TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

rational1212 Archive

View 0 posts and 139 comments by rational1212 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I see people talking about adoption, but you mentioned safe haven. By 2008, all 50 states had a form of safe-haven law and Detractors claim that, because safe-haven laws do not require parents to be under stress, one parent will use the law largely to avoid notice to the non-surrendering parent. BTW, I know nothing about it besides the above.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 12:02 AM
2

Thanks! That makes more sense to me.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 04:42 PM
2

Therefore, more hostile to male help seekers than female help seekers.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 07:08 AM
1

more hostile to male help seekers than the general population The general population is female?
/r/MensRights22/12/13 05:27 PM
3

Yeah, sure
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:03 PM
6

What will it be called when positions of power are equal? Is equal 50/50 and how will that be enforced? The cry of feminism is "more!" An easy example is colleges and universities in the USA. More women than men both attend and get degrees, and that has been true for over 30 years. The current attendance is nearly 2 women for every 1 man. Our current president said that the number of women in those schools is a good start. If that's a good start, I fear what the real goal is.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:19 AM
1

He rapped on the door with his cane.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 11:11 PM
1

If you aren't worried about things like that, then that helps explain why you feel no need to defend or protect yourself. Not everyone is in your circumstances or frame of mind. Just because you feel no need to defend yourself doesn't mean that other people should not be able to defend themselves in some appropriate way. What is appropriate? That is a good question.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 05:27 PM
1

The contents of wallet is not worth taking someones life, or even seriously injuring them. That is your opinion, and many people (including me) would agree with you. But what if you are confronted with someone who wants to abduct you? You can come up with circumstances where a gun should not be used, but there are others where a gun is about the only thing that will save your life.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 02:25 AM
5

I never really got why people dont think guns are dangerous A gun held by a person who will shoot another person is dangerous. A gun owned by a target shooter is less so. Same with a knife or a baseball bat. stab wounds are less deadly than gunshot wounds We're so glad that you're an expert on stab wounds. Would you care to elaborate? From what I have read, most knife wounds are not very deep and only affect subcutaneous tissue. That makes those wounds very survivable. Once the wound is deeper t…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 08:44 AM
3

sources that cite other sources that cite other sources that cite other sources There is a name for that or at least something like that.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:15 AM
2

The women of the Senate meet about once every six weeks for dinner I wonder what would happen if the men of the senate met once in a while and excluded the women? j/k, I know what would happen.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 09:22 PM
1

I'm not sure how my logic to proportionally address crime based on numbers is "the same logic that feminists use" when you are also admitting that feminists lie and distort the narrative. Claiming that this is somehow a gender-related problem in schools No, I wasn't trying to claim that. I was going after your statement: Comparing raw numbers is incredibly stupid, you have to compare the percentages. Which percentages? Which raw numbers? As you may be aware, it is easy to manipulate percentages,…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:57 PM
1

Hmm, I thought that there were about the same number of DV victims of both genders. Can you explain what you meant to say in a less vague way? Edit: To be clearer, spending a proportional effort seems quite fair, but ignoring a problem just because it has slightly lower numbers is evil.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:40 PM
2

Raw numbers are also useful. For example, for every 100,000 incidents, there are (in your example) 3 times as many incidents with female teachers. If you eliminate ALL of the male teacher cases, you've only addressed 25% of the crimes. It makes more sense to try to address the largest NUMBER of cases.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:05 PM
3

Spending is one area. There are others, which I hope someone else can help out with. You seem to be claiming that male senators (for example) cannot represent females. That is a bold assertion. It also implies that states like California have no representation for any of the males, since both senators are female. I have never seen a proper analysis of why men are more prevalent in some kinds of politics, but it seems to me that it is a personal choice rather than an oppressive choice. Any person…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:26 PM
1

I think that's what pranks do, right? They do something plausible but wrong and then laugh at people who believe it.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:19 AM
2

Sure, and the other half are just plain wrong.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:18 AM
8

Thanks. I tried to find more links to "paternity testing is misogyny", and stumbled on that one. I know "man-b" is not the most reliable so I hated to link it, but I was curious.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:44 PM
16

What about this? "The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy."
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:44 PM
2

It shouldn't matter, but I know what you mean.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:50 AM
5

The "stand your ground" law was not used in his defense.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 03:38 PM
3

because of some stupid stand-your-ground law The defense was basic self-defense, not "some stupid stand-your-ground law". "Zimmerman initially requested a "Stand Your Ground" hearing, but in March 2013, his defense elected to bypass the hearing so that his case would be tried before a jury."
/r/MensRights18/07/13 03:35 PM
2

Multiple ways for women to avoid pregnancy: Condom, TL, Pill, Injection, Ring, IUD, Morning-after-pill, etc. Multiple ways for men to try to prevent pregnancy: condom, vasectomy. Multiple ways for women to choose to avoid parenthood if they so desire: Adoption, abortion, allowing the father to have custody. Not sure how many ways for men to prevent parenthood or the related financial obligation. Is it zero? I think it's zero.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:34 PM
2

Perhaps legally it worked, but the news article named the innocent male youths yet again but not once listed the name of the 20-year old "girl" who is facing perjury charges.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:54 PM
14

She's imposing separate standards for men than for women. I think it's simpler than that. She is merely a hypocrit.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:24 PM
1

Yes, understood.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:41 PM
2

It is interesting and many techniques seem convincing, but I would like to see her techniques applied in a testable way. In other words, I suspect that she is lying about what she wants, which is likely to sell more books.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:09 AM
1

Valid? I would like to see a citation about that. The cite in the wiki even says that there is little to no evidence of effectiveness. Statistically possible? Sure, I would agree that they are not impossible. Useful? If accurate, then there is a 10 times greater chance that someone who tests innocent is guilty, which would be the opposite of the claim that lie detection lets you eliminate the innocent as suspects.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:58 PM
0

...and that is if the claimed numbers are correct, which I do not believe is true.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:58 PM
1

If they test guilty, then there is a 99% chance that they are innocent. Let them go. If they test innocent, then there is a 90% chance that they really are innocent. Let them go? Or maybe you intend that the innocent should be investigated more thoroughly because the chances are stronger (10% vs 1%) that they really are guilty? Or perhaps lie detection is bullshit?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:57 PM
0

So you're saying that if you test innocent, then there's a 10% chance that you were guilty? So that is a false negative. Ok. Tests as guilty: 99% not guilty, 1% guilty. Tests as innocent: 90% innnocent, 10% guilty. Something is very wrong with those statements.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:43 PM
2

If your claim is accurate, then you are saying: Actually innocent person takes test: Tests as guilty (false positive): 99% chance Tests as innocent (true negative): 10% chance of failure, so 90% chance of success I need some help with the math, here.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:26 PM
0

Saying that there were 35 of them is an incredibly dishonest thing to do. Factual but not honest. /agree
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:17 PM
2

Interesting, but if monitoring various bodily functions (blood pressure, pulse, respiration, skin conductivity) that you have little control over cannot detect lies, then I see no clear reason why this should be any different. Especially since it was invented 13 years ago and almost no one has even heard of it, much less use it. Don't get me wrong -- I am not claiming that it isn't valid, but it does seem like it would be an extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about that.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:14 PM
1

It could be that there "wasn't enough evidence" or that "it wasn't in the public interest". We'll never know. EDIT: By that, I mean that it is likely that the police either didn't find enough evidence to prosecute false claim (perhaps because they didn't look or perhaps because it was he-said/she-said) or else they decided that it wasn't in the public's interest for them to prosecute some poor woman who was obviously distressed by living in a male dominated world. /s
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:10 PM
13

Polygraphy has little evidence to support its use.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:09 PM
4

"Women and children first". Men generally want to be able to justify their actions to themselves, their god, and/or society. Women just want to live. They accept the death of men as necessary. How's that sound?
/r/MensRights01/03/13 11:36 PM
5

You stepped on a landmine, and she stopped thinking.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:22 AM
8

Male politicians successfully got the right to vote for women. Not sure that it helped men or not. Sorry, couldn't resist.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:25 PM
1

Given the recent news story about the (unofficial) sperm doner who is being required by the state to pay child support even though he had a signed paper by the mother freeing him from financial obligations, even a signed contract may not be enough. Apparently, the mother does not have the right to free the father of financial responsibilities.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 10:09 PM
-1

Keeping in mind that lie detectors don't work.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 07:41 PM
3

She alluded to her telling him to put on a condom, and him refusing and starting to have sex with her anyway This is an interesting point, conditional consent. What if the roles were reversed? Male wants sex only if female is on the pill. Female lies and says yes. Male consented only if birth control, but there was none. Was there consent? I don't expect a real answer, it is merely an observation.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 11:14 PM
1

He seems to be talking about strictly "equal pay for equal work". There are laws that came after his time that mandate certain levels of each gender in some workplaces. That is something that he does not address because it didn't exist then.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 01:24 AM
3

feminist truly advocate for segregation They only want autonomous women's spaces without men -- "safe" places where men are not allowed. It's not separate but equal, because men don't get that option.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 12:38 AM
1

Mr. Obama has already said a few things along those lines, like that women make $0.77 for every $1 that a man makes for the same work, which is false. Lesson: Don't rely on politicians for facts or proof.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:48 PM
1

That doesn't preclude leadership, in fact I propose it's implied. Doing what is in the best interests of the electorate implies leadership? Looking at the wiki for that, "“a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". Senators do not generally enlist the aid of their electoral districts, so they don't seem to be leading them. You called out CEO, but that agrees with my example of the President. Senators are mor…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:19 AM
1

"Being a minority in leadership positions". You seem to view the position of "elected representitive" (in the senate, for example) as a leadership position. I see how you can think that, to a limited extent. On the other hand, the elected representitive is supposed to do what is in the best interest of their electoral district. For a senator, they need to do what is best to represent the interests of their state. In my opinion, it is not leading the people anywhere that they do not already want …
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:11 PM
1

I'm not really sure what problem you are trying to solve.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 12:47 PM
1

Ok, fair points. So what kinds of things do you think might change if the senate were 50% female?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 07:00 AM
1

one of those reasons is issues of sexism. repeated coverage of what she was wearing, ... Did you ever hear gender-specific attacks (on males) So you believe that because "the press" makes sexist comments (probably in order to generate controversy and make money), then it makes people want to vote for men instead of women? BTW, I did hear sexist comments about males who ran for office or were in office. Perhaps you don't remember Gore or Kerry cheating on their wives. Or the various sexual harass…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:51 PM
1

I'm saying that if half the country is female, there's a disconnect between that statistic and the >20% representation in our legislative bodies. Why do you think that the composition of the senate compared to the overall population is a disconnect? As further and possibly related questions, should we look at the percentage of Latinos in office compared to the overall population? Or Asians? Gays? Transgenders? Why should the general population demographics be related at all to the makeup of the …
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:59 AM
1

Ok. Do you understand that many women are currently voting for men right now? You obviously want to change that. Why? There must be reasons why 1/2 of the senate is not female. If you want to change it to 50% without understanding why people are voting the way that they are, then you are risking putting people in office who will not represent their state in the way that they are right now. You blindly want change without understanding the consequences. The senate does not represent the demograph…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:05 PM
1

Ok, then please explain why you "expect that roughly half of those elected to the Senate would be women".
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:07 PM
4

Half of the population is female, therefore one would expect that roughly half of those elected to the Senate would be women. Ok, I think that I see where we disagree now. Do you think that women want other women to represent them, but have somehow been manipulated to vote for men?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:17 AM
3

the US Senate has the most women Senators in US history, but it's still only 20 out of 100, which is odd considering over half the country's population is female. Because only women can represent other women? Is that what you are implying? It is a mistake to say that person A cannot represent stereotypical group B because person A does not belong to group B. For example, President Obama cannot represent people who are not black? I don't think you want to go down that path. I propose that a perso…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:51 AM
3

There was more in it about how she felt that any nearby man might-or-might-not-be a rapist, hence the reference to Heisenberg. Didn't claim that it was sane, just summarizing it the way that I see it.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 10:42 PM
2

There's an article, google it (don't want to give it hits). Basically, (some) women are afraid of men, so all men are responsible for that fear and shouldn't speak until spoken to in public. More complicated and insidious than that.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 09:07 PM
2

No sex, not a whore. I mean technically speaking, right?
/r/MensRights19/10/12 08:54 PM
7

No, I see cops using stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets, batons, pain compliance. I never see cops do that "restrain" thingy. Really? That surprises me. Oakland, California. And many of the 99% rallies. Don't you read the news? I would probably put this under the category of "serious enough to use force in return." But are you implying that hitting people with bricks is the norm where you're from? Yes, it would have been if he were not in great pain, but when the cops came, they told him to…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:19 AM
7

You see the cop restrain them. No, I see cops using stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets, batons, pain compliance. I never see cops do that "restrain" thingy. I would leave the scene and let her calm down As you're calmly leaving the house and she's hitting you on the head with a brick (yes, this happened to a friend).
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:42 AM
6

measure the levels oppression. then determine which sex is more justified in actively pursuing Because it's always either-or with you, right? You can't do both.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:36 AM
11

What if we had different bus lines, one for women only and one for all genders Nononono, that will never do. One bus for women and children, and one bus for everyone else. That will segregate things nicely. /s
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:35 PM
3

Not always.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 06:14 PM
1

But jeering at a woman ... is not illegal whether or not verbal harassment is illegal In the workplace it is. And there are varieties of non-violent non-workplace behavior that are illegal as well, eg. stalking. If you wish to make all rude behavior illegal everywhere, then we will just have to disagree. there's a certain manner of looking that makes it inappropriate We already have laws to behave respectfully in the workplace, but the law is being abused sometimes and is not enforced in others.…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:43 PM
1

It must be frustrating to talk to a woman and be treated like an animal. You seem concerned about predatory males, whereas I am concerned about over-sensitive "feminists". You are concerned about actual behavior that is currently illegal, whereas I am concerned about legal behavior that can become illegal if overheard and taken out of context by a third person who has "the best of intentions". presenting them with an abundance of unwelcome sexual advances. Women seem overly sensitive. Consider t…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 05:17 PM
3

Women find it demeaning, and it is hard to understand why unless you are subjected to it as often as we are. I am actually afraid to talk with any woman that I meet in the workplace, for fear that I might accidentally complement her in some way that will be taken as harassment, either by her or by someone else who is in hearing range. You see, it is harassment if anyone in hearing range is offended, even on behalf of the unoffended woman with whom I am talking. This is the depths that we have fa…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:07 AM
2

Don't know why you're downvoted. Seems quite reasonable to me, unless employers are stupid. Or unless the hypothesis is wrong, which is the whole point.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:40 PM
1

I'd say that she is not representative of all women, or even most women. Damn -- replied to a troll.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 11:34 PM
5

I mean maybe I'm just really gropable as a dude I dunno Don't you know that all guys want to be groped? Seriously! No, not seriously. That's the stereotype, kind of like scantily clad girls want to be groped.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 11:02 PM
7

I vow that, from this day forth, I will reliably vote for the Republican party in every election There are more than two parties.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 06:42 PM
1

Continuing down the logical trail, this leads to tracking down and killing gang members because they are "known" to have shot people and may do so again, perhaps leading to a death.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:08 AM
2

You didn't RTFA. They are doing it for a reason. Too lazy to TL:DR for ya.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:43 AM
1

Due to the way that consent is being interpreted these days, you probably should be careful of driving a drunk person home, because they are not consenting to getting into your car, so you are kidnapping them. /s
/r/MensRights21/09/11 09:49 PM
15

I guess I should complain about there not being more men in nursing... No, don't fall into that trap. It's not about specific industries, it's about women complaining and then shutting down men with the "priviledge checklist". That stops all discussion, which is the point. Women get to say that men dominate a group for unfair reasons (possibly a whole sub-industry, but prove it), and men cannot reply. If there is a good way to defend against this, I sure don't know it.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 11:05 PM
8

Address the question? Yes. Answer it? No. (You said that you were talking about someone you know personally, but the question was more general than that.) Succinctly? Yes. Two out of three ain't bad.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:00 PM
1

Don't deny, because that could be used as "lying to the police" if they can prove one of your denials as false. Just don't tell them anything(except your name) without a lawyer. Soem of them are good at social engineering, too. Be careful.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:54 PM
2

Yep, you're right. It can't possibly change until technology learns how to do it without the woman. But my point is that you are saying basically that both parties have 1 vote, but the woman has tie breaking. My point is that the male has no vote at all. The point is subtle and makes no practical difference except that it shows your state of mind.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:42 PM
2

what he can reasonably afford I guess You don't know anyone who is paying child support, do you?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:48 PM
1

yeah, as it should be Thanks for playing. the woman having the final say on what happens to her. No, she doesn't have the final say, she has the only say. Not only that, her "say" means that her child and herself are supported for 20 or so years by the male.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:46 PM
1

Yep, I agree. Mentioning this has no relation to the issue at hand.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:44 PM
1

Yeah, well women don't get two votes, either. They get all of them.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:28 PM
4

Also, the male parent gets less opportunity to succeed. This is a legitimate point, outweighed by the necessity of helping the child. In your humble opinion. But where do you draw the line at helping a child to the detriment of other people in the society? The father may only be making minimum wages, so taking it all from him to give to the child (via the female parent) leads to debtor's prison or else a crushing debt that can never be recovered from. The kid needs to eat -- should we dice up th…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:18 PM
4

Also, the male parent gets less opportunity to succeed. Also, the female parent gets control of the child in cases where the child would actually benefit more from the male parent. I know that you think that a child must always benefit in all cases regardless of the situation, but you really should consider all sides of an issue to understand it more fully. Unless you don't want to understand it more fully, in which case nevermind.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:52 PM
1

Actually, I was thinking that it is "more fair" than letting the woman choose the vote of the unborn, but I suppose you could jump to that conclusion.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:32 PM
2

Please describe what you think of as "the consequences". I don't read minds. Here, I'll start it out for you. "The consequences of not automatically requiring men to pay child support in all cases regardless of the situation is ________."
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:30 PM
0

The woman gets two votes because of the kid? Ok, then one of her votes is an automatic "against".
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:20 PM
6

child support exists ... because it helps children ...and everything that has the potential to help children is to be universally and immediately accepted regardless of any and all consequenses. /s
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:15 PM
12

She is comfortible saying that all men have privilege, but not comfortible calling any female advantage of any kind a privilege. Egad!
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:13 PM
5

I didn't see anything identifying the woman in this billboard. AT ALL. I saw her picture. I wonder if he acquired her permission to post it?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:49 PM
-2

actually that is EXACTLY what the first amendment means, the speech is "protected" from action from the government unless it's slander or libel No, you are wrong. For example, if you were correct, I could exercise my free speech rights to confess to a crime. It is not illegal to confess to a crime as long as I really did it. You are claiming that the police could take no action based on my legal confession. Yes, it seems like a straw man, but it is a logical follow-through of your claim. Perhaps…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:33 PM
1

Ok, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:26 PM
0

You missed the part where his lawyer agreed to do it. You can agree to things even though the court cannot order you to do them, but if you fail to honor your agreement, it seems to me that the court could hold you in contempt. IANAL, so I may well be wrong.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:25 PM
0

.....or do I not know how to read either? Wow, I don't know why you had to go all hyperbolic just to make your point, but you do seem to have an attitude problem.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:23 PM
-1

A judge taking away your kids for a perfectly legal website you made IS a violation of free speech. Yep, like I said before: But then most people here have not read the transcript. There is a name for the situation where you TELL the judge that you will take down the web site and then you do not. It is called contempt of court. He's lucky he's not in jail.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 11:07 PM
1

In that case, the (non-police) accuser can remain anonymous, but it is incredibly difficult to provide anonymity for the one being accused.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 11:05 PM
0

I don't think the First Amendment means what you think it means. You seem to think that the First Amendment means that you can say anything you like without any bad consequenses. On the other hand, I think it means that you can legally say anything you like and not be arrested for it, but that doesn't mean that there will not be other consequenses. On the other hand, the transcript states that the dad agreed to take down the web site, so it seems to be a clear case that he either lied about that…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 08:31 PM
2

"Accused of" and "charged with" are different. Anyone can accuse. Only the government can prosecute a crime.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:45 PM
2

Yep, I understand. But the list is there for a reason. Many people seem to believe that it is an accurate test for "male priviledge". It isn't, but it's sad to see. Warning, Warning, Danger, Will Robinsin!
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:43 PM
3

There is a conspiracy, My bad. When I said "conspiracy", I meant "conspiracy by a group with the express intention of achieving a goal". If you don't do collude with someone with the intention of achieving a goal, then I would not call it a conspiracy. Maybe that's my own private definition, though. My point stands, and is similar to yours in some ways. If "equality" means that you can look at any arbitrary occupation or hobby and see a statistical equality of participation between males and fem…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:23 PM
8

That PDF is interesting, in that it wants women as a gender to make choices that men make. It also is completely wrong in certain areas. No point-by-point analysis here, but two examples: "8". When I ask to see "the person in charge", odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up the organization the person is, the surer I can be. It is possible that there is a widespread conspiracy to keep women in lower positions. In these modern times, that is debatable. But if there is no conspi…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 07:43 PM
2

Thanks! That report says that 41.4% of rape and sexual assaults bundled together are reported, so it's hard to know what percent each is. It also says to use caution when comparing its numbers with numbers from other reports, which is always a difficulty with statistical analysis. Overall, it's pretty close to the claim. Thanks for your quick reply.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:58 PM
-1

Considering that less than half of all rapes are even reported to the police, and the conviction rate is even lower Citation, please? (I really am interested in where you learned this.)
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:14 PM
10

It's about war, right? Well, no. It's about a society and how the population is "controlled" by its government. They happen to be at war, but it isn't a war book.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 10:22 PM
1

Here you go.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:18 PM
1

XML or bust. /s
/r/MensRights09/03/11 12:40 AM
1

I'd downvote that too, but it's deleted. Damn, there really needs to be a sarcasm font.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 12:25 AM
1

Downvoted for man up meme.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 12:05 AM
2

to delve into specific factors of the developmental environment as they pertain to women? Could be, but she bounces back and forth between blaming men and blaming "the system" for mis-teaching women, excuse me -- girls. She's an author and "motivational psychologist", so she specializes in talking about things that a lot of people want to hear about. If she actually helps anyone overcome their self-doubt, that's good.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 11:05 PM
2

Perhaps she doesn't know about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:09 PM
4

To clarify, I figured false rape accusations would count as psychologic rape. Ok, I see. That kind of makes a certain amount of sense. But a false accuser may do it for reasons other than intentional harm. Some are intimidated into false accusations by parents/etc. The fact that a false accusation does harm is sometimes incidental. There are lots of areas where most sensible people would agree. But there are, as you call them, "grey areas". Faking intimate relations and forcing an innocent perso…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 07:17 PM
2

We used trust and birth control pills. Both failed. You really need to talk with a lawyer. Soon.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:53 PM
5

discussing the various shades between 'legal rape', 'psychological rape' and 'financial rape' would be interesting I think he wants to include some additional topics. rape victims AND false rape victims are both fairly represented
/r/MensRights16/02/11 05:47 PM
1

in a fair fight. Or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight Upvote for Jayne reference.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 12:08 AM
2

Sit any child down in a room and ask them if someone touched them in their private place repeatedly until they start making shit up instead of just saying that nothing happened. Child abuse is bad. /agree
/r/MensRights25/01/11 09:53 PM
1

If you read "unloaded on him" as yelling at him, then it makes no sense. If you read "unloaded on him" as throwing things at him and hitting him, then it makes sense. Terminology issues.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 06:29 PM
7

I'm saying that by calling it mens rights as a response, it lumps it in with the whole white rights subset. So, to you, "men's rights" is a bad group because the name is kind of like "white rights". But you belong to a "feminism" group and know it is ok -- and the name doesn't look like "blah rights", so it is ok. (Never mind that the name is kind of similar to naziism). Basing your impression of a group on the name for it is a bit immature, isn't it?
/r/MensRights14/01/11 06:24 PM
1

There's not much point discussing this if you're going to bring up scenarios I already said I don't agree with. Ok, I keep remembering another post that talked about everyone except guys getting asked at most hospitals and only some hospitals where everyone is asked. I apologize for offending you.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 12:10 AM
1

I'm assuming that professionals know what they're doing and have found asking questions a benefit, and you're not. I know too many professionals to be comfortible believing that as a blanket statement. You have to assume that emergency room professionals are also demostic abuse professionals to believe that. But if they are domestic abuse professionals, then they should be able to determine when the question is appropriate and when it isn't. Oh well, I guess repeatedly asking women and children …
/r/MensRights23/11/10 11:01 PM
1

Asking a set of blanket questions means that there's no chance that they'll decide not to ask when they should have. But the first question is always does it actually do anything to help? There are a lot of things that we can do that might help but would waste almost everyone's time. Should we do them all? Why not, if it has a chance of helping even one person? It's just a simple question, and if it were asked gender-neutrally, nobody should be upset. Yes, it's just a simple question. But there …
/r/MensRights23/11/10 07:14 AM
1

There are many goals. I mourne the passing of judgement and critical thinking in our modern society. It seems that it is better to waste the time of 99% of the people, and in passing frustrate a few percent, than to have to think. "It's easier" is the enemy of "there's something funny going on here". If your goal is to help people who are being abused, the better policy is to always ask instead of sometimes ask. That way people don't fall through the cracks. The crack is already fallen through. …
/r/MensRights23/11/10 12:11 AM
0

"Hi, you're here because you have flu-like symptoms and you're worried that it might be something serious? Ok, well firstly, has your wife been abusing you? Do you feel safe at home?" I think that it's inappropriate for a hospital to ask questions that have no relevance to the situation, regardless of how well-meaning they are. We are supposed to be responsible adults, and requiring stupid questions to be asked and answered in all circumstances because it might possibly help one person some day …
/r/MensRights22/11/10 04:46 PM
1

Except that, as other posters have said, they always ask women and children, but don't always ask guys. In fact it sounds like some hospitals never ask guys.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 01:45 AM
1

I can see how it could be appropriate sometimes. But I think that making it a policy to ask women and children if their menfolk are abusing them is not a healthy thing for society. Especially since it is not all that rare for a woman to abuse a man or child.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 10:57 PM
-2

So, have you been abused lately? I am considering making this my standard greeting, seeing as it is a valid question that demonstrates that I care.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 10:52 PM
-4

Oh really? The way that you indicate that you care for fellow humans is to ask everyone you meet if their loved one is abusing them? It used to be "Hi, how are you doing today?"
/r/MensRights19/11/10 05:37 PM
8

And locking a veteran out of his house without telling him does not imply a good woman.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 01:13 AM
11

If she were falsely accused of some kind of administrative conduct, perhaps it would initiate a process of self-exploration. Nah, she'd blame it on the terrorists.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 07:26 PM
2

If you loved me, you wouldn't have turned around. Boy: Thanks for saying this now! If we had gotten together, you would have driven me to suicidal depression.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 06:57 AM
1

Spam, spam, spam, spam, ... spam, spam, spam, spam, ... spammitty spam -- spam-spam-spam-spam.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 08:47 PM
1

The choices go from bad to worse. Merely asking for the test could end the relationship. On the other hand, if a person is with someone who would end a relationship over an offensive question, perhaps it would be best to end it sooner rather than later.
/r/MensRights05/06/10 01:08 AM
-16

Wow.. someone feeling a little threatened? Yikes. Yes, apparently you are. Edit: The more negative this becomes, the more threatened you apparently were.
/r/MensRights08/01/10 05:49 PM
0

Not any group, but most. (And BTW, it's they're. And if not, it's winging)
/r/MensRights23/12/09 11:16 PM
2

girls will kiss other girls at parties to turn men on which totally deligitimizes my sexuality. You don't have to feel that way if you don't want to. You should not let the actions of other people undermine your own worth and feelings. If you insist that the actions of other people hurt you, then you really are saying that you want to control them. If you want to control other people, then what does that say about you?
/r/MensRights19/12/09 08:03 AM
5

engineers, ... these are positions of power Please tell that to my boss.
/r/MensRights19/12/09 07:59 AM
1

Key quote: "We need to get some scientific experts to look at this study in more detail before we can make a proper judgement" Word.
/r/MensRights17/11/09 12:44 AM
2

In this case, yes. For some happily married couples? No. The difference is that for a happily married couple who enjoys this kind of play, charges will not be pressed. But it is still illegal. If the state were to find out, perhaps from a videotape, charges could still be pressed. Can one freely consent while being asleep?
/r/MensRights27/10/09 06:26 AM
16

There is no chance of "equality" of duties for the stereotypical "family". All there can be is balance. The (again stereotypical) husband sleeps 8 hours, takes 1-2 hours to prepare for work, spends 10 hours commuting/work, and has 4 hours left to have dinner and spend with family. To expect him to do 1/2 of "his share" of the housework, chores, etc, by ignoring his family for those 4 hours is disingenuous at best. And would that mean that his wife needs to carry a job to bring it the other 1/2 o…
/r/MensRights22/10/09 08:55 PM
1

Let's just kill everyone and start over. *Fuck You.*
/r/MensRights31/07/09 05:17 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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