherent response to the overwhelming amount of eviden…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:40 PM
1

You're the one who's writing huge blustering replies not me. And no, Google doesn't magically filter out all nude photos, that's laughably easy to demonstrate. The simple fact is that there is little or no evidence to support your claims - if there was you would have provided it if course. But you can't because beyond a few nude images, visible on Google of course, all the evidence shows you're wrong. That's also why you're reduced to personal attacks and appeals to emotion instead of talking ab…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:07 PM
1

I think it used to be a normal homosocial (as opposed to homosexual) activity. That's fine, then simply explain why all the available records from the time show exactly the opposite, especially all the photos. I'm not imposing my standards, you are. You're desperate to appear "progressive" so you're rewriting history against the available evidence.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:00 PM
1

Have a look at these photographs of 1940s school swimming You clearly were responding to the story about nude college swimming with smarmy disbelief. Can you spot the difference? Of course not, they're two totally different words. AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:51 PM
-1

They are not pictures of the totally different thing you asked for (naked children frolicking with adults in the water). Exactly; you cannot provide pictures of school children swimming naked, which is the subject of the thread. Thanks for admitting you were wrong, however unintentionally.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:34 PM
0

Just because you're bisexual doesn't mean you get to tell people how you view your own bisexuality. Yes, it does, and I made that clear in my previous comment. But it means I only get to tell them how I view my own bisexuality. Not other people's. Not all bisexuality. I can discuss those things, just as other people get to discuss my bisexuality. And yes, that includes telling me I'm confused and wrong - a possibility I am happy to examine and consider by the way. Not everyone is cut out to part…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:28 PM
3

It should be clear that none of those objections even tackle my point. In a sense I do understand circumcised guys' position and I certainly sympathise. Many are not ready to face what was done to them. But we all need to because otherwise this will continue.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:16 PM
2

That's interesting. Do they disagree that their penises are in constant contact with their underwear? Seems unlikely. Do they disagree that uncut men's penises are too sensitive to do that? Also seems unlikely since it's evidently true. So where do you see the disagreement?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 07:37 PM
9

Does circumcision make your penis less sensitive? This is a very odd one. The variety of opinions and studies is puzzling in light of a simple fact: if an uncircumcised man's foreskin rolls back while his clothes are on, he'll move to immediately restore it because the head of his pen is is too sensitive to be in prolonged contact with his clothing. Which is as it should be. Yet circumcised men's penises are in constant unprotected contact with various fabrics without apparent discomfort. It see…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 07:27 PM
-1

Does the fact that I'm bisexual mean that I know anything about my sexual orientation that others don't beyond how it feels to me? Do I know why I am this way? No. Do I know if I can change or am fixed? No. Do I have information about developmental factors, hormones, genetics or upbringing denied to straight or gay people? No, no, no and no. You can tell me I'm ignorant and rude until you wet yourself. You can cry if you like. You can tell me you're trans until you scream. I don't care, because …
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:53 PM
0

Cool story bro. Needs more dragons. Have a look at these photographs of 1940s school swimming. Notice anything? That's right, they've all got clothing on. So where are the photos of naked children frolicking with adults in the water? You said it was normal, why would anyone ask the kids to put on swimming costumes just for photographs?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:45 PM
1

Aren't you the same poster who said, "One of the biggest criticisms of extremist feminists is their inability to keep things in perspective and in context. Please let's not make the same mistake."?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:12 AM
2

You're the one claiming that no one should defend themselves from a mentally ill person, not me. That's a claim with no basis in law, reason or even reality. I do like your attempt to silence any discussion by saying only those in the room may speak, though. Because obviously you weren't in the room either, yet you think we should all listen to your wildly imaginative re invention of the law.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:08 AM
6

I'm sorry, you believe that it was normal for young boys to be forced to expose themselves in front of adults? Don't be so stupid. It absolutely was not.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 10:57 AM
1

Refusing to discuss an issue with someone because of their race, gender or sexual orientation doesn't show that they're the ones with a problem.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 10:07 AM
3

Her mental state is simply not relevant. There is no legal or ethical construction by which you can demand that innocent people should allow themselves to be injured or killed just because their attacker's mental state is abnormal. That is utter nonsense. Nor can you claim that mentally ill people should be allowed to be as violent as they like with impunity. We all have the right to defend ourselves from unwarranted violence. All of us, regardless of gender. There is no magic exception for ment…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 10:01 AM
4

retributive violence was not justified. We are all entitled to defend ourselves. Yes, even from women. That's not "retributive violence", it's the simple human right not to be injured or killed for no reason. That's a right we're all supposed to have and crticising anyone for exercising it is revolting.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:55 AM
9

The fact that no one - especially the men she slapped - hit her back, restrained her or otherwise dealt with her is worthy of discussion here. It raises important questions about gender roles and violence. And I don't see how posting simple facts about her behaviour is "unfair". No one, not even violent mentally ill women, has a right to freedom from the consequences of their actions.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 11:32 PM
9

This video pretty much ruined her life. No, her own behaviour, whether result of mental illness or not, ruined her life. She is not a victim and treating her like one harms everyone involved.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 11:27 PM
16

I wonder how many abused men have lain in hospital beds saying, I never thought she could hurt me"?
/r/MensRights29/12/13 04:09 PM
1

Exactly right. We only have to look at this thread to see what happens when anyone even attempts to discuss transsexualism. Meaningful exchange of ideas is impossible because there is a loud and extremely obnoxious section of the debate who claim the right to tell everyone else what to think.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 07:13 PM
3

It's a fascinating subject to study. Basically most of urban India is little more than a gigantic open sewer infested by starving criminals over whom the government has no control whatsoever. The Indian govrnment is sensationally corrupt but they want more than anything else to be taken seriously as a nation, so they adopt what they see as 'western' initiatives in order to fit in. That's how they're able to claim billions in aid to help starving millions and run a space program. It's why they re…
/r/MensRights28/12/13 09:44 AM
7

This reduces something very serious - physical violence - to social justice word games. The law as it stands is very clear: if you are attacked by someone with fists and feet, you may defend yourself with fists and feet. If you are better at using them than your attacker then that's their own stupid fault; they get their victim as they find them. If we tried to follow your line of thinking, self defense would be almost impossible. It ignores and ultimately destroys the concepts of attack and def…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:43 AM
6

She's just a big fat angry person. They're ten a penny and before the appearance of the blogosphere we just accepted and ignored them. To be honest I don't think she's really worth discussing.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 10:52 AM
1

I have to say, I agree with you on the responsibility of religion and the "morality" it has promoted. And let's be clear, I am a Christian and I see very clearly the kinds of guilt and self-hate that religion readily produces. In so many ways it's just another form of control. I often wonder exactly what people who are against sex work think they sell to their employers and clients? I'm a freelance designer and I'd be lying through my fucking teeth if I said my clients hire me solely for my skil…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 09:57 PM
3

I meant to say before; thanks very much for contributing here. I'm reluctant to try to speak on behalf of sex workers in the way that many seem to find so easy - I've known a few but never worked in the industry myself. I just can't understand why so many people, especially those in authority, are so bothered by this - to the extent that they'll bend the law in exactly the way you've just shown to go after sex workers. I don't consider myself "sexually liberated" in any way, in fact I'm really v…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 08:01 PM
8

The idea that women are judged more harshly for their appearance is a lie and always has been. It's very easy to demonstrate this. To see what men think of women's bodies, we first have to stop looking at fashion models and magazines. The audience for those things is not men, it's women. They're created by an industry dominated by women, for women. And you can see the results for yourself. But heterosexual men (and not a few women) do make images of women for the consumption of men. It's called …
/r/MensRights24/12/13 11:16 AM
5

Hi, photographer here. You're absolutely right, models are generally not exceptionally objectively beautiful. yes, they're usually noticeably more attractive than average; you'd pay attention to them in a crowd. But there are many, many women who are just as attractive who are not professional models. Good professional models have a skill. When you're shooting, your subject is either "on" or "off". They're off at first and you can't get a good shot, then they (and you) get in the zone and you ge…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:44 AM
15

It's not about freedom, it's about control. The aim of feminism is to exercise the most strangling level of control possible over every aspect of modern life: work, leisure, education, healthcare, childcare and everything else. That's why feminism fits well with most governments; both are about extreme authoritarianism. We're living in an era where governments exercise a level of control that even the most extreme of fascist regimes could only fantasize about: total control over all media includ…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:31 AM
11

It has nothing to do with porn. It's about control. It's about control and it always has been. It's not hyperbole to paraphrase 1984: The object of control is not power, or safety, or money, or ideology. It is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The object of control is control.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:15 AM
0

Oh I've got a tremendous sense of humour. I think fucking with assholes is really, really funny. Think of it as poetic justice; you should hear how I deal with parking tickets! So who's really having a sense of humour failure here? You're the one taking it all serious, not me!
/r/MensRights23/12/13 10:35 PM
-1

Take a picture with your camera phone and tell them it's going to the papers with a report on their failure to take domestic violence seriously if it's not taken down immediately. Make sure the receptionist is visible in the shot, and the name of the company if possible. If they don't comply, DO IT. Most papers will at least carry it on their web site. Make sure it goes to reddit too, with contact details so we can all ask why they think violence against men is funny. If you want the nuclear opt…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 07:25 PM
1

The number of men who are sociopathic serial rapists is well established but does not fit the "every man is a potential rapist" model at all and never has. Read David Lisak for a start.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 07:12 PM
11

If she had spoken the truth, there's a good chance that her family would have taken her out of school, that her friends would judge her as a whore, that her family, her grandparents even, would think of her as an unfaithful slut. But it would have been based on the truth. What befell you was not. That shit follows you. So does a rape accusation, even a false one.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 07:03 PM
3

I don't doubt this for a moment; a recent major multi agency operation in the UK failed to find a single person trafficked for sex - yet before and after the operation, politicians and charities made repeated claims about the thousands upon thousands of women trafficked to the UK every year.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 02:05 PM
26

Hi, quick update for you; it's 2013 not the late stone age.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 07:29 PM
4

Many women reject and abuse boys who don't fit the 'alpha' stereotype for the same reasons they do it to men.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 12:24 PM
4

I'm sorry, you don't know whether you'd prefer a life of protection and support with some restrictions or a life being forced to kneel down and be shot in the back of the head or having your legs blown off by mines? Are you fucking serious?
/r/MensRights21/12/13 11:44 AM
8

I find this impossible to understand. The fact that your religion mandates doing something does not exempt you from rules which protect other people from being hurt by your actions. It's not a defense to assault or murder for example. And let's be clear about this: I am a believer myself, but it would be profoundly wrong to imagine that any part of religious doctrine entitled me to hurt someone else for no reason. In fact some of the worst evils the world has ever seen have stemmed from exactly …
/r/MensRights21/12/13 09:24 AM
7

Well, because circumcision of people who can't consent is wrong, yet many people still do it. If 50% of parents sexually abused their children, you'd say we were right to talk about it as much as possible, right? Well that's roughly the number who have parts of their sons' bodies cut off for no real reason.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 09:12 AM
2

Rape is a subjective crime, meaning that evidence is nearly always ambiguous. Of course in reality this is completely untrue; rape usually leaves copious physical evidence, usually linked to DNA. Any crime to which their is no witness could be dealt with using this logic: she says theft, he says borrowing. She says honest mistake, he says libel. Intent and consent are components of virtually every crime and the court system, determines them very accurately. There is no reason at all not to use t…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:54 PM
8

Are you kidding? Marriage is amazing for women. And when it goes wrong and they pull the trigger they get cash and prizes. There's even talk of legalizing murdering husbands in their sleep if they're accused of abuse.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:48 PM
5

My god. That is utterly terrifying. A thirty minute talk and some unspecified brief 'training' and you're allowed to judge serious criminal cases.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:43 PM
4

But they, and you, are not professional, experienced lawyers or judges, are they? In what way are you not simply amateurs?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:40 PM
5

What qualifies you to sit on a board which hears serious criminal cases out with the rule of law? What exactly are the experience and qualifications which entitle you to make judgements that can ruin lives?
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:39 PM
2

I do not think feminists support false reports. Well, I'm afraid you're wrong. A significant proportion of feminists don't believe that false rape reports don't exist at all, and another vocal group actively support false claims: Catherine Comins, prominent feminist, says about falsely accused men, "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, co…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:34 PM
2

It's not rocket science: I believe in equality for all people. In order for that to happen, men need to be recognized as having rights they currently don't. QED
/r/MensRights20/12/13 08:01 PM
10

Well, the first step is actually surprisingly simple: find and stop the people who say bullying is all part of growing up, particularly the teachers and educators. You see, when a child takes another child's lunch money, that's not bullying, it's theft. When a child punches another child, that's not bullying, it's assault. By giving it a different name, schools and police excuse it. Let's start by using the real words for what's happening then asking, why should children be robbed and assaulted …
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:58 PM
3

Art the moment bullying is actively encouraged and perpetuated by those who claim it's 'just part of growing up'. Remove that and grind every single bully into the ground while building a new societal attitude which correctly regards bullies as diseased filth who should be ignored by everyone, and you'll see bullying almost disappear very quickly.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:51 PM
1

Are you serious? That's the whole point of MRAs stance on rape: even though satisfactory mechanisms exist for determining the facts in rape cases, those mechanisms are often ignored in order to convict men on nothing more than rumour.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:46 PM
0

Rape is incredibly hard to convincingly convict. This is completely untrue; rape leaves some of the clearest physical evidence of any crime and it's almost all undeniable by being linked to DNA. The common claim that it's "he said, she said" can be leveled at virtually every crime with no witnesses: he says theft, she says borrowing. He says libel, she says honest mistake. The claim doesn't wash for any of those crimes and doesn't wash for rape; the law consists of excellent mechanisms for deter…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 09:04 PM
8

Yet you're still here complaining. Can't be that big a problem.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:32 PM
7

Exactly right. "Toughen up" now means, "tolerate abuse and suffer it in silence". We shouldn't save children from bullies. Or adults for that matter. We should teach them to save themselves. Don't teach them to report being punched in the hope that someon else will handle it. Teach them that they have the right to punch back, hard, and that their actions will be fully supported by the authorities while the bullies will be punished severely. Bullies are often bullied themselves, as we all know. W…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:08 PM
12

Strength doesn't come from being abused and broken. Only weak people abuse, and abuse teaches weakness. There is nothing commendable or useful about learning to tolerate being bullied and that is not strength.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:58 PM
3

I'm fascinated by the though processes here, but I wonder if anyone can help me: what is the correlation, in feminist theory, between liking and admiring women and treating them badly? I would have thought the opposite was true.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:39 PM
2

I think this is a good thing. It's basically an admission that the things these women are complaining about are so trivial that the only thing they can do is write to a feminist web site about it.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 10:19 PM
12

I'm no fan of the plods but even I know that if you mess about with them you're gonna have a bad time.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 10:06 PM
14

Except six out of seven of those children are male, which brings it right back to gender issue.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:36 PM
2

The general rule is simple: women as a group and a feminists in particular will strongly oppose anything which threatens women's stranglehold on the supply of physical and emotional comfort and wellbeing to men. It's easy to see why with a simple thought experiment. Imagine that prostitution is legal where you are. And not only is it legal, it's not stigmatised in any way; buying sex is no more frowned on than buying beer, either for the person buying or the person selling. Anyone can buy sex; m…
/r/MensRights15/12/13 12:54 PM
1

That would be a neat way to silence this forum and yes, you're not the first one to think of it. Does the person in question have a race? Not men's rights, race issue. Does the person in question have a class? Not men's rights, class issue. Does the person in question have a nationality? Not men's rights, political issue. It's not very original, any more than the strong desire to make us all just shut up and and stop saying things which disturb you. But perhaps a more constructive line of enquir…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 09:23 PM
2

Britain has seen extreme levels of immigration in the last few years - around half a million a year. It shouldn't really be a surprise that immigrant families which break up often see children taken out of the country.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:15 PM
0

Nothing to do with men's rights. Perhaps you should look at the statistics on how likely men versus women are to be arrested and tried for murder, and the sentences they receive for identical crimes. You may well find that murder trials are very much a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:10 PM
0

Perhaps you should have a look at the sentences men and women receive for identical crimes and murder in particular. You may well change your mind that murder trials are not a men's issue.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:09 PM
-1

The arrest and conviction rates for men versus women, and the astronomically longer sentences one sex receives for most crimes and murder in particular say otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 02:08 PM
1

For those who need help: this is relevant to men's rights because education is now overwhelmingly stacked against men, from results (60% of graduates are female in many places) to discipline (boys and men are increasingly being denied due process or punished for ludicrous "infringements") to safety (there is a virtual epidemic of rape and sexual abuse of male students by teachers). This story is part of that picture: perhaps you should ask how we could possibly have got to a state where not only…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 08:52 AM
1

We've only just met but... I think I love you.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 07:12 PM
1

You mentioned this before and its sounds fantastic!!!!
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:38 PM
1

The idea is that people who do not directly experience an issue should not dominate discussions about them. A laudable idea, but the reality is that feminist discussion is almost entirely centered around women telling men what do to, how to behave and what to think.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:10 AM
10

Exactly right. Hence the old favourite: "I don't care who started it". Of course in the adult world, who started it is rightly considered the central concern of the piece, determining as it does the difference between attack and defence.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:02 AM
2

Soon as I saw the title I thought, "Hannah Rosin or Emily Bazelon?".
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:41 AM
36

As a father in the UK this saddens me and it embarrases me that men overseas see this, but it doesn't surprise me at all. The only unusual thing about this case is how long the father continued fighting. Everything else about it is perfectly normal and adheres to official policy. I've seen numerous men go through this including my own brother, who endured years of seeing his alcoholic, drug addicted criminal ex neglecting and ignoring their son, so badly that the authorities put the boy on the a…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 08:00 AM
12

She's the child's mother. In the UK the formula for the best interests of the child is simple: keep them with mother at all costs.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 07:52 AM
9

I find it genuinely frightening that men have to prove that they matter to their children with science.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:58 PM
15

Great then simply link to a story about a woman being beaten to death by those police and we'll be happy to call it even.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:54 PM
5

I was at a kids' party yesterday with a bouncy castle and lots of kids between two and six years old. As always happens, within half an hour I'd developed a little retinue of three or four small children who followed me around, trying to get me to play with them, including a little girl of about one who staggered after me, trying to give me pieces of wrapping paper and smiling gummily when I accepted them with appropriate excitement and gratitude. Now, I'm used to this and my own daughter doesn'…
/r/MensRights08/12/13 09:10 AM
18

Exactly. Paranoid, hyperaggressive people always assume other people are the same as them.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:52 AM
-6

nothing is men's rights Actually some things are, like men dying from a disease which women are give free state backed vaccinations against but not men. It's astonishing the things you'll pretend not to understand in order to remain ignorant and protect the status quo.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 11:32 PM
-10

Yes that's why this poor man is dying of HPV, genius.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 11:30 PM
3

Yes. The circumstances of conception are not relevant, as proven by boys raped by adult women then sued for child support.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 08:35 PM
2

So, rather than blaming the police, the school, or his friends who did nothing to help him; rather than blaming the drug dealers and jealous peers who perpetuated the rumors; rather than blaming the individuals who didn't think it was necessary to find proof before shamelessly persecuting the boy you choose to blame feminism? Of course they are to blame and of course anyone can see that I did not say otherwise. But the weapon they used, the false rape accusation, was crafted by feminists and spe…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 08:22 PM
3

I believe that these women are simply radicals acting as individuals. You are wrong, as the studies in the linked article clearly show. These are widespread, organized beliefs. I believe that assaulting the feminist institution will no bring about comradary between our two causes The assumption that this is possible is laudable, but unfounded. I see no reason to believe that organized feminism is interested in cameraderie of any kind with MRAs. If you have evidence that they are - let's say, wid…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 06:35 PM
5

Oh, you want to know what feminusts say about false rape accusations? Well, no problem. Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them" - Catherine Comins, leading feminist Of course, as we'd expect numerous studies have found this pattern: it's a feminist article of faith that women do not lie about rape. As we'd expect, that leads directly to crimes like this: In other words an idea created and spread by feminists led to…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:59 PM
7

The rape in this case was used to bully him There was no rape.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:45 PM
0

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you feel unable to discuss this civilly. Another time perhaps.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:17 PM
0

had sex and reproduced when she was 13 Then she was not prepubescent. Puberty is by definition the process of becoming able to reproduce.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 12:55 PM
5

It isn't. The are men in every country not just America. I'm in Scotland and I don't care about American politics, just equality and rights for men.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 12:52 PM
0

ou're not attracted to the most fertile woman...you're attracted to women who display signals which coincide with fertility. And of course that would be sexually mature women, not children. No matter how you try to obfuscate it, your 'theory' relies on the idea that attempting to reproduce with children, who by definition cannot reproduce or very poorly, is better than reproduction with healthy sexual mature women. This is clearly untrue and it's equally clear that you have no answer to this sim…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:35 AM
0

Yes, I read it and it's nonsense. Peak fertility for women is early twenties, not those in prepubescence, who by definition are minimally fertile if at all. Attempting to reproduce with infertile or barely fertile women cannot be "a better evolutionary strategy" for the very obvious reason that it would result in fewer and weaker offspring.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 11:32 PM
1

To feminists, the most important thing is that what men do is spoiled. They don't really mind if the result of their actions is that women are a threat to a whole industry (adria Richards) or stupid, backward and dishonest (sarkeesian) or they lose some prvilieges, as here. As long as men are harmed as much as possible, they're happy and consider it a victory.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 11:12 PM
1

Your theory fails completely at the first hurdle: pedophiles by definition do not target sexually mature individuals who are likely to reproduce successfully.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 11:05 PM
-4

Well thank GOD you're here to tell us what we may and may not discuss! I hope to fuck this is a lesson to all of you. Oakwater has taken time out from his busy schedule of being right about everything to bring his mighty Voice Of Reason to bear on this issue, which is too trivial to discuss but yet important enough for someone who doesn't want to discuss it to comment on it and for his supporters to brigade it. You don't know how lucky you are. I'm kneeling humbly as I type this.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 07:23 PM
2

We've been very close before; a very effective male pill made it to human trials in 1998 but was blocked at the last minute by the WHO. Any male contraception will pretty much have to arrive on private funding and against major, organized opposition. There are major lobbies who really don't want men having reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 07:24 AM
1

For this holding forth on UK law: this ad has been shown on UK tv but without some of the more violent shots. Those shots could have been included but it's likely that the ad would then have been barred from showing before specific times in the evening, requiring at least two versions to be made. This not censorship or an attack on free speech, we just have laws to ensure that certain types of content are not seen by some audiences. It's no different to film and game classifications.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 08:26 PM
5

I think I'm going to write a parallel article. It'll be advice to men who are divorcing. In it I'll explain some simple ways to run down the ex wife's self esteem - not too tricky when she's leaving a failed marriage - and turn her onto comfort eating and obsessing over her inability to satisfy a man and hold together a working relationship. The aim will be to ensure that while she might get your money, you'll turn her into a fat, ugly mess riddled with insecurities and self-loathing. That would…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 07:41 PM
2

Exactly right. In fact that's Jesus's entire message: Christians are not special and definitely not better than anyone else. It's always disappointing to see people like this writer who want to use it to find ways to look down on other people and feel superior.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 07:24 PM
4

A very sad article from a hard-line conservative Christian. Christ laid it out very clearly: if you lust after another woman, you have committed adultery. Actually he said no such thing. What he actually said is this: "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your righ…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 01:55 PM
9

No, sorry: priests are no more likely to abuse children than other men. Unfortunately the media and folks like yourself with specific agendas have worked very hard to convince everyone that there are huge numbers of active pedophiles in the church.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 04:10 PM
28

the fact that he had a learning disability is irrelevant to the case It's highly relevant because under UK law persons with learning disabilities are rightly considered less able to defend themselves from the majority of crimes so attacking someone unable to defend themselves is considered a worse offense. See Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 39 regarding aggravated culpability re: targeting vulnerable victims.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 12:04 PM
2

No, they just have an extremely specific agenda which reproductive rights for men is absolutely not part of. Try searching their web site for "women's health" and for "men's health". You'll get 1700 results and 23 respectively.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 11:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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