TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

snoopyzanus Archive

View 1 posts and 625 comments by snoopyzanus 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)
81

Edu./Occu.snoopyzanus/r/MensRights30/10/17 07:15 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

I get what you are saying, but I think that in many cases there has been a very deliberate change from using the images of women and children in publicity to gain sympathy for a cause and then distributing the funds to all of those in need, to deliberately restricting the charity or cause to supporting women and children/girls only, often with a rationalization that men and boys are already getting more than enough, will be helped by some other charity focusing on them (which almost always doesn…
/r/MensRights01/01/22 11:05 AM
4

I've always been irritated by the way gifts for men/fathers often default to staple, basic clothing that should be covered by the normal household budget. (Socks and underwear would have to be the worst.) It's worse than other gifts not only because of the lack of thought involved, but because it is actually a money-saving exercise. The money has to be spent anyway, as these are items needed for daily life. They are in no way special (unless you are in real poverty). Buying them as a present is …
/r/MensRights22/06/21 07:16 AM
29

I understand what you are getting at, and appreciate the sentiment behind it, but I think it's useful not to conflate the word "feminism" with "women" or even "women's issues." Feminism is an ideology. Women are a sex. Women's issues exist and can be thought about, discussed, and addressed without having to be confined to a feminist ideological framework. It is entirely possible to be critical of feminism while bearing absolutely no animosity toward women, and while being supportive of women's i…
/r/MensRights08/03/21 06:02 AM
1

I think “kill all men” and similar phrases are ways feminists can gleefully indulge in savouring the act of hating on men publicly, enjoying both sharing the sentiment with like-minded others and the idea of men being hurt or angered by the words. They hide behind the claim that they don't literally want to go out and kill all men to claim it is just a joke, but "just a joke" to me implies that there is no actual ill will or intent behind the joke; I hardly think that's the case with "kill all m…
/r/MensRights18/02/21 05:56 AM
1

It's a pity that this stops money going to the charity, but I don't know if this can be laid at the feet of Nintendo (not that I care about defending them specifically, just that fair's fair). From watching the video, it seems like the issue was that in this specific design the word "Joycon" and the Joycon logo were put on the shells which made it blatant trademark infringement; if the designer had just avoided doing that, there may well have been no problem (given that other shells without thos…
/r/MensRights10/12/20 03:53 AM
5

Damn -- you said it better than me in far fewer words.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 03:39 PM
21

This kind of advice seems nice at first glance, but in reality it usually works out more like this: Imagine a man being taken into a kind of hallway where as he and a guide walk along he is given glimpses into rooms showing scenes of a woman going through hardships, bottling things up, eventually collapsing, then letting her emotions out to then be surrounded by a group of outstretched hands and hugs. The last scene is her smiling, back on her feet supported by the hands of others. Touched by th…
/r/MensRights18/05/20 03:38 PM
4

My point is that many things are framed as female issues that aren't, as they actually affect both men and women if not in exactly the same way. Never challenging this framing simply because something has been declared a female issue out of the gate means that a debate can be won before it is even held. It is a female issue because it has been labelled one and it would be "bad manners" to challenge that. No. It is too serious and too ubiquitous for that, and the people doing this aren't giving e…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 02:18 PM
1

I don't care if people knowingly choose to take on certain elements of gender roles and their related traditions, or reject them, as long as there is balance and fairness and no eating your cake and having it too.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 01:59 PM
6

What if it isn't just a female issue, but is being framed as one? If men had equal attention paid to how issues affect them this would be a non-issue, but men have politely stood back all too often and let issues be framed as female ones, to the point where male politicians can get openly laughed at to their faces then blocked when they try to bring up serious men's issues for public discussion, as in the minds of the laughing and jeering people men have no serious issues, only women do-- becaus…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 01:51 PM
29

I've come across this attitude again and again. And even when they acknowledge that men have valid issues, they say that this time the focus is on women, so don't bring men into it this time; next time it can be about men -- except just as tomorrow never comes because it is always one day away, that "next time" never comes. With them, this time "just happens" to be about women -- every time.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 01:31 PM
7

I see your "/s" but I think that is actually a good description of the way they justify it to themselves. I think the "drinking male tears" crowd is going down a really dark path. In their minds they have destigmatized enjoyment of hate, and savoring and celebrating other human beings' suffering. And having thoroughly demonized and othered boys and men as a "game" they will have no feeling of compassion for them no matter how serious the real life situation, having conditioned themselves on a da…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:11 AM
6

From Angry Harry: ...this issue also highlights the impossibility of achieving the 'gender equity' so often loudly espoused by current-day feminists with rarely a thought to what it might actually mean. The phrase 'gender equity' is virtually meaningless. For example, how, exactly, does one achieve 'gender equity' with regard to the training of women doctors? Do we force women doctors to stay at their posts so that the gender balance of highly-experienced doctors remains the same throughout the …
/r/MensRights08/05/18 04:19 PM
3

Angry Harry (RIP) wrote about this years ago. He has some thoughts on the topic well worth reading.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 03:30 PM
15

Why white people only? We do provide this service only to white people with any type of cancer. As with any nonprofit organization, the resources are limited. The demand is always greater than what we are capable of handling regardless as to whom we serve. We understand that people of color undergo the same life crisis issues; however, we cannot serve everyone. Daily we have inquiries to assist individuals with disabilities, heart problems, MS, asthma and various other chronic medical conditions…
/r/MensRights04/11/17 05:18 PM
1

No worries. Thanks.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 07:24 AM
1

Sorry, I missed that and have already posted. If there is a problem, please modify or delete as you see fit.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 07:18 AM
1

Thanks. Will do (and I'll steal that title).
/r/MensRights30/10/17 07:10 AM
1

I think the article is meant to serve multiple purposes. Firstly, I think it is a deliberate troll meant to drive clicks, both from those who will get annoyed at the man-bashing and from those who will get off on the idea of men getting annoyed by the man-bashing and who will enjoy the article itself, telling themselves "It's funny because it's true!" While the outer wrappings of the article are satire, the body of it seems to be written as if to say "We're joking--or are we? Wink. Wink." Pro-fe…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 06:01 AM
6

I'm against people being pressured into (or out of) gender roles. I think that people trying to remove existing barriers and societal pressures is great (as long as the goal is equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome). That said, this is not the sole solution, or even the main solution when it comes to the individual. If the individual has a strong desire to do something or to become something they will have the motivation to strive to overcome the obstacles and societal pressures th…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 08:57 AM
19

From the article: Stephen Clark almost let it slide...there was even a part of him that saw the value of a celebratory, women-only screening of “Wonder Woman.” But Clark — a law professor at Albany Law School — changed his mind when he looked up Alamo Drafthouse’s Facebook page and began reading the heated exchanges between the theater’s management and the frustrated men calling the venue’s women-only events “discriminatory.” “There was a vibrant argument happening on Facebook,” Clark, 48, told …
/r/MensRights14/06/17 06:33 AM
154

One law professor is taking action against the theater: Clark began researching Austin’s city code and decided to file an administrative charge with the city’s Equal Employment and Fair Housing Office. He alleged that the Drafthouse’s women-only event — as it was described in the theater’s advertising — discriminated against male customers based on their gender. Citing the theater’s promise to staff only women at the events, Clark also alleged that the Drafthouse was illegally engaging in employ…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 07:16 PM
136

She didn't open her sister's vagina because it had pebbles inside, she did it out of curiosity and then found pebbles in there. “My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina,” Dunham wrote. “This was within the spectrum of things that I did.” (Quote in first link below.) Your post may be sarcastic, but for the benefit of those who don't know the actual details of what Lena did to her sister, this is from an old post of mine: Firstly, for context: ...when Dunham was seven and he…
/r/MensRights14/05/17 05:42 AM
44

I suspect that Emma Watson is just a useful idiot for feminism. She may mean well, but she is serving an evil cause—and I don't consider that hyperbole. HeForShe takes many gender-neutral issues and deliberately works to have people who otherwise might have helped all in need focus solely on helping women and girls. It's like the KKK having a water rescue service that only saves white people while leaving all non-white people to drown; sure, they may save a lot of innocent people who needed to b…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 04:00 AM
3

You're targeting the wrong thing here. The "man" in "manhandle" refers to a human, not specifically a male. It is feminists who objected to this use of "man" in words (because they incorrectly insisted that "man" must be referring to an adult male, claiming the usage was sexist). Although their claim was bogus, they succeeded in reducing this usage of the word to the point that many who grew up in the last couple of decades assume that "man" in a word means "adult male" by default. The stupid th…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 05:02 AM
167

Overall this is a very positive article, so I'm only bringing this up as a nitpick, as I was disappointed to see this stumble in thinking at the end: With feminists on one side and men's rights activists on the other, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I get the well-meaning sentiment in this, but I think the writer fails to see the huge flaw in such thinking—it rewards those who tell Big Lies and penalizes those who do their sincere best to get at the truth. Let's say the truth is "0" and th…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:35 AM
1

Your title doesn't give the correct framing of the issue. This isn't about whether the man removed the condom or whether it just ripped. He reportedly told the jury that he had intended to wear a condom, but it ripped mid-coitus, so he decided to take it off altogether and not replace it. The Criminal Court in Lausanne — the highest court in Switzerland — determined that the act constituted as rape because the woman could have refused to have sex with him if she had known the condom was removed.…
/r/MensRights13/01/17 06:36 PM
6

From what I said the last time this came up: Stop trying to prevent people constantly kicking over the bucket and spilling all the water out. Focus instead on spooning water into the bucket. /s I think a variety of approaches are needed; but those who think the key to success is solely to seek good PR and not rock the feminist boat are deluded. The most fair-minded people, like Warren Farrell, have already proven this. You can bend over backward for decades until your spine has cracks in it to b…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:47 PM
1

Stop trying to prevent people constantly kicking over the bucket and spilling all the water out. Focus instead on spooning water into the bucket. /s I think a variety of approaches are needed; but those who think the key to success is solely to seek good PR and not rock the feminist boat are deluded. The most fair-minded people, like Warren Farrell, have already proven this. You can bend over backward for decades until your spine has cracks in it to be inoffensive and only positive in your appro…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:47 PM
83

...if I were a man, I would have 100 percent been considered the greatest ever a long time ago. No, if you were a man, with all of your physical attributes and abilities as they are now, your name might not be known to the general public at all, as you would not be able to make it anywhere near the top ranks of the men's competition. This then answers this question: ...we are constantly reminded we are not men, as if it is a flaw. People call me one of the “world’s greatest female athletes.” Do …
/r/MensRights27/12/16 04:22 PM
14

Well, whether you leave or not, you don't have to be manipulated or silenced. That can stop now. And you don't have to go along when they try to lead you down the garden path of an argument that is really a pointless blame-laying exercise. You don't need to get them to admit that what they are trying to pull is bullshit. As long as you yourself see it for what it is and avoid the trap that's all that matters. You can lay your own framework. "You don't get to speak to me like that. We can talk ab…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 08:59 PM
14

I think it is a really useful tool to look at what sort of framework is being set up, and how that framework is meant to trap and manipulate you. The answer then is to point out the framework for what it is and reject it. The key point, again, is to realize that you are in absolute control of your reaction. Manipulation over your mind and emotions has no more power over you than you give it. You just need to see it for what it is. The biggest risk in dealing with manipulation tactics is not seei…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 08:26 PM
50

Well, I of course am silenced and was made to apologize to everyone for my "behavior". No, you were not "made" to do this; you made the choice to buy short term peace at a high price. You should think about what that price really is. And I'm not talking about the politics here. I'm talking about the whole dynamic between you, your wife and your daughter. No one is going to set and reinforce the boundaries of how you are treated in your family but you—notice how your wife, and presumably daughter…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 07:59 PM
8

I think it is a combination of hard-wiring (women have an in-group bias, while men don't, and the "Women are wonderful" effect) currently backed to the hilt by socialization in the West. What worries me is that previously, while groups used to recognize that both men and women will be more likely to be emotionally affected by an image of a woman or girl in need and so be motivated to donate or support a cause, the campaign was actually to help all affected by the issue, so men and boys were help…
/r/MensRights23/10/16 04:12 PM
1

This guy tells a few truths, but then backs off and fudges things. He mentions the double standard of the woman expecting to be paid for as if her time is more valuable, but the balancing solutions he offers to this are only partial and end up only providing fodder for rationalizations for the man paying. He talks of the politeness of the woman offering to pay. But he doesn't acknowledge that if the offer isn't sincere it is still just part of the courtship dance and that the woman still doesn't…
/r/MensRights23/10/16 06:55 AM
2

Negotiating gender roles to be fair has nothing to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights23/10/16 06:29 AM
1

I actually think the issue of who pays on dates is an important indicator of how the whole relationship might go in the future—but most people don't see this—they are offered an incredibly valuable insight, but they step over it and keep on walking as if it means nothing. In the past, when gender roles were all but set, it wasn't so important. Of course the man would be in the provider & protector role and his paying on dates was perhaps the first indicator to a woman of his willingness and able…
/r/MensRights23/10/16 05:15 AM
4

Even the original is stupid, depending on how you interpret it. If you look at everyone being treated the same as equality of opportunity, with the height of each person representing their ability, knowledge, and experience, combined with the amount of time and effort they put in, then surely there is no problem with each person receiving a different outcome. I wonder what the creators of the original think the heights of the people represent? I can understand feminists portraying men as having …
/r/MensRights07/10/16 07:14 AM
1

I never said that all feminists are the same. My post in fact acknowledges that they aren't and gives a specific example of one who isn't. My point about the the homogeneous nature of the feminist activists is that they are successful precisely because they can agree on common beliefs, positions and goals and so can band together and network, using this united face to lobby for what they want as the dominant public representatives of feminism (and by extension, women). Feminists who don't go alo…
/r/MensRights28/09/16 05:11 AM
3

I can understand your anger and it's not entirely unfounded, but feminists aren't a homogeneous group. There are still many 'old school' feminists who just want equality and an end to stupid gender stereotypes. When you get to the level of the organized feminist activists and lobbyists they very much are a homogeneous group. They have to lobby for one thing. They would get nowhere if there were dozens of groups all wanting something different. They get power by banding together and lobbying for …
/r/MensRights27/09/16 05:01 AM
2

My thoughts on this from an old post: There are two different debates to be had here. 1) What should the definition of rape be, and by that definition, is this rape? I want to address the second one: 2) Is this rape according to a definition of rape such as the one quoted in the article: In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability). Check out the quiz on the wastedsex site which would have l…
/r/MensRights18/08/16 04:26 AM
2

I support your specific idea, but don't think it needs the label "feminist" attached to it. Feminism is not a synonym for women's issues or rights. When you take on the label "feminist" people will tend to associate the typical baggage that comes with it with you. And some feminists will try to exert authority over you when you take on the label. From an old post of mine (with some edits): You often hear feminists say something along the lines of "Do you believe in equality? Yes? Then you're a f…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 02:19 PM
6

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about bein…
/r/MensRights07/05/16 05:56 PM
6

It is a deliberate strategy to frame things in this way, to cut out men from the beginning to focus only on women. As long as things remain in this framework nothing seems odd about men never being part of the equation. Most people won't even challenge it, and the common reaction when it is challenged is to claim that the challenger is "derailing" because the focus is on women this time (as it will be the next time, and the next...). Even if the flimsy claims used to justify focusing only on wom…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:39 AM
2

Whiskey!
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:09 AM
2

Yeah Milo makes sure is says hes a cultural libertarian, indicating he supports the let the poor die in the streets part of it. That's not what cultural libertarian means. Did you not even research it, or are you being intentionally dishonest? WHAT CULTURAL LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE Free expression. No idea is too dangerous for cultural libertarians, who want total artistic and intellectual freedom. They often indulge in deliberately outrageous jokes and wacky opinions to test the boundaries of accep…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 04:44 AM
2

You're welcome. Good luck!
/r/MensRights04/02/16 09:10 AM
12

Honestly? I would simply keep on doing what you are doing. Just demonstrating to her every single time forever that she won't be able to get you to join in political discussions (in a non-commital, non-confrontational, apathetic way) should be enough for her to eventually get the message that you can't be dragged in--without you having to spell it out verbally, and without her turning against you. If she still doesn't get it, you're still better off continuing anyway, because she will have demon…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 06:34 AM
5

Reminds me of this interview with Patrick Stewart. You can't do anything about the hair, but owning it and being comfortable with yourself would make all the difference.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 05:49 AM
4

This, I am afraid, will drive me into a seething rage... This is not just advice for this circumstance, but for life in general. You can't control what others do or say, but you are absolutely in control of your reaction. It may seem to you now that people push your buttons and the reaction just happens, but this is not inevitable -- it's just a matter of being unaware of and unpracticed in exercising your own power over your reaction. The more you become aware of the fact that it is always you …
/r/MensRights18/12/15 08:01 PM
1

You are right, yet it is also not right to take gender out of this. For a start, unqualified men won't be allowed to pass the physical tests. The real problem is the thumb on the scales that allows unqualified women to "pass" physical tests they shouldn't have, and the other special treatment they get, which puts unqualified women in places unqualified men will have been weeded out from.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 05:39 AM
1

I, personally, wouldn't support it, and I can't say that /r/mensrights would either. Attempts at at indoctrination are wrong, full stop.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 07:02 AM
2

There is no such thing as perfect objectivity; however, there is such a thing as explicit, deliberate indoctrination. This is it. This isn't a multitude of perspectives offered on feminism from across the spectrum, leaving the reader to make up their own mind--this is one perspective offered, with the people organizing this effort wanting that particular perspective to take root in young minds.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 02:23 PM
2

And that's the problem. From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces via Fred On Everything: "In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man." "(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quint…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 05:37 AM
3

It doesn't matter what is in the book. It is an attempt at indoctrination. It could be a book reflecting my views 100% for all I care and I still wouldn't want it given out, because attempting to indoctrinate everyone's children is wrong in principle. “This is the book that I wish all of my male classmates would have read when I was 16,” said Clara Berglund, chair of the Swedish Women’s Lobby, announcing the giveaway. “It feels so important to contribute to this project. It is a gift to all seco…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 05:14 AM
23

...Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai... Are you aware that both of these women are figureheads for charities that specifically only help girls and women? They aren't determining who needs help based on need. It initially looks noble, because hey, look at all of those girls and women they are helping, but it's the equivalent of cutting a photo in half and only showing the half with the beaming face of a starving girl who is being given food--hiding the other half, which shows her still starving broth…
/r/MensRights04/12/15 12:24 PM
1

he seems to be only interested in third-wave feminism. I think he's happy with the rest. I can't speak for him, but I haven't seen that as being the the case. It's more that in the context of Gamergate, specifying third-wave feminists and SJWs is shorthand that lets people know that you're against feminist ideological extremism and not against women's rights. I think beyond the campus rape/free speech/pay-gap debates, he has little to say on men's rights. He's not an MRA, and it's kind of hit an…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 01:04 PM
1

"Feminism" is not the same thing as "women's rights." I'm all for women's rights--but feminism can take a long walk off a short pier (with the exception of feminism that is rejected as feminism by most feminists, e.g. that of C.H. Sommers). It was never necessary to create a narrative composed of lies that demonizes men in order to extend women's rights beyond traditional gender roles. The biggest thing that restricted women was biology. The biggest thing that liberated women was technology (bir…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 09:42 AM
6

It's because of the weight and stigma attached to the term "domestic violence." Once that label is attached, a whole set of consequences are supposed to follow and the person is supposed to be viewed in a certain way. By not attaching the label, this is forestalled. Also, there is a decades long effort to have the term "domestic violence" be synonymous with "violence against women by men." Acknowledging domestic violence committed by a woman against a man disrupts the narrative.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 06:25 AM
1

The thing is, in your example, the education gap wouldn't be closed at all by affirmative action. People would instead be forced to pretend that people from group B are qualified regardless if they were or not. The unintended negative consequences of this is that the qualifications of all members of group B would be suspect and considered not to be trusted--for valid reasons. The fatal flaw of those who support affirmative action is the wishful, almost magical thinking that all people helped by …
/r/MensRights31/10/15 01:54 PM
1

Equality is for people to be chosen on the basis of them meeting a certain standard of merit (regardless of skin color, gender, etc); affirmative action is the promotion of people who don't meet that standard of merit (promoting them instead because of their skin color, gender, etc). This is why affirmative action cannot be used to achieve equality no matter how carefully managed, and why the unintended consequences can't be avoided. It is in its very essence against equality of opportunity, no …
/r/MensRights31/10/15 12:07 PM
1

I think if it were a matter of working to stop people of merit being discriminated against, and of helping people develop their abilities to achieve merit, then your metaphor might work--but that's not what affirmative action is. It's not bringing up a plate to the same temperature as the others--it's deliberately pretending that the lower temperature of a certain plate is higher than it is, then refusing to acknowledge the way that adversely affects the cooking of the food, when the higher temp…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 06:28 PM
0

I'm sorry, I can't see how it rebuts my arguments at all. I can't see how putting quotas over talent, focusing on skin color, gender and sexuality over talent, can be a good thing. I can see only unavoidable unintended negative consequences.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 06:08 PM
1

What he's saying is, when you start looking for diversity, you tend to find talented "diverse" people, whatever that means for your show or theater or group. But that's not what he said. See the quote in my last post. Clear as day. I am fully in support of looking for talent from any demographic, but he is saying to "stop making excuses about talent or quotas" which is not this. If he is saying one thing and doing another (in practice only seeking talented people from diverse backgrounds) then I…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:57 PM
1

I'm only judging by the article itself. ...just decide that diversity is a priority and cast the most diverse ensemble that you can. Cast LGBT folks, cast black people and latinos, cast women. Just cast them. Do it. Stop making excuses about talent or quotas. Just cast them already. It's not that I don't think diverse casts can't produce wonderful, new, different things, it's that talent and quality have to be the main factors. When it all comes together it can be great--but so can artistic crea…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:43 PM
1

I did read the article, but I feel my last post is pretty much the answer to it. It's not an "excuse" to primarily look for talent and quality, and prioritizing factors like skin color or gender over talent and quality is not going to result in a better outcome. In fact, it is counter-productive, because if you consistently accept less talented people from certain demographics (while having higher standards for others) you run the very real risk of creating prejudice, with people associating les…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:31 PM
1

I'm talking as a matter of principle.* The "finger on the scale" I was referring to is in regard to Dara's comments where he was proposing not announcing special treatment of women and not "showing your workings" in order to avoid women being seen as tokens (while actually making many of them tokens through the special treatment). You can't avoid the unintended negative consequences of affirmative action through such cheap deception. Even if you don't announce it, people will see it. Giving unde…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:07 PM
1

Meaning I don't think they should face impediments just because they are women any more than they should get special treatment. I don't want them to be judged by their gender but the quality of their jokes. Equality of opportunity means that the funny women should succeed without being artificially impeded, and the unfunny ones should fail without being artificially supported--regardless of the numbers this results in. This, in contrast to "equality of outcome" where equality in numbers is seen …
/r/MensRights15/10/15 04:15 PM
1

It's disappointing and bewildering to to see someone who is otherwise rational and skeptical have impenetrable blind spots in certain areas--especially when they regularly criticize the irrational blind spots of others.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 03:53 PM
1

Sounds like Dara's got the right of it. I don't think he has (apart from saying that more men want to go into comedy). I wouldn't have announced it, is what I'd say, because it means [comedians] Katherine Ryan or Holly Walsh, who've been on millions of times, will suddenly look like the token woman. It would have been better if it had evolved without showing your workings, if you know what I mean. Legislating for token women isn't much help. A certain number of women want to go into comedy and t…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 06:21 AM
3

There is a feminist rhetoric based around the claim that if you help women and girls you somehow end up fixing the problem for everyone. This is the justification used to focus exclusively on women and girls even if logically it would make better sense to take a gender neutral or needs based approach. IMO they have started with only wanting to help women and girls (based merely on subconscious emotional bias) and everything else is a conscious rationalization for this. Of course, they don't want…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 03:57 AM
1

It really is disgusting. There are kids who are terrorized until they can leave home because of this, all because their abuser happens to be a woman.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:51 AM
7

Here's my prediction: this is not even going to cover all child victims--only those who have mothers who are victims of domestic violence from men. The standard rhetoric is that men who abuse their wives often abuse their children too (the children of men abused by women don't get a mention). Child abuse campaigns usually focus on sexual abuse cases where men are the greater percentage of perpetrators (although not the sole perpetrators; it's just that female perpetrators are virtually ignored).…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:50 AM
3

I have a different take. I think he is quite aware of what is going on and is working at the meta-level. He's working at creating his own framework instead of operating inside the one he's expected to. The set up of these debates and the feminist boilerplate that will be trotted out is utterly predictable. The ones working from a script are the feminists. The standard set up is that the host/moderator will be on the feminist side and will often weigh in or be biased in moderating. Feminists will…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 01:30 PM
2

I absolutely agree that self-defense was warranted--the thing is, she jumped straight to offense, and in a silly way. Having champion-level judo and MMA training, she has a huge toolbox at her disposal and the knowledge of how to use each tool tactically. For Judo, a push is a gift. You take the presented arm and the momentum behind the push and you use them to throw the guy. She could have done this in a number of ways and then walked out. Even if she used strikes she could have used them in co…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:52 AM
1

Here's a video of basically the same throw (although a right-handed version done less aggressively). In Rousey"s version she also sweeps his legs up so that he is going to land with all of his weight going to his back and head (if he doesn't know how to breakfall properly). In the safe version the thrower remains standing while continuing to hold onto the opponent's arm, which let's the thrower stop the opponent's head hitting the floor if he has to. In Rousey"s version she can't do this. She ha…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 04:25 PM
2

I think your post inadvertently illustrates why it is so hard to come up with effective strategies; the MRM doesn't have access to the only strategy feminism has needed to succeed--compassion for women. Feminists gain support for their demands precisely by relating stories of individual women's suffering, or claims of women as a group being oppressed. When people hear of women suffering they feel compassion for them, which triggers a desire to protect, help or save them. Unfortunately, people do…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:43 AM
3

I wish there were a better way, but we don't get to decide that; the MSM does. If they reported on calm, reasonable voices Elam wouldn't do what he does. If social media continues to grow in influence it may be all moot anyway. Gate-keeping is the problem.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 06:51 PM
16

I think the MSM is the dumbass here. Why? Because Elam's schtick is a deliberate tactic designed to get the MRM press when it is otherwise utterly ignored. I don't like that style at all, but I understand why he does it and why it works. The media only wants to report on the MRM when it can be painted in a bad light. Elam's provocative satire gives them this opportunity--the pay off is the knowledge that a percentage of those checking out A Voice for Men will look beyond the style and see the su…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 04:22 PM
54

Another frog carrying a scorpion across a river. “The moment I said I was writing a book about masculinity, and at first that is all I said, I had people telling me that it was anti-feminist,” he said. “To be clearer, I then said that what I wanted to write was going to say that men … need a more fluid definition of masculinity, and that the answer to the crisis of masculinity lies with feminism. Then some people said I was co-opting feminism,”
/r/MensRights15/06/15 04:25 PM
1

As part of dealing with the issue overall, I have no problem with them identifying situations such as the following and seeking to find solutions: Every year millions of children die because they get substandard nutrition during the critical 1,000-day period from their mother becoming pregnant until their second birthday, the foundation said in a statement. I do have a problem when they only want to help women and girls (such as in #HeForShe) or make helping women and girls out to be the solutio…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 01:52 PM
2

Yeah, just came here to post this. If you have been following gamergate, it is obvious she is talking about the faux victims who are against gamergate (Anita Sarkeesian for one).
/r/MensRights06/06/15 07:02 AM
14

No. This is evil. there are endless charities that focus just on girls and women due to feminist influence, and the massive imbalance is harmful. Their compassion does not extend to boys or men. Their desire to only want to help girls and women comes first. The rationalizations to justify this come afterward. Shame on them all. Humanity is interdependent. You can't refuse to help boys and men as well and not hurt girls and women too. So even feminists who hate men are ultimately hurting girls an…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 03:18 PM
1

The funny thing is that it is entirely due to feminists that the phrase sounds as "sexist" as it does today. Far more than today, in the past the word "man" did double duty, referring both to an adult human male, and to a human being, a person. So when feminists started complaining about words like "chairman" the response was along the lines of "The word 'man' there just refers to a person who is the chair. It doesn't mean that the chairman is male." This didn't matter. The feminists didn't like…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:24 AM
2

And this takes us full circle back to my first post. The writer of this article is trying to leverage the trolls to get more women on panels. Shutting off the firehouse of comments isn’t the answer... She doesn't want to censor them. ...nor is maxing the video so we can’t see them. I guess you could just “never read the comments,” but that doesn’t solve anything. She doesn't want to ignore the trolls. What we really need is to put more women on stage to begin with. We need the commenters to get …
/r/MensRights03/06/15 07:55 AM
2

Seeing as that was not the point I was addressing in that post, it doesn't. See my first post for that.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 06:41 AM
2

In this specific case though, it's another tactic in the push to get more women onto panels... This is in regard to the "sexist men can be cured by exposure to more women on stage" argument the article makes for more women on panels, as opposed to my first couple of paragraphs which talk about the "monkey trap," about trying to prove you are not sexist and winning feminist approval in general. Besides, I do not mention these particular women and it is you who are putting them into the "unqualifi…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 06:37 AM
2

I think that what I wanted to say was obvious (given that I had mentioned that there are qualified women who are asked to attend panels), but to avoid misunderstanding (willful or genuine) I have added the following bolded words for clarity: The women who are in the field, and are qualified, are constantly bombarded with requests to appear on such panels. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them to go round, so when one or more of them cannot participate in a given panel, the option then is t…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 06:08 AM
1

In that post I chose to address the issue in general, yes. In another post I addressed the issue of trolls, such as those who made comments about those women. There is nothing I said which implied that those particular women were unqualified; that was a giant leap you made all on your own.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 05:44 AM
1

No. I am not. The fact that I mention neither of these women in any way should have given you a bit of a hint. I also don't argue that all women say, in the STEM fields, are unqualified, but rather that there aren't enough qualified women working in STEM to make up half of the participants on STEM panels. The butter can't be spread that thin.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:43 AM
4

"Respect women" doesn't mean "respect" as in earned respect; neither does it mean "respect" as in the basic respect all humans beings should be afforded. What it means is to treat women with special manners and deference above and beyond the way you would be polite and civil to, or considerate of the average man. It's more akin to the way religious parents might tell their children to respect the priest, or people in traditional societies might say to respect the elderly.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 12:18 PM
5

It should be that simple, shouldn't it? But it isn't; it is a monkey trap. A man puts his hand in the trap to grasp the sweet treat of feminist approval: "Yes, we now see that you are not horrible and sexist like those other men" only to find he can't get his hand out and walk away. He is trapped, and as long as he holds onto his desire for feminist approval he will remain so, having to constantly prove himself by toeing the line in order to hold onto his treat. In this specific case though, it'…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 05:11 AM
8

If your goal is to focus on the conversation you are having, then the answer to trolls is to ignore them, or to censor them. Calls for censorship often come from the feminist side, with civil anti-feminist opinions being lumped in with the trolls, to be targeted for censorship too, so that feminists can control the narrative framework. If your goal is not to concentrate on the conversation itself, however, but something else, then there is another option--exploit and capitalize on the trolls--or…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 04:21 AM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 06:33 AM
4

Having not read the article, it's hard to respond to any accusations. I can make a couple of guesses though. It could be a deliberate smear piece. These are not uncommon (to put it mildly). Alternatively, it could be a misunderstanding of the MRM; if someone comes from, say, an SJW mindset where everyone is categorized and sorted into groups based on their race, gender, and sexuality, then the MRM not doing this could lead them to mistakenly assume that gay men are not included, when the fact is…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 03:56 AM
5

It's not so much "bashing" fathers as it is sucking up to mothers. It's both. It's sucking up to mothers by bashing fathers. It could be seen as condescending. Mothers, you're just wonderful. It is, because the ad is based entirely on the premise that mothers viewing the ad are the kind of petty, egotistical people who will smugly enjoy hearing the message "Your life partner is shit as a parent compared to you." You could even say they are cultivating this kind of attitude. It's not healthy for …
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:07 PM
1

Well, an anecdote is an anecdote.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 07:46 PM
3

I'm not saying girls don't want to/can't learn about computers, just that culturally/socially it seems that girls are less encouraged to do so from an early age. Sorry, I know this is tangential to your reply to the other poster, but I wanted to make the point that the possibility must be allowed that there are simply different natural inclinations, and that statistically they may manifest more or less in boys and girls (even though every single individual could be an exception to that tendency)…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 05:30 PM
8

Of course the comic is simplistic and isn't a full representation of the complexity of the situation, but then how could it be, and would that even be desirable in a comic that aims to simply make the point that women* are freely choosing to not to enter the STEM fields, then woman* are complaining about there not being many women in STEM fields, blaming the free choices of women* on sexism. *I mean here women in general, in each case the women doing the action/s, not all women. I think practica…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 04:50 PM
45

Christ in a bucket. It just shows how absolutely vital video-recording everything is these days. "He hit me!" Here's the video (shows her shoving him/his phone).
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:08 PM
14

To add: If you can listen to the actual conversation at the panel and still think your post has any validity, I don't know what to say. If you can then watch this video of the woman herself commenting on the situation and not change your mind, then I have no hope for you.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 07:00 PM
16

The Honey Badger in question asked permission to address the issue when MRAs were brought up by the panel. She was then granted permission to speak. She did so respectfully. She talked about the issue of feminists presenting women as victims—not the women of the panel specifically. This woman was the creator of the webcomic in question. She is of course "associated" with it. To my knowledge, to this date, the specific rule they supposedly broke has not been mentioned.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 06:22 PM
20

Well, that's pretty hateful.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 04:29 PM
1

For the "ironic" misandrists I think the one they want to fool more than anyone else is themselves.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:23 PM
1

Thanks. Those links certainly spell it all out, don't they?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:18 PM
18

I think they tell themselves that their bigotry is ironic because no one wants to consciously acknowledge the fact that "I am a hateful bigot." In reality, "irony" is their excuse for openly, gleefully indulging in authentic hate and bigotry without having to own up to what they are actually doing.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 12:57 PM
19

...logging on to the men's rights board at Reddit and complaining about how all women are bitches who get off on torturing men. How is it that I have been coming here for four years and have missed all of these kind of posts? /s
/r/MensRights28/02/15 05:21 AM
9

For the same reason fathers' rights protesters in England dress up as Batman and climb bridges. I've read comments about such protests that run along the lines of: "What a bunch of whackos! Their kids are better off without dads like that anyway." or "Why can't they just protest normally? What kind of idiot puts on a Batman suit and climbs up bridges?" As if these protesters' first idea was doing this. No. It's what they resorted to after protesting normally again and again only to be completely…
/r/MensRights26/02/15 05:55 AM
6

The guy was a frog ferrying a scorpion across the river on his back. Of course he was going to get stung. It's the scorpion's nature. The scorpions I'm referring to are the feminists and SJWs who are riddled throughout anything involving women in tech/business/etc. It doesn't matter how much he's done for their cause--the fact remains that he is a man. The reflexive lash of the tail and malicious injection of poison was just a matter of time.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 02:33 PM
1

You seem to have missed the entire point of my analogy to focus on details irrelevant to the point being made. Which is: you can be a bigot who does good for your favored group in the context of doing deliberate evil to those outside that group. The fact is that from the very start of feminist involvement in shelters and the issue of domestic violence they have opposed acknowledgment of domestic violence perpetrated by women and the existence of innocent male victims. In fact, anyone who opposes…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:18 AM
1

Well, to try and be unbiased, yes, they do actual good, some feminist groups have provided shelter for victims of abuse, as long as the victims are female. I know you're only trying to be fair, but I think that this needs to be put into full context. For example: If someone starts a sea rescue service and helps those with difficulties at sea, of course they are doing good by rescuing innocent people in danger of drowning. What if that person was a KKK member and insisted that the service only re…
/r/MensRights17/02/15 05:55 PM
5

I'm curious. I haven't seen the episode, but the signs in a still I have seen of the protest are direct flips of feminist ideas--for example "he for he." Does the show actually refer to any MRA claims at all? I have no problem with satire, but genuine satire exaggerates, mocks and ridicules what the target actually says, does, and believes. A satire of a straw man is no satire at all.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 06:07 AM
3

The reality is that when selecting from a large pool of men and women for the physically elite there will be no women who can make the grade. The top five percent of women are equivalent to the male average. That's not a reality I desire--it's just a reality that is. That said, what is truly disgusting about this is that the female marine candidates can't even be trying seriously. How many Crossfit women can do pull ups like no tomorrow? The women who fail to even do three pull ups aren't just d…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 06:43 AM
3

I agree with you in one way, but I think it is impossible. The people who should ignore her just won't. Her tactic from the very start has been to focus on the kind of troll that just mindlessly blurts out abuse, with her painting them as being the voices of her critics, while completely refusing to acknowledge or address polite, well thought out criticism. It has never been people voicing thoughtful criticism of her that has brought media attention or SJW support to her, so such people voicing …
/r/MensRights28/01/15 03:04 PM
10

The only way HeforShe plans to "help" boys and men is by brainwashing them into feminist ideology in order that they then focus their efforts on furthering the interests of women and girls. HeforShe is a clever initiative--they offer lip service to boys and men, mentioning some of their problems and verbally extending a hand of welcome--yet when it comes to actions HeforShe is true to its name. It's all about "she." In the HeforShe world the spotlight is solely on addressing the issues of women …
/r/MensRights24/01/15 09:47 AM
14

When a woman speaks in a professional setting, she walks a tightrope. Either she’s barely heard or she’s judged as too aggressive. When a man says virtually the same thing, heads nod in appreciation for his fine idea. when women exhibit male traits – you know, decision-making, authority, leadership – we often dislike them, while men who exhibit those same traits are frequently deemed strong, masculine, and competent. Every virtue has a vice that is the other side of the coin. There is a right wa…
/r/MensRights15/01/15 06:51 AM
2

There would be no issue if it were all about sexual health. What you are missing out in your description of the program is their stated "strong emphasis on the issues of gender equality" and their goal to "change the patriarchal mind frame that exists in many communities in East Africa" through "Gender equality programming." The concern is that the sex ed program is being used as a Trojan horse for a deliberate attempt at social engineering--cultural imperialism through indoctrination.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 06:21 AM
2

You only need to dig around their site to see they are coming from a feminist viewpoint. For example: Feminism is as relevant to us today as it ever has been... "Feminism" is not the same thing as "women's rights." One can be all for women's rights while being against feminism. For one thing, feminists tend to tell big lies: In 2014, women continue to earn 20% to 40% less than their male counterparts in the same professional position. (From the same link.) This is just not true. It has been debu…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 10:24 AM
8

I don't want to encourage any organization that makes receiving aid contingent on going through indoctrination sessions. Think I'm exaggerating? From their own site: The Boys Health Management Program will provide schoolboys with essential reproductive and sexual health education, with a strong emphasis on the issues of gender equality and consent. ...By working with young men to create definitions of consent and gender equality, the BHM Program will work to change the patriarchal mind frame tha…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 07:20 AM
2

He is all over the place. This. I like Joe Rogan, but I've given up expecting a consistent opinion from him on any given issue.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 08:19 AM
2

May I ask you if in your knowledge this would be standard procedure in such cases regardless of the gender of the protesters? While I agree that it looked like nonsense and in this case was nonsense, it is dangerous to presume that such actions will always be so. These protesters could get up close enough to physically attack him. No serious attempt was made to subdue them or keep them away. They succeeded in attacking him and even were able to continue spraying him with mayonnaise. Okay, so no …
/r/MensRights24/12/14 07:49 PM
3

I feel sorry for this kid in that she's been brainwashed out of thinking that words can't hurt her into thinking that they can. The point of the idiom "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." is that while you can't choose if a punch to the nose hurts you or not, you do have power over your reaction to words--you can choose whether they hurt you or not. Realizing that you have absolute power over your reaction to what others say is incredibly freeing. It completely r…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:43 PM
1

Look, personally I don't use the word and can see your point; but at the same time I also can see that people can use the word with no intention of being homophobic whatsoever, not even connecting the word to homosexuality in their minds when they use it. I want to look at intention and context--either way. You can have people who deliberately adopt such words in order to burn the hate out of them by using them casually with each other so that they in effect have no offensive meaning because the…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 07:32 PM
5

I dunno, the whole "faggot isn't an insult against gay people when we use it" is on pretty shaky ground IMO. Well, the word has never been part of my active vocabulary and I'm not a metalhead, but I tend to believe Louis C.K. is being honest when he talks about his use of the word and can imagine that extending to how metalheads use it. Language changes. Here's an icecream called "Golden Gaytime" advertizing "4 chances to have a gay time." Now, I know they aren't talking about potential homosexu…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 06:12 PM
1

You know, after Gamergate I don't just look askance at the spin on articles like this, but honestly wonder if the issue has been invented out of whole cloth. I can't even be bothered commenting on this article, because I doubt it comes anywhere near being a fair, honest representation of the dynamics at play. The level of outright bullshit and deliberate smearing is that high.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 06:51 PM
26

I suspect it is just damage control. It doesn't matter that he has been cleared--he still has to appear to pay clear obeisance to the victim narrative if he wants to reclaim the scraps that are left of his reputation. Meanwhile, her deliberate refusal to clear him while knowing full well what he had been going through for months will be handwaved away with a "meh" by the same people.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:31 PM
1

It wasn't clear at all that Barry was a pseudonym. The book does mention that some names have been changed, but not which ones. In fact, while in another case she specifically mentions that one man's name has been changed she doesn't do this in Barry's case.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:21 AM
1

My understanding is that she knew for months that people had tracked down this Barry and that many were assuming he was her rapist--yet she was quite happy to leave him twisting in the wind, only coming out with this clarification when legal action against her became a real possibility. She knew that this man was innocent yet deliberately chose to refrain from clearing him (a simple thing for her to do. She could have done it on twitter). She knew that his reputation was suffering, that his and …
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:14 AM
3

That's a really powerful quote.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:33 PM
12

I've given this issue thought before and the point that stands out to me, which seems not to be obvious to the adults thinking that it's all harmless fun, is that it is one thing when preadolescent kids think the other gender is "icky" as part of that stage of development, poking their tongues out at each other--and quite another when adult authority figures weigh in by initiating, leading and approving of blatantly one-sided adversarial gender teasing. The targeted kids can take it to heart on …
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:14 PM
3

It's just a troll. Check bleiix's post history.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 07:00 PM
4

Although it comes off like a parody it wasn't meant to be one. I googled the makers and it turns out they are serious. I think the woman only asks his consent for anything once or twice in the whole video. Everything else was him doing the asking, including asking her to take off his shirt. The funny thing is that she already seems to have her hand on his leg before asking him "Is this okay?" If she hadn't already been touching it she would have had to explain what "this" was verbally, just as h…
/r/MensRights04/12/14 05:57 AM
9

Google translation
/r/MensRights27/11/14 04:17 PM
2

I think they will be very hard to find. Larry Summers was forced to resign as President of Harvard University just for daring to offer up some additional hypotheses for there being less women in STEM and suggesting such research be looked for or done. Here's the speech that cost him his job. It's well worth reading.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 05:23 PM
6

...married men had higher rates of employment than their single peers, but married women had significantly lower rates of employment than single women. Of course this is true. Who has to work more to financially support those not doing paid work? Who can possibly choose not to work if no one is working in their place to pay for their lifestyle? The only way this can be described as a "disadvantage" for women is to claim that somehow having no option but doing full-time paid work is the holy grai…
/r/MensRights23/11/14 07:11 AM
6

This is blatant, naked discrimination. They must think no one notices or cares that they say "children" and then only call for "girls" to be helped. The sad thing is that many people may well not notice or care. I googled and then read the report this stat is based on and there is no claim that this only--or even mostly--affects girls. Their own report doesn't support their gender bias. You can bet if there were proof that this substantially affects girls more it would be out front in bold lette…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:31 PM
3

False flag troll or idiot? Hmm. I've already invested too much time and energy on this.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:17 PM
1

I'm sorry for asking you a question and then not replying. I have been unexpectedly busy. I'm still not clear on the sexual-->sexist. Men find women's faces and bodies attractive both in a sexual and aesthetic way. This is entirely natural and part of what it means to be human. This happens when you see someone for the first time, before you know anything more about them. It doesn't mean that after meeting them you will treat them as if that is all they are. I don't see the jump from a man being…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:13 PM
1

It is sexist to use images of the female body as mere decoration... I honestly want to understand this mindset. Could you explain why.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:39 AM
6

What is sexist and what is sexual? To many feminists the difference seems to be this. The stick man bowing in obeisance to a woman is obviously not sexual. Are images of sexily dressed women automatically sexist? If so, why? His shirt could have well been a collage of Cosmo covers. I think he was naive and foolish to wear it in that situation, but mainly because of the SJWs lying in wait for anything like this to pounce on. I think there is a valid argument to be made that the shirt wasn't appro…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 05:27 PM
100

Video is man's best friend. It seems like it is the only way to cut through the knee-jerk prejudice. It doesn't always help in getting female offenders punished though--like the four women who were caught on video accusing a taxi driver of attempted rape because they were annoyed that he wouldn't let them smoke in the taxi (because it's against the law). They let the man off, but refused to charge the women. See here. I will be interested to see if the woman in this case actually ends up getting…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 04:14 PM
5

He doesn't just talk about doing this stuff. He has video up of him doing it.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 10:57 AM
9

I'm fully in favor of free speech. If it is just a matter of him being barred for being a PUA and giving talks I agree that this is heavy-handed; but he himself has posted online video evidence of him groping, kissing, choking and shoving the heads of random women down to his crotch. If he is being barred for that, then I can see the justification. The real issue here is that of a double standard. This guy is not a victim. It's not just a matter of him having ideas that aren't politically correc…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 03:41 AM
2

Can you edit and put the link in your post rather than the title? It's not showing up.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 03:32 PM
2

Check my post history. I'm no white knight. What the protester did was a criminal act. She should be held fully accountable for it. As a separate issue, the guy the protest was organized against is a genuine piece of shit. There's no harm in pointing that out. It in no way justifies the protester's actions. To answer my own question though, I did a bit of googling and it turns out the man being assaulted in the OP's video was standing in for the guy who they intended to protest (the one in the v…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 11:09 AM
2

I get the point that physically assaulting the guy is not okay as part of a protest against him. Fully on board with that. The woman should be arrested. That said, is this the guy who walks around Tokyo groping and kissing random Japanese women and pushing them down toward his crotch? The guy who advises other men to do the same? The guy is a total scumbag. He should be arrested when he pulls his shit too. Edited to add this video.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 10:28 AM
2

I like Joe Rogan overall as a person, but when it comes to his opinions I find him to be rather hit-or-miss. Funnily enough, when just voicing his own opinions he is often right in line with the MRM without realizing it, yet when he talks about the MRM itself he often confuses it with the strawman of the MRM that feminists have created. It seems to me that sometimes he has enough information to make really good points, and at other times he has misconceptions or doesn't really know what he is ta…
/r/MensRights06/11/14 05:00 AM
5

Well, the obvious retort to this is that it is not women's obligation to cook merely because they are women; having said that, many women self-select into the role of homemaker and for those women (and men in that role) it is part of their job to think of the nutritional value of the food they prepare. I think the obesity epidemic is down to more than this though. Sure, fast food is a huge problem, but home-cooked meals in the past were also often very calorie dense. The thing is, people were do…
/r/MensRights06/11/14 03:20 AM
17

I don't think, as far as popular reporting on this goes, feminists support either the blank slate theory or inherent differences; rather, they are consistent in supporting whichever paints women in the better light. So when an article talks about how women are inherently more cooperative, nurturing, non-violent, and so on, there is no outpouring of disagreement from feminists as you might expect if they supported the blank slate theory in earnest. On the other hand, if someone (such as Larry Sum…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:07 PM
1

Interestingly, given that the quotes are in the book for all too see, in the time since I made that post more people are waking up to what is really going on—usually in the comment sections though or on blogs, rather than in MSM articles. There has also been a split between feminist blind supporters and those feminists who can't support her after actually reading about what she did, written in her own words. This has also come out, not helping her case. The child Lena Dunham made her sister dres…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 02:49 PM
43

I've looked at a number of sites to get some more information on this story, and one thing I find telling is that those who seem sympathetic to and supportive of her focus on the incident that happened when she was seven. And when you read the comments a lot of people think that, well, seven year olds can do this sort of stuff innocently. They don't give this quote (source): I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin askin…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 07:19 PM
4

To answer your question I can't play devil's advocate. I'll have to give you my own opinion. I think it is the "big lie" propaganda technique. Most people can't imagine someone telling a huge, bald-faced lie, as they wouldn't dare do so or would be utterly ashamed to do so themselves, and so they can't shake the feeling that it must be true, that there must be some explanation, even when the lie is debunked to them. Some want to believe and are resistant to even rationally considering any challe…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:58 AM
2

If I understand your question and its intent (I'm not sure that I do), then you want us to play devil's advocate and provide you with feminism's best argument for the wage gap being for the same work? I'm sorry, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone actually attempt to provide evidence for the "for the same work" claim. All I have seen is people pushing the typical wage gap figures and then tacking "for the same work" onto the end as a bald assertion.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 02:13 AM
1

Thank you for posting this with an "archive.today" link. I hope this becomes standard practice here.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 05:36 AM
18

I am very sympathetic to the argument that "it was a joke." We see SJW's go after comedians and other people all the time for making "offensive" jokes and I think they are full of shit. I've thought about this issue in general before. It seems to me to be mostly about intent and context. IMO the overwhelming majority of the time when comedians make offensive jokes their only intent is to make people laugh. From the context of their performance, from what the audience knows of the comedian, and s…
/r/MensRights23/10/14 06:38 AM
5

Looks like it. http://whiteribboncampaign.org/ leads to that site, with the slogan "End Violence Against Everyone." WhiteRibborn.org is owned and operated by A Voice for Men. All donations for our White Ribbon effort will be used to maintain and enhance this website. Thank you. http://whiteribbon.org redirects to AVFM. Edit: And here's confirmation.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 12:45 PM
1

I know what you mean about not having time. In my case, I sometimes think of replies on the way to work but am too busy to post them or have simply missed the time window and give up. This is probably more the case than me actually posting. Speaking of which, I have to go, but thanks again.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 09:25 PM
2

No problem. I'm happy to hear that someone is actually reading my comments. Because of where I live and my work hours, I usually come in at the tail end of discussions and sometimes wonder if I'm just speaking to the wind.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 08:55 PM
1

Thank you kindly. Out of curiosity, which comment was the first you read?
/r/MensRights21/10/14 08:41 PM
10

I am actually glad for articles like this. Why? Lately some feminists have realized that it would actually take very little to entice radically more men to devote themselves to working for the feminist cause--with these men doing a lot of work for them under their direction, bringing in much more money, publicity, support, influence, and so on. They wouldn't even need to change their underlying ideology or goals. They could still blame all of the world's ills on men. All efforts could still be d…
/r/MensRights21/10/14 04:41 PM
1

I agree with you in one way, disagree in another. It is good to see a dad naturally portrayed in the stay-at-home parental role with no big deal being made of it either way. He just does the housework, childcare, and plays with his daughter without being incompetent, or conversely, being praised for being a dad who can amazingly "somehow" actually do the stuff that moms do. But IMO the same dynamic that is portrayed between father and daughter would rub moms up the wrong way if it were a commerc…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 05:18 PM
2

I'm not really for or against this commercial. It is, thankfully, a reprieve from dad as active idiot; but I can't imagine the commercial running the exact same way with mom cast as the parent and a boy as the child. My take is that the commercial is written to be dad-positive while not threatening moms' sense of position as parental authority figure. (By this I mean the mothers watching this who might subconsciously view it with themselves projected into the position of the absent mom or even t…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 04:10 PM
5

They're not saying they don't want jobs. They're saying that they wish that they were wealthy enough to not need a job so that they could afford to stay home with their kids. Hardly the same thing. Actually, how is it not the same thing? I don't want to work the job I'm doing now. I don't have the luxury not to. This survey is saying that these women are working only because they don't have the option not to. The reality is that barring special cases only women have a realistic expectation that …
/r/MensRights18/10/14 07:20 PM
14

I agree with you; but don't you see that this flips the usual feminist narrative on its head? Doing paid work isn't the aspiration of the majority of women according to this survey. This means that far from being oppressed, these women are having their preferred lifestyle subsidized by their husbands when they marry up to men who are able to do so--and by doing so these men are consequently unable to quit work or work part time in order spend more time with their kids even if they want to. Far f…
/r/MensRights18/10/14 06:17 PM
11

I don't believe in "getting rid" of traditional gender roles--rather I am against people being coerced into OR out of gender roles. I believe in freedom of choice and equality of opportunity--not any sort of forced outcome. Let people be free to choose and then let the chips fall where they may.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 11:18 AM
1

Thanks for the heads up.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 05:13 PM
5

This reads like a troll to me.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 05:08 PM
12

She doesn't even seem to have any awareness of what she is doing, even though having your spouse's back and guarding the privacy of each other's intimate secrets within the marriage is just basic loyalty. There's just something really saddening about this. Such a casual betrayal of her husband. How easily she publicly humiliates him on television to countless people. Whether the guy has a small/weird penis or not, now everyone he knows thinks he does. Even a speck of consideration for her husban…
/r/MensRights17/10/14 04:53 PM
1

He has just jumped straight out of the "man box" into the "feminist box." I absolutely approve of questioning your conditioning and then deciding on your own values; but just swapping one set of restricting conditioning for another is foolishness. What is his vision of the "man box"? It seems partly the typical feminist narrative of "toxic masculinity" and part his own experience of growing up in a particular subculture which is not representative of all masculinity, particularly not that of a h…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:18 PM
1

I can remember speaking to a 12-year-old boy, a football player, and I asked him, I said, "How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you you were playing like a girl?" Now I expected him to say something like, I'd be sad; I'd be mad; I'd be angry, or something like that. No, the boy said to me -- the boy said to me, "It would destroy me." And I said to myself, "God, if it would destroy him to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?" transcript I rea…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:57 PM
1

I'm going to reply in a few posts, each addressing different aspects. I've seen calls for men to just let go of being in control, of being stoic, of holding in their emotions--but no thought seems to have been given to why (in general) women are free to do this while men aren't. If there is a stoic man there, the woman is free to let go and give in to her emotions because the man will be there managing the situation. The man is like the outermost Russian doll, the one who would take any damage w…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:14 PM
1

Well, that's certainly a reasonable opinion on the surface; however, my suspicion comes from knowledge of multiple occurrences of just what I have described. It doesn't have to happen straight away. The problem is that in a culture where when this does happen and there is no way to combat it without immediate accusations of misogyny or sexism or what have you, the male-positive organization in question is usually up shit creek without a paddle. They have to kowtow to the women complaining and th…
/r/MensRights11/10/14 09:37 PM
2

I have to disagree. I think that a small number of individual women who are genuinely understanding and supportive of the purpose of Men's Sheds could join and participate without altering the atmosphere too much; however, I think it would be just a matter of time before the preferences of certain individual women, or just a tip in the numbers, would result in a demand for the atmosphere to change to cater more to women's sensibilities, with the men having to censor themselves and repress their …
/r/MensRights11/10/14 12:37 PM
14

She wants to kill "the concept of masculinity," because she thinks "patriarchal culture actively trains men to be awful." So no, she doesn't want to literally kill men—but her being against "masculinity" (which she associates with "male supremacy," "patriarchy," and all sorts of sexist, oppressive behavior and negativity) is not the same thing MRAs typically talk about regarding the pressure to "be a man" or "man up"—which is about men being conditioned to reflexively work for the benefit of oth…
/r/MensRights11/10/14 11:49 AM
2

Absolutely, the wife's motivation was not purely motivated--that does not make the first sentence irrelevant in any way. It is legal in California to record that kind of admission to committing a felony. It does mean that the wife was not moral in her motivations, even if objectively the action of recording and releasing the information that he molested children is moral in itself--while releasing hacked nudes of innocent celebrities is neither moral or legal in any context that I can think of. …
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:46 PM
2

They are fundamentally different, both legally and morally. It is legal in California to record that kind of felony. It is moral to do so if you are doing so to report a crime (that said, his wife was not morally motivated--she just wanted to use the recordings to make money for herself). It is not legal to hack nude/sex pictures and then release them. It is not moral either, regardless of whether your motive was to titillate people who view them and to make money rather than specifically to hur…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:29 PM
2

Exactly.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:54 PM
3

The difference is that in California it is legal to record someone admitting to committing a felony like that. The disgusting thing is that his wife initially tried to use the recording to get money from him and failing that, from other sources, before finally trying to use it as leverage in their divorce to get more money--instead of immediately taking the recording to the police to bring him to justice and prevent him from committing further child molestation.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:25 PM
-1

If she genuinely has been working non-stop for eight hours every day then you should share 50% of what's left; but wait, what happens when your children get older, lessening her work load dramatically, and then leave the nest? Hmm? Should she work more now to make up for working less later as you continue at the same pace until retirement? Will she do more paid work later as her unpaid workload lessens? It usually doesn't work out that way IMHO. Not to mention that spending time with your kids, …
/r/MensRights01/10/14 05:01 PM
-2

Is it fair that she doesn't come into the office to help with your paperwork? If she is not doing paid work, then most of the unpaid work is her job. It's not like your job is just nothing and then you split all the unpaid work as if it were something else entirely unrelated to be split 50/50. It's nothing to do with either work being "superior" or not. It's about acknowledging that if a man does far more paid work then it is entirely fair that the woman does just as much more unpaid work to bal…
/r/MensRights01/10/14 03:41 PM
1

Add up all working hours (both paid and unpaid) and on average men work the same or slightly more than women. It's just that men spend more time doing paid work and commuting, while women do less paid work and do more housework and unpaid work relating to their children. This means that on average it would only be fair to recommend that fathers to do more helping at school if they also recommended that mothers to do more paid work so fathers can free up more time. Of course, they they won't do t…
/r/MensRights01/10/14 03:24 PM
1

Couldn't believe seeing that in the video. This guy is either dangerously clueless or a deliberate false flag. Using a depiction of her modeled after a famous racist caricature? Talking about taking Anita down? About making an example of her? Removing her from the internet? He, as shown in the video, knows full well that Anita makes use of anything that smells of abuse or a threat to damsel for more money and support. Well, congrats to him...he has given her more to damsel about and dragged Thun…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 05:56 PM
1

It's not as simplistic as lusting after "sex." A lot of men (the ones called "manginas" in particular) are utterly reliant on female approval and are fearful of female wrath in their personal and professional lives. Due to other men and women backing this sentiment en masse, this guides these men's behavior. In the context of a school board adjudicating on these issues I don't see how a definition of "mangina" as an effeminate or transsexual man makes sense at all, while my definition does.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 05:21 PM
1

...unloyal, cowardly, heartless, pushover, spineless, or traitor to the profession carry more weight... ...if your average person hears "mangina," they're more likely to judge the person using the word... I agree in general with both of these points, however I disagree that any of the alternatives you offer are true synonyms for what is meant by "mangina"--which for all its crudity does convey something specific, even if it is easily misinterpreted by people who (often pretend to) see it as a re…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:41 PM
0

I don't use the word "mangina," because many times people (very often willfully) misinterpret what is meant by the person using the word--this ends up in derailing and wasting of time. That said, what is meant by the word is a useful concept: it is a reference to a man who is enslaved to the vagina--said less crudely--to the approval of women. He will throw other men under the bus without a moment's hesitation, while never being able to find it within himself to stand up for what's right against…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:30 PM
7

It's just a troll from http://www.np.reddit.com/r/RedditArmie/
/r/MensRights14/09/14 06:26 PM
3

Best of luck!
/r/MensRights11/09/14 06:20 AM
2

Tomorrow never comes. The next day the boy will be told the same thing. And the next. It is always today, not tomorrow. The focus on "women only" is often justified with the claim that this time or in this case the focus is solely on women, but surely men will be focused on in some other time or place--except they never are--when it comes to these people/groups who choose to focus solely on women. In any here and now the focus "just happens" to be on women.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 05:37 AM
1

A boy asked his mother "When are we going to Disneyland?" "Tomorrow." she replied. The boy happily accepted her answer and eagerly awaited the next day. The following morning he asked her when they were going to leave. "I told you--we're going tomorrow. It's today now. I have other plans for today."
/r/MensRights11/09/14 04:42 AM
8

...there certainly aren't enough men in politics... There are plenty of men in politics. ...advocating for men. Now, this is something completely different. Male politicians advocating for women? Countless. Politicians advocating for men's issues in the same way female (and male) politicians openly advocate for women? Offhand, I can only think of a couple. In the US? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. Canada? Senator Anne Cools attended the first International Conference on Men's Issue…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 04:29 AM
2

The latest ridiculous anti MRA crap on college humor mentioned a guy not wanting to give up his seat for a woman. The College Humor piece mentioned a (fictional) guy who refused to give up his seat for a mother and her baby. I would give up my seat for a parent with a baby, a visibly pregnant woman, a senior citizen, someone who was visibly injured/infirm--basically, anyone who looked in more need of a seat than me. I would not give up my seat for an able-bodied person who looked in no more need…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 03:41 PM
3

I think that critiques of fiction can sometimes provide useful, valuable insights--or, conversely, simply be mental-masturbation, projection, or overthinking; whichever way, that is not the issue here in my view. I object to calls for fiction to function as a propaganda vehicle (it wouldn't matter if I agreed 100% with the message being promoted).
/r/MensRights20/08/14 02:30 PM
8

Am I becoming a conservative? Can't I be a male activist, against feminism, and a liberal? Why are you thinking in terms of a simple binary? It's not a matter of subscribing to one set of dogma or another; it's about trying to determine what is true in regard to any issue. You might not be becoming a conservative; however, to others you may no longer be an "acceptable" liberal--if you are vocal with these opinions. You might just be an individual trying in earnest to be intellectually honest. Yo…
/r/MensRights16/08/14 05:55 PM
2

All I want to say is that I am really saddened by the news of his death. Rest in peace.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 01:13 PM
1

Her YouTube videos are great. Other than that, I can't say I like her much.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 12:24 PM
2

Any troll who posts anything that could even remotely be represented as a rape or death threat to a feminist is a hugely short-sighted idiot who can't see beyond a single move in a game of chess. The troll thinks "Haw, haw, this feminist is going to have an aneurism when I post this!" (The troll is just looking to get a reaction "fix" from their target.) In reality, the feminist is like the boy who cried wolf. He's pointing at some bushes claiming there is a wolf in there. The villagers have hea…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:09 PM
4

The Hawkeye initiative proves it on the comic angle... Personally, I'm not a fan of American comics or their art style; that said, I find the "Hawkeye initiative" ridiculous. This is stating the obvious, but men and women's bodies are different. Many poses that are attractive when done by women are, in general, not going to be attractive when done by men. This is not sexism. It's sexual dimorphism. The idea that a pose a woman makes is somehow proven to be "wrong" if a man looks bad doing it is …
/r/MensRights30/07/14 06:45 AM
7

I'm not personally a fan of the angry, ranty style, but some people are and he certainly should feel free to speak in his own voice; besides, he is speaking up for himself and his own demographic—those who built those communities for themselves and those who love what they love, only to have feminists invade their spaces—not to join in, but to colonize the spaces for their own political agenda (which is their actual hobby, not comics, games, etc).
/r/MensRights28/07/14 04:26 AM
3

The idea that people who have to live in the aftermath of an incredibly brutal war have it worse isn't so difficult to comprehend. They can have it worse for the same reason they can have it better—they are still alive. The dead can no longer suffer, but they also can't experience anything of life, ever again. From the same speech from the proceeding paragraph: "Each of you in this room, I know, has a story that you could tell -- a story of loss, a story of tragedy, a story of disappointment fro…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 06:08 AM
16

This got me thinking about how the "Big Lie" technique is extremely useful to feminists, even when the individual lies are easily debunked. While you can't fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time (especially those who want to believe). Some people tend to think "the truth must be somewhere in the middle." This lazy (if well-intended) tendency only aids the teller of Big Lies, especially when their opponent doe…
/r/MensRights20/07/14 05:31 PM
6

The problem with that "statistic" is that there doesn't seem to be any named study as a source for it. It's just a stand-alone quote attributed to the "(National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1989)." In googling for a source I came across other people who had also tried to find a source and failed—see here and here (comments 5 to 11). (What they did find gives you what you are asking for, though.)
/r/MensRights20/07/14 04:11 PM
1

Here, here.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:47 PM
2

I'm concerned about how the MRM and this subreddit may attract this anti-sjw crowd(specially after /r/tumblrinaction became so popular), any racist or homophobe is going to be anti-sjw... I think that you still haven't broken out of the false SJW framework that sets itself up as being the anti-racist/anti-sexist/anti-homophobic/etc side--leaving everyone else on the "pro" side by default. I reject this framework. I think the SJW crowd is fully racist, sexist, bigoted about sexuality, etc in its …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:43 PM
2

I am the same way--my post was more to other people who might be reading yours. I do think though, that you can say something with the correct caveats and be certain you are (sincerely) speaking truthfully; for example: "To my knowledge, considering any claims I have seen thus far, there is no evidence whatsover that Elliot Rodger had any connection to the MRM."
/r/MensRights17/06/14 07:08 PM
3

I have a saying. The truth is always found in between. I agree with you, but I want to highlight that "in between" doesn't mean "in the middle" (not that you are saying that). Many well-meaning people assume that the truth is about at the halfway point between one group's claims and another's. Not so. Let's say we have two groups. Group A makes a sincere effort to be objective and fair, while of course not being infallible. Group B is totally comfortable with going all out and using the "big lie…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 06:35 PM
4

I don't use the word "mangina" because of what can be read into it, even without the user intending that meaning at all. In usage, the word doesn't seem to me to imply that the man has/is a vagina, or that having a vagina is bad/weak; rather that the man is enslaved to the vagina--he is desperate for female approval and so lives by women's (usually feminist) opinions, not his own. He will throw other men under the bus in an instant to please women. The disgust invoked by such men has nothing to …
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:52 PM
1

This is all I could find. The quotes aren't attributed to anyone there and aren't even in the linked article at all.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:09 PM
1

You tell us.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:19 PM
3

In this post I'm going to be extremely charitable and assume you are unbelievably irresponsible and thoughtless rather than a liar, troll, or fifth columnist. You come here and post a rumor you haven't even taken the trouble of confirming for yourself first, then talk about not wanting people to donate if it's a lie. So you are willing to throw a spanner in the works of something that is highly important to the people involved (many of whom have put decades of their lives into this cause, making…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:02 PM
6

If you call the hotel, the management staff appears to be unaware of any death threats. Why are you stating this as if it were fact? Not only is this an unconfirmed anecdote, it isn't even yours but your friend's (or so you say--you or your friend may simply be lying). Even if true, your friend just asked the person who answered the phone, first declining an offer to be transferred to any specific department, then later declining an offer to be transferred to verify the situation after she said …
/r/MensRights02/06/14 04:40 PM
1

Am I correct in assuming that you meant to reply to notanangryfem rather than me? Edit: I see from your other comment that you did.
/r/MensRights30/05/14 03:26 AM
2

Well, as I said, I don't use the word; that said, I think you should be equally embarrassed for initially uncritically buying into the propaganda of feminist blogger/journalists who do far worse than invent a pejorative term for man-hating, radical feminists--they deliberately outright lie and misrepresent their opponents in a truly outrageous fashion. Honestly, I thought such blatant propaganda was a thing of the past. I was wrong and I am sad that it's still effective. Have to go--but I will r…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:31 PM
2

The context is that you were offended by the word "feminazi" while feeling injured at people being "angry and nasty" to you, while not taking into account that you were (even if because you mistakenly, uncritically bought into an untruth) being incredibly offensive yourself.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:10 PM
1

The word "feminazi" has been used as a slander against feminists for a long time. It is also absolutely useless when it comes to creating a helpful dialogue. Not my point. I don't use the word, because no matter how vile the actions or thinking of the feminist being targeted with it, the conversation is immediately derailed by the feminist and others being offended by the word, with the actual issue under discussion left far behind. My point was that you spared no thought for the offense you wer…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:57 PM
2

Here is my perception of what happened: shootings followed by #yesallwomen followed by outrage from MRAs citing that Rodger was a madman, not a misogynist who followed online communities that are notorious for MRA activity. The outrage was at the outright lie by feminist bloggers/journalists that Rodger frequented MRA forums and espoused MRA thinking. Why did I cite the bodybuilding website as one of the "MRA forums?" Because I have often seen that site depicted as an MRA haven. If I was wrong t…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:38 PM
4

...the way in which you've tried to distance yourself from those forums hasn't worked. Could you clarify what you mean by this? Do you still believe that they are somehow MRA sites? That even bodybuilding is somehow MRA, as well as both pro and anti pick up artist forums? And a few of your members have been a little too angry and nasty for my liking. Take a step back and think about how you were offended by the term "feminazi" while expecting people here not to be upset at the MRM being falsely …
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:07 PM
8

I took a look at the things Rodger was saying in MRA forums and the like. Your answer is here. There is no evidence for Rodger visiting, let alone posting, on any MRA forum. What there has been is a deliberate effort by feminist bloggers and journalists to smear the MRM by telling barefaced lies--by claiming that Rodger visited MRA forums, that his rhetoric comes from the MRM, that MRAs hate women and believe that men are entitled to beat and rape women, and so on. All deliberate, utterly vile l…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:11 PM
1

Because men don't have an in-group preference, (while women do). When feminists criticize men, it is common for the average man to assume himself to be the exception. Other men are being criticized—not him. There's ego gratification in this—he's a good man, a "better" man, with female approval. He doesn't realize that the majority of men are thinking just this way, and to feminists who don't know him, he is one of the men being criticized (just as all the other "exceptions" are). Conversely, whe…
/r/MensRights28/05/14 03:52 PM
1

Well, without context, or even proof that these are real quotes by MRAs, I personally don't see any point in making any comment about them (although I do appreciate your point). If they were from here, surely they would come up in a google search. (Am I wrong? I'd like to know if I was.)
/r/MensRights18/05/14 02:40 PM
3

That may be possible; more likely though, the writer is simply lying IMO. I mean, if it were true, surely supplying links or screenshots would be in his interest.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 02:30 PM
10

When I google the so-called MRA message board quotes I come up with nothing but links to this article and the Raw Story article it got them from (which itself provides no sources for them). How curious. Anyone else with better luck? Or are these just outright lies?
/r/MensRights17/05/14 03:10 PM
3

The woman at the tech convention who overheard two guys making inappropriate jokes is a perfect example. The guys were acting like dumb frat bros, and she was offended; not as a professional individual who overheard colleagues behaving like assholes... Bolding mine. I just wanted to say that while I understand the point you are making, I think you are unfairly characterizing these men. They were usually reported as making "sexual jokes" without the actual jokes being mentioned, which gives a far…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 05:03 PM
4

Oh, I know. I want those boys helped too. I'm just pointing out the sea rescue captain who can see someone drowning and yet chooses to sail on by, based on the drowner's skin color. They didn't need to make this about race. They could have made it about identifiable need; this would have helped all of those in need. If some ethnicities had more boys in need, then those individual boys would get help based on being in need, while those boys in need from ethnicities who statistically needed less h…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 07:19 PM
18

Yes, it is better than nothing. Those boys need help. There is nothing wrong with helping them. It's a good thing. The problem lies with the ones providing the service. A sea rescue service to help those in danger at sea is great. People in need of rescue from drowning should be helped. Now imagine a sea rescue service that only rescues people from certain ethnicities from drowning--while leaving the others to die, even when they can see that they are in danger and could help them. What if their…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 06:48 PM
56

There are two different debates to be had here. 1) What should the definition of rape be, and by that definition, is this rape? I want to address the second one: 2) Is this rape according to a definition of rape such as the one quoted in the article: In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability). Check out the quiz on the wastedsex site which would have labelled Amy Shumer a rapist--if only s…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 04:20 PM
6

Bigot Translator Don't you mean "straw man creator"? It seems to me that if what MRAs say is so awful it would be easy to refute what they actually say instead of making up shit and attacking your own fabrication. Come on then, address what I actually say. Have at it.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:43 AM
13

Of course it's "worse" now. Feminism is in eternal need of finding further examples of victimhood to damsel about. Trolls are a blessing to them. Trolls are idiots hiding in bushes, waving a stuffed wolf on a stick, laughing at how they are scaring the villagers—oblivious to the fact that they are giving "the girls who cried wolf" (feminists/social justice warriors) exactly what they want—something visible to point at when they make their bogus claims. It's perfect. There is no real threat, so f…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:11 AM
1

Actions are what count as reality, not words. Feminism is as feminism does. Feminism never was the pure dictionary definition.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:44 AM
29

The typical” Nice Guy (TM)” is a guy who is uncomfortable with and/or inept at the standard male role of being the one who initiates, and so he tends to favor a more passive strategy- he makes himself visible to women whose interest he would welcome, is pleasant towards them, tries to present an appealing image, perhaps gives off some demurely ambiguous hints of romantic/sexual interest, and hopes that she’ll make the first move. Or, alternately, he becomes friendly with a woman out of platonic …
/r/MensRights21/04/14 07:21 PM
1

From an old post of mine: The real reason behind boys’ reading underachievement Quite simply, boys can read equally as well as girls do, and sometimes outperform girls, in classrooms where they are taught to read by certain methods. They perform just as well as girls regardless of their teacher’s sex, their school starting age, the kinds of reading tests they take, or any of the other biological and environmental factors that might be in play. Any teacher that uses these particular methods not o…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 03:06 PM
1

If a woman isn't interested in a man he doesn't receive that message telepathically, immediately turn round and leave. The message has to be conveyed to him somehow. "Rejecting" is saying something that boils down to "no"/"not interested," right? I'm saying that logically at some point a woman has to reject the invitations, advances, etc of all the men she is not romantically/sexually interested in--because the alternative is for her to say the equivalent of "yes" at every point, isn't it? (Even…
/r/MensRights18/04/14 10:51 AM
1

It's nothing to do with "self control." The point is that women are propositioned much more by people they don't want to have sex with (than men are) and so have to go through the hassle of rejecting them (much more than men do).
/r/MensRights17/04/14 04:19 PM
3

If you are serious, you could start by reading the FAQ. Google "wage gap myth"—read to your heart's content. What makes you look like you are trolling is your unwarranted injection of race. This is men's rights. All men. Are you genuinely ignorant? Have you been misinformed by others? Or are you just being willfully obtuse?
/r/MensRights17/04/14 03:40 PM
2

But the humor comes from the "Ah!" moment of realizing what the analogy is referring to.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:57 PM
1

No. That's not what I mean at all. What you are saying doesn't even make sense. It's not that she has to "resist" some urge to have sex with a man she doesn't want to—as that urge doesn't exist; if it did, he would be a man she does want to have sex with. She does, however, have to go through the hassle of refusing his advances—as he does want to have sex with her, while she doesn't want to have sex with him.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:18 PM
7

lock and key analogy, just a poor excuse for a man to have more sex than a woman I don't think this is the purpose of the analogy. I think the purpose is to acknowledge a fundamental difference between men and women. For the average woman (or above), it involves considerable effort for her to restrict the number of men she has sex with to just the number of men she actually wants to have sex with. She has to fend unwanted men off. For the average man (or below), it involves considerable effort f…
/r/MensRights15/04/14 04:14 PM
6

I would put both the seat and the lid down. This is what I do anyway, as it's the most hygienic, but it would be amusing that they would end up having to lift up something—with no grounds for complaint.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 03:36 PM
82

I think this is more important than a lot of people might think it is. It is a kind of psychological initiation—a rite of passage. It is one of the ways the military removes signs of individuality in order to get soldiers to identify with the institution. This is also one of the reasons why uniform, protocol, etc are so important. When women are spared such rites of passage, or are treated with special leniency, they are not as psychologically conditioned as the men are to identify with the grou…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:53 AM
3

Personally, I don't like the tone of many of the articles at AVFM either; however, I forgive them for it. Why? Because that tone is the only reason such articles get read at all outside of the MRM. IMO it's a deliberate tactic—just as the UK's Fathers 4 Justice members wear superhero costumes—not because they are into that shit, but because it's what gets them media attention.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 05:47 AM
2

It's called 'definition drift'. They've taken the meaning of the word 'respect' and purposely conflated it with 'a baseline level of human decency'. I think it is neither of those. "Respect women" is not about respecting women's achievements. It is not about about treating women with the basic human decency that everyone deserves. It is about regarding women with special esteem just for being women, and consequently treating them with special consideration, deference and manners.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 04:55 PM
14

I'm more saddened than anything. My impression is that he is well-intentioned, but ignorant regarding the full scope of domestic violence. His personal experience is that of a child witnessing his mother being abused by his father, yet he has not taken the next step to take into account that there are children who have suffered through witnessing their fathers suffering domestic violence from their mothers—and children who have been directly abused by their mothers.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 07:54 PM
0

As his BigBobBear's reply to you seemed out of place here to me, out of curiosity I checked his post history and it seems this is his first time posting here. He has admitted to trolling before and IMO he's just trolling you now.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:42 AM
1

I agree there is little meat to the article. More information is needed. I think the difference is that a man doing it to a woman would instead be automatically shunted into the "dangerous" and "abuser" categories and people would be concerned for the woman's future safety.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:56 PM
1

...we can't make any distinctions based on such a small article and that is my point. But you did make distinctions. You called her "crazy" and an "idiot" instead of, say, abusive or a criminal. I think we're talking about two different things anyway. You are talking about the relevancy of the initial article, while I am talking about how the reactions to the article are relevant to the MRM. I also think you are putting the cart before the horse—having already labelled her actions as merely craz…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:43 PM
1

I think it is a case of a crazy woman doing something crazy. What is meant by crazy here? Is it "had a genuine psychotic break and was so out of touch with reality that she couldn't distinguish right from wrong" crazy? Is it "dysfunctional and acted out in a fit of rage" crazy? Is it "I feel free to perform extreme acts because I don't fear being held accountable for my actions" crazy? Unless it's the first definition, the woman should still be held responsible for her actions. She committed a s…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:40 PM
21

You have to wonder how many people's sole exposure to the MRM is actually to the straw men created to smear it. I think this is one huge reason. Then there are those who are exposed to the MRM through some provocative campaign or other, such as fathers' rights campaigners wearing superhero costumes and climbing up bridges, or say, some of AVFM's posters or satirical pieces. They typically say something like "Well, men have some valid issues, but MRAs are going about things the wrong way." What t…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:04 PM
6

It's literally a feminist propaganda piece embedded in the middle of a song. Just to address one thing from the song: But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage And we don't teach boys the same? The thing is, boys are taught to aspire to marriage; it's just that the goal is different. Boys are taught/pressured to "man up" and become a successful breadwinner for their future family. The goal of marriage for girls used to be to obtain a provider; now it is to find a subsidizer. What do I mean…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 06:58 AM
1

Hahahaha! Hats off to BlindPelican and sibqm_lmvm. Bonus points to rightsbot for preserving the idiocy.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:53 PM
7

Being assertive is one thing. Being bossy is another. Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive. boss·y fond of giving people orders; domineering. synonyms: domineering, pushy, overbearing, imperious, officious, high-handed, authoritarian, dictatorial, controlling; informal high and mighty Let's throw another word into the ring: Leadership has been described as "a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of oth…
/r/MensRights10/03/14 03:57 PM
2

How far does your compassion reach? It seems that in general, men, even homeless men, are beyond the compassion of the average person; here we see an act of genuine compassion and a genuine response to it. The homeless man wanted to share his good fortune. Two good men. This is some real shit. I don"t believe that this is fake.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 05:37 PM
7

What gets me is that the advice givers—whether Abby, or the one commentator who loves her son—put all of the focus and priority on the mother's feelings (whether of potential later satisfaction with the choice of keeping her son or of regret for giving him up); there is no concern for the welfare of the baby himself—who on the face of it would be far better off with a loving father and extended family who definitely want and welcome him. The mother may well be temporarily irrational, but it can'…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:34 PM
2

You know what? I wish you were right. I wish that calmly argued, well-reasoned arguments were what appealed most to the general population and got the most attention. The sad reality is that decades of using this approach just resulted in men's issues being almost completely ignored. It doesn't matter how good your argument is if no one is listening. You have things backwards. After trying a calm, well-reasoned, non-offensive approach MRAs and fathers' rights activists came to the conclusion tha…
/r/MensRights25/02/14 06:59 AM
3

Either they genuinely consider it a safety issue, or they don't. If it is a safety concern, then surely both men and women should have the same rule—because it's not about fashion or gender norms, but safety. If it is about fashion and gender norms, then the rule is just discriminatory, plain and simple. You can't have it both ways. Long hair doesn't suddenly become dangerous because you have a penis.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 12:41 PM
44

So this is the next step. Firstly, it was about promoting the idea that only men rape. That framework established, they then radically expanded the definition of rape to include such things as having sex with someone who has been drinking (and as in this framework only men rape and only women are victims, that "someone" is always a woman). This is the way things have stood for a while. Now someone in the media has come out to publicly point out the obvious—that a man and a women having consensua…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 07:00 AM
2

I speculate that those who support quotas fall into a couple of categories: Firstly, those directly involved in the decision making, who may not even believe or care that quotas will help women or not—who just care that supporting quotas will boost their own careers. Secondly, Those who have been lobbying for quotas and who genuinely believe in them. I believe this group is naive. It doesn't matter if they believe that talented women have been unfairly shut out or if they just want to put women …
/r/MensRights09/02/14 07:21 PM
0

She takes every opportunity to spout some anti-male or feminist bullshit, even on a comedy show. I've noticed this with a number of women on these comedy shows. They will spout some smug thing about how women are superior, or randomly inject some snide, self-righteous claim about sexism—utterly killing the mood like someone standing up at a dinner party, to turn around and let out a loud, wet stench of a fart across the dinner table—only to sit back down with a proud look that suggests they are …
/r/MensRights09/02/14 01:53 PM
1

Thanks. I was being honest when I said I had just watched the first minute. I often read the comments first to see if a video is worth checking out at all or not. I have now watched the rest of the video. I think the "..." is important. What you have cut out with the "..." is a metaphorical punch on the nose to men that is equal to the one women received. Both sexes get their deserved lumps. Not sexist. Many women—not all women—buy into the wage gap myth uncritically. Many men—not all men—choose…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 06:51 PM
1

What the hell are you talking about? Be specific. I watched the first minute twice (haven't watched the rest yet) and don't get what you are on about at all.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 09:37 AM
5

I can't speak on any other media treatment of this, but I don't think this article reads like that. They are interviewing the boy's mother, so of course her feelings about him are going to be factored in; however, the bulk of the article is devoted to describing the boy's heroism. If anything, his mother's comments humanize him—he was loved and will be missed for reasons that don't hinge on his heroism. He was already loved and valued for himself. This isn't solely about a self-sacrificing male …
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:17 PM
21

Why has dealing with nasty, bullshitting blowhards now a woman's issue? Where did the axiom "don't feed the trolls" spring from? What is its purpose? It came from the recognition that trolls just want to feed off the reaction they get, so feeding them a reaction is just giving them what they want while wasting your own time and energy—which you should instead be devoting to the discussion you want to have, with the people who are talking with you in good faith. Feeding the troll=Win for them. Lo…
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:05 PM
2

Your post intrigued me so I went to check this out on Snopes. What they had to say: ...Judge Lisa Millard found Hall in contempt of court and sentenced him to 180 days in county jail for some combination of his failure to pay required child support on time, his failure to follow the court's scheduled visitation times with his son, and/or his walking out of the courtroom in the middle of a hearing. (News accounts are still murky about which of these factors was the basis for the sentence.) Howeve…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 04:29 PM
2

While I appreciate what the meme is trying to say, I think it misses the mark--for another reason. I don't think the word "respect" in "respect women" is referring to earned respect (as in respect you have for someone's achievements, or demonstrated integrity and strength of character). Neither do I think it refers to the basic respect you should accord another human being. Rather, I think "respect" here refers to men giving women special protection and deference in order to make women's lives a…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:07 PM
1

Messed up the formatting. Everything after "...the OP reads:" should read as a quote of the OP.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 01:59 PM
1

Just in case you don't know, you have defeated the point of "rightsbot" by posting your OP in a comment and just putting "[serious]" in the text box. We'll still know if you edit your comment OP, but the original won't be preserved. I'm no rightsbot, but as of my post there is no asterisk to indicate editing and the OP reads: I have a new girlfriend that I've been seeing for the last few weeks. We've been friends on the internet for many years and have met each other at different conferences. We…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 01:55 PM
1

If the program is at risk for loosing all funding and thus no longer existing by breaching the terms and agreements for which the funding was received, then yes. Having something is better than having nothing. This is saying that the bigotry goes right to the top and is spread throughout the field, so it is practically impossible to get alternate funding which doesn't restrict programs to a bigoted ideological framework. This does seem to be the case, I grant you. But this program was designed f…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:26 AM
1

and what if it was geared towards rescuing people who were historically disadvantaged and pooped on? Are you seriously saying that a sea rescue service, which is meant to help people in immediate danger of losing their lives, would be justified in withholding services and thus deliberately letting people die based only on the race or sex of the individuals involved? The boat arrives to pick up the "worthy" victims to let the others there drown? Or that individuals who police or other professiona…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 03:29 PM
14

Imagine a "sea rescue" training program. Its graduates have saved many lives. Great, right? Let's see it in action: A ship is sinking. Lots of people are in the water, close to drowning. In comes the sea rescue boat. Many people are rescued. Hooray! But wait—all of the people in the boat are white. The ship had sailed past all drowning non-white people as if they didn't exist. You see, the training program focuses solely on rescuing white people. The same techniques could be used to rescue anyon…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 11:07 PM
2

It seems like this father handled things graciously and struck just the right note with his ex; but I also think he was fortunate that she was in a frame of mind to be receptive. It just reminded me how vulnerable men are after divorce. Depending on how he approaches her, depending on her reaction, her emotional state, and so on, the amount of contact she allows him to have with his kids can be affected. It may have just been a simple, sincere gesture, but it is also plain that these gifts are f…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 06:54 AM
2

Politically, it has been hugely successful for feminism to portray full-time devotion to paid work as the be-all and end-all of personal life satisfaction. It allows them to portray the majority of men as having the best in life. It allows them to portray women in any role at all as being treated unfairly. If the woman is a full-time careerist, then she's a victim because the lower percentage of women in the workforce, especially in certain desired positions, can be portrayed as evidence of 'dis…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:26 PM
8

I think that after decades of feminists making outrageous claims and having them work extremely well for them they are quite brazen about doing it now. They suffer no consequences even if the claims get repeatedly debunked, and can simply keep on repeating the lies—and they will continue working for them, as many people want to believe them and others are scared of being labelled as anti-woman if they openly challenge them, and so go with the flow. I mean, someone made the decision to state in t…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 05:55 PM
15

It's on the 19th page of the pdf (page 17 as printed on the page in the bottom right corner). The source for the quote is listed as: 18 Peterson, Kristina. ‘From the Field: Gender Issues in Disaster Response and Recovery.’ Natural Hazards Observer, Special Issue on Women and Disasters 21, No. 5 (1997) http://www. colorado.edu/hazards/o/archives/1997/may97/may97a. html#From Link to the article itself. I wasted time trying to google an actual study, but there isn't one. That article itself is the …
/r/MensRights09/12/13 04:27 PM
5

Great to hear.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:31 PM
3

This has to be looked at in context. These women aren't "the first female Marines to successfully complete the Corps’ enlisted infantry training course." That is the course the men took (original standards intact). It was originally claimed that the woman would have to pass the same physical tests as the men; utterly predictably, now they have their own watered-down version — then when they pass this, the claim is that they have passed the "enlisted infantry training course." There is of course …
/r/MensRights25/11/13 06:28 AM
2

You're welcome.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 04:50 PM
5

The issue is complex, but in a nutshell I would say that the old method called "phonics" came to be seen as old fashioned and thus associated with the right, while the "whole language" method was new and seen as progressive and thus was popular with the left. The ideological divide seems almost a historical accident, rather than having to do with either reading method somehow embodying a political position. I speculate that it is more down to female teachers simply liking a method that jumps to …
/r/MensRights19/11/13 04:34 PM
1

If some women were being denied food, then yes; but I don't think MRAs are demanding anything more than what women are already getting — or to put it more precisely (because in many ways women are getting more), they want no more or less than what women get. The reverse is true too — women should get no more or less than men.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 02:15 PM
1

I see it like this: Imagine a crowded, huge banquet hall with countless tables laden with the finest foods — but only women and girls are allowed to eat. A small group of men finally say "Fuck this, men and boys need to eat too." They walk off and find a small, dusty storage room. They set up some shitty folding chairs and boxes to sit on, then order in some pizza; when it arrives they invite boys and men in to eat it. Someone walking by comes across the all-male pizza party, then marches in out…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 01:50 PM
3

This is what is disappointing to me. The obvious logical choice would be to make this gender-free — yet based on the decision to market this as "man daycare", I am assuming that their market research has shown that women are their primary market, and many women respond favorably to adult men being portrayed as children in the care of women, so they have decided to make this a gendered service, with the assumption that men will be too oblivious or thick-skinned to take offense. Sadly, they seem t…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:58 PM
3

If they wanted to offer people in general who are accompanying shoppers a place to hang out and enjoy themselves, with games, free hotdogs, etc, I would have no problem. The fact that they have deliberately modeled this after their children's daycare while presenting only men as the equivalent of "children" as a way to appeal to women through humiliating men is disgusting. The fact that some men take these benefits while being oblivious to their humiliation is saddening.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:24 PM
3

I think I disagree with you on Affirmative Action being harmful. What a lot of the proponents of Affirmative Action can't see (or refuse to acknowledge) is that its unintended negative consequences are unavoidable; this being the case, it is a cure worse than the disease. Why? Because under Affirmative Action the qualifications, skills, and achievements of every woman are cast into doubt. Women get the thumb on the scale, so people can't trust the stated weight of any woman's worth. It takes awa…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:25 PM
2

This is all just speculation on my part, but based on the way the radio jockey talked before and after interviewing Paul, I got the impression that he was never seriously interested in the topic — he instead just took the 20/20 article at face value, expecting Paul to be cheap, easy fodder for his show in shock-jock entertainment terms. I don't think the radio jockey expected that the article, especially the hateful quote, to be such a drastic misrepresentation. I think he was hoping for Paul to…
/r/MensRights20/10/13 05:16 PM
17

It's an interesting chess game. After decades of ignored reasonable, measured rhetoric and protest, MRAs realize that the only way they can get reported on by the media at all is to do something somewhat outrageous, like dress up as Batman or use controversial, satirical rhetoric to act as a lightening rod to draw attention to the movement. But the tactic is a one-two punch. The controversial rhetoric draws attention, and when the attention comes, the reasoned perspective that is otherwise compl…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 06:12 PM
0

There are two types of trolls. There are those who make a sport of trolling and simply say what they think will elicit the maximum emotional reaction from their target; IMO this type of troll is the standard. The other type of troll is one who really does hate their target. Even with this being so, their aim is still to elicit the maximum emotional reaction. They are like pranksters who hide in the bushes while waving a stuffed wolf on a stick, getting off on the idea that the villagers will pan…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:55 PM
1

As you have heavily edited your post, I will respond again. You are not being intellectually honest here. I have already told you that I don't use the word due to possible misinterpretation. I don't want to use the word. I want to convey the intended meaning, as outlined in my first post to you. By continually ignoring what people say to you, and willfully attributing to them things that they have already said they don't do (and you have no evidence of them doing), you are misrepresenting who th…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:38 PM
1

I get that that is how you interpret the word. As I said, I don't use the word precisely because the usual intended meaning, as laid out in my last post, often isn't communicated because of genuine or willful misinterpretation. I'm not defending the word. I do, however, wish there was another word to describe the intended meaning that wasn't so easily misinterpreted. But I'm repeating myself. I do think your thread here is off base, because: a) In my observation, almost all posters here already …
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:23 PM
1

It is however a slang term for, literally, a man's vagina. Some people use it and some people cringe when they hear it. Yes, it is sort of offensive. However, that's not my main objection. My main objection is that it is offensive AND immature, and a horrible way to show that you disagree with someone. And, it serves to emasculate the person it is directed at. I don't use the word "mangina" because the word in itself doesn't directly relate the word's intended meaning and is very open to genuine…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:49 PM
12

I'd read elsewhere that the old logo was created by their in-house graphic arts studio — which still exists and could have created a new logo without a huge payout. The whole thing is a fiasco. By the way, I almost skipped this because I had read about it somewhere else — but then saw it was by COTWA — a must read every time. Thank you for your efforts.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 01:55 PM
5

Woosh...
/r/MensRights13/08/13 01:10 PM
4

Wizzer10, when did you stop beating your wife?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 01:03 PM
1

I don't agree with your interpretation at all. His comments about the lake and cigarettes come after her having outbursts over those very issues; he is pointing out that the issues she's throwing a tantrum about are laughably trivial. You think it's not about those issues? What's the bet that if he told her "Okay, Let's get you the cigarettes right now and I'll take you to the lake straight after." the tantrum would suddenly be over? The mindset of a tantrum is: "I'm really upset, so this is rea…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:40 PM
1

Firstly, I don't think that she was "in hysterics" or "out of her mind," but rather that she was throwing a tantrum. A tantrum isn't just shouting and flailing about, it's the tantrum-thrower working themselves up into an emotional state which they then inflict on their target in an effort to get what they want. The power of the tantrum is not just in causing its target emotional distress — it's using that emotional state to create pressure on the target to quickly do something to calm the tantr…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:13 PM
1

The problem is that it is going to be impossible for us to debate this because we interpret the situation so differently; for example, if she is just throwing a tantrum over trivial things and he has dealt with this behavior repeatedly over an extended amount of time, he is not going to treat it as a serious issue such as a real panic attack — because it isn't. When someone is just acting badly, you don't enable them; you call them out on their behavior. You point out how ridiculous it is. You l…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:53 AM
1

You and I are just not going to see eye to eye on this. To me, your post comes across as the textbook result of what you get when you start from assuming the very best of the woman (all of her bad behavior is down to mental health issues/abuse, so she isn't responsible for her own actions) and the very worst of the man (every little thing he says or does, no matter how mild or innocent-seeming, is designed to manipulate, abuse or gaslight; he is making her act badly. Her behavior is his fault).
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:06 AM
1

I didn't downvote him.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:30 AM
9

The whole article is worth reading, but here are some stats from it: "In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man." "(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. "(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a s…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:14 PM
3

As I said elsewhere, I am against them lowering the standards. I know. I just wanted to point out why that argument was flawed even if true.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:00 PM
8

Even if this was true, it still doesn't justify not having the elite forces being made up of the elite. The only real argument for lower standards would be if they didn't have enough qualified candidates passing, leading to staff shortages.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:41 PM
12

That didn't take long, did it. My post from when they were trumpeting that only women who could pass the male standards would get in: The heads of U.S. Special Operations Command said women will be welcomed into America’s elite combat units as long as they can meet the same physical standards as men. This sounds fair, doesn't it? How could anyone object to that? This would be great if it really happens. If history is any indicator though, what will actually happen is that the claim that women wi…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:35 PM
2

As I said elsewhere, I think it's bad to humiliate her by making something that happened in privacy public. Here's a link to "elsewhere" if anyone wants to see how I replied to you there.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 04:55 PM
4

Well, putting on my Captain Hindsight cape, I'll agree with you that ideally he should have nipped this behavior in the bud (for his own sake); that said, he didn't for whatever reason and so has to deal with the situation as it is now. There are many decisions in my life that looking back on I wish I could change based on the life experience I have now. Frankly, I don't think he had any kind of ethical obligation to somehow have the wisdom and foresight necessary to manage and curtail her behav…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 03:58 PM
4

So you concede the point? You now want to move on and argue a different one? Just checking.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 03:31 PM
5

I'd argue that it's even more effective, as it cuts through the bullshit and just reveals the truth. Over the years I've seen people do incredible mental gymnastics in order to take the woman's side against witnesses and evidence demonstrating that she was the one at fault; practically the only thing I've seen to cut right through that reflexive compulsion to believe and defend the woman some people have is clear recorded evidence.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 03:28 PM
10

I absolutely disagree. If she has been running a sustained campaign of character assassination against him on social media, at work, and face-to-face with their friends, and they have never seen her behave like this (as she only does it in private with him), have only seen her good side and heard her version of events, then the only thing that is going to change their minds and save his reputation is clear recorded evidence. She'll have a hard time spinning this. "Privacy" is exactly what allows…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 03:20 PM
3

Obviously fake — but what I wonder about is the mentality of the person who wrote this. Did they think that we would just want to support a man no matter what? That we would empathize with and worry about what would happen to the criminal scumbag voyeur just because he's a man? (We're given no other reasons to, other than that he is "lonely.") That we could easily identify with him, and in sympathy for him take his side? (Rape culture.) That we would think actual, provable rape isn't horrific, b…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:25 AM
5

It seems to me that you are in practically the best position to get primary custody that a dad can be in — and that your wife, knowing this, is making the best of a bad situation by trying to spin positives as negatives in the hope that things that would only shore up a mother's case can somehow be counted against a father. The real issue here is whether the judge or evaluator are strongly biased toward mother custody or not. If they are, then they may just need enough of an excuse to justify th…
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:06 PM
3

That's great. I only hope it stays that way; that would be optimal.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 05:45 PM
9

The heads of U.S. Special Operations Command said women will be welcomed into America’s elite combat units as long as they can meet the same physical standards as men. This sounds fair, doesn't it? How could anyone object to that? This would be great if it really happens. If history is any indicator though, what will actually happen is that the claim that women will be held to the same physical standards will merely be the Trojan Horse that gets the gates opened and the horse brought inside, onl…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 09:10 AM
3

I hope the way I wrote my post didn't cause a misunderstanding. I think that your story should have been tagged as "unverified" rather than "may be fake." Of course, providing proof to a mod should result in a tag of "verified."
/r/MensRights10/07/13 04:45 PM
4

When it's a case of a story that simply might or might not be true, it may be better to tag them as "unverified" and leave the "may be fake" tag for stories that have an element that casts doubt on their veracity.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 04:28 PM
3

Here's something specifically on boys learning to read. Basically, if you teach children to read by systematically teaching them which sounds are represented by which letters, then having them read by sounding out the letters in a word, you get far better results (for both boys and girls) than by trying to teach kids to read by memorizing words by overall shape, or through guessing by using the context or pictures as hints. Teaching in this way not only completely eliminates boys' supposedly inf…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 02:06 PM
2

For anyone who is interested, Angry Harry has written about this topic in detail. It's a good read, and points out just how complicated the situation is. There is no simple answer here, only the question of who pays what price for a given outcome.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 11:11 AM
13

I think the word "respect" in the admonition to "teach your son to respect women" has a special meaning. This is not earned respect, or respect as in the common courtesy and consideration you should have for anyone. "Respect" in this case refers to whole sets of behaviors, and a specific mindset, that certain people (notably both feminists and traditionalists) believe a boy should be taught to have in regard to women. According to them, women are to be treated with special manners, consideration…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:19 PM
3

Of course, taken in isolation, without any consideration for any underlying wider implications, the issue of a male marine being allowed to hold an umbrella or not is trivial. The problem is that it's really not the umbrella that is the issue, but rather the wider implications. Why are male marines not allowed to carry umbrellas when men from other branches of the armed forces are? I speculate that it is to visibly set them apart, to be an obvious symbol that they are held to a higher standard, …
/r/MensRights18/05/13 01:54 PM
2

Sorry, I don't usually use those terms, but I thought it would be a commonly understood metaphor. It's a reference to the movie "The Matrix" where the protagonist has to choose whether to swallow the red pill and forever after see reality as it is, warts and all, or take the blue pill and return to a comfortable, familiar, artificial virtual reality, with no memory of any other possible existence. In an MRA context, a man who has taken the red pill is able to see through both the feminist and tr…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:24 PM
3

From the perspective of a man who has already swallowed the red pill, you are right. The problem is that from the perspective of a blue pill man, the situation is perceived differently. Let's follow the logic of the ad: "There's no place for soy aftertaste face." If the man hadn't drunk the soy milk, he could have avoided provoking his wife's wrath. It's the same in this ad from the company. The blue pill man's mindset is focused on avoiding his girlfriend's/wife's anger at all costs (or appeasi…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 05:55 PM
1

Sorry, I wanted to write a proper reply to this, but realized that it would have to be an essay or nothing. Even if I wanted to write an essay, you probably wouldn't want to read it.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:39 PM
8

Some people commenting here don't seem to understand what the phrase "happy wife means a happy life" actually means. It does not mean "I love my wife, so I try to bring her happiness; making her happy makes me happy." (This would be fine. It's healthy, especially when it's a mutual attitude both husband and wife have toward each other.) The way I see the phrase actually being used is in the context of a false dichotomy a lot of men buy into: the only chance of having a happy life a husband has i…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:08 PM
2

White knights like Obama quite gleefully throw men in general to the lions in order to raise their status with feminists, yet somehow think that this puts them as individuals in a separate, elevated, protected category. The reality, as this shows, is that they are themselves walking a tightrope over the lion's den — one misstep away from having the lions snapping at their feet — the very lions they have bred up and kept well-fed. The delusion that as women's champions they are immune from attack…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:16 AM
2

But why can't we all be honest? When a girl comes to me and asks me what she thinks of her hair, she doesn't want my opinion. She wants me to compliment it. But I don't want this. I wan't to be honest. Honest and nice. I think it is possible to strike this balance, but not without paying a price. That price is being fully willing to live through any bad reaction you get for being honest. Paying that price absolutely frees you. The balance comes through determining your own values, in order to kn…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:30 PM
9

Well, looks like I as wrong on one point. The mother does seem to be seriously saying these things about the boys and had more to add in an update. I tried to wrangle my family together to do a quick video update...That, as you'd suspect, turned into a total nightmare because one of my son's in particular has a chip on his shoulder about everything. His snide comments led to his father yelling at him... Part of the reason Kenzie was so into doing this campaign was because I've been talking about…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 05:50 PM
6

I still love the idea of a little girl making her own rpg. Totally love it. Yeah me too, and that angle alone might have been enough to get some funding under a Kickstarter campaign properly set up within the rules, and without the brother-bashing. The sad thing is, I think that the portrayal of the brothers as the bad guys, with the girl as spunky underdog, and the rule violations (supporting a cause/awareness raising) were precisely what made the campaign a runaway success. I really wonder if …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 05:17 PM
25

EDIT: Wow! A big thank you to the person who bought Reddit Gold for me! This campaign is a masterpiece in marketing to feminists and white knights, with all of the right buttons pressed: The brothers are cast as villains so that the daughter can be a damsel in distress — a worthy victim to rally in defense/support of. Part of her campaign is about "raising awareness and getting girls thinking about careers in technology at an early age." The video introduction on the Kickstarter page mentions he…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:05 PM
1

I think this needs to be put into context. Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, lost his job there precisely for positing that there may be gender differences in regard to aptitudes and career choices. The headline links to a book by Harvard Business School professor Boris Groysberg, who posits that gender differences account for different aptitudes and career choices. Inexplicably (/s), the latter claims of gender difference are seen fit to be highlighted by Harvard rather than leading t…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 03:01 PM
11

Why don't these screeching kooks get on the same page and stop spewing rape mantras that have no basis in reality? I suspect it's for a number of reasons. I think there are "useful idiot" foot soldier types (like the woman in this clip) who just uncritically buy into such bullshit feminist theories, and then sincerely promote them. I also suspect that there are feminists of power and influence who know full well that such theories about rape, domestic violence, and so on that demonize men in gen…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:03 PM
5

Think of feminism as a pyramid, with the most politically active and influential feminists at the tip, and the wide base of the pyramid representing the many and varied types of feminists who are not politically active or influential. The feminism at the base represents individuals and groups of feminists from all sorts of theoretical models of feminism; however, any difference or conflict of ideas doesn't matter — because it's just talk involved. Actual political power and societal influence re…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 02:13 PM
4

Everything in the article about mothers is either a quote or paraphrase of something the marketing analyst Maria Bailey said. A quick Google reveals that she specializes in marketing to moms. Googling her name and the writer's together reveals that this is the third time the writer has gotten quotes from Maria Bailey for that website, each time regarding marketing to mothers/women. The writer, Eve Troeh, is a reporter on the website's "Sustainability Desk." This is why the first half of the arti…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:07 PM
1

Get rid of the fucking rage faces. This is not /r/f7u12. It's just something I whacked together quickly to make a point at the time, so I did it in the easiest way possible; besides, you might want to remember to have your mod tag next to your name when you give orders to other posters. The point the panel makes is that women get paid less because of many reasons... You still haven't given an example. I wanted to see how you could outshine my pitiful effort. Anyway, I would say rather that the s…
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:05 PM
-5

Okay, then please give an example that demonstrates the point of the second panel well — as you think it should be. I don't think the original comic is done well, or that my clunky edit to it fixes it. My version just avoids the muddy waters of portraying the man and woman as doing the same job, with the man being able to get much more work done in the same time, so him getting paid more. This is a poor, invalid metaphor for why men earn more. It's not even true as a specific example. A woman wh…
/r/MensRights20/01/13 07:38 AM
-11

I agree. I made this version to try to better address the point when the comic was posted here about a year ago.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:08 PM
1

The problem is that there are those who will consider any vulgar word or epithet with negative connotations targeting women as misogynist and/or sexist. In practical terms, it doesn't matter whether by dictionary definition (or by logical argument) a word/phrase can be shown to not be misogynist or sexist, or whether an individual woman's behavior is so vile that strong words expressing anger and condemnation are arguably merited and justified; the fact remains that if you choose to use such wor…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:50 PM
1

It's not about legally enforcing bathroom efficiency; it's about not rewarding needless inefficiency. If men were creating huge, slow lines outside of men's rooms because they were hanging around inside shooting the shit about sport and waxing their mustaches, I would oppose their demands for extra bathroom space as well.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:18 AM
1

The company who supplied the toilets did nothing wrong; I just linked to them to show what they had to offer. It's the event organizers who deliberately chose to rent the top of the line unit for women and the bottom one for men that are the women-firsters.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:15 AM
8

It defines quite clearly why women need extra bathroom space and it only mentions things like "smaller bladders, takes longer to dress/undress." (Bolding mine.) No, the article actually had the decency to admit to other things ("fixing their look, talking to others") before brushing that aside to list things that only apply to some women, or to women only some of the time. I don't buy the claim that women have irritable bowel syndrome, incontinence, need to change a period napkin, or change a ch…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:16 PM
20

It's not about biological difference. It's about providing women with far more than they actually need — while making up for the cost of doing that by providing men with the barest minimum. Just for shit and giggles, I googled the company's website. Men were provided with the most basic unit: a non-flush model with no sink. I don't know about you, but I would like the option of washing my hands, and flushing the toilet (rather than deal with the stench and risk of filthy splashback). No hygiene …
/r/MensRights30/09/12 02:51 PM
14

You're right. Flynn knows full well that it is dishonest to talk about a study conducted on adolescents as if the results apply to adult men and women. From a previous post of mine: According to this article, "Flynn looked at IQ scores from ages 14-18", (bolding mine) which is significant, because just by manipulating the age range studied you will get different results. ...there is a small difference favoring females from the age of approximately 9–14 years, and a difference favouring males fro…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 01:44 PM
1

From the site: Despite the name, you don't need to be a mom to join. Amazon Mom is open to anyone expecting a baby or caring for a baby or young child, whether you're a mom, dad, grandparent, or caretaker. We just thought "Amazon Primary Caretaker" didn’t have the same ring to it. They could have easily named it "Amazon Moms & Dads." That rolls off the tongue easily enough — but I don't think that was really the problem. Their phrasing reveals the real issue: there's "mom," then there's everyone…
/r/MensRights04/09/12 06:46 AM
4

The slogan "1 is 2 many" is a disgrace, because they completely ignore domestic violence against men perpetrated by women; the unspoken slogan there is "no number is enough" to make the issue of domestic violence against men worthy of their attention.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:16 PM
1

Exactly. Acknowledging that this woman may have been genuinely stressed/depressed doesn't mean she is absolved of responsibility for child neglect; even if she felt unable to take care of them herself, she could have called for help from a number of available sources. She didn't. The question is whether she was genuinely criminally insane and thus unable to be responsible for her actions. (This doesn't seem to be the case, given her awareness of the situation and the nature of her actions.)
/r/MensRights03/09/12 04:57 PM
0

Sounds like she may have been and probably still is sick. I don't think it's deliberate. When it comes to crimes, there is all the difference in the world between acknowledging that someone may genuinely be under great stress or have mental/emotional problems, and judging them to be criminally insane — literally unable to determine right from wrong and unable to recognize the nature of what they are doing, thus not responsible for their own actions. Klapheke told Abilene's KTAB-TV that she shoul…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 04:47 PM
1

I absolutely agree that providing boys with material they want to read is vitally important; however, there is a huge problem facing boys before they even reach that point. That is, the methods initially used to teach children how to read. The real reason behind boys’ reading underachievement Quite simply, boys can read equally as well as girls do, and sometimes outperform girls, in classrooms where they are taught to read by certain methods. They perform just as well as girls regardless of thei…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 03:07 PM
3

None of those quotes, taken in context, are misogynistic. "as soon as I can go to the bank and let them know that I don't want any women handling my money (we all know they can't do math)" This is a sarcastic example of what using a negative stereotype about women to justify sexual discrimination would look like — written in order to demonstrate how ridiculous and bigoted doing that is. Not misogyny. "Every time I hear a woman complain that men don't do enough childcare, I point them to stuff li…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:38 PM
1

You have a good point, however the statistic does have valid uses in its proper contest — such as when discussing whether, statistically, children are in more danger of abuse with their mothers or fathers after divorce; this particularly relevant when feminist groups try to oppose shared parenting by claiming that fathers seeking shared custody are very often abusers wanting to keep control over their ex wives and access to their victims. It's not a fake statistic. People just have to know when …
/r/MensRights18/08/12 01:40 PM
3

Of course our relationship is very egalitarian so maybe our situation was different? Definitely. And the reason it worked out was that in practice you asked him out 50% of the time. The issue with "the one who asks pays" is that women who claim to be all about equality (when it benefits them), yet want the benefits of traditional gender roles in their romantic lives (without admitting to it) can accomplish this simply by acting out the female traditional gender role and never asking a man out. T…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 10:48 AM
3

I think there is a false dichotomy here. Some people seem to think that men being socially conditioned to sacrifice themselves invalidates the heroism when they do; and some people, deeming the act itself as heroic, reject any suggestion that social conditioning may have played a part. Both positions are based on the premise that influence from social conditioning invalidates the sacrifice. I reject that premise. I think that the sacrifice stands on its own. Having social conditioning doesn't me…
/r/MensRights26/07/12 03:28 PM
5

Heh. It's a rationalization inside of a rationalization. Recognizing that chivalrous behavior was done for women's benefit, to please women, would have conflicted with the theory that gender roles were all about oppressing women, so feminists rationalized that chivalry was "benevolent sexism," claiming its intended purpose is of putting women in their place through condescendingly implying that they can't do things for themselves. Then comes along this young feminist, who takes this claim at fac…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 03:26 PM
2

This is a misrepresentation of my position. When a woman is heroic in protecting an adult man, we know that social conditioning to protect men wasn't present, so that can be ruled out as being a factor, whereas with a man it can't. This doesn't mean social conditioning is to be automatically assumed to be the sole reason he acts. Love, compassion, or the man's own freely chosen values could also be the reason. And I think it is also a misunderstanding to say the presence of social conditioning i…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:10 PM
2

I suspect there is a lot of truth in this, but not the whole truth. I believe it is also possible to be motivated by real love or compassion into sacrificing yourself, or to transcend any need for ego gratification and approval, to have values you have determined for yourself, that you act on without regard to recognition, approval, or gratification, either internal or external.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:54 PM
1

I suspect you are right.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:47 PM
2

There doesn't exist an act that is entirely devolved of the internal/external compulsion. In fact we can define insanity as people who completely ignore the external. I think taking into account the external is of course essential, but one can learn to overcome the compulsive aspect relating to desiring approval/gratification. This is difficult, but not impossible. We shouldn't be second guessing ourselves as to "why" these men did what they did. Please don't misunderstand me. I think these men …
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:36 PM
2

Heh. I deliberately chose a ridiculous name so that I wouldn't take myself too seriously. Don't think it helped in the end...
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:15 PM
1

Please see my response here.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:13 PM
1

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to address the issue in general, not claim that these specific men acted out of social conditioning. I don't know what motivations, as individuals, they had. Regardless, I sincerely regard their sacrifices as noble, heroic acts. Without writing an essay (which could easily be done on this subject) I think it is important for men (and women in their own way), as much as possible, to transcend the compulsive aspects of their social conditioning and their bio…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:10 PM
1

The media definitely adds its own spin, but if the quotes of Flynn where he refers to "men and "women" in the samples are accurate, then he is guilty of misrepresentation himself — by seeking to portray a study of teens as one done on, or applicable to, adults — which he knows more than anyone is not intellectually honest. By the way, the quotes I've given are for studies done using the same test, but I don't know if they are the very same studies he will present in his book. My point was that i…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:46 PM
2

Well, it's hard to give a short, pat answer, but I'll do my best: When motivated by love or compassion, your focus is on the other person, not on yourself. You have to bring your attention back to thinking how your decision and actions will affect you, if anything. When motivated by social conditioning, the focus is on you living up to the image in your head of the type of man you have been taught to be, the one that will meet others' approval. There's an emotional component of approval/gratific…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:35 PM
63

I think your girlfriend was doing what I was talking about — making a decision out of love/compassion rather than compulsion from social conditioning. That's all I want for men.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:00 PM
9

That's a great story!
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:49 PM
122

I agree. The act itself is heroic. The issue is that this sacrifice should be an individual person's choice, free from internal or external compulsion. The internal compulsion is that men are socially conditioned to sacrifice themselves, especially for women, with a man's whole self-identity riding on this. The external compulsion is the praise a man gets from others when he puts himself in harm's way to protect a woman and the condemnation he gets when he fails to do so.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 06:44 PM
4

Good point. According to this article, "Flynn looked at IQ scores from ages 14-18", (bolding mine) which is significant, because just by manipulating the age range studied you will get different results. ...there is a small difference favoring females from the age of approximately 9–14 years, and a difference favouring males from the age of 16 onwards, reaching approximately 2.4 IQ points among adults. ...The results...show a female advantage of 3.8 IQ points among 12–15 year olds and a male adv…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:52 PM
2

If its CP, then him playing along doesn't do jack. If it isn't then I'm not sure there would be anything, at least criminal law wise, stopping Tosh from doing it. You're right, if the clip is deemed to be illegal regardless, then it doesn't matter; however, if the salient point was whether the victim considered it sexual assault, or admitted to being penetrated or not, then it would. I don't know what Tosh's legal advice actually was either way. It would be just as terrible. Tosh is (well, plays…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:38 PM
2

I think there is all the difference in the world between making jokes about sensitive/offensive subjects and celebrating, savoring and finding genuine gleeful amusement in a real-life incident of a violent/sexual crime. The women on "The Talk" are guilty of the latter, with Sharon Osbourne even admitting that while she didn't know any of the surrounding circumstances, she found the knowledge of a man having his penis severed and thrown in into the garbage disposal "quite fabulous" and "hilarious…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:06 PM
1

Propaganda indeed. "If it would destroy [a 12-year-old boy] to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?” (Tony Porter)" It's amazing how Tony manages to misinterpret this. (Willfully?) He had asked a 12 year old male football player "How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you you were playing like a girl?" (According to Tony) the boy answered "It would destroy me." (Bolding mine.) How would a teenage girl training to be a catwalk model react to be…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:39 PM
4

There are constructive, open-minded ways to talk about the issues he brings up, but Tony doesn't do this. He jumps out of his "man box" straight into the "feminist box." Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Swapping one set of externally imposed social conditioning for another, rather than learning how to become a critically-thinking, self-determining individual. He's still addicted to external approval. He just switched from getting his approval fix from thuggish men to feminist women. He now …
/r/MensRights15/07/12 09:46 AM
1

Thanks. I do think there is room for discussion and my own view is not set in stone in regard to certain particulars, although I tend to think that the potential for a negative outcome is underestimated by most people, especially when it comes to boys.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:39 PM
32

I think it was crudely put, but is that misogyny in itself? He's not hating on women, he's saying having a vagina (i.e. being a woman) gets you judicial leniency. "Get out of jail free card" is somewhat hyperbolic, as not all women get off scott-free — though this one certainly did, and there is an established pattern of such judicial leniency — but is such hyperbole misogyny, especially when there is a lot of truth in it when it's taken as a generalization? A great many women do avoid jail (for…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:15 PM
4

...at 15 the boy is old enough to know whether he likes it or not Statutory rape laws are not about whether the minor likes it or not. That's completely missing the point of why these laws exist and why it's not just a matter of minors giving consent or not. In fact, what so many people miss is that it's precisely because teens have all of these hormones coursing through them for the first time in their lives, that they have no experience dealing with, frantically urging them to have sex, that a…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 01:23 PM
5

There are a number of issues here, which need to be addressed separately. Where is the line to be drawn on statutory rape? Sure, neither hebephilia nor ephebophilia are pedophilia, but pubescent minors need protection too. You can argue one way or the other about where exactly, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Equal treatment under the law. Once a line has been drawn, the law has to be applied to men and women equally. The outrage among MRAs I commonly see is because of double standar…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 09:26 AM
1

There's a very good reason not to use words like that, even when the behavior of the woman you're talking about is genuinely deserving of the strongest expletive you can think of to express your contempt for her actions. Put any argument about whether gendered expletives of contempt directed at women who behave badly are inherently "misogynous" or not aside for the moment. That's not the point I want to make. It's about fighting smart. Do you remember the "Amazing Atheist" video where he calls o…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:54 PM
2

He was ordered to pay his wife's legal costs (as well as having to pay his own) plus he had to pay retroactive spousal support. He would have financially bled out in no time. In Canada he had the high paying job, but even then, after tax, practically all the money from it from then on would have gone to her. After fleeing slavery, he didn't have that job. She killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Stop avoiding the fact that her greed caused this. He was already paying child support. If the…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 08:27 PM
3

Unless it means mom having to get a job?
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:44 PM
2

I don't disagree that it would have been best for him to financially provide for his children; but the options the courts gave to him were to live in utter poverty while working his ass off forever, or flee. He was at the point where he had to choose to go or financially bleed to the point where that wouldn't be an option. It was now or never. There was no option for him to provide for his kids while being able to live as a human being rather than as a disposable slave — or rather, there was unt…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:43 PM
3

What you're saying is that no matter how unjust the system, a father must submit to it in order to provide financial support to his children. The horrible catch-22 is that while most fathers want to provide for their children, the courts and many ex-wives use this very fact to push the most unjust arrangement they can on fathers and if there is no limit, then any injustice is possible, provided the fathers accept any and all injustices for the sake of their children. If there is no line in the s…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:13 PM
5

He was already supporting his children without complaint. The courts then enabled his wife to fuck the rest of his life over in a completely unjust way. He was expected to live like a serf so his ex wife could live as an aristocrat. That's the way the wind was blowing, no mistake. And here's the utterly evil thing — courts and ex wives knowingly use the love men have for their children to get the men to bow their necks and accept the collar of slavery, with the man knowing the rest of his life w…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:47 PM
5

She was already getting a more than fair deal. She just wanted so much that he would have been forced into endless poverty and into being financially enslaved for life in order to guarantee that she not have to do any paid work or worry about her finances in any way ever again. He had already been fulfilling his obligations. The problem is that as the strong arm of the government started enabling her greed, he had to choose between two extremes, neither of which he found to his liking at all, or…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:03 PM
5

No problem, I should have made it clearer.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:52 PM
16

Sorry, in my effort to present my understanding of the theory of rape culture objectively as I understood it, I neglected to make plain that I too think it is a complete load of horseshit. I thought my wording would get that across, but I guess not.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:44 PM
56

The "rape culture" theory holds that rapists are not born psychopaths and do not know societal taboos against rape but choose to break them anyway — "rape culture" theory posits that rapists are created by normal, mainstream male culture through messages men give each other even at the most subtle level, that rape and abuse of women is normal and acceptable behavior. This is the rationale behind the "men can stop rape" posters. Not individual psychopathic rapists seeing them, getting the message…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:32 PM
0

What you refuse to acknowledge is that under your "scheme" it's not just a matter of some of the innocent being let free — even if that is due to racism or sexism alone — it's a matter of the loss of impartiality perverting and corrupting the whole system, so that some are treated with greater injustice in all matters due to being part of a certain demographic, while others aren't held responsible for crimes that you would agree that they should be punished for, because that same bias isn't limi…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:15 PM
0

Your view is incredibly simplistic. Of course unjust laws must be fought against, but that is only one facet, one form of injustice. The justice system is supposed to be set up to be impartial and to guard against internal bias and outside corrupting influence. The ideal is to set up just laws, then apply them impartially. Both of these factors are vital. (This can never be perfectly achieved, which is why these ideals must be ceaselessly worked toward, to get as close as possible.) You simplist…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:54 PM
0

Treating people equally under the law is justice. Treating certain people preferentially under the law merely based on them belonging to a favored demographic (e.g. by sex, race) is injustice. If a group of people are innocent, but deemed "guilty" under an unjust law, then they are all as innocent and as deserving of help as each other. There's more than one principle of justice at play here, but you're refusing to acknowledge it.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:31 PM
1

What you fail to appreciate is that demanding justice for all is what really removes injustice at the root; applying the law differently to one group than another just allows injustice to get entrenched, with the group with the most influence corruptly looking after its own interests, while second-class citizens face increased injustice with no one caring. If you stand on principle and champion all, without fear or favor, no one gets sacrificed as everyone gets saved. If everyone gets held to th…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 02:20 PM
0

No, what I'm saying is that if a law is unjust, it is unjust for all (as the law is meant to apply to all equally), in which case it should be reformed or repealed. In itself, it is a great injustice to treat a demographic preferentially under the law, holding people in it to a different standard or set of rules, based simply on them belonging to a favored group (e.g. gender or race). Equal treatment under the law is vital so that all people can escape injustice, not just a favored few, with "un…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 01:55 PM
0

You are still conflating two separate issues. You have one apple and one orange. Not one apple or one orange. Apple: Wanting to change laws you consider unjust, for everyone, is seeking justice. Orange: Wanting men and women to be treated equally under the law is another type of justice (same applies to race). Lenient treatment of women in court and sympathetic treatment of them by the media isn't just limited to crimes that you think shouldn't be crimes. It goes across the board. It's a separat…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:51 PM
4

You're conflating two different issues. Being against the current statutory rape laws is not an MRA position. Your personal position on the issue is not the default for all MRAs — you can't just project it onto everyone. Individual MRAs could have all sorts of positions on that issue. The important thing is that each person maintain the same position regardless of the gender of the offender — that's where the MRA angle comes in. Frankly, I don't see anyone holding the position that statutory rap…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:06 PM
2

What I usually see is outrage at double standards. The issue of statutory rape itself (and whether there should be different, stricter standards for those in positions of power and guardianship over minors) is a separate thing. People can argue all they want over where the line should be drawn, but once the line is drawn male and female offenders should be held to the same standard and face the same punishment. The issue in this article (and the sympathetic tone of the article) deserves mocking …
/r/MensRights24/06/12 08:24 AM
3

In this case, those victims are women. Actually, while they generally focus on violence against women, in this case their website specifically lists this as a PSA on dating violence, in which case females are NOT the only victims, as they well know, as studies show males being victims of it in equal numbers (see here and here). It just goes to show that "1 is 2 Many" only refers to female victims. They don't even bother trying to downplay female on male dating violence. They just cut any mention…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:57 PM
4

Talking about violence against women, is not the equivalent of saying there is no violence against men. It is when the slogan is "1 is 2 Many" when talking about male violence against women — while the victims of female violence are filtered out of the campaign altogether. What happened to "1 is 2 Many" there? Does that only count for female victims? I guess I'll eat my words when the follow-up campaign comes out, with the same slogan being applied to female abuse of men and children. But we bot…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:18 PM
1

A lot of people are missing the theoretical "rape culture" context in which these campaigns are created. The campaign creators don't think that rapists are men who deliberately break social taboos and step outside of society's mores to commit rape — on the contrary, they think that mainstream male culture brings into being the social environment that creates rapists, supposedly by telling men in all sorts of ways that rape and abuse of women is acceptable behavior. They think that men in general…
/r/MensRights17/06/12 02:03 PM
3

I don't think the raw number of money spent is the issue here; appreciation can be expressed in other ways — although I suspect that this isn't actually happening, but rather that fathers simply get less attention focused on them on their day, financially and otherwise, because in general mothers don't make as much effort to teach their kids to appreciate the other parent's contribution on Father's Day as fathers do on Mother's Day (with society's and this article's backing). What is disturbing …
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:39 PM
8

It's because they believe that men in general are responsible for the creation of male abusers. The wording is deliberate, and for that reason.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 04:40 PM
5

Feminism as a movement gets its political power through claims of victimhood due to male oppression. That's one thing. Demonizing men while painting women as angelical is one of the primary ways feminists get demands met, get political power, funding, and so on. Honesty doesn't accomplish this. Another is that at its core mainstream politically influential feminism in practice is quite amoral. While it is all rationalized away as being justified by the individual feminists involved, benefits for…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 04:13 PM
4

The theory behind "men can stop male violence against women" is that male abusers are created solely by the cultural environment brought into being by all men; which, it is claimed, tells men that it is acceptable, or even a good thing to abuse women. That's why they have those ridiculous catchphrases on the flier, as if these ideas would be news to you, as you supposedly have been living your whole life thinking that all of that was just fine and normal, because the men around you have told you…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:32 PM
19

That random "and children" jars me specifically for that reason, it's just thrown in for false-association sympathy. I think there's more to it and I think it's just as much a part of a deliberate effort to frame the issue of domestic violence as the phrase "male violence against women" is. Here's the way the framing works: Initially, frame domestic violence as an issue of "male violence against women" in order to filter out any adult female perpetrators or adult male victims. This is fairly eas…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 02:44 PM
3

This is why I think that fathers who don't feel a desire for the recognition (and so let all attention be focused on the mother) miss the point.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:31 PM
3

You're missing a huge point. It's important for your family to recognize your contributions. The fact that your contributions aren't in your children's faces every day the way mom's are is precisely why it's important to create a formal event where everyone reflects on what you provide to the family. Your kids may complain, but they see what mom does for them, in a way that they don't see what you do. When it's just mom who is lauded and acknowledged, when what you provide is out of sight, out o…
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:04 PM
8

I don't know why you can't see the obvious for yourself—you are, by definition, discriminating based on sex; the real question is why, and whether the reason is important or not. For example, if aesthetically you don't like the idea of some guy drooling on your pillow as he sleeps, but don't feel the same way about a woman, that's different from feeling that you should give up your bed because of internalized social programming subconsciously urging you to treat women with special deference and …
/r/MensRights09/06/12 09:19 AM
2

What you are saying doesn't address my points, or display any understanding of them, so... I guess we are just wasting each other's time if we continue. I certainly don't plan to constrain what I post based on someone else's narrow and uninformed view of what constitutes an MRA issue. I also consider your accusation of "gynophobic paranoia" to be absurd, given what I have actually posted. I'll let the thinking reader decide for themselves. Good day, Sir.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:06 PM
4

You're missing the larger picture. This is only one example of a mindset which is very important to understand in an MRA context. It's just a clear example of being able to see behind the curtain. There is a context in which perception of reality is what matters, when humans are the ones deciding outcomes based on what they believe or have been convinced to believe. The other context is when it is what is actually real that matters, when it is the conditions of the external world that determine …
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:41 PM
4

Here's another article from her own pen. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: I really do object to being framed as the ditzy damsel in distress in this story... ...as a feminist, a writer, and a gentlewoman of fortune, I refuse to be cast in any sort of boring supporting female role... Notice how they are about how others are trying to define her as a person with words or how she defines herself with words. Compare both sides to her actions: I am constantly walking into things, losing …
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:00 PM
1

Hacker School co-founder Nick Bergson-Shilcock also notes that the female applicants will be judged on the same scale as men. “It frustrates us a little that we feel the need to say that,” writes Bergson-Shilcock, “and we think it underlines the sexism (intentional and not) that so pervades the programming world.” Bolding mine. When they are trying to artificially engineer an outcome of 50% participation of women by offering many a substantial financial incentive for them to come in the first pl…
/r/MensRights07/04/12 03:04 PM
21

The problem is that marriage involves three parties: the husband, the wife, and the government. When a couple gets married the government (figuratively) bends the man over and places his head in a guillotine and hands the woman the rope that will release the blade. This is not a gender-neutral situation. This unjust arrangement, a perversion of the institution of marriage, is repugnant in itself — no matter the character of the individual man or woman involved. The reason men and not women are b…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:17 PM
6

Do you think having a daughter means giving up critical thinking? How would it benefit your daughter for the teacher to give half of the girls in her class a first place ribbon for a race they didn't win, when your daughter actually came first fair and square? When she showed others her ribbon how many people would believe she was a fast runner? How many people would assume she was waving a meaningless piece of fabric around and sneer? How would a boy claiming to have come first be perceived if …
/r/MensRights03/02/12 09:05 PM
3

Yes, you say "Affirmative action is probably NOT the solution." but you start by saying "As I have a daughter, I'm torn about this." I laid out a case as to why it is not in your daughter's best interest anyway, so there's no need to be torn over the issue of affirmative action for women in math contests. If you are just worried about math being considered a boy's subject, here's a possibility you might want to consider: what if women in general simply are less interested in math and science, an…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 08:26 PM
9

Why would you be torn? If your daughter has excellent math skills, then she could win a competition that doesn't have any affirmative action quotas for girls—as can other such girls. Genuine achievement generating genuine respect is the best way for a girl to have her abilities acknowledged, leading to her becoming a true role model for other girls. This is how real confidence and motivation is created. The unavoidable negative consequence of affirmative action with a quota of guaranteed girl wi…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 06:30 PM
4

It's marketing—even smart marketing (as you point out)—but it's not just marketing; it is in fact seeking to attract the most profitable target demographic by discriminating against dads. The alternative name isn't "Amazon Dad." It could have been called "Amazon Parents" or even "Amazon Moms & Dads" (which is short enough, sounds warmer than "parents", and rolls off the tongue very easily IMO). But note: instead, dads are lumped in with grandmas and aunts. I am a Dad (or Grandma, or Aunt)--am I …
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:33 PM
3

Here's the problem--you, as an individual who self-identifies as feminist, may have a certain set of beliefs and you may be consistent in holding to them; you do not, however, reflect feminism as it is put into practice by lobbyists and activists working both without and within government, academia and so on. When it comes to abuse, feminists there fight tooth and nail to keep the definitions set to men as perpetrators and women and children as their victims. Many feminists talk about there bein…
/r/MensRights05/11/11 06:02 PM
7

I did read it. You are the one who doesn't get it. ETA: To spell it out, the amount of time mothers spend in child care compared to fathers is irrelevant when the claim is that women's natural constitutional makeup is such that they almost never commit abuse. If, on the other hand, you say that men and women are just as likely to abuse children, but women simply have more opportunity to do so, then the whole feminist claim that men commit the vast majority of abuse due to their constitutional ma…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 08:11 PM
6

The point being that women being acknowledged as the the main abusers of children is no "little" thing at all. It is something feminists have gone out of their way to conceal--either by outright lies, or in this case, deliberate omission through rhetorical framing. You seem to be either ignorant of, or avoiding acknowledging the fact that feminists have gone out of their way to frame men as the vast majority of perpetrators of all abuse. The picture they paint is of a male ogre towering over a w…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 07:54 PM
14

It's more than that. Feminists are experts at framing issues. Here is the way they take women's abuse of children out of the public eye: They (falsely) define domestic violence as being almost entirely from men to women, and THEN lump in the claim that these abusers often target their children too--that is, men abuse children physically and/or emotionally. When they focus on child abuse alone, they focus on sexual child abuse, where men are the majority of (known) abusers, and they focus almost …
/r/MensRights04/11/11 07:33 PM
8

You aimed too low. Should've aimed for the stomach. It doesn't leave marks. I just don't know why you would make a comment like this. When I read that he'd responded in kind, I thought "Oh, you idiot. You've really fucked up." When he reacted to getting punched in the temple, just after telling her not to hit him anymore, he may have been thinking/feeling "I will not just take your abuse. I will defend myself. Here's a taste of your own medicine to wake you the fuck up to what you've been doing …
/r/MensRights14/10/11 05:01 PM
12

You're missing my point. I'm talking about a person's right to their own personal values, definitions and preferences (even if wrong, it's their choice to make). The guy I'm talking about is hypothetical. I'm not talking about my views. I happen to think the whole thing is incredibly complex in its reality.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:18 PM
12

Transition, coming out, the entire experience of being transgendered can RUIN people in just about every way. Some go through serious trauma to be who they are now. They just want to forget having a dick. You know, I think transpeople must go through so much hardship and heartache, go through so much endless shit, that seeing one last hurdle between them and having what they want--forgetting having a dick, being loved as a woman, just being free to interact and love as the way they see themselve…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:59 PM
4

I posted most of this as a response to someone else, but as it makes an important point, I'm making it a rehashed stand-alone post. I would like to try to make the Muslim/pork analogy a better fit (even though no analogy can be perfect): What if you lived in a country with a huge Muslim majority and you knew that in all likelihood any person you invited to dinner would be Muslim? What if you were secretly a convert to Islam who privately believed that you can still be Muslim and eat pork and tha…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:20 PM
39

I think it comes down to respecting someone's right to their own sexual orientation/preferences and their right to define what those are for themselves. I think that transpeople's fear of a violent reaction is absolutely valid; that said, I also think that they also suspect that in many cases the person they are with wouldn't freely choose to have sex with them if they knew they were trans. Now, absolutely, transphobia (reflexive hate and revulsion directed at transpeople) is a big issue in many…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:26 PM
2

The answer is here: “You talk to men and you ask them that question, ‘What did she do to consent?’ and they’ll say ‘Nothing.’ And I’ll say, ‘That’s sexual assault.’ ” The campaigns target men. The police target men. The man is the rapist. Women are filtered out from the start, before it even comes to police questioning. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 09:00 AM
5

I don't even really get it This is the way it came across to me: It's like a chess game. Here are the rules: the guy wants to get out of something on his "honey do" list, but he can't just refuse, he has to give an excuse that is something out of his and her control that she can't blame him for or override. (It's the typical "whipped" scenario where the man relates to his wife as if she were a parental authority figure.) "He can't paint the garage if it's raining" is his attempt at a checkmate m…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:35 AM
6

But, you can't always hire the best of the best, there just aren't enough perfect people to fill the jobs.You would need some people not as strong to help out, and do the less physical jobs. And those people, men or women, who barely pass, would be doing it, while those who excel at the test would handle the brunt of it. This is true only in situations where there is a very small candidate pool. In that situation, you take the best of what's available; but, as I said: If an average man just pass…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:10 PM
4

I agree with you about male disposability and have nothing against women who are able to compete for the job and get it on merit being able to do so. They shouldn't be restricted from that because people value women's lives over men's--they should actually qualify on merit though. Men of the same stature, with the same relatively limited physical capabilities as female candidates, wouldn't get the job unless there were no one better available, because there would be vital aspects of the job that…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 03:49 PM
4

I am sure that there are plenty of female firefighters, policemen etc that are just as fit as their male counterparts. This is simply not true. I wish it were true, but especially when lives are at stake we should force ourselves to face reality, unpalatable or not. The truth is that the difference in physical capability between men and women is vast. From an old post: I would like to address the topic of women as firefighters in general. Here's an article where some women are complaining about …
/r/MensRights09/10/11 08:01 AM
4

Training may let a firefighter know the best way to break down a door, but weight and strength will surely be a great part of making it quicker and easier--and these qualities will also play a great part in handling physical obstacles and challenges which haven't been specifically trained for--just as the untrained man in the video clip was able to easily overcome an obstacle a trained female firefighter couldn't. Many times weight and strength will be the difference between something being poss…
/r/MensRights09/10/11 07:24 AM
7

Here's what he says in the comments: I regret my turn of phrase. What I should have said was something like: "Women who had previously failed the standard Brigade physical test were subsequently passed on a less rigorous test designed to allow greater numbers of women in the Brigade." The issue is of the Brigade having had discretion (under political pressure) to lower standards to get inadequate female candidates through the test. Fails have become passes by moving the goal posts for women.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 07:04 AM
1

...both of your examples are where consent is not clear and where a rape may or may not have taken place. You're missing my point--which is that under those expanded definitions of rape, both of my examples are automatically considered rape by definition. ...a standard you'd want to hold the partners of your mother or sister or daughter or friends to. If the expanded definitions of rape were applied in a gender-neutral fashion, everyone's mother, sister or daughter would be held to those standar…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 02:16 PM
7

You can't take this phrase, and the campaigns using it, at face value. They are carefully designed to do things: 1) To extend blame and responsibility for rape to all men, rather than just people who rape. 2) To limit the focus of rape perpetration and responsibility for it to men only, so that expanded definitions of rape apply only to men. The "men can stop rape" campaigns are based on the false premise that men rape because they don't know that rape is bad and don't know what rape is. The pre…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:47 AM
1

I think it is more than insulting, it is insidious. Many men hearing the message think "I'll never rape because of course rape is bad, so the message isn't targeted at me." Then the naive among them support the campaign, feeling themselves elevated above men who don't. But they've missed the context completely. The message is targeted at them. They aren't exceptions. No men are. That's the point. The campaigns that tell men not to rape are based on the false premise that men rape because they do…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 05:09 PM
6

I would like to address the topic of women as firefighters in general. Here's an article where some women are complaining about a physical test being too hard for women to pass and calling for a test easier for them, less based on strength and more on firefighting skills. They completely miss the point. Not having the prerequisite physical strength and stamina means that you won't be able to put many vital firefighting skills into practice, such as manhandling heavy equipment quickly and efficie…
/r/MensRights03/10/11 03:31 PM
5

One thing I've noticed is that outrageous feminist claims still help their cause even when they are doubted. How? People often think the truth must be somewhere in the middle. But the middle of what? Let's say I draw a 2 cm long line on a page. The center is 1 cm from the left or right. Let's draw a dot there, in the center. (Say this represents two sides of an argument based on the available facts.) Next, let's extend the line on the right hand side out to a length of 9 cm from the dot. (Say th…
/r/MensRights24/09/11 10:04 AM
50

Like the frog carrying the scorpion across a river Obama thought himself safe because it is in feminist women's best interest to support him, considering the immensity of how much he does for them. Not so. Feminism is based on "victim power." This doesn't change no matter which man gives feminists how much. Once given something, the next step is always to claim to still be abject victims of the men in power, even if doing so means that they must destroy their greatest benefactor in the process.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:59 PM
3

The man is a scumbag. What gall to have the slogan "1 is 2 many" when he is deliberately ignoring all male victims and female perpetrators. This is about as blatant as government sanctioned, systematized sexual discrimination can get.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:15 AM
1

Here's the thing: this ad should only work if both males were the woman's children. Why? If the husband were the older brother and his son the younger, then the ad makes sense. Older bro tries wheedling for mom's permission by appealing to her in a variety of ways from a subordinate position (minus the part where they are in bed together); younger bro's support puts him over the top, convincing mom to say yes. Cue fist pump. As equals, things should never play out this way. For a big purchase, s…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:06 PM
3

I think Demonspawn has made enough reply to your analogy in regard to the affect on others. Characterizing this as a "stupid government program" is trivializing the issue. It is, as I said, government-sanctioned systematic discrimination based on sex and race. Think about that. I can hardly fault her for taking money people are throwing at her. The true test of character is precisely when you can act unethically and get away with it, yet choose not to.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 02:45 PM
7

An interesting article. While I don't respect her decision, I do respect that throughout the article she acknowledges that she is a fraud for signing up. She didn't swallow the kool-aid and proclaim herself a victim just for being a woman; that said, I don't buy her rationalization either. ...using sex to get work smacks of a profession even older than sign building. The whole endeavor struck me as disreputable. But then I realized I was a victim of something even more pernicious than discrimina…
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:22 PM
7

It's all smoke and mirrors. The only areas women are "dominating" in are the traditional pink collar jobs they always have. See here. Women managers only "dominate" as first-line supervisors/managers of office and administrative support (71.3%). Excepting retail, they are only 34.1% of all other managers. Then you have them as bookkeepers and secretaries, etc. In other words, the majority of the above are pushing paper, or supervising those pushing paper, not involved in work that actually produ…
/r/MensRights03/09/11 08:24 AM
27

I think it's important to first understand what you're seeing here. This was a psychological fight initiated and escalated at each step by the woman. She is a bully. Rogan did what was most important in a psychological battle. He immediately saw through how she was trying to manipulate him and called her out on it, breaking out of the frame she was trying to push him into, refusing to play the game by the rules she was trying to set up. No, he wasn't nice about it; but that served a worthwhile p…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:03 PM
0

From what I've read in the article, it's actually entirely about allowing the children to express their freely chosen or naturally arisen gender identities. This is far from the case. The children are actively and deliberately being blocked from anything which would give them the chance to identify with mainstream gender identities, through limiting environmental choices and role models to gender-neutral or non-mainstream identities--right down to the avoidance of the words "him" and "her." That…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 07:13 PM
6

You are completely missing the point. It is this school which is not open to children expressing their freely chosen or naturally arisen gender identities (wherever on the spectrum they may fall). Only gender-neutral or non-mainstream identities are acceptable there.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 12:00 PM
1

Well, in that case I would go, as your safety comes first. If your mother really would follow through on her threat and risk your life unless you allow her to control you and shut your father out of the loop, then you may have to wait until she can no longer threaten you with that before telling your father. If you are a British citizen, then you'll be safe once of legal age and can financially support yourself or get assistance from somewhere (government? Father?). Of course, if you can trust y…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:04 PM
3

She really does think that the vocal minority of misogynists in the MRM represent the entire movement, probably because they scream the loudest. Bolding mine. Actually, I don't think that is the reason. I think it is because feminists deliberately seek out and cherry pick any outbursts from that minority to use them to represent the whole movement. Not only that, but they actively work to misrepresent even the most moderate and fair voices (e.g. Warren Farrell, Glenn Sacks--men who sometimes ben…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 09:07 AM
2

I think there are three issues here, but only one has been addressed. The first issue is that of leaving the country for your safety--and I think Evilpundit's post covers that well. The second issue is your mother thinking of moving to America rather than England. Moving to England solves your problem while still keeping you relatively close to your father. Going to America is just about what your mother wants. I think that what you and your sister want, as well as your father's rights, deserve …
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:25 AM
3

Actually, they used this incident to ban playing using hand-as-gun gestures at school altogether. This is why people are justifiably annoyed. If they had just reprimanded the boys for being disobedient and disrespectful to the teacher there would be no story. It was the school who created the story by focusing on the wrong thing, not the media.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:10 AM
7

Here you go.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:05 AM
3

This is fair enough, but based on that, the ban should be against being disrespectful to a teacher in word or gesture. Instead: The school, which caters for around 180 pupils aged four to seven, said the gun gestures were “unacceptable” and were not permitted at school. From the Telegraph. This is a different thing. This is saying that the gestures are unacceptable in themselves and can't be permitted at school in any context. They are using a specific incident which is plainly unacceptable as a…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:03 AM
4

It's not that simple. Personally, if I come across a story like that in the Daily Mail I look for another source; but here's where it gets tricky. Very often the other sources have such an anti-male bias that it's hard to track down all of the facts that were readily available in the Daily Mail article, because they were conveniently left out to give a pro-woman spin. It's not just a matter of the Daily Mail being a tabloid; it's a matter of a lot of mainstream news sources being unreliable sour…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:57 AM
3

Good for you. It sounds like a balanced, fulfilling lifestyle. The point I was trying to make in the context of this thread (about women in general) is that the wage gap is usually portrayed as discrimination, when it is actually the result of women choosing to work less. In turn, women choosing to work less is usually portrayed as women "sacrificing" their careers (as if devoting themselves to career is what they would really prefer to do and would gain the most fulfillment from), when in fact …
/r/MensRights26/05/11 06:08 AM
3

While I certainly admire girlwriteswhat's choices, it is important to note that she as an individual is not representative of the choices of women in general. The distinction needs to be made.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:49 AM
3

Of course there are exceptions--but the majority of women do marry up, do want their husbands to subsidize them working less without any great sacrifice in standard of living, and so on. Let me ask you though, why do you choose to work part-time rather than full-time? Is it because you find that a more personally satisfying lifestyle, and having other sources of income, don't consider the extra money to be worth the sacrifice of personal/family time? That you find this work/life balance to be mo…
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:38 AM
8

Who wouldn't want to be able to have the work/personal life balance of their choosing? What is portrayed as the "wage gap" is actually the result of women freely choosing to work less hours (and/or in more fulfilling, safer jobs that pay less), so they can have more personal/family time; the reason they are able to do this is because their husbands are earning enough money (and working long enough hours) to be able to subsidize that choice. The women may not be earning the money, but they still …
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:09 AM
5

The OP of that thread says that a man should never expect this sentiment from a woman. It's not the actual act, but having that intensity of genuine, selfless love that counts. It's not mutually exclusive. Sure, you may want to be the one to die to save the woman you love, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have as much love and devotion for you as you have for her.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 07:16 AM
1

This is an interesting perspective. Though with MRAs in the US it appears to be opposite: You can hear some genuine, undeniable, nasty misogyny at certain websites, especially in the comments sections. But the people doing organized attempts at reform, the monolithic entity so to say, appears to be very level-headed. Yes, I have noticed that, and it's a real difference. I wish more people would notice and appreciate it. I'm sorry, I can't comment on the specifics of your country, as I don't even…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:46 PM
3

This is precisely why I talked about feminism in practice and reality being in actions, not words. the feminist mainstream generally adheres to the tenets of liberal feminism, which explicitly asserts an equality between men and women. Written/verbal definitions of feminism are only valid if they serve as signposts pointing to the consistent, systematic, real-life practice of that feminism. This is because the reality is the* practice.* Without that, the words are empty (or worse, a smokescreen …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:07 PM
3

Miso+gyny just means one thing. Anything like you've described is just a bowdlerization, an attempt to mask contempt for women I disagree. I have often seen the word "misogyny" used in practice to describe any criticism of feminism or of negative behavior of women. This isn't contempt for women. This use of the word "misogyny" is used to cow those with opposing views and to demonize them in the eyes of others. I agree with the others that it's a mistake to accept the term, because it's a steep u…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:48 PM
18

This is a slight reworking of what I've posted on this issue before: It's the feminism of the strongly-networked groups of dedicated activists that creates or influences policies and laws. It's this feminism that has the political clout to get politicians, businesses, academia, etc to pander to their views, get feminists representing their views into positions of power, and so on. Let's look at feminism as a pyramid: You'd have individuals embracing any and all kinds of definitions of feminism d…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:04 PM
2

I checked the SAVE site and they have a link to the merchandise. The question is, does the OP have any connection to them, or to the merchandise, or is he (my bet's on this) just a misguided supporter costing them sales with his ridiculous attitude?
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:00 AM
7

Let me spell it out for you: Q: Who are the most clued in to the use of shaming language as a manipulation tool? Who are the least likely to give in to it, if only out of principle? A: MRAs. You couldn't have used a worse approach if you tried--and it's a pity, because the cause is good. Are you an official representative of SAVE? If you are, please reconsider your marketing approach. It is completely counterproductive. If you are not, then please make that clear, so this doesn't reflect on them…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 03:38 AM
5

You're always going to find extremists in any movement. If their very existence discredits the movement, then every movement is discredited. The real question is: are these extremists leading the movement, at its center--the ones with the most support, with the largest following--or are they at the fringes with little influence? As anyone can submit anything here, if you want to judge this subreddit fairly, then start by looking at the comments responding to this article. What is being criticize…
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:45 AM
1

I'm sorry, but I think you made a mistake in using this as an example. It's distracted from the issue you want to discuss because that scene has to be viewed in the context of the overall story to be understood properly (which of course involves going into the specifics of the example). The issue in general is certainly worthy of discussion.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 07:42 AM
1

Conservative members of Congress are pressing for increasing the retirement age on the grounds that life expectancy overall has increased. But according to the Congressional Budget Office (2008), life expectancy for women has stagnated, and life expectancy for low-income women has decreased. It is higher-income earning males who have seen their life expectancy extended. Maybe they can work longer, but the rest of us can't. Here we can clearly see the deliberate dishonesty of NOW. Here's a graph …
/r/MensRights11/05/11 06:22 AM
1

Yeah, I do...and I suspect that is already after an effort has been made to maximize the appearance of women's labor force participation. What do I mean? Well, for a start, if women who entered, but then left the labor force at some point--never returning to paid employment--after getting married and/or having a baby were classified as having retired from the labor force, there's no way the stats could look like this. They could if those women (a considerable percentage in most countries) were s…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:22 AM
3

It's a sad reality that a tiny minority of men are rapists, muggers, pedophiles and what have you, but the vast majority of them aren't. It is completely reasonable for women (for all people) to have concerns for and to take precautions regarding their own safety, but it doesn't follow that innocent men should go along with and even foster those fears. On the surface, it might seem to be a simple kindness to want to avoid causing women worry, but good men living in a mental prison every minute o…
/r/MensRights07/05/11 05:43 PM
1

Sorry, the link is to a comment in reply to a story about faked inventions. That comment introduces the story about Swedish firefighter quotas and has a link to it. Here's the direct link to the firefighter story. Google translation for others.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:58 PM
1

Here's one in Sweden. Basically, the "administrator for equality" has decided that too few women were showing interest in applying for jobs as firefighters (at the beginning of 2010 women made up 1.8% of full-time firefighters and 3.6% of part-time), so has decided that at least 40% of the accepted applicants every year after 2014 have to be women. Now, even with the number of applicants being equal, there is no way 40% of successful applicants would be women, given the inherently extremely phys…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:27 PM
2

The distinction I'm trying to make is between those who only talk about theory as individuals, without any group involvement, or who practice their own feminist beliefs individually (these being the wide base of the pyramid)--and those who are involved with groups, in the practice and furtherance of feminism in a dedicated, systematic fashion. An individual academic may be either, although I would argue that women's/gender studies people are involved in feminist indoctrination and activism as th…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:45 PM
3

I wonder why we don't embrace the theory and get rid of the skewed practice? Because it's the feminism of the strongly-networked groups of dedicated activists that creates or influences policies and laws. It's this feminism that has the political clout to get politicians, businesses, academia, etc to pander to their views, get feminists representing their views into positions of power, and so on. Let's look at feminism as a pyramid: You'd have individuals embracing any and all kinds of feminist …
/r/MensRights05/05/11 09:48 AM
2

I don't think it is "misogyny" or "women bashing" at all--unless you class directing any criticism at common female attitudes, hypocrisy, and behavior in that way. Beyond the art, the problem with the comic is that it is very hard to portray the complexity of the issues involved in a pair of one liners and illustrations. My attempt ruins the simplicity and balance of the original. The original, on the other hand, attempts to portray an unequal workload with the metaphor of different weights of b…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 02:05 PM
9

I think it's more like this.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:52 PM
7

Cliffor is a troll.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 05:05 PM
3

I would think being confident is more analogous to keeping yourself in good physical condition. Being in good physical condition (health and fitness wise) is a positive thing in itself for the person involved. The same can be said for being confident and assertive. Women just trying to be "thin" is usually detrimental to their health and overall physical condition. Men just trying to act in ways that they think will attract women is not "confidence" either. Both trying to be thin and faking conf…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 11:15 AM
3

Notice how women like this are not willing to make any significant sacrifices in their own lives, but are perfectly happy with forcing their children to make enormous, lifelong sacrifices in their place. Mom must have her perfect Mr. Right or no one--even if that means her child growing up without a father--the idea that she should be the one to compromise and sacrifice for her child's sake, by marrying a man who would make a decent, loving father (even if he isn't her ideal mate) so that her ch…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 09:50 AM
16

The consistency is that the position held in any given context will always be the one that benefits women in that context.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 01:34 PM
5

Are you kidding? If not, you are exhibiting exactly the type of bias that needs to be fought against. You minimize this woman's conscious choices by falsely labeling them "drunken mistakes." It is not just a "mistake" to choose to cheat on your spouse. It is not a "mistake" to falsely accuse someone of rape to cover up for your cheating. We don't excuse people from the consequences of other drunken choices, like drink driving and then running over someone. The false accusation was not a crime li…
/r/MensRights26/02/11 12:01 PM
7

who's up for letting the women bring home the goods whilst we got out for a perpetual boys night? The thing is, women who believe that women are taking over in the workplace are deluding themselves. There are more women in the workforce than before, but still mostly in pink collar jobs. There are more women entering the professions and business management, but most of them refuse to make the sacrifice of personal time necessary to climb the career ladder and then stay at the top, so they work le…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:23 AM
5

Talking about this as "payback" completely misses the point. It's about equal treatment under the law. If his demands represent the type of ass-raping a man usually gets in divorce court there, then damn straight I condone men going for it when the tables are turned. Not because excessive divorce payouts after short-lived marriages are justifiable (they're absolutely not), but because in my opinion the only way that the system will be reformed is if women start suffering under it too. My hope he…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 02:25 PM
1

While this particular boy's reservations stem from religion, the taboo against boys roughly manhandling girls is not limited to religion. The uncomfortableness teenage boys would feel having to rub their bodies up against teenage girls in front of an audience, in ways that would normally sexually excite them, isn't limited to religion either. There is no concern for the boys here. It is naive to think that this would all be viewed in a gender equal way. There's only a very narrow path between be…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:53 PM
1

Here's the key point: your hypothetical is based on "it is said." There are two ways to analyze this: as if this is what actually happened and whether it's rape or not, and as if these are allegations that may or may not be accurate descriptions of what actually happened. You have set up a number of things that would be termed rape under certain definitions that I have seen asserted by feminists before. First, is it rape if a man has sex with a drunk girl? By itself, no, unless she is insensible…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:12 PM
1

If it's for a chance at a date, it's not being nice.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 04:08 PM
3

she doesn't want to adopt, for whatever reason, she wants her own biological child. I speculate that this isn't about "attachment to sperm" at all (after all, he's willing to adopt); maybe this man just wants to be on equal footing with his wife from the get-go, so that he can be just as much a parent as his wife would be--in everyone's mind. Obviously she feels that having a biological child is different--more hers, gives her a closer connection, or whatever--but where does that leave him? Less…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 03:34 PM
1

It's not hard to be better than an amoral, self-serving asshole. You just have to be an average person.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:21 PM
2

People of good character decide what is acceptable behavior based on their judgment of the rightness or wrongness of the act itself, not by whether they think the act will be protested or not. Of course, complete assholes will be able to delude themselves that blasting their favorite music to the whole neighborhood is most likely a joy to any ear that can hear it. I'm sure that one day you'll be treated by someone exactly as you deserve to be. That's funny coming from someone who thinks that exp…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:20 PM
0

My way of thinking is that what is right or wrong to do resides in my personal values--not in what I can get away with. I would refuse to con or exploit someone even if I could trick them into thinking that going along with it was a great idea.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:11 PM
0

I don't know how to explain this to someone who obviously wants to rationalize away acting selfishly, but here goes: you actually use your own sincere judgment and think about whether that volume might be too loud and likely to disturb others. What a concept. What point is there debating you over what guys would do? You think it's what you would do, which I fundamentally disagree with. I think you and the writer of the article are two peas in a pod, in the middle of a septic tank in rapture over…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:05 PM
0

What you don't seem to get is that your brand of amorality (i.e. it's all good as long as I can get away with it with no consequences and no one stops me) is what most people would consider being a complete asshole.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:52 PM
2

I think your moral compass is broken. I also wonder if you even bothered to read the article. Getting something that you want is not asshole behaviour. Taking something despite someone else's protestations or objections - THAT is asshole behaviour. No. Knowingly exploiting someone or acting in a way that you know is not right, fair or considerate is assholish behavior regardless of what response you get. The act and response are two separate things. Just because someone fails to assert themselve…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:39 PM
3

You are just rationalizing away women acting like amoral, self-serving assholes. Being a shitty human being is not okay just because you can get away with it. What you saying in reply isn't even true. For example: It's not stealing, as she's not taking anything that wasn't freely given. "4. You're dancing with a guy on the dance floor and he has a drink in his hand. You say, “What are you drinking?" while casually taking the drink from his hands and taking a sip. Keep dancing and then walk away.…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 03:10 PM
2

I hope no-one looks down on this chick. She's just pointing out a pattern of male behaviour which guys would exploit happily if the shoe were on the other foot. I deny this. Does the average guy steal, lie, cheat and fuck others over every chance he gets? I say no. Assholes do. If you have any sense of honor, value your self-respect, you just don't do shit like that. So I do look down on her. The problem isn't with this chick, it's with the guys she's met over the years. It's with both. She is a…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 02:08 PM
1

Boys don't need feminist indoctrination about "rape culture" to know not to rape--that is the outrageous lie right there. The reality is that rape is already one of society's greatest taboos. Rapists willingly and knowingly break that taboo. Feminists don't want to acknowledge this--they want to portray rapists as normal, average men who are just ignorant that rape is wrong--as if rape can be eliminated through feminist reeducation of all men. Feminists claim that boys are ignorant that certain …
/r/MensRights15/02/11 08:24 AM
1

It's a massive con and the feminists pushing for this know it. Only about 40% of women work full-time; on average, even these women work several hours a week less than men. Only a small minority of these full-time working women are willing to make the sacrifices of personal time to devote themselves to career to the extent necessary to gain positions at the top through merit. Meanwhile, the vast majority of men work full-time and see no other option for themselves but to put in long hours to cli…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:51 AM
2

I thought as much, but I just wanted to add those figures for other people's consideration. You made a very good point.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 06:39 PM
3

And actually, figures vary wildly from group to group, with the median being 3.7% and when paternity is disputed 17% to 33%. The rate of non-paternity is commonly quoted to be around 10%.[1][2][3] However, a 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. In situations where disputed parentage was the reason for th…
/r/MensRights14/02/11 04:29 PM
0

I think the West is utterly schizophrenic about this issue. One the one hand, any suggestion that a woman's behavior or judgment at work might be compromised in any way by PMS is met with female stamping jackboots of death, with howls of "male chauvinist pig!" and calls for the job of the man who dared to posit that possibility. On the other, individual men in relationships are often faced with a woman quite unapologetic about acting out when having PMS, with the attitude that it's not under her…
/r/MensRights14/02/11 04:12 PM
3

I believe that PMS exists, but I think the bigger issue for men is: does PMS justify women taking out hormonally-created stress, anger and irritation on others? Many women claim they just can't help it and expect the man they are in a relationship with to be understanding and accommodating (i.e. just take it). The acid test is this: do these women act like this with everybody regardless of context? (This is what "I can't help it" would really mean.) Or can they control themselves when interactin…
/r/MensRights14/02/11 07:44 AM
1

I disagree with you. It's a social courtesy when gender isn't involved. When it's about treating women with special deference because they are women and nothing more, then it slams up against the fact that, as I said, women have demanded equality and rejected the old gender-based social courtesies that had women treating men in deferential ways in reciprocation. There are many men that would be happy with giving women equality, or with having gender roles (including manners based on them), but d…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 03:49 PM
2

You are missing the core of my argument: you make your choices, which come with consequences, and you take the bad with the good. You shouldn't get to foist the bad off on to someone else. It is not incumbent on men to "compensate" women for what they do to make themselves attractive and socially accepted. Men choose jobs, buy cars, and so on, designed to improve their status and attract women, but which require them to work long hours in jobs that are stressful/dangerous/unenjoyable, etc. You c…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 02:59 PM
4

The problem with the double standard is that feminists do take such things as a political affront and make a lot of political capital out of them, using a great list of these to claim that women are discriminated against, objectified, oppressed, and so on; when men take everything with good humor and let things slide all the time, this means that the one-eyed feminist view is the only player in the game and wins by default. The consequence of this is that the general public thinks that women are…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 02:02 PM
2

The difference is in the reporting and how the courts treat men and women who make excuses for their crimes by claiming victim status. By and large, women are reported on sympathetically and are treated more leniently in court. You call it a "stereotype"--I say it is an acknowledgment of pro-woman/anti-male bias in the media and in the legal system. It seems to me that the worse a woman's crime is, the more likely it is that a media report will focus on speculations about her mental health, or a…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 10:19 AM
0

I get the impression that he's only gotten as far as "a man giving up his seat for a woman is a nice thing to do because it's a nice thing to do."
/r/MensRights13/02/11 09:24 AM
1

Honestly you sound like the type of guy that would have men and women competing against each other in the olympics or duckpins. Let's go to the other extreme. Men are physically stronger than women, so men should have to feed women like babies--to spare them the effort of lifting the cutlery and crockery themselves. There's a whole spectrum in between. Standing on a train is far closer to my example than yours. Just accept that it's polite to do certain things. Honestly, people will just think y…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 09:08 AM
2

I didn't complain about the type of shoes a woman wears; I pointed out that the consequences of her choice of footwear are on her. There's a big disconnect between "some men like/dislike certain types of shoes on women" and "all men are responsible for ensuring the comfort of women who choose to wear fashionable, but uncomfortable footwear."
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:42 AM
1

You have decided that humans can only act in selfish, self-centered ways and this has determined your world view; but really, it's as simply as getting it, feeling empathy and compassion for another and acting out of concern for them and not because of any calculated benefit for yourself, even an ego boost. The sincerity of the motivation makes all the difference.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:27 PM
3

I have no axe to grind. It is you who wants to give women special treatment based only on their gender. If it was all about being "nice" you'd stand up for anyone.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:22 PM
1

You could, but it's not true.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:15 PM
1

I believe that all things are relative and susceptible to perception. To answer your question, no, giving a seat to a woman is not inherently more noble than keeping it to oneself or giving it to a man. It's how others perceive our actions that give them meaning. Most actions are this way. They convey only the meaning that we as a society apply to them. I think you are making a fundamental error in your thinking. It is not how others perceive our actions that give them meaning--far from it. The …
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:11 PM
4

Anyway, to answer your point; not really. You added those specific conditions. You could equally add "if you want rights as a woman you should treat men with dignity'. It still works. Not in the way I meant it to: as an example of the kind of behavior in women towards men that you are expecting of men towards women. Treating women with dignity requires only the same politeness and consideration you extend to everyone, not special deferential treatment. If you don't, that little voice that causes…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 10:38 PM
4

Nah, you're just not getting it. Those are examples of what a complementary role for women looks like. The rest of your post is circular logic. You might as well say "if you want rights as a woman you have to act like a woman and be the one to serve coffee to your coworkers in the office. Serving coffee to the men has nothing to do with equality, it's just the ladylike thing to do."
/r/MensRights12/02/11 09:16 PM
2

It makes me feel good, rational or not. So if it makes me feel good to do something, and it potentially makes others feel good as well, why shouldn't I do it? My argument is that it is unhealthy for society for any group to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of another group. With women, this is the good parts of equality and the good parts of the old-fashioned gender roles, at the expense of men taking on the negatives of both. I also think it's unhealthy for personal development. Wh…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 09:07 PM
2

Thanks for your reply. Well, first off, I don't do it for women only. I'm also happy to do it for the elderly, disabled, men with kids etc. Basically anyone whose need for the seat outweighs my own. Me too. I'm all for consideration of others. As for why I would give it to a woman, I guess it comes down to how I want to be perceived...I wish to be perceived as polite and classy, and my means of achieving this is to act in that manner. Interesting. Do you think that treating women deferentially i…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:40 PM
2

Deferential special treatment based on gender has nothing to do with equality? It's called being a lady? A woman will fetch her husband his pipe and slippers? The women will make coffee for the men in the office? Nah...doesn't fly, does it?
/r/MensRights12/02/11 07:58 PM
2

Firstly, I would like to thank you for stepping up and offering reasons. I would like to respond. Whether a woman wears shoes that are practical and comfortable to stand in--or not--is her choice and she has to own the negatives of that choice. Some men not liking sensible shoes on women doesn't change that. Random men should not have to discomfort themselves in order to compensate a woman for her choice in footwear. The balance needed to stand on a moving train is not about strength, it's about…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 07:38 PM
2

Throwing the question open: I wouid like anyone to explain what they think is specially virtuous about a man giving up his seat to a healthy, able-bodied woman? An individual person giving up their seat to another person is certainly considerate and polite, especially if the other person is visibly experiencing some kind of difficulty standing--but that's not the issue I'm talking about. I want to hear specific reasons for men giving up their seats to women who appear to have no such difficultie…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 05:41 PM
3

This reply of yours doesn't even make sense. I was talking about an issue in the abstract, when you decide to pull some completely fictional bio of me out of your ass and fashion a straw man out of it. It's not true or even relevant. Of course those types of relationship dynamics don't work. Good thing I didn't bring up the whole idea of women paying back men's special treatment of them with sex, then. You did. That whole post only exists as a reply to something you brought up. Why are you proje…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:38 PM
1

I realize you're (probably) just joking, but this is a real dynamic. Some men are so desperate for sex and some women don't see the value in making the effort to contribute anything to the relationship but that (as they can use sex alone as enough of a carrot and a stick to exert control and get what they want), that the relationship is reduced to John/whore dynamics. That's no basis for a lasting relationship. I've heard women bemoan how there are always going to be younger and hotter women out…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:20 PM
1

This is the what not the why. And as "chivalry" has a number of definitions, with the modern one seeming to mean "a code of manners for men on how to show special deference to women," I genuinely would like it spelled out why this is a virtue--especially as there is now no reciprocity, no complementary role for women, and women demand equality in all areas where this is of benefit to them.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:03 PM
4

Well, you are right, it is your personal choice, no argument there; but, please enlighten me--what is your reasoning behind doing this for women only? Why do you think doing this is virtuous?
/r/MensRights12/02/11 01:33 PM
1

The problem with the stance that drunk = no consent is that it creates an unrealistic quagmire of a situation. How many loving couples deliberately use alcohol to set the mood for a romantic evening? Was it a mutual rape instead? In the case of men (or women) who were drunk to the case of insensibility or unconsciousness, I agree that men should get equality under the law--but these one-sided propaganda campaigns make it that much harder for such men to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 07:37 PM
1

We don't really tell young men of twenty-two that drunk girls generally can't consent to sexual activity. Or that if she's blackout drunk, you can't stick it in. These are two vastly different things. Insensible and unconscious is of course rape (which I assert the average, non-rapey guy knows full well already). But... Drunk girls can't consent? There's your sexist double standard right there.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 07:01 PM
2

They should be and are. But they are not. There is no campaign telling women they are rapists for sleeping with drunk men. The difficulty is that it's pretty tough for a really drunk man to get an erection Again, the standard is drunk, not insensible. It is still possible for a drunk man to get an erection. A physician testified that it is possible for a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness may nevertheless have an erection and ejaculate; they are not conscious, voluntary …
/r/MensRights09/02/11 06:49 PM
1

But I guess rapists love to pretend that their behavior is actually normal and acceptable to society. Something any man could... just... accidentally... do. This is a really good point.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 06:35 PM
2

Let's hear you give some specific examples. I ask this because a lot of the time, if these same standards were applied to women they would be classified as rapists too. What are the types of date rape that can be committed by men, but not by women, that don't involve force, with the man not realizing that it is rape due to simple ignorance (i.e. he genuinely believes he is having consensual sex)?
/r/MensRights09/02/11 06:20 PM
2

This is the problem. A lot of well-intentioned people think "Oh, of course rape is bad and boys need to be taught that"--then they stop there. They don't take a close look at the theory and agenda behind campaigns like this. They are based on the "rape culture" theory, which asserts that rapists are created by normal, mainstream culture, which (it is claimed) teaches males that females are worthless and that violence and even rape perpetrated against them is no big deal. The theory is that rape …
/r/MensRights09/02/11 04:07 PM
2

The article is confusingly written. It mentions child pornography, young girls, sex with underage girls--which gives the impression of pedophilia--but talks of "posing as a teenage girl on Facebook and befriending underage girls for sex" and "using his cell phone to take photos of them." How old were these girls? The article later mentions him also having sex with a teenage girl and dating a 17 year old girl. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a crime either way, but there is a big difference betw…
/r/MensRights08/02/11 06:30 AM
4

Look, I see your point, but here's mine: I also want a source other than The Fail, precisely because it's not consistently reliable; but at the same time, truth can appear in unlikely places precisely because there is less scrutiny--also in regard to what's politically acceptable. It's also wrong to pretend that the newspapers that shut out these kind of stories are reliable--political bias is distorting what they report and how they report it. You can't take these stories completely at face val…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 06:28 PM
38

A few things: 1) It's obvious that this money (awarded well before they married) was meant to last for his entire life to make up for his inability to earn a living and to help him with the additional expenses dealing with his disabilities will incur. This will never change for him. It's not like he can just earn more or get another award. That was it. His ex wife can get a job or get remarried. The injustice is palpable. 2) His ex wife is willing to sentence a disabled amputee with spinal injur…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 04:20 PM
1

You are right, sadly. There is no perfect solution. Unfortunately it's the best that can be done, and video evidence gives police and judges the least leeway to imagine things going down in a different way, by filtering things through their own prejudiced assumptions; they would see and hear the woman's violence and the man's reaction with their own eyes and ears--facial expressions, body language and tone of voice, as well as other details which would make it far harder for their subconscious b…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 02:49 PM
2

I would warn him and recommend that he video record every single minute of his daughter's visits without telling his ex. If she then goes on to make an allegation of something happening within the time frame he has recorded, he will be protected and she will be exposed as a false accuser. If she is investigated herself, then she will have a huge motivation to make him out to be a worse parent in order to keep custody. It sounds extreme, but if she is already going there, then it is the only way …
/r/MensRights07/02/11 07:50 AM
1

There's a lot of focus on sexual abuse to children, but one needs perspective. Absolutely. And this is not a coincidence. Feminists have been very clever in how they frame the issues of "child abuse" and "domestic violence." With "child abuse," the focus immediately jumps to sexual abuse and stays there, because they can point to statistics showing men as the main perpetrators of sexual abuse of children--which enables them to get away with portraying "child abuse" as male abuse of children. Wit…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 07:31 AM
1

My point is precisely that most of the time women who do this kind of thing are automatically labeled as insane. The definition of criminal insanity is stretched to fit any woman who commits a crime that people think sane women can't commit. Any woman with problems or mental issues. Men bad, women mad. I did give you another example. Mary Winkler. She shot her husband in the back, pulled out the plug of the phone he was trying to reach, then left him to die. She got out with time served in custo…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 06:24 AM
1

You are illustrating the problem. When women who commit crimes that go against the common perception of what women are capable of get labeled as "crazy" as the default, then the next step is: You can't control crazy, you can't change or prevent it, there is no point. If that is what you focus on, then you have already lost. Then no one takes a close, hard look at whether these women really are criminally insane, or whether like men who commit such crimes, there are women who were still able to c…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:22 PM
1

Look, I'll try this one last time. The things that she has already done--cheat, conceal cheating, then lie to her fiance about the paternity of her baby--are already despicable, dishonest things that reveal that she is not a decent, trustworthy person. A decent, trustworthy woman would not do any of that. She wouldn't cheat in the first place. She wouldn't lie about paternity. She wouldn't hide important facts in order to have the man make decisions she knows he most likely wouldn't make if he k…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:00 PM
1

I should be amazed at the extent you are willing to overlook this woman's actions and invent excuses for her; but this is the way it works in real life. This is how women get away with this shit. (I do thank you though, for a deeper insight into this mindset.) "Oh, maybe...love...she didn't mean to...we can't judge...mistake...not a bad person." You're just trying to slander the woman because your argumentation is weak. I'm not slandering her. I'm describing her based on her actions. The ones th…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:58 PM
2

Shhh! Quiet!...And don't look behind the curtain!
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:17 PM
1

Exactly, but I think a lot of people, men and women, don't want to face up to that reality. They want to pretend that when a woman acts in despicable ways that it is an aberration that says nothing about her character, who she really is, or is somehow justified.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:13 PM
1

They were already married, so you're wrong there. No, they were engaged, with both claiming to be virgins--that was the central point of the plot. Only if he signs the papers and doesn't terminate it within a year Which is what would happen if she, thanks to House, were able to continue deceiving him that long. You don't know what happened... You act as if the woman in question was intentionally trying to hurt him. The story of what she actual did was never told in detail, so let's leave it at t…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:58 PM
1

I think it is supposed to work like this: Chase apologizes and sees the error of his ways--somehow justifying all that she has done as being his just deserts, with her getting to gloat. He asks her out--demonstrating that she is desirable to him, gratifying her ego. So that she can reject him--he wasn't interested in her, which wounded her ego, now she gets to turn the tables and gloat-masturbate her ego into a frenzy. Women in the audience who identify--> emotional payoff orgasm.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:14 PM
2

I don't think fearful lying is the PRIMARY trait; it is a potential subsidiary trait. The primary trait is being fearful of a woman's emotional state (resulting in requiring her approval and fearing her disapproval). You can be perfectly honest and still be under the thumb, in an unhealthy relationship. The quote is the heart of the article and applies even when lying is not part of the equation. You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withd…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:22 PM
1

Lol, surgergy IS permanent, but such a lie? Do you really think that makes things permanent? When the lie is the difference between marrying someone or not, yes. The effects of marrying someone and adopting their child as your own are also permanent, as even in divorce he'd have to pay child support, lose half his stuff, go through massive pain, etc. Also, the guy misses out on a whole different life, instead being tied to someone who would betray, deceive and exploit him in the most fundamental…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 12:48 PM
1

I think you're trying to see more into it than there really is. If you know House, then you know he couldn't care less who he helped as long as it fits his scheme. You're missing the point. It's not about who House cares he helps, but the reaction of the audience watching the show. The audience would only interpret House's actions as being "nice" if helping any woman, regardless of context, is still seen as nice (as per rantgrrl's post). He simply faked a paternity test and gave it a nice story.…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:31 AM
1

Well put. I was wondering if Quazz could see that. Doesn't seem so.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:32 AM
1

I think she is well meaning, but that this sort of thing is just trying to edge around the huge elephant in the room, which is the fact that boys need to be mentored by adult men. She touches on this, but then for some reason hails teaching through video games as the solution. No. You need men. It's that simple. The fact that school is now an almost entirely female environment, both in terms of the sex of the teachers and the systematic teaching style, is what is really harming boys. The old sty…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:58 AM
1

It's nice in the sense that he didn't tell on the woman cheating (although he mentioned it) Thanks for providing an example of the kind of response that I think the writers were expecting. Helping a woman is "nice" and...let's not bother thinking much beyond that. The important thing is that House showed Wilson that he can be nice. Helping a man in a similar fashion wouldn't have done that, because... What you propose is something completely different... I am curious to hear you explanation of h…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:32 PM
12

That's why I wrote "It's...only successful as a plot device with those women who get off on that shit." I didn't mean that all women would react that way. Note that your distress and confusion is not the reaction the writer was hoping to create. It only works if you identify with the woman.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:53 PM
5

This is an interesting take. It will be interesting to see if that happens. The writer didn't mention this though. She talked about Chase's story being about him sleeping with so many women and running around having so much fun that he misses a "moment of substance" that he could have had. She later talks about liking the idea of social networks and "putting your business in too many places" coming back to get you. This makes it sound like she envisioned that Chase missed something worthwhile wi…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:49 PM
17

I think it's written deliberately as a female revenge fantasy, to give female viewers an emotional payoff. It only works inside that context; it doesn't work in terms of how a man would actually react, or even how the character Chase usually acts. As a revenge fantasy, the woman burning the man only to have him come remorsefully crawling after her, with her then gleefully rejecting him, is the icing on the cake and cherry on top. It's bad writing in terms of not staying true to the characters or…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:29 PM
2

That's "nice"? How about, in the hypothetical above, House learned that the woman's husband didn't actually want to have kids, so House tied her tubes and lied as a kind gesture to him? Would that have worked as a plot device? No. Think about why it wouldn't, and why the actual plot device did.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:17 PM
4

It's a men's rights issue in indirect ways that you seem to not be aware of. The whole tone of the news report and the way the case was presented in court would have been different if it had been a man doing these things. With a woman, any possible mental/emotional issues are immediately posited, searched for and highlighted, along with any possible abuse or wrongdoing by the man involved with her; any stress she is under is factored in as affecting her actions. The focus is on her as a potentia…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 06:53 PM
3

The sad thing is that they were almost certainly aiming to please you by trying to let you have your cake and eat it too, a tactic that has very likely been successful with other women in their lives. It's these men and women who make it hard for women like you who want equality warts and all to actually practice it unhindered.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 04:51 PM
10

I see what you are saying, but I think it shows that the writers don't expect the viewers to take the issue of paternity fraud seriously, so it can be used as a joke, in a way that having a woman victimized in some fundamentally life-altering way couldn't be. "Haw, haw! House really showed that Wilson...no, wait...he tied the tubes of a woman coming in for fertility treatments and told her she is actually genetically male internally, just to score a point with Wilson? That's fucked up! What the …
/r/MensRights31/01/11 04:13 PM
20

Oh, I get what you're saying, but they were both religious fundies. Imagine the typical viewer reaction if the plot twist was that the man had tricked a gullible and naive religious woman into believing that some sex act which resulted in her impregnation somehow wasn't real sex and that she couldn't possibly have gotten pregnant from it, so she must be a miraculously pregnant virgin like Mary. Then imagine House knowing this yet going along with it, providing faked tests to prove it, so the man…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 03:41 PM
27

This reminds me of another episode, where House goes along with a Christian woman's claim of being a miraculously pregnant virgin, cobbling together some gobbledygook and faking tests to deceive the husband, so that she gets away with paternity fraud--even though House knew she cheated and got pregnant that way.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 02:20 PM
3

The key to me is balance and fairness, whether that's in terms of sameness or different, complementary gender roles. The latter is possible to achieve in an individual relationship, but currently not possible with women you interact with socially in the wider sense. Why? There is no reciprocity. There is currently no commonly-practiced complementary role to the "gentleman" for women; this makes men only treating women with special deference a one-sided affair that in my opinion is not healthy fo…
/r/MensRights30/01/11 01:44 PM
3

While I agree that many women use this false dichotomy to justify acting like assholes under the guise of standing up for themselves, I think it goes a bit deeper than that. Women who do this may really not see the difference. Every virtue has a vice that is its "dark side." Depending on how and why you do something, any particular trait will become the former or the latter. Assertiveness is a virtue; aggressiveness its shadow vice. And so on with confidence/arrogance, masculinity/machismo, lead…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 05:15 PM
1

I could almost feel sorry for Tony, because I think he started well, then took a disastrously wrong turn in forming his worldview. I think he probably started out questioning his socialization instead of blindly accepting it, which is the first step to becoming a free, mature individual; but then instead of freeing himself of all imposed values and determining his own, he jumped out of the "man box" and into the "feminist box." He thinks himself free, but all he has done is swap one set of exter…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 07:07 AM
1

Even if she explicitly told him to do it, which the article does not address, that just makes them both stupid. No, it makes her guilty of female violence-by-proxy and him guilty of battery. "My girlfriend said to" is not a valid excuse for assaulting someone. You are missing the point on this. A woman being guilty of violence-by-proxy doesn't mean that the man who did her dirty work now has an excuse and is innocent, with all responsibility transferred to her. It means that responsibility doesn…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 05:36 AM
2

The article, however, gives no indication that she in any way convinced him to do this. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. Which is precisely why I wrote "if...then..." I find it strange that in the absence of any evidence you automatically blame the girlfriend instead of the guy doing the assaulting. You are lacking in reading comprehension. I do place responsibility at the man's feet, either way. All I'm trying to get through to you is that if the woman urged him to do it, then she is also respo…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 05:26 AM
0

You know, it's like there's one woman at the front end of "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" having cut its head off and now reaching down its bloody gullet, clawing away trying to reach for any remaining gold, while there's another woman at the other end, staring at its ass, wondering why the eggs have stopped popping out. Having made the risks and consequences of divorce so drastic for men, it's no wonder that men are wary of commitment and have raised their standards when considering if a …
/r/MensRights26/01/11 07:42 PM
2

It's a matter of two different wrongs, not just one. If a woman hired a hitman to kill her husband, and he did it, then they would both individually be guilty of their own crimes. If the woman deliberately tried to get her current boyfriend to hit her ex and he did, then she committed female violence-by-proxy, while he committed the violence directly. One apple. One orange. Two pieces of fruit.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 07:05 PM
1

The "man box" metaphor for a socially constructed, constrictive definition of masculinity, doesn't negate anything I said. "The Frontman Fallacy is the mistaken belief that people (men, specifically) in positions of authority in democratic systems use their power mainly to benefit the categories of people (the category of men, in particular) they belong to. In western countries, male leaders are accessible only to a very small portion of their constituency (women's groups, among them) and they t…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 04:52 PM
1

I fail to see how: women must demonstrate extraordinary work commitment to improve their chances of partnership, for example, by bringing in new clients, establishing a large network of corporate clients, by returning from maternity leave and continuing to docket high numbers of hours per week, and by expressing a commitment to firm culture by endorsing practice-oriented career goals. Equates to: women associates are required to embody standards that are an exaggerated form of a partnership idea…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 03:58 PM
4

You can read a whole article about the study here, but here are some relevant quotes from it (bolding mine): They looked for different reasons that would prompt a woman to file for divorce. One would be to escape an abusive husband -- like a man who is adulterous or violent. But in the state with the best records of grievances, Virginia, only 6 percent of divorces were granted on grounds of violence, and husbands were cited for adultery only slightly more often than wives. "Some women file for d…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 02:58 PM
3

Having read about this study (and others) years ago, I knew something was off about the quote in the article, and a little digging showed exactly what that was. The quote from the National Marriage Project referencing a "recent study" is from this (pdf). Scroll down to "Additional Myths." You'll see in the pdf that there is a footnote number (which is removed in the article) just before the part that basically supports the whole article's assertions: "Also, the higher rate of women initiators is…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 02:10 PM
1

In a country where men are, literally, running the country he's claiming that men are somehow being subjugated. Wow. So you ignore my post which already addresses this point and just go on your merry way. Okay. At least I can see you for what you are. Another point: if men in power were biased in favor of men as a group then feminism wouldn't exist as a political force. It could have been nipped in the bud from the beginning. All of the men's rights issues wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 07:28 PM
1

Equality of opportunity doesn't automatically lead to equality of outcome (nor should it). The thing about the top positions in almost any field is that they require a massive sacrifice of personal time that most women don't want to make. This is not discrimination. Hell, only around 40% of married women work full-time and even they work several hours less a week than men do (on average). As long as the women are freely choosing this, where's the discrimination? Should there be quotas forcing a …
/r/MensRights25/01/11 03:16 PM
4

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't agree with either extreme--enforcing gender roles on everyone cookie-cutter fashion, or trying to do away with them altogether (with the claim that they are just social constructs). There is a middle ground and that's where I see a lot of MRAs standing. You can be against enforcing gender roles, acknowledging that any given individual may not fit them and is deserving of equality of opportunity--while also acknowledging that biological differences…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 02:44 PM
2

I just wanted to add that I really don't think that you should say anything to tip her off--that is what is most likely to get her to actually make a false accusation as a preemptive strike, before you can do anything about her. That means no mention of recording, no talk of calling Child Protective Services or the police, or anything that she feels threatens her; to the contrary you should let her feel that she is in control so that she feels no need to take you down in order to stay in control…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 11:54 AM
5

Recording her is an absolute must. I would not tell her about the recorder, as she would most likely try to get rid of it. The point of recording her should be as proof of her behavior anyway, not as a tool to make her be nicer to you. Her changing her behavior when being recorded defeats the real purpose. The more proof of her behavior you have recorded, the more protection you will have against false accusations--and this is also invaluable protection against those who are already mentally set…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 06:32 AM
1

The great thing for feminist activists is that most people don't look too deeply into how the words of feminists compare to their actions--particularly the actions of the groups of organized activists and lobbyists, who are the only feminists who actually put in the hard work to have their feminist rhetoric turned into systematically applied policies and laws. This is how they can get just the bits of "equality" they want. For example, while the same argument that asserts that women should be el…
/r/MensRights18/01/11 04:30 PM
4

I think for two reasons: 1) There are those women who have imbibed the feminist position uncritically by osmosis from the culture, who simply parrot the line that "women should be able to walk down the street naked at midnight in the worst part of town without fear of being raped." The women in this first category didn't think themselves into this position and don't think beyond it. Of course legally and ethically, this position is absolutely right; the problem being that rapists are not ethical…
/r/MensRights16/01/11 05:30 PM
0

Niiiiiiice. Right? Right?
/r/MensRights14/01/11 02:52 PM
0

Sorry, that was badly written. What I meant is that girls/women have options when faced with having an unwanted child--such as abortion, adoption, and even dropping a baby off at a fire station. Boys and men can't do any of that. Girls/women certainly don't have to worry about being forced to pay child support to their convicted rapist.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 05:03 PM
0

Scroll down to: II. "YES, YOU WERE UNDERAGE. NOW PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT."
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:52 PM
1

It's possible some people were being sarcastic, but I am amazed how many people miss the point on this issue and react to the reality as if it really were the fantasy (consequence-free sex with a hot teacher). I wasn't really serious about wanting people who support women having sex with boys to pay the child support instead of the minor--my intention was to get them to take the issue personally for a second and to realize that there really are huge potential negative consequences involved. Hypo…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:48 PM
1

Your comment assumes that the thing of primary importance is how minors who want to have sex with adults are portrayed and feel about the situation. I disagree. I think the primary concern is protecting minors from bad outcomes, not from good ones. This goes for boys too. From this perspective, it's boys whose situations aren't taken seriously, who don't receive public sympathy or support, and who have to take adult responsibility anyway.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:37 PM
1

The point is that the teacher is not only an adult, but in a position of authority over and responsibility for her pupils; the onus is on her not to have sex with them. It is illegal for her to do so. It is not the responsibility of the minor to assume adult responsibility for birth control in this situation--sure, it would be wise for them to do so anyway, but teenagers are rarely wise, which is why the onus is on the adult with the duty of care over the minor not to fuck them in the first plac…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:28 PM
2

This side-steps my point--if boys are to be as responsible for child support as adult men are (note that females of any age aren't) then why are women given the vote? Equality or privilege with protected, but inferior status? Which is it?
/r/MensRights10/01/11 07:30 PM
3

If she's not breaking the law, then she shouldn't get punished. If she is, then she should get punished just as much as a male teacher who had sex with a female minor in the same situation. That's all. No more, no less.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 07:21 PM
3

The law regarding the legal age for adults to have sex with youths, AND the law regarding teachers (and adults having responsibility over minors) having sex with them. The law is set up to protect minors from the worst possible consequences, not the best. Girls can also enjoy fucking male teachers and not get pregnant, but that wouldn't protect the men if prosecuted.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 06:38 PM
7

We, as a society, have set laws regarding the minimum age an adult can engage in sex with a youth; now, you may disagree with the age set, but it is still the law. If you say women, but not men, can ignore the law and do as they will BUT boys having sex with them are FULLY culpable for their actions (i.e. they have to pay child support) then you are saying that boys are citizens who are capable of responsibility, while adult women are not. Give boys the vote and take it from women?--Thought not.…
/r/MensRights10/01/11 06:28 PM
-5

1) The law is the fucking law. If you're going to ignore it, then let's just revert to Anarchy--none of this "consequences don't apply to women" shit. Equality is equality or let's just take away women's vote. 2) So what? The law wasn't set up in favor of the most responsible breakers of the law, but to protect minors from the consequences stemming from the actions of worst breakers of the law.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 06:12 PM
6

But they can't avoid paying child support.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 06:03 PM
5

Yeah, they want the "hot for teacher" fantasy. All positives, no negatives. Got that. Unfortunately, reality doesn't always play that game--the boy may love the sex but come to absolutely regret the consequences, which include having to pay child support and be tied to a woman he (as an adult) comes to view as unstable. He can't then unchoose the mother of his child. He is fucked. So is his kid. "Niiiiiiiiiice."
/r/MensRights10/01/11 06:02 PM
10

Two points for the "Niiiiiiiiiice" contingent: 1) The law needs to apply equally to men and women; letting women off, or off easy, spits in the face of that and has consequences in society. Women need to face equal consequences and have equal responsibility under the law--or take away their vote and classify them with children. 2) I would love for people with the "Niiiiiiiiiice" opinion to be collectively made to pay the child support of boys who impregnate women they are statutorily raped by. W…
/r/MensRights10/01/11 05:21 PM
16

It's not just the statistics. If the words "domestic violence" are only used in news reports when referring to female victims and male perpetrators, then that is what people will associate the term with. This means the male victims of domestic violence are in effect screened out of people's perception of the issue. It's not done on a conscious level, but that is the result.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 06:22 PM
2

Also, I'd like to say that I'm annoyed by the title too--mostly because the point of the article is not to claim that women are "shallow gold-diggers." For those who might not know, there are new laws in Britain which will allow companies to legally sexually discriminate in favor of hiring women. The justification for this is the fact that the percentage of women in higher positions in companies, the government, the professions, etc is low. The claim is that this is due to (unproven but suspecte…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:53 PM
2

I think that for a small percentage of people, the gender roles can be successfully reversed; the problem for men is (as you say) finding a woman who wants that in the first place and who then doesn't change her mind as time goes on.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:20 PM
2

The 38% figure is just for women who "married husbands with significantly higher levels of education than their own." It's not the best measurement anyway, as statistically women tend to choose different college degrees and do different things with them after graduation. It's incredibly hard to find an analysis without "Rah, rah, you go girl!" spin, but look at this graph. The figure for women who earn more than their husbands is 26.6%--but wait--that is for married couples where both work. Cons…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:09 PM
18

Actually, I think acknowledging women's continued marked tendency toward hypergamy is incredibly important. It's not every woman, but it's the majority. This tendency and what follows from it (women who marry up have more options regarding what type of paid work they can choose to do, how many hours of paid work they can choose to do, how much time they can choose to take off from paid work, when they can choose to quit paid work altogether, who gets to be the primary care-giver of the children,…
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:31 PM
4

But there is a method to their madness. They can't just out and out say "we only care about women." They have to claim to represent "gender equality" which sounds fair, while actually only advancing women's interests. Most people will mistake the talk for the walk, so they're good to go.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 04:43 PM
12

Gender Equality is the Advancement of Women. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 04:35 PM
1

One of the most pernicious things about the claim that we live in a "rape culture" is the assertion that within it, rape is not a massive break from social norms, or a violation of one of society's greatest taboos, but that: "rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture" Mary Koss. (Bolding mine.) Wikipedia: Rape culture is a term used within women's studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violen…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 07:47 PM
1

Given your edit, could you please explain exactly why you believe that you are a rapist? I can see two potential reasons you might think so, but I'd like to hear it from you. If it is "fucked up" that people don't get why it was rape, I would sincerely like you to spell out why it is.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 02:05 PM
4

I'm attaching this as a reply to you for the same reason, so it doesn't get lost in the buried posts. Another point: is there "lack of consent" when someone isn't really in the mood for sex, but pretends to be, freely choosing to have sex anyway for their own reasons, so that their partner believes that they really do want to have sex? He says "I didn't find out until almost a year later" which leads me to believe that he had no idea that she wasn't genuinely interested in having sex at the time…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:53 PM
1

Here are my thoughts on what mainstream feminism is (and isn't) here and here. If you look at what mainstream feminism actually lobbies for and against, rather than what feminists pay lip service to supporting, the reality of feminism in practice emerges. This always gets turned on its head: people see armchair "real equality" feminists who never actually do anything but talk as being the mainstream of feminism--while the countless legions of networked feminist activists who work their asses off…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 05:54 PM
1

The way feminists frame these campaigns is that male violence and rape are not the actions of isolated sociopaths or willfully evil men, who know what the are doing is wrong and a total violation of social norms yet do it anyway--but are instead the actions of normal men who have been influenced by a patriarchal culture that views violence against women and rape as socially acceptable and no big deal. This is claim is garbage. A vile lie. The goal here is to cast all men as potential wife-beater…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:56 PM
2

So why have we even heard of her? Why did she ever gain a position of prominence within feminism instead of being an unknown kook? In my opinion it's because far from being a bar to acceptance, being a lunatic man-hater can win you a place on a Women's studies class reading list.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 03:34 PM
4

If a man is castrated by marriage, he never had any balls to begin with. I'd never marry such a passive doormat, less a husband and more a servant. A man who changes entirely for fear of his wife's wrath isn't worth my (or anyone else's) time, except perhaps that of his manipulative wife's. I would agree entirely with your statement if it were just a matter of a man being afraid of his wife's disapproval--but it's not that simple. It should be, but interference by the state has unbalanced the si…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 03:08 PM
1

I'd like to make an analogy to frame my response to this comment. If you look at feminism like a pyramid, at the base you have all of the disparate theoretical models. As you move up the pyramid from theory to systematic practice, individual differences of opinion have to fall away for there to be consensus on any given issue, otherwise it would be impossible for feminists to work together effectively. The further up the pyramid you go, greater numbers of people have to work together, so the mor…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 11:48 AM
0

No, what I call feminism is the type that is put into practice by the anti-male/pro-women feminists who actually get out of their armchairs, walk their talk, and do the lobbying and propaganda-spreading that influences policies, laws and attitudes. Your feminism is of the armchair variety that never actually gets organized systematically and put into practice. The only thing it does is stand up when feminism is criticized, to claim that feminism isn't really like that. Your feminism is just a be…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 09:45 AM
5

The problem is that the ideas you are trying to present are flawed. As shown above by mmck and by the Wiki page, there is substantial evidence that men do not perpetrate the majority of domestic violence. Rape is certainly a valid issue, but so is false accusation of rape. The problem with giving "victims" extraordinary power is precisely that they are classified as victims and given this power merely with an accusation--which could be false. Feminists want to advantage women from the outset, un…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 04:24 PM
9

I agree, and would like to add a few things: 1) Biology and lack of technology were the main things that created gender roles. With no labor-saving devices, birth control, infant formula, etc it was not possible (or highly undesirable) for a sexually active, fertile woman to participate in the workforce away from the home as men did. See here. In the industrial revolution when the elite could exploit the labor of children and women as well as men, the first laws set up to protect workers from ex…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:03 PM
1

I still don't understand the intellectual dishonesty you're talking about. >Just because you cannot fit every caveat into a 16 minute talk does not mean you are in disagreement with everything just mentioned. There is a difference between not being able to fit everything in and cherry-picking. But women are dominating the work force. They are supreme in the current economic climate. Is that not a fact borne out by the statistics she presents? Here's where the cherry-picking comes in. Say I have …
/r/MensRights21/12/10 04:34 PM
1

I don't think so at all. This talk only focused on the advantages women have over men, but there are many known and accepted disadvantages. You are entirely missing my point. The reason her talk won't be challenged by feminists is precisely because it focuses only on the ways women are supposedly superior to men. It is taboo to bring up the male advantages you mention. Larry Summers is an example of feminist reaction when someone dares to actually extrapolate that position out to suggest that in…
/r/MensRights20/12/10 03:18 PM
7

Feminism, like a lot of lefty movements, got quite wrapped up in social construction theory and post-modernism, and that it is now being confronted is a good thing, Rosin should at least be given a bit of kudos for that. I think it's at least strange to attack her for that, since you are admitting she's right. Bolding mine. Frankly, I don't think this is what is happening. I don't think there is a challenge or a shift from one position to the other. The two contradictory positions are simultaneo…
/r/MensRights19/12/10 11:06 AM
1

This is a very good point and I'd just like to expand on it a little. Considered in isolation, having to make a cup of coffee is a trivial thing to make an issue out of; but the real objection isn't to the actual task, is it? The objection is to a policy of having "women's work" which isn't part of the job description, from which men doing the same job are exempt. Now, I think that there has to be balance and consistency here. Either there are gender roles at work, which are reflected in the job…
/r/MensRights18/12/10 06:03 PM
1

You might have better luck in saying that you are for equality and fairness in regard to issues faced by both men and women. The problem with what you're saying is that the premises that feminism and men's rights are built on are very different and are very often in opposition to each other even though both claim to want equality. It's like saying you simultaneously believe "My hat is red. It's not blue. It is a fine hat." and "My hat is blue. It's not red. It is a fine hat." when talking about …
/r/MensRights16/12/10 03:04 PM
1

It's funny you mention 1984 and Big Brother, because George Orwell held the opposite view. "The other thing that needs dealing with is the parrot cry 'killing women and children'. I pointed out before, but evidently it needs repeating, that it is probably somewhat better to kill a cross-section of the population than to kill only the young men. If the figures published by the Germans are true, and we have really killed 1,200,000 civilians in our raids, that loss of life has probably harmed the G…
/r/MensRights16/12/10 02:39 PM
2

We keep our loonies in check; why can't you all do the same? Not the person you're addressing this to, but IMO it's because it's the "real" feminists, the true believers in warts-and-all equality, who are the actual outliers in the movement while the anti-male, privilege-seeking feminists make up the ranks of the countless networked women's groups that actually put their money where their mouths are--paying in massive amounts of time, dedication and effort into all of the policy-forming and lobb…
/r/MensRights16/12/10 02:16 PM
1

My concern is entirely about whether they can do the job or not; after that, it's a matter of working out the logistics. I really think though that people need to stop dancing around the elephant in the room and flat-out own up to the fact that the vast majority of women are not physically up to the job. I wish they were, but they're not. Pretending they are scores political points, but doesn't carry any backpacks, equipment or stretchers.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:15 AM
1

The thing is that you will get a lot of feminists who will pay lip service to the idea of women signing up for selective service, but you won't see any actual activism to make it a reality; just as feminism is all about equality for men too if you hear a feminist speak about what feminism "really is," yet in practice nothing is done to help men, or even boys. The reality of feminism is in what is done or not done by feminists; not in what they say.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 04:48 AM
4

When feminism is criticized, it's common for feminists to say something like: "which type of feminism are you talking about? There are as many types of feminism as there are individual feminists." as if feminists were like cats, unherdable and all wandering off in their own individual directions with no concern for where any of the others are going--but this isn't the case, is it? Feminism has been so successful precisely because individual feminists and women's groups from different branches of…
/r/MensRights14/12/10 08:16 AM
2

You make a good point, but the people doing this aren't logically consistent. They use doublethink. One huge mistake people make with women-firsters (who are not restricted to feminists) is to assume that when they take one position on an issue involving women they extrapolate that out consistently across the board through all contexts. They don't. Women are portrayed as weak (physically/mentally/emotionally) when it benefits women, such as when charged with a crime. In this context, a woman los…
/r/MensRights13/12/10 06:35 AM
11

Very well said. In her case, I think she wants to think of herself as a fair-minded, good person, but she doesn't want to actually walk the talk, because that would involve facing down the fears her prejudices generate in real life. So to keep her positive self-image while avoiding having to actually live out her claimed ideals, she simply abdicates personal responsibility and tells herself she has no choice. And people who have convinced themselves that someone/something else is responsible for…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 07:18 AM
32

I think it's all in the phrasing: "I also told him that I felt really awful about having to feel this way, and that it was such a shame that society forced us to discriminate against kind, competent men as caregivers for our kids." Bolding mine. She is able to absolve herself by projecting blame outward, telling herself that she has no choice in what actually are her own freely made decisions. Having claimed powerlessness, it is no longer her being sexist and discriminating against someone, but …
/r/MensRights07/12/10 06:21 AM
2

Yeah, it's happening to women, rather than men (who don't count).
/r/MensRights06/12/10 08:03 PM
1

Sorry, my post was poorly written. I didn't mean to imply that all marathons were like this. Also, I should have written that the women get a "prize for crossing the finishing line first" rather than "first prize." My intention wasn't to imply that "substantive equality" is the norm in tennis or in marathons, but to show what it looks like when it is applied to those sports. Just like Wimbledon is one specific example of "substantive equality" in sport, I should have given a specific example of …
/r/MensRights05/12/10 11:14 AM
6

"Substantive equality" is just Animal Farm equality, as in "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." In other words, a definition of a word turned on its head with rhetorical slight of hand. In sport, "substantive equality" is giving women substantial head starts in marathons, then awarding them the first prize money and acclaim when they pass the finish line first. It's women at Wimbledon getting paid the same prize money as men even while playing far less tennis, lo…
/r/MensRights04/12/10 02:18 PM
2

Yep, just like Animal Farm.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 04:41 PM
2

Well, it's quite simple you see: because equality is so important, they need this law to ensure that men and women are as made as equal as possible in the workplace; to achieve this they merely want to make women even more equal in comparison to men in cases where women are just plain old equal with men. What could be wrong with more equality?
/r/MensRights03/12/10 01:52 PM
3

This is a really good point. I do think as a pragmatic, tactical matter it is probably smarter for them to approach it in this way. With a man it wouldn't be an issue, as trying to get a male pedophile off with a mental illness defence would be the hardest sell. With a woman, the prosecution has to slowly drag them away by degrees from the idea that she just couldn't help doing what she did because of mental illness.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 10:29 AM
2

Regarding a mental illness defence? Experts for both the defence and prosecution gave opinions on her mental health.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 09:54 AM
1

A mental illness diagnosis discovery should be the rule, not the exception, for all people who do these things to children . No sane, level-headed person goes after kids for sexual contact. I've addressed this here. As for publicizing the names of the accused, I can't agree nor disagree. However, with the way society throws people under the bus for sexual abuse cases I'm more inclined to having their names not published unless they're convicted. This is a good point. I just want them to have con…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 09:52 AM
2

Well, I think desiring and attempting are two separate things. We may not have control over what thoughts and desires spontaneously arise in our minds, but we do have control over our conscious decisions and our actions. The abnormal desire may arise by itself and even be ineradicable. This doesn't equate to an irresistible compulsion to act on that desire though. It's only the latter issue which should have any bearing legally: was the person in a state of mind where they were able to control t…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 09:42 AM
33

It's possible that in this case the woman can't be named in order to prevent the children being identified. I wish they had given more detail as to the "legal reasons" she couldn't be identified. At least it isn't the media voluntarily withholding her name. What gets me is how the mental illness excuse is predictably trundled out and is immediately viable for a woman. This isn't a matter of the law as written, but of societal bias. Too many people (including judges and juries) just don't want to…
/r/MensRights02/12/10 05:49 AM
16

She wasn't on the sinking ship to the end. She was in a lifeboat when the ship sank. This is not to discount what she did do, but no matter how praiseworthy her other actions were, she didn't protest the sexism by standing with the men and going down with the ship. What she did isn't an example of a woman truly living out the feminist claims of wanting equality with men (no more, no less). I'm sorry, but there is a vast gulf between doing what you can to help others while also saving yourself in…
/r/MensRights26/11/10 10:14 AM
3

People usually miss the point on this issue. The laws aren't there to protect against teens enjoying sex with adults, but are set up precisely because teens are bursting with hormones for the first time, but don't have experience in handling the sexual urges involved or the wisdom to weigh up the potential consequences of having sex at that age. A teenage boy would most likely love having sex with an older woman. He would not love being on the hook for child support for a couple of decades if sh…
/r/MensRights24/11/10 06:01 AM
-3

The thing that stood out to me the most about this is not her bigotry, but that the media enabled it. She was interviewed by women in place of the men she rejected. Try that with any other type of bigotry.
/r/MensRights23/11/10 04:26 PM
1

It's funny and he makes great points about how men are expected to risk and sacrifice their lives while women aren't, but I wish he didn't mix it up with the "wage gap" issue. It kind of made it sound like "Well, that's unfair to women, but men have it unfair over here"--as if the wage gap claims were valid--which they are not.
/r/MensRights23/11/10 01:11 PM
1

I think that what the Onion piece does is shine a cold, harsh light on the mentality of the kind of woman who knowingly takes advantage of guys who allow themselves to get into this situation. I don't think it paints the guy in a positive light either (he's obviously a clueless emotional tampon). While I don't think it's solely blaming the woman, it is focusing directly on her part in the dynamic--something which is usually minimized, denied, hand-waved away, or skipped entirely. It's taboo to k…
/r/MensRights22/11/10 04:43 PM
1

The thing is that it is common practice when a woman does something wrong to claim that she is mentally ill and then try to use this to absolve her of all responsibility for her words and actions. If Portia is able control what she says and does well enough to be a professional actor, interacting with men in scenes, I don't believe that in this instance she somehow has no control over herself and is so traumatized that she can't be interviewed by a man. I think it's a conscious choice based on b…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 02:31 PM
0

Yeah, guys! Don't you realize that this woman is a victim? Do you actually expect her to be responsible for her words and actions or something? How dare you not give her blatant bigotry a pass!
/r/MensRights19/11/10 12:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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