TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

overcontrol Archive

View 2 posts and 794 comments by overcontrol on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Generalovercontrol/r/MensRights13/05/15 04:35 AM
0

overcontrol/r/MensRights26/09/13 05:44 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Do you have any stats to show women being more likely than men to do this? It's not unusual for a person to abandon an ill partner.
/r/MGTOW10/07/17 10:21 PM
1

Actually, you can call dibs on a guy and it's a rather trivial action. It's as if you're claiming ownership or anything like that. I hate when feminists make stupid inferences like that. You're just claiming the first opportunity to make an impression, so that he doesn't get swarmed.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 03:30 AM
1

It was only a matter of time. For too long have MRAs stared into the abyss.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 02:20 AM
1

Some would. I'm talking specifically about the some who would. I don't think it amounts to a small number, and I tired of people pretending they don't exist. But what I find is that if you're dissatisfied on your own, you'll be dissatisfied in a relationship. This is like saying if you're dissatisfied without a car, then you'll be dissatisfied with a car. It's simply untrue, especially in a conversation about transportation. Given that this is a conversation about men's desire to bond, it should…
/r/MensRights15/09/16 04:53 AM
1

Relationships don't have to be bad or abusive. If were talking about just what is needed or easy, then I think childlessness and masturbation have had that covered for a long time now. If we're talking about satisfaction, I think many men would be dissatisfied if they didn't have intimate relationships with women.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 08:12 AM
1

If we give the accused who deny the accusation the presumption of credibility, everything would fall apart. It's an inherently ridiculous concept. Presumption of innocence is something that can be given to both parties. Accusers are given the same presumption of innocence that the accused are given, in that we presume they are not lying. Better yet, accusers tend not even to be charged of a crime for which they'd need the presumption of innocence. The doubt that accusers face is also not differe…
/r/MensRights14/09/16 07:18 AM
1

A lot of women don't want to settle down, too. I think both men and women are weary of marriage, though for different reasons. Consider that in recent decades, women are more educated than their male counterparts. That alone should decrease the desirability of marriage for many women.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:46 AM
2

I suspect many men will still want a feminine companion to bond with even when sex and reproduction are open access. If your sex bots have the sophistication to be worthy of person-hood, then not just women but all of humanity would be obsolete.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:54 AM
3

Not really. It's more like flipping the genders on the feminist who says women deserve financial independence to be free from men.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 05:47 AM
4

It's absolutely hilarious to see a mirror held up to feminist bickering.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 02:03 AM
1

The parts of society that women dominate are child care, primary education, social work, and nursing. They are in authority positions over the most vulnerable people out there, e.g. children, the poor, and the ill or injured.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 08:49 PM
2

Everyone here is saying that soldiering is worse. I'm not saying either is worse. I'm saying that they are in the same league, and it is subjective to decide that one is worse than the other. The notion of female oppression generally comes as a result of completely ignoring the problems men face and focusing exclusively on the problems women face. That is really my main point here. I'm not fighting for the title of the biggest victim. I don't want to fight over whether apples are better than ora…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 08:24 PM
1

Stop generalizing people. Organisms like stuff in general.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 06:24 PM
3

I'm sure if women did the soldiering and men did the prostituting, we'd hear about how lucky the men were to be getting laid every day while the poor women were out facing the horrors of war. But since men do the soldiering and women do the prostituting, instead the narrative is that the men got to play CoD in real life and the women were sexually assaulted regularly.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:30 PM
11

Women and men were given apples and oranges. If you really like oranges you'll say women got the raw deal. If you really like apples you'll say men got the raw deal. The parallel to a woman in a brothel would not be mutilation but would be a man in military service. Real life combat brings about all sorts of trauma. It seems to me that men have to go through much worse things than women for you to have the same amount of sympathy.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 03:44 AM
1

I think that they think you are a douche for reasons other than the $10 comment, because the comment itself doesn't say much.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:52 PM
6

Didn't any of those girls attend the "She Fears You" lecture?
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:43 PM
1

Everyone should.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:31 PM
1

You don't see "typically a man" under soldier or under miner. There isn't really any reason to add in gender, and they don't do it in other places, so why for this word?
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:28 PM
5

but it seems like the gender basis to it isn't really the issue In this case gender is incidental. This is actually a lot like the binman thing where the fact that binmen, who incidentally are mostly men, where getting paid more was considered discrimination against women. If gender weren't incidental here, I have a feeling it would have been even harder for them to win this case.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:10 PM
1

I didn't consent to that scenario Bullshit. You had legal options. You did consent. You made a choice based on morals you got to decide for yourself, not on morals that the government decided for you. I am not going to let you ignore this detail. What you are proposing is that my (now ex) husband would have gotten You are even acknowledging the difference right here. You assume that if there is no legal coercion, there is nothing stopping your husband from doing whatever he pleases. He doesn't h…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:51 PM
1

I do take the advice of wearing a condom to avoid having children. I do advise other men to do the same. I don't believe anyone who offers such advise to be victim blaming. I am advocating that men not be forced into fatherhood without consent, which in your analogy would be analogous to advocating that the rape of women be illegal. The other side is advocating that men who impregnate a woman be forced into fatherhood, which in your analogy would be analogous to advocating that it be legal to ra…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 08:31 PM
1

I think there are two things about it that bugs me. First is that it seems minimizing even if not intentional. It makes it seem like the OP is complaining about men not having enough restaurants to choose from. I think that sending out the message that men won't just accept blatant discrimination will result in more than just getting men a discount at a restaurant. I could be wrong. Second it seems off topic. I know this is Men's Rights, but this topic is about a certain case and the question se…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 11:50 PM
-1

In this case, it means that you have to treat a woman as though she has a lot to offer you outside of sexual intimacy--despite the fact that she hasn't offered you anything.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 11:10 PM
1

She can claim that she was on the pill, and if she is lying you are still on the hook. The condom can break, and you are on the hook. She can rape you, and you are still on the hook. The sex can be protected and she can take the condom for the trash to impregnate herself, you are on the hook. She can initially never want to have children, but change her mind when pregnant and you are on the hook. This isn't even some rare thing. There are horror stories all over Reddit about cases like this. It …
/r/MensRights23/04/14 11:07 PM
1

I see creepy having two use cases: 1) The person lacks social skills and doesn't respect boundaries. 2) The person is not a good person, but I can't be bothered to give any reason as to why that is. It could be the person using the word is just prejudice or shallow and doesn't want to admit this. Maybe they are just being too lazy to go into details. Either way, I don't think any less of a person who gets described as being creepy by a woman. A lot of woman have very creepy fantasies, e.g. Twili…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:51 PM
1

These kinds of issues are, in my estimation at least, pretty small compared to other problems that actually affect men's lives. It's not the sort of thing I would get worked up about. What do you mean by these kinds of issues? Many men aren't affected much by being cut. Many men would not be affected by being required to go to the back of the bus. On the other hand, no one is try to deny male DV victims shelter so much as divert scarce resources to female DV victims. So it looks to me that you a…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 10:31 PM
6

It's a play on the double meaning of "sleeping with someone".
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:55 PM
0

Women enjoy sex, so why are they offended by men asking for sex on a dating site?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:30 PM
1

Then perhaps you should ask the hoards of single moms who do the exact thing the original poster fears.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:22 PM
1

$300. per month. Do you need an explanation as to why someone would want to get $300 a month for 18+ years?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:13 PM
3

If a study came out telling you that young adults with employment are more likely to move out of their parent's home, would you infer from this statistic that children are shallow, only loving their parents over money?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 09:06 PM
2

What makes you think that any woman has the slightest interest in having a baby with you? You need an explanation why someone would want to get 18 years of checks from someone else?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 08:39 PM
1

Her body, her wallet.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 07:12 AM
19

I wouldn't wish 18 years of child support and parental alienation on my worst enemy.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 06:45 AM
5

The wife's choice to leave or stay based on the husband's employment tells us about how she view her husband. The husband's choice to stay or leave based on his own employment does not tell us anything about how he views his wife.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 06:43 AM
6

"My body my choice" efficacy: Conscription - Bzzzt Circumcision - Bzzzt Abortion - Ding ding ding!
/r/MensRights23/04/14 06:13 AM
6

Also if you read the article you see that husbands are shallow in a different way: they're less likely to end an unhappy marriage if they're unemployed and their wife is not, so they ride it out for the money more. How exactly is that shallow?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 06:09 AM
3

It has nothing to do with my feelings. The reason feminism is overwhelmingly white is because western countries are overwhelmingly white. Even within feminism you have black feminists telling white feminists how privileged they are. They make it a sport of who has the worst hand. In reality, if we want to entertain this privilege game, we should all divided based on whether we grew up in a single mother home or not. Make everyone apologize to the children of single mothers. We've all got a head …
/r/MensRights14/01/14 08:33 AM
3

If you want to paint a picture of privilege to me, stick with phrases like "college educated". In the case of a minor "middle class" and "upper class" will do. I find the association of privilege with race as obnoxious as the association of injury with ambulances. The principles behind it lead to all sorts of moral bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:51 AM
2

Rape culture is such an abstract concept that any discussion over its existence is utterly inconsequential. Okay, rape culture exists, now what? Keep your discussion at a policy level. Male-only lectures about sexual violence? No. Preponderance standards for alleged rapists? Hell no.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 05:35 AM
1

Next Up: Five rules for people who want to give her money in exchange for being in her presence.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 04:36 AM
1

A lot of people say "words have meaning". I say "don't argue definitions". The easiest way to avoid NAFALT is to accept their definitions and just disagree with the conclusions. Just use the word misandrist instead of feminist. If you need to make the distinction between feminist and traditionalist, just say anti-patriarchy misandrist and pro-patriarchy misandrist respectively. What really matters at the end of the day is the issues. No amount of definition bending can change the principles at p…
/r/MensRights14/01/14 04:23 AM
34

think i must be crazy too. But i'm not crazy. This country hates straight white men, and we are not privileged, in fact we are hated and disadvantaged. And this is a dangerous country for us and any sane straight white male would leave the country for asia. That is fact, and This applies to schools and colleges, but once you get into the real world and associate with people who are actually productive, it changes.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 03:58 PM
1

CEOs are not owners. Shareholders are.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 06:56 AM
1

Feminists don't deny that male rape isn't taken seriously. They just don't talk about it, because they want to make it a women's issue.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 10:49 PM
0

No. A fetus is not a person. A hobo is. Fuck you. Fuck you right in the ass. Are you building houses for these hobos? No? Then shut the fuck up.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 09:14 PM
130

That looks standard.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 12:03 AM
1

I came here to let it be known that voting for man hating bigots will not save men from stupid wars and bad economies.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:40 AM
1

I accept that Republicans go to war and do damaging things to the economy. I don't accept that Democrats don't go to war and don't do damaging things to the economy. I don't think it is out of the question to suggest that Democrat policies have cost people their jobs. A: Black people steal shit B: So do whites, why are you implying only blacks steal? A: That's a straw man
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:58 PM
0

Vietnam was the last conscripted war. It was the last war where you could honestly argue that men were sent off to war non voluntarily. You seem to think that war is a Republican thing when Obama has no problem with intervening in Libya and Syria. Republicans and Democrats both go to war for slightly different reasons. Democrats are only anti-war when a Republican is waging an unpopular one. Look, you made the claim that implies Republicans exclusively wage wars and exclusively destroy jobs. I t…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 09:56 PM
1

Last conscripted war was Vietnam, and it happened under LBJ's watch. Plenty of jobs were killed under Obama's watch. Not a very clever comeback in hindsight, was it?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:48 AM
1

It works both ways with comedians.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:02 AM
3

Bullshit. MensRights has a bad reputation because of it's ideological stance. People don't want men to abandon their gender role.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 04:15 AM
7

They SHOULD quote Wiktionary. rapist - A person who commits rape. misandry - The hatred of, pathological aversion to, or prejudice against men. sexism - The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 07:47 PM
0

No, it's not false. If a pro-lifer has an accidental pregnancy and does not abort, they have lived up to their own standard--plain and simple. Many will go beyond that and take care of the child or find it a suitable home. Yet you seem to think that if someone were to advocate against the killing of hobos, then it is their duty to go around building houses for hobos until every person has a home. Anything less would make them a hypocrite. What nonsense!
/r/MensRights27/09/13 07:31 PM
9

It's not a dilemma, hypothetical or otherwise. Also, if standing up for men's rights makes a man unworthy of a woman's love, then I wouldn't put much stock in such love anyway.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 11:44 PM
10

What do you mean by dilemma? There is no rock and hard place. There is only a rock and an easy place. That's not a dilemma, that's a no-brainer.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 10:47 PM
3

I strongly doubt that you will find anyone that disagrees with Sarkeesian's argument. Yes, there are problematic depictions of women in video games. Yes, we should all be aware of them. The video game community lashed out at those who tried to censor violent video games believing that it encourages violent behavior among children. I simply cannot accept the notion that violent video games have no effect in encouraging violence, but at the same time any negative depiction of women in video games …
/r/MensRights26/09/13 10:37 PM
3

There are plenty of pro-lifers are taking care of children that were conceived accidentally.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:33 PM
2

The groups which actively oppose Men's Rights are self proclaimed feminists. Personally I would rather call them what they are: misandrists. However it seems the overwhelming majority of MRA call them feminists, because that is what they call themselves. What makes the MRM incompatible with the modern feminist ideology is Patriarchy theory. There is just no way MRA are going to blame the male gender for all gender inequality. There is no compromise here. That is why there is a lot of antagonism …
/r/MensRights26/09/13 08:56 AM
5

I'd had a couple conversations with people my age that frequent this sub that seem to have the idea that women by and large are treated with higher regard than men and have an easier time of it by and large. Is this the case? It's not that men have it easier, but that there are so many ways in which innocent men can be thrown under the bus and have their lives destroyed with legal impunity despite the fact that there are plenty of safety nets to protect women from the exact same issues. So men a…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 07:59 AM
1

This is an old video by an MRA called "SaveTheMen" who made some awesome videos for a short period of time and then went AWOL. This video makes me grateful as a man for not being born in an era of conscription.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 05:48 AM
6

We believe that preventing domestic and sexual violence is primarily the responsibility of men. We love people who hold men primarily responsible for the bad things (not the good things though) in life.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 06:52 AM
-1

Straight white men are the only demographic that doesn't already have a pity party thrown for them, so that vacuum makes men's rights an easier sell. It's a shame that there are so many racists here that think there is shame in the MRM having a large population of white males.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:24 AM
8

Sometimes it is worse.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:46 AM
2

C would ultimately degenerate into what we currently have.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:38 PM
9

Misogyny: the hatred of women "Here's a good starting template." Misandry: the hatred of men "Hmm, this definition looks like an old boy's club." Misandry: the hatred of men by women "Perfect."
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:34 AM
2

So what do you call a woman who commits a rap? A repette? Rapistine? Rapess?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:25 AM
6

Intent doesn't matter, the fact is that Trayvon was doing nothing illegal and he is dead because he was followed by someone who perceived him as a criminal based on his MALENESS & Blackness. This isn't a crime.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 03:52 AM
5

committed by black murderers just as white murders are usually committed by white murderers. Murder is not the issue, it's the fact that Trayvon was perceived as "dangerous" and hunted and killed simply because he was a black male wearing a hoody. Anytime an innocent person is murdered simply because of their race, gender &/or or skin color, there will be outrage I don't think it is any more fair to assume Zimmerman is a racist based on evidence than it is to assume that Martin was up to no good…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:58 PM
2

Yeah, it's bad PR because it is easily misinterpreted and very hard to concisely explain to the public. This is particularly dangerous when the media already is not on our side. I wish there was a better way. I'm much better prefer: MEN ALONE CAN'T STOP RAPE. Eliminating gender roles in sexual violence. Yeah yeah, it's not that great, but I still think it's a lot harder to dismiss and misinterpret and a lot easier to defend and follow up on.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:18 PM
2

example than anything else. I guess my rage meter needs to get recalibrated, because I didn't immediately catch that An example would be an anecdote, not a general statement. I don't think this is rage worthy at all. I see it as just another tally on the wall. I believe most misandry is just benign and innocent, but when it all is compiled together it becomes notable and worthy of concern.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 09:57 PM
1

To Venker, the greatest tragedy in this all is... the lack of good husband material. You're right, her intentions are not noble. But I wouldn't say they're sinister either. It's not sinister to want a husband. It's an improvement over the women wanting a husband and accusing men of Peter Pan Syndrome.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 12:30 PM
16

Only 40 per cent??? What happened to equality??? Will this oppression never end??? It won't end until patriarchy is defeated. 1 in 4 women wake up one day to find their privately owned American business was scooped up by the patriarchy and handed over to a privileged man.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 12:16 PM
1

This argument doesn't make sense to me. We never left the disposable provider/producer model. How can we return to it? What do these traditionalists have to gain, really?
/r/MensRights14/07/13 12:08 PM
1

Men should effectively organize, and the only effective way to organize is to create local, county by county, Men's Voting League's. Seriously, look around you, many counties have Women Voter League's. Why can't we do the same? Lots of guys are afraid to lose their jobs and educational opportunities. That is why so many MRAs have kept themselves anonymous, and I can't really blame them. However, I'm with you in wishing we formed a physical group and perform physical protests in spite of it all. …
/r/MensRights14/07/13 12:04 PM
1

Almost everyone is happy for GWW's success. The issue is that an MRA like manwomanmyth has a fraction of the subscribers that GWW. There is no merit-based justification for this. Imagine if MLK had been marching for years and some white guy named Alex came along. If the cops don't hose him down or unleash dogs, I'm sure everyone would agree it's because his message was better and his race had nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 11:48 AM
29

descriptive, not prescriptive. It is entirely accurate to say that the word sexism is usually used to describe discriminatory attitudes towards You won't see them put "(usually of men)" in the definition of conscription. Bias is best practiced by what you chose to insert and omit.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:06 AM
0

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people try to downplay the significance of something. It's such a cliche concern trolling tactic. Significance it determined at an individual level. What you're doing it equivalent to arguing over which TV show is better, unable to accept that different people have different tastes. But there are two cherries on top: Enough people where interested in this topic to get it to the top of r/MensRights The vague threat that there is some greater issue that is being …
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:10 PM
-1

...and then I offered mine.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 07:04 PM
-2

Someone posted this because they thought it was a legitimate issue. You don't think it's a legitimate issue, but some people do. You gotta understand that you can speak for everyone on what you think is major or minor.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:57 AM
3

If they were to try to kill us, it would be done by fellow men.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:38 PM
2

Actually I was on their site reading how about they'd be an equal opportunity drafter, drafting the rich and the poor a like. It just comes off as bizarre regardless of what they do.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 03:40 AM
1

So then a cheap textbook one you obtain when you sneak into the press and yoink it away when no one is looking? Really? It's just semantics. Hikes are cheap, and samples are inexpensive.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 03:28 AM
2

I have similar fears but they have never caused me to be unhappy in life, just uncomfortable in certain situations. Thus I don't understand why your lumping the fear of women with depression. If you're depressed, then that is a completely different problem in and of it's self. The only problem with the therapy route is that there are a lot of asshole therapists, some of which are misandric and are going to make you feel even MORE uncomfortable in your life. If you feel you should do it though, t…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 10:17 PM
2

Ignore sexual, and just consider the word objectification. Wikipedia has: Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes; Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination; Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency; Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another; Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable; Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 09:58 PM
1

Yep, I was talking about r/Feminism specifically. In r/Feminism almost all the bystanders are going to believe that feminism is valid, and anyone challenging that has automatically given them reason to think that whatever else comes out of their post is nonsense.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 09:42 PM
6

Even at my college sexual safety orientation, which was a year ago, they straight out said that a man can not be raped. He can only be sexually assaulted. This is the number one tactic that feminists will use. A man can have his anus torn and need 17 stitches and and it's just a sexually assault, you know like when a kid touches a girl's butt. You downplay the suffering of men by equivocating their experience with lesser experiences, and up play the inconveniences of women by equivocating them t…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 09:37 PM
1

Many people have superstitions or paranoia that leads them to have nonsensical precautions. They share it with others in hopes of keeping them safe. They're not blaming victims, they're just naive. This isn't even more applicable to rape than to any other tragedy. There are plenty of superstitions thrown about when it comes to driving safety which aren't true. The only difference is you don't have drivers going to the streets doing "Drivers Walks" because driving isn't as sensationalized.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 09:19 PM
1

You don't even need anecdotal testimony, because I don't think they're impartial enough to acknowledge it. They pretty much claimed that more than 50% of men in a divorce only go after custody so they don't have to pay child support. Even assuming this is true, what does it say about the legitimacy of the child support system? If the child gets support, then why should it be a win/lose for the child/father when it could be a win/win?
/r/MensRights11/11/12 08:55 PM
1

Why would you even concern yourself with whether or not a person is "male, white, Christian, skinny, not balding" (A people) if you know for a fact that the person is not "growing up healthy, educated, and having doors of employment open" (B people). Shouldn't a not-B person deserve just as much help whether or not they are an A person? Also it's possible to not be an A person yet be a B person. (I took out middle class from A people because it doesn't fit.)
/r/MensRights11/11/12 08:20 PM
2

Never said people should agree with my fundamentals. I said you have to find a place where you and the person agree and start from there. You can't convince a person of something otherwise.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 08:02 PM
1

Only half right. Domestic violence should just be called violence, because all domestic abuse cases concern some law that already exist on the books. Also, since most violence in general is perpetrated against men, should we call all violence just male violence? Doesn't hold up anymore, does it.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 10:42 PM
1

Yeah, that's partly what I want to get across. Limiting the institution of government only limits the institutional of bigotry.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 10:21 PM
4

You are already using rhetoric. Why is your rhetoric better than the rhetoric I suggested? And I'm not talking about tiptoeing around feelings. It's really more about establishing common ground, but coming to different conclusions from the same premise. If there is no fundamental agreement, then there isn't any discussion--only bickering.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 10:14 PM
0

I can't accept this excuse. I won't claim that Romney would be a better candidate for men's rights. I won't claim that there aren't issues that one might find more important even if Romney was in someway a better candidate for men's rights. I'm claiming that even if Obama is the best candidate, it still doesn't excuse his pandering to feminists or his misandry. First of all, it has nothing to do with Obama being smarter than Romney. Romney knows how much flack he gets by not pandering to feminis…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:56 PM
-1

I don't know. All I am saying is that if you give more freedom to people, then social bigotry will have the power instead of institutionalized bigotry.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:35 PM
5

Yeah, I acknowledge that somewhat, which is why I also said: Since it's highly unlikely that you're going to be the guy who gets them to reconsider their rules, you shouldn't waste time trying to change them. And even so, it's different to discuss the rules in stead of breaking them and then say the rules are bad as an excuse.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:21 PM
1

My only doubt is in the belief that if it is a socially ingrained problem, then the boycotting won't happen, and the ultimate decision makers in the lawsuits will not rules against acts of misandry.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:52 PM
70

I don't completely agree with you. Every community is going to have some loop hole in free speech by labeling certain types of speech as obscene (e.g. pornography, hate speech). When it's a completely voluntary community like a subreddit, you pretty much just have to accept it. If you criticized feminism, directly then you disobeyed the rules, period. You don't get to set the rules. If you want to post in r/Feminism, then you have to respect their rules. Since it's highly unlikely that you're go…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:41 PM
2

How exactly do you leverage the privilege?
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:09 AM
7

Never worry about semantics or definitions when talking about subjects. Look past it, look for the underlying concepts. It's best to ask people to define the terms they are using. A lot of discussion is clouded with semantic trickery. If you force them to anchor to an explicit definition, then they can not have an implicit definition that shifts around to be convenient to the current tangent. If they say "You know what it means" or "Don't play dumb", tell them that you just want to be on the sam…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 08:07 AM
2

Its that you don't understand that the assumption that rape is generated failures to be safe on the part of victims, is victim blaming. More semantic bullshit. You come up with a word or phrase and have people associate it with a phenomenon that has a lot of shock value. This way, people will inherently have negative feelings about the word or phrase. Then you expand its definition to include, especially by technicality, both mild and harmless things. Hopefully people will not to think too hard,…
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:54 AM
78

I would actually prefer if it was a girl saving a man, not for the purpose of girl power, or to laugh at the man, but rather to show that men are worthy of being saved. But I'm not holding my breath.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:06 AM
2

So it's not that you don't understand the different between recommending safety and victim blaming, but that you don't understand the difference between expectations and recommendations?
/r/MensRights09/11/12 12:59 AM
6

None of these studies really matter. All the people who conduct them know they have to come to a politically correct conclusion or they'll loose their job like Larry Summers. There is no integrity here, except perhaps in the raw data that hasn't been analyzed or filtered. We're equal, it's just men are more evil, right? That why the prisons are filled with privileged men. No institutionalized misandry here.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 12:28 AM
-1

It's relevant because there was even more stupid back then than there is now, and you're holding people to a standard of modern context.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:56 PM
-1

The average 12 year old today is better educated than the typical person in those times. Is it elitist not to let 12-year-old kids vote?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:04 PM
3

I think you really have to gauge the person you're arguing with first. Figure out what they think about the inequality in suicide, homelessness, and incarceration. It is almost easier just to concede the wage gap if it means inequality of outcomes is considered evidence of injustice. Why? It's because the inequality in outcomes for things like prison are just so overwhelmingly terrible for men, that issues like wage gap are blown out of the water. If they say "men are different" then things beco…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:20 AM
7

Unreal. I would never want to be in a relationship with someone who thinks shit like this as evidence of cheating. Either you have good reason to suspect cheating, then you should ask for an explanation. If it isn't satisfactory then leave. There is no point in having a relationship without trust.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:16 AM
1

You can't get bogged down with arguments about definitions. Just ask them "What do you call it when men forced into war based on their gender, if not sexism?" Act like you don't really care about what something is called, but rather that it is a real issue. Misandrists rely heavily on semantics. Let them have their way with definitions without distracting from the actual issue. Be warned, once their lexicons stop having power in debate, they'll likely resort to accusations and character assassin…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:53 AM
1

I refuse to respect woman who think like this.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:14 AM
1

If by the other side you mean feminism, IMO there is a need to make people aware of the foolishness of siding with people who are trying to undermine you. I see these "we should be building bridges between us and the feminists" thing often. I feel it is important to understand the other side before you team up with them. I think all the attempts at rebranding feminism are counterproductive. Feminism will always be known as the movement that liberated women, period. Your typical outsider is going…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:57 PM
1

When in a situation when two people did the exactly same thing, yet one can walk out and forget about it, meanwhile the other has to make difficult choices and can't possibly walk out and forget the matter, is not equality. This is misandric thinking. So men are stone cold creatures that can just abandon their children with no skin off their back, and women are unconditionally empathetic angels that haunted by their abortion? Don't accuse us of hatred towards women when you believe shit like thi…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:04 PM
9

Putting it into perspective: 67 million children worldwide don't go to school, over half are whites like me. It's as if being a child isn't sympathetic enough, because it could just be a bunch of boys.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 10:02 PM
2

I've seen plenty liberals with the same narrative. I think it's more of a common meme that not enough people challenge.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:43 PM
17

There are lots of guys who fall through the cracks. It's especially the case for autistic people. I don't understand how people think it's reasonable to just throw this minority under the bus rather than try to solve this problem.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:34 PM
1

What sort of situation are you talking about? Give me the specific scenarios and I'll walk through them.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 08:38 PM
2

Or they can find an insecure white knight, who has been made so insecure by the misandric public school system, looking for female validation, and have him do all that for them. Who says they haven't already succeeded? All a political office really gets you is blame for the world's problems. Backseat ruling is the best of both worlds.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:17 PM
1

"Crime is crime, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of crime we're talking about doesn't make sense." So can you stop alienating the victims of petty theft, you insensitive douche bags?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:03 PM
1

Things like this give me the impression that women are insecure, incompetent children. It makes me not want to associate with them entirely, at least until I next meet a reasonable woman. Yet this is somewhat mainstream and there are many women who think this way. If a man only pays half the date, and you take that as some sort of assessment of your worth, then you are being an irrational being. I won't tolerate that from men or women. The only person from whom I'd consider such train of thought…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:36 AM
1

Ultimately one party is going to be given more responsibility, and that would be the on who loses in the default arrangement. I don't understand your reasoning for putting more responsibility on the man. My reasoning for putting more responsibility on the woman is based on her having more control over the situation. Even if she morally opposes abortion and adoption, what matters is that she can still legally get one. There are plenty of men who would be morally opposed to abandoning their biolog…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:25 AM
1

It's not a statement that is capable of being confirmed or debunked. There is no objective measure of "real woman" or "real man". The latter is only used as a shaming tactic against men, the the former is only used in tandem with the latter to automatically validate a woman.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 10:22 AM
2

I also was very turned off by the definitions. I wouldn't go so far as to say the video was a waste of time, and saying that gives me the impression that you want issue itself to be squelched. This is the first time I've actually heard someone challenge the placement of fields like gender studies in universities. I've heard many people talk about how there should be a men's studies curriculum and I've heard about how useless gender studies is as a skill, but I've never actually seen it challenge…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:55 AM
1

My thoughts are basically take your solution and reverse it. That is, the default state is for men to have no responsibility, and a contract would be required to make him responsible. The man can then leave the contract at any time so long as the woman does no conceive before that point. In addition, a paternity test would be required to claim child support.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:20 AM
3

Well there are two competing factors. One is, as you mentioned, a deterrent from coming forward. The other is that false accusation becomes nonpunishable, as all you have to do is come forward once you've realized you're exposed.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 08:13 AM
3

When a woman gets pregnant, the man has no choice. There is no legal method of avoiding child support if the woman intents to have the child. He's being serious.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 04:28 AM
-1

How does "There are shitty men out there" have a place here? This is the one place where I'd hope to avoid the relentless bashing of my gender. Why is defending men here out of place?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:54 AM
8

Nowadays students at our school automatically assume that sexual assault reports are false because of the females who have done this recently. This is fine as long as they don't harass anyone who makes a report. Innocent until proven guilty is a good policy.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:26 AM
-2

I don't want the respect of people who treat men like an ATM. Misandrists will always hate this sub. How can reproductive choices NOT having a bearing in this situation? The only reason a father is singled out is because it's assumed he consented to having sex with some woman. The current legal system doesn't force women to have children just because they had sex, so neither should they do so for men.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:03 AM
-4

There are in fact shitty men out there who can't pay child support and make more babies. It's like complaining about a slave not doing enough work. He can't control what a woman does with her body. Basically, you're upset about the fact that this man is poor and is having sex. His partners and your sister weren't forced to have a baby. It was completely their choice whether they wanted to have a kid. Why do people blame the ones who didn't have the ultimate reproductive choices?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:46 AM
2

You claimed that organizing wouldn't get them anywhere when history says it did.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 10:26 PM
2

Stop victim blaming.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 08:10 AM
1

What part of not punching and not rushing the stage don't you understand? You're trying to compare a mild heckling to violence, and I find it a bit desperate.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:44 AM
1

He didn't punch anyone or rush the stage, so no it isn't enough justification.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:56 AM
1

They didn't make a hero of, let alone defend, the guy who interrupted a Kerry speech. I'm surprised you think MSNBC would have conservatives talking about such an issue when there are plenty of examples where the race card was immediately played when criticism of Obama was made.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:42 AM
1

What even is the reward? A sense of security... that has no legal weight.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:49 AM
-1

You wouldn't say you had sex and feel that you have been raped. You'd say you have been raped, straight up. The word sex wouldn't even come up, because it softly implies consent. Using the active voice also softly implies agency and control over the situation. A victim will use the passive voice and use words that imply a crime.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:35 AM
2

Absolutely. No one even cared when women have sex with young boys. They want you to believe that and 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is equivalent to a 40 year old having sex with a prepubescent child. They want you to think being pressured into having sex is equivalent to a violent rape. It's semantic nonsense.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:06 AM
1

This has little meaning, because the gaming community can by very hostile when it comes to competitive gaming. It was not considered much of a problem until women began receiving similar hostility.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:57 AM
-4

It's determined by who claims victimhood. A male claiming victimhood is not going to be taken as seriously, but that's because men don't claim it as often as women do. We see so many self posts here where men are abused or mistreated and yet at the end of the day, they don't report... They give some bullshit reason as to why they don't report. If a girl cries rape and you say 'tee hee, we had sex', then you're going to be shat on. It's rarely the case where a guy says 'No! She raped me!' You hav…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:41 AM
4

MSNBC would call them racists. Fox would disown them.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:24 AM
5

These are all good reasons for women not to get pregnant. They are not reasons for companies to subsidize pregnancy. Yes, it is a choice to get pregnant, but it is not a choice of what pregnancy does to your body. This rhetoric can be applied to anything. Shooting is a choice, but it is not a choice of what the bullet does to your body. Drugs are a choice, but it is not a choice of what they do to your body. Jumping from a cliff is a choice, but it is not a choice of what gravity does to your bo…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:07 AM
1

But if he didn't leave, he would be putting himself in more danger. If he should put himself in more danger, then where exactly is the stray man? The only thing a person should not do in such a situation is to put others in more danger than they already are, such as using someone else as a meat shield.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:29 AM
4

Nah. Misandric feminists always push for regimes which reward people with traditionally feminine traits. Their concept of independence and strength is phony, and can only exist in a sheltered society where the real dirty work is done under the hood. They want to hijack the language, and this is especially true for any words that positive and traditionally masculine. That way, masculinity ends up being about pigheadedness and violence, while femininity is about "strength" and caring.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 09:42 AM
0

It's because at the end of the day the only people who see objectification as a problem are prudish misandrists that want to demonize male sexuality.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 08:48 AM
9

I think of these things, and I hate. i am so ashamed to admit it, but i hate. I know in my forebrain that there are women who dont resent men for existing, and who think of men as human beings and not tools, children, or monsters. But in my long life, I have never met one. Don't be so presumptive about what other people are thinking and don't be so concerned about what they are thinking either way. How do you guys cope with society? How do you not just shut yourselves in and never come out? How …
/r/MensRights02/07/12 08:33 AM
2

All good parents should teach their sons to have a backup plan in case something like this happens to their son. It should be similar to the meme where the women who is about to get married has a secret stash of case just in case. In a normal world what this man did was common sense. In a misandric world, it seems heroic in the maverick sense.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:58 AM
1

I dunno how marching in streets dressing like uh..sexually liberated women can change anything. That's how they've always done things, and they've had a pretty successful track record.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:30 AM
0

Tell her that children spend a lot of time with female parents/guardians, female teachers, and female daycare providers. Tell her that women vote more than men. Tell her about laws like VAWA. These are systems. They discriminate systematically.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:12 AM
24

We had that at our college, I just wish they had urinals though.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 04:54 AM
1

They do if they marry up.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 04:43 AM
33

Men kill themselves -> Real victims are the women who have to clean up. Men killed in war -> Real victims are the women who live on. Men falsely accused -> Real victims are the women whose accusations aren't taken seriously. Even MRAs like to do this, thinking that framing it as a women's issue with help out. I'm tired of it. Men can't find a woman who will help maintain them and train them to fit into the current society. They fish don't need bicycles, yet the bicycles need fish?
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:39 AM
2

It's really interesting cause when reading it I almost felt like I was reading a gender-swaped page.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:39 AM
-3

On the same way government created crime to fight against it.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:36 AM
35

You have chosen celibacy anyway, so might as well go all the way. I'm so tired of anti-masturbation propaganda. Masturbation doesn't make you depressed.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 09:45 AM
1

To be fair, Bobby Smith didn't have the option to be a homemaker, either, but higher education and a career is often, in our society, looked upon as a more noble pursuit. If you're in the home, you're going to be able to spend more time with your children and bond with them better. You can't be fair and while claiming that some gender had it objectively worse. Both genders had their own set of gender roles, and it depends on the person which role they would prefer.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:51 AM
6

All you got to do is mention the gender gap in prison inmates. When they start explaining it away, they have practically checkmated themselves.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:55 AM
5

Because we don't. The mystery is why so many people invite the government into their relationships, and fight for the right to do so. I'm betting tradition is the main reason.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:48 AM
1

to me calling it a Men's Rights issue implies that it if there were equivalent numbers of female suicides in the military it wouldn't be a problem. All that calling it a Men's Rights issue implies is that the disparity itself is a problem in addition to any other problem that might already exist. If the military drove women to suicide at the same rates as men, then it would be solely a human rights issue, but as things stand it is both.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:45 AM
2

I vote no, because I want to protect the 'some guy', who had no intent of raping anyone, from a rape accusation.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:59 PM
25

Also, due to the pay gap, she needs more time out of jail to make up for the different in pay.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:52 PM
1

not the fact that not enough of them are women. Who said this?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:27 PM
5

Does Obama support equal sentencing for men? How about equal convictions? Women can do anything men can do, and can do it better and in high heels; so there's no reason for a disparity there either, right?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 11:10 PM
2

Not necessarily. The point could be to recruit or spread awareness.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:37 PM
1

It's dangerous not to teach people, everyone really, how to avoid something like rape if we indeed know effective preventative methods. It's like not teaching teens about condoms or not teaching kids about bike locks. Are you really going to keep people ignorant of how to secure their bikes, just because it would offend those who have had their bike stolen?
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:24 AM
8

It's good satire, but it uses the fallacious rhetoric that feminists use.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 10:14 AM
1

Why should the reason for an abortion make the act of abortion illegal?! There's already precedents for it. For example, you can legally deny people service, but if your reason is because they are of a certain race, it becomes an illegal act. I think from a moral perspective, motivation should be taken into consideration. Whether it should be considered legally is a different discussion though.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 12:14 AM
2

Paul Callan The only 'evidence' is that he had a record, and it made her more credible than him.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 11:59 PM
1

No real reason here, though. It's just shaming. It goes back to my original statement, that men are shamed about porn. They don't really fear it or have reason to do so.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 10:31 PM
1

So I'm guessing the only time you've head the word 'mickey' is in reference to a fictional mouse.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:02 AM
3

Yeah, because people plan for that. Actually, they don't even need to plan for it really. They can wing it. That's the sad part.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 01:53 AM
1

Its not about respect, it's about treatment. At the end of the day, the people around them realize that shaming language is not going to work, at which point they either go away or get over themselves. That's much better than being treated as a chess piece.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 10:39 PM
106

It's as if the men wised up and realized that they'd get treated better if they pretended to be women.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 06:25 AM
1

So - I just want you all to think - what if we allowed ourselves to believe in strong, honest men? What if our police 'gave no fucks' for their own safety but would take any bullet to save a citizen? It doesn't mean shit if they still believe men are disposable. It doesn't mean shit if men are still 80% of homeless, 80% of suicides, 90% of incarcerated, 97% of war casualties, 45% of college graduates--do you see the pattern here?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 04:22 AM
3

We're going to keep posting articles about violent women until people like you get used to the fact that it exists. You don't have to pay much attention to these links. I usually don't. You just have to throw out that part of you that wants to mitigate, defend, or overlook women doing bad shit.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:56 AM
6

Maybe he means have the homeless guy write to a paper?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:03 AM
1

The woman gets to decide whether she'll take care of the baby, and whether it will be born for that matter. The man gets to decide whether he'll take care of the baby. How is it an unequal share? Are you talking about the fact that the woman having the additional power to abort the baby?
/r/MensRights30/05/12 11:52 PM
1

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who prefers porn over fucking real girls. It's a preference. Men have no obligations to having sex with women. As for playing too much video games over real objectives, it really depends what you mean by real objectives. Video games are a hobby just like any other hobby. You don't get to decide what hobbies are worthy for anyone other than for yourself. Playing too much video games that you don't get a job is a problem. That's an extreme case, and I…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 11:45 PM
3

It's the same shit repeated time and time again. It's really tiresome. They don't understand our positions at all, but that won't stop them.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 09:25 AM
2

Misandrists say that patriarchy favors masculine behavior. I think in truth it is nature which favors masculine behavior, and our legal system favors feminine behavior. In nature talking about how you feel isn't going to get you anywhere. In the political arena, everything is about feelings especially those of female voters. In nature producing something of value gets you ahead and producing nothing is dangerous. In the legal system producing something of value leads to more taxes and producing …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 08:18 AM
9

This means guys aren't sure what it means to be a man, that the people that need to be showing them the way aren't available guides, and it's affecting their ability to succeed. Where are the real men? Fathers especially have dropped the ball; America leads the industrialized world in fatherlessness. Fathers are at fault. They don't recognize the images presented in video games, movies, television, and porn as caricatures. Men have high expectations. Video games have become an enchanting alterna…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:54 AM
16

Sex leads to babies by natural consequence, but babies don't lead to child support. Child support is a legal construct. Nothing you have said justifies this connection. You are merely reasserting it over and over. Even women who have babies are not obligated to take care of the child (i.e. pay child support), because they can give it up for adoption or abandon it at a safe haven and often do so without the father's knowledge.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:03 AM
7

You don't? I always tell my buddies to cut it out if it looks like they're being used.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:37 PM
12

Common sense is made of memes, and many of them are sexist. I think telling soldiers not to discriminate based on whether someone is actually shooting at them, but to keep gender in regard is asinine. It's no worse to kill a woman than a man in the heat of the moment. The whole 'only men are violent' meme is hackneyed.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:05 PM
3

What's offensive about hot women in car advertising or beer commercials?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:16 PM
8

How do you define nurturing and how can you be so sure that's what the children need most? Single motherhood is the most common denominator among prison inmates. I'm so tired about hearing these stupid memes about mothers. Could you cut it out already?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 07:52 PM
1

The reason it isn't put respectfully is to sell the joke.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:24 AM
5

Can you be more specific?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:26 AM
1

Why remove a basic human trait? The point isn't to remove a basic human trait, so don't ask that question. The point is to get rid of a distraction that is burdening you. Things like hunger and fatigue are based in a desire to survive as an individual, so there is good reason to keep them around. Libido is based in a desire to reproduce, which is undesirable to many people at their current stage in life.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 03:53 AM
8

What? Men's Rights has been around long before Reddit. Some Redditers are so pompous.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 03:28 AM
2

You know, I'd be perfectly fine with this sign if instead of talking about sex/rape, it talked about marriage/divorce. It could have a statistic like 1/2 marriages end in divorce, 7/10 marriages are women initiated, or something like that. But we blame men in vulnerable situations because they consent to entering a vulnerable state, and we don't do the same for women.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 09:07 AM
4

If you apply "rape culture" logic to all violent crimes universally, then we have a "violence culture" and constantly shame people for making jokes with violence involved.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 08:55 AM
-6

You have to understand that for decades middle school boys have been making all of the school rules and have oppressed the middle school girls. The fact that boys are treated like dogs is not a big problem, and it's the boys' fault anyway since they run the show.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 08:25 AM
1

Here is the bill.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:24 AM
3

Why hasn't it been catching on?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:13 AM
1

She understands, she just disagrees with them. It's a figure of speech.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:12 AM
3

A lot of times men are tricked into believing they are the father when they and the mother can't be sure. Many guys do not think to get a paternity test. Sometimes it is not even legal to get a paternity test without the mother's consent. If the man is married to the woman he might be entitled to pay even if he isn't the biological father. Other than that, I don't know what happens when a man denies paternity.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:06 AM
1

What male birth control?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 03:59 AM
3

All men collectively have to do it, otherwise they are participating in rape culture. That's what feminists believe.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 03:56 AM
14

Not all nazis are like that.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 03:54 AM
1

Parents. In real life parents tend to try not to get separated form their children. Not all women are parents. A father is less likely to be willingly separated form his child than another woman is. It makes perfect sense to separate women ad children into separate categories, and instead lumping parents and children together.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 03:36 AM
2

They have to stop saying rape jokes and tell other men not to say rape jokes. Most preferably they do so by making a Lorena Bobbit joke, or by reporting some other action of female empowerment.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 03:00 AM
3

If you're actually interested in ensuring equality, you might look into supporting women who are trying to overturn the idiotic 'women aren't front line soldiers' bs. This is like saying "If you actually want any problems to by fixed, why don't you fix my problems?" every time someone mentions a problem. People can focus on a certain issue without addressing every other issue of similar nature. Congress does not have to draft only combat units. Congress could come up with another excuse to not r…
/r/MensRights14/04/12 02:54 AM
58

Tell her that gender is just a social construct and that humans are responsible for raping other humans then shame her for not taking responsibility.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 01:56 AM
2

This is applicable to individuals, but not to communities. We don't have any problem realizing there is a problem in our individual lives. You can't offer a solution to a community that doesn't think there is a problem.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 07:43 PM
1

From what I've heard, polygamy leaves some men without a woman to marry. Premarital sex with a woman is against the religion (or something), and young boys are a loophole.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 08:51 AM
3

From what I head, some of the most vile and misandric laws have been coming out of India, so when I saw this link I really wasn't shocked. Just look what happens when you search "India" withing r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 08:47 AM
3

A lot of men think "well, I'm not a rapist, so I don't need to worry about it!" and then inadvertently perform or advocate rape or sexual harassment. This doesn't just extend to men, of course, because all people are capable of cognitive dissonance (especially about themselves), but this particular issue is one that men don't often think they need to concern themselves with. Such thought is healthy! There are men who try to proactively punish rapists only to find out that the accusation was fals…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 08:37 AM
3

Paul Elam is a pretty smart guy. He's not psycho, he just doesn't care about being politically correct. I disagree with this article too, but I don't have to agree with everything Paul Elam says.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 03:13 AM
19

Young men need to know what they're getting into. There are plenty of people who say "marriage is a contract" to justify any sort of unfair divorce judgments. As long as the system is unfair and that is okay simply because he got married voluntarily, then we should at least be able to show how dangerous marriage is for men.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 06:27 PM
2

This doesn't mean that shit is just handed to you, but you have it the easiest: you aren't encouraged to spend excessive amounts of time (and money) on un-spoken beauty standards, and you're not about to be pulled over by the police for no reason (or much less likely, anyway.) You are a textbook racist, and as long as you continue to spew things like this, you will always be a racist. You use race to exaggerate and trivialize the struggles of individuals. You justify your racism by pointing at g…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 04:56 AM
0

That's the quickest way to convincing nobody.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 05:57 AM
2

You need to put some "because"s with your "this is"s.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 05:24 AM
1

Only a deadbeat would put something like reality before the welfare of his children. He should have found some way to earn thousands of dollars while in jail. The fact that he didn't is male privileged at its finest.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:52 AM
7

There is no reason to be excited about until something passes the FDA. There are still going to be men who don't have access to the birth control or are manipulated into not taking it. Regardless of your hypothetical solutions, men still deserve a way to opt out of parenthood if a partner gets pregnant.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:23 AM
6

They're not allowed to be victims, because that would be gay.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 09:38 AM
10

This happened in my family and according to many of my elementary school friends it happened in theirs. The girls were much better at getting out of punishment, especially with daddy. In my family, generally my dad would get angry and yell at my sister, then she'd start crying, and then he'd feel all guilty and sorry. For my case, there'd be some yelling, I try my best not to cry, and there'd be some actual bite behind the bark, like I would lose computer privileges. I can't complain, though. I'…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:43 AM
4

At 0:45 This is regarding sexual assault risks in jail. Remember that anal rape is classified as "sexual assault", because there is no vaginal penetration. What is he signing, and why? It sounds like a rape waiver, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:36 AM
4

The myth isn't that a disparity exists as one clearly does. The myth is that this disparity is caused by sexist employers who won't pay women enough. Sure, socialization is an issue, but it isn't necessarily misogynistic and biological factors may be at play. If you want to talk about socialization, what sentiment do you think is more common? Women complaining about how men need to get a real job, or men complaining about how women are too career oriented? I can only speak for myself, but I find…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:17 AM
2

Yeah, I watched the 'handshake' video and cringed a little when he made the implication that a man with a strong handshake is abusing his wife. I don't think it's impossible or difficult to abandon masculine stereotype they uncomfortable without demonizing masculinity all together.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:37 AM
17

I hate misandrists. The feminist movement has a lot of them. I have nothing against those who fight for the rights of women and against misogyny.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 03:51 AM
1

But we've gone off on a tangent here. My point was that saying that sexual orientation is solely based on sexual behavior is wrong. Who people have sex with is not always indicative of their orientation. Unless they the person in questions has said otherwise, judging sexual orientation based on behavior is the only reasonable and fair thing to do even if it isn't 100% accurate. There exists a strong sentiment of calling men gay when they don't fit the expected stereotypes of a heterosexual man, …
/r/MensRights31/03/12 11:40 AM
1

The movement does not give them any advantage. They still will receive whatever stigma is associated with those who do not get married and having children, because herbivores don't do these things. I'm sure there before acknowledging the concept of herbivores, there was a broad, ignorant labeling of these men as being homosexual. The only people this is advantageous to is to the straight men who will not have to have their sexuality second guessed.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 11:10 AM
3

No, the real oversimplification is to label men as homosexual, because they do not follow the ridiculous expectations we place on heterosexual men. It is not reasonable to think that a man is homosexual just because he doesn't show interest in women. Likewise it is not reasonable to assume he is heterosexual just because he doesn't show interest in men. Many men have lower libido or have better control over their libido, and this is especially true with the availability of porn.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 10:50 AM
3

I dislike Facebook probably just as much as you do, but the thing is that I don't use it.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 07:36 AM
1

Because if they're gay, they would have sex with men?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:23 AM
3

Sarcastic or not, the fact of the matter is that LGBT, Civil Rights, and Feminism have done absolutely nothing to correct the injustices men face, and I don't want the single movement that actually does to become the mouth piece of movements have a stronghold of academia as it is.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 07:39 PM
1

The black men who die young and lower the average life span of black men are very unlikely to pay much into the social security system. Don't make this a divisive racial issue here of all places.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 07:22 PM
0

It does not matter according in regards to what exactly? For the victim, it certainly doesn't matter. For the justice system, these details should matter. A 14 year old does not even have the mental maturity to consent in many jurisdictions. He stopped when the victim told him to and only engaged in the first place because the perpetrator told him to. Read the article. It is not an excuse at all.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 07:16 PM
2

Whenever you see a British woman, there is a chance (66%?) that she didn't get her position on merit alone, where as no such skepticism exists for British men.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:49 PM
1

A small government still has more power than any organization, institution, or individual, because it can exercise violence directly or indirectly through ultimatums. Non-government entities have accountability too. They have to convince people to do thing they want, because if they use violence then they'll be punished by the government. So no, not really. You're not understanding what I mean by small. To clear up what I said before, a small government is limited in how it may intervene, while …
/r/MensRights30/03/12 09:39 AM
5

The fact that women benefit more from the system contributes to women living longer. It doesn't sound fair at all. If the system was of a smaller magnitude or did not exist, then the gap between life spans might actually smaller. This is definitely and issue, whether or not you agree with the current system or not.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:35 AM
1

Size of government is not measured by how many officials run it, but by how much power the government has to intervene and how many constituents are in its jurisdiction. If it has less power to intervene, there is little reason to buy it. If the jurisdiction is small, you have to buy many governments to affect a large jurisdiction. The more centralized a government is, the less efficacy there will be for constituents because the representative to constituent ratio is small and the constituents a…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:09 AM
3

This person has absolutely no concept of misandry. It's just another rant about "men are sexist, but at least it is society's fault rather than men's fault." I don't find this food for thought at all.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 05:51 AM
2

You'd prefer all form and no substance, right?.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 06:54 AM
35

Here's what I find especially troubling: what would the world be like if men honestly followed the "don't stick your dick in crazy advice?" There would be articles about how men are paranoid and misogynistic all over. For the girls who spout this bullshit, it's meant to protect women as a whole, because they are apart of the group and feel a need to defend it. For the boys who say it, it's a "It won't happen to me because I'm better than you" sort of defense mechanism.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 06:36 AM
43

Ctrl+f "dick in crazy" and you'll find it. Unbelievable. People think he knew she was crazy and dated her anyway. These are up voted comments.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 06:20 AM
8

If men have the agency to enter a marriage contract, then I don't see how women lack the agency to work in a brothel. Marriage contracts are the most exploitative, fraudulent contracts in existence and consistently put men in relatively bad living conditions, and they're perfectly legal.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:25 PM
7

She was expecting men to be doormats when it comes to male issues, which generally is not a far fetched expectation. Good thing it's not turning out as she had expected.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:13 PM
8

Trust me, they hate us for our legitimate posts just as much as they do for our posts you think are not legitimate.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:10 PM
8

Not really. Some MGTOW believe that certain Asian government are more male-friendly in terms of laws, but that's completely different.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:07 PM
-13

Men are misogynistic, yet saying this is not misandric.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:04 PM
7

This is a male specific problem. A woman knows whether she was pregnant with a child. You can't convince anyone that some woman is the mother of your child when she was never pregnant.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:51 PM
3

There is this interesting phenomenon PBS talked about. This woman would split her class room arbitrarily and treat one part of the class room very nicely and the other part meanly. The meanly treated part would have worse performance and would be more rebellious. She did the same thing with adults, and it had the same effect. PBS was using it to discuss racism, but I think it's most pertinent in our school system when it comes to the way boys and girls are treated. Boys always got treated worse …
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:38 PM
1

I disagree, insurance is based on statistics and probabilities. I don't want to live in a world where a private company is forced to be gender blind when it makes no sense. Yet I feel you're okay living in a world where individuals are forced to buy insurance? I have to buy insurance if I want to drive, but they're damned if they have to charge on something other than gender? The only reason they charging men more is because they men earn more and since that doesn't sound good, they come up with…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:22 PM
1

Insurance companies shouldn't even know what your gender is, let alone charge based on it. We enter vehicles as individuals and should be charged as individuals. It's absurd for me to be charged as a man when I drive much less than most people. If they really want proper price discrimination, they should be asking people how many miles they drive and looking at their accident history. That's much more pertinent than gender.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:51 PM
1

I checked the history. I don't think they have a problem with blacks, not that's it's relevant. Women behaving bad has been posted here for ages.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 09:24 AM
1

For instance, your word choice suggests to me that you probably agree with the prosecution of the producers of the Bumfights videos, or would support laws punishing people who pay the homeless for sex. Fighting and prostitution aren't the problem. The problem is that you can't expect someone who is starving to respect your rights. They could resort to theft, vandalism, violence, and other violations of other's rights. Even if you lack compassion it's still in your interest to make sure that the …
/r/MensRights10/03/12 04:06 AM
1

First let me establish what I think harassment should mean. Harassment is when you continue to bother someone in spite of the fact that they have told you to stop. Wolf -whistling is not harassment, but if you are asked to stop by someone and keep doing it then it becomes harassment. Under this definition of harassment, then I would not say the same thing, because the harasser can't be reasoned with at that point. That is the point when you talk to the relevant authority.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 03:56 AM
15

But others say his fliers for the organization are too extreme. His fliers are brutally honest. Society is to blame for it is extreme. Pamela Stewart, a professor of women’s history and Western history, looked at the flier and says groups like the Men’s Rights Movement Group have existed since the advent of women fighting for their rights. “Any time women have pushed for what they see to be their, in the case of the U.S., constitutional rights, there has always been push-back,” Stewart says. “Th…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:44 PM
1

I'm not completely against the idea of one parent being the main care taker and such, but for them to have absolutely no income or back up plan is heinous. Especially since family court judges reward such irresponsibility with things like alimony.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:40 PM
9

If we're going to give men herpes in the process of cutting up their genitalia, can we at least allow them to grow old enough to consent to the procedure? At least then we smugly engage in victim blaming and hurl "man up" platitudes at him as we do with soldiers, homeless men, alienated fathers, and other men thrown under the bus by the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:16 PM
2

I think homelessness is an issue regardless whether you belief it should be provided for by the government or private charity. Even in a free market people still need to be compassionate and look out for the homeless at least to prevent someone from exploiting their desperation and using it to infringe on other's rights.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:12 PM
9

The government does not allow anyone to opt out of their services at the benefit not being taxed. This argument is so logically flawed, I'm not sure where to start. The government gave him services he never agreed to and took his money without his consent, and you're suggesting that any wealth he has amassed is not his because he benefited from those services?
/r/MensRights09/03/12 12:07 PM
3

The SPLC is enabling misandry. If they will not pull their anti-MRM articles, then we need to call them out for it. No, we don't need to be on the defensive 24/7. No, it doesn't matter how legitimate they are if they promote misandry.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 11:47 AM
1

Is this right? No; but There doesn't need to be any buts here. Saying something is wrong is not a call for government intervention. There's no point in downplaying it by saying "they are free to do as they wish". Unnecessary gender segregation almost unanimously results in unfair situations for men, and there is no reason to make excuses for it.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 11:33 AM
1

If it offends you, you tell them off. You don't need to get the government involved.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:11 AM
10

Why do people laugh at things that I don't think are funny? It's like there is something wrong with them.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 11:58 AM
4

TL;DR it sucks that people's sex/gender plays a role in how well they can achieve results - but it does in realty play a role, so basing a hiring decision on a person's sex is sometimes the correct decision. If a community has a strong anti-black sentiment and the local businesses decided hired blacks over whites because of it, then they are obviously making the right decision. There's no disagreement there. I don't think that there is nothing wrong with this though. Buying a game based on wheth…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 11:42 AM
4

Telling women to take precautions to avoid something they'd regret makes it evident that you're a victim blamer. Women should be allowed to have their cake and eat it, and anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist. Your educators have failed you, because you clearly don't understand how vulnerable today's strong, independent women are.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:51 PM
-1

What a pitiful case of male guilt and lack of any empathy for men. Men's Rights is an insult to the struggle of other movements? For the sake of some movement's pride, men shall continue to be thrown under the bus?
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:38 PM
1

Fuck you! What if I said "I really like women and all, but you need to shake off your bitchy reputation" or something along those lines and followed up with examples of women acting like bitches? Would you honestly thing I care about the welfare of women? That's why your post is insincere.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:19 PM
2

You can't honestly believe that. That they simply elected not to fight. Do you think women are helpless or something? I never used the word simple; I said women could have demanded positions in the military, and with substantial effort they could have been granted them just as they have been granted the rights they have today. Substantial effort wasn't made by women collectively. I bet you believe that they chose not to get an education or inherit property as well. Very few men had sufficient pr…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 01:46 PM
3

The only explanation I can think of is a dissonance between the idea of living in a "land of the free" and having a government that seems monolithic that they are unwilling to destroy or change in any significant way. They are not unwilling to change it, they are unable to change it. Just as there is a strong movement which demands more liberty, there is a strong movement that demands more government intervention. The obsession with coercion comes from the rationalisation that the government is …
/r/MensRights04/03/12 01:25 PM
1

Men's equivalent of slut shaming is called child support.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:48 PM
1

Women had virtually no say in military matters and warrior cultures of the past have been extremely masculine institutions. Women consisted of half the population (likely more than half) and could have demanded positions in the military at any time.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:44 PM
2

No, I'd say men and women play an equal part. It is easy to look to D.C. which is full of mostly male politicians, but the home is no less important and influential. It is legions of women who spend time with children in positions of daycare, early education, and up-bringing.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:27 PM
0

Addressing the response: They call themselves feminists. We're using the name they gave themselves. Why would we call them misandrists? We should call them misandrists, because it is a more accurate description of what they're doing. If we call them feminists we are humoring the notion that they are for equality for women, when they in fact want supremacy. You are giving misandrists credit for an older movement which actually accomplished noble non-misandric things (like women's suffrage). You w…
/r/MensRights03/03/12 06:15 AM
1

Why don't we call them misandrists instead of feminists though?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:10 AM
1

Not sure why anyone is down voting this. It's spot on.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:15 AM
7

When my parents split up (it wasn't a legal thing, and they're actually back together now), I chose to be with my dad so that he wouldn't be a lone. I wasn't even an MRA at the time, I just didn't want my dad to feel like he would be abandoned. If your mom was my mom, then I'd have very little respect for her.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:08 AM
5

You see, the moderators would quickly eliminate this because no where in the source does it mention "female privilege". On Wikipedia you're not allowed to make logical conclusions based on overwhelming evidence unless the person presenting the evidence makes that conclusion for you. This is why it is extremely hard to get anything pertaining to men's rights into Wikipedia. We first need to be able to legitimately publish our observations.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 04:03 AM
1

I think the justice system as it currently is in terms of conviction and acquittal is fine. My point is that it's inconsiderate and prejudice to walk around assuming that every man might be a rapist given the chance or that every women might accuse you of rape given the chance. I can split hairs even further and says it's fine to exercise extreme caution and avoid encounters with strangers where no one else is around, but it's not fine to expect people to avoid an elevator because it makes you u…
/r/MensRights29/02/12 03:02 AM
13

Well, the misandrist line is typically something like: It's not good that he was raped, but it doesn't happen that often anyway, and the kid shouldn't have to suffer just because the father was raped.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:38 AM
8

I'd say the right thing is to go to tell the person to stop first, and then go to a supervisor if it doesn't stop.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:34 AM
1

The shelter probably won't let him in, and the cops will ask him he he doesn't just leave, after they've arrested him of course.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:28 AM
1

I'm suggesting it's not less bad for a man to be raped than for a woman to be.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 07:10 AM
1

A lot of these children are being paid for by men though. You don't have to get married to demand support.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 06:05 AM
8

They are two different kinds of devastation.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 05:52 AM
2

Are you suggesting it's better that men get raped than women?
/r/MensRights25/02/12 04:32 AM
1

What's the point in condemning a post that is in the negatives?
/r/MensRights25/02/12 03:51 AM
13

The justice system assumes the accused are innocent until proven guilty, but it doesn't assume the accuser is a false rape accuser. These are completely different things.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 03:24 AM
2

From the comments: I'm not married, can I go? - Fernando, Barcelona, 23/2/2012 16:38 Are you sure you're not married? Seems like you are used to getting permission from someone?? - Jon, London, 24/2/2012 09:58 It is dailymail though.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 10:18 AM
2

One of the reasons I'd rather adopt than have biological kids is so that I would have no doubt that the children aren't mine.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 10:11 AM
5

At this point, I would be surprised if the alleged assault was a case of him having a closed fist, and her ramming her face into it.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 05:14 AM
1

She's not being accused of having sex. She's be accused of statutory sexual assault. She also is claiming the the friend sexually assaulted her. The son said she was giving the friend explicit instructions. If the son and the friend are telling the truth, then this women is using a false accusation of rape against a minor to get out of a statutory rape conviction.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 04:57 AM
1

According to the court ordered apology, he was convicted but appealed the decision: I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with (my son) on a t…
/r/MensRights24/02/12 04:42 AM
1

Does it matter which way the money flows? Both a buyer and seller can be exploited by a fraudulent deal. How are you defining exploitation?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 04:30 AM
2

I suppose facebook misandry is a too common to be worth posting.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 04:25 AM
9

Obviously the developers don't care, as they're just trying to make money. I'm guessing the double standard is that woman bashing one was taken down and the man bashing one remained?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 04:19 AM
2

I'd rather there be more women in the public sphere, just so we wouldn't have to hear misandrists nag about how misandry is impossible if the legislators are mostly male.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 01:10 AM
2

Regardless, this man has not lost everything. Does an innocent man have to lose everything?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 01:08 AM
1

I think he meant he wasn't convicted with anything.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 01:04 AM
5

What would be really hilarious is if you said women aren't pressured as much to be a bread winner, and cited the wage gap as evidence.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 12:49 AM
11

I'm interested in how the misandric mods at Wikipedia will hijack this page, as they have done with every men's right's page. I can see it now: Female privilege is the struggle of women to acquire the privileges that men have traditionally held and women have traditionally been denied. War: Only men have the privilege to have the glory of being filled with lead on the front lines. Women and Children: Men have the privilege of freezing to death in the ocean rather than being packed like a sardine…
/r/MensRights24/02/12 12:46 AM
14

Man dies in war: What about his wife and mother? Men live shorter lives: Who's going to pay for women's retirement? Make make up 90% of prisoners: What about the female tax payer? Man proven to be falsely accused: What about the women who won't be taken seriously? Men make up 40% of graduates: What about the college women who can't find a good man? Men raped: All rape is a crime against women! The list goes on.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 12:08 AM
4

If you are so disturbed by the idea of military women being pregnant, perhaps you could start a campaign to allow the military health system provide abortions if women want them. This wouldn't solve anything, because women who intentionally got pregnant to avoid deployment don't want an abortion. Yes, I oppose punishing women for being pregnant. In this day and age, getting pregnant is no longer a mistake. The military doesn't have to force anyone to get an abortion, but punishing anyone who get…
/r/MensRights24/02/12 12:00 AM
2

And there are plenty of feminists who'd say these things with a straight face.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 11:43 PM
5

(neither one of us wanted anything to do with a partner who has made it to college in this day and age without figuring out how to get laid) I don't know who would upvote blatant shaming language on this subreddit, but I'm disappointed.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 11:30 PM
5

I support Ron Paul, but I don't want MR to become divisive over a political candidate.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 04:43 AM
6

WOW what?
/r/MensRights23/02/12 04:22 AM
8

If you do a google search, you'll find that men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. Why doesn't society teach men to be afraid, when they are more likely to be exploited? I think that is part of what makes this and MR issue. It's not so much that the female individual is to blame. Just consider if an individual was raised to fear black people.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 04:17 AM
2

I honestly don't get the impression they are open-minded based on their first post and their replies, not that I intend to scare anyone off.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 03:32 AM
1

I think you should stop calling them feminists and start calling them misandrists. It's a much more accurate description, and it avoids any of the NAFALT nonsense.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 02:01 AM
4

However, to prevent “pump and dump”, both the man and the woman must be aware of the pregnancy, and the man must make the decision to leave the woman to her child well before 24 weeks (the time when the child is no longer a fetus) if he desires no part in the child support; if he fails to make the decision, child support will be his burden as well. It should be opt in. Men have no way of knowing if they are the father without a DNA test.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 12:52 AM
3

If you want to have sex after a long day of raiding, you rape the young women, that's just life. I'm outraged, but that's just how it works. Yet somehow the media always makes a big deal of these things...
/r/MensRights22/02/12 10:57 PM
1

No one cares why they did it, because that doesn't make it any less heinous.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 10:55 PM
1

the offspring you are referring to is a fetus and not considered human, and not yet an "offspring" in a sense that it is anyone's child as of yet. it is still part of the female's body. To argue that it shouldn't be protected is one thing, but to argue that it isn't human despite having its own unique set of human DNA is ignorant. do we force women to go through pregnancies they do not wish to endure? No, we don't have to force women to do anything. We don't even need to force the woman to pay a…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 10:38 PM
3

retrieving eggs is more difficult and comes with its own health risks as well. But before you said a woman had to go through a pregnancy, which is false. The only difference is that a woman has to go through egg retrieval, while the male does not. You're going to have to give a source if you want me to believe egg retrieval poses a significant health risk. and if it is after the fact, do you suppose we should force women to have a child against her will because the male wishes to become a father…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 12:00 PM
1

First of all, we are talking about the situation in which a woman gets pregnant, and it wasn't planned. We aren't talking about a situation where a person of either gender is trying to have a biological child. Second of all, it's possible for a woman to donate her egg and have it implanted into another surrogate. In fact it is recommended that a man have the egg donor and surrogate to be different women so that he can solidify his sole parent status. Thus no women actually has to ever be pregnan…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 11:17 AM
1

I think it needs to be pointed out that the analogy isn't legitimate. The pro-life stance is based in the belief that sometime between birth an conception, a fetus should be granted protection from an abortion. They are not trying to attack women's health just because they hate women.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 06:54 AM
1

I notice it too, and it usually is linked to something like an SRS or AMR invasion.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 04:05 AM
1

How do you or ignatius know who is downvoting you?
/r/MensRights22/02/12 03:55 AM
2

More importantly, when people decide to live together they should make preemptive plans in case thing go south and enter meaningful, easy-to-understand contracts. Marriage as it stands forces people to enter a one size fits all arrangement that discourage deviation (e.g. prenups), where the state ultimately has the authority to dictate the terms of breakup. It's essentially a false sense of security.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 03:44 AM
6

So what do you do if the victim redacts her accusation?
/r/MensRights22/02/12 03:32 AM
8

On the other hand, these are in no way even remotely equal decisions. This is true. A woman who wants a baby could still have a baby regardless, where as a man who wants a baby is still at the mercy of the woman. However despite this injustice to men, it is still much more fair than our current system. A woman would have the option of either raising a child herself, with no support, knowing that they are depriving that child of a father, or undergo a surgical procedure carrying with it its own r…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 03:14 AM
2

Talking about this post I presume.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 12:09 AM
5

Both dressing promiscuously and leering are subjective terms. They are defined by the individual.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 08:15 AM
-9

But there's a need to vote for a law that cuts off dicks? It's an analogy and so it doesn't matter whether it happened or not. The point is that birth control funding is being compared to cutting off dicks. Also, there's a difference between something being covered by insurance and mandating that something be covered.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 11:14 PM
-9

Then why didn't this analogy have women voting over Viagra funding?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 10:27 PM
-6

It's public birth control funding. Males are so disposable that cutting of their dicks is analogous to not giving women free stuff.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:09 AM
1

I don't have the legal knowledge to answer these questions, and it depends on the jurisdiction anyway. The point is that there are many times when paternity is wrongly assumed.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:47 AM
3

Always get a paternity test.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:33 AM
1

There is one standard: don't show erogenous zones. A woman's chest is an erogenous zone, and a man's chest isn't. Concluding that this is a double standard ignores the context. So are you against the belief that breasts are erogenous, or that exposing erogenous zones should be perfectly legal?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 01:55 AM
5

No, I think she's just another stupid mother.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:58 AM
0

Do you know what oppression means? All of the things listed above are things done to men by other men. Women participated in inflicting all of the things listed on men, just as they participated in enforcing female gender roles. That's not oppression. Even assuming somehow all of the things listed were inflicted solely by other men, your just using semantics to downplay the suffering of men. Men do not have more of a say in what other men impose upon them than what women would impose. Men do not…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:31 AM
2

I think you can easily draw parallels. First of all, a woman saying "I'm sorry for the things I did or didn't do" would immediately raise red flags regarding domestic abuse, black eye or not. Second of all, the milk ad portrays women as irrational, while a domestic violence ad would portray men as dangerous and cruel. Both are unfair to both genders.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 09:51 AM
1

In the milk ad, men are apologizing to their partner.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 08:53 AM
1

The same could be said about almost every domestic violence PSA. The thing is you don't have a woman pleading for forgiveness with some product placement.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 08:35 AM
8

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”. At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. His intention is to have rulings like Roe v. Wade overturned, not to…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:43 AM
1

Did I come off as antagonistic or something? I just was saying it's okay to say nothing, because you said, "What else am I going to do, send the lad some money?"
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:23 AM
1

Name any culture in any time period where the average man was more likely to live longer, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be a victim of violent crime, and less likely to be in jail than the average woman. I suppose it would be easy for you to take on Demonspawn's challenge?
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:06 AM
2

Isn't one of the things we loathe about the feminist movement their lack of recognition and handling of misandry within their movement? This doesn't bother me at all. I can understand why feminism would attract misandrists. What bothers me is when feminists actually push misandric legislation. Also I think it's possible to loathe misandry without outright loathing feminists.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:02 AM
1

If you're apathetic then you don't need to post that thread or this one, because it would just be noise anyway.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:44 AM
1

What about just giving a nice comment among all the "man up" ones? You know something like "You have my sympathy" or "I hope things end up well" to counter act all the "You're fucked" and "Keep it in the pants next time" nonsense.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:04 AM
1

You give blue-pill men too much credit. I've seen them do things much worse, and do it repeatedly. Hint: It starts with an M and ends with divorce.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:01 AM
5

He didn't say he's for no government, just small government.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 12:19 AM
9

Wow, this makes me feel like I'm not supposed to be a man or something. I could care less about cars and beer, but would love to raise children once I was in the position that I could properly do it.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 11:31 PM
1

This could be a reason to lower standards across the board, but it isn't a reason to keep gender-specific standards.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:50 AM
1

You mean you didn't feel like a black sheep when Obama used his father's day speech as an opportunity to bash fathers and praise single mothers?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 04:40 AM
2

She has enough insight to claim that a man is a potential abuser, but not enough insight not to have a child with him.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:55 AM
3

He said that men's issues will be solved if we just fight the gender stereotypes, but feminists didn't do just this. They use the strong arm of the law to force equality and left people discuss gender roles after the fact. He dismissed the entirety of the MRM as a radical movement of traditionalists, but said the same shouldn't be done to feminism. I'm not sure which point you found valid, but it was hard to find points of agreement when right off the bat he demonizes our movement.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:27 AM
2

It's occurred to me that this argument is bullshit. It's true that there are more pressing matters in the world than the equality issues of white American males, but you know what? There are more pressing matters in the world than the equality issues of white American females. What's more is that toughness can be subjective. How does one determine for everyone else what is tougher or easier? Not everything is so black and white as "losing your pinky" vs "losing your arm".
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:18 AM
17

In those Middle Eastern countries, many young boys are raped (at the very least statutorily) because it is acceptable to rape a little boy than to have premarital sex. In polygamous circles some men don't have enough status to ever get married and will join terrorists circles instead. Actually, just consider how terrible one has to feel to be compelled to blow themselves up in a suicide bombing. So, I'd say that in particular Middle Eastern countries, it just sucks to be a person regardless of g…
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:01 AM
2

That may be true, but he should have linked to a case of gender reversed too, or it's just a hypothetical.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 03:08 AM
4

First you have to establish than men are human beings. Okay, never mind. It's impossible.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 01:39 AM
2

Fortunately, the dead can't falsely accuse someone, and the DA can't accuse anyone if there isn't a dead body.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 10:24 AM
2

Unfortunately harmony is not something that can be maintained by one party, and if the mother goes through with a circumcision without the father's permission then the harmony will be destroyed. Since it doesn't really matter who breaks the harmony, its better that his son be intact than circumcised. Certainly the people here are righteous and hold male genital integrity with higher regard than others do. Any mutilation that is done at birth and done to enough people isn't going to be taken too …
/r/MensRights29/12/11 09:53 AM
16

I have only seen "privilege" used as a basis for discriminatory policy against the "privileged". So you're right, it isn't ignoring/belittling discrimination, it is helping to create it. Also, do not speak for anyone but yourself when talking about having it relatively good. You can't decide how much things like genital integrity or custody over your children are valued by each and every individual.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 09:18 AM
6

It's bullshit as it currently is, and it's bullshit when applied to sexism. They change the definition whenever it is convenient. When someone with little to no power shows prejudice against a traditional victim group, there is no hesitation to call it sexism or racism. When someone with institution power is shows prejudice against a traditional guilt group, it suddenly is merely prejudice.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 04:19 AM
3

Well, you really have to make a distinction between what you consider whining and what you consider a legitimate complaint. A lot of MRA's what misandry to be politically incorrect to the same extent that misogyny and racism are. Some don't want there to be political correctness. So you could see it as whining or a legitimate complaint depending on which side you take.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 04:04 AM
3

You're making an accusation that he isn't telling the truth based on no premise other than "he isn't telling the truth". This is called circular reasoning.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:21 AM
13

Here's a quick laundry list of issues that I hope you guys can take to heart, because they're not an outside opinion or an attack, they are genuine issues that a sympathizer has. We've taken these issues to heart and much discussion has been made over them. I'm not going to address any of them except for two. Women are not the enemy. Nor are feminists. I agree with this one. Feminists are not the enemy, misandrists are. The terms are not synonymous, despite there being such a strong correlation.…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:14 AM
1

You can't assume that a sexual encounter is rape in an argument about whether or not it is rape. I don't think it is rape to begin with, so there is no discussion about what can be done to prevent rape. If indeed he intended to have sex in spite of knowing that she was not willing, then there is nothing that could have been done about it. What is being discussed is what people should do if they do not want to have sex despite having given someone else the impression that they do. They are obliga…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 02:11 AM
1

What made the sex unpleasant for her was the fact she was being raped. Under my logic, he would have stopped and she wouldn't have been raped, or as you like to call it, they wouldnt have had unpleasant sex. Under your logic, where no doesn't mean no, what would happen is exactly what happened. How? She would have left the room. If he felt the need to persuade her then he knew there was no consent. He felt a need to persuade her into not feeling guilty. Again he didn't believe she was unwilling,…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 12:16 AM
1

I'm asking how my mentality is what lead to her assault. It's not that your mentality lead to her assault, it's that mine is less dangerous because it would prevent unpleasant sex when there is no intent to rape. In response to your edit. If she says "no" thats making clear there is no consent. At that point, he knew there was no consent, the only point where he could have thought she changed her mind is after he performed a sexual act on her. Actually: He became very persuasive at this point, s…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:44 PM
1

his being cautious and stopping Comes from: On the other hand, if you're pursuing sex you need to keep in mind whether or not consent might be retroactively withdrawn due to how fucked up our justice system can be. and her getting out of there. Comes from: I'm sorry, but if you don't want to be raped, you should yell "STOP" and make an effort get the hell out of there. You do not mumble "no" and then willfully comply just so that you can call it rape after the fact.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 08:55 PM
0

You are spreading a mentality that could lead to someone getting hurt. That is why its dangerous. My mentality would have either lead to his being cautious and stopping, or her getting out of there. Your mentality would have either lead to his being cautious and stopping, or her having unpleasant sex with him (which was the case). Your mentality is more dangerous because it is more likely to lead to someone getting hurt. I don't know. That doesn't really matter. What matters is that he didn't. W…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 08:21 PM
23

The guest is a hooker, the host was a feminist and was disagreeing with her.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 07:44 PM
0

I think your full of shit too. Human communication is not as precise as something like the HTTP protocol. A misunderstanding occurred when he thought she was simply being reluctant due to guilt. It wasn't malicious or unreasonable on his part. No real effort was made to clear this up, which is likely what he would have trusted her to do if she seriously wanted him to stop.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:54 PM
1

You implied that it wasn't really "no" unless there is yelling and it isn't really rape unless physical restraint is involved. To me thats advocating a dangerous mentality. I don't think it's dangerous. You should give an example or reason. We are not talking about a case of retroactive consent withdrawal. We are talking about a case where a woman says "no" and a man does not stop. The man had no malice, and no intention of raping her. Why didn't he stop?
/r/MensRights27/12/11 10:20 AM
5

Legions of single mothers, female daycare providers, and female educators have custody over a generation's most impressionable years. The media has denied a generation competent male role models and bombarded it with go girl sentiment. The vast majority of male legislators pass bills which put women in a state of perpetual victim-hood and men in a state of perpetual perp-hood. Yet the mighty patriarchy eludes all of this, and compells these boys join reddit to post "TITS or GTFO". How much more …
/r/MensRights27/12/11 09:46 AM
1

But in reality, it's because if your girlfriend cheats on you with a girl, the woman will probably be like, "Maybe we should all get together for coffee and talk about the short comings of your relationship and see if we can work something out," whereas a man will be like, "I fucked your bitch, you stupid pussy!!!! (plays air guitar while flailing his tongue about and looking down at you)." What the fuck? Also, evolutionary psychology is a complete joke that bulldozes over even the least nuanced…
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:42 AM
1

Well the surveyor's speculated that a man is most concerned with establishing paternity, which isn't threatened by a homosexual affair; however, a woman is most concerned with ensuring the man sticks around, which is more threatened by his being a homosexual than his being heterosexual.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:21 AM
2

I dislike how straight men have their sexuality challenged all the time, especially by other straight men. I've probably had my sexuality challenged like 20 times or so and have seen "If you don't X you must be gay" comments on the internet hundreds of times, and at this point I just say "yeah sure" when people try to pull that bullshit. I dislike how men in general have to follow an oppressive code to be a "real man". EDIT: I think it's kind of humiliating when my girlfriend wants to bring her …
/r/MensRights27/12/11 06:02 AM
8

It's the feminist belief that society likes to make light of rape and blame victims of rape.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 03:20 AM
1

Why would you take a course thinking it would be rubbish? Gen Eds.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 12:50 AM
1

Well, violence should only be used on other people in a "last resort", don't you think?
/r/MensRights26/12/11 11:24 PM
1

The Jedi as portrayed in the prequels are weak and pathetic and quite stupid, and really should have learned that sometimes violence IS the answer. They carried around light sabers. They tried to kill Palpatine without due process. I've seen leftists carry around Kill Bush signs, so I'm not going to say this disqualifies the Jedi from being liberal, but I'm pretty sure that the Jedi knew how to use violence.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 11:06 PM
1

I did. Let it be known that he was not violent, nor do I think his intent was malicious.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 10:41 PM
0

Whats terrifying is that you think "no" doesn't always mean no. You're being dishonest by trying to hide behind a platitude. Consider a hypothetical situation where someone is raping another person, and the rapist says "no". By the reasoning of your platitude, the rapist was a victim of rape. This clearly isn't the case though. In fact is quite absurd. Actions overrule words. The rapists was not raped because they consented to sex by their own actions. The point is that you can consent to sex wi…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 10:35 PM
1

In this case, she said "no" and didn't mean it. It is possible for a person to be dishonest. She is only trying to make that "no" into a denial of consent after the fact. What exactly is so terrifying? For me, it is the thought of retroactively withdrawing consent and sending people to jail for it.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 09:44 PM
-1

She didn't say "NO!", that's the point.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 09:11 PM
1

When I was in third grade I went to my friends house to play. My friend had to do a chore for a bit so I hung out in his room waiting for him to finish. A girl who was a guest and around came in an started asking questions. The part I remember vividly was when she put her hands up my shirt and started. I told her to stop nicely and it didn't work. So what do you think I did? Just let her fuck around with me? No. I yelled "get off get off get off" as loud as I could, hit her arms as hard as I cou…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 09:06 PM
1

Another main clause in marriage is "until death do us part". To be honest, I would rather there just not be any institution of marriage, and people would have to specific contacts with lawyers to make the ideal set up. I hate how people put themselves at the mercy of some family court judge when they should have done some serious planning before they even made any commitments.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 10:13 AM
-2

Does it bother that much that someone would advocate that people fight back against a potential rape instead of cooperating with their rapist? Why would you need to draft a playbook? I already said: On the other hand, if you're pursuing sex you need to keep in mind whether or not consent might be retroactively withdrawn due to how fucked up our justice system can be. Meaning that a girl doesn't have to even say "no", if she simply seems reluctant you get the hell out of there because the risks a…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 10:07 AM
1

Well no, I think discouraging anything that is really between two people is wrong. Wouldnt you say? If a couple decides that one of them should stay at home, while another works, isnt that perfectly fine? I don't think you're quite understanding my argument, which I suppose is my fault. Basically, there are two possible ways of doing things. Either people keep what is theirs, or things get split in half. Neither way is more fair, because you can always say at the end of the day "if you don't lik…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 09:36 AM
-1

I'm sorry, but if you don't want to be raped, you should yell "STOP" and make an effort get the hell out of there. You do not mumble "no" and then willfully comply just so that you can call it rape after the fact. On the other hand, if you're pursuing sex you need to keep in mind whether or not consent might be retroactively withdrawn due to how fucked up our justice system can be.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 06:14 AM
1

But the stay at home parent does lose more from a divorce. They didnt have a job, no income, they get a safety net taken out beneath them. In the current system, the working spouse loses more. They lose all of the contributions from the stay-at-home spouse, but still have to hold up their part of the bargain to an extent. The stay-at-home spouse isn't made to take care of the working spouse's home, whereas the working spouse is made to financially help the stay-at-home spouse. If you dont want t…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 05:50 AM
18

In before inevitable "Was she hot?" comment. I think "out of line" is an inappropriate way to describe the situation. The appropriate term is "sexual assault". You don't have to press charges, but it is sexual assault nonetheless.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:55 AM
1

It's not fair for a stay-at-home spouse to lose their standard of living in a divorce, but it is fair for a working spouse to lose their standard of living in a divorce? It does not compute.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:45 AM
1

No, he already spent a lot of money, because he wanted a relationship. What he's doing now is paying her to leave.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:41 AM
6

"It was so confusing, your honor. I thought the police are supposed to ignore inconsistencies in my story... I mean what would Nancy Grace do?"
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:22 AM
3

OK, he "wants to be single" . . . to be able to do what exactly? That's what I thought. Is our society so misandric that we can't imagine that a guy would want to leave his wife but not his kids, when women leave their husbands but not their kids all the time? Well, women initiate 70% as I've sure you've heard before. They want to be single. What do they want to be able to do exactly? Look at the guys doing it now; imagine what it would be like if the system didn't exist at all. We already pay f…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 02:31 AM
9

Where did it say he wanted to walk out? I only saw the "wants to be single" part but didn't think it necessarily means he doesn't want to take care of the children. I think in these situations, custody should be shared, and only if someone is unwilling have custody should child support be ordered.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 05:51 AM
3

The comments are very amusing. When you read the Japanese comments (within the article), they sound like something a bunch of Western men would say if a man made a complaint about rudeness. The sentiment is basically a gender neutral "man-up, stop whining". When you read the Western comments (after the article), they talk about how the Japanese men are misogynists rushing in to defend other men. It's amazing how comfortable the west is with blatant female gender loyal, yet how frightened the wes…
/r/MensRights25/12/11 01:19 AM
1

That would be unfair to female prison guards because for every 1 female prison we need 9 male prisons, because you know... 10 is a good round number.
/r/MensRights24/12/11 07:10 AM
4

If we have more feminism, we can defeat the patriarchy faster. The patriarchy is the source of all men's problems, which by the way aren't really that significant anyway. Oh look there's a patriarch behind you! Whoops, he ran away before you could turn around. Did I mention that the patriarchy is invisible to people who are of low intelligence?
/r/MensRights24/12/11 06:57 AM
2

Yeah, what I mean is sometimes people fail to meet their own moral standards, regret it, and are still called a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights24/12/11 06:35 AM
2

What if you fail to meet your own moral standards. Is that really hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights24/12/11 05:35 AM
2

Well, that's natural because so many misandrists have used the feminist movement to push anti-male philosophy. I think we it would be better if we started calling feminists who do misandric things misandrists, because it is easier than to claim that word than to reclaim feminism.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 11:31 PM
1

There's no point in looking for dragons. If she doesn't say anything misandric, then there isn't any problem. It doesn't matter what she calls herself.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 10:20 AM
2

What a dumbass. If you get married you have really set yourself up for disaster. Fuck this sentiment. Kobe doesn't deserve to get mugged by the family court just because he was naive to get married any more than a person deserved to be assaulted for putting themselves into an extremely vulnerable situation. Save your ridicule for men who are contemplating marriage, not for victims of the system.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 09:44 AM
4

Throughout history rulers, the majority of which were male, have ordered legions of men to go out to the battlefield where they would likely die. Always remember this fact, especially when you are in the presence of authority. Few men look out for the political well being of other men. The so called patriarchy has always been more misandric than misogynistic.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 09:05 AM
3

If we can agree that all parents have a minimum obligation Aren't parent in normal conditions able to abandon these obligations by handing their children over to the state or another couple, and without being forced to pay child support? Honestly, I'm not sure you can really compare the obligations of a child support parent to a custodial parent at all.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 08:52 AM
3

It's not a conspiracy at all. Misandrists who wave the feminist flag and congressmen blatantly put forth anti-male legislation like VAWA, and it gets passed. "Conspire" gives the impression that it is illegal and secretive, but these misandrists are neither secretive nor do they break any laws.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 06:35 AM
2

How are you defining hate? You can say someone is inferior without being passionate or hateful. They are excluding people on the basis of gender. This sort of behavior (i.e. sexism) should never be acceptable when gender is irrelevant, just like racism and homophobia are not acceptable.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 06:31 AM
2

You're fine with misandry if it's done with private money? Would you be okay with an ad campaigns that said blacks are inferior so long as it was privately funded?
/r/MensRights22/12/11 05:59 AM
2

Maybe one of the rules should be "Don't walk into dark alleys alone at night", because men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women are. Make no mistake, the man in the article is a victim of the Swedish legal system.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 09:39 AM
2

I can understand why this judge in this case found it to be criminal. I can't understand it at all. It simply is not sexual abuse. At worst's fraud... in the same sense that hiding vegetables in food to get your kid to eat it is fraud.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 09:37 AM
2

This is how you get things like safe-havens and abortion to be legal.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:36 AM
1

Violence against people with penises simply isn't as newsworthy. News is a business, and the media is a puppet of its misandry.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:05 AM
17

A false sense of security. Guys like security, especially when it comes to offspring.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:01 AM
1

You don't need a fund to elect men. You need a fund to elect pro-male men.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:31 AM
2

It's sort of like this video. All you can really say is that it is OK to cut yourself, but not others. This argument stands regardless of any medical benefit, and if they won't accept it that there's nothing you can say.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:24 AM
2

Actually, I think the OP was buying condoms as well.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:10 AM
10

I'll never stay with a woman who uses tears to manipulate me, even if I had to be single for the rest of my life.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:03 AM
1

I'm just saying you can't complain that women are going to college more and making more money than men and working in the same fields as men do and men are suffering from more unemployment, while complaining that women are all staying home leeching off their husbands, while their husbands kill themselves working. I'm not so sure that male hypergamy has become common and acceptable. The decline of marriage rates gives room for richer women and poorer men not to marry, thus allowing a disparity in…
/r/MensRights20/12/11 07:34 AM
2

Meaning the crime is already covered, so why make another regulation?
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:02 AM
1

The's a woman who beats herself up to frame the dude for domestic violence.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 04:38 AM
1

How did I avoid the question?
/r/MensRights19/12/11 08:23 PM
6

Men naturally feel empathy, but have the composure not to act on it. I feel empathy for the men whose lives have been destroyed by evil women, so I consequently hate the women who destroyed them as if they did something similar to me. Men also naturally cooperate as well. I want you to close your eyes for five seconds. This is the only way you could possibly escape having to look at something that wasn't a product of men cooperating together. You see, it's not that men don't work together, is th…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 07:44 AM
8

"A little off the mark" eh? This is one of the most anti-male rants you will find from a celebrity, and that is saying something. He said fathers are the root of all problems, and it's all because they envy women's ability to reproduce. It's like a civil rights advocate saying "I really like Bob, but I think he's a little off when he says 'Niggers are the root of all evil'."
/r/MensRights19/12/11 07:26 AM
2

Well, they give them out to presidents rather regularly. Bush won it twice. Hitler won it. Obama's victory was considered a great feat because it didn't make sense that someone with little platform and little experience could win on just rhetoric.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 10:50 AM
5

I get the feeling you're trying to usurp this as a LBGT issue behind-the-curtains, despite the fact that all objective observation can tell us is that this is an MRA issue. However, I'll just give you your hypothesis for the sake of argument and ask you a simple question: how does our legal system view men when its judges find it safer to be considered misandric than to be considered homophobic?
/r/MensRights18/12/11 08:22 AM
1

Any team can recruit men, so there is nothing unfair about it. If men being physically superior justifies barring teams with men, then it justify barring teams with women.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 08:04 AM
10

Now that - particularly - is something I have an issue with. When it's about health or hygiene concerns, I'm on the favor of it, but as a method of thought control I'm definitely on the opposing side. How about you speak for your own body instead of everyone else's? If we ban forced circumcisions, every guy gets to chose what he wants with his body.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 07:04 AM
2

I don't think calling out feminism is helpful to Men's Rights. I think we should just say "misandrists" instead. Feminism is a loaded concept, but misandry is a rather lesser known word. By saying "misandrist" we can both make the concept of misandry become more popular as well as avoid unnecessary dragons.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 08:29 AM
1

The main point is that for most men marriage is necessary to have and secure custody of children, where as women are completely independent on this matter. This false sense of security has been exposed, and marriage rates have dropped sufficiently. Also, this is not the subreddit to regurgitate the "what about women?" sentiment. Please try r/whiteknights or r/everyone or something. There is no shortage of people worried about women.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 10:10 AM
1

WHOOOSH
/r/MensRights16/12/11 08:12 AM
1

Women have not needed men on an individual level for a long time now. There are so many social programs aimed mostly at women to give them pseudo independence in the case where they didn't make it on their own. In spite of this, they have gotten married (and divorced) in high rates up to now. Female independence is a minimal factor. Men are still highly dependent on women to have children even to this day. This is what has compelled independent men to get married and continues to compel many of …
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:47 AM
2

Women have not needed men on in individual level for a long time now. There are so many social programs aimed mostly at women to give them pseudo independence in the case where they didn't make it on their own. In spite of this, they have gotten married (and divorced) in high rates up to now. Female independence is a minimal factor. Men are still highly dependent on women to have children even to this day. This is what has compelled independent men to get married and continues to compel many of …
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:47 AM
2

He hasn't made any apparent effort. On the other hand he has bashed fathers and praised mothers on Father's day.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 06:25 AM
3

Your dad is only an ATM to get support from. That state has educated you well.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 04:37 AM
1

Do they call out misandry though? I have never seen LBGT ever do this.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:37 AM
5

Men have been told for decades that when they insert the penis, accidents might happen, and they have to accept responsibility. The same is true for women who let the penis enter, yet they don't have to accept responsibility. Would you rather be called a slut, or pay 18 years of child support? Women will kill babies they are forced to have. This is the argument made by those who are pro-choice or advocates for safe havens. This is why we do not hold women responsible for their accidents, and the…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:16 AM
2

There certainly aren't enough white knights in the world, right?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 07:32 AM
2

Some men have been treated like garbage by the legal system as well as the media, and they need a place to vent. I don't mind.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 06:55 AM
1

Thank you women for the commercialization and materialism of Christmas. You deserve the credit. Imagine how miserable we'd be with all that money laying around in place of useless junk. Our economy would collapse. Worst of all, most companies would have to actually sell products by their merit rather than using man-bashing ads to cover up the lack their of.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 06:19 AM
1

I'm not outraged, but I really dislike the message this puts out there. Obviously boys should be taught to believe that they don't have to settle for a two timing narcissistic woman child, as opposed to competing over such garbage. Maybe such is the "aha" moment at the end?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 06:06 AM
4

No, just no. You can kill yourself if you believe your life is too painful. Having this choice is always better than not having it.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 04:51 AM
1

Judge: The child's best interest comes first, regardless of what the mother did. Can you find a case where this hasn't happened?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:58 AM
2

Does LBGT call out misandry?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:52 AM
1

The points you're raising make it seem like you're keen on forcing the mother to take on 100% of the financial obligation of raising a child that took two people to make. The mother 100% control of the vehicle before the accident, the father was only a passenger. It makes sense to hold the mother 100% accountable. If you're worried about the child, well that is your burden or society's burden as a whole. This means that you can donate to single mothers or pay taxes for her welfare, but don't put…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:48 AM
10

Legions of single mothers, female daycare providers, and female educators are determining a vast majority of the values passed onto children. This system is called "patriarchy", because it is men's fault.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:26 AM
4

Why do you call a generation raised by legions of single mothers, female educators, and female daycare providers a "patriarchy"?
/r/MensRights08/12/11 06:28 AM
2

I am just having a tough time understanding why it is some of you seem to think women having more political, social, economic power means that takes away from men's power? I'm having a tough time understanding where you got this idea from. It's an oversimplification. My guess is that since we don't mention any empowerment of women that doesn't come at the expense of men, you get the impression we deny it happens. The reason why we don't mention such cases is that they aren't relevant. We will on…
/r/MensRights05/12/11 07:51 AM
9

And yet, I'm going to be charged more for insurance because of some other people who are not as conscientious as me and who have nothing in common with me except my gender It's not that men are less conscientious when they drive, it's that they drive more and the have more chances of getting into accidents. You are being judged based on the fact that men in general drive more. If children bought insurance they would get the cheapest rates, not because they're good drivers but because they don't …
/r/MensRights05/12/11 03:54 AM
-1

I don't know what you should do, but I'd probably break down and cry in front of your asshole manager.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 10:38 PM
1

You're right. In fact, I would say the age of 'alimony' makes this even more true. If you let your wife have no income, you are basically walking into a dangerous dark alley. Either nothing happens, or the worst happens.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 09:24 PM
11

He has his own issues that he lets bleed into work, but this is ludicrous and not his doing. Why is it that every time a woman does something, there has to be some disclaimer about a man doing something negative? I see this all the time. The guy should just tell her that he isn't going to get a raise and that she just has to either learn to live with less or get a job. It's not sexist or controlling to have a spine and be rational.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 10:23 AM
1

women > boys > men
/r/MensRights04/12/11 12:43 AM
2

So because he helped you buy a car, they saw it as "holding out"? Wow that is so ridiculous. If you don't want someone "to hold out" on you, how about you not divorce them?
/r/MensRights04/12/11 12:10 AM
2

A lot of people talk about rape when it comes to abortion. Always bring up rape when it comes up to child support, always.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:45 PM
4

This is so easy... Blame is when you talk accountability after the fact. Precaution is when you talk about accountability before the fact or in general. Precaution is both proper and necessary, where as blame is just a defense mechanism for the "it's not my fault" and "it wont happen to me" folks. You don't use specific tragedies to advocate precaution. What's going on in this article is obvious blaming.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:35 PM
2

Which is why you can't "suddenly allow more doctors to be trained" as chavelah states.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:06 PM
3

You can't assume that there will be more money just because more women have entered the medical profession. When our government invests money into someone for becoming a doctor, and that person leaves the field, they invested money is wasted.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 10:52 PM
3

Do they take equal paternity leave though?
/r/MensRights03/12/11 10:02 PM
3

No, it's not morally permissible. There is a clear method of avoiding domestic violence, and that would be abandoning such relationships. I understand why someone might kill someone who is violent with them, just like I understand why someone might rob a 7/11.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 07:24 AM
1

People snap, and they get punished for it. I'm okay with that.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 07:17 AM
2

Well, I think we should just call them misandrists as opposed to feminists. I don't believe feminism is mutually exclusive with misandry though. I just would prefer we not fight the uphill battle of language.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 11:30 PM
0

I find the lawyer comments very annoying.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 11:12 PM
2

It's very easy to say you should trust your SO. There was a post here recently about a man who trusted their SO completely and was betrayed, because she decided she wanted children. It's always better to be safe than sorry. There is very little harm in not disclosing a vasectomy. It punishes women who would purposefully get pregnant without first talking it over. For women who are honest and talk it over, they will learn the truth about the procedure and something like adoption or reversing the …
/r/MensRights01/12/11 09:01 AM
25

One of the questions I've asked guys is what they want to get out of a relationship. Their expectations are very minimal. So I suppose it makes sense.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:09 AM
1

The power ranger analogy pretty much summed up everything I wanted to say. There is nothing wrong with liking or not liking the power rangers. I take issue with people arguing about why someone should or shouldn't watch the power rangers, which is what led to my original response. Sex really isn't much different. There are alternatives, like masturbation. There are celibates who have lived happy lives, just as there are happy people who never watched the power rangers.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 10:52 AM
3

How much of that money wasn't theirs to begin with?
/r/MensRights30/11/11 09:44 AM
3

I'm not forcing you to take it, nor am I "selling" it to you. Okay, you've repeatedly said things like "sex feels good", "people want sex", etc. It's gotten to the point where I'm expecting you to say "Theeeeeey're great!" in a Tony the Tiger voice. Maybe "sell" is not a good word. Maybe you'd prefer the word "marketing"? I agree that sex can sell itself. However when someone has already made up their mind an another person says: I know condoms suck, but is it really worse than a life in celebac…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 09:40 AM
3

Yeah, but you have to take into account that people are sold sex more than well, just about anything else, and they are shamed for their inability to get sex. I mean, even right now, you're trying to sell me sex. The person I replied to was trying to sell sex. It's not even as if anyone said "no one should have sex" and you're defending it. Rather, some dude doesn't feel that it is worth the risk, and somehow this decision is a sin or something.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 08:25 AM
6

What do you think of ”Violence Against People Act"?
/r/MensRights30/11/11 08:18 AM
1

A lot of things feel good. A lot of fans insult people for not being that into their fandom. This is stupid. Sex is probably the worst example of it.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 08:12 AM
2

It's ironic. Patriarchs have benefited more from feminism than women have.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:53 AM
2

This is the way politics works. I only find it annoying how this subreddit went on an on about DSK but pretty much brushed Cain under the carpet.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:48 AM
2

I also feel trapped in my marriage knowing that it will always be just the two of us. That's the joke. At the time having kids was not a priority for me, so I brushed it aside. You don't brush aside the most important issue pertaining to marriage just because it might happen later. Actually, discussing such a topics is a priority at the time of making the commitment.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:38 AM
3

worse than a life in celebacy? I'm not sure why you are knocking it.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:24 AM
2

If this ever happens to me, I'll do the exact same as McIntosh did. The only difference is that I'd ask the blonde why she was so silent when the girls were attempting to assault me.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:43 AM
6

Better would be a shirt like "My erection is not consent" or "Being in prison doesn't mean I deserve to be raped" or something brings awareness to male victims and female perpetrators.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 07:38 AM
3

The only violent confrontations I've had with men is spankings form dad and a sucker punch from some dude in middle school. However the most violent and scariest moments I've had are with women. Everything from spitting, rock throwing, punching, one even threatened with a knife one time (if it was a joke, it was a bad one). I also remember being hit by a woman pulling out of a drive way (I was riding my bike to middle school, thankfully I wasn't injured). When I looked through the window shield …
/r/MensRights29/11/11 07:06 AM
1

Now all you're doing here is arguing that it's funny. However, it could be just as funny if the roles are reversed. You see, all she has to do is call the cops and they'll arrest the guy, even if she was the one abusing him. So she is in the actual position of power by having the full force of the law behind her. So there's the humorous in the irony of him being in control of the situation when he truly isn't. Frankly speaking "that's the joke" doesn't always work. I wouldn't dislike a world wer…
/r/MensRights28/11/11 09:55 PM
0

This isn't a problem. Just give those girls some high heels and they'll be able to beat the boy's record in no time.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:58 AM
5

Wow this was easy to believe.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 02:48 AM
2

My point was a guy and girl can be together, talk about having a kid, then a month after the birth the bloke pulls the plug and gets out of there. I know. My point is that this is a deception which already exists in our current system and would exist in your system. Guys who trust girls when it comes to birth control can be really screwed over. In your system, guys who don't even know the child is theirs(paternity fraud) can be screwed over. If you put the onus on the woman to get the man to leg…
/r/MensRights28/11/11 01:26 AM
2

He's an MRA so he should remain in this subreddit. I think he should be no less welcome than the hippies.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 11:02 PM
1

Are you friends with any KKK members too?
/r/MensRights27/11/11 10:08 PM
3

I disagree with this. It gives way too many deadbeats who would say they would be there, an out. What's to say she wouldn't have had an abortion if the douche said he was going to help raise the kid? What's to say he wouldn't wear a condom if she said she was on the pill? The solution here is simple. You play it safe unless you can get some definitive, legally binding agreement.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 09:50 PM
2

It really depends. If they're a weekended daddy who's living out of their car to pay child support, I can see it being really easy. Having full custody of a child for 10 years is different than a child who is poisoned against you and you barely get to see.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 09:38 PM
1

I don't care that a boy is less likely to set something I own on fire than a girl, but I do care that according to the US Justice Department, 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are men. I'm excited that changing social mores might allow her to be a powerful executive someday, but I'm not prepared to know that as soon as she's old enough to drive, she, like her mother, is going to have to learn how to carry her keys between her index and middle fingers in case someone follows her t…
/r/MensRights26/11/11 09:04 AM
4

He never said it was assault...
/r/MensRights18/11/11 12:07 AM
3

Passed out due to alcohol, made to pay [The] father's recourse under the law as to the mother of the child in this matter, was to file criminal charges against her. To penalize this child for the mother's actions would run contrary to the fundamental purpose of this proceeding as established by statutory and case law. This Court is not concerned with the child's mother's actions but rather protecting the best interests of and insuring that adequate provision will be made for, the child's needs. …
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:59 AM
2

Why exactly are you blaming yourself? Did you do something that made you deserving of a false accusation?
/r/MensRights15/11/11 11:12 PM
3

You still have to pay child support even if you were raped.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 10:59 PM
8

Could you elaborate?
/r/MensRights15/11/11 10:58 PM
1

I didn't say anything about equal terms or magic. Do you have a real argument?
/r/MensRights15/11/11 10:35 PM
0

It was voluntary when women were not granted alimony or given custody.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 03:28 AM
1

Funny. When marriage disadvantaged women it was still voluntary, yet something had to be done about it. The result is what we have now.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 03:15 AM
17

I agree with this completely. There's going to be a get together of women with engineering majors, and I'm considering attending despite being man with an engineering major. Men need to invade female-only spaces just as women invade traditionally male-only spaces. That's how you challenge discrimination.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 03:06 AM
1

No, they work just fine. Here's the thing: you don't get to decide what is acceptable or not between consenting adults. You don't understand the position of the worker or the employer well enough to make a judgement like that. It's not even any of your business if someone wants to trade lifespan to accomplish more. The fact of the matter is that unless all these provisions are made for women, men will have a competitive advantage. Taking away more liberties and ways of differentiating ones labor…
/r/MensRights15/11/11 02:37 AM
2

I disagree. I think the justice system handles rape correctly. I think the media handles unproven rape allegations too seriously. I don't think rape jokes are that heinous in the context of how we treat other criminal acts of violence.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 12:33 AM
1

"Can't say I don't like" does not have the same meaning as "Can say I like".
/r/MensRights14/11/11 11:07 PM
-8

Even if they are illegal, I still don't think that men should rule them out.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:46 PM
8

She looked at me like I was an idiot and said "do you seriously not see how it is sexist that a man will improve a woman's grade if she has sex with him?" You should simply have asked: "How does this disadvantage a woman over a man?"
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:28 PM
3

Imagine if homicide was defined in such a way that kicking a baby into a goal post wasn't considered homicide. You could just as well argue that it never happens, and that it is extremism to create a definition which includes such an incident by this logic. The problem here is that it frankly doesn't matter whether an incident has ever happened at all. You shouldn't create exclusive definitions just because you believe an event to be unlikely.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 08:48 PM
2

No one pays for low quality sperm. After all, you can steal it for free without any repercussions, and victim will probably have to pay you for it after.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:48 AM
1

As to the Vietnam comment we appreciate all of those who participated. I've yet to meet a survivor who now believes the war to have been a good idea. I. never. ever. mentioned. Vietnam. Paragraph 2. I interpreted this as a comment about if we admit we were wrong in the past we admit that the loss of lives was not admirable. You said that education is somehow a better solution than simply not engaging in stupid wars. During the time of which we educated these boys into not joining the military, y…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:34 AM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:14 AM
1

Are you deliberately missing the point? I said nothing about the current size of the military. I said nothing about diminishing the sacrifice of men have made in the past. I said that the military is not the problem, but that the abuse of the military is the problem. We will always have a military and always put troops in dangerous situations, and this is only a bad thing when it is done for trivial reasons. Your solution isn't an actual solution because it makes so many assumptions about things…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 08:05 AM
1

Congress didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan, they gave the president permission to mobilize troops, but didn't actually declare a war. I don't think that the belief that Ron Paul can't win voids the fact that his foreign policy is male friendly.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 07:42 AM
1

It's a bad argument because the military isn't the problem here. It is the abuse of the military which is the problem. Your solution is to educate boys out of joining the military, and if that actually happens and you're willing to overlook the thousands of men who die before reaching this "solution", then you have a country with a weak military. What will happen to such a country? Have you heard of conscription?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 07:35 AM
2

There are none. There are candidates that believe in the current wars and maybe one more and candidates that believe in an unlimited amount of wars. There are some, and one is Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to promote Ron Paul though. Ron Paul believes in no wars and no invasion of foreign soil period He just has very strict standards on when we should mobilize troops. Did you know congress used to declare wars? but he will never be elected because many people believe we need bases i…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 07:27 AM
3

No, you're better off picking a candidate that won't engage in frivolous wars.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 07:16 AM
1

So it can be a bull if it has no penis?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 06:40 AM
7

Not having a penis doesn't necessarily mean having a vagina though. It's more of a problem of parents not wanting to explain penises and vaginas, which isn't really that difficult of a conversation if you can keep simple. As a side note, cows have horns but farmers usually get red of them. Technically if the male cattle doesn't have a penis, it is not a bull but instead an ox.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 12:51 AM
1

The orchestration worked pretty well considering you already have assumed that the mother was a manipulated facilitator rather than an accomplice or the actual manipulator.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 12:21 AM
3

I don't believe that being white makes a person superior to non-white people. So why mention "white" or "man" along with things like income that would actually make you better at taking a test?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 12:04 AM
5

You mean like Jezebel?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:21 PM
7

It's a site telling men how to be a gentleman. Don't be a gentleman.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:10 PM
7

Misogyny and misandry both exist.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 08:57 AM
1

It's a men's rights issue because the military puts men exclusively onto the front lines.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 08:55 AM
2

Why is it that in a situation where two drunk people sex, the man is always the aggressor? Men need to start assuming the role of a victim, rather than assuming the role of the falsely accused. There is no reason that men can't do this, but the fact is that they don't. It is because they don't accuse women of date rape via alcohol that no prosecutor will go forward. Shaming language is still very effective on some men, and they don't want to be called whiners. They shouldn't act indifferent to t…
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:38 AM
0

No, they can still have a surrogate bear the child.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:10 AM
8

It's not needed, it's useful to right wing and left wing. Conservatives want to keep it around to legally enforce traditional values. In short, it gives the government social control. Liberals want to keep it around as a method of wealth distribution. In short, it gives the government economic control.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:46 AM
7

These people are assholes. We do our best to ignore them, until they begin to write laws like VAWA.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 08:39 AM
1

I don't think we're going to get an MRA in there any time soon, but can we at least not have a misandrist bigot like Obama in office? Is that too much to ask?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 10:37 PM
1

Fixed it. Actually it was OK at some point and I made it wrong when editing because I didn't reread it correctly.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:23 AM
4

In these situations, men need to start asking the question "Was I violated?" before they ask "Was she violated?" That way it won't be considered a strictly male on female thing (which it isn't), and feminists will consider the possible harm done to women caused when they continue to dilute the definition of rape. We are never going to get feminists to acknowledge the consequences their policies have on men. We can if women become victims of their policies.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:58 PM
4

Anyway, if all men rebelled and killed all leftist, misandrist, feminists, that'd put a pretty big dent in the problems we have. Have you put any thought into this at all, or are you just being silly? The end result would be a society that is even more misandrists than it ever has been, and society has been very misandric in the past.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:49 PM
12

Reminds me of when Larry Summers said that in general men are better at STEM than women. Except, Larry Summers performed a scientific study to reach his findings, and was fired for it. Whereas this guy is talking out of his ass, and will probably be praised for it.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:43 PM
3

More specifically, I'd designate one day of the year where all men agree not to work. "a day without men"
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:15 PM
8

If there’s one thing I think the Men’s Rights movement can do effectively on their own, right now (to make more substantial strides in terms of legislation and their other issues they’ll still need wider support), is to start by squashing the narrative that men cannot control themselves within their own movement I think we actively squash the sentiment here--I know I do. It goes hand in hand with assuming worse faith of men around children than you would of women.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 10:44 PM
3

A bit of the problem is that we don't teach men to be intolerant of sexual harassment. I've seen many instances of men being sexually harassed at work and their response was basically to smile awkwardly and brush it off. These men don't want to be a seen as a whiny victim, and they don't want to be seen as the tattle tale. Yet in spite of the fact that the male on female vs female on male ratio has been roughly even, I have only ever seen females do something about it. This is a problem because …
/r/MensRights05/11/11 10:26 PM
3

The article is just a list of how the children are going to scrutinize your relationship. Are you saying that divorced people with children should never attempt to start another relationship I'm saying it's impractical to have romantic relationships until the children are raised. It's unfair to both the partner and the children. and that the children of divorced people are not worth any investment of time? I'm not sure what you're talking about. They already have two parents, and as many teacher…
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:32 AM
13

Man bashing begins promptly at about the 20 minute mark and lingers up to the 30 minute mark.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 10:58 AM
5

The fact that for x children, you have x+1 times the scrutiny of a normal relationship. It's not the kids fault, because they ought to have a say about who enters their private lives. It's the fault of the DWC who believes they are in a situation to develop a romantic relationship when they aren't.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 12:03 AM
3

Most children are primarily cared for by women. Without accounting for this variable, the statement of the nominal numbers does little more than to communicate that women can be abusers too. When you account for that variable, you get a statistic which has even less meaning. It allows you to answer questions like: Who is more likely to abuse a child: a man or a woman? ...and when is this statistic going to be helpful? Placing children in the care of someone is done on an individual level, and th…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:48 PM
2

(Letting this guy go free provides justifications for crack downs and debtor's prison for dead-broke dads) No it doesn't.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 10:50 PM
2

I have issues with anyone who would read this article and still subject themselves to DWC. If you want to invest time an money on children, this is certainly not the way to do it.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 10:28 PM
9

in the case of child support, it’s about finding a reasonable amount that is required to raise the child by the standards of the parent who will have custody,” said family law specialist Debra Opri. “If she thinks she’s going to get $500,000 a month, she’s wrong. $5,000 to $10,000 a month is more likely.” Damn. This patriarchy we live in that privileges all of us men over women is so unfair. Does anyone actually believe the quoted text? Another question...why would a rapist be given child suppor…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 09:21 PM
1

The assumption is that the child isn't being manipulated. My point wasn't to specify who was being manipulated anyway. The point is that if you absolve people (who acted on free will) based on the premise that they were manipulated, you create a complex situation of figuring out who was manipulated. You can't assume manipulation when it is convenient with your prejudices and rule it out when it's not. You also can't assume that the victim isn't being manipulated.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 09:17 PM
1

I absolutely think this woman would have said "Roll over and take it like a man!" if it was a boy being whipped. Everyone who's been in r/MR long enough has seen the statistics which show that in abusive relationships, it's more likely mutual than one way, and when it's is one way it's more likely female on male.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 09:11 PM
1

You're already assuming the father, as opposed to the mother, was the one manipulating. When you believe in manipulation, you make things absurdly complex.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 07:29 AM
3

I hate how people talk about men having a lower libido like it is a bad thing. The whole anti-porn movement is about jealousy.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 07:03 AM
2

If she claimed that she obtained the sperm without engaging sexually with Bieber, then she would be innocent of statutory rape and would still get the support. It's in the best interest of the child that Bieber pays up.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:13 AM
3

60 hours of community service is an over reaction?
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:07 AM
5

Then you must believe in the possibility that the daughter could have been manipulated by the mother to absolve her.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:40 AM
7

The mother willingly participated.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 12:21 AM
0

There are places in the world today where being a woman is hell and not just because life is hard in general but relative to how hard it is to be a man. But are you comparing women in general to men in general, or women in general to upper-class men? Do you know how hard men have it in the middle east? Are you getting this opinion by reading the same sources which tend to underplay male grievances in the west? Why are so many men desperate enough to join terrorist organizations? Our aim should b…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 12:05 AM
-2

complete straw man. Your words: To reason with them is irrelevant, it is only important that they obey. You imply that there was never any reasoning with the child. If you are really telling me that you think the kid is acting when you can clearly see a fucking BELT IN THE MAN'S HANDS then, well, let someone take a belt to your body and see if you still think she is acting The point is that we don't know to what extent she is being genuine and acting. Do you think anyone who has ever whipped the…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:45 PM
-2

What possible context did we miss when he walked back in the room and said "I didn't get my licks in" and proceeded to hit her again? It's not that you missed context, it's that you put in context that wasn't there to begin with. You assumed that no other methods of discipline or reasoning had been used beforehand. You used that dubious premise to assume this was a beating into submission rather than a punishment. What, the message didn't get through in between the sobs and he thought she might …
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:43 PM
1

Just from watching the video, I can't tell she had this condition. If her condition is such that what he's doing will, or is highly likely to, injure her, then it's obviously abuse.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:46 PM
-2

They tend to lie as much as is necessary to avoid punishment, rather than taking responsibility for their mistakes. The word "mistakes" implies that something was done on accident. I was never disciplined this way for accidents. Only when I clearly violated a serious rule (e.g. vandalism). You are already being somewhat dishonest here. The girl didn't mistakenly use the internet to engage in illegal activity.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:40 PM
1

That's not my argument. My argument is there is a difference between abuse and discipline. A single case like this is not enough for me to conclude abuse. I'm not out for blood though.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:34 PM
-1

You can't conclude there was no discourse before and after the video, or that there weren't other punishments used which didn't work. You only see the beating completely out of any real context. That's why this video is so inconclusive.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:28 PM
2

But, I mean, how do you get how do you find the father unless the mother is compliant?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:08 PM
-10

I know I'm going to be down voted to hell for this, but I'd rather be honest than popular. I've been pretty desensitized because this method of discipline was used in my family (not so much on my sister, but on me). It worked. I learned not to disobey the rules. My sister, who was yelled at but not touched, ended up being spoiled and disobedient. I wasn't traumatized or scarred or anything like that, because I was only disciplined when I did bad shit. My dad would always tell me he loved me afte…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:25 AM
2

I'm on it. Cool.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 04:31 AM
6

I'm not even sure why you need to grasp at straws like this when the sexual harassment of men by woman not all that uncommon to begin with. What's uncommon is men who are willing to report it due to their fear of being called a fag or wimp.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 03:49 AM
9

More accurately: "Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:37 AM
-5

I thought the exact same thing. I was punished like then when I was a child too. I can't be the only one. The video is dramatic and makes you feel uncomfortable. What the parents are probably thinking is how to get the daughter to understand that illegal actives are dangerous, since talking didn't work. On the other hand, I see abuse as hitting your child for trivial reasons to help deal with your own issues. I don't think you can conclude that from this video alone.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:29 AM
2

Obviously the system works this way, because it's in the best interest of the child. But for some reason I always get it confused... which one is the child again? Is it the mother or the baby? Since the mother is able to kill the baby before birth, or abandon it without consequence, I'm guessing that the mother would be the child. So basically the father and baby have to make some compromises for the sake of the mother, which makes perfect sense now that I think about it. It's not the woman's fa…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 09:20 AM
1

Will the MRM hurt your career?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 07:11 AM
4

The study meant to show negative stereotypes given women, under the assumption that they were false stereotypes. They were willing to assume it. Yet, they weren't willing to assume that negative stereotypes alleged against men were false. Someone posted a study to show that men are more violent. Let's just assume that all their science is true. What are these scientists saying? Women, in general, are never worse than men at anything, but sometimes men are worse? That only makes sense if you beli…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:39 AM
1

This. must. change. It won't.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:41 AM
1

Warning comes before the fact. Blaming comes after the fact. It's that simple. Example: When someone says "Don't stick your dick in crazy" to a guy after he was screwed, that person is victim blaming. When a someone tells people not to dress like sluts to avoid rape, that person is blaming if addressing people who are rape victims, otherwise they are warning.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:28 AM
1

I'm left feeling like the only egalitarian left between a bunch of partisan hacks. My system was egalitarian. Yours wasn't.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:08 AM
4

Yeah yeah, but is it too much to ask for a legal system in which we know whether or not our action was a crime independent of her whims after the fact. Also, I always laugh when idiots whine about men acting wimpy. Look at the hypersensitive laws we've given them. The government presents a greater threat to most men than the natural dangers and criminals.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:57 AM
6

Well, you're partly correct. It's true that for your typical sane human, diluting a definition consequently takes away from its severity. However, in a legal bureaucracy, this isn't the case. You can dilute a legal definition and sustain severity across the board. That way you can punish consensual sex with a 17 year old as if it were forcible rape on a 10 year old.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:51 AM
0

The statement "men are not always rapists" is true. The problem is that it has people infer that men not raping is somehow an exception to the rule. You used that exact rhetoric to prostitution and sex trafficking. I'm attacking that rhetoric.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:39 AM
1

The state should in effect provide a boiler plate pre-nup for all parties. Likely it would be as close to no fault divorce 50/50. If this isn't a sufficient incentive for getting a pre-nup I don't know what is. The path of least resistance is to put the onus on the woman to come up with a suitable, explicit contract, or not marry at all. This would not maker her more vulnerable, as she would have the ultimate bargaining chip of agreeing to marry. Yet you want to take the path of most resistance,…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:35 AM
2

You mean open their eyes? I agree with him, there should be harsher penalties on false allegations. They should not be all lumped together as "false police report", because some are far more heinous than others. I also really am irritated by the "Do you think it happens that much that you really need to..." Once is enough, Mr. Radio Clown. Also, do these guys not understand what statutory rape is? Statutory rape is consensual, but the consent is considered invalid. So the underage girls who are …
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:03 AM
1

If no contract was created it would be much more difficult for the state to settle divorces. I don't see how it could get any easier, as there would be nothing to settle. Everyone's assets would be their own. have the state's contract explained to the parties prior to marriage. Would the state's contract then be fixed, or would it be adjusted over time? There is a reason I'm very opposed to state intervention being default or mandatory. Whenever men are told to trust the state, it ends poorly fo…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:45 AM
1

They are saying they intend to be in the marriage until they die. They are intending to share resources and income until they die. So, when one spouse stays home, they are doing so with the assumption and agreement that they will continue to share their partner's resources until the day they die. I think I understand what you're saying. The thing is, that after divorce partner's resources are no longer shared, they are split up. There is no proper analogy from a 'sharing' status to a 'split up' …
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:03 AM
1

I agree that it should get out of the religious business and focus on ensuring people enter into contracts equitably and then help them settle quickly in case of the dissolution of the contract. But do you disagree with the notion of there being no contract unless one is created? Do you disagree with the notion of there being no single marriage contract? This would mean people would have to explicitly state and agree upon any understandings, rather than leave it up to a family court to decide wh…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:57 AM
2

Do I think most people get married with the intention of sharing all their assets for the rest of their lives? Do I believe that when one spouse stays home, both have the expectation that they will be compensated by sharing in the other's salary? Yes, absolutely, this is most people's intentions when they get married. That's what marriage is- a promise to share your entire life and assets with one another "until death do us part." I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. "until death do us part…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:44 AM
3

If you go into a marriage without a pre-nuptial agreement, and claim that marriage is a contract, in effect what you are saying is you are agreeing to be held by the terms of a contract, without knowing what the terms are. As a result, you give law-makers and judges the power to determine them for you, usually to your detriment. This is not completely true. Even pre-nuptial agreements can be thrown out. So frankly however you get married, you throw yourself at their mercy. In that sense I agree …
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:26 AM
7

A politician was accused? You don't say...
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:55 AM
4

I would rather there be no legal concept of marriage, as it will always be inherently unjust but... Why is it easier to accept men getting screwed but hard to accept women getting screwed?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:48 AM
1

To me? To be honest, I don't really think that even matters what I think about marriage at this point. What marriage has become is a cookie-cutter approach to relationships, which has tricked people into neglecting to make the contingency plans they ought to make. It has also given the public a lot of control over what relationships are acceptable and how they ought to be (i.e. anti-homosexual and anti-polygamy). If we tailor the institution of marriage to be just in your case, then it will ulti…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:43 AM
1

Write a real contract. Any ambiguity in the law can and will be used against men in the court of law. Do you think men get married agreeing to be taken to the cleaners?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:26 AM
2

This should not be marriage. This should be a different contract entirely. You can not have a shoe that fits all feet.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:03 AM
6

The guy who wants an otherwise "traditional" marriage where he gets to keep sole title to the family home doesn't want a wife - he wants a housekeeper/nursemaid/cook/whore who he can fire at will. No thanks. The girl who wants an otherwise "traditional" marriage where she is entitled to half the value of a house that she paid nothing towards doesn't want a husband - she wants a slave who she can rob at will. No thanks.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 02:59 AM
1

This isn't what marriage is about. If you want this sort of arrangement, you should try to make a real contract.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 02:52 AM
1

Are you one of those types who would say men are NOT ALWAYS rapists?
/r/MensRights30/10/11 11:42 PM
5

Does LBGT advocate for heterosexual fathers?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 02:17 AM
-3

There will never be such a study done to begin with. Just watch comedians.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 01:57 AM
3

As the feminists would say: "There already is a register-him.com--it's called the local news." We're just providing supplementary material for Women's Studies.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:33 AM
2

Perhaps we shouldn't enforce child support orders with laws. Instead we should attach a social stigma to paternal abandonment, and follow up by not handing out lollipops to abandoning fathers. Only then will deadbeat dads finally understand the deep level of accountability society places on women.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:41 AM
0

It's strange how some would rather kill their baby than put it up for adoption.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:58 AM
7

Had an ex-gf who was laughing about a kid in her class who had one testicle because the other one was removed due to cancer. In retrospect, I'm not sure why it took me so long to realize what a ruthless two faced person she was.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:45 AM
3

Is the mother allowed to leave and never look back? I don't understand how people assert that women have any legal accountability when it comes to children. Abortion, Adoption, Abandonment (i.e. safe havens)... I'm not sure how you could possibly further absolve women of parental obligations. The only thing left is to let women kill their children after birth. They have absolutely no legal obligations that they have not willfully taken up.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:28 AM
3

It's hard to exploit men to their fullest without giving them a false sense of liberty and authority.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 04:04 AM
1

I asked a question. There was no statement.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 12:40 AM
-2

Why are men more willing to take dangerous jobs? Why wouldn't they value their own safety to the extent women do?
/r/MensRights22/10/11 02:19 AM
0

To become that guy that men want to be and women want to be with, that's what Game is all about--become that guy and then have the skills to take action in a positive manner. Oh look, it's the grave of men's liberty.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 12:09 AM
2

1) How would you define Rape Culture? I'd define it as a culture in which rape is acceptable. 2) Do you think Rape Culture exists in America? When it comes to male prisoners, I do believe we have a rape culture. It's usually either ignored or considered poetic justice. When it comes to civilians, especially women, rape is taken very seriously in comparison to other crimes. 3) Do you think that America places much of the blame in rape cases on the victims? If so, why? Again, when it comes to male…
/r/MensRights19/10/11 05:21 AM
0

They soeak of their children like one would speak of their chattel or pets. Failures of the matriarchy will be blamed on the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 10:10 PM
2

Haven't you heard of patriarchy? Everything is man only, even women. Feminism has a long way to go until changing this. Check your privilege. /s
/r/MensRights18/10/11 09:52 PM
1

The article linked had a comments section.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 09:45 PM
4

If you read the comments section, it's just a bunch of douche bags trying to one up each other with the best joke.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 04:34 PM
-7

Do feminist bar sperm from being agents of rape? How merciful indeed.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 09:41 PM
1

Someone else could just as well argue that there are more black men in prison not because of the prejudice of juries, but because black men are more likely to raised in poorer and more dangerous districts. In reality, it's just a mix of both.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 09:36 PM
3

Generalize r/MR not women.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:22 AM
-2

I would let it alone dude. When someone is an alleged victim, you're not allowed to scrutinize them unless you are the defense attorney of the accused. It doesn't even matter if they're a KKK member. I understand how you'd find it not right, but it's a dragon that's better avoided.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 03:20 AM
-1

The way I see it, it accurately shows how society doesn't know how to respond to men being raped. What's funny isn't that he got raped, but how awkward society is upon hearing such a thing. I remember when women called the radio host Dr. Laura, she'd always comfort them, tell them how to overcome it, etc. When a man called in and said he'd been raped she was totally dumbfounded. "Uhhh did you tell the police? I can't really help you."
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:37 AM
1

Actually, I've long opposed the government institution of marriage on the grounds that it is a fraudulent contract. An honest contract has terms and conditions established before its signing which do not change after signing. The breach conditions of marriage vary based on the time and jurisdiction of the breach. If we had a handful of separate contracts which each represented what is considered an essential to marriage such as asset sharing, hospital visitation, etc; then we wouldn't even need …
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:45 AM
8

It's because marriage is a contract. Did you know marriage is a contract? You have to understand marriage is a contract. Marriage is a contract. Marriage is a contract. Marriage is a contract. That's basically the response I've gotten from feminists on the issue. Justice and equality be damned, because a contract is a contract and marriage is a contract.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:01 AM
6

Monogamy gives beta males a chance of raising another man's children.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:48 PM
1

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these politicians are going to take on a controversial issue that isn't high priority. You can tell their priorities by what they say during debates. Has anyone seen any these candidates talk about fathers rights or the family course even once during their campaign, other than in response to a father's rights interest group?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 07:55 PM
-2

If so, what is the point of arguing against feminist beliefs? We usually don't argue against views that are hopelessly unreasonable, such as the belief that nothing whatsoever is true or that every single human being should be killed because the aliens want it that way. We don't argue about killing off the human species for the benefit of aliens, because few, let alone the government, are blatantly killing of the human species for the benefit of aliens. Few still are taking such an argument seri…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 03:36 AM
3

"Estrogen to thank for cosmetics boom" Remember it's "man bad woman good". If you forget the "woman good" part, you're just being lazy.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 03:28 AM
2

Look if people want a broad definition of rape, they must understand the natural consequence is that it will be taken less severely. You can't fool all the people all of the time. We educate people to imagine rape as someone violently forcing sex on a person. But now when I hear the word rape, I should imagine someone willfully having sex with someone under unfortunate conditions. Bad? Sure. As severe? Not at all. I hate having to fight language. Language is a tool of communicate and nothing mor…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 03:17 AM
33

They already got this covered.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:44 AM
5

When feminists describe rape, it's on the level amputating an appendage. When feminists define rape, it's on the level of stubbing a toe.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 12:40 AM
3

Vote for the Democratic party (historically defended slavery) or for the Democratic party (affirmative action)? If you're limiting yourself to only voting for Democrats, I'd say you're not making a choice.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 09:18 PM
2

IAMA white middle class male, I can testify that I have never ever had a problem in my life. I've never been sad, hurt, sick, rejected, insulted, battered, discriminated against, or anything like that. Basically what I'm saying that that white middle class men live perfect lives. If you ever see one complain, call them out--they are faking it. Work related injury - Faking it Misses his kids - Faking it Prison - Faking it Killed in action - Faking it Hope that clears things up. Sham on.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:43 AM
1

They kids will quickly catch on and use their own words, is my theory. For example, instead of man they say janitor, and instead of woman they say teacher. Hopefully the boys won't think that their destiny is to scrub toilets though.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:24 AM
1

Or it could come in the form or merger of this solution: Men can have a card or symbol put on their license which states they are not in a position to have children nor do they want to father children, therefore the females body is the females body so she can have a child if she likes but the financial and social responsibilities lies with the mother alone. I think this should be the default. If a man wants to be a natural father he has to opt-in with the consent of the woman. A man has no paren…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 03:02 AM
2

Emily: Agreed. Men should offer on first dates. Not because I think they should pay, but because it’s the safer option. This is the problem. Men are supposed to play it safe and take it rather than attack gender inequality.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 12:24 AM
3

Why would any super wealthy famous person rape someone when they could (a) go anywhere in the world to have sex with a "professional" anonymously, or (b) risk their life by being guilty of such a heinously unnecessary crime. Feminists say rape is about power and other platitudes to explain this. The idea is that they think they can get away with it, because they are so powerful. I personally don't buy it, but you've got to know your oppressor.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 01:21 AM
3

It's necessary to target only females. You don't want people thinking men have problems. They're all rich senators, presidents, and lawyers.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:44 PM
2

Bend over "daddy". It's for the child. You understand.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:25 PM
4

Prisons? Why do you want to believe SO badly that men are this bad?
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:06 PM
2

Remember that bicycles don't need fish.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 11:46 PM
3

All you have to do is find a story where that has happened. And this is that story. A woman convicts a man of rape with whom she didn't even have sex. The testimony alone got him convicted. She admits that her accusation was false, and she made it to get sympathy from her friend. The only reason the media decided to show the story, was because the woman ended up trying to undo the conviction.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 11:23 PM
7

There is a direct link between increased female labour participation and growth: It is estimated that if women’s paid employment rates were raised to the same level as men’s, America’s GDP would be 9 percent higher; the euro-zone’s would be 13 percent higher, and Japan’s would be boosted by 16 percent. Yeah, and if everyone's income doubled, the GDP would double as well. That's how the GDP works. Guess what happens to the GDP when men's wages fall to the same level as women's. Women perform 66 p…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:28 AM
5

Octomom. Since it was In Vitro, they couldn't find some father to blame it on? Oh wait, they blamed the doctor. One of the comments: I propose that Octomom seek support from the doctor who fertilized her.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:49 AM
6

If a man gets struck by lightning, it's not a men's rights issue just because the victim was a man. Nature didn't single men out; nature just follows the laws of physics. In this case, transmen are not being asking awkward questions because they are men. They are being asked these questions because they are transgender. This is a transgender issue, not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 09:26 AM
1

We looked at the case, talked with the victim's family and the victim himself and determined that the culpability of the male dependents was higher than that of the two females The prosecutor talked to the victim, and the prosecutor determined the culpability. Anyway, let them tack on 5 extra years. I can't prove to you that any discrimination is taking place. I only sense it in the same way someone many sense antisemitism in circumcision man. I'm just going to leave it at this: I don't believe …
/r/MensRights30/06/11 09:20 AM
1

The men agreed that they were more culpable. The men themselves didn't agree they were more culpable. They simply agreed that they would rather have a lighter sentence than a sure conviction of a heavier one. The prosecutors chose those sentences.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 06:18 AM
1

EDIT: We aren't at a fundamental disagreement. I'm explaining to you how US law works, and you are rejecting it. Bullshit. They all plead guilty to the exact same charges. The sentencing was completely at the discretion of the prosecutors. You could come up with any bullshit excuse you wanted to suggest that the men deserved double the sentence. Is it a coincidence that tattooing someone's head yields the same sentence as hitting someone's head with a bat, while firing a stun gun towards the gen…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:39 AM
1

This one is good, because it is pretty tame and uses a lot of formal means.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:46 AM
16

Just as importantly, we need to stop worrying about what the feminists call us. MRAs continue to argue with each other about frivolous bullshit like this. They say you are your own worst critic, and in every group I've participated in, it has never been more true than it has for the MRM.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:40 AM
1

Perhaps we just have a fundamental disagreement then. I don't think the women are less deserving of punishment. I don't think the women's actions ought to be deterred less. I don't think the women are any less dangerous to society. I'd assume you'd think the contrary be true. Edit: It's highly likely that if genders were reversed, they would be given equal sentences and we'd be on the other side of the table.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:31 AM
1

If both the men agreed to murder the clerk, then it doesn't really matter who actually killed him. If they only agreed to armed robbery, then the renegade is solely responsible. The purpose of robbery is to get money, not kill. In this case, the obvious purpose was to torment the dude. Was it to the surprise of the women that the men beat the shit out of the victim with a bat?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:58 AM
1

I'm more concerned with consistency than sentence size. From what I see, they all committed the same crime but played different parts. With every inconsistency in the justice system, there will always be technicalities to help explain away it. All the charges should be applied to all the parties equally. Otherwise you have set up a system that tends to discriminate against men, because men tend to be the ones who do the dirty work.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:36 AM
2

The men beat him over the head with a bat, and did the actual tattooing. This lead to a higher charge for the men. Don't forget that the police also found a "concealed weapon of rape" on the two men. It usually double the sentence by default.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:13 AM
0

I fail to understand how this is a men's issue. Someone want to explain?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:55 AM
3

It's not even an insult really. All the men who played in the rain and didn't get struck by lighting became better athletes, while the WNBA remained a joke.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:47 AM
1

Fortunately, I don't think this article is really blaming men for anything, though I only roughly skimmed it. "Women live longer so they ought to save more" is a pretty objective statement.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:14 AM
9

Marriage shouldn't even be a requirement for these sorts of things. Either the state shouldn't allow it entirely, or the state should allow people to enter contracts to grant this individual benefit.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:04 AM
4

Tommy Ross, defence advocate, questioned the woman and put it to her that the alleged abuse did not happen. She replied: "I wish it didn't happen but it did." Is there any evidence? Is the press allowed to print said evidence? Was it a slow day at the D.A.'s office and the printing press?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:59 AM
3

The actually rich elite men don't care about sexism like this, and it isn't even going to affect them. This is just going to used by the typical idiot as a reason to wag their finger at common men.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:29 AM
2

I do similar things, but I'm not worried too much about places like elevators when there are cameras.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 04:48 AM
12

This is such bullshit. We have a real epidemic of 17-year-old's having consensual sex only to find out they were exploited after the fact, right? Is the D.A. running for reelection and trying to show how anti-rape or anti-pedophile he is? The worst part is that when they don't have enough funding to hold all these non-threats in overcrowded prisons, they'll release the most violent and dangerous criminals in order to scare the voters into raising taxes to fund jails.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:52 AM
2

Is this a men's rights issue or a gay rights issue? The MRM is neither homophobic nor is it homosexual rights movement.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:37 AM
8

my daughters mother left me and took our 4 month to her parents This has always upset me. How can anyone just take the children away as if they were property? If we are concerned for the best interest of the children, then they should stay with parent who is not running off.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:37 PM
2

I think that it is funny that the feminist argue against gender stereotypes, yet when it comes to work suddenly there are female leadership skills It's simple: Feminists want to shape society so that it's rigged to have feminine traits result in success. They've done a decent job with the public school system. Of course in areas where men dominate, they blame the patriarchy for rewarding masculine traits. I think feminism is the perfect name for the movement, because their actual goal is to femi…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 08:21 AM
2

So I think gay divorce will cause courts (or maybe legislatures) to recognize the disparate treatment and modernize the divorce laws for straight couples to recognize the fact that many women have joined the workforce and are capable of supporting themselves. This will prevent a divorce from financially ruining the average straight man. What do you think? Perhaps they will, but perhaps they won't. Is the problem that family court judges are too incompetent to realize the modern economic realitie…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:39 AM
2

You obviously have an extremely skewed viewpoint of American history and the entire civil rights movement. Rosa Parks was arrested for what she did. Her peers were being killed for standing up for basic human rights. She was terrified to make a stand but she did it anyway. She also kept being an activist even though she didn't really have to once she'd made her point. You're talking about the circumstances consequent to Park's protest, where as I'm talking about he circumstances compelling Ball'…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 07:09 AM
3

I'm not quite sure what he did. Sounds like he's accused of physically restraining her and groping her. Since the article mentioned the Dominique Straus-Kahn case, the whole comment section is assuming he's a rapist and the patriarchy is at work.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 02:47 AM
2

The ultra rich are more educated and can afford better lawyers. It's to be expected that they would have better outcomes in court. That doesn't imply they are given preferential treatment. There are plenty of people like you who despise the rich and end up on juries.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 02:34 AM
1

Here's what I don't want in my MRM camp: assholes who slap four-year-olds so hard that they bleed, assholes who teach others how to build bombs to tear down the system... and violent fascists. Real abuse is unprovoked and habitual. Here's what I don't want in my MRM: assholes who think so lowly of men and fatherhood that they would tear a father from his children for an isolated incident of misjudgment. Rosa Parks was a patriot and hero who believed in the United States of America. Was Rosa Park…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 02:16 AM
1

More per marriage or more all together?
/r/MensRights26/06/11 10:46 PM
34

The problem is that we have a culture which would rather have an innocent man pay up, then have taxpayers foot the bill. It is okay to destroy an innocent man's life with child support obligations, because the child deserves it. How can you claim to care about the child's life if you're willing to destroy it a couple decades later in the case that it has a penis? The solution is that we become a culture that places all culpability on mothers, as would be most reasonable. They have absolute paren…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 06:45 AM
1

Education is the solution? Yeah, let's legalize FGM, hand out a bunch of pamphlets, and see how that works out.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 06:03 AM
5

...and when gay couples prove them wrong, they'll fall back on "heterosexual men are dangerous".
/r/MensRights26/06/11 05:39 AM
-4

We need to ignore racism. We also need to ignore concern trolling. We can't stop the opposition from name calling. It's never going to happen.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 05:07 AM
7

I think the ideal solution here is to keep the law out of marriage. Gay marriage just stops legal discrimination against gays. There are still plenty of other intimate relationships (e.g. polygamy) which are going to be discriminated against so long as you legally define marriage. People should do financial planning with contracts that are clear and concise. Asset sharing should only exist if both parties enter an asset sharing contract, for instance. How is it that two people can sign a contrac…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 04:15 AM
3

Yes I'm seriously comparing them. Both people protested a perceived injustice. Their means of protest did inconvenience others. Do you think that Rosa Parks was some angel or that she was not scrutinized for her actions? It's highly likely there were black people at the time thinking: just shut up and get to the back of the bus, lady. The comparison is legitimate. This is how protest works. You don't just obediently go through the motions of a system you think is unjust. I don't agree with every…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 12:37 AM
5

I agree with you 100%. Or rather, I thank you for giving the response ProzacLady deserved. It's amazing how shortly after the whole SlutWalk thing has died down you have evil women coming in here utilizing blatant victim blaming.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:55 PM
1

Rosa Parks should have just sat at the back of the bus quietly rather than inconvenience all the other bus riders, right?
/r/MensRights25/06/11 11:44 PM
1

If you're dismissing my ability to evaluate neutrality: At the time I had no opinion on circumcision. I walked away thinking that perhaps everyone should be circumcised and that the ones protesting it were radicals. I don't think something is non-neutral just because it isn't in line with my beliefs or that it is neutral just because it is in line with them. You can present a topic, its proponents, and its critics and still be neutral.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:04 AM
1

I once looked over the talk page for circumcision and was surprised to see how partial the page moderators were.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:45 AM
0

How does this contradict anything I have said?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:21 AM
-1

The fact that women watch porn is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 11:42 PM
1

I've met to someone who had their pre-nup invalidated. The judges used a minor, accidental discrepancy to throw the thing out.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 11:13 PM
7

How asinine. Are they afraid his legs will scare the customers?
/r/MensRights23/06/11 10:50 PM
3

Porn makes men less dependent on women to get an orgasm. I wouldn't say it oppresses women, but I would say it does take away quite a bit of power away from them. To be honest I think the feminist opposition to porn has always been about increasing the value of the female body as porn is a substitute good, but not many people have said this.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 10:39 PM
3

As we all know, having 60% of college graduates be female is evidence of misogyny. When you factor in how stupid and oafish men are and how sophisticated and intelligent women are, if the schools were truly fair then 80% of all graduates would be female. The solution is simple: we much alienate heterosexual males even further until only the top 20% of heterosexual men can matriculate. Anti-sex joke codes are the swords with which we shall cut down the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 09:07 AM
9

It's the patriarchy, trying to oppress women. I'm not sure how or why, but I do know women are the victim. There is only one solution: tax the general populace and create more social programs targeting women.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 06:20 AM
1

Yet, under Massachusetts divorce law, first spouses can collect alimony for life (even after the payer has retired) regardless of the duration of the marriage. It's sorta like slavery. Except you don't have to give the slave room, board, and whip, so it's a guaranteed profit.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:56 AM
3

This is ridiculous. How can you throw a guy in jail for 12 months for not paying child support? And how can you do so without even checking whether or not he has ability to pay? Jail time doesn't even make sense for those who fail to pay child support. If the father indeed has the money, then can't they garnish wages and seize assets? There is only one reason you would throw someone in jail who can't pay. It would be to motivate those men without any ambition to make enough money to pay support.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:47 AM
2

Sorry, but this paragraph really doesn't make things all that clear. You say it's by definition but didn't provide one. White knighting is when a man does a favor for (i.e. saves) a woman simply because she is a woman. It can be misogyny if it is done under the premise that women are helpless. A white knight could in fact thing women are superior, which is the anti-thesis of misogyny. On the other hand white knighting is always misandry because the same favor is not extended to men. White knight…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:57 AM
3

I think we need to challenge the attitude that a man becomes a father upon birth. A man only becomes a father when he choses to be a father. If a woman has a child against the sperm donor's will, then he is neither the father nor should he have parental responsibilities. Therefore he should not be criticized for not meeting said responsibilities.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:10 AM
1

Once you understand that men can be victims too, you can begin to acknowledge the phenomena of misandry. I'm not sure you're at that point though based upon other posts of yours which I've read. White knighting is misandric, because by definition it is done at the expense of men. If a man helps out a woman but doesn't do so at the expense of men, then there's really no reason to call it white knighting. White knights protect women who are in the wrong. White knights promote female subordinates o…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:46 AM
10

Barack Obama's Speech on Father's Day Obama used his Father's Day speech to ridicule fathers for abandoning their children, and then went on to talk about how Mother's needed more help from the government.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 03:11 AM
2

The first issue is about a doctor with undisclosed religion. Doctors perform circumcisions. The second issue is about a mohel. Mohels perform circumcisions. I don't think this comic is anti-Semitic, though I wouldn't be surprised if the artist is in fact an anti-Semite. It's best just to pretend that circumcision isn't a Jewish practice though, because anytime you criticize something, and Jews are involved, you will be called an anti-Semite. Jews are a protected class, unlike baby boys I guess.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 03:00 AM
3

In the fist comic the villain is a doctor whose religion is undisclosed. I guess that means he's also anti-medicine now too, right?
/r/MensRights20/06/11 02:43 AM
2

The way I see it, no one should be a father unless the mother invites him to opt in and the father then agrees to do so. Even this system is not perfectly fair, but I do think it is optimally fair given the circumstances between men and women. This means there is no reason to be upset at a father who at no point agreed to be the father. The fact that the court would order child support does not make him the father, it is just the government trying to ease a burden. I'm sure it's controversial, p…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 12:08 AM
17

Father's day should be about honoring your own father. If you have none it is to be of no significance to you. Mother's day should be about honoring your own mother. If you have none it is to be of no significance to you. There should be no surprise here, though. It's customary that father's day is used to bash fathers. Obama did it, many editorials have done it, everyone and their father might as well do it.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:41 PM
0

We are still about civil rights here, but there are certain attitudes that we have to dispel if we hope to get anywhere. One of them is that men's pain doesn't matter or is insignificant in comparison to women's pain. Another is that men are always the perpetrator and women are always the victim. This one fights the attitude that men are obligated to protect women.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:26 PM
2

I agree with you. The white knight is not only anti-MRA, but anti-male. However the problem with the white knight is not that he hopes for sex (which is different than to actually expect it), nor is it a problem that any other guy would do a favor for a girl in hopes for sex. The problem is that he would do so at some innocent man's expense. That is where the problem begins and ends.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:19 PM
2

It doesn't need to be banned, it needs to be ignored. The problem with marriage is that it is so culturally charged that there is nothing you can really do to save it. It's a fraudulent contract. From society's perspective, marriage is a commitment to love someone for the rest of your life, and the lack of a marriage is a lack of said commitment. It's tradition. It's what you do to start a family. From the law's perspective, marriage is a commitment to financially support someone for the rest of…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:02 PM
2

The cartoon isn't suggesting that he is owed sex though. The point is to demonstrate that his means of impressing women aren't effective in regards to getting sex. I don't need to explain why that's a probable motivation here. There is a difference between saying an occupation pays low versus saying an occupation ought to pay more. The former does not strictly imply that latter.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 09:59 PM
11

Bullshit. Men instinctively do favors for women which they wouldn't do for men, because they want to impress those women and get sex. On the same token women will sexually objectify themselves to motivate men into doing favors for them. Just because the biological drive to get sex is a motivator doesn't mean they expect, much less demand, sex from women they help. It's just like doing good things because you believe in karma. There's nothing low or pathetic about it, unless it is done at the exp…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 09:19 PM
13

There are many men who will automatically side with the women in a male vs female conflict despite context. This term calls out those men. We must call out that sentiment for the misandric bullshit that it is. "Misogynist" has become a term abused to dismiss MRAs. This doesn't mean that no one should use it, or that misogynists don't exist, or that misogyny isn't something that should be discouraged.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 08:43 PM
18

All I gotta say is that I'm glad that porn is legal and thus not an issue that Men's Rights have to fight for.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 05:53 AM
3

The problem is "mens rights" is a general concept, and to say you support or oppose it is inconsequential. You have to ask people on the issues, which actually have consequences, to see what they really think.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 03:51 AM
2

What this all boils down to is: If a man has sex with a drunk consenting drunk girl, and for whatever reason she regrets the action upon becoming sober, is it rape? The facts of the matter are: When gender is reversed, the girl won't be prosecuted. When the girl doesn't regret it later, the man probably won't be prosecuted. I think drunk people can consent to sex. When you do drink alcohol you are taking on so many risks. It's immoral that the law would prosecute someone for an act that became i…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 02:50 AM
3

It's hard to get people to fight injustice against a group that is popularly considered expendable. They aren't able to see the injustice. If you applying laws consistently so that a group which garners sympathy, you can wake people up to the injustice.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 09:05 AM
4

"Well I don't see how people can say that because that's not what we're dealing with here," said Baker. "So no I don't believe there's a double standard. With that being said, I almost wonder if there's not a double standard from those individuals who might have said that or society as a whole." Obviously the police don't have a double standard here. This police chief isn't projecting or anything. They have a clear single standard: "If they have a dick, you must convict!" Whereas all of us MRAs …
/r/MensRights18/06/11 08:59 AM
3

If there's one thing critical thinking taught me, it's that the more descriptive and entertaining an ad hominem is, the more logical it is. At some point, it stops being a fallacy and becomes an axiom.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 08:46 AM
5

I don't have a problem with sensitive men, but I don't like how men are supposed to evolve to become sensitive like women. I don't like how every environment is supposed to become sensitive and woman friendly. We haven't told women to man-up. We haven't invaded traditionally female environments and said "this place needs a touch of stoicism". Sure, you can eliminate gender roles. What you cannot change though is the fact that certain environments need different attitudes and approaches. Sensitiv…
/r/MensRights18/06/11 08:35 AM
0

I don't really see this as a bad thing. I like to save time.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 08:06 AM
41

If the dress code has a double standard which allows females to dress a certain way but doesn't allow men to dress a certain way then it's a MRM issue.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 04:38 AM
1

You guys don't get it; this was their plan all along. They make up for the evil male private sector practices by having the holy public sector counterbalance it!
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:18 AM
1

I hate the perversion of chivalry which is expects men to treat women better than woman and men would treat men. I do like the version of chivalry which established protocol for combat. That is, don't attack someone who isn't ready for battle and such.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:00 AM
-1

If you think it's morally wrong I can accept that, but I can't accept you imposing your morality on another. Being pro-choice is just as much an imposition of morality as is being pro-life. One imposes the moral ideology that a woman's choice legally trumps a fetuses life, the other imposes that a fetuses life legally trumps a woman's choice.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 02:54 AM
3

A man "can only choose not to be a parent". No they can't even do that. If a man is drugged and rapped he will be forced to be the father. If a man impregnates a woman on accident he will be forced to be the father. If you consider that as having a choice, then anyone who is pro-life could just as well call themselves pro-choice. Now, I would totally agree with an argument that says men should be legally allowed to opt out of being responsible for a child they don't want as long as they make the…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 02:45 AM
1

Actually, even if the person is a hypocrite it's still irrelevant. There is really nothing especially heinous about hypocrisy. Having a standard and failing to live up to isn't any worse than having no standard at all. In fact sometimes it is better, because you're at least willing to acknowledge a problem. Consider a smoking person who tells others not to smoke while smoking as opposed to a smoking person who tells others smoking is fine as not to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy works itself out so l…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 02:06 AM
4

Hey genius, no individual act of unjust prejudice is going to be as significant as a history of unjust prejudices. So, how is it even relevant? Are you just trying to make a cheap shot or something? Also, I think it's just as likely that any other homogeneous group of leaders is likely to have unjust prejudices. There is nothing especially heinous about the white man. A homogeneous leadership composed of all white woman or all black men would be just as problematic.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 01:24 AM
16

Actually I think there is a larger error in the quoted statement. The larger error is the statement that politicians should reflect people based on demographics rather than based on ideology and values. It's absurd. Is Obama/Biden supposed to represent me and other men just because they have penises too? If you accept that, then you're going to buy a lot of bridges. You're going to think that men can't suffer legal injustices simply due to the demographic make-up of congress.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 01:09 AM
5

A good analogy for the Selective Services is pointing a gun at someone. Sure, it doesn't mean anything until the trigger is pulled, and perhaps it's unlikely that the trigger is pulled. However one has every reason to be concerned about being shot as long as a gun is pointed in their direction. You see, there is no other reason to point a gun, and there is no other reason to have have Selective Services.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 12:46 AM
7

Only men can be losers. Women can, at worst, be a loser lover but not a loser itself. Why do I see this attitude so often?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 06:12 AM
18

Society does not really see paternity fraud as a problem. In fact they like the idea that a nice guy gets to sire a child rather than having the tax payer fund it. They're more worried about the deadbeat dads than the fathers by fraud.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 10:03 PM
2

The problem isn't that the analogy is bad, but that you fail to understand the analogy. The purpose of an analogy is to show how an underlying claim is absurd. It shows this by implying absurd conclusions with the claim (i.e. contrapositive). The underlying claim that this analogy is attacking is along the lines of: "It is acceptable to target demographics and hold them generally accountable for a crime that is most often committed by said demographic." The rape posters act upon this premise. Th…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 08:43 PM
2

MRAs don't believe in gender roles. They believe there are differences in the sexes. I won't address the question "Why enforce gender roles?", because I don't agree with the premise of that question. I will address the question "Why acknowledge those differences?" The reason is because the MRM strongly supports the philosophy of equality of opportunity (i.e. fairness) rather than equality of outcomes (i.e. sameness). You must acknowledge differences between genders to understand why there would …
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:58 AM
2

You know, I thought this was about masturbation at first. I just realized that it's actually more fucked up than that.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 09:47 PM
4

Any time someone gets hurt that bad, you don't get fucking rational on them, you tend to their emotional well-being until they regain the ability to think rationally. I think the reason why some men have trouble with this sentiment is because men generally aren't on the receiving end this sentiment. We get the "man up" or the "loser" sentiment when we are harmed. For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide 549 males in the same range kill themselves. For every 100 females ages 20 to …
/r/MensRights11/06/11 09:24 PM
22

Posters like this are meant to force a controversial definition of rape down men's throats. The fact of the matter is that plenty of people have sex while drunk and think nothing of it. Only when a woman gets angry does it become rape. The problem is that drunk sex is a mutual rape if its rape, and if the system was just, then both parties would be prosecuted with rape or neither party would be prosecuted with rape.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:41 PM
7

"Motive remains a mystery?!?" How about this motive: she wanted the cash. As if a woman never desired cash before. I've been called a misogynist for saying less. In this context, when they say motive, what they really mean is excuse. They need to find a mental disorder or an abusive childhood or something to excuse her actions. Otherwise, it is a total mystery that any woman would ever do anything bad.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:55 AM
1

Obama is a feminist, and he doesn't care about men's rights. His Father's Day speech made it perfectly clear that he blames broken up families on fathers alone and sympathizes only with mothers. The idea that putting women in power will somehow benefit men is a joke. Powerful men and powerful women are equally oblivious or apathetic to the problems that non-powerful (i.e. most) men face. I don't particularly find this comment misandric. I just find it ignorant.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:40 AM
2

I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many men’s rights groups take up the cause of false rape accusations with great gusto, but that their enthusiasm for seeking justice through the law rarely extends to victims of sexual assault. It's not rare at all. When men happen to be assaulted we complain about the light sentencing of female perpetrators and the societal apathy for the male victim. Perhaps the writer doesn't realize this because they have trouble acknowledging the existence of me…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:04 AM
4

Hate them all you want, but they're legally held accountable for the damage they cause.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:56 AM
17

Many MRAs are libertarian and think private property rights should allow this. The MRM is mainly about consistency. If you allow women-only then you allow men-only. If you don't allow men-only then you don't allow women-only. Whether or not private property rights should allow gender discrimination or even race discrimination is not an MR issue but a property rights issue.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:52 AM
5

It's not "men are better" but "men are better at X, Y, and Z". It doesn't mean men are better at everything. It doesn't mean that every individual man is better than every individual woman at X, Y, and Z. It doesn't even mean that the law or should not let women do X, Y, and Z. It doesn't even matter whether these differences are nature versus nurture, because they currently exist and none of us should expect to be reborn any time soon, let alone into a gender neutral society. So, while it's fin…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 03:57 AM
1

More of a men's health thing than a men's rights thing. Now if we only had a "tree that grows alimony and child support payments"...
/r/MensRights10/06/11 07:00 PM
3

At first, I though the idea of teaching men not to rape is condescending. Few men would actually rape a girl, and among them even fewer didn't understand that rape was wrong. However, upon rethinking it, I'm not sure it is that bad of an idea. The definition of rape has become such a big tent that it's possible for the typical man to accidentally rape someone. We need to teach boys in sex education classes how dangerous sex is due to the nature of society and the obscure definition of rape. When…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:42 AM
5

Are you being sarcastic? First of all, men should not be insulted for being weak enough to be raped by a woman. Second of all, there are so many tools a woman can use to grant her physical superiority. Knives, pepper spray, drugs, ropes, etc. can all put the typical man at the mercy of a woman.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 01:44 AM
7

I thought women could do anything men could do, and do it better, and do it in high heels.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 12:28 AM
1

Actually, that's more of a bad move than a bad means.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:27 AM
12

Is it more socially acceptable to engage in eugenics than adultery?
/r/MensRights05/06/11 11:11 PM
1

Surely it's a basic rule of human rights and equality not to refer to others in such a degrading manner? Surely it isn't. Equality doesn't dictate how you treat others, but that you treat them equally. It's strange that people who claim place such emphasis on gender equality so frequently use words that degrade a gender First of all, which people are you talking about? Second of all, it's possible to use "cunt" and "bitch" with out insulting women in general.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 11:07 PM
1

You're going to have to establish some odds if you want takers. 1:1 is a sucker's bet.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 12:44 AM
5

You mean nothing other than the family courts, the criminal justice system, and society in general, right?
/r/MensRights05/06/11 12:32 AM
3

Actually I understand completely about bitterness and don't hold it against them. Hell, I don't hold it against bitter women who are misandric because of their experiences. MGTOW doesn't bother me at all, because I believe in freedom of association. However despite having rational legal realities to support their philosophy, they will often employ hyperbole anyway.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 09:27 PM
2

Finding empirical anything about MGTOW is not likely. I'm not stating a scientific fact, but an observation. I've been to a couple MGTOW communities and this is what I saw.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 09:20 PM
3

Biologically it makes sense that women would be more discriminating in men since having children, which is the biological purpose of sex, is a bigger commitment for them. On the other hand a guy has little to lose by biologically by impregnating a woman with "bad genes" so to speak because he'll be reloaded in under 24 hours. Most women, even the lonely, ugly ones, have standards. They will walk away if they can't find someone who meets them. Most men don't. Men pursuing sex will pick the highes…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 09:09 PM
-8

It's not in theory. In practice, MGTOW communities tend to use misogyny to keep them away from serious relationships with women.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:07 PM
1

Doesn't sound much different from monotheism, to be honest. Angels and God, having existed before the creation of earth are technically speaking aliens. There also isn't a lot of scientific ideology around monotheism, it thrives mainly on its popularity. If something is unfalsifiable not sufficiently proven, just move on. Calling people crazy when you don't know what they've witnessed is arrogance.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:50 PM
0

You know what makes SVU entertaining? It's their ability to rationalize pretty much every behavior any woman does and somehow pin it on a manipulative man. Meanwhile men are completely accountable for their actions, and they have incurable pathologies. Thus the only solution is to lock them up and throw away the key.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:55 AM
12

A big reason is because liberating men from their gender roles will have a negative affect on a lot of people in higher places. Other reasons include the fact that the the MRM is not main stream and has a radical to moderate ratio that is not healthy.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 03:24 AM
-1

This is a red herring (i.e. irrelevant to this issue). I made a post earlier explaining why.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 03:10 AM
2

A lot of times in these types of discussions someone will say men need better birth control. That's a very annoying red herring. It's like saying the solution to rising gasoline prices is cars that run on air. You can't just force technological progress. There will never be post-conception birth control for men. Either you believe some sort of legal change should be made for men to ditch responsibilities or you don't. I say we should make legal changes. No man should be a father unless he explic…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 01:47 AM
1

I figured as much, but how exactly is it encouraged? Does being a single mom give you more benefits or something?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:17 PM
2

the safest option is to find a sane women. Terrible advice. People almost always change, especially after having kids.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:56 AM
4

I remember seeing this one documentary about a black family and the mother had to kick the father out because he couldn't get a job. It hinted that by kicking him out she became eligible for more welfare. Does the welfare system actually encourage that?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:21 AM
1

My assumption on the stats stated in the SANE course would be that the numbers are based on medical examinations, police investigations, psychological evaluations, and research studies. But in the case that they aren't, it's simply an unreliable. Even then it doesn't even take into account that a person in prison is likely to be raped multiple times so we're not speaking about the number of rapes, just the ratio of victims.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:01 AM
1

The latest numbers presented in my wife's Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner course was that 5% of American men over 18 and 20% of women over 18 have been raped. How are they determining whether the man or woman was raped though? It it was based on testimony, was there any incentive not to deceive?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 04:18 AM
5

That game is gender neutral. Both the dude and the chick have equal opportunity mutilation.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 03:30 AM
2

Whereas I'd rather not to be given money than to be outrightly killed, I'm not merely talking about abortion will I say "burden". Women can also legally abandon their children without having to pay child support to whichever institution, be it public or private, that she gives the child.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 12:30 AM
6

The general feminist rationalization is "rape is about power". I still don't quite understand it myself.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 04:47 AM
2

It's just that it's politically acceptable to do that to men. It would be political suicide to put any burden on women.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 03:15 AM
0

Feminists want 30% of the elite to be women? I really don't care. In the U.S. people decide the nomination and the election through voting and women still vote mostly men in. The reals issues that people face are at the lower end of the spectrum: prison, suicide, combat/war, homelessness, lifespan, occupational hazards, the family court, etc. Feminism will cry patriarchy even when 100% of the elite are women, because there will still be problems that only their patriarchy theory can explain.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 06:33 AM
3

When damage is done, it's the perpetrator who pays the compensation and not the government. So the government doesn't hand out compensation for crimes that private individuals commit on other private individuals. If I chopped your arm off, it would be my responsibility to pay for your medical bills (and more), whereas the state would give you nothing. That doesn't mean though, that the state is telling you to expect to lose your arm. Does that make sense?
/r/MensRights26/05/11 06:46 AM
6

Divorce can be pretty traumatic though it varries, so "grow up" can be seen by some as a toolish response. That's probably why you're down voted?
/r/MensRights26/05/11 04:47 AM
5

Committing to a woman, or any other person for that matter, is a gamble. You don't have to have a negative attitude in general about all women to be your excuse for not committing to another relationship with a woman. For example, I don't need to have a negative attitude towards all lottery tickets to justify my non-participation in the lottery. Bitterness is just something only time will heal--if you let it. It's better to just let it be rather than try to fix it.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 04:45 AM
8

This is just sensationalism. He doesn't want abortions to be publicly funded even in the case of rape. It's not a matter of "Prepare to be raped!!" so much as "Terrible things happen, but the government shouldn't financially bail everyone out." Life insurance salesman: You never know what could happen, and your family will... Feminist: OMG! He's telling me to prepare to eat shit and die! Am I the only one who can't see through half-baked rhetoric?
/r/MensRights26/05/11 04:17 AM
1

2006?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:05 AM
2

Can't a woman bear a child and still abandon it along with any parental obligations? If so, then the "best interest of the child" sentiment falls flat on its ass.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 08:47 AM
7

It makes no sense to have it mutually agreed upon. That still keeps all the cards in the woman's hands. Let a father unilaterally renounce all parental responsibility (along with all parental authority).
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:12 AM
4

Oh god, feminist in-fighting. Feminist 1: We're empowered! Feminist 2: No, we're not in power! Feminist 1: We're strong and independent! Feminist 2: No, we need protection from exploitation! End victim blaming! Feminist 1: Stop contradicting me, bitch! Feminist 2: Misogynist! ...
/r/MensRights24/05/11 03:02 AM
3

Not so much a men's rights issue as it is an example of a manipulative girlfriend.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:43 AM
4

I don't think there'd be outrage. I think it'd just be unfunny. Who's gonna smirk at the sight of a fat, depressed looking woman?
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:39 AM
1

Hmmm, I just find the speculation of hypocrisy annoying. It may be more of a personal issue in that sense.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:07 AM
2

Certain feminists claim if you combine the fact that society is more reluctant to help men than women with the fact that men compromise more positions of power than women then it makes things even. Is that really true though? Men are not helped by the fact that a small percentage of men hold most political, even economic, power. In the political realm, the power structures enforce pro-female anti-male laws like VAWA. Do they have any laws which help men especially, or even at the expense of wome…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 01:37 AM
1

There was a case where a woman falsely accused a man of rape who had not even had sex with her. Despite having no evidence her testimony was so convincing that the man was convicted. She ended up feeling guilty about it later on and worked towards freeing the dude. Anyway, I won't say that that is standard (at least I hope not). I'd say most false rape claims aren't taken to court or even reported because the purpose is not to get someone in jail, but to instead to deny responsibility for a sexu…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:49 AM
6

I'm not sure which sentence you're 'why'ing but I'll assume it was the second statement. In comedy, someone is going to be the brunt of the joke at the end of the day. Feminism has been successful protecting women from being the "token losers" in ads, thus the media has decided to fill that role with men to avoid being called misogynistic. The two ways of sorting this out are: Call all adds that have a compromised (for lack of a better term) man as misandric. Accept that making fun of a man or a…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:19 AM
10

It's because the face is significant to identity. Looking at a body without any face is very impersonal, almost "not a person" in a way. You can spot the fat guy on the street though, where as the woman could be any fat lady on the street. Ad agencies are very conscious about these things too.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:47 PM
32

I prefer to avoid the "If there were man/woman..." speculative rhetoric. In this particular instance, I don't think it's wrong to have ads like these.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:38 PM
2

Yes, but as he gets older he becomes physically weaker.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:17 PM
-4

Since consent is almost always implicitly given yet (i.e. you rarely explicitly ask "Can I have sex with you?" and get a "Yes" before the deed), almost all sex could be retroactively be called rape under the premise of "I never gave consent".
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:06 PM
27

I would like a feminist to explain how this (i.e. intervening when a woman's drink is spiked by a man and ignoring when a man's drink is spiked by a woman) fits in with patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 02:26 AM
3

My guess is that because the MRM has a bad history with Feminism and women studies are based on preaching feminist ideology, they would find this wasteful But you are essentially correct. I wouldn't say that rising college tuition is a Men's issue either though.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 02:06 AM
1

Wow. Free reddit therapy. ...and you don't even need your public health care to approve of it.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 12:13 AM
0

I like to question the obvious, perhaps it's in my nature. The fact of the matter is that I don't think it's important that Obama is black or the first black president. I try my best to see through bullshit like that and look at what he actually says and does as a president. That is how I evaluate his presidency and if I wrote history that is what I'd write about. I'm not completely sure how to explain a "why I don't think it's important" as opposed to a "why I do think it's important". My best …
/r/MensRights23/05/11 12:02 AM
0

Am I simply obtuse? To me it seems you are simply unable to explain your position.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 11:03 PM
20

My theory is that a lot of homophobia is rooted in misandry, which would explain why homophobia against gay men is far more common than female homophobia against gay women. Gay men are subconsciously viewed as men attempting to escape their traditional gender roles which is still quite taboo in the western world when compared to a female rejecting hers.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:59 PM
1

I disagree - when certain groups of people have been excluded from certain professions and spheres of life, it's important and relevant to note the first persons who cross that barrier. I said it shouldn't relevant. Why should it be relevant? I would like to note that the common man had as much chance of being a great pilot as the common woman -- that is they had little to no chance. I also doubt that had the first president been female, we would not emphasize her gender, and that the first male…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:43 PM
31

We already have a mental healthcare system for males here in the U.S. If a guy is mentally unstable, we simply wait for him to snap and commit some crime. If it's a boy we prescribe him a bunch of pills. If it's a man we dismiss him as having an untreatable pathology, prescribe him a jail cell with a man having similar mental health problems, and throw away the key. The common politician will upon inquiry say "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:47 PM
2

First of all, the purpose of my post is to explain why history is not a substitute for a men's studies as feminists typically argue. Second of all, being the first in X demographic to accomplish Y should not have historical significance. Amelia Earhart was a good pilot and her gender needs not be noted any more than any other good pilot's gender. I don't need to know who was the first circumcised president and who was the first uncircumcised president. Third of all, I actually asked a question s…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:27 PM
1

I never said that a men's studies should be about simply praising men. Hence the sentence: When men suffer that suffering is attributed to humanity rather than to men. There's nothing praiseworthy about suffering, it's something you try to solve. When you study a group impartially it's typical that you'd acknowledge its issues and its contributions. What do you think happens in a women's studies class?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:04 PM
2

My post wasn't as thorough as it ought to have been, but when I said: When men suffer that suffering is attributed to humanity rather than to men. What I meant is that their suffering is seen as a human problem rather than a men's problem. So we never ask "why more men commit suicide" but instead ponder "why so many people commit suicide". The reason why I mentioned credit is not because I think it's about credit, but because in a woman's studies class, women are acknowledged for their accomplis…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:55 PM
1

Is it just me or does this post have a nuance of "Master is finally setting me free" to it? Does divorce really require both parties?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:43 PM
3

I'd say feminism attracted both woman who wanted serious legal changes and plain old misandric women. The thing is they have their legal equality for the most part, and so most of the remaining members are misandrists. Male sympathizing feminists have been kicked out of the party. I think the MRM is much like the early Feminist movement in this aspect.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:19 PM
1

I think you should document everything and get a divorce. But that's just me. Figure out what you want to teach your kids, and teach them by example. Do you want to teach them to tolerate abuse or to commit suicide?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:17 AM
51

One justification I've heard from a feminist was that history is men's studies. The problem is, in history class when men are triumphant that victory is attributed to humanity rather than to men. When men suffer that suffering is attributed to humanity rather than to men. In a women's studies class every victory and sacrifice is attributed to the sisterhood. Thomas Edison was just an inventor. You only knew he was male because his name was Thomas. Amelia Earhart was a female pilot.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:56 AM
10

Rather than "men are still in power", the more accurate expression is "those in power are men". The common man is not in power though. Understanding the distinction between the elite and the common is key. I think throughout history, and even now, the totem pole is as follows: elite man > elite woman > common woman > common man. It sounds silly to say men are oppressing men, and I think this oversimplification is a giant hindrance the MRM.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 07:54 AM
2

If the onus was on the gal to get something signed by the guy (or else he'd be off the hook), then he could just avoid the process server for a few months. Why would he be avoiding the process server? He's not obligated to sign it. Either he wants to sign it or he doesn't. I don't understand what your objection is.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 02:19 AM
1

Sure, but then a man would need a woman's consent to have sex with him and carry his child to term before his existence was validated.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 01:41 AM
1

I don't want my laws developed on opinions. You can't derive a should (normative statement) from an is (descriptive statement). All laws are based on fundamental opinions. Even now you're using the opinion "parents should be able preemptively protect their baby boy without his consent via circumcision" as a basis for "we shouldn't ban circumcision". The statistics you cite create a link from that opinion to your main opinion, but at the end of the day it's an opinion based on another opinion.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 01:34 AM
2

Circumcision is becoming less socially and legally reasonable hence the law. Thus a city has banned it. What is it that you find preposterous again?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 12:47 AM
4

Once the girl turned on the waterworks the story changed from "What is right?" to "How can can I make you feel better?" There is some sort of social or biological mechanics which make people feel sorry for crying females. This is why you hear MRA's talk about the pussy pass.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 12:39 AM
19

There is a reason why feminism can no longer help women. Feminism is suited to deal with actual legal inequalities like the historical lack of women's suffrage. Little to no legal inequalities for women exist in the western world. The problems women face today as a woman can't be fixed through legal action. They have to equip themselves with the right attitude and tools. The irony is that feminist solutions are hurting women on average by lowering their sense of individual accountability. The sl…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 11:35 PM
0

Universal Affirmative: All P are S Universal Negative: No P are S (All P are not S) Existential Affirmative: Some P are S Existential Negative: Some P are not S It's often said you can't prove a negative claim. What they should say is you can't prove a universal claim (the first two listed). Even this is not completely true, because you can prove universal claims when in abstract context (e.g. math). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. This means you should avoid making uni…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 11:00 PM
2

I believe stories like this are posted here because MRA's figure that demystifying motherhood will help the cause.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:12 PM
8

Interestingly enough, I've read of studies that show that men and women perceive ethics differently on an aggregate level. I wish I could find that study. Anyway, it's not women in general but rather the feminists who are not concerned about actual justice.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 07:48 PM
2

It's too bad they don't have something you can stick inside you bank account to protect you from the family court.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 05:11 AM
2

I agree with you there. Obviously the point I'm trying to make here is if your consent to a monetary transaction (i.e. purchase) while drunk is valid, so should one's consent to have sex while drunk be valid.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 04:34 AM
2

The fact that you don't need formal documentation to buy a house doesn't actually invalidate my argument. It doesn't even contradict it. It certainly demonstrates that I am ignorant about certain details of our legal system, but nothing else. Since you're well versed in the law, I have a question. If a drunk person buys a house, will the seller be guilty of larceny? Assuming that selling a drunk person a candy bar isn't larceny, would there be some cut off point? Lastly, I don't really give a cr…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 04:17 AM
1

In which case father would be given the choice of providing custodial support or monetary support. He would be legally obligated to either. Does that sound unfair?
/r/MensRights21/05/11 03:10 AM
-1

Your father would have had parental responsibilities to you and your brother and only you and your brother if he chose to be your father. He would owe nothing to your mother. Had your conception been an accident, your mother would have to decide whether to abort, put up for adoption, and other possible options with the knowledge that he would not have parental obligations. How a parent fulfills parental responsibilities, though, is somewhat up to the the parent. They should be given the choice b…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 02:54 AM
-3

as a child shouldn't suffer due to their parents' issues. I want you to explicitly explain how child support alleviates suffering, or how the lack there of causes suffering, before I make a proper response.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:58 AM
1

No counter argument was made. He just said that people should look past the rhetoric. Rhetoric is nothing new.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:30 AM
7

I find alimony and child support to be unethical in almost all cases. Collecting alimony and child support should require a prenuptial agreement. It should read something like "I understand that in the case I impregnate Mz. A, I will be required to financially support her." and "I understand Mz. A is giving up her career and will be required to financially support her." The current system puts the burden of financial protection on men. It's somewhat similar to how we put the burden of asking the…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:10 AM
3

Yes, I think a distinction between being too drunk to give explicit denial and simply being drunk ought to be made. Being unable to give explicit denial could be applicable cases other than drug use. I sort of wonder if "I didn't know she was drunk" would be considered a legitimate defense. Are we expected to walk around with around with a breathalyser? Better yet what about "I was too drunk to know whether she was drunk or not."
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:02 AM
5

If the law truly valued people's decision to have sex then it would require some sort of signature or formal documentation to give consent. That you can choose to do it on a whim and give consent implicitly shows that the decision isn't taken seriously. The only thing actually taken seriously is the accusation of rape, which is absolutely different from the decision to engage in sex. Also, there is nothing obnoxious about assuming that people will abuse a flawed system. If our system where flawe…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 12:52 AM
2

What you're saying is like "I have a bad feeling about this, but I'm not saying we shouldn't do it." Why wouldn't you link the two? If a child's right to medical history is so important that it trumps donor privacy, then it should also trump the privacy of the mother. No?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:42 PM
6

I disagree with the notion that being drunk makes you incapable of deciding whether you should have sex with a person. Either you are willing to have sex with someone or you are unwilling. Now, if you're buying a house, it is definitely something to think over. If you're buying a candy bar, it's a 5 second decision. If you decide that you didn't want to buy that candy bar once you sober up, it doesn't make the guy who sold it to you a thief or fraud. The decision to have or not to have sex is mu…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:27 PM
16

It's interesting. When feminists wan't to argue about the intellectual prowess of men and women, they look at aggregate figures which have boy falling behind girls. However when it comes to determining who to fund, they point to how men are dominating hard science classes and the like. Actually this can be applied in many ways. If you want to say women are more financially capable, you look to the homeless rate. But when it comes down to welfare checks, you point out how rich the richest men are…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:10 PM
1

Racism and sexism are heinous. However being dismissive of the MRA and justifying said dismissal via ad hominem fallacies is just as heinous. I see it very often. I don't care if you think every single MRA is a rapist/pedophile/woman beater/misogynist/etc. Go ahead and attach to us the worst labels known to humanity. All I truly care about is whether or not you have it in your heart to sympathize with the men who have been completely exploited by injustices in the system. This includes the fathe…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:17 AM
1

One theory that has been going around is that the reason Arnold has been such a RINO is because the Democrats has found out about the love child and had blackmailed him.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:29 AM
2

Sometimes I wonder if people should simply be made to sign a sex contract before any and all sexual acts. How else can a man prove it was consensual? We should have PSAs every day warning young men: If the paper wasn't signed, your livelihood is resigned. It's absurd, but I'd still prefer it to the "he said/she said" bullshit which has many innocent men in prison for not proving their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:31 AM
3

If someone sells a drunk person a candy bar, is that theft? After all, if they are drunk, they can't legally consent to the transaction, thus the money received from the transaction was stolen.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:13 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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