TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

on_a_moose Archive

View 1 posts and 255 comments by on_a_moose on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

Sleeping, drunk, drugged, restrained during any of the above, restrained with consent but consent withdrawn. There is also the blackmail/extortion angle, and we don't consider that to be any less rape when women are targeted. It's not as rare as you may think, but it's extremely rare for it to be reported. The guy you're replying to makes it very clear why.
/r/MensRights15/04/17 07:51 AM
31

For the sake of your outrage, this has been going on for a long, long time with this horrible excuse for a human. In 1998 she gave a speech that included the following: Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Never mind all of the men who go and kill and die and get maimed and mentally broken as a result of war. They don't matter.
/r/PussyPass29/04/16 03:17 PM
2

/r/iamverysmart
/r/MensRights20/04/16 05:05 AM
1

That's the last thing I'd do, but I'm not so blind that I can't see that people are shit regardless of their genitalia, and have treated each other like shit for longer than we've had basic language. Y'know, fuckit though. This sub is getting a bit fanatical for my taste. It's really starting to sound like a mirror of the feminists we all despise so much. I'll cut my losses and unsub now.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 11:39 PM
0

You wouldn't be aware of it because you would never have existed.
/r/PussyPass26/09/15 12:11 AM
12

Relax. I tagged you because you asked about it, not so that you'd get butthurt about being given the information you requested.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 08:02 PM
7

Y'know, there was a link that discusses some of this right in the submission. Seems /u/cymrich missed it, too.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 07:50 PM
1

The real question is, what's the reason for caching a shit ton of names like this? Probably for quietly banning people from any subs they control? It wouldn't be the first time this happened. It's funny how the admins keep making such a big deal about brigading, as if votes matter somehow, yet continue on with their "mods are gods" stance and do nothing to protect the userbase as a whole from them.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:47 AM
11

This very common attitude among women is exactly why paternity tests need to be a legislated requirement, a normal and expected part of any pregnancy, just like screening for abnormalities and diseases. Such a requirement would remove any individual blame for the test being done, and ensure that far fewer men are tricked into paying for children that aren't theirs. Of course, that's also why it will never happen.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:14 PM
14

Username checks out.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:49 PM
6

Sorry, that was my first response in the thread. I wasn't talking about anything before that. The quote from Clinton is even more outrageous for ignoring all of the factors I listed above. It clearly didn't even enter her head that horrific numbers of men survive wars, but with devastating injuries and disabilities. It's on point to bring these things up, as when we're talking about casualties of war, the dead are only a small part of it.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 07:20 PM
28

And how about all of those who weren't killed, but were maimed, diseased, imprisoned, tortured, and/or psychologically fucked for the rest of their lives? Oh but the poor women having to grieve, that's so much worse.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 07:02 PM
1

If they are not able to support themselves, they need to find a way to do that which might take longer than a person who is able. I already typed a substantial reply to your other response, so I'll just ask here why do you think that should be the former husband's responsibility? Marriage is a contract of mutual support and benefit. When that contract is dissolved, why should one party be forced by law to go on supporting the other? We've already let our legal system crumble to the point that a …
/r/MensRights24/02/15 02:32 AM
11

I don't think I misunderstood, as you more or less repeated the same position. Her ability to work shouldn't factor into it. Making an effort to work shouldn't factor into it. No adult should be entitled to support from someone they are not married to. The entire idea of alimony is outdated, outmoded and absurd in this day and age. If one person in a marriage chooses to let their skills rust (or not develop any in the first place), or to avoid working, that is their choice. The days of men someh…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 02:24 AM
4

is not fair if she was fully able... So, don't marry anyone with a disability? How do you justify qualifying it like this? We're all ultimately responsible for our fates, regardless of how "able" we are. It shouldn't be another person's responsibility just because they were once married. In this or any case, if one party (hell, who are we kidding) if the woman isn't able, she can apply to the state for assistance in the same way she would have had she never been married.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 01:16 AM
8

Women are more likely to take a few too many aspirin or scratch up their wrists. It gets them a lot of sympathy and attention. It's less commonly about actually committing suicide. Conversely, men are more frequently penalized and ridiculed for these "suicidal gestures". To suggest that's the same thing as men jumping off buildings, shooting themselves in the head, or hanging themselves is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:04 PM
2

He can be legally served even if he's in prison to someone on the outside. The documentation shows that some house was served, not the prison. He could not have received or been aware of it. There is no "so he claims", and your hostile attitude about this is as ignorant as your grasp of the facts in the case.
/r/MensRights24/01/15 03:31 PM
8

Pussy Pass.
/r/PussyPass02/01/15 07:35 PM
3

At this point in the west, the majority of gender movements for both men and women come down to social attitudes and expectations rather than concrete rights. This seems to be the crux of your argument, and it's where you're very wrong. Selective service is about existing law, the power of the state to enforce it, and the denial of rights to men. Genital mutilation is also about existing law, perpetuated by social attitudes, but allowed to continue by the state. Disparity in prosecution and sent…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 01:07 PM
17

In fairness, we do have our extremist fringe, and there are also very dedicated trolls who like to act as if they're part of this movement. Probably the most obvious example on reddit is the certain "academy" spam that gets posted in so many threads here and elsewhere on the site. I actually brushed up against a group with similar views a couple of years ago, Brazil based I think. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if those kinds of people do send out threatening messages, hell they send t…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 12:40 PM
4

I guess you haven't heard about the doctors refusing to do certain parts of their exams, like touching female patients, because of religious reasons ? Even more ridiculous. Religion is a choice. Being a doctor is a choice. Making choices that someone decides are incompatible means they should pick one or the other, not provide substandard service. They should be expelled, or lose their licenses if they already got through, if they aren't willing to make the choice to do the bloody job.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 11:36 AM
19

I don't believe somebody should get away with a crime simply because they spent a few years in another country. It sounds like you don't even know how statutes of limitations work. This statute kicks in if a case isn't filed within a reasonable amount of time. If a case has been filed, escaping jurisdiction doesn't prevent the case from being continued at a (potentially much) later date. Example: Person accused now of committing a crime 30 years ago: protected by the statute. Person charged 30 y…
/r/MensRights25/11/14 04:46 PM
7

Every sub is an echo chamber, to a greater or lesser degree. Pick the ones that resonate with you. Griping about it accomplishes nothing.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 05:03 AM
3

And feminism, as a group that fights to improve the lives of women, began to run short on worthy and justifiable causes... Not really, those fights are just found in other countries, which is most inconvenient and can be more than a bit dangerous, so of course they won't touch those problems when they can just keep screaming for more and more and more right here at home.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 07:17 PM
13

If you have kids and aren't married, you're a walking wallet at the whim of the state. You may or may not have any/enough contact with those kids. If you have kids and are married, you're a walking wallet at the whim of your wife, else you'll rapidly end up at my first point. Additionally, as /u/lol_gog pointed out, you face suspicion taking your kids anywhere, park, school, shopping, doesn't matter. You have to deal with no changing tables in the majority of men's facilities. You have to deal w…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:07 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:01 PM
1

7-15 years in a normal case Things have changed a lot then. Or perhaps my limited exposures to this were exceptions. Thanks for expanding on it. One more reason to disregard marriage (like I needed any more, ha!)
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:25 PM
30

No kids, eh?
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:20 PM
1

Shit, you're right. It's usually for a very limited and predefined time though, like a year or two. Totally forgot about that.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:55 PM
1

Normally, no alimony here. She is probably on the hook for part of any pension she collects later in life (or, could settle now for what it's projected to be).
/r/MensRights15/11/14 02:12 PM
9

It's not the source, it's just another co-opted quote, and not worth any less because some asshole chose to use it. The swastika was used for thousands of years as a sun symbol before it was co-opted by the Nazis, yet hardly anyone even knows that anymore. Don't let valuable ideas disappear just because they're at some point or other used by people or factions you dislike.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 01:35 PM
15

Getting a bill like this passed is the stepping stone to getting one that ends conscription. A lot of people simply won't stand for women being treated equally, so their only option would become all or none. As others have said, it would simply be repealed in the event of a war where the U.S. government wanted to activate a draft.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 01:31 AM
6

Maybe so, but you catch the most flies with manure.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 10:08 PM
7

It's a weak reaffirmation of the status quo. Weak because it shows that fully one third of the justices hearing the case don't agree with upholding one of the core principles of your legal system.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 05:29 AM
1

It's on the extreme side, but honestly, in this society, I can see how someone might end up thinking that way. Not a personal agreement, but I can understand that this line of thinking might be possible.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:34 PM
41

Unfortunately for the site and the rest of us, there's a feminist presence of the same type among the admins of reddit, which means there's zero recourse against abusive feminist moderators.
/r/PussyPass26/10/14 06:43 PM
1

One can hope. The main issue with how it looks is that most people who don't know all the details of how reddit mods work, just think that green = mod = official, in the same way that they distinguish their "official" mod posts by turning their username green. And you're right, those with an opposing agenda would choose to ignore what the presumed intent was.
/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:21 PM
4

This should not be a sticky post. It looks like you're proclaiming this is what the subreddit is about. That you don't even provide context or source for this quote, instead just going with a body-less post, just makes it worse and more confusing. I'm all for discussion, and this would be fine in my mind as an ordinary post, but you need to be very careful about turning this sub into a personal soap box, or having the appearance of doing so. I don't agree at all with your position, either, but t…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:02 PM
2

(for the curious, about 50,000 men go to the ER each year as a result of intimate partner abuse) Generally speaking, men are less likely to seek medical treatment for just about anything. Men might go to the ER if they get stabbed, but women are, again, generally speaking more likely to go to the ER for a black eye or any other minor injury. So the numbers of men seeking treatment for domestic violence will be biased one way, while for women the numbers will be biased the other (if you're intere…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:32 AM
-2

Because "reasons". Got it.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 07:13 PM
9

What exactly do you think this sub promotes for men but demonizes for women?
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:31 PM
5

It's a moot point when women just have to say a man did something in order to get him removed, arrested, charged and probably convicted.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 11:27 AM
3

Not necessarily directly, but the mindset of having babies as child's play may have an effect later on. My point was the inconsideration of everything involved having a child, planning, cost, time, effort, sacrifice etc etc. too often, having kids is just seen as the done thing, a natural progression, an achievement - I think that indoctrination starts as a kid. Alright, then we surely must ban all G.I. Joes and Star Wars toys, as they make military violence fun without consideration to the plan…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:37 PM
1

Please stop trying to associate yourself with Canada. You're a fucking disgrace.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:10 AM
7

No need to revise the first. If hate speech legislation already on the books were actually applied equally, this kind of crap would already be dealt with.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:36 PM
13

Consider, for example, a driver who hits a suicidal pedestrian - the driver has hit someone, but committed no crime. As long as the driver doesn't flee the scene. If the driver does flee, she is definitely guilty of a crime, even though the actual collision isn't the crime.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 10:31 AM
3

So do you think the picture you linked has less value than a picture taken of that subject without the digital manipulation, lighting, perhaps makeup and other factors that make it "fake"? The problem as I see it, with you and this thread of comments, is that you're on one side screaming "It's fake! It's all fake! She doesn't look like that!" while most (many?) guys looking at this picture, those who appreciate it anyway, would look at you with a blank expression and say "So? It's beautiful" (th…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 12:26 AM
7

In the U.S. and I think Canada, the laws are more sensible. To avoid libel you only need to "reasonably believe" that what you're saying is true. I'm sure that's a gross oversimplification, but it's the basic principle.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 09:06 PM
12

So the solution is to treat them like adults and inflict long-term consequences on them for acting like kids? In what fucking world does knowingly making false sex abuse accusations equate to "acting like kids"? I seriously hope you have no children.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 08:19 PM
1

That depends if the lobbying is successful or not.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 03:27 PM
8

I think it's both. There's rarely any research into a male pill either. Supposedly there was a functional pill 30 odd years ago, but they decided "men wouldn't want it". It seems there's a systematic attempt to prevent male sexual autonomy.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 01:45 AM
9

I wanted to be sure this is seen here, as this treatment would put us one step closer to sexual independence. Please give it a read, it's been a promising idea from the start. On a side note, it disgusts me that something like this requires crowdsourced support, for the sole reason that it's a treatment for males.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:34 AM
1

13 out of 39 posts in this thread are you ranting. Several are saying the same tired garbage. I think you should be banned like any spammer/troll.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 11:58 PM
8

Class action for what? They're not a government institution, and you sign away any interests you may have had when you register. They, unfortunately, can act in any shitty way they want at their own discretion, and nothing can be done about it except to expose them, and to educate people on why they should avoid this company's services. Bottom line is, I'm sure you'll find somewhere in their find print, that they reserve the right to remove anything they want, or not remove such, entirely at the…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 01:21 AM
1

I didn't call you any names. Again, reading comprehension. I may have insulted your intelligence, slightly, but that does not equal name calling. If you want to bitch about insults, go re-read your first reply to me, first. I mean, that's obvious just by the fact you think rapists regularly go to prison for 30 years Where did I say, infer or imply anything like this? I said the victim in this case (who is still in prison, btw) is likely to have already experienced rape as a result of imprisonmen…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 11:10 PM
1

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your forté.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 10:21 PM
1

This would be why the term used is "deterrent" and not "prevention". When considering the deterrent value of sentencing, we (the societal "we") are interested in reducing the occurrence of the given crime as much as possible. The expectation has never been to stop all occurrences of that, or any crime. Clearly a slap on the wrist for one female offender out of several (the rest getting off completely, or with silliness like probation) isn't working. There's a lot of leeway that could be investig…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:18 PM
1

And it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, because nobody (aside from you, incorrectly) asserted that to be the case.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:12 PM
2

That strawman can't even support its own weight. We're discussing prison terms here, not anything outside of the established justice system like you are saying. 1/10 attempt to derail. Try again.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:45 PM
2

So, theoretically, you would rather go to jail and be raped for 30 years than be raped? FTFY? I seriously doubt that any innocent person subjected to that kind of prison sentence in the U.S. is going to get through it without being raped. The victim in this case probably has already been through it.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:29 PM
2

In this context, you must be against proportional punishment for any crime. What an idiotic position.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:27 PM
3

Well let's see, it hasn't been an effective deterrent yet. It would appear that numbers of these crimes, and certainly our awareness of them, is only increasing. This 1-2 years is the most that women get for their crime, and it's rare for them to even get that. How long do you think we should go on repeating the same procedure, getting a failed outcome, and expecting a different result?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:24 PM
2

So you believe that all crimes should be punished by committing that crime against the victim? You keep repeating this same false equivalency. The equivalent would be charging the woman with rape, herself. Nobody has suggested that (with good reason). Having the same sentence for her crime as what her victim WAS SENTENCED TO does not seem out of line to me at all. She cost an innocent person 30 years of incarceration (had it not been found out after the fact), destroyed a life, and I firmly beli…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:20 PM
2

In quite a few jurisdictions these days, if you cohabit with a woman who has kids for more than X (some arbitrary period, usually six months), and/or you provide a "fatherly role" (e.g. taking the kids anywhere, buying them birthday gifts), they can get you for child support now. That's even if you cohabit 6 months, don't marry, and break up, you can still end up on the hook. This is especially common where the biological father isn't paying. It's totally fucking insane.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 07:07 AM
0

Only to you, it seems. It's a generalization, granted, but it is not the same as "all". Saying "men fight wars" is accurate, and it neither means that no women fight wars, nor that all men fight wars.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 12:08 AM
8

You're the only person using the word "all".
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:22 PM
1

Honestly, I'd prefer that our movement were called "male rights" rather than "men's rights", as I think that any kind of institutionalized abuse of males, such as this case, should be a part of what we fight. I think you're taking the term men a bit too literally. I'd feel the same way if the abuser(s) in this case were male. We needn't limit our attention to cases where females abuse males, when we should be aiming to expose and/or eliminate the abuse itself, regardless of who inflicts it.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 12:19 AM
-2

You really can't use anything as a deterrent against this kind of violent crime, because the last thing the criminals in these situations are considering are the repercussions of their actions.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 12:50 AM
2

Just don't get married! Have the wedding and no contract. Where I am, you can still get screwed if you possess testicles and simply live with a woman for six months or more, even with no wedding, and no plans to marry. So called common-law marriages. The situation seems to be worsening, too.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 09:03 AM
5

And, conveniently ignoring even the IDEA of extreme cases where men end up hospitalized, or dead. There is indeed a difference.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:17 AM
4

You can still go to a court and give them reasons why you would like to test it and they can permit you the right. That isn't a right, that's a privilege.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:33 AM
3

In your experience have women been more likely to physically abuse their male partners? Yes. They know they can get away with it. They know they won't be punished. A horrendous number of women tend to be slap-happy, free with their fists, stabbing, hair pulling, scratching and object throwing people. The only repercussion they need to worry about when they do this is if the man hits back, and if he does, then they can cry to the police and he goes to jail/loses his job/loses his home/loses his k…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 01:42 PM
4

Agreed, but that notwithstanding are you going to say that the vast majority of domestic violence isn't carried out by men? Yes, I'd say that. The whole system is designed to prevent the issue being acknowledged. Man reports domestic violence = man removed from home. Woman reports domestic violence = man removed from home. To say nothing about charges. Police departments in many areas have rules specifically defining this. They work on the policy that in ALL domestic violence incidents, arrest a…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 01:08 PM
2

We're not in the habit of downvoting women for being women, even when they feel the need to announce it from the rooftops (you needed to, to provide context). Women have always been welcomed here. It would be silly to do otherwise, when we're trying to get a lot of them to understand the issues we present. I can't say that the reverse is true on some other subreddits, but that's their credibility issue.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 10:38 PM
3

Men's Rights were never mentioned, but in a class that is supposed to be focused on women, I can't really fault the course for that. Did a male equivalent course exist? Genuinely curious, despite thinking I know the likely answer.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:35 AM
7

Y'know, I'm really tired of the "extremist excuse" as it were. Until these mythical moderate feminist groups speak out decrying the actions of these extremists, they're all of the same type to me. I have NEVER seen a single article, public statement, anything by a feminist group saying "These people don't represent our movement!". I've seen a relative few individual users claiming this in posts, but that's a far cry from what needs to happen if I'm expected to take them seriously as anything oth…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:10 AM
3

Doesn't work. Tried it repeatedly, with and without the 90 second wait. My Tool of Oppression™ engorged properly, but all I got were some strange looks - no privilege. What was the number for The Patriarchy, again?
/r/MensRights01/12/12 10:12 PM
2

As a teacher in Ontario, what do you think about what others have said in this thread, about the factual correctness of the essay being more or less irrelevant to the grade? They're saying it should be graded on composition, and correctness of grammar, and any other criteria relevant to an English assignment, since this is an English class. I think that what the teacher thinks personally of the subject matter in a situation like this shouldn't affect the grade given, at all, and that this teache…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 04:47 PM
3

As I said elsewhere, the father in this case is irrelevant. The victim in this case is a male, and there are a lot more like him. This article isn't, or shouldn't be, about the grandmother, either. It should be about this wrongfully taken and negligently cared for boy, and a system designed to prevent the correction of these problems.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:36 PM
1

It's a men's rights issue because the victim in this case is a male. Grandson eh? This should be very obvious. The points others have raised about how men are treated by these agencies when they're in the parental role are also on point, but we mustn't forget that this system is abusing boys and young men, too.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:34 PM
7

Aye, that's why I say he should do both. Criminal charges are unlikely to compensate him in any way. Restitution is possible, but for compensation, civil court is the way to go. The criminal charges are about deterring her from doing it again and thinking that this behaviour is OK.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 01:03 AM
14

C) Call a lawyer the venue to sort this out is in civil court not to press criminal charges. She will most likely get off during criminal proceedings, but in civil court she would be found guilty on the balance of probabilities. No. This is a criminal act, and should be prosecuted. Most places have criminal laws against willful destruction of property, vandalism, etc, so something where OP is should fit the bill. She probably will get off in court, due to a pussy pass, but to not even try just r…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 12:42 AM
1

I would rather thave the non-custodial parent have to pay at least enough to keep the custodial parent + child from having to receive benefits like food stamps, energy assistance, etc. No reason the taxpayers should have to subsidize what the non-custodial parent is not willing to do. This is a bad idea, and far too easy to exploit. What happens when the custodial parent doesn't give a fuck anymore about earning, because by your plan, if they choose not to work, they would get that income from t…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:48 AM
4

It is sexist against women but I am more likely to feel compelled to help a woman in distress than a man. No, what you're describing is sexist against men. Or sexist in favour of women, but not against. It's extremely common, and I think it transcends societal expectations, into the genetic programming we deal with, but it's not right by any stretch. I'll admit I struggle with this, too. I think virtually every male does, even when dealing with women we don't want in any sexual way.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:35 AM
14

Both should be used. It doesn't need to be an either/or proposition.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:35 AM
5

It's not so bizarre. It's a coping mechanism of the weak, to deflect the hard questions about themselves and their lives that they don't have the balls to face.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:52 PM
5

You're stupid. Goodbye. You know you've lost an argument when...
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:41 PM
2

I found this 'parody' in the comments to be offensive, idiotic, and awful too. For the exact same reasons, because of the exact same sorts of attitude. Then: You don't understand parody, whose purpose is to discredit something by presenting an absurd analog of it. You're going out of your way to be offended, unless you really are that obtuse. For a long time, women still had respect but were also considered good for nothing. They couldn't vote. They were to keep quiet in intellectual discussion.…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:24 PM
1

I think both statements are true.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:17 PM
9

Yeah, umm, fuck that. If you don't want things on the internet linked to, you either don't post them, or you put them behind a password. Nobody has any right to say "don't link to us". Well, they have the right to say it, and we have every right to ignore it.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:54 AM
6

It's not "just like war". If you're referring to the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists/Public Law No: 107–40", it was intended to go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but has been used to blow up whoever they want in several countries. There is no well defined enemy, mainly because that enemy doesn't really exist in any cohesive form. There is no war to be won, no distinct enemy to be defeated, just a perpetual offensive against the villains of the day until…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:12 AM
9

There is just so much that's fucked up with what you just said. You're "in" one of those groups if they say you are, or, if they say they think you are. And, there is no war. The U.S. is not at war in any traditional sense. There cannot be a cessation of hostilities when there is no fucking declared war in the first place! That changes the meaning of indefinite to "until you die, one way or another".
/r/MensRights06/05/12 06:10 AM
7

What, you don't like being called gay? You're a homophobe. /s Edit: Getting quite a chuckle from the downvotes on this. Maybe people missed the /s, but I have had people actually say this shit to me and mean it!
/r/MensRights15/04/12 11:04 PM
8

If you're so thin skinned that a few downvotes upset you, that's probably a wise choice. You added nothing to the discussion, threw in a bunch of me me me stuff nobody has any reason to care about, and basically said you're commenting to say you didn't want to comment. I'm not surprised that took a few downvotes. Here's to eventually realizing that karma means absolutely nothing.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:30 PM
21

Adding constructive talking points to the discussion has nothing to do with allegiances. I can barely make sense of your post.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 06:07 PM
3

Me too, but I'm male. There's no way in hell I'm going to get saddled with child support for kids that aren't mine, and the way things are now, that can happen and persist even if you just date someone with kids for awhile and break up.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 12:56 PM
2

I'm still waiting for it to. Yikes.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 12:55 PM
4

Just wow. I hope this gets a lot more attention.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 01:02 PM
2

Nice of you to explain to him, but I refuse to believe that someone who has been on reddit for at least 414 days didn't know that full well.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 10:47 PM
2

It has to do with who moderates it, or at least it did. I haven't looked at that sub in ages.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 10:39 AM
4

Yep, but keep in mind that the pills used in the 60s were 10-100x the dose of what is used now (or even more, in some cases). At those kinds of dosages, and with the side effects being seen with them, I can understand them playing it safe like that. I think there has been some recent study of stacking the newer low dose pills, but I can't cite that at the moment. It seems that the general opinion these days is that it's OK to take them for 6 months or so, then go off them for a week. Some do a y…
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:20 AM
5

Probably more than enough. I think (and I could be wrong) that landlords here only have to hold things for 60 days.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:45 PM
29

So she can tell her sob story to some dumb old judge and get probation, at best, and rack up false charges against the man, at worst. I'm not saying it isn't still the correct course of action, just that it won't accomplish anything positive in most cases.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:04 PM
8

The same amount of time provided for by law when dealing with a landlord/tenant situation would seem reasonable to me (e.g. when a tenant moves out and leaves stuff behind). Of course, the actual amount of time that is would depend on where you are.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:00 PM
70

"Oh well, it probably belonged to a man anyway, and he was probably an asshole, too." Elaborated on that for you.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:56 PM
7

well... they can. sure it takes a quite invasive surgery but they can... Women who don't have adverse reactions to low dose birth control pills can use them back to back (skipping the week of placebo pills), and have 1-2 periods per year at times of their choosing. The majority of women do not have adverse reactions to this stuff.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:53 PM
1

All else aside, complaining about downvotes is the surest way to accumulate downvotes.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:35 AM
8

And consent.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:20 PM
4

Or am I living under a rock? Unfortunately, yes. The Jews get away with it in the U.S. and elsewhere. It's recognized and allowed, and fucking disgusting. They'd all be screaming about antisemitism if they weren't allowed to mutilate their children.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:10 PM
2

I'm more afraid to comment on things or offer my opinion because I think I'll be met with immediate disapproval because of my gender. You know how you can tell it's a woman commenting on /MR? They tell you. I'm not saying hide it, or that you should feel the need to hide anything. I'm just saying it's not something that needs to be advertised unless you're looking for some kind of special recognition (positive or negative). Most people here don't qualify their comments with their sex, so while t…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 07:56 AM
2

I find is pointless and divisive to continue posting content about radical feminists and how stupid and backward their logic is. Forget those women, arguing with them won't gain you anything. It's not about that. A frightening portion of the population has no clue just how evil and self serving they are. To reach more people, it takes more kinds of communication. A lot of people won't take the time to sit down and read an article, but those same types will read one of these images. Now, you may …
/r/MensRights08/03/12 07:17 AM
10

It's a variable distance calculated subliminally by the woman based on how attractive the passerby is. How dare this male attempt to use a street at the same time as her, without prior consent. I mean, she was clearly FORCED to feel SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE! Tragic situation.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 04:01 AM
3

In Canada the age for self determination of medical treatment (e.g. the right to refuse treatment) is 12 years old. The exception to this is if they can declare the kid mentally ill. Unfortunately this law is abused a lot up here, because the kids have no idea that they possess the right to refuse (or to demand) medical treatment. Still, I have trouble believing a case like this could happen up here. I certainly hope it couldn't.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 05:33 PM
3

Kellogg was a demented monster of a man. He didn't just promote circumcision, he promoted it specifically without anesthesia with the reasoning that the pain and trauma would serve as a further deterrent to masturbation. We're not talking about babies here, we're talking about 8-12 year old boys. His answer to the "problem" for girls was to apply a few drops of carbolic acid to the clitoris, again, specifically without any kind of anesthesia. The excruciating pain of this assault combined with t…
/r/MensRights12/02/12 05:27 PM
4

Yeah, good luck with that. In the meantime, I'm quite contentedly out of the game.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 03:04 AM
9

40-50% of marriages ending in divorce, with 75-85% of those divorces instigated by the female. Gambling is one thing, but that's a sucker bet.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 02:15 AM
7

I'm male, and back when I had hair down to my ass, I was charged more than the standard rate for a haircut more than once. It struck me as a bit ridiculous considering I only ever got a 5 or 10 minute trim, but that's just how they did it. Sex didn't factor into it, it was length of hair.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:42 PM
8

FFS, it says it's cross posted (which is fine, read the reddiquette) right in the damn title. He's doing the right thing telling us where the original is.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 05:52 AM
4

I could be wrong, but I think BSDC was objecting to the term "heated" in this context.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 10:17 PM
2

If you want power over someone in prison, you can beat the shit out of them. If you don't want sexual release with that power, why get shit on your dick? It makes no sense. It would be more accurate to say that rape is about power and sexual release.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 10:10 PM
3

This thread of comments is hilarious. You're both pointing out the shittiest mindset that some people possess, both steadfastly ignoring the fact that these people exist with either set of genitalia, both making the generalization that "all [insert gender here] are like that". Shitty, materialistic, lazy, greedy, shallow, superficial people exist in both genders but are not representative of either (or maybe they are, and people in general are shit).
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:04 PM
6

If anything, you're arguing that this particular privilege extends even farther than you like. That it's so ingrained in society that you find it annoying makes an even stronger point. You're also misinterpreting the intent here. To broadly generalize, men don't assume women need help with these things. Men feel it is expected that they do these things all the time if they ever want a chance of eventually winning favour with a woman, and the possible chance to procreate (or at least fuck, the dr…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 12:19 AM
5

The court system (I just can't use the word "justice") isn't blind. It's actively biased against men. The assumption is, if you have a penis, you can't be an adequate parent, and there's something wrong with you if you want to try. That goes way beyond blind.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 10:47 AM
1

What about private surrogates? Honest question, I'm not clear on those laws in the U.S.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 08:19 PM
4

Giving the benefit of the doubt, he may have skipped it because it was the only criteria in the list that even resembles a valid argument for violent response. However, I don't think it "damages his argument" either. When does any kind of violence justify genital mutilation, or an attack on someone who is sleeping? I can kinda see someone killing an abuser when they're vulnerable, under very limited circumstances, but mutilating? Seriously?
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:01 AM
5

What result you want on a conscious level, and the sex drive itself, have very little to do with each other. That was the point.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 02:31 AM
5

Exactly right. "...desperation to reproduce" is more accurate than "...desperation to fuck a vagina". That's all I was addressing.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 01:49 AM
13

He's referring to the hard-wired drive, not the potential result. It's important to remember that there is only one reason we're wired this way in the first place, and keeping that in mind can seriously reduce the number of stupid decisions we make in the quest for pussy.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 12:11 AM
2

So in other words, we should behave like terrorists because we're not. Lovely.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 01:29 AM
2

Someone in a thread on /r/canada asked what's so great about Canada, from all they'd heard about it in the U.S. and online. I summed it up as this: Canada is generally about 10 years less shitty than the U.S. but we're on the same path. The U.S. is already a police state, and a prison state. Another 10 years of them pushing their agendas on us will lead to Canada being at least as shitty as the U.S. is now. Whether you think Canada has already crossed some imaginary threshold into being a police…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 01:27 AM
2

There is a difference between warning of a broken system, and accepting it as the status quo. These things only become entrenched in society because enough people decide "that's just how it is".
/r/MensRights08/12/11 11:12 PM
5

Thank you. This must be a difficult sub to moderate, as it contains a lot of strong emotions, and a lot of trolls, and a lot of people with obsessive agendas. Trying to thin out some of the crap, which has been pretty thick lately, is a laudable goal, and your time and effort are appreciated.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 07:40 AM
2

OK, forget my response to you above. You're clearly reading into things so much you're seeing what isn't there.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:18 AM
3

And seen here again, the uncircumcised males of Reddit think it's awesome to high five and talk to us circumcised like we're less of men. That is so not what anyone is saying, tho I can kinda see how it might come across like that sometimes. What "we" are saying is that the practice is wrong, and proponents of it need to be educated on this. That said, a lot of people here have a hair trigger when they see anything resembling support for circumcision.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:14 AM
5

That's harsh, to the point of undermining your own position. This kind of response is not how you motivate people, and a lot of the people that participate in this sub are downtrodden, bitter, angry, depressed, feeling hopeless about their predicaments - not easy to motivate in the direction you want. Why would people flock to your banner when they don't see any possibility of things improving no matter what they do? Why give them such an easy excuse to ignore you for being a jerk about it?
/r/MensRights03/12/11 08:25 AM
6

For pregnancy by deception? I have difficulty having a problem with this. Women only pull this shit because they can. Make it so they can't profit by it.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 07:44 PM
7

Why not ask that of the guy he was responding to? He used the word assault because simplecosine used the word assault. Oh, you were just being rude for no apparent reason? OK, carry on.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 09:25 PM
8

That wasn't a very good counter argument.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 01:22 AM
3

And how is this related to mens rights? She got sentenced to jail and her partner got custody of the children (as far as I can tell). Well, it's significant because it's so rare. I think the story does belong here to serve as an example of one where the woman actually did get punished. It can happen, yay. We still need to make it the norm though.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:30 PM
1

I do not know if the same stigma occurs for young/childless men seeking vasectomy and would be interested if anyone here has experience with that. It does, and a lot of doctors won't perform it. Some others demand a long waiting period to "be sure" you really want it. As if many men are going to go in there and say "Hey doc, please cut open my nut sac" on a whim.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 01:40 AM
8

I think it would be more fair to say that it may be a somewhat embellished scenario designed to show just how gaping the flaws are in the system. It's effective at that, provided you're not determined to bury head in sand. Whether the story of it happened or not is irrelevant. The results do happen, and men get completely fucked over by it. I have heard female relatives have similar discussions about their "options", this isn't so far fetched. What is going on with this subreddit?
/r/MensRights15/10/11 08:04 PM
11

Doesn't matter. The fact of it is that these scenarios are not a myth. Whether this particular anecdote is factually true or not, it gets the message across. Of course you're welcome to go on believing that such inequitable scenarios don't ever happen, like some of these for instance. Must all be made up bullshit eh?
/r/MensRights15/10/11 07:46 PM
4

points at username
/r/MensRights06/10/11 03:16 AM
2

Shoulds are irrelevant. The fact is these crimes are treated very differently from most others. I don't see that changing, despite what any of us think "should" happen, therefore the laws need to change to compensate in other ways.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:23 AM
6

if i do business with someone regularly, and they are a legit business, but one day they sell me stuff they knew was stolen, but deceived me about the goods origins, could i not use 'yes, i bought stolen property but had every reason to believe it was legit' as a valid defense? Depending on where you are, no. You would still be charged with "receiving stolen property", and yes, it's about as stupid as what we're talking about here. There are a number of areas of law where someone can do everythi…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 07:18 AM
1

That was not the tone you put out in the other thread. Your every response to commenters was basically "Great, spam all the LGBT topics you can!" I don't see the point of making a big deal of it. If the link were a men's rights issue, people would post it anyway - regardless of whether it is also LGBT related. I'll re-sub in a month, hopefully shit will be back to normal. I'm not impressed with the direction of this sub in the last week or two.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:33 PM
7

LGBT issues are already well represented on Reddit. Mens Rights is not. You guys are effectively diluting our focus, especially by "choosing" LGBT over DV issues, both of which are notary this month. Ignatius' comment about 'maybe we can talk about DV in November' really burns, too. It implies one is somehow more important or relevant than the other. DV victims and issues are also less represented on Reddit than LGBT issues. I see a lot of poor choices in the "politics" of this sub these last fe…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:46 PM
7

Earning scorn from feminists and other anti-equality activists since March 2008 I think you've got the right idea here, to the point I need to comment rather than only upvote. Wouldn't it be nice if the community here had some input in these decisions before they're made?
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:40 PM
2

EDIT: Fuck me in the mouth, the numbers won't go from high to low. Sorry. Haha, and pass, and you can order your list any old way you like by escaping the dot following the number with a backslash. Just for future reference.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:52 AM
5

Oh I see, so according to you, it's OK to violate someone's rights for the speculative good of others (speculative because there's an extremely good chance the person being vaccinated will never be exposed to the pathogens at all). Lack of DNA tests do not risk the health of the human population I disagree with this too. Genetic diseases need to be detected, early if possible, because they are a threat to future generations. Society has been ridiculously reckless with this so far, under the guis…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:28 AM
3

Do you make the same argument against vaccines?
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:58 PM
0

Automated downvotes are par for the course. It's called fuzzing, and reddit does it to interfere with spam accounts. Relax ffs. The single best way to attract downvotes is to get upset about them. They don't fucking matter.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 01:02 AM
1

Not at all. Lots of species are singularly vicious, and some predators seem to get high off killing their food. Even so, they are just eating, they are just defending their personal space, or whatever. Their needs are immediate, and their behaviour reflects that. They don't seem capable of the long term planning of exploitation, and the joy taken in having more than one needs, that we are. They don't see the world as being about personal profit, they see it as being about personal prosperity (th…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 01:01 PM
1

Your first point, you have a point. Qualify it by saying (guessing) that it's <1% (probably much less) of species that engage in this kind of behaviour, and most of those are pure predators. Do you think the whale understands the suffering it's inflicting? Or, do you think it thinks that tossing its food around is a fun diversion? Your second point, you don't have a point. Non pack animals do not consider you a pack leader, they aren't wired for it. Might be true for dogs, but most animals just …
/r/MensRights26/07/11 12:57 PM
0

Ethical construct? Such a nice idea, but I think you're romanticizing it. Just about every societal construct we have ever created has been about a small group of people (the greedy) controlling a larger group (the docile). This has certainly been the case ever since the concept of currency was devised. We're not alone in being capable of altruism as individuals, but we are alone in being capable of enslavement, torture, and a host of other atrocity. I'd love to know how you can attribute greed …
/r/MensRights26/07/11 11:11 AM
9

When people get cynical (something I might know a bit about) they often attribute a sense of deserving to the suffering they see people endure. They feel that most people are shit, and they might be right. Animals are incapable of the greed, cruelty and malice that we have devised for ourselves, and each other. Animals can't bring it on themselves the way we can. Rightly or wrongly, that's probably the core of what you're describing.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 10:41 AM
1

Not necessarily. That's how it should work, but in some places the biological father is given no more consideration than anyone else interested in adopting a child. It's really fucked up.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 06:26 PM
9

You realize that your assertion is almost as bad as the people who say "Well, if the person was actually raped, they'd be more upset", right?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:07 PM
1

I'm not going to get into what I think the admins should be doing here, I'm just addressing that they have a right to intervene however they like. Personally, I think it's a worse issue when a subreddit's moderators of are the type that will use css hacks to edit people's posts, than it is to post shock or gore material*, but that's just me. It's easier to avoid or ignore that crap, whereas when they manipulate people's posts you have no idea you're being deceived. If it were up to me, and I did…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:36 PM
3

I meant in any official capacity, they are still just regular users. They have no stake in reddit, the subreddit they moderate, or anything else. They have no standing with reddit as a company, or Conde Nast. Reddit allows them to volunteer to do this, by adding a new subreddit, and gives them permission to appoint more. That doesn't mean they aren't still subject to reddit staffs' whims, rules, etc.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:38 PM
1

Moderators on reddit are just regular users who are volunteering on a subreddit. They don't own it, reddit owns it. If people are using reddit in ways the owners (or those who speak for the owners) decide are inappropriate, they have every right to step in and make changes.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 12:59 PM
1

Tell that to people who convert to it. Tell that to the populations of black Jews, or other ethnicities assimilated through marriage (e.g. children of a Jew and anything else). Using the same word to describe both the race and the religion creates a lot of unnecessary confusion. And don't forget those of Jewish ethnicity that convert to something else, or deconvert altogether.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 08:15 PM
5

I agree with the sentiment, and think Redfel is slightly nuts in this context, but his comment is about a religion, not a race. Not every Jew is Jewish.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:22 PM
3

Ideas are more dangerous than any action spawned by them. Just ask any government throughout history. I think you're essentially right in this thread, and enkidusfriend is just arguing semantics. It's a pretty common smokescreen move on subjects like this. "Blame the individuals, not the movement" is incorrect, the individuals are the movement.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:14 PM
0

If you don't get why, you're stupid. I kinda noticed that after he replied to me once, above. Kudos for persevering though.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 03:15 AM
7

Courts are infallible and nobody is ever wrongly convicted. Got it.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:41 AM
1

I'm not claiming any number is accurate. I'm saying we don't have an accurate number, and quoting estimates of reported cases alone is not realistic without very clearly defining it as that. You didn't even say this ~2-3% estimate is only representative of reported cases, so you're attempting to mislead as much as those you oppose.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 10:51 PM
2

Don't buy into everything you hear about jails and prison... It'd be nice if you followed your own advice. The numbers are more or less meaningless when they describe reported incidents, and we know that the vast majority of cases go unreported (for obvious reasons).
/r/MensRights09/07/11 04:18 PM
3

And when someone posts the link instead, people cry about creating downvote brigades and other bullshit. Can't win for losing.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 11:14 PM
5

Well, he does have a point, even if he didn't state it clearly. One could make the argument that the development of cryptic ovulation was the "original" deception. I mean, that is its explicit purpose. I'm not saying that has any bearing at all on these other issues, but in a sense human females have evolved to be deceptive by nature.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 02:08 AM
4

Rogue admin maybe? My first thought was that there may be a discretionary period, like when you delete your own comment within X minutes of posting, it doesn't leave a [deleted]. Then I saw it was 6 days old in your screenshot, so that can't be it in this case. edit: Perhaps there's a way to add people to the spam filter. Comments caught in it will display exactly as you're seeing. They show for you, but no one else.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 06:21 PM
2

Ha, well you did dare to buck the hivemind in this. And on a gay issue? That takes balls. The school of thought you mention is interesting, but I suspect it has more to do with some kind of imprinting early in life (and I don't mean a single imprinting incident - I mean a series of self reinforcing ones). Although, both ideas could be factors. Until they find a way to clinically and reliably demonstrate an infant's future orientation, I just don't accept that it's biological or genetic. Of cours…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 06:15 AM
4

I've heard of cases where they charged both with molesting each other. American insanity knows few bounds.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:12 PM
1

I think that accusations lose credibility with time, when we're talking about years. That's the issue I intended to fight in this thread. In the original example from the guy above, if that wife waited five years to accuse him, while continuing to carry on a marriage, and presumably sex with the guy, I don't think that should be enough to arrest. If the increasingly hypothetical wife went and called the cops and got a rape kit done shortly after being raped, that's an entirely different kettle o…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:04 AM
1

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that prosecuting any accusation made long after the fact, where there can be no real evidence to support it, must be scrutinized to an extreme degree given the repercussions for the accused, and the possibility of a malicious accusation or ulterior motives. I think this needs to happen before charges are brought, given the effects that a public accusation has on a man. Someone in my extended family was dragged off for an unsubstantiated accusation that…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:33 PM
-1

I honestly hope that you personally experience enough injustice to make you realize just how fucked up things are.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:31 PM
-1

My god, you really believe that whole schtick, don't you?
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:18 PM
-1

That in sex crimes, be it rape/assault of women or children, the fact that there is no need for physical evidence is what makes the U.S. system broken. The lie told (when it is a lie) and expanded on later is all that is needed to convict anyone. That has been my point all along, and that is why the system is broken. It very much becomes a case of men trying to prove innocence, which aside from being impossible, is a sick sick expectation to have. Couple that with far too many known instances of…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:08 PM
-2

You wanted a citation of an accusation being enough to convict, and I hand you a platter full. Successful prosecution [...] depended on the quality of the verbal evidence and the effectiveness of the child victim's testimony. I'm now convinced you are a fucking moron, and I'm done with this thread.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:39 PM
0

No evidence besides the accusation, you mean. This should give some idea just how prevalent the problem is: One hundred fifteen consecutive cases were reviewed, and 87 (76%) had resulted in conviction of the perpetrator on felony charges. Charges of vaginal rape were made in 88 cases, and oral and/or anal sodomy in 67 cases. Physical evidence was present in only 23% of all cases that resulted in felony convictions. Felony convictions were obtained in 67 (79%) of 85 cases without physical evidenc…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:35 PM
0

There are no other crimes where an utter absence of evidence leads to a conviction. That is the fucking point. WineWhine stole my TV five years ago. I saw him do it. Punish him, judge. Looking at your username I'm starting to wonder if you're actually trolling. It seems extremely apt right now.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:15 PM
2

He points out very clearly for you why it's half problematic. It creates a loophole where lack of evidence can be construed as evidence. You're being willfully ignorant here. But it is a problem if every man has to live in fear to go to jail because his wife can claim: that 5 year ago she once asked him to stop and he continued and thus is a rapist (Screw markdown for combining double spaced quotes) I'm a little confused as to what you are implying is not an "actual" offense. Filing a false poli…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:58 PM
1

The only person suggesting that seems to be you. The absence of evidence cannot be evidence in itself. It's insane. An accusation is not enough.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:41 PM
5

Let me just jump in here on one point: So you're saying it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman after she asks him to stop just because they're married?????? No, he is saying that claiming this can be a tactic in divorce, custody disputes, or even just the woman "being pissed off". That is bullshit when it is long after the fact, zero evidence exists to prove the claim, and yet the man is in a very real peril of conviction without any evidence. Add to that the fact that his life will likely…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:33 PM
5

That said, I think if women decide they want every single right and privelage that men get.... Why does it matter what they want? It's not like this is something men wanted either. Enforce it on both, or none, but fuck pussyfooting around and asking women if they want the option. That would be one more slap in mens' faces.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:24 PM
1

Snarky one, aren't ya.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:30 PM
0

Race issues are not the focus of discussion in this thread, or this subreddit, so you're going off topic even though your point is true. My saying one group that is the focus of discussion should be treated equally does not imply that any other group should not.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 07:54 PM
-1

True, but that isn't what we're discussing here.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 07:23 PM
14

4. Equal treatment and sentencing by the courts of female offenders.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 06:43 AM
2

You also didn't point them to the proper page. You pointed him to a subreddit you created to soapbox reddiquette rules (WTF?)
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:30 AM
3

Please don't: Be rude when someone doesn't follow Reddiquette. Just point them here politely, and keep in mind that these are just guidelines.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:22 AM
2

Single quotes are often used for paraphrasing, however proper or not that may be.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:03 PM
2

I hear ya, and for the most part agree. It's as much in how one says it, as what they say. Saying "You're an alcoholic, and it's harming more than just you. We have to do something about it, right away" is supportive, involved, and I think Much more likely to get through than saying "Stop drinking or I'll leave you". They both come down to the same thing. If the alcoholic ignores either statement, that person will end up alone. Anyway, I'm just trying to flesh out my position. I'm not trying to …
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:58 PM
1

On the one hand, you endorse as "effective", on the other, you disclaim it all away at the end of your post. Which is it? If one party in a relationship capitulates to an ultimatum, that person is going to resent the other. Nobody likes doing/changing/saying something under threat, and that's all an ultimatum in this context is. It's highly corrosive to a relationship. I know this. I've been through it.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:19 PM
1

An ultimatum is a betrayal of trust. Simple as that. Relationships are not supposed to be conditional on one party's whim. Ultimatums, like the drastic example you offer (drug addiction) aren't going to have any positive effect either. The last thing an addict needs is to suddenly fear for the stability of their situation, in addition to the addiction itself. Bottom line, if you want to break up with someone over an issue, do it. Don't make it a threat, that just makes things worse all around. E…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 01:42 PM
3

I don't think that was an endorsement, so much as an observation.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 01:24 AM
3

So much of the stuff we hear about in this subreddit is either infuriating or depressing. I think a bit of levity, while still staying relevant, is a welcome change.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 01:21 AM
1

Considering the pronouns used in your response, you're either female, and so already have the upper hand in any future legal proceedings regarding assets or children, or you're gay, and this issue doesn't apply to you, as the legal quagmire of the current system likely wouldn't have a clue who to favour.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 05:00 PM
2

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. In a way, it sucks to be this cynical, but no one said the truth is fair or pretty.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 05:43 AM
1

should You keep using that word. The point is that "should" is totally irrelevant when the real world practice of "law" bears little resemblance to the letter of the law. Saying "well the laws are written to be gender neutral" is actually harmful, without including "but few prosecutors or judges utilize the law as written".
/r/MensRights20/03/11 09:00 PM
4

The problem is that in the courts, and with the current "spirit" of the law, there is only ever a question of female consent. That's all they care about. If two drunk people have sex, and neither is capable of consenting, then either charge both (stupid) or charge neither. Simple as that. There is nothing equal about expecting one gender to be more responsible than the other.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:46 PM
1

Work on that hostility. All I said was that this subject is one of the times that we discuss, and sympathize with, an issue for women, in addition to discussing an issue affecting men. Personally, I think both practices are abhorrent and should be outlawed most severely. I never said anything even remotely like what you're trying to make it out to be.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 04:38 PM
3

Whenever the subject of circumcision comes up. It inevitably wanders into discussion of the female analogue to it, and about just how atrocious and barbaric the practice is.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 05:30 AM
6

there's so many worse things done to children that do effect them for the rest of their lives and no one bats an eyes. Such as? How about removing toes, pinkies, and kidneys? Wait, what?
/r/MensRights09/03/11 11:15 PM
2

It's probably nothing, and a result of the hernia op. They're often less than perfect in the way they heal. You're stressed out by it, so by all means get it checked out, but don't panic.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:57 PM
3

I think you're right. The fact that it doesn't necessarily lead to increased survival rates could be due to a shortfall in treatment methods, or a number of other factors, including factors stemming from this being a statistical view of the issue. It would still be best to know as early as possible, if for no other reason than to catch it before it can metastasize.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:54 PM
10

nuetral Muphry's law strikes again.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:38 PM
3

I believe men and women should be equal. That is feminism. No. That is egalitarianism. There is nothing female-specific about all parties being equal, and treated equally. Both men and woman have aspects of their lives where they get the short end of the proverbial stick -- and they always have. The term feminism itself is offensive because it is exclusionary, and polarizing. For a person, but especially for a male to identify as feminist he is perceived to be supporting rights/benefits of women…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 05:41 PM
1

Let's take one of these Chinese towns as a hypothetical for a moment. Boys growing up without much access to girls, forming their initial preferences and fetishes based on this. In a lot of cases, their first explorations will be homosexual, at a stage when they are too young to have a self defined orientation. Fast forward a couple decades, and homosexuals from this background would, I think, be very unlikely to what they grew up with and have been experiencing the first 20 years of their sexua…
/r/MensRights06/01/11 07:26 PM
2

Nevermind prison. The same thing is happening in areas of China, where female babies are often killed, and the male population greatly exceeds their female counterparts. I remember a statistic along the lines of 20,000,000 men who will never have a chance to marry. It's having several effects, including a boom in prostitution (both male and female), and a sharp rise in homosexuality, despite the barbaric punishments for such by the Chinese government. The drive to get off is stronger than the dr…
/r/MensRights06/01/11 04:39 PM
4

So, in other words, people who have reason to assume their posts were trashed.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 08:47 AM
3

If frequent posters to this sub are having difficulties, you can whitelist them easily so they don't have any more problems.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 08:17 AM
0

Copying and pasting this response doesn't help anyone. You clearly aren't well versed on the issue.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 02:36 AM
4

So anything better you feel is all in your head... The one on your shoulders. Actually it's the other head as well. The so called restoration process also reverses the keratosis (that's the hardening and cracking of the surface of the head) of the glans, which greatly increases its sensitivity.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 02:28 AM
2

And that's exactly what makes it systemic. It's not just a few fringe groups treating us, under some circumstances (like trying to enter a park or a school) as second class citizens, it's a society wide paranoia with very real discriminatory effects on us.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 02:18 AM
2

None of this, as unfair, wrongheaded or awful as it is in any way constitutes a society wide oppression of men. Ahh, OK. You're still in denial about it. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:57 AM
2

Men's Rights is about trying to prevent our status from further degrading, so that we don't endure centuries long oppression of any kind. You are trivializing the issue. If you think it's a non-issue, what are you even doing here?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 10:01 PM
2

As far as men being oppressed. I would argue it's not happening. A number of womens groups and certain individuals may be practicing policy that is unfairly biased against men, but that is hardly a system wide oppression. Do you know anything about the divorce and child custody/support laws? How can you even say this?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 07:51 PM
4

I do not believe that there is systemic oppression of men by females. You're entitled to that belief of course. I think that we're rapidly headed into this situation though, as evidenced by the subjects of a lot of the recent submissions here. It burns me up that it's usually greedy, male politicians collectively selling us out, worried more about women's votes than anybody's rights. I don't think you can hold comments against a subreddit as a whole. They all have their share of assholes, this o…
/r/MensRights28/11/10 09:11 AM
7

Why would a member of the group in power claim to be oppressed? Because that person has something against the other groups. In this case other races. What do you call someone that dislikes other races, just because of their race? A racist. So by that logic, and you posting in this subreddit and all, are you a misogynist then?
/r/MensRights28/11/10 08:34 AM
3

Was that a woosh or a troll? He clearly means membership of groups, not subscribers to subreddits. I'd hazard the guess that there's a lot more than 1% white males frequenting this sub.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 08:31 AM
8

Linking on its own doesn't imply affiliation.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 08:24 AM
0

So is /r/MensRights about equality then? It should be /r/Egalitarian if that's the case. Men's rights is about protecting or regaining our rights as people, who happen to be men. It doesn't directly have anything to do with equality, despite the fact that many people here endorse equality.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 08:20 AM
2

Or at least pick and choose which would be more lucrative. It's all crazy.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 04:42 AM
4

in order to be declared common law and be on the hook for child support. Fuck everything about being declared in any way responsible for children that aren't biologically yours, especially when you never married their actual parent.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 11:43 PM
1

I think he just accidentally a zero. I most often hear $300-400 quoted for this.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 06:59 AM
3

According to the judge, this woman falsely accused the men of raping her because of her mental health issues. Then she should have been sentenced to a correctional psychiatric facility. Other examples could be the cases of people who are made to think by others that they didn't want to have sex and were raped. That's a false accusation with no malicious intent. It is malicious. In this case you round up whoever made the accusation on "behalf of" the supposed victim. Our minds are powerful tools …
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:50 PM
4

There are many other reasons that they might accuse falsely other than being malicious. WTF?
/r/MensRights21/11/10 01:57 PM
5

Yes, but they're not anarchists either.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:34 PM
3

I guess that's where we differ, you haven't caved to your own cynicism yet. There are certainly aspects of society that breed out a lot of the good things that we could be, but I think that altruistic goodness is something that's also conditioned into us, and not innate. The capacity for it is one of the factors separating us from chimpanzees, but at our core I believe we're a lot more similar to them than we're comfortable admitting. Anyway, this has been one of the best threads I've had on red…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:48 PM
5

It's all exceedingly depressing for me. I think it all boils down to one thing. People do really shitty things to people, and I think the less structure there is, the more people will do these things. Anarchism is, at its root, a beautiful idea, but trying to apply it? It's purely a pipe dream, because the vast majority of people have no sense of altruism, and no interest in bettering themselves or the community they live in. It's funny, I haven't had a toke in 15 years, but suddenly today I hav…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 05:54 PM
4

The fair application of fair laws is essential, but I think the only way for that to happen (for it to be fair to everyone), is for communities to decentralize themselves from larger bodies and collectively agree on how they want to live in that community. The US tried to do this, with each state deciding their own laws in most areas. It doesn't work. You end up with people on one side of the street facing a year for hypothetical crime X, and on the other side of the street, life in prison. You …
/r/MensRights16/11/10 05:31 PM
6

"anarchy" might breed bullies, but "anarchism" is not about disorder. "Law" in the case of anarchism is about communally-agreed upon informal laws, if that makes sense. Oh, I fully understand. It amounts to mob rule. People are horrible, vicious creatures, given the opportunity to be. We had a system like you're describing in the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, I think that just about every governmental model currently on the planet is fucked beyond usefulness. I also think having a highly codifi…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 05:06 PM
5

Holy shit. Cognitive dissonance doesn't even do that justice. FWIW, I think you argued that pretty well, given the arena.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 05:02 PM
2

Feminism and anarchism share ideological bases, that people should be equal. In theory, perhaps, but that is where it ends. The only areas where feminists have made any difference is in affecting, or changing law. Eliminate law and we're right back to owning multiple wives and beating them over the head when they misbehave. The problem with the feminist movement, as I see it, is that when there is a legal victory in their favour, they don't stop there. When they achieve equality in one area, tha…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 04:36 PM
13

Well, the design of that particular female symbol seems to imply that they enjoy a good fisting. OK, that was bad, I'll admit.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 03:58 PM
17

Honest question here. What does feminism have to do with anarchism? Maybe I'm missing something, but their logo seems to be a study in cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 02:01 PM
0

Even if he perpetrated the abuse, and she did nothing to stop it, I firmly believe they are equally culpable. If you stand by and do nothing to protect your child, then you're complicit in whatever crime is going on against it.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 01:51 PM
12

Oh, that makes sense. I think I need more coffee.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 09:11 AM
25

and that they should just be able to find a way to use science to reproduce using two females. Nah, they don't want that. Who would they sue for child support?
/r/MensRights13/11/10 09:08 AM
5

I just reread the submission, and didn't see anything indicating that this woman has any kind of mental illness. Why even bring that into it? Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that people have gone looking for mental illness as a way to let women off the hook. It's a common mistake.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 05:13 AM
21

Children call 911 sometimes, which ties up valuable emergency resources; they are generally chastised but not punished by law enforcement. Oh the feminists will love you for that analogy. Seriously though, we make allowances for children because they're not old enough or mature enough to make responsible decisions. College age women are capable of making responsible decisions, do not have the same exceptions written into the law that children have, yet they still get a pussy pass most of the tim…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 04:48 AM
2

"These are women, aged from 35 to 40, who are single, attractive career women, who cannot find a man to have a baby with," he said. Is it just me, or does this seem all kinds of fucked up? Since when is being single a justification for artificial insemination? It strikes me as an abuse of what should be a therapeutic practice when all else fails.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 04:43 AM
3

I don't see it changing any time soon, in North America anyway. Social issues like this usually swing on a pendulum, and as far as "equality" as an issue goes, I see it getting a lot worse for men before it starts to get better. Needless to say, when the pendulum does start to swing back on this one, it's going to be pretty awful for the women involved. There will be so much bottled up hostility by then that our (western) view of places like Saudi will probably seem tame. At least it won't likel…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:22 AM
3

Hell, there's no legal or even moral obligation for women to inform men that they are or have been pregnant. You really think considering men in the decision can happen before we even have the right to know the decision is to be made? The only right men have regarding reproduction is the right to be taxed for it by women.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:03 AM
3

Got to this thread late, but I want to say thanks for toning it down, Kloo. The way oversized images have been mildly irritating for months. I think it's great that you fixed it when people asked.
/r/MensRights02/11/10 03:43 PM
8

It's understandably difficult for people to admit, especially publicly, that they've been mutilated in such a stigmatized area. And yes, all genitalia male and female has been stigmatized in the US and elsewhere, to varying extents.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 11:52 PM
1

I didn't lump anyone in with anyone else. I drew a comparison between what WindKin was worried about and what's a common argument made on reddit. It's the same (bad) argument by two different groups.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 07:20 PM
1

I see this far too often on reddit. Someone doesn't like a person's view on some gay issue and dismisses it with "Oh, well he must be a closet homosexual to think that. Everyone knows that everyone that doesn't like (insert gay issue of the week) must be gay themselves". It is an attack. It's meant to discredit, dismiss and trivialize someone's position based on an irrelevant speculation.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 06:41 PM
-1

Ummmmm. Being called gay isn't an "attack." It is if you're not.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 10:49 AM
6

I predict this will become much more common, in the same way the "You must be a closet homosexual if you don't like (gays|gay marriage|gay issue of the week|gay parades every other week)" argument is so common. Of course if you argue against their argument, you must be gay or pedo or whatever they're attacking people with too.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 07:20 PM
6

with careful planning and meticulous caring for our natural resources, food and water. If you can't see just from browsing reddit for the last 726 days that human greed far outweighs any sense of altruism or conservation... Maybe the planet could support that many people under perfect conditions, but that will never happen. We're headed for a huge crash with just the 6 billion we have now. So yeah, pipe dreams excluded, there's too many people already - given their current mindset and habit.
/r/MensRights09/10/10 08:46 PM
1

There are some closed societies with extensive inbreeding that do not show any remarkable rate of defects. This whole idea is something of a myth, at least once you get past the first few inbred generations. You only need to look to line breeding of animals to see this. Once you get the first set of anomalies culled out, inbreeding can actually strengthen the line from there. But, I agree, this idea is not relevant at all to humans (unless you're a villager landlocked up in the Himalayas or some…
/r/MensRights09/10/10 04:37 PM
26

There's too many people of each gender already. This tired old argument hasn't been relevant to humanity for a long, long time.
/r/MensRights09/10/10 03:39 PM
3

Perhaps he meant when they decide to up and go, taking house, kids, car, savings, and sometimes alimony with them?
/r/MensRights07/10/10 08:40 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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