TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

pinkturnstoblu Archive

View 0 posts and 282 comments by pinkturnstoblu 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)
1

You kidding?
/r/MensRights09/05/15 04:23 PM
-5

Luckily, both men and women can complain. So this is not discrimination and quite a positive development. However, I'm not sure why there's no framework to argue 'traditionally male' jobs aren't valued - I could easily see some blue collar type jobs falling into that trap.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 02:19 AM
0

Sure, that's fine if you prioritize reality over men's rights and men's happiness. I don't, which is why I'm on this forum. You, on the other hand, just seem here to hurt people.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 08:15 PM
0

If only the research was done better, you'd be perfectly fine with throwing men under the bus, because it'd be true. That type of thinking.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:32 PM
0

It's thinking like this that sells out men before the studies have even occurred or been presented. Thanks bud!
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:25 PM
2

I'm a guy with a shitty negotiating skill. Ideally, you'd be behind excluding salary negotiations in hiring, right?
/r/MensRights06/04/15 09:17 PM
-1

disagreeing =/= trolling
/r/MensRights23/03/15 02:57 AM
1

Sure. And my side doesn't reject it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 04:51 PM
0

It's hypothetically possible, and if the men are consistently in authority above those women, it seems likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 04:18 PM
1

You can die to protect something with less value.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 04:04 PM
1

That's beside the point - feelings matter!
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:08 PM
0

Awesome. This is only a move towards equality, and makes things more comfortable for gender non-conforming people.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 05:36 PM
0

I'd like to see the makers of the ad comment on that before jumping to conclusions in any direction.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 09:02 PM
1

This unironically would be nice.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 05:30 PM
1

...this kind of ignores any role of feminism in convincing those legislators to vote that way, and in convincing the public that the right to vote should be extended to women, ergo allowing legislators to believe the public would be ok with this and vote that way. ...no? That being said, Perhaps because you feel it shameful or beneath you to have been given something is an excellent point. Just because you were given something doesn't mean you don't deserve it. There's no shame in needing a hand…
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:13 AM
1

How can i be solidly agreeing with a theory I never heard of? maybe superficially. Maybe accidentally, by thinking you can challenge it by simply reversing it rather than learning about what it's based on and criticizing that. it's like you're saying I'll catch cooties if I use feminists' shit against them. Not really, just that you seem to completely agree with them about the role privilege plays in concealing itself and so forth.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:43 PM
1

Uh, it is a feminist theory, but in this case you're not exposing contradictions so much as solidly agreeing with it. ...congrats?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:35 PM
1

This is strange. That's like saying because your boss hired you, you're not good enough to be an entrepreneur on your own. Just because you're given something doesn't make you less than someone who accomplished it in a different way.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:32 PM
2

a subreddit that doesn't seem to be about celebrating masculinity Why do we need to celebrate masculinity? What if there's more important things to discuss? What if we want to be feminine or androgynous?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:30 PM
1

This is standpoint theory but with some words flipped, you know that, right?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 11:27 PM
1

Choosing a mate who probably can't satisfy you because you might be afraid of fears which ultimately, are legitimate to have and express, because stoicism is bullshit? Sounds like we kind of agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/15 08:09 PM
1

Fear might be hard to overcome, but it's honest to express. Fuck stoicism. And I'm sure that not every inexperienced woman can't satisfy a man (and I mean, that's pretty reductive, favouring women just on that), and vice versa - in general it works, but certainly not universally.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/15 04:36 PM
0

Well, I agree that the term manterrupting is silly. But I'm happy that the authors of this infographic noted that some can do it to - clearly, women interrupting is not inherently good! And oh my god I think you're the first person to notice the Husker Du reference. Cool.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:34 PM
-4

If manterruption can come from anyone then the only purpose of putting "man" into the portmanteau is to link this behavior with masculinity. And it wouldn't be as linked to masculinity if only men could do it? We have a feminist establishment that wants to link domestic violence and rape with normative masculinity, even though an increasing pile of evidence shows it's ungendered. Yet they continue to blame it on masculinity, basically because if they can say, "men do this" they can convince peop…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 01:10 AM
-2

Had it been me, I'd have been much more willing to interrupt her. I suppose there's the answer - maybe that'd be a 'manterruption' coming from a woman. In any case, the view that 'manterruptions' can come from anyone is a better view than 'manterruptions can only come from men'.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 01:01 AM
2

Actually maybe if the woman is scared she won't be able to provide for herself, her attraction may come from a form of fear. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with fear, not everything that comes from fear is bad, there's probably non-fear reasons why men don't care for promiscuous partners, I can't imagine wealth and 'adventurousness' having that strong of a correlation, and most importantly... ...men should be allowed to express their fears, be open about them, not be ashamed, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/15 12:44 AM
-4

No idea. Maybe they're defining it as a particular kind of interrupting women, rather than being about the person who does it. Regardless, I'm happy they're open to the possibility.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:49 PM
-7

Uh, to quote the infographic: Establish a no-interruption rule for everyone at the table Emphasis on 'everyone'. They also go out of their way to say even "manterrupting" is only usually done by men (this is much nicer to men than these usually are). So yeah. This is actually, all things considered, not that bad.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:57 PM
-1

What people are forgetting is that there is no shame to a little girl in learning to do 'man things' Correct. calling them 'Man Lessons' won't harm her or hold her back I'm not sure about that, they may make her feel excluded, they may not. In any case I think the benefits of gender-neutral framing are clear.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:54 PM
1

There's nothing wrong with fear, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/15 07:26 PM
2

The top comment on /r/diy is right - teach your daughters this too.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:20 PM
1

Age?
/r/MensRights24/01/15 05:42 PM
3

Stop calling people 'dumbfucks' and 'children' and engage with their ideas.
/r/MensRights24/01/15 07:12 AM
3

Only people who have nothing to back up their assertions end debates like that.
/r/MensRights24/01/15 07:11 AM
1

You're a gender essentialist radfem.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 04:43 PM
-2

Not sure if I'm a hypocrite You're not really a hypocrite, but you're also not pro-male.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:00 PM
1

Ultimately, Cardinal Burke is a traditionalist. When he rants against the 'feminized liturgy', he doesn't just impugn women's contributions, he limits men's contributions and potential for expression.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:21 PM
7

Good. Being more inclusive towards trans people is a goal we can all endorse.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 06:11 PM
1

I'm sorry, but you don't become more nurturing, caring and feminine to become more attractive to women, you do it because you want to.
/r/MensRights14/01/15 05:25 AM
2

Well, gender traditionalism is the literal opposite of what I want, so...
/r/MensRights06/01/15 09:16 PM
1

"Maybe we shouldn't abolish all traditional gender roles?" I'm sorry, but fuck you. That's rad fem thinking. It limits men's options and degrades them.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 07:24 AM
7

This is incredible and inspirational. Honestly, we all know how it feels to be arbitrarily excluded, explicitly made less important, etc, likes those boys would've been. This sub needs more of this - real equality.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 03:13 PM
1

This unironically. That gets real attention and shows that you're not just posturing - you're willing to be imprisoned to bring attention to your cause.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 03:50 PM
1

This is a fantastic comment.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 09:28 PM
-1

I agree with her. Might be an unpopular opinion around here, but equality is important. I would prefer to see a climate of more gender-neutral materials existing.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 02:55 AM
-1

That's completely different. It's a literal side issue. If her issue is with Boyhood, telling her to make her own film is simply irrelevant.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 02:54 AM
1

This... is going to happen. You should write for Jezebel.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:54 AM
6

I'm sure they're excellent reporters. You don't just waltz into 'white house correspondent'.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:50 AM
1

Exactly, I'm sure they're excellent reporters. But sending the message that men aren't or cannot be is wrong.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:50 AM
2

Hah! Exactly. It's both absurd on its face and somewhat offensive.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:49 AM
6

Couldn't this be justified? Men themselves are choosing the more dangerous jobs with awareness of what they'll be paid for them - seems clear from that POV. I mean, if people are ok with statements like this: In other words, the pay gap exists not because women are discriminated against, but because OF THE CAREER CHOICES THEY MAKE. ...why are they particularly concerned with men's percentage of workplace fatalities? (The total number of workplace fatalities is of course always a concern.)
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:14 PM
-3

it also doesn't indicate that there's anything wrong with our messaging. If those lies are effective (and they are), it indicates we're not communicating clearly enough to counteract them.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 11:30 PM
2

I'm just not seeing a perfect parity here, even with sentencing disparity.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 06:14 PM
2

Let's bring that up - parity is important. Let's not pretend that female legislators are somehow better though.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 04:29 PM
2

Do you think they're committing half the crime?
/r/MensRights16/12/14 04:28 PM
1

Yes, though the followers tend to arbitrarily pick and choose what to follow There's no way to not 'pick and choose', literalism is an impossibility. The idea that one way might be more arbitrary than another is somewhat fair, but misleading.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 04:25 PM
-7

Obviously we don't have identical bodies... unless you feel like denying that truth.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 07:25 PM
-7

They are just as capable, hence this initiative to get more hired. Or... do you somehow disagree, and think women are somehow incapable of doing anything of worth?
/r/MensRights15/12/14 05:33 PM
-1

Should be for all rape victims.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 08:56 PM
2

Your last straw with AFVM was their treatment of Dawkins? What?
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:37 PM
4

Conversely, keep whining. Advocate for your interests. When you tell him to stop, you might as well just say "Cry me a river! Man tears boo hoo!"
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:36 PM
1

ELCA, Episcopals, Quakers, many non-denominational Christian groups, many reform or reconstructionist Jews, etc often make explicit stances against traditional gender norms. And that's just what the church hierarchy says. People involved with religions can have different views than the "church", ie the majority of American Catholics supporting gay marriage. Ergo, membership in a conservative religious sect doesn't mean that you personally hold those values.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 01:00 AM
1

Since when are religion and traditionalism totally synonymous? There are quite a few religious groups that don't value traditional gender roles.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 12:55 AM
1

What causes the disparity in choices?
/r/MensRights11/12/14 12:46 AM
1

Unisex is what we're fighting for. It's equality.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 05:42 AM
4

Sure, it's condescending. It's also right - take that into account.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 05:39 AM
-4

But then, if someone who is a woman wants a more malecentric haircut, then she should be allowed Ding ding ding ding ding ...it's fucking disgusting that I had to scroll down this far to find a post that actually advocated for equality.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:54 PM
2

That's a load of shit.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:47 AM
1

...what? Seeing as women make up a large proportion of students in co-ed colleges, that's a baffling conclusion to draw. However, the idea that single-sex schooling is anti-male should be an obvious conclusion.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 02:45 AM
2

Once again, the only real solution is to receive more money and support in retirement from the state.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:59 AM
5

If she was serious, I'd be outraged. But she isn't - this isn't intended to endorse any real violence or marginalization - so I'm not.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 04:18 PM
1

Awesome, it's not exclusively a 'women's publication'. Sometimes things turn out way better than you expect - this is the kind of publication I've always wished existed.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 05:50 PM
0

You called for "elimination" which is a word used for violence. Context isn't a thing, no sirree.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:50 PM
1

Why should anyone give a crap about you? Because he's getting threatened.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:22 PM
1

Where's he threatening violence?
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:21 PM
1

Being male and acting like it isn't inherently bad. No, it's not. But until we can be male and act like women - be truly equal, on their terms - we won't have anything resembling actual equality.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:19 PM
1

I admire you. Violence and threats of violence are reprehensible and shouldn't be tolerated, and yet here we are.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 09:22 PM
1

The reverse of this, pander to feminist groups when necessary to build public image, and ask for those "rights" even if they seem whiny or petty to establish our desire for absolute, literal equality.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:35 PM
1

If anything, the most salient point from this article is the fact that something is deterring boys from engaging in music curriculum. Treat 'em like girls instead of little monsters and maybe it'll even out.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:12 PM
10

Not sure how this is a men's rights issue. If anything, it's more options for men and women alike, as well as people who don't fit into that binary. Good for OK Cupid.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:10 PM
1

Well, I don't like this title at all, and think the article's quite good.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 09:29 PM
1

A bit beside the point, but men aspire to be beautiful too. I don't care about "self-entitlement" - I think this would be an excellent and empowering article if it was more inclusive to men's incredibly similar feelings on beauty and self-image.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 07:45 PM
2

If it's for all, it's for men. I'm happy to see this.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 12:31 AM
-1

You're being silly. Different people handle different stresses differently.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 08:00 PM
1

And they say men's rights is 'conservative'!
/r/MensRights16/11/14 09:04 PM
-2

I'm sorry, but if you think there's no social requirements attached to a job, you're just being a fool. If your job is flipping hamburgers, you're still responsible for putting out a positive image of your company and for creating a positive environment within.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:34 PM
1

Eh. Santorum's obsessed with traditional gender roles. The left hasn't turned into him, but every now and then some fool on reddit does.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:26 PM
1

When SJWs appeal to emotions*, the only reasonable response is to show your own. To cry shows that he is equally human, equally as valuable. It doesn't show his defeat - but his victory. In hurting him, they prove themselves to be as cruel as they claimed he was. Save me the spiel about the shirt simultaneously being both unprofessional yet also 'cool' and not requiring any apology. *not that that's their only argument!
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:08 AM
0

How else would you demonstrate an inherent, human quality, other than by expressing yourself? 'Expressing' being defined widely, of course!
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:15 AM
2

That apology isn't going to bring the pre-blowup condition back. "Apologizing and moving on" isn't much of an option.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 09:16 PM
15

His crying is laudable. Shows he's a human with real worth too.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 09:14 PM
8

even if he landed a fucking robot on a comet I'm for actual equality - I don't care if he landed a bottle in a dumpster, he has worth. People have a right to be offended by his shirt. I don't care if feminists don't care for it.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 09:13 PM
1

It is therefore pivotal that sex is tracked. Sort of. People are using identified gender in most of these cases, baring something involving both a concrete definition of biological sex and then a test. And then this just supports what I'm saying... that whatever the driver's licence says its tracking, it should be tracking how trans people wish to be identified. Otherwise yes, you're just fucking with them.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 10:20 AM
1

Feel free to critique. Obviously, pretending that their gender identity suddenly switched to 'female' isn't the only way to obtain equal rights. Literally even enrolling without making that joke would work - and that's discounting any sort of petition, boycott, awareness campaign, etc. The problem is that all of these will take years and years to work, because the instant anyone openly does any of these things, they'll be accused of being misogynistic entitled whiners (or misogynistic and transp…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 02:21 AM
2

It's like that South Park episode, but stupider.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:42 AM
1

Hah. I'm glad you admitted that one. G'night.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:36 AM
1

Luckily, the "but" in that case doesn't cancel out "men should be treated equally". It's more of an "additionally, don't shit on trans people".
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:36 AM
1

"Sometimes" you like to "be" a giraffe. See, this is different from trans people who always are their gender identity. It's different, and for you to keep making this joke... well, it's kind of demeaning.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:30 AM
1

You've explicity argued that the feelings of your group outweigh the legal rights of another. I... have not, in any way. I believe men should be in the women's-only classes, but shouldn't use insulting jokes to enroll. Period. You can take me out of context if you'd like.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:28 AM
1

Are you actually a giraffe? Living, 24 hours per day, as a giraffe? Coming out (against expectations), as a giraffe, to friends, family, co-workers, etc? Apologizes, but I'd love to hear about cases like yours.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:24 AM
1

I'm sorry, that's not what I was implying. Surely you're aware of the transphobic canard of cisgendered men dressing up as women to sexually assault women in bathrooms/changerooms, etc... It's not true, barely possible, and a disgusting attack on both cis men (they don't do this) and trans women (they suffer for the idea).
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:20 AM
1

if i want to call myself a damn giraffe and a trans dont like it, whose the hypocrite than. Nobody, because transgendered identities are more legitimate than trans-species ones. And I mean, this wasn't about trans people until a cruel joke made it about them.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:17 AM
1

Well, I'd rather use 'crypto' than call you transphobic outright. I was trying to imply that your arguments are basically equivalent to transphobic ones - that people can (or should) pick up or discard gendered identities in order to gain certain societal statuses - which we all know is untrue.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:14 AM
1

Did I say as seriously as actual harm? Not at all. In fact, your willingness to endorse baffling, crypto-transphobic positions to score points concerning a computer class is far, far more concerning about any priorities. 'Entitlement'? Who cares. 'Emotionally compromised'? Whatever. At least I've got my priorities straight. Complete and total equality between genders, without belittling other people unnecessarily.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 01:03 AM
0

Er, everyone does have the right to call themselves whatever. And no, not everyone has to respect what people call themselves. But pretending that your gender identity can be picked up or discarded to prove a political point is by no means particularly kind towards trans people, who, of course, demonstrate how hard it is to drop a gender identity that does not mesh with physical sex...
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:59 AM
0

I'm all for men being treated equally by a state institution. But if the "solution" is damn close to mocking trans people... yeah, I'm not for that. Because 'fee fees' actually are important.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:54 AM
-2

Because /r/feminism totally thinks male feelings are always valid... er, no... that's here... can't... compute! But no. If you want to deny the legitimacy of male concerns, there's a bunch of radfem forums out there. I'm here saying men matter.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:35 AM
-1

No worries. And thanks for looking out for my feelings. This movement would be worthless if it didn't treat people's feelings as valid and important.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:33 AM
-1

So you're just a pedant, then?
/r/MensRights12/11/14 10:02 PM
-1

So you're a pedant who thinks an acceptable solution would be outing trans people in random social situations? Because that's what I'm hearing here. Having either sex or gender display someone's gender identification is far, far more important, and in most situations, meaningfully more accurate than separating a strict and particular definition of biological sex and gender on ID.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 09:24 PM
0

It doesn't render it meaningless in any sense. It helps identify a person, etc. If you want to get rid of sex or gender on ID, come out and say that.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 09:12 PM
3

'Sex' is always kept on medical records, etc. The only reason to separate them on drivers' licences would be to out trans people in situations like liquor stores, bars, etc.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 08:20 PM
-3

That's ridiculous. I think we all know treating gender identity that flippantly is insulting to actual trans people.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 07:40 PM
-4

That's kind of rude to people who actually do...
/r/MensRights12/11/14 06:27 PM
2

Yeah, fuck equality!
/r/MensRights30/10/14 02:22 AM
1

Aha, I didn't even realize it was supposed to be similar to the upvote/downvote arrows. I saw the point/arrow on the end of the female symbol and thought this symbol was supposed to represent androgyny. Which would be cool.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 07:17 PM
2

Does that bother you?
/r/MensRights12/10/14 09:59 PM
1

I mean, trans men don't have identical issues to cis men... and any credible men's rights space should be a space for both (and of course, the implicit giant overlap). That's not segregation, it's the opposite.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 02:49 AM
0

Focusing on a particular sub-issue =/= segregating demographics.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:40 PM
4

Perfect post. Thank you.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 05:52 PM
1

Is marriage dying a good thing or a bad thing?
/r/MensRights04/10/14 10:54 PM
1

Yes, that can be implied. But there's so much feminist thought that rests on 'men's socialization can never be overcome/patriarchal thought in society can never be escaped' etc, so this is a tiny, incremental improvement.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 05:43 PM
1

We're 100% ok with women leading our movement, so that's... something. In my opinion, a really big something.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 04:10 PM
1

And this is why you should stay out of the conversation. The way you're using the term 'patriarchy' isn't the way feminists are using the term. You might as well say "Floobjib" societies helped humanity survive and thrive, you'd be making as much sense.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 04:00 PM
1

And this is why you should stay out of the conversation. The way you're using the term 'patriarchy' isn't the way feminists are using the term. You might as well say "Floobjib" societies helped humanity survive and thrive, you'd be making as much sense.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 04:00 PM
0

I phrased myself poorly. What I mean is that every major side in this debate believes patriarchy hurts men and women if you define patriarchy broadly enough. Where an MRA might see society coming down on men who aren't at the top (and women being reasonably privileged throughout), a feminist might view this as patriarchy (and disagree with the analysis of women's position).
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:16 PM
1

Doubt it, we're both really old accounts. But anyway, I'm not sure what word David's referring to, but my point is that every side in this debate uses different terms to refer to extremely similar ideas. Not that those ideas don't have very important differences.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:13 PM
2

I think that leaves a lot out. While it can hurt to use 'feminine' terms against men, it also hurts to use 'masculine' terms against men. 'Sissy', 'girl', 'grow a pair', whatever, might be bad - but so do the implication that you are inherently violent or predatory.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 07:23 PM
1

There's no bait and switch, everyone agrees that patriarchy hurts both men and women*. MRAs just use a definitions and call it apex theory, hypergamy, etc. Everyone calls it 'gender roles'. *all feminists admit this, some don't care. What matters is that the term patriarchy can be wildly misleading, as it can be made to imply that male issues stem only from other men.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 07:18 PM
3

Can you explain in more detail? When feminists describe the 'patriarchy', their description often overlaps with what others would call 'gender roles', etc, so in part I think this is about definitions.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:17 PM
1

I'm not sure if anyone can be objectively correct. But the quote marks around "identify as women" then the joke off of that seem to imply that the author's issue is that trans women aren't really women.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 01:24 PM
28

Does anyone else think the article makes it seem like only 6th grade boys care about this?
/r/MensRights03/10/14 01:09 AM
2

It isn't, it's making fun of trans women. If it made fun of gender-limited admissions, I'd love it.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 10:16 PM
8

Um, the duck character's not supposed to be ignorant, he's supposed to be a sort of everyman, common-sense type. The duck character is a reporter that's supposed to satire leftist views. You'll occasionally see characters (professor-types) in the strip who are supposed to be ignorant.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:12 PM
1

It gets even weirder when you hear them claim both that programs/organizations that aren't explicitly for women are implicitly for men while also claiming that 'male' should not be treated as 'default'. Never been able to reconcile that without thinking that a lot of feminist rhetoric leads to an implied desire for male-only programs/organizations (just from a feminist POV). Anyway, I'm anti-gender segregation as it stands, so yeah. I'm against male-only conferences.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:45 PM
11

You don't need to reverse the genders for this comic to be obscenely offensive.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:18 PM
-4

...yes? Both because of the exclusion aspect and the odd implication that men could have some sort of unified view.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 02:51 PM
-7

a) Feminists wouldn't really care about how Men's Rights panels are structured, and b) the MRM seems to be very open to women leading. So... yeah.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 04:03 AM
4

Feminists actually do talk about the socialization that may cause women to take less risks and be less assertive, as well as the idea that they may be disproportionately viewed as 'rude'. This is part of how they explain the pay gap.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 02:17 AM
41

Doesn't bother me, excluding women helps nothing.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 12:05 AM
1

I dig the idea. Reinforcing the male gender role can only be a step backwards.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 08:05 PM
2

Oh I'm definitely aware of the battles surrounding the 'mancession' and whether or not it even existed. The trouble lies in creating the political will to create these jobs and in ensuring they get to men in a non-exclusionary way.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 07:49 PM
1

It'd certainly be naive to say that blatantly in a feminist space!
/r/MensRights01/10/14 07:24 PM
1

Oh no, I think men's concerns and feelings are valid, and that social movements should have a place for both genders... wait... that's not feminism... it's... something else...
/r/MensRights01/10/14 07:18 PM
2

Sounds like you're a gender essentialist. It's almost as if the genders are socialized, for you, in completely separate ways, and nothing can make a woman experience the world in the way a male can... ...I'm sorry, is this a radfem forum?
/r/MensRights01/10/14 07:05 PM
2

Men belong in the home as much as women do, unless you think men are a bunch of incompetent buffoons.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 06:54 PM
3

Men aren't marriage material because they don't have steady jobs. The solution is job creation. Tax the high earners, let the government hire some men - and not in make-work construction, but in steady, paper-pushing office jobs. Actually hire a decent proportion of men, don't advertise it to everyone and then hire mostly women. There. That's the unpalatable solution that nobody wants to hear.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 06:40 PM
2

Just like getting men into teaching, we need to create a climate where less sexism exists so people can feel more welcome in their career paths.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 12:21 AM
2

You can never be too sensitive. Your feelings are valid!
/r/MensRights30/09/14 06:06 PM
1

I'm not surprised at all about the people here banning you over the neo-nazi tolerating. Feminists are constantly having important and productive discussions though, that's super-obvious. to clarify, I'm more comfortable being contrarian here than in a feminist space because I'm a man. MRAs are merely dismissive towards men (and most women, to be... fair?) who disagree with them.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:42 AM
2

Really, this horrific incident proves so many things that should be obvious - people who are purportedly members of 'oppressed' groups can themselves be oppressors. Simple.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:22 PM
1

Was literally going to say 'I was loving this until the anti-trans cheap shots at the end'.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:18 PM
0

Y'know what, I agree with the headline. Minor gender gaps matter.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 03:15 AM
-1

Again, the idea that fully excluding men from important activities and programs is ok, while criticizing some men is not is just absurd to me.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 12:48 AM
6

It's why I'm comfortable completely bucking the party line here but would never do that in a feminist-oriented area.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 12:46 AM
-7

I'd rather have games I have nothing to do with criticized while having access to tools and press to make my own. I have zero issues with Sarkeesian/Quinn. Quinn is, at worst, dishonest. Sarkeesian is, at worst, slightly misrepresenting the severity of the issue and has the misfortune of being given too much money. (Leigh Alexander is a different beast, I'll admit...) Ultimately, Sarkeesian and Quinn aren't running contests that only take ideas from women and only exist to promote the work of wo…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 08:01 PM
-12

I'd rather be lectured to, Sarkeesian-style (note how she also is being productive and creating a video series and analyzing content) than be excluded. Simple as that.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 07:15 PM
0

Not sure why this is really a big deal. It's a women's-only competition.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 06:35 PM
2

Boys aren't impressed by strong manly men doing gender stereotyped bullshit. Boys are impressed when they're respected in the same way the girls are.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 03:20 PM
3

Why, again, do we search for market-based solutions and pontificate about how if it's not profitable, people won't do it? Change hearts and minds. Change legislation. But a hands-off approach won't change anything.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 03:19 PM
-1

I applaud this. I'm for equality, not some sort of 'equality for some and not others, also segregation is ok' system.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:15 AM
1

Keeping in mind that raising awareness counts for nothing, also promoting good self-image for men and activities that promote bonding for men is also worthless. because reasons!
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:13 AM
1

I'm fine with it, 'make men better' is always a preferable message to 'men are inherently worse'.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:11 PM
2

Eh. I'd rather do what I love, but to each their own.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:04 PM
6

Getting more men into those programs should be a goal for anyone concerned with equality or with giving men a better voice in gender debates.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:03 PM
0

Get 'yer logic outta here! The real issue here isn't the idea that congress should have more women - that's good, and egalitarian! It's her toxic notion that women are just better, that they inherently know how to find common ground in a way men just can't. The headline's goofily suggesting that she's anti-Republican women, but really it seems like she's ok with any women - they're just naturally less partisan!
/r/MensRights26/09/14 05:47 PM
2

A welcome development even if the contents aren't to you're liking. Hopefully, the class is accessible rather than restricted to people with very particular prerequisites.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 10:01 PM
1

Instead of bothering outlets who dare to sell her music (that's... a bit close to censorship for my tastes), work to create awareness against outlets and writers who defended or minimized her actions.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 09:58 PM
-1

I'm ok with this.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 10:26 PM
1

Yes, but if you think quantitative evidence is the only thing that matters, you'd be wrong. Not accounting for feelings just cuts out men's experiences. And while perhaps anti-discrimination policies have prolonged (social/mental) bigotry, that cannot be legislated away. They have lessened say, race-discrimination in business/services. If your issue is that the effect (note: we're dealing with feelings) of anti-discrimination policies is to say, polarize people and make them more bigoted - craft…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 08:08 PM
1

Silly. If feelings didn't matter we would have no way of evaluating the effects of anything.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 07:27 PM
1

Right, sorry. I'm totally fine with bigotry existing in people's minds. Can't legislate that. I'm referring to inequalities in services/businesses, not some sort of non-quantifiable mental or social state. But yes, feelings matter. Just because the reasons for some feelings aren't legitimate doesn't mean all are illegitimate.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 06:44 PM
1

It does if (for example) the blacks in your city boycott your service. Yes, or potentially, there's enough people who sympathize with the bigot to make their business financially sound, etc. Alternatively, you've allowed bigots to voluntarily isolate themselves from the rest of society. That's still possible if customer discrimination is legal. Also, there's less isolation! Yay. What if it's more important that you come up with a solution to bigotry that works rather than one that makes you "fee…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:48 PM
3

This is the shit feminists usually complain about. Yes, and it's a valid complaint no matter who's saying it.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:02 PM
2

Interesting... so iyo, should this lead to more single-gender workplaces, or some sort of mandate/goal for gender parity in the workplace?
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:01 PM
0

There was 8 times more female applicants, because men are less likely to buy into this bullshit. Hah. If men are 'less likely to buy into' the idea of better paid, more prestigious jobs... men need more help than anyone could've possibly imagined!
/r/MensRights22/09/14 04:59 PM
1

Being a bigot doesn't cost money if people like it! Or I mean, if the bigots themselves are willing to pay. I'm all for subsidizing bigotry in that sense. But that's such an absurd definition of it.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 04:28 PM
2

No. I'm arguing for equality, if you argue for less restrictions here, you're tacitly in favour of discrimination.
/r/MensRights20/09/14 04:22 AM
1

For gender it's legal, hah. Not saying that it's right.
/r/MensRights20/09/14 01:03 AM
2

Businesses should not be able to "serve who they want". There's a reason civil rights laws were passed and public accommodations including businesses were desegregated.
/r/MensRights20/09/14 12:54 AM
1

Yeah, that's not exactly the best reading of it...
/r/MensRights19/09/14 07:19 PM
2

Being ignorant of something does not absolve from offending because of it. Probably not, but you feeling bad about it helps nothing. Feel free to butt in where you don't know much - you, as a person, are valid, and should be free to ask questions and state your opinions!
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:36 PM
3

I now feel like a complete fucking asshole for making such a broad assumption Don't feel like an asshole if you weren't trying to be one!
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:30 PM
1

yes, but as valenti so eloquently displays, some opinions are without merit. No matter the quality of your opinion, you should be able to express it. not at all, no one is suggesting that women stop taking birth control, if it turns out that they don't trust their sexual partners (or, radical as it may seem, blasphemous even, they shouldn't have a sexual partner they don't trust (now where have i heard that before......)). With a little less trust your argument wraps back into Valenti's. Learn t…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:21 PM
8

Uh, I mean everything has ripple effects. The idea that male birth control doesn't affect women is particularly obtuse. Additionally, you don't need experience with something to comment on it.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:11 PM
11

This unironically - 1/17 might not be the right statistic, but it's a meaningfully large one. Effectively takes away any charges of "but abuse against males is so rare that only women really need help". Even more important, this seems to be endorsed by the University and the Women's Resource Centre. These are the institutions that matter the most and the institutions that are the hardest to change.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:01 PM
-2

Only the games I like count - because those are part of the gaming subculture! Other games are part of a completely different thing because reasons!.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 04:38 PM
6

Just as expected. Feminist blowback on male birth control. Every single time people (not here) act like it won't happen, and yet it does.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 04:37 PM
8

Uh, they should absolutely be free to comment on it.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 04:37 PM
4

I'm ok with female-only gyms and gym hours, but they really do bother me on some level. They make me feel lesser, less valued, segregated into some second-tier, stereotyped male gym, like my mere presence will contaminate things. I hate the message they send to men. I know that this barely matters in comparison to the problems these gyms address. But still... they just make me feel so worthless.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:02 AM
1

idk, maybe he doesn't know his grammar?
/r/MensRights17/09/14 01:01 AM
1

My money's on OP believing that 90% of opinions on /r/mensrights towards feminism are "hateful". This is just his perception, he's embellishing a bit with the 90% figure, rather than intending to express an exact figure. When he says "why does", he means "why does it seem that", or something to that effect.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 12:58 AM
1

I'm wondering why you couldn't take any meaning from it.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 12:46 AM
0

Lots of feminists unironically support single-sex education.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 11:25 PM
3

Don't do that, they'll just simplify/strawman your argument to "men should continue raping people".
/r/MensRights16/09/14 11:23 PM
0

Why did you just lose your language comprehension skills? So many questions!
/r/MensRights16/09/14 11:22 PM
2

Most critical analysis of gender is through a feminist viewpoint. It has to be dealt with - there's no getting around it.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 11:20 PM
1

On the whole? I wouldn't think so. With targeted programs*? Probably. *especially ones that reach out to people with little to no prior experience. **I'd think women would have an advantage as well in 'alternative' games rather than traditional genres and AAA development.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 08:27 PM
0

I think my progress is commendable!
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:44 PM
1

Sure male-male friendships generally lack emotional intimacy. But you know what they also lack? Bitchiness. That sounds like a shitty trade to me. Learn to support men and their emotions.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:30 PM
1

Don't apologize for being a whiner. Your feelings have worth - don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:54 PM
0

If advocating for equality makes me a feminist, I suppose I am.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:46 PM
1

Exactly. I fully, fully agree. Coding must be more accessible to young men, especially ones with no experience or who feel excluded from the culture. Hopefully, then boys can equal what girls are doing in the field. And: It's not a men's issue that these girls would like to be able to talk about an uncontrollable natural body function without it being taboo. Well said. Good on those girls, and men as a whole should welcome a climate where natural body functions are discussed and represented in a…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:45 PM
1

Who cares about "reduced standards". They're a separate issue. The only problem with inequality is when it doesn't go far enough.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:41 PM
0

I don't see an issue with the content of this game. The real issue is that men wouldn't be offered the same support to make this game, and it wouldn't be covered by the press.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:37 PM
4

Suggesting men can be "reprogrammed" is still preferable to the suggestion that they've been socialized in such a way that they can't be "reprogrammed".
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:34 PM
2

Those aren't opposed.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:49 PM
7

This unironically. (edit for clarity: because it's fucking over male drivers)
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:48 PM
1

That's what they want - to push you out of their segregated (probably better-funded and connected) activities, into other segregated ones.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 12:10 AM
0

Haha, I'm not gynocentric in the least. I want the playing field to be inviting to men, and self-segregation isn't going to do that. You, on the other hand, seem to want things to be worse for men. Get out. There's a radfem forum somewhere for people like you. Where men talk to men and women talk to women.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 09:27 PM
0

I read that and all I see is "keep doing things the same". Sorry. Especially this: These young men grow up in a system that devalues them and demonizes their masculinity; and when they fail to achieve are they given support? No, they're shamed by women and their white knight manginas and are told to "man up". The answer to this isn't men being better role models, it's women being better role models to men.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 04:27 PM
-2

Male mentorship isn't enough - firstly, gender-neutral mentorship would be better. Second, I'm not sure if mentorship is enough to create deep, structural change.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 02:45 AM
0

Feminism's version of equality relies on the assumption that there are no differences in the aptitudes and preferences of average men and women. If only!
/r/MensRights04/09/14 03:00 AM
-6

She's right.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 07:37 PM
2

Conservatism leans too hard on traditional gender distinctions to ever matter to me.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:42 PM
1

I dig it. Certainly more childcare options are a necessity, and I never get tired of hearing men's concerns be regarded as valid.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 03:27 PM
0

Yeah, I really like this.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 03:34 AM
1

Look, if you like looking down on men you regard as 'weak', there's probably a place for you in SRS.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 01:46 AM
5

How is SimCity an atrocity? The new one. Same with the new Dungeon Keeper.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:43 PM
5

One day this will be just "letter to a young gamer". (I can dream.)
/r/MensRights28/08/14 08:22 PM
2

It's completely sexist. Men shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:26 PM
2

Fuck gender segregation.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:37 AM
2

It's waaaayy out of the league of pedophilia. Yes, but it's rational.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:28 AM
1

It's almost as if at one point, the culture surrounding programming (safer, indoors, associated with women), was similar to what women were socialized to want or accept!
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:15 AM
2

It is irrational to not want geek cooties. No it's not. If you think you'll feel devalued and forever out-of-place at your job, and also suffer social consequences outside it (because of the 'geek' label), it's totally rational to not move towards those positions.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:13 AM
2

No... In almost no culture are there more female programmers than male ones. It has nothing to do with cultural norms. Haha, what? This doesn't at all prove the point you think it does.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:12 AM
3

I do not have any kind of engineering degree but I could run this company just as well/bad. Hah, no. Jesus christ no, their press outreach has been fantastic and just the right amount of controversial to get people talking. If you could run Goldiblox as well, I could climb Mount Everest.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:10 AM
8

If you're going to "address the sexist myth that men are naturally predatory", you're better than most.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:08 AM
7

Eh, it doesn't really say that. It drifts in and out from tepidly endorsing men leaving their abusive partners. Take sentences like this: And this is hard, walking away always is because there were good reasons you walked into it. But that is part of being a good man, knowing when to walk away at a mature time... Regardless, the article's awful. Why? Because it takes a stance that, if applied to women, would be considered both a half-measure and one that blames the victim. Take something like th…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 09:13 PM
2

It feels important to note that though it's a rare occurance, men can get breast cancer.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 05:33 PM
1

From the article: Thankfully, presumably due to the fact that Mizzou’s Title IX coordinator has common sense and eyeballs, nothing in the video was determined to be harassment and Delt was let off scot-free.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:14 PM
1

Empowerment programs do shit for you on an individual level. If you feel better about yourself, your day-to-day life is potentially improved. Non-quantifiable well-being aspects can easily impact your quality of life.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 03:46 PM
5

I don't know where to start on this. I can only hope our answers begin with radical self-love. So let me say this - you have worth! hugs
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:25 AM
1

...I believe I could say the same to you, assuming that's a NoMeansNo reference?
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:05 AM
2

Just going off the general slant of this sub, he's probably happy that female on male rape was depicted at all.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:02 AM
3

You're like some bizarro-world Suey Park. #CancelOliver? or is that too much?
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:24 PM
-3

Sounds like a third wave feminist. If it quacks like a duck...
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:32 PM
4

For every girl who throws out her e-z-bake oven, there is a boy who wishes to find one. Citation needed. I'll direct you to Captaincastle's comment in this very thread. Who throws away e z bake ovens? That shit is awesome
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:01 PM
1

If they want to provoke radicals and die, that's their prerogative (that doesn't make it right on the radical's behalf!). That provocation can be a legitimate act of protest, and potentially, they can protect themselves. Unless women are too weak and fragile...
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:37 PM
1

Then your issue is with mandatory conscription and socialization that makes men feel like they have to protect women above them. And of course with the radicals provoked by this.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:25 PM
-3

Love it!
/r/MensRights25/08/14 05:43 PM
3

I'm ok with this.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 05:42 PM
5

Look on the bright side. It says "typically" when it could say "exclusively". :/
/r/MensRights25/08/14 03:57 AM
3

It's closer to "feminists are wrong" and "hypothetical feminists are hypocrites". There's no "because" implied.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 03:51 AM
2

I think it makes more sense that people are unhappy in marriages because socialization caused them to expect certain things or be more comfortable in certain roles. The idea that this is strictly biological borders on insane, especially when the study didn't seem to touch on that.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 03:50 AM
4

If feminists believed in 'absolute equality', there'd be a lot less people here. also note that the linked article doesn't reference biological sex differences.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 03:41 AM
1

This isn't about biology alone, it's about society.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 01:22 AM
3

I'm not 'surprised'. But I'm worked up because I'm interested in equality.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 01:17 AM
10

But without the self-hate and racism.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 10:44 PM
5

You should probably just say I am an egalitarian and support both women and men. So I definitely do not want ANYONE to be oppressed. I fight against the very notion of differentiating people by the basis of their gender. next time, instead of leading with insanity.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 10:43 PM
2

This isn't helping my already-low opinion of the Daily Mail. Screw gender essentialism, inequalities in socialization, and gross generalizations. Men and women alike should be able to sleep around or not sleep around and experience similar effects in marriage.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 10:42 PM
-1

Interesting. It's not always as cut-and-dried as some feminists might have you believe (though even this article states that female journalists are at particular risk for harassment). In any case, it seems men also do most of the harassing/trolling.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:15 PM
1

There is a lot of things I don't care for about Kimmel. But any kind of analysis of "masculinity" and males in the mainstream academic sphere is, in my opinion, a good development.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:13 PM
2

Yup, definitely a welcome development.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 06:30 PM
2

As much as that upsets me, I quote (from elsewhere in the thread): "Together with our NGO [non-governmental organization] partners we are working with the local authorities, churches and other civil society organizations to ensure that all male-headed households and others with special needs are not excluded from these distributions,"
/r/MensRights24/08/14 06:44 AM
0

What about families without women, such as those who lost their women during the disaster? Do they just starve? That is not the case.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 05:25 AM
7

Fantastic point of view. Anything that helps men "open up" about their problems or feelings needs to be encouraged. That's a big part of equality - no, I don't care if it makes men more like women!
/r/MensRights24/08/14 02:25 AM
7

The (to use a bad phrase) optics of this are horrible. It sends the message that men can't be trusted to the world, and has them basically internalize that message of inequality by denying them a privilege that women are given. I don't know how to fix this. But yes, no matter what you think about this, it's a big deal.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 02:13 AM
10

Previous situations where they distributed to men and women led to unequal food distribution among household members, so they switched to distributing to just women, which apparently leads to a more equal distribution. edit: to clarify, I'm explaining the situation here, not endorsing it.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 02:03 AM
3

I'm not sure what the issue is there. As long as they're not somehow being coerced into making a particular change, I don't see how "pandering" is inherently wrong. I'd like to see them "pander" to male representation concerns as well, to be honest.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 01:36 AM
7

In this case their point is valid, women shouldn't be depicted as the only people in distress, nor should they be depicted as always in distress. And the fix to that is something I'm more than satisfied with.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 01:26 AM
0

Representation matters.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 01:00 AM
6

That's great! Men can be vulnerable/victims too, and should be presented as such.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 12:50 AM
2

Until they read the fineprint that it's free for "attractive men and women", it's alarmingly possible that you might be fine.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 12:34 AM
0

This is quite problematic. It sends negative messages about men, and worse, might make men feel stereotyped or like they're inherently criminal and 'safe' targets for violence. I'm not sure how this situation should be addressed, I'd be happy with a small statement from the developers saying that this was not their intent.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 10:50 PM
1

I'm not a male hater, I'm solely concerned about increasing gender equality. Yes, for men. "Abrasive", though, that's new, and if I offended you, I apologize. But if the narrative is that nobody wants to hear my feelings, we'll never win. Men's feelings are valid, and until we accept that truth (and have it accepted in society at large), we won't have any sort of meaningful equality.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 04:43 PM
1

A science test can't just teach science, especially if you've decided that defining scientific terms is somehow not science - that's silly. You might as well fight to take the indexes from the backs of the textbook. I can only assume you're as bothered over 'ethics of science' courses and so forth. Especially if they're listed under 'science' course codes, hah. Either way, I'm 100% for more clarification and teaching of terms. 'More accessible' in this case means more accessible for boys.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 04:48 AM
1

If the students don't know it, you should. And that additional context would then be the literal reverse of 'dumbing down' the material...
/r/MensRights23/08/14 04:38 AM
-1

Look, I'm sorry I offended you. I'd like to share thoughts and feelings, and if there's something I could say or clarify for you, feel free to ask.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 04:10 AM
-1

I would never endorse attempted murder and assault from anyone. But I'm not in the least perturbed by the SCUM manifesto, etc.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 04:00 AM
1

Sorry, but comprehension (presumably of... terms? based on your 'primary school English' comment) is important to science. It's valuable - it's not a dumbing down of material, but a way to ensure the same material is more comprehensible to people.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 03:50 AM
-5

If men didn't invent something, women would've. Anyway, Krista's just a polemicist. She doesn't bother me in the least.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:43 AM
1

Though they might have done this to make things "less scary for girls", if they made that change to everyone's exam, it isn't truly discriminatory. It could help many men.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:10 AM
1

If hypothetically women could be shamed as well by this, I'd be 100% for it. It would make both women and men feel more comfortable.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:00 AM
3

I'd be up for working on those. Assuming that parental leave and free birth control applied to males as well (the alternative is monstrous). And really, even free tampons, etc, rather than doing it via other means (tax break).
/r/MensRights23/08/14 12:47 AM
-4

It is bad faith - you're right. But if you can't even express where you think feminism is wrong, it's clear that you don't want to express anything to your audience. You're not doing a structured debate, you don't have to respond strictly to him. Even if he wrote "LOL NO" to that, you would've accomplished something. But nope, you thought "burden of proof" solved everything.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:59 PM
-3

Attacking you isn't defending him when you've both made the same mistake. When given a public forum to defend your views, you both decided, nah, let's not. It looks worse on you. Feminist theory is popular and established, so you've got the bigger task here.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:49 PM
-4

That wasn't me, hah. Look a bit closer. But if you had a point, you would've said it by now - unless you either don't care if anyone is on your side or not, or if you've got nothing.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:39 PM
-2

I want to "coddle" men... and you're the MRA?
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:27 PM
-6

Nope, sorry. You can't just kill discussion by chanting the mantra "burden of proof, burden of proof"...
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:24 PM
1

I'd strongly prefer a law with quotas for both genders - I think from a messaging point of view it's significantly better. But clearly I'm far more optimistic about women's opportunity in the future than you. Oddly, I'd think that we're more likely to see a board of directors comprised of all women than a few of 70%+ women, and that's the only real scenario where a male quota would really mess with things. I'm fine with that, as I'm completely against gender segregation.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 06:23 PM
1

Doesn't matter. The message it would send - that quotas aren't a threat to men, but can help them - would be a positive side effect. Additionally, the fact that the quota is so unlikely to be neccessary (and don't kid yourself, the odds are far better than nothing) is really an argument in favour of its adoption - it's unlikely to result in less positions for women!
/r/MensRights18/11/13 06:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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