TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

soulless_ging Archive

View 1 post and 541 comments by soulless_ging on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Helping women doesn't mean screwing over men. It's not a zero-sum game. Remember, this whole argument started because you chastised me for not using YOUR definition of a word when there are plenty of members of your group for whom my criticism was completely valid. Again, it's not MY definition. You skipped around the article I sent you, saying because some people disagree with it feminists are wrong (not the point) and then still misunderstood the extremist definition -- even that doesn't suppo…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:26 PM
1

Oh come on. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have influence, but they're not representative of most Republican views. Mike Huckabee does not represent all Christians. Bill Maher does not represent all liberals. There's a trend in that whomever is yelling the loudest and making it their life's goal to influence policy is a bit of an extremist. Didn't it ever occur to you that the very reason you hear about crazy feminist POVs is because, well, they're crazy? Moderate views don't make for best-sell…
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:27 PM
0

I mean, not to belittle what happened to you, but groping is just not on the level of most of what OP described. Most people who have been at a frat party or just a crowded bar have been groped.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 07:21 PM
1

Please see a therapist. Perhaps all this is true; if it is, you must be seeking very damaged people to spend your time with. Most people naturally avoid people who behave like this, because they give off bad vibes.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:34 PM
1

If OP told us one rape story, I'd believe him. But 4 separate attacks? Statistically, your chances of being attacked once are pretty low. We doubt women who claim they were raped once all the time, then a man comes along and says he was abused 4 times by 4 different people and we should just take his word for it?
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:33 PM
1

Seriously...the odds of so much assault, especially from different people, happening to one person is pretty hard to believe. I mean, maybe the teacher really fucked him up and now OP only makes connections with people that the rest of us would naturally avoid...Idk.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:29 PM
0

He was 9. It was wrong.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:25 PM
1

I don't mean to sound unsupportive or disbelieving, but if everything you wrote is true, you have had an incredibly unlucky life. The odds of being sexually abused by your teacher and friend, AND physically abused by your first girlfriend, AND date raped, AND dragged off the street into a car by strangers must be insane. I hope you have a therapist or counselor you can talk to about all of this.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 05:24 PM
1

I give up dude. You're still missing the point and cherry picking the extremists to make your POV work. Believe whatever you want.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 12:19 PM
0

I get your point, but it's apples and oranges. Child custody should be about what's best for the child, not what's perfectly "fair" for the parents. 50/50 custody just doesn't make sense in a lot of cases, especially if the parents live in different school districts or are especially volatile with one another. Logically, there's going to have to be a "primary" caregiver in most circumstances. And it's not such a crazy idea to think a child would benefit from having a more stable/permanent sense …
/r/MensRights13/10/15 04:20 PM
1

You say because I didn't "research gender" I'm wrong, whilst linking to a Wikipedia page that reaffirms my position? "Much evidence from evolutionary biology exists that contradicts the idea that gender is a social construct". No. The Wikipedia page gives the definition I'm trying to explain: "According to this view, society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behaviour for a person of that specific gender. Stronger versions argue that the diff…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 03:23 PM
-2

NOW's position was that default shared custody is not necessarily in the best interest of children. According to their website: The National Organization for Women-New York State, Inc. is in favor of primary caregiver presumption. This means that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for the children during the marriage, either father or mother, should continue to be the custodial parent. http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html
/r/MensRights13/10/15 03:06 PM
1

Apparently we misunderstood each other then. IIRC, you had claimed that no feminist organization had ever done anything that benefited men. I pointed out that many of NOW's initiatives benefited women AND men. I was trying to show that they weren't trying to step on men to raise women higher. Not that they set out with initiatives designed to specifically help men. I believe I also said then that I didn't understand why you were looking for a feminist organization to specifically be trying to he…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:58 PM
1

When did NOW pretend to be about justice for men? It's called the National Organization for Women. It's exactly the same. They're supportive of equality, but they're not going out of their way to help men. It's outside their purview.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:22 PM
1

So since feminist don't mean gender when they say gender, what is their word for gender? Most feminists just think we attribute too many learned behaviors to being natural because of our "genders." They think our behavior is more nurture than nature, so to speak. They are borrowing this thought from many different sociological theories about gender. I love how I'm the one "misinterpreting" when you've literally changed the meaning of the word. I, personally, didn't change the meaning of the word…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 02:07 PM
1

Well, yes. And in feminist vernacular, that is what they mean when they say gender. It's like how "theory" means something different in science vernacular than it does colloquially.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 01:18 PM
-2

When we do mental gymnastics like this to overcompensate for what is obviously supposed to be an example of someone completely ignoring their spouse and doing exactly what they want instead of finding a compromise, we're just as bad as radical feminists who say a woman is never in the wrong, either. I agree that it's problematic that the graph acts like this behavior could only be expected from men (though it is probably more often men who are guilty of this kind of behavior). It would have been…
/r/MensRights10/10/15 01:18 PM
2

...let's go ahead and assume he did not buy a truck with an extended cab, because she's probably not complaining that the whole family cannot fit if it can, in fact, fit.
/r/MensRights10/10/15 03:36 AM
11

It's not a requirement, but it definitely helps, especially for kids. As Whoopi Goldberg said, "Well, when I was nine years old Star Trek came on. I looked at it and I went screaming through the house, ‘Come here, mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there’s a black lady on television and she ain’t no maid!’ I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be.” Role models that represent your race and gender are important.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 09:45 PM
4

I guess they're confusing "male privilege" with acting like it's 1950 and being sexist and controlling... Using Male Privilege: “He refuses to pick up milk on his way home because it’s ‘women’s work.’” “When he came home yesterday, he was driving a brand new truck. I told him we needed something the whole family could fit in, but he didn’t listen to me.” “He doesn’t mind his friends being at the house at all hours of the night, but he says my Sunday brunch friends talk too much and are no longer…
/r/MensRights09/10/15 07:42 PM
18

That's an incredibly misleading title. “When he came home yesterday, he was driving a brand new truck. I told him we needed something the whole family could fit in, but he didn’t listen to me.” This is about making large purchases/decisions without consulting your spouse, not buying trucks. I'm all for calling out bullshit examples, but that isn't one. We won't get male victims of DV taken seriously by trivializing female victims.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 07:36 PM
2

Abusive people break their spouses and make them dependent on them so they won't leave. Let's not call victims of DV greedy because they've been abused to the point that they have difficulty supporting themselves. I don't see what this case has to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:39 PM
6

This is true, and especially true in this case, as the boy was struggling with mental illness.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:30 PM
6

Not a lawyer, but unless something came to light that proved her accusation was false, I doubt your friend would have much of a case. I'd suggest getting a free consult with a lawyer to see if he has grounds for a defamation case.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:27 PM
10

Not to be blithe, but legally, there's no proof the accusations were false. It wouldn't be just to press charges against her.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 04:54 PM
1

To redefine gender as "that which you are told to do because tradition" or "the aspects of gender which we just made up" would move the majority of what would otherwise be considered gender into the category of sex, such as behaviors and tastes. The first half of that is actually exactly what the feminist definition of gender is trying to say, at least to an extent. We all know that men's higher testosterone levels and women's higher estrogen levels explain this somewhat, but feminists also beli…
/r/MensRights09/10/15 03:32 PM
2

I just think it's bad form for MRAs to point to an MRA publication for source material, especially when the MRA publication itself mostly sources other MRA blogs and dictionary definitions. That's not using critical thought or analyzing unbiased research to make our claims; it's adding to an echo chamber.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 03:19 PM
1

I don't understand what is so crazy about this. Some people, especially men, are going to say/do things to your daughter that are sexually charged. This does happen to everyone, yes, but as a presumably small female, she might feel uncomfortable when an older man does this to her. The first time I was honked at I was 14. I thought it was funny. When it continued happening as I got older and lewd comments were included, I felt uncomfortable. I'm glad I was able to talk to other women, have them t…
/r/MensRights09/10/15 12:44 PM
1

I didn't feel threatened, because I've discussed these kinds of things in "feminist" spaces, and I rationally know that statistically, he's incredibly unlikely to actually try to harm me. I understand that that man was a complete idiot with no filter, and that he was teasing me the same way that boys tease girls on the playground, or was doing it to feel like he was powerful. But your 15 year old daughter might not understand that. She might feel threatened by an older man making unsolicited sex…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:44 PM
1

She's being sexualized; I can guarantee you that. She's old enough to talk about it.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:36 PM
1

Shouldn't the answer be to have her ask where those groups are? The existence of a women's group does not mean that men don't have problems. That's a false dichotomy. Every group of people faces its own challenges. I don't think telling your daughter that she could never possibly have any problems and no one will ever talk down to her because she's female is doing her any favors. There are misogynistic people in the world. Men will shout things at your daughter when she passes them on the street…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:34 PM
1

Strongly doubting this happened.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:16 PM
2

Perhaps sexist is too strong of a term, but gender roles are definitely at play here, and women are losing in terms of career. It sounds like those women wanted to leave Cracked and actively decided to be SAHMs, which is of course entirely up to them. But for families that can't afford childcare, one parent is going to have to work less, and that's usually the mom. I'd blame that on traditional gender roles. The other interesting thing is how this connects to other MRA "issues." If there's a div…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:20 PM
5

If any of the right wing media stations had gotten wind of any of this, they would have drilled down and exposed it at any cost. This is probably the best evidence we have that these claims are false. If there was any actual proof of this, Republicans would have cut Hillary down long ago. The fact that they're silent on this means they don't have anything, and wouldn't dare bring it up because they'd look like idiots.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:25 PM
0

Can we stop holding up AVFM as source material for anything? That's about as useful as Creationists pointing to the Bible as "proof."
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:59 PM
1

Okay, the bookstore thing: I had never heard of that, but after looking into it quickly it seems like feminists were only looking to ban porn that was especially degrading to women (like rape porn) and then got screwed by the way the law was enforced. "Even feminists who supported the law were horrified by the way it was used. Karen Busby, a lawyer who worked at a feminist organisation cofounded by Catherine MacKinnon, wrote, “before the ink was dry on Butler … the Toronto police raided Glad Day…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:57 PM
2

Not overtly, except for the occasional rogue homo/transphobe, though that kind of talk is usually heavily downvoted. But in a more subtle way, this feels a lot like a straight man's space. There's a LOT of focus on feminist-blaming and complaining about women's behavior in general, which I don't think resonates with the gay community. They certainly can't relate to straight dating/marriage/divorce/child custody issues, but more importantly, I think the LGBT community generally considers feminist…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:47 PM
1

Maybe I shouldn't have gone there, but he literally asked. Psychologically speaking, no one hates an entire group of (nonviolent) people for valid reasons. People hate/demean others because either because they don't understand them and that makes them uncomfortable, or because picking on someone weaker makes them feel better about themselves and seemingly elevates their social standing. Gay people hating trans people is disturbingly common, because of the latter reason.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:41 PM
1

I think you're misunderstanding what feminists are talking about when they call gender a social construct. They mean that gender is something that people have just made up, and it's going to take every one as a society to recognize that this is true in order for everyone to be more comfortable behaving how they want to/what is actually healthy as opposed to what we're traditionally told we're supposed to do. Telling someone in the lbgt that their gender and sexuality are social constructs leads …
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:33 PM
1

Warped, radical feminists do that, but the general goals of the movement are definitely about breaking down traditional gender roles.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:27 PM
1

I don't think they are, or at least the large majority of them aren't.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:25 PM
1

Sure.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:56 PM
1

I never understood where this is coming from. The basic definition is equality for women. It's a women's rights movement.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:54 PM
2

I'm not well-versed in that, but you're missing the point. EDIT: I know I shouldn't take the bait here, but it looks like local chapters of the NAACP are pretty active in supporting black communities: http://www.brooklynnaacp.org/ Again, achieving legal equality is a momentous step, but it doesn't mean you're done.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:49 PM
1

I understand the whole budget thing, but again, that's not the issue at hand. If you want to discuss this strictly in a hypothetical and moral sense, and in a very limited sense at that, since you're advocating that fathers should be able to deny a strong male presence to their children (not that I agree that that's strictly necessary, but it's certainly a moral talking point) then yes, men should be allowed to give up parental rights if a woman chooses not to abort. But if you want to discuss h…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:42 PM
5

I'm constantly amazed at this mindset. Do you also think the NAACP should disband, since legally, race doesn't matter? Yes, technically in a legal sense, gay people have gained (mostly) equality -- I don't think you're protected from being fired for your sexuality in all places -- but this is being challenged all the time and they still face a ton of discrimination. Changing laws does not immediately change minds and attitudes. EDIT: Also, I wasn't trying to suggest that the MRM should take up c…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:31 PM
1

Tone matters. There's a big difference between "I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to help you" and "Fuck off."
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:48 PM
1

You're really not doing a great job of convincing me that you don't generalize about trans people in a negative way.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:46 PM
2

I mean, of course there are going to be radical feminists who don't even support gay men simply because they're men, and there are some gay men who don't identify with feminism because it's largely a women's movement. But to generalize, feminism has been supportive of LGBT rights, and I think many gay men at least identify with the idea that traditional gender roles have negatively affected their lives, so there's a lot of common ground there.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:43 PM
2

It is, though. We already have a hard enough time getting budgets passed and giving welfare to the kids who are alive. Running a country means making a lot of decisions that are going to piss a lot of people off, but you make them because it pisses off slightly less people (or less important people) than the other decision. By and large, poor people are the ones who didn't get a good sex education and wind up pregnant unintentionally (yes, it can happen to anyone, but it's more likely to happen …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:25 PM
1

Right, but you're judging an entire group, not one person.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:10 PM
1

I don't hate them as people, I hate that 99% of the time they act like complete cunts. Right. That's how I talk about people I don't hate.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:07 PM
3

Agreed, and MRM should of course support them in areas such as depression, homelessness, etc., but the specific issue of "struggles in transitioning" would be better handled by a group that's specifically helping people with that.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 08:00 PM
0

You hate trans people because it makes you feel better about yourself. I'm sure you've faced a lot of issues as a gay person, and so you tell yourself "Well, at least I'm not trans. Those people are really the disgusting ones. They deserve hate much more than gay people do." And now I'm sure you're extra pissed because society has permanently associated one with the other by using the acronym LGBT. It's sad, but understandable. You're just the bully on the playground who picks on the weaker kids…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:57 PM
2

IMO, we should be accepting of that, but I just think those particular issues are outside of the purview of "Men's Rights." That person identifies as female, so her issues aren't directly related to what we're doing here. I also think we need to be careful that we don't fall into the false dichotomy where we think if we're not supporting them, we're against them. We also haven't taken a stance on gun control; that doesn't mean we're specifically for or against guns. It's just not relevant to our…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:50 PM
-1

Probably because feminists have generally embraced the LGBT community and supported legislation to make firing someone for their sexual orientation illegal, making gay bashing a hate crime, supporting gay marriage, right to raise children, etc., and MRM spends a fair amount of its time saying feminism is ruining the country. What's more, MRM generally seems to think that the feminist narrative of "toxic masculinity" and needing to "dissolve gender roles" is bullshit. But I'm guessing a lot of ga…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:41 PM
9

Transmen are men. Comments like these are why MRM is unpopular with those communities.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:30 PM
9

Are we really saying that supporting LGBT men is something we should do to disarm feminists? Shouldn't we want to support them simply because they're men, and therefore their problems are inherently important as MR issues? Maybe we're unpopular with LGBT communities because we discuss using them as a political tool instead of just treating them as men.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:29 PM
-1

I haven't seen the video, but regardless of what some feminists said, it doesn't change the fact that cat calling is gross behavior. But you missed my larger point, which was it's not feminism's job to police all women, just like it's not the MRA's job to police all men.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 06:01 PM
-2

I don't know, why don't MRAs take catcalling seriously? They say it's not a big deal and some people enjoy it, so we shouldn't stop anyone from doing it. That if it hurts your "feelz," that's your problem. Feminists do not go out of their way to admonish poor behavior from women in the same way that MRAs don't go out of their way to admonish poor behavior by men. To say they're responsible for reacting to every bad thing a woman does anywhere at any time is just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 05:32 PM
4

Yes, but she's saying the ratio of what she's making as compared to him is still too low. She didn't give numbers, so I don't know how valid that claim is, but she's not asking to make the same as him, just a reasonable proportion. Like, let's say supporting actors should make 50% of a main actors' salary per minute of screen time. If she's on screen for 30 minutes and he's on screen for 2 hours, her salary should be 17.5% of his. She's saying it's less than that. I made up a bunch of arbitrary …
/r/MensRights07/10/15 04:15 PM
-1

The title of this post is really misleading. She seems to have been complaining about the ratio of their pay being so outrageous, not that she should have been paid the same amount of him. Since she didn't talk numbers, I don't know how valid her complaint is, though.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 04:07 PM
2

To be fair, she doesn't seem to think she should be paid the same amount. As a lot of people here have pointed out, she didn't have nearly the same amount of screentime, so that would be ridiculous. She seems to be saying that RDJ is being paid outrageously more than she is, though. Like, if you broke down how much each of them were paid per minute of screen time, he would be making much, much more than her.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:58 PM
-1

The comparison is whether or not both were able to do the same job that they were hired for. There's no need to entirely invert the situation here.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 02:15 PM
1

I agree that it doesn't look good. I still think it's hypocritical of this sub to assume guilt without a fair trial.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 02:13 PM
1

Source? Also I get that that would be the literal definition of "without consent" but I highly doubt every girl who has a guy try to kiss her hold/her hand on a date checked off the "I was assaulted" box.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 02:07 PM
1

Not for nothing, why else would that usher have not let them through? It sounds like none of the male reporters had issues. Even if he was well-intentioned, he was still white-knighting and discriminating based on their gender. Sometimes women do deal with discrimination. I don't see why we should act like that absolutely never happens.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 09:51 PM
3

How is repeating the same allegations from years ago in any way compelling?
/r/MensRights05/10/15 09:06 PM
0

How is this about men's rights?
/r/MensRights05/10/15 08:13 PM
1

I think a lot of mods get a thrill from the power trip, and found a comment where you were shouting admittedly insensitive things about rape as a reason to keep you banned. Doesn't seem particularly sexist to me.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 08:11 PM
7

Really guys? I know Hillary's not a popular candidate around here, but it's pretty damn hypocritical to assume she's guilty when one of this sub's biggest issues is "false accusations."
/r/MensRights05/10/15 08:00 PM
4

Isn't the 1 in 5 citation about sexual assault, not rape? That includes anything from unwanted groping to rape. http://college.usatoday.com/2015/09/21/controversial-1-in-5-sexual-assault-statistic-validated-in-new-national-survey/
/r/MensRights05/10/15 07:50 PM
17

Dear lord. The standing at the table is ridiculous, and everyone should hold doors for others, and do their part in chores at home. The idea that you're doing it "for women" and not "because you should respect everyone and do your part" is terrible. Who on earth at that school thinks this is a good mindset to instill in children, and how do they expect it to "transfer to the girls" if they're teaching them that the boys are responsible for their comfort?
/r/MensRights02/10/15 07:49 PM
1

I'll agree that the girl's health is practically interchangeable, but women's health definitely seems to have a LOT of predominantly or women-only health issues.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 06:13 PM
3

As a female, I can tell you that there are a LOT of men out there who refuse to take a woman's "no" as an answer in its own right, and will keep pestering until you admit that you have/make up a boyfriend. Perhaps it's not that they respect the man more, but think that having a boyfriend makes it a lot less likely that A) they can "change your mind" or B) that you're just playing "hard to get." Regardless, it's grating to notice that my "No" is often interpreted as "Try harder" while "I have a b…
/r/MensRights02/10/15 04:30 PM
0

They're not the same risk in that they probably wouldn't be taken seriously if they falsely (or otherwise, unfortunately) accused a woman of sexual assault, but the idea that a "bad man" couldn't be incredibly threatening to a woman is ridiculous. She could actually get beaten or raped or murdered. (Yes, I know women can do this to men too. The point is, everyone's a potential threat, most people are not likely threats, though.)
/r/MensRights02/10/15 02:21 PM
0

Because innocent until proven guilty. A recanted accusation is not the same as a false accusation in the eyes of the law. I know everyone here is positive she was lying, but it's possible she wasn't. What's more, he was mentally ill: The court also heard he had a history of having a low mood, was put on anti-depressants and was due to undergo cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). The doctors who knew he was depressed and in need of therapy are somewhat responsible for not monitoring him more closel…
/r/MensRights02/10/15 02:15 PM
-1

You're acting like there's no such thing as good and bad men, either. We all live in a world where we need to take at least moderate caution of people we don't know. Because we don't know them, not because of their gender. This sub is useless when it acts like all women are likely to falsely accuse men of sexual assault. Of course any woman potentially could, but since this sub also loses it mind when anything suggests that women should be cautious around men because rape, you'd think you'd see …
/r/MensRights02/10/15 02:03 PM
-3

I'm a feminist and I come here somewhat often because I do also care about men's rights and apparently I'm a glutton for punishment. Was wondering how you weren't being downvoted into oblivion; hadn't realized this made it to r/all. That explains it.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 09:15 PM
4

Sometimes feminists complain about silly things. What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 05:00 PM
3

Short of walking into the room to see her poking holes in condoms or replacing her birth control with sugar pills, he should have given her the benefit of the doubt. She had a reasonable explanation, and since she had literally just come back from buying condoms, it was clear that she was going to have to tell him that her birth control had been jeopardized. I don't think she was "keeping it a secret;" she probably was just waiting for a calm moment to tell him that she had a pregnancy scare. It…
/r/MensRights01/10/15 04:34 PM
-1

She said 1/300, which is very close to 3/1000.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 02:18 PM
16

Isn't it sexist toward both, though? Whoever made it seemed to think that the only way to make women feel better was to make fun of men, and that's demeaning to both sexes.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 02:08 PM
1

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I've just seen a lot of people do odd/seemingly selfish things when a loved one might be dying. And it usually comes from a scared place, not a malicious one. OP didn't say anything about her character otherwise; we don't know if this is usual behavior from her or really out of the blue. I don't like assuming people are being disgusting when there are other plausible reasons for their behavior. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 02:01 PM
4

No, are you acting like being trusting of your partner before assuming the worst of them is too much to ask in order to make your argument sound better?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 01:59 PM
6

She had equipment in her drawer that was specifically designed to aid in the creation of children, and she hadn't told him about it. Oh come on. Accidental pregnancies/pregnancy scares happen. Owning pregnancy tests is not proof that you're planning on getting pregnant. He should have given her the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing her of trapping him into fatherhood. He's getting downvoted because he acted like a jerk, not because he's a man.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 09:25 PM
-8

I'm just of the opinion that both men and women pick fights over trivial things in stressful situations. If I'm white knighting, you're unnecessarily vilifying. I'd have the same opinion if the genders were reversed here. This is a communication/relationship issue, not a gendered one.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 04:55 PM
-7

Yeah, but that comment currently has -24 points. On the other hand, there's also an insane amount of support for other commenters who are supportive of her, based on pure speculation about her "possible" (ie completely made up by the user) motivation for her actions. Almost as if they're going "no, she can't possibly be in the wrong, let me rationalize a scenario where her actions aren't totally heinous and post that!" I mean, most people aren't that heinous, and react in weird ways to cancer. M…
/r/MensRights30/09/15 04:19 PM
1

That's not how I view feminism, nor how many other people view it. But that's an interesting perspective.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 02:21 PM
1

Probably because menstruation/birth control/childbirth warrants enough conversation to merit their own websites. I don't mean to discount penises/testicles, but medically speaking, I don't think there's a quarter of the amount of things a man needs to know about his reproductive system as a woman does.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 02:13 PM
1

What? Male vigilantes exist and are prosecuted as well. I'm saying we should check the records before we scream pussy pass here.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 02:06 PM
1

We weren't talking about Spain, we were talking about NOW. In the literary world we call mentioning things like that 'examples'. And in the debating world we call bringing up examples that do not affect the conversation at hand "irrelevant." Our conversation was limited to NOW, and sexist behavior elsewhere does not prove sexist behavior in this instance. The whole point of the page I linked to was to show that men benefit from some feminist initiatives, because some feminist initiatives are not…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 09:23 PM
1

We weren't talking about Spain, we were talking about NOW. And the fact remains that they have done things which benefited men. It wasn't "accidental." And the 19th Amendment made it illegal to deny someone the right to vote on account of their sex.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:38 PM
2

I wouldn't be surprised. Our "justice" system is broken for a lot of reasons.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:18 PM
3

The story states that the victim's family feels that way, and I can't say I blame them. The article itself is fairly unbiased, though. EDIT: Also, I don't really see the Men's Right issue here. We have no idea whether the father had custody/took issue with his ex moving away with his son. All we know is the grandmother went nuts.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:10 PM
8

I don't mean to brush you off either, but I think what you experienced has more to do with America's obsession with being skinny vs being healthy, and that's not particularly gendered. I honestly could imagine what happened to you happening to a woman, and no one batting an eye. Doctors and nurses can be insensitive to anyone. What's more, what comes off as "insensitive" to patients is often the doctor trying to lighten to mood/keep you calm until they know more. I'm not trying to say you don't …
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:05 PM
1

The judge emphasised the case was "unique" as Sands had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct". He said: "There must never be the slightest encouragement for mob rule." The judge added: "This was a case in which the defendant promptly gave herself up to the police in a highly stressed state, never disputed responsibility for the killing as a matter of fact, did not take the opportunity to get rid of evidence and demonstrated remorse." During …
/r/MensRights29/09/15 07:55 PM
1

...No. NOW exists to help women, but it's not actively trying to step on men to further its causes.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 07:40 PM
2

My example was supposed to substantiate the claim that mothers are punished worse than fathers for not protecting their children. And the other case is linked to in the same article as Titches. That was only one example of a mother being punished even though she was also abused. She, child protective services, and the boyfriend were all responsible for that boy's life. I don't think there's too much difference in our stances, actually. Except that I don't think NOW's evil scheme was to screw men…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 04:33 PM
1

You're right that Titches might still be alive if we lived in a presumed 50/50 custody state. The sad truth is that that case was not handled well by social services, and the boy should have gotten a physical examination. That doesn't mean fighting the presumed shared custody didn't save other kids, though. Or that the state is right to punish mothers more than abusers: In one more, a father fractured an infant girl’s toe, femur, and seven ribs and was sentenced to two years; for failing to inte…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 04:11 PM
0

If you're so drunk/drugged that you don't even realize/care that the other person is resisting having sex with you, then you're a poor example to look to for "why people rape." We can't use people who are under the influence to determine why sober people rape.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:45 PM
0

I don't think the crimes compare. Abduction requires some serious planning, and takes a hell of a lot longer. What's more, I don't think that rape, or at least all rapes, are purely about power/control. But I think it's always a factor.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:30 PM
0

? You seem pretty clear in your opinion that rape is about biological, sexual urges, and not a sociopathic need to control others.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:16 PM
-1

I would maybe accept biological urge + poor impulse control + complete disregard for another human's rights/choices/feelings = rape. This isn't like polishing off an entire bag of cookies. Violent rape requires holding someone down and not caring about (or more likely, enjoying) the fact that they do not want you to be having sex with them. Nobody in their right mind wants an unwilling partner. Usually having absolutely no regard for someone else's feelings, to the point where you're okay with v…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:13 PM
0

No, AVfM annoys me because it's inflammatory, rude, and prefers to make leaps of logic and brash exaggerations instead of thinking about why things are the way they are, or listen to dissenting opinions. AVfM tries to pin almost all of men's problems on a single group, which is insane. They're the radfems of the MRA world. They give you all a bad name.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:01 PM
2

NOW, of course, advocates for women's rights, so they are coming at the shared parenting thing as a gendered issue. But that doesn't mean they are specifically trying to attack men. I think it comes down to the fact of what they wrote here: Legislation providing for mandated joint custody ignores the issues of domestic abuse, including child abuse. Mothers are too often held more accountable by Child Protective Services for child abuse perpetrated by the father, than the fathers themselves are. …
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:57 PM
0

That's not exactly what they said. They just said that mothers are sometimes punished for abuse brought on by fathers, which is very true. There's actually an epidemic in the country of abused mothers getting more jail time than abusive fathers, because they get jailed for not protecting their children. http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexcampbell/how-the-law-turns-battered-women-into-criminals#.vvDOkoora
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:49 PM
1

I know I linked to NOW, but Honey Badger Brigade is certainly not an unbiased source, either.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:46 PM
0

I don't know why you're so anxious to push away support from others. If you haven't in a long time, read this sub's FAQ. That is what made me sympathetic to men's issues. If I had come across AVFM first, I would have been immediately turned off and thought you were a bunch of sexist idiots using the guise of "men's rights" as a thin veil for saying terrible things about women and feminists. AVFM has not made anyone feel shameful for not supporting men's rights. It just makes this cause look like…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:40 PM
0

The idea that rape is about control has nothing to do with supporting theories about the patriarchy. The idea of the patriarchy is that men in general hold/have held all the decision-making power, and this both takes responsibility and autonomy away from women and puts an unfair burden on the men. It's not ideal for either gender. When most feminists (I can't speak for everyone, especially radfems) condemn the patriarchy, they are condemning these traditional gender roles. They are not trying to…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:37 PM
1

No, I'm supporting the view that presuming shared custody leaves little room for protecting children against an abusive parent, whether that's the mother or father.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:30 PM
0

No, not on accident. They specifically used gender-neutral language so that any passed legislation applies to men and women.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 02:28 PM
10

I hate these posts because they're obviously one-sided, and they're basically a snapshot from the worst moments of a relationship: when the couple is fighting. We don't know anything about this couple; maybe the husband is always leaving the majority of the responsibility up to his wife, and so she snapped. Or maybe his wife is truly being insensitive to his feelings on this. What's more, there's always reasonable responses and sexist ones. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 09:39 PM
-1

You're right, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. But that's 20/the first 60 years, and none at all in the last 40. I just meant that it didn't seem like a likely threat.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 09:10 PM
0

I agree with almost all of your causes; for example, I hadn't given circumcision any real thought before I came to this sub. It made me consider it in a new light, and now I am actively opposed to it and would never unnecessarily circumcise any future sons. I like to point out issues like this article, because I truly believe MRAs are fighting important issues, but crap like this is detracting from your message and preventing people from taking these things more seriously. A lot of men's issues …
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:33 PM
4

It's satire.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:28 PM
-2

I never said women were unable to fight, just that they couldn't do so as effectively as men in most cases, so the average woman who is drafted would not replace a man in a dangerous situation, meaning that opening the draft to women and men would not save lives. I'm just looking for clarification on the MRM's opposition to a male-only draft. It seems more people than I thought just want to get rid of the draft altogether as opposed to including women in it. Of course, that may not be possible i…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:20 PM
1

? The FAQ of this very sub lists opposition to a male-only selective service as one of its issues. I understand the basic idea that demanding men and not women to die for the country is immoral and unfair, and agree with that in theory. But when I tried to imagine how it would play out in practice, I ran into a lot of issues. So I decided to ask what MRAs thought of the issues I proposed. I wasn't trying to be divisive, stir up trouble or disrupt. Just understand more about this particular issue…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:14 PM
-3

Not according to the American Judges Association: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/publications_domviobooklet.htm NOW isn't an evil man-hating conspiracy, and wasn't trying to punish men when they opposed automatic shared custody.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:11 PM
-1

The quote says the American Judges Association; I think this is what they're referring to: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/publications_domviobooklet.htm
/r/MensRights28/09/15 08:09 PM
1

If that's true, why have a draft in the first place? There would have been enough volunteers and no one would have been drafted unwillingly.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:24 PM
-5

Are you purposely missing my point? That says all-male units are more effective than mixed-gender units. It is safer and more effective to only use men. Being safer and more effective means less people get hurt.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:15 PM
-4

Perhaps, but apparently two drafted men would be much more effective than one man plus one woman. After a lengthy experiment studying women in combat skills testing, the Marine Corps found that all-male units performed better than mixed-gender ones in most tactical areas, resulting in faster and more lethal shots on target http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/10/marines-women-in-combat-task-force-results/
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:11 PM
-4

But what if we actually need a draft? Or has warfare changed enough that it's actually unnecessary? I don't think we can safely assume that there will be enough volunteers if we're in a worst-case-scenario situation.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:07 PM
-4

I don't think you're carrying that thought through. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, then we better make sure all the links are as strong as they can be.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:04 PM
-3

I know women qualify for many military positions. But the MRA's opposition to the draft is that men are being sent to die. If women do worse in combat positions, and therefore wouldn't be drafted into the inherently more dangerous positions in the first place...what exactly are we fighting for by opening the draft to them as well? I know combat positions have recently been opened to women. But realistically, very few women are going to be fit for combat positions. http://www.sandiegouniontribune…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:01 PM
-4

Right, but presumably the MRM will still be upset because "men are being sent to die" and women aren't. Or is that not the crux of the issue?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:45 PM
-2

No, I'm being reasonable as a tactic to get you to fight your issues instead of feminists.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:44 PM
-5

They didn't do that as some sort of insane vendetta against men, believe it or not. http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html But as the previous link showed, they did do things that support men as well as women.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:41 PM
0

So you're saying the draft is unnecessary simply because we don't require as much manpower as we used to?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:38 PM
1

if the country's defense is on the line people will volunteer to defend their country People keep saying this, but what proof do we have that it would happen? alternatively set a standard for anyone who will be drafted, not based on sex but instead based on education, health and physical strength, so a large strong woman will have to sign up. That I could get on board with.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:30 PM
-2

No, but the arguments against the draft are about "sending men off to die." I assume there wouldn't be the same amount of outrage if men weren't being drafted into combat positions.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:30 PM
-2

It seems obvious that the large majority of women, at least, are not cut out for combat purely on a physical level. There are absolutely no sources on this. I was thinking of this article. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/10/marines-women-in-combat-task-force-results/ But it's also common sense. Realistically, there's a reason we separate men from women in sports competitions. Men, on average, are bigger, faster, and stronger. Genetically, they're the fighters. No one had any pr…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:27 PM
1

That's an oxymoron.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:14 PM
-8

http://now.org/blog/how-feminism-and-now-have-helped-men/
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:54 PM
1

I see what you're saying. Hopefully they can eventually get this expunged so it doesn't ruin the rest of their lives. I wholeheartedly agree that the punishment here did not fit the crime, but I also sympathize with the police for wanting to curb this in any way that they can.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:33 PM
-6

I know this sub doesn't like to believe it (probably because they've read too many articles like the one above), but there's a lot of people who identify as feminists and do/would care about men's rights issues as well, because they're interested in general gender equality. I initially started hanging out at this sub because I am one of those kinds of feminists. And your FAQ made a lot of valid points about the inequalities that men face. Then I look at the threads and almost every submission fi…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:10 PM
-8

Great. A lot of grandiose statements without a single source. Slinging mud at feminists in general makes MRM look great; this should help people get along and work together better. /s
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:45 PM
-3

For the record, feminists are the ones saying sex is about power. I'm a feminist and this guy's view of rapists is frankly disturbing.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:23 PM
-2

So what you're saying is that only people who are clinically sociopathic or psychopathic (and can't blend into society as most do) commit rape. You're wrong to assume that people who are sociopathic or psychopathic cannot blend into society well. A lot of these people are master manipulators. Honestly, I have no idea why you'd prefer to believe that rapists are just men who can't control their urges. That casts a much worse light on men than the idea that violent rapists are people who are sick …
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:22 PM
-1

Agreed. I also think prison rape is such an unusual scenario that it makes for a pretty poor model of what "rape" usually is. I don't know why people think rape isn't about power, or what's so controversial about that. Rapists are not "normal" people. When you fantasize about having sex, I'm sure most people also fantasize that their partner is enjoying it as well, and wants to be there. The rapist is enjoying the fact that they are forcing the victim. They enjoy feeling complete control over so…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:19 PM
-2

Are you defending the idea that men rape because of biological urges?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:19 PM
-1

I completely agree that it sucks for these kids to be the ones who were made examples of and it feels stupid, but the police have hard enough of a time stopping the manufacturing of child porn without idiotic teenagers (14 is pretty young and would probably interest a lot of creeps) making it themselves. Plus, young teens have little to no foresight. Imagine you're the parents. How easy is it to imagine them showing the pictures to their friends in semi-public places, or sharing them through fac…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:52 PM
0

I'm sorry you're from somewhere that has it worse. That doesn't mean American feminists are wrong to be upset, though. I've already explained why it's beneficial to everyone if we make birth control more easily accessible to women, especially lower class women.
/r/MensRights27/09/15 03:51 AM
0

I agree that it's unfair that a man would have likely been treated more harshly. But that doesn't mean we should punish her and and her children. I'd much rather advocate getting men the same lightened sentences than giving women harsher ones. Also, blueoak9 is right - doing something crazy to an ex out of spite shows that one might well be willing to do the same or worse to a child. Judge took into account that she was drunk during this incident and had no priors. I see what you guys are saying…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 03:25 PM
0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_controversy http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9373721/planned-parenthood-go-somewhere-else These are major stories in our media. There's a national debate about how difficult we're making it for women to have affordable healthcare. Access is easy if you have good insurance and weren't raised to be ashamed of being on birth control. That's not true of a lot of the population.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 03:18 PM
0

Not for nothing, you came here to ask feminists to explain. The two feminists are the ones who told you it is about power in some situations. If a rapist holds a gun to someone's head, or ties them up, or just forces them down, that's about power. There are much, much easier ways to get sex. EDIT: You seem to want a black and white answer; "People always rape because __." 40 years ago, date rape and questions of consent weren't really being discussed (you actually couldn't legally call revoked c…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 03:11 PM
1

It seems that the reason this case has a wikipedia page is because that bit sparked legislation regarding whether or not someone can revoke consent during sex, so this article focuses on that portion pretty heavily. Without knowledge of their full testimony/if there was any other evidence (this doesn't say whether there was a rape kit or anything to that effect), I don't think we can judge either way.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:55 PM
3

Not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US private schools usually get some sort of government funding, or at least tax breaks. Which would mean they're required to not have any sexist rules. If it's different in the UK, I'd agree with you that legally the school is within their rights, but morally that's a load of BS.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:37 PM
3

Or the "deescalating the situation so we don't need to resort to violence in the first place" test http://womensenews.org/story/law/150127/more-female-officers-defuse-violent-policing-style
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:49 PM
0

Actually, the opposite is true: http://womensenews.org/story/law/150127/more-female-officers-defuse-violent-policing-style
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:45 PM
-1

Actually, it's probably because women tend to be better at deescalating violent situations, so both of their jobs become less dangerous. http://womensenews.org/story/law/150127/more-female-officers-defuse-violent-policing-style Thanks for the sexist joke, though.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:44 PM
-5

Doing something crazy to your ex is not a valid reason to have your kids taken away.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:18 PM
1

That's fascinating. It's definitely not that bad in the US, though red hair admittedly isn't a highly sought-after look on men here, either.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:16 PM
1

I'm in the US, and it probably helps that I'm female. I'm sure redheaded men get it a lot worse. But I just brought that up to illustrate the point that when a joke is satirical, a few people will laugh because they see the satire, and a lot will laugh because they're, well, idiots.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:03 PM
0

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I agree with you in theory. I'm personally of the opinion that we should try to curb speech that hurts others, though, and I think joking about rape makes a lot of people think it's less serious than it is, or that things like "a man can't be raped because men love sex" are actually true.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:56 PM
2

Let's throw "innocent until proven guilty" out the window, and ignore his testimony to boot. ^ With the caveat that that is very disturbing... For me, it depends on whether she felt coerced in the first place. I don't think stopping 5 seconds after someone asks you to is worthy of being called rape. What this hinges on for me is whether or not they really told her that she was not to leave until they said she could.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:50 PM
-1

I think that was a tasteless joke. I would think the same thing if a man said it. Do you really think she's stupid enough to write something like that if it had a shred of seriousness to it? She's not laughing behind all of our backs because she got away with something and later made a joke about it. It was just a bad joke.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:47 PM
3

I think it's a mixed bag, and there's a difference between joking to break the tension during a terrifying event like war and joking about things like racism and victims of domestic/sexual assault. I'm sure you're right that a lot of comics and satirical cartoons/videos/whatever would be trying to raise awareness and point out how ridiculous it is. But jokes made among friends usually aren't being ironic; those people think what they're saying is true. Unfortunately, the general population is re…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:35 PM
1

I agree with that, and I don't think anyone's suggesting outlawing jokes about sensitive topics. Just asking you to think about how you're reinforcing stereotypes when you make these kinds of jokes, and asking you to personally make the decision to not participate in that anymore. You're obviously free to do whatever you want, though.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:14 PM
1

And those men are being wrongfully convicted. We still haven't legalized regret as rape, so let's stop running around like chickens with our heads cut off.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:42 PM
2

I'm not a fan of rape or recent tragedy jokes, but I love a good comedy show, Louis CK in particular. I actually think using awkward topics like that is sort of a cop-out for comics and truly good ones can come up with more original material.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:39 PM
0

That's not what I said at all. I'm not believing either side, since I haven't delved into this myself. I'm just saying neither story is more credible than the other based on the wiki article, and this sub is more than happy to believe his side of things over hers.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:54 PM
0

I meant educated in regards to sex. I've edited my comment for clarity.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:34 PM
0

I meant uneducated sexually. It's disturbingly possible to get through high school and get into college without ever having been given a proper talk about sex ed and consent. And I'm doubting the Wikipedia article covered the ins and outs of this trial. It's only covered because it was a big factor in repealing the opinion that sexual consent can't become rape (which I think we can all agree was extremely important). Unless I read the transcription of the trial and the judge's opinion in its ent…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:06 PM
2

To be fair, neither side of the story makes a lot of sense.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:56 PM
-1

Unfortunately, issues like these attract a lot of angry people who aren't interested in facts or nuance if it doesn't confirm what they want to believe. I don't know how anyone could think that we'd actually pass a law that could retroactively make consensual sex rape.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:51 PM
-1

...Who else is supposed to be saying they did that? It's not like this went down with a lot of other people in earshot; it was 3 people in a car. Also, it sounds like this woman didn't really understand that she had the choice to say no. I know you're going to call bullshit, but the truth is a lot of women who have never been talked to about sex and consent don't understand what is and isn't normal behavior, and that she didn't have to do something just because the guys said that's what they wan…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:48 PM
-1

You're combining aspects from each of their testimonies. He can't have stopped intercourse 5 seconds after she asked him to AND never have even gotten inside her. Also, it doesn't have to be forced and violent to be rape. I'm not saying she's definitely telling the entire truth. Just that we have two sides of a story, and none of us know how it actually happened.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:15 PM
0

I have no idea how you're getting downvoted, but thank you for clarifying this.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:55 PM
3

It was his last name, apparently.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:50 PM
2

I'd like to see the study that says 1 in 5 circumcisions performed by doctors in sterile environments has serious complications.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:43 PM
7

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. How do you defend rape jokes in one breath and say you want to it be taken seriously in the next? A joke is literally the opposite of taking something seriously. Rape jokes that paint men as unable to be raped, pussies for not fighting back or actually just enjoying it are reinforcing all of these stereotypes that we should be fighting.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:40 PM
0

Children innocently playing with their siblings and learning about the human body is a far, far cry from molestation. It's highly ironic that this sub hates false accusations toward men (as they should) but has no issue lambasting a woman instead of giving her the benefit of the doubt. Yay hypocrisy!
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:27 PM
-1

Absolutely nothing Hillary Clinton says in public can be believed. The woman is a career consummate liar who has been running for president for over 15 years now, and never cared about anything other than her personal ambitions. Every position and act she has ever taken or done in public has been exclusively about manipulating public opinion in her moment-to-moment favor while paying back the fat cats and special interests bankrolling her. So, she's a politician.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:24 PM
8

He got 22 months total because: He further admitted aggravated vehicle taking, assaulting a police officer, obstructing police, using threatening words and behaviour and criminal damage. He got 12 months for the hair cut: After the case, Karen Smith, Cress-well's mother, said she felt the sentence passed on her son - which included 12 months for the assault on Ms Tether - was fair. And I'm not saying it's right, but presumably the woman's sentence was suspended because she's a single mother of 4…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:08 PM
-1

As detailed in court testimony quoted in the Court of Appeals opinion,[1] on December 13, 2003, Maouloud Baby (1988- ), age 15, and a classmate, Michael Wilson, were students at Watkins Mill High School in Montgomery Village, Maryland. They drove to a residential area with an 18-year-old woman who attended Montgomery College. Baby and Wilson knew the woman socially. After the woman parked the car, Baby and Wilson asked her to sit between them in the back seat of the car. After she did they began…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:58 PM
3

The jury in the trial court convicted Baby of first degree rape and related charges, but the Court of Special Appeals, based upon a 1980 precedent that held that a rape could not legally occur if a woman withdrew consent after penetration,[3] reversed the conviction.[4] That precedent interpreted the English common law such that the withdrawal of consent following initial penetration did not make the act a rape. The court noted other states had noted that the act of intercourse is not completed …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:56 PM
3

I agree that it's iffy, but I don't think the hug and phone number prove anything either way. It could either mean she was fine or she felt threatened and was doing everything she could to not escalate the situation. It sounds like a he-said-she-said. It's certainly not the cut and dry "He stopped after 5 seconds" that OP's title paints it as.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:54 PM
1

? I already said twice that rape is not about sex when the rapist forces him/herself on the victim, and that situations where the consent was hazy are grey areas and may or may not be about sex, depending on a lot of factors. I don't know how else to more clearly explain why rape is usually about power and not sex. Perhaps this will help: https://www.mnsu.edu/varp/assault/myths.html I'd also be interested in seeing the source where it's referred to as a political act.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:30 PM
1

Dear lord. You're taking this political cartoon entirely too literally. It's supposed to be representative of not only pharmacists, but the general population's view towards women on birth control. No one asked you to "get all maudlin" in response, maybe just think about the fact that a lot of women on birth control still get stereotyped as "sluts," while there aren't any national debates about making Viagra available for men. (Yes, I realize they aren't directly comparable. Perhaps the better c…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:13 PM
1

feminists only focus on women's issues. so it offends me that they dare call themselves an equal rights movement. It isn't the focus on women's rights that is the problem. ... When they call themselves equal rights, they mean equal rights for women in comparison to men. That being said, some feminists are truly egalitarian and are also interested in men's issues. Being feminist doesn't mean you can't fight for other things, as well. Anyway, only extreme nutjobs are manhaters. I've definitely see…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:59 PM
2

There's a small difference in being domineering and being dominant. The former implies you're walking all over people and the latter implies you're powerful and influential. At least colloquially, that's how it's used. Regardless, it's semantics. The point is strong and emotionally secure men already exist in the world, and they're doing just fine. It's a myth that all women will shun a guy if he's sensitive. Will some? Sure. But a lot won't. Also, you call women the "gatekeepers of sex" in one …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:56 PM
2

I mean, I agree with you. I just think it makes a really weak argument. Like, you could say no parent should ever put their child in a car or in a home with a dog because they might be causes of their death. You're not going to convince someone to outlaw something because it has an infinitesimal chance of resulting in death; that would stomp on all of our "freedoms." I know unnecessary surgery is not on the priority level of putting your child in a car, but you get the idea.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:47 PM
1

Or maybe I just can't grasp the nuance of how "rape is not about sex" can exist in the same breath with "many rapes are sex that turned bad." As tiqr explained above, these are two different things. Violent rape, the kind where the woman was protesting from the beginning, is virtually always about power and not about sex. Sex with a woman was too drunk to consent is a grey area that I think depends on a lot of factors. If she's a stranger to the man, that might have been about power. If the man …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:44 PM
1

I understand that and didn't mean to imply it doesn't go both ways. I said that because it was representative of the male attitude of women wasting their time that the previous commenter was discussing. Please don't take my comments out of context.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 10:41 PM
1

I'm not saying that's impossible, but since freezing is a psychological response in threatening situations, those guys would be best off asking their partner if this is something they want. You don't get to say "but my last partner was into rape fantasies, so how could I know this girl wasn't as well" as an excuse for raping a different girl. Again--this is why conversations about consent are important.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 10:39 PM
1

It's possible that there are men who don't need to show their emotions very much, and so that works for those people. But if a lot of men are acting, they should stop acting. If there's a lot of women who lose interest in emotional men, well, they'll learn to get used to it or die alone.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:35 PM
2

Okay, but if you feel like you need to be able to show your emotions occasionally, then hold out for a woman who supports that. I don't understand why anyone would want to be with someone who isn't a good match for them. This isn't about changing yourself to be attractive to the largest pool of women. This is about finding someone who complements you. You're just begging for unhappiness otherwise, because your relationship is based on false pretenses.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:19 PM
1

That's totally fine, and I'm not trying to use this is as a free pass for women to behave terribly. I was just concerned because you wrote about respecting someone's time on the heels of another poster's comment of women crying rape when they had previously consented. It sounds like you were venting about a related-but-very-different scenario.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:15 PM
1

He is, but there are a lot of women like my mother-in-law who would love to be with a strong and sensitive man. Try not to let a few women make you bitter towards all of them. There are good people and jerks in both genders.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:31 PM
1

I agree with you that we're over-correcting with the hysterics and needing constant verbal consent every 3 seconds, but I don't think attempting to bring back a sense of "propriety" would be any more effective. I think we just need to be able to discuss sex more openly in schools, remove the idea that anyone's entitled to anything, and encourage girls to say no if they feel that they're being pressured. Someone recently posted a study from years ago where teaching girls to say no resulted in 50%…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:21 PM
-2

I never understood this. It's a group that focuses on women's issues. They're entitled to do that, just like MRM is focusing on men's issues and not women's. Just because women have issues does not mean that men don't, and vice versa. It's not a black and white issue where only one sex is victimized in all situations. The Civil Rights Movement focused on issues for black people. Should the white people have been offended?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:55 PM
1

Okay. When you said that you don't kid yourself about the kind of world we live in, I thought you meant that a woman who invites her date in her home even though she doesn't plan on having sex is in just as much danger as someone who walks around the Bronx at 3 AM.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:50 PM
0

I completely agree with you, though I don't think that women are often dating men purely for attention. Your argument assumes women only say no because of this. What if she just gets nervous, thought she was ready but really isn't, or even truly was attracted to him and then something he said/did turned her off at the last second? I also don't think the large majority of women who have sex to avoid conflict end up reporting it as rape. I've had a one-night-stand that I didn't really want. Not on…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:35 PM
-1

There's a huge difference between the last two examples you gave. I hope you see that.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:05 PM
1

This is disturbing to me, Maybe if more young girls didn't think that the large man they let in their home thought she "owed" him sex for "wasting his time," they'd feel more comfortable saying no in the first place. I mean, don't get me wrong, I want all women to feel like they're capable of saying no at absolutely any time. You should be able to say no halfway through sex, and yeah, the guy's probably going to be pissed, but he should stop and respect that. And that goes both ways. But this...…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 06:05 PM
0

Look, I don't know what happened to this girl. But freezing is also a normal response when you're being attacked. It's actually fight, flight or freeze (like a deer in headlights). She probably did just lie there, and the guy was so psyched that she wasn't actively stopping him that he kept going. Does that make him either incredibly socially awkward or a douche? Yes. Those guys exist. That's why conversations about consent are so important. It keeps dense people/socially awkward people from acc…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:43 PM
5

12 rapes or 12 counts of sexual assault? The study defines sexual assault pretty broadly.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:37 PM
1

Being pregnant is not the same experience as having a child. I don't think you're that dense. You want my words to show that I hate men, so you're greatly exaggerating what I'm saying. I accept that you don't want to believe that I don't hate men and will twist anything I say to fit into that narrative, so there's no point in us discussing this anymore. Good luck with your life, bro.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:10 PM
1

How is saying that people who cannot experience something cannot fully sympathize with those going through it "hate speech" ? Let's say MRA wanted to make kicking a man in the balls a worse form of assault than hitting him in the stomach (I have zero legal or medical training, by the way, so just go with me here). Female legislators say "That's ridiculous, pain is pain." MRA comments "If women could get kicked in the balls, this wouldn't even be a debate." Was it sexist to say that, or are they …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:06 PM
1

On a total side note, you're replying all over the place and that's really confusing. Not sure if you saw my comment about empathy vs sympathy somewhere yet in my response to you someone else; but I think that mostly covers how I feel about what you wrote here.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:58 PM
1

That's a poor analogy, because of course many, many women do work for a living. It's not something they could never fully sympathize with. I didn't mean to imply that men are incapable of empathy. Just that it's often hard to actually put yourself in another person's shoes, and it's easy to make "moral" decisions when you will never be personally forced to bear the consequences. Similarly, I also think more women would fight against MGM if it were a problem that directly affected them. They cert…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:52 PM
0

Well, I'm a feminist, so... And I understand that all women do not think one thing and all men do not think another. I still think that if a man had to actually carry a child and give birth, we'd have a lot more moderate men (not religious zealots) who fought for less restrictive abortion legislation.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:34 PM
1

Right. I make one comment about how young boys/men are often the ones who don't understand make-up -- that's definitely the same as calling someone subhuman. I must hate all men. Just skip over everything else where I talk about how I'm against circumcision on moral grounds, how my father-in-law cries and I consider him a real man, how I dislike extreme "feminists" who actually do hate men, how I think it's wrong to prosecute a man for rape when he likely reasonably thought he had consent, and w…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:32 PM
1

I meant that if men could get pregnant, the men in Congress would all get up and vote for legalizing abortion across the board. That's it. I do not hate men, and generalizations like that are dangerous for everyone. Mud slinging doesn't get anyone anywhere.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:12 PM
-5

This is disgusting and terrifying, but what does it have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:25 PM
1

You might take heart in hearing about my father-in law. He cries at everything. It's a family joke to take bets over how long into the graduation/retirement ceremony/wedding he'll start crying. He's also a retired lieutenant with three kids. He's a prime example that a man can be strong, stoic, dominant, and able to express his feelings without shame. He wasn't cut off from the gene pool for doing so; he's a grandfather. EDIT: And yes, he's still married to his first wife. They're very happy.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:03 PM
2

It's still silly to imply that it's completely on women to change their behavior. As I pointed out, crying is not innately a weak trait. As a society, we've decided that it is. So as a society, we need to invert that again. Women cannot do that on their own; it needs to be a joint effort. What's more, a lot of women do like sensitive men. My (still happily married) father-in-law cries at everything. It's a family joke to take bets over how long into the graduation/retirement ceremony/wedding he'…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:59 PM
1

I think the "If men got pregnant" bit is more about the fact that most of Congress is made up by men, so it's somewhat natural for them to be angry that "men" are deciding this. I also think they're right, by the way. But that example doesn't call men rapists; that's quite a stretch.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:49 PM
2

I agree with you in theory, but there's a big difference between cookies and medicine. Let's not act like those are on the same level of importance.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:35 PM
1

I'm sure it makes a lot of difference to the victims, actually. If I had to get a circumcision, I'd want it done by a medical professional in a sterile environment. There's a couple reasons so many people in America/First world countries don't care about circumcision. The main one is they don't even realize it's a problem. It's really safe to do it here, and it's often tied to religious reasons. Most circumcised men don't seem to care that they're circumcised. I 100% agree with you that it's wro…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:33 PM
1

I was specifically talking about circumcisions performed by professionals in first world countries. We have rates for that, of course. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:23 PM
1

That does count as a feminist opinion, and I agree with it, but I think you misinterpreted what she was saying. I really don't think the author meant consent could be revoked retroactively, as in, after the sex has been finished. She meant that you can agree to have sex with someone and decide halfway through that you don't want to anymore, and if you say "stop," the other person doesn't get to say "But you consented before, and that counts." She's also saying that because you had consensual sex…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:20 PM
0

That justification is in the Slate article I originally linked to. I've never seen someone claim that misandry isn't real, though.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:10 AM
3

I really don't think "Men should be more open with their emotions" is any more accusatory than saying "Women should be more assertive." Both are true, and both would make life easier for everyone.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:32 PM
-4

You seem to be painting this issue as a dichotomy between men who are strong/dominant and men who can cry/express their feelings. The former is strong and stoic, the latter is a bunch of weak men who will forever be virgins. But they aren't mutually exclusive; a man can be strong, stoic, and able to express his feelings/cry when he wants to. Alpha males can cry. The most commonly pointed-to example is John Boehner. He holds a tremendous amount of political power and cries all the time on camera.…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:17 PM
3

Also "men need to learn to cry" is utter bullshit. Why do you think men are taught to not cry, and by whom? In my case this was probably taught to me by my father. I think the reason this has been established is because of how women react to men crying. When women cry, all men immediately want to help them. When a man cries, his girlfriend/wife will tell him it's okay, but in the long term she will develop a aversion against him. This is almost guaranteed. This is so, so far from guaranteed. No,…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:54 PM
-3

They're not saying it's ironic because sexism against males isn't real (it is); they're saying it's ironic because they are personifying the most ridiculous things that their opponents say about them. Man: Ugh, why do all feminists try to oppress men/take away our rights? Feminist: Oh yeah, that's what I'm doing. I just want to make you cry so I can drink your tears. /s
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:49 PM
0

Because this happened at the same hospital that employs a pediatrician who was recently goaded into saying something outrageous in response to equally outrageous accusations? She didn't handle the situation well, but it's pretty weak of MRM to vilify that woman for what she said while she was being attacked. She very obviously did not mean what she said as a serious response.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:43 PM
-5

I'd argue that women tend to insult a man's strength and sexual prowess because those are the things men usually take the most pride in. Men do it to each other as well. Weakness in general is regarded as a poor trait for men to have, which brings us back to the original point of this discussion: Society as a whole needs to change its POV on men displaying signs of weakness/emotional vulnerability.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:27 PM
-5

Again, I only brought this up to dispel the idea that #maletears is any sort of evidence of feminists hating men who cry. I said I don't like feminists who do this; it's a bad joke and a bad way to make a point. But as long as we're going down this road, MRAs have a bad habit of using inflammatory tactics to get attention, too. See almost everything Paul Elam has ever done publicly, and the "Regret is not Rape" posters in particular.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:19 PM
-5

Like I said, it creates confusion. I agree that it's an inflammatory and bad way to make their point. I'm just saying that #maletears isn't actually proof that feminists despise men who cry. It's a (bad) joke.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:15 PM
2

Nobody likes the "just don't have sex" advice when men are complaining about being on the hook for child support, and contraceptives can fail. Of course abortion should be a last resort. But until we're willing as a society to provide better care for unwanted children, I don't see how you can reasonably argue against abortion.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:10 PM
2

If you are pro-choice it's those evil rapist men who want to invade women's bodies and dictate what women can do. What? How? Pro-choice means the man is leaving it up to the woman (or couple) to decide.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:08 PM
-1

This is about admissions qualifications, not about grading someone once they're a student.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:54 PM
-5

I don't like feminists who do that, because I think it creates more confusion than anything else. But it's worth noting that they're usually doing so to be ironic: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/08/ironic_misandry_why_feminists_joke_about_drinking_male_tears_and_banning.html
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:16 PM
3

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing we should be supporting? Breaking down the gender roles that say men need to be the "strong" ones all the time? No one's blaming men personally for being closed-off emotionally; it's a product of our society. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't address it.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:04 PM
1

Talking about problems does not fix problems. Millions of therapists and psychologists and their patients beg to differ.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:03 PM
-3

The irony is real.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:00 PM
3

It's on society as a whole. We've socialized women to be less attracted to "emotional" men, yes, but that's just as prevalent as the trope of a father telling his son to "man up." Women AND men need to actively encourage men to discuss their feelings and feel comfortable crying.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:59 PM
1

Context does matter, and there's a lot between a bushperson hacking away at clits (or foreskin), greatly increasing the risk of infection and a life of painful sex, and a professional doctor doing it in a sterile environment, with little to no side effects. They're both wrong. But to say they're on equal footing is a bit much.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:05 PM
1

Great. So we agree that the disparity between men and women at the extreme ends of the IQ spectrum is not a good explanation for Oxford's demographics.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:24 PM
2

Okay but once your IQ is that high, you're talking about .14-.25% of the human population. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx That's a teeny tiny amount of men and women. It can't possibly explain the disparity at schools like Oxford, or again, why lower-class and minority men are under-represented.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:14 PM
-4

To a nominal degree. People with genius-level IQs probably aren't being affected that much. What's more, IQs don't actually mean that much. It's all the more reason to open the admission to everyone and see who is actually able to perform the required work.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:11 PM
3

For one thing, there isn't "exponentially more" men with IQs over 130. They're still relatively rare. But even if that were true, it doesn't explain why lower-class and minority men are making up a smaller percentage.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:38 PM
0

Did you read the article? OP's title is a little misleading. The author isn't suggesting that all exams be banned, just entrance exams. This is in conjunction with other admissions requirements. I also don't know why you think a teaching method can be skewed toward one group but a method of evaluation can't be.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:33 PM
0

I do, and while I agree that they shouldn't have subjected him to the risk in the first place, I think many people will read this and think to themselves "What? Thirteen years ago a baby died because they put him under anesthesia for a circumcision? Of course that's crazy. If those are the kinds of cases they need to point at to say circumcision is unsafe, then they're grasping at straws."
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:19 PM
5

How is this different from all the conversations about changing teaching techniques in elementary schools because they seem to favor girls' learning styles over boys'? If women and working class students are disproportionately making up a small percentage of the undergraduate class, perhaps the admissions requirements are unfairly skewed toward upper class men and their experiences/learning styles, in the same way that we often hear elementary school practices are skewed toward the learning styl…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:10 PM
1

I agree that it's silly and dangerous to perform unnecessary medical procedures on anyone, even more so on an infant. But the particulars of this case could have been applied to any procedure that required an anesthesiologist. It's just not correct to say he "died of circumcision," and confusing statements like that muddy our message.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:02 PM
1

I don't think most feminists are complaining because they think Viagra only benefits men. They are complaining because men are supposedly being given easy access to something that makes their sex lives more enjoyable/possible, and many women have to jump through hoops to obtain something that will make their sex lives safer/stress free, and in some cases keep them from experiencing horrible mood swings/period pain. TL;DR: It's not that feminists want to deny men Viagra. It's that it seems hypocr…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:54 PM
-4

Agreed. I think this sub needs to lose the argument against circumcision for medical reasons, as cases of actual complications due to MGM are so incredibly rare. It's a very safe procedure in first world countries. It should be outlawed because it violates the child's autonomy over his body, not because it's unsafe.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:46 PM
1

You're completely right. I'm personally against circumcision as a fight for bodily autonomy for everyone. When performed correctly, the procedure really isn't dangerous, so it seems like an odd tack to take when debating it.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:45 PM
1

That's horrible, and I'm sorry you experienced that. But it speaks to the experiences women have with pharmacists who think they can interfere in their reproductive choices, too.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:37 PM
2

That's the same as saying gay people should have gone to a different clerk when Kim Davis refused to serve them. Just because there are ways around it doesn't mean women (or men) should have to put up with pharmacists who are making access to our doctor prescribed medication more difficult than it has to be.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:36 PM
1

To make an analogy of what I mean, let's say that you and I are coworkers and you forget to bring your wallet one day. You ask to borrow $10 for lunch and I hand-over the money without saying anything specific about repayment. An hour later, I come back to you saying that I don't feel like lending you the money after all and that I want you to give it back to me immediately. You reply that you've already bought lunch and you can't pay me back at that moment. Are you a thief now? Do you deserve t…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:29 PM
1

You are gravely misunderstanding what most feminists mean when they talk about rape culture. Besides, there's a big difference between looking the other way when a "slutty" girl is date-raped and what happened to this poor woman. I don't think most feminists are implying that anyone condones multiple days of torturing and raping a woman in front of her child. You're not proving anything with this post.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:41 PM
1

Well, you have a drastically different perception of sexual contact than the rest of the world seems to, then. I don't think that's worth jail time, but it's certainly not okay.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:29 PM
1

Somehow I doubt you'd think it was on the "fringes" if it was your girlfriend's/wife's/mother's/daughter's/niece's ass that was grabbed by a man she didn't know.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:24 PM
1

Is this here because you think it disproves the feminist narrative that women who are raped tend not to be believed? This isn't one of the questionable situations they're referring to.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 08:20 PM
1

Since when is ass-grabbing not sexual? Unless this woman was your football coach and she patted you after a good play, it was sexual.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:42 PM
0

It sounds more like she felt that you were putting her on a pedestal, and she felt uncomfortable because that's a lot to live up to. Not that she was uncomfortable having sex with you. Most women understand that falsely accusing a man of rape absolutely destroys his life. It's not something that happens often. You're more likely to be sexually assaulted yourself than falsely accused of sexually assaulting someone. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/08/false-rape-accusations_n_6290380.html
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:37 PM
1

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-so-often-repeated-that-rape-is-not-about-sex-its-about-power
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:22 PM
1

4 sources: US Government website: http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/sexual-assault.html Black's Law Dictionary: Assault, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. See also Ibbs v The Queen, High Court of Australia, 61 ALJR 525, 1987 WL 714908 (sexual assault defined as sexual penetration without consent); Sexual Offences Act 2003 Chapter 42 s 3 Sexual assault (United Kingdom), (sexual assault defined as sexual contact without consent), and Chase v. R. 1987 CarswellN…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:06 PM
2

4 sources: US Government website: http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/sexual-assault.html Black's Law Dictionary: Assault, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. See also Ibbs v The Queen, High Court of Australia, 61 ALJR 525, 1987 WL 714908 (sexual assault defined as sexual penetration without consent); Sexual Offences Act 2003 Chapter 42 s 3 Sexual assault (United Kingdom), (sexual assault defined as sexual contact without consent), and Chase v. R. 1987 CarswellN…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:04 PM
1

That's your opinion. But your definition encompasses mine, so I don't know why you think I'm being "deceptive."
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:27 PM
1

Many jurisdictions include "groping" as a form of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:26 PM
2

I won't deny there are different levels of sexual assault, but legally, rape and ass grabbing are both sexual assault. It's not the law's fault if the general public hears "sexual assault" and thinks "rape". It's the media's for inflating surveys like these.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:14 PM
0

It's not strict and rigid; it's given on the same page as the definition you pulled. It's the first definition when you google "incapacitated." Apparently they should have defined the word, since there's so much confusion, but I think their intent was clear.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:07 PM
1

Again, incapacitated is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the following: Full Definition of INCAPACITATE transitive verb 1 : to make legally incapable or ineligible 2 : to deprive of capacity or natural power : disable I didn't "invent a definition." You didn't scroll down the dictionary page. And no, it's not in the report. Apparently it would have been a good idea for them to define it, since a lot of people seem to not know the common definition.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:05 PM
1

Are you purposely being dense about this? There's an obvious difference between standing close to someone because you're on a crowded train and invading their personal space because you don't understand boundaries. The latter is creepy.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:31 PM
-1

You are. If any person you don't know, male or female, grabs your ass without your permission, that's sexual assault. I don't know why you think that's ridiculous.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:30 PM
0

If you read the rest of the Merrian-Webster definition of being incapacitated, it makes it quite clear that an incapacitated person is incapable of moving. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacitate The sample sentence involves a person suffering from a stroke. I think most reasonable people taking the survey would presume this definition, and not report consensual drunken encounters.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:28 PM
-1

To be fair, it's not calling all drunk kissing sexual assault. It's saying kissing that happened while you were incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol is assault. Being incapacitated means that you're too weak to move. What's more, I don't know why we're acting like unwanted kissing isn't sexual assault. Kissing is sexual in nature. If I don't want your tongue in my mouth, it's violating me for you to put it there. Of course it's not as traumatic as other forms of sexual assault, but it's still s…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:01 PM
3

It says incapacitated due to drugs and alcohol. You cut out the operative word there. That's not your standard drunk kissing where both parties are aware of what's going on. Incapacitated means being deprived of strength or power/debilitated. This would mean you were being kissed while you were so drunk/high that you couldn't push the other person away. That being said, I do take issue with the need for affirmative consent in the survey.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:58 PM
1

I really think you are. The extremists make the most noise, but you have to remember they're the minority. If we keep posting crap like this we'll look like extremists, too.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 02:53 PM
3

It has that headline to be attention-grabbing and because it's written from a wife's POV. If you read it, she doesn't say anything negative about her husband. It's largely about the economics and logistics of scaling down. Given, if you want to be super PC, she could have written "spouse." But I don't think this article title really warrants outrage.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:57 PM
1

The HPV vaccine is some vaccine that supposidly protects women from a viral infection that can maybe lead to cervical cancer with women. The data is not anywhere near a point where you can claim that it protected a single life. It's an experiment. You still seem to be missing the basic point that vaccinating women and gay men largely protects heterosexual men. It protects everyone via herd immunity. HPV causes cervical cancer. Vaccine prevents women and gay men from getting HPV and passing it on…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 01:38 PM
2

No, in this case protecting women protects heterosexual men by default, and gay men are also being offered the vaccination.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 09:35 PM
3

I mean if that's your viewpoint why limit it to women? Your taxes help pay for public school (which, even if you don't have kids, you went to or had the option of going to), public transportation (maybe not convenient to you), general healthcare, handicapped ramps... It's in everyone's interest to protect the health of the general public. What's more, you're acting like men are completely footing the bill. Plenty of women pay taxes as well.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:43 PM
3

Pretty sure we'd have heard about it if there was a demand of demonstration.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:31 PM
3

As long as a lot of men plan on having sex with women, keeping everyone healthy is still in everyone's best interest.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:26 PM
1

Gay and bi male can get the vaccine for free until they're 26.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:24 PM
2

It just comes down to the fact that there's not enough money in the world to protect everybody from everything. This decision was made to protect the most amount of people in the most effective way. What's more, vaccinating all (or as close to all as possible) of the girls does protect the heterosexual boys a lot, and gay men can get the vaccine free until they're 26, so 12 year old boys are not required to determine their sexuality.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 07:22 PM
1

Nope. That's how ratios work. The relations will never change.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 01:20 AM
2

You might want to post this on /MensRants EDIT: Also, and I'm not saying it's right, but some people refer to it as the "Man-Flu" because there are certain kinds of men who loudly complain about their sickness as if no one else has ever experienced such pain (of course there are some women who do this as well). If you're one of these, you kind of deserved it. If you're not and they were mocking you just to mock you...your family sucks.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 09:03 PM
1

Seriously? We were talking about telling your friend that being disrespectful isn't funny. I mean, if you really think your friend is likely to get physical, then your personal safety should come before a stranger's fleeting discomfort. But that is obviously not the case the majority of the time.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:11 PM
1

Well yes, but how many sexual harassment posters have you seen warning men in general?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:54 PM
1

But as the mother in question points out, this effectively involves asking 12 year old boys "do you ever plan on having sex with other men when you're older?" to decide if they should get the vaccination, which is an awkward question and one that shouldn't have to be asked. How is that the case? If the vaccination is available until the boy is 26, then he can get it once he becomes sexually active. If this is properly publicized, then I don't see the issue.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:37 PM
1

Ah, okay. Totally agree with you there.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:31 PM
2

Yeah, it seems like we see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. I think this Not that men were that privileged either, but they definitely had it better, and yes, i would even say men oppressed women right up until the mid/ late 1900s. Not like, each man was oppressing every woman, more like society's gender roles oppressed women and benefited men. It's not like men were in some massive conspiracy to oppress women, they simply accepted society's gender roles, until feminists had the balls to speak up …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:04 PM
3

"Last week I got very drunk at a party, and my girlfriends asked our friend “Stewart” to take me back to my apartment. Stewart has harbored a not-so-secret crush on me since our freshman year in college. I have no memories of that night after my third drink, but when I woke up the next morning Stewart was naked in my bed, and it was obvious we’d had sex. He told me the night before that I’d come onto him when we got back to my apartment, and he thought I meant it. He admitted that he was fairly …
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:54 PM
1

I'm confused. Are you saying we should or shouldn't consider health initiatives tailored to differing gender needs "sexist"?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:41 PM
1

Men of a lower socio-economic status tend to cat-call more, because it's one of the few ways that they can try to reassert dominance over women who they perceive as outperforming them. That's why it's so disturbing to women. Not because we're getting hit on/flirted with, but because the man is often trying to make us uncomfortable. I honestly don't care if a man hits on me, and it just comes off as him hitting on me. But when a man neggs me, follows me down the street, or gets uncomfortably clos…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:38 PM
-6

He was a police officer. Are you trying to tell me he couldn't spot a fake ID? (Not that he even asked to see her ID.) What's more, he picked her up in her school uniform. To be clear, this woman should have gotten the same sentence as the man, if not worse because she abused her position of power over the student. But let's not pretend this former cop was "deceived." He got what he deserved.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:29 PM
2

I disagree with you. You assume after paying 75% of the bills that he still have 2-2.5X the disposable income. We don't know what his disposable income will be after 75% of the bills, because we don't know what his disposable income is after his bills. Well, we do know percentage-wise how much it would be. If he makes 2.5X as much as she does, and they split the bills 75/25, his disposable income is still 2.3X as much as hers.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:22 PM
1

Unemployment "insurance" sounds like a private thing, not a government benefit. Government unemployment sure as hell does not last 2 years.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:16 PM
6

This depends on a lot of factors, and remember that what works for others doesn't have to work for you. Also keep in mind that there's nothing "romantic" about splitting the bills. I read your OP. It sounds like you're established in your career, and she's just starting out. I understand her concern of overspending in this stage of her life; she likely needs to live more frugally than you do while she pays off student loans/finds a secure job/starts saving for the future. I personally like split…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 03:14 PM
2

I personally believe that both genders are oppressed, to different degrees in different ways. I also don't think either gender is oppressed by the other, but instead by social constructs that made sense hundreds of years ago but don't today. (E.g., mom stays home and raises the kids; dad goes out to work. Made sense when one parent basically had to stay home, because tending house and raising children was a full time job in itself. Modern conveniences make it feasible for both parents to work. W…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 02:43 PM
1

To be fair, you're ignoring the part where I said "plying them with drinks." If you're getting someone drunk purely with the intention to lower their inhibitions so they'll sleep with you...I think it's reasonable to call that a criminal act. You're welcome to disagree with me. Again, nearly impossible to prove, so it's a moot point. And I do agree that drunk consent is a gray area when it comes to situations like that. I certainly don't want to encourage the sort of slippery slope that says dru…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 02:14 PM
1

But this very clearly is sexual dimorphism. Or do you want to consider it sexist that mammograms are only recommended for women over 40 and not men?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 01:56 PM
3

I think you're being nitpicky. Author probably felt the need to clarify/be repetitive since most audiences skim these things and would assume the officer was a male otherwise.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:44 PM
0

We were talking about college age guys and girls having casual sex. I was not referring to a woman (or man, for that matter) actively deciding to have sex with their partner even though they're not in the mood. The "pressuring" guys I was talking about are the ones who say "No, don't go home, have another drink," and "Oh come on, we'll just have a little fun," when the girl is making weak excuses like "I should really get going/I'm tired/I don't think I want to do that." I agree that the girl sh…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:06 PM
-1

That is garbage. I've been cat called wearing a bulky winter coat. And we teach our children not to steal alongside teaching them to lock their doors. And if someone steals even though you left the door open, guess what? They're still guilty. We shouldn't be telling men not to cat call, we should be telling women to travel in groups or avoid going outside, also, don't wear outfits designed to draw attention from men if you don't want attention from men. This is a joke, right? You're just trollin…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 04:44 PM
-5

For one thing, we have no evidence that this was created by a feminist. Many radical feminists would say that women are capable of anything a man is. I am not one of those. I accept that there are biological differences between men and women, and strengths and weaknesses are not divided equally between the sexes. I don't think it's controversial to say that men are usually stronger. Most woman will not risk a confrontation by saying something to their cat caller, especially if he's very aggressi…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:56 PM
-1

"A loud whistle or a comment of a sexual nature made by a man to a passing woman." Since when is that not rude or intrusive behavior? And that definition also shows that your hair example from a coworker is decidedly not cat calling. And as a general rule in modern society, things that we can reasonably assume only a small amount of the population would enjoy are considered rude. Maybe 5 percent of the bus doesn't care that you're playing music so loudly through your headphones that the rest of …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:38 PM
-2

According to a national study it’s something that happens to 65% of women (25% of men) and almost half of the time also involves physical aggression. It’s something we need to work together to stop. From a very interesting debate between Paul Elam and feminist Amani Herron. http://mashable.com/2014/11/15/catcalling-debate/#Y8lZj8EK7qko
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:30 PM
-7

Cat calling, by definition, is always rude/intrusive behavior. Let's not conflate paying a compliment with cat calling. Saying "Hey, your hair looks great today" to someone you know is not cat calling. Saying "Hey gorgeous, where you going?" or "Damn girl, that's a nice ass" to someone passing you on the street is cat calling. The vast majority of women do not appreciate it.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:20 PM
-7

Did you read what I wrote or did you stop at "I'm a feminist" ? Sorry, misunderstood.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:14 PM
5

Obviously no means no is an important message to get out there, but i struggle to believe there are that many men, especially those of college age who have grown up being taught to respect women's wishes, who don't take no as an answer. Most men obviously do take no as an answer. It really is a grey area when the third kind of guy I described pressures a girl to have sex, though. I'm not well versed enough in the law, and there's obviously a difference between a guy like that and one who activel…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:11 PM
-10

I really think you're taking the phrasing much too personally. It's setting up a premise; telling a story. If it said "Your friend is eating a cheeseburger. Tell him to make healthier choices," would you assume that meant the poster was saying all men eat cheeseburgers? Of course not. "Imagine that," or "If," is implied. And no, it doesn't. Probably because those are things that are already obviously crimes, while cat calling is just rude behavior that isn't punishable by law. I'd be on board fo…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:01 PM
-4

I guess you don't have tits.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:45 PM
-7

No one said all men cat call. No one said women don't cat call. But to imply that they do it as often as men is ludicrous. What's more, this poster is in the men's bathroom, so the message is obviously directed at men. This poster basically says "Hey, if your friend is being really disrespectful to a woman, call him out on it instead of laughing." Why is that such a controversial message, and how exactly does it infringe on men's rights? Some men do this, and need to be rebuked. Yes, women can c…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:44 PM
-2

I agree with you to a degree that instinctively, we're wired to reproduce. But it just isn't necessary to achieve so many of the things we did in order to continue procreating. There's more to it than that; people went above and beyond for other reasons.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:35 PM
15

For the record, I'm a feminist and I'm completely on board with teaching women that it's okay to say no, and that they shouldn't feel embarrassed/ashamed to. I completely agree that it's often unfair and a stretch to call unwanted sex "rape" when the woman didn't make it clear that she didn't want it/just did it to be polite. That's the "empowering women" part of the movement; too many women are "people-pleasers" and/or fear saying no to a man. I'm not saying that's necessarily the man's fault. …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:28 PM
-3

Just because you say that that drive is there to impress women, doesn't make it true. Prominence, respect, money, power...all of those things are valid reasons other than sex for someone to have a high drive. Or the person might simply have a passion for what they're doing. And even if it all did come back to impressing women, how do you explain ambition in gay men? That was a list of gay men I just gave, in case that was unclear.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:20 PM
-2

Okay, but I'll be worried when some of this legislation makes it to a floor for voting. The media often makes a big deal about what's "poised to become the law of the land" because they need to increase readership. As of right now, this legislation is just a draft. It has a lot of revisions to go through. And if the NY Times has already pointed out the current writing in the draft would make hand holding a crime, that means that section will be edited before it goes to a vote. I'm not saying the…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:08 PM
-2

I intentionally chose things that could be high paying/high stress and could be low paying/high stress or low paying/low stress. For example, curing diseases may be a scientist in a publicly funded lab (low paying/high stress), a doctor (high paying/high stress) or a researcher (low paying/low stress). But yes, I agree with you that it's absurd to suggest that no man has a desire to achieve anything outside of what's necessary to impress a woman. It's certainly one factor for a lot of men, but t…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:55 PM
0

Tell that to Nikola Tesla, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Tennessee Williams, Tim Cook, Anderson Cooper, and perhaps even Alexander the Great and President James Buchanon. I'd argue that people achieve things partially because of their own drive and partially to achieve prominence, respect, money and power in society. Impressing women is probably one factor, but it's almost certainly not the only one.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:52 PM
0

I completely agree that a child created by a woman essentially stealing sperm for an in vitro pregnancy is not one that the "father" should be responsible for. This, however... And no, a man should not be required to have surgery or avoid all forms of sexual contact when no such requirement is ever asked of women. If a man does not want a child and the women does then the child is her responsibility. ...I completely disagree with. Again, I argue that consenting to sex with a woman means you've d…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 02:56 AM
-4

I'm sorry, but AVFM has some of the most biased, inflammatory, unfactchecked writing I've ever seen. They were the ones who originally claimed that a feminist wrote that piece on DNA testing and paternity (you and I discussed that yesterday). That site is far from being a credible news source/is incredibly biased in its analyses, if you can even call what they do "analysis." I'm willing to bet that whatever they wrote about there is a hell of a lot more complex than they're making it out to be, …
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:23 AM
-4

Never mind. You clearly refuse to see the issue here.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:17 AM
-6

No one's forcing you to! It's a fluff article about a contestant on The Bachelor, for crying out loud, and most of the commenters there are acting like their personal rights are being taken away. If I wrote an article about chocolate being the best dessert, that would not be a propaganda piece against fruit. The reaction to that article has less merit than feminists complaining about air conditioning.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:04 AM
0

But what's the point of holding up one person's opinion and acting like it in any way represents a majority? This isn't even an opinion piece that's trying to be inflammatory or trying to attack men. It's not calling you an ass for NOT dating a single mom. It's about as vanilla as an opinion article can get. On top of that, what is even so awful about an article that celebrates single moms and talks about dating them? How does that infringe on men's (or anyone's) rights in any way?
/r/MensRights17/09/15 12:01 AM
-13

You guys are doing a bang-up job of dispelling the rumors about being misogynists with attitudes like that and shitting on single moms, I can tell you that.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:55 PM
-5

Look, I agree with you that radical feminists are doing more harm than good, and that they are downright backwards in a lot of their assertions. I know you think they have unending power, but the truth is they don't. It's not as unbalanced as this sub likes to believe. For every radfem spouting off crap about hand holding there's a conservative idiot who says things like "legitimate rape." And people actually elected that guy. If feminists wielded that much power, abortion would be legal across …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:27 PM
-5

Take away men's ability to safely obtain sexual gratification and companionship you're asking for big, big trouble. Feminists have no idea what sort of fire they're playing with. Well that sounds threatening. Why are you suggesting that feminists are trying to take away your ability to safely obtain sexual gratification? Or are you bringing it back to the robot thing?
/r/MensRights16/09/15 11:08 PM
1

I already addressed that. What modern Japanese men are doing is not indicative of all of history or even the rest of the world today.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:46 PM
1

Yeah, that joke actually isn't any sort of proof that your interpretation of why a social phenomenon is happening is correct and another one isn't.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:03 PM
1

That's your completely unfounded interpretation of what's happening. It could be one reason for some of them not growing up, but it's likely not the only one. The summary seems to suggest they're lazy and giving up because there's more competition for jobs than there used to be.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:55 PM
0

Is your reading comprehension really poor or something? That sentence says men stuck in "guyland" are avoiding all aspects of growing up, including having an adult relationship. It does not say they are not growing up because they aren't interested in relationships.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:49 PM
-19

If you say so. That was pretty offensive to just women in general, though.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:41 PM
1

This is Wikipedia's summary of Guyland: Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (ISBN 978-0-06-083134-9) is a book by Michael Kimmel, published in 2008. The book covers the culture for young men transitioning from adolescence to adulthood.[1] Kimmel interviewed 400 men aged 16 to 26 and identified a trend whereby young men increasingly delay adulthood.[2][3] Kimmel notes that, in 1960, almost 70% of American men had by the age of 30 left home, completed their educations, found a partne…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:40 PM
3

Can't you be selfish in wanting a lot of money, status, or power without doing it purely for sex?
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:29 PM
-2

What modern Japanese men are doing is not indicative of all of history or even the rest of the world today. Also Guyland... Young white men, in particular, feel a sense of "thwarted entitlement", believing that women and minorities have taken away traditionally white male jobs and positions Seriously? Also, I have no idea how that relates to what we were discussing.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:56 PM
6

He's presumably giving an example of a man who accomplished great things but never married. As you said, the exceptions do not make the rule, but I have no reason to think that your version of men doing everything for sex isn't the exception as opposed to the rule.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:38 PM
3

I don't know, maybe some people actually want to help make the world a better place, cure diseases, get justice for others, build bridges, create art, express themselves in books or film, or just get personal fulfillment out of having a successful career.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:58 PM
-20

I hope so, but considering the tone of the article towards women in general and the fact that it's on Breitbart, I kind of doubt it.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:29 PM
9

Let's not forget that this article called the female orgasm imaginary. Jesus Christ. Shouldn't MRAs be offended by the idea that men only ever did anything in the hopes of sex with females? It's terribly offensive to reduce men to that, and is most definitely offensive to (and disproved by the achievements of) gay men.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:07 PM
0

I suppose so. Sorry I distracted you from such important activist work. Carry on.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:08 PM
1

Oh, I thought he was saying that's the percent that goes unreported, not the number total. Totally misread there. That's why I posted all the info about unreported rapes/assault. Nvm, as you were.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:07 PM
0

Dude. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not mean men laughing at inept female criminals. That's not what "complaining about" means. I meant people posting about female criminals and then complaining that they exist/got a lighter sentence. The latter is understandable, but very often is speculation and no one bothers to determine whether the lighter sentence was warranted. What's more, it generally just becomes a circle jerk of "feminists are terrible," instead of a discussion…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:54 PM
1

I mean, in the case the news article is based on, it's pretty clear that the persona was created with that intent. But determining intent is why we have a trial. A lot of crimes can't be convicted without proof of intent. Like first-degree murder.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:25 PM
2

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you take a fluff piece about a contestant on the Bachelor and unpack all of its claims as if it were a research paper. Not to diss you, but I have no idea why we're holding up this article as meaningful in the first place.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:03 PM
2

Where did you get 1 in 150 from? According to the study you posted...(and keep in mind these numbers are about rape AND sexual assault) A greater percentage of student (80%) than nonstudent (67%) rape and sexual assault victimizations were not reported to police. For the period 1995–2013, rape and sexual assault victimizations against female students (80%) were more likely to go unreported to police, compared to victimizations against nonstudents (67%) (table 8). Regardless of enrollment status,…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:00 PM
2

No offense but this is why people hate lawyers, haha. I am suggesting that purposely and consciously taking on a new persona with the intent to deceive someone and trick them into sleeping with you should be considered illegal. Those parameters do not apply to any of the examples you gave. Perhaps calling it rape is taking it too far, but I would imagine it should be some sort of sexual assault by deception. I understand the language would be tricky. But I don't think the difficulty of writing t…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 04:47 PM
1

I don't think it's that grey to place "exaggerating aspects of your personality" in one column of being acceptable and "creating an entirely new person" as not acceptable. Within reason is a common term. Then it will be up to a judge or jury to determine whether the lie was within reason. If our legal system is worth a damn, lying about things like whether you'll call the next day will be "within reason," while impersonating someone else entirely will not be.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 04:24 PM
1

What is law if not a bunch of rules written according to the majority's mutually agreed definition of what's morally right in a given scenario? I don't think this would have the far-reaching consequences you think it will. Consent was given under false pretenses. If someone signed a contract according to certain terms, but one party was lying about their terms, the contract would be null and void. The argument "But you signed and you can't take that back" would not hold up.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 04:20 PM
1

Apparently we just have different definitions of what constitutes as consent. I think that if you're consenting under wildly false pretenses, that shouldn't count.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 04:08 PM
0

Seriously. I agree with most of the causes that this sub is allegedly fighting for, but whenever I come here they're mostly complaining about female criminals, yelling about something a radical feminist said, or even worse, taking something like this completely out of context. And then they wonder how they're coming off as misogynistic. Pretty sure I'll just be going to MensLib to discuss Men's Rights from now on.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:40 PM
4

I think we need to recognize that this is a fluff piece about a contestant on The Bachelor and not a peer-reviewed scientific study on why men should date single moms. Why are we discussing this at all? This feels like it was posted just to bash women.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:28 PM
3

How is this in any way about men's rights? It's a fluff piece about a contestant on the Bachelor. It's not an attempt to brainwash men into fathering children who aren't theirs. Can we talk about real issues?
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:25 PM
0

Radfems should not be considered representative of all feminists in the same way that RedPillers should not be representative of all MRAs and Westboro Baptists should be not representative of all Christians. It's ridiculous to use to radicals yelling crazy shit to ostracize a whole group.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:16 PM
1

No, but I don't think it should be that hard to differentiate people who have created a completely new persona as opposed to those who are exaggerating aspects of themselves.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:11 PM
1

I agree that it's partially because of a lack of time and funding. But I also think there's less time and funding because it's not considered a high enough priority. I'd much rather we spent money on testing these rape kits than chasing down people with an ounce of weed on them, for example. And yes, there's a slim chance of catching a lot of these rapists. But there's pretty much no chance if they don't even have their DNA on file. Criminals of all sorts get run through that database. You can't…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:09 PM
1

Let's says a guy meets (what he thinks is) a woman at the bar. It's actually his male friend dressed in drag. They start hooking up, the man in drag performs oral sex on his friend. The friend never would have consented to his male friend performing oral sex on him. He thought he was getting head from a woman. Really think about one of your friends doing this to you. That's okay in your book?
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:00 PM
1

This has nothing to do with trans people. The alleged rapist in this case was not trans. I think conflating a trans person with the kind of person who would assume a different gender to trick their friend into having sex is what's offensive to trans people. Consenting to sex with a man is fundamentally different to consenting to a woman. Most of us consider the gender we are attracted to a very defining part of our sexuality. I do not see how you could possibly put that on the same level as lyin…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:57 PM
0

Role play is not deception. Transsexuals have actually become the person they are presenting to their partner. Their birth gender no longer exists; it's in the past. Whether or not they share that is a personal decision (though I strongly think they should, but that's not the point here). This woman did not consent to be in bed with that person! She consented to have sex with a Filipino/Latino man. She was having sex with her female friend Gayle. She did NOT think she was consenting to sex with …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:48 PM
1

Okay, the actions of two insane women do not create a valid cause for concern for all men. I hope you realize that most women are not looking to do this to you. Most women are also humans with brains, and understand that getting pregnant and raising a person is a huge decision that will change the rest of their lives and create wild amounts of bills and responsibility for the next 18-21 years. A more reasonable concern is that birth control will fail, the woman will be pregnant and decide she wa…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:42 PM
1

Okay, for one thing, this woman doesn't understand feminism. (She says that she'd rather not define herself in terms of gender, which conflates feminism with being a woman. All women are not feminists, nor are all feminists women.) For another thing, she calls paternity tests anti-feminist. Most feminists do not agree with this. Again, see the Jezebel article. She says she is not a feminist, does not understand the term feminist, and incorrectly determines what is anti-feminist. I think we can s…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:35 PM
1

I don't know; they're both awful. They both create trust issues, they both might keep you from having sex again (albeit for very different reasons). Rape takes away your autonomy over your body and choices, lying about paternity takes away a man's autonomy over his wallet and choices (though therapy and perhaps even medical bills post-rape, depending on the violence of it, might hit your wallet pretty hard as well). They're both awful. They're both complex situations brought upon you by people w…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:26 PM
0

Source? It really makes no sense from a feminist perspective. Most rational feminists (I know you think that's an oxymoron, but bear with me) understand that paternity tests are far more useful for making sure the actual father contributes as opposed to suckering some other man into it. Again, Jezebel supports paternity testing. And they're pretty damn feminist.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:12 PM
2

I was responding to the eye-raping comment, not paternity fraud. Eye-raping is trivial and a nonsense term.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:07 PM
2

Not as well as it should be. The backlog of untested rape kits is shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/detroit-rape-kits-enough-said-campaign_n_6431016.html
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:51 PM
2

I wasn't trying to say I don't empathize with the horror of being tricked into raising a child that isn't yours. I do think that would be an unimaginable thing to go through. I just think rape is a very different kind of violation, so I'm having trouble comparing the two things. Believe me, if I were omnipotent neither would happen.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:38 PM
1

Ask a man whether he would rather be raped or unknowingly raise another man's child up to adulthood. I'm a woman so maybe I'll never be able to fully empathize with that, but I find it terribly hard to believe. It would certainly make for an interesting survey.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:11 PM
5

Strongly disagree. The other person thought she was consenting to an entirely different person. This went far, far beyond normal exaggeration (e.g. I'm obscenely rich) to get someone into bed. This person invented a whole new person of a different gender to bed her friend. That should not be legal.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:04 PM
2

I'm not; I wouldn't reduce the seriousness of rape to something that trivial. Thanks for usefully contributing to this thread, though.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:56 PM
3

Also, can you please source the claim that the trauma is equal to or greater than rape? I don't even understand how you measure that, or why you'd compare it to rape in the first place.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:20 PM
1

You don't have any single stall bathrooms in Texas?
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:05 PM
1

Well now I see why that Spectator article about paternity & DNA testing is being wrongly blamed on feminists.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:46 PM
1

Thank you.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:33 PM
5

I call rape by deception rape. I also don't think this has anything to do with transsexuals. The rapist here impersonated someone of the opposite sex purely to deceive her friend. That does not fit the standard definition of transsexual, at all.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:30 PM
0

Using the term "anti-feminist" does not make you a self-described feminist.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:25 PM
0

But she hasn't accused him of any crimes! I'm not saying that guy was definitely a rapist. I don't know that at all. But something about him set off her alarm bells. Our gut feelings about people are right far more often than we realize and more people would do well to pay attention to them. I stand by the interpretation of her trying to convey to OP that she isn't jumping to conclusions. She went with rapist because that would have been the worst case scenario.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:17 PM
0

I agree that this is horrid, but you can't blame feminists for this one. The Spectator is a conservative British magazine; the author is likely a staunch traditionalist whose concern for keeping families together is overriding every other bit of logic.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:10 PM
10

This woman isn't a feminist. The Spectator is a very conservative magazine; the author is more likely a staunch traditionalist concerned with keeping families together above all else. This idiot thinks raising a child on your own is worse than tricking a man into parenthood. That's not the feminist narrative.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:09 PM
20

This isn't a feminist article. The Spectator is an extremely conservative British magazine. Blame traditionalists wanting to keep families intact above all else; not feminists. EDIT: See Jezebel tearing apart this same article in the name of feminism: http://jezebel.com/5349395/are-paternity-tests-anti-feminist
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:07 PM
0

Oddly enough, The Spectator is apparently a conservative British magazine. Meaning this woman probably a staunch traditionalist, as DNA testing is (according to her) wrecking families. This isn't a feminist narrative, but it is a reprehensible one.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:06 PM
1

If he's that concerned he should either get a vasectomy or practice abstinence.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 06:27 PM
1

You're acting like she went to the store and bought the kids without consulting her husband. They BOTH decided to have children. The disparity is BOTH their faults. Note: I realize I'm 3 months late to this conversation. Reddit is weird.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 05:07 PM
4

...Good?
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:53 PM
0

If a man consents to sleep with a woman, pregnancy was a highly forseeable outcome. Why shouldn't he pay child support?
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:51 PM
-1

I'm hoping it's not. I'm female and have male friends who are like brothers to me. But regardless, what does that have to do with whether or not OP's gf thought the guy who was hitting on her was doing it in a creepy way? Since he was hitting on her, we already know he probably wanted sex. And no one's condemning him or calling him a creep for that alone. The question is whether he was being "creepy" in his methods. Since none of us -- not even the boyfriend -- witnessed this, I don't see how we…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:39 PM
1

You're twisting her words. She's specifically trying to point out that she is NOT saying he's a rapist or an axe murderer because he gave off creepy vibes to OP's gf. She's trying not to be an extremist. Your own biases about feminism are coloring your view on her words.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:25 PM
4

Without the original story, it's hard to judge the rest of the comments. It seems that the OP is upset that his girlfriend called a man who hit on her "creepy." And other commenters are saying that she is allowed to feel creeped out depending on how the guy acted toward her. Doesn't look like anyone's putting "all men" in the box of "creep." I don't see what's so disturbing here. EDIT: Honestly, OP seems the most disturbing. What would you do if I told you that the only reason the "Not Creepy" m…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:18 PM
3

I googled "woman sex man parking lot" http://wtkr.com/2015/09/09/couple-says-they-were-in-the-mood-to-have-sex-outside-in-parking-lot/
/r/MensRights15/09/15 03:07 PM
-1

These are really common. Not sure what you're going for here.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:54 PM
-2

Source, please. I don't believe you can press charges for sexual assault if both parties claim consent.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:52 PM
1

There have been multiple articles about this recently. Look it up.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:51 PM
2

And then he renegotiated to let her "tap" his penis with the straightening iron instead of putting it on his testicles. I have very mixed feelings about this. There's a clear pattern of abuse there, but he very oddly agreed to this. It doesn't seem that either one realized how sensitive the penis is/how badly he'd be burned.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:47 PM
7

This is a good idea. There are many parallels between the MRM and Feminism, and we'd do a lot better by saying "I agree with you here, but disagree with you about this, and here's why." Being likable really does go a long way politically.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:43 PM
9

Hillary specifically said "To every survivor of sexual assault." Her comment was meant for people who have survived sexual assault. She did not say "To every alleged survivor of sexual assault." I do wish she had said "taken seriously" instead of "believed," but I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. It's frankly disturbing how many sexual assault cases don't get taken seriously, or reported at all. What's more, her comment wasn't gendered at all. MRAs should be taking advantage of this t…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:27 PM
0

I was hoping that a comment like this would be a lot closer to the top.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 02:20 PM
0

I assume you mean suffrage, not emancipation? So yes, military service or even "being subject to the draft" could become a requirement, no rewriting of the constitution required. But it's not, so what's your point? I was not using "rewrite the Constitution" literally. The point is it's not a limitation. Regardless, the position doesn't match the one you claimed is present in the reddit Since we're repeating ourselves... I am aware that that did not perfectly match up with what I claimed. I linke…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:52 PM
1

I would argue that a small subset of men who are sexist and have no boundaries are affecting the majority of women in the world. I am also assuming that the art is purposely exaggerating to draw attention. I'm not saying all women have their breasts groped in the office daily. But I wouldn't be surprised if most deal with cat calling/lingering hands in the bar or on the subway/noticing a man gaping at their breasts almost daily. What's more, a lot of us do have one guy in our office/travel route…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:32 PM
1

I think she pointed to her unemployment to show that she's already been soundly punished for this.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 10:02 PM
0

Maybe she's a terrible person, but if she is, it's not because she's a woman. Lose the kitchen jokes. You don't sound any better than a feminazi putting down all men because one behaved badly.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:59 PM
0

You're welcome to your opinion, but legally that has zero standing. Rewriting the Constitution is a whole other discussion. For the record, I'm personally of the opinion that we should either do away with the draft completely or open it to both genders. But I fail to see why a draft decided by men a hundred years ago should keep women from voting booths.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:54 PM
-1

I just think "men's rights" sounds like a group mostly concerned with men's rights... while feminist (in its current 'wave' or at least as generally discussed) typically is about women's rights. That's totally fine. And you're right that extreme feminists exist. I'm just saying they're the minority, so it looks bad when MRAs consider "Feminist" a dirty word outright.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:40 PM
-1

I purposely linked to the previous comment to give context to garbledcluster. I thought it was obvious which comment I was talking about; Jander understood. And I am aware that that did not perfectly match up with what I claimed. I linked to it because I could not find the original comment I was thinking of. But it was close, as men being drafted should not mean women are denied the right to vote. One has nothing to do with the other.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:36 PM
-1

This sentence from garbledcluster has 8 upvotes: The fact that women didn't have the vote until the 20th century is utterly irrelevant as they weren't forced to fight and die against their own will. I know that's not a lot, but it's considerably more than the surrounding comments. The guy who pointed out that women and men were oppressed in different ways, however, has -4.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:22 PM
-1

? That was a gilded thread, and the comment I pointed to within it was upvoted. And yes, I know that taking my word for the other one doesn't prove much. Regardless, I know that that doesn't define the entire community. I already made the point that a few sexists within a group shouldn't be used to castigate the whole group. But they do tend to cast a bad light. "Feminists" works. The error occurs when you pretend anybody but the people lobbying gov't for laws to men's detriment, and getting bot…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:14 PM
0

I can't find the example where someone said "Women got the right to vote and nothing changed," but that's about the same as saying it was pointless. And feminazi is, but I rarely see it being used here. I think people dislike it because of the word nazi. Feminists are usually just lumped together as a group of evil people.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:09 PM
4

One woman burned one book that frankly, I haven't read and can't comment on. Maybe the book was good. Maybe it was garbage and deserved to be burned. Either way, I hardly think we have an epidemic on our hands.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:02 PM
2

I just meant that I don't know enough about tennis to intelligently comment about the players' pay, how many spectators they draw in, or even how many games are played by men as opposed to women. I do think it's fairly obvious that none of those issues have anything to do with being asked to flex your muscles vs being asked to twirl and show off your outfit.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:42 PM
-3

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3jtmru/men_are_now_the_oppressed_sex/cuskfum There was also definitely an upvoted comment in another thread that said "Women got the right to vote and nothing changed." I'm all for calling out bad behavior when there's a clear bias between men and women. But calling out radical feminists/people who say things like "All men should be put on an island" or whatever is just arguing with lunatics anyway. That's like dedicating a thread to RP arguments. Yes…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:36 PM
0

From the same Wikipedia article you referenced: Most rapes go unreported because the rape victims fear retaliation and humiliation - in India and elsewhere in the world.[34] Indian parliamentarians have stated that the rape problem in India is being underestimated because large number of cases are not reported, even though more victims are increasingly coming out and reporting rape and sexual assaults.[8] Few states in India have tried to estimate or survey unreported cases sexual assault. The e…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:21 PM
-2

Can we discuss these things without reducing ourselves to using words like cocksucker? And gta0012 didn't say this, but I think there's a good chance that many, many rapes are going unreported in India. I wouldn't think police reports would give a realistic estimate.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 07:33 PM
-5

Maybe what we need is to really tone down the all-feminism-is misandry rhetoric. Please do. This sub makes a habit of calling out all the outrageous things feminists say, but neglects to mention any of the positive things. It would be like judging all MRAs based on the ones who are also RedPillers. I have seen comments on this sub that say things like "Women getting the right to vote was pointless." That's why we're all being called misogynists. Calling all feminists misandrists makes about as m…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:42 PM
8

Great article, and great reminder that neither gender should hide behind sexism when being called out for reprehensible behavior.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:35 PM
4

You are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to turn this into a Men's Rights issue. This is about race and how police officers (some of which are women, by the way) interact with the black public (men and women). I also don't even see anything about BLM advocating the killing of white male police officers in particular. Just Fox News shouting that police officers in general are being targeted. The BLM statement says they are targeting "the brutal system of policing, not individual police."
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:10 PM
5

Why is this here? It's a race issue, not a gender one.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:00 PM
2

The "shorter fuse" argument does not hold, I think. Couldn't the men who gets shout at and shout back at her also ask for the "short fuse" excuse? I don't think it's okay for a man to do very offensive gestures at a stranger woman, but I also don't think it's reasonable to respond like a dog with raving madness. I agree with you in principle, but in reality, people snap. That's why "But I was provoked" is a legitimate defense in a lot of cases. Yes, in a perfect world, she would turn her other c…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 05:21 PM
1

Your entire argument rests upon the belief that no man is dangerous to a woman, ever, and that they ALWAYS have good intentions. I think I made it very clear that I know predatory men are the exception and not the rule, but that a woman should listen to her instincts because bad people exist in the world. I'm not sure if you're trolling or what, but since you insist on twisting around everything I say with inane comparisons, I'm done here.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 05:03 PM
2

It means that gender is constructed by how you "perform" it, not by your biological sex organs.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:58 PM
1

I usually do ignore assholes, but I also understand that a lot of people have a shorter fuse than I do, and I completely understand that some women end up snapping and yelling back. Does that feel fair to the guy who thought he was "just fooling around" or "just kidding" when he licked his lips and winked at the busy woman on the street? After all, at the end of the day, it was harmless. Of course he thinks it was an overreaction on her part. Does it make sense coming from the woman who's ignore…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:29 PM
-3

I don't know much about tennis, to be honest, but I don't see how that issue has anything to do with the one we were discussing.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:43 PM
2

You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence. I understand that. But we're not talking about men who are legitimately trying to start conversations in socially acceptable settings, like I said earlier. We're talking about ones who lick their lips when they see an attractive girl pass them, or make sexual comments, or who …
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:37 PM
1

You took a lot of what I said out of context, and seem to not understand (or think I don't understand) that there's a difference between a man hitting on a woman to get sex, and a man who says sexual things to make a woman uncomfortable. I know there's a difference, and when I call a man (or woman) "predatory," I'm talking about the latter. A women being taught to have a negative response towards certain tones doesn't mean that the tone is malevolent, or that this is just evil men trying to make…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:23 PM
-16

I doubt it. Feminists say they want equality. MRAs say they want equality. So ask both athletes to flex their muscles. I don't know how anyone who knows the definition of body shaming could call that "body shaming."
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:56 PM
2

another guy walks passed me and says "hey gorgeous, have a beautiful day" (in a tone... you know the one) commented on my lipstick and hair and I just nodded, because it wasn't actually aggressive or sexual, and then he started asking me personal questions Nice editing. I can assure you this kind of thing happens.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:28 PM
0

male romantic attention I think there's an honest disconnect between straight men and women here. I'm not saying it's impossible that a woman has ever called out to you in "that tone" that the OP described, but I'm guessing it's a lot less likely. Women know that tone. It's not romantic; it's predatory. Men who say things in that tone are not actually wishing you a nice day. They are getting a power trip out of visually making a woman uncomfortable. This probably comes off as weird and unlikely …
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:28 PM
2

I agree that feminists who expect the Catholic church to change its ways are idiots with pipe dreams, and while I have my own gripes with religious traditions, it's just rude to reduce them all to "misogynistic fairy tales." That being said, One girl has, by her own words "found the secret to dealing with car callers and creeps" by just shouting "NO!" at anyone talking to her. While definitely aggressive, what made me shake my head was the comment: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could spray them wit…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:17 PM
0

To be fair, nowhere in the article does it say that ALL men are out to hurt women. "The series is called "Boundaries," and depicts the overt sexism that is demonstrated by men who feel they have the right to violate women's privacy." That's a particular subset of men. And they do exist. As do women who behave badly.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:09 PM
-24

Is asking a man who is an athlete at a sports competition to show his muscles really that sexist? It only seems sexist since they didn't ask the woman to do the same. And they definitely could have asked her to show off her strength instead of her outfit.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:02 PM
2

That's true. I was just explaining triggers in general since OP didn't seem to be familiar with them. I think it's valid to ask someone to refrain from giving explicit examples of rape if that's a trigger for you, but it certainly shouldn't be used to shut down a whole conversation.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 12:47 PM
2

If someone's using a trigger to get out of an argument, they're a terrible person. You should be allowed to say whatever you want (to a point) and the other person has a right to excuse themselves if what you're about to say causes them psychological trauma. That's why triggers are usually announced in films, books, school classes, etc. it's on the person who has the triggers to excuse him/herself; they shouldn't be telling you to shut up. Though really, it's not that black and white. I hope tha…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 12:43 PM
1

Usually "triggers" are not about something like racism. They are about rape, domestic violence, the war, things like that. It's considered a courtesy to announce that a text/video is going to discuss these sensitive topics, so that someone who may experience flashbacks/PTSD can excuse themselves. Announcing a trigger is a way to be able to keep your right to freedom of speech while also warning others that the topic you're discussing might be traumatic to them. It's actually preserving freedom o…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:54 AM
1

That's not what I was doing at all, and I don't know what I wrote that would make you think that. I was only trying to point out that women weren't wrong to want the right to vote, regardless of what else was going on in the world. That doesn't mean those other things were less important. One has nothing to do with the other.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:43 AM
0

Of course not. But it is a "stolen kiss" if this girl wanted no part of it. Don't get me wrong; charging this kid with assault is insane. He should apologize to the girl if he kissed her without her permission. Maybe get grounded/detention. End of story.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 10:15 PM
33

The top comment on that thread currently says to document everything so he can get full custody of the kid if need be. Not for nothing, his description does say his wife had previously been diagnosed with depression and stopped taking her meds years ago. That combined with her current pregnancy is likely causing the onset of her severe and rapid personality change. They're mostly advising him to get out AND try to get his wife some help. For his unborn child's sake, if nothing else, that seems l…
/r/MensRights12/09/15 10:05 PM
0

In this case the justice system isn't giving her a pass, her partner is saying it wasn't rape. If he somehow gets charged with public indecency and she doesn't, then you have a bias.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 08:14 PM
0

They charged him because she said it was rape. He was exonerated because it was unreasonable to assume from his POV that she wasn't consenting. They cannot charge this woman of rape because the person she was having sex with says it was consensual. The cases aren't the same at all. There's a possibility this man does feel that he was raped but is too embarrassed to admit it. But if you just want the police to do things by the book, well, that's what they did in both cases.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 08:08 PM
0

I was referring to the fact that you said "they have no real arguments or evidence to support their side of the argument, whatever that may be." You've immediately dismissed what anyone else wants to say about anything. Why would someone want to hear what you have to say when you've already told them that any differing opinions they might have are wrong?
/r/MensRights12/09/15 05:47 PM
1

Okay, but they were in a relationship and she was also drunk/on drugs. She conceivably may not have realized he passed out, and most importantly, he trusts her and does not want to press charges. Do you want to set the precedent of charging people for rape in circumstances like that?
/r/MensRights12/09/15 05:42 PM
1

I meant nothing regarding sexual assault charges. They apparently decided together to have sex in public in the first place. In which case they should both be charged with public indecency/intoxication.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 04:36 PM
1

Oh you're totally right, sorry. Got confused in the comment thread.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 03:49 PM
-1

I don't know that most wives would get off THAT easily. This case is outstanding when you consider the fact that her husband was a serial rapist. Responding to wrong thread
/r/MensRights12/09/15 03:21 PM
3

It would be interesting to find a recent case and compare.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:59 PM
1

If she didn't want to press charges, then nothing.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:58 PM
3

The insane people would say it's promoting rape culture. They're probably thinking that about this case, too. The rest of us understand that if one person consents beforehand and passes out, and the other person is too drunk/drugged out to notice, then calling it a rape is over the line and somewhat offensive to actual rape victims.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:56 PM
-1

I'm not referring to dress code. A woman who shows up looking bedraggled in an office that takes professionalism in dress as seriously as a place you describe would be equally harangued. And the AC thing is bad for both sides. The women are freezing inside the building and the men are sweating outside the building. That's not what I'm talking about, either. I'm talking about the public's propensity to fixate on what a woman is wearing or how fit she is more often than they will a man. Flip throu…
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:50 PM
-2

How are comments she made to her friends comparable to comments made to a virtual stranger in a business setting? Don't get me wrong; I think she completely overreacted by taking this to social media. But I don't think this article points to a history of "indulging in like behavior," at all.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:37 PM
0

I agree that they didn't do anything morally wrong; it's just the point that it's useless to compare comments she made to her friends on a site like Facebook to comments he made to her as a virtual stranger on a professional network. That being said, I'm of the opinion that her reaction was over the top in the first place. But this article neither says anything of importance nor proves in any way that she's a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:28 PM
0

The kind of generalizing you were doing is the exact kind of attitude this sub needs to lose. Think of how that comment looks to a newcomer.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:20 PM
0

Well not literally no one, but it's not a focal point of his career the way Hillary Clinton's pantsuits are.
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:38 AM
2

That's true, but those charged are very rarely enforced. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's bullshit in principle. But if we're going to fight something, we should have our facts straight.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 10:52 PM
3

I'd argue that the vitriolic MRAs are really just casting a negative shadow on the whole group, but for the sake of men's rights, I hope you're right. At any rate, they're definitely the reason MRAs are being attacked.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 10:32 PM
-1

And yet no one points to that as a reason to not elect Chris Christie as governor.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:51 PM
-4

Both women and men are judged harshly on their looks when it comes to dating. This article is about women being judged more on their appearance/attractiveness in the professional world.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:50 PM
2

That's false. The DMV works with the Selective Service to get people's information, but you are not required to register for the draft in order to vote.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:36 PM
3

But I will also say that for the most part when MRA's were raising their issues calmly and politely they were simply ignored and/or mocked. Once anger became more common, MRAs couldn't be ignored. The angry and strident voices can make MRAs look bad, but they were/are also necessary to get MRAs a voice at the table of mainstream discussion. Replace "MRAs" with "Feminists" in that paragraph, and you'll see why people aren't being supportive of that. Those tactics are how people start to see you a…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:18 PM
5

Because unfortunately, many MRAs have a very inflammatory way of pushing their issues, and because of the very narrow definition of feminism that MRAs tend to use. Many MRAs then get outraged when someone points out the positives of feminism. They say that women have always been privileged and men have always been oppressed. Framing these incredibly complex issues in such a black and white manner, with no room for argument, comes off as incredibly narrow minded, ignorant, and sexist. A lot of pe…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 04:27 PM
1

I'd kind of see your point if this was public school, but it's college. They paid to be there, so they've sort of entered into a contract agreeing to these kinds of things. I'm of the opinion that if they thought the play was that offensive, they should have just walked out. Also idk what this college's policies are, but when I went to school nothing was actually "mandatory." I doubt that they took attendance, but I could be wrong about that.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:36 PM
1

I'm still not clear how you think the judge in that example isn't victim blaming. The only difference between rape and sex is consent, so if the judge thinks a crime hasn't taken place, he's basically blaming the victim for giving consent and "having as much control." I'm also not sure why you're insisting that systematic bias in the legal system means that the victim blaming must come from court officials as opposed to lawyers, especially since lawyer's arguments sway juries. I suppose that wou…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:31 PM
-1

Ugh. Thanks for making me feel less crazy, anyhow.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 09:31 PM
1

Gayle Newland is not trans. She invented a whole new person just to bed her friend. Comparing her to someone who is trans is disrespectful to the trans community.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 08:59 PM
0

Presenting yourself The thing is, this person didn't present herself. She presented a whole new person. The victim was under the impression that she was giving consent to a Filipino/Latino man named Kye Fortune. She was actually having sex with a lesbian named Gayle, whom she already knew. She did not consent to sex with Gayle, but that's who she had sex with. EDIT: If a man receives a blow job from someone he thought was a woman but was actually his gay male friend, would you say he had consent…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 08:38 PM
1

This has nothing to do with being trans. I don't think trans people are "pretending" to be another gender. To be more clear, pretending to be a different gender for the sole purpose of getting someone to sleep with you is a significant deception.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 08:04 PM
1

The "rapist" was basically a real-life catfisher. The point is, the victim did not agree to have sex with her friend. Her friend knew she would not have sex with her, so she invented a whole new persona. The victim agreed to have sex with someone else, under false pretenses. It was a whole different identity, not a lie about one facet of your personality or assets (e.g. being a millionaire). This doesn't fit the conventional definition of rape, but I would argue that the victim had not consented…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:55 PM
-1

Okay, the victim's an idiot here, but pretending to be a man when you're not is also a significant deception.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:49 PM
1

For one thing, one survey from the Netherlands does not speak for all women. It certainly does not seem to reflect working stats in the US, where women make up almost half of all full-time workers. What's more, it doesn't negate that fact that some women prefer to work. I never said all women want to work full time. I don't see the issue with suggesting a way to help lower class women provide for their families so that the brunt of it doesn't fall on the men. Apparently you all just want to comp…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:43 PM
-2

I've been downvoted on every comment that says some women prefer to work.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:27 PM
1

Or it's the fault of the person who decided to rape her. A rapist isn't a lion. No one's saying you shouldn't try to be as responsible as possible for your own safety. masterofthehaus was saying some people inherently live in more dangerous places than others, and that's not their fault.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:20 PM
-2

It's not ideal when the woman loves her job and wants to contribute monetarily to her family, like the woman in the article is. I don't see anything wrong with adding the provision that to be eligible for government daycare you need to be working/disabled. Pre-k I think should be available for all children regardless because it's just great developmentally, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. EDIT: Seriously, you guys? You'll just downvote anything that says a woman actually wants t…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 06:48 PM
1

That's dramatic. Would you feel the same way if we knew the play focused on informed consent and not accusing someone of rape because you regretted it afterwards?
/r/MensRights10/09/15 06:40 PM
-2

What I'm suggesting would help both parents. Government subsidized day care/pre-k would allow mom to go back to work, so dad doesn't have to work 80 hour weeks to support everyone. In the current model, mom stays at home and dad has to work overtime. It's not ideal for either one. Making it easier for both parents in lower class families return to work (I specify because upper class people could afford day care anyway) benefits everyone.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 06:29 PM
-1

I agree with you in principle, but I don't fault any parent for wanting their child to not experience the same difficulties they did.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 06:26 PM
-5

Great. If they don't, then there's no need to use my solution. I said that assuming she doesn't need to take time off of work to raise her children, then there's no strong reason for a disparity in income.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:46 PM
-2

My solution was to advocate for universal pre-k and offer money to his daughter to pay for her children's day care so she could return to work more quickly, since he's pinpointed that as the reason women make less. I also suggested that he do the same for his son, so his daughter-in-law could also return to work. I agree that handing her 3 million dollars does not fix the problem, at all.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:45 PM
-5

Care to link to those surveys? And no, life isn't fair. But this isn't about women who decided to get a sperm donor and have a child on their own. The fathers are also in this (which I'm sure you'd agree with when it comes to custody rights), yet it's the woman's career that usually suffers.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 05:16 PM
-6

No longer "desire" to? You're acting like new parents are just being lazy at work. They now have a responsibility to feed, care for, and instill good values in another human being. Being a good parent involves being there when your children aren't sleeping. That doesn't even address the fact that if you had to leave your job for two years to raise your child before they could go to Pre-K, you're now looking for a new job, have two years less experience than everyone else your age, and depending …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:54 PM
1

Aren't we usually upset that men get charged with rape when there's not enough evidence and that that ruins their lives, even if the charges later get dropped? I agree that there's a disparity here, because a man might have been charged with rape and she was not. But the answer is stop charging men when there's insufficient evidence, not start charging women when there's insufficient evidence, too.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:34 PM
1

It's dangerous to generalize that way. Sometimes, victims are 100 percent aware of what they're doing and their choices, and are truly actively consenting. And sometimes they are being manipulated into thinking their teacher/whomever really cares about them, when in fact they are being taken advantage of. Both scenarios happen with either mix of genders.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:22 PM
-10

The unfortunate thing is he kind of has a point that a lot of women make less because they end up taking off a year or two (or more) to raise the children, and then never catch up. But I don't think throwing this much money at her is the answer. Campaign for universal Pre-K, and in the meantime, if he really wants to, I could see saving up enough so your daughter (and your daughter-in-law, to be equal) has the choice to return to work directly after maternity leave, not after 2 years. All other …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:11 PM
2

I mean it's not an editorial, and the author is just a reporter, not a sociologist. It's better for a reporter to say "we don't know why yet" as opposed to making guesses and having the masses take it as fact.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:02 PM
1

How is saying that she was "as much in control of the situation" not blaming her as well? It gives her equal responsibility in her own rape. I think the issue is that you may not understand the common definition of victim-blaming. It is not, as you seem to think, literally "instigating your own rape." It includes any form of implying that someone was responsible for the circumstances that led to them being victimized; e.g, she shouldn't have been wearing that skirt/walking alone/she's a slut so …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 03:38 PM
-2

All I was trying to say was that complimenting someone's attractiveness is inappropriate (and depending on the context, could be sexist) when it's done in a professional setting. The man knew this (pre-apologized for being "politically incorrect") and did it anyway. And can we stop blaming this on the fact that she used a high quality photograph? By calling it a "glamour ad" you make it sound like she's wearing excessive make up and making a sultry face. Her photo is still extremely conservative…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 03:23 PM
0

Look, I agree that for the sake of her career and not making waves, she should not have made such a big stink out of this. She probably did sacrifice her career for a small comment; it was the wrong battle to put her foot down on. That being said, I also think she was right in principle.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 03:12 PM
1

She contacted him, but articles have said he held a higher position than her. Ergo, he's her superior. I also don't see why you're comparing this situation to your grandmother's. Just because people have clearly experienced much worse forms of sexism does not mean this isn't sexist as well.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 03:06 PM
0

It's pretty clear that your female bosses and colleagues are hitting on you/flirting with you, and you're fine with it. But I hope you understand that a lot of people would not be okay with it, and they're entitled to feel that way. If your coworker left you a note that said you looked sexy and you weren't okay with that, you'd have a clear sexual harassment suit. Many people are not fine with being flirted with at work, and they should have the right to ask the person flirting with them to stop…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:58 PM
1

"It doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you" is a terrible argument. And part of respecting others is considering whether how they feel is within a normal range of reactions instead of dismissing them as "fragile." It's not unreasonable to expect your superiors to not comment on your attractiveness.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:46 PM
2

Trolls on the internet are saying her career is ruined; she hasn't said that.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:40 PM
1

Honestly, it depends on context. If she heard that from someone starting a conversation at a bar, or even when a coworker told her she looked nice that day, I could see your point. But she had just forged a business connection with someone who who was supposed to be advising her, and he immediately commented on how she looked. I know that seems innocuous to a lot of men, but women take offense to that in business situations because we want to be judged on our work, not our attractiveness. Think …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:22 PM
4

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here and taking that one line too offensively. It's the mark of a good reporter to give readers a sense of placement. Overall, the article is extremely fair and does a great job pointing out that we're overlooking female violence. It's just a fact that it's not as prevalent as male violence, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address it.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:12 PM
2

Probably a typo, but had to point out that this is the New York Post, NOT the NYT.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:09 PM
2

I'll agree she overreacted, and if she wanted to take this to Twitter she should have done this man the courtesy of blurring his photo and name. That was too far. But I really don't think he was only commenting on the quality of the picture, or else he wouldn't have felt the need to pre-apologize for his comment by saying "I realize this is probably horrendously politically incorrect." It would not have been politically incorrect to say "And wow, I'm impressed that you chose such a high-quality …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:02 PM
-1

That's just not true. Theoretically, if you didn't register by your 26th birthday, you'd have committed a felony and may be sent to prison, in which case you wouldn't be allowed to vote. But nothing about voter registration requires males to register for selective service. Selective service does work with the DMV, however. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/what-many-young-men-need-know-about-draft-n224746
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:44 PM
1

Now THAT is some mental gymnastics. For one thing, if that line isn't verifiable, then none of it is. And by your own logic, we have no context for any of this. Where does it say (or even imply) that the play was upholding feminist definitions of rape? The article only says it's a play about sexual assault.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 12:23 PM
1

Since neither of us saw the play, and the boys were yelling "She wanted it, it's not rape," that's a really bold assumption to make.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:43 PM
-1

How on earth is her photo unprofessional? It's a high quality headshot with very natural looking makeup. It does not show off her body or have a sultry look on her face, as a model's photo might. What do you think a barrister's photo should look like?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:40 PM
5

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/justice/woman-blamed-for-her-rape/ http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/13/as-steubenville-rape-trial-opens-victim-blaming-begins-in-court-of-law-and-public-opinion/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/10/victimized-twice-accuser-blamed-in-rape-case/8955585/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/montana-judge-rape-victim_n_4811890.html I did include some lawyer's statements, but the last one is a judge admitting he victim-blamed. I don't see wh…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:16 PM
1

False rape claims are a serious problem, but so are actual rapes. We shouldn't be acting like it's okay to trivialize rape.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:11 PM
1

“Many of the boys started calling out ‘She wanted it, it’s not rape,’ I notice none of you are quoting this line from the article. I'm all for calling out sexism. If this play was truly painting all men as rapists and was that disturbing, then the men should have just walked out. They could have complained to the school board afterward, or written an editorial for the school newspaper. They could have done something constructive in response. Instead, it sounds like a bunch of immature boys decid…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:30 PM
1

The definition of rape is sex without one of the participants consent, either because it couldn't consent (age or whatever) or because it didn't consent. This definition can be fulfilled in the first three scenarios. In the first point, because consent can be revoked at any time, in the second and third point because she didn't consent. This is true, but in general you can't convict someone for a crime that they didn't reasonably know they were committing. If you have sex with an underage girl b…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:08 PM
5

The last example that you gave was so ludicrous that I'd have to say the woman was incompetent to stand trial, and therefore also not at fault. The first three scenarios you gave were ones that I'd have a hard time calling rape. I think we can reasonably assume that is not the kind of thing the show was referring to when they took this poll.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:47 PM
2

I think we're interpreting the original question a little differently. We both agree that a person is responsible for putting themselves in dangerous positions, but not for violent crimes that get committed against them as a result of that. By my interpretation, that means when you ask if it's a woman's fault she was raped, the answer is no. As I quoted earlier, you also said no. I think whether or not she's responsible for not taking precautions is a separate question. You don't seem to think t…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:42 PM
1

It is because that's how statistics work. And sexual threats/assault are treated as worse than non-sexual ones in the legal system. That has nothing to do with my personal attitude about sex, but it's interesting that you felt the need to go there.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:35 PM
2

Okay, but this article is very clearly talking about convicted rape. I think it's a wild leap to apply the logic here to other situations.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:18 PM
2

It's the bear's fault, obviously That's all I'm saying (though it disturbs me that we're now comparing human rapists to bears, but that's besides to point.) The rape is the fault of the rapist. Obviously people should not put themselves in dangerous situations. But I take serious issue with saying that the rape is in any way the victim's "fault." But again, if the question isn't whether a woman got raped, but whether it was her fault, why does this have anything to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:06 PM
3

That is a crazy comparison. Are you saying people who decide to rape are in just as little control of their actions as drug addicts are?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:47 PM
1

The linked article has nothing to do with the effects of rape law on men.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:35 PM
2

I just don't understand the outrage/supposed differential treatment, because the question "Is it ever a woman's fault if she is raped" presumes that she was definitely raped. We're not discussing hazy situations/grey areas of consent. A woman was raped. Was it her fault?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:27 PM
1

I know it's a BuzzFeed article, but a lot of their serious articles like that are actually very well-written and sourced. If you look further into the cases described there (there are tons of links within the article itself), you'll find that it's all true. And yes, I acknowledged that some of the problems I mentioned are small, some are huge, and that they're not exclusive to women (though I would argue that women experience the majority of sexual assault/workplace discrimination). That second …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:25 PM
0

I don't think the skydiver example is a good comparison. There's no equivalent where a rape victim is putting themselves in a situation "where his life depended on the chute," as it were. Rapists are actively deciding to rape the other person. The chute is an inanimate object. Unless someone fucked with your equipment beforehand, it's an accident, not a crime.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:59 PM
2

Honestly, I don't think anyone really cares about Michelle Obama's arms. But Michelle Obama is First Lady and Hillary Clinton was a Senator when the pantsuit thing was at its height. First Ladies have pretty much always been judged on their appearance over most other things. Senators have almost never been judged on their wardrobe choices, unless they're female. I'm not saying it's okay that we're fixated on the First Lady's style choices, just that it's not really a fair comparison to a Senator…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:51 PM
2

Agreed, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. You could switch that out with getting drunk/doing drugs/ going home with a stranger, and in each of those the victim would be responsible for putting him or herself in a dangerous situation, but the victim is not at fault for getting raped. The fault solely belongs to the rapist.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:38 PM
2

I think both sexes are guilty of judging a woman's abilities and competency based on her appearance and attractiveness.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:29 PM
3

"Is it ever a woman's fault if she is raped?" She is responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation, not for the rape that occurred as a result. That is all I am saying. Glad we're in agreement. I gave examples where I said men would not be at fault either, so I don't know why you're insisting that I'm trying to infantilize women.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:17 PM
1

You deeply misinterpreted what I said. I said it was bullshit to imply that the only hardships women have are being catcalled and sexualized. I did not say that men aren't catcalled, nor did I say all sexualization is bad. If catcalls and sexualization of women are your most important issues, then you have no important issues. Basically, I'm saying those are not the most important issues, and it was demeaning of you to imply they were. So, we're in agreement there. Nothing you have to say could …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:07 PM
4

I gave one example where a male victim is not at fault and one example where a female victim is not at fault. You can disagree with me about responsibility, but it's just false to say I was being misogynistic. I would also say that a male who was raped is not at fault. I would not say that he is partially responsible because he shouldn't have been drinking/doing drugs/made himself vulnerable.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:47 PM
3

I don't think you understood what she meant by image. Women are judged on their appearance/attractiveness more harshly than men. E.g., Chris Christie is obese but no one really talks about it. They talk about his policies and decisions. I can't even think of a male politician whose wardrobe choices have been criticized. Hillary Clinton, however, is just as famous for choosing to wear pantsuits as she is for having been Secretary of State. As Hillary Clinton is taken more seriously, her policies …
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:37 PM
2

The thing is, getting raped (or murdered or robbed) isn't like filing an insurance claim. You don't get a percentage of fault assigned to you. It's all or nothing. Even though it would be stupid to walk around a high crime area in expensive clothing, you're legally not at fault for getting robbed. And even though it's dangerous for a woman to walk home alone late at night in a questionable area, it is not her fault for being raped. To imply any sort of fault upon the victim would mean that the r…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:15 PM
2

When it comes to the claim that she believes she was drugged, I find myself doubtful. I believe that she believes that she was drugged, but as I understand it the great majority of people who believed they were drugged while drinking were only drugged with the amount of alcohol they consumed, and not anything added to it. I've done too much clicking for this comment or I'd get a source for that. Whether or not she was drugged is almost irrelevant here, though if so her case is obviously stronger…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 03:07 PM
1

My point was gay marriage advocates knew they had a ton of opposition, and they fought legally anyway, and eventually won. You're never going to change anything if you don't actually try.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:47 PM
7

There's a big difference between engaging in risky behavior and being at fault.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:45 PM
4

What does this have to do with this sub?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:45 PM
1

Fair point. But again, either party should have the right to change their mind at any point, so if they say "no," and the other party doesn't back off, it's rape and it doesn't matter what was discussed in the video. Of course, that's the hardest kind of rape to convict, and I don't have any easy answers for how to deal with that (short of taping every encounter, which is just ridiculous). That being said, promoting more open discussion between partners is great in general, and hopefully that al…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:33 PM
1

I didn't realize NOW got to vote in Congress. /s Almost a third of the country is enraged that gay people have the right to marry, but it's still legal now. It was a long hard battle, but they got what they wanted by filing civil suits, having protests, writing editorials and getting positive press. Not by pointing fingers all day long and circle jerking over "injustices" from 100 years ago.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:27 PM
0

But why bring up the fact that women wanted the right to vote 100 years ago when discussing selective service today?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:22 PM
1

I'm not going to explain statistics to you. It's a lot more. And I don't have a negative attitude about sex. Consensual sex is great. I have a negative attitude about people making sexual and rape threats. I also think it says something that women who speak their mind get the majority of sexual threats.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:18 PM
0

Paraphrasing what happened here. OP: My wife actually thinks women aren't in the draft (mostly for combat soldiers) because men think they're useless. VB: Women are useless in the front line (combat soldiers). Me: Gee, I wonder why his wife thinks that. I should have been more explicit in my comment to say combat soldiers. But it's highly hypocritical for everyone to laugh at the wife for saying that women aren't in the draft bc men believe them to be incapable, and then clap for the guy who say…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:15 PM
1

I never said it was level, and you brought up a lot of real issues for men (while conveniently diminishing any possible women's issues to catcalling and sexualization, which is just bullshit). Regardless though, I don't see the point in attempting to measure who has it worse and pitting men and women against one another. My point is, we should be spending more time trying to fight men's issues and less just bitching about feminists.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:06 PM
1

That makes sense. I just imagine most consent videos are "we're agreeing to have sex," high five, cut -- which doesn't say much either way. I'm in a committed relationship and have been for a while, so maybe I'm wrong about that.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 01:59 PM
3

Devil's advocate: A couple completely agrees to have sex. The woman agrees to record her consent. Camera gets put away; clothes come off. The guy is extremely rough with her and slapping her around/choking her. She begs him to stop; he doesn't. She tries to report a rape, but he has recorded consent so he gets off scott-free. I agree that getting initial consent from your partner is great. But unless you record the whole encounter, recording the consent doesn't mean much. Or at least, IMO, it sh…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 09:43 PM
1

Men may get harrassed more in general online, but women get the brunt of sexual harrassment. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
/r/MensRights08/09/15 09:29 PM
1

So I'm guessing you do really well with the ladies. /s You quoted almost everything I said (except where I said that I offer to pay and I mean it, and insist on reciprocation) and twisted it into something unrecognizable. You have a lot of time on your hands.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 09:21 PM
1

I agree that they shouldn't get threats. And women get them considerably more. Also, you're aware that men get raped, right?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:49 PM
1

Pretty sure there's sources in the FAQ for this sub.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:48 PM
-4

I disagree with you that in a post entitled "Men are now the oppressed sex" that this was looking to provide context as opposed to saying women were/are privileged (which is something else that gets thrown around this sub a lot), but I do see what you mean, and I agree with that sentiment in general. That society was unfair to both genders in a lot of ways, as today's society is.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:41 PM
-1

Like a petition to the government that gets rid of a male-only draft.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:38 PM
1

The problem with not making men pay for the pregnancy is that men could go around, impregnating women at will, and most of those women would choose to keep the kid and bear all of the financial burden themselves. Men have to assume some responsibility for the part they played. I thought a lot about your query, and this is exactly what bothered me: I dislike the idea that men will have a much lower incentive to practice safe sex. Men slipping off condoms while their partner is turning around isn'…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:24 PM
9

Complain. Bring it to whomever's in charge of student organizations. Point out that you pay a student fee as well. See if your student newspaper will write a story about it. Whatever the previous "drama" was, it shouldn't take away from your ability to join a club now.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:14 PM
2

What's more, there's obviously tons of things to do in the military other than be in the front line. But attitudes like VaginalBurp's are incredibly divisive. No one wants to work with people who talk about them that way.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:09 PM
-7

While discussing the unfairness of the draft in modern America, I've seen MRAs start complaining out of left field that feminists were precoccupied with suffrage while men were being drafted. It goes both ways.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:02 PM
4

Who had it worse circa America 1917? A man who had right the vote but was forced to die in a rat infested trench or a woman who did not have the right to vote but was not subject to murder by the state? [It should be stressed that over half of male WWI casualties globally did not even have the right to vote] Excerpted from a highly lauded post on this sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3jtmru/men_are_now_the_oppressed_sex/ I've also seen similar arguments thrown around a lot in th…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 07:51 PM
1

It's just that in our culture, one person paying for the other is something that signifies that it's a date and that you're really interested in the other person. I'm female, and I always bring enough money to cover whatever I drink/eat. I offer to pay and I mean it, and if the guy refuses I insist on getting them next time/buying the next round of drinks. (Or, if I already know I'm not interested in seeing the guy again, I'll really insist on paying, because I don't want them to think they're o…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 07:39 PM
1

My position is that women should be able to run a company without getting rape threats. This happened to Ellen Pao; it happens to most prominent women when they make unpopular decisions. "In the eight months after taking on the job, Pao did what Reddit’s board asked her to: she tried to expand the site’s audience beyond its core user base of young, white American men. For that, she was compared to Hitler, had her personal details posted online, endured crude jokes about her sex and ethnicity, an…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 07:13 PM
1

And sometimes the woman is called a gold digger/written off as having daddy issues. This isn't one-sided.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 07:06 PM
1

There are scenarios where a judge can interpret the law to a certain point and set precedent for future cases. This was not one of those cases. People need to be urging Britain's lawmakers to address this, not torch the judge when his hands were tied.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 07:02 PM
1

But the woman is criticized in that situation, too. This is a dating/ageism issue more than anything else. I don't think it belongs in this sub's purview.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 06:55 PM
1

Yeah, I'm sure male CEO's also deal with rape threats as a matter of fact /s It doesn't matter who questions who, if its your company nobody else gets a say. And that's really ignorant. Many companies are run by a board, so the company does not belong to the CEO unless he/she is the majority stakeholder.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 06:41 PM
3

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:49 PM
-4

Does this mean MRA's will stop harping on the fact that women were fighting for voting rights while men were being drafted into war?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:40 PM
2

I get it; you're angry. But going off about who had it worse is a pissing contest that no side is ever going to win, and it's just distracting from the real issues that men are facing. This sub would be a lot better if everyone focused on how to improve things instead of spending half their time slinging shit back at women.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:11 PM
3

...yes, this is discrimination, and it's a shoddy solution to a serious problem that women are facing in these countries. What are your solutions?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:58 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Pao In case you didn't notice, people tend to question everything done by a woman in a leadership position, exponentially more than they would if it were a man in the same position. It's not as easy as you're making it out to be.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:43 PM
4

Gee, I wonder where his wife got the idea that some men think women can't be soldiers /s
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:33 PM
1

So, taxation without representation is irrelevant now? I don't understand why so many MRA's feel the need to say men had it worse. I agree with u/campy_claymore; both genders were (and still are) discriminated against in different ways. What I don't see is where calling women privileged is getting you. The male-only draft is unfair. Period. Make a petition or something and stop saying sexist garbage like "Women shouldn't have cared about getting the right to vote."
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:22 PM
0

Shocking news report: People (even women!) prefer leadership/high paid jobs.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:11 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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