TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

paragonofcynicism Archive

View 0 posts and 375 comments by paragonofcynicism 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

If you don't want to conjecture over whether this specific person was bullied by feminists I get that. It seemed to me like you still wanted to object to the idea that it commonly happens though. And if that is the case then I suggest you simply start looking. Because the examples are out there and they are numerous.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 06:24 PM
0

Just cause someone doesn't want to bother providing proof to you does not mean it is not true. if you don't think feminists, a group composed of people concerned with obtaining social influence and power, don't exert that power and influence in corrupt ways to harm their opposition, you know nothing of the world and have had your eyes closed as you moved through it.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 05:39 PM
3

I just think women's literacy programs in India are good That's NOT the opinion you expressed. I won't play coy games with a zealot. I've already explained it to you. You aren't willing to engage because you have a religious conviction that cannot be challenged at any level as you demonstrated when you refused to even read my response. The very fact that you think a gap is inherently a cultural problem (no further examination required other than establishing the gap as existing) shows you have r…
/r/MensRights01/07/21 05:14 PM
6

Thank you for proving my point. You aren't capable of discussing these issues rationally and therefore you will NEVER be able to solve the problem. You will only create more. Seriously, because if you read my last paragraph you would recognize that you don't understand my position at all. You're a zealot and a bigot, frankly. You have a pretty colonial mindset.
/r/MensRights01/07/21 04:54 PM
4

Did you even read my post?
/r/MensRights01/07/21 04:45 PM
11

There are exactly 0 acceptable reasons for there to be such a massive gap in literacy rates in a country. And now you've answered the question. It's a feminist statistic. It's an activist statistic. You've admitted it with this statement. Because you have decided the gap is not justified no matter what the explanation is. I don't understand why you're being so combative Pure projection. You asked the other poster if that was a feminist statistic or a women's rights statistic. I inferred from you…
/r/MensRights01/07/21 03:14 PM
12

And yet you framed it not as "We need to improve overall literacy in India" but "there is a literacy gap between men and women and that's a problem". Don't think I'll let you get away with that weak deflection where you try and turn it back on me like I have a moral problem. The conversation was not about low literacy rates, it was about statistical gaps and when are they feminist statistics vs women's rights. Answer the actual question, don't dodge. What is the reason for that gap? If you don't…
/r/MensRights01/07/21 02:31 PM
12

The way you frame it sounds more feminist to me. Because you've already assumed it's a problem that needs to be addressed before understanding why it's a gap in the first place.
/r/MensRights01/07/21 02:05 PM
11

The statistics he linked did not include any form of biology. It only included physical sciences like chemistry and physics which do not study living creatures.
/r/MensRights01/07/21 02:04 PM
4

Okay virgin coomer. I'm not going to argue further with someone who thinks being right (even when you're wrong) makes it okay to be an ass hole.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/20 11:36 AM
8

Except it's not stupid obvious that human males have stronger muscles pound for pound. Which is what he said he realized. If it was "stupid obvious" scientists wouldn't have numerous studies on the differences in strength. You're just an ass hole. it's "stupid obvious" that men are in general stronger. It's not "stupid obvious" that a man and woman with similar weights and builds would still be drastically different in strength.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/20 11:23 AM
13

1) You don't know what sarcasm is. 2) Guy just shared his experience of when he learned something and you replied like he was dumb for it. And in doing so also showed how fucking dumb you are. how bout fire, I hear its pretty hot. YOU learned that fire was hot through your experience. Not through the 'wisdom of others'. I guaran-fucking-tee that you learned how hot fire was by getting close to it. Nothing about your post was respectable or contributed anything of value. The world would have been…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/20 11:18 AM
14

You clearly haven't learned from the other arrogant morons on reddit that take an overly aggressive stance against a fairly innocent comment. So I guess that makes you a fool.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/20 10:53 AM
0

Stop using words you don't understand in situations they don't apply to.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 02:26 PM
1

Not at all. the underlying principle of the comparison is that both are caused by observable statistical realities caused by genetic gender differences and he is demanding that we force businesses to either make bad business decisions to rectify it or we force women to have to subsidize men's insurance to make things "equal". Likewise with the wage gap feminists expect companies to either cut men's pay and pay women more, pay women for living at home and cleaning, or hire underqualifoed women I …
/r/MensRights29/12/18 02:23 PM
1

Car insurance rates are the result of men's and businesses choices. Men choose to drive recklessly due to our higher propensity to take risks. This causes us as a whole to be a statistically more risky insurance customer and thus the business chooses to charge us more You are basically arguing that women should be forced to pay more than what they should have to in order to subsidize the recklessness of men. That is basically the same as telling businesses to hire less qualified women or pay the…
/r/MensRights29/12/18 02:18 PM
6

You don't get to bet on race horses after the race is finished. So why should you expect insurance companies to do so? They set their rates based on statistically valid estimates of how much they will have to pay out over a lifetime and then set the rate that at a level where they are likely to profit. If you think we should instead impose some form of gender communism and not allow businesses to make decisions that are best for their businesses because of your victim mindset then as far as I'm …
/r/MensRights28/12/18 10:17 PM
-3

So let me get this straight. You're cool with the wage gap being explained as justified due to statistical differences in the interests and drive of men and women. But you're not cool with the insurance cost differences being the result of statistical differences in the risk taking tendencies of men can women. You're just a hypocrite then. You're basically taking the feminist victim narrative that ignores observable statistical consequences for genetic diversity and applying it to your male vict…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 10:12 PM
2

Except you didn't use it as a preposition. You used it as a word. Which it is not. Edit: Listen, I'm not an English teacher. Prepositions ARE words. I was wrong. However, my contention is that Re is only really used as a word in emails and almost nobody manually types that out, the email service does it for you when you reply. Nobody in a conversation with their friend would ever use that in place of something like regarding.
/r/MensRights28/08/18 09:58 PM
14

You act like re is a commonly used and understood formulation in the English language... Edit: My contention is that it's not a word commonly used in conversational english. The only time I ever have seen it used is by email services when you reply and that gets automatically put there in most services. So why the fuck would you expect someone to make that connection in a social media format when you are expected to use conversational language?
/r/MensRights28/08/18 09:09 PM
2

While that seems amusing are you not doing the same thing? (this is based on the assumption that you agree with it when Trump says it but not when they say that about men, if not disregard this)
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:10 PM
3

What a worthless bot.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:39 PM
3

You're kidding yourself if you think someone in California makes as much as someone in Oklahoma doing the same job at the same quality. And you're kidding yourself if you think that that someone in Oklahoma can't offer their services to a company in California to increase their wages by demonstrating their value. Your description is that of a localized employment zone, mine is that of national capitalism. Okay? But the bill is ALSO about that of a localized employment zone. Not national capitali…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:35 PM
19

Except that's not how it works at any level other than the bottom where you have no skills with which to negotiate and therefore you can only take what you are offered. You clearly have only the smallest understanding of economic principles as applied to capitalism. Why would anyone hire me if someone else can do more work than me for the same cost? Maybe my work is of greater quality. Maybe I am more reliable and consistent in my delivery. Perhaps I contribute more in expertise than I do in pro…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 10:41 PM
53

Wooh, go iceland! Way to enforce a policy that will by mandate of government law, lower the wages for all employees in companies where there are more than 25 employees! Who needs the ability to negotiate your salary when you can just have your salary mandated to be as low as the lowest bidder?!
/r/MensRights03/01/18 06:30 PM
7

I get what you're saying but this reeks pretty strongly of the same line of thinking that lead Clinton to say, "women are the primary victims of war"
/r/MensRights07/07/17 02:04 PM
1

I wasn't implying that, I was saying this echo chamber is similar to those of that kind. It's an echo chamber of exaggerated victim-hood.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 11:07 AM
8

To describe your characterization of that conversation as uncharitable would be incredibly charitable to you. Seriously, you could not be more false with that statement if you tried. The facts of the matter are, they had a respectful conversation and both people had decent reasons for believing what they do. You're kind of just proving that the echo chamber here isn't any better than the echo chambers on the left. Everything they both talked about, about how people on both extremes are unwilling…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 06:37 PM
0

And since her leaving the scene didn't cause her death, that doesn't seem to apply. Complete misreading of that. It does not say that fleeing has to cause the death, it says if death is the result of the accident. No, out of the gate she could get at most 180 days. Yeah, and since she has repeatedly (39 times) violated her suspended drivers license and from the witness testimony clearly intended to conceal her crime as corroborated by her fleeing police, the maximum penalty should be applied. Th…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 02:21 PM
1

No amount of whinging or defense will change that either. It's been about just 100 years since women were able to go to the ballots in your country. And about 150 years since 95% of men in america could go to the ballot boxes. Did you know that it was only like the 1850s when land ownership stopped being a condition for voting? Before that, the vast majority of men couldn't vote. And before that, wealthy, land-owning women COULD vote. People have this grand idea that all men have been voting for…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 08:03 PM
1

I'm going to summarize using the New jersey Traffic laws the sentence she should be facing. On the count of leaving the scene of an accident. 39:4-129. (a) The driver of any vehicle, knowingly involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene until he has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (c) of thi…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 07:54 PM
1

You gonna speak to those other crimes you're conveniently ignoring? Eh? Didn't think so.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 06:34 PM
1

Umm you listed two crimes there are no wxcuses for there. Driving on a suspended license and fleeing the scene of an accident. On top of vehicular manslaughter. On top of planning to conceal evidence. If you think 5 months probation is adequate for that you have a warped sense of justice.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 05:25 PM
1

I think the reason is actually pretty simple. Women's clothes are design to accentuate their body shape. Men's clothes are designed to cover their body and be decent looking. Which can work for both sexes. Women's clothing doesn't really accentuate the man's typical body shape so it just looks weird. But men's clothing on women simply hides their feminine differences and simply makes them look like skinnier men. So there isn't much of a shock factor to seeing it because there's nothing that stan…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 09:30 PM
1

It doesn't stem from a discussion related to the subreddit. Nothing you said is related to the subreddit. Also, I'd argue it is related to the subreddit because anyone who supports men's right's cannot truly support the ideology of Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any religion And your argument would be wrong. Funny that, I stated facts... No you stated generalizations that aren't relevant to the topic.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:51 PM
0

Go proselytize in some other subreddit. None of what you said made this post relevant to this sub-reddit.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:25 PM
-1

You're just as bad as he is. You're just labeling people as SJWs because they don't like that openly racist people are posting. That doesn't make him an SJW. You calling him that shows you're just as big an idiot as he is. He's an idiot because it's pretty easy to explain why this post is irrelevant to this sub. You're an idiot because you don't see how this post is irrelevant to this sub. And are just calling anybody that doesn't like it an sjw. This post is clearly not relevant because the vid…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 04:12 AM
2

Feel free to click it then. Because if you can't explain why this post doesn't belong without attacking the OP and his horrible post history (a feat that shouldn't be too hard and yet you've failed to at every opportunity) then honestly you're nothing but a shit poster. And all you've apparently done is post shit for 4 years.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 04:07 AM
2

with no relation to men's rights Debatable islamaphobia Implying it's a fear or irrational. Also, by calling this video islamophobic you are essentially agreeing with the premise that these men are acting this way because they are men and not because of their religious and cultural beliefs. Not a very pro-men's rights statement. The OP is pointing out that the media is reporting it as men are denying women their rights to enter coffee shops and not be discriminated against instead of calling it …
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:59 AM
3

So many fucking people saying "alt-right is taking over this sub" This is literally the ONLY fucking post on the front page of this sub right now even remotely related to the alt-right. Just shows every circle-jerk is full of idiots. Edit: Seriously, if you don't like the post just point out that the video talks about how the video is related to islam like half-way through the video rendering the premise that the video is trying to paint this behavior as something all men do as apparently wrong.…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:11 AM
0

and yet you don't see how you're acting like an sjw. Proving that this sub is just as much a circle-jerking, echo-chamber as any sjw one.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:04 AM
1

Do you think all brown skinned men are muslim? Racist.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:03 AM
1

Which part of the video was about white nationalism again? The part where the media was portraying this definite issue as a men problem when maleness has nothing to do with it? Or is it simply a white nationalist video because the person that posted it is a white nationalist?
/r/MensRights04/01/17 03:02 AM
1

Just because someone is a nazi doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. A nazi can still say 2+2 = 4 that doesn't change math because a nazi said it. OP has a point in that the media is portraying this problem as a men problem instead of talking about the actual problem. I think it's a very loose connection to men's rights and ultimately not a post worth being upvoted. But this sub is just a circle jerk of loose connections to men's rights anyway most of the time so it's not all that different…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:55 AM
2

freedom and rights of people who practice these fucked up ideology. You do not have the right to practice an ideology if practicing that ideology means violating laws or the rights of others.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:53 AM
2

Muslims have as much right to speak about Sharia Law And nobody is stopping their right to speak about it, but when they try to enforce it in neighborhoods you can't allow that. I don't care if the neighborhood is all muslim and agrees to it. By law, nobody is allowed to create their own legal system.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:51 AM
1

Muslims have as much right to be in United States as whites Ummm no, no they don't. Because we have a thing called immigration control and immigration control's purpose is to ensure that the immigrants that come into our country are educated and will bring value to our country. On average, white immigrants will be far better educated and will integrate far better into the society since they come from countries that share common beliefs about freedom and human rights. Because of this, they have f…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:48 AM
2

Muslim men don't have the right to violate the rights of women simply because that's how they do it in their home countries. And as others have said, the point is the media is making it sound like the source of this problem (and it IS a problem) is that they are men and not that they are muslim. That's why OP thinks it's a mensrights issue. Because it's just another example of the media connecting negative behavior to maleness instead of the actual problem.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:42 AM
4

Discriminating against one group of people for infringing on the rights of another group of people? Pretty sure that's the basis of a free society. If one group of people is fucking over the rights of others (in this case muslim men infringing on women's rights) then discriminating against them by making them respect the rights of everyone is a good thing. There's nothing unfair about it.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 02:38 AM
10

Because he said so, bro. Haven't you heard all of this anecdotal evidence, clearly there is no possible counter-argument to be made.
/r/TheRedPill03/01/17 05:51 PM
18

if she were male she would be labeled the greatest of all time. Only if all of those titles were in the male leagues which are higher skill and therefore more notable. Her claim only holds water if she were in those male leagues now and was as successful there as she is in the female league. Because then she has achieved more than other male athletes and the only reason for denying her is her sex. But she hasn't. It's like a non-heavyweight fighter with lots of titles wanting to claim he's the b…
/r/MensRights27/12/16 06:34 PM
4

You should probably see a doctor to take that edge off sir edge-lord.
/r/MensRights26/12/16 01:20 PM
15

Maybe because you have something called the Canadian human rights tribunal which essentially has the power to prosecute people for doing things sjws don't like. Oh and a cuck prime minister who spews sjw bull shit from the top of your government. Just a thought.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 07:35 PM
9

Yes that objective study which doesn't even tell you the number of samples the "Just X news source" groups are. They are keen to tell you the number of people surveyed and the number of people that answer they've got news from that news source in the past week. (the only way they determine if someone is a fox news viewer meaning if someone who normally watches no news watched a fox news broadcast in the past week his answers would reflect on the people who only watch fox news group) And yet they…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/11/16 01:31 AM
2

Well if you understand my post you would know that I agree that it is rape, but you can't rid of the phrase. It is literally a description of the action. If you can't use that phrase you can't criminalize as an act that constitutes rape because you haven't described this set of circumstances.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 06:05 PM
1

As ThelemaAndLouise said, while they don't reproduce their genetics they do reproduce their ideas in the minds of people they influence.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 01:37 PM
1

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” I could twist this to say it includes male victims of women as it doesn't specify that the person penetrated is the victim. It simply mentions that penetration is required and that the victim has to have not consented. The victim could, in theory, be the one that is doing the penetrating. However, this definition could s…
/r/MensRights08/09/16 01:33 PM
28

When asked to explain what part of the police actions were a cover up she totally struggles to answer that question. That to me implies she knows nothing wrong was done.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 04:23 PM
4

Fully agree, this is not an appropriate post for this sub.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 07:04 PM
12

He wasn't saying that the nakedness was misogyny in a fantasy medium. He was saying that the misogyny being spoken of was fantasy as in made up by the poster. At least that's how I took it.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 07:01 PM
2

I didn't know that men got pussy passes as well.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 07:00 PM
11

Well anyway the MALE defense lawyer for the women also said "... in my submission there's a significant difference to be made where it is the defendant who is penetrated and not the victim" so But that's the problem, there's actually NOT a significant difference... Why the fuck is being penetrated more violating than penetrating? A guy being made to penetrate is the same level of sexual activity as a girl being penetrated! I know you aren't saying this, it was the defense lawyer, but it's such b…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:31 PM
3

many primary schools are trying to institute male gender quotas but can't find enough candidates... Funny, not having enough qualified candidates is never an acceptable excuse when talking about enforcing gender quotas for high tier jobs. Weird how that works.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 02:14 AM
6

They won't even apologize or admit they did a shit job investigating. What a fucking shit world.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 01:46 PM
2

Bill Murray's acting skills still on point when he was talking during that interview I almost believed he meant the words he was saying and wasn't just saying them because he's friends with some of the actresses.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 04:56 AM
1

Ah I see, because I don't agree with you, I don't think. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 06:13 PM
2

Keeping informed of what? There's nothing here to be informed of other than Individual A did something bad to Individual B. And if it's not a sub pertaining to men's rights, then it's very poorly named. I'm sorry I don't approve of you getting your hate boner by reading every article where a woman does something wrong. But I don't want to be associated with people who are just here to cuck themselves by intentionally getting themselves worked up over something they will do nothing about. What's …
/r/MensRights29/06/16 05:21 PM
3

What about this post is relevant to men's rights? This is blatant man gets hurt by woman, aren't women the worst bull shit. If you want that kind of post go to mgtow.
/r/MensRights29/06/16 03:19 PM
4

Then link the one on people. Don't link one that isn't appropriate and claim it is. FFS. Because there's nothing in this article worth getting upset over unless you just want to say, "aren't women the worst?"
/r/MensRights29/06/16 02:31 AM
12

I don't see what this has to do with Men's Rights. Nowhere in the article does it blame the husband, nor was she treated unfairly favorably because she was a woman (there was no excusing her behavior). All posting this article can do is stir up anger at women, which is not what men's rights is about, this only serves to prove them right for calling us a bunch of woman haters.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 10:57 PM
16

That poor poor woman, she must have been so brave to make it through that.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/16 06:56 PM
1

lol you think that other news networks don't do that? Anytime you see the camera focusing on the interviewer while the interviewee is talking that is them editing what the interviewee said. They will then either cut to a wide shot of the interviewee talking to the interviewer or cut to the interviewee talking. This technique is meant to tie the two cuts together but these cuts may not have been said in the order that they cut them together, or there may have been more said between the two audio …
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/16 06:52 PM
1

Okay, no. A strawman is when I take your argument, exaggerate it, then argue against that exaggerated idea in order to pretend I argued against your statement. At any point did the guy you accused of straw manning you ever argue in his one sentence reply that you were wrong based on his question? (hint: the answer is no he didn't) All he did was take what you said and ask a question for clarity. Just because you don't like the line of questioning, presumably because you see exactly how he could …
/r/MensRights06/05/16 07:09 PM
1

if you took it as me accusing you of being a pedophile, then thats on you. . bitching about not being able to diddle teenagers as an adult on an internet forum does nothing. . trying to mental gymnastics your way into a teenagers panties/boxers acomplishes accomplishes nothing. Yeah that's totally on me, I have no idea how I could have gotten that impression. Seriously dude, do you just like being dishonest?
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:25 PM
1

And now you've misrepresented my intentions as well as my argument. See, this is the fear I was fucking talking about. If I criticize a system that does not afford kids responsibility in an even and rational way I get called a fucking child diddler. because you're too fucking afraid to even think about the idea that consenting to sex is a far less consequential action than some of the other shit they get held accountable for. But w/e if you want to dismiss me and call me a child diddler while re…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 03:43 PM
1

But shouldn't culpability carry more weight and therefore be the one you apply less? Consent is merely allowing someone to do something to you or with you. Whatever happens afterwards is a result of anothers wrong doings. Culpability is acknowledging that you understood the full extent of your actions. Isn't it a bigger responsibility to be culpable than consenting? So why do we more readily hold kids culpable but don't allow them to consent? Surely it is easier to understand what it means to co…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 03:38 PM
-3

He still completely ignored the concept that consent is not just a legal term. I can allow you to punch me in the face, which is assault, but if I don't report you or press charges you don't get tried for it. Why? because I fucking consented to it. A kid can do the exact same thing. Consent is not just a legal word it is a word that describes peoples day to day interactions. And in fact, it's the entire reason that there is statutory rape in the first place. it's acknowledgement that the kid fuc…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 03:18 PM
-2

I didn't miss that part. That you think I did means you either didn't understand my post or didn't care to acknowledge the point I made and decided you wanted to argue something else. Consent is not just a legal concept. If you ask to touch me and I say yes, you have my consent to touch me. A 5 year old can do this very same thing. When you offer me a hand shake that is you consenting to me touching your hand in the manner required to shake it. Consent is not just a legal term. You keep arguing …
/r/MensRights06/05/16 02:55 PM
1

You clearly either don't know what a straw man is or you don't understand your own argument. He did not straw man, he took your words to their logical conclusion. At 13 years-old were you really able to consider all of the consequences about having a child? The logical conclusion of this statement is you think kids shouldn't have sex because they aren't ready for children. Therefore, oral and anal sex is a-okay. You may not have meant this but that is YOUR fault for not articulating your positio…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 02:05 PM
-12

You seem to be unable to understand nuance but let me try to explain. /u/aintyamama understands that legally he can't consent. This is why he acknowledged it was illegal. But a minor can still consent to do things informally. Just because the law doesn't recognize that consent does not invalidate the feelings/reasoning the minor used to consent to an act. It doesn't matter what the law considers to be consent. To pretend that a 15 year old doesn't have the agency to make choices is willfull igno…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 01:38 PM
2

he has a phone record of her admitting she got physical. I think he has a pretty good case
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:32 AM
3

Yeah, like when I took dance classes I got mocked by my friends and beaten up by strangers who saw me exiting the class...oh wait...nope that didn't happen. Sorry I made it up. In reality, I was encouraged to do so because acting outside of "heterosexual norms" does not always bring ostracism or punishment and this assertion is essentially that because it SOMETIMES happens it always happens. And this assertion is clearly as merit-less as any other assertion that tries to claim that because somet…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 12:14 AM
1

You haven't proven anything. All you've demonstrated is men are faster. In every example you've mentioned a time you've only demonstrated this. You have not demonstrated men are superior as far as endurance goes. If men, on average run faster, then it stands to reason that a man running the same distance as a woman with the same endurance capabilities as a woman will complete that run faster, on average. This merely demonstrates that he is faster. If anything, you've demonstrated women have more…
/r/PussyPass09/04/16 02:22 PM
2

How do they make a case though on the push ups? Sure they are weaker, but they are also lifting less weight since they weigh significantly less. Unless they are standardizing everybody's body weight during the push-ups the mere fact that they are women means their test is already an easier task.
/r/PussyPass09/04/16 02:15 PM
2

Given the context of the photo in the post, this would mean that a girls A+ should be, like a 72, not a 51.
/r/PussyPass09/04/16 02:13 PM
1

That's not what decides a players value. What decides a players value is the market place. Globally men's soccer makes way more money than women's. If the u.s. league wants to retain their talent they have to pay them a competitive wage or they will join a different league that will pay them that amount. They want to build up a u.s. league and to do that they need to retain talent. In this regard the women's team are not performing equal work because the value of their work is lower. Not to ment…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 03:40 PM
0

They don't necessarily have a case even if that is true. If the men are being paid more to retain them from joining another league, perhaps one in a country that appreciates the sport more, where they could make a similar wage with the intent of keeping talent here to eventually attract more talent to compete with them, then their case falls apart. If the U.S. group is trying to attract and retain talent to build up a league they need to pay that talent enough to retain them and this pay check i…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 03:09 PM
1

He's saying he was banned because he posted on imgoingtohellforthis. He's not saying he was banned from that subreddit.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:43 PM
3

First, feminists didn't fight for the right to vote. Feminism didn't exist. Second, the "fight" was against other women who did not want the responsibilities that came with the right to vote. Most of the "privileges" men had in society came with a social responsibility and many women did not want to accept that social responsibility to get the rights they did not have. But no worries, they got the right to vote without the responsibilities in America. That's why they don't have to sign up for th…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:36 PM
2

Are you making the silent majority claim about feminists? Because the silent majority is a myth. By being silent you have taken yourself out of the discussion, it doesn't matter if 99% of feminists believe in actual equality if none of them ever say anything or do anything toward that goal. In this case feminism would be defined by the 1%, the radicals, who actually do something in the name of feminism. You do not get to no true Scotsman the radicals when they are the face of feminism. You are t…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:16 PM
2

Arm-chair feminists don't get to claim that these people don't represent feminism. Feminism is whatever the people getting shit done define it as. If the people out there getting speakers shut down and banned from speaking at universities claim to be feminists, than that is what feminism is. You don't get to claim that's not feminism when you don't fight to prevent those people from using that term.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:03 PM
3

He's totally wrong about Scarlett Johansson though. Super hot.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 04:53 PM
1

How about we just stop treating women better? Or better yet, give men the same benefit of the doubt women get.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 01:25 PM
0

It's always depressing to me that people in this country love to pretend that teenagers are not ready for sexual experiences. That's what fucking puberty is meant for. If you're 15 or 16 odds are you're body is ready for fucking and so is your brain. There's a reason little fucks like Justin Bieber get popular with girls around that age. It's because their brain is saying "fuck the shit out of him!" but in subtler ways. I'm not saying that sex at that age can't be traumatizing and abusive. Sex a…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 09:13 PM
1

The solution to the prison sentencing inequality should not be mandatory minimum sentencing. While this law could potentially solve that problem, assuming there are no loopholes which is unlikely, it's also a bad law at the same time because mandatory minimums remove any chance for leniency when it should be there. For instance, I don't believe a teacher should get 10 years of jail time for sleeping with an 18 year old student. I do believe there should be punishment as it violates the social ag…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 09:01 PM
12

Let me write the great feminist novel for you. A black woman that identifies as a toaster because she is differently abled and has a glandular problem that causes her to have hot flashes has sex with an able-bodied muslim man that was born a female but transitioned into a man after she used her expert knowledge of patriarchal norms to shame this man such that he would have sex with her out of guilt for his privilege to make up for it. But this is of course consensual because it's only coercion w…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 07:37 PM
1

You should deface every one of their posters you see circling "mansplain" and labeling it hate speech.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 02:29 PM
1

Yeah! Protest the gay man! We don't want to let a gay man speak at our schools! Wait, what?
/r/MensRights17/02/16 02:22 PM
4

Do you know the source for that, I'd love to link it to people claiming the 1 in 5 stat.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 01:35 PM
23

I love that when the only evidence of a crime is the word of the "victim" that it is then, in the minds of these cultists, not relevant when it is proven that their word is not something to be trusted. We must trust them when they talk about sexual assault and it doesn't matter that they lied on everything else, they definitely didn't lie about this and you are a woman-hater for suggesting they would! That being said, the style this article is written in, while fanciful, makes it difficult at ti…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:08 PM
1

My point was that this is a cosmetic surgery. He asked what other cosmetic surgery is performed on babies.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:07 PM
2

What other cosmetic operations do we allow on babies? To play devil's advocate, any which would correct a deformity. Like a hare lip.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:36 PM
4

Japan has their own cultural issues to deal with. I hope people don't try to apply a western perspective to the backlash he's facing cause it's such a different culture.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:02 PM
1

You're only responsible if you know. (This is why I hate laws against buying stolen goods, I didn't fucking know it was stolen!) If you don't know somebody is married you're not knowingly aiding somebody in adultery. Having sex with someone you like isn't a bad act. Having sex with somebody you know has pledged them self to another in which family destroying conflict could arise should it be discovered is a bad act. It's the selfishness that makes it a bad act. You are prioritizing your own plea…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:52 PM
3

But now you've shifted the goal post. Now it's about whether it's illegal or not? You were saying that you have no responsibility for the strife the affair will cause the family upon discovery. This has nothing to do with illegal or legal. Therefore, all of my examples still apply. If you agree that in those examples you are responsible for the strangers lives even though you aren't the direct cause of their troubles then you have to agree you are responsible for the family of the person you're …
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:27 PM
1

So if I put poisonous materials into the water supply of a city nobody I know lives in, it's fine because I have no responsibility to the strangers in that city. If I sell a gun to a guy I know is going to kill people with it because he told me so, not my fault, I don't know the people he's going to kill. If I post your debit card information online and someone empties your bank account, not my fault, I don't know you.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 05:56 PM
1

Yeah, I'm looking around for something like that. It's winter though so baseball and soccer are the last things on peoples minds when it's sub 20 degrees and snowing lol.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 11:44 AM
2

I agree. I conceded that. You've said nothing new. My original statement is: Unfortunately if you live in a 2 party consent state that can get you in even more trouble. Because if the footage doesn't get you off, it will also get you charged with a felony. Footage doesn't show what happened before the camera started arguments could be made on that, evidence that's been illegally obtained can sometimes be suppressed but that doesn't get you off being charged for it. Or, it's possible the footage …
/r/MensRights22/01/16 09:01 PM
2

They are both felonies, so you're defending yourself from one felony with another potential felony. It's kind've a lose lose. Granted the penalties of domestic assault are typically worse than filming without consent.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:44 PM
5

In a public place you're fine. In your home, you may be able to get away with it, especially in these circumstances. Since you would have to prove they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this situation she entered his home unlawfully so he can probably make a pretty solid argument she had no reasonable expectation of privacy. But she could still force him to prove that in court.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:23 PM
1

Captain Hindsight! I didn't expect to see you here!
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:13 PM
1

Unfortunately if you live in a 2 party consent state that can get you in even more trouble.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 08:08 PM
6

The person who wrote this is very correct that more and more men feel isolated but has absolutely no clue WHY they feel isolated. I am one of those men, all of the friends I have I talk to on Skype. I've moved twice in the past 4 years to new states and have no local friends and no idea how to even start to get them. But it's not because I don't know how to talk about my feelings it's because I don't know how to bond with people without sharing in an activity. I don't do well in social environme…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 07:50 PM
4

Thank fucking Christ. All hope would've been lost if he had been found guilty.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 07:14 PM
7

Well since that quote isn't encouraging anybody to call her employer and is just me supporting the Hospitals own business decision, not only do I laugh at your comparison of me to a feminazi for this perfectly rational statement, but I laugh at you for being unable to tell the difference.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:39 PM
11

Well, to be fair, that isn't up to you. That is up to the Jackson Hospital. Also, medicine is a career path where ethics are really important. This outburst could be a strong indicator in the eyes of her employers that she doesn't have the ethical fortitude to perform her job in such a way when in the future it could be their reputation could be on the line as a business.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:30 PM
3

It was paraphrased. There is some argument to be made that this paraphrase is out of context and isn't representative of her intentions when saying it.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:08 PM
1

Paying men and women differently for the same work is illegal That's not correct, it's paying them differently based on the fact that they are a different sex that is the illegal act. Many men and women in the same roles doing the same work get paid differently, but the reason for that is not their sex, it's potentially seniority, education, negotiation, etc. All of those reasons are acceptable for a pay difference and are perfectly legal.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:05 PM
10

Why would you think you can't post here? Everybody is welcome, even those who disagree, just be ready to defend that disagreement, sometimes from people who I'd rather not post here myself.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 10:09 PM
2

"physical fitness standards suitable for men may not always be suitable for women, and accommodations addressing physiological differences between the sexes are not necessarily unlawful." What's the point of the push ups? Are they trying to make a general assessment of their fitness? Or is the assertion that, if he can't do 30 push ups he can't do the task required. If they are making a general fitness assessment I can understand the difference and don't think it's discrimination. A generally fi…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 06:24 PM
-7

Wow Palin is also multiple women at the same time? That's impressive. I strive to be like her and someday become a men.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:22 PM
1

Responsibility for ones actions. She didn't stumble upon a naked dude. The dude was covered, he saw her, and exposed himself to her. He is responsible for that exposure. It doesn't matter that they are in the locker room. It was his conscious actions that made her see his dick, not her walking somewhere that could expose her to that accidentally. Guess what, that kind of act is criminal if in public, and it doesn't make it any less crude if you do it in a private setting. Just because seeing nud…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 04:06 AM
1

You're simultaneously comparing seeing a penis with being struck by a motor vehicle and calling Australians prudes? Let's see if we can't fine tune our analogy a little eh? Are you an idiot? I'm comparing the RESPONSIBILITY in both of those situations, not the fucking consequences. Seriously, do you eat glue? Also your fine tuning is asinine as well, but I don't think if I explained why your glue eating brain could understand it
/r/MensRights07/01/16 03:41 AM
2

Your idea about looking for a sandwich not coming to mind is irrelevant because you don't know the circumstances. It's possible, even likely, that there is a food table set up in the locker room at every one of their games. You don't know, you are making an argument from ignorance to assume that that wouldn't come to mind to him(a person familiar with the environment) just because it didn't to you. Also, it's not assault, period. It's at best sexual harassment. If anybody is trying to paint it a…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 10:24 PM
1

My actions and agency put me in a cross walk crossing a street on a red light that doesn't make it my fault when a car hits me. Ultimately, her actions only put her in a place where she saw two men in towels if you believe the story. He then took his actions to change that and make it one man with a towel, one man with his junk hanging out. If her actions put her in a place where she saw his genitals exposed and it wasn't him knowingly exposing himself to her, then it would be her fault entirely…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:32 PM
1

I agree with you about the propriety part, like I said, if I were in her shoes I'd be annoyed at worst. The assumption you make in the beginning is weak. You have no idea why she entered the locker room. Apparently it was to get a sandwich (if I recall what I read in that article properly) with the assumption nobody was in there. If that is the intention then NO, I don't think it's reasonable to assume she WANTS to see naked guys. Nor do I assume any man inside a locker room wants to see naked g…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:30 PM
4

Can we stop painting this like, "She entered the locker room and saw his exposed dick then complained." The story is, "She entered the locker room, he was covered, he saw her and then exposed himself asking her if that's what she was looking for." These are very different scenarios and one is far less outrageous than the other. I don't agree with how the article paints his actions, or all male sexual advances, as somehow inherently despicable and harmful. That doesn't justify completely misrepre…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:23 PM
3

It's not like he was naked and she walked in on him. The story is, she walked in he was covered, he noticed her and exposed himself to her asking, "Were you looking for this?" There IS a difference, whether it matters or not is up to the person, but him taking action to expose himself when he wasn't exposed, and him just being seen are two different things and painting it as otherwise distracts from any intelligent conversation.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:20 PM
2

I believe you are speaking from the American NFLs rules. This is not necessarily a rule for ALL of world's sports.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:17 PM
8

Looks like I'm moving to New York. Gonna visit all of the gyms with open showers in the locker rooms and tell them I identify as a woman so I can go ogle naked women in the showers. And if they disallow me from doing so, I can have them fined. Not like they can prove I don't identify as a woman since you pretty much have to take that persons word for it.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 04:29 PM
1

I agree that it's important to begin applying the same rules to women. I just believe it is important to pick your battles wisely. A battle like this of such little significance, if made out to be a big deal, will often serve to allow the defender to undermine the importance of the point being made. In my opinion, it is best to avoid trivial matters such as this and choose battles more carefully such that when the public en masse hears about the inequalities that men face it will be over importa…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 04:38 AM
2

I do not agree with this being a problem. For one, it was a one time only class, not a regular thing. And secondly, it's only unfair discrimination if they were prevented from hosting a men only weight class. It's important to remember that discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. Society would not function if we refused to be discriminatory. The bathroom shower example in the article is a perfect example. We discriminate when we assign who can go to which shower and this is okay because th…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 03:55 AM
3

The problem with saying "double standards" is that this statement presumes, 1. all of reddit feels one way about something, 2. The actions of an individual represent all of the users, and 3. In combining both above, supposes that one user acting contrary to other users is somehow representative of hypocrisy. Number 1 of the above is the worst of the 3 because it is the same way of thinking that aligns with, "all men are more privileged than all women" because it sees individuals as representativ…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 07:54 PM
3

Right? I thought it was a good joke. It wasn't a dude saying he loved it.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 07:49 PM
1

That was a pretty good joke if you ask me lol.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 07:48 PM
10

My problem is that people talk about Viagra and abortion pills as if it's the same thing just because both are loosely related to sex. The problem is that Viagra is not morally objectionable. Nobody has a problem with sex (nobody sane) so there's no need to put any non-medically related restrictions on the drug. Abortion is a morally objectionable act. Some people are fine with it, some aren't, and the people that are fine with it might not even agree on when they stop being fine with it. Compar…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 05:41 PM
1

I really wish his style of comment was unusual for this sub. It'd make it much more legitimate.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 01:42 PM
1

Those people are liberals. SJWs are not liberals they are authoritarians.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 01:18 PM
2

So if I'm reading this right. The men's prison is a prison, and the women's prison is a rehabilitation center pretty much? Man the patriarchy strikes again.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 08:47 PM
1

seriously, I don't want to give that shit site any traffic.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:03 PM
2

“Women in developing countries are among the most vulnerable to climate change.” What? What line of thinking makes them think that the fucking women are any more vulnerable to climate change than the men? What kind of ass backwards, mental gymnastics did they have to do to come to this conclusion. We have to humanise this, we need to send a strong message that this is about people. “If you don’t have women here, how can you say this is about people?” Feminists don't think men are human or people…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 06:57 PM
5

Unfortunately, it's more likely they'll just get a weak-willed, self-hating man that will allow them to berate and belittle them for the rest of their lives, or at least until they kill themselves.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:44 PM
2

She even stops at one point and says that she doesn't want to suffer through the downsides of getting all of the shit she's talking about. Essentially, she wants to be treated better than men and she's perfectly fine allowing men to run the world for her while she's pampered and taken care of.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 06:40 PM
10

great post
/r/MensRights08/12/15 06:04 PM
1

I'd say I swipe yes to maybe 30% of women at best. (Granted it used to be higher until I moved to Pennsylvania and suddenly there were a lot less attractive women in my age range to choose from). I think, since moving here, I've only gotten 3 matches and none of them responded to messages. Guess I'm an average to below average male lol.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 08:05 PM
2

And in saying that she approached men, found a way to ridicule them for being surprised and suspicious when she approached them. Not giving one thought to why they would act that way.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:59 PM
2

Don't presume. I would prefer that women had the choice, the opportunity, to do so. Yes, those are dangerous jobs, and people who worked those professions were often injured or crippled either due to accidents or repetitive strain injuries. But they still had the right, and the opportunity, to work for those jobs, which often paid much better than jobs women could get. If it were a choice between my health and providing for my family, well... I'm pretty sure I'd do what had to be done. It was th…
/r/MensRights03/12/15 05:02 PM
0

No, in this context it means, "we are capable of doing this" In other words, we are capable of over coming this discrimination. Context matters. Don't twist the meaning to suit your victim complex.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:44 PM
2

Get out of this subreddit. This is not a subreddit about hatred of women like you seem to think it is.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:40 PM
2

While I agree fully with pointing out the double standard. I hope you keep in mind the idea that rape being funny is not a bad thing. It is a good society that can laugh about tragedy. Comedy should not be forced to avoid making jokes about rape if they can make it funny. And while we can recognize the hypocrisy of the double standard we should not be advocating to make rape of men a topic banned from comedy. Because that is not what a free society populated by free thinking individuals does.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 05:37 PM
3

While the message of the article is nice, that misandry is a thing. The reasoning it took to get there is pretty lax. Just because the other side of a word isn't known doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to hide that word. (granted it does in this case)
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:24 PM
4

The answer is that it's hard to prove either side. So the question that needs to be resolved then is, "is it better to jail everyone and accept that many of the people jailed are innocent, or to jail no one and allow potential criminals to go free?" I think most reasonable people would think that jailing a bunch of innocent people to catch a few criminals is a worse outcome. I mean what's a bigger injustice? That one rapist gets set free, or that one person goes to jail for their whole life for …
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:15 PM
7

There's a downside to this tactic. Since they didn't actually have sex, it can be easily proven that the rape accusation is false. It becomes even easier if Black doesn't live in the same state. As it becomes much easier to prove the accusation false. While it seems like a good idea to try and trap Black by accusing them of rape you really lend strength to their argument by giving them an easy target to show that guilty until proven innocent works and the falsely accused can prove they didn't co…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:08 PM
28

To be fair, his sarcasm implies that these outcomes are extremely rare not that they don't happen. The fact that they are super rare yet this girl is so certain this would happen like it happens all of the time is where the absurdity comes from. As demonstrated by the fact that that same judge in your article is under review for just such actions, this kind of outcome is rare as shit and always looked down upon.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 06:37 PM
-2

Ignoring the fact that the only reason he HAD to defend himself was because he was holding her against her will inside that room. An act that is illegal, it's practically just one step down from kidnapping.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 11:52 PM
4

Do you know who her boyfriend was? Cause he's a heavyweight fighter. She IS weaker than him.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 06:19 PM
2

Note: She's not in work right now either. Kind of hypocritical of her to ask that question.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 06:30 PM
6

"Shouldn't you be in work?" "I'm a kindergarten teacher and today was a half day, what's your excuse?" better way of phrasing that turn-around
/r/MensRights20/11/15 06:20 PM
1

Yeah, he's a heavy weight fighter, so she didn't really do all that much damage. And I fully agree with you.
/r/MensRights15/11/15 05:56 AM
0

False imprisonment is NOT overstating it. This guy clearly was not letting her leave. If it took throwing him to get him out of the way after slapping and punching wasn't enough to make him leave and after being thrown he continued to pursue her he's clearly not just some weak little flower getting wrongfully attacked. I never said I condone her actions, but I certainly understand them and can see them not being unreasonable. You don't get to keep someone hostage and then complain when they do w…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:09 PM
1

In response to someone unlawfully preventing her leaving the situation. If he wanted to avoid physical injury all he had to do was stop falsely imprisoning her in the room. By not ceasing his illegal action he essentially is consenting to being hit.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:02 PM
1

She communicated a threat to somebody already committing a crime against her. Preventing someone from leaving a room is a crime. All he has to do to prevent getting attacked is stop committing the crime. Don't remove his agency from him just because he got beat up.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 05:01 PM
0

False Imprisonment of a person is against the law. It is a crime to prevent someone from leaving a room. Do you think she would have kicked his ass if she was allowed to leave the room? No, because she wouldn't have been in the room. Also everyone's acting like no words were exchanged. Just because there wasn't a transcript doesn't mean word were not spoken. She likely told him she'd kick his ass if he didn't move. By not moving and enduring the assault knowing the only reason for it is because …
/r/MensRights13/11/15 03:29 PM
1

Saying to me that, "feminists would say this" is futile. Just because that's what THEY say doesn't justify YOU saying it. If anything it goes to show how stupid that reason is if it's what they say.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 03:45 AM
2

Just because they abandon reason doesn't mean you shouldn't.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 03:44 AM
-2

Well if you read it, she didn't start full tilt, she first slapped him, when that failed she escalated, and when he still refuses to move she literally throws him out of the way. From that description, it doesn't sound like a shove would have been sufficient to get him to move. If you have to resort to throwing someone out of the way, pushing them probably isn't far enough.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 01:45 AM
25

I know this is going to get me downvoted. But this guy was asking for it. He was barring her exit and while enduring her onslaught refused to allow her to leave. He follows her to her car and gets in it to try and prevent her from leaving. You're not allowed to hold somebody hostage nor are you allowed to enter their vehicle without permission. I'm not saying violence is a good thing, but this is clearly not an example of a girl beating a dude up for no reason. If someone were trying to prevent …
/r/MensRights13/11/15 01:07 AM
0

Why do you believe gender norms are harmful? I ask this because it's an assertion I hear often and if you take that idea further I think you run into a lot of problems. For instance, how did gender norms come about? Obviously, gender norms are not some thing that an evil group pushed onto society in order to oppress the masses, so why do they exist? It's a pretty solid argument to look at gender norms from the perspective of animal behavior. Because despite what some people want to believe, we a…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 06:06 PM
1

Wait, what? She still has custody? Wtf?!
/r/MensRights05/11/15 01:49 PM
8

Not to mention it was a fucking boy. If I want to see a topless boy I can go to a fucking beach or a pool. Seriously, what kind of pervert is like, "Oh yeah, let me see that sexy little boy chest that I can see literally anywhere." It doesn't fucking happen. Frankly, it's pathetic that people have given into this fear mongering. What's worse is that they trust women with all of the things they don't allow men to do. Meaning female pedophiles are having a fucking field day while everyone watches …
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:54 PM
2

Man they really indoctrinated you. You even project like they do now.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 07:04 PM
2

So you can't think of any examples. Thanks for proving my point. Go back to your gender studies course where they can tell you how bad you are for being born a man.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 06:58 PM
3

That's a stupid statement to make. Inequalities of the past do not justify a movements existence in the future. Name 1 right women don't have today in America/UK that men do. I'll name one for you in the opposite. Female genital mutilation is illegal. Meanwhile, male genital mutilation is legal and advocated for by many doctors even though it serves no medical benefit and has risks tied to it. Like that baby that died from blood loss during a circumcision recently in the news. There you go. 1 le…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 05:39 PM
5

Name 1 structural inequality enshrined into law against woman that doesn't also apply to men? Because I can name a couple that apply to men that don't apply to women.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 05:38 AM
0

Well (A) you don't now that nobody has posted a review. You can only speak for yourself. (B) Lying implies you know the truth and say something else. We know laughing witch lied because we know she knows the truth. We don't know that her husband knows the truth. At worst we can say he is willfully ignorant. And either way, that doesn't make him complicit in the first crime. He is responding to an attack on himself via his business when he himself did nothing wrong. Whose side do you think he's l…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 03:28 PM
0

It doesn't matter when it happened, the second he followed her into bullshit he became complicit. I don't think you understand what complicit means. Complicit means that he was involved in her activity. Agreeing with a crime doesn't make you complicit in it. For instance, if someone punched you right now, I'd think it was pretty funny and deserved, that doesn't make me complicit in the assault I was not involved in the assault. See we don't need to justify the position, she's already done it. No…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 02:36 PM
1

She deserves everything she gets provided its in response to people finding out the truth. You have once again ignored the fact that the method of attack that hurts her hurts others. You either ignore this because you don't care, or because you have no justification for the collateral damage that your revenge lust causes. You can try and justify yourself all you want, but in the end you're just as much a villain for not caring about the indirect effects of your zealotry.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 02:23 PM
0

the point was numbnuts; an action isn't judgeable on it self in isolatiion, you are the one condemning people for being "Just as bad" because they do a similar action. Because even in context it's not justified. That's what you're not getting. If you witnessed someone murder someone in broad daylight then drop their weapon stepped away and posted a video of themself doing it, you are not justified in then picking up their weapon and murdering them with it. You would go to jail. Because you are n…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 12:43 PM
0

Sure he did. The second he repeated her nonsense & added in 400,000 army of fan boys comment he was complicit in her behavior. Wrong, this happened after people attacked the business not before, he even says he doesn't approve of his wife's actions. This would be like me saying you helped with a robbery because you showed up to the store an hour after the robbery happened and then said, "i'm glad this store got robbed" No she didn't. She attacked Thunderfoots job, as herself & justified it by sa…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 12:30 PM
-2

Wrong, because the state does their actions based on the supposedly sanctioned and agreed upon authority of the people via our system of government. They are not taking people they don't like and locking them up. They are taking people that have violated laws that our societies elected officials created with our sanction. In other words, the person being imprisoned as a consequence of being a voting citizen, has agreed that they would follow these rules and if caught not following the rules woul…
/r/MensRights26/10/15 09:16 PM
2

I thought about mentioning the gay prostitute but since most men wouldn't resort to being a male prostitute for gay men because there is a distinct difference in work load (no pun intended) even if they were desperate I didn't think it was worth mentioning since the number of men that would resort to it is so small. I know I wouldn't become a prostitute for male clients. I could let a dude bang me once for a decent amount of cash (like I might consider it for 10 grand, yes that low) and be fine …
/r/MensRights26/10/15 08:37 PM
-4

I cannot agree. For one, her husband did not participate in her misbehavior. He probably wasn't even aware of it. He should not be punished for her misbehavior and neither should the other employees of the company. Just like it's not okay to bomb whole cities killing many civilians to kill the small portion of the population that might be plotting a terror attack, it is not okay to attack an entire business, sacrificing the livelihood of people not involved with the conflict just because someone…
/r/MensRights26/10/15 05:32 PM
13

Men aren't going into prostitution because there isn't a demand for it. There isn't high demand for dick among the female demographic. Much like how male models get paid less, so too would male prostitutes. There is less demand which means less reliable paychecks, and lower paychecks. Why do so many desperate women go into prostitution? Because there's a market for it. If prostitution were legal it's a safe bet that it would be a lucrative business. And it's easy work. Let's be fair, being a pro…
/r/MensRights26/10/15 03:48 PM
2

I didn't disagree with you. I said they did not enforce the rules fairly. But they aren't irrelevant variables. They are possible explanations for why human beings made a decision to enforce a rule in one case and not enforce it in another. Only if you are a robot is that an irrelevant variable.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 06:11 PM
1

I think this comparison is a bit unfair. Similar to how there are variables in the wage gap that if you ignore them change the interpretation. (i.e. if you ignore that men work more hours you can make it out to be gender bias rather than men just working more) The difference is, his father is dead, the girl is alive. Whether it's good reasoning or not, the argument could be made that the reason it was allowed was because of the benefits of a person fighting cancer seeing emotional support for th…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 02:45 PM
5

I'm a singe male and I can't cook. I just shout at a random woman on the street to make me a sandwich and because of her fear of the evil, all-knowing patriarchy she comes up to my apartment and cooks for me.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 01:28 PM
8

Just read the words of the insane person giving that message. “We have to be allowed to talk about that this is a gendered issue and acknowledge that men may be victims but not lose [sight of the fact] that the overwhelming issue is the attitude men have to women as their possessions, as something they can control and punish. It is about their attitude.” She says men may be victims but the problem with domestic violence is that men see women as possessions. Ignoring the point that male victims h…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 02:13 PM
1

Right, because children, and I stress children because both genders do this, don't treat people they like poorly in order to get attention from them.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 04:41 AM
1

What about his comment was aggressive? Was it the word tranies? Because that's just short for transgender and anybody getting their panties in a bunch over that word should get over it. Was it the fact that he said they weren't special snowflakes? because they aren't. Unless he edited it, and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy that edits his shit to not offend, I don't see what you took offense to. You'll get better results if you support your statement. Saying he was violently hateful and unn…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 08:44 PM
5

I think the implication is that he's stupid. Women are not easily replaced? Women make up 51% of the population, if anything they are easier to replace. But ignoring that, women are just as easy to replace as men are. There is literally no difference in how easy it is to replace one sex. (I get that this quote is taken out of context and he wasn't saying women aren't as easily replaced as men but was saying they aren't as easily replaced as our money and guns, but the argument still holds that m…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 07:17 PM
8

I think it's whoever cries rape first that is the one that is raped. and 99% of the time it's the woman crying rape first. If only there was a game show where in order to buzz in to answer a question you had to cry rape. Women would always beat men.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:09 PM
1

There has to be some sort of irony in this comment with your username being 'smackerup.'
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:55 PM
1

Yes is not hate speech. He asked for an example from the show.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:23 PM
2

agreed
/r/MensRights05/10/15 10:22 PM
1

This is true. However, what does this have to do with this topic? There is nothing in this bill that makes the marriages by contract any different than the marriages with licenses. Have you even read the bill? It's literally a revision of the current bill with the parts about marriage licenses removed.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 09:37 PM
1

https://legiscan.com/AL/text/SB377/id/1232785 Well this text IS the law. So show me where in the law it says it has to meet Alabama's requirements to be recognized. The only text in that you can interpret that way is "...state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage..." At which point, legally authorized to be married is the only part I would be wary of because it's not clear what the requirements of that are from the bill itse…
/r/MensRights05/10/15 08:13 PM
4

Well first off, married couples =/= automatically mean tax break. In fact, getting married often means a tax hike if both spouses work and have similar incomes, because their joint income moves them into a higher tax bracket. And filing jointly makes it harder to meet the minimum % of income required to deduct medical expenses. The only time it's a tax break is if only one spouse works or one spouse makes significantly more than the other. This can often bring one person down a bracket. The char…
/r/MensRights05/10/15 04:33 PM
8

I think you've misunderstood something or I have. If anything this makes it easier to be married, for everybody. By making marriage a private contract that you simply have to sign it with a witness (typically your lawyer, though it doesn't need to be) it has made marriage pretty fucking easy. You sign the contract and then file it with an Probate (estate) office. The state no longer has any say in who can get married and there's no license required. You sign the contract and you are married. And…
/r/MensRights05/10/15 03:45 PM
1

My point is, if FGM women are having sex only with their husbands, then FGM probably doesn't in practice increase STD transmission, even though the actual method of transmission is easier. You support this with your statement essentially by saying that it's the promiscuity of the men that is causing the higher STDs if anything. A society like that will give the wives STDs regardless of whether their genitals have been fucked up.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:27 PM
0

This is pure conjecture, there are certainly places where promiscuous sex is very very common. Conjecture based on a solid premise. I get it, you really want to make it seem like FGM could be a means to reduce HIV. I'm not sure why you do, but it isn't working for you. Because the assertion that FGM leads to increase STD transmission seems completely contrary to the desired effect of FGM. FGM is intended to make women less promiscuous. Less promiscuous people get less STDs. Therefore, it stands …
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:18 PM
0

My initial point is that FGM does not increase STD transmission. How is that made moot by evidence that it's NOT FGM causing the increase exactly?
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:16 PM
1

This is true. But there's no reason for me to expect that the men in cultures that perform this ritual are more promiscuous than men in cultures that don't. And even if you could demonstrate this I could then argue that FGM is not the cause for the higher STD transmission, it's the higher promiscuity of the men.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 08:17 PM
2

There is also the cultural aspect to consider where women are still subservient to husbands over in many of these places. They are expected to have sex so they do, so disregarding rapes, I still do not see this making a difference. This is minimally impactful on the transmission of STDs though. STDs are not transmitted by two people having sex with each other a lot. STDs are transmitted by individuals having sex with multiple partners. if two clean people only have sex with each other, they coul…
/r/MensRights30/09/15 07:58 PM
1

I don't think anybody is arguing that genital mutilation is not wrong. So I'm guessing you were trying to say to me that I'm wrong about the STD transmission because the higher rape occurrence will make up for the women's lower sex drives. To which I'd have to see the stats on essentially the average number of sexual encounters for women with FGM versus women without FGM, and then compare that difference to the difference in the number of rapes to make any decision on whether FGM contributes to …
/r/MensRights30/09/15 07:38 PM
0

Did...did you just respond seriously to a comment suggesting that homeless people should eat the rich?
/r/MensRights30/09/15 07:30 PM
1

They'd starve since there's so few rich and so many homeless. Once all of the people making more money than you are eaten, guess who's the new rich guy /u/HotZone_.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 03:16 PM
4

I'd argue the opposite. FGM makes sex less pleasurable so you're far less likely to have sex recreationally. Meaning you will have sex with less partners, making risk of getting an STD lower.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 02:41 PM
28

Nah man, it's PERTH, U.S.A. The county was Australia. It's an easy mistake to make but why would anybody report on anything happening outside of the U.S?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 12:14 PM
0

Way to assume YOUR opinion is the prevailing opinion you egocentric narcissist.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 11:51 PM
0

Wrong, you are presuming my intentions incorrectly, while accusing me of presuming everyones intentions incorrectly. Your question is based on a false premise, so why should I answer it? That's like asking me, "Why did you kill JFK?" And when I respond "I didn't kill JFK I just said he should be killed" you accuse me of dodging the question and reassert that I did, in fact, kill JFK.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:57 PM
0

You are literally doing to me what you are claiming I'm doing to the people of this sub. You are presupposing I'm implying they are all angry when I say outraged, while accusing me of presupposing they are all angry. Do you not see the irony?
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:12 PM
1

You know the word "or" means that these two are not inclusive right? So if the definition of indignation is "anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment." That means that the indignant person could be angry or they could be annoyed. It doesn't imply both intrinsically although it doesn't exclude this possibility. So I ask you, why do you assume I meant anger? And this is not a double standard. There is no double standard in this article to discuss. This is They did not d…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:54 PM
1

I know I ignored your question because you assumed vitriolic rage and outrage are equivalent when outrage doesn't solely imply anger but could also imply shock or indignation. And this is certainly a post about indignation. Why do you assume outrage means anger when this isn't the only emotion it describes? Don't answer that I already know.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:24 PM
6

Matt and Trey (south park creators) went to an awards show wearing dressses. Pretty sure there was some criticism of that.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:02 PM
1

Why post it at all? This is a garbage post. The only reason to post it is to try to make people upset or to circlejerk over confirmation bias. Neither of which is a good thing and really this post should be deleted.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 01:26 PM
9

Why are we outraged over this? The only times it's called sex is when speaking about the situation from the victims perspective. I saw not one instance where it was inappropriate to refer to it as just sex. Get outraged over something actually worth outrage.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:55 PM
-1

I don't think anybody is a hero for raising a kid they brought into the world, no matter how hard it is. If you weren't ready for the challenge then you shouldn't have made the child. Doing what's expected of you doesn't make you a hero. If that were the case most people in the world are heroes.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 10:32 PM
2

If this is what they do for a living you expect them to not get paid for their activism? You expect them to live as poor men living for their cause?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:10 PM
16

Can I just say how petty it is to link this to Trump? Like seriously, how can you be more obvious that you are politically biased. Let's link trump to this incident he's not related to at all just because he knows the girl! Let's use guilt by association to imply that somehow Trump being in a photo with this girl means that he is also an ass hole that punches flight attendants in the face. It's fucking disgusting how far "news" outlets will go to push their agenda. I mean this is the fucking dai…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:45 PM
1

which is, unarguably, biological? Except it's not unarguable. How did you make that leap? This is the line you stated. Men are stronger biologically -> Men are disposable because they are stronger and this correlation of strength to dispensability is so absolute it cannot be argued against. If how strong something is is the only measure we used to determine the value of their lives versus another life then I am glad to be on the weak to average scale for a man. I guess my life is more valuable t…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:03 PM
1

Testosterone is masculine because the traits that testosterone controls are masculine not because men have more of it. And the proportion of difference matters a lot in distinctions. If something is split 52-48 calling that feminine is asinine because the majority of the time men will have that same trait. If something is split 80-20 it clearly goes one way, testosterone is like the 80-20 split. Show me that desire for emotional closeness is 80-20 and then we'll talk.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:23 PM
2

Your opinion is just as subjective. Just because women value those things more doesn't make it a feminine trait nor does it mean that men DON'T value those things on average. If women place a 6 out of 10 value on something and men place a 5 out of 10 value on something, women value it MORE, but men still value it as well. Sad I have to explain that. And everybody does not die alone. That's stupid. Multiple people standing next to each other that die in an explosion die together, just one of many…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:04 PM
0

Well, when you die alone without any close friends or sexual partners you can message me and tell me how wrong I am.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 12:43 PM
92

how men need a whole bunch of feminine desires like intimacy and emotional closeness. These are not feminine desires. These are human desires. All human beings desire intimacy and emotional closeness. The way they achieve and express these desires is different, but the desires themselves are universal throughout mankind.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:43 PM
3

It's a good point on paper. If there was a successful predictor on marriage outcome there would be an insurance market for it. Because look how many marriages fail. If they could predict that even remotely accurately you'd think there would be a market to insure. But then you have to factor in the expenses of assessing a marriage strength. How do you do this? You can't automate it or rely on automatic surveys. If it requires an employee to invisibly observe a couple that's, expensive as shit whe…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:37 PM
1

I thought it was because this article is a continuation from the bull shit opinion piece about air conditioning in offices being sexist because some women are cold when all they wear are thin summer dresses. But maybe I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 03:14 AM
2

The god knows what reason was more a commentary on Floyd Mayweather being, even by boxing standards, a boring fighter.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 03:13 PM
6

Technically I did the math, I didn't do the calculations. Math doesn't require actual numbers.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 03:11 PM
5

She also doesn't understand the concept of viewership, advertising, and ticket sales apparently. Weird for someone on television. Mayweather's name sells more tickets for god knows what reason. Therefore, he makes more money. Plain and simple.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 02:59 PM
9

Now it's, "introducing the bantamweight champion with a penis, TJ Dillashaw!"
/r/MensRights03/08/15 02:57 PM
3

Because it's not a complicated calculation. How many pay-per-view tickets does Floyd Mayweather's name sell?(More then it should for how boring his fighting style is) How many pay-per-view tickets does Ronda Rousey's name sell? Now look at how much they each get paid. Math done. Names that sell tickets, that garner viewers in the realm of entertainment get paid more. It's why women's sports are almost always paid less. because the amount of viewers they generate is dwarfed by male athletes. If w…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 02:55 PM
14

While I'm sure there are some feminists that see it this way, I think the majority are just prudes that want to control the way women are seen sexually. Legal prostitution to them is legal "objectification" which is absolutely bad in their warped point of views. Of course, they ignore male "objectification" or justify it through their bull shit power dynamics mental gymnastics. It is about control. it's not something they approve of and therefore it is wrong and must be stopped. Feminists don't …
/r/MensRights31/07/15 02:08 PM
16

Yes, yes I am. A thousand times yes. www.buzzfeedisnotjournalism.com
/r/MensRights29/07/15 10:30 PM
45

The writers tone throughout the article is very begrudging as if she's mad that she has to be writing about it but doesn't want to write a shit article. Not that I'm complaining. For a buzzfeed article, it was pretty close to a real piece of journalism.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 05:33 PM
0

/s is only required for morons who can't use the context clues and recognize the hyperbolic language to recognize that as sarcasm.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 12:13 PM
1

It certainly wasn't a short read, and apparently transcribers aren't very good because some of it is illegible lol.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 09:55 PM
1

I'd downvote your comment since you brought up mens rights in that context considering it had nothing to do with that video. I agree with the sentiment but MGTOW and mens rights are very different and the attitudes you commented on are far more prevalent in MGTOW.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 08:05 PM
5

And even if that were the case, it's always a problem to label one group flat out better than another at something. Wrong. Saying that all men are on average stronger than women is not a problem, it's a fact. What problem is there saying that one gender is better on average than the other gender. Guess what, genders ARE different despite what some people will tell you. "women are better care takers than men."? If you gave me objective measures for good care taking that most people could agree wi…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:33 PM
5

The post doesn't flat out state "men are better than women", but it is pretty overt that the theme of the post is the superiority of men So you see a post stating men are better than women at X. X meaning spatial reasoning and leadership. And then take away from that that X is actually everything. Saying I am better than a woman at math does not mean I believe all men are better than all women at math. You get this right? Because you're a reasonable person I assume. And a reasonable person under…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:03 PM
5

No, it's an 8 chan post saying that gender based studies often use subjective qualifications to tell the narrative they want to tell and that people should be critical of such methodologies and not just trust conclusions at face value.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:51 PM
3

If it was in response to this same posted item it's probably because you don't understand that the post which never states men are superior to women but that people should be wary of conclusions that state one gender is superior to another because in this example this one person was told to manipulate their data to tell a narrative rather than just provide the facts.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:47 PM
12

I see you missed the point of the post. A post that says many time these are not scientific results and whose conclusion was not that, "Men are superior to women" but "Be wary of studies that claim women are superior to men because their standards of measurement are prone to being manipulated." But that's public school reading comprehension at it's finest. I wonder if the advent of the internet, and things like twitter are contributing to people's inabilities to actually understand what they are…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:37 PM
0

So you read this, and the message you got was men are better than women. Rather than the actual message, be wary of studies discussing performance by gender and make sure their methodologies and data clearly and unsubjectively support their conclusions. I'm glad schools teach people to understand what they are reading.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:34 PM
18

Or maybe the point was to prove that there is a lot of people pushing the narrative that gender quotas aren't bad, that women are exactly as capable as men in all aspects of everything ever, that the only reason women don't perform well in some roles is because of oppression by men. Just look at your comment, what you replied to, and the original one in this chain. The original comment admits that women aren't as good as men at spatial reasoning. And the next commenter takes this as fact and use…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:15 PM
15

To clarify, good science is, "I have this thing I think is true, so I will design an experiment that should prove that I am wrong and when that experiment fails to prove I am wrong it will lend evidence to the possibility that I am right." Here's an example. I observe apples falling from a tree. I propose this is due to a force called gravity. So I go into space with an apple tree and wait for an apple to fall, meaning I am operating with the assumption that the apple WILL fall in space. When no…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:47 PM
2

It's very funny how he paints the desire for his wife to only want his penis as some form of overly controlling patriarchy. What about all of those wives that want their husbands to only want their vaginas? It's the exact same level of desire for control so it must be patriarchy. This is why this whole article is clearly bull shit feminist nonsense. Take that thought even one step further and it's patriarchy narrative falls apart.
/r/MensRights17/07/15 05:56 PM
7

Or we could NOT censor jokes about anything because we aren't radical fascists.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 12:36 PM
3

What a load of bullshit. At one point he speaks negatively about how "MRAs" assume feminists haven't done their research while completely disregarding their opinions they formed based on their own research. By completely dismissing their opinions regardless of their content he is committing the same offense he accuses them of. Except he takes it a step further and claims those dismissed opinions are evidence that feminism is NEEDED. Fucking typical.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 07:30 PM
4

I've never liked the term 'repeat offender.' He technically hasn't repeated any offense. His first offense was drug trafficking. This is not a repeat of that this is a new crime. What was repeated was merely the fact that he broke the law. But one crime was clearly more damaging than the other and completely unrelated so what does one have to do with the other when it comes to sentencing? It's a retarded system. There's so much bull shit in all 3 branches of American government and yet people wa…
/r/MensRights08/07/15 05:42 PM
2

This is it plain and simple. Puritanism still holds a strong grip on our society both in law and the morals of the public. The problem is that the law half actually hurts people.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 05:38 PM
1

can't just say I'm wrong and not provide proof. I have never seen or heard of a case where a man accused a woman of raping him, and was thrown in jail for lying and I'd bet money you can't find one.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 11:58 AM
1

you're either a troll or a crazy feminist One look at my comment history will show I'm not a crazy feminist. Hell I've even said on this comment thread that you are all acting like feminists using that to imply you are all being extremist, emotional, dictators. So that accusation shows very little thought put into the post and all of it is viceral, emotional reaction. So way to be just like a feminist buddy!
/r/MensRights08/07/15 11:57 AM
0

Stop seeing only the woman in this. Stop assuming that's all I see.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 04:49 PM
0

idk why you think that's a different viewpoint. It's like you think I'm not aware of the consequences some people have suffered from high profile accusations. The duke lacrosse guys got shafted in the court of public opinion. This isn't the case for EVERY accusation. Not every case gets the public attention that ruins lives. But thanks for the enlightening new viewpoint I never considered before. /sarcasm
/r/MensRights07/07/15 03:56 PM
-1

Yes, because despite not being in support of this woman's actions I am not in support of lynch mobs. I support a rational reasonable punishment for all people. The facts of the matter are this, just because you see an inequity in the law does not mean you should push to punish the people using that inequity just as inequitably as some sort of retribution. You should push to have the inequity fixed. Laws that are punished based on how it makes you feel are not justice.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:32 PM
0

It IS a lynching. You want her to go to jail, meaning she will lose her job, if she's living in an apartment she will lose her home. And all because her actions had the POTENTIAL to ruin the guys life. When crimes have the POTENTIAL to have been bad but did not come to fruition the punishment is less severe. Plain and simple. If you don't like it become a politician and change how the law works.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:28 PM
-2

A man isn't punished with prison time for false rape accusation. I would expect a man to be punished in a similar way if he were guilty of false rape accusation.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:51 AM
-9

So you ignore the sentence right after that first quote. Done, you're no better than a troll. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:14 AM
-5

Crimes should not be punished based on feelings. We don't know how many community service hours she got. It could be 10 it could be 300. 300 is a LOT of time. It's a pretty severe punishment. So since you don't know, you can't say she got a slap on the wrist. I also don't know what being supervised for 3 years means, but I imagine there are also downsides to that. Maybe she can't travel without permission. So we come to the question, do you want the punishment for a false rape accusation to be a…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:13 AM
-15

okay, you're not following so I have to spell it out for you. I have not stated that anyone has said that she should be eaten or killed. The only time I've said such a thing was in a METAPHOR or HYPERBOLE. The METAPHOR being, the boy being eaten is the equivalent of the woman being punished the way a rapist would be punished. Hence all of the mention of eye for an eye punishment Let me explain to you what a metaphor is just in case you still don't get it. A metaphor is the comparison of one thin…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:00 AM
-16

I'm responding to the down votes in the eye for an eye part. Obviously people think we should punish her like the boy who cried wolf got punished if they are down voting the original comment. The boy claiming a wolf is coming to eat everyone therefore he should be eaten.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:53 PM
-16

I'm not debating anything. There is no debate. Punishing a person who accuses someone of rape as if they raped a person should not be. Just like any other crime, there is attempted murder, attempted arson, purgery, etc. These all have lesser punishments. This is at worst defamation or libel (not sure which) and therefore should be punished based on how intentionally they defamed/libeled the person. So there is no debate. The person calling for her to be punished as if she raped someone is wrong.…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:49 PM
-13

You answered your own question. It's hyperbole. Great job!
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:40 PM
-8

You know what, you don't even want an eye for an eye. You want an eye for a metaphorical eye. Which is even worse. I guess I should go to jail for 1 life sentence because I just considered murdering you to prevent you from breeding.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:39 PM
-6

No, you don't just get a warning for attempting to set someone's house on fire, you get charged with attempted arson. She did get made an example of. She got punished for her offense. In fact, when she was shown the footage she realized her recollection didn't match what happened and confessed that she had been wrong which probably contributed to the lighter sentence. Also, she is going to be supervised for the next 3 years. Idk what that means in UK law but in the US having to meet with probati…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:27 PM
-18

An eye for an eye is an archaic system. Only barbarians think it's fair.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 11:22 PM
-59

The fact that you don't all get that the crime you are describing is defamation and are instead calling for worse punishments shows how willing you are to disregard the law. I am ashamed of this subreddit because of the responses to this post. To the small amount of you saying I'm a feminist, you're morons. Plain and simple. One check of my comment history would show you how wrong you are, but you don't care about research because you're just as bad as feminists. Seriously, you guys may not want…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 09:20 PM
11

It's a good point. We cannot get out our pitchforks over someone accused of DV if there's been no conviction. We were not present at the alleged crime, we are not privy to their family troubles. . However, there is still a double standard mentioned in the article that is valid despite the family changing their story and no conviction or charges. But then neither were Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald who were given bans by the American football authorities at the point they were arrested for domestic …
/r/MensRights06/07/15 05:31 PM
2

I don't think it took away. It is important for people from two separate but similar cultures to clarify meaning when they share terms that mean slightly different things across those cultures. Being able to tell people about these differences does not ever, in my opinion, detract from conversation. It may divert attention from the initial topic, but in order to avoid misunderstandings I feel it is imperative that such clarity be brought to the conversation.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 05:02 PM
2

when at it's core liberalism would stand against it I don't like the implications here. I think both parties at their core are opposed to censorship. In America freedom of speech is not a matter of left leaning or right leaning it is something both sides agree on, it's what our country was founded on, hence why it is the FIRST amendment. It's not a political stance that can be attributed to either side specifically. Stating that the horseshoe theory explains why liberals would censor implies tha…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 03:22 PM
2

Rihanna is the subject of the sentence, the accountant is just an object in this sentence and could be replaced with rock. So any actions or visuals that aren't qualified by words denoting the accountant can be assumed to apply to Rihanna, the subject. For example, "shows a collection of knives presumably to finish him off" Notice how the language has to specify who is getting finished off. That's because it is the subject acting upon the object, the words describe Rihannas actions because she i…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 03:09 PM
0

You and the two people that agreed with you are all over-reacting. I don't think this is a threat. She won her case, there's no reason to attack anymore. She probably got more money from her lawsuit than what he cost her. This is probably just a representation of her feelings at the time more-so than a threat if it's related to that case. But as we should all know as grown, mature people, it's okay to have feelings of extreme hatred as long as we don't act on those feelings and often times those…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:57 PM
2

I think both sides have the share of zealotry. The motivations for that zealotry may be different but doesn't make either side less zealous.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:48 PM
1

I'm not sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr364wVTHYY Is the guys that did it, but that particular gif doesn't come from any of those. Maybe you can find it from their channel or something.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 09:56 PM
50

Damn
/r/MensRights25/06/15 06:02 PM
0

Yeah, I don't see any men's rights issues in this article. The details of the physical fitness test aren't disclosed nor are the purposes for the test. What is the test demonstrating as far as their ability to perform their duties? If this test is being used to ensure they are capable of chasing down a perpetrator, taking down a hostile suspect, or busting down a door to gain entry than yeah, they should have similar standards. If this is just a general fitness test, then no the standards should…
/r/MensRights24/06/15 09:36 PM
4

You can't combine harrassment/threats as if they are the same and then say they aren't the same later. Oliver by advocating for abuse of President Correa is endorsing harassment. Period. there is no question. He was not saying, criticize the guy on twitter, he was encouraging, and I quote "abuse" and "insults" So John Oliver has endorsed abuse and insults against a person he disagrees with politically. Turn around to Anita Sarkeesian, now he condemns abuse and insults over the internet against a…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:47 PM
15

Let's not forget that WU never actually left her house even though she claimed to have.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:26 PM
4

When you go online and call half of the population sexist I think that also DEMANDS scrutiny and there should be no surprise that your detractors are going to be vocal and vicious.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:25 PM
1

These are different problems though. When there is dna of a person other than the "victim" inside of her vagina, it has to be presumed there is a criminal. The statement, we should never accuse somebody if we are not 100% sure makes it impossible to accuse somebody because in order to gather the evidence required to confirm the person is or is not the criminal you have to be able to accuse, but you can't because you don't have the evidence to be 100% sure. It's a loop. You have to allow one to g…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:50 AM
2

An accusation is not the same as conviction. Accusations should be made as part of an investigation. An accusation is necessary to collect evidence. Collection of DNA evidence does not have to come with a trial. Collection of evidence based on an accusation doesn't even need to come with a charge if the person is willing to provide it. I don't think we should avoid using lineups for the purpose of evidence collection, however we shouldn't be using line ups as evidence for trial. The point of a t…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:49 PM
2

Then nobody could ever report a stranger. Even if you're pretty damn sure you couldn't forget his/her face because you saw it for 30 minutes in great lighting, because there will always be that uncertainty about their identity. Which means you can't get a DNA sample from them because that would require an accusation.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:39 PM
2

Yeah I agree, his analogy was shit. A better analogy would be, some sort of copyright analogy. Like, if you're writing a song don't send an unlabeled copy of it to anybody without any proof you wrote it because if that friend then takes your song, forms a band and uses it to get money you have no recourse.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:07 PM
5

I agree with everything but the following statement. These people exonerated where most decidedly victims of false accusations. I disagree with the statement because of the context of this sub in which it is presented. In this sub, false accusation is synonymous with a person lying about being raped. While a person who is wrongfully convicted of rape has been falsely accused, more often than not in these cases, it is a case of mistaken identity. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 40 percen…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 07:04 PM
7

It's not necessarily detection bias for "false rape accusations" but wrongful rape convictions. If DNA evidence is being used to exonerate them then it means there is other DNA collected that it's being compared to, either a child from the "rape" or a swab or some other physical evidence. This means that the likelihood of there being a crime but the wrong person was convicted is more likely than the alternative, they were victims of a falsified accusation.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 06:24 PM
3

This perspective though has to make the assumption that men are treated as the norm in order to make that comparison. Where are the other viewpoint would see women treated by the norm. Furthermore, the assertion that female privilege is patronizing and infantilizing is entirely subjective and applies intent that may not be there otherwise. In order to make the conclusion that women getting shorter sentences is patronizing you have to assume that the intent of doing so is because you either think…
/r/MensRights18/06/15 09:44 PM
10

Benevolent sexism is a euphemism for female privilege. This euphemism is designed to marginalize the disadvantages men face by turning a men's issue into a women's issue while not acknowledging that it's a privilege that women receive by calling it sexism. let's take a very minor thing and apply both perspectives to demonstrate the effect. Women get doors opened for them because society expects men to open doors for them to be gentleman. Benevolent sexism would say that this is an attitude that …
/r/MensRights18/06/15 08:06 PM
2

It's frankly, just the word sex vs. rape that they are upset about, and rightly so. While "child sex" is bad, nobody is saying it isn't, it doesn't have the same maliciousness tied to it that the word rape does. For one, rape implies in most people's mind, a use of force and an unwillingness by the recipient. But both of these people plead guilty to 4trh degree rape, which is as I'm aware, consensual sex with a kid too young to consent. So the use of the word rape here is in the elgal sense, but…
/r/MensRights18/06/15 02:11 PM
1

"woman trips and falls on 13 year old boy's naked, erect penis. Court attendants confounded why there is even a trial."
/r/MensRights18/06/15 01:54 PM
-1

Skilled labor that can't be replaced by robots would also suffer, not just unskilled.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 10:34 PM
3

You realize that if this were to happen, within a generation our workforce would be horribly understaffed, companies would collapse and along with them our economy, infrastructure would fall apart, and the country would collapse.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 04:56 PM
7

Certainly if you you're not talking about universal suffrage. Women were able to vote before the universal suffrage movement in America. Before it was restricted to men, it was landowners who had the right to vote and there were female land owners who voted. The funny thing about universal suffrage is people think that men had the right to vote for a long time before women did. When the voting laws required you to be a landowner to vote only 10% of men could actually vote because of that restric…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 04:22 PM
20

Your link supported my case that women commit domestic violence on parity with men. All that proves is that it's not a gendered crime. So thanks I guess. Also, a comment on reddit disagreeing with your statement is not an "Attack". Having your statements challenged is not an attack. if you perceive that as an attack you value your opinions too highly and the rights of others to voice disagreement too little. Furthermore, I don't care if the previous comment combined domestic/sexual violence. One…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:59 PM
2

What makes you think he tears her open? The hymen doesn't actually rip. It's not like that part of the vagina is sealed and when you pop her cherry it's open, if that was the case how would girls menstruate? The hymen wears away over a girls lifespan. Some tissue may remain around the vaginal area but by adolescence most of it is worn away. The tissue that is left simply moves out of the way when the penis enters. There's no ripping or tearing involved it is extremely rare that by the time a gir…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:51 PM
12

Seriously, when it's been over 50 years that this shit has been happening, and it's only grown worse you can't claim the movement has been hijacked by a small group and that's not representative. If the majority disagree then why is it that the only feminists making policy change are the radical ones? Why is it that these messages of women superiority and men being scum are SO PERVASIVE THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT?
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:33 PM
19

It's not "politically correct" to say that women commit domestic/sexual violence on parity with men, simply because statistically they don't. First, you can't combine those stats. Domestic violence and sexual violence are not the same thing. Second, Women DO commit domestic violence on parity with men. They are more likely to attack unprovoked too. You are wrong and the statistics don't support you. The narrative you are parroting about men being the abusers is just that, a narrative and a ficti…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:27 PM
1

I think the first woman might have a valid case but only if the statement that the higher valuation of the company wasn't just speculation as was argued originally. The second woman though has no case. If the valuation of her husbands wealth changes based on the fact that he had illegally laundered money she has no claim on that illegal money unless she wants to face jail time for being a party to that laundering.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 05:32 PM
53

It's literally so toxic in her system it's forcing her to lash out violently. Thanks Patriarchy!
/r/MensRights08/06/15 04:30 PM
15

CAFE represents the interests of half of the gay population. How could their inclusion be a hateful thing? Advocating for the rights of half of the gay population is certainly not hateful unless you believe that half of the gay population doesn't deserve equal rights.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 03:41 PM
1

See that's the whole reading comprehension problem. I never argued "but it's the law" You just don't understand what I typed. Probably because you were so busy being defensive of your beliefs that you didn't bother to try and understand what I was saying and what part of your comment I was responding to. Seriously, I even said that I don't agree with where the line is, but because you can't or won't comprehend somebody that doesn't receive your comment in the affirmative you will never be a good…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:55 PM
1

I didn't say you could. You just said you can't think of a better place for the discussion to happen and I disagreed. You're very defensive and have poor reading comprehension skills. So why would anybody want to have a discussion with you?
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:04 PM
2

Congress is a better place. (or w/e the UK version is, parliament? house of lords? Fuck if I know) probably the best place really. You really don't have much of an imagination.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:27 PM
4

No, and at no point did I say the line was drawn in the right place. I'm merely stating that your argument is bollocks because you're arguing for a change in law in response to a person saying people should not be excused for breaking the law because it's the kids fault or was willing. The COURT is not a place to decide if laws should be changed the court determines if the law is broken and sentences based on the severity of the crime.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 04:10 PM
7

It's a piss poor argument because it's not a matter of willingness. It's a matter of the law being they are not legally capable of consenting. I personally don't have a problem with it, the way I see it is, biology has prepared them for this kind of relationship arleady there's no reason to not let them make use of what nature has prepared them for. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and society has drawn the line where it has and that line has to be enforced until society decides the line ca…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 02:48 PM
4

No, there should be a brick ceiling. No hidden forces, just a solid brick wall that says if you are a woman and can't meet the same physical standards as the men gtfo. Clear cut offs. I don't think women should be excluded from the military if they can meet the physical requirements that the men meet. I certainly don't think they should have standards lowered for them. This just weakens your fighting force. A glass ceiling implies there's some hidden boundary that's preventing people from ascend…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 08:03 PM
1

I'm not even surprised anymore. Just depressed.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:20 PM
5

I can imagine it. Mostly because in America men have been put on a child predator list for public urination with children nearby. The exposure didn't even have to be sexual in nature to destroy their lives. But we live in a patriarchy so I must be lying.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 04:08 PM
13

In fact, women in the Israeli army face the same, daunting glass ceiling as their counterparts in the U.S. Did I just read that right? Did the author just call women's choices to not enter combat roles a glass ceiling? Oh man we really have to break that glass ceiling and find a way to force women to want to go into combat roles instead of the cushy office work we let them do. Is this the fucking world we live in? Truly?
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:54 PM
1

You're right, you don't deserve downvotes. If we aren't the better people, and use lies and bull shit to fight them back we are just as bad as them. Title IX exists for a reason. Use the law to fight back. Use reason to fight back. Don't use deception and abuse.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:47 PM
2

I think the problem with SNL skits is that it never mocks the older male molesting a young girl model. It only ever mocks the other way. In rape jokes, the joke is almost never on the victim. The joke is often a commentary on the crime itself and rarely ever mocks the victim. The SNL skit makes it seem like every male victim is totally willing and happy about the situation. Unlike in the South Park episode where the side charcters were like "Nice" the moral compass of the show, Kyle and Stan wer…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:39 PM
7

Sorry to educate you that "race" as commonly used in America (skin color) is not the actual definition of race. Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. Hair color for instance, is a similar physical characteristic. Irish people are characterized by their red hair and fair skin. That's a race. While skin color is the most prominent trait to which people can be classified and divided on there are other physical traits that can be use…
/r/MensRights29/05/15 04:43 AM
6

No you're the one that is incorrect. The benefits of having two parents are mostly financial and time. Two parents means potentially two incomes. Or one income that is higher than average. This means better education, better nutrition, and less stress in the family due to the stressors of poverty being eliminated or reduced. What I meant by more time is, more time for parents to participate in the child's life. A single parent can't participate as much as two. Regardless of gender. This gives th…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 11:23 PM
3

What was it comparing though. Was it comparing children of single mothers to children with both parents and stating the presence of the father was significant? Because there are a number of reasons that the father part of that is negligible in comparison to the effect of simply having two parents. If it isn't that though I'd love to see the study.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:14 PM
23

This link is a study done on school performance comparing single mother, single father, and both parents households. The abstract states both single parent types performed similarly. So that would be evidence towards there being no negative effects of single father compared to single mother. Unsurprisingly it's difficult to find studies that compare single mother to single father, it's even hard to find studies that even consider single fathers at all. I wonder why that is. /s
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:09 PM
4

Why do women so often take up these duties, despite the fact that doing so isn't in the best interests of their careers? Simple; women face their own set of societal expectations. And those expectations often push women into domestic roles. What on earth makes you think that's societal expectations and not their own desires? You think I wouldn't want to take time off of work to raise my kids if I had them? Societal pressures are what keep men from being primary caregivers. Insufficient parental …
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:42 PM
3

Article is not about maternity and paternity leave. The article is about retirement benefits, specifically giving women more retirement benefit pay than men because they have vaginas.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:26 PM
3

Nobody is talking about taking away income during leave. The article is about increasing retirement benefit pay for women because some women take time off. The net result being that women who work that time get higher retirement benefits for having a vagina.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:24 PM
18

OR, and bear with me now, people who choose to raise kids and take time off from working to raise kids can just accept that they won't earn as much for those years of not working. If I took 2-3 years off from work I don't expect to get paid more to catch up to my peers who didn't. That's ludicrous. Especially when there's pushes to get extended paid parental leave to be enforced as well.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 10:55 AM
2

Except that male soldiers can't get pregnant while deployed. Physicially they can't, and since they aren't in physical contact with a non-military spouse there is no chance of spontaneous pregnancy. Female soldiers OFTEN get a fellow soldier to impregnate them and then take the leave. Would the military give the father of that child the opportunity to take leave with her? Probably not. Extending it to both the men and women, doesn't mean that it will be used evenly. Why don't we fix the problem …
/r/MensRights18/05/15 01:04 AM
3

You're partly correct but it's actually more insidious than that. She is actually implying that their hotness means they are stupid as well. So hot women are stupid is the message she is sending. And this point of view is obviously sexist and insulting to attractive women.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:17 AM
2

fair enough, similar ball and chain.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 02:29 PM
7

A woman should be able to get an abortion without your input. Being pregnant is a major life event and from all I've gathered it really sucks. Not when the man is going to be held financially responsible for the child if she keeps it. If the father is going to be forced to pay alimony for the child if he doesn't want to be the father of it, then he has to have a say in the abortion. The rights are unequal if a father is responsible for a child at conception, but a woman is only responsible at bi…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 11:31 PM
5

Well there's the rub! We need to sign contracts everytime we expel our genetic materials into somebody else in order for it to be explicitly clear that when cumming into that rancid, whores mouth, she's not allowed to spit it out and rub it into her withered gash. Obviously not using those words, I'm no lawyer but I don't think that phrasing would hold up in court.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 08:59 PM
2

The car analogy is not adequate. It's more, someone gives you a car with the commonly understood expectation that you will not drive the car at all. And then you drive the car and expect to have gas, oil changes and repairs paid for.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 02:01 PM
11

Don't even need to steal the eggs. Just obtain them legally, fertilize it, then sue the donor for child support. It's the same argument used by the woman. She claims he willingly donated his sperm to her, despite the obvious assumption that she would NOT use it to impregnate herself, so he's responsible. The egg donor willingly donated her egg, so just obtain it legally and site this court ruling.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 01:59 PM
9

My response to the lightning comparison would be that there have been more cases of false rape accusation in the news (just in the news, there are many that don't get news coverage) this year, which isn't halfway over yet, then there have been people struck by lightning in the past 5 years. And since the sample size for lightning strikes is all of man-kind and the sample size for people who can be accused of rape is smaller, false rape accusations happen at a much higher rate.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 01:52 PM
-1

While I get the point of the picture, I will say it's kind've flawed in one regard. I see 4 women seeking to use the restroom and 1 man. If this is representative of the demographic seeking to use the restroom, then it makes perfect sense to have one women only room and one be unisex. Again, I get the point of the picture but it would be stronger if there was actually only one woman in the unisex line and 2-3 men waiting behind her. I'd even go so far as to make it only one woman waiting for the…
/r/MensRights07/05/15 09:31 PM
2

There'd be so many complaints about that. And it would all be women complaining about having to share a stall next to a dude. And I have to say, I wouldn't blame them. So yeah this guy doesn't seem to get that unisex bathrooms means one toilet in that room. So having two just means less waiting for the bathroom for everybody.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 08:45 PM
2

It's an easy solution. Make it law that if a man would opt for an abortion, and the woman doesn't want the abortion that the man does not owe her allimony. The argument for this is simple. Either both parents have to accept responsibility for the child at conception, or both parents can opt out of being parents after conception. If a woman can choose to abort, then the father should be able to as well, or at the very least opt out of those responsibilities. . This law of course requires abortion…
/r/MensRights07/05/15 03:05 AM
2

I believe she's referring to abortion and her right to choose. Why is it her right to choose? If she chooses to have the baby and the father doesn't want it, he is still forced to pay for it. If the baby is going to have an impact on his life, why does he have no say in whether the baby is born.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 01:36 PM
2

W/e keep making shit comics while taking offense at a non-criticism you hack.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:01 AM
3

1) you thought he was insulting you when he compared your comic to the first cartoon to be honored with a Pulitzer prize? I think you need to grow some thicker skin and take that chip off of your shoulder. 2) Vague statements that summarize the problem are often clear and clever enough for people to get the message. If they want to know more they will look into it themselves. Nobody is looking for a comic to preach to them through a full page comic in a newspaper. 3) The first guy wasn't insulti…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 01:19 PM
1

Oh, hey Captain Obvious! I thought you were on vacation!
/r/MensRights01/05/15 04:11 PM
2

The person arguing with the complete moron is mistaken as well. Discrimination is not always wrong. We discriminate in our daily lives all of the time, not necessarily against people, but often against people. For instance, would you ask an old man to help you lift something heavy? No? That's discrimination. You are deeming him an inferior candidate because of his age. But it's fine, because you're doing it to protect his health. He could injure himself by lifting something to heavy because old …
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:55 PM
-1

Alimony does have good purpose when enforced impartially. Meaning when it should be awarded to the husband, it is, when the wife is capable of supporting herself it isn't given to her, etc. Alimony is only a problem when it is not enforced impartially. However, it may be impossible to impartially enforce alimony. While the judicial system should be impartial, it's demonstrably not because it relies on judges to make decisions. So then you have to answer the question. Is the benefit for people wh…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:47 PM
0

Most of the people in this video gave a pretty rational response and you see a very wide range of perspectives in this video. So I don't think the title of this post is entirely accurate. It's a bit misleading. . Most of the people in the video said keep alimony for now, because women in indian society are truly at the point in time where marriage means you stay at home with the children, so you really do sacrifice the ability to support yourself if that marriage doesn't work out. And then when …
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:04 PM
11

Never answer anything other than strongly agree or strongly disagree. Feminists who do these surveys always make anything other than the extremes as whatever they want it to be. For example: It is not necessary to ask for consent to sexual activity if you are in a relationship with your sexual partner If 5 people answer disagree to this question, and 1 answers strongly disagree they will say in their conclusion that 1 out of 6 people believes that asking for consent is necessary in a relationshi…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 11:16 PM
4

Meninist is a joke though. it's meant to sound dumb. It's a parody of feminism, and all of the stupidity that follows that label. Masculinism is already a thing, and it's another beast entirely.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 08:46 PM
1

"Do you really believe that? Do you really believe men are better than women?" My response to that would be, meninism is a parody of feminism. So asking me if I believe men are better than women by using meninism, means that you(the girl) believe that feminism believes women are better than men. Do you agree?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 08:44 PM
1

China where female fetuses are regularly aborted is just false. Doesn't happen as much anymore. China has slackened there 1 child policy and are more often than previously allowing 2 children. There is a huge shortage of women right now in China due to the practices you mentioned so the slack of the one child policy is partly due to this problem.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 08:36 PM
1

Wouldn't correct ya, we're both speculating nearly blind. That was just my take. Didn't want to jump to any big conclusions off of the things you mentioned, just went with the safe bet.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 09:42 PM
10

Some people are very timid. You would have to be to put up with this for as long as OP claims. They are just looking for other people to tell them what they know they need to do but lack the confidence to do. Or it's made up. Either way, the point is that sometimes people know what they need to do already when they ask for advice because they just need the reassurance that they are doing the right thing in order to act.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 07:19 PM
3

Which is partly my point. The issue is far more complicated than simple gender lines. And small sample size surveys like this won't prove anything more than that people WANT the bias to be unjustified. You say women get deference in the hiring process for STEM jobs? Why? Because there aren't enough women in STEM? Women disproportionately inhabit all other sections of university education, and now people want more women in the one section that women aren't dominant. Meanwhile there are ZERO initi…
/r/MensRights18/04/15 02:07 PM
8

There was a similar study done later(2014) that showed the exact opposite of this though. So maybe the sample size isn't large enough to be representative of all of mankind. So maybe we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from this?
/r/MensRights18/04/15 12:54 PM
1

Well you're not disagreeing with ME on the definition. Just everyone else. Also, the feel part is tied to the word subjectively. This is the word feel in an emotional sense, not a physical sense. In other words, "I feel sad." To give an example.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:51 PM
2

Are you saying that pigs and cows aren't sentient? Or are you saying we afford them the same rights as humans? I'm going to assume that you are asserting pigs and cows aren't sentient because the other one is asinine. So let's address that. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). From that definition, I would hope you would agree that…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 11:35 PM
3

Short answer, yes all sex is rape. All men are rapists. At least, if you follow the line of reasoning that she puts forth. The problem with this is that a robot unable to say no, unable to dislike sex is not sentient about sex. Sentience is the ability to experience something subjectively. If a "Sentient" robot is programmed to always enjoy sex and never say no, then it is not capable of subjectively experiencing sex and therefore it's sentience does not protect it from people having sex with it…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 06:53 PM
0

Reminds me of the robot that passes butter from Rick and Morty.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 06:51 PM
2

Pigs and cows are sentient but we don't give them the protections we afford to human beings.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 06:25 PM
17

You're right, I never have had any faith in humanity. I was simply karma whoring.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 11:25 PM
5

CDC in america considers it the same way because of the influence of feminist Mary P. Koss. Rape is defined as unwanted penetration to paraphrase. By definition women are not able to rape unless they use some form of a dildo on you. "Made to penetrate" is how they define woman on male "rape." And it is not considered to be rape. And this is of course so they can give misleading stats like 99% of rape is male on female rape! Well of course it is, when you define rape as penetration! Woman have no…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:17 PM
9

You know that girls go through puberty at earlier ages than boys right? Girls are sexually developed while boys are still going through their mid-late stages of puberty. The idea that boys are more interested in sex at a younger age is a socially constructed idea. If you think that girls at the age of 12-13 aren't thinking about things in a sexual way then you clearly haven't seen the main demographic of Justin Bieber and One Direction, and pretty much any boy band that is marketed to preteen gi…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:11 PM
14

Right? I was browsing reddit because I needed a break from work, but I'm done. My faith in humanity has been shaken again and now I must go back to work to distract myself from thinking about the dark, miserable world we live in.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:07 PM
7

To be fair to the woman(which she makes the case that she doesn't deserve), he makes the claim that he's never heard the phrase "we're going to rape that team" before. Well I have. I use phrases like that all of the time in the context of gaming. It IS commonly used in some circles he may not be familiar with. Although I don't think it's a problem and will continue to use it just like I continue to use the words fag and retard. Because I understand that words have multiple meaning and am not goi…
/r/MensRights08/04/15 05:08 PM
2

Just look at relationships. Women to this day still expect, not just want, men to make the first move. For Men to ask for what they want while the women just wait. Wish this trend would just die.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 04:49 PM
4

Actually you're wrong. Professional gamers competing and succeeding are typically in good shape. Often times teams or individuals will be put on exercise regiments and diets in order to get them in better shape because it's shown to improve mental performance. While they may not be physically impressive they are still for the most part at a healthy body weight and body fat ratio. This has long been a practice in korea where professional gaming has been big for much longer than it has in america …
/r/MensRights08/04/15 04:37 PM
2

You're right. I totally mixed up what I was thinking with what I typed lol. Ranting is hard and my hands play tricks on me!
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:40 PM
4

I address this a little in my reply to him. I suggested we run an experiment where you compare whether people like an orange 4 or a blue 4 more. Suggesting a majority will choose blue because people tend to prefer blue over orange. The point being you can demonstrate bias with something innocuous like color and that this isn't very telling. When you compare two things that are nearly equal and the stakes on the decision are not high, people will almost always take the safe bet. When choosing bet…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:40 AM
2

I took a race relations class earlier in college and we were told of a study where hiring managers were given identical resumes with the only difference being the names either being white-sounding (John Smith) or ethnic-sounding (Jawan Smith or Juan Smith). The white-sounding resumes, even with otherwise identical schooling, work experience, and everything else down to the letter, had something like a 40% better chance of being hired. There was no person to be interviewed or face to look at. The…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:32 AM
2

So does she make sure that every 10 person team has a token black because black people make up 10-15% of america's population? Does she not see how messed up that is? In order to create a "diverse" work place you literally have to value people more or less based on their skin color rather than their merit when hiring. A perfect representation of racism!
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:01 AM
8

Incorrect, that only applies to government investigators. I could break into your home, find drugs, and call the cops on you and those drugs could be used as evidence against you, even though the means of discovery is illegal.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 05:45 PM
6

Not true. Evidence acquired illegally by police investigators is inadmissable, but evidence gathered by a party not associated with the state is admissable. For example, a man broke into a dudes house to steal from him. Found child porn on the computer, reported it to police and handed over the computer. The computer was admissable evidence because it wasn't illegally obtained by the police.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 05:42 PM
6

I don't think so, she already addressed that men do most of those protective roles in society when she talked about military, policing, and dirty jobs. It would simply be a restatement if she said what you said and that's not her style and frankly is only considered a good writing style by people unable to follow the enitrety of an argument who make connections from one point to the next. I think you're being disingenuous to her video when you state she is actively downplaying men's roles applyi…
/r/MensRights01/04/15 04:27 PM
1

yes to the sarcastic part.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 10:23 PM
25

Right? I don't have desert even 1 time a week most of the time. Desert only 3 time a week is ridiculous? No wonder this girl ballooned up so fast! Also, you don't understand bro, men are always horny and will fuck anything that moves. Of course he's making the choice to not find her attractive. /s
/r/MensRights31/03/15 09:14 PM
3

He's speaking in general, not about the specific case.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 09:01 PM
1

That's not a winning move though. That's a your genetic line dies out move.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/14 03:48 PM
2

So you don't deny being a worldstarhiphop rep. I've only ever seen one broken link, granted I have only looked at the most recent 50 posts or so and in that one broken link I found a mirror. I don't think banning the most accessible video hosting site is a reasonable response just because you get a broken link every once in a while.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 09:15 PM
1

It's retarded common knowledge. What does position of power even mean? What because genetically he's physically stronger than her he's somehow more responsible than she is? It's either they both raped or neither raped if they were both illegally consenting at the time. If there was no actual forcing. Only an idiot, (and there are many idiots in our justice system) would say that simply because he is a man he is more responsible for the act of having sex than the girl when there is consent on bot…
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 08:30 PM
4

No worldstarhiphop rep, we can't ban youtube.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 07:30 PM
3

You ignored the concession later on about the boxer not killing the lady with a hard punch but I'm not going to repeat myself more on that topic. but, in a regulated, civilized society, she does have a right to expect the boxer not to punch her in retaliation, because modern societies and laws aren't based on an eye for an eye. Wrong. That's just so wrong in so many ways. She does not have a RIGHT to not expect people to retaliate. She should not exploit this fake right to hit people either. Ass…
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 06:58 PM
8

I think most people will agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 04:06 PM
3

She actually interrupts them right after making a point about how rude they were being interrupted and gets pushed the first time for doing so. It's pretty hypocritical, in other words pretty typical of a feminazi. She then tries to either take or steer the camera on her and gets pushed a second time. Which is I believe why the cops arrest her instead of them.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 04:03 PM
3

This is actually the big problem with rape in universities. There's an ongoing university case that takes the very stance that girls have no responsibility. . Here's the story. Both parties get blackout drunk and have sex. The girl texts two people before this. 1 text was to the man asking if he had a condom. The other was to her friend saying, "i'm going to have sex!!" They both have sex. A few days later the girl reports that she was raped claiming she wouldn't have had sex with him if she had…
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 03:49 PM
3

If I punch a tiger do you expect the tiger to show restraint and not eat me? Do I have any right to not expect the tiger to kill me if I punch it? The old lady should not have struck the professional boxer if she was not prepared to get hit in return. Assumed fragility is not a free pass to hit people without reproach. What happened to the phrase people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? That being said, should the boxer show restraint and not kill the old lady? yes. Because the punishment …
/r/PussyPassDenied10/11/14 03:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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