TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

numb3rb0y Archive

View 1 posts and 553 comments by numb3rb0y on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

numb3rb0y/r/MensRights13/07/10 07:38 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

You brought SRS up...
/r/MensRights26/12/12 07:06 AM
1

Sure, but a public defender isn't exactly likely to have deep pockets.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:25 PM
1

I could three times and some implications, but I think my issue is that there are conventional standards of beauty that a lot of people don't meet, even if the minutiae of what is considered beautiful isn't specified in any given instance. But again, say, what if you're 51-60 but are actually imperfect and do make mistakes more than a few times? What if you're 71-80 but are asocial and thus aren't really open to meeting new people? What if you're 36-40 but aren't actually ageing gracefully? Thos…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:43 AM
1

I think the physical descriptions (i.e. if you're a woman of any of these ages, you're supposed to be attractive) are particularly troubling, if that helps understand my stance.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:33 AM
1

It's a generalisation about women and is therefore sexist. The problem with positive generalisations is that while they may be overtly favourable, they also set an unfairly high standard by which people in that demographic will be judged. So if people think women are generally better than men and you're a women who's simply average, there are definitely negative implications there. If it makes you feel any better, I honestly think you're nitpicking too. I suspect we're at an insurmountable impas…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:30 AM
1

Evidently we disagree, but to me it seems like you're quibbling over degree. Besides, women being beautiful, wise, more "in tune" with life etc. is a stereotype you see at times. And by what definition of stereotype is "generally uniformly positive" excluded? My dictionary says nothing about specificity, it just says it's a widely held, oversimplified image of the thing in question. So "women = inherently good" fits. Also, it emphasizes how varied women of different ages can be, it's still gener…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:14 AM
1

How is it not? It's attributing a bunch of positive traits ("naturally beautiful", "well-developed", "very hot" "wisdom of the ages" etc.) to women based solely on their gender and age.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 10:00 AM
1

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If I say "all Asians are good at maths", I'm not saying anything negative but it's still incredibly racist.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 09:42 PM
2

I'm not Irish, but assuming their tort law isn't too distinct from English, she committed slander and there's no need to prove any actual damage because it was a false accusation of criminal conduct. I'd think it pretty much as open and shut a defamation case as there could be if his estate wants to pursue it. That being said, I doubt a teenage girl has many assets so it'd probably be purely symbolic.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 10:12 PM
7

How can your conscience allow you to sully such an awesome character with your fail?
/r/MensRights25/02/12 12:45 PM
2

If you're really worried about this, pump out a bunch of spunk, have it frozen then get a vesectomy. Practically, this is not an option for anyone who is under 40 or does not already have children. Doctors simply won't perform the procedure under the assumption that you'll change your mind later and possibly sue them. As someone in my early 20s, I've tried it and been turned down even though I carefully explained that I have no desire to have children, will happily sign away any right to legal a…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 03:40 PM
2

It's all very well to state a "simple" test like that, but as I said, in the past the moderators have banned "trolls" on the basis of their subjective judgement of what constituted misandry and derailing and ended up censoring legitimate dissent from majority opinion. Terms like "derailing" particularly irk me in this context because that's exactly the justification radical feminists use to justify censorship. I'd really rather this subreddit didn't sink to their level.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:26 AM
3

I dislike SRS & friends as much as the next reasonable person, but given past failures to objectively identify "trolls" I'm rather glad the moderators just don't bother. A downvote is sufficient for me to express my disapproval.
/r/MensRights31/01/12 11:17 PM
1

I suspect the reason they feel that way is a combination of the assumption that because places like /r/feminisms engage in rampant censorship, surely their spear counterparts must do so as well, and active misinformation campaigns by people with a grudge against the male rights movement like the nice folks over in /r/shitredditsays or /r/againstmensrights. As I've said, if the best you can do is one example that resulted in immediate community censure and a reform of moderation policy regarding …
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:06 PM
2

Banning is certainly a form of censorship, but again, one example from a year ago that resulted in massive community backlash and a change to stricter moderation practices hardly constitutes a long history of it. It's like saying that a single miscarriage of justice demonstrates that a country is a police state. Furthermore, with all due respect, the onus isn't on me to search for evidence of claims you're making. If you're going to argue that this place is a haven of authoritarianism in contrad…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:51 PM
2

It's nonsensical because againstmensrights wasn't saying that /r/mensrights moderators have banned people, s/he was saying that /r/mensrights has a long history of censorship. A single example that resulted in immediate, strong community backlash and the creation of a new moderation policy explicitly protecting freedom of opinion and rebuking moderator censorship doesn't come close to demonstrating that.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:27 PM
2

Isn't that the post that sparked the whole free speech policy in the first place, though? kloo2yoo's actions were unacceptable, but the community dealt with it and has moved on. Claims that it constitutes "a long history of banning people for disagreement" are nonsensical.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:14 PM
16

If you really don't care, why are you replying at all? Why are you in /r/mensrights when you could just be happily spouting sexist crap in one of your "safe space" subreddits? I'd think you were a standard misandrist drive-by-troll given that you've refused to provide a substantive counter-argument for any points and somehow claimed that I'm making "ad hominem" attacks (perhaps something else for you to look up while you're researching "censorship", eh?), but from what I've seen of your comments…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 05:01 AM
15

For someone claiming to be disinterested, you certainly seem to be commenting quite a bit.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:56 AM
15

Non-governmental entities can censor, they merely have no legal powers to enforce that censorship through state actors. Perhaps it is you that should learn what the word means.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:53 AM
12

Censorship: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. The officials of a subreddit examining comments and suppressing content they deem unacceptable seems to fit that pretty well, as much as you may dislike it when people point it out. Also, to suggest that concerns about free expression are mere "buzzwords" is pretty damned offensive from the perspective of someone who actually gives a damn about the positive benefits of liberty. ShitRedditSay…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:47 AM
17

Feminist resorts to censorship when mad: a (sadly) unsurprising thing.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 04:14 AM
-4

since when is r/mensrights the place where we sit around and speculate about completely hypothetical unfavorable rulings? I agree with you entirely, but as a matter of fact /r/mensrights has been like that since forever. It's one of the few things I really dislike about this subreddit, although thankfully in any of the multitude of example submissions there's usually an upvoted commented questioning the relevance.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:49 AM
1

Causing something to make physical contact with someone else absent their consent is assault (or battery) under the law. It's by far the least serious form of crime against the person, but it's entirely appropriate that it is a crime because even if the consequences are minor I still wouldn't want to live in a society where I had no recourse against someone throwing coats at me short of physically responding myself and thus escalating the situation.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 04:22 PM
4

I don't agree with kloo2yoo on everything, but he's still a hell of a lot better than some troll who doesn't even have the courage of their convictions to use their real account and post actual counter-arguments.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 04:09 PM
1

That doesn't make any sense considering that the FBI definition was lagging behind the law in the first place. The crimes of rape and sexual assault are gender neutral more often than not in the U.S. (although there's still obvious bias in how they're enforced), and even when they're not because the definition hinges on penetration a man raping a man is never legal. The problem with prison rape isn't that the law allows it, it's that prison institutions are completely apathetic, there's no impet…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 12:10 AM
1

What? Lawyers hold free consultations all the time. They may very well tell you they're not interested in representing you afterwards, but a first discussion of the points at issue is by no means guaranteed to cost you.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 06:01 AM
12

Scumbag Aerik: Submits article about sexist abuse; is one of the most sexist, abusive people on reddit.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:07 PM
4

The statute of limitations for statutory rape in California is a year? Wow. It's often only half that for stuff like common assault.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 04:07 AM
3

Alleged being the key word. If this is true, it's a disgrace, but the submission provides no supporting evidence or citations, and it's clearly written in favour of one party. It has all the credibility of a reddit comment.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 08:04 AM
5

It was a survey ran by a gossip rag, not exactly the most credible, scientific source in the world.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 10:29 PM
3

That seems like far too wide a net to cast, though. I mean, you could use the same potential logic to justify posting pretty much any story that wasn't explicitly proven not to involve gender as a supposed MRA cause. What the police did here was monstrous but it seems like an issue that'd be far more relevant to a subreddit like Bad Cop No Donut. Look at it like this: your argument has about the same degree of substance as when feminists talk about supposed gender discrimination in the work plac…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:42 PM
17

I don't really see how this has anything to do with male rights, unless you argue that anything involving a victim who happens to be male is a male rights issue.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 01:49 PM
5

The fact is, men ARE falsely accused, (certainly not as much as is commonly believed), and not doing this would make it harder for them to try to get justice. It's not exactly a substantial argument either way.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 10:35 AM
5

Absent some contrary evidence of her intent, I hardly think it unreasonable to surmise that it was a woman committing a crime in order to deny a father his parental rights. That seems like a pretty clear-cut male rights issue to me.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:53 AM
1

They're not changing how the law defines rape, they're just changing how the FBI defines it with regards to reporting.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 11:26 AM
3

In your case it couldn't possibly be because you're a rude, abrasive, and deceitful commenter, Aerik?
/r/MensRights19/10/11 04:59 AM
1

I don't care, because as I demonstrated above through the use of argumentum ad Hitlerum, it has absolutely no substantive relevance and merely serves as a convenient if fallacious way to defame people and attack causes.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 06:35 AM
1

I see from your comment history that you like dogs. Did you know that Hitler liked dogs? Now why do you think you both like dogs? Must it be because you're both authoritarian fascists, or could it possibly be that the characteristics and aims of diverse individuals and demographics can sometimes overlap? No, it's definitely the first one. barbadosslim is clearly a failed Austrian artist with dictatorial ambitions.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 06:23 AM
22

As usual, first consideration goes to the hypothetical future victims of rape, as opposed to the man who was actually victimised by her and the police in the here and now...
/r/MensRights17/10/11 08:24 PM
6

You say it's so obviously right and easy to gain sympathy, but when it was specifically planned in the UK feminist groups forced the government to scrap it.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 07:49 PM
9

If male rights are being violated why does it need to be relevant to Western society? Empathy isn't magically blocked by national borders.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:12 PM
2

I realise it may be an unpopular opinion, but I really wish there was a separate site for bigots and actual, convicted false accusers. Inclusion of the former seems to trivialise the latter.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 08:06 PM
3

I like that you've taken a complaint by one user and expanded it to demonstrate alleged hypocrisy on the part of the male rights movement as a whole. I guess you must agree with opposition to feminism in general because Andrea Dworkin was a hateful person.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 08:03 PM
2

How is it private if it's publicly available under the same name?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:09 PM
5

Shouldn't you be off inciting downvote brigades in your eponym?
/r/MensRights10/10/11 06:02 PM
1

It's not libellous if it's accurate. As long as the site requires proof of wrong-doing on the part of those documented there's nothing anyone can do about it.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 06:00 PM
8

I certainly appreciate your intentions, and SRS is a cesspool of circle-jerking self-righteous arseholes, but personally I'd rather /r/mensrights didn't lower itself to incitement of downvote brigades. We're better than that.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 05:51 PM
5

Shouldn't you be organising a downvote brigade?
/r/MensRights07/10/11 03:53 PM
0

If it makes you feel any better that's going to change.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 08:28 PM
2

Disliking it is your right; the downvote brigades you've personally summoned, however, are not. One would think if you were actually in the right you wouldn't need to game the system.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 07:35 PM
1

I think you underestimate the difficulty associated with using centre of mass shots as a last resort. People are trained to use a target's centre of mass as standard practice because for the vast majority of shooters that's the only thing they'll reliably hit. It is nowhere near as easy as television and movies make it seem to hit someone's limbs, and even when it does happen the damage can very often be lethal anyway due to shock and blood loss. There really isn't such a thing as aiming for a n…
/r/MensRights01/10/11 06:48 PM
3

And by that I mean this is pretty much "women should be able to take lethal vigalente action against men they think want to rape them", which is pretty anti-men's-rights. Generally speaking people have the right to use lethal force against people they believe wish to seriously injure them. There's usually a test of reasonableness, but self-defence is subjective more often than not. I'd certainly agree that feminist-pushed "rape culture" has resulted in more fear of rape than is at all accurate, …
/r/MensRights01/10/11 06:31 PM
10

With all due respect, opposition to socially enforced traditional gender roles has been a theme present in /r/mensrights for at least as long as I've been here. OneY is explicitly a spear counterpart to TwoXChromosomes, it's not for activism. Furthermore, I disagree that it's not an important issue. A huge amount of the concrete issues men face, including the ones you've listed, stem directly from societal perception of the way men are "supposed" to live and behave.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 08:24 PM
28

I'd probably agree, but gender of victims and perpetrators is seen as more relevant to the community than other issues all the time. Look at how many "a woman did something bad" or "a man had something bad happen to him" links are submitted to this subreddit. I don't see that as being any more or less relevant to male rights advocacy than "a gay man had something bad happen to him" posts. Also, I do think there is a nexus between LGBT and MRA issues that it is appropriate to explore here. Discri…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:47 AM
1

I don't agree with censorship in any context, but this The TV ads send a message "that sensuality can melt any man" and "encourages Brazilian women to use their charms... to minimize the reactions of their husbands," the ministry said. seems to suggest that their motivation was based on it being insulting to men as well as women.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:06 PM
1

It doesn't lie outright but it certainly does engage in wilful misrepresentation by stating and implying that individual cherry picked comments represent the sentiments of most or all MRAs.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:04 PM
23

I like how you've just decided on no basis but her word that her attack was "accidental" even though a sober witness said it wasn't in the slightest. Something tells me you wouldn't be so quick to come to that conclusion if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 11:04 AM
1

changing my argument is totally kosher, whereas changing the situation we're arguing about is called "moving the goalposts". No, they're both moving the goal posts. You can't reasonably expect someone to respond to a point you haven't made yet and then criticise them on that basis, but then I suspect you know that given your documented history of unwillingness to think critically when faced with ideological opposition. That being said, you still haven't said how he "completely" changed the situa…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 03:37 AM
1

Now who's changing their argument?
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:45 AM
1

She may as well have said "YOU HAVE A PARROT ON YOUR HEAD!" for all the sense it made to me at the time. But if a woman withdraws consent and the man doesn't hear, or doesn't understand Not seeing the vast alteration you apparently are.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:16 AM
3

I agree but there's no need to be so rude. You're not going to convince anyone with insults.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:52 AM
1

I don't know, this strikes me as a Poe's Law type situation. Without telepathy or extensive research into the backgrounds of the creators it isn't reasonable to assume one way or the other.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 09:25 AM
3

Even worse, that the comments that do call the false rape accuser on her actions are focusing on the hypothetical harm done to real rape victims as opposed to the actual harm done to the falsely accused.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 09:15 AM
2

Raj Anand, a human rights lawyer and former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says, “there are certain circumstances in which the stereotype of irresponsibility that attaches to young, unmarried men is sanctioned by law – see their car insurance rates – but visiting a bar or nightclub is not one of them. In my view, exclusion of an adult of drinking age is a violation of the Human Rights Code.” seems to suggest otherwise.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 07:49 AM
2

Instead you say "we better hide that guy from the world at large so nobody can criticize us!" The irony of this claim in a submission about misandrist censorship is delicious.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 07:16 AM
1

If you can point me to one instance of me "simply hating on women" that claim might have the slightest bit of substance, but you won't because you can't. Still, I have to wonder why you do it. Is it a longing to be taken seriously? A deep-seated desire for attention? I mean, there have to be easier ways to prove that you're not an utterly worthless human being than spending most of your time publicly spreading baseless sexism. Maybe it's just that a man did something bad to you at some point and…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 06:51 AM
3

I honestly have to wonder why anyone would devote as much time as you do to attacking the human rights of half our species. I'd think that level of hatred would be intellectually exhausting, if nothing else.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 07:03 PM
1

Other than biology itself which has created males to be more diverse than females. As such, when looking for "people who can do X (which is not average)" the pool of said people will almost always have more males than females. The more extreme the X, the more male-dominated the pool will be. Do you have science to back this up, or just outcome statistics?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 10:41 PM
2

Because there's no inherent reason why women and men should be any less capable than each other when it comes to doing anything but things restricted by sexual biology, and as such neither should be denied the ability to attempt something based on their gender. It's not just a moral issue, it's also pragmatic; if neither sex is superior to the other then any system that discriminates is shooting itself in the foot by preventing people from participating who might very well be worthwhile, which h…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 10:16 PM
1

Boxers fists are classified as lethal weapons afterthey get their professional license. Do you have a source for that? I'm having difficulty believing it. I could certainly see professional training factoring into issues of intent and reasonableness of defensive force, though.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 09:01 PM
4

stilluglychick23 Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're a concern troll.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 10:35 PM
1

no more than the men's rights movement is a monolith. Funny that you say that now given how much time you've spent dredging up MRA extremists and using them to represent the MRM as a whole elsewhere on reddit.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 09:12 AM
3

From the sounds of it it's even worse in England. When they codified rape in 2003 they managed to change the mens rea to make defendants more likely to be found guilty but they conveniently left the old common law definition that only someone with a penis can commit the crime.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 08:24 AM
1

The sidebar doesn't even mention voting, and the vast majority of submissions are not cross-posts. Comparing that to a subreddit explicitly dedicated to cross-posting is false equivocation of the highest order and I suspect you know it. That being said, I never denied that those submissions that are cross-posts don't constitute downvote brigades, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 09:39 PM
3

While I would agree that they can be annoying at times, there's something that you aren't realizing about these posts - they raise awareness. While I would agree with this sentiment in general, given that society unfairly associates violence with men far more than women, I do think it's a bit of a hollow justification here because /r/mensrights only raises awareness within the male rights community, and I have difficulty believing that the vast majority of people in this subreddit aren't already…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 09:28 PM
3

The standard answer is that it raises awareness that women are just as capable of horrific violence as men, something that isn't entirely accepted by society. That being said I don't agree with that because it seems unlikely that people on /r/mensrights of all places aren't already going to know that.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:59 PM
1

While I'm all for publicising Valenti's bigotry, I really wish it wasn't done through a site primarily designed to track criminals. It seems a little insulting and trivialising to victims of false rape accusations to list her alongside people who've actually personally ruined lives.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:47 PM
3

Don't be silly, /r/SRS isn't a downvote brigade, the sidebar says so. It just looks, acts, and sounds exactly like one in practice.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 10:59 AM
7

Because comments about Jessica Valenti's genitalia are totally appropriate for mature, reasoned criticism of her hateful ideology. I honestly don't understand why people think this is okay. Valenti is a horrible individual and her writings prima facie speak to that. Bringing in irrelevant bullshit, even in jest, only compromises legitimate and necessary criticism of what actually makes her a disgusting sexist. If you introduce misogyny into male rights you're playing right into the hands of misa…
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:46 AM
1

So if someone disagrees with you they must be completely illogical, the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist, and autistic? Why do you think it's acceptable to be so rude? You don't win the argument by ignoring their points and insulting them.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 09:04 AM
1

Ad hominem? He's making a point you can't be bothered to actually counter, so better call him autistic...
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:39 PM
14

While I'm fine with registering people who have been convicted of crimes, putting others like Jessica Valenti on the site does seem a little much. It takes a legitimate purpose and turns it into a childish political hit-list.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 09:50 PM
7

Not necessarily. If she is drunk and unable to consent, and he is drunk and unable to consent, either one is still capable of raping the other. You can commit any crime while you're drunk, as far as I know. He's not saying that under your standard neither committed the crime, he's saying that under your standard both did, demonstrating the absurdity of your standard. According to most people, sex without consent is rape, and according to you, being intoxicated negates consent. As such, if two dr…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 07:57 AM
1

Aerik, buddy, if you're gonna stalk me you could at least find some comments that aren't days old.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 05:29 AM
11

Misogyny isn't funny, and neither is selective misrepresentation.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 06:23 PM
25

Yes, you can be charged with another crime if you're a female rapist, but in the eyes of the law you can't be charged with rape and as such can't be a rapist. Given that they only codified it in 2003 there was absolutely no excuse for not just making rape gender neutral. Plenty of other countries have managed it without issue, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that "engaging in sexual activity without consent" carries anywhere near as much stigma as "rape" even if the maximum sente…
/r/MensRights30/08/11 03:47 PM
-1

No-one deserves this.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 03:44 PM
15

Yeah, it's criminal voyeurism, at least in the U.K. That being said given that we're talking about a phone camera, not a spy cam, I'm not really sure how he could get photos of all three of them secretly, which leads me to suspect these women are as stupid as they are evil.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 02:46 PM
36

He can claim whatever he wants but the U.K. is so institutionally sexist that women can't commit rape.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 02:41 PM
7

I agree that statutory rape doesn't necessarily have to involve a victim as a matter of fact, but 14 is on the low end of biological maturity and as such absent compelling evidence to the contrary I don't think it unreasonable to assume a lack of competence on the part of the boys. As such, I'm not sure that their not viewing themselves as victims is important; statutory rape exists as a crime because children cannot generally appreciate the consequences of sex, be it pleasure or victimhood, neg…
/r/MensRights29/08/11 06:50 PM
6

Aren't you the guy that keeps claiming that we can't have kids because we're all bitter virgins?
/r/MensRights28/08/11 09:42 PM
2

That may have been the old common law definition, but U.S. code disagrees as do the statutes of most if not all states AFAIK, so I'm not sure that's a good reason.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 03:12 PM
5

You can take someone to court for lying about something like that. For something relating to deception and fraud. There have been cases where men have won on those grounds. They may be able to win damages in tort for EED and similar, but they certainly can't sever child support obligations on that basis and any damage award is highly unlikely to be equivalent to 18 years of child support obligations. So, while an unwilling father may be financially screwed slightly less, he's still financially s…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:52 PM
0

But we're not talking about mandatory shared custody, we're talking about purely financial arrangements. In that context, society (through the government) is entirely capable of paying the same amount of money to the custodial parent as the non-custodial parent would be forced to pay under the present system. It may not be desirable to many and it would certainly result in either significantly increased taxation or major budgetary changes, but it would be entirely possible. Of course, the normal…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:43 PM
0

The problem is that you could make the exact same rationalisations about women choosing who to have sex with in order to dismantle their reproductive rights, and yet that's considered immoral and illiberal. Not that I disagree with that assessment, but it's a clear double standard and simply arguing that people should be alerted to the status quo is not a sufficient response when the status quo is wrong. If something is unfair we should seek to change it, not merely educate others regarding its …
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:37 PM
3

deciding not to be a mother gets called you selfish and no one wants to perform any sterilization on you, lots of doctors refuse. That's got nothing to do with sex; you get exactly the same response as a man looking to get a vasectomy unless you lie about already having children or are relatively old.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:33 PM
1

Why are the rights of the child necessarily linked to their biological parents (except where they're not, such as adoption)? If society is so hell-bent on supporting the child, shouldn't society pay, rather than a biological father who was not afforded any choice beyond whether to have sex in stark contrast to the mother?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:27 PM
8

As unfortunate as it must have been for the father, it's nice that the judicial system actually handled this properly for once.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:32 AM
13

They don't support a collective child support system because that wouldn't victimise unwilling fathers.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:21 PM
30

Good lords, if her responses in the comments aren't a perfect examples of feminist irrationality, hate, and distortion, all directed toward men, I don't know what would be. Of course she thinks that; she's clearly a misandrist, and I don't buy her "I think raped women should have to pay child support" line one bit. Also, claims like All deadbeats are required to do is contribute a couple of bucks. don't exactly help her case for having a grasp on reality. Yeah, child support for 18 years amount …
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:14 PM
34

So she's no true feminist?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:06 PM
1

Dude, if the kid gives up legal parental rights, I agree with you and so does the law. How so? You can forfeit parental rights but there's no mechanism in the law to allow a father to forfeit parental responsibilities short of being the sole guardian and giving the child up for adoption.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:35 PM
7

Given that the CPS is an independent governmental organisation and can step in and take control of private prosecutions at their discretion, I'd like to see you explain how a private lawyer of any calibre could actually do that.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 05:26 PM
19

No, you claim to ban people who troll, but your definition of troll is essentially "anyone who disagrees with Donna_Juanita & co.", and when you don't ban, you simply delete comments or even edit their content using the stylesheets (or at least you did until kloo2yoo caught it and the admins told you off). Don't even try to deny this; everyone here has seen the multitude of submissions on /r/feminisms that amount to one or two pro-radical posts and ten times the number of [deleted] comments. You…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:00 PM
11

If you thought your arguments were strong enough, you wouldn't have to ban everyone that dares challenge them.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 02:47 PM
29

Ah, censorship; the one sure-fire way to prove you can't win the argument on its merits.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 10:18 AM
1

With all due respect, I have no interest in learning anything from someone who views all women as a problem. It's sexist, it's intolerant, and yes, it's bigoted whether you think it's true or not. While I have no right to force you to change your mind or stop spreading hate, I nonetheless believe that you should be quiet and learn, because your attitude is toxic to a perfectly legitimate cause. It alienates people who would otherwise support us, it makes us a public laughing stock, just as bad a…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:10 PM
1

I'm sure every bigot thinks that about the demographics they perceive as the enemy, but that doesn't make them any less bigoted.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:58 PM
1

What, pray tell, do you call gross negative generalisations based on sex such as "Women are the biggest problem, they always have been right throughout history, and this present moment in history is no exception." if not misogyny?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:18 PM
2

While I respect your right to express your opinion, misogynistic attitudes like yours are exactly why the rest of reddit likes to think we're a joke.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:33 AM
2

You say "just" as if it's that easy. Unless you're 40+ or have children already most doctors insist they know your future plans better than you do.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:45 PM
8

Yeah, and it's rather telling that they have under 100 readers, the mod list is chock full of proven misandrist extremists, and the worst "dirt" they can dig up on us is usually months old or outright lies. That someone like Aerik would be made a moderator of a subreddit complaining about unfairness is delicious in its irony.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 01:16 PM
2

This is your subreddit's top story right now. Celda now has 25 downvotes and that number is increasing even though this issue has been discussed here before and his opinion isn't controversial with the /r/mensrights community in the slightest. In fact, a huge number of comments supporting that position have been flooded with downvotes since that submission. If you're claiming that your subreddit doesn't promote downvote brigades you're either living in a fantasy world or lying.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:57 AM
23

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's nice to see someone punished for infant genital mutilation, but on the other, I don't think anyone in that family but the boy should see a dime of that settlement; his parents voluntarily put him on that operating table for a completely unnecessary procedure and now they're essentially being rewarded with millions of dollars because it went badly.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:11 PM
3

Once again you're generalising. I am an MRA and I would be outraged if kloo2yoo banned her, but you don't care about that; you'd rather paint us all with the same brush because it's more convenient and possibly due to your own ideological differences with male rights. We have clear community guidelines on censorship that exist because of previous abuse of power by moderators. That's part of the reason why I'm skeptical that kloo2yoo actually banned her, but fair enough; I will message him, howev…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:34 PM
9

"generalising" by calling out men's rights' transphobia is now "abusive" I'm an male rights advocate and I'm not transphobic in the slightest. Therefore, you are engaging in the very definition of "generalising", because according to you I am a transphobe simply because I share views with people who may or may not be transphobes. Calling me a transphobe, given that it is derogatory to anyone with a sense of decency, is insulting, and is therefore abusive, and Laurelai did exactly that when she g…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:38 PM
3

Not that I'm condoning her actions in any way, but I wouldn't call 15 year-olds "kids". One more year and they'd be perfectly legal in my jurisdiction. That being said, getting them drunk makes this a clear case of date rape (or at least it damn well should) anyway.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 07:29 PM
1

Now, I could see it being potentially funny if he was a rapist, but equivocating property crime with sexual assault is just vile.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 11:39 PM
6

It may be that a man cannot be legally raped in Russia. In many jurisdictions, it isn't defined simply as non-consensual sex, but rather non-consensual penetration. That's the case under British statute and common law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was elsewhere. On the other hand, the article could just be misandrist beyond belief.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 11:31 PM
4

I agree. Capital punishment, if it is ethical at all, should be reserved for capital offences. SCotUS and various other supreme courts worldwide have been very clear and eloquent on that point. I'm sorry so many people here are apparently hostile to the idea that the state shouldn't kill people for genital mutilation (and as an aside have forgotten that you're not supposed to downvote opinions you disagree with, you're supposed to downvote spam and irrelevant content The nine people (at least at…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:45 AM
13

But they don't. As long as nothing on that site is defamatory, it's perfectly legal, and as it's largely documenting proven crimes truth'd be a complete defence.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:03 PM
5

PZ Myers is an excellent biologist but if you read into his political and ideological views outside religion, he's an extremist whether you support him or not and he's actively produced lying, hateful propaganda against the male rights movement. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he has to say outside evolutionary theory. Edit - see here and commentary here and here. I've enjoyed some of his writings on other subjects, but the guy's a misandrist ass when it comes to equality.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 02:27 PM
9

So are you a feminist plant or are you so misogynistic that you simply don't care if comments like yours turn people away from an otherwise noble cause?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:35 PM
4

He pled guilty. I'm not saying the situation is just at all but that was a really, really stupid move.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:38 PM
12

No, parents do not have the right to chop off their child's toe. They have the right to act as a proxy for their child in a medical situation where chopping off a toe is a valid medical solution to a problem, just as they have the right and should have the right to have a child's foreskin surgically removed as part of a valid medical procedure. To go from that logic to claiming that parents have carte blanche to hack off their childrens' body parties is nonsensical.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 11:11 AM
2

Sometimes elements of the movement, just like elements of feminism. That's no excuse for bring the entire movement into it or placing responsibility for it on all of us, however it seems to the author.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:09 AM
5

I'm not really sure about that. On the one hand, the author claims to support male rights, but on the other, by totally belittling and attacking what little we've managed to accomplish in the relatively small time the movement has even existed, they're not exactly helping. Neither are the rampant generalisations. I'm getting a little of tired of constantly being told that if I call myself an MRA I must be a misogynistic armchair activist, and that's exactly what this author is doing. Not exactly…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:08 AM
12

And the vast majority of street crimes are committed by blacks. You can't ignore that, no matter how deeply it offends you.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:26 PM
8

Sexual exploitation of minors in any context is a violent crime and sexual assault because as minors any interaction must be non-consensual. To disregard that data because it disagrees with your ideological conclusions is intellectually dishonest and unconscionable.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:25 PM
4

Boys in particular need a biological father As someone with adopted siblings both of whose biological fathers were complete wastes of space and the worst possible parents, I take great issue with this principle. Biology is not important. Responsibility is. The two may be interrelated but they're not inextricably linked.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:00 PM
2

Meh, roaches like you are just the cost of this "scumbag subreddit" respecting free speech. Keep commenting your nonsense, no-one is going to read it and think anything beyond "what an idiot".
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:49 PM
3

If feminists actually mean "patriarchy" in that sense, why do they keep the "pat" part? Surely if both sexes are trapped, men are trapped, and yet men are the rulers according to the word itself. If that's not evidence of misandry on the part of feminists, I don't know what would be, and a misandrist can't be an egalitarian. As long as feminism maintains patriarchy theory, it cannot mean equality as much as you might like otherwise. At the very least some feminists have had the decency to relabe…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:47 PM
2

He was 100% correct Do you have a citation for that? Don't misunderstand me, the whole Slut Walk concept was ridiculous in principle because there's a difference between explaining risk factors and blaming victims that feminists apparently can't comprehend, but as a matter of fact I've never seen a study showing any link between clothing and probability of sexual assault. Drunkenness I can completely see a link for, but not so much dress, and it'd be really helpful to actually have a source when…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:40 PM
6

I don't mean to be oversensitive but it does kinda exclude people from areas of parks if they can't have kids. That's actually a really interesting point from a legal perspective. Disabilities are protected, at least against state action, and infertility might be classed as a disability. I wonder if these "w/ child only laws" are actually illegal on that basis.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:24 PM
5

Furthermore, I suspect that attempts to criminalise this would result in First Amendment challenges that might very well succeed. All this women actually did was talk. The content was reprehensible, but I doubt it rises to the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" or direct incitement standards necessary for speech to lose protection, even if a defence lawyer couldn't comfortably tear the prosecution case for causation to shreds. You have to remember it wouldn't be "did her messages probably lead…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:20 PM
5

I certainly agree that minimum sentencing rules in the U.S. are insane, but as he didn't actually lick someone's pussy I'm not really that's at issue.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 03:05 PM
1

I disagree that it was self-defence if her story is true. Self-defence requires reasonable restraint, unless you live in a castle-doctrine jurisdiction, and even then there are limits. In most situations, for self-defence or defence of others to form a valid affirmative defence, the force used must have been reasonable, proportionate, and no more than necessary to stop or prevent the attack. You don't need to cut off a rapist's penis to make them stop raping you; that was completely unnecessary …
/r/MensRights01/06/11 02:50 PM
2

Depends, unless you know about India specifically. At the very least in England and Wales murder requires intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and I imagine other common law-descended countries may India have similar rules. You're right that it's probably not attempted murder, though; you can't attempt murder without murderous intent. Though, truth be told, she might have intended to kill him even though the evidence hasn't shown it yet.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 02:45 PM
6

Permanent bodily injury without consent is not an individual rights issue? It should be criminal, male or female.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 04:14 AM
5

Nice that they're just assuming the one with the grievous bodily injury is worthy of arrest. Wasn't India the country one of whose court's said that women would never lie about rape?
/r/MensRights31/05/11 02:41 AM
2

I realise the law on this issue, but I'd just like to point out that from a practical perspective, as men are not legally allowed to do this and women are not either as many others have pointed out in this thread, this isn't really a practical problem, and from a theoretical perspective as a male rights advocate and a liberal I'd much rather people could exclude whatever people from their properties for whatever reason, including gender, and as long as that was equally enforced across genders, t…
/r/MensRights28/05/11 12:36 PM
6

Legally, you can. The press doesn't because they choose not to; they're the ones that would have to be convinced, not policy-makers. You have to be careful with this issue because prima facie it seems awesome from a due process perspective, but on the other hand openness and public participation in the legal system is very important for keeping it honest, or at least less dishonest. I tend to think the best system would be to disallow the police and courts from releasing details until conviction…
/r/MensRights18/05/11 05:19 AM
3

To be fair, parents responsibility to children is absolute. That either parent never intended to have the child does not absolve it. Why? Because you say so? For someone talking about fairness you sure seem dead set on being outrageously unfair to unwilling fathers.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:57 PM
0

You don't seem to understand the nature of analogies. When someone says two things are analogous, they're not saying that the two things in question are identical, i.e. equating them. They're saying that specific shared features of the two things are sufficiently similar for comparisons to be drawn. In my analogy, the specific feature shared between committing a crime and engaging in sex while intoxicated is responsibility. In the case of criminal offences, individuals are deemed to have been re…
/r/seduction09/05/11 03:34 AM
4

Yes, but lots of speech is immoral and that doesn't make it any less free speech. If I were to call you a disgusting tranny I'd clearly be in the wrong but it'd still be in accordance with the principles of free speech for me to do so. From a legal perspective, that's why SCotUS rules that the harm being incited must be imminent for the incitement to lose First Amendment protection. If the parent poster was at the head of an IRL mob chanting for the deaths of nearby LGBT individuals that wouldn'…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:22 AM
3

It certainly doesn't according to U.S. free speech jurisprudence.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:15 AM
7

Hate speech is the price we pay for free speech. Personally, I'm okay with that, because if someone has the freedom to say something as objectionable as parent, someone else has the freedom to call them out on it. All censorship does is drive hate underground where it can't be challenged.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:49 AM
5

Do you support rape-by-deceit laws in general, then? Was that Israeli rape conviction of an Arab who claimed to be Jewish justified in your view? I can somewhat respect and understand your position if that's the case, although I don't agree with it, but I'm surprised because most MRAs I've encountered are vehemently opposed to the notion that sex becomes rape if one partner decieves the other about some aspect of it or themselves.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:46 AM
6

I suspect he's saying that we shouldn't have to say we're friendly to any specific group and reducing the issue to the absurd to demonstrate that. On the other hand he's written some really, really hateful posts about LGBT individuals elsewhere so I could be overly optimistic.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:43 AM
3

I can't follow the logic here. Is this an innovative form of the just-world hypothesis? As in, "what happened to her was because of her bad decisions". Look at it like this; if someone gets very drunk and commits a crime, except in a very limited set of offences that are specific intent, they can't claim that they weren't responsible for their behaviour due to drunkenness because the law and society recognises that if you voluntarily choose to become intoxicated, at that time you accept the risk…
/r/seduction09/05/11 01:28 AM
3

Not really. AFAIK most jurisdictions don't have any explicit codification of that, and the general principle is that intoxication in itself does not negate consent, but rather intoxication to the point of incapacity does, which would be a question of fact for the jury to determine. Of course given that any jury's reasoning on that point is going to be somewhat subjective, it's still best not to sleep with people who are heavily drunk.
/r/seduction09/05/11 01:21 AM
6

I do find the number of people saying that she must be mentally ill interesting, though. I wonder how quick people would be to defend a man committing clear domestic violence on that basis.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:54 AM
1

Strictly speaking, patting someone on the back already is battery (which the common law and every statutory codification I'm aware of defines as any non-consensual unlawful physical contact), although you'd have a defence i. Also, your hypothetical DV example probably would constitute assault because assault merely requires the defendant cause the victim to anticipate an imminent battery regardless of what the defendant actually intended (the mens rea being intent to say the words, not intent to…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 03:26 AM
1

Or we expect people who unilaterally choose to have children to pay for them themselves. Which is essentially chavelah's "the kids grow up in abject poverty". Obviously that wouldn't be the case for every single parent, but it would for some without mandatory child support or social welfare. It's certainly not fair to attempt to deal with it by passing the bill to someone who lacked a final choice in the matter, but it's also plainly unfair for a child to grow up in poverty because of the bad de…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 03:15 AM
10

3) If you're post-op, NOBODY DESERVES TO KNOW SHIT unless you want to tell them. People deserve their privacy, especially when most of y'all sons of bitches probably couldn't even tell she was trans anyway. I'm not sure you can legitimately call something private when you're allowing someone else to penetrate it.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:45 AM
15

While I'm completely sympathetic to the idea that the onus is on a trans individual to reveal their status to a romantic partner, calling trans people unreal and refusing to recognise their own gender is nasty and needlessly cruel whether it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek or not.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:42 AM
14

Yeah, but that's Aerik. I'm not excusing his/her behaviour but from the downvotes it doesn't look like /r/transphobiaproject is either. Aerik hasn't even been supported by /r/feminisms when s/he has attempted to incite intrareddit conflict.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:20 AM
3

I think that once he was convicted of assault, he should have been removed from the team, and my understanding is that he was. Prior to that, however procedural innocence demanded that no special action be taken involving him. Do I think the school would have been better off to let the accuser sit out of games involving the accused? Yes, I suppose. However, not doing that is a far cry from violating someone's rights. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect a cheerleader to cheerlead if they…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:44 PM
3

I'm not sure I see how it's a violation of her rights to say that she can't take part in a volunteer activity if she's not willing to engage in the core behaviour associated with that activity. Cheerleaders are supposed to cheer, and if one of them decides not to for her own personal reasons, I could certainly see it disrupting the rest of the squad. Furthermore, I would argue that "nitpicking" the headline is not only entirely appropriate but entirely necessary. Rampant expansion of the definit…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 05:18 PM
4

You may be sure, but is there objective evidence for it? Many jurisdictions don't allow intent to kill to be assumed from the seriousness of the attack alone; while intent to grievously injure might be enough to sustain a murder charge if the victim died from their wounds, attempted murder tends to require explicit intent to kill the victim, which I'm not seeing from the article. Legally there has to be a clear distinction between a brutal beating and an attempted murder or the door would be ope…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:46 PM
1

You don't get to define what it is to be male based on your own biases and preconceptions. Crap like "man up" is a big part of why I support the male rights movement.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:02 PM
2

Since then the traditional Swedish belief in the need for organising politics, business and even one’s private life to make it as sexually equal as possible seems to have come under threat. In new opinion polls only 1.3% of voters said they would vote for the feminist party. It seems to me that the traditional Swedish belief in equality is fine, they just recognised that feminism isn't the way to do it.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 04:37 PM
8

"terroristic" has no legal relation to terrorism. All it means is that the threat was intended to cause fear, and statutes dealing with it called it that long before the recent governmental obsession with terrorists.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:33 AM
2

A continued pattern of harassment and spam is distinct from a single instance of it, CellarDorre, and I suspect you know that. /r/mensrights has a very soft, hands-off moderation policy that absolutely does not involve censoring content, but no-one in that thread ever claimed that there was nothing that could possibly result in moderator action if it was prolonged or violated the very specific areas where action is stated to be an acceptable response. In Cliffor's case, he would spam adult discu…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 02:23 AM
2

With all due respect, I take issue with your mutual exclusivity. Not all feminists are misandrists, but given how loosely defined "feminism" has become over the years, it is entirely possible to be a misandrist while fitting someone's definition of feminist. That's part of the problem MRAs have with feminism in practice, and leads to shit like /r/truefeminism because whenever someone points out bad things feminists have done, someone chimes in with the view that those people aren't really femini…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 01:15 AM
3

If your condom breaks then emergency contraceptives designed exclusively for women aren't going to help you avoid your entire future resting on the decsion of a woman.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 12:42 PM
3

If your solution to male reproductive rights is vasectomies, I presume you'd be fine with repealing Roe v Wade and telling any women who was miffed about inaccess to abortion to get surgically sterilised?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 12:39 PM
2

Fundamentally, why should it not be as easy for a man to walk away from a pregnancy as a woman, who need merely abort, a safe, simple, quick medical procedure that is not even necessarily invasive. To suggest that men should not have any choices as a result of "pro-choice" doctrine is not only unavoidably sexist but it's also hypocritical in the extreme.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 12:37 PM
0

The Chief Justice didn't say that. I don't agree with her but fabricating quotes is odious no matter how bad the person being implicated is.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:24 AM
6

Only in the loosest possible sense. The content is tasteless but it's hardly worthy of censorship even if YouTube's rules would allow it. Personally I'd rather the male rights movement didn't pull a feminism by disregarding the principles of free expression because we saw something we don't agree with.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 03:35 AM
5

Putting aside the lies, if anyone ever needs an example of why feminism is evil, you can just point to illiberal crap like this and ask why a "good" ideology would be cheering for the termination of due process.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 02:50 AM
1

You say "just" as if having the entire world learn that your spouse was cheating on you, with the sordid details aired, is no big deal. There is never any excuse for domestic violence, but let's not pretend Bill wasn't significantly in the wrong.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 11:41 AM
2

With all due respect, rsda, with your calls for censorship, personal attacks, and accusations of derailing, you sound like a feminazi yourself. I hope you realise your kind of comments are exactly what goes on in /r/feminisms. /r/mensrights has a history of supporting free speech expressly to distinguish itself from feminist authoritarianism and irrationality.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 02:27 AM
6

Point out that she must acknowledge the existence of morning wood, which clearly demonstrates that male arousal is an involuntary biological process. If her reasoning is more along the lines of "women are too moral to rape" or "a woman would never be strong enough to force herself on a man", I'm not really sure what you could say to dispel such obvious delusions.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 08:20 AM
2

Children are terrible witnesses. They're easy to manipulate without even realising it, their emotional and physical dependence on their carers influences them, their memories are more mutable than adults, they generally have more difficulty discerning between fiction and reality, and they are less capable of understanding the gravity of being truthful and accurate in a court proceeding. If the killer's word is only supported by that of her children, that is nowhere near enough to reasonably beli…
/r/MensRights14/04/11 02:42 AM
5

They did their job properly by repeatedly arresting a man based on no evidence other than the word of someone opposing him in a custody dispute?
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:14 AM
1

This isn't quite accurate. In the UK (or at least England and Wales), the Interpretation Act 1978 dictates that statutes that refer to "him" or "her" exclusively should be interpreted with the assumption that it also refers to the appropriate alternate gender pronoun. The Sexual Offences Act is grossly misandrist because the language requires penetration of the victim by a penis to constitute rape and the offence of a woman raping a man would only be covered by sexual assault (s3), not rape, the…
/r/MensRights12/04/11 04:54 AM
1

Under the Interpretation Act 1978 s 6 masculine terms additionally refer to their feminine equivalents and vice versa unless specifically intended otherwise. However, given that s 1(1)(a) of the 2003 Act states he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, the fact that "he" also means "she" is only relevant in so far as it relates to transgender individuals with penises as I noted above.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 04:46 AM
2

Given that Dictionary has never worked for me when offline, I've always assumed that it gets its definitions from a centralised source.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:51 PM
2

Sexual Offences Act 2003 s 1 Strictly speaking you only need a penis to commit rape, though, so I suppose it would probably cover transgender individuals as well.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:49 PM
1

I disagree. The people on the front lines wouldn't be able to fight were it not for their support staff. They're all responsible for winning or losing whether they shot enemy soldiers in person or not.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 09:01 PM
1

It was considered. The Child Pornography Prevention Act 1996 criminalised virtual child pornography and SCotUS struck the relevant sections down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). Combine that with Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which established that mere possession of obscene materials is protected by the First Amendment, and such laws seem very, very unlikely to succeed. That being said, there was a case under the PROTECT Act 2008 in which the Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction, but t…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 06:52 PM
3

We also know about feminist infiltrators who come here to troll under the guise of misogyny.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 06:27 PM
5

I'm sure you did. I find it interesting, however, that you keep saying that there's lots of misogyny even while only providing evidence of one comment. If there really was that much, and it was so obvious and overt, one would think you'd have an easier time documenting it. Provide citations or be assumed to be trolling, because you seem to keep making claims without providing a bit of evidence to back them up, whether they are personal attacks on this subreddit's moderators or general attacks on…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:36 AM
4

You might want to link to something with a tad more credibility than Shakesville before making blanket claims like that. Or, shit, try actually making an argument for yourself rather than parroting feminist propaganda.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:24 AM
7

If it took you 10 minutes to find one tasteless joke then the idea that this place is overflowing with misogyny is patently ludicrous.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 01:34 AM
2

If people are engaging in misogyny, they're not my comrades. That being said, I can't say I see much of that in your links with the possible exception of fondueguy and even that's pushing it. They may talk about women, but I don't see anything stating an equivalence between feminism and women. Could you perhaps quote the specific statements to that effect? Furthermore, given that I didn't even post a complete sentence I have absolutely no clue where you're getting the idea that I implied anythin…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 01:17 AM
2

"feminism" != "women"
/r/MensRights07/04/11 12:57 AM
2

Unless the Chief Justice actually said those words, there is no excuse for writing them in the form of a quote. It's incredibly misleading, if not an outright fabrication, and absent the quotation marks, the title would have been perfectly accurate if not quite so sensationalist.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 12:29 PM
5

That the child needs support does not make it okay to penalise an innocent party to support it. The logical flaw in the "best interests" doctrine is that in the case of every father but the richest in the world, it'd be even more in the interests of the child to garnish the wages of someone richer than the child. This demonstrates that the "best interests" argument is merely a dodge to avoid the ethical issue of holding someone responsible for something they had no control over. Furthermore, eve…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:03 PM
2

Really? I think if society is so hell-bent on someone supporting the child, it'd be far more fair if society paid for it than an innocent who had no control over the situation.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:01 PM
2

For anyone to believe this would have to believe that posting anything in MensRights never gets picked up by google. So , no, youre wrong. Given that /r/mensrights is essentially just a news aggregator with comments, why wouldn't the original submissions get picked up whether /r/mensrights was involved or not? I'm sorry, but you're going to have to give me some empirical data before I believe that upvoting a story in a very specific subreddit is going to increase general public perception of the…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 06:28 PM
2

This and other stories are preaching to the choir and you know it. The only people who read /r/mensrights and don't accept that women are capable of doing wrong are feminists, and misandrists aren't going to change their minds based on what MRAs say. No-one here needs waking up.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 06:21 PM
4

I imagine someone will say that we needed to be reminded that women commit crimes or similar, not that I'd agree with it.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:01 PM
9

Because by continuing to insist on patriarchy as an aspect of kyriarchy, you are both insisting that men are the oppressors and the oppressed, which is self-contradictory, and making a significant false assumption that men as a demographic are responsible and reap the benefits of kyriarchy, and making a significant false assumption on an individual level that any given man is going to be more privileged than any given woman. Society is certainly hierarchical, but to pre-suppose that men are high…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:04 PM
7

If it hurts men, how can it be the "systematic social dominance of men"? Victims don't dominate. I'm all for the idea that social systems institutionalise discrimination based on a wide variety of factors, but I find your holding men responsible and claiming that men are simultaneously the oppressors and the oppressed not only misandrist but downright illogical. "kyriarchy" is a far more appropriate term, although its existence is still open to debate.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:58 AM
7

It's not really "pat"riarchy if it hurts men as much as it hurts women, is it?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:06 AM
1

Having consensual sex means consenting to the consequences of that sex. One of the potential consequences of having penis in vagina sex even while using contraception is pregnancy if the contraception fails. That's a assumed risk that every adult has when they perform this sex act. If two adults can come together to put his penis inches away from her cervix when he ejaculates and something happens so that the sperm actually reaches her cervix then she's pregnant and they now are responsible in a…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 10:36 AM
4

Honestly I find your attitude more insulting to women than anything else. The implication is that if a woman chooses not to work towards a higher paying job, her choice is somehow less free than a man's. You're essentially saying that women don't have free will and are subservient to societal pressures whereas men do and aren't. It's the same sort of misogynistic attitude that led people to be certain that college girls couldn't possibly know whether they'd been raped or not or female spouses ca…
/r/MensRights13/03/11 03:04 PM
1

No, in one of the cases the victim is still very much illegal. The deck is stacked against your argument because it's terrible. No, the deck is stacked against my argument because you outright changed yours. You used 16 as the victim's age because that way you could attempt to demonstrate inconsistency by showing that in one legal system it'd be acceptable, while not so in another, thus showing that age of consent laws are not absolute and harm cannot be assumed on that basis. The problem with t…
/r/MensRights08/03/11 09:01 PM
1

I never said anything like that. First of all, your hypothetical has the deck stacked against me because you've explicitly upped the age of the alleged victim to being legal, and second of all, I never claimed that there'd be no harm in any given situation, I merely claimed that you can't assume lack of harm from lack of coercion when dealing with minors who haven't finished developed physically, mentally, and emotionally, which is exactly why statutory rape laws exist even in situations where n…
/r/MensRights08/03/11 08:25 PM
1

The point is that there doesn't necessarily need to be any coercion for there to be harm. Perhaps it isn't overt now, but it may be later. All you've done is show a lack of coercion, not a lack of harm.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:48 PM
2

15 year olds are not fully emotionally developed, you can't just say "he wanted it at the time" as if that removes any and all possibility of resultant harm.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:18 PM
6

For some reason it did that to me but then went to the correct article when I reloaded. I think Gawker's new hashbang js nonsense is broken.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:10 PM
0

I still don't see how that's hijacking in any reasonable sense. If you don't want a general survey of the entire internet, don't make a survey that the entire internet can complete. You're using exactly the same logic that Fox News uses to dismiss people on the internet "corrupting" its polls to give answers they didn't want to hear. Complaining about a section of the public taking part in something the creator explicitly decided to make public is nonsensical.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 06:45 PM
-1

Since when is linking to a publicly accessible survey on the internet 'hijacking'?
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:25 AM
3

By that logic, if I tell a girl I'm going to break up with her if she doesn't sleep with me, I'm a rapist if she agrees. It's scummy, sure, but I take serious issue with your characterisation of her being "forced". No-one actually made her do anything but herself. On distribution he clearly did something criminal and immoral, and it was wrong for him to convince her to make the video on the basis that he did, but you're seriously trivialising the notion of coercion. It has to rise beyond the lev…
/r/MensRights06/03/11 04:50 AM
4

But is that actually what she is saying? I've heard feminists say this, but I don't think she is. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see what else you could take from statements like "Most of the readers here don't even know what feminism is" and "When it comes to feminists though, it seems like most people here are all to willing to immediately blanket these people who don't care about men's rights as feminists even though they don't adhere to the feminist definition." How else am I supposed to int…
/r/MensRights05/03/11 11:18 PM
3

The difference is that in your example I'd readily admit they were MRAs, albeit misogynist MRAs, whereas Mokeh is outright claiming that misandrists cannot be feminists by definition. Furthermore, as a secondary point MRAs and feminists are not strictly analogous. The correct analogies would be feminist/masculist and mens' rights/womens' rights. It's not a particularly significant distinction in practice, but they are different.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 09:17 PM
7

With all due respect, that's a clear instance of the no true Scotsman fallacy. There are numerous individuals who call themselves feminists and are vehemently opposed to mens' rights, MRAs, and the notion of female privilege. Who are you to say we're wrong to call them feminists because they're misandrists when that's how they define themselves? Are you seriously trying to claim that places like I Blame the Patriarchy and Shakesville aren't feminist because they don't fit your restrictive descri…
/r/MensRights05/03/11 08:05 PM
9

I agree that it's unfair that the father isn't being held responsible given that he had ultimate authority over what happened. That being said, I'm not sure it's fair to call this a money grab any more than any other tort cases; this man was wronged and as no-one can bring his foreskin back injunctive relief isn't a possibility, leaving only the option of damages.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:46 AM
12

Because British police face no real consequences for false arrests so it's much easier for them to just lock people up and ask questions later. Plus, what better excuse to add two more people to the DNA database, right?
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:29 AM
4

I don't see why both the father and the doctor can't be guilty. No-one held a gun to the doctor's head and forced him to mutilate a baby, whether he thought it was legal or not, and quite beside that ignorance of the criminal or tortious nature of an act is no defence.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:23 AM
7

I think I've yet to encounter a feminist internet community that wasn't in a love affair with censorship.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 03:45 AM
2

What exactly do you call "the only people standing in the way of mens rights are other men" if not claiming that men are exclusively responsible?
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:47 PM
0

I'm not saying women are exclusively responsible, I'm saying you're wrong to claim that men are exclusively responsible. People of both genders are to blame. However, the reason for it is feminist ideology, belief in which is not exclusive to women. The "people standing in the way of mens rights" are men and women who oppose mens' rights, not "only" other men.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:38 PM
0

But they're being voted for by women, who represent approximately half the population and have exactly the same political rights as men. The gender of the representative is far less important than the gender of those he or she represents, because their views are the ones being represented.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:25 PM
2

As long as women have the right to vote and lobby, pawning this off as an issue caused by men is dishonest. Some men do stand in the way of mens' rights, but so do some women, and their motivations are overwhelmingly feministic in nature.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:19 PM
1

Maybe remember to capitalise your pronoun "i"s before criticising other peoples' English abilities, champ.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 02:20 PM
1

Perhaps, but at least I have critical thinking and writing skills beyond a grade school level. Also I'm not a racist misogynist conspiracy theorist, so there's that.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 02:17 PM
1

Wow, calling me a turd. I wasn't sure you could sink any lower, but there you go proving me wrong. You deserve a gold star for that level of originality. Incidentally, I think you may want to look up the definition of "pussy pass" because it has bugger all to do with the life expectancies of anyone.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 02:14 PM
1

As promised... Misrepresentation: "If a man tried this excuse, he would be laughed out of the police station/court." This is not a fact, it's merely your expectation of hypothetical events coloured by your own agenda. However likely it is, presenting it as truth is misrepresentative. "from what facts have already happened, there is female privileged going on here" As the only action taken so far according to the article is an arrest, claiming female privilege is misrepresentative; what exactly d…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 01:43 PM
1

Fine, if you want me to C&P specific parts of your comments I'd be happy to. Anything to help enlighten someone who clearly needs it. BRB.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 01:23 PM
1

Misrepresentation Claiming the police accepted her supposed condition as a defence when totally unsupported by the facts presented in the submission. derailment Whenever I raised an objection with your comments you completely shifted your argument and ignored the objection. intellectual dishonesty Continuing to insistent that the police accepted her defence while simultaneously claiming that she wouldn't have the opportunity to present it. downright making shit up See misrepresentation, although…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 01:18 PM
0

No, those are presumptions on your part. They may very well come true, but in "reality" facts aren't facts until they actually happen. You do realise you're engaging in exactly the same tactics as feminists, right? Misrepresentation, derailment, intellectual dishonesty, downright making shit up. You'd make the gals on /r/feminisms proud.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:40 AM
1

So come back in a few days and say what you want if she hasn't gone to court. Pretending anything else is fact prior to that is intellectually dishonest and you know it. Incidentally, I'd still like to know which it is, because you seem to have made three wholly contradictory statements about the situation and refused to resolve them when called on it, rather changing the subject to an entirely independent argument.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:35 AM
2

Nothing in that quote even remotely demonstrates a police acceptance of anything. The police aren't even mentioned. First you say the police accepted her defence, then you say the attacker will never get a chance to use the defence, then you say her using the defence is pure female privilege. Which is it? You were wrong and now you're trying to derail by going off on a totally imagined tangent on the basis of what you think will probably happen because you don't actually have a factual basis for…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:26 AM
2

Please quote the relevant section of the article, because I've read it four times and I'm still not seeing anything about using it as a legal defence at any stage in the proceedings. At most the top line says she was arrested and the bottom paragraph finishes with her victim calling 911 about the attack. Again, please provide a quote demonstrating that she is being allowed to use any defence. Going paragraph by paragraph... A woman was arrested for attacking her lover because he “popped” his shi…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:14 AM
1

While there is undeniably institutional sexism at work in the justice system, assuming it applies at the micro level to an individual case for which the extent of your knowledge ends at a 911 call is irrational. Sorry you can't see that, for some it's hard to see. How do you know the cops are letting her use it as a defence? It's certainly not stated in the article, so that's just one more assumption. The only "what facts have already happened" is that she attacked him and he called 911. Beyond …
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:03 AM
1

No, I can't, but neither can you find a case where a woman use that defence and it worked because we don't know what happened in this case after the victim called 911. You can downvote me for pointing out that inconvenient truth all you want but it won't make it any less accurate. It's exactly that kind of bullshit that gives this subreddit a bad name on the rest of reddit. You can't simply assume that something happened because if it were to happen it would conform to your expectations. Is ther…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 09:41 AM
1

Given that we don't even know how the case was disposed of from the article, it seems a tad premature to be claiming female privilege.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 09:26 AM
0

I disagree. If you talk about discussion with feminists, feminist conduct is implicitly relevant. You can't attack MRAs for being unwilling to properly debate feminists when the automatic feminist response to intellectual opposition is "MISOGYNY!!!11ONE" and censorship.
/r/MensRights27/02/11 09:14 PM
6

The problem is that you can't even have a discussion. Go into /r/feminisms and check out their rules; anything even slightly critical of their movement is unapologetically censored. Go to any other feminist hub on the internet and you'll find exactly the same thing. Feminists don't want to discuss, they want a self-congratulatory echo chamber and will use exclusionary tactics against anyone opposed to that. Against that kind of stubborn childishness the only thing you can do is ignore or insult.
/r/MensRights27/02/11 07:52 PM
3

How in the hell did you manage to write eight paragraphs without providing a single substantive point in support of your argument?
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:20 AM
3

Oh you mean like surgery to remove a bad appendix or dentistry to remove/fix a bad tooth? Right, because medical treatment is totally analogous to non-consensual cosmetic surgery. It's an intellectually dishonest tactic to demonize circumcision as "mutilation." Otherwise, to be consistent, you'd have to refer to EVERY SINGLE SURGEON, EYE DOCTOR, DENTIST OR DERMATOLOGIST as a "mutilator." And since we all know you hypocritically don't do that, we can conclude that your demonization of circumcisio…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:15 AM
1

Kids getting piercing isn't analogous unless their parents are forcing them to do so.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:11 AM
9

Would you think it a parent's right to mutilate his or her child in other ways?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 08:00 PM
1

I shan't dispute the issue with that JSB publication, although I do think it worth noting that the statement about women was preceded by a statement that all circumstances should be taken into account in every the case of every defendant so it's not quite so bad. However, that book is a training manual with guidelines, not law, so it's not as if it's institutionalised in any meaningful sense as a result. Plus, even taking that offence against reason into account you still can't say that the indi…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 12:27 PM
0

I'm not sure I see your point. If feminism is inclusive of womens' rights but not directly analogous to womens' rights, why is masculism apparently directly analogous to mens' rights rather than simply including mens' rights? If feminism should be equalism, masculism should be equalism, but this isn't /r/masculism.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 09:45 AM
7

I don't see how you can conclude that was due to female privilege unless you have some evidence no-one else has seen. Murder cases get knocked down to manslaughter for a variety of reasons all the time in the English legal system, and unless you have evidence that A) she wasn't mentally ill contrary to what the court psychiatrists, Crown, and judge believed, or B) a mentally ill man would not receive the same consideration (which simply isn't the case in England, though I can't speak for anywher…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 09:38 AM
8

While I'm normally happy to downvote the sort of submissions you're talking about, given that the specific story in question involved the most fundamental violation of two boys' rights that is possible for the most trivial of reasons, I think it might have a place here. It seems to me that being murdered because your mother was a psychopath probably qualifies as an "actual injustice".
/r/MensRights19/02/11 09:17 AM
-1

Feminism is not the same as womens' rights, just as mens' rights is not the same as masculism. You'd be right if we defined ourselves as the latter, but we don't.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 09:10 AM
1

The Home Office publishes a bunch of sex crime statistics here if you care to dig through them to find the relevant data.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 09:47 AM
8

Jesus, hostile much? If you don't want people asking you to explain your opinions don't post them in a public forum.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 04:55 PM
11

How is it any more acceptable to perform an unnecessary mutilation without consent because an imaginary friend said to?
/r/MensRights16/02/11 04:11 PM
1

I think on this issue the Federal government (or more accurately the Federal judiciary) has substantively demonstrated their trustworthiness by preventing states from infringing on their peoples' right to choose in cases like Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut. It'd be one thing if we were talking about positive action, but as long as they only prevent rights violations (which is all the judiciary can do, unlike the legislative and executive branches) I can't say I understand the argument tha…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:48 PM
5

The Federal government got involved because states couldn't be trusted to protect the individual rights of their residents, which is exactly why this shouldn't be a state issue. Sure, middle-class people can probably afford to go out of state for terminations, but what about the vulnerable? It isn't reasonable or fair to require a fifteen year old girl to travel hundreds of miles just to remove a clump of insensate biomass from her. Also, as a matter of law the U.S. constitution does delineate s…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:13 AM
4

Meh, we're not calling all feminists femi-nazis, just the extremists who veer into misandry. I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade, and quite beside that the sort of people who deserve the label are never going to interested in befriending MRAs and their causes.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:02 AM
9

FYI, the ECHR isn't an EU court, it's administered by the Council of Europe which is a separate but somewhat overlapping organisation.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 12:27 PM
7

"old white men" who keep getting elected because gasp men and women are anti-choice. Dumping the abortion issue on men is the height of intellectual dishonesty whatever semantic games you play.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 12:25 PM
1

Joint enterprise. If you engage in criminal activity with a "gang" you can be held liable for the lethal actions of others in the "gang".
/r/MensRights27/01/11 08:24 PM
13

Also, this was murder but she got the pussy pass. Inaccurate. She was drunk, and in English law murder requires specific intent, which excludes the possibility of drunkenness. On the facts as accepted at trial she only had the mens rea for manslaughter, not murder.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 07:59 PM
2

And if it doesn't exist because they don't want it, who exactly is harmed? Mr. or Mrs. Non-Existent?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 09:58 PM
2

Why is it a big deal if the alternative choice doesn't even exist as a result?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 09:27 PM
3

I honestly don't understand why you should need a reason to abort at all. It's an insensate lump of cells being excised, not a child being murdered. As no-one is harmed, why should justification be necessary in any sense, and why should any specific justification be condemned?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:58 PM
1

It's more accurate to say that in the UK abortion is only strictly legal if not performing it would be detrimental to the woman. However, in practice abortion is available on demand because doctors have interpreted that to mean that if a woman doesn't want a child, regardless of the specific reason, it would be detrimental to her not to abort, and the courts and government are fine with it. Even if someone outright told their doctor that they wanted to terminate on the basis of sex, I doubt they…
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:56 PM
1

Oh for fuck's sake, not everyone who happens to somewhat disagree with you is a troll. Do you really want to fall into the same bullshit patterns of argument they love over in places like /r/feminisms? Because that's what all the unfounded "concern troll" nonsense looks like.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:48 PM
2

Well, there is Naomi Wolf herself. Obviously she's not the norm but AFAIK she hasn't dropped the label as much as her "sisters" seem to want her to.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:29 PM
5

"the cop"
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:22 PM
1

By that logic no-one can judge anyone for anything.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:19 AM
1

No, preventing them from complaining would be censorship. Pointing out that their complaints were whiny, retarded, and seriously disproportionate is an entirely appropriate response to stupid speech in the liberal tradition. Just as they can bitch and moan all they want, we can say they're bitchy and moany all we want.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:06 AM
1

Good lords, could feminists be any whinier?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:03 AM
2

Sexual Offences Act 2003, although strictly speaking as rape was a common law offence here prior to that it didn't create a distinction, it codified a pre-existing one. Part 1 Section 1 (1)(a) defines rape as intentional penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus of another with a penis and the offence makes D liable for life imprisonment, whereas Part 3 (sexual assault) and Part 4 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent) make D liable for 10 years on indictment or 6 months…
/r/MensRights09/01/11 10:01 AM
3

Who the fuck has an emotional breakdown over a non-starting car?
/r/MensRights09/01/11 09:50 AM
2

Unless you know where he is, that post is useless. In England, for example, sexual assault and rape are different crimes, and rape has double the maximum sentencing liability and is only possible for men even though the government specifically codified it from common law in 2003, by which point society should have been perfectly accepting of the notion of female on male rape. You can't generalise like this when states and nations have significant differences in criminal laws whether they're base…
/r/MensRights09/01/11 08:57 AM
2

I empathise if you've been burned by the feminist legal system or culture, but that's not really an excuse for generalisations. People are people. Some people decide to pursue misandry, some people institutionalise it, but at the end of the day their gender isn't responsible for that, their being awful human beings is. Hate feminism, not women.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 08:52 AM
2

I presume they want their money back. Is it wrong to sue someone for something they owe you if you're a white woman and they're a black man?
/r/MensRights09/01/11 08:49 AM
8

So any specific woman behaving badly is a mens' rights matter? That's certainly not the movement I support, and it gives detractors ammunition to legitimately claim that we're a bunch of bitter men whining about the evil of women.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 12:09 AM
3

How is this a mens' rights issue?
/r/MensRights06/01/11 11:23 PM
3

Were you asking women with husbands and children? If someone posed that hypothetical to me I'd say "the dog" too because I love my dog as much as any child IRL whereas I necessarily don't give a shit about family members that don't exist.
/r/MensRights06/01/11 11:18 PM
1

By that logic as long as you're a man with below average strength and physical capability you should have access to Request Stop, but of course you won't because of sexist generalisations like yours.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 10:30 PM
1

And yet under the Request Stop policy, if it's between 9 and 5 a woman doesn't need a GENUINE AND RELEVANT need, they just need to be a woman. A man, on the other hand, must have a genuine, relevant need, and must hope that the driver exercises discretion, which he or she doesn't have to and is not guaranteed. Let me break it down... Woman: 9 to 5, you can get off, no questions asked Woman: 24/7, if genuine need and driver agrees, you can get off Man: 24/7, if genuine need and driver agrees, you…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 10:21 PM
2

It's not, but then given that I opened with "Don't get me wrong, calling it rape is spitting on real rape victims", I'm not sure why you're asking me.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 10:08 PM
3

Are you selectively ignoring "discretion" and "personal judgment" in the description of Stops Between Stops? The restrictions are not exactly the same. The only conditions on Request Stop are "Women who are travelling alone by bus, between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m." and "the Driver must be able to stop the bus safely to meet your request". There is no mention of any specific need for personal safety or disability, and any mention of discretion is entirely omitted. Once again, if, as you claim, the polic…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:03 PM
1

I don't understand how this doesn't violate the denial of services portion of the Human Rights Act. Is misandry considered a bona fide justification?
/r/MensRights05/01/11 03:52 PM
1

Except that Stops Between Stops is discretionary whereas Request Stop is policy as long as the driver can stop safely. If this were actually equal, there wouldn't be two separate systems, would there?
/r/MensRights05/01/11 03:48 PM
28

Don't get me wrong, calling it rape is spitting on real rape victims, but given their culture I can't help thinking that it might be right for it to be unlawful in some sense. It's not like the West where at worst it'll result in hurt feelings; India may have a fairly liberal political system, but socially it's still quite fundamentalist, and for many women once they've lost their virginity they've lost their ability to get married and have a family at all, so men who do this there are causing f…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 09:58 AM
3

To be fair, it does say worst dudes.... I'll find that a compelling argument against Jezebel's blatant and unapologetic misandry when they write a "worst gals" list, i.e. when hell freezes over.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 09:03 PM
1

All the people bitching about the fact that this is in fact a list of worst "dudes" really ought to consider whether Jezebel would ever in a million years post a list of worst "gals". Compiling a list of people who're bad in a sexism manner that intentionally excludes women can't be excused by making the title gender-exclusive at the last minute.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 09:01 PM
1

I don't really see the comparison. Some feminists may not align with the views expressed on Jezebel, but plenty of extremists fit it perfectly. If you go somewhere like /r/feminisms they're totally in line with its "feminism". At some point moderate feminists have to accept that their movement isn't all rainbows and flowers and equality; misandry and female privilege are a core part of feminism for a significant number of feminists.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 08:49 PM
3

Not so much. Some relatively sane feminists like Naomi Wolf have defended him, but try telling that to the crazies on /r/feminisms.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:54 PM
1

Fair enough, I withdraw my objection in that case.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:12 PM
1

Has anyone here actually claimed that that should happen? If not, I don't see how it's relevant other than as an instance of the "but look over there, they're doing something bad too!" fallacy.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:10 PM
3

I realise a lot of people have difficulty with this, but "analogous" does not mean "identical". Degree has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of an analogy, only the core principle is relevant. In this case, the core principle is, as stated by douchymcface, that it is acceptable for employers to fire employees for any reason. Pray tell how "any" includes accusations of crime but not sick offspring. Your response is akin to being told that Kermit the Frog is green like an apple and angril…
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:05 PM
1

First of all, I'm an anarcho-capitalist and that doesn't make me necessarily okay with everything the free market does, it just means that I think they have a right to do it. There's a difference between thinking something should be illegal and thinking something is bad. The fact that courts have upheld the KKK's right to protest doesn't mean they're full of Klansmen. Secondly, whether you're okay with it or not has bugger all to do with the inconsistency in your statement. Even if you think it'…
/r/MensRights02/01/11 05:58 PM
4

You're conflating law with ethics. Even though I believe that under the principle of freedom of association a private business should have the right to make hiring and firing decisions on whatever basis they wish, that doesn't mean that I can't criticise them for making decisions on bases that are immoral, in the same way that I believe that under the principle of freedom of speech a neo-Nazi shouldn't face arrest for publicly expressing their views but I would still strongly attack the views be…
/r/MensRights02/01/11 02:08 PM
9

If you're going to coach at Pitt, make sure you get your shit together. Given that you're apparently okay with firing someone who is procedurally and factually innocent because someone else alleged they committed a crime, how, pray tell, would getting your shit together protect against this in any sense? You could be an upstanding citizen with zero record and a fantastic home life and you'd still be out of a job under your standard.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 02:05 PM
0

Downvoted for pimping your subreddit rather than just linking to TFA.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 03:41 PM
1

While I agree with your logic, there are women that have fessed up. I remember a short time ago there was that New York cabbie who spent decades in prison because the evil piece of shit who accused him to make her girlfriends sympathetic finally admitted it to her priest who convinced her to go to the police. If she thought she was going to go away for decades for confessing, there's no way in hell her victim would be free now. There isn't a perfect solution, but awh's point does seem to be vali…
/r/MensRights01/01/11 02:26 PM
1

The film isn't evidence per se, it's probable cause for the officer at the door, who has now seen the insdide of the house meets the burden and may enter in good faith. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if the initial impetus for the investigation is inadmissible, any evidence gained from the investigation is inadmissible unless it can be shown with a degree of certainty that it could've been acquired independently (among a few other exceptions that don't apply here). That being sa…
/r/MensRights30/12/10 12:30 PM
6

Ah, I see, you're here to be an insulting nuisance, not make serious points. Nevermind.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 12:15 PM
12

So because someone has different political opinions to you, they deserve to be victimised by misandrists? Nice.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 11:54 AM
1

With all due respect, I'm not going to continue discussion with someone who accuses me of lying for posting in good faith. If you'd like to talk like civilised adults, however, I'll be happy to respond further.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 08:15 PM
1

It isn't "civilized opposition" to make statements with no supporting evidence or a priori logic, it's ideological spam.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 04:45 PM
1

So what if it took him 6 paragraphs? Are yours and r/mensrights views so shaky they can't stand some dissension or disagreement? Downvotes, when used according to reddiquette, are for posts that add nothing to a discussion. Merely making a statement with no supporting evidence and chastising those who require it to come to the same conclusion adds nothing to a discussion. I didn't downvote, although I realise there's no way to verify that, but I'm fine with others doing so because it wouldn't be…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 04:39 PM
3

Consent is only requisite when risk of injury exists. Now injury can be stretched to mean a lot of things but I'm not sure it would go so far as that. That's not really accurate. At least in America, if a state hasn't explicitly codified otherwise, touching without consent is battery whether there's a risk of injury or not, although there is an exception in the case of everyday touching when consent hasn't been explicitly denied. Risk of injury only makes the crime or tort more serious, it isn't…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 09:31 AM
8

If it gets downvoted into oblivion it's because you essentially took six paragraphs to say "Western society encourages rape and if you don't accept that without any pesky evidence supporting the position you're simply wrong."
/r/MensRights29/12/10 07:31 AM
2

People who aren't feminists questioning it?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 07:29 AM
2

He was his father. Yes, being rich enabled him to make such an offer, but I'm sure many fathers regardless of economic or social status would break the law to save their child if they could, even if they knew they were guilty. Parental love isn't rational.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 07:13 AM
-2

In all seriousness, what about consideration for OP's girlfriend? She was ill too, and most people who've ever been overnight in a hospital can attest to the fact that having friends and/or family with you makes the experience much more bearable. To be honest, I'm far more annoyed about that than any potential mens' rights issue. Everyone in these comments defending OP's treatment seem to be ignoring the girlfriend or arbitrarily prioritising the other patient's wishes.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 01:55 PM
2

This has nothing to do with you being a man. You could have been a woman and she would have done the same thing. Except that OP's girlfriend is presumably a woman and the other patient didn't do the same thing. You should be considerate and understand that some people wouldn't like the idea of getting undressed next to strangers Behind a closed door in an adjacent bathroom is hardly "next to strangers", and quite beside that, unless the woman knew OP's girlfriend she would've been next to at lea…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 10:57 AM
8

Why doesn't all that apply equally to Liverotto's girlfriend wanting him to stay?
/r/MensRights28/12/10 10:49 AM
6

You're addressing the issue of the resultant child, but I still don't see how you can argue that it doesn't necessarily constitute sexual assault while claiming that the same circumstances with gender reversed necessarily does. Either not using a condom and lying about birth control are both rape or neither are.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 10:37 AM
3

I disagree. Marriage is no longer the old "two people become one" system; being married to someone doesn't mean you surrender your rights to them. The husband had reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that isn't even sufficient for law enforcement, let alone spouses. Do I think he should be charged with a felony as a result? Hell no, that's grossly disproportionate and the prosecution is seriously misapplying the law, but what the husband did was still an unlawful invasion of privacy and should …
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:01 PM
10

I hate this attitude. Unless you have evidence of another case with the sexes reversed, your post is essentially meaningless, because to those who already agree with you you're just preaching to the choir, and to those who disagree, you've given absolutely no basis to support your view other than some nebulous charge of inequality in the justice system which you've left equally unsupported. What you, I, or anyone else honestly thinks is fucking irrelevant to anything unless we have facts to back…
/r/MensRights26/12/10 10:57 PM
1

Exclusive adherence to reason and facts is an ideology, and ideology guides interpretation whether we consciously know it or not.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 12:21 AM
1

The distinction between charge and conviction is hardly semantic.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 11:19 PM
1

Who is this to protect? Just a thought, but if people know she taught the boys in question that could be used to link them.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 06:25 PM
3

Really? We're talking about a sixteen year old, not a toddler. Yes, it absolutely was a breach of trust and abuse of authority, but it's hardly rank idiocy not to see it as some great moral evil.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 11:30 PM
7

While I tend to agree that teacher/student relationships should be disallowed on the basis of one being in a position of authority over the other regardless of age, I have great difficulty seeing anything done to a sixteen year old as child molestation. Sixteen year olds are minors, but they're not children. And yes, I would apply that standard to both sexes even if society is less willing to.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 11:30 PM
3

I kinda suspect they were just coming onto OP and friend and parroted something they heard in their women's studies class to sound interesting.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 08:53 PM
4

I would think that if rape happens at all it happens too frequently, not that that justifies attempts by feminists and white knights to alleviate the problem by setting aside due process.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 09:52 PM
1

You'd be right if this was /r/masculism, but it isn't.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 09:45 PM
5

It wasn't her place to defend Newton... By that logic prosecutorial misconduct is fine and dandy as long as there are defence attorneys. The adversarial system isn't an excuse for witnesses to give false testimony or prosecutors and police to suborn it. The idea is that prosecution and defence clash to allow jurists and jurors to find the truth, not to sanction free for alls. For someone telling others to learn about the law you don't seem to have a very good grasp of how or why common law proce…
/r/MensRights13/12/10 06:39 PM
3

That her victim doesn't personally hold her accountable doesn't mean she wasn't responsible. She identified him three times. If she was traumatised, she should have told the police and the jury that she was traumatised and couldn't be certain, but she didn't; in open court she identified an innocent man as her attacker with a degree of certainty that she simply couldn't have considering that A) he was categorically innocent even if no-one proved it at the time, and B) she was traumatised, and tr…
/r/MensRights13/12/10 04:33 PM
3

You're right on the double jeopardy issue, but I doubt the lie detector had anything to do with courts. A number of jurisdictions require regular lie detector testing for convicted sex offenders on parole, and the rules about parole and its related tribunals are far less stringently protective of parolee rights or restrictive on admissibility of evidence than criminal courts.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 04:27 PM
3

And he only got that because the cops involved were corrupt. If it'd been a standard he-said-she-said conviction simply on the basis that the judge and jury wilfully ignored the concept of reasonable doubt he'd be totally SOL.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 04:24 PM
7

At least as far as law enforcement is concerned. It makes sense when you think about it; most judges and senior prosecutors are going to be older people because becoming a lawyer itself takes a long time, and getting to the top of the pecking order takes even longer. That means most of the people at the top will be from generations that were taught that women were less intellectually capable than men in general. Considering that it's not really a shocker that the pussy pass exists. Hopefully tha…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:06 PM
5

I thought if you not culpable because of a mental disorder, you stay locked up. What stopping her from doing it again for another chapter in her thesis? It depends. In this case, it's important to note that the law found her culpable, just less culpable than someone without a mental disorder. In cases where a person is found to be totally non-culpable (i.e. the classic insanity defence), they can be locked up indefinitely even though not convicted, but absent specific statutory limits it's at th…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 05:34 PM
2

Diminished capacity doesn't mean totally incurably insane, it means there are mental issues present in the defendant that affected her judgement but were not overwhelming. It doesn't rule out pre-meditation, nor does it mean that a defendant who legitimately uses the defence would be incapable of acting normally several years later. If she'd successfully argued insanity or automatism, which seem to be what you're confusing diminished capacity with, she wouldn't have been convicted at all.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 04:56 PM
-1

The defence argued diminished capacity and were apparently convincing enough for the judge to accept it in a bench trial. It seems like there was evidence to support that, so I'm not sure how unjust the sentence can really be said to be.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 04:12 PM
1

"For innocent men to be confronted with an allegation like that, held in custody for 36 hours and subjected to intrusive medical examinations is a terrible experience. Well gee, maybe if you arsewipes stopped jailing them based on nothing but a girl's say-so it'd be a tad less terrible for supposedly presumptively innocent people. Getting really tired of the justice system acknowledging the horror allows false rape accusers to inflict on their victims but never doing a godsdamn thing about it.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 09:02 AM
2

...against her will and with the intention of forcing her to feel his genitals. I don't think this warrants imprisonment at all, let alone life, but he was nowhere near as innocent as your title suggests.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 12:55 AM
2

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. Don't misunderstand me, I'd very much like wills to be enforced to the letter, but this court didn't throw out the rule of law. Probate law doesn't work like that. It did, almost, historically, but not anymore. Probate judges still tend toward the word of the will, but it is no longer their exclusive concern. Be very, very careful about taking what you think is right or fair or just and assuming that the law conforms to that.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 12:34 AM
1

I doubt it will be overturned; truth be told if there was a precedent set here it wasn't that courts can interfere with wills, because probate judges have been doing just that in common law countries for the last century at least. It used to be held that the will of the deceased was paramount, but now while it's considered courts are willing to overlook them in the interests of fairness and public policy.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 12:31 AM
1

I see your point. I suppose my problem is that in my country, the age of consent would have meant that this wasn't statutory rape, let alone rape, although there are lesser offences based on a teacher being in a position of trust, and I tend to agree that there should be some consequence for that, I just wouldn't call it rape. 16 as the age of consent seems fairly common in the West, so a big part of the world does deem teens at least ready enough for sexual relationships with adults that no-one…
/r/MensRights02/12/10 12:22 AM
2

Evidently it isn't anymore, but accuracy isn't the only criteria for voting. AnnArchist's post hardly adds anything to the discussion, the article and everyone here is perfectly clear that this woman was arbitrary, disgusting, and evil.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:30 AM
12

I'm sorry, but a 16-17 year old is entirely capable of consenting to sex, even if the law says they are a minor. This wasn't rape, and it seems insulting to victims who actually were coerced to use that term. "rape" is when someone is forced to have sex against their will, and given that it was an "affair" over the long term and the "victim" was above the age of consent in the larger part of the Western world and even some North American jurisdictions, I don't see how you can reasonably claim th…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:18 AM
4

Pretty much, although before blaming the pussy pass (or at least exclusively blaming it) it ought to be considered that false rape claims are rather unusual in that most perversion charges involve other criminal offences (either committed in the course of the perversion, such as threats amounting to assault, or perversion occurring to subvert charges/trials for other offences, such as jury tampering) which would tend to aggravate sentencing. That being said from reading the analysis of R. v Tagg…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 09:17 PM
10

I realise it's never going to happen, but it'd be really nice if the police were to acknowledge that in light of cases like this perhaps they shouldn't be doing dawn raids to arrest people just because a girl said they were raped. If a claim was demonstrably false there couldn't be enough evidence for reasonable suspicion, and it ought to be accepted that there is at least the possibility of a supposed victim lying. What Ms. Merry did was wrong, but I'm getting tired of law enforcement pretendin…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 08:16 PM
3

Perverting the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. For the record, there are no minimum sentences in the UK because the ECHR requires punishments be decided by independent judges, not legislators. It's a common law offence so I can't cite a statute to back me up, but if you can find the judgments in Regina v Cotter and Others and/or Regina v Rowell, as recent Court of Appeal cases on the subject they go into the nature of the offence in some detail, and R. v Jeffre…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 08:01 PM
13

This is the same silly argument that has been used by white racists who are angry about things like black scholarships. I resent the implication that my being opposed on principle to institutionalising racism by deciding what students can get on the basis of their race makes me a racist.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:43 PM
7

As I said, as it's a private institution I think they have every right to do it and it would be improper for government to intervene. That being said, that government should not intervene does not mean that a practice must be seen as acceptable; to use a rather extreme example to illustrate the point, I strongly believe in the principle "Let people attend KKK rallies if they want", but I still think KKK rallies are disgusting and should be discouraged. I guess the root of what I'm saying is that…
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:38 PM
7

I support their right to do it, but I have to ask, how is what you're saying not "separate but equal"?
/r/MensRights30/11/10 02:30 PM
12

You could say that about any criminal with children. I don't like America's particular implementation, but prison exists for a reason, and if you let anyone who happened to pass along their DNA at some point out of it, you completely remove the deterrent and the punishment from the equation. It's hardly a shock that this woman is saying self-important crap like "In those two days, you probably think about more than someone who's been confined for years." and treating the whole thing like a game …
/r/MensRights30/11/10 05:37 AM
1

Given that we're talking about international flight records, I'd really like to know how in the hell the trial court managed to fuck up so badly by just accepting an officer's testimony as true when it'd be so ridiculously easy to absolutely prove or disprove. I'd also really like to know how this poor man's lawyers didn't use those records to prove his innocence until three years after his conviction. I'd also really like to sucker punch every juror that voted to send him to prison because a po…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:20 PM
6

With all due respect, this sounds like the kind of over the top anti-humour culture that pervades modern feminism. I can't say I find the linked image funny, but attempts at jokes of any kind are a far cry from misandry or misogyny when the intent behind them isn't serious.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:11 PM
6

Evidently you needed it stated.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:17 AM
9

Shockingly, if you limit your reasoning to your own subjective experience that is literally incomparable unless you were circumcised after reaching sexual maturity, you will not see the difference. Thankfully we have science 'n' shit that tells us that there is an objectively measurable significant loss of sensory capabilities.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:59 AM
2

With all due respect, your representation of the "Dark Ages" is inaccurate. First of all, there's significant controversy over whether there even were dark ages. The Germanic tribes that conquered Western Roman territory were significant fans of the Roman ideal, and intentionally worked to develop and preserve it; obviously progress was slowed, but it certainly didn't go backwards. Quite beyond that, the idea that "all philosophical progress was lost" is absolute bunk; who do you think Thomas Aq…
/r/MensRights28/11/10 12:56 AM
2

and our civilization will collapse (as Rome and Athens did, after very similar social changes happened back then) I'm not really sure what you're referring to... Roman civilisation never really collapsed; the West was lost to foreign invaders but the East continued on for a thousand years before finally, slowly succumbing to its neighbours. As far as Athens, the closest thing to a collapse would be the loss in the Peloponnesian War, but again that was the result of foreign aggression and they re…
/r/MensRights28/11/10 12:41 AM
2

With all due respect, I don't see how this is relevant to this subreddit except "look! look! a woman did something bad!". We're not talking about a judge or prosecutor going easy on a defendant because of their gender; they wanted to imprison her, but were unable to because the law didn't allow an appropriate penalty, and the law is gender neutral. As much as they might want to imprison a father (which would be equality anyway as they wanted to imprison the mother here too), they wouldn't be abl…
/r/MensRights26/11/10 06:13 PM
3

I can't speak for OP, but I found DCS Wilkins' statement rather annoying; first he was way too defensive, particularly considering that this woman basically escaped punishment, and then he focused on rape victims in general as opposed to victims of false allegations which literally got no more than three words of consideration in the entire message. It'd be nice if just once a police officer or prosecutor talked about the suffering a falsely accused suspect is put through instead of spending all…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 12:30 PM
2

If a doctor sees you dying in the street and tries to safe you but fails, then the doctor can be sued for malpractice. Only if he actually committed malpractice, which requires an error on his part. Medics don't incur civil liability simply because their treatment efforts are unsuccessful.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 07:22 AM
2

Which is good, but you're not obligated to. Only specific classes of persons with duties of care to victims are legally required to report crimes.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 07:18 AM
1

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. The U.S. most certainly is a democracy. A democracy is any state whose constitution vests sovereignty in its people. The United States constitution does just this; not only are two of three branches democratically elected, but the constitutional document itself is malleable by popular consent. That the country is also a republic is neither here nor there, because they're not mutually exclusive. The city-states of classical Greece, for example, quintessent…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 11:38 PM
0

This is why I think the fairest solution would be society paying, since society is the one demanding that a man be unfairly held responsible for something he lacks ultimate control over. There may not be a totally fair solution, but it is much fairer to tax everyone who believes in the best interest theory than to use some imagined chain of responsibility to saddle a man with 18 years of debt because a mother made a unilateral decision to keep a baby she knew the father didn't want. That solutio…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 07:41 PM
1

Under New Labour legislation, rape has a maximum sentence of life (though in practice that means 10-20 years), whereas sexual assault has a maximum sentence of 10 years (which in practice means 3-6 years). I've never seen any official attempt to justify this disparity.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 07:32 PM
4

And how is that any different in principle to the "bad" jobs only men take in practice? You can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 03:18 PM
5

No, it isn't. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of liberal democracy, protecting it is just as important as stopping illegal wars and torture. Consider that without free speech, you wouldn't be able to air those grievances, let alone attempt to do anything about them.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 03:14 PM
4

It doesn't matter so long as those wanting the job are not denied that possibility based on their gender. I don't see "No women allowed in the Oval Office" anywhere in the Constitution.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 02:48 PM
4

I don't think the erosion of the first amendment is a "minor point", and there are a range of other third parties with comparable support and resources to the Green party, so I don't see how it's a choice of Republicrats or Greens either.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 02:47 PM
19

Not necessarily quotas. Other measures could be taken. But why not quotas? This way us men are protected when the women take over in 10-20 years time. Because it's insulting, not to mention inaccurate, to suggest that because I have a penis, I'm incapable of comprehending womens' issues as they relate to politics. Because in a democracy, the people should be able to elect whoever they want, not whoever they want of an pre-determined gender. Because getting into Congress should be a matter of com…
/r/MensRights03/11/10 01:26 PM
4

Oh please. I'll be the first to attack /r/mensrights' extremists, but to claim that there is a high level of misogyny in the subreddit is nonsensical. Notice how all the comments like regurgitated are heavily downvoted? That should tell you something about how the majority of subscribers here feel about prison rape, male or female.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 04:50 AM
2

Er, yes it is. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Part 1 Section 1 (4): (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. You may be thinking of sexual assault, which on conviction on indictment makes the defendant liable for no more than 10 years imprisonment. Of course, as I noted above, a life sentence in England doesn't normally mean the defendant spends his entire natural life in prison, but the potential for that does exist…
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:33 AM
2

How is that not going to jail for the false rape accusation? The theft and fraud sentences amount to fifteen months, the false accusation sentence amounts to 36 months. Her false allegation sentence is more than twice the length of her property crime sentences; even running concurrently she's still going to be in prison exclusively for the false allegation for over a year. You can certainly argue that she's not going to jail for long enough, but I don't see how you can claim that she's not going…
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:19 AM
2

It'd depend on exactly how the CPS charged, but rape would mean up to "life" (probably ~10-15 years in practice), and sexual assault would mean up to 6 months (probably ~2 months in practice) on summary conviction or up to 10 years (probably ~2-6 years in practice) on conviction on indictment. That penultimate figure is highly unlikely, though, because even though sexual assault is an either-way offence it's unlikely the CPS would want what they saw as a date-rape dealt with in Magistrates' cour…
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:16 AM
4

You're correct. The false allegations ("perverting the course of justice") was not punished. Too sad. The false allegations were punished with a three year custodial sentence to run concurrently with a year and a half total for her other crimes. See the article... The sentences will run at the same time as the three-year sentence for perverting the course of justice. That's a pretty significant sentence in English law. Where are people getting the idea that she wasn't punished for the rape lie?
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:03 AM
3

I don't know if the article has been updated since you posted this, but you're simply incorrect. She was sentenced to three years in prison for perverting the course of justice. see the article: The sentences will run at the same time as the three-year sentence for perverting the course of justice. Yes, that three year sentence will run concurrently with a total of a year and a half for thefts and fraud, but a three year custodial sentence is hardly "zero, zippo, nil", especially in England. Thi…
/r/MensRights02/11/10 02:00 AM
3

I would take issue with your "very obvious" and present historical bans of good faith dissenters like cryptogirl as evidence. It can't be that readily apparent if /r/mensrights has already failed to tell the difference on multiple occasions.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 05:39 PM
5

True, but distinguishing trolling from good faith disagreement does seem to be a problem for some people in this subreddit, including the moderators. Considering the history of banning people like cryptogirl as OP mentioned, it seems sensible to take a hands-off moderation policy and let downvotes deal with things other than spam.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 05:35 PM
2

the law is there to protect you from your own idiocy when you're 12 years old. I'm not really sure that's the case. If the law criminalises sex between two minors, then there is an argument that it protects minors by acting as a deterrent, but that's not what happened here. This is the law criminalising the conduct of an adult (at least as far as the statute is concerned) who has sex with a child. Even if that law is violated, in every Western jurisdiction I'm aware of, the child victim is still…
/r/MensRights01/11/10 04:23 PM
17

I've been threatened by the moderators in /r/feminisms for simply asking for an explanation of a feminist's reasoning; apparently according to yellowmix & co., if you post there, you're expected to know everything already, including the "correct" viewpoint, so the subreddit is actually explicitly an echo chamber. If I wasn't so disgusted by their blatant and unapologetic misandry, I'd love their sheer audacity. I don't know why 2XC is getting so much flak, though; in my experience unless you pos…
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:31 PM
4

They've gotten involved in family court cases on due process issues like lack of right to attorneys for indigents or jailings on non-payment, but as far as I'm aware that's as far as they've gone.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 06:30 PM
1

I'm fairly sure this'd be an issue for legislatures, not the courts. The problem is that there isn't really any constitutional protection against this other than equal protection, but that's been shot down on related matters (in that case it was lack of abortion rights for men, but it's similar enough that I doubt a circuit court would rule otherwise here). Even if it did have the impetus, SCotUS can't just say "this law is unjust" (well, strictly speaking, it could under common law requirements…
/r/MensRights15/10/10 06:29 PM
13

Oh lords, not everyone who you happen to disagree with on any little point is a troll.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 11:36 AM
8

If she was genuinely bipolar then mania might be a legitimate excuse. Manics can be honestly out of their minds and compelled into promiscuity among other things. Obviously that doesn't mean that a bipolar sufferer has a licence to cheat without consequence, but at the same time you can't just disregard the condition if it does negatively influence their behaviour because they supposedly should've exercised more self-control. Mental illness can be a real demon.
/r/MensRights16/09/10 09:46 PM
8

Quite clearly you haven't the slightest idea what it means if you really think that requirement of mens rea would allow the rapist in the quoted scenario to go unpunished for their rape.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 02:58 PM
12

So if a burglar is robbing some lady's house, she comes home and catches him and he beats and rapes her; he can be prosecuted for rape rather than just burglary and assault? Makes sense to me. wat Perhaps you should look up the definition of mens rea before making asinine posts about it.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 11:48 AM
3

If it takes fourteen years for the system to start preventing, the system is clearly broken.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 10:01 AM
3

With all due respect, supporting the right to be racist does not make one racist any more than my support for the KKK's right to hold rallies makes me a member of the KKK.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 06:16 PM
8

Cultural relativism has nothing to do with mob rule, first of all. Of course it does. No culture is accepted unanimously by the entire population living under it. When people say, for example, "Saudi Arabia should be allowed to oppress women, it's their culture", what they actually mean is "a majority of Saudia Arabians should be allowed to oppress women, it's that majority's culture". There is no concern for the interests of the women who don't want to be oppressed, because a majority of the of…
/r/MensRights07/09/10 11:43 PM
7

The problem with cultural relativism is that it essentially boils down to an argument from mob rule. A nine year old isn't capable of consenting to be part of that culture, only the adult is. The fact that a majority of people in one area think that it is acceptable to violate a minority in no way justifies that violation, whether it's been happening for one year or a thousand. I'd probably be okay with an adult having consensual sex with a fourteen year old, but fourteen is on the upper age bou…
/r/MensRights07/09/10 11:06 PM
1

Have you never noticed how common censorship is on feminist websites before? Free speech is their kryptonite.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 09:25 AM
23

Generalising much? sigh I suppose I should expect downvotes here, but seriously, your comment is just plain sexist and you know it. It's exactly the sort of generalising crap that gives this subreddit a bad name, and quite frankly as an MRA I find it offensive because it damages our credibility on real issues by allowing others to pass us off as a bunch of whiny women-haters. The fact that some women are scum does not mean that all women are any more than the fact that some men are scum would me…
/r/MensRights05/09/10 10:07 PM
9

I love how they act like "artificial sperm" is the answer to their misandry when you still need a man to provide the DNA to go inside it. Idiots...
/r/MensRights02/09/10 02:47 AM
3

What's monstrous? Getting piss-drunk, having a shag, then changing your mind in the morning and ruining some random fellow's life? Seriously? I'd like to know your basis for assuming that the woman in question falsely cried rape because she regretted consensual sex, because unless you have some specific knowledge of the situation you're a perfect example of why people outside /r/mensrights call this place misogynistic. I'm all for assuming innocence, but that doesn't translate to "all rape claim…
/r/MensRights30/08/10 09:09 AM
1

Unfortunately, you don't represent the norm. "No smoke without fire" etc.
/r/MensRights30/08/10 01:48 AM
-2

Whether you agree with victim compensation in general (and I tend to think the practice isn't all that terrible if the courts have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the claimant is in fact a victim by convicting their attacker; legitimate victims may very well incur costs as a result of their attack), I can't help thinking you've chosen a rather poor example. What the government in the linked case was arguing was that a rape victim had brought it upon herself by using alcohol, and thus…
/r/MensRights30/08/10 12:59 AM
2

No, because he's been publicly accused of multiple rapes. The tragedy and injustice is that with sex crimes, the damage is done whether the charges stand or not.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 10:35 PM
4

As far as I can tell from googling the locations mentioned this happened in Ontario, not the UK. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but from my understanding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yes, there is a right to a speedy trial. However, it's actually a right to trial within a "reasonable time", and the judicial test is somewhat subjective. The relevant Supreme Court case stayed proceedings that took three years from charge to trial, but they didn't set a strict time limit, they just determined…
/r/MensRights29/08/10 10:07 PM
9

Who in their right mind would assume that a sexual partner wouldn't tell them if they had a disease as serious as HIV/AIDS? Of course the guilt is all on her, what you're saying is effectively the same as blaming a date rape victim for not getting their drink tested for GHB before downing it. Combined responsibility can only apply if both parties are honest and the clean partner chooses not to take precautions regardless. To apply that to someone who knowingly deceives people about their status …
/r/MensRights26/08/10 04:39 PM
1

I think it is crystal clear they are creating a new crime that of withholding your money from your wife. Wait, what? No they're not. This is citizens advice document from a local council, not a green paper from Whitehall. It has zero influence on the law. Also, what you described isn't fraud according to any law book I've read.
/r/MensRights17/08/10 05:00 PM
7

I can't say I really understand a "right" to long life or not to commit suicide. Wouldn't it make more sense to just aim for equal mental and physical healthcare funding and prioritisation?
/r/MensRights16/08/10 07:31 PM
1

I think you're overestimating the virtuousness of the average jury. If that actually worked no-one would ever be convicted of victimless offences and thus plea bargaining would have no power in the first place.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 11:49 PM
3

That strict liability offences exist in any form is an absolute travesty. The only justification I have ever encountered for them is that they make it easier to prosecute people; since when does the criminal justice system in a civilised country aim for that?
/r/MensRights15/08/10 12:52 AM
0

No, he really wouldn't. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but no-one is "locked away forever" in the English justice system. A "life sentence" here actually means about a decade in prison and then registering with the police for the rest of your free life and risking return to prison for any offence, no matter how minor. I can't explain why the girls were convicted of manslaughter as opposed to murder given that murder here only requires intent to seriously harm, not kill, and it seems…
/r/MensRights13/08/10 08:51 AM
1

No, he isn't correct, and he's a perfect example of why campaigns that exclusively target men are so damaging. Regardless of whether it is more common for men to rape women, statements like "being that women have no penetrating sexual organ and therefore it is much more difficult for them to force sex or whatever" are total bullshit. I'm frankly surprised that any male past puberty can believe that, given the number of involuntary erections anyone over the age of 13 will have experienced, and th…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 01:23 PM
5

Which is cold comfort to the minority of men victimised by women. Male rape victims face serious stigma when dealing with their attacks, and publicity pretending that they don't exist only makes that stigma worse because it increases the public perception that men can't be raped. They managed to make 1/4 posters about man-on-man rape which is also statistically rarer than man-on-woman, would it really have killed them to do one on woman-on-man?
/r/MensRights09/08/10 11:30 AM
3

They are, just not right now. Female retirement age will increase by 6 years, which is more than male. If they changed it immediately it would mess up a lot of financial planning. I suppose you can argue that it is sexist, but given that equality is the long-term (and not even that long term) outcome I find it difficult to see a problem in that.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 12:44 PM
5

Exactly, they're preparing to normalise it across the sexes, which is a damn good thing. People rely on certainty when it comes to things like retirement age and senior support, to simply change it all at once would be irresponsible and damaging even if it would create instant legal equality. There's no misandry here.
/r/MensRights05/08/10 11:56 AM
2

We do still have a life sentence though Only in the sense that we have a sentence called that. What "life sentence" actually means in the UK is "go to prison for a decade and then get released on life licence, which means you have to report your location to the government and any offence risks being sent back".
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:13 AM
2

Firearms are one specific area where sentencing constraints are mandated by statute because of public hysteria over guns. Manslaughter and murder are a completely different issue.
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:11 AM
-1

No it isn't. See here. If a defendant is aged 18-20 they're sent to a Young Offenders Institution regardless of their gender.
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:09 AM
0

All the time. THIS IS NOT AMERICA. Go and research our legal system before talking bullshit about it. Offenders between the ages of 18-20 are sent to Youth Offender Institutions as a matter of course.
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:08 AM
-1

Or if you are a man. Every single time British sentencing comes up here everyone rushes to blame gender and completely ignores the fact that the British justice system uses far shorter sentences than America across the board. Murder can result in 10-15 years of imprisonment here, these two defendants were only convicted of manslaughter, and one of them was a youth offender so the judge was legally limited to considering only rehabilitation in sentencing. I can't explain why they were charged and…
/r/MensRights03/08/10 09:02 AM
2

I'm not saying the basic point is wrong, I'm pointing out that the example the author used was ridiculous. Whether or not we can argue that in general the definition of "rape" has been expanded to absurd degrees, that does not justify claiming that it was "more likely" that the girl, an underage victim, was seduced. Is it possible? Certainly, but claiming that it was more likely than actual rape is totally baseless (and I'm sorry, but the "Oh but it happened several times" explanation that was t…
/r/MensRights02/08/10 10:09 AM
1

How do you feel about informing the parents of an underage girl when she gets an abortion? I believe that would depend on her age and maturity. Minors do not necessarily need parental proxies on medical issues if it can be demonstrated that they have the intelligence and emotional maturity to understand those issues. Clearly this would not apply to a newborn baby, but given the age necessary to become pregnant I would think that in most cases the patient would be old enough to understand the ram…
/r/MensRights02/08/10 10:04 AM
2

I don't understand how you could justify not doing this in every case of an acquittal; it's not as if legal fees are any less unfair to innocent defendants in cases where self-defence isn't claimed.
/r/MensRights02/08/10 07:55 AM
5

Really? It's using Tina Anderson's case as an example? I really don't know where to start with all the faulty assumptions and statements there. How the hell did the author come to the conclusion that it was "more likely" that she was seduced, even if it is possible? And as far as the quips about her being raped several times in the long term, I guess he/she has never heard of prolonged patterns of abuse? This wasn't stranger rape, it was someone the victim knew and interacted with on a regular b…
/r/MensRights02/08/10 12:29 AM
2

It doesn't specify in the article, but more often than not rather than someone being charged with manslaughter by the CPS, the charge will be murder and the judge and/or jury will reduce it to manslaughter. I'm not sure what the logic was in this case given that it seems fairly reasonable to presume intent to seriously harm if you stab someone with a kitchen knife, but it may very well not be the prosecution's fault.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 07:43 PM
2

In fairness, I doubt sexism was in play with that sentencing. This happened in the U.K., not the U.S.; "life imprisonment" for people actually convicted of murder here can top out at 10-15 years (it's still called life because the defendant gets put on life licence even after being released so they have to report in and the slightest infraction gets them sent back), they weren't convicted of murder (although frankly I can't see any legal reason why they weren't), and one of the sisters was still…
/r/MensRights01/08/10 07:41 PM
3

Again, I am not pushing back against letting the man do it without the woman's permission. I'm simply saying that the woman probably ought to know. There's a huge difference between informing someone and requiring their consent.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 10:51 AM
3

Which is questionable, but I don't subscribe to the mens' rights model that says that when there is an injustice, everyone should be dragged down to the same shitty level. It seems petty and vindictive, and I can't see it doing anything but turning off moderates who might otherwise agree with correcting injustices through positive measures.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 09:14 AM
6

Or, you know, the last attempt at quashing opposing opinions by kloo2yoo was met by resounded opposition, as was the one before that. If you don't want to read anything but circlejerks go to /r/malestudies, they're much less accommodating of dissent there.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 08:16 AM
2

I'm not talking about getting permission, I'm talking about being informed. Those are two separate issues.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 07:59 AM
3

No, I think that if you have serious doubts about the paternity of a child, the other parent has a right to know about it. If you want to portray me as some sort of evil misandrist monster for believing that, go ahead, I don't really care.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 07:58 AM
-1

To be honest, I don't see anything objectionable about the mother knowing. If you elect to have testing done, you can't really be certain about paternity, and if you're entering into the long-term relationship of shared parenthood that seems like the sort of thing both parties should know.
/r/MensRights31/07/10 06:19 PM
7

I certainly think it ought to be a standard service offered, but I'm not sure about confidentiality. As a matter of medical ethics a patient ought to be informed of any procedures performed on them, and in the case of infants the parents normally stand in as proxies, so the mother probably ought to have a right to know if something is being done to her child, even if it is as non-invasive as genetic testing.
/r/MensRights31/07/10 05:52 PM
7

I'm getting a little tired of people claiming that cryptogirl et al. are trojan horses or trolls. More often than not I find myself disagreeing with them, but prima facie they make good faith arguments and I haven't seen any evidence to contradict that. Pretending the opposition doesn't really exist can only weaken a movement because believe it or not there are rational arguments against pretty much any philosophical or ethical position and responding to them can only strengthen one's own argume…
/r/MensRights31/07/10 05:45 PM
2

Can I ask why you seem to be singling out 2XC? In my experience 2XC is fine. /r/feminisms and /r/women are extremist subreddits where you can regularly expect MRA perspectives to be heavily downvoted, but most of the content on 2XC isn't even slightly political, and I'm a fairly regular commenter there and I haven't found it to be particularly misandrist when those issues do come up. Hell, I've brought up things like false rape claims, female-on-male DV, and male abortion rights there and had hi…
/r/MensRights31/07/10 05:39 PM
6

I don't think it's stupid. Yes, it's dragging everyone down to the same level, but the whole point of the male right to choose is equality, and you don't have equality if the system makes it easier for men than women to "abort".
/r/MensRights25/07/10 11:38 PM
4

I really don't think your first paragraph is fair. If you look at the same article submitted to /r/reddit.com the pro-equality viewpoint is definitely the majority; hell, it even has a huge amount of support on 2XC.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 11:36 PM
1

Given that murder is specifically defined as unlawful killing, equating it with the death penalty is stupid. There are perfectly good arguments against capital punishment without having to resort to inaccurate emotive language.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 06:44 AM
4

"all women"? Really?
/r/MensRights24/07/10 11:26 AM
14

One of the most distasteful things I find about extreme feminism is its love of censorship. I'd like to think we should aim to be better than them.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 06:09 PM
1

Prison rape has a higher incidence in the U.S. compared to other Western nations, but don't kid yourself into thinking it doesn't happen elsewhere. It's only anecdotal, but I've spoken to prison inmates and according to them it's certainly something that happens in English prisons (interestingly I got the impression that it's more common in womens' prisons than mens', but again, that's only anecdotal).
/r/MensRights15/07/10 05:09 PM
16

Meh, I've been relatively active in the various female-centric subreddits and I haven't felt the need to moderate my views or face penalties. I mean if you actually go to the thread in question on 2X nitesmoke's post may be deleted but the idiot who called people child rape apologists was heavily downvoted and all the comments calling her out on her idiocy were positive. It is my experience that you can advocate mens' rights and male perspectives there as long as you're not an ass about it. Yes,…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 05:48 AM
2

But giving men the right to a "financial abortion" does not in any way remove or affect a woman's right to a physical abortion. Er, no-one is claiming that it does. What we're saying is that if other factors restrict a woman's right to a physical abortion, not restricting a man's right to a financial abortion gives men disproportionate power and places an unfair level of responsibility on women to carry a child they may not want without access to any financial support from the father. That is a …
/r/MensRights03/07/10 01:39 PM
8

Er, as a student of legal history I can safely say that at the very least under common law women were actually considered chattels, not merely like chattels. This is why, for example, under Hale until R and R [1991] spousal status was an affirmative defence to rape in England and Wales, and similar defences existed until the latter half of the 20th Century in Canada, the United States, and other common law countries. Women certainly had some rights, but they were very limited compared to their f…
/r/MensRights03/07/10 01:19 PM
7

I'm a strong proponent of the right to financial abortion for men, but I have to say I tend to agree with atomicparrot on this. The two issues, financial abortion and medical abortion, at linked. Obviously perfect symmetry is biologically impossible, but the idea of a financial abortion is to get as close to it as is physically and legally possible. Most advocates, for example, undeniably link the two by arguing that financial abortion should have a cut-off point which matches the legal limit fo…
/r/MensRights03/07/10 01:13 PM
3

He could sue for defamation and the damages would be non-traversable because the allegations were of criminal activity, but you don't get any legal aid for prosecuting defamation cases in the U.K. so he'd have to be fairly well-off because no solicitor or barrister is going to agree to represent someone on a conditional fee basis against a defendant with no substantial assets.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:28 AM
1

In fairness, they can't. The Lord was able to because Parliamentary privilege guarantees absolute freedom of speech (at least from the perspective of the law, although censure can be brought if speech breaches Parliamentary procedure) in the chambers themselves, but under English law the press are prohibited from publishing her name even if a defendant successfully appeals conviction. Blame statute, not the BBC, because under it she has lifelong protection even if someone positively proves that …
/r/MensRights19/06/10 08:39 PM
2

Shannon Taylor. An awesome Lord passed on the information using Parliamentary privilege when the press couldn't.
/r/MensRights19/06/10 08:36 PM
9

What has to stop is juries convicting people of serious crimes solely on the basis of the word of the supposed victim. It sucks in legitimate cases, but he-said-she-said should never, ever be enough to overcome reasonable doubt and judges should make sure jurors damn well know that.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 03:41 PM
3

You can't appeal a criminal case because the judge said something bad after you admitted culpability. Hell, the defendant practically made an implied admission that the judge was correct in saying that when he admitted to the crime instead of raising a self-defence claim (and keep in mind this is England, so there isn't any plea bargaining to consider). The supposed appearance of bias is utterly meaningless if the judge's actual actions (i.e. giving the defendant leniency) are completely contrar…
/r/MensRights15/06/10 09:25 PM
2

He pled guilty and the sentence was pretty much the most lenient you'd get for assault, so I have difficulty seeing how judicial bias would even come into it.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 02:25 PM
11

You don't know what trolling is. Saying something others disagree with, however strongly, is not trolling, it is dissent. Saying something that is not a contribution to the discussion is not trolling, it is at worst spamming. To troll is to make statements the truth of which you do not accept in order to provoke unrestrained responses from your audience. A misandrist posting misandrist comments is not a troll, regardless of where they are posting them, they are an honest bigot. If there is valid…
/r/MensRights14/06/10 05:44 AM
14

Even if your misandry charges held up, "saying something in a place it will be strongly disagreed with" is not the definition of trolling. Trolling is making statements you don't actually believe to be the case in order to rile others into responding. If, as you seem to think, cryptogirl et al. truly are misandrists, they can hardly be trolls if they made misandrist posts.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 05:31 AM
0

Based on this and other posts by you in this thread, you seem to have a habit of attempting to belittle and insult people who happen to disagree with you. I'm sure that makes you feel like a big man inside, but to the rest of us you just come off as an arrogant jerk. It's not very becoming.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 08:10 AM
3

That's the very definition of freedom, which is why even in the West we don't have unrestricted freedom. My point is not that people should be allowed to anything they feel like, even to the detriment of others, it's that if you separate what are ultimately subjectively bad things from a notion of freedom, the term becomes meaningless. I'm simply pointing out a false dichotomy, I'm not saying I support racist store-owners. All that being said, resorting to an ad hominem by referring to my view a…
/r/MensRights12/06/10 05:08 PM
4

False dichotomy. Freedom to hate is freedom. You can't have freedom of conscience without racism, or xenophobia, or intolerance, or bigotry. If "freedom" doesn't allow things because some people think they're bad, it's useless. Freedom of association means being free to choose who you associate with, including for racist or other arbitrary reasons. There is no reason why freedom and bigotry cannot coexist.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 07:20 AM
3

If I come off as snarky it's only because past experience has taught me that expressing such sentiments here is generally an excuse to be attacked. Also, in fairness, Bluelabel is being a jerk by editorialising the title to the extent that it has been; scare quotes, "execution style", "cold blooded", and talk of a not guilty verdict as 'getting off' in exactly the same manner as feminazis who can't stand the fact that men are sometimes acquitted of rape. I apologise if my response seems over the…
/r/MensRights04/06/10 08:39 AM
3

It has been open season for a long time. Except he doesn't have to be abusive. You just have to claim he is abusive. You could say the same thing about self-defence claims in any homicide case, but that doesn't negate them in their entirety.
/r/MensRights04/06/10 07:39 AM
6

God knows I'll be downvoted to hell by the "women can do no good" brigade, but prolonged physical and mental abuse has been shown to have an effect on the psychology of responsibility in its victims, and with reduced responsibility comes reduced criminal liability. Nice scare quotes, by the way; battered wife syndrome is totally made up by the global misandrist conspiracy...
/r/MensRights04/06/10 07:34 AM
8

If you want a particularly pernicious example of that sort of thing, in 40 Day and 40 Nights, Josh Hartnett's character is literally drugged and raped by his psycho ex-girlfriend and the movie treats him like a disgusting cheater afterward. It's just perverse.
/r/MensRights30/05/10 04:35 PM
3

I'm sorry, but not every knife attack in America results in an attempted murder charge. You can downvote me all you like for pointing out an inconvenient the truth, but it won't change it.
/r/MensRights20/05/10 09:52 PM
-2

Police said the lacerations were not serious. Considering that and the difficulty in proving intent to kill, I don't see a huge problem.
/r/MensRights20/05/10 02:52 PM
1

Why does it necessarily follow that because someone is violent specifically to their abuser that they will pose a perpetual danger to the rest of society?
/r/MensRights20/05/10 02:26 PM
1

I'm not sure I see your point. The prosecution is telling the jury things too; until the verdict is reached, the arguments of both sides are ultimately conjecture, albeit potentially likely or unlikely conjecture. The physical evidence can show that she shot the guy, but her reasons for doing so are another matter entirely, and could have significant effects on the legality or illegality of her actions.
/r/MensRights20/05/10 09:13 AM
1

Ongoing abuse is not an acceptable excuse for murder. It is condoning escalation of the violence. I disagree, and I think you're being too absolutist. While there are clearly cases where the concept is abused, I don't think it particularly absurd that continual domestic abuse could have an effect on a person's mind, rendering them less than reasonable through no fault of their own. I don't think the justice system taking account of that is necessarily condoning escalation of violence, but rather…
/r/MensRights20/05/10 09:08 AM
5

This isn't America. Assumption of bail is automatic in England, and it's rarely based on money collateral, especially if the defendant would have difficulty providing it. If they were imprisoned, I'd object far more strenuously, but they're on remand, and I'm not really sure how much stress a 10 year old would be in over the charge in itself (although I don't doubt it'll be hell for their poor parents).
/r/MensRights13/05/10 08:01 PM
5

This occured today, in the afternoon, in a trial with specifically shortened court hours because the parties are children. I'd be very surprised if it isn't dismissed by the weekend, and it's not as if the falsely accused kids are in prison until then.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 07:11 PM
2

I don't believe the judge could do anything more than give her a stern talking to anyway; the age of criminal responsibility in England is 10, below that you can't be held liable in any sense.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 07:10 PM
4

This only happened today, and the court specifically restricted its working hours because of the age of the parties. The defence will be able to move for dismissal on the grounds of that testimony and will almost certainly succeed, but it'll take a few days at least. I'm not about to dismiss the suffering caused by having something like this hanging over one's head, but at the same time it's not as if the falsely accused are on remand; an extra day isn't going to matter that much.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 07:08 PM
9

I don't know, it seems to me that you could easily interpret it as referring specifically to the two alleged rapists. If you're raping people, I think it fair to prescribe you as "sexually predatory", there was more than one of them so the plural "males" is appropriate, and given that the victim was 16 "young women" doesn't seem wrong. Unless that specific girl was targetted, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that the perpetrators might try again. Admittedly they are assuming that the rap…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 02:32 PM
0

If you couldn't do any better than a single syllable ad hominem, did you really need to leave two previous replies before deleting them after downvotes?
/r/MensRights04/05/10 12:35 AM
2

Would you care to point out where I'm wrong instead of attempting to insult me?
/r/MensRights04/05/10 12:28 AM
3

I'm not sure how you got from my position to that. I'm strongly opposed to the prosecution of merely he-said/she-said cases of any kind on the basis that there's no way to overcome reasonable doubt without being arbitrary in those cases. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the potential problems of allowing unsound but effective defences, though. Liberty is important, but so is the integrity of the justice system, otherwise it risks losing the right to judge anyone.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 07:54 PM
5

I can see their argument; unless you could specifically tie the statistical likelihood of rape lies to the accuser in that case, it's no more relevant than, say, a prosecution case using statistical likelihood of black men committing crimes to convict a black defendant, which would clearly be unacceptable. The fact that something happens at a macro level doesn't mean it can reasonably be applied to every case, and the ultimate standard for admission of evidence is relevance.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 01:11 PM
1

While I have no taste for WikipediaBrown's tone, religious beliefs are not rational because they inherently require acceptance of truth without evidence or observation. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong, though; you could just as easily make the same critique about the fundamental underpinnings of my judgement that stabbing a random person in the street would be immoral. Reason's subjectivity affects edge cases, not things like faith which involve an explicit rejection of rationali…
/r/MensRights30/04/10 03:44 AM
2

Not according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Australia No idea what level of mens rea is required, though; if the story was true and it's not strict liability, the recording wouldn't be criminal.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 03:33 AM
7

...they're models. Were we supposed to be critiquing their personalities?
/r/MensRights29/04/10 04:01 PM
1

Yes, these people were almost certainly idiots. However, stupidity is rarely self-inflicted. Ignorance, sure, but not stupidity. I simply don't think it's right to take advantage of stupid people just because you're smarter than them.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 12:29 AM
8

No, in Israel sex through fraud is a crime. Frankly, while I don't think it's on the level of violent or date rape, I have trouble seeing why it shouldn't be criminalised. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this is a gender-specific mens' rights issue.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 07:40 PM
1

Hotspot Shield works well, and it's free. There's a monthly quota, but it's enough to watch quite a lot of content.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 10:41 PM
2

I'm sure you weren't intending it, but for a non-American Hulu submissions can be really, really annoying. To look at it (assuming it works, which isn't guaranteed) I have to open Hotspot Shield, which interferes with other things using my connection like IM and BT, and if I don't want that hassle for a single reddit link the comments page is cryptic to say the least. Not fun.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 08:58 PM
6

Because to those of us outside the U.S. your submission is a message telling us to suck it.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 05:40 PM
1

and she did some serious damage with a hammer According to the article, he "escaped with only minor cuts to his head", which doesn't seem like serious damage. I certainly don't support gender disparity in sentencing, but I don't really have a problem with a lenient sentence when the actual harm caused was minor. A month is probably too light, but in my country this would probably only amount to actual bodily harm, which would probably result in an <2 year sentence, most likely <1 year for a firs…
/r/MensRights20/04/10 03:29 PM
0

Hold on just a second; while those are all valid issues, the change in the law didn't cause them. American criminal law operates still operates on the standard of reasonable doubt, and by all accounts that should not be possible to overcome in any trial exclusively involving contradicting testimonial evidence. The problem is that juries will convict on the basis of such purely contradicting testimonial evidence because of pre-conceived biases, or because one side seems to present themselves bett…
/r/MensRights14/03/10 11:04 PM
10

While her tone was too combative for my taste, I don't really see the misandry. She was writing about adulterous men, not men in general, as the constant hammering home of the word "cheating" clearly demonstrates. Unless someone else has some prior examples of the journalist in question writing in support of adulterous women, I don't see how we can reasonably conclude that she is sexist. I would prefer it to be a private matter, but betraying someone who trusts you is pretty disgusting, male or …
/r/MensRights14/03/10 06:16 PM
4

numb3rb0y said maybe the bf controlled the gf, forcing her to steal from the bank. This was so absurd it could be construed as trolling. I really, really dislike the trend on reddit that if someone says something you disagree with, they must be trolling. Frankly I think it's just an excuse for you to justify your own conduct in downvoting those you disagree with. The gf absolutely received preferential treatment, which numb3rb0y refused to believe was due to the "pussy-pass." Some people may hav…
/r/MensRights08/03/10 03:44 PM
-5

Yes, but none of us attended the trial, heard all the testimony, examined all the evidence, prepared and/or listened to summations and instructions, or sat in a room for hours if not days deliberating and debating possible conclusions. None of us is on anywhere near an equal footing with the judge and jury when deciding this issue, even though they're as much fallible humans as we are.
/r/MensRights08/03/10 12:48 AM
-6

No, it's not. If you really think that, I invite you to read over my posting history in this subreddit. I am unambiguously for gender equality and opposed to any special privileges for women, and I feel sure that my record will bear that out; shit, I've even been attacked by some MRAs in the past because, for example, I believe that if a mother has a choice to abort a father has absolutely no responsibility for their progeny regardless of the social consequences that could result. I'm simply wil…
/r/MensRights08/03/10 12:41 AM
-6

Because victims of domestic abuse never, ever stick around, and learned helplessness is a totally made-up phenomenon. However unlikely you may judge this to be, it most certainly is not impossible, and there appears to have been enough evidence to convince both an experienced High Court judge and a jury of her peers that she was not ultimately responsible. I simply don't know, and if you're honest, neither do you, but unless we completely throw out our trust in the legal system, it seems reasona…
/r/MensRights08/03/10 12:31 AM
-5

Is it really utterly inconceivable that she acted under duress? I haven't seen anywhere near enough information to judge either way, and one can only assume that the trial judge and jury had access to much more evidence. Quite aside from that, I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence that can demonstrate at all, let alone conclusively, that she was cleared because she was a woman. We can conjecture all we want and perhaps even make convincing arguments based on past pussy-pass incidents, but…
/r/MensRights07/03/10 09:05 PM
2

Exactly. There's a line, and I'm sure there are professors out there who cross it, but to make a blanket statement like this is ridiculous. Historically, issues like women's rights and the (pre-feminazi) feminist movements are quite fascinating, and there are appreciable differences in psychology which manifest in culture and philosophy that are interesting to anyone into social sciences. I wish there were more men's studies departments, but that's no reason to crucify the alternative.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 10:43 AM
10

Because it's an inherently sexist ideology? They're not called equalists for a reason.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 10:01 AM
2

I care because this meaningless bullshit wasted Parliamentary time and money that could have been spent on far more important issues. If they'd just decided to change the name, that'd be one thing, but this involved committees and votes and press releases and alterations to stationary etc. etc. etc., all so people like Harriet Harmen can feel a bit better. As someone who lives under Parliament and pays for its shenanigans through taxes, that pisses me off.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 11:43 PM
-4

Guys, when you downvote a comment presenting scientific research that disagrees with your preconceived notions about the evils of womanhood, you're no better than a creatonist who claims fossils are really just tests to trick non-believers. Whether this woman was under its influence or not, learned helplessness is a real, recognised phenomenon.
/r/MensRights05/03/10 07:49 PM
1

No, domestic abuse lobbyist charged with murdering her husband. The worst people in the world are entitled to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 10:22 PM
-2

Er, no, they're not, at least in the UK. The public are allowed in, but they're privately owned and the ownership can set whatever rules they want as long as they don't contradict the law. They're perfectly entitled to ban photography, however stupid you think that decision is, and they're perfectly entitled to kick people out who take photographs. Sorry to burst your "I see misandry!" bubble. I very much doubt the situation is any different in the U.S. considering that you guys tend to take pri…
/r/MensRights26/02/10 12:14 AM
-4

Well, not quite. "delete the photo" seems like the British police's latest meme, but it's totally unlawful, and as much of an asshat as the mall security and its policy are, it's private property and no-one has any "right" to be there in the first place.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:38 AM
6

Is it me, or is there something deeply perverse about the fact that the defence were advocating that as a mitigating factor? "Yes, I lied and knowingly sent an innocent man to prison, almost certainly to face physical, sexual and emotional abuse for half a decade, BUT AT LEAST I TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT IT FOUR YEARS LATER! BE NICE TO ME!"
/r/MensRights25/02/10 12:05 AM
4

Yes. This didn't happen in America. In the English legal system, murderers will usually receive less than fifteen years in prison, and rapists generally between four to eight. I would be entirely unsurprised if a first offender of any gender got a one to two year custodial sentence for non-rape sexual assault, especially considering that they're going to be on the sex offender register for the maximum amount of time as well. Say what you will about the leniency of our sentencing guidelines, but …
/r/MensRights24/02/10 08:30 AM
3

Wait, what? Where you you getting your information from? She pled guilty sexual assault and was sentenced to a year in prison, which means she's going to be put on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for 10 years whether the article mentions it or not. With lifetime registration successfully challenged under ECHR Article 8, that's the longest notification period that's legally possible.
/r/MensRights24/02/10 12:43 AM
6

Nothing you've posted comes even close to demonstrating that all women are behind or supportive of such policies. This is why people call this subreddit misogynistic. We have perfectly legitimate grievances, but then extremists like you go out of your way to lay the blame on everyone who happened to be born with two X chromosomes, which is horrendously sexist in itself. You can't even cite something to show that "most women" support these measures, you're just posting linked to legislation and t…
/r/MensRights24/02/10 12:17 AM
1

"shifting the blame"? Legally, they're allowed in, and commanding officers who are all male are the ones fighting tooth and nail with the government to keep them off the front lines. The only conceivable choice women even have in the matter is through the electoral process, and they've already exercised that as can be seen by the fact that this is a conflict between progressive politicians and conservative military. How you can twist this into being their fault in any way absolutely boggles my m…
/r/MensRights22/02/10 07:24 AM
3

Could someone explain how this continues to be legal? We've had multiple High Court and above rulings that the British military is covered by the Human Rights Act, and Article 14 could not be clearer on gender discrimination being unlawful.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 12:59 AM
-1

This isn't about women being unwilling to do anything. The people fighting to maintain the status quo are male commanding officers.
/r/MensRights22/02/10 12:57 AM
5

Consenting to foreplay is a hell of a long way from consenting to intercourse. I do not accept that leading someone on (which seems like a poor choice of phrase to be honest, since the implication is that if you fondle someone you must be trying to get them to fuck you then and there) makes the charge of rape questionable; ultimately, regardless of whatever else she did want, he entered her unprotected (not that wearing a condom would make it any less rape, but not doing so made the harm caused …
/r/MensRights20/02/10 11:36 AM
19

He was into it, she took it too far, and he stopped her when he was out of his comfort zone. Why is that wrong? While clothed groping and public embarrassment clearly aren't as bad, what you're saying seems to me to be the equivalent of saying that a sluttily-dressed girl deserves to get raped for leading people on. Being okay with a certain level of social interaction isn't an invitation for someone to do anything they feel like.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 11:02 AM
-2

The fact that there might be one or two feminazis in the world ridiculous enough to blame the Holocaust on testicles is not an excuse to respond with equal levels of batshit crazy.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 11:11 AM
0

That is an utterly nonsensical comparison. Even if you have to look at overall statistics to recognise things like career advancement glass ceilings, the individual cases that make up the overall statistics provide evidence that, when considered as part of a larger pattern, can indicate anomalies. In contrast, you are simply concluding something absent any evidence in the individual case, and your counter-argument to this challenge appears to be [paraphrased] "she was never charged because she w…
/r/MensRights16/02/10 12:06 PM
4

I really don't see how this was the result of gender bias. From what I've read, it seems like her mother worked with the police, was corrupt, and used her influence to get her out of trouble. If the situation were reversed and the brother shot the sister, I'm not seeing any evidence that it would have played out any differently. Do you have some source(s) to base your conclusion of sexism on?
/r/MensRights15/02/10 07:31 PM
1

It doesn't force all responsibility on the father. Only half. Fair enough, but defining the proportion of responsibility doesn't really justify why he should be responsible in the first place. 1%, 50%, 100%, it's still making someone pay for something they were forced into. The father 'takes the hit' because he is a parent. And in a civilized society parents are expected to tend to their children. I could just as easily say that in a civilised society individuals aren't held accountable for thin…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 10:58 PM
3

Reddit MR is not a homogenous group-think. In my experience, when people do post extremes and hyperbole here, those calling them on it are the ones getting upvoted, not the other way around. You're not helping anyone with the generalisation.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 10:36 PM
1

I don't understand your point. If the mother doesn't have the child, there's no issue (or at least no issue we could do anything about short of violating her body until the ability to transplant foetuses is invented), but if she does have it, it's entirely her decision thus breaking any chain of responsibility from the father. Having the baby is 100% her responsibility, so if she has it, regardless of how you argue semantics, she's responsible for the man being forced to pay or care for it.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:43 PM
1

If the mother has the decision about whether you have a child or not, I don't see how their decision to have it isn't shackling the father. Fighting for custody over a child you don't want could very well create even more of a burden, so it's hardly a solution if you don't want the child and aren't responsible for it. You say "you created", but regardless of your input in the initial stage, the mother's decision to have an abortion or not is a clear intervening act, so the initial doing of the n…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:28 PM
1

Of course I realise the implications of that, but that doesn't justify forcing all the responsibility onto a party that is not responsible. Why is it that the father has to be the one that takes the hit, when he has no say? If societal consequences are the concern, shouldn't society as a whole be the one paying?
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:17 PM
4

Why should someone's religion liberty allow them to shackle someone into unwanted fatherhood for nearly two decades? Freedom of conscience ends when it involves forcing your religion onto others.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:14 PM
0

I didn't answer your second question because I answered it in response to another of your posts, here.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:11 PM
1

If the woman chooses to abort and the man doesn't want her to, I don't see a solution, because forcing an unwilling pregnancy would be repugnant to individual liberty. However, if the woman chooses not to abort and the man wants her to, he should be able to forever terminate all parental rights and responsibilities. If the woman chooses to have the child regardless, it's entirely her choice and she should take responsibility for her decision instead of demanding that someone with no say in the m…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:05 PM
3

Bill Gates doesn't have anything to do with it, but then neither does the father if the mother can abort but chooses not to, because her having the ultimate decision about whether the child exists breaks the chain of responsibility from the father. So, if the father isn't responsible, you don't have any more right to demand he pays than Bill Gates does, and if Bill Gates paid then the child would be better off because Bill Gates has more money. You have to use the "What's best for the child" arg…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 06:02 PM
4

If the mother has the opportunity to terminate, that breaks the chain of causation from the father's initial decision to have sex. If she chooses not to use that opportunity, he doesn't owe anyone anything, because he doesn't have any responsibility anymore. If you want to claim the child deserves a certain standard of life, then fine, but you can't tie it to the father specifically because he's no more responsible for the child's existence than anyone else. Only the mother is, because she is th…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:28 PM
3

Oh please, the "best for the child" argument? Because it wouldn't be better for the child to force someone like Bill Gates to pay for it? No, you have to arbitrarily chain it down to someone who has can't have any responsibility because he has no say in whether it exists or not thanks to unequal abortion law.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:23 PM
4

Yes, god forbid we actually have equality. If a woman can terminate whenever the hell she feels like it and the father has no say, he should be able to walk out whenever the hell he feels like it. Why is it bad for a man to be able to force a woman into nine months of unwanted pregnancy, but it's perfectly okay for a woman to force a man into eighteen years of unwanted child support? That's the ridiculousness here, not the people opposed to it. If a woman knows the man doesn't want the child, sh…
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:17 PM
7

She gave three examples, all of which are incredibly rare and I'm sure totally co-incidentally very, very extreme. "whether it’s" is generally language used to establish an implication of exclusivity, or at least to give general examples of the subject at hand. I don't know what anyone else has been watching, but triple anal, gang bang dumpster dumps, and flush fucking are not normal pornography. Of course, if she had talked about a terrible actress delivering cheesy lines and getting fucked in …
/r/MensRights10/02/10 01:46 AM
-1

I'm sorry, but if you're going to use logic that strained then practically anything could be posted here, because it's difficult to find something that doesn't have some sort of impact on half the world population. This isn't a men's rights issue, and I'm not a nazi for saying it.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 01:38 AM
1

No, she isn't. The headline is totally inaccurate. This is about the name of a specific position in the House of Commons in official documents, it is not a proposal to ban the term "chairman" for any reason. Even if it succeeds, no-one is going to face penalties for calling it the old name, so nothing is being banned, and it will have absolutely no effect outside Parliamentary business. Frankly, I think it's a silly proposal and Harriet Harman is an authoritarian, feminazi shit, but that doesn't…
/r/MensRights09/02/10 10:15 PM
5

I don't think it was funny. It's just your standard bullying insult designed to put down someone by insinuating that they dare to like something you don't like. Frankly, I don't see how it's any better than calling someone gay in an attempt to insult them, because the implication is that there's something wrong with you if you enjoy different things. Lord_HalfJack's response was funny, but that's because he turned the insult on its head in a relatively witty manner.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 06:01 PM
3

I'm sorry, but why is this here? This hasn't got anything to do with mens' rights, it's just attacking an alleged criminal who happens to be female. There is nothing to even suggest gender bias is in play in any way.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 10:55 PM
9

That's not really the same. As you said yourself, those events are members-only, not males-only, and Greek systems tends to divide resources and people evenly between fraternities and sororities, so at best it's separate but equal. If it were sorority-only, it would be a different matter, but they're simply denying men, allowing women, and prioritising Greek women.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 12:14 PM
2

Battery, or possibly sexual assault. The point is, it's nowhere even close to mutilation.
/r/MensRights03/02/10 04:44 PM
2

How is it genital mutilation if, in the words of the DA, there was no permanent physical injury?
/r/MensRights03/02/10 03:56 PM
14

If you don't mind, good for you. However, that's not the issue. The problem is that people do it to their children before they have the opportunity to consent. No-one has any way of knowing whether the child will regret it later, and clearly some do. There is no excuse for not waiting until the child is old enough to understand the procedure and consent to undergo it himself. I care because people are mutilating infants unnecessarily without consent or knowledge of whether the child will be okay…
/r/MensRights02/02/10 06:26 AM
4

Note that they say they will do it. As in, in the future. Whereas, if you're a woman, you get food now. Nothing quite like starving because you happened to be born with a dick, eh?
/r/MensRights01/02/10 08:42 PM
2

If you have no evidence that he is dangerous short of his having a penis, no, it is not sensible to assume that he is. The fact that you're trying to excuse blatant sexism by criticising supposed political correctness is very telling. As if you'd ever say the same things about a black man on the basis of his skin colour, even though the justification is completely identical. Casual sexism is one of the most insidious problems in Western society and you're not helping.
/r/MensRights01/02/10 10:07 AM
2

Or maybe I'm just sensible enough not to jump to the conclusion that I'm the only one in the general vicinity that isn't a criminal? Innocent people get maced because of this sort of attitude.
/r/MensRights01/02/10 08:56 AM
1

I've lived in a city my entire life, and I assure you, I'm no more likely to assume a man walking near me is a mugger than a black person. All you've done is post excuses; you've completely failed to even argue that it's not sexism, but instead simply attempted to justify your own prejudice with fear.
/r/MensRights01/02/10 08:01 AM
1

...and how exactly does that refute the charge that it is sexism to assume that a man walking behind you is a mugger? Black people are statistically more likely to commit violent crime than white people, but if someone thanked the black guy who crossed the street for making him or her feel safer no-one would hesitate to call that racist. Hell, IIRC the highest-voted comment on that thread pointed that out.
/r/MensRights01/02/10 07:12 AM
1

Imbecile - that woman's actions and gratitude had more to do with fear of being mugged in an urban setting than fear of men... Then why was she only thanking men, not anyone who crossed the street? It was casual sexism at its best.
/r/MensRights01/02/10 05:19 AM
1

Could someone enlighten me on why there is such disregard for mental illness on this subreddit? Yes, it is possible to abuse the system, but on the other hand, it's not reasonable to assume that everyone does. Several times, I've seen submissions about women recieving light sentences as a result of a judge or jury, with a great deal of evidence in front of them, concluding that they weren't totally competent at the time they committed the offence, but people here act like it must have been becau…
/r/MensRights29/01/10 12:35 AM
4

If the condition is a significant driving force behind the defendant's actions, and it can be treated, why hold them for longer? Retributive rage? Of course, alcohol is an exception because you're sober when you choose to get drunk, but depression can be pretty horrifying, it's not necessarily just "Oh I feel a bit down". Don't get me wrong, I think it was hugely wrong that she isn't imprisoned in this specific case, but there's nothing wrong with taking special account of mental conditions in p…
/r/MensRights28/01/10 09:41 PM
3

Why do you keep talking about the "DA"? This is Canada, they don't have district attorneys, they have Crown prosecutors. If you're going to pretend to know about relevant law, at the very least get the jurisdiction right. Lack of a complaining witness is a strong impetus for a judge to dismiss a case, but they're most certainly not legally bound to, nor is the prosecutor in any modern common law system bound to drop a complaint if the victim wishes. That's a feature of primitive legal systems, b…
/r/MensRights28/01/10 08:20 PM
2

His options were limited. Judges have discretion in sentencing, but going against a joint recommendation from the prosecution and the defence is pretty rare and leaves you wide open for a successful appeal. Blame the boyfriend for trying to drop the matter and the prosecution for accepting it.
/r/MensRights28/01/10 08:09 PM
3

She was found guilty and she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison. Unless you're going to argue a mentally ill man in her position would have definitely been executed (and no, they wouldn't, being mentally ill), I see no gender bias at all.
/r/MensRights27/01/10 05:28 AM
3

It is equally silly to pretend that it's somehow trivial for a physically stronger individual to disarm someone who has a knife or a handgun. Hell, that's pretty much the best way to guarantee getting stabbed/shot in that situation.
/r/MensRights27/01/10 05:04 AM
2

And it isn't unheard of for a woman to be stronger than a man. If you're just going to manufacture circumstances that make you a victim, you're not going to gain any useful insights into reality.
/r/MensRights27/01/10 04:53 AM
0

Yes, it might be helpful if you provided citations for your claims. That's pretty standard in any mature discussion, to be honest. If I post that the sky is purple, then post again ridiculing people asking for some evidence of a purple sky, that doesn't actually mean the sky is purple.
/r/MensRights27/01/10 04:00 AM
2

What's your point? There's nothing particularly difficult or time-consuming about getting a weapon, especially if all you care about is melee potential. If anyone can carry a knife, why does it matter in the slightest if some people wouldn't need one?
/r/MensRights27/01/10 03:58 AM
3

No, I didn't miss that story, and the circumstances here are patently different. In that case, as wrong as it was, he paid child support for years before contesting it. OP's girlfriend's child hasn't even been born yet. I realise you desperately want to make him a victim, but thus far you don't have any real basis for claiming that. Whether the child is his most certainly does make a difference if he gets testing immediately and contests supposed obligations from the start. Furthermore, to just …
/r/MensRights23/01/10 05:29 PM
4

Sounds like you're making a massive assumption with little or no evidential basis. Furthermore, as long as he gets paternity testing as soon as possible after birth and doesn't admit to being the father through actions or legal documents until it comes back positive, he's not screwed in the slightest. A court cannot assign you child support obligations because you thought the baby was probably yours during pregnancy.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:54 PM
2

Immediate paternity testing is the only way to 100% cover your ass. It royally sucks, but that's the way it is. Whatever you do, when it's born, DO NOT consent to having your name on the birth certificate unless you're absolutely certain it's yours. This may mean preempting the hospital staff and/or the mother because they'll sometimes do it without even talking to the supposed father.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:52 PM
4

You're not going to see as much publicised sane feminism for the same reason you're not going to see stories about everything being fine on the news; people like drama and emotion, so a vehemently anti-man person is going to stand out a hell of a lot more than someone who doesn't give a damn about gender (which is what feminism should be about and is for many people). Even if everything in your post was 100% accurate, though, that still wouldn't justify claiming that "most western women" are lik…
/r/MensRights22/01/10 08:20 PM
8

Setting a precedent? Are you kidding me? Justice systems have been taking circumstances into account in sentencing since their inception. Personally I'd much rather judges had discretion to judge each individual case on its merits than were locked into pre-set sentencing rules, because each individual case is different and each individual defendant will have different levels of culpability, remorse, and possibility of rehabiliation. This is nothing new, whether you agree with it or not.
/r/MensRights22/01/10 06:05 PM
0

When did I say she didn't intend to kill him?
/r/MensRights22/01/10 06:03 PM
9

I don't think he was looking for citations on numbers of Western feminists, he was looking for citations on batshit insane Western feminists. Contrary to what you may believe, not all those who identify with feminism are the kind of man-hating neo-feminist that this lady represents, and presenting quotes from a few books does not demonstrate that a goddamn thing about "most western women". It's this sort of melodramatic nonsense that leads people to call this subreddit misogynistic.
/r/MensRights22/01/10 05:54 PM
7

I can't help noticing that the headline completely left out the part about her being a victim of serious, prolonged domestic violence. That doesn't excuse what she did, but that's why she still has a manslaughter conviction even if she isn't going to prison.
/r/MensRights22/01/10 05:04 PM
1

How is this any more worrying than a former prosecutor or defence attorney becoming a criminal judge? Hell, how is it any different than every other professional judgeship? In common law systems, every non-lay judge will have been a lawyer at some point, but that doesn't mean they're going to be biased toward their former career when they join the bench.
/r/MensRights21/01/10 07:31 PM
6

Except it's not just a poster; Amnesty International pumps a hell of a lot of its funding into the Stop Violence Against Women campaign. Regardless of the good they do, I can't in good conscience call them a "human rights organisation" when they selectively discriminate against half the human race with one of their biggest causes. It is sexist, and while they have every right to be sexist, I stopped supporting them for that reason and I'd recommend anyone else do too. The ends don't justify the …
/r/MensRights21/01/10 04:00 AM
0

Not every mental illness is permanent. Temporary insanity verdicts exist for a reason. Regardless, even if I accepted that she ought to be confined for psychiatric care indefinitely, this submission still wouldn't have anything to do with mens' rights. Your complaint is that crazy people should be locked up, not that a woman got a reduced sentence because she's a woman. And, once again, I'd like to know why you think you know better than all the people listed above who had access to her in perso…
/r/MensRights18/01/10 11:29 AM
-2

Dude, go look at my posting history if you want. I've been a subscriber to /r/MensRights for quite some time and while I've thought this about the odd submission, I've generally been very impressed by the maturity and adult debate here. However, I'm sorry, but this is a poor submission, and from where I'm sitting it seems like it has brought out the worst in the subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/01/10 06:48 AM
-1

It's also quite debatable whether she was so mentally disturbed that she couldn't understand she was going to kill people. I'd quite like to know why you believe you're more qualified to question that than the mental health professionals who have evaluated her, the DA and defence attornies, the jury that found that she lacked the necessary mental element for murder, and the judge that sentenced her. Nowhere in the linked blog posting nor the comments for this submission has anyone actually submi…
/r/MensRights18/01/10 06:41 AM
0

Blind rage aside, why is it wrong to acknowledge that mental illness reduces criminal culpability?
/r/MensRights18/01/10 03:53 AM
-5

Good lord, it's stuff like this that makes me want to check if this is actually /r/Misogyny. It's like half the posters in this thread are just jumping at the bit to castigate someone because she did something bad and happens to have a vagina. She was trying to commit suicide; that's a pretty clear indication of mental abnormality, and the article makes no attempt to actually dispute that short of a couple of insults. I think you'll find that at least in civilised parts of the world, mental illn…
/r/MensRights18/01/10 03:15 AM
1

This isn't a link to the Daily Mail. It's a link to an article in the Daily Mail which was faily well-written, informative, and not particularly inflamatory. Now, I'm all for calling the Daily Fail out on its bullshit, but to blanket say that anything it produces must be bad is just silly. Aside from the fact of this non-bad article, there's also the fact that for all its bad press, the Daily Mail is an English newspaper, and thus has to grapple with English libel laws. It would be sued into obl…
/r/MensRights16/01/10 04:14 PM
11

Good for you. Some of us actually read linked content before downvoting it, though, y'know, to see what it says, as opposed to who wrote it. What you're essentially doing is committing a blatant logical fallacy, then proudly showing off your foolishness to the world.
/r/MensRights16/01/10 01:44 PM
-6

Thanks for assuming she's guilty, headline. Because the trial is totally over and stuff.
/r/MensRights13/01/10 09:15 PM
7

If Canada has anything like felony murder, this seems like it'd be an excellent use for it. I know she wouldn't meet the essentials for murder, but I believe manslaughter ought to apply, at the very least, since it seems fairly reasonable to assume that someone might get hurt if forced innocent into prison. I don't see why she shouldn't be held directly responsible for the death in some way. Canadian prisons aren't U.S. PMitA hellholes but no prison is a cakewalk. You can't lie to send someone t…
/r/MensRights31/12/09 08:17 PM
26

I wouldn't just call that permanent brain damage, they made him a vegetable. If there were any justice the bitch who put him there would be charged with murder.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 03:21 PM
3

Any eyewitness testimony is crap unless there is corroborating physical evidence, because excepting that there's no way to know whether the witness just made it up. Quite frankly, if eyewitness testimony is all a prosecution has, that shouldn't be anywhere near enough for a conviction. It sucks in legitimate cases, but better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent face imprisonment.
/r/MensRights29/12/09 01:45 PM
4

I think the sex ban is. The ban on relationships isn't, but that's a seperate issue. You can have sex without entering into a relationship; hell, my generation has been constantly lambasted over doing just that through having casual sex with anything that moves. Blind deference to rules and regulations is Veldang advocates is bloody stupid no matter what the ban is about, though. The military also has regs against open homosexuality; does that mean gay soldiers ought to be persecuted in the way …
/r/MensRights22/12/09 12:43 PM
4

Yes, the status quo is the status quo. However, I submit that if on-demand abortions were available in the military, it would not be necesary to have regulations against soldiers having sex.
/r/MensRights21/12/09 10:29 PM
7

Why, because it'd be totally impossible for the military to provide on-demand abortions, thus dealing with this entire issue?
/r/MensRights21/12/09 09:37 PM
4

You lost a part of your body which had biological functions. It may not bother you, but it's still broken. If you had it removed when you were an infant, even if you're now okay with it, your parents and/or doctors wouldn't have had any way of knowing that, so what they did was wrong.
/r/MensRights15/12/09 03:22 PM
1

But there isn't really any chance to meet, see, or get to take pictures of the royal family when you go to those places. When they're not at specific pre-planned public appearances they tend to live very private lives.
/r/MensRights29/11/09 05:06 AM
1

People always say that, but I have trouble believing people come specifically because we have a Queen. No-one wants to knock down Windsor Castle; all the monuments and heritage sites would remain to draw the crowds if a republic were declared.
/r/MensRights28/11/09 09:14 PM
2

Are you a pacifist, then? The depicted level of violence is never acceptable, regardless of the sexes involved, but if someone invades my personal space I wouldn't see anything wrong with using force to abate it.
/r/MensRights28/11/09 01:26 AM
10

I hear this a lot from forced genital mutilation defenders, and seriously, why the hell are you all so filthy? Would it really be too much effort to just pull the foreskin back and run the shower over it every day? I could understand if you were paralysed or bed-ridden or something, but healthy adults should not face such serious difficulties when it comes to cleaning their penis.
/r/MensRights27/11/09 07:53 PM
1

I'm sorry, without knowing more about the circumstances I can't accept that sex with a seventeen year old boy would be rape. At that age I have no doubt about my ability to consent. I know if it'd happened to a seventeen year old girl a lot of people would be claiming the opposite, but double standards should be beaten by overcoming them, not forcing everyone down to the same level.
/r/MensRights26/11/09 07:06 PM
0

In fairness, late taxis in central London are very expensive, and it's not exactly uncommon for businesses to pay travel expenses.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 11:43 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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