TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

seenloitering Archive

View 5 posts and 824 comments by seenloitering 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)
2

'So, if I can provide one example of men suffering more than mere "hurt feelings" because they are men, you will concede that sexism toward men is possible? Or does suffering have to go on for centuries to be worth anything?'
/r/MensRights17/11/14 04:38 PM
18

"Men: accept that feminism isn't about you [… ] to understand why we have feminism, you have to first identify the obstacles women deal with, and how easy men have it in comparison." It's not about men, except fundamentally. Noted.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 05:12 PM
1

It's the best and biggest con in town.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 03:01 AM
1

You havn't been brought into the class to debunk it. Watch, learn, and take notes. Debunk when you do your Phd.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 11:49 PM
5

Women. Can you even think of a single goddamn way you have ever been mocked that wasn't related to something that a misandrist society sees as masculizing? (think "man-hands" et al). Same logic; opposite result: these people are idiots.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:45 PM
3

Alcohol takes about a 1/2 hour to two hours to be adsorbed after intake. So yeah, that's exactly how alcohol works. It's how inexperienced drinkers get so blotto. By the time they start to feel overwhelmed, they still have up to two hours of getting worse. Here's the recipe. 1) gulp back a bottle of vodka with your girlfriend because there is no booze where you're going. 2) a half hour later arrive at the party a little tipsy. 3) a half hour later fall on your face. 4) vomit for an additional ha…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:41 PM
1

So, contemporary politics have been shifting toward what political scientists call "postmodern movements." All this phrase means is that a movement wants to work within the constraints of liberal democracy in order to achieve their goals, rather than replacing liberal democracy with a completely different form of government (like, say, Communism). Social conservatives, for example, are a postmodern movement as are environmentalists (don't confuse this with postmodernism used in other forms... th…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:23 PM
20

Actually, her speech calls for the prioritization of women's issues over men's. It's the strangest idea of "together" that I've ever heard, and frankly, it's a little embarrassing that people are upvoting it.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:11 PM
6

So what was Emma on about when she implied that men are expected to be "aggressive"? If she is excluding all aggression that is merely assertive, why does she think society expects men to be aggressive? Our laws ruthlessly punished for men aggression (more so than women). Our cultural products, over and over again, hammer home the lesson unrestrained aggression is bad, will not be tolerated, and you will suffer for it. It seems that aggression (sans assertiveness) is precisely what is not expect…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 12:10 PM
3

Laci Green: gossip columnist. Was there ever any doubt?
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:46 AM
-1

So, in your view, Emma is lying when she implies that men are expected to be aggressive. Clearly, our society does not expect, condone, or advocate "not backing down to rejection," right? If the difference between "aggressive" and "bold" is socially acceptable and not socially acceptable, then clearly our society, by definition, does not advocate "aggression" in men.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:42 AM
8

"Trial begins for doctor who allegedly poisoned ex-lover's coffee" I knew the poisoner was female and the victim male just from reading the headline; no headline would fail to mention gender if the victim was female and the perpetrator was male. Just sayin'.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 01:59 PM
16

"Do you agree that society ignores men and/or treats them as expendable?" Yes. "What are other men doing to make you feel this way?" Reflexively place women's interests above mine. Assume, relatively speaking, that I merit any circumstance I find myself in. Feel relatively free to assault me or place me in harm's way or in general, sacrifice me. Consider me more likely to lie than any woman would be. Grant women extrordinary license to assault and abuse me. Associate my gender with criminality, …
/r/MensRights13/09/14 12:30 PM
1

Why, what's petty about it? Or are you one of those people who just think satire is petty?
/r/MensRights08/09/14 12:54 PM
1

What baby?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:48 PM
5

I agree to an extent. But at the same time, "overwork" can be read to imply that men are doing this to themselves rather than acting in response to pressures unique to them, or even some combination of both. And though, on it's own, this doesn't seem like a big deal, in a context where male suffering is always framed as a flaw on the part of men and women's suffering is always framed as a flaw on the part of men or society, it gets a little more sore-thumbish.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 12:21 PM
0

Yes, ridiculous, but it does go to show that as a society we don't automatically consider men "dads" just because they made a biological contribution; see financial abortion. And since we broadly acknowledge that men who are direct biological ancestors are not necessarily "fathers", we should establish by what criteria men do become fathers--better yet, how people become parents other than through labor.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:53 PM
1

I don't have a problem with women ruling on crucial laws that effect my life. I may disagree with some particular group of women making a ruling, but it wouldn't be on the grounds that they are women. It would be on the grounds that the ruling is unsound. You may feel differently, but the fact that you have that feeling doesn't mean I am misinterpreting anything, or reading too much into it. Especially when you agree with this interpretation; what you disagree with--you should know--is the ethic…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:54 PM
1

It's the epitome of hubris.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:46 PM
4

This is what not to say: "We spent a few nights in each others’ rooms, but we never had sex and neither of us pressured the other into doing anything we weren’t comfortable with [...] It is entirely possible she read something completely different than I did into an awkward college hookup." All he has done here is provide convincing testimony that he consented to everything that went on, that they had a sexual relationship, and that even he thinks he mistreated her in some way. Never do this. Do…
/r/MensRights12/07/14 09:24 AM
15

I'm not a big fan of using the word "misandry"; it obscures the details of what's going on and why those details matter. Pelosi's comment is wrong because firstly, it implies that men are not effected by the precedent (company's can also now decide whether or not they will cover men's contraception--the fact that they already could is irrelevant to the possible application of the precedent), and secondly, even if the precedent did only effect women, men are somehow especially incapable of judgin…
/r/MensRights11/07/14 03:26 PM
2

Still worth it; just sayin'.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 09:24 PM
1

No. That's not how hate laws in Canada work; and it isn't how they ought to work. This exhibit in not a credible incitement to severe men's penises: there is no evidence that the author's actually want people to do so; and there's no evidence that people actually will do so. Hate speech has well established criteria that this exhibit comes nowhere near. Also, the exhibit is satirical. It isn't advocating this vision of Lesbianism but ridiculing people who characterize Lesbians this way. At least…
/r/MensRights09/07/14 03:40 PM
4

It's true. It's a dirty American shame that black fathers are so often denied a reasonable opportunity to be there for their kids. I absolutely agree.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 12:19 PM
1

That last thing... let's do that.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:19 PM
3

YESALLMEN
/r/MensRights03/07/14 01:53 PM
2

It's funny that we're so used to bald-faced lies and unhinged bigotry directed at the MRM that this one actually sounds slightly less insane because she isn't merely that. This is what goes through my head as I read these things... Petticoats in a bunch over so-called "vitriol," moving along... Seething disdain and paranoia, moving along... Self-congratulating smugness, moving along... Oh look! An actual issue was mentioned, if a little trite and distorted. That's amazing! Bullshit about SPLC, o…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 11:30 AM
3

I have, but not as an MRA. The same way I don't fight for Men's Rights as a queer activist. I have no idea what "actively" means. Doesn't "fight" imply activity?
/r/MensRights02/07/14 03:47 PM
2

Maybe more men would object if they weren't constantly being told they should keep their opinions to themselves.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 10:41 AM
7

They started the second paragraph with "bromance". These people are clowns.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:18 AM
4

No. That's not what it's doing. The man up campaign is using the phrase in precisely the way it has always been used: to shame men into policing the interests of women. Conversely, 'man up' has never implied hurting women or not defending women, so what exactly is being turned on it's head?
/r/MensRights29/06/14 12:48 PM
2

Not enough to matter.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:59 AM
1

"... women's rights campaigners ..." The word they're looking for is "Feminists."
/r/MensRights27/06/14 09:54 PM
2

There is one of these dictionary posts every few weeks. They're always confused about how dictionaries work and what mean. If you learn one thing today, make it this: dictionaries do not report on the authoritative meanings of words or on facts in the world, except to report on the usage of words. The problem with this definition isn't that the work "typically" is used, but that "typically" isn't strong enough. It should read something like "almost exclusively," because when people use the word …
/r/MensRights27/06/14 02:43 PM
11

"Personally I really don't think that hosting a "men's rights" conference that both CAFE and AVFM promote, and which features several of the same speakers as the upcoming AVFM conference in Detroit, fits that description." "Personally." Good argument. Who could possibly object to someone's personal feelings? \s
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:20 PM
31

Oh, so you've been in jail before? Straight to jail.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:05 PM
3

These sorts of things are always ironically offensive. It isn't the thing itself but the fact that if a similar joke was made targeting a female stereotype, the would would stop turning to correct it.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 11:46 AM
11

I can't take this article seriously. It describes instances which clearly are not Human Trafficking as if they were. The author is just one of those people who thinks that sex is a service that cannot be sold, so concludes that every Pimp and Madame is the ethical equivalent of a slaver. It's unethical jibberish plus the typical infantalization of women ("women are victims even when they're the victimizers, but please, continue to string men up at every opportunity"). And as a source, I'm suspic…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:59 AM
2

I didn't mention majorities or minorities. But before you continue, you should know that I grew up as a white kid (at least, I looked white) in a black neighborhood. I know the kind of hate black communities foster toward whites; intimately. So, whatever you think I'm talking about, I'm probably not. With that in mind, make a complete argument that doesn't assume what you think I'm saying, because literally I'm just guessing at what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 08:04 PM
1

"If you have that prejudice against the shoe laces you are a shoelacist whether it is systemic or not." "-ism" implies a system. Even if there is only one shoelacist in the universe, we call him a shoelacist because he expresses a system of thinking. Be that as it may, social/political systems require the participation of many people. So, while we can say that the only shoelacist who has ever existed thinks according to a distinct system, it is not systemic in a political way, but in a psycholog…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 07:59 PM
1

True.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 07:58 PM
2

Not really; but kinda. They're putting pressure on the -ism part of word (-ism implies a system), then stating that prejudice is not necessarily systemic. Which is true. For example, I can invent a new prejudice (like: people with yellow shoelaces are evil) and hold that prejudice while no system reinforces it. It is a non-systemic prejudice. The problem with all this is that prejudices against white people and men are not system-less. They have existed for a long time and have been taught to ea…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:32 AM
10

The argument to sophistication is a perennial conceit for SJWs. They're basically aristocrats.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 10:36 AM
3

Well, there's a big difference between being suspended and stepping down, but yeah, all sorts of figures for whom trust is an important part of their profession leave their positions while serious charges are pending; however, it's not for ethical reasons but pragmatic ones, and is a universe away from a "name and shame" campaign. In fact, persons who leave their positions while a case is pending should be honoured, not shamed. They are, after all, taking a hit for the institution on the mere su…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 01:37 PM
2

Look at all the awful things that have happened throughout history. She thinks you and your ilk are to blame. There is no act under the sun too horrific that it cannot be rationalized with that little thought in the back of her head. Either she recants this view, you leave, or you wait until she's decided it's time for you to pay what you owe. I would advise against the later of the three.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 10:16 PM
2

This is more personal performance than a genuine effort at large-scale censorship. What's sad about it is the complete lack of originality. The whole performance says: Feminism, mostly a romantic fad for the tragically unoriginal to get together, grin like idiots, and you know, 'get it'. I mean really... book burning? Real cutting edge stuff, Feminism.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 01:41 PM
2

I would guess that the difficulty you're experiencing is a conflict between feeling masculine-social and being female-bodied. On the one hand, as a female-bodied person you feel targeted by men and resent them, even loath them for it. On the other hand, because you are masculine-social, you feel that you are the very thing you resent as a feminine-bodied person; that is, a masculine person. Something to keep in mind is that you are no different than the men you resent. Your instinct here, that t…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 01:07 PM
2

Of course the highest rated comment isolates humour as the problem. Yes, the problem isn't that there is a double standard in how men and women are treated, but that people laugh at things, cause, I guess, laughing is evil or something--and dancing too.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 04:42 PM
0

There are two conceptions of political polarity ("left" and "right"), and confusing them causes a lot of political confusion. One the one hand, there is this idea that each wing represents deep coherent polarities in political ideology; on the other, is the idea that political polarities are just a pragmatic short-hand for the temporary alliances that make up the politics of today. The reality is that Men's Rights is a right wing movement in terms of pragmatic political polarities. Most people o…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:44 PM
1

"The problem with you counterpoint is that it relies on the logical fallacy 'proving inexistance'" "Logical Fallacies" are things they teach high school students instead of teaching them actual logic. You should make a habit of moving away from them. And no, my hypothetical doesn't depend on the proving of anything. Hypotheticals don't work that way. "Even if the judicidal system WAS perfect, there's no way of us knowing. Therefore we cannot function under the premise that the judicidal system i…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 06:50 PM
1

Yes, it does. The possibility I'm suggesting isn't necessarily the consequence of missing laws. Injustice can exist even when there are laws that explicitly prohibit it, so the potential of creating laws doesn't have any impact on this possibility. In this vein, your initial argument depends on a flawless judicial system where incarceration rates reflect actual crime rates, which clearly, is not the case. But even if there was a flawless judicial system, and even if you could predict how populat…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:30 PM
1

Instead of "somehow inherently", I think you want to say "necessarily". I say so because your argument presents itself as making an appeal to logic rather than an appeal to empirical facts. Something like: "Why are straight white men necessarily privileged over gay black women." The answer is that they aren't, but privilege theory doesn't claim that they are. Privilege-theorists would say that it isn't necessarily the case that whites (for example) are unjustly advantaged (aka. privileged), it j…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:00 PM
-8

This isn't a great argument. It could very well be that most men are in fact too violence and a huge injustice that only 3% are incarcerated. In fact, that's more or less what the #YesAllWomen types believe. Restating what they already believe is not very convincing. (edit: left out a word, "believe")
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:22 AM
2

There's nothing wrong with Elam's tone or satirical style. His biggest crime is that he's not terribly good at it. Also, the quote you've provided isn't in the piece you've linked to. Also, radical doesn't mean what you think it does. The MRM doesn't oppose Radical Feminism because it's radical, but because it's mistaken about the nature of of world.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:18 AM
1

So you want to prevent us from getting to the core of the truth? Because, that's what "radical" means.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 11:08 AM
2

If there is someone out there with a legitimate reason for opposing Men's Rights, they're keeping it to themselves. But if I had to speculate, I would say it's a stew of ignorance, prejudice, and social inertia.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 10:57 AM
1

I've thought things through, and most likely better than you have, but go ahead and a make an argument if you think you have one. Surely a "strategic thinker" like yourself shouldn't have any problem putting together a coherent argument.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:47 PM
2

Your confusion hardly makes me a hypocrite. But since you seem so confidant that you know something, explain in detail how a goal of gender equality necessarily entails advocacy for women's rights?
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:37 PM
5

So, we should add to the already excessive support women have in order to make a magical gesture to a bunch of zealots in the hope that they might stop hating us? No. How about, unlike Feminists, we don't claim that Men's Rights "helps women too," but stay in our mandate. We advocate for men because no one else is. If there was no gap in advocacy for men, we would be more than happy to hang up our MRM shingle and go home.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 01:23 AM
7

I agree. Patriarchy is one of those words that is used in many ways so people actually need to define it. And it's not a Feminist word; people who are not Feminists at all will use the word complete with their own little twists and bends. And I'm not talking about people talking around a water cooler, but academic works. It's usually a good indicator when a a great number of concepts are baked into a definition, that something isn't quite right. People who complain MRAs don't know what patriarch…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 10:48 PM
3

Maybe she finally has an editor.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 08:25 PM
19

...and this is why we are all agree that inheritance is the greatest evil in contemporary society, right? Right? Where did everyone go? What about "true equality"?
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:14 PM
1

I wouldn't say that Mary Koss convinced anyone to ignore "made to penetrate". Rape has traditionally been defined as something that can only be done to a women and can only be done as a man, and it's only been in the last twenty years of so that that has been changing. Mary Koss has lobbied hard to keep "made to penetrate" from entering the definition of rape.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 12:20 PM
11

I've heard other references to it from other anti-male hystericals, but I've never actually seen anyone use the term. The other references I've seen claimed that PUAs used it, but who knows if that's actually true. Even then, I was lead to believe that they didn't use it "gleefully" in the first place but were using it in a sort of warning way, like, "be careful or you might go Elliot." But, you know. Ideologues hear what they so desperately, desperately want to hear.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:12 AM
1

Serious answer: they probably deny that a coherent or complete conception of what men ought to be is possible, so the term itself is questionable.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 01:36 PM
3

I would like to record here that I am officially not participating in this poll. I would participate in a poll conducted by reputable source (ie. not on Strawpoll).
/r/MensRights05/06/14 01:21 PM
2

The day someone even mentions how dangerous crminalized prostitution can be for johns, i'll fall off my chair.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 03:10 AM
2

Women got the vote pretty much when everyone else did (sometimes before)... except in the U.S. The history of the vote in the U.S. is interesting because it is the birthplace of anti-male women's movements. Before the suffragettes there were the abolitionists movement of the late 19th century. This movement wanted voting rights for everyone who didn't already have them (except for children and convicts and some others). Primarily this meant black and women. When the U.S. government offered the v…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:38 AM
2

Don't get paranoid. I assure you, they actually believe this shit. Besides, money has actually taken the edge off Feminism. They were much nastier when there was no financing involved.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:18 AM
2

Still... one hopes that "journalists" shoot for objectivity even when the answer seems obvious. Maybe especially so!
/r/MensRights04/06/14 12:30 PM
1

Yeah, Feminists hate this idea. The is an area where Feminists, by and large, agree with traditionalists.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 04:44 AM
5

...it's especially pointless when it doesn't suck for anyone. There is literally no harm being done here. None. Neither for men nor for women. The fact of the matter is that objectification does not work the way people think. There is nothing wrong with being treated like a sex object. There is nothing wrong with being sexualized. There is nothing wrong with being treated like an object. We all do it all the time; human societies depend on it for survival. When he dreamed up objectification, Imm…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 04:24 AM
1

I think people should use whatever language they feel most comfortable with and the rest of us should do our best to allow people the space to express themselves in whatever way works best for them. We come from many backgrounds and each background comes with its own voice. But while I believe denigrating terms are at best tolerated, mandating standard derogatory phrases is absurd. In fact, the worst thing about all these terms is that they are boring and stale. More than anything they scream "I…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 11:28 PM
1

Most literature professors deny that the question "what do you think the author was trying to say?" is a valid question at all, specifically because it is excessively subjective. This is why they talk about "implied authors" rather than authors. In philosophy, logic trumps subjective features; in literature, formal features trump interpretation; in history, evidence trumps rumour; and in political science, statistical correlation trumps personal impressions: subjectivity is not what characterize…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:35 PM
25

"But I do think anger is a dangerous emotion." And no doubt, he's about to run to the nearest angry Feminist rally and warn them all that they're making a terrible, terrible mistake. I just know he is. I like that his expert is Kimmel. That's like bringing in Paul Elam as an expert on whether or not Feminism is a hate movement.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 01:15 PM
6

"It's frustrating when you try to let people into your mind – a mind that has been traumatised to the point of mental illness – and are dismissed as a paranoid harpy with a victim complex." This is always the problem. Feminists fail to recognize that they are trivializing my experience when they conclude that their experience is an authoritative guide to our shared reality. They aren't "letting me into their mind", but bludgeoning me with their phobias. In this very paragraph precisely the same …
/r/MensRights03/06/14 12:52 PM
3

And did you read the "fact check" text at the bottom? They seem to be numb to the fact that "intimate partner" is gender neutral so includes both male and female assailants, making it a stat that doesn't even support the claim that men are women's biggest threat. And worse, 4 times the number of physical assaults is not more of a threat than certain death. It really is just an endless stream of deluded bullshit. Dang.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:30 AM
0

You forgot the "\s".
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:20 AM
17

Wait until the legislation starts flowing. This is just the beginning.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 03:42 AM
17

There are a few things you will want to consider. 1) Rodger's motivations were not particularly misogynistic. Even the narrowest definitions of hate recognize advocating crimes against an identifiable group as being hate; he is no more guilty of advocating crimes against women than he is of advocating crimes against men (not just because he killed men too, but because he outlined in his manifesto that he meant to kill men). 2) An inability to tell right from wrong is a defense against hate crime…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 11:20 PM
1

Those aren't counting-stuff numbers but feeling-stuff numbers. See? Don't you feel dumb now? \s
/r/MensRights02/06/14 09:43 PM
9

"There is NO comparison between rape & any MRA concerns. THAT WAS MY POINT." No comparison except, you know, rape. Which I guess, isn't a comparison because it's the same thing. So... good point? #CelebrityThoughts
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:35 PM
4

"Is feminism really hate? All of it?" It depends what criteria you use to determine hate. If you use the sort of legal criteria common to hate laws, most Feminism is not hate because it does not generally advocate criminal acts. If you use a looser criteria, say something like "pathological defamation of a group", then yes, Feminism is by and large, hate. As for "all of it", it's an unrealistic standard. No political organization has ever been entirely about hate. If Feminism is not hate for thi…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:30 PM
4

"Every post that I read in this sub convinces me further that the end result of a MRM is yet another slant towards one gender over another." There is nothing challenging about this. I see no reason why you or I or anyone else would be convinced that this is the case. You need to make an argument, otherwise, you're just emoting. I'm willing to consider any supporting arguments but I actually need to see the argument.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:46 PM
5

"Antioch College ... holds the unsought honor of being the origin site of what is indubitably a powerful act of consciousness-raising. It is hard to read through a fraction of the #YesAllWomen posts without feeling shaken, whether by the relief of recognition or by the shock of ignorance dispelled.". Hardly neutral. This article hardly considers for a second that the only consciousness raised is a confused and ill-informed one that pathologically sees what it wants to see.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 06:27 PM
2

No doubt, and if this was characterized as a fictional portrayal of a real phenomenon, I wouldn't have a problem. When we stop distinguishing between fact and fiction, we are spiraling head-long into darkness.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:06 PM
1

Not the only way. The maleness of lighting strike victims is likely a consequence of a masculine ethos that makes a virtue out of risk-taking. This results in a greater willingness to do things like standing in a field during a thunderstorm. I think conceptions of masculinity and assessments of those conceptions and their consequences always speak to the presuppositions on which Men's Rights are construed.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:03 PM
6

Yeah, this is a circular fantasy. This guy acts a certain way toward women thinking he's their savior, then some portion of those women tell their friends that they're being gawked at, then those friends tell this guy that women are being gawked at by some guy, and he doubles down on his chivalrous gawking. Rinse; repeat: hysteria.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 03:06 PM
2

Shocking! Harder! Every! Ever! ...now don't you feel like an idiot for having thought Feminism was unhinged? But totally your call, because I respect you. (what's shocking is that there are humans in the world who read this stuff and don't fall immediately into despair).
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:17 AM
15

Valenti has more in common with Rodger than I do.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 03:00 AM
1

Not necessarily. Men and women could have extremely different brains and gender could still be uneffected by those differences. It's unlikely, but it's possible.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 06:24 PM
17

Nothing sexist about Feminism, though. Why can't MRAs just work with Feminists? I mean really, don't we all want the same thing? \s
/r/MensRights01/06/14 04:08 PM
4

I don't think we can infer "desires" from a reproductive bottleneck. As long as any particular society's men are more at risk than their women, relative to their neighboring communities, and provided that ratio of male disposablility is great enough to overcome an environmental threshold, it doesn't matter what the desires of individuals are. It is completely possible for a society to completely hate and demean women while championing and lauding men every inch of the way, and still put women at…
/r/MensRights01/06/14 02:28 PM
283

Anonymous stuff on the internet. Nothing to see here.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 02:05 PM
2

lol - yeah, but you know, then you can laugh and point at them.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 01:57 PM
4

Say "sure, what's the study's name or the author's name? (I need that to google it)."
/r/MensRights01/06/14 10:06 AM
0

If the reason why this father is being told to behave a certain way has nothing to do with the fact that he's male, but is instead a consequence of the fact that he's into metal, is this really a men's issue? For all I know, they would object to a mother doing the same thing. That's what I mean.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 09:18 AM
3

The Bechdel test doesn't measure sexism; it measures the stupidity of the person employing it.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 03:54 AM
5

Feminist Thoughts by Jack Handy.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 03:35 AM
2

Oh look, a professor who doesn't know what "reactionary" means; must be a Feminist.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 01:10 AM
1

It's not my job to distinguish between Feminisms; it's theirs. "In its simplest form that's exactly what we want is it not?" If by "simplest form" you meant "stripped of differences", then yeah, we're exactly the same. We want equality where the world is biased against men; Feminists want equality in a world that is only biased against women: those are not the same things.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:58 AM
2

Judgybitch just doesn't realize that Feminists have special tools for seeing the real vitriol hidden beneath apparently sanitized words. No sir, they cannot--they will not--be fooled. \s
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:31 AM
1

It is, but don't give it more admiration than it merits. The down side of the parliamentary system is that parties tolerate far less internal dissent than either U.S. party, so in a sense, they're just different ways of articulating diversity in opinion.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 06:52 PM
2

...and one Green.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 04:27 PM
5

This is a really good question. My intuition is that this does fall into the Men's Rights domain, but I'm torn. "Dad" is a masculine relation, so the rights of a Dads seem to fall into Men's Rights. But on the other hand, this could very well be a case of anti-metal sentiment rather than anti-male, and might effect Mom's just as much a Dads. In cases like this, where there is ambiguity, should the MRM take seriously any situation that could possibly be construed as an attack on men because they …
/r/MensRights31/05/14 04:09 PM
8

Only the Conservatives and the Green Party voted for it. This has been the trend when it comes to anything that doesn't advantage women.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 03:49 PM
2

...just a small typo. "They may be signs of a male-centric society ..."
/r/MensRights30/05/14 05:54 PM
23

"You guys sell Hogtown? Oh, no thanks. I don't want to be seen drinking that stuff! It's a daring choice though--considering their political activism. You havn't? Yeah, they're wrapped up in some kind of radical Feminist thing. But it's not like a lot of men drink beer anyway, right? ha ha." Like that.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 05:19 PM
1

Lies about MRAs are what make MRAs look bad, not cultural criticism.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 04:34 PM
1

I've noticed that in some other places too. I think there are groups of Feminists and MRAs who so desperately want feminists to hear their criticisms that they give them almost limitless rope, while MRAs get the quick chop.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 11:22 PM
18

I have to admit, I'm a little surly sometimes.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 11:06 PM
2

This is all correct, but I would add some detail to the nature of a political group. What characterizes political groups here isn't just that a political group is chosen, but that in choosing to join that group, you are supporting the dominant positions of that group. It isn't correct to say that, for example, every Feminist believes that rape culture exists, but it would be correct to say that every feminist supports the position that rape culture exists (and the reverse is also true; if you do…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:59 PM
3

"There seems to be more than a little outright hated of feminism and feminists, which really goes a long way to confirming the image that Men's Rights forums are little more than echo chambers for men who are angry with women." I understand that if you're new to gender politics, this can all be a little overwhelming. There are some basic facts you should understand. Feminists and women are different things. A view about one does not imply a view about the other. But imagine if it did? Wouldn't y…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:03 PM
2

'Why is this idea so "inane" to you?' Because women are not at "special risk" of violence, therefore it lacks sense to pretend they are. An absence of sense is what "inane" means. "It's nice to see a constructive response coming from the men who are likewise concerned with abuse, rape, neglect... shall I keep going?" lol @ "keep going" -- what point do you think you've made? There's absolutely no contradiction between advocating concern for "abuse, rape, and neglect" and ridiculing people who de…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 08:32 PM
1

So, civility is what we're talking about rather than the politics of MRAs or Feminists. Both operate within the bounds of our current society, not the one you or I might aspire to. Our current society does not prohibit persuasion, so avoiding it is not very pragmatic. Philosophical Stuff That said, rationality does not depend on unemotional language nor is it true that the use of persuasion necessarily implies that persuasion trumps truth--and it's a good thing too, since persuasion and emotion …
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:58 PM
0

Add to that the inane idea that women are at special risk. It's not just that men are being vilified, but it's being denied that we know very well what it's like to be under constant physical threat. In fact, we know better than women do. Most victims of violence are men and it's a social more that the responsibility for dealing with violent situations falls to men. When women claim that "men just don't understand", I don't know what to do but point and laugh.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:22 PM
1

I get it now. I really get it.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:17 PM
8

This is political gesturing. It just means that Men's Rights are not welcome on the American left. It was fairly obvious before, but after this most resent barrage of posturing, I'm willing to concede that it's just a political fact now. Men's Rights is right wing. I see the same signals in Canada. I've never voted right before but I will be from now on. The left is determined to not listen and I don't see that changing.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:32 PM
11

I stopped wearing kilts in the early nineties because women kept groping me on the street.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:03 PM
2

It hurts my fee-fees when you say fee-fees like that!
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:36 AM
1

Yeah, Anne Theriault is a first class lunatic. She literally just types out whatever pops into her feeble little mind. Basically, she's the Canadian Marcotte--but even more unhinged.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 11:36 PM
5

Friendship is based on trust and a respect for each other's character. What you're feeling now is normal when you find out that people you thought were your friends don't really trust you, and consider your character less compelling than pervasive stereotypes. Try not to take it personally; this is more about them than it is about you. And try to be pragmatic. They don't have your back and their prejudice against men will compel them to turn on you at the slightest ill-wind. All it takes is one …
/r/MensRights28/05/14 01:27 PM
3

All MRAs and Feminists are concerned about both men and women. That isn't the source of their antagonism, so it isn't surprising when someone is concerned about both--of course anyone involved in a gender oriented movement is concerned about people in terms of gender. The differences have more to do with what merits concern, how it got that way, and what should be done about it. I think you're mistaken about what antagonism necessarily implies. Far from discouraging critical thinking and opposin…
/r/MensRights28/05/14 12:20 PM
4

but... but... why can't we just get along with Feminists? \s These articles are really good for us. The more ludicrous the constant dim-witted thrum is, the easier it is to prove our point. You know, provided someone stops long enough to listen.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 11:45 AM
3

Men's Rights and Feminism are antagonistic and I've come to believe that it is a good thing. We are opposing coucils in the public court; not friends. The only problem is that they have more time in front of the jury, so no equilibrium of power can be reached, and without that there is no risk in using cheap rhetoric--in other words, drawning us out is all too easy. So join us and help balance the procedings. Real discussion will happen when avoiding it is more costly than not.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 03:53 AM
4

"I mean, where most of the rest of the internet seems to hate women." Doesn't seem that way to me. It seems like exactly the opposite to me.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 11:27 PM
3

The only exception I would stipulate is in situations where someone is a victim because they were perceived as a man, but it just so happens that they weren't--including women who are abused for being manly or man-ish, trans people because they are male now or because they once were male, and a number of other cases. Basically, our domain of concern isn't the status and treatment of men but the status and treatment of persons as a consequence of being perceived as male.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 08:32 PM
1

"since that's the same shit that gets thrown our way." No really. What gets thrown our way is this: "only Feminism can solve gender problems so stop trying to help men." That is entirely different than, "we are only addressing a narrow band of otherwise ignored problems, but please, don't let us stand in the way of seeking justice for yourself."
/r/MensRights27/05/14 08:28 PM
11

'I actually used to hesitant to group feminists together as one entity because I didn't want to alienate any good ones in the group but between "male entitlement" and "#YesAllWomen", it doesn't bother me anymore.' Don't sweat it. We were all at that place at one time. The fact of the matter is that you aren't lumping them. They lumped themselves. You are merely characterizing the nature of lump, on balance. They are perfectly welcome to do the same with the MRM.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 07:22 PM
3

If only basic logic was mandatory in schools. When someone says this particular instance of violence is best attributed to mental illness, it has not been said that mental illness always results in violence or that violence is always the result of mental illness. The correction to this mistake is not to deny that a particular instance of violence is most likely the result of mental illness, but to correct the initial fallacious inference.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 02:51 PM
15

There are plenty of women who don't subscribe to any of that nonsense. Seek them out. These people are just waiting for you to make a wrong move so they can crucify you. They are not your friends; they are your keepers.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 12:36 AM
2

It's like when you hear someone talking about the pyramids being built by aliens. It's just hard to believe it's really happening.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 09:19 PM
2

"... Vitriolic Attack ..." That's their word of the week: "vitriolic".
/r/MensRights26/05/14 08:34 PM
3

The word you're looking for is misanthropist.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 08:11 PM
25

If you say "creepy" enough, it must be true.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 11:17 PM
5

The appropriate expectation with Manboobz is a low one.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 12:08 PM
1

"I mean, it is a rape that is shrugged off rather quickly and not treated as a huge deal." Shrugged off how exactly? It is part and parcel with the most troubled romantic relationship in the series, where everything typical of a healthy relationship is carnavalized and perverted. In what twisted world is that an apology for rape?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 01:11 AM
7

I think she means "equivocate" rather than "compare". She is comparing the two when she says one is worse than the other. She's just confused about the difference between the two. Here's how this conversation should always go: X: don't you dare compare MGM to FGM. MRA: why not? X: because FGM is worse. MRA: aren't you comparing them when you say one is worse than the other? Why can you compare them, but I can't? X: I mean, don't equivocate the two. MRA: I wasn't equivocating; I was comparing. He…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 12:35 PM
0

There is something wrong with this. It is part of a pattern of misrepresentation. It would be fine if this image existed in a context where men are widely recognized as victims of domestic violence, but that is not the case. When every image of domestic violence is a man battering a woman, each instance becomes part of a process manufacturing a distorted representation of the world we live in. And that's a problem.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 12:14 PM
9

Yeah, because the problem isn't in an institution whose main purpose is to base female solidarity on the denigration of men, but that specific men might find out they will not be spared by the new order. Also, painfully hetro-normative.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 04:18 PM
1

Horses hate gadflies. I wouldn't be surprised if Raw Story banned you for feminist ideological reasons, but many people (wrongly) think of Socratic discourse as abusive. They see the identification of logical flaws through asking questions as a kind of bullying, so project fantastically cruel motives onto it (and if they have an ideological bias against you in the first place, doubly so). I'm not saying you should do anything different, but anti-Socratic impulses are far more common than Feminis…
/r/MensRights19/05/14 12:05 PM
11

The worst irony is that even if you do stand up and stop her, you will be condemned for doing so by the very same logic that ignored your situation in the first: because you're so huge and powerful.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 11:49 AM
4

The theory of the disposable male is from "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell. You should look there for some of the answers you're after. Girlwriteswhat's contribution is placing that theory in a more libertarian context, plus some of her own twists, theoretical and rhetorical. My understanding is that when Girlwriteswhat says "male disposability has always been there" she is not making a strictly cultural statement but also a biological one. The basic idea is that because female reprodu…
/r/MensRights17/05/14 03:56 PM
38

It's like the ten commandments. Not all these rules should be met with stoning... or, in some cases, should even be rules at all. Also, I like the idea that someone is masturbating on the subway because they just don't know that's something they shouldn't be doing. It couldn't possibly be because they are ill. The message ought to be, "if you see someone masturbating on the subway, please try and be understanding. They are ill. Call the police. Do not take matters into your own hands. You are no…
/r/MensRights17/05/14 01:57 PM
1

This could use the inclusion of a clearer thesis statement somewhere at the top. Something with a clear claim, like: Feminism is an advocacy movement acting on behalf of women's interests, not a movement concerned or sympathetic to the interests of men or to equality in general.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 12:00 PM
6

"... failing to adequately address allegations of rape and sexual assault." I've heard feminists complain about many cases of rape and sexual assault being inadequately handled by various institutions, but almost every single one was investigated more vigorously than any comparable crime. The standard of adequacy they have in mind, though almost certainly vague and flighty, is absurdly disproportionate.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 11:53 AM
4

The problem with "privilege theory" isn't that there is a problem with acknowledging unearned advantages, it's that those who profess these beliefs only want to acknowledge the advantages they sanction, weighted according to their personal "feelings", and tuned just-so as to justify whatever political tactics and targets de jour.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 01:47 AM
2

It's been a while since I've seen a cultural event draw as much stupid commentary as that scene. "It’s one thing to present horrific acts in fictional media; it’s another to present a horrific act and deny that it is horrific, particularly when it happens to be disturbingly commonplace in real life and frequently denied its significance and legitimacy in that precise way." What I find horrifying is that this author doesn't think there is something horrifying about two characters for whom rape is…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 01:18 PM
1

Slight digression here. Why do people think STEM courses are harder? Relatively speaking, I've found them pretty easy.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 01:02 PM
1

Why would anyone suspect bias behind that? \s
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:26 AM
0

"I think therefore I am" isn't all that ironclad. What do you mean by"I" and where did it come from? The ironclad version is really "think, therefore think." Just sayin'. If you follow the link in the "Edit" section, you can read some of that poster's other rantings. They obviously apply standards of certainty according to their own personal bias. It all amounts to impassioned but very bad reasoning.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:00 AM
1

Every other week there is a dictionary post. Every one of them makes precisely the same mistake. A "definition" in an English dictionary is not a description of what words mean in an authoritative or normative sense. A dictionary "definition" is grounded in usage. So, when a dictionary says that "rapist" "typically" means a male rapist, this doesn't mean that men typically are rapists. It means that when people use the word rapist, they typically imply a male rapist. This definition has nothing …
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:17 AM
95

An articulation of this is becoming popular on my campus. It's usually phrased something like: "we should all be particularly mindful of women's situations." Doesn't "particularly mindful" of one group's rights sound so much better than "particularly neglectful" of another group's rights? "Oh, we don't hate Jews; we're just particularly mindful of the Aryan plight." Thanks for the clarification, but we get it.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:17 PM
2

I would like that it's ambiguous if we lived in a world where people suspected men and women to the same degree, but in a world where women are relatively immune to suspicion, the AD might as well just say "something didn't feel right about him."
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:14 PM
1

Abortion is irrelevant to parental surrender. Even if a baby is brought to term, adoption is still an alternative, so the same logic that grants men legal parental surrender on the abortion timeline, grants men legal parental surrender on the adoption timeline. Another mistake here is the logic of "surrender". There is no responsibility to be surrendered in the first place. "Surrendering" is just not taking up the responsibility in the first place. It is the default position. What is needed is a…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 01:16 PM
9

It is. The Student's Union draws a small amount of money from everyone's tuition and decides where that money goes. For example, there's a bicycle share program at my school where students can use and fix bikes for free. Students can go around to each of these services and request their money back, but few know it, and fewer still do it. Outside of that, the student's union postures and makes declarations about things it has no power over and no business in--like Israel. It tends to be dominated…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:10 AM
1

Waiting for that list of female directors that should have been put in the director's chair, but weren't.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 01:02 AM
12

Actually, I just graduated from UofT. Trust me, this garbage is a small perverse subsection of the student body. The vast majority of the faculty and student body just roll their eyes non-stop.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 12:20 AM
4

Wrong. Charging less implies less value on the commodity, not the purchaser. Charging less for an identical commodity conveys greater advantage on the purchaser paying less, and with greater advantage comes greater value.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 04:18 PM
3

Michael Kimmel is a reliable sign that stupidity is not far behind.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 10:09 PM
6

I think this should be extended a bit... People's sexual orientation does sometimes change. That's just a fact in the world. Whether people ever have control over that change is not so clear. Whether that change is the result of psychology, culture, or biology, and to what degree it is one of those, is also unknown. So, it is not true that people are born with an unchanging sexual orientation. It may be true that though sexual orientation can change, the change is a result of genes switching on …
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:58 PM
4

Yeah. There are a bunch of "war on women" comments. Apparently, absolving women of crimes against men/boys--crimes that men would otherwise find themselves prosecuted and vilified for--amounts to a violation...against women? Is there any doubt that the "war against women" is just a sentimental non sequitur?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 12:10 PM
0

I have no idea what this comment is trying to say.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 03:17 AM
1

No one is forcing her to have an abortion. No one is forcing her to keep the baby rather than putting it up for adoption. Isn't the real inequity that he is being held responsible for the consequences of her decision? And he's not a parent; he is the source of sperm. It could (and probably should) be argued that impregnating parties should share responsibility for hardships suffered by pregnant parties (the cost of abortions, care during pregnancy, a dollar amount compensating for physical hards…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 11:19 PM
11

Men bear the same burden. I think the implication was relative hassle. Granted, women bear a higher physical burden.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 10:46 PM
2

14yrs. No regrets.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 10:43 PM
1

You implied that neither video game habits nor gambling habits are "additions", but rather, are "impulse disorders". The reason you pointed this out was to undercut an analogy. The reason you wanted to undercut the analogy was because you wanted to say that the only treatment for a video game habit is personal accountability. That's you're argument. My questions this is: in what way does "impulse disorder" imply that "personal responsibility" is the only possible treatment that "addition" does n…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 12:16 PM
1

And in what way, exactly, does "impulse disorder" reduce to "personal responsibility"?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:49 AM
2

"Maliniak and Powers, meanwhile, encourage faculty to make a point to achieve a gender balance in both their bibliographies and syllabi." Cause nothing says equality like dropping some irrelevant and uninfluencial text in the middle of a course and blaming it on women. "Kelly J. Baker has a Ph.D. in religion from Florida State University" Of course she does.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 12:13 PM
21

Absolutely. If this was a man telling the story, his career would be over already.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 11:57 AM
1

That's what I did. And have never looked back.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 09:23 PM
1

"At a certain point, you get the feeling that you can’t walk through a chapter without expecting something horrible — almost always to a female character — just to prove that this is indeed a very scary and dark piece of literature." It's a funny feeling to get considering the vast majority of awful things that happen in the series, happen to men. I wonder where this "feeling" comes from? EDIT: I just read a bunch of the comments... my god. people are out of their minds. They literally live in a…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 09:02 PM
6

The OP didn't say men can't be joked about; he's saying that this particular joke just isn't funny. Something doesn't magically become immune to criticism because it presents itself as a joke. Nor is anyone necessarily required to police the existence of jokes about a particular subject as a result of a criticism about one joke. There is a universe of difference between "this joke sucks" and saying "this subject cannot be joked about".
/r/MensRights03/05/14 07:23 PM
5

I wish that was the stupidest thing I've read this week.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 07:17 PM
2

I'm not convinced homophobia had much to do with injunctions against male affection in the first place. I'm just not convinced that most people thought or worried about homosexuality that much until much more recently. This train of thought is traced back to Mark Greene's piece on "touch isolation", where homophobia is at the core of the problem. Mark Greene attributes his idea to this article: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/29/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/ . It contain…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 01:29 PM
1

In general, I don't see why there should be gendered versions of every sport run in parallel. If women aren't good at a certain sport, then there will not be many women in that sport, and vice-versa. Where is the crime in that? But snooker? It's an order of magnitude more absurd.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:28 AM
2

You're an idiot..
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:08 AM
4

Opposition is the only thing that helps. We live in an adversarial political system.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:03 AM
4

I think the third spy is a woman in the original joke, so it's a female spy who kills her male spouse.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:01 PM
19

Yep. "It is difficult to justify forcing a woman to put her life on the line for a society which does not afford her the same benefits as it does a man ..." Part of me wishes Feminists would come up with some new arguments, just for the sake of breaking up the monotony.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 04:07 PM
16

Here's another article from the same journalist white-washing the killallmen hashtag incident. http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/03/a-twitter-hashtag-probably-doesnt-prove-feminists-want-to-kill-all-men/359493/ In her world, an event in Kenya that vaguely reminds her of her own prejudices about Men's Rights Activists is a perfectly valid inference, but concluding that "killallmen" might be prejudicial is an uninformed rush to judgement. What can you do but point and laugh?
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:09 PM
14

The journalist doesn't like the Kenyan law and she doesn't like MRAs, and both have something vaguely to do with men, so they are the same. She's literally that dumb.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:08 PM
8

There are similarities, but there are differences too. For example... Patriarchy theory doesn't propose that there is a star-chamber of men consciously plotting the domination of women by men. Quite the opposite; they argue that both men and women participate in patriarchy, and that neither consciously knows that this is what they are doing. They use the word "patriarchy," not because it is exclusively men who control it, but because the conventional use of power favours men (yes, it's a bad cho…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 12:53 PM
11

"how many women killed the men?" Every women who benefited or hoped to benefit from the death of those men. So, all of them. "how many men were victims of females?" See the last point. "how many of those are male dominated industries?" Men don't "dominate" dangerous professions, they "suffer" them. "men don't like to get professional help and are cultured not to talk" ...and face greater hardship and suffering than women. See the last three points. And men aren't "cultured" to not talk. No one i…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 11:00 PM
31

Hubris.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 05:11 PM
1

Absolutely not. Dictionary definitions are derived from usage. So, in this case, this definition is not saying what "sexism" ought to mean, but how people generally use it. As a matter of fact, people DO typically use the word "sexism" to refer to sexism against women.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 12:54 PM
1

The Good: Deriving a particular person's history from their race and gender is accurately described as an invalid inference. The Bad: You are not entitled to the advantages your parents purchase for you, merely because your parents earned the wealth with which they are purchasing those advantages. Case in point: a person may have earned the money they use to make a bride, but they are not entitled to bride as a consequence. Similarly, the fact that parents have earned their wealth does not neces…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 02:37 PM
3

Rebuttal: Heterosexual boys will experience sexual arousal when they see girls wearing sexualized clothing. They have no more control over this feeling than girls have over how they feel when it's hot out. And just as girls can behave normally in spite of the heat, boys can behave normally in spite of arousal. This doesn't change the fact that it's distracting to do so. A dress code does not exist so that girls “don't have to fear men”; it exists in order to minimize the heat boys feel from sexu…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 01:06 PM
1

Me too. I'm not sure how that relates to speech codes being offensive in private space.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 12:47 PM
1

I didn't say we should! In private space, anyway, it's not a matter of "should," but of "can". For example, in my house, I can restrict the speech of my visitors ("you can stop saying that or find the door!"). Whether or not I "should" do that is completely up to my discretion; it's my private space. Offensiveness, in a private context, is as acceptable as any other reason for restricting speech. So, a "speech code," provided it's in a private space, isn't a contradiction to the notion of a "fre…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 12:41 PM
1

I don't care that you don't care. (and now that I've discredited you, neither does anyone else). And no, that wasn't my argument. My point has been made. You just don't care... remember?
/r/MensRights29/04/14 11:15 AM
7

My reading of it is that there is a subsection of the MRM who want an unimpeachable face. Inflammatory language, hyperbole, satire, sarcasm, and the like, in their opinion, provides a ground for impeachment, so they resent Elam--as an often cited figure--for that. In their view he does as much harm as good.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 08:15 PM
3

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more female avatars in multiplayer games than there are female players. We all know it isn't because women are treated badly.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:57 PM
9

It can be offensive in private spaces too, but for different reasons. EDIT: by "it", I mean "speech codes". Looking at the speondes to this, people seem confused as to what "it" refers to. In other words: "speech codes" can be offensive in private spaces too, but for different reasons.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 05:46 PM
2

I made my point long ago. I realize that you're lost, but that isn't because of my inability to articulate a point, it's because of your inability to follow a line of reasoning. Maybe this will help you catch up: "I don't give a shit if you make your point about Futrelle being bigoted or not, and frankly I don't know why I've been pushing it because surely it'd help me if you stay quiet about it right? so thanks :)" This is a clownish argument. You've argued that Elam's writing is more bigoted t…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 03:51 PM
6

In as much detail as you can muster, please stipulate what you mean by equality.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 03:03 PM
2

Nonsense. You want to challenge one of the underlying assumptions on which my point was based, not my point itself (the underlying assumption being that Futrelle's site is bigoted in the first place). That's fine, but why should I play along while you have yet to concede that your first challenge failed to obtain? That I will not concede to this new line of questioning isn't grounded in my inability to do so, but in the fact that I don't see the point until you concede that you were wrong in the…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 02:25 PM
1

"We went through this already" We have, which makes me wonder why you keep returning to it. I'll remind you what we're talking about because you're clearly confused. You've claimed that there is something in Elam's writing that is far more discrediting than anything in Futrelle's. You have failed to provide valid evidence of "advocating violence" or "excusing rape" on Elam's site, so I don't see why I am obligated to find anything comparable on Futrelle's site. That is where our argument stands.…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 11:40 AM
1

Where was violence advocated and rape excused?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:26 PM
1

My argument rests on you not being able to produce evidence or argument that supports a bigotry in Elam's site that cannot be matched by comparable bigotry on Futrelle's site. I'm reminding you as a courtesy. So, we've gotten a lot of preamble out of the way, and I've generously given you some feedback. This is all good. So, for all the marbles, chose the example of bigotry that is, in your opinion, the most compeling, and I will happily respond.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:33 AM
1

“You're so pedantic without making an actual argument. You're approaching this as if it was more than a stupid fucking joke, my god, give it up. “ I don't think addressing the core of your argument is being “pedantic”--nor would anyone else. And I agree, it was a dumb thing to say. But since we're talking about “dumb jokes”, let's move on to your very first—congratulations btw—coherent argument. Elam: “That’s it. In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:08 PM
1

You seem confused about a number of things. "so I naturally assumed you had no idea whether or not these posts were objectionable" Something doesn't become reasonable because you attach the word "naturally" to it. You made an assumption. It was wrong. That's not my mistake. It's yours. Is that simple enough for you? 'Yes you did. You asked "what do you find so discrediting" about Elam and I told you. ' That's not a claim; it's a question. It bodes badly for your argument that you do not know the…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:15 PM
4

It's a limited definition but not wrong, given that the purpose of a dictionary isn't to provide an authoritative or analytical definition of anything, but to list common usages of a word according to frequency of that usage in public writing.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:44 PM
1

The point of my question was what you find objectionable, not what I find objectionable. So, you find "advocates violence, dismisses rape and finds sexual satisfaction in abusing feminists" objectionable. Those sound like objectionable things to me. But I need one more thing: I need you to connect those charges with the actual text in which they occur. You may want to include a brief explanation of why those charges apply. "Why do you dismiss him as the fodder of the bigoted when Elam's misogyni…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 11:46 AM
1

Enough? You haven't said anything. You're going to have to explain what it is you find discrediting about these quotes. And specifically, what about these quotes that cannot be found on Futrelle's site--don't forget, I'm supposed to be "confused" about something.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 04:37 AM
1

So, let me get this straight. Your argument is that this description does fit A Voice for Men, but doesn't fit Manboobz. Please disagree if this isn't the case. Assuming this is what you're saying, what is it that you find so discredditing about Paul that is so credible about David?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:14 AM
3

I would love to have that printed on a T-Shirt.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 11:35 PM
1

In what sense?
/r/MensRights25/04/14 09:22 PM
-1

That's not what reactionary means. It's hard to take your predictions seriously when you don't understand the words you're using.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 08:05 PM
5

They're trying to trick you with bad inferences. This is a common claim made by Feminists, and it runs as follows: if the MRM isn't helping men, then the MRM must be merely sabotaging Feminism. The problem with this argument is that the later does not follow from the former. Imagine for a moment that the MRM really didn't ever help men in any quantifiable way. And assume that it's true that the MRM is trying to sabotage Feminism. Even if those are both true, it still doesn't follow that the MRM …
/r/MensRights25/04/14 05:55 PM
1

It doesn't really work like that. To counter the Feminist 20% of the population, you need to convince more than 20% of the population that nothing is more important than opposing Feminism, because that's what someone is saying when they self-identify as a Feminist; they are saying that anti-Feminism is a deal breaker for them. To counter it, you need more than 20% saying that Feminism is a deal breaker for them, and more significantly, you need to convince politicians that the anti-Feminist 20% …
/r/MensRights25/04/14 05:09 PM
6

This is absolutely the lowest form of politics.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 01:56 PM
3

That's precisely what they've done.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 01:09 AM
0

20% is gigantic in terms of an issue-based political movements. I don't think there is a larger one. Environmentalists? Social conservatives? Numbers are on their side and politicians know it.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 01:01 AM
9

It's like she just makes this stuff up as she's going. She champions the idea that men want "power" more then "freedom", because apparently the two are mutually exclusive, power has no relation to freedom, and feminists never...uh...wanted power? What the hell is she talking about? By the time she was claiming that the "revolution" didn't happen because men lacked the "will"--a surprising new depth of delusion for Faludi--I was reminded of what I find most annoying about "radicals": their unbrid…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:20 PM
4

Futrelle basically prints membership cards for the MRM. Bigots link to his site as a "source", thereby discrediting themselves, while sane people see his site as the hypocritical hate it is--which, of course, looks good on us. If Futrelle didn't exist, I would be tempted to invent him. Keep up the weak work Dave. Your incompetence is an inspiration to us all.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 01:09 PM
2

It's obviously a simple mistake, but there should be an extra zero in the lifetime outcomes.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 12:31 PM
1

Yeah. It's weird that there are still Nazis around. It seems so retro.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 02:11 AM
1

Political power and social power are the same thing. Political literally means social relations on a large scale.So these words don't do a good job of explaining what you mean by male held power and female held power.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 01:35 AM
2

I like to think of it as our own little peer review process.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 02:03 PM
3

I don't mind that Feminists are anti-Men's Rights. I think an adversarial system can be healthy. Besides, in being a foil for Men's Rights, Feminists may have found their last and best virtue.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:59 PM
4

That's all true, but from a guy's perspective, nice guys can have some nasty traits when they go chivalrous--which they do all too often. I can't count how many "nice guys" have warned me to treat some female "friend" of their's right, or else. I try to be understanding and give them the chance to apologize before they are shown the door forever, but it's always galling. Of course, too many women think nice guys are "assholes too"--because they think all men are assholes and it drives them crazy…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:42 PM
0

Nope. Because there is nothing a Feminist could want or stand for that a non-Feminist couldn't also want and stand for but without having to support an ever-expanding universe of weirdness and stupidity.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:08 AM
3

Feminism is the man, now.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:02 AM
41

Satire is always first on the scene.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 12:59 AM
6

He's not paying you to teach him. When remarks are off-topic like that, I just assume they are made from outside the Prof's sphere of expertise. For example, in this case, he's bringing in a historical assumption. Rather than fight againt it, preface statements with "assuming a history dominated by the abuse of women at the hands of men". This is a philosophy class, so the actual history isn't as important as recognizing that this is an assumption. If you want to push back though, you could alwa…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 04:00 AM
2

Prove it, Mr Evidence.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 03:42 AM
12

"Free Speech" is about the nature of the public sphere, and is prior to the American 1st amendment. The idea is famously articulated by Immanuel Kant in his essay "On Enlightenment." Paraphrasing, he argues that the public sphere depends on the free and unlimited exchange of ideas, because without that, public inquiry loses it's best guard against falsity and illusion. XKCD is not arguing against free speech per se, but rather, he's arguing that all the internet exists in the private sphere, and…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:45 PM
4

That depends entirely on what White Supremacy entails. If White Supremacy entails arguing that pop-cycle sticks should not be taxed, then no, students would not be right to disrupt a speech on that subject; however, if arguing for White supremacy entails inciting crimes against other citizens, then they should call the police and have them shut it down; however, if there are no laws which protect citizens against incitement, then they would certainly be in the right to disrupt the speech and shu…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:18 PM
2

If a claim is made that an issue effects a demographic particularly, offering counter-evidence is not "derailing". Students are expected to push back against claims presented in class.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:22 PM
5

That guy needs a therapist in a bad way.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 07:21 PM
8

The story ridicules the unfair rationalizations a rapist's parent. You could write the same story titled "My Daughter Would Never Lie About Being Raped," detailing all the ridiculous rationalizations people come up with to deny the possibility that a false accuser could possibly be lying. In fact, it would have been a better story if it had done both. Ideologues write terrible fiction.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 07:05 PM
1

What bearing does that have on her belief? (EDIT: not that your point is true, it's just irrelevent)
/r/MensRights18/04/14 06:49 PM
1

This article sacrifices itself on the "apex fallacy". Lately I've had some luck against this problem by focusing on the method that leads to it. In basic terms, the method is a means of determining the nature of "oppression". What radicals do is look at the top of a power structure then infer who must be oppressed by who is absent. Let's call it the "inference model" of oppression. This might be perfectly reasonable if we did not have direct access to information about who is at the bottom of th…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 04:29 PM
4

Actually, you're the one who is conflating the two. Your original claim was that Hirsi Ali wants to silence her critics, but she has not criticized their speech at all. She has criticized their denying her a podium at which to speak. The consequence of an honourarium is that you get to make a speech. Hirsi Ali has been denied that podium because of the content that speech may contain, and she believes that judgement unjust.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:08 PM
3

Even if it was the case that a right to speech is only denied when it's denied everywhere (and it certainly isn't the case), it doesn't change the fact that she believes her right to speech has been infringed upon. So I repeat, she isn't trying to silence anyone, but is condemning what she believes is an effort to silence her.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:03 PM
4

I've recently had a number of encounters on facebook with Feminists from my University. They called me all kinds of nonsense (one popular comment stated that everyone would be overjoyed to watch me auto-erotically asphyxiate—even an adjunct professor from my University liked that one!), and sure, every other Feminist and SJWs joined right in, but most people saw through it. What started as a pile-on against me ended with a chorus of strangers defending me and condemning the abuse I was receiving…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 02:41 PM
0

The reversal of her honourarium and the subsequent denial of podium is not speech--it's a "reaction", but it's not speech. So, in this instance, I don't think it's right to say that Hirsi Ali has tried to "deny her targets the right to reply." What she has done is reacted to a denial of her right to speech.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 01:11 PM
18

lol @ "vitriol"! These people just see what they want to see. My favourite part is this sentence: "The tone, the ranting nature of the writing, the bullying (those uppity Others into submission), and the vitriol." This sentence performs every offense it condemns. The hubris of Feminists knows no bounds.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 12:16 PM
2

You aren't being perfectly clear at all. And I didn't insinuate anything. I explicitly said that I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you upset about tone? Content? Both? By what criteria are you assessing these? How are you comparing the tone and content to other movrments? I don't have a sense of any of this. Literally, I can only guess what you're talking about. I'm not aware of any doxxing, much less an agregious one. I'm more than interestd in seeing a comprehensive anakysis of do…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 12:59 AM
2

Looks good to me.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 12:16 AM
1

"This isn't false though." Isn't it? It isn't that men are not raised to fear the world that is the fact of the matter, or that women are especially raised to fear the world, but that men are raised to suppress their fears while women are not. "Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please rephrase?" Sure. The article implies that men are particularly prone to assuming that women ought to trust them. I have no reason to think this is a problem particular to men. "Could you pos…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 11:28 PM
12

"I feel both movements are necessary parts of egalitarianism." I wouldn't disagree strongly with this; however, I think they are adversarial parts. We live in a society where the public sphere is arranged as an adversarial process, so in that sense, each one necessitates the other. But "doing it right"? I'm not sure what you mean by this. For example, the "approaching women" article on the front page is just a version of Schrodinger's Rapist that makes all the usual mistakes. It errantly claims …
/r/MensRights17/04/14 06:47 PM
5

You're running together objections with regard to how people speak and what they are saying. The end result is that I literally can't make heads or tails of this. And try to understand, I can't even think of an example of "spiteful vitriol" around here. It just sounds to me like you see what you want to see--but again, I can't make sense of exactly what you're trying to say, so it's very possible that I'm mistaken.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 06:18 PM
6

I think this sort of sentiment comes from studies that show women do more housework than men. The thing is, women don't do more work in total--as this cartoon implies. Women do more unpaid housework; men do more paid work outside the house. And most studies show that men do more work in total (even when we're assuming that all "work" requires the same amount of labour). The idea that men aren't keeping up their end, has no basis in reality.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 02:20 PM
2

We can apply this logic elsewhere and get similarly ridiculous outcomes. I believe perjury charges result from far less than 2% of criminal cases. Therefore, people rarely lie on the stand. However, it is interesting--provided we want to read meaning into the frequency at which charges are pressed--to note that false allegations are more rampant than the more general perjury.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 01:52 PM
1

I'm not American, so when I say "right", I don't necessarily mean "Republican". Even if a new party arises in the United States, like 3rd parties in other countries, this new party will be considered "left" or "right". The problem is that you are thinking of wings as movements with meaning. They aren't. Like the "left", the "right" just cares about votes. I think it's more likely that the right will pick up men's rights because men's rights gets better play in right wing publications, and becaus…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 01:29 PM
9

There is a kind of person who likes to call things "hate speech" but hates to have to define "hate speech" and really hates to cite specific instances.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 04:36 AM
8

I think it's important to be clear about what political wings are. Political wings are brokerages. Each deals in whatever issues the other side does not, provided there is enough support to make it worthwhile. In other words, nothing is essentially of one wing or the other. It's all an accident of history. Of course, people talk as if a wing has some deep, common core values that holds it all together, but that's just a strategic ploy to entrench partisanship--there is no profound reason why gun…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 04:16 AM
0

My skin is pretty white though I'm technically somewhat South American, but grew up in a black neighborhood, so arguably, I'm blacker than Barack Obama. So what fucking box am I supposed to tick? Hispanic? White? Black? Other? Race-tallying has always been bullshit. It's less meaningful than asking people who their favourite singer is.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:34 AM
1

Let's just quote this part: "can't see (or refuse to see)". Indeed.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 12:32 PM
30

Pretty much what you'd expect from an actor with an opinion. Smug, gullible and absurdly influential.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 12:18 PM
21

"Waiting periods and mandatory classes also provide an abusive partner more control. Needless to say, this means any push back to no-fault divorce will disproportionately hurt women. " Considering that accusations of abuse are taken far more seriously when directed at a man and issued from a woman's mouth, it's men who would be disproportionately hurt. Women don't need access to divorce to end abuse; they can just dial 911.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:25 AM
15

"Let’s question why men want anonymity for rape defendants" But not why women want anonymity for rape defendants. Oh right, I forgot only men are villainy-apt. \s "It’s the only way I can explain why men are so persistent in pursuing something with no founding in evidence. Why else would they support something which only protects perpetrators?" ..and by extension, women who support anonymity for rape defendants must want to be raped, right? Or is it that men are never raped? I just can't keep th…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:19 PM
5

You need to get past the left/right paradigm. It's a naive and shallow form of political "awareness". It's rooted in the fact that the congress during the French revolution happened to sit on benches arranged along two sides of the room; not in some deep essentialism that underlies political currents. It continues because political trends tend to align in polarities for pragmatic reasons. When you freely associate disparate movements just because they appear to be on the same "wing" at any given…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 02:56 PM
4

Forget about your reputation and about justice--these are luxuries you cannot afford. All you can do now is damage control. You are conducting an organized retreat. Do not talk to her or to friends you have in common. You need to disappear. You have one goal: avoid alimony, debt, and prison. Only your future matters now. Your past is gone. Those people are gone. That life is gone. You are starting over. The sooner you face that, the better off you'll be.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 02:21 PM
1

Using the author's words, she conflates "inclusion" and "balance". What grounds the idea of inclusion is the notion that particular types of people (ie. women) have particular insights into the world because of that fact. It's hard to say how true this is, but even if we assume that men and women are so radically different that female perspectives are “essential”, that still only requires the voice of one women. Not a majority of speakers. Meanwhile, her argument for "balance" takes a different …
/r/MensRights14/04/14 01:14 PM
1

This article deploys many convincing arguments, like "surely", "entirely possible", and "PATRIARCHIES."
/r/MensRights14/04/14 01:25 AM
5

"I've noticed quite a number of MRAs who are blatantly misogynistic ..." I haven't noticed this. I have trouble finding MRAs I can construe as misogynistic, much less ones that are "blatantly" misogynistic. What criteria do you use for establishing that someone/something is misogynistic? "What stance do most Reddit MRAs have on the concept of male privilege?" As far as I know, no polls have been done asking this question. My intuition is that most MRAs think the privileges of men are wildly over…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:01 PM
3

My advice would be to talk about the fact that those discussions are difficult for you before you actually have those discussions. And don't actually have those discussions until you feel comfortable doing so with this particular therapist. Be straight with her about the fact that you don't trust her. She knows she's a stranger to her clients and expects that they will not trust her.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 12:41 PM
9

Yeah, most radical feminists don't even know they're radical feminists (usually because they think "radical" means "extreme" or something like that). If you believe our entire civilization is the consequence of a distribution of labour in human pre-history, you're a radical feminist. If you believe our current political system is one that is arranged around the concept of oppressing women, you are a radical feminist.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 12:09 PM
1

"On the off chance there may be someone in the world ignorant enough to think that all Men's Rights Activists are actually Republicans, I feel I need to say that most Men' Rights Activists are, in fact, not Republicans." [then link to the poll that was done here... which I'm failing to find for some reason] Even without the poll, the MRM is international, so inevitably, most MRAs will not be Republicans.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:02 AM
0

At the very least, you've forgotten asexual. So, no.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 11:01 PM
24

I wish they were that sophisticated. They are afraid that their captured images will be used by the Patriarchy to hurt them... somehow. Yes. They're that dumb.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 09:09 PM
6

She lost me at "I don't have to look any farther than my own PhD to see the results of gender discrimination. Ladies are the better PhD students but don't get the jobs." Are they, now? And of course, men couldn't possibly be better at anything. \s What's funny is that she's willing to view as problematic that men are better negotiators (assuming they are), but doesn't see it as a problem that women are better PhD students (assuming they are).
/r/MensRights10/04/14 12:52 PM
7

This attitude has been getting on my nerves for a long time: "after taking too much, the boy loses his composure." This idea that there is something noble and reasonable and preferable about standing there getting punched in the face has got to go away. This is a ridiculously romantic vision of violence, dredged up from some chivalric cartoon featuring the usual martyred heroes stoically enduring an endless barrage of punishments. It's a nonsense Christian ideal that has no reasonable relationsh…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 12:19 PM
117

I've found the most effective tool against this sort of attitude is to get them to start talking about it. People have become so deaf to contempt towards men that they can't hear it until the speaker starts explaining the details of this attitude in their own words. "Please elaborate," "what do you mean by that?", "why should we believe that?", "how does that work?": these simple questions are some of the strongest tools we have at our disposal.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:29 PM
15

Remember that first wave feminists weren't feminists at all. All but a few small groups in France and South America rejected the label entirely. It wasn't until the 1950s that American women began adopting the term feminist, followed by women in other countries. This wasn't just a change in name. Since the abolitionist movement, there had been a minority in women's movements who thought that woman's rights could not be pursued along side men, while a majority thought that men were essential to a…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 01:11 PM
16

I agree. Hyperbole always fails in the end. People will go to look for themselves and when the sub fails to live up to the negative criticism it's receiving, the result will be sympathetic.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 07:25 PM
0

jibberish. wrong sub.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 04:43 AM
1

In CBC's defense, the "Are Men Obsolete?" debate was hosted by a completely different organization. But yeah, the CBC is biased when it comes to feminism.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:53 AM
1

There is president. Thanks to sperm donation, there are many children whose closest male ancestors did not chose to become fathers. I'm fairly certain there are offspring who have come to believe that genetic ancestry is significant, and for that reason developed resentments for their closest male ancestor. It's certainly in all our interests to convince offspring who come to believe such things, otherwise.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 12:51 AM
5

Flirting! My god. Next he'll want to dance.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 06:45 PM
2

There is a difference between "not ready to talk" and "the silent treatment". The former is perfectly reasonable; the later is abuse. Tell her that the two of you need to talk and ask her when you can do that. You can even tell her that if she's still not ready to talk when that time rolls around, she can put off the talk until another date. If she will not even talk to you to accomplish this, pack your belongings and leave, or resign yourself to this "punishment". But remember, the later risks …
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:40 PM
4

"I used to teach gender studies, and difficult topics are likely to come up because women are treated like garbage the world over." Is she conceding that gender studies is really just women's studies, or conceding that there is so much contempt for men that there's nothing difficult about confronting men who are treated like garbage? Ijust can't tell anymore.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 03:31 AM
2

It was most likely a setup by the CBC to make the "rape culture" argument look good. There are dozens of better speakers on the subject; the CBC wanted this one.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 05:57 PM
0

I say "even prominent feminists know this claim isn't true," and send them this link: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
/r/MensRights30/03/14 02:36 PM
1

I'm pretty sure an actual crime has to be incited. The only reason those laws exist is that incitement laws could be weaseled around if a kind of person was targetted rather than a specific person. Nothing wrong with that.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 09:58 PM
1

Nevermind, she has her name on her web site: http://bellejar.ca/ .
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:33 PM
1

She put this up on her personal site first (the first draft ends with a big "fuck you" graphic with the caption "this is what I think of MRAs"). A quick browse of the site exposes the usual radical jibberish, with a special disdain for men. The site is under a pseudonym, so I'm not sure if I can post the link here--doxxing and so on. It doesn't seem to me that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy when she posts the article under her own name, but I don't make the rules and I'm not sure ho…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:19 PM
2

There are a bunch of problems here. Different forms of objectification are conflated (instrumentalization and essentialization to name just a couple). Objectification is treated as if it's necessarily unethical when it isn't (you objectify/intrumentalize your plumper when you use him to fix your sink--nothing wrong with that!). Special pleading for sexual representations (if sexy pictures train people to think of humans as mere bodies, than wouldn't any photograph do that?). And that's just in t…
/r/MensRights27/03/14 04:21 PM
1

Oh! I just thought of this. You might be able to argue that a large guage hole is vulnerable in a physical altercation regardless of whether the jewelry is in. This might negate the code orange justification.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:43 PM
2

Ironically, the jewelry policy could be justified because of the code orange policy (the idea being that men aren't allowed to wear jewelry because they will be involved in physical altercations, not because they are men); however, the code orange policy isn't so easily defended, and if that is sexist, then by extension so is the jewelry policy. On the other hand... Many people argue that sexual discrimination is justified if the purpose of that discrimination is to protect the well-being of one…
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:39 PM
4

I just read like fourty of these. Honestly, they're so unhinged, I'm not sure there's a response that could do more damage than they've done to themselves.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:13 AM
1

lol @ spelling. Yeah, you're a real intellectual. (smart people know spelling is arbitrary and doesn't really matter all that much; just thought you should know). It matters because counter-arguments are constructed in response to arguments, aka. grounds. If you don't know what the grounds are, on what would you base a response? Your gut feeling that it's "obviously censorship?"
/r/MensRights23/03/14 11:43 PM
2

Why do people keep bringing up censorship and free speech? The OP doesn't mention anything remotely like censorship. Having a position about MA is no different than having a position about any other group.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 06:39 PM
2

Yeah. I got the impression they hated MRAs.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 06:35 PM
4

It contributes to a pattern of hyperbolic inflation of women's issues, a primary motivation for ignoring men's issues.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:20 PM
1

It did because the question shifted from whether women should be judged by their merits to whether specific polititions are meritous or not. It's not the end of the world, but it's straying off point.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:11 AM
32

It depends. On what grounds are they preposing the de-retification?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:12 PM
7

I think the problem here isn't libertarianism but the OP getting distracted by her particular political beliefs. She was doing alright until she argued that a bunch of politicians shouldn't be respected because their beliefs are "evil". She only needed to say that they should be judged on the merit of their performance regardless of their gender (which, I think, is what she meant to say), but this point got lost in her eagerness to promote an unrelated political agenda.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:18 PM
2

I hope you are. Grabbing someone and spitting on them is not only an assault, but one that assures the victim that the perpetrator has absolutely no regard for the victim as a human being and is more than prepared to do anything next. It is an open-ended threat. Self defense is absolutely appropriate in this situation. The bar for acceptable measures is precisely what is necessary to prevent the perpetrator from committing further assault. If a first upper-cut doesn't knock them unconscious, a s…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:13 PM
1

It depends what you consider sexuality to be. (Everyone hold off on the attacks for a second--we're going deep down the rabbit hole here). If, as most people do, you consider sexuality to be defined by emotions (desire, sexual attraction, et al.), then yeah, sexuality is not a choice--because desires are, by definition, not chosen (though, arguably, desires can be trained--a disturbing possibility). On the other hand, if you define sexuality as behaviors and presentations, then the opposite is t…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:00 PM
1

I don't think this argument runs through at all. Attributing the responsibility for a child to the person from whom the sperm originates is an arbitrary attribution of responsibility. The fact that there is a child to be taken care of does not necessarily imply that it is the sperm manufacturer who must do so (unless there were no other possible financial care-takers, which is not the case). The fact of the matter is that there are ethical grounds for granting a "father" the choice not to be a f…
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:47 PM
1

typo: tough-on-crime
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:19 PM
9

All correct. In addition, it tends to drive prostitution back underground because working girls are forced to to conceal their activities in order to protect the johns on whom they depend to make a living--precisely the same situation that motivates decriminalization in the first place. This is currently a big issue in Canada where prostitution laws have been rules unconstitutional and the current government is busy dreaming up new laws. Advocates for prostitution (mostly prostitutes themselves)…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:36 PM
4

In comedies men tend to be the buffoons; in drama they tend to be the villains.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 06:58 PM
2

"I have made an attempt, greater than cursory, to look into the issues you discuss. A reading of the popular press convinces me [...]" The only problem with this article is that he thinks the "popular press" amounts to an attempt that is "greater than cursory." The popular press is the least cursory look into any subject that can still be considered "looking" at all. What he should have said was, "I took a cursory look at it and wasn't interested in learning more. I remain skeptical because I th…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 05:27 PM
3

"categorically": according to type or kind. "oppressed": to burden with cruel or unjust impositions So, "men are categorically oppressed" means that men are unjustly burdened because they are men. Is there an MRA that says otherwise?
/r/MensRights13/03/14 05:15 PM
6

When they attack you, it just signals that you won the argument.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 04:44 PM
1

"Trying to compare the problems and decide 'who has it worse' is pretty pointless unless you just want to compete in the victim Olympics to determine who 'wins' and gets the biggest pity party." Or unless problems need to be prioritized because there are limited resources.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 06:14 PM
5

Absolutely. When Not working at all is an option, then we can talk about who "chose" what.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 01:25 PM
3

We need a word for vacuous cheerleading.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 01:12 PM
1

It is completely foreign to me. Thank you for teaching me a valuable, well-reasoned lesson. I will always value the memory of this moment.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 01:26 AM
1

So, if your zipper breaks and your penis falls out in public, you think you should be added to a sex offender's list? ...interesting position. Not very attractive, but interesting.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:47 PM
1

I have chosen to wear pants. Of course, a possible outcome of that choice is that my fly could fall and my penis could fall out. That does not mean that because I chose to wear pants I also chose to expose my penis. If I did not reasonably choose to expose my penis, then I have a right to privacy. But, if wearing pants did imply a choice to expose yourself, then every man who wears pants would be guilty of attempting to expose themselves publicly--which is absurd. So, no, she did not reasonably …
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:54 PM
1

I think there's a--admittedly blurry--distinction between someone who unintentionally exposes themselves and a streaker. If accidentally revealing yourself was exactly the same as streaking across a sporting event, sure, it would seem just as absurd to hold the guy on the trolley criminal as it would to hold a stadium full of picture-takers criminal. But I think there's a difference between the person who intentionally exposes themselves and the person who doesn't. The streaker can reasonable be…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:44 PM
9

I agree. This is one the best signs I've seen so far that the MRM is on it's way to being considered the official opposition to Feminism (aka. the number two position on the gender stage). Strategically, this is a great place for the MRM to be. We couldn't have asked for better press. The fact that our portrayal was hyperbolic is a good thing. The alternative is that they could have accurately represented our views and then vilified that--yikes. I think the OP here is exactly the right reaction.…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 03:51 PM
3

"Bitching about feminism does nothing for us as a movement, and can only hinder us." This couldn't be more wrong. The issue domain in which Men's Rights operates is gender. There are basically two groups that inhabit that domain: Feminism and us. Feminism is by far the larger and more powerful of the two. This means that there are two kinds of people. There are the kind who are concerned about gender for any reason and will turn to Feminism. Then there are those who have become dissatisfied with…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 06:44 AM
3

Yeah. There's plenty of pain to go around.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 06:21 AM
1

How do you know when you've raped someone? When a feminist tells you you have.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 05:01 PM
3

Non-consent isn't enough to secure an assault conviction, there needs to a reasonable expectation of harm. In this case the expectation of harm is in the possibility of pregnancy; men cannot get pregnant.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:18 PM
2

The feminist version of "objectification" is so terribly fallacious and so wide spread that we need some kind of mantra to beat it back with. Objectification, and particularly the instrumentalist version of objectification, comes from Kant. His basic idea is that it is bad if you use someone instrumentally in such a way as to injure their needs as a human being (in Kantanese: people as ends takes priority over their use as means). The part which requires an injury to a person's ends, is essentia…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:09 PM
11

"Not I would suggest because they're braver - but rather I believe because they feel they can't legitimately get help and still be a proper man." I appreciate the interest, but I'm willing to bet that plenty of those men do not have traditional definitions of manhood holding them back from seeking help. The problem is more that there is no help to be sought after, however willing you may be to receive it.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:29 PM
7

I'm shocked this is a surprise to anyone. Our whole society is built around an ethos of rescuing women in distress and ranking men according to their ability to do that rescuing.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:04 PM
3

You know there's a problem when the sentence for poisoning his girlfriend will probably be less invasive than the sentence for being a parent.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:18 PM
2

As a dragon, I resent that remark.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:03 PM
6

Feminism tends to generally not be based in faith, but in confusion about facts. In other words, Feminists generally believe there are good non-faith-based reasons for believing what they do. The phenomenon Pinker is describing depends on the fact that the faithful know their beliefs are grounded in faith, so only have anger and force with which to refute counterfactuals. They hate Men's Rights because they believe men and maleness is the cause of everything bad in the world. And they have reaso…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 05:59 PM
6

I can appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think this is the case. Scarlet Johansson could identify as a man all day long and deep down, I just wouldn't believe her. Granted, people attach all sorts of strange arbitrary criteria to maleness, but that doesn't mean maleness is simply a consequence of how one identifies one's self. I suspect it's as much a function of how people see and treat you as it is a function of what you want to be seen as.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:29 AM
2

I'm suspicious too, but the whole reason that we all object to discrimination in the first place is because it doesn't make sense. If it made sense, it wouldn't be discrimination. So, the fact that decisions to stop profitable shows doesn't make any sense is precisely why one would suspect it's because of something irrational, like discrimination.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:02 PM
3

They're mixing apples and oranges. The "sexual harassment includes..." section is applying the legal criteria for sexual harassment without observing legal definitions of power as well as the real conditions of male students. Harassment laws cover the types of behaviors listed on this poster when the behavior is directed against an employee by an employer, or by someone who has institutional power over the person they are acting on. 51% of male students do not have access to this kind of power a…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:44 PM
16

It's funny how all those male power fantasies still manage to sacrifice themselves for the sake of women. It's like it's their sole purpose or something.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:45 AM
1

I'm kind of interested in finding out how many people respond to ads like this.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 04:50 PM
1

I think I see what you're getting at. On the one hand there is the trope of women being harassed on the street that contributes to a stereotype that women are at more risk. At the same time, there is the problem of collecting and categorizing evidence of actual events on actual streets that also contributes to the same stereotype. These conspire to make it difficult to argue that women are not at special risk. ...something lie that?
/r/MensRights28/02/14 04:45 PM
5

What's "casual" street harassment? It's sounds like you're saying: "it's hard to argue that women aren't more at risk of experiencing less risky harassment." Which basically just means they are less at risk.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 03:30 PM
2

I think he was just agreeing.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 03:22 PM
3

I give them credit for knowing that there are beings in the world who do not have uteruses and yet, have thoughts. I think that's real progress.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 05:14 AM
1

I wish people would stop saying this: "As Alan Dershowitz pointed out during a recent appearance on BBC News, most people who are accused of a crime are in fact guilty. We would not want to live in a world where most people, or even half of the people, who are accused of, or arrested for, a crime were innocent. We give lip service to the presumption of innocence of the accused, but the simple fact that someone in a position of authority took a claim seriously enough to investigate it suggests to…
/r/MensRights27/02/14 05:28 PM
9

This is what I just read: "obviously the MRM is, like, totally wrong, but we need to come up with a substantive reason that explains why, because publishing the kind of unsubstantiated denials that pepper this article is just not going to work in the long run." I, for one, couldn't agree with her more. This will not work forever.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 01:35 AM
2

There's a growing consensus that finds treating the nature/nurture distinction as a sharp either/or problem is a mistake. But be that as it may, I would be cautious about reading everyday claims as necessarily committing to a constructivist or essentialist position. Take the example claim, “men can’t multi-task.” This claim does not necessitate a commitment to essentialism. Someone can say “men can't multi-task” and mean that the constructed gender is conditioned to not multi-task, implying that…
/r/MensRights25/02/14 03:04 PM
5

I don't think that frustration is at all legitimate. The ideological positioning adopted by feminists combined with the political power wielded by feminism makes it the central obstacle to men's rights. This is a political fact. The aim of this sub ought to be overcoming obstacles that block men's issues. The following sentiment is the number one obstacle for men's issues right now: "sure, maybe men have some issues, but those issues seem petty compared to women's issues." This is a creation of …
/r/MensRights24/02/14 06:34 PM
8

But isn't every man who doesn't trip over himself following instructions issued telepathically by random neighbourng women, really just afraid? \s
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:13 PM
10

One of the easiest things to show is the double standard applied to gender disparity in admissions. When men are admitted to a program more often than women (ie. in computer science programs) it's viewed as a symptom of sexism. When women are admitted to a program more often than men (ie. in English programs) it's viewed as a symptom of sexism. You can demonstrate this by measuring the amount of money devoted top getting women into computer science versus the amount of money devoted to getting m…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:17 PM
1

I thought again, and you're completely and utterly wrong. The course being discussed here is a "nonmajor" course, meaning that it's taken primarily by humanities student as a science breadth-requirement. This article represents a rise in the course's popularity as a rise in CS degrees for women, and yet, none of these people will get degrees in CS. So, the article's central thesis is mistaken. But that's not why we're concerned about. The reason there are more women in this class (the highest ev…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 01:43 PM
6

"Man up": your sexual integrity is mystically linked to my expectations.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 12:46 AM
3

Yeah. Even in the headline the rhetorical focus is on the fact that the "man says", not that the "boss made." And even the concept that the "boss" was female is distanced from the verb, so we're left with a "man" that "says" versus a "boss" that "makes"; rather than man/says paired with female/makes, or employee/says paired with boss/makes, or the inconceivable employee/says with female/makes.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 04:06 PM
3

That's not what I'm essentially suggesting at all. More like this: "I am a man out of work and taking care of the kids. I am a traditionalist and therefore unhappy with myself." "I am a man out of work and taking care of the kids. I am a progressive, so no problem." "I am an observer. I'm glad the progressive guy's life worked out. How can I help the traditionalist guy achieve the life he wants?" If this is a culture of "double standard", then I'm all for it.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 04:27 AM
18

Here's a comparative list for you. The vast majority of women participate in one or more of the following: 1) peeling their babies like potatoes. 2) selling children into slavery. 3) looting corpses on battlefields. 4) lying. Unlike Marilyn French's claim, the above is actually true. But even when it's true, it's rhetorical bullshit. The first three cases are obviously rare atrocities, while the last is an order of magnitude less serious that the first three. And yet, when I put this list togeth…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 04:10 AM
1

I agree. I think the trick is to find a way for people who want to live traditional lives to be able to do so without requiring the rest of us to live those lives too--and the reverse, of course.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:08 AM
19

The full version is absurd in more or less the same way. I say the abridged version is a reasonable representation of the sentiment. In fact, it's less obfuscated than the original.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:40 AM
4

Maybe we should make a deal with these critics. We'll stop outing them as lunatics when they shut down the anti-MR subreddits. Sounds fair, right?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:37 AM
4

"In any arena involving physicality, the stronger of two has the moral responsibility to protect the weaker." Complete jibberish. We all have an equal moral responsibility to protect others, it just so happens that stronger people are sometimes better at it (except when they're drunk... of course). And even if there was a asymmetric distribution of moral responsibility, it doesn't justify a mandate against men; it justifies a mandates against big people. Why translate it into gender? It's not li…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:28 PM
6

What's important isn't that it was she who said it, but the Washington Post that printed it.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:20 PM
1

I think you misunderstand what's being said here. My claim is that it is false to claim that feminism is or has ever been merely the belief equality (in any of the word's many senses). Clearly feminism has always including a great deal more than the belief in equality. That "first wave" feminism was committed to a kind of equality does not at all contradict that claim, even if "first wave feminists" were feminists (which they weren't).
/r/MensRights22/02/14 01:54 PM
12

"But feminism simply means you believe in equality; it certainly doesn't mean you become any less 'manly'." It's just that simple! Just open any feminist text and you'll find the phrase "believe in equality" written over and over again, page after page, because that's all there is to it. Or attend a meeting where feminists take non-hierarchical turns emoting chants comprised exclusively of the phrase "I believe in equality." How could someone possible get the idea that anything more is involved?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 03:51 PM
4

...don't forget laughing.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:57 PM
6

I don't know, but I have a feeling he's seeing the light now. We'll convert them one false accusation at a time. It shouldn't take too long.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 04:56 PM
7

I would. Men are adapted to rejection; women, not so much. I think women are far more likely to overstep bounds without realizing it--from all evidence, many women don't even seem to understand that they have bounds. (come on, don't downvote this guy; I disagree too, but it's a perfectly reasonable point that I suspect a great number of people would find compelling)
/r/MensRights19/02/14 06:52 PM
115

What she really means is: "why wasn't a man there to get shot for me."
/r/MensRights19/02/14 05:16 PM
1

I wouldn't worry about the term so much. Think more about what "equality" even means. Many traditional male and female roles are different but still arguably equal. Is traditional the word you're looking for? Probably not. There are different types of equality: of opportunity, of outcome, welfare equality, humanitarian, and so on. Many of these are incompatible, so what does it mean when someone says "equal"? Not much, actually. It generally requires more explanation. I would avoid committing to…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 02:00 PM
1

I don't think you need to agree with the premise. Just think of it as an assumption, so you can say something like: assuming that sexism and prejudice should be defined this way, it still doesn't follow that women cannot be sexist or that men cannot be merely prejudicial.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 02:16 AM
1

I would characterize this as an argument to utility. Something like: befriending feminists where possible will prove to be of more utility than alienating them. In support of this you suggest that there are powerful allies to be found. I can understand the intuitive appeal of this, after all, a little extra support from feminits is better than no extra support from feminists, isn't it? I don't think it is. On purely instrumental grounds, nothing has been better for men's rights than antifeminism…
/r/MensRights18/02/14 10:00 PM
3

"These types of men take absolutely no pride in what the world has traditionally defined [as] a man." This is true, actually. At least, I know I don't.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 04:49 AM
17

"All you are is an ordinary person, doing nothing and holding your hand out for a cookie that you do not deserve." I don't think she could have described herself better.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 02:38 AM
1

You need to read between the lines here. By "man up" she just means "work out your anxieties through a long series of affairs with my friends."
/r/MensRights17/02/14 03:55 PM
6

...meaning, women give men stuff on Valentine's Day, and men give women stuff on White Day. The odd thing about it is that men are only supposed to give gifts reciprocally. Sounds kinda balanced on it's face, but what's really going on is that Valentine's Day exists so that women can choose who is allowed to buy them a gift, then when White Day rolls around a month later, men are expected to reciprocate with a gift that is three times the value of the gift the woman gave them. What's worse... Wh…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 07:37 PM
4

Here is my proposition. Select the most compelling argument you think you have made, and I will happily explain why it is completely and utterly wrong. Make sure it's the argument you think is strongest.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:40 PM
9

I'm a student at the University of Toronto (where I hope we can agree there are a lot of feminists). To the best of my knowledge, the psychology department has more MRA-friendly professors and students than any other department that studies gender (in fact, the most prestigious professor in the department is infamous for emphasizing men's issues and denying the characterization of patriarchy as oppressive). Particularly the ones who study domestic violence, criminality, and/or sociopathy (they a…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:32 PM
4

And apparently "weakness" is the only way to defame someone. I guess calling people "baby killers" is just fine now. \s
/r/MensRights14/02/14 02:03 PM
8

The funny thing about all the reactions to Taranto's article is that they all claim some version of "rape is more than just two drunks colliding," in a tone that purports to be disagreeing with or instructing Taranto of the "real" facts. A strange thing to do considering that is precisely his claim. Yes, rape is not implied when two drunks collide... it is more than that. Thank you for agreeing.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 04:32 PM
11

"Faced with such a blatant wall of testosterone" = maleness is self-evidently bad. People who talk like this are just empty-headed bigots.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 02:13 PM
2

I have trouble imagining a world where so many people are confused about the most basic criteria for assigning guilt and criminality in precisely the same way as this critic, and there is not simultaneously a mountain of false accusations. On it's face, it seems impossible.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 02:07 PM
5

Finally, something that is actually too unhinged for Marcotte.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 01:58 PM
1

Yeah. That was my point. I only made the above statement in order to reject it.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:44 PM
0

There are good and bad arguments here. First, the bad: While it's true that "any issue which affects even a small number of women/girls is immediately a womens issue," it's not true in this subreddit, and that this is a fact in much of the world, doesn't mean that it ought to be that way out there or in here. Arguably, this is precisely the kind of knee-jerk reflex this subreddit would oppose. "Well that argument for censorship can be applied to half the links here." This is just not true. The v…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:55 PM
2

this isn't necessarily true. if abuse is more likr cracking under torture than deciding to wash the windows, then prolonged exposure is a causal factor. just sayin'.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:38 AM
1

This isn't a bad place to start if you're looking for U.S. research. It's relatively recent and references a lot of the usual suspects in this area. "Although the FBI had set 8% as the average rate of false (actually, unfounded) accusations during the late 1990s, there is remarkable variation in the estimates of false allegations of rape found in the literature (Kanin, 1994; Epstein, 2005). A review of those studies on false rape accusations conducted between 1968 and 2005 showed a percentage ra…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 12:24 AM
2

By this author's account, we should hold her just as responsible for this false accusation as anyone else involved in it. After all, she is a "collaborator". It's tempting, but I just can't sink that low. Advocates are not guilty of the crimes committed by those they advocate for. But explaining that to zealous nitwits is an impossible undertaking.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 12:07 AM
1

It's official. I find the word "triggering," triggering.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 06:37 AM
14

The keyword here is "imagine".
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:24 PM
2

It took me ten years too. I was 30 by the time a doctor agreed to it.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 07:07 PM
3

It doesn't say what percentage of violence is done by men. It does say that 40% of men are victims. This could lead some people to assume that this translates into 60% of the violence is caused by men, but this is a mistake. The logical possibilities are as follows: female victim; male victim; bi-directional victimization (or, no victim). If all things were equal, we should expect 33% of males to be victims, 33% of females to be victims, and 33% of the time both partners are victims/abusers. (an…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:48 PM
2

So, he's arguing that privilege can be the consequence of being a victim of "hate". Oh boy, I don't think he's going to like where that leads.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:24 PM
2

Few are told it's going to be like that, and by the time they find out, it's too late. A "choice" implies an understanding of the consequences of that choice.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 05:36 PM
1

And of course... anyone who disagrees with them is a man, obviously.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 05:20 PM
2

Seriously, I'm pretty sure she was being facetious. She's known for throwing in these kinds of dry quips.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 03:06 PM
4

Christina Hoff Sommers is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, so I expect they're open to the idea.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 01:51 PM
-1

This is why I advocate an adversarial ethos rather than an ethos of purification. This is why I believe Feminists and MRAs must be adversarial, and the occational "why can't we just be pals" arguments are so absurd. We all benefit from being adversaries and we all suffer when we forget that. (also: the word toxic is officially toxic)
/r/MensRights30/01/14 04:48 AM
11

The thing I can't stand about Republicans is that they feel the need to criticize Democrats all the time. The thing I can't stand about Communists is that they have to criticize Capitalists all the time. The thing I can't stand about rationalists is that they seem obsessed with criticizing idealists. The problem with heliocentrism is that it's proponents seem so completely opposed to geocentrism, that frankly, it can only be hate at it's root. Etc.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 09:18 PM
23

"As a larger, brown guy, I rarely have to worry about being followed or sexually assaulted on the street ..." It's a fact that you are more likely to be assaulted if you are male than you are female, and if you're brown rather than not brown. These are just facts. That this fool walks down the street oblivious to them is hardly compelling news. I love too that he argues gay men cannot claim to be oppressed while large industries are actively courting them. Are large industries not courting women…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 06:14 PM
9

No. I think the idea is that the punishment is unjustifiable and that we all know he did this because he has little in the way of reproductive rights. It's like women who once gave themselves abortions with coat hangers. It's not nice, but we understand that they did it not because they have a sick fascination with coat hangers, but because they had few reasonable alternatives if they wanted to make decisions about their reproductive future. (of course, I don't really know the OPs intent, but th…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 05:51 PM
4

I'm an anti-feminist and I know more about feminist views than most feminists do. Or wait, are you a fanatical anti-anti-feminist? Is that how it works?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:22 PM
25

...and that one is better or worse than the other!
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:11 PM
22

...and female representations are female power fantasies. Done.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:10 PM
2

That doesn't make the cases different in a sense that pertains to the "father". No more so than the father would be responsible if the kid grew up and shot someone. The fact that there is a child with material rights generates a duty for society and those who willingly sought to create and take responsibility for that child. There is no reasonable grounds for attributing fatherly responsibility to a man merely because a child was produced using his sperm. So, the fact that the child has material…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:30 AM
8

Yeah, there's a real tradition of this. There are a bunch of Medieval blazons with male authors encouraging female listeners to follow their desires rather than the roles and obligations society has forced them into. Feminists frequently interpret these as cases of "objectification"--because, you know, if a man wants to have sex with a woman, he must be denying that she is a human.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 05:33 PM
1

She's been through the college ringer that was designed to convince her that she was intelligent instead of making her intelligent. That is terribly true. I find humanities students are frequently challenged if they get off their asses and actually engage, but in general, students walk around imagining that the arguments they play out in their heads will actually play that way when confronted with opposition. (in defense of professors and universities: you can lead a horse to water, but you can'…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:10 PM
21

Dictionaries don't define words, they define usages of words (that's why words will typically have more than one "definition"). The Oxford dictionary is right because that's how most people use the word "rape".
/r/MensRights25/01/14 03:22 PM
8

You don't really need stats... yet. Voting for a war doesn't necessarily entail "warmongering," so showing that women supported a war doesn't mean they are warmongering. Similarly, men are not warmongers simply because they supported a war (and if she wants to argue that, just agree with her, "yes, men are more warmongery, and without them Hitler would have won--you're welcome"). Ask her what she means by "warmonging" and by what criteria we can identify warmongers in the first place. Then worry…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:01 PM
55

"So as frustrating as it was remember, these laws are there to protect women that are ACTUALLY being abused." The keyword in that sentence is "women". Laws designed to protect "women." Men who are battered are no less "ACTUAL."
/r/MensRights21/01/14 02:29 AM
4

The second part of that argument is interesting. Corporations with bigoted leadership (or even just bigoted HR) should be weeded out of a market where competitors are not similarly bigoted. This isn't a slam-dunk, but it makes the discrimination charge less attractive as an explanation (assuming it's less likely that a contemporary industry would sexist across the board). The first part is still circular though. Bigotry is not aware of itself as bigotry, but rather, thinks it is justified--a wro…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:42 PM
1

(I assume you're being ironic, but I'll answer anyway) The cultural institution of prohibiting racial slurs against supposed minorities while embracing racial slurs against supposed majorities.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:04 PM
2

"From a pure economic standpoint, if there is equal work being done in those scenarios: equal hours, equal job-skills, equal output-- there would be no incentive to hire men. Zero." I think those who argue that the wage gap is a consequence of discrimination would argue that sexism creates the illusion of extra value where there is none. Their claim is that because employers think males are inherently worth more, those same employers mistaken believe they are gaining extra value when they are no…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 01:27 PM
5

What he said and also do not speak about the case with anyone who is not legally obligated to protect your privacy (if you need to talk to someone, talk to a psychiatrist; even anonymous strangers on the internet are a better bet). That means, do not speak about your case to your kids, your parents, and definitely not your friends. Let people know what's going on in the broadest sense (you've been charged etc...) but no details. Don't even tell people how you're going to plea. I know this sounds…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 01:17 PM
1

Oh boy. I'm making a logical argument, not an empirical one. It's irrelevant whether the case is real world or not. But since you want a real world case, here you go. Empirically speaking, people frequently describe Feminism as Fascism. Interlocutor A: Feminism is Fascism. Interlocutor B: Feminism is not Fascism, it is something else. You: Clearly Interlocutor B is PART OF THE PROBLEM. Do you see how absurd this is? Interlocutor B is not mistaken at all, much less mistaken BECAUSE he is objectin…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 11:06 PM
1

I'm not balking at "edge cases"; I'm using a case where the description of Feminism is obviously wrong. Why is that important? Because the argument is that there are no wrong descriptions of Feminism, and anyone who tries to characterize Feminism universally must necessarily be wrong. Clearly, there are wrong descriptions of Feminism, so someone who responds to claims that "feminism is X", with "Feminism is not X, but Y" is not necessarily wrong, and the argument that asserts they are is absurd.…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 06:34 PM
6

The historical "basis" of Feminism is the belief that women must organize among themselves if they want their interests realized. This is why and how Feminism emerged from other social movements (ie. the abolitionist movement). Not "equality". While Feminists enjoy the use of "equality" as a rhetorical tool, it has no cognitive value in isolation. Because "equality" is a way of indirectly pointing at differences in status, all of it's cognitive value is tied up in unspoken assessments of status.…
/r/MensRights19/01/14 05:33 PM
-4

Nonsense. Feminism is not an apple, it is a political movement. Am I now part of the problem? note to downvoters: logic problems? You're not alone.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 01:48 PM
1

This is an interesting problem, actually. Has anyone thought about a list of criteria against which programs for men or boy can be weighed? I mean, it might need to be a case by case thing, but I wonder still what a criteria like that would look like.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 10:15 PM
4

There is some confusion about how English dictionaries work. Dictionaries report how words are used. When most people say "rape" they mean an act "typically" committed by men. That is how the word is used. That's all the dictionary is reporting on. If someone claims, "well, when people say rape they generally don't assume that men are typically rapists", you can say, "not according to the dictionary. The dictionary claims that this is the most common usage of the word 'rape'." And then you can a…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 10:10 PM
6

Have a heart; it's all they've got.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 09:17 PM
0

"I had always assumed that if he wasn't interested he'd say something..." That is a perfectly reasonable assumption under most circumstances. More explicit consent isn't necessary, but is wise. Tell your partner clearly that you want them to speak up if they don't like what you're doing sexually (use a code word if you like): "tell me if you don't like how I'm doing it, or if you want something different"; throw in a "baby" if you want. This is adequate consent up and until they retract it--fore…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 02:10 PM
1

Just proceed under the assumption that there is a "patriarchy" and that it is responsible for things. Whenever you invoke it, just say that you are assuming it. Academia is a game of following an argument given some assumptions and some evidence. Your job is to make an argument given some assumption (in this case, patriarchy) and the formal features of a text. So do that. If you want to get snotty, use the assumption of patriarchy as part of an absurd argument, then conclude that this is reason …
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:58 PM
4

It is.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:20 PM
-2

Singers sing songs; songs tell stories; stories shape people's vision of the world around them.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 03:47 PM
4

There are two points in this article I take issue with. The first is false; the second is unwise. 1) Feminism is Marginal -- false. People like say that only 20% of some population (it's always around 20%) identify as feminists, as if this is a small number. That's only slightly less than any major political party (more if you're in a country with more than three or four parties), and far more than most other activist movements. How many people consider themselves environmentalists or anarchists…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 02:25 AM
9

The first line of their comment policy: "Daily Life is a proudly female biased website with content tailored to women. " Why are bigots so obsessed with pride?
/r/MensRights14/01/14 01:33 PM
1

Back-sliding: the last female fear.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 01:35 PM
1

Yeah, why can't everyone be a good little sheep?
/r/MensRights13/01/14 01:36 AM
0

Justice = class revenge. This makes Rome look progressive.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 04:53 PM
10

I'm not convinced they know how to use quotes. The way they're used here implies sarcasm.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:35 PM
1

A lot of people here are confused about about how usage ratios can be applied. Here is the the missing rule: unisex services will be consumed according to the distribution of needs across sexes. This means that if there are three toilets and women need facilities for twice as long (or often) as men, then two of those three unisex facilities should be occupied by women at any given moment. Where this gets strange, and where I think the confusion lies, is when you consider facility requirements ba…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 03:31 PM
10

How is the male ratio calculated when there is no men's washroom? According to the wiki link, females use facilities for longer than males, so the unisex washroom should be calculated as mostly female-use according to that ratio. That means that, in this situation, a male-only washroom ought be required to achieve a 1:1 ratio, and no gender-specific washroom required to achieve a 2:1 (or whatever ratio is calculated to compensate for extra female requirements). By what logic is an extra female-o…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 02:51 PM
9

Nothing sexist about that. \s
/r/MensRights07/01/14 03:25 PM
3

I've been trying to find the SPLC's operating definition or criteria for "hate", "hate group", and "hate crime." Does anybody know where they publish this and if they have guidelines to this effect?
/r/MensRights06/01/14 02:54 PM
1

That's basically what I said.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:46 AM
9

People have formed the habit of labeling anything remotely related to the status of women as "Feminism". According to this view, Plato is a feminist (he suggested that women should have a more active role in governing). That's fine, but where this habit goes astray is when people conflate this with the political movement of the same name. According to this erroneous move, Plato's most famous political work, "The Republic," is the consequence of a feminist campaign, as are stories about Amazons, …
/r/MensRights05/01/14 09:51 PM
1

I agree. When conversation turns to trans issues I'm often thrown for a loop when confronted with the strange combination of rejecting gender roles on the one hand, while on the other being so committed to the importance of gender presentation that surgery is necessary to secure it. I have a feeling there is something going on there that I'm missing, but the two commitments do seem to be contradictory.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 05:13 PM
3

It's sounds very old-fashioned, but date for six months or longer. The longer you wait, the lower the risk. The risk will never be zero, but it wont be zero if you completely abstain either. You don't need to have sex with someone to be accused of rape; you don't even need to be in the same room.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:29 PM
2

I doubt the frequency of "male sources" is the same in all countries. If "male sources" were the cause, the outcome would not be consistent across all countries; countries with fewer "male sources" would show a higher awareness of politics among women. Here's a counter theory. Maybe men consistently have a greater understanding of politics because opting out of the public sphere is not an option that is reasonably available to them--unlike women who are free to take it or leave it with little to…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 07:39 PM
7

I saw her give this speech; it doesn't get better.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 06:53 PM
11

...but anti-feminism is the problem. \s
/r/MensRights02/01/14 03:25 PM
25

"Before people (both male and female) made a unified effort to affect change in the game industry, this place went for about a decade as a male-dominated fedora fornicating nerdgasm." You start off this ridiculous post by insulting several communities with shaming language then end it pretending you're some kind of martyr in the face of the aggressive response you expect. The body, of course, is filled with nonsense posing as facts. This is all a fantasy playing out in your head. We have nothing…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:52 PM
17

Yeah, I fell off my chair when I read that. The birthplace of gamer culture was in 2004? Yeah, right. "Now, after three years of being ensconced in video game culture..." Wow, three whole years? Obviously, this kid is an expert.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:36 PM
1

I think problems in the public sphere are better solved by adversarial advocates. A unified movement is less equipped to "solve" inequality than two (or more) groups of opposing advocates.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 12:30 AM
2

When you avoid both, you implicitly reinforce the idea that they come together--but it's true, people do make that connection all on their own. And it's a good thing too. Many people have heard this nonsense, then looked for themselves and realized otherwise. Hyperbole is our friend in the long run. Regardless, I can understand not wanting to do that yourself--you shouldn't do something you aren't comfortable with--but that's very different from convincing the rest of us not to. I find anti-femi…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 03:31 AM
10

"...without mentioning feminism and without trying to make all women look bad" Yeah, you'll want to not run those two things together. It effectively erodes your credibility. Anti-feminism is the most effective promotional tool men's rights has. Arguing that it is not effective is just false. The evidence is overwhelming. Even when men's rights advocates do not pointedly address feminism, the best thing that can happen to them is to be labelled anti-feminist by some feminist appendage. There is …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 09:30 PM
3

Get a lawyer; talk to no one. What you can expect has everything to do with the jurisdiction you're in and which judge you get. In my jurisdiction, for example, my advice would be to plead guilty. You would get a conditional discharge and within a year or two your record would be clear. But this is terrible advice in other jurisdictions. Only a lawyer with local knowledge can help you.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:46 PM
0

True, but I'm just using life to mean "the thing we are ethically obligated to care about," because the distinction between life and person aren't relevant to my argument.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 06:43 PM
2

Well, you have to admit, "it's better to give life than to receive freedom from responsibility" entails absurd conclusions. It claims that someone is responsible for bringing into existence and caring for a life that does not yet exist. If this is true, everyone is ethically obligated to reproduce at every possible opportunity. Literally, men and women are ethically obligated to say "yes" at every opportunity to procreate and conceive and arguable, to make every possible effort to conceive at al…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:52 PM
13

In the very first sentence they go from "rape" to "ogle women in public," as if the two were even remotely related. If looking at women is so closely related to rape, what's all this talk about dress not being a factor in rape? Why is what a woman wears not related to rape, but looking at what a woman wears (or doesn't wear) necessarily is?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:02 PM
3

I'm confronted with it all the time. Reading and discussing gender issues is a nice break from carnival of gender performance that pervades everyday life. Understanding that carnival alleviates the exhaustion and frustration that infuse it.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 06:09 PM
6

The analogy de jour is the plantation and slavery, but the sentiment is the same--especially when feminists are characterizing the status of women history. Phrases like, "two thousand years of slavery" are not uncommon.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 05:59 PM
15

(Triggerer Warning: Marcotte AND Watson--idiots squared).
/r/MensRights22/12/13 07:25 PM
3

What part about that leads you to believe she doesn't? The quote and the piece, paired as they are, seem to imply that "retaliation" is appropriate and justified. So much so that it makes her angry--and one presumes--frustrated, when it is not forthcoming. But one has to wonder what kind of retaliation would be appropriate? Thankfully, Hunter supplies us with the answer: "18 ways to kill your male partner." And you can stop being condescending. You are not remotely equipped for a high level conv…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 08:29 AM
1

I think you're being obtuse. "Because" indicates some kind of explanation, not necessarily a causal one. The list of possible explanations includes correlations. In this case the nails and the chalk board are in your head. Also, you don't mean "because men commit more crimes" because that information is unavailable. You can say "because men are convicted of more crimes," but that is merely restating what the graphic already says. If you want to treat the title as an argument, it is an argument t…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 04:11 AM
13

Alexis Hunter pinned the following note beneath “Sexual Warfare" (the image in the OP) at her exhibition featuring the work for the Women's Free Arts Alliance. “Whenever I open a newspaper and read about rape, and the humiliation it produces, I don't think 'I'm glad it didn't happen to me.' It is like a part of me is involved—I feel real anger. And anger that it just keeps going on every day, anger that there is no retaliation.” -- Alexis Hunter In what way do you think this satire is being misr…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 03:44 AM
1

I don't think it's a problem. Take your example. The issue isn't how you feel. There is nothing wrong with feeling turned off by someone because they are promiscuous. There are a huge number of things that revolt us and that is just a fact about how people are (let the person here who does not have taste be the first to step forward!). Some people don't like roses, some don't like clowns, some don't like oral sex, and others don't like promiscuity. Our tastes are just that: ours. There is no pro…
/r/MensRights21/12/13 04:45 AM
-3

Considering the graphic makes no argument whatsoever, it's very unlikely that it is making a bad one.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 04:16 AM
1

The second incident is more an issue for the woman who complained about men sitting with their legs apart. She implied that men are reaping some sort of benefit for doing something that is a consequence of their physiology. A man cannot be held accountable for his biological reality. This is slander meant to harm the reputation of the target and of men in general. What's worse is that her slander targeted the sexual dignity of the man she was speaking about. Comparatively, saying "that's what sh…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:02 PM
1

This is true.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:30 PM
19

I saw the debate this was delivered in. The funny thing was that all four women in the debate--all feminists--agreed that men are doing worse than women in contemporary western society. The debate was about whether or not women should celebrate the fact, or help men out. Of course, it ultimately descended into a discussion about which option would benefit women more. (brief aside: so why are so many feminists still harping about the oppression of women?) The audience was polled about where they …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:29 PM
7

nonsense. She is telling you that to make you feel good about yourself. There is a severe scarcity of women in China. As a result, men are at an extreme disadvantage and are being abused hand over fist as a consequence. This is how the myth of male vileness is spread; men being told over and over that they are nice guys in the midst of hordes of awful men: don't believe it. Chinese men are in the same boat as the rest of us--maybe a worse boat.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:36 AM
2

The idea behind "academic freedom" is that the purpose of the academy is to provide a place where academics are free to say and investigate offensive things. the insinuation here is feminists would evoke or ignore academic freedom when it suits their political interests.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:06 AM
1

You just went from arguing something was necessary to arguing that it's "a great place to start". That's a massive retreat.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:31 AM
9

No, because she isn't telling women to actually murder their spouses, but is arguing the case that it is morally justified. It's a thin line, but enough to keep her just this side of hate crime laws.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:24 AM
8

You guys need to stop this. Knucker2 is right. Imagine a super powerful being that will wipe out all of human history with their mind if you don't kill them in their sleep. Is it justifiable? Yes. Is "battering" ever in this ballpark? No.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:16 AM
21

Rosin talking about him describes it as, "these men may have once run with the wind at their backs, but the air has been dead still for a long time," right on the tail of describing these same men as having "gone through several recessions and 40 years of economic shifts." So, basically, the theory is that men concerned with their rights are really a bunch of guys longing for life as it was when they were... what... three years old? Give me a break. Kimmel and Rosen are outrageously out of touch…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:05 AM
9

"The Right blames the follow-on effects of radical feminism and the sexual revolution. But in her new book Men on Strike Helen Smith offers a much simpler answer: men are simply making rational choices to opt out of institutions and social expectations that no longer serve their best interests." There is a little slippage here. In what way are the "institutions and social expectations that no longer serve [men's] best interests" not the product of "radical feminism and the sexual revolution?"
/r/MensRights10/12/13 04:11 PM
1

When I say "the fixation on . . . seems biased and fetishistic", I mean that the critics who promote gaze theory seem biased and fetishistic, not cultural producers.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 03:49 PM
1

I think what irks a lot of people about the theory is that what is typically seen as a male power fantasy and female sexualization, is simultaneously a female power fantasy and a male sexualization. Given that this is the case, the fixation on male power fantasies and female sexualization seems biased or fetishistic.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 03:53 AM
3

I run into this strange sense of being the underdog all the time. Recently a Feminist evoked a Huffington Post poll in support of this idea. It showed that "only" 20% of their readership identified as feminist. What blows my mind is that they believe this is a small number. Only 40% identify as Democrats. Feminism is arguably in the top five largest political movements in the United States--even when we include the two-parties in a two-party system. They have no sense of relative proportion.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 03:19 PM
1

It's true; for many it spills over into the more general argument.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 01:05 AM
7

Sounds like a film called "Tough Guise". These projects reduce men's problems to "bad role models". In their opinion, male violence (for example) is a consequence of males being wrongly taught that they must participate in social violence because it is necessarily part of the male role in public. What they fail to address is that because women are exempt from public violence, it isn't just a stereotype that violence is a necessary part of masculinity; it is a fact. They somehow imagine that viol…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 10:02 PM
6

The fact of the matter is that males are prosecuted more than females. From that point of view, ANY prosecution of males is related to men's rights. I think the strongest case you can make here is that this particular case is not necessarily discriminatory, even if it participates in a pattern of discriminatory prosecution. Or said another way, the law isn't the only issue here; enforcement is in play too.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:30 PM
1

I think this might be missing the actual argument made by slutwalk supporters. They argue that "studies show" no correlation between what a victim wears and the likelihood of being raped. For this to be a good comparison, there would have to be no correlation between children being harmed and children accepting candy from strangers, if we assume that the aforementioned studies are sound. I'm under the impression that it is effective to warn children in this way, so it seems like a poor compariso…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:37 PM
1

You can bring men into your answer by putting pressure on what is meant by "in that respect." "In that respect" could mean "with respect to women", or it could mean "with respect to reporting incidents". If you interpret it as the later, you can argue something like: indications of improvement are mixed; while there are indications that the situation is getting better for women, there is little to indicate the situation is improving for men.
/r/MensRights05/12/13 04:35 PM
27

Only Feminists would describe sending "emails to relatives and friends" as "simply speaking out and seeking support." Why would anyone think there is a culture of false accusation? Clearly, there's simply a culture of speaking out and seeking support. /s
/r/MensRights05/12/13 04:01 PM
-1

She isn't making them do anything.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 01:30 PM
67

Well, it is probably best to ask this question of Feminists, but... Usually what they mean is that because men's problems are a consequence of traditional gender roles--just like women's problems are--and given a conception of Feminism characterized as a movement that dismantles the enforcement of traditional gender roles, it follows that men's problems will evaporate as gendered norms are dismantled. The problem with this lies in 1) the conception of Feminism as a movement that opposes gender n…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 12:41 PM
1

Get rich? But, if there's no class privilege, why should I have to "get rich"? Shouldn't I be born rich like so many others? Why is the special onus of "hard work" reserved for me? And, don't I have to be rich in the first place to get the education I need to, you know, get rich? And if solid parenting is a necessary factor, how in the world am I supposed to get that after the fact? Now, I know you're going to feel like responding to this. I would advice you not to. It can only make you look stu…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 05:46 AM
2

Besides, the whole mustache meme is a hipster thing. When they say "real men," they're being ironic. It says precisely the opposite of what this author thinks it does--even if it was the campaign's 'mantra'.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 01:51 AM
2

The University of Toronto is, arguably, a dumb provider--meaning that it provides access to people who do not work for the University of Toronto or represent it's interests, including students and university newspapers. You'll notice that the last edit replaces a quote from "The Newspaper" (ostensibly the center/right-leaning student paper) with a quote from "The Varsity" (ostensibly the center/left-leaning newspaper). It's worth mentioning too that the UTSU is not a body of the University of To…
/r/MensRights01/12/13 07:46 PM
1

Yeah, cause being born rich never helped anyone.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 07:10 PM
14

I would tighten that up to this: Is redeemed by risking his life where a woman is not. Is rewarded with a female partnership, with sex, or with the equivalent.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 05:05 PM
51

I think it's worth being explicit here. The "imagine if everyone we ever dated" part is an ethical appeal to women, yes, but it asks that they consider the effect of this service on men as persons. As if to say, "imagine if you were a man and this happened to you". It's precisely what needed to be said.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 04:24 PM
8

I saw this debate and the lead in to this article is deceptive. "The dissident feminist championed the reign of man alongside British journalist Caitlin Moran." This is false. By any stretch of the imagination, Paglia championed the necessity of men, not their reign. Same with Moran. "Opponents Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd didn’t laud the obsolescence of men, or lord it over anyone, they merely acknowledged it." Also false. Rosin claimed that she didn't laud the obsolescence of men but merely st…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 06:13 PM
1

Because "feminists" necessarily means "women". I think you should worry less about Men's Rights and more about your stupid.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 03:59 PM
16

The 10 ways to be a better male feminist can be summarized by one point. Leave.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 12:22 PM
3

Given that that is the case, she doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Talk to a lawyer anyway.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:27 PM
6

Ironically, you cannot talk about the Bechdel test without failing it, because the Bechdel test is "about" men.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 05:48 PM
2

RUN, RUN AWAY!!! She's probably going to try and hurt you when you run. Expect her to throw everything she can at you (malicious rumors, criminal charges, civil suits, physical assault, etc...). Expect everyone to believe and support her. Assume everything will go in her favour. Protect yourself accordingly. The question now isn't whether you should run or not but how you can survive your escape relatively intact.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 07:49 PM
5

I generally haven't agreed with most dismissals of this sort, but that doesn't mean it isn't an open question. I think the issue of whether a particular subject is relevant is always an open question, always part of the discussion. But--and I think this is the OPs point--what do we do when this sort of behavior is disruptive and disingenuous? I personally would like to see Men's Rights err on the side of charity--in fact, I'd like to see all public discourse err on the side of charity. What do I…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:39 PM
4

"Equality of Opportunity, Not Outcome" Inconceivable while inheritance exists. Inheritance is so ingrained in our society, this seems like a complete non-starter. The only just alternative to the elimination of inheritance is some form of "artificial correction" (quotes because it's all artificial anyway), aka. adjustments to compensate for inheritance--itself a distorting adjustment. "Framework" I think the MRM is building a toolbox of arguments, responses, and theory. Whether this amounts to a…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 05:20 PM
2

I think it's difficult to adjust for this particular problem in the justice system itself. The problem is because of where the bias resides. Variance in sentencing is the main mechanism through which justices compensate for the fact that laws are general rules into which the messy particulars of real-life cases do not necessarily fit. So, one case of assault receives a slightly different sentence than another because, in the judgement of the sentencing justice, the disparity in details justifies…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:51 PM
12

I'm not surprised. One of the great illusions is that there is something outside ideology that we can access directly. Ostensibly, in Zizek's words, "freedom". Every believer imagines that their ideology is a stand point beyond ideology that interfaces directly with a real reality--the ultrafeminist believes she has escaped ideology into the true-truth of feminism; Zizek imagines he has escaped into the real reality of anti-ideology-ology. But there is no escape. There is no outside. We are idea…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 01:12 PM
19

GWAR fans are notoriously Victorian.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:41 PM
18

Maybe a small point, but this seems to imply that men WOULD be the enemy if they fought back. That's just not the case. Men have every right to defend themselves, and should defend themselves when attacked. The gender of the assailant is always irrelevant.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 11:26 PM
2

5 out of the 6 murdered U.S. journalists were male.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:41 AM
2

Don't respond to the "mother" or interact with her at all. You have no proof there even is a daughter, much less that there is a daughter who wants to know her father and that you are the father. This is likely a fishing expedition. If you want to know the truth, hire an investigator. You will have to confirm the mother's story through other channels anyway, so why not get that information first, then talk to the mother (or better yet, just talk directly to the daughter). Best case scenario: thi…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:16 PM
6

And the odd thing is that there seems to be great pride taken in the brashness of confidently espousing a commitment to a non sequitur. It's a fundamentally romantic impulse. I think there is a pleasure in the ironic energy of proclaiming, with total certainty, that turtles are irrational all the way down. It is, at root, an aesthetic move rather than an argumentative one. That "need," a hunger for the aesthetic collision of certainty and irrationality. It is a stimulation for the terminally bor…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 03:07 PM
2

I think it went the other way around. "There's a strong desire for vendetta out there, and I think I have a way we can tap into it."
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:30 PM
2

It's not for everyone. Note the downvotes - lol.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 05:05 PM
0

Most postmodernists are not self-described, so judging postmodernism by the responses of "self-described postmodernists" is analytically insufficient. Your personal experience is also analytically insufficient. I don't blame you though. Postmodernism is widely misunderstood--including by people who think they are postmodernists. Analytically speaking, postmodernism is a loose, mostly unrelated, collection of theories that question the presuppositions of modernity without simply representing a pr…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:27 AM
2

Postmodernism is not a coherent theory, nor does it purport to be. It LITERALLY has no common philosophical moorings. Postmodernism is only an -ism from a modernist's perspective. What it really is, is a catch-all category into which anyone who questions the assumptions of modernity--in a non-reactionary way--is thrown: for example, objecting to the conscription of men only is postmodern; MGTOWs are postmodern; the men's rights movement is a postmodernist movement; (in fact, all non-revolutionar…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 10:50 AM
1

There is no meaningful difference between a door unlocked and a door absent. There is no reason why one kind of opportunity is like a locked door and another is like a missing door. Is there any conceivable example of an inequality of opportunity that cannot be justified using your argument? I don't think there is.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 07:35 PM
6

It is a terrible burden having a good chance of avoiding violence; I can only imagine.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 05:52 PM
6

lol - you're not a libertarian, you're a romantic.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 05:42 PM
1

Then stop giving assent to political activism that hurts men. Geez. Also, men being feminists doesn't preclude hatred of men. No, no, you say, "those people are not performing maleness, so they don't count."
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:14 AM
0

"Most feminists would agree with the statement that a drunken seduction doesn't mean rape." You're mistaken.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:07 AM
1

There are objective standards for threatening.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:04 AM
3

He just gave you a link containing a definition of coercion, moron--lol.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:00 AM
5

You're mistaken. There is a mountain of evidence that suggests gender is not entirely socially constructed, and as far as I know, absolutely no evidence that it is not at all socially constructed (which is what the article seems to be claiming).
/r/MensRights23/09/13 03:56 AM
5

I agree pretty much, except that unequal treatment is generally grounded in assumptions about gender roles.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 11:01 PM
2

You lean heavily on a notion of "nature" here. Fundamentally, relations of power are a concern for two reasons: 1) purpose and 2) justice. Intersectionality is mostly concerned with the latter. This means that what is important about this theory isn't just that there is discrimination, but whether that discrimination is just (and by just I mean whether or not there is a valid reason for discriminating). Your argument is responding to the claim that discrimination is necessarily unjust. You claim…
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:04 PM
3

My understanding is also that the link between testosterone and violence is not very defensible (there is plenty of disagreement about what violence even is, much less about what causes it). That said, it seems to me that the connection is generally accepted as fact, so I think the onus is on the person who is denying the connection to provide reasons or sources backing up that claim, rather than the other way around. The main reason is that requesting sources can be abused, for example, if some…
/r/MensRights20/09/13 03:06 PM
2

Some context. The Munk Debate happens once a year and they try to pick a topic they think is of particular political importance that year. This year, it is the state of men. I think that's a good thing, and probably has a lot to do with Janice Stein who is the Director at the Munk School of Global Affairs, Toronto's largest political science institution, and the primary institution behind organizing these debates. I saw Janice speak last year and when asked about the status of women in an upcomi…
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:15 PM
1

Women were never ornamental, but your point stands nonetheless.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 11:55 AM
10

At least 495 people think the pyramids were built by aliens. Just sayin'. That doesn't mean it isn't alarming, it's just normal alarming.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:06 PM
2

Denunciation. Authenticity. Purity. How could that possibly go badly?
/r/MensRights14/09/13 12:31 PM
0

Yeah. Human societies just don't work that way.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 03:53 AM
2

'The left/right paradigm is entirely flawed, and isn't supported by the complexities of historical events and movements.' Absolutely. I usually express this by saying that left/right polarities do not have deep stable meanings, rather, their meanings are wildly contingent on time and place. Left and right is about as deep as skins and shirts.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:18 AM
8

I prefer "more equaler" myself.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:08 PM
1

I'm fine with the mix.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:07 PM
9

Google "is more feminism". I don't know what universe you have been living in, but it isn't the one your body is stuck with.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:04 PM
1

So, be careful here. How weird this is depends on what you sent her in the first place. If you sent her non-peer-reviewed material, as an academic, she's entitled (obligated even) to say that it's nonsense. One way she can say that is by saying, essentially, given conflicting non-authoritative sources (not peer-reviewed sources) choosing one is as arbitrary as choosing the other because they both have zero value in an academic environment, so, presented that choice, she chose the liberal bias. I…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 01:43 PM
1

Yeah, I've found about 10 peer-reviewed articles that refer to it and they all say the same thing. Male-to-female suicides = 3:1. Female-to-male attempted suicides = 3:1.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:17 PM
1

I can request the book from another university if you want me to look it up for you, but a cursory glance through Journal archives for other references to the "International Handbook of Suicide and Attempted Suicide" and gender turned up this comment in an article about suicide in China. “Typical international reports show the male-to-female suicide ratio is 2 to 3:1, and in attempted suicide, female-to-male ratio is about 3:1 [3,15,23]. [15] Cantor CH: Suicide in the Western world. In Internati…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:03 PM
4

Don't drag the innocent latte into this.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 02:43 AM
0

Just saying "too simplistic" isn't an argument. Simple things are true in exactly the same way complex things are. Also, -archy implies a dominant means of power attribution, or more prosaically, means something like: that from which power is derived. When you want to use an -archy word, it's because you want to say that some particular characteristic is the dominant source by which power is derived, not that it is purely and solely the only means by which power comes into existence. I'm pretty …
/r/MensRights29/08/13 02:50 AM
1

I don't think you can avoid it, but you can put a stop to it. What I do is stop everything abruptly when this comes up. This assumption is unethical, and I'm prepared to charge that this fundamental assumption renders any conclusion derived from it as unsound. This isn't a problem of moving goal posts, but an ethical problem. They literally, from your perspective, cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. You need to address that.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:14 PM
2

Focusing specifically on assault is effective. Men are more often assaulted and rape is a specialized form of assault, so I find it tends to hit home.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 01:05 PM
1

Speaking of rhetoric, cut the "you people" crap.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:50 PM
1

The OP claimed that there was no ethical difference, not that there were no differences. Where is the ethical problem?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:28 PM
1

The OP claimed that the two are ethically comparable. You have not provided a reason why they are ethically different. Therefore, your objection has no merit.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:27 PM
0

Do you think that any application of power is necessarily social engineering--police, fire departments, the military, taxes, contractual law, and so on? There isn't a whole lot of choice in these things, and if that makes them social engineering, then social engineering sounds like a pretty sweet deal. It might be one of our best inventions ever. But more importantly, if these are all social engineering, what in the world would be change? Accidents? Crime?
/r/MensRights24/08/13 02:31 PM
1

Honestly, there are about a dozen I find convincing in one context or another. I'm skeptical about whether equality can be aggregated in general, but certainly I haven't done any kind of study into it. So even if a did select a favourite form of measuring equality, I have only the vaguest idea of where more of it is.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:00 PM
4

Singers and voice actors are comparable. Both singer's and voice actors are nervous about throat injuries. In terms of caution regarding throat injuries, the two are comparable. I understand that you don't think this is a worthy comparison, but you need to say why you don't think it is a worthy comparison. You need to provide a reason beyond the claim that it is self-evident, because it's not at all self-evident. Just as it was not with singers and voice actors.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:57 PM
3

You should be more specific than "let's be real". No one is claiming they are the same. The claim is that they are similar. I'm not saying that there is no argument against the efficacy of the comparison, only that merely insisting is insufficient. I think where you seem to differ from the OP is that you seem to be implying that the distinction between exotic and non-exotic is relevant to determining exploitation, or rather, that the distinction carries moral or ethical. You need to describe tha…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:41 PM
1

You've asked for "equality" in the title and "inequality" in the body, so there may be some confusion about which you're interested in (maybe both!). To compare nations you need a more substantial description of what equality means. There are at least ten competing ideas about what equality can mean (equal outcome, equal opportunity, humanitarian equality, equality of dignity) and they all have different, sometimes even incomparable, criteria. Rather than being concerned with "real equality", de…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:36 PM
1

I met a guy who claimed he's never assaulted or been assaulted by anyone. One.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 04:01 PM
1

"Your ignorance is overshadowed only by your ego" -- so, you're a Freudian now? I'm going to stop miming your hostile tone--it's a pain in the ass to go back over my comments and add in the insults. At least you're making arguments now, so I feel like I've taught you something. You're still going wrong in a few places. Consider that: 1) trying to frame me as a feminist or feminist supporter is intellectually dishonest. I'm explicitly responding against the substance of their accusation against t…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:39 PM
1

Congratulations on making an argument. Finally. So, here are the vast number of ways you are terribly mistaken. 1) I'm not ceding anything. "Backlash" in terms of how it references the MRM has been coined and repeatedly used this way for over twenty years. Currently there are weekly articles that do this. But that's not even the point. The response I've proposed disarms that framing. The response you propose reinforces it. Here's how your conversation unfolds. Feminist: look people, the MRM is j…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:26 PM
1

Okay, you imbecile. We should start with a little lesson about how dictionaries work. What dictionaries are are lists of common usages, listed in order of their frequency of use. This in no way supersedes or contradicts any other usage in a specific context. Now, what we have here, related to the OP, is a context. In this particular context, those definitions are irrelevant. What you are doing is making a pun and mistaking it for a compelling argument. Do you fucking get it now, idiot? EDIT: but…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 08:26 PM
1

Will Self = readers.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 01:42 PM
1

So far, you're the only one who has made arguments from his own sense of grandeur. Your grandiose claim that you possess a superior "education and cognitive skills," your great "20 years" on the internet that has magically granted you intimate knowledge of every alias that has ever exited, the fact that you think some kind of "internet seniority" amounts to any kind of authority at all, your purely ad hominem arguments (a little colour is fine, but at least have the grace to make an argument). F…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:30 PM
1

You're the one buffing your chest, half-wit. I already have proved my superior knowledge and you have failed to respond. You cannot explain my argument, you cannot explain how your conception of "backlash" is relevant, and you can't seem to control your deep desire to project your faults onto me, dipshit. "waiting on that alias"... you're a clown. EDIT: come on, scratch those two little brain cells together. You can do it! EDIT: don't give in to those cowardly urges, at least try to articulate a…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 04:40 PM
1

A dictionary. Really? And look, you haven't even cited it. Now, to really prove how smart you are, what you need to do is articulate my argument (accurately) and then argue why this particular dictionary entry is at all relevant. A helpful hint: dictionaries report usages of words, not the meaning of words in actual contexts. And yes, I have seniority on the internet--whatever that's supposed to mean or prove (you do realize that 20 years on the internet wont necessarily cure you of stupidity, r…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 04:29 PM
1

No meanings are necessary in the grand scope of things. "Backlash" has this implication when it's used as a criticism against the MRM--which is all that matters here.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:09 PM
0

Well, maybe you are a traditionalist, but the MRM in general is not. And while you might not consider these important issues, many other MRAs do. The point is that the characterization of the MRM as reactionary is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:07 PM
0

The only kind of backlash that matters here is the kind that is a traditionalist movement. The inability to make the distinction is a consequence of the fact that "backlash" implies "traditionalist" in this context. Trust me, I'm better educated than you and you've more than demonstrated my cognitive superiority. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you demonstrate how smart you are and define this mystical "bashlash" you think you understand so well? (Oh, and it was you who said that was what yo…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 03:06 PM
0

Really, who in the MRM thinks everything should go back to the way it was before feminism? You're happy with the draft the way it's always been? What about the the denial of on-male rape? -- happy with that as an MRA? Really?
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:38 AM
2

He didn't disagree with me. He disagreed with something no one said. That can only be possible if either they didn't read the post or they misunderstood it. No assuming necessary. You shouldn't assume that people are making assumptions.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:27 AM
2

How can you have a backlash that has new ideas when a backlash, by definition means returning to the old ideas? How?
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:24 AM
1

lol -who are morons who downvoted this?
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:23 AM
0

No it's not. You misunderstand what a backlash is. A backlash is a reaction, yes, but not just any old reaction. It is a reaction specifically with the purpose of returning to precisely what existed before the thing that it is reacting to. Reationary does not mean just that something is a reaction to something else... everything is a reaction to something. Reactionary is a political word that means a reaction that desires to return to a previous state. Civil rights, for example, was not reaction…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:21 AM
1

The MRM wants to return to a society exactly like the one that existed before feminism? I don't think that's what the MRM wants.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:16 AM
1

That's my point.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:16 PM
1

"Susan Faludi" and every article that evokes the term uses it this way. I'm not assuming anything. I'm describing the way the term is used against the MRM.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:16 PM
-2

I agree, for a bunch of reasons. The two aren't at all mirror images.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:18 PM
-3

Read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary , and then come back and make the argument you want to make. The argument you're making is very far afield.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:16 PM
-1

That's not true. The explanation is in other responses to other comments. This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:14 PM
1

Reactionary doesn't mean that you are reacting to something. Reactionary means that a mobement is advocating for a return to the way things were before the thing they are objecting to came along. Take individual rights. Movements that first advocated for individual rights could not possibly be reactionary because there had never been any individual rights to return to. Those movements were progressive. Conversely, imagine a movement that wanted the United States to return to being a colony of th…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:13 PM
-4

You need to read what I wrote again. Everything is not a backlash against something. If it was, there would be no such things as a new idea. Do you think this is the case?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:04 PM
0

It's the underlying arguments I'm concerned with. When the MRM is accused of being a backlash, backlash is being used to mean reactionary. It's this usage that I am concerned with. And that usage isn't a connotation, it's the denoted meaning. Unless you mean something entirely different.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:00 PM
0

You disagree that "backlash" is another term for reactionary?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 02:38 PM
1

It's paranoia and arrogance; like Oprah's handbag incident. Too many claim to have intimate knowledge of why everyone around them does the things they do.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 01:43 PM
1

"We make the soup" = "I drink your milkshake" Some simpleton trots out the Faludi garbage every couple years. Once again, the "manosphere" fails miserably to live up to the accusations leveled against it. Moore is describing a phenomenon that exists mainly in her imagination. Let the lunatics flail at waking shadows, I say.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 01:22 PM
1

Oxford wouldn't.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 07:20 PM
2

You could articulate your argument more clearly like this: She is purporting to be arguing against the claim that style of dress is sufficient grounds for a rape to occur (if sexy dress then rape), but goes on to argue against the claim that style of dress is necessary for rape (if rape then sexy dress). The fancy philosophical language for this type of invalid argument is "denying the antecedent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:25 PM
2

I read it that way too.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:01 PM
4

Incidents of mental illness and extreme cognitive abnormality are common among Phds in EVERY field. Extraordinary intellectual performance is closely associated with mental illness. Cognitive challenge in one area often comes hand in hand with cognitive excellence in another. In no way does having a mental breakdown argue against any of the academic work that Schwyzer did. I haven't looked at his academic work, so I don't know what it is or of what quality it is, but that's irrelevant. Neither d…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:33 PM
9

Some people see what they want to see. ;)
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:14 PM
5

Okay, a short lesson in politics. Here's how it works: you put a trifle into a politically experimental program, and see what happens; if it gains traction, claim victory and leverage it for political power as you drive for some real capital; if it doesn't pan out, the low investment minimizes embarrassment. This is a big deal. Make no mistake. The amount of money is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 02:39 AM
-8

There is no authoritative English. If people understand what you right, then u said't right.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 03:24 PM
1

Don't worry about it. It isn't hidden. And it's only a women's rumor mill because it exists for the benefit of women. Men are enlisted as white nights, so it isn't at all hidden from them. I can go several months without being warned or overhearing a warning, but not much longer. My wife can barely go a month. Honestly, there is nothing controversial here. I can point you to programs that facilitate this. If there is software written to facilitate it, then I think there's a good chance it might …
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:50 PM
1

What he said.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:48 PM
8

We recognize it in all areas where it exists. Who wouldn't?
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:38 PM
2

I think the MRM take on Hugo ought to be: Hugo's intellectual work stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of the person behind it. Whatever the outcome of an engagement with that work, Hugo is clearly suffering and deserves our compassion. For these reasons, there is no possible conflict between our sympathy for Hugo as a person with mental health problems, and our critical engagement with his intellectual work. As a fellow human facing an unreasonable ordeal, he has our full support.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 01:23 PM
2

There's always more dignity to be taken.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 12:57 PM
5

That's like saying that rich people shouldn't be concerned about the poor and don't belong in movements to end poverty. Wealthy people are precisely who ought to be involved. Men and women who have suffered most because of men's issues (I would argue everyone is touched by it in some way) are the least able to contribute to men's rights. It's people who have not been crippled by it that are needed most.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 12:37 PM
3

lol - yeah. I meant, ask if they've noticed a phenomenon of women sharing information about which professors they should watch out for, or if they've participated in one.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 11:19 PM
1

In practice? Pretty much.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 11:16 PM
1

I think it could be argued that it is, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Discrimination isn't unconstitutional in Canada if it is in the service of protecting a minority--and it's been successfully argued in Canadian courts that women are a minority.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:55 PM
1

I don't think that's what it says. It says you can defend yourself against an attack from anyone, it's just that whether you used proportional force or excessive force must be weighed in the context of physical differences. The logic is something like this: if someone twice my size punches me in the face, it might be reasonable to stab them; however, if an eight year old, half my size, punches me in the face, it probably isn't reasonable to stab them in self defense.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:52 PM
6

It's true, men and women both participate in gossip, but gender influences the way they gossip with each other and among themselves, particularly when discussing the treatment of one gender by the other. It's not very controversial to say so. Ask a few of your fellow students.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:18 PM
0

Well, considering it had no definition before, it's actually an improvement.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 05:31 PM
1

Most.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 05:29 PM
2

You could in Canada. It's considered prejudicial to refuse to hire someone based on their "creed". I'm fairly certain judges have been interpreting creed to mean any system of belief, but there hasn't been a lot of precedent. I'm pulling this from my hazy memory though--it's worth consulting a lawyer about.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:34 PM
70

This is a gem. So, after vouching for his friend's claim that they were "raped" (already, we can see the sort of evidence that sways PZ) by Lawrence Krauss, PZ Myers says, "There were a number of Big Names in my field whose work I really liked, and I thought they were good people…and I didn’t notice at the time how the women grad students avoided being anywhere near them. It sunk in slowly, over a number of years." I've run into this with women grad students as well. What PZ Myers is really talk…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:27 PM
-1

I am Queen of the Universe! It means you are living another day as a man. The label-giver is identified as a dangerous bigot who should be avoided at all costs. People who fail to understand 1, 2, and 3 will misunderstand what is really being communicated. In a past era, "witch".
/r/MensRights07/08/13 06:05 PM
7

"You can't tell me that for all the women who've graduated from university and entered the workforce in recent decades that only one-tenth of them are up to the task of running a company or sitting on a board." This is a math disaster. The number of women filling these positions is far less than one-tenth of female university graduates. The top 500 companies plus the 200 top Australian companies in the ASX200 makes for, at most, 700 companies (they probably overlap, but let's be generous). Let's…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 05:14 PM
3

"Today’s female breadwinners are much less economically dominant than the classical male breadwinner" Actually, they're more dominant. Classical male breadwinners had their "dominance" undercut by socially and politically policed obligations to support a wife and children (and often, extended family). If we're defining "breadwinner" in terms of the societal pressures that contextualize it, I agree with the conclusion, women are not and cannot be breadwinners. "Breadwinner" implies, not only that…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:17 PM
4

Patriarchy is the belief that a division of labour between genders established sometime in the pre-history of humanity was unjust for women and that the structure of modern civilization not only unfolded in a way consistent with that original sin, but is fundamentally skewed against women as a consequence. I get it, thanks--it's still gibberish.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 10:54 PM
3

Well, not necessarily, but yeah, I can see wanting a way to differentiate between content evaluated by the general population and context evaluated by a particular community.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 09:21 PM
10

I can see how someone would think that flooding a sub with robot votes is unfair (and I would agree) but I'm not certain what the argument against large quantities of actual humans down- or up-voting is. I thought that was the point of Reddit. What am I missing here?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 02:26 AM
13

"in American society, it's very unlikely that the disadvantage will be due to his penis." This is the main supporting argument. It's both trivial and uncontroversial to provide counter-examples. Only men register for the draft. Men are more likely to get longer sentences than women, because men are viewed as more of a threat. There are many many more men than women in prison, because men seem to commit crimes more often; not surprising, because gender roles task men with generating income and "h…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:47 PM
4

Man, that comic strip is so sexist it hurts my head. A central premise of the comic strip--and of the "male power fantasy" argument in general--is that unrealistic ideals hurt women because when men believe in those ideals, it causes them to treat real women badly, and women are other people relative to the men who read comics; however, a male power fantasy is not similarly harmful to men, because unlike women, men are not other people relative to men, and they do not effect how men treat each o…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 12:52 AM
1

So the claim is that MRAs don't care about Zimmerman because he isn't white? Also, the only evidence I've seen of profiling is from the black kid who profiled Zimmerman as--and I'll quote--"a cracker", and proceeded to assault him.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:02 AM
2

Well, it's really her duty to prove it, not for you to disprove it, but there's plenty of information in http://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/ . What you're looking for depends on why she believed what she believes, but to give you an idea about the kinds of things you're looking for, I can ramble about it for a bit. Statistics that low are usually sourced from somewhere like the FBI. Though labeled in their reports as "false accusations", the actual number isn't an exhaustive count, but a minimum coun…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:25 AM
5

The first time it happens, just hit the couch or leave the house. Get a recording device and wait for it to happen again. Trust me, it will. Record her/him ordering you to leave and you politely refusing. When they threaten you with violence or false accusations, or actually assault you, flee the house, call your lawyer, and never look back. The end.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:05 AM
1

What knowless said.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:52 AM
1

Come on, no one is assuming absolutes about anyone, much less about everyone.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:35 AM
1

I just looked through the top ten posts on this subreddit and not one of them was about "what women do to fight for rights". I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I suspect (feel free to correct me if I'm completely off track here--I'm just speculating) part of the problem is that you are being a little sloppy with language, and maybe a little confused about the subject at hand. I suspect you mean posts about feminism rather than posts about "what women do to fight for rights". The tw…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:19 AM
2

What's "toxic masculinity"? In what way does it lead to a "a large population of violent and dangerous men"? Against what do you measure in order to say "large"?--I ask because large is a relative term.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:52 PM
8

Men are more likely to be killed or hospitalized as a result of violence, period. What's the significance of all the findings?--assuming they're even true.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 04:19 AM
1

I think the difference between "use" and "mention" is useful here. nicemod mentioned names, but didn't use them. The difference is a reference to a use as opposed to an actual use.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 02:53 PM
1

This can't be answered, only questioned. Something like, "how can sexism conceivably be defined such that it cannot possibly target men?"
/r/MensRights01/08/13 02:48 PM
3

I joined the MRM as a consequence of Reddit. I don't actually know anyone in the men's rights movement, but I know boatloads of feminists, and have been butting heads with them for decades. They would, on occasion, call me an MRA and I would deny it because I wasn't "active" in any conceivable sense of the word and I didn't really know anything about the MRM. It happened often enough that I thought I should investigate, so I ended up here. The first time I ever commented on something in /r/mensr…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 02:27 PM
5

You might want to start by pointing out to those feminists that no white people were actually involved in the Zimmerman trial.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 12:59 PM
9

True, but the image does reinforce a prevalent societal trope that buries male victims of DV. It wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't exist in a context where male victims are particularly and systematically excluded, but that context doesn't currently exist. A better headline might have read: "Despite an acknowledgement of male DV victims, Verizon clings to sexist tropes in their ads".
/r/MensRights01/08/13 12:45 PM
1

"Purely because of our gender" is not at all accurate. Women pay more for insurance, not because of their gender, but because they are more likely to receive comparable benefits; however, if men pay the same rates while they are less likely to benefit from it because gender is a taboo actuarial axis, then men are in fact charged different rates "purely because" of their gender (actually, in the later case, both men and women pay different rates, it's just that it's men who suffer because of it).
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:09 PM
2

Actually, I'm looking at the article again, and it does sort of imply that there's something wrong with pointing out that an injustice has occurred. Idiots.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:27 PM
3

That's not what I do here and mostly isn't what I see here. In fact, men who harm men because they're men get a lot of attention. Regardless, the criticism, in the first place, isn't that contemporary feminists are complaining when they have been victimized, but that they are claiming they have been victimized when they haven't. I don't see a lot of that going on here.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:24 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/
/r/MensRights30/07/13 12:51 PM
1

There isn't enough concrete evidence and research to say with any confidence how prevalent false accusations are. Anyone who says they know how common false accusations are, is lying, ignorant, or confused.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 12:38 PM
0

That's not necessarily what a tyrant is. Plato provides an extended definition in the Republic, and law has absolutely nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:45 AM
-2

When it limits shame to bad acts.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:43 AM
1

That's not what a tyrant is--necessarily. A tyrant is a ruler who does not act according to a Platonic conception of good (Plato "The Republic"). An enlightenment spin on that assumes that rule of law is just a formal description of Platonic good, but that's baking a particular bias into a previously well established word. Either is proper usage, but neither is necessarily the proper definition. So, a tyrant isn't necessarily a ruler unrestrained by law. Just sayin'.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:38 AM
7

I think that's the point.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 11:17 PM
0

A Quick thing about language: No one has the right to deny a responsibility ("responsibility" implies that you have no right to avoid it). It's cleaner to ask something like, "have paternal responsibilities obtained before the end of the first trimester?" About The Thought Experiment Itself: I don't see any reason to think that responsibility is dependent on consent from a third party. One has a responsibility toward a fetus or one does not. What the other parent desires has absolutely no bearin…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 01:00 PM
2

I agree with all that, but I would add that--though it's not very nice--justice is bringing satisfaction to injured parties. The deterrent of prosecution isn't just to deter people who would commit similar crimes, but to deter otherwise law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals in order to met out the justice they and their loved ones have been denied.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 02:08 PM
2

Sure, no always means no, it just--as a point of fact--doesn't necessarily mean the opposite of yes.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 02:01 PM
2

Though in this particular case it does seem to be targeting men.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:29 PM
3

The point is that she isn't addressing any "important issues with games" that she isn't manufacturing herself. Like your "bet" manufactures an ethical crisis where none exists. I bet you'd support genocide (see, I can play that stupid game too... isn't it exhausting?).
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:15 PM
2

Same here.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 02:35 AM
0

"Classic Feminists" aren't feminists at all. It was second and third wave feminists who backdated feminism to include first wave feminists under a banner rejected by those early movements ("Feminism" existed as a small fringe group , mostly in France, rejected as extremists by Suffragettes and the like). Second and third wave feminism is the only feminism, unless you are a second/third wave feminist and want to give your movement credibility as an extension of so-called first wave feminists.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:07 PM
8

So, /r/bestof is basically controversy adverse pablum? Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me. "bestof" doesn't really say, "challenging insights" so much as "cliched filler".
/r/MensRights24/07/13 02:50 AM
-4

"women are categorically suffering worse than men...this is generally true, of course" False. Men suffer more often than women and it's trivial to prove it. It's not even controversial. Feminists argue that when men suffer more (which they do) it isn't relevant to the fact that they are men. They argue that women suffer more often because they are women than men suffer because they are men. Everyone agrees that men suffer more often than women.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:17 AM
0

The point of the cartoon is that there is a double standard in this particular regard. That there may not be a double standard in other regards is, on its face, irrelevant. So, how is imtalldan's comment relevant?--(you know, overlooking the fact that it isn't true).
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:03 AM
15

You only have responsibilities as a consequence of rights; and rights are what we call things that compel responsibilities. They are two words describing opposite ends of one relationship, and it's that relationship that matters. Generally, when people talk about rights (by people, I mean experts) they mean rights and responsibilities as the two are not separable. What does it even mean to have a right that no one is responsible to? The point of a right is that it infers an obligation that other…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:34 PM
1

Same in Canada.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:43 PM
1

Read the comment above.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:55 AM
1

lol - I love the arrogant assumptions. I don't like porn because I used to work in the business. Now, WTF are you guys talking about? (translation: it holds no magic for me)
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:55 AM
1

What's okay?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:27 PM
0

Even if that were true, how is it relevant to the point of this cartoon?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:26 PM
1

Incapacitated is a relative term, not an objective one. If one person is passed out cold and the other is more or less coherent, what is important is that one is incapacitated relative to the other; however, if two people are more or less impaired to a similar degree, then neither is incapacitated relative to the other. This works whether alcohol is involved or not, and reflects the spirit of the harm that is done, namely, abusing someone who is RELATIVELY SPEAKING, incapacitated. If, for exampl…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 02:58 PM
2

I think you're getting pushback because the reason you would think it's a false dichotomy in the first place, is because there are other equally reasonable options that fall outside the dichotomy. If you can't present those options, then there are no grounds for calling the dichotomy false. Also, technically, if one is observing that middle measures are possible, then clearly one does not conceive of the situation as a dichotomy at all, so the objection is a little strange in that context.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 02:31 PM
2

It's good advice in general.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 02:24 PM
44

I was just typing the same thing! But of course those materials will not be blocked; it's only mannish sexuality that's a danger to every living thing. If I were British, as a show of solidarity, I would be happy to opt-in--even though I'm not into "pornography". I urge our British friends to do the same and to be public about it.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 01:05 PM
7

Yeah, I don't go to public places where gaggles of strange drunk women congregate. It's just not worth the risk.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:39 PM
1

Two big problems here: 1) the idiot who wrote this article has no idea what hate speech is; 2) people here are arguing as if he does. Hate speech laws do exactly what incitement laws do, with the exception that hate speech law is concerned with incitement that targets a group rather than the traditional kind of incitement that targets individuals. The criteria for these sorts of laws are not particularly controversial. Something along the lines of: a crime has been incited, it targets members of…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:22 PM
1

Yep. Pure propaganda. No doubt about it.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:56 PM
1

"This coming from someone who wrote an ethics paper explaining the ethical implications of rape jokes." You explained that there are none, right?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 09:43 PM
5

What in the world do you think "hate movement" means? Wait, don't answer. I can already feel the stupid weeping in.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 08:57 PM
2

Feminism: the radical idea that taking a head for an eye is an improvement over taking an eye for an eye.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:17 PM
1

I agree, but, I'm pessimistic about the prospect. Maybe after some period of successful formal interaction.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 01:15 AM
7

I don't think reddit is the right forum for antagonistic debate (and let's be honest, that's what we're talking about). Feminists and the MRM have--at times--such divergent views that each practically sees the other as a hate movement. That level of antagonism requires, I think, a very orderly venue of engagement. I have a suggestion. How about, instead of opening another sub, we organize a debate between two existing subs with simple and restricted terms of debate. Something like: 1) a question…
/r/MensRights08/07/13 08:46 PM
1

I just asked for sources. Try to have an open mind.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 10:25 PM
7

...a couple angles. The Logical Problem The problem with this tact is that is plays very loosely (wishfully) with issues of dignity and material quality of life. Take for example, the feminist story of the pedestal--the one that women are placed on. The logic here is that though women, in the process of being placed on a pedestal, are treated to a greater degree of dignity, the consequence is that they are essentially prisoners--that is, their material quality of life suffers--so, the feminist l…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 09:22 PM
4

How were these facts arrived at?
/r/MensRights07/07/13 09:32 AM
90

I love how he condemns hate, then advocates violence against a group he disagrees with. Does he know what hate speech is? (Considering none of their examples actually qualify as hate speech, I'm guessing not--idiots).
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:48 AM
0

She thinks she lives in a different culture; if only we could be so lucky.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:39 AM
3

I agree. I don't think maleness needs a substantive definition at all. There are no particularly male virtues (or female ones). And that doesn't effect men's rights at all. Rights become an issue when maleness is attributed erroneous content, not when there isn't any content at all. Nor does correcting for erroneous content require any conception of maleness at all. Men's rights are just human rights that have been denied men because they are men.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:04 PM
8

That difficulty is called a conscience.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 06:31 PM
4

This is a good thing. Unreasonable people will always be a lost cause; however, the more thay prance about as if there is no issue, the more they drive reasonable people away from their movement. I consider the reaction you're describing here to be a big win for men's rights.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:33 PM
2

You're in good company.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 03:30 PM
2

...and also jibberish. Most political science students don't at all go in for this stuff, nor are they taught to. The "brainwashing", to the degree there is anyway, happens outside the classroom in student unions and the like. Discounting people because they have a degree in the field is just bigotry. Which is fine, if you want to be a bigot, but don't delude yourself about it.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 07:53 PM
2

If by "informed and qualified", you mean someone who studies the theoretical underpinnings of feminism, I agree (with a caveat that I'll add later), but those people are not necessarily feminists, and even when they are, their expertise is grounded in their qualifications in a particular theoretical field, not in the fact that they are feminists--even then, in my experience, personal commitments to feminism tend to undermine rather than compliment their expertise, though many are professional en…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:09 PM
1

I've found that actual feminists generally think more or less the same things that facebook feminists and SRS trolls think. The exceptions tend to be philosophers, but that's not because they are "real feminists" but because they are philosophers.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 12:30 PM
-2

I'm not convinced that women are under any particular threat in India. Male life seems equally as cheap.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:15 AM
2

How about "Women do not have a particular need to be told how to act."
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:11 AM
5

Oh, "actual" feminists. Most of the feminists I know teach at the university level and have PHDs. I also know a variety of feminists who teach and/or have gender studies degrees. They are also confused about much that has to do with feminism. Do they count as actual feminists?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:56 AM
7

That... is brilliant.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:52 AM
1

DemonicBtch is right (sorta). The problem is that you are mistaking (and this isn't completely your fault, because most people are confused about this) mere objectification to mean general objectification. The kind of objectification feminists take issue with (via Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon (who lifted--and mangled--the idea from Kant)) is the kind that is mere. It's easier to explain this using a butcher as an example. You value your butcher for the service he provides you, right? O…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:52 PM
8

I disagree. I've found few people as confused about feminism as feminists.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:26 PM
2

This brand of diversity nonsense has been flogged to death for decades now. This whole line of reasoning is based on the uninteresting observation that different people see things, well, differently. Except, there is a slippery assumption about gender, race, and class secreted in through the back door. The assumption is that race (where skin colour and ethnicity are so conveniently conflated), class, and gender, so deeply effect a person's perception of the world that all other differences in pe…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:14 PM
1

I agree. You can totally imagine patriarchy at the root of men's issues and still sympathize with a condemnation of the outcome; however, you cannot sympathize in terms of an understanding of the phenomenon. I say "in a sense" because it isn't really sympathizing when there are opposing ideas of the nature of what is happening. If, for example, I say something like "I resent that people keep stepping on my foot," and you say, "I know, it's horrible, you should really stop putting your foot there…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:20 PM
5

He didn't say women have no psychological issues; he said they didn't suffer from a lack of esteem. We know there is a difference because there are psychological conditions that do not entail an absence of self-esteem.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:04 PM
14

The sexism isn't the comment. There's nothing wrong with any of the comments. The problem is the unequal reception.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:00 PM
-2

And if she said "rape should never be a Caucasian's fault" at a Nazi rally, you would just think she had misspoken, right?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 12:04 PM
5

Why would she turn to the wife if she meant to talk to the interpreter? If she was doing that, she would have said something like, "you should ask your husband to think about it more [insert reasons]" to the interpreter, with a nod and a wink. She addressed the wife because she became suspicious that the poor little lady was having decisions made for her by her domineering husband.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:28 PM
1

I thought it was only the UK that splits it up like that? I'm in Canada. It's just assault here. We don't have battery.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:20 PM
1

True. I don't live in the United States. I'm in Canada. Here it's just assault.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:19 PM
2

If I'm on that train, he wont be fighting alone.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:17 PM
2

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:47 PM
2

Wait a second. If Amanda Marcotte isn't one of the crazies, who is? I didn't even know it got worse than that.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:43 PM
0

It depends what jurisdiction you are in. Jurisdictions with sexual assault usually don't have rape laws. Sexual assault is a different way of structuring sexual crime. I know it better because the laws in my country are structured that way. Someone else will have to fill in details for law governing rape. The basic idea is that a sexual assault is any assault where the sexual integrity of the assaulted person has been compromised (and there is a whole body of literature on what sexual integrity …
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:20 AM
13

"Ten Things to Avoid When Hitting on Me"
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:51 PM
2

You're mistaken-possibly. Do the Nazi test. Not every Nazis knew or condoned the atrocities of WWII (there's good reason to believe most were pretty ignorant of the worst of it). Does that mean someone is being unfair when they judge someone for being a Nazi? Would you be deeply concerned if your Jewish friend said he hated Nazis? Would you confuse his disdain for Nazis as a disdain for all Germans? Certainly there are facts of the matter to be discussed--for example, you might not think feminis…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 01:33 PM
1

This is so convincing too.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:08 PM
5

He's not saying they're the same. He's saying (I think) that it isn't a prime dichotomy that demands a split in services. Imagine, for example, splitting services based on ethnic background, class, spoken language, profession, or even sexual orientation. All might be divisions in services that are more useful than a split based on gender. To justify a split in services it isn't enough to say that men and women are different. You have to prove that gender is a (if not "the") prime source of diffe…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:34 PM
-6

"Rape culture exists because I once thought it didn't exist for bad reasons." You might want to think through the logic on that one again, Patton. I used to think Santa Clause didn't exist because there wasn't any oxygen at the north pole. I was wrong, but that doesn't mean Santa is about to slide down my chimney.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:47 AM
1

I get that (and I agree), but I think it's still appropriate to post things that don't support the MRM... if only to be critiqued.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 02:14 AM
8

It seems to me that denials of misandry are appropriate to the subject of men's rights. Why would you think it isn't?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:50 PM
1

That said, support from friends and family probably wont be great either.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:04 PM
6

Adoption and "walking away" are precisely the same thing as far as "a living child whose material and emotional needs are being met" goes. And the "living child" difference isn't operative. So, yes, the three ought to be equivocated morally. On what would we base a difference?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:59 PM
1

It applies to anything that has meaning.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 02:21 AM
3

I agree with your first point. Prejudice isn't okay. It's interesting too that you point to consequentialism, after all, almost all arguments for female oppression are deontological, that is, that injustice for women is a matter of dignity, objectification (objectification is incoherant without deontology), inequality (inequality isn't necessarily bad if you're a consequentialist!), and so on. All underwritten with a Kantianesque deontology. And yet, the same mind that believes consequences aren…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:56 PM
7

Humour is like that. If you don't buy into the underlying premise of a joke, it can't seem funny to you.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:29 PM
2

This falls into the domain of weird theoretical framework kind of stuff. The short answer is that it sounds weirder than it is. The longer answer: Technically, all theories are premised on assumptions (for example, science is based on the assumption that causation corresponds to an external reality--we can't prove this, we just assume it and keep moving until someone shows that this is wrong). There is nothing wrong with moving forward based on an assumption as long as you are aware of it, and i…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:11 AM
2

This author's confusion (well, there are many confusions, but the most operative one) is a confusion between civil and criminal law. In terms of a contract, the contract is voided if the terms of the contract are breeched; however, criminal consent is not the same as contractual consent in that an honouring of the terms on which consent was dependant are not relevant. Take this hypothetical: Dave consents to let me punch him in the face if I pay him $10 at the end of the month. I punch Dave in t…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:02 PM
1

Perfect.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 09:59 PM
4

The only problems I have with name-calling are literary. If you're going to be rhetorically nasty, be creative about it. Avoid cliches. In other words, mangina is no longer original. The first person who said mangina was a genius; when you say it, you're a half-witted parrot. If you aren't certain that you have the literary chops for a constant stream of original wit, skip it entirely. Just say what you mean, unadorned. Besides, the deadliest skewer is just a straight line that ends in a plain p…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:55 AM
20

I'm an English major too. "What's in this drink" is her continuing the theme of searching for reasons to stay. The song is comedic. The joke is that she is giving reasons to go that have nothing to do with the two of them, and he is giving reasons for her to stay that have nothing to do with the two them, but in the end, they both agree on the fiction that it is "cold outside"--A reason that appeals to each of them because "cold outside" is a metaphor that implies the warmth they feel for each o…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:43 PM
21

Come on. No it's not. It's not even remotely in the universe of date-rape.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:37 PM
2

I should say up front, I think her case is extremely suspicious (and I'll say why in a second). The problem is that he admits that sexual intercourse transpired and that she said "no", while she does not agree that there was ever a safe word, or any relationship that would construe "no" to mean "yes". The court is obligated, given this testimony, to conclude that there definitely was sexual intercourse, and that she definitely said "no", and that maybe there was a safe word. Two definatelies bea…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:06 PM
3

The truth is: you're an idiot. Let me fix the garbage you're passing off as writing. "But in all seriousness, an inability to clearly convey sincerity makes a mess of your writing. I think I understand why YouTube is the anti-feminist theatre of choice: it allows you to compensate for a lack of substance through a rhetoric of eyebrows rather than a rhetoric of words.” If you're going to thrash someone's writing, try not to write like a 9th grader. It took me about fifteen minutes to unjumble you…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:31 PM
5

Haha! Yeah, that's not an unfair comparison. The whole of the MSM versus AVFM. Who will have a greater impact?--I wonder? AVFM spent proportionately more time paying attention to Earl Silverman than they did to grumpy cat; I can't say the same about the MSM.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:57 PM
1

Well, it's not really an argument. He was just stating a fact about his feelings. Regardless, I understand he stepped over your personal line of conduct. What reaction do you expect I should have? And why should I care when you aren't even open to debate. Who is engaging disingenuously now? It's certainly not me.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 07:29 PM
3

In my experience, when men fight they are both blamed regardless of who did what to whom. But legally, it depends on a lot of things. It is generally thought to be a defense to strike first if you reasonably feel you are in danger. For example, if someone gets within a inch of your face while screaming at you--especially if they are holding a knife. People think they are free to intimidate this way because they have not "thrown the first punch." This is false both legally and ethically. This lat…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:57 PM
19

Can you match up accusations in the student union motion with any examples? The link you've provided fails to do so.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:27 PM
20

Can you match up accusations in the student union motion with any examples? The link you've provided fails to do so.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:27 PM
11

Can you match up accusations in the student union motion with any examples? The link you've provided fails to do so.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:26 PM
7

Can you match up accusations in the student union motion with any examples? The link you've provided fails to do so.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:26 PM
35

It's also a book about the abuse of language for political expedience. Which does apply.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:20 PM
11

Feminism: The RADICAL notion that women are infants and men are monsters.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:16 AM
0

When did classic feminism exist? Anyway. Maybe some historical structure is needed here, if I'm seeing where this is going. First wave feminism was not feminism. It's called feminism by 2nd and and 3rd wave feminists in order to lend credibility to their movement. The two are only tangentially related. Mary Wollstonecraft is no more a feminist than Plato was. And abolitionists certainly and expressly were not feminists. So, if we are checking the integrity of feminism, our first move might be to…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 09:24 PM
0

You just said it again! "MR are technically pro-feminism." And I'll repeat: that's not necessarily true. In a "technical" sense, feminism generally doesn't advocate special rights for women, so if the purpose of MR is to check those rights, then MR has no purpose. What feminism does is to interpret the current situation such that women require additional resources and privledges in order to enjoy the same rights as men. The problem with this is that the feminist interpretation of reality is itse…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:53 PM
1

(I'm not wildly disagreeing here, but more being nit-picky) There are deterministic views of the universe that are not at all hateful, in other words, the absence of radical agency is not in itself necessarily hateful. The problem is that the above attributes determinism to one gender and not the other arbitrarily, and with a great deal of prejudicial rhetoric.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:03 PM
-1

I've posted four sentences on this subject, one of which was only one word long. What could you possibly infer about the workings of my mind? I realize I'm an advanced communicator, but even I have limits. I was more interested in what was actually said. If you can't post it somewhere, that's fine, I'm still interested in what was actually said. My experience with CrossHook is that he is more satirical than angry, but even if it was anger, I think this (commenting on Reddit) is a perfectly const…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 02:22 PM
8

Yeah, but hers was merely sarcastic. Sarcasm is a perfectly acceptable form of rhetoric, but you still need an argument. Sarcasm without an argument is just monkey noises.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:33 AM
0

Wishing is over the line? Which line is that? Just post it somewhere and paste the link here. Thanks.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:26 AM
0

Men's Rights aren't necessarily pro-feminism. So, no.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:17 AM
1

In traditional societies men are often held responsible for the actions of their wives, sisters, and mothers... for example.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:43 AM
1

Monogamy is only opposed to non-monogamy during the same time-frame. In no way is being non-monogamous yesterday contrary to being monogamous today. Just like wanting a hamburger today is not contradictory with not wanting a hamburger yesterday. UNLESS, you have a moral or ethical objection to non-monogamy (or monogamy...or, uh, hamburgers). The difficulty here is that you believe (or seem to believe) that there is an ethical or moral stake involved with being non-monogamous; that is, that non-m…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:21 PM
3

Stop Telling People What To Do.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:55 PM
4

I didn't support your point at all. You were making a point about the homogeneity of political movements while I was making a point about the relationship between identity and beliefs within individuals. The fact that the arguments are similar in structure is just ironic.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:29 PM
48

They'll call it retaliation and dismiss it on those grounds. I don't think it's a bad idea, but that's probably what will happen.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:51 AM
1

Broadly speaking (could this be talked about in any other way than broadly?) the survival of civilization is in question, and this turn coincides with the popular belief that men are responsible for civilization as it is, so, we must be purified of manliness in order to save the planet. Yes, it's that crazy. It's a cult and its looking for converts.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:35 AM
1

How privileged do you have to be for dignity to trump survival and bodily integrity? Feminist kind of privileged.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:27 AM
1

They always did largely hurt men.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:17 AM
12

All male speech is mansplaining to feminearing.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:04 AM
12

I knew a guy who was a mailman and disliked ice cream. Funny thing; his disliking ice cream had nothing to do with him being a mailman.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 12:36 AM
-2

...and sometimes yes means no and yes at the same time, and like, your head implodes. That's why feminism is so awesome.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:50 PM
1

Caught in a landslide
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:23 PM
3

Feminist theories/literature/organizations/etc., like other movements and their products, entail views without necessarily endorsing them. OuiCrudites point, I believe, was to criticize, not what feminism endorses but what it entails.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:43 PM
20

(shhhhh, there was no history before 1984).
/r/MensRights23/05/13 03:41 PM
0

A nice way to start into the whole thing is to say something like, "are you being serious, or are you just throwing out something you don't really understand in order to shut down conversation?" If they then commit to defending their claim, you can proceed. If they do not, they look like idiots. I usually just ask them to explain how "apologetics" are relevant. I have yet to meet someone who is, on the one hand, stupid enough to make such a jingoistic accusation and on the other hand, smart enou…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:58 PM
24

If you're going to bother (I wouldn't), you can try merely asserting the reverse. Claim that women are incapable of love, and if she objects, tell her to prove it. She will be incapable of proving it without also proving that men can love. Even if she claims that she knows women can love because of her own experience, you can claim the same about men. The purpose of this line of argument isn't to show that women cannot love, but to show how absurd it is to claim that men cannot love--and you sho…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 12:25 PM
0

And since when are we turning to the business world to set the standard for dress codes? And which business?
/r/MensRights18/05/13 10:50 PM
5

Oh, no no no. Women are a "power minority," apparently.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 10:47 PM
5

It's ridiculous that so many will take surveys of people who claim to be victims of rape as a credible indication of unreported rapes, or credible indication of rapes without convictions, but nobody surveys convicted rapists and takes seriously their claims of innocence as an indication of how frequently rape accusations are false. Has anyone even done this research?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 04:39 PM
3

It implies that women are under greater threat of assault, when they aren't. That wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't for the fact that it does so in a climate where violence against men is pervasively minimized and violence against women is pervasively maximized.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 03:48 PM
1

What you need is an animal name for a boss. You're a "workhorse"; call her your "piggish overlord?" "hen-pecker?" Your "boss hog?" You know. Make it funny. It's all jokes. It might make her stop and it might not, but at least there would be some balance. Remember, just because you're her employee doesn't mean you're entitled to less dignity than she is--and vice-versa.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:26 PM
2

Yeah, I've developed a bunch of socially acceptable routines for extricating myself from conversations with strange women, or any proximity that puts me at risk--like being alone in an elevator with a women. I am constantly miming that I just remembered something that demands my immediate attention elsewhere. I always stand on trains and buses. That kind of thing.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:07 PM
1

There is still class. Those who are born into access to greater resources than the poor are sanctioned and facilitated by the every liberal democracy in existence, through inheritance law and a variety of other similar laws and policies. Even if we agree that Bill Gates is not a product of his birth (he is partially), he's an odd exception to the rule. The vast majority of successful people in the developed world were born into it.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 06:07 PM
-6

Wait, you didn't get that out of this?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:33 PM
2

In what way?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:36 AM
3

A lot of people here seem very confused about this article. This short summary may help: If training standards for women are inadequate for particular jobs, then those women should not be posted at those particular jobs. This does not meet any reasonable definition of sexism. It's that simple. Note the use of "if". "If" there are two standards. This assumes that there are two standards, which there are, and this fact is vitally important because people are claiming that women are already in the …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:32 AM
2

I kill organisms all the time. I'm covered in organisms and they die as a consequence of me conducting my everyday life. What's wrong with killing an organism? It's only killing "persons" that is unethical. A "person" has no scientific definition.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:00 AM
2

In Men's Rights lingo, you could slot that under vilification of male sexuality. I assume when you say "professionally inappropriate" you mean pornography, and things like that?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:34 AM
7

It's definitely an improvement. Still not enough to be fair though; just enough to be less heinous,
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:44 AM
6

There is a critical difference between hosting a discussion and allowing discussion at all. Just because someone doesn't host comments on their video, doesn't mean they are prohibiting critical discussion. But even if they were somehow prohibiting discussion, their error would be in that fact, and still have no bearing at all on whatever point they're trying to make. And this is a good thing. If we thought an argument in a youtube video was necessarily invalid because comments were disabled, I c…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:59 PM
2

Isn't it? I find most feminists find heterosexual relations more "problematic", and homosexual relationships less so. The only reason they don't come out and actually say bad is because they want to be in a heterosexual relationship. (gay feminists are hit and miss in this regard)
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:24 AM
4

According to patriarchy theory, women cannot inherit power, so she MUST have worked her way to power. What kind of patriarchy just hands high status positions to women? Either the Queen is a great woman or there is no patriarchy.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:59 PM
1

Yeah, I'm just finishing up my degree now, so it's still fresh in my mind.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:42 PM
5

Isaiah Berlin's distinction is itself debatable (Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty"). Regardless, the lasting value of Berlin's essay isn't the distinction itself, but the idea that political terms (like equality) often mask distinctions. In the case of his distinction, he paints a picture something like the following: if we want pure positive freedom, society would have to do away with police, laws, legislation and everything thing else that protects us from our fellow citizens and their institu…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 04:01 PM
1

Radical Feminism captures the bulk of Feminist thought and activism. If another sort of Feminism exists at all, it's so marginal as to be irrelevant. No political group is monolith, but there is no point is qualifying against the dominant trends in a movement. I don't have to say anti-distributive-taxation Libertarians (even though not all Libertarians are against wealth distribution), or motorcycle riding Hell's Angels (even though not all Hell's Angels rides bikes), or tall basketball players …
/r/MensRights06/05/13 09:46 PM
5

This is what is called a "no true scotsman" argument (you can google that). The kind of Feminism you seem to be referring to is a romanticized version of Feminism that has never existed. The kind of Feminism that is generally talked about in this sub is the Feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Wolf, Amanda Marcotte, Gloria Steinem, and a multitude of others and the people who have been inspired by them. None of those Feminists have suggested a kind of Femini…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:36 PM
1

"Direct Democracy?" What in the world does a protest against speech have to do with non-representational forms of democracy? Ron tells us, "If we believe something is unjust or harmful we have a duty as citizens to resist it in whatever ways we have available to us." Yeah, that's EXACTLY what direct democracy is, you know, minus the part where everyone gets their say, that pesky democracy part. A million political science students just fell off their chairs. But it gets better, "Free speech has …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:20 PM
9

Only if your partner simultaneously insists that you don't have sex with other people. The ethical obligation isn't so strong when there are plenty of other reasonably obtainable sources to supply one's physical needs.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:16 AM
1

That's maybe a bad example. Russian Roulette is illegal even if the gun doesn't go off.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:39 PM
31

If this were true, wouldn't it HAVE to be true that "dressing like a slut" promotes rape? Wait, sorry, I forgot that consistency isn't a presupposition of feminism.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:02 PM
2

This is likely one of the worst things that is going to happen to you in your life, so, remember that it's normal to feel panicked and overwhelmed. The hardest part is going to be staying calm, relaxed, and patient. In fact, you will find it almost impossible to do any of these. That's normal too, but you need to be disciplined and mindful of your anxiety moving forward. Consider limiting the number of hours a week you commit to working on--or thinking about--your case. There is a point where ru…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 02:12 PM
1

There has a been a growing dissatisfaction with feminism and other identity movements on the left, particularly among those who are sincerely concerned about poverty and the working class. Soral's take reminds me a lot of Walter Ben Michaels (google: Walter Ben Michaels, Against Diversity). Michaels makes a similar argument against diversity in general. Basically he argues that feminism et al, if not Neoliberal movements, are at least compatible with neoliberalism.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 01:13 PM
1

A couple things. First, some clarification, then some actual criticism of Andy's proposal. Just to get on the same page, we should be clear about what "radical," in a political context, actually means. CrossHook posted a definition of radical somewhere in the comments here. The only word in that definition that really applies here is "thoroughgoing" (concepts like "extreme" are usages employed by people who oppose radical politics). Politics become radical when they identify a thoroughgoing prob…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:36 PM
2

What!?! Women and children are being killed? Drop this Men's Rights crap, we need to do something about this outrage! /s Makes me feel just like that.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:43 AM
1

I was being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 08:51 PM
13

Where was that article where Amanda was ridiculing people for taking rape threats seriously because, you know, like, they are so rarely followed by an actual incident, and stuff? Amanda Marcotte is my favourite spokesperson for Feminism. She's so nuts, sloppy, and drag-down bigoted that she drives away anyone even remotely reasonable. I have a friend whose sole interaction with public Feminism is posting an innocuous comment to Pandagon and Amanda insisting she must be a man for having made it. …
/r/MensRights02/05/13 07:45 PM
3

The roles ARE reversed. Women American Novelists have their own category, implying that they are a subject worthy of interest, while Men American Novelists do not have a category, implying that they are a subject no one is interested in. In genderspeak: male novelists are not interesting AS men. Or so one might read it. But no one is, and no one is in an uproar, even in r/MensRights . Technical Note: I think the author is mistaken here. Novelists are not removed from American Novelists when they…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 05:15 PM
12

In RL Feminists are infamous for either shouting down their opponents or walking out of the room. Their strategy in the public sphere is characterized by a tendency to demand that the rules of engagement adopt their presuppositions or they boycott debate entirely, whether it's silencing decent or walking out of the room. Every interaction eventually bottoms out into an argument about manners, as if the "good manners" is synonymous with feminist theory. The thing I find really interesting about i…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 04:13 PM
1

Define "think."
/r/MensRights02/05/13 03:01 AM
1

Are you in Toronto? As I understand it, the policy policy in Toronto is to arrest the male parties. So, two gay men = two arrests; two gay women = no arrests; heterosexual couple = man arrested. But I havn't looked into it for several years, so that may have changed.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:18 PM
3

I don't wonder this because it buys into the narrative that one is either completely in the wrong or completely in the right. Each is so absurd that it doesn't merit more than a passing thought. But, if by "it" you mean the particular act of forming an organization and advocating for a position, I can't see that it can be wrong. Even advocating for the wrong side provides the negative space (aka. the antithesis) required to define the right answer (the thesis), which is the only way an informed …
/r/MensRights01/05/13 03:38 PM
1

They're listening more than you think. Two things that help: 1) if someone is particularly annoying, remember that you aren't arguing for their benefit, but for those following along. 2) when I was a teenager I talked a guy out being a neo-nazi, but I didn't know that until a year later when I ran into him again. By his account, it took six months for him to hear what I said to him. People are like that.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 01:28 PM
20

Nonsense. His responsibility was fulfilled when she lied to him. The mistake he made wasn't being irresponsible, but trusting someone. It's the same mistake that everyone who is defrauded makes. There, fixed that for YOU.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 01:17 PM
2

And the women were probably just as ugly as the men too. The cave woman is a little dolled up.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:59 AM
1

Oh, I thought you meant legally. "Rights" are legal instruments, not moral ones. There are moral and ethical reasons presented as justification of rights, but there is no such thing as a moral right. I don't see the reasoning from forced labour as an imposition on one's body to labour camps. If you have acquired a debt, you have done so consensually, so, in essence, you have consented to any labour required of you to pay back the debt. Whether or not that entails the power of some entity to choo…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 01:17 AM
0

Neither organization (as far as I understand) thinks of their list as a list of people with whom they disagree, but as a list of criminals who operate without censure. I gather that their purpose is to rally political support against the activities of those added to the list.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:56 AM
-1

Technically, hate is only possible with groups. In a political and legal context (the one that matters here) hate basically means incitement against a group--of course, the SPLC seems to have their own definition which I would love to find. So, neither register-her nor SPLC are hate sites in this sense. In the case of register-her no illegal actions are advocated against the people featured on the site so it cannot be incitement (illegal action is a requirement of incitement), even if the people…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 11:19 PM
9

Why are you claiming that "the fact that there's a strict cultural guideline on what it means to be a man, or that rites of passage are a thing in most civilizations" is evidence that gender is constructed when, as you later claim, gender is by definition constructed? How could there possibly be evidence that proves otherwise when constructed is built right into the definition of gender?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 09:08 PM
1

Maybe in your country that's the reason, but it's not the reason abortion is legal in my country. But even in your country, being a parent is a financial responsibility, which translates into labour, which is an inposition on one's body. What's difference between volunteering a citizen's body in order to bring a baby to term and volunteering a citizen's body for a lifetime of labour? The whole difference turns on the idea that by deciding to have sex in the first place, one has signed on for the…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 06:10 PM
1

That's what I thought too. It's part of that crowd who thinks that rhetorical similarity amounts to pulling back the curtain on a speaker's subconscious. It's nonsense. All sorts of things are rhetorically similar without being remotely similar in meaning. It's why we differentiate between rhetoric and meaning!
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:16 AM
1

Infantalizing? How?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 12:26 AM
4

I'm impressed they actually checked her neck for marks.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:55 PM
2

There is a way to find out. We could orchestrate a demonstration outside a feminist event that perfectly mimic's the feminist demonstration. Someone could dress up like red and read out a list. We could duplicate the placards replacing MRA with feminist, patriarchy with matriarchy, we could wear masks, and so on. Then, after the storm that follows it, we can announce that it was a satire of the feminist protest (without the criminal activity) designed emphasize a double standard at play in our s…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:45 PM
6

Absolutely.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:29 PM
1

"I'm not trying to shame anyone, stop being a diva." Yeah, because calling me a diva isn't trying to shame me. Are you really this stupid? Can you not make it through a single sentence without contradicting yourself? Unbelievable.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 07:27 PM
2

This is not accurate. Sexual assault is bound by the same criteria as assault. When wondering if something is sexual assault or not, ask if it is assault. If it does not meet the minimum requirements for an assault to have occurred, it cannot be a sexual assault. Once you have determined that it is an assault, then you should ask whether it is a sexual assault, or some other form of assault.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 06:59 PM
-1

You probably aren't alone. You should be; but probably aren't.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 06:24 PM
3

You're trying to shame us for not being "tough" enough, not being tougher than women. You should clean that up. And seriously, what's tougher anyway, critiquing media without sentimentality or withering behind some tenuous notion of optics and good taste?
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:57 PM
34

Let's see.... men raping other men. men with split-personalities raping themselves men who rape, but have lost their arms in an accident men who command other men to do their raping for them if you define rape as the capture of female encoded protons by the male eye she's making a joke about about how much the mostly-male administration at her university charged her for her gender studies degree in the background
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:14 PM
-2

You basically have the right idea, but the absence of consent isn't sufficient to determine assault (sexual or otherwise). It has to be shown that he should reasonably have known that a touch would have been unwanted (this is true for any sort of assault), and that he intended to do it anyway (also necessary in any assault case).
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:08 PM
0

Your first two sentences could have been reduced to "the Guardian."
/r/MensRights23/04/13 06:59 PM
15

"Pissed off and feisty"! Yeah, because it's not abuse if you've been interrupted. \s
/r/MensRights23/04/13 05:27 PM
2

Question: in the course outline there seems to be a conflation between rape (an act defined in objective reality) and sexual assault (which is measured against the subjective experience of the victim--or, at least, that's what it means in Canada). Can men be taught how to avoid both objective actions and navigate the subjective experience of others? [the answer is no, men cannot be taught to avoid the subjective experience of an uncooperative partner]. Question: what's different between teaching…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 01:24 PM
1

Seriously though, the only authority over English pronunciation is common usage. There is no such thing as correct pronunciation; there isn't even correct definition! It's usage all the way down.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:42 AM
1

Like potato?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:09 AM
3

google "declining male enrolement" and read. There is nothing controversial about this well documented fact. Most affirmative action comes in the form of bursaries for women and quotas. Feel free to inquire at a selection of universities. Equality is not easily defined. Evoking it presents more questions than answers.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:01 AM
1

I just want to flesh out a couple logical points, then suggest something somewhat different. Logically, according to this, if two people have sex and neither of them get verbal consent, or miss verbal consent for any particular sexual activity, they will have raped each other. Legally, this doesn't mean that they cancel each other out, but that both parties are guilty. This can create a strange sort of dynamic where partners are trying to catch each other out for doing something without verbal c…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:19 PM
9

"Deriding men as evil overlords" sounds like a pretty apt description of how patriarchy is commonly depicted in feminist circles. That patriarchy is used as a justification for "laws that protect and empower women" is blandly factual, as is "men falling behind". Maybe "shame them as losers who cannot compete with strong women" is throwing you for a loop? Maybe this will help: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:43 PM
7

I worry for anyone who is discriminated against strictly on the grounds that they are perceived as a male or as a man. That includes transgendered folks and women who have been wrongfully identified as men (happens more often than you'd think). I personally don't think of Men's Rights as preserving the purity of maleness or masculinity (or whatever radfems are telling themselves this week), but as a defense against discrimination grounded in the mere appearance of masculinity.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 07:37 PM
27

It's a rhetorical question designed to spark conversation about the implied logical contradiction. I call your "sophistry" and raise you a "satire".
/r/MensRights20/04/13 07:00 PM
3

You're suggesting that "reasoned debates" and "logical positions" are necessary features of civility; people can't be both uncivil and demonstrate the necessary features of civility at the same time. It's just not logical! I sympathize with your frustration, but if author's knew they were saying something badly reasoned and logically unsound, they most likely wouldn't have said it in the first place. Not everyone has the same training in debating, reasoning, and logical analysis (if any at all).…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:57 PM
3

Well, I think a failing of the article is that it equivocates arbitrary characteristics with ideological influence. Feminism (and Islam, and other political modes), exist with the explicit purpose of directing behavior. They are not merely groups, but groups formed with the express purpose of being judged based on their behavior. While male, female, and caucasian, are not groups formed for the express purpose of being judged, but groups one is born into (or at least, joined for reasons other tha…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 03:19 PM
11

Civility is a perennial concern, and particularly so in the public sphere. The best minds of the last century have not been able to untie the knot of civility. If the constraints of civility are too narrow, civility itself becomes an impenetrable obstacle to getting anything done or said; too broad, and discourse spirals into monkeys throwing turds at each other. The deep problems of civility include: 1) that the terms of civility are always themselves up for public debate, negotiation, and rene…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:58 PM
1

The law isn't equal because it is the custom (some might even argue a custom with a biological basis) for male and female sexual partners to have an age difference where the male is older than the female. The net effect is that these sorts of laws target men. Imagine if there was a law to protect senors, something like, "anyone having sex with a person over the age of sixty five, and who is also more than five years younger, is guilty of an indictable offense." Wouldn't we say that a law like th…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:51 PM
26

"What's wrong with this? I think it's great that they have a- ah ffs"
/r/MensRights19/04/13 08:00 PM
2

Constantly. I've found, with most, it's just that they are completely unaware that people's rights are infringed upon as a consequence of being men. So, when they hear the words "men's rights," their brains translate it into "men's privileges," that is, rights which are ill-gotten, undeserved, and that privilege men over women--a sort of carnavelesque double of "rights". And when they hear "women's rights", their brains translate it into "returning to women the rights that men have illegitimatel…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:04 AM
4

If you want more peer-reviewed quality work, search your library for articles about "hasty generalizations" (you wont find anything about apex fallacy). The apex fallacy is really just a particular kind of hasty generalization. So what you can do is cite the Smith, then explain that the apex fallacy is a kind of hasty generalization, then cite something peer reviewed that discusses hasty generalizations. That should give you a pretty good grounding. There might be something about hasty generaliz…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 10:51 PM
6

Yeah, I think it goes more in the "sensational reporting" category.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 10:38 PM
2

Yeah, the hate speech thing has really caught on. It's all rhetoric though. I haven't yet heard a feminist use the term appropriately.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:20 PM
3

lol - anyway.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:18 AM
0

This is pretty close to a one-liner. The One-liner Feminist: how can you say that you're not a feminist? Me: why do I need to be a feminist? What can I do as a feminist that I can't do otherwise? Possible responses Feminist: Have [some belief]. Me: I don't need to be a feminist to have that belief. OR Me: I don't want that belief, anyway. Feminist: achieve or support [some political aim or campaign]. Me: wouldn't it be better to make this a policy of [insert favorite political party] rather than…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:30 PM
6

Tricks with statistics. Article: 45 Muslim terror plots in the United States uncovered; but 80 by non-Muslims (that's ALL other categories). That means 36% of domestic terrorists are Muslim, therefore they garner disproportionate attention, given an acceptance of profiling. Reality: less than 20% (I'm being generous here) of the U.S. population is Muslim, and the rest are non-Muslim. Thus the percentage of Muslim terrorists is at least 16% higher than would be expected given the Muslim populatio…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:53 PM
3

I love the "especially white men". If men in general can never be victims of sexism, how can "white men" be "especially" never victims? There is no degree below NEVER. There is no, "especially never". Even if you accept that sexism necessarily infers institutional sexism. Even if you accept that institutional sexism only exists as a universal aggregate and there are no localized effects that merit attention. Even if you accept that men have more power than women (and again, no localized effects)…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:00 PM
1

To show that the myth of meritocracy is "particularly neoliberal", you would need to argue, not that it is comparable with neoliberalism, but that other ideologies are not. Also, the "marketplace of ideas" is Kantian, not capitalistic. The jingoistic name is designed to appeal to capitalists rather than an indication of the idea's conceptual roots. Lies = your judgement regarding what MRAs generally argue. Although, I'll retract that. I don't think you're lying; I think you're confused.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:22 PM
2

I think they calculated that in already. The rate of accidents seems to be accidents per mile driven.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:10 PM
0

No exaggeration or over-reaction here. Just a nice level-headed observation of the facts as they plainly present themselves, carefully considered and fairly weighed.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:29 PM
13

Technically, the article you linked to shows research that claims, in the first part, that men are more often ticketed than women, not that they drive less carefully. In the second part, "We don't have any way of comparing their driving abilities, but on the likelihood of getting into a serious crash in which someone dies, men win handily." This section of data looks more promising, except that the article takes the claim that men take more risks to mean that women are better drivers. As if "ris…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 12:03 PM
1

I think both "proved" and "proven" are valid.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:20 AM
2

There are a bunch of broad developments in feminist thought that are factor and might be fruitful areas of research for you. A Split with Abolitionists (historical): Since at least abolition, there has been a stream of women's activism that thought women had to go their own way and form a movement for women, by women. This trend gained momentum (in Canada and the United States) when black men were given voting writes before women. The "feminist" side of the abolitionist movement resented black m…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:26 PM
2

It varies from place to place.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:37 AM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_stage
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:15 PM
0

Excellent.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:56 AM
2

Really? Who puts such ignorant trash into their heads? Since when has the myth of meritocracy been particularly neoliberal? And since when do lies count as "arguments"?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 03:53 AM
1

Any woman that will avoid you because of reviews on Lulu is the kind of woman you should be thankful is avoiding you. In a weird way, Lulu is a great way to ward off bad women. If only I could figure out a way to slander myself on it.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:12 PM
12

I suspect civilization was an emergent property of primate socialization rather than an invention. But even if it was an invention, I'm not certain what the relevant difference between civilizing and domesticating, except that one is done to people and the other to animals.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 08:53 PM
4

...and are moral authorities, etc.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:41 PM
4

In what way is claiming you are satisfied with your actions (so much so, that you would do it again) not pride?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:20 PM
1

...and then there's the "sugar and spice and everything nice" stuff.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:13 PM
1

You are astonishingly petty. Like a fat baron in a train car over-looking Asian slaves. Competitive. Cruel. Obsessed with appearances over realities. Frankly, you sound like a drunk.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:13 PM
2

If it makes you feel any better, that's how they're supposed to act. In these kinds of situations, you can only hurt yourself. It is best to do precisely what you are told with a pleasant co-operative demeanor, but never answer any questions, except to say that you are not prepared to answer questions right now (maybe reassure them that it is not them personally, but you have a general rule of only answer questions through a lawyer--cops are people too). Ask your own questions if you have to, bu…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:13 PM
2

Most of what we're saying is consistent. Think of it as two questions: 1) has an assault occurred?; 2) is that assault sexual in nature? In the case of the drunk women, as you have presented it, a sexual act has transpired, but it wasn't assault. Therefore, it is not sexual assault. It is just sexual. But had it been an assault, it would have been a sexual assault. The fact that she feels damaged isn't enough to determine that a crime has been committed; however, it can determine the kind of cri…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:25 PM
2

Here's a helpful way to think about it. The "sexual" part of sexual assault is not dependent on the mental state of the attacker, but rather, on the "sexual integrity" of the victim. Take a handshake for example. Imagine you are shaking someone's hand and from your perspective of the world, your personal perspective, handshaking has sexual significance. This fact about your experience makes handshaking a sexual activity to you. If someone shakes your hand without your consent, they have assaulte…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:53 PM
1

Sexual satisfaction isn't relevant. Rape with the objective of humiliation, revenge, or what have you, is still sexual assault, even when the objective is not sexual satisfaction. As I understand it, intention is only necessary when determining guilt, not when determining classification. That said, in a way, you do have a point. For example, if an individual is assaulte, and punches their assailant in the balls, they are not guilty of sexual assault. But not because the act isn't sexual, it is. …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:47 AM
2

It depends a lot on the jurisdiction. Here (I'm Canadian) there doesn't need to be any damage or even contact for an act to be considered assault. Just threatening to touch someone without their consent is assault. A simple unwanted touch or "uttering threats" is assault. What judges are asked to do, is to determine the nature of the event given the reasons why we classify some assaults as sexual in the first place (which is a whole can of worms itself). I think it helps to remember that this is…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:30 AM
1

People born into poverty are oppressed. Losers of the birth lottery are subject to unjust treatment. There is poverty in the west.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:57 AM
2

I usually respond that if this really is the concern, they should stop conflating size and strength with gender, and start campaigns to stop violence against persons who are relatively smaller or weaker than their domestic partners. Failing to do so captures men whose partners aren't weaker than them in a category they don't belong (blames the victim), and threatens to overlook strength differences in same sex partners (is hetronormative).
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:33 PM
11

Just doing a little translation of cultural theory into logic to help clarify concerns about theoretical frameworks... "Theoretical framework" is just a rhetorically different way of saying universal argument (see logic), and incoherent is a rhetorical way of saying invalid (see logic). So, the author's claim is that the MRM does not have a universal argument that is valid, but may have particular arguments that are valid (for example, I might not have a coherent argument for the condition of sh…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:01 PM
1

"Sure, if by 'significantly' you mean well over half a century" You don't think it's significant? Anyway, you're now conflating sources that mention the brand feminism with authors who are, as you required, avowed feminists. But no doubt, you can dredge up someone who claimed publicly that they are a "feminist" and whose work was actually about feminism at some date in history. Your research also uncovered that the origin of the term is unknown, so we cannot tell, without risking circularity, ho…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:41 PM
1

So, the date in France shifts significantly, in the rest of the world, not so much. It doesn't rescue your argument. Everything I said before still stands but with slightly different numbers in different regions. Your expectations are arbitrary, and your basic theory that movements are primarily brand oriented rather than idea oriented is, in my opinion, without any merit whatsoever. But feel free to support it with an argument. I'm listening.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:25 AM
2

I appreciate that you removed the word "equality" from your definition entirely. It is a notoriously disputed term. T.M. Scanlon has a good paper called "The Diversity of Objections to Inequality" that identifies at least seven seemingly incompatible definitions for "equality": humanitarian equality; equality of dignity; equality of control or dominion; equality of opportunity; equality of outcome; equality as a moral good; and instrumental equality (and there are others). When someone says "equ…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:22 PM
1

All political movements are grounded in political ideas which are themselves aligned in opposition to political ideas that are then held by opposing political movements. So, again, I can't think of a political movement or political idea that hasn't done this, successful or otherwise. Political movement generally starts with a conversation. Scholarship and other forms of activism come later (sometimes much later). I'm not troubled by this normal progress of events. Why are you? Edit: I keep retur…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:16 PM
1

You are troubled by the lack of MRA branded material. You submit that this is a sign of relative failure, and present feminism as a successful counter-example. To accomplish this trick, you include over a hundred years of scholarship that was not branded feminist, creating the illusion that feminism was producing scholarship during this period. But then, you discount anything that isn't overtly branded MRA from the category of MRA scholarship. You can't have it both ways. If you treated MRA scho…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:02 PM
1

I got that impression. Stopsayingfaggot wants to use scholarship to bully and parade triumphantly.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:36 PM
2

I can only contribute to the conversation you are having, not the imaginary one you are "interested in having."
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:32 PM
3

I love that the site that takes this slogan as their namesake provides "bystander intervention training." They are literally training vigilantes. No doubt when these interventions (which apparently only men need training in) go terribly wrong, they will be chalked up as "more male violence." Which, of course, will require more male intervention training. I have to admit, I'm dying to take one of these things. How can I say no to training in the fine art of "Gut Check and Emotional Intelligence."…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:40 PM
1

Oddly, it's not necessarily true that rapists can stop rape either. Some suffer from severe mental health issues that make that degree of self-control an unreasonable expectation. How do you tell a person with down syndrome not to rape? It's not at all straight forward.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:57 AM
1

..and by extension, incorrect to define MRA scholarship as only that which is overtly MRA. I agree in terms of cataloging ideas. But, whether one puts the emphasis on banners or ideas, I think stopsayingfaggot's difficulty arrives because the distinction is applied unevenly, requiring on the one hand, overtness from the MRA scholarship, but then including writings by first wave feminists which could not possibly be overtly feminist. It's special pleading. I suspect this might all be a consequenc…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:39 AM
1

"If people don't flock to the MRM banner, that's something you have to account for as a movement, just like feminism has to account for its own unpopularity among some people." - stopsayingfaggot I just did (or rather, I accounted for why people aren't flocking to the banner according to your schedule). You need to decide whether you're talking about branding or the history of ideas, because your argument depends on running the two together in a convenient way. This is a move you aren't entitled…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:37 AM
1

No first wave feminism was labelled as such except by 2nd wave feminists--the first to adopt the label in a serious way. But similarly, there is plenty of work on men's rights that does not carry the official label "MRA". I was at a PEN talk not too long ago and someone asked Janice Stein (a respected Canadian political scientist) what she thought about the treatment of women's issues in the last American election, and she said, "you're going to hate me for this, but I think it's the boys we nee…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:21 AM
2

You're being a little sloppy in your comparison. You are characterizing any work, published in any fashion, by anyone who could be considered even remotely aligned with feminism, as "feminist scholarship," (why not include Plato and say thousands of years of feminist scholarship) yet you only include works published in peer-review journals by individuals who are publicly avowed MRAs as MRA scholarship. If I loosen the definition of MRA scholarship to include anything published in any way by some…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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