TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

raluth Archive

View 1 posts and 168 comments by raluth on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
256

Progressraluth/r/MensRights02/12/17 08:59 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Not under current UK law, it shouldn't. I agree with your sentiment, but it would be legally and tecnhically incorrect to say that.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 07:28 AM
12

Wrong sub. This is just someone being violently assaulted. Bad OP.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/09/18 08:36 AM
1

What the hell is wrong with you? Or to put it another way: "fuck no you fucking fuckhole". If you don't like how another human talks to you: don't be with that human.
/r/MensRights10/09/18 11:35 PM
3

That's not how math works. That isn't what that means at all.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 05:47 PM
8

It really depends on how you define "physical or sexual violence", especially if you focus on the first one. You'll also note that it doesn't restrict who the violence is coming from. For example, if that includes "two people pushing each-other after getting angry" considered over a lifetime, frankly I'm surprised the answer isn't "1 in 1". Presumably a woman slapping or hitting a man is also "physical violence", in which case I'd be amazed if the number for men also isn't "1 in 1" even if we ju…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 09:57 AM
16

Actually, what I find most surprising about that table is that they do call out obesity as a gendered topic, despite the numbers being basically identical, but they don't call out suicide, alcohol, drug, and accidental injuries (traffic or work). Even worse: they call out "who do not meet fruit and vegetable dietary guidelines" - i.e. people not eating a safe diet, and they give the numbers for women in the main table, but the numbers for men are in the margin, and it is men in Victoria who are …
/r/MensRights04/09/18 09:06 AM
7

It talks about a percentage of females who are obese, which is at 21% (so 79% male). No, that means ~ 1 in 5 females are obese. All you can conclude from that is that ~ 4 in 5 females are not obese. You can't conclude anything about males from that. The table then states (left column): "males in Bass Coast 17.9%, males in Victoria 17.4%" The phrasing you would need for "so 79% male" would be "21% of obese people are female" (give or take whatever percent for "identifies as something else")
/r/MensRights04/09/18 08:59 AM
75

“All forms of violence are abhorrent. However, with one in three women experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, there is no doubt that this is a gender-based issue," he said. So tell me... what is the equivalent number for men when measured in the exact same way? What's that? You don't know? Because you didn't even ask, and nobody measured? Normally when concluding that (category) is a factor, you get the numbers for all the groups and compare them. You don't just show one num…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 08:04 AM
1

> The biggest reason why I think this is war. Don't forget - as Hillary Clinton points out: women have always been the primary victims of war...
/r/MensRights02/09/18 09:48 PM
97

It wouldn't make the bill any better, but: can I reasonably assume that the bill makes no provision in the other direction?
/r/MensRights02/09/18 10:12 AM
12

I think you're too personally close to this issue to be objective. For example, there's a lot to be said about the studies you cherry-picked - here's a lengthy discussion on the Morris one for example. It seems like you're regurgitating the pro-cut propaganda without even chewing it, frankly.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 09:31 AM
2

Neither. The adult's. By which I mean: wait for them to grow up before making a decision like that. Children will agree to most things when they're parents make it clear that they expect it and encourage it. Very few children would say "no", despite wanting to. It is illegal to tattoo children (in my country, at least), but fine to do this?
/r/MensRights24/08/18 10:04 AM
1

I don't see how that is at all relevant or reasonable. What matters is how much they are working. If they are working similar hours etc: they hell yes they should do similar chores. If the reason they're warning different money is that one of them is only working one day a week, then sure - that person can do more housework. The only time money earned becomes relevant is if you decide that maybe it would be more effective for one of you to deal with the house instead, in which case: sure, it mak…
/r/MensRights30/06/18 05:37 PM
3

nope; suspended sentence - so : "behave from now on, or we'll do something about it": https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/25/oxford-student-lavinia-woodward-gets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend
/r/MensRights27/06/18 10:53 AM
-1

That sounds like the sort of thing someone would say while advocating very old-school roles like "house wife" and "the male bread winner" - the "complimentary but different" position. In which case you and I have very different ideas about what issues are relevant to men's rights, and life in general.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:27 AM
2

Yeah, I absolutely understand the trend. My point was simply: I'm in the UK and was curious about the Brit-specific examples they were noting.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 07:49 PM
0

yes, I'm well aware; I was asking about Britain examples - the BH thing isn't something I hear (or have heard) much about specifically in the context of the UK, is the point I was making
/r/MensRights10/06/18 03:48 PM
0

Are you talking about boko haram? Yes, absolutely the male side of this has been thrown under a bus completely. I haven't seen much mention if it in the UK, though. It seems "bigger" in the US - most famously perhaps the Michelle Obama thing.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:09 AM
-4

any examples?
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:44 PM
15

Claims to represent equality, but not only ignores misandry, but in the article actively opposes making the wording neutral, on the basis that more women are affected. That's just stupid. That's like saying "more brown haired people are killed illegally - we should have a law against killing brown haired people". Worse: a women abusing a man on tends to get vocal support from bystanders, and people piling on attacking (verbally or otherwise) the man. No, make the law neutral, and if your premise…
/r/MensRights31/05/18 07:36 AM
4

Ironically, the 100 years thing relates to the act in 1918 that gave suffrage to all men and women over 30. Before that, there were tiers and criteria (mostly involving property, which most people didn't own), meaning: many many men couldn't vote. Universal suffrage is touted as a feminist victory, but the biggest factor was men returning from serving in the first world war but being unable to vote. Women got an equal footing in 1928 with a second act which changed the "over 30" bit. As for "onl…
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:38 AM
9

"suspended"; so... "walk free now, and don't' misbehave for a while or we'll enforce it"
/r/MensRights11/05/18 11:00 PM
2

Then I'm glad I responded with humour. Which is like humor in the US, but funnier.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 09:24 PM
1

We can speak it just fine, thanks. Besides, I could care less
/r/MensRights28/04/18 09:00 PM
4

That last line was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It is a fairly moderate south-eastern accent, that would be understood almost anywhere in England, and spoken perhaps anywhere south and east of Oxford. There are a lot of thicker accents / dialects, especially Yorkshire, Mancunian, Liverpudlian, Cornish or Bristolian - many of which would be hard to understand for most foreigners.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 11:58 AM
2

You'd be wrong. The school has a legal duty of care, and failing to take action on this is identical to failing to take action if a large group of students were standing chanting racist slogans. If they take no action against them, I suggest a letter to the DfE giving first a very factual account of things, and then (separate paragraph) something talking about the emotional impact of this targeting, perhaps suggesting that it made it hard to focus on your work (/exams), emphasizing that the scho…
/r/MensRights28/04/18 10:36 AM
4

Same meaning as "Not really sure, mate". I agree you wouldn't use it that way in written language, but spontaneous spoken language is full of odd word orders, etc.
/r/MensRights28/04/18 10:27 AM
12

Still on for Friday night? Not sure really mate The accent is called "English"
/r/MensRights28/04/18 10:19 AM
2

We don't have felonies in any way, but : other than that, you're not wrong.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:50 AM
1

it was posted less than two hours ago, and is just two posts down; please at least look before posting
/r/MensRights18/04/18 09:28 AM
7

now we'll be for it; males dominating another high profile industry....
/r/MensRights18/04/18 12:08 AM
43

wait... 17% of men are librarians? wow, that's a lot more libraries than I expected. Are you sure don't mean that 17% of librarians are men?
/r/MensRights17/04/18 10:21 PM
2

You don't get it; I'm talking about the argument themselves; not the thing that is being argued. There's a huge difference. And : yes, absolutely 100% - either all of those arguments are valid, or all of those arguments are invalid. There is no middle ground. This often presents an interesting special case if the arguments are mutually exclusive - it allows us to conclude (by non-contradiction) that all of the arguments are invalid. This does not mean that all of the positions are necessarily wr…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 02:37 PM
2

essentially: what /u/Good4Men said; the argument presented is garbage. Now, whether something is true or not is completely separate to bad arguments. Something can be true or false, but if the only argument presented is trivially dismissable, we have neither proven nor disproven the reality of the thing being claimed. example: "the world is a sphere because apples are spheres"; us realising that this is crap doesn't mean that the world isn't a sphere - but also "the world is a disk because plate…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 12:09 PM
10

Just play swap the noun: "saying that men are priveleged is sexist because you're saying that men don't know if they're being treated unfairly" "saying that white people are priveleged is racist because you're saying that white people don't know if they're being treated unfairly" they're either all valid or all garbage.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 09:07 PM
2

At a population level, sure. But that doesn't mean that acting on those instincts (rather than objectively assessing events) isn't sexism. Population data means pretty much nothing at the individual level, which this is. Similarly, humans have a predisposition to treat people who look like them favourably, when compared to how they treat people with different colour, facial structure, etc. Once again there are perfectly sound reasons for the animal part of our brain (which frankly makes more dec…
/r/MensRights15/04/18 12:27 PM
3

It is legitimate to ask the question "would the same thing have happened if it was a girl?" - I don't know the answer to that, but that is a relevant question. And the heavily downvoted post above isn't wrong that men are more likely to be shot at than women, perceived as a threat, etc. I would totally agree that race was a huge factor here, but that doesn't make it the only relevant factor.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 07:55 AM
1

So you're saying that 3 in 4 is a small subset, the very best? And your choice of Norway is presumably because they're a notable extreme?
/r/MensRights12/04/18 06:20 PM
1

Only a very small subset of men, the very best, carry on their genes through each generation well that's a load of crap; that's just not how human society and procreation works at all; are you sure you aren't thinking of gorillas or something?
/r/MensRights12/04/18 03:14 PM
1

And assholes like this ^ are what "validates" (and I use that term loosely) the many changes that feminists have succeeding in gaining, which benefit women above men. Try to understand: you are the problem, and the price is being paid by all men, not you.
/r/MensRights12/04/18 11:47 AM
1

"bag lady" means something very different here; picture Brenda Fricker's character in "Home Alone 2" - a homeless woman whose entire possessions is the bags or cart that she's lugging around.
/r/MensRights12/04/18 11:44 AM
6

Frankly, if you're 50/50 custody and parenting: why is there CS at all? If this was the other way around, you'd be written out as a deadbeat non-contributing father, and probably held liable for missing support - possibly imprisoned for non-payment.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 09:43 PM
16

Wait, don't they also have one of these around October too, on the premise "everything from here is working for free"? What's better than misrepresenting once: misrepresenting twice!
/r/MensRights10/04/18 09:40 PM
2

Guinea Baboons? http://primate.uchicago.edu/2003ETHO.pdf ? Intense greetings involve intimate and risky behaviors such as embracing and the diddling of the penis and/or scrotum.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 11:28 AM
2

you know that's not where your prostate is, right?
/r/MensRights10/04/18 10:01 AM
9

Interesting article, but - I read it and I genuinely believe that the author is missing something key: Women are socialised into their gender roles (gender roles are harmful, narrow, stereotypical characteristics and expectations assigned to males and females to conform to a societal norm) to not even possess a shred of the sense of entitlement that men have. No. Other way around. As the author should know from setting up - in their own words: the first male mental health and well-being centre i…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:55 PM
6

I think this is more the reason why we should the question, as to why females are chosen less in blind recruitment. It is a fair question. I don't have simple answers. Most of the bad policies that exist are the result of inventing simple answers, which requires simplifying the problem. But: when we acknowledge that even blind recruitment leads to more men being hired, I've seen people say "this just shows that the recruitment process is broken". But: I don't accept that without good evidence. I…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 10:43 AM
7

I would think that there is no major discrimination before university education Females are out-performing males at every level of education, including university where most campuses are now majority (although not a huge majority) female. Yet almost all education drives are about improving outcomes for women. And there are plenty of areas where women are outnumbering men, even in areas of STEM (the one area that feminism never stops talking about), but those areas with hugely disproportionate fe…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 10:17 AM
7

The word you probably mean in place of "democratic" is: "meritocratic". And yes, yes it is. Feminism keeps saying that we need quotas because the supposed meritocracy is false, and discrimination happens. Blind recruitment says "ok, let's make it impossible to discriminate". It turns out that when you do that (as shown repeatedly), the recruitment doesn't change much - and if anything (see Australia): more men get hired. Yet because it didn't have the results they wanted, the response is "in tha…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 09:54 AM
1

I'm hearing both. But yes, MSM is biased.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 09:45 PM
1

If you're having to deceive: I strongly suspect that this is revenge, not justice.
/r/MensRights03/04/18 07:18 PM
1

What the hell would make that "man/male friendly"? This sounds like a tacit request for an alibi service, more than anything else.
/r/MensRights03/04/18 06:43 PM
5

And what are your thoughts on this, OP? This seems like an absurd decision to me, that harms everyone. You?
/r/MensRights03/04/18 05:47 PM
8

There can be two issues at once - this is OK. Don't panic. But just no; that's not an imaginary issue. It also isn't just female teachers affected, but: yeah; this is very definitely an issue and it shouldn't be ignored. It also shouldn't be used to demonize all students (or all students by gender).
/r/MensRights02/04/18 10:55 PM
4

Yup. Negligence bad. No disagreement. Seems a stretch to this sub, though.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 02:09 PM
1

And medical negligence is bad. It doesn't mean it is a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 01:29 PM
4

Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying: this isn't a sensible hill for intactivism to choose to die on. It pretty much guarantees a "no change" outcome.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 12:42 PM
28

From the report it seems that this was a genuine medical scenario, not a "wink, 'medical scenario', wink". If the intent here is to say "we shouldn't think of circumcision as a trivial thing", then : absolutely agree. But I'm not sure this quote fits the "intactivism" tag. Tragic that it happened, though.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 09:03 AM
2

Yeah, they had that in English too. Sad.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 06:50 AM
5

Old system: recipient pays the income tax (deductable for payer); new system: payer pays the income tax. Doesn't affect existing arrangements.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 11:52 PM
3

Oh, I very much don't. But on this occasion it genuinely does seem to apply. It wasn't meant as hyperbole.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 02:50 PM
5

OP is asking us to be "awake" on other issues. OPs idea of being "awake" on other issues is a steaming mound of far-right assholery. OP can jog on.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 02:40 PM
3

(reviews profile; sees the huge amount of explicit racism and bigotry) You know that "bad white male" stereotype that you're calling out. That's you. You're the reason that stereotype exists. Maybe think on that before telling other people how to act.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 02:29 PM
2

I'm guessing Deuteronomy 25:11-12
/r/MensRights01/04/18 10:23 AM
1

That looks like US campus feminism. Not sure how "eastern feminism" relates here.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 03:24 PM
1

That much I will indeed nod along to. I guess it was just the opening line that raised my hackles. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but I read it to mean that the accident was "gendered/typical". If you actually just meant the way the mess was dealt with, yeah: ok.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 02:29 PM
-8

I think you're veering far into sexist territory when talking about a "typical" incident where a woman driver hits a male driver. Indeed, that's a dangerous greenhouse to throw stones from when it can just as easily be argued that most aggressive driving is "typically" male-focused. That said: get a dashcam. I don't see this topic as a gendered one.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 02:21 PM
3

Interesting. That isn't the impression I'd got, and I'd like to learn more.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 09:17 AM
-1

Our brains weren't built for it. Our brains (or bodies, for that matter) aren't really "built" for living much past 40/50, so... we have to make the best of it.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 08:41 AM
1

So... your point might start to be relevant around 2050/2060, when those folks start retiring. Maybe it is just me, but I tend to have my eyes on more immediate issues.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 08:32 AM
1

Current retirees are not necessarily very internet savvy. Some are, but many: not.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 07:27 AM
12

That's still a whole lot more stimulus than a lot of retirees get - especially those that live alone.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 09:28 PM
41

there's a competing argument to be made about keeping the brain engaged and exercised, though... and work is a good way to do that
/r/MensRights30/03/18 09:16 PM
7

you're way off your A-game here, bot
/r/MensRights30/03/18 01:38 PM
2

Assuming you mean "rationale": because many events are not isolated and there may be other relevant witnesses to seek. This, however, presumes that the event actually happened in the way claimed. So ... yeah, complicated.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:48 PM
8

"Instead of maligning women who refuse to "settle", shouldn’t we instead be asking men to step up?" Only if you're also going to ask the women to step up rather than maligning men who refuse to "settle". This is not a one-way street.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:46 PM
3

Would you tell a woman that she wasn't demonstrating "REAL femininity"?
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:20 PM
1

No. If anything, the opposite: "If it wasn't for X, you'd do as a substitute... but of course, X exists, so never mind". It completely undermines the achievement of the winners. They should compete as equals with everyone. If they win, they know their win is genuine.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 06:35 AM
3

Sununu says the goal is to ensure the state's next generation of leaders feels empowered to lead. Maybe it is just me, but this sends the opposite message: a legit way of interpreting this is: "when you don't have to compete with men, you're fine". Which is tragic, because I'm pretty sure the "best of the girls" would pretty similar to the "best of the boys".
/r/MensRights28/03/18 08:19 PM
74

"but feminism is for everyone" - sure it is...
/r/MensRights21/03/18 07:25 PM
1

Noted, thanks.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 08:19 AM
206

Wow, that's... just wow. I'm bookmarking this for the next time I see "feminism just means equality"
/r/MensRights19/03/18 07:56 PM
3

Agree - that would be an interesting breakdown. One other dimension: people often incorrectly talk about DV as though it is always one-way, with a clear abuser and abusee; but I've seen increasingly studies saying that a large percentage (certainly not all, though) is reciprocal with no obvious single direction. Additionally, consider: when things get physical in such an environment, the smaller party is usually going to come off worse.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 05:59 PM
2

UK "office for national statistics"; Figure 7 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017 - shows a bias towards female victims, which: isn't news, but: the number of men affected are non-trivial. Note this is the police data where actual complaints were made - there are a number of factors (including perception / shame) that make it less likely for a male to report being the victim of domestic violence (t…
/r/MensRights19/03/18 01:54 PM
2

Note I'm not citing any of these as "good" or "bad" or "illuminating" or anything - simply: this is a real topic. Indeed, in several of them, the premise of the article is to discuss whether the acknowledged perception (of women being less corrupt) is true https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/div-classtitlewomens-representation-accountability-and-corruption-in-democraciesdiv/B2E96DDF18343767DC5E08A43A52420B https://www.theigc.org/blog/do-women-in-p…
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:36 AM
1

the views of both genders "women" as a category don't have "a view". Individuals have views. Presuming that a category of people all share a particular view is an -ism; in this case: sexism. Representation is good, but don't conflate it with collective views.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:30 AM
3

Except: I have heard exactly those things. Regularly. If you haven't: I don't think you've been listening. (from your other post) Apparently a few crackpots have got it in their heads that the reason people want to see more women in positions of power is because they are more honest than men and less likely to be corrupt. No, I'm not saying that is "the reason"; but it is one prong that is used to push on that topic. This is bollocks of course, and these posts simply amount to "look women are ba…
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:18 AM
6

That scandal and abuses of power are not a "male" thing, and that while better representation in government might be better for representation's sake, it is not the case that women politicians will somehow be "cleaner" or "better". Irony: acknowledging that women can do bad things should be part of respecting women's agency, yet feminism keep touting women as less corrupt, which is... well: sexist.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 08:42 AM
3

Race and sex/gender are covered by the equality act, so yes: that intersection is just as protected as any other. At least in theory.
/r/MensRights26/02/18 06:28 PM
19

There should be a rule: you can't present a title about "shock! {N} percent of {identity/category} are {thing}" without also presenting the same figure measured the same way for the general population.
/r/MensRights22/02/18 12:30 PM
10

There is a purely ritualistic form of FGM that basically involves tapping the vulva with a pin - no actual harm, but ticks a ritualistic box. Please understand: I am 100% against this. Every FGM movement is absolutely against this ritual - rightly - demanding a total ban on such practices without leniency or caveats. Equally, mention MGM in a FGM arena and we get kneejerk reactions like yours "how dare you compare the two". Now: compare that pin prick to removal of the foreskin. This is just bli…
/r/MensRights08/02/18 08:34 AM
10

I instantly distrust anyone - including myself - claiming to give an unbiased view of anything. Better to acknowledge biases than deny them.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 10:09 PM
6

Baselining - or the lack of. I am absolutely sick of hearing numbers to prove how bad any particular group has it, that don't present the general population data for comparison/context for the same metric, measured the same way. Or in the case of sex/gender topics: presenting a number for women without also presenting the equivalent number for men.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 01:56 PM
1

Instead of setting up a false competition between men’s health issues and women’s health issues, how about we do that? How about we fight both? Someone needs to explain to them that how funds are spent is a zero sum game. Actually, in these austerity times it could be worse than zero sum.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 10:07 PM
-5

There is partly a valid argument about the ages, though. Saving someone from cancer when they've got 3 years left on their life expectancy is different to saving someone when they've got 30 years left. Now, breast cancer does also strike older women, and young men can get prostate cancer - but: the age profiles are ultimately different. I'm not saying that the current levels are ideal or right, but: it also isn't quite an apples to apples comparison to expect that the 2 diseases necessarily warr…
/r/MensRights02/02/18 11:47 PM
2

Wow, that last paragraph. Is there a source on that image?
/r/MensRights24/01/18 08:15 PM
18

Channel 4 interview where the interviewer (Newman) spent the entire time misreprenting what the interviewee (Peterson) had said in the previous sentence, and generally being obnoxious. Interviewer got pwned by Peterson who somehow kept his cool throughout and deftly called her out without even straying from the topic. Lobsters came up.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/01/18 07:47 PM
40

Sounds like "institutional sexism" to me - what with the police / legal position etc. So I'm sure that feminism will be jumping in to fix it any time now... (crickets).
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:24 AM
11

Also consider: one partner A is emotionally abusive; after a while, the victim B snaps and strikes out physically. If B is female: this is a celebrated restoration of justice; the woman is labelled a victim and hero for standing up; the man is a pariah If B is male: they are victimised a second time by society and the legal system, and labelled an abuser; the woman is labelled a victim and hero for their endurance; the man is a pariah
/r/MensRights09/01/18 08:23 AM
14

Yes they would; see "protected class" (the same thing as "protected group") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
/r/MensRights31/12/17 05:06 PM
-4

Presumably someone's butthurt for being banned for violating the "don't be an asshole" rule there, otherwise: why would you be asking here? I would guess the reason is the same as "why can't I make a huge scene about criticising the series 'Friends' on the 'Star Wars' reddit?". Answer: because that isn't what the subreddit is about, and you're derailing while being a twonk. Probably. I wonder where you're going to post "why can't I ask on 'Mens Rights' about why I can't wail on Feminism on 'Ask …
/r/MensRights27/12/17 11:03 AM
3

Which sucks double if you live in the "Uxbridge and South Ruislip" constituency. Nobody deserves Bo Jo trying to "help" in this way.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/17 07:50 AM
3

But even by presenting it differently: they have presented different terms... IANAL but this doesn't seem vague to me.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 03:26 PM
28

Should be a simple case for the AHRC... Sections 5 and 22 (1b) of the 1984 Sex Discrimination Act... Section 5 is basically "by their sex or a characteristic perceived to be tied to their sex" (paraphrased) 22-1b is: in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or so.... the price (edit: also, the priority seating shown on the chalkboard)
/r/MensRights25/12/17 11:23 AM
7

Pedant point: you aren't talking about the "immaculate conception" here. People often get this wrong, but the term "immaculate conception" in Christian mythology (doctrine, whatever) refers to the conception of Mary (i.e. before Mary was born), not the conception of Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
/r/MensRights25/12/17 10:20 AM
3

Not available in my country. I will just have to imagine.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:48 AM
4

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 10:47 AM
1

Well... what is the source for the original claim? Does that have the data you want?
/r/MensRights26/11/17 10:34 AM
1

anyone who disagrees with that obviously true statement must have internalized it
/r/MensRights12/11/17 08:44 AM
7

Mostly it all boils down to the right to being treated equally and not sidelined due to sex/gender. So that single "right" extends to most of the following (in case you want to argue that they're not individually "rights" per se): intactivism (right to genital integrity) full access to citizen rights (in the US, males must enlist for the draft to get all their citizen rights; females get them for free) legal equality (males receiving massively harsher punishment for identical crimes) family righ…
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:25 AM
3

also the "he" and "his" in the "1a" clause of the legal definition
/r/MensRights09/11/17 06:01 PM
3

And away from women too, of course.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 08:16 AM
2

Where I am, they are technically paid - but so low paid that you couldn't be an intern if you need the money for rent, food, etc. I guess it may vary by geography. Interns are basically very cheap labour in exchange for getting some experience to put on the CV.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 06:20 PM
7

On the contrary, to be able to work as an intern means you aren't on the breadline - you're comfortably well off enough to be able to make that choice. If you can afford to be an intern: you're priveleged.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 05:34 PM
1

Except you've just accused someone of a crime that they can trivially prove they could not have committed. Let's hope they're not litigious, but defamation law is ugly.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:33 AM
1

Thx
/r/MensRights30/10/17 11:46 PM
8

If it was English law, then no she didn't - the legal definition of rape requires the perpetrator use "his penis". I don't know about the Scottish law on this term.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 10:16 PM
3

This is a Halloween edition of my comedy series Advice: don't give up the day job
/r/MensRights29/10/17 08:19 PM
3

Link from the title
/r/MensRights29/10/17 03:37 PM
1

Depends on context. It could legitimately be self defence. It could be revenge. Only one of these is valid.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 02:52 PM
2

The man believes, like me, that nowadays women are better suited for cleaning. I condemn him and you equally. He is discriminating against any man who wants the job. Agreed. So let's not support that, which you do (see previous bullet)
/r/MensRights28/10/17 07:27 PM
2

The current situation is indeed bullshit. I don't think anyone was arguing with that.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:06 PM
1

Well, men taking all the desk jobs and the dying jobs isn't exactly doing much to stop men dying. Lugging heavy kit around is a scenario where sexual diamorphism is still relevant, so yes we might expect a significant distribution difference in roles here.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 04:35 PM
2

What are your thoughts on this OP? Why is it posted here? Is this a "This guy is a sexist PoS reinforcing the negative stereotypes that harm men's rights, the cad!" Or is it a "See, this guy knows what's what!". Enquiring minds demand to know.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 04:30 PM
35

Just because something is normalized doesn't mean it isn't discrimination or wrong. Many terrible things have been - and are - "normal".
/r/MensRights28/10/17 01:54 PM
8

I'm sure that logic could be applied to female artists who trade on "sexiness" (your word). It doesn't sound like a good argument/justification to either, but: currently the two scenarios would be treated very differently.
/r/MensRights23/10/17 08:02 AM
4

Because that number is pure myth (well, propaganda): https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-earp/1-in-4-women-how-the-late_b_8191448.html
/r/MensRights22/10/17 12:33 AM
10

It is impossible to answer your question until we are publicly allowed to ask the questions and discuss the topic. At the moment any such is shut down immediately. Any numbers presented about how bad women have it (and I'm not suggesting there aren't many problems impacting women) will be completely missing any baselines or comparisons. There's also a huge difference between "the people with the most power are predominantly men" (which is undoubtedly true) and "most men have more power than most…
/r/MensRights21/10/17 04:51 PM
1

To be fair, culture has been quick to condemn women with high sex drives - "slut", "slag", "whore". It has also historically praised or waved off men as "players", "studs", etc. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and is hugely contextual on time and place. It is not as simple as you present it.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 06:13 PM
3

Indeed. Depending on which boundaries you use I am either gen X or Y (aka Millennial), but I don't really care which. I also don't expect a state pension, and I have at least one company pension (of about 10 years payments) that is essentially not worth the stamps they use each year to tell me how little it is now worth. It will be an interesting time.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 04:50 PM
50

It is very telling that at no point do they articulate what actual "injustice" or "unfairness" they have suffered. For the simple reason: they haven't. They have had a privileged bias removed, and boy are they pissed about it. And now they want it back, in the name of.... "equality". The irony is amazing. Double irony: women have a longer life expectancy, so even with equal pension ages, women can expect significantly more from an identical pension as a man, on average. Equality here might actua…
/r/MensRights16/10/17 07:10 AM
1

Is this a genuine gap in the law, or is this a purely semantic gap? The reason I ask is that I'm in the UK and the crime "rape" in the UK can only apply to men. That doesn't mean women can do those things though - it just means it comes under different brackets with very similar consequences. I'd like the same terms to be used, but it isn't actually a huge difference on paper. How it is applied in practice, of course, is another matter - and would continue to be another matter even if the same t…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 10:00 PM
2

It was to do with charging extra for an extra feature - essentially when the only difference was firmware (software) not hardware. The claim (OP) was that charging extra for turning a feature on was capitalist abuse. My argument that was there was no need for a physical difference, and having one hardware product made it cheaper for the consumer (less manufacturing costs, less support costs), and having it as an opt-in feature meant that consumers that didn't want that high-end feature didn't ha…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 02:33 PM
3

I kinda get the impression that you're only welcome on menslib if you self-flagilate daily for being born a man. And not in a good way.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 08:02 AM
3

I got banned from there for pointing out the physical technical reason for something (to do with PC design) that they were blaming on capitalism. Don't stress it: they're ... twitchy Edit: the reason given was "capitalist apologia" - the comparison to feminist accusations of "<x> aplogia" when you point out a factual error is not lost on me. Challenging the propaganda inspires knee jerk reactions.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 07:49 AM
2

I can imagine the editorial process... "How can me make people not want vaccines?" "Tell them vaccines have poisons like lead and mercury" "Didn't work" "Autism?" "Most people aren't buying it" "Hmmm... how about.... foreskins?" "Sure, we'll give it a go"
/r/MensRights11/10/17 08:10 AM
3

That's a large report. Can you narrow it down? I looked at the obvious places around perpetrator demographics and relationships, but nothing on sex/gender and relationship was just "parent". Did I overlook?
/r/MensRights11/10/17 06:57 AM
8

Source removes any and all credibility.
/r/MensRights11/10/17 06:52 AM
1

it isn't trivial to get reliable numbers that agree between any two places; I'd be happy to see better data. There is some interesting data on the "by age in males" / "by age in females" here: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age - note the absolute numbers are in the hovers. Interestingly for the 50-74 and 75+ groups the two numbers are virtually identical - the difference is the 25-49 group, where women have a 44%/10k chunk of "Breast cancer". Tha…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 06:58 AM
1

most of the difference in funding of cancer treatments can be reasonably be put down to the impact to life expectancy. Prostate cancer usually strikes relatively late in life - not actually much below the life expectancy. Horrible as it is, the number of years actually lost to prostate cancer aren't that many. Likewise, the typical prostate cancer victim doesn't usually have immediate dependents - they're more likely grandparents. Breast cancer strikes much earlier the impact on the victim and t…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 10:20 PM
5

Then that logic applies equally to the portrayal towards women. Either it is totally harmless to both, or it is quietly coercive towards how society behaves towards both.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 05:27 PM
50

It is bizarre. Depictions of violence against men are normalized and accepted without question - even on daytime light hearted TV, or highstreet billboards - if someone is going to get slapped or punched or kicked in the genitals: it will almost always be a man; not an eyebrow will be raised. Do the same against a woman and it'll get national outrage to the point of death threats against the producers and actors.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 12:40 PM
3

Not in the legal sense, not in the UK. The offender must use "his penis" to be guilty of a rape in the UK. Anecdotally, sure: rape. But legally: no.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/17 08:53 AM
5

This is the UK. The charge of "rape" requires that the offender uses "his penis". A biological woman in the UK cannot be charged with rape. There are other sexual offences with similar guidance etc - just a different name.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/17 08:50 AM
7

Yeah, I see some cases on Google in the US. I don't think it exists as a charge in the UK though.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/08/17 06:21 PM
7

Can one attempt manslaughter (in the UK)?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/08/17 05:57 PM
1

There is no mention of whether the attendance is voluntary or not in any section. Sections 21 and 22 make it explicit that simply being enrolled at an education establishment is sufficient to qualify. It is acknowledged as applying to sixth form: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7653326.stm
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/17 11:04 AM
1

I think you might mean "orthogonal", not "mutually exclusive"
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/17 10:11 AM
2

its not a crime if they are over 16, yes it is - up to 18 (so, doesn't apply here, but: I'm correcting your "over 16" point): Sexual Offences Act 2003, "abuse of a position of trust" - extends age range to 18; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-position-of-trust - a teacher / student relationship is absolutely a "position of trust" for this purpose (it is pretty much the textbook example)
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/17 09:24 AM
4

if this is using UK law (which it appears to be), then it cannot apply to the woman; a biological woman cannot be guilty of rape under UK law, since the legal rape definition includes "with his penis"
/r/PussyPassDenied30/07/17 09:19 AM
1272

That's pro-level shutdown. Sadly most places you only get to do that once...
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/17 05:44 PM
2

I don't disagree that there's some history behind it. I only disagree on whether or not it is "forced".
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/17 05:33 PM
18

I didn't hear it as forced. I heard it as deranged. I think she was genuinely distressed, illogically and unreasonably, in a way that she probably can't control. But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for her actions.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/17 04:51 PM
29

Wow, that guy (the husband) is incredibly patient and tolerant of her ... I'm going to be generous and say "issues". Totally an enabler, though; I'd tell her to "adult".
/r/PussyPassDenied05/06/17 02:22 PM
4

Get out. It won't get better. Video may be useful as backup if she is likely to be vengeful when scorned, but : don't provoke her.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/05/17 02:43 PM
17

Well, there is a certain group that expects to not be contested on these topics, the "listen and believe" concept. So I fully endorse that there was an expectation of PP here, and that it got denied. It also illustrates why "listen and believe" is, ultimately, a terrible idea. "Listen and seek evidence to what happened": no problem.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/05/17 04:29 PM
1

aye: Of myn honour, that thus compleyne and crye? Or who hath yow mysboden or offended? (brain explodes)
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 01:45 PM
5

It is the "regular" version, sure, in terms of regular vs irregular verb conjugation. That has very little to do with proper, especially in English which is, let's face it, horribly broken. Taken in isolation and without usage information, your comment has as much validity as "mouses is the more proper version of mice" - "mouses" follows the regular rules, after all - it must be correct, no? "Snuck" is the more common and is perfectly accepted. If you're arguing that "sneaked" was the earlier...…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/17 06:59 AM
20

Not PPD; firstly, nowhere does she claim (by words or action) different treatment. Secondly, the same letter was read previously (https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/829376515108278273) and subsequently without any mention of violation (http://www.vox.com/2017/2/8/14546474/elizabeth-warren-merkley, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/318466-sen-udall-reads-coretta-scott-king-letter-on-senate-floor-after-warren). This could actually be an example of the opposite of PPD - if (and it is a hard …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/02/17 08:48 AM
54

They may have all been one single one night stand... just sayin'
/r/PussyPassDenied31/12/16 08:27 AM
56

I'll await more context before I conclude whether the pass was denied. Conviction rates and sentencing outcomes are some of the biggest passes in existence.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/16 01:23 AM
20

What part of "he was complying" did you struggle with?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/16 01:21 AM
8

The issue - at least technically - is not that men can't be victims of rape, but rather that only males can be perpetrators and charged with rape. Male-on-male rape is still prosecuted as such. You are correct to say that a woman cannot be charged with rape. But not when you say that a man can't be listed as the victim of a rape (by a man).
/r/PussyPassDenied23/12/16 09:18 AM
1

Which means this wasn't a rape case: http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/14/gang-of-women-sexually-assault-young-footballer-6321967/
/r/PussyPassDenied14/12/16 08:11 PM
17

Fair, but: did she try to play the female card?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/16 06:52 PM
1

1-(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.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/12/16 10:12 PM
1

Well, technically the paper would be right there. She cannot be charged with rape - the UK legal definition of rape precludes that.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/12/16 07:48 PM
5

Best of 3, right?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/12/16 07:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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