TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

skysinsane Archive

View 1 posts and 409 comments by skysinsane on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
50

Questionskysinsane/r/MensRights10/07/14 09:40 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Hmm, I suppose I can see it. CRT has very similar foundational philosophy(laws exist to oppress the weaker castes), but is inherently self-destructive(pits men vs women). That would line up reasonably well with it being intentional sabotage of the movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/26 10:42 PM
1

do you care to clarify?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/26 03:20 PM
-1

On one hand, sure. That sounds very CIA. On the other... It doesn't seem to have caused divides in the movement, just made the movement communist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/26 02:58 PM
1

oh hi, I recognize you :) But I'm not really sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the CIA is using communist talking points to undermine socialists?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/01/26 07:59 AM
5

Yeah it seems like the blatantly communist system of thought more likely came from communists than from the CIA.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/26 06:36 PM
0

I must admit I am very confused as to what your goal here is. You don't seem to be actually reading my comments, because your responses are entirely non-sequitur. Is the desire to derail my point because you find it offensive/frightening? It is utterly bizarre for me to request that you stop condescending to me and be hit with an entirely unrelated(condescending) rant in response. Breathe out, you aren't in danger. I asked for nothing but to be treated with respect.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/01/26 01:19 AM
2

I already told you I've been doing this a lot longer than you have so that shouldn't require stalking my account. I've also told you that I've already done/tried the things you suggested. That aside, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Just stop trying to give advice to me until after you know the situation. From my perspective, I explained my position, and some kid started telling me about how I need to change my life because their psych 101 class said so, expecting me to be im…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 09:25 PM
1

Thank you for the advice to do what I've been doing for the last decade. Very eye opening, never would have thought of trying that. mansplaining is totally a thing guys, women never do it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 01:48 PM
1

I've been on this sub and others like it, pushing for women to stop treating men like disposable monsters for 3 times longer than you've been on reddit. I've been talking, explaining the issues, posting data and articles on the subject all that time. Talking works to wake up the men being abused by society. But that's where words stop having any benefit. Because the rest don't want to see the truth.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 09:09 AM
0

The number of women who think they are friendly with me who deride and spit upon all members of my sex is insane. They hate people like me. They openly and explicitly wish ill upon us. They call for us to be discriminated against, to be robbed, beaten, castrated, and reviled. If women have decided that all men are the enemy, I'd be a fool not to return the feeling.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/01/26 01:26 AM
2

sure, but enacting them shows a deep, fundamental disinterest in freedom of speech. No nation that enacts them has more than surface interest in permitting free speech. But if you want more proof, feel free to bring up literally any aspect of speech, and any european country, and we can see if they beat the US for freedoms. No need for us to look at what some asshat on an ivory throne wrote down on a buzzfeed list somewhere. I don't know the ins and outs of every single european country's speech…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 01:54 PM
-1

Might be true. Hard to tell how things would have gone in an alternate universe. But the universe we live in has bloodthirsty murderers running things in every relevant nation in the area. Makes supporting any of them very strange in my books
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 08:44 AM
2

Any group that says so is either retarded or lying(or both smile ). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/913/oj/eng Hate speech laws are inherently anti-speech, and fortunately have not infected the US yet. That metric alone puts the US head and shoulders above the EU when it comes to speech
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 04:19 AM
2

I mean, if we are talking in terms of centuries, sure I guess. That is how governments tend to go. But we wont see speech control or authoritarian policies like the middle east in the US in this century
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 02:50 AM
2

no need for any of that unless you really want to. Identity is what you say it is after all according the the modern left. You can get all the social perks just by saying you are a woman, no paperwork or surgery necessary.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 02:48 AM
1

In the american bubble, that is arguably true. When you compare it to europe, or worse, the middle east, such claims become laughable. When the US government decides to change up who is allowed at press conferences, there is a huge hubbub. In Israel, news can and do groups get shut down entirely if they publish things the government doesn't like. Entirely different worlds.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 12:55 AM
2

There is a way to continue to be a male-supporting leftist in the modern era, but it is a little counter-intuitive. We have to go all-in on trans rhetoric. Anyone who claims they are a woman is a woman. You can change your gender at any time with a word. Any questioning of gender identity is bigotry. Claim to be a woman every single time it is convenient. Use the womens bathrooms. Sign up for women only events. Apply for women only scholarships. Get car and health insurance as a woman. Identity …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 12:06 AM
15

Nah they totally spout the same shit in front of straight men. They just don't care.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 12:01 AM
1

I totally get not wanting to support Israel. They are authoritarian, anti speech, are an ethno-theocratic state, and oppose US values in a dozen other ways. What confused me is when people turn around and want to support Palestine, which has THE EXACT SAME ISSUES.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/26 12:00 AM
3

"black bagged" huh? Do you mean arrested for a day? Because I think that happened once. If you are talking about deportations, the only citizens have been young children of illegal immigrants being kept with their parents who were deported.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/25 12:27 PM
2

Citation please. The only US citizens that have been "deported" are the children of illegal immigrants who were sent home with their parents.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/25 12:25 PM
2

Ah yes, putting criminals in jail, truly dystopian. And the UK is imprisoning people whose only crime is posting off-color memes. That's the real danger.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/12/25 12:25 PM
2

Well in their defense most people are lazy across the board. And very few women are your ally as an MRA. Whether they are traditional or not, being an MRA means you are an aggrieved male. The overwhelming majority of women, traditional or not, view that sort of aggrievement as weakness.
/r/MensRights26/07/25 11:53 AM
17

When a man says "anyone they want" they mean that they could walk into a room with a bunch of people and walk out with an attractive person they like. When a woman says "anyone they want", they mean literally Brad Pitt.
/r/MensRights17/07/25 07:36 AM
1

same thing lol.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:18 AM
3

Based on what research? The whole trans paradigm is based on a handful of opinion peices and some carefully selected research that only gets published if it gives the desired results
/r/MensRights16/05/25 08:18 PM
49

10k boys kidnapped over the previous 3 years, nothing. 50 girls? Panic! Also look how much they hate women, kidnapping them from schools! Such patriarchy!
/r/MensRights05/05/25 08:28 PM
21

Its a sign of the changing times that your comment hasn't been removed by the mods. Go back 5 years and even mentioning that such radfems exist would have resulted in immediate removal of the comment. Its heartening to see.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/05/25 10:59 AM
6

Get yourself a husband. Or a close male friend. Or a bartender.
/r/MensRights26/04/25 09:48 PM
3

In my view the best way to help is really simple and quite easy. Be grateful to the men in your life. If a man's hard work, self-sacrifice, or stoicism make your life better, be aware of it. You don't even have to say anything, though that's often appreciated. Notice, be happy, and continue living your life. I believe that the root of most of the issues men face today is being taken for granted. If you don't take men for granted, the rest mostly sorts itself out.
/r/MensRights24/04/25 05:20 PM
3

As a man, you aren't allowed to defend yourself from the attacks of women and children. This applies to both mental and physical attacks. The anti-MRA coalition takes full advantage of this fact, while claiming that men are the sexist ones. MRAs try to defend themselves, and therefore are evil. Non MRA men don't try to defend themselves, therefore there is clearly nothing wrong.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/25 09:44 PM
16

They "counteract" it by doing it to different people. Moving a pile of shit from the kitchen to the bedroom doesn't actually fix anything.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/25 08:02 PM
1

You think this is new? This has been true for the last 20 years, and I only stop that recently because I wasn't paying attention before then.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/25 08:01 PM
0

The reason they exclude men is that when Israel estimates the ratio of "hamas" to "innocents" killed, they assume that all adult men work for hamas, despite hamas only having something like a 50% approval rating among the populace. So in some ways it is less sexist than it seems, but in other ways it is actually worse
/r/MensRights09/11/24 01:04 AM
2

To be fair, Depp should have taken her to criminal court when it happened. She's a lunatic and he never should have let her off. By sweeping it under the rug, Depp let heard continue to abuse others without consequences.
/r/MensRights12/10/23 02:35 AM
7

Plenty of women who are abuse victims, rape survivors, or just feminists hate men, and they are treated with sympathy and understanding. There's no need to add the last sentence.
/r/MensRights11/09/23 08:59 PM
13

Like many political topics, it probably depends on how you define your terms. Sometimes all prostitution is considered "human trafficking". Other times it is only when people are actually being bought and sold.
/r/MensRights19/10/22 03:53 PM
3

No more than the real world. Standard requirement for speaking cordially with a stranger is that I smile and nod when they tell me how evil men are.
/r/MensRights06/09/22 08:32 AM
3

https://qz.com/1508500/the-gender-wage-gap-is-between-married-men-and-everyone-else/ This data shows single men and women being at parity... without taking into account hours worked. Men on average work ~10% more hours than women.
/r/MensRights04/09/22 01:06 AM
-1

Okay, there is some truth to this. When a woman gets married/has kids, her expected income goes down. When a man gets married/has kids, his expected income goes up. A variety of factors cause this. New fathers are often offered a raise or overtime opportunities to help take care of their family. New mothers on the other hand are expected to disappear for a few months to give birth and recover, possibly not returning to work at all, or doing so half a year later. Fathers are also generally more l…
/r/MensRights03/09/22 10:52 PM
7

Yes That's what real empathy is. Looking at the life experiences of others, and accepting that they are different than your own, but just as real.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/22 05:31 AM
4

The problem is that there is a lot of truth to his statements. People don't care about men as much as they care about women, and that will likely never change. Women are valued orders of magnitude more than men. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to overwhelm that. Additionally, men complaining is a social faux pas. It indicates weakness and inferiority, making people care even less about you. So "getting over it" may very well be the optimal choice for most men. Women genuinely are better…
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:58 AM
1

Well as I explained, there absolutely are cases where people get trapped and aren't able to be rescued instantly. Anyone who killed such a person would be convicted of first degree murder
/r/MensRights01/07/22 07:18 PM
1

Most of the time people aren't crazy enough to need to be forced not to murder innocent people, but the answer is yes, you will be convicted of murder if you do so. So you are forced to keep them on your property until you can get them out or until they die And again, have you never heard of c sections? We have ways to get babies out of the mother without killing them...
/r/MensRights01/07/22 12:59 PM
1

Again... Have you never heard of a c section? And if they are too young to do that, you can wait a bit and then perform the operation when it's safe. When people get trapped in tunnels, we don't just blow up the tunnels and pull out the corpses... We slowly and carefully figure out the safest way to get them out, even providing food and water for the duration when possible. It doesn't matter that they are on someone's property, they are people. Again, if you want to argue that they aren't people…
/r/MensRights01/07/22 12:46 PM
1

Abortion (if the aborted is a person) is equivalent to finding someone stuck on your property, killing them, and then dragging their corpse out of your yard. The correct equivalence would be a c section, where you take them out without killing them. Now, you can argue when personhood occurs, and that's a much more reasonable argument - if it's not a person, it has no right to life. But arguing that mothers should be allowed to kill people who are inconvenient is absurd.
/r/MensRights01/07/22 12:29 PM
1

Because a person's right to life is the most valuable right. It is listed first of the inalienable rights. The right to do whatever you want with your property is subordinate to the lives of other people. This is similar to someone accidentally getting trapped on your property. You have the right to remove them if you can, but killing them would be extremely illegal. Even failing to render aid would be a crime in most places All that to say, the important bit is when the fetus becomes a person. …
/r/MensRights30/06/22 01:27 PM
1

What does location have to do with personhood?
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:55 PM
7

Depends on how you define "can live without these things" Without any aid, a newborn will certainly die. Same for a 2 year old. With medical assistance, infants only 24 weeks old can regularly survive. This is younger than the limit for many US state abortion laws. Edit: and this age will only drop as time passes. Does your definition of personhood really depend on technology level?
/r/MensRights29/06/22 08:21 AM
-2

So once they are weaned off of milk? Or until their first paycheck? Or until they move out of the house?
/r/MensRights29/06/22 07:16 AM
2

Rape became the huge topic it is for 2 reasons - Women becoming pregnant despite being chaste(waiting until marriage for sex). This essentially threw a huge wrench into standard morality rules and inheritance laws of most societies. It was associated with brutal force, well before the expansion of definition that we've seen over the last century. With this in mind, it makes sense why rape started as a gendered offense. Women were far more vulnerable to both these situations. However, as the defi…
/r/MensRights24/06/22 07:54 AM
2

Thanks for the novel :D I like seeing people's thoughts on difficult topics.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 07:53 PM
2

Yes, I admit I am not omniscient. I have done thorough research on the topic, but there might be something I missed. This is why I asked about a counterpoint. Doing literally what I asked would not cheapen the conversation. Your final claim is hyperbolic and unsupported by logic. There is no widespread attempt to remove the female sex, there is only a widespread need to have high value children. The female sex is not in danger. So really the difference is unwanted child vs.... an unwanted child.…
/r/MensRights22/03/22 05:58 PM
2

Do you have a counterpoint? All arguments that I know of in favor of abortion argue that the fetus has no rights/is not a person. If that is the case, your reason for aborting them is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 08:17 AM
1

Populations naturally balance for the needed sex balance. Selective abortion occurs because in certain societies, women are not in demand. As for the ethical argument, I find it odd that you would bring up rape + teen pregnancy, which are both selective abortion. If your argument was viability/saving the mother's life I would agree that is a different case, but arguing that selective abortion is okay, but selective abortion also isn't okay is kinda weird to me.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 08:14 AM
6

If abortion isn't bad, selective abortion isn't bad either.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 08:24 PM
5

I think they were saying it was a male-only space, not that it was unreasonably so.
/r/MensRights27/01/22 01:51 PM
0

The only friends I want are people who can take mockery when they are being dumb
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/22 10:12 PM
3

Its not so much repurposing as subtly mocking. Feminists believe that only women are people. MRAs believe that men and women are people.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/22 10:01 PM
5

I mean, first of all it's not like the MRM chose to be the enemy of feminism. It was feminism that decided this was a zero sum game. Second, things have improved pretty significantly. A decade ago I wouldn't have been taken seriously if I brought up concerning aspects of feminism. Now I will get nods or at least actual discussion on the topic
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/22 12:30 PM
7

Feminism believes that women are people. The MRM believes that men are people too
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/22 12:25 PM
30

Yeah the standard left wing message is "men are evil". The standard right wing message is "men are tools". Neither can be trusted to treat men well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/21 07:34 AM
8

Presumably because, as a member of the class, he has a syllabus.
/r/MensRights26/10/21 12:11 AM
0

I always find it weird whe people compare women wearing burkas with restricted access to knowledge and lack of freedom
/r/MensRights20/10/21 06:49 AM
24

Bring back our girls was over 300 girls. Previously 10k boys were kidnapped by the same organization and nobody cared. By the math, 1 woman is worth more than 30 men in the eyes of the world
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/21 05:31 AM
2

Well a lot of people were raised being told that feminism was for everyone and/or a lot of their trusted friends/family were feminists. So its not just a scam for many, it truly is a betrayal of trust.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/21 09:30 PM
31

In my experience /r/mensrights is where people go when they first realize that feminism was never truly going to help men. They feel betrayed, hurt, angry. They tend to be very vocal about the injustice of it, the blatant sexism of the feminist movement, the cruelty heaped upon men just for being born men. And that's important to have. Men have been betrayed by feminism. It is entirely valid to be furious about it. But after a while that fury fades, and people start thinking about the issues rat…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/09/21 12:39 PM
0

"alt-right" is a meaningless term primarily used as an insult to anyone who isn't a carbon-copy communist radical feminist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/21 10:23 AM
2

Few men actually experience privilege for being men, so generally only women would have anything to say on the topic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/08/21 08:54 PM
3

I mean, it worked for feminists :P
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/08/21 09:39 PM
8

If the majority of the nation is insane, does their insanity become reality?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/21 05:11 AM
14

https://www.newsweek.com/chibok-girls-boko-haram-583584 Fewer than 300 women kidnapped by Boko Haram. Hits global news. Heralded as a sexist movement that hates women being educated. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/happened-10000-boys-kidnapped-boko-haram MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND BOYS kidnapped by Boko Haram. Girls almost always excluded from the executions and kidnappings of boys undergoing western education. Nobody even notices. A woman's life is worth more than 30x the life of a man. That's t…
/r/MensRights18/08/21 09:12 AM
12

The days when nerds and geeks and dweebs were mocked haven't ended. They have just switched terms to incel, neckbeard, and basement dweller. Its classic highschool bullying, but using new terms so it isn't obvious to the bullied.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/21 08:58 PM
35

You aren't really hated exactly, you are objectified. You are viewed based on your value/risk to people, with who you are and your personhood being almost completely irrelevant. Most of the time, you don't provide enough value to be worth treating well. If this sounds like genderflipped feminist rhetoric, I have no idea what you are talking about. Feminists never project their own behavior onto men. As for what to do, it depends on what you need/want to be happy. If you need female sexual compan…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/08/21 07:15 AM
29

If you haven't already, look up the whole "bring back our girls" situation with Boko Haram. There was a worldwide movement when fewer than 300 girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram. Boko Haram has kidnapped more than 10,000 boys, but there was no such movement for them. From this we can conclude that women are valued at least 30x the value of men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/08/21 03:52 AM
1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist Hmm, so a feminist wants equality, and a masculinist wants dominance. Alternatively, the dictionary is wrong and biased. I wonder which it could be.
/r/MensRights06/08/21 05:26 PM
8

Feminism is the philosophy that women deserve more rights. The MRM's philosophy is that men deserve rights as well. Feminism has never been, and will never be about equality.
/r/MensRights06/08/21 09:44 AM
2

I admit, with #1 I was more talking about the most common issue I run into when trying to discuss a topic fairly - I wasn't really thinking about whether it is something I see from MRAs or whatever. With #2 you are right that it is hard to act on, for me it is more of a mindset thing - don't just accept your confusion, search for what is causing your confusion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/21 11:26 PM
9

If defining a word makes the topic more confusing, stop using the word, and instead say exactly what you mean. Many lies and errors hide behind bad definitions and vague/contradictory terminology. If something that you know is true confuses you(for reasons other than complexity), it means your prior understanding of reality was in error. Find the error and eliminate it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/21 11:39 AM
1

Okay, so you are making a bunch of very different arguments here, some of which I agree with, some of which I dont. Women do put a lot of effort into being attractive to men. I firmly believe that they do so far more than men do, no contest. There are some minor benefits to being the prettiest in a group, but that's a side benefit and not the primary goal. You might as well argue that the main reason guys get girlfriends is to show them off to their friends. Men put more effort into doing attrac…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/21 06:47 PM
0

I dont entirely agree with this. Men are generally the ones expected to be the ones "hunting", but that does not mean that all the effort of impressing falls on men. Most women spend large amounts of time and effort in looking attractive, behaving in ways that men find attractive, etc. Their role in courtship is passive, but it is not effort free. It is frustrating that active courtship is left for men to do, and for women to complain about how terrible it is to be courted. But be careful not to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/06/21 10:55 PM
1

I don't think its based on hate. I think its built on pure selfishness
/r/MensRights24/06/21 07:58 PM
5

Feminism is centered around making women more powerful Feminists see rights as zero-sum. If you make men more powerful, women become weaker, and vice-versa. Feminism is, by their own belief system, centered around making men have fewer rights. Masculism, by their definition, is centered around making women have fewer rights. From the point of view of feminism as a single entity, masculism is inherently anti-feminist. Additionally, if women already have more rights/power than men, egalitarianism …
/r/MensRights24/06/21 07:02 PM
1

Okay I sort of agree with you. Feminism as a whole has always been about giving more power to women. It is agnostic about equality. But there are plenty of feminists and feminist groups that do want equality, even if their central philosophy isn't about equality.
/r/MensRights24/06/21 06:45 PM
11

Eh I'd argue that most of society favors women over men. Left, right, liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, it doesn't matter. Women are higher value, and therefore better targets for protection and support. Our last several presidents have publicly claimed that women are superior to men, to resounding applause. That includes both Obama and Trump.(Probably George W as well, but I don't know for sure)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/06/21 08:04 AM
3

"Higher" education is the breeding ground for this stuff.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/21 04:47 AM
4

Video games aren't needed either. But people like doing it. It's a classic aspect of competition.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/21 12:46 AM
2

It depends on your acceptable level of risk. Men are more likely to be criminal/violent in most categories(though a few of these are likely only due to bias in reporting), so there is some legitimacy to the feeling. However, the same is true for black people, and most will argue that avoiding black people because they are more likely to be criminals is hella racist. My general stance is that people across the board tend to be too risk averse, and that includes women being more open to hanging ou…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/21 10:04 AM
54

In my experience there aren't a lot of dudes drawn to feminism. They tend to be bathed in it from early in their lives. They are told that feminism is the right thing all their lives. They want to do the right thing, so they are feminist. most mras are just the next step. They start noticing the flaws in feminism. They bring it up, and the feminists around them dismissively call them an mra. The man is confused and bothered, so they look up mras. They find that some of the points hit home. They …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/09/20 03:50 AM
2

Ah, I didn't mean you said the first line. But someone did do a survey here and the vast majority of people who responded were voting Biden. Adding to that, the majority of subs you mentioned are not right-wing subs, they are in fact male-positive subs. If you equate being male positive with being right-wing, you probably aren't going to be well received here. That makes you pretty much a perfect example of the kind of leftist sexism that this sub is trying to combat.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/20 02:48 AM
6

A week ago: "wow I'm shocked that group of avowed leftists all agree they are voting for biden!" ​ Today: "You guys care about men's issues, therefore you aren't real leftists"
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/20 08:44 PM
1

Do I really need to list out all the awesome stuff available in modern society that wasn't available 50, 100, or several hundred years ago? Pretending that there's no benefits to the modern era is the true denialism in my opinion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/20 12:38 AM
1

Homeless people today in many ways have more comfortable lives than royalty a few hundred years ago. Life may not be as great as we would like, but claiming that it sucks just... doesn't line up with reality.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/20 12:23 AM
2

Ah okay you don't like abortions in general, that makes sense. Though I personally think that hate crimes are generally a bad idea.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/20 11:12 PM
1

I don't agree with OP's reasoning, but what is wrong in your eyes with sex selective abortion?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/20 11:08 PM
2

Okay, I get how you feel. In a lot of ways guys get the short straw in modern society. A lot of the downsides of old gender roles are still in place for men, but the upsides have mostly vanished. ​ HOWEVER, I urge you to remember that life is pretty damn awesome. The internet is at your fingertips. All the stories, scientific research, cool/cute videos, and porn that you could want are available to you at a moment's notice. You can likely get food from a dozen nationalities in just half an hour.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/09/20 11:07 PM
-7

yes, but that law is stupid
/r/MensRights28/03/19 02:58 AM
1

Okay that does fit with my experience. The dad's a bad parent if he doesn't have a job, the mom's a bad parent if she has one.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 06:05 AM
5

That's going a bit far. They do good work before having kids, and a well trained mind is great for raising kids.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 03:06 AM
4

sometimes even being accused of being "bad moms" if they work full time - something that men don't face. Is that really true? It seems to me that there's an entire genre of movies devoted to calling out overworking fathers for not being there for their kids
/r/MensRights13/03/19 03:04 AM
5

To be fair, the moderation only recently became problematic. It's always been strict, but mostly in a good way - it kept conversations focused on topics rather than flame wars. (there were issues, but mostly minor ones) But recently people who just want to talk about issues are getting banned for not using the phrasing that the mods want. :/
/r/MensRights09/07/18 01:47 PM
1

haha yep
/r/MensRights09/07/18 12:12 PM
-9

What's confusing you? LOL I realize now. thought I was on a different subreddit
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:33 AM
-22

Yeah I can pretty much guarantee that this comment is going to get deleted. Might want to edit it to remove generalizations about feminism. Edit: LOL thought I was on a different subreddit
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:27 AM
11

Its just fact. Ever heard of the circle of violence? People are often mentally scarred by that kind of stuff, and taking it out on others is a common response. I dunno why its bad for people to know about that simple truth.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 09:48 PM
-1

Ah, looking around I see that this was a hostile takeover. I wish you guys wouldn't do shit like this. It was a mildly interesting sub when it did what it was supposed to.
/r/PussyPass15/04/17 08:56 AM
5

I have to admit, last time that I visited here it was about women getting away with shit that men wouldn't. What do Hitler/Jews/etc have to do with that?
/r/PussyPass14/04/17 04:28 PM
1

Tell it to the person above me, I was just correcting their statement.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 05:53 PM
2

ah, you are correct.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 04:10 PM
4

women legally cannot rape under english law. It requires a male perpetrator.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 07:59 AM
17

And those signs are pretty dumb.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 06:00 PM
-1

isn't doing the men's rights movement any good. So first of all, we aren't talking about the MRM here. They are somewhat relevant, but talking about flaws in overzealous feminists is hardly restricted to them. Also, I don't think the MRM is particularly worried about feminists hating them, since the majority of feminists have hated the idea of an MRM since the very idea existed. They aren't exactly making any new enemies. i'm simply saying what /u/chafedinksmut[1] describes doesn't sound like a …
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:26 PM
6

No juror has the right to violate rules we all share. But they do have the right to do so. They have the right to vote guilt or not guilty for whatever reasons they choose, and are not required to give any explanation whatsoever.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:14 PM
1

I see you are the mysterious person who gets to define which people are "real" feminists
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:12 PM
2

isn't that just a blatant lie?
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:54 PM
0

where the victim can't (and shouldn't) be punished for self implication. Wat. So doing something that can put someone in jail without doing anything wrong shouldn't be punished by law? What the hell?
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:53 PM
9

The important bit to me was the willingness to skew data to fit the message they wanted, regardless of what the actual results were.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 04:11 PM
1

I was one at the time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/MensRights03/07/15 01:49 AM
1

To be fair, that is from more than 20 years ago. A huge portion of redditors weren't even born yet.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 03:04 PM
3

Any enclosed area, gender restricted or not: sex in that area.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 04:28 PM
26

This doesn't address why there should be a female-only bathroom.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 04:26 PM
1

That would make it so women didnt have a safe space. :D
/r/MensRights07/05/15 04:21 PM
-6

Not every single male comedian talks about their balls or dick. I try to avoid making generalizations, but are you sure?
/r/MensRights16/04/15 06:52 PM
2

The accuser deserves "beyond a reasonable doubt" just as much as the accused. Lots of people are dumb, lots of people have bad memories. If it isn't clear that the accuser was lying, they shouldn't be convicted. In other words, rape should be treated like any other crime and follow the same rules.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 08:35 PM
2

interesting. Hadn't heard about these before.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:29 PM
11

Sure. So are women incompetent or attention whores? ;) More seriously, it is likely that the cause is that men are taught that nobody is going to help them, and women are taught to ask if they need help. Which leads to men thinking: "can't handle this on my own, time to die", and women thinking "can't handle this on my own, time to become a victim that needs rescuing".
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:59 PM
1

well, you could, but that would be crazy
/r/MensRights16/11/14 08:02 AM
3

It literally takes 10 minutes to click the subreddit and have a quick look here. Yeah, same for the KKK subreddit. If I "already know" that a group is evil, I have no reason to check. BRB checking out the KKK sub Edit: its private. :(
/r/MensRights16/11/14 07:59 AM
-1

Yeah, it's kinda bizarre that they would convict without evidence either way. Seems like that should just get a not-guilty verdict. I wonder if corruption played a part in this situation.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 06:22 PM
0

Certainly a more accurate statement, though I cannot speak to the absolute truth of it. And NAFALT is a legitimate argument, just like "not all men" is. They both address absurd generalizations.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 03:26 PM
1

Sure. But why stoop to the popular feminist view of "everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil"? Some feminists recognize that the duluth model is super problematic.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 09:11 AM
0

I just like accurate statements. Even "most" would be preferrable, though I'm not absolutely sure if it is true.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 09:08 AM
-9

some feminists. No need to make sweeping statements about massive groups.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 02:43 AM
-7

Unless the other person has more money than you!
/r/MensRights19/09/14 08:07 PM
1

While your comment seems to fit with my experiences, I don't have strong enough evidence to state that as fact. But one group being paranoid will reduce victimhood in that group. My guess is that it is a combination, but I have little evidence to support that that isn't anecdotal.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 08:26 PM
1

No. What I am saying is that paranoia will keep you safer. The problem is that it keeps you safe at too high a cost. Women are trained to be paranoid, at the expense of personal comfort, convenience, and a freer social life.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 08:24 PM
2

These are the people that are pretending that women raping men isn't rape. They intended to imply that the man is doing the sex.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 08:21 PM
3

CDC style 'only being penetrated counts' You know what's funny? The CDC definition includes "made to penetrate" as rape. They ignored their own definition in the study.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:56 AM
4

While this is true, this might be why the discrepancy exists. Men aren't told to watch out or prepare for attackers, so they are victims more often. I don't know if this is the entire explanation, but it seems fairly reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:20 AM
0

Agreed. We should care about how much harm was done more than we should care what type of harm was done. It's pretty silly.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:30 AM
1

Yes. I suppose I should have been more clear, but I thought that the context was enough.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 06:09 PM
2

Luckily, this is a young untrained woman throwing a non-aerodynamic object roughly the weight of a baseball. I can't throw a baseball 70 MPH. I doubt that she can throw a 3 lbs frying pan even half that fast.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 05:05 PM
3

Hey, a lot better isn't the same as good. I'm still not okay with this.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 02:25 PM
0

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know that his sister was a male professional pitcher throwing an aerodynamic object. You sure taught me. Come on. I've been hit in the eye by a baseball thrown pretty hard. No damage besides a black eye. It is possible to die by baseball. But it isn't going to happen in that situation.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 02:25 PM
4

Sure, still insane. Just not as, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU!" insane. A baseball wont kill you if it hits you in the head.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 07:10 AM
14

Okay, so three pounds turns it from insane to merely not okay. I feel a lot better now.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 06:48 AM
20

throwing a frying pan at me by catching it in midair and flinging it back. No offense intended, but what the fuck is wrong with your family that throwing frying pans is considered acceptable? Are these lightweight, plastic frying pans? Because I could kill someone with my cast-iron one. Throwing it would be nothing to joke about.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 06:42 AM
0

There was a joke here that you missed. I was using crazy-feminist logic. Women are the vast majority of rape victims(lol) Those that love the victims are the real victims. (lol) Therefore, men are the real victims of rape.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 06:08 PM
2

No you see, I'm going with the crazy-type feminist logic here. Not actual numbers. You can show a feminist that women aren't raped more under any circumstance, but they won't believe you. But here we have a perfect trap. The primary victims are the ones who care about the victim? Sure. Women are raped more than men? Sure. Oh wait. that makes men the primary victims of rape.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 07:55 AM
0

Men are the true victims of rape.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 07:39 AM
1

There is legitimate reason to believe that women did not have an even playing field in the area of patents. While this may be in addition to inherent factors, I would need a study that took the social disadvantages into account and still showed a difference before I held that stance.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:18 PM
1

Searching women Should be done by anyone. Any gender can be sexually attracted to women, and searches shouldn't be sexual anyway. If they are, report them. female rape specialists Either gender can be rape specialists. Try again treating individuals who only respond or open up to women Is this common? Common enough to merit a job existing for this sole purpose? I'm guessing not.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 11:04 PM
2

Okay, so female undercover investigators can be useful. Are there any other cases in which being female is an asset? And is this one area of usefulness worth lowering standards in all law enforcement?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 08:55 PM
11

Physical punishment having significantly negative psychological effects is one of the few things that pretty much every psychological study agrees on. Physical punishments do significant mental damage. Circumcision does significant physical damage.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 05:00 PM
1

Yeah, I know. It just seems so simple ya know? Have shelters for people. Help people in need. make sure that people get the chance to be properly educated. Woman/man/black/white shouldn't matter here. It's just so stupid.
/r/MensRights01/08/14 03:03 PM
2

that makes sense.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 03:01 PM
2

Ah, so men are less likely to think attention seeking will be worth the time? In other words, men and women are both taught that women are more valuable, and so they both assume that women will be treated as more valuable.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 02:32 PM
-1

Sure. But for me, rational thought is the prime value, so saying, "they think emotionally" is like saying "they think poorly". Besides, plenty of feminists would be offended if you said that women think more emotionally than men.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 05:58 AM
3

Pretty much means the same thing to me, but it doesn't sound as harsh. Most feminists would still be upset by the statement though.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 05:50 AM
0

Yeah... I guess it could be that women are less willing to actually just do something and instead use half-measures? I'm not really sure how you can look at this that doesn't put women in a bad light.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 05:23 AM
-6

So you believe that it is the incompetent angle, rather than the attention seeking stupidity?
/r/MensRights31/07/14 05:09 AM
1

CAN WE JUST PROTECT PEOPLE? DO WE REALLY HAVE TO BE RACIST/SEXIST/GENERALLY BIGOTED WHEN WE DO SO?
/r/MensRights31/07/14 04:41 AM
5

Just to be fair, I would like to point out that this ad reached the front page of /r/TwoXChromosomes, and there was an overall very positive reaction to it. While one or two people might have been offended, it seems like most people are very happy about it.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 04:37 AM
2

I think the suicide number only works that way if you count successful suicide. Which suggests that either women are less competent than men, or that women are more likely to do stupid shit for attention than men.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 04:30 AM
2

The point is that having sex with an unconscious person is unacceptable for reasons completely different from the existence of alcohol.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:50 PM
1

The same thing works for sex between minors(if a romeo+juliet law doesn't apply). If both people raped each other, the man did it.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 02:49 PM
3

I fear that he won't likely get listened to, but this is a really good idea anyway.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:25 PM
12

No, the most effective form of coercion is to ask them to do it multiple times. That's what the feminists told me.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 07:59 PM
2

If I am going to speak honestly about most of the things I care about, my gender is going to be revealed at some point. If it is relevant, people don't tend to care. It is only when it is put forth for no reason that people tend to view it as a call for attention.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:47 PM
2

I assumed that we were talking about self-defense or play. I don't think many parents encourage their kids to be bullies that attack others for no reason.
/r/MensRights17/07/14 02:30 PM
2

Every time that I try and talk about gender issues. The time in school where a girl tried to choke me, but when I punched her I was the one in trouble. Anytime that I want to wear a dress. Every time that I have gone on a date but been expected to be the one to pay for both of us. Every time that it is assumed that I want sex and nothing else. Every time that I was told that I felt a certain way just because I was a guy. The time that I had to sign up for the draft. The times that I tried to get…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:50 AM
3

But it is social suicide to do so. So teaching them not to is actually a reasonably god idea. Just explain why. "Never punch a girl, because no matter what, people will assume you were in the wrong."
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:37 AM
29

Your confusion stems from one issue. Why do we know that an anonymous poster is female? Because she told us. In other words, she has already decided not to take part in the conversation as an equal. She has to be a woman, with all the perks that come with that. Why would an anon bring up their gender if the discussion had nothing to do with their gender? Because they want to be treated special. If you are told tits or GTFO, you have already broken the rules. There isn't an option that is accepta…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:20 AM
8

If the differences in bond are to be believed, women actually only make 20% of what men do!
/r/MensRights14/07/14 10:04 PM
1

I will say that the whole ambiguous wording thing is really almost as bad as if the definition was just wrong. As it is, people can say one way or the other as it suits them.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:55 AM
1

Is any relationship truly equal? A disparity in income, a disparity in beauty, a disparity in intelligence, etc. All of these things can lead to one person being able to control the relationship. Why is age the only thing that suddenly makes it unacceptable? Because of the "eww" factor.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:15 AM
1

there is a psychological, and consequently social dimension If the older person is using their age to force themselves on a younger person, that is rape. If they aren't, why should it be considered bad?
/r/MensRights13/07/14 08:01 PM
1

Rape is rape. If they don't want to have sex with the person, it isn't okay. If they do, there is no real harm in the situation.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:49 PM
1

Implies but does not actually say. A man can be a victim of penetrating a woman, if he does not desire to do so.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 07:43 PM
7

Yeah, feminists tend to be the ones that want a victimhood olympics.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 02:07 AM
1

there's something a bit disturbing about a 14 year old and a 40 year old having sex. You could say the same thing about homosexual sex. A lot of people do. Doesn't make it a legitimate argument.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 02:03 AM
1

It says the victim is the one being penetrated Actually it doesn't. It says penetration without the consent of the victim. The victim could be either.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 12:27 AM
1

There has to be penetration, but it doesn't say that the penetration has to be by the rapist.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 05:48 PM
6

The thing is, sexualization and objectification are two very different things. Focusing on sexual aspects is just that: a focus. It is just as "bad" as focusing only on a woman's intelligence. Objectifying would be to remove a woman's agency in your mind. To assume that the woman can't actually make decisions on her own, just like an object. Actual objectification can be seen in the overprotective father/brother trope. The father refuses to allow his daughter to have a boyfriend because "he know…
/r/MensRights12/07/14 07:27 AM
2

The funny thing is that the legal definition of rape does include made to penetrate. It is just that government studies separate the two for political reasons(re: yearly rape stats would be equal between genders if they did so).
/r/MensRights12/07/14 07:18 AM
0

too scared or for men, too ashamed to press charges. Are you saying that men can't be scared of their wives, or that women can't be ashamed of having an abusive spouse? Neither is true.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 07:14 AM
1

sure.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 02:16 AM
1

I didn't say that this case had coercion. Just that rape doesn't always require fighting back
/r/MensRights12/07/14 02:00 AM
3

It was for the vast majority of them. Only the leaders were convicted of war crimes.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:56 AM
0

Getting drunk and having sex is one thing. Passing out and being raped is another. The first shouldn't be considered rape, but the second should be. And just because you would do things a certain way doesn't mean that that is the only acceptable choice. Coercion is a legitimate issue.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:52 AM
1

I'm not talking about this particular situation. The person I replied to said that only cases where women fight back should be considered rape. I agree that in this case it seems like the blame was pretty clearly on her shoulders. (well, a little bit on his, but not much). Too many girls like saying "no" for it to really mean anything without additional evidence.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:42 AM
7

Well there is also coercion. If the woman is threatened into obedience, it should still be counted as rape, or if she can't fight back for other reasons.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:31 AM
2

Haha, same here. I have posted on /r/twoxchromosomes, /r/feminism, and /r/mensrights. Feminism banned me almost immediately, but mensrights and twox have been mostly accepting, though both groups have their annoying commenters. Twox tends to downvote a lot if you don't word things very carefully though.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:00 AM
2

When you say states, it is generally assumed to mean US states by pretty much anyone. Ignoring general usage is just being obtuse.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 10:40 PM
3

Well, if you believe that numerical equality is fairness, then this is clearly biased in favor of women. If you believe that fairness is more detailed than that, there is no guarantee that this is unfair.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 07:00 PM
3

That is already what they are arguing for.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:57 PM
1

Why would she sign the second form?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:55 PM
-2

It is about as likely as the 2% number a lot of feminists like to talk about. But you are correct. There is no way that false accusations make up 99% of all accusations.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:54 PM
3

Unless it is causing active harm to employees, I don't see why not.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:09 PM
3

Haha! I'm Texan! Safe from this bullshit law at least. All I have to do is give my name, address, and DOB if arrested. Requiring an ID if detained is just insane.
/r/PussyPass08/07/14 02:07 AM
4

wow, that's disgusting. That law really needs to be removed.
/r/PussyPass07/07/14 11:57 PM
5

So you are required to give identifying information without being required to actually have said information. Sounds pretty bullshit if you ask me.
/r/PussyPass07/07/14 10:38 PM
4

Well, seeing as pedestrians are not required to have ID, and cops are not allowed to search pockets for non-dangerous items without an arrest, I'm not sure how a pedestrian can be required to provide ID by law. Just say you don't have it with you. There is nothing they can legally do. Not to excuse any of her actions, but the ID thing doesn't make much sense.
/r/PussyPass07/07/14 09:55 PM
4

well, he was male, and he was slaughtered. Thus, manslaughter. I'm amazed that people are confused by this! :D
/r/MensRights07/07/14 09:45 PM
2

Yeah, its great. They refuse to take responsibility and tell the guy "no", and then they make fun of the guys complaining about the friendzone. Edit: to be fair, I have known a few female friends who have complained about this happening to them too.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 12:06 AM
3

The way I see friendzoning is when a guy is trying to court a girl, but she doesn't accept that his actions are intended as courtship. Even if he flat out says what his intentions are, some women will still say something like, "I just think of you as a friend", while still accepting the courtship as normal. It isn't that the guy feels that he deserves sex(in general. There are idiots of course). The guy just wants to be accepted as courting the girl, not as a friend.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 08:23 PM
11

I had a woman push to have sex with me every step of the way, with me only eventually agreeing. Afterwards, she likes to talk about how I seduced her. It's crazy.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 05:49 AM
3

And is golf such a seriously physical sport? yup. Men are not just slightly better than women physically. They are far superior. But the women only chess leagues seem pretty stupid to me.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:14 PM
1

Sure. And that is clearly hypocrisy on their part.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 02:23 PM
1

I frown on them. They aren't very good jokes. If somebody makes a good rape joke, I think that that is perfectly fine.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 08:37 AM
1

I think that if a joke is funny, it should be acceptable, regardless of subject matter. Jokes that rely on their offensiveness to get laughs should be frowned upon, but a genuinely well done joke should be considered acceptable regardless of topic. I would be completely okay with a 9/11 joke, so long as it wasn't just "hurr durr screaming people falling to their deaths"
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:43 AM
2

Ever heard of a dead baby joke? Those are pretty popular in the "god that is terrible but hilarious" crowd. I've never heard anyone say that they encourage murderers to kill babies. At worst people say stuff like, "eww. Stop, that's gross"
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:20 AM
1

I'm not seeing how this counters my point. Is making a joke about war or murder socially unacceptable? No? Then there is no reason that rape should be. Murderers don't think that murdering people is okay because they hear people make jokes about it. Why are rapists magically different?
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:10 AM
1

I think obvious trolls get banned. I frequently see new accounts clearly made to screw with the sub. They don't tend to last for long.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:06 AM
2

There are obvious trolls that should be banned, but besides that I agree.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:04 AM
2

To be fair, I think being solidly against a joke just because of the subject matter is absurd. There are jokes about murder and war. Nothing else comes close to those in terms of horribleness.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:55 AM
4

The way to get feminists to listen to this problem: Kangaroo courts help nobody but the colleges. Women who are actually raped get no justice, unless you count expulsion from school as an acceptable sole response to rape. And men who are falsely accused get punished without getting a fair trial. Nobody wins, therefore nobody should be okay with this.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:48 AM
1

someone who is not banned Heh. You know what is really bad about this? When I tried out /r/feminism, I was overall very well received by the commenters. When I had a comment deleted by a mod, several people noted that there had been nothing wrong with it. I then got banned without warning or explanation. Oh well. It is really too bad that /r/feminism has terrible mods. The commenters seem overall pretty sane.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:43 AM
2

Also is 80%+ of the homeless population being male a bad thing? Yes....
/r/MensRights01/07/14 09:02 PM
3

The choice of the woman should only apply if the fetus does not count as a human. A woman is not allowed to choose not to feed her child. That would be murder.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:08 PM
2

The laws say the fetuses aren't human, but they are treated as if they are if something happens to them without the mother's consent. That is hypocritical.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 05:19 PM
2

It seems like Knight was commenting on the hypocrisy in the law, not necessarily the source.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:32 PM
1

If they want to, they can. Not morally a good move, but it should remain legal.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:27 PM
1

8 murders in a group several million strong is actually below the national average. So there is that.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:25 PM
4

Historically people kill other people. When you have a group several million strong, you are going to have murderers in the group. That's just statistics. There is no evidence that pro-life protesters are any more likely to murder than anyone else, and decent evidence that they don't. If they murdered as much as the national average, there would be something like ~200 murders by pro-life protesters. There have been 8 documented.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:24 PM
3

So your argument is that forced abortion should not count as murder? If only the US gov would listen to you.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:19 PM
2

You won't get a manslaughter conviction though. You didn't slaughter a man.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:18 PM
2

And that is exactly why 35 foot buffer zones are a terrible idea. Imagine if every company had these buffer zones. Suddenly cities would be completely anti-protest. Bad precedent to set, especially with little reason for abortion clinics to be treated with special consideration.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:12 PM
2

The size isn't the issue I have. The issue is that any sufficiently political location can be given a buffer zone "protecting" those inside.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:07 PM
3

people should be allowed to protest but to fuck with someone like that is wrong on a moral level man. And that is exactly how I feel. They should be allowed to, just like you should be allowed to refuse to tip your waiter to save a buck. It is a dickish thing to do, but it shouldn't be made illegal.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:05 PM
2

I've heard 1/3 from somebody before. On the other hand, they also said that 1/5 men had been raped. So they just thought that everyone was getting raped.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:15 AM
2

It is done in a lot of european countries. The US is just stupid.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 01:18 AM
3

Thus insane. It doesn't really work as a mating strategy.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 05:48 PM
21

sounds like a pokemon.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 03:14 PM
9

You can be liberal and sane. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can't really be a white knight and sane though.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 03:11 PM
1

I was born....
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:28 PM
1

Okay, fair point.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 02:32 PM
1

And I have to disagree with you there. You can work on and eventually recover from psychological wounds. You can have happy days. If you are dead, you will never have a happy day again.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 02:32 PM
4

It sounds like you are in an abusive relationship. If she refuses to stop attacking you, you need to get out of that now. Especially since it is causing you to strike out. Yes, the double standard needs to end, but protecting yourself from an abusive relationship is the priority.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 07:50 AM
3

well it is, unless it it in self-defense. It is also wrong for her to hit you. Much better to tell her that acting like that is unacceptable and that you will not tolerate it.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 07:30 AM
3

I keep on hearing that the military is surprisingly good at recognizing that men can be victims. At least they have that going for them.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 07:01 AM
2

Well sure, you should be considerate to other people. But punishing people for doing something wrong, by doing something worse is stupid and unethical.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 04:34 AM
1

This thread is just full of mistakes and apologies. At least we are polite about it.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:32 AM
5

And they describe the opposite of redpillers too. They make fun of the exact group RTPers make fun of, while pretending that TRPers are members of that group. They are actually kinda making TRP's point for them: women hate betas.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 03:00 AM
2

that is what I said.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 02:52 AM
1

Are you from the US? As far as I can tell ex parte is only allowed as a temporary measure.
/r/MensRights26/06/14 02:05 AM
2

Sorry, you are right. It is still just colleges that convict based on 51% probability.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 10:16 PM
3

Rape cases do not include the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" rule. They are the ONLY crimes exempt in this way. Also, people will understand if you had a good reason to murder someone. Rape is never accepted as a legitimate form of revenge.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 09:58 PM
6

the criminal justice system obviously agrees with you That is actually kind of hard to tell. The punishments tend to be higher for murderers, but many rights normally given to the accused are removed from accused rapists. This suggests that the possibility of a rapist going free is worse than a murderer doing so.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 09:41 PM
1

Except that they won't, because they will read the comment in its entirety and understand it in full context. Seriously, we've been over this. And if they don't? If they are dumb enough to be confused by this? I don't really give a fuck about them. Idiots will be idiots.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 09:15 PM
1

Every intelligent person at least.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 09:04 PM
12

Well, your brain stops working in an incurable way. Sounds like a pretty major psychological problem to me.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 08:52 PM
3

say stupid shit guess what people are gonna say stupid shit back. It is stupid to say that everyone deserves a fair trial? Suck it up fuckwad and stop being so pathetic. I wasn't complaining. Merely pointing out that putting forth MR ideas is generally reacted to with vitriol. Your response disgusts me.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 08:39 PM
2

So hopefully nobody quotes half of my comment, removes it from context, and points out the similarity. Because that is the only way that would happen. MRM look like it's just parroting popular Feminism points of view Oh look, you think that the MRM is just parroting feminist points of view. You also apparently use bad grammar. (see, I can quote out of context too.)
/r/MensRights25/06/14 08:30 PM
5

I have had conversations where I had death wished upon me, told that I was a waste of skin, etc etc just because I said that accused rapists deserved a fair trial. Not really victim complex.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 08:25 PM
38

Also, is it just me, or is murder worse than rape? I mean, you can't recover from murder. So I don't really understand why people want rape cases to be harsher than murder cases. "Kill all rapists"? Really? That is committing a worse crime to punish a lesser.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 07:31 PM
5

Okay then. So there are some similar phrases. Your point is? If you "draw parallels" you need a point. And if you make a point about an out of context sentence that is true in my case and false in the "parallel" case, I am going to laugh at you.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:19 PM
7

So you were saying that if you take a piece of a comment out of context, it can sound bad? Well yeah. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. Regardless, like I said before, the piece you quoted isn't true if genderswapped.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:07 PM
5

The difference is that when feminists talk about it, it isn't true. Women's issues can be talked about anywhere without being told that they are misandrist pigs that rule the world and so should shut up and woman up. There is also the fact that I encouraged comparison conversations, just not women's issue-only discussions. This seems fair to me, since this is a sub called men's rights. In other words, the two situations are not very similar at all.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:22 PM
10

To be fair, this is one of the few places where men's issues are allowed to be brought up without being viciously attacked. And female issues can be talked about anywhere. So it makes sense that not everyone would be super interested in talking about women's issues on this sub. I support any movement towards fairness, but if I go to the men's rights sub, I'm interested in looking at men's rights. As a comparison it could work though and I encourage it. Just be ready, because the people here will…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:30 PM
2

I've seen it pop up several times in a few studies. Women are more likely to attack men, but are more likely to be injured if the man joins the fight.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:19 PM
2

Rights are determined by the government. If they say you don't have them, you don't.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:15 PM
2

It is a kinda stupid/illogical concept. Objectification is a misnomer. What people mean when they talk about "objectification" is that they aren't being valued for the traits that they want to be. It has nothing to do with whether they are a person or an object.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:52 AM
2

it is the default in our society to judge a woman based on how well she measures up to our standard of "sexy". Humans generally recognize that other humans are people. "Value" calculation is something completely different. My motorcycle is far more valuable to me than most women that I know, but it isn't a person. They are. All humans use other humans. Doing so is not a denial of personhood, merely an aspect of life. Some TRPers believe that men are in general a more efficient tool than women, e…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:00 AM
2

The usefulness of women has nothing to do with their personhood. You equate the two. Equating the two is objectification. Therefore, you objectify women. QED
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:20 AM
3

So the person accusing people of objectifying women only looks at "what women are good for"? You define people as "humans who are useful to you for various reasons"? Women can be people without being useful for men. Some redpillers think that the only good female interaction is sex. This has nothing to do with their personhood, only to do with a male's motivation for interaction.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:57 PM
3

Redpillers think that women are people, just not the same as men. So regardless of whether they believe overgeneralized(or just plain false) things about women, they don't actually objectify them.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:52 PM
53

Schools have been totalitarian states for a long time dude. You have practically no rights while you attend.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 05:31 PM
1

3 days old, willfully misreading posts, posting angry and irrational shit, in the negatives karma-wise... yeah I'm gonna agree with you.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:31 PM
1

The only mention of drunkenness I can find in the catechism only mentions the sinfulness of excess, compounded if there is additional risk to someone else(drunk driving for example). Of course, excess is completely subjective. But Jesus made more wine when a party ran out, and I'm betting the partiers weren't exactly sober. This suggests to me that getting drunk wasn't considered sinful to Jesus.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:00 PM
1

Oh I get it. Yeah, I agree that alcohol is fine in small quantities. I'm just saying that alcohol is considered a vice too, but he is pretty clearly not against it.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:40 AM
-4

So is pot in many circumstances. But you aren't ever in danger of smoking so much pot that you die. And smoking pot doesn't tend to make you agressive and clumsy while thinking that you are in complete control. Arguing that alcohol is better for you than weed is kinda silly dude. It causes some pretty serious problems. I mean sure, it can be healthy in moderation, but so can morphine. Don't take morphine. It's a bad idea.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:39 AM
-1

More so with alcohol than pot actually. If anything, pot smokers tend to be very aware of their impairment, while alcohol drinkers think that they still operate at 100% after a few drinks.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:36 AM
-2

There is a use of alcohol that doesn't involve grasping for an impaired state of mind Oh really? Like what? Getting buzzed is an impaired state of mind. You are drinking brain poison. You just get to decide how powerful the poinson is going to be. Not that I'm against alcohol, but this argument is kinda silly. People drink alcohol almost exclusively for the effects, with some people also doing it for the flavor.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:34 AM
2

That is pretty clear that it includes someone being raped through the use of physical force either not under the influence or under the influence. Then why bother to include alcohol? You might as well say that it includes times when the victim was wearing red clothes: it is completely irrelevant. No one is going to say: I was raped because I had sex with someone voluntarily where they did not have to use physical force because I was also kissing them back so it was obvious I was consenting etc. …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:30 AM
3

includes times when the victim was drunk Thus, drunken sex counts as rape according to the study. It said that the definition was including times when a woman was forced to have sex even if she was under the influence. Incorrect. It said that it included times when someone was forced to have sex, and when they had sex while drunk. Otherwise there would be no point to adding the drunkenness bit in. It would be irrelevant. The while point in studies asking using detailed scenarios like: were you d…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:09 PM
6

What? No he isn't. I'm an atheist in a robe. He is a catholic who actually reads the catechism.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:32 PM
-11

its not like he's pro alcohol. He wants everyone in the world to drink wine. Sounds pretty pro-alcohol to me.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:29 PM
-10

He is in favor of drinking alcohol, even increasing the usage, despite it being a far more dangerous drug.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:28 PM
4

You just said that it's not rape if the dude was drinking because he "should have known"it was going to make him dumber". Actually I didn't. All I said was that being drunk should have nothing to do with determining whether you were raped. If you were forced to have sex with someone you were raped. If you were unable to move or consent but somebody had sex with you anyway, you were raped. This is all true regardless of whether you were intoxicated. If you agreed to have sex and did so, you were …
/r/MensRights23/06/14 10:27 PM
1

It's probably that the guy was drinking and the other person took advantage since I can't think of why a male wouldn't be able to fight off a perpetuator unless they were compromised. That counts as rape regardless of whether there are drugs involved. The fact that you intentionally consumed a drug before doing an action should not change anything with regards to consent. If you do not consent to sex, it is rape. If you consent to sex while drunk, that is not rape. Despite that, people who conse…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:38 PM
2

If they consented while intoxicated? No. They chose to get drunk, understanding that it would make them dumber. Getting drunk should not be a get-out-of-jail card for any form of responsibility, regardless of gender. If they were unconscious, that is rape. Alcohol had nothing to do with it except for by coincidence.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 09:05 PM
3

No. It was right already. Humor is a good way to heal grief. As long as it isn't done with damaging intent, I have no problem with humor, regardless of topic.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:46 PM
2

Finding humor in tragedy is a common thing.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:01 PM
3

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Compare male "made to penetrate" with female "rape" over the last twelve months(P28-29). They are practically equal. The less accurate "lifetime" results are the only ones that see a drastic difference between men and women. This suggest some flaw in the "lifetime" numbers, which are the ones that everyone talks about. Also, ~50% of the documented rape cases only count as rape because the "victim" had consumed alcohol beforehand. I…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 06:47 PM
1

That's not to say women don't also have privilege, but historically speaking male privilege has outweighed female privilege. Only if you assume that the privileges that men had were better than the ones women had. If I were guaranteed to live at home doing only a small amount of minor work while a woman had a job to support me, I would be completely okay with not having the right to vote. I would leap for the chance. Who cares about political power? I would be able to do whatever I felt like for…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 07:47 PM
1

I said it was twisted to do so, and you said I called you twisted. Therefore you either don't understand logic, you equate sexual desire with love, or both. And you continue to prove me right about the insults. You still have yet to make a single non-insulting comment to me. That is impressive for someone pretending to be rational.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 05:02 PM
1

A connection is one thing. Equating them is different. Use an actual argument please. And YOU INSULT PEOPLE WITH EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE! Who wouldn't think that you are being offensive?
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:53 PM
0

Yes. Equating love to the desire for sex is fairly twisted. I love my parents. I love my friends. I love my siblings. Does this mean I want to have sex with them? No, it means that their happiness makes me happier, and that I try to help them be as happy as possible, and trust them to do the same for me. That is what love is. Sexual desire is something completely different.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 04:02 PM
0

Whatever. He only started insulting you after you insulted him. You are as bad as an insane feminist when it comes to changing the truth to fit your needs. You have been offensive for this entire thread, and that leads me to believe that you are either completely incapable of polite conversation, or you are intentionally being offensive.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:54 PM
0

Well, OK. I'm dealing with a guy who has his own very tendentious interpretation of the word "love". Do you equate love with sex? Because that is a pretty twisted point of view. Otherwise, I would appreciate your definition, so that I can know what you are arguing.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:48 PM
0

No. I'm mostly straight. I don't love women more than men. I find them more sexually attractive, but that is a completely different story.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:40 PM
1

I said you appeared to be trying to be offensive. Not that you were solely trying to be offensive to me. Just in general. Therefore your entire conversation is acceptable for quoting. Every time someone responded with a differing opinion, you insulted them. Not exactly polite rational discourse. It really isn't that complicated.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:39 PM
0

Exactly why I didn't say that originally. It ends all conversation.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:28 PM
1

I was talking about love. You say that men love women more than other men. Okay, I find that to be blatantly false. Moving on. See how that abruptly ends the discussion? So I avoided that by putting in what I found to be the truth: I am more protective of women. But manners clearly aren't your forte, so it must have gone over your head that I was being polite. I don't know how I could have been more civil. if it's too much for you, go and join the feminists. What are you? Some kind of PUA? These…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 02:16 PM
5

That is heading into conspiracy theories without evidence. I'm all for conspiracy theories, but they need solid evidence before I believe them. And suggesting that reddit can do anything slow and steady I find laughable.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 05:06 PM
11

I would notice if suddenly the entire view of /r/mensrights became pro-feminist. That would be a pretty good flag right there.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 03:51 PM
10

Seems unlikely. Lets worry about that if brigading suddenly becomes a problem.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 02:26 PM
1

You really seem to want to be offensive. Yes, I know the difference between love and protection. The problem is, I have never loved women more than men. I have paid more attention to not hurting women though. So I tried to use our similarities to move forward in the conversation. Apparently that was a mistake. You don't seem interested in having a rational discussion.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 12:44 PM
5

Treating women as if they are special and worthy of particular protection is drummed into us from an early age. Insults won't change that.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:55 AM
6

Yup. Pretty much every US law involving sex is batshit insane.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:51 AM
32

And then when you mention that there aren't enough shelters for men, they start talking about how men should stand up and change that. Well, we tried. And you managed to put a stop to that.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:50 AM
6

Nope, because that includes: 1) Rules on hair(for men only) 2) Skirts are allowed but not mandatory(women only) 3) Strict rules on shoes for men, looser requirements for women. Source: Went to a private high school. If my hair got down to my shoulders, I was punished if I didn't get it cut.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:28 AM
11

All of them get prosecuted as adults for sexual assault on minors.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 04:25 AM
1

being a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean you are wrong, especially if you have good evidence.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 09:15 PM
1

Where is the negativity here? The mom is just griping about a kid acting like a kid isn't she? In my experience that tends to happen regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 09:14 PM
0

Lack of fair portrayal in fiction? While for the most part I agree that the inequality is exaggerated beyond all belief(and in many cases nonexistent), I will be quick to say that very few stories have likable and interesting female leads. "Strong female protagonists" tend to have a very limited set of personality traits, and are almost always less interesting than their male counterparts. On the other hand, that isn't really important enough to base a movement on.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 07:24 PM
9

to be fair, it sounds like those rape allegations were probably bullshit. Apparently the women knew exactly what was going on and were okay with it. Unless you deny that women have agency, it isn't likely that any rapes occurred.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 05:42 PM
1

ever heard of a strawman argument?
/r/MensRights18/06/14 01:49 AM
8

I noticed that OP's link isn't to the full article. This one is. With regards to the article, this is really pretty cool. Recognizing that there is a problem and taking steps to fix it, just like how things should be. I'm curious how they intend to advertise it, but the fact that they are trying at all means a lot.
/r/MensRights18/06/14 12:28 AM
17

Oh, then yeah. She shouldn't have gotten any time at all.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 10:18 PM
12

But it's illegal for students to have sex with their teachers isn't it? Because of power imbalance and whatever? While I am not especially in favor of that law, it doesn't seem like an especially unjust one, and therefore should be followed until changed.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:42 PM
2

Okay, so first of all, do you have any evidence that fathers with partial custody/visitation rights tend to stop paying to take care of their child? Second of all, even if you do have such evidence, do you really think it is because they suddenly realize that they should be more fiscally responsible? Because that is pretty idiotic. The fairly obvious motivation for a hypothetical cutoff of funds is to keep the other parent from taking advantage of the father's generosity. Divorced couples tend n…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:58 PM
1

They could do that already. If they want to use something as an excuse, why should that matter? Its their money.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:55 PM
2

Actions have consequences for everyone involved. Pretending otherwise is stupid.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:40 PM
2

Your argument is that a mother's actions should not "punish" a child. Too bad, they do. That's how actions work. Why should we make one rule that ignores that? It makes no sense.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:28 PM
2

Parents generally don't do this, though. That is completely irrelevant. They can, and I'm sure that it has happened before. Allowing noncustodial parents to do this would only allow people to get away with choosing money first and put their kids second. This has always been allowed, and "child support" changes nothing about that. No oversight on how the money is used, remember? If a sensible reason like bankruptcy does occur after the divorce, the child support should change along with the perso…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:17 PM
3

Since child support laws were created. No, I mean in any other situation. It is perfectly legal for a parent to say, "you are living on beans and rice from now on. I have no reason, I just feel like it." Yet when divorced, suddenly that changes. Pretty stupid if you ask me. And it doesn't have to be spent on the child. There is no oversight, no nothing. Just money to the mother, no matter what she decides to do with it. and would rather keep the money for themselves. Except that they weren't kee…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 02:50 PM
3

Okay first of all, since when is a parent obligated to be consistent in how much money they spend on their child? Second, why would a parent stop spending that money on the kid? It would likely only happen during that parent's custody(except for things like schooling/other stuff that the other parent can't really take advantage of), but that seems fair to me.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 02:39 PM
3

yup. "6 women shot by woman hater" not exactly....
/r/MensRights17/06/14 06:55 AM
3

Well yeah. If you gave me a million dollars right now, I could find some way to spend it within a month. But we aren't talking about what you "could" do. We are talking about what the kid needs to be happy. Regardless, the parents should treat the kid according to their means. If one parent has more money, and money is that important, then maybe the child should go with the wealthier parent. If the money isn't that important after all, maybe child support should only be enough to support the chi…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:08 AM
1

wow, you really are an idiot. Bragging and being upset about something are two very different things. I don't go on /r/feminism to talk about how women are constantly bragging about being raped.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:53 PM
2

no American man currently under age 63 has ever been drafted. Well yeah that makes sense seeing as no large scale war has occurred in that time period. Just small invasions. Similarly, we shouldn't be worried about nukes, because it has been a long time since one was fired. I could be drafted and be cannon fodder!" Literally no one brags about this. ... ... Please stop trolling on mensrights. These are people who actually want to improve the world, unlike you. If you ever actually want to talk, …
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:25 PM
2

cool. Of course, you still fail to mention why men are still required to sign up. If it is so simple to do when necessary, why make it a requirement? Just have people sign up if the draft is ever restarted. The continuing existence of male-only selective service is pretty strong evidence that you are wrong.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:03 PM
1

I take it that you have never been to a DPS location? Those places have hour long waits constantly, freuently being much longer than that. If a quarter of the population(assuming only half of women are eligible) suddenly had to go to the DPS, the waiting times would literally be days.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:41 PM
1

Anyone who is using strategies for the sole purpose of having sex with a woman is a pick-up artist. Lying to have sex has nothing to do with fighting for men's rights your point is?
/r/MensRights16/06/14 10:33 PM
1

Your post is on whether attractiveness determines views on feminism. You put forth the suggestion that only ugly people are anti-feminist, which is an unveiled insult to the sub that you posted to, and has no grounding in reality except for your tiny sphere of experience(assuming you aren't just lying for attention of course). So my answer? You are pretty clearly wrong. The only MRAs that I know are above average in attractiveness, while some of the most extreme feminists I know tend to be on th…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 09:47 PM
1

Please stay on topic and focus on what I myself am saying because I am the one who started this thread. Okay, so what you said is personal experience, in other words inadmissible as actual evidence of a trend. Bring in a study, or else accept that a single person's experience is meaningless in a world of 7 billion people. Moving on. Also, those people are the minority. #notallfeminists But you ignore my point. By watching silently as insane feminists commit horrible actions, all feminists become…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 07:40 PM
1

Because feminists refuse to separate themselves from the lunatics of their group, and in fact usually defend them. So they are complicit in the crimes of the insane.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 07:19 PM
1

It also spans all beliefs, and is therefore an entirely useless term. According to some definitions of feminist, I am one. The funny thing is, I am disgusted by the feminist movement in general.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 07:06 PM
1

Look, I know this is a troll, but I find this amusing anyway. the MRA took over the internet. WHAT? The MRM is an almost universally despised group, despite almost nobody actually knowing what it is. It never took over anything. It is growing, but it has no real political clout as of yet, especially when compared to feminists. men moving into spaces that had been safe for women to tell them they were wrong about how they felt What are you even talking about here? men openly discussing the fact t…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:54 PM
28

And if the genders are mixed, they only talk about the dead women
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:36 PM
3

Yet only men have to register for selective service? Seems odd that women will be included without being signed up in the system.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:33 PM
1

MY STATE DID SOMETHING PRETTY OKAY! WOO!
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:27 PM
11

I live on >$1000 a month, and I live alone. Suggesting that you might need seven times that amount to raise a child is patently absurd.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 06:19 PM
7

That isn't really feminist though. That is just decent writing.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 09:35 PM
16

By that reasoning, any consensual sex should be legal, regardless of age or gender. In other words, we shouldn't be harsher with women, we should be more lenient on men. I can see that logic, but it has a few issues that would need to be handled(major power imbalance, grooming, etc). And a LOT of people would be horrified by the very idea of enacting such laws.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 07:23 PM
0

Sell the videos for additional funds.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 07:06 AM
0

or or implies using either one stops it from fulfilling the definition. Learn english, then we can finish the conversation.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:21 AM
-1

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason Not based on reason. A one-armed man is unlikely to be good at tasks that usually involve the use of two arms. So choosing the two-armed man is merely a rational decision. If you want equal pay regardless of your situation, you want communism, not capitalism. But you probably think that communism is evil. Which puts you in a hilarious situation.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:51 AM
1

Not having much motivation is something that will constantly cause you trouble. You may be able to overcome that problem, but it is very easy to fail and end up doing less than your potential. Sound familiar?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:50 AM
1

Not communism, it is far from communism. Just don't expect people who can't do as much to do more than they can. These two sentences are a contradiction. Which one do you want? Employment isn't about giving people money to do what they can. It is about motivating people to do stuff for you, to make you more money. Any employer knows that you want to spend as little as possible to get as much work as possible. Unhealthy individuals want you to spend the same amount of money for less work: clearly…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:47 AM
1

I agree that a period is unlikely to reduce employee value in the average woman, so that would be a poor reason to use when selecting new employees. But there is a large difference between "people with mental illnesses should never be employed", and "People with mental illnesses are a bigger risk to employ". Having a mental illness does not guarantee that you would be a good employee, but it does make the risk of problems higher. And since when are companies working to keep people off the street…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:36 AM
1

Quick addendum: The first choice is capitalism. The second is communism(Not that that is a bad thing).
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:19 AM
2

cool. are you just as good at your work as you would be if you were healthy? if yes, you deserve to be paid equally and be hired indiscriminately. If no, you don't.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:49 PM
3

But that wouldn't be fair. The two armed guy is better at the job! Why should the other guy get chosen over him? That is just discrimination against healthy people!
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:36 PM
0

Even if it would negatively affect their job? That is idiotic. If someone is not as good at a job for some reason, that reason should be acceptable grounds to choose the other person to hire. I mean, that's what interviews and resumes are for: finding the best possible employee. A bipolar person is unlikely to be the best possible employee.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:35 PM
3

And my point is made.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:32 PM
2

Regardless of time. What you are asking for is communism. Everyone gets the same thing, regardless of what they do, because they are all people and they all deserve a good life. I am completely okay with communism, but you have to accept that that is what you are asking for. In capitalism, you do the work desired, and you get payment for it. The most efficient solution is to hire the best people for the job for the least amount of money possible. Hiring disabled people is inefficient, and makes …
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:32 PM
1

k cool.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:23 PM
0

Even choosing a similarly qualified but healthy person over them? Because that is just stupid.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 09:23 PM
0

High school soccer teams beat Pro-league women soccer teams. The strength differences are massive. But 30 pushups is easy. I could do that right now(tough but doable), and I pretty much never exercise. Anyone actually training should have no difficulty with this.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:55 PM
2

The sad truth is that if a case boils down to a "he-said-she-said" argument without any evidence then the criminal charges get dropped. How is this sad? Did you mean to say it was sad that the college courts were created to change this?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:44 PM
2

having one arm and juggling (even if only decent) improves the act in itself. That is what I said. but if the work gets done then there would be no reason to fire you. Sure. But is the one armed accountant likely to get hired over a two armed guy, all other things being equal? No.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:39 PM
0

Someone who is bipolar is much less likely to get hired. They don't want to pay someone to do an inferior job. But Companies aren't allowed to choose not to hire women, because that would be "discrimination"
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:31 PM
6

They are paid to do a job, not paid to be a person. People who are better at their jobs should be paid more.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:29 PM
4

I'm not as motivated as some people. Sometimes I have motivation, but sometimes I just don't feel like working hard. But I should get paid just as much as the guy who never slacks off.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:28 PM
3

But that only works if being one-armed improves the act(more interesting = better in entertainment) A one-armed accountant would have to be phenomenal in order to be better than a fully armed one.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:26 PM
2

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ gib child support つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
/r/MensRights13/06/14 06:38 PM
2

It is the mark of a superior human being to be rational as a way of life, instead of merely something to do occasionally and then forget about. So you don't have the duty to remain rational, but not doing so shows you to be a lesser person.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:26 PM
2

Ooh, nice rational counter to my points. I am completely convinced thanks to your condescending sarcasm.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 10:56 PM
0

Okay. Just a bit irrelevant to the overall discussion, but whatevs.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 08:54 PM
1

What if I can get married to a woman more wealthy than me? Split funds equally at divorce, I win. Just make sure not to have kids.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 08:49 PM
2

The entire thing with the word "plates" was chosen to deliberately represent not thinking of someone as people, but instead as an item you interact with. This is an excellent example of the problem with your thought processes. Metaphors for relationships are always going to be abut objects. Otherwise they wouldn't be a metaphor. In other words, your are making shit up to be offended by, since there aren't enough real problems that fit the bill. The fact that you're describing a very vague senten…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 08:42 PM
2

And wanting to end a relationship when sex stops is shallow.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 08:31 PM
0

Did you reply to the wrong comment?
/r/MensRights12/06/14 08:27 PM
15

"I was scared so I said it was okay"
/r/MensRights12/06/14 04:45 PM
1

Not especially relevant, but I found this amusing. From the first linked post: Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her. If I were dangerous, by definition the woman would not be safe with me. So I should clearly never go near a woman.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:08 PM
2

"not all feminists"
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:02 PM
2

I assume he is talking about how pro baseball would still be dominated by men because they are better at it, and any neurological differences(which aren't very well studied because of the politics behind the issue) would be included in our assessments of whether society was truly treating each gender fairly. Essentially, he doesn't want equality, he wants fairness.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:20 PM
3

haha nice.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 07:05 PM
3

the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ Jesus wasn't a christian. He was a Jew. They follow different rules.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 05:09 PM
5

In this group they are! Its all about the context. Nice loophole.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:56 PM
11

Just go with everyone being at least a tiny amount bi. So there is no discrimination. If you have ever thought that another guy was good looking, you are fine.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:55 PM
2

Well yeah. The crazies make up at least half of that sub, instead of being a minority like here. I go there for amusement after reading particularly nasty ultra-feminist articles, but that's about it.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:15 PM
1

or at least, should be Exactly. There are plenty of things that should be rights. That doesn't mean a damn thing though.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:08 PM
2

Syrup plus chocolate on pancakes is pretty awesome actually. Just remember that it is no longer breakfast at that point, merely dessert.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:06 PM
1

Sure. If that is the biggest complaint about the female lead that I have, disney did well.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 02:21 PM
4

There are generally additional rules for sex with students under 18
/r/MensRights06/06/14 05:02 AM
0

Usually 16-18 depending on the state(if not US, sometimes goes a bit lower) Plus what men13 said.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 05:01 AM
1

though her ability to outperform the men in every physical activity is just a bit... strange. It would have been cool if she had figured out a way to make it seem like she was doing just as well, or used intelligence to overcome her physical handicap(like with the metal disks scene), but her being purely stronger than the guys was just weird.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:59 AM
1

People tend to have a harder time getting their rocks off with less attractive people.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:56 AM
1

One person using a word differently doesn't change the meaning. A large group of people using a word differently does. That is how words work. There is a very large number of crazy people who call themselves feminists out there. So the term encompasses those people. I am all for removing them from feminism, but they are most certainly a part of it currently.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 06:09 PM
1

And why are you the one who gets to be the ultimate authority on what feminism is? Why are the crazy definitions of feminism any less accurate definitions?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 05:48 PM
1

Certainly. I don't hate all Christians, and I don't hate all Feminists. I just find the terms annoying because they are worthless. I don't really like the "No true scotsman" vibe your comments have though. I think that crazy feminists and their ideals make up a large enough portion of feminism that they should be considered a true aspect of the group. Not a necessary aspect, but they are no less feminist. Now if we manage to change what feminism means, then I will totally agree with you. But at …
/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:39 PM
2

Feminism as a movement isn't wrong, it's just easily abused and attracts a lot of morons. That would make sense if feminists actually stuck to a definition. As it is, Feminism has evil goals, and Feminism has good goals, depending on who is defining it. Which makes the term absolutely useless. What is a feminist? Somebody who calls themselves a feminist.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 06:08 AM
0

all those attaching themselves to the feminist label Wait, you think that I'm a feminist? Nope nope nope nope nope. I think that women are cool(I think people are cool in general), but with feminism being such a loose definition, I try to avoid associating myself with the large body of feminists that I disagree with(or find abhorrent). you're unwilling to listen, and when presented with something you don't like, you resort to word twisting and being disingenuous. It is amusing that the same pers…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 08:11 PM
0

So, "women good". Kinda a worthless description, but okay. In that case, anyone who is not mysognistic is a feminist. If you think both genders are pretty cool, you are a feminist. Do you not think women are good? Because under your definition that would be the only way you could avoid being a feminist. Hell, you could be mysoginistic and still be a feminist. "Women are good, but men are better." Seems like under that definition, feminists are the only good people in the world. Because not femin…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:33 PM
0

Many different varieties of the same thing What underlying theme is there that all feminists agree on? The name itself doesn't count.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:39 PM
1

I would think that the MRM exists specifically because feminism has lost its focus. If feminism was just a bunch of crazies, no one would listen to them. We would just laugh. But it isn't. There are tons of sane women enacting good change out there. So people listen and try to help them. But people don't pay attention to which type of "feminist" they are helping, because if they do, they are labeled mysogonistic by the crazies. MRM seems to me to be the group that says, "Yes, there are crazies, …
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:32 PM
10

... I... yeah....
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:37 PM
3

Nope. The "No true feminist" argument doesn't work either. The truth is, feminist means nothing. It is a worthless describer. As someone who wants justice, I could call myself a feminist, even though I want mens rights propagated as well. If I were someone who thought women were superior, I could also call myself a feminist. It would be just as true, and just as pointless. This woman is noted to be open-minded and willing to have friendly discussions. This suggests that she is a good person. Her…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:15 PM
5

First of all, lumping all feminists into one definition is absurd. They are just too big. Many are close minded, many are not. Is has pretty much become a worthless label today, similar to "Christian". Second, if they can change their minds once, they are doing better than many people. Thats good. Nobody is perfect though.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 07:16 PM
1

he is correct. it is a common misconception
/r/MensRights08/08/13 07:02 PM
0

Aren't you supposed to be dead?
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:58 PM
11

But she realized her mistake. She realized that her views were biased, and adjusted them accordingly. This will probably encourage her to be more discerning in the future
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:04 PM
10

She realized the discrepancy and corrected herself. She realized that if he were a woman, it would have been clear that there was something bad going on, but because of the ingrained nature of society's sexuality, it took her much longer to realize this was the case. This is a happy story not a sad one.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:02 PM
2

Oh wow. oops. Sorry man, misread your comment. Boy are my cheeks red. And that is a very good question.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 02:14 AM
1

I've been in an all guy school, and a co-ed school. I have friends that went to all girl schools. All-girl schools: Horror stories Co-ed school: Horror stories All-guy school: Nothing ever happened. We did schoolwork and chilled.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:04 PM
1

Less appeal to authority, more just being wrong.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:00 PM
1

Overall, it seems an odd study. But it delves into subject matter that is too seldom looked into with a critical mind. So I think that it is a useful study if you keep mindful of logical holes in their arguments.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:21 PM
3

yeah, that is the part I find weird. I mean, do what you want with your body before you get married, but once you do you should think about how your actions effect the other person. I guess if he was okay with that, fine, but it is still kinda rude With regards to her changing arguments, that makes sense to me. Given more info, people may change their minds about what is important. I'm not going to try and judge her for her "real" motivations though. That is just inventing problems that may not …
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:52 AM
2

it was because of how expensive it would be. read the article.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 07:19 PM
1

therefore, awe-inspiring
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:02 AM
1

not really. they probably werent describing god as full of awe. doesn't really make sense. full of awe-inspiring stuff maybe.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:41 PM
2

not what I was saying, but sure
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:57 AM
3

Appearances can be misleading (they may have thought he was really good), but your info sounds pretty damning. Unfair discrimination sucks.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:42 PM
2

god is often described as awful in his glory in the OT. The meaning has slowly changed with time, but it originally meant something along the lines of awe-inspiring
/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:35 PM
2

Some discrimination makes sense though. If they really wanted this guy, but he could only work for them if he was paid a certain amount, then it makes sense they would pay him more. It may have just been good negotiation on his part. Plus inflation.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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