TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

prodiver Archive

View 0 posts and 380 comments by prodiver 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)
12

it's not what the American Psychological Association believes. It literally is what they believe. Gender dysphoria is a recognized mental illness. A diagnosis for gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255 The other commenter is using "mental illness" as in insult, and I don't agree with th…
/r/TheRedPill11/04/23 12:22 AM
4

It's a loss because you're taking away everyone's rights. What even is a niche religion like where is the cutoff? What about my God-given right to sell my daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)? Are you upset that religious right was taken away?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 03:20 PM
9

That is true. It works because if you cut a body part off it can't transmit a disease in the future. So let's cut the breast tissue off all infant girls. It will reduce breast cancer rates by 100%!
/r/MensRights25/08/19 03:17 PM
2

It makes me want to throw up, seriously. At least we can agree on something.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 03:10 PM
5

So we should remove people's rights because a medical procedure is not perfect? No. The answer is no. No one should have the right to cut off someone else's body part for a non-medical reason. So to reiterate never will I say that genital mutilation is okay. Except you have, repeatedly. You just don't care if it's done to boys, only girls.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 01:30 PM
1

No, it's not. The glans is the clitoris, the foreskin is the clitoral hood.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 07:03 AM
10

The Word Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as "procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." How does male circumcision not fit that definition? It is literally altering genital organs for non-medical reasons. The answer is because it doesn't affect you, and it's normalized in our culture, so you've just never really thought about the fact that it's mutilation of a baby. That's not your fault. But now we're asking y…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 07:03 AM
6

So what? Some religions require parents to not give medical treatment to their children, but I doubt you are okay with that.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:55 AM
4

Why would you say that? Like i said it hurts my brain because I have to first agree with your view that circumcision is indeed genital mutilation, when you can mutilate male genitals in a lot of different ways that circumcision PALES in comparison to It seems to me you are saying it's okay to mutilate genitals just a little? Because cutting off the entire penis is worse than cutting off the foreskin, that makes cutting off the forskin okay? Female genital mutation has degrees of severity as well…
/r/MensRights25/08/19 06:46 AM
6

They banned me because I called people that post anti-woman crap in /r/MensRights "idiotic trolls." It's a shame, because I was having good, respectful conversations with the people there. You simply can't have a real conversation when you have to constantly watch every word you say to avoid a ban.
/r/MensRights25/08/19 05:43 AM
2

Edit2: https://www.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/cut77y/rmensrights_reaction_to_contrapoints/ey007fc/ I posted on that thread, and was having great, respectful conversations with the people over there, then the mods banned me. You simply can't have any type of meaningful discussion there. It's literally impossible because of the "thought police."
/r/MensRights25/08/19 05:38 AM
5

Circumcision is a deal-breaker apparently there is 0 room for discussion around that for starters which is pretty odd Yes, it is a deal breaker. If you post something on any female-oriented subreddit wanting to discuss the pros and cons of female genital mutation you will, rightfully, be downvoted (and probably banned) immediately. I'm curious as to why you think male genital mutilation would be treated differently?
/r/MensRights25/08/19 05:31 AM
9

Contra's sub is pretty anti-censorship I posted on the sub and the response I got from a mod was... The linked subreddit is a recognised hate group that allows and encourages hate speech against gender and sexual minorities The mods over there don't really have an open mind toward us.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 06:42 PM
1

No problem. I can tell you meant well.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:33 PM
8

I went to the /r/contrapoints subreddit. The first thing I saw was a crosspost to this thread, with a mod comment warning people to not post here. That makes it pretty clear how we're viewed by the mods there... EDIT: 10 minutes later my comment was locked and a mod posted "The linked subreddit is a recognised hate group that allows and encourages hate speech against gender and sexual minorities."
/r/MensRights24/08/19 05:05 PM
4

I think it is just a people thing. No, it's not. Yes, mass murders are way more likely to be men. But heros that save people from mass murders are also way more likely to be men. It's wrong to constantly plaster one of those all over the news, but ignore the other.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 11:47 AM
2

That source also says... Places of public accommodation DO NOT include any private club or other establishment not open to the public. This ticket is for a private club, so they are not bound by that law.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 11:04 AM
10

why? I would never rent to a woman for the same time. I wouldn't either, so I don't have rooms for rent on AirBnB. In my opinion you should rent to anyone, or no one. There shouldn't be an option to discriminate.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 10:59 AM
11

Ok but it could be for completely reasonable things like she has had a bad experience with a man in her home before. So if you had a "bad experience" with a black person it would be okay to not rent to any black people in the future?
/r/MensRights24/08/19 10:55 AM
6

That’s probably why it’s been recommended. Maybe so, but it stills shows OP's biases towards us.
/r/MensRights24/08/19 10:27 AM
10

You may find Contra's take is very similar :) I agree with Contrapoints on a lot of things, but her views have nothing to do with /u/Trantang mentioning incels and conservatives, two things we are routinely stereotyped as being. You can't invite someone into a conversation while showing you have open biases against them. How about this... "Hello black people! Would you like to come have a discussion about race relations? Please watch this video about not stealing, but keep in mind that it was ma…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 10:23 AM
11

Please do look into her other videos, specifically her Incels video but keep in mind that she is a leftist and you may not necessarily agree with some of her opinions I don't understand why you felt the need to include that in your comment? We're for men's rights, so we must be incels and convervatives? I'm married with 3 kids, and I'm as liberal as they come. Take your stereotyping elsewhere. If there are any videos on actual men's rights issues (male genital mutilation, child custody discrimin…
/r/MensRights24/08/19 07:32 AM
3

This. People have no problem accepting there are multiple crimes for stealing. Shoplifting, Robbery, Aggravated Robbery, and Armed Robbery are all separate crimes. Right now terms like "rape," "sexual assault," and "sex offender" are all so broad they are meaningless. A sex offender might be a child rapist, or they might have pissed in an alley while drunk.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 05:02 AM
0

You'd have to take other scenarios into consideration. No, you wouldn't. Every sexual crime doesn't have to be rape. People have no problem accepting there are multiple crimes for stealing, depending on the severity of the crime. Shoplifting, Robbery, Aggravated Robbery, and Armed Robbery are all separate crimes in most states. Sex crimes can be the same. Sexual coercion can, and should, be a crime, but it's not rape.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 04:57 AM
2

You're right, on average, but individual people aren't averages. Any particular female might be better than any particular male. That's why we shouldn't be looking at gender at all when it comes to scholarships and college admissions. The decisions should be based on anonymous information, with the decision makers not even knowing the applicant's gender.
/r/MensRights23/08/19 04:26 AM
92

No Asians? Boycott Brawny!!!!!
/r/MensRights22/08/19 07:09 AM
25

What actually made those people think it's ok to literally discriminate males who want to do STEM research as an actual job is beyond me. Because getting more women into STEM programs is hard, but you don't actually have to get more women in to achieve "equality." You can simply let less men in. That's how scholarship discrimination provides "equality." If anyone can get the scholarship, and you have 9 men and 1 woman, you have 10% female students. Colleges can't have it at 10%. So make that sch…
/r/MensRights21/08/19 04:13 AM
1

Sure, is dice allowed? Dice aren't allowed in most prisons, because of gambling. That's easy enough to work around, though. Just write numbers on pieces of paper and pull them out of a cup.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 09:44 PM
-11

That poster is outright false. You don't enter into a common-law marriage just by living together for a certain amount of time. You also have to present yourself to the public, in everyday life, as husband and wife. It is literally impossible to be common law married by accident.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 09:33 PM
3

Why can't we just use the original word for explaining things in a condescending way... patronizing. It already comes from the same root word at "patriarchy," so you'd think feminists would love it.
/r/MensRights14/08/19 09:30 PM
1

I don't care what the caption says. It's wrong. Wikipedia has just under 6 million articles. A third of that is 2 million articles. If you write one article per hour, 24 hours per day, for 100 years you will still have only written 876,000 articles. You can easily look up the stats on Wikipedia. This guy has written 35,000 out of 6 million articles. That's half of one percent, not a third.
/r/MensRights13/08/19 11:17 PM
134

What's particularly stupid about this woman's comment is this... His Wikipedia edits have included creating articles on more than 600 women, in order to counter the site's gender gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pruitt
/r/MensRights12/08/19 08:56 AM
20

the encyclopedia of the world is being written by predominantly one person. No it's not. He's written about 35,000 out of 5,908,674 articles. That's nowhere near being "predominantly one person."
/r/MensRights12/08/19 08:55 AM
59

I wouldn't either, but for different reasons. Faking a "damsel in distress" situation is a common thing for robbers and scammers.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 10:26 PM
34

This. Any person, male or female, that's not interested in nerdy/geeky things probably isn't interested in computer science. Different interests lead to different careers.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 01:28 AM
515

That's nothing. She literally sexually assaulted Brad Pitt yesterday. https://www.insider.com/lena-dunham-brad-pitt-kiss-reactions-double-standard-2019-8
/r/MensRights02/08/19 07:23 PM
5

Gee, maybe it's just me, but requiring actual violence for DV does not seem inappropriate. Sure it is. I can't understand how any person can think you can have any "<fill-in-the-blank> violence" charge without violence. No other law works like that. To be charged with murder you have to murder someone, to be charged with robbery you have to rob someone, etc. I'm not saying things like psychological abuse and manipulation are ok, just that they aren't violence.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:44 PM
6

The new definition of sexual assault: any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent. The old definition: any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Basically, a "sexual behavior" is no longer …
/r/MensRights30/07/19 08:38 PM
22

Oh it said nothing about that in the post. It said she painted the dicks from the photographs. It never said or implied the photos were released to the public.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 03:37 PM
4

"just mind your own business and keep your dick in your pants That's exactly the problem. Hotel rooms are the place where you're supposed to take your pants off. You literally can't go on a 3 day business trip and "keep your dick in your pants," because you have nowhere private to change your pants.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 05:37 AM
21

This is good news. Even a few years ago 99% of insurance companies and doctors wouldn't have had a problem with it. This is proof the culture towards it is changing.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 12:00 AM
44

How does she know they were men? Did she just assume their gender?!?!?!
/r/MensRights06/07/19 11:12 PM
6

That's not true anymore. All combat roles are open to women now.
/r/MensRights23/06/19 04:19 PM
6

How did the piece of shit lawyer get away with claiming the 16 year old boy was the predator Because the age of consent in the UK is 16, so this isn't a statutory rape case. The boy freely admitted he "hoped the sex would happen and was 'willing' but claimed Ms Guazzo had manipulated him into it." That leaves it pretty open for the lawyers to debate who manipulated who.
/r/MensRights19/06/19 06:17 PM
20

That doesn't really mean anything. Back then almost everybody was racist.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 04:22 PM
5

Not true. As a mother, wife and lover, I can have an opinion It's a play on the "No Uterus, No Opinion" slogan that feminists often use. I don't think OP meant it literally.
/r/MensRights03/06/19 05:20 AM
4

Because of trolls wanting to make us look bad.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:55 PM
5

If you look at the post histories it's clear most of these toxic people are just trolls.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:54 PM
-1

You really think a doctor, who already works 80 hours a week and is outnumbered 10 to 1 by nurses, can do that?
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:51 PM
7

Yes, it is. Did I claim it was something else? I literally started my comment by saying this was "personal experience." We all know personal experience is anecdotal. If the only comments that matter here are peer-reviewed science then this thread is in trouble.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:36 PM
4

Again, you are missing the point. Other men couldn't replace firefighters fast enough if they just stopped working. That is an issue of training time, not ability. If all male firefighters were magically replaced with female firefighters overnight nothing would burn down. Yes, more female firefighters per shift would be needed, since men are physically stronger, but women can do the job.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:20 PM
2

As a paramedic I work with doctors and nurses, but I'm neither so I don't really have a bias towards one or the other. But I can tell you most doctors cannot do the job of a nurse. You have the knowledge and technical skills, but that's all. Most doctors are shit at patient education, advocacy, have no bedside manner at all, and have terrible social skills. Those are essential tasks that most doctors think are unimportant, and that is exactly why most doctors can't do a nurse's job.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:13 PM
7

You're probably right, but you're also changing the subject. No one is claiming women want to do those jobs, just that they can do those jobs.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:03 PM
3

You are missing the point. Everything you listed is due to losing 50% of the population, not because women can't do those jobs.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 02:00 PM
12

Personal experience as a paramedic for the past 20 years. People assume hospitals are like TV and movies, with a dozen doctors around every corner. Doctors are rare when it comes to actual patient care. Nursing homes have no doctors and 20+ nurses, an ER will have one or two doctors and 20+ nurses, an ICU won't have any doctors, they are all nurses, and general med-surg floors are all nurses as well. Just think about the last time you were in a hospital. You probably saw your doctor for 10 minut…
/r/MensRights29/05/19 01:48 PM
9

That's true, you don't. But if men disappeared off the planet tomorrow women could do that job. We have historical proof of this. Almost every non-military male dominated job was done by women during WW2.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 12:51 PM
8

Men could replace them eventually, but doctors can't replace them. Close to 99% of healthcare is done by nurses. There aren't enough doctors and they don't have the time.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 12:47 PM
12

16 is the age of consent in Michigan, but there is an exception because they are student and teacher. That is illegal at any age.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 01:50 PM
9

I agree with you that two drunk people having sex is not rape, but Brock Turner's victim was unconscious. That's not the same as drunk, but consenting, sex.
/r/MensRights26/05/19 08:48 AM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
/r/MensRights19/05/19 09:23 PM
1

I agree, you shouldn't need proof to believe a rape victim. If you tell me you were raped, I'll believe you and help you any way I can. You do, however, need proof if you are accusing a specific person of rape.
/r/MensRights17/05/19 01:03 AM
2

I've had some success explaining this to people with the following analogy. If I drive to a bad neighborhood and leave my car in front of a busy store, with the engine running, keys in the ignition, and all four doors open, is it at least partially my fault if the car gets stolen? Most people would say yes, your bad choices lead to your car getting stolen. That is exactly the same as if a girl wears suggestive clothing, goes to a party alone, drinks too much and passes out, and is then raped. Pe…
/r/MensRights23/04/19 12:35 AM
78

soy and similar products are associated with male feminist types. No, it's because soy is a phytoestrogen, meaning it acts like estrogen in the body and some people think eating too much soy is feminizing boys. To my knowledge there's no actual scientific proof of this. It's just a meme/conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights15/04/19 11:29 AM
1

You don't see rental agencies advertising for females only. An individual looking for a female roommate is different than an apartment complex only renting to females.
/r/MensRights06/04/19 03:34 PM
1

If you're a woman you'll probably get a year of community service. Nope. This story is a year old. She was committed to a psychiatric facility, which is exactly where she needs to be, and she's still there today.
/r/MensRights23/03/19 10:03 PM
6

This is a good thing, because a rape charge is a joke in Montana. In Montana sexual assault and rape are the same thing, and the first conviction is only punishable by a fine of up to $500, and/or imprisonment for up to six months https://statelaws.findlaw.com/montana-law/montana-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html "Assault with a weapon," which is the charge she is facing, can get you 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
/r/MensRights23/03/19 12:29 AM
5

Or "patronizing," which they should love, since it has the same root as "patriarchy."
/r/MensRights18/03/19 02:33 AM
1

That statement is so broad it's meaningless. Everyone on the planet, male and female, has been discriminated against by a man at least once. We've all been discriminated against by a woman too.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 12:05 AM
1

It doesn't prevent STD's/STI's, that is a myth with no evidence to support it. Sorry, but there's a ton of scientific evidence to support it. We shouldn't spread false information like the pro-circumcision people do. Yes, it prevents STDs, but it prevents them because cutting of a body part means that body part can no longer be infected. We should not deny the science. We should point out that's not ethical to cut off a body part when there are other ways, with higher success rates, to prevent t…
/r/MensRights09/03/19 03:56 PM
3

Preemptive mastectomy is an actual treatment for women with a high risk of breast cancer I didn't say women with a high risk of cancer, I said infant girls.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 03:03 AM
4

You clearly think that murder is on the same tier as circumcision because you think the same line should be drawn for it as the line for murder. Can you quote where I wrote that? You can't, cause I didn't. Like I said, bad reading comprehension...
/r/MensRights09/03/19 02:50 AM
4

It isn't the same. The problem here isn't that we are crazy, it's that you have bad reading comprehension skills. The point isn't that circumcision is as bad as murder, it's that you do draw a line on what's acceptable for religious people to do to others.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 02:34 AM
3

Done right you can die from any evasive medical procedure. A procedure that's 99.9% safe will still kill 1 in 1000 people.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 02:10 AM
8

Whether you think that’s fucked up or not is up to you. Actually, it is. People have to draw a line somewhere. I doubt you'd be okay with a religion that sacrificed babies, enslaved people, or cut off diferent body parts, like hands. We all draw the line at what acceptable for religion to dictate, and some people, obviously, put that line at mutilating babies
/r/MensRights09/03/19 02:06 AM
17

Vulvas are insanely difficult to clean, especially on a baby. So many nooks and crannies for bacteria to hide. I think, for the sake of cleanliness, we should cut all that extra tissue off, right?
/r/MensRights09/03/19 02:01 AM
46

Thats the retort to the std thing The best retort is to explain why it helps prevent STDs. Less surface area on a penis means a lower chance of getting an STD. In other words, if you don't have a foreskin it can't get infected. Removing the breast tissue of infant girls will reduce breast cancer rates 100%. Should we start doing that?
/r/MensRights09/03/19 01:59 AM
4

I don't care about a TV sitcom. The fact is millions of people died from measles before the vaccine, and afterward almost no one died.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 04:57 PM
3

Which is better? Vaccine herd immunity. Measles killed millions before the vaccine. Natural immunity doesn't work for the millions of people that die from the disease.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 04:46 PM
4

Yes. Even vaccinated people can get the disease. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective. Mumps is 98%. Herd immunity protects everyone.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 04:22 PM
10

The boy probably does feel lucky and is happy about it, but that doesn't matter. Just because a kid likes something doesn't mean it's a good thing. My kid would love to eat nothing but candy, stay up till 5am every day, and never go to school. He, and all his friends, would think he's the luckiest kid in the world, until he grew up to be unemployed and diabetic. It's the same getting raped by a hot teacher. It's fun when your 13, but it sucks when you are 20, have an STD and mental issues, and y…
/r/MensRights01/03/19 01:12 PM
4

In this case I'd say your right, but you can focus on a career and not be a breadwinner. A public school teacher married to a doctor will have a career, but not be the breadwinner.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 09:33 AM
54

she was drunk, she was driving the boat at full speed and crashed it, he's to blame. It's a quirk of the fact this happened on a boat. Even though it's just a speedboat on a river it's still a maritime vessel, and the man was the captain of the vessel, so he is legally responsible for everything that happens onboard. Had this been a car it would have been a completely different set of rules, and she would be responsible, but because it's a boat the captain is liable.
/r/MensRights25/01/19 02:39 PM
3

Can't spell malady without lady.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 04:17 AM
24

Parents are allowed to legally abandon children in all 50 states. All they have to do is drop the child off at a fire station, police station, etc. Many places even have "baby drop boxes" you can use. https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/baby-box-installed-at-michigan-city-area-fire-station/article_00069781-71fe-5cda-bd42-b4d9b208be1c.html Who pays for the child in these situations?
/r/MensRights17/12/18 05:29 PM
2

Men have hip angles of around 70 degrees (meaning the legs point outwards), while women have hip angles around 95 degrees (so the legs point slightly inwards). Men also have longer legs (so a lack of legroom on airplanes), plus sensitivity external genitalia between the legs. "Manspreading" is biological, not a choice. Women are literally "body shaming" men when they complain about men sitting with open legs.
/r/MensRights12/12/18 04:48 PM
94

The only response you need to give is "I identify as female." Then keep on shitting. These magic words turn the entire thing upside down. Don't be afraid to use them.
/r/MensRights25/11/18 12:22 AM
3

Nope. Under questioning however she admitted she was never sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and said was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter. When investigators asked if she was the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside, California who wrote to Senator Harris she said: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe...but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee...I saw it online. It was news.'
/r/MensRights03/11/18 10:13 AM
-5

You guys need to actually read the articles, not just the headlines. She lied about being the anonymous accuser known as "Jane Doe." The actual accuser didn't admit to lying. Under questioning however she admitted she was never sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and said was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter. When investigators asked if she was the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside, California who wrote to Senator Harris she said: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not …
/r/MensRights03/11/18 10:08 AM
25

The title is misleading. The woman claimed to be the anonymous "Jane Doe" accuser, then admitted she wasn't. The real accuser hasn't admitted to making up the story. Under questioning however she admitted she was never sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and said was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter. When investigators asked if she was the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside, California who wrote to Senator Harris she said: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe.…
/r/MensRights03/11/18 08:00 AM
25

I don't care if circumcision completely eliminates the risk of HIV, it's still not acceptable. Removing the breast tissue of infant girls will eliminate breast cancer. Using the mindset of "mutilation is okay if it prevents disease" we should start doing that, right?
/r/MensRights22/10/18 01:50 AM
2

Around that, yes. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. 1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed. https://www.cdc.gov/violenc…
/r/MensRights28/09/18 08:08 PM
0

US is 18 with a lot of R&J laws (which don't really count) That's actually a myth. In most of the US the age of consent is 16. Each U.S. state has its own age of consent, as does the District of Columbia. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States was either 16 years of age, 17 years of age, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States
/r/MensRights11/09/18 03:11 PM
1

It says circumcised vagina, not circumcised clitoris "Vagina" is a common term for the entire vulva. It's not anatomically accurate, but it's common everyday language. No one circumcises clitorises due to it being "unattractive", however many women do get labiaplasty because they believe their vagina's labia is unattractive Female circumcision isn't done voluntarily, it's done to infants and children, and it is done for cultural/religious reasons, just like male circumcision.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 12:22 PM
6

Fined or sent to prison? Never. Being denied federal financial aid? Lots of times. https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1915521-i-found-out-this-year-i-didnt-sign-up-for-selective-service-earlier-but-im-too-old-now-help.html https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/my-school-denied-me-federal-aid-because-i-did-not--2277837.html https://ask.metafilter.com/133491/Failed-to-register-for-Selective-Service-ruined-for-life
/r/MensRights07/09/18 04:00 AM
11

No, it's not weak. I'm a paramedic, and I peform medical treatments on unconscious people without expressed consent every day, but I have to have "implied consent." "Implied consent" is a thing in medicine. It basically means a reasonable person would consent to this procedure, so it's okay to do it on a person that cannot consent. Doctors and parents can reasonably assume that a baby, once it's an adult, would have been okay with having heart surgery, cancer treatment, or any other medically ne…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 02:38 AM
7

Circumcision is not a medically necessary surgery. It is an unnecessary cosmetic surgery.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 02:05 AM
0

Labiaplasty is not the same is female circumcision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
/r/MensRights07/09/18 02:04 AM
19

95% of people paying child support are men, and this is an unfair rule (people needing assistance due to flooding are going to be behind on child support, through no fault of their own), so this is sexism against men.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 05:17 AM
1

Why do you expect someone to cover her part of work? For free, no less? I don't. I expect a woman to get time off if she has a baby. I never said I expect someone to cover her part of work for free.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 05:43 PM
2

Men and women deserve equal rights, not the same rights. Men and women are different, and have different needs. As a man, I don't need time off from work because I'm pregnant. I can't get pregnant.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 02:45 AM
33

To be fair, historically women have been both protected and oppressed. It just depends when and where in history you're talking about.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 09:25 PM
163

I was a preschool teacher in the late 90's/early 00's, and there's no way I'd do that job now. The "one accusation and you're ruined" culture doesn't mix well with teaching young children. Children want to hug you, some need help buttoning/unbuttoning their pants to go to the bathroom, etc. It's sad, but the job is just too dangerous.
/r/MensRights26/08/18 07:59 PM
18

Then provide a source to at least one feminist organization that's actively fighting male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights13/08/18 08:05 PM
21

The "it lowers infection rates" argument is, frankly, stupid and illogical. Removing all or part of any body part will, of course, reduce infections in that body part. If you don't have it, it can't get infected. Removing the breast tissue of infant girls will reduce breast cancer rates 100%. Why don't we do that to "lower infection rates?"
/r/MensRights13/08/18 08:03 PM
1

You didn't say "or alternatives" until that last comment. Staying hygienic is required for good health. Tampons, however, are not. They are luxury items and should be taxed.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 01:03 AM
4

Very true. What's your point?
/r/MensRights06/08/18 12:50 AM
5

Women don't need tampons. Humans have been around over 100,000 years. Tampons were invented less than 100 years ago. They are a luxury item that most women on the planet can't even afford.
/r/MensRights06/08/18 12:46 AM
12

Tampons were invented in 1929. Did women just not exist before then?
/r/MensRights06/08/18 12:45 AM
29

I don't know why the system assumes these male children are ok with being touched Most 14 year old boys would be okay with it, just like they would be okay with eating nothing but candy for every meal, not going to bed till 5am on school nights, and never doing any homework or chores. What the kids like is irrelevant. Getting molested at 14 can fuck up your brain, even if you like it.
/r/MensRights04/08/18 04:13 AM
4

I'd be more than comfortable running some clippers through my buddy's hair but if my gf asked me to "trim her undercut" I'd tell her to fuck off because I'd probably ruin it. Read the article and look at the photos. The girl has a man's haircut. In this case a barber is actually more qualified than a women's hairdresser.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 09:13 PM
8

I'd change it to "mam we only cut hair of this style, not that style", you can't sue him for not doing hair a certain style can you? Did you read the article? "Mr Rahim's explanation was that he wished to keep his barber shop for boys and men only. He never said he was not qualified to cut women or girls' hair, as he has incorrectly reported to the media."
/r/MensRights11/07/18 09:10 PM
84

Well she wore it to work, so it must be SFW, right?
/r/MensRights17/06/18 05:27 AM
-1

Person A's feelings are completely wrong. In fact, not just wrong but paranoid You are confused about what "feelings" are. They are emotions, not beliefs. You can, for example, be sad because you believe something that is untrue. Just because it's not true doesn't mean you aren't legitimately experiencing the emotion of sadness. For most men, learning the sadness was based on an incorrect fact would make the sadness go away, almost immediately. Most women don't work that way. Learning the truth …
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:36 PM
3

It depends on the state and the age of the students. In some states teachers having sex with students is a crime, even if the student is above the age of consent. Having sex with 16+ year olds is legal in most states. If that's the case here then she's not a rapist.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 08:17 PM
15

Absolutely! If you're 18+ and want a body modification you should be able to get one. It's your choice, and like you said, to each their own. But if that choice is made for you when you're a baby, then you're not able to make your "to each there own" choice. It was made for you, and when you grow up it might be the opposite of what you wanted.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 08:25 AM
9

99.9% of people on earth fall into at least one of these categories. If everyone is privileged, no one is privileged.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 05:30 PM
2

You should complain that the board is mansplaining mansplaining to you.
/r/MensRights01/03/18 04:39 PM
1

That's why I said "high demand skills." A "high demand skill", by definition, is in demand due to a low supply.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:51 PM
1

But, most good jobs depend quite a bit on networking. I disagree. Having a high demand skill is the key to a good job. Knowing the right people only plays into it if you have little or no marketable skills. Someone with a degree in computer science or nursing, or a skilled tradesman like a plumber or HVAC tech, can easily find a high paying job even if they know absolute no one in the industry.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:39 PM
3

Samantha Bee's show is on TBS. Comedy Central has nothing to do with this.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 07:46 PM
14

rape is not much better than death tbh Not to everyone. I would rather be raped than killed.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 04:32 PM
38

Then where are the signs encouraging women to make "nice gestures" to men?
/r/MensRights11/01/18 04:26 PM
211

Paramedic here. I've spent the better part of my life hauling old people back and forth from the nursing home to the hospital. When the mind starts to go the base, animalistic insticts tend to stick around the longest. Fear, anger and sex are the things that linger in the mind of advanced dementia patients. Groping and making sexual comments to medical staff are common, in both male and females. Their brains aren't working correctly anymore, and they simply can't help it.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 02:22 AM
1

From what I've seen every competition is dominated by whites & asians. 50% of white and asian people are female. Are you trying to say black people are bad at computer science??
/r/MensRights09/01/18 05:02 PM
2

They actually want to have more than 50% women to achieve "gender equality". Google shouldn't even have 50% women, at least in tech jobs. 18% of computer science majors are female, so if you are hiring fairly, with absolutely no gender discrimination, then about 18% of your programmers will be female.
/r/MensRights09/01/18 04:42 PM
4

Mouth to mouth resuscitation is literally a kiss.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 06:09 PM
11

Depends on the country. Work visas aren't even a thing in some countries.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 07:07 PM
33

10 years is long enough to get permanent residence status, or citizenship, in a new country.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:02 PM
1

suspect that if you actually saw me (or someone like me) taking advantage of a young girl like that (and that's EXACTLY what it would be) you wouldn't in practice be quite so chill. Yes, I would be "quite so chill." If it's legal and consensual, how exactly is someone being taken advantage of? Women of legal age are not children, and don't need to be protected from their own choices. Who she chooses to be in a relationship with is her business.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 05:12 AM
4

Yes, it is a crime. I said it wasn't rape, not that it wasn't a crime. The crime was “indecent liberties with a student.”
/r/MensRights19/11/17 05:06 AM
5

So, that would be okay with you? Yes. If the age of consent is 16. The problem here is the student/teacher dynamic, not the age.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 04:02 AM
6

No. A 90 year old can have sex with a 16 year old in NC. It is not rape. The 4 year exemption means an 18 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, since they are only 4 years apart in age. https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/north-carolina
/r/MensRights19/11/17 04:01 AM
11

Only if ghosts and the Loch Ness monster rape women.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 12:48 AM
13

This is a relationship, not a rape. The student was over the age of consent. Had she not been a teacher the relationship would have been fine.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 12:33 AM
24

Because of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 01:19 AM
18

I asked that very question to a feminist once. The answer was "because they value men's work more."
/r/MensRights27/10/17 06:41 AM
0

Most women are bisexual nowadays, but most also end up in relationships with men. This is just a guess, but over a lifetime I would say that bisexual women have less sex with women than straight men do.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 10:01 PM
0

A lesbian who has never had sex with a man is unlikely to have genital HPV. Unless they're really into scissoring with bisexual girls, I guess, but's even that's unlikely.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 04:35 PM
2

Assuming that females can treat you like crap your entire life, and you should just be happy to give each new female a chance is ridiculous. If I got bullied by some black people in high school is it okay to be a racist as an adult?
/r/MensRights19/10/17 04:40 PM
0

Women get away with using bullying they've supposedly received from men as a basis for marginalizing men all the time. Yes, some women do that, but, for the most part, the women going into STEM aren't those women. They were probably bullied by those women as well.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 04:37 PM
2

homosexuals, some of whom were, ironically, niggers Well if you're going to go watch some videos, here's a good one your comment made me think of. https://youtu.be/vILJFZUs-_U?t=24s
/r/MensRights18/10/17 11:06 PM
1

You are right, but I don't care. I'd rather give the attention and waste resources on the people lying than ignore someone that was actually raped.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 10:15 PM
12

I am willing to believe someone if they say they are a victim of rape. I am not, however, willing to believe someone is a rapist without evidence. Why can people not seem to seperate these two things?
/r/MensRights18/10/17 06:10 PM
-1

remember that they are getting free room, food, security, entertainment, utilities, etc... I agree it's a great program, but be careful, because that same argument was used to justify slavery 100 years ago.
/r/MensRights15/10/17 01:18 PM
1

That book was written in 1985. It's going to be completely useless now.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 03:00 PM
1

No, campuses aren't warzones, but rape and sexual assault are surprisingly common. Would you mind giving us your definition of "rape?" I know that's kind of an odd question, but the word just means different things to different people. Men forcing women to have sex is very, very rare on college campuses. Most of us here would not consider two drunk people having sex, lack of verbal consent, etc. to automatically be rape.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 06:03 AM
1

Check your local community college. They usually have cosmetology classes.
/r/MensRights07/10/17 10:45 PM
20

Funny, but that's a good way to get banned from the place, Their loss, not mine. I'll just spend my money at another fast food place. If enough men do it, they'll stop shit like this.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 03:35 PM
9

Politics and left vs. right is the topic of this thread, so of course you're going to see it here. It's very rare on this sub in general.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 02:43 PM
35

If you guys simply focused on that issue and didn't make it about right or left then it would be harder to argue with. I'm a frequent poster in this sub. I'm also the most left leaning liberal you'll ever meet. I don't recall ever seeing anyone complain about "the left" in this sub, unless it's a troll that's been downvoted into oblivion. EDIT: A political event is the topic of this thread, so of course you're going to see political talk here. It's very rare on this sub in general.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 10:55 AM
2

You could just dismiss bullshit journalists more easily if it were regulated. Or the government could only issue licenses to bullshit journalists that agree not to say negative things about them.
/r/MensRights30/07/17 10:07 PM
5

That's a terrible idea. Do you really want the government controlling who can and cannot be a journalist?
/r/MensRights30/07/17 07:54 PM
16

if you were so inebriated that the next day you don't remember if you consented or not... what are you supposed to do but believe that you were raped? Not jump to conclusions with absolutely no evidence. "I don't remember, so it must be rape" is some of the worst logical reasoning ever.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:37 PM
4

It worked for Trump.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 06:10 AM
7

claiming that the lower paying jobs were paid less because they were performed by women Did you point out that if companies could reduce labors costs 23% by hiring only women then all men would be unemployed?
/r/MensRights05/07/17 01:30 AM
1

I've never had cancer. Does that mean cancer doesn't exist?
/r/MensRights20/06/17 12:52 AM
8

It'd help sort out all this confusion you're experiencing! Please do! What is the definition of rape?
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:39 PM
11

Are you seriously going to argue that because scientific journals exist, you're prevented from examining the data and free from the responsibility to respond to it? Yes, when it costs $51 to access the data for 24 hours. Find a free source of data, then we can have a discussion.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:37 PM
11

The problem with that is that women often prefer coercive behaviour. Yep. The use of the word "coerce" is a problem. It makes the statement too vague. Go read any romance novel. It'll be filled with fantasies about women being coerced into sex by being held down. If you do it to a stranger, or on a first date, that's rape. If you do it to your girlfriend who you already know likes that type of thing, it's not. They should have used the word "force," not "coerce," then the statement would be clea…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:35 PM
44

Consent doesn't mean it's not rape... http://i.imgur.com/16rY15H.jpg
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:19 PM
10

Or you could get clear verbal consent from your partner. Again, that is no longer the definition of rape. Google "stare rape" or "psychological rape" if you don't believe me.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 01:14 PM
174

Yes, she actually believes that 100% of men want to rape women. Remember, in her mind "rape" doesn't mean "attack a woman and forcefully have sex with her." To people like this "rape" can be as simple as talking to her if she doesn't want you to.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 10:42 AM
23

Because if it's true that women are academically higher achievers, then why isn't that translating into higher average salaries once they reach work? Because academic achievement has little to do with higher salaries. Choice of profession is much more important. A plumber with a high school diploma makes more than a person with a masters degree in art history.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 01:34 PM
3

I don't think you know what that word means, because cutting off a body part is the very definition of disfiguring.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:44 PM
-2

I've never seen any men's rights groups campaigning to end female genital mutilation. I've also never seen a labor union campaign for gay rights, or seen a group of environmentalists fighting for abused children. Of all the things to hate about feminism, the fact that they don't campaign for issues unrelated to women isn't one of them. No group fights for everything.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 09:04 AM
12

People choose subjects they find interesting, those forced into them, surprise surprise, leave them. There's nothing wrong with making your kids try something once just to see if they like it. As a parent sometime you have to push your kids to try something new, otherwise they'll never know they enjoy it. If they try it and don't enjoy it, don't make them do it again. That's not the same as forcing them to participate in something they hate.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 11:05 PM
4

They wouldn't know, it's just a legal requirment in some custody agreements, and it goes for both parents. It's to stop spiteful/crazy exes from saying the child was kidnapped, which is all to common.
/r/MensRights19/04/17 11:24 PM
48

If he had gone bankrupt after the divorce would she be volunteering to pay half his debts? If not, she doesn't deserve half his profits.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 04:57 PM
3

I agree that it's not funny, and in poor taste, but I don't have a problem with Amazon selling it. If you don't want people to sell things that offend you then you're no better than the feminists.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 02:13 AM
1

This is sold by a third-party seller, not by Amazon. If someone reported it they would probably remove it. I personally don't see a problem with it. You can't fight feminists by acting just like them.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 02:10 AM
3

I think you'll find this is also "all good" with /r/MensRights as well. Nothing sexist happened at all.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 01:58 AM
31

a sexual assault lasts only a short time and is unlikely to have any long term consequences I was 100% with you up until that line. Sexual assault can certainly have long term consequences. Mental and emotional trauma, PTSD, STDs, etc.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 01:22 AM
11

Isn't she an anti-vaxer too? That was actually a hoax. From her facebook page... I would like to dispel the rumors about my stance on vaccines. i am not anti-vaccine. my children are vaccinated. there has been so much hysteria and anger about this issue and i hope this clears things up as far as my part.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 06:49 AM
7

Managers often earn less than the technicians they oversee. Managing, as a skill, is easy to find. Technical skills, however, require specialized training, and in lots of fields, government licencing. Technicians are expensive, but managers are a dime a dozen.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 07:29 PM
1

You don't think the way he framed it as if it applies to all feminists and not just third wave is detrimental to women who still identify as feminists but disagree completely with 3rd wave feminists possibly just as much as you do? That's all irrelevant. It's still his opinion and doesn't require a source.
/r/MensRights28/03/17 07:25 AM
4

Ideas don't have authoritative sources. That's what makes them ideas.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 05:34 PM
26

it's written as a statement of fact. Source for the rule that say opinions must be prefaced with "I think" or "I believe"?
/r/MensRights27/03/17 03:15 PM
40

It's written like a fact. Source?
/r/MensRights27/03/17 03:05 PM
28

It's an opinion, not a scientific fact. Not everything needs a source.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 02:53 PM
2

What the fuck is a marshmellon?
/r/MensRights24/03/17 09:46 AM
3

How do you feel knowing that some websites are taking your efforts to promote healthy sexual relationships (kudos to you for this by the way! i admire what you are attempting to do!) and twisting them into narratives furthering their political agendas and/or driving click-bait traffic to their websites? This is a "BuzzFeed Community" article. From the top of the article... This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a p…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:23 AM
0

It is a men's issue because most women do not have the strength to beat a man to death with their bare hands. When the situation comes up, 99.9% of the time it will be a man. It's the same with breast cancer. It's a women's issue, even though it will kill 460 men this year. Most gender issues, in reality, effect both genders. But one or the other is usually effected a lot more, making it a men's or women's issue.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 09:21 PM
3

Men being stronger than women is not a "gender role." Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans Are all men stronger than all women? No, of course not, but assuming any random male is stronger than any random female is biologically and statistically accurate, not "misogyny" or "assigning gender roles." Those things would be saying…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 09:14 PM
4

That's why OP said "The mother likely won't be physically capable of pulling the pedo off the kid and immobilizing him."
/r/MensRights15/03/17 07:02 PM
4

The average male is much stronger than the average female. That's biology, not misogyny.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 05:37 PM
23

Ah! Good logic! I'll shut my mouth now. :P You must be new to the internet. You're supposed to keep arguing and tell OP to eat at least 50 bags of dicks, not admit you were wrong...
/r/MensRights06/03/17 09:36 PM
186

Why do you assume they'll care?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 09:18 PM
20

she won't have had time to develop job skills. Bullshit. I was a stay-at-home dad. As soon as my youngest child went to kindergarten I had 8 hours a day free and I went to college. I now make more money than my wife.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 02:05 AM
41

It has nothing to do with masculinity OR femininity I think it does. In my experience, most women just don't know how to actually play with kids. All kids, boys and girls, love physical play, but adult women never seem to "get it," and many are scared of it. When my three kids were little their favorite game was "monster." I would be the monster by sitting in the middle of the floor covered with a huge quilt. They would try to tap me on the head without getting "eaten by the monster," which mean…
/r/MensRights14/01/17 07:29 PM
1

I have no problem with this. Google absolutely should hire the "top female students." The problem is when companies want the "bottom female students" over the "top male students."
/r/MensRights30/12/16 03:40 PM
5

Then why do boys get worse high school grades in math and science? Because grades don't measure actual ability or knowledge. I knew every bit of math in my high school classes, but failed because I never did my homework. I didn't see the point of wasting time doing math problems that I already knew how to do. Many boys tend to think like that, but many girls have more of a "do what you're supposed to do" mindset when it comes to school.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 09:07 PM
9

Feminism has been around since 1837. It was originally about gender equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#History
/r/MensRights08/11/16 08:57 PM
9

If it were me I probably wouldn't want to see the kid So if you had a 15 year-old child and suddenly found out she wasn't biologically yours you would just abandon her? Sorry, but that's terrible.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:06 AM
3

Women defy feminists to choose lower-paying careers in nursing or teaching rather than STEM Nursing is a STEM field, and it is not low paying. Comparing it to being a teacher is crazy.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 07:28 PM
2

I'm offended by the word "retard." You've been reported.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 09:43 PM
1

And other articles specifically say it was a random person at the airport that called police. People [the Magazine], citing anonymous sources, reported that an anonymous tip from a witness on the airport tarmac prompted the investigation. TMZ's sources said that Jolie and the couple's children were on the jet with Pitt and that Pitt attempted to exit the scene in an airport fuel truck. http://www.businessinsider.com/brad-pitt-under-investigation-for-child-abuse-allegations-reports-2016-9 Jolie w…
/r/MensRights22/09/16 06:09 PM
2

Yes, it was a random person at the airport that called in it. People need to read before they jump to conclusions.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 02:37 PM
-3

Strawman much? Not all females are getting PhD's in feminism. The top female dominated doctoral degrees are in the healthcare fields. Mostly nurse practitioner doctorates. https://www.aei.org/publication/women-earned-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2014-for-6th-straight-year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-136-to-100/
/r/MensRights19/09/16 06:18 PM
-2

Tell that to these 56 babies, all abondoned in dangerous places in Florida since the Safe Haven laws were put in place. And that's only Florida... I can't imagine the number nationwide.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 09:15 PM
0

There is literally no target audience for it. Tell that to the 56 babies unsafely abandoned in Florida since the Safe Haven laws were enacted. Unfortunately you can't tell it to 32 of them, since they died. 243 babies, on the other hand, were saved by the Safe Haven laws, since they we abandoned at fire stations, hospitals, etc. So yes, at least 299 mothers, in Florida alone, needed to be told not the throw their babies away in unsafe places. Source: http://asafehavenfornewborns.com/what-we-do/s…
/r/MensRights08/09/16 09:05 PM
6

That didn't happen. The female soldier did not meet performance objectives required for assignment to the 75th Ranger Regiment.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 03:10 PM
1

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights03/09/16 02:46 PM
3

Charles Fourier coined the term "feminism" and started the movement in 1837. Fourier believed that all important jobs should be open to women on the basis of skill and aptitude rather than closed on account of gender. He spoke of women as individuals, not as half the human couple. Fourier saw that "traditional" marriage could potentially hurt woman's rights as human beings and thus never married. Writing before the advent of the term 'homosexuality', Fourier held that both men and women have a w…
/r/MensRights06/08/16 05:41 AM
1

If you read her comments it's clear she's not a modern feminist. She still thinks feminism means "equal rights for women." This women has been mislead by feminists and is figuring out it's all bullshit. You should be helping and encouraging her, not insulting her.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 08:28 PM
-1

I still believe women generally have to live with more injustice and bigotry than men do. You're probably right, but so what? Black people generally have to live with more injustice and bigotry women. Does that mean we should ignore women's issue and focus only on what's best for black people? Everyone needs to fight for both men's and women's rights. Right now, there are very few people fighting for men's rights.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 08:25 PM
3

I third it. I, just like most other people here, am a strong supporter of equal rights for women. That is not the goal of the current "feminist" movement, however.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 08:19 PM
7

Go back to your kind. Fuckin feminists.....waaaah, I got censored by feminists! Where is a man (or mens group) to save me!?!? I'm sorry you have to deal with this crap. We gets lots of trolls that make accounts just to post stuff like this in /r/MensRights. Most are from the same subreddit that banned you, and they post in threads like yours to make you "see the light" about how we're all assholes.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 08:16 PM
9

That's because you think feminism means "equal rights for women," but it doesn't. Feminism started that way, but the movement has been stolen by radicals and is now about taking away men's rights and giving superior rights to women. That is why they banned you. You questioned the feminist view of taking rights away from men and giving them only to women. You are not a feminist. You are a proponent of equal rights for all genders. They're not the same thing.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 07:21 PM
2

I've seen people crap on feminists for wanting to teach men how not to rape, and rightfully so as women have a responsibility to ensure their own saftey. So you'd be fine with white people teaching black people not to steal?
/r/MensRights29/07/16 03:48 AM
1

Yes, on both counts.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 10:20 PM
1

Well if you read the article you'd know that the case in hand is about a guy who was forced to take a drug test because the police that came to his house for a domestic disturbance call decided that the guy had become "fidgety". The article is full of inaccurate information, so I'm going to assume this is false as well. That is illegal and doesn't happen. The medical staff would never go along with it.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 09:39 PM
1

And cops don't do it. Nurses do it under state law. The cops don't order or perform the procedure.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 09:14 PM
1

It is done to women, so this is not a gender issue. It is just done to men 99% of the time because women do not refuse to pee in the cup themselves. The "ain't nobody watching me piss" attitude is just more common in males, and about 80% of DUIs are commited by males, and that is the most common reason for the forced testing.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 09:08 PM
1

Of course people are arrested for other drug related issues, but forced drug testing isn't done for non DUI crimes. The police cannot force any medical procedures at all. The procedures are forced by doctors/nurses. The police simply stand outside the room and wait, just like they do for any medical issue for any arrested person. The police don't order the tests, don't perform the procedures, and have no say in anything. If you disagree with it be mad at the politicians that passed the law requi…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 09:00 PM
1

I've never personally seen a woman refuse, but yes, if she did she would be forced. This simply isn't a gender discrimination issue. Women tend to comply with the test, so they rarely have to be forced.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 08:49 PM
5

No, she's probably too dumb to fill out the voter registration form.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:25 PM
17

She's a little thick, isn't she No, she probably actually believes that 100% of men want to rape women. Remember, in her mind "rape" doesn't mean "attack a woman and forcefully have sex with her." In her mind, "rape" can be as simple as talking to her if she doesn't want you to.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:22 PM
1

Transport is fine, but are you actually required to do medical procedures on someone that refuses the procedure? The nurses in the hospital do the catheterizations, not me. I do other things on a daily basis to people that refuse, however. If you are not mentally capable of consenting to a procedure then I do not need consent to do it. As long as the procedure is in your best interest or required by law then it can be done, even if you don't want it. That included intoxicated people, which is wh…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:49 PM
1

Lots of medical fields, including emergency medicine and psych, can't get consent from a lot of the patients. It is not the "fucking pillar" of anything.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:25 PM
1

And you are seriously ignorant of what urinary catheterization actually is. Any "serious masochist" would be bored to death, since it's painless. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be done to every hospitalized person in the world on a routine basis.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:18 PM
1

There's definitely nociceptors in your bladder. Those are stretch receptors, so you know when your bladder is full. You literally cannot feel pain from anything touching or poking your bladder like a catheter would.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:12 PM
1

Woman sues Sevier County for 'forced catheterization' http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4786992
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:09 PM
0

Would you do this to a woman as well, strap her down, put a device in her vagina and extra whatever is needed AND would you feel the same way about it. Yes, except no one would put a urinary catheter in a vagina, since there's no urine in there. A women would be treated the exact same way in this situation, and a quick google search will show you that it has been. This discussion has nothing to do with gender.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:05 PM
1

the only reason people support this sort of breach of human rights is because they never experience it themselves. I've had a urinary catheter myself twice in my life, so that arguement is invalid. It is scary the first time because you don't know what to expect, but it is a painless (yet uncomfortable) procedure. Unlike waterboarding, it is also optional in this situation. They people could have a blood test or pee in a cup if they prefer. Catheterization is only used as a last resort if they r…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:58 PM
3

A drug test of some type is required by law, but you can choose the type of test you would like to take. If you don't want a urinary catheter you can have a blood test, so catheterization is voluntary.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:57 PM
1

It's not a lie. patient.info is hardy a reliable medical source. Catheterisation is one of the most common medical procedures done, and it's done to the sickest individuals, since almost every bedridden person in the world has one. I've had it done myself. The idea of it is scary, but it's painless. Why catheterise when a blood sample is simpler? Because the person has refused to have a blood draw or to give a urine sample voluntarily. You cannot take blood from a person unless they are perfectl…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:52 PM
1

Is this something you would be required to do Yes. I'd be fired if I refuse to transport them to the hospital. If so, do you find it unethical? Not at all. The law requires a drug/alcohol test if someone is involved in a drug/alcohol related crime involving a serious injury. The majority of these people have just killed or injured an innocent person, and I have no problem helping to collect the evidence needed to convict them. People are saying "innocent until proven guilty" and "they haven't be…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:43 PM
1

You can't take blood from someone without their consent. In some places it's illegal, and everywhere it's physically impossible, since it requires the person remain perfectly still in order to place a needle in a vein.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:34 PM
0

Once you open that can of worms, you cannot close it. Today it's this, tomorrow it's that. The "slippery slope" is another can of worms... If you can tell me you have forced this procedure on a woman before, then the ethics behind it can be independently debated. I've never seen a woman refuse to take the voluntary test, so no woman has ever been forced. The type of people that refuse are homophobic "no dude is going to watch me piss" type people that have just committed a violent drug/alcohol r…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:43 AM
2

wouldn't they have to do some kind of spinal block or something in order to numb internal parts like the bladder and urethra Internal organs like the bladder have no pain receptors. No anesthetic would ever be used for a urinary catheter. Giving it would be 10x as painful and dangerous as the actual procedure.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 02:16 AM
-4

So you agree that the state should be able to collect evidence from you against your will? In the case of drug/alcohol testing, where the evidence is going to biologically disappear in a matter of hours, yes.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:59 AM
0

I've never seen a woman refuse to take a drug test, so I've never seen a woman forced to do it. There's nothing exempting women, they just tend to do it voluntarily. Plus the demographics that need the tests are male-dominated, so it's rarely needed from a woman. Plus, it does happen to women on occasion... http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4786992
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:38 AM
5

That's normal. All urinary catheters are inserted without anesthetic, except for the tiny amount of lidocaine thats in the lubricant. It's a slightly uncomfortable, but not painful, procedure.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:30 AM
-3

Because the law says it is. If a person is involved in a DUI and kills someone in a car crash, and refuses all forms of drug/alcohol testing, I have no problem with the state forcing a test. I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:24 AM
-5

Paramedic here. I'm the guy that takes the inmates/arrested individuals to the hospital for this procedure. They are given the option of a blood draw or voluntary urine test, and they have refused. That is why the procedure is forced.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:12 AM
8

The articles are sensationalized and badly written (probably on purpose). "The police" are not inserting urinary catheters. If you read the articles you will see that the procedures "are conducted on a regular basis by health-care workers at hospitals," not by police. As a paramedic I can tell you that this is done all over the country, and only when the patient refuses to have his blood drawn or take a voluntary urine test.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 01:08 AM
56

Yep. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/34ogjp/woman_starts_all_female_company_to_realize_her/
/r/MensRights06/06/16 07:02 AM
15

with links to the proof that this was a false allegation What? If I accuse you of rape will you be able to provide links proving your innocence?
/r/MensRights05/06/16 11:31 AM
5

public schools don't have online schooling for free for public education children. Depends on where you live. My state has free online public school.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 08:23 PM
8

No, if women want "equality" there should be one restroom for all genders.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:40 PM
1

Her arguement makes sense. If all females are given the vaccine for free then all straight males are automatically protected. Only gay/bi males would be having sex with unvaccinated people.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:35 PM
4

Yes, and also plenty of all-male and mixed gender startups failing for the same reason.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 02:26 AM
2

We throws millions of dollars towards prevention of insignificant things all the time. For example, only about 100 children are kidnapped by strangers every year, yet millions of parents are terrified of it. 2,600 men per year get breast cancer, but no one cares.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:29 AM
2

I'm not contradicting myself. You are failing to see the difference between child support and welfare caused by lack of child support.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 01:22 PM
1

That's not the state paying child support then trying to collect it later from the father. That's the state paying welfare to a mother because of low income. It's the same welfare any low income person gets, with or without child support. The debt is for welfare payments given because of reduced income due to failed child support payments, not child support itself. Welfare and child support are two very different things. You can get one, or the other, or both.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 12:00 PM
4

At least in some states the Government pays the mother, then creates a debt between the father and the state. There is no state that does that, and I'm not going to link to all 50 state's rules on child support. You are the one making the outrageous claim. Do you have any sources to support even one state doing what you say?
/r/MensRights12/12/15 10:43 AM
-2

Doesn't the state pay the mother regardless of money from the father No, child support does not work that way. The state collects the money from the father and gives it to the mother. The mother gets nothing if the state can't collect from the father.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 10:30 AM
2

That is not true. http://www.military.com/spouse/military-benefits/questions-benefits-how-do-i-get-my-free-military-plastic-surgery.html http://spousebuzz.com/blog/2013/09/does-tricare-cover-breast-implant-surgery.html
/r/MensRights09/12/15 04:52 PM
3

Also, they aren't employees, they're independent contractors, so the law is irrelevant in this case.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 11:28 PM
1

Well, technically "Women's Studies Professor" is a job that requires a women's studies degree /s
/r/MensRights30/11/15 11:25 PM
2

Not everyone chooses a profession based on income level. Science/math majors are not "better" than social work. You can get a job and support yourself as a licensed social worker. Also, licensed social workers make, on average, 63k per year. That's comparable to many STEM major and doesn't contribute to anyone complaining about a wage gap. http://www1.salary.com/Licensed-Clinical-Social-Worker-Salary.html
/r/MensRights30/11/15 11:11 PM
13

social work classes. It's not really relevant, but I just wanted to point out that social work is a major that leads to an actual licensed healthcare profession. It's not a worthless degree. It should not be compared to gender studies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_social_work
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:40 AM
3

You are misinformed. In one of the recordings, Jared talks about having sex with an "11- or 12-year-old girl," calling it "wonderful." And the child porn personally filmed for Jared had girls as young as 9.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 06:23 AM
0

If that woman was a convicted child rapist, like Jared, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 06:19 AM
1

No, it's not. I was just pointing out that the fact Jared is a man is irrelevant in the cartoon. The artist is joking that he will be raped in prison because Jared himself is a rapist, not because he is a man.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 06:18 AM
5

So he didn't sexually assault anyone He never violently attacked anyone, if that's what you're asking. He filmed children as young as 9, naked, without their knowledge. The youngest person he had sex with was an "11- or 12-year-old girl," calling it "wonderful."
/r/MensRights28/11/15 06:15 AM
5

He had sex with underage girls, which is statutory rape.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 03:39 AM
-3

I think the point is that Jared is a child rapist, not that he's a man.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 02:30 AM
0

it's not because those jobs are FUCKING DANGEROUS I don't think most women stay away from construction because it's dangerous, they stay away because they cannot physically do the job. The average woman is simply unable to do a construction workers job. It's a biological fact, not "the patriarchy."
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:51 PM
2

Nearly all women use porn as well, they just don't call it porn because it's not visual. They call it a "romance novel" or "erotic fiction," but it's nothing but porn.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 12:26 AM
0

the term has it's origins in gay culture. If word origins are all that matters then why are you talking about happy people? That's the original definition of "gay." You just proved that definitions evolve over time.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 06:14 PM
5

Fuckboy has lots of definitions, and in this case it doesn't mean gay. I think this is the definition she was using... A ‘fuckboy’ is a young man who sleeps with women without any intention of having a relationship http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2015/08/18/what_does_fuckboy_mean.html
/r/MensRights27/10/15 12:21 PM
25

circumsision reduces infections It does reduce infections, because cutting off a body part will eliminate the possibly of an infection of that body part. Using that same logic we should remove the breast tissue of infant girls. It prevents breast cancer 100% of the time.
/r/MensRights26/10/15 04:04 PM
1

and that whole time the old testament was law? No, and I never said it was. The Old Testament was law for the Jewish people. You are the one that incorrectly brought up Christianity, which negated most Jewish laws. I was just pointing out that your statement that Christianity hasn't existed for thousands of years is incorrect. As for your link, I have no interest in Jewish apologetic sites. If you're criticing a religion is it better to get your information from neutral sources, which in this ca…
/r/MensRights21/10/15 12:36 AM
1

Christianity hasn't existed long enough for the old testament to have been law for 'thousands of years'. Christians did not write the Old Testament. It was the exclusive law of the Jewish people for at least a thousand years before Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament Also, Christians have been around for 2000 years, which is 'thousands of years.'
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:28 PM
0

After a quick 60-second scroll through your comment history I found 3 sins you'd be stoned for under Old Testament laws. You might want to rethink your position...
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:20 AM
0

Without the wife the husband would be unable to work, or he would have to spend 50% of his income on childcare. The wife is contributing money to the household in saved expenses, so it's unfair to say the husband is paying for her food and shelter.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 06:50 AM
2

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you seriously claiming women in Saudi Arabia aren't oppressed?
/r/MensRights20/10/15 06:46 AM
1

That's fine, but even if it's not a harder job it's still a job, so it's unfair to say women were not expected to work.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 06:45 AM
0

That's exactly what I said. since 1787 many states in the US allowed all men (except slaves) to vote
/r/MensRights20/10/15 01:04 AM
0

Conviction of not registering for the draft is a felony. No one has been put on trial for that since 1986. It's one of those old laws that no one enforces, just like the many laws against adultery we still have here in America.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 12:26 AM
0

Islamic states like Saudi Arabia make that same argument today.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 12:22 AM
-3

Like I said before, history is not limited to a single time/place. I'm not from the UK, so I have no knowledge of male suffrage there, but since 1787 many states in the US allowed all men (except slaves) to vote, regardless of land owning status. And voting in the US is not dependent on military service or selective service registration. You can vote even if you do neither of those things.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 12:17 AM
3

but were not expected to work As a former stay-at-home dad, I can tell you that raising multiple children and running a household is one of the hardest jobs out there. Just because you don't get a salary doesn't mean you're "not expected to work."
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:26 PM
1

You are right during certain times/places in history, and wrong for others. "History" is not a single time or place. The fact is, in lots of different times and places, women legitimately had fewer rights then men. Just read the Old Testament. That was the only law in some places for thousands of years, and it denies almost all right to women.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:24 PM
-2

History is not limited to the feudal era. Men had had voting and property rights hundreds of years before women.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 11:21 PM
2

He was on an ocean villa in Bora Bora, like this one. http://i.imgur.com/LNjHydJ.jpg He was standing on a deck facing nothing but open ocean, and the photographer was on a boat with a long-range telephoto lens. Bieber had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 09:00 PM
13

I wouldn't go that far. Throughout history women have been mistreated and denied rights. They couldn't vote, own property, get divorced, etc. The problem is that feminists think it's still happening...
/r/MensRights19/10/15 08:45 PM
3

The bill also falls on the government if the mom doesn't step up to the plate. Why will the government pay if a woman has a child she cannot support, but deny that same right to a man? It should be provided for both genders, or none, but not just women.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:14 AM
1

The new law bans "surreptitiously recording of public officials." That's not the same thing, as is irrelevant to taking photos in a public park.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:01 AM
1

Good luck with that. Thanks. Good luck incriminating yourself while your chatting with the police.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 04:24 AM
1

You might want to actually read your "proof" next time. The first paragraph of that article says the law was overturned because it was ruled unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 02:41 AM
1

I don't live in Nazi Germany. I don't have to "show my papers" or identity myself if I didn't commit a crime. If you want to do it, fine, but most Americans don't.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 02:30 AM
1

Nothing you say to the police can help you, it can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
/r/MensRights19/10/15 01:53 AM
2

You can't walk away when approached either if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime or pending crime. I never said otherwise. I said to walk away if they don't answer "yes" when you ask if you're being detained. If you're not detained, then yes, you can walk away.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 01:13 AM
2

A traffic stop is not a voluntary encounter, you can't walk away if you are being detained.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 12:52 AM
6

Yes, I have, while dumpster diving (which is completely legal in my area).
/r/MensRights18/10/15 05:18 PM
19

I have done it, it's easy. Ask, "Am I being detained?" 99% of the time they will not answer the question, since they can't legally say "yes," but they still want you to answer their questions. If they don't give a clear "yes" say, "You're not telling me I'm detained, so I'm ending this conversation and walking away. If I am being detained just let me know and I'll be happy to comply." Then walk away. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 04:02 PM
16

The police can ask you any questions they want. The real question is when you are you required to answer them. The man should have refused to answer any questions and walked away.
/r/MensRights18/10/15 03:39 PM
2

Feminists don't want equality. Agreed, but they do want people to think they want equality. I don't see how they could oppose it while still making it look like they are for 100% equality.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 02:09 AM
2

You need to check your privilege, bro!
/r/MensRights15/10/15 08:44 AM
5

It's not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide
/r/MensRights11/10/15 03:27 AM
1

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how things should be... Whther or not it is right or wrong is a moot point. If that were true then slavery would still be legal, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and we'd all still have an 80 hour workweek. Saying "that's just how it is" doesn't bring about change.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 11:24 PM
3

the individual was entitled to take photographs and, despite Bieber being nude and in a private location, he was outside. So what? Bieber had a very reasonable expectation of privacy, even though he was outside.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 07:06 AM
2

Bieber was on a floating villa in Bora Bora. http://i.imgur.com/gDgzAxu.jpg He was outside, but he was facing nothing but open ocean. The photographer was on a boat with a long range telescopic lens.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:57 AM
-1

Justin Bieber was publicly naked Bieber was on a floating villa in Bora Bora. http://i.imgur.com/gDgzAxu.jpg He was outside, but he was facing nothing but open ocean. The photographer was on a boat with a long range telescopic lens.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:56 AM
5

There aren't many cases ptsd from pilots I hope the military isn't telling you that, because it's an outright lie. Pilots, especially drone pilots, are getting PTSD in record numbers.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:59 PM
4

Hand-to-hand and with a gun aren't the only ways to kill. Jets, torpedoes, missiles, bombs, etc. also kill. The people that operate those devices are trained killers.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:38 PM
15

http://i.imgur.com/CfDz6ZN.png
/r/MensRights04/10/15 09:18 PM
13

If women are smarter than men why did they allow a patriarchy in the first place?
/r/MensRights04/10/15 09:17 PM
1

What about expenses that aren't so easy to categorize as "for the child." Having children increases your housing expenses, water bill, more gas for your car, etc. How could that card be used to help pay rent? You could pay all the rent with it, or none of the rent, but not some of the rent...
/r/MensRights04/10/15 04:51 AM
6

Does she think fucking the President is some kind of achievement? Monica Lewinsky fucked the president and got 12 million dollars. Technically that is an achievement.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 05:10 PM
6

As a paramedic I'm going to defend Saffola and say that this is not a double standard. We all know the symptoms of a heart attack, right? The three biggest ones are chest pain, jaw pain, and pain radiating into the left arm. The problem is that those are male symptoms of a heart attack. Women rarely have those signs. Women commonly have flu-like symptoms while having a heart attack, like cold sweats, nausea or lightheadedness. A woman can have a major heart attack with absolutely no chest pain. …
/r/MensRights30/09/15 03:57 PM
2

He can still send a reasonable amount of money to support his kid. The only difference will be that he sets the amount, not a biased judge.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:16 PM
0

Yes, and all those cases are eliminated by vaccinating girls and gay/bi men. Vaccinating heterosexual males is unnecessary when you vaccinate everyone else. It's a waste of money.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 03:55 PM
1

You missed the word "heterosexual" when you read my comment. Gay/bi men are the majority of those male cancers, and they get the vaccine for free, so they don't factor into this discussion.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 03:38 PM
1

Do the math... 0.018 vs 0.0008 means women are 23 times more likely to get cancer from HPV. That's why they get the vaccine before boys.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 03:35 PM
-1

Not if free vaccinations are given to all girls, which is what we are talking about in this thread.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 12:45 AM
2

I understand where you coming from, but it doesn't change the fact that we have a finite amount of resources and have to allocate them to the most effective treatments. The unfortunately fact is that the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to vaccinate all boys could save more males lives if spent elsewhere. Yes, it sucks to be one of the few that get the rare disease, but we just don't have the resources to prevent every person from getting every disease, so we have to do what benefit…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 12:41 AM
-1

I didn't say it was harmless for men, I said it was harmless for heterosexual men. Those 12600 cancers are mostly in gay/bi men. Only 1246 are straight men. While I will admit 1246 isn't technically "harmless," it means you only have a 0.0008% chance of getting HPV related cancer as a heterosexual male. That is statistically harmless.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:55 PM
1

You do. If you are gay/bi go get the vaccination. If you aren't, don't.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:30 PM
0

Any gains by/for men were not analyzed. That's because there is nothing to analyze. We already know only 0.0016% of heterosexual men get cancer from HPV. There is no need to do an analysis to find out that giving all boys an expensive vaccine is not cost effective to stop 0.0016% of men from getting cancer. It's common sense once you look at the numbers, no analysis is necessary.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 06:10 PM
1

You are so wrong. Without the public healthcare system you'll be surrounded by people hacking tuberculosis on you all day long. Good luck not getting it!
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:58 PM
0

Giving the HPV vaccine only to women and gay/bi men does benefit everyone equally. Men and women are biologically different. Men don't need an HPV vaccine (unless gay/bi), a mammogram or a pap smear. The absence of those things doesn't mean inequality.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:55 PM
-2

Read the entire thread. Your posts have nothing to do with what we are discussing. This thread is about whether heterosexual men should get free HPV vaccinations. Men infected from birth do not need vaccinations from HPV, and in the future heterosexual men will not get HPV since it's a standard childhood vaccine for girls.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:50 PM
-1

Men don't have babies, so how is that a reason for heterosexual men to get free HPV vaccines? Have you read the thread you are replying in? You seem to be talking about HPV in general, not in the context of this thread.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:36 PM
-3

I said "heterosexual men." Gay and bi men can get a free HPV vaccination, so we are not talking about them. Men don't have a vulva or vagina. Heterosexual men don't put penises in their anus or throat, so that's not an issue. That leaves only penile cancer, which men get at a rate of 0.8 per 100,000. That means only 0.0008% of men will get penile cancer from HPV.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:26 PM
3

Not all boys want to admit or even know at 12 what their sexuality is Then they can get the vaccine later in life for free. All we know is that a nontrivial number of boys will likely get cancer 1.6 per 100,000 herterosexual men get cancer from HPV. You seriously think it's a good use of money to give every boy a vaccine for a disease that only 0.0016% of boys will ever get? That money is better spent on prostate cancer prevention, not HPV.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 05:10 PM
0

That's not a valid analogy. In a society where girls are vaccinated against HPV there is no reason to vaccinate heterosexual boys. It offers zero benefit. No one is "screwing over" heterosexual boys by not giving them an HPV vaccine.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:55 PM
0

It's not sarcastic. You are not at risk, since HPV is not harmful to heterosexual men. If you have it the worst you can do is pass it along to a woman. As long as the woman is vaccinated, like she should be, it's not an issue.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:49 PM
8

https://www.womenshealth.gov/mens-health Yes, that one is real!
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:45 PM
-3

Terrible idea... "Less benefit" isn't the same as no benefit.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:44 PM
3

Unfortunately when it comes to medical prevention treatments cost-effectiveness has to be an issue, because there isn't unlimited money to go around. It's the same reason we don't give every child in North America the Yellow Fever vaccine. Spending 100's of millions of dollars to vaccinate against something that kills a couple of people per year isn't a good use of money. That money can be spent on something that will save more lives.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:40 PM
0

You aren't getting one for free because you don't need one. HPV is dangerous for women, but 99.9% of the time is harmless for heterosexual men. It's simply a waste of money to give you the vaccine.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:33 PM
2

It's not bullshit. $14,583 vs. $442,039 are not the raw costs of the vaccine, they are the cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime. For example, say it costs $500 to give the series of HPV vaccines to one individual. That $500 treatment saves LOTS of money over the average woman's lifetime, because she will not need expensive treatments for cervical cancer later in her life. Spending that $500 on a boy, however, doesn't save any money, since HPC rarely affects men. If the girls are already vac…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:27 PM
3

Unfortunately there's no difference in how much physical capability a firefighter needs to carry an unconscious person out of a burning building.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 08:23 PM
11

Yeah, despite what feminists want to be true they are no match for males in a fight. The average male can kill the average female with his bare hands, if he wants to. Females could never put all men in "some kind of camp."
/r/MensRights13/09/15 06:53 PM
2

It's probably because polygraph tests aren't allowed as evidence of a crime in most states. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html
/r/MensRights29/08/15 08:35 PM
2

No, the fifth amendment applies to the person being charged with the crime, not the accuser. Nothing an alleged rape victim can say will self incrimination her, because she is not charged with a crime and is not on trial.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 08:31 PM
1

Yes, it should.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:23 PM
1

Moving to a different country is too expensive to be an option for most Americans.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:22 PM
1

My number is the average from all US coal miners. http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_wages_state_industries.pdf No one has to be a miner. There are always other choices for jobs.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:54 PM
3

Good point. The US hasn't had a "war" since WWII.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:50 PM
2

That what I said... Murder vs killing is just legal mumbo-jumbo for the exact same result.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:47 PM
0

Yes, who wins the superbowl is also random. If you played 10 superbowl games with the exact same teams would the same team win every time? Could the number of wins by a certain team be predicted? No, because there are too many random factors involved.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:41 PM
2

Historically you are right about miners. Today the average coal miner makes $82,000. Modern miners are truly gambling with their lives for a high salary.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:36 PM
0

You just proved my original point. "Murder" and "legal killing" are the same thing. It's randomly labeled one or the other depending on who wins.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:22 PM
3

Every soldier that dies is a hero to one group and an evil murderer to another. Like I said, the laws and labels are meaningless.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:05 PM
3

. You sign up to preserve and defend the constitution, or your country, or for college. Whatever. Now you are in and have no choice in the matter. So a terrorist is no longer a murderer once he's recruited and signs up to fight for ISIS? I doubt you'd agree with that. That's the problem. People think killing for their cause is always noble and the enemy is evil. Those on the opposing side think the same thing. It's all murder. And yes, a miner is voluntering for a chance to die. He gambles his l…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:56 PM
0

"Legal" has no meaning in war. It's all grey area. Was it legal for US soldiers to shoot British soldiers in the Revolutionary War? Under British law they were unlawfully fighting the government. So George Washington is an illegal murderer in Britian but a legal killer in the US. In war those words have no real meaning.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:48 PM
9

Under a draft I'd agree with you. But if someone voluntarily signs up for employment where killing is in the job description they cannot say they had no choice in the matter.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:35 PM
55

The word "legal" has no real meaning when different groups with different laws are fighting. Is an ISIS insurgent shooting an American soldier legal? By his law it is, but by ours it isn't. Murder vs killing is just legal mumbo-jumbo for the exact same result.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:26 PM
58

It's government approved murder. What else would you call it?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:06 PM
154

Being a solider is a job. Soldiers are overwhelmingly male. 1,354,664 American soldiers have been murdered in the workplace.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:05 PM
5

In that situation, no, you are not on the hook for child support because you had proof it was not yours before the birth. However, if you had thought the child to be yours at birth, then later found out it wasn't, you would still have to pay child support.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:29 AM
6

Nope. In many states even if you prove they are not yours you still have to pay child support.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:33 AM
2

Refutations of the "studies" in Africa which allegedly showed a reduction in the transmission of HIV. You can't refute that, because it's true. Chopping off a body part, whether entirely or partially, will reduce the chances of that body part contracting a disease. However, if you are going to use that logic then you must also remove infant girl's breast tissue. That, after all, will reduce breast cancer rates by 100%. Explain it to her that way and maybe she'll see how stupid "cutting off the b…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 11:03 AM
1

That's true, but people that aren't so smart don't get as many choices, so a higher number of them end up in infantry.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 01:11 PM
2

so which is it? It's either one, depending on the person. If you're intelligent and do well you'll learn high paying skills, if you're an idiot you'll go into the infantry and learn nothing useful.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:11 AM
8

Single moms don't abandon their kids though. What? Moms abandon kids all the time.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 06:21 AM
1

That law requires the man to be married to the children's mother. person who acts as a parent to the children of his or her spouse may have a legal obligation to support those step-children after the relationship with the spouse ends The claim I'm disputing is that an ex-boyfriend of the mother was forced to pay child support for kids that are not his?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 06:03 PM
1

Would you like to debate anything else? I never debated anything. I do thank you for the relevant links, and it appears I was wrong, but I've been nothing but polite to you so I don't understand why you are being an asshole.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:43 PM
0

Then let me clarify. I do not believe a step-father has to pay child support for any step-children. This entire thread is about step-fathers. That is the issue we are talking about here. I assumed when I said "You do not have to pay child support for any kid that's not yours" that people would understand we are talking about step-parents, and I apologize for the confusion.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:12 PM
1

No, they aren't. Everyone can get the same amount of Federal Student loans (up to cost of attendance, of course). The government may subsidized the loan (pay some of the interest for you) if you are poor, but the loan amount is the same. http://www.fafsa.com/student-financial-aid/fafsa-student-loans
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:52 PM
3

It's hard to believe because no one can show any proof of it actually happening. Do you have some?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:46 PM
0

I never made those comments, /u/Shadoe17 did. You're debating the wrong person, which is probably why your links aren't relevant to my position :)
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:42 PM
3

That link is about men who sign the birth certificate then later find out they are not the father. The comment I responded to said "If you simply live with the mother and have been providing material support, they can sue you for child support in the event of a breakup. " Do you have an example of that?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:38 PM
0

The average age people have their first child is 25. When that child is 18 they will be 43. By the time the kid is done with college (and the 22k has been saved) the parents will be 47. In 40 years, after the money grows to 1 million, they will be 87. Retiring at 87 is not retiring "ten years early." Even if you had the kid right when you finished puberty, then that kid was a genius and went to college at age 10, you would still be 67 before you could retire a millionaire under your plan.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:33 PM
0

Those links are not about step-parents, they are about paternity issues. That's not the same thing. This entire thread is about men who married single mothers and became step-parents. It's not about paternity issues, DNA testing, finding out a child is not really yours, etc. No step-father, to my knowledge, has ever been forced to pay child support for a step-child. I could be wrong, and if I am let me know about that issue, not an issue where a man finds out a baby is not his.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:23 PM
1

Federal student loans are not need-based. Your EFC is irrelevant and everyone gets the same amount, no matter if you're dirt-poor or a billionaire. As for private student loans, being a divorced, single parent with a low income is less likely to get you those loans.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:04 PM
-2

I can't find any instance in your examples of step-fathers forced to pay for the education of non-biological children. You do not have to pay child support for any kid that's not yours.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:40 PM
1

$22,000 in Pell Grants will not allow you to retire 10 years early. That is the only college money the government gives you for being poor.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:36 PM
13

I have a hard time believing this. Can you provide a source that shows where an ex-boyfriend of the mother has been sued and forced to pay child support for kids that are not his?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:32 PM
2

First off, no parent, step or biological, is required to pay for a child's college education. Second, no one is forced to marry a single mother. You can "accidently" have a biological child, but you can't have a step-child unless you want a step-child. I have two step-children, and if I did not want to raise them I would not have married their mother. If you don't want to love, support and raise children that are not your own do NOT marry a woman with children. It's not fair to the kids.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:30 PM
3

What exactly is "unwanted, coerced sex?" That does sound like rape to me.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 12:41 PM
1

A generic "assistant retail management" job is not exactly the same as being an assistant manager at a major department store. Places like Dillard's, JC Pennies, and Macy's require a college degree to be an assistant manager.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 08:43 PM
1

Sure there are, they just aren't jobs in the psych field. I have a friend that got a psych degree and got a job, straight out of college, as the assistant manager of a department store. It's not glamorous and it won't make you rich (she makes 35k), but it's a job with a livable wage.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 07:10 PM
2

Just because it doesn't lead directly to employment doesn't make it unuseful, it just makes it unuseful for employment. I have one and it's extremely useful to me, and worth every penny I paid for it.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 07:07 PM
40

You do know that "liberal arts" and "art" aren't the same thing, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education
/r/MensRights02/05/15 09:26 AM
5

With self employed physicians setting their own pay, why should the wage gap even exist? The largest factor in the "wage gap" is that it's a lifetime average, and most women take time off from their careers to have children.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 03:33 AM
1

In the US it's very rare to actually serve your entire prison sentence. You almost always get released much earlier. How much earlier depends on your crime and where you live. In Texas, for example, people serve an average of 58% of their sentences. In Los Angeles county, California it's about 10% for males, and 5% for females.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 03:04 PM
1

Would she agree with doing it to infant girls?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:22 PM
5

Removing the breast tissue of infant girls will reduce the rate of breast cancer down to 0%. That will save lives, so do you suggest we start doing that?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:01 PM
2

Of course cutting of a body part will reduce medical problems of that body part. Removing the breast tissue of infant girls will reduce the rate of breast cancer down to 0%. I wonder if pro-circumcision people would suggest we start doing that?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:00 PM
11

My wife and I have agreed to not get married and it is great. I just checked your post history to see if you call her your "wife" on a regular basis. It seems that you do. Congratulations! If you live in Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah, Texas or Washington DC you are legally married! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States
/r/MensRights20/04/15 12:59 PM
2

I doubt teaching has a stereotype for men. In my high school in central Florida I had more male teachers than female teachers, and the divide was close to 50% throughout the school. That's because you are singling out a specific group of teachers. Most teachers are female because almost all elementary and preschool teachers are female.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 06:10 PM
-1

A citation is not needed, because you don't need to cite any type of research or study to prove this. Just google it.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 05:58 PM
-4

Sure, but only a small fraction of male-dominated careers are focused on helping to better people/society. The difference is that almost all female-dominated professions do it.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 01:17 PM
-7

Simple observation is all that's needed, not a citation. Most careers that help society are dominated by women... Nursing, teaching, childcare, social work, etc.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 12:44 PM
3

Up until the mid 20th century almost all career fields were dominated by males, since women rarely worked. The careers that are now considered "female dominated" were just as low paying back when they were male dominated. Low pay came first. Females entered those careers because they were family-friendly, safe, flexible and had a low barrier of entry (which is why they were low-paying in the first place).
/r/MensRights16/04/15 01:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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