TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

sixofthebest Archive

View 9 posts and 365 comments by sixofthebest on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The goddess worship system doesn't mean everything is great for women, it means women are expected to fulfill certain roles in society (object of desire, lover, family head) which leads to women doing all the mundane tasks and women being pressured into always self conscious of their appearance and being treated as special snowflake when they don't need help. Goddess worship systems are bad for everyone.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 03:09 AM
1

If "patriarchy" treats men much worse than women this begs the question of why did feminism put so much focus on women but so little on men? Do the United Nations and various other feminist informed human rights organizations condemn country that employs mandatory military services? Do they make it an important "men's rights" issue? No they don't treat men's rights as an issue even in this most rightful context. They treat men's slavery as business as usual but when women are the hardest hit the…
/r/MensRights28/12/13 02:53 AM
3

Fill your board with x% women or your company is threatened with enforced quotas. It is obvious Feminists are really about equality not special treatments. We are just crazy conspiracists who like to complain about nothing. The EU Justice Commissioner who is also a feminist means absolutely nothing at all. Just whisper to yourself the magic words "NAFALT" and Feminism is as pure as ever. Don't worry you will go to Feminists' heaven in your afterlife. Where are these feminism preachers when you n…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 06:15 PM
4

Doesn't matter what label you give her. People like that give lectures on gender and feminsm.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:54 PM
5

So people are outraged because putting up posters isn't enough... Seriously just come clean and face it - people are biased towards women. It is sexism against men that is causing this outraged not the posters. You are victim blaming.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:45 PM
5

If feminists want to be taken seriously then they should stand up with us and educate the public about false accusation with their superior outreach. Yet they do exactly the opposite and somehow they are more serious than us.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:42 PM
11

Lise Gotell, chair of the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, on Monday at the University of Alberta. She promptly alerted the campus police, who in an act of brazen censorship are taking down the posters, and contacted the local media. So where are the nice, rational feminists now? I am sure the action of a department chair of Women Gender Studies does not in anywhere represent feminism at all. Anyone who is willing to give an honest look at feminism will come to the conclusion that femin…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:37 PM
14

When the vast majority of people in positions of power are men, it is obvious that there is a power imbalance. You're just trying to prove that women have it worse than men and whining. When the vast majority of people at the bottom of society are men, it is obvious that there is a power imbalance. This isn't a contest about who has it worse because of patriarchy so please stop trying to turn it into that. Yet you whined about "power imbalance".
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:28 AM
4

Attrition rate IS misleading. Not all reported cases deserve to go to court. Doesn't mean they are not taken seriously.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:29 AM
4

Stern Review 2010, p10 The Stern Review was critical of the way in which crime and conviction statistics relating to rape have been taken out of context to present misleading attrition rates for rape cases. It also highlighted the fact that the approach some have used to produce the conviction rate for cases of rape from official figures is not replicated in relation to any other crime.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:57 AM
1

Maybe I don't understand but don't parents have the rights to make medical decisions for their children? Why does the court have the power to decide on the issue of paternity test over parents? Does this apply to cases where both parents consented to a paternity test? Either it is up to the court to decide or it isn't, and if it isn't, then what is the reason for requiring the consent of two parents? What are some legitimate concerns for paternity testing?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:20 PM
12

But feminists are tolerating it. That's the point. If one tolerates something that one disagrees, that makes them a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:30 AM
19

But it is tolerated by feminists, on campus no less where most professional feminists dwell. If feminism was not fine with this, then how did this play come to popularity? The logical conclusion is that there is institutional sexism in feminism.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:20 AM
29

Because this integrity was never integrity but double standard. All instances of m-to-f rapes were portrayed as negative but only f-to-f was portrayed as positive. It also reeked of lesbian seperationists propaganda with lines like "Your vagina, untouched by man, smells so nice, so fresh, wish I could keep it that way forever" and “She teaches me to always know how to give myself pleasure so I’ll never need to rely on a man”. It tried to gender rape as men-on-women. You can't honesty say the pla…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 05:03 AM
11

People who are sitting on the fence wondering why MRA are so hostile to feminism. Please read this. This is exactly how feminists make blatant excuses for their sexism then turn around and say they support equality. They are so blatant that they can't even seem to recognize it as sexism. That's how the "moderate" and "reasonable" feminists operate. They justify their sexism with excuses that won't stand under public scrutiny. They can do this because no one has challenged them and those few who …
/r/MensRights07/02/13 04:54 AM
15

The whole point of focusing the hate on white men is to create a smoke screen for white women so they can too carry a victim card along real minorities. Whenever the race issue comes up only white male is mentioned. It is as if white women aren't white.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 05:27 PM
2

Male victims identify as man, regardless of the gender of the person who raped them. The last thing a male rape victim needs is someone to lecture him on why rape is wrong. I am skeptical of your claim that the majority of the rapist of men are men. Male victims are often dismissed by people who don't believe that men can be raped by women because men are presumed to want sex all the time and think if he had an erection he must have wanted it.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 02:36 PM
4

It is bad period. What would male victims of rape think when they read "men can stop rape"?
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:32 AM
7

You can't argue away hate from a utilitarian view point. The best you can do is make them concede that ""Okay men are not entirely disposable, they are still useful to keep as mules" which I wouldn't call it an improvement.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 06:03 AM
1

A lot of issues disproportionally affect men. Do you see them being branded as injustice against men? The elephant in the room is this: society is blind to men's suffering as a gender, the social justice movement included.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 05:36 AM
3

EvilPundit is right. Michael Kimmel is a misandrist and is a mere front for feminists propaganda. Read what Michael Kimmel had to say on the subject of Men's Studies It's actually a term I don't use to describe what I do, since it does have some connotations of "me-too-ism" at best, backlash at worst. (After all, every course without the word "women" in it is a course about men. Except we call them "literature" "political science" or "history") I say I do sociology of gender, from a feminist per…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 05:14 AM
2

I think you overrated the number of pop-feminists that have not heard about the patriarchy theory. Most women don't identify as feminists. People who go to slut walk with their friends I wouldn't call them feminists. I agree with your tactic though and I have been seeing MRA doing it more often lately.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 07:04 PM
2

It is actually a sound idea. I don't understand why OP got so downvoted. A lot of people esp. men who support feminism don't know much about patriarchy theory and if they were to read any feminist literature themselves they will surely be put off.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 06:53 PM
25

Men go to strip clubs. Feminists claim that strippers are oppressed. Feminists claim that men give money to shitlords who oppress strippers. People who give money to oppressors are also oppressors themselves. Men are oppressors. MRA argue that 2 is false and by extension 5 as well. MRA provide evidence for why 2 is false <- YOU ARE HERE. You are welcome.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:46 PM
3

MGM also negatively affects sexual experience and sometimes basic sexual function. It is the same argument that was used to justify ban of FGM.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 05:16 AM
2

Blame for failure to undertake precaution should not be seen as blame for being victimized, unless a connection is made that victims deserve to be victimized because they didn't take precaution. And bad advice should not automatically assumed to be blaming victims for their rape. There are people who really place the blames on victims. They do exist, and I condemn them. But those people who blame rape victims also blame the victims of most other crimes. It is not unique to rape and calling it a …
/r/MensRights18/12/12 06:34 AM
1

Yes I have read that whole thing. The comparison is way off. The commenter himself even admitted that most the comparison are not relevant to rape. Shootings is not rape, and shouldn't be held in comparison, especially in light of the recent tragedy. They are both serious crimes but they are different. There is not any precaution individual can do against a crazy person who wields gun, not to mention a person who is at kindergarten age. There are things individual can do to reduce the risk of ra…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 06:01 AM
2

Telling people to be have personal responsibility is not blaming for rape. We tell people to lock their doors, watch their valuables all the frigging time. The failure to acknowledge this basically proves the commenter is dishonest. Can people be more careful in their wordings when they talk about what individuals could have done to prevent rape? Certainly. But that is a tone issue not somehow society is really condoning rape or blaming victims for their rape, which the terms Rape Culture implie…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:56 AM
3

TBH I think the pill will come sooner than society will start caring about men's reproduction rights. But even a pill is still pretty far on the horizon.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:13 PM
8

Good arguments. If women chant "her body, her choice" then why does someone else have to pay for it? To play devil's advocate: because that would place all the risks of pregnancy on women. Then they are arguing for social engineering to make it fair despite biological differences so men can similarly ask 'what is fair to us? Ironically people who use this argument often also argue for strict liability of sperm. If a man has sex with a woman then it is fair to make him a financial slave for 18 ye…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 04:20 PM
2

I'm reading the archive a little bit more. Apparently there was a C4M (Choice for Men) advocacy during 98-00. It wasn't big but there were a lot of discussions all over the gender related newsgroups in those days. This non-MRM affliated website has a C4M FAQ.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:21 PM
6

They also oppose reproduction choice for men and support a system that forces men to finance women's reproduction choice. It's not reversing it is 'have your cake, eat it, and then jail you if you don't give them cake'.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:06 PM
7

Fathers and Families is a good start. I also like Feminist Critics for general criticisms on feminism. Not exactly an MRM site but it often touches on men's issues.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:33 PM
2

Feminism =/= feminists. It's like Christianity and Christians. Christians may help you, but believing in God doesn't solve your problem.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 05:30 AM
2

AFAIK it was drafted with help from a feminist organization, Feminist Majority IIRC. Probably the reason it doesn't include penetration by envelop in their definition.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 05:28 AM
5

If you're talking about actually getting treatment, that's largely because guys choose not to get help about it. If men with mental disease aren't seeking help then that's exactly a problem that needs fixing. We should find out why they don't and help them get the treatment they need.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:22 PM
4

One is a disease, an objectively undesirable condition; another is a choice of lifestyle and trade offs that isn't necessarily bad in itself.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:00 PM
-3

Feminism is for equality. Have you actually done your research on this subject? Or just assumed it is because it has been told to you?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:04 AM
0

You aren't going to die if you can't get a boner but you certainly cannot procreate without one. Well not without paying more money than buying viagra to a clinic for insemination.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 06:57 AM
1

Also, I don't think it's fair to expect feminists to fight for men's rights. I never expect men's rights organizations to fight the feminists' battles. I expect these groups to respect each other because anyone fighting for the right of a group is wanting the same thing: to be treated equally. They are claiming inequality so they can get special treatments. It's one thing to not fight for men's rights but it's disingenuous if you claim the other side has 'more' than you when it is not and you ar…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:25 AM
1

The feminists I see in power don't hate men. They do, however, have crappy solutions to feminist problems. Politicians think you can continue to make laws to force equality. It doesn't work like that. Also, the vast majority of those who support the violence against women campaigns don't hate men. Those violence against women campaigns are created by feminists themselves, not 'politician'. Don't try to excuse feminists actions and blame it on others. VAWA has been how many years now? Why has the…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:10 AM
1

But they still (uncritically) pick up those anti-men narratives made up by the hardcore feminists. It's like a buffet of misandry. It is hard to give a general critic on what individual believes but it doesn't confort me that someone believes in Misandry A instead of Misandry B.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:43 AM
1

but they want don't want to give up the word so they start pretending they're doing something different when all they're doing is giving social support to the people they disagree with. It's pretty simple to actually do something different. Show support for men when you see misandry and contempt for feminists who spew lies and hatred. But those "moderate feminists" won't do that because it risks losing their creds in their group and that's why we don't hear their voices. They are not useful idio…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:34 AM
1

Look at all the 'violence against women' stuff out there. Where's the egalitarianism in that feminist push? And the majority of feminists don't give a fuck too. How can you convince people that feminism is for equality when most feminists are indifferent to misandry plain in the open? Extremists being a minority is not a defense at all. It is too low a standard.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:22 AM
5

Men can't have gender inequality. That's like saying we need a white rights day. I would list a few things that men are currently struggling (family court, prison, suicide, domestic violence, circumcision etc) to illustrate why men's rights is important. You don't have to directly refute the analogy because by arguing that men's rights is an important cause, that analogy is made irrelevant. This let you side-step the whole racism issue and probable accusation of white supremacist. A discourse on…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 05:19 AM
2

Valley of the Wind comes to mind
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:57 PM
18

Someone is privileged if they clearly have the objectively superior option, not the "symbols" say they have. Is wearing ties a objectively superior option? Is being conscripted to war a superior option as opposed to working at home? Foot binding was seen as a privilege because only the wealthy could afford to feed an unproductive member and because it was trendy and in fashion, was it a superior option? It doesn't matter what the "symbols" say about which is superior but rather in fact which is …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:14 AM
6

Not every analogy is an insult. "You cry like a baby". Is baby an insult? Let's see this: "You are innocence like a baby". The expression "You throw like a girl" only serves as a deduction process to come to the "You don't throw like a man" as in P, therefore NOT Q. Sometimes we like to state the opposite in a dichotomy in order to emphasize a negative.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:41 AM
0

"All xyz Are Like That" is a tall claim that is very hard to proof... and it is not needed. We should be able to criticize feminism the movement without having to proof that NAFALT, just like we criticize Nazism without having to argue that "All Nazi Are Like That". We just need to show that there are some problematic beliefs that are commonly shared within the movement. From a pragmatic point of view, I would not argue definition but rather ask what makes a movement worthy to support, and what …
/r/MensRights05/12/12 02:48 PM
3

She had a talk in 2009. Someone made a video of it. Listen to what she says. She is either seriously delusional or malicious. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1490n2/germaine_greer_an_insight_from_equality_is_not/
/r/MensRights04/12/12 06:37 AM
3

You mean sexualization. Calling sexualization objectification is exactly how feminists are able to abuse this neologism. The concept objectification is meaningless and only serves as a weapon in the greater gender war on men. If you don't believe me go ahead and try to explain the concept without any psychobabble. It is a concept that at some point necessitates some interpretation of mental activity that is highly subjective and impossible to test. i.e. if something is "objectified" then someone…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:23 PM
-1

Men are better at war. Not being burdened by pregnancy and breast feeding means men were more free to participate in high risk activities which give better rewards. On the other hand men don't come with automatically productive gears (breasts and ovary) like women do so men had a more urgent need to build their social value. Skill transfer - a lot of jobs were done by men and so it made sense to teach the required skills to men only.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 02:52 PM
1

You have not given a reason to why people should not be held accountable for their actions when they are drunk. This conversation started because you intended to use the contract example as analogical argument but it is a substantially different scenario from sex and drunk driving.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 06:56 AM
1

However if you created a contract to go in to someone's house and take all their furniture for $5 and they signed it while drunk and you follow through on it and take his furniture, yes you would be charged with theft. It's only theft when you take the furniture after the contract is voided. Contract can be reversed to some extent that's why neither party needs to take responsibility. But after sex has happened it happened. You cannot return sex like you return furniture. Same as drunk driving y…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:36 PM
2

There is no charge because no criminal act is committed.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:03 PM
1

Whether the woman is drunk doesn't matter. Most people would not consider it rape even if the man is drunk and the woman is sober and they have sex. "No dear I didn't mean to betray you. I wasn't in a clear state of mind. She took advantage of me.". It is NOT going to work.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:59 PM
2

It's the same reason you can not be legally bound by a contract made while you were drunk. But no charge will be brought when a contract is dissolved.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:34 PM
1

It just seems sad to me that someone sacrificing his life to protect someone he loves is reduced to "conditioning." I think they are not mutually exclusive. Human tend to create and derive meaning from things that they are forced to do. It gives us the feeling that we are more in control than we actually are. A man may submit to an unreasonably high standard for men and still acts out of love because that is how he psychologically reconciles with being expected to play the gender role.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 05:00 AM
1

You are not making sense. If it was just a friendly slap then she shouldn't feel bad and even if she did, sobbing in a miserable way is far from acting mature. If you really feel behavior like this is totally fine, then: If i slap my girlfriend in the face (gently, friendly, whatever) and after that I buried my face in my hands and started sobbing miserably in the same way said female OP mentioned did You are also saying you are fine with conducting the same behavior yourself. Am I correct?
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:56 PM
1

I didn't know friendly slap leads to sobs and whimpers.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:42 PM
3

No she didn't slap the OP so strong that he flied across the room. Your point is? She is a saint and he is the asshole? Do you understand what is respect in a relationship and that respect means you shouldn't expect others to babysit your emotions else you go unstable and unable control yourself?
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:27 PM
4

If i slap my girlfriend in the face and after that I buried my face in my hands and started sobbing miserably in the same way said female OP mentioned did - I would be the MOST PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE ASSHOLE in the world. FTFY.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:10 PM
2

People need to learn how to defend their views without antagonizing their audiences.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:02 AM
1

It seems, though, that the radical ones (and the ones you reference) get all the attention just because of the controversial aspects of their beliefs, which gets put under the blanket term "Feminism". If you said that then you probably haven't noticed much of what feminism have done over the years. None of their ideas are perceived to be controversial by the general public. They are actually the politically correct positions and criticisms against them can be labelled as "war against women". VAW…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 05:05 PM
3

but I feel like most of the others on this thread are overly biased in their hatred of feminism. Personally it is not founded on a biased view of feminism. I didn't hate it at first I thought it was about equality just like many people do. I even accepted the patriarchy concept initially. But the more I learn about feminism the more I think it is an anti-men movement.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 04:13 PM
1

Low content posts like this tend to get externally linked and then votes skyrocket.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:24 PM
1

Governments, politicians, health experts, lawyers, educators and pretty much everyone that tell women that men will be forced to finance their reproductive choices. Women are told that they don't need to respect men's wishes. The reality is this creates resentment and men who are not prepared to become fathers are unlike to be good parents. The current system we have NOW is too simplistic and not only doesn't solve the problem but actually exacerbates it. It is easy to dismiss new idea instead o…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:05 AM
1

I think you got it inverted. Reproductive autonomy is an expression of bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 09:36 AM
1

"Her body, her choice" can be interpreted as a health choice as much as bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:48 PM
1

The ghetto is made up of families headed by women So stop lying to women that her children will be well supported no matter what. That's not the reality. Young parents who just come out of high school are unlikely to be good parents. Inform women with the realistic situation and there will be less unhappy childhoods.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:33 PM
2

They have less responsibilities as well.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:28 PM
2

So a father has 50% rights to the fetus? Me being drunk is also a 50/50% operation but the bartender that served me beers is not responsible for my drunkenness. Biological mechanism is not a sufficient reason. Do we ask sperm donors to pay child support? Oh wait...
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:26 PM
2

Selective in choosing sexual partner i.e. stay in monogamous relationship.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:00 PM
1

Some men have erectile dysfunction and may not be able to maintain a hard wood at all time during intercourse. Wearing a condom makes it even more difficult.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 07:46 PM
5

Abortion is legal in most states. Meanwhile men paying for non-choice at best hardly gets a mention, and at worst is ridiculed. The attitude that until our issues are all solved, your issues should take a backseat (Backseat often means ridiculed if we look at the reality) is counterproductive to true cooperation. You cannot expect people to cooperate with you when you carry yourself with a chip on your shoulders.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:52 PM
1

people must be convinced that abortion is about giving people a choice in terms of being a parent or not Excuse me but isn't the abortion position already advertised as such as evident by the use of identifier pro-choice?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:01 PM
10

Unfortunately you cannot have entirely equal rights in this area because women have wombs and men do not. So I believe we should attach rights to areas of responsibility. You omitted the part that if women have more rights because they have wombs and men do not, then men have less responsibility because they don't have wombs. Right and responsibility goes both ways.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:51 PM
2

It isn't just the risks, but also the inconvenience, limitations, and changes to her body. I haven't watched the girl writes what linked above, but legal parental surrender always seemed a little off to me. I understand pregnancy can be unpleasant but forcing unwilling fathers to be fathers does not remove those negative experiences. All it does is lure women with false sense of security into domesticity and poverty.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:46 PM
2

When child grows up it is a lot more complicated... They can prioritize paternity with the "best interests of the child" argument. They can tell the father he didn't use his rights to do a paternity test. They can tell the father to launch civil suit against the biological parents. I believe there were cases where the cuckolded father went to court and won.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:11 PM
1

Well I do prefer honesty. For males, having an offspring is usually more difficult than for females. Consider this: If we have a population of 100 people: 50 males, 50 females. If we kill half the men, it is quite possible that the next generation will have again around 100 people. It is quite likely that all women will be fertilized, no problem. If on the other side you kill 25 of the females, it is almost certain that the population will decline... So male are somehow cheaper than women. So fr…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:50 PM
2

Exactly. The people who use the "tough biology is unfair" line do not share any sympathy with men on reproduction rights issue. They should not be surprised when men are apathetic to their causes because they have shown none to theirs.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:33 PM
11

because the baby is going to carry the genes of both parents forward, she should probably be given a fair amount of the income of the father. If we follow this line of logic male rape victims and men who have their sperms stolen are obligated to pay their victimizers. I don't see what genes have to do with obligation to provide financial support. Genes are merely a necessarily condition. It is their intentions and the amount of precautions they undertake to assure the results match their intenti…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:25 PM
3

History of feminist movement: Feminists scholars persistently ignore domestic violence studies that show parity abuse rate between men and women. Support the Duluth Model that demonizes men. Continue to propagate the wage gap myth which has been debunked. Exaggeration of rape statistics. The Duke lacrosse witch hunt that to this day few feminists have come out to criticize their movement's propensity to lynching. Lobbied for draconian DV interference provisions like mandatory arrest and primary …
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:21 PM
2

Feminists' appropriation of male disadvantages is not surprising since women-as-victim is an effective advocacy model for obvious reasons. But there is another more sinister motivation behind this strategy. By maintaining a model of women as the primary victims, it diverts society's attention away from pondering the possibility that in some cases the reverse may be true, that male discrimination is the primary cause for women disadvantaged positions. For example the popular pay gap narrative tha…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 07:40 PM
13

Wow this Betty McLellan attended the SCUM conference in 2011. http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html Here we have a SCUM supporter spewing nonsense in public yet the university administration is afraid to touch this woman. If feminism was really about equality why the reluctance from the university to discipline her as if doing so would threaten feminism? It is about time people hold feminism accountable for what is really a fraud movement.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 05:55 PM
9

MRA constantly compares it to FGM like that's going to accomplish something. Autonomy is only one side of the coin. The other side is that MGM affects sexual function. Comparison draws on people's empathy, sense of equality and intellectual integrity. Some people may not oppose it on the ground of autonomy but they will oppose it on the ground of non-discrimination. There is NOTHING wrong to compare the two practices. Save your speeches for people who react with Oppression Olympics not us.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 10:44 AM
2

Fair enough. Everyone has priority.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 09:00 PM
2

Your view is not necessarily feminism just because you say you are a feminist. And I wouldn't say internet comment is an exception on parallel to in-depth feminists writings on the subject. Most feminists writings on chivalry is unfavorable to male perspective which is understandable because they are written by women. It is simple logic that you need both perspectives to have a balance analysis on gender which feminism cannot provide.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:51 PM
1

You and your friends don't understand feminism and aren't real feminists then. All feminists explanations I can find on chivalry always hovers around the theory of patriarchy and the idea of women as the weaker gender. I would love to read any exceptions.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:27 PM
0

An issue is an issue to you because you can relate to it politically, not because it appears on the agenda of some political party. If the left wanted to introduce a male tax is it also a non-issue if no one publicly questions or counters it? Are you going to vote for them anyway? Impossible. It is a non-issue to you because they trampled your rights and still they get your vote anyway.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:18 PM
4

Feminists never recognize their privilege. For decades they have been throwing accusations about male privilege and demonizing men. Ask ANY feminist why chivalry exists and you will be told the reason it exists is because of misogyny i.e. women are seen as weaker, while conveniently omitted men's protective instinct towards women. They are quick to speculate on man's intentions without living as one and twist it to something terrible towards women.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 07:58 PM
5

If you are going to vote them anyway even though they trampled your rights why would they give a fuck to what you say? You can only put pressure on them when they can feel the consequences for not listening.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 07:27 PM
4

While they are at it rename feminism to something more inclusive as well.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 02:24 PM
1

then you just gave them free rein to turn the debate into about your privilege rather then their double standard of sexism
/r/MensRights09/07/12 10:31 AM
1

Because the patriarchy has told women that men are supposed to be the providers and any man that doesn't have the money to spare to pay for dinner isn't worth their time. Society also told us that we are not supposed to expect gifts from people we have barely known.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:05 AM
3

Let's equalize the prison by putting more women in jails.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 05:30 PM
0

At some point we need to compare it to how people treat the 'default' human, or their stereotypes and beliefs about such a 'default'. Default is not necessarily good and departure from it is not necessarily bad.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:05 AM
3

So if Mike didn't use force then you would agree that Michelle was the asshole in that situation?
/r/MensRights01/07/12 04:27 AM
1

Silence is not consent and neither is not saying no. Exactly. The gender reverse scenario is that we do not place a responsibility on women to do more than expressing their objection. In fact we consider it immoral to place such a responsibility on women - we call it victim blaming.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 04:20 AM
4

He said he's not Brad. Did you read the fucking thing? What should he had done? Physically remove her or he is a rapist or asshole? Do we place the same responsibility on women? NO or we are victim blaming. It is double standard plain and simple.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:48 AM
2

Thanks for your explanation but how is it relevant to "I'm drunk, therefore anyone that has sex with me is a rapist"?
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:42 AM
18

So not stopping him/her physically = consent? I thought that was victim blaming or does it only work for women?
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:37 AM
3

what an asshole now I have to clean up my car.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:26 AM
1

Being a feminist by definition is pushing for the advancement of female rights. This definition is useless without further clarification. What do you mean by "advancement"? Who are you addressing when you use "female" (women is not a monolith)? What exactly do you mean by "rights"? Depends on the answers given one could be called a feminist or a misogynist. So how is this definition any useful in identifying a feminist? Feminist philosophy tries to provide answers to these questions and acceptan…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:33 AM
3

What he really meant: why aren't you being the white knight to protect the poor wimmins?
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:05 AM
3

bell hooks is not considered a radical feminist by feminists academics. Wiki describes her as a post-modern feminist. It seems that you're saying that Bell Hooks speaks for all feminists and the feminist movement. That's not what I said. Read my last post again. I am not arguing that whether your feminists friends are bigots. I am arguing that feminist philosophy is sexist as shown by the endorsement of bigotries from the very institution that produces feminist philosophy. If your feminists frie…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:57 PM
1

What this person is trying to say is that if all female mutilation were just pin pricks it would be ok and that this is totally the equivalent of cutting off the foreskin, which it isn't in terms of lost nerve endings, which outside of infibulation (it isn't even circumcision) is the only really empirically quantifiable measurement of how serious the mutilation is in terms of how it affects sexual function. Nicely put. The author posited the 'autonomy argument' but is ambiguous on whether he agr…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:29 PM
2

A great example is this thing called "ozy's law" which claims every example of harmful sexism has an equally harmful impact on both sexes (male sacrifice is therefore as harmful to women). If that's true then women were never more disadvantaged in relative to men since according to this view harmful sexism against women has an equally harmful effect on men.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:58 PM
-15

He is a SRSer and like a typical SRSer he is awfully dishonest. He mentioned birth control, yet he ignored that vasectomy is not included in the bill which the OP pointed out. Then he went on to accuse OP of all kinds of biases and a troll on top of that. It baffles me how anyone with any intellectual integrity can take person like this seriously.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:27 PM
3

bell hooks is not considered a radical feminist. You are drawing a false equivalence. Her view is not an anecdote when her works are routinely taught and cited in gender studies. We aren't talking about a random feminist quoted on a blog here. POVs similar to bell hooks' are endorsed by institutional feminism and professional feminists. Here we have evidence that the institution that gives birth to most feminists philosophy, maintained by professional feminists, is propagating misandric POVs yet…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:16 PM
-10

Worse, there is no need for a “Men’s health” department, as all health departments are men’s health departments. I don't need to. You automatically discredit yourself with statements like these. No one but SRSers really believe this kind of bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:37 PM
-21

Go back to SRS.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 05:28 PM
5

bell hooks is a famous feminist scholar who has published many books on patriarchy. Her works are routinely taught and cited in gender studies. In one of her books - Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. bell hooks (BTW she hates capital letter because patriarchy) wrote the following: Hooks asserts that, “Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.”[9] Hooks suggests using the negative effects of sexism on men as a way to motivate th…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:05 AM
9

We attack feminism philosophy because they are wrong. Feminists interpretations of discrimination are part of their philosophy. Philosophy is made up of arguments. E.g. The patriarchy concept is a feminist philosophy. Most feminists accept that men are overall more privileged than women, and men as a class oppresses women. A feminist who accepts the patriarchy concept may then claim that men are already cared for by the mainstream society so they don't need special services like a men's center. …
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:43 AM
9

No I don't think that men as a class oppressed women as a class. I think men and women were disadvantaged in different ways. I think that a movement for men's rights was as urgent as women's rights, in the sense that they were both needed. There was also an extreme need for men's rights. I see no justification for women only empowerment. Note that women's rights =/= feminism. Advocating for women's rights doesn't necessarily make you a feminist. Quoting our FAQ: (O)ne might be willing to acknowl…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:03 AM
2

An excellent article also by the OP on AVFM. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/feminist-lie-3468-obamacare/
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:25 AM
1

Spousal abuse was considered rare but instead of jumping to conclusion that spousal abuse didn't happen like they do with sexual assault against men, feminists claimed that victims under-report it and urged for surveys that are sensitive to female victims (because patriarchy) . They are fucking hypocrites.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:06 AM
15

Feminists rhetoric should be countered because they dismiss men's suffering and demonize men. People had been speaking out against feminism way before MRM appeared on the surface of gender landscape. I would still be an anti-feminist even if MRM suddenly ceased to exist simply because feminism is wrong, not because "I was on team A so I should fight team B". It is not an "Us vs Them" mentality to counter a movement that supports view that does not reflect reality and is willing to twist facts an…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 02:39 AM
16

Women's rights =/= Feminism
/r/MensRights28/06/12 02:18 AM
6

Lack of data does not mean that sexual assault against men does not exist. It just means that we have not been doing a good job at understanding the problem. Uncovering facts is as important as pointing out feminist dishonesty by jumping to conclusion when they should have known better (sexual crimes experts and all).
/r/MensRights27/06/12 02:24 PM
12

To declare that they are on the side of team women/feminists. Feminists recognize each other by giving approval to the "men perpetrators, women victims" worldview. It might be expressed in various forms but the main idea is always around "women have it worse than men". But of course feminists claim that they don't like to play oppression olympics and zero sum games (and often accuse MRA of doing so).
/r/MensRights27/06/12 01:16 PM
1

Assumption of positive and assumption of non-negative(good faith) is two different things.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:57 PM
1

You are going way off I guess I should agree to disagree. Only one thing though: Assuming the positive is as much drawing premature conclusions as assuming the negative. I am not assuming the positive. Assumption of good faith is to not assume negative intention when there is no substantiate evidence to back up that assumption, especially when there are other plausible alternatives. I don't need to prove that the intention is positive. I can be open to other plausible interpretations without ass…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:43 PM
2

Why do you think he is not a supporter of women's rights and a feminist? Is it because he disagrees that women have it worse? I have found this to be the "secret feminist handshake" so to speak. I notice that authors who want to speak for men's rights but still want to associate with feminism almost invariably sneak in a "men are discriminated against in XYZ but still women have it worse" line somewhere in their articles.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:29 PM
1

How is celebrating just with your family a secret? Why is it necessary to yell to the public on Father's day, "Hey, public? Don't forget Mom today!" It is secret in the same sense that a facebook image about appreciation of single mothers is a "shout-out to the public" and "a slap in the face to fathers". Don't forget Mom today! If some people don't have a father then there is nothing wrong with giving some room to appreciation of their single mothers. It is one way to get them more emotionally …
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:06 PM
1

I think you are being facetious here. Frankly, I don't think mothers merit a mention on father's day at all, and certainly not a "hey, everyone look at this!" mention like that image. Families celebrating the day in their own way would be something to do among themselves, not with a shout-out to the public. If they are only celebrating in secret then they are not exactly participating in father's day (and probably wouldn't celebrate otherwise). Their public participation opens them to father's r…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:55 AM
1

I don't see what makes that assumption automatic. I see this as a dismissal of what fathers are and what they do. It's a sentiment I've seen expressed by women who have broken up their own families and are abusing their ex-husbands... including my husband's ex-wife, who while remarried and being supported by two men, claimed to be the woman who does it all. Assumption of good faith means I took the literary meaning of "doing it all" and that the author is sane enough to not intend their apprecia…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:01 AM
3

It is the "doing it all" part that signifies to me it is directed at single mothers. I guess the wording isn't exactly good because what "doing it all" means is subjective. I can how see someone with a entitlement mentality would say she is "doing it all" when in fact it is 50/50, but assumption of good-faith and all that. I disagree that appreciation of single mothers diminish fathers on father's day though I can't exactly say it doesn't. Why do you think it diminish fathers if you don't mind t…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 04:07 AM
0

The end statement is clearly sarcastic in tone to highlight the fact that the OP thinks the statement to be untrue. The untrue statement is "women are not oppressed and this is not a male dominated society", not "men are oppressed".
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:22 AM
-4

"AND REMEBER FEMALES ARE OPPRESSED IN THIS MALE DOMINATED SOCIETY" How did you interpret that as "an argument for males being oppressed"? The opposite of that statement is "women are not oppressed".
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:48 PM
-14

Comparing them or trying to use them as an argument for males being oppressed in society is moronic. I do not see such an argument. You need to reread it carefully.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:14 PM
82

It is obviously directed at single mothers.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:11 PM
1

It's abused childhood, not battered man/spouse.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 04:33 AM
2

I am not even sure they can be counted as virtual children. They are cartoon figures not drawn in a realistic style. i.e. Do you call sticky figure a man? What about South Park? Violence against minors?
/r/MensRights16/06/12 10:08 AM
3

But this particular issue isn't about male rape. It's about a woman being raped It is still a topic of rape which is not gender specific. And no it is not a "woman" being raped. It is a female video game character being portrayed in a sexually vulnerable situation. You may criticize the specific context or you may criticize the framing which is not specific to gender. I am pretty sure a lot of feminists are willing to tell you that plots like "prince charming ignores his own safety to fight devi…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 09:48 AM
2

"Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives" is being used exclusively to measure benevolent sexism against women, then the sexism toward men contained within that statement is obliterated. It becomes entirely focused on women, how women are harmed by it, even though the greater harm is being suffered by men. I don't see how this narrative harms women though. It says nothing about the (lack of) capacity of women, it only m…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 09:10 AM
2

For me, I think the term 'benevolent sexism' has its place--when it is non-hostile sexism being directed at whomever. The expectation on the man to have to sacrifice for women is sexism towards him; the coddling patronization towards the women (when this type of thing is expressed in a "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about a career, darlin'!" fashion, and not an entitled "You don't have to work, get a man to do it for you) would be the benevolent sexism. This seems like a good illustrat…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 09:02 AM
1

Rape is not exclusively a feminist issue. There are male victims of rape and how rape is portrayed in media is also a concern for /mr. Secondly /the feminist Rape Culture and Patriarchy narrative (society condones rape against women, patriarchy uses rape as tool to keep women subordinate) demonizes men so it is in /mr interests to deconstruct their framing of rape.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:46 AM
2

It's offensive because it's echoing the real legislation against women that is offensive. You still don't get it. The bill is offensive to people who actually agree with you. I have seen MRA tried similar tactics and they were always seen as petty and "proof that /mr is a circle jerk".
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:13 PM
0

Just because y'all want men's rights doesn't mean this woman, fighting a very real battle against extremely misogynistic lawmaking, is just trying to "be a comedian" or "score points." Why do you guys use such dismissive language when this shit is really, truly happening in the states? How about fighting your battle in a way that is not childish and risk antagonizing people who may agree with you. You need a reality check if you can't see how this proposal, even if it is not serious, is fucking …
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:02 PM
1

Taking the first interpretation, the definitions themselves are symmetrical, needing only an objectifier and an objectified (in which case your assumption is true). This means that men and women are equal candidates for objectification. Men and women can be objectified in all the same ways, but that doesn't mean that they are. Only objectification of women seems to be systematic. This shouldn't be in the least puzzling: According to the definition of slavery, everyone is an equal candidate to be…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:30 AM
2

Of the seven definitions Nussbaum considers, none of them involve any gender in particular. Her discussion is seen as canonical in many circles. Is it correct then to assume that sexual objectification of men and women is symmetrical? i.e. men and women are objectified in the same way. If this assumption is true then the claim that only objectification of women is systematic is puzzling. If this assumption is false which I think it is and that men and women can be objectified in different ways t…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 08:28 AM
1

Although men are often expected to sacrifice their lives more in wartime, there are at least two other reasons an article might choose to emphasize the number of women and children dead But no reason to exclude or minimize male casualties and suffering. They gave a graphical depiction of casualties of women and children but not men. Babies, lifeless. Wrapped in blankets, white shrouds. Women with faces in hues of ghostly whites, deep purples and reds -- the colors of death. This is not a pity co…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 06:26 AM
2

Care ethics is not new or unique to feminist ethics. It is not particularly a 'feminine' way of thinking. Confucianism is a form of care ethics and most Confucians were men. I don't think what the author referred to as traditional ethics means what you think it is. Ethical theories like Deontological ethics and consequentialism are typically considered traditional ethics and while they do emphasize rules and universality and all that it does not mean that these theories are flawless. e.g. Kant f…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:55 PM
2

The pro-abortion argument is that the fetus that is being aborted has not yet attained personhood status so it does not have the rights of a person like a child does. I don't know where do they draw the line on personhood though. There are other counter-examples like if we accept that the interests of the child are paramount it will lead to unjust results like male rape victims and sperm donors should be liable for child support. It is not a defensible ethical position.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:20 PM
11

IMO this is a pure utilitarian view and I mostly disagree with it. I think being there for the 20 odd years it takes to raise a child - parenting - is what makes a man a father. To some extend yes, but there are common exceptions. When both parents works very often it is the grandparents who spend most of the time caring for the children and they have closer relationship with the children than the real parents. Do we say that now the grandparents are the actual real parents and they are liable f…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:05 PM
16

Then they try different tactic such as suppressing information. Surveys of genetic counselors indicate that an overwhelming majority (96–98.5 percent) would not divulge misattributed paternity results to the presumed father
/r/MensRights06/06/12 07:14 PM
9

There is heavy anti-male bias in feminism ideology which is routinely fed to feminists. This bias is the natural result of a lack of opposing voice. Just read any feminist writings and you will see how gynocentric they are. Men don't appear anywhere except in association with oppressor/dominance/subjugation in their texts. Echo chamber is a recipe for disaster for any -ism. Why should feminism be any different? Actually feminists are wise enough to recognize this and cover their butts. I am sure…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 07:09 PM
19

In that case they find the nearest man with a wallet. The site addresses it pretty well: Claims that this is because "the interests of the child are paramount" are easily refuted. If those interests were indeed paramount, lots of things would be done differently. The state could pay instead. Or a better-earning ex-husband could have custody. Or the child could be forcibly taking into adoption by a wealthy family. But these are not all socially acceptable. So the child's interests are bounded by …
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:27 PM
7

Excerpts: "DNA Paternity Testing: Public Perceptions And The Influence Of Gender" by Lyn Turney, Michael Gilding, Christine Critchley, Penelope Shields, Lisa Bakacs, Kerrie-Anne Butler. This paper appears to try to polarise something that shouldn't be polarised. It makes it appear that DNA testing is a plot against women! A reminder. The first real use of DNA testing was for a "fatherless maternity test", that enabled a child to enter the UK to join his mother. The second real use was to identif…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:18 PM
1

Michael Gilding misinformation was picked apart
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:15 PM
3

Not nice at all. There are many legitimate issues for men and you pick these as representation of how men are repressed? A few of them don't even support your claim. E.g. Even if the pay gap is a myth (which I think it probably is) how does it show that men are repressed? This lousy logic is feminist thinking and is not what men's rights supposed to be.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 06:38 PM
2

Custody issues and divorce assets, for example, stem from the old-fashioned view that women are intended to be domestic caretakers Or the belief that men are supposed to take care of women and children; or the government wants a bigger cut in child support and they are apathetic to men's rights because discrimination against men is perceived as acceptable; or there are women advocacy groups that lobby against fairer laws; or ALL OF THE ABOVE. Why must there has to be one and only one reason? Why…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 08:54 PM
8

Fuck men over and if they can't pay send them to military where they will learn how to kill people. I am sure nothing bad will happen.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:36 PM
2

But no male gender roles endorse rape and violence. That's the point. People can still see a man as suspicious even if he's the kindest man in the world.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:21 PM
1

It's our societies inclination toward making... women subservient, weak, and submissive. it's the reason we're expected to keep our emotions locked up, to shut up and produce. You seem to imply that only female gender roles are essentially subservient, weak and submissive while male gender roles are essentially none of those things. Men are not really seen as disposable but only become disposable because their roles demand their disposability. The major flaw of this logic is the assumption that …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:46 PM
5

denial of more domestic aspects of manhood are the foundation of the belief that men are violent rape machines Citation needed. I don't see how they are necessarily connected. I can see how suppressing your emotion may lead to depression and suicide but rape? That's why I don't like feminist narrative (including this poster) they tend to draw every conclusions from gender roles.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:05 PM
2

Your honest question can be answered by an honest reading of this subreddit. Posting thread like this will inevitably lead to debates and arguments, not that it is necessarily bad just there isn't much to argue about when you haven't be informed on men's issues.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 05:06 AM
3

This really got me angry. I hope your report will draw some public attention. It needs to be on the front page. BTW VP Margaret Klawunn is a feminist. http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Campus_Life/people/margaret_klawunn.html I will be referring to this the next time feminists claim feminism is about equality.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:51 AM
1

There is asymmetry in the weight of suffering and the weight of achievement when they are put on the scale of oppression. A world full of poverty, crimes and imprisonments, or a world full of non-ceos and non-presidents, which one do you think is a better world?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 04:45 AM
1

Remember that male rape victims were not recognized until recently and even today male victims are under-served and what available services do not address men's specific needs. Many male victims don't even admit that they have been raped. Until we extend the same attention to understanding and addressing rape against men we cannot say for certainty that it is a crime predominantly against a specific gender. It is the neutral and cautious route to take given that gender is already a sensitive sub…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 06:04 AM
-1

This is not a healthy attitude. I really hope you are just venting. While misandry is mostly to be blamed, it is also men's mistake to uncritically accept the myth that women are sacred and men are disposable. Hating women doesn't really address the mistake but only substitutes one extreme for another. Adjust your perspectives on your relationship with women by all means but don't let your anger controls you. Don't repeat the same mistake by letting emotion guide you instead of critical mind. Sa…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:33 PM
1

First, I wish you wouldn't use gendered language. It's really irrelevant. Gender is relevant because it affects advocacy's strategy. They rarely tell women that they have the responsibility to communicate consent while always stressing to men the importance of acquiring consent and by extension men are often taught that they have the responsibility to consent because obviously the one who is asking for consent by this action alone means in no uncertain terms that they are interested themselves. …
/r/MensRights15/04/12 05:26 PM
1

A woman consented and even initiated sex but regretted it in the middle of the sex act. She wanted to stop sex but it would make her look like a jerk so she didn't. She felt used afterwards and told her friends what happened. Her friends told her that was rape. While it is legally not rape she indeed had experienced unwanted sex and it could be argued that in the middle of the sex act when she changed her mind her consent was not real so in a sense she was raped. In many advocates' mind if she d…
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:43 AM
11

HOLY FUCK This is torture not treatment. I wonder among the children who have undergone this "treatment" how many of them are boys? The reports I found erase the gender but I am guessing it is 100% boys. Damn sure it will be mentioned if they found out girls were also subjected to boys "treatment", with her arms and legs stripped to bed and being shocked 30 times a day with the staffs standing around "observing" and laughing at her suffering. This powerful surge of feeling of Male Privilege, 30 …
/r/MensRights13/04/12 07:02 AM
1

Yes. Telling people to stop playing mind games and to make up their mind does not presume that their bodies are free-for-all 24/7.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:53 PM
1

but if we want to stop rape, we can't make it the victims' (men or women) responsibility. We must must must do something to change the behavior of the rapists (men or women). I disagree. Victims have responsibility to prevent rape. They have the responsibility to not give ambiguous message that is open to misinterpretation by a reasonable person. Exaliftin has a point - I don't see posters telling women to give clear consent and stop playing mind games, especially in college where even suspiciou…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 05:03 AM
7

So I guess men aren't allowed to have safe spaces in which to discuss the personal impact of societal problems, and instead are supposed to focus on general issues? You mean you would condemn a post on /r/feminisms or 2X by a poster frustrated about a situation involving a man/men in the same manner? You should have pressed this point a lot harder. Don't let them weasel out of blatant hypocrisy. Ask them to clarify what "reverting to victimhood" means and ask them to cite examples. This shows yo…
/r/MensRights07/04/12 03:37 AM
2

Institution Feminism is filled with intellectual dishonest hypocrites and selfish greedy power abusers but I wouldn't call it a hate movement. What is the point of calling it a hate movement anyway? Is hypocrites and abusers taking taxpayers money and hijacking legit issues while at the same time pretending they are the good guys not enough? Arguing feminism is hate movement is a lot harder. No need to set limitations on ourselves. Feminism is not a private company it claims to be a civil rights…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:15 PM
1

None of the sources on that page are from feminists' publications. They removed non-feminist sourced content. Fine, cite feminist sources then but wait they can't even cite their own sources because they don't have any literature on misandry yet they have the gall to call themselves a gender equality movement. What do you call a gender equality movement that only look at one side of the problem? The words are on the wall everywhere I can't wait to see people waking up to this fraud movement.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 05:44 PM
1

So Feminism doesn't acknowledge the existence of female privilege. Wiki's repeat removal of the entry is proof. Surely if sources on female privilege existed, wiki wouldn't keep removing the entry right?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:57 AM
3

http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/ra0ax/the_i_lied_to_the_police_and_got_him_thrown_in/c44hto3 Can you still honestly say VAWA is gender neutral?
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:54 PM
5

This should be included in the side bar in a collection of "proofs that institutional feminism fights against equality", along with that Swedish documentary you have posted before.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 07:58 PM
1

The male victim fund has now been allocated to 12 local charities across England and Wales but only one award went directly to a dedicated charity just for male victims. The news has surprised specialist men’s charities as they had previously been excluded from accessing the existing Ministry of Justice Rape Support Fund after UK Rape Crisis secured proviso that only organisations providing a dedicated women’s service could apply to that fund – thereby excluding organisations that specialize in …
/r/MensRights23/03/12 06:56 AM
2

Do you want the truth? I had a complete reply to your original comment, with line-by-line citations and either refutations or comments. I even did some google-fu to find precise references for the points I was making. Then I pressed backspace, and when I went back forward to the page all my work was gone. I don't have it in me to do it again. If you have already typed a detailed response but deleted it then I would be a dick to ask you to type it again no? Although I have to say you are a really…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:42 AM
3

I don't know how to answer someone who misunderstands the way philosophy works. I have a university degree in philosophy; that doesn't make me right about everything philosophy-related, but I suspect I've got a more accurate perspective on it than you. Especially based on the simplicity of what you claimed to be the nature of philosophy. And you're not even likely to believe me so I can't exactly use that line of argument, although it's the easiest way to dispatch so many specious arguments (as …
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:09 AM
3

So you resort to ad-hominem instead of answering my questions. Nowhere in my post suggested that feminist scholars are stupid or said anything negative about their intelligence. What I question is the biases of feminism narratives. Now maybe you can answer my questions?
/r/MensRights21/03/12 04:33 AM
3

It is called feminism because feminists believe that gender-discrimination is a result of misogyny. This is one of the biggest reason I became an anti-feminist. Feminism defines every thing that harms men as a result of misogyny. This kind of narratives alienates men. It minimizes and dismisses men's suffering. It highjacks attempts at solution that actually solves the problem solely because the solution is not "gendered", as in not focused on women as the primary victims - the supposedly root c…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 04:12 AM
3

it requires an appreciation of the social construction of gender, the institutional structure of oppression, and the psychological nature of the relationship between men and women. The question is whether feminism appreciates logic and critical thinking, not whether it worships appreciates certain social theories. If feminism is as you claimed is rational, philosophical and prudent, and I want to emphasis prudent, then why most gender analysis from feminists either leave out men or depict men as…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 03:27 AM
1

Butler is a post modernist though she makes a bit more little sense than some of her colleagues. I would say she is more of a queer theorist than a feminist. Her works mostly deal with theory of transgenders and doesn't wallow in victim status mongering. She is not active in activism and is mostly confined to the queer theorists circle. She actually received a lot of criticisms from feminists for her works. As typical of post modernist, she said the category of women is an illusion. Feminists we…
/r/MensRights13/03/12 08:44 AM
11

Marxist Feminism has nothing to do with post-modernism. And Marxist Feminism hasn't been popular since the 60s. Today feminism is more influenced by Radical Feminism which is a bastard child of Marxist Feminism. Post-modern feminism is a fringe school that has no popularity anywhere outside of a few egghead circle jerks in Paris. Most feminists are not post-modernists nor are they relativists. Feminists believe women were/are oppressed - an objective value judgement. In fact relativism would des…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 07:19 PM
4

Wow this shit is strikingly similar to the public humiliations that happened to the "revisionists" (in this case rape apologists) in schools during Cultural Revolution in 60's China.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 08:39 AM
3

Exactly. This reflects badly on SPLC, not us. They give us ammo to shoot them but now we are discussing whether we should drop our arms and appease our political enemy?
/r/MensRights09/03/12 09:24 AM
6

It's a red herring to point to something like this. Just because they have recognized /r/mr, but not radfemhub.com doesn't make their recognition of /r/mr any less valid, which is the issue. No it is not. Failure to include misandrist sites means that their standard for what is sexist is flawed and it is a greater concern, especially to ones who claim to support gender equality, that a reputable NGO with funding of hundreds of millions per year, is demonstrating such blatant sexism than a few mi…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 08:52 AM
3

I doubt people who go to skepchick regularly are anywhere near the fence.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 06:22 PM
2

Every time I hear a unsuspecting man screwed by the divorce industry my heart dies a little. We need to attract young men attentions with issues that they are interested in. And once they realize we have their interests in mind then they will start to listen. We could have prevented a lot of heartache and suffering if men were made more aware of their rights before they are ruined by the system.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 04:57 AM
1

Best comment
/r/MensRights08/03/12 04:54 AM
6

Let's be fair. A lot of single or happily married men don't care either. I would even say that a lot of mras didn't care until they experienced the injustice themselves.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 03:41 AM
3

Again, false equivalent. I am really tired of this same argument. Instead I will ask you a question: if one is to form a lobby group to prevent VAWA being passed, what are the odds you think it will succeed? Do you think random assholes can be the cause of political resistance on this scale? Calling the "non-true" feminism "a group of people" is an understatement and you know it.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 05:10 PM
5

Plenty of feminists say they are not like that, ask them if they support vawa and see them admit that they support radical, discriminatory ideology and laws. Exactly
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:58 PM
6

We urge Congress, therefore, to consider and support programs that explore alternatives to the current criminal adjudication models, and that address the underlying causes of abuse. Despite their critical stance on the bill, they make clear that their loyalty to the Fempire comes first. The VAWA reauthorization bill would extend funding for important services; provide additional protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and would ensure that tri…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:49 PM
2

Don't associate with us then. You don't have to be an MRA to stand up for men's rights.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 03:57 PM
-2

Go strike down VAWA for us then, if feminists are really that irrelevant it should be easy. Talk is cheap.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 03:41 PM
2

Guy disses you at a bar? Bar fight! Lose a job? Sell drugs! Women reject you your entire life? Rape one! So this is supposedly the kind of "good" feminists we are alienating.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:28 AM
2

I don't believe there's a large feminist conspiracy attempting to keep men down. I think there's a large number of feminists who honestly believe they're doing the right thing The thing is, the two are not mutually exclusive. If you believe group A is more vulnerable than group B, then you can justify worse treatment for group B. Hence they can perfectly advocate for keeping men down "to adjust the balance of power and give back control to women" while also believing they are doing the right thi…
/r/MensRights03/03/12 06:05 PM
8

Okay feminism is not a monolith. But then you can't claim feminism is a equality movement either because not all feminisms support equality.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:50 PM
4

mostly-irrelevant roadblocks This is where we diverge. Isn't it the crux of the matter? /mensrights position is that Institutional Feminism is not only a roadblock but also openly and subtly fights against men's rights with massive political and financial backing. Apparently you don't think so. Before we discuss further I suggest you read more about the dark side of Feminism and form your own opinion. An example I like to cite is The Dear Colleague Letter from the OCR. Observe the silence from t…
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:38 PM
-3

Standing against a sexist movement is the benefit.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:25 PM
1

On February 23 2012, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment upholding the constitutionality of a law that allows teenage boys – but not teenage girls – to be prosecuted for having underage sex. The appeal arose from charges brought against a 15-year-old boy under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 for having sex with a 14-year-old girl in Donegal. This is the Supreme Court of Ireland not the US.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 06:51 AM
2

AVFM has a few excellent pieces on this.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 06:34 AM
9

Yes this puzzled me. They talk about looking out for each other and how two is better than one but none of them consider if her bf walked her home, who's going to walk him back? He needs protection too. It's really just thinly-veiled old men-must-protect-women bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:44 PM
2

I agree it is really impossible to police people in a movement. I think this argument is an attempt to respond to the NAFALT argument, which in my opinion a weaker argument which is much much easier to defend(and harder for feminists to argue against) would have suffice. We only need to target feminism not feminists. I like AVFM's term "Institutional Feminsim". It specifies the feminism that practices misandry, without losing sight on the significance of this brand of feminism which is well entr…
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:09 PM
1

A comment from the author of the article: I wrote a blogpost about arbitration recently and thought then that it was the principle laid down by the Lords in 1929 in Hyman v Hyman and confirmed in Edgar v Edgar in 1980 that prevented binding arbitration on divorce. For completeness I should also have mentioned section 81 of the Arbitration Act, which gives priority to common law rules (like that in Edgar v Edgar) preventing arbitration. I think this used to be the orthodox thinking among family l…
/r/MensRights26/02/12 04:07 PM
6

complain to a feminist Best advice but no they will just blame it on men and "misogyny".
/r/MensRights22/02/12 06:45 AM
1

It's not a pointless exercise to show why a statement is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
/r/MensRights21/02/12 03:57 AM
3

That was not a joke but a confession of murder fantasy involving her asshole ex-husband coughcough demonstration of anger management.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 03:12 PM
1

"(1) deliberately ignores and doesn't quote the part where I remind you that arguments about society do not function like mathematical proofs" Feminism is a hate movement - this is an axiom. Don't ask me to support it because it is an axiom, it supports itself. And "arguments do not function like mathematical proofs" so whatever I claim to be true is indeed true.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 05:55 PM
-2

It will remain a hypothetical if a man is still shamed for being protected by a woman.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 09:41 AM
1

I think the best interest of children is served by permitting them as close to equal time with both of their parents as is possible. I agree it should be the default assumption. This was an exercise in how MRAs feel that men should be permitted to benefit from their biological advantages, but, women's biological advantages should not result in benefit to women. I was pointing out that this is not a biological advantage because contributing more doesn't make one a better parent, nor does it warra…
/r/MensRights14/02/12 06:03 AM
0

Feminism is a huge movement with a lot of momentum and which by definition doesn't fight for equality, but for women's rights. Feminism isn't simply women's rights. It claims to be a philosophy of gender so we should hold it accountable for ignoring (and in many cases vilifying) men.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 08:19 PM
2

men should not be entitled to sole custody or more parenting time of their children than the child's mother b/c the mother contributed more (pregnancy, chidlbirth) to the creation of the child. How do you feel about that biological advantage? Custody should be determined based on the best interests of the child not who's contributing more.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 07:33 PM
1

By your logic blacks/whites/Asians should be segregated into their own leagues in many sports.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 07:29 PM
0

So you counter them by starting a drama post here. Good job I guess. Now people see this and will further validate their biases that /mensrights is more interested in bickering with internet trolls than actual men's issues.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 12:42 PM
2

I think it is a nice play on the term real men. It'd be better if they add some small texts like: "On TV men are never depicted as victims of rape, but in the real world, [insert statistics] of men are being raped each year."
/r/MensRights13/02/12 05:25 AM
1

Interesting reading. Strangely philosophical.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 05:43 AM
4

They just don't give a fuck about men. Men's reproductive rights to them means whatever is convenience to them. Children's Rights to receive support from their biological father is unalienable. ... but sperm donors are granted exemption. A boy is raped? He has to pay child support to his rapist because children's rights is unalienable.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:55 AM
4

Men's Rights is and will remain an unpopular opinion. This is not something reddit can fix. Just keep spreading the words. Post facts, statistics and arguments all over the web. It is the narratives that make impact. not getting people into MRM. If they shoot the messenger for "image" reason then they are not someone we can reach. It would be great if biases can be changed by reason alone but alas people are dumb. If someone is set in their way, you can't move them. All grass root movements have…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:22 AM
2

This may be because males tend to choose more lethal methods when attempting suicide. So they just pick their favorite suicide method on a menu without regards to the actual lethality of the method?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 06:07 AM
4

Agree. I know some men here are bitter because of past experience but it doesn't make it okay to generalize the whole gender.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 01:02 PM
15

They don't want to fix it because it entails a re-examination of current definition of children's rights which will be exposed as unfair against fathers. The state will have to shell out the money if they can't hook a man on child support with just DNA relevancy and they realize the political cost of telling women to be cautious is greater than taking rights away from men.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 12:31 PM
-4

Making warm compresses and rubbing arms does not make oneself uncomfortable. Try walking barefoot on a street for 15 mins. It hurts not to mention it draws stares and could be embarrassing for some people. This is all missing the point though. The problem with this pic is that it tries to deliver a message that if you don't do this then you are not a True Gentleman.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 12:53 PM
2

Why is it society's problem but not the individual mother's and father's problem? Simple. Let the individual mother bear the cost then since she has all the choices.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:55 AM
0

It stop being bad apples when misandry is common practice in sections dominated by professional feminists. You know what would be more productive than debating us here? Educate yourself on what those feminists have done. Debate is pointless if you haven't been exposed to evidences of institutional misandry in feminism.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:25 AM
0

They have zero tolerance towards men-on-female violence because women are supposed to be the protected class. Like a peasant who killed a noble it was considered a form of especially grave injustice. To them one instance of misogyny is too many and is enough proof of patriarchy and rape culture.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:02 AM
1

I don't generalize feminists, I generalize the movement.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 05:44 AM
1

It doesn't has to be one cohesive movement, if they are cohesive on certain issues then it warrants criticizing the movement as a whole.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 05:34 AM
2

Unpopular opinion does it to people.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 05:17 AM
1

Untold Problems http://www.nmhdu.org.uk/silo/files/untold-problems-a-review-of-the-essential-issues-in-the-mental-health-of-men-and-boys.pdf "The possibility of under-diagnosis of depression in men" p.33
/r/MensRights01/02/12 05:08 AM
13

Eco-feminism or something like that.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:15 AM
1

You can support women's rights without being a feminist. Women's rights isn't the same as feminism. I am against feminism the movement not feminists. Feminism is the ideas, the laws, the theories. I'm not sure you can change feminism. Their philosophy is based on the idea that femininity is being oppressed. If you change that most of their ideas will lose political power. If you remove the idea of rights to property is it still Liberalism? Not all feminists are like that - the overused excuse fr…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 06:04 PM
2

i'd agree that he FAILED to point that out, but that doesn't make what he said otherwise untrue. I don't know that strikes me as someone who is just parroting lines from gender studies without regards to contexts. The "shoot the first one" message implies the daughter maybe underage in which case sex IS dangerous and girls ARE more vulnerable because they can be pregnant. The gender part of the message is the overzealous nature of the dad wrt to his daughter however the message makes no referenc…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 06:35 AM
0

You made a child That's where you are wrong. Woman made the child not man. Man can't give birth. and its both parent's responsibility to take care of the child. It's parent's responsibility to take care of the child and due to biological differences, woman is the automatic parent of the child but not man. I'm not saying it is fair, but that is life.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:12 AM
1

Drunkenness is not duress and drunk driving is illegal so apparently being drunk doesn't impair you so much that it absolves you of your agency. Besides we hold the one who are drunk driving responsible, not the passengers who "took advantage of the driver". People who are in a happy mood also may make decisions that they normally would not have otherwise. If we go by your logic no one has "true agency" unless they meditate on a decision for hours. Agency isn't an excuse for irresponsibility.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 05:29 AM
1

You gave no solution to my dissonance but thanks for answering sincerely.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:17 AM
1

It is actually a very good question. If you don't have the desire to be a rich lawyer then being a rich lawyer isn't really a privilege to you. In contrast no one likes dying or being locked in a mental institution.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 06:34 AM
2

Are you aware of the Dear Colleague Letter sent to all funded colleges from the Office of Civil Rights? The letter gives clear directions to college staffs that they are to use a Preponderance of Evidence standard in their investigation and hearing of sexual assaults on campus. What it means is that if the judge thinks you are 51% likely to commit a crime then you are guilty. They are making it even easier to expel young men from college. Excerpt: "In addressing complaints filed with OCR under T…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 05:43 AM
3

How do you reconcile with the fact that feminists scholars and advocacy groups often dismiss men's issues and even actively fight (successfully) against men's rights? You may say they are the minority but that's understating the problem as 1)the fact that they are successful means they are no less a minority than other feminists 2)often they hold positions in gender equality related offices in academia and government where gender bias is less tolerant than most other places 3)they are often in l…
/r/MensRights15/01/12 09:40 PM
1

His efforts certainly didn't go unnoticed.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:26 PM
1

There is a natural duty created when a child is born Yes and that duty lies on the one who creates the child. Men cannot create children due to biological difference and under the current jurisdictions men have no say over women's decision. Sex act and DNA does not equal creating or the decision to create a child. If the parent is alive and able to support their children why should they not be forced to do so? The person who made a conscious decision to bring a child into existence has a respons…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 05:26 PM
1

Any reasonable feminist works you know have explored in depth how femininities harm masculinities, culturally and historically? Preferably if it plays a vital part in author's gender theory. What are those reasonable feminists' responses to the April 4 "Dear colleague" letter from the Department of Education in which it states that internal investigation of sexual harassment accusation in college should use the preponderance of evidence standard? I am particularly interested in responses from Ge…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 06:45 AM
1

That argument was passed down from the 60s and it is still being taught to neonate feminists nowaday and the fembots just parrot it, almost reflexively. But who can blame them? It is not like they have been exposed to serious challenges since feminists like to censor any criticisms to their doctrines. Only until the internet they have realized existence of opposing arguments that cannot be dismissed so easily. See how often on online discussion platform a feminist sees something that challenges …
/r/MensRights24/12/11 02:15 PM
0

I am not offended by the word. I just disagreed with the theory. It is not within my control that some people see disagreements with their pet theory as personal attacks.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:22 AM
1

Who? Which culture? What statistics can you provide to back up that assertion? I don't know what country or culture you live in, but your assertion is not universal. In Korea and Japan, for example, there is just as much stereotyping and ostracizing of lesbians as of gay men. Particularly in Korea. First, read my comments again. I did not make a universal claim nor claim to know the precise numbers of this kind of individuals. Second, those people exist, because I have encountered them personall…
/r/MensRights16/10/11 04:54 PM
1

Yes I also disagree with MannerofSpeaking on the same point so I'll just post my reply to him here. There are people who have no problem with lesbians but find gays gross. Gay men are specifically targeted so no it's not just homosexual in general. When you said "most" the bigots, excuse me but I have to call you're bullshitting me. You have no way to know it is, in fact, most, unless your definition excludes people who have no problem with lesbians but find gays gross.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 02:58 PM
1

Double standard on the basis of sexual orientation of men. There are people who have no problem with lesbians but find gays gross. Gay men are specifically targeted so no it's not just homosexual in general.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 02:49 PM
1

Woman who likes man - no problem. Man who likes man - gross. Same action different judgement. How is this not double standard on the basis of gender? Compare it to problems like men getting harsher sentences. Is this not men's rights but criminals' rights? They are logically the same. What the MRM doing is extremely provocative because we challenge people's deep rooted biases mercilessly without a care for PC and ideologies. Those people include ourselves.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 03:31 PM
2

Society has no problem with women who are sexually attracted to men but men who like men are discriminated - isn't it precisely that gay are discriminated because they are men?
/r/MensRights14/10/11 03:05 PM
-1

Don't care about 'subreddit invasion'. We already have AMR trolls in EVERY post. Do we care? Do we stop criticizing feminism? Nope.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 04:18 PM
2

I didn't see the policy was proposed by feminists. Stop linking everything to feminism. It trivializes real harms done by feminists.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:21 PM
2

Feminism works against men's rights, so it's not counter-productive to counter feminism. What is non-productive is over-reaction to what some random feminists have said on facebooks, feministing etc. Oh and subreddits drama.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:59 AM
5

The question is 'do you deserve to know'. Sure your sexual preference should be respected but does that mean everything you don't like must be disclosed to you? Where do you draw the line what to disclose and on what ground can one justifies non-disclosure as immoral? On his or her says so or do we have some objective measures. This is the question.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:50 AM
2

Explains why male circumcision is aggressively promoted in Africa. High birth rate = foreskin factory.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:41 AM
5

I'm tired of these Victim Complex rhetorics from the media. Not having a partner is not 'social barrier' to having children. Reason #1: you are only entitled to a relationship as long as someone wants to be in one with you. It's not a barrier to something which you are not entitled to. Reason #2: you can always pay a sperm bank to do it for you.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:33 AM
0

Are groups of people from other subreddits downvoting them? Yes and we aren't upvoting enough.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:39 AM
1

I rather think that you are. We say "yes means yes" rather than "no means no" because the default should be that it's not okay to touch someone sexually without permission, not that they should have to stop you. And if some people in some circumstances are too scared or shocked or intimidated to say no, then you're going to have to get a yes to be sure you're not violating them. It's not a great burden to ask. As for my other comment: without explicit consent and relying on other signals, you're…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 03:17 PM
1

Are you literally saying that it's okay for you to commit rape if you encounter one of these people because you'd rather not ask first? No. Also, your butt-slapping example - why not gather explicit consent for that too, no? I already explained how the explicit YES approach to determining consent is unreliable and why explicit NO is tremendously more useful. Butt-slapping was only one example. and when did I disagree that explicit consent allows one to reasonably assume consent? Wha? I didn't sa…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:32 PM
1

some people freeze up and can't get the words out Then the problem lies with those people. I don't know about you but I think knowing how and when to say no is the basic of being an adult. We cannot cuddle people who don't take responsibility of themselves. The more you cuddle them the more likely they rely on your cuddling and the less likely they will learn to take responsibility, not to mention it runs counter to the spirit of gender equality which encourages agency. When an explicit NO is so…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 06:02 PM
3

because with the best of intentions some small number of you are going to do it by accident without ever knowing No. If one can reasonably believe that the other party consented then it is not rape, and if one has best of intentions then his/her account of consent is credible. One important point: there is a responsibility asymmetry in expressing explicit consent - the responsibility of expressing explicit NO is exponentially greater than the responsibility of explicit YES, on the ground that th…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 03:03 PM
1

No they are not similar. One is a trained combatant consented to being punched by another trained combatant where both have to wear protective gears and boxing gloves, while the other is one (drunked) person who wore no protective gears and agreed to being punched by another (drunked) person who have no training and don't know how to control her force. Consent is not everything. Dueling is illegal. Blackmailing for sex is illegal.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 04:43 PM
1

There is a fundamental difference between boxing and what happened which I pointed out and you ignored.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 12:51 PM
5

That and violence against men is sanitized. We see men being punched all the time in movie and it's often depicted as nothing serious. Most people think men should be able to take a punch when in fact one-punch-kill or disable is not totally uncommon. Busting myth that cost men's lives is definitely men's issue.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 07:23 PM
3

If a boxer dies in the ring, his opponent is not guilty of murder. Not a valid analogy because They were not in a ring thus no qualified professionals to monitor the process. They were not boxers, so they used violence, not martial arts. They didn't have protective gears They were not boxing. There were no rules. Alcohol was involved.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 07:10 PM
0

If these guys then say that they're doing it for fun, should the cops go away? I think it should depend on where and how hard they hit. Outside of regulated sports(which is not a valid analogy for many reasons), if someone hits a person full force at weak spot that has a potential to kill, then consensual or not, it should be illegal. Consent does not change the nature of the action. Society criminalizes certain activities even though they are consensual for example slavery. It is everyone's res…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 06:45 PM
9

Authorities said Powell died minutes later from an artery that burst in his neck. Startz is 5-foot-5' and weighs 142 pounds and Goldstein said, "She's a young girl with no training in body building or karate or fighting or anything like that." It wouldn't have happened if we didn't believe the myth that women can't inflict real damage and that woman punching man is harmless fun.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 07:49 AM
2

It's no less redundant than "Earning scorn from bigots". If you don't like the one we already have now just delete it altogether rather than trying to come up with another "Earning scorn from...".
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:05 PM
3

Shouldn't we consider a man raped if a girl deceives him to get his consent which he otherwise would not give? It seems most people overlook men's consent even on cases where consenting could land men in jail.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 05:13 AM
1

The problem is how this is framed. Video game vs educational reasons. Really? More often female students use computer to do their homework. I don't think video games help male students doing their homework, do they? What is it trying to prove? If they are interested in the gender difference in using computer in school works then video game is irrelevant. If they are trying to suggest that men use computer mostly for entertainment then the findings is inconclusive. "Educational reasons" is more b…
/r/MensRights02/10/11 07:58 AM
0

They support MGM.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 06:14 AM
0

The original wordings from WHO's factsheet : Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris). It is not clear that statement means that removal of only the prepuce is rare among type I or it is rare across all cases, including a combination of type I and II. WHO has demonstrated their double standard on the issue of male circumcision. I am s…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 06:07 AM
1

Generally, FGM refers to the process of slicing off a teenage girl's clitoris with a relatively sharp blade. Not really. Many people consider any form of genital cutting FGM. Secondly ordinary meaning could be wrong. Most FGM performed are milder than MGM, as explained by rantgrrl below.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:21 AM
1

Translating to feminist lingo: Any man can be accused of rape and any woman has the potential to falsely accuse a man of rape. We live in a false rape culture that man who is accused of rape is automatically disbelieved and has his sexual history scrutinized.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 06:12 PM
7

Men also make up for the majority of victims of violent crimes, why shouldn't we generalize men as victims as oppose to aggressors? You don't generalize the whole gender. Are you seriously arguing for stereotype? Just curious are you a feminist?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 04:18 PM
1

Then what are you arguing about? There are risk factors but they are not causes and should not be treated like ones.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:20 PM
3

I'm sure if they had identify a cause the study would state it which it does not. It states the opposite actually, the first sentence, in the first paragraph: "There is no single known cause of child maltreatment.". So it is not the case that we have set our bar so high that we need a perfect study to be convinced but that we, or rather the specialists, cannot identify a cause. There isn't even a study that states there is a cause.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:09 PM
5

It is a simple truth that you can't please everyone and that inevitably includes feminism. Women who prefer the traditional gender roles, women of minorities, sex workers, transgenders, DV victims etc. But if you ask which part of feminism has received the least criticism from women? I would say the women=victims/men=oppressors model and consequently sexism that operates under this model.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:31 PM
6

I'm reluctant to admit that perhaps the /AMA crowds have a point. No offense to AnnArchist, I don't mind a person with a conservative slant becoming mod but it does disturb me that someone who posted to /beatingwomen could be a mod of /mensrights. Do we really need to give people more reasons to reinforce their bias that /mensrights are a bunch of misogynists?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:52 PM
6

Be specifics on what you meant by "serious issues that are also faced by men in contemporary Australian society". Back up your claims with sources if possible. Justify why the problems are male's issues and why students should be educated on these issues. Avoid directing to issues in other countries. The laws are very different in the US and the same may not apply in Australia.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 11:56 AM
5

Forget a perfect world—in an intermittently just world, what the members of the COS should have done was dismiss the charges against me. And if they’d really tried for a truly just world, they should have suspended or even expelled the first year woman who had accused me, for having made up her lies and her baseless allegations. “Committee On Standards” indeed—punishment for bearing false witness is a standard. And a crucial standard at that: No society can long survive, if it allows witnesses t…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:34 AM
6

I always upvote good posts. It's true that some posts are buried because of downvote trolls. For example this DV poster.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 08:00 AM
2

Typical of Amnesty International.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 07:53 AM
2

This list trivializes the word privilege.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 07:17 AM
1

Pretty sure they only wear those hats in bedroom so it should not affect their performance on their mission.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 07:23 AM
3

But after that sentence she said "Oppression Olympics is unhelpful and a sign of derailing" so practically she was blowing whistle on her feminists buddies.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 07:05 AM
25

BEFORE his plea bargain, he was asked to submit to an evaluation process that was particularly distressing: he was shown lewd images of various kinds, including those of prepubescent girls, with his state of arousal at each image being measured, judged, dissected. THIS is the definition of mind rape if there ever is one. I have read about this program before but I didn't know the court could send someone to this program, and even admits the result as evidence in sentencing. This is unscientific …
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:13 AM
2

Absurd. Liberals don't have hats. If they had hats they are not true liberals and are in fact conservatives in disguise.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 08:05 PM
0

I didn't get the impression from reading his post that OP has low self esteem at all. The "subomega male virgin loser" self reference is obviously sarcasm. Who seriously uses excessive terms like "subomega"? Come on, at times I think it's not only feminists who have no humor...
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:49 PM
8

So those 'demotivated' counts as collateral damage? I want no part of a society that forces negative label on people simply because they don't fit a narrow and highly subjective definition of "real man". If we do this we are no better than feminists or white knights or Roissy and his PUA cronies.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:08 PM
2

Welcome to the underground. Sort of Relevant
/r/MensRights16/09/11 04:40 PM
7

I hope he wins the legal battle because it's going to backfire if he doesn't.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 05:05 AM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Yi
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:51 PM
5

At the same VAWA is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:22 AM
4

Have an upvote for being non-reactionary. The state is ordered to reduce prison crowding. They will have to do something sooner or later. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/06/07/california.prison.overcrowding/index.html Under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the 33 adult prisons must be no more than 167% percent of design capacity by November 28, 2011; 155% by May 24, 2012; 147% by November 26, 2012: and 137.5% by May 24, 2013, officials said. I checked the population of female prisons and while the …
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:04 AM
7

No but they have compulsory military service for male teenagers.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 02:45 PM
3

Women attempt suicide three times as often as men, and are twice as likely to develop depression as men. But this is a privilege! They don't succeed at their suicide, so it's okay! Discrimination against women! Patriarchy robbing women the chance of success! Seriously women don't succeed at their suicides implies that they actually intended to kill themselves but they failed to achieve the objective. However the purpose of many people among the group who attempts suicide is to call for help or a…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 01:52 PM
9

Joining the Army makes you a man, so they can execute you like one. Think they would have rushed to prosecute if he was a child or a woman?
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:35 AM
2

It was sarcasm to Ma99ie's comment "domestic violence people look like lesbians"... I even added the tag at the end. I don't know why he got upvotes for disrespectful comment.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:07 PM
4

The particular needs of female child soldiers were emphasised in *UN Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in 2000, www.un-instraw.org pdf Format. This resolution reaffirmed that the international community had to pay special attention to women's particular vulnerability during war, given the appalling nature of systematic sexual abuse and the use of rape as a weapon of war in some modern conflicts.* http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men The research by Lara Stemple a…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 04:55 PM
6

Apologize sent. Thanks for the reminder.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:14 AM
0

Agree wholeheartedly. Random people on the internet said something! 174 upvotes. A feminist government counselor denied kidnapping and told the journalist in the face that she won't get help if she was raped because of her 'betrayal'. 10 upvotes.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 03:47 AM
1

If you like women then you are not a man. What kind of man attracted to lipstick, makeup, lingerie and pink stuff really? Pussy. Real men are attracted to masculinity. Hairy muscular man is the only sensible romantic partner for a true man.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 04:53 PM
1

LOL
/r/MensRights11/09/11 03:37 PM
6

What contrary? I see a man with a black eye and a woman (presumably his wife, hinted by the 'marriage counselor' on the door) who looks like she is smirking. We don't know who punched the husband but we know for a fact that the wife doesn't seem worried. I think whatever the artist tried to convey it sure didn't age well. The premise 'the husband has wronged his wife' is not even hinted at anywhere in the picture, yet we are supposed to assign guilt to him somehow? How is this different than he …
/r/MensRights11/09/11 03:15 PM
1

There are women, feminists no less who will tell you to go get fucked after begging them for help for being raped or beaten simply because they don't like you. The same feminist that work as a special advisor of prostitution in government, a former shelters volunteer, an ally of the leader of the country's biggest shelter organization, ally of former ministry of justice, ally of the country's leading feminist scholar... etc etc.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 01:20 PM
-1

Why do all the men in /mensrights sound like bitter angry losers? Is that the norm for MRA now? /sarcasm
/r/MensRights11/09/11 01:16 PM
3

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/code_civil_textA.htm#CHAPTER%20V%20-%20OF%20THE%20OBLIGATIONS%20ARISING Civil Code article 215: Spouses mutually oblige themselves to a community of living. (Act n° 75-617 of 11 July 1975) The residence of the family is at the place which they choose by common consent. (Act n° 65-570 of 13 July 1965) The spouses may not, separately, dispose of the rights whereby the lodging of the family is ensured, or of the pieces of furniture with which it is …
/r/MensRights11/09/11 12:22 PM
1

I agree. Most people and even many feminists have no idea the pervasiveness of these bigot views among policy makers, academics and social workers. Documenting feminist screw-ups especially when those screw-ups are committed by a group of powerful and influential feminists (from the government, academic) is a very very powerful way to discredit their movement. This is something MRA could do more frequently IMO. Although to be fair I doubt feminists would give a self-proclaimed MRA an interview, …
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:49 PM
1

Come on people watch this. This is really good. The journalist who made this won an 'equality award'. Think about it, a documentry that challenges feminism in fucking Sweden won an 'equality award' and sparked an national debate that resulted in many resignations and changes of leadership. That's how good it is.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:08 PM
0

http://www.techcredo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/the-difference-between-android-iphone.png No one will interpret that as the only difference between adroid and iphone. Stop lying.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:42 PM
5

Amazing indeed. Thanks for sharing! I'm still in shock after watching it. Dayum did that journalist ask some pointy questions.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:21 PM
2

I think you give too little credits to others. Very few people flat out refuse a dialog simply because they disagree with a comics. Comics is not serious argument. People who are interested in discussion won't dismiss a topic prematurely based on reason of non-argument. It's akin to watching a trailer of a movie then immediately decide that the movie is horrible.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 06:53 PM
0

single reason != only reason
/r/MensRights09/09/11 06:34 PM
3

Calling someone a 'creep' is not equal to showing sexual disinterest of said person... Same as you don't call a woman a whore simply because she's ugly and introvert.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:20 PM
1

I think 'stalker' has threatening connotations too, maybe not when used on women? But you are right that I generalize too soon. I think what I really oppose is the dangerous and pervert undertone rather than the labels themselves.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:17 PM
1

Convincing is only possible when your opponents are prepared to be convinced. Sometimes converting someone is not feasible and maybe what we need is simply an exchange of ideas. Comics in general is terrible at convincing people but good for eliciting discussions. The original post in /r/funny is a good example.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:58 PM
1

It's the gestalt. The name of the link is "The difference between cute and creepy". "The" difference, as in, it's the only reason women call someone creepy. I disagree. If I say the difference between human and ape is that human walks on two legs, it does not mean walking on two legs is the only reason to call something a human. Now if I said 'the only difference...' then you would be right. The woman in the comic is a caricature -- the vast, vast, vast majority of women would be "creeped out" b…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:25 PM
2

Rapists take note.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:54 AM
3

That is a valid concern. But I don't think injustice towards romantically unsuccessfully men should be ignored for 'image' reason.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:41 AM
4

In Chinese culture sons are responsible for taking care of their parents and sometimes his spouse's parents family and with greater responsibility it is only just that it comes with greater benefits. That's a problem of feminists, they always stereotype third world country with the image of generic patriarchal husband spanking the buttocks of his wife. Handing assets over to wife as an 'inequality balancer' doesn't work. If their sons face bigger economic pressure than their daughters, assuming …
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:32 AM
6

it communicates a dismissal of the many times nearly all women have had to deal with a "creepy" man that had nothing to do with how attractive he was. What has Ted done to warrant the label 'creep'? Because he has acne and said 'hi'? Please point out specifically which part of the comic you think 'it communicates a dismissal of...'
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:39 AM
3

Nowhere in the comic does it say that most women do it. You are missing the point. 'Creep' and 'Stalker' are rarely used on woman. It is shaming language that specifically target men. The point of the comic is to highlight some men, especially shy and socially awkward men, are unjustifiably painted as creep.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:31 AM
-2

I don't call unattractive woman that say hi to me a creep or stalker.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 06:34 PM
1

WSJ has a recent article that debunks the wage gap myth pretty well. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket If you are looking for a quick and clean rebuttal then I don't think there is one. The best response is ask them to proof that the wage gap is due to gender discrimination in business practice. They have the burden of proof. Pick your battle wisely. Destroying an argument is usually much easier than constructing one. …
/r/MensRights08/09/11 05:46 AM
2

Maybe she doesn't want to pay child support or involve in the child's rearing? Apparently Utah law is notorious for its apathy to unwed father to the point that mothers who want minimal interference from the father in their adoption decision are flocking to Utah. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/baby-emma-father-fights-daughter-adoption/story?id=10392464 There are at least 10 other recent cases in which babies were taken to Utah without their fathers' consent. A blogger who works in adoption industry c…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 02:25 PM
2

Larry S. Jenkins, the attorney representing the adoption agency, said it is “irrelevant” when Shaud sent his notice to the records office; what matters is when it was entered into the record, and that didn’t happen until the birth mother had already consented to the adoption. Are adoption agencies usually this heartless? "No sorry sir you cannot have your baby back because your submission is late by a few days." I know baby is their source of income but seriously? I wonder if this would come to …
/r/MensRights07/09/11 05:53 AM
1

MRA has no power I don't see how we can support feminism. We can barely support our own movement. The better question to ask is why don't feminists support men's rights? They are the one with the power yet they push for misandrist legislatures like the SaVE act. Remember who were the first to point fingers in the Duke case? The women's studies department? The group of 88? Don't give me that NAFALT excuse. If even WOMEN'S STUDIES academics, the main contributors to feminists literature, are not f…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 06:17 AM
1

Interesting, I didn't notice this case until now. Another example of mob justice, only this time the target is a judge. I did some googling and found the media reporting of this case as bias as always, with titles that read "faces no charges" instead of "charges unfounded" as the investigation has shown and of course zero mention of Bradley's lies to the public.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 03:09 PM
1

This blog is pure quality.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:02 PM
1

http://www.feministcritics.org They are moderate and present good arguments.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 05:48 AM
6

a basic issue of men's rights would be defining That'd be true IF we were here to create a theory. But we are not. MRM is simply a collection of activism by MRA. AFAIK there is no one policing which issue is considered within or without MRM.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:34 AM
3

Do studies really back up anything? If someone cites psychoanalysts' penis envy theory do you think it will be taken seriously on any gender subreddit, let alone the mainstream media? I mean, how do you know if a theory backs up anything, or can even stand on its own without inconsistency, especially when Feminists aren't particularly known for intellectual honesty and lack of bias? Most people don't have a PhD, nor the time and energy to engage in armchair theorizing.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:29 AM
2

No one says those opinions don't exist, but they are not representative of Feminism. I see most feminists only use them as a feminism-is-not-a-monolith defense but none of them really gives a fuck to their theories. And we if we grant that feminism is really 'fluid', you are just contradicting yourself. Stereotyping is not necessarily wrong as according to post-modernists there is no such thing as a universal stereotype. Stereotypes to PMs, as with many other things, are just games to be played,…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 07:23 AM
1

Because having little or no representatives in a large number of fields is also sexism Maybe it's not sexism, maybe it's simply due to individual preferences of life style. Where is your proof that it must be sexism?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 04:50 AM
2

It is a WILDLY FLUID collection of THEORIES and OPINIONS. Please show us these 'fluid collection' of theories. The impression it gave me when I read feminists 'fluid theories' is that they differ in opinion only in which way that women are oppressed. The only feminists I have read that even question the central theme of 'men oppress women' are Marxist Feminists, Post-Modern Feminists and some Liberal Feminists but these are all fringe groups within Feminism.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 04:44 AM
4

I consider Men's Rights a branch of gender equalism, so it's not a conflict to me I support both men's rights and equalism. I don't see MRA as exclusive, as long as we do not claim to be the be-all-end-all equalism, like Feminism. MRA do NOT claim to be the righteous equalism crusade. MRA never ever say feminists or LGBT should just join MRA. What should be distinguished is that men's movement is very unlike Feminism because it's driven by RL issues not ideology. The problem is not with specific…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:40 PM
1

Those people exist, just as there exist mothers who abuse their children , and there exist fathers who love their children but are unable to win custody or are unfairly labelled as deadbeats. What angers me is that the government officials don't even want to acknowledge that the family court system is need of a review. It'd be a great gift for Fathers Day if they simply said "We are looking at it" but no they'd rather employ divergent tactic by calling fathers deadbeats, on fucking Fathers Day, …
/r/MensRights27/06/11 10:21 AM
1

White_cloud's statistics are not "proof" as he claimed but they have clearer meaning than "22% of divorce is because of DV". Those numbers you cited still have the same problems as I said in my last post. The sources are crimes studies, not IPV studies. DV isn't necessarily physical, and not all physical assaults are reported to medical or police authorities. No one denies that children should be kept safe from abusive parents. But this is not the subject of this thread. What we're talking about…
/r/MensRights27/06/11 04:45 AM
1

I did respond with statistics. Domestic violence is a factor in 22% of divorces. Should father's who are domestic abusers be allowed to see their children, yes or no? The source you linked to (EAP Digest) is a magazine? It doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Besides, the number 22% says nothing about who's the perpetrator. It could be the wife, the husband, or both. Also it doesn't recognize people who have experienced DV but don't perceive it as the major reason for divorce. The number d…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 05:38 AM
1

From what little I have read about mytho-poetic movement, it seems they are some self-help groups focus on revitalizing the traditional male roles i.e. the protector, the hunter, the warrior in today society. I don't know it sounds to me like the exact opposite of 'new age sensitive men'.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 03:14 PM
1

I agree it's not necessarily wrong that adoption being bias to mother. That's why I said fathers don't have this opt-out and I think we could seek equality in some other areas.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 10:24 AM
2

A mother can't put her child up for the adoption without the father's consent. The "consent" is only technicality. In many cases, the father doesn't even know he has a child and has no means of contact to the mother. The mother only need to post an ad stating she's putting the child up adoption and if he doesn't appear after a certain time it's assumed the father doesn't want to practice his rights and the procedure will go through.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 06:00 AM
2

Adoption
/r/MensRights16/06/11 05:44 AM
1

I think it's more a paternity/maternity rights issue than abortion rights. A mother can put her child up for adoption. This is an opt-out men don't have, and it isn't due to physical differences.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 05:40 AM
8

Urban Dictionary is as close to a real dictionary as Encyclopedia Dramatica is a Wikipedia.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 03:20 PM
1

Good critique especially this part(my emphasis): "This enquiry is a pertinent one to put to an author who attempts social history. If male sexuality is socially constructed, was it the same in the early modern period as it is today? The question does not seem to occur to Hester. Certainly, she seems to have detected no significant change during the early modern period, even though the construction of female sexuality was, she believes, transformed during the same epoch - by dominant males, of co…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 12:46 PM
1

because you can't have a socio-political effect if individuals are not doing something to cause it. Playing the devil's advocate. Radical feminists agree that individual can discriminate. But "the root of oppression" (which is where the name "radical" comes from), is the patriarchy - a system of beliefs, values, cultures etc. throughout history, built and maintained on the foundation of men oppressing women. By saying that women be sexists against men, they do not mean that men cannot be disadva…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 06:32 AM
2

No one is saying one type of MGM is comparable to ALL types of FGM. Like hopeless_case said, removal of clitoral hood is comparable to removal of foreskin. They are biologically homologous organs. They serve the same function.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:02 PM
10

http://searchfortruth0525.blogspot.com/2009/04/female-circumcision-vs-male.html "Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, t…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:43 PM
2

http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/fgm.html
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:26 PM
2

Ascribing responsibility is easy but when it comes to benefits you can be sure that such categorization will be scrutinized over and over. Imagine... Most CEO are men, men can improve leadership and provide vision to corporations. God could be a woman, but Devil must be a man. Feminists are perpetuating the same old stereotype that men are evil and aggressive. They know it is bullshit and they have no excuse. How do they survive leftists politics otherwise?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:28 PM
-2

Wow I don't even know where to start... Feminism is more than just seeking gender equality. It has its own philosophy which an anarchist doesn't necessarily endorse. Do you think an anarchist must agree with feminist epistemology or feminist ethics? Feminism is not a monolith. Not all feminists have the same view of equality, and not all feminists are against hierarchy. Liberal feminists are not feminists? Cultural feminists are not feminists? What about socialist feminists, post-modern feminist…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:26 PM
-2

Or maybe you are blind to yours so you cannot see what seems to be privilege is only beneficial sexism that exists only to compensate for deeper oppression.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 10:09 AM
-5

Feminism is against hierarchy... except concerns for women trump concerns for men.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:21 AM
1

It is only a gift if he gives consent. Just because someone didn't ask you to pay immediately, doesn't mean it's a gift. Did you get his consent that it's a gift? No? Then you shouldn't assume so. What's this sense of entitlement?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 08:42 AM
5

If the beer is trading for potential sex then the responsibility is on him to make sure the other party is aware of the nature of this trade. Why should someone who takes a beer from you by default agrees to potential sex? She could be simply interested in chatting with you. Or she could have just think screw the guy and take it as free drinks without promising anything in return. If he didn't get anything in return, which no one really promised him it will happen, the fault is on him to be so s…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 08:20 AM
2

It's not just some people. We are talking about movie that is broadcasted to its millions audience. This reflects society at large sanctions extremely sexist attitude against men.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 07:22 AM
1

The problem is it's used as cheap fodder for laughs. The presentation itself isn't even funny or humorous. The question we should ask is why so cheap a joke make people laugh? IMO knucker3 has it nailed. We are insensitive to male suffering. To many people male rape is simply pure fun with no offense to anyone's sensibility.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 07:13 AM
6

They can rape men and it will be considered a joke.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:41 AM
3

You know men totally don't like drinking before sex. No really. Sober men do not exist, or for long anyway.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:37 AM
1

Actually I don't remember saying either way if I considered myself a >feminist, radical or not, but you will assume and label that for me. The point of the unfair policies that benefit women over men have >arose from powerful men ties into my issue with the seething >complaints about female oppression that I find in the Men's Rights >section of the Men's Movement. Men put these policies in place, men >still hold most of the power and policy influence now, men can >change these policies. I didn't…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:00 AM
2

// Yes non-feminist women are women too, and if they operate under gender sterotypes that feminism explicily speak out against, what do you think the problem points at? // Ignorants and prejudices which MRA are working to fix. No women don't need to be feminists. But there are people who try their hardest to reframe men's issues as a sort of backfire of men's oppressive nature since it's only male-on-male violence. I think as MRA we are not only interested in stopping oppressions and violence, w…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 09:36 PM
2

Well said. And don't forget MRA don't have so many professionals, scholars in activism like feminism do. There isn't even an academic discipline that is in touch with MRA issues. It's not fair to compare feminism's accomplishment with MRA's.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 09:05 PM
1

// Many of these I see as put in place by men and upheld by men // This has no bearing on whether it is the fact that men are expected to be disposable. Just because some people in power have penis, doesn't mean somehow anyone who also owns a penis deserves to be seen as disposable and it's really his fault. You said you're not a radical feminist but this comment betrays your philosophical affinity.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:38 PM
3

// Can you give me examples of everyday interaction in which you have become perceived as disposable? How about the difference of our reactions to fe/male facing corporal punishment? How about the way the media selectively focus reports on female civilian deaths, while going to great length to de-gender male's suffering? Are there not many female editors in the media industry? I remember a few years ago, Amnesty International posted a letter urging Singapore to abandon judicial canning, claiming…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:20 PM
2

I don't understand her thinking. If she was so old-fashioned, why wasn't she staying in her kitchen? What was she doing in a hospital playing doctor? Why did she talk back to a man? Well MAYBE she wasn't really thinking, rather what she demonstrated was irrational and hateful prejudices.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:35 PM
2

You need to read up on Feminist's patriarchal theory. The word is more than the meaning of some men playing the leadership role. It's a conflict theory that is used to describe and explain gender dynamics. The implications of the theory can lead to some conclusions that may be interpreted as misandry and, surprise, even misogyny. The theory(well at least the version that floats around the interwebz) is mostly abandoned by contemporary feminist academics but people with political agenda still cli…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 02:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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