TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

psilorder Archive

View 5 posts and 445 comments by psilorder on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Saying jokes like "oh this silly guy thinks the only way he can make women comfortable is by avoiding them" Is this really a joke? It is making fun of you but.... Because, while i didn't follow it extensively, my take-away from the Man Vs Bear thing is that unknown men make women uncomfortable by being unknown. It's the old "poisoned candy" thing. They'd be fine with a known safe man in the woods, their problem is that they don't know which man it would be. Which means that the only way for a ma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/06/24 08:23 AM
3

To some degree: "So what? I mean, what EXACTLY am i supposed to do about it? Am i supposed to start a vigilante group and patrol the nights? Am i supposed to forbid women from walking alone at night? Monitor their interactions with men at my workplace?"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/03/24 05:50 PM
12

Oh, you mean as in you were making a joke? I Thought you were saying that the saying was "throw someone onto the bus".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/24 06:04 AM
18

It's onto the bus What? As in the saying is "throwing someone onto the bus" ?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/03/24 05:18 AM
78

In another thread someone claimed that she was simply against it because Manhattan was trying to shift homeless out of manhattan and into brooklyn and queens. Well, she's still using language that throws men under the bus.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/24 09:15 PM
20

I find the part about "good advice" interesting. What makes something good advice? Well, comparably, it probably is a more complete set of guidelines. I haven't watched any Andrew Tate so i don't know but i imagine he says (paraphrasing) "do this, do this and do this". I think that part of the lefts unwillingness to give good advice is because they don't want to say "women should be receptive to X".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/08/23 07:33 AM
9

Yeah, it's not "men are responsible for 41% more emissions than women", it's "mens DIETS are responsible for 41% more emissions than womens DIETS". https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/meat-eating-mens-diets-worse-climate-womens-diets-finds-new-study#:~:text=Men%20who%20want%20to%20fight,higher%20than%20for%20vegetarian%20diets. Which links to: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/935263 So, out of all food related emissions men are responsible for 1.41/2.41=58,5% But that's for all food related e…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/09/22 07:39 PM
13

Well, as far as i know, one of the requirements when you train your dog is "clear, consistent behavior of the type that your dog understands". Which might not be a bad thing to apply to relationships. Not that i think that's the point of those books.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/22 10:32 AM
9

Well, besides me not being out looking myself (i have low energy so i have a hard time imagining how having a partner could improve my life instead of just adding more social obligations.) The point was more in regards to people giving that as an answer to "How do i meet women?" And yeah, i think that it is a bad answer, mostly for the same reasons you give. It basically feels like they want to answer "you don't." but don't want to say it outright. Because when someone asks for help you're not s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 09:19 AM
39

Makes me think of the last time i saw the question "how do i meet women?" on AskReddit (i think it was). Some responses were stuff like "well, find hobbies where you can meet women". Well, besides needing to know what hobbies generally have single women and which of the women in the hobby are single, what if the guy has no interest in those hobbies? (especially if they cost money to take up? Such as horse riding.) There have been complaints about guys trying to befriend women because they want t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 07:28 AM
3

That's what i meant by "if they need higher requirements on some to compensate for others". I assume if they lower the requirements for female astronauts so that they go below what is actually needed, then they will have to compensate by having even higher requirements for the male astronauts. And if they do that, then there should be two classes of astronauts. Or possibly 3 i guess. One lowered, 1 raised, 1 current standard. So for each Lowered they need 1 Raised (Heightened?) so a crew of 3 co…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/22 12:46 PM
18

I guess i support equality of opportunity with a floor of equality of outcome. No one should fall below a certain level but if they can achieve higher for themselves, good on them. But that level should be raised the more we automate. Automation shouldn't be allowed to force the average standard of living down. ​ So yes, we should try and have 50% of astronauts be women, even if we have to lower the women's requirements to get enough female candidates. I guess i can agree with this mostly, but t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/03/22 11:25 AM
1

That it becomes more difficult to tell if someone is sexist towards women, if they are also an asshole to men because they can go "i'm not sexist, i treat everyone that way!".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/22 06:10 PM
8

As a non-american, i thought liberal was another word for left-wing? Aren't republicans complaining about the "liberal media" ?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/22 12:46 PM
23

Yes, IF one assumes it is a natural biological difference (debatable....) then giving more resources to projects to extend mens lives would be unequal. But that would mean that we shouldn't be giving any help for "natural conditions". Oh, you need to buy products to control the results of your menstruation? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51629880 Sorry, not our problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/01/22 01:04 PM
6

The problem is bad connotations can be gained regardless of the word itself. So it needs to be a term that the bad eggs wouldn't want to use for themselves, otherwise they will and that will taint the new term. "i'm not an incel, i'm just forced single!"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/22 01:06 PM
40

It kinda sounds like "FINE! We can't kill them all off....But if they disappeared, would you really want them back? SEE! You wouldn't!" But a deep look at it could actually be interesting. What sacrifices would women have to do to keep society going? And I don't mean as in "some would have to be sewage workers" (that's a given), but how would the world be affected by moving people around to fill sudden holes in the workforce at powerplants and similar? Would some smaller towns and villages be ab…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/12/21 05:50 PM
25

Is she gish galloping or am i just slow at listening? It feels like i am not given time to hear what she says. God knows why i decided to do this: [as always: from a white, cishet woman's perspective] i'm back with a longwinded hot-take throughout my life i've been encouraged to seek protection from men by other men but i've not been empowered to cultivate my own boundaries. this isn't the result of a negligent nurturance but of a social environment i recognize as flawed. Women either fit into a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/21 06:35 PM
16

It is the bitterest of ironies that this men’s debate takes place today, on that very day. Sounds like he should have insisted that they hold a meeting on the 19th then. (I assume they hold meetings weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. If they have them more often, why wasn't International Mens Day talked about earlier?) centuries of subjugating and belittling half of the population, and having to be dragged kicking and screaming to give women the vote. [...] Far too many men still do not accept the re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/11/21 01:19 PM
3

Why only a part? (honestly asking) I wish for the advancement of it though I do not know whether it will be deemed a good idea in the end because the child may be negatively affected by not being close to the mother. Of course then the question becomes, should we abandon the tech or try to solve that problem?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/21 01:45 PM
1

I haven't had any need to seek a shelter after domestic violence so I don't know how functions. But I meant social security and it does catch men, as I have had to use it. It does require you to be looking for work if you are able.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/21 03:38 AM
3

What am I supposed to do about it anyway? Am I supposed to go patrolling? Forcibly adopt anyone young enough? I already support having a powerful security net and it pretty much exists here in Sweden. Am I supposed to go around threatening politicians who don't vote my way? How am I supposed to "fix" violence?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/21 08:39 AM
6

If you have nothing to loose, you have nothing to fight for. And if you have nothing to fight for, why not leave? No, actually that's wrong. You have yourself to fight for and the easiest way to do that is to leave.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/08/21 03:34 PM
2

Why do such rituals occur, and can circumcision be analogised? Why are rites of passage for boys near-universal in cultures, and why do they often involve pain or a dangerous or difficult task? Why should it matter that it is a "physical marker of an in-group" ? Why should it matter that it is a rite of passage?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/08/21 01:41 PM
13

Yeah, pretty sure i've seen the concept several times on MensRights as an argument for why they wouldn't really want to "kill all men". ....Or maybe it was just "if men stopped working for a day".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/08/21 06:51 AM
5

Because they assume there is nothing they are guilty of. (I was about to write "should be accountable for" but that is something different. You can be guilty but not be held accountable.)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/21 03:41 PM
18

Well, it sounds like they are saying that rape being gender-specific is the only reason men aren't accusing women of rape (more). that is, that 1% would balloon to much more. Honestly, it might be true that rapists would try to get out in front of the accusation, just like some people sue before the offended party can sue or counter-accuse like people do countersuits. This is not a good enough reason for keeping it gender-specific.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/21 03:39 PM
-1

I din't think they consider men less worthy of justice...They just don't think there are situations where men need to get justice against women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/06/21 03:31 PM
1

More than doing so with anything else? no.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/21 04:58 AM
5

Twice as many men than women are hardcore gamers. Not sure what this was supposed to mean, bracketed as it was by problems men have. Is he saying that being a hardcore gamer is a problem? Or a symptom of a problem? Why does it need to be either? Otherwise a nice article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/06/21 07:17 AM
4

I feel like it is supposed to be read "and male gentalia in some cases (foreskins)"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/21 07:52 AM
17

If we assume that "do you want to be my girlfriend?" Is asking them to submit, then the same goes for them asking "do you want to be my boyfriend?" Just with the girl "asking for submission". Also goes for "can I be your boyfriend?" But the asker is asking permission to submit. It would have to be "do you want to be in a relationship with me?" But it all ignores "you are mine and I am yours". She is his girlfriend, he is her boyfriend. Why is either considered subservient?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/21 06:58 PM
5

The thing is they are doing both. They are saying "women are just fine...." but also things like "women are more harshly affected by prison sentences so they should not be sentenced to prison". What Hayek seems to be (as i haven't read his whole argument) pointing out is that things like the latter would mean that women are weaker than men since they cannot handle prison.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/05/21 06:58 AM
2

1) Mostly pro. If there are abuses those need to be addressed. If that results in some types of porn not being made because there are no willing participants, then so be it. But saying "there are abuses so it should all be banned" i think is too broad. And for those that believe that doing porn is abusive in itself, well, i don't think all porn actors and porn actresses agree. (I think the talk is mostly about abuse of the actresses but wanted to say both.) Like with prostitution i believe in re…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/03/21 12:51 PM
6

Image 4-1: The subs he most frequently visits? r/MensRights r/IncelExit r/LeftWingMaleAdvocate [sic] (start parenthesis) aka, r/MenWhiningAboutWomensRights(end parenthesis) Image 4-2: All of his posts and comments? Well, let's have a look at them... Image 4-3: (Subimage 6: a comment OP made on an r/MensRights post by OP titled 'Imagine a guy responding to a girl who expressed her preferences with "Fuck you"...sOOoooO eNtiTlEd' Comment being: This is less about "some people" and more about the ov…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/21 05:45 PM
8

image 1-1: Let's look at the first top comment: (Sub-image 1) It has a whopping 14 awards! I wonder what sort of funny, insightful, educational or truthful comment could receive so many awards? It has to be a pretty good take if most of the people on this sub liked it Image 1-2: ...Oh it's written by a (male emoji) But that's okay! It's not like i'm a misandrist or anything. I believe that men "can" have good takes (sometimes). Usually when someone says "please read my whole post/comment before …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/21 05:45 PM
20

So, because you didn't want someone to get into a physical fight for you, you must have been lying? Meaning the only solution to violence is violence? Isn't that the thing that has been preached for decades? "Violence isn't the solution" ? And they're apparently also claiming that all people who are abused are aware that the abuser will never change and can see that their only option is to break up / run away? Or is it only women who are allowed to get into that mental state where they just keep…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/03/21 01:52 PM
1

What business is it to you if they prefer virgins or latex or 8 feet tall clowns? So, if i say something that you believe is an insult towards you, that is none of your business? Because he's not the Borg. That is not a very convincing argument to those believe otherwise. Remember, just because i present arguments on their behalf does not mean it is me you need to convince.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 06:03 PM
0

And the point i was making, that because of how our culture was earlier, men are not being given the benefit of the doubt if they say "i prefer virgins". What does it matter if someone prefers virgins? How can you tell that someone just wants someone as inexperienced as they or just prefers someone sexually naive from them saying that? How can you tell that they are not simply a backwards person? Because there are backwards individuals even in cultures that aren't backwards. Why should people ou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 04:52 PM
1

Well, yeah. And that is why i was confused. You asked Except its not for a LTR, so what does it matter? And expanded on it with That specific men who want someone as inexperienced as them, or who prefer someone sexually naive than someone sexually blasé, are out to punish women not being pure. Which sounds like "What does it matter if some men are out to punish women for not being pure?" Which as you say, is evil and something to curb. Which is why i assumed you meant "What does it matter if som…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 04:28 PM
1

Hang on, was that a typo or something? " That specific men [...] are out to punish women not being pure" ? Because if it wasn't then your question sounds like "Except it's not for a long term relationship so what does it matter that specific men [...] are out to punish women not being pure?" If you are shaming someone for something, why should anyone care that you are being shamed for shaming them? Did you mean more that "are disregarding women who are not pure" ? Wanting someone as inexperience…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 03:23 PM
1

"Except it's not for a LTR, so what does it matter?" that what? That men haven't had the expectation on them to be pure? That she does hookups rather than cheating? That older women aren't considered to be expecting their partners to be pure? And keep in mind this is about why they "are not shamed", not "shouldn't they be shamed". You asked " Why are they not shamed for not being virgin themselves and desiring it?". That is a different question with a different answer than "Shouldn't they be sha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 02:52 PM
1

The promiscuity doesn't have anything to do with monogamy or cheating. It has to do with sex-being-cheap, something they do every week. I was more talking about a woman who does hookups than cheating but ok. So, a married couple who has sex every week would be promiscuous? Some mature women prefer virgin young men and like deflowering them (not within marriage). Why are they not shamed for not being virgin themselves and desiring it? Again, it goes back to the purity thing. Men haven't had the s…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/21 06:22 AM
3

Sure it is okay to have a preference based on personal values, but why are those personal values? Are they really separate from valuing purity? Having sex before marriage doesn't have to mean you sleep around. Why would a person who is monogamous in a series of relationships be called more promiscuous than someone who waited until marriage? And what about divorce? Say you marry a virgin (you yourself being virgin too, i assume) and have sex. Is divorce now forbidden? Regardless of how you feel a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/21 03:02 PM
3

Yeah, in this way having a preferrence based on height is even worse because you can do nothing about your height. But you can change your virginity status (albeit only once and only from virgin to non-virgin). in a way, yeah, it is worse, but there isn't the component of shaming the choice. This is shaming of course. But there is a leap between "I prefer virgins." and "Women with sexual experience are impure." And the reason you have to deal with people making that leap is because there have be…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/21 02:43 PM
-3

As i said, it is all tied into the pure/impure concept in the common perception. It's not quite the same as with height. There isn't any ideas about tall meaning they are good and short meaning they are bad. Also a tall man cannot be made short. (Without losing his legs but that's not quite the same as "being made short".) Also there is some ideas about calling it height-shaming when women on dating apps say they won't date anyone less than 6 feet tall. And what would you call it if someone said…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/21 12:12 PM
12

I guess that tied up in the concept of women being "pure" when they're virgins , which means they would be "impure" when not a virgin. So the problem is that men who want to be with virgins are seen as shaming women who aren't virgins. Is that part of the kink? That other women are seen as impure? If so, should a kink be allowed to go un-shamed if it shames others? If not, i think it should be allowed to go un-shamed, but it would have to navigate the waters of making it seem such. And i don't k…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/21 11:44 AM
3

Well, yes and no. It's about whether the needs of the child outweighs the needs of the parent, specifically in regards to legal parental surrender. Does the child need two parents? Does this need trump an unwilling parents wish to not be a parent? If it does, how far does the "need" go?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 04:42 PM
3

The discussion is mostly about the material. As far as i know the father can only be forced to provide child support, not "parental presence" (didn't want to copy your whole text). So that's what the discussion comes down to, whether what the courts can force is correct or too much. (Or i suppose "not enough" but i haven't seen any arguments for forcing men to be an active parent. )
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 12:22 PM
2

More like "offspring vs parent" maybe ? But that's the same issue isn't it? The offspring is considered more important than the parent despite the parent being a child themselves?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 12:10 PM
2

> the needs of the child are never taken into account when a women wants to abort. The argument there is that abortion is allowed before it is a child. The woman is allowed to abort a fetus, not a child. > or adopt, only her decision is a factor I think the argument for these surrenders is that it is better for the child to be surrendered than what might be done to it if it isn't surrendered. (" Supporters of safe-haven laws argue that the laws save lives by encouraging parents to surrender infa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 12:07 PM
3

I'm not totally against single women getting IVF, but i was in a discussion about "legal paternal surrender" ("Legal abortion") and i came away with an annoyance that a woman has an extra "out" during pregnancies. I do not think it should be removed, but i so think the man should be allowed one too. I bring this up because during the mentioned discussion someone said that (i'm paraphrasing) "allowing the man to leave is basically forcing the woman to have an abortion". Why is that? If women are …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 02:35 AM
3

I do not think either is a problem that we need to look for a solution to. Humanity does not need to grow or even stay at the same size. Shrinking would actually be good for us.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/02/21 02:13 AM
2

Oh, they definitely are not. I didn't mean they are. I just meant, i cannot tell if the journalist/twitter user is on "their side" or "our side". I could see someone here saying that "now the parent group remains all moms which means women must do all the work of the group" but meaning it is their own fault.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/21 11:55 AM
5

his Twitter user's ability to turn (racist) misandry into women's victimization. Did you mean this? now the parent group remains all moms which means women must do all the work of the group. I'm not sure how much of that is womens victimization. After all it is now a fact that that women must do all the work of the group. Because there are no men in it. i'm not saying it isn't. Just that i can't tell if she is going "women are victims" or pointing out how they can't have it both ways.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/21 11:25 AM
17

third-wave feminist theory denies that the social significance of ‘poor transgender Muslim’ is just a conjunction of the significance of ‘poor person’, ‘transgender person’, and ‘Muslim’. I hadn't heard this. I guess i figured that they wouldn't mean it was just "x plus y plus z", that it would be bigger than the parts (also smaller in some cases?) but i did think it was just the intersection. Many people intuit that we should have different norms in Europe and the Anglophone world about when it…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/21 01:51 PM
3

be put in a situation of kill or be killed vs work or be (severely) punished (and accept punishment or be killed). yeah, some ways maybe, but not very many.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 11:19 AM
0

Used up - can no longer support themselves. Slaves often died before age 25. And for those who didn't, it was not uncommon for slaveowners to "free" slaves in their 50s when they no longer were productive.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 11:13 AM
-2

In 70+ countries like Russia, Switzerland, etc all boys when they turn 18 are forced into boot camps where they have to perform labour in harsh conditions. Very well, are they forced to stay in those conditions until they are used up? Edit to add: I'm not saying conscription isn't bad, but it isn't as bad as chattel slavery.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 10:13 AM
-1

Conscription would only come into effect in a situation where the US military was deemed not enough. And only until the conflict was resolved. Yes, that is a requirement to risk ones life if the government demands it, but at some point the "if"-s and "until"-s have to affect the comparison when the other side were robbed of their freedom immediately upon "adulthood". (Which probably wasn't our modern age of adulthood, but much younger.) US men aren't required to enter the military at age 18 and …
/r/MensRights09/02/21 09:27 AM
12

I don't think they flipflop but the idea is to "liberate men from from [harmful ideas of masculinity]" . In other words, it's always about "how toxic men are" but they think having a space to say that is "a positive space".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/21 01:13 PM
1

I did read the whole tweet (and the two that followed, though maybe that's what you meant.) But my reading of it was very different. I believe he is saying that those who are out and socializing on a regular basis enough to have "enough" sex, are prone to falling into relationships. So he's saying that if men were having more sex, more of them would be in a relationship which would make them more risk averse. I appreciate you explaining your reading of it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 03:40 PM
1

You ask what the difference is between men in a committed relationship and men who are partaking in casual sex. But what distinction is there between men in a committed relationship and men who are partaking in casual sex. And then you say having a FWB wouldn't impact your decision to take a risk. If I have a FWB it’s not going to impact my decision to take a risk. What is your connection between these two if you are not saying that FWB should be called a relationship? And you finish with saying…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 02:38 PM
1

So, your point is that "FWB" should be counted as "being in a relationship" ? A committed relationship would be when you are with someone you are planning a future with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 11:22 AM
3

I was sure this was gonna be "men are chasing money to convince women to have sex with them". But it sounds like it is more "men need to get better at getting sex instead of sitting home". I'm not sure this is IDPOL. it kind of sounds more like the arguments that "incels" make. (Edit: I'm not trashing on them here but what other term to call them?) https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1354532964416282627 "society has left young men behind and this is a consequence" https://twitter.com/profgal…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/21 11:09 AM
11

Setting aside the direct affects which seems to be worse for men; Setting back decades of womens progress? How? I understand that daycares and schools may have been closed and some women who still had jobs were forced to quit to take care of their children (as the work didn't allow taking a break of several months) because their husband earned more. But 3 things. 1: was that really 1 in 4? 2: how much did that really set "womens progress" back? I thought the progress was that women are allowed t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/21 10:24 AM
6

Shouldn't it mean that caring, gentle men are more attractive to women? Sure, but how to display being a carer? Displaying being a provider is much easier. (When one doesn't already have children. At which point, as you say, one likely already has a partner.) And possibly carers are more attractive than non-carers, not more attractive than providers. Which may mean that a non-carer provider is more attractive than a carer non-provider. Or carer could be assumed and so a provider (or better provi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/01/21 11:42 AM
9

At least the blond at 0:37 was clear it went both ways. Course that's just the least bad option out of 3 bad +1 good. Edit: Though she messed it up again later i see....
/r/MensRights22/01/21 12:20 PM
4

It's a good point, but that would mean all feminist subs are off limits for pointing out their language use. Also, what constitutes every day interactions? Or possibly "public interactions" ? Twitter because it doesn't have "subs" ? Can subs be too large to be "private interactions" ? Or is it just the content? Because i think they would quickly say that any conversation that brings these things up is "specifically focused on addressing an issue".
/r/MensRights21/01/21 03:43 PM
2

Because i beg to differ, it should be "Too many men" given the statistics Fuck, start with that then! Because i agree "some men rape" = "too many men rape". I doubt anyone is arguing against "any rape is too much rape". There are demands for examining claims of rape, but that doesn't mean they want proven rapists to go free. And do i want a reward for not having raped? No. Why are you calling it a reward to not be lumped together with rapists? Why isn't it rather a punishment to be lumped togeth…
/r/MensRights21/01/21 03:25 PM
2

Sorry. yeah, didn't mean they weren't saying that is where it appears. Just that they didn't seem to be saying that gaming itself is toxic. I agree that people throwing n-words or f-words around are assholes. Swearing (which i'm assuming F-bombs are, as opposed to f-words), i'm not sure i would say needs to be removed entirely. But there's tone and so on that isn't okay. calm swearing being different from agitated swearing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/21 03:10 PM
1

I don't think they are even referring to gaming, they are saying it appears in multiplayer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/21 01:39 PM
10

9: So, how would you define femininity? Remember, it can't be anything that a man can be. And it has to be clearly defined.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/21 01:38 PM
29

I don't think he was saying that you are not a feminist. (Edit: Though others seem to be doing so.) He was saying that it isn't us who needs to hear that those who accuse Johnny are not feminists, it is those who accuse Johnny who needs to hear that they are not feminists.
/r/MensRights18/01/21 12:23 PM
4

Like society had this blindspot when it came to female cruelty. With a lot of things it seems like they are haggling. Like they are afraid that if women aren't coming out on top (coming out on bottom?), if both groups are doing bad to each other, then society will go "well, it's equal, no need to bother." and stop supporting things women need, just because men need them too. Also "Girl Power" is really a "child show" type of slogan. "I'm strong and i'm a girl. you're also a girl so you can be st…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/21 12:17 PM
9

I don't think it counts in this case since patron was taken into english without being gendered. There was a gendering of patron with patroness, but it meant "a female patron". So Patron operated on two levels basically, both meaning the role and a man who has that role. Until patroness disappeared leaving it as a role or a person who has that role.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/21 03:56 PM
1

Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. I thought replacing man or woman with jew is what I was supposed to do to see if it is sexist.... Basically. If there's two group you can replace one group with "Aryans" and the other group with "Jews". As i said there is an issue of men getting harsher sentences that women. And if women are getting less harsh sentences than men, there are two possibilities. 1: Men are getting harsher sentences than they should because the sentences women receive are what …
/r/MensRights16/01/21 09:45 PM
16

It is somewhat of an interesting question. Men often receive harsher sentences than women, so which harshness is the one that is proper? Are men being sentenced too harshly or are women not being sentenced harshly enough?
/r/MensRights16/01/21 03:38 PM
17

Well, i think in China it was because they were only allowed to have 1 child and having a son was a retirement policy as sons were expected to take care of their parents while women were expected to move in with their husbands and help take care of his parents. Stupid, heartless, inexcusable but not "just because".
/r/MensRights14/01/21 09:29 AM
14

Well, regular depression can lead to suicide because "i'm better off dead". I suppose postpartum depression then can lead to murder-suicide via "i'm failing him/her. they're better off dead. And so am i." But there is also postpartum psychosis, which wikipedia describes as "Postpartum psychosis is one of the leading causes of the murder of children less than one year of age".
/r/MensRights12/01/21 06:36 AM
5

I think they mean that the men who are making jokes/laughing at jokes in "panels" 1-3 are not the same men who are complaining in panel 4.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/21 10:08 AM
2

No, sexism is not a negative view. It is the assumption that people have specific traits or are specific ways because of their sex and possible discrimination that follows from this. Saying white people are morally superior is talking about more than white group. "superior to who?" Saying "white people are exclusively moral" would be racist against white people, because the statement only concerns white people. It isn't implying a relationship to another group. Same thing with "men are smarter".…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/21 10:20 PM
0

I think it is a matter of perspective. "the idea of women as exclusively positive beings" is sexist against women, not men. Because it is talking about women, not men. And "the idea of men as exclusively negative beings" is sexist against men, not women. Because it is talking about men, not women. Where they lead to sexism toward both sexes is when you look at the consequences of each. Which is what The Tin Men is mentioning when they talk about the first being one of the causes of the second. (…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/21 05:04 PM
14

I admit it is a sticky situation with the child, but yeah, it was her choice, not theirs. If she has a way out, so should he.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 03:10 PM
1

[...] It's Doctor Bartlett, not Mrs Madame First Lady. Why? Is (i guess "was") she acting primarily in her role as a doctor? If not maybe "doctor first lady." (i'm assuming that was supposed to be mrs/madame, not that both are used together.) At the hospital "Doctor Bartlett". At WH social functions "Madame first lady".
/r/MensRights04/01/21 02:07 PM
-28

So I pay for half yet have no say, noice. It's unfortunate but until we can extract the fetus and put it in either another woman or an artificial womb, yeah, men shouldn't be able to tell women to not abort. If the guy hasn't made the case against it with the relation (i.e. made her want to have a kid with him), the argument is basically done. (edit for clarity: the guy can of course try to convince her, but if she doesn't feel they are at that kind of relationship i doubt he will have much luck…
/r/MensRights04/01/21 01:59 PM
4

So, she wanted to help men be as they are told to be?
/r/MensRights18/12/20 02:22 PM
3

if there was more of an MRA presence on twitter, we would probably have to do the same thing. I wonder which direction that goes. Do MRAs not do that because there isn't a larger presence on Twitter or is there not a larger presence on Twitter because MRAs couldn't get away with doing that?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/20 08:50 AM
15

a small (tiny) minority of men rape (unless going by some extremely wide definition). And they say "Teach men no to rape". I wonder what they would say to "Teach women not to trap men with babies" ? Or "Teach women to not go after men for their money" ? Or anything else that a minority of women do. "Not all women do that" ?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/12/20 08:47 AM
14

Even if we accept the axiom "society was created by men for men", how exactly are men supposed to act? And how are women supposed to act in turn? I do not believe the ones claiming it is mens job to provide are the ones complaining about having to provide. Nor do i believe it is wrong for men to want to have an identity as men. What that identity should be is a bit up in the air with multiple incompatible versions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/12/20 09:53 AM
3

I think the argument is that women are penalized just for being women so they have to act even more masculine than men to be considered an equal. "Men do it and so women have to do it even more".
/r/MensRights07/12/20 07:27 AM
3

Agreed. Definitely not.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 02:57 PM
7

even has a ride at more than one Disneyland That went the other way around though. They didn't build the ride for the films, they made the films for the ride.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 02:49 PM
3

virtually every woman, no matter how non-feminist or men-friendly she is, will show behavior that looks illogical, inconsequential and even irresponsible to you. And on the other hand: she will very often think some of your behavior, speech or thoughts, no matter how well-meaning you are, a little creepy or depraved or whatever. This may sound sexist for some I think this is only sexist if you don't recognize that the reverse is also true. Virtually every man will show behavior that looks illogi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:09 AM
6

Looking at some other articles it seems he thought that the soldering gun would kill all bacteria. Also he claims to have been educated in Syria before coming to Sweden.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 10:35 PM
4

I've never seen it used homophobically, but i'm not sure i would call the times i've seen it (granted only in movies/on tv) positive. It always seems to be a comment on two men spending too much time together. Like they should be doing something else. Possibly something more grown-up. Like "Steve and Bob has a bromance going in COD".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/11/20 10:32 AM
15

A bit down someone asks if it would be enforced nowadays and someone else links to an accident with a floating restaurant in kentucky in 2011. The women were rescued first. The first points out that it wasn't the same as no one was in danger of dying. But, if no one was in danger of dying, why bother organizing it by sex? And if you organize it by sex when there is no danger, why believe that it wouldn't be organized by sex if there was danger?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/11/20 11:14 AM
7

Well done. One thing though. Maybe picture 5 should be changed to percentages? I don't know how many million there are of each gender/sex in each age group. Is 6.2 and 5.4 high or low? (Probably as high as the others since it is only 6 years.)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/10/20 01:39 PM
6

a generation is 20-30 years. So it's closer to 1.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/10/20 08:32 AM
3

It should be an exceptional case simply by virtue of him not learning it until after 2 years.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/20 06:55 PM
1

Forget or have never learned about, but yes. But also i think it is because both groups want to go backwards, while the left wants to go forward. Social conservatives want the last period before women entered the workforce and incels want the last period before the sexual revolution. For incels as i understand it, they imagine if the sexual revolution was undone, women would settle down and every man would have a woman. They don't see themselves as underachievers, but the "chads" as overachiever…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 10:28 AM
1

before the 1800s onwards to the 1930s But social conservatists have their idealized picture of the 1950s that they are striving for, not 1930.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 08:43 AM
2

I was vegan, something that is seen as leftist I'd say it is more left than right though. Simply because "vegans" include a lot of people who do it for the environment or the animals. I think even those who do it because it is healthier may be considered a bit left.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 08:26 AM
6

Definitely sounds that way to me. Especially with the mentions of "global".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/20 05:49 PM
8

If men and women are different, then men might be better at some things (ignore that women would be better at others), and that is not acceptable. Both because then we get some grounds gender roles (not saying we should have gender roles) and because women have to be at least as good at everything. Well, everything modern.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/20 04:46 AM
4

This is one i always felt constrained about in r/MensRights, because it felt more right wing, as in against society helping out. I agree that the man should be allowed to sign away his parental obligations. I agree that the child does need to be taken care of. I do not agree that it is wrong for the responsibility to fall on society. If we aren't against social safety nets, we can treat it as if the father had died.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/10/20 08:28 PM
1

I wasn't looking to make a new official abbreviation, just seeing if i could make an actual word and one that included Male. Like how they had FLINT. LGBTQ+ isn't a word. That bit wasn't serious, just a word game.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/20 12:13 PM
3

Just to be clear, i didn't mean to sound like i wanted safe spaces for the opposite group. I just started wondering what word i could build out of the initials.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/20 11:56 AM
4

No, i'd say it is all men, but they think that step one on the road is thinking the right way. They insist everyone needs to take that step.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/20 12:23 AM
15

He was not pitting tragedies against one another. He was saying it is unfair that one of the perpetrators is getting a lesser sentence because she's a woman. Some other said she didn't do as much and thus didn't get as much, but i can't find that in the article, so i don't know.
/r/MensRights29/09/20 07:52 PM
6

> The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. >Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door. Seems that way. since the above would mean that with sex scrubbed men became 3.2% more likely to get and interview and women became 2.9% less likely to get "a fooot in the door" (Is that the same as getting an interview, i wonder).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/09/20 09:18 AM
1

Well OP did say: Personally I have no problem with the word incel for everybody who involuntary has had no sexual intimacy for half a year or more. So i assumed it was about sexual intimacy. Yes, OP did say they considered "insin", which is probably "involuntarily single" and someone who is involuntarily single, but is not sexless has a problem but i don't think it's the same problem as incel started out as. But also the "Chad" i mentioned above would be a bachelor, but he probably wouldn't be l…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/20 08:17 PM
4

Yes it does, but a "Chad" who manages to sleep around would still be a bachelor so the problem with that is that it doesn't say he doesn't have any luck with getting laid.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/20 02:02 PM
54

Sounds like it's the child his wife had with the 13 year old that''s meant. She'd probably told her husband it was his child. So he went from having a child to not having a child. For the home, it could be that now that his wife is in jail he can no longer afford the home. Not sure why he lost his job though.
/r/MensRights21/09/20 08:43 AM
2

As the stand-in father then wouldn't be able to get any child-support from the mother, making his problem worse, i'm leaning towards that the punishment should be an increased level of childsupport or just a (dammit, forgot the word...) fee she has to pay. Actually, giving him the child forces him into a carer situation. Which i suppose is fine if he wanted to be a parent, but it isn't if he didn't want to. Edit: fixed a word
/r/MensRights21/09/20 07:05 AM
3

I think it is more likely to end up in "all men suck" territory. "Obviously we don't mean tears from actual pain, and honestly if you think we did, you need to take a look at yourself and your misogynistic attitudes."
/r/MensRights19/09/20 12:40 PM
1

I wonder if there are some other scenarios with nature stepping into the gene game, possibly ones no one would like? hmm....Whoo boy, yes.
/r/MensRights19/09/20 08:55 AM
4

That or "It is easy for men to be pro-life, they only see it as a 'get out of baby' free card."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/09/20 05:23 AM
2

it doesn't matter to you, but the doctors would prefer to not use terms in diagnosis that are also insults.
/r/MensRights13/09/20 04:29 PM
1

Sorry, somehow didn't stand out to me in that comment.
/r/MensRights13/09/20 03:28 PM
22

48.1% ? I thought women were closer to 50.1%...
/r/MensRights13/09/20 11:01 AM
3

Ah. Thanks.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/09/20 08:27 PM
5

Ratioed?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/09/20 06:43 PM
2

Of course. They do believe men getting raped happens rarely if ever, so what would men want with such a law besides being able to falsely accuse women? Possibly to sidetrack from getting accused themselves? Of course, men are still human and some humans suck, so there would be some men doing it, but that's no reason to deny the greater number. And maybe it would be incentive to have good investigations of rape claims. Trusting the (alleged) victim should mean an investigation is opened, not that…
/r/MensRights03/09/20 08:39 AM
3

According to wikipedia male on male rape is illegal in the UK. Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. This is the newest definition but it has previously included (1) It is an offence…
/r/MensRights03/09/20 05:39 AM
1

I agree but i also agree in the reverse direction. It's crazy that you have to spend more than a third of your income on housing. (Unless you've bought a house/apartment, maybe.) By which i mean the cost of housing vs minimum wage ratio is too high.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/20 05:25 AM
1

Sorry, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? From your question it sounds like you are disagreeing, but your other sentence sounds more like it agrees.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 08:46 PM
1

Economists have actually said that "helicopter money" (just throwing money at people) would be good for the economy as it would increase the amount of money in direct purchase chains/loops.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 06:35 PM
2

One of the benefits of not having UBI be means tested is that the means testing cannot be made stricter. Another is that it does not require any administration beyond a list of the citizens (/ citizens above 18) and their preferred bank account. And i suppose we might have different perspectives. I'm from Sweden and unemployment benefits from the state does not have a time limit. Only a requirement that you keep looking for work and submit a list of jobs you have applied for each month. I still …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 06:31 PM
1

Sorry, i was just pointing out a part of the (usual) definition of UBI. As for whether it will be the solution to homelessness and so on, i think it depends a lot on how large the UBI is allowed to be. (And the dependent variable, how easy it is to find housing that fits within that amount.) There is a lot of talk about how it should be $1000 per month. And i read recently that some living spaces require your income to be 3 times the rent (which might change if everyone has a guaranteed income) …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 05:59 PM
3

A lot of people were making more in unemployment than they were at their jobs. I know several people that refused to go back to work because it would be a pay cut for them. I expect that if we implemented UBI, we'd see similar. UBIs not supposed to be an alternativ to working, it's supposed to be a complement, so they wouldn't be getting payed less.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 05:23 PM
4

They say that there are no differences in ability but women are better communicators. So men are being asked to accept that in modern society they are just less capable than women. Would they accept being told that there are no differences except men are better at thinking ahead? Or anything that would give men an advantage over women? I doubt it. And i will need pretty strong proof before believing that men are just less capable in modern society.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/20 06:15 AM
2

But is it really bad for (some) men to want to have a masculine identity? I don't mean needing to conform to all expectations of masculinity but the want to have things that define them as men, while not looking down on others for not having those. Why would that be bad? I think it's worth considering why this seems bad to you, in the scenario you suggest. If it's not hurting anyone and making someone happy, it should be fine, right? It's more complicated at a societal-level, though, of course. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/08/20 08:24 AM
3

This may have been brought up before but i feel it is still relevant and this is a good description of it. Also interesting to see it being well received in r/menslib. Some comments have interesting points on how it's interesting and possibly wrong that all negative traits seem to be masculine while positive ones seem to be ungendered or feminine. Which brings up 2 points. Should traits be treated as feminine or masculine at all? There has been some posts here on also defining toxic femininity b…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/20 05:18 PM
5

Mainly i feel it is that problems are not being blamed on "the left and their socialist ideas". We are able to divorce our left wingness from what is attacked in our male advocacy. Yes, some of the problems exist on the left, but here we don't have to agree that the left should be eliminated to fix those problems.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/20 05:04 PM
1

Why would you laugh at someone for being a janitor? I could get laughing once if it was some executive who looked down on it and now had to do that. But that's more laughing at someone getting taken down a peg.
/r/MensRights24/08/20 10:30 AM
52

"i wouldn't slutshame, and i'm a woman, so of course women don't slutshame. Unless there's an outside reason.....Like men!"
/r/MensRights23/08/20 11:42 AM
8

To them there was no reason that men wouldn't be willing to pay extra. They thought me should pay extra and if men should pay extra, then of course men would be willing to pay extra.
/r/MensRights22/08/20 10:15 AM
2

I do not agree that you become less of a person because you don't have self respect. It is definitely something good to have and you should try to have it, but not having it doesn't make you less of a person.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 06:20 PM
1

I believe it's because she wants the catharsis of just blaming the whole group. Which can be understandable as long as you don't wallow in it. But you should' try to keep such to a non-permanent media, and also have understanding when the other group does it.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 06:17 PM
2

Crazy might put more effort than you expected into finding out where you live.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 06:08 PM
9

I mean, they already say it for other things. "it is the fault of patriarchy because women are treated as lesser beings who need to be taken care of."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/08/20 12:57 PM
2

So, they put family first? What do they put second? The economy or the population?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/08/20 07:39 AM
5

most of the world has reached replacement fertility or even sub-replacement fertility. Yes, population will increase a bit longer, but that is because of survival-rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/08/20 09:31 AM
2

They convince unattractive women of this to make them less likely to approach a relationship with an unattractive man themselves, why? I don't know perhaps its an unintended consequence. If unattractive women settle for unattractive men, why should attractive women not settle for "just" attractive men rather than going for perfect men?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/08/20 02:45 PM
1

Unfortunately only "Half of generation Z men" or "31% of generation z".
/r/MensRights05/08/20 05:26 AM
2

But there's a difference. With someone stealing your car they'd probably have to break into it somehow and footage of that could help you. But this situation would be like someone walking up to the car, unlocking it with your key and driving off. Nothing there that's visibly showing them doing anything that contradicts a story of "having been given the car". (After all, he did give her his unlocked phone.) I'm not saying a judge would believe that. But that's the point, i don't believe the foota…
/r/MensRights01/08/20 10:55 AM
2

If he has to prove that, wouldn't he need sound? Which i doubt is available if they were in a bar/club. I mean, otherwise she can just say that he was okay with it.
/r/MensRights01/08/20 10:12 AM
4

I take it Venmo doesn't store the number of the receiver?
/r/MensRights01/08/20 09:02 AM
2

Rules have to be enforced. If the rule says you can't do that, but no one stops you, why follow the rule?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/07/20 03:58 PM
2

Also an odd way of saying "men were supposed to make up 100%".
/r/MensRights29/07/20 05:40 AM
12

I don't derail conversations. I just disagree with them. You're using a normal definition of "derailing". Theirs is "anything that isn't agreeing with the topic."
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/20 12:39 PM
1

I think they're saying that the chance for divorce has increased.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 08:29 AM
1

I've never heard them except online, but aren't they usually over the top? More ribbing than insults?
/r/MensRights24/07/20 11:24 AM
1

Not for altruism, no. I think it is a relatively common argument that there is no such thing as altruism, because doing good makes you feel good and in the end you are then doing it to make yourself feel good. And this wasn't people being woke, it was people talking philosophy. I think that's taking a bit far, but there's a bit of a point. If you are only doing it because you know it makes you feel good, it kind of gets to the same area as companies who donate because they get a tax write-off. T…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/20 04:26 PM
1

Well, it's fashion advice, what do you expect? also, they did publish this 3 years later: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/cargo-shorts-are-actually-great-and-everyone-shoul
/r/MensRights20/07/20 10:29 AM
5

Yeah, i agree with that. But WorldController argued that passiveness and lack of assertiveness" taken to an extreme where girls don't say no and can't stand up for themselves isn't toxic because toxic behavior is offensive/upsetting and involves some kind of deliberate violation of personal boundaries. With the exception of passive aggressiveness, I would not consider any passive behavior to be "toxic." It might be disappointing, annoying, or even frustrating, but not toxic. I think most would a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/20 10:15 PM
2

How would you then say that "rugged independence" is toxic at its extreme?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/20 08:09 AM
17

I guess sensitive is fine as long as you are obedient.
/r/MensRights16/07/20 01:29 PM
7

Current top post (sorting by top) excuses saying "men are trash" with that "All men who harrass women as well as their silently complicit friends are trash" is too long. ..."I say the the bad thing because the correct thing is too much work" ? People arguing with her are "invalidating her life experience" and "are not defending themselves unless they're the bad ones". Why is the defense "if you don't do this you shouldn't be offended" ? The offense clearly comes from being targeted by things tha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 05:39 PM
26

What if there was a vote on "All women have to birth at least 1 child or else pay extra tax", should men be allowed to vote on that?
/r/MensRights09/07/20 12:02 PM
6

Looks like some version of The narcissists Prayer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 12:23 PM
5

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/20 01:32 PM
1

Well, first, you are bringing up an exceptional situation (No, that is not a comment on how often it happens), so there would obviously be exceptions. Second, those exceptions would only be needed in the situations where the woman does not want to abort after getting pregnant from a rape. Granted, i do not know which of those is more common.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 08:24 PM
1

> If you want a 'paper abortion' you should have a pre agreed written contract with your sex partner before you have sex, and always use two contraceptive methods. What about making women have to force men to sign a contract that they will support a child? and if no such contract, then neither will the state if the man can't? They are the ones who have an out.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 12:46 PM
2

"we shouldn't address the rights issue, we should make sure we can avoid addressing it" ?
/r/MensRights10/06/20 12:43 PM
9

> Not joking, I know a guy in the UK who has spent half his adult life in prison and he has fathered over 20 kids because he can't be pursued for child support due to a life on benefits/inside. Did he con all these women into thinking he would take responsibility and be a father? If not it sounds like there are several women who chose to have children with a deadbeat. And it doesn't sound like the situation is helped by him being legally responsible.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 12:35 PM
10

I guess in China people are more concerned over their legacy. Which probably amounts to their last name specifically. I can't really think of any other reason for this. In China sons are expected to provide for and take care of their parents, while women are expected to get married and help their husbands take care of his parents. So, having only a girl would leave you without anyone to take care of you when you get old.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/06/20 01:19 PM
17

"but you're not supposed to have the ones we don't want you to."
/r/MensRights07/06/20 09:58 AM
1

I've been following r/mensrights for a couple of years, and i don't think i've ever seen a post saying men need to be good fathers. Then again, i'm not sure Men Rights should be about men needing to be good fathers, it should (amongst other things) be about the right men have to be evaluated fairly regarding custody time during divorce proceedings. Not saying men don't need to be good fathers, if they aren't they shouldn't get custody, but maybe the movement shouldn't be about. r/menslib, which …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/20 08:42 AM
1

I will look into it. But you are arguing that because others allow something else, the ones who do not are wrong. This is not necessarily true. It could be the ones who do that are wrong. We won't know without the arguments that both your locality and mine put forth, assuming they are not the same.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 02:50 PM
1

Fine, tell me the ones you know that are not proven. And how you know they are not proven.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 02:24 PM
3

There is only one thing i can think of that gives value because you are a woman (rather than a person) and that is carrying children. Yes, at a point where we need to replenish our numbers, every woman is valuable for this. (We don't currently need to do this.) And yes, we don't need AS MANY men for this, but it doesn't mean we don't need many. Yes, one many can impregnate several women, but one man cannot provide for several women. Not in any scenario i can think of where we need to replenish o…
/r/MensRights03/06/20 02:20 PM
2

Are all landlords unaware of it?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:41 PM
1

Keep everything that has solid proof that it's a beneficial regulation. See, here is (one of) the main point(s) of contention. You are saying there are bits that are not solidly proven to be beneficial regulation. Tell me all of these rules that are not proven to be beneficial regulation. The exact rules. I will not assume you know the codes well enough that i will just take your word that they are not.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:40 PM
3

Can you agree that not all homeless people are drug-addicted? Or even have good reason for being homeless?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:33 PM
3

Since you have proposed the liberal/anarchic solution of relaxing building codes, i will propose the social safety net solution: If cities do not have enough places for people to live it should be made the responsibility of the city to make sure those places are built.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:23 PM
4

But maybe most of the landlords don't want to rent to homeless people and will demand an extremely high rent to prevent that from happening. And maybe they wont? Taking your assumption here, then UBI not only does not adress the problem, it is unable to adress the problem regardless of what level it is at. You are SAYING it is impossible for UBI to provide homes for people and telling us to counter it. Which won't happen as you have decided that it cannot. So, instead, what is your counter to a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:20 PM
1

Sorry, i wasn't saying "you should get together with a bunch of other people". I was saying you shouldn't be building single houses.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 12:02 PM
1

Frankly, personally i'm opposed to "building your own home" because it means a single family building at most. If i had my way, anything under 15 stories would be forbidden. let's build higher, not wider.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/06/20 08:26 AM
2

She means that the men help the species mix up the genes and counteract becoming clones. Of course she phrases it as men help women mix it up and avoid becoming clones.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/20 05:05 PM
1

Bit late here but....And i will be using "you" to adress the writer, not OP. The Y coming gift-wrapped in the sperm of most any dude you now know has lost about 1,955 genes — ie, over 97%. Currently, the Y chromosome is a trainwreck of about 45 surviving genes I wouldn't call it a trainwreck. it has lost all but 45 genes, yes, but the last lost gene was 25 million years ago. The balls are the worse place ever to stash Ys, as they are, geographically, exposed to dangerous oxidation and easily bom…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/20 05:02 PM
1

I agree with the start point (attention around 18) and the end point (has to be mature), but as i heard it, womens brain reach final maturity earlier. I can't remember exactly when it was for women but it was earlier (a couple years) than it was for men at 26. So maybe that is a point in the middle. (Or maybe it is attentetion-has to be mature-brain develops earlier....) Of course this may have been disproven since i read it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/20 02:54 PM
28

Did they? I thought they only classified gaming addiction as being a mental disorder.
/r/MensRights01/06/20 09:45 AM
0

As i said to the other guy, and which i apparently to get across in my comment: You don't think it is improper, i don't think it is improper, but there are those who would think that.
/r/MensRights01/06/20 09:42 AM
1

I think your explanation fails in that it is a choice, and that she is paid for it. It fails the "improper use" part as their is no improper use of anything. unless [...] sex is now improper I don't think so, and you don't think so, but the people in the article would probably argue that it is, at least when there is payment involved and a man is paying a woman for it. But you're right, "exploitation would be better argued from the perspective that young, impressionable, vain women are being tem…
/r/MensRights01/06/20 08:42 AM
-8

How does "i don't get FREE shit" equate to "pressure" to do anything ? What a load of false equivilence bollox. It's not a false equivalence, just, as you say further down, a pressure they put on themselves. A doesn't get the hits that B does, but by accepting she doesn't have to abandon her influencer "career". but ultimately it's exploitation, and that woman will have to do things for that money that she doesn't want to associate herself with, that make her feel shamed." Oh, i see it's "exploi…
/r/MensRights01/06/20 07:58 AM
6

Sorry, to derail, just got to thinking about the combinations. fair and just - best unfair and unjust - worst fair and unjust - better than the above unfair and just - can this even be? Unfair would mean not the same punishments for the same thing, but then for some it isn't just.
/r/MensRights29/05/20 05:30 PM
1

Well, I am no expert of any kind. This was all about 10 minutes of googling. At some point you could probably have the court take possession of her possessions, but only to a limit I think.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 08:51 PM
11

Didn't this use to be longer? I think i remember a version where he first defended himself against a guy and then this girl got involved. Anyone else starting to get more interested in what they say on the other sub?
/r/MensRights27/05/20 10:53 AM
3

Yeah, There seems to be several methods of calculating it. The easiest seems to be 25% of non-custodial parents income, making her income $7000. The other i found i don't know how to calculate since i don't know what his income is, only hers. But it checks what their combined income is, follows a guide on what the total childsupport should be and determines how much the non-custodial parent should pay according to their percentage of the combined total income. if we assume she makes 50% of the t…
/r/MensRights27/05/20 09:42 AM
29

If what i found is correct, if it is for childsupport wages can be garnished for up to 50% if supporting another dependant, 60% if not supporting another dependant. so, she could be making $3500 if it's 50% or $2917 if it is 60%. Edit: Whoops, that is what wages can be garnished with.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 08:46 AM
2

I was wondering why it was 5000 and not 1200/0,77 or something.
/r/MensRights25/05/20 06:59 PM
26

if this was a joke, only 2 of them even kind of works. if this was sarcasm, who is she being sarcastic to (Also, this is why i support the /s)
/r/MensRights24/05/20 11:39 AM
11

Well, how does society react to a man shouting at a woman? Or using a partners instinct to care, to get his way? Yes, i would say men are afraid of disagreeing with women. Because women are allowed to fight back fully. Some are even afraid to refuse their punishments. Not sure if sleeping on the sofa after a fight is still a thing, but i've definitely got an impression that it was a thing. And i doubt that could have happened without cooperation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/20 05:10 PM
15

There is usually the counter that "if you don't want to adapt to your partner you shouldn't have started the relationship." But that should go both ways. Both "if you don't want to accept having it more tidy...." and "if you didn't want to accept having it less tidy....".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/05/20 05:05 PM
1

Why does it have to go all the way to oppression before it is bad? And they're not taking the piss out of each other. If they were taking the piss out of each other, it would either be inter-group (women joking about gays and trans, gays joking about women and trans and trans joking about gays and women) or intra-group (gays joking about gays, women joking about women, trans joking about trans). As it is each minority group is "taking the piss out of" their majority group. (Women aren't a minori…
/r/MensRights22/05/20 06:27 PM
3

3) fathers and a father's role is worth something in that its absence creates a void that requires tax money to fill to form a "healthy environment" again. I think you assume too much here. She never said anything about what a "Healthy environment" means. It could mean what you said , but it could also mean "away from violent male influence".
/r/MensRights22/05/20 04:37 PM
3

illustrate men/boys as problems requiring solutions, rather than people with problems that require solutions. This attitude has resulted in a tendency for people to ask "how can boys/men be changed to fit the system better?", rather than "how can the system change to better accommodate the needs of men/boys?". I feel like they consider the system to have originally been built around the needs of men/boys and to accommodate those needs again would be going backwards, at the expense of changes mad…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/05/20 12:09 PM
2

So, she's not a pedophile? Fine. She's still a child molester. in the best (for her) case, she was a willing participant in child molestation. (I here use it as an ongoing molestation. But she apparently did it on her own in a specific event.) Which she got 6 years for. It was determined that she derived sexual arousal from the humiliation of doing it. Two questions then. Can she humiliate herself without orders? If not, can she find a new master that will order her to do it? I do not know the a…
/r/MensRights16/05/20 11:36 AM
6

As someone in the article said, that is if someone else had to do those jobs. Someone for each of them. If you're in a hybrid role, you don't get full pay for all the roles, you get slightly more than the highest payed. If you're lucky. If you're unlucky you get the average.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 05:59 PM
14

"I identify as..." Instead of "my name is..." why? Is it so they don't have to register a namechange when they decide to switch name every month? "died due to suicide" Isn't suicide itself placing the blame on the victim? it does mean "self-killing".
/r/MensRights09/05/20 08:08 AM
1

They're not contradicting themselves, they're just going "We can't say this, but you should take it as us saying it unless you're demanding proof."
/r/MensRights08/05/20 05:13 AM
1

From the thumbnail i thought this was a "he's there doing that, so she can be there doing that". Edit: As in taking care of their kid. Not as in "fucking around".
/r/MensRights23/04/20 05:38 AM
3

Should just get it over with. If she won't keep her spending down so he doesn't have to work that much, i doubt she'll keep it at exactly how much he makes when working overtime, so he is just delaying it.
/r/MensRights23/04/20 05:37 AM
5

"it is okay to beat up men, but not women. Women have to go to the hospital after you beat them up, men don't."
/r/MensRights20/04/20 05:21 AM
8

The article doesn't draw any conclusion but it says that the paper it references draws the conclusion "80% yes". (or whatever "changing the law so FTP is rape should get serious consideration" equals to.)
/r/MensRights30/03/20 09:33 AM
5

If the bathroom are separated by gender per floor, why aren't the residents separated by gender by floor?
/r/MensRights22/03/20 08:11 PM
5

Sounds like the opposite to me. Just man up and continue working regardless.
/r/MensRights14/03/20 12:56 PM
12

I thought she meant there was 2 rows of 3 and was wondering how the hell that could put her between 1 and 2. But looking at pictures it looks like the back seats are (often/sometimes) closer together and she would have to touch shoulders with man 1 if she sat in the back. oh. the horror.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 05:43 PM
7

Wouldn't that be volcel?
/r/MensRights17/01/20 05:04 PM
1

So, safe spaces are just for physical safety then? /S
/r/MensRights11/01/20 06:23 PM
7

Some apps open a minimized picture (or possibly imgur supplies a minimized picture to them) , which then becomes blurry when enlarged. Fine when opened in browser from there tho. Edit: also those are excellent counters in the images. Saved.
/r/MensRights29/12/19 08:57 PM
2

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying that they don't.
/r/MensRights16/12/19 08:35 AM
2

Yes, this is where it falls apart and becomes ridiculous. If your buddy convinces you to help beat somebody up, you don't get to claim you couldn't say no. And I say "you're buddy convinces you", because I think they believe the man is always the one asking. I'm not so sure about this, but I believe in the common counter "if you drive drunk", they would claim to be the car, not the driver.
/r/MensRights16/12/19 06:36 AM
6

The ability to say no is an essential tool for any adult. If you are not capable of effectively communicating your removal of consent, then you are not capable of having consensual sex. This is a basic adult skill. I think it is ridiculous but this is what they are basing their idea on. If the person would say no when sober but says yes when drunk, then their ability to say no has been compromised. And so, they are not capable of having consensual sex when drunk.
/r/MensRights14/12/19 09:09 PM
8

Regarding officiality; did the portables use to be there?
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:26 AM
13

Which may make them 50% (or more) of the people you actually deal with.
/r/MensRights22/09/19 08:34 AM
2

Are those layers who are pricks? Layers of pricks sound like it has kind of reversed demographics.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 11:29 AM
2

In a way not doing so can be read as thinking "why would those ever be needed?" which doesn't sound like what they were going for when implementing the quotas for women.
/r/MensRights04/09/19 11:26 AM
1

No, it is why it is beneficial to keep women home rather than men. Not rather than both. And specifically in a situation where it has caused 90 of the outgoers to die. Of course a village that keeps both sexes safe so noone leaves the village would have resource problems. One that has lost 90% of its men probably does too. Because the hunters/pillagers are down to 10%. To explain my original question again, it sounded like you were saying that a village where the men died during hunting/pillagin…
/r/MensRights17/08/19 11:28 PM
1

55/55? What? Where do you get that number? We start with a village 200. 100 men. 100 women. 100/100. The argument goes that if 90 men were to die, the future if the village would be less affected than if 90 women were to die. My original question to you was why you were saying that a village that had a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women (100/100) would have a resource problem that a group have a 1 to 10 ratio (10/100) wouldn't. It appears you were reading 10/100 as meaning that 90 men were off hunting…
/r/MensRights17/08/19 10:54 PM
1

The argument is about reproduction so a 10/100 village would not have 90 men out hunting/pillaging. They would have 10 men total. But they would be able to produce 100 babies as opposed to a 100/10 village which could only produce 10 babies. Why would it be about villages that have 10 men sitting about with 90 out hunting/pillaging? 100/100 would be a 1/1 ratio.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 10:41 PM
4

They'd also have 90 more people for hunting. But either way, if the other village were to overtake them, they'd be the ones with the problem.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 10:12 PM
4

How would the 100/100 village be low on resources?
/r/MensRights17/08/19 10:00 PM
1

But it sounds like she will do both psychiatric care and jail. Mr Justice Edis said Ford would begin her sentence in a psychiatric hospital. She will complete her sentence in jail after receiving treatment, he said.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 09:55 PM
2

If it is women who get lower sentences, how is that negatively affecting men? If it is women who get lower sentences, then the sentences that men get are what the standard should be. Has there been any research on this? Which gender is receiving the sentences as how they should be? Regardless it is important to remove the bias.
/r/MensRights12/08/19 04:30 AM
10

If I remember things correctly she was a prostitute and then after the payed sex she roofied the men and stole more money.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:22 AM
3

More practical? Yes, to some degree. Currently. But there are plateaus where that shifts. Modern cars are more practical than horse and wagon. And by not buying electric they are not supporting the movement to the next plateau.
/r/MensRights10/07/19 03:51 PM
3

Wasn't what I was reacting to. I was unaware of carols ancestry at all. Thanks for clearing it up.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 09:11 PM
1

....What? Since when is Carol Danvers father an alien?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 08:37 PM
1

Yeah, not everyone or not on everything.
/r/MensRights22/04/19 01:48 PM
2

Reading it kindly (which i think they expect), it means "it's not just us deciding things for everyone, we decide things with everyone."
/r/MensRights22/04/19 11:59 AM
2

I thought it was recently admitted to drugging and stealing some years ago?
/r/MensRights01/04/19 07:13 AM
8

I guess it's not so much a selling point for me as it isn't an anti-selling point. If they can just continue to not include a love interest, that'll be great. I think Winter Soldier is basically the only one (of the solo outings) where they didn't have one. But yeah, it did open up for fans to read into things what they liked. For example one could call Sharon Carter a love interest in Winter Soldier, up until Cap realizes the family connection.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 11:12 PM
35

That last part is almost something i'm actually grateful for. Skipping the love interest. But they could skip "female".
/r/MensRights09/03/19 10:40 PM
3

Her getting that much is absurd, but it is a reduction of what she was originally assigned by the courts 20 years ago and they at the time didn't ask "will she have x years to acquire a pension?", just "how much of current assets should she get?" (why doesn't she have her own?) and decided on 80%.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 09:47 PM
3

I think the argument is that it is demeaning to women as a gender (or sex fir those who subscribe to multiple genders) . Which is ridiculous. But I think that is their argument.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 11:58 AM
-5

In their view men are assuming women don't know and they shouldn't assume that.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 06:01 PM
-12

It depends on what level the description is given at. Is it an academic psychology description or is it a personal perspective description? For the former I'd say it could be presumptuous to start rattling it off, as they may have read up on it. The latter, as you say, cannot be known.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 05:34 PM
-11

Well, assuming mainsplaining = "man explaining something to a woman on the assumption that she doesn't know" then whether it is a men's issue doesn't enter into it. I'd still call that "presumptuous explaining" or something however. Both genders can do it.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 04:39 PM
4

A kind reading of it I think would be that females will be more and more successful compared to males.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 03:23 PM
2

If they can say that consent was given under coercion in the before video, nothing says that they cannot say they were still being coerced in the after video. If they can say that he was being coercive by size/appearance/just being a man, they can probably argue fear of reprisal for saying anything but yes and at that point, no expression of consent can be permanent without the man being permanently locked up.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 03:42 PM
3

Good job.
/r/MensRights24/11/18 10:26 PM
1

Agreed for most situations A probably works.
/r/MensRights24/11/18 10:23 PM
5

I agree with your points but if they were tricked they weren't coerced. If it was coercion, they were forced into "consenting", by threat or violence. (Maybe that's what you meant.) Tricking such as lying should fall under 3. Unless it was lying about an std, which is closer to 2 but maybe should have it's own point.
/r/MensRights24/11/18 10:13 PM
1

How is the later quote bad? Besides maybe the name for it.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 11:06 AM
4

She discussed the case of a recent client suspended from school for two years, even though he had obtained affirmative consent, because his sexual partner claimed the affirmative consent she'd given was produced under duress. So, is femdom bondage the only viable sex now? Or is even that out the window because the woman can fear retaliation at a later date? I mean, yes, there are situations where the affirmative consent should be thrown out, but this certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. (…
/r/MensRights17/11/18 11:04 AM
3

I don't know but there are efforts to exclude adultery from crimes of passion. The reasoning being to stop men from using it....
/r/MensRights16/10/18 12:20 PM
8

Means she was on an emotional high or in other words, she had a sudden moment of (likely) anger.
/r/MensRights16/10/18 09:56 AM
9

That's the thing though, they are always claiming merit, and that quotas are to stop women being kept out.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 12:40 PM
2

So, here's a bet, let's see if she'd be willing to take it. Track current convictions. For every conviction she gets a dollar, but for every erroneous conviction she has to serve the time served.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 03:48 PM
7

Sounds like she needs to find a husband and a wife actually, since she claims difficulty to conceive.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 08:27 PM
8

I think they are arguing something like "male privilege is being so insulated that you think male circumcision is a problem".
/r/MensRights29/08/18 04:05 PM
3

For a moment this made me wonder if there was rental places, but then i realized that the type of women who care about it would care as much about whether it was a rental.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 09:03 AM
24

I mean, with a lesser income, trying to hold on to it would have her worse off than having a less expensive home. But she can sell it and be better off than if she hadn't gotten it so it is still a positive to get it.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 06:28 AM
3

On the one hand yes, on the other hand, it was already erased. The games don't start with conscription and don't show the horrors. Or rather I doubt they do since I haven't played them.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 04:11 PM
2

You're still free to associate, just not free to not associate! /s
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:00 PM
1

Sorry, yeah, I got that when I saw the post I replied to.
/r/MensRights25/01/18 04:51 AM
2

I was wondering why he suggested "dramatic"...
/r/MensRights24/01/18 05:32 PM
2

Because "women can be afraid" .
/r/MensRights16/01/18 08:05 AM
12

Well, going by what is happening, that time when people didn't get offended never existed, they just weren't allowed to go into crisis mode based on it.
/r/MensRights26/12/17 01:14 PM
1

I think he is saying that libel law is fine since it isn't government doing the censoring. But I'm wondering wouldn't libel be toothless when it comes to accusations? The press can just say the person is suspected/accused and get off since those are facts?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:29 PM
1

Not sure how it works over there but here the price of the ribbon includes a (admittedly small) contribution to the cause.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 04:19 PM
10

If there is a 1 in 5 chance that the mother get a mental health issue severe enough that it is a mitigating circumstance if she kills her child, maybe the father should automatically be given sole custody until she has been deemed mentally fit?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 06:36 AM
2

I really feel like there should be some element of multiples in harassment. Getting one unwanted compliment shouldn't be harassment, while getting several should be.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 10:02 PM
1

It gets weird. One group jokes about the other and the other group reacts. The other group jokes about the first group and some go "should you make jokes about that group if you don't like them making jokes about you?" It gets dismissed, "no one cares" It goes on and eventually you start caring.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 07:28 AM
7

I'd guess their thinking is that it is so people won't be deterred from reporting to the police because the defendant can unilaterally bring them in.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 06:23 AM
3

There is a company in India giving free days off for first day of period. Was an article about it here in sweden and the comments were 95% saying it should be implemented everywhere even tho it was done because the Indian women could barely talk about their periods so taking sickdays weren't really on the table.
/r/MensRights04/08/17 05:30 AM
19

I wonder how many would guilt themselves into signing even if unsure? Not saying it happened with you, but I'm not sure I could do otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 03:18 PM
1

That sounds like it is "nice little" that is condescending.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 11:08 AM
1

Basically: If the difficulty is disapproval, consider someone else wanting to get rid of your own disapproval of something they want to do, would you be alright with them getting help in removing it? If it is aid (financial or otherwise) , would you be alright with being forced to aid someone in something you disapprove of?
/r/MensRights04/07/17 02:15 PM
2

Sounds like the problem is people wanting to be "heroes who did what the system wouldn't". Sure if he had been the asshole, it might have been good but they didn't find out, they just assumed no one would lie.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 02:44 PM
1

She doesn't care what it actually came from, she only cares that there are people who think it came from man.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 09:53 AM
5

There is a Romeo and Juliet clause for sex cases isn't there? So it doesn't count if you are within 2 years of each other? Could also extend that to pictures.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 07:06 AM
2

I thought it had more to do with who initiated and people always thinking the boy initiates.
/r/PussyPass16/01/17 07:26 AM
-1

The bartender supplies the alcohol.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:55 PM
-4

At least the work ones also open for gender role and choice arguments. Either it is mens own fault for choosing those or it is because of gender roles and men should be feminists. Edit: that is those would be their arguments.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 05:21 PM
5

I think we need artificial wombs before this. (at which point it might be that women never carry the full term.)
/r/MensRights01/01/17 11:29 AM
2

It is a more specific term. "Normal? In what way?" "in how I identify with my gender. " Cis is shorter.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 05:58 PM
9

I think they may have meant that to be under 1).
/r/MensRights01/11/16 09:05 AM
74

I'f he couldn't afford it, it doesn't matter how much better a choice it would have been.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 05:28 AM
1

I think the scenario is "we are 3 guys with 3 boxes and we want to watch the game (but we don't want to/can't pay)", that is there is nothing more to give.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 07:12 AM
2

So, fire needed someone to watch it and that in turn meant that someone else needed to provide for that person which meant the hunting trips needed to be longer?
/r/MensRights30/09/16 07:18 AM
2

No, really how did fire allow for that? I don't think it caused such a change, I think either men did it before as well , or they didn't immediately add several days to their trips after.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 05:25 AM
9

How did fire allow that?
/r/MensRights29/09/16 04:37 PM
4

So, how does she prove that this freezing up was enough that it should have caused a stop of the activity?
/r/MensRights27/07/16 02:36 PM
1

Sounds to me like it is that just as they are supposed to have children by now, they are supposed to have them with a man so the men are failing in both regards. They aren't supposed to need to adopt or use spermdonors.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 09:02 AM
2

Sounds more like "statistics show less women as homeless so obviously they don't show up in statistics"
/r/MensRights26/05/16 06:45 AM
1

Shouldn't the question be whether you'd rather be a woman at the top making less than men (but still a lot) or a woman at the bottom making more than men?
/r/MensRights08/05/16 02:01 PM
3

I read it as saying that attempts to make abortion legal was blocked so she came up with this so men would also be doing something illegal if the woman had an abortion.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 07:19 AM
8

General interpretation seems to be that either she sleep-hit him or she woke up and then hit him because of her dream.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 01:33 PM
13

I think he meant that if she was swinging in real life because she was swinging in her dream we can't blame her because she couldn't help it. That is we can't be policing her thoughts.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 01:30 PM
1

However for sex while intoxicated, all the woman is considered to be doing is "having sex" which isn't illegal. The man is considered to be "having sex with someone intoxicated" with his intoxication ignored. Maybe the metaphor should be that you drive on some illegal fueltype that your friend put in the tank.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 02:20 PM
1

It wouldn't solve anything. The current model requires the current (or a larger) amount of consumers. If it went down then profits would go down and employment would soon follow.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 12:29 PM
15

I got more of a soviet-feel.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 08:59 PM
4

Depends on the emergency doesn't it? Sure, won't help if it is needing to fly to a relative on short notice but if it is a medical bill or similar, it sounds quick enough.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 02:50 PM
1

Given that supply comes from perceived demand (men liking watching women leading to porn) we can probably atleast say that no-one has perceived a demand for BBM.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 12:49 PM
2

Isn't that beuatiful from the viewers thinking big is beautiful tho?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 12:33 PM
1

My guess would be it is seen as it is because the men are seen as adding to themselves while anorexic women are taking away from themselves.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 07:23 AM
3

Wonder how many justtook the petitions word for it and how many alteady had the opinion.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 06:30 AM
1

It would make childbirth safer? How much larger across the hips (which i assume is what they mean) are those who were fed well?
/r/MensRights26/02/14 02:35 PM
2

Good to hear there are some humanist feminists (or what to call you) out there in the nation. Modtly i hear stuff like that the pay gap is still at 20% (scb say somewhere between 1% and 6%) and Borg wanting to make a law about 50/50 on company directors boards.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:51 PM
6

And the younger girls look quute a bit older than they are. (Edit: tho this is from teen celebrities....)
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:16 PM
34

Problem comes if you are supposed to know without asking.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:32 PM
6

So "hawt if you are atleast her level of attractiveness" ?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:31 PM
1

And i seem to recall something about more men wanting to be dominated....or maybe that was just wanting the woman to be in charge....
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:29 PM
2

Two points. It would simply add to the people who are victims specifically it would add people who are victims of false accusations or misdirected accusations. 1.1 unless proper process is required there is nothing to ensure the right person is convicted. Postulate this scenario a person goes to a room with a guy, passes out and then wakes up with sperm in her/his ass or elsewhere upon them (would vagina juice be as detectable? ). They can't know it was the person they went there with (i'm postu…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 03:07 PM
2

I read that 50% of violence was initiated by a woman and that 40% of the victims were men. Could mean that they only counted injuries or that 20% of the female initiators had the fight turn on them or ....
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:41 PM
2

I don't think so, no. But i'm suggesting the other side might.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 05:32 AM
5

But if the man (was about to say dad) and child takes it, then he isn't taking her at her word.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:53 PM
2

Agreed. Just throwing out a possible counterargument.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:41 PM
2

Which will be counterargued with that the argument is broken because the mugging victim doesn't have any responsibilities to those children.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:28 PM
15

Will be argued against with saying that "it is accusing all women of committing fraud".
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:26 PM
2

I read the title as a success-story.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 08:17 PM
1

Feels to me like the reason MRM isn't totally behind allowing men to be softer is feminists saying that men SHOULD be softer and thus wanting to prevent the old expectation turning into a new one.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:53 PM
1

.....i get hungry when i'm bored...and i get bored when i'm not doing atleast two, preferably 3, things at once. Or in other words, eating means i only need 2 other things which is more achievable.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 06:04 PM
1

Well, there doesn't seem to be many that approach it as live and let live with normal porn, which is what it sounded like you meant and in which case women should just let their wishes be known and produce ....feminist porn? female porn?....can't find a term that hasn't been used and doesn't sound wrong. Here in sweden there was a project, by feminists, that used government funding to produce a set of short porn movies under the project name "Dirty Diaries". Not only did the movies get criticize…
/r/MensRights17/10/13 03:27 PM
5

There's little complaint about this because it isn't considered a neutral setting. Same thing with pornography-- it's obviously male-catered, and the feminist critique isn't against that, just that there's a lack of an equivalent outside literature (guys face is blurred out, camera angles mostly on the woman, etc and so forth). What exactly are you saying here? that feminists only complain about porn because there is no "porn for women" ? edit: Or in other words, are you saying that feminists wo…
/r/MensRights17/10/13 12:45 PM
2

Reduce your understanding of how hooking up works to "guy initiates, girl accepts" and it is easy to understand.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 10:31 PM
1

this seems to imply that men WOULD be the enemy if they fought back. It does? I didn't read it that way. Causality in one direction doesn't meant causality in the other direction.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:30 PM
1

Yes. I agree. However, the government probably thinks that if the sums intended for each child can be maintained by parents it should be. And so they decide the father should pay more for the two children that are his so they still receive the same amount while the mother spreads her income on 3.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:57 PM
0

I meant that the court operated as such ; the biological children are supposed to each receive (be allowed to use up, whatever) Z. X from the mother and Y from the father (X+Y=Z) and decides that because mother can only supply X-A because her income is divided on 3 instead of 2, then the father muat supply X+A so that Z remains constant. Or in other words they decided that the child support wasn't percentual from the income but a part of a sum his biological children were supposed to have at the…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:50 PM
7

Put like that it actually makes sense (doesm't make ot acceptable). Court decides the parents should support the children at a certain standard of living but can't stop the mother from having more children.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:57 AM
9

Jumping in here. Pointing out that men would have gone to jail for what a woman has done does, to me at least, not imply a single way of moving forward. It can also be done when arguing that men should not go to jail for doing that same thing. If a woman can have her goof written off, then so should a man. If a man can't have his goof written off because of laws, then neither should a woman be able to. edit: to be clear, i mean that the crimes she performed were breaking and entering and theft.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 03:10 PM
1

That's a pretty good description aswell.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:04 AM
1

Well, apparently it is for the one who made the post since they use it to explain to themselves why the pretty girls disagree with them. Personally i think it is somewhere between stupid logic and logically inconsistent (since according to them the pretty girls should have it at least as bad, what with objectification and all).
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:00 AM
23

Sounds like they gave her a rather large percentage of his salary, never mindind anything else.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 12:22 PM
3

It's supposed to mean that the pretty girls live are pandered to because of their looks and thus do not notice whatever inequalities the poster claim exists.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:35 AM
0

Regarding one, you don't think that would get slandered too? Right now it is "you cal yourself annra but you're just a misogynist." , it could become "you call yourself an egalitarian but you're just a misogynist."
/r/MensRights10/10/13 11:19 AM
4

I can definitely see asking for a paternity test as something that could poison a relationship. On the other hand the same goes for not opting out if it can be done.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:11 PM
39

Probably isn't.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 01:06 PM
1

At most: men always have to work, women might not need to if in a relationship.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 04:06 PM
0

I wasn't aware that single women had husbands. Sure, it may be unfair that women are freer to be the one who stays home but my point is that work is something men would have to do whether they are looking for a wife or mean to stay single for the rest of their life.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 03:33 PM
1

Put it this way, men would have to do those 8 hours even if they were planning on never being in a relationship. It is the most common workday.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 01:56 PM
1

Beauty ideal: But it isn't countered by this. Desirability: And he wouldn't be doing those 8 hours anyways? I don't see many part-time jobs in my (hopefully future) field. Or are you saying men wouldn't allow the working day to remain at 8 hours if not because of women finding them less desirable? Not to mention that it's a bad counter-argument for the make-up-time because women work 8 hours too.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 12:53 PM
1

Except they complain about how much work women have to put in, how the beauty ideal is bad for the woman (too thin, etc) and how it is expected of women. Maybe the last one is close to that, but it doesn't sound exactly like it.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 12:24 PM
2

I see complaints about the inequality in allowed jokes as trying to make the other side see how it is encouraging unequality.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 10:47 PM
1

As i said elsewhere , it seems this isn't the reason. Also it was never meant to justify how it is. However if this was the reason i'd have said they hadn't considered this scenario and thus not put in an exception for it. But as i said, it doesn't seem to be the reason.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 12:12 PM
5

I don't necessarily think it is bad either, but i can see some parties using it in their arguments and people on that side already have arguments for continuing the practice (however missinformed or beside the point they may be), so i could definitely se them adding "it doesn't hurt that much". Of course that is a terrible argument against the study but still.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 03:02 AM
6

But it may be used as an argument of placation. "See, we made it less painful and they're still complaining. They can't be reasoned with."
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:29 AM
1

Because of multiple parties in the process i'd think. Party one wants to make it illegal for the parent. Party two fumbles it somehow (party two could be the legal system with the fumbling being that it made it easier to put in as it is (updating law on incest) than the perfect version (making sex with someone you are a parent to be something new but similar to sex with a minor) or someone arguing that the child "is still an adult"). In the end party one gets to make it illegal for the parent an…
/r/MensRights02/10/13 01:24 AM
1

Collateral damage. The given is the reason but they didn't make a new law and instead classified any parent-child relation regardless of actual biological relation as incest which means both persons get charged.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 12:05 AM
1

Yes, and it's been established both genders inherit from parents. What i meant was that if this were to be interesting it should compare how many rich men got their start by inheriting specifically from a spouse against how many rich women got their start by inheriting specifically from their spouse, i.e. marriage benefit for both genders. Not that it would be very intersting from a mens rights perspective (not much to do about it unless the're was divorces involved) but more than it is now.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 10:16 PM
1

Made me wonder, would it be possible to make a best of for /r/mensrights? Or some pseudo version?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:56 PM
1

Someone did in TIL. it was 8 out of 20. Tho that was inherited at all. Not "inherited from spouse" unfortunately.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:52 PM
3

technicality that was likely put in there to protect minors. I think the logic is that parents are always in a position of authority over those they raised (children looking up to their parents) so it is there to protect adoptive children from their parents (ab)using that position.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:41 PM
1

Makes me wonder how the feedback is arranged, are people "on the lookout" kept in the loop at all....
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:45 AM
0

The optimist in me wants to think that the poot judgement was in driving away before the person responsible could check him out. It's depressing that that might not be it.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:43 AM
1

To me it just soundd unnecessarily scientific.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:39 AM
1

Sounded like sarcasm to me.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 01:52 AM
1

Well, that's their reason why we don't need to talk about mens rights, isn't it? I was wondering about their reason for why sexism needs to include power.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 11:08 PM
1

I know, but i got curious as to the reason they give for it.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:16 PM
1

Sure, go ahead.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:13 PM
2

"sexism = power + prejudice" again. ...Did anyone ever find out WHY they say it needs to include power? I personally find those t-shirts tacky but ...aren't they as much tongue-in-cheek on a man? And wouldn't a queer woman achieve the same effect with a t-shirt saying "Hi. I'm X." with X being either "queer" or whatever specific they want? But it seems that being brave makes it okay. I'd consider it pretty brave for a man to wear such a shirt... And ending on it being more okay because it let's …
/r/MensRights26/09/13 03:40 AM
2

Yeah, i guess i was unclear. The second part was to be an example of how a male was basically raped and it wasn't mentioned at all. (They did have Gary mention the taste didn't they?). And the first could be called misogyny by someone who doesn't look at the whole thing and instead goes "they're saying that all women want is sex!". But yeah, looking wider then that single point, it doesn't seem like misogyny.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 09:52 PM
2

I read MA3 and i can't remember any misogyny either. Well, maybe the stuff where some characters want to be with Gary the main character because he is good at oral could be called such. On the other hand tho there was the time Gary wanted to practice his oral/kissing technique via kissing the guy who taught him in and was instead tricked into performing oral on a girl. He didn't seem to mind after but still.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 08:57 PM
2

What is so dumb about this, is that when you have the flu, you are supposed to rest. Yeah, "quarantine yourself as much as possible" is what i would be thinking.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:14 PM
2

That's the point. The picture carries an odd sentiment because men would rather not go to the doctors and possibly just ignore that they are sick.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:11 PM
5

If that is all they are asking, why are they not phrasing it that way? "we want to raise awareness so more people call the police if they witness a rape" rather than "men can end rape" ? I'm asking seriously because whenever i hear "men can end rape" (or a variation there of) i wonder what exactly they want me to do. Am i supposed to spend my free time patrolling down town? going to any parties i can find so i maybe can be on hand if something happens?
/r/MensRights22/09/13 10:45 PM
16

They obviously should have forced him to act differently rather than let him be himself.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 08:58 PM
7

swede here ,not a german, but i know that i wouldn't even dare to say that i was going to "smash you with my glass if you don't stop". (I.e. warn)
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:01 PM
1

Don't think anyone tried to push thru such a law, but i know it has been suggested a couple of times as a "cure" for the wage gap. (Even tho our national statistics beaureu has analyzed it and concluded that if it exists it is less than 1%.)
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:19 AM
2

uterus that will be subjected to a medical procedure during an abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Medical And if a woman isn't able to get in contact with the father during that period, maybe she should treat the decision as if she knew she would be a single parent? (If she doesn't know his preferences.)
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:41 AM
3

As far as i'm concerned that is all i'm arguing for. The woman can chose to have the child or not but her choosing to keep it shouldn't force responsibility on the man when she can chose to give that responsibility up.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:29 AM
5

And that is truely tragic, it is also an unfortunate biological reality. Unless you want to advocate forcing women to carry children to birth or forcing an abortion there is nothing that can be done about it. The problem is that the woman is allowed to give up being a parent at a later stage, even if she was at first enthusiastic about it. The man is not allowed to stop the process even if he never indicated a wish to be a father. thinking your baby will have a father who will help you and then …
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:23 AM
6

Which is the same thing but with weasel words.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:52 PM
3

so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person. See, here i believe that forcing the man to take on a child he doesn't want is as much an infringement on his rights as it would be to force the woman to carry to term.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:49 PM
5

This policy you want is anti poor. As I have said the situation cannot be fair. I have often heard "the world isn't fair" in connection with poverty. While i generally support help to the poor, if it is one parents choice that the baby should be born, it should be one parents responsibility to finance the raising of that child.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:42 PM
9

just saying men can walk away is not the answer Since you are arguing from the emotional impact on the woman i won't argue that women can just walk away via adoption. Instead i'm pointing out that women can have an abortion whether or not the man wants to keep the child or not. The woman has the right to abort whether or not the man wants it because it is her body. Fine. But having to pay childsupport for 18 years for an unwanted child has huge effect on the fathers life. If the argument is that…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:38 PM
5

Unfortunately the woman can have an abortion with only that justification, so as far as i'm concerned it is not a justifiable reason to force the ...spermdonor to do so.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:27 PM
1

So there is, didn't think to go up and check. But yeah, that is why i wanted multiple pictures. Not that i'm going to take your advice and go search (good advice tho), i just wished wiki was even better as information asset (don't want to call it a source since i've had the complaints too ingrained) by illustrating each point with a picture.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 02:13 AM
1

Wish that had pictures.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 01:58 AM
7

If i knew my girlfriend was doing this i wouldn't be able to be myself until marriage (possibly i would be less inclined to propose marriage) and thus the whole thing would be invalidated.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:20 PM
3

"I'd like to hear just one person, exonerated after a sexual offences trial, declare that despite their personal suffering, they are proud to live in a society that takes people seriously when they say they have been sexually abused" Isn't it to take people seriously to evaluate their story and see if it is true? Which would mean that the police can be taking it seriously whether it results in a conviction or if it is deemed that there is no case.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:25 AM
2

True. I'd say that falls under the enjoyment tho, she just has another way of enjoying it.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:43 AM
3

Possibly "why don't you be a caring woman and make me some dinner?" ? Feels like that connects better with why the woman is supposed to do something.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:08 AM
0

Well, that depends on whether the woman enjoys it (or enjoys giving her partner enjoyment by giving him a blowjob). If she doesn't but Doesn't stand up for it, that could be called weak willed.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:00 AM
2

What do women have do do, besides possessing tits and a fanny, to prove their femininity? To men? Nothing. To feminists? Not do anything to "please men" (possibly do things simply because it is the opposite of what "pleases men").
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:18 PM
11

they thought it looked better Always read that as "cuter" and thought "it's your son, not a doll".
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:18 AM
2

Ah. Shit. Fucking forgot about that rule. Shit. ....didn't up or downvote anything tho i think. Edit: removed what votes i gave. Should i delete my comments too?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 04:07 AM
1

Put that way it sounds illogocal but another way to put it is "the assumption that women are there for the drinks and men are there for the women." And making them pay full price to get something free would have lesser pull.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:02 AM
1

And now for the depressing turnabout?
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:24 PM
2

Ok. Switch "fix it" with "change it" then. But "smart enough to run the machines" (and maybe build them too?) sounds like a "high SAT score" thing.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:43 PM
5

She is also saying because men want primarily to fuck and women want primarily to romance women are at a disadvantage. I think she means that men supposedly never bring emotions into it and can have a sexual relationship with a coworker without it implying anything else and not being bothered if it ends but the women will be bothered if it ends. They are also at a disadvantage if the companies bans relations between coworkers altogether. What? Seems that she means that there is a need for a work…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:33 PM
1

Well, the leverage of giving someone a crowbar and telling them to only use it when told.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:23 PM
1

Unless you want to take on a rather large chunk of the education tho, you need to fix the system. I'm not saying "pay more attention to other peoples kids" but if the system is bad/broken, maybe your kid would benefit from fixing it?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:19 PM
2

I wasn't arguing which OS was best. Only that print-to-pdf software was neither pricey nor difficult to access.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:20 PM
1

I guess i simply disgreed on "special". To me it doesn't count of it is as cheap (free) and easy to get as that kind of software is. Special to me indicates costs of hundreds of dollars atleast. Edit: spelling.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:17 PM
0

the software may not be included in the OS, but that doesn't mean it isn't out that for free with an easy installation.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 04:12 AM
2

Was wondering whether there was anything special about the swimming ("hmm, group coordinated swimming?"), but it was just normal swimming then? And the girls got to chose which boys would even be allowed to be in the same pool/room?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 03:55 AM
1

Whoops. I see now i got an il too much. Was supposed to be prostitution is legal.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 01:06 PM
6

Lawmakers here in Sweden apparently agrees with the later part of your first paragraph bu not the earlier. Result: prostitution is illegal buying sex is not or in other words it is legal for the seller but not the buyer. Edit: typo. was supposed to be "prostitution is legal".
/r/MensRights04/09/13 03:21 AM
10

How about both? Not less sexist because it is realistic.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 10:11 PM
2

Wow, hand't heard it as rape but had heard it being called abusive to use logic when arguing with a significant other. Because one wouldn't be putting caring about their feelings as the top priority.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:37 AM
2

I'd say that it would be vandalism if they are changing something that has neutral POV.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 12:57 PM
5

Almost makes one wish for it to happen to her kids. Except that would be holding the accountable for their mothers actions.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 05:01 PM
1

So in full it would be "sex video erotica" as opposed to "amateur porn video" ?
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:10 AM
1

I meant besides porn and erotica.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:30 PM
7

Haven't heard of the one about making it illegal to counter feminism, but yeah, a quick search for "mansskatt" (man tax") gets hits both about Umeå proposing a tax because of the claimed wagegap and about Gudrun Schyman (now leader of FI - Femistiskt Initiativ (Feminist Initiative) ) proposing it in 2005 where she meant it should be used to make all men take responsibility for "mens violence against women".
/r/MensRights18/08/13 08:41 PM
1

Language evolved and we were socialized into it because people around us used it. Before i try arguing. What other terms are there?
/r/MensRights15/08/13 06:00 PM
1

But that conditioning is that languages evolve. I'd normally argue the same, "let's stick to the original meaning" but here it feels like a good reason to let the word change.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:41 PM
3

No see, that is explained with that men force women to comply with their desires.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:28 AM
1

Yeah, but it feels wrong to call it erotica when a married couple films themselves having sex and porn when a model is only going as far as being nude.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:01 PM
1

I see your line of thought as problematic, it is holding other humans accountable for the actions of those sharing a trait Erhm, no. The police stopping you to ask who you are and what are you doing does not equal "holding you accountable for the actions of those sharing a trait". They are not holding you accountable for anything. But they are holding you suspect for it, which MRM seems to dislike when it comes to rape and child abuse. Tho i supose there is a difference between generally and aft…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:48 PM
1

See I fucking hate that, it shouldn't be called porn, porn is professionally bought sex media, not amateur shit people do for free, that's just erotica. Personally i'd call it based on whether there was sex acts (including masturbation) depicted, rather than who made it.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 12:46 PM
1

Yes, we had one overe here who suggested that physics needed to be changed to be softer (not just the courses in it but physics itself). Not sure if she still supports it tho.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:55 AM
1

Ah. I read it as "people who actively compete" and thought the number seemed a little large.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:10 PM
2

So literally one in ten million?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 08:25 PM
2

Don't remember the source (read it a couple years ago) but i heard of a study where they concluded that female teachers gave their sex better grades but male teachers didn't.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:11 PM
1

Well, it's seems more clear on where the user could weasel out.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 10:50 PM
8

Wow, i don't think an answer can get more evasive than that.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 08:35 PM
3

Think it's "met her" since it seems the writer is male. "Besides, our brains process things at a different speed to you, ie slower."
/r/MensRights10/08/13 08:21 PM
1

Wasn't advocating it. Think it's sort of silly actually but also if they want to do it, fine, as long as i don't have to.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:42 AM
6

Well, aren't there people putting forth women->womyn and females->fems?
/r/MensRights08/08/13 07:42 PM
17

Feminists argue that there is no need for MRM because feminism cares about mens issues too. This shows an example of that they do not since they aren't getting offended by this like they would if it was something about girls.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:08 AM
1

My bad.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 08:21 PM
1

Ah. My bad. Sounds like it would work for about a week tho.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 07:23 PM
1

Step Three: All non-feminists on twitter are silenced so support of feminism appears enormous.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 06:26 PM
8

"Women are the main victims of suicide. Think of all those mothers who get left behind and have to deal with it. The fathers obviously aren't around so they won't be affected." /feminist rhetoric.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:55 PM
1

personaly note here (can't remember the right phrase) but i generally like to play bald characters when i can design my character. But that is shaven bald as Anderson Silva, not naturally balding like Fedor. (balding actually being something else but putting it in since i don't like th old-and-bald look.)
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:31 PM
1

Yeah, granted i haven't read that many harem comedy comics but the ones i have read seem to have the Good Girl / Childhood Friend be tsundere and violent.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:19 PM
1

ok. I meant more along the lines of openly committing to all of them but probably unlikely it exists. Wrong sort of drama.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:15 PM
1

meh. Only got 170.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:09 PM
1

Author is a man.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 12:15 PM
5

Comic is done by a man, David Willis.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 12:11 PM
2

If it already is 3/4 of men, 1/2 of women, wouldn't that imply that maybe nothing they do will really up their numbers? That maybe they aren't saturated just for men but for women too?
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:47 AM
20

if we simply go by "Normal Guy has very attractive girls fight over him", then there is hundreds. But it could easily be called "female power fantasy" since they force him to choose, pulling him back and forth, and he usually ends up with the "Good Girl"/"childhood sweetheart". Would be interesting with one where he simply declares that he is polyamorous and they have to deal with that. (And one from the perspective of the Good Girl / Childhood Sweetheart who is put upon by the other girl/s woul…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:33 AM
5

Personally i'd say that it depends on context. "don't be such a vagina." is simply substituting vagina for bitch or pussy, and could be said to a woman but doesn't simply mean woman. (Unless one argues that one is calling men women when calling them "bitch/pussy".) And it feels like using vagina instead of pussy is on the rise, but then again i don't have perfect overview.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 12:03 PM
2

But pussy is different in meaning, being similar to coward.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 11:55 AM
1

Again though the consequences for the accused rapist were considered but not the consequences for the accused false accuser. Just got uncomfortable here so gonna put this in. the consequences for people falsely accused of rape were considered but not the consequences for people falsely accused of falsely accusing. And i think it gets difficult because MRM has to both be a counterweight to feminism and the middle-way balanced group. Otherwise, the best idea currently available is probably to seal…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:45 AM
1

Don't you mean "they were" ?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:18 AM
1

But it's ok when a rape victim is dragged through a trial accusing them of bringing a false accusation? As far as i can tell no one suggested that. It was only suggested that it wouldn't happen. On another note how would you solve the smearing of the accused? If the perfect is not to be an enemy of the good it sounds there can't ever be any consequence. Should it just continue as now and make all trials closed door trials? (can't have just the rape trials since that would be a tell.)
/r/MensRights31/07/13 01:46 AM
1

I'd worry she'd take it as an insult. "What is so bad about walking on the same side of the road as me, huh?"
/r/MensRights28/07/13 12:41 PM
3

Hmm, that actually sounds like he was arguing that they may as well ride to where they were going.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 12:28 PM
0

Welll, isn't the feminist argument there that everyone is socialized to believe that women can't do as good a job as men? Basically that the wage gap exists because people believe it matches ability?
/r/MensRights27/07/13 11:47 AM
20

isn't it both? It's equality in that instance because she showed the common courtesy of that not going ahead because she was a girl?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 01:35 AM
2

Sounds like that would be very person specific. People who feel they look good might not mind being looked at. So it could be said the act itself is harmless but the interpretation might not be depending on the persons ideas of it.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 04:01 PM
1

Thank you. All i ask for is some consistency (yes, inconsistency is human but it annoys me). I have previously followed blogs where it seemed as they all the time switched back and forth between saying that society doesn't allow men to have feelings and complaining when there was news of some effort to encourage boys in school to express their feelings. I suppose i came in here with a bit of a chip on my shoulder out of that.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 03:40 AM
2

No i was not. I agree that if you call yourself a feminist you link yourself to what feminism has done. Maybe i shouldn't have set the tone with saying "viable concept" but "true" or something similar. It was mostly that i felt it was a ridiculous task that was set. But i do feel like there needs to be some sort of allowance for distancing. I don't hold now-living christians responsible for the crusades. Nor do i expect them to change the name of their group because of it. It is an apt descripti…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 03:28 AM
0

Sounds to me like he is saying that for you to prove NAFALT as a viable concept you have to prove NFALT (No feminists are like that). Going via the argument that if you use the same name as poeople who believe in something you link yourself to that something.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:27 PM
1

Seems to me that that doesn't change because a movement has academic presence. If it does the there is an (....not sure about the term, academiocracy maybe? rule of academics). And means central individuals determine the ideology. Core values should come from the movement and be described by academia. Sure, if there is something specific that the movement wants to accomplish it might want to listen to academic suggestions on how best to do that, but not having academic presence shouldn't stop it…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:44 PM
1

For me it's (as i said replying to /u/oneiorosgrip) for me it is much in the solution. For example i disagree with say Chapins Inferno (think that was it) about that the solution needs to be that the government goes handss off on everything (i'm swedish, recently put thru university by the government for example).
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:50 PM
1

Well, why don't you list the core idelogy then so i can determine wether i agree with it? Because listening to them it sounds like i agree with them on the problem (well, much of the problems. tho these are starting to fray.) but not the solution.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:35 PM
1

With your argument i cannot call myself an MRA (well, i was never that active...Mens rights proponent?) since there are individuals in the movement that seem quite central that i disagree with.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:55 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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