TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ottawadeveloper Archive

View 5 posts and 362 comments by ottawadeveloper 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)
1

It would be "equal" in the sense that men and women would be closer together in terms of net (post-tax) income and buying power. I think it's the wrong approach, don't get me wrong, but it will make one statistic very nice and equal. However, it would really screw over the taxes paid - if men do make more than women (which is statistically demonstratable), then they already pay more tax, perhaps significantly more in a progressive tax situation. This will widen the tax payment gap even further. …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:23 PM
1

To the downvoters - I think the biggest objection that the left-leaning world had to Romney was his clear willingness to bring religion into politics (indeed it's one of the biggest criticisms one can level against many members of the Republican party that's actually founded). It's bizarre for many of us that this would even be considered, especially given the strong anti-theocracy sentiment many Americans express towards Islamic governments that impose religious standards on all citizens. He wa…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:11 PM
-4

Better conversation: Insane Feminist: Feminism totally helps men! Sane Person: Oh really? Would you care to examine these studies that contradict that viewpoint? Have you considered these feminist publications that reinforce male stereotypes? Now Sane Feminist: Oh! I see! We're not really helping by playing up the male stereotype. Maybe we should stop that and truly work for equality! Sane Person: now you're talking! Moral lesson: treating people like they're human and trying to convince them in…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:27 PM
3

People misusing words on the Internet? INCONCEIVABLE!!
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:43 PM
0

I think it's totally fair that the alleged victim doesn't have to testify. However, I do feel that if they don't testify, you have to have some other form of proof to convict - in he said, she said cases where the victim doesn't testify, the accused basically then says "I didn't do it, you have no proof" and walks. Now that's not what happens because of biases, but legally speaking, with no evidence against you, you can basically offer any alternative explanation that fits the facts and you have…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:39 PM
1

I drew my conclusion based on my own personal observations of society - I feel that I personally have seen enough evidence to suggest that the concept here is true (that women sexualize men). My problem is that my own personal experiences are not documented, thus I have a hard time showing evidence for them that is not anecdotal (and there are not many documented cases of this in the mainstream media either, perhaps as a result of our society's biases to begin with). If the facts don't support i…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:14 PM
2

I hope he does charge her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:27 PM
3

It does seem though like she chose to manufacture a time and place for the sexual interlude (consensual or not). One really has to wonder why... why not just use an actual one, then there'd be no evidence to contradict you.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:26 PM
8

After all, the judge did not say "hey, look, you clearly lied", merely that the video constituted new evidence that justified a new trial.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:24 PM
1

shrugs there is some truth in that the idea that gender roles is part of feminist theory (it's often claimed that men are poor fathers because they are aggressive, untrustworthy, rapists, etc - all of which comes from our gender role). However, it's also true feminism is doing very little about the MALE gender role and, in the case of radical feminism, furthering the gender role.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:14 PM
5

This is correct - by excluding cis-men, they welcome trans-men.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:37 PM
1

A less annoying definition of cis-gender is "where the gender matches the sex". Compare to trans-gender which is "where the gender does not match the sex".
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:36 PM
1

RadFem: Wrong and More Wrong, A Tragedy
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:33 PM
2

you can be artificial and organic. Let me rephrase: It's more like an arbitrary social structure that developed fluidly over time which happened to place men at the head of the household. artificial does not mean deliberately and purposefully created, only that it is the construct of humans. Cellphones are artificial but their design has evolved organically. Also, I think he would not disagree that those pressures did exist and likely existed for a reason that made sense at the time. But I think…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:50 PM
33

Because it's incorrect that all interpretations of feminism describes women as victims of male oppression. It's certainly true that radical feminism is very popular and very much at the core of the big activist movements and pressure that is put on the legal system. It's also true a lot of people follow along with radfem because of social pressure - not because of any innate belief in the philosophy that they impose. It reminds me a lot of Christianity or the alleged patriarchy. Let me use patri…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:47 PM
2

It's true that they are a minority who are hysterical but it's also true that a lot of the others go along with it or don't actively protest against the over-the-top hysteria. To be honest, I too don't think antagonism is a good methodology for solving that - I feel we need to target the rational feminists, to establish MRA as a movement seeking true gender equality and to have solid, logical and consistent explanations on how and why radical feminism is having a negative impact on society. By c…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:14 PM
1

Maybe it's a matter then of treating the men as you treat the women and seeing how that works out.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:57 PM
1

Oh, I would never blame them. What I'm simply saying is there is a point to considering how you can be a part of the change you want to see in society by not letting people get away with it as much as you can. The blame is solely on radical feminism here - it's just a question of how we can effect change in our society.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:56 PM
1

I really think people who have problems with being naked in front of the other sex need to deal with it better. A lot of it, I feel, is rape culture taken too far and lingering religious modesty - all of these things are sex negative and really need to be removed. I feel like we need to take a broader approach where people are just treated as people and, if you feel like you are uncomfortable naked in front of someone, you should change in private - not in a locker room of your own sex. But I se…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:50 PM
0

I think the question is really are we talking about gender or sex, because we've really divorced the concepts in our society. The sex generally refers to the physical organs and the gender refers to the stereotype and role in society. On sex, I think it's not fair to say they must be able to perform. That means men with ED are not real men? A woman whose had her uterus removed is not a real woman? Hardly seems fair. There is no difference between a trans person's organs and those peoples organs …
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:52 AM
2

To be completely fair, her post does add a useful note - that women only get away with this because people let them. And those people can also stop this. I've kind of hit on this topic before - the best way to make change happen in how we as a society act on gender is to not let it bother us. Hot woman in the interview? Treat her like any other candidate. No special consideration. Your girlfriend is manipulating you through sex and other things? Dump her. Right now. If you do not give in to thei…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:54 AM
4

What makes a man a man? A penis? Secondary sexual characteristics? Conformance to a gender role? To a stereotype? Having a Y chromosome? Certain traits? Part of the quest for equal gender rights is removing gender roles, stereotypes and traits from "what it means to be a man". And a penis / secondary characteristics can be controlled through hormones. Really, it's difficult to tell what defines you as male - I think the most important part and the only criteria you can reliably use is whether or…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:41 AM
7

I remember taking baths with my parents as a kid - wasn't very scarring and kind of essential when you're on the go - wash the kid, wash yourself, get out.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:34 AM
11

There was a good quote yesterday that I will butcher - somebody quoted a prolific feminist as saying "women can insult men because it's the right of any oppressed class to insult the oppressors"
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:21 AM
3

This may be correct and is my general belief but I recognize I can't prove it.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:14 PM
1

As I'm not American, I have no idea what your laws are. My general philosophy is simply that it should look like this everywhere: 0-x: too young to be charged with a crime x-y: able to have sex with people up to A years older or younger than them y+: able to have sex with anyone over y and people under y who are within A years of them with exceptions for positions of power and stuff like that.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:13 PM
7

Again, we do not know her body language at all. And a lot of people are really bad at reading it. I've even met some people who have really misleading body language - at least two partners of mine are absolutely rigid during sex and it's impossible to tell if they're enjoying it. It's really weird the first few times as I constantly check to make sure they're okay (because I can read body language and know what other people look like during sex). But if it's your first time and you really don't …
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:24 PM
1

As much as you have been downvoted, I tend to agree. We need two movements in society at the moment: a gender egalitarian movement that works on the problems caused by gender roles and restrictions in our society and how they impact both genders. We also need MRA for a bit to counter the anti-male propaganda spread by radical feminism and feminist theory, and to make sure that feminism (if it continues to exist) focuses on being part of that egalitarian movement (and which we ourselves should ma…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:01 PM
1

That really depends on how you define "rape" which is part of the problem. How many boyfriends rape their girlfriends in the manner of Clockwork Orange? I would bet almost none. How many pressure their girlfriends into sex? How many don't listen to the first no and keep trying? How many sleep with their girlfriends while drunk? Quite a few more. But are those things rape or even sexual assault? The problem is, the line of rape is moving and it's moving to places that are not at all friendly to a…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:58 PM
21

Unfortunately, society has this habit of either "making men work for it" or "playing hard to get". A lot of people are shy and nervous with their first time having sex and need some encouragement or relaxation. Starting with kissing and letting the mood take you where it will is not rape - it's called sex for most of us. I don't explicitly ask any of my partners if they want sex, I try my best to read body language to determine if it's appropriate to take things further and I make sure they have…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:43 PM
1

This is true, if there are obvious signs she is not into it. If she was too shy and scared to say no and thus provided him with the impression that she was into it, then she has only herself to blame. As MechPlasma, we don't know enough about the situation to judge. Based on the details we do have, I would not be quick to call it rape without finding out more details.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:37 PM
2

Constantly reading your text messages without your permission is a sign of emotional abuse, in general. I agree with that much (just because feminists agree with it doesn't mean I have to dismiss it, take your fallacious arguments elsewhere). Remember, not all forms of abuse are violent, and there are very negative forms of non-physical abuse. Men are constantly exposed to this and it's a common complaint here from everyone: that there is a psychological war going on between extremist feminists …
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:17 PM
2

Quebec was the first province to start protecting sexual orientation as well as other things. The top parties in Quebec are generally sane left-leaning parties - there's almost no room for the extremist left-wings or any form of right-wing party in politics there (I live across the river from it and grew up there). Quebec has always been at the forefront of progressive politics. The big thing in Quebec is the separatist issue - they're pretty much in agreement that we need true equality when it …
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:07 PM
1

yes, this is an official release by the Canadian Armed Forces (or a very good forgery of a document released by them).
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:04 PM
1

Spying on your partner's affairs is a form of emotional abuse. It's given in almost every official documentation on abuse, even the ones aimed at women. This example (aimed at women) lists "wanting to know what you're doing all the time" as the first warning sign of abuse, for example (and if going through your text messages isn't a prime example of that, I don't know what is). http://www.womenshealth.gov/violence-against-women/am-i-being-abused/
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:03 PM
10

I am amused at anyone who would try to say we have a right to expose people's names in the court of public opinion when we know they will be instantly condemned because we have freedom.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 08:02 PM
2

There are lots of factors that go into this. Some of them are things that cannot be helped (natural differences in how men and women decide to pick a career). Some can (social pressure in considering some careers to be male and some to be female and mocking those who break boundaries - that was all over my college and most of it actually targeted men going into female-dominated industries like nursing or ECCE). What it does debunk is the notion of blatant discrimination in how wages are assigned…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:28 AM
1

Longer amounts of time only give better trends if one assumes the trend should be consistent. We are actively working to reduce rape statistics, therefore we should expect a downwards trend. Therefore, looking at a historical view of rape statistics is not a good way to get a recent snapshot. If you wanted better stats, look over a relevant period like the last 5 years. That's like looking at the overall stock market since we started having a stock market and saying "the average share price shou…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:29 PM
1

This is true. To get a better study, we would have to conduct some kind of blind test - get a broad group of people together and offer them two sets of candidates to review, with a complete history of their political actions - one has their names and gender-identifying details stripped, one has generic (but non-existent) names that clearly indicate gender and use gender pronouns. Otherwise, the sets are identical. Each candidate is paired against another, with equal distribution (25% M-M, 25% F-…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:53 PM
1

I would be really interested in a breakdown by political party. Is the democrat party more likely to run female candidates and do so in blue strongholds? That's going to skew the stats. Information on the party elections (to pick their candidate to run) would be interesting too - showing a higher percentage of women got into the candidates seats than men would be better showing the party-level bias. I think it's pretty obvious that the voters roughly balance out (slightly in favor of females) on…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:48 PM
1

God, 50 shades of grey is a terrible example. I just have to post that here, even though nobody will see it. 50 SoG is an example of anti-BDSM literature. I've gone through the three books and the title of the third book says it all: 50 Shades Freed. 50 Shades of Grey is referring to Christian Grey, just so you know. The last book (and the obvious plot points in retrospect in the first two) is to demonstrate how Christian is a broken person who using BDSM as an outlet for his frustration. Then, …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:38 PM
1

To ensure they're respecting each other's hobbies. My apologies, I added the gender because of the context. I am perfectly fine with the sentence "If they had worked out their issues to ensure he's respecting her hobbies and doesn't feel like she's being rude to him, then it might be better." The reality of many situations is that people can have hobbies that make other people feel uncomfortable. And that, to some degree, is good to acknowledge that you feel uncomfortable. The key difference is …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:27 PM
5

Fair point. It is a beneficial example to counter the viewpoint that video games are only misogynistic and that misanderist games are rare. Thus you can turn the debate from one of gender problems (which it should not be) to where the actual debate is: how offensive and/or unrealistic should games be allowed to be, in general?
/r/MensRights30/01/13 04:22 AM
12

They do in some ways, but cats are instinctive creatures. Humans, to some degree, have the ability to suppress instinct and we expect them to in all but the most extreme of circumstances. We do not expect that of cats. Thus humans are not cats.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 07:27 PM
2

I feel like there is a huge mixture of wrong here. It is wrong to aggravate people deliberately but it is wrong to fight those aggravating people with violence without cause - we are not animals.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 07:26 PM
21

Civitas is actually a right-wing ("classically liberal" is right-wing just so you know) think tank devoted to preserving traditional family structures. Most of your points are good, but there is no feminist reaction in this article. "Marriage is a sacred institution" is not a belief I've seen propagated by feminism or the left-wing at all. Your juxtaposition is actually showing the radical left-wing ("marriage is slavery") versus radical right-wing ("marriage is a sacred institution"), neither o…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:58 PM
5

or "I need feminism because I lack the strength to deal with men on equal terms"
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:30 PM
33

It's an example of feminism gone too far, and some of the hypocrisy that people will support in the name of feminism. Radical feminism is the origin of the theory that any sexualization of women constitutes objectification exploitation of women (which is roughly that if you view a woman from a sexual standpoint, you are ignoring her non-sexual characteristics and thus are objectifying her as you see her only as a sex object and not as human). This is often the left-wing basis for objecting to po…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:21 PM
11

shrugs I get some of the smoking bans - smoking actually has been demonstrated to cause harm to people around you, thus it should be done in places where you are not disturbing others except those who choose to be so disturbed.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:10 PM
146

Doesn't this technically qualify as "slut shaming" as well, something feminism allegedly wants people to stop? If women are in control of their sexuality (as they should be), then it's their right to dance or strip (or whore) it to whomever they please, for money or not. And men should have equal control over their sexuality and be able to consume said entertainment. And if they want to reverse those roles (male dancers and female consumption), that's equally fine. Gender equality and a sex posi…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:07 PM
9

Personally, I just want gender neutral requirements based on the ability to do the job. If the job is to carry a rifle and be cannon fodder, then have a fitness requirement that's appropriate to that and damn the statistics on how many men and women can pass it, be they equal or skewed.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:14 PM
33

Her argument was poor to begin with. Our legal system's version of alimony has its history in England's spiritual courts (which are Christian-based and over 500 years old) and has been traced back to Babylonian times (pre-Jesus). It is certainly not a modern invention and going back to the times of Christ would do very little in regards to alimony. Alimony originally existed as a life-long support of the wife because men were responsible for supporting their wife (male responsibility in the gend…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 03:48 PM
5

The most amusing part of this is the first entry, where she generalizes people who own cars and like them, and people who have pinups of women to be misogynistic. Last I checked, there are lots of women who keep pinups of men (firefighter calendar anyone?). Enjoyment of the other sex's physical appearance is not misogynistic in and of itself. Nor is OWNING CARS.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:13 PM
18

I agree, completely. Men are taught to suck it up and deal with it and it leads to them shoving it down until they explode like this. If they had worked out their issues to ensure she's respecting his hobbies and doesn't feel like he's being rude to her, then it might be better.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:10 PM
21

I am amused whenever people call that song misogynistic since it's clearly about a man who is surprised by a woman having a penis and it seems like he then goes on to enjoy the experience none the less (as evidenced by "do me... do me, doo ME, DOOO MEEE").
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:08 PM
10

Im a mra getting married to an egalitarian feminist who supports mra as well. So much for her logic.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 04:44 AM
20

Apparently then the entire bdsm community is misogynistic since we support consensus nonconsent (which is as close as you can get to an ethical implementation of a rape fantasy). And its true - a decent number of people including many women have submissive fantasies. Then again its patriarchy when women have them and justice when men do eh /s
/r/MensRights16/01/13 04:40 AM
3

It seems like the title is misleading. I actually liked parts of the article, though not other parts. I was very happy to see the standard being used is NOT 50:50 but proportional to the workforce. I am unhappy they applied it in only cases where it meant that women were roughly equal. They did not, for instance, talk about how many women actually run for public office versus are elected (as percentages). I did not appreciate the inference that women are still discriminated against in those aren…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 09:35 PM
4

It's true, it would fix the problem in the long-run. However, it would take 3-4 generations to overcome social conditioning and biases without an external force pushing for equality. It also doesn't look good to the current generation who are Demanding Action. Actions like these are political moves designed to assauge voter's concerns and make it look like politicians are doing something. Which they are, they're speeding up a process that would happen naturally over a longer timeframe.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:55 PM
4

To be fair, as they said, they were expecting 44% and got 45%. Nothing is perfect in this world and we should not expect 100% equality. As long as it's approximate. The article vastly overstated it's headline.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:54 PM
2

shrugs there was a lot of fear, misinformation and cultural indoctrination (much as there is today). I don't think it's fair to blame people who don't stand up for The Truth because The Truth changes between generations and it's difficult to break out of cultural indoctrination.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 04:15 PM
2

Not all the gays were on board. As a member of the LGBT community, I've seen a lot of films on it - the best source, if you want to see how not everyone was on board with it, is to watch the film Milk - an excellent documentary about a gay San Francisco politician. In the gay community, many people were afraid of being outed. Reprisals were strong and mob justice more often than not - today, we see nothing like the violence that used to happen against gays (we see limited examples of what happen…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 04:11 PM
0

To be fair, they're just words. They can mean whatever we want them to mean. Personally, I consider rape and sexual assault to be equivalent - both in the seriousness of crimes and in which acts constitute each. Whether we call them rape or sexual assault, I don't care - use them as synonyms or use just one, but a gender neutral approach is always better imho. You could define rape as penetration and sexual assault as everything else if you really wanted to (as long as you give them equivalent p…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:42 PM
4

shrugs they're still (amusingly) roughly the same stereotypes, it's just the connotations that have changed. Women are still thought of as delicate, submissive and needing protection (even by some feminists - while there are feminists who encourage independence [sometimes at the expense of men, sometimes not], there's also a group who encourage women to rely on their influence on society to protect them from even the simplest of criticisms - see /r/TwoXChromosomes for an example), men are still …
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:32 PM
4

Questioning is indeed a useful tool for students to use. If you question it until it makes sense to you, you will have a stronger grasp of it (and perhaps find out that even your teachers can make mistakes). Teachers should encourage such dialog, not shut down the discussion. This of course, depends on how the statement is made. If you are rational in your discussion and calm in your demeanor, there is no cause for removing you. If you are offensive, derogatory and disruptive, then you deserve t…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:17 PM
16

I think his second sentence is more relevant: "a cultural problem where the answer doesn't revolve around 'men are evil'". Women being treated as second class citizens is a terrible thing that needs to be fixed. That doesn't mean you can't question teaching patriarchal theory as fact.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:12 PM
1

While it's true prevalence is related to acceptance, it's not necessarily true that all of the acceptance comes from prevalence. The point being made is that men's sexuality, in general, is not as acceptable as women's sexuality (thanks to many factors). Thus it is likely that anything associated with male sexuality (like male sex toys) is also influenced by that viewpoint. Men's sex toys are likely not as acceptable as female sex toys for a variety of reasons in some unknowable combination, inc…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 09:28 PM
12

second highest comment suggests it's a conspiracy to keep female power in the hands of females by denying men the ability to pleasure themselves: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15r02w/the_toy_double_standard/c7p08aj fourth comment suggests a similar approach: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15r02w/the_toy_double_standard/c7p13vd fifth: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15r02w/the_toy_double_standard/c7p2oca 3 out of the top 5 comments are saying it's basically …
/r/MensRights03/01/13 09:06 PM
17

Was the study also done on women? Also voluntary study = big opportunity for lying. All this indicates, assuming it's perfectly valid and performed on all genders, is that men are less likely to recognize their actions as things they shouldn't be proud of - there's no evidence they do it more than women, it could be that women are just more aware that it IS wrong and therefore they shouldn't tell somebody about it.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:56 PM
13

It's very sad how far down I had to go to find a positive response. Just as we are trying to shed the misogynistic attitude associated with "MRA", some feminists are seeking to shed the misanderist attitude associated with feminism. Any effort at trying to develop a better understanding of the struggles men face should be welcomed with positive thoughts, not rejected due to a minor (and contentious) point of political correctness.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:19 AM
9

I see where you are getting your numbers from, but I think there is an important distinction you are not making. You are quoting the lifetime figures, the OP of the comment was quoting the 2010 statistic. The lifetime figures include all rape that have happened in the lifetimes of people who are alive (or at least an estimation of them). This number may be biased, if we are getting better at preventing rape. The 2010 statistic is a snapshot of where we stand today. In the 2010 stat, the numbers …
/r/MensRights26/12/12 06:03 AM
2

Let's be honest on top of that. Far more child abuse happens from family members than from strangers.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 05:27 AM
-4

See, the problem is you portray "feminism" as "the group of people who are asserting 'all men are predators'". Which is essentially a wordy way of saying "All true feminists assert that all men are predators". Which is a no true scotsman fallacy - there are clearly some people who identify as "feminist" who do not asset that "all men are predators". What we have in this specific instance is a group asserting "we want to take precautions in what we teach our children (so that they don't fall prey…
/r/MensRights26/12/12 05:25 AM
1

No but it demonstrates that people can be told about the other data, they will read it and they will come to an understanding why it's important to have both viewpoints. There is hope. As the OP said in the title, it shows we CAN reach a common ground, not that we HAVE.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 05:18 AM
14

Anyone have a better source than this? Just something slightly more authoritative? Just want a better, non-video link to give people.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 04:58 AM
2

Children become grownups when they don't need to be nagged to help out around the house.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:30 AM
1

It's not at all sexist to think that. The phrase has well established connotations in this situation of reducing women's position to beneath that of men (despite the fact that the literal meaning is to show somebody they are not as important as they think they are). It has sexist connotations at the very least, because it is so frequently used in that manner. Your intent may not have been sexist, thus your use is not, but it will likely be interpreted as sexist by many people. Thus it is technic…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:29 AM
1

shrugs lets be honest, we all have those nights where we are exhausted, bone tired and weary from our day's toil. When one party is less exhausted than the other, it makes sense for them to take the lion's share of the work (as it makes sense for the other to do for them). When you are equally exhausted, it makes sense to split the work equally. I admit, I have heard the nagging "you never do anything" from people who never take into account things like home repairs or other stereotypically male…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:24 AM
1

Sure you are. You're entitled, in a serious, committed, relationship, to expect that the other person cares about how you feel, will take it into account in their actions and will include you in relevant and frequent ways in their life. That they will not be rude to you and that they will not make life-changing decisions without consulting you. That, in some way, they will sacrifice. The more committed you are, the more these things are expected. They make people feel secure in relationships. Th…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:18 AM
2

Here's when boys actually become men: When they stand their ground when she walks out. See, the problem with this statement is it's too broad. Maybe you ARE wrong. Everyone is wrong in arguments sometimes. You are not a man just because you stubbornly stood your ground, you're an adult when you can recognize when you are right and when you are wrong. When they don't call back, and let her do the calling. How is this any better than them expecting you to do any of the calling? It's just childish.…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:13 AM
2

shrugs see, the problem is, you present this in a very confrontational manner. It's a relationship, it's somebody you love. If that's not true, you're not in a good relationship. If you want a guy's night out, then you're entitled to that. She's also entitled to want to have you in some nights as well. The whole point of a good relationship is communication - that you're able to tell her "I need to just go out with the guys every so often" and she should be able to say "that's fine, but I need y…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:03 AM
4

I like it a lot better. It's gender neutral and it gives the right implication of long-term friends before short-term relationships. High five sir.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:00 AM
1

In that case, my ho is my bro. WHAT THEN SIR? WHAT THEN! The point rbean44 is trying to make is that the sentiment may be relevant but you're presenting it with offensive language that adds nothing to the sentiment. You're also not being specific in your statement and you're broadly saying that you will support your "bros" (which is a male word) over your "hos" (which is a female word). It may not be what you MEAN but it's how it comes across and a little bit of tact goes a long way. You might a…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:59 AM
1

Boys become men when they hit puberty is much better. Because, lets be honest, I am a man. I call my girlfriend sometimes. I tell her I'm sorry when I'm wrong. I occasionally ask for directions when my phone is dead. I give her the computer keyboard. I hug her when she cries. I watch chick flicks (because I like them). I realize that sometimes the nagging is helpful. There are lots of ways of being a man. To put arbitrary conditions on it is ridiculous. To each their own path and nobody gets to …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:56 AM
-3

This is not valid logic. Let's use a slightly different example where it's easier to see the problem. Let's assume A is a dominant and B is a submissive. Let's assume that the act is "being poked with needles". Is it fair to say that because A does not want to be poked with needles, B should not allow themselves to be poked with needles by A? Let's take penetration as another example. If A does not want to be penetrated anally, does it follow that B should not allow themselves to be penetrated a…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 06:22 PM
4

This is an excellent point. Gender roles and expectations hit both genders and need to be solved as a universal problem. Some of them hit men harder, sometimes they hit women harder. Sometimes they hit both in very different ways. Perhaps sometimes one even benefits from them. This is the biggest hypocrisy I see from a certain category of feminists, especially male feminists. "Feminism is here to help men as well". If that were true, why wouldn't we want to address these roles in terms of how th…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:50 PM
9

An important note, that is really important before you quote this anywhere. These numbers are about South Asian children. Now, to be fair, I think that women in Western society are far better off than in non-Western society (as a very general rule) whereas the gap for men is closer, but I don't have a lot of proof for that. Just remember this study says nothing explicitly about the US or Canada.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:45 PM
6

Feminism isn't a mental disorder. There are perfectly good and valid interpretations of feminism. Don't make the mistake of attacking the entire order because a decent chunk of them are idiots. MRA has it's own share of idiots as well, and we wouldn't want them tainting our name eh? Ridiculous persecution of either gender should be a mental disorder perhaps.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:40 PM
1

It's a bit of sarcasm, but there's some logic behind the statement. I would rather use it as an example of how the premise is wrong in this case. If we assume that: Art depicting a phallus is pro-rape (as put forward by the activists on campus) and we know that: Michelangelo's work of art "David" depicts a phallus (as is obvious from any image of the statue) we can conclude that: Michelangelo's "David" is pro-rape I find this conclusion to be absurd, as many people do. Thus our initial assumptio…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:36 PM
12

I've done some research on it and listened to Warren Farrell talk on the topic. Essentially, the following factors contribute to the overall pay gap. Industry. Within each industry, the wage gaps between genders are MUCH closer. In some industries, the wage gap favors females. Men tend to work in STEM industries more (which are higher paying) and the death industries (hazard pay). Hours worked. Men are more likely to work jobs with longer hours, and thus higher compensation. Children. Childless …
/r/MensRights16/12/12 08:08 PM
5

I think this is less of a sustained attack and more of a tragic by-product of feminist theory. If you publish and popularize a theory that something called "patriarchy" and "male privilege" are the source of your problems, a certain number of people are going to blame all men (because people overreact to everything) and then it might snowball into what we have today: males are vilified. But it's not that it was systemically encouraged, it's that the people who came up with lots of the radical fe…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:05 PM
3

On the contrary, I think it makes it less abstract. If we discuss women in general, then we have the problem that our concepts are just as broad as those that are attempted to be applied to us (which is something we object to). We have a serious discussion about the issues facing men by discussing the issues themselves, instead of attempting to discuss the people causing the issue at all. This means we don't say things like "women propagate X against men" (even if it's hypothetically mostly true…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:00 PM
4

shrugs I think if you want to talk about rape culture, you have to talk about it from a gender neutral perspective. It's not surprising that most statistics show rape affects women most because most of the time, rape is defined in a way that it affects women more (forced penetration is a common definition). We need to talk about sexual assault, not rape, if people are going to keep using that definition. The sexual assault statistics are much closer to equal and, as Tamen_ says, women live in fe…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:05 PM
54

The actual intent behind this quote originally was the sheer number of women raped and murdered during historical wars. Let's be honest, war sucks for everyone. The soldiers have it the worst though - if you don't die, there's PTSD to cope with.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:40 PM
1

It appears you are right. I do need to get bette ron these waves
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:12 PM
1

Do you have evidence for this because a lot of my research into feminism indicates that it began as the quest of increasing the rights of women to match those of men (I might have had my timeline wrong) - in particular voting, property ownership, etc. It's true, they didn't do anything to remove the male part of the social contract and they didn't focus on the plights of men, but a movement dedicated to fixing the problems that women face wouldn't really concern itself much with that.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:10 PM
2

I haven't seen any evidence of it. All of the objections of first-wave feminism that I've seen documented are specific objections to areas where men have power and women don't, with the demand being for women to share equally in the power.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:08 PM
1

Neither does feminism. Baseline feminism is "search for equal rights for men". That was kindof the point of my post. MRA does have a baseline statement that "radical feminism is evil" though.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:07 PM
1

shrugs I think you grossly overestimate it. There's a number of real-world feminists I know who object to the concepts of radical feminism and are supportive of the problems that men face. Even people like Warren Farrell didn't object to the concept of feminism until they started with the anti-male crap. To be fair though, I think they'll have a tough time getting on track because it's so pervasive in our culture. It's tough to overcome prejudice from within your own organization (how much succe…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:28 PM
1

I think an important note here, just to avoid crazy rumours from spreading, is that even if a man can't be "raped" in some states (which is a problem) it does not make the equivalent act on men "legal". It usually falls under sexual assault. The problem is that it's poorly prosecuted and society encourages men not to follow up on the charges.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 05:27 AM
6

To be fair, a decent number of people who identify as "feminism" still view it as "egalitarianism". There is hope for their movement yet, if they can get the sane people back in charge of the direction, instead of the radical feminists.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 05:25 AM
3

Because it IS all societal upbringing. To be clear, it's not that that means we have to restrict men from being masculine, but that we should be accepting of people of both genders, regardless of whether or not they fit the gender stereotypes we have in place. The biggest problem I have with feminism is the terms they've used. They've picked words that, IMHO, inflame women against men - this leads me to believe that the constructs were set up to be anti-male, not anti-idiot. They've contributed …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:27 AM
10

This is true. It's what I call the Disney Princess factor. In many ways, the media in our youth gives many youth the expectation of a fairy tale relationship - the handsome, strong, excellent in bed, pliant to your will, "As you wish", wonderful relationship where you never fight. Many stories are about a woman's quest for love and how love fixes all her problems and lives happily ever after (the romantic fairy tale). Many stories about men don't show the same direction - they are either about o…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:22 AM
7

His point is that, because he is a white, heterosexual male, the assumption by many people is that he is a privileged person who gets everything in life. This is a harmful assumption and stereotype because it means he is less likely to get the assistance he needs and is discouraged from seeking it by his gender role in society.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:55 AM
16

I'm always amused at this argument and yet, if you try to bring up any legitimate problems that men face as a result of gender roles in society, most radical feminists dismiss it as something we should just suck up because women have had it worse for a long time. You can't have it both ways - either feminism is really about true gender equality for both genders and should be on board with most of our goals, or feminism is focused solely on women's rights and there is therefore need for a men's m…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:51 AM
3

Should make a reddit just for examples of bigotry against anyone. We can move half the posts from /r/atheism there as well.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:48 AM
7

Except that there are lots of cases where white people are disadvantaged by equality laws as well. It's very similar boats, white people and men.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:44 AM
22

According to this study (from 2012): http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0718.pdf Out of the top income earners, men (1.5M men) own $1.14T in assets. Women (1.2M women) own $1.11T in assets. So it looks like the average rich woman is slightly better off in total assets that the average rich men, but there are slightly more rich men than there are rich women. I'm willing to call this situation approximately equal which makes "owning more than three-fourths of the nation's financ…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:41 AM
0

shrugs there are opinions here that get downvoted. If you try to reasonably discuss whether or not something is sexism against men or just human stupidity, you get downvoted. If you try to reasonably point out there are some people who identify as "feminists" who only believe in the equal rights parts, not the anti-male parts, and that we should not be insulting feminism as a whole, only the extremist parts of it, you get downvoted. It's an echo chamber, just a counter-culture one.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:58 PM
5

To be honest, I think it is a reasonable defense, and she deserves treatment not jail time. The problem, in my mind, is that men are often persecuted even in light of mitigating circumstances or treatable mental conditions. We should accept this reasoning for both genders, not deny it for both genders. That said, the clear gender bias in how we accept or deny this excuse is the sickening part.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:56 PM
2

Thank you rightsbot <3
/r/MensRights04/12/12 09:16 PM
11

Wait wait... didn't I hear something about that, at a university in Toronto recently? Something about Warren Farrell giving a talk on the issues that men face in society, that was vandalized and protested with screams of rape apologists? Nah, radical feminism would never encourage that, eh?
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:46 PM
19

To be fair, the original definition of feminism (ie from the 60s, first-wave feminism) was the quest for equal rights for women in society, back when women couldn't vote and were still widely considered to be property. I don't think anyone can disagree that the original version of feminism was an egalitarian movement that was focused on bringing women's sociopolitical rights up to those enjoyed by men at the time. It's only the advent of radical feminism (second wave feminism) that brought in th…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:43 PM
4

Here's the full video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4 I really like how he emphasizes his history with the women's rights movement and that he still emphasizes that women still face some problems in society. His emphasis is always on equality, never one over the other, never separate, always together. I like it.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:22 PM
0

I agree. I think the punishment is appropriate in this case for her. I think the sad part is merely that a man would be punished more harshly - they should be punished just as lightly for the equivalent offense.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:49 AM
2

Is it sexist if he's an asshole to everyone?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 04:38 PM
3

They're really not. Botched circumcisions performed by licensed facilities in America are so low that the AMA says they don't have enough data to actually calculate a rate (which likely means 1-2 per decade?) Many botched circumcisions are those performed by religious representatives without proper equipment or home circumcisions. Circumcisions are a relatively safe, routine operation in hospitals. Edit: AMA is the American Medical Association, not "Ask Me Anything".
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:17 PM
3

Shrugs I really don't think coerced through the government is a problem. Whenever I see "wealth transfer through force", I immediately assume you're a Libertarian (sorry if that's not accurate) and that you have weird ideas about how taxes are done and why you shouldn't pay them, and how we could make a better society. All of which will simply never work in the real world. So let's ignore that part, because you will disagree with me and we'll get sidetracked. You're wrong. Admit it. I agree with…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:02 AM
5

shrugs let's be honest, this kind of makes sense from some position. Does it make sense to penalize women who live shorter life spans because they are (on average) are supposed to live longer? No. Either way, you end up discriminating against a gender if you just look at lump sum payouts. A gender-equal annuity is really the way to go. That way, you can say you are equal in terms of payout per year of life. If you live shorter or longer, that's your problem. The fact that men are statistically l…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 10:20 PM
2

You are talking about "selflessness" and "charity". I think I want to talk about "real world" for a moment. Real world is, there are X people who are starving, poor and unsheltered in America right now. You can either A) rely on donations to try and help these people, which (based on all the campaigns to help people in Africa) really doesn't seem like it will be enough or you can B) take money from everyone, in proportion to how much they've succeeded in life, and use it to help those who did no…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 10:16 PM
13

Some of these are more easily explained rather than turning to a conspiracy or a massive transfer of wealth. Men pay more taxes because men are more dominant in the STEM fields which are more highly paid than many female fields. If we equalize the wage gap that results from this (by both removing any barriers that keep women out of STEM fields and the barriers that keep men out of several female dominated fields), the tax inequality should take care of itself (we may also want to look at deducti…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 10:13 PM
1

I think the point ModerSvea makes is fair. You are picking up on two words ("gender" and "coeducational") and extending it to justify that this is completely a gender issue and that gender is the direct cause of the decision. Certainly there is a gender consideration behind part of the logic. Part of the consideration of whether or not an activity is "inclusive" is what percentage of the population can participate. Gender impacts that because most males can grow moustaches and most women cannot.…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 10:18 PM
6

They also said it's against their dress code. Which is even dumber.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 10:01 PM
5

I think they would use the same argument that they already used: that moustaches are against their dress code (it's buried towards the end of the article). That's stupid all on it's own, but it's a whooole other kind of stupid. I'm really disappointed lately in the quality of posts to MRA. There are lots of things coming in that are not a gendered issue that people are complaining about. This is a place to discuss "men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon" not "to complain about …
/r/MensRights15/11/12 10:00 PM
2

Let's be honest, it's not. No more than any example of a man taking advantage of a woman is a woman's right issue. Sadly, those are pushed as women's rights issues, and so men feel obligated to do it back. The one bit of relevance it has is as additional evidence that the power structure in society is not as black and white along gender lines as feminism occasionally teaches. People do shitty things to men and women, and both men and women are capable of those things. That makes them not gender …
/r/MensRights14/11/12 04:11 AM
1

Popular support has never been nor will ever be justification that something is right :D.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 08:18 PM
0

This is a good point. What #3 is really about is states defunding birth control as a covered medical expense. They view this as a women's issue, because it impacts whether or not they can control their pregnancy. However, it's really just a gender-less issue about supporting the ability for all people to control their pregnancies using birth control (condoms, pill and hopefully the male pill one day soon). They're turning it into a women's issue when it's not really, but it's still a valid issue…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:58 PM
0

I think 3 is directed at states that want to remove funding for condoms under various Republican efforts (which is also what #4 is aimed at). It's hard to make positive decisions for your sexuality when you can't afford to.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:56 PM
5

The women's center on campus here also provides a counselor dedicated to women's issues and has numerous pamplets and flyers talking about everything from abortion to HPV to legal matters. It's more like a resource center for women than a health center. I have to admit, the LGBT center still exists as well, but I think the issue with that was that, up until very recently, abuse against LGBT members was a problem, so they're designed as safe spaces for LGBT (and women). From that perspective, a m…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:55 PM
7

Prostate exams, men's sexual health, homosexual sex topics specific to men. I see your point that it may not be necessary, but I don't think calling it a "woman's health center" works very well. Why not just have a health center and have staff dedicated to doing gyno exams so that the wait times aren't as long?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:52 PM
16

Yeah, militant feminist usually means I won't be calling them again. My current girlfriend and I though discussed how men's rights and feminism could be balanced to seek egalitarian gender rights by approaching both sides of the issue (and it works well as long as both sides restraint their extremist misogynistic/misanderist idiots). Needless to say, I think I need to marry her.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:50 PM
-3

Perfectly valid point. Having an STI can also mean you were blatantly lied to or taken advantage of (especially one of the symptom-less one). I'm really not sure how it's a feminism issue though at all... (I mean, men suffer from the same stigma?) If 16 year old you doesn't have access to affordable birth control at all (like some crazy people are proposing down in Arizona), then that's an additional problem. The proper counterpoint would be a guy saying he's not ready to be a dad at sixteen but…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:48 PM
3

HEY GUYS! VICTIM BLAMING IS OKAY AGAIN Best post I ever saw on MRM.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:34 PM
3

It's also possibly that historically men were less likely to call it rape. The lifetime figures are just an overall trend and show that it was simply very different historically. The per year numbers (it would be good if we could see a few in a row) show that it's more prevalent today and, in fact, rising faster than female rape is. As I keep saying, if there is a rape culture in modern society, it's one that rapes men at least as often, if not more often. Also: don't forget, many statistics do …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:29 PM
1

actually, last I checked, men and women are sexually assaulted about equally according to reported statistics and the common thinking is that the male statistic is lower than it should be (and more so than the female statistic) due to this attitude about men and rape.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:27 PM
1

And if they make up material, it doesn't really exist and you have proof of that (because it will be photoshopped). I'm not saying it's immoral, I'm saying when you're under close public scrunity, it makes sense to put your best foot forward to make better impressions so that you can actually convince people.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:21 PM
1

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. You can argue about tax reform, I'll listen to that, but children are important to society, regardless of who you are. Today's children are tomorrow's doctors and nurses who are going to care for you in your old age. It makes sense to support their development as a collective and to share the load of raising children between all members of society (which is what taxes are for). Men also make 33% more than women on average due to higher participation in the high-p…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:10 PM
1

shrugs I think it's pessimistic to say people are going to insult people, no matter what you do. Plus, we've tracked insults and bullying to suicide and other severe mental illnesses. Soft or not, it's the way society is today, and we should be promoting something that's going to fit well with how society is and will be moving to, not how we want it to be. And, let's be honest, the world was a very different place back when the world was "hard". We accepted that women had their place and men had…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:06 PM
1

Suggesting it still makes us look like idiots, especially with a caption like "I'm here to fight for equality". They won't interpret it as sarcasm, they'll interpret it as literally. Don't give SRS material without a fight.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 07:30 PM
7

As with all things, there's danger in having too much of it. If everything is a "safe space" then there's no opportunity to have painful discussions about important and key topics that may still be uncomfortable (because they'd be classified as triggering at the very least, if not bigoted). But not having any means that some people who are trying to cope with their own severe issues will be exposed to many different types of influences, some of which are extremely negative and possibly damaging.…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 03:35 PM
3

shrugs let's be honest, you need both sides. Slut-shaming is wrong, we can agree on that. So is "creep-shaming" in this context. People need to stop acting like there are no problems to be solved and work the problem instead of just hating on everyone.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:11 PM
5

Because the appropriate response to sexism is more sexism, right? Right? Wait, that's how we got here in the first place. Edit: I am aware you're being sarcastic with your photo by the way :). Just pointing out that they interpret our sarcasm as truth as we do theirs. Escalating it isn't going to make the issue better.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 08:07 PM
3

I think the issue, as people have said, is in that the child still needs support. I don't think we have the technology or social support levels to do anything better than what we have right now. Does it suck for men? Yes. But it sucks worse for the child who doesn't get full support. What I WANT to see, that I would fight for, and that solves the issue is the following: Enough social assistance to families per child that raising the child is essentially free. Children are the future of our socie…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:35 PM
2

You have very weird ideas about free speech. Free speech does not protect blackmail, violence, abuse, slander, libel, hate crimes or threats against such. Nor does your right to free speech extend to your right to use this private website. If you are violating the ToS, you don't have an account anymore. That simple.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 01:07 AM
2

There are good reasons I think that the premiums should be same. Even if, on average, men cost insurers more than women, it does not mean that every man is a bad driver. That would be a stereotype. To charge men a higher flat rate because of it, with no evidence of their bad driving, is discriminatory because it assumes male = bad driver. Once they've demonstrated they're a bad driver, then you can ethically raise their rates. To be honest, I would say the same for age - young drivers are not, n…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 08:04 PM
1

I think that, like every other system where some people cost it more than others, the company should charge a generally higher rate to subsidize the higher cost people (who are higher cost through things that are not their fault at least) using the lower cost people. that's what our tax system does, and every other system, why not insurance.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 07:36 PM
1

Yep... that issue made me LOL. And then burn an entire print run to do my part for society. Introducing BDSM to any relationship is something that needs to be done carefully, with negotiation, education and ideally support from your community or /r/BDSMcommunity. And definitely not done based on 50 shades of grey or anything like it.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:49 PM
3

good guy restaurant-goer
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:48 PM
1

I was amusingly talking about this with my girlfriend the other day - we were looking at "Women's World" in the grocery story, and the cover was basically: recipe tips how to make your man happy in bed "The outfit that will get you your next job" My only thought was "jesus, what the fuck kind of lessons are they trying to teach women?"
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:47 PM
2

When I was in high school, cosmo was taken to be God. It's targeted at an age when people are first becoming political, and, if you don't get a counter-point, this is going to be your first exposure to women's lib: man hate. It would be like discovering you're an atheist and only being exposed to /r/atheism. You never realize there's a more moderate point of view. To be fair, I think many people grow up eventually and realize cosmo is stupid. But a decent number don't and still buy into the BS.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:45 PM
0

And, as a TL;DR: The pay inequity is caused by imbalances between industries as a result of women needing to look after children at home during the industrial revolution which they could do for many people for a low amount of money. The industries men worked in pay more since they originally had to support their wives
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:42 PM
0

A better case example of my thoughts, is the alleged wage gap. Consider Obama's statement. Women get paid 75% what men do. First question, is there an actual wage gap. This really depends on how you define a wage gap. If you selected a random sample of men and women and compared their salaries, you would find women make about 3/4 what men do. If you selected a particular industry at random though, and sampled random people who worked in that industry at the same job and level of seniority, you w…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:39 PM
0

The following applies to both mens and womens rights issues, when I think about them. First, I need to remember to consider the whole picture. What context is this being presented in? Is it education? Advice? Research? Marketing? Statement of purpose? I consider the source. Do they have a history of bias? What type of things do they normally write about? How factually reliable are they? I do some of my own research, on some topics, to figure out the REAL facts if I suspect some are being manipul…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:45 PM
0

I really don't read Cosmo that much, but here's one related example. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/relationship-advice/signs-he-wont-marry-you First piece of advice is "if he describes his ex's as clingy, he has commitment issues" (to paraphrase). How is this related you ask? What the article is basically talking about are "men who recognize their ex is crazy / psychotic / OAG clingy, and are smart enough to leave them". Lots of people have those relationships. I have a few in my past - t…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:24 PM
0

I think what yourotherusername is getting at is that cosmo routinely presents this as advice for people. They are not supporting it as a bad thing (like you are), Cosmo is saying "this is how you treat a man on a first date who is late". And that's terrible advice. It's sexist advice.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:08 PM
1

I think the issue here, as somebody said above, is the context in which this story was printed. I am assuming it was printed in Cosmo, or something similar. Similar stories in Cosmo usually read as light-hearted "let's laugh at what this awesome chick did to this stupid guy". It is not being presented as a "both people fucked up, don't do this shit" story, but as a morality tale of "If a guy is late, you should steal his keys". It's sexist because the pieces often will rip men apart for doing si…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:04 PM
8

There's "I was an hour late to our meeting" (which, to be honest, she chose to wait around for an hour) versus "I stole your keys and essentially locked you out of your car". Do you see the difference in proportion?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:54 PM
17

It's about appropriate levels of response. Somebody (man or woman) is an hour late for a date? Go home. Maybe let them off the hook if they have a good reason (lots of people are in stressful positions that can have extended work days, or they take the bus, or there was traffic, etc). Somebody wants to split the cheque on the first date? Deal with it. Hiding his keys in a random planter (where there is essentially no chance of him finding them) is an over-the-top, insane reaction to all of this.…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:53 PM
1

I was just amusing myself with the alternative classically liberal viewpoint on this, which I think would amount to "If people can't defend themselves from rape on their own, then they deserve to be raped". Yep. Why are people voting Romney? That's essentially what he said, he just said it about cancer instead of rape.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:05 AM
2

There are lots of reasons (and I have taken courses in psychology and we discussed why people commit crimes). A lot of crimes are committed due to a missing need (see Maslow for a rough and very basic concept of needs - needs are more complex than that). The guy who can't express his sexuality somewhere is going to express it elsewhere. If he can't express it at all, he might force somebody into it. He also has THE CHOICE to seek counselling or therapy or other treatment for it. But maybe he can…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:00 AM
3

I agree you have to be careful but this is an example of a law that I don't think should be in place. People use alcohol as a social lubricant all the time and gauging how drunk somebody is is a subjective exercise. I don't think "she just seemed a bit tipsy" is going to be a good defense. So that means that you shouldn't sleep, to be safe, with anyone while they've had alcohol long enough ago to be intoxicated (and also include all other drugs) That seems really like something society is not go…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:46 AM
1

People are rapists (when they are actually rapists) only by choice. You made a deliberately and conscious choice to go against her explicit or implicitly obvious wishes and performed an act without her consent. There are alternatives. You could be mentally incompetent. If you do not have the ability to know what consent is or how you get it or that you need it, are you a rapist? Can we hold you accountable? Certainly it might be cause to put you in stronger treatment or a secure facility, but it…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:41 AM
2

I think the idea that "men are controlled by their penises" is not a fringe view. I don't see it used to explain why rape happens a lot, but I certainly see it in explaining why men love sports, why men love competition, why men get into any kind of argument, why men are emotionally heated sometimes, etc. Any time where a man demonstrates passion, I have had circumstances where somebody (usually female but not always) says something like "Fucking men, always thinking with their dicks". I had it …
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:30 AM
1

^ this. There's lots of studies that talk about how much crime we could prevent by having proactive measures and better mental healthcare in general. By giving people support, less of them will get to a point where they are okay committing a crime. I'm sure some will, because some people just want to watch the world burn, but you'll cut down on crime a lot. But that takes taxpayer dollars and people never seem to want to support more investment in this kind of stuff. Only more jails. Despite the…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:27 AM
2

And pedophiles don't deserve the bad rap they get. There were a few AMAs from pedophiles and lots of throwaways with stories about being tempted but resisting temptation. Just because you have a sexual attraction to minors doesn't mean you're going to follow through on it. Once you've followed through on it, then we should condemn you for not having the willpower to not follow through on what is clearly the wrong decision. That said, if society was more open to talking about the concept, maybe p…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:24 AM
2

There are lots of reasonable precautions I never see talked about, like make sure you don't sleep with random strangers, don't leave your drink alone at the bar, don't GO to seedy bars, go with friends who can support you, etc. They seem to focus a lot on what makes the man look bad and not what are completely neutral things that will help prevent anyone (including men) from being assaulted in any way.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:22 AM
3

I have to admit, my female coworker says shit like this once a week. Not in regards to rape, but blaming anything a man does wrong (in her opinion) on the fact he thinks with his cock. Torn between the "turn about is fair play" reaction of blaming her short-comings on her vagina and just filing a gender-based harrasment complain.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 11:19 PM
1

I'm deeply amused that, on a BOARD DEVOTED TO SEEKING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR A CLASS OF PEOPLE, you would support statements that insult a class of people. That is not to say that there are not good jokes that revolve around gayness, just as there are around men and women and Polish people and black people. But this is not a joke. This is ridiculous BS and if you think it's funny, I'll see if I can get Robin Williams to come to your house and smack your shit.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 01:14 AM
1

I'm all for a law that would make it illegal to target a woman, get her drunk, get drunk yourself and then have sex with her. But how do you prove it was that and not just a date that went all the way while you were drunk?
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:11 AM
1

I think I'd agree. It's a complex issue that, if you can avoid it, you should. Sex while drunk is full of potential legal nightmares and other problems. But if you do have sex while both equally drunk, without other overriding factors, it should not be the man who goes to jail and not the woman.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:10 AM
1

Clearly the man :D
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:08 AM
1

Wait, if she says "I want to have sex with you" and then in the morning says "You know what, I don't think I wanted to have sex with you", then you're still guilty of sexual assault. There appears to be no firm method of explicitly confirming and not revoking sexual approval without signing a form and getting a doctor to verify her state of mind beforehand. I think that would put a real buzzkill in foreplay.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:08 AM
1

... I'm not sure which one of you two I dislike more. DOWNVOTES ALL AROUND! Gay men are not "typically feminine". This is a ridiculous gay stereotype that is completely invalid. Calling someone gay just on their hair is enforcing the same stereotype you're suggesting. I'm deeply amused at the two of you, both completely wrong and both bigoted towards gay people. Shame.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:06 AM
3

^^ This. Freud has largely been discredited. I know some women with penis envy and some lesbians. There's some overlap, but it's proportional so I don't see a correlation. I think Freud just used it to explain dildos and strap-ons, which is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:03 AM
1

If the roles were reversed it would clearly be rape by their definition (heck by most definitions: drunk, aggressively pursuing sex, emotional consequences when you don't agree) Even in my book, where I think alcohol and sex can go together sometimes, it makes her at least abusive, if not a rapist.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:01 AM
2

I think there's a pretty drastic difference between "driving a car" and "having sex while you're both drunk". The most important difference being that it's very difficult to tell who initiated sex after the fact, because people change positions and hormones are firing and she took off her shirt first, but he stroked her leg first, but she winked at him and licked her lips. There's a clear boundary between "driving a car" and "not driving a car" called "are you in the passenger seat and is the ca…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 11:58 PM
9

Leer is defined is "Look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way". It's very subjective and I don't think it's a good basis for a rule like that, because it's so open to interpretation of "unpleasant".
/r/MensRights21/09/12 11:44 PM
0

how? why? its only child abuse if it impacts the well-being of the child. If she spends her child support on herself and all the rest of her money on the child, the child is still well off likely.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:09 AM
5

so? it will be laws that fix it, not pure anarchy.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:07 AM
1

this is true, but just divide the formula by 50%.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:07 AM
1

A reasonable post on alimony, definitely a (y) for you. Most people just want to get rid of it, you seem to understand things like having no job or the serious impacts on your career as a result of bearing a child.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:06 AM
1

The problem is how do you track what they spend the money on? The money goes in to your bank account and is put together with all your other money. As long as you spend at least the total amount of it on things for your child, you'll never prove what came from the cheque and what came from your personal funds. I don't think we need this kind of law. What we need is stronger laws making sure children are taken care of and revoking custody if they are not. If the mother is not using the money wise…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:05 AM
1

"just not all the time" Thank you. You have a sampling bias. A classic one.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:31 AM
1

You are missing evidence that the view points of Yahoo represent people in every day life. You only have anecdotal evidence. You have nothing concrete. You need to learn to science.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:07 PM
1

Assuming you're being serious for a moment... If your sole resource for this research is Yahoo Answers, then you have a bias in your data: only people who use Yahoo Answers are taken into account in your study. Since Yahoo Answers are not well known for their political correctness or even validity on a lot of cases, especially fringe cases, and considering they ARE well known for trolling, this means we can't extrapolate from Yahoo Answers to make any assumptions of what goes on in society at la…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 05:17 AM
2

This is ridiculous, on so many levels. Even /r/sex would give you the better advice and give it to you for both genders: Communicate with your partner. Find out what it is about oral sex they don't like. If they refuse to do it, that is their decision. Now you get to make the decision if you want to stay with them or not (if no oral sex is a deal-breaker).
/r/MensRights19/09/12 05:11 AM
1

Yep - it's a bias, one way or another.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 09:20 PM
1

Also, an interesting side note, this study actually shows that both genders are biased in marking. Men tended to mark boys marks higher than the expected result, but marked girls on par with the expected results. So they didn't penalize the girls, but they did make more allowances for the boys. That is also a discrimination in education. Women tended to mark girls higher than the expected result and boys below the expected results, so they both penalized boys and made more allowances for girls. …
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:12 PM
2

It's really hard to determine the cause, with certainty. We'd need to identify likely causes of this and see if we can find enough data to support that the trend is caused by it. That's really hard, because correlation is not causation. What we can do is address that the problem exists first, then we can look at each potential cause and identify what we can do better to make sure it's not a problem. For example, a male stereotype that excludes "writing" as a "manly" activity might be causing a p…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:08 PM
15

I think he was saying that "If you say 'women are not responsible for their own violence (that is, they can't control their baser instincts in response to seeing violence)', then you are saying they are less than men, which makes them the weaker sex". Interestingly, isn't this a similar argument to women wearing short skirts leading to them being raped? If it's not a defense for men to be provoked into rape by short skirts, then it's not a defense for women to be provoked into violence by witnes…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 02:28 AM
2

This is true, there are lots and lots of possible explanation. Some of them are a result of a female-dominated system. As you said, we should keep an open mind and not call sexism until we know it's sexist. That's exactly what we accuse feminists of doing all the time :)
/r/MensRights17/09/12 09:33 PM
5

To be fair, they suggest a reason in the article: boys are about half as likely to enjoy writing as girls. That would be the real question: why are boys far less likely to enjoy writing than girls? Maybe it's just a natural thing in the way the brains are wired (which would be perfectly fine). Maybe there's a bias in society that writing makes you less manly (compared to things like football or baseball or hockey or science). I'm willing to bet on the latter. My evidence is only anecdotal, but I…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 06:38 PM
2

Can you clarify if you are being sarcastic or not, so I can up or down vote you appropriately?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:28 PM
8

This is an awesome point. You had two kids. You've known him for a big chunk of time (two+ years at least... I hope you knew him for awhile before having kids). You knew he was here only on a work visa, that he was not a permanent citizen. What did you think would happen if you would divorce?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:27 PM
6

it's because we don't see this kind of shit, we just see the really cool things they do. it would be like your opinion of America if all you got to see was the really cool technology some of the companies make, fried chicken and some of their best artists.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:25 PM
5

Accurate point. If they have joint custody, would she not have a case if he didn't inform her where he was moving? Since she has visitation rights?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:23 PM
4

You use the world "exiled". This is not "exile", this is a work visa being revoked due to unspecified irregularities. We have no idea what that means. Also, you say "New York home". The ABC article says that they live in California. The mother is moving to New York. The father is moving to France. I think it's important that, if you can set it up and there's no good reason why not to, children should be able to see and spend time with both their parents. It's important to a child's development. …
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:19 PM
8

this is a valid point coached in rhetoric. Divorces happen for lots of reasons, some of them quite valid. It is a good point though, that women more often start divorces and yet the stereotype is that men can't commit. It doesn't seem to fit. It's not relevant though.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:10 PM
6

or honours* if Canadian / British
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:46 PM
5

I am amused at your expression on this board.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:46 PM
0

If the standards for women are inadequate for combat, why do they set them as standards? Why not set the standard higher?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:58 PM
1

Do you have a source on "almost all females would be deemed unfit for the positions that need to be filled"? Specifically, evidence of What positions are needed during a draft, and in what proportions? Please, modern information not historical. The military is a different entity from WW2 and Vietnam. What kind of requirements are necessary for each position. How many women actually fail the requirements for each position. We really need to discuss facts, not vague statements.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:19 PM
0

This assumes they would volunteer. It's unfair to allow only the volunteers to do the safe jobs and draft one gender to do the unsafe jobs. There's lots of training and psych profiling I'm sure that goes into drafting people into the right spots for them (mixed with needs). Draft everyone and put the people where they belong. If there's a gender bias in where they end up, due to physiological or psychological differences, then that's that. But forcing one gender to participate in war and not the…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:32 PM
1

So the army is detrimental to most people of both genders? So why shouldn't women equally experience the hell as the men who can't handle it?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 02:28 PM
1

Laws aimed principally at removing barriers and ensuring equally treatment. Sometimes, temporary corrective measures to restore equality. Once the balance is close to where it should be or it's doing more harm than good, said corrective measures should be removed. But principally, education at a young age through the public school system. Teaching children universally good values and tolerance for people of all creeds. Making sure they leave school with the ability to c ritically think and weigh…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:33 PM
4

None and it's just as fine. They already technically do in a lot of cases. The problem lies in the abuse of having that information. Like if the store were to take pictures from their CCTV cameras of all the men trying on women's clothing and then made a webpage called "disgusting perverts" to post them on. That's abuse of the power. We need laws and limitations but there's nothing inherently wrong with the actual act.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:16 PM
1

Technically, if you are in a public space (and cabs are a public space I think), you can be filmed by anybody legally. At least in Canada.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:14 PM
2

I can see the connections you are attempting to make and understand your statement better. Alright. I do believe, however, that even if the words come from LGBTQ and perhaps are tied to feminism, that doesn't make them bad movements (no more so than first-wave feminism was a bad movement). The main issue here with feminism is it's focus on oppressing men (second-wave), not promoting equal rights and removing barriers (first-wave). The LGBTQ movement is still very much focused on first-wave style…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:04 PM
1

Yes, but the negative approach isn't. The faction of the LGBTQ community which promotes the hatred of straight people or elevating the gay lifestyle above that of straights is really small (it is there though). And there's lots of room for straight people in what looks like the next evolution of the LGBTQ community: the sex-positive community. I would never associate the labels because radical feminism has a very militant and hostile approach towards the alternatives and the LGBTQ community does…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:26 PM
1

It's really weird in my head. How do you demonstrate a lack of consent when you're not currently capable of determining what constitutes consent? The other cases where that's true (two really young kids, two people who are mentally incompetant) are usually not deemed rape. I can't see why this one should be any different.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:22 PM
1

Assuming, that the scenario was: man and woman agree to have sex, man asks "are you on the pill? i don't want you getting pregnant", woman says, "yes, of course I'm on the pill", when she knows she's not - that would be rape in my mind. The reverse scenario: woman says "use a condom", man says "I've had a vasectomy, no need for a condom", woman agrees to that, man knows he hasn't had a vasectomy, that would also be rape. There are variations which are not. Vasectomies and birth control pills are…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:19 PM
1

Stipulations specifically relating to intercourse? At least in terms of birth control usage. If I agree for you to fuck me with a condom and you slip it off (or poke holes in it), I think that should qualify as rape. Maybe call it conditions associated specifically with what we're consenting to - I think that would be pretty accurate to how the BDSM community uses it (beating me with somebody I specifically told you not to do, is a violation of consent, not taking me on as your submissive afterw…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:15 PM
9

"Women can do anything that men can do" is generally a valid statement. If you were to take any given activity X, you can find a man and a woman who are about equal in skill level. You can also find all sorts of unequal pairings (eg select two people so that the man is better than the woman, and that the woman is better than the man). The top-end of certain activities might be dominated by one gender or another for certain biological reasons. Gymnastics is a good example of this actually - you d…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:54 PM
4

I'm glad you made the comparison to "any man can be a rapist" because then you can understand why you are terribly wrong. Start with a neutral base. This is a person. What are they like? You have no idea. Gather evidence. Then make the judgment.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:53 PM
3

they are pansexual (sex / gender is not a consideration in their attraction to people) and they are, by birth, female and outwardly appear female. They believe in their ability to have more than one relationship at the same time, and currently they have two (with a man and a woman).
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:52 PM
2

I don't understand your downvotes. This is very true, and it can be applied to concepts like the "patriarchy" as well. People are, for the most part, not very smart, They follow causes and movements with greater ease because the cause does the work for you. They line up the key issues, distill it down to the point you can understand it, then spoon feed it to you. Asking people to understand a complex issue is hard enough - asking them to understand ALL the complex issues modern society faces is …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:50 PM
2

What? No. I am liberal and against radical feminism, specifically the parts that have deeply impacted men. There are lots of people here on the left-side of the political spectrum who realize the pendulum is swinging too far. Being liberal is about a lot more than being feminist. Being a social liberal, for me, is about promoting equality of all people, regardless of any potential discrimination factor. That means supporting feminism when they make a good point and supporting MRA when they make …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:42 PM
3

I'm really curious how pansexual, cisgendered, femme, cisfemale, cismale or polyamorous are associated with feminism. They're mostly words and concepts from the LGBTQ community (most from the T part of that) meant to clarify modern concepts of gender and relationships.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:37 PM
3

my girlfriend and I do this - we alternate or split every meal (though sometimes it goes heavier on one of us if the other picked up something else like groceries).
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:36 PM
2

Agreed. cis-gendered is just the positive way of saying "not trans-gendered" and is a useful term. I really hate the term "heteronormative" and "cis-privileged", despite being active in the LGBTQ community. Some people really get pissed off about tiny things.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:34 PM
2

Bisexual means "attracted to people of both sexes" (ie penis or vagina). It doesn't include the concept of more than two sexes, which is where pansexual comes from. Technically the terms refer to the sex, but they're often used to apply to genders as well.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:33 PM
3

To be honest, while I recognize that what you say is generally true, I don't really feel misogynistic because of it. There are lots of men who are terrible dating partners as well. Generally I equate it to "people are fucking stupid, regardless of gender". People who are really healthy in the brain are far and few between in both genders. I would approach this feeling though by remembering that the response to hatred isn't more hate, it's education. The end goal of all the discussion around gend…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:29 PM
0

Hardly a landslide - 52% to 48% of the popular vote. The electoral college votes really skews the actual percentage. And they also point out that a lot of the swing state votes are close. Further more, this is only based on economic data. It has the assumption that economic data accurately predicts election results. This apparently has been true for the last 7 elections. It may or may not hold to be true for this one. Certainly it looks like it's going to be close in swing states, so people shou…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 01:58 PM
1

Whether or not surprise wake-up blowjobs is rape would be an interesting question. On one hand, you don't have any kind of consent (they were sleeping). On the other hand, you have a long-term relationship - you can take some kind of implicit consent for those kind of things as granted perhaps. That said, those apply to women as well. If it's okay in LTRs to suck off your BF in the morning, it's okay to wake up to your BF fucking you.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:12 PM
1

To be clear, if someone consents, you have sex with them, they revoke it in the middle and you don't stop fucking them, you're trending into rapist territory maybe. All other cases though, I agree (like morning after revocations of consent... fuck that shit)
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:09 PM
2

what if both people are really drunk and unable to give consent? Who is the rapist?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:05 PM
2

Another common example is two adults who agree to have protected sex using a condom. Without informing the other, one punches a hole in the condom before using it, thus rendering it's protective benefits useless. This is now rape, as the other party has not agreed to unprotected sex and is lacking the information to consent to what is currently going on.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:00 PM
3

A lot of people are focusing on Todd Akin in the comments, but not many people actually want to discuss your point: what make rape rape and are there different levels of rape. It's a tough question on a sensitive issue that a lot of people would not have fun discussing. I think we can generally define rape like the United Nations does: non-consensual sexual intercourse. We then need to define two key concepts: non-consensual and sexual intercourse. The definition of sexual intercourse involves s…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:58 PM
3

Requesting rewrite of the article with the genders and names flipped.... go.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:19 PM
3

This is true, and I never really thought about it like this until you wrote this message. I was so caught up in people decrying how genital mutilation negatively impacts your health (which clearly it doesn't, at least not circumcision in men) that I never considered the -consent- aspect of it. Should we be doing unnecessary medical procedures on children who can't consent to them for a 0.1% medical benefit? I don't think that's something I can really say we should be doing. But I am very glad yo…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:15 PM
2

the good part I think was about pointing out that the major concern of radical feminists in power is women's issues in particular, not human rights in general (as is claimed often). Without something like a sane and sensible MRM to counterpoint what the RFs will do, we'll end up with something more and more unbalanced.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:55 PM
2

^ this. The story is roughly accurate and it's appalling that they focused on the stabbing / lookalike instead of the fact somebody was just raped.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 10:39 PM
1

I do like your thought. I'm definitely going to include it next time there is this discussion. Perhaps this would explain better why people who don't have concepts of gender stereotypes anymore could still be homophobic. I also wonder if both could be factors, because yours does make a lot of sense as well. Perhaps it is yet another potential trigger for the violent reactions. I'm sure it works on a lot of levels, but the correlation between the two seems to be staggering. Could also be coincide…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:26 PM
1

My apologies, wrong word in my original post. I meant gender stereotypes. Remove the concept that you need X to be female or Y to be male. Just let people be people. Define your gender however you want. Define your sex according to your sex organs. I don't think androgyny is at all ideal, mostly just removing the idea that certain characteristics make you male or female. Saying androgyny is ideal means you put being either male or female beneath the concept of being a neuter gender. That's not a…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:37 PM
2

I'm sorry, but there's the potential that you might put a pin in my condom, go off the pill without telling me, get pregnant, have a baby, falsely claimed I abused you and raped you so that you can put me in jail, I can never see my baby and you can take all of my money. So I'm going to judge all women based on that. Edit: /s obviously.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:08 PM
1

culture of fear, etc, etc
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:07 PM
3

The study was later proven to be invalid, because anger can also cause erections in men due to increased blood flow.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:03 PM
1

Actually, it's a myth that homophobes are more likely to be closet homosexuals. They've discovered that anger can also cause erections in men, which means the anger or sexual response in result to the photos could be misconstrued.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:02 PM
1

Not sure how not being attracted to gay men = disgust at being hit on by gay men (instead of polite no) but it is ridiculous to associate either with rape so I'll agree.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:59 PM
1

Really, I think it's a bit of both. I wrote a longer post about it, but a lot of the issue behind homophobia is due to gender roles on both sides. It's that men are supposed to conform to this gender identity and not doing so associates them with the other gender identity which is a negative one (thus the hatred of women). Solution: get rid of both gender identities. It's a problem for both MRM and a FRM.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:58 PM
1

I like your last paragraph, with a caveat. You assume that people can read body language. That is not always the case. I think you can only really blame people if they don't take a "I'm busy" or a "No" well and then harass you. It's hard to figure out the context sometimes, especially if they're really distracted because they're interested in you (also if they are mentally disabled or just really socially awkward). All you can do, non-verbally, to assert that you don't want to be talked to may n…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:56 PM
2

See, here's the issue. Some people are more socially awkward than you. Some people have things like autism or other illnesses that mean they might have a block against even recognizing that the social situation is not right. Some people are bad at interpreting body language and take a smile or something for interest. Some people (on the flip side) are bad at actually saying "no" in response in the first place - they're too polite to, so they use subtle body language (see previous responses). The…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:51 PM
1

My girlfriend is the same way, though doesn't wait for me to react for the googly eyes. It's an open question which one of us is going to propose first. No gender stereotypes are a wonderful thing.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:47 PM
1

That's terrible. There's negative sentiments towards straight people in the gay community too (in fact, the discussion around gay people calling straight people 'breeders' as an insult was on reddit recently). It's something they have to watch out for - that, as a non-heterosexual, you don't become heterophobic.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:45 PM
1

Soldiers do lots of things - they do natural disaster relief (the US sent troops to Haiti after the earthquake for instance, and to New Orleans during Katrina), they do peacekeeping (at least Canadian ones do), and they can provide a bigger security presence. Soldiers can also be used for defense and, hypothetically, to defend our allies and other interests overseas. See Libyan rebels for an example (really a perfect example). The military involved itself lightly in supporting the rebels overthr…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:42 PM
3

^ this. Unfortunately, a lot of people (on the liberal side) associate "support the troops" with "support the war". It's a failing of my side of the political spectrum and it's fucking stupid. Then again, a lot of people on the conservative side associate "Stop the war" with "I don't support the troops". Military service people saved millions from oppression in WW2. Keeping a reasonably sized military is essential in case we should need them from a similar threat. Just because I disagree with ho…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:36 PM
3

I am a man and I hate walking outside at 2AM - there are many people who are very sketchy and there are wolves.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:31 PM
1

Also interesting, it explains a lot about the sex positive community now that I think on it more. They're more liberal because liberals tend to be a demographic that have rejected gender stereotypes and religious backgrounds. That makes it far easier to accept homosexuality.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:29 PM
11

A lot of discussions I've had around this topic have to do with male gender issues to begin with - often one of the components of the discussion is why are female homosexuals and bisexuals more accepted than male homosexuals and bisexuals [and I have personal anecdotes that support that, though not actual research]. There's a concept of what it means to be manly, enforced by our culture and counter-pointed by what it means to be a woman (which is changing much faster than what it means to be a m…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:25 PM
3

Here's the problem I have with both attitudes. People are being terrified when other people are making a sexual advance on you. Why? This is a big part of our society - our search for a partner (be it a reproductive partner, life partner, or other partner). The only way to really find out if people are interested is to read body language (an iffy proposition for some of us) and then make it clear we are interested. That is going to involve talking to some people who are not interested in us and …
/r/MensRights24/08/12 02:51 PM
1

source?
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:11 PM
5

First one is a news source directly referencing as their sole source the original study I had an issue with, so no. Second one is done in Africa and points to unqualified surgeons doing the procedures that leads to severe issues. It's a completely valid point and really shows that they shouldn't be doing these things outside of a properly licensed medical clinic at the very least (just like you shouldn't do abortions outside of one, for the same reasons). I don't see how it offers any evidence t…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:11 PM
1

I really hate to say this, but four clearly biased sources (all directly from doctors who are against circumcision) and one (your second link) very editorialized medical report (quote: "circumcision is a killer of baby boys.", really? in a medical report?) do not constitute proof, no more than the reports from American Doctors Against Vaccines prove that vaccines can kill you. Do you have better proof? The conclusion from more authoritative sources seems to indicate that the deaths cannot be rel…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:27 PM
-8

This argument I can understand. Thanks. I just don't understand why unnecessary cosmetic procedures with low impact on people's lives deserves the same attention that FGM which is intended to ruin their ability to feel pleasure deserves.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:19 PM
-2

NPOV sources please? The only ones I can find are heavily anti-circumcision - I'd like something a little more neutral, but all the neutral sources just say there are risks and correlations, but nothing 100% positive on any of your points. A lot of the deaths and mutilations seem to be tied to circumcisions not done in a proper hospital environment by qualified doctors - I can certainly understand why those are terrible things. Anyways, in particular, I'd like to see something on the estimated i…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:16 PM
6

Every time I see this, I really wonder what I'm missing out on by being circumcised. I don't seem to experience any less pleasure than other people out of it, and I definitely have an easier hygiene routine. It really does seem benign (though there is the argument that I should have been able to make the choice, instead of my parents). My understanding of FGM is that it severely disrupts the woman's ability to orgasm among other things. Doesn't that explain the difference in attitudes? I would b…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 06:34 PM
12

The NISVS 2010 report linked to is quite interesting as it really shows the issue with statistics. The lifetime statistics would include acts committed up to 100 years ago, which would mean they don't adequately reflect what -today's- society is doing. Those numbers, over the last twelve months, indicate that forced penetration of women is about as likely, per capita, as men being forced to penetrate. However, look at the historical data (lifetime). The male is far lower. That suggests that the …
/r/MensRights23/08/12 05:33 PM
3

Quick follow-up thought: if there is a urinal in the mixed and none in the gendered washroom, it might be a poorly-chosen method of communication which facilities are available where. That might be a good motivation behind it.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:32 PM
8

Single-use bathrooms really should be gender/sex neutral - there's no legitimate reason to make them one way or another, even if they have a urinal in them. I unfortunately have seen this even in very sex-positive areas. There's a swingers club I go to which has two female washrooms and a mixed gender one. I'm also a fan of making multiple-occupant bathrooms gender/sex neutral (with urinals). It addresses a lot of issues in the trans community and really lets people just use the washroom without…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:29 PM
4

I think your ideas are far too generalized. I don't think every world composed mostly of men gets those ideals. Maybe some or most, but I think you need to realize the difference in the terms or this is kindof pointless.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:21 PM
-1

I don't have the right to come into your house and tell you how to cook spaghetti, but I have the right to come into your house and rescue a starving child whom you've denied food for the last week. Extreme example, yes, but yours is nearly trivial and not a fair comparison at all. More importantly, what happens in your house stays in your house. What happens in an MMORPG gets transmitted for many players to see all around the world. Personally, I am a part of the gamer community and I really wi…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:55 PM
3

I would be interested in specifics on the differences in the male:female ratio comparing homeless (on the street) and homeless (no permanent residence), as well as perhaps a look at how processes that can leave you homeless work in terms of male:female ratios. For example, are the number of men and women who have no permanent residence roughly equal, but the lack of care / support programs for men mean they are on the streets more often; if there is an imbalance between the two going onto the st…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:49 PM
2

See, I think there are some issues you are right on and some you are wrong on. You're point is correct. I don't think that (the majority) of gamers are specifically sexist or racist or otherwise bigoted. I think it's trash talk as you stated, plain and simple. The real issue then is then: should this be the way gaming communities are? Are they -right- to be trashing talking people with insults that have connections to bigotry? I think the answer to that is a resounding "no" and it underscores ju…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:31 PM
10

There's a different connotation between "men's world" which implies "a world ruled exclusively by men" and a world where "the majority is composed of men" which does not imply they rule exclusively. It's just a bad turn of phrase you used, even if you meant it the second way, it has strong implications of the first.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:20 PM
1

Also, the quote from the linked article is sortof misleading. The ending paragraph concludes: "It is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that collectively…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:08 PM
3

I'm really happy someone wrote this article, because I think it's time we focused on things that are actually wrong in our job market, and not beat the dead issue of equal pay for equal work. It's pretty clear that that's been accomplished. Good. However, this raises some other interesting points. I'm really curious if we can prove one way or another if the following points are the result of free choice or social pressure. I'm also really sad that some people who wrote about this (in a less exte…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:01 PM
2

rape is medically defined as non-consensual sexual intercourse. Erectile responses in men are often non-voluntary (I participate in BDSM as a submissive, trust me they can be non-voluntary no matter what negative stimulii you are undergoing). They can also be something along the lines of "sure, my body wants to, but my mind recognizes that I shouldn't, so I won't consent". Like, there's a really hot woman but I'm married or I know she has an STI or I know she's crazy. Heck, I get up in the morni…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:44 PM
2

dictionaries use common usages, so it depends on how it gains traction in society. the medical definition of rape is "non-consensual sexual intercourse" which would cover all three of your situations (each of which is "non-consensual")
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:37 PM
2

dictionaries use common usages, so it depends on how it gains traction in society. the medical definition of rape is "non-consensual sexual intercourse" which would cover all three of your situations (each of which is "non-consensual")
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:37 PM
2

I agree in this particular case, but I suspect there are licensing agreements and such that would have to be arranged to scrape content and provide it. What would be really nice is to arrange several common sources and allow Google users to pick their own (with the default being the most popular)
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:33 PM
6

My apologies, yes. I think they are using a slightly different Oxford dictionary (the website indicates American College, the online one is likely not that one)
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:33 PM
2

I would agree, as I noted, which is why I think we need to work on getting the idea out there, so it -is- in common usage, and therefore they will change the definition. TBH though, I also think the word "rape" is commonly used with male victims (though often it is male on male, not female on male) - prison rape, for example, is a common term.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:32 PM
5

just to make sure you see it, it's Oxford
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:51 PM
138

Let's track this down, to the source. Google does not maintain content (not even definitions). This must be coming from another source. Their source is none of the links beneath it (all of which go to comparatively gender-neutral definitions). Wikipedia points us to Oxford American College as the source of the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Dictionary). A quick search of Oxford confirms the definition is identical (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/rape?r…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:49 PM
13

This is an excellent point - the illegality of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The question would be A) is it happening? B) why is it happening? and C) is there anything we can realistically do to address the gap?
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:07 PM
1

I would rather the unconsenting biological parent over the unconsenting, non-biological parent who happens to be attached to the other parent. Sadly, it takes two incomes to raise a child in this day and age, so unless you want to push for complete sponsoring of raising children by the state (costing people a lot of money in taxes), then I can't see this ever becoming reality - nor should it. Edit: Unconsenting in the sense that they are not explicitly consenting, but not maliciously coerced int…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 12:12 AM
60

Not to mention a little bit of consensual objectification can be quite pleasing to some men and women.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 08:01 PM
2

I disagree. If you think he's a gay male, the homophobic slurs (depending on the nature of them) might still qualify you for a hate crime.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:56 PM
4

Having a -lot- of experience with the local LGBT community, I can say that there are issues between -everybody-. Gay men, lesbian women, bisexuals of both, all hating on each other and straight people. Not that it's the norm, most people are generally nice to each other, but there is enough of it. Just goes to show, no matter what side you pick, there'll be some stupid fundamentalists belonging to the same side.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:54 PM
1

Also, I am 100% for any system that improves accountability on how your child care dollars are spent. I don't think they should be wasted on crap the mother doesn't need (like cigarettes). Child care dollars are for caring for your child. If that means the mother is required to supply receipts showing how she spent it (with a wide variety of things allowed, like clothing, food, furniture, safety equipment, toys, RESPs, life insurance, etc), I'd be good with that. I'd also be happy if she got som…
/r/MensRights23/02/12 02:05 AM
10

I think the key concern here is quality of life for the baby, once born. A single parent can't provide quite the quality of life that two parents can. A person who doesn't want to have babies should avoid having sex or make sure to use protection. There is always a risk that those might go wrong and you should be prepared to deal with the consequences, one of which is having a child. I would hope you know your sexual partners well enough to know their stance on abortion before sex. It's tough lu…
/r/MensRights23/02/12 02:02 AM
-1

equal representation does not mean 50%. Equal representation means that if women make up 30% of the potential candidates running, they get a roughly equal share of the seats. Maybe there are reasons they aren't running. Maybe those are bad reasons, maybe they are good reasons. Who knows? You can't just point to numbers and infer cause without additional research.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 12:15 AM
1

basically what I did was compared these numbers (in fact I believe I took the same study as OP) and compared them to the census stats on all-male versus all-female versus both-gender homes. I think that corrects mostly for that bias. The end result is the numbers are much closer but females still edge out males by 3%. That may not be statistically significant, so I just call them equally usually.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 10:08 PM
8

you're right sir and it does level the playing field. women are slightly more likely to abuse a child (in general) than a man, but only slightly. really, they're about equally likely. but really can we not just argue that gender isn't a relevant concern when it comes to abuse? that seems to be the good point. child abuse is done by both genders and it needs to stop.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 10:04 PM
6

no no, what he's saying is that because society thinks of men as abusers, the stories get reported more than the women who abuse, even though the numbers don't support it. our perception is validated by this and it continues to be true.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 10:02 PM
3

the problem with this study in particular is it doesn't taken into account the frequency which females are in charge (aka have opportunity) versus males. that said, the numbers I have still suggest the overall results put women at about 3% more likely to abuse a child in any given situation than a man.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 10:00 PM
2

the opinions are taken from all different sides of each issue. there are people who believe gun owners are crazy nuts, period (and, unless you use it for sport or for hunting, I'm on their side). there's a subsection of those who won't call a woman wanting a gun crazy for that reason. none of these are global opinions, which is good.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 04:17 PM
5

they haven't taken down Rick Perry's video yet
/r/MensRights10/12/11 12:51 PM
3

In a perfect world, you are right - ethics are more important than image. However, this is the 21st century where image is everything and ethics mean nothing. Any aspect of our society can show you that.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 12:50 PM
1

wasn't there a case in Europe recently where they found that insufficient sex was grounds for compensation or something? the guy won money. hats off to him - if you're in a committed relationship, you have needs, you get them taken care of or you remove the relationship. that goes for both genders.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 03:59 AM
6

as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that that problem is not unique to male subs/female doms - there are plenty of male "doms" out there who think that women should be subservient to all men. extreme versions of Gor fall under that for example (though there is such a thing as Gor-lite I find). also as a male submissive usually, I can vouch for the fact that there are controlling women out there who think a man's place is at their feet and no where else. I prefer to call them psychopaths…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 03:55 AM
6

FYI, for people who came to say that it's because women are more often in caregiver situations than men: I did some of my own personal math on that very question a few months back on this very subreddit and discovered that women are still abnormally high, even given their caregiver situation. A woman is about 4% more likely to be an abuser while being a caregiver than a man. all this does is dispell the "men are rapists, a woman would never do that" myth. Child abuse is still a serious problem, …
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:57 PM
2

huh? he said nothing of the sort?? your title is very misleading. he may be wrong but his comment isn't racism.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 12:17 AM
1

FYI: The Toronto Sun is also the paper that ran the anti-transgender ads during the elections here this year
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:07 AM
0

I hate to say this but this is the Sun. It is the most right-wing idiotic news paper we print in Canada. It is not worth wiping my ass with. Seriously.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:06 AM
0

most. awesome. thing. ever. xpost to /r/shutupandtakemymoney?
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:01 AM
1

this is not a violation of men's rights. however, it is an example of bias and discrimination in how society perceives people and an example of how some sections of the population are biased against men.
/r/MensRights26/11/11 08:49 PM
0

lol it reminds me of something that might be sold on /r/bdsm lol. Awesome cover.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 01:57 AM
1

also, now that I'm thinking straight in the morning, I'd like to point out that when you divorce, you normally get half the shared assets. That should be plenty for anybody to get back on their feet. If you're getting sole custody of a child in the deal (and therefore have higher costs), you'll be paid child support which, imho, should cover half the cost of raising the child. there's simply no good reason for this to exist any more in its current form.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:02 PM
6

I imply nothing about the current law, I was speaking to the historical context. The law was established to support somebody who was giving up all their assets when getting into a relationship. You no longer have to give up your assets. Therefore, why is this law still around? Why can't people support themselves when getting out of a relationship? If you can't support yourself, then that's what welfare is for. I could see if one person didn't work at all, short-term alimony might be valid to get…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 02:37 AM
26

I thought I'd share some of the wonderful things I just learned about alimony... It was established in England at a time where a woman gave up all rights to property and such at marriage (they became the mans and stayed the mans). It was designed to ensure she continued to be supported in the event of a divorce, since she would have no property or assets to support her. Makes sense - its enforcing the responsibility of the social contract between men and women at the time. They reformed the orig…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 05:48 PM
18

The best point I can think of to this article is pointing out how male teachers have been fired for less. Good example to use
/r/MensRights22/11/11 03:03 AM
1

I'm not speaking in general, I'm speaking that there are some women out there who understand an equal balance of power and some men who do too - in a relationship, that equality can work. in other places, it can't.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 03:54 AM
1

personally, I am anti-idiot. I believe in equality and equal opportunity for everybody. I am not anti-"feminist" even though I am pro-MRA, I am anti-feminazi (ie I am against the sect of feminism who promotes women as superior of men in any fashion) and I am anti-misogyny. I would run into a building to save anybody: woman, child or man. I would do it because I care about human life and gender be damned.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 10:33 PM
2

^ this comment. relationships are very flexible and different creatures. There's room for men to be dominate and women submissive. There's room for women to dominate and men to submit. There's room for a very equal balance of power. It all depends on what the individuals are comfortable with. the only issue I see is assuming that any of those ways are better than the other. as long as everybody consents, is happy and is still safe and secure in their life then there's no issues.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 10:28 PM
13

the point that maybe should be made is simple - if women can opt-out of paying for it, men can. If you can make a strong argument for why men should pay, then women should pay too. you can have it one way or another, not both.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 01:37 AM
2

m'yep, that would be the one
/r/MensRights13/11/11 03:21 PM
4

isn't there a novel along those lines where smart people have buzzing noises created in their brains? :) sounds like where we could be going!
/r/MensRights12/11/11 10:51 PM
1

in canada, in quebec, there was no college prep. it was high school one year, college the next, our grades were the sole thing used for our admissions (though certain advanced classes were required that were optional for high school students). I think SAT is definitely not essential, whatever way you put it. Just get rid of it.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 10:51 PM
1

so fired.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:22 AM
1

I think that, as a result of her motion, the school should only allow the dads to take the male children to school. Because, you know, the only reason I could see this making any sense is men aren't allowed in the women's bathroom and vice versa.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 03:32 AM
2

I agree, and I also think that, while rape claims are serious business, we need to relax on the men who are accused of them just a bit and remember that they're innocent until proven guilty as well. Treat them like any other criminal suspect - if I walked down to the police station and told them "hey, I just witnessed a murder over on Elgin and Laurier", sure they'd be over there investigating but they wouldn't be arresting people until they had proof.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 10:22 PM
2

this, a thousand times this.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 10:19 PM
2

those are terrible questions? who the hell said that. shoot them.
/r/MensRights19/10/11 10:18 PM
2

I agree with your overall point - this is a very tragic occurrence and not something to be celebrated. Men and women should both feel equally safe, regardless of gender (or race for that matter, or sexual orientation or... well anything other than the large machete or gun pointed at you). There is a nice touch of hypocrisy in that men are now afraid of women as they were once afraid of men. They've reclaimed the night and are now pushing men out of it entirely. As for the exact meaning of the id…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 10:16 PM
0

you want proof? Go read the study he cited. 5% of all people did not provide an eligible response. Among the answers, 0.4% identified as "other" (ie not straight, gay or bisexual). 3.6% are questioning or refused to answer. 0.7% answered "No response". 1% are gay and 0.4% are bi. Only 94% identified themselves as "straight". Let's be upfront about this, there's little reason for a straight person to answer anything else on the survey. That would indicate 6% of people are potentially gay. 5% is c…
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:59 PM
1

It's also a question of how you identify. You may not be interested in marrying a man, but still identify as bi or heteroflexible (like me). What the study says is 1.5% voluntarily identified themselves as gay (among the population 16+). If apply that to the UK's male population above 16, that gives us about 371,000 gay men. That's 371 THOUSAND people who are affected by this. That's a lot of people.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:57 PM
2

1.5% are willing to identify themselves as gay or bi. It is likely higher.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:02 AM
5

the argument can be made that lesbians are far more accepted that gay men. from that perspective, it could be a men's right issue
/r/MensRights14/10/11 02:02 AM
2

upvote for a sane answer!
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:54 AM
2

Sexual abuse only accounts for 6.5% of all abuse cases. Only 0.2% of all children are sexually abused (I hate saying only, but its a really small number). It shouldn't impact the court's decision that strongly to deny men custody.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:03 AM
5

There are large issues with the data used - what about non-traditional family structures (poly or lesbian/gay couples). How much time is spent with each parent? What kind of abuse are we talking about? Physical? Emotional? Sexual? What defines sexual abuse? There's so much involved with this math that it's very difficult to determine exactly what's going on. The end result is the OP's point is still valid - the abuse figures are not strong enough from any view point to justify the huge proportio…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:00 AM
8

I just pulled numbers from one of the other links here. Based on your family structure data and the 2009 data from here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/can/stat_natl_state.cfm (breaking down abuse by gender and ignoring the data with no gender attached), I can conclude the following things: Women were involved in 450,000 cases of child abuse. Men were involved in just over 300,000 cases. Women are 25% more likely to be in a guardian position. A child is 49% more likely to be a…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 03:50 AM
8

you don't win over your enemies by telling them to fuck off
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:16 PM
1

_^ what are you talking about? All I said is we need to aim for equality for both sexes and all genders. Women are getting better. Men are not. Some women trample on the rights of men - some, not all. We need to fix that by protecting our rights. But not by trampling on theirs back. The only point I meant to make with the "better than feminists" line is that we are currently complaining about how their equality movement turned into a "trample on men's right" joyride for some of them. Take care y…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 12:47 AM
2

I think your example is highly over-exaggerated. Women still face a decent number of issues, though they are getting better. Men's biggest problem is that we're not getting better - we just stagnant. But don't take away from women's quest for equality and respect, no matter their choice in life. To do so is to be no better than the "feminists" we criticize.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 04:06 AM
4

I disagree. I think you're reacting too far the other way. Its manly to stand up and say "Look, enough is enough. Men are people too. We have the right to be as manly or as womanly as we want. Women have equality to be all that they want to be. Men should have that freedom too". Your statement is just going to make things worse.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 10:06 PM
10

its true, there are factions that criticize women no matter what. there are factions that criticize men no matter what. they all need to frak off.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 10:04 PM
2

You're not the bad guy. Sexual attraction is important in a relationship. Focus on your lack of sexual attraction and your lack of things in common. Emphasize that there's nothing wrong with how she looks, you've just lost connection and bigger women are just not your thing (some guys, like me, would love such a woman). Keep your side clean - don't slander back. Accept that a lot of her friends may not like you any more and you may need to cut them out of your life. And really, this should be in…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 01:13 AM
0

addition: study on gender colour differences. I might as well back up one of my statements eh. http://www.colormatters.com/color-symbolism/gender-differences
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:02 AM
4

Ok, here's the problem people. STOP RELYING ON STATISTICS. Statistics mean very little. To look at the population and say 2 out of 3 senior managers are male (1 out of 3 being female as is suggested by some reply below) means nothing. It doesn't indicate a "glass ceiling". It doesn't qualify as proof men are keeping women down. It indicates there is, perhaps, a barrier for women to enter the senior management position if its statistically significant (We're talking 33.33% compared to 50% ideal s…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:00 AM
1

2 male managers for every 3 total. Not bad. Your point about misleading statistics is valid. Very valid. Have upvotes.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 01:49 AM
20

if the adult didn't matter, why not show a mix of genders and races? to focus on one is to put a subliminal message in that men are abusers and women are not. and to be clear, the article is a bit absurd. Who says we'd need to show both in one ad. Just show a mix in different ads. Hell if businesses can add a token black person in most of their advertising these days, you can certainly add a token female in your anti-abuse campaigns. I know a -lot- of abusive parents and they're probably about e…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:29 AM
3

thats the point - the point is to call attention to difference between the races / genders
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:21 AM
2

Its good to see not all feminists are crazy fembots.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:59 AM
1

I like one of those comments that said moderate feminists who believe in real equality should call themselves "egalitarians" or "humanists". I think a humanism movement would be really good for the world
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:37 AM
0

I'm curious and I'd like your opinion on this if you ever come back here please - how is it mistaken exactly? She could be trans and identify as female?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:15 AM
1

agree - gender is not just man/woman. That is why we have the word "gender" and it differs in meaning for "sex". Gender is a large continuum and even a lack of gender is possible. Work in the trans community for a bit and we'll talk Dude :)
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:11 AM
3

Nope, totally disagree. "Gender" is not just a feminist twist. The word has a different meaning from "sex" and it affects the trans community as well. "Gender" reflects a personal choice on how you appear in public. "Sex" refers to the physical organs hanging between your legs. As you see, its an essential concept for the transgender community and alternative gender community - it gives them something to change without messing around with their sex. EDIT: It appears Wiki has slightly hoisted me …
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:07 AM
3

its a fair question. assuming that they don't have to physically appear before a judge, it could certainly solve a lot of problems (such as two gay parents, etc). Just erase gender and names from all court documentation that the judge sees and let him make a decision based on facts (Person A versus Person B). Is there an issue with this I don't see? Besides the cost to the taxpayers to have court documents re-edited? Of course, it sucks that we'd -have- to do this. A judge is supposed to be impa…
/r/MensRights25/09/11 01:14 AM
2

As a man, I do this too.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 09:15 PM
1

WHAT UP DUDE! ARE YOU AS FRUSTRATED AT OCTRANSPO AS ME?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 09:07 PM
1

Damn you Oprah. DAMN YOU!
/r/MensRights23/09/11 01:57 AM
2

Scumbag State fires male teachers for daring to talk to female students. Complains there aren't enough teachers. (I feel like I'm living in some kind of insane madhouse these days)
/r/MensRights23/09/11 01:55 AM
0

Christianity is a different case I think. In the case of Catholicism in particular, its fair to attack the Church itself, since the Church supports (or at least, does not excommunicate) those who support the radical-right Christian beliefs. That means the Church is part of the problem. Individual Christians may be fine and Christianity itself has done some good things but the organization behind it is corrupt these days. And its not just Phelps or McVeigh or the late (thankfully) Falwell. The Po…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:07 AM
1

And don't blame us for using the word feminist the way we do. There are too many people out there who claim to be simple "feminists" and are corrupting the cause and young women. These influences need to be countered. Maybe its time we started a new campaign called "equality for all" focused on removing barriers for all genders/sexes, all lifestyles, all sexual orientations and all types of people.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 03:58 AM
1

Here's possibly what you're saying and why people will disagree with you. Feminism, as a word, can refer to in some situations as the true quest for male-female equality. In that sense, its perfect okay word. The problem is that modern day culture has given birth to a growing subsection of feminism that I like to call neo-nazi feminism (or as you call it "radical feminism"). It is replacing the "equality" feminist movement and becoming more and more widespread. Their tenant is that, because wome…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 03:55 AM
3

I think this is a fair testing method for bigotry in general. I dub it the Bobsutan method in honor of Stigler's Law and formalize it as such To test for bigotry in a situation between two people, replace the person(s) you suspect of being a bigot with a white man and the other person(s) with a black man. Ask the question "Would this situation be considered racist". If your reaction is yes, then you've found bigotry. Now if only we could train everybody to use it and avoid bigotry before they sp…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 03:45 AM
10

name not withstanding, the link does make me worried. but its only one example. Hardly a history of it and it is his personal opinion, not necessarily an indictment of all transsexuals (just he wouldn't want to sleep with one). That said, one issue that does come up a lot here recently is the idea of two drunk people having sex and the woman calling rape. I would say that calling rape against a post-op transsexual because she didn't tell you and you were too drunk to notice is pretty fucking stu…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:40 AM
1

I picked the most extreme examples :D
/r/MensRights18/09/11 07:55 AM
1

Note there's a difference between saying "we shouldn't xpost on /mr to anti-male threads on reddit" and "we shouldn't RESPOND to anti-male threads on reddit" Nobody is saying anything about preventing you from replying when you see an anti-male post. In fact, I would suggest we encourage it and that you come to /mr for facts and figures to back up your well reasoned argument. Get involved in the conversation by all means. What people are saying is that the minor "we hate men" posts are flooding …
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:10 PM
7

Isn't there a "report abuse" feature on Facebook? Last time I checked, it was against FB's ToS to post statements of hatred like this in public. Get her banned, its the least you can do for society.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:38 PM
1

Mmmm downvotes for your hideously inappropriate use of the word lesbians.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:36 PM
2

Facebook has had pirate for 5-6 years now.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:32 PM
1

Add the comment... Man: http://blog.oregonlive.com/fashion/2007/10/large_Calvin%20Klein%20MAN.jpg Pig: http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/08/03/pig.jpg You see the difference?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 12:32 PM
3

What barryballsagna (eww gross) said. People have a sex determined by your genitalia (hence sex-change operation is appropriate). People have a gender determined by your personal choice on how you identify and is far more diverse than sex. I know, its not something you run into every day, but be in the GLBT community long enough and you won't make that mistake again :D
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:50 PM
2

It is nice to see good stories
/r/MensRights06/09/11 11:37 PM
2

Dude, this shit is fucked up
/r/MensRights23/08/11 11:58 PM
1

lol - I think people were thinking you meant the hostesses would come to the table, not the cows.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 12:47 PM
17

Dude, I would totally eat at a restaurant with 400lb cows and hostesses. Steak then a tumble with a lusciously large lady. Doesn't get better than that!!
/r/MensRights21/08/11 09:14 PM
-4

this. Its called equality and its really lacking. Generally I am a nice person to everyone, regardless of gender but... If a woman hits me, I hit her back, just like I would a man. If a woman calls me a bastard / dick, I feel free to call them a bitch / cunt if the deserve it. If a woman doesn't hit on me at least a little bit, I ain't going anywhere with her.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 05:34 PM
2

According to this link*(sp edit) right now, women think 80% of men are "below average" because of "Error establishing a database connection". I think that about sums it up?
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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